Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 255–290 | Cite as

Free Choice Disjunction and Epistemic Possibility

  • Thomas Ede Zimmermann
Article

Abstract

This paper offers an explanation of the fact that sentences of the form (1) ‘X may A or B’ may be construed as implying (2) ‘X may A and X may B’, especially if they are used to grant permission. It is suggested that the effect arises because disjunctions are conjunctive lists of epistemic possibilities. Consequently, if the modal may is itself epistemic, (1) comes out as equivalent to (2), due to general laws of epistemic logic. On the other hand, on a deontic reading of may, (2) is only implied under exceptional circumstances – which usually obtain when (1) is used performatively.

Keywords

Free Choice Epistemic Logic Exceptional Circumstance Epistemic Possibility Conjunctive List 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Bittner, Maria: 2000, ‘Coarse-Graining. A Topic-Sensitive Phenomenon’, manuscript, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  2. Cresswell, Maxwell J.: 1973, Logics and Languages, Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  3. Gamut, L. T. F.: 1991, Logic, Language, and Meaning, Vol. 1: Introduction to Logic, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  4. Gazdar, Gerald: 1979, Pragmatics, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Grice, Paul: 1989, Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  6. Martin Stokhof: 1984, Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, Academisch Proefschrift, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  7. Jacobs, Joachim: 1988, ‘Fokus-Hintergrund-Gliederung und Grammatik’, in H. Altmann (ed.), Intonationsforschungen, pp. 89–134, Niemeyer, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  8. Kamp, Hans: 1973, ‘Free Choice Permission’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, N.S. 74, 57–74.Google Scholar
  9. Kamp, Hans: 1978, ‘Semantics versus Pragmatics’, in F. Guenthner and S. J. Schmidt (eds.), Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages, pp. 255–287. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  10. Kamp, Hans and Uwe, Reyle: 1993, From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  11. Kaplan, David: 1969, ‘Quantifying In’, in D. Davidson and J. Hintikka (eds.), Words and Objections: Essays on the Work of W. V. Quine, pp. 178–214. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  12. Kaplan, David: 1989, ‘Demonstratives. An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of Demonstratives and Other Indexicals’, in J. Almog, J. Perry and H. Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan. pp. 481–566. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. Kratzer, Angelika: 1989, ‘An Investigation into the Lumps of Thought’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 607–653.Google Scholar
  14. Kratzer, Angelika: 1991, ‘Modality’, in A. V. Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, pp. 639–650. De Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  15. Kratzer, Angelika: 1997, ‘German Impersonal Pronouns and Logophoricity’, opening lecture of the 2nd Meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik, Berlin 1997.Google Scholar
  16. Lewis, David: 1979, ‘Attitudes de dicto and de se’, Philosophical Review 8, 513–543.Google Scholar
  17. Merin, Arthur: 1992, ‘Permission Sentences Stand in the Way of Boolean and Other Lattice-Theoretic Semantics’, Journal of Semantics 9, 95–162.Google Scholar
  18. Pafel, Jürgen: 1999, ‘Interrogative Quantifiers within Scope’, Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 255–310.Google Scholar
  19. Partee, Barbara: 1989, ‘Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts’, in C. Wiltshire et al. (eds.), CLS 25. Part 1: The General Session, pp. 342–365. The Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.Google Scholar
  20. Pierrhumbert, Janet and Mary Beckman: 1988, Japanese Tone Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  21. Roberts, Craige: 1989, ‘Modal Subordination and Pronominal Anaphora in Discourse’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 689–721.Google Scholar
  22. Rooth, Mats: 1985, Association with Focus, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  23. van Rooy, Robert: 1997, Attitudes and Changing Contexts, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  24. Simons, Mandy: 1997, ‘Disjunction and Anaphora’, in T. Galloway and J. Spence (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 6, pp. 245–260, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
  25. Stalnaker, Robert: 1975, ‘Indicative Conditionals’, Philosophia 5, 269–286.Google Scholar
  26. von Stechow, Arnim: 1991, ‘Focussing and Backgrounding Operators’, in W. Abraham (ed.), Discourse Particles, pp. 37–84, Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  27. von Stechow, Arnim and Thomas E. Zimmermann: 1984, ‘Term Answers and Contextual Change’, Linguistics 22, 3–40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Ede Zimmermann

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations