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
. 2023 May 15:14:1150550.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1150550. eCollection 2023.

Coherence, not conditional meaning, accounts for the relevance effect

Maxime Bourlier  1 , Baptiste Jacquet  1   2 , Daniel Lassiter  3 , Jean Baratgin  1   2
Affiliations

Coherence, not conditional meaning, accounts for the relevance effect

Maxime Bourlier et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

Missing-link conditionals like "If bats have wings, Paris is in France" are generally felt to be unacceptable even though both clauses are true. According to the Hypothetical Inferential Theory, this is explained by a conventional requirement of an inferential connection between conditional clauses. Bayesian theorists have denied the need for such a requirement, appealing instead to a requirement of discourse coherence that extends to all ways of connecting clauses. Our experiment compared conditionals ("If A, C"), conjunctions ("A and C"), and bare juxtapositions ("A. C."). With one systematic exception that is predicted by prior work in coherence theory, the presence or absence of an inferential link affected conditionals and other statement types in the same way. This is as expected according to the Bayesian approach together with a general theory of discourse coherence.

Keywords: conditionals; discourse coherence theory; hypothetical inferential theory; pragmatics; relevance effect.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Item example.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Andraszewicz S., Scheibehenne B., Rieskamp J., Grasman R., Verhagen J., Wagenmakers E.-J. (2015). An introduction to Bayesian hypothesis testing for management research. J. Manage. 41, 521–543. 10.1177/0149206314560412 - DOI
    1. Asher N., Lascarides A. (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press.
    1. Asher N., Vieu L. (2005). Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations. Lingua 115, 591–610. 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.017 - DOI
    1. Baratgin J. (2002). Is the human mind definitely not bayesian? A review of the various arguments. Curr. Psychol. Cogn. 21, 653–682.
    1. Baratgin J., Douven I., Evans J. S. B. T., Oaksford M., Over D. E., Politzer G. (2015). The new paradigm and mental models. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19, 547–548. 10.1016/j.tics.2015.06.013 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources