* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 20.4454

Mon Dec 21 2009

Qs: Semantics of Rationale Clauses

Editor for this issue: Elyssa Winzeler <elyssalinguistlist.org>

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
        1.    John McGuire, Semantics of Rationale Clauses

Message 1: Semantics of Rationale Clauses
Date: 19-Dec-2009
From: John McGuire <squiremcguiregmail.com>
Subject: Semantics of Rationale Clauses
E-mail this message to a friend

My questions concern the semantics of rationale (in-order-to) clauses.
Consider the following two sentence-forms:

(1) A X-ed in order to Y
(2) A X-ed as a means of Y-ing.

I wonder whether there are any circumstances in which a sentence of form
(1) is true while the corresponding sentence of form (2) is false. Is there
any reason to expect that there could be such cases? Alternatively, is
there any published research on the semantics of rationale clauses that
would help to answer this question?


Linguistic Field(s): Semantics

Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

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