Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T00:01:15.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Modals and Conditionals

from Part VIII - Implying and (Pre)supposing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2022

By
Matthew Mandelkern
Edited by
Daniel Altshuler
Daniel Altshuler
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Modals and conditionals play a starring role in philosophical and linguistic research. The ability to think modally distal thoughts is central to the human capacity to plan and choose; and the ability to express such thoughts is central to the human capacity for collective action. Modals and conditionals have yielded a rich bounty of puzzles about logic, semantics, and pragmatics. I organize this chapter around three topics: the interpretation of epistemic modals, particularly how they interact with their local information; the interpretation of conditionals, with a focus on logical questions; and, finally, practical modality, with discussion of a potentially unified perspective on practical modality as essentially involving reference to actions.

Keywords

modalsconditionalsepistemic modalslogic of conditionalsrestrictor analysispractical modalsability
Type
Chapter
Information
Linguistics Meets Philosophy , pp. 502 - 533
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., & Schofield, M. (Eds). (1999). The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aloni, M. (2001). Quantification under Conceptual Covers. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Aloni, M. (2016). FC Disjunction in State-Based Semantics. Slides for Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL), Nancy, France.Google Scholar
Aloni, M. (2000). Conceptual covers in dynamic semantics. In Cavedon, L., Blackburn, P., Braisby, N., & Shimojima, A. (Eds.), Logic, Language and Computation, Vol. III.Google Scholar
Arló-Costa, H., & Egré, P. 2016. The logic of conditionals. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2016 edition.Google Scholar
Bacon, A. 2015. Stalnaker’s thesis in context. Review of Symbolic Logic, 8(1), 131–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacon, A. (2020). Counterfactuals, infinity and paradox. In Faroldi, F. & van de Putte, F. (Eds.), Outstanding Contributions to Logic: Kit Fine. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Beddor, B., & Egan, A. (2018). Might do better: Flexible relativism and the QUD. Semantics and Pragmatics, 11, 7.Google Scholar
Beddor, B., & Goldstein, S. (2018). Believing epistemic contradictions. Review of Symbolic Logic, 11(1), 87–114.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. (2003). A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Benthem, J. (1996). Exploring Logical Dynamics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. (1998). Obligation and possession. In Harley, H. (Ed.), The Proceedings of the UPenn/MIT Workshop on Argument Structure and Aspect, Vol. 32 (pp. 21–40). MITWPL.Google Scholar
Biezma, M., Carnie, A., & Siddiqi, D. (2013). Counterfactuality in non-standard subjunctive conditionals. In Huang, H.-L., Poole, E., & Rysling, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 43, Vol. 1 (pp. 25–36).Google Scholar
Bledin, J. (2015). Modus ponens defended. Journal of Philosophy, 112(2), 57–83.Google Scholar
Bledin, J. (2020). Fatalism and the logic of unconditionals. Noûs, 54(1), 126–161.Google Scholar
Bledin, J., & Lando, T. (2018). Closure and epistemic modals. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 97(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
Blumberg, K., & Holguín, B. (2019). Embedded attitudes. Journal of Semantics, 36(3), 377–406.Google Scholar
Boylan, D. (2020). What the future ‘might’ brings. Mind, 129(515), 809–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boylan, D. (2021). Does success entail ability? Noûs. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12370Google Scholar
Boylan, D., & Schultheis, G. (2019). How Strong Is a Counterfactual? Ms., NYU and Rutgers.Google Scholar
Boylan, D., & Schultheis, G. (forthoming). Attitudes, conditionals, and the qualitative thesis. The Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. (2012). Multidimensional possible-world semantics for conditionals. The Philosophical Review, 121(4), 539–571.Google Scholar
Bradley, R., & Stefánsson, H. O. (2017). Counterfactual desirability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 68, 485–533.Google Scholar
Cantwell, J. (2008). The logic of conditional negation. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 49, 245–260.Google Scholar
Cariani, F. (2013). ‘Ought’ and resolution semantics. Noûs, 47(3), 534–558.Google Scholar
Cariani, F. (2019). Conditionals in selection semantics. In Schlöder, J. J., McHugh, D., & Roelofsen, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 1–11).Google Scholar
Cariani, F., & Goldstein, S. (2020). Conditional heresies. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 101(2), 251–282.Google Scholar
Cariani, F., & Santorio, P. (2018). Will done better: Selection semantics, future credence, and indeterminacy. Mind, 127(505), 129–165.Google Scholar
Cariani, F., Kaufmann, M., & Kaufmann, S. (2013). Deliberative modality under epistemic uncertainty. Linguistics and Philosophy, 36, 225–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlow, N. (2015). Triviality For restrictor conditionals. Noûs, 50(3), 533–564.Google Scholar
Charlow, N. (2019). Grading modal judgement. Mind, 129(515), 769–807.Google Scholar
Chemla, E., & Schlenker, P. (2012). Incremental vs. symmetric accounts of presupposition projection: An experimental approach. Natural Language Semantics, 20(2), 177–226.Google Scholar
Chemla, E., Egré, P., & Spector, B. (2017). Characterizing logical consequence in many-valued logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 27(7), 2193–2226.Google Scholar
Ciardelli, I., Zhang, L., & Champollion, L. (2018). Two switches in the theory of counterfactuals: A study of truth conditionality and minimal change. Linguistics and Philosophy, 41(6), 577–621.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. S. (1968). The propositional logic of ordinary discourse. Inquiry, 11, 295–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, E. (2018). Outlook-based semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 41, 125–164.Google Scholar
Dale, A. J. (1974). A defence of material implication. Analysis, 34(3), 91–95.Google Scholar
Dale, T. (1979). A natural deduction system for ‘If Then’. Logique & Analyse, 22(87), 339–345.Google Scholar
de Finetti, B. (1936). La logique de la probabilité. In Actes du congrès international de philosophie scientifique, Vol. 4 (pp. 1–9). Hermann Editeurs Paris.Google Scholar
Dorr, C., & Hawthorne, J. (2013). Embedding epistemic modals. Mind, 122(488), 867–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorr, C., & Hawthorne, J. (2018). If …: A Theory of Conditionals. Ms., NYU and USC.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2020). Abominable KK failures. Mind, 128(512), 1227–1259.Google Scholar
Dowell, J. (2011). A flexibly contextualist account of epistemic modals. Philosophers’ Imprint, 11(14), 1–25.Google Scholar
Dowell, J. (2017). Contextualism about epistemic modals. In Ichikawa, J. J. (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Contextualism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Drucker, D. (2017). Policy externalism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 98(2), 261–285.Google Scholar
Edgington, D. (1995). On conditionals. Mind, 104(414), 235–329.Google Scholar
Egan, A. (2007). Epistemic modals, relativism, and assertion. Philosophical Studies, 113(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Egan, A., Hawthorne, J., & Weatherson, B. (2005). Epistemic modals in context. In Preyer, G., & Peter, G. (Eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning and Truth (pp. 131–169). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Egré, P., Rossi, L., & Sprenger, J. (2020a). De Finettian logics of indicative conditionals, part I: Trivalent semantics and validity. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 50(2), 187–213.Google Scholar
Egré, P., Rossi, L., & Sprenger, J. (2020b). De Finettian logics of indicative conditionals, part II: Proof theory and algebraic semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 50(2), 215–247.Google Scholar
Egré, P., Rossi, L., & Sprenger, J. (2020c). Gibbardian collapse and trivalent conditionals. In Kaufmann, S., Over, D., & Sharma, G. (Eds.), Conditionals: Logic, Linguistics, and Psychology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Field, H. (2014). Naive truth and restricted quantification: Saving truth a whole lot better. Review of Symbolic Logic, 7, 147–191.Google Scholar
Field, H. (2016). Indicative conditionals, restricted quantification, and naive truth. Review of Symbolic Logic, 9(1), 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. (2012a). Counterfactuals without possible worlds. The Journal of Philosophy, 109, 221–246.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2012b). A difficulty for the possible worlds analysis of counterfactuals. Synthese, 189(1), 29–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K. (2001). Counterfactuals in a dynamic context. In Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 123–152). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, K. (2011). Conditionals. In von Heusinger, K., Maienborn, C., and Portner, P. (Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Meaning. Handbücher zur Sparch- und Kommunikationswisschenschaft 33.2 (pp. 1515–1538). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. (2008). CIA leaks. Philosophical Review, 117(1), 77–98.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. (2010). Must… stay… strong! Natural Language Semantics, 18(4), 351–383.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K., & Iatridou, S. (2020) Prolegomena to a Theory of X-Marking. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Flocke, V. (2020). Nested epistemic modals. Ms., Indiana University.Google Scholar
Fusco, M. (2017). An inconvenient proof: The Gibbard–Harper collapse lemma for causal decision theory. In Cremers, A., van Gessel, T., & Roelofsen, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 265–274).Google Scholar
Gibbard, A. (1981). Two recent theories of conditionals. In Harper, W. L., Stalnaker, R., & Pearce, G. (Eds.), Ifs: Conditionals, Belief, Decision, Chance, and Time (pp. 211–247). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A., & Harper, W. L. (1981). Counterfactuals and two kinds of expected utility. In Harper, W. L., Stalnaker, R., & Pearce, G. (Eds.), Ifs: Conditionals, Beliefs, Decision, Chance, and Time (pp. 153–192). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Gillies, A. (2004). Epistemic conditionals and conditional epistemics. Noûs, 38(4), 585–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillies, A. (2007). Counterfactual scorekeeping. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(3), 329–360.Google Scholar
Gillies, A. (2017). Conditionals. In Hale, B., Miller, A., & Wright, C. (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to the Philosophy of Language (pp. 401–436). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gillies, A. (2018). Updating data semantics. Mind, 129(513), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, S. (2019). Generalized update semantics. Mind, 128(511), 795–835.Google Scholar
Goldstein, S., & Santorio, P. (2021). Probability for epistemic modalities. Philosophers’ Imprint, 21(33).Google Scholar
Goodhue, D. (2017). Must φ is felicitous only if φ is not known. Semantics and Pragmatics, 10, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M., & Veltman, F. (1996). Coreference and Modality. In Lappin, S. (Ed.), Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (pp. 179–216). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hacquard, V. (2006). Aspects of Modality. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Hawke, P., & Steinert-Threlkeld, S. (2018). Informational dynamics of epistemic possibility modals. Synthese, 195(10), 4309–4342.Google Scholar
Hawke, P., & Steinert-Threlkeld, S. (2020). Semantic expressivism for epistemic modals. Linguistics and Philosophy, 44(2), 475–511.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J., Rothschild, D., & Spectre, L. (2016). Belief is weak. Philosophical Studies, 173, 1393–1404.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Barlow, M., Flickinger, D. P., & Wescoat, M. (Eds.), The West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), Vol. 2 (pp. 114–125). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (2003). Conditionals and compositionality. In Hawthorne, J. & Zimmerman, D. (Eds.), Language and Philosophical Linguistics, Vol. 17 (pp. 181–194). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Holguín, B. (2020a). Indicative conditionals without iterative epistemology. Noûs, 55(3), 560–580.Google Scholar
Holguín, B. (2020b). Knowledge in the face of conspiracy conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy, 44(3), 737–771.Google Scholar
Iatridou, S. (2000). The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(2), 231–270.Google Scholar
Incurvati, L., & Schlöder, J. J. (2020). Epistemic multilateral logic. Review of Symbolic Logic, 2020, 1–44.Google Scholar
Ippolito, M. (2003). Presuppositions and implicatures in counterfactuals. Natural Language Semantics, 11, 145–186.Google Scholar
Ippolito, M. (2018). Constraints on the embeddability of epistemic modals. Sinn und Bedeutung, 21, 605–622.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. (1987). Conditionals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, J. (Ed.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
Karawani, H. (2014). The Real, the Fake, and the Fake Fake in Counterfactual Conditionals, Crosslinguistically. PhD thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1972). Possible and must. In Kimball, J., J. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 1 (pp. 1–20). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(2), 167–193.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1974). Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics, 1(1–3), 181–194.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1976). Discourse referents. In Syntax and Semantics: Notes from the Linguistic Underground, Vol. 7. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, M., & Kaufmann, S. (2015). Conditionals and modality. In Lappin, S. & C. Fox, (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (pp. 274–312). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, S. (2004). Conditioning against the grain. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 33, 583–606.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, S. (2009). Conditionals right and left: Probabilities for the whole family. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38, 1–53.Google Scholar
Khoo, J. (2013). A note on Gibbard’s proof. Philosophical Studies, 166(1), 153–164.Google Scholar
Khoo, J. (2015a). Modal disagreements. Inquiry, 58(5), 511–534.Google Scholar
Khoo, J. (2015b). On indicative and subjunctive conditionals. Philosophers’ Imprint, 15, 1–40.Google Scholar
Khoo, J. (2016). Probability of conditionals in context. Linguistics and Philosophy, 39(1), 1–43.Google Scholar
Khoo, J. (2019). The Meaning of If. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Khoo, J., & Mandelkern, M. (2019). Triviality results and the relationship between logical and natural languages. Mind, 128(510), 485–526.Google Scholar
Khoo, J., & Phillips, J. (2019). New horizons for a theory of epistemic modals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 97(2), 309–324.Google Scholar
Klinedinst, N. (2011). Quantified conditionals and conditional excluded middle. Journal of Semantics, 28, 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klinedinst, N., & Rothschild, D. (2014). Epistemic Contradictions: Why Idempotence is Hygienic. Handout.Google Scholar
Knobe, J., & Yalcin, S. (2014). Epistemic modals and context: Experimental data. Semantics and Pragmatics, 7(10), 1–21.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(3), 337–355.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In Eikmeyer, H., & Rieser, H. (Eds.), Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics (pp. 38–74). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1986). Conditionals. Chicago Linguistics Society, 22(2), 1–15.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In von Stechow, A. & Wunderlich, D.(Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 639-650). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2012). Modals and Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2020a). Chasing Hook. In Hawthorne, J. & Walters, L. (Eds.), Conditionals, Probability, and Paradox: Themes from the Philosophy of Dorothy Edgington. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2020b). What’s an Epistemic Modal Anyway? Ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1963). Semantical considerations on modal logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 16, 83–94.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, P. (2009). Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments. Synthese, 166(2), 359–374.Google Scholar
Lassiter, D. (2011). Measurement and Modality: The Scalar Basis of Modal Semantics. PhD thesis, New York University.Google Scholar
Lassiter, D. (2016). Must, knowledge, and (in)directness. Natural Language Semantics, 24(2), 117–163.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1973a). Causation. The Journal of Philosophy, 70(17), 556–567.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1973b). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1975). Adverbs of quantification. In Keenan, E. (Ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(1), 339–359.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1981). Ordering semantics and premise semantics for counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 10, 217–234.Google Scholar
Lewis, K. (2018). Counterfactual discourse in context. Noûs, 52(3), 481–507.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J. (2011). Epistemic modals are assessment sensitive. In Egan, A., and Weatherson, B. (Eds.), Epistemic Modality (pp. 144–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2018). Talking about worlds. Philosophical Perspectives, 32(1), 298–325.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2019a). Bounded modality. The Philosophical Review, 128(1), 1–61.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2019b). Modality and expressibility. Review of Symbolic Logic, 12(4), 768–805.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2019c). What ‘must’ adds. Linguistics and Philosophy, 42(3), 225–266.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2020a). A counterexample to modus ponenses. The Journal of Philosophy, 117(6), 315–331.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2020b). Dynamic non-classicality. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 98(2), 382–392.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2020c). Import-Export and ‘and’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 100(1), 118–135.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2021a). If p, then p! The Journal of Philosophy, 118(12), 645–679.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2021b). Practical Moore sentences. Noûs, 55(1), 39–61.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M., & Phillips, J. 2018. Sticky situations: Force and quantifier domains. In Maspong, S., Stefánsdóttir, B., Blake, K., and Davis, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 28 (pp. 474–492).Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M., Schultheis, G., & Boylan, D. (2017). Agentive modals. The Philosophical Review, 126(3), 301–343.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M., Zehr, J., Romoli, J., & Schwarz, F. (2020). We’ve discovered that projection is asymmetric (and it is!). Linguistics and Philosophy, 43, 473–514.Google Scholar
Martin, F. (2015). The imperfective in subjunctive conditionals: Fake or real aspect? In Brochhagen, T., Roelofsen, F., & Theiler, N. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium. (pp. 266–275). University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Mates, B. (1953). Stoic Logic. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McGee, V. (1985). A counterexample to modus ponens. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(9), 462–471.Google Scholar
McGee, V. (2000). To tell the truth about conditionals. Analysis, 60(1), 107–111.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1942). A reply to my critics. In Schilpp, P. A. (Ed.), The Philosophy of G. E. Moore. Evanston: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Moss, S. (2012). On the pragmatics of counterfactuals. Noûs, 46(3), 561–586.Google Scholar
Moss, S. (2013a). Epistemology formalized. Philosophical Review, 122(1), 1–43.Google Scholar
Moss, S. (2013b). Subjunctive credences and semantic humility. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 87(2), 251–278.Google Scholar
Moss, S. (2015). On the semantics and pragmatics of epistemic vocabulary. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8(5), 1–81.Google Scholar
Moss, S. (2018). Probabilistic Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Močnik, M. (2019a). Embedded epistemic modals pragmatically. Sinn und Bedeutung, 23, 197–206.Google Scholar
Močnik, M. (2019b). Slovenian ‘dopuščati’ and the semantics of epistemic modals. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL) 27. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Ninan, D. (2005). Two puzzles about deontic necessity. In Gajewski, J., Hacquard, V., Nickel, B., & Yalcin, S. (Eds.), New Work on Modality, Vol. 51 (pp. 149–178). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ninan, D. (2014). Taste predicates and the acquaintance inference. In Snider, T., D’Antonio, S., & Weigand, M. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 24 (pp. 290–309).Google Scholar
Ninan, D. (2016). Relational semantics and domain semantics for epistemic modals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 47(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Ninan, D. (2018). Quantification and epistemic modality. The Philosophical Review, 127(2), 433–485.Google Scholar
Ninan, D. (2019). Naming and epistemic necessity. Noûs, 55(2), 334–362.Google Scholar
Pasternak, R. (2018). The Mereology of Attitudes. PhD thesis, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Phillips, J., & Cushman, F. (2017). Morality constrains the default representation of what is possible. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(18), 4649–4654.Google Scholar
Phillips, J., & Knobe, J. (2018). The psychological representation of modality. Mind & Language, 33(1), 65–94.Google Scholar
Phillips, J., & Mandelkern, M. (2019). Eavesdropping: What Is It Good For? Semantics and Pragmatics, March. Ms., Harvard and All Souls College.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1944). Philosophic Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (1989). Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 683–721.Google Scholar
Romero, M. (2014). Fake tense in counterfactuals: A temporal remoteness approach. In Crnič, L. & Sauerland, U. (Eds.), The Art and Craft of Semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim, Vol. 2 (pp. 47–63). MITWPL 71.Google Scholar
Rothschild, D. (2011). Expressing credences. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 112(1), 99–114.Google Scholar
Rothschild, D. (2013). Do indicative conditionals express propositions? Noûs, 47(1), 49–68.Google Scholar
Rothschild, D. (2020). A note on conditionals and restrictors. In J. Hawthorne, & Walters, L. (Eds.), Conditionals, Probability, and Paradox: Themes from the Philosophy of Dorothy Edgington (pp. 19–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rothschild, D., & Klinedinst, N. (2015). Quantified Epistemic Modality. Handout for talk at Birmingham.Google Scholar
Santorio, P. (2017). Conditional excluded middle in informational semantics. In Cremers, A., van Gessel, T., & Roelofsen, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 385–394).Google Scholar
Santorio, P. (2018). Alternatives and truthmakers in conditional semantics. The Journal of Philosophy, 115(10), 513–549.Google Scholar
Santorio, P. (2021). Trivializing informational consequence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12745Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2008). Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics, 34(3), 157–212.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2009). Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics, 2(3), 1–78.Google Scholar
