{"title":"Temporality and causality in asymmetric conjunction","authors":"Zeming Xu, 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.
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.