Indicatives,Subjunctives, and the Falsity of the Antecedent |
| |
Authors: | Niels Skovgaard-Olsen Peter Collins |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Department of Cognitive and Decision Psychology, University of Göttingen;2. School of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich |
| |
Abstract: | It is widely held that there are important differences between indicative conditionals (e.g., “If the authors are linguists, they have written a linguistics paper”) and subjunctive conditionals (e.g., “If the authors had been linguists, they would have written a linguistics paper”). A central difference is that indicatives and subjunctives convey different stances toward the truth of their antecedents. Indicatives (often) convey neutrality: for example, about whether the authors in question are linguists. Subjunctives (often) convey the falsity of the antecedent: for example, that the authors in question are not linguists. This paper tests prominent accounts of how these different stances are conveyed: whether by presupposition or conversational implicature. Experiment 1 tests the presupposition account by investigating whether the stances project—remain constant—when embedded under operators like negations, possibility modals, and interrogatives, a key characteristic of presuppositions. Experiment 2 tests the conversational-implicature account by investigating whether the stances can be cancelled without producing a contradiction, a key characteristic of implicatures. The results provide evidence that both stances—neutrality about the antecedent in indicatives and the falsity of the antecedent in subjunctives—are conveyed by conversational implicatures. |
| |
Keywords: | Conversational implicature Falsity of the antecedent Indicative conditionals Presupposition Subjunctive conditionals |
|
|