Standard and non-standard theories of attitudes and NPIs

Abstract

Some clause-taking verbs (e.g., 'believe') can also take DPs, some (e.g., 'surmise') cannot, and some (e.g., 'groan') can appear without a complement. The standard theory of complementation is forced to appeal to lexical ambiguity to explain this. An alternative theory says that “complements” of clause-taking predicates are not arguments, thereby offering a way to explain this variation without appealing to lexical ambiguity. This paper argues that the alternative theory is not more explanatory than the standard theory.