Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals A intuitive view of the notion of a condition ◮ A conditional if p, q expresses a condition when we judge that the truth of the consequent depends on the truth of the antecedent. ◮ A biscuit conditional is one in which the truth of the consequent is independent of that of the antecedent. A formalization: Epistemic Independence (Franke 2007) Two propositions p, q are epistemically independent iff for all A ∈ { p, ¬ p } and all B ∈ { q, ¬ q } , ♦ A & ♦ B → ♦ ( A & B )
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals Why go beyond the intuitive view?
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals Why go beyond the intuitive view? 1. Problem: Franke’s definition makes any two known propositions independent, and consequently any known proposition independent of itself. (Richmond Thomason, p.c.) Contexts in which p, q are known must therefore be excluded from the definition.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals Why go beyond the intuitive view? 1. Problem: Franke’s definition makes any two known propositions independent, and consequently any known proposition independent of itself. (Richmond Thomason, p.c.) Contexts in which p, q are known must therefore be excluded from the definition. 2. The intuitive view cannot explain chimericity.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals Why go beyond the intuitive view? 1. Problem: Franke’s definition makes any two known propositions independent, and consequently any known proposition independent of itself. (Richmond Thomason, p.c.) Contexts in which p, q are known must therefore be excluded from the definition. 2. The intuitive view cannot explain chimericity. ◮ In chimerical conditionals, the consequent does not express a stable proposition: There are no guards
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals Why go beyond the intuitive view? 1. Problem: Franke’s definition makes any two known propositions independent, and consequently any known proposition independent of itself. (Richmond Thomason, p.c.) Contexts in which p, q are known must therefore be excluded from the definition. 2. The intuitive view cannot explain chimericity. ◮ In chimerical conditionals, the consequent does not express a stable proposition: There are no guards ◮ If we “stabilize” the proposition by determining a value for the missing argument, only one reading is generated.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals What is missing
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals What is missing ◮ An account of how exactly chimerical consequents are interpreted.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals What is missing ◮ An account of how exactly chimerical consequents are interpreted. ◮ A formulation of what it means to express a condition that is not dependent on propositions.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals What is missing ◮ An account of how exactly chimerical consequents are interpreted. ◮ A formulation of what it means to express a condition that is not dependent on propositions. ◮ Supplying these components should pave the way to a better understanding of the indicative reading of chimeric conditionals
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals What is missing ◮ An account of how exactly chimerical consequents are interpreted. ◮ A formulation of what it means to express a condition that is not dependent on propositions. ◮ Supplying these components should pave the way to a better understanding of the indicative reading of chimeric conditionals ◮ Ideally, the account should conserve the intuitive idea that a condition is a truth-dependence between consequent and antecedent.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Implicit arguments Existentials such as there are no guards contain an implicit argument such as is found in context-dependent lexical predicates (Partee 1989, Condoravdi and Gawron 1996)
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Implicit arguments Existentials such as there are no guards contain an implicit argument such as is found in context-dependent lexical predicates (Partee 1989, Condoravdi and Gawron 1996) 1. We can watch the game at a local bar.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Implicit arguments Existentials such as there are no guards contain an implicit argument such as is found in context-dependent lexical predicates (Partee 1989, Condoravdi and Gawron 1996) 1. We can watch the game at a local bar. 2. Lets go to Berlin. We can watch the game at a local bar.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Implicit arguments Existentials such as there are no guards contain an implicit argument such as is found in context-dependent lexical predicates (Partee 1989, Condoravdi and Gawron 1996) 1. We can watch the game at a local bar. 2. Lets go to Berlin. We can watch the game at a local bar. 3. Every fan watched the game at a local bar.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Implicit arguments Existentials such as there are no guards contain an implicit argument such as is found in context-dependent lexical predicates (Partee 1989, Condoravdi and Gawron 1996) 1. We can watch the game at a local bar. 2. Lets go to Berlin. We can watch the game at a local bar. 3. Every fan watched the game at a local bar. 1. There’s no coffee.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Implicit arguments Existentials such as there are no guards contain an implicit argument such as is found in context-dependent lexical predicates (Partee 1989, Condoravdi and Gawron 1996) 1. We can watch the game at a local bar. 2. Lets go to Berlin. We can watch the game at a local bar. 3. Every fan watched the game at a local bar. 1. There’s no coffee. 2. We had to leave the village. There was no coffee.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Implicit arguments Existentials such as there are no guards contain an implicit argument such as is found in context-dependent lexical predicates (Partee 1989, Condoravdi and Gawron 1996) 1. We can watch the game at a local bar. 2. Lets go to Berlin. We can watch the game at a local bar. 3. Every fan watched the game at a local bar. 1. There’s no coffee. 2. We had to leave the village. There was no coffee. 3. Every village was abandoned when there was no coffee.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Properties of implicit arguments
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Properties of implicit arguments ◮ Associated with presuppositions of familiarity as well as descriptive content. For example, the argument of local must be familiar and a location.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Properties of implicit arguments ◮ Associated with presuppositions of familiarity as well as descriptive content. For example, the argument of local must be familiar and a location. ◮ Like definite descriptions and unlike pronouns, can pick up on inferred antecedents (Condoravdi and Gawron 1996)
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Properties of implicit arguments ◮ Associated with presuppositions of familiarity as well as descriptive content. For example, the argument of local must be familiar and a location. ◮ Like definite descriptions and unlike pronouns, can pick up on inferred antecedents (Condoravdi and Gawron 1996) 1. Everyone who bet on the superbowl won.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Properties of implicit arguments ◮ Associated with presuppositions of familiarity as well as descriptive content. For example, the argument of local must be familiar and a location. ◮ Like definite descriptions and unlike pronouns, can pick up on inferred antecedents (Condoravdi and Gawron 1996) 1. Everyone who bet on the superbowl won. 2. Everyone who bet on the superbowl won it.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Properties of implicit arguments ◮ Associated with presuppositions of familiarity as well as descriptive content. For example, the argument of local must be familiar and a location. ◮ Like definite descriptions and unlike pronouns, can pick up on inferred antecedents (Condoravdi and Gawron 1996) 1. Everyone who bet on the superbowl won. 2. Everyone who bet on the superbowl won it. ◮ Chimeric conditionals are exactly those that have an implicit argument in the consequent.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Properties of implicit arguments ◮ Associated with presuppositions of familiarity as well as descriptive content. For example, the argument of local must be familiar and a location. ◮ Like definite descriptions and unlike pronouns, can pick up on inferred antecedents (Condoravdi and Gawron 1996) 1. Everyone who bet on the superbowl won. 2. Everyone who bet on the superbowl won it. ◮ Chimeric conditionals are exactly those that have an implicit argument in the consequent. ◮ How does the presence of an implicit argument in the consequent affect the interpretation of a conditional?
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The interpretation of chimerical consequents
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The interpretation of chimerical consequents 1. There are no guards if you enter from the north.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The interpretation of chimerical consequents 1. There are no guards if you enter from the north. ◮ The if -clause introduces possible antecedents for the implicit argument.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The interpretation of chimerical consequents 1. There are no guards if you enter from the north. ◮ The if -clause introduces possible antecedents for the implicit argument. • The point of entry.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The interpretation of chimerical consequents 1. There are no guards if you enter from the north. ◮ The if -clause introduces possible antecedents for the implicit argument. • The point of entry. • The north entrance.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The interpretation of chimerical consequents 1. There are no guards if you enter from the north. ◮ The if -clause introduces possible antecedents for the implicit argument. • The point of entry. • The north entrance. ◮ Salient interpretations:
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The interpretation of chimerical consequents 1. There are no guards if you enter from the north. ◮ The if -clause introduces possible antecedents for the implicit argument. • The point of entry. • The north entrance. ◮ Salient interpretations: 1. There are no guards at the north entrance
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The interpretation of chimerical consequents 1. There are no guards if you enter from the north. ◮ The if -clause introduces possible antecedents for the implicit argument. • The point of entry. • The north entrance. ◮ Salient interpretations: 1. There are no guards at the north entrance 2. There are no guards at your place of entrance
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The interpretation of chimerical consequents 1. There are no guards if you enter from the north. ◮ The if -clause introduces possible antecedents for the implicit argument. • The point of entry. • The north entrance. ◮ Salient interpretations: 1. There are no guards at the north entrance 2. There are no guards at your place of entrance ◮ These two interpretations are the source of chimericity.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The indicative reading of chimeric conditionals
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The indicative reading of chimeric conditionals 1. There are no guards if you enter from the south.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The indicative reading of chimeric conditionals 1. There are no guards if you enter from the south. ◮ Intuition : 1 expresses a condition because the consequent varies in truth when we consider alternatives to the antecedent.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The indicative reading of chimeric conditionals 1. There are no guards if you enter from the south. ◮ Intuition : 1 expresses a condition because the consequent varies in truth when we consider alternatives to the antecedent. Guards North
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The indicative reading of chimeric conditionals 1. There are no guards if you enter from the south. ◮ Intuition : 1 expresses a condition because the consequent varies in truth when we consider alternatives to the antecedent. No Guards South
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The indicative reading of chimeric conditionals 1. There are no guards if you enter from the south. ◮ Intuition : 1 expresses a condition because the consequent varies in truth when we consider alternatives to the antecedent. Guards East
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The indicative reading of chimeric conditionals 1. There are no guards if you enter from the south. ◮ Intuition : 1 expresses a condition because the consequent varies in truth when we consider alternatives to the antecedent. Guards West
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The indicative reading of chimeric conditionals 1. There are no guards if you enter from the south. ◮ Intuition : 1 expresses a condition because the consequent varies in truth when we consider alternatives to the antecedent. Guards West ◮ But there is no proposition expressed by the consequent that changes truth across alternatives.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The indicative reading of chimeric conditionals 1. There are no guards if you enter from the south. ◮ Intuition : 1 expresses a condition because the consequent varies in truth when we consider alternatives to the antecedent. Guards West ◮ But there is no proposition expressed by the consequent that changes truth across alternatives. ◮ Rather, what changes with the alternatives is what entry point is said to contain no guards.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals What this shows about the indicative reading:
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals What this shows about the indicative reading: ◮ It involves evaluating the consequent and its polar opposite against alternatives other than the polar opposite of the antecedent.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals What this shows about the indicative reading: ◮ It involves evaluating the consequent and its polar opposite against alternatives other than the polar opposite of the antecedent. ◮ It also involves changing the content of the consequent across alternatives.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals What this shows about the indicative reading: ◮ It involves evaluating the consequent and its polar opposite against alternatives other than the polar opposite of the antecedent. ◮ It also involves changing the content of the consequent across alternatives. ◮ To model this we want a notion of condition that makes reference to sets of alternatives, and the alternatives must not be propositions,
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The analysis Issues An issue is a set of dynamic meanings inducing a partition on the worlds of the context.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The analysis Issues An issue is a set of dynamic meanings inducing a partition on the worlds of the context. ◮ As in File Change Semantics, contexts are sets of world-assignment pairs.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The analysis Issues An issue is a set of dynamic meanings inducing a partition on the worlds of the context. ◮ As in File Change Semantics, contexts are sets of world-assignment pairs. ◮ An issue ? φ is a set of CCPs containing φ and at least one alternative to φ .
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The analysis Issues An issue is a set of dynamic meanings inducing a partition on the worlds of the context. ◮ As in File Change Semantics, contexts are sets of world-assignment pairs. ◮ An issue ? φ is a set of CCPs containing φ and at least one alternative to φ . ◮ ? φ is an issue relative to a context c iff
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The analysis Issues An issue is a set of dynamic meanings inducing a partition on the worlds of the context. ◮ As in File Change Semantics, contexts are sets of world-assignment pairs. ◮ An issue ? φ is a set of CCPs containing φ and at least one alternative to φ . ◮ ? φ is an issue relative to a context c iff (i) Definedness : c + φ is defined for all φ ∈ ? φ
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals The analysis Issues An issue is a set of dynamic meanings inducing a partition on the worlds of the context. ◮ As in File Change Semantics, contexts are sets of world-assignment pairs. ◮ An issue ? φ is a set of CCPs containing φ and at least one alternative to φ . ◮ ? φ is an issue relative to a context c iff (i) Definedness : c + φ is defined for all φ ∈ ? φ (ii) Partition : For any φ, φ ′ ∈ ? φ such that φ � = φ ′ , c + φ and c + φ ′ are disjoint, and every world in c is in c + φ for some φ ∈ ? φ .
