Topoi

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 171–181 | Cite as

Choice Points for a Modal Theory of Disjunction

Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the prospects for a semantic theory that treats disjunction as a modal operator. Potential motivation for such a theory comes from the way in which modals (and especially, but not exclusively, epistemic modals) embed within disjunctions. After reviewing some of the relevant data, I go on to distinguish a variety of modal theories of disjunction. I analyze these theories by considering pairs of conflicting desiderata, highlighting some of the tradeoffs they must face.

Keywords

Disjunction Epistemic modals Dynamic semantics Partition semantics Context sensitivity 

References

  1. Aloni M (2007) Free choice, modals and imperatives. Nat Lang Semant 15:65–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso-Ovalle L (2006) Disjunction in alternative semantics. Ph.D. thesis, UMass AmherstGoogle Scholar
  3. Dorr C, Hawthorne J (forthcoming) Embedding epistemic modals. Mind 1–47 (electronic version) Google Scholar
  4. Fox D (2007) Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In: Sauerland U, Stateva P (eds) Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, pp 71–120 Google Scholar
  5. Fusco M (2014) Free choice permission and the counterfactuals of pragmatics. Linguist Philos 37(4):275–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fusco M (forthcoming) Deontic modals and the semantics of choice. Philos Impr Google Scholar
  7. Geurts B (2005) Entertaining alternatives: disjunctions as modals. Nat Lang Semant 13 Google Scholar
  8. Klinedinst N, Rothschild D (2012) Connectives without truth tables. Nat Lang Semant 20(2):137–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kolodny N, MacFarlane J (2010) Ifs and oughts. J Philos 107(3):115–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kratzer A, Shimoyama J (2002) Indeterminate phrases: the view from Japanese. In: Otsu Y (ed) The proceedings of the third Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics, pp 1–25 (Hituzi Syobo)Google Scholar
  11. Lin H (ms.) When ‘or’ meets ‘might’: towards acceptability-conditional semantics. Manuscript, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  12. MacFarlane J (2011) Epistemic modals are assessment sensitive. In: Egan A, Weatherson B (eds) Epistemic modality. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 144–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. MacFarlane J (2014) Assessment sensitivity. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moss S (2015) On the semantics and pragmatics of epistemic vocabulary. Semant Pragmat 8(5):1–81Google Scholar
  15. Roberts C (1989) Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguist Philos 12(6):683–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roelofsen F (unpublished) Two alternatives for disjunction. Manuscript, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  17. Rothschild D (2012) Expressing credences. Proc Aristot Soc 112:99–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schroeder M (2015) Attitudes and epistemics. In: Expressing our attitudes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 225–256 Google Scholar
  19. Silk A (2014) Why ‘ought’ detaches: or, why you ought to get with my friends (if you want to be my lover). Philos Impr 14(7):1–16Google Scholar
  20. Veltman F (1996) Defaults in update semantics. J Philos Log 25:221–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Von Stechow A (1991) Focusing and backgrounding operators. In: Abraham W (ed) Discourse particles: descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German, vol 6, pp 37–84 (Benjamins)Google Scholar
  22. Willer M (2013) Dynamics of epistemic modality. Philos Rev 122:45–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yalcin S (2007) Epistemic modals. Mind 116(4):983–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yalcin S (2011) Nonfactualism about epistemic modality. In: Egan A, Weatherson B (eds) Epistemic modality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Yalcin S (2012) A counterexample to modus tollens. J Philos Log 41:1001–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zimmermann TE (2000) Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Nat Lang Semant 8:255–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations