The last non standard use o f if, the concessive, is an anomaly... annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society.. Grice, H.P., William James Lectures, Harvard University, 1967.. Pu
Trang 1NON S T A N D A R D USES O F IF D.S B r e e & R.A S m i t
R o t t e r d a m School o f M a n a g e m e n t
E r a s m u s U n i v e r s i t y P.O Box 1738
3000 DR R o t t e r d a m The N e t h e r l a n d s
ABSTRACT
The p r e s e n t s t u d y e x a m i n e s the s e m a n t i c p r o b l e m s
involved in c o m p u t i n g t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e non s t a n d a r d
uses of if The c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n is w h e t h e r or n o t it is
n e c e s s a r y to i n t r o d u c e d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s o f if
A u s t i n p r o p o s e d t w o non s t a n d a r d m e a n i n g s f o r if We
show t h a t t h e s e c a n be a c c o u n t e d f o r by t h e s t a n d a r d
m e a n i n g t o g e t h e r with s h i f t s in the p o s i t i o n o f the s p e e c h
a c t within the s e n t e n c e T h e s e uses of if a r e a m o n g t h e 9
d i f f e r e n t non s t a n d a r d uses which w e found in a s a m p l e o f
if s e n t e n c e s t a k e n from t h e Brown U n i v e r s i t y corpus:
1 C o u n t e r f a c t u a h
If E had stuck to his plan h e ' d still be f a m o u s
2 F a c t u a l :
If R was a liar, he was also a c a n n y g e n t l e m a n
3 C o n d i t i o n a l s p e e c h a c t :
You may c o m e back to S t r a s b o u r g , now, if you wish
4 P e r f o r m a t i v e s p e e c h a c t :
He v o w e d v e n g e n c e on L, if e v e r t h e c h a n c e c a m e
his way
5 Noun clause:
He w o n d e r e d if t h e a u d i e n c e would let him finish
6 Doubtful p r e s u p p o s i t i o n
P e r f e c t e n t i t i e s , if t h e y m o v e a t all, d o n ' t m o v e to
7 " ' R e s t r i c t i v e
Social r e l a t i o n s i m p o s e c o u r t e s y , if not s y m p a t h y ,
8 " ' C o n c e s s i v e
9 P r o t a s i s o n l y
" I f you w a n t to see -" " N e v e r mind", she said
s t e r n l y
Each use was e x a m i n e d t o see w h e t h e r i t c o u l d be
a c c o u n t e d f o r by the s t a n d a r d meaning o f if, t o g e t h e r
w i t h o t h e r f e a t u r e s o f the sentence S i m i l a r d i f f e r e n c e s
in usage should then be found w i t h o t h e r SCs This was
the case for the f i r s t four uses In t h r e e uses (6,7,8) i f
m a y / m u s t o c c u r in a phrase r a t h e r than in a full clause
The hypothesis t h a t these uses can be d e r i v e d f r o m the
s t a n d a r d m e a n i n g of i f in an e q u i v a l e n t clause was
e x p l o r e d and r e j e c t e d T w o o f these uses (6,7) r e q u i r e a
m a t e r i a l i m p l i c a t i o n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f if, also necessary
for a few of the s t a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n a l sentences
Two uses (5,9) r e q u i r e only t h a t t h e t r u t h value of t h e
following c l a u s e / p h r a s e is u n s p e c i f i e d This is a p r o p e r t y
t h a t all t h e uses have in c o m m o n (with t h e e x c e p t i o n o f
t h e f a c t u a l use w h e r e t h e t r u t h o f t h e p r o t a s i s is used to
e m p h a s i s e t h e t r u t h of t h e apodosis) and is thus t h e
f e a t u r e t h a t r e l a t e s t h e d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s of if The
s t a n d a r d use and t h e non s t a n d a r d u s e s using t h e s t a n d a r d
m e a n i n g (1,2,3,4) r e q u i r e , in a d d i t i o n , t h a t t h e r e is an
i n f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n f r o m t h e p r o t a s i s (the if sub clause) to
t h e a p o d o s i s ( t h e main c l a u s e in w h i c h t h e if c l a u s e is
e m b e d d e d )
So we p r o p o s e t h a t t h r e e d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s o f i f a r e
r e q u i r e d : i n f e r e n c e (including t h e s t a n d a r d use), m a t e r i a l
i m p l i c a t i o n (uses 6,7) and just d o u b t i n g t h e t r u t h v a l u e o f
t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o p o s i t i o n (uses 5,9) Each o f t h e s e t h r e e
u s e s m a y be e x p e c t e d to be t r a n s l a t e d by d i f f e r e n t w o r d s
in o t h e r languages, e,g in D u t c h by als, zo and o f ( e x c e p t for use 8) r e s p e c t i v e l y
INTRODUC'TION
T h e r e has long been, and s t i l l is, a c o n t r o v e r s y about the m e a n i n g o f i f (e.g G r i c e , 1967; S t a l n a k e r , 1975;
H a r p e r et al, 1981) Much o f this discussion presupposes
t h a t t h e r e is indeed one m e a n i n g o f if Is this
p r e s u p p o s i t i o n j u s t i f i e d ?
A t one level the answer is c l e a r l y 'no', e.g i f can be used to i n t r o d u c e a noun clause f o l l o w i n g an i l l o c u t i o n a r y verb:
John asked i f he c o u l d c o m e in now
Such e x a m p l e s do not c o n f o r m to the c o n d i t i o n a l use o f i f
as in:
If J o h n a s k e d he could c o m e in now
This is so d i f f e r e n t a use o f if t h a t one m i g h t c l a i m it should be s e t a s i d e f r o m t h e c o n d i t i o n a l if Thus t h e r e would be t w o ifs: i f ' for s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s and it ~ for noun clauses
Our q u e s t i o n should be r e f o r m u l a t e d as: is t h e r e o n l y one m e a n i n g o f i f ' ? A u s t i n (1961) c l a i m e d t h a t the a n s w e r was 'no', p r o v i d i n g e x a m p l e s t h a t did not c o n f o r m to t w o
l o g i c a l p r o p e r t i e s t h a t are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h if% T h e r e is a
s t i p u l a t i v e use o f i f ' w h i c h does not c o n t r a p o s e , e.g f r o m
1 I p r o m i s e to m a r r y him i f he asks me
one does not c o n c l u d e t h a t
If I do not p r o m i s e t o m a r r y him, he does not ask
me
T h e r e is also an i f o f d o u b t o r h e s i t a t i o n w h i c h not o n l y fails to c o n t r a p o s e , but w h i c h also asserts the p r o p o s i t i o n
u n d e r l y i n g the m a i n clause (the 'apodosis p r o p o s i t i o n ' ) , e.g f r o m
2 T h e r e are b i s c u i t s on the t a b l e i f you w a n t some fails to c o n t r a p o s e , but also we a r e w i l l i n g to a c c e p t the apodosis s i m p l i c i t e r , Can this c l a i m be r e b u t t e d ?
Trang 2We b e l i e v e t h a t i t can be Austin's f a u l t lies in
w o r k i n g w i t h the surface s t r u c t u r e r a t h e r than w i t h the
u n d e r l y i n g propositions He thus fails to t a k e account o f
the scope of i f and o f the scope of the speech act
involved With c o n d i t i o n a l i f ' , the c o n d i t i o n falls w i t h i n
the scope of the speech act When t h e r e is a p e r f o r m a t i v e
verb in the apodosis, then the c o n d i t i o n a l is w i t h i n the
scope of the p e r f o r m a t i v e ; so the p e r f o r m a t i v e i t s e l f is
not w i t h i n the c o n d i t i o n a l , just as w i t h AustiWs e x a m p l e
of s t i p u l a t i v e i f t Thus I is paraphrasable as:
l promise t h a t I w i l l m a r r y him i f he asks me
in which the promise is contraposable:
[ promise that he does not ask me i f 1 w i l l not m a r r y
him
In the case of an i f of doubt or h e s i t a t i o n i t is the speech
act t h a t falls w i t h i n the scope o f the c o n d i t i o n a l Thus 2
is:
[f you want biscuits, accept the d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t
there are some on the table
This act of speech is to be n o t i c e d only when the
proposition u n d e r l y i n g the protasis (the i f clause) holds; i t
is NOT made s i m p l i c i t e r
This e x p l a n a t i o n o f the reading o f Austints t w o ifs,
based on the r e l a t i v e scopes o f the speech act and if, can
be e x t e n d e d to o t h e r subordinating c o n j u n c t i o n s (SC's),
e.g
I promise to m a r r y him unless~provided~when he's
rich
The case for the n o n - r e s t r i c t i v e use, w i t h the speech act
f a l l i n g w i t h i n the scope of the SC was made by
R u t h e r f o r d (1970), e.g
H e ' l l m a r r y you, unless I'm mistaken
In v i e w o f this g e n e r a l i t y i t is parsimonious to r e g a r d
Austin's t w o ifs as t w o d i f f e r e n t uses arising out o f the
c o n t e x t of the speech act, r a t h e r than as t w o d i f f e r e n t
meanings o f if
R e j e c t i n g Austin's ifs as possible contenders for an i f '
having a non standard meaning does not, however, show
that t h e r e are no non standard meanings
In fact the O.E.D suggests 9 d i f f e r e n t uses of if:
1 c o n d i t i o n a l ;
2 s e m i - f a c t u a l ;
3 c o u n t e r factual;
4 a pregnant sense, e.g
If they are poor, they are at any r a t e happy;
5 an archaic use w i t h that;
6 an e l l i p t i c use, e.g i f a t all;
7 the protasis alone, e.g [f [ had o n l y known;
8 in phrases, e.g as if;
9 i n t r o d u c i n g a noun clause, e.g ask if
(Note t h a t this list does NOT include Austin's t w o uses o f
if!)
To check w h e t h e r or not t h e r e were f u r t h e r possible
uses we have taken a 10% sample of i f sentences from
the Brown U n i v e r s i t y corpus o f A m e r i c a n p r i n t e d texts,
a v a i l a b l e on m a g n e t i c tape (Kucera & Francis, 1967) [n
our j u d g e m e n t in 61% of the 218 sentences in the sample,
i f was used in a standard c o n d i t i o n a l way In 8% the i f
was preceded by some m o d i f i e r , e.g as if This l e f t 69
(31%) non standard uses of i f as possible contenders for
d i f f e r e n t meanings of if
A T A X O N O M Y O F NON S T A N D A R D IF
To consider the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t some meanings o f i f
d i f f e r f r o m the c o n d i t i o n a l , we need some way of
c l a s s i f y i n g the 69 non standard sentences in our sample The t a x o n o m y we chose is based on t w o f e a t u r e s t h a t are present in the c o n d i t i o n a l uses o f if: i f enables a proposition to be r e f e r r e d to or e n t e r t a i n e d w i t h o u t being asserted as being (possibly) t r u e or false, and i f signals an
i n f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n from the protasis p r o p o s i t i o n to the apodosis proposition By an i n f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n we mean
t h a t the apodosis p r o p o s i t i o n m a y be i n f e r r e d from the protasis proposition, t o g e t h e r w i t h the c o n t e x t propositions (See the c r i t i q u e o f Bree (1973) on Wason and Johnson-Laird's (1972) proposal for the d i f f e r e n t
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f if.)
In the non standard uses o f i f one or the o t h e r o f these
t w o f e a t u r e s is e i t h e r absent or a l t e r e d Thus we propose
t h a t t h e r e are t w o m a j o r c a t e g o r i e s o f non standard if:
A in which the i n f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n is present but the protasis p r o p o s i t i o n is NOT in doubt, being e i t h e r t r u e
o r false;
B in which the t r u t h status o f the protasis p r o p o s i t i o n is
in doubt, but the i n f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n does not run f r o m the protasis t o the apodosis proposition
This last class is d i v i d e d i n t o t w o subclasses:
BI in w h i c h the i n f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n is present but w i t h a
d i f f e r e n t scope f r o m the standard use;
B2 in which the i n f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n is absent
The c o m p l e t e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f the sample o f i f sentences
a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r d i f f e r e n t uses is shown in Table 1
We w i l l now consider each o f the d i f f e r e n t uses in turn, in o r d e r to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r the use requires a
d i f f e r e n t meaning o f i f f r o m the standard c o n d i t i o n a l We
w i l l check w h e t h e r o r not the non standard use is to be found w i t h o t h e r SCs, so t h a t it can be accounted for
w i t h o u t p o s t u l a t i n g a new meaning; w h e t h e r it is r e l a t e d
to a n o t h e r non standard use, so t h a t both uses are based
on the same non standard meaning; o r w h e t h e r i t requires its own i d i o s y n c r a t i c non standard meaning o f if
C o u n t e r f a c t u a l s
C o u n t e r f a c t u a l if, which is a p r o b l e m for logicians, is
s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d from our point of view An i n f e r e n c e
r e l a t i o n from the protasis p r o p o s i t i o n to t h a t in the apodosis is being asserted, w h i l e i t is known t h a t the protasis p r o p o s i t i o n is false (Bree, 1982)
It is usual (16 o f the 18 c o u n t e r f a c t u a l sentences in our sample) for the apodosis p r o p o s i t i o n to be false (or a question), which is i n d i c a t e d by using the a u x l l a r y would: (26) I f Elaine's uncle had stuck to this desire for aloneness, he p r o b a b l y would s t i l l be a l i v e , (60) " L a u r a , w h a t would you say i f I smoked a pipe?"
