Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 315–334 | Cite as

Inferential Conditionals and Evidentiality

Article

Abstract

Many conditionals seem to convey the existence of a link between their antecedent and consequent. We draw on a recently proposed typology of conditionals to argue for an old philosophical idea according to which the link is inferential in nature. We show that the proposal has explanatory force by presenting empirical results on the evidential meaning of certain English and Dutch modal expressions.

Keywords

Conditionals Inference Evidentiality Epistemic modals 

References

  1. Adams, E. W. (1965). The logic of conditionals. Inquiry, 8, 166–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Aksu-Koç, A. (1988). The acquisition of aspect and modality: The case of past reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, L. B. (1986). Evidentials, paths of change and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. In W. L. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 273–312). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, J. (2003). A philosophical guide to conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cialdea Mayer, M., & Pirri, F. (1993). First order abduction via tableau and sequent calculi. Logic Journal of IGPL, 1, 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cialdea Mayer, M., & Pirri, F. (1995). Propositional abduction in modal logic. Logic Journal of IGPL, 3, 907–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dancygier, B. (1998). Conditionals and predictions: Time, knowledge and causation in conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dancygier, B. (2003). Classyfying conditionals: Form and function. English Language and Linguistics, 7, 309–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2005). Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Haan, F. (1999). Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 18(1), 83–101.Google Scholar
  12. Declerck, R., & Reed, S. (2001). Conditionals: A comprehensive empirical analysis. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dietz, R. (2008). Epistemic modals and correct disagreement. In M. García-Carpintero & M. Kölbel (Eds.), Relative truth (pp. 239–262). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Diewald, G., & Smirnova, E. (2010). Introduction. Evidentiality in European languages: The lexical-grammatical distinction. In G. Diewald & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages (pp. 1–14). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. Douven, I. (2011). Indicative conditionals. In L. Horsten & R. Pettigrew (Eds.), A companion to philosophical logic (pp. 383–405). London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
  16. Douven, I. (2013). Inference to the best explanation, Dutch books, and inaccuracy minimisation. Philosophical Quarterly, 69(252), 428–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Douven, I., & Meijs, W. (2006). Bootstrap confirmation made quantitative. Synthese, 149(1), 97–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Douven, I., & Verbrugge, S. (2010). The Adams family. Cognition, 117, 302–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edgington, D. (1995). On conditionals. Mind, 104(414), 235–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Faller, M. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Gabbay, D. M., & Woods, J. (2005). The reach of abduction. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  22. Glymour, C. (1980). Theory and evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Groenendijk, J. A., & Stokhof, M. J. (1975). Modality and conversational information. Theoretical Linguistics, 2, 61–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haegeman, L. (2003). Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind & Language, 18(4), 317–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haßler, G. (2010). Epistemic modality and evidentiality and their determination on a deictic basis: The case of Romance languages. In G. Diewald & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages (pp. 223–248). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Huitink, J. (2008). Modals, conditionals, and compositionality. PhD thesis, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  27. Karttunen, L. (1972). “Possible” and “Must”. In J. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 1, pp. 1–20). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 38–74). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  29. Krzyżanowska, K. (2012). Ambiguous conditionals. In P. Stalmaszczyk (Ed.), Philosophical and formal approaches to linguistic analysis (pp. 315–332). Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Krzyżanowska, K., Wenmackers, S., & Douven, I. (2013). Rethinking Gibbard’s riverboat argument. Forthcoming in Studia Logica.Google Scholar
  31. Kwon, I. (2012). Please confirm what I inferred: On the Korean inferential-evidential marker -napo-. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 958–969.Google Scholar
  32. Kyburg, H., & Teng, C. M. (2001). Uncertain inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Matthewson, L., Davis, H., & Rullmann, H. (2007). Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’át’imcets. In J. Van Craenenbroeck & J. Rooryck (Eds.), Linguistic variation yearbook (Vol. 7, pp. 201–254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  35. Mortelmans, T. (2012). Epistemic MUST and its cognates in German and Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(15), 2150–2164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nuyts, J., & Vonk, W. (1999). Epistemic modality and focus in Dutch. Linguistics, 37(4), 699–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Papafragou, A. (1998). Inference and word meaning: The case of modal auxiliaries. Lingua, 105, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Salmon, W. (2011). Conventional implicature, presupposition, and the meaning of must. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3416–3430.Google Scholar
  39. Sanford, D. H. (1989). If P, Then Q: Conditionals and the foundations of reasoning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Smirnova, A. (2012). Evidentiality in Bulgarian: Temporality, epistemic modality, and information source. Journal of Semantics,. doi:10.1093/jos/ffs017.Google Scholar
  41. van der Auwera, J., & Plungian, V. (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2, 79–124.Google Scholar
  42. Veltman, F. (1985). Logics for conditionals. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  43. Verbrugge, S. (2007). A psycholinguistic Analysis of inferential conditional sentences. PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
  44. von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. (2007). An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 2, 32–63.Google Scholar
  45. von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. S. (2010). Must...stay...strong!. Natural Language Semantics, 18(4), 351–383.Google Scholar
  46. Willett, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12(1), 51–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Woods, M. (2003). Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations