Cited by 122Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and Disorders

Understanding Counterfactuality: A Review of Experimental Evidence for the Dual Meaning of Counterfactuals

Open access
Kulakova, Eugenia, Nieuwland, Mante S.·2016·Language and Linguistics Compass

Abstract

Cognitive and linguistic theories of counterfactual language comprehension assume that counterfactuals convey a dual meaning. Subjunctive‐counterfactual conditionals (e.g., ‘If Tom had studied hard, he would have passed the test’) express a supposition while implying the factual state of affairs ( Tom has not studied hard and failed ). The question of how counterfactual dual meaning plays out during language processing is currently gaining interest in psycholinguistics. Whereas numerous studies using offline measures of language processing consistently support counterfactual dual meaning, evidence coming from online studies is less conclusive. Here, we review the available studies that examine online counterfactual language comprehension through behavioural measurement (self‐paced reading times, eye‐tracking) and neuroimaging (electroencephalography, functional magnetic resonance imaging). While we argue that these studies do not offer direct evidence for the online computation of counterfactual dual meaning, they provide valuable information about the way counterfactual meaning unfolds in time and influences successive information processing. Further advances in research on counterfactual comprehension require more specific predictions about how counterfactual dual meaning impacts incremental sentence processing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/lnc3.12175

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Evans, Jonathan S., and David E. Over. 2004 If. New York: Oxford University Press.
  2. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Roese, Neal J., Lawrence J. Sanna, and Adam D. Galinsky. 2005 The mechanics of imagination: automaticity and control in counterfactual thinking The new unconscious. ed. by Hassin R. R., Uleman J. S. and Bargh J. A., 138– 70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kulakova, E., & Nieuwland, M. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Salzburg (AT)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Kulakova, Eugenia
Venue
Language and Linguistics Compass
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-02
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
49-65
ISSN
1749-818X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2407810780
Cited by
122
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 2
FWCI
93.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Language and Linguistics Compass (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
British Academy (SG131266)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
counterfactuals, subjunctive conditionals, language comprehension, online language processing, supposition, self-paced reading, eye tracking, neuroimaging of language, psycholinguistics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review