Gutzmann (2015): Use-Conditional Meaning #

This file formalizes the logic L_TU of [Gut15], chapter 4, and its two case studies, sentence mood (chapter 5) and German modal particles (chapter 6). An expression of L_TU has three dimensions, truth-conditional content, active use-conditional content, and the completed use-conditional propositions; multidimensional application (4.46) applies functions in the first two and merges the third, and use-conditional elimination (4.54) stores a completed second dimension in the third, Expr.app and Expr.elim. The lexical extension rules (4.55), (4.56), and (4.67) build three-dimensional entries from one-dimensional ones, giving a use-conditional item an identity function as its truth-conditional dimension, Expr.ofModifier. The principle of non-interaction (4.28) is then a theorem about every derivation, Deriv.eval_t: its truth-conditional dimension is computed from the lexical items' first dimensions alone. Sentence mood follows Truckenbrodt's decomposition into a deontic operator (5.85), present in every matrix clause by the root rule (5.43), an epistemic modifier of it (5.91), present where a [±wh] feature is visible at LF (5.41), and the hearer knowledge condition (5.99) of v2-interrogatives; the German clause types compose as in (5.82), (5.93), and (5.100), ClauseType.mood, so every clause's truth conditions are its content, its use conditions are the deontic attitude, and a v2-interrogative differs from a vl-interrogative exactly by hearer knowledge, the Cuban cigar scenario (5.36). Of the modal particles, wohl modifies the epistemic operator (6.103), so its exclusion from imperatives and root dass-clauses is a type mismatch: no derivation over their lexicon reaches the epistemic type, Derivable, and the book's wohl examples are acceptable exactly where one does, wohl_rows; ja (6.122) and denn (6.133) compose with any mood, and their use conditions in the excluded clause types, (6.129) and (6.142), are ones the book argues no rational speaker holds. The book's examples are the rows of Data.Examples.Gutzmann2015.

Truckenbrodt's five clause types are read off the library's clause cells, ClauseType.ofCell: the finite verb moves to C in a root declarative or interrogative, while a dass-clause or a deliberative ob- or wh-question used as a root utterance, Evans's insubordination, keeps it last, and the imperative stands apart, (5.39). On the cells both classify, Truckenbrodt's verb movement is the verb-second requirement of German.verbSecond, verbInC_iff_required; the sentence types in which Durrell licenses wohl all have a clause type carrying the epistemic modifier, wohl_licensed_hasEpistemic; and where Durrell excludes a modal particle from a cell the book's row there is unacceptable, excluded_rows.

Implementation notes #

The type system (4.45) is taken at the propositional fragment: t is the type of propositions, the book's ⟨s,t⟩, and entities are omitted, so the typology of chapter 2 and the expressive-modification examples of chapter 4 are not formalized. The deontic and epistemic operators quantify over contextually suitable attitude predicates (5.84), (5.90), which a MoodModel supplies together with the hearer knowledge, common knowledge, assumption, and reason predicates the particles' lexical entries use. The rationality step that rules out ja in interrogatives and denn outside v2-interrogatives (section 6.5.2) is not a theorem of the logic, so their use conditions are derived and the restriction is left to the rows.

Gutzmann (2015): Use-Conditional Meaning #

Implementation notes #

References #

The logic L_TU, chapter 4 #

Sentence mood, chapter 5 #

Modal particles, chapter 6 #

Selectional restrictions due to types, section 6.5.1 #

The logic `L_TU`, chapter 4 #