Advertisement

An Investigation of a Gricean Account of Free-Choice or

  • Graeme ForbesEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 18)

Abstract

Free-choice disjunction manifests itself in complements of comparatives, existential modals, and related contexts. For example, “Socrates is older than Plato or Aristotle” is usually understood to mean “older than each”, not “older than at least one”. Normally, to get an “at least one” reading, a wh-rider has to be appended, e.g., “whichever is younger” or “but I don’t remember which”. Similarly, “Socrates could have been a lawyer or a banker” usually means “Socrates could have been a lawyer and ( not “or”) could have been a banker”. And “Socrates needs an umbrella or a raincoat” is normally understood in a way that isn’t synonymous with “Socrates needs an umbrella or Socrates needs a raincoat”. Roughly, the reading is “getting a satisfactory umbrella would meet his need and getting a satisfactory raincoat would meet his need”.

These examples all have “conjunctive force” and the question I address is whether there’s a satisfactory pragmatic account of why the force is with them. I present a simple Gricean argument that the “co-operative speaker” assumption, added to a disjunctive literal meaning, produces conjunctive force for epistemic modals. This argument may work for some other cases, but I express some pessimism about covering the full range of modals.

Keywords

disjunction conversational implicature epistemic possibility non-monotonic logic 

References

  1. Barker, C. (2010). Free choice permission as resource-sensitive reasoning. Semantics and Pragmatics, 3, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Egan, A., Hawthorne, J., & Weatherson, B. (2005). Epistemic modals in context. In G. Preyer & G. Peter (Eds.), Contextualism in philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Forbes, G. (1985). The metaphysics of modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Forbes, G. (1996). Logic, logical form, and the open future. In J. Tomberlin (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives (Vol. 10, pp. 73–92). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Forbes, G. (2006). Attitude problems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forbes, G. (2014). A truth-conditional account of free-choice disjunction. In D. Gutzmann, J. Köpping, & C. Meier (Eds.), Approaches to meaning: Composition, values and interpretation (pp. 167–186). Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fox, D. (2007). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Franke, M. (2011). Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation. Semantics and Pragmatics, 4, 1–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fusco, M. (2014). Free-choice permission and the counterfactuals of pragmatics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 37(4), 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.), The logic of grammar. Encino: Dickenson.Google Scholar
  11. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Humberstone, L. (2011). The connectives. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Klecha, P. (2014). Diagnosing modality in predictive expressions. Journal of Semantics, 31, 443–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Larson, R. (1988). Scope and comparatives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Makinson, D. (1984). Stenius’ approach to disjunctive permission. Theoria, 50, 138–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Makinson, D. (2005). Bridges from classical to nonmonotonic logic. London: King’s College Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Prior, A. (1967). Past, present and future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Silk, A. (2016). Discourse contextualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Simons, M. (2005). Dividing things up: The semantics of ‘Or’ and the modal/‘Or’ interaction. Natural Language Semantics, 13, 271–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Spector, B. (2007). Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and gricean reasoning. In M. Aloni & P. Dekker (Eds.), Questions in dynamic semantics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  22. Stenius, E. (1982). Ross’ paradox and well-formed codices. Theoria, 48, 49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thomason, R. (1970). Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria, 36, 264–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van Rooij, R. (2010). Conjunctive interpretation of disjunction. Semantics and Pragmatics, 3, 1–28.Google Scholar
  25. Wright, C. (2005). Realism, relativism and rhubarb. Unpublished MS.Google Scholar
  26. Wright, C. (2007). New age relativism and epistemic possibility: The question of evidence. Philosophical Issues, 17, 262–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zimmerman, T. E. (2000). Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics, 8, 255–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations