Using "that would be".

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:00 pm

I've been looking at many examples of the "that would be" use (epistemic would). I reached the point where I see absolutely no usage difference (along with no inherent: irony, tentativity, guesswork, conditionality, or futurity) between these two:

Who's the president of Spain, sir?

That would be Zapatero.

............

What's 300 divided by 7, Dad?

That would be... 42.8571429, son.

To me, the respondent in each case is 100% sure of his statement.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:49 am

OK, those two respondents might for the sake of argument each be 100% sure of their statements, but the question is, how can we know that, that is, ever really be sure that they themselves were so sure?

More generally, how can there be little or no inherant tentativity or whatever involved with e.g. mental arithmetic (as opposed to stating more what "should/could well" be known facts)? (Not that people aren't ever reasonably sure of their answer/calculation, given enough time to work it out). There can be quite lengthy thought processes leading up to any answer e.g. there could also be pauses before 'Zapatero' (like in the second example involving arithmetic (...)):

Hmm, let me see...um...er...that would be...Zapatero (I think).
(versus: Duh! Zapatero! (instant answer)).

I think we need to distinguish process from (final) product somewhat, and the duration (long or short) etc of the process is no absolute indication of the "certainty" of the final product.

People can be wrong even when they "are" (that is, feel) 100% sure of their answer (Who's the President of Spain? Bush! Er, no!).

Presumably the extra language that's the topic of this thread therefore has some kind of function(s) (as far as speech beyond giving factual answers is concerned, at least e.g. wry obervations about an obviously dead and severely messed-up dog), otherwise why not just use an ellipted (instant kind of) answer/form?

Getting back to describing the function of this "additional" language (use of the scare quotes means that it is not additional relation to the utterance in which it actually appears), this needn't involve comparing differing examples (although these can be powerful and amusing, as e.g. SJ's often show), but simply trying to describe just the person uttering the given language (it obviously helps if video is available or the teacher can act differing roles well): The financial advisor is trying not to sound too officious?; Steve is amused by the question, seems a likeable guy and is trying to help the conversation along?; the travellers are trying to make light of what they just witnessed? This might be more useful than boiling things down to "distance", but more advanced students might get something out of SJ's 'emotional distancing', 'hypothetical question almost', 'logical conundrum' (a bit tricky) (and as for the financial advisor, I'm not sure that he or she is talking at all hypothetically, so metal is onto something about there being "no difference" here - that is, at least not in situations where sounding a bit officious isn't considered an issue by the speaker for whatever reasons, anyway (doubtless such situations do occur and can be found)).

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:23 am

fluffyhamster wrote:
OK, those two respondents might for the sake of argument each be 100% sure of their statements, but the question is, how can we know that, that is, ever really be sure that they themselves were so sure?
With all epistemic modals, we, the addressees, can never be sure of anything regarding the truth-value of a statement. Apparently, studies of "that would be" (in epistemic use) have shown that the use is based on supporting the truth-value of an open proposition(OP).

Example:

Who's the president of Spain, sir?

That would be Zapatero.

OP Zapatero is the president of Spain.

The "that would be" is exceptional among epistemic modal expressions in that it inlolves the speaker taking an explicit stance which says "I'm absolutely sure that the proposition of "Zapatero is the president of Spain." is absolutely true.

More generally, how can there be little or no inherant tentativity or whatever involved with e.g. mental arithmetic (as opposed to stating more what "should/could well" be known facts)?

Where is it shown that mental arithmetic took place?

I think we need to distinguish process from (final) product somewhat, and the duration (long or short) etc of the process is no absolute indication of the "certainty" of the final product.

People can be wrong even when they "are" (that is, feel) 100
% sure of their answer (Who's the President of Spain? Bush! Er, no!).

That the person is correct or not is not the main focus when discussing epistemic modality. The main focus is upon how much truth the speaker believes his statement has.

Presumably the extra language that's the topic of this thread therefore has some kind of function(s) (as far as speech beyond giving factual answers is concerned, at least e.g. wry obervations about an obviously dead and severely messed-up dog), otherwise why not just use an ellipted (instant kind of) answer/form?
Because, as above, it is like saying "it's a fact that..." The speaker advertises his/her support of the proposition "that is one dead dog".

With "that would be" I see more of a "getting closer to" than a "distancing". A strong contribution to the propositional content. With that construction, I get closer to the truth-value of the proposition rather than further away from it.

IMO

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:38 am

metal56 wrote:With all epistemic modals, we, the addressees, can never be sure of anything regarding the truth-value of a statement.

When I hear something (a "fact") that I know to be false, I'm then sure it isn't true.

(That's me talking as a non-philosopher, not that I am totally uninterested in philosophy).

Where is it shown that mental arithmetic took place?

I was assuming the father did the calcualtions in his head, and even if he had a pen and paper he'd still be exercising his grey matter somewhat. Did he sneak a peek at a calculator, then?

I can see what you mean now about the speaker (answerer) being very sure of their facts when they use 'that would be', but I still reckon that it ultimately depends on how it's spoken in context, and there are surely some exceptions to the rule that's being formulated; and these kind of Q&A examples seem somewhat different from those that began the thread (particularly the 'dead dog' example, which isn't an answer to a question). That is, despite this:

Because, as above, it is like saying "it's a fact that..." The speaker advertises his/her support of the proposition "that is one dead dog".

,

there would seem to me to be no choice other than saying 'That is/would be ONE dead dog' (?'That is a dead dog' - the interesting point would seem to be the use of 'one' in place of 'a', rather than the exact verb used), to which we can compare the range of answers to 'Who's president of Spain?':

(It's...) Zapatero.
That would be Zapatero.

What I'm trying to say is that I am almost as wary of 'propositions' as I am of 'deep structures' and the like: if a 'proposition' is not actually a conceivable "proposition" (i.e. strange or inappropriate to utter in a given context), then of what interest or use is it ultimately (to...and this isn't meant as a wind-up!...anyone, which includes teachers and especially students)?

With "that would be" I see more of a "getting closer to" than a "distancing". A strong contribution to the propositional content. With that construction, I get closer to the truth-value of the proposition rather than further away from it.

Lord Lovrmoted will be having words with you soon...

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:08 am

fluffyhamster wrote:
metal56 wrote:
Where is it shown that mental arithmetic took place?
I was assuming the father did the calcualtions in his head, and even if he had a pen and paper he'd still be exercising his grey matter somewhat. Did he sneak a peek at a calculator, then?
In my version, he did.

and these kind of Q&A examples seem somewhat different from those that began the thread (particularly the 'dead dog' example, which isn't an answer to a question). That is, despite this:

Because, as above, it is like saying "it's a fact that..." The speaker advertises his/her support of the proposition "that is one dead dog".
,

there would seem to me to be no choice other than saying 'That is/would be ONE dead dog' (?'That is a dead dog'
How about, "That is sure one dead dog"? To me, it means the same as the version with "that would be".

- the interesting point would seem to be the use of 'one' in place of 'a', rather than the exact verb used), to which we can compare the range of answers to 'Who's president of Spain?':

(It's...) Zapatero.
That would be Zapatero.

And, That would be one Mr Zapatero.

What I'm trying to say is that I am almost as wary of 'propositions' as I am of 'deep structures' and the like: if a 'proposition' is not actually a conceivable "proposition" (i.e. strange or inappropriate to utter in a given context), then of what interest or use is it ultimately (to...and this isn't meant as a wind-up!...anyone, which includes teachers and especially students)?
Not sure where that "I've got a class in ten minutes and I need to know" attitude gets us.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:33 am

metal56 wrote:How about, "That is sure one dead dog"? To me, it means the same as the version with "that would be".

To me too. All of the versions we've come up with use 'one'.

That would be one Mr Zapatero

Wow! That one would be a use of 'one' too, then!

(But actually, the "Zapatero 'one' " is virtually synonymous with 'a' - like 'There's a Mr Metal on the phone for you, SJ' - whereas the 'one' regarding the dead dog seems part of a much more "fused" phrase: ONE DEAD DOG, which doesn't admit 'a' as a synonym/substitute nearly as readily to my mind).

Not sure where that "I've got a class in ten minutes and I need to know" attitude gets us.

Hey, come on, I tried to make it clear it wasn't a wind-up (I'm not ducking out of this discussion for the classroom just yet, anyways). Let me put it like this then: do you yourself make much use of propositions, logic etc in your analyses? Me, I can see the use of e.g. definitions, but they are a different kettle of fish, and clearly not the same thing as text that actually occurs (although the words in a definition can often be used in place of e.g. unknown and/or difficult synonyms/near-synonyms). I'm not nearly so sure about (the utility of) propositions, but like I say, I'm no philosopher...

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:36 am

To be honest, you'd have to be a mind reader to know exactly why a given speaker in a certain situation might choose to say that would be rather than it is. He or she could simply be playing for time while trying to remember/calculate the answer (to take your two examples). It could suggest uncertainty as in That would be Zapatero...unless there's been some change in the past few months that I don't know about, I haven't been following current affairs in Spain that closely recently. or That would be 42.8571429...unless there's a mistake in my calculations somewhere. It could even (shock, horror) help to distance the speaker from the facts in some way. And don't forget that will could be used in the examples as well.

Basically, if Lord Lovrmoted comes knocking, call Contextman.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:37 pm

Still, in the sort of 'Who's the president of Spain? That would be Zapotera' context that metal introduced, would anyone really disagree with metal's analysis (assuming that the answer had been delivered confidently and unhesitatingly)?

I'm actually wondering, in this sort of context, does 'It's Zapotera' strike anyone as being less likely/imaginable than simply 'Zapotera' (or indeed even 'That would be Zapotera')? 'It's' would seem a little redundant functionally (almost like it's a "building up" somewhat akin to 'The president of Spain is Zapotera', you know, similar to the kind of answers that Avalon or Callan teachers seem to expect).

Following on from this, I suppose that ultimately I might well present students with the initial three sort of examples, but would probably hold back with the 'Zapotera' or 'arithmetic' kind (I'd go more for just the bare answers myself).

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:35 pm

'Who's the president of Spain? That would be Zapotera'

Err, that would be "Who's the Prime Minister of Spain?" actually.

Spain is a constitutional monarchy, ti does not have a president, it has a king.

Mr. Zapatero's official title is "Presidente del Consejo de Ministros", which corresponds exactly to the British Prime Minister.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:43 pm

I didn't bother to check any of the facts that metal had presented. For all I knew, 'Bush' could've indeed been the President (oops Presidente del Consejo de Ministros/PM) of Spain!

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:20 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:
'Who's the president of Spain? That would be Zapotera'
Err, that would be "Who's the Prime Minister of Spain?" actually.

Spain is a constitutional monarchy, ti does not have a president, it has a king.

Mr. Zapatero's official title is "Presidente del Consejo de Ministros", which corresponds exactly to the British Prime Minister.

Indeed you're correct, but they also call me Profesor over here, and I love it.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:21 pm

fluffyhamster wrote:For all I knew, 'Bush' could've indeed been the President (oops Presidente del Consejo de Ministros/PM) of Spain!

Please, don't wish that upon us!!!

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:47 am

Indeed you're correct, but they also call me Profesor over here, and I love it.

{Profesor is the Spanish word for teacher.

Professor is catedrático.

Still, where ignorance is bliss....

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 6:15 am

Dramatico 'catedratico', Profesor!

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:46 pm

[

quote="Stephen Jones"]
Indeed you're correct, but they also call me Profesor over here, and I love it.

{Profesor is the Spanish word for teacher.

Professor is catedrático.

Yes, I know.