References

Anscombe, Gertrude E. M. 2000. Intention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Postposed main phrases: An English rule for the Romance subjunctive. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 14. 3–30.10.1017/S0008413100019629Search in Google Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro & Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1990. Meaning and grammar: An introduction to meaning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Davis, Wayne. 1984. A causal theory of intending. American Philosophical Quarterly 21. 43–54.Search in Google Scholar

Égré, Paul. 2008. Question-embedding and factivity. Grazer Philosophische Studien 77. 85–125.10.1163/18756735-90000845Search in Google Scholar

Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrin & Kjell Johan Sæbø. 2004. In a mediative mood: The semantics of the German reportative subjunctive. Natural Language Semantics 12. 213–257.10.1023/B:NALS.0000034514.27887.d9Search in Google Scholar

Farkas, Donka. 1985. Intensional descriptions and the Romance subjunctive mood. New York: Garland.Search in Google Scholar

Farkas, Donka. 1992. On the semantics of subjunctive complements. In Paul Hirschbühler & E. F. K. Koerner (eds.), Romance languages and modern linguistic theory, 69–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.91.07farSearch in Google Scholar

Featherston, Sam. 2004. Bridge verbs and V2 verbs – the same thing in spades? Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 23. 181–209.10.1515/zfsw.2004.23.2.181Search in Google Scholar

Freywald, Ulrike. 2008. Zur Syntax und Funktion von dass-Sätzen mit Verbzweitstellung. Deutsche Sprache 36. 246–285.10.37307/j.1868-775X.2008.03.04Search in Google Scholar

Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.23Search in Google Scholar

Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2009. The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity. Lingua 120. 1883–1908.10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.007Search in Google Scholar

Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Arnim Von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, 487–535. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110126969.7.487Search in Google Scholar

Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9. 183–221.10.1093/jos/9.3.183Search in Google Scholar

Hintikka, Jaakko. 1974. Questions about questions. In Milton K. Munitz & Peter K. Unger (eds.), Semantics and philosophy, 103–158. New York: New York University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hooper, Joan B. & Sarah A. Thompson. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 465–479.Search in Google Scholar

Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2). 231–270.10.1162/002438900554352Search in Google Scholar

Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. Implicative verbs. Language 47. 340–358.10.2307/412084Search in Google Scholar

Karttunen, Lauri. 1974. Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1. 181–194. Also in Steven Davis (ed.) 1991. Pragmatics: A reader, 406–415. Oxford University Press.10.1515/thli.1974.1.1-3.181Search in Google Scholar

Kavanagh, David J., Jackie Andrade & Jon May. 2005. Imaginary relish and exquisite torture: The elaborated intrusion theory of desire. Psychological Review 112(2). 446–467.10.1037/0033-295X.112.2.446Search in Google Scholar

Kempchinsky, Paula. 1987. The subjunctive disjoint reference effect. In Carol Neidle & Rafael Nunez-Cedeno (eds.), Studies in romance languages, 123–140. Foris: Dordrecht.Search in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul & Carol Kiparsky. 1970. Fact. In Manfred Bierwisch & Karl-Erich Heidolph (eds.), Progress in linguistics, 143–173. The Hague: Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Klein, Ewan. 1975. Two sorts of factive predicate. Pragmatic Microfiche 1(1). B5–C14.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813313Search in Google Scholar

Meinunger, André. 2004. Verb position, verbal mood and the anchoring (potential) of sentences. In Horst Lohnstein & Susanne Trissler (eds.), The syntax and semantics of the left periphery, 313–341. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110912111.313Search in Google Scholar

Meinunger, André. 2006. On the discourse impact of subordinate clauses. In Valeria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), Architecture of focus, 459–487. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110922011.459Search in Google Scholar

Morgan, Jerry L. 1969. On the treatment of presuppositions in transformational grammar. In Robert I. Binnick, Alice Davison, Georgia Green & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Papers from the fifth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 167–177. Chicago: Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.Search in Google Scholar

Portner, Paul. 1997. The semantics of mood, complementation, and conversational force. Natural Language Semantics 5. 167–212.10.1023/A:1008280630142Search in Google Scholar

Quer, Josep. 1998. Mood at the interface. the Netherlands: Universiteit Utrecht PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Reis, Marga. 1977. Präsuppositionen und Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111344843Search in Google Scholar

Reis, Marga. 1997. Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. In Christa Dürscheid, Karl-Heinz Ramers & Monika Schwarz (eds.), Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, 121–144. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Search in Google Scholar

Sauerland, Uli & Penka Stateva (eds.). 2007. Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.10.1057/9780230210752Search in Google Scholar

Schlenker, Philippe. 2005. The lazy Frenchman’s approach to the subjunctive (Speculations on reference to worlds and semantic defaults in the analysis of mood). In Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginneken & Haike Jacobs (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’, 269–309. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.270.15schSearch in Google Scholar

Schroeder, Tim. 2009. Entry desire. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desire/.Search in Google Scholar

Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173438Search in Google Scholar

Searle, John R. 1975. A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In Keith Gunderson (ed.), Language, mind, and knowledge, 344–369. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.10.1017/CBO9780511609213.003Search in Google Scholar

Singh, Raj. 2011. Maximize presupposition! and local contexts. Natural Language Semantics 19(2). 149–168.10.1007/s11050-010-9066-2Search in Google Scholar

Soames, Scott. 1982. How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 483–545.Search in Google Scholar

Stalnaker, Robert C. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Milton K. Munitz & Peter K. Unger (eds.), Semantics and philosophy, 197–213. New York: New York University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Stalnaker, Robert C. 1984. Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Strawson, Peter F. 1952. Introduction to logical theory. London: Methuen.Search in Google Scholar

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2006. On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C in German. Theoretical Linguistics 32(3). 257–306.10.1515/TL.2006.018Search in Google Scholar

Villalta, Elisabeth. 2009. Mood and gradability: An investigation of the subjunctive mood in Spanish. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(4). 467–522.10.1007/s10988-008-9046-xSearch in Google Scholar

Wiklund, Anna-Lena, Kristine Bentzen, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson & Þorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2009. On the distribution and illocution of V2 in Scandinavian that-clauses. Lingua 119(12). 1914–1938.10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.006Search in Google Scholar