Abstract

This chapter will be concerned with the conjunctive interpretation of a family of disjunctive constructions. The relevant conjunctive interpretation, sometimes referred to as a ‘free choice effect,’ (FC) is attested when a disjunctive sentence is embedded under an existential modal operator. I will provide evidence that the relevant generalization extends (with some caveats) to all constructions in which a disjunctive sentence appears under the scope of an existential quantifier, as well as to seemingly unrelated constructions in which conjunction appears under the scope of negation and a universal quantifier.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aloni, M. & R. van Rooij (forthcoming) ‘Free Choice Items and Alternatives’, Proceedings of KNAW Academy Colloquium: Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation.Google Scholar
  2. Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2005) ‘Disjunction in a Modal Space’, handout of a paper presented at NYU Polarity Workshop, http://www.people.umass.edu/luisalo/alonso_ovalle_NYU_handout.pdfGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, L.J. (1971) ‘The Logical Particles of Natural Language’, in Y. Bar-Hillel (ed.), Pragmatics of Natural Language, 56–68. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  4. Chierchia, G. (2004) ‘Scalar Implicatures, Polarity Phenomena, and the Syntax/ Pragmatics Interface’, in A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chierchia, G. (2005) ‘Broaden your Views: Implicatures of Domain Widening and the “Logicality” of Language’, unpublished ms. University of Milan Bicocca/Harvard University.Google Scholar
  6. Fodor, J. D. (1970) ‘Linguistic Description of Opaque Contexts’, MIT Dissertation.Google Scholar
  7. Fox, D. (2000) Economy and Semantic Interpretation, Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 35, Cambridge, MA: MITWPL and MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fox, D. (2003) ‘Implicature Calculation, Only, and Lumping: Another Look at the Puzzle of Disjunction’, handout, Yale University, http://web.mit.edu/linguisticswwwlfox/Yale.pdf.Google Scholar
  9. Fox, D. (2004) ‘Back to the Theory of Implicatures, Class 4 of Implicatures and Exhaustivity’, handouts from a class taught at USC, http://mit.edu/linguistics/www/fox/pdf/class_4.pdfGoogle Scholar
  10. Fox, D. and M. Hacke (forthcoming) ‘The Universal Density of Measurement’, Linguistics and philosophy.Google Scholar
  11. Gajewski, J., (2005) ‘Neg-Raising, Polarity and Presupposition’, MIT Dissertation.Google Scholar
  12. Gazdar (1979) Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Grice, P. (1975) ‘Logic and Conversation’, in Cole, P. and J. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Groenendijk, G., and Stokhof, M. (1984) ‘Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers’, PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  15. Hamblin, C. (1973) ‘Questions in Montague Grammar’, Foundations of Language 10: 41–53.Google Scholar
  16. Heim, I. and A. Kratzer (1998) Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Horn, L. (1969) ‘A Presuppositional Analysis of Only and Even’, CLS 5: 97–108.Google Scholar
  18. Horn, L. (1972) ‘On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English’, PhD thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
  19. Horn, L. (1989) A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Klindinst (2005) ‘Plurals, Modals, and Conjunctive Disjunction’, handout from SuB 10.Google Scholar
  21. Kratzer, A. (1981) ‘Partition and Revision: the Semantics of Counterfactuals’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 10: 242–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kratzer, A. and Shimoyama, J. (2002) ‘Indeterminate Pronouns: The View from Japanese’, in Y. Otsu (ed.), Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
  23. Krifka, M. (1995) ‘The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polarity Items’, Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–57.Google Scholar
  24. Kamp (1973) ‘Free Choice Permission’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 74, pp. 57–74.Google Scholar
  25. Kroch, A. (1972) ‘Lexical and inferred meanings for some time adverbs’, Quarterly Progress Report of the Research Laboratory of Electronics 104. MIT.Google Scholar
  26. Landman, E (1998) ‘Plurals and Maximalization’, in S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  27. Larson R. K. (1985) ‘On the Syntax of Disjunction Scope’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 217–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, Y. S. (1995) ‘Scalar Information and Semantics of Focus Operators’, PhD dissertation, U. T. Austin.Google Scholar
  29. Levinson, S. (2000) Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. June 2003.Google Scholar
  30. Magri (2005) ‘Constraints on the Readings of Bare Plural Subjects: Syntax or Semantics’, ms MIT.Google Scholar
  31. Matsumoto, Y. (1995) ‘The Conversational Condition on Horn Scales’, Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 21–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Recanati, F. (2003) ‘Embedded Implicatures’, ms, Institut Jean Nicod, Paris.Google Scholar
  33. Rooth, M. (1985) ‘Association with Focus’, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  34. van Rooij, R. (2002) ‘Relevance Only’. Proceedings of Edilog.Google Scholar
  35. van Rooij, R., and Schulz, K. (2004) ‘Exhaustive Interpretation of Complex Sentences’, Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13: 491–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saeboe, Kjell Johan (2004) ‘Optimal Interpretation of Permission Sentences’, in Asatiani et al. (eds), Proceedings of the 5th Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation, Amsterdam and Tbilisi, 137–44.Google Scholar
  37. Sauerland, U. (2004) ‘Scalar Implicatures in Complex Sentences’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 27: 367–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sauerland, U. (2005) ‘The Epistemic Step’, talk presented at Experimental Pragmatics, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK, April 2005.Google Scholar
  39. Schulz, K. and van Rooij (2006) ‘Pragmatic Meaning and Non-monotonic Reasoning: The Case of Exhaustive Interpretation’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 29: 2, 205–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simons (2000) Issues in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Disjunction, NY: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. Simons (2005) Dividing Things Up: the Semantics of or and the Modal/or Interaction, Natural Language Semantics 13: 271–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spector, B. (2003) ‘Scalar Implicatures: Local or Global?’, paper presented at the workshop ’Polarity, Scalar Phenomena, and Implicatures’, University of Milan — Bicocca.Google Scholar
  43. Spector, B. (2006) ‘Aspects de la pragmatique des opérateurs logiques’, PhD thesis, University of Paris 7.Google Scholar
  44. Veltman F. (1976) ‘Prejudices, Presuppositions and the Theory of Counterfactuals’, in Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M. (eds), Amsterdam Papers in Formal Grammar. Proceedings of the 1st Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 248–81. University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  45. Zimmermann, E. (2000) ‘Free Choice Disjunction and Epistemic Possibility’, Natural Language Semantics 8: 255–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Danny Fox 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danny Fox
    • 1
  1. 1.MITUSA

Personalised recommendations