Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics Vanguard

A Multimodal Journal for the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Bergs, Alexander / Cohn, Abigail C. / Good, Jeff


CiteScore 2018: 0.95

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.381
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.841

Online
ISSN
2199-174X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

What is wrong with false-link conditionals?

Karolina Krzyżanowska
  • Corresponding author
  • Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-07-11 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0006

Abstract

It is a common intuition that the antecedent of an indicative conditional should have something to do with its consequent, that they should be somehow connected. In fact, many conditionals sound unacceptable precisely because they seem to suggest a connection which is not there. Although the majority of semantic theories of conditionals treat this phenomenon as something pragmatic, for instance, something that is conversationally implicated, no one has offered a full-fledged pragmatic explanation of why missing-link, and, in particular, false-link conditionals strike us as odd. The aim of this paper is to explore the possibility that the link is an example of a conversational implicature. We discuss possible tests one can employ to identify conversational implicatures, and, ultimately, we show that the connection between a conditional’s antecedent and consequent fails them all.

Keywords: indicative conditionals; conversational implicature; pragmatics

References

  • Adams, Ernest W. 1975. The logic of conditionals. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

  • Bach, Kent. 1999. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22. 327–366.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Beaver, David I. & Bart Geurts. 2014. Presupposition. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition). Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/presupposition/ (accessed 1 December 2018).

  • Bennett, Jonathan. 2003. A philosophical guide to conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Birner, Betty J. 2013. Introduction to pragmatics (Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 24). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Blome-Tillmann, Michael. 2008. Conversational implicature and the cancellability test. Analysis 68(2). 156–160.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Declerck, Renaat & Susan Reed. 2001. Conditionals: A comprehensive empirical analysis. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Douven, Igor. 2008. The evidential support theory of conditionals. Synthese 164(1). 19–44.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Douven, Igor. 2016. The epistemology of indicative conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Douven, Igor. 2017. How to account for the oddness of missing-link conditionals. Synthese 194(5). 1541–1554.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Douven, Igor & Sara Verbrugge. 2012. Indicatives, concessives, and evidential support. Thinking & Reasoning 18(4). 480–499.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Douven, Igor, Shira Elqayam, Henrik Singmann & Janneke van Wijnbergen-Huitink. 2018. Conditionals and inferential connections: A hypothetical inferential theory. Cognitive Psychology 101. 50–81.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Edgington, Dorothy. 1995. On conditionals. Mind 104(414). 235–329.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jackson, Frank. 1987. Conditionals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M. 2005. Default semantics: Foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Johnson-Laird, Philip N. & Ruth M. J. Byrne 2002. Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychological Review 109(4). 646–678.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Krzyżanowska, Karolina. 2018. Deliberationally useless conditionals. Forthcoming in Episteme.Google Scholar

  • Krzyżanowska, Karolina, Sylvia Wenmackers & Igor Douven. 2013. Inferential conditionals and evidentiality. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 22(3). 315–334.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Krzyżanowska, Karolina, Sylvia Wenmackers & Igor Douven. 2014. Rethinking Gibbard’s riverboat argument. Studia Logica 102(4). 771–792.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Lauer, Sven. 2013. Towards a dynamic pragmatics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalised conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Lycan, William G. 2001. Real conditionals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.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.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Pagin, Peter & Francis Jeffrey Pelletier. 2007. Content, context and composition. In Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peter (eds.), Context-Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism: New Essays on Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Recanati, François. 2010. Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Rostworowski, Wojciech, Natalia Pietrulewicz & Marcin Będkowski. 2016. Conditionals and content connection in the experimental perspective. Manuscript.Google Scholar

  • Sadock, Jerrold M. 1978. On testing for conversational implicature. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics: Pragmatics, 281–297. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Skovgaard-Olsen, Niels. 2016. Motivating the relevance approach to conditionals. Mind & Language 31(5). 555–579.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Skovgaard-Olsen, Niels, Henrik Singmann & Karl Christoph Klauer. 2017. Relevance and reason relations. Cognitive Science 41(S5). 1202–1215.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Skovgaard-Olsen, Niels, Peter Collins, Karolina Krzyżanowska, Ulrike Hahn & Karl Christoph Klauer. 2019. Cancellation, negation, and rejection. Cognitive Psychology 108. 42–71.PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Unterhuber, Matthias. 2013. Possible worlds semantics for indicative and counterfactual conditionals? A formal philosophical inquiry into Chellas-Segerberg semantics. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.Google Scholar

  • van Rooij, Robert & Katrin Schulz. 2018. Conditionals, causality and conditional probability. Forthcoming in Journal of Logic, Language and Information.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Verbrugge, Sara. 2007. A psycholinguistic analysis of inferential conditional sentences. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Woods, Michael. 2003. Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-07-18

Accepted: 2019-03-22

Published Online: 2019-07-11


Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, Volume 5, Issue s3, 20190006, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0006.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in