Assertions, conditional speech acts, and practical inferences

IdSEH’IONS, CQNDiTAONAt.SPEECH ACTS, AND PRACTXAL LWERENCES *

1. In hts srucle ‘A ciasslficahon of il!ucutlonary acts’ (1973). Srarle &w&s, foliowmg ZI example of IGEM. Anscombe’s, the bebanor of w/o men I” a super‘II!rket. The fist of the men goes around wt’l a shoppmg hst gwen lum hy lus wife, and tnes to put exactly ti,we thmgs mto bn shoppmg basket whew ,~amerare on b. Ust. He is foiiowed by a :scond n~an.a detective who notes down evwytl.mS the Rut man takes Whenever the man puts an arti& into hts basket. the detectwe writes down the “dme of the arti& on Bp‘ece of p&x.r. Even If bott, men wU1have xdtntical Bsts as thcv lcave *he store, the funcuon of the two bsls wdl be q”,te dxlferenr. ‘Ihe c”stom8r follows a sene: of quests noted bnetly on Is hst be tnes to make true certain gven proposstmns, namely that he buys the sr,dclrs X, Y, ete (In case we ldentlfy a prop JSI~KWI with the sat of poss~eleworld? III .duch It ri true, tbt customer tnes to chnnh- the actual world ia such il way that It 1sc Jntaroed m the gwq proposition.) Th: detsctive notes certatn facts and thus produces :I list.

14

9 mndc?,,*

/Aurrra?lt~

qlmh

ma, m;l

mfemrce;

:

followme the fmt man, he ties to express exactly those proparitioas made true hy ths actmns of the customer. namely thst he buys the articles X,Y, etc. @very tune the actual world has changed in a rel,wnt way, the detective tnes to express the proposition m whxh the act& world is stdl contamed.j

2. For Seule, the dxnbed actions PK paradigmatic examples of two classes of speech ach: requerts (dIrectives) and zscrt~ons (representstlves). The consequence of a request IS that b\e tcquestec, gwcn that he wants to follow the request, toes to lrake the actual world .natch the gnsn pioposition. The preconditmn of an assertion II that the perion who makes the assertion tries to express a prapositxm maichmg the given, ~crual world III L ?WIE’termumlogy (1969. ch. V 4), these 810 tmthfulness conventtons combozd with the carrymg out ofrequests dnd ass~rhoo:i. Suipdsmgly enough, neither Se& nor Lewis have remarked the obvrouo asymmetry ol &err conccptmns. One would like to ask: Wlut 81e the precondil~ons of request’ What are the consequences of an assertion? Moreovc;, the atJovemcnrhoned truthfulnc~ conventkx of an assertton seems to hdd only for a special class of f?..t-notings or reports. For mstance, it is poss.bIe to assume that the detective 10 the supemtarket, bewuse of hi msiruct~oonis obliged to observe such a convention - if lus ssserhons are to be taken as statements of facts What and is allowed to say in a certain situation need not depend on the nattire of the performed speech act, but may be regulated m other ways.

3 Let us suppose that the detectxve also tells hi boss the fotlowing: The man is a sadist. Guys like him are rather dangerous. He never gets up ear&; than 10 am At a pinch, he wlli have gut already for breakfast. Perhaps he II bcmg blackmailed He ISalso said to deal wltb hot suff. These am 1 zssertions. 11 1s doubtful, howe
proved by the rueaker to be tr”e, btit ret&r ?bat they tell what the speaker &lms to bs true. This claim CM B prmclple be subject to doubt;thc person who makes’such a” assertto” rr,l~cIbe able, therefore, to substa?*Catehxs clahn, when rt II questioned. in ihat case, the”, he wdI use .Irgumc”ts to support hts claun: ‘9 based my I_MC~US:O’~on thiso: that; I was told, I have found out that tt ts usuallyythe case”; etc. This marich It possible to evduatc the assertton (that LS to state uodar which cot&ions it is euppos:d to be true), and it allows one to take mea~res ‘~:1the bats of this e~sertioe. Even with fact-notine it ts not at all evident, whether it is in lhe nature of the respect”%speech acts lhrt the speaker must try to ray oniy what i*:tr”e, or what:?% 1” such WSBShe mrmsthy to show that the truth of \\hst he has satd IS c~“dItlo”ed by ceitll” criterra When the deteruve makes lhe assertlo” Ihal the man wught Serbrm salad, WCFIX futthrr ask hrm whether he IS absolutely certain about it. and wh,ather thts was al: the ma” b’?ught. To thii, the detectwe si” a”s~ ri, for “Istance, they tell what was

15~ t5e label on the glad he put mto ha Jasket Af~erwnrds,I weot to the self and saw glasses with Serbia” salad these I SW that the ma” crossed out the vords ‘Serbian salad’ on lus hst I bad a” extra lookmto his bask&; etc. We c,m observe the fact that It LSponlble to make the detectrrz’s assertlo” problematx, and question its truth, eve” toau~L he was mrtructed be lorehand to repot t ceit~n event< truthf”Jly ad perfec:ly,or IN”case he is questioned as a wtness. If he 1s no1 wdhng to wIthdraw lua claun, t,e most xcpport It. even if IIus was not pert cf tiis jos.

4. For the foltowfig KMI”E 1 camtot accept Lewis’. “or, although less emphatically, Seark’s conception Jf the nature of a” assertion. - In many asser&o~athat do not refer to parttcular facts. such as general or hypphetical statements, evaluative or no,mauve Judpents, stdtenu?nts based on “sontebodyfatdso”, or ;ta:plrents based on everyday.conricttonr, Che precomhbon that the asser~ons must be true cannot be met 1” advance t” a” unproblemattc Way. -For Lewis, and seemingly alto ior +xde,tu: asscition IP the result of a cettam cogns:~ inference @Is may be true, but no mote so than in othes land!. of rpcech acts). It dm not set up a troth dslm, wb~; vti&ty and range can bt tested I” a subseqrrem argument&m. Thus, there Is WCinr:er connectton between ‘dsscrtlons a”d tbeoreticll agrme$atio” or ptactlcai proofs. - I;,r L.&a and Se.+, ao unreflected ~lssertIi.nwould offend agahzst the nature of the ~&ion. L Un”ot see how such a” unrefkctad assertto” c&d offend

again+

any nrlrs for commwneat~on (and mdred, we oft&o make unreflcc:ed assertions), suck an assertion also makes a truth claim, but when w&have to scpport It, we mu;t u.’ w kagination, or wthdraw our cbdim. - A be wwd. for Lewis and S&ad&,offend agamrt the nature r;ihs merhon. I thirb that B i.r UVI tk sp&echxt of .h&~.~~rti~~t;it offends a@innt tb& VIII&S of toopcrattou and smcenty, bu’ wt against any rule of a particular speech act. - 4ceording ‘o Lewis, the tefirral to prow an assertion can only be msrded as th& refr~sal to follow a particular r&quest.To me, it means to refure to take the consequenc~2 resulttng from the asrertiott. for the r&quest to SupporZ an awrtion 1s JuSUflCd,conridedng the ,lature of the 8swt1on. and whoever refuss to suppcrt d, renounc&s the truth CL+‘ ‘re has just made. Either his assertion was void, OI lur utt&ranc&was no a~rertizn -t at!, but an attsmpt to define what should hold true.

5. 11 my new Lt belongs to the uaturr of ao assertion that the ::peabr rna!~es1. truth claim In order to mawam tl.?s clown,he has to bahava m a p.~mcul.~ way m this sense I contend that he has accepted certam c~?svptences for bib late1 bctuvior and that h& has cornnutted himself to certam things. (He can frz hanself from thi!! commitmznt by withdrawing the claim of his sssert~on.) A slmtlar conc?ptmn I’, mdrcattcdby Searlc (1973 16).

However, +~JSs*zrement needs explanatton. What does It mean to be commdted t,3 the truth ot the expressed proposittonl 1 already ielected the pccttmn that, w germeral, ooe has to make sure in advance that the expressed proposttion 1strue, 01 thzt one even 15able to do so To make sense of the nohon of comnr:ment to truth w? must, therefore. specify, m an appropnat: way, the consequences of an assertwn that have to be observed. If a rational helng knows what the eoesequencer of lus domb are, tbsn he may taae t!iem into account m advtmz. For mstancu, he might dectte to make a particular assettmn oI,iy if he has ascertamed that the exprsssed prop3sition is true. But this does not belong tr the natwe of tnc assertion. any mom&,rather, it follows ftam it. if we taxe certatn plausible assumpttons about ratio8ulVy Into account. There tie thret kinds of condirrons, or ~commdments,that are connected wdh &veryrisertao~~ha it expbit or hnpbcd. - A rtrong candtion: If sol?.cbc$ matis an aszrtion, he must be ready, of requested, to gwe reasons, arguments, or rvidcncs in supfiort of his awxtion, or even prove the truth of what is being asserted. (The latter h&comesbnp+ttant wth assertions mad&in c
-A weak wndttion~ If samebody makes an a?wt~on, he must be resdy 10 accept ~werytlung that can be concluded fron. what is b-zingasserted accorddng lo an accepted standard of miwme, and he must be wady to re!ect evervthin~ that, agaul sxordmg 10 an accepted afandard of mfeww, wxll conflict witb what IS bemg axerted. (If thlr weak condatmn 1s not met, then it IS not posslbie to meet the strong con&lion etther For a formal chalogue, titis II easy to show, I;ecause frost p and -p any conclusion pay be drawn, and t~ecausefrom p. p It-q and -4 it foIlows that-p, from which, agam;any concluston may be drawn). -A coniez:uJ condition’ If somebdd> makes an &sertloD that p. m the contef speech acts.

6. On the assertion tha. the man is a sad& zhe fol;owmg twJ reacttons, anon:~ many others, are powble (al) How do you know? (bl) Why do you say th@ The an’iwei can be: (32) Evarybody who bites a drg is a sadist: nnd thzs man did bite Bdog [bZt Evbrybody who has a dog has to bq:woreof sadMs,and yol: have got a dog; and I wanted you to beware of this man. Dialogues of the first kmd (dl, 22) shall be called theoretical argumentations’ a iwh ckum is&led Into question md 1sdclcrded; the contents of an assertxon,oot

tha speech act Itself. are sulpport~cl. 111ffic procers, certain cogmhve inferences are being shown. lhese trel passiily Ibemade e.1plic!t in 8. formal lo&d system. DISlogoes of rhc second kind &I, b2.1shall hc called ~mctlcal argumentations: here, an aclioo 1s called into questton end h being defended; what is supported 1swhy Bpartsalar action (here I speech acl) we, is, or wll be performed Thus, practical mFrmnces are bernit shown. whicli up to that pint were not made expllcd In a formal logwal system, and whxh ca,not pow ably be made exphc~t m rl deductwe system. (The tnnsihon from Intention cod art&n knowledge about actions to the de&Ion to act aotl the perfom~ai~ceof thu action could be called an wtentmnal OI tekologtwl one; in any case Lt is not a dedwhvc tranation). A special version of a practical lnferena scheme can be found m van Wngllt (1971): it wdl be &cussed “1 ES-13. 7 *Me the theoretxal exp!;cni~ns of both lands OFnrgnmentatlon, or both Ionds of mference prorssses. are pr~~~jessive(.am .Ihead) - that is, because of certem prermses they driw certain cwclus~on~ - argument.ltians m everyday speech are often regresswe(:em backwards]i. the contents of an .asenion or an actloo are berg syported by letting them stand as the conclwons of plemires thst have not yet been mentioned. ii premises surh PSm (a2) o[ (b2). &j well es pertrcolar tnference procedures are ecccpted, then xttons an,J the xmtents of certain assertions are L&O acceprablc. But if e cogwtive c I practical inference 1%used aftcrwa~dr es a meam of support, then the speaker doe, not necf %anly n-f&dto hax araw!~tlm con&non m advance. It may well be the cas? that a plaudble mfewce ISnot thought of untd an Ionreflected asserhon or actIon ha to be supported

: now core to the them- of my essay, th> partrolar connectmn of assertions, conditaonsl speech arts, and practical mferences. As a first approxunation,consn%eer the sentence If one fastens a ladder, il cannot

idI dowr

Thus sentewe can be wed to take Bgeneral zsertlon m order to set up a useful mum for dally practice The aswtton wdl be swzessful if the addressee takes over the trHb clsm. In other words, rf he believes that a ladd:r cannot fall daw IE one fastem 11.Now consiwr tie following dialopo h Damn ii’ My ladde elwys f:dts down. fasten it, it r&t fall Covm again

II.If yw

By hla utterance, B evbiently makes a” assertron whxh IS a partwlat case of the abovementioned g~nersl one. But evidently El also nvcs a piece of good edwe. t.JnPcr which conditions wdl his advice be successful? ExacctiyIf the assertmn 3s successful, too, that is If A, the addressee, be:wes that a ladder (or at 1w.t thus o”ej ‘e”“ot fall Gown il It LS fastened. I” the girr” atuatiw. A can use this p~ew of advice zs the premw oif a practsnl inference, hc wiJ1use It if he b&eves m what is asserted (trusts th!s prew of advice), ““d if he is li ma” of comma” smsc. Thus paztadsr condItiona ossartions function as pieces of edvice, prowdecl they refer to cert.u” concerns of the addressa and can be used 10 ha practical mfeiencer.

9. I wll use the nottc” ofpractical wfennce here m connection wth ” cerar” class of speech acts. For ‘111sporpose, it is sufticicot to conader the sunple~r of the scbrxs oufG”ed by van Frrght (197X-96), smce the more eizbonte iorr~~dauons we espec&Jy dewed to compensate for differences In time with regard to the plan“~“g and perfomq of e” actlon. Van Wng?lt dlwsses 111sscheme .d,o I” a” ep~sw~ologxal context this, I do not want t? take up here (ps)

’ A mtends t >bring “bout p. A considers that he cannot bring about p unless he doe? a. Therefore 4 sets Jwndf to do a.

The first sentence ot *be scheme (PS) descrtbes an agent n’s uamt~on, the secant, sentence dexritxs A’s cog&we attitude, the third sentence describes how A, II perfOnill”J (or having performed) the practical inference sets out to act he deride,.. c” a cl;rtzrn actlon sod begins to cary It out, at least as taj as as first stager nn concerned IJtw the lnferena s&me chsractcrizes the rta~tatio” from lnte~tmw and cognitive atntudes to deosionr to actions and to the actions based on these declslons ar well. I%de”tly. this IS no deducwe coherence, but rather a raiionalmaximkiml of coherence. Furthen~~ore,the description adopts the ageat pow of vzeew:the ,:ognitive prem~ essentaJ for estabhslung tie co”cl”s~on sets I+ an mtensional conlext A’s asbumptio” may prove to be wrong, but thlt do& “ot mea” that A has conelude badlv. [“if it had realiv been the me that c cotAl onlv be obtained if II was done, then1 would also havehone a?) One can ekphasize tt; agent’s perspective even mdre strongly by usmg an expressioa fn the 1st or Znl person rather than one in the 3rd person; this indicates that 0r.e uipposes the agent could actualy perfomt thode inferences. and that e&he1 he himself OTa co.agenL were able to display them.

10. On pnnciple, ,t is posstble to fomwlat,

a prncucal mference witht” a deductwe

fiameu “rk We have only to state the rztzonality of th.z agent 1” an addtt and pren:,se. \Vr would the” b- restncted to a” e\clurn~ly theoretical levet of tke analyst’s cons~J~rat~o”. Consider the following three prenuses (a), (b). and (c). and their ce”cl~,r,o”-

z

What 1’. the ctat”s of the ratxwahly premue fr)” It sewes to transform non?tductwt wxam Into a deductwe mierence sch:“v. However, the substance of the irobler” II not &I”& the ~ddmond p-wxre is empt, It 1s posnble thst A !eades o? a drfferent “ctmo, !I, wluch mews that o”e of the prem,s% mu:! be false It we stxk tc. ptemass (.,) and (c). prenusc (b) must be false Elthrr

It

derr.rrb~” a mxta” max”n wrocglv, 01 there ts 9 contltcl between “MY”“S ~1%. those rri”ch hold for the agent and thaw whxh hold for the analya. Ths may Ic ad to a t:l:orettral dtspute wth the r’geentA. ather on the wdidttv of the maxlnls’ descn,?.mns or on the vd Lt) of thr maxmx themselves Ilut &f onz wants to reconstrwt ibe agent’s mott\es, one can reasonably rely upon thht maxims that hold for the ab:nt hunseli only

If w keep to prenu~es (8) ani (b), the thud prem~, (c), I”@ be fake. Th” ,nay ead to 1 Cntvxm of A tar hw lack orratio”ahty,m c&e the analysi wants lo diqae wtth the apnt Now A h”nsclf :“sy tq’ to torm&,te ks ““deistandlng of r+cnahty to defend lus poutlo”. posubly hy using sxamp:cs of practical Infer.?” I’S of the “o”.deductne kind. in general, there ?.eemsto be no way to advocate a I e knn conception of rattlonabty mthout usmg examples of this land. The use ot p’ (IT ae (c) presupposesa scnstble use of the scheme (PS)

1‘.

The qwtto” -why are you doing II?*’ could be answered by somcbodl vnth dn .nstt”ce of *.he scheme (F’S)

I wanted

to obtatn p and

I thought

Gus u’s

only powble,

If I did P

Such a” ““swer could raw, among others. the fotluwrng oljectlons (1) But you ddn’t really want to c!.:am p.

(2) Yo” probab!y have yet another re,,son (‘IOUdso wanted q) (3) You could not hcve thou&t thdt, for ewybody knows II fill “ever help you to ohtai” p. (4) You aren’t eve” able tu do (I pisprrlv (5) But you should not have wished to obtam p in the first place (6) But you xre not allowed to lorr. (7) But you can also obtah, p rf you do b (which 1saasier) (8) But you ca” only obta.; 2 by dc::g B If you do c as well (91 You ea”“ot obtain p wth (I at all (1) challcn~es the averted premise for the Intentlo” and su&e,ts that A IS ather ~nco~~sxstent tn his Wenttons, ox that he only mentions part of his %“tentxms. (2) demea that the motive ,“entwneli lo. A’s dmng was rhe only one, dnd suggest, tb-1 he 5s(oncealms somethmg. (3) challengee,the cogn”ive prem~e 8s such, and sug~sts that A IS&sh mest. as he c~n”ot resnonahly have thought v/hat he p etends to have thou&t (4) relates to the mlplic” prenuse that A ri”M be conviwel that he can perforn: (1. and It dense%that A cmzoxform n (5) end (6) do “3t challenge any oremrses,hut they suggest that L further premae IS “rccuary IF on: demdes on a” acce~..,Ve actmn A would have to hebeve ti-at p and LIare not problblted. (7) says thar airhoogh dcang a IS suifuent, IJ IS not nwersary I” order to &tamp (there are other alternatwerawhich nwy be preferable) (8) says thaf althougb domg n 1s necessary I” order to obtain p, Etis “ot sufticrent (other thms have to be done ds well) (9) r,ys that domg C?IS “elthcr “eces~arynor suiticlent I” order to obtsm P

12. The first sentence of the inference scheme @), “A Intends to brmg dbc,“t p”, can be wepreted I” d&rent ways for mrtance, A wmts t3satbfy 3 wed. f&w a request, hve up 10 Bstandard, fulN n” obhgatior,.keep a piomrse in genevi p is en event (or stats) regarded by A as poatwe, for> ISsulred to satisfy certdn mtcrexs of A’s, wl”ch themselves may already be rn,u d “1’ wth other people’s ,“frrtsb But there 1s ~“other essenridl point to be eon.td;red m A’s “~creatio”’ of zn Intention - pruxded intentions do enter pvx3ical mf%encn as premrses nt ail otbc.: people’s Interests, “T potentxdi] exlstlng prohunmns 1” which other people’s ~“tere~ts are expressed, have to be respected. Thewfore, thr follounng co@ive ,nference for Forming the Intentlo” may be prcsanrd 1. has 8” interest I” obtainiig p (or wishes to obtal” a).

A thinks :hat &I will not conflict vnth the mteres:s of other F%Qk any more than non-p wotdd conflict with hts own interests Therefore A mtends to obtalnp ‘rl A’s mtent~on. there IS thus not only a goal, the goal 1s also made Irgttunate. Ob]ccl!on (S), then, challenges tbc legltunncy of tba goal, whereas (6) challenges the lelytlmd;y of the meens. The second sentenct m the mference srhcme (F’S), “A consldt‘s that he cannot bnng about p unless he does a”, can be understood u, the followmg vx.y A cx~n onlv tbtnk this lf hc ;Iss IS convmced tbnt he can perform II (ObJCCtlon .4). then, challenges the cowxtxss of this comtctlon). If A’s belief (that be can c,nly timg about p ip tie dr,:s a) ,s seen as bemg the result OF I cogrutwe mference :%if te g evaluatso~~of sa~salny and possible dltemattve acttons), It would wdced be sensible to assume that such a conncr~on does ex,st Otherwe, for mstance If the contenh of the cogn~twe premtse arc cu?rrwd in the form of an adwe. such a Lonv,ct,on would baw to be taken as the dddmonal prcmwz of d pract~cdl inference. for A wdl only set o”t to do a, I: he bebevcs there ,r a chance to succeed

In the mfcrenco scheme (35). only ate of several Qosslbk cakes L$ formulated. In addttlon, A #nay Intend to pwenr thmrevent or state p. to matntmn the If A, bf mcam cf some actron, ww~s to bnnE about p. he does not always. or e\clus!v.ly. w/e to consider those acttons that xe news.

til tenmnate thestbteD

statep:

say In ordei to bc convtnced th?t an JL~ID” baaed on J practlcai rnference wdl be successful (will obtam p,, rt is nei?%ory to ‘lax aq idea zf those act,ons that are (normally) sufficvent If no suffic~enr .~c:~onsare known, it 1ssomotrmes sensible to work towxds rhc ohtautment of p step by step. conndenng, m other words, thorr actions w’uch are at least nece~say If sufficient actrons are known. but no nccersary OFIE. there are altematner. and it may bc possible to eva!uate these For mst~“co, it r6 possible that tf further prfm~res SIC considered (11 must he allowed to do 0, c must not be too dlffieu1t.p rnu~t be obtamed withm a certam tmte+pan, obtamulg /J must not mvolve other persons’ actlnty, etc.), necessary acttoin (ddlusted to these furlher prcm~ses)can ‘w ptcl~ed lrom the range of altematw wfliaent muttons. In cases rvbcrc necessary it.tton’. “re kncwn, one IS somettmes tnrirned to :mcorrcctly) label these sufficient as well. or I, 18msmuatrd that further, neassary precondrtlonr dre eosq to n’eet. The follwim~ example wrll s,ow how thrs can lead to wroog conditions

and nonsensxal actlo IS

A m.ends to bmld a how,? .A thmks that be can o&y budd B houx II be lays R foundrrtton Therefore A sets out to lay a famdanon

, IO)

dog ff li Is nor a m~socbirt, expresses covertly a nece~ary cortdmon for bun to dectdu not to tease the dx. m order not to eet ‘Mten In Q-33 I am mtrr ested m the mrerrelationstq of condsttoml and intcntlon, and not In the eva!uaf:o”s whtch are actually lradc by the author JI rhe rader We re:” (IO) as a genx.4 st, tentent m wha:h a ce~tam causall;~ suftiaent relatmn between easing-the-dog and gettmg-b&z!> is asserted (ln ceitsln uses, tiowcver, (IO) can dso be token as 2 parttcular statement evenIs ) Aiotlg wth (10). a number of varlanls tmn OF (1011s. (I 1) Ifyou

don’t get bltten,

aboat a possible will bc examucd

future course of Phe contrapow

you don’t tease the dog.

\lhen mad in the most common way,(ll) .swts the reversed reiatmn of1 111) noi b,e behav!or of the dog, but the behavior of an ap,r II described PS a nx,it,on Another, not so evident wy to read the sentence can be made clesr If we c’umg,the tense

24

D Wunlrkh

l.4rrernonS rpedl

l<

Ir. md

mfirmaer

(I?) Lfyou don’t get Lutten, then you chd not tease the dog (13: If you did not get br&n, then you dd not tease the dog. (I?) and (13) refer lo the same relation as d!d (la), they tormulate a conclusion u~he~e(IO) IS used. In (13). zf least, ttos II e/ldmt It ISpresuppored that you wele not bItten, z.?rt ISasserted that you &d no. tease the dog IS.

By means uf the negabon test, the cocnterfactual test, .xd the embeddmg test the followng V.-IIshow that (10) expwser a strong car titlonal. whereas (13) expresses a wah cond~t~onnl ’ Only a weak concht~onalcat be made exphclt wth the m~tend onphcat~on.Yy theses TICthese (A) The eognttwe prenw of a prachcal tn:e ence wdl always contdtn a strong ‘onrhtmnal (B) Ihn Londrt:onal says that a certzmt acts n (or aostammg from such an actlon) 1s a necessary o’ su:tiwx~t ;ondmon ior the obtamment. preventlo”, main~eriance,or termlnar~on of an event (P state, a ~wcess), evaiuated either as nepawe or posItwe, respectwely (C)The only zontraposltion of tl e s:rong condtt~onal C of a cogmhve p~rmse wkch rxpresses the same relallon as C ISa weak coxwonal that formulates a corclunon by means ofC By the coniradlctory negauon of 3 strong conltlonal onI, thz second chmse B negated “If p, then nonq” But m the case of the weak cwhtlonal, the whoie rxprewon IS nepated V ts not the case that ~fp thee q”. Bluch I eqwalent to “p “od nowq”. h$ ncgatmn of(l have (:4) If you tease the dog vo” WI!Jilo, get bo ten It ts presumsd that the antecedent of I IO) II the theme In case the consequent IS the theme. J negation of the antecedent is also powhle, e.g 4 In which case wP I get Men? B If you tease the dog you will get bltten C Nonsense, don’t bcheve It. If you do not tease the dog. you will get bitten In catchcace the Themeclause wll be neyated. At first glnnce the followngse-tcnce

In (16). as well as I” (IS), ‘:rd’ I not mterpreted rrurh-fimctm.nlly, hut as ibc CoMector of a strongconditronal, the clauses are not irtlercha,g.teb!. a ,thout chang. zng the meaIlIng of the rentenc-r Sentence (13) 1s8 drfferent iw~e As its negatxon, we find

(1-i) You dtd not get b&ten .,qd (yet) you teased the do8 br;t ,,ot tba tenwmnd6ied cont,dpos,tl”n of (14) (IS) If you got bitten, th?n you &d net teds: tbe dog The strong contitnonal permits a countcrixtual fonnulattcn even If the ICC,dental facts do n?: ~eabze the dewibed r&&on, tbxs relatrao 1s stall vabd Tbr weak cond~~onal dots not pemut a counterfactual fomulatlon the conclusion hat been drawn but It depends on the acctdental facrr Sentence (19) is acceptable, (20) ISnot

(19) You dtd not tease the d,g, and you did not get bltten but of you Iud teased the do&you would have gotten bltten (20) *You have teased the do3 and you got bdten, but If you had not gotten oitten, you would not have teased the don:. The strong condlttonal can be embedded wtthout hm~ts, wbereds the weak coodrhoml can be embedded only m those c”ntex,s that pernot embeddebdconclustons. (The astensk marks the dewtt senteocel.) (21) If y”ugetbWmFy”u teaw the do&it Is your “wo fault. (22) If the owner is not there, you will get bnten If you tease the dog (2 ,) l If you did not tease the dcg rf you did not get bitten, 7,“” were’lucky (2,‘) + If the “ww was there, t&n v”” did riot tease the dog If you did not get b&ten. (25) If you did not lease. the do,2 if you dtd not get hxtten, thn Jr!m did not tease the dog :itba If he drd not gzl bMen. (Zbj If I am not nnrtaken, you did no: tease the ~iogifyoudrd not g3t bitten

The firsi pat of (27) IS rdentical wth (IO), the second par‘ wth (13). NSW,(27) says that, be, awe of 110). (13) II true, ~‘1thrs sense I have e&d (13) a” apphcatton of(17).

16.

(28)

you tease dog, yc” get biven. Or.!y If da not tie dog. w4 not bitten. (30) If you do not txse the dog, jawi r”t get bitta: (3 I) O”ly ,I :=a” Ieasr the d >g,you will ,$ctbltten

Let “I call (29) he strong ca”!rapos&ton s)! (28). md (31) the st*ong corAraposiIIO” of (30). C~rreSpondlngly. Conform to traCbtIon,i wu aS”“E that s~~nlences 1:28)-(X) say somethmg about sufficienlt or cecwary con~tions. Let “p” bu. Wlat you tease the dog” and let “4” bs “th.4 you get bitlen” (xi> p 1ssufficient for q. (29’) non-p 16necCssaryfor non*. (30’) nunp S suffclent for non-q. [31’) p ISnecessary for (I. Far (10) = (28/, rt has baen proved that a” interpretation as a weak condit~inal, ad hence as a matevlal mq4icatmn I” the sense of propn~tlonal logx, tannor b adequate, since the behavior cf (IO) = (28) under negation, embeddmg and camt&actual refxmulation ~dcesn’tshow the properties that are chazsctedr~c of the lqpcal matsnal iqhcatm”. WIthout further proof i wd assume that Senterws (29).-(31) behave Just Uke (?8), and tbdt vah of tbsm expresses a strong cowhtlonl. But how can ‘\“Mdent co”LHon”ond “necessary con&!ion” be made loghxdly exphcli d we take them -1sstrong co”&fmnals” What we need Is a “stlonyer” Io@c than the propossltional we. Such a logic 1%.e.g. modal logic. Vo” Wright (1968) has propwd a” explication in Uus franauwrk, seeordi”g to whxh (287 through (31’) cm be lepresented a.. follow (28”)N@3q)&Pp&P--q (ZP”) N(-q > -p) ,SLPp & P ‘~4

(30”) N(-P J-q)

& P-p % pq

(3l”~N(q3p)bP*.~&Pq

where “i-” stands for 7s a theorem” (cf Hughes .md Cies~well 196:s 34) lkca~~sc of

is i n a theorem m such modll log& ,.yetems. ft follows that (28”) and (29’ ), (3O”j and (31”). respcclw~~ly,tom out to be IogicaIly equi:&nt. If tin suplra:~on 1s correct, (28) and (29). (30) and (31), respectwely, should be synonvmoo% IFurthermore, tbelr respective contradictory negations, :ounteriactual retormulatlonr, and certam embeddings sboold turn out to be par~xe syncz.ymous as well, uoless the contexts m question were mtensionally more restncted tbm the strong cnndtt~ond Let me try to show tluinfor 130) and (31). @kg 30) If you do not tesst the dog, you will stal get bitten (Nee vou will retbrtten .-. 311Even If vou _ do not tedse the doe__ (CF 30) If you had not teased the dog, you would not have gotten bl”ten. (CF 31) 3nly if you bad teased the dog you tiould have gotten bi..en (Emb 30) If you do not get bltten If you do not teaw the dog, yw can avold bnng hdten. (Emb. 31) 1: you get only bttten if you tease t!,e dog. yw can aro!d bemg bdten I

Unfottunately, z mere intutlve judgment yAs no clear result%concemmp >yn. o”yo’y. Thus. the qutstmn whether (30) and (31) are synonymous or n ,t ISaeemmgly wdecidable.

17. Thete are twom3sons, however, thatmake one doubt, ahether the sennlenccs:n question, (28)<31), can really be conudered as painvise synonymous, and thus rendor “on Wright’s explsatlon madeqwte. I shpll deal with one of the% nau,ns her:.the other one wili bc dealt wltb m 518. In normaI contexts, the first clause of a conditloxal sentence (the antecedent) will ts tbs theme. Thrs means thet the poikt of view under rvhlch the second clause

has to he undelstood IS detemned, @“enthe tlrst clause. I” so far as the sentences desfnbe tausai con”ect,ons, ttis ISqu,te natural the ““tecedent refers to the carsal prezond~t~onsof the cowrque”t,al event I” @neml, these hare lo be located earl,a, I” t*,e, zni at any rate no later than tic event ,” quest,on I” iron Wn&t’s logcal Pxphcz,t,oli of the necessary condmon, m wh-ch the conaequent~al event II n~en tioned III the &st clnuse. th:s relatro”sh,p ha; oee” reversrd, hence hs explication see,“s problematrc Otbrr attempts to pxaph,ase (29) ~pparcnlly yield no more c”“Ll”slve results (29a) You can prevent gett,“g b,tte” only ,f you do not tease the dog (29b) YOUwdl get b,tte” u”les.syou do not tci,se the dog (2%) It ,s ,mposs,ble thet you vlll not get b,tte” if you tease the dog In (2?a). ihe word ‘only” stdl has to be cleared (29b) :o”ta”s the word “‘unless’, whwl, IS. fmm n lolpcal po,“r of new, in “a w”y less nbs:“re. Moreover, I” both swtences thr theme-rhcme-rclat,o” has been rwersed, as agsmst 129). (2%) makes the causal co”nect,o” 3.leleolo@c”l one, (!9b) says that t, ‘, co”srquent,al eve”: ,E ,,,evllable, unless one avo,ds certan do “a, ,” e~tbsr case the corneque”t,al evr”t a”d not ,ts preco”d,t,a” IS the theme. (29~) does not re\e~se tlx then,e.rhelrerelat,““, but doesn’t lead to a logcal eqwalence wth (28) eirher for (29~) ,,,clu~cs. besldii t:,e e,nbedded suificrent co,ul,t,o”, the mods1 operator of ,mposs,bd, y

18.

Th.: log,cal exphcahon (28”) makes a relatwely strong statewent, as do the “then (28”) sates that tbrre ,s a co”“ect,o” between p dnd 4. from wbxl, NO, > 4, can logcaily be mferred. N@ 3 q) IS true I” a world (s,tux,o”;~. exac,ly ,f, for all powble vorlds ,, ,t 15the case that ,f p ,s true ,” J the” 9. Now, ,t 1s rather doubtful s%hetl,era speA?r of (28) wdl make such a strong &un: he m&t admit t ,at ha stateme”, IS not true I” Bs,tuat,o” where the dog IS111or doped Ther::ore ,I LS,,e~essary to look f1.r a less strong expl,cat,o” We would l,ke (281 Go to be tme I” Lexactly ,I for CI,a,” altemstive sltuat,o”s] tl,a* border on, ,andonly slightly d,ffeerfrom I, ,t ,Gthe lcasr that ,fp IStrue there, the” dso q. Precnely th,s IS pocs,ble, ,isi”g Lems (1973) co”d,t,o”at p a Q, wh,ch wth respect to :ts strength 1,~ between NO, > q) a”d ? 3 4 I.ewx h,n,sdf speaks of countcrfactuals, but in IKE he $cludr*s all lands of strong cond,~,m:ds, be they formulated ,n the real, ,I, eal, or counterfactual mood. (28) If; ou tease the xiog,you w,U get b,tte”. (28a) If you teased the dog, you would get b,tte” (2Bb) liyou had teasaclthe dog. yo” would have g, ‘ten bitten.

hm’ positm” is that the respectw~ d~fferentes I” the “SCof tense and mood can be trcazd by means of wmwsatlonal ~mplrr:~turesI” the sense ofGnce(ef. Levi 1973 ?), for instdnce, :rum (28b) a presuppomtmn can be in~phcaatedthat >DU Id not tease the do&. I.c\v~s also considers .mctber condluonal. p C- 4. such as expressed by the senrwxx”

If you tease the dog, you might get bitten. Smre thus condltmnol relates t*)powbtlitw, only it has “3 bram.g on our question conccmmg seCtC”ceSf2a) to [31). Le,WJ*condltnmal p rwq does roughly rbe same as the md4 statement N(f,Q 13 q).in whxh f s a srtectms functm” ths selects, depenr mg on p, certam Ittem&ve worlds J hordenng on, a,td otdy shghtly differe”t from z,such that p 3 q R tnie i@I (cf. l_ewx 1973. 58 ff.). &w tt t”mS out that in IAws system the strcng contmposirlon ESnot vakd. that rs.p c* q and -q 1~ -p an’ not log:aUy eqwvalent (1973’35! Consequently, m tlus exphcatm” (28) and (29). (35) arld (31), resf~~vcly, cannot be ConsIdered p.rrwre sy”o”ymow, txept fw S,C
19. I” case XI: .xcept Lew: condiio ral 1’ a q asthe proper cvphcatlon of the sufficlel6t condition m (28). !t is still qu stuxubk whether we ~a” reprssenr the necesWY condltmn 1” (29) ds -q D -p. TIE would Imply, for ~“stance, that (?A) and (29df \ad to be synonymous (29) Only if you do not tease the dog, you wtll not get bitten (29d) If you do not get brtten, yo, wd not tease the dog In z3dmxito themwl~etl themwhc ne-rel~ttm”s$p, tkese sentences alro thffer t” their conversational impheatmw fro n (29) we can infer that not-teasing-the-dog wiU Like place before not.getti”g.b~t~e”, fro.n (29d) the reverre. The !atter, how. ever,has nothing to do until the reader ; of a “ecess~sy condttmn From the paraphrase (294 we get - P(p u-q). This expreswx LSnot rqulvalsnt with NO>E+q),for m Lewis’ system ] 1a -q md -fp n q) are “01 equwlent As hz bee” ahL#” 1” the dlsr.usslon oft antmdictory negatmn (5 l:,), colrcspondmg xHe”ces are only ay”o”ymow., if on, pr~s”n?e~F bemg thematiched. In the formal treament thus means rhai the sm e subsets of altemntwe possible worlds have to be so&ted for evaiuatioa. This corn spends to what 1~1sbeen aad conwnmg the thema-rheme-relatioll~lp ui $17. Thr re stem to be 10 *,e”o”s arguments ne;lmst reprerentmg the nacessary ccndltion a: -F’@Jh -4). but the arguments pro are stall

30

0

wunsft?mf &xm.ms,

speed actr, md m.fcm7eer

InsuffiLient. \Vhe~,*as the suftinent conditionsannther satisfacturdy be reprerented rnthlrl Lewis’ syaCo, . convmciog exphcatlon of the necessary condihon IS stdl wantkng.

2G. lo my ternwoosocy, the desrgnnrtlon ‘ condttional speech act” includes the followmg speech a, ta’ lo warn. to threaten, to advise, to reproach, to negotiate.‘o CXtoTt,to offer, to orop xt-. I do net &arm tiw cnumcmt~on to be exhaustwe, :ven wthoM men:mmng the various languageapec! ic pecuhant~es Some of the listed speech acts can be reahzed hy asserttons of a ten am hod others by i, certam hnd of requarts some ol it&em also by promaes or eve,, qoashms. e g. W.th such a toothache, I’d go to the dedat ‘Ifyou have such a toothache, go ro the dent&t W+Qdon’t you try a dent& I ,mmmtofisd you a mco denttst who can do a yamless extractlo” Job Now I don’t thmk that this !oxd of cia!.s!Ecat~or.of lingulstlc forms and tbe!r h&rally eorrerpondmg performed speech iacts is able to account for the petohar natue of the dIfferen con&t~onal spexh acts carefully enough. The “anous real. x&lxx of these acts have to be uoder,tood witi’ their respcctl:c contexts Qoly a &aslficstion of the various reabzatlons, together wth the relevant contsw.ui iertures would make w&tent wise. However, as ,ong as the nature of comMonal speech acts IS left unclanfied, It II not at dl determmcd m which way the context paltxtpates All the conchtronal speech ects mentioned above c-n be reabzed by assert@ a ce~tam condltlon. 1 ‘3x1 the other hand, this 1snor the oniy po ,slble way I presume th;: one can percewe the nature of these c,peechects d we class them wth a fundamen&I, and at the same time specific. condttlonal. This cwbtioral can be constdved as the characteristic propo#onal content of the speech acts m questlon. AU the other reahzat~~s am then to he trsnslatcd mto a “standard ton”, wtuch I take :o exp:ess the proposltlonal cwtint in ques:ion most expbcrtly. Here I do rot me.m the d\ffmnc teallzations of the above-meotmoed speech acts, but tbetr sti:p dard fan (m some cases their dlfferent standard form:). 1 do not andeesrand the standard form to be an expbcit petformative that can be formed by one o: the verbs like “wan”, “threat”, ‘adwse” etc.. e.g. I advisz you t<.go to a doctor. : warn you sgarast this doctor.

ths respect I differ from the majodty 3f the phdosophen axl hngu,.ts who have attempted to cla-i@ the nature of speech acts by exammmg exphc,t performa. tivcs.) Altbough the cxphfrt pe:format,ve nilmes the land of speech Act the speaker int,?ods, m general ,, doesn’t pemr,t a cona,t,o,,d m the depe,,dent clause. The par t!cular propertws of thv cond,t,on.il st,eech acts that I am&o,“g toexamine aream ply not show, by the e,,phc,t perfo,mat,ve

(In

21. Tc prevent m,sunderstand,ng,l !ant to d&m,: the ~~ot,onofcondtt,on?l speech xt m this essay agwst w/o 0th:. I inds of spwA acts, u&h. m ihc,r own right, might be rackoneo among the deslg-doon “condmond speech xt”.w t 1)~onQtmnalieques~s, pronmes &c.,(2) sp:eeh acts wtb ,nteract,onady detennlood .alid,ty(I) Cond,t,onal requests, proowes etc. Let us cons,der the followg dialogue A II you get to Berhn,please rrng me up 6 Crrtandy, I wdl

A’s request ,s taken over hy a pronuse on the par, of B From now on, Ikrc ew both a request and it:: correspondmg pmmrse, for ahrch the urual co.,d,t,ons of satisfachon hold lto comply wth the request, to keep the promlsc). Hcwev~r both request and prom,% are conditional m tr.e follow:.gsense. sntlrfxhon comes mto the questlon only ,’ the antecedent 1s tmc, that If R actually gets to Brdm. In cake B never makes ,t to Berhr., both request and promise are tnvllUy sstwied becduse of the falrdy of the sotecedent, and A ISnot entitled to any clam for@,ticatmn As a result, B can iidlow a certain strategy of p,event,on. if B, for whatever reason, has no ,,,,crest ,n peifomnng the act,on m q,lest,on, the,, h? needs only to aold ever makir~g the aazcedect come true. (It is Rot dtfficult to ;ma~ne such sltuatlons. “If you use khe car, then wash It afterwards ” Smce I do not h’re wsshmg cars, I’d rather not use the car.)

(2) Speech acts wth mteractmnaIl!_ determined validay Very often n certsin speech act is only reahzed tcntatwely (by ‘wayof trial) Its vahdity ts dependent on the reactions of the addlessee, on the bass .f lus pragnatlc presupposihons. The speech act,& become valid it the sdd,essee.bnsed presupposttwos are v&lied; in thtn tense. the speech act can be said to be strictly mteractlru~dy detwnmed.

32

D Wundwkh ‘3)

If you know lmv

/ rlswrtbn:.

spee& mlr. md i.m,kences

tt uvrk,

then please help me wth the tideo-camen (b) Please hell, me wth the ndeo-wnera, or don’t you know how tt works’J In the antece~%~tof (8). a” addressee-based preaupposltron is mentmned, wluch must be satlsfted for the rti;uesr to be senslhle, that IS,before one c&t comply w”h tt Therefore, a requx+s:WIUbe reahzed o&j u1 case the presupposition 1smtlsfiec1 Ln(b), the same pw+posttlcn is mentioned I” form of a dls]u”ctwe questlo” thaw calls for a rerly by the addressee. These a”d rmmuhr phenomena are dealt with t) &dock (1974 39. 11 rfT) &id Hudson (1975), @rtly m co”rme~tion with tagquesttons; however the mteractmnal rclatlons tha! 312 probably needed here, are left ou: by these authors.

2:. Fcr most of the .bove-menttoned conditmnd speech .+ct~.aparticular structure oi I,,~ addressee’s Cexpecred, I” erriec, IX actuel) reacwx~ LScharacranstlc, these cpeech acts interfere wth the nddressee’s pla”,~mg of actcons The propoaaiotlal content. wluch IE a condwonal, ~>up~hesthe addressee w& a ,:erta~” cognltlve prem,st that he can ?~sem hrs pmctxv Inferwres. But how he uses ,t depends on hl, mtcnhons. that IS. I” the en<, on h1s needs, mrerests, and preferences. For msta”cx:, an admce differs from a v.wu”S m that a” advlce relates to n po~rt~vely evaluated consequenbai e.e”t, where& d wammg relates t” a negatw!y ev’duated one Such evaluations are “orma~ly presumed to be soc~allv gwe” (for mstonce, nobody hkes toothaches), and not exphatly menuoned In thts respect the CO&Itmnal speech acts are c>ntert-detxndent eve” 1” case they are walaed by a condlt,orM senteme, bence the class of condtttonal speech acts ts ptagmaWaUy. not ssrnar&A~ detemlined. 0” Ihe other hmd. the &fferewe bet wee” a request and, fol mstance a” advtcc ilfnoums to tha one exrects a request 10 be comphed wth,a” adwce to be take” mto accou”~. A5 request for B to d, LIIS comp’led wth exactly then, md hence successiul. onl) .f ij actually performs 12.A’s advice to Ltto perform a, Is take” tnto account .xactly thcrr, and hence soccxsful, only tf the (exphcttly or tmphc~tly) expressad conditIonal IS r,sed by 1 ma practzca kference. Ifspeaker and addressee !~a-/?:d-!w 21evxluatro” ,.ntenf, the” thz dddresseeeventuahy uffl do exactly what the spenker suggests to h’bnto do. But 1 .lo”‘t think that th,s 1sthe only slturtwl I” which uhe advlce must be called sol:-essf II, t” the end, the addressee m&L alw decide to do something diffwnt. lty &“g his adwe. however, tble speaker ewnptr hintself from the respotwodity for any achon other tha” the suggested one if dus other action prfomied bv i? fails, then he can react by maWng a r(.proach I” wluch ise rephlaser the condmona: Concequently, despite L&e drfferences, a” advice has chara&ensrrcr that penmt a partul comparison with request?. Thus, a” adwce may somebmes be reelwed in

the same way as a dtrectwe, that LS,us,“g sn rmpera we s~‘ntencc. On the other hand, a” adv~e has :omc ch”rocterMvzs I” comm”” wth an a_wxtmn The speaker awm~er respn.aituhty for the truth of the condltmnal If he doesn’t want tc ra1.e back hr ad+, then he eve”tualLy gwe arpments to ~“~>port the truth cla..n

mast

emboda ,I in the cx~odltmnal If d” acfmn based on this advlce IS perlorme 1 by t’ e ““drew,‘, and fal,,then one cannot only say that the ddvtce w& bad, but also that the respo, tn e

coneitional

~“3 not true.

23 With tl

d

follown:,

sentencs one can express

~~rnI”gs

(3?) If iou tease the dog. you wdl get bltten (33) If IO” don’t wslch out. he r2dd-x will fall down

I

(34) If 01 : teasesa dog, then ale V/III get bltten The standard form of the wamlng can be asswn~d as followr fuaming)

‘Yf +wu do a. then 4” For the addressee A, q t a “egat~w event It is possible tlLzt 4 pelfiam 6 I” :l.u

Wv.taon

A per,“”

who rntends w @.w a warniq must m.lke preswnptmns abcut the prcfer~“ces of the .ddwssee. These presumphonr may he false, ‘hen the u:terhnce vail “ot be onderrtood as a wammg. unlea! the speak,!r “‘a u”equnoc.dly mdxatq~ means, such ns ihe verb “to warn”. The agent A addressed by B wammg wdl be enabled to perform a ~~rsctxal Infer. ence hke !he foilowing (this does not mean that he actually pcrfomls thrs mferenco m all E%SCI ofte” he ‘an do the tight thing by routine, lf his attentmn has xx” called to the dznger) I am justanour 20 pertbrm a 11-l do that (a: .hen q Butqrsbal

(sltk&tion) (content of warmng) (evalu1tton)

34

D Ww+4.~lr&

Idssrrrlonr. spc&

Therefore. 1 must pwenr 4 I can only prevent 4 by “et performing a Therefore. I won’t per;onn a

ms, and

infiwnw

(mte”tlo”) (sko”; contraposition of the content of waml”g) (practul cwclusmn)

In the inference the standard form (u*ammgl 1s used I” forming the intention, std the wammg’s strong contraposltton 1” fornun& rhe practical conchc3io”. This conchmon is made of neceaty 8 you don’t waqt the bad thing to happen, then the omission of the ecuon is the right way to ded with It. In other cases, the action isrher thzn the on”ssm” of the actmn would be *he right course. Hence, Instead ot “actmn”. one may read ‘omasios of action”. whereas not onutting a” actlo” s,4srly would znean perfonmng this act,on. Fwthermore, whde in our context we are concerned ulth the dehoerate control OF actlwties, it sudl s true that, if one omts B certai” actmn, one normally Pertorms a dlffe-zr, achon instead. This, however. I do not wmt to go Into !we I wll not regard omissmns GSsach as a subspecies of actmns 11x1 the above mferenee, use 1s made of the fact that thL newssary cmdrtlo” can, under these speclal axumstances, be synonymous wth 1,s irong contraposition, that ts, the expressed sufilckent condrtmn. The fottnmg 01 the inrenhon has made thf~ consequtnhdl event 4 mto the theme ot the follownf snference. Hence there exats a particular selectio” condition In Lewis’ sense. Pavaphrage (29a) (3 17) is relrva”t here. the reversal of the themeiheme.relationship discussed there is no prnbkm “I this connect~o”, 8nce the very fomung oi the tntenrmn etfects this WJcffial.

The srmng

contrapositions of (32:, (33) arc

(35) Only If you don’t tease the dog, you won’t get bltten (36) Only If yoo watch out, the indder won’t fall down. Although these contraposittanr are “red m the practical inference us reahzationr of a warnmg, they wdl not themselves be understood as .vammgs m the same way as (32), (33) but rather as suggestions or a!d”ra”ces as to how to prevent negative indments. This seems to be bound up mth ntuatlon-pry~hclogical reasons. To reabze the mtenhons, one tirst has to find out what da”geen there are; in tblr caze (32). (33) are better than (35), (36). because in the latter one first has to deal with the ~iegation. hom~ally, it does not matter if positive things happa a b:t later than pixmed, but e delay !” wardmg oTfa aanger ISalwavvsbad. For the smv: reaso”nl,the wrning ISsamehmes mcrc eifcctive it one stxts wth en unpera!wc scnte”L2 and tnen continues wth a” expla”o:io” of what wll happen

35

The request contamed, u the imperative wntenre renders the practical inference superfluous; the addr.+ee cnly has to comply with the request, rhen he wll be out of danger The second clause ‘tates the wason for the request and makes tk: whole utterance a warning. We understand “otberwi%” and “or” as d fusion of the conjunctmn “because” \&I the antecedent of the standard fern, (wammg): (39) Don’t tease the dog, btcaure If you do that, then you wd get bltten Another standard form of warning can, therefw, be conswed as foUow

For A, q )s somethmg ncgatwe It 1s pornlbla that A parforms II m thn situation.

25 The threat IS of the same structure as the wamlng the negalLrh incident 19one thal c3n be caused by the spea’ter hunself (40) If you teas2 the deg. you wdl get thrashed. (4 1) Don’t tease the dog, 01 you wB get thrashed. Since we are dealmg with something the speaker m&t do, the threat can also be exprcwd by using the spwh act form of a prmnise (42) Go to Sad, or I promise you rhat I’li be angry with you. What sounds like a promise IS nevertheless a threat. If the cmuext shows that the negattlvec~x~sequencefor the addressee only can be caixd by the spEaker, lben a bteral wammg. too, is really a threat. (43)

I wdmyou,don’t touch me.

What we have tc) haie in mind II that the literal me&mg of a pxformative verb does not always. determine the kind of speech act that can be realized by its use.

36

26. The charactensttc wndmond of the warning @plies tbar performing &ccrt~n action IS sufficient to create a negatively evaluated incidcat. Tbereforc. to prevent tbi: ireident one has to omit the action.Now, apparently tten are three more concbtlannls that show a whereoce bewzen xtions and posilh*ly or negatively evaluatcd Incidents as consequences of the achon. (a) A celtam action is wcewxy to e eate a positively c&ated inctdent. Q) A certain action B tutficier. c”:crate a positively evaluated inctdsnt. (c) A certi action ISntce say to create a segatwely ev&akd mcidf nt My assuiliptlon IS that con&tionah o” the kind (a) rea!zzea strong advice, those of kmd (b) .I weak adace, and tt.ose of kmd (cl an asswdcie. Ti.ere are other lunds of advice,an.I the% will be cbrcuwd in $28-30. Herz are some eunmple~. F#.r (a) (44) If you don’t cover the ace, then you won’t wm (4.5) Only lfylw oow the ace, you will win. For(b). (46) If you cover the ace you w:‘: xni (47) only If you don’t cover the MC,you won’t vm. For (c): (48) If you d&t tease the dog, you won’t get bitten Adnces state what can be done- they ruggas+practical con&%@“r. Assurances what one wn avoid, consequently, one cannot found decisions on assurances. IIowever, asstww~ chll be used BPrestrrctive terms in all kmds of denston-malung To follwv an adwce means to undertake Rcertau action. To react to an assurance means to omit soowhiog every tune one undertakes ao action only date

27. (44) and (45) both rephant n wong cdvice. For this,tt IScharaclenstlc that m de&a wth oosb’ive inndents thsre are no alternatives. while III doabna with intliffennt”mdde~fs several aherrrartws are potsible. To &~ize the aeak advice (46) IS better tban (47). Tie n!aso~ is that (46) i%related to a praohcal infen?nce. where= (47) only 8fa:es how to prrvsr,t s( me bg posirlve - which 7%not whrlt the speaker

D W,mh&h

f Asw&wx,

spech

.,CER

3?

md b$ere*m

bad in muid A father characteristic of the weak adtic% is thst it :~ernuts severd alternatives ix cow~ectron wth posihve mc~dents. Such alteruattw can be ttea tioned.even evaluated, m the utterance itsdf,for mstance (49) (a) You will get there much earlier if you use the ham msterld of your car (b) If you ho by tram and not by car, then yor will get there mu& eitrli~. (c) ifyou ]p by train you will get there much earher than by car The advice can be realized, too, by usmg fixst ,,r; m>Frrative sentence, and then a sentence in whch you state the reawn for the use of the Imperatw FOI (451 and (47). tlus yields no realizations, bat for (44) and (46) we have me followg. (50) COIFI the ace. otherwise you won’t win. (51) Cover the ace, and you wll wtn. in thn resgect, no dxfference a found between the strong Idwe and the waang. So (SO) ca-mot be regarded w tie standard form of a strong advice. The standard forms are: (strong Ldwey9 will only happen, if you do d’ (weak r&cc) “If you do 8, tlten 9” “Do a, then 9” For A, 9 1sa positive incident. Xx practsal Inferences based on the advlce have a very sln~plestructure (9 1ssomethmg good) I wsnt 9. (Cnly) rf I do a, I cat get 9 Therrfore I shall perform n. Using the sjmbolizatwnr “‘q” mindicate the Intention premire, and “!p’* to r&tcute the conclwion, it Is powble to represent the inferences bated upon a strong or a-weak advice as follows strong !Q

weak ‘9

%LF.

I!2

!p !P -4’ statlds for We c&Xurti

, (ivths

details left out hen) -,, Oqe sees ea$? thsi &P lnlbience based upon the SW”: +!?c

II a wsion of a

In dtrusstng further ‘ypes of edvtce

I wll stsrfoutFrom thefollowing

sentence

(52) If the dog bttes you, you “I”!.< not tcasr it

Presummg that you .ne bitten 5y the doll. ;ou arc told tint you. ,n”st not tease tt (shouldn’t have teased ttj In t!us ieed.np. (321 teVs us wbai w cut lsnm from dus SIIUJIIOII, and ,I, tbw wy II mdwctly rcid~~e:.aa adncr. (53) ret ospc.Wciy deals wtb a ~pecifii. Moatton and sbovn “Y INN to Text te\vsrd\ It but it Is also a reproach (“yw should have been able to foreset that etc Both seotcncxscan bc

’)

made more expltnt m the followtng way (54) If tt 1s the case thst the dog bites you (if you tease at). then you must not tease it If you don’1 want to get bltten (5% If tt is the C&X that (you dtd tease the dog andi ‘he dog bltcs you. then you shouldn’t have teased It rl you did t&t want to gut bitten. We consequent of{541 1sFlppropriats lcn gwn* an advice (Sb) If you don’t aant to get bltlan. then you mw, not tease the dog

datlon,wtlokver “ttm (55)isalso

The ‘X”S%PX”t of (55) 17 SubJ’ct to the same committed to accept (56). Advws of the ktnd (56) shalt be fwthcr dealt with In $30 as adwc+. The other meattmg of (52\ can be show by contrzr+ing It wtth (57;

i 57)

If a dog threatens “NW,

yw most keep an eye on ,t ( keep an eye rn It’

I

IS?) ttoder 11ssecond readbtg. LS aell &I the thffereet vea.tons of (zi7>.c.an also be used to gwe an adnce The posstble behanor OF the dog iti. however, net dercnbed here as s conscquetxx but rather as P cause of the bchavmr of tlu addressee towards the dog Adnces of ths land wrll be further dealt wdh ilp,adncq in 825’

D Wunddt

t

I Arsmtms

swcch BCB and h~fwsnccr

‘9

The two t’qes of ildvice dtscursed here BR neither strong ncr wk.tticy are nr,t reclized by a’i arrcrtion, but by a sood~t~ona’ reqoesr “I notnr-tntrcdu~r.~,o >I a cc,.

kin hid

i take tbc pnnrt~orathat to the ~“ntext~ considered here. sevences such u

-WLI mud nut tcav [he dog”, ‘Lou !““I,

keep an eye on the dog”. etc do no,

rel?.te t” existolg ~lozos. brt mtroduce particular new norms tar the iddresoee 29 The ~dwce, has two standard forms (advrcaz)

“ifp, tlsn you most do R” “lfp, do a”’ For A. ,a 1s‘sIwtbi”g negattre

The adnsc can be made weaker by uainp u ‘khould” “I ‘Mxy” Inrtcad of .I ‘*must” p doesn’t dcxrlbt ,he conreqwnces of bn sctlon, but Iv prccoodttmn. Iione knows the consequer~ccr ,I an x!w, than one cao evdlr~~to ,ts ~t:re~t (IS this what bc able to decide whcthcr or ““L one wants to

I wmt.ornot?,.nntlonewill

prrfonn tbc rc,,_d EWX, “oe doem

C oa’rontcd with d “@we

utuatiort prior to the rain”“. how on tbr bad, Therefore one

I l.nowhowto evaluate the act,“”

doesn’t L.now whcthcr 1” perform It or not. To solve the problem, one may we P modal verb f’-nwst”, “shouid”. “ought to”, “kave to’ the CBI~

, or“may”)or.In

of ndwc,, an imperative. Both dutlonr rndtcate that i) mnsin tictbx Is newwry 1” +t.s sedation m order to stop wbat’r going “o (or perhsp make I( not happen agan) 1.1 f”llo\vi”~ adwe,, possible to tlndentand the conseq”c”t as B nq”est th.1 has to de cxnpbed wth. gwx~ that .v. In thrz. case one dces”*t have .” create ““e’s own u~tentio” it does not matter ertber that p IS nr@~e. But one can dro undrrstnnd the consequent as 3 “ccessary condition for remedymg the utunuonp,

,tIs

rupet~tmn ofdne@

or as 3” assurance that the s.tuauon won’t grow worse (The be on?entood as B utw”“” thaf s g”w.ng worse ) In tlus

we erentcanIndeed

case. one has to crate certdm specl!ic mteotions to be used m the pmcr~cd mfer. eocd Thaw, thew ore two kmds of powble mfereacss (a) P

Zip,then I must do (I Thenforc.

I shall don

(b)P. p II romcthmg bad Thenfore, I WIG to remedy p. “I pevenr p from dcaloplng lop’. WI.I.I~ 1s wolw!. If p. then I ?il”bi doa Thenfom~ WY I( I do a. I can remedy;, p’. which IS worse Therefore. I shall do o.

“I prevent pt from dovelopmp MC

The daTc:ence ts that extortions tion’t pnmt

altemattva

(It 1snecessary to do

a, m order for the otl-er part to do b), whereas negotiation permits ultematibes, so th~l the powbd,ty of dlscussmne.x,sts(to make the other part do b; one may do (I, but not I ecesartly) both speech acts express the co@ti-fe premise of a p~actlcal mference, and m thas way they can be realized by arsert~ons. In both casezwe are deslmgwnh z future xt,on of lhe speaker that IS made dependent on i’uture behavtot of tt c addnsste. Therefore, extorlron sod wgattaiton can bc considered speuftc kmds of condmonal promise. This 1s sup,po-ted by the fact that utterances such ar ( ~1) or (6:) both demand P reply that vnli he r&cd to ‘he cond!tlon stated m the snteccdent,bhe (63) okay

I’ll sew your coat

Whde (63), a’ web IX (GZ), maker a proowe, this dozs not mean that (61) s!atcs a proma

too

(63) g~ic n~iy a necessary, but lnot ,I sufticlent condition that the

ISI)wdl

speaker of do wa:eth,, g posltlve m return Tlus is why extortwn IS regardcd as bcq unfair Alrh~w,h :I, both cases d future dctmn of the speaker that I’. advantdgcous for the addresee s mentmned. the dCerence LSquite obwous, only “egotutmn can be conadcre4 a r.ondrtional promw II the stnct sense. In sddltmn there exws a stlonger form of extortion. whtch is more :tmlhr to a tlwit.

for madnee

(64) If you do not deliver ten thousand dollara 111small bills before tomorrow noon, pubhsh the compromum~ 1ettr:a

i wti

The future achop mentioned by the speaker wdl lead to results whrch are negawrly evslunted by the addrcsroe 110th rhrests znd extortions operate from a postlion of partial power, that perdlspropOrtlon of menns, at the same tlmc, they nre attempts at subdiimg t&s powr por~t~on But Ifsomebody possesses astrong, un:onterted power he does not necesranl~ need these represswe ?onm of mtemit~on. mstesd, he may iboosc forms vJucb secmmgly relate to the mterests of the addressee, such a~ aduces and ne@mat,ons rather than warnmgs, or threats and cxwr(Lons. A typml exampleISthe mtddle class par&&Id relaoonshlp, where the

:vti. orscmetm~s wmdemands,

psmnts you m”

often -

that

cboore

“e@atmn

IS I ~errztii

you

(‘5f you will only to --watch

timsh your homework, thrn

TV”), whereas children often use (VW

ba’ or nonverbal) 1 dortmn (“1 sh.4 only StOQ bothering you, If you wi!l let me walcb TV”), m order to compensate for thar uh adog rhtu and to bwld up a poL!Uo” of partrdl power.

3x Two other rcndltional speech wts shall be bneily m;ntion:d the proposal Fc: instance’

here: the offer and

43

(65) expresses .aquestmn. that can. I’LspecGic contexts, r,:ahze II offer In tbls case we can paraphrase (65) as follows. (68) If you like a Scotch, 1% give you one. E\idently the offer IS a lu>d of cond~tianaf p,om,se, the cooti tlon IE that the addrew e really does want the actmn to take place. Thus is why ihe speaker may expect 111answer wluch is related to tlus condmcn, the usual way to get an answer is to ask a questton The sroporal can be r&red by n condltiond reqwen OI n cohortawe The cond‘hon LSthat the addressee doesn’t want any other, or better ectmns to tab &KP, an ar,tioa 1s suggested to be performed either mdmdually or oolllcctiwly. C,ftcn the person making the proposal also expects an answer. hence the xoposal, too, may be wsiwed bv a qwsrwn, for mstance (69) What about Soln~ to the movies” The following ::a be concdered as standard forms (offer)

“If yc” want It, I shall do a” want to do anything else,

(proposal) ;;VnYJ;od;‘t

I let’s do a” 1 In sdditlon, ~herr eee weaker lumis of offer end proposal m wluch, For instance, the modalverbs “?-%I”,“could” and the hke are used. (70) I eatI gK you a Scotch. (71) We could So to the manes. H&her the offer nor the proposal call for a practnl ~oncluslon. Both demwd a cogmtive concltion, or the mnmfestation of an mtention and/or densIon In a proposal, the mfecedenr pen-& us to look at the other altematwes, but ot%erwue, both offer and proposal may present explut alternatives. (72) Would you like a Gotch, or wxdd you rather have a beer? (73) Why don’t you go to the mories, or go for a welk?

33. AI ‘At condihowls that ace conndered standard fomx pem”t a counteerfactual formulabon. If this m to be “std. the antecedent of the wnple condinonal (and in most LESS its consepent I well) mwt not be fulfilled. ?-ha condittonal does “ot have to depend on the wadental f&s to bz tme. Vsrn~a counterfaclual exprcssio., means tlw the spenl er rwJ”ates the existi”g facts (VIZ.,that they could have been &fferent), themby ~~efiing the tMh of the sample COII~&IO~. (1 ~III not SSUIIIUI~ that, fcr mstance, the con&tio”al request ‘11 you aant cl. then do a” is capable of bw~g true; however, the correspoahng comhtional ‘dbe war.* I,‘.then he must do a” can bs true fc,r the speaker ) In many cmes th: condrtmnai has already been outlined before; for “Millice when the speaker re%rs ta B previous warning or advice. I” other CdS lbe speaker can clsb” that ‘he conten: “l the c”“diti”“al II samethmg gene&y know” a a maum The addressee often perceive: the utterance of a counterfacrudi as P subsequeor (didactic) mstmctton or a repro&t -and this mdy be mtended by the speaker. it often puts the speaker m the powion of the person rho ‘knowsbettrr. or who was able to foresee a unhappy coo5e of actions Thus It ‘s posublc here to speck of:pe ch acts of &de&c mslruction and reproach that can be realire by the assr:two” of 9counterfactad Tire cou”terLxtuals of the wornmg, the strong advice, advice,, IX extortmn, and the proposal can be sern more e&y as didactic m~tocho”f, - the counter. facturiC>of the weak advice, Idwas. the assurmce a”d the “egotmtm t mole easily a~ reprxches. and that of the oftel perhIps as a]“stlG.atlo” (73) If you had not token cake. then Ihe ladder would have fallen dc w” (71) only ITIOU bad corered the ace, you would have NO”. (751 If the dog had threalaed you, then yov would have had to watzhout fori.. (76 bIf you had not rewed my coat, the”1 uauldn’t havetakenyouh. themovies. (77) If yao had had nottung dse to do, the” you codd have gone to .he mows (784 If you had cwered the ice, then you w”dd have won. (79) If you hadn’t tensed SCdo& then you would not have gotten lwb.~. (SO) If you had not wanted to get blttcn, toe” you should not have teased the dog. (8 1) If you had sewed my coat, then I would have taken you to the mowes. (82) if you had waxted a Scotch, then I would have give” you one I would not claim tha: there 2’. a parlr~~~larinner connectlo” for instanre bvtweer the weak adnce and the “+roach. It 1s rather the CIB that th? Counterhctwl nsults I” a reproach, if a rposi!weIyevaluated weiit r. pwsuppoled as CCI~ hmwg been brought abow. “I ~fa negtCwely evaluated event LSpresupposed as baring hsppmed. The counterfaciunl results 11 8 Cldactic mstrudmn, If a p”~ltlwlY evaluated ereft is presop~“se9 as havmg heel brought tbout, or tf a ne@ivelY evahmted e. ent IS presupposeG as hating been prevented. Bbth teprozc!! and &da-

(83) If you bad drivsn mole sl.wiy you could have prevented that deplorable accident. (84) If youhsl dt;.-rr:tmorz slowly, yo3 wouldn’t bav: scratched my car like thzt. The same presuppasltlon that LSmade in (83) ;t?d (S4) LSmcluded m (85) (55) Ehy didn’t you dnve more slo\~ly’ Thus. even thts sentence can be used to make a r.eproac~?.though the con.equenUal event has to be suppbed by tbc context The speafic stmctuw of the reproach can bc clanfieli as bung sundar to that of dre other ConLtlonal oprech xts, (a) 11 we consider ~b prcoositlonal content as a counte~fxtual whose conespondmg nmple conditional representr either a general or a parWodar maxon, (b)if we take Lnto wcount the mterer:s, need.., prcfercnce~, and mtewons of both bxeractwe pactnen Whereas the other conditvxnl speech aet~ Interfere wth the futvle JCUOISof the addressee, hy suggestmg pmoneal mferences and cognitrve dxisronr, the reproach attempts to h&sight to cl.,nfy ht: acuons and then comequrwes, to uncover ?ertam nv.xuns or mterests, of to r&e questions of fault of @t ASweUas >ndem. oity