Minimal Models in Semantics and Pragmatics Free Choice, Exhaustivity, and Conditionals Katrin Schulz Minimal Models in Semantics and Pragmatics Free Choice, Exhaustivity, and Conditionals ILLC Dissertation Series DS-200X-NN For further information about ILLC-publications, please contact Institute for Logic, Language and Computation Universiteit van Amsterdam Plantage Muidergracht 24 1018 TV Amsterdam phone: +31-20-525 6051 fax: +31-20-525 5206 e-mail: [email protected] homepage: http://www.illc.uva.nl/ Minimal Models in Semantics and Pragmatics Free Choice, Exhaustivity, and Conditionals Academisch Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. dr. D.C. van den Boom ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Universiteit op vrijdag 2 november 2007, te 12.00 uur door Katrin Schulz, geboren te Berlijn, Bondsrepubliek Duitsland Promotiecommissie Promotor: prof. dr. F.J.M.M Veltman Co-promotor: dr. P.J.E. Dekker Overige leden: prof. dr. J.A.G. Groenendijk dr. M. Aloni, postdoc prof. dr. H.E. de Swart prof. dr. N. Asher prof. dr. C. Condoravdi Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen The investigations were supported the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), division Humanities (GW). Copyright chapter 2 c 2005 by Springer Copyright chapter 3 c 2006 by Springer Copyright except the chapters 2 and 3 c 2007 by Katrin Schulz Cover design by PrintPartners Ipskamp and Katrin Schulz. Cover photograph by Katrin Schulz. Printed and bound by PrintPartners Ipskamp, Enschede. ISBN: 90–5776–164–5 Contents Acknowledgments ix 1 Introduction 1 2 The paradox of free choice permission 7 2.1 Introduction.............................. 7 2.2 Freechoiceinferences. 11 2.3 Theapproach ............................. 13 2.3.1 Introduction.......................... 13 2.3.2 Thesemantics......................... 14 2.3.3 Introducingthegeneralideas . 16 2.3.4 Workingoutthedetails . 17 2.3.4.1 The epistemic case . 18 2.3.4.2 Thedeonticcase . 21 2.3.4.3 Competence. .. .. 22 2.3.4.4 Solving the paradox of free choice permission . 23 2.3.5 The cancellation of free choice inferences . 26 2.3.6 Conclusions .......................... 27 2.4 Discussion............................... 28 2.4.1 Anopenproblem ....................... 28 2.4.2 Comparison .......................... 29 2.4.2.1 The approaches of Kamp and Zimmermann . 29 2.4.2.2 Gazdar’s approach to clausal implicatures . 30 2.5 Conclusions .............................. 33 3 Exhaustive interpretation 37 3.1 Introduction.............................. 37 3.2 Thephenomenon ........................... 39 3.2.1 Interaction with the semantic meaning of the answer . 39 v 3.2.2 The context-dependence of exhaustivity . 40 3.2.3 Othertypesofquestions . 42 3.3 GroenendijkandStokhof’sproposal . 44 3.4 Exhaustivity as Predicate Circumscription . ... 47 3.4.1 Predicate Circumscription . 47 3.4.2 Thebasicsetting ....................... 49 3.5 Exhaustivity and dynamic semantics . 51 3.6 Exhaustivity and relevance . 56 3.6.1 Theindirectapproach . 58 3.6.2 Thedirectapproach . 59 3.7 Exhaustive interpretation as conversational implicature ...... 61 3.8 Conclusionandoutlook. 69 4 Conditional sentences 73 4.1 Introduction.............................. 73 4.2 Centralideas ............................. 75 4.3 Terminological preliminaries . 77 4.4 Caveatlector ............................. 81 5 The meaning of the conditional connective 83 5.1 Introduction.............................. 83 5.2 The similarity approach to conditionals . .. 85 5.3 Similarity as similarity of the past . 86 5.3.1 Backtrackingcounterfactuals. 87 5.3.2 Thefuturesimilarityobjection . 93 5.4 Premisesemantics........................... 95 5.4.1 A short history of premise semantics . 95 5.4.2 Explaining Mr. Jones with premise semantics . 98 5.4.3 Problemsoftheapproach . 100 5.5 Counterfactuals in causal networks . 102 5.5.1 Thegeneralideas . 102 5.5.2 Theformalization. 103 5.5.3 Moreexamples ........................ 109 5.5.4 Discussion........................... 112 5.6 Tworeadingsforconditionals . 121 5.6.1 Motivation........................... 121 5.6.2 Theepistemicreading . 129 5.6.2.1 Formalization . 131 5.6.2.2 Discussion of the epistemic reading . 135 5.6.3 Theonticreading . 139 5.6.3.1 Formalization . 140 5.6.3.2 Discussion of the ontic reading . 146 5.6.4 Discussion........................... 152 vi 5.7 Summary ............................... 156 6 Tense in English conditionals 159 6.1 Introduction.............................. 159 6.2 The puzzle of the missing interpretation . 161 6.2.1 Theobservations . 161 6.2.2 Past-as-pastapproaches . 164 6.2.3 Past-as-modalapproaches . 175 6.2.3.1 The past-as-unreal hypothesis . 176 6.2.3.2 The past-as-metaphor hypothesis . 179 6.2.3.3 The past-as-relict hypothesis . 180 6.2.3.4 The life-cycle hypothesis . 181 6.3 The puzzle of the shifted temporal perspective . 183 6.3.1 Theobservations . 184 6.3.2 Approachestotheobservations . 191 6.3.3 Summary ........................... 198 6.4 Theproposal ............................. 199 6.4.1 Anintroduction. 199 6.4.2 Thelanguage ......................... 201 6.4.3 Themodel........................... 207 6.4.4 The interpretation of the vocabulary of L ......... 211 6.4.4.1 The epistemic update with atomic formulas. 213 6.4.4.2 The ontic update with atomic formulas. 214 6.4.4.3 Supportandenforcement . 226 6.4.4.4 The meaning of the basic logical operators . 227 6.4.4.5 The meaning of the temporal operators. 228 6.4.4.6 Themeaningoftheperfect . 229 6.4.4.7 Themeaningofthemodals . 230 6.4.4.8 Themeaningofthemoods. 235 6.4.4.9 The meaning of IF ................. 247 6.5 Discussion ............................... 253 6.6 Summary ............................... 269 A Appendix to chapter 5 273 B Appendix to chapter 6 275 Index 289 Samenvatting 293 vii Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank my promotores Frank Veltman and Paul Dekker. Frank Veltman I thank particularly for sharing his ideas with me. They have inspired in many ways my thinking on conditionals. I am very grateful to Paul Dekker for the care with which he read my work on conditionals, even though the topic of this research does not stand central in his own work. Furthermore, I would like to thank all my teachers, who have encouraged me – in different ways – to follow my interests and my couriosity, whereever they lead. Let me mention some of the teachers I am particularly indepted to. Frank Beckman started my interests in formal semantics and pointed me to Stuttgart, from which it was only a small step to Amsterdam. Rainer B¨auerle supervised my stay in Stuttgart and suggested conversational implicatures as research topic. My fascination for implicatures started then and has never stopped since. It lead, via my Diplom thesis and my Master thesis, to the work reported on in the second and the third chapter of the present book. Another teacher I am grateful to is Hans Kamp, who set with his own example my standards for what good semantic work is. Finally, I also want to thank Michiel van Lambalgen for offering me a Ph.D. position in Amsterdam and for having faith in my abilities, even though I tried to convince him of the contrary. I think myself very lucky with having had the opportunity to do my Ph.D. at the ILLC in Amsterdam. This institute provides a highly inspiring but also very heartily and warm environment to work in. I am thankful to all my colleagues at the ILLC, particularly those on the second floor of the Philosophy department for making me love my work. I am indebted to a number of people for comments on earlier versions of the second and the third chapter of the thesis. I should especially mention Maria Aloni, Luis Alonso-Ovalle, Jeroen Groenendijk, Benjamin Spector, Martin Stokhof and a number of anonymous reviewers. Thomas deserves my warmest thanks for correcting the English of the thesis – of course, he is not responsible for any mistakes that certainly will still be there. ix Robert van Rooij I have to thank in many ways. His work on formal prag- matics has been a great inspiration for my look on this area. He has been a wonderful supervisor when I wrote my Diplom thesis. Afterwards he became an excellent colleague and co-worker. The third chapter of this thesis is a result of this cooperation. Finally, I would like to thank Robert and Simon for making me happy. Amsterdam Katrin Schulz May, 2007. x Chapter 1 Introduction It is a common truth that the simplest and most obvious questions are often particularly difficult to answer. For instance, when meeting new people I get confronted with the very reasonable but disturbing question What are you doing for work?. I normally answer that I do research in linguistics and hope that this will stop all further inquiries. Sometimes, this does not work and the questioner continues asking what is it that I am investigating. That is where the real trouble starts. The most correct answer would probably be that I am studying meaning, more precisely, the meaning of expressions of natural languages like English. But what is this meaning? There are so many facets to it, so many ways to look at meaning that it is hardly possible to give a satisfying and compact answer to this question. Already the very vague description just given raises a lot of questions. Is it the meaning of words I am considering or the meaning of sentences, for words seem to mean different things in different sentences? Maybe also the level of sentences is not abstract enough. Even for people that have never consciously thought about meaning before it is obvious that sentences mean different things under different circumstances. A sentence like This is my husband may be meant purely to tell the addressee which of the persons in a room is the husband of the speaker. But uttered in a bar to some fellow making you pretty uneasy, you may actually intend to communicate Leave me alone.