This work was supported in part by the 1970 MSSB Advanced Research Seminar in Mathematical Linguistics, sponsored by the National Science Foundation through a grant to the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, and held at the Ohio State University

Geis, Michael L.

Zvicky, Arnold M.

KnowledgeBank at OSU

On Invited Inferences Michael L. Geis Arnold M. Zvicky t.:This vork 'o'as s1.1pported in part the 1970 Ma~m Advunced Hescarch Sem.i.nar in r,!athematicul LinguiGtics, sponsored tiy the lfo.tiona.l Science Poundatioil through n grant to the Center for Advenced Study in the Liehs.vioral Sciences, f;tr..nford, and held at 'l'he Ohio State U:iiver::iity.J 150 On i'nvi ted Inferences*· Michael 1. tleis, University.of Ill'inoig, Urbnnn Arnold M. Zvfak.T, 'l'he· Oh'io ~;tute. Un:ivorsi 1. Conditional Perfection. vJ'hen conf'ronted ·with sentcnc,::s like. (1) 	 If John lean6 out ·that window any fu:rther, 110 1 11: fall. students in elqmente1·y logic courses often propose tha.t the examples are to be formalized with ·biconditionJJ.ls :rather than conditionals,--that is;· that ( 1). is to be t'ormali zed. ·as th.e con.Junction .(2)· L ':) F <3) - L ::J - 1,· rather that) ( 2) alone. 'l'he proposo.l is surely wronp,: !J!'.Of,OS'i tion {2) could 	be t!'ue !ind ( 3) · fa.ls~ i.f ,Tohn ~.rere bot to lean out o ~ the' window nn;/ ;further -but ,,•1fre fall e;s tlle .result of losing 'his grip 	o; b~in,t hit by 'a gust of wind. :etc. · What ,:r:ight a.boµt: tl1e novice logician's .proriosa,l is that in H. wide 	variety of ci.rcumstn.nces ~- sentences having the ·1or:icnl form. of (2) are interpreted~ by many speakers~ at lea1;;t,, :as if. they imply the -truth of ( 3) • For example,· many woul(l take someone who sa.ys { k} to ha\te ,con:Jnitt'ed qimself to the truth of ( (~) as 	well as ( 5) . (ii). · I.f you mow the lawn~ I'11 give you five dollars. {5) M::>G (.G.) - J.; ::) - G Certainly) giveri our attitudes toward the exchange of money in our sod ety, one would have some .warrant for a.s!;luminp; th.at if someone says (4) he will act as -if he intended hotrl (5) Md. (G). Let us say tha.t. ( li) nromises. ( 5 ). ·invites the inference of'· or _s~_, ·( 6) • In·many cases, includin~ those above, thert,': is a qwu,i--rei:r,t1ler a.ssocfatiiJn between the logicnl' form· of a sentenc¢ n.nd . th13 i'orm of inf.ererrces it invi t,eS,· A gene:tf!.l Stflterryt~t of th.e prindple ,tt ·work it( ~he. p:resent case is (.7) A 5ent.ence ·of"the' form X:? y invites D.Il, infcrerice ·of·the form·;,; '.o - Y. 152 ·Principle ( 7) !'\Gs erts a connec.;1011 between· linguistic i'orm ·and n tendency of the. hum.an mind~·..;a. tendency !,o 'perfect condition&ls to biqonditionnls I ' in words :,ugge::;ted to us by Lauri Karttu.."l.en: This tendency is manifeste'd two..classical logicnl fallacies, Affirming the Consequent ( coricluding. X from X :, Y and YJ and Denyine the Anteo\ia.ent (cor1c:Ludir"'Q,; - Y .from X-::;, Y and ..... X); as .roll a.s in cases Hke (1) and {h}.·. 'l'he. great no'J?ularity of these fe.llacies ·and 'the' ease vith which principle (7) cart confoll,nd the linguist investigatinp; the semantics of condit.ionalsentences :indic:ate the ;trength of this tendency; . Heteo.fte:r •ie refer to . principle · { 7) as ConditionaJ. Per:fection (CF) , 2·. Extent of CP. We ha.Ye seen the.t er is operative in the ce..se of predictions (cf. (1) above) and in prornis~s (cf. (h) aboYe). It ·also' es, the C.:if?e' of threats' law-lil,e sti,rtements' comma.riils, and counterfe.ctuul conditions.ls. An ins to.nee or .o: condii;;iona.l· threat: {8) If you di$turb me tonight, I won't let yo1.Lgo to the mo.,rics tomorrow. which suggest~, thii.t good behavior wiJ.l be rewarded, An instance  of a law-like statement: '  (9) If you heat iron in a..fi're, it turns"·;r,ed. which suggests that cold ironia·not red. An inste.nceof e.  conc!.itiono.l command  (10) 	 If you see a vhite panther, shout "Wa.ss;a.rstof:fit three times. which suggests silence in.the absence of white.panthers. An 'instance of a, couriterfo.ctunl· conditional tha.t is not, superficially marked as such is (nj Ir.Ghica.r.;~ ;in Indiana; I'm the queen of Rumuniu.. ,;aucn suggests (e.lthour,;h it, not imply) that if Chicago turns  out· not to be in Indiana, then the s:pea.ker of (ll} is indeed not  the Queen of Rurr~nia.  A striking case ·of 'GP involves .marked counterfactual condi'-tionhls, as in  ( 12) If. A.ndrew we:te here~ Barbare would be ·hap})Y, It is natural to sup;ose'that'both the antecedent and·consequertt are presupposed to be false,, that i$ that (12) p~esupposes. t.ha.t Andrew.is not here ,,und that Barbara is. unha1)py. But, .as Ka.rttunen observes in a squib to appeal;' ;in Linguistic Inauint, only the antecedent is presuppose~ false; the falsity of the consequent is merel;y. m+gges_ted,: no~ pr,esupposE:d •. What is so interestine; about 153 thhi example is .that . illustrate's ·t.he dep;ree .to which CP can lll·is.1ead the anal.::rst, 3. Imd:usi Ve 01{. '•t1he Enr,lisl:i or :i..s :in man:,,r conht:xt'G 1.msµecified as to its inclu!:!ive or e):clusi•ie r;enf'ie. ·In •. (13) Give 	it to a friend or a colien~e. the p6ssib±':LitJ that the 'reci'[)ierrtl bi;! both· a friend ana R collea0(:u,e is not,.barred, .nor i!J i,t (in our oniriion) snecifically condoned. . ofteri'. the fn.vorea. ,i:nterpreti:i.tfon is e~cl~5he, ~s 'in . ~ 14) I-1e.rtin .w:ill in at .one context, f.[ntecedent i::lau~e of .a conditional is normally understood by many speakers to be inclusive. Thus, (15} · Ir Martin plays a· blues number dr dances a ,1:i,r,:, I 111 i.m:L tate a porcupine .. { ) If 11ar.tin plays .n blues number .and dances a .He. I' 11 imitate a !lOre;uplne. but does not imply it, a:s• can be i-.;eeri from· the: acceJ,itab;ility o.f (17) 	· If Martin nlays a blues number, or ¢lance~ a .,i/i;, I'-:tl imitate n 1mrcupi.ne·1 . but he does botl1, I wor1 1 do a thii1g. The general principle (·.rhich is. undoubteclly t.oo specific. and requires much ·further investigation) is of the form (16) 'A sentence 'of the', form (X OR.Y)::, Z invites the' inference . (X MID :Y} ::, Z.~- . " 4, Inferred Causation. We men:tion he:re briefly a fins.l .of .invited. inferences •. eSentences .wh1.ch eipress e. tem:r.,ora.l. s~quence or situa.tions., for e;x:p..mple, ( 19} After a larP,e meal, \ie sl~pt soundly. (20) Having finished th'? mri.nuscr.ipt,, spe :fell into a swoon. ' (21) 	 ,,Je.rtha Qbserved the children at play and smiled \dth pleasure. imrite the ihferenc.e tha.t the :!'irs,t situa.tion .is a ·cause of or  r(mooh for the second.. It is clear that the relo.tionshin is one  ot.suggestfon, not imp+ico.tion~ ~ndeed, tb~s.p:ri.ncinle of'  inference corresuonds to the familfo.r fa:llacy ·Post Erg.2_  -~~---,"- !f:9.2.. (.ju~t ,as. CF, has its :t,elated ies). 5. ',1:rospe_1:.:,tus.. Beyon'd;, tne tasks of collecting princi'ples of' invited i!iference, of makint~·,Precioe· statements 9:f'. them, and of clnssifying them--not' uninr;:iprtant tasks~ , ih(Hl)Tluch as invited inferences are a. .si1ecies of und.erb:rush thut must be· clenred be f'ore in•restiglitioris of\semn.ntics,, can thr.{:ve-.::.t}1ere ure' ·several. di f(icu.l t nnd rather deep 'problems. 'l'o what extent' a.re invitee] inferences r-egule.rly·associated vith the semantic content of .a ;entehce? 1 . ~ .. 10 what extent ( if o.nv) do invited . inferences determine . . svntactic  form? ·  , 'fhe discussion of secti'on 1 b.d:icates that the association Of" inferences ,Vi th' semp,ntic CO(it;nt C8.ll be highly regular, n.nd tr,3,s observation is, SUJ:por:ted by th~ fact that sentences wh,i'ch are conditional in meanin.i:( but. not in fm·m are subject to CJ'. · Thus (22} After ti lnrge meal, he sleeps soundly. invites the inference that his sleep is troubled nfter moderate eating·, presumably because {?2) :1.ias a semantic representation, close to that of · ( 23) If he has a large meal, then after it he sleeJ)s soundl:ri Similarly, ( 2li) Do:gs that en.t Opla a.r'e health~r. suggests (25) Dogs thut a.re healthy eat Or.la. · presumably :;:iecause' ('.24) has· a: semantic represents.ti.on su1>s.tantiall~i like ;that of (26) If a :dog ea.ts Opla., then it is het.ilthy,.. It seems, then, that what )TC have called I in,vited inferences I c6ns:t'i tute a speci'n.1. class of 1 implica.tttt'es 1 ·, i1r the terminology of the ,philosopher If. Patil Grictc! ( in some ver;,r important but not yet ·published ·fork); although they a.re ·clearly· distinct from· the I COnYCl'Sational implicatureS 1 which are his Dl'illciJ}al COnCe!"rt • G1:icc considers ;~·hat intenfret,ation will, be JllacE!d upon un utterance in a 'p,m:ticular context; be looks for /~erier:C;u principlcc r,oire"i·ninr. t,\'le ..effects that u.tterances have. principles as:socio.te_d ·~·ith :the rmture·'or the speech·e.ct itself. CP i,1, in some senpe, a principle governing the cff~c"ts that utterances have-,--condit1orials. are undcr-stqod to be perfected unless the hearer hu::; reusori to believe that the converse is 'ro.lse·--but it is in no way that we cun see deriv.ible from. ·considerations having to do with th·e' nature of the speech act. In the, case of Inferred Causation, it is at _lcust possible t.o imae.;ii:ie that a. Griccan fl.xiom Js the ~x;planation_ of, the princi;ple of invited inference. But, we think, clo~er e::rnminat_ion da_shei{ these hopel,:; ConsiclE(t' 1 fnr ex..unp'.le, ( 22) in l.ip;ht of 155 ·, Grice is relc~.rance principle ( ,iDe re.levant''), wh:ich m:iJ'.ht be 5ti,pposed to 11ro·iide s.ome account of the fact- t11at (22) sugp:e5ts a causal ,connection between two event'/'.i. Ilui:. -the. c.entencc nsserts /l connection. "bc:twc_en t-wci cvents--a .temporal conttect:i 011-..:.no--.,i;-y----~:1ould pco"]Jlc. te.nd to assume. a further releva,'r,c:c? 1\nd .eYC'.n ir· t}ici" relevnncc princi nle can nor:1.eh 00W be mi;tde to. cover th:i.n e.1ise, W{l;( i~ the relevance· r.ssmncc:l. to be a matter of Cfl..Unntion~ n.nd no~. 1;;orne qtliiz;r sort o.f FJ,~_sociatiory ,between events? He w:;;t conclude -that t11.ese facts do not -lend. them:,elvcs so easily .to ·explanations. of the Gri ceun SOl~t-. _ As for tl_1e association of .-'.invitei inferences with s;,,cntacti.c ·form, we _have tlO evidence of direct relationshi n, althou~h we .w-ou-ld not rule out the JlossibiH.ty,_. Certainly, i-t Reerns. to be tLe case that an invi tcd inference can, histo:rlcally, be_come · part of -semantic representation in--thc strict sense; thus, the _d.cvelopment of the l!!nglisll conjunction ~inc~ from a purely temporal word to .a marker of caus,1tion can be Interpreted as a change from a nrincinle of. invited inference associated ·,,.,i:t:;h since (by virtue _of-its tempor·a.1,: meaning) ',to u piece of the se/J!antTt"c"Zntlo?nt o±: ~.ince. *We are indeuted to Lauri Kurttuncn for many insii.'.11U·u1 comment~;. 

On Invited Inferences

https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/1811/85984/1/WPL_08_June_1971_150.pdf

On Invited Inferences

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

KnowledgeBank at OSU