Counterfactuals, correlatives, and disjunction

The natural interpretation of counterfactuals with disjunctive antecedents involves selecting from each of the disjuncts the worlds that come closest to the world of evaluation. It has been long noticed that capturing this interpretation poses a problem for a minimal change semantics for counterfactuals, because selecting the closest worlds from each disjunct requires accessing the denotation of the disjuncts from the denotation of the disjunctive antecedent, which the standard boolean analysis of or does not allow (Creary and Hill, Philosophy of Science 43:341–344, 1975; Nute, Journal of Philosophy 72:773–778, 1975; Fine, Mind 84(335):451–458, 1975; Ellis et al. Journal of Philosophical Logic 6:335–357, 1977). This paper argues that the failure to capture the natural interpretation of disjunctive counterfactuals provides no reason to abandon a minimal change semantics. It shows that the natural interpretation of disjunctive counterfactuals is expected once we refine our assumptions about the semantics of or and the logical form of conditionals, and (i) we assume that disjunctions introduce propositional alternatives in the semantic derivation, in line with independently motivated proposals about the semantics of or (Aloni, 2003a; Simons, Natural Language Semantics 13:271–316, 2005; Alonso-Ovalle, Disjunction in Alternative Semantics. PhD thesis, 2006); and (ii) we treat conditionals as correlative constructions, as advocated in von Fintel (1994), Izvorski (Proceedings of NELS 26, 1996), Bhatt and Pancheva (2006), and Schlenker (2004).

[1]  Roumyana Izvorski,et al.  The Syntax and Semantics of Correlative Proforms , 2003 .

[2]  Association Focus , 1999 .

[3]  S. Iatridou.  Topics in conditionals , 1991 .

[4]  A. Kratzer.  Conditional Necessity and Possibility , 1979 .

[5]  Daniel Gallin,et al.  Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic , 1975 .

[6]  Veneeta Srivastav,et al.  The syntax and semantics of correlatives , 1991 .

[7]  Sigrid Beck.  Reciprocals are Definites , 2001 .

[8]  Christopher S. Hill,et al.  Counterfactuals. David Lewis , 1975 .

[9]  Sebastian Löbner,et al.  Polarity in Natural Language: Predication, Quantification and Negation in Particular and Characterizing Sentences , 2000 .

[10]  Donald Nute.  Conversational scorekeeping and conditionals , 1980, J. Philos. Log..

[11]  Marcel den Dikken,et al.  Either-Float and the Syntax of Co-or-dination , 2006 .

[12]  Maria Aloni,et al.  FREE CHOICE IN MODAL CONTEXTS , 2003 .

[13]  Kai von Fintel,et al.  NPI Licensing, Strawson Entailment, and Context Dependency , 1999, J. Semant..

[14]  Sabine Iatridou,et al.  On the contribution of conditionalthen , 1993 .

[15]  J. Bennett.  A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals , 2003 .

[16]  O. Morgenthaler,et al.  Proceedings of the Conference , 1930 .

[17]  Veneeta Dayal.  Quantification in Correlatives , 1995 .

[18]  Angelika Kratzer,et al.  What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean , 1977 .

[19]  Philippe Schlenker,et al.  Conditionals as Definite Descriptions , 2004 .

[20]  Luis Alonso-Ovalle.  Innocent exclusion in an Alternative Semantics , 2008 .

[21]  Maria Aloni.  On choice-offering imperatives , 2003 .

[22]  Paula Menéndez-Benito,et al.  The Grammar of Choice , 2007 .

[23]  Veneeta Dayal.  Locality in WH Quantification: Questions and Relative Clauses in Hindi , 2010 .

[24]  Robert Stalnaker.  A Theory of Conditionals , 2019, Knowledge and Conditionals.

[25]  Ken Warmbrod,et al.  Counterfactuals and substitution of equivalent antecedents , 1981, J. Philos. Log..

[26]  Irene Heim,et al.  Semantics in generative grammar , 1998 .

[27]  R. Schwarzschild.  Plurals, presuppositions and the sources of distributivity , 1993 .

[28]  D. Nute.  Counterfactuals and the Similarity of Words , 1975 .

[29]  Veneeta Srivastav.  WH dependencies in Hindi and the theory of grammar , 1991 .

[30]  Kai-Uwe Von Fintel,et al.  Restrictions on quantifier domains , 1994 .

[31]  J. Dewey.  Studies In Logical Theory , 1904 .

[32]  Veneeta Dayal.  Locality in Wh quantification , 1996 .

[33]  Brian Ellis,et al.  An objection to possible-world semantics for counterfactual logics , 1977, J. Philos. Log..

[34]  Michael Hegarty,et al.  The role of categorization in the contribution of conditional then: Comments on Iatridou , 1996 .

[35]  Christopher S. Hill,et al.  Book Review:Counterfactuals David Lewis , 1975 .

[36]  William A. Ladusaw.  Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations , 1980 .

[37]  K. Demuth,et al.  Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society , 1995 .

[38]  Arnim von Stechow,et al.  Semantics From Different Points of View , 1979 .

[39]  Emmon W. Bach,et al.  Quantification in Natural Languages , 1995 .

[40]  S. Philippe,et al.  Conditionals as Definite Descriptions (A Referential Analysis) , 2002 .

[41]  大津 由紀雄.  The proceedings of the third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics , 2002 .

[42]  Mats Rooth.  A theory of focus interpretation , 1992, Natural Language Semantics.

[43]  C. L. Hamblin.  QUESTIONS IN MONTAGUE ENGLISH , 1976 .

[44]  M. Simons.  Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction , 2005 .

[45]  Luis Alonso-Ovalle,et al.  Disjunction in Alternative Semantics , 2010 .

[46]  Robert van Rooij,et al.  Free Choice Counterfactual Donkeys , 2006, J. Semant..

[47]  Richmond H. Thomason,et al.  A semantic analysis of conditional logic1 , 2008 .

[48]  Irene Heim,et al.  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases : a dissertation , 1982 .

[49]  David Lewis,et al.  Possible-world semantics for counterfactual logics: A rejoinder , 1977, J. Philos. Log..