LINGUIST List 19.3524
|
Wed Nov 19 2008
Diss: Semantics: Huitink: 'Modals, Conditionals and Compositionality'
Editor for this issue: Evelyn Richter
<evelyn linguistlist.org>
|
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
|
Directory
1. Janneke
Huitink,
Modals, Conditionals and Compositionality
Message 1: Modals, Conditionals and Compositionality
|
Date: 19-Nov-2008
From: Janneke Huitink <janneke.huitink gmail.com>
Subject: Modals, Conditionals and Compositionality
E-mail this message to a friend
Institution: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Program: Department of Philosophy
Dissertation Status: Completed
Degree Date: 2008
Author: Janneke Huitink
Dissertation Title: Modals, Conditionals and Compositionality
Dissertation URL: http://ncs.ruhosting.nl/janneke/diss.html
Linguistic Field(s):
Semantics
Dissertation Director:
Rob van der Sandt
Bart Geurts
Dissertation Abstract:
This dissertation concerns three constructions in which modal or conditional expressions seem to fail to contribute their ordinary meaning, or even appear to go completely uninterpreted. I first discuss concord readings for combinations of modal verbs and adverbs as in 'It may perhaps be raining'. After arguing that modal concord does not follow from modal logic, and cannot be treated in terms of syntactic agreement, I propose a type-shifting analysis which treats modal adverbs as polysemous between their ordinary meaning and a non-quantificational meaning. Then I discuss anankastic conditionals 'If you want to go to Harlem, you must take the A train'. I propose that anankastic if-clauses are not arguments of the modal in their consequent, but are best analyzed as arguments of a higher, covert modal. Finally, I show that the interpretation of if-clauses in the scope of a quantifier 'Usually if it is raining, it is cold' can be accounted for by adopting a partial semantics for conditionals, along the lines of Belnap (1970). I argue that this makes for a plausible semantics of conditionals, which is just as good as its main contender (i.e. the Lewis/Kratzer analysis), and perhaps even better.
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
|
|

Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.
|
|