Schultheis, G. (2020). Counterfactual Probability. Ms., University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Schultz, M. (2017). Counterfactuals and Probability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schulz, K. (2009). Troubles at the semantics/syntax inferface: Some thoughts about the modal approach to conditionals. Sinn und Bedeutung, 14, 388–404.Google Scholar
Schulz, K. (2014). Fake tense in conditional sentences: A modal approach. Natural Language Semantics, 22(2), 117–144.Google Scholar
Schwarz, F. (2015). Symmetry and incrementality in conditionals. In Schwarz, F. (Ed.), Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, Vol. 45 (pp. 195–213). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Schwarz, W. (2018). Subjunctive conditional probability. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 47(1), 47–66.Google Scholar
Sextus Empiricus, . (2005). Against the Logicians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sharvit, Y. (2017). A note on (Strawson) entailment. Semantics and Pragmatics, 10(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
Silk, A. (2015). What normative terms mean and why it matters for ethical theory. In Timmons, M. (Ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Vol. 5 (pp. 296–325). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silk, A. (2017). How to embed an epistemic modal: Attitude problems and other defects of character. Philosophical Studies, 174, 1773–1799.Google Scholar
Silk, A. (forthcoming). Weak and strong necessity modals. In Dunaway, B. & Plunkett, D. (Eds.), Meaning, Decision, and Norms: Themes from the Work of Allan Gibbard.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In Rescher, N. (Ed.), Studies in Logical Theory (pp. 98–112). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Munitz, M. K. & Unger, P. (Eds.), Semantics and Philosophy (pp. 197–213). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1975). Indicative conditionals. Philosophia, 5(3), 269–86.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1980a). A defense of conditional excluded middle. In Harper, W. L., Stalnaker, R., & Pearce, G. (Eds.), Ifs: Conditionals, Beliefs, Decision, Chance, and Time (pp. 87–105). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2014). Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1980b). Letter to David Lewis, May 21, 1971. In Harper, W. L., Stalnaker, R., & Pearce, G. (Eds.), Ifs: Conditionals, Beliefs, Decision, Chance, and Time (pp. 151–152). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R., & Thomason, Richmond H. (1970). A semantic analysis of conditional logic. Theoria, 36(1), 23–42.Google Scholar
Stefánsson, O. (2015). Fair chance and modal consequentialism. Economics and Philosophy, 31(3), 371–395.Google Scholar
Stephenson, T. (2007a). Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(4), 487–525.Google Scholar
Stephenson, T. (2007b). A parallel account of epistemic modals and predicates of personal taste. Sinn und Bedeutung, 11, 583–597.Google Scholar
Stojnić, U. (2017). Content in a dynamic context. Noûs, 53(2), 394–432.Google Scholar
Swanson, E. (2015). The application of constraint semantics to the language of subjective uncertainty. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 45(121), 121–146.Google Scholar
Thomason, R. H. 2005. Ability, Action, and Context. Ms.Google Scholar
Veltman, F. 1996. Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25(3), 221–261.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K., & Pasternak, R. (2020). Attitudes, Aboutness, and Fake Restricted Readings. MS., MIT and ZAS.Google Scholar
Weiss, Y. (2019). Sextus Empiricus’ fourth conditional and containment logic. History and Philosophy of Logic, 40(4), 307–322.Google Scholar
Williams, J. R. G. (2008). Conversation and conditionals. Philosophical Studies, 138(2), 211–223.Google Scholar
Williams, J. R. G. (2010). Defending conditional excluded middle. Noûs, 44(4), 650–668.Google Scholar
Williams, J. R. G. (2012). Counterfactual triviality: A Lewis-impossibility argument for counterfactuals. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85, 648–670.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2020). Suppose and Tell: The Semantics and Heuristics of Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations, 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Yalcin, S. (2007). Epistemic modals. Mind, 116(464), 983–1026.Google Scholar
Yalcin, S. (2012). Context probabilism. In Aloni, M., Kimmelman, V., Roelofsen, F., Sassoon, G. W., Schulz, K., & Westera, M. (Eds), The 18th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 12–21).Google Scholar
Yalcin, S. (2015). Epistemic modality de re. Ergo, 2(19), 475–527.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×