Skip to main content
Log in

Free Choice Disjunction and Epistemic Possibility

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Bittner, Maria: 2000, ‘Coarse-Graining. A Topic-Sensitive Phenomenon’, manuscript, Rutgers University.

  • Cresswell, Maxwell J.: 1973, Logics and Languages, Methuen, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamut, L. T. F.: 1991, Logic, Language, and Meaning, Vol. 1: Introduction to Logic, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazdar, Gerald: 1979, Pragmatics, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, Paul: 1989, Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin Stokhof: 1984, Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, Academisch Proefschrift, University of Amsterdam.

  • Jacobs, Joachim: 1988, ‘Fokus-Hintergrund-Gliederung und Grammatik’, in H. Altmann (ed.), Intonationsforschungen, pp. 89–134, Niemeyer, Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, Hans: 1973, ‘Free Choice Permission’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, N.S. 74, 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kamp, Hans and Uwe, Reyle: 1993, From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Kratzer, Angelika: 1989, ‘An Investigation into the Lumps of Thought’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 607–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kratzer, Angelika: 1997, ‘German Impersonal Pronouns and Logophoricity’, opening lecture of the 2nd Meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik, Berlin 1997.

  • Lewis, David: 1979, ‘Attitudes de dicto and de se’, Philosophical Review 8, 513–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merin, Arthur: 1992, ‘Permission Sentences Stand in the Way of Boolean and Other Lattice-Theoretic Semantics’, Journal of Semantics 9, 95–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pafel, Jürgen: 1999, ‘Interrogative Quantifiers within Scope’, Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 255–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pierrhumbert, Janet and Mary Beckman: 1988, Japanese Tone Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, Craige: 1989, ‘Modal Subordination and Pronominal Anaphora in Discourse’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 689–721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, Mats: 1985, Association with Focus, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • van Rooy, Robert: 1997, Attitudes and Changing Contexts, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stuttgart.

  • 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 

  • Stalnaker, Robert: 1975, ‘Indicative Conditionals’, Philosophia 5, 269–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, Arnim: 1991, ‘Focussing and Backgrounding Operators’, in W. Abraham (ed.), Discourse Particles, pp. 37–84, Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, Arnim and Thomas E. Zimmermann: 1984, ‘Term Answers and Contextual Change’, Linguistics 22, 3–40.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zimmermann, T.E. Free Choice Disjunction and Epistemic Possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8, 255–290 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011255819284

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011255819284

Keywords

Navigation