Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 65–94 | Cite as

Free choice, modals, and imperatives

Article

Abstract

The article proposes an analysis of imperatives and possibility and necessity statements that (i) explains their differences with respect to the licensing of free choice any and (ii) accounts for the related phenomena of free choice disjunction in imperatives, permissions, and statements. Any and or are analyzed as operators introducing sets of alternative propositions. Free choice licensing operators are treated as quantifiers over these sets. In this way their interpretation can be sensitive to the alternatives any and or introduce in their scope.

Keywords

Free choice Indefinites Disjunction Alternatives Modals Imperatives 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aloni, M. (2003a). Free choice in modal contexts. In M. Weisgerber (Ed.), Proceedings of “SuB 7—Sinn und Bedeutung” (pp. 25–37). University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
  2. Aloni, M. (2003b). On choice-offering imperatives. In P. Dekker & R. van Rooy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 57–72). ILLC–University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  3. Aloni, M. (2006a). Expressing ignorance or indifference. Modal implicatures in BiOT. To appear in B. ten Cate & H. Zeevat (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international Tbilisi symposium on language, logic and computation (LNCS). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Aloni, M. (2006b). Free choice and exhaustification: An account of subtrigging effects. Talk presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 11, September 22, 2006, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  5. Aloni, M., & van Rooij, R. (2002). The dynamics of questions and focus. In B. Jackson (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT 12. Ithaca, N.Y.: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Aloni, M., & van Rooij, R. (2007). Free choice items and alternatives. In G. Bouma, I. Krämer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 5–25). Amsterdam: Edita KNAW.Google Scholar
  7. Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2005). Distributing the disjuncts over the modal space. In L. Bateman & C. Ussery (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 35. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA.Google Scholar
  8. Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2006). Disjunction in alternative semantics. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  9. Åquist L. (1965). Choice-offering and alternative-presenting disjunctive commands. Analysis 25: 182–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brennan, G. (1993). Root and epistemic modal auxiliary verbs. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  11. Butler, A. (2003). Predicate logic with barriers and its locality effects. In M. Weisgerber (Ed.), Proceedings of “SuB 7—Sinn und Bedeutung” (pp. 70–80). University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
  12. Chierchia, G. (1995). Individual-level predicates as inherent generics. In G.N. Carlson & F.J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 176–223). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatics inter- face. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dayal V. (1998). Any as inherently modal. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 433–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dekker, P. (1993). Transsentential meditations. Ups and downs in dynamic semantics. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  16. Dekker P. (2002) Meaning and use of indefinite expressions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11: 141–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farkas, D. (2002). Varieties of indefinites. In B. Jackson (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT 12. Ithaca, N.Y.: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Fine K. (1970) Propositional quantifiers in modal logic. Theoria 36: 336–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. von Fintel K., Iatridou S. (2003) Epistemic containment. Linguistic Inquiry 34(2): 173–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fox, D. (2006). Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicatures. Available at http://mit.edu/linguistics/www/fox/free_choice.pdfGoogle Scholar
  21. Gazdar G. (1979) Pragmatics. Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Geurts B. (2005) Entertaining alternatives: Disjunctions as modals. Natural Language Semantics 13(4): 383–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giannakidou A. (2001) The meaning of free choice. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 659–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grice P. (1989) Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  25. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  26. Hamblin C.L. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundation of Language 10: 41–53Google Scholar
  27. Hamblin C.L. (1987). Imperatives. Oxford, Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  28. Haspelmath M. (2000). Indefinite pronouns. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Published in 1989 by Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  31. Kadmon N., Landman F. (1993). Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 353–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kamp H. (1973). Free choice permission. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 74: 57–74Google Scholar
  33. Karttunen L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kratzer A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 337–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kratzer, A. (1995). Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In G.N. Carlson & F.J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 125–175). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kratzer, A., & Shimoyama, J. (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Y. Otsu (Ed.), The proceedings of the third Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics (pp. 1–25). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
  37. Mastop, R. (2005). What can you do? Imperative mood in semantic theory. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  38. Menéndez-Benito, P. (2005). The grammar of choice. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. To be published by GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  39. Portner, P. (2004). The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In K. Watanabe & R. B. Young (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 14. Ithaca, N.Y.: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Rescher N., Robison J. (1964). Can one infer commands from commands. Analysis 24: 176–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rooth M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ross A. (1941). Imperatives and logic. Theoria 7: 53–71Google Scholar
  43. Schulz, K. (2003). You may read it now or later. A case study on the paradox of free choice permission. Master’s thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  44. Schwager, M. (2005). Interpreting Imperatives. PhD dissertation, Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  45. Simons M. (2005). Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Natural Language Semantics 13(3): 271–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. von Stechow A. (1990) Focusing and backgrounding operators. In: Abraham W. (eds). Discourse particles 6. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 37–84Google Scholar
  47. Szabolcsi A. (2004). Positive polarity – negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(2): 409–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Westerståhl D. (1984). Determiners and context sets. In: van Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds). Generalized quantifiers in natural language. Dordrecht, Foris, pp. 45–71Google Scholar
  49. Zimmermann E. (2000). Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8: 255–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations