Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton April 27, 2018

Missing-link conditionals: pragmatically infelicitous or semantically defective?

Karolina Krzyżanowska

Karolina Krzyżanowska: is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute for Logic, Language and Computation of the University of Amsterdam. She obtained her PhD in Philosophy from the University of Groningen in 2015. Before coming to Amsterdam, she was a research fellow at the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy and at the Center for Advanced Studies of the LMU Munich. Her research interests include semantics and pragmatics of conditionals, and their role in reasoning and decision making.

and Igor Douven

Igor Douven (PhD Leuven) is a CNRS Research Professor at Sorbonne University, Paris. His current research is mainly in cognitive science, having to do with concepts, conditionals, and non-deductive inference. Previously, he worked in philosophy, especially in formal epistemology, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science.

EMAIL logo
From the journal Intercultural Pragmatics

Abstract

According to virtually all major theories of conditionals, conditionals with a true antecedent and a true consequent are true. Yet conditionals whose antecedent and consequent have nothing to do with each other—so-called missing-link conditionals—strike us as odd, regardless of the truth values of their constituent clauses. Most theorists attribute this apparent oddness to pragmatics, but on a recent proposal, it rather betokens a semantic defect. Research in experimental pragmatics suggests that people can be more or less sensitive to pragmatic cues and may be inclined to differing degrees to evaluate a true sentence carrying a false implicature as false. We report the results of an empirical study that investigated whether people’s sensitivity to false implicatures is associated with how they tend to evaluate missing-link conditionals with true clauses. These results shed light on the question of whether missing-link conditionals are best seen as pragmatically infelicitous or rather as semantically defective.

About the authors

Karolina Krzyżanowska

Karolina Krzyżanowska: is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute for Logic, Language and Computation of the University of Amsterdam. She obtained her PhD in Philosophy from the University of Groningen in 2015. Before coming to Amsterdam, she was a research fellow at the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy and at the Center for Advanced Studies of the LMU Munich. Her research interests include semantics and pragmatics of conditionals, and their role in reasoning and decision making.

Igor Douven

Igor Douven (PhD Leuven) is a CNRS Research Professor at Sorbonne University, Paris. His current research is mainly in cognitive science, having to do with concepts, conditionals, and non-deductive inference. Previously, he worked in philosophy, especially in formal epistemology, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science.

References

Adams, Ernest. 1965. The logic of conditionals. Inquiry, 8:166–197.10.1007/978-94-015-7622-2Search in Google Scholar

Adams, Ernest. 1975. The Logic of Conditionals. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-015-7622-2Search in Google Scholar

Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Barrouillet, Pierre & Caroline Gauffroy. 2015. Probability in reasoning: A developmental test on conditionals. Cognition 137. 22–39.10.1016/j.cognition.2014.12.002Search in Google Scholar

Barrouillet, Pierre, Nelly Grosset & Jean-Francois Lecas. 2000. Conditional reasoning by mental models: Chronometric and developmental evidence. Cognition 75(3). 237–266.10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00066-4Search in Google Scholar

Barrouillet, Pierre & Jean-Francois Lecas. 1999. Mental models in conditional reasoning and working memory. Thinking & Reasoning 5(4). 289–302.10.1080/135467899393940Search in Google Scholar

Bennett, Jonathan. 2003. A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals. Oxford University Press, Oxford.10.1093/0199258872.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Bott, Lewis & Ira A. Noveck. 2004. Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language 51. 437–457.10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006Search in Google Scholar

Caroline, Gauffroy & Pierre Barrouillet. 2014. Conditional reasoning in context: A developmental dual processes account. Thinking & Reasoning 20(3). 372–384. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2013.853695.Search in Google Scholar

Chinn, Susan. 2000. A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta- analysis. Statistics in Medicine 19. 3127–3131.10.1002/1097-0258(20001130)19:22<3127::AID-SIM784>3.0.CO;2-MSearch in Google Scholar

Cruz, Nicole, David Over Mike Oaksford & Jean Baratgin. 2016. Centering and the meaning of conditionals. In Anna Papafragou, Daniel Grodner, Daniel Mirman & John C. Trueswell, editors, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1104–1109, Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Search in Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald. 1967. Truth and meaning. Synthese 17(3). 304–323.10.1007/BF00485035Search in Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald. 2001. A coherence theory of truth and knowledge. In Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective, 137–153. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0198237537.003.0010Search in Google Scholar

Douven, Igor. 2008. The evidential support theory of conditionals. Synthese 164(1). 19–44.10.1007/s11229-007-9214-5Search in Google Scholar

Douven, Igor. 2016. The Epistemology of Indicative Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316275962Search in Google Scholar

Douven, Igor. 2017a. How to account for the oddness of missing-link conditionals. Synthese 194 (5). 1541–1554. doi: 10.1007/s11229-015-0756-7.Search in Google Scholar

Douven, Igor. 2017b Abduction. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, California, CA: Stanford University.Search in Google Scholar

Douven, Igor, Shira Elqayam, Henrik Singmann & Janneke Van Wijngaarden-Huitink. 2018 (in press). Conditionals and inferential connections: A hypothetical inferential theory. Cognitive Psychology.10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.09.002Search in Google Scholar

Douven, Igor & Patricia Mirabile. 2018. (in press). Best, second-best, and good-enough explanations: How they matter to reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.10.1037/xlm0000545Search in Google Scholar

Douven, Igor & Sara Verbrugge. 2012. Indicatives, concessives, and evidential support. Thinking & Reasoning 18(4). 480–499.10.1080/13546783.2012.716009Search in Google Scholar

Edgington, Dorothy. 1995. On conditionals. Mind 104(414). 235–329.10.1093/mind/104.414.235Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Jonathan St, B. T. Julie, L Barston & Paul Pollard. 1983. On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & cognition 11(3). 295–306.10.3758/BF03196976Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Jonathan St, B. T. Simon, J. Handley & David E. Over. 2003. Conditionals and conditional probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29(2). 321–335.10.1037/0278-7393.29.2.321Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Jonathan St. B. T., Simon J. Handley, Helen Neilens & David E. Over. 2007. Thinking about conditionals: A study of individual differences. Memory & Cognition. 35(7). 1772–1784.10.3758/BF03193509Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Jonathan St. B. T. & David E. Over. 2004. If. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198525134.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, Philip N. & M. J. Byrne Ruth. 2002. Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychological Review 109(4). 646–678.10.1037/0033-295X.109.4.646Search in Google Scholar

Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Klauer, Karl Christoph, Jochen Musch & Birgit Naumer. 2000. On belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. Psychological Review 107. 852–884.10.1037/0033-295X.107.4.852Search in Google Scholar

Krzyżanowska, Karolina, Peter J. Collins & Ulrike Hahn. 2017. Between a conditional’s antecedent and its consequent: Discourse coherence vs. probabilistic relevance. Cognition 164. 199–205.10.1016/j.cognition.2017.03.009Search in Google Scholar

Krzyżanowska, Karolina, Sylvia Wenmackers & Igor Douven. 2013. Inferential conditionals and evidentiality. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 22(3). 315–334.10.1007/s10849-013-9178-4Search in Google Scholar

Krzyżanowska, Karolina, Sylvia Wenmackers & Igor Douven. 2014. Rethinking Gibbard’s riverboat argument. Studia Logica 102(4). 771–792.10.1007/s11225-013-9507-2Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA. The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Oberauer, Klaus, Sonja M. Geiger, Katrin Fischer & Andrea Weidenfeld. 2007a. Two meanings of “if ”? Individual differences in the interpretation of conditionals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60(6). 790–819.10.1080/17470210600822449Search in Google Scholar

Oberauer, Klaus, Andrea Weidenfeld & Katrin Fischer. 2007b. What makes us believe a conditional? the roles of covariation and causality. Thinking & Reasoning 13(4). 340–369.10.1080/13546780601035794Search in Google Scholar

Over, David E., Constantinos Hadjichristidis, Jonathan St. B.T. Evans, Simon J. Handley & Steven A. Sloman. 2007. The probability of causal conditionals. Cognitive Psychology 54. 62–97.10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.05.002Search in Google Scholar

Pearson, Ronald. 2011. Exploring Data in Engineering, the Sciences, and Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Politzer, Guy & Jean Baratgin. 2015. Deductive schemas with uncertain premises using qualitative probability expressions. Thinking & Reasoning 22(1). 78–98. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2015.1052561.Search in Google Scholar

Rieger, Adam. 2013. Conditionals are material: The positive arguments. Synthese 190(15). 3161–3174. doi: 10.1007/s11229-012-0134-7.Search in Google Scholar

Rieger, Adam. 2015. Defending a simple theory of conditionals. American Philosophical Quarterly 52(3). 253–260.Search in Google Scholar

Skovgaard-Olsen, Niels, Henrik Singmann & Karl Christoph Klauer. 2016a. The relevance effect and conditionals. Cognition. 150. 26–36.10.1016/j.cognition.2015.12.017Search in Google Scholar

Skovgaard-Olsen, Niels, Henrik Singmann & Karl Christoph Klauer. 2016b. Relevance and reason relations. Cognitive Science. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12462.Search in Google Scholar

Spohn, Wolfgang. 2013. A ranking-theoretic approach to conditionals. Cognitive Science 37(6). 1074–1106.10.1111/cogs.12057Search in Google Scholar

Spychalska, Maria, Jarmo Kontinen & Markus Werning. 2016. Investigating scalar implicatures in a truth-value judgement task: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31(6). 817–840. doi: 10.1080/23273798. 1161806.Search in Google Scholar

Stalnaker, Robert. 1968. A theory of conditionals. In Nicholas Rescher, editor, Studies in Logical Theory, American Philosophical Quarterly Monograph Series 2, 98–112. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Stalnaker, Robert. 1975. Indicative conditionals. Philosophia 5(3). 269–286.10.1007/BF02379021Search in Google Scholar

Sztencel, Magdalena. 2018. Semantics, Pragmatics and Meaning Revisited: The Case of Conditionals. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-69116-9Search in Google Scholar

Vidal, Mathieu & Jean Baratgin. 2017. A psychological study of unconnected conditionals. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 29. 769–781. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2017. 1305388.Search in Google Scholar

Von Fintel, Kai. 2012. Subjunctive conditionals. In Gillian Russell & Graff Fara Delia, editors, The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language, 466–477. Routledge: New York.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-4-27
Published in Print: 2018-4-25

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 30.1.2023 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ip-2018-0004/html
Scroll Up Arrow