Advertisement

Proposal-A: wh-Conditionals as Interrogative Conditionals

  • Mingming LiuEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Frontiers in Chinese Linguistics book series (FiCL, volume 3)

Abstract

In this chapter, we explore the idea that wh-conditionals are interrogative conditionals.

References

  1. Beck, S. 2012. Pluractional comparisons. Linguistics and Philosophy 35 (1): 57–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, S., and H. Rullmann. 1999. A flexible approach to exhaustivity in questions. Natural Language Semantics 7 (3): 249–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berman, S. 1987. Situation-based semantics for adverbs of quantification. In Studies in semantics, vol. 12, ed. J. Blevins, and A. Vainikka, 46–68., University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  4. Cheng, L.L., and C.J. Huang. 1996. Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language Semantics 4 (2): 121–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chierchia, G., and H.-C. Liao. 2014. Where do chinese wh-items fit? In Epistemic indefinites: Exploring modality beyond the verbal domain.Google Scholar
  6. Chierchia, G. 2013. Logic in grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dayal, V. 1996. Locality in wh Quantification. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Dayal, V. 2016. Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elbourne, P.D. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fine, K. 2012. Counterfactuals without possible worlds. The Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  11. Fine, K. Truthmaker semantics. In Blackwell companion to the philosophy of language. Blackwell. To appear.Google Scholar
  12. Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof. 1982. Semantic analysis of wh-complements. Linguistics and Philosophy 5 (2): 175–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haida, A. 2008. The indefiniteness and focusing of wh-words. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory 18.Google Scholar
  14. Hamblin, C.L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53.Google Scholar
  15. Heim, I. 1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
  16. Heim, I. 1994. Interrogative semantics and Karttunen’s semantics for know. In Proceedings of IATL 1.Google Scholar
  17. Huang, C.-T.J. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Huang, Y. 2010. On the form and meaning of Chinese bare conditionals: Not just whatever. PhD thesis, The University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  19. Karttunen, L., and S. Peters. 1976. What indirect questions conventionally implicate. In CLS 11.Google Scholar
  20. Karttunen, L. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1): 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kiss, K.É. 1995. Introduction. In Discourse configurational languages, ed. K.É. Kiss.Google Scholar
  22. Kratzer, A. 1979. Conditional necessity and possibility. In Semantics from different points of view, 117–147. Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Kratzer, A. 1981a. The notional category of modality. In Words, worlds, and contexts, 38–74.Google Scholar
  24. Kratzer, A. 1981b. Partition and revision: The semantics of counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic 10 (2): 201–206.Google Scholar
  25. Kratzer, A. 2012. Modals and conditionals. vol. 36. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kratzer, A. 2014. Situations in natural language semantics. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta. Spring. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/situations-semantics/.
  27. Lewis, D. 1973. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Lewis, D. 1981. Ordering semantics and premise semantics for counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic 10 (2): 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lloyd, J.W. 2012. Foundations of logic programming. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  30. Reinhart, T. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between qr and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20 (4): 335–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rooth, M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1 (1).Google Scholar
  32. Rothstein, S. 1995. Adverbial quantification over events. Natural Language Semantics 3 (1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwarz, B. 1998. Reduced conditionals in german: Event quantification and definiteness. Natural Language Semantics 6 (3): 271–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stalnaker, R. 1968. A theory of conditionals. In Studies in logical theory, ed. N. Rescher., American Philosophical Quarterly Monograph Series 2 Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Stalnaker, R. 1975. Indicative conditionals. Philosophia.Google Scholar
  36. Van Benthem, J. 1989. Semantic parallels in natural language and computation. In Logic colloquium. Cranada 1987, ed. E. HD, 331–375. Elservier.Google Scholar
  37. von Fintel, K. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  38. von Fintel, K. 2004. A minimal theory of adverbial quantification. In Context dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning, ed. H.K.B. Partee, 137–175. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Foreign LanguagesHunan UniversityChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations