Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Itamar Francez - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals

Itamar Francez University of Chicago / University of Michigan

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

Two kinds of conditionals

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

Two kinds of conditionals

• 1. There is beer in the fridge if John hasn’t finished it.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

Two kinds of conditionals

• 1. There is beer in the fridge if John hasn’t finished it.
• 2. There is beer in the fridge if you’re thirsty.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

Two kinds of conditionals

• 1. There is beer in the fridge if John hasn’t finished it.
• 2. There is beer in the fridge if you’re thirsty.

◮ Indicative conditionals intuitively express a condition, biscuit

conditionals do not.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

Two kinds of conditionals

• 1. There is beer in the fridge if John hasn’t finished it.
• 2. There is beer in the fridge if you’re thirsty.

◮ Indicative conditionals intuitively express a condition, biscuit

conditionals do not.

◮ Biscuit conditionals imply the truth of the consequent.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

Two kinds of conditionals

• 1. There is beer in the fridge if John hasn’t finished it.
• 2. There is beer in the fridge if you’re thirsty.

◮ Indicative conditionals intuitively express a condition, biscuit

conditionals do not.

◮ Biscuit conditionals imply the truth of the consequent.

Chimeric conditionals: a clash of intuitions

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

Two kinds of conditionals

• 1. There is beer in the fridge if John hasn’t finished it.
• 2. There is beer in the fridge if you’re thirsty.

◮ Indicative conditionals intuitively express a condition, biscuit

conditionals do not.

◮ Biscuit conditionals imply the truth of the consequent.

Chimeric conditionals: a clash of intuitions

• 1. There are no guards if you enter the museum from the south.

Biscuit or indicative?

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

Indicative intuition

The presence of guards might very well depend on where one enters the museum – some entrances are guarded, others are not.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

Indicative intuition

The presence of guards might very well depend on where one enters the museum – some entrances are guarded, others are not.

• 1. Unless you enter from the south, there might be guards.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

Indicative intuition

The presence of guards might very well depend on where one enters the museum – some entrances are guarded, others are not.

• 1. Unless you enter from the south, there might be guards.
• 2. If there are guards then you didn’t enter from the south.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

Indicative intuition

The presence of guards might very well depend on where one enters the museum – some entrances are guarded, others are not.

• 1. Unless you enter from the south, there might be guards.
• 2. If there are guards then you didn’t enter from the south.

Biscuit intuition

The presence of guards at any location is not dependent on whether you enter from there or not.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

Indicative intuition

The presence of guards might very well depend on where one enters the museum – some entrances are guarded, others are not.

• 1. Unless you enter from the south, there might be guards.
• 2. If there are guards then you didn’t enter from the south.

Biscuit intuition

The presence of guards at any location is not dependent on whether you enter from there or not.

• 3. Whether or not you enter from the south, there are guards

there.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

Indicative intuition

The presence of guards might very well depend on where one enters the museum – some entrances are guarded, others are not.

• 1. Unless you enter from the south, there might be guards.
• 2. If there are guards then you didn’t enter from the south.

Biscuit intuition

The presence of guards at any location is not dependent on whether you enter from there or not.

• 3. Whether or not you enter from the south, there are guards

there.

◮ (1) implies that there are indeed no guards at the south

entrance.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

More examples

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

More examples

• 1. There’s a bench if you go a bit further.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

More examples

• 1. There’s a bench if you go a bit further.
• 2. If you go to Paris, I know a local taylor.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

More examples

• 1. There’s a bench if you go a bit further.
• 2. If you go to Paris, I know a local taylor.
• 3. If you like skying, there are many options in Canada.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

More examples

• 1. There’s a bench if you go a bit further.
• 2. If you go to Paris, I know a local taylor.
• 3. If you like skying, there are many options in Canada.

Questions of this talk:

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

More examples

• 1. There’s a bench if you go a bit further.
• 2. If you go to Paris, I know a local taylor.
• 3. If you like skying, there are many options in Canada.

Questions of this talk:

◮ What is the source of chimericity in chimerical conditionals?

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

More examples

• 1. There’s a bench if you go a bit further.
• 2. If you go to Paris, I know a local taylor.
• 3. If you like skying, there are many options in Canada.

Questions of this talk:

◮ What is the source of chimericity in chimerical conditionals? ◮ What is the notion of dependence operational in deciding when

a conditional expresses a condition?

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

My answers:

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

My answers:

◮ Chimericity is due to the presuppositional behavior of an

implicit argument in the consequent.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

My answers:

◮ Chimericity is due to the presuppositional behavior of an

implicit argument in the consequent.

◮ The relevant notion of dependence involves a relation between

issues, rather than a relation between propositions.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

My answers:

◮ Chimericity is due to the presuppositional behavior of an

implicit argument in the consequent.

◮ The relevant notion of dependence involves a relation between

issues, rather than a relation between propositions.

Plan

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

My answers:

◮ Chimericity is due to the presuppositional behavior of an

implicit argument in the consequent.

◮ The relevant notion of dependence involves a relation between

issues, rather than a relation between propositions.

Plan

◮ Show that an intuitive analysis of what it means to express a

condition cannot account for chimerical examples.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

My answers:

◮ Chimericity is due to the presuppositional behavior of an

implicit argument in the consequent.

◮ The relevant notion of dependence involves a relation between

issues, rather than a relation between propositions.

Plan

◮ Show that an intuitive analysis of what it means to express a

condition cannot account for chimerical examples.

◮ Present an analysis of chimericity tracing it to the presence of

implicit arguments in the consequents of chimeric conditionals.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals Introduction: chimeric conditionals

A intuitive view of the notion of a condition

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.

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.

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. North Guards

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. South No Guards

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. East Guards

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. West Guards

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. West Guards

◮ 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. West Guards

◮ 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

• nly 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

• nly 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

• nly 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?”

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?”

◮ In any context of ignorance about both these issues:

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?”

◮ In any context of ignorance about both these issues:

(a) It is known that you enter somewhere.

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?”

◮ In any context of ignorance about both these issues:

(a) It is known that you enter somewhere. (b) It is not known what your entry point is.

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?”

◮ In any context of ignorance about both these issues:

(a) It is known that you enter somewhere. (b) It is not known what your entry point is. (c) It is not known that there are guards everywhere / nowhere.

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?”

◮ In any context of ignorance about both these issues:

(a) It is known that you enter somewhere. (b) It is not known what your entry point is. (c) It is not known that there are guards everywhere / nowhere.

◮ In such a context, resolving where you enter can resolve

whether there are guards where you enter or not if you have at least partial knowledge of the distribution of guards.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals

Upshot: the source of chimericity

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals

Upshot: the source of chimericity

◮ The consequent in a chimerical conditional can raise different

issues depending on what presuppositions are associated with the implicit argument.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals

Upshot: the source of chimericity

◮ The consequent in a chimerical conditional can raise different

issues depending on what presuppositions are associated with the implicit argument.

◮ The indicative reading comes about when different ways of

resolving the issue raised by the antecedent satisfy the presuppositions of the consequent differently. Example: Depending on where I choose to enter, a different entity will satisfy the presupposition: x is the location from which I entered.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals

Upshot: the source of chimericity

◮ The consequent in a chimerical conditional can raise different

issues depending on what presuppositions are associated with the implicit argument.

◮ The indicative reading comes about when different ways of

resolving the issue raised by the antecedent satisfy the presuppositions of the consequent differently. Example: Depending on where I choose to enter, a different entity will satisfy the presupposition: x is the location from which I entered.

◮ The naive intuition was that a conditional expresses a

condition when the truth of the consequent depends on the truth of the antecedent. Here, the truth of the consequent varies across contexts derivatively, because its content does.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals

Conclusions

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals

Conclusions

◮ Chimerical conditionals call for a reconsideration of how the

truth of the consequent of a conditional can come to depend on the truth of its antecedent.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals

Conclusions

◮ Chimerical conditionals call for a reconsideration of how the

truth of the consequent of a conditional can come to depend on the truth of its antecedent.

◮ Due to the presuppositional nature of implicit arguments,

consequents can show truth-dependence through content dependence.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals

Conclusions

◮ Chimerical conditionals call for a reconsideration of how the

truth of the consequent of a conditional can come to depend on the truth of its antecedent.

◮ Due to the presuppositional nature of implicit arguments,

consequents can show truth-dependence through content dependence.

◮ This phenomenon is naturally modeled in a dynamic setting,

and in terms of resolution of issues (or questions under discussion) rather than propositional truth.

Implicit content and chimeric conditionals An analysis of chimerical conditionals

Acknowledgemets

I thank Cleo Condoravdi and Richmond Thomason for comments and discussion. I have also benefitted from discussion with Jonathan Brennan, Nicholas Fleisher, Ezra Keshet, Lisa Levinson, and Marcin Morzycki.