Expressing Permission

William Starr

Abstract


This paper proposes a semantics for free choice permission that explains both the non-classical behavior of modals and disjunction in sentences used to grant permission, and their classical behavior under negation. It also explains why permissions can expire when new information comes in and why free choice arises even when modals scope under disjunction. On the proposed approach, deontic modals update preference orderings, and connectives operate on these updates rather than propositions. The success of this approach stems from its capacity to capture the difference between expressing the preferences that give rise to permissions and conveying propositions about those preferences. 


Full Text:

PDF

References


Aher, Martin. 2012. Free choice in deontic inquisitive semantics (DIS). In M. Aloni, V. Kimmelman, F. Roelofsen, G.W. Sassoon, K. Schulz & M. Westera (eds.), Logic, Language and Meaning: 18th Amsterdam Colloquium 7218 Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 22–31. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642- 31482-7_3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_3.

Aloni, Maria. 2007. Free choice, modals and imperatives. Natural Language Semantics 15(1). 65–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9010-2.

Alonso-Ovalle, Luis. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics. Amherst, MA: UMass Amherst PhD dissertation. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/ TVkY2ZlM/.

Asher, Nicholas & Daniel Bonevac. 2005. Free choice permission is strong permission. Synthese 145(3). pp. 303–323. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20118599.

Barker, Chris. 2010. Free choice permission as resource-sensitive reasoning. Semantics and Pragmatics 3(10). 1–38. doi:10.3765/sp.3.10. http://dx.doi.org/10.

/sp.3.10.

van den Berg, Martin. 1996. Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse: the dynamics of nominal anaphora. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation.

Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2008. Donkey pluralities: plural information states versus non-atomic individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 31. 129–209. doi:10.1007/s10988-008-9035-0. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9035-0.

Cariani, Fabrizio. 2013. ‘ought’ and resolution semantics. Noûs 47(3). 534–558. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0068.2011.00839.x. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.

00839.x.

Chemla, Emmanuel & Lewis Bott. 2014. Processing inferences at the semantics/pragmatics frontier: Disjunctions and free choice. Cognition 130(3). 380 – 396. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.013. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.cognition.2013.11.013.

Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widen- ing and the ‘logicality’ of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37(4). 535–590. doi:10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535.

Eckardt, Regine. 2007. Licensing Or. In Uli Sauerland & Penka Stateva (eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, 43–70. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fox, Danny. 2007. Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicature. In Uli Sauerland & Penka Stateva (eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, 71–120. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Franke, Michael. 2009. Signal to act: Game theory in pragmatics. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation.

Franke, Michael. 2011. Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation. Semantics and Pragmatics 4(1). 1–82. doi:10.3765/sp.4.1.

Fusco, Melissa. 2015. Deontic modality and the semantics of choice. Philosophers’ Imprint 15(28). 1–27. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0015.028.

Geurts, Bart. 2005. Entertaining alternatives: Disjunctions as modals. Natural Language Semantics 13(4). 383–410. doi:10.1007/s11050-005-2052-4. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-2052-4.

Kamp, Hans. 1973. Free choice permission. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 74. 57–74. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4544849.

Kamp, Hans. 1978. Semantics versus pragmatics. In Franz Guenthner & S.J. Schmidt (eds.), Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages, 255– 287. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Pub. Co.

Klinedinst, Nathan. 2006. Plurality and possibility: UCLA PhD dissertation.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Hans-Jürgen Eikmeyer & Hannes Rieser (eds.), Words, Worlds and Contexts, 38–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Lewis, David K. 1979. A problem about permission. In Esa Saarinen, Risto Hilpinen,

Ilkka Niiniluoto & Merrill Province Hintikka (eds.), Essays in Honour of Jaakko Hintikka, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Pub. Co.

McNamara, Paul. 2010. Deontic logic. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2010 edn. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/logic-deontic/.

Nouwen, Rick. 2003. Plural Pronominal Anaphora in Context. University of Utrecht, Graduate School of Linguistics Dissertations. Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT. http://www.let.uu.nl/~Rick.Nouwen/personal/.

Pearl, Judea. 2009. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press 2nd edn.

van Rooij, Robert. 2000. Permission to change. Journal of Semantics 17(2). 119–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/17.2.119.

van Rooij, Robert. 2010. Conjunctive interpretation of disjunction. Semantics and Pragmatics 3(11). 1–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.11.

Schulz, Katrin. 2005. A pragmatic solution for the paradox of free choice permission. Synthese 147(2). 343–377. doi:10.1007/s11229-005-1353-y. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-1353-y.

Simons, Mandy. 2005. Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Natural Language Semantics 13(3). 271–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11050-004-2900-7.

Sloman, Steven. 2005. Causal Models: How People Think About the World and Its Alternatives. New York: OUP.

Stalnaker, Robert C. 1981. A defense of conditional excluded middle. In William L. Harper, Robert Stalnaker & Glenn Pearce (eds.), Ifs: Conditionals, Belief, Decision, Chance, and Time, 87–104. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co.

Starr, William B. 2013. A preference semantics for imperatives. Ms. Cornell University. http://williamstarr.net/research/a_preference_semantics_for_imperatives.pdf.

Starr, William B. 2016. Dynamic expressivism about deontic modality. In N. Charlow & M. Chrisman (eds.), Deontic Modality, 355–394. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tieu, Lyn, Jacopo Romoli, Peng Zhou & Stephen Crain. 2016. Children’s knowledge of free choice inferences and scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 33(2). 269–298. doi:10.1093/jos/ffv001. http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/2/ 269.abstract.

Van Fraassen, Bas C. 1966. Singular terms, truth-value gaps and free logic. Journal of Philosophy 3. 481–495.

Veltman, Frank. 1996. Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25(3). 221–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00248150.

von Wright, G. H. 1968. Deontic logic and the theory of conditions. Crítica: Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía 2(6). pp. 3–31. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/40103910.

Willer, Malte. 2015. Simplifying counterfactuals. In Thomas Brochhagen, Floris Roelofsen & Nadine Theiler (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Col- loquium, 428–437. Amsterdam: ILLC. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/ mVkOTk2N/AC2015-proceedings.pdf.

Zimmermann, Thomas Ede. 2000. Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8(4). 255–290. doi:10.1023/A:1011255819284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A%3A1011255819284.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3832

Comments on this article

View all comments
 |  Add comment