Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
A research paper presented at the 7th Annual Meeting of the Deutsche Gesellschaft f¨ur Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS) in 2015. The authors, Cleo Condoravdi and Sven Lauer, discuss the interpretation of hypothetical ideals and hypothetical facts in the temporal dimension, focusing on the compositionality problems with hypothetical ideals and the interpretation of tenses in bare conditionals. They propose solutions using nested modality and action-relevant preferences.
What you will learn
Typology: Lecture notes
1 / 40
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Cleo Condoravdi^1 Sven Lauer^2 (^1) Stanford University (^2) University of Konstanz
37th Annual Meeting of the Deutsche Gesellschaft f ¨ur Sprachwissenschaft AG 14: Modelling conditionality University of Leipzig March 4–6, 2015
(^1) Two compositionality problems with hypothetical ideals
(^2) The interpretation of tenses in bare conditionals—a primer
(^3) Temporal interpretation of (priority) modals
(^4) Anankastics in the temporal dimension
(H) If you (ever) want to go to Harlem, you should take the A train. Sæbø (1985, 2001): Anankastic conditionals (ACs) like (H) pose challenges for compositional interpretation. Intuitively, the sentence conveys that taking the A train is necessary for going to Harlem.
How does (H) manage to express a relationship between a proper part of the antecedent and a proper part of the consequent?
Kratzer-style
(H) If you (ever) want to go to Harlem, you should take the A train. Sæbø (1985, 2001): In a Kratzerian analysis, the problem is: How do we get the antecedent to interact with the ordering source of the modal in the right way? Somehow, the inner antecedent you go to Harlem must end up in the ordering source. von Fintel and Iatridou (2005): Same problem for (3). (3) If jaywalking is illegal here, this guy has to pay a fine.
How do we get the antecedent to influence the ordering source of the modal in the right way?
Condoravdi and Lauer (2014): A fully compositional analysis of ACs is possible with...
... a nested modal analysis. ... a suitable semantics for want. I (^) In ACs, want has a reading on which it refers to action-relevant preferences. I (^) Multiple action-relevant preferences can be taken into account. Bonus: Various kinds of ‘near’-anankastics also can be treated.
Sæbø observed that there is an intuitive difference in the relative temporal location of the eventualities of ACs and HFCs. (4) If you (ever) go to Harlem, you should see the Apollo theater. ↪→ you go to Harlem ≤ you see the Apollo theater (5) If you (ever) want to go to Harlem, you should take the A train. ↪→ you go to Harlem ≥ you take the A train
The HFC-constraint relates the time of the full antecedent and the time of the consequent: (6) If you go to Harlem, you should see the Apollo theater. end( you go to Harlem ) ≤ end( you see the Apollo theater ) The AC-constraint, by contrast, relates the time of inner antecedent and the consequent (prejacent of the modal). (7) If you want to go to Harlem, you should take the A train. start( you go to Harlem ) ≥ start( you take the A train )
According to Sæbø’s conjecture, ACs impose a constraint on the temporal relationship between a proper part of the antecedent and the prejacent of the modal in the consequent.
Nec( you want to go to Harlem )(Should( you take the A train ))
Determine what the predictions of the nested-modal analysis are. I (^) Plausible assumptions about the temporal interpretation of bare conditionals. I (^) Plausible assumptions about the temporal interpretation of priority modals like should. I (^) Putting the two together. Evaluate the resulting predictions for HICs, and ACs in particular.
(^1) Two compositionality problems with hypothetical ideals
(^2) The interpretation of tenses in bare conditionals—a primer
(^3) Temporal interpretation of (priority) modals
(^4) Anankastics in the temporal dimension
Bare conditionals (BCs): Indicative conditionals without any modal operator are Nec-conditionals: Nec(Antecedent)(Consequent)
Their temporal interpretation is intricate, but surprisingly little work on this. We will draw here mostly on Crouch (1993), Kaufmann (2005), Schulz (2007, 2008) and Grønn and von Stechow (2011). Set aside: I (^) ‘Generic’ readings of conditionals, those might well contain another operator. I (^) ‘Scheduling’ readings of the present tense. I (^) will -conditionals, which might be modal.
Present tense antecedents can be about the utterance time, or any future time: (10) If he arrives tomorrow,...
Usual restrictions do not apply: Eventuality can be located anywhere in the interval [now, ∞). Eventive predicates: Mandatory forward-shift. Stative predicates: Optional forward-shift, strong tendency towards now-interpretation. I (^) But shiftable by overt adverbs or contextual clues.
(11) If he is in Utrecht,... (12) If he is in Utrecht tomorrow,...
Present-Past
Present in the antecedent, past in the consequent: Past tense in the consequent can get a ‘shifted’ past-in-the-future reading (Crouch 1993).
(13) If John comes out smiling, the interview went well.
Simple(-minded?) analysis of the tenses: (17) ~Presi^ = λP.λw.Inst(P, i, w) (18) ~Pasti^ = λP.λw.Inst(P, (−∞, i), w) i = now in unembedded uses, can be shifted by embedding environment.
(19) Inst(P, i, w) =
∃e : P(e, w) & τ(e, w) ⊆ i if P eventive P(i, w) if P temporal
τ(e, w): The ‘run-time’ of e at w. Assumption: Statives denote temporal predicates that are true of an interval iff the state overlaps with it.
Shifted consequent reading
Nec has now as its temporal perspective. its modal base is restricted to worlds that make the antecedent true at some subinterval tA of [now, ∞). at each world, it sets the earliest such interval as the interval of evaluation for the consequent.
i=now ︷ ︸︸ ︷ Nec[Pres(A) ︸ ︷︷ ︸ i=[now,∞)
][ Tns(C) ︸ ︷︷ ︸ i=earliest(TA)
(See Kaufmann (2005),Schulz (2007),Grønn and von Stechow (2011) for steps towards a compositional implementation of this—though only Schulz enforces the ‘earliest’ part.)
