Two switches in the theory of counterfactuals

Ciardelli, Ivano; Zhang, Linmin; Champollion, Lucas

doi:10.1007/s10988-018-9232-4

Open Access
Published: 15 June 2018

Two switches in the theory of counterfactuals

A study of truth conditionality and minimal change

Linguistics and Philosophy volume 41, pages 577–621 (2018)Cite this article

1269 Accesses
14 Citations
4 Altmetric
Metrics details

Abstract

Based on a crowdsourced truth value judgment experiment, we provide empirical evidence challenging two classical views in semantics, and we develop a novel account of counterfactuals that combines ideas from inquisitive semantics and causal reasoning. First, we show that two truth-conditionally equivalent clauses can make different semantic contributions when embedded in a counterfactual antecedent. Assuming compositionality, this means that the meaning of these clauses is not fully determined by their truth conditions. This finding has a clear explanation in inquisitive semantics: truth-conditionally equivalent clauses may be associated with different propositional alternatives, each of which counts as a separate counterfactual assumption. Second, we show that our results contradict the common idea that the interpretation of a counterfactual involves minimizing change with respect to the actual state of affairs. We propose to replace the idea of minimal change by a distinction between foreground and background for a given counterfactual assumption: the background is held fixed in the counterfactual situation, while the foreground can be varied without any minimality constraint.

