A Uniform Theory of Conditionals: Beyond Stalnaker - Will Starr

Stalnaker on the Direct Argument Two Kinds of Conditionals Stalnaker’s Analysis A New Analysis References
The Theory
Summary
Stalnaker on the Direct Argument Two Kinds of Conditionals Stalnaker’s Analysis A New Analysis References
1 Unlike Stalnaker’s, this theory gives a unified
explanation of:
• The contrast with denied antecedents
• The subjunctive suggestion
• Correlation between fake past and
subjunctive/indicative
2 This theory delivers a better logic of indicatives &
subjunctives than Stalnaker’s
• Import-Export, Disjunctive Antecedents
3 It also offers a competitive analysis of reverse Sobel
sequences that links them to anaphoricity
Thanks!
William Starr | A Uniform Theory of Conditionals | Modality Seminar | Cornell University 66/69
William Starr | A Uniform Theory of Conditionals | Modality Seminar | Cornell University 67/69
Stalnaker on the Direct Argument Two Kinds of Conditionals Stalnaker’s Analysis A New Analysis References
References I
Stalnaker on the Direct Argument Two Kinds of Conditionals Stalnaker’s Analysis A New Analysis References
References II
Bittner, M (2010). ‘Conditionals as Attitude Reports.’ Ms. Rutgers University,
URL http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mbittner/pdf%20files%20for%20web/
bittner10_jos.pdf.
von Fintel, K (2001). ‘Counterfactuals in a Dynamic Context.’ In
M Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: a Life in Language, 123–152. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press. URL
http://mit.edu/fintel/www/conditional.pdf.
Gillies, A (2007). ‘Counterfactual Scorekeeping.’ Linguistics & Philosophy,
30(3): 329–360. URL
http://rci.rutgers.edu/~thony/counterfactualscorekeeping_landp.pdf.
Gillies, A (2009). ‘On Truth-Conditions for If (but Not Quite Only If ).’
Philosophical Review, 118(3): 325–349. URL http:
//rci.rutgers.edu/~thony/truth-conditions-if-phil-review-2009.pdf.
Heim, I (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D.
thesis, Linguistics Department, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Massachusetts.
Iatridou, S (2000). ‘The Grammatical Ingredients of Counterfactuality.’
Linguistic Inquiry, 31(2): 231–270.
Isard, S (1974). ‘What Would You Have Done If...’ Theoretical Linguistics, 1:
233–55.
Kaufmann, S (2000). ‘Dynamic Context Management.’ In M Faller,
S Kaufmann & M Pauly (eds.), Formalizing the Dynamics of Conversation,
171–188. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Lewis, DK (1979). ‘Scorekeeping in a Language Game.’ Journal of Philosophical
Logic, 8(3): 339–359.
Lyons, J (1977). Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Moss, S (to appear). ‘On the Pragmatics of Counterfactuals.’ Noûs. URL
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ssmoss/counterfactuals.pdf.
Pratt, VR (1976). ‘Semantical Considerations on Floyd-Hoare Logic.’ In
Proceedings of the 17th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer
Science, 109–121.
Roberts, C (1989). ‘Modal Subordination and Pronominal Anaphora in
Discourse.’ Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(6): 683–721.
Stalnaker, RC (1968). ‘A Theory of Conditionals.’ In N Rescher (ed.), Studies
in Logical Theory, 98–112. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publishers.
William Starr | A Uniform Theory of Conditionals | Modality Seminar | Cornell University 68/69
William Starr | A Uniform Theory of Conditionals | Modality Seminar | Cornell University 69/69