NONE20260601131240964Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversitySlovo.ru: Baltic accent2225-53462686-8989060120261820601202666Семантика подтверждения и установки de reA.V.ZimmerlingPushkin State Russian Language InstituteInstitute of Linguistics of Russian Academy of Scienceshttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5996-2648The study outlines the semantics of verification and examines its interaction with de re ascriptions. Verification sentences are analysed as having a layered structure comprising two unary operators, VER and ACT, represented as VER(ACT(p)). The operator VER establishes a link to a verification event in which agent X has established the truth of p in the actual world, while ACT renders the proposition pre-verified, that is, open to verification or falsifica­tion. Standard accounts of the de re versus de dicto distinction maintain that, in contexts of belief and desire, de re attitudes involve ontological commitments to the existence of objects in the actual world. Within a Davidsonian framework, events are treated as spatiotemporal par­ticulars. Accordingly, sentences of the type VER(ACT(p)), which posit the existence of verifi­cation events in the actual world, pattern with de re constructions. On this basis, lexical markers of VER, such as English ‘indeed’, ‘really’, ‘in fact’, and Russian ‘dejstvitel’no’, ‘na samom dele’, may be analysed as de re modal elements conveying a meaning of epistemic ne­cessity. A distinct class of discourse markers includes English ‘certainly’ and ‘naturally’, and Russian ‘razumeetsja’ and ‘estestvenno’, which introduce the operator AFF and signal that the speaker’s expectations are fulfilled. These two classes of operators display different seman­tic properties: markers of certainty do not entail that p is verified de re, whereas VER markers do not encode speaker certainty. The operator AFF may take scope over VER, yielding the configuration AFF(VER(ACT(p))), which is well-formed, whereas the inverse order VER(AFF(ACT(p))) is ill-formed. The proposed analysis accounts for two empirical generali­sations. First, VER is invariably realised overtly at the phonetic level. Second, counterfactual constructions require components that are pre-verified or verified and exclude anti-veridical markers in the protasis. This constraint supports the view that, within the metaphysics im­plicit in natural language, counterfactual worlds are treated as real and are capable of hosting verification events.0601202673910.5922/2225-5346-2026-2-1https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/16074/93825/Arutyunova, N. D., 1988. The types of the language meanings. Evaluation. Event. Fact. Moscow, 341 p. (in Russ.). [Арутюнова, Н. Д., 1988. Типы языковых значений. Оценка. Событие. Факт. М., 341 с.].Ayer, D. J., 1964. Belief and evidence. In: Danish yearbook of philosophy. Vol. 1. Copenhagen, pp. 13—22.Benbaji-Elhadad, I., 2023. Preliminaries for a substitution theory of de re. In: Proceedings of SALT, 33, pp. 358—378.Bogomolova, N., 2024. Indexical shift in Tabasaran. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 42, pp. 1—52, EDN: QGMGJK, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09584-3.Bulygina, T. V. and Shmelev, A. D., 1994. Evaluative speech acts: an external and internal perspective. In: N. D. Arutyunova, ed. Logical analysis of language: The language of speech actions. Moscow, pp. 49—59 (in Russ.). [Булыгина, Т. В., Шмелев, А. Д., 1994. Оценочные речевые акты извне и изнутри. В: Логический анализ языка: Язык речевых действий. Н. Д. Арутюнова (ред.). М., с. 49—59.].Bulygina, T. V. and Shmelev, A. D., 1997. The language conceptualization of the world. On the basis of Russian grammar. Moscow, 576 p. (in Russ.). [Булыгина, Т. В., Шмелев, А. Д., 1997. Языковая концептуализация мира (на материале русской грамматики). M., 576 с.] EDN: RBBSFH.Burge, T., 1977. De re belief. Journal of philosophy, 74, pp. 338—362.Carnap, R., 1947. Meaning and necessity. A study in semantics and modal logic. Chicago.Carnap, R., 1955. Meaning and synonymy in natural languages. Philosophical studies, 6, pp. 33—47, EDN: BLESRG, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02330951.Charlow, S. and Sharvit, Y., 2014. Bound ‘de re’ pronouns and the LFs of attitude reports. Semantics and pragmatics, 7, art. 3, https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.3.Charnavel, I., 2020. Logophoricity and locality: a view from French anaphors. Linguistic inquiry, 51(4), pp. 671—723, https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00349.Crossley, J. N. and Humberson, L., 1977. The Logic of ‘actually’. Reports on mathematical logic, 8, pp. 11—29.Davidson, D., 1970. Events and particulars. Noûs, 4(1), pp. 25—32, https://doi. org/10.2307/2214289.de Marneffe, M.-C., Manning, C. D. and Potts, C., 2012. Did it happen? The pragmatic complexity of veridicality assessment. Computational linguistics, 38(2), pp. 301—333, 10.1162/COLI_a_00097.Dinges, A., 2024. Absolute gradable adjectives and loose talk. Linguistics and philosophy, 47(2), pp. 341—360, EDN: OLMAWR, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-023-09399-w.Dmitrovskaja, M. A., 1988. Knowledge and belief: the concept of the world and the concept of the human being. In: N. D. Arutyunova, ed. Logical analysis of language: Knowledge and opinion. Moscow, pp. 6—18 (in Russ.). [Дмитровская, М. А., 1988. Знание и мнение: образ мира, образ человека. В: Логический анализ языка: Знание и мнение. Н. Д. Арутюнова (ред.). М., с. 6—18.] EDN: XCBLFH.Frege, G., 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. In: Zeitschrift für Philosophic und Philosophische Kritik. Vol. 100, s. 25—50.Grice, H. P., 1975. Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole and J. Morgan, eds. Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3, pp. 41—58.Grice, H. P., 1981. Presupposition and conversational implicature. In: P. Cole, ed. Radical pragmatics. New York, pp. 183—198.Gutzmann, D., Hartmann, K. and Matthewson, L., 2020. Verum focus is verum, not focus: cross-linguistic evidence. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 5 (1), EDN: ZFKHMG, https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.347.Hamblin, C., 1973. Questions in Montague Grammar. Foundations of language, 10, pp. 41—53.Harman, G., 1972. Logical form. Foundations of language, 9, pp. 38—65.Haspelmath, M., 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/ 9780198235606.001.0001.Hintikka, J., 1969. Semantics for propositional attitudes. In: J. Davis et al., eds. Philosophical logic. Dordrecht.Kaplan, D., 1969. Quantifying. Synthese, 19, pp. 178—214.Kaplan, D., 1986. Opacity. In: L. E. Hahn and P. A. Schilpp, eds. The Philosophy of W. V. Quine. La Salle, pp. 229—289.Kaplan, D., 1989. Demonstratives. In: J. Almog, J. Perry and H. Wettstein, eds. Themes from Kaplan. Oxford, pp. 481—563.Kobozeva, I. M. and Laufer, N. I., 1991. The Semantics of necessity predicates in Russian. Russistik, 1, p. 68—76 (in Russ.). [Кобозева, И. М., Лауфер, Н. И., 1991. Семантика предикатов долженствования в русском языке. Russistik, 1, с. 68—76.].Kratzer, A., 1991. Modality. In: A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, eds. Handbuch Semantik. Berlin; New York, pp. 639—650.Kratzer, A. and Shimoyama, Y., 2002. Indeterminate pronouns. The view from Japanese. In: Yukio Otsu, ed. Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics. Tokyo, pp. 1—2Krifka, M., 2021. Modelling questions in commitment spaces. In: M. Cordes, ed. Asking and answering: rivalling approaches to interrogative methods, pp. 63—95. Tübingen, https://doi.org/10.24053/9783823394808.Krifka, M., 2023. Layers of the clause: propositions, judgements, commitments, acts. In: J. M. Hartmann and A. Wöllstein, eds. Propositionale Argumente im Sprachvergleich / Propositional Arguments in Cross-Linguistic Research. Tübingen, pp. 116—183, https://doi.org/10.24053/9783823394105.Kripke, S., 1979. A puzzle about belief. In: A. Margalit, ed. Meaning and use. Dordrecht, pp. 239—283.Kripke, S., 1980. Naming and necessity. Cambridge.Krylova, E. B., 2021. The communicative functions of Danish modal particles. Moscow, 440 p. (in Russ.). [Крылова, Э. Б., 2021. Коммуникативные функции модальных частиц в датском языке. М., 440 с.] EDN: OVXVRV, https://doi.org/10.29003/m2532. 978-5-317-06730-4.Kusliy, P. S., 2023. In Defense of Standard Approach to Logico-Semantic Explication of Non-Specific Transparent Interpretation of Propositional Attitude Reports. RUDN Journal of Philosophy, 27(3), pp. 677—697 (in Russ.). [Куслий, П. С., 2023. В защиту стандартного подхода к логико-семантической экспликации неспецифического транспарентного прочтения сообщений о пропозициональных установках. Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Cерия: Философия, 27 (3), с. 677—697.] EDN: EZPUAY, https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2302-2023-27-3-677-697.Kusliy, P. S., Veretennikov, A. A., 2024. Analytical truths in R. Carnap’s theory and in natural language. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 61(1), рр. 184—201 (in Russ.). [Куслий, П. С., Веретенников, А. А., 2024. Аналитические истины в концепции Р. Карнапа и естественном языке. Эпистемология и философия науки, 61 (1), с. 184—201.] EDN: CQFUOE, https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202461115.Lederman, H., 2021. Fine-grained semantics for attitude reports. Semantics and Pragmatics, 14, art. 1, https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.14.1.Lewis, C. I. and Langford, C. P., 1932. Symbolic logic. New York; London.Lewis, D. K., 1973. Counterfactuals. Harvard.Lewis, D. K., 1979. Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philosophical review, 88, pp. 513—543.Lohnstein, H., 2018. Verum focus, sentence mood, and contrast. In: C. Dimroth and S. Sudhoff, eds. The grammatical realization of polarity contrast: theoretical, empirical, and typological approaches, pp. 55—88, https://doi.org/10.1075/la.249.02loh.Mitrenina, O. V., 2017. Dative-infinitive construction in Russian as a prepositional group. In: E. A. Lyutikova and A. V. Zimmerling, eds. Typology of Morphosyntactic Parameters: materials of the international conference. Iss. 4. Moscow, pp. 64—70 (in Russ.). [Митренина, О. В., 2017. Дативно-инфинитивная конструкция в русском языке как предложная группа. В: Типология морфосинтаксических параметров: материалы международной конференции. Вып. 4. Е. А. Лютикова, А. В. Циммерлинг (ред.). М., с. 64—70.] EDN: XNVDFB.Montague, R., 1970. Universal grammar. Theoria, 36, pp. 373—398.Nelson, M., 2019. The de re/de dicto distinction. In: E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman, eds. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2024 Edition). Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prop-attitude-%20reports/dere.html [Accessed 31 July 2025].Paducheva, E. V., 1974. On semantics of syntax. Moscow (in Russ.). [Падучева, Е. В., 1974. О семантике синтаксиса. М.].Paducheva, E. V., 1996. Semantic studies. Moscow (in Russ.). [Падучева, Е. В., 1996. Семантические исследования. М.].Paducheva, E. V., 2004. Dynamic models in lexical semantics. Moscow (in Russ.). [Падучева, Е. В., 2004. Динамические модели в семантике лексики. М.].Paducheva, E. V., 2015. Suspended assertion and nonveridicality: the case of Russian Negative Polarity Items. Russian linguistics, 39 (2), pp. 129—162 (in Russ.). [Падучева, Е. В., 2015. Снятая утвердительность и неверидиктальность (на примере русских местоимений отрицательной полярности). Russian linguistics, 39(2), с. 129—162.] EDN: UVIFUP, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-015-9145-6.Paducheva, E. V., 2016. Modality. In: Data for the corpus grammar of Russian. The verb. Part I. St. Petersburg, pp. 19—94 (in Russ.). [Падучева, Е. В., 2016. Модальность. В: Материалы к корпусной грамматике русского языка. Глагол. Часть 1. СПб., 19—94].Partee, B. H., 2004. Compositionality. In: Compositionality in Formal Semantics: selected papers by Barbara H. Partee. Cornwall, pp. 153—181.Percus, O. and Sauerland, U., 2003. On the LFs of attitude reports. Proceedings of Sinn and Bedeutung, 7, pp. 228—242, https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2003.v7i0.805.Quine, W., 1953 [1980]. Reference and modality. In: W. Quine, ed. From a logical point of view. 2nd ed. New York, pp. 139—159.Quine, W., 1956. Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. Journal of philosophy, 53, pp. 177—187.Rebushi, M. and Tulenheimo, T., 2011. Between de dicto and de re: de objecto attitudes. Philosophical quarterly, 61(245), pp. 828—838, https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467- 9213.2011.701.xhalshs-00633982.Russell, B., 1905. On denoting. Mind, 14, pp. 479—493.Salmon, N., 1997. Is de re belief reducible to de dicto? In: A. Kazmi, ed. Meaning and reference (The Canadian journal of philosophy: Supplementary). Vol. 23, pp. 85—110.Sportiche, D., 2020. De dicto omnibus or how to control PRO. Available at: https:// ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004715 [Accessed 31 July 2025].Stalnaker, R., 1972. Pragmatics. In: D. Davidson and G. Harman, eds. Semantics of natural language. Dordrecht, pp. 380—397.Stalnaker, R., 1987. Semantics for belief. Philosophical topics, 15, pp. 177—190.Tiskin, D., 2021. De re, de dicto, and the problems of default case. 21—23 June. St. Petersburg.van der Auwera, J. and Plungian, V., 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic typology, 2(1), pp. 79—124, EDN: SCKBGH.Vendler, Z., 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca.Veretennikov, A. A. 2008. Modal philosophy: analytical philosophy and logic. History of Philosophy, 13, pp. 26—48 (in Russ.). [Веретенников, А. А., 2008. Философия модальности: аналитическая философия и логика. История философии, 13, с. 26—48.] EDN: NCDBKP.von Wright, G. H., 1962. Remarks on the epistemology of subjective probability. In: Logic, methodology and philosophy of science: proceedings of the 1960 international congress. Stanford, pp. 330—339.Wang, Ya., 2025. Revisit de re presuppositions. Available at: https://ling.auf.net/ lingbuzz/008989 [Accessed 31 July 2025].Wierzbicka, A., 1987. English speech act verbs: a semantic dictionary. Sidney.Yanko, T. E., 1995. The communicative status of expressions containing the word PRAVDA. In: N. D. Arutyunova and N. K. Ryabceva, eds. Logical analysis of the language. Truth and veracity in culture and language: materials of the conference “Truth and truthfulness”. Moscow, pp. 173—177 (in Russ.). [Янко, Т. Е., 1995. Коммуникативный статус выражений со словом ПРАВДА. В: Логический анализ языка: истина и истинность в культуре и языке: материалы конференции «Истина и истинность». Н. Д. Арутюнова, Н. К. Рябцева (ред.). М., с. 173—177.] EDN: UAODQL.Yanko, T. E., 2001. Communicative strategies of Russian speech. Moscow, 386 p. (in Russ.). [Янко, Т. Е., 2001. Коммуникативные стратегии русской речи. М., 386 с.] EDN: ZGJMBL.Zaliznjak, Anna A., 2006. The language polysemy and its representations. Moscow, 671 p. (in Russ.). [Зализняк, Анна А., 2006. Многозначность в языке и способы ее представления. М., 671 с.] EDN: SMRRBT.Zhang, Y. and Davidson, K., 2024. Interpreting referential Noun Phrases in belief reports — the de re/de dicto competition. Glossa psycholinguistics, 3(1), art. 13, https:// doi.org/10.5070/G60111258.Zimmerling, A., 2008. Local and global rules in syntax. In: Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: papers from the Annual International Conference “Dialogue”. Issue 7 (14). Bekasovo, pp. 551—562 (in Russ.). [Циммерлинг, А. В., 2008. Локальные и глобальные правила в синтаксисе. В: Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии: по материалам ежегодной Международной конференции «Диалог». Выпуск 7 (14). Бекасово, с. 551—562.] EDN: XGWTCH.Zimmerling, A., 2023a. Biased questions and Hamblin semantics. Typology of Morphosyntactic Parameters, 6(2), pp. 92—135, EDN: JTLCCP, https://doi.org/10. 37632/PI.2023.94.43.005.Zimmerling, A., 2023b. Really: syntactics without semiotics? Slovo. ru: Baltic Accent, 14(3), pp. 125—153 (in Russ.). [Циммерлинг, А. В., 2023б. Конкретно: синтактика без семиотики. Слово.ру. балтийский акцент, 14(3), с. 125—153.] EDN: VNJAWQ, https://doi.org/10.5922/2225-5346-2023-3-9.Zimmerling, A., 2025. Grammar. Linguistics. Language. Responding to discussants. Herald of the Russian academy of sciences, 95(1), pp. 69—72, EDN: TQERJR, https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331625600842.Zimmerling, A. V. and Baiuk, A. M., 2025. Operator words versus MT systems and LLMs. In: Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: papers from the Annual International Conference “Dialogue” (2025). Moscow, pp. 471—480, https:// doi. org/10.28995/2075-7182-2025-23-471-480.