If条件句与常规关系
|
摘要
本文在认知的框架内,从逻辑-语用的视角探讨英语 if 条件句。本研究旨在:(1)考察 If 条件句结构式(if-conditional construction)(简称“条件结构式”)所表现出的多种语义关系,并对这一多义现象进行解释,探讨条件结构式形成的理据。(2)将语用学关于常规关系的运用嫁接到逻辑学充分条件的运用上来,提出了一个条件句解读的推理机制。
在本文中,If 条件句指由一个主句和一个 if 引导的从句构成的复合句,表示为 if p,then q。“条件结构式”所体现出的意义关系,是逻辑、句法、语义、语用研究中的一个热门话题。不少学者已对其做过研究,并取得了很多重要成果。但是,由于出发点和侧重点不一,对于各种不同的语义关系何以能进入统一的 if p, then q 条件结构式的研究还不多见。这个问题,本质上是条件句形成的理据问题。本文试图在这方面作一些研究。
从认知语言学的角度说,语言结构主要是现实世界的关系和结构通过人的认知投影到语言的结果。在认识世界的过程中,人们通过识解将各种关系转化为常规关系;而常规关系的运用不仅渗入到对于事态的描述和解释当中,而且在一定程度上影响对于事态的描述和解释。条件结构式 if p, then q 的形成是现实世界事件间的条件关系通过人们的感知和识解映射到语言中的结果。这些条件关系为相同或不同语言群体的人们所共识,从而成为一种社会潜意识或无意识。所以,常规关系是条件结构式形成的理据。
本文在认知语言学的框架内,从逻辑-常规的视角对英语if条件句所表现出的多义性进行深入探讨,试图找到其形成的理据和解读的机制。
本研究要解决的基本问题是:为什么多种不同的语义关系可以进入条件结构式。这个问题的实质就是探讨 if 条件结构式的语法化的理据。这个问题又可以分解成为以下几个问题: (1) 不同的语义关系是如何进入这个结构式的? (2) 对具体条件句进行解读的依据是怎样的? (3) 条件结构式固化过程是怎样的?
ix
条件句 if p, then q 是充分条件假言判断的语言载体。句中所包含的常规关
系会引起充分条件的嬗变,在某种程度上改变原来的充分条件假言判断。因
此,我们说逻辑规则和常规关系在条件句的推理中共现。本研究在借鉴和发展
前人研究成果的基础上,从逻辑-语用的角度,根据条件句表现出的逻辑属性和
常规关系来考察英语条件结构式,将条件句的逻辑关系运用在自然语言的判
断、推理中。其基本观点是:
(1) if 条件结构式是充分条件假言推理的语言表达形式。典型的 if 条件句
的语义内容表现为充分条件和结果关系,符合逻辑上的充分条件的特
征。充分条件假言推理的真值表,对解读具有阐释功能。对于这样的
条件句的解读依赖逻辑推理。
(2) 若 if 条件结构式的显性表述(explicit expression)的语义内容不存在通
常的充分条件和结果的关系时,就成为所谓“非标准”条件句,我们称
之为“推理条件句”(inferential conditionals),它实际上是一种不完备
表述。只有找到相关的隐性表述(implicit expression)的具体内容对
显性表述作出补足,才可以使表达变得相对完备,并从中显现出充分
条件假言推理的特征,从而也符合充分条件的推理。找到相关的隐性
表述主要依赖常规关系。常规关系的运用是语言使用者达到对条件句
的至为特定理解的关键,也为这些“非标准”条件句进入条件结构式提
供了的理据。这一观点基于常规关系是一种认知工具的假说。作为认
知工具,常规关系参与语用推理,容易照顾到推理过程中真实存在的
各种复杂局面。对于“非标准”条件句的理解过程首先是语用推理过
程。
(3) 条件结构式的形成,是客观外部世界自身的条件关系,通过人们的认
知作为媒介,投影为语言规则的结果;是人们在言语交际中,以人与
人之间、人与事物之间以及事物与事物之间的相互关系来把握世界的
一种表达方式。
x
为了更好地研究以上所提出的问题,本论文发展了一个逻辑-语用理论框
架,作为解决条件句语用推理的分析模型,表述如下:
if条件句结构
显性表述
充分条件测试
是 否
︱ ︱ 形成 真值表
显性表述1 显性表述2 部分解读 完备解读
︱ ︱ 阐释
解码 常规关系
完备表述 隐性表述 补足
以上的流程图表示:对于 if 条件句的理解本质上是对不完备表述的理解问
题,而其“不完备”可能表现为不同的程度。条件句内容所体现的常规关系帮
助补足显性表述中的语义空缺,达到较为完备的表达。真值表则对特定的条件
关系进行阐释,达到至为特定的理解。
关于方法论问题,本文语用了归纳演绎法和溯因推理法,并以以下五个步
骤对 if 条件句的推理过程进行说明:
1 确认状况
2 分析可能存在的各种常规关系
3 推导暗含的特定关系
4 得出结论
5 预测可能存在的变化
以上步骤可以形式化为:
n n n
(∨xi∩∨yi) →∨zi
i=1 i=1 i=1
本文的理论框架由逻辑规则、人们的交际原则和常规关系理论等要素构
成,因为条件句的使用就是基于这些要素的。
本文的结构是:
xi
第一章是对写本文初衷的说明,及对本文研究范围的界定。主要概述了 if
所包含的不同意义及它的意义同句义的关系,提出了“ if 条件结构式”的概
念,同时概述“标准”和“非
This dissertation is a study of English if-conditionals within a cognitive framework integrated with a logical-pragmatic perspective. The objectives of this research are twofold: (1) to explore the motivation of the fossilization of English if-conditional construction on the basis of the survey of its polysemy; and (2) to put forward an inferential mechanism with regard to the interpretation of English if-conditionals in terms of the graft of the application of stereotype onto that of logical sufficient conditionality.
If-conditional in this study refers to a complex sentence whose typical surface structure is a bi-clause consisting of a subordinate clause and a main clause in the form of if p, then q. The conditional has long been extensively studied from different perspectives such as logic, syntax, semantics and pragmatics, with the result of a rich literature to show that significant insights have been gained in different aspects through various approaches. However, less investigation has been made on the motivation of the formation of the construction than its significant merits; to put it plainly, less attention has been directed to the investigation of the grammaticalizational aspect of the construction in which diversified semantic contents might be accepted during the process of its fossilization. This thesis is an attempt made toward this investigation.
From the point of view of cognitive linguistics, language structure is mainly the result of the mapping of the constructs and relations of the real world onto the use of language through the medium of human cognition. In the course of perceiving the world, people tend to turn relations into stereotypes through their construal, and the use of stereotypes will be unavoidably permeated into or will, to some extent, affect the process and product of the description and interpretation of the states of affairs. This should finally be reflected in the organization of linguistic structure. The construction if p, then q is no exception in that this construction reflects the mapping of the human perception and consideration of the conditional relations between events of the real world. These as the common knowledge shared by the community of the
language, even by communities across cultures, reflect people’s general understanding of the world in terms of causes and effects between events, thus forming a kind of social sub-consciousness and unconsciousness of the community or even over communities. In this sense, it is the stereotype that motivates the formation, or put in another way, the grammaticalization, of conditional construction. Nurtured by the perspective of cognitive linguistics and enlightened by the research on stereotype, this dissertation makes a wide-scale investigation into the question of what makes it possible for everyday conditionals to transmit the chameleon-like meanings and what inferences they license. The investigation may be boiled down into the following key question together with the several sub-questions: The key question is: why can the contents without conditional relations fall into the conditional construction if p, then q? This question is actually a question concerning the grammaticalization of the construction. The sub-questions are: (1) How does if p, then q construction accept the various contents and how might the various contents be described? (2) How do we account for the trigger of the most specific interpretation of a specific conditional? (3) How do we account for the process of the fossilization of the construction? The conditional is logically the linguistic form of hypothetical judgment of sufficient condition. The stereotype embedded in the contents may cause a change of transmutation in the sufficient condition expressed, changing the original hypothetical judgment of sufficient condition to some extent. Accordingly, both logical rule and stereotype conspire to make contribution to the transmuted inference. The polysemy of if-conditional construction, or its diversified interpretations, is in the final analysis a res
在本文中,If 条件句指由一个主句和一个 if 引导的从句构成的复合句,表示为 if p,then q。“条件结构式”所体现出的意义关系,是逻辑、句法、语义、语用研究中的一个热门话题。不少学者已对其做过研究,并取得了很多重要成果。但是,由于出发点和侧重点不一,对于各种不同的语义关系何以能进入统一的 if p, then q 条件结构式的研究还不多见。这个问题,本质上是条件句形成的理据问题。本文试图在这方面作一些研究。
从认知语言学的角度说,语言结构主要是现实世界的关系和结构通过人的认知投影到语言的结果。在认识世界的过程中,人们通过识解将各种关系转化为常规关系;而常规关系的运用不仅渗入到对于事态的描述和解释当中,而且在一定程度上影响对于事态的描述和解释。条件结构式 if p, then q 的形成是现实世界事件间的条件关系通过人们的感知和识解映射到语言中的结果。这些条件关系为相同或不同语言群体的人们所共识,从而成为一种社会潜意识或无意识。所以,常规关系是条件结构式形成的理据。
本文在认知语言学的框架内,从逻辑-常规的视角对英语if条件句所表现出的多义性进行深入探讨,试图找到其形成的理据和解读的机制。
本研究要解决的基本问题是:为什么多种不同的语义关系可以进入条件结构式。这个问题的实质就是探讨 if 条件结构式的语法化的理据。这个问题又可以分解成为以下几个问题: (1) 不同的语义关系是如何进入这个结构式的? (2) 对具体条件句进行解读的依据是怎样的? (3) 条件结构式固化过程是怎样的?
ix
条件句 if p, then q 是充分条件假言判断的语言载体。句中所包含的常规关
系会引起充分条件的嬗变,在某种程度上改变原来的充分条件假言判断。因
此,我们说逻辑规则和常规关系在条件句的推理中共现。本研究在借鉴和发展
前人研究成果的基础上,从逻辑-语用的角度,根据条件句表现出的逻辑属性和
常规关系来考察英语条件结构式,将条件句的逻辑关系运用在自然语言的判
断、推理中。其基本观点是:
(1) if 条件结构式是充分条件假言推理的语言表达形式。典型的 if 条件句
的语义内容表现为充分条件和结果关系,符合逻辑上的充分条件的特
征。充分条件假言推理的真值表,对解读具有阐释功能。对于这样的
条件句的解读依赖逻辑推理。
(2) 若 if 条件结构式的显性表述(explicit expression)的语义内容不存在通
常的充分条件和结果的关系时,就成为所谓“非标准”条件句,我们称
之为“推理条件句”(inferential conditionals),它实际上是一种不完备
表述。只有找到相关的隐性表述(implicit expression)的具体内容对
显性表述作出补足,才可以使表达变得相对完备,并从中显现出充分
条件假言推理的特征,从而也符合充分条件的推理。找到相关的隐性
表述主要依赖常规关系。常规关系的运用是语言使用者达到对条件句
的至为特定理解的关键,也为这些“非标准”条件句进入条件结构式提
供了的理据。这一观点基于常规关系是一种认知工具的假说。作为认
知工具,常规关系参与语用推理,容易照顾到推理过程中真实存在的
各种复杂局面。对于“非标准”条件句的理解过程首先是语用推理过
程。
(3) 条件结构式的形成,是客观外部世界自身的条件关系,通过人们的认
知作为媒介,投影为语言规则的结果;是人们在言语交际中,以人与
人之间、人与事物之间以及事物与事物之间的相互关系来把握世界的
一种表达方式。
x
为了更好地研究以上所提出的问题,本论文发展了一个逻辑-语用理论框
架,作为解决条件句语用推理的分析模型,表述如下:
if条件句结构
显性表述
充分条件测试
是 否
︱ ︱ 形成 真值表
显性表述1 显性表述2 部分解读 完备解读
︱ ︱ 阐释
解码 常规关系
完备表述 隐性表述 补足
以上的流程图表示:对于 if 条件句的理解本质上是对不完备表述的理解问
题,而其“不完备”可能表现为不同的程度。条件句内容所体现的常规关系帮
助补足显性表述中的语义空缺,达到较为完备的表达。真值表则对特定的条件
关系进行阐释,达到至为特定的理解。
关于方法论问题,本文语用了归纳演绎法和溯因推理法,并以以下五个步
骤对 if 条件句的推理过程进行说明:
1 确认状况
2 分析可能存在的各种常规关系
3 推导暗含的特定关系
4 得出结论
5 预测可能存在的变化
以上步骤可以形式化为:
n n n
(∨xi∩∨yi) →∨zi
i=1 i=1 i=1
本文的理论框架由逻辑规则、人们的交际原则和常规关系理论等要素构
成,因为条件句的使用就是基于这些要素的。
本文的结构是:
xi
第一章是对写本文初衷的说明,及对本文研究范围的界定。主要概述了 if
所包含的不同意义及它的意义同句义的关系,提出了“ if 条件结构式”的概
念,同时概述“标准”和“非
This dissertation is a study of English if-conditionals within a cognitive framework integrated with a logical-pragmatic perspective. The objectives of this research are twofold: (1) to explore the motivation of the fossilization of English if-conditional construction on the basis of the survey of its polysemy; and (2) to put forward an inferential mechanism with regard to the interpretation of English if-conditionals in terms of the graft of the application of stereotype onto that of logical sufficient conditionality.
If-conditional in this study refers to a complex sentence whose typical surface structure is a bi-clause consisting of a subordinate clause and a main clause in the form of if p, then q. The conditional has long been extensively studied from different perspectives such as logic, syntax, semantics and pragmatics, with the result of a rich literature to show that significant insights have been gained in different aspects through various approaches. However, less investigation has been made on the motivation of the formation of the construction than its significant merits; to put it plainly, less attention has been directed to the investigation of the grammaticalizational aspect of the construction in which diversified semantic contents might be accepted during the process of its fossilization. This thesis is an attempt made toward this investigation.
From the point of view of cognitive linguistics, language structure is mainly the result of the mapping of the constructs and relations of the real world onto the use of language through the medium of human cognition. In the course of perceiving the world, people tend to turn relations into stereotypes through their construal, and the use of stereotypes will be unavoidably permeated into or will, to some extent, affect the process and product of the description and interpretation of the states of affairs. This should finally be reflected in the organization of linguistic structure. The construction if p, then q is no exception in that this construction reflects the mapping of the human perception and consideration of the conditional relations between events of the real world. These as the common knowledge shared by the community of the
language, even by communities across cultures, reflect people’s general understanding of the world in terms of causes and effects between events, thus forming a kind of social sub-consciousness and unconsciousness of the community or even over communities. In this sense, it is the stereotype that motivates the formation, or put in another way, the grammaticalization, of conditional construction. Nurtured by the perspective of cognitive linguistics and enlightened by the research on stereotype, this dissertation makes a wide-scale investigation into the question of what makes it possible for everyday conditionals to transmit the chameleon-like meanings and what inferences they license. The investigation may be boiled down into the following key question together with the several sub-questions: The key question is: why can the contents without conditional relations fall into the conditional construction if p, then q? This question is actually a question concerning the grammaticalization of the construction. The sub-questions are: (1) How does if p, then q construction accept the various contents and how might the various contents be described? (2) How do we account for the trigger of the most specific interpretation of a specific conditional? (3) How do we account for the process of the fossilization of the construction? The conditional is logically the linguistic form of hypothetical judgment of sufficient condition. The stereotype embedded in the contents may cause a change of transmutation in the sufficient condition expressed, changing the original hypothetical judgment of sufficient condition to some extent. Accordingly, both logical rule and stereotype conspire to make contribution to the transmuted inference. The polysemy of if-conditional construction, or its diversified interpretations, is in the final analysis a res
引文
Adams, E. 1970. Subjunctive and indicative conditionals. Foundations of Language, 6: 89-94.
Adams, E. 1975. The Logic of Conditionals. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Adams, E. l988. Modus Tollens Revisited. Analysis, 48: 122-128.
Akatsuka, N. 1986. Conditionals are discourse-bound. In Traugott, E. C., A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds.). On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 333-351.
Allport, G.W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Anderson, A. R. 1951. A note on subjunctive and counterfactual conditionals. Analysis, 12: 35-38.
Appiah, A. 1985. Assertion and Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Athanasiadou, A. & R. Dirven (eds.). 1997. On Conditionals Again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Atlas, J. 1989. Philosophy without ambiguity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atlas, J. & S. Levinson. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In P. Cole (ed.). Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 1-61.
Austin, J.L. 1961. Ifs and Cans. Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 205-232.
Barrouillet, P. & J.F. Lecas. 1998. How can mental models account for content effects in conditional reasoning? Cognition, 67: 209–253.
Barrouillet, P. & J.F. Lecas. 2002. Content and context effects in children’s and adults’
conditional reasoning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, (3): 839–854.
Barwise, J. 1986. Conditionals and conditional information. In Traugott, E. C., A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds.). On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 21-54.
Bass, R. 2003..
Bennett, J. 1988. Farewell to the phlogiston theory of conditionals. Mind, 97: 509-527.
Bennett, J. 1995. Classifying conditionals: the traditional way is right. Mind, 104: 331-354.
Bennett, J. 2003. A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bonevac, D. 1998. Simple Logic. Austin: University of Texas. Braine, M. D. S. 1978. On the relation between the natural logic of reasoning and standard logic. Psychological Review, 85:1-21.
Braine, M. D. S. 1990. The natural logic approach to reasoning. In W. F. Overton (ed.). Reasoning, necessity, and logic: Developmental perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 133-157.
Braine, M. D. S., & D. P. O’Brien. 1991. A theory of if: A lexical entry, reasoning program, and pragmatic principles. Psychological Review, 98: 182-203.
