Earticle

This paper seeks to show what the concept of conditional probability can do and how it is best incorporated in explaining conditionals with main reference to Jackson (1987) and Edington (1995, 2003). Probability approaches to conditionals are able to distinguish probable conditionals from improbable conditionals. In addition to this, Jackson's approach, which employs the truth functional calculus of material conditional approach, also predicts the truth value of conditionals having false antecedents, while the ones which don't incorporate the material conditional of propositional logic cannot. Both of them have problems with conditionals containing false antecedents: the former cannot say anything about their assertibility; the latter doesn't provide them with interpretations. The former, utilizing conditional probability as the criterion to determine assertibility of conditionals, has a serious problem with clarifying the concept of assertibility due to the fact that asserting is eventually a behaviour and that assertion of a conditional cannot be rightly identified with its conditional probability.

이 글의 목적은 직설법적 조건문(indicative conditionals)의 부정(negation)에 대한 좀 더 나은 이해를 도모하는 데 있다. 나는 이 글에서 조건문의 부정이 애매하다는 논제를 내세운다. 이를 위해 먼저 조건문의 부정이 서로 다른 두 가지 방식으로 이해될 수 있다는 점을 보인다. 그런 다음 이런 나의 주장이 조건문에 관한 다른 입장들과 어떻게 다른지를 보이고, 나아가 나의 새로운 제안이 조건문 관련 논의에 어떤 의미를 갖는지를 살펴본다.

The aim of this paper is to get a better understanding of negating conditionals. I will suggest the so-called ambiguity thesis on the negation of indicative conditionals. I firstly show that there are two different ways of negating conditionals. Then I explain what the differences there are between my suggestion and other theories of indicative conditionals, and examine what significances it could have if we accept the ambiguity thesis.

The aim of this study was to investigate the concept and scope of Korean conditional imperatives and provide a comprehensive examination of the category. In Chapter 2, I argued for the usefulness of explaining conditional imperatives through a prototype theoretical approach. Conditional imperatives were defined as a broad concept of 'Imperatives interpreted in the sense of a condition or assumption.' Chapter 3 delved into a meticulous exploration of the process through which conditional imperatives acquired the meaning of a condition. We have shown that the 'then' implication arises from the relationship between the conditional and the subsequent sentence, and that the high frequency of this construction has led to the conventionality of the implication and the regularization of the interpretation of the condition. Furthermore, it was revealed that conditional sentences represent the "background circumstances that enable the speaker's subsequent actions or judgments contained in the subsequent sentence." By uttering a conditional imperatives, the speaker prompts the hearer to assume the content of the proposition, which has the effect of strongly expressing the speaker's conviction or commitment. This research sheds light on the specific features of Korean conditional imperatives as a linguistic phenomenon wherein the form of a command conveys the meaning of a condition. Although this study focused solely on Korean, further meticulous investigations are warranted to examine the commonalities and divergences between conditional imperatives in other languages, with the goal of uncovering universal principles underlying conditional imperatives worldwide.

This paper aims to show that we can capture the semantics of different topic sentences and conditional sentences in Korean using Venn diagrams. It is first claimed that the topic sentence in Korean can be represented by the inclusion relation between the two sets, one representing the topic ‘-nun’ phrase and the other representing the rest of the sentence. This structure, representing the inclusion relation between the two sets is called the Basic Structure. Then it is argued that the other two types of ‘-nun’ phrases, Contrastive Topic and List Contrastive Topic, can be represented by some variations of the Basic Structure, and the variations are called the Contrastive Pair Structure and the Repetitive Structure, respectively. This three-way representation system is useful for representing conditional sentences, too. All three types of conditional sentences are also found, and they can be effectively represented by the Basic Sturucture, the Contrastive Pair Structure, and the Repetitive Structure

In English, the meaning of concessivity in conditionals is usually expressed by using the focus particle even with the antecedent of the conditional which is headed by if, as shown in (1): (1) Even if John is a doctor, I will not trust him. Guerzoni and Lim (2007) claim that even in conditionals, which is responsible for concessivity, is the same even that we can find in examples like (2): that is, even in even if is a focus particle (Rooth 1985, a.o.) which is associated with a focus and introduces projective content (Tonhauser et al. 2013, a.o.) which I will call presuppositions just for simplicity. Furthermore, Guerzoni and Lim show that we can explain the difference in meaning between two types of concessive conditionals, standing-if (3a) and introduced-if (3b) (which are distinguished with respect to whether the factivity of the consequent is guaranteed or not, as indicated below: see Pollock 1976 and Bennett 1982, a.o.) in a compositional way, depending on the position of focus associated with even. (2) Even [John]f can lift the table. (3) a. Standing-if: Even if John drank [one ounce]f of whiskey, she would fire him. ~> If John did not drink whiskey at all she would not fire him. b. Introduced-if: Even if the bridge were standing I wouldn’t cross. ~> I wouldn’t cross the bridge, anyway. Based on this, in this presentation I first show that, in English, there are conditionals which express concessivity even though there is no overt even. To do so, I use Sejong English-Korean Parallel Corpus, from which I find some examples of English conditionals whose Korean counterparts can be understood as expressing concessivity, as in (4), given that Korean tends to express concessivity more explicitly: (4) a. If not considered to be good manners in Korea, individualism is frowned upon in Russia as well. b. 한국처럼 심하지는 않지만 러시아에도 개인주의가 좋지 않은 시선을 받는다. (RB0421) After showing that in English there are concessive conditionals without even, I try to generalize the notion of concessivity in conditionals in terms of the unlikelihood of the causal relation between the antecedent and the consequent (cf. see König 1986), and explain this kind of conditionals in a compositional way by assuming a covert focus particle corresponding to overt even (see also Heim 1984 and Guerzoni 2004, where minimizers such as lift a finger are analyzed in terms of covert even).

The purpose of the study is to investigate the use of if-conditionals in the corpora of NS and NNS argumentative essays. For this comparative study, a collection of American college students' argumentative essays and a self-compiled corpus of Korean NNS students' argumentative essays were used. First, the overall frequency of if-conditionals was examined in the two corpora. Next, the use of if-conditionals was coded by semantic categorization. Common features and major problems were also examined in the Korean NNS students' writing. The results revealed that although the overall frequency of if-conditionals in two corpora was not significantly different, the distribution of if-conditionals in three semantic categories was different. Significant differences between the two corpora were also identified in several semantic sub-categories, revealing some common features and problems that the NNS students had in their use of if-conditionals.

This study investigates the collocational patterns and semantic imports of past perfect subjunctive conditionals in conversational English by analyzing data extracted from the Brown University Corpus and the Kaggle Blog Authorship Corpus. The analysis focuses on identifying common forms of collocations and connotations that the conditionals accompany or constitute. The findings show that past perfect subjunctive conditionals are used to express a range of emotions and cognitive appraisals, with expressions of more desirable situations and speculative comments on event causality being the most prevalent. Formal features, such as the addition of an adversative but-clause, main clauses in interrogative mood, and the denotation of specific time points, alongside semantic features such as sharing of emotions, discordance between actual-epistemic and ideal-deontic states of being, and perlocutionary effects like humor and sarcasm, demonstrate the unique communicative and discourse functions of past perfect subjunctive conditionals. The study offers practical insights for learners of English and suggests that input materials reflecting the functional underpinnings of the past perfect subjunctive conditional can enhance their understanding and productive use of the structure.

本稿는 日本語의 順接條件을 나타내는 表現形態 ｢ば(ba)･と(to)･たら(tara)･なら(nara)｣에 關한 使用實態調査로써 2008年의 選擇肢型 調査에 이어 單答型 調査를 實施하여 選擇肢型 調査結果와 對照分析함으로써 條件表現의 使用實態를 明確히 把握함이 硏究目的이다. 多樣한 意味用法을 나타내는 ｢ば(ba)･と(to)･たら(tara)･なら(nara)｣에 關한 使用實態調査의 選擇肢型과 單答型의 對照分析結果에 의하면 日本의 大學에 在學中인 젊은 層은 表現形態 ｢ば(ba)･と(to)･たら(tara)･なら(nara)｣의 意味領域이 뚜렷하게 區分되어있지 않은 경우는 共通的 意味用法의 領域이 아니더라도 混用을 許容하는 傾向이 있다는 結果가 나왔다. 그것은 ｢ば(ba)･と(to)｣의 選擇을 豫想했던 表現에 ｢たら(tara)｣의 選擇比率이 높을 뿐 아니라 非條件的인 表現인 事實的用法을 나타내는 ｢と(to)･たら(tara)｣의 表現領域에 ｢ば(ba)｣를 選擇하는 傾向이 나타난 것에서도 文脈의 흐름에 따른 廣義的인 選擇을 하는 것으로 判斷된다. 그러나 單答型 調査結果에서는 選擇肢型에서 나타난 ｢たら(tara)｣의 擴張現象이 確認되지 않았다. 또한 選擇肢型에서는 ｢たら(tara)｣가 ｢ば(ba)｣와 選擇比率에서 均衡을 이루고 있는 데 反해 單答型에서는 ｢ば(ba)｣의 選擇이 壓倒的인 것으로 나타났다. 이 外에도 選擇肢型과 單答型 모두 ｢ば(ba)･たら(tara)｣가 選擇對象이 될 것이라고 豫想한 表現에 ｢なら(nara)｣系의 選擇比率이 높게 나타났고 또 選擇對象이 아니라고 생각했던 ｢と(to)｣의 選擇, 그리고 選擇肢型에서만 나타났지만 ｢と(to)･たら(tara)｣의 領域에 ｢ば(ba)｣가 選擇되는 등의 混用을 볼 수 있다. 그러나 이번에 實施한 単答型에서는 選擇肢型에서 나타난 變化가 아직 定着되지 않은 것을 確認할 수 있었다.

As an investigation of expressions such as ば(ba), と(to), たら(tara), and なら(nara) showing coordinate condition in Japanese language, the purpose of this study is to clearly establish the status of conditional expressions by comparison and analysis of results of a short‐answer survey with those of a selective survey conducted in 2008. Based on the comparison and analysis of the results of the two surveys on ば(ba), と(to), たら(tara), and なら(nara), indicating various semantic usages of conditional expressions, the subjects selected たら(tara) more in semantic usages of ば(ba) and と(to), and some of them selected ば(ba) in semantic usages of と(to) and たら(tara) indicating factual usages, as for the selective survey. In both selective and short‐answer surveys, selecting たら(tara) was high in semantic usages of ば(ba) and たら(tara), while some of the subjects selected と(to), which was not supposed to be selected. In the selective survey only, ば(ba) was selected in semantic usages of と(to) and たら(tara), indicating the subjects used them mixed. In other words, only for the selective survey, young Japanese in colleges used ば(ba), と(to), たら(tara), and なら(nara) mixed without a clear classification of their semantic domains, many of them selecting them in a broader sense based on context. However, given that たら(tara) and ば(ba) were selected almost evenly in the selective survey but ば(ba) was overwhelmingly selected in the short‐answer survey, the use of たら(tara) in a broader sense or mixed with other expressions was not established in the results of the short‐answer survey.

조건표현은 크게 순접과 역접으로 나누어지며, 이 중 순접조건은 전건의 성립으로 당연하다고 생각되는 귀결이 후건에 오는 데 비해 역접조건은 그러한 귀결로 후건이 이루어지지 않는 경우를 말한다. 그리고 이들에 대응하는 조건형식 중 ‘テハ’와 ‘テモ’ 는 순접과 역접이라고 하는 각기 다른 상황에서 쓰이는 표현으로 흔히 말해지고 있다. 하지만 실제 이들 형식은 같은 장면에서 쓰이는 일이 있어 이 둘을 대립되는 개념의 언어형식으로 다룰 수만은 없다. 전건을 p, 후건을 q라고 했을 때 ‘テハ’는 바람직하지 않은 사태를 q에 가져옴으로써 ~p의 타당성을 끌어내고자 하는 발화의도로 쓰이는 것 인데, 이러한 장면에 ‘テモ’가 쓰이는 일이 있기 때문이다. ‘テモ’를 역접의 언어형식으 로만 볼 수 없는 이유이다. 이러한 쓰임의 성립조건은 각각의 후건에 바람직하지 않은 사태가 온다, 라고 하는 것으로 화용론적인 용법이라 할 수 있다. 이 경우 ‘テハ’와 ‘テモ’는 문면 뒤의 전제를 특별히 상정하고 있지 않고 그대로 ‘ナラバ’와도 치환가능하다. 다만 ‘テハ’는 바람직하 지 않은 q를 이끄는 p가 강조됨으로써 ~p의 타당성을 전하고자 하는 것인데 비해, ‘テ モ’는 ~p의 타당성을 말하기는 하지만 ‘テハ’에 비해 삼가는 뉘앙스를 띤다는 점이 다 르다. 이는 ‘テハ’는 이유로 해석되는 ‘テ’에 대비용법의 ‘ハ’가 붙어 이루어져 있지만, ‘テモ’는 이러한 ‘テ’에 상황을 부드럽게 하는 ‘モ’가 붙어 생긴 것으로 인한 결과라고 여겨진다.

Conditionals are classified as positive conjunction and negative conjunction; positive conjunction which makes sense to the audience by giving the expected conclusion and negative conjunction which works the opposite, by not giving the expected conclusion. ‘tewa’ and ‘temo’ each are often referred to as the two conditionals mentioned above. However, it must be noted that the two conditionals are occasionally used within the same form, meaning that they cannot always be considered as two different linguistic forms. Although ‘tewa’, as an example of positive conjunction, is often used to justify the antecedent (p) by referring to an undesirable consequent (q), ‘temo’ can also be used in the same context, too, therefore blurring the difference between the two forms. These two forms work by pragmatically conveying that there will be an undesirable consequent after the p. In this case, both ‘tewa’ and ‘temo’ can be directly replaced by ‘naraba’ without specifically inferring the intertextual reference. However, unlike ‘tewa’ which is more often used to highlight the validity of the ~p through emphasizing the undesirable consequence led by p, ‘temo’ tends to avoid being definite in stating the negativity, although still conveying the legitimacy of ~p. This can be seen as an outcome of ‘-mo’ which softens ‘te’ which is understood by the audience as the reason, which separates ‘-mo’ from the contrast usage of ‘-wa’.

이전의 연구들에서 ‘トキ(ニ)ハ’가 조건을 나타내는 일이 있다고 하는 지적은 있었 지만 조건의 어떠한 용법․형식과 관련되어있는지에 대해서 명확히 기술된 일은 없다. 이에 본 연구에서는 ‘トキ(ニ)ハ’의 조건용법을 고찰하고자 선행연구에 의거하여 조건 의 용법을 여섯 가지로 나누고, 특히 ‘ハ’의 용법에 주목해서 조건을 나타내는 ‘トキ (ニ)ハ’가 어떤 조건용법과 관련되어지고, 또한 ‘と’, ‘ば’, ‘たら’, ‘なら’의 어떤 조건 형식과 치환가능한지를 살펴보았다. 그 결과를 서술하면 다음과 같다. ‘トキ(ニ)ハ’는 가정조건, 항상조건, 우연조건, 과거의 습관을 나타낼 수가 있는 한 편, 확정조건, 반사실조건과는 관련이 없다. 가정조건을 나타낼 경우 대비의 ‘ハ’가 쓰 인 ‘トキ(ニ)ハ’는 ‘たら’나 ‘ば’와 치환가능하고, 주제의 ‘ハ’가 쓰이면 ‘(の)なら’와 바꾸어 쓸 수 있게 된다. 가정조건 외의 다른 세 가지 조건용법에 쓰이는 ‘トキ(ニ)ハ’ 의 ‘ハ’는 주제용법으로 보이며, 각각의 조건용법에 맞는 조건형식에 대응된다. 단 ‘ト キ(ニ)ハ’가 어떤 조건용법과 관련이 있다고 해서 그 조건용법의 문이 모두 ‘トキ(ニ) ハ’와 치환될 수 있는 것은 아니며, 또한 ‘トキ(ニ)ハ’와 어떤 조건형식이 치환된다는 것이 반드시 각각의 세세한 의미내용까지도 완전히 같다는 것을 의미하지는 않는다. 이상의 고찰을 통하여 ‘トキ(ニ)ハ’는 몇 가지 조건용법을 나타내고 그에 상응하는 조건형식과 치환될 수 있는 만큼, 상당히 복잡한 의미내용․구문구조를 가지고 있는 표현임을 알 수 있다.

以前の研究において｢トキ(ニ)ハ｣が条件を表すことがあるという指摘はあった ものの、条件のどのような用法形式と関わっているのかについては明らかではな かった。そこで、本研究では、｢トキ(ニ)ハ｣の条件用法を考察すべく、先行研究 を基に条件の用法を六つに分け、特に｢ハ｣の用法に注目しながら条件を表す｢トキ (ニ)ハ｣がどの条件用法と関わり、また｢と｣｢ば｣｢たら｣｢なら｣のうちのどの条件形 式と置き換えられるのかを調べた。その結果を述べると、次のようになる。｢トキ(ニ)ハ｣は、仮定条件、恒常条件、偶然条件、過去の習慣を表すことがで きる一方で、確定条件、反事実条件とは関わりを持たない。仮定条件を表す場 合、対比の｢ハ｣が使われた｢トキ(ニ)ハ｣は｢たら｣や｢ば｣と置き換えられ、主題の｢ハ｣が添えられると｢(の)なら｣と置き換えが可能になる。仮定条件以外の、他の 三つの条件用法としての｢トキ(ニ)ハ｣の｢ハ｣は主題用法と見られ、それぞれの条 件用法に合った条件形式に対応している。但し、｢トキ(ニ)ハ｣がある条件用法と 関わりを持っているからといってその条件用法の文がすべて｢トキ(ニ)ハ｣と置き 換えられるわけではなく、また｢トキ(ニ)ハ｣とある条件形式が置き換えられると いうことが必ずしもそれぞれの細かい意味内容までもまったく同じであることを 意味するのではない。 以上の考察を通して、｢トキ(ニ)ハ｣は、いくつかの条件用法を表し、それに 合った条件形式と置き換えられるだけあって、かなり入り組んだ意味内容構文構 造を持っていることが分かった。

Kim, Ah-Young. (2007). Analysis on semantic types of Chinese conditional without connectives-Case study of Chinese conditionals translated into -meon in Korean-. Conference Interpretation and Translation, 9(2), 63-88. The structure of a composite sentence in Chinese is different from that in Korean. While parataxis are frequently used in Chinese composite sentences, the visible connectives are necessary in Korean. Therefore, analysis on the principle of Chinese composite sentences and the function of connectives is essential for equivalent translation and interpretation of Chinese composite sentences. This paper, a preliminary study to identify exact functions of Chinese subjunctive connectives, is to demonstrate the types of Chinese conditional without visible connectives. In previous studies, conditional and hyperthetic have been regarded to have same functions. The analysis, however, revealed that Chinese conditional without subjunctive connectives represents not only hyperthetic conditional including counter-factual conditional and uncertain conditional, but also non-hyperthetic conditional such as repeat conditional and future conditional. Among them, hyperthetic conditional can be expressed with subjunctive connectives while non-hyperthetic conditional cannot. In order to precisely translate and interpret Chinese conditional sentences into Korean, the discrepancies between sentences in Chinese conditional without subjunctive connectives and those with subjunctive connectives need to be investigated. Keywords: composite sentences without connectives, conditional, subjunctive connectives, hyperthetic, non-hyperthetic

This study is purposing to adjust the expressions of conditionals showing the future time, by according to examples. 「to·ba·tara」 are used to show the future time in Japanese as well, and as you know, in future time, language formalities like conditionals or times as a rule are used, but those expressions of conditionals are known to be used under confusion in each categories. Meanwhile, in English, condition and time are classified. First of all Conditionals of condition, and future time or time as a rule of time are divided. Therefore, in this study, I took out all the 「when」s out of 『THE DA VINCI CODE』 and found 「to·ba·tara」「toki」 from Japanese translation to research about it. The study was naturally reached to time as a rule. Also, for Japanese translation backing, I searched about 「myeon」 and 「ttae」 in Korean translation.

This study investigates the difference between Japanese factual conditionals to and the Korean connective suffix ca. It has been claimed in previous studies that to and ca have the usage of sequence of actions in common. This paper, however, argues that the usage of sequence of actions can be divided into two usages sequence of actions 1 and sequence of actions 2. In addition, this paper also argues that to has the usage of both sequence of actions 1 and sequence of actions 2 although ca has only the usage of sequence of actions 2.

This paper examines the form and functions of English conditionals in L2 English, focusing on the differences between NS and NNS writers and across proficiency levels. Our analysis of NS and NNS argumentative essays has revealed that the NNS, compared to the NS, produced more tokens of conditionals and initial if-clauses but less tokens of atypical conditionals. The NNS preferred the future predictive condition over the factual condition, which was preferred by the NS. The NNS utilized the initial if-clause to offer a contrast to previous claims as opposed to the NS utilizing it to repeat previous claims. The developmental trajectory from the lowest to highest levels was not linear, but exhibited a rather irregular pattern. The results evidence that the use of conditionals is an outcome of the complex interaction of various factors including L2 proficiency, L1 structure, textual features, and possibly classroom instruction.

This study describes conditional constructions in Moroccan Arabic (henceforth MA) using a cognitive approach. Adopting the tripartite classification of conditionals namely factual, hypothetical, and counterfactual by Comrie (1986), this study examines conditional constructions that are introduced by the particles ila (???) and kun(???). The analysis shows that there are two basic types of conditional constructions in MA depending on whether the ‘if-clause’represents a possible condition (real conditional) as in: ila il??bu m?zyan, ir?b?u ‘If they play well, they will win’; or a contrary-tofact/impossible condition (unreal conditional) as in kun ?a, n?m?iw kamlin ‘If he came, we would go’. In real conditional constructions, the particle ila is used in conditional constructions to signal the condition and the future. Ila allows two verb forms in both the protasis and the apodosis, namely, the perfective as in ila ?it, rani ?it ‘If you came, I came’, and the imperfective form as in ila kan ??ddam, n??lsu ‘If he is working, I will pay him’. However, each form is used in a special and different way. In unreal conditionals, the various particles are used to signal solely the condition. There are three types of unreal conditionals. The first one refers to the present, the second refers to the future, and the third refers to the past. Concerning verb forms, there are three possible patterns. The first one is that the verb in both the protasis and the apodosis is in the perfective form as in kun ?a, kun l??b ‘If he had come, he would have played’. The second one is that the verb in both the protasis and the apodosis is in the imperfective form as in kun i?i, il??b ‘If he comes, he will play’. The third one is that the verb in the protasis is in the perfective form, while the verb in the apodosis is in the imperfective form as in kun ?a, il??b ‘If he came/had come, he would play/would have played’. The meanings of the verb form whether it is in the perfective or the imperfective, depend on their use in the protasis and the apodosis.

This paper aims to analyze the semantic feature of the marker -myen in Korean grammar and discuss its crosslinguistic implication for the study of conditionals in general. Against Bak (1987, 2003), we claim that the fact that -myen can mark a realis situation over p should not be interpreted simply to mean that even the realis situation can be a conditional target. We observe that in these examples the speaker still carries a kind of irrealis attitude over p-myen q subjectively at a given discourse context, which are still characterizable by the extended notion of irrealis. This leads us to argue that all the conditional speaker attitudes are still defined within the irrealis domain as orginally characterized in Akatsuak (1985). We also argue that -myen can be best viewed as a marker of irrealis speaker attitude in Korean grammar. Based on these lines of counter-argument against Bak (2003), we further argue that from both empirical and theoretical perspectives our theory of conditionals has edge over Bak‘s (2003) claim that the core meaning of conditionals is 'supposition.