Counterfactual scorekeeping

Anthony S. Gillies

doi:10.1007/s10988-007-9018-6

Counterfactual scorekeeping

Anthony S. Gillies

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

126 Scopus citations

Abstract

Orthodoxy has it that counterfactuals cannot be treated as strict conditionals. But there is a loophole: if the strictness is a function of context then maybe they can be so treated. I argue for a loophole analysis that treats 'would'-counterfactuals as strict conditionals that are duals to 'might'- counterfactuals. Most of the work lies in getting straight about the interaction between context and semantic value. I treat it as a general feature of the dynamics of conversational score.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	329-360
Number of pages	32
Journal	Linguistics and Philosophy
Volume	30
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-007-9018-6
State	Published - Jun 2007
Externally published	Yes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Philosophy
Linguistics and Language

Access to Document

10.1007/s10988-007-9018-6

Cite this

@article{419459c877734e358c5b72f1835fb5a2,

title = "Counterfactual scorekeeping",

abstract = "Orthodoxy has it that counterfactuals cannot be treated as strict conditionals. But there is a loophole: if the strictness is a function of context then maybe they can be so treated. I argue for a loophole analysis that treats 'would'-counterfactuals as strict conditionals that are duals to 'might'- counterfactuals. Most of the work lies in getting straight about the interaction between context and semantic value. I treat it as a general feature of the dynamics of conversational score.",

author = "Gillies, \{Anthony S.\}",

note = "Funding Information: Thanks are due to Kai von Fintel, Nicholas Asher, Andy Egan, Josh Dever, Rich Thomason, Brian Weatherson, and two anonymous L\&P referees. Early (in some cases very early) versions of some of the story here were presented at, and benefited from discussion with audiences at, the 14th Amsterdam Colloquium (December 2003), the Society for Exact Philosophy (Maryland; May 2004), the European Society for Philosophy and Psychology (Lund; August 2005), the University of Michigan (February 2006), Cornell University (May 2006), and the Oslo Dynamic Semantics Workshop (October 2006). This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS-0547814.",

year = "2007",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1007/s10988-007-9018-6",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "30",

pages = "329--360",

journal = "Linguistics and Philosophy",

issn = "0165-0157",

publisher = "Springer Science and Business Media B.V.",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Counterfactual scorekeeping

AU - Gillies, Anthony S.

N1 - Funding Information: Thanks are due to Kai von Fintel, Nicholas Asher, Andy Egan, Josh Dever, Rich Thomason, Brian Weatherson, and two anonymous L&P referees. Early (in some cases very early) versions of some of the story here were presented at, and benefited from discussion with audiences at, the 14th Amsterdam Colloquium (December 2003), the Society for Exact Philosophy (Maryland; May 2004), the European Society for Philosophy and Psychology (Lund; August 2005), the University of Michigan (February 2006), Cornell University (May 2006), and the Oslo Dynamic Semantics Workshop (October 2006). This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS-0547814.

PY - 2007/6

Y1 - 2007/6

N2 - Orthodoxy has it that counterfactuals cannot be treated as strict conditionals. But there is a loophole: if the strictness is a function of context then maybe they can be so treated. I argue for a loophole analysis that treats 'would'-counterfactuals as strict conditionals that are duals to 'might'- counterfactuals. Most of the work lies in getting straight about the interaction between context and semantic value. I treat it as a general feature of the dynamics of conversational score.

AB - Orthodoxy has it that counterfactuals cannot be treated as strict conditionals. But there is a loophole: if the strictness is a function of context then maybe they can be so treated. I argue for a loophole analysis that treats 'would'-counterfactuals as strict conditionals that are duals to 'might'- counterfactuals. Most of the work lies in getting straight about the interaction between context and semantic value. I treat it as a general feature of the dynamics of conversational score.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/36849024485

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/36849024485#tab=citedBy

U2 - 10.1007/s10988-007-9018-6

DO - 10.1007/s10988-007-9018-6

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:36849024485

SN - 0165-0157

VL - 30

SP - 329

EP - 360

JO - Linguistics and Philosophy

JF - Linguistics and Philosophy

IS - 3

ER -

Counterfactual scorekeeping

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this