Brée, D.S. & R.A. Smit. 1985. Non standard uses of if. Proceedings of the second conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. March 27-29. Geneva, Switzerland. 218-225.
Brée, D.S. 1982. Counterfactuals and Causality. Journal of Semantics, 1:147-185.
Brennan, A. 2003. Necessary and sufficient conditions. In E.N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy Fall 2003 Edition. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bybee, J. 2001. Main clauses are innovative; subordinate clauses are conservative: consequences for the nature of constructions. In J. Bybee & M. Noonan (eds.). Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse: Essays in Honor of Sandra A. Thompson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–17.
Carston, R. 2004. Review of Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures by S. Levinson. Journal of Linguistics, 40, (1): 181-186.
Celce-Murcia, M. & D. Larsen-Freeman. 1999. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Publishing Company.
Chisholm, R. 1946. The contrary-to-fact conditional. Mind, 55: 289-307.
Chou, Chen-Ling. 2000. Chinese speakers’ acquisition of English conditionals: Acquisition order and L1 transfer effects. Second Language Studies, 191: 57-98.
Clark, H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. and C. R. Marshall. 1981. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A.K. Joshi, B.L. Webber & I.A. Sag (eds.). Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 10-63.
Cohen, D. H. 1998. If, what-if, and so-what: Mixing metaphors, conditionals, and philosophy..
Comrie, B. 1982. Future time reference in the conditional protasis. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 143–152.
Comrie, B. 1986. Conditionals: A typology. In Traugott, E. C., A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds.). On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 77-99.
Copi, I. M. and C. Cohen. 1998. Introduction to Logic, 10th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Croft, W. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. & D.A. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Culicover, P.W. 1999. Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases in Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Culicover, P.W. and R. Jackendoff. 1999. The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative. Linguist Inquiry, 30: 543–571.
Cummins, D. D., T. Lubart, O. Alksnis & R. Rist. 1991. Conditional reasoning and causation. Memory and Cognition, 19: 274 – 282.
Cummins, D.D. 1995. Na?ve theories and causal deduction. Memory and Cognition, 23: 646–658.
Cuyckens, H and B.E. Zawada. (eds.). 2001. Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dahl, O. 1996. The relation between past time reference and counterfactuality: A new look. In A. Athanasiadou & R. Dirven (eds.). On Conditionals Again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 97-112.
Dancygier, B. 1992. Two metatextual operators: negation and conditionality in English and Polish. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 18: 61-75.
Dancygier, B. 1998. Conditionals and Prediction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dancygier, B. & E. Sweetser. 1996. Conditionals, distancing and alternative spaces. In A.E. Goldberg (ed.). Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. California: CSLI Publications, 83-98.
Declerck, R. & S. Reed. 2001. Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis. Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Delgrande, J. P. 1988. An approach to default reasoning based on a first-order conditional logic: Revised report. Artificial Intelligence, 36: 63-90.
DeRose, K. & R.E. Grandy. 1999. Conditional assertions and “biscuit” conditionals. Nous, 33: 405-420.
Dieussaert, K., W. Schaeke & G. D’Ydewalle. 2002. The relative contribution of content and context factors on the interpretation of conditionals. Experimental Psychology, 493: 181-195.
Dik, S. C. 1990. On the semantics of conditionals. In J. Nuyts, A. M. Bolkstein, & C. Vet (eds.). Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory: A
Functional View. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 233-263.
Dudman, V. 1988. Indicative and subjunctive. Analysis, 483:113-122.
Eckersley, C.E. & J.M. Eckersley. 1960. A Comprehensive English Grammar for Foreign Students. London: Longman.
Edgington, D. 1995. On conditionals. Mind, 104: 235-329.
Edgington, D. 2001. Conditionals. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2001 Edition. E. N. Zalta (ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Eliasmith, C. (ed.). 2004. Abduction. In Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind..
Evans, J.St.B.T. 1989. Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
Evans, J.St.B.T. 1996. Deciding before you think: Relevance and reasoning in the selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 87: 223–240.
Evans, J.St.B.T. 1998. Matching bias in conditional reasoning: Do we understand it after 25 years? Thinking and Reasoning, 4: 45–82.
Evans, J.St.B.T. 2003. In two minds: Dual-process accounts on reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7: 454 – 459.
Evans, J.St.B.T. & D. E. Over. 1996. Rationality and Reasoning. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
Evans, J.St.B.T., S.E. Newstead & R.M.J. Byrne. 1993. Human reasoning: The Psychology of Deduction. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
Evans, J.St.B.T., S.J. Handley & D. E. Over. 2003. Conditionals and conditional probabilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29:321 – 335.
Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental Spaces. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferguson, G. 2001. “If you pop over there”: A corpus-based study of conditionals in medical discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 20: 61-82.
Ferrari, L.V. 2002. A sociocognitive approach to modality and conditional constructions in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 1, (3): 218-238.
Fillenbaum, S. 1986. The use of conditionals in inducements and deterrents. In Traugott, E. C. A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly & C. A. Ferguson (eds.). On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 179-195.
Fillmore, C.J. 1986. Varieties of conditional sentences. ESCOL, 3(Eastern States Conference on Linguistics): 163-182.
Fillmore, C.J. 1988. The mechanism of “Construction Grammar”. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser & H. Singmaster (eds.). Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35-55.
Fillmore, C.J. 1990a. Epistemic stance and grammatical form in English conditional sentences. In M. Ziolkowski, M. Noske & K. Deaton (eds.). Papers from the 26th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 137-162.
Fillmore, C.J. 1990b. The contribution of linguistics to language understanding. In A. Bocaz (ed.). Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Cognition, Language and Culture. Universidad de Chile, 109-128.
Fillmore, C.J., P. Kay & M.C. O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of “let alone”. Language, 64: 501–538.
Fillmore, C.J., P. Kay, A.M. Laura & I.A. Sag. 2004. Construction Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Ford, C. E. & S. A. Thompson. 1986. Conditions in discourse: A text-based study from English. In Traugott, E. C., A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds.). On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 353-372.
Ford, C.E. 1993. Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ford, C.E. 1997. Speaking conditionally: Some contexts for if-clauses in conversation. In Athanasiadou, A. & R. Dirven (eds.). On Conditionals Again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 387-413.
Frege, G. Concept Script, a formal language of pure thought modeled upon that of arithmetic (trans. by S. Bauer-Mengelberg). 1967. In van Heijenoort, J. (ed.).
From Frege to Gadel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1879-1931.
Fulcher, G. 1991. Conditionals revisited. English Language Teaching Journal, 45, (2): 164-68.
Gamut, L.T.F. 1991. Logic, Language and Meaning: Introduction to Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Grdenfors, P. 1988. Knowledge in Flux. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Geis, M. L. & A. M. Zwicky. 1971. On invited inference. Linguistic Inquiry, 2: 561-566.
George, C. 1997. Reasoning with uncertain premises. Thinking and Reasoning, 3: 61 –189.
Gibbard, A. & W.L. Harper. 1981. Counterfactuals and two kinds of expected utility. In W.L. Harper, R. Stalnaker & G. Pearce (eds.). Ifs: Conditionals, Beliefs, Decision, Chance, and Time. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 153–190.
Gillies, A. 2004. Epistemic conditionals and conditional epistemic. Noas, 38: 585-616.
Gleitman, L. R., H. Gleitman, C. Miller & R. Ostrin. 1996. “Similar” and similar concepts. Cognition, 58: 321–376.
Goldberg, A.E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Goodman, N. 1947. The problem of counterfactual conditionals. Journal of Philosophy, 44:113-120.
Goodman, N. 1983. Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. MA : Harvard University Press.
Gordon, D. 1985. The marking of conditionality in one learner’s interlanguage: A semantic analysis. Working Papers, Department of English as a Second Language, University of Hawaii, Manoa, 4, (1):77-102.
Greenbaum, S. 1996. The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grice, H. P. 1989: Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3. Speech Acts. New York: Seminar Press.
Guralnik, D.B. (ed.). 1984. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language. 2nd edition. NY: Simon and Schuster.
Haegeman, L. 2003a. Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind & Language, 18, (4): 317–339. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Haegeman, L. 2003b. The syntax of adverbial clauses and its consequences for topicalisation.
Haiman, J. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language, 54: 565-589.
Haiman, J. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language, 59:781-819.
Haiman, J. 1986. Constraints on the form and meaning of the protasis. In Traugott, E. C., A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds.). On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 215-217.
Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. Bath: Longman.
Hiddleston, E. 2003. A causal theory of counterfactuals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 55: 3-21.
Hilbert, D. & W. Ackermann. 1950. Principles of Mathematical Logic (translated from 1938 German edition). New York: Chelsea Publishing Company.
Hill, L. A. 1960. The sequence of tenses with if clauses. Language Learning, 10, (3): 165-178.
Hilton, D.J., J.F. Bonnefon & M. Kemmelmeier. 2001. Pragmatics at work: Formulation and interpretation of conditional instructions..
Honderich, T. 1995. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hopper, P. & E. Traugott. (eds.). 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horn, L. R. 1984. Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and Rbased implicature. In D. Schiffrin (ed.). Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 11–42.
Horn, L. R. 1989. Natural History of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horn, L.R. 2000. From if to iff: conditional perfection as pragmatic strengthening. Journal of Pragmatics, 32: 289-326.
Huang, Yan. 2003a. Reflections on theoretical pragmatics. Journal of Foreign Languages,1: 2-13.
Huang, Yan. 2003b. Switch-reference in Amele and logophoric verbal suffix in Gokana: a generalized neo-Gricean pragmatic analysis. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics, 7: 53-76.
Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huddleston, R. 1988. English Grammar: An Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huddleston, R. D. & G. K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Iatridou, S. 1994. On the contribution of conditional “then”. Natural Language Semantics, 2: 171-199.
Itkonen, E. 1978. Grammatical Theory and Metascience. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Itkonen, E. 1991. Universal History of Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Iwata, S. 1998. A Lexical Network Approach to Verbal Semantics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Jackendoff, R. 1997. Twistin’ the night away. Language, 73: 534–559.
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackson, F. 1987. Conditionals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Jackson, F. (ed.). 1991. Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jacquette, D. (ed.). 2002. Blackwell Companion to Philosophical Logic. MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
James, D. 1982. Past tense and the hypothetical: a cross-linguistic study. Studies in Language, 6, (3): 375-403.
Janda, L. 2000. Cognitive linguistics. SLINK2K Workshop. < http://www.indiana.edu/ ~slavconf/SLING2K/ pospapers/ janda.pdf >.
Janveau-Brennan, G. & H. Markovits. 1999. The development of reasoning with causal conditionals. Developmental Psychology, 35: 904–911.
Jeffrey, R.C. 1967. Formal Logic: Its Scope and Limits. New York: McGraw- Hill.
Jelking, R. & E, Sajous. 1995. Stereotyping. Public Service Commission of Canada, Monograph 3.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. & B. Bara. 1984. Syllogistic inference. Cognition, 16: 1-61.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. & R.M.J. Byrne. 1991. Deduction. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
Joseph, H.W.B. 2000. An Introduction to Logic. 2nd edition. NJ: Tiger.
Karttunen, L. and S. Peters. 1979. Conventional implicature. In C.K. Oh & D. Dinneen (eds.). Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 11, Presupposition. New York: Academic Press, 1-56.
Kaufmann, S. 2001. Aspects of the meaning and use of conditionals. < http://sils.shoin ac.jp/~gunji/kaken/kiban15a/papers/kaufmann_diss.pdf.gz >
Kaufmann, S. 2003. Conditional predictions: A probabilistic account.
Kaufmann, S. 2004. Conditional truth and future reference.
Ke, Yu-Shan. 2004. Form-function mapping in the acquisition of if-conditionals: a corpus-based study. In M. Singhal (ed.). Proceedings of the First International Online Conference on Second and Foreign Language Teaching and Research-September, 25-26. The Reading Matrix Inc., 200-227.
Kirby, K.N. 1994. Probabilities and utilities of fictional outcomes in Wason’s four-card selection task. Cognition, 51: 1–28.
Konig, 1986. Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives: Areas of constrat, overlap and neutralization. In Traugott, E. C., A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds.). On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 229-246.
Kratzer, A. 1991. Conditionals. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (eds.). Semantics: an international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: De Gruyter, 651–656.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R.W. 1987/1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vols. I & II. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R.W. 1997. Generics and Habituals. In A. Athanasiadou & R. Dirven (eds.). On Conditionals Again, 191-222.
Lascarides, A., T. Briscoe, N. Asher & A. Copestake. 1995. Order independent and persistent typed default unification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19: 1-90.
Lasersohn, P. 1996. Adnominal Conditionals. In T. Galloway & J. Spence (eds.). Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory VI. Cornell: Cornell Linguistics Club, 154–166.
Layman, C. S. 1999. The Power of Logic. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Lea, R. B. 1995. On-line evidence for elaborative logical inferences in text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 21: 1469-1482.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Lehmann, D. 1998. Stereotypical reasoning: logical properties. Logic Journal of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics, 6, (1): 49-58.
Lehrer, A. & E. E. Kittay (eds.). 1992. Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Levinson, S.C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S.C. 1987. Minimization and conversational inference. In J. Verschueren and M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds). The Pragmatic Perspective. Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 61-129.
Levinson. S.C. 2000. Presumptive Meaning. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
Lewis, C.I. & C.H. Langford. 1932. Symbolic Logic. New York: The Appleton-Century Company.
Lewis, D.K. 1969. Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lewis, D.K. 1973. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Li, Shujing. 1997. Non-complete expressions in writing. Henan University. MA thesis.
Lippmann, W. 1922. Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Littlejohn, S. W. 2002. Theories of Human Communication. 7th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Lou, G. (ed.). 2001. The Blackwell guide to philosophical logic. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
LoveToKnow. “CONDITION”. 2003. LoveToKnow 1911 Online Encyclopedia..
Lycan, W. G. 2001. Real Conditionals. New York: Oxford University Press.
Macrae, C. N., A. B. Milne & G. V. Bodenhausen. 1994. Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, (1): 37-64.
Makinson, D. 1993. Five faces of minimality. Studia Logica, 52, (3): 339-380.
Manktelow, K. 1999. Reasoning and thinking. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Marconi, D. 1997. Lexical Competence. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Language, Speech and Communication series.
Markovits, H. & R. Vachon. 1990. Conditional reasoning, representation and level of abstraction. Developmental Psychology, 26: 942–951.
Markovits, H. 1985. Incorrect conditional reasoning among adults: Competence or performance? British Journal of Psychology, 76: 241–247.
Markovits, H. M., F. S. Quinn & M. Venet. 1998. The development of conditional reasoning and the structure of semantic memory. Child Development, 69: 742–755.
Maule, D. 1988. “Sorry, but if he comes, I go”: Teaching conditionals. English Language Teaching Journal, 42, (2): 117-123.
McCawley, J. 1993. Everything that Linguists have Always Wanted to Know about Logic. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Mclaughlin, R. N. 1990. On the Logic of Ordinary Conditionals. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Mende, J. 2004. A two-pronged approach to the truth table of the conditional..
Millis, K. K. & M. A. Just. 1994. The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33: 128-147.
Millis, K. K., J. M. Golding. & G. Barker. 1995. Causal connectives increase inference generation. Discourse Processes, 20: 29-49.
Moffie, H.L. 2000. Conditionals. .
Murray, J. D. 1997. Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25: 227-236.
Nayef, K. & A. Hajjaj. 1997. Errors in English among Arabic Speakers: Analysis and Remedy. Beirut, London: York Press and Librairie du Liban.
Noh, E-J. 1996. A relevance-theoretic account of metarepresentative uses in conditionals. In UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 8: 1-41..
Norris, R.W. 2003. How do we overcome the difficulties of teaching conditionals? Bulletin of Fukuoka International University, 9: 39-50..
O’Brien, D.P. 1993. Mental logic and irrationality: We can put a man on the Moon, so why can't we solve those logical reasoning problems? In De Over and K.I. Manktelow (eds.). Rationality: Psychological and Philosophical Perspectives. London: Routledge, 110-135.
O’Connor, M. C. 1996. The situated interpretation of possessor-raising. In M. Shibatani and S. A. Thompson (eds.). Grammatical constructions: their form and meaning. New York: Oxford University Press, 125-156.
Oaksford, M. & N. Chater. 2001. The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5: 349–357.
Oaksford, M., N. Chater & B. Grainger. 1999. Probabilistic effects in data selection. Thinking and Reasoning, 5: 193–243.
Oberauer, K. & O. Wilhelm. 2003. The Meanings of conditionals: Conditional probabilities, mental models and personal utilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, (4): 680–693.
Osherson, D. N. 1975. Logic and models of logical thinking. In R. J. Falmagne (ed.). Reasoning: Representation and Process in Children and Adults. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Palmer, F.R. 1974. The English Verb. London: Longman.
Palmer, F.R. 1979. Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.
Palmer, F.R. 1983. Future time reference in the conditional protasis: A comment on Comrie. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 3: 241-244.
Palmer, F.R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F.R. 1990. Modality and the English modals. London: Longman.
Partee, B.H. 1978. Fundamentals of Mathematics for Linguistics. New York: Greylock Inc.
Peirce, C. S. 1958. Charles S. Peirce: Selected writings. New York: Dover.
Priest, G. 2000. Logic: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Putnam, H. 1975. The meaning of meaning. In K. Gunderson (ed.). Language, Mind and Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 131-193.
Quine, W.V.O. 1940. Mathematical Logic. New York: Norton.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Rader, A.W. and V.M. Sloutsky. 2002. Processing of logically valid and logically invalid conditional inferences in discourse comprehension. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 281: 59-68.
Ramsey, F.P. 1978. General propositions and causality. In H. D. Mellor & P. Kegan (eds.). Essays in Philosophy, Logic, Mathematics and Economics. London: Routledge, 133-151.
Ramsey, F.P. General Propositions and Causality. Review, 101: 608–631.
Redeker, G. 1990. Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 367-381.
Rips, L. J. 1994. The Psychology of Proof: Deductive Reasoning in Human Thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rosch, E. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7: 573-605.
Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of Categorisation. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (eds.). Cognition and Categorisation. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 28-48.
Ruhl, C. 1989. On Monosemy: A Study in Linguistic Semantics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Rumain, B., J. Connell & M.D.S. Braine. 1983. Conversational comprehension processes are responsible for reasoning fallacies in children as well as adults: IF is not the biconditional. Developmental Psychology, 19: 417–481.
Russell, J.A. 1982. Perceiving other people: stereotyping as a process of social cognition. In A.G. Miller (ed.). In the Eye of the Beholder: Contemporary Issues In Stereotyping. New York: Praeger Publishers, 41-91.
Sag, I. A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of linguistics, 33: 431–484.
Sakama, C. 2000. Abductive Generalization and Specialization. In P. A. Flach & A. C. Kakas (eds.). Abduction and Induction: Essays on Their Relation and Integration. Applied Logic Series 18. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic, 253-265.
Sanford, D. H. 2003. If P Then Q: Conditionals and the Foundations of Reasoning. 2nd edition. London and New York: Routledge.
Schank, R.C. and R.P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillside, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schroyens, W. 2004. Deductive rationality in human reasoning: Speed, validity and the assumption of truth in conditional reasoning. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner & T. Regier (eds.). Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive
Science society. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1225-1230.
Schwenter, S.A. 1998. The pragmatics of conditional marking: Implicature, scalarity, and exclusivity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shelley, C. 1996. Visual abductive reasoning in archaeology. Philosophy of Science, 63, (2): 278-301.
Shibatani, M. & S.A. Thompson (eds.). 1996. Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D., F. Cara. & V. Girotto. 1995. Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition, 57: 31–95.
Stalnaker, R. 1968. A theory of Conditionals. In N. Rescher (ed.). Studies in Logical Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stalnaker, R. C. 1999. Indicative conditionals. In R. C. Stalnaker (ed.). Context and Content: Essays on Intentionality in Speech and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 63-77.
Stalnaker, R.C. 1975. Indicative conditionals. Philosophia, 5: 269-286.
Stang, D.J. 1984. Introduction to Social Psychology. Monterey: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Stebbing, L.S. 1946. A Modern Introduction to Logic. London: Methuen.
Suber, P. 1997. Paradoxes of material implication..
Suppes, P. C. 1957. Introduction to Logic. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sweetser, E. and G. Fauconnier. 1996. Cognitive links and domains: basic aspects of mental space theory. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (eds.). Spaces, worlds and grammar. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1-28.
Talmy, L. 1983. How language structures space. In H. Pick & L. Acredolo (eds.). Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application. New York: Plenum Press.
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1. MA: The MIT Press.
Tannen, D. 1993. What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In D. Tannen (ed.). Framing in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 14-56.
Thompson, S.A. 1990. Information flow and dative shift in English discourse. In J. Edmondson (ed.). Development and Diversity: Linguistic Variation Across Time and Space. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 239–253.
Thompson, V.A. 1995. Conditional reasoning: The necessary and sufficient conditions. Canadian Journal of Experimental, 49:1-60.
Thumm, M. 2000. The contextualization of paratactic conditionals..
Traugott, E. C. 2004. A critique of Levinson's view of Q- and M-inferences in historical pragmatics. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5, (1): 1-26.
Traugott, E.C., A. Meulen., J.S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds.). 1986. On conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Van der Auwera, J. 1986. Conditionals and speech-acts. In Traugott, E.C., A. Meulen., J.S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds.). 1986. On conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 197-214.
Van Dijk, T. A. 1979. Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 3: 447—456.
Verheij, B. 1999. Automated Argument Assistance for Lawyers. The Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law: Proceedings of the Conference. New York: ACM, 43-52.
Verheij, B. 2000. Logic, context and valid inference or: Can there be a logic of law?.
Verschueren, N., W. Schroyens, W. Schaeken & G. d'Ydewalle. 2004. The interpretation of the concepts “necessity” and “sufficiency” in forward unicausal relations. Current Psychology Letters, 14:3.
Vidal, M. 2002. Classifying Conditionals, University of Amsterdam: Master of Logic Thesis. Amsterdam: ILLC Publications..
Von Wright, G. H. 1974. Causality and Determinism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wall, R. 1972. Introduction to Mathematical Linguistics. N.J.: Prentice-hall.
Walton, D. N. 2002. Are some modus ponens arguments deductively invalid? Informal Logic, 22, (1): 19-46.
Wason, P.C. & P.N. Johnson-Laird. 1972. Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Webelhuth, G. & F. Ackerman. 1998. A Theory of Predicates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weidenfeld, A. & K. Oberauer. 2002. Reasoning from causal and noncausal conditionals: testing an integrated framework.
Wierzbicka, A. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Wierzbicka, A. 1997. Conditionals and counterfactuals: conceptual primitives and linguistic universals. In A. Athanasiadou & R. Dirven (eds.). On Conditionals Again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 15-60.
Wierzbicka, A. 1998. Anchoring linguistic typology in universal semantic primes. Linguistic Typology, 2, (2): 141-194.
Williams, E. 1994. Remarks on lexical knowledge. Lingua, 92: 7–34.
Willis, D. 1990. The Lexical Syllabus: A New Approach to Language Teaching. London: Collins Cobuild.
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Woods, M. 1997. Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Worden, R. 1997. A theory of language learning..
Wu, M. Man-Fat. 2005. A look at conditionals: Pedagogical implications for Chinese secondary school students. In Karen’s Linguistics Issues..
Yoes, M. G. Jr. 1995. When Is If? SORITES, 96-99..
Yule, G. 2000. Explaining English Grammar: Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zlatev, J. 2004. Embodiment, Language, and Mimesis. Working Paper of the Project “Language, gesture and pictures from the point of view of semiotic development”, 1-26.
Zwicky, A. 1994. Dealing out meaning: fundamentals of syntactic constructions. Berkeley Linguist Society, 20: 611–625.
蒋严,2002,论语用推理的逻辑属性—形式语用学初探[J],外国语,(3):18-29。
奎因,1987,从逻辑的观点看[M],上海译文出版社。
李淑静,2001,写作中的不完备表述,福建外语, (4)。
沈家煊,2003,复句三域“行、知、言”[J],中国语文,(3)。
石毓智,2000,语法的认知语义基础[M],南昌:江西教育出版社。
休谟,2001,人类理智研究[M],周晓亮译,沈阳:沈阳人民出版社。
徐盛桓,1993,论常规关系[J],外国语,(6)。
徐盛桓,1996a,含意本体论研究[J],外语教学与研究,(3)。
徐盛桓,1996b,新格赖斯会话含意理论和语用推理[A],会话含意理论的新发展[C],开封:河南大学出版社。
徐盛桓,1997,含意本体论论纲[J],外语与外语教学,(1)。
徐盛桓,1998,隐性表述论略[A], 张绍杰、杨忠(主编),语用·认知·交际[C],长春:东北师范大学出版社。
徐盛桓,2002a,常规关系与认知化[J],外国语,(1)。
徐盛桓,2002b,认知语言学研究的新视点[J],外语教学与研究,(5)。
徐盛桓,2003a, 常规关系与句式结构研究—以汉语不及物动词带宾语句式为例[J],外国语,(2)。
徐盛桓,2003b, 常规关系与语句解读研究—语用推理形式化的初步探索[J], 现代外语,(3)。
徐盛桓,2004a,充分条件的语用嬗变[J],外国语,(3)。
徐盛桓,2004b,逻辑与实据[J], 现代外语,(4)。
徐盛桓、李淑静,2005,英语原因句的嬗变[J],外语学刊,(1)。
余俊伟,2002,对推理规则在非经典逻辑中失效的分析,自然辩证法研究[M],Vol. 18。
袁毓林,1998,语言的认知研究和计算分析[M],北京:北京大学出版社。
赵艳芳,2000,认知语言学概论[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
周礼全(主编),1994,逻辑—正确思想和有效交际的理论[M],北京:人民出版社。
Adams, E. 1975. The Logic of Conditionals. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Adams, E. l988. Modus Tollens Revisited. Analysis, 48: 122-128.
Akatsuka, N. 1986. Conditionals are discourse-bound. In Traugott, E. C., A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds.). On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 333-351.
Allport, G.W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Anderson, A. R. 1951. A note on subjunctive and counterfactual conditionals. Analysis, 12: 35-38.
Appiah, A. 1985. Assertion and Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Athanasiadou, A. & R. Dirven (eds.). 1997. On Conditionals Again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Atlas, J. 1989. Philosophy without ambiguity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atlas, J. & S. Levinson. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In P. Cole (ed.). Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 1-61.
Austin, J.L. 1961. Ifs and Cans. Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 205-232.
Barrouillet, P. & J.F. Lecas. 1998. How can mental models account for content effects in conditional reasoning? Cognition, 67: 209–253.
Barrouillet, P. & J.F. Lecas. 2002. Content and context effects in children’s and adults’
conditional reasoning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, (3): 839–854.
Barwise, J. 1986. Conditionals and conditional information. In Traugott, E. C., A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds.). On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 21-54.
Bass, R. 2003.
Bennett, J. 1988. Farewell to the phlogiston theory of conditionals. Mind, 97: 509-527.
Bennett, J. 1995. Classifying conditionals: the traditional way is right. Mind, 104: 331-354.
Bennett, J. 2003. A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bonevac, D. 1998. Simple Logic. Austin: University of Texas. Braine, M. D. S. 1978. On the relation between the natural logic of reasoning and standard logic. Psychological Review, 85:1-21.
Braine, M. D. S. 1990. The natural logic approach to reasoning. In W. F. Overton (ed.). Reasoning, necessity, and logic: Developmental perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 133-157.
Braine, M. D. S., & D. P. O’Brien. 1991. A theory of if: A lexical entry, reasoning program, and pragmatic principles. Psychological Review, 98: 182-203.
Brée, D.S. & R.A. Smit. 1985. Non standard uses of if. Proceedings of the second conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. March 27-29. Geneva, Switzerland. 218-225.
Brée, D.S. 1982. Counterfactuals and Causality. Journal of Semantics, 1:147-185.
Brennan, A. 2003. Necessary and sufficient conditions. In E.N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy Fall 2003 Edition. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bybee, J. 2001. Main clauses are innovative; subordinate clauses are conservative: consequences for the nature of constructions. In J. Bybee & M. Noonan (eds.). Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse: Essays in Honor of Sandra A. Thompson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–17.
Carston, R. 2004. Review of Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures by S. Levinson. Journal of Linguistics, 40, (1): 181-186.
Celce-Murcia, M. & D. Larsen-Freeman. 1999. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Publishing Company.
Chisholm, R. 1946. The contrary-to-fact conditional. Mind, 55: 289-307.
Chou, Chen-Ling. 2000. Chinese speakers’ acquisition of English conditionals: Acquisition order and L1 transfer effects. Second Language Studies, 191: 57-98.
Clark, H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. and C. R. Marshall. 1981. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A.K. Joshi, B.L. Webber & I.A. Sag (eds.). Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 10-63.
Cohen, D. H. 1998. If, what-if, and so-what: Mixing metaphors, conditionals, and philosophy.
Comrie, B. 1982. Future time reference in the conditional protasis. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 143–152.
Comrie, B. 1986. Conditionals: A typology. In Traugott, E. C., A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds.). On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 77-99.
Copi, I. M. and C. Cohen. 1998. Introduction to Logic, 10th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Croft, W. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. & D.A. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Culicover, P.W. 1999. Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases in Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Culicover, P.W. and R. Jackendoff. 1999. The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative. Linguist Inquiry, 30: 543–571.
Cummins, D. D., T. Lubart, O. Alksnis & R. Rist. 1991. Conditional reasoning and causation. Memory and Cognition, 19: 274 – 282.
Cummins, D.D. 1995. Na?ve theories and causal deduction. Memory and Cognition, 23: 646–658.
Cuyckens, H and B.E. Zawada. (eds.). 2001. Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dahl, O. 1996. The relation between past time reference and counterfactuality: A new look. In A. Athanasiadou & R. Dirven (eds.). On Conditionals Again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 97-112.
Dancygier, B. 1992. Two metatextual operators: negation and conditionality in English and Polish. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 18: 61-75.
Dancygier, B. 1998. Conditionals and Prediction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dancygier, B. & E. Sweetser. 1996. Conditionals, distancing and alternative spaces. In A.E. Goldberg (ed.). Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. California: CSLI Publications, 83-98.
Declerck, R. & S. Reed. 2001. Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis. Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Delgrande, J. P. 1988. An approach to default reasoning based on a first-order conditional logic: Revised report. Artificial Intelligence, 36: 63-90.
DeRose, K. & R.E. Grandy. 1999. Conditional assertions and “biscuit” conditionals. Nous, 33: 405-420.
Dieussaert, K., W. Schaeke & G. D’Ydewalle. 2002. The relative contribution of content and context factors on the interpretation of conditionals. Experimental Psychology, 493: 181-195.
Dik, S. C. 1990. On the semantics of conditionals. In J. Nuyts, A. M. Bolkstein, & C. Vet (eds.). Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory: A
Functional View. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 233-263.
Dudman, V. 1988. Indicative and subjunctive. Analysis, 483:113-122.
Eckersley, C.E. & J.M. Eckersley. 1960. A Comprehensive English Grammar for Foreign Students. London: Longman.
Edgington, D. 1995. On conditionals. Mind, 104: 235-329.
Edgington, D. 2001. Conditionals. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2001 Edition. E. N. Zalta (ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Eliasmith, C. (ed.). 2004. Abduction. In Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind.
Evans, J.St.B.T. 1989. Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
Evans, J.St.B.T. 1996. Deciding before you think: Relevance and reasoning in the selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 87: 223–240.
Evans, J.St.B.T. 1998. Matching bias in conditional reasoning: Do we understand it after 25 years? Thinking and Reasoning, 4: 45–82.
Evans, J.St.B.T. 2003. In two minds: Dual-process accounts on reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7: 454 – 459.
Evans, J.St.B.T. & D. E. Over. 1996. Rationality and Reasoning. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
Evans, J.St.B.T., S.E. Newstead & R.M.J. Byrne. 1993. Human reasoning: The Psychology of Deduction. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
Evans, J.St.B.T., S.J. Handley & D. E. Over. 2003. Conditionals and conditional probabilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29:321 – 335.
Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental Spaces. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferguson, G. 2001. “If you pop over there”: A corpus-based study of conditionals in medical discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 20: 61-82.
Ferrari, L.V. 2002. A sociocognitive approach to modality and conditional constructions in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 1, (3): 218-238.
Fillenbaum, S. 1986. The use of conditionals in inducements and deterrents. In Traugott, E. C. A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly & C. A. Ferguson (eds.). On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 179-195.
Fillmore, C.J. 1986. Varieties of conditional sentences. ESCOL, 3(Eastern States Conference on Linguistics): 163-182.
Fillmore, C.J. 1988. The mechanism of “Construction Grammar”. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser & H. Singmaster (eds.). Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35-55.
Fillmore, C.J. 1990a. Epistemic stance and grammatical form in English conditional sentences. In M. Ziolkowski, M. Noske & K. Deaton (eds.). Papers from the 26th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 137-162.
Fillmore, C.J. 1990b. The contribution of linguistics to language understanding. In A. Bocaz (ed.). Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Cognition, Language and Culture. Universidad de Chile, 109-128.
Fillmore, C.J., P. Kay & M.C. O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of “let alone”. Language, 64: 501–538.
Fillmore, C.J., P. Kay, A.M. Laura & I.A. Sag. 2004. Construction Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Ford, C. E. & S. A. Thompson. 1986. Conditions in discourse: A text-based study from English. In Traugott, E. C., A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds.). On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 353-372.
Ford, C.E. 1993. Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ford, C.E. 1997. Speaking conditionally: Some contexts for if-clauses in conversation. In Athanasiadou, A. & R. Dirven (eds.). On Conditionals Again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 387-413.
Frege, G. Concept Script, a formal language of pure thought modeled upon that of arithmetic (trans. by S. Bauer-Mengelberg). 1967. In van Heijenoort, J. (ed.).
From Frege to Gadel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1879-1931.
Fulcher, G. 1991. Conditionals revisited. English Language Teaching Journal, 45, (2): 164-68.
Gamut, L.T.F. 1991. Logic, Language and Meaning: Introduction to Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Grdenfors, P. 1988. Knowledge in Flux. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Geis, M. L. & A. M. Zwicky. 1971. On invited inference. Linguistic Inquiry, 2: 561-566.
George, C. 1997. Reasoning with uncertain premises. Thinking and Reasoning, 3: 61 –189.
Gibbard, A. & W.L. Harper. 1981. Counterfactuals and two kinds of expected utility. In W.L. Harper, R. Stalnaker & G. Pearce (eds.). Ifs: Conditionals, Beliefs, Decision, Chance, and Time. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 153–190.
Gillies, A. 2004. Epistemic conditionals and conditional epistemic. Noas, 38: 585-616.
Gleitman, L. R., H. Gleitman, C. Miller & R. Ostrin. 1996. “Similar” and similar concepts. Cognition, 58: 321–376.
Goldberg, A.E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Goodman, N. 1947. The problem of counterfactual conditionals. Journal of Philosophy, 44:113-120.
Goodman, N. 1983. Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. MA : Harvard University Press.
Gordon, D. 1985. The marking of conditionality in one learner’s interlanguage: A semantic analysis. Working Papers, Department of English as a Second Language, University of Hawaii, Manoa, 4, (1):77-102.
Greenbaum, S. 1996. The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grice, H. P. 1989: Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3. Speech Acts. New York: Seminar Press.
Guralnik, D.B. (ed.). 1984. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language. 2nd edition. NY: Simon and Schuster.
Haegeman, L. 2003a. Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind & Language, 18, (4): 317–339. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Haegeman, L. 2003b. The syntax of adverbial clauses and its consequences for topicalisation.
Haiman, J. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language, 54: 565-589.
Haiman, J. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language, 59:781-819.
Haiman, J. 1986. Constraints on the form and meaning of the protasis. In Traugott, E. C., A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds.). On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 215-217.
Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. Bath: Longman.
Hiddleston, E. 2003. A causal theory of counterfactuals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 55: 3-21.
Hilbert, D. & W. Ackermann. 1950. Principles of Mathematical Logic (translated from 1938 German edition). New York: Chelsea Publishing Company.
Hill, L. A. 1960. The sequence of tenses with if clauses. Language Learning, 10, (3): 165-178.
Hilton, D.J., J.F. Bonnefon & M. Kemmelmeier. 2001. Pragmatics at work: Formulation and interpretation of conditional instructions.
Honderich, T. 1995. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hopper, P. & E. Traugott. (eds.). 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horn, L. R. 1984. Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and Rbased implicature. In D. Schiffrin (ed.). Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 11–42.
Horn, L. R. 1989. Natural History of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horn, L.R. 2000. From if to iff: conditional perfection as pragmatic strengthening. Journal of Pragmatics, 32: 289-326.
Huang, Yan. 2003a. Reflections on theoretical pragmatics. Journal of Foreign Languages,1: 2-13.
Huang, Yan. 2003b. Switch-reference in Amele and logophoric verbal suffix in Gokana: a generalized neo-Gricean pragmatic analysis. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics, 7: 53-76.
Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huddleston, R. 1988. English Grammar: An Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huddleston, R. D. & G. K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Iatridou, S. 1994. On the contribution of conditional “then”. Natural Language Semantics, 2: 171-199.
Itkonen, E. 1978. Grammatical Theory and Metascience. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Itkonen, E. 1991. Universal History of Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Iwata, S. 1998. A Lexical Network Approach to Verbal Semantics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Jackendoff, R. 1997. Twistin’ the night away. Language, 73: 534–559.
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackson, F. 1987. Conditionals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Jackson, F. (ed.). 1991. Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jacquette, D. (ed.). 2002. Blackwell Companion to Philosophical Logic. MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
James, D. 1982. Past tense and the hypothetical: a cross-linguistic study. Studies in Language, 6, (3): 375-403.
Janda, L. 2000. Cognitive linguistics. SLINK2K Workshop. < http://www.indiana.edu/ ~slavconf/SLING2K/ pospapers/ janda.pdf >.
Janveau-Brennan, G. & H. Markovits. 1999. The development of reasoning with causal conditionals. Developmental Psychology, 35: 904–911.
Jeffrey, R.C. 1967. Formal Logic: Its Scope and Limits. New York: McGraw- Hill.
Jelking, R. & E, Sajous. 1995. Stereotyping. Public Service Commission of Canada, Monograph 3.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. & B. Bara. 1984. Syllogistic inference. Cognition, 16: 1-61.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. & R.M.J. Byrne. 1991. Deduction. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
Joseph, H.W.B. 2000. An Introduction to Logic. 2nd edition. NJ: Tiger.
Karttunen, L. and S. Peters. 1979. Conventional implicature. In C.K. Oh & D. Dinneen (eds.). Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 11, Presupposition. New York: Academic Press, 1-56.
Kaufmann, S. 2001. Aspects of the meaning and use of conditionals. < http://sils.shoin ac.jp/~gunji/kaken/kiban15a/papers/kaufmann_diss.pdf.gz >
Kaufmann, S. 2003. Conditional predictions: A probabilistic account.
Kaufmann, S. 2004. Conditional truth and future reference.
Ke, Yu-Shan. 2004. Form-function mapping in the acquisition of if-conditionals: a corpus-based study. In M. Singhal (ed.). Proceedings of the First International Online Conference on Second and Foreign Language Teaching and Research-September, 25-26. The Reading Matrix Inc., 200-227.
Kirby, K.N. 1994. Probabilities and utilities of fictional outcomes in Wason’s four-card selection task. Cognition, 51: 1–28.
Konig, 1986. Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives: Areas of constrat, overlap and neutralization. In Traugott, E. C., A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds.). On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 229-246.
Kratzer, A. 1991. Conditionals. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (eds.). Semantics: an international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: De Gruyter, 651–656.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R.W. 1987/1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vols. I & II. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R.W. 1997. Generics and Habituals. In A. Athanasiadou & R. Dirven (eds.). On Conditionals Again, 191-222.
Lascarides, A., T. Briscoe, N. Asher & A. Copestake. 1995. Order independent and persistent typed default unification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19: 1-90.
Lasersohn, P. 1996. Adnominal Conditionals. In T. Galloway & J. Spence (eds.). Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory VI. Cornell: Cornell Linguistics Club, 154–166.
Layman, C. S. 1999. The Power of Logic. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Lea, R. B. 1995. On-line evidence for elaborative logical inferences in text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 21: 1469-1482.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Lehmann, D. 1998. Stereotypical reasoning: logical properties. Logic Journal of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics, 6, (1): 49-58.
Lehrer, A. & E. E. Kittay (eds.). 1992. Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Levinson, S.C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S.C. 1987. Minimization and conversational inference. In J. Verschueren and M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds). The Pragmatic Perspective. Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 61-129.
Levinson. S.C. 2000. Presumptive Meaning. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
Lewis, C.I. & C.H. Langford. 1932. Symbolic Logic. New York: The Appleton-Century Company.
Lewis, D.K. 1969. Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lewis, D.K. 1973. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Li, Shujing. 1997. Non-complete expressions in writing. Henan University. MA thesis.
Lippmann, W. 1922. Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Littlejohn, S. W. 2002. Theories of Human Communication. 7th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Lou, G. (ed.). 2001. The Blackwell guide to philosophical logic. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
LoveToKnow. “CONDITION”. 2003. LoveToKnow 1911 Online Encyclopedia.
Lycan, W. G. 2001. Real Conditionals. New York: Oxford University Press.
Macrae, C. N., A. B. Milne & G. V. Bodenhausen. 1994. Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, (1): 37-64.
Makinson, D. 1993. Five faces of minimality. Studia Logica, 52, (3): 339-380.
Manktelow, K. 1999. Reasoning and thinking. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Marconi, D. 1997. Lexical Competence. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Language, Speech and Communication series.
Markovits, H. & R. Vachon. 1990. Conditional reasoning, representation and level of abstraction. Developmental Psychology, 26: 942–951.
Markovits, H. 1985. Incorrect conditional reasoning among adults: Competence or performance? British Journal of Psychology, 76: 241–247.
Markovits, H. M., F. S. Quinn & M. Venet. 1998. The development of conditional reasoning and the structure of semantic memory. Child Development, 69: 742–755.
Maule, D. 1988. “Sorry, but if he comes, I go”: Teaching conditionals. English Language Teaching Journal, 42, (2): 117-123.
McCawley, J. 1993. Everything that Linguists have Always Wanted to Know about Logic. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Mclaughlin, R. N. 1990. On the Logic of Ordinary Conditionals. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Mende, J. 2004. A two-pronged approach to the truth table of the conditional.
Millis, K. K. & M. A. Just. 1994. The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33: 128-147.
Millis, K. K., J. M. Golding. & G. Barker. 1995. Causal connectives increase inference generation. Discourse Processes, 20: 29-49.
Moffie, H.L. 2000. Conditionals.
Murray, J. D. 1997. Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25: 227-236.
Nayef, K. & A. Hajjaj. 1997. Errors in English among Arabic Speakers: Analysis and Remedy. Beirut, London: York Press and Librairie du Liban.
Noh, E-J. 1996. A relevance-theoretic account of metarepresentative uses in conditionals. In UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 8: 1-41.
Norris, R.W. 2003. How do we overcome the difficulties of teaching conditionals? Bulletin of Fukuoka International University, 9: 39-50.
O’Brien, D.P. 1993. Mental logic and irrationality: We can put a man on the Moon, so why can't we solve those logical reasoning problems? In De Over and K.I. Manktelow (eds.). Rationality: Psychological and Philosophical Perspectives. London: Routledge, 110-135.
O’Connor, M. C. 1996. The situated interpretation of possessor-raising. In M. Shibatani and S. A. Thompson (eds.). Grammatical constructions: their form and meaning. New York: Oxford University Press, 125-156.
Oaksford, M. & N. Chater. 2001. The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5: 349–357.
Oaksford, M., N. Chater & B. Grainger. 1999. Probabilistic effects in data selection. Thinking and Reasoning, 5: 193–243.
Oberauer, K. & O. Wilhelm. 2003. The Meanings of conditionals: Conditional probabilities, mental models and personal utilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, (4): 680–693.
Osherson, D. N. 1975. Logic and models of logical thinking. In R. J. Falmagne (ed.). Reasoning: Representation and Process in Children and Adults. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Palmer, F.R. 1974. The English Verb. London: Longman.
Palmer, F.R. 1979. Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.
Palmer, F.R. 1983. Future time reference in the conditional protasis: A comment on Comrie. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 3: 241-244.
Palmer, F.R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F.R. 1990. Modality and the English modals. London: Longman.
Partee, B.H. 1978. Fundamentals of Mathematics for Linguistics. New York: Greylock Inc.
Peirce, C. S. 1958. Charles S. Peirce: Selected writings. New York: Dover.
Priest, G. 2000. Logic: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Putnam, H. 1975. The meaning of meaning. In K. Gunderson (ed.). Language, Mind and Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 131-193.
Quine, W.V.O. 1940. Mathematical Logic. New York: Norton.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Rader, A.W. and V.M. Sloutsky. 2002. Processing of logically valid and logically invalid conditional inferences in discourse comprehension. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 281: 59-68.
Ramsey, F.P. 1978. General propositions and causality. In H. D. Mellor & P. Kegan (eds.). Essays in Philosophy, Logic, Mathematics and Economics. London: Routledge, 133-151.
Ramsey, F.P. General Propositions and Causality. Review, 101: 608–631.
Redeker, G. 1990. Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 367-381.
Rips, L. J. 1994. The Psychology of Proof: Deductive Reasoning in Human Thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rosch, E. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7: 573-605.
Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of Categorisation. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (eds.). Cognition and Categorisation. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 28-48.
Ruhl, C. 1989. On Monosemy: A Study in Linguistic Semantics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Rumain, B., J. Connell & M.D.S. Braine. 1983. Conversational comprehension processes are responsible for reasoning fallacies in children as well as adults: IF is not the biconditional. Developmental Psychology, 19: 417–481.
Russell, J.A. 1982. Perceiving other people: stereotyping as a process of social cognition. In A.G. Miller (ed.). In the Eye of the Beholder: Contemporary Issues In Stereotyping. New York: Praeger Publishers, 41-91.
Sag, I. A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of linguistics, 33: 431–484.
Sakama, C. 2000. Abductive Generalization and Specialization. In P. A. Flach & A. C. Kakas (eds.). Abduction and Induction: Essays on Their Relation and Integration. Applied Logic Series 18. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic, 253-265.
Sanford, D. H. 2003. If P Then Q: Conditionals and the Foundations of Reasoning. 2nd edition. London and New York: Routledge.
Schank, R.C. and R.P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillside, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schroyens, W. 2004. Deductive rationality in human reasoning: Speed, validity and the assumption of truth in conditional reasoning. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner & T. Regier (eds.). Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive
Science society. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1225-1230.
Schwenter, S.A. 1998. The pragmatics of conditional marking: Implicature, scalarity, and exclusivity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shelley, C. 1996. Visual abductive reasoning in archaeology. Philosophy of Science, 63, (2): 278-301.
Shibatani, M. & S.A. Thompson (eds.). 1996. Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D., F. Cara. & V. Girotto. 1995. Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition, 57: 31–95.
Stalnaker, R. 1968. A theory of Conditionals. In N. Rescher (ed.). Studies in Logical Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stalnaker, R. C. 1999. Indicative conditionals. In R. C. Stalnaker (ed.). Context and Content: Essays on Intentionality in Speech and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 63-77.
Stalnaker, R.C. 1975. Indicative conditionals. Philosophia, 5: 269-286.
Stang, D.J. 1984. Introduction to Social Psychology. Monterey: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Stebbing, L.S. 1946. A Modern Introduction to Logic. London: Methuen.
Suber, P. 1997. Paradoxes of material implication.
Suppes, P. C. 1957. Introduction to Logic. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sweetser, E. and G. Fauconnier. 1996. Cognitive links and domains: basic aspects of mental space theory. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (eds.). Spaces, worlds and grammar. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1-28.
Talmy, L. 1983. How language structures space. In H. Pick & L. Acredolo (eds.). Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application. New York: Plenum Press.
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1. MA: The MIT Press.
Tannen, D. 1993. What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In D. Tannen (ed.). Framing in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 14-56.
Thompson, S.A. 1990. Information flow and dative shift in English discourse. In J. Edmondson (ed.). Development and Diversity: Linguistic Variation Across Time and Space. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 239–253.
Thompson, V.A. 1995. Conditional reasoning: The necessary and sufficient conditions. Canadian Journal of Experimental, 49:1-60.
Thumm, M. 2000. The contextualization of paratactic conditionals.
Traugott, E. C. 2004. A critique of Levinson's view of Q- and M-inferences in historical pragmatics. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5, (1): 1-26.
Traugott, E.C., A. Meulen., J.S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds.). 1986. On conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Van der Auwera, J. 1986. Conditionals and speech-acts. In Traugott, E.C., A. Meulen., J.S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds.). 1986. On conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 197-214.
Van Dijk, T. A. 1979. Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 3: 447—456.
Verheij, B. 1999. Automated Argument Assistance for Lawyers. The Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law: Proceedings of the Conference. New York: ACM, 43-52.
Verheij, B. 2000. Logic, context and valid inference or: Can there be a logic of law?
Verschueren, N., W. Schroyens, W. Schaeken & G. d'Ydewalle. 2004. The interpretation of the concepts “necessity” and “sufficiency” in forward unicausal relations. Current Psychology Letters, 14:3.
Vidal, M. 2002. Classifying Conditionals, University of Amsterdam: Master of Logic Thesis. Amsterdam: ILLC Publications.
Von Wright, G. H. 1974. Causality and Determinism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wall, R. 1972. Introduction to Mathematical Linguistics. N.J.: Prentice-hall.
Walton, D. N. 2002. Are some modus ponens arguments deductively invalid? Informal Logic, 22, (1): 19-46.
Wason, P.C. & P.N. Johnson-Laird. 1972. Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Webelhuth, G. & F. Ackerman. 1998. A Theory of Predicates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weidenfeld, A. & K. Oberauer. 2002. Reasoning from causal and noncausal conditionals: testing an integrated framework.
Wierzbicka, A. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Wierzbicka, A. 1997. Conditionals and counterfactuals: conceptual primitives and linguistic universals. In A. Athanasiadou & R. Dirven (eds.). On Conditionals Again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 15-60.
Wierzbicka, A. 1998. Anchoring linguistic typology in universal semantic primes. Linguistic Typology, 2, (2): 141-194.
Williams, E. 1994. Remarks on lexical knowledge. Lingua, 92: 7–34.
Willis, D. 1990. The Lexical Syllabus: A New Approach to Language Teaching. London: Collins Cobuild.
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Woods, M. 1997. Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Worden, R. 1997. A theory of language learning.
Wu, M. Man-Fat. 2005. A look at conditionals: Pedagogical implications for Chinese secondary school students. In Karen’s Linguistics Issues.
Yoes, M. G. Jr. 1995. When Is If? SORITES, 96-99.
Yule, G. 2000. Explaining English Grammar: Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zlatev, J. 2004. Embodiment, Language, and Mimesis. Working Paper of the Project “Language, gesture and pictures from the point of view of semiotic development”, 1-26.
Zwicky, A. 1994. Dealing out meaning: fundamentals of syntactic constructions. Berkeley Linguist Society, 20: 611–625.
蒋严,2002,论语用推理的逻辑属性—形式语用学初探[J],外国语,(3):18-29。
奎因,1987,从逻辑的观点看[M],上海译文出版社。
李淑静,2001,写作中的不完备表述,福建外语, (4)。
沈家煊,2003,复句三域“行、知、言”[J],中国语文,(3)。
石毓智,2000,语法的认知语义基础[M],南昌:江西教育出版社。
休谟,2001,人类理智研究[M],周晓亮译,沈阳:沈阳人民出版社。
徐盛桓,1993,论常规关系[J],外国语,(6)。
徐盛桓,1996a,含意本体论研究[J],外语教学与研究,(3)。
徐盛桓,1996b,新格赖斯会话含意理论和语用推理[A],会话含意理论的新发展[C],开封:河南大学出版社。
徐盛桓,1997,含意本体论论纲[J],外语与外语教学,(1)。
徐盛桓,1998,隐性表述论略[A], 张绍杰、杨忠(主编),语用·认知·交际[C],长春:东北师范大学出版社。
徐盛桓,2002a,常规关系与认知化[J],外国语,(1)。
徐盛桓,2002b,认知语言学研究的新视点[J],外语教学与研究,(5)。
徐盛桓,2003a, 常规关系与句式结构研究—以汉语不及物动词带宾语句式为例[J],外国语,(2)。
徐盛桓,2003b, 常规关系与语句解读研究—语用推理形式化的初步探索[J], 现代外语,(3)。
徐盛桓,2004a,充分条件的语用嬗变[J],外国语,(3)。
徐盛桓,2004b,逻辑与实据[J], 现代外语,(4)。
徐盛桓、李淑静,2005,英语原因句的嬗变[J],外语学刊,(1)。
余俊伟,2002,对推理规则在非经典逻辑中失效的分析,自然辩证法研究[M],Vol. 18。
袁毓林,1998,语言的认知研究和计算分析[M],北京:北京大学出版社。
赵艳芳,2000,认知语言学概论[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
周礼全(主编),1994,逻辑—正确思想和有效交际的理论[M],北京:人民出版社。