Book contents
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy: A Historical Preface
- Introduction
- Part I Reporting and Ascribing
- Part II Describing and Referring
- Part III Narrating and Structuring
- Part IV Locating and Inferring
- Part V Typologizing and Ontologizing
- Part VI Determining and Questioning
- Part VII Arguing and Rejecting
- Part VIII Implying and (Pre)supposing
- Index
- References
Part VIII - Implying and (Pre)supposing
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 October 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy: A Historical Preface
- Introduction
- Part I Reporting and Ascribing
- Part II Describing and Referring
- Part III Narrating and Structuring
- Part IV Locating and Inferring
- Part V Typologizing and Ontologizing
- Part VI Determining and Questioning
- Part VII Arguing and Rejecting
- Part VIII Implying and (Pre)supposing
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy , pp. 439 - 533Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
References
Bach, K. (1994). Semantic slack: What is said and more. In Tsohatzidis, S. (Ed.), Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives (pp. 267–291). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (1999). The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, 327–366.Google Scholar
Borg, E. (2007). Minimalism versus contextualism in semantics. In Preyer, G. & Peter, G. (Eds.), Context-Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism: New Essays on Semantics and Pragmatics (pp. 546–571). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reprinted in M. Ezcurdia & R. Stainton (Eds.), (2013), The Semantics–Pragmatics Boundary in Philosophy. New York: Broadview.Google Scholar
Borg, E. (2017). Explanatory roles for minimal content. Nous. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, E., Scarafone, A., Shardimgaliev, M. 2021. ‘Meaning and Communication’, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/meaning-and-communication/Google Scholar
Borg, E., & Connolly, P. (2022). Exploring linguistic liability. In Lepore, E. & Sosa, D. (Eds), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Language, Vol. 2 (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Camp, E. (2006). Contextualism, metaphor, and what is said. Mind & Language, 21, 280–309.Google Scholar
Camp, E. (2012). Sarcasm, pretense, and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Nous, 46, 587–634.Google Scholar
Carston, R., & Hall, A. (2012). Implicature and explicature. In Schmid, H. J. (Ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics, Vol. 4 (pp. 47–84). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danzer, L. (2020). The explanatory project of Gricean pragmatics. Mind & Language, 36, 683–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, W. (1998). Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Green, M. (2018). Showing, expressing and figuratively meaning. In Preyer, G. (Ed.), Beyond Semantics and Pragmatics (pp. 157–173). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Implicature, inference and cancellability. In Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F., & Carapezza, M. (Eds.), Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1972). On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. (1979). Polarity as Inherent Scope Relations. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Martí, L. (2006). Unarticulated constituents revisited. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(2), 135–166.Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lepore, E., & Stone, M. (2014). Imagination and Convention: Distinguishing Grammar and Inference in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neale, S. (2007). Heavy hands, magic, and scene-reading traps. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 3, 77–132.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2010). Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rett, J. (2020). Manner implicatures and how to spot them. International Review of Pragmatics, 12, 44–79.Google Scholar
Rothschild, D., & Segal, G. (2009). Indexical predicates. Mind & Language, 24, 467–493.Google Scholar
Saul, J. (2001). Wayne Davis, “Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory” (Book Review). Nous, 35, 630–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saul, J. (2013). Lying, Misleading, and the Role of What Is Said. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1980). The background of meaning. In Searle, J., Keifer, F., & Bierwisch, M. (Eds.), Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics (pp. 221–232). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Soames, S. (2009). Philosophical Essays, Vol. I. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stainton, R., & Viger, C. (2018). Two questions about interpretive effects. In Preyer, G. (Ed.), Semantics, Pragmatics and Interpretation (pp. 9–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, J., & Gendler Szabó, Z. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language, 15, 219–261.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A. (2017). Evaluating the cancellability test. Journal of Pragmatics, 121, 162–174.Google Scholar
Szabó, Z. (2012). The case for compositionality. In Hinzen, W., Machery, E., & Werning, M. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook on Compositionality (pp. 64–80). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Travis, C. (1997). Pragmatics. In Hale, B. & Wright, C. (Eds.), Companion to the Philosophy of Language (pp. 87–107). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Txurruka, I. G. (2003). The natural language conjunction and. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 255–285.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai (1994). Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. PhD Dissertation, Graduate Student Linguistics Association (GLSA), University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Weiner, M. (2006). Are all conversational implicatures cancellable? Analysis, 66, 127–130.Google Scholar
References
Abbott, B. (2000). Presuppositions as nonassertions. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1419–1437.Google Scholar
Abbott, B. (2006). Where have some of the presuppositions gone? In Birner, B. J. & Ward, G. (Eds.), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn (pp. 1–20). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abrusán, M. (2011). Predicting the presuppositions of soft triggers. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34(6), 491–535.Google Scholar
Abrusán, M. (2016). Presupposition cancellation: Explaining the ‘soft–hard’ trigger distinction. Natural Language Semantics, 24(2), 165–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrusán, M. (2022). The perspective-sensitivity of presuppositions. Mind & Language. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12359Google Scholar
Abrusán, M., & Szendröi, K. (2013). Experimenting with the King of France: Topics, variability and definite descriptions. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6(10), 1–43.Google Scholar
Abusch, D. (2002). Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presuppositions. In Jackson, B. (Ed.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 12 (pp. 1–19).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abusch, D. (2005). Triggering from Alternative Sets and Projection of Pragmatic Presuppositions. Ms., Cornell University. Available at http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jJkYjM3O/Abusch-Triggering.pdfGoogle Scholar
Abusch, D. (2010). Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics, 27(1), 37–80.Google Scholar
Asher, N. (2011). Lexical Meaning in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (1998). The semantics and pragmatics of presupposition. Journal of Semantics, 15, 239–299.Google Scholar
Asher, N., Prévot, L., & Vieu, L. (2007). Setting the background in discourse. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique. A journal of linguistics, psycholinguistics and computational linguistics, 1. https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.301Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (1977). Negation, ambiguity and presupposition. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (1979). How linguistics matters to philosophy: Presupposition, truth, and meaning. In Oh, C. K. & Dineen, D. A. (Eds.), Presupposition (pp. 265–281). Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (2004). Descriptions, linguistic topic/comment, and negative existentials: A case study in the application of linguistic theory to problems in the philosophy of language. In Reimer, M. & Bezuidenhout, A. (Eds.), Descriptions and Beyond (pp. 342–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlas, J., & Levinson, S. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 1–61). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. (1994). Accommodating topics. In The Proceedings of the IBM/Journal of Semantics Conference on Focus, Vol. 3, IBM.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. (1997). Presupposition. In van Benthem, J. & ter Meulen, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language (pp. 939–1008). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. (1999). Presupposition accommodation: A plea for common sense. Logic, Language and Computation, 2, 21–44.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. (2010). Have you noticed that your belly button lint colour is related to the colour of your clothing? In Bäuerle, R., Reyle, U., & Zimmerman, T. E. (Eds.), Presupposition: Papers in Honor of Hans Kamp. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. I., & Geurts, B. (2014). Presupposition. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 edition).Google Scholar
Beaver, D., & Krahmer, E. (2001). A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 10, 147–182.Google Scholar
Beaver, D., & Zeevat, H. (2007). Accommodation. In Ramchand, G. & Reiss, C. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces (pp. 503–536). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. I., Roberts, C., Simons, M., & Tonhauser, J. (2017). Questions under discussion: Where information structure meets projective content. Annual Review of Linguistics, 3, 265–284.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, A. (2010). Grice on presupposition. In Petrus, K. (Ed.), Meaning and Analysis (pp. 75–102). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bittner, M. (2001). Topical referents for individuals and possibilities. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 11, 36–55.Google Scholar
Bittner, M. (2007). Online update: Temporal, modal, and de se anaphora in polysynthetic discourse. In Barker, C. & Jacobson, P. (Eds.), Direct Compositionality (pp. 363–404). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boër, S. E., & Lycan, W. G. (1976). The myth of semantic presupposition. In Zwicky, A. (Ed.), Papers in Nonphonology. Columbus: The Ohio State University. Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. (1989). The Limits to Debate: A Revised Theory of Semantic Presupposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chemla, E. (2010). Similarity: Towards a Unified Account of Scalar Implicatures, Free Choice Permission and Presupposition Projection. Ms., ENS Paris.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2000). Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, C., & Rohde, H. (2015). Evoking context with contrastive stress: Effects on pragmatic enrichment. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1779.Google Scholar
Degen, J., & Tonhauser, J. (2020). Constraint-Based Projection. Talk presented at SALT 30.Google Scholar
Degen, J., & Tonhauser, J. (2021). Prior beliefs modulate projection. Open Mind, 2021, 1–12.Google Scholar
Delin, J. (1990). Cleft Constructions in Discourse. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Delin, J. (1992). Properties of it-cleft presupposition. Journal of Semantics, 9, 289–306.Google Scholar
Demolombe, R., & Fariñas del Cerro, L. (2010). Information about a given entity: From semantics towards automated deduction. Journal of Logic and Computation, 20, 1221–1250.Google Scholar
Djärv, K., & Bacovcin, H. A. (2020). Prosodic effects on factive presupposition projection. Journal of Pragmatics, 169, 61–85.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2014). Truth-maker semantics for intuitionistic logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43(2–3), 549–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. (2017). Truthmaker semantics. In Hale, B., Wright, C., & Miller, A. (Eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Language 2 (pp. 556–577). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The King of France is back! (Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions). In Reimer, M. & Bezuidenhout, A. (Eds.), Descriptions and Beyond (pp. 315–341). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, K. (2008). What is presupposition accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives, 22(1), 137–170.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1969). Presuppositions: Supervaluations and free logic. In Lambert, K. (Ed.), The Logical Way of Doing Things (pp. 67–92). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik C, 25–50. English translation: On sense and meaning, in McGuinness, B. (ed.), Frege: Collected works, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gauker, C. (1998). What is a context of utterance? Philosophical Studies, 91(2), 149–172.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
George, B. R. (2008). A new predictive theory of presupposition projection. In Friedman, T. & Ito, S. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 18 (pp. 358–375).Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (2017). Presupposition and givenness. In Huang, Y. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Glanzberg, M. (2005). Presuppositions, truth values, and expressing propositions. In Preyer, G. & Peter, G. (Eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy (pp. 349–396). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Glanzberg, M. (2019). The case of knowledge ascriptions. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Language, 1(1), 35.Google Scholar
Grice, H. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature. Radical Pragmatics, 183, 269–282.Google Scholar
Gyarmathy, Z. (2015). Culminations and presuppositions. In Thomas Brochhagen, F. R. & Theiler, N. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 167–176).Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Proceedings of the 2nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Vol. 2 (pp. 114–125). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1990). Presupposition projection. In Reader for the Nijmegen Workshop on Presupposition, Lexical Meaning, and Discourse Processes. University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics, 9, 183–221.Google Scholar
Holton, R. (1997). Some telling examples: A reply to Tsohatzidis. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(5), 625–628.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1990). Showdown at truth-value gap: Burton-Roberts on presupposition. Journal of Linguistics, 26, 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayez, J. (2011). Projection and probability. In Roberts, C. & Tonhauser, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2011 Workshop on Projective Content (pp. 53–66).Google Scholar
Jeong, S. (2020). Prosodically-conditioned factive inferences in Korean: An experimental study. In Rhyne, J., Lamp, K., Dreier, N., & Kwon, C. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 30 (pp. 1–21).Google Scholar
Kadmon, N. (2001). Formal Pragmatics: Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition, and Focus. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kallulli, D. (2006). Triggering factivity: Prosodic evidence for syntactic structure. In Proceedings of 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 211–219).Google Scholar
Kamp, H. (2015). Using proper names as intermediaries between labelled entity representations. Erkenntnis, 80(2), 263–312.Google Scholar
Kamp, H., & Bende-Farkas, Á. (2018). Epistemic specificity from a communication-theoretic perspective. Journal of Semantics, 36(1), 1–51.Google Scholar
Kamp, H., & Rossdeutscher, A. (1994). DRS-construction and lexically driven inference. Theoretical Linguistics, 20(2–3), 165–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(2), 169–193.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1974). Presuppositions and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics, 1, 181–194.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (2016). Presupposition: What went wrong? In Moroney, M., Little, C. R., Collard, J., & Burgdorf, D. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 26 (pp. 705–731).Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1971). Two kinds of presupposition in natural language. In Fillmore, C. & Langendoen, T. (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics (pp. 45–54). New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1972). On semantically based grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 3(4), 413–461.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M., et al. (1975). Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, P. (1993). Existence presuppositions and background knowledge. Journal of Semantics, 2, 113–122.Google Scholar
Lassiter, D. (2012). Presuppositions, provisos, and probability. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5, 2–1.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C., & Annamalai, E. (1992). Why presuppositions aren’t conventional. In Srivastava, R. N. (Ed.), Language and Text: Studies in Honour of Ashok R. Kelkar (pp. 227–242). Delhi: Kalinga Publications.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 339–359.Google Scholar
Maier, E. (2016). Attitudes and mental files in discourse representation theory. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 7(2), 473–490.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2016). Dissatisfaction theory. In Moroney, M., Little, C. R., Collard, J., & Burgdorf, D. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 26 (pp. 391–416)Google Scholar
Matthewson, L. (2006). Presuppositions and cross-linguistic variation. In Proceedings of NELS 26 (pp. 63–76).Google Scholar
Matthewson, L. (2008). Pronouns, presuppositions, and semantic variation. In Friedman, T. & Ito, S. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 18 (pp. 527–550).Google Scholar
