Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 383–410 | Cite as

Entertaining Alternatives: Disjunctions as Modals

  • Bart Geurts
Article

Abstract

Following Zimmermann (2000), I propose that disjunctions are to be treated as conjunctions of modal propositions, and that the essential contribution of ‘or’ is merely to present a list of alternatives. Any further ingredients in the interpretation of a disjunctive sentence (such as exhaustivity) are due to extraneous factors; they are not part of the meaning of ‘or’. My analysis differs from Zimmermann’s in that it is more general and renders the logical form of disjunctive sentences less complex, but the main innovation is that the context dependence of modality is called upon to play a leading role. The theory applies not only to disjunctions of ‘may’-sentences but also covers universal modalities and conditional disjuncts. The paper concludes with a discussion of narrow-scope ‘or’.

Keywords

Logical Form Context Dependence Extraneous Factor Essential Contribution Main Innovation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barrouillet, P., Lecas, J.-F. 2000‘Illusory Inferences from a Disjunction of Conditionals: A New Mental Models Account’Cognition76167173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Edgington, D. 1995‘On Conditionals’Mind104235329Google Scholar
  3. Frank, A.: 1997, Context Dependence in Modal Constructions, Doctoral dissertation, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  4. Gazdar, G. 1979Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical FormAcademic PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Geurts, B. 1999Presuppositions and PronounsElsevierOxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Geurts, B.: 2004, ‘On an Ambiguity in Quantified Conditionals’, ms, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  7. Geurts, B.: (to appear), ‘Existential Import’, in I. Comorovski and K. von Heusinger (eds.), Existence: Syntax and Semantics. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  8. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1984, Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics to Answers, Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  9. Johnson-Laird, P., Savary, F. 1996‘Illusory Inferences about Probabilities’Acta Psychologica936990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson-Laird, P., Savary, F. 1999‘Illusory Inferences: A Novel Class of Erroneous Deductions’Cognition71191229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kamp, H. 1979‘Semantics versus Pragmatics’Guenthner, F.Schmidt, S. eds. Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Natural LanguageReidelDordrecht255287Google Scholar
  12. Kratzer, A. 1979‘Conditional Necessity and Possibility’Bäuerle, R.Egli, U.Stechow, A. eds. Semantics from Different Points of ViewSpringer-VerlagBerlin117147Google Scholar
  13. Kratzer, A. 1999a‘Conditionals’Stechow, A.Wunderlich, D. eds. Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary ResearchDe GruyterBerlin651656Google Scholar
  14. Kratzer, A. 1999‘Modality’Stechow, A.Wunderlich, D. eds. Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary ResearchDe GruyterBerlin639650Google Scholar
  15. Lewis, D. K. 1975‘Adverbs of Quantification’Keenan, E.L. eds. Formal Semantics of Natural LanguageCambridge University PressCambridge315Google Scholar
  16. Paris, S. 1973‘Comprehension of Language Connectives and Propositional Logical Relationships’Journal of Experimental Child Psychology16278291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schulz, K.: 2003, You May Read It Now or Later: A Case Study on the Paradox of Free Choice Permission, Master thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  18. Simons, M.: 1998, Issues in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Disjunction, PhD thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  19. Simons, M. (to appear), ‘Dividing Things Up: The Semantics of Or and Model/Or Interaction’, Natural Language Semantics.Google Scholar
  20. Szabolcsi, A., Haddican, B. 2004‘Conjunction Meets Negation: A Study in Crosslinguistic Variation’Journal of Semantics21219249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rooy, R., Schulz, K. 2004‘Exhaustive Interpretation of Complex Sentences’Journal of Logic, Language and Information13491519Google Scholar
  22. Woods, M. 1997ConditionalsClarendon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Zimmermann, T. E. 2000‘Free Choice Disjunction and Epistemic Possibility’Natural Language Semantics8255290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zvolenszky, Z. 2002‘Is a Possible Worlds Semantics of Modality Possible? A Problem for Kratzer’s Semantics’Jackson, B. eds. Proceedings of SALT 12CLC PublicationsIthaca N.Y.339358Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations