Semantics and Pragmatics of Conditionals: form Sentence to Discourse
Final Report Abstract
Over the two phases of the project, we have investigated the compositional semantics and aspects of the pragmatic behavior of counterfactual conditionals, both at the sentence level (first phase) and at the discourse level (second phase). While linguistic aspects remained at the center stage throughout the project, our research highly benefitted from the multifaceted perspective provided by the RU and it was able to integrate insights from linguistic analysis, philosophy and cognitive psychology. Methodologically, formal tools from different disciplines were combined and experimental studies were conducted when needed. The research in the project pursued three central objectives and several co-operations across the RU. The first objective investigated the mapping from surface form to semantic/pragmatic function at the sentence level. Semantically, the contribution of different pieces of morphology in counterfactuals –‘fake’ tense, subjunctive mood– was scrutinized, leading to a compositional analysis within the temporal remoteness line and contra the modal remoteness line. Pragmatically, antecedent falsity in subjunctive conditionals was derived as a conversational implicature arising from direct competition with the indicative form. In addition to these paradigmatic cases, three non-canonical form-to-function mappings were investigated. First, in subjunctive conditionals with so-called ‘light’ negation, the stronger message of antecedent falsity was shown to be an epistemic bias and not a presupposition. Second, Noun Phrase-modifying conditionals were analysed as contributing not to the propositional content but to the non-at-issue Conventional Implicature tier. Third and finally, the special mixture of morphology used in ‘biscuit’ counterfactual conditionals was analysed as triggering a double-access reading in the temporal and modal domains. The second objective concerned counterfactual donkey sentences. The issue was how the similarity measure needed for accessing the relevant counterfactual worlds is computed when donkey quantification is involved. A D-type analysis was pursued and dismissed; the dynamic analysis was refined and extended; and a pragmatic line was proposed. The third objective took us to the discourse level. To access the relevant counterfactual worlds, do we have a fixed selection function intertwined with the internal semantic composition (variably-strict analysis) or an external “modal horizon” evolving with discourse (strict analysis)? Our research targeted two constructions argued to be relevant to this issue –the licensing of Negative Polarity Items and Sobel Sequence – and revealed that they can be explained under either view. Synergies within and beyond the RU lead to several co-operations. First, co-operation with Eva Rafetseder and other co-authors led to fruitful investigations of the developmental trajectory of counterfactual reasoning and intensionality in young children. Second, together with Max Huber and combining efforts from Semantics and Philosophy of Science, Nanay’s (2010) modal theory of biological function was re-examined and a more precise etiological theory of function was defined. Finally, in co-operation with P1, insights from Ranking Theory were integrated into the semantics of epistemic modals. In addition to the objectives and co-operations above, Leahy worked on a biologically plausible representation of meaning within the Teleosemantics framework, paving the way towards a broad meaning representation that would include conditionals.
Publications
- 2014. 'Fake Tense' in Counterfactuals: A Temporal Remoteness Approach. In L. Crnič & U. Sauerland, eds., The Art and Craft of Semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim, vol. 2., pp. 47-63. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL
Romero, Maribel
- 2014. Basic conditional reasoning: how children mimic counterfactual reasoning. Studia Logica 102, 793-810
Leahy, Brian, Eva Rafetseder & Josef Perner
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-013-9510-7) - 2015. Counterfactual donkey sentences: A strict conditional analysis. In S. D'Antonio, M. Morroney and C.R. Little, eds., Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 25, pp. 288–307. Palo Alto, CA: LSA Journals
Walker, Andreas & Maribel Romero
(See online at https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3056) - 2015. High Negation in Subjunctive Conditionals and Polar Questions. In E. Csipak and H. Zeijlstra, eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19, pp. 519-536. Göttingen
Romero, Maribel
(See online at https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2015.v19i0.247) - 2015. Mental files and belief: A cognitive theory of how children represent belief and its intensionality. Cognition 145, 77-88
Perner, Josef, Michael Huemer & Brian Leahy
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.08.006) - 2016. Mental Files in Development. Dual Naming, False Belief, Identity and Intensionality. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 7(2), 491-508
Perner, Josef & Brian Leahy
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0235-6) - 2016. On presuppositional implicature. Topoi 35, 83-91
Leahy, Brian
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-014-9281-4) - 2017. Tense and Mood in Counterfactual Conditionals: The View from Spanish. In A. Cremens, T. van Gessel & F. Roelofsen, eds., Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 375-384. Amsterdam
Romero, Maribel
- 2017. Two arguments for the etiological theory over the modal theory of function. Synthese 194(4): 1169-1187
Leahy, Brian & Maximilian Huber
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0544-9) - 2018. Counterfactual antecedent falsity and the epistemic sensitivity of counterfactuals. Philosophical Studies 175(1), 45-69
Leahy, Brian
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0855-z) - 2019. Adverbial clauses and V3. Linguistics Vanguard 5(3), 20190005
Csipak, Eva
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0005) - 2019. Counterfactual biscuit conditionals: A temporal remoteness account. In K. Blake, F. Davis, K. Lamp and J. Rhyne, eds., Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 29. Pp. 441-458. Los Angeles, CA: LSA Journals
Romero, Maribel & Eva Csipak
(See online at https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v29i0.4603)
