Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 137–175 | Cite as

Connectives without truth tables

Article

Abstract

There are certain uses of and and or that cannot be explained by their normal meanings as truth-functional connectives, even with sophisticated pragmatic resources. These include examples such as The cops show up, and a fight will break out (‘If the cops show up, a fight will break out’), and I have no friends, or I would throw a party (‘I have no friends. If I did have friends, I would throw a party.’). We argue that these uses are indeed distinct from the more ordinary uses of and and or, but that they are nonetheless related in a principled way. To explain them we give an analysis of what we call the dynamic effects of connectives, which arise in all their uses. The special uses at issue are then argued to be instances where the connectives exhibit their dynamic effects without their truth-conditional meaning.

Keywords

Connectives Dynamic semantics Modals 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beaver David (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. The imperative in English. In To honor Roman Jakobson, 335–362. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  3. Chemla, Emmanuel. 2008. Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Unpublished manuscript, ENS.Google Scholar
  4. Clark Billy (1993) Relevance and “pseudo-imperatives”. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 79–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Culicover P.W. (1972) Om-sentences: On the derivation of sentences with systematically unspecifiable interpretations. Foundations of Language 8: 199–236Google Scholar
  6. Culicover Peter, Ray Jackendoff (1997) Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28(2): 195–217Google Scholar
  7. Davies Anna Morpurgo (1975) Negation and disjunction in Anatolian—and elsewhere. Anatolian Studies 25: 157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dever, Josh. 2010. Must or might. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  9. Fox Danny (2006) Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. Unpublished manuscript, MITGoogle Scholar
  10. Fox Danny (2008) Two short notes on Schlenker’s theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34: 237–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. George, Benjamin. 2007. Predicting presupposition projection: Some alternatives in the strong Kleene tradition. Unpublished manuscript, UCLA.Google Scholar
  12. Geurts Bart (1996) Local satisfaction guaranteed: A presupposition theory and its problems. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 259–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geurts Bart (2005) Entertaining alternatives: Disjunctions as modals. Natural Language Semantics 13: 383–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gillies Anthony (2004) Epistemic conditionals and conditional epstemics. Nous 38(4): 585–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gillies Anthony (2007) Counterfactual scorekeeping. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 329–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillies Anthony (2010) Iffiness. Semantics and Pragmatics 3(4): 1–42Google Scholar
  17. Han Chung-hye (2000) The structure and interpretation of imperatives: Mood and force in universal grammar. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Coordinating constructions: An overview. In Coordinating constructions, ed. Martin Haspelmath 3–39. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  19. Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  20. Heim, Irene. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In WCCFL 2: Second annual west coast conference on formal linguistics, ed. D. Flickinger and M. Wescoat 114–125. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Heim, Irene. 1990. Presupposition projection. In Reader for the Nijmegen workshop on presupposition, lexical meaning, and discourse processes, ed. R. van der Sandt. University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  22. Khoo Justin (2011) Operators or restrictors? A reply to Gillies. Semantics and Pragmatics 4(4): 1–43Google Scholar
  23. Klinedinst, Nathan. 2007. Plurality and possibility. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
  24. Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Words, worlds, and contexts, ed. H.-J Eikmeyer and H. Reiser, 38–74. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. Kratzer Angelika (1986) Conditionals. Chicago Linguistics Society 22(2): 1–15Google Scholar
  26. Lewis, David. 1973. Counterfactuals. Harvard.Google Scholar
  27. Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. In Formal semantics of natural language. ed. Edward L. Keenan. 3–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lewis David (1979) Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philosophical Review 88: 513–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MacFarlane, John. 2011. Epistemic modals are assessment-sensitive. In Epistemic modals. ed. B. Weatherson and A. Egan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Moss, Sarah. forthcoming. On the pragmatics of counterfactuals. Noûs.Google Scholar
  31. Oxford English Dictionary. 2010. and, conj.1, adv., and n. In OED Online, September 2010. Oxford University Press. http://dictionary.oed.com/. Accessed May 2011.
  32. Roberts Craige (1989) Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(6): 683–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rothschild Daniel (2008) Presupposition projection and logical equivalence. Philosophical Perspectives 22: 473–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rothschild Daniel (2011) Explaining presupposition projection with dynamic semantics. Semantics and Pragmatics 4(3): 1–43Google Scholar
  35. Rothschild, Daniel. forthcoming. Do indicative conditionals express propositions? Noûs.Google Scholar
  36. Russell Ben (2007) Imperatives in conditional conjunction. Natural Language Semantics 15(2): 131–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schlenker Philippe (2006) Anti-dynamics: Presupposition projection without dynamic semantics. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 16: 325–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schlenker Philippe (2008) Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34: 157–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schlenker Philippe (2009) Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics 2: 1–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schwager, Magda. 2006. Interpreting imperatives. Ph.D. thesis, University of Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  41. Soames, Scott. 1989. Presuppositions. In Handbook of philosophical logic, ed. D. Gabbay and F. Guenther. vol. IV, 553–616. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  42. Stalnaker, Robert. 1968. A theory of conditionals. In Studies in logical theory, ed. N. Rescher. 98–112. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics and Philosophy, ed. M.K. Munitz and D.K. Unger. 197–213. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  44. Stalnaker Robert (1975) Indicative conditionals. Philosophia 5: 269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stalnaker Robert (1981) Indexical belief. Synthese 49: 129–151Google Scholar
  46. Stump, Gregory T. 1981. The formal semantics and pragmatics of free adjuncts and absolutes in english. Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  47. Stump Gregory T (1985) Semantic variabitily of absolute constructions. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  48. von Fintel, Kai. 2001. Counterfactuals in a dynamic context. In Ken Hale: A life in language. ed. Michael Kentstowicz, 123–152. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. von Fintel, Kai., and Anthony Gillies. 2011. Might made right. In Epistemic modality. ed. Andy Egan and Brian Weatherson, 100–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. von Fintel Kai, Sabine Iatridou (2007) Anatomy of a modal construction. Linguistic Inquiry 38(3): 445–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. von Fintel, Kai and Sabine Iatridou. 2009. LSA 2009 class notes: Covert modals. http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/iatridou/lsa_modals.pdf. Accessed May 2011
  52. van Benthem, Johan. 1989. Semantic parellels in natural language and computation. In Logic colloquium ‘87, ed. H. O. Ebinghaus et al., 331–375. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  53. Veltman, Frank 1996. Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25: 221–61.Google Scholar
  54. Yalcin Seth (2007) Epistemic modals. Mind 116: 983–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zimmerman Thomas Ede (2000) Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8: 255–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.All Souls CollegeOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations