‘Who’ and ‘whether’: Towards a theory of indirect question clauses

Linguistics and Philosophy 2 (3):307-345 (1978)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper shows in detail how the formal semiotic of M. J. Cresswell [6] may be extended to provide an account of indirect question clauses in English. The resulting account is compared at various points with the theory recently propounded by Karttunen [12] and is argued to have two major advantages over the latter in that (i) it accommodates the manifest teleological relativity of ‘who’-clauses, and (ii) it avoids the need for categorial segregation of sentence-taking verbs from wh-clause-taking verbs while offering a uniform explanation of various apparent semantic differences between them.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,779

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-02-23

Downloads
14 (#991,618)

6 months
3 (#1,206,053)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Question‐directed attitudes.Jane Friedman - 2013 - Philosophical Perspectives 27 (1):145-174.
The Face‐Value Theory, Know‐that, Know‐wh and Know‐how.Giulia Felappi - 2019 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 8 (1):63-72.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Syntax and semantics of questions.Lauri Karttunen - 1977 - Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1):3--44.
Knowing who.Steven E. Boër & William G. Lycan - 1975 - Philosophical Studies 28 (5):299 - 344.
Logics and Language.M. J. Cresswell - 1973 - Mind 84 (336):623-625.
Intensional logics and logical truth.M. J. Cresswell - 1972 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 1 (1):2 - 15.
Proper names and formal semiotic.Steven E. Boër - 1978 - Synthese 38 (1):73 - 112.

View all 6 references / Add more references