Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:57:19.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating presuppositions and propositions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Ellin K. Scholnick  and
Clara S. Wing
Ellin K. Scholnick
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Clara S. Wing
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some conjunctions simultaneously convey speakers' presuppositions about the validity of propositions uttered and assertions of particular interclausal relations. Because conveys belief, if + indicative, uncertainty and if + subjunctive, disbelief. While all three conjuctions assert positive entailment, unless, which like if + indicative presupposes uncertainty, asserts negative entailment or denial. The relationship between pragmatic knowledge and reasoning was explored by asking 12 males and 12 females at each of three ages (12, 15, adult) to solve written syllogisms containing the four conjunctions and evaluate single sentences for their pragmatic content. In the pragmatic task, belief was easier to detect than uncertainty or disbelief. Positive entailment was easier than negative entailment. Only entailment influenced syllogistic reasoning with unless harder than the positively entailed conjunctions. At each age linguistic comprehension of negative entailment was related to understanding valid implications in unless syllogisms. The relation between comprehension of pragmatic uncertainty and detection of uncertain conclusions in reasoning increased with age.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , October 1983 , pp. 639 - 660
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bates, E. (1976). Language and context. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1978). On the nature of natural logic or reasoning and standard logic. PsychRev 85. 1–21.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multi-trait multi-method matrix. PsychBull 56. 81–105.Google Scholar
Carpenter, P. A. (1973). Extracting information from counterfactual clauses. JVLVB 12. 512–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1973). What's in a word? On the child's acquisition of semantics in his first language. In Moore, T. E. (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Green, M. G. (1979). The developmental relation between cognitive stage and comprehension of speaker uncertainty. ChDev 50. 666–74.Google ScholarPubMed
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1975). Models of deduction. In Falmagne, R. (ed.), Reasoning: representation and process in children and adults. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kartunnen, L. (1971). Counterfactual conditionals. LI 2. 566–9.Google Scholar
von Kutschera, F. (1974). Indicative conditionals. TheorLing 1. 257–69.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1971). If's, and's and but's about conjunctions. In Fillmore, C. J. & Langedoen, D. T. (eds), Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
McCall, R. J. (1952). Basic logic. New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
O'Brien, T. C. & Shapiro, B. J. (1968). The development of logical thinking in children. AmerEdResJ 5. 531–42.Google Scholar
O'Brien, T. C., Shapiro, B. J. & Reali, N. C. (1971). Logical thinking – language and context. EducStudMath 4. 201–19.Google Scholar
Piéraut-LeBonniec, G. (1980). The development of modal reasoning. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rips, L. J. & Marcus, S. L. (1977). Suppositions and the analysis of conditional sentences. In Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (eds), Cognitive processes in comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Scholnick, E. K. & Wing, C. S. (1982). The pragmatics of subordinating conjunctions: a second look. JChLang 9. 461–79.Google ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, B. J. & O'Brien, T. C. (1973). Logical thinking in children ages six through thirteen. ChDev 41. 823–9.Google Scholar
Staudenmayer, H.(1975). Understanding conditional reasoning with meaningful propositions. In Falmagne, R. (ed.), Reasoning: representation and process in children and adults. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Taplin, J. E. & Staudenmayer, H. (1973). Interpretation of abstract conditional sentences in deductive reasoning. JVLVB 12. 530–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildman, T. M. & Fletcher, H. J. (1977). Developmental increases and decreases in solutions of conditional syllogism problems. DevPsych 13. 630–9.Google Scholar
Winer, B. J. (1962). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wing, C. S. & Scholnick, E. K. (1981). Children's comprehension of pragmatic concepts expressed in because, although, if and unless. JChLang 8. 347–65.Google ScholarPubMed