Abstract
The goal of this paper is to provide a global account of universal Free Choice (FC) inferences (argued to be needed in Chemla 2009b). We propose a stronger exhaustivity operator than proposed in Fox (2007), one that doesn’t only negate all the Innocently Excludable (IE) alternatives but also asserts all the ``Innocently Includable'' (II) ones, and subsequently can derive universal FC inferences globally. We further show that Innocent Inclusion is independently motivated by considerations that come from the semantics of only (data from Alxatib 2014). Finally, the distinction between Innocent Exclusion and Innocent Inclusion allows us to capture differences between FC inferences and other scalar implicatures.
Highlights
Given what we have said so far we can only explain why it would be in principle possible to derive a conjunctive meaning for Free Choice disjunction but not for simple disjunction: such a meaning is consistent with the result of applying Innocent Exclusion in the case of FC disjunction but not in the case of simple disjuntion
Before we move on to show that Innocent Inclusion allows us to derive universal FC while a recursive application of EXHIE doesn’t, let us state the lexical entry of the exhaustivity operator we are assuming here, EXHIE+Innocently Includable” (II), which implements both Innocent Exclusion and Innocent Inclusion
We have shown that EXHIE+II can derive universal FC inferences globally, thereby solving the universal FC puzzle
Summary
A sentence like (1) where an existential modal takes scope above or gives rise to the Free Choice (FC) inferences (1a)-(1b) (Kamp 1974). (1) Mary is allowed to eat ice cream or cake. A. Mary is allowed to eat ice cream. Alonso-Ovalle (2005), following Kratzer & Shimoyama (2002), argues further that the Free Choice inference from (1) to (1a)-(1b) should be treated as a scalar implicature, due to its disappearance under negation, as in (2).. ≈ It’s not the case that John is both allowed to eat ice cream and allowed to eat cake (but maybe he’s allowed one of them). ≈ It’s not the case that John is allowed to eat ice cream and it’s not the case that he is allowed to eat cake. The FC inferences are derived by enriching the meaning to derive the FC inference ♦a ∧ ♦b using mechanisms that are independently needed in order to derive scalar implicatures
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
