Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 245–260 | Cite as

On the interpretation of disjunction: asymmetric, incremental, and eager for inconsistency

  • Raj SinghEmail author
Research Article


Hurford’s Constraint (Hurford, Foundations of Language, 11, 409–411, 1974) states that a disjunction is infelicitous if its disjuncts stand in an entailment relation: #John was born in Paris or in France. Gazdar (Pragmatics, Academic Press, NY, 1979) observed that scalar implicatures can obviate the constraint. For instance, sentences of the form (A or B) or (Both Aand B) are felicitous due to the exclusivity implicature of the first disjunct: A or B implicates ‘not (A and B)’. Chierchia, Fox, and Spector (Handbook of semantics, 2008) use the obviation of Hurford’s Constraint in these cases to argue for a theory of local implicature. I present evidence indicating that the constraint needs to be modified in two ways. First, implicatures can obviate Hurford’s Constraint only in earlier disjuncts, not later ones: #(Both A and B) or (A or B). Second, the constraint rules out not only disjuncts that stand in an entailment relation, but also disjuncts that are even mutually consistent: #John is from Russia or Asia. I propose to make sense of these facts by providing an incremental evaluation procedure which checks that each new disjunct to the right is inconsistent with the information to its left, before the disjunct can be strengthened by local implicature.


Local implicatures Hurford’s Constraint Disjunction Incremental interpretation Alternatives Exhaustivity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beaver D. (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CA: Stanford, CSLI PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  2. Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax-pragmatics interface. In A. Belleti (Ed.), Structures and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2007). Hurford’s constraint and the theory of scalar implicatures. Handout of talk presented at the ENS in Paris, France, at the MIT-Paris Workshop on Presupposition and Implicature. MIT and Harvard University.Google Scholar
  4. Chierchia, G., Fox, D., Spector, B. (2008). The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Portner P., Maienborn C., & von Heusinger K. (Eds.), Handbook of semantics. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  5. Dalrymple M., Kanazawa M., Kim Y., Mchombo S., Peters S. (1998) Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 159–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fox, D. (2006). Too many alternatives: Density, symmetry, and other predicaments. In Proceedings of SALT 17 (to appear).Google Scholar
  7. Fox, D. (2007a). Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicature. In U. Sauerland P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics (pp. 71–120). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Fox, D. (2007b). Implicatures. Lecture Notes, 24.954: Pragmatics in Linguistic Theory. MIT, Fall, 2007.Google Scholar
  9. Fox D., Hackl M. (2006) The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 537–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gazdar G. (1979) Pragmatics. NY: Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Geurts B. (2005) Entertaining alternatives: Disjunctions asmodals. Natural Language Semantics 13: 383–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  13. Hirschberg, J. (1985). A theory of scalar implicature. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  14. Horn L. (1989) A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. Hurford J. (1974) Exclusive or inclusive disjunction. Foundations of Language 11: 409–411Google Scholar
  16. Jackson F. (1979) On assertion and indicative conditionals. Philosophical Review 88: 565–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karttunen L. (1974) Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Katzir, R. (2007). Structural complexity and the computation of scalar implicature. Handout of Talk Presented at the ENS in Paris, France, at the MIT-Paris Workshop on Presupposition and Implicature, MIT and Harvard University.Google Scholar
  19. Katzir, R. (to appear). Structurally defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
  20. Kratzer A. (1989) An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 607–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krifka, M. (1999). At least some determiners aren’t determiners. In K. Turner (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view (pp. 257–291).Google Scholar
  22. Kroch, A. (1972). Lexical and inferred meanings for some time adverbs. Quarterly Progress Reports of the Research Laboratory of Electronics, 104 (pp. 260–267). Cambridge, Mass: MIT.Google Scholar
  23. Levinson S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Magri, G. (2007). A theory of individual level predicates based onblind scalar implicatures. Manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
  25. Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Russell B. (2006) Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 23: 361–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sauerland U. (2004) Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schlenker, P. (2008). Local contexts. Manuscript, ENS, Paris, and NYU, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  29. Schulz K, van Rooij R. (2006) Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 205–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simons M. (2000) Issues in the semantics and pragmatics of disjunction. NY: New York, GarlandGoogle Scholar
  31. Singh, R. (2006). Eager for distinctness. In J. Huitink & S. Katrenko (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh ESSLLI Student Session (pp. 76–89).Google Scholar
  32. Spector, B. (2005). Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and gricean reasoning. In M. Aloni, A. Butler, P. Dekker (Eds.), Questions in dynamic semantics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  33. Spector, B. (2006). Aspects de la pragmatique des ope´rateurs logiques. Doctoral Dissertation, Universite of Paris 7.Google Scholar
  34. van Rooij R., Schulz K. (2004) Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 13: 491–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Rooij, R., & Schulz, K. (2007). Only: Meaning and implicature. In P. Dekker et al. (Eds.), Questions and answers (pp. 199–224).Google Scholar
  36. von Fintel K. (1997) Bare plurals, bare conditionals, and only. Journal of Semantics 14: 1–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zimmerman T.E. (2000) Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8: 255–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations