Choice and prohibition in non-monotonic contexts

Abstract

Disjunctions in the scope of possibility modals give rise to a conjunctive inference, generally referred to as ‘free choice.’ For example, Emma can take Spanish or Calculus suggests that Emma can take Spanish and can take Calculus. This inference is not valid on standard semantics for modals in combination with a Boolean semantics for disjunction. Hence free choice has sparked a whole industry of theories in philosophy of language and semantics. This paper investigates free choice in sentences involving a non-monotonic modified numeral, under which we embed a possibility modal scoping over disjunction. One example is Exactly one student can(not) take Spanish or Calculus. As we point out, the presence (or absence) of certain readings of these sentences is a key test for a prominent approach, which analyzes free choice as a kind of scalar implicature. We report on two experiments investigating the readings of such sentences, using an inferential task. Our results are challenging for the implicature approach. We sketch two possible solutions within this approach, either adopting a different recent implicature algorithm, or exploring a different meaning for modified numerals with exactly. Both of them suffer from a variety of problems. We then discuss a third solution, which exploits a recent account of free choice based on homogeneity. This approach can account for our results, in combination with plausible assumptions about homogeneity projection, though it too has open issues with related cases. Regardless of which solution is chosen, non-monotonic contexts turn out to be an important test case for theories of free choice, implicature, and modified numerals.

References

  1. Aloni, M. 2016. FC disjunction in state-based semantics. Unpublished manuscript, UVA.

  2. Alonso Ovalle, L. 2005. Disjunction in alternative semantics. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.

  3. Bar-Lev, M. 2018. Free choice, homogeneity, and innocent inclusion. PhD thesis, MIT.

  4. Bar-Lev, M., and D. Fox. 2017. Universal free choice and innocent inclusion. Proceedings of SALT 27, 95–115. Washington, DC: LSA.

  5. Bassi, I., and M. Bar-Lev. 2016. A unified existential semantics for bare conditionals. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 21. https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DRjNjViN/index.html.

  6. Breheny, R., N. Klinedinst, J. Romoli, and Y. Sudo. 2018. The symmetry problem: Current theories and prospects. Natural Language Semantics 26 (2): 85–110.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chemla, E. 2009. Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data. Semantics and Pragmatics 2 (2): 1.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chemla, E. 2010. Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Unpublished manuscript, LSCP & MIT.

  9. Chemla, E., and L. Bott. 2014. Processing inferences at the semantics/pragmatics frontier: Disjunctions and free choice. Cognition 130 (3): 380–396.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chemla, E., and B. Spector. 2011. Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 28 (3): 359–400.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chierchia, G. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, ed. A. Belletti, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chierchia, G. 2013. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chierchia, G., D. Fox, and B. Spector. 2012. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 3, ed. C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  14. Ciardelli, I., Z. Linmin, and L. Champollion. 2018. Two switches in the theory of counterfactuals: A study of truth conditionality and minimal change. Linguistic and Philosophy 41: 577–621.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Crnic, Luka L., E. Chemla, and D. Fox. 2015. Scalar implicatures of embedded disjunction. Natural Language Semantics 23: 271–305.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fox, D. 2007. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, ed. U. Sauerland, and P. Stateva, 71–120. London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fox, D., and B. Spector. 2018. Economy and embedded exhaustification. Natural Language Semantics 26 (1): 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Franke, M. 2011. Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation. Semantics and Pragmatics 4 (1): 1–82.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Goldstein, S. 2018. Free choice and homogeneity. Manuscript, Lignan University (Hong Kong)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gotzner, N., and J. Romoli. 2017. The scalar inferences of strong scalar terms under negative quantifiers and constraints on the theory of alternatives. Journal of Semantics 35 (1): 95–126.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kamp, H. 1974. Free choice permission. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 74: 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Katzir, R. 2007. Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistic and Philosophy 30 (6): 669–690.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Klinedinst, N. 2007. Plurality and possibility. PhD thesis, UCLA.

  24. Kratzer, A., and J. Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Proceedings of the Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics, vol. 3, ed. Y. Otsu, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.

  25. Križ, M. 2015. Aspects of homogeneity in the semantics of natural language. PhD thesis, University of Vienna.

  26. Križ, M., and E. Chemla. 2015. Two methods to find truth-value gaps and their application to the projection problem of homogeneity. Natural Language Semantics 23: 205–248.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Križ, M., and B. Spector. 2017. Interpreting plural predication: Homogeneity and non-maximality. Unpublished manuscript, ENS.

  28. Landman, F. 1998. Plurals and maximalization. In Events and grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 237–272. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Magri, G. 2009. A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures. PhD thesis, MIT.

  30. Marty, P., and J. Romoli. 2019. Presupposed free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. Unpublished manuscript, Leibniz-ZAS and Ulster University.

  31. Meyer, M.-C. 2013. Ignorance and grammar. PhD thesis, MIT.

  32. Meyer, M.-C. 2018. An apple or a pear: Free choice disjunction. In Wiley’s semantics companion, ed. L. Matthewson, et al. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Romoli, J., and P. Santorio. 2019. Filtering free choice. Semantics and Pragmatics 12: 12.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rothschild, D., and S. Yablo. 2018. Permissive updates. Unpublished manuscript, UCL and MIT.

  35. Santorio, P. 2018. Alternatives and truthmakers in conditional semantics. Journal of Philosophy 115 (10): 513–549.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Santorio, P., and J. Romoli. 2017. Probability and implicatures: A unified account of the scalar effects of disjunction under modals. Semantics and Pragmatics 10 (13).

  37. Simons, M. 2005. Semantics and pragmatics in the interpretation of ‘or’. In Proceedings of SALT 15, ed. E. Georgala and J. Howell, 205–222. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.

  38. Spector, B. 2007. Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher-order implicatures. In: Sauerland, U., Stateva, P. (eds.) Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics. Palgrave, London

    Google Scholar 

  39. Spector, B. 2014. Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semantics and Pragmatics 7: 1–61.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Starr, W. 2016. Expressing permission. Proceedings of SALT 26: 325–349.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tieu, L., C. Bill, and J. Romoli. 2018. Homogeneity or implicature: An experimental investigation of free choice. Unpublished manuscript, Western Sydney University, Leibniz-ZAS, and Ulster University.

  42. Tieu, L., J. Romoli, P. Zhou, and S. Crain. 2016. Children’s knowledge of free choice inferences and scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 33 (2): 269–298.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Willer, M. 2017. Widening free choice. Proceedings from the Amsterdam colloquium 2017. Available at http://events.illc.uva.nl/AC/AC2017/Proceedings/.

  44. Zimmerman, T.E. 2000. Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8: 255–290.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

For very helpful discussion and suggestions we thank Maria Aloni, Amir Anvari, Moysh Bar-Lev, Danny Fox, Simon Goldstein, Nathan Klinedinst, Angelika Kratzer, Matt Mandelkern, Paul Marty, Philippe Schlenker, Benjamin Spector, Yasu Sudo, Malte Willer, and audiences at SALT28 MIT and in Amsterdam, Paris, London, and Berlin. This work was financially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) as part of the Xprag.de Initiative (BE 4348/4-1) and the Leverhulme Trust Grant RPG-2018-425. Experiment 1 of this paper was published in the Proceedings of SALT 28. The current paper goes substantially beyond the proceedings paper in terms of theoretical discussion and empirical findings. Author names are listed alphabetically.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole Gotzner.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gotzner, N., Romoli, J. & Santorio, P. Choice and prohibition in non-monotonic contexts. Nat Lang Semantics 28, 141–174 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09160-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Free choice
  • Modified numerals
  • Implicatures
  • Homogeneity