Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Pragmatic Solution for the Paradox of Free Choice Permission

  • Chapter
Uncertainty, Rationality, and Agency

Abstract

In this paper, a pragmatic approach to the phenomenon of free choice permission is proposed. Free choice permission is explained as due to taking the speaker (i) to obey certain Gricean maxims of conversation and (ii) to be competent on the deontic options, i.e. to know the valid obligations and permissions. The approach differs from other pragmatic approaches to free choice permission in giving a formally precise description of the class of inferences that can be derived based on these two assumptions. This formalization builds on work of Halpern and Moses (1984) on the concept of ‘only knowing’, generalized by Hoek et al., (1999, 2000), and Zimmermann’s (2000) approach to competence.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alonso-Ovalle, L.: 2004, Equal rights for every disjunct! Quantification over alternatives or pointwise context chance?, handout, Sinn und Bedeutung 9, Nijmegen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, P., et al.: 2001, Modal Logic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, G.: 2003, Meaning-postulates, inference, and the relation/notional ambiguity, Facta Philosophica 5, 49–74.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gazdar, G.: 1979, Pragmatics, Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, B.: (to appear), Entertaining alternatives, Natural Language Semantics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, P.: 1989, Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1984, Studies in the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, J.Y. and Y. Moses: 1984, Towards a theory of knowledge and ignorance, Proceedings 1984 Non-monotonic reasoning workshop, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, New Paltz, NY, pp. 165–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschberg, J.: 1985, A Theory of Scalar Implicature, Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoek, W. van der, et al.: 1999, Persistence and minimality in epistemic logic, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 27, 25–47.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hoek, W. van der, et al.: 2000, A General Approach to Multi-Agent Minimal Knowledge, in M. Ojeda-Aciego, I.P. Guzman, G. Brewka, and L.M. Pereira (eds.) Proceedings JELLIA 2000, LNAI 1919, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg pp. 254–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L.: 1972, The Semantics of Logical Operators in English, Ph.D. thesis, Yale University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L.: 1989, A Natural History of Negation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H.: 1973, Free choice permission, in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, N. S. 74, 57–74.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H.: 1979, Semantics versus Pragmatics, in F. Guenther and S.J. Schmidt (eds.) Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Natural Languages, Reidel, Dordrecht pp. 255–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D.: 1970, A problem about permission, in Saarinen et al. (eds.) Essays in Honor of Jaakko Hintikka, Reidel, Dordrecht pp. 163–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merin, A.: 1992, Permission Sentences stand in the Way of Boolean and other Lattice Theoretic Semantics, Journal of Semantics 9, 95–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooy, R. van: 2000, Permission to Change, Journal of Semantics 17, 119–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooy, R, van and K. Schulz: 2004, Exhaustive Interpretation of Complex Sentences, Journal of Logic, Language, and Computation 13, 491–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, K.: 2004, You May Read it Now or Later: A Case Study on the Paradox of Free Choice Permission, master thesis, University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soames, S.: 1982, How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem, Linguistic Inquiry 13, 483–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, G. H. von: 1969, An Essay on Deontic Logic and the Theory of Action, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, T.E.: 2000, Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility, Natural Language Semantics 8, 255–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of philosophy (ILLC), University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Doelenstraat 15, 1012 CP, Amsterdam

    Katrin Schulz

Authors
  1. Katrin Schulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schulz, K. (2005). A Pragmatic Solution for the Paradox of Free Choice Permission. In: Uncertainty, Rationality, and Agency. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4631-6_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4631-6_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-4630-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-4631-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation