Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:35:09.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2021

Fabrizio Cariani
Fabrizio Cariani
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Modal Future
A Theory of Future-Directed Thought and Talk
 , pp. 278 - 290
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abusch, Dorit. 1997. Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20(1), 1–50.Google Scholar
Abusch, Dorit. 1998. Generalizing tense semantics for future contexts. Pages 13–33 in Rothstein, S. (ed.), Events and Grammar. Vol. 70 of Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Kluwer.Google Scholar
Albert, David. 2000. Time and Chance. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav, and Korotkova, Natasha. 2018. Acquaintance content and obviation. Pages 55–72 in Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 22.Google Scholar
Aronowitz, Sara. 2019. Memory is a modeling system. Mind and Language, 34(4), 483–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronowitz, Sara, and Lombrozo, Tania. 2020. Learning through Simulation. Philosophers Imprint, 20(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas, and Lascarides, Alex. 2013. Strategic conversation. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6(2), 1–62.Google Scholar
Austin, John Langshaw. 1975. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacon, Andrew. 2015. Stalnaker’s thesis in context. Review of Symbolic Logic, 8(1), 131–163.Google Scholar
Jackson, Balcerak, Magdalena. 2018. Justification by imagination. Pages 209–226 in Macpherson, Fiona, and Dorsch, Fabian (eds.), Perceptual Imagination and Perceptual Memory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, Elizabeth, and Cameron, Ross. 2009. The open future: bivalence, determinism and ontology. Philosophical Studies, 146, 291–309.Google Scholar
Barnes, Elizabeth, and Cameron, Ross. 2011. Back to the open future. Philosophical Perspectives, 25(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Barnes, Elizabeth, and Williams, J. R. G. 2011. A theory of metaphysical indeterminacy. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 6, 103–148.Google Scholar
Barnes, Eric Christian. 2018. Prediction versus accommodation. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, fall 2018 ed. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/prediction-accommodationGoogle Scholar
Battaglia, Peter W., Hamrick, Jessica B., and Tenenbaum, Joshua B. 2013. Simulation as an engine of physical scene understanding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(45), 18327–18332.Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid, and von Stechow, Arnim. 2015. Events, times and worlds: an LF architecture. Pages 13–47 in Fortmann, C., Lübbe, A., and Rapp, I. (eds.), Situationsargumente im Nominalbereich. De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Belnap, Nuel. 1992. Branching space–time. Synthese, 92(3), 385–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belnap, Nuel. 2007. From Newtonian Determinism to Branching Space–Time Indeterminism. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Belnap, Nuel. 2012. Newtonian determinism to branching space–times indeterminism in two moves. Synthese, 188(1), 5–21.Google Scholar
Belnap, Nuel, and Green, Mitchell. 1994. Indeterminism and the thin red line. Philosophical Perspectives, 3, 365–388.Google Scholar
Belnap, Nuel, Perloff, Michael, and Xu, Ming. 2001. Facing the Future. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Jonathan. 2003. A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Michael, and Partee, Barbara H. 1972. Toward the Logic of Tense and Aspect in English. Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN. Reprinted in Partee (2008), pp. 59–109.Google Scholar
Benton, Matthew. 2012. Assertion, knowledge and predictions. Analysis, 72, 102–105.Google Scholar
Benton, Matthew A., and Turri, John. 2014. Iffy predictions and proper expectations. Synthese, 191(8), 1857–1866.Google Scholar
Benton, Matthew A., and Van Elswyk, Peter. 2018. Hedged assertion. Pages 245–264 in Goldberg, Sanford (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Assertion. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Besson, Corine, and Hattiangadi, Anandi. 2014. The open future, bivalence and assertion. Philosophical Studies, 167(2), 251–271.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria. 2014. Temporality: Universals and Variation. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonomi, Andrea, and Del Prete, Fabio. Evaluating Future-Tensed Sentences in Changing Contexts. Unpublished manuscript, University of Milan.Google Scholar
Borghini, Andrea, and Torrengo, Giuliano. 2013. The metaphysics of the thin red line. Pages 105–125 in: Correia, Fabrice, and Iacona, Andrea (eds.), Around the Tree. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourne, Craig. 2006. A Future for Presentism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boylan, David. In press a. Does success entail ability? Noûs.Google Scholar
Boylan, David. In press b. What the future “might” brings. Mind.Google Scholar
