Advertisement

Proposal-B: wh-Conditionals as Interrogative Dependency

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

Abstract

We have been trying to categorize wh-conditionals as a type of real conditional, with the standard assumption that conditionals denote relations between propositions. In this chapter, we will develop an alternative analysis, where the conditional status of wh-conditionals is (almost) given up.

References

  1. Aloni, M., and F. Roelofsen. 2011. Interpreting concealed questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 34: 443–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso-Ovalle, L. 2009. Counterfactuals, correlatives, and disjunction. Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (2): 207–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AnderBois, S. 2012. Focus and uninformativity in yucatec maya questions. Natural Language Semantics 20 (4).Google Scholar
  4. Baker, C.L. 1968. Indirect questions in english. PhD thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
  5. Barker, C. 2016. Why relational nominals make good concealed questions. Lingua.Google Scholar
  6. Bhat, D.N.S. 2000. The indefinite-interrogative puzzle. Linguistic Typology 4: 365–400.Google Scholar
  7. Bittner, M. 2001. Topical referents for individuals and possibilities. In Proceedings of SALT 11: 36–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blok, P.I. 1993. The interpretation of focus: An epistemic approach to pragmatics. PhD thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
  9. Caponigro, I., and D. Heller. 2007. The non-concealed nature of free relatives. In Direct compositionality.Google Scholar
  10. Caponigro, I. 2003. Free not to ask: On the semantics of free relatives and wh-words cross-linguistically. PhD thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
  11. Chierchia, G. 1984. Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  12. Chierchia, G. and I. Caponigro. 2013. Questions on questions and free relatives. In Handout for SuB 18.Google Scholar
  13. Ciardelli, I., F. Roelofsen, and N. Theiler. 2016. Composing alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
  14. Ciardelli, I. 2016a. Lifting conditionals to inquisitive semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 26.Google Scholar
  15. Ciardelli, I. 2016b. Questions as information types. Synthese.Google Scholar
  16. Dayal, V. 1996. Locality in wh quantification. Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  17. Dayal, V. 1997. Free relatives and ever: Identity and free choice readings. In Proceedings of SALT 7: 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dayal, V. 2016. Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frana, I. 2013. Quantified concealed questions. Natural Language Semantics 21: 179–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gajewski, J. 2008. On the semantics of Hindi-Urdu multiple correlatives. Linguistic Lnquiry 39: 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. George, B.R. 2011. Question embedding and the semantics of answers. PhD thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
  22. Ginzburg, J., and I. Sag. 2000. Interrogative investigations. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Haida, A. 2008. The indefiniteness and focusing of wh-words. In Semantics and linguistic theory 18.Google Scholar
  24. Hamblin, C.L. 1973. Questions in montague english. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53.Google Scholar
  25. Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Heim, I. 1979. Concealed questions. In Semantics from different points of view.Google Scholar
  27. Heim, I. 1994. Interrogative semantics and karttunen’s semantics for know. In Proceedings of IATL 1.Google Scholar
  28. Isaacs, J., and K. Rawlins. 2008. Conditional questions. Journal of Semantics 25: 269–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacobs, J. 1983. Fokus und skalen. zur syntax und semantik der gradpartikel im deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  30. Jacobson, P. 1995. On the quantificational force of english free relatives. In Quantification in natural languages, 451–486. Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Jacobson, P. 2016. The short answer: Implications for direct compositionality (and vice-versa). Language.Google Scholar
  32. Karttunen, L. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1): 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kiss, K. É. 1995. Introduction. In K. É. Kiss (ed.), Discourse configurational languages.Google Scholar
  34. Kiss, K.É. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74: 245–273.Google Scholar
  35. Krifka, M. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In The architecture of focus, 105–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  36. Krifka, M. 1992. A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. Opladen: In Informationsstruktur und Gammatik.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Krifka, M. 2001. For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow: In Audiatur Vox Sapientia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lin, J.-W. 1996. Polarity licensing and wh-phrase quantification in Chinese. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  39. Löbner, S. 1981. Intensional verbs and functional concepts: more on the ‘rising temperature’ problem. Linguistic Lnquiry 12: 471–477.Google Scholar
  40. Merchant, J. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nathan, L. (2006). On the interpretation of concealed questions. Ph. D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  42. Rawlins, K. 2013. (un) conditionals. Natural Language Semantics 21 (2): 111–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Romero, M. 2005. Concealed questions and specificational subjects. Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 687–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rooth, M. 1985. Association with focus. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  45. Rooth, M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1 (1).Google Scholar
  46. Rooth, M. 1996. Focus. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 271–298. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Rothstein, S. 1995. Adverbial quantification over events. Natural Language Semantics 3 (1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Starr, W.B. 2014. What ‘if’? Philosophers’ Imprint 14 (10).Google Scholar
  49. Uegaki, W. 2015. Interpreting questions under attitudes. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  50. von Fintel, K., D. Fox, and S. Iatridou. 2014. Definiteness as maximal informativeness. In The art and craft of semantics: A festschrift for irene heim, vol. 1, 165–174. MITWPL.Google Scholar
  51. von Stechow, A. 1990. Focusing and backgrounding operators. In Discourse particles: Pragmatics & beyond, 37–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  52. Weir, A. 2014. Fragments and clausal ellipsis. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  53. Xiang, Y. 2016. Questions with non-exhaustive answers. PhD thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  54. Zimmermann, T.E. 2016. Quantification over alternative intensions. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  55. Zimmermann, T.E. 1985. Remarks on groenendijk and stokhof’s theory of indirect questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 8 (4): 431–448.CrossRefGoogle 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