Özyildiz, D. (2017). Attitude reports with and without true belief. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 27, 397–417.Google Scholar
Pavese, C. (2020). Lewis Carroll’s regress and the presuppositional structure of arguments. Linguistics and Philosophy, 45(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2015). Presupposition and implicature. In Lappin, S. & Fox, C. (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 2nd ed. (pp. 168–202). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1978). A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language, 1978, 883–906.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 1, 53–94.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(6), 1–69.Google Scholar
Romoli, J. (2015). The presuppositions of soft triggers are obligatory scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 32(2), 173–219.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1(1), 75–116.Google Scholar
van der Sandt, R. (1992). Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of semantics, 9(4), 333–377.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. & Szabó, Z. G. (2014). Epistemic comparativism: A contextualist semantics for knowledge ascriptions. Philosophical Studies, 168(2), 491–543.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2007). Expressive presuppositions. Theoretical Linguistics, 33(2), 237–245.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2008). Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition. Theoretical Linguistics, 34(3), 157–212.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2010). Local contexts and local meanings. Philosophical Studies, 151, 115–142.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2021). Triggering presuppositions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 6(1), 35.Google Scholar
Schlöder, J. J., & Lascarides, A. (2020). Understanding focus: Pitch, placement and coherence. Semantics and Pragmatics, 13, 1.Google Scholar
Schoubye, A. (2009). Descriptions, truth–value intuitions, and questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32(6), 583–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, F. (2019). Presuppositions, projection, and accommodation: Theoretical issues and experimental approaches. In Cummins, C. & Katsos, N. (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics (pp. 83–113). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seuren, P. A. (1988). Presupposition and negation. Journal of Semantics, 6(1), 175–226.Google Scholar
Shanon, B. (1976). On the two kinds of presuppositions in natural language. Foundations of Language, 14(2), 247–249.Google Scholar
Simons, M. (2001). On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In Hastings, R., Jackson, B., & Zvolenszky, Z. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 11 (pp. 431–448).Google Scholar
Simons, M. (2004). Presupposition and relevance. In Gendler Szabó, Z. (Ed.), Semantics vs. Pragmatics (pp. 329–355). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Simons, M. (2006). Presupposition without Common Ground. Ms., Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Simons, M. (2007). Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua, 117(6), 1034–1056.Google Scholar
Simons, M., Roberts, C., Beaver, D., & Tonhauser, J. (2016). The best question: Explaining the projection behavior of factive verbs. Discourse Processes, 54(3), 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., & Roberts, C. (2010). What projects and why. In Li, N. & Lutz, D. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 20 (pp. 309–327).Google Scholar
Smith, E. A., & Hall, K. C. (2014). The relationship between projection and embedding environment. In Proceedings of the 48th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Soames, S. (1982). How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(3), 483–545.Google Scholar
Soames, S. (1989). Presupposition. In Gabbay, D. & Guenther, F. (Eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. IV (pp. 553–616). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Spenader, J. (2002). Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse. PhD thesis, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1998). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Kasher, A. (Ed.), Pragmatics: Critical Concepts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1972). Pragmatics. In Davidson, G. H. D. (Ed.), Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Munitz, M. & Unger, P. (Eds.), Semantics and Philosophy: Essays (pp. 197–214). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1964). Identifying reference and truth-values. Theoria 30(2), 96–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. (2017). Additive presuppositions are derived through activating focus alternatives. In Alexandre Cremers, T. v. G. & Roelofsen, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 455–464).Google Scholar
Thomason, R. (1990). Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: Interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. L., & Pollack, M. E. (Eds.), Intentions in Communication (pp. 326–363). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J. (2015). Are ‘informative presuppositions’ presuppositions? Language and Linguistics Compass, 9(2), 77–101.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J. (2016). Prosodic cues to presupposition projection. In Moroney, M., Little, C. R., Collard, J., & Burgdorf, D. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 26 (pp. 934–960).Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J. (2020). Projection variability in Paraguayan Guaraní. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 38(4), 1263–1302.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., & Degen, J. (2018). How projective is projective content? Gradience in projectivity and at-issueness. Journal of Semantics, 35(3), 495–542.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C., & Simons, M. (2013). Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language, 89(1), 66–109.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J., de Marneffe, M.-C., Speer, S. R., & Stevens, J. (2019). On the information structure sensitivity of projective content. Sinn und Bedeutung, 23, 363–390.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (1975). Presuppositions and Non-Truth-Conditional Semantics. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1979). Ordered entailments: An alternative to presuppositional theories. In Oh, C. K. & Dineen, D. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics XI: Presupposition (pp. 299–323). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Xue, J., & Onea, E. (2011). Correlation between presupposition projection and at-issueness: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2011 Workshop on Projective Meaning.Google Scholar
Yablo, S. (2006). Non-catastrophic presupposition failure. In Thomson, J. J. & Byrne, A. (Eds.), Content and Modality: Themes from the Philosophy of Robert C. Stalnaker (pp. 164–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yalcin, S. (2016). Belief as question-sensitive. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 97(1), 23–47.Google Scholar
Zeevat, H. (1992). Presupposition and accommodation in update semantics. Journal of Semantics, 9(4), 379–412.Google Scholar
References
Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., & Schofield, M. (Eds). (1999). The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aloni, M. (2001). Quantification under Conceptual Covers. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Aloni, M. (2016). FC Disjunction in State-Based Semantics. Slides for Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL), Nancy, France.Google Scholar
Aloni, M. (2000). Conceptual covers in dynamic semantics. In Cavedon, L., Blackburn, P., Braisby, N., & Shimojima, A. (Eds.), Logic, Language and Computation, Vol. III.Google Scholar
Arló-Costa, H., & Egré, P. 2016. The logic of conditionals. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2016 edition.Google Scholar
Bacon, A. 2015. Stalnaker’s thesis in context. Review of Symbolic Logic, 8(1), 131–163.Google Scholar
Bacon, A. (2020). Counterfactuals, infinity and paradox. In Faroldi, F. & van de Putte, F. (Eds.), Outstanding Contributions to Logic: Kit Fine. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Beddor, B., & Egan, A. (2018). Might do better: Flexible relativism and the QUD. Semantics and Pragmatics, 11, 7.Google Scholar
Beddor, B., & Goldstein, S. (2018). Believing epistemic contradictions. Review of Symbolic Logic, 11(1), 87–114.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. (2003). A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. (1998). Obligation and possession. In Harley, H. (Ed.), The Proceedings of the UPenn/MIT Workshop on Argument Structure and Aspect, Vol. 32 (pp. 21–40). MITWPL.Google Scholar
Biezma, M., Carnie, A., & Siddiqi, D. (2013). Counterfactuality in non-standard subjunctive conditionals. In Huang, H.-L., Poole, E., & Rysling, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 43, Vol. 1 (pp. 25–36).Google Scholar
Bledin, J., & Lando, T. (2018). Closure and epistemic modals. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 97(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
Blumberg, K., & Holguín, B. (2019). Embedded attitudes. Journal of Semantics, 36(3), 377–406.Google Scholar
Boylan, D. (2021). Does success entail ability? Noûs. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12370Google Scholar
Boylan, D., & Schultheis, G. (2019). How Strong Is a Counterfactual? Ms., NYU and Rutgers.Google Scholar
Boylan, D., & Schultheis, G. (forthoming). Attitudes, conditionals, and the qualitative thesis. The Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. (2012). Multidimensional possible-world semantics for conditionals. The Philosophical Review, 121(4), 539–571.Google Scholar
Bradley, R., & Stefánsson, H. O. (2017). Counterfactual desirability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 68, 485–533.Google Scholar
Cantwell, J. (2008). The logic of conditional negation. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 49, 245–260.Google Scholar
Cariani, F. (2019). Conditionals in selection semantics. In Schlöder, J. J., McHugh, D., & Roelofsen, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 1–11).Google Scholar
Cariani, F., & Goldstein, S. (2020). Conditional heresies. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 101(2), 251–282.Google Scholar
Cariani, F., & Santorio, P. (2018). Will done better: Selection semantics, future credence, and indeterminacy. Mind, 127(505), 129–165.Google Scholar
Cariani, F., Kaufmann, M., & Kaufmann, S. (2013). Deliberative modality under epistemic uncertainty. Linguistics and Philosophy, 36, 225–259.Google Scholar
Chemla, E., & Schlenker, P. (2012). Incremental vs. symmetric accounts of presupposition projection: An experimental approach. Natural Language Semantics, 20(2), 177–226.Google Scholar
Chemla, E., Egré, P., & Spector, B. (2017). Characterizing logical consequence in many-valued logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 27(7), 2193–2226.Google Scholar
Ciardelli, I., Zhang, L., & Champollion, L. (2018). Two switches in the theory of counterfactuals: A study of truth conditionality and minimal change. Linguistics and Philosophy, 41(6), 577–621.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. S. (1968). The propositional logic of ordinary discourse. Inquiry, 11, 295–320.Google Scholar
Dale, T. (1979). A natural deduction system for ‘If Then’. Logique & Analyse, 22(87), 339–345.Google Scholar
de Finetti, B. (1936). La logique de la probabilité. In Actes du congrès international de philosophie scientifique, Vol. 4 (pp. 1–9). Hermann Editeurs Paris.Google Scholar
Dorr, C., & Hawthorne, J. (2013). Embedding epistemic modals. Mind, 122(488), 867–913.Google Scholar
Dowell, J. (2011). A flexibly contextualist account of epistemic modals. Philosophers’ Imprint, 11(14), 1–25.Google Scholar
Dowell, J. (2017). Contextualism about epistemic modals. In Ichikawa, J. J. (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Contextualism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Drucker, D. (2017). Policy externalism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 98(2), 261–285.Google Scholar
Egan, A. (2007). Epistemic modals, relativism, and assertion. Philosophical Studies, 113(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Egan, A., Hawthorne, J., & Weatherson, B. (2005). Epistemic modals in context. In Preyer, G., & Peter, G. (Eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning and Truth (pp. 131–169). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Egré, P., Rossi, L., & Sprenger, J. (2020a). De Finettian logics of indicative conditionals, part I: Trivalent semantics and validity. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 50(2), 187–213.Google Scholar
Egré, P., Rossi, L., & Sprenger, J. (2020b). De Finettian logics of indicative conditionals, part II: Proof theory and algebraic semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 50(2), 215–247.Google Scholar
Egré, P., Rossi, L., & Sprenger, J. (2020c). Gibbardian collapse and trivalent conditionals. In Kaufmann, S., Over, D., & Sharma, G. (Eds.), Conditionals: Logic, Linguistics, and Psychology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Field, H. (2014). Naive truth and restricted quantification: Saving truth a whole lot better. Review of Symbolic Logic, 7, 147–191.Google Scholar
Field, H. (2016). Indicative conditionals, restricted quantification, and naive truth. Review of Symbolic Logic, 9(1), 181–208.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2012a). Counterfactuals without possible worlds. The Journal of Philosophy, 109, 221–246.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2012b). A difficulty for the possible worlds analysis of counterfactuals. Synthese, 189(1), 29–57.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K. (2001). Counterfactuals in a dynamic context. In Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 123–152). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K. (2011). Conditionals. In von Heusinger, K., Maienborn, C., and Portner, P. (Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Meaning. Handbücher zur Sparch- und Kommunikationswisschenschaft 33.2 (pp. 1515–1538). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. (2010). Must… stay… strong! Natural Language Semantics, 18(4), 351–383.Google Scholar
Fusco, M. (2017). An inconvenient proof: The Gibbard–Harper collapse lemma for causal decision theory. In Cremers, A., van Gessel, T., & Roelofsen, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 265–274).Google Scholar
Gibbard, A. (1981). Two recent theories of conditionals. In Harper, W. L., Stalnaker, R., & Pearce, G. (Eds.), Ifs: Conditionals, Belief, Decision, Chance, and Time (pp. 211–247). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A., & Harper, W. L. (1981). Counterfactuals and two kinds of expected utility. In Harper, W. L., Stalnaker, R., & Pearce, G. (Eds.), Ifs: Conditionals, Beliefs, Decision, Chance, and Time (pp. 153–192). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Gillies, A. (2004). Epistemic conditionals and conditional epistemics. Noûs, 38(4), 585–616.Google Scholar
Gillies, A. (2007). Counterfactual scorekeeping. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(3), 329–360.Google Scholar
Gillies, A. (2017). Conditionals. In Hale, B., Miller, A., & Wright, C. (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to the Philosophy of Language (pp. 401–436). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goldstein, S., & Santorio, P. (2021). Probability for epistemic modalities. Philosophers’ Imprint, 21(33).Google Scholar
Goodhue, D. (2017). Must φ is felicitous only if φ is not known. Semantics and Pragmatics, 10, 14.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M., & Veltman, F. (1996). Coreference and Modality. In Lappin, S. (Ed.), Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (pp. 179–216). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hacquard, V. (2006). Aspects of Modality. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Hawke, P., & Steinert-Threlkeld, S. (2018). Informational dynamics of epistemic possibility modals. Synthese, 195(10), 4309–4342.Google Scholar
Hawke, P., & Steinert-Threlkeld, S. (2020). Semantic expressivism for epistemic modals. Linguistics and Philosophy, 44(2), 475–511.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J., Rothschild, D., & Spectre, L. (2016). Belief is weak. Philosophical Studies, 173, 1393–1404.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Barlow, M., Flickinger, D. P., & Wescoat, M. (Eds.), The West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), Vol. 2 (pp. 114–125). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (2003). Conditionals and compositionality. In Hawthorne, J. & Zimmerman, D. (Eds.), Language and Philosophical Linguistics, Vol. 17 (pp. 181–194). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Holguín, B. (2020a). Indicative conditionals without iterative epistemology. Noûs, 55(3), 560–580.Google Scholar
Holguín, B. (2020b). Knowledge in the face of conspiracy conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy, 44(3), 737–771.Google Scholar
Iatridou, S. (2000). The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(2), 231–270.Google Scholar
Incurvati, L., & Schlöder, J. J. (2020). Epistemic multilateral logic. Review of Symbolic Logic, 2020, 1–44.Google Scholar
Ippolito, M. (2003). Presuppositions and implicatures in counterfactuals. Natural Language Semantics, 11, 145–186.Google Scholar
Ippolito, M. (2018). Constraints on the embeddability of epistemic modals. Sinn und Bedeutung, 21, 605–622.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, J. (Ed.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
Karawani, H. (2014). The Real, the Fake, and the Fake Fake in Counterfactual Conditionals, Crosslinguistically. PhD thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1972). Possible and must. In Kimball, J., J. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 1 (pp. 1–20). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(2), 167–193.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1974). Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics, 1(1–3), 181–194.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1976). Discourse referents. In Syntax and Semantics: Notes from the Linguistic Underground, Vol. 7. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, M., & Kaufmann, S. (2015). Conditionals and modality. In Lappin, S. & C. Fox, (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (pp. 274–312). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, S. (2004). Conditioning against the grain. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 33, 583–606.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, S. (2009). Conditionals right and left: Probabilities for the whole family. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38, 1–53.Google Scholar
Khoo, J. (2015b). On indicative and subjunctive conditionals. Philosophers’ Imprint, 15, 1–40.Google Scholar
Khoo, J. (2016). Probability of conditionals in context. Linguistics and Philosophy, 39(1), 1–43.Google Scholar
Khoo, J., & Mandelkern, M. (2019). Triviality results and the relationship between logical and natural languages. Mind, 128(510), 485–526.Google Scholar
Khoo, J., & Phillips, J. (2019). New horizons for a theory of epistemic modals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 97(2), 309–324.Google Scholar
Klinedinst, N. (2011). Quantified conditionals and conditional excluded middle. Journal of Semantics, 28, 149–170.Google Scholar
Klinedinst, N., & Rothschild, D. (2014). Epistemic Contradictions: Why Idempotence is Hygienic. Handout.Google Scholar
Knobe, J., & Yalcin, S. (2014). Epistemic modals and context: Experimental data. Semantics and Pragmatics, 7(10), 1–21.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(3), 337–355.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In Eikmeyer, H., & Rieser, H. (Eds.), Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics (pp. 38–74). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In von Stechow, A. & Wunderlich, D.(Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 639-650). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2020a). Chasing Hook. In Hawthorne, J. & Walters, L. (Eds.), Conditionals, Probability, and Paradox: Themes from the Philosophy of Dorothy Edgington. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2020b). What’s an Epistemic Modal Anyway? Ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1963). Semantical considerations on modal logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 16, 83–94.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, P. (2009). Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments. Synthese, 166(2), 359–374.Google Scholar
Lassiter, D. (2011). Measurement and Modality: The Scalar Basis of Modal Semantics. PhD thesis, New York University.Google Scholar
Lassiter, D. (2016). Must, knowledge, and (in)directness. Natural Language Semantics, 24(2), 117–163.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1975). Adverbs of quantification. In Keenan, E. (Ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(1), 339–359.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1981). Ordering semantics and premise semantics for counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 10, 217–234.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J. (2011). Epistemic modals are assessment sensitive. In Egan, A., and Weatherson, B. (Eds.), Epistemic Modality (pp. 144–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2018). Talking about worlds. Philosophical Perspectives, 32(1), 298–325.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2019b). Modality and expressibility. Review of Symbolic Logic, 12(4), 768–805.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2020a). A counterexample to modus ponenses. The Journal of Philosophy, 117(6), 315–331.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2020b). Dynamic non-classicality. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 98(2), 382–392.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2020c). Import-Export and ‘and’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 100(1), 118–135.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M., & Phillips, J. 2018. Sticky situations: Force and quantifier domains. In Maspong, S., Stefánsdóttir, B., Blake, K., and Davis, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 28 (pp. 474–492).Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M., Schultheis, G., & Boylan, D. (2017). Agentive modals. The Philosophical Review, 126(3), 301–343.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M., Zehr, J., Romoli, J., & Schwarz, F. (2020). We’ve discovered that projection is asymmetric (and it is!). Linguistics and Philosophy, 43, 473–514.Google Scholar
Martin, F. (2015). The imperfective in subjunctive conditionals: Fake or real aspect? In Brochhagen, T., Roelofsen, F., & Theiler, N. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium. (pp. 266–275). University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
McGee, V. (1985). A counterexample to modus ponens. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(9), 462–471.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1942). A reply to my critics. In Schilpp, P. A. (Ed.), The Philosophy of G. E. Moore. Evanston: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Moss, S. (2013b). Subjunctive credences and semantic humility. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 87(2), 251–278.Google Scholar
Moss, S. (2015). On the semantics and pragmatics of epistemic vocabulary. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8(5), 1–81.Google Scholar
Močnik, M. (2019a). Embedded epistemic modals pragmatically. Sinn und Bedeutung, 23, 197–206.Google Scholar
Močnik, M. (2019b). Slovenian ‘dopuščati’ and the semantics of epistemic modals. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL) 27. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Ninan, D. (2005). Two puzzles about deontic necessity. In Gajewski, J., Hacquard, V., Nickel, B., & Yalcin, S. (Eds.), New Work on Modality, Vol. 51 (pp. 149–178). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ninan, D. (2014). Taste predicates and the acquaintance inference. In Snider, T., D’Antonio, S., & Weigand, M. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 24 (pp. 290–309).Google Scholar
Ninan, D. (2016). Relational semantics and domain semantics for epistemic modals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 47(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Ninan, D. (2018). Quantification and epistemic modality. The Philosophical Review, 127(2), 433–485.Google Scholar
Phillips, J., & Cushman, F. (2017). Morality constrains the default representation of what is possible. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(18), 4649–4654.Google Scholar
Phillips, J., & Knobe, J. (2018). The psychological representation of modality. Mind & Language, 33(1), 65–94.Google Scholar
Phillips, J., & Mandelkern, M. (2019). Eavesdropping: What Is It Good For? Semantics and Pragmatics, March. Ms., Harvard and All Souls College.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1944). Philosophic Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (1989). Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 683–721.Google Scholar
Romero, M. (2014). Fake tense in counterfactuals: A temporal remoteness approach. In Crnič, L. & Sauerland, U. (Eds.), The Art and Craft of Semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim, Vol. 2 (pp. 47–63). MITWPL 71.Google Scholar
Rothschild, D. (2011). Expressing credences. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 112(1), 99–114.Google Scholar
Rothschild, D. (2013). Do indicative conditionals express propositions? Noûs, 47(1), 49–68.Google Scholar
Rothschild, D. (2020). A note on conditionals and restrictors. In J. Hawthorne, & Walters, L. (Eds.), Conditionals, Probability, and Paradox: Themes from the Philosophy of Dorothy Edgington (pp. 19–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rothschild, D., & Klinedinst, N. (2015). Quantified Epistemic Modality. Handout for talk at Birmingham.Google Scholar
Santorio, P. (2017). Conditional excluded middle in informational semantics. In Cremers, A., van Gessel, T., & Roelofsen, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 385–394).Google Scholar
Santorio, P. (2018). Alternatives and truthmakers in conditional semantics. The Journal of Philosophy, 115(10), 513–549.Google Scholar
Santorio, P. (2021). Trivializing informational consequence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12745Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2008). Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics, 34(3), 157–212.Google Scholar
Schulz, K. (2009). Troubles at the semantics/syntax inferface: Some thoughts about the modal approach to conditionals. Sinn und Bedeutung, 14, 388–404.Google Scholar
Schulz, K. (2014). Fake tense in conditional sentences: A modal approach. Natural Language Semantics, 22(2), 117–144.Google Scholar
Schwarz, F. (2015). Symmetry and incrementality in conditionals. In Schwarz, F. (Ed.), Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, Vol. 45 (pp. 195–213). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Schwarz, W. (2018). Subjunctive conditional probability. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 47(1), 47–66.Google Scholar
Sextus Empiricus, . (2005). Against the Logicians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sharvit, Y. (2017). A note on (Strawson) entailment. Semantics and Pragmatics, 10(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
Silk, A. (2015). What normative terms mean and why it matters for ethical theory. In Timmons, M. (Ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Vol. 5 (pp. 296–325). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silk, A. (2017). How to embed an epistemic modal: Attitude problems and other defects of character. Philosophical Studies, 174, 1773–1799.Google Scholar
Silk, A. (forthcoming). Weak and strong necessity modals. In Dunaway, B. & Plunkett, D. (Eds.), Meaning, Decision, and Norms: Themes from the Work of Allan Gibbard.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In Rescher, N. (Ed.), Studies in Logical Theory (pp. 98–112). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Munitz, M. K. & Unger, P. (Eds.), Semantics and Philosophy (pp. 197–213). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1980a). A defense of conditional excluded middle. In Harper, W. L., Stalnaker, R., & Pearce, G. (Eds.), Ifs: Conditionals, Beliefs, Decision, Chance, and Time (pp. 87–105). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1980b). Letter to David Lewis, May 21, 1971. In Harper, W. L., Stalnaker, R., & Pearce, G. (Eds.), Ifs: Conditionals, Beliefs, Decision, Chance, and Time (pp. 151–152). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R., & Thomason, Richmond H. (1970). A semantic analysis of conditional logic. Theoria, 36(1), 23–42.Google Scholar
Stefánsson, O. (2015). Fair chance and modal consequentialism. Economics and Philosophy, 31(3), 371–395.Google Scholar
Stephenson, T. (2007a). Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(4), 487–525.Google Scholar
Stephenson, T. (2007b). A parallel account of epistemic modals and predicates of personal taste. Sinn und Bedeutung, 11, 583–597.Google Scholar
Swanson, E. (2015). The application of constraint semantics to the language of subjective uncertainty. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 45(121), 121–146.Google Scholar
Veltman, F. 1996. Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25(3), 221–261.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K., & Pasternak, R. (2020). Attitudes, Aboutness, and Fake Restricted Readings. MS., MIT and ZAS.Google Scholar
Weiss, Y. (2019). Sextus Empiricus’ fourth conditional and containment logic. History and Philosophy of Logic, 40(4), 307–322.Google Scholar
Williams, J. R. G. (2008). Conversation and conditionals. Philosophical Studies, 138(2), 211–223.Google Scholar
Williams, J. R. G. (2010). Defending conditional excluded middle. Noûs, 44(4), 650–668.Google Scholar
Williams, J. R. G. (2012). Counterfactual triviality: A Lewis-impossibility argument for counterfactuals. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85, 648–670.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2020). Suppose and Tell: The Semantics and Heuristics of Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations, 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Yalcin, S. (2012). Context probabilism. In Aloni, M., Kimmelman, V., Roelofsen, F., Sassoon, G. W., Schulz, K., & Westera, M. (Eds), The 18th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 12–21).Google Scholar