Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 631–672 | Cite as

Semantic Composition and Presupposition Projection in Subjunctive Conditionals

  • Michela Ippolito
Research Article

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abusch D. (1997). Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20:1-50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexiadou, A., Rathert, M. & von Stechow A. (Eds.). (2003). Perfect explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  3. Beaver, D. (1994). When variables don’t vary enough. In M. Harvey &L. Santelman (Eds.), Semantics and linguistics theory (4th ed.). (Ed.), Cornell: CLC Publisher.Google Scholar
  4. Beaver, D. (1995). Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  5. Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CSLI Publications and FoLLI.Google Scholar
  6. Condoravdi, C. (2001). Temporal interpretation of modals. In D. Beaver, S. Kaufmann, & L. Casillas (EDs.), Stanford papers on semantics. CSLI Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Dowty D., (1979). Word meaning and montague grammar. Dordrecht, ReidelGoogle Scholar
  8. Dowty D., (1982). Tenses, adverbs and compositional semantic theory. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5:23–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dudman V.H., (1983). Tense and time in english verb clusters of the Primary Pattern. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 3:25–44Google Scholar
  10. Dudman V.H. (1984). Conditional interpretation of if-sentences. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 4:143–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enç M., (1986). Towards a referential analysis of temporal expressions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9(4): 405–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. von Fintel K., (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  13. von Fintel, K., & Heim, I. (2000). Lecture Notes, MIT. MIT.Google Scholar
  14. von Fintel, K., & Iatridou S. (2002): Since since: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
  15. Hawkins J., (1991). On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammatical prediction. Journal of Linguistics, 27:405–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Proceedings of WCCFL (vol. 2, pp. 114–125).Google Scholar
  17. Heim, I. (1990). Presupposition projection. In R. van der Sandt. (Ed.), Presupposition, lexical meaning and discourse processes: Workshop reader.Google Scholar
  18. Heim, I. (1991). Articles and definiteness. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich. (Eds.), Semantics. An international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Heim I., (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics, 9:183–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heim, I. (1994). Comments on Abusch’s theory of tense. In H. Kamp. (Ed.), Ellipsis, tense and questions. University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Iatridou S., (2000). The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(2):231–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Iatridou, S. Anagnostopoulou, E Izvorski, R. (2001). Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.) Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ippolito M., (2003). Presuppositions and implicatures in counterfactuals. Natural Language Semantics, 11:145–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ippolito, M.(2004). Semantic composition and presupposition projection in subjunctive conditionals. ms.Google Scholar
  25. Kamp, H. (2001). The importance of presupposition. Selected papers from the SFB 340. In C. Rohrer, & A. Rossdeutscher (Eds.), Linguistic form and its computation, CSLI.Google Scholar
  26. Karttunen L., (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4.2:169–193Google Scholar
  27. Karttunen, L., & S. Peters (1979). Conventional implicature. In C.-K. Oh, & D. A. Dinneen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 11: Presupposition (pp. 1–56). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In H.-J. Eikmeyer, & H. Rieser. words, worlds, and contexts Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  29. Kratzer, A. (1986). Conditionals. In CLS 22: Papers from the parasession on pragmatics and grammatical theory (pp. 1–15). Chicago IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  30. Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In Semantics. An international handbook of contemporary research, A.von Stechow, & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Berlin: De GruyterGoogle Scholar
  31. Kratzer, A. (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In Proceedings of SALT VIII.Google Scholar
  32. Kripke, S. (1990). Presupposition and anaphora: Remarks on the formulation of the projection problem. Princeton University, ms.Google Scholar
  33. Lewis, D. (1975). Adverbs of quantification. In E. Keenan (Eds.), Formal semantics of natural language. (pp. 3–15). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lewis D., (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. it Noûs, 13:455–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCoard J., (1978). The English present perfect: Tense-Choice and the pragmatic interfaces. Amsterdam, North-Holland PressGoogle Scholar
  36. Mondadori, F. (1978). Remarks on tense and mood: the perfect future. In F. Guenthner, & C. Rohrer (Eds.), Studies in formal semantics: intensionality, temporaliry, negation, (pp. 223–248). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  37. Musan R., (1997). Tense, predicates and lifetime effects. Natural Language Semantics, 5:271–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ogihara, T. (1996). Tense, attitudes, and scope. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Ogihara, T. (2002). Counterfactuals, temporal adverbs, and association with focus. In Proceedings of SALT X. CLS Cornell University: Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Partee B., (1973). Some structural analogies between tense and pronouns. The Journal of Philosophy, 70(18):601–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rooth M., (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1:75–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Soames, S. (1989). Presupposition. In Handbook of philosophical logic (vol. IV, pp. 553–617), Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  43. Stalnaker R., (1973). Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2:447–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic Presuppositions. In M. Munitz, & P. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and philosophy, (pp. 197–213) New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Stalnaker R., (1975). Indicative conditionals. Philosophia, 5:269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics: 9, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  47. Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and Content. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Stalnaker R., (2002). Common ground Linguistics and Philosophy, 25:701–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thomason, R., (1984). Combinations of tense and modality. In Handbook of philosophical logic: Extensions of classical logic, D. Gabbay, & F. Guenthner (Eds.), (pp. 135–165). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  50. van der Sandt R., (1992). Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 9:333–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michela Ippolito
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada M5S 3H1

Personalised recommendations