Connectives without truth tables
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
There are certain uses of and and or that cannot be explained by their normal meanings as truth-functional connectives, even with sophisticated pragmatic resources. These include examples such as The cops show up, and a fight will break out (‘If the cops show up, a fight will break out’), and I have no friends, or I would throw a party (‘I have no friends. If I did have friends, I would throw a party.’). We argue that these uses are indeed distinct from the more ordinary uses of and and or, but that they are nonetheless related in a principled way. To explain them we give an analysis of what we call the dynamic effects of connectives, which arise in all their uses. The special uses at issue are then argued to be instances where the connectives exhibit their dynamic effects without their truth-conditional meaning.
- Beaver David (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CSLI Publications, Stanford
- Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. The imperative in English. In To honor Roman Jakobson, 335–362. The Hague: Mouton.
- Chemla, Emmanuel. 2008. Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Unpublished manuscript, ENS.
- Clark Billy (1993) Relevance and “pseudo-imperatives”. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 79–121 CrossRef
- Culicover P.W. (1972) Om-sentences: On the derivation of sentences with systematically unspecifiable interpretations. Foundations of Language 8: 199–236
- Culicover Peter, Ray Jackendoff (1997) Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28(2): 195–217
- Davies Anna Morpurgo (1975) Negation and disjunction in Anatolian—and elsewhere. Anatolian Studies 25: 157–168 CrossRef
- Dever, Josh. 2010. Must or might. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at Austin.
- Fox Danny (2006) Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. Unpublished manuscript, MIT
- Fox Danny (2008) Two short notes on Schlenker’s theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34: 237–252 CrossRef
- George, Benjamin. 2007. Predicting presupposition projection: Some alternatives in the strong Kleene tradition. Unpublished manuscript, UCLA.
- Geurts Bart (1996) Local satisfaction guaranteed: A presupposition theory and its problems. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 259–294 CrossRef
- Geurts Bart (2005) Entertaining alternatives: Disjunctions as modals. Natural Language Semantics 13: 383–410 CrossRef
- Gillies Anthony (2004) Epistemic conditionals and conditional epstemics. Nous 38(4): 585–616 CrossRef
- Gillies Anthony (2007) Counterfactual scorekeeping. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 329–360 CrossRef
- Gillies Anthony (2010) Iffiness. Semantics and Pragmatics 3(4): 1–42
- Han Chung-hye (2000) The structure and interpretation of imperatives: Mood and force in universal grammar. Routledge, London
- Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Coordinating constructions: An overview. In Coordinating constructions, ed. Martin Haspelmath 3–39. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
- Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
- Heim, Irene. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In WCCFL 2: Second annual west coast conference on formal linguistics, ed. D. Flickinger and M. Wescoat 114–125. Malden: Blackwell.
- Heim, Irene. 1990. Presupposition projection. In Reader for the Nijmegen workshop on presupposition, lexical meaning, and discourse processes, ed. R. van der Sandt. University of Nijmegen.
- Khoo Justin (2011) Operators or restrictors? A reply to Gillies. Semantics and Pragmatics 4(4): 1–43
- Klinedinst, Nathan. 2007. Plurality and possibility. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA.
- Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Words, worlds, and contexts, ed. H.-J Eikmeyer and H. Reiser, 38–74. Berlin: de Gruyter.
- Kratzer Angelika (1986) Conditionals. Chicago Linguistics Society 22(2): 1–15
- Lewis, David. 1973. Counterfactuals. Harvard.
- Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. In Formal semantics of natural language. ed. Edward L. Keenan. 3–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Lewis David (1979) Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philosophical Review 88: 513–543 CrossRef
- MacFarlane, John. 2011. Epistemic modals are assessment-sensitive. In Epistemic modals. ed. B. Weatherson and A. Egan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Moss, Sarah. forthcoming. On the pragmatics of counterfactuals. Noûs.
- Oxford English Dictionary. 2010. and, conj.1, adv., and n. In OED Online, September 2010. Oxford University Press. http://dictionary.oed.com/. Accessed May 2011.
- Roberts Craige (1989) Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(6): 683–721 CrossRef
- Rothschild Daniel (2008) Presupposition projection and logical equivalence. Philosophical Perspectives 22: 473–497 CrossRef
- Rothschild Daniel (2011) Explaining presupposition projection with dynamic semantics. Semantics and Pragmatics 4(3): 1–43
- Rothschild, Daniel. forthcoming. Do indicative conditionals express propositions? Noûs.
- Russell Ben (2007) Imperatives in conditional conjunction. Natural Language Semantics 15(2): 131–166 CrossRef
- Schlenker Philippe (2006) Anti-dynamics: Presupposition projection without dynamic semantics. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 16: 325–356 CrossRef
- Schlenker Philippe (2008) Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34: 157–212 CrossRef
- Schlenker Philippe (2009) Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics 2: 1–78 CrossRef
- Schwager, Magda. 2006. Interpreting imperatives. Ph.D. thesis, University of Frankfurt.
- Soames, Scott. 1989. Presuppositions. In Handbook of philosophical logic, ed. D. Gabbay and F. Guenther. vol. IV, 553–616. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- Stalnaker, Robert. 1968. A theory of conditionals. In Studies in logical theory, ed. N. Rescher. 98–112. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics and Philosophy, ed. M.K. Munitz and D.K. Unger. 197–213. New York: NYU Press.
- Stalnaker Robert (1975) Indicative conditionals. Philosophia 5: 269–286 CrossRef
- Stalnaker Robert (1981) Indexical belief. Synthese 49: 129–151
- Stump, Gregory T. 1981. The formal semantics and pragmatics of free adjuncts and absolutes in english. Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University.
- Stump Gregory T (1985) Semantic variabitily of absolute constructions. Reidel, Dordrecht
- von Fintel, Kai. 2001. Counterfactuals in a dynamic context. In Ken Hale: A life in language. ed. Michael Kentstowicz, 123–152. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- von Fintel, Kai., and Anthony Gillies. 2011. Might made right. In Epistemic modality. ed. Andy Egan and Brian Weatherson, 100–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- von Fintel Kai, Sabine Iatridou (2007) Anatomy of a modal construction. Linguistic Inquiry 38(3): 445–483 CrossRef
- von Fintel, Kai and Sabine Iatridou. 2009. LSA 2009 class notes: Covert modals. http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/iatridou/lsa_modals.pdf. Accessed May 2011
- van Benthem, Johan. 1989. Semantic parellels in natural language and computation. In Logic colloquium ‘87, ed. H. O. Ebinghaus et al., 331–375. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
- Veltman, Frank 1996. Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25: 221–61.
- Yalcin Seth (2007) Epistemic modals. Mind 116: 983–1026 CrossRef
- Zimmerman Thomas Ede (2000) Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8: 255–290 CrossRef
- Connectives without truth tables
Natural Language Semantics
Volume 20, Issue 2 , pp 137-175
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links