Free choice and dual prohibition in (non)monotonic contexts

Abstract

This paper examines three prominent approaches to Free Choice (FC) and Dual Prohibition (DP): the implicature account relying on exhaustivity (EXH; Fox 2007; Bar-Lev & Fox 2017, 2020), the cognitive-bias account based on Neglect Zero (NZ; Aloni 2022), and a recent development of the implicature account grounded in presuppositional exhaustification (PEX; Bassi, Del Pinal & Sauerland 2021; Del Pinal, Bassi & Sauerland 2024). While all three approaches capture the FC-DP alternation in simple sentences (e.g., Leo can/cannot buy the cupcake or the pear), they diverge in their predictions regarding the strength of FC and DP in non-monotonic environments (e.g., Exactly one child can/cannot buy the cupcake or the pear). We tested these predictions in two experiments investigating the possible interpretations of simple and non-monotonic sentences varying in polarity. The results align with the predictions of the PEX approach, while posing challenges for the other two. We conclude by discussing potential theoretical refinements for the EXH and NZ accounts and by highlighting remaining open questions for PEX.