 genuine Maximize Presupposition competition. While it will be beyond the scope of this paper to explore these semantic differences in detail, we can offer some suggestive data that illustrate some of them. As for 'want' vs. 'hope', Portner and Rubinstein (2012) note, for example, the contrast in acceptability between the two predicates in (33) He doesn't fully realize it yet, but Ronwants/??hopes to date Hermione. (p. 471) which persists even on the assumption that Ron believes dating Hermione to be a possibility. Portner and Rubinstein's own proposal is that 'hope' but not 'want' involves the agent's contextual commitment to a preference, one requirement of which is the agent's own awareness of the preference. Regardless of whether we adopt this particular approach, though, the crucial point is that 'want' differs from 'hope' in ways that prevent Maximize Presupposition competition. 23 As for 'want' vs. 'be glad', we note the following FWA due to Iatridou: (34) I live in Bolivia because Iwant to live in Bolivia. (Iatridou 2000:243) Observe that its 'be glad' counterpart sounds quite odd: (35)??I live in Bolivia because I am glad that I live in Bolivia. The same contrast is apparent in comparing Heim's (1992) FWA (see footnote 6 above) with its 'be glad' variant: (36) John hired a babysitter because he {wants to go/??is glad that he'll go} to the movies tonight. For reasons that are not entirely clear to us, it appears that states of wanting can be used in because-clauses to explain certain kinds of behavior (living in Bolivia, hiring a babysitter) in ways that states of being glad cannot. Whatever the reason is, it points to some semantic difference between 'want' and 'be glad'-beyond what they presuppose or not about the agent's belief set- that plausibly blocks Maximize Presupposition competition. Finally, what about 'want' vs. 'wish'? We are not aware of any CFWA that cannot be felicitously paraphrased with a wish ascription. Take, for example, (37), just below, which can be felicitously paraphrased by its 'wish' counterpart, (38): (37) Iwant this weekend to last forever. (
genuine Maximize Presupposition competition. While it will be beyond the scope of this paper to research these semantic dispute in detail, we can offer some implicative datum that illustrate some of them. As for' want' vs.' hope', Portner and Rubinstein (2012) bill, for example, the contrast in acceptability between the two predicate in (33) He doesn't fully realize it however, but Ronwants/??hopes to date Hermione. (p. 471) which persists even on the assumption that Ron believe dating Hermione to be a possibility. Portner and Rubinstein's own proposal is that' hope' but not' want' involves the agent's contextual committedness to a preference, one requirement of which is the agent's own awareness of the predilection. Regardless of whether we adopt this particular approach, though, the crucial point is that' desire' differs from' hope' in way that prevent Maximize Presupposition competition. 23 As for' want' vs.' be glad', we notice the following FWA due to Iatridou: (34) I live in Bolivia because Iwant to live in Bolivia. (Iatridou 2000:243) Observe that its' be glad' counterpart sounds quite curious: (35)??I live in Bolivia because I am glad that I live in Bolivia. The same contrast is apparent in comparing Heim's (1992) FWA (see footnote 6 above) with its' be glad' variant: (36) John hired a babysitter because he { wants to go/??is beaming that he'll move } to the movies tonight. For reason that are not wholly clear to us, it appears that states of wanting can be used in because - clauses to explain certain kind of behavior (living in Bolivia, hiring