Boylan, David, and Schultheis, Ginger. In press. The Qualitative Thesis. The Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 1994. Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Briggs, R. A., and Forbes, Graeme A. 2012, . The real truth about the unreal future. Pages 257–304 in Bennett, Karen, and Zimmerman, Dean (eds.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, Vol. 7. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broad, C. D. 1923. Scientific Thought. Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Burgess, John P. 1979. Logic and time. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 44(4), 566–582.Google Scholar
Byrne, Ruth MJ. 2007. The Rational Imagination: How People Create Alternatives to Reality. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Caie, Michael. 2011. Paradox and Belief. PhD thesis, UC Berkeley.Google Scholar
Cameron, Ross. 2015. The Moving Spotlight. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Camp, Elisabeth. 2018. Insinuation, common ground and the conversational record. Pages 40–66 in Fogal, D., Harris, D., and Moss, M. (eds.), New Work on Speech Acts. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cariani, Fabrizio. 2019. Conditionals in selection semantics. Pages 1–10 in Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium.Google Scholar
Cariani, Fabrizio. 2020. On predicting. Ergo, 7(11), 339–361.Google Scholar
Cariani, Fabrizio. In press. Human Foreknowledge. Philosophical Perspectives.Google Scholar
Cariani, Fabrizio, and Goldstein, Simon. In press. Conditional heresies. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar
Cariani, Fabrizio, and Santorio, Paolo. 2017. Selection semantics for will. Pages 80–89 in Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium.Google Scholar
Cariani, Fabrizio, and Santorio, Paolo. 2018. Will done better: selection semantics, future credence, and indeterminacy. Mind, 127(505), 129–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, Peter. 1990. What is empiricism? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume, 63–79.Google Scholar
Ciardelli, Ivano. In press. Restriction without quantification: embedding and probability for indicative conditionals. Ergo.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. On identifying future tenses. Pages 51–63 in Abraham, Werner, and Janssen, Theo (eds.), Tempus-Aspekt-Modus: die lexicalischen und grammatischen Formen in den germanischen Sprache. Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: modals for the present and for the past. Pages 59–88 in Beaver, D., Casillas, L., Clark, B., and Kaufmann, S. (eds.), The Construction of Meaning. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo. 2003. Moods and Modalities for Will and Would. Handout from the 14th Amsterdam Colloquium.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo, and Lauer, Sven. 2011. Performative verbs and performative acts. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 15, 149–164.Google Scholar
Copley, Bridget. 2009. The Semantics of the Future. Routledge.Google Scholar
Crisp, Thomas. 2007. Presentism and the grounding objection. Noûs, 41(1), 90–109.Google Scholar
De Brigard, Felipe. 2014. Is memory for remembering? Recollection as a form of episodic hypothetical thinking. Synthese, 191(2), 155–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, Keith. 1994. Lewis on “might” and “would” counterfactual conditions. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 24(3), 413–418.Google Scholar
DeRose, Keith. 2002. Assertion, knowledge, and context. Philosophical Review, 111(2), 167–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorr, Cian. 2003. Vagueness without ignorance. Philosophical Perspectives, 17(1), 83–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorr, Cian, Goodman, Jeremy, and Hawthorne, John. 2014. Knowing against the odds. Philosophical Studies, 170(2), 277–287.Google Scholar
Dorr, Cian, and Hawthorne, John. 2013. Embedding epistemic modals. Mind, 122(488), 867–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, Kevin, and Mandelkern, Matt. Good Guesses. Unpublished manuscript, Oxford University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douven, Igor. 2006. Assertion, knowledge, and rational credibility. Philosophical Review, 115(4), 449–485.Google Scholar
Douven, Igor. 2009. Assertion, Moore, and Bayes. Philosophical Studies, 144(3), 361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1982. Tenses, time adverbs, compositional semantic theory. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5(1), 23–55.Google Scholar
Dowty, David, Peters, Stanley, and Wall, Robert. 1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Springer (Synthese Language Library).Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael. 1959. Truth. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 59(1), 141–62.Google Scholar
Eagle, Anthony. ”Might” Counterfactuals. Unpublished manuscript, University of Adelaide.Google Scholar
Eagle, Anthony. 2019. Chance versus randomness. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, spring 2019 ed. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chance-randomness/Google Scholar
Edgington, Dorothy. 1986. Do conditionals have truth-conditions? Critica, 18(52), 3–39.Google Scholar
Egan, Andy, Hawthorne, John, and Weatherson, Brian. 2005. Epistemic modals in context. Pages 131–169 in Preyer, G., and Peter, P. (eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1996. Tense and modality. Pages 345–358 in Lappin, Shalom (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Etchemendy, John. 1990. The Concept of Logical Consequence. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Gareth. 1978. Can there be vague objects. Analysis, 38(4), 208.Google Scholar
Feeney, Aidan, and Heit, Evan. 2007. Inductive Reasoning: Experimental, Developmental, and Computational Approaches. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 1994. Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 1997. Bare plurals, bare conditionals and only. Journal of Semantics, 14(1), 1–56.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 1999. NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics, 16(2), 97–148.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai, and Gillies, Anthony. 2010. Must … stay … strong! Natural Language Semantics, 18(4), 351–383.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai, and Heim, Irene. 2011. Notes on Intensional Semantics. MIT.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai, and Iatridou, Sabine. If and when “if”-clauses can restrict quantifiers. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Forbus, Kenneth D. 1983. Qualitative Reasoning about Space and Motion. LEA Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Frana, Ilaria, and Menéndez-Benito, Paula. 2019. Evidence and bias: the case of the evidential future in Italian. Pages 727–747 in Blake, Katherine, Davis, Forrest, Lamp, Kaelyn, and Rhyne, Joseph (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory, vol. 29.Google Scholar
Frank, Annette. 1997. Context Dependence in Modal Constructions. PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Jane. 2019. Inquiry and belief. Noûs, 53(2), 296–315.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel. 1983. Old evidence and logical omniscience in Bayesian confirmation theory. Pages 99–131 in Earman, John (ed.), Testing Scientific Theories. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Gerstenberg, Tobias, Goodman, Noah D., Lagnado, David A., and Tenenbaum, Joshua B. 2015. How, whether, why: causal judgments as counterfactual contrasts. CogSci, 1132–1137.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Mari, Alda. 2013. The future of Greek and Italian: An evidential analysis. Page 255–270 in Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 17.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Mari, Alda. 2015. Predicting the future in Greek and Italian: objective and subjective dimensions. Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago and Institut Jean Nicod, CNRS.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Mari, Alda. 2017. A unified analysis of the future as epistemic modality. Language and Linguistic Theory, 36, 85–129.Google Scholar
Gibbard, Allan. 1981. Two recent theories of conditionals. Pages 211–247 in Harper, William, Stalnaker, Robert C., and Pearce, Glenn (eds.), Ifs. Reidel.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Sanford C. 2015. Assertion: On the Philosophical Significance of Assertoric Speech. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldblatt, Robert. 2006. Mathematical modal logic: a view of its evolution. Pages 1–98 in Handbook of the History of Logic, vol. 7. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I. 1967. A causal theory of knowing. Journal of Philosophy, 64(12), 357–372.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I. 1992. In defense of the simulation theory. Mind and Language, 7(1-2), 104–119.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Simon. In press a. Modal Credence. Philosophers’ Imprint.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Simon. In press b. The theory of conditional assertion. Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Green, Mitchell. 1995. Quantity, volubility and some varieties of discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18(1), 83–112.Google Scholar
Green, Mitchell. 2014. On Saying What Will Be. Kluwer.Google Scholar
Green, Mitchell. 2017. Speech acts. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, winter 2017 ed. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/speech-acts/Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. Pages 22–40 in Studies in the Ways of Words (1989). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grönn, Atle, and von Stechow, Arnim. 2016. Tense. Pages 313–341 in Aloni, M., and Dekker, S. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics, Part III: Temporal and Aspectual Ontology and Other Semantic Structures. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Ned. 1994. Correcting the guide to objective chance. Mind, 103(412), 505–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, John. 2005. Chance and counterfactuals. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70(2), 396–405.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, John, and Lasonen-Aarnio, Maria. 2008. Knowledge and objective chance. In Greenough, Patrick, and Pritchard, Duncan (eds.), Williamson on Knowledge. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, John, and Lepore, Ernest. 2011. On words. Journal of Philosophy, 108(9), 447–485.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1986. Linguistic theory and Davidson’s program in semantics. Pages 29–48 in Lepore, Ernie (ed.), Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Eli. 2006. Rashi’s view of the open future: indeterminateness and bivalence. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 2, 111–135.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles D., et al. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203, 89–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holguin, Ben. Thinking, Guessing, and Believing. Unpublished manuscript, New York University.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geoff. 2002. Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Iacona, Andrea. 2013. Timeless truth. Pages 29–45 In Correia, Fabrice, and Iacona, Andrea (eds.), Around the Tree. Springer.Google Scholar
Iacona, Andrea. Knowledge of Future Contingents. Unpublished manuscript, Universitá degli Studi di Torino.Google Scholar
Iaquinto, Samuele, and Torrengo, Giuliano. 2018. Filosofia Del Futuro. Raffaello Cortina.Google Scholar
Icard, Thomas F., Kominsky, Jonathan F., and Knobe, Joshua. 2017. Normality and actual causal strength. Cognition, 161, 80–93.Google Scholar
Ippolito, Michela, and Farkas, Donka. 2019. Epistemic stance without epistemic modals: the case of the presumptive future. Pages 459–476 in Blake, Katherine, Davis, Forrest, Lamp, Kaelyn, , and Rhyne, Joseph (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 29. Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Jerzak, Ethan. 2019. Non-classical knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 98(1), 190–220.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, Philip Nicholas. 1983. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Russell E. 2010. Truth and contradiction in Aristotle De Interpretatione 6–9. Phronesis, 55(1), 26–67.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1982. The simulation heuristic. Pages 201–208 in Kahneman, Daniel, Slovic, Stewart Paul, and Tversky, Amos (eds.), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1989a. Afterthoughts. Pages 565–614 in Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H. (eds.), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1989b. Demonstratives. Pages 481–563 in Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H. (eds.), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri, and Peters, Stanley. 1979. Conventional implicature. Pages 1–56 in Oh, Choon-Kyu, and Dinneen, David A. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 11: Presupposition. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Magdalena, and Kaufmann, Stefan. 2015. Conditionals and modality. Pages 274–312 in Lappin, S. (ed.), The handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Wiley.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Stefan. 2005. Conditional truth and future reference. Journal of Semantics, 22(3), 231–280.Google Scholar
Kelp, Christoph, and Simion, Mona. 2018. The C account of assertion: a negative result. Synthese, 1–13.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher, and Willer, Malte. 2016. Subjective attitudes and counterstance contingency. Pages 913–933 in Moroney, Mary, Little, Carol-Rose, Collard, Jacob, and Burgdorf, Dan (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 26. Linguistics Society of America.Google Scholar
Khoo, Justin. 2013. A note on Gibbard’s proof. Philosophical Studies, 166(1), 153–164.Google Scholar
Khoo, Justin. 2015. On indicative and subjunctive conditionals. Philosophers Imprint, 15(32), 1–40.Google Scholar
King, Jeffrey. 2003. Tense, modality, and semantic values. Philosophical Perspectives, 17(1), 195–246.Google Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail. 2008. Why will is not a modal. Natural Language Semantics, 16(2), 129–155.Google Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail. 2014. Will, scope and modality: a response to Broekhuis and Verkuyl. Natural Language Semantics, 32(4), 1427–1431.Google Scholar
Klecha, Peter. 2014. Diagnosing modality in predictive expressions. Journal of Semantics, 31(3), 443–455.Google Scholar
Klecha, Peter. 2016. Modality and embedded temporal operators. Semantics and Pragmatics, 9(9), 1–55.Google Scholar
Klinedinst, Nathan. 2011. Quantified conditionals and conditional excluded middle. Journal of Semantics, 28(1), 149–170.Google Scholar
