Interpreted Logical Forms

ing from details, what is crucial to note in (42) is the presence of the event variable e, which ranges over acts of demonstration or reference by the speaker. Under B?rge 's account, the semantic value of a demonstrative NP like that dog involves not only an object x but also an event e; that is, such expressions are relational, taking pairs (x, e) as their semantic values.16 Given this reanalysis of the semantic value for demonstratives, distinct T-sentences for (39) can now be assigned in the two situations described above. These will involve sub ILFs for the demonstratives that do not differ in their linguistic form (that planet), or in the object demonstrated (Venus); but do differ in the second member of the pair (x, e). Each demonstrative will involve a different event, corresponding to a different act of demonstration:17 (43)a. <NP,<v,e? b. (NP,(v,e')) I I (that planet, (v, e)) (that planet, (v, e')) If this proposal is on the right track, then examples like (39) represent another case of attitudes distinguished by content. 3.3. Logically Equivalent Attitude Reports Although (14)-(16) impose rather strict conditions on the logical equiv alence of attitude reports, equivalence nonetheless is still possible in certain cases within the ILF theory. In particular, two distinct attitude reports a and ? will be logically equivalent when the following two conditions are met: (i) the values assigned to the subparts of the comple ment clauses of a and ? are identical (that is, a and ? differ at most in the forms of (some of) their subconstituent parts); and (ii) a and ? are evaluated under structures in which their formally distinct (but coreferring) subparts are given scope out of the complement clauses, beyond the highest attitude verb. We illustrate once again with (2a,b). In the discussion above we considered LF representations of sentences in which their proper name subjects were confined to the subordinate clause. Suppose, however, that these sentences are assigned LFs in which the subordinate subject is optionally given broad scope: (44)a. [NP Judy Garland^ [Max believes [tx sang "Somewhere Over the Rainbow"]]. INTERPRETED LOGICAL FORMS 323 b. [Np Frances Gumm]i [Max believes [tt sang "Somewhere Over the Rainbow"]]. The clausal complements are now formally identical, both having the form: h sang "Somewhere Over the Rainbow". Furthermore, the sem antic value assigned to the trace h will be the same in both cases: tx will denote the individual Judy Garland/Frances Gumm. Accordingly, the T-sentences for (2a) and (2b) will be identical, requiring Max to stand in the believe-relation to one and the same object (45) :18