Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 115–128 | Cite as

Innocent exclusion in an Alternative Semantics

  • Luis Alonso-OvalleEmail author


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.


Disjunction Scalar implicatures Alternative Semantics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Alonso-Ovalle, L. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Chierchia G., McConnell-Ginet S. (2000). Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics, 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  8. David Dowty, R.E.W., and S. Peters. 1981. Introduction to Montague semantics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Google Scholar
  9. de Swart, H. 1998. Introduction to natural language semantics. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  10. den Dikken M. (2006). Either-floar and the syntax of co-or-dination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3 (24): 689–749Google Scholar
  11. Fox, D. 2003. Implicature calculation, only, and lumping: Another look at the puzzle of disjunction. Ms.: MIT.Google Scholar
  12. Fox, D. 2004. Implicature calculation, pragmatics or syntax, or both? Ms.: MIT.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. van Fraassen R. (1973). Values at hearts command. Journal of Philosophy 70: 5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gallin, D. 1975. Intensional and higher-order modal logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Gazdar G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Geurts B. (2005). Entertaining alternatives: Disjunctions as modals. Natural Language Semantics 13: 383–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hagstrom, P. 1998. Decomposing questions. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  20. Hamblin C.L. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53Google Scholar
  21. Heim, I. 2005. Class notes for course #24.954 “Pragmatics in Linguistic Theory”. MIT manuscript.Google Scholar
  22. Horn, L. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  23. Horn L. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago, IL, Chicago University PressGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  26. Keenan, E.L., and L.M. Faltz. 1978. Logical types for natural language. Technical Report 3, UCLA, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  27. Keenan E.L., Faltz L.M. (1985). Boolean semantics for natural language. Dordrecht, ReidelGoogle Scholar
  28. Kratzer A. (1977). What “must” and “can” must and can mean’. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 337–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. Kratzer, A. 2005a. LSA summer institute course on alternative semantics. Class notes, Summer 2005, Harvard/MIT.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. Lee, Y.-S. 1995. Scales and alternatives: Disjunction, exhaustivity and emphatic particles. Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  34. Lee Y.-S. (1996). Scalar implicature on multiple disjunction: Generalization of Horn’s scale 〈and, or〉. Journal of Korean Linguistics 4(21): 1159–1178Google Scholar
  35. McCawley, J.D. 1993, Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic* (But were ashamed to ask), 2nd edition. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Menéndez-Benito, P. 2005. The grammar of choice. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. Munn, A. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. Pelletier F.J. (1977). Or. Theoretical Linguistics 4: 61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. Reichenbach H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York, The Free PressGoogle Scholar
  43. van Rooij R. (2000). Permission to change. Journal of Semantics 17: 119–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rooth, M. 1985. Association with focus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  45. Rooth M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.Google Scholar
  47. Sauerland U. (2004). Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(3): 367–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.Google Scholar
  49. Schulz K., van Rooy R. (2006). Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 205–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schwarz, B. 2000. A note on exclusive disjunction. Ms.: MIT.Google Scholar
  51. Simons, M. 1998. “Or”: Issues in the semantics and pragmatics of disjunction. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  52. Simons M. (2005). Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal or interaction. Natural Language Semantics 13: 271–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.Google Scholar
  54. von Stechow A. (1974). ελ kontextfreie Sprachen: Ein Beitrag zu einer natürlichen formalen Semantik’. Linguistische Berichte 34 (1): 1–33Google Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar
  56. Zimmermann T.E. (2001). 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.Department of Hispanic Studies, McCormack 4-609University of Massachusetts BostonBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations