Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Innocent exclusion in an Alternative Semantics

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The exclusive component of unembedded disjunctions is standardly derived as a conversational implicature by assuming that or forms a lexical scale with and. It is well known, however, that this assumption does not suffice to determine the required scalar competitors of disjunctions with more than two atomic disjuncts (McCawley, Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic* (But were ashamed to ask). Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1993, p. 324; Simons, “Or”: Issues in the semantics and pragmatics of disjunction. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1998). To solve this, Sauerland (Linguist Philos 27(3): 367–391, 2004) assumes that or forms a lexical scale with two otherwise unattested silent connectives (\({\mathbb{L}}\) and \({\mathbb{R}}\)) that retrieve the left and right terms of a disjunction. A number of recent works have proposed an Alternative Semantics for indefinites and disjunction to account for their interaction with modals and other propositional operators (Kratzer and Shimoyama, In: Otsu Y (ed) The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo, pp. 1–25, 2002; Aloni, In: Weisgerber M (ed) Proceedings of the Conference “SuB7—Sinn und Bedeutung”. Arbeitspapier Nr. 114. Konstanz, pp. 28–37, 2003; Simons, Nat Lang Semantics 13: 271–316, 2005; Alonso-Ovalle, Disjunction in alternative semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 2006). We note that the McCawley–Simons problem does not arise in an Alternative Semantics, if we assume that the set of pragmatic competitors to a disjunction is the closure under intersection of the set of propositions that it denotes. An adaptation of the strengthening mechanism presented in Fox (In: Sauerland U, Stateva P (eds) Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics. MacMillan, Palgrave, pp. 71–120, 2007) allows for the derivation of the exclusive component of disjunctions with more than two atomic disjuncts without having to rely on the \({\mathbb{L}}\) and \({\mathbb{R}}\) operators. The proposal extends to the case of disjunctions with logically dependent disjuncts.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aloni, M. 2003. Free choice in modal contexts. In Proceedings of the Conference Sinn und Bedeutung 7, ed. M. Weisgerber, 28–37. Arbeitspapier Nr. 114. Konstanz.

  • Alonso-Ovalle, L. 2004. Simplification of disjunctive antecedents. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, eds. K. Moulton and M. Wolf, 1–15. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

  • Alonso-Ovalle, L. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

  • Alonso-Ovalle, L., and P. Menéndez-Benito. 2003. Some epistemic indefinites. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 33, eds. M. Kadowaki and S. Kawahara, Vol. 33, 1–12. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

  • Breheny, R. 2005. Some scalar implicatures really aren’t quantity implicatures—but some are. In Proceedings of the Conference Sinn und Bedeutung 9, eds. C.B. Ema Maier and J. Huintik, 57–71.

  • Chierchia, G. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax-semantics interface. In Structures and beyond, Vol. 3 of Oxford studies in comparative syntax, ed. A. Belletti, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Chierchia G., McConnell-Ginet S. (2000). Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics, 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • David Dowty, R.E.W., and S. Peters. 1981. Introduction to Montague semantics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

  • de Swart, H. 1998. Introduction to natural language semantics. Stanford, CA: CSLI.

  • den Dikken M. (2006). Either-floar and the syntax of co-or-dination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3 (24): 689–749

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D. 2003. Implicature calculation, only, and lumping: Another look at the puzzle of disjunction. Ms.: MIT.

  • Fox, D. 2004. Implicature calculation, pragmatics or syntax, or both? Ms.: MIT.

  • Fox, D. 2007. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, eds. U. Sauerland and P. Stateva, 71–120. Palgrave MacMillan.

  • van Fraassen R. (1973). Values at hearts command. Journal of Philosophy 70: 5–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallin, D. 1975. Intensional and higher-order modal logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

  • Gazdar, G. 1977. Univocal or. In The CLS book of squibs, eds. S.E. Fox, W.A. Beach, and S. Philosoph, 44–45. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.

  • Gazdar G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York, Academic Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts B. (2005). Entertaining alternatives: Disjunctions as modals. Natural Language Semantics 13: 383–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagstrom, P. 1998. Decomposing questions. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

  • Hamblin C.L. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. 2005. Class notes for course #24.954 “Pragmatics in Linguistic Theory”. MIT manuscript.

  • Horn, L. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.

  • Horn L. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago, IL, Chicago University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H. 1978. Semantics vs. pragmatics. In Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural language, eds. F. Guenthner and S.J. Schmidt, 255–287. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht, Kluwer

    Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, E.L., and L.M. Faltz. 1978. Logical types for natural language. Technical Report 3, UCLA, Los Angeles.

  • Keenan E.L., Faltz L.M. (1985). Boolean semantics for natural language. Dordrecht, Reidel

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer A. (1977). What “must” and “can” must and can mean’. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 337–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. 1979. Conditional necessity and possibility. In Semantics from different points of view, eds. R. Bäuerle, U. Egli, and A. von Stechow, 117–147. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

  • Kratzer, A. 2005a. LSA summer institute course on alternative semantics. Class notes, Summer 2005, Harvard/MIT.

  • Kratzer, A. 2005b. Indefinites and the operators they depend on: From Japanese to Salish. In Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect, eds. G.N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier, 113–142. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

  • Kratzer, A., and J. Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate phrases: The view from Japanese. In The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. Y. Otsu, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.

  • Lee, Y.-S. 1995. Scales and alternatives: Disjunction, exhaustivity and emphatic particles. Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin.

  • Lee Y.-S. (1996). Scalar implicature on multiple disjunction: Generalization of Horn’s scale 〈and, or〉. Journal of Korean Linguistics 4(21): 1159–1178

    Google Scholar 

  • McCawley, J.D. 1993, Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic* (But were ashamed to ask), 2nd edition. Chicago University Press.

  • Menéndez-Benito, P. 2005. The grammar of choice. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA.

  • Merin, A. 2003. Exclusiveness of n-fold disjunction (n ≥ 2): An investigation in pragmatics and modal logic. Forschungsberichte derDFG-Forschergruppe Logik in der Philosophie 99, Universität Konstanz.

  • Munn, A. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Maryland, College Park.

  • Partee, B.H., and M. Rooth. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, eds. R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, 361–383. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Pelletier F.J. (1977). Or. Theoretical Linguistics 4: 61–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramchand, G.C. 1997. Questions, polarity, and alternative semantics. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 27, ed. K. Kusumoto, 383–396. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

  • Reichenbach H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York, The Free Press

    Google Scholar 

  • van Rooij R. (2000). Permission to change. Journal of Semantics 17: 119–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M. 1985. Association with focus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA.

  • Rooth M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M., and B. Partee. 1982. Conjunction, type ambiguity, and wide scope “or”. In Proceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, eds. D. Flickinger, M. Macken, and N. Wiegand, 353–362. Stanford Linguistics Association.

  • Sauerland U. (2004). Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(3): 367–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, K. 2004. You may read it now or later: A case study on the paradox of free choice permission. M.A. thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam.

  • Schulz K., van Rooy R. (2006). Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 205–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. 2000. A note on exclusive disjunction. Ms.: MIT.

  • Simons, M. 1998. “Or”: Issues in the semantics and pragmatics of disjunction. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

  • Simons M. (2005). Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal or interaction. Natural Language Semantics 13: 271–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, B. 2007. Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning? In Questions in dynamic semantics, eds. M. Aloni, P. Dekker, and A. Butler, 225–253. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • von Stechow A. (1974). ε – λ kontextfreie Sprachen: Ein Beitrag zu einer natürlichen formalen Semantik’. Linguistische Berichte 34 (1): 1–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Veltman, F. 1976. Prejudices, presuppositions and the theory of counterfactuals. In Amsterdam papers in formal grammar, eds. J. Groenendijk and M. Stokhof, Vol. 1, 248–281. Centrale Interfaculteit, Universiteit van Amsterdam.

  • Zimmermann T.E. (2001). Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8: 255–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Hispanic Studies, McCormack 4-609, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA, 02125-3393, USA

    Luis Alonso-Ovalle

Authors
  1. Luis Alonso-Ovalle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luis Alonso-Ovalle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alonso-Ovalle, L. Innocent exclusion in an Alternative Semantics. Nat Lang Semantics 16, 115–128 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-008-9027-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-008-9027-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation