Operators or restrictors? A reply to Gillies
Semantics and Pragmatics 4:1-25 (2011)
| Abstract | According to operator theories, "if" denotes a two-place operator. According to restrictor theories, "if" doesn't contribute an operator of its own but instead merely restricts the domain of some co-occurring quantifier. The standard arguments (Lewis 1975, Kratzer 1986) for restrictor theories have it that operator theories (but not restrictor theories) struggle to predict the truth conditions of quantified conditionals like (1) a. If John didn't work at home, he usually worked in his office. b. If John didn't work at home, he must have worked in his office. Gillies (2010) offers a context-shifty conditional operator theory that predicts the right truth conditions for epistemically modalized conditionals like (1b), thus undercutting one standard argument for restrictor theories. I explore how we might generalize Gillies' theory to adverbially quantified conditionals like (1a) and deontic conditionals, and argue that a natural generalization of Gillies' theory -- following his strategy for handling epistemically modalized conditionals -- won't work for these other conditionals because a crucial assumption that epistemic modal bases are closed (used to neutralize the epistemic quantification contributed by "if") doesn't have plausible analogs in these other domains. | |||||||||
| Keywords | philosophy of language conditionals modals semantics adverbs of quantification | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesSeth Yalcin (2010). Probability Operators. Philosophy Compass 5 (11):916-37.
Frank Jackson (ed.) (1991). Conditionals. Oxford University Press.
Seth Yalcin (2012). A Counterexample to Modus Tollens. Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (6):1001-1024.
Anthony S. Gillies (2009). On Truth-Conditions for If (but Not Quite Only If ). Philosophical Review 118 (3):325-349.
Mark Schroeder (forthcoming). Hard Cases for Combining Expressivism and Deflationist Truth: Conditionals and Epistemic Modals. In Steven Gross & Michael Williams (eds.), (unknown). Oxford.
Edwin D. Mares (1994). Why We Need a Relevant Theory of Conditionals. Topoi 13 (1):31-36.
Sarah Moss (forthcoming). Subjunctive Credences and Semantic Humility1. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.
Dorothy Edgington (2003). What If ? Questions About Conditionals. Mind and Language 18 (4):380–401.
Michela Ippolito (2006). Semantic Composition and Presupposition Projection in Subjunctive Conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy 29 (6):631 - 672.
Moritz Schulz (2010). Wondering What Might Be. Philosophical Studies 149 (3).
Moritz Schulz (2013). Modalised Conditionals: A Response to Willer. Philosophical Studies 163 (3):673-682.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-07-29Total downloads4 ( #178,748 of 549,122 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,122 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
