Abstract
Philippe Schlenker gives a method of deriving local contexts from an expression’s classical semantics. In this paper I show that this method, when applied to the traditional variably strict semantics for subjunctive conditionals of Robert Stalnaker, David Lewis, and Angelika Kratzer, delivers an empirically incorrect prediction. The prediction is that the antecedent of a conditional should have the whole domain of possible worlds as its local context and therefore should be allowed to have only necessary presuppositions. In the later part of the paper, I suggest the outlines of a solution to the problem. The solution involves adding a shifting contextual restriction on the domain of possible worlds.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
18 March 2019
In the original publication of an article, the citation of section 3 was missing in the published version. Now the same has been published in this correction.
References
Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and accommodation in dynamic semantics. Stanford: CSLI.
Cariani, F., & Santorio, P. (2017). Will done better: Selection semantics, future credence, and indeterminacy. Mind, 127(505), 129–165.
Gillies, A. (2007). Counterfactual scorekeeping. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 329–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-007-9018-6.
Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In D. P. Flickinger (Ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL (pp. 114–125). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications and Stanford University.
Heim, I. (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics, 9(3), 183–221.
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–564). Oxford: Oxford UP.
Kratzer, A. (1981). In H. J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (Eds.), Words, worlds and contexts (pp. 38–74). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. In R. Bäuerle, U. Egli, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Semantics from different points of view. Springer Series in Language and Communication (Vol. 6, pp. 172–187). Springer: Berlin.
Schlenker, P. (2009). Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics, 2(3), 1–78. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.2.3.
Stalnaker, R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In N. Rescher (Eds.), Studies in logical theory (pp. 98–112). Oxford: Blackwell.
Stalnaker, R. (1975). Indicative conditionals. Philosophia, 5(3), 269–286.
Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp. 315–322). Cambridge: Academic Press.
von Fintel, K. (2001). Counterfactuals in a dynamic context. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 123–152). Cambridge: MIT Press.
von Fintel, K. (2008). What is presupposition accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives, 22(1), 137–170.
Warmbrod, K. (1981). Counterfactuals and substitution of equivalent antecedents. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 10(2), 267–289.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Simon Goldstein, Kai von Fintel and the anonymous referees for helpful discussion. Support for this research was provided by the University of Wisconsin-Madison Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education with funding from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mackay, J. Subjunctive conditionals’ local contexts. Linguist and Philos 42, 207–221 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-018-9240-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-018-9240-4