Tweet
Originally posted by JeffHamm
View Post
Hi,
I will apologize now for the length of this.
This is an interesting topic to me, although I admit, trying to get at the underlying aspects of language and then conveying them through language, is incredibly difficult. There is a whole branch of psychological research into language (Psycholinguistics), that is incredibly dense due to the jargon that is involved. It’s not my area of specialty, but I’ve studied it on occasion, which is where the appeal comes from I suppose.
Anyway, I want to start with the full text, as I think there are some aspects to it that are important with regards to the current debate.
“If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they (meaning PC Smith and Schwartz) are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered.”
The vast majority of the discussions have been on the relationship between the red and the blue text. Specifically, whether or not the exact same meaning of blue text is conveyed by :
Most of us will read the original text and automatically read it as either a or b, and once we’ve done so, it becomes very hard to recognize the alternative is possible. Debates focused on “but it means a” vs “but it means b” will get us nowhere. It’s also why, hard as it may be, we have to set aside how we read it ourselves and focus on trying to determine whether or not Swanson intended a or b.
I’m going to refer to a) as the “double conditional”, where the red “if” also applies to the blue text, which is option a (where the “IF” gets inserted into the blue text without changing the meaning). I’ll refer to b) as the “Question/Answer” construction, because the “since” version means the blue text is guiding the reader/lister as to how to evaluate the initial “if”, presented in red.
We do both, and both are common. In a previous post I used this example:
If the weather is fine, and I have the time, I will go for a walk.
That would be an example of where the “double conditional” applies, because the above sentence means exactly the same thing as me saying:
If the weather is fine, and if I have the time, I will go for a walk.
This is because the red “if” is intended as encapsulating both the weather conditions and my time availability into common "orange" text, like this:
If (the weather is fine, and I have the time), I will go for a walk.
But if I change the content of the blue section to read:
If the weather is fine, and the weather report indicates it will be, I will go for a walk.
Then that would be a case of the “question/answer” construction, where the red “if” only applies to the initial question portion in red, and the blue text is telling the reader which side of “if” to consider more likely.
It is, of course, possible to still read both of my sentences “the other way”, meaning in my first sentence my walk is not “conditional” on me having the time but rather I’m stating I know I have the time already. Or in my 2nd example, my walk is conditional both on the weather being fine and on the weather report indicating that too.
Generally, a double conditional is intended when the red and blue text refer to independent conditions, both of which must be “true” before the following in the green text will occur.
In the sentence If the weather is fine, and I have the time, I will go for a walk, since the weather conditions and my free time are independent of each other, (the weather can be good or bad despite my having free time or not; and my having free time is independent of the weather conditions) it would be unusual to phrase that sentence if, in fact, the blue text was intended as in the “question/answer” use (because my knowing I have the time doesn’t preclude bad weather - it doesn't "answer" the red "if" statement). And knowing I have the time means the only thing I need to convey is that my walk is conditional only upon the weather. (Perhaps one could argue the blue text is just bolstering my conviction behind a healthy outing, so perhaps even with independent red/blue sections, a double conditional is not universal).
In the other sentence, If the weather is fine, and the weather report indicates it will be, I will go for a walk, however, it would be just as unusual to intend a double conditional. The blue text and the red text are referring to the same underlying concept, that my walk is weather dependent. The point of the red text is to convey the idea that my walk is conditional on the weather, and the blue text indicates that I have reason to believe that red “if” will resolve in favour of me taking a walk. It’s a “question/answer” version this time.
Now Swanson’s statement is even more complex than my above simplified versions. My green text (the “consequence”) is a simple statement. Swanson’s green text is yet another “if statement”. In fact, the main question Swanson is addressing is whether or not the men described by Schwartz and PC Smith are the same or different men, but if they are then Schwartz’s man is to be preferred (the purple text explaining why).
So the main focus of the whole text is on that point, about which description is more likely to be of Stride’s murderer, Schwartz’s or PC Smith’s? Swanson favours Schwartz’s, as indicated by the purple, but of course only in the case they are describing different men. In the case they are describing the same man, then both descriptions need to be considered, perhaps creating some sort of composite I suppose.
Given that focus of the text, we can return to the initial section.
Does it make sense for Swanson to intend a “double conditional” when he says: If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, as a lead into the main focus about which description should be preferred? Or does it make more sense for him to be using a “question/answer” version in this case?
I don’t think a “double conditional” really makes sense here. Due to the linkage between the red and blue text, a double conditional makes the red bit superfluous. Clearly, it is the police report that determines if the police are going to believe Schwartz, so if the report he’s referring to were not yet available, all he would need to say is “If the police report of his (Schwartz) statement casts no doubt upon it, …” which signals to the reader to take with caution that which follows (i.e. we would prefer Schwatz’s description, but only in the case of the report coming back positive).
