Carter, Sam;
(2023)
Conditional Collapse.
Mind
, 132
(528)
pp. 971-1004.
10.1093/mind/fzac035.
Preview |
Text
Carter_Conditional Collapse_VoR.pdf Download (1MB) | Preview |
Abstract
Indicative and subjunctive conditionals are in non-complimentary distribution: there are conversational contexts at which both are licensed (Stalnaker 1975; Karttunen and Peters 1979; von Fintel 1998). This means we can ask an important, but under-explored, question: in contexts which license both, what relations hold between the two? In this paper, I’ll argue for an initially surprising conclusion: when attention is restricted to the relevant contexts, indicatives and subjunctives are co-entailing. §1 introduces the indicative/subjunctive distinction, along with a discussion of the relevant notion of entailment; §2 presents the main argument of the paper, and §3 considers some of the philosophical implications of the argument in §2. Finally, §4 argues that we can reconcile the equivalence of indicatives and subjunctives with apparently conflicting judgements.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | Conditional Collapse |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1093/mind/fzac035 |
| Publisher version: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzac035 |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | © Carter 2023. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH > Faculty of Arts and Humanities UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH > Faculty of Arts and Humanities > Dept of Philosophy |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10197126 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
