Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On similarity in counterfactuals

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates the interpretation of counterfactual conditionals. The main goal of the paper is to provide an account of the semantic role of similarity in the evaluation of counterfactuals. The paper proposes an analysis according to which counterfactuals are treated as predications “de re” over past situations in the actual world. The relevant situations enter semantic composition via the interpretation of tense. Counterfactuals are treated as law-like conditionals with de re predication over particular facts. Similarity with respect to particular facts is ensured by the semantics of tense in interaction with the modal, while the modal itself is responsible for invoking laws. In the paper, various arguments are provided to support a local view of similarity over the global approach found in semantics along the line of Lewis’s and Stalnaker’s. Arguments are also provided tying the evaluation of similarity to the interpretation of tense. Finally, arguments are provided to show that in key cases, the approaches make comparable predictions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abusch D. (1997) Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 1–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arregui, A. (2004). On the accessibility of possible worlds: The role of tense and aspect. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Arregui A. (2007a) When aspect matters: The case of would-conditionals. Natural Language Semantics 15: 221–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arregui, A. (2007b). Resolving similarity in embedded contexts. In O. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 7. https://doi.org/www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss7/index_en.html.

  • Arregui, A. (2008). On the role of past tense in resolving similarity, In A. Grønn (Ed.), Proceedings of SuB12 (pp. 17–31). Oslo: ILOS. ISBN 978-82-92800-00-3.

  • Bennett J. (2003) A philosophical guide to conditionals. Clarendon, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, R., & Pancheva, R. (2006). Conditionals. In The Blackwell companion to syntax (Vol. II, pp. 638– 687). Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Condoravdi C. (2001) Temporal interpretation of modals. In: Beaver D., Kaufman S., Clark B., Casas L. (eds) Stanford papers in semantic. CSLI Publications, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P.J.E., Zeijlstra, H.H. (eds) (2006) Concord phenomena and the syntax-semantics interface. Malaga, ESSLLI

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudman V.H. (1984) Conditional interpretations of if-sentences. Australian Journal of Linguistics 4: 143–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enç M. (1987) Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 633–657

    Google Scholar 

  • Enç M. (1996) Tense and modality. In: Lappin S. (eds) The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Blackwell, London, pp 345–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine K. (1975) Review of Lewis 1973. Mind 84: 451–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han C.-H. (2006) Variation in form-meaning mapping between Korean and English counterfactuals. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15(2): 167–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazen A. (1979) Counterpart theoretic semantics for modal logic. The Journal of Philosophy 76: 319–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim I. (1990) E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim I. (1994). Comments on Abusch’s theory of tense. In: Kamp H. (eds). Ellipsis, tense and questions. Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, pp. 141–170

  • Heim, I. (2005). Features on bound pronouns, ms. MIT.

  • Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semnatics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Iatridou, S. (1991). Topics in conditionals. Dissertation, MIT.

  • Iatridou S. (2000) The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 231–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ippolito M. (2003) Presuppositions and implicatures in counterfactuals. Natural Language Semantics 11: 145–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ippolito, M. (2004). Imperfect modality. In J. Guéron & J. Lecarme (Eds.), The syntax of time (pp. 359–387). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Kamp H. (1979) Events, instants, and temporal reference. In: Bäuerle R., Egli U., von Stechow A. (eds) Semantics from different points of view. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 376–417

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer A. (1977) What must and can must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 337–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer A. (1981) The notional category of modality. In: Eikmeyer H.-J., Rieser H. (eds) Words, worlds and contexts. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 38–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer A. (1989) An investigations of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 607–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer A. (1998) More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In: Strolovitch D., Lawson A. (eds) Proceedings of salt VIII. CLC Publications, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer A. (2002) Facts: Particulars of information units?. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 655–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (2006a). Situations in natural language semantics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

  • Kratzer, A. (2006b). Minimal pronouns, ms. Umass.

  • Kusumoto, K. (1998). Tense in embedded contexts. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Kusumoto K. (2005) On the quantification over times in natural language. Natural Language Semantics 13: 317–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landman F. (1991) Structures for semantics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Legate J.-A. (2003) The morphosyntax of Warlpiri counterfactual conditionals. Linguistic Inquiry 34(1): 155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1973) Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Noûs, 13, 455–476. (Reprinted in Lewis, D. (1986). Philosophical Papers (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.)

  • Lewis D. (1983) Individuation by acquaintance and by stipulation. Philosophical Review 92: 3–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogihara T. (1996) Tense, attitudes, and scope. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ogihara, T. (2000). Counterfactuals, temporal adverbs, and association with focus. In Proceedings of SALT 10 (pp. 115–131). Ithaca: CLS Publications.

  • Ogihara, T. (2004). The semantics of ta in Japanese counterfactual conditionals, ms.

  • Ogihara, T. (2006). Counterfactual conditionals and focus cross-linguistically, ms.

  • Palmer F.R. (1986) Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer F.R. (2001) Mood and modality (2nd ed). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Partee B. (1973) Some structural analogies between tense and pronouns. The Journal of Philosophy 70: 601–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock J. (1976) Subjunctive reasoning. D. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein S. (1995) Adverbial quantification over events. Natural Language Semantics 3: 1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rullmann H. (2004) First and second person pronouns as bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 159–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland U. (2002) The present tense is vacuous. Snippets 6: 12–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker P. (2003) A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 29–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnakers R. (1968) A theory of conditionals. In: Rescher N. (eds) Studies in Logical Theory 2. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 98–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Stowell T. (1996) The phrase structure of tense. In: Rooryck J., Zaring L. (eds) Phrase structure and the lexicon. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 277–291

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Veltman F. (2005) Making counterfactual assumptions. Journal of Semantics 22: 159–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • von Fintel K. (2001) Counterfactuals in a dynamic context. In: Kenstowicz M. (eds) Ken Hale: A Life in Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 132–152

    Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, K., & Heim, I. (2005). Intensional semantics lecture notes, ms. MIT.

  • von Stechow, A. (2003). Feature deletion under semantic binding: Tense, person and mood under verbal quantifiers. In M. Kadowaki & S. Kawahara (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 33 (pp. 379–403). Amherst: GLSA

  • Zagona K. et al (1995) Temporal argument structure: Configurational elements of construal. In: Bertinetto P.M. (eds) Temporal reference, aspect and actionality, Vol.1: Semantic and syntactic perspectives. Rosenberg & Sellier, Torino

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Ana Arregui

Authors
  1. Ana Arregui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Arregui.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arregui, A. On similarity in counterfactuals. Linguist and Philos 32, 245–278 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9060-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9060-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation