Conditional reasoning and types

of alternativity

Barbara Dancygier

University of British Columbia

barbara.dancygier@ubc.ca

Main points (1)

conditionals, as we know, represent

different types of reasonings (predictive,

inferential, etc.)

these types can be distinguished with

formal criteria (verb forms, clause order,

etc.)

2

Main points (2)

they hold in various cognitive domains

(content, epistemic, speech act,

metalinguistic)

but are also governed by more general

reasoning patterns, such as

alternativity.

3

Plan of the talk

Components and markers of

conditionality

Types of conditional reasonings

Intersubjectivity and alternativity

4

Plan of the talk

Components and markers of

conditionality

Types of conditional reasonings

Intersubjectivity and alternativity

5

Components of conditionality

Sequentiality

Causality

Unassertability and epistemic stance

Alternativity in content domain

6

Sequentiality (1)

The sequence of clauses in a prototypical

conditional construction is iconic of the

sequence of steps in the reasoning, in the

appropriate domain:

the protasis p precedes the apodosis q in

the reasoning (event p precedes event q,

premise p precedes conclusion q, etc.)

7

Sequentiality (2)

(1) If he needs money, he will call you.

(2) If he called you so soon, he really needs

money.

8

Causality (1)

Conditionals assume a causal link between

p and q, so that

(1) If he needs money, he will call you.

relies on the assumption that needing help

may cause x to seek contact; it may cause

other kinds of behavior (an attempt to find

employment, rob a bank, etc.)

9

Causality (2)

The same causal connection underlies

example (2):

(2) If he called you so soon, he really needs

money.

Even though the temporal sequence is

reversed, the inferential reasoning uses p to

conclude q, on the basis of a known causal

relation.

10

Causality (3)

temporal sequence and causal sequence of

events do not always coincide (ex. [2])

the type of reasoning determines the

relationship

causality may thus be foregrounded (ex.

[1]) or backgrounded (ex.[2])

these levels of causal meaning need to be

distinguished (see below)

11

Unassertability (1)

conditionals have been described as

representing various levels of

‘reality’ (potentialis, irrealis, etc.)

but, even if assumptions of factuality are

evoked, the presence of if (or another

conditional conjunction) excludes

asserted or factual status of p and q.

12

Unassertability (2)

I have argued for general

‘unassertability’ of conditionals

(Dancygier 1998), and

I will now show how it interacts with

other aspects of conditional meaning

13

Unassertability (3)

unassertablility is most obvious in

central members of the ‘conditionals’

class - in predictives:

(1) If he needs money, he will call you.

sentence (1) refers to the future and

makes no assumptions about p (or q)

becoming a fact

14

Unassertability (4)

inferential conditionals present p’s which

may be contextually viewed as factual:

(2) If he called you so soon, he really

needs money.

but these are not presented as factual by

the speaker (see contextual givenness

and alternativity below).

15

Unassertability (5)

expressions of epistemic distance may lead

to irrealis or counterfactual meanings, but

they only add further distancing to the

absence of asserted status:

(1a) If he needed money, he would call you.

(1b) If he had needed money, he would

have called you.

16

Unassertability (5)

unassertability is closely related to what

Dancygier and Sweetser (2005) call

alternativity

however, their specific relationship calls

for an explanation

17

Alternativity (1)

In (1),

(1) If he needs money, he will call you.

p sets up a non-predicted mental space;

from p, the speaker predicts q as its

result

18

Alternativity (2)

the non-predicted status of p instantiates

unassertability, but it also prompts a

mental space set up where p does not

occur and, as a result, q does not either

this mental space configuration was

referred to in Dancygier and Sweetser

(2005) as alternativity

19

Alternativity (3)

alternativity characterizes all predictive

reasonings (including coordinate and

paratactic constructions)

it is the source of ‘biconditional’

meanings of predictives

it also correlates with distanced verb

forms

20

Base SpaceFuture Alt-future

Hearer caught by

police

Hearer pays Hearer does

not pay

Speaker takes

hearer to

‘nicer’ prison

Speaker takes

hearer to

‘worse’ prison

Future-Pred Alt-Future-Pred

You pay us a trillion bucks and we’ll take you to a Hoosegow.

If you pay us a trillion bucks, we’ll take you to a Hoosegow. Alternativity (4)

alternativity as a mental space set-up is

thus a part of predictiveness

its correlates with distanced forms, and so

it does not apply to non-predictive

conditionals;

it may be viewed as relying on Verhagen’s

model of communication (2005):

22

Alternativity (5)

appropriate categorizations, and

managing construals across different

discourse participants;

construal configuration:

‘object of categorization’

‘subject of categorization (participants, shared

knowledge, circumstances, etc.)

Two goals of communication:

23

Alternativity (6)

all communicative acts are inferential

and argumentative in nature

‘managing the relations among

participants’ is achieved constructionally

consequently, predictive constructions

can be seen as one example of such

‘management’

24

Alternativity (7)

in predictive conditionals, the speaker

presents the reader with a correlation

between two mental spaces

the relation between these mental spaces is

in the ‘object of categorization’

the ‘alternative’ scenario is also in the

‘object of categorization’

25

Alternativity (8)

but the presentation of the reasoning as

predictive has an argumentative role,

and involves constructional choices

these constructional signals of

alternativity serve the ‘construal

management’ role, in that they prevent

construing predictive conditionals as

positive in stance.

26

Epistemic stance (1)

among three types of stance (positive,

neutral, negative), only neutral and

negative are marked in conditionals

a conjunction like if and/or predictive

verb forms correlate with neutral stance

distanced verb forms add negative

stance

27

Epistemic stance (2)

negative stance may yield

counterfactuality as its consequence,

when the alternative scenario is the one

presented as assertable at least partially

in fact, the minimal assumption of

assertability concerns the causal relation

between p and q, while attitudes to p and

q (independently) vary in context

28

Epistemic stance (3)

distanced forms then mark the speaker

as expressing different stances to the two

alternative scenarios: negative stance

marks the reasoning presented in the

sentence, while positive stance is

attributed to the ‘unspoken’ alternative.

29

Epistemic stance (4)

the use of distanced forms is a constructional

signal of the relationship between the two

alternative scenarios in the ‘object of

categorization’ and the speaker’s intended

argument

the argument signals the speaker’s alignment

with one of the scenarios (the unspoken

‘assertable’ alternative), and invites the hearer

to share that alignment

30

Epistemic stance (5)

If he needed money, he would have called

two causally linked scenarios in the ‘object

of categorization’: need of money a call

and no need of money no call

speaker knows hearer worries about his son

in college needing money and both

participants know no call

31

Epistemic stance (6)

speaker presents one scenario as distanced:

need of money a call

to suggest positive stance to the other:

no need of money no call

the shared knowledge of no call thus argues

for no need of money

the argument is thus addressed at the

contextually relevant concerns

32

Epistemic stance (7)

particular shared assumptions and

speaker/hearer attitudes to profiled and

alternative scenarios may vary, but the

argumentative function of ‘object-of-

categorization’ alternativity remains

33

Epistemic stance (8)

an attested example illustrates the

interaction among various levels of

meaning:

If I had seen the machete, I would have

acted differently

Components of conditionality

Prototypical (predictive) conditionality

thus relies on all the components:

sequentiality

causality

unassertability

alternativity

35

Components of conditionality

such predictive reasonings present the

speaker’s understanding of correlations

in the ‘object of categorization’

they are naturally mediated by the

speaker’s and hearer’s knowledge,

expectations, concerns, etc.

36

Markers of conditionality

Conjunctions

Verb forms

Clause order

37

conditional conjunctions (if, then)

complex conditional conjunctions

(unless, even if, only if, if only...)

coordinate conjunctions (and, or)

Conjunctions

38

Verb forms (1)

Predictive

Non-predictive

Imperative

Distanced forms

39

Verb forms (2)

Predictive verb forms

p (present tense), q (will+verb)

p (imperative), q (will+verb)

Non-predictive verb forms

no restrictions (including will + verb in

p)

40

Verb forms (3)

(1) If he needs money, he will call you.

(2) If he called you so soon, he really

needs money.

(3) You pay us a trillion bucks and we’ll

take you to a Hoosegow.

(4) If he (had) needed money, he would

call (have called) you.

41

Verb forms (4)

(5) If he won’t get here on time, we

should start now.

(6) Pay us a trillion bucks, and we’ll take

you to a Hoosegow.

(7) Pay us a trillion bucks, or we’ll take

you to the Clink.

42

Clause order

if p, (then) q

If he needs money, he’ll call you.

q if p

He‘ll call you if he needs money.

q, if p

He’ll call you, if he needs money.

43

Constructional compositionality

form - meaning correlations

clusters of constructions

44

Plan of the talk

Components and markers of

conditionality

Types of conditional reasonings

Intersubjectivity and alternativity

45

Predictive conditional reasoning

Verb forms

Clause order

Alternativity

Types of constructions

Epistemic stance

To sum up:

46

Epistemic conditionals (1)

Licensing rules

Sequencing

Verb forms

Contextual grounding

47

Epistemic conditionals (2)

inferential chains licensed by

background assumptions

such assumptions are often causal

in Verhagen’s terms, they are topoi

(8) If they left at nine, they have arrived

home by now

assumes knowing the correlation

between distance and time required48

Epistemic conditionals (3)

the sequence of clauses represents the

sequence of steps in the reasoning

protases are often contextually grounded

(?echoic, ?given. ?factual)

(8) If (as you say) they left at nine, they

have arrived home by now

49

Epistemic conditionals (4)

verb forms not restricted, including will

in protases

will then used predictively, but not by the

speaker

(5) If he won’t get here on time, we

should start now.

50

Epistemic conditionals (5)

argumentative

‘subject of categorization’

intersubjective

These features can be explained via

Verhagen’s model:

51

The model also applies to other non-

predictive conditionals:

Speech act conditionals (1)

Appropriateness / felicity conditions

Politeness

Contextual grounding

Verb forms

Clause order

Specificity of speech act conditionals:

52

Speech Act conditionals (2)

(9) Take out the garbage, if I may ask you to

(10) I’ll help with the dishes, if it’s all right

with you

(11) If you met with the Dean, did you ask

for a raise?

(12) Did you ask for a raise, if you met with

the Dean?

53

Speech Act conditionals (3)

while all SA protases make their

apodoses felicitous (as questions,

requests, offers, etc.), they rely on the

‘subject of categorization’ in two ways

either they evoke shared assumptions

about politeness

or they evoke shared contextual

grounding

54

Metalinguistic conditionals (1)

appropriateness / choice of expression

contextual grounding

verb forms

clause order

Similar to speech act conditionals,

but not identical:

55

Metalinguistic conditionals (2)

(13) I’d love to meet your partner, if

that’s the term these days

(14) ?? Your partner is welcome to join

us, if that’s the term these days

(15) Your partner, if that’s the term these

days, is welcome to join us

56

Metalinguistic conditionals (3)

(16) If we were speaking Spanish, he would

be (called) your uncle

while (13) does not imply alternativity, (16)

does:

?? I wouldn’t love to meet your partner, if that’s not the

term these days

If we were not speaking Spanish, he would not be

(called) your uncle.

57

Metalinguistic conditionals (4)

example (13) relies on the ‘subject of

categorization’ (shared conventions of

language appropriateness)

example (16) relies on the ‘object of

categorization’ (predicting different

understanding of kinship from

knowledge of language)

58

Non-predictive conditionals

there are significant similarities in how non-

predictive conditionals use the context and

fulfill their argumentative roles;

predictive conditionals use the context too,

but rely crucially on the correlations in the

object of categorizaton

non-predictives rely primarily on the subject

of categorization

59

Plan of the talk

Components and markers of

conditionality

Types of conditional reasonings

Intersubjectivity and alternativity

60

Alternativity revisited (1)

I will argue that non-predictives also use

alternativity, but in the intersubjective

domain

61

Alternativity revisited (2)

what I have referred to earlier as

‘contextual grounding’ assumes

contextually available assumptions

these assumptions may have been

communicated (as you say), but they may

also be observed, inferred, or shared as

general knowledge

62

Alternativity revisited (3)

alternativity in the subject of

categorization uses the contextually

available assumptions in two ways:

either it evokes the other participant(s)

discourse for the purposes of the speaker’s

argument

or it evokes shared assumptions/knowledge

63

Alternativity revisited (4)

evocation of another participant’s

discourse is particularly interesting, as

in:

If they left at nine, they have arrived

home by now

If he won’t get here on time, we should

start now

64

Alternativity revisited (5)

it uses the other’s assumption to argue for a

conclusion - either to demonstrate what it

entails, or to adopt the whole reasoning

chain

the use of verb forms supports the contextual

adoption of the assumption ‘as is’

it also builds the reasoning across the

participants’ subjectivities

65

Alternativity revisited (6)

some speech act conditionals follow the

same pattern, as in:

(11) If you met with the Dean, did you

ask for a raise?

the question relies on the assumption

expressed in p, evoked from context

66

Alternativity revisited (7)

others evoke shared assumptions

concerning felicity of speech acts (these

assumptions are thus speech-act specific):

(9) Take out the garbage, if I may ask you to

alternativity here consists in opening the

possibility of the speech act not being

felicitous under the circumstances

67

Alternativity revisited (8)

metalinguistic conditionals often rely on

evocation of shared assumptions on

linguistic usage:

(13) I’d love to meet your partner, if

that’s the term these days

when the evocation is a pretense, it

counts as an attempt to make it ‘shared’

68

Alternativity revisited (9)

when the conditional reasons predictively

from assumptions on linguistic usage which

are not necessarily shared, as in:

(16) If we were speaking Spanish, he

would be (called) your uncle

alternativity is not in the context, but in the

‘objective’ rules

69

Conclusion (1)

alternativity is the feature of conditional

mental space set-ups which unites all

types

whether in the ‘object’ or ‘subject’ of

categorization, it explains why assertive

meanings are excluded

it is thus the primary correlate of the use

of if

70

Conclusion (2)

alternativity in conditionals is directly

linked to the unassertable status of p

(and, consequently, of q)

other forms of alternativity (as in

negation) rely on a similar evocation of

a double mental-space set-up, but

reasoning based on unassertable

assumptions is specific to conditionals

Conclusion (3)

the choice of objective or intersubjective

alternativity is marked constructionally

(verb forms, clause order, etc.)

objective alternativity is used in

predictive reasonings (though they use

the context as well)

72

Conclusion (4)

intersubjective alternativity correlates

with a variety of ways in which the

‘objective’ aspects of construals are

evoked

the most salient cases are those where

causal topoi or acknowledged objective

correlations are used as background to

inferential chains

73

Conclusion (5)

the general conclusion, then, is that the

complexities of conditionals result in a

large measure from the fact that the most

salient aspects of their meaning -

causality and alternativity - can be used

‘objectively’ or ‘intersubjectively’ in

various combinations

74