Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Necessitarian propositions

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The eternalist holds that all propositions specify the needed time information, and so are eternally true if true at all. The necessitarian holds the parallel view for worlds: she holds that all propositions specify the needed world information, and so are necessarily true if true at all. I will argue that the considerations for both views run parallel: the necessitarian can mimic the whole case for eternalism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aronszajn M. (1996) A defense of temporalism. Philosophical Studies 81: 71–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bach K. (2001) You don’t say?. Synthese 128: 15–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt R., Pancheva R. (2006) Conditionals. In: Everaert M., Van Riemsdijk H., Goedmans R., Hollebrandse B. (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp 638–687

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brogaard B. (2012) Transient truths: an essay in the metaphysics of propositions. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hawthorne J. (2009) Relativism and monadic truth. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell M. (1990) Entities and indices. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Enç M. (1986) Toward a referential analysis of temporal expressions. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 405–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitch G. W. (1998) Tense and contents. Philosophical Studies 94: 151–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glanzberg M. (2009) Semantics and truth relative to a world. Synthese 166: 281–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glanzberg M. (2011) More on operators and tense. Analysis 71: 112–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

  • Heim, I., & von Fintel, K. (2010). Intensional semantics. (Spring ed.). MIT. Accessed January 17, 2011, from http://www.mit.edu/fintel/IntensionalSemantics.pdf.

  • Higginbotham J. (2002) Why is sequence of tense obligatory?. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (Eds.), Logical form and language. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 207–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp H. (1971) Formal properties of ‘now’. Theoria 37: 227–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan D. (1989) Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 481–563

    Google Scholar 

  • King J. (2003) Tense, modality, and semantic values. Philosophical Perspectives: Language and Philosophical Linguistics 17: 195–245

    Google Scholar 

  • King J. (2007) The nature and structure of content. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer A. (1977) What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 337–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer A. (1989) An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 607–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer A. (1991) Modality. In: von Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 639–650

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In Proceedings of Salt VIII (pp. 92–109). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

  • Kratzer, A. (2009). Situations in natural language semantics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 8 August, 2010, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/situations-semantics/.

  • Kuhn S. T. (1980) Quantifiers as modal operators. Studia Logica 39: 145–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1980) Index, context, and content. In: Kanger S., Öhman S. (Eds.), Philosophy and grammar. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 79–100

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1988) Relevant implication. Theoria 64: 161–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludlow P. (2001) Metaphysical austerity and the problems of modal and temporal anaphora. Philosophical Perspectives 15: 211–227

    Google Scholar 

  • MacFarlane J. (2009) Nonindexical contextualism. Synthese 166: 231–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthewson, L., Rullman, L., & Davis, H. (2005). Modality in St’át’imcets. In J. C. Brown, M. Kiyota, & T. Peterson (Eds.), Papers for the 40th international conference on salish and neighboring languages (pp. 166–183). Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

  • Montminy M. (2010) Context and communication: A defense of intentionalism. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2910–2918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ninan, D. (forthcoming). Propositions, semantic values, and rigidity. Philosophical Studies.

  • Ogihara T. (1995) The semantics of tense in embedded clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 663–679

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons T. (1990) Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. MIT, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee B. (1973) Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70: 601–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penco, C. (1999). Objective and cognitive context. In P. Bouquet, P. Brézillon, L. Serafini, & F. Castellani (Eds.), Modeling and using context, 2nd international and interdisciplinary conference, CONTEXT 99 (pp. 270–283). London: Springer.

  • Percus O. (2000) Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8: 173–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prior A. (1957) Time and modality. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior A. (1968) Egocentric logic. Noûs 2: 191–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recanati F. (2004) Literal Meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach H. (1947) Elements of symbolic logic. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Richard M. (1981) Temporalism and eternalism. Philosophical Studies 39: 1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richard M. (2003) Introduction to Part I. In: Jokic A., Smith Q. (Eds.), Time, tense, and reference. MIT, Cambridge, MA, pp 25–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Roeper T. (2006) Not only I: Notes on the syntax of focus binding. In: Brandt P., Fuss E. (Eds.), Studia Grammatica 63: Form, structure, and grammar: A Festschrift presented to Günther Grewendorf on occasion of his 60th birthday. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, pp 353–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Saarinen E. (1978) Backwards-looking operators in tense logic and in natural language. In: Saarinen E. (Ed.), Game-theoretical semantics. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 215–244

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon N. (2003) Tense and intension. In: Smith Q., Jokic A. (Eds.), Time, tense, and reference. MIT, Cambridge, MA, pp 107–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer, J. (manuscript). Confessions of a Schmentencite: Towards an index-free semantics.

  • Schaffer J. (2011) Perspective in taste claims and epistemic modals. In: Egan A., Weatherson B. (Eds.), Epistemic modality. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 179–226

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer, J., & Szabó, Z. G. (forthcoming). Epistemic comparativism: A Contextualist semantics for knowledge ascriptions. Philosophical Studies.

  • Schlenker P. (2004a) Conditionals as definite descriptions (a referential analysis). Research on Language and Computation 2: 417–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker P. (2004b) The Lazy Frenchman’s approach to the subjunctive: Speculations on reference to worlds and semantic defaults in the analysis of mood. In: Geerts T., van Ginneken I., Jacobs H. (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 269–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker P. (2004c) Sequence phenomena and double access readings generalized: Two remarks on tense, person, and mood. In: Guéron J., Lecarme J. (Eds.), The syntax of time. MIT, Cambridge, MA, pp 555–596

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker P. (2006) Ontological symmetry in language: A brief manifesto. Mind and Language 21: 504–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soames S. (1998) The modal argument: Wide scope and rigidifed descriptions. Noûs 32: 1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soames S. (2011) True at. Analysis 71: 124–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speas M. (2004) Evidential paradigms, world variables and person agreement features. Italian Journal of Linguistics 16: 253–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker R. (1970) Pragmatics. Synthese 22: 272–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker R. (1978) Assertion. In: Cole P. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Pragmatics. Academic Press, New York, pp 315–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker R. (1984) Inquiry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley J. (1997) Names and rigid designation. In: Hale B., Wright C. (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of language. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp 555–585

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley J. (2005a) Knowledge and practical interests. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, J. (2005b). Review of François Recanati’s “literal meaning”. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24857/?id=3841.

  • Stone M. (1997) The anaphoric parallel between modality and tense. Department of Computer & Information Science Technical Reports, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Szabó Z. G. (2004) On the progressive and the perfective. Nous 38: 29–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szabolcsi, A. (2011). Certain verbs are syntactically explicit quantifiers. The Baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic and communication, Vol. 6 (pp. 1–26).

  • van Bentham J. (1977) Tense logic and standard logic. Logique et Analyse 80: 395–437

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlach, F. (1973). `Now’ and ‘then’: A formal study in the logic of tense anaphora. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California Los Angeles.

  • von Fintel K. (2004) A minimal theory of adverbial quantification. In: Kemp H., Partee B. (Eds.), Context-dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning. Elsevier, Boston, pp 137–175

    Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, A. (2004). Binding by verbs: Tense, person, and mood under attitudes. In H. Lohnstein & S. Trissler (Eds.), The syntax and semantics of the left periphery (pp. 431–488). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

    Jonathan Schaffer

  2. Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia

    Jonathan Schaffer

  3. Arché, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland, UK

    Jonathan Schaffer

Authors
  1. Jonathan Schaffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Schaffer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schaffer, J. Necessitarian propositions. Synthese 189, 119–162 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0097-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0097-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation