Summary Details
| Query: |
Summary: even if
|
|
| Author: | Hiroaki Tanaka | |
| Submitter Email: | click here to access email | |
| Linguistic LingField(s): |
Semantics
|
|
| Summary: |
Dear Linguists, On LINGUIST List: Vol.8-959(25/07/1997), I posted the following query. Three people responded to my investigation. My great thanks goes to the following people. Since their judgements varied, I labelled A, B and C to them just for convenience in writing this summary. A: M. Lynne Roecklein <lynne@cc.gifu-u.ac.jp> B: Laura Gonnerman <gonnerman@scf.usc.edu> C: Gary H. Toops <TOOPS@TWSUVM.UC.TWSU.EDU> The query and summary are as follows. - ----------------------------------------------------- I have been working on some probelms of the meanings of "even if", especially the following so-called consequent-entailment reading of "even if". Please help me check the accptablities of the following sentences. Are the following sentences acceptable or have natural flow of interpretation? Please put OK, ? or * in each slot and comments, if any. If the sentences you judge are unacceptable, what kind of context would you consider to increase the acceptabilities? (1) (A: *; B: OK; C:? ) (Context: My employer is so puritanical that he would fire me if I behaved in what he considered a libertine manner. ) "Even if"my wife smoked cigarettes, he would fire me, but, since she wouldn't ever smoke, he won't fire me. Comment of A: The 'even if' clause is OK with with "he...me", but the second halfdoesn't match. No one would ever phrase this combination of ideas this way. It has a split focus. Is the topic the extent of the employer's puritanism (first half) , or the likelihood/unlikelihood of the speaker's being fired (second half). I find even my Japanese colleagues do this split focus thing all the time. Such sentences are extremely difficult and often impossible to parse in any natural way. It took several years of familiarity with Japanese versions of English for me even to identify what is going on in sentences like this. I'd love to know an effective way to explain to Japanese students of English why this won't work and maybe more important, how to recognize that they've pro9duced an illicit split focus construction. (2) (A:???; B:OK; C:? ) "Even if" you drink just a little, your boss will fire you, but, since you sruely won't drink at all, he won't fire you. Comment of A:a) " "Even if...will fire you" is most easily interpreted as habitual, while "you surely *won't* drink at all" would designate a single event in the future. These sit uneasily together. b) Since drinking a lot is antithetical to drinking a little, the last clause must imply that the boss is thinking of firing the addressee for some other reason. In this case, interpeting the first half according to a) above, there can be no connection between the firing and the drinking and the sentence fails by virtue of non-entailment. On the other hand, if one *goes back* and reinterprets the 'you' in the first half merely as the addressee, then the sentence might be possible, given that condition b) abvove represents the real state of affairs. It would also be implied that the boss needs just a little bit more reason to actualy execute the firing. The final clause would sound better with "can't" than with "won't", however, in this scenario. (3) (A:**; B: *; C:* ) "Even if" you drink just a little, your boss will fire you, but since you surely drink a lot, he won't fire you. Comment of A:The action posited by the "even if" clause is already a maximum limit. The sentence is logically impossible. Comment of B: But if you continue the sentence as below then it is fine by me. (3) (OK ) "Even if" you drink just a little, your boss will fire you, but since you surely drink a lot, he won't fire you, you'll get fed up and quit before he gets a chance. (4) (A: OK; B:OK; C:? ) If it doesn' rain, the game will continue. "Even if" it rains lightly, the game will continue; but if it rains heavily, the rain will be cancelled. I'm sorry I've made a mistake here. The final clause should be, the game will be cancelled, as Roecklein(A) pointed out. (5) (A:**; B: *; C:* ) If it doesn't rain, the game will continue. "Even if"it rains lightly, the game will be cancelled; but if it rains heavily, the game will continue. Comment of A: NONSENSE, in order and logic. Comment of B: Okay if you continue with something like: (5) (OK) If it doesn't rain, the game will continue. "Even if"it rains lightly, the game will be cancelled; but if it rains heavily, the game will continue, but it will be moved to an indoor arena. (6) (A:**; B:?; C:* ) "Even if" the president were to get ingestion tonight, the cease-fire would end, but, if we resume negotiations with the enemy for a treaty of peace, it will continue. I'm sorry I've mistyped the word here too. Ingestion should be indigestion. Comment of A: I would imagine rather that indigestion would CONTRIBUTE to the end of the ceasefire. (7) (A: OK; B:OK; C:? ) "Even if" my wife smoked cigarettes, I would not scold her, but, if she ever broke my favorite dishes, I would scold her. Comment of A: "Scold her" should nto be repeated at the end. Very Unnatural. (8) (A:?; B: ?; C:? ) "Even if" my wife smokes cigarettes, I will not scold her, but,if she breaks my favorite dishes, I will scold her. Comment of A: Underlying logic OK. I don't like "even if" with the indicative present verb because I like to mark conditionals on the verb, but I'm aware that this usage is in process of change. Same proviso as above for the repeated "scold her." The preferences of conditionals in even if clause over the indicative present are the same to all three people. However, I found many examples of the indicative type. This seems a matter of individual preferences. Comment of B: (8) (OK) "Even if" my wife smokes cigarettes at the dinner table, I will not scold her, but,if she breaks my favorite dishes, I will scold her. Comment of C: To make sense of many of your contexts, I had to postpose the "even if" clause, e.g., "I will not scold my wife, even if she smokes cigarettes." Placing the "even if" clause first in the sentence makes it more emphatic. My own summary: (3) and (5) are judged logically impossible as I have expected. But I do not understand Laura Gonnerman's rephrasing OK sentence of (5). (6) is also judged unnnatural to all the three people though I expected it would be OK. It seems to me the final clause cahnges the situation and focus of the sentence. Why not OK? Finally, I must apologize to you all about the use of "scold" in the final two sentences. One person reminded me of the bad implication of husband's scolding his wife. I didn't notice it. In Japan, too, a husband who "scold" his wife is an arrogant person these days. Thank you very much for your help. Please make further comments, if any, on this usage. I'll be glad to make a reply. Hiroaki Tanaka Associate Professor Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences Tokushima University, Japan 1-1, Minamijousanjioma, Tokushima, 770, Japan phone & fax: +81 886 56 7125 e-mail: hiro-t@ias.tokushima-u.ac.jp |
|
| LL Issue: | 8.1057 | |
| Date Posted: | 14-Jul-1997 | |
| Original Query: | Read original query | |
|
Back |
||
|
|
||
|
Sums main page
|
||
Business Plan,Business Ideas,Advanced Energy,High Technology,Healthy Diets,Healthy Foods,Games Guides,Games Cheats,Travel Guides,Travel Tips,Study Skills,Study Tips,Health Tips,Health Guides,Jewelry Stores,Jewellery UK Online,Digital Camera Reviews,Digital Camera Buying Guide,Replica Handbags,Replica Bags,Jackets on Sale,Jackets Clearance,WoW Gold,Cheap WoW Gold,Buy WoW Gold,WOW Gold,Swtor Credits


