Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 271–316 | Cite as

Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction

  • Mandy Simons

In this paper, the meanings of sentences containing the word or and a modal verb are used to arrive at a novel account of the meaning of or coordinations. It is proposed that or coordinations denote sets whose members are the denotations of the disjuncts; and that the truth conditions of sentences containing or coordinations require the existence of some set made available by the semantic environment which can be ‘divided up’ in accordance with the disjuncts. The relevant notion of ‘dividing things up’ is made explicit in the paper. Detailed attention is given to the question of how the proposed truth conditions are derived from the syntactic input. The account offered allows for the derivation of both the disjunctive and the non-disjunctive readings of modal/or sentences, including the much-discussed ‘free choice’ readings of may/or sentences.


Truth Condition Free Choice Relevant Notion Detailed Attention Semantic Environment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aloni, M.: (2002), ‘Free Choice in Modal Contexts’, in M. Weisgerber (ed.), Arbeitspapier Nr. 114 des Fachbereichs Sprachwissenschaft, University of Konstanz. [Available at]Google Scholar
  2. Condoravdi, C.: (2001), ‘Temporal Interpretation of Modals’, in Stanford Papers on Semantics, CSLI Publications, Stanford. [Available at]Google Scholar
  3. Geach, P. 1973‘A Program for Syntax’Synthese22483497Google Scholar
  4. Geurts, B.: 2004, ‘Entertaining Alternatives: Disjunctions as Modals’, unpublished ms., University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  5. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1984, Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  6. Hamblin, C. L. 1973‘Questions in Montague English’Foundations of Language104153Google Scholar
  7. Johnson, K.: 1996 ‘Bridging the Gap’, chapter in In Search of the English Middle Field, unpublished ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  8. Kamp, H. 1973‘Free Choice Permission’Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society745774Google Scholar
  9. Kratzer, A. 1977What Must and Can Must and Can Mean’Linguistics and Philosophy1337355Google Scholar
  10. Kratzer, A.: 1981 ‘The Notional Category of Modality’, in H. Eikmeyer and H. Rieser (eds.), Words, Worlds and Contexts, pp. 38–74. De Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  11. Kratzer, A. 1991‘Modality’Stechow, A. vonWunderlich, D. eds. Semantik/Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary ResearchDe GruyterBerlin639650Google Scholar
  12. Kratzer, A. and J. Shimoyama: 2002, ‘Indeterminate Pronouns: The View from Japanese’, Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, pp.1--25. [Longer version available at]Google Scholar
  13. Larson, R. 1985‘On the Syntax of Disjunction Scope’Natural Language and Linguistic Theory3217264Google Scholar
  14. Lewis, D. 1973CounterfactualsBlackwellOxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewis, D. 1981‘Ordering Semantics and Premise Semantics for Counterfactuals’Jounal of Philosophical Logic10217234Google Scholar
  16. Munn, A.: 1993, Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures, PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  17. Rooth, M., Partee, B. H. 1982‘Conjunction, Type Ambiguity and Wide Scope Or’Flickinger, D.Macken, M.Wiegand, N. eds. Proceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal LinguisticsStanford Linguistics AssociationStanford110Google Scholar
  18. Partee, B., Rooth, M. 1983‘Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity’Bäuerle, R.Schwarze, C.Stechow, A. eds. Meaning, Use and Interpretation of LanguageDe GruyterBerlin361383Google Scholar
  19. Quine, W.Orman 1967The Ways of Paradox. Harvard University PressCambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  20. Rooth, M. 1985Association with Focus, PhD dissertationGLSA, University of MassachusettsAmherstGoogle Scholar
  21. Schwarz, B. 1999‘On the Syntax of Either⋖Or’Natural Language and Linguistic Theory17339370Google Scholar
  22. Siegel, M. 1984‘Gapping and Interpretation’Linguistic Inquiry15523530Google Scholar
  23. Simons, M.: 1998, Issues in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Disjunction, PhD dissertation, Cornell University. [Published by Garland, NewYork, 2000.]Google Scholar
  24. Stalnaker, R. 1975‘Indicative Conditionals’Philosophia5269286Google Scholar
  25. Stockwell, R., Schachter, P., Partee, B. H. 1973The Major Syntactic Structures of English. HoltRinehart and WinstonNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Werner, T. 2003Deducing the Future and Distinguishing the Past: Temporal Interpretation in Modal Sentences in EnglishPhD dissertationRutgers UniversityGoogle Scholar
  27. Winter, Y. 1995‘Syncategorematic Conjunction and Structured Meanings’ Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 5. CLC PublicationsCornell University, Ithaca, N.YGoogle Scholar
  28. Winter, Y.,  et al. 2000On Some Scopal Assymetries of CoordinationBennis, H. eds. Interface StrategiesKNAWAmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  29. Zimmermann, T. E. 2000‘Free Choice Disjunction and Epistemic Possibility’Natural Language Semantics8255290Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations