Linglib.Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.VonFintelIatridou2005

The "Harlem Sentence" — If you want to go to Harlem, you have to take the A train — and the puzzle: no straightforward Kratzerian analysis delivers its truth conditions. vF&I rule out three candidate analyses (if-clause restricts the modal base, modifies the ordering source à la @cite{saebo-2001}, or is restricted by a covert higher modal), then propose a Designated Goals account paired with @cite{sloman-1970}'s have-to-vs-ought-to distinction.

This file contains:

obviousAnalysis (if-clause adds to modal base) refuted on the Hoboken Problem (vF&I (11));
saeboAnalysis (if-clause adds to ordering source) refuted on the Conflicting Goals scenario (vF&I (13));
the Designated Goals structure with oughtTo/haveTo operators and the Sloman entailment haveTo_implies_oughtTo_of_best_subset_accessible;
cross-reference (in the closing docstring) to @cite{chung-mascarenhas-2024}: the C&M exhaustification clause is the formal expected-value realisation of Sloman's "only candidate". C&M handles the Harlem base case, Burdick's contextual designation, and Breathe-style trivialities (via §5 plausibility). Open: Nissenbaum Pedro Martinez (no causal-essentialness filter); Huitink van Nistelrooy (correlated-irrelevant).

Example data lives in Linglib/Data/Examples/vonFintelIatridou2005.json and is generated into the Examples section below by scripts/gen_examples.py vonFintelIatridou2005.

Analytical predicates #

Each candidate analysis is a predicate parameterized by the relevant propositions on a world type. Concrete vF&I scenarios (Hoboken, Conflicting Goals) instantiate these arguments with their own predicates and decide discharges the refutation. Bundling the propositions into a Scenario structure would hide the per-predicate decidability the refutations need behind a field projection; the explicit-argument form keeps each refutation mechanically verifiable. The circumstantial modal base is taken as universal (the worked vF&I scenarios do not exploit modal-base restriction).

Obvious analysis and the Hoboken Problem #

vF&I eq. (9): [have to](w)(f)(g)(q) = 1 iff ∀w' ∈ max_{g(w)}(∩f(w)) : q(w') = 1. vF&I eq. (10): [if φ](f) = λw. f(w) ∪ {⟦φ⟧}.

Combined, the "obvious analysis" of the Harlem Sentence asserts: in the best (per actual goals) worlds where you want to go to Harlem, you take the A train. In the Hoboken scenario the actual ordering source ranks worlds by satisfaction of want-Hoboken. Best want-Harlem worlds are then those that simultaneously achieve Hoboken — i.e., take the PATH train — so the obvious analysis predicts the sentence false (vF&I p. 5 intuition: true).

@cite{vonfintel-iatridou-2005} — Anankastic conditionals and related matters #

Analytical predicates #

Obvious analysis and the Hoboken Problem #

Sæbø 2001's analysis and the Conflicting Goals refutation #

Nested Modality #

The Designated Goals proposal #

Cross-reference to @cite{chung-mascarenhas-2024} #