Laws for biscuits: Independence and dependence in conditionals

Arno Goebel


Pragmatic theories of biscuit conditionals (BCs) claim that BCs have a standard conditional semantics and that the defining characteristics is a contextual assumption of independence. Intuitively there is no connection between antecedent and consequent. I argue that the standard formalization of independence is insuf- ficient. This is shown with the phenomenon of factual uses of conditionals where the antecedent is mutually accepted by discourse participants. The standard account is amended with a framework which represents dependencies between facts and ‘grounds’ the standard formalization in the independence of facts. 

Full Text:



Akatsuka, Noriko. 1986. Conditionals are discourse-bound. In Elizabeth Closs Trau- gott et. al. (ed.), On conditionals, 333–352. Cambirdge University Press.

Arregui, Ana. 2011. Counterfactual-style revisions in the semantics of deontic modals. Journal of Semantics 28(2). 171–210. doi:10.1093/jos/ffq017. +http: //

Austin, John. 1956. Ifs and cans. Proceedings of the British Academy 42. 109–132.

Biezma, María & Arno Goebel. 2017. The pragmatic ingredients to get perfect biscuits. Sinn und Bedeutung 21.

Bledin, Justin & Kyle Rawlins. 2016. Epistemic resistance moves. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 26(0). 620–640. doi:10.3765/salt.v26i0.3812. http://journals.

Constant, Noah. 2014. Contrastive Topic: Meanings and Realizations: UMass Amherst dissertation.

Francez, Itamar. 2015. Chimerical conditionals. Semantics & Pragmatics 2. 1–35.

Franke, Michael. 2007. The pragmatics of Biscuit Conditionals. In Maria Aloni, Paul Dekker & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of Amsterdam Colloquium

, 91–96.

Franke, Michael. 2009. Signal to act: game theory in pragmatics: Universiteit van Amsterdam Ph.D. dissertation.

Heim, Irene. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In D. Flickinger

(ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL 2, 114–125. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Henderson, Robert. 2010. Non-defeasible counterfactuality blocks epistemic inference evidence from ‘if not for’. Ms.

Iatridou, Sabine. 1991. Topics in conditionals. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.

Isaacs, J. & K. Rawlins. 2008. Conditional Questions. Journal of Semantics 25/3. 269–319.

Kaufmann, Stefan. 2000. Dynamic context management. In M. Faller, S. Kaufmann & M. Pauly (eds.), Formilizing the dynamics of information, Stanford, CA: CSLI.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12. 607–653.

Lauer, Sven. 2013. Towards a dynamic pragmatics: Stanford University dissertation.

Lauer, Sven. 2015. Biscuits and provisos: Conveying unconditional information by conditional means. In Eva Csipak & Hede Zeijlstra (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19, .

Lewis, David. 1988. Relevant implication. Theoria 54. 161–237.

Merin, Arthur. 2007. Unconditionals. Forschungsberichte der DFG Forschergruppe ’Logik in der Philosophie’ (129).

Rawlins, Kyle. 2010. Conversational backoff. In Proceedings of SALT XX, 347–365. Cornell University Press.

van Rooij, Robert. 2007. Strengthening conditional presupposition. Journal of Semantics 24. 289–304.

Snider, Todd & Adam Bjorndahl. 2015. Informative counterfactuals. In Semantics and linguistic theory, vol. 25, 1–17.

Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. In Peter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics, syntax and semantics, 315–332. New York: Academic Press.

Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common Ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 701–721.

Stalnaker, Robert. 2014. Context. OUP Oxford.

Starr, William B. 2014a. Structured possible worlds. Handout of talk at University of St. Andrews.

Starr, William B. 2014b. What if? Philosopher’s Imprint 14(10).

Veltman, Frank. 2005. Making counterfactual assumptions. Journal of Semantics 22. 159–180.