<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W98-0313">
  <Title>Discourse Relations versus Discourse Marker Relations</Title>
  <Section position="6" start_page="76" end_page="77" type="evalu">
    <SectionTitle>
4 Applications
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Assertion-Imperative This the (4-b) case. * You are late : (S~'&amp;quot;'t,S'l '~p) ---+ = C/irnp C/imp ec late) (by def. 6 S~ ssert ~ late, ~2 : ~1 and 8).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> We assume a rule r: late ~ Must highway. When somebody is late, she must take the highway (in certain circumstances).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> C/irnp ~c r) accepts 2vlust highway. (S~ .... t * r, ~2 Take the highway : (S ~r, S~mP~BCr~.BChighway) ~sser~ &gt; * r, s; # C/).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Success is warranted because the principle Must ~ Might entail that any conditional update with highway will be succesful. Of course, (4-b) could be issued in a context where the addresse is already on the highway. It would then be infelicitous, but DONC is not responsible for this communication clash.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Imperative-Imperative Let us explain the contrast (4-c)-(4-d). In (4-c), we have: Be on time : (S 1 ,S 1 ) ~ = sassert C/irnp ~irnp ec time). 1 , ~2 = '-,1 on We assume there is a rule r = on time ~ highway. This rule is intended to mean that somebody who is on time is on the highway or took the highway. q~mp ec r) accepts highway. (S~ 's~'~ * r, ~2 \[ Sasser~ m r S~mP eCr~ehighway) Take the highway : ~ 2 ~ , C/imp * r, # C/)&amp;quot; 7~-entailment holds, but the imperative update associated with Q (=take the highway) is bound ~imp to fail, since ~'2 accepts highway. This is a case where satisfying the DONC constraint amounts to an  illocutionary suicide: the rule which licenses DONC forbids us to update non-conditionally on the right sentence. A similar explanation goes for (4-e). If the rule links the event of taking the highway and its result (being on time), any update with on time fails or is infelicitous, since the addressee is asked to obtain a result (being on time) which is anyway, in the imperative world, an unescapable consequence of what she 'did' (taking the highway) in the same world.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> In (4~d), we have: Try to be on time: (S~ sser~,S~ rnp) ~ (S~ ssert = Sasser~ C/irnp imp c time). 1 ,&amp;quot;2 = S 1 $ try on We assume that there is a rule r = try on time Must highway, which is intended to mean that somebody who wants to be on time is going to take the highway.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> (S~ &amp;quot;Se't @ r, ~mp @c r) accepts Must highway. ~2 Take the highway: (ST'BettOr, S~mP $Cr~ChPSghway) ~irap (S~ s'er~ $ r,~ C/ ~). Success is warranted because of the Must ~ Might constraint of definition 4.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> As noted above, questions on the left are not updates and are thus blocked by def. 8. In contrast, Might assertions are treated on a par with assertions. So, Paul might come, DONC he might meet Henry would analyzed with the help of rules like Might come ~ Might meet, possibly based over non-modal rules like come ~ meet in T~. Finally, assertion-assertion structures are essentially unproblematic.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>