*^*^*^*^*^*^**^*^*^*^*^*^**^*^*^*^*^*^**^*^*^*^*^*^**^*^*^*^*^*^**^*^*^*^*^*^*


                      SEMANTICS/PRAGMATICS WORKSHOP
 
                
                              Frank Veltman             


                          Thursday, March 19th
                                2:15 PM

                     Room 146, Linguistics Department
                           Margaret Jacks Hall
 

*^*^*^*^*^*^**^*^*^*^*^*^**^*^*^*^*^*^**^*^*^*^*^*^**^*^*^*^*^*^**^*^*^*^*^*^*

Title: Subjunctive Modalities and subordination.

Abstract: I will sketch some of the problems one encouters if one
tries to develop a dynamic semantics for subjunctive modalities like
`might', `would', `might have been' and `would have been', as these
occur not only in subjunctive conditionals but also in other kinds of
discourse.  Taking subjunctive conditionals as my  starting point, I
will among other things argue that the dynamic  theories developed so
far (Barwise, Morreau) are wrong in that they predict that any agent
who at a given time is entitled to entertain the indicative
conditionals `If A is the case, then so is C' will later, after
learning that A is in fact false, be entitled to entertain the
counterfactual `If A had been the case, C would have been the case'. I
will sketch an alternative theory, show how it solves some notorious
puzzles, and explain how it can be extended to a theory that can
explain, for instance, why a text like: "I didn't drink any wine. It
would have made me sick" is easy to understand whereas "I drank some
wine. It would not have made me sick" is incoherent.