Skip Navigation

Journal of Semantics 2008 25(3):269-319; doi:10.1093/jos/ffn003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Isaacs, J.
Right arrow Articles by Rawlins, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

This article appears in the following Journal of Semantics issue: Special issue on MODALITY AND EVIDENTIALITY [View the issue table of contents]

Conditional Questions

James Isaacs

University of California Santa Cruz

Kyle Rawlins

University of California Santa Cruz

Correspondence: JAMES ISAACS, Department of Linguistics, University of California Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz CA 95064-1077, USA, e-mail: jamesiisaacs{at}gmail.com.

Correspondence: KYLE RAWLINS, Department of Linguistics, University of California Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz CA 95064-1077, USA, e-mail: krawlins{at}ucsc.edu.


   Abstract

This paper provides an analysis of conditional questions (CQs) that combines a dynamic semantics for conditionals with a partition semantics for questions. We propose that CQs are interpreted in two steps. First, a temporary context is created in which the propositional content of the antecedent is obtained. Second, the question in the consequent is asked relative to this temporary context. Subsequent answers are then asserted relative to the temporary context. Our analysis also has a pragmatic component. Previous analyses have augmented the semantics to account for denials of the antecedents of CQs. We show that the effect of denying the antecedent of a CQ is not due to the semantics of the question. Instead, denials of the antecedent deny the presuppositions of the conditional and do not directly address the question at all.

Received for publication 1 November 2006. Revision received 2 November 2006. Accepted for publication 4 August 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.