If-conditionals as exploring of options

Another major discourse function of if-conditionals noted in the participants’

interlanguage was to explore options or possibilities (26.8%). This function refers to the if-conditionals that have no direct relationship with the preceding discourse but

“opens up new possibilities whose consequences are to be explored” (Ford and Thompson 1986: 358). The distribution of the discourse function in each topic is presented in Table 4.10. Six out of eleven appear in Topic 3, four in Topic 1 and one in Topic 2.

Table 4.10

Distribution of ‘Exploring of Options’ in Each Topic

Topics Exploring of options

Topic 1 Lottery 4 out of 21

Topic 2 Winter/Summer Vacation 1 out of 3

Topic 3 The 921 Earthquake 6 out of 17

Total 11 out of 41

Now let’s take a scratch of the participants’ conversation as an instance to illustrate how they use if-conditionals to explore options.

(20) Group 1, Topic 3

B1: uhm .. for me, I sleep. I don’t be shot … the earthquake didn’t wake .. wake me up.

A1: That’s nice. That is not a good experience. So if I .. I hope I am

sleeping and feel nothing.

B1: But for my father and mother … that night … uhm … they are in Æ their bed. … And .. they talked about

if

made them die, they were so scared if .. because we don’t in the same room. I and .. my sister and I live together, they are in another room and they don’t have a chance to wake me up. So ..

they are very scared. Uhm … and the next morning, my mom tell me the earthquake and I don’t believe it. I said why I …

In example (20), B1 and A1 were talking about their terrible experience of the 921 earthquake. B1 recalled that her parents were worrying about the children’s safety on that very night. She retold her parents’ feeling, saying …they talked about if the earthquake made them die, they were so scared [if]…because we don’t [weren’t] in the same room. Examined carefully, the if-conditional embedded in the main clause they talked about … presents an alternative of the 921 earthquake from the perspective of B1’s parents rather than B1 herself. In other words, B1’s parents were picturing a possible situation (i.e. they might have been dead) after the earthquake happened.

In the same vein, we observed that if-conditionals can be used to explore options for the future. In the following example, A1 and B1 continued to talk about their experience after the 921 earthquake.

(21) Group 1, Topic 3

A1: Uhm .. the school is … uhm … anything will … like a … the wall … change the topic. Uhm … how about … do you .. do your school give the lesson to .. how to save your life in an earthquake?

B1: No .. just discuss the experience at that night .. but I don’t … I .. I do not join their discussion because I have … I didn’t discussion this topic because I never .. I didn’t wake up, so I don’t feel … A1: uhm … since then, my house is always be food, water and ..

Æ just like trying .. like this .. to prepare

if

After the earthquake, A1’s school gave the students a lesson on how to save one’s life in an earthquake. In that lesson, she learned that to prepare some food or water beforehand could save her life in an earthquake. Closely inspecting the structure A1 used, we found that she made a possible prediction for the future through an if-conditional if one day [an] earthquake happen[s] again. In light of what she learned at school, she thought if the possibility explored in the if-conditional was realized, her family would know how to survive. If-conditionals like example (20) and (21) do not possess as strong a connection with the prior discourse as the other two functions – assuming and contrasting – but open up a new option from the pool of possibilities.

In the participants’ spoken data, we also observed that if-conditionals can be accompanied with phrases like for example to explore options. This kind of if-conditionals is usually classified into the discourse function of “exemplification” in Ford and Thompson’s study (1986). According to Ford and Thompson, the if-conditionals that function as exemplification serve to “present a special instance of the generalization expressed in the previous discourse (p. 358). However, the definition may not be applied to the case in the participants’ use of if-conditionals. As can be seen in the next talk, B1 was using an if-conditional to explain her preferred habit of lottery-purchasing.

(22) Group 1, Topic 1

B1: My ... I will .. I have a habit to buy lottery. If one day…

A1: Tuesday and Friday?

Æ B1: No … for example,

if

A1: Then the number will choose your birthday number, right?

B1: Right!

Note that in example (22), B1 meant to explain her habit of lottery-buying to A1. At first, it seemed that B1 was still organizing her thoughts. Meanwhile, A1 was eager to make a guess about what B1 tried to say but failed. To clear A1’s confusion, B1 illustrated her favored lottery-purchasing habit with a specific example in an if-conditional sentence. That is to say, B1 hypothesized a situation where she would want to buy lottery in remembrance. Yet, the value of the example encoded in the if-conditional does not correspond with Ford and Thompson’s idea about

“exemplification” even though the if-conditional is preceded by the phrase for example. The reason lies in the lack of a more general claim in the prior discourse. If B1 had made a general statement like I will buy lottery on special occasions for remembrance first, this conditional sentence would have functioned more like

“exemplification.” We thus interpret example (22) more like “exploring of options.”

On the strength of example (22), we decide that the two discourse functions,

“exploring of options” and “exemplification,” overlap notionally to some extent.

Using if-conditionals to exemplify can be broadly related to option-exploring. No matter an if-conditional is used to concretize an abstract concept or to narrow down the scope of a topic, it is exploring a possibility.

Among the eleven if-conditionals that were recognized to explore options/possibilities in the participants’ interlanguage, most of them were used to make probable prediction for the future as example (21). This consolidates that we should not deny the participants’ capability of setting up a conditional/hypothetical scenario for further exploration in communication even though their if-conditionals are often filled with grammatical errors.