Philosophical Studies

, Volume 163, Issue 3, pp 637–648 | Cite as

Subjunctive biscuit and stand-off conditionals

Article

Abstract

Conventional wisdom has it that many intriguing features of indicative conditionals aren’t shared by subjunctive conditionals. Subjunctive morphology is common in discussions of wishes and wants, however, and conditionals are commonly used in such discussions as well. As a result such discussions are a good place to look for subjunctive conditionals that exhibit features usually associated with indicatives alone. Here I offer subjunctive versions of J. L. Austin’s ‘biscuit’ conditionals—e.g., “There are biscuits on the sideboard if you want them”—and subjunctive versions of Allan Gibbard’s ‘stand-off’ or ‘Sly Pete’ conditionals, in which speakers with no relevant false beliefs can in the same context felicitously assert conditionals with the same antecedents and contradictory consequents. My cases undercut views according to which the indicative/subjunctive divide marks a great difference in the meaning of conditionals. They also make trouble for treatments of indicative conditionals that cannot readily be generalized to subjunctives.

Keywords

Conditionals Subjunctive conditionals Counterfactuals Biscuit conditionals Stand-off conditionals 

References

  1. Adams, E. W. (1975). The logic of conditionals: An application of probability to deductive logic. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, A. R. (1951). A note on subjunctive and counterfactual conditionals. Analysis, 12, 35–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, J. L. (1956). Ifs and cans. In J. O. Urmson & G. J. Warnock (Eds.), Philosophical papers (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, J. (1988). Farewell to the phlogiston theory of conditionals. Mind, 97(388), 509–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, J. (2003). A philosophical guide to conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhatt, R., & Pancheva, R. (2006). Conditionals. In M. Everaert, & H. van Reimsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax (pp. 638–687). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chisholm, R. M. (1946). The contrary-to-fact conditional. Mind, 55, 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Culicover, P. W. (1992). Topicalization, inversion and complementizers in English. In D. Delfitto, M. Everaert, A. Evers, & F. Stuurman (Eds.), OTS working papers: Going Romance, and beyond (pp. 1–45). Utrecht: University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  9. Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (1997). Then in conditional constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(2), 109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2005). Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davison, A. (1979). On the semantics of speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 413–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Declerck, R., & Reed, S. (2001). Conditionals: A comprehensive empirical analysis, Vol. 37 of topics in English linguistics. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeRose, K., & Grandy, R. E. (1999). Conditional assertions and ‘biscuit’ conditionals. Noûs, 33, 405–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edgington, D. (1991). Matter-of-fact conditionals. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, supplementary volumes, 65, 185–209.Google Scholar
  15. Edgington, D. (1995). On conditionals. Mind, 104, 235–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edgington, D. (1997a). Commentary. In M. Woods (Ed.), Conditionals (pp. 95–137). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Edgington, D. (1997b). Truth, objectivity, counterfactuals and Gibbard. Mind, 106(421), 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edgington, D. (2008). Counterfactuals. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 108, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Firth, R. (1943). Sense-data and the principle of reduction. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  20. Franke, M. (2007). The pragmatics of biscuit conditionals. Tech. Rep. PP-2007-35, Institute of Logic, Language and Computation, Universiteit van Amersterdam. http://www.illc.uva.nl/Publications/ResearchReports/PP-2007-35.text.pd. Accessed 21 Nov 2011.
  21. Franke, M. (2009). Signal to act: Game theory in pragmatics. Ph.D. thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  22. Geis, M. L., & Lycan, W. G. (1993). Nonconditional conditionals. Philosophical Topics, 21(2), 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibbard, A. (1981). Two recent theories of conditionals. In W. L. Harper, R. Stalnaker, & G. Pearce. (Eds.), Ifs: Conditionals, belief, decision, chance, and time (pp. 211–247). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  24. Hansson, S. O. (1989). New operators for theory change. Theoria, 54, 114–132.Google Scholar
  25. Iatridou, S. (1991). Topics in conditionals. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  26. Iatridou, S. (1994). On the contribution of conditional then. Natural Language Semantics, 2, 171–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Iatridou, S. (2000). The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(2), 231–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ippolito, M. (2003). Presuppositions and implicatures in counterfactuals. Natural Language Semantics, 11, 145–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ippolito, M. (2006). Semantic composition and presupposition projection in subjunctive conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, 631–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Isaacs, J., & Rawlins, K. (2008). Conditional questions. Journal of Semantics, 25, 269–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1986). Conditionals and mental models. In E. C. Traugott, A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly, & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), On conditionals (pp. 55–75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karttunen, L., & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicature. In D. Dinneen & C. Oh (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. (pp. 1–56). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. König, E., & van der Auwera, J. (1988). Clause integration in German and Dutch conditionals, concessive conditionals, and concessives. In J. Haiman, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. Köpcke, K-M, & Panther, K.-U. (1989). On correlations between word order and pragmatic function of conditional sentences in German. Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 685–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kratzer, A. (1981). Partition and revision: The semantics of counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 10, 201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kratzer, A. (1986). Conditionals. In A. von Stechow, & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 651–656). Berlin: W. de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  37. Kratzer, A. (1989). An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 607–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lindström, S., & Rabinowicz, W. (1995). The Ramsey test revisited. In G. Crocco, L. F. del Cerro, & A. Herzig (Eds.), Conditionals: From philosophy to computer science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lycan, W. G. (2001). Real conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. McCawley, J. D. (1996). Conversational scorekeeping and the interpretation of conditional sentences. In M. Shibatani, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 77–101). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Morreau, M. (1992). Epistemic semantics for counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 21, 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morton, A. (1997). Can Edgington Gibbard counterfactuals? Mind, 106(421), 101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Predelli, S. (2009). Towards a semantics for biscuit conditionals. Philosophical Studies, 142, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rizzi, L. (1991). Residual V2 and the Wh-criterion. Technical Reports in Formal and Computational Linguistics, Geneva:University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  46. Rizzi, L. (1996). Residual verb second and the Wh-criterion. In A. Belletti, & L. Rizzi (Eds.), Parameters and functional heads: Essays in comparative syntax (pp. 63–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Rott, H. (1999). Moody conditionals: Hamburgers, switches, and the tragic death of an American President. In J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, & Y. Venema (Eds.), JFAK. Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Scheffler, T. (2008a). Relevance conditionals as utterance modifying adverbials. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, 7, 373–392.Google Scholar
  49. Scheffler, T. (2008b). Semantic operators in different dimensions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  50. Schulz, K. (2007). Minimal models in semantics and pragmatics: Free choice, exhaustivity, and conditionals. Ph.D. thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  51. Siegel, M. E. A. (2006). Biscuit conditionals: Quantification over potential literal acts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, 167–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Skyrms, B. (1980a). Causal necessity. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Skyrms, B. (1980b). The prior propensity account of subjunctive conditionals. In W. L. Harper, R. Stalnaker, & G. Pearce. (Eds.), Ifs: Conditionals, belief, decision, chance, and time (pp. 259–265). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  54. Skyrms, B. (1994). Adams conditionals. In E. Eells, & B. Skyrms (Eds.), Probability and conditionals: Belief revision and rational decision (pp. 13–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Stalnaker, R. C. (1975). Indicative conditionals. In W. L. Harper, R. Stalnaker, & G. Pearce. (Eds.), Ifs: Conditionals, belief, decision, chance, and time (pp. 193–210). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  56. Stalnaker, R. C. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Stephenson, T. (2007). Indicative conditionals have relative truth conditions. Chicago Linguistics Society, 43, 231–242.Google Scholar
  58. Veltman, F. (1985). Logics for conditionals. Ph.D. thesis. Department of Philosophy, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  59. Veltman, F. (2005). Making counterfactual assumptions. Journal of Semantics, 22, 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. von Fintel, K. (1999). The presupposition of subjunctive conditionals. In U. Sauerland, & O. Percus (Eds.), The interpretive tract, no. 25 in MIT working papers in linguistics (pp. 29–44). Cambridge: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  61. Weatherson, B. (2009). Conditionals and indexical relativism. Synthese, 166, 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Woods, M. (1997). Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations