Conditional antecedents often contain elements that require the truth of the antecedent proposition to be open. One such element is Japanese moshi, which can occur in conditional antecedents and topics. I argue that in both constructions, moshi requires the context to be “iffy”, in that the antecedent proposition or the set of individuals picked out by the topic must not be settled by the context. I build on Ebert, Christian, Cornelia Ebert & Stefan Hinterwimmer (2014. A unified analysis of conditionals as topics. Linguistics and Philosophy 37(5). 353–408) and analyze moshi as an element that imposes a variation requirement on the speech act performed by conditional antecedents and topics.
Funding source: National Science Foundation
Award Identifier / Grant number: 2116972
For comments and discussions, I am grateful to Teruyuki Mizuno, Magdalena Kaufmann, Yoshiki Fujiwara, Frank Sode, Nadine Theiler, an anonymous reviewer, and my audience at the Semantics Colloquium of Geothe University Frankfurt, UConn Meaning Group, and the workshop The Semantics and Pragmatics of Conditional Connectives at DGfS 43. I also thank the editor of this special issue, Mingya Liu. This work was supported in part by National Science Foundation, Award No. 2116972, “Research on conditional and modal language” (Magdalena Kaufmann, PI; Stefan Kaufmann, Co-PI).
Appendix: Motivation and main idea of Ebert et al. (2014)
Ebert et al.’s (2014) treatment of conditional antecedents as topics is motivated by the similarity between aboutness topics and regular hypothetical conditionals on the one hand, and between relevance topics and biscuit conditionals on the other. The gist of their analysis is that aboutness topics and antecedents of hypothetical conditionals relate with their comments/consequents via predication; specifically, they establish novel discourse referents that resolve the anaphoric elements in the comments/consequents. In contrast, relevance topics and antecedents of biscuit conditionals relate with their comments/consequents in terms of their coherence in discourse. Below, I highlight their key observations and briefly introduce how the observations are explained by their proposal.
In English, aboutness and relevance topics can be expressed by dislocating a DP to the left and by separating phrases like as for, respectively (see also Repp 2011).
|a.||The pastor, nobody likes.|
|b.||As for the pastor, the marriage sermon was wonderful.|
|(Ebert et al. 2014: 365 (38))|
In German, they can be distinguished based on the forms of the pronouns in the comment parts. In aboutness topics (the construction is called German left dislocation), the pronoun must be a weak d-pronoun, whose case must match with the case of the topic, as shown in (35). In relevance topics (usually called hanging topic left dislocation), the pronoun in the comment may occur in various forms such as the personal pronoun in (36), and its case need not match that of the topic.
|‘The pastor nobody likes.’|
|(Ebert et al. 2014: 364 (33))|
|‘The pastor, nobody likes him.’|
|(Ebert et al. 2014: 364 (34))|
See their Section 3.1 for other ways of distinguishing between the two types of topics based on prosody and binding.
Ebert et al. (2014) propose that the different requirements for resumptive pronouns reflect how each type of topics combines with their comment. For aboutness topics, the resumptive d-pronoun in the comments is analyzed as a variable that must be bound by the topical referent. Hence, the comment of (34a)/(35) is interpreted as the speaker’s commitment to the truth of the proposition that nobody likes the topical referent (i.e. the pastor) at the world of evaluation, as in (37a). For relevance topics like (34a), the comment asserts only that the proposition is true in the world of evaluation (in German (36), the anaphoric pronoun is interpreted as a free variable).
|a.||Comment of (34a)/(35) ,|
|where is bound by the referent established by the topic.|
|b.||Comment of (34b) .|
The two types of conditionals, hypothetical and biscuit conditionals, also differ in terms of whether they allow anaphoric elements in the consequents to refer to the antecedents (and also in terms of the other properties that distinguish aboutness and relevance topics). That is, hypothetical conditionals allow the pro-form then, whereas biscuit conditionals do not, as shown in (38a) versus (38b).
|a.||If Peter went shopping, (then) there is pizza in the fridge.|
|b.||If you are hungry, (*then) there is pizza in the fridge.|
Ebert et al. (2014) analyzes then as a variable that restricts the assertion of the consequent proposition, which, in the case of conditionals, picks up the world-referent established by the antecedent. By uttering (38a), the speaker thus commits to the truth of there being pizza in the fridge in the worlds where Peter went shopping, as in (39a). The consequent of biscuit conditionals, which do not allow such pro-forms, only asserts that there is pizza in the fridge in the evaluation world, as in (39b). This captures the fact that the truth of the consequents in biscuit conditionals does not depend on the truth of their antecedents.
|a.||Consequent of (38a) ,|
|where is a variable that refers to a contextually salient world-referent.|
|b.||Consequent of (38b) .|
Akatsuka, Noriko. 1985. Conditionals and the epistemic scale. Language 61(3). 625–639. https://doi.org/10.2307/414388.Search in Google Scholar
Alfonso, Anthony. 1974. Japanese language patterns: A structural approach. Tokyo: Sophia University L.L. Center of Applied Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Arita, Setsuko. 1992. Nihongo-no zyôken to syudai-no yûwa-ni tsuite – danwa-ni okeru setting kinô (Setting in discourse by conditionals and topics in Japanese). In Proceedings of Kansai Linguistic Society 12, 110–119. Kansai Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar
Arita, Setsuko. 2007. Nihongo Zyôkenbun to Zisêsetusê [Japanese conditionals and tensedness]. Tokyo: Kurosio.Search in Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Roumyana Pancheva. 2006. Conditionals. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, 638–687. Malden: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470996591.ch16Search in Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In David I. Beaver, Luis D. Casillas Martínez, Brady Z. Clark & Stefan Kaufmann (eds.), The construction of meaning, 59–88. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Ebert, Christian, Cornelia Ebert & Stefan Hinterwimmer. 2014. A unified analysis of conditionals as topics. Linguistics and Philosophy 37(5). 353–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-014-9158-4.Search in Google Scholar
Endriss, Cornelia. 2009. Quantificational topics: A scopal treatment of exceptional wide scope phenomena. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-90-481-2303-2Search in Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai & Sabine Iatridou. 2002. If and when if-clauses can restrict quantifiers. Unpublished manuscript. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Search in Google Scholar
Hinterwimmer, Stefan. 2014. A comparison of the conditional complementizers if and falls. Presentation at Wuppertaler Linguistisches Forum (WLF), Universität Wuppertal.Search in Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 1991. Topics in conditionals. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Jorden, Eleanor Harz. 1963. Beginning Japanese part II. New Haven: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Stefan. 2000. Dynamic context management. In Martina Faller, Stefan Kaufmann & Marc Pauly (eds.), Formalizing the dynamics of information, 171–188. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1986. Movement of noun phrases in Japanese. In Takashi Imai & Mamoru Saito (eds.), Issues in Japanese linguistics, 229–271. Dordrecht & Providence: Foris Publications.10.1515/9783112420423-009Search in Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620607Search in Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 1996. Adnominal conditionals. In Teresa Galloway & Justin Spence (eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory, vol. 6, 154–166. Ithaca: Cornell University & CLC Publications.10.3765/salt.v6i0.2759Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. In Edward L. Keenan (ed.), Formal semantics of natural language, 178–188. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1002/9780470758335.ch7Search in Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, use, and the interpretation of language, 127–147. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110852820.302Search in Google Scholar
Mikami, Akira. 1960. Zô wa Hana ga Nagai [As for elephants, the nose is long)]. Tokyo: Kurosio.Search in Google Scholar
Oda, Hiromune. 2021. Japanese free choice items as unconditionals. Natural Language Semantics 29(2). 281–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-021-09175-1.Search in Google Scholar
Rawlins, Kyle. 2008. (Un)conditionals: An investigation in the syntax and semantics of conditional structures. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Rawlins, Kyle. 2013. (Un)conditionals. Natural Language Semantics 21(2). 111–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9087-0.Search in Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27. 53–94. https://doi.org/10.21825/philosophica.82606.Search in Google Scholar
Repp, Sophie. 2011. Relevance topics. In Ingo Reich, Eva Horch & Dennis Pauly (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 15, 483–498. Saarbrücken: Universaar-Saarland University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5. 1–69. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6.Search in Google Scholar
Schein, Barry. 2001. Adverbial, descriptive reciprocals. In Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson & Zsofia Zvolenszky (eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory, vol. 11, 404–430. Ithaca: Cornell University.10.3765/salt.v11i0.2838Search in Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2004. Conditionals as definite descriptions. Research on Language and Computation 2(3). 417–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-004-0908-2.Search in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173438Search in Google Scholar
Sode, Frank & Ayaka Sugawara. 2018. On the deliberative use of the German modal sollte. In Kazuhiro Kojima, Maki Sakamoto, Koji Mineshima & Ken Satoh (eds.), New frontiers in artificial intelligence, 341–356. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-31605-1_25Search in Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. 1968. A theory of conditionals. Studies in Logical Theory, American Philosophical Quaterly 2. 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9117-0_2.Search in Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. 1978. Assertion. In Robert C. Stalnaker (ed.), Context and content, 78–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0198237073.003.0005Search in Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020867916902.10.1023/A:1020867916902Search in Google Scholar
Takubo, Yukinori. 2020. Conditionals in Japanese. In Wesley M. Jacobsen & Yukinori Takubo (eds.), Handbook of Japanese semantics and pragmatics, 451–494. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781614512073-009Search in Google Scholar
Tateishi, Koichi. 1990. Syntax of the conditional topic construction in Japanese. In Juli Carter, Rose-Marie Déchaine, Bill Philip & Tim Sherer (eds.), Proceedings of North East Linguistics Society, vol. 20, 458–471. Amherst: GLSA.Search in Google Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2016. Information structure in Japanese. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 753–773. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.42Search in Google Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2021. Topic. In Daniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, Cécile Meier, Hotze Rullmann & Thomas E. Zimmerman (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics, 1–31. New York: John Wiley.10.1002/9781118788516.sem125Search in Google Scholar
Yoshida, Masaya. 2006. Constraints and mechanisms in long-distance dependency formation. College Park: University of Maryland, College Park PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston