Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 199–222 | Cite as

Hurford’s constraint, the semantics of disjunction, and the nature of alternatives

Open Access
Article

Abstract

This paper contributes to two recent lines of work on disjunction: on the one hand, work on so-called Hurford disjunctions, i.e., disjunctions where one disjunct entails another, and on the other hand, work in alternative and inquisitive semantics where disjunction has been argued to generate multiple propositional alternatives. We point out that Hurford effects are found not only in disjunctive statements, but also in disjunctive questions. These cases are not covered by the standard accounts of Hurford phenomena, which assume a truth-conditional treatment of disjunction. We show that inquisitive semantics facilitates a unified explanation of Hurford phenomena in statements and questions. We also argue that Hurford effects provide an empirical handle on the subtle differences between inquisitive semantics and alternative semantics, providing insight into the notion of alternatives and the notion of meaning adopted in these two frameworks.

Keywords

Hurford disjunctions Inquisitive semantics Alternative semantics Questions Redundancy Exhaustification 

References

  1. Aloni, M. 2007. Free choice, modals and imperatives. Natural Language Semantics 15 (1): 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aloni, M., and I. Ciardelli. 2013. A logical account of free-choice imperatives. In The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of \(\varphi \), \(?\varphi \), and \(\Diamond \varphi \): A festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman, ed. M. Aloni, M. Franke, and F. Roelofsen, 1–17. Amsterdam: ILLC Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Alonso-Ovalle, L. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  4. Bartels, C. 1999. The intonation of English statements and questions: A compositional interpretation. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Belnap, N. 1966. Questions, answers, and presuppositions. The Journal of Philosophy 63 (20): 609–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biezma, M., and K. Rawlins. 2012. Responding to alternative and polar questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 35 (5): 361–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chierchia, G., D. Fox, and B. Spector. 2009. Hurford’s constraint and the theory of scalar implicatures: Evidence for embedded implicatures. In Presuppositions and implicatures, ed. P. Egré, and G. Magri, 47–62. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chierchia, G., D. Fox, and B. Spector. 2012. Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 3, ed. P. Portner, C. Maienborn, and K. von Heusinger, 2297–2331. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  9. Ciardelli, I., and M. Aloni. 2016. Choice-offering imperatives in inquisitive and truth-maker semantics. Presented at ‘Imperatives: worlds and beyond’, Hamburg University, June 2016.Google Scholar
  10. Ciardelli, I., J. Groenendijk, and F. Roelofsen. 2013. Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass 7 (9): 459–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ciardelli, I., J. Groenendijk, and F. Roelofsen. 2015. Inquisitive semantics. European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information lecture notes. www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics.
  12. Ciardelli, I., F. Roelofsen, and N. Theiler. 2016. Composing alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy. doi:10.1007/s10988-016-9195-2.Google Scholar
  13. Fox, D. 2007. Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, ed. U. Sauerland and P. Stateva, 71–120. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Fox, D., and B. Spector. 2015. Economy and embedded exhaustification. MIT and Institut Jean Nicod: Manuscript.Google Scholar
  15. Gajewski, J., and Y. Sharvit. 2012. In defense of the grammatical approach to local implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 20 (1): 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gazdar, G. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hamblin, C.L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10 (1): 41–53.Google Scholar
  18. Hurford, J. 1974. Exclusive or inclusive disjunction. Foundations of Language 11 (3): 409–411.Google Scholar
  19. Karttunen, L. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Katzir, R., and R. Singh. 2013. Hurford disjunctions: Embedded exhaustification and structural economy. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, ed. U. Etxeberria, A. Fălăuş, A. Irurtzun, and B. Leferman, 201–216.Google Scholar
  21. Mayr, C., and J. Romoli. 2016. A puzzle for theories of redundancy: Exhaustification, incrementality, and the notion of local context. Semantics and Pragmatics 9 (7): 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meyer, M.-C. 2013. Ignorance and grammar. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  23. Meyer, M.-C. 2014. Deriving Hurford’s constraint. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 24, ed. T. Snider, S. D’Antonio, and M. Weigand, 577–596. LSA and CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Montague, R. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Approaches to natural language, ed. J. Hintikka, J. Moravcsik, and P. Suppes, 221–242. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pruitt, K., and F. Roelofsen. 2011. Disjunctive questions: Prosody, syntax, and semantics. Available via www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics: Presented at a seminar at the Georg August Universität Göttingen.
  26. Pruitt, K., and F. Roelofsen. 2013. The interpretation of prosody in disjunctive questions. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 632–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roelofsen, F. 2013a. Algebraic foundations for the semantic treatment of inquisitive content. Synthese 190 (1): 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roelofsen, F. 2013b. An inquisitive perspective on meaning: The case of disjunction. Stanford Linguistics Colloquium, February 2013.Google Scholar
  29. Roelofsen, F., and D.F. Farkas. 2015. Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions. Language 91 (2): 359–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roelofsen, F., and S. van Gool. 2010. Disjunctive questions, intonation, and highlighting. In Logic, language, and meaning: Selected papers from the Seventeenth Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. M. Aloni, H. Bastiaanse, T. de Jager, and K. Schulz, 384–394. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schlenker, P. 2008. Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34 (3): 157–212.Google Scholar
  32. Simons, M. 2001. Disjunction and alternativeness. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (5): 597–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Singh, R. 2008. On the interpretation of disjunction: Asymmetric, incremental, and eager for inconsistency. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (2): 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. von Stechow, A. 1991. Focusing and backgrounding operators. In Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German, ed. W. Abraham, 37–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Uegaki, W. 2014. Japanese alternative questions are disjunctions of polar questions. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 24, ed. T. Snider, S. D’Antonio, and M. Weigand, 42–62. LSA and CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ILLCAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations