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
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (0)

No references match articles in this index.

Also cites 27 works outside this index ↓
  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. Banerjee, M., M. Capozzoli, L. McSweeney, and D. Sinha. 1999. Beyond kappa: A review of interrater agreement …
    Canadian Journal of Statistics  
  5. A philosophical guide to conditionals
  6. Bolognesi, M., R. Pilgram, and R. van den Heerik, 2017. Reliability in content analysis: The case of semantic…
  7. Carter-Thomas, S., and E. Rowley-Jolivet. 2008. If-conditionals in medical discourse: From theory to discipli…
    Journal of English for Academic Purposes  
  8. Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20 (…
    Educational and Psychological Measurement  
  9. Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions
  10. Conditionals: a comprehensive empirical analysis
  11. Edgington, D. 2022. Suppose and tell: The semantics and heuristics of conditionals. History and Philosophy of…
    History and Philosophy of Logic  
  12. Evans, J.S.B.T. 2005. The social and communicative function of conditional statements. Mind & Society 4 (1): …
    Mind & Society  
  13. If: Supposition, pragmatics, and dual processes
  14. Ferguson, G. 2001. If you pop over there: A corpus-based study of conditionals in medical discourse. English …
    English for Specific Purposes  
  15. Hayes, A.F., and K. Krippendorff. 2007. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data…
    Communication Methods and Measures  
  16. Landis, J. R., and G. G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, …
  17. Cognition and conditionals: Probability and logic in human thinking
  18. Reuneker, A. 2022b. Data and scripts for ‘Connecting Conditionals’. DataverseNL. https://doi.org/10.34894/3QTEKH.
  19. Sanders, T.J., W.P. Spooren, and L.G. Noordman. 1992. Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Pro…
    Discourse Processes  
  20. Sandri, G. 1969. On the logic of classification. Quality & Quantity 3 (1): 80–124.
    Quality & Quantity  
  21. Scholman, M. C. J., V. Demberg, and T. J. M. Sanders. 2022. Descriptively Adequate and Cognitively Plausible?…
  22. Spooren, W., and L. Degand. 2010. Coding coherence relations: Reliability and validity. Corpus Linguistics an…
    Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory  
  23. From etymology to pragmatics: The mind-body metaphor in semantic structure and semantic change
  24. Linguistic categorization
  25. Van der Auwera, J. 1986. Conditionals and speech acts. In Traugott, E. C., ter Meulen, A., Snitzer Reilly, J.…
  26. Verhagen, V., and M. Mos. 2016. Stability of familiarity judgments: Individual variation and the invariant bi…
    Cognitive Linguistics  
  27. On conditionals again