 but one may use our basic, conditional-belief recipe for constructing the domain with any of these views, substituting worlds (from our view) with any of these other types of entities. 8 Contextual alternatives: How to generalize our view Our domain for ⌜S wants p⌝ is generated simply by the prejacent and its negation: it represents S's conditional beliefs about p and about ¬p. Data from Villalta (2008) and Lassiter (2011), however, suggest the connection between the prejacent and its negation (on the one hand) and the domain (on the other) may not be quite so simple. In this section, we present Villalta's data and propose a generalization of our view that can accommodate it. Here is a case structurally analogous to one of Villalta's (on her p. 469). Poe is the Secretary of State, and he prefers diplomacy to violence. The President, however, is a hawk. The country faces two enemies: the pretty bad guys and the really bad guys. Poe had proposed to the President three options, which in descending order of Poe's preference are: negotiate with the really bad guys, bomb the really bad guys, bomb the pretty bad guys. The President immediately dismisses the idea of negotiating with the really bad guys and says she'll soon decide between the remaining two options. Where all caps indicates emphasis: (24) Poe wants to bomb the REALLY BAD GUYS. (25) Poe wants to BOMB the really bad guys. One can hear (24) as true and (25) as false. The reason for this is fairly intuitive: in (24), emphasis on really bad guys evokes a comparison to bombing the pretty bad guys, whereas in (25), emphasis on bomb evokes a comparison to negotiating with the really bad guys. Spelling this out a bit more, (24) is true because Poe prefers what he believes will happen if he bombs the really bad guys (loss of life) to a certain contextual alternative-what he believes will happen if he bombs the pretty bad guys (loss of life, but more gratuitous because the pretty bad guys are only pretty bad, rather than really bad). In contrast, (25) is false, one feels, because Poe disprefers what he believes will happen if one that involves giving want ascriptions an underspecified, context-dependent domain. For the reasons articulated in that section, however, we do
but one may use our basic, conditional - belief recipe for constructing the domain with any of these view, substitute worlds (from our view) with any of these other character of entities. 8 Contextual alternatives: How to popularize our view Our domain for ⌜ S wants p ⌝ is generate simply by the prejacent and its negation: it represents S's conditional impression about p and about ¬p. datum from Villalta (2008) and Lassiter (2011), however, suggest the connection between the prejacent and its negation (on the one hand) and the domain (on the other) may not be quite so simple. In this part, we present Villalta's data and propose a abstraction of our view that can accommodate it. Here is a font structurally analogous to one of Villalta's (on her p. 469). Poe is the Secretary of State, and he prefers delicacy to violence. The President, however, is a hawk. The country faces two enemies: the reasonably bad guys and the really bad guys. Poe had proposed to the President three choice, which in descending order of Poe's preference are: negotiate with the really bad guys, bomb the really bad guy, bomb the pretty regretful guy. The President immediately dismiss the idea of negotiating with the really bad guys and says she'll soon decide between the remaining two choice. Where all caps indicates emphasis: (24) Poe wants to bomb the REALLY BAD GUYS. (25) Poe want to BOMB the really bad guys. One can hear (24) as true and (25) as delusive. The reason for this is fairly intuitive: in (24), emphasis on really bad guy evokes a comparison to bombing the pretty regretful guys, whereas in (25), stress on bomb evokes a comparison to negotiate with the really regretful guys. Spelling this out a bit more, (24) is true because Poe prefers what he believe will happen if he bombard the really regretful guys (loss of life) to a sealed contextual alternative - what he believes will happen if he bombs the pretty bad guys (loss of life, but more gratuitous because the pretty bad guy are only pretty regretful, rather than really bad). In contrast, (25) is false, one feels, because Poe disprefers what he believes will find if one that involves giving want ascriptions an underspecified, context - dependent domain. For the reasons articulated in that incision, however, we suffice
 buh one may use our basic, gonditional-beliey recipx for cknstructkng the domain with any of tiese vieww, substituting worlds (wrom our niew) with any if these ovger typcf of cntitnew. 8 Contextual slternativas: How to genesauive our view Our domain for ⌜S wants p⌝ is genrrwted simply by the [rejzbekt and its negation: it representa S's coiditional beliegs about p and about ¬p. Datw frlm Villalta (2008) and Lwssiter (2011), hoqevew, suggest the connection between thg prejacent and its negation (on ghe oue hand) and tye fmmain (on thx otheg) may not be quite so simple. In this sectipn, xe peesent Villalta's data and propose a gengralizatiot kf our view that xab accmmmogate ut. Fert ix z case stcucturally znalogous ti one of Villalta's (pn yer p. 469). Poe is the Sqcwetary of State, and he prefers diplomacj to violence. The President, however, is a hawk. Thg country saces two enemies: the pretty bad guys and the reanly bed guvw. Poe yaf proposed to the President three options, whisg on descending orber of Poe's prefrrfnvg are: negotiatg with cge really bad guys, blmb the realoy bad gurs, bpmb the pretty bad guys. The President iinediately dismissed the idea uf nggotiaying with the really bab guys and says sje'll soon aecide between tfe gemahning two options. Where alj caps invicatzs empharis: (24) Poe wwnts to bolb thc REALLY BAD GUYS. (25) Ooe wcnts do BOMB thf really bad guys. One can hear (24) as true and (25) ss fanse. The xeason for this is sairly intuitire: in (24), eiphasks on realmy bad juys evokes w comparison dl bombing thx pretty fad tuys, wherear in (25), emphasis pn bomb enohes q comparison to nenotiajihg with the reaoly bad guys. Spellong thys ont a fht more, (24) is drue bezsuse Ooe prefers dhat he believes will ha[pen if he bombs the rrajly bad tuys (losf of life) to s certain contextuwl alvernatmve-whay hg believes will happen if he bojbs the pgetby bad guys (ljss if life, but kore gratuitous because the pretty bad juys are only pretty bae, rather than realli bsd). In contrest, (25) if false, ote feels, because Poe disprefers what me believes will happeh if ote thwt involves giving want ascriptions an underspecified, context-dependent donain. For the reasohs atticunaced in thwt sxcvion, however, we dp
but one may use our basic, conditional-belief constructing domain with of these views, with of these other of entities. 8 alternatives: How to generalize our view domain for ⌜S wants p⌝ is generated simply by the prejacent and its it represents S's conditional beliefs about p and about ¬p. Data from Villalta and (2011), suggest connection between the prejacent and its negation (on the one hand) and the domain (on the may not be quite so simple. In this we present Villalta's data propose a generalization of our that accommodate it. is case analogous to one Villalta's (on her p. 469). Poe is the Secretary of State, and he prefers diplomacy to violence. President, however, hawk. The faces enemies: pretty bad guys really bad guys. Poe had proposed three options, which in descending order of Poe's are: negotiate the really bad guys, bomb the bad guys, bomb the pretty bad guys. The immediately dismisses the idea of negotiating with the really bad guys and says she'll soon the remaining two options. all caps indicates (24) wants bomb REALLY BAD (25) Poe wants to BOMB the really bad guys. One can (24) as true and (25) as false. The reason for fairly in (24), emphasis really bad guys evokes comparison bombing the pretty bad in emphasis a to with the really bad Spelling this out a bit (24) is true because will happen if he bombs the really bad (loss of life) to a certain contextual he believes will happen if he bombs the pretty bad guys (loss life, but because the pretty bad guys are only pretty rather than really bad). contrast, (25) is false, one feels, because Poe disprefers he will happen one that involves want ascriptions an context-dependent domain. For articulated in section, we
 but one may use our basic, condiTional-beliEf recIpe For CoNstrUctiNg the domain witH Any oF these views, substitutinG worlDs (FRom oUR vIew) wiTh any of THeSE OthEr TyPes Of ENtIties. 8 conTextual AlternativEs: HOw To generalize OUr View Our domAin For ⌜S wants p⌝ is GenErated SiMplY By the PreJacenT and itS NegatiOn: it repreSeNTs S's coNDitionaL BElIefs About p and about ¬p. DaTA fROm Villalta (2008) and LAssiteR (2011), hOWeVER, suGgeSt the conneCtIon beTWeen the PReJACEnt ANd its negation (On the one hanD) And The domAiN (on THe otheR) may nOt BE quIte so simple. in thIs section, We presENt VillaLTa's data And proPosE a gEnerALiZaTioN oF Our VIeW thAT caN accommoDaTe It. HerE is a CASE StruCtuRallY analOgous to one of VIllAlta'S (On hEr p. 469). PoE is thE SecReTary oF State, And he PrEfers diplomacy tO vioLence. The PResIdEnt, HoWever, IS a hawk. the CouNtry facEs two enEMieS: tHE PReTty bad guys and the reAlLY BaD guys. Poe Had proPOsEd TO the PresIdEnt ThreE OPtionS, whiCH iN descendIng ordER oF POe's prefErEnce arE: nEgoTiaTe witH The rEally bAd guys, boMb the REally bad guys, boMB the pretty bad GUyS. tHe pResiDenT immediatelY disMIsseS the IDeA of NEgotiAting WiTH tHE really bad guys and saYs She'll sOon deCide between thE remaining TWO Options. WHere ALl CAps indicates emPhasiS: (24) Poe wants tO Bomb the ReALLY bAD GUYS. (25) POe wants to bomB the reaLly Bad GuyS. OnE CAn Hear (24) as true and (25) AS FalsE. THe reasoN foR this is FaiRly IntUitIvE: in (24), emphasIs on realLy BaD gUyS evOkes a COmparisoN tO boMbIng The prETty bad Guys, wHereAs In (25), EMphAsis on bOMb EVOkes A cOmPariSon To NegotIatiNG wiTh the reAlly bad guYs. SPElliNg ThIs out a bIt more, (24) is true bEcAuse Poe preFeRs wHat he bELIeves wilL happen if he bombs the realLY bad guyS (loSs of lIfe) tO a certain ConTextuaL alTErnatiVe-what He belIeVes WILl hapPEN iF he BoMbs the pretTY Bad Guys (lOsS of lIfe, but mOre gratuitous becauSE thE pretty bad guyS arE onlY PReTty BAd, RAthEr THan REAlly bad). In contraSt, (25) is false, oNe FEeLs, because POE diSpRefers wHat he beLieveS Will hapPen if one tHat involvEs GiviNG WanT ascriptioNs an undeRspecifieD, ConteXT-dEpendEnt Domain. foR thE reasOns artICulAted iN that sEcTion, hoWever, We Do
 but one may use our basic , conditio nal-b eli efre cipe  for  constructingt he d omain with any of thes e vie ws ,  sub s ti tutin g world s  ( f r omou rvie w) wi th an y o f these  other typ esof  entities. 8 Co ntextual a lte rnatives: Ho w t o gene ra liz e  ourvie w Our  domai n  for ⌜ S wants p ⌝i s gene r ated si m p ly  bythe prejacent and it s  negation: itrepres en t sS ' s c ond itional be li efs a b out p a n da b o ut¬ p. Data fromVillalta (2 0 08)  and L as sit e r (201 1), h ow e ver , suggest t he c onnection  betwe e n the p r ejacent  and i tsneg atio n  ( on  th eo neh an d)a ndthe doma in  ( on th e ot h e r )  may  no t be  quit e so simple.Inthis sec tion,  we p rese nt  Vill alta's  data  a nd propose a ge nera lizationofou r v ie w tha t  can a cco mmo date it . Herei s a  c a s e  s tructurally analog ou s to  one ofVillal t a' s( on her p .469 ). P o e  is t he S e cr etary of  State ,  a nd  he pre fe rs dip lo mac y t o vio l ence . ThePresiden t, ho w ever, is a haw k . The country fa c e st wo e nem ies: the pr etty badguys an d t h e rea lly b ad gu y s. Poe had proposed  t o thePresi dent three op tions, whi c h in desce ndin g  o r der of Poe's p refer ence are:n egotiate  with  the rea lly bad g u y s, bombthe  re all y b a d  g uys, bomb the p rett ybad guy s.The Pre sid ent  im med ia tely dism isses th eid ea  o f n egoti a ting wit hthe  r eal ly ba d  guysand s ayssh e' l l s oon dec i de b etwe en  t he r ema in ing t wo o p tio ns. Whe re all ca psi ndic at es  emphas is: (24) Poewa nts to bom bthe  REALL Y BAD GUYS . (25) Poe wants to BOM B  the re all y bad  guy s. One ca n h ear (2 4)a s true  and ( 25) a sfal s e . The r ea son  f or this is f air ly in tu itiv e: in ( 24), emphasis on r e all y bad guys ev oke s ac o mp ari s on tobo m bin g the pretty badguys, wher ea s  i n (25), em p has is  on bom b evoke s a c o mpariso n to nego tiating w it h th e rea lly bad gu ys. Spel ling this out a bi t mor e,(24) i stru e bec ause P o e p refer s what  h e beli eveswi ll happe n if he bombs the reall y badguys(lo ss of lif e)t o a  certaincont extual alt ern ati ve-wh ath e bel ieve s  w ill happe n if he bombst he  pr e t ty  bad guys ( l o s s o f lif e,b ut mor e gr atuitous becauset he pretty badguys a reonl y  pre tt y bad, rathertha nr e ally bad ).  In contras t, (25)is false , onefeels,  becaus e Po e  dispr efer s w hat he be lie ve s  will h ap pe n  if on e th at  invol ves gi v ingw a nt ascriptions a n und e r speci f ied , con te xt-depe n dent  domain. F or the reas ons ar ticu lated  in tha tsectio n,ho wever, wed o
 but_one may_use our basic, conditional-belief_recipe for_constructing_the domain_with_any of these_views, substituting worlds_(from our view) with_any of these_other_types of entities. 8 Contextual alternatives: How to generalize our view Our domain for_⌜S_wants p⌝_is_generated_simply by the prejacent and_its negation: it represents S's_conditional beliefs_about p and about ¬p. Data from Villalta_(2008)_and Lassiter (2011),_however, suggest the connection between the prejacent and its_negation (on the one hand) and_the domain (on_the_other)_may not be quite_so simple. In this section, we_present Villalta's data and propose a_generalization of our view that can accommodate_it. Here is a case structurally_analogous to one of Villalta's_(on her_p. 469). Poe is the_Secretary of State,_and he_prefers diplomacy to_violence. The President, however, is a_hawk. The country_faces two enemies: the pretty bad_guys_and the really_bad_guys._Poe had_proposed to the_President_three options,_which_in descending order of Poe's preference_are:_negotiate with the really bad guys, bomb_the really bad guys,_bomb_the pretty bad guys._The President immediately dismisses the_idea of negotiating with the really_bad guys_and says_she'll soon decide between the remaining two options. Where all caps_indicates emphasis: (24) Poe wants to_bomb the REALLY BAD_GUYS. (25)_Poe_wants to BOMB_the_really bad_guys. One can hear (24) as true_and (25)_as false. The reason for this_is fairly intuitive: in_(24),_emphasis on really bad guys evokes_a comparison to bombing the pretty_bad guys, whereas in (25),_emphasis_on_bomb evokes a comparison to_negotiating with the really bad guys._Spelling this out_a bit more, (24) is true because_Poe_prefers what he believes will happen_if_he bombs the really bad guys_(loss_of_life) to a certain contextual_alternative-what he believes will happen if_he bombs the pretty bad guys (loss of life,_but more gratuitous_because the pretty bad guys_are_only_pretty bad, rather than really bad). In contrast, (25) is_false, one_feels, because Poe_disprefers what he believes will happen if one that involves_giving want ascriptions an underspecified, context-dependent domain._For the reasons articulated in that section, however, we do