Advertisement

Topoi

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 379–392 | Cite as

Simplifying with Free Choice

  • Malte WillerEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper offers a unified semantic explanation of two observations that prove to be problematic for classical analyses of modals, conditionals, and disjunctions: (1) the fact that disjunctions scoping under possibility modals give rise to the free choice effect and (2) the fact that counterfactuals license simplification of disjunctive antecedents. It shows that the data are well explained by a dynamic semantic analysis of modals and conditionals that uses ideas from the inquisitive semantic tradition in its treatment of disjunction. The analysis explains why embedding a disjunctive possibility under negation reverts disjunction to its classical behavior, is general enough to predict less studied simplification patterns, and also makes progress toward a unified perspective on the distinction between informative, inquisitive, and attentive content.

Keywords

Free choice Simplification of disjunctive antecedents Modals Conditionals Dynamic semantics Inquisitive semantics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to audiences at the University of Chicago, the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium, and the 2nd UC Berkeley Meaning Science Workshop (organized by Seth Yalcin). Special thanks to Martin Aher, Fabrizio Cariani, Lucas Champollion, Ivano Ciardelli, Melissa Fusco, Daniel Lassiter, Matt Mandelkern, Patrick Munoz, Paul Portner, Paolo Santorio, Floris Roelofsen, Will Starr, and two anonymous reviewers for Topoi for extensive and very helpful comments and discussion.

References

  1. Aher M (2012) Free choice in deontic inquistive semantics (DIS). Lect Notes Comput Sci 7218:22–31. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aloni M (2007) Free choice, modals, and imperatives. Nat Lang Semant 15(1):65–94. doi: 10.1007/s11050-007-9010-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alonso-Ovalle L (2006) Disjunction in alternative semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  4. Alonso-Ovalle L (2009) Counterfactuals, correlatives, and disjunction. Linguist Philos 32(2):207–244. doi: 10.1007/s10988-009-9059-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barker C (2010) Free choice permission as resource-sensitive reasoning. Semant Pragmat 3(10):1–38. doi: 10.3765/sp.3.10 Google Scholar
  6. Barker C, Shan C-C (2014) Continuations and natural language. Oxford University Press, New York. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575015.001.0001 Google Scholar
  7. Beaver DI (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Beaver DI (2010) Have you noticed that your Belly Button Lint colour is related to the colour of your clothing? In: Bäuerle R, Reyle U, Zimmermann TE (eds) Presuppositions and discourse: essays offered to Hans Kamp. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 65–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Champollion L, Ciardelli I, Zhang L (2016) Breaking de Morgan’s law in counterfactual antecedents. Proc SALT 26:304–324Google Scholar
  10. Chemla E, Bott L (2014) Processing inferences at the semantics/pragmatics frontier: disjunctions and free choice. Cognition 130(3):380–396. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ciardelli I, Groenendijk J, Roelofsen F (2009) Attention! Might in inquisitive semantics. In: Proceedings of SALT XIX, pp 91–108Google Scholar
  12. Coppock E, Brochhagen T (2013) Raising and resolving issues with scalar modifiers. Semant Pragmat 6(3):1–57. doi: 10.3765/sp.6.3 Google Scholar
  13. Fine K (1975) Critical notice. Mind 84(335):451–458. doi: 10.1093/mind/LXXXIV.1.451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. von Fintel K (2001) Counterfactuals in a dynamic context. In: Kenstowicz M (ed) Ken Hale: a life in language. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 123–152Google Scholar
  15. Fox D (2007) Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In: Sauerland U, Stateva P (eds) Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, pp 71–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Franke M (2011) Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation. Semant Pragmat 4(1):1–82. doi: 10.3765/sp.4.1 Google Scholar
  17. Fusco M (2015a) Deontic disjunction. Ph.D. thesis, UC BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  18. Fusco M (2015b) Deontic modality and the semantics of choice. Philos Impr 15(28):1–27Google Scholar
  19. Geurts B (2005) Entertaining alternatives: disjunctions as modals. Nat Lang Semant 13(4):383–410. doi: 10.1007/s11050-005-2052-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geurts B (2014) Quantity implicatures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511975158 Google Scholar
  21. Gillies AS (2007) Counterfactual scorekeeping. Linguist Philos 30(3):329–360. doi: 10.1007/s10988-007-9018-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Groenendijk J, Roelofsen F (2015) Towards a suppositional inquisitive semantics. In: Aher M, Hole D, Jeřábek E, Kupke C (eds) Logic, language, and computation: 10th international Tbilisi symposium on logic, language, and computation, TbiLLC 2013, Gudauri, Georgia, 23–27 Sept 2013. Revised Selected Papers. Springer, Berlin, pp 137–156. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-46906-4_9
  23. Heim I (1982) The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  24. Iatridou S (2000) The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguist Inq 31(2):231–270. doi: 10.1162/002438900554352 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kamp H (1973) Free choice permission. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol 74, pp 57–74. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4544849
  26. Kamp H (1978) Semantics versus pragmatics. In: Guenthner F, Schmidt SJ (eds) Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural languages. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 255–287. doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-9775-2_9
  27. Klinedinst N (2007) Plurality and possibility. Ph.D. thesis, UCLAGoogle Scholar
  28. Klinedinst N (2009) (Simplification of)\(^{2}\) disjunctive antecedents. Presuppositions and implicatures: proceedings of the MIT-Paris workshop (MWPL60). MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 135–151Google Scholar
  29. Kratzer A (1981) The notional category of modality. In: Eikmeyer H-J, Rieser H (eds) Words, worlds, and contexts. New approaches to word semantics. Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin, pp 38–74Google Scholar
  30. Kratzer A (1991) Modality. In: von Stechow A, Wunderlich D (eds) Semantics: an international handbook of contemporary research. Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin, pp 639–650Google Scholar
  31. Kratzer A, Shimoyama J (2002) Indeterminate phrases: the view from Japanese. In: Proceedings of the third Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  32. Larson RK (1985) On the syntax of disjunction scope. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 3(2):217–264. doi: 10.1007/BF00133841 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewis DK (1973) Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. McKay T, van Inwagen P (1977) Counterfactuals with disjunctive antecedents. Philos Stud 31(5):353–356. doi: 10.1007/BF01873862 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nute DE (1975) Counterfactuals and the similarity of worlds. J Philos 72(21): 773–778. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2025340
  36. Nute DE (1980) Topics in conditional logic. Reidel, Dordrecht. doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-8966-5 Google Scholar
  37. Roelofsen F (2013) A bare bone attentive semantics for Might. In: Aloni M, Franke M, Roelofsen F (eds) The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of \(\phi \), \(?\phi \), and \(\Diamond \phi \). ILLC Publications, Amsterdam, pp 190–215Google Scholar
  38. Rooth M, Partee BH (1983) Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In: Bäuerle R, Schwarze C, von Stechow A (eds) Meaning, use and interpretation of language. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 361–383Google Scholar
  39. Santorio P (2016) Alternatives and truthmakers in conditional semantics. University of Leeds, ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
  40. Schulz K (2005) A pragmatic solution for the paradox of free choice permission. Synthese 147(2):343–377. doi: 10.1007/s11229-005-1353-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simons M (2005) Dividing things up: the semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Nat Lang Semant 13(3):271–316. doi: 10.1007/s11050-004-2900-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stalnaker RC (1968) A theory of conditionals. In: Rescher N (ed) Studies in logical theory. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 98–112Google Scholar
  43. Stalnaker RC (1975) Indicative conditionals. Philosophia 5(3):269–286. doi: 10.1007/BF02379021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Starr WB (2014) A uniform theory of conditionals. J Philos Log 43(6):1019–1064. doi: 10.1007/s10992-013-9300-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Starr WB (2016) Expressing permission. Proc SALT 26:325–346Google Scholar
  46. Szabolsci A, Haddican B (2004) Conjunction meets negation: a study in cross-linguistic variation. J Semant 21(3):219–249. doi: 10.1093/jos/21.3.219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tieu L, Romoli J, Zhou P, Crain S (2016) Childrens knowledge of free choice inferences and scalar implicatures. J Semant 33(2):269–298. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffv001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Rooij R (2006) Free choice counterfactual donkeys. J Semant 23(4):383–402. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffl004 Google Scholar
  49. van Rooij R (2010) Conjunctive interpretation of disjunction. Semant Pragmat 3(11):1–28. doi: 10.3765/sp.3.11 Google Scholar
  50. Veltman F (1996) Defaults in update semantics. J Philos Log 25(3):221–261. doi: 10.1007/BF00248150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. von Wright GH (1968) An essay on deontic logic and the theory of action. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  52. Warmbrōd K (1981) Counterfactuals and substitution of equivalent antecedents. J Philos Log 10(2):267–289. doi: 10.1007/BF00248853 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Willer M (2013a) Dynamics of epistemic modality. Philos Rev 122(1):45–92. doi: 10.1215/00318108-1728714 Google Scholar
  54. Willer M (2013b) Indicative scorekeeping. In: Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, pp 249–256Google Scholar
  55. Willer M (Forthcoming) Lessons from Sobel sequences. Semant PragmatGoogle Scholar
  56. Zimmermann TE (2000) Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Nat Lang Semant 8(4):255–290. doi: 10.1023/A:1011255819284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations