Topics as Speech Acts – An Analysis of Conditionals

Transcription

D
D
i
C
C
l
l
l
l
o
i
o
i
u
o
m
q
p
q
A
m
A
m
u
i
u
o
p
s
m
u
,
s
t
t
r
e
d
a
d
a
r
e
m
2
m
2
.
1
1
1
1
.
2
0
.
.
0
,
0
0
0
0
2
9
9
Topics as Speech Acts
– An Analysis of Conditionals
Cornelia Ebert
Universität Stuttgart
joint work with Christian Ebert and Stefan Hinterwimmer
Overview
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
h
t
o
r
i
t
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
p
a
p
–
n
t
c
a
s
h
p
o
I
a
s
i
t
o
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
We show syntactic similarities Indicative Conditionals
of two types of conditionals
and two types of left
German Left Dislocation
dislocation constructions
in German,
Aboutness Topicality
which mark two types of
topicality.
Biscuit Conditionals
Hanging Topic
Left Dislocation
Frame Setting
On basis of these similarities we argue that (the antecedents of)
We provide a uniform derivation of the semantic and pragmatic contributions of the
two conditional forms by extending the aboutness topicality approach of Endriss
(2009) to frame setting topics and combining it with the analysis of indicative
conditionals of Schlenker (2004).
Dip Colloquium, Amsterdam 20.11.2009
2
Indicative Conditionals vs. Biscuit Conditionals
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
h
t
o
r
i
t
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
p
a
p
–
n
t
c
a
s
–
h
p
o
I
a
s
i
t
o
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
I
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
C
s
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
Indicative Conditional (IC):
(1)
B
C
t
–
m
a
s
p
L
D
H
T
L
D
G
If Peter went shopping, then there is pizza in the fridge.
F
r
m
a
A
e
n
b
u
t
e
s
s
o
i
S
e
t
n
t
g
Truth of the consequent depends on the truth of the antecedent.
Biscuit Conditional (BC):
(2)
If you are hungry, (#then) there is pizza in the fridge.
(3)
There are biscuits on the sideboard if you want them.
(Austin, 1961)
Truth of the consequent is independent of the truth of the antecedent.
Characteristic feature of BCs:
antecedent gives conditions stating when the consequent is relevant.
In the case of (2) it is understood that the speaker assumes the assertion that pizza
is in the fridge to be relevant to the listener only in case s/he is hungry.
3
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
h
t
o
r
i
t
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
p
a
p
–
n
t
c
a
s
–
h
p
o
I
a
s
i
t
o
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
I
B
C
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
C
s
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
p
In German, syntax disambiguates (cf. Handke, 1984):
L
D
H
T
L
D
G
Indicative Conditional (IC):
F
r
m
a
A
e
n
b
u
t
e
s
s
o
i
S
e
t
n
t
g
(4)
Wenn du mich brauchst, bleibe ich den ganzen Tag zuhause.
Sonst gehe ich ins Kino.
(If you need me, then I will stay at home the whole day. Otherwise I will go to the cinema.)
Biscuit Conditional (BC):
(5)
Wenn Du mich brauchst, ich bleibe den ganzen Tag zuhause.
#Sonst gehe ich ins Kino.
(If you need me, I will stay at home the whole day. #Otherwise I will go to the cinema.)
A further example:
(6)
#Wenn Du noch Fragen hast, bin ich Maria.
[IC]
(#If you have any questions, then I am Maria.)
(7)
Wenn Du noch Fragen hast, ich bin Maria.
[BC]
(If you have any questions, I am Maria.)
4
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
h
t
o
r
i
t
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
p
a
p
–
n
t
c
a
s
h
p
o
I
a
s
i
t
o
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
I
n
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
l
i
B
n
C
t
–
m
a
s
–
s
C
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
L
A unified theory of ICs and BCs should account for the
(in)dependence of the truth of antecedent and consequent
in the two cases as well as for the observed relevance effects.
D
H
T
L
D
G
F
r
m
a
A
e
n
b
u
t
e
s
s
o
i
S
e
t
n
t
g
Biscuit conditionals (BCs) have been analysed as conditional
assertions by de Rose & Grandy (1999), and as involving existential
quantification over ‚potential literal acts‘ by Siegel (2006):
(2)
(8)
If you are hungry, there exists a (presupposed relevant) assertion of
„there is pizza in the fridge“.
Problem with these accounts: they are too weak (cf. Scheffler, 2008).
(9)
If you don‘t want to watch the movie, the gardener is the killer.
(10)
If the congregation is ready, I hereby declare you man and wife.
Consequent speech acts have been performed unconditionally.
5
Two Kinds of Topic Marking Constructions
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
h
t
o
r
i
t
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
p
a
p
–
n
t
c
a
s
h
p
o
I
a
s
i
t
o
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
p
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
I
n
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
l
i
B
n
C
t
–
m
a
s
–
s
C
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
L
D
H
T
L
D
G
F
r
m
a
A
e
n
b
u
t
e
s
s
o
i
S
e
t
n
t
g
German left dislocation (GLD):
(11)
Den
The-ACC
Pfarrer,
pastor
den
kann keiner leiden.
RP-ACC can
nobody like.
‚The pastor nobody likes.‘
Hanging topic left dislocation (HTLD):
(12)
Der/den Pfarrer,
The(-ACC) pastor
keiner kann ihn
leiden.
nobody can
him -ACC like.
‚The pastor, nobody likes him.‘
6
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
h
t
o
r
i
t
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
a
p
p
–
n
t
c
a
s
h
p
o
I
a
s
i
t
o
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
p
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
I
n
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
l
i
B
n
C
t
–
m
a
s
–
s
C
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
L
D
H
T
L
D
G
F
r
m
a
Frey (2004) notes that the following syntactic characteristics
set apart GLD from HTLD:
A
e
n
b
u
t
e
s
s
o
i
S
e
t
n
t
g
GLD requires the presence of a resumptive pronoun (preferably in Spec., CP),
which is a weak d-pronoun (der, den, die, das, …).
GLD allows for binding into the dislocated phrase from within the clause, while
HTLD does not:
(13)Seineni
His-ACC
Vater, den
father RP-ACC
verehrt jederi.
admires everybody.
[GLD]
‚Everybody admires his father.‘
(14)*Sein(en)i Vater, jederi
verehrt ihn.
His(-ACC) father everybody admires him.
[HTLD]
7
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
h
t
o
r
i
t
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
p
a
p
–
n
t
c
a
s
h
p
o
I
a
s
i
t
o
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
I
n
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
l
i
B
n
C
t
–
m
a
s
–
s
C
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
L
D
H
T
L
D
G
Frey (2004) shows: GLD marks aboutness topicality, i.e. it
F
r
m
a
A
e
n
b
u
t
e
s
s
o
i
S
e
t
n
t
g
establishes the entity the sentence is about.
In contrast: HTLD marks frame setting topicality, i.e. it
establishes a frame of interpretation for which the following material is relevant.
In this respect, HTLD is an instance of more general frame setting constructions:
(15)
Was den Pfarrer angeht, die Predigt heute war wirklich schön.
(As for the pastor, the sermon today was wonderful.)
Fact expressed in the matrix clause is implied to be relevant w.r.t. (questions
regarding) the pastor.
Note:
in (15) there is no proform in the matrix clause which could pick up the entity marked
as the topic.
8
ICs and GLD vs. BCs and HTLD
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
h
t
o
r
i
t
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
p
a
p
–
n
t
c
a
s
h
p
o
I
a
s
i
t
o
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
I
n
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
l
i
B
n
C
t
–
m
a
s
–
s
C
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
L
D
H
T
L
D
G
F
r
m
a
A
e
n
b
u
t
e
s
s
o
The same syntactic characteristics set apart ICs and BCs:
i
S
e
t
n
t
g
There is a strong syntactic similarity between ICs and correlative
constructions, which ‚involve a free relative clause adjoined to the
matrix clause and coindexed with a proform inside it‘ (Bhatt and Pancheva 2001).
Then can therefore be regarded as a proform which relates back to the
possibilities introduced by the if-clause (see e.g. also Iatridou 1994)
9
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
h
t
o
r
i
t
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
p
a
p
–
n
t
c
a
s
h
p
o
I
a
s
i
t
o
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
I
n
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
l
i
B
n
C
t
–
m
a
s
–
s
C
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
L
D
H
T
L
D
G
The same syntactic characteristics set apart ICs and BCs:
F
r
m
a
A
e
n
b
u
t
e
s
s
o
While binding into the if-clause is possible in the case of ICs,
it is not in the case of BCs (cf. Haegeman, 2003) :
(16) Wenn man siei gut pflegt, dann blüht
jede Orchideei
if
one it well groom then blossoms every orchid
mehrmals
several times
i
S
e
t
n
t
g
[IC]
im
Jahr.
in the year
,Every orchid blossoms several times a year, if you groom it well.’
(17) *Wenn Du etwas
über siei wissen willst,
if
you something about it
to know want
jede Orchideei blüht
mehrmals
every orchid
blossoms several times
[BC]
im
Jahr.
in the year
10
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
h
t
o
r
i
t
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
a
p
p
–
n
t
c
a
s
h
p
o
I
a
s
i
t
o
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
I
n
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
l
i
B
n
C
t
–
m
a
s
–
s
C
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
Close connection between conditionals and topicality has been
observed frequently (see e.g. Haiman 1978 and Bittner 2001).
L
D
H
T
L
D
G
F
r
m
a
A
e
n
b
u
t
e
s
s
o
i
S
e
t
n
t
g
We conclude:
the if-clause serves as the topic, while the matrix clause supplies the comment
Concerning BCs, equivalent frame setting paraphrases are possible:
(2)
(18) As for the possibility that you are hungry, there is pizza in the fridge.
Semantic and pragmatic effects are completely parallel:
−
antecedent/frame setting topic establishes the conditions for relevance of
the matrix speech act
−
matrix clause is asserted unconditionally
11
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
h
t
o
r
i
t
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
p
a
p
–
n
t
c
a
s
h
p
o
I
a
s
i
t
o
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
I
n
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
l
i
B
n
C
t
–
m
a
s
–
s
C
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
L
D
H
T
L
D
G
F
r
m
a
A
e
n
b
u
t
e
s
s
o
i
S
e
t
n
t
g
We derive the semantic and pragmatic contributions of ICs and BCs by
extending the approach to aboutness topics by Endriss (2009) to frame
setting topics and
combining it with the approach to normal indicative conditionals by
Schlenker (2004), who treats if-clauses as definite descriptions of
possible worlds.
12
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
h
t
o
r
i
t
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
s
–
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
a
s
s
s
e
s
s
–
f
r
f
r
a
o
c
s
c
s
i
t
p
B
t
e
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
p
n
a
t
c
h
a
p
o
I
a
s
i
t
o
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
Endriss (2009):
aboutness topics are interpreted in a separate speech act of topic establishment
REFX (cf. reference act of Searle, 1969 or act of frame setting of Jacobs, 1984; cf.
also Lambrecht, 1994).
REFX
− applies to the denotation of the topic-marked constituent and introduces
a (possibly novel) discourse referent X for it
−
is conceived as being performed before the speech act of the original utterance
The comment is interpreted in the original speech act where the topical discourse
referent X is supplied as an argument.
The two speech acts are conjoined via speech act conjunction &.
Schematically for an assertion:
ASSERT(COMMENT(TOPIC)) REFX(TOPIC) & ASSERT(COMMENT(X))
This approach is reminiscent of the two steps in categorical judgements.
13
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
h
t
o
r
i
t
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
p
s
–
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
t
p
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
n
a
t
c
h
a
p
o
I
a
s
i
t
o
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
ASSERT(COMMENT(TOPIC)) REFX(TOPIC) & ASSERT(COMMENT(X))
Endriss and Hinterwimmer (2009):
the d-pronoun in the specifier of the matrix-CP is interpreted like a relative
pronoun, i.e. it triggers lambda-abstraction.
In a sentence such as (11), the matrix clause is thus interpreted as shown in (19),
while the entire sentence is interpreted as shown schematically in (20):
(11)
Den
The-ACC
Pfarrer, den
pastor RP-ACC
kann keiner leiden.
can nobody like.
[GLD]
‚The pastor nobody likes‘.
(19)
’den kann keiner leiden÷ = λy. ¬∃z[human(z) ∧ like(z,y)]
(20)
REFX(ιx[pastor(x)]) & ASSERT(¬∃z[human(z) ∧ like(z,X)])
14
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
h
t
o
r
i
t
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
p
s
–
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
t
p
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
n
a
t
c
h
a
p
o
I
a
s
i
t
o
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
Topical constituent definite / of type e:
− discourse referent X in REF act can straightforwardly refer to topical constituent
− no truth conditional effect
Topical constituent indefinite / of generalized quantifier (GQ) type 〈〈e,t〉,t〉:
− discourse referent X in REF act refers to a suitable representative that is created
from the GQ, namely a minimal witness set of the topical GQ
− truth conditional effect: topical GQ takes widest (possibly island-free) scope
(21) Einen
Song von Bob Dylan, den
kennt jeder.
Some-ACC song of Bob Dylan, RP-ACC knows everybody.
[GLD]
‚Everybody knows some song of Bob Dylan.‘
(22) REFX(∃x[song_of_BD(x)]) & ASSERT(∀y[human(y)
know(y,X)])
15
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
h
t
o
r
i
t
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
p
s
–
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
a
s
s
s
e
s
s
–
f
r
f
r
a
o
c
s
c
s
i
t
p
B
t
e
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
n
a
t
c
h
a
p
o
I
a
s
i
t
o
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
The HTLD example in (12), is interpreted as shown in (23):
(12)
Der/den Pfarrer, keiner kann ihn leiden.
The-(ACC) pastor
nobody can him like.
[HTLD]
‚The pastor nobody likes.‘
(23)
REFX (ιx[pastor(x)]) & ASSERT(¬∃z[human(z) ∧ like(z, y)])
Here, the act of topic establishment has exactly the same effect.
Crucial difference w.r.t. matrix clause:
no resumptive proform → no lambda-abstraction → no predication w.r.t. topical
discourse referent X.
Proform ihn (him) in (12) is thus treated as a free variable that needs to be
resolved.
Since the topic provides the most salient discourse referent in (12), the free variable
y is most likely resolved to it.
16
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
h
t
o
r
i
t
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
p
s
–
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
p
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
n
a
t
c
h
a
p
o
I
a
s
i
t
o
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
Hence the case of frame setting does not correspond to a simple predicative
relation of topic and comment, as becomes even clearer by considering the
interpretation of (15) shown in (24):
(15)
(24) REFX (ιx[pastor(x)]) & ASSERT(wonderful(sermon))
Since (15) does not contain any proform whatsoever, the matrix clause
interpreted as an independent assertion.
Only connection of topic and comment: their consecutive performance as
speech acts.
Here the issue of
comes into play:
using standard Gricean assumptions, an assertion is only felicitous if it is relevant
to the preceding discourse / assertion must serve to answer the question under
discussion.
17
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
h
t
o
r
i
t
–
a
o
n
t
s
c
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
n
a
t
c
s
h
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
p
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
–
I
a
s
a
p
o
p
(15)
c
i
t
o
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
(24) REFX (ιx[pastor(x)]) & ASSERT(wonderful(sermon))
In (15), the pastor is established as the topic (QUD: ‚What about the pastor?‘)
The following assertion has to be relevant with respect to the QUD/has to
partially answer the QUD.
This is exactly the pragmatic effect we observe in the case of frame setting
constructions.
Note that in the case of aboutness topics, the relevance condition is trivially
fullfilled, because a predication is obviously relevant to its argument:
(25)
REFX (ιx[pastor(x)]) & ASSERT(¬∃z[human(z) ∧ like(z, X)])
18
The antecedents of ICs as aboutness topics
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
i
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
a
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
i
t
o
p
s
–
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
p
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
n
a
t
c
h
a
p
o
I
h
t
o
r
t
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
We follow Schlenker (2004), who builds on Stalnaker (1968), in analysing the
antecedents of conditionals as definite descriptions of possible worlds.
if ϕ :
the unique possible world which is most similar to the actual world w0 among all
possible worlds where ϕ is true.
The if-clause in (1) thus denotes the object in (26): the unique world which is most
similar to the actual world among all posible worlds where Peter went shopping.
(1)
(26)
’If Peter went shopping÷ = ιw0w[went_shopping(w)(peter)]
[IC]
19
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
i
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
a
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
i
t
o
p
s
–
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
p
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
n
a
t
c
h
a
p
o
I
h
t
o
r
t
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
The proposition denoted by the consequent is then applied to the denotation of
the if-clause, which gives (27):
(1)
[IC]
(27) pizza_is_in_the_fridge(ιw0w[went_shopping(w)(peter)])
“The unique world where Peter went shopping which is most similar to the
actual world is among all the worlds where pizza is in the fridge”.
Our analysis: if-clause in (1) is actually interpreted as the aboutness topic:
−
the act of topic establishment introduces a discourse referent X for the
unique world denoted by the if-clause, and
−
it is then asserted that the predicate of worlds denoted by the consequent
holds of X.
20
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
–
i
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
a
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
i
t
o
p
s
–
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
p
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
n
a
t
c
h
a
p
o
I
h
t
o
r
t
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
Proform then in Spec., CP triggers lambda-abstraction over possible worlds
(parallel to d-pronouns which trigger lambda-abstraction over individuals).
Hence the consequent forms a predicate that applies to the topical discourse
referent (parallel to the individual aboutness topic case) and we get (28).
(1)
(28) REFX(ιw0w[went_shopping(w)(peter)]) & ASSERT(pizza_is_in_the_fridge(X))
As in the case of GLD:
− due to definitness/type of topic: no truth-conditional effect compared to
(27) pizza_is_in_the_fridge(ιw0w[went_shopping(w)(peter)])
− relevance requirement trivially fulfilled due to predication
21
The antecedents of BCs as frame setting topics
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
i
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
a
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
i
t
o
p
s
–
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
p
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
n
a
t
c
h
a
p
o
I
h
t
o
r
t
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
Crucially, BCs do not allow the proform then in the consequent (cf. Bhatt &
Pancheva, 2001).
As in the case of frame setting, the consequent is thus not interpreted as a
predicate that applies to the topical discourse referent, but as an independent
assertion.
Our example (2) is therefore interpreted as shown in (23):
(2)
(29) REFX(ιw0w[hungry(w)(listener)]) & ASSERT(pizza_is_in_the_fridge(w0))
That there is pizza in the fridge is thus asserted unconditionally, which is exactly
what we observed for BCs.
This explains the restrictions on the occurence of then. If then is inserted into a BC
it turns into a (usually pragmatically odd) IC, which is predicted in our account.
22
An explanation of the binding effects
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
i
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
a
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
i
t
o
p
s
–
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
a
s
s
s
e
s
s
–
f
r
f
r
a
o
c
s
c
s
i
t
p
B
t
e
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
n
a
t
c
h
a
p
o
I
h
t
o
r
t
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
Recall that binding into the dislocated element is possible in the case of GLD and ICs,
but impossible in the case of HTLDs and BCs:
(13)
Seineni
His-ACC
Vater, den
father RP-ACC
verehrt jederi.
admires everybody.
(14)
*Sein(en)i Vater, jeder
verehrt ihni.
His(-ACC) father everybody admires him.
(16)
Wenn man siei gut pflegt, dann blüht jede Orchideei mehrmals
If
one it well grooms then blossom every orchid
several times
[GLD]
[HTLD]
[IC]
im
Jahr.
in the year
(17)
*Wenn Du etwas
über siei wissen willst, jede Orchideei blüht
If
you something about it to know want every orchid
blossoms
[BC]
mehrmals im Jahr.
several times in the year
23
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
i
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
a
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
i
t
o
p
s
–
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
p
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
n
a
t
c
h
a
p
o
I
h
t
o
r
t
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
Concerning GLDs, we proceed along the lines of (Ebert and Endriss, 2007)
They argue that cases like (13) exemplify functional topics
(13)
Seinen Vateri, den
verehrt jederi.
His-ACC father RP-ACC admires everybody.
They show that dislocated constituents with bound pronouns do not take narrow
scope w.r.t. the binding matrix quantifier but functional wide scope, which can be
truth-conditionally distinguished from genuine narrow scope in case of dislocated
quantificational phrases.
Hence the correct analysis must treat the left dislocated phrase as a function that is
introduced as the aboutness topic of the sentence via the REF act.
24
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
i
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
a
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
i
t
o
p
s
–
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
p
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
n
a
t
c
h
a
p
o
I
h
t
o
r
t
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
In case of (13) the dislocated definite denotes a function of type 〈e,e〉.
The d-pronoun correspondingly is of the same type and combines with the matrix
verb, which is type-shifted by application of Jacobson´s Z-operator (Jacobson, 1999),
as shown for (13) in (30):
(13)
Seineni Vater, den
verehrt jederi.
His-ACC father RP-ACC admires everybody.
(30)
a. Z = λR〈e, 〈e,t〉〉 λf〈e,e〉 λxe R(f(x))(x)
b. ’Seinen Vater÷ = λy.ιx[father_of(x,y)]
c. ’den verehrt jeder÷
= λf〈e,e〉.∀y[human(y) → Z(admire)(f )(y)]
= λf〈e,e〉.∀y[human(y) → admire(y, f(y))]
25
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
i
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
a
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
i
t
o
p
s
–
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
p
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
n
a
t
c
h
a
p
o
I
h
t
o
r
t
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
The sentence as a whole is accordingly interpreted as shown in (31):
(13)
Seineni
His-ACC
Vater,
father
den
RP-ACC
verehrt jederi.
admires everybody.
(31)
REFX(λy.ιx[father_of(x,y)]) & ASSERT(∀y[human(y) → admire(y, X(y))])
In case of HTLDs like (14): shifting the topical constituent to functional type does
not result in binding, since the matrix clause does not denote a predicate that could
be applied to this function.
(14)
*Sein(en)i Vater,
His(-ACC) father
jeder
verehrt ihni.
everybody admires him.
(32)
REFX(λy.ιx[father_of(x,y)]) & ASSERT(∀y[human(y) → admire(y, z)])
(14) can thus only be interpreted in the following way:
first, the function from individuals into their fathers is established as the topic and
then it is asserted that everybody admires some salient individual.
Since it is hard to find a context where this is coherent, the sentence is odd.
26
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
i
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
a
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
i
t
o
p
s
–
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
p
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
n
a
t
c
h
a
p
o
I
h
t
o
r
t
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
The analysis for ICs runs entirely parallel to the functional GLD case.
As the dislocated if-clause contains a pronoun it denotes a function from individuals
into worlds of type 〈e,s〉.
then again denotes a corresponding variable triggers lambda-abstraction, which
combines with the matrix verb that is type-shifted via an adapted version Z‘ of
Jacobson´s Z, as shown for (16) in (33):
(16)
Wenn man sie gut pflegt, dann blüht jede Orchidee mehrmals im Jahr.
(Every orchid blossoms several times a year, if you groom it well.)
(33)
a.
Z‘ = λR〈s, 〈e,t〉〉 λf〈e,s〉λxe. R(f(x))(x)
b.
’Wenn man sie gut pflegt÷ = λx. ιw0w[well_groomed(w)(x)]
c.
’dann blüht jede Orchidee mehrmals im Jahr÷
= λf〈e,s〉.∀y[orchid(y) → Z‘(blossom_several_times_in_year)(f )(y)]
= λf〈e,s〉.∀y[orchid(y) → blossom_several_times_in_year( f (y))(y)]
27
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
i
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
a
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
i
t
o
p
s
–
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
p
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
n
a
t
c
h
a
p
o
I
h
t
o
r
t
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
The sentence as a whole is accordingly interpreted as shown in (34):
(34) REFX(λx.ιw0w[well_groomed(w)(x)])
& ASSERT(∀y[orchid(y) → blossom_several_times_in_year(X(y))(y)]
In case of BCs like (17): shifting the if-clause to the functional type does not result in
binding, since the matrix clause does not denote a predicate that could be applied to
this function.
(17)
*Wenn Du etwas über siei wissen willst, jede Orchideei blüht mehrmals
im Jahr.
(*Every orchid blossoms several times a year, if you want to know something about it.)
(35) REFX(λx.ιw0w[want_to_know_sth_about(w)(listener, x)])
& ASSERT(∀y[orchid(y) → blossom_several_times_in_year(w0)(y)])
(17) can thus only be interpreted in the following way: a function from individuals x
into the world which is closest to the actual world where the listener wants to know
something about x is established and then it is asserted that every orchid blossoms
several times a year in the actual world. Again, this is incoherent.
28
Conclusion
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
i
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
a
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
i
t
o
p
s
–
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
t
p
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
n
a
t
c
h
a
p
o
I
h
t
o
r
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
Differences and similarities between
sentences with aboutness topics and
frame setting topics are parallel to the
differences and similarities between
ICs and BCs.
Conclusion:
Common aspect of all topical sentences (including ICs and BCs):
(a) a speech act of topic establishment is conjoined with an assertion and
(b) the assertion has to be relevant with respect to the topic
Differences:
(a) aboutness topics:
assertion involves a predicate applied to the topic
(b) frame setting topics: assertion is related to topic establishment
only by relevance.
29
Conclusion
–
i
n
i
n
r
i
t
d
u
c
o
d
u
c
–
n
i
t
o
i
–
a
o
n
t
c
s
c
s
a
s
s
s
s
e
e
c
e
e
c
i
t
o
p
s
–
–
C
s
C
s
a
s
o
u
b
o
u
a
s
p
a
s
–
B
t
e
s
s
e
s
s
c
s
c
s
i
t
f
r
f
r
a
o
n
t
c
i
t
b
I
a
p
n
a
t
c
h
a
p
o
I
h
t
o
r
t
t
–
C
s
C
s
m
a
s
B
p
o
a
e
s
e
e
s
e
t
t
t
t
i
n
i
n
–
i
n
i
n
i
n
i
n
f
f
f
f
n
l
i
n
t
–
m
a
s
b
d
e
e
c
e
c
s
–
c
o
c
o
c
n
u
s
u
s
l
o
i
n
t
b
d
e
g
g
g
g
s
c
o
p
30
Appendix: formal detail
31
32
33
34
35
References
Austin, J. L. (1961). Philosophical Papers. Chapter Ifs and Cans. Oxford University Press.
Bittner, M. (2001). Topical Referents for Individuals and Possibilities. In: R. Hastings et al (eds).
Proceedings from SALT XI, pp. 36-55.
Bhatt, R. and R. Pancheva (2001). Conditionals. In: M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The
Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. I, pp. 638–687. Blackwell.
Ebert, Ch. & C. Endriss (2004): Topic Interpretation and Wide Scope Indefinites. In: Proceedings of
NELS 34.
Ebert, Ch. & C. Endriss (2007): Functional Topics. In: Proceedings of the Sinn und Bedeutung 11.
Ebert, C. & S. Hinterwimmer (2009): Indefinites as Direct and Indirect Aboutness Topics. In: C. Fery
and M. Zimmermann, Information Structure. Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental
Perspectives, Oxford University Press).
Endriss, C. (2009). Quantificational Topics, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Springer.
Frey, W. (2004). Notes on the Syntax and the Pragmatics of German Left Dislocation. In: H.
Lohnstein and S. Trissler (eds.). The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery, pp. 203-233.
Mouton de Gruyter.
Haegeman, L. (2003). Conditional Clauses: External and Internal Syntax. Mind & Language, Vol. 18 No.
4, pp. 317-339.
Haiman, J. (1978). Conditionals are Topics. Language 54:565–589.
36
References
Handke, J. (1984). Descriptive and Psycholinguistic Aspects of Adverbial Subordinate Clauses.
Heidelberg: J. Groos.
Jacobs, J. (1984). Funktionale Satzperspektive und Illokutionssemantik. Linguistische Berichte 91.
Jacobson, P.: 1999, Towards a Variable-Free Semantics, Linguistics & Philosophy 22(2), 117–184
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Cambridge University Press.
Scheffler, T. (2008). Semantic Operators in Different Dimensions. PhD thesis. University of
Pennsylvania.
Schlenker, P. (2004). Conditionals as Definite Descriptions, Research in Language and Computation
2:417–462.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press,
London.
Siegel, M. (2006). Biscuit Conditionals. Quantification over Potential Literal Acts. Linguistics and
Philosophy 29:167–203.
Iatridou, S. (1994). On the Contribution of Conditional Then. Natural Language Semantics 2:171–199.
Stalnaker, R. (1968). A Theory of Conditionals. Studies in Logical Theory, American Philosophical
Quarterly, Monograph: 2.
37

Topics as Speech Acts – An Analysis of Conditionals

Transcription

Similar documents

Topics as Speech Acts – An Analysis of Conditionals

Detached in Syntax – Attached in Discourse 1 Introduction 2 The

On Non-Canonical Clause Linkage

Interpreting embedded verb second Causal modifiers in German