Free Choice in Deontic Inquisitive Semantics (DIS)
We will propose a novel solution to the free choice puzzle. The approach is driven by empirical data from legal discourse and does not suffer from the same problems as implicature-based accounts. Following Anderson’s violation-based deontic logic, we will demonstrate that a support-based radical inquisitive semantics will correctly model both the free choice effect and the standard disjunctive behaviour when disjunctive permission is embedded under negation. An inquisitive semantics also models the case when disjunctive permission is continued with “but I do not know which” which coerces an ignorance reading. We also demonstrate that a principled approach to negation provides a monotonic but restricted definition of entailment, which solves the problem of strengthening with a conjunct that is used as a counterargument against violation-based accounts.
KeywordsWorld Trade Organization Free Choice Epistemic Possibility Natural Language Semantic Compositional Semantic
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Aher, M.: Inquisitive semantics and legal language. In: Slavkovik, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the 15th Student Session of the European Summer School for Logic, Language and Information, pp. 124–131 (2010)Google Scholar
- 3.Alonso-Ovalle, L.: Equal right for every disjunct! Quantification over alternatives or pointwise context change? Presentation at Sinn und Bedeutung 9 (2004)Google Scholar
- 6.Cariani, F.: ’Ought’ and resolution semantics. Forthcoming in Nous, http://bit.ly/wNBTd1
- 7.Eckardt, R.: Licencing ’or’. In: Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, pp. 34–70. Palgrave MacMillan (2007)Google Scholar
- 8.Fox, D.: Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicature. In: Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, pp. 71–120. Palgrave MacMillan (2007)Google Scholar
- 10.Grice, H.P.: Logic and conversation. Studies in the Way of Words, ch. 2. Harvard University Press (1989)Google Scholar
- 11.Groenendijk, J.A.G., Roelofsen, F.: Inquisitive Semantics and Pragmatics. In: Standford Workshop on Language, Communication and Rational Agency (2009)Google Scholar
- 12.Groenendijk, J.A.G., Roelofsen, F.: Radical Inquisitive Semantics. Preliminary version, presented at the Colloquium of the Institute for Cognitive Science, University of Osnabrueck (2010)Google Scholar
- 14.Kanger, S.: New Foundations for ethical theory. In: Hilpinen, R. (ed.) Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, ch. 12, Reidel Publishing Company (1971)Google Scholar
- 16.Sano, K.: A Note on Support and Rejection for Radical Inquisitive Semantics (2010) (unpublished)Google Scholar
- 17.Schulz, K.: You may read it now or later: A Case Study on the Paradox of Free Choice Permission. Master thesis, University of Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
- 19.Simons, M.: Semantics and Pragmatics in the Interpretation of or. In: Proceedings of SALT XV, pp. 205–222 (2005)Google Scholar