This paper points out naturally-occurring examples, primarily in Hungarian but also to a more limited extent in English, in which disjunction (i) has a conjunctive force but (ii) its use highlights that the list is not intended to be exhaustive. The preliminary analysis is in terms of recursive proposition strengthening by exhaustification without a scalar alternative, assimilating exemplifications to known cases of conjunctively interpreted disjunctions in other languages

Szabolcsi, Anna

(English translation of ...) This paper points out naturally-occurring examples, primarily in Hungarian but also to a more limited extent in English, in which disjunction (i) has a conjunctive force but (ii) its use highlights that the list is not intended to be exhaustive. The preliminary analysis is in terms of recursive proposition strengthening by exhaustification without a scalar alternative, assimilating exemplifications to known cases of conjunctively interpreted disjunctions in other languages

PhilPapers

1  Translation	of	Példálózás,	diszjunkcióval	published	in	Hungarian	in		Általános	Nyelvészeti	Tanulmányok	XXXII:	321‐329	(2020)			Exemplification,	with	disjunction*		Anna	Szabolcsi	Department	of	Linguistics	New	York	University		This	paper	points	out	naturally‐occurring	examples,	primarily	in	Hungarian	but	also	to	a	more	limited	extent	in	English,	in	which	disjunction	(i)	has	a	conjunctive	force	but	(ii)	its	use	highlights	that	the	list	is	not	intended	to	be	exhaustive.	The	preliminary	analysis	is	in	terms	 of	 recursive	 proposition	 strengthening	 by	 exhaustification	 without	 a	 scalar	alternative,	 assimilating	 exemplifications	 to	 known	 cases	 of	 conjunctively	 interpreted	disjunctions	in	other	languages.	Keywords:	disjunction,	conjunction,	grammaticized	implicature,	naturally‐occurring	data			1.	A	novel	piece	of	data:		conjunctive	vagy	`or’		The	meaning	difference	between	 the	 connectives	és	 `and’	 and	vagy	 `or’	 seems	quite	simple	at	first	glance:	p	és	q	requires	both	p	and	q	to	be	true,	p	vagy	q	is	satisfied	if	one	of	 them	is	 true.	However,	we	know	from	recent	 literature	that	some	cross‐linguistic	counterparts	of	vagy	may	systematically	carry	conjunctive	interpretations;	see	Singh	et	al.	(2016)	on	child	English	and	Bowler	(2014)	on	Warlpiri.	My	paper	adds	a	new	item	to	this	inventory,	to	be	dubbed	disjunction	of	exemplification.		We	 start	 with	 naturally‐occurring	 data.	 Each	 of	 the	 following	 sentences	 was	accessible	 on	 the	 internet	 in	 April	 2019.	 (1)‐(6)	 come	 from	 the	websites	 of	 sports,	commercial,	or	news	organizations,	and	(7)	from	Pinterest.	They	are	carefully	worded,	idiomatic,	and	natural.			(1) A	 Kiss	 Imre	 által	 vezetett	 Tatabányában	 pályára	 lépett	 többek	 között	 Szabó	György,	vagy	Csapó	Károly,	akik	még	ma	is	jó	játékerőt	képviselnek.	Az	Esztergomi	Öregfiúkban	 olyan	 legendák	 játszottak,	 mint	 Markó	 Béla,	 Varga	 Tibor	 vagy	Ormándi	Imre,	hogy	csak	néhányukat	említsünk.			`Playing	 in	 [the	 soccer	 team]	 Tatabánya,	 led	 by	 Imre	 Kiss	were,	 among	 others,	György	 Szabó	or	Károly	 Csapó,	who	 continue	 to	 be	 strong	 players	 even	 today.	Esztergom	Old	Boys	was	represented	by	legends	like	Béla	Markó,	Tibor	Varga	or	Imre	Ormándi,	to	mention	just	a	few	of	them.’	https://tinyurl.com/skoch6b				‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐		*	This	paper	 is	 dedicated	 to	Katalin	É.	Kiss,	whose	 contributions	made	 the	 study	of	Hungarian	grammar	very	exciting.		2  (2) ...	 többek	között	Chris	Brown,	Rihanna	vagy	 P.	Diddy	 is	megjelent	már	a	 furcsa	aranyráccsal	a	fogain.		`...	among	others	Chris	Brown,	Rihanna	or	P.	Diddy	have	appeared	with	the	strange	gold	grill	on	their	teeth’	https://tinyurl.com/srugog9		(3) A	politikus	tíz	pontos	„Hazaváró‐kiáltványt”	tett	az	asztalra,	amelyet	a	következő	hetekben	többek	között	Berlinben,	Párizsban,	Bécsben	vagy	épp	a	szintén	sokezer	magyarnak	új	otthont	adó	Máltán	fog	megvitatni	és	kibővíteni	az	érintettekkel.	`The	politician	put	on	the	table	a	ten‐point	“Come	Home	Manifesto,”	which	he	will	discuss	and	expand	in	the	coming	weeks	with	the	help	of	those	concerned	in	Berlin,	Paris,	Vienna	or	even	Malta,	a	new	home	of	many	thousands	of	Hungarians.’	https://tinyurl.com/y8gerr4x		(4) A	 szerződésbe[sic]	 rögzíteni	 kell	 többek	 között,	 hogy	 mekkora	 a	 bérletidíj	összege,	vagy	mikor	fizetendő	a	bérletidíj.		`The	contract	must	specify,	among	other	things,	what	the	amount	of	the	rent	is,	or	when	the	rent	is	due.’	https://tinyurl.com/sesoghn				(5) Magyarországon	 fel	 sem	merül,	 hogy	 például	 a	 közösségi	 oldalakon	 ne	 lehetne	ingyenesen	 közzétenni	 képeket	 középületekről,	de	 az	 EU	 több	 tagállamában,	többek	között	Belgiumban,	Franciaországban	vagy	Görögországban	a	terjesztésük	egyáltalán	nem,	vagy	csak	erős	korlátokkal	legális.	`In	Hungary,	it	does	not	occur	to	anyone	that	pictures	of	public	buildings	could	not	be	 posted	 on	 social	 media	 pages	 without	 a	 fee,	 but	 in	 multiple	 EU	 member	countries,	among	others	in	Belgium,	France	or	Greece,	their	distribution	is	not	legal	or	is	severely	restricted.’	https://tinyurl.com/y7etf9xm					(6) ...	 további	 emblematikus	 épületeik	 Budapesten	többek	 között	 a	 Science	 Park	vagy	éppen	a	Népliget	Center.	`...	 further	emblematic	buildings	in	Budapest	are,	among	others,	Science	Park	or	even	Népliget	Center.’	https://tinyurl.com/vlbpvvx		(7) Neki	köszönhetjük	többek	között	a	Frakkot,	vagy	a	Ceruza	és	a	radírt.	`He	gave	us	[the	films]	Frakk,	or	The	pencil	and	the	eraser.’	https://www.pinterest.com/pin/679058450041260955/?autologin=true		The	 most	 conspicuous	 feature	 that	 the	 above	 examples	 share	 is	 that	 the	 authors	probably	intended	the	lists	to	be	conjunctive	(and	they	are	true	as	such).	Example	(1)	leaves	no	doubt	that	both	Szabó	and	Csapó	played	in	Tatabánya.	Example	(4)	does	not	say	that	either	the	amount	or	the	due	date	of	the	rent	can	be	omitted	from	the	contract,	and	so	on.	Another	shared	feature	is	that	the	lists	are	expressly	non‐exhaustive,	as	indicated	by	 the	 expression	 többek	 között	 `among	 others.’	 (The	 internet	 searches	 always	3  contained	this	expression,	to	ensure	that	they	picked	up	relevant	examples.	Using	`for	example’	would	give	similar	results.)	 	My	impression	is	that	while	the	presence	of	this	adjunct	makes	it	unambiguous	that	the	connective	vagy	`or’	does	not	indicate	choice	or	uncertainty,	it	is	not	necessary	for	the	intended	interpretation.	Consider	slightly	modified	versions	of	(7):		(8) a.		 Neki	köszönhetjük	többek	között	a	Frakkot,	és	A	ceruza	és	a	radírt.		`He	gave	us	among	other	things	Frakk	and	The	pencil	and	the	eraser’			b.		 Neki	köszönhetjük	többek	között	a	Frakkot,	vagy	A	ceruza	és	a	radírt.			 `He	gave	us	among	other	things	Frakk,	or	The	pencil	and	the	eraser’		(9) a.	 Neki	köszönhetjük	a	Frakkot,	és	A	ceruza	és	a	radírt.		`He	gave	us	Frakk	and	The	pencil	and	the	eraser.’		b.		 Neki	köszönhetjük	a	Frakkot,	vagy	A	ceruza	és	a	radírt.	`He	gave	us	Frakk,	or	The	pencil	and	the	eraser.’		(8a,b)	show	that	többek	között	`among	others’	combines	equally	well	with	és	and	vagy,	and	the	results	mean	the	same	thing	in	both	cases.	By	contrast,	the	interpretations	of	(9a)	and	(9b)	differ.	(9a)	makes	 it	 likely	that	the	author	 is	 listing	every	contextually	relevant	 creation	 of	 Gyula	 Macskássy;	 omission	 of	 `among	 other	 things’	 proves	significant	here.	On	the	other	hand,	even	in	the	absence	of	`among	other	things’	 it	 is	easy	 to	 interpret	 (9b)	 as	 saying	 that	 both	 films	 are	 due	 to	Macskássy	 (conjunctive	interpretation)	but	the	author	only	mentions	them	as	examples	(a	non‐exhaustive	list).1	This	is	why	I	dub	this	use	of	vagy	disjunction	of	exemplification.		 Disjunction	of	exemplification	is	not	a	Hungarian	specialty.	It	also	exists	in	English,	although	to	my	knowledge	it	has	not	been	discovered.	In	distinction	to	Hungarian,	it	mainly	occurs	 in	scientific	or	 legal	 texts.	 (I	have	not	 tried	 to	collect	data	 from	other	languages.)		(10) That	speakers	of	Latvian,	German,	or	Spanish,	for	example,		perceive	the	pronouns	and	determiners	of	the	kaut‐,	irgendein	or	algún	series	as	 existentials	 would	 now	 no	 longer	 mean	 that	 those	 expressions	 are	themselves	existentials.		https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/182/			(11) Some	examples	include	a	person's	age	or	whether	a	person	smokes.				 http://www.cdc.gov/socialdeterminants/Definitions.html		(12) Such	cells	are,	for	example,	cells	like	mucosal	cells	or	intestinal	cells.		https://patents.google.com/patent/US9243293			(13) The	label	must	state,	for	example,	the	nature	of	a	nutritional	or	compositional	change,	or	the	presence	of	an	allergen.	https://tinyurl.com/agmuvka					 1 Naturally, (9b) can also carry the classical disjunctive interpretation, which the author would use if (s)he were uncertain about which of the two films was created by Macskássy.  4  2.	Theoretical	background	for	the	analysis		In	this	short	paper	I	am	not	undertaking	a	full‐depth	analysis	of	the	new	phenomenon	introduced	above,	but	I	outline,	based	on	the	literature,	how	an	analysis	might	begin.		One	might	 think	 that	our	examples	 fall	 into	a	well‐known	class	of	conjunctively	paraphrasable	disjunctions:		(14) It	is	not	the	case	that	the	suspect	is	in	Nizza	or	Paris.	=		It	 is	not	 the	 case	 that	 the	suspect	 is	 in	Nizza	and	 it	 is	not	 the	 case	 that	 the	suspect		is	in	Paris.			(15) It	is	possible	that	the	suspect	is	in	Nizza	or	Paris.				It	is	possible	that	the	suspect	is	in	Nizza	and	it	is	possible	that	the	suspect	is	in		Paris.			The	 equivalence	 in	 (16)	 is	 due	 to	 De	Morgan’s	 law,	 and	 the	 inference	 in	 (17)	 was	associated	with	free	choice	in	Zimmermann	(2000):		(16) (pq)	=	p		q	(17) (pq)		p		q		But	 disjunction	 of	 exemplification	 does	 not	 require	 either	 a	 negation	 (or,	 more	generally,	a	monotonically	decreasing	context)	or	a	possibility	modal.	We	must	look	for	another	model.		Singh	et	al.	(2016)	argued	in	connection	with	child	English	or	and	Bowler	(2014)	in	connection	with	Warlpiri	manu	that	although	their	basic	meanings	are	disjunctive,	in	certain	well‐delimited	contexts	they	assume	conjunctive	interpretations.2	Singh	et	al.	(2016)	 were	 investigating	 the	 phenomenon,	 well‐known	 from	 the	 acquisition	literature,	 that	English‐speaking	 children	before	 the	 school	age	 systematically	 judge	sentences	 like	The	 boy	 is	 holding	an	 apple	 or	 a	 banana	 false	when	 only	 one	 of	 the	disjuncts	 is	 true;	but	 they	 treat	or	 identically	 to	 adults	 in	negative	 contexts.	Bowler	(2014)	documents	 that	 the	same	connective	manu	plays	 the	role	of	conjunction	and	disjunction	in	Warlpiri,	exhibiting	a	specific	pattern;	roughly,	conjunctive	 in	positive	and	disjunctive	in	negative	contexts.	Bowler	argues	that	the	distribution	indicates	that	the	 lexical	 meaning	 of	manu	 is	 disjunctive,	 and	 the	 conjunctive	 one	 is	 due	 to	 the	recursive	application	of	a	silent	O	operator.	Although	Singh	et	al.	and	Bowler	investigate	different	 linguistic	 data,	 their	 analyses	 are	 entirely	 convergent	 and,	 with	 some	simplification,	can	be	summarized	as	follows.	The	analyses	belong	to	the	school	of	thought	that	assigns	certain	conversational	implicatures	(Grice	1975)	to	the	recursive	semantic	component	instead	of	pragmatics	(Chierchia	et	al.	2012).		According	to	this	approach,	the	fact	that	sentences	receive	the	strongest	 possible	 interpretation	 is	 not,	 or	 not	 only,	 a	 consequence	 of	 cooperative	behavior	by	speaker	and	hearer.	Logical	form	contains	silent	exhaustifiers	similar	to	only	(notated	as	O	or	as	Exh)	that	negate	alternative	propositions	and	thus	strengthen	literal	meaning.	The	most	important	argument	to	the	effect	that	such	strengthening	can	 2 Similar phenomena were pointed out in other languages by Mitrović (2014) and Bar-Lev  Margulis (2014). However, these authors are not concerned with direct counterparts of vagy `or’ but with constructions whose formal semantic analysis is based on abstract disjunction or existential quantification.  5  be	semantic	and	is	not	just	pragmatic	comes	from	the	fact	that	the	O	operator	can	be	detected	within	the	scope	of	other	sentence‐internal	operators,	not	only	affixed	to	the	whole	 sentence	 in	 the	 last	 step.	 In	 such	 cases	 its	 occurrence	 is	 regulated	 by	 the	following	hypothesis	(Chierchia	et	al.	2012:	2327):				(18) Strongest	Meaning	Hypothesis	Let	S	be	a	sentence	of	the	form	[	S	.	.	.	O(X)	.	.	.].	Let	S'	be	the	sentence	of	the	form	[	S'	.	.	.X	.	.	.],	i.e.,	the	one	that	is	derived	from	S	by	replacing	O(X)	with	X,	i.e.	by	eliminating	this	particular	occurrence	of	O.	Then,	everything	else	being	equal,	S'	is	preferred	to	S	if	S'	is	logically	stronger	than	S.		Similarly	 to	 pragmatic	 strengthening,	 this	 hypothesis	 predicts	 that	 the	 use	 of	 O	 in	decreasing	 contexts	 is	 restricted	 to	 special	 cases,	 e.g.	 the	 presence	 of	 focus	 accent,	because	in	the	general	case	O	would	weaken	the	proposition	in	a	decreasing	context.3	All	this	predicts	the	patterns	observed	by	Singh	et	al.	and	Bowler.	The	lexical	meaning	of	 child	 English	 or	 and	 Warlpiri	manu	 is	 the	 disjunctive	 one	 attested	 in	 negative	contexts.	 The	 conjunctive	 interpretation	 attested	 in	 positive	 contexts	 is	 a	 result	 of		strengthening.			 	A	bit	more	formally,	the	basic	meaning	of	p	manu	q	is		pq	and	its	alternatives	are	the	elements	of	the	set	ALT={p,	q,	pq}.	If	the	Warlpiri	hearer	interprets	the	utterance	without	operator	O,	(s)he	has	to	conclude	that	the	speaker	does	not	know	which	of	p	and	q	is	true	(ignorance).	If	this	is	implausible,	the	hearer	can	apply	O:		(19) O(ALT)(p	manu	q)	=	O({p,	q,	pq})(p	manu	q)		Operator	O	can	only	negate	elements	of	ALT	without	contradicting	the	original	p	manu	q,	i.e.	pq.	In	our	case	neither	p	nor	q	can	be	negated	while	keeping	p	manu	q	true.	The	assertion	thus	remains	pq,	but	the	set	of	alternatives	changes.	This	becomes	relevant	if	the	persistent	hearer	applies	O	again:		(20) O(ALT)(O(ALT)(p	manu	q)),	where	ALT	={O(ALT)(p),	O(ALT)(q),	O(ALT)(pq)}		Skipping	details	of	the	calculation,	ALT	=	{(pq),	(pq),	(pq)}.	The	elements	of	this	set	that	are	distinct	from	pq	can	be	negated	without	contradicting	pq:		(21) O(ALT)(O(ALT)(p	manu	q))	=		(pq)		(pq)		(p		q)	=	pq		This	 is	how	the	recursive	application	of	O	produces	a	conjunctive	 interpretation	 for	Warlpiri	p	manu	q	and	child	English	p	or	q	before	school	age.			 In	both	cases	it	is	important	to	assume	that	pq		is	not	among	the	alternatives	in	ALT.	If	it	were,	O	would	negate	pq	and	és	O(ALT)(p	manu	q)	would	result	in	(pq)		(pq):	‘either	p	or	q	but	not	both.’	According	to	Bowler,	pq	is	not	contained	in	ALT	 3 If the sentence contains an operator (e.g. must) whose wider vs. narrower scope relative to O results in logically independent propositions, both versions are allowed. On the focus exception, see Fox  Katzir (2011).This plays no role in connection with the vagy `or’ in the center of this paper, among other reasons because Hungarian vagy can only focused as a correction (“metalinguistic focus”). 6  because	Warlpiri	has	no	lexical	conjunctive	connective.	Singh	et	al.	argue	that	children	in	the	relevant	age	group	cannot	reliably	retrieve	and	from	the	mental	lexicon.4		3.	Disjunction	of	exemplification		I	propose	that	the	conjunctive	interpretation	of	Hungarian	p	vagy	q	 is	produced	in	a	way	analogous	to	the	above:	by	strengthening	a	disjunction.	Now	two	questions	arise.		One	question	is	why	O(ALT)(p	vagy	q)	does	not	negate	pq.	One	reason	may	be	that,	despite	appearances,	Hungarian	és	has	no	conjunctive	meaning.	Szabolcsi	(2015:	179)	argued	that	és	is	merely	the	Junction	(J)	head	of	JP	(Junction	Phrase),	and	so	pq	is	not	in	ALT.	On	this	theory	JP	merely	enumerates	the	elements	of	a	set	of	propositions.	Disembodied	 	 or	 	 applies	 to	 this	 set	 to	 produce	 conjunctive	 or	 disjunctive	interpretations	(see	Szabolcsi	2015	for	details).	Another	possibility	is	that	presence	or	absence	 of	 scalar	 alternatives	 is	 subject	 to	 parametric	 variation.	 In	 principle	 either	possibility	can	explain	the	observation	that	disjunction	of	exemplification	is	much	more	natural	and	prevalent	in	Hungarian	than	in	English.	The	 other	 interesting	 property	 of	 the	 construction	 is	 that	 our	 conjunctive	interpretation	suggests	a	non‐exhaustive	 list.	 In	 this	respect	(22)	and	(23)	are	more	similar	to	each	other	than	to	(24).	For	too_too,	see	Brasoveanu‐‐Szabolcsi	(2013).		(22) Neki	köszönhetjük	a	Frakkot,	vagy	A	ceruza	és	a	radírt.		(Lehet,	hogy	mást	is.)	`He	gave	us	Frakk	or	The	pencil	and	the	eraser.	(Maybe	also	other	things.)’		(23) Neki	köszönhetjük	a	Frakkot	is,	A	ceruza	és	a	radírt	is.	(Lehet,	hogy	mást	is.)	`lit.	He	gave	us	Frakk	too,	The	pencil	and	the	eraser	too.	 (Maybe	also	other	things.)’	=	`He	gave	us	Frakk	as	well	as	The	pencil	and	the	eraser.’		(24) Neki	köszönhetjük	a	Frakkot	és	A	ceruza	és	a	radírt.		(Ezek	a	releváns	esetek.)	`He	 gave	 us	 Frakk	 and	 The	 pencil	 and	 the	 eraser.	 (These	 are	 the	 relevant		cases.)’		It	is	true	that	in	the	Hungarian	postverbal	field	that	does	not	host	focus	we	do	not	expect	classical,	 semantic	exhaustive	 listing.	But	Szabolcsi	 (2010:	149‐151)	argues	 that	 the	postverbal	field	does	host	Gricean,	pragmatic	exhaustive	listing.		It	seems	that	it	is	more	difficult	to	add	a	final	exhaustification	`I	have	said	everything	that	is	relevant’	to	(22)	and	(23)	than	to	(24).	This	kind	of	contrast	is	familiar	from	modified	and	non‐modified	numeral	indefinites	(Krifka	1999):		(25) We	watched	at	least	three	/	more	than	two	films.	(Maybe	more	than	three.)		(26) We	watched	three	films.	(Three	is	the	relevant	number.)	 		Further	research	will	hopefully	provide	a	unified	explanation	for	these	facts.			 			 	 4 Fox (2007) and followers use recursive O for free choice disjunctions, cf. (15). But free choice involves a modal and, according to Fox, ALT contains pq, the partial similarity does not justify saying that disjunction of exemplification is an instance of free choice. 7  References		Bar‐Lev,	Moshe	E.		Daniel	Margulis	2014.	Hebrew	kol:	 a	 universal	quantifier	 as	 an	undercover	existential.	In:	Urtzi	Etxeberria		Anamaria	Fălăuş		Aritz	Irurtzun		Bryan	Leferman	(eds.),		Proceedings	of	Sinn	und	Bedeutung	18.	60–76.		Bowler,	 Margit	 2014.	 Conjunction	 and	 disjunction	 in	 a	 language	 without	 `and’.	Semantics	and	Linguistic	Theory	24:	137–155.		Brasoveanu,	 Adrian	 	 Anna	 Szabolcsi.	 2013.	 Presuppositional	TOO,	 postsupposi‐tional	TOO.	 In	 Maria	 Aloni,	 Michael	 Franke	 &	 Floris	 Roelofsen	 (eds.),	The	 dynamic,	inquisitive,	 and	 visionary	 life	 of	 ϕ,	 ?ϕ,	 and	 ◊ϕ.	 A	 festschrift	 for	 Jeroen	 Groenendijk,	Martin	Stokhof,	and	Frank	Veltman.	http://www.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift‐JMF/.		Chierchia,	 Gennaro	 	 Danny	 Fox	 –	 Benjamin	 Spector	 2012.	 Scalar	 implicature	 as	 a	grammatical	phenomenon.	In:	Claudia	Maienborn		Klaus	von	Heusinger	–	Paul	Portner	(eds.):	Semantics	(HSK	33.3),	de	Gruyter.	2297–2331.		Fox,	Danny	2007.	Free	choice	and	the	theory	of	scalar	implicatures.	In:	Uli	Sauerland	–	Penka	 Stateva	 (eds.):	 Presupposition	 and	 implicature	 in	 compositional	 semantics.	Palgrave	Macmillan,	London.	71‐120.	Fox,	 Danny	 –	 Roni	 Katzir	 2011.	 On	 the	 characterization	 of	 alternatives.	 Natural	Language	Semantics	19:	87.	Grice,	H.	P.	1975.	Logic	and	Conversation.	In:	Peter	Cole	–		J.	L.	Morgan	(eds.):	Syntax	and	Semantics,	Vol.	3,	Speech	Acts.	New	York,	Academic	Press.	41‐58.	Krifka,	Manfred	1999.	At	 least	some	determiners	aren’t	determiners.	 In:	Ken	Turner	(eds.),	 The	 semantics/pragmatics	 interface	 from	 different	 points	 of	 view.	 Elsevier	Science	B.V.	257–291.		Mitrović,	Moreno	2014.	The	atoms	of	propositional	logic.	PhD	dissertation,	Cambridge	University.		Singh,	Raj	–	Ken	Wexler	–	Andrea	Astle	–	Deepthi	Kamawar	–	Danny	Fox	2016.	Children	interpret	disjunction	as	conjunction:	consequences	for	theories	of	implicature	and	child	development.	Natural	Language	Semantics	24:305‐352.	Szabolcsi,	Anna	2010.	Quantification.	Cambridge	University	Press.		Szabolcsi,	 Anna	 2015.	 What	 do	 quantifier	 particles	 do?	 Linguistics	 and	 Philosophy	38:159‐204.	Zimmermann,	 Thomas	 Ede	 2000.	 Free	 choice	 disjunction	 and	 epistemic	 possibility.	Natural	Language	Semantics	8:	255‐290.		

Exemplification with disjunction

https://philpapers.org/archive/SZAEWD.pdf

Exemplification with disjunction

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

PhilPapers