Advertisement

Counterfactuality and past

  • Kilu von PrinceEmail author
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Many languages have past-and-counterfactuality markers such as English simple past. There have been various attempts to find a common definition for both uses, but I will argue in this paper that they all have problems with (a) ruling out unacceptable interpretations, or (b) accounting for the contrary-to-fact implicature of counterfactual conditionals, or (c) predicting the observed cross-linguistic variation, or a combination thereof. By combining insights from two basic lines of reasoning, I will propose a simple and transparent approach that solves all the observed problems and offers a new understanding of the concept of counterfactuality.

Keywords

Tense Modality Conditionals Counterfactuality Branching time 

Notes

References

  1. Abusch, D. (1988). Sequence of tense, intensionality and scope. In H. Borer (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 1–14). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Abusch, D. (1997). Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20(1), 1–50.Google Scholar
  3. Adams, E. W. (1965). A logic of conditionals. Inquiry, 8(1–4), 166–197.Google Scholar
  4. Adams, E. W. (1976). Prior probabilities and counterfactual conditionals. In W. Harper & C. Hooker (Eds.), Foundations of probability theory, statistical inference, and statistical theory of science (pp. 1–21). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  5. Altshuler, D., & Schwarzschild, R. (2012). Moment of change, cessation implicatures and simultaneous readings. In E. Chemla, V. Homer, & G. Winterstein (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17 (pp. 45–62). https://semanticsarchive.net/sub2012/AltshulerSchwarzschild.pdf.
  6. Anderson, A. R. (1951). A note on subjunctive and counterfactual conditionals. Analysis, 12(2), 35–38.Google Scholar
  7. Arregui, A. (2005). On the accessibility of possible worlds: The role of tense and aspect. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  8. Arregui, A. (2007). When aspect matters: The case of would-condtionals. Natural Language Semantics, 15(3), 221–264.Google Scholar
  9. Arregui, A. (2009). On similarity in counterfactuals. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23(3), 245–278.Google Scholar
  10. Asher, N., & McCready, E. (2007). Were, would, might and a compositional account of counterfactuals. Journal of Semantics, 24(2), 93–129.Google Scholar
  11. Barwise, J. (1986). Conditionals and conditional information. In E. C. Traugott, A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly, & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), On conditionals (pp. 21–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bjorkman, B. M. (2015). Only some “fake” pasts are real: Contrasting counterfactuals and sequence of tense. Ms., Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada.Google Scholar
  13. Bochnak, R. (2016). Past time reference in a language with optional tense. Linguistics and Philosophy, 39(4), 247–294.Google Scholar
  14. Cho, E. (1997). Counterfactuals in Korean and Japanese: Interaction between verbal morphology and interpretation. Ms., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  15. Comrie, B. (1986). Conditionals: A typology. In E. C. Traugott, A. T. Meulen, C. A. Ferguson, & J. S. Reilly (Eds.), On conditionals (pp. 77–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Condoravdi, C. (2002). Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In D. Beaver, L. Casillas, B. Clark, & S. Kaufmann (Eds.), The construction of meaning (pp. 59–88). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Cresswell, M. J. (1985). Adverbial modification. Interval semantics and its rivals. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  18. Dahl, Ö. (1997). The relation between past time reference and counterfactuality: A new look. In A. Athanasiadou & R. Dirven (Eds.), On conditionals again (pp. 97–114). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  19. DeRose, K., & Grandy, R. E. (1999). Conditional assertions and “biscuit” conditionals. Noûs, 33(3), 405–420.Google Scholar
  20. Dowty, D. (1977). Toward a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English ‘imperfective’ progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(1), 45–77.Google Scholar
  21. Dowty, D. (1979). Word, meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  22. Dudman, V. H. (1983). Tense and time in English verb clusters of the primary pattern. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 3(1), 25–44.Google Scholar
  23. Dudman, V. H. (1984). Conditional interpretations of if-sentences. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 4(2), 143–204.Google Scholar
  24. Edgington, D. (1986). Do conditionals have truth conditions?. Crítica: Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía, 18(52), 3–39.Google Scholar
  25. Edgington, D. (2007). On conditionals. In D. M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (2nd ed., Vol. 14, pp. 127–221). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Fleischman, S. (1989). Temporal distance: A basic linguistic metaphor. Studies in Language, 13(1), 1–50.Google Scholar
  27. François, A. (2003). La sémantique du prédicat en Mwotlap (Vanuatu). Collection Linguistique de la Société de Linguistique de Paris. Leuven, Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
  28. Franke, M. (2009). Signal to act: Game theory in pragmatics. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation.Google Scholar
  29. Frey, W. (2000). Über die syntaktische Position der Satztopiks im Deutschen. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 20, 137–172.Google Scholar
  30. Gibbard, A. (1981). Two recent theories of conditionals. In W. Harper, R. Stalnaker, & G. Pearce (Eds.), Ifs: Conditionals, belief, decision, chance and time (pp. 211–247). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  31. Givón, T. (1994). Irrealis and the subjunctive. Studies in Language, 18(2), 265–337.Google Scholar
  32. Groenendijk, J., & Roelofson, F. (2009). Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. Paper presented at the Workshop on Language, Communication, and Rational Agency, Stanford, May 30–31, 2009. http://www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitive-semantics.
  33. Grønn, A. (2013). Fake or real? Aspect and tense in counterfactual main clauses. In F. Josephson & I. Söhrman (Eds.), Diachronic and typological perspectives on verbs (pp. 133–158). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. Grønn, A., & von Stechow, A. (2009). Temporal interpretation and organization of subjunctive conditionals. Ms., University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  35. Grønn, A., & von Stechow, A. (to appear). The perfect. In L. Matthewson, C. Meier, H. Rullmann, & T. E. Zimmermann (Eds.), The Companion to Semantics (SemCom). Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Hacquard, V. (2006). Aspects of modality. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  37. Hacquard, V. (2009). On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32(3), 279–315.Google Scholar
  38. Haiman, J. (1978). Conditionals are topics. Language, 54(3), 564–589.Google Scholar
  39. Hale, K. (1969). Papago /čim/*. International Journal of American Linguistics, 35(2), 203–212.Google Scholar
  40. Han, C. (1996). Comparing English and Korean counterfactuals: The role of verbal morphology and lexical aspect in counterfactual interpretation. In A. Green, & V. Montapanyane (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics ’96 (pp. 124–138). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  41. Heim, I. (1994). Comments on Abusch’s theory of tense. In H. Kamp (Ed.), Ellipsis, tense, and questions, DYANA deliverable R2.2.B (pp. 143–170). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  42. Hinterwimmer, S., Ebert, C., & Endriss, C. (2008). A unified analysis of indicative and biscuit conditionals as topics. In T. Friedman & S. Ito (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) (Vol. 18, pp. 266–283). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  43. Iatridou, S. (2000). The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(2), 231–270.Google Scholar
  44. Iatridou, S. (2013). Looking for free relatives in Turkish (and the unexpected places this leads to). In U. Özge (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 8) (pp. 129–152). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  45. Iatridou, S., & Embick, D. (1994). Conditional inversion. In M. Gonzàlez, (Ed.), NELS 24: Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (pp. 189–203). Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  46. Ippolito, M. (2003). Presuppositions and implicatures in counterfactuals. Natural Language Semantics, 11(2), 145–186.Google Scholar
  47. Ippolito, M. (2006). Semantic composition and presupposition projection in subjunctive conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(6), 631–672.Google Scholar
  48. Ippolito, M. (2013). Subjunctive conditionals: A linguistic analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Isard, S. (1974). What would you have done if. Theoretical Linguistics, 1(1–3), 233–255.Google Scholar
  50. James, D. (1982). Past tense and the hypothetical: A crosslinguistic study. Studies in Language, 6(3), 375–403.Google Scholar
  51. Jespersen, O. (1931). A modern English grammar on historical principles, part IV: Syntax. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
  52. Joos, M. (1964). The English verb. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  53. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1983). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  54. Karawani, H. (2014). The real, the fake and the fake fake in counterfactual conditionals, crosslinguistically. Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  55. Karawani, H., & Zeijlstra, H. (2013). The semantic contribution of the past morpheme in Palestinian counterfactuals. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics, 12(1), 105–119.Google Scholar
  56. Kaufmann, S. (2005a). Conditional predictions: A probabilistic account. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28(2), 181–231.Google Scholar
  57. Kaufmann, S. (2005b). Conditional truth and future reference. Journal of Semantics, 22(3), 231–280.Google Scholar
  58. Kim, K. S. (2016). Past tense morphology and non-simultaneity. Talk given at the Workshop on the meaning of past tense morphology, Göttingen.Google Scholar
  59. Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. London, Berlin: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Kratzer, A. (1991). Conditionals. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 651–656). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  61. Kratzer, A. (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In D. Strolovitch & A. Lawson (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) (Vol. 8, pp. 92–110)). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  62. Kratzer, A. (2015). Modality across disciplines. Talk given at the SIAS Summer Institute on the Investigation of Linguistic meaning, Berlin.Google Scholar
  63. Kratzer, A., & Heim, I. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  64. Krifka, M. (2001). For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In C. Féry & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Audiatur vox sapientiae. A festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. (pp. 287–319). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  65. Laca, B. (2012). On modal tenses and tense modals. In C. Nishida & C. Russi (Eds.), Building a bridge between the linguistic communities of the Old and the New World. Current research in tense, aspect, mood and modality (pp. 171–194). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  66. Langacker, R. W. (1978). The form and meaning of the English auxiliary. Language, 54(4), 853–882.Google Scholar
  67. Lazard, G. (1998). L’expression de l’irréel: essai de typologie. Typology of verbal categories: Papers presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the occasion of his 70th birthday (pp. 237–247). Niemeyer: Tübingen.Google Scholar
  68. Leahy, B. (2018). Counterfactual antecedent falsity and the epistemic sensitivity of counterfactuals. Philosophical Studies, 175(1), 45–69.Google Scholar
  69. Leahy, B., & Romero, M. (2010). Implicatures in subjunctive conditionals. Talk given at the 11th Szklarska Poreba Workshop.Google Scholar
  70. Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  71. Lewis, D. (1981). Ordering semantics and premise semantics for counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 10(2), 217–234.Google Scholar
  72. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Mackay, J. (2015). Actuality and fake tense in conditionals. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8(12), 1–12.Google Scholar
  74. Matthewson, L., & Truckenbrodt, H. (2017). Modal flavor/modal force interactions in German: soll, sollte, muss and müsste. Paper presented at the workshop ‘Towards and an ontology of modal flavours’ at the 39th Annual Meeting of the German Linguistic Society, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
  75. Meredith, C. A., & Prior, A. N. (1956). Interpretations of different modal logics in the “property calculus”. Mimeograph, University of Canterbury, Philosophy Department. Reprinted in B. J. Copeland (Ed.), Logic and reality: Essays on the legacy of Arthur Prior (pp. 133–134), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996.Google Scholar
  76. Moyse-Faurie, C. (2002). Tense-aspect markers in Faka’uvea (East Uvean). Rongorongo Studies. A Forum for Polynesian Philology, 12(1), 3–21.Google Scholar
  77. Nevins, A. (2002). Counterfactuality without past tense. In M. Hirotani (Ed.), NELS 32: Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (pp. 441–451). Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  78. Ogihara, T. (2000). Counterfactuals, temporal adverbs, and association with focus. In: B. Jackson & T. Matthews (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) (Vol. 10, pp. 115–131). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  79. Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Partee, B. (1973). Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. Journal of Philosophy, 70(18), 601–609.Google Scholar
  81. Placek, T., & Müller, T. (2007). Counterfactuals and historical possibility. Synthese, 154(2), 173–197.Google Scholar
  82. Prior, A. N. (1957). Time and modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Prior, A. N. (1967). Past, present and future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  85. Rivierre, J.-C. (1980). La langue de Touho: Phonologie et grammaire du Cèmuhî (Nouvelle-Calédonie). Paris: Société d’Etudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France.Google Scholar
  86. Romero, M. (2014). ‘Fake Tense’ in counterfactuals: A temporal remoteness approach. In L. Crnič & U. Sauerland (Eds.), The art and craft of semantics: A festschrift for Irene Heim (Vol. 2, pp. 47–63). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  87. Rumberg, A. S. (2016). Transitions toward a semantics for real possibility. Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  88. Schlenker, P. (2004). Conditionals as definite descriptions (a referential analysis). Research on Language and Computation, 2(3), 417–462.Google Scholar
  89. Schulz, K. (2007). Minimal models in semantics and pragmatics: Free choice, exhaustivity, and conditionals. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation.Google Scholar
  90. Schulz, K. (2014). Fake tense in conditional sentences: A modal approach. Natural Language Semantics, 22(2), 117–144.Google Scholar
  91. Seiler, H. (1971). Abstract structures for moods in Greek. Language, 47(1), 79–89.Google Scholar
  92. Stalnaker, R. C. (1975). Indicative conditionals. Philosophia, 5(3), 269–286.Google Scholar
  93. Stanley, J., & Gendler Szabó, Z. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language, 15(2–3), 219–261.Google Scholar
  94. Starr, W. B. (2014). A uniform theory of conditionals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43(6), 1019–1064.Google Scholar
  95. Steele, S. (1975). Past and irrealis: Just what does it all mean? International Journal of American Linguistics, 41(3), 200–217.Google Scholar
  96. Tedeschi, P. (1981). Some evidence for a branching-futures semantic model. In P. Tedeschi & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 14: Tense and aspect (pp. 239–269). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  97. Thomason, R. H. (1970). Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria, 36(3), 264–281.Google Scholar
  98. Thomason, R. H. (1984). Combinations of tense and modality. In D. M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. II, pp. 135–165). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  99. Thomason, R. H., & Gupta, A. (1980). A theory of conditionals in the context of branching time. The Philosophical Review, 89(1), 65–90.Google Scholar
  100. Van Linden, A., & Verstraete, J.-C. (2008). The nature and origins of counterfactuality in simple clauses: Cross-linguistic evidence. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(11), 1865–1895.Google Scholar
  101. Verstraete, J.-C. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of composite mood marking: The non-Pama-Nyungan languages of northern Australia. Linguistic Typology, 9(2), 223–268.Google Scholar
  102. Verstraete, J.-C. (2006). The nature of irreality in the past domain: Evidence from past intentional constructions in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 26(1), 59–79.Google Scholar
  103. Visser, A. (2017). Sharing time among branches. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/353185; University Utrecht Repository.
  104. Vlach, F. (1993). Temporal adverbials, tenses, and the perfect. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16(3), 231–283.Google Scholar
  105. von Fintel, K. (1997). Bare plurals, bare conditionals and only. Journal of Semantics, 14(1), 1–56.Google Scholar
  106. von Fintel, K. (1999a). NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics, 16(2), 97–141.Google Scholar
  107. von Fintel, K. (1999b). The presupposition of subjunctive conditionals. In U. Sauerland & O. Percus (Eds.), The interpretive tract (pp. 29–44). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  108. von Fintel, K. (2001). Counterfactuals in a dynamic context. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 123–152). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  109. von Fintel, K. (2011). Conditionals. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 2, pp. 1515–1538). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  110. von Fintel, K. (2012). Subjunctive conditionals. In G. Russell & D. G. Fara (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy of language (pp. 466–477). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  111. von Fintel, K., & Iatridou, S. (2002). If and when if-clauses can restrict quantifiers. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  112. von Prince, K. (2018). Paradigm-induced implicatures in TAM-expression: A view from the Daakaka distal. In R. Truswell, C. Cummins, C. Heycock, B. Rabern, & H. Rohde (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21 (pp. 969–984). https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DRjNjViN/vonPrince.pdf.
  113. von Prince, K., Krajinović, A., Krifka, M., Guérin, V., & Franjieh, M. (2018). Mapping irreality: Storyboards for eliciting TAM contexts. In A. Gattnar, R. Hörnig, & M. Störzer (Eds.), Proceedings of Linguistic Evidence 2018. Tübingen: University of Tübingen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

OpenAccessThis 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.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sprach- und literaturwissenschaftliche Fakultät, Institut für deutsche Sprache und Linguistik, Allgemeine SprachwissenschaftHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Fachrichtung Sprachwissenschaft und Sprachtechnologie (ehem. FR 4.6)Universität des SaarlandesSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations