The paper "Two switches in the theory of counterfactuals: A study of truth conditionality and minimal change", by Ivano Ciardelli (UvA/MCMP), Linmin Zhang (NYU Shanghai) and Lucas Champollion (NYU), has appeared in Linguistics and Philosophy, Volume 41, Issue 6. The full text and dataset are available open access at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10988-018-9232-4.
Based on a crowdsourced truth value judgment experiment, we provide empirical evidence challenging two classical views in semantics, and we develop a novel account of counterfactuals that combines ideas from inquisitive semantics and causal reasoning. First, we show that two truth-conditionally equivalent clauses can make different semantic contributions when embedded in a counterfactual antecedent. Assuming compositionality, this means that the meaning of these clauses is not fully determined by their truth conditions. This finding has a clear explanation in inquisitive semantics: truth-conditionally equivalent clauses may be associated with different propositional alternatives, each of which counts as a separate counterfactual assumption. Second, we show that our results contradict the common idea that the interpretation of a counterfactual involves minimizing change with respect to the actual state of affairs. We propose to replace the idea of minimal change by a distinction between foreground and background for a given counterfactual assumption: the background is held fixed in the counterfactual situation, while the foreground can be varied without any minimality constraint.