Elder&Jaszczolt.geneva2013

8/12/2019 Elder&Jaszczolt.geneva2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elderjaszczoltgeneva2013 1/34

Conditional utterances and

conditional thoughts: Aradical contextualist account

Chi-Hé Elder & Kasia JaszczoltUniversity of Cambridge

ICL19, Geneva

26 July 2013





3

Conditional utterances in English

Conditional expressions are not theonly way to express conditionalthoughts

(1) Take one more step and I’

ll kill you(2) Your money or your life



4

Conditional utterances in English

Conditional expressions can be usedfor other purposes other thanexpressing conditional thoughts

(3) If you wouldn’

t mind, could you closethe door?

(4) If that’

s a real diamond, I’

ll eat my hat!



5

A cross-linguistic perspective

Guugu Yimithirr (Australian, QNL):no overt conditionals

(5) The dog might bark. The postman mightrun away.

(Evans & Levinson 2009: 443, after Haviland 1979)



6

Outline

Classifying conditionalsConditionals and speakers

’

intentions

Recovering intended effects throughlinguistic cuesRadical contextualism

Representing conditional meaning inInteractive Semantics



7

Theoretical assumption: Want a semanticsthat captures intuitive meanings

The diversity of ways of expressingconditional meaning, as well as thediversity of uses to which conditional if canbe put, are not a problem for a radicalcontextualist theory.

Radical contextualism . Logical form may be enriched or evenoverridden to give speaker

’

s intended meaning (Jaszczolt 2010,Default Semantics)



8

Classifying conditionalsNo bi-unique correlation betweenconditional constructions and conditionalmeanings

Does not make sense to talk of a categoryof conditionals in terms of constructions

“

The history of the conditional is the storyof a syntactic mistake

”

(Kratzer 2012:106)



9

Devising criteria for classification

Want to allow that conditionalmeaning may or may not bespeaker

’

s primary intended meaning

No conditional LFPrimary meaning is conditional

Conditional LFPrimary meaning is conditionalPrimary meaning is not conditional



10

Criteria for classification

2 roles of the antecedent p :

indicates remoteness from the actualworldspeaker is not committed to its truth

is a suppositionrestricts situations in which main clauseholds



11

Pilot study (ICE-GB, Elder 2012)

46% of conditional utterances use if

Narrowing scope to conditionalconstructionsWant to look at relation between formand content



12

Conditionals and speech acts

(6) If you rang her now she’

d say yes(advice)

(7) If you hit me with it once more I’

llkill you (threat)

(8) Be great if you would do that(request)



13

Experimental studies in‘

pragmaticconditionals

’

Interlocutors infer pragmatic effectsfrom particular aspects of the contentof conditional clauses (Bonnefon & Politzer2010)

What linguistic clues generate these

inferences?



14

Speech acts: A disclaimerSpeech are not easily classifiable bygrammatical cues (cf. Austin 1962; Searle 1975;Searle & Vanderveken 1985)

It’

s not a threat it’

s a promise. If you comenear my family once more I ’ ll kill you.

Speakers may not be aware of the speechact they are performing (cf. Sperber & Wilson1995)

Illocutionary forces may be derivedpragmaticallyLabels used are for exemplification only



15

Example(9) If you drop the vase it will break

>> Don’

t drop the vase

Conditional warningMain message: Don

’

t do p

p qhearer

’

s action negative consequence



16

Indicators of speech acts

Does p or q express volition? If so, ofwhom?

Does the outcome described in q have a positive/negative effect onsomeone? If so, on whom?



17

Threat(10) If you do that one more time I

’

ll kill you

Main message: Don’

t do p

p q

hearer’

s action speaker’

s action

negative consequenceto hearer



18

Conditional offer(11) If you

’

re hungry there are biscuits on thesideboard

>> If you’

re hungry there are biscuits whichyou may have on the sideboard

>> If you’

re hungry please help yourself tobiscuits on the sideboard

Issuing authority is speakerMain message: You may do q

p qhearer

’

s actionpositive consequence



19

Discussion

Utterance may have conditional LFwith non-conditional primary meaning

LF may be overridden to give primarymeaningConstituent parts of conditionalconstruction may beenriched/overridden giving input tonon-conditional implicature



20

No consequent?(12) Now if you

’

d like to put on your helmet…that

’

d be great?…you

’

ll be safe?

…the police won’

t catch you?>> put on your helmet

There need not be one single intendedconsequent recoverable from the contextAt the level of thoughts, there may notbe an intention of a consequent



21

Now if you’

d like to put on yourhelmet…

p q (inferred)

hearer’

s action positive consequence

Conventionalised use of if

Main message: Do p



22

Intermediary conclusionsSpeaker

’

s primary intended meaning mayarise at any level of pragmatic processThere are different degrees of intentionsassociated with conditional meaning

Why would we want to capture this varietyof meaning in semantics?How is it possible to capture this variety ofmeaning of conditionals in semantics?



23

Conditionals in radicalcontextualism“

…while perhaps none of the logicalconnectives are universally lexicallyexpressed, there is no evidence thatlanguages differ in whether or notlogical connectives are present intheir logical forms .

”

(von Fintel & Matthewson 2008:170)



24

Suppositions as primary orsecondary meanings

(12) Now if you’

d like to put on yourhelmet



25

Conditionals in Default SemanticsK. M. Jaszczolt, 2005. DefaultSemantics: Foundations of aCompositional Theory of Acts ofCommunication . Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press

K. M. Jaszczolt, 2010.‘

DefaultSemantics

’

. In: B. Heine and H.Narrog (eds). The OxfordHandbook of Linguistic Analysis .Oxford: Oxford University Press,215-246.



world knowledge (WK)

word meaning and sentence structure (WS)

situation of discourse (SD)

stereotypes and presumptions properties of human inferential system (IS)about society and culture (SC)

Fig. 1: Sources of information contributing to a merger representation Σ

merger representation Σ



Primary meaning:

combination of word meaningand sentence structure (WS)

conscious pragmatic inference pm (from situation of discourse, social and

social, cultural and cognitive defaults (CD) cultural assumptions, and worldworld-knowledge defaults pm (SCWD pm) knowledge) (CPI pm)

Secondary meanings: Social, cultural and world-knowledge defaults sm (SCWD sm) conscious pragmatic inference sm (CPI sm)

Fig. 2: Utterance interpretation according to the processing model of the revisedversion of Default Semantics

merger representation Σ



28

sources of information types of processes



29

Mapping between sources andprocesses

WK SCWD or CPISC SCWD or CPIWS WS (logical form)

SD CPIIS CD

DS/IS makes use of the processing modeland it indexes the components of ∑ with asubscript standing for the type ofprocessing



Representing conditional thought (twodimensions)1. p ? ∑,PM

‘

If you leave your tea on a wobbly table…’

2. p ? ∑, SM‘

If you’

d like to put your helmet on’

PM: Put your helmet on

3. p q WS, PM‘

If it rains we’

ll stay at home’

4. p q WS, SM‘

If you’

re hungry, there are biscuits on the sideboard’

PM: Helpyourself to biscuits

5. ? p q ∑, PM ‘

Touch his iPad and he’

ll scream’

PM: If you touch his iPad he’

llscream

’

6. ? ? p q ∑, SM ‘

Please put your helmet on’

SM: If you put your helmet on,you ’ ll be safer ’



31

Fig 3: ∑ for 2. p ? ∑, SM‘

If you’

d like to put your helmet on’

∑

x y e 1 e2

the addressee (x)helmet (y)

e1: [the speaker requests e 2]CD, CPIpm

e2: [x put on y] WS



32

Fig 4: ∑ for 5. p q ∑, PM‘

Touch his iPad and he’

ll scream’

∑

x y z e 1 e2

the addressee (x)ipad (y)contextually salient male (z)

[e 1 → e 2]CD, CPIpm

[ACC tf e1] CD, CPIpm

[ACC rf e2]WS

e1: [x touch z’s y ]WS, CD, CPIpm e2: [z scream] WS



33

ConclusionsConditional thought may constitute primary or secondarymeaning and may be expressed by a conditional or othersentence form ;

When conditional thought is adopted as the object ofstudy, the category of conditionals cannot be restrictedto specific constructions;

The diversity of (i) uses to which conditional if can beput and (ii) ways of expressing conditional meaning canbe represented in a radical contextualist account

(DS/IS);

DS/IS allows us to represent (i) the intended use ofconditional sentences, as well as (ii) conditionalmeaning expressed in a non-conditional form.



ReferencesAustin, J. L. 1962. How To Do Things With Words . eds. J. O. Urmson & M. Sbisa.

Harvard University Press.Bonnefon, J.-F. & G. Politzer. 2010.

‘

Pragmatic conditional, conditional

pragmatics, and the pragmatic component of conditional reasoning’

. InCognition and Conditionals: Probability and Logic in Human Thinking , eds. M.Oaksford & N. Chater. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elder, C-H. 2012.‘

The underlying conditionality of conditionals which do not useif

’

eds. J. Naruadol Chancharu, X. F. Hu & M. Mitrovic. CambridgeOccasional Papers in Linguistics 6.

Evans, N. & S. C. Levinson. 2009.‘

The myth of language universals: Languagediversity and its importance for cognitive science

’

. Behavioral and Brain

Sciences 32 (05), 429 – 448.von Fintel, K. & L. Matthewson. 2008.‘

Universals in semantics’

. Linguisticreview 25 (1/2), 139.

Jaszczolt, K. M. 2005. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theoryof Acts of Communication . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jaszczolt, K. M. 2010.‘

Default Semantics’

. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis , eds. B. Heine & H. Narrog. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.193 – 221.

Jaszczolt, K. M. forthcoming. Interactive Semantics . Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.Kratzer, A. 1991.

‘

Conditionals’

. Reprinted in 2012, Modals and Conditionals .Oxford University Press, pp. 86-108.

Searle, J. R. 1975.‘

Indirect Speech Acts’

. Syntax and Semantics 3, 59 – 82.Searle, J. R. & D. Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of illocutionary logic .

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition .

Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	thecatalan
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Elder&Jaszczolt.geneva2013

Documents