References

Aher, M., & Groenendijk, J. (2015). Deontic and epistemic modals in suppositional [inquisitive] semantics. In E. Csipak & H. Zeijlstra (Eds.), Sinn und Bedeutung 19 (pp. 2–19), Göttingen, Germany. https://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/proceedings/521400.html.
Aloni, M. (2003). Free choice in modal contexts. In M. Weisgerber (Ed.), Sinn und Bedeutung 7 (pp. 25–37), Konstanz, Germany: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz. http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/conferences/sub7/proceedings/download/sub7_aloni.pdf.
Aloni, M. (2007). Free choice, modals, and imperatives. Natural Language Semantics, 15(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9010-2.
Article Google Scholar
Aloni, M. (2016). Disjunction. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Winter 2016. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/disjunction/.
Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2006). Disjunction in alternative semantics. University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation, Amherst, MA. http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI3242324/.
Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2009). Counterfactuals, correlatives, and disjunction. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32(2), 207–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9059-0.
Article Google Scholar
Bhatt, R., & Pancheva, R. (2006). Conditionals. In E. Martin & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax (pp. 638–687). Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch16.
Briggs, R. (2012). Interventionist counterfactuals. Philosophical Studies, 160(1), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-9908-5.
Article Google Scholar
Cariani, F., & Goldstein, S. (2017). Conditional heresies. https://philarchive.org/archive/CARCH-5.
Champollion, L., Ciardelli, I., & Zhang, L. (2016). Breaking de Morgan’s law in counterfactual antecedents. In M. Moroney, C.-R. Little, J. Collard, & D. Burgdorf (Eds.), Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT 26) (pp. 304–324). Ithaca, NY: LSA & CLC Publications. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3800.
Article Google Scholar
Chevallier, C., Noveck, I. A., Nazir, T., Bott, L., Lanzetti, V., & Sperber, D. (2008). Making disjunctions exclusive. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(11), 1741–1760. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701712960.
Article Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond, vol. 3 (The cartography of syntactic structures) (pp. 39–103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chisholm, R. M. (1946). The contrary-to-fact conditional. Mind, 55(220), 289–307. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2250757.
Article Google Scholar
Ciardelli, I. (2016a). Lifting conditionals to inquisitive semantics. In M. Moroney, C.-R. Little, J. Collard, & D. Burgdorf (Eds.), Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT 26) (pp. 732–752). Ithaca, NY: LSA & CLC Publications. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3811.
Article Google Scholar
Ciardelli, I. (2016b). Questions in logic. University of Amsterdam dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.518411.
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2018). Inquisitive semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Ciardelli, I., & Roelofsen, F. (2011). Inquisitive logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40(1), 55–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-010-9142-6.
Article Google Scholar
Ciardelli, I., & Roelofsen, F. (2017). Hurford’s constraint, the semantics of disjunctions, and the nature of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics, 25(3), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9134-y.
Article Google Scholar
Ciardelli, I., Roelofsen, F., & Theiler, N. (2016). Composing alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 40(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9195-2.
Article Google Scholar
Cross, C. (2008). Antecedent-relative comparative world similarity. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 37(2), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-007-9061-3.
Article Google Scholar
Ellis, B., Jackson, F., & Pargetter, R. (1977). An objection to possible-world semantics for counterfactual logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 6(1), 355–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00262069.
Article Google Scholar
Erlewine, M. Y., & Kotek, H. (2016). A streamlined approach to online linguistic surveys. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34(2), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9305-9.
Article Google Scholar
Fine, K. (1975). Critical notice. Mind, 84(335), 451–458. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LXXXIV.1.451.
Article Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2012a). A difficulty for the possible worlds analysis of counterfactuals. Synthese, 189(1), 29–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0094-y.
Article Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2012b). Counterfactuals without possible worlds. The Journal of Philosophy, 109(3), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil201210938.
Article Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2014). Truth-maker semantics for intuitionistic logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43(2–3), 549–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-013-9281-7.
Article Google Scholar
Fox, C., & Lappin, S. (2005). Foundations of intensional semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773543.
Google Scholar
Fox, D. (2007). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics (pp. 71–120). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230210752_4.
Chapter Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Goodman, N. (1947). The problem of counterfactual conditionals. The Journal of Philosophy, 44(5), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/2019988.
Article Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2015). Towards a suppositional inquisitive semantics. In M. Aher, D. Hole, E. Jerábek, & C. Kupke (Eds.), Logic, language, and computation: 10th international Tbilisi symposium (TbiLLC 2013) (pp. 137–156). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46906-4_9.
Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M. (1990). Dynamic Montague grammar. In L. Kálmán & L. Pólos (Eds.), 2nd symposium on logic and language (pp. 3–48). Budapest, Hungary: Eötvös Loránd Press. http://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.428383.
Halpern, J. Y. (2013). From causal models to counterfactual structures. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 6(2), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755020312000305.
Article Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. J. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10(1), 41–53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25000703.
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. University of Massachusetts dissertation, Amherst, MA. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jA2YTJmN.
Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61(1), 121–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/413423.
Article Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. (1991). Topics in conditionals. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/13521.
Kamp, H. (1973). Free choice permission. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 74(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/74.1.57.
Article Google Scholar
Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J Groenendijk, T. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, Mathematical Center tracts (Vol. 135) (pp. 277–322). Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.
Kaufmann, S. (2013). Causal premise semantics. Cognitive Science, 37(6), 1136–1170. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12063.
Article Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1981a). Partition and revision: The semantics of counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 10(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00248849.
Kratzer, A. (1981b). The notional category of modality. In H.-J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (Eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics, Research in text theory (Vol. 6, pp. 38–74). Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758335.ch12.
Chapter Google Scholar
Kratzer, A., Shimoyama, J. (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Y. Otsu (Ed.), 3rd Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics (pp. 1-25). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10106-4_7.
Chapter Google Scholar
Kraus, S., Lehmann, D., & Magidor, M. (1990). Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence, 44(1–2), 167–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(90)90101-5.
Article Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Noûs, 13(4), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.2307/2215339.
Article Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1981). Ordering semantics and premise semantics for counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 10(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00248850.
Lifschitz, V. (1990). Frames in the space of situations. Artificial Intelligence, 46(3), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(90)90021-q.
Article Google Scholar
Lin, S.-Y. J. (2017). Eliminating similarity in dynamic approaches to counterfactuals. New York University manuscript.
Mackie, J. L. (1962). Counterfactuals and causal laws. In R. J. Butler (Ed.), Analytical philosophy (Vol. 1, pp. 66–80). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Magri, G. (2014). An account for the homogeneity effects triggered by plural definites and conjunction based on double strengthening. In S. Pistoia Reda (Ed.), Pragmatics, semantics and the case of scalar implicatures (Palgrave studies in pragmatics, language and cognition) (pp. 99–145). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137333285_5.
Google Scholar
McKay, T., Nelson, M. (2014). Propositional attitude reports. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Spring 2014. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/prop-attitude-reports/.
Nute, D. (1975). Counterfactuals and the similarity of words. The Journal of Philosophy, 72(21), 773–778. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025340.
Article Google Scholar
Nute, D. (1980). Conversational scorekeeping and conditionals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 9(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00247746.
Paris, S. G. (1973). Comprehension of language connectives and propositional logical relationships. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 16(2), 278–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(73)90167-7.
Article Google Scholar
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511803161.
Rawlins, K. (2013). (Un)conditionals. Natural Language Semantics, 21(2), 111–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9087-0.
Article Google Scholar
Roelofsen, F. (2013). Algebraic foundations for the semantic treatment of inquisitive content. Synthese, 190(1), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0282-4.
Article Google Scholar
Santorio, P. (2014). Filtering semantics for counterfactuals: Bridging causal models and premise semantics. In T. Snider, S. D’Antonio, & M. Wiegand (Eds.), Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT 24) (pp. 494–513). Ithaca, NY: LSA & CLC Publications. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v24i0.2430.
Article Google Scholar
Santorio, P. (2018a). Alternatives and truthmakers in conditional semantics. The Journal of Philosophy.
Santorio, P. (2018b). Interventions in premise semantics. Philosophers’ Imprint.
Schulz, K. (2007). Minimal models in semantics and pragmatics: Free choice, exhaustivity, and conditionals. University of Amsterdam dissertation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. http://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.272471.
Schulz, K. (2011). “If you’d wiggled A, then B would’ve changed”: Causality and counterfactual conditionals. Synthese, 179(2), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9780-9.
Article Google Scholar
Schwarz, F., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (2008). Strengthening ‘or’: Effects of focus and downward entailing contexts on scalar implicatures. University of Massachusetts manuscript.
Simons, M. (2005). Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Natural Language Semantics, 13(3), 271–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-004-2900-7.
Article Google Scholar
Spector, B. (2007). Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher-order implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presuppositions and implicature in compositional semantics (pp. 243–281). London, UK: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230210752_9.
Chapter Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In N. Rescher (Ed.), Studies in logical theory (pp. 98–113). Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9117-0_2.
Chapter Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (1981). A defense of conditional excluded middle. In W. L. Harper, R. Stalnaker, & G. Pearce (Eds.), Ifs: Conditionals, belief, decision, chance and time (pp. 87–104). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9117-0_4.
Chapter Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A., & Haddican, B. (2004). Conjunction meets negation: A study in cross-linguistic variation. Journal of Semantics, 21(3), 219–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/21.3.219.
Article Google Scholar
van Rooij, R. (2006). Free choice counterfactual donkeys. Journal of Semantics, 23(4), 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffl004.
Article Google Scholar
van Rooij, R. (2008). Towards a uniform analysis of any. Natural Language Semantics, 16(4), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-008-9035-1.
Article Google Scholar
Veltman, F. (1976). Prejudices, presuppositions, and the theory of counterfactuals. In J. Groenendijk & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Amsterdam papers in formal grammar. 1st Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 248–282). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. http://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.428635.
Veltman, F. (2005). Making counterfactual assumptions. Journal of Semantics, 22(2), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffh022.
Article Google Scholar
von Fintel, K. (1997). Bare plurals, bare conditionals, and only. Journal of Semantics, 14(1), 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/14.1.1.
Article Google Scholar
von Fintel, K. (2001). Counterfactuals in a dynamic context. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (Vol. 36, Chap. 3, pp. 123–152). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. http://mit.edu/fintel/fintel-2001-counterfactuals.pdf.
von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The king of France is back! Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions. In A. Bezuidenhout & M. Reimer (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond: An interdisciplinary collection of essays on definite and indefinite descriptions and other related phenomena (pp. 315–341). Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://mit.edu/fintel/fintel-2004-kof.pdf.
von Wright, G. H. (1968). An essay in deontic logic and the general theory of action, Acta Philosophica Fennica (Vol. 21). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Google Scholar
Warmbrōd, K. (1981). Counterfactuals and substitution of equivalent antecedents. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 10(2), 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00248853.
Article Google Scholar
Willer, M. (2015). Simplifying counterfactuals. In T. Brochhagen, F. Roelofsen, & N. Theiler (eds.), 20th Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 428–437). Amsterdam: ILLC Publications. http://philosophy.uchicago.edu/faculty/files/willer/Simplifying%20Counterfactuals.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Ivano Ciardelli
Present address: Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Ludwigstraße 31, 80539, Munich, Germany
Linmin Zhang
Present address: NYU-ECNU Institute of Brain and Cognitive Science, New York University Shanghai, 1555 Century Avenue, Room 1262, Shanghai, 200122, China

Authors and Affiliations

Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 107, 1098XG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Ivano Ciardelli
Department of Linguistics, New York University, 10 Washington Place, New York, NY, 10003, USA
Linmin Zhang & Lucas Champollion

Authors

Ivano Ciardelli
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Linmin Zhang
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Lucas Champollion
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ivano Ciardelli, Linmin Zhang or Lucas Champollion.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (zip 909 KB)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ciardelli, I., Zhang, L. & Champollion, L. Two switches in the theory of counterfactuals. Linguist and Philos 41, 577–621 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-018-9232-4

Download citation

Published: 15 June 2018
Issue Date: December 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-018-9232-4

Keywords

Counterfactuals
Experimental semantics
Crowdsourcing survey
Disjunctive antecedents
Inquisitive semantics
Minimal change semantics
Ordering semantics
Causal reasoning