Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:10:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710231810.NAA07521@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: (Fwd) even if X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 7480 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Oct 23 13:10:29 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Some people were wondering about "even". Here is a message about it from another list. --And. ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:04:11 +0200 (METDST) From: Delgado Lavin Eva To: relevance@phonetics.ucl.ac.uk Subject: even if Dear relevance listers: I have been thinking about 'even' (among other focus expressions) for years as part of my PhD research; in fact, I am really interested in accounting for 'even-if' conditionals, but this can only be done if one understands what 'even' and 'if' contribute separately to the compound 'even if'. My contribution to the list today will focus on 'even'. As J. Bennett pointed out in his now classical (1982) paper on 'even', an even-utterance like the one below communicates three sorts of assumptions (a rough paraphrase of each of which is given): Even Max tried on the pants A: Max tried on the pants B: At least one person other than Max tried on the pants C: The fact that Max tried on the pants is, or is purported to be, more surprising, less likely, expected or whatever, than this other person(persons)'s trying on the pants. The question is: what is the contribution of 'even'? My idea is that, like any other focus expression (understood widely to cover contrastive stress, focus adverbs and certain syntactic constructions), 'even' evokes what I have chosen to call an 'assumption schema' (it is in fact a grammatically specified entailment, but the term 'assumption schema' is more graphic, I think; if I am using the term wrongly, please somebody correct!) with a slot or variable in the place of the focused constituent. This schema (or entailment, as you wish) can be relevant in two ways: to take the example above, if the hearer has a number of people in mind, the schema can be filled (or the variable instantiated) -e.g. you could obtain other similar propositions 'Mary tried on the pants', 'John tried on the pants'-; if the hearer does not have anybody in particular in mind, as is the case with us reading the utterance out of context, for the evoked schema or entailment to have some relevance it would be assumed that the variable in it has some value different from Max. So far, we have: Utterance: Even Max tried on the pants Explicature: Max tried on the pants Schema or entailment: Someone tried on the pants + If one or more instantiations prove relevant, several propositions (e.g. 'Mary tried on the pants', 'John tried on the pants'...) So B above is communicated by virtue of 'even' being a focus particle (an utterance with 'only' or 'too' or contrastive stress would communicate the same in the same way). But each focus expression has its own particular contribution that distinguishes it from other focus expressions. I claim that 'even' helps in the selection of the context. It 'instructs' the hearer that the context for processing should contain an assumption with the following property: it is the contradictory of the explicature. I claim that this assumption is manifest in the context in the sense that it is derivable (from encyclopaedic assumptions which are then also thereby evoked). In our example, 'even' would tell the hearer -us- that the assumption 'Max did not try on the pants' is manifest (and so derivable from certain encyclopaedic assumptions about Max and how he behaves in certain situations, etc., whatever this is, we can't tell because we do not have any information about Max; however, it is interesting that even without knowing or caring about this Max, we are forced to assume that he is shy, or does not like that kind of situation, or something like that, so we form certain assumptions regarding him in interpreting the utterance). It is important that 'even' instructs us to use this contradictory manifest assumption as part of the context, because thanks to this, the manifest assumption is sure to be eliminated (since the explicature of the utterance, coming from a trustful speaker is presumably stronger than an assumption derived from encyclopaedic assumptions). Notice that if 'even' is absent ('Max tried on the pants') the speaker cannot ensure that the hearer will eliminate the manifest assumption ('Max did not try on the pants'), because perhaps it will not be derived from encyclopaedic information to begin with. It goes without saying that 'even' is not required for the elimination of erroneous manifest assumptions. An 'even' utterance is just a more explicit version for what the speaker means. Take the example from Lycan (1991) (1) and my analysis (2): (1) It's fast, it's durable, it's even low in price (2) a. 'Even' utterance: It's even low in price b. Explicature: Product 101 is low in price c. Schema or entailment: Product 101 is property x d. Manifest assumption: Product 101 is expensive 'it's expensive' is manifest because it can be inferred from our encyclopaedic assumption 'Quality products are expensive' and the new assumption 'Product 101 is a quality product' (derived in turn from the previously communicated assumptions 'product 101 is fast' and 'product 101 is durable'). Now the explicature 'product 101 is low in price' contradicts the manifest assumption and, being stronger, eliminates it (causing in turn probably the revision of the hearer's encyclopaedic assumption 'quality products are expensive' or perhaps of the assumption 'product 101 is a quality product'). All this processing 'could' happen without the presence of 'even' but it is obligatory when 'even' is used. For 'if' I follow S. Barker (1994). According to him, in 'if P, Q' 'if' signals that P is being supposed (i.e. entertained as true). In asserting a conditional, the speaker is committing himself to the truth of Q and is signalling that this commitment holds under the supposition of P. So to take Simon's example a. Even if I study hard I will fail b. Explicature: SUPPOSITION (speaker studies hard), the speaker will fail c. Schema or entailment: SUPPOSITION (...), the speaker will fail d. Manifest assumption: SUPPSOTION (speaker studies hard), the speaker will not fail. Notice that the manifest assumption, which the speaker wants to ensure will be eliminated by the explicature of his utterance, is derivable from the encyclopeadic assumption 'if you study hard for an exam, you will pass it' (or something along those lines). Notice, too, that the slot in the schema (or the variable to be instantiated) in c. will have a highly accessible relevant instantiation: the negative version of the antecedent used in the utterance. In this way, a conditional is obtained that says that if the speaker does not study hard, the speaker will fail. Putting this together with the explicature of the utterance, the effect is that the consequent follows. However, I do not think it is fair to say that it is entailed (and there are examples that show that 'even-if' utterances do not entail their consequents, although very often they seem to). I hope this was clear enough for Simon and the rest of you, and of course it is all my responsibility if I have used relevance-theoretic notions wrongly. Please do let me know what you think. Best wishes, Eva Eva Delgado Lavin Departamento de Filologia Inglesa Facultad de Filologia Universidad del Pais Vasco Paseo de la Universidad s/n Apartado 2111 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz (Spain)