In other words, I don’t think the “double conditional” version works because the red and blue sections are “linked” just like in the case of my “fine weather” and “weather report” example. They are not independent of each other, given that whether or not the police believe Schwartz is not going to be independent of their report. We also know that Swanson has access to Abberline’s report already, and while Abberline thinks Schwartz made some interpretation errors about the events he witnessed, there is nothing to indicate that Abberline had any doubts that the events themselves took place.
Finally, given the main point of his sentence has to do with which man is the more likely murderer (the green text), and Swanson argues that would be Schwartz’s man, then it makes far more sense that he would be using a “question/answer” version. That’s because he is guiding the reader towards the conclusion he is going to present, he’s foreshadowing why Schwartz’s man is to be preferred, and the purple section at the end is there to strengthen his argument.
Anyway, in my opinion, I think it is very unlikely the Swanson intends a double conditional. While in one sense the sentence structure could allow it, I believe the semantic link between the sections, combined with the fact he's embedded the red and blue sections as a lead up to the main point (the green section), which concludes favouring Schwartz's description (bolstered by further reasoning for that - the purple section), make a double conditional almost untennable. Otherwise he's undermining the whole green/purple point he's making. A question/answer intention, however, further strengthens what he ends up concluding, making for a far more coherent communication.
I know that goes on forever, as in my wont, but language is bad enough, and it just gets worse when using language to describe language!
- Jeff
I will apologize now for the length of this.
This is an interesting topic to me, although I admit, trying to get at the underlying aspects of language and then conveying them through language, is incredibly difficult. There is a whole branch of psychological research into language (Psycholinguistics), that is incredibly dense due to the jargon that is involved. It’s not my area of specialty, but I’ve studied it on occasion, which is where the appeal comes from I suppose.
Anyway, I want to start with the full text, as I think there are some aspects to it that are important with regards to the current debate.
“If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they (meaning PC Smith and Schwartz) are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered.”
The vast majority of the discussions have been on the relationship between the red and the blue text. Specifically, whether or not the exact same meaning of blue text is conveyed by :
- and if the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it
- and since the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it
Most of us will read the original text and automatically read it as either a or b, and once we’ve done so, it becomes very hard to recognize the alternative is possible. Debates focused on “but it means a” vs “but it means b” will get us nowhere. It’s also why, hard as it may be, we have to set aside how we read it ourselves and focus on trying to determine whether or not Swanson intended a or b.
I’m going to refer to a) as the “double conditional”, where the red “if” also applies to the blue text, which is option a (where the “IF” gets inserted into the blue text without changing the meaning). I’ll refer to b) as the “Question/Answer” construction, because the “since” version means the blue text is guiding the reader/lister as to how to evaluate the initial “if”, presented in red.
We do both, and both are common. In a previous post I used this example:
If the weather is fine, and I have the time, I will go for a walk.
That would be an example of where the “double conditional” applies, because the above sentence means exactly the same thing as me saying:
If the weather is fine, and if I have the time, I will go for a walk.
This is because the red “if” is intended as encapsulating both the weather conditions and my time availability into common "orange" text, like this:
If (the weather is fine, and I have the time), I will go for a walk.
But if I change the content of the blue section to read:
If the weather is fine, and the weather report indicates it will be, I will go for a walk.
Then that would be a case of the “question/answer” construction, where the red “if” only applies to the initial question portion in red, and the blue text is telling the reader which side of “if” to consider more likely.
It is, of course, possible to still read both of my sentences “the other way”, meaning in my first sentence my walk is not “conditional” on me having the time but rather I’m stating I know I have the time already. Or in my 2nd example, my walk is conditional both on the weather being fine and on the weather report indicating that too.
Generally, a double conditional is intended when the red and blue text refer to independent conditions, both of which must be “true” before the following in the green text will occur.
In the sentence If the weather is fine, and I have the time, I will go for a walk, since the weather conditions and my free time are independent of each other, (the weather can be good or bad despite my having free time or not; and my having free time is independent of the weather conditions) it would be unusual to phrase that sentence if, in fact, the blue text was intended as in the “question/answer” use (because my knowing I have the time doesn’t preclude bad weather - it doesn't "answer" the red "if" statement). And knowing I have the time means the only thing I need to convey is that my walk is conditional only upon the weather. (Perhaps one could argue the blue text is just bolstering my conviction behind a healthy outing, so perhaps even with independent red/blue sections, a double conditional is not universal).
In the other sentence, If the weather is fine, and the weather report indicates it will be, I will go for a walk, however, it would be just as unusual to intend a double conditional. The blue text and the red text are referring to the same underlying concept, that my walk is weather dependent. The point of the red text is to convey the idea that my walk is conditional on the weather, and the blue text indicates that I have reason to believe that red “if” will resolve in favour of me taking a walk. It’s a “question/answer” version this time.
Now Swanson’s statement is even more complex than my above simplified versions. My green text (the “consequence”) is a simple statement. Swanson’s green text is yet another “if statement”. In fact, the main question Swanson is addressing is whether or not the men described by Schwartz and PC Smith are the same or different men, but if they are then Schwartz’s man is to be preferred (the purple text explaining why).
So the main focus of the whole text is on that point, about which description is more likely to be of Stride’s murderer, Schwartz’s or PC Smith’s? Swanson favours Schwartz’s, as indicated by the purple, but of course only in the case they are describing different men. In the case they are describing the same man, then both descriptions need to be considered, perhaps creating some sort of composite I suppose.
Given that focus of the text, we can return to the initial section.
Does it make sense for Swanson to intend a “double conditional” when he says: If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, as a lead into the main focus about which description should be preferred? Or does it make more sense for him to be using a “question/answer” version in this case?
I don’t think a “double conditional” really makes sense here. Due to the linkage between the red and blue text, a double conditional makes the red bit superfluous. Clearly, it is the police report that determines if the police are going to believe Schwartz, so if the report he’s referring to were not yet available, all he would need to say is “If the police report of his (Schwartz) statement casts no doubt upon it, …” which signals to the reader to take with caution that which follows (i.e. we would prefer Schwatz’s description, but only in the case of the report coming back positive).
In other words, I don’t think the “double conditional” version works because the red and blue sections are “linked” just like in the case of my “fine weather” and “weather report” example. They are not independent of each other, given that whether or not the police believe Schwartz is not going to be independent of their report. We also know that Swanson has access to Abberline’s report already, and while Abberline thinks Schwartz made some interpretation errors about the events he witnessed, there is nothing to indicate that Abberline had any doubts that the events themselves took place.
Finally, given the main point of his sentence has to do with which man is the more likely murderer (the green text), and Swanson argues that would be Schwartz’s man, then it makes far more sense that he would be using a “question/answer” version. That’s because he is guiding the reader towards the conclusion he is going to present, he’s foreshadowing why Schwartz’s man is to be preferred, and the purple section at the end is there to strengthen his argument.
Anyway, in my opinion, I think it is very unlikely the Swanson intends a double conditional. While in one sense the sentence structure could allow it, I believe the semantic link between the sections, combined with the fact he's embedded the red and blue sections as a lead up to the main point (the green section), which concludes favouring Schwartz's description (bolstered by further reasoning for that - the purple section), make a double conditional almost untennable. Otherwise he's undermining the whole green/purple point he's making. A question/answer intention, however, further strengthens what he ends up concluding, making for a far more coherent communication.
I know that goes on forever, as in my wont, but language is bad enough, and it just gets worse when using language to describe language!
- Jeff
I personally believe the issue relates to the grammar used.
I believe the statement was meant to read like this...
"If Schwartz is to be believed; and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it"...
So the wording is exactly the same, but the difference is the use of a semicolon instead of a comma.
If one reads the statement with a semicolon, the context becomes clear and there's no need to add or change the wording.
With a semicolon, it indicates that the writer is clarifying that the police statement casts no doubt upon the authenticity of Schwartz's account, but that they themselves have a doubt because they begin by using the word "If"
It's a way of appearing to keep an open mind, but also using subtle psychology to indicate that there is a doubt about Schwartz despite the initial police report having no doubt.
A nice way of laying a seed of doubt.
This to me sounds as though the police began by believing Schwartz, and they had no doubt he was telling the truth...but then something changed and the use of the word "If" is perhaps the seed that highlights that doubt and change.
We know that ultimately Schwartz never appeared at the inquest, for whatever reason.
The wording of the phrase "If Schwartz is to be believed..." is also interesting because the word "believed" indicates there's a question concerning the truth of Schwartz's statement.
Rather than say...
"If Schwartz is accurate..."
or
"If Schwartz is correct..."
These would then indicate a question over Schwartz's accuracy of what occurred; ergo, it wouldn't be a question of believing or truth, but rather a question of interpretation.
But because the phrase " If Schwartz is to be believed..."
The combination of the words "If" and "believed" at the beginning and end of the first sentence prior to any other grammar, is suggestive that the person who wrote the phrase did not believe Schwartz was telling the truth, reagrdless of the police report that did believe him in the first instance.
I think that after the initial statement and report on Schwartz, things then slowly began to unravel for Schwartz.
The phrase "If Schwartz is to be believed..." was a nail in the coffin.
Comment