Benj Hellie
University of Toronto at Scarborough
A mainstay assumption in natural-language semantics is that \emph{if}-clauses bind indexical argument-places in \emph{then}-clauses. Unfortunately, recent work (compare \citealt{santorio12}) suggests that \emph{if}-clauses can somehow act to `shift the context'. On the framework of Kaplan's `Demonstratives' \citep{kaplan77}, that would be `monstrous' and somehow impossible `in English'. The superseding framework of Lewis's `Index, context, and content' \citep{lewis80icc} instead maintains that an indexical argument-place is just one that is bindable (compare~\citealt[ch.~1]{stalnaker14}), but maintains that these are rare---whereas the lesson of recent work is that they are pervasive. This brief technical note observes that it is possible to `hack' the Lewis framework to make use of a resource that is doing little work: the `postsemantic' stage, whereby nonpropositional semantic values are transformed into propositional contents. I provide a semantics for \emph{if}-clauses on which they \emph{restrict} the domain of definedness of their operanda to those in which the antecedent is correct, and then \emph{test} for the correctness of the consequent: postsemantically, then, we `seek out' the closest context in which the antecedent is correct; if it is one in which the consequent is correct, the conditional is correct in our context. The result has the structure of a Stalnaker-conditional, but over contexts rather than worlds. The `hack' has the radical consequence that this the mainstay assumption in natural-language semantics is wrong: if \emph{if}-clauses act postsemantically rather than in the course of semantic composition, then nothing about their behavior can teach us anything about the distribution of indexical argument-places.
Keywords conditionals  context  semantics
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,321
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Detaching If-Clauses From Should.Ana Arregui - 2010 - Natural Language Semantics 18 (3):241-293.
Sorting Out Relative Clauses.Sarah Hulsey & Uli Sauerland - 2006 - Natural Language Semantics 14 (2):111-137.
Adnominal Conditionals.Peter Lasersohn - 1996 - In T. Galloway & J. Spence (eds.), Papers from Semantics and Linguistic Theory VI. CLC Publications.
Conditional Questions.J. Isaacs & K. Rawlins - 2008 - Journal of Semantics 25 (3):269-319.
Restrictions on Quantifier Domains.Kai von Fintel - 1994 - Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Conditionals.Kyle Rawlins - 2013 - Natural Language Semantics 21 (2):111-178.
Evidentiality of Discourse Items and Because-Clauses.Y. Hara - 2008 - Journal of Semantics 25 (3):229-268.
The Semantics of Conditionals.Jonathan Mark Strand - 1991 - Dissertation, University of Notre Dame
Generics in Context.Rachel Sterken - 2015 - Philosophers' Imprint 15.


Added to PP index

Total views
35 ( #296,014 of 2,419,797 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #542,712 of 2,419,797 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes