On the interpretation of disjunction: Asymmetric, incremental, and eager for inconsistency [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (2):245-260 (2008)
Hurford’s Constraint (Hurford, Foundations of Language, 11, 409–411, 1974) states that a disjunction is infelicitous if its disjuncts stand in an entailment relation: #John was born in Paris or in France. Gazdar (Pragmatics, Academic Press, NY, 1979) observed that scalar implicatures can obviate the constraint. For instance, sentences of the form (A or B) or (Both Aand B) are felicitous due to the exclusivity implicature of the first disjunct: A or B implicates ‘not (A and B)’. Chierchia, Fox, and Spector (Handbook of semantics, 2008) use the obviation of Hurford’s Constraint in these cases to argue for a theory of local implicature. I present evidence indicating that the constraint needs to be modified in two ways. First, implicatures can obviate Hurford’s Constraint only in earlier disjuncts, not later ones: #(Both A and B) or (A or B). Second, the constraint rules out not only disjuncts that stand in an entailment relation, but also disjuncts that are even mutually consistent: #John is from Russia or Asia. I propose to make sense of these facts by providing an incremental evaluation procedure which checks that each new disjunct to the right is inconsistent with the information to its left, before the disjunct can be strengthened by local implicature.
|Keywords||Local implicatures Hurford’s Constraint Disjunction Incremental interpretation Alternatives Exhaustivity|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Laurence Horn (1989). A Natural History of Negation. University of Chicago Press.
David I. Beaver (2001). Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Csli Publications.
Stephen C. Levinson (1986). Pragmatics. Philosophical Review 95 (1):123-127.
Uli Sauerland (2004). Scalar Implicatures in Complex Sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (3):367-391.
Mats Rooth (1992). A Theory of Focus Interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1 (1):75-116.
Citations of this work BETA
Danny Fox & Roni Katzir (2011). On the Characterization of Alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 19 (1):87-107.
Jacopo Romoli (2013). A Scalar Implicature-Based Approach to Neg-Raising. Linguistics and Philosophy 36 (4):291-353.
Anna Szabolcsi (2015). What Do Quantifier Particles Do? Linguistics and Philosophy 38 (2):159-204.
Similar books and articles
Jon Gajewski & Yael Sharvit (2012). In Defense of the Grammatical Approach to Local Implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 20 (1):31-57.
Hartry Field (2005). Is the Liar Sentence Both True and False? In J. C. Beall & Bradley Armour-Garb (eds.), Deflationism and Paradox. Clarendon Press
Bart Geurts (2009). Scalar Implicature and Local Pragmatics. Mind and Language 24 (1):51-79.
Mathias Frisch (2009). Causality and Dispersion: A Reply to John Norton. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (3):487 - 495.
Luisa Meronib, The Acquisition of Disjunction: Evidence for a Grammatical View of Scalar Implicatures.
Stephen Crain, The Acquisition of Disjunction: Evidence for a Grammatical View of Scalar Implicatures.
Mandy Simons (2001). Disjunction and Alternativeness. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (5):597-619.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #167,478 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #369,877 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?