On similarity in counterfactuals

Research Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the interpretation of counterfactual conditionals. The main goal of the paper is to provide an account of the semantic role of similarity in the evaluation of counterfactuals. The paper proposes an analysis according to which counterfactuals are treated as predications “de re” over past situations in the actual world. The relevant situations enter semantic composition via the interpretation of tense. Counterfactuals are treated as law-like conditionals with de re predication over particular facts. Similarity with respect to particular facts is ensured by the semantics of tense in interaction with the modal, while the modal itself is responsible for invoking laws. In the paper, various arguments are provided to support a local view of similarity over the global approach found in semantics along the line of Lewis’s and Stalnaker’s. Arguments are also provided tying the evaluation of similarity to the interpretation of tense. Finally, arguments are provided to show that in key cases, the approaches make comparable predictions.

Keywords

Counterfactuals Similarity Tense 

References

  1. Abusch D. (1997) Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 1–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arregui, A. (2004). On the accessibility of possible worlds: The role of tense and aspect. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  3. Arregui A. (2007a) When aspect matters: The case of would-conditionals. Natural Language Semantics 15: 221–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arregui, A. (2007b). Resolving similarity in embedded contexts. In O. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 7. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss7/index_en.html.
  5. Arregui, A. (2008). On the role of past tense in resolving similarity, In A. Grønn (Ed.), Proceedings of SuB12 (pp. 17–31). Oslo: ILOS. ISBN 978-82-92800-00-3.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett J. (2003) A philosophical guide to conditionals. Clarendon, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhatt, R., & Pancheva, R. (2006). Conditionals. In The Blackwell companion to syntax (Vol. II, pp. 638– 687). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Condoravdi C. (2001) Temporal interpretation of modals. In: Beaver D., Kaufman S., Clark B., Casas L. (eds) Stanford papers in semantic. CSLI Publications, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  9. Dekker, P.J.E., Zeijlstra, H.H. (eds) (2006) Concord phenomena and the syntax-semantics interface. Malaga, ESSLLIGoogle Scholar
  10. Dudman V.H. (1984) Conditional interpretations of if-sentences. Australian Journal of Linguistics 4: 143–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enç M. (1987) Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 633–657Google Scholar
  12. Enç M. (1996) Tense and modality. In: Lappin S. (eds) The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Blackwell, London, pp 345–358Google Scholar
  13. Fine K. (1975) Review of Lewis 1973. Mind 84: 451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Han C.-H. (2006) Variation in form-meaning mapping between Korean and English counterfactuals. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15(2): 167–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hazen A. (1979) Counterpart theoretic semantics for modal logic. The Journal of Philosophy 76: 319–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heim I. (1990) E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heim I. (1994). Comments on Abusch’s theory of tense. In: Kamp H. (eds). Ellipsis, tense and questions. Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, pp. 141–170Google Scholar
  18. Heim, I. (2005). Features on bound pronouns, ms. MIT.Google Scholar
  19. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semnatics in generative grammar. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Iatridou, S. (1991). Topics in conditionals. Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  21. Iatridou S. (2000) The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 231–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ippolito M. (2003) Presuppositions and implicatures in counterfactuals. Natural Language Semantics 11: 145–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ippolito, M. (2004). Imperfect modality. In J. Guéron & J. Lecarme (Eds.), The syntax of time (pp. 359–387). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kamp H. (1979) Events, instants, and temporal reference. In: Bäuerle R., Egli U., von Stechow A. (eds) Semantics from different points of view. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 376–417Google Scholar
  25. Kratzer A. (1977) What must and can must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 337–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kratzer A. (1981) The notional category of modality. In: Eikmeyer H.-J., Rieser H. (eds) Words, worlds and contexts. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 38–74Google Scholar
  27. Kratzer A. (1989) An investigations of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 607–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kratzer A. (1998) More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In: Strolovitch D., Lawson A. (eds) Proceedings of salt VIII. CLC Publications, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  29. Kratzer A. (2002) Facts: Particulars of information units?. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 655–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kratzer, A. (2006a). Situations in natural language semantics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  31. Kratzer, A. (2006b). Minimal pronouns, ms. Umass.Google Scholar
  32. Kusumoto, K. (1998). Tense in embedded contexts. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  33. Kusumoto K. (2005) On the quantification over times in natural language. Natural Language Semantics 13: 317–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Landman F. (1991) Structures for semantics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  35. Legate J.-A. (2003) The morphosyntax of Warlpiri counterfactual conditionals. Linguistic Inquiry 34(1): 155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lewis D. (1973) Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewis, D. (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Noûs, 13, 455–476. (Reprinted in Lewis, D. (1986). Philosophical Papers (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.)Google Scholar
  38. Lewis D. (1983) Individuation by acquaintance and by stipulation. Philosophical Review 92: 3–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ogihara T. (1996) Tense, attitudes, and scope. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  40. Ogihara, T. (2000). Counterfactuals, temporal adverbs, and association with focus. In Proceedings of SALT 10 (pp. 115–131). Ithaca: CLS Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Ogihara, T. (2004). The semantics of ta in Japanese counterfactual conditionals, ms.Google Scholar
  42. Ogihara, T. (2006). Counterfactual conditionals and focus cross-linguistically, ms.Google Scholar
  43. Palmer F.R. (1986) Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Palmer F.R. (2001) Mood and modality (2nd ed). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Partee B. (1973) Some structural analogies between tense and pronouns. The Journal of Philosophy 70: 601–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pollock J. (1976) Subjunctive reasoning. D. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  47. Rothstein S. (1995) Adverbial quantification over events. Natural Language Semantics 3: 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rullmann H. (2004) First and second person pronouns as bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sauerland U. (2002) The present tense is vacuous. Snippets 6: 12–13Google Scholar
  50. Schlenker P. (2003) A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 29–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stalnakers R. (1968) A theory of conditionals. In: Rescher N. (eds) Studies in Logical Theory 2. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 98–122Google Scholar
  52. Stowell T. (1996) The phrase structure of tense. In: Rooryck J., Zaring L. (eds) Phrase structure and the lexicon. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 277–291Google Scholar
  53. Veltman F. (2005) Making counterfactual assumptions. Journal of Semantics 22: 159–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  55. von Fintel K. (2001) Counterfactuals in a dynamic context. In: Kenstowicz M. (eds) Ken Hale: A Life in Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 132–152Google Scholar
  56. von Fintel, K., & Heim, I. (2005). Intensional semantics lecture notes, ms. MIT.Google Scholar
  57. von Stechow, A. (2003). Feature deletion under semantic binding: Tense, person and mood under verbal quantifiers. In M. Kadowaki & S. Kawahara (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 33 (pp. 379–403). Amherst: GLSAGoogle Scholar
  58. Zagona K. et al (1995) Temporal argument structure: Configurational elements of construal. In: Bertinetto P.M. (eds) Temporal reference, aspect and actionality, Vol.1: Semantic and syntactic perspectives. Rosenberg & Sellier, TorinoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations