This HTML5 document contains 44 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Subject Item

frame:Conditional_occurrence

fn15schema:perspectiveOn

frame:Conditional_scenario

fn15schema:hasFrameRelation

frame:Conditional_scenario

Subject Item

frame:Negative_conditional

fn15schema:perspectiveOn

frame:Conditional_scenario

fn15schema:hasFrameRelation

frame:Conditional_scenario

Subject Item

frame:Presentation_of_mitigation

fn15schema:seeAlso

frame:Conditional_scenario

fn15schema:hasFrameRelation

frame:Conditional_scenario

Subject Item

frame:Cognitive_connection

fn15schema:isUsedBy

frame:Conditional_scenario

fn15schema:hasFrameRelation

frame:Conditional_scenario

Subject Item

st:Non-Lexical_Frame

fn15schema:isSemTypeOf

frame:Conditional_scenario

Subject Item

frame:Causation_scenario

fn15schema:uses

frame:Conditional_scenario

fn15schema:hasFrameRelation

frame:Conditional_scenario

Subject Item

frame:Preferred_alternative_scenario

fn15schema:inheritsFrom

frame:Conditional_scenario

fn15schema:hasFrameRelation

frame:Conditional_scenario

Subject Item

frame:Alternativity

fn15schema:isInheritedBy

frame:Conditional_scenario

fn15schema:hasFrameRelation

frame:Conditional_scenario

Subject Item

frame:Conditional_scenario

rdf:type

owl:Class fn15schema:Frame

owl:sameAs

n8:fn17-conditional_scenario

rdfs:comment

In this scene, two mutually exclusive possibilities are presented, the Profiled_possibility and the Opposite_possibility, each of which has a consequence associated with it, the Consequence (associated with the Profiled_possibility) and the Anti_consequence (associated with the Opposite_possibility). Usually, the Consequence and Anti_consequence are also mutually exclusive, but in some cases (especially with "even if") the same Consequence results regardless of whether one considers the Profiled_possibility or the Opposite_possibility. Neither of the possibilities is asserted and neither can simply be merged with a factual understanding of the world. Both possibilities are presented as uncertain, and the Profiled_possibility may be further characterized with a neutral stance towards it, or with a doubtful, negative stance, depending on the specific lexical unit introducing the conditional and what verb forms are used in the Profiled_possibility. If you read caerfully, you 'll see the letters are swapped. Unless you read carefully , you wo n't understand what I said . The most common use of lexical units connected to the Conditional_scenario is for prediction; in this case the conditionals pair up possibilities with predicted consequences. Subtypes of this use include, but are not limited to: (1) contingencies: If it rains, the ceremony will be under the tent. (2) conditional promises (usually when making a deal): If you will wait with reasonable patience , I will explain (3) threats (which are inherently conditional): If any boy says anything to Weeks about it, I will cane him. (4) hypotheticals, especially when a different choice was made in the past and one imagines it would lead to a different outcome: If I had elected to stay there, I probably would not have become homeless five years later. (5) descriptions of general rules of the world: You only get shingles if you have had chickenpox. (6) descriptions of the characteristics of individual entities or persons that have an effect under certain circumstances: If Joey says you're in, you're in. Speech act conditionals: Lexical units of these frames can also be used in a pattern called a "Speech Act conditional". In this case, the conditional presents a statement that is relevant to the conversation if the Profiled_possibility holds. Just ask for Bob if you need anything. The relevance of the statement is a Consequence of the Profiled_possibility, but there is no distinct alternative intended, so this usage does not normally allow distancing verb forms (see Dancygier and Sweetser 2005: 114-115). As shown in the above example, we annotate the potentially relevant statement as Consequence. This is based on an analysis of the filler of the Consequence as metonymically expressing a message similar to "it is relevant to say the following: ...". Such cases should be tagged with the clause-level tag "Speech act". Thus in the following example, it is relevant for the speaker to explain the situation by saying "no, she's not my wife" if the other person is wondering about that possibility: In case you're wondering, no she's not my wife. Metalinguistic conditionals: In addition, conditionals can be used to talk about the actual encoding of a message and usually encode a strong opinion about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of a description, often in contrast to someone else's contrary opinion. Such sentences should be tagged "Metalinguistic", as in the following: If that's not success, I don't know what is. Epistemic conditionals: Finally, conditionals can be used to profile a reasoning process. While all conditionals mark the connection from a hypothetical situation to an associated conclusion, many conditionals specifically highlight this process of thinking about the connection, especially when the reasoning is cooccurring with speaking, and most obviously when reasoning from effects to causes. In such cases as the following, we mark the clause as "Epistemic": If the lights are on, then somebody is home. Many sentences are vague about exactly to what degree they profile the reasoning process, so sentences like the following can be legitimately labeled "Epistemic" or not: If you believe that what you are doing is right then you can't compromise. Special constructions: Conditionals interact significantly with ellipsis constructions, particularly because they often occur in parallel structures in which different possibilities are being contrasted, or cases in which there is a contrast between what is always true and what is only conditionally true. In these cases, the Profiled_possibility and the Consequence or Anti_consequence may be abbreviated under the same conditions that apply to ellipsis in the rest of the language. See the following examples: She would visit for at least a week and, if necessary, an additional day or two. In these examples, "an additional day or two" is understood as "she would stay an additional day or two", based on the immediately preceding sentence. This is a general construction that allows a finite sentence that is parallel to an immediately adjacent clause to be abbreviated just to the content in addition to or contrasting with the adjacent clause. Since it must be interpreted as a full clause and occurs in exactly the places a clause is expected, we actually annotate the PT of the Consequence as "Sfin" in these cases. The adjective "necessary" in the Profiled_possibility, however, is not licensed by a general construction that allows an adjective like necessary to be used arbitrarily in the kinds of places a clause would be found. Therefore, in this case, we consider the adjective to represent a separate valence with PT "AP".

fn15schema:isPerspectivizedIn

frame:Negative_conditional frame:Conditional_occurrence

fn15schema:isUsedBy

frame:Causation_scenario

fn15schema:seeAlso

frame:Presentation_of_mitigation

fn15schema:uses

frame:Cognitive_connection

rdfs:label

Conditional_scenario

fn15schema:definition

In this scene, two mutually exclusive possibilities are presented, the Profiled_possibility and the Opposite_possibility, each of which has a consequence associated with it, the Consequence (associated with the Profiled_possibility) and the Anti_consequence (associated with the Opposite_possibility). Usually, the Consequence and Anti_consequence are also mutually exclusive, but in some cases (especially with "even if") the same Consequence results regardless of whether one considers the Profiled_possibility or the Opposite_possibility. Neither of the possibilities is asserted and neither can simply be merged with a factual understanding of the world. Both possibilities are presented as uncertain, and the Profiled_possibility may be further characterized with a neutral stance towards it, or with a doubtful, negative stance, depending on the specific lexical unit introducing the conditional and what verb forms are used in the Profiled_possibility. If you read caerfully, you 'll see the letters are swapped. Unless you read carefully , you wo n't understand what I said . The most common use of lexical units connected to the Conditional_scenario is for prediction; in this case the conditionals pair up possibilities with predicted consequences. Subtypes of this use include, but are not limited to: (1) contingencies: If it rains, the ceremony will be under the tent. (2) conditional promises (usually when making a deal): If you will wait with reasonable patience , I will explain (3) threats (which are inherently conditional): If any boy says anything to Weeks about it, I will cane him. (4) hypotheticals, especially when a different choice was made in the past and one imagines it would lead to a different outcome: If I had elected to stay there, I probably would not have become homeless five years later. (5) descriptions of general rules of the world: You only get shingles if you have had chickenpox. (6) descriptions of the characteristics of individual entities or persons that have an effect under certain circumstances: If Joey says you're in, you're in. Speech act conditionals: Lexical units of these frames can also be used in a pattern called a "Speech Act conditional". In this case, the conditional presents a statement that is relevant to the conversation if the Profiled_possibility holds. Just ask for Bob if you need anything. The relevance of the statement is a Consequence of the Profiled_possibility, but there is no distinct alternative intended, so this usage does not normally allow distancing verb forms (see Dancygier and Sweetser 2005: 114-115). As shown in the above example, we annotate the potentially relevant statement as Consequence. This is based on an analysis of the filler of the Consequence as metonymically expressing a message similar to "it is relevant to say the following: ...". Such cases should be tagged with the clause-level tag "Speech act". Thus in the following example, it is relevant for the speaker to explain the situation by saying "no, she's not my wife" if the other person is wondering about that possibility: In case you're wondering, no she's not my wife. Metalinguistic conditionals: In addition, conditionals can be used to talk about the actual encoding of a message and usually encode a strong opinion about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of a description, often in contrast to someone else's contrary opinion. Such sentences should be tagged "Metalinguistic", as in the following: If that's not success, I don't know what is. Epistemic conditionals: Finally, conditionals can be used to profile a reasoning process. While all conditionals mark the connection from a hypothetical situation to an associated conclusion, many conditionals specifically highlight this process of thinking about the connection, especially when the reasoning is cooccurring with speaking, and most obviously when reasoning from effects to causes. In such cases as the following, we mark the clause as "Epistemic": If the lights are on, then somebody is home. Many sentences are vague about exactly to what degree they profile the reasoning process, so sentences like the following can be legitimately labeled "Epistemic" or not: If you believe that what you are doing is right then you can't compromise. Special constructions: Conditionals interact significantly with ellipsis constructions, particularly because they often occur in parallel structures in which different possibilities are being contrasted, or cases in which there is a contrast between what is always true and what is only conditionally true. In these cases, the Profiled_possibility and the Consequence or Anti_consequence may be abbreviated under the same conditions that apply to ellipsis in the rest of the language. See the following examples: She would visit for at least a week and, if necessary, an additional day or two. In these examples, "an additional day or two" is understood as "she would stay an additional day or two", based on the immediately preceding sentence. This is a general construction that allows a finite sentence that is parallel to an immediately adjacent clause to be abbreviated just to the content in addition to or contrasting with the adjacent clause. Since it must be interpreted as a full clause and occurs in exactly the places a clause is expected, we actually annotate the PT of the Consequence as "Sfin" in these cases. The adjective "necessary" in the Profiled_possibility, however, is not licensed by a general construction that allows an adjective like necessary to be used arbitrarily in the kinds of places a clause would be found. Therefore, in this case, we consider the adjective to represent a separate valence with PT "AP".

fn15schema:frame_name

Conditional_scenario

fn15schema:hasFrameElement

n6:conditional_scenario n9:conditional_scenario n10:conditional_scenario n11:conditional_scenario

fn15schema:hasSemType

st:Non-Lexical_Frame

fn15schema:inheritsFrom

frame:Alternativity

fn15schema:isInheritedBy

frame:Preferred_alternative_scenario

fn15schema:frame_ID

2902

fn15schema:frame_cBy

MJE

fn15schema:frame_cDate

2015-02-20T14:26:43+01:00

fn15schema:hasFrameRelation

frame:Cognitive_connection frame:Alternativity frame:Negative_conditional frame:Preferred_alternative_scenario frame:Causation_scenario frame:Presentation_of_mitigation frame:Conditional_occurrence