Knuuttila, Simo. 2015. Medieval theories of future contingents. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, winter 2015 ed. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/medieval-futcont/.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1977. What “must” and “can” must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(3), 337–355. Reprinted with modifications as chapter 1 of Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and Conditionals. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. Pages 289–323 in Partee, B., and Portner, P. (eds.), Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings. Blackwell. Reprinted with modifications as chapter 2 of Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and Conditionals. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991a. Conditionals. Pages 639–650 in von Stechow, D., & Wunderlich, A. (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. De Gruyter. from the Semantics Archive.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991b. Modality. Pages 651–657 in von Stechow, D., & Wunderlich, A. (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. De Gruyter. Reprinted with modifications as chapter 4 of Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and Conditionals. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and Conditionals. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2021. Chasing Hook Quantified indicative conditionals. In Lee, Walters, and Hawthorne, John (eds.), Conditionals, Probability, and Paradox: Themes from the Philosophy of Dorothy Edgington. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 1958. Letter to A. N. Prior. Dated Sept. 3, 1958. In The Prior Collection, Bodleian Library, Oxford. Reprinted in Ploug, Thomas, and Øhrstrøm, Peter. 2012. Branching time, indeterminism and tense logic. Unveiling the Kripke– Prior letters. Synthese, 188, 372–375.Google Scholar
Križ, Manuel. 2015. Aspects of Homogeneity in the Semantics of Natural Language. Ph.D. thesis, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Kroedel, Thomas. 2012. Counterfactuals and the epistemology of modality. Philosophers’ Imprint, 12.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, Jonathan. 2009. Assertion, knowledge, and lotteries. Pages 140–160 in Pritchard, Duncan, and Greenough, Patrick (eds.), Williamson on Knowledge. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lackey, Jennifer. 1999. Testimonial knowledge and transmission. Philosophical Quarterly, 49(197), 471–490.Google Scholar
Lackey, Jennifer. 2007. Norms of assertion. Noûs, 41(4), 594–626.Google Scholar
Lackey, Jennifer. 2008. Learning from Words: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge. Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
Lackey, Jennifer. 2011 .Measurement and Modality: The Scalar Basis of Modal Semantics. Ph.D. thesis, New York University.Google Scholar
Lackey, Jennifer. 2017. Graded Modality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leslie, Sarah Jane. 2009. If, unless and quantification. Pages 3–30 in Stainton, R. J., and Viger, C. (eds.), Compositionality, Context and Semantic Values: Essays in Honour of Ernie Lepore. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 85. Springer, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Levi, Isaac. 2007. Deliberation does crowd out prediction. In Ronnow-Rasmussen, T., Petersson, F., Joseffson, J., and Egonsson, D. (eds.), Homage à Wlodek. Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz. https://www.fil.lu.se/hommageawlodek/site/papper/LeviIsaac.pdfGoogle Scholar
Levin, Janet. 2008. Assertion, practical reason and pragmatic theories of knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 76(2), 359–384.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1973. Counterfactuals. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Noûs, 13(4), 455–476.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1980. Index, context, and content. Pages 79–100 in Kanger, Stig and Ōhman, Sven (eds.) Philosophy and Grammar. Springer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1986a. On the Plurality of Worlds. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1986b. A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance. Pages 263–293 in Philosophical Papers, vol. II. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1994. Humean supervenience debugged. Mind, 103(412), 473–490.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1996. Elusive knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74(4), 549–567.Google Scholar
Łukasiewicz, Jan. 1970. On determinism. Pages 110–128 in Borkowski, Ł. (ed.), Jan Łukasiewicz: Selected Works. North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, John. 2003. Future contingents and relative truth. Philosophical Quarterly, 53, 321–336.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, John. 2005. Making sense of relative truth. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 105, 321–339.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, John. 2008. Truth in the garden of forking paths. Pages 81–102 in Kölbel, M., and Garcia-Carpintero, M. (eds.), Relative Truth. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, John. 2014. Assessment Sensitivity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maher, Patrick. 1988. Prediction, accommodation, and the logic of discovery. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1988, 273–285.Google Scholar
Maitra, Ishani. 2011. Assertion, norms, and games. Pages 277–296 in Brown, Jessica, and Cappelen, Herman (eds.), Assertion: New Philosophical Essays. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malpass, Alex, and Wawer, Jacek. 2012. A future for the thin red line. Synthese, 188, 117–142.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, Matthew. 2018. Talking about worlds. Philosophical Perspectives, 32(1), 298–325.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, Matthew. 2019a. Bounded modality. Philosophical Review, 128(1), 1–61.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, Matthew. 2019b. Crises of identity. Pages 279–288 in Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, Matthew. 2019c. Modality and expressibility. Review of Symbolic Logic, 1–38.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, Matthew. 2019d. What “must” adds. Linguistics and Philosophy, 42(3), 225–266.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, Matthew. In press. If p, Then p! Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, Matthew, Schultheis, Ginger, and Boylan, David. 2017. Agentive modals. Philosophical Review, 126(3), 301–343.Google Scholar
Markosian, Ned. 1995. The open past. Philosophical Studies, 79(1), 95–105.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2015. Evidential restrictions on epistemic modals. Pages 141–160 in Alonso-Ovalle, Luis, and Menendez-Benito, Paula (eds.), Epistemic Indefinites. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McGee, Vann, and McLaughlin, Brian. 1995. Distinctions without a difference. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 33(S1), 203–251.Google Scholar
Meacham, Christopher J. G. 2010. Two mistakes regarding the Principal Principle. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61(2), 407–431.Google Scholar
Montague, Richard. 1974. Formal Philosophy. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Moss, Sarah. 2013. Epistemology formalized. Philosophical Review, 122(1), 1–43.Google Scholar
Moss, Sarah. 2015. On the semantics and pragmatics of epistemic vocabulary. Semantics & Pragmatics, 8.Google Scholar
Moss, Sarah. 2018. Probabilistic Knowledge. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murray, Sarah E. 2014. Varieties of update. Semantics and Pragmatics, 7, 2–1.Google Scholar
Ninan, Dilip. 2014. Taste predicates and the acquaintance inference. In Proceedings of the SALT 24.Google Scholar
Ninan, Dilip. 2018. Relational semantics and domain semantics for epistemic modals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 47(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Assertion, Evidence, and the Future. Unpublished manuscript, Tufts University.Google Scholar
Normore, Calvin. 1982. Future contingents. Pages 358–381 in Kretzmann, Norman, Kenny, Anthony, and Pinborg, Jan (eds.), Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 2007. Tense and aspect in truth-conditional semantics. Lingua, 117(2), 392–418.Google Scholar
Øhrstrøm, Peter. 2009. In defence of the thin red line: a case for Ockhamism. Humana. Mente, 8, 17–32.Google Scholar
Øhrstrøm, Peter, and Hasle, Per. 2015. Future contingents. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, winter 2015 ed. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/future-contingentsGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1987. Mood and Modality. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. Journal of Philosophy, 601–609.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 2008. Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Pearl, Judea. 2000. Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2013. A judge-free semantics for predicates of personal taste. Journal of Semantics, 30(1), 103–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ploug, Thomas, and Øhrstrøm, Peter. 2012. Branching time, indeterminism and tense logic. Unveiling the Kripke–Prior letters. Synthese, 188, 367–379.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2007. Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics, 15(4), 351–383.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prior, Arthur N. 1957. Time and Modality. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Prior, Arthur N. 1967. Past, Present and Future. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Prior, Arthur N. 1969. Papers on Time and Tense. Clarendon Press. New edition, P. Hasle et al. (eds.), Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Prior, Arthur N. 1976. It was to be. Pages 97–108 in Geach, Peter, and Kenny, Anthony (eds.), Papers in Semantics and Ethics. Duckworth.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas, and Urquhart, Alasdair. 1971. Temporal Logic, Vol. 3. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Rett, Jessica. 2016. On a shared property of deontic and epistemic modals. Pages 200–229 in Charlow, Nate, and Chrisman, Matthew (eds.), Deontic Modality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rips, Lance. 1986. Mental muddles. Pages 258–286 in Brand, Myles, and Harnish, Robert M. (eds.), The Representation of Knowledge and Belief. The University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1989. Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(6), 683–721.Google Scholar
Rosenkranz, Sven. 2012. In defence of Ockhamism. Philosophia, 40(3), 617–631.Google Scholar
Santelli, Alessio. In press. Future contingents, branching time, and assertion. Philosophia.Google Scholar
Santorio, Paolo. 2017. Conditional excluded middle in informational semantics. Pages 385–394 in Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium.Google Scholar
Trivializing Informational Consequence. In press, University of Maryland, College Park. In press. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar
Saunders, Simon, and Wallace, D. 2008. Branching and uncertainty. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59(3), 293–305.Google Scholar
Schacter, Daniel L., Addis, Donna Rose, and Buckner, Randy L. 2007. Remembering the past to imagine the future: the prospective brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(9), 657–661.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2009. Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics, 2, 3–1.Google Scholar
Schoubye, Anders J., and Rabern, Brian. 2017. Against the Russellian open future. Mind, 126(504), 1217–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, Katrin. 2010. Troubles at the semantics/syntax interface: some thoughts about the modal approach to conditionals. Pages 388–404 In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 14.Google Scholar
Schulz, Moritz. 2014. Counterfactuals and arbitrariness. Mind, 123(492), 1021–1055.Google Scholar
Schulz, Moritz. 2017. Counterfactuals and Probability. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Daniel L., and Black, Tamara. 1999. Inferences through imagined actions: knowing by simulated doing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(1), 116.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1985. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R., and Vanderveken, Daniel. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sennet, Adam. 2016. Polysemy. In Goldberg, Sandy (ed.), Oxford Handbooks Online: Philosophy.Google Scholar
Simion, Mona, and Kelp, Christoph. 2020. Pages 59–74 in constitutive norm view of assertion. In Goldberg, Sandy (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Assertion. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skow, Brad. 2010. Deep metaphysical indeterminacy. Philosophical Quarterly, 60(241), 851–858.Google Scholar
Sloman, Steven. 2005. Causal Models: How People Think about the World and Its Alternatives. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spaulding, Shannon. 2016. Simulation theory. Pages 262–273 in Kind, Amy (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Imagination. Routledge.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Spirtes, Peter, Glymour, Clark, and Scheines, Richard. 2000. Causation, Prediction, and Search. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1968. A theory of conditionals. Studies in Logical Theory, American Philosophical Quarterly, Monograph Series 2, 98–112.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1976. Indicative conditionals. Philosophia, 5(3), 269–286.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. Pages 78–95 in Context and Content. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1981. A defense of conditional excluded middle. Pages 87–104 in Harper, W. L., Pearce, G. A., and Stalnaker, R. (eds.), Ifs. Springer.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1984. Inquiry. MIT Press (Bradford Books).Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1998. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information (Special Issue on Context in Linguistics and Artificial Intelligence), 7(1). Reprinted in Stalnaker, Robert. 1999. Context and Content. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1999. Context and Content. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(5), 701–721.Google Scholar
Stephenson, Tamina. 2007. Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(4), 487–525.Google Scholar
Stojanovic, Isidora. 2014. Talking about the future: unsettled truth and assertion. Pages 26–43 in De Brabanter, Philippe, Kissine, Mikhail, and Sharifzadeh, Saghie (eds.), Future Times, Future Tenses. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stojnić, Una. In press. Content in a dynamic context. Noûs.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1952. Introduction to Logical Theory. Methuen.Google Scholar
Strohminger, Margot, and Yli-Vakkuri, Juhani. 2019. Knowledge of objective modality. Philosophical Studies, 176(5), 1155–1175.Google Scholar
Sudo, Yasutada. 2012. On the Semantics of Phi Features on Pronouns. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Swanson, Eric. 2011. How not to theorize about the language of subjective uncertainty. Pages 249–269 in Egan, Andy, and Weatherson, Brian (eds.), Epistemic Modality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sweeney, Paula. 2015. Future contingents, indeterminacy and context. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 96(3), 408–422.Google Scholar
Szpunar, Karl K. 2010. Episodic future thought: an emerging concept. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(2), 142–162.Google Scholar
Szpunar, Karl K., and McDermott, Kathleen B. 2008. Episodic future thought and its relation to remembering: evidence from ratings of subjective experience. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 330–334.Google Scholar
Thomason, Richmond H. 1970. Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria, 18(3), 264–281.Google Scholar
Thomason, Richmond H. 1984. Combinations of tense and modality. Pages 135–165 in Gabbay, D., and Guenthner, F. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic (Volume II: Extensions of Classical Logic). Springer.Google Scholar
Todd, Patrick. 2016. Future contingents are all false! On behalf of a Russellian open future. Mind, 125(499), 775–798.Google Scholar
Todd, Patrick. 2020. The problem of future contingents: scoping out a solution. Synthese 197, 5051–5072.Google Scholar
Todd, Patrick and Rabern, Brian. In press. Future contingents and the logic of temporal omniscience. Noûs.Google Scholar
Tooley, Michael. 1997. Time, Tense and Causation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Torre, Stephan. 2011. The open future. Philosophy Compass, 6(5), 360–373.Google Scholar
Torza, Alessandro. 2017. Quantum metaphysical indeterminacy and worldly incompleteness. Synthese, 197, 4251–4264.Google Scholar
Tulenheimo, Tero. 2015. Cross-world identity, temporal quantifiers and the question of tensed contents. Pages 409–461 in Torza, Alessandro (ed.), Quantifiers, Quantifiers, and Quantifiers: Themes in Logic, Metaphysics, and Language. Springer.Google Scholar
Unger, Peter K. 1975. Ignorance: A Case for Scepticism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Veltman, Frank. 1996. Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25, 221–261.Google Scholar
Viebahn, Emanuel. 2018. Ambiguity and zeugma. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 99(4), 749–762.Google Scholar
Stechow, Von, Arnim. 1995. On the proper treatment of tense. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 5.Google Scholar
Weiner, Matthew. 2005. Must we know what we say? The Philosophical Review, 114, 227–251.Google Scholar
Weiner, Matthew, and Belnap, Nuel. 2006. How causal probabilities might fit into our objectively indeterministic world. Synthese, 149(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Wilensky, Uri, and Rand, William. 2015. An Introduction to Agent-Based Modeling: Modeling Natural, Social, and Engineered Complex Systems with NetLogo. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Willer, Malte, and Kennedy, Chris. 2016 Evidence, Attitudes and Counterstance Contingency. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XXVI, 913–933.Google Scholar
Willer, Malte, and Kennedy, Chris. In press. Assertion, Expression, Experience. Inquiry.Google Scholar
Williams, John N. 1994. Moorean absurdity and the intentional “structure” of assertion. Analysis, 54(3), 160.Google Scholar
Williams, Robert J. 2008a. Aristotelian Indeterminacy and the Open Future. University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Williams, Robert J. 2008b. Multiple actualities and ontically vague identity. Philosophical Quarterly, 58(230), 134–154.Google Scholar
Williams, Robert J. 2010. Defending conditional excluded middle. Noûs, 44(4), 650–668.Google Scholar
Williams, Robert J. 2000. Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Robert J. 2008. The Philosophy of Philosophy. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Wilson, Alastair. 2011. Macroscopic ontology in Everettian quantum mechanics. Philosophical Quarterly, 61(243), 363–382.Google Scholar
Wilson, Alastair. 2014. Everettian quantum mechanics without branching time. Synthese, 188, 67–84.Google Scholar
Wilson, Jessica M. 2013. A determinable-based account of metaphysical indeterminacy. Inquiry, 56(4), 359–385.Google Scholar
Winans, Lauren. 2016. Inferences of Will. Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Yalcin, Seth. 2007. Epistemic modals. Mind, 116(4), 983–1027.Google Scholar
Yalcin, Seth. 2010. Probability operators. Philosophy Compass, 916–937.Google Scholar
Yalcin, Seth. 2015. Actually, actually. Analysis, 75(2), 185–191.Google Scholar
Zalta, Edward N. 1987. On the structural similarities between worlds and times. Philosophical Studies, 51(2), 213–239.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Fabrizio Cariani, University of Maryland, College Park
  • Book: The Modal Future
  • Online publication: 18 June 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108668514.021
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Fabrizio Cariani, University of Maryland, College Park
  • Book: The Modal Future
  • Online publication: 18 June 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108668514.021
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Fabrizio Cariani, University of Maryland, College Park
  • Book: The Modal Future
  • Online publication: 18 June 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108668514.021
Available formats
×