H o w e v e r the apodosis proposition m a y be t r u e (1/18): (76) ( ) i f i t had n e v e r p r i n t e d a word o f l i t e r a t u r e its c o n t r i b u t i o n to the p o l i t i c o - s o c i o l o g i c a l area would s t i l l be h i s t o r i c
The protasis alone is used to i n d i c a t e t h a t i m p o r t a n t (desirable) consequences would flow from the t r u t h o f the protasis:
(85) " I f i t w a s n ' t for these dear c h i l d r e n "
Trang 3Category and sub-category N p q Relation C o m m e n t s
A
BI Conditional speech act 6 ? + Performative conditional I ? ? B2
Doubtful presupposition 17 ? + Restrictive ( if not) 5 ? ÷
OTHER
Total non standard 69
I-(~>q) [-(re>q)
p->]-q listener knows p is + { -
perf(p->q)
p is a question x[-p p is presupposed by x x]-p ZP to replace x in q?
oon(x) ]p p connotated by x in q
na if p is sufficient
Legend:
N Number of sentences
p protasis proposition
q apcdosis proposition q' q w/o performative verb
x part of q pert performative con connotation of
÷ t r u e
false
? unknown truth
na not applicable
I exclusive or
- > inference [- assertion speech act
The c o u n t e r f a c t u a l c o n s t r u c t i o n is not unique to if; i t
occurs w i t h o t h e r SCs in which the t r u t h status o f the
subordinate clause p r o p o s i t i o n is n o r m a l l y open, e.g.:
She w o u l d n ' t have m a r r i e d him unless she had l o v e d
him
She would have m a r r i e d him provided he had asked
her
In both c a s e s t h e main p r o p o s i t i o n is false; t h e
s u b o r d i n a t e p r o p o s i t i o n is t r u e f o r u n l e s s and f a l s e for
provided Thus t h e c o u n t e r f a c t u a l use should NOT be
b a s e d on a d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g o f if, but r a t h e r in t h e use
o f t h e s u b j u n c t i v e m o d e
Factuais
The p r o t a s i s p r o p o s i t i o n m a y be t r u e r a t h e r t h a n
false; this is the O.E.D p r e g n a n t s e n s e of if In such
c a s e s t h e apodosis p r o p o s i t i o n is also t r u e M o r e o v e r
t h e r e is no DIRECT r e l a t i o n from t h e p r o t a s i s p r o p o s i t i o n
to t h e apodosis p r o p o s i t i o n , so it is s t r a n g e t h a t if is
being used at all One possible e x p l a n a t i o n is t h a t it is a
slip for t h e m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e SC although, as in:
(113) [f R o b i n s o n was a liar and a s l a n d e r e r , he was
also a very c a n n y g e n t l e m a n ( )
S o m e t i m e s it is used w h e r e c o r d i n a t i o n would be m o r e
s u i t a b l e :
(174) If we thus spent our v e r y f i r s t day in ( ) our last day to us at least, was e q u a l l y i m p r e s s i v e ( )
But n e i t h e r sense would be a p p r o p r i a t e in (185) I f Wilhelm R e i c h is the Moses who has led them out o f the Egypt o f sexual s l a v e r y , D y l a n Thomas is the poet who o f f e r s them the Dionysian d i a l e c t i c o f j u s t i f i c a t i o n for t h e i r indulgence in liquor, ( )
A m o r e s a t i s f a c t o r y e x p l a n a t i o n is t h a t i t is the speech act t h a t is c o n d i t i o n a l upon the protasis p r o p o s i t i o n The
w r i t e r is emphasising the speech act by p r e f a c i n g i t (the protasis must a l w a y s o c c u r b e f o r e the apodosis in these factuals) w i t h a p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t he knows the r e a d e r w i l l know t o be true The i n f e r e n c e is f r o m the protasis
p r o p o s i t i o n to the speech act c o n t a i n i n g the apodosis, as in:
(178) ( ) w h e t h e r t h e r e is such fitness or not, we w i l l assume t h a t t h e r e is, and i f we do, we express ( )
It is used w i t h e f f e c t in emphasising an i m p e r a t i v e : (211) ( ) so i f you w a n t to a v o i d nicked fingers, keep your hands w e l l out o f the way
When a w r i t e r wishes to d r a w a t t e n t i o n to a speech act, he can do so by m a k i n g it c o n d i t i o n a l on a
p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t both he and the r e a d e r know to be true While this c o n s t u c t i o n does not o c c u r w i t h o t h e r SCs, i t is
Trang 4c l e a r l y a d i f f e r e n t P R A G M A T I C use o f if, w h i c h d o e s not
r e q u i r e a d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g o f if
C o n d i t i o n a l s p e e c h a c t s
We turn now to non s t a n d a r d uses in which t h e
p r o t a s i s p r o p o s i t i o n is i n d e e d in doubt, but t h e i n f e r e n c e
r e l a t i o n is non s t a n d a r d We s h o w e d t h a t A u s t i n ' s if o f
doubt or h e s i t a t i o n c a n be c o n s i d e r e d as a c o n d i t i o n a l
s p e e c h a c t r a t h e r than as a s p e e c h a c t in which t h e r e is a
c o n d i t i o n a l C o n d i t i o n a l s p e e c h a c t s a r e m a d e when t h e
w r i t e r d o e s not know w h e t h e r or not a s p e e c h a c t is
a p p r o p r i a t e in t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , but he b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e
r e a d e r d o e s know Most (4/6) o f our e x a m p l e s a r e o f this
form:
(189) If you would feel h a p p i e r w i t h full c o l l i s i o n
i n s u r a n c e , t h e r e is a small a d d i t i o n a l c h a r g e ( )
(209) "You may c o m e back to S t r a s b o u r g , now, if you
wish."
The o t h e r use in t h e s a m p l e (2/6) is when t h e w r i t e r
wishes to pose a q u e s t i o n but only u n d e r t h e a p p r o p r i a t e
c i r c u m s t a n c e s :
(190) If you use c o m p a n y t r a n s p o r t a t i o n to m e e t
t r a i n s or haul visitors, would t a x i s be c h e a p e r ?
As has a l r e a d y b e e n p o i n t e d out, t h e s p e e c h a c t c a n
fall within t h e s c o p e o f o t h e r SCs Thus it is not
p a r s i m o n i o u s to p o s t u l a t e a s e p e r a t e m e a n i n g o f if for
c o n d i t i o n a l s p e e c h a c t s
P e r f o r m a t i v e conditionals
The s c o p e o f t h e s p e e c h a c t n o r m a l l y i n c l u d e s t h e
i n f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n We h a v e just s e e n how t h e s p e e c h a c t
may i n s t e a d o c c u r w i t h i n this r e l a t i o n With p e r f o r m a t i v e
verbs in t h e apodosis we s e e a s h i f t t h e o t h e r way; t h e
s p e e c h a c t i n d i c a t e d by a v e r b in t h e apodosis is NOT
within t h e s c o p e o f t h e i n f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n , d e s p i t e t h e
f a c t t h a t t h e v e r b o c c u r s in t h e apodosis This is t h e c a s e
with A u s t i n ' s s t i p u l a t i v e if, e.g.:
(28) ( ) he vowed v e n g e n c e on Viola Lake if e v e r
t h e c h a n c e c a m e his way
We have s e e n t h a t this use also o c c u r s w i t h o t h e r SCs, so
t h e use of if within the s c o p e o f a p e r f o r m a t i v e d o e s NOT
r e q u i r e a s e p e r a t e m e a n i n g o f if
Doubtful noun clauses
We h a v e just looked at t w o uses of if in which t h e
p r o t a s i s p r o p o s i t i o n is i n d e e d in doubt, but in which t h e
i n f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n is non s t a n d a r d We turn now to uses in
which t h e i n f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n is a b s e n t The f i r s t of t h e s e
is the use of if to i n t r o d u c e a c l a u s e to f u n c t i o n as t h e
o b j e c t o f a m e n t a l a c t :
(144) I a s k e d an old guy ( ) if t h e b o a t was M o o r e ' s
A r a n g e o f v e r b s involving q u e s t i o n s t a k e this
c o n s t r u c t i o n :
wonder if, when t h e a g e n t has t h e q u e s t i o n in his mind;
s e e if, when the a g e n t t r i e s d i r e c t l y to a n s w e r his
q u e s t i o n ;
ask if, when the a g e n t puts his q u e s t i o n to a t h i r d p a r t y ;
know if, when the a g e n t has the a n s w e r to a q u e s t i o n in
t h e mind o f t h e s p e a k e r ;
doubt if, when the a g e n t b e l i e v e s t h a t the a n s w e r to a
q u e s t i o n in t h e mind o f t h e s p e a k e r is p r o b a b l y n e g a t i v e This c o n s t r u c t i o n is not found w i t h o t h e r SCs, e x c e p t for whether;, nor is t h e r e any q u e s t i o n o f it being s u b s u m e d
u n d e r any of t h e o t h e r uses of if So it is an a p a r t
m e a n i n g o f if
D o u b t f u l p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s
A f r e q u e n t non standard use is to cast doubt on a presupposition o f the main clause Just as w i t h the use o f
i f to i n t r o d u c e a noun clause, the protasis p r o p o s i t i o n is
in doubt - more, i t is being put i n t o doubt - and t h e r e is
no i n f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n s h i p from the protasis to the
denied in this w a y in the sample were:
-existence, presupposed by a noun (4/17):
(77) But it also made him conspicuous to the enemy,
i f i t w a s the e n e m y ( ) -an e v e n t , presupposed by the use o f a v e r b (3/17): (159) P e r f e c t , c o m p l e t e e n t i t i e s , i f t h e y m o v e at all,
do not m o v e t o w a r d s w h a t t h e y lack
- n u m b e r and place, presupposed by c e r t a i n a d j e c t i v e s or adverbs, w h i c h are put i n t o doubt using i f a n y ( w h e r e )
(5117):
(10) Few areas, i f any, ( ) (16) F o r here, i f a n y w h e r e , ( ) -and p o s s i b i l i t y o r necessity, presupposed by i m p e r a t i v e s and promises or t h r e a t s (2/17):
( I I 0 ) Begin the e x a m i n a t i o n o f a site w i t h a g o o d map and a e r i a l photos, i f possible
(I00) The posse then asked t h a t he send out the
w o m e n and c h i l d r e n as the building would be
f i r e d ( ) i f necessary t o t a k e him dead or a l i v e There is also the i n t e r e s t i n g case in which a c o m p l e x
e n t i t y which is d o u b t f u l e n t e r s i n t o a proposition This is done by placing the c o m p l e x e n t i t y i n t o the protasis,
t o g e t h e r w i t h ever, and r e f e r r i n g to it in the apodosis (3117):
(149) [ f t h e r e was e v e r a thought in her mind t h a t ( ), it was now dispelled
It m i g h t be thought t h a t this is a special case o f a
c o n d i t i o n a l speech act H o w e v e r it d i f f e r s from the l a t t e r
in that the protasis p r o p o s i t i o n is not thought by the
w r i t e r to be d e c i d a b l e by the reader R a t h e r i t is in the
n a t u r e o f a hedge against a possible, but not h i g h l y probable, s t a t e presupposed by the apodosis Thus we have classified it as h a v i n g no i n f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n from the protasis to the apodosis
H o w e v e r t h e r e is some r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the protasis and the apodosis, best c h a r a c t e r i s e d as an
a l t e r n a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p The apodosis p r o p o s i t i o n is
d o u b t f u l because one aspect, x, w i t h i n it may not be
proposition t h e r e must be (x v not-p), e.g I0 could be: number o f areas (small v not-one)
This proposal is r e l a t e d to m a t e r i a l i m p l i c a t i o n in standard s y m b o l i c logic: p x is e q u i v a l e n t to n o t - p v x
Restrictives
In c o n t r a s t to an i f phrase i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a word may
go too far because a presupposition may not hold, an i f
Trang 5p h r a s e is used to i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e word being used, a
noun or an a d v e r b , m a y not go far enough:
(102) And social r e l a t i o n s a r i s i n g out o f b u s i n e s s t i e s
i m p o s e c o u r t e s y , if not s y m p a t h y , t o w a r d ( )
(105) ( } t h e i n e v i t a b l e t i m e c r i s i s e x p e r i e n c e d by
most (if not all) adolescents in our s o c i e t y ( )
Can this use of i f n o t be d e r i v e d f r o m a n o t h e r use o f if,
t o g e t h e r w i t h not, or is i t a d i f f e r e n t use in its own r i g h t ?
There are t h r e e possibilities for the d e r i v a t i o n : t h a t the
i f not phrase is d e r i v e d from an i f n o t clause, t h a t the
r e s t r i c t i v e use is found w i t h o t h e r SCs w i t h not, and t h a t
the r e s t r i c t i v e use can be d e r i v e d f r o m a n o t h e r use o f i f
in a phrase
C o n s i d e r t h e f i r s t possibility, i.e t h a t t h e r e s t r i c t i v e
use of an if not p h r a s e is s i m p l y an a b b r e v i a t e d form for
an e n t i r e c l a u s e , e.g 102 would be d e r i v e d from:
(102') And if social r e l a t i o n s a r i s i n g out o f b u s i n e s s
t i e s do not i m p o s e s y m p a t h y , t h e y i m p o s e
c o u r t e s y t o w a r d ( )
But if this is t h e c a s e t h e n 102' should be e i t h e r a
s t a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n a l use o f if o r one o f t h e non s t a n d a r d
uses It is c e r t a i n l y not a s t a n d a r d use as t h e apodosis, a t
l e a s t of t h e original, is a s s e r t e d s i m p l i c i t e r H o w e v e r ,
n e i t h e r is it a f a c t u a l use as t h e p r o t a s i s is not a s s e r t e d ,
but l e f t open This s u g g e s t s t h a t it m i g h t be a c o n d i t i o n a l
s p e e c h a c t ; but 102 t lacks an i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e o f
c o n d i t i o n a l s p e e c h a c t s , n a m e l y t h a t t h e s p e a k e r e x p e c t s
t h e l i s t e n e r t o know w h e t h e r t h e p r o t a s i s p r o p o s i t i o n is
t r u e or not So, while the r e s t r i c t i v e use o f if n o t to
i n t r o d u c e a p h r a s e c a n be d e r i v e d from an if n o t c l a u s e ,
this d o e s not help m a t t e r s as t h i s use would in i t s e l f be
d i f f e r e n t from any o t h e r
The s e c o n d p o s s i b i l i t y is t h a t t h e r e s t r i c t i v e use o f if
not o c c u r s w i t h o t h e r SCs T h e r e is only o n e o t h e r SC
t h a t has this s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n , n a m e l y a l t h o u g h
H o w e v e r s e m a n t i c a l l y t h e r e is a d i f f e r e n c e f r o m this
c o n c e s s i v e use o f a l t h o u g h , e.g
Most a l t h o u g h not all a d o l e s c e n t s in our s o c i e t y ( )
is d e f i n i t e l y a r e s t r i c t i o n to ' n o t all a d o l e s c e n t s ' r a t h e r
t h a n a possible r e s t r i c t i o n to 'all a d o l e s c e n t s ' So t h e r e is
NO s i m i l a r use for t h e o t h e r SCs t h a t is s e m a n t i c a l l y
e q u i v a l e n t to this r e s t r i c t i v e use of if not
We turn now to t h e last possibility, o t h e r i f p h r a s e s
T h e r e a r e two: t h e c o n c e s s i v e use (see below) and t h e
d o u b t i n g o f a p r e s u p p o s i t i o n T o s h o w t h a t t h e r e s t r i c t i v e
use c a n n o t be d e r i v e d from t h e c o n c e s s i v e use c o n s i d e r
this a m b i g u o u s e x a m p l e :
The e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f f e r e d a l o n g l a s t i n g , if not
p e r m a n e n t , c u r e
This can h a v e a r e s t r i c t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , i.e t h a t t h e
c u r e is c e r t a i n l y l o n g l a s t i n g and may well be p e r m a n e n t
But it can also have a c o n c e s s i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as c a n be
s e e n when ' n o t p e r m a n e n t ' is r e p l a c e d by ' t e m p o r a r y t :
The e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f f e r e d a longlasting, if
t e m p o r a r y , c u r e
So the r e s t r i c t i v e use c a n n o t be d e r i v e d f r o m c o m b i n i n g
n o t w i t h t h e c o n c e s s i v e use o f if ( o t h e r w i s e t h e r e would
be no a m b i g u i t y )
R a t h e r t h e r e s t r i c t i v e use is s e m a n t i c a l l y e q u i v a l e n t
to t h e use of d o u b t i n g a p r e s u p p o s i t i o n The r e l a t i o n s h i p
in the l a t t e r c a s e we h a v e c l a s s i f i e d as (x v not-p), w h e r e
x is an e n t i t y in the apodosis The r e s t r i c t i v e use is
i d e n t i c a l F o r a s e n t e n c e o f t h e f o r m q if n o t p, t h e
r e l a t i o n s h i p is (x v p), w h e r e o n c e again x is an e n t i t y in
t h e apodosis F o r e x a m p l e t h e r e l e v a n t p h r a s e in 105
c o u l d be f o r m a l i s e d as
n u m b e r o f a d o l e s c e n t s (large v all)
C o m p a r e this w i t h t h e f o r m a l i s a t i o n for ' f e w a r e a s if any':
number o f areas (small v not-one)
While t h e e q u i v a l e n c e to t h e i f o f d o u b t f u l
p r e s u p p o s i t i o n holds at t h i s level, r e s t r i c t i v e if has a
d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n In t h e f o r m e r t h e p r o t a s i s i n t r o d u c e s a doubt a b o u t t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f s o m e t h i n g p r e s u p p o s e d in
t h e main c l a u s e ; t h e l a t t e r p r o p o s e s a p o s s i b l e
r e p l a c e m e n t for s o m e t h i n g in t h e m a i n c l a u s e
We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e s t r i c t i v e use o f i f n o t is
d e r i v a b l e f r o m t h e s a m e logical s t r u c t u r e as t h e use o f if
to doubt a p r e s u p p o s i t i o n and so d o e s NOT i n t r o d u c e a
n e w m e a n i n g o f if
C o n c e s s i v e s
A n o t h e r use o f i f in w h i c h t h e a p o d o s i s p r o p o s i t i o n is
t r u e and in w h i c h t h e r e is no i n f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n , is a
c o n c e s s i v e use It o c c u r s only w i t h an a d j e c t i v e in t h e
p r o t a s i s : (5) ( ) now t h a t you h a v e f i n a l l y grown up, if a
l i t t l e l a t e ( ) (121) ( ) a well known e s t a b l i s h m e n t for t h e s p e e d y
if t e m p o r a r y r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f d r u n k a r d s ( ) This use c a n n o t be r e d u c e d to t h e s t a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n a l
m e a n i n g o f i f by c l a i m i n g t h a t t h e p h r a s e in t h e p r o t a s i s has b e e n r e d u c e d f r o m s o m e c o m p l e t e c l a u s e If w e t r y t o
do so, as in:
(5') You h a v e finally g r o w n up, if you h a v e g r o w n up
a l i t t l e l a t e
t h e r e s u l t is not a s t a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n a l but r a t h e r a
f a c t u a l , but o n e w h i c h c o n t a i n s new i n f o r m a t i o n in t h e
p r o t a s i s ; no s u c h f a c t u a l s o c c u r r e d in our s a m p l e So t h e
c o n c e s s i v e use o f i f p h r a s e s c a n n o t be d e r i v e d from a
u n d e r l y i n g if c l a u s e use
As we have a l r e a d y seen, it is possible t h a t a non standard use of i f has a c o u n t e r p a r t w i t h o t h e r SCs The
o n l y o t h e r SC t h a t p e r m i t s a s i m i l a r c o n s t r u c t i o n is
although:
You have f i n a l l y grown up, a l t h o u g h a l i t t l e late which is a l m o s t a paraphrase o f 5 But it is u n l i k e l y t h a t this concessive use o f i f is a ' m i s t a k e ' for although;
c e r t a i n authors use concessive i f phrases c o n s i s t e n t l y , e.g Schoenberger (1969) A possible d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the t w o is t h a t the a d j e c t i v e f o l l o w i n g a l t h o u g h is
d e f i n i t e l y applicable, c.f
A speedy a l t h o u g h t e m p o r a r y r e h a b i l i t a t i o n
A speedy i f t e m p o r a r y r e h a b i l i t a t i o n This suggests t h a t t h e r e is a r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n the concessive use and the use to i n d i c a t e a d o u b t f u l presupposition Here w h a t is put i n t o doubt is not the presupposition but a l i k e l y c o n n o t a t i o n o f a word, e.g
r e h a b i l i t a t i o n s are n o r m a l l y p e r m a n e n t H o w e v e r the logical r e l a t i o n is NOT the same, e.g i t is not the case
t h a t 'speedy i f t e m p o r a r y r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ' can be
f o r m a l i s e d by:
t i m e for r e h a b i l i t a t i o n (short)
Trang 6d u r a t i o n of r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ( p e r m a n e n t v n o t -
t e m p o r a r y ) ;
r a t h e r it is
d u r a t i o n o f r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ( p e r m a n e n t v t e m p o r a r y )
So the c o n c e s s i v e use o f i f c a n n o t be r e d u c e d to t h e use
to doubt a p r e s u p p o s i t i o n We h a v e also shown t h a t it
c a n n o t be d e r i v e d f r o m a s t a n d a r d or f a c t u a l i f clause;
nor do o t h e r SCs e x h i b i t t h e s a m e p h e n o m e n o n So t h e
c o n c e s s i v e use o f i f m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d as being b a s e d on
a d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g o f if
Protasis only
One of the uses of if that, w i t h i n our sample, occurs
only w i t h i n r e p o r t e d speech, is when the speaker puts
f o r w a r d a p o s s i b i l i t y which in i t s e l f is s u f f i c i e n t t o cause
a r e a c t i o n in the listener:
(187) " I f you want to see" " N e v e r mind", she said
sternly
(200) "But i f you say you managed i t - - - " The stanger
was hooked
i t is the p r a g m a t i c s of the c o n t e x t t h a t leads to the
protasis being s u f f i c i e n t t o cause the speaker t o stop or
the l i s t e n e r to i n t e r r u p t , so no new meaning of i f is
required
S u m m a r y
The non standard e x a m p l e s o f i f sentences have been
divided i n t o 9 sub-categories w i t h i n the t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s
t h a t we proposed above Is t h e r e any post hot: r a t i o n a l e
that can be given f o r these c a t e g o r i e s ? A r e t h e y
necessary or c o m p l e t e ?
Within c a t e g o r y A, in which t h e p r o t a s i s p r o p o s i t i o n
DOES have a t r u t h value, t h e r e a r e two s u b c a t e g o r i e s ,
c o u n t e r f a c t u a l s and f a c t u a l s , which c o r r e s p o n d to t h e
p r o t a s i s p r o p o s i t i o n being f a l s e and t r u e r e s p e c t i v e l y
H o w e v e r this is not t h e only d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the two:
c o u n t e r f a c t u a l s have a s t a n d a r d i n f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n from
the p r o t a s i s to t h e apodosis p r o p o s i t i o n , while f a c t u a l s do
not For the f a c t u a l s it is t h e s p e e c h a c t t h a t is
c o n d i t i o n a l upon the protasis proposition
Why is it t h a t we do not find t w o o t h e r sub-
c a t e g o r i e s : f a l s e p r o t a s i s with c o n d i t i o n a l s p e e c h a c t and
t r u e p r o t a s i s with s t a n d a r d i n f e r e n c e ? T h e r e is no
p r a g m a t i c s i t u a t i o n in which t h e f o r m e r m i g h t o c c u r ; if
both t h e w r i t e r and t h e r e a d e r know t h a t t h e p r o t a s i s
p r o p o s i t i o n is false, t h e n t h e s p e e c h a c t would n e v e r be
a c c e p t e d at all F o r t h e l a t t e r t h e r e is a n o t h e r SC which
fulfills t h e function, n a m e l y n o n - t e m p o r a l since
N e i t h e r do we find t h e c o n d i t i o n falling within t h e
s c o p e o f a p e r f o r m a t i v e v e r b in c a t e g o r y A It c a n n o t
o c c u r with c o u n t e r f a c t u a l s as t h e p e r f o r m a t i v e would
h a v e to be c o u n t e r e d in which c a s e it would no longer be
p e r f o r m e d , e.g
I would h a v e p r o m i s e d to m a r r y him if he had a s k e d
m e
is simply no p r o m i s e at all but a s t a n d a r d c o u n t e r f a c t u a l
N e i t h e r have we b e e n a b l e to c o n s t r u c t a f a c t u a l within a
p e r f o r m a t i v e So t h e r e a r e no s u b - c a t e g o r i e s missing
from A
Within t h e BI c a t e g o r y , w i t h non s t a n d a r d i n f e r e n c e ,
we find a s y m m e t r i c a l s i t u a t i o n F o r t h e c o n d i t i o n a l
s p e e c h a c t , t h e s p e e c h a c t is m o v e d IN t o w i t h i n t h e
s c o p e o f t h e p r o t a s i s ; for t h e p e r f o r m a t i v e use t h e main
v e r b in t h e a p o d o s i s is m o v e d OUT b e y o n d t h e s c o p e of
t h e p r o t a s i s Thus we do not e x p e c t to find f u r t h e r sub-
c a t e g o r i e s w i t h i n Bl
Within t h e B2 c a t e g o r y , in which t h e i n f e r e n c e
r e l a t i o n is a b s e n t , we found 5 s u b - c a t e g o r i e s w i t h i n t h e
s a m p l e In t h e s u b - c a t e g o r y in w h i c h i f i n t r o d u c e s a noun
c l a u s e t h e r e is no apodosis; if is being used just to
i n t r o d u c e a p r o p o s i t i o n w i t h unknown t r u t h value T h e r e
is a n o t h e r s u b - c a t e g o r y w i t h no apodosis, when t h e
p r o t a s i s is s u f f i c i e n t for t h e s p e a k e r to s t o p The r e m a i n i n g 3 s u b - c a t e g o r i e s w i t h i n B2 are all
r e l a t e d in several ways: the protasis m a y be a phrase (in
t w o cases, r e s t r i c i t J v e and concessive use, i t MUST be a phrase); w h i l e the protasis is in doubt the apodosis
p r o p o s i t i o n is true, w i t h a m i n o r e x c e p t i o n ; this e x c e p t i o n
is being put f o r w a r d in the protasis as possibly a l t h o u g h not necessarily the case In the r e s t r i c t i v e use (if not) the
w r i t e r suggests t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a f u r t h e r r e s t r i c t i o n to one o f the f e a t u r e s o f the apodosis; in the use to doubt a presupposition, the apodosis, on the contra~'y, goes t o o far
in one o f its presuppostions; in the concessive use it is not
s o m e t h i n g as strong as a presupposition t h a t goes t o o far but just a l i k e l y c o n n o t a t i o n o f a phrase w i t h i n the apodosis While t h e r e is some p a t t e r n to this B2 c a t e g o r y ,
we b e l i e v e t h a t i t is e s s e n t i a l l y open; i n n o v a t i v e uses o f
i f w i l l be found here r a t h e r than in the o t h e r t w o
c a t e g o r i e s
C O N C L U S I O N
We have found 9 d i f f e r e n t non standard uses of if, as summarised in Table I H o w e v e r this does not r e q u i r e
t h e r e to be 9 d i f f e r e n t meanings f o r if T h r e e meanings are s u f f i c i e n t
Four o f the d i f f e r e n t uses are e x p l a i n a b l e by
p r a g m a t i c considerations, a point we made when
c r i t i c i s i n g Austin's c l a i m His t w o ifs are the t w o uses in
c a t e g o r y BI; the d i f f e r e n c e s arise f r o m d i f f e r e n c e s in the scopes o f the speech act and the c o n d i t i o n a l and are
c o m m o n to o t h e r SCs The f a c t u a l use occurs when both the w r i t e r and r e a d e r know t h a t the protasis p r o p o s i t i o n
is true and is used for emphasis L a s t l y the protasis m a y occur w i t h o u t an apodosJs when the speaker is
i n t e r r u p t e d A l l four uses are based on the standard
c o n d i t i o n a l meaning o f if; the non standard uses arises from p r a g m a t i c considerations
The c o u n t e r f a c t u a l use arises f r o m an i n t e r a c t i o n
w i t h the s u b j u n c t i v e mode in the apodosis This is
c o m m o n to o t h e r SCs and so does not r e q u i r e an a p a r t meaning o f if
The use of i f to i n t r o d u c e a noun clause DOES r e q u i r e
an a p a r t meaning o f i f as no i n f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n is present This suggests t h a t the f e a t u r e o f i f to i n t r o d u c e a proposition of unknown t r u t h value is p r e d o m i n a n t o v e r the i n f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n s h i p f e a t u r e The f a c t u a l use of i f is the only use in which the f o r m e r f e a t u r e is absent; then Jt
is a s t y l i s t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t leads to the use o f if, i.e
Trang 7to add e m p h a s i s
The t h r e e r e m a i n i n g uses are possible c a n d i d a t e s for a
t h i r d meaning of if, as none display an i n f e r e n c e
r e l a t i o n s h i p These uses c a n n o t be a c c o u n t e d f o r by some
p r a g m a t i c v a r i a t i o n o f the standard c o n d i t i o n a l , such as a
shift in the scope o f the speech act, nor are s i m i l a r uses
found w i t h o t h e r SCs in general In t w o o f these uses,
r e s t r i c t i v e and concessive, the protasis must be a phrase;
but these phrases c a n n o t be d e r i v e d f r o m a corresponding
standard c o n d i t i o n a l clause
Two uses, d o u b t f u l p r e s u p p o s t i o n and r e s t r i c t i v e , h a v e
a s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e in c o m m o n , n a m e l y t h a t t h e r e is s o m e
f e a t u r e of t h e apodosis, x, which m a y n e e d to be
m o d i f i e d We p r o p o s e t h a t if h e r e has a m e a n i n g
e q u i v a l e n t to m a t e r i a l i m p l i c a t i o n , i.e x v n o t - p , w h i c h is
e q u i v a l e n t to p D x This is t h e t r a d i t i o n a l l o g i c i a n s
s u g g e s t i o n for t h e s t a n d a r d m e a n i n g o f if
We do not a c c e p t t h a t in t h e s t a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n a l use
t h e m e a n i n g o f i f is e q u i v a l e n t t o m a t e r i a l i m p l i c a t i o n ;
such an e q u i v a l e n c e runs i n t o d i f f i c u l t i e s F o r i n s t a n c e it
r e q u i r e s t h e e q u i v a l e n c e of:
If I hit you, it'll hurt
E i t h e r I d o n ' t hit you or you'll be h u r t
and such u n a c c e p t a b l e reasoning as:
God doesn't exist, so i f God exists we are free t o do
what we w a n t
Several a t t e m p t s to save the e q u i v a l e n c e have been
made For instance G r i c e (1967) did so by r e q u i r i n g t h a t
speakers adhere to c e r t a i n c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i m p l i c a t u r e s ,
such as saying as much as t h e y know, thus r u l i n g out the
use of a c o n d i t i o n a l i f sentences w i t h a false protasis
F o r m a l s e m a n t i c i s t s propose some slight m o d i f i c a t i o n s
For instance S t a l n a k e r (1975) c l a i m e d t h a t in any c o n t e x t
in which a sentence of the f o r m n o t - p o r q is a c c e p t a b l e ,
a sentence of the f o r m i f p then q is also a c c e p t a b l e
Elsewhere (Bree, 1981) we have t a k e n issue w i t h these
and o t h e r a t t e m p t s to d e m o n s t r a t e e q u i v a l e n c e of i f w i t h
m a t e r i a l i m p l i c a t i o n
H o w e v e r in t h e use of if t o doubt a p r e s u p p o s i t i o n or
to m a k e a r e s t r i c t i o n , t h e m e a n i n g o f if c a n be
c o n s i d e r e d to be e q u i v a l e n t to m a t e r i a l i m p l i c a t i o n It
also o c c u r s i n f r e q u e n t l y (3%) w i t h s t a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n a l s :
(62) ( ) if 1 d o n ' t put my t w o c e n t s in, s o m e o n e e l s e
will
in which t h e r e is no i n f e r e n t i a l r e l a t i o n This m e a n i n g
d i f f e r s from our s t a n d a r d m e a n i n g in t h a t t h e t r u t h o f t h e
apodosis p r o p o s i t i o n is s u f f i c i e n t to c o n f i r m t h e s e n t e n c e ,
e.g knowing t h a t ' s o m e o n e e l s e will' is s u f f i c i e n t to
c o n f i r m 62 S i m i l a r l y for t w o o t h e r uses: w i t h t h e
d o u b t f u l p r e s u p p o s i t i o n use o f if, knowing t h a t t h e
apodosis is t r u e is s u f f i c i e n t to c o n f i r m t h e s e n t e n c e , as
t h e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n is no longer in doubt; w i t h t h e
r e s t r i c i t v e use, t h e a p o d o s i s is t h e m i n i m a l a s s e r t i o n t h a t
is being m a d e so its t r u t h is s u f f i c i e n t for t h e t r u t h o f t h e
s e n t e n c e So t h e x v n o t - p , or m a t e r i a l i m p l i c a t i o n ,
m e a n i n g o f if a c c o u n t s for t h e s e t w o uses of if
The last non standard use o f if, the concessive, is an
anomaly There is no question o f inference, but n e i t h e r is
t h e r e any a f f i n i t y w i t h m a t e r i a l i m p l i c a t i o n , e.g
speedy i f t e m p o r a r y ~ speedy or not t e m p o r a r y
[t is possible t h a t this use is a c o n t r a c t i o n from even if
We r e f r a i n f r o m s u g g e s t i n g a f o u r t h m e a n i n g o f if We would e x p e c t t h a t t r a n s l a t i o n s into o t h e r l a n g u a g e s would not be to the c o n d i t i o n a l , e.g w i t h D u t c h if in s u c h
e x p r e s s i o n s is t r a n s l a t e d using zij her, l i t e r a l l y b e it
In c o n c l u s i o n , we p r o p o s e t h a t if has t h r e e d i f f e r e n t
m e a n i n g s , all o f w h i c h h a v e o n e f e a t u r e in c o m m o n : t h e
t r u t h s t a t u s o f t h e p r o t a s i s is in doubt T h e y are, in o r d e r
of f r e q u e n c y o f o c c u r e n c e in our s a m p l e :
1 i n f e r e n t i a l ( p ~ q ) : as u s e d in s t a n d a r d , c o u n t e r f a c t u a l and f a c t u a l c o n d i t i o n a l s , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n a l
s p e e c h a c t , t h e p e r f o r m a t i v e c o n d i t i o n a l and t h e use
of t h e p r o t a s i s w i t h o u t an a p o d o s i s (in t h i s last c a s e
t h e i n f e r e n c e is l e f t open);
2 m a t e r i a l i m p l i c a t i o n {q v not-p): as used in a f e w
s t a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n a l s , for d o u b t i n g a p r e s u p p o s i t i o n and in t h e r e s t r i c t i v e use;
3 doubting:, as u s e d in noun c l a u s e s , in w h i c h only t h e
t r u t h o f t h e a s s o c i a t e d p r o p o s i t i o n is put i n t o doubt
We e x p e c t t h a t o t h e r l a n g u a g e s will use d i f f e r e n t w o r d s for t h e s e t h r e e m e a n i n g s This is t h e c a s e in D u t c h , f o r
e x a m p l e , w h e r e t h e uses d e p e n d i n g on an i n f e r e n t i a l
m e a n i n g a r e i n d i c a t e d by a l s o r t h e m o r e f o r m a l indien,
t h e m a t e r i a l i m p l i c a t i o n by zo and d o u b t i n g by o f (which
is also u s e d t o t r a n s l a t e w h e t h e r ) T h e r e is only o n e
e x c e p t i o n to this, t h e f a c t u a l use in D u t c h is not
i n d i c a t e d by a l s but by a c h a n g e in w o r d o r d e r Any c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m w h i c h p u r p o r t s to u n d e r s t a n d
t h e English l a n g u a g e will n e e d to be able t o d i s t i n g u i s h
b e t w e e n t h e s e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s The last,
d o u b t i n g , is e a s y t o d e t e c t as if is t h e n used t o i n t r o d u c e
a noun c l a u s e as o p p o s e d t o a sub c l a u s e H o w e v e r
d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e t w e e n t h e i n f e r e n t i a l and m a t e r i a l
i m p l i c a t i o n is not s o l v a b l e on s y n t a c t i c grounds One
s u g g e s t i o n is t o a s s u m e t h a t if has an i n f e r e n t i a l
m e a n i n g ; if no i n f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n c a n be found, t h e n it
m u s t be e q u i v a l e n t to m a t e r i a l i m p l i c a t i o n This sholJl~
be e a s y to d e c i d e w h e n if is b e i n g used to put a
p r e s u p p o s i t i o n i n t o doubt or in its r e s t r i c t i v e use; m o r e
d i f f i c u l t would be to d e t e c t m a t e r i a l i m p l i c a t i o n in
s t a n d a r d uses of if
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S The r e s e a r c h r e p o r t e d h e r e was c a r r i e d out as p a r t o f
t h e p r o j e c t "The S e m a n t i c s o f s u b o r d i n a t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n s :
an i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g a p p r o a c h " , s u p p o r t e d by t h e
N e d e r l a n d s e S t i c h t i n g voor P s y c h o n o m i e , w i t h funds
m a d e a v a i l a b l e f r o m t h e ZWO P r o j e c t Nr 15-30-10 Don S h e r m a n o f S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y C o m p u t i n g
C e n t e r kindly p r o v i d e d us w i t h t h e d a t a for this study
R E F E R E N C E S
A u s t i n , J.L., lfs and cans, in J O U r m s o n &
G j W a r n o c k , eds., P h i l o s o p h i c a l p a p e r s o f J L A u s t i n London; O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1961
Bree, D.S., T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f i m p l i c a t i o n , in
A E l i t h o r n 8= D J o n e s , eds., A r t i f i c i a l and human t h i n k i n g
A m s t e r d a m ; E l s e v i e r , 1973, 273-282
Trang 8Bree, D.S., Can IF be formally represented? Proceedings of the 3rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society Berkely, 1981, 173-176
Bree, D.S., C o u n t e r f a c t u a l s and causality Journal of Semantics, 1982, 1, 147-185
Grice, H.P., William James Lectures, Harvard University, 1967 Published in part as "Logic and conversation", in P.Cole & J.L.Morgan, eds., Syntax and semantics, vol 3 New York; Seminar Press, 1975, 41-58
Harper, W.L., Stalnaker, R & Pearce, G., Ifs Dordrecht; Reidel, 1981
Kucera, H & Francis, W.N., Computational analysis
of present-day American English Providence; Brown University Press, 1967
Rutherford, W.E., Some observations concerning subordinate clauses in English Language, 1910, 46, 97-
115
Schoenberger, W.S., Decision of destiny Athens, Ohio; Ohio University Press, 1969
Stalnaker, R.C., indicative conditionals Phiiosophica,
1975, 5, 269-286
Wason, P.C & Johnson-Laird, P.N., Psychology of reasoning London; Batsford, 1972