Research on Language and Computation

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 417–462 | Cite as

Conditionals as Definite Descriptions

  • Philippe Schlenker


In Counterfactuals David Lewis noticed that definite descriptions and conditionals display the same kind of non-monotonic behavior. We take his observation literally and suggest that if-clauses are, quite simply, definite descriptions of possible worlds [related ideas are developed in M. Bittner (2001) Proceedings from SALT XI, CLC, Cornell University, Ithaca, pp. 36–55]. We depart from Lewis,s analysis, however, in claiming that if-clauses, like Strawsonian definite descriptions, refer. We develop our analysis by drawing both on Stalnaker,s Selection Function theory of conditionals and on von Heusinger,s Choice Function theory of definiteness, and by generalizing their analyses to plural Choice/Selection Functions. Finally, we explore some consequences of this referential approach: being definites, if-clauses can be topicalized; the word then can be analyzed as a pronoun that doubles the referential term; the syntactician,s Binding Theory constrains possible anaphoric relations between the if-clause and the word then; and general systems of referential classification can be applied to situate the denotation of the descriptive term, yielding a distinction between indicative, subjunctive and ‘double subjunctive’ conditionals.


General System Selection Function Function Theory Choice Function Algebraic Manipulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson A. R. (1951). A Note on Subjunctive and Counterfactual Conditionals. Analysis, 11, pp. 35-38.Google Scholar
  2. Barker S. (1997) E-type pronouns, DRT, dynamic semantics and the quantifier/variable binding model. Linguistics & Philosophy, 20(2), pp. 195-228.Google Scholar
  3. Bhatt R., Pancheva R. (2001) The Syntax of Conditionals, ms., University of Texas at Austin & University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  4. Bittner M. (2001) Topical Referents for Individuals and Possibilities. In Hastings R. et al. (eds. ), Proceedings from SALT XI, CLC, Cornell University, Ithaca, pp. 36-55.Google Scholar
  5. Chierchia G. (1989) Anaphora and Attitude De Se, In Bartsch R., Van Benthem J., van Emde Boas P. (eds. ) Semantics and Contextual Expressions, Foris, Dordorecht, pp. 1-31.Google Scholar
  6. Dekker P. (2000) Coreference and Representationalism. In von Heusinger K., Egli U. Reference and Anaphoric Relations, Kluwer.Google Scholar
  7. Fintel K. von (1997) Bare Plurals, Bare Conditionals, and Only. Journal of Semantics, 14 (1), pp. 1-56.Google Scholar
  8. Fintel K. von (1999) NPI-Licensing, Strawson-Entailment, and Context-Dependency Journal of Semantics, 16, pp. 97-148.Google Scholar
  9. Fintel K. von (2001) Counterfactuals in a Dynamic Context. In Kenstowicz, M., (ed. ), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, MIT Press Cambridge, MA, pp. 123-152.Google Scholar
  10. Frank A. (1997) Context Dependence in Modal Constructions. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  11. Geurts B. (1999) Presuppositions and Pronouns, Elsevier.Google Scholar
  12. Hale K. (1976) The Adjoined Relative Clause in Australia. In Dixon R. (ed. ) Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp. 78-105.Google Scholar
  13. Harper W. L., Stalnaker R., Pearce G. (eds. ) (1981) Ifs, Reidel.Google Scholar
  14. Heim I. (1991) Artikel und Definitheit. In Stechow A. v., Wunderlich D. (eds. ) Handbuch der Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  15. Heim I. (1984) A Note on Polarity Sensitivity and Downward Entailingness. Proceedings of NELS 14, pp. 98-107.Google Scholar
  16. Heim I. (1992) Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs. Journal of Semantics 9, pp. 183-221.Google Scholar
  17. Heusinger K. von (1996) Salienz und Referenz (Der Epsilonoperator in der Semantik der Nominalphrase and anaphorischer Pronomen).Google Scholar
  18. Heusinger K. von (2000) Reference and Salience, available online at: http://ling. uni-konstanz. de/pages/home/heusinger/publications/ftp/ap71_2. pdf.Google Scholar
  19. Iatridou S. (1994) On the Contribution of Conditional Then. Natural Language Semantics, 2, pp. 171-199.Google Scholar
  20. Iatridou S. (2000) The Grammatical Ingredients of Counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, pp. 231-270.Google Scholar
  21. Ippolito M. (2003) Presuppositions and Implicatures in Counterfactuals. Natural Language Semantics, 11, pp. 145-186.Google Scholar
  22. Izvorski R. (1996) The Syntax and Semantics of Correlative Proforms. In Kusumoto (ed. ), Proceedings of NELS 26.Google Scholar
  23. Kratzer A. (1991) Conditionals. In von Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds. ) Semantik: ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgeno¨ssischen Forschung.Google Scholar
  24. Lewis D. (1973) Counterfactuals, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis D. (1979) Scorekeeping in a Language Game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, pp. 339-359.Google Scholar
  26. Lo¨ bner S. (1985) Definites. Journal of Semantics, 4, pp. 279-326.</del>Google Scholar
  27. Lo¨ bner S. (1987) The Conceptual Nature of Natural Language Quantification. In Ruzsa I., Szabolcsi A. (eds. ), Proceedings of the '87 Debrecen Symposium on Logic and Language, Akade´ miai Kaido´, Budapest, pp. 81-94.Google Scholar
  28. Lycan W. (2001) Real Conditionals. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  29. Matthewson L. (2001) Quantification and the Nature of Crosslinguistic Variation. Natural Language Semantics 9, pp. 145-189.Google Scholar
  30. McCawley J. (1979) Presupposition and Discourse Structure. In Oh, Dinneen, (ed. ) Syntax & Semantics 11.Google Scholar
  31. Nute D. (1980) Topics in Conditional Logic, ReidelGoogle Scholar
  32. Percus O. (2000) Constraints on Some Other Variables in Syntax. Natural Language Semantics, 8(3), pp. 173-229.Google Scholar
  33. Roberts C. (1989) Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, pp. 683-721.Google Scholar
  34. Rooth M. (1996) Focus. In Lappin, (ed. ), Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Schein B. (2001) Adverbial, descriptive reciprocals. In Hastings R., Jackson B., Zvolenszky Z., (eds. ) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XI.CLC Publications, Ithaca. Department of Linguistics, Cornell University. department of Linguistics, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  36. Schlenker P. (1999/2000) Propositional Attitudes and Indexicality (A Cross-Categorial Approach), Doctoral Dissertation, MIT (Introduction revised, August 2000).Google Scholar
  37. Schlenker P. (1999) Semantic Uniformity, hand-out of a talk given at the First International Symposium on Linguistics (LICSSOL1), Lyons, France, 1999.Google Scholar
  38. Schlenker P. (2000) Towards a Null Theory of Conditionals, hand-out of a talk given at the Conference on (Preferably) Non-Lexical Semantics, Paris, May30, 2000Google Scholar
  39. Schlenker P. (2001) A Referential Analysis of Conditionals. In Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium.Google Scholar
  40. Stalnaker R. (1968) A Theory of Conditionals. Studies in Logical Theory, American Philosophical Quaterly, Monograph: 2.Google Scholar
  41. Stalnaker R. (1975) Indicative Conditionals, Philosophia 5, pp. 269-286.Google Scholar
  42. Stanley J., Szabo Z. (2000) On Quantifier Domain Restriction. Mind and Language, 17.Google Scholar
  43. Stechow A. von (2002) Binding by Verbs: Tense, Pronouns and Mood under Attitudes. In Lohnstein H., Trissler S. (eds. ) The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery, Gruyter: Berlin.Google Scholar
  44. Stechow A. von (2003) Feature Deletion under Semantic Binding: Tense, Person and Mood under Verbal Quantifiers, Proceedings of NELS 33.Google Scholar
  45. Stone M. (1997) The Anaphoric Parallel between Modality and Tense, IRCS Report 97-06.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe Schlenker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUCLA and Institut Jean NicodFrance)

Personalised recommendations