Detaching if-clauses from should

Natural Language Semantics

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 241-293

  Arregui, Ana ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Aspect; Chisholm's Paradox; Conditionals; Deontic modality

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955267770     PISSN: 0925854X     EISSN: 1572865X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11050-010-9055-5     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Åqvist, Lennart. 2002. Deontic logic. In Handbook of philosophical logic, ed. D. Gabbay, and F. Guenthner, Vol. 8, 147-264. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
2. Alchourrón, Carlos. ed. 1993. Philosophical foundations of deontic logic and the logic of defeasible conditionals. In Deontic logics in computer science: Normative system specification, ed. J. J. Meyer and R. J. Wieringa, 43-84. Chichester: Wiley.
3. Arregui, Ana. 2004. On the accessibility of possible worlds: The role of tense and aspect. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
4. Arregui, Ana. 2005. Layering modalities. Ms., University of Ottawa.
5. Arregui Ana (2007) When aspect matters: The case of would-conditionals. Natural Language Semantics 15: 221-264.
6. Arregui, Ana. 2008. Chisholm's Paradox: On detaching obligations from deontic conditionals. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 18, ed. T. Friedman, and S. Ito, 55-72. Ithaca, NY: CLS, Cornell University.
7. Arregui Ana (2009) On similarity in counterfactuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(3): 245-278.
8. Bennett Jonathan (2003) A philosophical guide to conditionals. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
9. Bhatt, Rajesh. 1999. Covert modality in non-finite contexts, PhD disseration, University of Pennsylvania. (Revised version published in 2006 by de Gruyter, Berlin.).
10. Carmó, José, and Andrew Jones. 2002. Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. In Handbook of philosophical logic, ed. D. Gabbay, and F. Guenthner, Vol. 8, 265-343. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
11. Chisholm Roderick M. (1963) Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic. Analysis 24: 33-36.
12. Condoravdi, Cleo. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In The construction of meaning, ed. D. Beaver, S. Kaufmann, and L. Casillas, 59-88. Stanford, Cal.: CSLI Publications.
13. Copley, Bridget. 2006. What should should mean? Ms., CNRS, Université Paris 8.
14. Enç Mürvet (1986) Towards a referential analysis of temporal expressions. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 405-426.
15. Enç, Mürvet. 1996. Tense and modality. In the handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. S. Lappin, 345-358. Oxford: Blackwell.
16. Feldman Fred (1986) Doing the best we can. Reidel, Dordrecht.
17. Frank, Anette. 1997. Context dependence and modal constructions. PhD dissertation, University of Stuttgart.
18. Gennari Silvia (2003) Tense meanings and temporal interpretation. Journal of Semantics 20: 35-71.
19. Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of modality. PhD dissertation, MIT.
20. Hacquard Valentine (2009) On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(3): 279-315.
21. Heim, Irene. 1982. On the interpretation of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
22. Heim Irene, Kratzer Angelika (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Malden.
23. Iatridou Sabine (2000) The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 231-270.
24. Ippolito Michela (2003) Presuppositions and implicatures in counterfactuals. Natural Language Semantics 11: 145-186.
25. Ippolito, Michela. 2008. Subjunctive conditionals. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12, ed. Atle Grønn, 256-270. Oslo: ILOS.
26. Kaufmann Stefan (2005) Conditional truth and future reference. Journal of Semantics 22: 231-280.
27. Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Words, worlds, and contexts, ed. H. J. Eikmeyer and H. Rieser, 38-74. Berlin: de Gruyter. (Reprinted in Paul Portner and Barbara Partee (eds.), 2002. Formal semantics. The essential Readings. Oxford: Blackwell.).
28. Kratzer Angelika (1989) An investigations of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 607-653.
29. Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Handbuch der Semantik/Handbook of semantics, ed. A. von Stechow, and D. Wunderlich, 639-650. Berlin: de Gruyter.
30. Kratzer, A. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In Proceedings of SALT 18, ed. D. Strolovitch, and A. Lawson, 92-110. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
31. Kratzer A. (2002) Facts: Particulars of information units? Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 655-670.
32. Kratzer, A. 2009. Situations in natural language semantics. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (First published in 2007.) http://plato. stanford. edu/entries/situations-semantics/.
33. Kusumoto, K. 1998. Tense in embedded contexts. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
34. Kusumoto K. (2005) On the quantification over times in natural language. Natural Language Semantics 13: 317-357.
35. Lewis D. (1973) Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
36. Lewis, D. 1979. Counterfactual dependence and time's arrow. Noûs 13: 455-476. (Reprinted in D. Lewis (1986), Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2, Oxford: Oxford University Press.).
37. Musan, Renate. 1995. On the temporal interpretation of noun phrases. PhD dissertation, MIT.
38. Ogihara T. (1996) Tense, attitudes, and scope. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
39. Ogihara, T. 2000. Counterfactuals, temporal adverbs, and association with focus. In Proceedings of SALT 10, ed. Brendan Jackson and Tanya Matthews 115-131. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
40. Parsons Terence (1994) Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA, MIT.
41. Percus Orin (2000) Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8: 173-229.
42. Prakken Henry, Sergott Mark (1996) Contrary-to-duty obligations. Studia Logica 57: 91-115.
43. Schulz, Katrin. forthcoming. "If you wiggle A, the B will change": Causality and the meaning of conditional sentences. To appear in Synthèse.
44. Stalnaker, Robert. 1975. Indicative conditionals. Philosophia 5: 269-286. (Reprinted in Robert Stalnaker, (1999). Context and content. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 63-77.).
45. von Fintel, Kai. 2001. Counterfactuals in a dynamic context. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 123-152. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. von Fintel, Kai, and Anthony Gillies. 2007. An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. In Oxford studies in epistemology, ed. Tamar Szabo Gendler, and John Hawthorne, Vol. 2, 32-62. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47. von Fintel Kai, Gillies Anthony (2008) CIA leaks. The Philosophical Review 117: 77-98.
48. von Fintel, Kai, and Sabine Iatridou 2008. How to say ought in foreign: The composition of weak necessity modals. In Time and modality, ed. J. Guéron, and J., Lecarme, 115-141. Berlin: Springer.
49. von Stechow, Arnim. 1995. On the proper treatment of tense. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Vol. 5, pp. 362-386. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
50. Tichý Pavel (1976) A counterexample to the Stalnaker-Lewis analysis of counterfactuals. Philosophical Studies 29: 271-273.
51. Veltman Frank (1996) Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25: 221-261.
52. Veltman Frank (2005) Making counterfactual assumptions. Journal of Semantics 22: 159-180.
53. Zvolenszky, Zofia. 2002. Is a possible-worlds semantics of modality possible? In Proceedings of SALT 12, ed. Brendan Jackson, 339-358. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
54. Zvolenszky, Zofia. 2006. A semantic constraint on the logic of modal conditionals. In Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium on Logic and Language, ed. Beáta Gyuris et al. 167-177. Budapest.