Abstract

This chapter addresses the so-called free choice effects of disjunction under existential quantification. The effect has received most attention in modal contexts, specifically as free choice permission. Consequently, a broad range of analyses trace the reason for free choice effects at its interaction with modality. I will argue that free choice effects arise with any kind of existential quantification, and that an analysis should hence not essentially rest on modality. I propose that a Boolean analysis of or, in concert with specific interpretation of existentials, is sufficient to derive the observed effects. It is moreover proposed that the reinterpretation of existential quantifiers is made necessary by a principle of or-licensing which is the second cornerstone of the analysis.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aloni, Maria (2003a). ‘On choice-offering imperatives’. In P. Dekker and R. van Rooij (eds): Proceedings of the Fourteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, 2003. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  2. Aloni, Maria (2003b). ‘Free Choice in Modal Contexts’. In M. Weisgerber (ed.): Proceedings of SuB 7. (Arbeitspapier 114, FB Sprachwissenschaft, Konstanz). University of Konstanz. URL: http://www.ub.uni-konstanz.de/kops/volltexte/2003/1103/Google Scholar
  3. Chierchia, Gennaro (2004). ‘Scalarity Implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface’. In: A. Beletti (ed.): Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Eckardt, Regine (1998). ‘Focus and nominal quantifiers’. In P. Bosch, R. van der Sandt (eds): The Focus Book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Geurts, Bart (2005). ‘Entertaining Alternatives. Disjunctions as Modals’. In Natural Language Semantics 13: 383–410.Google Scholar
  6. Jäger, Gerhard (1996). ‘Topics in Dynamic Semantics’. PhD thesis, Humboldt-University Berlin, published as CIS-Bericht Nr. 96–92, Centrum für Informations- und Sprachverarbeitung LMU München.Google Scholar
  7. Kamp, Hans (1973). ‘Free choice permission’. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, N.S. 74: 57–74.Google Scholar
  8. Kamp, Hans (1979). ‘Semantics versus Pragmatics’. In F. Guenthner, S.J. Schmidt (eds): Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Natural Languages, Dordrecht, Reidel: 255–87.Google Scholar
  9. Klinedinst, Nathan (2005). ‘Freedom from Authority’. Talk presented at SuB 10, Berlin.Google Scholar
  10. Kratzer, Angelika and Junko Shimoyama (2002). ‘Indeterminate Pronouns: the View from Japanese’. In Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 1–25. Longer version at Semantics Archive: http://semanticsarchive.net/.Google Scholar
  11. Levinson, Stephen (2000). Presumptive Meanings. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Sauerland, Uli (2004). ‘Scalar implicatures in complex sentences’. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sauerland, Uli (forthcoming). ‘On embedded implicatures’. Journal of Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
  14. Schulz, Katrin (2002). ‘You may read it now or later: A case study on the paradox of free choice permission’. Masters Thesis, ILLC, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  15. Simons, Mandy (2005a). ‘Dividing Things Up. The Semantics of “or” and the Modal/“or” interaction’. In Natural Language Semantics 13: 271–316.Google Scholar
  16. Simons, Mandy (2005b). ‘Disjunction and Symmetry’. In E. Georgala, J. Howell (eds): Proceedings of SALT 15.Google Scholar
  17. Zimmermann, Thomas Ede (2000). ‘Free Choice Disjunction and Epistemic Possibility’. In Natural Language Semantics 8: 255–90.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Regine Eckardt 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Regine Eckardt
    • 1
  1. 1.University of GöttingenGemany

Personalised recommendations