iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39199082/
Exploring Pragmatic Factors on the Logical Relationships of Conditional Reasoning: A Study of Counterfactual and Hypothetical Conditionals - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Aug 8;14(8):686.
doi: 10.3390/bs14080686.

Exploring Pragmatic Factors on the Logical Relationships of Conditional Reasoning: A Study of Counterfactual and Hypothetical Conditionals

Affiliations

Exploring Pragmatic Factors on the Logical Relationships of Conditional Reasoning: A Study of Counterfactual and Hypothetical Conditionals

Lingda Kong et al. Behav Sci (Basel). .

Abstract

Previous theories have established the mental model activation of processing different types of conditionals, stating that counterfactual conditionals expressing events that contradict known facts (e.g., "If it had rained, then they would not go to the park.") are considered to trigger two mental models: (1) a hypothetical but factually wrong model (e.g., "rain" and "did not go to the park") and (2) a corresponding real-world model (e.g., "did not rain" and "went to the park"). This study aimed to investigate whether pragmatic factors differentially influence readers' comprehension and distinction between counterfactual and hypothetical conditional sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Participants were required to read and judge the comprehensibility of Chinese hypothetical and counterfactual conditionals, which were different in temporal indicators (past vs. future temporal indicators) in the antecedent. Different polarities (with vs. without negators) and different moving directions (different directional verbs: lai2 [come] vs. qu4 [go]) in the consequent were also manipulated. Linear mixed-effects models (LMEM) revealed that hypothetical conditionals (with future temporal indicators) were more comprehensible than counterfactual conditionals (with past temporal indicators). The semantic similarities within the subordinate clause revealed future temporal indicators had higher lexical-semantic co-occurrence than past indicators, suggesting that temporal indicators impact comprehension partly through lexical semantics in the premise, and hypothetical conditionals are more easily processed. However, the semantic similarity analysis of the main and the subordinate clauses showed no effect of temporal indicators, suggesting that lexical-semantic co-occurrence across clauses may not substantially contribute to the distinction between hypothetical conditionals and counterfactual conditionals. In conclusion, this study offers insights into the comprehension of Chinese conditional sentences by shedding light on the pragmatic factors influencing the activation of different mental models.

Keywords: counterfactuals; hypothetical; mental models; negator; temporal indicator.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Semantic similarity (within clause) score of the antecedent polarity and temporal indicator. Blue represents the LSA values with a temporal indicator of the future, while yellow represents the LSA values with a temporal indicator of the past. The significant threshold is represented by the number of symbols (*** p < 0.001, ns p ≥ 0.05).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Semantic similarity (across clause) score of the directional verb. Blue represents the semantic similarity values with the verb direction lai (come), while yellow represents the semantic similarity values with the verb direction qu(go). The significant threshold is represented by the number of symbols (*** p < 0.001).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comprehensibility of consistency and temporal indicator. Mean and standard error per condition were plotted.

Similar articles

References

    1. Johnson-Laird P.N., Byrne R.M.J. Deduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Hillsdale, NJ, USA: 1991.
    1. Byrne R.M.J. Mental models and counterfactual thoughts about what might have been. TiCS. 2002;6:426–431. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01974-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wang T., Xu X. Better I than He: Personal perspective modulates counterfactual processing. Brain Lang. 2022;228:105105. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2022.105105. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dai H., Kaan E., Xu X. Understanding counterfactuals in transparent and nontransparent context: An event-related potential investigation. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 2021;47:1299. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000985. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dai H., Chen L., Ni C., Xu X. Literature reading modulates pronoun resolution in counterfactual world: Evidence from event-related potentials. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 2019;45:904–919. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000620. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources