|Abstract||Why are some conditionals subjunctive? It is often assumed that at least one crucial difference is that subjunctive conditionals presuppose that their antecedent is false, that they are counterfactual (Lakoff 1970). The traditional theory has apparently been refuted. Perhaps the clearest counter-example is one given by Alan Anderson (1951: 37): If Jones had taken arsenic, he would have shown just exactly those symptoms which he does in fact show. A typical place to use such a subjunctive conditional would be in the course of an argument that tries to bolster the hypothesis that Jones did in fact take arsenic. But then it would of course be self-defeating to presuppose that the hypothesis is false. Thus, something else must be going on.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Diane Barense (1988). On the Tense Structure of Conditionals. Philosophy Research Archives 14:539-566.
Ana Cristina Quelhas & Ruth Byrne (2003). Reasoning with Deontic and Counterfactual Conditionals. Thinking and Reasoning 9 (1):43 – 65.
Brian Weatherson (2001). Indicative and Subjunctive Conditionals. Philosophical Quarterly 51 (203):200-216.
Alexander R. Pruss (2007). Conjunctions, Disjunctions and Lewisian Semantics for Counterfactuals. Synthese 156 (1):33 - 52.
Brian Skyrms (1998). Subjunctive Conditionals and Revealed Preference. Philosophy of Science 65 (4):545-574.
R. A. Fumerton (1976). Subjunctive Conditionals. Philosophy of Science 43 (4):523-538.
Eric Swanson (2013). Subjunctive Biscuit and Stand-Off Conditionals. Philosophical Studies 163 (3):637-648.
Michela Ippolito (2006). Semantic Composition and Presupposition Projection in Subjunctive Conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy 29 (6):631 - 672.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads49 ( #21,706 of 548,999 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,729 of 548,999 )
How can I increase my downloads?