Alternatives in Counterfactuals: What Is Right and What Is Not

IF 2 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Journal of Semantics Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1093/jos/ffab023
Jacopo Romoli, P. Santorio, E. Wittenberg
{"title":"Alternatives in Counterfactuals: What Is Right and What Is Not","authors":"Jacopo Romoli, P. Santorio, E. Wittenberg","doi":"10.1093/jos/ffab023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Classical semantics for counterfactuals is based on a notion of minimal change: If A, would C says that the worlds that make A true and that are otherwise minimally di erent from the actual world are C-worlds. This semantics su ers from a well-known di culty with disjunctive antecedents (see e.g. Alonso-Ovalle 2009, Willer 2018, Santorio 2018, a.o.). In a recent study, Ciardelli, Zhang, and Champollion (2018b; henceforth, CZC) present new, related di culties for the classical approach having to do with unpredicted di erences between counterfactuals with De Morgan-equivalent antecedents, and related pattern of inferences. They propose a new semantics for counterfactuals, which builds on inquisitive semantics (see Ciardelli et al. 2018a) and gives up on minimal change. Building on this debate, we report on a series of experiments that investigate the role of overt negation in this data. Our results replicate CZC’s main e ects, but they also indicate that those e ects are linked to the presence of overt negation. We propose a novel account, based on three key assumptions: (i) the semantics for counterfactuals does involve a notion of minimal change, after all; (ii) the meanings of disjunction and negation are associated with alternatives, which interact with the meaning of counterfactuals; (iii) the alternatives generated by negation are partially determined by the question under discussion (QUD). We compare our account with other existing accounts, including CZC’s own proposal, as well as Schulz’s (2019) and Bar-Lev & Fox’s (2020) ones. ∗ We would like to thank Maria Aloni, Moysh Bar-Lev, Fabrizio Cariani, Ivano Ciardelli, Lucas Champollion, Julie Gerard, Matthew Mandelkern, Paul Marty, and Yasu Sudo for very helpful discussion, and audiences at NELS 50 at MIT, the Amsterdam Colloquium 2019, Ulster University, University of Maryland, University of California San Diego, University of Chicago, and UCL. Work on this project was partially supported by the Leverhulme trust grant RPG-2018-425 to Jacopo Romoli. The authors equally contributed to the project and are listed in alphabetical order.","PeriodicalId":46947,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Semantics","volume":"39 1","pages":"213-260"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Semantics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffab023","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Classical semantics for counterfactuals is based on a notion of minimal change: If A, would C says that the worlds that make A true and that are otherwise minimally di erent from the actual world are C-worlds. This semantics su ers from a well-known di culty with disjunctive antecedents (see e.g. Alonso-Ovalle 2009, Willer 2018, Santorio 2018, a.o.). In a recent study, Ciardelli, Zhang, and Champollion (2018b; henceforth, CZC) present new, related di culties for the classical approach having to do with unpredicted di erences between counterfactuals with De Morgan-equivalent antecedents, and related pattern of inferences. They propose a new semantics for counterfactuals, which builds on inquisitive semantics (see Ciardelli et al. 2018a) and gives up on minimal change. Building on this debate, we report on a series of experiments that investigate the role of overt negation in this data. Our results replicate CZC’s main e ects, but they also indicate that those e ects are linked to the presence of overt negation. We propose a novel account, based on three key assumptions: (i) the semantics for counterfactuals does involve a notion of minimal change, after all; (ii) the meanings of disjunction and negation are associated with alternatives, which interact with the meaning of counterfactuals; (iii) the alternatives generated by negation are partially determined by the question under discussion (QUD). We compare our account with other existing accounts, including CZC’s own proposal, as well as Schulz’s (2019) and Bar-Lev & Fox’s (2020) ones. ∗ We would like to thank Maria Aloni, Moysh Bar-Lev, Fabrizio Cariani, Ivano Ciardelli, Lucas Champollion, Julie Gerard, Matthew Mandelkern, Paul Marty, and Yasu Sudo for very helpful discussion, and audiences at NELS 50 at MIT, the Amsterdam Colloquium 2019, Ulster University, University of Maryland, University of California San Diego, University of Chicago, and UCL. Work on this project was partially supported by the Leverhulme trust grant RPG-2018-425 to Jacopo Romoli. The authors equally contributed to the project and are listed in alphabetical order.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
反事实的选择:什么是对的,什么是错的
反事实的经典语义是基于最小变化的概念:如果a,会C说使a为真并且与实际世界差别最小的世界是C世界。这种语义来源于一个著名的析取先行词(参见Alonso-Ovalle 2009, Willer 2018, Santorio 2018, a.o.)。在最近的一项研究中,Ciardelli, Zhang和Champollion (2018b;因此,CZC)为经典方法提出了新的、相关的难题,这些难题与具有De morgan等效前提的反事实之间的不可预测的差异以及相关的推理模式有关。他们提出了一种新的反事实语义,该语义建立在好奇语义的基础上(见Ciardelli et al. 2018a),并放弃了最小变化。在这场争论的基础上,我们报告了一系列调查公开否定在这些数据中的作用的实验。我们的结果重复了CZC的主要影响,但它们也表明这些影响与公开否定的存在有关。基于三个关键假设,我们提出了一个新的解释:(i)毕竟,反事实的语义确实涉及最小变化的概念;(ii)分离和否定的意义与替代相关联,后者与反事实的意义相互作用;(iii)否定所产生的替代方案部分取决于所讨论的问题(QUD)。我们将我们的方案与其他现有方案进行了比较,包括CZC自己的方案,以及舒尔茨(2019年)和Bar-Lev & Fox(2020年)的方案。*我们要感谢Maria Aloni, Moysh Bar-Lev, Fabrizio Cariani, Ivano Ciardelli, Lucas Champollion, Julie Gerard, Matthew Mandelkern, Paul Marty和Yasu Sudo在麻省理工学院的nel 50,阿姆斯特丹学术研讨会2019,阿尔斯特大学,马里兰大学,加州大学圣地亚哥分校,芝加哥大学和伦敦大学学院的非常有帮助的讨论。该项目的工作部分由Leverhulme信托基金向Jacopo Romoli授予RPG-2018-425。作者对该项目的贡献相同,并按字母顺序列出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
11.10%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: Journal of Semantics aims to be the premier journal in semantics. It covers all areas in the study of meaning, with a focus on formal and experimental methods. The Journal welcomes submissions on semantics, pragmatics, the syntax/semantics interface, cross-linguistic semantics, experimental studies of meaning (processing, acquisition, neurolinguistics), and semantically informed philosophy of language.
期刊最新文献
Russian Disjunction To li To li and Obligatory Ignorance The Interpretation of Relative and Absolute Adjectives Under Negation X- vs. O-marked want Negative strengthening: The interplay of evaluative polarity and scale structure The Domains of Monotonicity Processing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1