Conclusion
The last section made it clear that an analysis which at first seems to fail is viable after all. It is viable if we let it depend on a partition function to be provided by the context of conversation. This analysis leaves certain traits of the partition function open. I have tried to show that this should be so. Specifying these traits as Pollock does leads to wrong predictions. And leaving them open endows counterfactuals with just the right amount of variability and vagueness.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Bibliography
Burgess, J. P.: 1979, Quick Completeness Proofs for Some Logics of Conditionals, manuscript, Princeton University.
Klein, W.: 1979, Local Deixis in Route Directions, to appear in R. J. Jarvella and W. Klein (eds.), Speech, Place, Action. Studies of Language in Context, Academic Press.
Kratzer, A.: 1977, ‘What ‘Must’ and ‘Can’ Must and Can Mean’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 337–355.
Lewis, D. K.: 1981, ‘Ordering Semantics and Premise Semantics for Counterfactuals’, Journal of Philosophical Logic, this issue.
Pollock, J. L.: 1976, Subjunctive Reasoning, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Rescher, N.: 1973, The Coherence Theory of Truth, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Veltman, F.: 1976, Prejudices, Presuppositions and the Theory of Conditionals, Amsterdam Papers in Formal Grammar, 1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kratzer, A. Partition and revision: The semantics of counterfactuals. J Philos Logic 10, 201–216 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00248849
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00248849