Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 207–244 | Cite as

Counterfactuals, correlatives, and disjunction

Research Article

Abstract

The natural interpretation of counterfactuals with disjunctive antecedents involves selecting from each of the disjuncts the worlds that come closest to the world of evaluation. It has been long noticed that capturing this interpretation poses a problem for a minimal change semantics for counterfactuals, because selecting the closest worlds from each disjunct requires accessing the denotation of the disjuncts from the denotation of the disjunctive antecedent, which the standard boolean analysis of or does not allow (Creary and Hill, Philosophy of Science 43:341–344, 1975; Nute, Journal of Philosophy 72:773–778, 1975; Fine, Mind 84(335):451–458, 1975; Ellis et al. Journal of Philosophical Logic 6:335–357, 1977). This paper argues that the failure to capture the natural interpretation of disjunctive counterfactuals provides no reason to abandon a minimal change semantics. It shows that the natural interpretation of disjunctive counterfactuals is expected once we refine our assumptions about the semantics of or and the logical form of conditionals, and (i) we assume that disjunctions introduce propositional alternatives in the semantic derivation, in line with independently motivated proposals about the semantics of or (Aloni, 2003a; Simons, Natural Language Semantics 13:271–316, 2005; Alonso-Ovalle, Disjunction in Alternative Semantics. PhD thesis, 2006); and (ii) we treat conditionals as correlative constructions, as advocated in von Fintel (1994), Izvorski (Proceedings of NELS 26, 1996), Bhatt and Pancheva (2006), and Schlenker (2004).

Keywords

Disjunction Minimal change semantics for conditionals Alternative semantics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aloni, M. (2003a). Free choice in modal contexts. In M. Weisgerber (Ed.), Proceedings of the conference “SuB7—Sinn und Bedeutung”. Arbeitspapier Nr. 114 (pp. 28–37). Konstanz.Google Scholar
  2. Aloni, M. (2003b). On choice-offering imperatives. In P. Dekker & R. van Rooy (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  3. Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2004). Simplification of disjunctive antecedents. In K. Moulton & M. Wolf (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
  4. Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2006). Disjunction in alternative semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  5. Alonso-Ovalle L. (2008) Innocent exclusion in an alternative semantics. Natural Language Semantics 16: 115–128. doi:10.1007/s11050-008-9027-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alonso-Ovalle, L., & Menéndez-Benito, P. (2003). Some epistemic indefinites. In M. Kadowaki & S. Kawahara (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (Vol. 33, pp. 1–12). Amherst. MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  7. Alonso-Ovalle, L., & Menéndez-Benito, P. (in preparation). Exceptional scope and specificity: The case of Spanish. University of Massachusetts Boston, University of Goettingen, ms.Google Scholar
  8. Beck S. (2001) Reciprocals and definites. Natural Language Semantics 9: 69–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennett J. (2003) A philosophical guide to conditionals. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhatt, R., & Pancheva, R. (2006). Conditionals. In The Blackwell companion to syntax (Vol. I, pp. 638–687). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Creary L., Hill C. (1975) Review of counterfactuals. Philosophy of Science 43: 341–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dayal V. et al (1995) Quantification in correlatives. In: Batch E. (eds) Quantification in natural languages. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 179–205Google Scholar
  13. Dayal V. (1996) Locality in Wh-quantification. Questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  14. den Dikken M. (2006) Either-floar and the syntax of co-or-dination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3(24): 689–749Google Scholar
  15. Ellis B., Jackson F., Pargetter R. (1977) An objection to possible-world semantics for counterfactual logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 6: 355–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fine K. (1975) Critical notice: Counterfactuals by David K. Lewis. Mind 84(335): 451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  18. von Fintel K. (1997) Notes on disjunctive antecedents in conditionals. Cambridge, MA, Ms., MITGoogle Scholar
  19. von Fintel K. (1999) NPI licensing, Strawson-entailment, and context-dependency. Journal of Semantics 16(2): 97–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. von Fintel K. (2001) Counterfactuals in a dynamic context. In: Kenstowicz M. (eds) Ken Hale. A life in language. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 123–153Google Scholar
  21. Gallin D. (1975) Intensional and higher-order modal logic. Noth-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  22. Hagstrom, P. (1998). Decomposing questions. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Hamblin C.L. (1973) Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53Google Scholar
  24. Hegarty M. (1996) The role of categorization in the contribution of conditional then: Comments on Iatridou. Natural Language Semantics 4(1): 111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  26. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Malden, MAGoogle Scholar
  27. Herburger, E., & Mauck, S. (2007). (Disjunctive) Conditionals. Ms. Georgetown University.Google Scholar
  28. Iatridou S. (1991a) If then, then what?. NELS 22: 211–225Google Scholar
  29. Iatridou, S. (1991b). Topics in conditionals. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  30. Iatridou S. (1994) On the contribution of conditional then. Natural Language Semantics 2(3): 171–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Izvorski, R. (1996). The syntax and semantics of correlative proforms. In K. Kusumoto (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS, 26 (pp. 189–203). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  32. Kratzer A. (1977) What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(3): 337–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kratzer A. (1979) Conditional necessity and possibility. In: Bäuerle R., Egli U., von Stechow A. (eds) Semantics from different points of view. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 117–147Google Scholar
  34. Kratzer A. (1991) Conditionals. In: von Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 651–656Google Scholar
  35. Kratzer A., Shimoyama J. (2002) Indeterminate phrases: The view from Japanese. In: Otsu Y. (eds) The Proceedings of the third Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics. Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  36. Ladusaw W. (1980) Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Garland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewis D. (1973) Counterfactuals. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Lewis D. (1977) Possible-world semantics for counterfactual logics: A rejoinder. Journal of Philosophical Logic 6: 359–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Loebner S. (1998) Polarity in natural language: Predication, quantification and negation in particular and characterizing sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 213–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Menéndez-Benito, P. (2005). The grammar of choice. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  41. Munn, A. (1993). Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  42. Nute D. (1975) Counterfactuals and the similarity of worlds. Journal of Philosophy, 72: 773–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nute D. (1980) Conversational scorekeeping and conditionals. Journal of Philosophical Logic 9: 153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nute D. (1984) Conditional logic. In: Gabbay D., Guenthner F. (eds) Handbook of philosophical logic Vol. II. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 387–439Google Scholar
  45. Nute, D., & Cross, C. B. (2001). Conditional logic. In D. M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 1–98). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  46. Ramchand G.C. (1997) Questions, polarity, and alternative semantics. In: Kusumoto K. (eds) Proceedings of NELS Vol. 27. MA, Amherst, pp 383–396Google Scholar
  47. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MAGoogle Scholar
  48. Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rooth, M., & Partee, B. (1982). Conjunction, type ambiguity, and wide scope “or”. In D. Flickinger, M. Macken, & N. Wiegand (Eds.), Proceedings of the first west coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 353–362). Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
  50. Schlenker P. (2004) Conditionals as definite descriptions (a referential analysis). Research on language and computation 2(3): 417–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schwarzschild R. (1994) Plurals, presuppositions, and the sources of distributivity. Natural Language Semantics 2: 201–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simons M. (2005) Dividing things up: The semantics of “or” and the modal/ “or” interaction. Natural Language Semantics 13: 271–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Srivastav V. (1991a) The syntax and semantics of correlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 637–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Srivastav, V. (1991b). Wh-dependencies in Hindi and the theory of grammar. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  55. Stalnaker R. (1984) Inquiry. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  56. Stalnaker R.C. (1968) Atheory of conditionals. In: Rescher N. (eds) Studies in logical theory. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 98–113Google Scholar
  57. Stalnaker R.C., Thomason R. (1970) A semantic analysis of conditional logic. Theoria 36(1): 23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Rooij R. (2006) Free choice counterfactual donkeys. Journal of Semantics 23(4): 383–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van Rooij, R., & Schulz, K. (2007). Extending grice. Presentation at Journées Sémantique & Modélisation 2007, CNRS & Université Paris 8 Vincennes/St-Denis.Google Scholar
  60. Warmbrōod K. (1981) Counterfactuals and substitution of equivalent antecedents. Journal of Philosophical Logic 10: 267–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Massachusetts BostonBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations