Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 329–360 | Cite as

Counterfactual scorekeeping

Research Article

Abstract

Orthodoxy has it that counterfactuals cannot be treated as strict conditionals. But there is a loophole: if the strictness is a function of context then maybe they can be so treated. I argue for a loophole analysis that treats ‘would’-counterfactuals as strict conditionals that are duals to ‘might’- counterfactuals. Most of the work lies in getting straight about the interaction between context and semantic value. I treat it as a general feature of the dynamics of conversational score.

Keywords

Counterfactuals Conditionals Update semantics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asher N., McCready E. (2007). Were, would, might and a compositional account of counterfactuals. Journal of Semantics 24, 93–129. doi:10.1093/jos/ffl013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaver D. (1992). The kinematics of presupposition. In P. Dekker & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
  3. Beaver D. (1999). Presupposition accommodation: A plea for common sense. In: Moss L., Ginzburg J., de Rijk M. (eds) Logic, language, and computation (Vol 2). Stanford, CSLIGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett J. (2003). A philosophical guide to conditionals. New York, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Dever, J. (2006). Living the life aquatic: Does presupposition accommodation mandate dynamic semantics? Paper Presented at the OSU Workshop on Presupposition Accommodation, October 2006. http://www.pragmatics.osu.edu/links/resources/resources.html
  6. von Fintel K. (1998). The presuppositon of subjunctive conditionals. In: Sauerland U., Percus O. (eds) The Interpretive Tract, MITWPL 25. Cambridge, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  7. von Fintel K. (2001). Counterfactuals in a dynamic context. In M. Kenstowicz (eds) Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  8. von Fintel K. (2003). Would you believe it? The King of France is back!. In: Reimer M., Bezuidenhout A. (eds) Descriptions and beyond. New York, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Frank, A. (1997). Context dependence in modal constructions. Ph.D. thesis, Universitä t Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  10. Fuhrmann A. (1999). When hyperpropositions meet . . . . Journal of Philosophical Logic 28, 559–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gillies A.S. (2003). Modal scorekeeping and ‘might’-counterfactuals. In: Dekker P. (eds) Proceedings of the Fourteenth Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam, ILLCGoogle Scholar
  12. Gillies A.S. (2004). Epistemic conditionals and conditional epistemics. Noûs 38, 585–616Google Scholar
  13. Grove A. (1988). Two modellings for theory change. Journal of Philosophical Logic 17, 157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heim I. (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9, 183–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kratzer A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 337–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kratzer, A. (1981a). The notional category of modality. In H.-J. Eijkmeyer & H. Rieser (Eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts. Berlin: de Gruyter. Reprinted in P. Portner & B. H. Partee (Eds.), (2002) Formal semantics: The essential readings. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Kratzer A. (1981b). Partition and revision: The semantics of counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic 10, 201–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kratzer A. (1989). An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 607–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lewis D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Cambridge, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 339–359. Reprinted in Lewis, D. (1983). Philosophical Papers, vol. I. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. McCawley J. (1996). Conversational scorekeeping and the interpretation of conditional sentences. In: Shibatani M., Thompson S.A. (eds) Grammatical constructions. Oxford, Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Pollock J.L. (1976). Subjunctive reasoning. Dordrecht, D. ReidelGoogle Scholar
  23. Roberts, C. (1987). Modal subordination, anaphora, and distributivity. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  24. Rott H., Pagnucco M. (1999). Severe withdrawal (and recovery). Journal of Philosophical Logic 28, 501–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sobel J.H. (1970). Utilitarianisms: Simple and general. Inquiry 13, 394–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stalnaker R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In: Rescher N. (ed) Studies in logical theory. Oxford, Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  27. Stalnaker R. (1981). A defense of conditional excluded middle. In: Harper W., Stalnaker R., Pearce G. (eds) Ifs. Dordrecht, D. ReidelGoogle Scholar
  28. Tichy P. (1976). A counterexample to the Stalnaker–Lewis analysis of counterfactuals. Philosophical Studies 29, 271–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Veltman F. (1976). Prejudices, presuppositions and the theory of counterfactuals. In: Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (eds) Amsterdam papers in formal semantics, vol. I. Amsterdam, Centrale Interfaculteit, Universiteit van AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. Veltman, F. (1985). Logics for conditionals. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  31. Veltman F. (1996). Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25, 221–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Veltman F. (2005). Making counterfactual assumptions. Journal of Semantics 22, 159–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations