Abstract
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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Beaver D. (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CA: Stanford, CSLI Publications
Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax-pragmatics interface. In A. Belleti (Ed.), Structures and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2007). Hurford’s constraint and the theory of scalar implicatures. Handout of talk presented at the ENS in Paris, France, at the MIT-Paris Workshop on Presupposition and Implicature. MIT and Harvard University.
Chierchia, G., Fox, D., Spector, B. (2008). The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Portner P., Maienborn C., & von Heusinger K. (Eds.), Handbook of semantics. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dalrymple M., Kanazawa M., Kim Y., Mchombo S., Peters S. (1998) Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 159–210
Fox, D. (2006). Too many alternatives: Density, symmetry, and other predicaments. In Proceedings of SALT 17 (to appear).
Fox, D. (2007a). Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicature. In U. Sauerland P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics (pp. 71–120). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fox, D. (2007b). Implicatures. Lecture Notes, 24.954: Pragmatics in Linguistic Theory. MIT, Fall, 2007.
Fox D., Hackl M. (2006) The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 537–586
Gazdar G. (1979) Pragmatics. NY: Academic Press, New York
Geurts B. (2005) Entertaining alternatives: Disjunctions asmodals. Natural Language Semantics 13: 383–410
Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Hirschberg, J. (1985). A theory of scalar implicature. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Horn L. (1989) A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Hurford J. (1974) Exclusive or inclusive disjunction. Foundations of Language 11: 409–411
Jackson F. (1979) On assertion and indicative conditionals. Philosophical Review 88: 565–589
Karttunen L. (1974) Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 181–193
Katzir, R. (2007). Structural complexity and the computation of scalar implicature. Handout of Talk Presented at the ENS in Paris, France, at the MIT-Paris Workshop on Presupposition and Implicature, MIT and Harvard University.
Katzir, R. (to appear). Structurally defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy.
Kratzer A. (1989) An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 607–653
Krifka, M. (1999). At least some determiners aren’t determiners. In K. Turner (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view (pp. 257–291).
Kroch, A. (1972). Lexical and inferred meanings for some time adverbs. Quarterly Progress Reports of the Research Laboratory of Electronics, 104 (pp. 260–267). Cambridge, Mass: MIT.
Levinson S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Magri, G. (2007). A theory of individual level predicates based onblind scalar implicatures. Manuscript, MIT.
Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116
Russell B. (2006) Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 23: 361–382
Sauerland U. (2004) Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367–391
Schlenker, P. (2008). Local contexts. Manuscript, ENS, Paris, and NYU, New York, NY.
Schulz K, van Rooij R. (2006) Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 205–250
Simons M. (2000) Issues in the semantics and pragmatics of disjunction. NY: New York, Garland
Singh, R. (2006). Eager for distinctness. In J. Huitink & S. Katrenko (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh ESSLLI Student Session (pp. 76–89).
Spector, B. (2005). Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and gricean reasoning. In M. Aloni, A. Butler, P. Dekker (Eds.), Questions in dynamic semantics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Spector, B. (2006). Aspects de la pragmatique des ope´rateurs logiques. Doctoral Dissertation, Universite of Paris 7.
van Rooij R., Schulz K. (2004) Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 13: 491–519
van Rooij, R., & Schulz, K. (2007). Only: Meaning and implicature. In P. Dekker et al. (Eds.), Questions and answers (pp. 199–224).
von Fintel K. (1997) Bare plurals, bare conditionals, and only. Journal of Semantics 14: 1–56
Zimmerman T.E. (2000) Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8: 255–290
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Singh, R. On the interpretation of disjunction: asymmetric, incremental, and eager for inconsistency. Linguist and Philos 31, 245–260 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9038-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9038-x