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Conditions revisited A conditional expresses a condition if and only if the issue raised by its consequent depends on the issue raised by its antecedent.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Conditions revisited A conditional expresses a condition if and only if the issue raised by its consequent depends on the issue raised by its antecedent. Dependence ? ψ depends on ? φ in a context of ignorance about ? φ and ? ψ if and only if resolving ? φ can resolve ? ψ
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Conditions revisited A conditional expresses a condition if and only if the issue raised by its consequent depends on the issue raised by its antecedent. Dependence ? ψ depends on ? φ in a context of ignorance about ? φ and ? ψ if and only if resolving ? φ can resolve ? ψ Ignorance c is a context of ignorance about an issue ? φ if and only if for no φ ∈ ? φ , c + φ = ∅
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Conditions revisited A conditional expresses a condition if and only if the issue raised by its consequent depends on the issue raised by its antecedent. Dependence ? ψ depends on ? φ in a context of ignorance about ? φ and ? ψ if and only if resolving ? φ can resolve ? ψ Ignorance c is a context of ignorance about an issue ? φ if and only if for no φ ∈ ? φ , c + φ = ∅ Whether a chimerical conditional expresses a condition hangs on what the issue associated with the consequent, ? ψ , is taken to be, which in turn depends on what ? φ is taken to be.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Example Suppose there are three entrances: North, South and West.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Example Suppose there are three entrances: North, South and West. 1. There are no guards if you enter from the south.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Case 1: the biscuit reading
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Case 1: the biscuit reading ◮ ? φ , the issue raised by the antecedent, is “do you enter from the south or not?”, leaving open the possibility that you do not enter at all.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Case 1: the biscuit reading ◮ ? φ , the issue raised by the antecedent, is “do you enter from the south or not?”, leaving open the possibility that you do not enter at all. ◮ 1 expresses a condition iff the issue ? ψ raised by the consequent depends on ? φ in a context of ignorance about ? φ and ? ψ .
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Case 1: the biscuit reading ◮ ? φ , the issue raised by the antecedent, is “do you enter from the south or not?”, leaving open the possibility that you do not enter at all. ◮ 1 expresses a condition iff the issue ? ψ raised by the consequent depends on ? φ in a context of ignorance about ? φ and ? ψ . ◮ Recall the possible readings of the consequent,
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Case 1: the biscuit reading ◮ ? φ , the issue raised by the antecedent, is “do you enter from the south or not?”, leaving open the possibility that you do not enter at all. ◮ 1 expresses a condition iff the issue ? ψ raised by the consequent depends on ? φ in a context of ignorance about ? φ and ? ψ . ◮ Recall the possible readings of the consequent, (a) ? ψ = are there guards where you enter?
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Case 1: the biscuit reading ◮ ? φ , the issue raised by the antecedent, is “do you enter from the south or not?”, leaving open the possibility that you do not enter at all. ◮ 1 expresses a condition iff the issue ? ψ raised by the consequent depends on ? φ in a context of ignorance about ? φ and ? ψ . ◮ Recall the possible readings of the consequent, (a) ? ψ = are there guards where you enter? (b) ? ψ = are there guards at the south entrance?
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Case 1: the biscuit reading ◮ ? φ , the issue raised by the antecedent, is “do you enter from the south or not?”, leaving open the possibility that you do not enter at all. ◮ 1 expresses a condition iff the issue ? ψ raised by the consequent depends on ? φ in a context of ignorance about ? φ and ? ψ . ◮ Recall the possible readings of the consequent, (a) ? ψ = are there guards where you enter? (b) ? ψ = are there guards at the south entrance? ◮ No context of ignorance about ? φ entails the existence of an entry point, so ? ψ cannot be (a). So ? φ = (b) (The south entrance is entailed to exist by any ignorance context about ? φ .)
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Case 1: the biscuit reading ◮ ? φ , the issue raised by the antecedent, is “do you enter from the south or not?”, leaving open the possibility that you do not enter at all. ◮ 1 expresses a condition iff the issue ? ψ raised by the consequent depends on ? φ in a context of ignorance about ? φ and ? ψ . ◮ Recall the possible readings of the consequent, (a) ? ψ = are there guards where you enter? (b) ? ψ = are there guards at the south entrance? ◮ No context of ignorance about ? φ entails the existence of an entry point, so ? ψ cannot be (a). So ? φ = (b) (The south entrance is entailed to exist by any ignorance context about ? φ .) ◮ If you don’t know the answer to this, resolving whether you enter from the south won’t help.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Case 2: The indicative reading
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Case 2: The indicative reading ◮ ? φ = “What is your entry point?”, presupposing you enter somewhere. So any context of ignorance about ? φ entails the existence of an entry point.
Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals Case 2: The indicative reading ◮ ? φ = “What is your entry point?”, presupposing you enter somewhere. So any context of ignorance about ? φ entails the existence of an entry point. ◮ In such a context ? ψ can be “are there guards at your entry point?”
Recommend
More recommend
