| Popis: |
Many conditionals in natural language tend to be interpreted as biconditionals, where the antecedent is considered the single possible cause for the consequent to occur. However, there is no consensus about the factors that provoke or prevent a biconditional interpretation of the conditional. According to the theory that we want to test (von Fintel, 2001), a biconditional reading of a conditional, 'if p, q', is triggered if the conditional is understood as *exhaustive* list of sufficient conditions for the consequent. This is expected to be the case when the question-under-discussion puts the focus on the antecedent (e.g.under which conditions will q occur?). Since the conditional 'if p, q' mentions only one such condition (p), it is perfected and thus interpreted as biconditional. Contrary to that, the conditional, 'if p, q', is hypothesized not to be interpreted as biconditional, when the question-under-discussion puts the focus on the consequent, e.g. by a question-under-discussion about the consequences of the antecedent (e.g. what follows from p?). |
