Counterfactual Donkey Sentences: A Response to Robert van Rooij: Articles

Journal of Semantics 26 (3):317-328 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Robert van Rooij proposed an analysis of counterfactual donkey sentences by combining the Stalnaker–Lewis analysis of counterfactuals with standard dynamic semantics. This paper points out some problems with van Rooij's treatment of counterfactual sentences in the language of first-order logic and provides a new interpretation using dynamic semantics.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Towards a uniform analysis of any.Robert van Rooij - 2008 - Natural Language Semantics 16 (4):297-315.
Donkey Demonstratives.Barbara Abbott - 2002 - Natural Language Semantics 10 (4):285-298.
E-Type Anaphora as NP-Deletion.Paul Elbourne - 2001 - Natural Language Semantics 9 (3):241-288.
Donkey business.Bart Geurts - 2002 - Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (2):129-156.
Dynamic interpretation and HOARE deduction.Jan Eijck & Fer-Jan Vries - 1992 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 1 (1):1-44.
Exhaustive Interpretation of Complex Sentences.Robert Rooij & Katrin Schulz - 2004 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13 (4):491-519.
Embedded counterfactuals and possible worlds semantics.Charles B. Cross - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (3):665-673.
On bishop sentences.Paul Elbourne - 2010 - Natural Language Semantics 18 (1):65-78.
Pragmatic value and complex sentences.Robert van Rooij - 2006 - Mind and Matter 4 (2):195-218.
Reply to Willing.Adam Morton - 1974 - Dialogue 13 (3):579.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-14

Downloads
36 (#385,000)

6 months
1 (#1,040,386)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Making Counterfactual Assumptions.Frank Veltman - 2005 - Journal of Semantics 22 (2):159-180.

Add more references