Circumstantial and temporal dependence in counterfactual modals
- 393 Downloads
“Counterfactual” readings of might/could have were previously analyzed using metaphysical modal bases. This paper presents examples and scenarios where the assumptions of such a branching-time semantics are not met, because there are facts at the base world that preclude the complement of the modal becoming true. Additional arguments show that counterfactual readings are context dependent. These data motivate a semantics using a circumstantial (or factual) modal base, which refers to context-dependent facts about a world and time. The analysis is formulated in a version of premise semantics for modality.
KeywordsMetaphysical modality Circumstantial modality Premise semantics Interactions between tense and modality Branching time Natural language semantics
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Versions of this paper were presented at Tűbingen in June 2006, Frankfurt in June 2007, ZAS Berlin in June 2007, the 16th Amsterdam Colloquium in December 2007, at Cornell in February 2008, and at JNU, New Delhi in January 2011. The Amsterdam paper appeared as Abusch (2007). I am grateful to the audiences on those occasions for their reactions. Thanks to Anton Benz, Wylie Breckenridge, Angelika Kratzer, Manfred Krifka, Manfred Kupffer, Cécile Meier, Doris Penka, Magdalena Schwager, Arnim von Stechow, Jiwon Yun, and Ede Zimmermann for their comments and assistance. The final version benefitted greatly from the comments of a NALS reviewer. Special thanks to Mats Rooth for lots of discussion of various versions of this research.
- Abusch, Dorit. 2007. Temporal and circumstantial dependence in counterfactual modals. In Proceedings of the sixteenth Amsterdam colloquium, 37–42. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Condoravdi, Cleo. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In The construction of meaning, ed. David Beaver, Luis D. Cassillas Maritinez, Brandy Z. Clark, and Stephan Kaufmann, 59–88. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
- Goodman, Nelson. 1955. Fact, fiction, and forecast. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Kansas Supreme Court. 2001. Judgment in State vs. Jones, State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Russell J. Jones, Appellant, No. 84,810.Google Scholar
- Kratzer, Angelika. 1981b. The notional category of modality. In Words, worlds, and contexts. New approaches in word semantics, ed. H.J. Eikmeyer, and H. Rieser, 38–74. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. Arnim von Stechow, and Dieter Wunderlich, 639–650. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Lewis, David. 1973. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Mondadori, Fabrizio. 1978. Remarks on tense and mood: The perfect future. In Studies in formal semantics: Intensionality, temporality, negation, ed. Franz Guenthner and Christian Rohrer, 223–248. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
- Stowell, Tim. 2004. Tense and modals. In The syntax of time, ed. J. Gueron and J. Lecarme, 621–636. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Thomason, Richmond H. 1984. Combinations of tense and modality. In Handbook of philosophical logic, Vol. 2, 135–165. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
- Veltman, Frank. 1976. Prejudices, presuppositions, and the theory of counterfactuals. In Proceedings of the 1st Amsterdam colloquium, ed. J. Groenendijk and M. Stokhof, 248–281. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- von Fintel, Kai, and Irene Heim. 2007. Intensional semantics. Lecture notes, MIT.Google Scholar
- von Stechow, Arnim. 2003. Feature deletion under semantic binding: Tense, person, and mood under verbal quantifiers. In Proceedings of NELS 33, ed. Makoto Kadowaki and Shigeto Kawahara, 397–403. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
- Yun, Jiwon. 2006. Tense, modals, and counterfactuality. Manuscript, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University.Google Scholar