(Un)conditionals

Rawlins, Kyle

doi:10.1007/s11050-012-9087-0

Cited by 40 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The few investigations of the construction in (iii) have treated it as substantially different from ever-FRs, more like a clausal adjunct with a conditional import (cf. Izvorski 2000, Rawlins 2013). The construction in (ii) has been virtually ignored.…”

Section: The Syntactic Structure Of Fc-frsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Free choice free relative clauses in Italian and Romanian

Caponigro¹,

Fălăuş²

2017

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper aims to bring back to the linguistic scene a largely neglected character that is encountered in Italian and Romanian. This character exhibits a novel combination of morphological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic features that, separately, are already attested across languages. It looks like an embedded non-interrogative wh-clause introduced by a wh-phrase that is either made of or contains a wh-root with an affix: the suffix -unque in Italian or the prefix ori-in Romanian. We show that this construction exhibits the same morpho-syntactic properties as -ever free relative clauses in English and the same semantic and pragmatic properties as headed relative clauses introduced by the free choice determiner any in English. Therefore, we label our character a free choice free relative clause. We argue for a syntactic analysis of free choice free relative clauses as true free relatives rather than headed relatives and for a semantic analysis along the lines of some recent proposals about related free choice constructions. We also discuss the meaning of wh-words occurring in free choice free relatives and in related constructions and emphasize the importance of not taking for granted that morpho-syntactic identity necessarily coincides with semantic and pragmatic identity across languages.

show abstract

Section: The Syntactic Structure Of Fc-frsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Free choice free relative clauses in Italian and Romanian

Caponigro¹,

Fălăuş²

2017

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The sentence expresses that the resolution of the issue described by the wulun-adjunct is independent of the truth of the main clause (see also Rawlins 2008Rawlins , 2013 The LF structure of (41) is given in (42) …”

Section: Wh-unconditionalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the major contributions of neo-Hamblin semanticists is the discovery that there are expressions other than question words that denote sets of alternatives. These expressions include non-interrogative wh-phrases (Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002;Shimoyama 2006;Rawlins 2008Rawlins , 2013Slade 2011), disjunction (Aloni 2003;Simons 2005;Alonso-Ovalle 2006), and indefinites (Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002;Charlow 2014;Alonso-Ovalle and Menendez-Benito 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alternatives in different dimensions: a case study of focus intervention

Law

2016

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Beck (Nat Lang Seman 14:1-56, 2006), focus intervention is used as an argument for reducing Hamblin's (Found Lang 10:41-53, 1973) semantics for questions to Rooth's (Association with focus. Ph.D. Thesis, 1985) focus semantics. Drawing on novel empirical evidence from Mandarin and English, we argue that this reduction is unwarranted. Maintaining both Hamblin's original semantics and Rooth's focus semantics not only allows for a more adequate account for focus intervention in questions, but also correctly predicts that focus intervention is a very general phenomenon caused by interaction of alternatives in different dimensions.

show abstract

“…A conditional can be true even if there isn't a law-like dependence between the antecedent and consequent proposition. For example, in the case of the unconditional Whether it rains or not, Jones wears his hat, in which the antecedent exhaustifies logical space, we only learn that in all the worlds in the context set Jones wears his hat (see Rawlins 2013). There is no law-like link between the weather and the wearing of the hat by Jones (the antecedent is true in all possible worlds-its truth does not raise the probability of the consequent being true).…”

Section: Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The grammar of discourse: The case of then

Biezma

2015

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an analysis of then that appeals to discourse structure. I argue that then does not make any truth-conditional contribution but rather coordinates an anaphoric relation between consecutive discourse-moves. The meaning contribution of then is captured in terms of felicity conditions: then requires that two propositions enter into a 'causal explanatory claim'-relation in which one (the antecedent) provides the 'reasons' for the other (the consequent). This proposal targets then within conditionals and across discourse and considers discourse structure as a key factor in explaining its behavior.

show abstract

(Un)conditionals

Cited by 40 publications

References 79 publications

Free choice free relative clauses in Italian and Romanian

Free choice free relative clauses in Italian and Romanian

Alternatives in different dimensions: a case study of focus intervention

The grammar of discourse: The case of then

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About