" " Dispositions"and"modals" ALEX"ANTHONY" " 1. Dispositions"and"philosophers:"A"short"history" " " The" philosophical" literature" on" dispositions" begins" with" the" work" of" Rudolf" Carnap," and" specifically"his"1937"paper" 'Testability"and"Meaning.'" "Carnap's" immediate"goal" in" the"paper" is" to" defend" an" empiricist" criterion"of"meaning" that" trades" in" absolute"verification" for"confirmation, to, some, degree" (which" Carnap" went" on" in" later" work" to" explicate" in" great" detail" via" probabilistic" confirmation"functions)." "The"basic"story" is" that"the"confirmable"and"thus"meaningul"sentences"of" our"language"will"be"either"observation,sentences"or"reducible"to"observation"sentences.""" " The"phenomenon"of"'disposition"concepts'"–"that"is," " ...[P]redicates,which,enunciate,the,disposition,of,,a,point,or,body,for, reacting, in, such, and, such, a,way, , to, , such, and, such, conditions,, e.g., 'visible',, , 'smellable',, , 'fragile',, 'tearable',, , 'soluble',, , 'indissoluble',, etc.1,,,, " presents" a" compelling" problem" for" the" reduction" of" all" meaningful" language" to" observation" statements:"though"dispositions"appear"meaningful,"play"substantial"roles"in"scientific"theories,"and" present" straightforward" examples" of" empirical" confirmation" (the" solubility" of" the" sugar" is" wellR" confirmed"by"its"dissolving"upon"being"placed"in"water)","dispositions"are"not"observable"according" to"Carnap.""When"we"hit"a"fragile"vase"with"a"hammer,"we"do"not"observe"that"it"is"fragile"–"only"that" is"broken.""" " In" order" to" save" the" meaningfulness" of" disposition" concepts" from" their" unobservability," Carnap"tries"to"come"up"with"reduction"sentences"connecting"disposition"ascriptions"to"observation" statements." " For"Carnap"and"virtually" everyone"writing"on"dispositions" since,"dispositional" terms" like"'fragile'"and"'soluble'"are"taken"to"be"associated"with"a"test,condition,and"a"response,condition" or"manifestation,condition:"e.g." 'fragile'"has"something"like"being,stressed"as"its"test"condition"and" breaking,as"its"response"condition.""Carnap's"first"try"analysis"take"the"form"of"an"explicit"definition," for"object"x,"disposition"D,"associated"test"condition"T,"and"associated"response"condition"R:" " (T&M1)" D(x)"↔"(T(x)"→"R(x))" " where"'→'"and"'↔'"are"the"material"conditional"and"biconditional.""" " Carnap"observes" the"obvious" inadequacy:"¬T(x)"entails"D(x)." "Because" it"hasn't"ever"been" placed" in" a" solvent" [¬T(x)]" the" computer" I" am" typing" this"paper"on" is" soluble" [D(x)]." " That's"not" right.""" " Carnap"is"forced"to"settle"for"an"implicit,definition""" " (T&M2)" T(x)"→"(D(x)"→"R(x))" "" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 1"Carnap"1937,"p."440." 2" " which"has"the"lessRbadRbutRstillRbad"consequence"that"D(x)"is"undefined"(rather"than"trivially"true)" when"¬T(x)." " The"subsequent"philosophical"literature"on"dispositions"has"followed"a"Carnapian"trajectory" of" providing" analyses" of" disposition" ascriptions" which" draw" on" a" broad" range" of" considerations" from" the" semantics" of" 'is" disposed'" and" dispositional" predicates" like" 'fragile'" and" 'soluble'," the" epistemology" (or" confirmation)" of" disposition" ascriptions," and" metaphysics" of" science" (Which" properties" if" any" are" fundamentally" dispositional?" How" do" dispositional" or" nonRdispositional" properties" play"with" laws" of" nature," causation," counterfactuals," universals," particulars" to" explain" what's"going"on"fundamentally"with"what"is"and"what"could"be?)" " However," what" Carnap" has" obviously" not" captured" in" these" analyses" is" the" modal" significance" of" disposition" ascriptions:" the" information" they" communicate" about" nonRactual" possibilities." "Knowledge" that"a" certain"object" is" fragile"doesn't" tell"me"anything"about"whether" it" has"been"stressed"or"broken;"what" it"does"tell"me"is"something" like," if, the,object,were,stressed,, it, would,break.""The$philosophical$project$of$providing%an%analysis%of!disposition(ascriptions!has!in#the# years! since& Carnap! largely' centered! on# what# I'll# call# the$ modal$ question! or#modal& problem! of# disposition(ascriptions:"what"sort"of"modal"claims"do#disposition(ascriptions!express?"(By"putting" the$question$ in$ this$way,$ I$don't& intend& to& rule&out& the"answer" 'there" is"no" shared!modal& character& common%to%disposition%ascriptions.'!But$I$take$it$as$given$that$disposition$ascriptions$do$have$some$ modal&significance,&and&that!part%of%giving%an%adequate%semantics%for%'is%disposed'!and$dispositional$ predicates* is*elucidating*this*modal*significance).! ! Just%now%when%I%tried%to%restate%the%meaning%of% 'fragile'* as* 'if* stressed,* would* break',* I* offered* a* partial! answer' to' the$ modal$ question! (albeit( an( incorrect(one):"disposition"ascriptions!express"the"sort"of"modality"that!counterfactuals!do." " Not" long"after" 'Testability"and"Meaning'"there"was"widespread"convergence"on"this"partial" answer"to"the"modal"question2:"'x"is"disposed"to"ψ!when%φ'"means"the"same"thing"as"'if"it"were"the" case%that#φ(x),%it%would%be%the%case%that%ψ'"–!which%is%to%say%that!the$modal$character$of$disposition$ ascriptions* is* identical* to* the*modal* character* of* counterfactual* conditionals." " Here" is" a" relevant" passage"from"W.V.O."Quine"in"'Word"and"Object':" " The, subjunctive, conditional, is, seen, at, its, most, respectable, in, the, disposition,terms.,,To,say,that,an,object,a,is,(waterC),soluble,at,time, t, is, to,say,that, if,a,were, in,water,at, t,,a,would,dissolve,at, t., ,To,say, that,a,is,fragile,at,t,is,to,say,that,if,a,were,struck,smartly,at,t,,a,would, break, at, t., The, ordinary, [material], conditional, would, not, suffice, here,, for, it, loses, its,point,when, the, truth,value,of, its, antecedent, is, known,, , We, want, to, speak, of, a, as, soluble, or, fragile, at, t, though, knowing, that, it, is, not, immersed, or, struck, at, t., , Clearly, the, subjunctive,conditional,is,the,one,involved.3" " This"schema"is"the"Simple"Conditional"Analysis:"" " """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 2"Or"at"least"views"in"the"vicinity:"see"Quine"1960"pp."222R223,"Goodman"1954"pp."39"R"49,"and"Ryle"1949"pp." 127R128." 3"Quine"1960,"pp."222R223." 3" " (SCA)" " 'x"is"disposed"to"R"when"T'"is"true"just"in"case"if"x"were"in"T,"x"would"R."" " For"most"of"the"latter"half"of"the"twentieth"century,"the"(SCA)"enjoyed"widespread"tacit"acceptance.""" " We# have% a% clearer% picture% today% of% the! modal& relations! expressed' by' counterfactual+ conditionals!(and%modal%auxiliaries,%and%modal%adverbs,%and%so%on)!than#we#did#when#Quine#wrote# that.! ! (The% passages% cited! in# fn.# 2# give% a% pretty% good% picture% of% the% time.)! ! Though& there& are& significant) points) of) difference) between) existing) accounts) of) counterfactuals) (e.g.$ the$ Limit$ Assumption,#Conditional#Excluded#Middle,!making'the'antecedent!a"safe"environment!for$NPIs),!the$ basic&possible&worlds& story& is& relatively&uncontroversial:& 'if"φ!were$ the$ case,$ψ!would&be& the& case'& roughly(expresses&the&modal&relation&that&all&of&the&possible&worlds&in&which&φ!that$are$most$similar$ to#ours#allRthingsRconsidered)are)worlds)in)which)ψ.""Putting"aside"the"serious"problem"of!cases%like% Alan!Anderson( 'arsenic'(sentence,4!counterfactuals,are,generally,uttered, in,a, context, in,which, it, is, taken&for&granted&that&φ!is#not#the#case.##The!idea!is#roughly!that$if$you$were$to$minimally$tinker$with$ the$world$to$make$φ!the$case,$ψ!would&be&the&case." " The$ fact$ that$ counterfactuals$ quantify$ over$ the$ most$ allRthingsRconsidered) similar) worlds) where%the%antecedent%is%satisfied%is%not!a"feature"that!generalizes*to*most*or*all!modal&claims.""I"will" repeat&this&point&throughout&the&paper;&I&think&a& lack&of&appreciation&for&the&diversity&of&modals& is& part%of%what%led%philosophers%to%inadequate%counterfactual%analyses.%%For%example,%if%Andrew%breaks% the$rules&and&his&teacher&says,&&&" " (1) Andrew,(you(must(go(to(the(principal's(office.!!!!!!!" " she$is$not$saying$that$the$most#similar#worlds#are#ones#where#Andrew#goes#to#the#principal's#office.!!! Rather'she#says#roughly#that#(ignoring#some!nuances)!all#of#the#worlds#in#which#Andrew#complies# with% the% rules% are% worlds% in% which% he% goes% to% the% principal's% office.% % The% point% is% simply% that% in% natural' language' we' have' express' a' plurality' of' modal' relations;' the' claim' that' disposition' ascriptions*express*the"same"sort%of%modal%relations!as#counterfactuals# is#a!very!substantive*claim* about&the&particular)modal)character)of)disposition)ascriptions." " In# this# paper,# I# will# defend# an# alternative) account' of' disposition' ascriptions' influenced' by' considerations+ from! possible( worlds( semantics) for) modals! according) to) which) disposition% ascriptions*express!modals!relations!characterized*by*a*particular!restriction)on)accessible!worlds.!! My#focus#will#be#on#the"modal"problem"for"disposition"ascriptions,"and"the"approach"I!adopt&reflects& this% starting% point.% % Most% analyses% –! like% the% (SCA)% –! have% explained% disposition% ascriptions% by% suggesting(schematic(truthRconditional)equivalences)with)other)modal)claims)in)English.))This)only) indirectly* addresses* the* modal* problem* –! for! instance( by( first( drawing( a( truthRconditional) equivalence* between* disposition! acriptions" and" counterfactuals." and" then" explaining" the" modal" relation)expressed)by)counterfactuals.))I)will)try)to)give)a)'direct')answer)to)the)modal)question)–!that$ is,$ to$ analyse& disposition& ascriptions& in& a& general& possible& worlds& framework& in& which& we& can& compare( the( analysis( to( actual( and( potential( related( analyses( for( other( modals( –! in# particular,# counterfactuals.---My#hope#and$belief$is$that$a$'direct'$approach$will$significantly)clarify)the)relation) between&disposition&ascriptions&and&counterfactuals." """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 4"See"Anderson"1951"p."37." 4" " !" Here's& a& rough& outline& of& how& the& paper&will& proceed.& & First,& I&will& consider& the& standard& counterexamples.to.the.(SCA).and.say.a.few.words.on.the.problem(the(counterexamples(illustrate(for$ a!counterfactual+answer+to+the+modal+question.++Then+I+will+discuss+one+of+the+most+wellRdeveloped' accounts( of( disposition( ascriptions( –! Michael( Fara's( habitual( analysis( –! and! present' some' counterexamples) to! that$analysis.( ( I(will(discuss(a(particular!semanticallyRoriented!motivation( that( Fara$raises$that$has$a$significant$influence$on$the$account$I$propose$here$–!basically(that$an$account$ of!explicit(disposition(ascriptions!('is%disposed'%sentences)!should'partition#the#semantic#work#done# by#'is#disposed'#and#the#semantic#work#done#by#the#infinitive#in#its#scope.!" " I" will" then" turn" to" another" recent" analysis" –! David& Manley& and& Ryan& Wasserman's& proportional) quantificational) analysis) –! which,& in& line& with& the& approach" I'm" pushing," directly! characterizes* the*modal* flavor! of# dispositions$ in$ terms$ of$ quantification! over% possibilities.! ! I" will" defend%their%analysis,"which"I"take"to"be"extensionally"adequate"(for"most"disposition"ascriptions"at" least);" I"will" illustrate"why" it"avoids" the"classic"counterexamples" to" the"(SCA);"defend" it"against"an" object'in'a'recent'paper'by'Daniel'Bonevac,'Joshua'Dever,'and'David'Sosa;'characterize'what'sort'of' case%would% constitute% a% counterexample% to% their% account;% and% give% some% reasons!why" it's" hard" to" come%up%with% such%cases." "However,! I'll$ suggest$ that$ they$ leave$some$explanatory$currency$on$ the$ table&by&using!a"metalanguage"with%a%cooked%up%dispositionRspecific'modal'term,'the'notion'of'a''TR case.''('CRcase'&is&their&term;&'C'&for&stimulus&condition,"but"I'll"use"'TRcase'"for"test$condition!to#keep# my# terminology# uniform).# # In" doing" so" they! deprive' themselves' of' resources' to! satisfy' Fara's' constraint) (semantic) division) of) labor! between& 'is& disposed'& and& infinitival& complement)& and$ to$ compare( the( analysis( of( disposition( ascriptions( to( other( modal( claims.! !However,( with( a( general( possible(worlds( framework( for(modals(we( can( give(a"Manley" and"WassermanRstyle& analysis&which& wears&on&its&sleeve&both&(a)&the&division&of&semantic&labor&between&'is&disposed'&and&the$ infinitival( complement) and) (b)) the) entailment! relations* between* disposition* ascriptions* and* other* modal* expressions)–!most!importantly,,counterfactuals.,," " The$framework$I'll$use$is$a$simple$version$of$Angelika$Kratzer's$relational$analysis$of$modals$ which%puts%most%of% the%theoretical%weight%on%three% factors%at%work% in%modal%quantification:%modal% (quantificational)force,modal# base,# and# ordering# source.# # I# will# discuss# how# Kratzer# uses# these# notions&to&characterize&the&semantics&of&a&variety&of&natural&language&modal&terms!–!in#particular#I'll# be#looking#at#her#work#in#'The#Notional#Category#of#Modality.'""One"interesting"thing#I#found#is#that# Kratzer'actually'gives'a'characterization'of'a!recognizably-dispositional!German'modal'adjective' in' 'Notional)Category'!–!zerbrechlich!('fragile'),–!which%is%quite&similar&to&M&&!W's$analysis.$ $I'll$try$to$ synthesize)the)observations)of)Kratzer)and)Manley)and)Wasserman,)and)then)discuss)at)length)some) advantages)and)disadvantages)of)the)proposed)synthesis)–!the$ManleyRWassermanRKratzer'analysis."" Two$ problems$ in$ particular$ will$ come# in# for# extended# discussion# –! the$ challenge$ of$ purportedly$ 'extrinsic*dispositions,'*and*the*problem*of*the*granularity*of*the*possibilities*we're*quantifying*over.** Accommodating+ ascriptions+ of+ extrinsic+ dispositions+ will+ require+ weakening+ some+ of+ the+ generalizations+ about+ dispositional+ modal+ bases+ that+ form+ the+ core+ of+ the+ MRWRK" analysis," but" ultimately) I) think)we) can) retain) the" basic" core" of" the" account.! !The$ granularity$ issue$will$ require$ dispensing( with( the( possible( worlds( framework( for( a( situation( theoretic( approach;( in( the( final( sections(of(the(paper(I(will(discuss(some(basic(features(of(situation(theory,(and(tentatively(offer(a(MR WRK"style"situation"semantics"for"disposition"ascriptions." " 5" " " 2. What's"wrong"with"the"(SCA)?" " " Ultimately)I'm)going)to)claim)that)the)particular)modal)character)of)disposition)ascriptions)is) closely' tied' to' a' familiar' platitude' about' dispositions:' that' dispositions' are' intrinsic' properties."" Assuming(any#precise!version(of(this!vague!intrinsicness(thesis(spells(doom(for(the((SCA),"and"it"will" be#useful#to#illustrate#the#problem#with#a#quote#from#Lewis:" , , I, have, replied, to, the, resister, by, wielding, an, assumption, that, dispositions,are,an,intrinsic,matter.,(Except,perhaps,in,so,far,as,they, depend,on,the, laws,of,nature., I,myself,would,wish,to, insist,on,that, exception,, but, this, is, a, controversial, matter, that, need, not, be, considered, now.), That, is:, if, two, things, (actual, or,merely, possible), are, exact, intrinsic, duplicates, (and, if, they, are, subject, to, the, same, laws,of,nature), then,they,are,disposed,alike., I,do,not,deny,that, the, simple,conditional,analysis,enjoys,some,plausibility.,But,so,does,the, principle, that, dispositions, are, an, intrinsic, matter., The, case, of, the, sorcerer,sets,up,a,tugCofCwar,between,conflicting,attractions,,and,to, me,it,seems,clear,that,the,simple,conditional,analysis,has,the,weaker, pull.5, " " What"Lewis"calls"'the"case"of"the"sorcerer'"in"the"block"quote"above"is"a"counterexample"to" the" (SCA)" in" his" paper" 'Finkish" Dispositions.'" " The" story" can" be" told" either" as" a"masking, case" (a" variety"of"counterexample"to"the"(SCA)"first"appearing"in"print"in"Johnston"1992)"or"a"fink,case,(a" different"variety"of" counterexample" first"appearing" in" the"more" frequently"cited"Martin"1994)." "A" masking"case"is"one"in"which"though"x"is"disposed"to"R"when"T,"if"x"were"in"T"it"wouldn't"R"because" of"preventative"interference"which"doesn't"affect"the"object's"having"of"the"disposition.""A"fink"case" involves"prevention"by"removal"of"the"disposition:"though"x"is"disposed"to"R"when"T,"if"it"were"in"T," it"would"lose"the"disposition."" " Here's" the"story:"a"powerful"and"attentive"sorcerer"has"a"beloved"and"very" fragile"glass" in" her"possession."(i)"Fink,version:"whenever"the"glass"is"subjected"to"a"'fragility"test'"('struck"smartly'" as"Quine"put"it),"the"sorcerer"transmutes"the"glass"into"a"very"durable"material"(let's"say"steel).""As"a" result," the"glass"doesn't"break;"when" it"was"put" to" the" test" it"was" transmuted" into" something"not, fragile.""(ii)"Mask,version:"as"before,"exception"instead"of"preventionRbyRtransmutation"the"sorcerer" doesn't" change" the" glass" to" remove" its" fragility" but" rather" somehow"prevents" the" stress" of" being" smartly"struck." "Johnston's"original"masking"case"involved"a"fragile"glass"prevented"from"breaking" when" struck" by" a" support" structure" inside" of" it" (but" not" intrinsic" to" it" –" LewisRstyle" intrinsic" duplicates"can"differ"with"respect"to"whether"or"not"they"have"a"support"structure"inside"them).6"in" this"paper,"I"will"generally"lump"them"all"together"under"the"heading"'the"classic"counterexamples'."" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 5"Lewis"1997,"pp."147"R"148." 6"I"discuss"the"different"kinds"of"counterexamples"at"length"in"Anthony"2010;"here"I'll"generally"lump"them"all" together"as"'the"classic"counterexamples.'" 6" " Let"me" describe" two" less" baroque" cases" in" order" to" bolster" the" intuition" that" there" is" a" genuine" mismatch"between"the"truthRconditions"of"a"disposition"ascription"and"'corresponding'"conditional." " The"first"example"is"adapted"from"Michael"Fara.""Suppose"(sadly"contrary"to"fact)"that"I"am" disposed"to"sleep"when"I'm"tired,"and"in"fact"almost"always"sleep"when"I'm"tired.""It"happens"that"I" always"and"only"sleep"in"my"own"bed"in"my"apartment"–"if"I"get"sleepy"anywhere,"I"jet"home"for"a" nap.""Knowing"this"about"myself,"I"say"" " (2) " 'I'm"disposed"to"sleep"when"I'm"tired.'""" " And"I"try"to"reiterate"by"uttering"the"conditional" " (3) " 'If"I"were"tired..."I'd"be"out"like"a"light.'"" " But"with"a"little"further"description"of"the"context"we"can"see"that"(2)"wasn't"a"restatement"of"(1)"at" all." "Suppose"despite"being"so"disposed,"it"happens"(unbeknown"to"me)"that"when"I'm"uttering"(1)" and"(2)"there"is"an"apocalyptically"loud"construction"project"taking"place"outside"my"apartment.""If"I" were" tired," I'd" be" trying" to" sleep" in" my" apartment" just" like" always," but" given" such" unfavorable" conditions" I" would" certainly" not" be" out" like" a" light." " The" noise" 'masks'" the" disposition." " The" disposition"ascription"analysandum"is"true"but"the"counterfactual"analysans"is"false." " Second"example.""'Poisonous'"means"something"like"disposed"to"cause"death"when"ingested."" (This"is"obviously"rough."For"instance,"ingestion"is"not"the"only"mode"of"exposure"to"a"poison:"a"case" in"which"a"poison"kills"someone"who"inhaled"rather"than"ingested"it"is"no"less"a"manifestation"of"its" poisonousness.)" " Suppose" Jane" studies" poisonous" snakes." " Because" she's" always" around" these" poisonous"snakes"and"values"her"life,"she"also"keeps"antidotes"handy"for"every"variety"of"venom"in" her"lab.""The"'poisonous'Rrelated"conditionals"uttered"about"the"snakes"or"venoms"I'm"Jane's"lab"–"'If" someone" were" exposed" to" this" snake's" cobratoxin," the" cobratoxin" would" cause" her" death'" –" are" false:"presumably"if"someone"were"bitten"by"the"snake"and"exposed"to"the"cobratoxin,"they"would" take"the"antidote"and"thus"not"be"killed." "The"'poisonous'Rascriptions"are"true,"but" 'corresponding'" counterfactuals"given"a"plausible"choice"of"test"and"response"conditions"are"intuitively"not"true."" " If" we" assume" that" intrinsic" duplicates" share" dispositions," we" get" a" relatively" simple" explanation"why"the"counterexamples"work"and"the"(SCA)"fails.""The"presence"of"the"apocalyptically" loud" noise" preventing" sleep" is" not" shared" by"me" by"most" of"my" possible" intrinsic" duplicates" (in" some"vague" intuitive" sense"of" 'most')." "The" counterexample"plays"on" the"presence"of" a"particular" preventative" factor" which" is" not" shared" by" most" intrinsic" duplicates." " The" presence" of" the" antivenom"plays"the"same"role"in"the"'poisonous'Rcase.""" " I"press" the"Lewisian"construal"of" the"counterexamples"as"a" clash"between"counterfactuals" and"intrinsicness"intuitions"to"sow"the"seed"of"an"idea"I'll"repeat"ad"nauseum"which"I"think"should"" motivate" anyone" moved" by" the" intrinsicness" intuitions:" the" domain" of" possibilities" disposition" ascriptions"quantify"over"is"not " "the"domain"of"possibilities"counterfactuals"quantify"over,"i.e."not "" the"test"conditionRsatisfying"worlds"most"comparatively"similar"in"the"sense"of"Lewis,"or"minimal"in" a"totally"realistic"ordering"in"the"sense"of"Kratzer." "If"we"take"disposition"ascriptions"to"be"ascribe" the" sort" of" properties" which" are" always" shared" by" intrinsic" duplicates," the" proposed" truthR conditions" should" reflect" that." " The" easiest" and" most" natural" way" to" do" that" in" the" modal" 7" " quantificational" framework" is" to" rig" things" so" that" disposition" ascriptions" to" distinct" intrinsic" duplicates"quantify"over"the"same"possibilities.""" " " " 3. Dispositions"and"habituals" " " The$counterexamples$to$the$(SCA)$were$all$cases$in$which$an$object$either$(a)$is#disposed#to# ψ"when"φ,# is#φ'd," and" doesn't!ψ! or# (b)! isn't! disposed' to'ψ"when"φ,# is#φ'd,$ and$ does!ψ." " In# an# influential)recent)paper,)Michael)Fara$takes&this&general& feature&of& the&counterexamples&to& illustrate& the$invalidity$of$what$we$can$call$'dispositional$modus$ponens'$–!the$inference$from$'x$is$disposed$to$ ψ"when"φ'"and"'φ(x)'%to%'ψ(x).'&" " The, lesson, that, should, be, drawn, from, the, preceding, discussion, is, that,conditionals,are,simply,not,suited,to,the,task,of,stating,the,truth, conditions, of, disposition, ascriptions., , It, is, a, constitutive, feature, of, conditionals,that,modus"ponens"is,a,valid,rule,of,inference,for,them.,, Yet, what, the, phenomenon, of, masking, shows, is, that, an, analogous, rule,of,inference,is,not,valid,for,disposition,ascriptions:,from,the,fact, that,N,is,disposed,to,M,when,C,,together,with,the,fact,that,C,,it,does, not, follow, that,N,Ms., , There, is, an, entrenched, mismatch, between, disposition,ascriptions,and,their,corresponding,conditionals.7, """ " While" Fara" may" be" onto" something," I" am" not" sure" that" modus, ponens" is" of" central" significance" in" the" counterexamples." " Suppose" he's" right" that" the" validity" of" modus" ponens" is" a" constitutive" feature"of"conditionals." " I'm"able" to"use"modus"ponens" to" infer" that"ψ"when" I"believe" that"φ!and!believe&that!φ⇒ψ!for$some$conditional$'⇒'.$ $But$again$bracketing$the$serious$problem$of! cases% like! Anderson's! 'arsenic'Rcounterfactuals,! we# generally# utter# and# entertain# counterfactuals# when%we% assume% that% the% antecedent% is% not! true.! ! If# we# assume# the# (generally# accepted)# Strong# Centering(entailment('φ!∧"ψ'"⊧"'φ!□→"ψ',#modus#ponens#does!hold%for%counterfactuals.%%But%for%most% counterfactuals, that, we, actually, utter, and$ entertain$ modus$ ponens$ is$ beside$ the$ point$ –! it's% the% modal!inference'pattern'that'is'more'germane." " All"of"the"counterexamples!to#the#(SCA)!can$be$told$in$a$way$in$which$they$are$not$cases%in% which%dispositional%modus%ponens%fails.!!A"counterexample"to"dispositional"modus"ponens"is"a"case" in#which#'x#is#disposed#to#ψ"when"φ'"is"true,"'φ(x)'%is%true,%and%'ψ(x)'%is%not%true.%%And%we%can%tell%the% counterexamples. that.way:. 'Suppose. it. actually. happens. that. the. sorcerer. is. protecting. the. fragile. cup,% the%cup%gets%hit%by%a%bus,%but% the%sorcerer%transmutes% it% into%steel!upon% impact%and% it%doesn't% break.'((But(we(can#also#tell#it#another#way#in#which#it#isn't!a"counterexample"to"dispositional"modus" ponens:' 'Suppose' it' actually' happens' that' the' sorcerer' is' protecting' the' cup,' but' the' cup' is' never' stressed.' ' But' if' it'were! stressed,! he# would# transmute# it# into# steel! and" it"wouldn't! break.'! ! The$ counterexample-is-not-a-case-in-which-'x-is-disposed-to-ψ"when"φ'"is"true,"'φ(x)'%is%true,%and%'ψ(x)'%is% not$ true.$ $Rather,$ the$ counterexample$works$because$we$ intuitively$ assess$ the$ counterfactual$ to$be$ false:'if'it'were'to'be'stressed,'it'would'be'transmuted'into'steel!and$wouldn't$break.$$And$because$it$ """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 7"Fara"2005,"p."61." 8" " is#a# fink!case%–!that$ is,$ if$ it$were$ in$ the$test$condition,$ it$would$no$ longer$have$the$disposition$–! in# those!worlds,(x(does(not(have(the(disposition(to(break(when(struck.((All(this(is(just(to(suggest(that(the( upshot' of' the' counterexamples' is' not! (entirely)* that* there* exist! dispositional* modus* ponensR invalidating) cases) in)which) an) object) is) disposed,) tested,) and)doesn't(manifest( the( disposition;( in( addition,( the( counterexamples( play( on( the( modal! mismatch( of( counterfactuals( and( disposition( ascriptions.+ +To+anticipate+my+central+claim:+while+Fara+thinks+that+there+is+a+mismatch+between+the+ force& of& quantification& (counterfactuals, universal,, disposition, ascriptions, lessRthanRuniversal* and$ restricted! to# tolerate' 'permissible* exceptions')! he# does# not! seem$ to$ believe% there% is% a% mismatch% between&the&domain&of&possibilities&quantified&over&by&disposition&ascriptions&and&counterfactuals,, and!I"take!this!to#be!is#a#crucial#mistake.!" " Fara"suggests"that"these"counterexamples"illustrate"the"'exception"tolerance'"of"disposition" ascriptions"–"sometimes"an"object" is"disposed"and"test"but"doesn't"give"the"response." "As"a"result," Fara"ditches"conditionals"for"the"more"tolerant"habitual,sentences." " Habituals," which" are" also" sometimes" called" generics" or" characterizing, sentences," are" sentences"expressing"the"sort"of"generalizations"like"(4)"–"(6):" " (4) " John"smokes"when"he's"angry." (5) " Sugar"dissolves"when"it's"placed"in"water." (6) " Fragile"objects"break"when"they're"stressed." " " Ultimately,"while"Fara"actually"gives"a"boundRvariable"semantics"for"habituals"he"urges"us"to" judge"his"proposal"on"the"basis"of"our"truthRvalue"intuitions"for"habitual"sentences"rather"than"any" specific"formal"semantics.""I'll"take"Fara's"suggestion"and"discuss"some"of"the"characteristic"intuitive" truth" conditional" features" of" habituals" rather" than"diving" into"his" semantics" for" habituals" (which" will"come"up"later"in"the"discussion"of"modal"quantifiers)." " Exception"tolerance"is"one"of"the"hallmark"features"of"habituals"in"the"sense"that"(4)"–"(6)" do"not"entail"their"stronger"universally"quantified"counterparts"(7)"–"(9):" " (7) " John"always"smokes"when"he's"angry." (8)"" Sugar"always"dissolves"when"it's"placed"in"water." (9)"" Fragile"objects"always"break"when"they're"stressed." " The" inference" from" a" habitual" 'x!ψ's# when#φ'" and" 'φ(x)'" to" 'ψ(x)'" is" bad," just" as" in" the" case" of" disposition(ascriptions;"since"we"want"disposition"ascriptions"to"turn"out"exception"tolerant"in"our" analysis,"it"makes"sense"to"analyze"them"in"terms"of"exception"tolerant"expressions.""The"exception" tolerance"of"habituals"makes"them"a"good"fit." " Though"Fara"doesn't"claim"that"his"analysis"covers"such"cases,"it"can"at"least"in"principle"be" extended" to" sentences" involving" dispositional" predicates" like" (10)" –" (12)" in" addition" to" explicit" disposition"ascriptions"('is"disposed'"sentences)."" " (10) Sugar"is"soluble." (11) Andre"is"irascible." (12) That"gold"bar"is"malleable." 9" " " The"standard"picture"of"how"such"an"extension"would"look"is"David"Lewis's"'twoRstep'"analysis8:"we" can"cover"such"cases"by"providing,"in"addition"to"a"general"analysis"of"'N"is"disposed"to"ψ"when"φ'd'," predicateRtoRexplicitRascription"linking"sentences:" " (LC1), N"is"soluble"iff"N"is"disposed"to"dissolve"when"submerged"in"a"solvent." (LC2), N"is"irascible"iff"N"is"disposed"to"become"angry"when"provoked." (LC3), N"is"malleable"iff"N"is"disposed"to"deform"when"subjected"to"compressive"stress., " In"this"paper,"I"will"primarily"be"discussing"explicit"disposition"ascriptions,"but"will"sometimes"draw" on"intuitions"about"dispositional"predicates." " One"thing"Fara"discusses"which"I"will"draw"on"significantly"is"the"syntactic"form"of"explicit" disposition" ascriptions" –" particularly," the" fact" that" they" decompose" into" 'is" disposed'" and" an" infinitival"complement.""A"number"of"other"similar"ascriptions"also"take"infintival"complements:"""" " (13) Mark"is"disposed"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed."" (14) Mark"is"reluctant"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." (15) Mark"is"able"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." (16) Mark"is"permitted"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." " Call" the" class" of" English" adjective" ascriptions" taking" infinitival" complements" the, Fara, class." " A" compositional"semantics"for"sentences"in"the"Fara"class"will"presumably"trace"the"truthRconditional" difference" between" (13)" –" (16)" to" the" semantic" contribution" of" the" particular" adjectives." " The" simplest" and"most" desirable" theory"would" predict" the" intuitive" truth" conditions" by" connecting" a" story" about" the" semantics" of" infinitival" complements" to" an" account" of" the" lexical" semantics" of" different" adjectives." " Call" this" constraint" the, Fara, constraint." " It" isn't" clear" whether" Fara" would" actually"endorse"the"constraint"as"stated"here,"but"I"think"this"is"roughly"what"he"has"in"mind"in"his" discussion"of"these"other"sentences"and"the"shared"syntax.""" " " The" 'habitual'" part" of" the"habitual" analysis" concerns" the" infinitival" complement:" on"Fara's" analysis"the"infinitival"complement"common"to"(13)"–"(16)"expresses"the"habitual"(17):" " (17) Mark"smokes"when"he"is"stressed." """ As" I"mentioned"already,"Fara"does"offer"a"boundRvariable" semantics" for"habituals"but"urges"us" to" take" the" substance" of" the" habitual" analysis" to" be" provided" by" our" truthRvalue" intuitions" about" habituals"rather"than"any"particular"formal"semantics.""For"now"I'll"follow"Fara's"advice"and"ignore" the"semantics"for"habituals." " " Fara"treats"'is"disposed'"as"expressing"a"simple"unary"operator"on"a"habitual,"DISP,"with"the" following"truth"condition:"" " (FARA1)" " 'DISP(x!ψ's!when"φ)'#is#true#" iff" 'x!ψ's!when"φ'"is"true"in"virtue"of"an"" " " " " " " " " intrinsic'property'of'x'" " " " """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 8"See"Lewis"1997."" 10" " " Here's"what"we"get"when"we"put"together"the"two"elements,"in"Fara's"own"words:" " How, should, the, operator, DISP, be, interpreted?, Notice, first, that, it, appears, to, be, factive..., What, else, can, be, said, about, DISP?, ...[T]o, attribute,to,an,object,a,disposition,to,do,soCandCso,is,to,say,not,just, that, it, does, soCandCso" [the" habitual], but, that, it, has, some, intrinsic, property, in,virtue,of,which, it,does,soCandCso., In, full,, the,account,of, disposition,ascriptions,that,I,am,proposing,is:, , The,Habitual ,Account, , 'N,is,disposed,to,M,when,C',is,true,iff,N,has,an,intrinsic,property,in, virtue,of,which,it,Ms,when,C.9, " In"summary,"(i)"infinitival"complements"of"sentences"in"the"Fara"class"express"habituals"and"(ii)"'is" disposed'"expresses"the"operator"characterized"by"the"truth"condition:"'DISP(x!ψ's!when"φ)'!is#true! just%in%case%'(x!ψ's!when"φ)'"is"true!in#virtue#of#an#intrinsic#property!of#x." " I"believe"there"are"straightforward"counterexamples"to"this"analysis,"which"I'll"discuss"only" briefly"here.10"""The"cases"I"have"in"mind"are"ones"in"which"a"disposition"ascription"is"true"and"the" habitual" it" supposedly" is" a" factive" operator" on" is" not" true." " This" doesn't" show" that" no" habitual" analysis"is"right"–"just"that"an"analysis"treating"'is"disposed'"as"a"factive"operator"on"a"habitual"can't" be"right." " Case" one:" Mark" is" disposed" to" smoke" when" he's" stressed." " Nothing" ignites" his" nicotine" craving"more"than"stress.""When"he"is"stressed,"his"temples"begin"to"pound,"his"pulse"quickens,"and" his"mind"uncontrollably" turns" to"Camel" Joe." " It" happens"however," that" the"only" thing" that" causes" Mark" to"be"stressed" is"his"girlfriend,"Mary." "Mary" is"a"doctor"and"since"she'd"rather"not"see"Mark" succumb"to"an"early"death"she"does"everything"in"her"power"to"prevent"Mark"from"smoking"when" he's"in"her"sight.""In"fact,"she"is"uniformly"successful"–"every"time"she's"with"Mark,"she"prevents"him" from" smoking." " Mark" doesn't" smoke" when" he's" stressed" –" in" fact," he" never" smokes" when" he's" stressed."Yet"he"is"disposed"to"smoke"when"he's"stressed." " Case"two:"Andre"is"disposed"to"fart"when"he"eats"really"cheesy"foods.""Years"ago,"Andre"used" to" fart"when"he"ate" really" cheesy" foods." "But" then"Andre's" girlfriend"Anne"got" fed"up"and" started" slipping"a"lactase"supplement"in"his"meal"when"he"eats"really"cheesy"foods."Now,"thanks"to"Anne,"he" doesn't"fart"when"he"eats"really"cheesy"foods,"but"he"is"still"so"disposed." " If"the"examples"aren't"convincing"on"their"own,"they"are"significantly"bolstered"if"we"accept" some" version" of" the" intrinsicness" thesis" for" dispositions." " Intrinsic" duplicates" don't" necessarily" share"habitual"facts"–"which"habituals"are"true"depends"on"facts"which"may"differ"between"intrinsic" duplicates.""Even"though"Mark"doesn't"smoke"when"he's"stressed"and"Andre"don't"fart"when"he"eats" cheesy"foods,"intrinsic"duplicates"without"girlfriends"presumably"would." """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 9"Fara"2005,"pp."69"–"70." 10"For"more"detailed"discussion"of" the"purported"counterexamples"to"Fara's"analysis,"see"Anthony"2010"pp."""" 41"–"46"and"69"–"82.""" 11" " " What"went"wrong?"Habituals"get"us"exception"tolerance"('Andre"farts"when"he"eats"cheesy" foods'"does"not"entail"'Andre"always"farts"when"he"eats"cheesy"foods.')""But"they"make"no"significant" advance"on"counterfactuals"in"accurately"characterizing"the"modal,profile"of"disposition"ascriptions."" Part"of"the"problem"is"that"the"modal"character"of"habituals"is"tricky"and"not"super"well"understood."" It"is"a"familiar"problem"that"some"utterances"of"habituals"(like"'Mark"smokes"when"he"is"stressed')" have" truth" conditions" that" apparently" involve" quantification" over" predominantly" or" exclusively" actual"cases"–"if"Mark"is"actually"stressed"on"100"occasions"and"smokes"on"none"of"those"occasions," the"habitual" is" false"regardless"of"how"things"go"at"other"possible"worlds." "Other"habituals,"on"the" other"hand,"seem"to"obviously"quantify"over"some"or"even"predominantly"nonCactual"possibilities:" " (18) My"car"goes"130"miles"per"hour."""""" " may"be" true"even" though" in"no"actual"case"have" I"driven" it"at" that"speed." "So"part"of" the"problem" with" getting" an" answer" to" the" modal" question" from" Fara's" account" is" that" he" has" explained" the" modal" character" of" dispositions" in" terms" of" expressions" which" themselves" have" a" shifty" and" illR understood"modal"character." " I" think"that" in"fact"the"answer"to"the"modal"problem"for"disposition" ascriptions"is"much"simpler"than"the"answer"to"the"modal"problem"for"habituals." " But" the" explanatory" inadequacy" is" independent" of" the" counterexamples." " The" counterexamples" are" a" more" significant" problem" –" we" should" at" least" approximate" extensional" adequacy" before" quibbling" too" much" about" explanatory" lacunae." " The" analysis" is" subject" to" counterexamples" because" Fara" fails" to" make" good" on" the" lesson" of" the" (SCA)" counterexamples" according"to"those"of"us"who"assume"intrinsicness.""We"want"the"domain"of"possibilities"quantified" over"to"be"the"same"for"disposition"ascriptions"to"distinct"intrinsic"duplicates:"Fara"fails"to"do"this. " In"fact,"quite"surprisingly,"Fara's"own"semantics"for"habituals"relies"on"a"familiar"Lewisian" comparative"possibility"ordering"that"results"in"habituals"looking"a"lot"like"counterfactuals:" " So, it, does, seem, right, to, say,, as, I, did,, that, a, habitual, is, true, just, in, case, every, exception, to, it, is, a, permissible, exception,, provided, we, count, not, just, actual, exceptions, but, some,merely, possible, ones, as, well.,,, , Which,merely,possible,exceptions,should,we,include?,Not,all, of, them,, for, then, we, would, have, that, a, habitual, is, true, iff, every, possible, exception, to, it, is, a, permissible, exception,, which, in, turn, would,have,the,consequence,that,a,habitual,sentence, is,necessarily, true,if,it,is,true,at,all,(given,that,which,situations,are,possible,is,not, a, contingent, matter),, which, is, clearly, wrong., Instead,, we, should, consider, only, those, exceptions,, if, there, are, any,, in, the, possible, worlds, closest, to, the, actual, world, in, which, the, whenCclause, of, a, habitual, is, satisfied., Thus, according, to, the, interpretation, I, am, proposing,, a, habitual, "N, Ms, when, C", is, true, just, in, case, every, exception, in, every, CCworld, closest, to, the, actual, world, is, a, permissible, exception., , For,most, habituals,, this,will, amount, to, the, requirement, that, every, actual, exception, is, permissible,, since, the, 12" " actual,world,is,the,unique,closest,world,to,the,actual,world.,But,for, some,habituals...,this,inclusion,of,nonCactual,exceptions,is,crucial.11, " What"this"passage"illustrates"is"that"Fara"has"ditched"counterfactuals"for"habituals"in"order"to"gain" exception" tolerance"but"aside" from" the" 'permissible"exceptions'" clause"understands"habituals" just, like, counterfactuals, –" as" involving" universal" quantification" over" maximally" similar" antecedent" ('when'Rclause)"satisfying"worlds.""" " In"a"recent"paper12,"Juhani"YliRVakkuri"emphasize"this"point,"and"claims"that"on"a"plausible" interpretation,"Fara's"exclusion"of"permissible"exceptions"serves"the"same"role"as"a"ceteris,paribus" clause.""Together"with"the"counterfactualRlike"modal"profile"for"habituals"we"see"in"the"block"quote" above,"this"results"in"Fara's"habitual"analysis"giving"truthRcondition"predictions"which"are"basically" the"same"as"ceteris,paribus"R"qualified"counterfactual"analyses,"which"he"argues"quite"persuasively" against." " (YliRVakkuri" points" out" that" 'to" say" that" something"φ" holds" in" all" cases" except" for" some" unspecified" range"of" exceptions" is" to" say" just" very" little'13" –" about" as"much,"he" suggests," as" those" who" respond" to" the" counterexamples" by" modifying" their" conditional" analysans" with" a" ceteris, paribus"or"'in"normal"conditions'"qualification.14""However,"in"fairness"to"Fara,"he"says"quite"a"lot"of" specific"things"about"his"notion"of"a"'permissible"exception'"in"his"unpublished"2001"dissertation.""I" think"YliRVakkuri's"criticisms"are"nonetheless"essentially"correct,"but"if"we"read"into"Fara's"analysis" the" specific" role" of" 'permissible" exceptions'" described" in" Fara"2001"§4.4," it" is" not" the" case" that" it" serves"a"vaguely"specified"function"basically"equivalent"to"a"ceteris,paribus"qualification.)"" " I"want" to"defend"an"alternative"approach." " I"will" claim" that"disposition"ascriptions"need"a" semantics"which"does"not,care"about"allRthingsRconsidered"comparative"similarity." "Let's"turn"now" to"an"account"that"does"just"that,"and"answers"the"modal"question"directly" in"terms"of"possibilityR talk"–"David"Manley"and"Ryan"Wasserman's"modal"quantificational"analysis.""""" " " 4. Manley"and"Wasserman" " " Manley" and" Wasserman" have" argued" (convincingly," by" my" lights)" for" the" claim" that" disposition"ascriptions"don't"care"about"allRthingsRconsidered"comparative"similarity"–"that"is,"they" don't" quantify" over" the" domain" of" possibilities" characteristic" of" counterfactuals," the" most" comparatively" similar" worlds" where" the" 'when'Rclause" condition" (understood" on" par" with" the" counterfactual" 'if'Rclause)" is" satisfied." "While" I" think"M" &"W's" account" is" essentially" correct" as" it" stands,"I"think"recasting"the"view"in"a"general"framework"for"the"analysis"of"modality"with"an"eye" towards" compositional" semantics" will" help" clarify" some" potential" issues" and" lend" certain" advantages"to"the"account."(I'll"discuss"these"in"§7)"" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 11"Fara"2005,"p."67."My"underlining." 12"YliRVakkuri"2010." 13"YliRVakkuri"2010,"p."630" 14"This"approach"to"disposition"ascriptions"has"been"one"of"the"most"popular"since"the"decline"of"the"(SCA);" for" two"versions" frequently" cited" in" the" literature," see"Mumford"1998,"p."88"and"Malzkorn"2000,"pp."457"–" 458.""The"two"analyses"I"discuss"in"this"paper"–"Fara's"habitual"analysis"and"Manley"and"Wasserman's"modal" quantificational"analysis"–"are"two"of"the"only"analyses"that"do"not"proceed"by"considering"alternative"ways"of" minimally"tweaking"the"(SCA)"to"get"extensional"adequacy." 13" " " M"&"W"bring"out" the"overall"comparative"similarityRindifference"of"disposition"ascriptions" conditional"analyses"via"what"they"call"'the"problem"of"accidental"closeness.'""Here's"an"illustrative" example"of"the"problem:" " Consider,any,ordinary, concrete,block, that, is,not,disposed, to,break, when,dropped.,,Suppose,such,a,block,is,disposed,to,break,if,dropped, from,any,height,of,at, least, twenty,metres...,Now,suppose,the,block, happens,to,be,sitting,on,a,windowsill, twenty,metres,above,ground., Then,the,closet,world,in,which,it,is,dropped...,is,a,world,in,which,it, is,dropped,from,twenty,metres...,,Moreover,,the,block,would,break;, so,the,present,proposal,[a"variant"of"the"(SCA)],wrongly,tells,us,that, it,is,fragile.,,And,note,that,the,block,would,not,satisfy,the,conditional, if, it, were, sitting, on, a, windowsill, only, nineteen, metres, above, the, ground,instead.15, , I"agree." "An"object"which" is"disposed" to"break"when"stressed"need"not"break" in"every"possible"or" actual"case"in"which"it"is"stressed.""An"object"which"is"indisposed"to"break"when"stressed"need"not" fail" to" break" in" every" possible" or" actual" case" in"which" it" is" stressed." "M"&"W" use" the" illustrative" metaphor"of"an"Achilles,Heel:"an"Achilles"Heel"case"is"one"of"those"exceptional"(possible"or"actual)" cases" in" which" an" indisposed" object" gives" the" response" to" the" disposition" test." " Achilles" was" indisposed"to"succumb"to"injury,"but"that"doesn't"mean"no,kind"of"injury"whatsoever"would"cause" his"death.""A"reverse,Achilles,Heel"is"one"of"those"exceptional"(possible"or"actual)"cases"in"which"a" disposed"object"fails"to"give"the"response.""" Because" counterfactuals" look" to" the" comparative" similarityRmaximal"worlds,"on"the"(SCA)"the"particular"kind"of"disposition"test"quantified"over"may" fall"in"some"narrow"range.""An"ordinary"utterance"of"'If"I"dropped"this"cup,"it"would"break'"does"not" tell"us"much"about"the"cup's"behavior"across"a"broad"spectrum"of"circumstances"in"which"it"could"be" dropped;"rather," it"says"as"much"about"the"surface"the"cup"is"suspended"over"as"it"does"about"the" cup's"fragility." " The"ascription"of"a"disposition"to"break"when"struck"intuitively"conveys"information"about" an"object's"behavior" in"a"range"of"possible"cases" in"which" it" is"struck"–"some" in"which" it" is"struck" hard,"some"in"which"it"is"struck"not"so"hard,"etc.""The"problem"of"accidental"closeness"is"the"problem" that"counterfactuals"don't,necessarily"quantify"over"a"variegated"bunch"of"antecedentRworlds"–"they" quantify"over"antecedentRworlds"most"like"they"actual"world.""The"problem"of"accidental"closeness" is" roughly" that" counterfactuals" may" quantify" over" possibilities" all" of" which" are" Achilles" Heel" or" reverse"Achilles"Heel" cases." "M"&"W's" sturdy"brick" comes"out" fragile" (or"disposed" to"break"when" stressed)"on" the" (SCA)"because,"given" the"relevant"comparative"similarity" facts," all" the" 'stressed'R possibilities"quantified"over"are"quite"severe"stresses"which"cause"the"brick"to"break." " It"wouldn't" break"if"it"were"subjected"to"not"so"severe"stresses;"but"those"possible"stresses"occur"in"worlds"less" similar"allRthingsRconsidered"than"the"severe"stresses." " Manley"and"Wasserman's"solution"to"the"problem"is"to"suggest"that"disposition"ascriptions" quantify"over"a"'broader'"space"of"possibilities."'x"is"disposed"to"break"when"struck'"quantifies"over" all"sorts"possibilities"in"which"x"is"struck,"not"just"those"at"worlds"most"similar"allRthingsRconsidered" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 15"Manley"and"Wasserman"2008,"p."70." 14" " to"the"actual"world.""To"achieve"this"end,"they"introduce"the"notion"of"a"'stimulus"condition"case'"or" 'CRcase.'" "Since"what"they"call"the"stimulus"condition"I've"called"the"test"condition,"I'll"use"the"term" 'TRcase'"to"keep"the"terminology"uniform.""The"TRcases"are"all"of"the"nomologically,possible""cases"in" which"the"object"ascribed"the"disposition"is"intrinsically,just,as,it,actually"is"and"is"subjected"to"the" associated"test"condition."""" " For"example,"I"say"about"a"cup"in"front"of"me"on"my"desk" 'That"is"disposed"to"break"when" stressed.'" " The" TRcases" are" those" possible" cases" in"which" (a)" the" laws" of" nature" are" just" as" they" actually"are"(b)"all"of"the"intrinsic"properties"of"the"cup"are"just"as"they"actually"are"and"(c)"the"cup" is"stressed.""Building"on"the"characterization"of"a"TRcase,"their"analysis"is" " (M"&"W)" x"is"disposed"to"R"when"T"" iff" x"would"R"in"most"TRcases" " " " The" 'would'" in" their" analysans" doesn't" seem" to" have" any" intended"modal" significance;" that" is," 'TR cases'" is"a"way"of"referring"to"possible"cases"of"a"certain"sort"and"the"claim"is"that"the"disposition" ascription"holds"just"in"case"'R(x)'"is"true"in"a"certain"proportion"of"TRcases."" " I" believe" that"Manley" and"Wasserman's" analysis" is" basically" extensionally" adequate" (with" caveats" discussed" in" §7)." " It" is" easy" to" see"how" it" handles" the" counterexamples" to" the" (SCA)" and" habitual"analysis:"because" those"counterexamples"play"on"extrinsic" facts"about" the"circumstances" (the" presence" of" the" electroRfink;" the" availability" of" cobra" antivenom;" the" fact" that" the" brick" is" precariously" perched" at" 20m;" the" prevention" of" Mark" and" Andre's" smoking" and" farting" by" their" girlfriends)"which,are,not,present,in,the,vast,majority,of,the,TCcases,,the"disposition"will"manifest" in"most"of"the"TRcases." " A"purported"counterexample"to"(M"&"W)"has"appeared"in"a"recent"paper"by"Daniel"Bonevac," Joshua"Dever,"and"David"Sosa.16" "Here's" the"case:"suppose"x" is"not" fragile"but"has"an"Achilles"Heel" (fragility"test"in"which"it"would"break)"in"conditions"C.""Hook"x"up"to"a"machine"–"the"cleverly"named" Apollo,Machine" –"which"has" the" following" function:"whenever"x" is" in"a" fragilityRassociated"TRcase" (i.e."roughly"a"case"of"being"stressed"in"some"particular"way),"the"Apollo"Machine"subjects"x"to"the" precise"fragility"test"condition"C.""Because"C"is"an"Achilles"Heel"of"x,"the"story"goes,"in"every"TRcase"x" gives" the"response,"because" in"every"TRcase" the"Apollo"Machine"puts" it" in"conditions"C"which"will" cause"it"to"break." " The" example" is" clever" but" incorrect" because" it" misses" Manley" and"Wasserman's" specific" modal" claim"about"which"possibilities" are"TRcases." " The"TRcases" for" this" case" are" all" and"only" the" possibilities"in"which"x"is"(a)"intrinsically"just"as"it"actually"is"(b)"subject"to"laws"just"like"the"actual" laws"(c)"subjected"to"some"variety"of"the"test"condition"(stressed"in"suchRandRsuch"a"way)." "Their" mistake"is"here:"lots"of"those"cases"are"possibilities"in"which"there"is"no"Apollo"Machine"hooked"up" to"x.""It"is"plausible"that"Bonevac,"Dever,"and"Sosa"are"correct"that"x"breaks"in"every"case"in"which"it" subjected"to"a"fragility"test"and"attached"to"the"Apollo"Machine,"but"the"point"of"specifying"TRcases" in"terms"of"(a),"(b),"and"(c)"is"that"TRcases"will"include"mostly"cases"where"the"nonRintrinsic,"nonR law"facts"are"very"different.""That"x"is"attached"to"an"Apollo"Machine"is"in"not"an"intrinsic"property" of" x" nor" a" law" of" nature." " So" the" TRcases" needn't" be" cases" in"which" x" is" hooked" up" to" an" Apollo" Machine.""And"the"presumption,"which"is"admittedly"a"vague"and"handRwavy"(and"will"come"up"for" discussion" in" §7f)," is" that" 'most'" of" the" TRcases" aren't" cases" where" x" is" attached" to" an" Apollo" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 16"Bonevac,"Dever,"and"Sosa"forthcoming,"p."23." 15" " Machine." " This" is" precisely" the" reason"Manley" and"Wasserman's" proposal" advances" on" the" (SCA)" and"habitual"analysis"with"respect" to" the"modal"problem"of"dispositions." " If"x" is"hooked"up"to" the" Apollo"Machine," the"counterfactual's" comparative"similarity"will" take" 'If"x"were"stressed," it"would" break'" to" all" and"only"possibilities" in"which" x" is" stressed"while"hooked"up" to" the"machine" and" in" which" it" breaks." M" &"W's" TRcases" include" these" possibilities" (the" ones" in" which" x" has" the" same" intrinsic" properties" and" the" laws" are" the" same," at" least)" but" many" more" besides." " The" quantificational" force" of" the" modal" is" less" than" universal" ('most')" and" the" cases" in" which" the" indisposed" object" doesn't" break" are" intuitively" supposed" to" swamp" the" rare" cases" in" which" circumstances"conspire"to"target"the"Achilles"heel"(e.g."the"Apollo"Machine).""" " Manley" and"Wasserman"mention" that" the" account"may"need" to" be"weakened" to" take" into" account"some"nonRintrinsic"/"nonRlawful"facts"in"restricting"the"possibilities"disposition"ascriptions" quantify" over," and" I"will" discuss" this" issue" further" in" §7g." " I" think"prima, facie" (M"&"W)" is"much" harder" to" counterexample" than" the" (SCA)" or" habitual" analysis." " Counterexamples" that" play" on" factors"other"than"the"intrinsic"properties"and"laws"are"hard"to"get"going"because"the"general"idea"is" that" 'TRcases'" are" supposed" to" be" diverse" in" every" respect" besides" intrinsics" +" laws" that" no" particular"element"of"preventative"interference"or"happenstance"will"mask"the"disposition"in"most" of"the"TRcases." "We"will"see"some"counterexamples"later"in"the"paper,"but"for"now"I"want"to"adopt" for"the"sake"of"further"development"Manley"and"Wasserman's"proposal."" " Despite"its"prima"facie"plausibility,"I"think"M"&"W's"analysis"leaves"considerable"explanatory" currency"on"the"table.""In"the"first"place,"(M"&"W)"does"not"satisfy"the"Fara"constraint;"Manley"and" Wasserman"haven't"told"us"what"work"is"done"by"'is"disposed'"and"by"the"infinitival"complement"is" explicit"disposition"ascriptions.""I"think"it"is"natural"to"see"how"their"analysis"might"be"factored.""I'll" suggest"that"the" 'intrinsic"+"laws'"restriction"and"the"force"of"the"quantifier"is"the"part"done"by"'is" disposed,'"while"the"infinitival"complement"maps"the"'when'Rclause"into"the"restrictor"and"the"main" clause"into"the"scope"of"the"modal"quantifier.""I'll"suggest"that"this"template"is"feasible"not"only"for" disposition"ascriptions"but"for"other"ascriptions"in"the"Fara"class.""The"move"to"a"general"framework" for" analyzing" modal" vocabulary" will" allow" us" to" characterize" the" particular" modal" character" of" disposition"ascriptions.""" " " 5. The"simple"Kratzerian"framework" " " The"general"framework"for"the"semantics"of"modal"vocabulary"I'm"going"to"adopt"here"is"a" simple" version"of"Angelika"Kratzer's" relational" semantics" for"modals." " In" the" framework,"we'll" be" able" to" (a)" identify" the" contents"expressed"by"modal" claims"and" (b)" tell" a" simple" story"about" the" lexical"semantics"of"different"modal"terms"in"terms"of"quantification"over"possibilities"characterized" in"terms"of"three"dimensions:"modal,force,"modal,base,,and"ordering,source.""I'll"rehearse"the"basics" of"the"Kratzer"story"and"then"turn"to"the"application"to"disposition"ascriptions.""" " As"anyone"who"has" thought"even"a" little"bit"about"modals"knows,"modal"claims" in"natural" language"come"in"a"variety"of"different" 'flavors'"–"epistemic,"deontic,"alethic,"bouletic,"etc." "Putting" the" flavor" metaphor" aside," what" the" observation" amounts" to" is" that" different" modals" convey" information"about"different"possibilities"–"epistemic"modals"tell"us"how"things"go"in"the"possibilities" compatible"with" at" particular" body" of" knowledge," deontic"modals" tell"what" how" things" go" in" the" 16" " possibilities"compatible"with"rules"or"norms,"and"so"on." "Many"natural" language"modal" terms"can" express"different"flavors"in"different"contexts;"to"take"an"example"from"Kratzer"(1977)," " (19) All"Maori"children"must"learn"the"names"of"their"ancestors." (20) The"ancestors"of"the"Maoris"must"have"arrived"from"Tahiti."" " in"(19)" 'must'"expresses"a"deontic"modal"and"in"(20)"expresses"an"epistemic"modal." "Other"modal" terms" play" favorites:" 'might'," unlike" 'may'" for" instance," likes" expressing" epistemic" modality" but" doesn't"like"expressing"deontic"modality"(21)"–"(24)." " (21) You"might"be"lying." (22) You"may"be"lying." (23) #You"might"have"a"piece"of"candy"if"you'd"like." (24) You"may"have"a"piece"of"candy"if"you'd"like." " Kratzer"observes"that"even"within"a"single"'flavor'"of"modality"we"see"variation"in"the"modal"content" expressed.""Suppose"Maori"tribal"law"requires"that"children"learn"the"names"of"their"ancestors"but" British"colonial"regulations"aimed"to"undermine"local"culture"dictate"that"Maori"children"must"not" learn"the"names"of"their"ancestors." " Intuitively," in"the"mouth"of"someone"trying"to"say"what"tribal" law"requires,"an"utterance"of" (18)" is" true;"but" in" the"mouth"of" someone"expressing"what"colonial" regulations"dictate,"an"utterance"of"its"negation"(25)"is"true." " (25) All"Maori"children"must"not"learn"the"names"of"their"ancestors." " In" order" to" bring" out" the" difference" in" the" modal" claims" expressed," Kratzer" suggests" that" we" consider"modals"which"make"explicit"reference"to"the"relevant"possibilities"with"the"phrase"'in"view" of':" " (26) In"view"of"tribal"law,"all"Maori"children"must"learn"the"names"of"their"ancestors." (27) In"view"of"the"oppressor's"regulations,"all"Maori"children"must"not"learn"the"names" " of"their"ancestors." " " On"Kratzer's" view,"modals" express" relations"between"a"proposition"or"propositions" and" a" body,of, information" –" the" rules," regulations,"knowledge,"beliefs," essences,"or"whatever" in,view,of, which,the"prejacent"must"or"might"be"the"case." "In"(25)"the"information"characterizes"one"body"of" rules,"Maori"tribal"law;"in"(26),"it's"a"different"body"of"rules,"the"British"regulations.""For"epistemic" modals,"the"relevant"body"of"information"is"what,is,known,(by"some"relevant"person"or"persons)."" For"bouletic"modals,"it's"a"relevant"body"of"desires;"for"nomological"modals,"it's"laws;"and"so"on." " At" the" heart" of"Kratzer's" account" are" two" importantly" different"ways" of" talking" about" the" relevant"body"of"information.""The"first"way"of"thinking"about"the"body"of"information"is"as"a"set,of, propositions,,or,"taking"propositions"to"be"sets"of"possible"worlds,"a"set,of,sets,of,possible,worlds."" This"is"called"the,premise,set.""Frequently"I"will"drop"the"propositional"structure"of"premise"sets"and" speak"of"the"set"of"worlds"compatible"with"a"premise"set"(set"of"worlds"where"every"premise"is"true" 17" " /"intersection"of"all"of"the"elements"of"the"premise"set).""Premise"sets"are"importantly"different"than" unstructured"sets"of"possible"worlds" in"at" least" two"respects:" (a)" they"connect"modal"relations" to" familiar"semantic"relations"like"consistency"and"entailment"and"(b)"allow"Kratzer"to"describe"some" modal"reasoning"in"terms"of"the"resolution"of"inconsistent"premise"sets.""But"since"philosophers"are" much"more"familiar"with"the"unstructured"possible"worlds"framework,"I"will"assume"we're"working" with"consistent"premise"sets"and"go"back"and"forth"freely"between"the"two"ways"of"speaking." " Premise"sets"are"a"central"element"of"the"semantics"but"they"haven't"capture"one"element"of" the" 'modal" flavor'" metaphor" –" the" set" of" premises" itself" is" not" recognizable" as" being" 'epistemic'," 'denotic'," 'alethic'," etc." " Suppose" that" Fundamentalist" Fred" knows" all" and" only" what" the" laws" of" nature" are;" when" an" epistemic" modal" concern's" Fred" knowledge," the" relevant" premise" set" is" identical" to" the" premise" set" relevant" to" claims" concerning" nomological" possibility;" qua, set" of" propositions" there" is" nothing" intrinsically"making" it" the" body" of" information" characterizing"what" Fred"knows"or"the"body"of"information"characterizing"the"laws"of"nature.""If"Fred's"knowledge"had" been"different,"epistemic"modal"claims"concerning"what"must"or"can"be"in"light"of"Fred's"evidence" would"have"expressed"something"different"but"claims"about"nomological"possibility"wouldn't." " Kratzer" gets" at" the" 'flavor'" metaphor" with" the" concept" of" a" conversational, background," which"acts"like"the"condition"specified"by"an"'in"view"of'"phrase.""The"content"expressed"by"'in"view" of"tribal" law'"depends"on"the"what"the"tribal" laws"are;"we"can"identify"this"specific"conversational" background"with"the,function,from,a,world,w,to,the,premise,set,A,characterizing,the,tribal,laws,at, w." "If"the"epistemic"Fred"premise"set"="the"laws"of"nature"premise"set,"we"can"still"distinguish"the" 'flavors'" of" the"modals" on" the" basis" of" the" conversational" background:" in" the" epistemic" case," the" background" is" a" function" from" worlds" to" the" premises" characterizing" what" Fred" knows" in" that" world,"and" in" the"nomological"case"a" function" from"worlds"to"premises"characterizing"the" laws" in" that"world." " Modals" terms" express" familiar" semantic" relations" between" the" prejacent" and" premise" set" like" consistency" and" entailment:" 'A" proposition" is" necessary" with" respect" to" a" premise" set" if" it" follows"from"it..."A"proposition"is"possible"with"respect"to"a"premise"set"if"it"is"compatible"with"it.'17"" When"we" talk" about"unstructured"worlds" instead"of"premise" sets,"necessity" is" truth"at" all"worlds" and"possibility"truth"at"some"worlds.""The"modal,force"of"some"modal"proposition"is"this"dimension" of" quantificational" strength" or" strength" of" semantic" relation," and" the" paradigmatic" poles" are" the" necessity" and" possibility" modal:" the" former" with" universal" or" entailment" force," the" latter" with" existential"or"consistency"force." " The"other"two"central"notions"in"the"triad"used"to"characterize"modal"contents"correspond" to" two" different" functions" of" the" premise" sets" determined" by" conversational" backgrounds." " One" thing"we've"already"seen"a"premise"set"do"is"restrict"the"quantification"to"a"specific"set"of"worlds"–" those"compatible"with"the"premise"set.""We've"seen"that"role"in"sentence"(20)"which"is"true"just"in" case" all" worlds" in" the" premise" set" characterizing" the" relevant" body" of" knowledge" are" worlds" in" which"the"Maori's"ancestors"come"from"Tahiti.""When"a"premise"set"restricts"the"modal"quantifier"to" worlds"compatible"with"the"premise"set,"we"call"it"a"modal,base."" " But"sometimes"premise"sets"play"a"different"role." "Here's"an"example."Here's"one"thing"the" Bible"says"about"stealing." " """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 17"Kratzer"1977"/"forthcoming,"p."10." 18" " (28) If"a"man"gives"to"his"neighbor"money"or"goods"to"keep"safe,"and"it"is"stolen"from"the" " man's"house,"then,"if"the"thief"is"found,"he,must,pay,double.18"" " Suppose"you"lend"me"some"money"or"goods"to"keep"safe,"and"it's"stolen,"but"the"thief"is"found.""Then" (29)"is"true." " (29) In"view"of"what"the"Bible"teaches,"the"thief"must"pay"double.""" " Suppose"we"treat"this"modal"and"the"Biblical"premise"set"analogously"to"(20)"and"propose"that"(29)" is"true"just"in"case"all"of"the"worlds"compatible"with"what"the"Bible"teaches"are"worlds"in"which"the" thief" pays" double." " Despite" some" prima" facie" plausibility," this"won't"work." " There" are" no"worlds" compatible"with"what"the"Bible"teaches"in"which"the"thief"steals"the"goods"you"lent"me,"because"the" Bible"also"says""" " (30) Thou"shalt"not"steal.19" " All" of" the"worlds" compatible"with" everything" the" Bible" prescribes" are"worlds"where" there" is" no" theft,"no"usury,"no"murder,"and"so"on.""And"as"a"result"we"certainly"don't"get"the"right"semantics"for" Biblical" prescriptions"which" are" conditional" upon" violation" of" these" teachings" –" that" is," the" rules" that"say"what's"supposed"to"happen"when"things"go"wrong." " The"fix"is"to"recognize"the"difference"between"the"different"roles"a"premise"set"can"play.""To" begin"with,"(29)"intuitively"says"what"must"be"the"case"in"worlds"where"details"of"the"situation"are" the"same"–"worlds"where"you"lent"me"goods"or"money,"the"thief"stole"them,"and"is"caught.""Let"the" modal" base" characterize" these" relevant" details" of" the" situation;" that" way" we" ensure" that" aren't" missing"the"possibilities"we"care"about.""" " What"the"premise"set"characterizing"Biblical"teachings"does"is"induce,an,ordering"–"that"is," partially"orders"the"possibilities"compatible"with"the"modal"base"(the"possibilities"where"you"lent" me"money"or"goods,"the"thief"stole"it,"and"the"thief"was"caught)"with"respect"to"how"well"they"satisfy" the"prescriptions"of"the"Bible.""Intuitively"some"of"those"worlds"will"be"worlds"where,"following"the" Bibcal" teaching," the" thief"pays"double;"others"will"be"worlds"where"he"doesn't." "What" the"account" says"is"that"(27)"is"true"just"in"case"the"all"of"the"worlds"compatible"with"the"modal"base"(i.e."where" you"me"the"money"or"goods,"the"thief"stole"it,"and"the"thief"was"caught)"which"are"'best'"or"minimal" in"the"induced"ordering"(i.e."those"which"most"satisfy"the"prescriptions"of"the"Bible)"are"worlds"in" which"the"thief"pays"double.""And"this"is"intuitively"right"–"among"the"possibilities"compatible"with" the"modal"base,"the"ones"where"the"thief"pays"double"are"better"by"the"lights"of"the"Biblical"induced" ordering,"because"they"make"at"least"one"more"proposition"in"that"premise"set"true." " This" framework" and" its" three" central" notions" (force," base," ordering)" allow" us" to" do" a" number"of"different"things,"but"there"are"two"things"in"particular"I"want"to"focus"on.""First,"it"gives" us"a"way"of"describing"particular"modal"contents"expressed"on"a"given"occasion"of"utterance"–"we" can"say"that"(20)"expresses"a"strong"modal"relation"between"the"prejacent"and"an"epistemic"base" characterizing" contemporary" knowledge" (of" Maori" history" or" whatever" relevant" information" we" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 18"Exodus"22:7" 19"Exodus"20:15" 19" " need)" with" an" empty" ordering" source," and" that" (29)" expresses" a" strong" utterance" expresses" a" strong" modal" relation" between" the" prejacent" and" a" realistic" modal" base" characterizing" relevant" features"of"the"situation"and"Biblical"teachings"as"the"ordering"source.""The"second"thing"we"can"do" is"describe"what"sort"values" for"the"three"central"notions"(force,"base,"ordering)"difference" lexical" items"('might',"'can',"'may',"'able',"'permitted',"'allowed'"etc.)"can"take.""An"example"of"the"first"use"of" the" framework" is" to" say" for" instance" that" the" difference" between" the" truth" conditions" of" an" utterance"of" " (31) I"am"able"to"play"the"piano." " and"" " (32) I"am"allowed"to"play"the"piano." " can"be"captured"by"differences" in" the"modal"bases"and"ordering"sources" involved:"roughly,"(31)'s" modal"base"characterizes" the" fundaments"of"my"pianoRplaying"ability"(my"knowRhow," ten" fingers," and" " properly" functioning" central" nervous" system)" with" an" empty" ordering" while" (32)" has" an" ordering"induced"by"the"relevant"permissions.""An"example"of"the"second"use"of"the"framework"is"to" point" out" that" this"different" in" specific" contents" is" an" instance"of" the" general"phenomenon"which" distinguishes" the" lexical" meanings" of" 'able'" and" 'allowed'" (even" though" they" are" both" possibility" modals):"'able'"modals"like"to"take"realistic"modal"bases"comprising"the"relevant"'ability'Rfacts"for"an" agent"(intrinsic"skills,"some"relevant"nonRintrinsic"circumstances)"and"'allowed'"modals"like"to"take" deontic" ordering" sources" comprising" the" relevant" 'allowance'Rfacts" (some" body" of" permissions," rules,"or"regulations)."""" " " 6. Disposition"ascriptions"in"the"Kratzerian"framework" " " In"'The"notional"category"of"modality',"Kratzer"sets"about""the"second"task"for"a"broad"class" of" German" modal" expressions" including" unpronounced" /" generic" modals," adjectives" with" modal" suffixes,"modal"auxiliaries,"and"modal"adverbs." "The"resulting"picture"is"one"of"incredible"diversity" of" modal" meanings" with" many" modal" terms" having" a" characteristic" and" often" unique" range" of" admissible"modal"bases"and"ordering"sources.""Here's"a"few"examples:" , I,could,say, , (26),Ich,bin,nicht,imstande,,Posaune,zu,spielen., I,am,not,able,trombone,to,play., , if, I, have, asthma, or, weak, nerves, or, if, I, have, no, talent., I, doubt, whether, I, could, say, it, in, a, situation,where, I, haven't, learnt, how, to, play, the, trombone., And, I, could, never, say, it, on, the, island,with,my, trombone, lost,at, sea.,The,relevant,circumstances, for, imstande"sein, 20" " are, concerned,with, the, strength,of, the,body,, character, or, intellect., For,kann,,there,is,another,restriction:, , (27),#,Dieses,Messer,kann,nicht,schneiden., This,knife,can,not,cut., , (28),#,Dieser,Hut,kann,den,Kopf,warmhalten., This,hat,can,the,head,keep,warm., , (29),#,Dieser,Ofen,kann,nicht,richtig,heizen., This,stove,can,not,properly,heat., , (27),to,(29),sound,funny.,They,suggest,that,the,knife,,the,hat,or,the, stove,are,agents,taking,an,active,part,in,the,cutting,,the,warming,of, the,head,or,the,heating.,To,avoid,this,effect,,we,would,have,to,say:, , (28),Dieses,Messer,schneidet,nicht., This,knife,cuts,not., , (29),Dieser,Hut,hält,den,Kopf,warm., This,hat,keeps,the,head,warm., , (30),Dieser,Ofen,heizt,nicht,richtig., This,stove,heats,not,properly., , One,of,the,factors,responsible,for,the,deviance,of,(27),to,(29),relates, to,agency...20" , , The, suffixes, Cbar, and, Clich, allow, all, kinds, of, ordering, sources,, depending,on,the,adjective,they,are,attached,to., " (57),Dieses,Eintrittsbillet,ist,nicht,übertragbar., This,admission,ticket,is,not,transferable., , According, to, the, regulations,, it, is,not,possible, to,give, this, ticket, to, anyone,else.21, , , I" present" these" cases" to" illustrate" that" it" is" quite" common" that" modal" terms" be" associated" with" particular" or" general" kinds" of" modal" bases" /" ordering" sources" they" can" and" cannot" take." " If" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 20"Kratzer"1981"/"forthcoming,"p."30" 21"Kratzer"1981"/"forthcoming,"p."37" 21" " disposition" ascriptions" are" going" to" be" treated" in" this" manner," the" central" element" we" need" to" specify"is"the"particular"kind"of"modal"bases"/"ordering"sources"disposition"ascriptions"can"take." " Manley"and"Wasserman"have"done"a"preliminary"job"of"addressing"this"by"introducing"the" 'TRcases':"we"want"possibilities"compatible"with"(a)" the" intrinsic"properties"of" the"object"ascribed" the" disposition" and" (b)" the" laws" of" nature." " In" Kratzerian" terms:" " we" want" a" modal" base" characterizing" the" intrinsic" properties" and" laws;" and" that's" all," so" we'll" have" an" empty" ordering" source." " As" it"happens"Kratzer"herself"gives"an"analysis"along"these" lines" in" 'Notional"Category'" for" the"recognizably"disposition"German"modal"adjective"'zerbrechlich':""" " (58),Diese,Tasse,ist,zerbrechlich., This,cup,is,fragile., , (58),has,a,realistic,modal,base,and,an,empty,ordering,source.,It,is,in, view,of,certain,properties,inherent,in,the,cup,that,it,is,possible,for,it, to,break.,[38], " In"order"to"guarantee"that"a"modal"base"characterizing"the"properties"of"the"cup"doesn't"take"us"to" worlds" where" those" properties" don't" play" their" usual" causal" roles" (e.g." worlds" where" platinum" breaks" easily" and" thin" glass" is" indestructible)" I" follow" Lewis's" suggestion" to" add" a" restriction" to" possibilities" compatible" with" the" laws" of" nature." " With" this" minimal" revision," Kratzer's" account" looks"almost"exactly"like"Manley"and"Wasserman's." " My"proposal"is"essentially"just"a"restatement"of"the"revised"Kratzer"analysis"of"'zerbrechlich'"" and"the"(M"&"W)"account"recast"in"Kratzerian"terms:"" " (MRWRK1)" ⟦N"is"disposed"to"ψ"when"φ⟧w"" ="1" " iff" ⟦Most⟨⟦φ⟧∩B(w),⟦ψ⟧⟩⟧w"="1" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " where" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " B(w)"="modal"base"" " " " " " " " " " " characterizing"the"intrinsic"" " " " " " " " " " properties"of"N"and"laws"of"" " " " " " " " " " nature"at"w" " " " " " " " " " " and" " " " " " " " " " " ⟦Most⟨χ,!τ⟩⟧"="1"just"in"case"" " " " " " " " " " most"(≥.5)"objects"in"the" " " " " " " " " " " domain"satisfying"χ!satisfy'τ" "" Informally," a"disposition"ascription" is" true" just" in" case"more" than"half" of" the" accessible"worlds" in" which"it's"tested"are"worlds"in"which"it"gives"the"response.""The"accessible"worlds"are"those"in"the" compatible"with"the"dispositional"modal"base"–"the"worlds"where"all"of"the"intrinsic"properties"of" 22" " the"referent"of"'N'"and"the"laws"of"nature"are"just"as"they"are"at"w.""The"modal"force"–"'most'"–"is"the" least"workedRout"element,"and"I"will"return"to"it"(though"with"little"to"add)"in"§7f." " (MRWRK1)"is"truthRconditionally"equivalent"to"(M"&"W)"on"the"assumption"that"⟦φ⟧∩B(w)"=" the" TRcases." " Significant" revisions" of" (MRWRK1)" will" be" needed" to" account" for" certain" kinds" of" disposition"ascriptions,"but"since"I"hope"I"made"the"case"earlier"that"(M"&"W)"is"truthRconditionally" in"the"right"ballpark,"I"want"to"discuss"the"explanatory"advantages"of"the"Kratzerian"reformulation" before"considering"some"challenges"to"the"extensional"adequacy"of"(MRWRK1)."" "" " " 7. Merits"and"demerits"of"the"MRWRK"analysis" " " " " " " " In"this"section"I'll"consider"some"merits"and"demerits"of"this"analysis.""Subsections"(a)"–"(d)" detail"four"merits,"and"subsections"(e)"–"(g)"detail"three"demerits." " a. Fara's"constraint" " " One" advantage"of" (MRWRK1)" is" that" it" lends" itself" to" a" simple" explanation"of" the" semantic" division" of" labor" between" 'is" disposed'" and" the" embedded" infinitival" complement." " Here" are" the" elements"of"(MRWRK1):"there's"(a)"the"'most'"quantifier,"(b)"⟦φ⟧,"(c)"⟦ψ⟧,"(d)"the"modal"base"B(w)," and"(e)"an"empty"ordering"source.""Even"though"(e)"plays"no"role"in"(MRWRK1),"it"will"figure"in"the" schematic"generalization"to"cover"other"sentences"in"the"Fara"class.""" " I" follow" Fara" in" assuming" 'a" widely" accepted" principle" of" syntax'," namely" 'that" infinitival" clauses"must"have"subjects.'22" " In"particular," in" these"simple"disposition"ascriptions" the"subject"of" the"infinitival"clause"will"just"be"the"subject"of"the"sentence,"i.e."the"object"ascribed"the"disposition."" I'm" going" to" ignore" any" other" complications" of" English" syntax" and" assume" that" our" example" disposition"ascription" " (13)" Mark"is"disposed"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." " as"well"as"the"similar"Fara"class"sentences"like" " (14)" Mark"is"reluctant"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." (15)" Mark"is"able"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." (16)" Mark"is"permitted"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." " are" parsed" into" three" semantically" significant" units:" the" adjective" phrase" ('is" disposed'" /" 'is" reluctant'" /" 'is" able'" /" 'is" permitted')," the"main" clause"of" the" infinitive" ('Mark" smokes')" [note" that" following" the" 'widely" accepted" principle" of" syntax'" it" includes" the" subject]," and" the" 'when'Rclause" ('when" he" is" stressed.')" " I" am" interpreting" Fara's" constraint" as" requiring" a" minimally" plausible" mapping" from" the" three"units" to" the"elements" in" the"analysis"of"disposition"ascriptions"capturing" the" semantic" contribution" of" each" unit." " We" will" see" a" stark" difference" between" the" (MRWRK)" analysis" and" Fara's" habitual" analysis:" while" Fara's" habitual" analysis" treats" 'is" disposed'" as" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 22"Fara"2005,"p."62." 23" " contributing" an" operator" on" the" quantificational" structure" contributed" by" the" unpronounced" habitual" quantifier" (universal" force," totally" realistic" ordering" source)," on" (MRWRK1)" 'is" disposed'" contributes" it's" particular" force" ('most')," modal" base" (intrinsics" +" laws)," and" ordering" source" (empty)." "On"this"approach,"the"different"truth"conditions"of"sentences"like"(13)"–"(16)"reflect"the" different"modal"force,"modal"base,"and"ordering"source"contributed"by"'is"disposed',"'is"reluctant',"'is" able',"etc.,"rather"than"different"operators"they"contribute"on"the"habitual"quantification0." "In"each" case," the" main" clause" of" the" infinitive" and" the" 'when'Rclause" do" nothing" more" than" provide" conditions"in"the"scope"and"restrictor"of"the"quantifier,"respectively." " Here's"a" simple" illustration" in"which"each" label" connects"a" semantically" significant"unit"of" the"sentence"to"the"elements"in"the"semantics"it"contributed:"" " 'Mark"is"disposed"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed.'" " Most⟨⟦Mark"is"stressed⟧∩B(w),⟦Mark"smokes⟧⟩"23" " " My" optimistic" position" is" that" in" this" general" setup" we" can" provide" analogous" truthR conditional" analyses" for" other" sentences" in" the" Fara" class" reasonably" that" are" informative" and" prima"facie"plausible." " (13) Mark"is"disposed"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed."" (14) Mark"is"reluctant"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." (15) Mark"is"able"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." (16) Mark"is"permitted"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." (33) Mark"is"inclined"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." (34) Mark"is"believed"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." (35) Mark"is"known"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." (36) Mark"is"destined"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." (37) Mark"is"afraid"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." (38) Mark"is"wise"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." (39) Mark"is"required"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." " In"particular,"I"think"we"can"understand"the"shared"logical"form"of"many"or"all"sentences"of"this"kind" along" the" following"schematic" lines," for"name"N,"adjective"A,"main" infinitive" clause"ψ"and" 'when'R clause"φ:" " (MRWRK"GEN)" " ⟦N"is"A"to"ψ"when"φ⟧"w""="1" iff" ⟦Q⟨B(w)"∩"min(≤O,⟦φ⟧),"⟦ψ⟧⟩⟧w""="1" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " for"binary"quantifier"Q" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 23"Color"coding:" main"clause"of"infinitive" " " 'when'Rclause" " " " adjective"phrase" " 24" " " " " " " " " " modal"base"B" " " " " " " " " and"≤O"induced"by"ordering"source"O" " And"in"particular,"we"can"say"which"bits"get"provided"by"what:"the"mapping"of"the"main"clause"of" the"infinitive"to"the"scope"and"'when'Rclause"to"the"restrictor"is"common"to"all"these"sentences,"but" different" adjective"phrases" contribute"different" values" for"Q,"B," and"O." "The"one"we've"been"most" interested"in"is"'is"disposed',"which"I've"suggested,"building"on"Manley"and"Wasserman,"contributes" " Q" =" 'most'" B(w)" =" {w*:"laws"of"nature"and"intrinsics"of"referent"of"'N'"are"just"as"they"are"in"w}" O" =" empty"" " " I" think" this" type" of" analysis" is" very" plausible" for" the" adjectives" manifestly" expressing" familiar" modalities" getting" operator" treatment" in" normal" modal" logics" –" that" is," adjectives" like" 'believed'," 'known'," 'permitted'." " Here" some" potential" instances" of" the" schema" for" some" of" those" adjectives:" "" " (16) Mark"is"permitted"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." " " " ⟦Some"⟨B(w)"∩"min(≤O,"⟦Mark"is"stressed⟧),"⟦Mark"smokes⟧⟩"⟧" " " " " " Quantifier:"" Existential" " " " " " B(w)"="" set"of"worlds"compatible"with"realistic"base"characterizing"any"" " " " " relevant"facts"apart"from"the"rules" " " " " " ≤O"=" " ordering"induced"by"relevant"body"of"permissions,"rules,"or"" " " " " " regulations"" " " " " " Gloss:" " true"just"in"case"some"worlds"in"which"Mark"is"stressed"among"those"" " " " " most"compliant"to"the""rules"and"preserving"certain"relevant"facts"" " " " " are"worlds"in"which"Mark"smokes." " (39) Mark"is"required"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." " " ⟦All"⟨B(w)"∩"min((≤O,"⟦Mark"is"stressed⟧,"⟦Mark"smokes⟧⟩⟧" " " " " " " Quantifier:"" Universal" " " " " " B(w)"="" set"of"worlds"compatible"with"realistic"base"characterizing"any"" " " " " relevant"facts"apart"from"the"rules" " " " " " ≤O"=" " ordering"induced"by"relevant"body"of"permissions,"rules,"or"" " " " " " regulations"" 25" " " " " " " Gloss:" " true"just"in"case"some"worlds"in"which"Mark"is"stressed"among"those"" " " " " most"compliant"to"the""rules"and"preserving"certain"relevant"facts"" " " " " are"worlds"in"which"Mark"smokes." " " (34)" " Mark"is"believed"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." " """""""⟦All"⟨B(w)"∩"min((≤O,"⟦Mark"is"stressed⟧,"⟦Mark"smokes⟧⟩⟧" " " " Quantifier:" universal" " " " B(w)"="" set"of"worlds"compatible"with"modal"base"characterizing"" " " " " " relevant"propositions"believed" " " " " " ≤O"=" " empty"ordering" " " " Gloss:" " true"just"in"case"all"the"worlds"compatible"with"what"is"believed"by""" " " " " relevant"person"or"persons"in"which"Mark"is"stressed"are"worlds"in"" " " " " which"Mark"smokes" " (35)" " Mark"is"known"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." " """""""⟦All"⟨B(w)"∩"min((≤O,"⟦Mark"is"stressed⟧,"⟦Mark"smokes⟧⟩⟧" " " " Quantifier:" universal" " " " B(w)"="" set"of"worlds"compatible"with"modal"base"characterizing"" " " " " " relevant"propositions"known" " " " ≤O"=" " empty"ordering" " " " Gloss:" " true"just"in"case"all"the"worlds"compatible"with"what"is"known"and"in" " " " " which"Mark"is"stressed"are"worlds"in"which"Mark"smokes" " I" don't" have" anything" in"particular" to" say" in" favor"of" these" analyses," but" I" take" their" similarity" to" existing"analyses"to"constitute"some"evidence"in"favor"of"the"general"approach." "Nor"do"I"have"any" defense" that" plausible" accounts" could" be" produced" for" other" adjectives" like" 'inclined'," 'destined'," 'determined'," 'expected'"which"lack"the"familiar"treatment"in"possible"worlds"frameworks"of"those" adjectives"considered"above."" " Let's"compareRandRcontrast"this"approach"with"Fara's"own"analysis." "Recall"that"Fara"takes" disposition" ascriptions" to" express" an" operator" DISP" on" a" habitual" which" has" the" truth" condition" 'DISP(x" ψs" when" φ)'" =" 1" just" in" case" x" ψs" when" φ" in" virtue" of" an" intrinsic" property" of" x." " The" habitual" is" given" a" quantificational" semantics:" Fara" takes" habituals" to" express" (a)" universal" quantification" over" possibilities" (b)" restricted" to" exclude" 'admissible" exceptions'" (c)" restricted" to" 26" " the"most"comparatively"similar"possibilities"satisfying"the" 'when'Rcondition." "What" this"gives"us" is" roughly"the"following"division"of"semantic"labor:" " 'Mark"is"disposed"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed.'" " DISPMark((∀w":"w"∈"⟦¬AE⟧"∩"min(≤,⟦Mark"is"stressed⟧))(⟦Mark"smokes⟧))" " where"⟦¬AE⟧"is"the"set"of"possibilities"which"aren't"admissible"exceptions,"≤"is"an"overall"similarity" ordering"(like"a"Lewisian"comparative"similarity"ordering"or"a"Kratzerian"totally"realistic"ordering)" and"min(≺,A)"for"binary"relation"≺"and"set"A"denotes"B"⊆"A"such"that"b"∈"B"just"in"case"(i)"b"∈"A"and" (ii)"for"any"a"∈"A,"if"a"≺"b"then"a=b." " According"to"Fara"'is"disposed'"(red"highlighting)"contributes"only"the"disposition"operator" DISP.! ! Observe' that! the$ truthRconditional) contribution) of# DISP% is# not$ even$ exhausted$ by$ the$ contribution) of) 'is) disposed') –! it# also# requires# the# specification# of# a# subject# whose# intrinsic# properties(the(operator(cares(about." " The$ main$ clause$ of$ the$ habitual$ (blue)$ contributes! the$matrix' proposition! expressed' by' 'Mark& smokes'% and% additionally% the$unpronounced)habitual( quantifier!which% can% be% broken%down% into!three%moving%!parts&–!universal*force,"restriction)to)the$most!similar'worlds,"and"restricting)out) 'admissible)exceptions.'" " The$ 'when'Rclause' of' the' habitual' (green)'maps% into% the% restrictor;% altogether,% the% habitual% expresses& the& universal& quantificational& relation& between& the& domain& of& orderRminimal,' nonR 'inadmissible+ exception'+ worlds+ where+ the+ 'when'Rclause' is' satisfied' and' the' domain' of' worlds' in' which%the%main%clause%of%the%habitual%is%satisfied." " I" think" it" is" easy" to" see" that" Kratzer's" approach" is" far" more" adequate" than" Fara's" to" explaining" the" truth"conditions"of" sentences" in" the"Fara"class."The"central"difference"between" the" two"is"this:"Fara"treats"'is"disposed'"as"an"operator"on"a"modal"quantifier"(the"habitual)"whereas"on" the"(MRWRK)"approach"'is"disposed'"is"treated"as"itself"a"modal"quantifier.""Given"the"Fara"constraint," the"operator" style" story"will" explain" the"different" truth"conditions"between"sentences" in" the"Fara" class"by"telling"a"story"about"all"these"different,kinds,of,operators,on,habituals"there"are." " As"I"illustrated"above,"one"thing"the"modal"quantifier"approach"has"going"for"it,"and"least"for" some"of"the"relevant"sentences,"is"tradition"–"we"know"what"to"say"about"'is"known'"or"'is"believed'" because" the"modal" force,"modal"base."and"ordering"sources"associated"with"knowledge"and"belief" attributions"are"relatively"well"understood.""However,"on"Fara's"analysis,"the"force,"base,"and"source" are"independent,of,the,adjectives"–"they"are"provided"by"an"unpronounced"habitual"quantifier.""This" seems"bad" for" at" least" two" reasons." " First,"we" should"prefer" to" explain" the" semantics" in" terms"of" pronounced"elements"before"appealing" to"unpronounced"elements" like" the"generic"quantifier." " In" generic" sentences," we" have" good" reason" to" posit" the" unpronounced" habitual" quantifier" –" the" sentences" seem" quantificational," but" there" is" are" pronounced" constituents" can" plausibly" be" understood"as"a"quantifier." "However," the"sentences"we've"been" looking"at"do"have"a"pronounced" element" that" can" be" understood" as" contributing" a"modal" quantifier" –" the" adjective" phrase." " The" second" reason" the" unpronounced" habitual" quantifier" looks" bad" is" precisely" because"we" lose" the" explanatory"power"of" the"key" elements"of" the"modal" quantifier" story" to" the"habitual,"which"does" essentially" no" work."We"want" to" avail" ourselves" of" the" descriptive" resources" of" possible" worlds" 27" " quantification" to" explain" the" differences" between" these" sentences" –" we" want" to" say" e.g." that" 'required'"and"'allowed'"can"take"similar"bases"and"orderings"in"a"context"but"are"differentiated"in" terms" of" the" former" having" universal" and" the" latter" having" existential" quantificational" force." " On" Fara's" approach,"what"we" have" is" two" operators"which" embed" the" generic" quantifier" –" universal" force,"allRthingsRconsidered"similarity"ordering,"restricted"to"bar"'permissible"exceptions.'""Since"all" of"that"is"shared"by"all"of"the"sentences"under"consideration,"despite"their"obviously"quite"different" truth"conditions,"the"question"arises,"why"should"we"think"an"unpronounced"habitual"quantifier"is" doing"so"much"semantic"work?""" " " b. Entailments"/"nonentailments:"counterfactuals"""" " " " An" important" element" of" the" Kratzerian" approach" to" modals" is" its" ability" to" capture" entailments" between" modal" sentences." " For" instance," given" 'required'" and" 'allowed'" ascriptions" taking"the"same"base"and"source,"we"can"explain"why"the"'required'"ascription"entails"the"'allowed'" one"in"terms"of"the"respective"modal"forces"contributed"by"the"adjectives." " When"it"comes"to"dispositions,"the"obvious"entailment"/nonRentailment"to"scrutinize"is"with" counterfactual"conditionals.""Luckily"Kratzer"has"an"analysis"of"conditionals"within"the"framework."" Counterfactuals"are"just"one"of"a"number"of"modalized"conditionals:" " The, logical, forms, of, such, conditionals, conform, to, the, following, rough,schema,,where,an,adjoined,ifCclause,modifies,a,sentence,that, has,a,modal,sitting,in,its,left,periphery:, , (If,.......),,(necessarily,......), (If,.......),,(possibly,......), (If,.......),,(probably,......), etc., , The,matrix,clauses,of,such,conditional,constructions,are,runCofCtheC mill, overtly, or, covertly, modalized, sentences, of, the, kind, we, have, been, discussing., The, job, of, if, clauses, in, modalized, conditionals, is, simple:, they, restrict, the,modal,base,of, the, associated,modal, in, the, matrix,clause.24, "" In"particular" " A, counterfactual, is, characterized, by, an, empty,modal, base, f, and, a, totally,realistic,ordering,source,g.25, " """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 24"Kratzer"1981"/"forthcoming"pp."42"R"43" 25"Kratzer"1981"/"forthcoming"pp."42"R"43" 28" " A"'totally"realistic"ordering"source'"is"a"set"of"premises"completely"characterizing"the"way"the"world" is;" the" ordering" induced" by" a" totally" realistic" premise" set" is" thus" an" ordering" of" comparative" similarity"to"a"world.""Thus"the"informal"truthRconditional"gloss"of"Kratzer's"analysis"is"just"like"the" familiar"Lewis"story:""'if"φ,"it"would"be"that"ψ'"is"true"just"in"case"all"the"most"comparatively"similar" worlds"where"φ"are"worlds"where"ψ.""""" " Disposition" ascriptions" don't" entail" counterfactuals" on" a" picture" combining" Kratzer's" analysis" of" counterfactuals" with" (MRWRK1)." " Why?" " Essentially" because" of" they" are" mismatch" in" every" dimension:" different"modal" force," different"modal" base," different" ordering" source." "Manley" and"Wasserman's"'problem"of"accidental"closeness'"illustrates"what"I"take"to"be"the"most"important" aspect" of" divergence:" counterfactuals" are"primarily" characterized"by" the" totally" realistic" ordering" source,"whereas"disposition"ascriptions"do"not"primarily"care"about"the" 'most"similar'"worlds,"but" rather"about"a"'broader'"space"of"worlds"preserving"a"very"specific"body"of"facts"–"those"concerning" the"intrinsic"properties"of"the"object"and"the"laws"of"nature." " This"captures"the"basic"element"of"the"inferential"role"that"dispositions"play"in"ordinary"and"" scientific"reasoning,"which"seems"quite"different"from"the"role"of"counterfactuals:"if"you"know"that" some"stuff"is"disposed"to"dissolve"in"water,"then"you"are"able"to"predict"dissolution"in"cases"of"being" placed"in"water"without"knowing"anything"else"about"the"extrinsic"circumstances"of"the"setup." "Of" course" this" prediction" is" defeasible" –" the" truth" of" the" disposition" ascriptions" requires" only" that" dissolution" occurs" in"most, test" cases," and" we" may" be" able" to" identify" preventative" or" unlucky" circumstantial" factors"operative" in"separating"the"dissolution"cases"and"the"nonRdissolution"cases." But"the"important"point"is"that"the"applicability"of"counterfactual"knowledge"to"a"possible"case"is"in" general" as" strong" as" that" case" is" similar" allRthingsRconsidered" to" the" actual" world," while" the" applicability" of" knowledge" of" dispositions" to" a" possible" case" is" not" so" dependent" on" overall" similarity." " This"gives"us"a"picture"of"why"dispositions"don't"entail" the"corresponding"counterfactuals" and" why" the" classic" counterexamples" work." " All" of" the" counterexamples" play" on" extrinsic" circumstances" that" prevent" manifestation" in" the" most" comparatively" similar" possibilities." " But" disposition"ascriptions"care"about"a"'wider'"domain"of"possibilities.""(The"domain"isn't"strictly"wider" in"the"sense"of"having"the"counterfactualRrelevant"possibilities"as"a"proper"subset;"some"of"the"most" similar" worlds" allRthingsRconsidered" where" the" disposition" is" tested" may" violate" the" intrinsicR sameness" requirement;" though" given" a" large" role" for" laws" in" overall" comparative" similarity," the" counterfactualRrelevant" worlds" will" likely" all" be" compatible" with" the" laws.)" " The" Kratzerian" formulation"also"suggests"an"answer"to"the"much"discussed"question"'Do"the"counterexamples"show" that" any" conditional" account" of" disposition" ascriptions" is"wrong" or" just" the" (SCA)?'" "We"want" to" isolate"what"went"wrong"with"the"(SCA)"and"what"if"any"features"of"the"counterfactual"that"might"be" shared"by"other"expressions"are"mismatched"to"the"analysis"of"disposition"ascriptions.""The"answer" suggested"by" this"approach" is" that" the" failure"of" the"(SCA)"arises"because"of" the"particular"modal" mismatch"between"disposition"ascriptions"and"counterfactuals:"they"simply"quantify"over"different" worlds,"and"with"different"quantificational"force"to"boot.""Kratzer's"deflationary"take"on"conditionals" –"that" 'if'Rclauses"just"mark"restrictions"on"operators"–"suggests"that"she"would"likely"not"take"the" problems"of"the"(SCA)"to"generalize"to"any,conditional"–"after"all,"we"could"presumably"cook"up"a" conditional" corresponding" to" any" restricted"modality." " I" think"by" and" large" the" examples" suggest" (with" caveats" discussed" in" §7g)" that" disposition" ascriptions" just" don't" care"which"worlds" are" the" 29" " most" comparatively" similar" –" they" quantify" over" some" similar" worlds," and" some" notRsoRsimilar" worlds,"but"similarity"is"beside"the"point"(empty"ordering"source)."""""" " " c. Relevance,"test,"and"manifestation"talk" " " A" major" motivation" that" has" led" me" to" the" (MRWRK)" analyses" arises" from" the" following" constraint:"since"we"have" intuitions"about"which"possibilities"are"relevant"and"which"possibilities" are"irrelevant"to"specific"disposition"ascriptions,"and"we're"understanding"disposition"ascriptions"as" quantifiers"over"possibilities,"we'd"like"our"quantificational"treatment"to"predict"that"the"intuitively" relevant" possibilities" are" in" the" domain" of" quantification" of" the" analysans" and" the" intuitively" irrelevant"possibilities"are"not"in"the"domain"of"quantification.""One"reason"the"(SCA)"fails"to"satisfy" this"constraint"is"that"a"lot"of"intuitively"relevant"possibilities"are"not"in"the"domain"counterfactuals" quantify" over." " I" have" a" fragile" glass" in" front" of" me" on" my" desk." " I" am" considering" various" possibilities"and"wondering"whether" they"or"not" they"are"relevant." "My" intuition" is" the" following:" possibilities" quite" dissimilar" to" the" actual" world" in" which" the" fragile" glass" is" subjected" to" an" appropriate"stress,"assuming"the"laws"and"intrinsics"are"the"same,"are"still"relevant"–"perhaps"just" as"relevant"–"as"the"most"comparatively"similar"possibilities"in"which"it"is"stressed.""In"slogan"form:" the,relevant,possibilities,far,exceed,the,inner,sphere." " Another"example"is"the"kind"of"analysis,"which"I"discuss"in"my"undergraduate"thesis,"which" see"the"problem"of"the"counterexamples"to"the"(SCA)"as"arising"because"of"its"vaguely"specified"test" and" response" conditions.26" " The" analysis" of" 'x" is" fragile'" as" 'if" x"were" struck" it"would" break'" isn't" wrong"because"anything"having"to"do"with"the"counterexample;"rather,"the"problem"was"that" 'x"is" fragile'"actually"means"'if"x"were"φ,"x"would"ψ'"for"some"highly"precise"conditions"φ"and"ψ"–"e.g"'is"x" were" struck" with" suchRandRsuch" force," in" suchRandRsuch" conditions...'" " This" approach" does" especially"badly"with"respect"to"this"relevance"constraint:"it"restricts"the"test"cases"to"such"a"narrow" class" of" situations" that" almost" every" intuitive, test" for" fragility" is" irrelevant" to" truthRconditions" –" really"it"is"only"this"very"narrow"class"that"actually"matters." " Another"side"of" the"coin"here" is" 'manifestation'Rtalk." "When"a"disposed"object" is"put"to"the" test"and"responds"appropriately,"we"call"that"a"manifestation"of"the"disposition.""I"think"ideally"we" should" comply" with" a" strong" 'manifestation'Rrelevance" constraint:" that" if" c" is" a" case" in" which" a" disposition"manifests,"then"c"should"be"(a)"in"the"relevant"domain"of"quantification"and"(b)"one"of" the" 'good" cases'"which" satisfies" the" quantificational" relation" –" that" is," a" case" in"which" the" object" gives"the"response." "But"my"intuition"at" least" is"that"exotic,"remote"possibilities"in"which"the"glass" breaks"are"no"less"manifestations"of"its"fragility"than"the"highly"comparatively"similar"worlds"where" I"knock"it"off"of"my"desk"and"it"breaks." "" The"idea"is"that"once"we've"settled"on"a"quantificational"approach"to"disposition"ascriptions," all"we"have"to"do"to"fill"in"the"details"is"agree"on"(a)"which"test"cases"are"relevant"(b)"which"of"those" cases"are"manifestations"and"(c)"the"force"of"the"quantification.""What"we"want"is"an"equivalence"(or" high" degree" of" similarity)" between" the" intuitive" notions" we" use" in" our" understanding" of" and" reasoning"about"disposition"ascriptions"and" the"elements"of"our" formal"analysis" that"play" similar" roles"in"the"characterization"of"truthRconditions."" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 26"Lewis"1997,"Gundersen"2002,"and"Choi"2006"are"exemplars"of"this"approach."" 30" " " The"appeal"to"intrinsics"+"laws"was"Manley"and"Wasserman's"way"of"capturing"which"testR possibilities" are" relevant," and" to" me" it" seems" that" the" TRcases" line" up" pretty" well" with" intuitive" disposition"tests." "Manifestations"are"easy"–"those"are"the"test"cases"in"which"the"disposition"gives" the"response.""Quantificational"force"is"hard"–"more"on"that"in"§7f."" " d. 'Absent"stimulus"conditions'" " " One" problem" that" the" (MRWRK)" analysis" does" nothing" to" solve" but" does" assimilate" to" an" existing" and" tractable" problem" in" linguistics" is"what"M"&"W" call" the" problem"of" 'absent" stimulus" conditions.'" "The"problem" is" simple:" some"dispositions"don't"have" 'when'Rclauses,"but" their" truthR conditions"are"not"correctly"characterized"by"taking"that"to"indicate"an"empty"restrictor." " (40) Corey"is"disposed"to"play"tough"defense." (41) Zach"has"this"obnoxious"disposition"to"prattle"on"incessantly." (42) Audrey"is"disposed"to"oversell"the"merchandise."" " Sentence"(40)"does"not"intuitively"mean"that"Corey"plays"tough"defense"on"most"possible"occasions" holding"fixed"intrinsics"and"laws.""Rather,"it"means"roughly"that"Corey"plays"tough"defense"on"most" possible"occasions"holding"fixed"intrinsics"and"laws"and"in,which,he,is,playing,defense." "The"basic" problem" is" that" we" don't" get" the" right" truthRcondition" predictions" by" supposing" that" no" 'when'R clause"means"a"null"condition"is"mapped"to"the"restrictor.""Intuitively,"it"seems"like"context"provides" an"implicit"restriction"–"the"restriction"to"possibilities"in"which"Corey"is"playing"defense,"or"Zach"is" in"a"conversation,"or"Audrey"is"trying"to"sell"merchandise."""" " I" don't" really" have" anything" to" say" about" absent" stimulus" conditions" except" that" on" the" quantificational"approach"I'm"advocating"the"problem"can"be"seen"as"a"specific"instance"of"a"general" problem"very"familiar"to"philosophers"and"linguists"going"back"at"least"to"Quine:" " When,adverbs,do,not,wear,their,restrictions,on,their,sleeve,,there,is, work,to,be,done,between,the,surface,appearance,of,a,sentence,and, its,ultimate, interpretation., , For,example,,Quine, (1966:, s37,,pp.,90C 92),noticed,the,ambiguity,of,(14):, , (14),Tai,always,eats,with,chopsticks., , The,preferred,reading,is,clearly,not,the,one,which,claims,that,in,all, situations,, Tai, can, be, found, eating, with, chopsticks., , Instead,, the, sentence, is,most, naturally, read, as, claiming, that, in, all, situations, in, which,Tai,eats,,Tai,eats,with,chopsticks.,,The,interesting,problem,is, how,we,arrive,at,this,interpretation.27,,, " Kai" von" Fintel" discusses" two" broad" approaches" we" might" take" to" this" problem:" on" a" semantic, approach," 'the" restriction" on" the" adverb" is"made" explicit" in" the" logical" form" and" is" computed" by" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 27"von"Fintel"1995,"p."143" 31" " grammatical"processes',"while"on"a"pragmatic" approach," 'the"domain"of"quantifiers" is" an"anaphor" whose"reference"is"pragmatically"determined.'28"""" " The" upshot" is" not" that" this" diagnosis" suggests" a" simple" solution," but" understanding" the" phenomenon"as"an"instance"of"implicit"quantifier"domain"restriction"not"only"bolsters"the"case"that" disposition" ascriptions" have" a" modal" quantificational" structure" but" also" allows" philosophers" interested" in" disposition" ascriptions" to" avail" themselves" of" existing" resources" from" semantics" to" understand"the"phenomenon."" " That" concludes" the"merits" subsections;" let's" turn"now" to" some"demerits"of" (MRWRK1)"and" consider" some" potential" revisions" to" rectify" the" shortcomings." In" (e)" I" discuss" the" problem" of" quantifying"over"possible"worlds,–"shouldn't"we"be"quantifying"over"smaller"possibilities?" "I"think" we"should"be,"and"the"subsequent"sections"of" the"paper"are"devoted"to"providing"a"reformulation" that" satisfies" this" constraint." " " In" (f)" I" discuss" the" problem" of"modal" force" –" is" 'most'" right?" Is" it" informative?" " I" will" have" little" to" say" about" modal" force" and" consider" it" a" serious" issue" for" the" account.""In"(g)"I"discuss"a"particular"class"of"cases"which"constitute"counterexamples"to"(MRWRK1)" –"purportedly"extrinsic"dispositions"–"and"reformulate"the"account"to"accommodate"them." " " e. Possible"worlds?" " " One"significant"demerit"of"(MRWRK1)"arises"because"in"adopting"the"simple"possible"worlds" framework" for"modality,"we" quantified" over"much" bigger" things" than" our" talk" about" 'disposition" tests'"and"'manifestations'"suggests.""The"relevant"possibilities"seem"be"smaller"than"worlds"–"more" like"cases,"events,"or"situations." "The"simplest"way"to"press"this"point" is"by"considering"the"actual" case" –" if" I" actually" subject" some" object" to"what" I" intuitively" count" as" 100" fragility" tests" (whack!, 'One...'whack!""'...two...'),"I'd"like"to"think"that"our"semantics"counts"up"100"fragility"tests.""But"given" that"possible"worlds"are"maximal"–"they"represent"a"way"the"world"could"be"in,total"–"the"relevant" counting"unit"is"just"one:"the"actual"world." " In"reframing"the"discussion"in"a"possible"worlds"framework,"I"mischaracterized"both"Fara's" semantics" for" habituals" and"Manley" and"Wasserman's" original" account," both" of"which" are" cast" in" terms"of"quantification"over" lessRthanRmaximal"possibilities." "M"&"W"call" them"'TRcases'"(as"I"have" paraphrased," or" 'CRcases'" in" the" original)" and" not" 'TRworlds'" for" a" reason." " Fara's" semantics" for" habituals"which"I"glossed"as"restricted"quantification"over"worlds"is"actually"presented"in"terms"of"a" different" formalism" more" suitable" for" smallerRthanRworld" possibilities," a" (Lewis" 1975)Rstyle" unselectively"binding"case"quantifier." " I" think"we"would"do"better"to"treat"disposition"ascriptions"as"quantifiers"over"possibilities" which"needn't"be"maximal;"they"are"(like"generics)"exemplary"quantificational"modals"in"the"sense" of"'[incorporating]"the"semantics"of"an"adverb"of"quantification"with"some"sort"of"additional,"more" properly"'modal'"meaning.'29" " There" is"a" large"body"of"work" in"semantics"on"quantificational"modality,"but" I"will"discuss" just" two"approaches"(which" I" think"represent"much"of" the"mainstream):" first"and"very"briefly" the" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 28"von"Fintel"1995"p."143" 29"Portner"2009"p."213" 32" " Lewisian" boundRvariable" approach" (which" Fara" suggests" for" the" semantics" for" habituals)" and" second"the"Kratzerian"situation"theoretic"approach.." " Michael" Fara's" analysis" of" the" operator" DISP" is" supplemented" by" a" semantics" for" the" habituals" that" DISP" operates" on." " On" Fara's" account" (and" following" the" majority" of" work" in" semantics"on"generics)"habituals"carry"a"phonologically"null"habitual"quantifier"which"is"treated"as" an"unselective,binder"ranging"over"admissible"assignments"to"any,free,variables" in"its"scope." "The" idea" derives" from" Lewis's" discussion" of" adverbs" in" quantification" in" (Lewis" 1975)." " Here's" an" example"due"to"Lewis:" " (43) Sometimes,"p"divides"the"product"of"m"and"n"although"p"divides"neither"m"nor"n.30" " On"the"LewisRstyle"treatment,"(43)"is"true"just"in"case"'p"divides"the"product"of"m"and"n"although"p" divides"neither"m"nor"n'"is"true"on"some"admissible"assignment"to"m,"n,"and"p,"and"(44)"is"true"just" in"case"it"is"true"on"every,such"assignment:" " (44) Always,"p"divides"the"product"of"m"and"n,although"p"divides"neither"m"nor"n." " Fara"sees"the"habitual"as"a"nonCnumerical,quantifier,over"cases"(admissible"assignments),"which"is" to" say" that" it's" truth" conditions" depend" on" more" than" just" the" number" or" proportion" of" cases" quantified"over"satisfying"the"clause.""The"added"nonRnumerical"bit"in"Fara's"account"is"the"element" of" 'permissible" exceptions.'" " The" idea" is" that" habituals," which" don't" entail" their" universally" quantified" counterparts," don't" simply" care" how" many" or" what" proportion" of" cases" satisfy" the" nuclear" scope"condition;" rather," they"care"what"proportion"of"admissible"assignments"apart, from, permissible, exceptions" satisfy" the" nuclear" scope" condition." " According" to" Fara," a" habitual" 'x" ψs" when"φ'" is" true" just" in" case"all" exceptions"are"permissible,exceptions." "A"permissible"exception"–" developed"in"more"detail"in"Fara's"thesis"–"is"essentially"an"exception"(i.e."a"case"in"which"φ(x)"but" not"ψ(x))"due, to, the,presence,of, some,preventative, interference." " So" for" instance," the"habitual" 'I" sleep"when"I'm"tired'"is"true"just"in"case"every"case"in"which"I'm"tired"and"not"sleeping"is"a"case"in" which"particular"preventative"factors"are"at"work." " For" no" particularly" good" reason" I'm" going" to" focus" on" the" other" approach" –" Kratzer's" situation"theory"–"and"develop"a"reformulation"of"(MRWRK1)"in"that"framework.""Before"doing"that," let's"consider"some"other"demerits"of"(MRWRK1)"and"try"to"supply"any"appropriate"amendments."" " " f. Modal"force" " " David"Manley" and"Ryan"Wasserman"have" very" helpfully" discussed" several" problems"with" taking"the"modal"force"of"disposition"ascriptions"to"be"'most.'""The"first"problem"is"simply"that"their" analysis"(and"my"reformulation"of"it)"give"the"incorrect"predictions"in"some"cases,"e.g."ones"in"which" the"intended"modal"force"is"less"than"'most.'" " Consider" two"aeronautic"engineers"discussing"hull"materials" for"a"new"fighter" jet" they"are" designing.""One"says," """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 30"Lewis"1975,"p."7" 33" " " (45) Aluminum,"though"cheap"and"readily"available,"would"not"be"a"good"choice"for"the"" " hull"–"aluminum"is"fragile,"so"we"should"try"a"steel"allow"instead." " Intuitively,"the"engineer"means"that"aluminum"is"relatively"fragile"–"not"that"it"would"break"in"most" cases"of"being"stressed,"but" that" it"would"break" in"a"higher"proportion"of" cases" than" the" relevant" comparison"class"of"potential"hull"materials." "Manley"and"Wasserman"emphasize"this"similarity"of" disposition"ascriptions"to"classic"gradable"adjectives,"and"suggest"that"we"parameterize" the"modal" force:" " In, short,, different, dispositional, predicates, may, be, associated, with, different,proportions,of,the,range,of,relevant,CCcases.,This,suggests, a,more,flexible,approach:, , (PROP),N,is,disposed,to,M,when,C,if,and,only,if,N,would,M,in,some, suitable,proportion,of,CCcases., , How, big, a, proportion, is, 'suitable', will, depend, not, only, on, the, dispositional,predicate,involved,but,also,on,the,context,of,utterance., For, instance,,we,saw,that,engineers,working,with,slabs,of,concrete, and, chemists, working, with, glass, electrodes, may, ascribe, different, properties,with,the,predicate,'fragile.'31,,,, " I"agree"with"M"&"W"that"our"truthRcondition"intuitions"seem"to"correspond"to"different"proportions" for"different"disposition"ascriptions" in"different"contexts"of"utterance;" let's" incorporate" it" into" the" KratzerRized"version"of"their"analysis:" " (MRWRK2)" ⟦N"is"disposed"to"ψ"when"φ⟧w,τ"="1" " iff" "τ⟨⟦φ⟧∩B(w),⟦ψ⟧⟩w"="1" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " where"τ!is#a#contextually#" " " " " " " " " " provided(proportion(relation!" " However," we'd" like" to" give" a" systematic" account" of" the" mechanisms" by" which" the" relevant" proportions"come"to"be"expressed.""But"Manley"and"Wasserman"have"no"story"about"that"and"I"don't" either." "Part"of"the"problem"is"that"these" 'proportionality'" intuitions"are"vague"(and"as"we"will"see" problematic"in"other"ways).""Once"disposition"ascriptions"are"taken"to"be"quantificational"modals"it" seems"like"we"have"to"admit"that"the"force"of"the"quantifier"is"variable,"but"here"does"not"seem"to"be" any"straightforward"story"to"be"had"about"how"the"quantificational"force"varies"with"context"except" to"appeal"to"speakers'"intentions." " The" problem" of" quantificational" force" is" compounded" by" the" problem" of" comparing" proportions"of"possibilities"of"presumably"infinite"cardinalities.""""" " """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 31"Manley"and"Wasserman"2008,"p."76" 34" " The, remaining, concern, is, a, significant, one., The, view, requires, that, we, can,make, sense, of, claims, like, 'N1,would, break, in,more, CCcases, than,N2'.,But,presumably,in,ordinary,cases,where,one,thing,is,more, fragile,than,another,,there,are,(at,least),continuumCmany,CCcases,in, which, both, objects, would, break., How, are, we, to, interpret, 'more', when,we,are,comparing,sets,of,the,same,cardinality?32, , " Manley"and"Wasserman"suggest"two"lines"of"response.""The"first"line"is"that"what"matters"to" the"semantics"are"speakers"intuitive,"preCtheoretic"judgments"of"relative"modality,"which"are"likely" not"understood"in"terms"of"proportional"relations"of"sets"of"possible"worlds"or"situations,"but"rather" as" tracking" some" intuitive, measure(s)" which" serve" as" our" cognitive" guide" to" the" distribution" response"versus"noRresponse"throughout"the"possibility"space.""'Fragile'"is"a"good"example:"suppose" we" adopt" the" onceRpopular" view" that" the" test" condition" for" fragility" is" being, dropped, and" the" response" condition" is" breaking." " On" this" view," the" possibility" space" is" naturally" intuitively" 'measured'" along" the" dimensions" (a)" how" high?" (is" it" dropped" from)" and" (b)" how" hard?" (is" the" surface" it's" dropped" onto)." " These" measures" are" good" ones" for" fragility" because" we" can" make" plausible"(though"defeasible)"generalizations"on"the"basis"of"a"single"case:"if"x"is"dropped"from"six" feet" onto" a" hard" surface" and"breaks," it" probably"breaks"when" its" dropped" from">"6" feet" onto" an" equally"hard"or"harder"surface." " If"we"test" two"objects" in" the"same"way"for"a"disposition,"and"one" gives"the"response"while"the"other"doesn't,"we"have"good"reason"to"suppose"that"responseRgiver"is" more"disposed"than"the"other"on"the"assumption"that"we"can"generalize"from"the"instance"to"other" relevant"cases,"and"intuitive"measures"give"us"a"good"basis"for"such"generalizations." " The" second" line" is" that" 'the" structure" of" reality'"may" deliver" a"measure" 'that" decides" the" matter" in"a" fashion"that"would"match"our" intuitions"of"proportions"of"CRcases.'33" "They"tentatively" propose" as"possible"measures" (a)" the"Louisville"measure"on"phase" space" (b)" relative"measure"of" 'objective'"or"'intrinsic'"probability." " I"have"nothing"to"add"to"their"suggestions.""Insofar"as"semantics"is"foremost"accountable"to" our" truthRcondition" intuitions," any" description" that" captures" our" actual" proportional" modal" judgments"will" serve" the" semantics" equally"well." " It"would"be" interesting" to"discover" that"we"are" onto" something" deep" in" the" structure" of" reality" in" these" practices," but" that" is" not" of" primary" importance"to"the"descriptive"adequacy"of"the"semantics.""" " While"I"sometimes"worry"that"the"problems"of"quantificational"force"threatens"to"render"the" entire" Manley" and"WassermanRstyle" account" vacuous," I" think" there" are" reasons" to" suppose" that" maybe"it"isn't"such"a"big"problem"after"all.""In"any"specific"case"with"adequately"specified"contextual" factors" in" which" a" disposition" ascription" is" uttered," we" will" have" vague" though" substantive" intuitions"about"which"possibilities"are"relevant,"and"if"we"know"the"relevant"facts,"judgments"about" relative"proportions"of"modal"space.""I"am"inclined"to"think"that"in"specific"cases,"our"intuitions"will" not" diverge" from" the" basic" constraints" of" the" (MRWRK)" analysis," even" if" the" analysis" does" not" describe"all"of"the"potentially"relevant"contextual"factors"that"determine"intended"quantificational" force." """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 32"Manley"and"Wasserman"2008,"p."79" 33"Manley"and"Wasserman"2008,"p."81" 35" " " One" reason" to" think" that" such" factors" will" not" ultimately" be" amenable" to" systematic" treatment" is" the" fact" that" judgments" about" proportions" of" possibilities," and" by" extension" the" intended"force"of"proportional"quantification"on"a"given"context"of"utterance,"are"so"strongly"tied"to" specific"'intuitive"measures'"we"can"lean"on"in"a"specific"case.""When"we"are"thinking"about"testing" for" fragility," a"measure" like" the"degree, of, force,of" a" stress"will" be" an" indispensable" guide" to" our" modal" thinking"because"of"our"ability" to"make" inferences"based"on" the"value"of" the"measure:" e.g." that"if"x"breaks"when"stressed"with"degree"of"force"d,"it"would"break"when"stressed"with"any"degree" of" force">"d." "Proportions" for" 'fragility'" ascriptions"and"comparisons"of" relative" fragility"will" very" likely"be"rooted"in"intuitive"measures"like"degree"of"force.""But"as"Manley"and"Wasserman"observe," intuitive"measures"differ"from"case"to"case,"and"in"many"cases"we"won't"have"one"or"even"a"small" cluster" of" intuitively" best" measures" for" making" judgments" of" proportional" and" comparative" modality." " " g. The"challenge"of"extrinsic"dispositions" " " So"far,"I"have"suggested"that"supposing"that"dispositional"modal"bases"characterize"intrinsic" properties"and"laws"of"nature"is"a"way"of"making"good"on"the"thesis"that"dispositions"are"shared"by" intrinsic"duplicates.""But"I"didn't"actually"motivate"the"intrinsic"duplicates"thesis,"which"has"recently" received"a"significant"amount"of"criticism"in"the"dispositions"literature." " The" challenge" is" simple:" Jennifer" McKitrick" and" others34" have" presented" numerous" examples" of" sentences"which" seem" to" be" ascribe" dispositions" that" needn't" be" shared" by" intrinsic" duplicates.""Since"the"(MRWRK)"analyses"do"predict"that"the"same"disposition"ascriptions"will"be"true" of"intrinsic"duplicates"subject"to"the"same"laws"of"nature,"these"cases," if"they"are"genuine,"provide" straightforward"counterexamples"to"these"analyses.""" " The"counterexamples"divide"into"two"importantly"different"types"of"cases:"(a)"'is"disposed'" ascriptions"and"(b)"predicates"which"intuitively"ascribe"dispositions.""I"distinguish"these"types"and" focus" exclusively" on" (a)Rtype" cases" because" I" am" tempted" in" most" (b)Rcases" to" respond" in" the" obvious"way"–"that"the"sentences"aren't"in"fact"disposition"ascriptions.""" " Let's"look"at"some"type"(a)"cases." """ (46) This"key"is"disposed"to"open"my"front"door." (47) The"cup"of"water"is"disposed"to"dissolve"the"contents"of"my"pocket." (48) That"dog"is"disposed"to"depress"a"properly"constructed"scale"so"as"to"elicit"a"reading" " of"85"pounds"in"its"gravitational"field." " Example"(46)"is"a"classic"case"from"Sydney"Shoemaker"of"what"he"calls"'a"mereRCambridge"power.'35"" The"disposition"can"be"lost"or"gained"by"changing"only"extrinsic"facts"–"specifically,"facts"about"what" the"lock"on"my"front"door"is"like.""Example"(47)"is"a"case"in"which"the"water's"disposition"changes" depending"on"what's"in"my"pocket.""Example"(48)"is"offered"as"an"analysis"of"a"weight"ascription;"its" truth"value"will"vary"depending"on"the"gravitational"field"in"which"the"dog"is"located." """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 34"McKitrick"2003"is"the"original"paper"spurring"the"debate"in"the"literature." 35"Shoemaker"1984,"p."221." 36" " " To"be"honest,"many"of" the"examples" in" the" literature"–"(47)"and"(48)" for" instance"–sound" quite" marginal" to" my" (admittedly" biased)" ear." " However," I" do" think" that" there" are" genuine," undeniable," straightforward," natural" examples" of" 'extrinsic" disposition" ascriptions'" that" fit" the" influential"formula"of"Shoemaker's"key"and"don't"sound"nearly"as"weird"as"cases"like"(47)"and"(48)."" What"Shoemaker's"key"and"almost"every"subsequent"example"of"a"purportedly"extrinsic"disposition" have" in"common" is" that" some"entity"or"entities"described" in" the" infinitive"clause" form"an" integral" part" of" the" causal" process" connecting" the"disposition" test" and" result," and" the"obviousness" of" this" role" forces" us" to" restrict" our" attention" to" possibilities" in" which" that" entity" or" entities" are" (a)" intrinsically" just" as" they" actually" are" and" (b)" related" to" the"object" ascribed" the"disposition" in" the" ways"they"are"actually"related.""The"key's"disposition"to"open"a"certain"door"door"is"unmistakeably" grounded" in" more" than" the" intrinsic" properties" of" the" key" and" the" laws" of" nature" –" it" crucially" involves"the"fact"that"the"lock"on"the"front"door"is"a"certain"way." " The"(MRWRK)"modal"base"doesn't"give"the"right"truthRcondition"predictions"because"it"fails" to"preserve"any"facts"besides"intrinsics"and"laws;"I'll"try"to"fix"this"by"telling"a"story"about"when"and" why"we"need"to"be"some"extra"facts"into"the"modal"base." " Consider" an" utterance" of" (49)," which" looks" to" me" to" ascribe" a" straightforward," unproblematic,"but"undeniably"extrinsic"disposition:" " (49) Lebron"is"disposed"to"blame"Eric"Spoelstra"when"the"Heat"lose."" " Let's"suppose"(49)"is"true.""The"(MRWRK1)"analysis"gives"the"following"truth"condition:"(49)"is"true" just"in"case"most"possibilities"preserving"Lebron's"intrinsics"and"the"laws"in"which"the"Heat"lose"are" possibilities" in"which"Lebron"blames"Spoelstra." "But" that" can't"be" right"–"most"of" the"possibilities" compatible"with" that"modal" base" are" possibilities" in"which" Lebron"doesn't" play" for" the"Heat" and" isn't"coached"by"Spoelstra.""And"we"don't"mean"to"say"by"uttering"(49)"that"Lebron"blames"Spoelstra" in" most" of" those" possibilities." " Rather," we" intuitively" want" a" more" limited" domain" of" modal" quantification:" something" like" the" subset" of" the" (MRWRK1)"domain" in"which"Lebron"plays" for" the" Heat"and"Spoelstra"coaches"the"Heat." " If"this"is"right,"the"(MRWRK)"analysis"finds"itself"in"straights"between"Charybdis"and"Scylla"–" on"the"one"hand,"if"we"don't,build"additional"facts"(beyond"intrinsics"+"laws)"into"the"modal"bases" of" disposition" ascriptions," the" analysis"will" simply" generate" the"wrong" predictions" for" cases" like" (49).""This"an"unacceptable"result;"despite"most"of"the"standard"examples"of"extrinsic"dispositions" being" far" removed" from" ordinary" usage," extrinsic" disposition" ascriptions" like" (49)" permeate" our" everyday" talk"and"thought." "We"cannot"rest"content"with"an"account" that" is"patently" incorrect" for" cases"like"these."" " On" the" other" hand," I" have" been" repeating" ad" nauseum" the" claim" that" these" dispositional" modal"bases"which"characterize"only"intrinsics"+"laws"are"the"central"pillar"of"the"(MRWRK)"account" and"the"heart"of"what"characterizes"disposition"ascriptions"among"modal"meanings"–"what"makes" them"different"than"conditionals,"habituals,"etc.""If"we"respond"to"cases"like"(49)"by"building"in"extra" nonRintrinsic"nonRlawful"facts"into"the"modal"base,"we"either"have"to"suppose"these"facts"can"go"into" modal" bases" for" disposition" ascriptions" generally" –" and" thus" lose" the" general" notion" of" a" dispositional"modal"base" that"was" the"core"of" the"analysis"–"or"draw"a" line"between" the"extrinsic" 37" " disposition"ascriptions"and"the"ones"for"which"are"supposed"to"take"purely"intrinsic"+"lawful"facts" in"the"modal"base." " My" tentative" suggestion" is" that" we" can" draw" a" line" between" the" disposition" ascriptions" which"take"the"sort"of"intrinsics"+"laws"modal"base"I"have"stomping"my"feet"and"pounding"my"fists" about" and" those" like" (49)" in" terms" of" whether" their" infinitival" complements" specify" test" and" response"conditions"qualitatively"or"not.""I"have"in"mind,"for"instance,"the"difference"between"" " (49) Lebron"is"disposed"to"blame"Eric"Spoelstra"when"the"Heat"lose." (50) Lebron"is"disposed"to"blame"his"coach"when"his"team"loses." " Sentence"(50)"seems"to"get"the"right"results"without"needing"any"additional"facts"in"the"modal"base:" possibilities" in"which" Lebron"plays" for" the"Celtics" and"blames"Doc"Rivers" are" intuitively" relevant" cases;" but" those" cases" are" obviously" not" relevant" to" (49)," which" intuitively" quantifies" only" over" possible"cases"in"which"Lebron"plays"for"the"Heat"and"is"coached"by"Spoelstra.""Similarly,"compare" the"first"four"qualitatively"specified"dispositions"to"their"nonRqualitative"counterparts:"""""" " (13) Mark"is"disposed"to"smoke"when"he"is"stressed." (40) Corey"is"disposed"to"play"tough"defense." (41) Zach"has"this"obnoxious"disposition"to"prattle"on"incessantly." (42) Audrey"is"disposed"to"oversell"the"merchandise."" " (51) Mark"is"disposed"to"smoke"when"he's"around"Mary."" (52) Corey"is"disposed"to"play"tough"defense"against"the"Spurs." (53) Zach"has" this" obnoxious" disposition" to" prattle" on" incessantly"when"he's" talking" to" " Miriam." (54) Audrey"is"disposed"to"oversell"the"merchandise"to"visiting"Japanese"tourists." " I" think" in" the" dispositional" modal" bases" I" have" characterized" in" the" (MRWRK)" analyses" line" up" relatively"well"with"the"intuitively"relevant"possibilities"in"the"first"four"examples.""But"in"the"second" examples," there" are" lots" of" irrelevant" possibilities" compatible"with" the" dispositional"modal" base:" cases" in"which"Mark"and"Mary"have"never"met,"cases" in"which"Corey"plays" for"the"Spurs,"cases" in" which"the"behaviours"of"Japanese"tourists"are"nothing"like"they"actually"are." " My" suggestion" is" that" when" we" specify" testR" and" responseRconditions" in" nonRqualitative" terms,"it"is"in"general"manifestly"obvious"that"we're"ascribing"a"disposition"which"depends"to"some" degree"on"the"nonRqualitatively"specified"stuff"in"the"condition"being"moreRorRless"as"it"actually"is," and"moreRorRless"related"to"the"object"ascribed"the"disposition"in"the"ways"they"are"actually"related."" When"the"disposition"ascribed"quite"obviously" involves"relations"or" interactions"with"some"entity" or" entities" nonRqualitatively" specified" in" the" infinitive," I" propose" that" linking" facts" characterizing" what" the"entity"or" entities" are" like," and" characterizing"how" they" relate" to" the"object" ascribed" the" disposition,"will"also"go"into"the"modal"base." " Returning"to"the"specific"cases,"our"qualitative"Lebron"sentence"will"get"the"usual"standard" treatment." " 38" " (50) Lebron"is"disposed"to"blame"his"coach"when"his"team"loses."" " " Most⟨⟦Lebron's"team"loses⟧"∩"B(w),⟦Lebron"blames"his"coach⟧⟩" " Because"B(w)" is" just" the" standard" intrinsics"+" laws"dispositional"modal"base," (50)" is" true" just" in" case"most"possibilities"in"which"Lebron's"team"loses"(which"will"include"predominantly"cases"where" he"plays"for"teams"other"than"the"Heat)"are"situations"in"which"he"blames"the"coach"(who"will"be" someone"other"than"Spoelstra"in"most"possibilities)." "I"think"these"truth"conditions"are"plausible"–" what"(50)"ascribes"is"a"disposition"to"blame"the"coach"for"a"loss"which"intuitively"is"not"grounded"in" specific"facts"about"Lebron's"particular"team"and"coach." " But" (49)" may" intuitively" be" grounded" in" specific" facts" about" Spoelstra" and" the" Heat" –" perhaps" I"utter" (49)"because"of"what" I" know"about"Lebron's" attitudes" towards"Spoelstra"and" the" particular"makeup"of"the"2010R2011"Miami"Heat"organization.""In"such"a"case,"the"linking"facts"for" Spoelstra"and"the"Heat"will"also"go"into"the"modal"base,"yielding"roughly"the"following:" " (49) Lebron"is"disposed"to"blame"Spoelstra"when"the"Heat"lose."" " " Most⟨⟦Heat"lose⟧"∩"B+(w),⟦Lebron"blames"Spoelstra⟧⟩" " " " where"B+(w)"is"the"modal"base"characterizing"intrinsic"properties"of"Lebron,"the"" " " laws"of"nature,"and"linking"facts"about"the"Heat,"Spoelstra,"and"the"" relations"they"" " " bear"to"Lebron"" " While" I" think"we"have"a"good"sense"of"what" the"relevant" linking" facts"are" in" the"particular"case"–" facts"about"the"roster"and"history"of" the"Miami"Heat," facts"about"the"personality"of"Spoelstra,"and" most" importantly" the" facts" that"Lebron"plays" for" the"Heat" and"Spoelstra" coaches" the"Heat"–"once" again" it" seems" unlikely" that" we" could" improve" the" account" with" a" general" description" of" which" linking"facts"will"be"relevant"in"which"cases"of"nonRqualitatively"specified"conditions.""Similarly,"by" applying"this"to"examples"(51),"(52)"and"(53)"we"get"something"like" " (51) Mark"is"disposed"to"smoke"when"he's"around"Mary."" " Most⟨⟦Mark"is"around"Mary⟧"∩"B+(w),⟦Mark"smokes⟧⟩" " " " where"B+(w)"characterizes"(a)"Mark's"intrinsic"properties"at"w,"(b)"laws"of"nature" " at"w," (c)"Mary's" intrinsic"properties"at"w,"and"(d)" relations"holding"between"Mark" " and"Mary"at"w" " (52) Corey"is"disposed"to"play"tough"defense"against"the"Spurs." " Most⟨⟦Corey"plays"defense"again"the"Spurs⟧"∩"B+(w),⟦Corey"plays"tough"defense⟧⟩" " " " where"the"restrictor"clause"is"provided"by"implicit"quantifier"domain"restriction" " " and" B+(w)" characterizes" (a)" Corey's" intrinsic" properties" at"w," (b)" laws" of" nature" " at"w,"(c)"the"Spurs'"intrinsic"properties"at"w,"and"(d)"relations"holding"between"" " " Corey"and"the"Spurs"at"w" 39" " " (53) Zach"has" this" obnoxious" disposition" to" prattle" on" incessantly"when"he's" talking" to" " Miriam." " Most⟨⟦Zach"is"talking"to"Miriam⟧"∩"B+(w),⟦Zach"prattles"on"incessantly⟧⟩" " " " where"B+(w)"characterizes"(a)"Zach's" intrinsic"properties"at"w,"(b)" laws"of"nature" " at"w,"(c)"Miriams's"intrinsic"properties"at"w,"and"(d)"relations"holding"between"Zach" " and"Miriam"at"w" " As" far" as" I" can" tell," these" analyses," though" quite" vague," predict" prima" facie" plausible" truthR conditions," and" –" crucially" for" the" (MRWRK)" analyses" –" allow" us" to" preserve" the" generalizations" about"dispositional"modal"bases"with"the"caveat"about"linking"facts"for"nonRqualitative"descriptions."" What" I" have" emphasized" is" that" disposition" ascriptions" are" insensitive" to" matters" of" overall" comparative" similarity," which" is" still" true" even" on" the" amendment" made" to" accommodate" nonR qualitative" linking" facts:" ascriptions"of" extrinsic"dispositions" still" have" an" empty"ordering" source," but" have" a" slightly" richer" modal" bases," incorporating" not" only" facts" characterizing" the" intrinsic" properties"of" the"object"ascribed" the"disposition"and" the" laws"of"nature,"but"also" relevant" linking" facts"concerning"stuff"nonRqualitatively"specified"in"the"infinitive."" " Schematically,"here"is"the"proposal:""" " (MRWRK3)" ⟦N"is"disposed"to"ψ"when"φ⟧w,τ"="1" " iff" "τ⟨⟦φ⟧∩B+(w),⟦ψ⟧⟩w"="1" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " where"τ!is#a#contextually#" " " " " " " " " " provided(proportion'relation" " " " " " " " " " " B+(w)"characterizes"the"" " " " " " " " " " intrinsic"properties"of"the"" " " " " " " " " " referent"of"'N'"at"w"and"laws" " " " " " " " " " of"nature"at"w,"and"for"any"" " " " " " " " " " nonRqualitative"descriptions"" " " " " " " " " " in"ψ"and"φ,"relevant"linking"" " " " " " " " " " facts"about"the"properties"of"" " " " " " " " " " the"nonRqualitatively"specified"" " " " " " " " " " elements"and"their"relations"" " " " " " " " " " to"the"referent"of"'N'"at"w" " " " " I"have"applied"two"revisions"to"(MRWRK1)"–"from"'most'"to"proportional"quantification,"and" from"modal"base"B(w)"to"B+(w)"–"and"have"flagged"another"not"explicitly"articulated"in"(MRWRK3)," namely" the" need" to" account" for" implicit" quantifier" domain" restriction" (most" notably" in" cases" of" 'absent"stimulus"conditions.')""I"propose"that"these"resources"are"adequate"to"characterize"the"truth" conditions" of" disposition" ascriptions." In" particular" this" means" that" all" restrictions" on" the" possibilities" quantified" over" besides" compatibility" with" propositions" characterizing" intrinsic" properties"and"laws"will"be"due"either"to"either"to"nonRqualitative"linking"facts"in"the"modal"base"or" 40" " implicit" domain" restriction" of" the" sort"we" saw" in" the" case" of" 'absent" stimulus" conditions.'" " I" had" originally"hoped" that"we"would"only"need" to"appeal" to"domain"restriction"phenomena" in"cases" in" which" there"simply" is"no" 'when'Rclause,"but" I"now" think" it"must"be" involved" in"other"cases"which" neither" have" nonRqualitative" descriptions" nor" 'absent" stimulus" conditions.'" " Take" for" example" sentence"(12)"which"I"have"leaned"on"heavily"in"the"analyses"–"'Mark"is"disposed"to"smoke"when"he" is"stressed.'" "If"we"consider"how"it"fares"with"respect"to"the"constraint"that"possibilities"quantified" over"in"the"semantics"should"be"the"same"ones"we"take"to"be"intuitively"relevant,"I"think"it"becomes" clear"that"it"may"not"be"doing"so"well.""In"particular,"should"it"count"against"Mark"being"so"disposed" that"he"doesn't"smoke"in"possible"cases"compatible"with"the"dispositional"modal"base"in"which"he"is" stressed" but" cigarettes" are" unavailable?" " Even" if" those" cases" are" relevant," by" some" conceivable" intuitive"measures"of"modal"space,"a"significant"proportion"of"possibilities"among"those"preserving" only" Mark's" intrinsic" properties" and" the" laws" of" nature" may" be" one's" in" which" cigarettes" aren't" available." "And"we"don't"want"(12)"coming"out"false"because"of"the"preponderance"of"those"cases. " In" this" and"many" other" cases," it" seems" that" the" best" available" answer" is" to" plead" implicit" quantifier"domain"restriction.""I"think"the"ascription"of"behavioural"dispositions"to"persons"–"one"of" several" loci"of"dispositionRtalk" in"natural" language"–"almost"always" involves" implicit"restriction"to" cases"in"which"the"person"ascribed"the"disposition"can"give"the"response"or"not"give"the"response."" Of"course"to"say"they"can"is"only"to"restate"the"problem:"that"there"are"some"possibilities"we"want"to" exclude"beyond"the"ones"the"account"has"so"far"told"us"we"can.""In"summary,"reserving"the"right"to" plead"implicit"quantifier"domain"restriction"does"seem"motivated"by"specific"examples,"but"presents" the"major"methodological" problem" of" allowing" the" account" so"much" flexibility" from" caseRtoRcase" that"testable"predictions"are"hard"to"generate." " " " 8. Situation"theory"for"frequency"adverbs" " " At"this"point"it"is"time"to"try"to"deliver"on"the"promissory"note"in"(7e):"to"try"to"reformulate" the"(MRWRK)"analysis" in"terms"of"modal,quantification" in"Portner's"sense"–"as" '[incorporating]"the" semantics" of" an" adverb" of" quantification" together" with" some" sort" of" additional," more" properly" 'modal'"meaning.'36"""The"reason"is"simple:"for"the"treatment"of"disposition"ascriptions"as"quantifiers" over"possibilities"to"have"any"plausibility,"the"possibilities"quantified"over"must"be"individuated"and" counted"in"a"plausible"way.""In"particular,"quantification"over"maximal,ways"things"could"be"is"not" adequate"to"intuitive"individuation"and"counting.""We"need"to"leave"behind"possible"worlds"for"lessR thanRmaximal"possibilities." " I" already"mentioned" that" Fara" adopts" the" Lewisian" approach" to"modal" quantification" and" treats" generics" as" unselective" binders" ranging" over" admissible" assignments" to" variables" in" the" scope.""I"have"every"reason"to"think"that"the"boundRvariable"approach"is"wellRsuited"to"the"required" reformulation"of" the" (MRWRK)" analysis," but" for"no"particularly" good" reason" I" focus"on" a"different" approach"to"modal"quantification,"Angelika"Kratzer's"situation"theory.37" " In" the"possible"worlds" framework"we've" been"working"with"until" this" point," propositions" are"identified"with"sets"of"possible"worlds"and"modal"relations"are"understood"as"semantic"relations" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 36"Portner"2009,"p."213" 37"Kratzer"1989"/"forthcoming" 41" " between"sets"of"propositions"(or"equivalently,"given"the"identification"of"propositions"with"sets"of" worlds," as" set" relations" between" sets" of" sets" of" worlds)." " On" the" situation" theoretic" approach," propositions"are"more"fineRgrained"–"they"are"identified"with"sets"of"situations,"where"situations"are" understood"as"(possible"nonRmaximal)"parts,of,possible,worlds." "There"are"a"number"of"variations" on" the" basic" Kraterian" approach" that" have" been" pursued" in" the" literature;" I"will" first" discuss" the" basic"elements"of"any"KratzerRstyle"situation"theoretic"framework,"then"discuss"the"basic"'counting'" problem"for"situational"quantification,"and"finally"reproduce"a"version"of"Kai"von"Fintel's"semantics" for"adverbial"quantification"in"a"situation"theoretic"language." " (Berman"1987)"and"(Heim"1990)"are"two"classic"situationRtheoretic"accounts"of"adverbs"of" quantification"from"which"the"account"I'll"discuss"below"derives.""The"central"element"of"models"for" situation"theoretic"language"is"a"SITUATION"STRUCTURE"⟨S,"⊑⟩"where"S"is"a"set"of"situations"partially" ordered"by" the"parthood" relation"⊑." "Every" situation" is" stipulated" to"be" related"by"⊑" to"a"unique, maximal,element"–"that"is,"for"any"s1"∈"S,"there"exists"a"unique"situation"s2"∈"S"such"that"(i)"s1"⊑"s2" [RELATEDNESS]"and"(ii)"for"any"s3"∈"S,"if"s2"⊑"s3"then"s2"="s3"[⊑RMAXIMALITY].""The"unique"⊑Rmaximal" element"related"to"situation"s"is"intuitively"the,world,of,s.""For"shorthand,"we'll"designate"the"unique" ⊑Rmaximal"element"related"to"s"as"ws"(the"world"of"s).""Call"two"situations"s1,"s2"WORLDMATES"just"in" case"ws1="ws2.""Only"worldmates"will"be"related"by"⊑.38" " These" basic" elements" constraining" situation" structures" together" with" the" persistence" assumption"form"the"core"of"a"Kratzerian"situation"semantics.""There"are"other"important"elements" that" appear" in" specific" implementations" of" situation" theory." " Kratzer's" situation" theory" is" closely" tied"to"a"picture"of"situations"inherited"from"D.M."Armstrong"–"she"takes"situations"to"be"composed" from"a"stock"of"'thin"particulars'"(individuals"minus"all"their"properties)"together"with"properties"or" relations." "Other"authors"have"heavily" leaned"on"mereological" constraints"on"situation"structures."" For"instance,"it"is"often"assumed"that"any"nonRempty"set"of"situations"will"compose"a"situation"that" is"the"mereological,sum,of"all"the"elements:"that"is,"for"any"A"⊆"S"there"exists"a"situation"s1"such"that" (i)"for"every"s"∈"A,"s"⊑"s1"and"(ii)"for"any"s2"∈"S,"if"s"⊑"s2"for"all"s"∈"A,"then"s1"⊑"s2.""Paul"Dekker39"has" pointed"out"an"obviously"bad"feature"of"assuming"universal"mereological"summation:"namely"that" in"any"situation"structure"there"exists"only"a"single"world.40""Dekker"points"out"the"obvious"solution" –"restrict"summation"to"worldmates"–"and"that"is"exactly"what"Kratzer"does.41" " The" main" problem" for" quantification" over" situations" in" the" framework" is" that" counting" situations"up"in"an"unreflective"way"goes"badly.""We"can't"treat"(55)"as"follows" " (55) I've"gone"snorkeling"twice.""" " " (∃2s)(⟦Alex"goes"snorkeling⟧s"="1)" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 38"Proof:"Assume"s1"⊑"s2.""By"unique"maximal"relatedness,"s1⊑"ws1"and"s2⊑"ws2.""Since"⊑"is"a"partial"order"it"is" transitive;"by"transitivity"s1⊑"ws2." " "But"since"each"situation"is"related"to"a"single"unique"⊑Rmaximal"element" and"s1"is"related"to"⊑Rmaximal"elements"ws2"and"ws1,"ws2"="ws1." 39"Dekker"1995,"p."387" 40"Proof:"According"to"universal"summation,"any"set"of"situations"composes"a"situation"satisfying"(i)"and"(ii)" above." "Let" s"be" the"sum"composed"of"S"–" that" is," the"situation"such" that"every"situation" in" the"structure" is" related"by"⊑"to"it,"and"s"⊑"s*"for"any"situation"s*"such"that"s**"⊑"s*"for"every"s**"⊑"S.""Since"every"situations"in" S"bears"⊑"to"s"and"⊑"is"antisymmetric"(because"it's"a"partial"order),"if"s"⊑"s***"then"s***"="s.""By"the"definition" of"⊑Rmaximality," s" is" a"⊑Rmaximal"element;"by" the"uniqueness"of"⊑Rmaximality," s" is" the"unique"⊑Rmaximal" element"for"every"member"of"S"–"that"is,"the"world"of"every"situation"in"the"structure."" 41"Kratzer"1989"/"forthcoming,"p."8" 42" " " because" the" occasions" of" snorkeling" I" intuitively" intend" to" be" counting" are" much" more" courseR grained"than"situations"are"intended"to"be"in"the"semantic"framework.""Suppose"(55)"is"false"–"I've" only" gone" snorkeling" once." " Consider" the" situation" which" intuitively" just" consists" of" my" going" snorkeling"that"one"time.""That's"one"situation"s"s.t."⟦Alex"goes"snorkeling⟧s"="1.""But"it"isn't"the"only" one!" Consider" the" situation"which" is" just" a" little" bit" bigger" –" it" consists" of"my" snorkeling" and"my" eating"watermelon"on"the"beach"afterwards.""That's"also"a"situation"in"the"denotation"of"'Alex"goes" snorkeling'"–"and"we"can"see" the"problem"–" there"are"many,"many"situations" in" the"denotation"of" 'Alex"goes"snorkeling'"that"I"didn't"mean"to"count"in"saying"that"I've"gone"snorkeling"twice." " The"simplest"solution"is"to"introduce"the"notion"of"a"'counting"situation'"–"that"is,"the"sort"of" situations" that"we" intend" to" quantify" over" in" cases" like" (55)." " However," it'd" be" ideal" if"we" could" identify" the" counting" situations" in" terms" of" features" of" our" situation" structures," and" Kratzer" has" proposed"a"way"of"doing"that"–"by"defining"an"exemplifying,situation." " (Exemplification)" " " If"A"is"a"set"of"situations"then" " " " " " the"elements"exemplifying"A" " " " " " " " " " " " X(A)"="{s"∈"A:"" "¬(∃s*:"s*"∈"A)(s*"⊑"s)""∨" " " " " " " " """"(∀s**:"s**"⊑"s)(s**"∈"A)}" " Informally," for"A"⊆"S," the" situations" exemplifying"A" are" those"which" either"have"no"parts" in"A"or" have"all"of"their"parts"in"A.""The"first"disjunct"characterizes"the"'minimal"situations'"and"is"adequate" for"most"situation"counting.42"" Sometimes," however," we" don't" want" to" count" minimal" situations."" Here's"an"example"from"von"Fintel:" " (56) Often,"when"John"runs,"he"wears"his"old"tennis"shoes.43" " All"of"the"situations"which"are"a"part"of"John's"running"–"his"first"step,"his"second"step,"and"so"on"–" are"themselves"situations"in"which"John"is"running.""For"this"kind"of"case,"the"second"disjunct"kicks" in:"we"want"to"count"the"maximal,situations"in"which"John"runs"which"have"as"parts"only,situations" which"are"themselves"situations"of"John"running." " That" concludes" the" discussion" of" the" basic" elements" of" situation" theoretic" framework" for" quantification." " Here" is" a" firstRpass" reconstruction" of" Kai" von" Fintel's" semantics" for" frequency" adverbs:" " (KVF"GEN1)" ⟦Q(when"P,"R)⟧"" =" ⟦Q⟧⟨X(⟦P⟧),"{s*:"(∃s**)(s*"⊑"s**"∧"s**"∈"⟦R⟧)}⟩" " 'Q'" is"a"quantifier,"X(⟦P⟧)" is" the"set"of"situations"exemplifying"P,"and"the"set"{s*:"(∃s**)(s*"⊑"s**"∧" s**∈"⟦R⟧)}"is"the"set"of"situations"which"'grow"into'"(i.e."are"part"of)"a"situation"satisfying"⟦R⟧.""" " Suppose"we're"looking"at"'always'Rquantification:"the"intuitive"gloss"is"that"'Always(when"P," R)'" is" true" just" in" case" all" 'P'Rexemplifying" situations" are" situations" that" grow" into" 'R'Rsatisfying" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 42"Minimality"governs"counting"in"(Berman"1987)"and"(Heim"1990)." 43"von"Fintel"1995"p."140" 43" " situations." "The"reason"we"need"to"specify"that"they"are"part,of"RRsatisfying"situations"rather"than" just"are"RRsituations"is"that"we"are"talking"about"situations"exemplifying"P,"which"will"for"the"most" part"make"P"true"and"nothing"else"besides.""von"Fintel"doesn't"put"any"restrictions"on"the"'growing" into'"relation"but"I"think"in"general"we"need"to"restrict"it"to"something"more"restrictive"than"mere" parthood.""Let"me"illustrate"the"problem"with"an"example:"" " " (KVF1)"" ⟦Always(when"Alex"snorkels,"he"has"fun)⟧" =" " " " " " " " ⟦All⟧""" ⟨"X(⟦Alex"snorkels⟧),"" " " " " " " " {s*:"(∃s**)(s*"⊑"s**"∧"s**"∈"⟦Alex"has"fun⟧)}⟩" " (KVF1)"tells"us"that"the"quantified"sentence"is"true"just"in"case"all"the"situations"exemplifying"'Alex" snorkels'" grow" into" situations" satisfying" 'Alex" has" fun.'" " Suppose" I've" snorkeled" twice" and" only" enjoyed"it"once;"intuitive"truthRvalue"of"the"statement"is"false.""Call"the"two"snorkelingRexemplifying" situations"s1"and"s2.""Since"both"cases"are"actual,"ws1"="ws2."By"the"persistence"assumption"and"the" fact"that"⟦Alex"has"fun⟧s2"="1,"we"get"that"⟦Alex"has"fun⟧ws2.""But"since"ws1"="ws2,"s1"does,grow"into"a" situation" satisfying" 'Alex"has" fun'" –" it's"world"ws1." " So" it" appears" that"we"need" to" understand" the" 'grows"into"a"situation"∈"⟦R⟧'"bit"of"the"second"argument"in"a"more"restricted"sense"than"mere"⊑R relatedness."(That"said,"I"have"no"suggestion"how"to"do"it.)"" " Von"Fintel"hasn't"said"anything"so"far"about"modality.""In"the"above"example"I"assumed"that" we"were"just"quantifying"over"actual"situations"–"in"order"to"make"that"explicit,"von"Fintel"suggests" that" we" can" restrict" our" quantification" to" situations" which" are" parts" of" the" world" of" evaluation." (Since"our"parameters"of"evaluation"are"situations"rather"than"worlds," I" take" it" that"he"means"the" world"the"situation"of"evaluation"is"a"part"of.)"" " (KVF"GEN2)" ⟦Q(when"P,"R)⟧s"" =" ⟦Q⟧⟨X(⟦P⟧)"∩"ws,,"{s*:"(∃s**)(s*"⊑"s**"∧"s**"∈"⟦R⟧)}⟩" " But"von"Fintel"mentions"that"we"may"want"to"use"these"semantics"for"modal,situation"quantifiers"as" well.""For"this"case,"we"want"to"trade"in"the"world"of"the"parameter"of"evaluation"for"the"accessible" worlds:" " (KVF"GEN3)" ⟦Q(when"P,"R)⟧s"" =" ⟦Q⟧⟨X(⟦P⟧)"∩"f(s),"{s*:"(∃s**)(s*"⊑"s**"∧"s**"∈"⟦R⟧)}⟩" " All"we"did"here"was"substitute" 'f(s)'"for"ws." "Here's"what"von"Fintel"says"above"the"move"to"modal" quantification:" " A,more,generally,applicable,move,would,follow,the,results,of,work, on, modals, and, say, that, adverbs, quantify, only, over, accessible, pC situations...,In, this, formalization,[(KVF"GEN3)],, f, is,a, function, from, (evaluation), situations, to, sets, of, (accessible), situations., , It, plays, a, role, very, similar, to, Kripke's, accessibility, relations, or, Kratzer's, 44" " conversational, backgrounds., Its, identity, is, largely, contextually, determined.44,, " There"are"a"number"of"nonRequivalent"ways"we"might"specify"accessibilityRlike"relations"in"situation" theory;" as" the" final" element" in" the" semantics" for" dispositions" let"me" suggest" a" particular"way" of" specifying"a"dispositional"modal"base"in"situation"theory"that"simply"uses"the"possible"worlds"that" we" do" have" in" the" situation" structures" (the" ⊑Rmaximal" elements)" just" as" they" were" used" in" the" possible"worlds"semantics." " " 9. A"situation"theoretic"semantics"for"disposition"ascriptions" " " In"the"possible"worlds"semantics,"B(w)"was"a"set"of"premises"characterizing"some"object's" intrinsic" properties" at" w" and" the" laws" of" nature" at" w." " Problem" for" situation" theory:" instead" of" having" a"world"w" as" our" parameter" of" evaluation,"we" now"our" evaluating" relative" to" a" situation."" What"situation"counts"as"the"relevant"parameter"of"evaluation"for"a"given"utterance"is"not"entirely" clear;" but"we" can" sidestep" the" issue" by" using" only"worldRrelated" properties" of" a" situation" in" the" characterization"of" the"modal"base." " In"particular," take"our"dispositional"modal"base"B(s)" to"be" a" function" from" s" to" the" set" of" propositions" (set" of" sets" of" situations)" characterizing" the" intrinsic" properties"of"the"object"ascribed"the"disposition"and"the"laws"at,the,unique,⊑Cmaximal,element,s,is, related,to"–"that"is,"at"the"world"of"s." " (MRWRK3S)" ⟦N"is"disposed"to"ψ"when"φ⟧s,τ"="1" iff" "⟦τ⟨X(⟦φ⟧)∩B+(ws)," " " " " " " " " {s*:"(∃s**)(s*⊑s**"∧"s**∈⟦ψ⟧)}⟩⟧s"="1" " " " " " " " " " Gloss:"true"just"in"case"proportional"relation"τ"holds"between"the"set"of"'φ'Rexemplifying"situations" compatible"with"the"dispositional"modal"base"(including"nonRqualitative"linking"facts)"and"the"set"of" situations"which"grow"into"'ψ'Rsatisfying"situations."", , " Besides, the" modal" base" and" evaluation" relative" to" a" situation" rather" than" world," the" significant"differences"between"(MRWRK3S)"and"its"possibleRworlds"antecedent"are"that"⟦φ⟧"and"⟦ψ⟧" denote" sets" of" situations" rather" than" sets" of" worlds," the" restriction" to" φCexemplifying, situations" rather" than"φRsatisfying"worlds," and" the" condition"of" being"⊑Rrelated" to" a" 'ψ'Rsatisfying" situation" rather"than"being"a"'ψ'Rsatisfying"world.""In"each"of"these"respects,"the"situation"theoretic"treatment" seems" to" more" adequately" approximate" the" intuitively" relevant" possibilities" than" the" possible" worlds"treatment."" " " """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""" 44"von"Fintel"1995,"p."143" 45" " Works"Cited" " Anderson,"Alan"Ross."(1951)"'A"Note"on"Subjunctive"and"Counterfactual"Conditionals.'"" " Analysis,11,"35R38." " Anthony," Alexander." (2010)" Dispositional" predicates" in" context." " Unpublished" B.A." thesis," " Wesleyan"University."Available"at"http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/etd_hon_theses/456/" " Berman,"S."(1990)""'SituationRBased"Semantics"for"Adverbs"of"Quantification.'"In"J."Blevins"and"" " A."Ainikka,"eds."University"of"Masachussets"Occasional"Papers"12."45"–"68." " Bonevac,"D.,"Dever."J.,"and"Sosa,"D."(forthcoming"in"Mind)"'The"Counterexample"Fallacy.'" " Citations"to"version"available"at" "" https://webspace.utexas.edu/deverj/personal/papers/counterexample.pdf" " Carnap,"R.""(1936–7)"'Testability"and"Meaning',"Philosophy,of,Science"III:"419–471"and"IV:"1–40." " Choi,"S."(2006)""'The"Simple"vs."Reformed"Conditional"Analysis"of"Dispositions.'"Synthese""148:"369– " 379." " Dekker,"P."(1995)"'Cases,"adverbs,"situations,"and"events.'"In"H."Kamp"and""B.H."Partee,"(eds.)"" " Current,Research,in,the,Semantics/Pragmatics,Interface,,Volume,11.""" " Oxford:"Elsevier."Chapter"22,"383"–"404." " Fara,"M."(2001)"Dispositions"and"their"ascriptions."Unpublished"Ph.D."thesis,"Princeton"University."" " " -"(2005)"'Dispositions"and"Habituals.'"Noûs"39:"43–82." " von"Fintel,"Kai."(1995)""'A"minimal"theory"of"adverbial"quantification.'"In"H."Kamp"and"" " B.H."Partee"(eds.)"Current,Research,in,the,Semantics/Pragmatics,Interface,,Volume,11.""" " Oxford:"Elsevier."Chapter"7,"137"–"175." " Goodman,"N.""(1954)"Fact,,Fiction,and,Forecast."Cambridge,"Mass.:"Harvard"University"Press." " Gundersen,"L."(2002)"'In"Defence"of"the"Conditional"Account"of"Dispositions.'"Synthese"130:"389–" " 411." " Heim,"I."(1990)""'ERtype"Pronouns"and"Donkey"Anaphora.'"Linguistics,and,Philosophy"13:"137"–"177." " Johnston,"M."(1992)"'How"to"Speak"of"the"Colors.'"Philosophical,Studies"68:"221–263." " Kratzer,"A."(1977"/"forthcoming)""'What"'must'"and"'can'"must"and"can"mean.'""Original"printing:"" " Linguistics,and,Philosophy,1:"337"–"355.""Citations"to"Kratzer"forthcoming,"Chapter"1., 46" " " -"(1981"/"forthcoming)"'The"notional"category"of"modality.'""Original"printing:"in"H.J"Eikmeyer"and"" " H."Rieser"(eds.)"Words,,Worlds,and,Contexts."Berlin:"de"Gruyter,"38"–"74.""Citations"to"" " Kratzer"forthcoming,"Chapter"2." " -"(1989"/"forthcoming)"'An"Investigation"of"the"Lumps"of"Thought.'"Original"printing:"Linguistics,, , and,Philosophy,12:"607"–"653."Citations"to"Kratzer"forthcoming,"Chapter"5." " -"(forthcoming)"Papers,on,Modals,and,Conditionals."Draft"dated"'September"2010'"from"" " semanticsarchive.net" " Lewis,"D."(1973)"Counterfactuals."Cambridge:"Harvard"University"Press." " -"(1975)"'Adverbs"of"Quantification.'""In"E."Keenan"(ed.)"Formal,Semantics,of,Natural,Language,"" " 3R15." " 'Finkish"Dispositions.'"The,Philosophical,Quarterly"47:"143–158." " -"(1997)"'Finkish"Dispositions.'"The,Philosophical,Quarterly"47:"143–158." " Manley,"D."and"Wasserman,"R."(2008)"'On"Linking"Dispositions"and"Conditionals.'"Mind"117"" " pp."59"" –"84." " Martin,"C."B."(1994)"'Dispositions"and"Conditionals.'"The,Philosophical,Quarterly"44:"1–8." " McKitrick,"J.""(2003)""'A"Case"for"Extrinsic"Dispositions.'"Australasian,Journal,of,Philosophy"81:"155–" " 174." " Portner,"P."(2009)"Modality."Oxford:"OUP." " Quine,"W.V.O."(1960)"Word,and,Object."Cambridge,"MA:"MIT"Press." " Ryle,"G."(1949)"The,Concept,of,Mind."London:"Hutchinson"&"Co." " Shoemaker,"S."(1984)"Identity,,Cause,,and,Mind.""Cambridge:"CUP." " YliRVakkuri,"J."(2010)"'Conditional"and"habitual"analyses"of"disposition"ascriptions.'""" " The,Philosophical,Quarterly"60:"624"–"630." " " " " "