While on the topic of

While on the topic of comments, let me highly recommend two papers by Kai von Fintel that he mentioned in the comments thread on my little discussion below about negative polarity items (NPIs). They are

Counterfactuals in a Dynamic Context

NPI Licensing, Strawson-Entailment, and Context-Dependency

There is a lot there that is interesting, particularly if you are interested in NPIs. (And I think they’re one of the most fascinating subjects I have ever come across, but that’s probably because I’m a geek.) But in terms of contact with topics that have traditionally considered parts of philosophy, the papers are noteworthy for their work on conditionals. Von Fintel provides some of the best arguments you will find for the claim that the apparent difference in inferential behaviour between ordinary language conditionals and strict implication conditionals in modal logics is to be explained in terms of pragmatics rather than semantics.

While on the topic of

While on the topic of comments, let me highly recommend two papers by Kai von Fintel that he mentioned in the comments thread on my little discussion below about negative polarity items (NPIs). They are

Counterfactuals in a Dynamic Context

NPI Licensing, Strawson-Entailment, and Context-Dependency

There is a lot there that is interesting, particularly if you are interested in NPIs. (And I think they’re one of the most fascinating subjects I have ever come across, but that’s probably because I’m a geek.) But in terms of contact with topics that have traditionally considered parts of philosophy, the papers are noteworthy for their work on conditionals. Von Fintel provides some of the best arguments you will find for the claim that the apparent difference in inferential behaviour between ordinary language conditionals and strict implication conditionals in modal logics is to be explained in terms of pragmatics rather than semantics.