a babysitter) in ways that states of being glad cannot. Whatever the reason is, it points to some semantic difference between' want' and' be glad'-beyond what they presuppose or not about the agent's belief set- that credibly blocks Maximize Presupposition rival. ultimately, what about' want' vs.' wish'? We are not aware of any CFWA that cannot be felicitously paraphrased with a regard ascription. Take, for example, (37), just below, which can be felicitously paraphrased by its' wish' counterpart, (38 ): (37) Iwant this weekend to last forever. (
 gejuine Maximize Presupposltion competitiou. While it wiml be behond the scope of this paper ti expoore these semantic diwferences in detaul, wt can offer some suggestiyz datz thac mllustrate some of them. Av for 'want' vs. 'vooe', Portner and Rubinstein (2012) note, for evample, yhf contrast in wccektafilifj netween the two predicates in (33) Hs doesn'u fully realize it yet, but Ronwants/??hopes to fate Hermione. (p. 471) which persists ecen jb the assumpgion that Gmn believea dating Hermione to be a possicilitv. Portner abd Ruhhnstein's owi propjsal is that 'hope' bud not 'wsnt' involves tme agxnt's contextual commitmenv to a preference, ong requiremanc of which is the agebt'w own awasenerw ow tge pdeferejce. Regardlesa of whethee we adopt this paruictoar approach, fhough, tre crucial point is that 'want' differs fgom 'gope' in ways that prevebt Maximize Presupposltion com[etition. 23 As for 'want' vs. 'be glad', we note the follmwing WWA dme tu Iwtridou: (34) I live in Bolivia because Iwant to lybe ik Bolivia. (Iatridju 2000:243) Observe tjay its 'be glad' zountexladt sounds quite odf: (35)??I livg in Bilivia besausr I am glad that I live in Volivia. The fqme contrast is ap'arent in cooparong Hrim's (1992) FWA (see footnote 6 abobe) with its 'be glad' bxriant: (36) John hirdd s tabysitttf because he {wantf to go/??is glab that hd'll bo} to ehe movies toninvt. For reasons thah are nmt entirelj clear to us, it appears that svetes of wantimg cat be useb in bccause-clauses tj explain certcin kindf of cehavior (lpving in Uolivia, hirigg a babysittat) in ways thav states jf bwing glad cxvnot. Whatever yhe reasou is, ut points to some xemxhtic difference beuwwen 'want' and 'br guad'-fejonv whae they presup[ose or mot acout tht aneng's brlief set- that plaushbly blocks Maximize Ptefupposituon compqtition. Finalky, what about 'want' vs. 'wmsh'? We are mot aware of any CFWA that cannot be felicltomsly paraphrafed qith a wish cscription. Take, for example, (37), just below, xhich can be felicitousoy paraphrased by ijs 'eish' countecpart, (38): (37) Iwant tvis weekend to last dorever. (
genuine Maximize Presupposition competition. While it will the of this to explore these can some suggestive data illustrate some of As for 'want' vs. 'hope', Portner Rubinstein (2012) note, for example, the contrast in acceptability between the two predicates (33) He doesn't fully realize it yet, but Ronwants/??hopes to date Hermione. (p. which even the that Ron believes dating Hermione to be a possibility. Portner and Rubinstein's own proposal is that but not 'want' involves the agent's contextual commitment a preference, one requirement which is the agent's own of preference. Regardless whether adopt particular approach, though, crucial point is that 'want' differs from 'hope' in ways that prevent Maximize Presupposition competition. 23 As 'want' vs. we note following due Iatridou: (34) I Bolivia because Iwant to live in Observe that its 'be glad' counterpart sounds quite (35)??I live Bolivia because I am glad that live in Bolivia. The same contrast is apparent comparing Heim's (1992) FWA (see footnote 6 above) with its 'be glad' variant: (36) John babysitter because he {wants go/??is glad that go} the tonight. reasons that not entirely clear to us, it appears that states of wanting be used in because-clauses to explain certain kinds of behavior Bolivia, a babysitter) in that states of being cannot. the reason is, it some difference 'be what presuppose or not about agent's belief set- that plausibly Maximize Presupposition competition. Finally, We are not aware of any CFWA that be felicitously paraphrased with a wish ascription. for example, (37), just below, which can be felicitously paraphrased by its counterpart, (38): this weekend to last forever. (
 genuine Maximize PresupposiTion competItion. whiLe iT wIll bE beyOnd the scope of tHIs paPer to explore these semanTic diFfERencES iN detaIl, we can OFfER SomE sUgGesTiVE dAta thAt iLlustraTe some of thEm. AS fOr 'want' vs. 'hope', pOrTner and RubInsTein (2012) note, for eXamPle, the CoNtrASt in aCcePtabiLity beTWeen thE two prediCaTEs in (33) He DOesn't fuLLY rEaliZe it yet, but RonwantS/??HoPEs to date HermioNe. (p. 471) whiCh PErSISts EveN on the assuMpTion tHAt Ron beLIeVES DatINg Hermione to bE a possibiliTY. PoRtner aNd rubINstein'S own pRoPOsaL is that 'hope' But nOt 'want' invOlves tHE agent's COntextuAl commItmEnt To a pREfErEncE, oNE reQUiRemENt oF which is ThE aGent's Own aWARENess Of tHe prEfereNce. Regardless Of wHethER we Adopt This pArtiCuLar apProach, ThougH, tHe crucial point iS thaT 'want' diffErs FrOm 'hOpE' in waYS that pRevEnt maximizE PresupPOsiTiON COmPetition. 23 As for 'want' vS. 'bE GLaD', we note tHe follOWiNg fwA due to IAtRidOu: (34) I lIVE in BoLiviA BeCause IwaNt to liVE iN BOlivia. (IAtRidou 2000:243) OBsErvE thAt its 'BE glaD' countErpart soUnds qUIte odd: (35)??I live in BOLivia because I AM gLAD tHAt I lIve In Bolivia. ThE samE ContRast IS aPpaREnt in CompaRiNG HEIm's (1992) FWA (see footnote 6 abOvE) with iTs 'be gLad' variant: (36) JohN hired a babYSITter becaUse hE {WaNTs to go/??is glad thAt he'lL go} to the moVIes tonigHt. For Reasons tHat are not ENTirely clEar To uS, it AppEARs That states of wANTing CaN be used In bEcause-cLauSes To eXplAiN certain kInds of beHaViOr (LiVinG in BoLIvia, hiriNg A baBySitTer) in WAys thaT statEs of BeInG GlaD cannot. wHaTEVer tHe ReAson Is, iT pOints To soME seMantic dIfference BetWEen 'wAnT' aNd 'be glaD'-beyond what thEy Presuppose Or Not About tHE Agent's beLief set- that plausibly bloCKs MaximIze presuPposItion compEtiTion. FiNalLY, what aBout 'waNt' vs. 'wIsH'? We ARE not aWARe Of aNy cFWA that caNNOt bE feliCiTousLy parapHrased with a wish ascRIptIon. Take, for exaMplE, (37), jusT BElOw, wHIcH Can Be FEliCITously paraphrasEd by its 'wisH' cOUnTerpart, (38): (37) IwaNT thIs Weekend To last fOreveR. (
 genuine Maximize Presuppo sition com petit ion . W hi le i t wi ll be beyond t h e sc ope of this paper to e xplor et hese se manti c diffe r en c e s i nde tai l, we  canoff er some  suggestiv e d at a that illus t ra te some of  th em. As for ' wan t' vs.  ' hop e ', Po rtn er an d Rubi n stein(2012) no te ,  for e x ample,t h econt rast in acceptabi l it y  between the t wo pre di c at e s  in  (3 3) He does n' t ful l y reali z ei t yet ,  but Ronwants /??hopes to dat e Herm io ne. (p. 47 1) wh ic h  pe rsists even  onthe assum ptiont hat Ron believe s dati ngHer mion e  t obeap oss i bi lit y . P ortner a nd  R ubins tein ' s o wn p rop osal  is t hat 'hope' bu t n ot ' w ant ' inv olves  the  a gent' s cont extua lcommitment to a  pre ference,one  r equ ir ement of whi chisthe age nt's ow n  aw ar e n e ss  of the preference .R e ga rdless o f whet h er  w e  adopt t hi s p arti c u lar a ppro a ch , though , thec ru ci al poin tis tha t'wa nt'  diff e rs f rom 'h ope' inwayst hat prevent Ma x imize Presupp o si t i on comp eti tion. 23 As  for 'wan t' v s .'be glad' , weno t et he following FWA du eto Iat ridou : (34) I live  in Bolivi a b ecause I want to live in Bolivi a. (I atridou 20 0 0:243) O bserv e that i ts 'be gl a d ' counte rpa rtsou nds q ui te odd: (35)? ? I  liv ein Boli via  becaus e I  am  gl adth at I live  in Boli vi a.  T he  sa me co n trast is  a ppa re ntin co m paring  Heim 's ( 19 92 )  FW A (seef oo t n ote6ab ove)  wi th  its'beg lad ' varia nt: (36)Joh n  hir ed  a  babysi tter becausehe  {wants to  g o/? ?is gl a d  that he 'll go} to the movies t o night.For  reas onsthat arenot  entir ely clearto us,  it a pp ear s thats t at esof  wanting c a n  be  used  i n be cause-c lauses to explainc ert ain kinds ofbeh avio r (l ivi n gi n B ol i via , hiring a babysi tter) in w ay s  t hat states ofbe ing gla d canno t. Wh a tever t he reason  is, it p oi ntst o  so me semanti c differ ence betw e en 'w a nt ' and  'b e glad '- bey ond w hat th e y p resup pose o rnot ab out t he  agent's  belief set- that plaus ibly b locks  Ma ximize Pr esu p pos ition com peti tion. Fina lly , w hat a bou t  'wan t' v s .'wi s h'? W e ar e  not awar e  o f a n y  C FWA that ca n n o t b e fel ici t ouslypara phrased with a wi s h ascription.Take , for  ex a mple ,(37), just bel ow,  w h i ch can b efelicitousl y paraph ra s ed by  its ' wish'counter p a rt ,  (38):  (37 ) I want this  we ek e nd to l as tf orever . (
 genuine_Maximize Presupposition_competition. While it will_be beyond_the_scope of_this_paper to explore_these semantic differences_in detail, we can_offer some suggestive_data_that illustrate some of them. As for 'want' vs. 'hope', Portner and Rubinstein (2012)_note,_for example,_the_contrast_in acceptability between the two_predicates in (33) He doesn't_fully realize_it yet, but Ronwants/??hopes to date Hermione. (p._471)_which persists even_on the assumption that Ron believes dating Hermione to_be a possibility. Portner and Rubinstein's_own proposal is_that_'hope'_but not 'want' involves_the agent's contextual commitment to a_preference, one requirement of which is_the agent's own awareness of the preference._Regardless of whether we adopt this_particular approach, though, the crucial_point is_that 'want' differs from 'hope'_in ways that_prevent Maximize_Presupposition competition. 23_As for 'want' vs. 'be glad',_we note the_following FWA due to Iatridou: (34)_I_live in Bolivia_because_Iwant_to live_in Bolivia. (Iatridou_2000:243)_Observe that_its_'be glad' counterpart sounds quite odd:_(35)??I_live in Bolivia because I am glad_that I live in_Bolivia._The same contrast is_apparent in comparing Heim's (1992)_FWA (see footnote 6 above) with_its 'be_glad' variant:_(36) John hired a babysitter because he {wants to go/??is glad_that he'll go} to the movies_tonight. For reasons that_are not_entirely_clear to us,_it_appears that_states of wanting can be used in_because-clauses to_explain certain kinds of behavior (living_in Bolivia, hiring a_babysitter)_in ways that states of being_glad cannot. Whatever the reason is,_it points to some semantic_difference_between_'want' and 'be glad'-beyond what_they presuppose or not about the_agent's belief set-_that plausibly blocks Maximize Presupposition competition. Finally,_what_about 'want' vs. 'wish'? We are_not_aware of any CFWA that cannot_be_felicitously_paraphrased with a wish ascription._Take, for example, (37), just below,_which can be felicitously paraphrased by its 'wish' counterpart,_(38): (37) Iwant_this weekend to last forever._(