Abstract

AbstractConditional constructions (if–then) enable us to express our thoughts about possible states of the world, and they form an important ingredient for our reasoning and argumentative capabilities. Different types and argumentative uses have been distinguished in the literature, but their applicability to actual language use is rarely evaluated. This paper focuses on the reliability of applying classifications of connections between antecedents and consequents of conditionals to discourse, and three issues are identified. First, different accounts produce incompatible results when applied to language data. Second, a discrepancy between theory and data was observed in previous studies, which sometimes discard existing classifications for being detached from actual language use. Finally, language users construct various cognitive relations between clauses of conditionals without being able to rely on overt linguistic features, which poses problems for the annotation of conditionals in argumentation and discourse. This paper addresses these issues by means of comparing theoretical types and actual uses of conditionals, by inspecting the dispersion of types in natural-language corpora, and by conducting an experiment in which the inter-rater reliability of classifications was assessed. The results show that the reliability of classifications of conditionals when applied to language data is low. With respect to the aforementioned issues, different classifications produced incompatible results, a discrepancy between theory and data was indeed observed, and low reliability scores indicated a largely interpretative nature of types of conditionals. Given these results, suggestions for the enhancement of reliability in corpus studies of conditionals and beyond are provided to enhance future classification design.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2023-09-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-023-09614-9
CompPile
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (47)

  1. Artstein, R., and M. Poesio. 2008. Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Computational Linguis…
    Computational Linguistics  
  2. On conditionals again
  3. Athanasiadou, A., and R. Dirven. 1997b. Pragmatic conditionals. In Foolen, A., and Van Der Leek, F. (Eds.), C…
  4. Austin, J. L. 1961. Ifs and cans. In Urmson, J. O., and Warnock, G. J. (Eds.), Philosophical Papers. Oxford: …
  5. Banerjee, M., M. Capozzoli, L. McSweeney, and D. Sinha. 1999. Beyond kappa: A review of interrater agreement …
    Canadian Journal of Statistics  
Show all 47 →
  1. A philosophical guide to conditionals
  2. Bolognesi, M., R. Pilgram, and R. van den Heerik, 2017. Reliability in content analysis: The case of semantic…
  3. Carter-Thomas, S., and E. Rowley-Jolivet. 2008. If-conditionals in medical discourse: From theory to discipli…
    Journal of English for Academic Purposes  
  4. Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20 (…
    Educational and Psychological Measurement  
  5. Conditionals and prediction: time, knowledge, and causation in conditional constructions
  6. Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions
  7. Conditionals: a comprehensive empirical analysis
  8. Deygers, K., V. Van Den Heede, S. Grondelaers, D. Speelman, and H. Van Aken. 2000. Het CONDIV-corpus Geschrev…
    Nederlandse Taalkunde
  9. Edgington, D. 2022. Suppose and tell: The semantics and heuristics of conditionals. History and Philosophy of…
    History and Philosophy of Logic  
  10. Evans, J.S.B.T. 2005. The social and communicative function of conditional statements. Mind & Society 4 (1): …
    Mind & Society  
  11. If: Supposition, pragmatics, and dual processes
  12. Ferguson, G. 2001. If you pop over there: A corpus-based study of conditionals in medical discourse. English …
    English for Specific Purposes  
  13. Gabrielatos, C. 2010. A corpus-based examination of English if-conditionals through the lens of modality: Nat…
  14. Geis, M.L., and A.M. Zwicky. 1971. On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry 2 (4): 561–566.
    Linguistic Inquiry
  15. Studies in the way of words
  16. Gwet, K. L. 2014. Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreem…
  17. Hartmann, S., and U. Hahn. 2020. ‘A New Approach to Testimonial Conditionals’. In Denison, S., Mack, M., Xu, …
  18. Hayes, A.F., and K. Krippendorff. 2007. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data…
    Communication Methods and Measures  
  19. Kaplan, A., and J. M. Goldsen. 1965. The reliability of content analysis categories. Language of I Politics, …
  20. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
  21. Landis, J. R., and G. G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, …
  22. Corpus linguistics: method, theory and practice
  23. The Enigma of reason
  24. Cognition and conditionals: Probability and logic in human thinking
  25. Oostdijk, N. 2000. Het corpus Gesproken Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde 5 (3): 280–284.
    Nederlandse Taalkunde
  26. Prasad, R., E. Miltsakaki, N. Dinesh, A. Lee, A. Joshi, L. Robaldo, and B. L. Webber. 2007. The Penn Discours…
  27. A comprehensive grammar of the english language
  28. Linguistics in the Netherlands 37
  29. Reuneker, A. 2022a. Connecting Conditionals: A Corpus-Based Approach to Conditional Constructions in Dutch. P…
  30. Reuneker, A. 2022b. Data and scripts for ‘Connecting Conditionals’. DataverseNL. https://doi.org/10.34894/3QTEKH.
  31. Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Lloyd, B. B., Wiles, J., and Rosch, E. (Eds.), Cognition and…
  32. Sanders, T.J., W.P. Spooren, and L.G. Noordman. 1992. Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Pro…
    Discourse Processes  
  33. Sandri, G. 1969. On the logic of classification. Quality & Quantity 3 (1): 80–124.
    Quality & Quantity  
  34. Scholman, M. C. J., V. Demberg, and T. J. M. Sanders. 2022. Descriptively Adequate and Cognitively Plausible?…
  35. Spooren, W., and L. Degand. 2010. Coding coherence relations: Reliability and validity. Corpus Linguistics an…
    Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory  
  36. From etymology to pragmatics: The mind-body metaphor in semantic structure and semantic change
  37. Linguistic categorization
  38. Van der Auwera, J. 1986. Conditionals and speech acts. In Traugott, E. C., ter Meulen, A., Snitzer Reilly, J.…
  39. Argumentation: Analysis and evaluation
  40. van Gorp, B. 2007. The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in. Journal of Communicatio…
    Journal of Communication
  41. Verhagen, V., and M. Mos. 2016. Stability of familiarity judgments: Individual variation and the invariant bi…
    Cognitive Linguistics  
  42. On conditionals again