2009
DOI: 10.1007/s10988-009-9059-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Counterfactuals, correlatives, and disjunction

Abstract: Abstract. 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… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The difference between the two antecedents is captured by the fact that, while ¬(A ∧ B) is associated with a single alternative, A ∨ B is associated with two distinct alternatives, corresponding to the two disjuncts. 2 To explain how the presence of these different alternatives affects the truth conditions of counterfactuals, we combine inquisitive semantics with a proposal by Alonso-Ovalle (2006, 2009. According to this proposal, a counterfactual antecedent does not always contribute a unique assumption: when it is associated with multiple alternatives, as in the case of A ∨ B, each of these alternatives is processed as a sep-1 Contexts that make more fine-grained distinctions than those determined by truth conditions are often referred to as hyperintensional (Fox and Lappin 2005;McKay and Nelson 2014).…”
Section: ¬(A ∧ B)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The difference between the two antecedents is captured by the fact that, while ¬(A ∧ B) is associated with a single alternative, A ∨ B is associated with two distinct alternatives, corresponding to the two disjuncts. 2 To explain how the presence of these different alternatives affects the truth conditions of counterfactuals, we combine inquisitive semantics with a proposal by Alonso-Ovalle (2006, 2009. According to this proposal, a counterfactual antecedent does not always contribute a unique assumption: when it is associated with multiple alternatives, as in the case of A ∨ B, each of these alternatives is processed as a sep-1 Contexts that make more fine-grained distinctions than those determined by truth conditions are often referred to as hyperintensional (Fox and Lappin 2005;McKay and Nelson 2014).…”
Section: ¬(A ∧ B)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The new argument also provides a welcome opportunity to explore the logic of unconditionals, which has been relatively under‐investigated. Linguists and philosophers have already spilled a lot of ink debating whether modus ponens , modus tollens , exportation, simplification of disjunctive antecedents (SDA), and other inference rules hold for different species of the if ‐conditional (see Lewis ; Nute ; Fine , ,b; Ellis, Jackson & Pargetter ; Gibbard ; McGee ; Gillies ; Alonso‐Ovalle , ; Kolodny & MacFarlane ; Willer , ; Briggs ; Yalcin ; Khoo ; Bledin ; Stojnić ; Charlow ms . ; among many others).…”
Section: The New Idle Argumentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is a strong intuition (see, e.g., Nute 1975;Ellis, Jackson & Pargetter 1977;Alonso-Ovalle 2009;Fine 2012;Willer 2015) that SDA is indeed a valid inference pattern: whenever a conclusion follows from a disjunctive antecedent, the same conclusion should follow from each disjunct individually. On the other hand, the inference pattern SA seems generally invalid, as witnessed by our example.…”
Section: Disjunctive Antecedentsmentioning
confidence: 99%