Temporality and causality in asymmetric conjunction

IF 1.8 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Zeming Xu, Markus Steinbach
{"title":"Temporality and causality in asymmetric conjunction","authors":"Zeming Xu,&nbsp;Markus Steinbach","doi":"10.1016/j.pragma.2024.09.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In contrast to the symmetric logical conjunction, sentences conjoined by the conjunctive coordinator <em>and</em> can be asymmetric. In asymmetric conjunction, the temporal or causal relation in the coordinated sentence is related to the order of conjuncts. Various accounts are proposed to address this asymmetry at the semantics–pragmatics interface. The pragmatic approaches maintain a minimal conjunctive semantics of the coordinator and attribute additional meanings to pragmatics, while the semantic approaches assign a richer semantics to <em>and</em> that blocks backward temporal or causal relations. The present study addresses whether these backward relations are incompatible with <em>and</em>. Using an acceptability judgement task, we compared coordinated sentences with different semantic relations. The results indicate that sentences with backward relations received higher ratings than sentences with semantic inconsistencies, against the prediction of the semantic approaches, and reversing a temporal relation is considered as worse than reversing a causal relation. The new empirical evidence provides support for pragmatic approaches and shows that while temporality between the conjuncts is more sensitive to the order of the clauses, causality relies more on the assumed relation between a cause and its effect.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16899,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216624001759","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In contrast to the symmetric logical conjunction, sentences conjoined by the conjunctive coordinator and can be asymmetric. In asymmetric conjunction, the temporal or causal relation in the coordinated sentence is related to the order of conjuncts. Various accounts are proposed to address this asymmetry at the semantics–pragmatics interface. The pragmatic approaches maintain a minimal conjunctive semantics of the coordinator and attribute additional meanings to pragmatics, while the semantic approaches assign a richer semantics to and that blocks backward temporal or causal relations. The present study addresses whether these backward relations are incompatible with and. Using an acceptability judgement task, we compared coordinated sentences with different semantic relations. The results indicate that sentences with backward relations received higher ratings than sentences with semantic inconsistencies, against the prediction of the semantic approaches, and reversing a temporal relation is considered as worse than reversing a causal relation. The new empirical evidence provides support for pragmatic approaches and shows that while temporality between the conjuncts is more sensitive to the order of the clauses, causality relies more on the assumed relation between a cause and its effect.
非对称连接中的时间性和因果性
与对称逻辑连词不同,由连词协调符和连词协调符连成的句子可以是不对称的。在非对称连词中,协调句中的时间或因果关系与连词的顺序有关。为了解决语义-语用界面上的这种不对称,人们提出了各种说法。语用学方法维持了连词的最低连词语义,并赋予语用学额外的意义,而语义学方法则赋予连词更丰富的语义,阻断了后向的时间关系或因果关系。本研究探讨了这些后向关系是否与和不相容。通过可接受性判断任务,我们比较了具有不同语义关系的协调句子。结果表明,与语义方法的预测相反,具有反向关系的句子比语义不一致的句子获得的评分更高,而且颠倒时间关系被认为比颠倒因果关系更糟糕。新的经验证据为语用方法提供了支持,并表明连接词之间的时间性对分句的顺序更敏感,而因果性则更依赖于假定的因果关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
18.80%
发文量
219
期刊介绍: Since 1977, the Journal of Pragmatics has provided a forum for bringing together a wide range of research in pragmatics, including cognitive pragmatics, corpus pragmatics, experimental pragmatics, historical pragmatics, interpersonal pragmatics, multimodal pragmatics, sociopragmatics, theoretical pragmatics and related fields. Our aim is to publish innovative pragmatic scholarship from all perspectives, which contributes to theories of how speakers produce and interpret language in different contexts drawing on attested data from a wide range of languages/cultures in different parts of the world. The Journal of Pragmatics also encourages work that uses attested language data to explore the relationship between pragmatics and neighbouring research areas such as semantics, discourse analysis, conversation analysis and ethnomethodology, interactional linguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, media studies, psychology, sociology, and the philosophy of language. Alongside full-length articles, discussion notes and book reviews, the journal welcomes proposals for high quality special issues in all areas of pragmatics which make a significant contribution to a topical or developing area at the cutting-edge of research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信