Free Choices, Hard Choices Expressing Permission Conclusion References Outline Expressing Permission William Starr 1 Free Choices, Hard Choices 2 Expressing Permission 3 Conclusion Department of Philosophy, Cornell University will.starr@cornell.edu http://williamstarr.net May 14th, 2016 William Starr ∣ SALT 26 ∣ UT Austin ∣ Slides: williamstarr.net/salt26.pdf 0 Free Choices, Hard Choices Expressing Permission Conclusion References Free Choices, Hard Choices Expressing Permission Conclusion References Free Choice Permission Free Choice Permission Early Statement In a Concrete Context Strong Permission and Free Choice Background Union members need to vote strategically in a committee “If we are told that we may do this thing or that thing, we normally understand this to mean that we may do the one election. An election of Anderson to the committee and an election of Brady to the committee will promote the thing but also the other thing. The distribution principle, in other words, would seem to be P ( p ∨ q ) ↔ Pp & Pq . But interests of the union. It’s impossible to say whether both would do them any better than one. Further, only senior this principle goes with a different idea of permittedness members get to vote for two candidates, while junior from the one which obeys the interdefinition schema P ∶= ∼ O ∼ . We can call it a notion of strong permission. It is members get to vote for just one. One representative has the job of telling their very loyal members how they are related to possibility (freedom) of choice between permitted to vote. alternatives.” (von Wright 1968:4-5) William Starr ∣ SALT 26 ∣ UT Austin ∣ Slides: williamstarr.net/salt26.pdf William Starr ∣ SALT 26 ∣ UT Austin ∣ Slides: williamstarr.net/salt26.pdf 1 2
Free Choices, Hard Choices Expressing Permission Conclusion References Free Choices, Hard Choices Expressing Permission Conclusion References Free Choice Permission Free Choice Permission The Narrow Implication Is Narrow Implication a Cancelable Implicature? Authoritative labor representative to union members : (1) a. Members may vote for Anderson or Brady • Implication doesn’t pass standard cancellation test b. Members may vote for Anderson and members may vote for Brady (2) Authoritative labor representative: a. Members may vote for Anderson or Brady Narrow Free Choice Permission (NFC) b. #But members may not vote for { Anderson } May ( A ∨ B ) ⇒ May A ∧ May B Brady • But implication can be ‘defeated’... • ‘ ⇒ ’: shorthand for ‘implication’, neutral between semantic consequence and pragmatic implicature (von Wright 1968:4-5, Kamp 1973) William Starr ∣ SALT 26 ∣ UT Austin ∣ Slides: williamstarr.net/salt26.pdf William Starr ∣ SALT 26 ∣ UT Austin ∣ Slides: williamstarr.net/salt26.pdf 3 4 Free Choices, Hard Choices Expressing Permission Conclusion References Free Choices, Hard Choices Expressing Permission Conclusion References Free Choice Implication Free Choice Permission Defeated by the Ignorant and Rude? The Wide Implication • Ignorance (Kamp 1978:271) Authoritative labor representative to union members : (3) Authoritative labor representative : (5) a. Members may vote for Anderson or members may a. Members may vote for Anderson or Brady, but I vote for Brady don’t know which b. Members may vote for Anderson and members b. # Members may vote for { Anderson } may vote for Brady Brady • Uncooperativeness (Simons 2005:273) Wide Free Choice Permission (WFC) (4) Authoritative labor representative : May A ∨ May B ⇒ May A ∧ May B a. Members may vote for Anderson or Brady, but I • ‘ ⇒ ’: shorthand for ‘implication’, neutral between won’t tell you which semantic consequence and pragmatic implicature b. # Members may vote for { Anderson } (Kamp 1978:273; Zimmermann 2000; Geurts 2005; Simons 2005) Brady • Open question how best to capture this William Starr ∣ SALT 26 ∣ UT Austin ∣ Slides: williamstarr.net/salt26.pdf William Starr ∣ SALT 26 ∣ UT Austin ∣ Slides: williamstarr.net/salt26.pdf 5 6
Free Choices, Hard Choices Expressing Permission Conclusion References Free Choices, Hard Choices Expressing Permission Conclusion References Free Choice Permission Modal Orthodoxy May = ◇ Reduce Wide to Narrow? (Simons 2005:281-2) Orthodox Possible Worlds Semantics 1 � A � = { w ∣ w ( A ) = 1 } • Reduce WFC to NFC via (ATB) movement? • May A ∨ May B transformed to May ( A ∨ B ) 2 � ¬ φ � = W − � φ � • Major over-generation problems: 3 � φ ∧ ψ � = � φ � ∩ � ψ � (6) Authoritative labor representative : 4 � φ ∨ ψ � = � φ � ∪ � ψ � 5 � ◇ φ � = { w ∣ ∃ w ′ ∶ ∈ R ( w,w ′ ) & w ′ ∈ � φ � } a. Members may vote for Anderson and members may vote for Brady • R ( w,w ′ ) : w ′ is ‘accessible’ from w b. # Members may vote for Anderson and Brady • May A ∧ May B doesn’t transform to May ( A ∧ B ) , Classical Truth and Consequence despite being formally parallel ⇒ w ∈ � φ � Truth w ⊧ φ ⇐ • Problematic for many accounts ⇒ � φ � ⊆ � ψ � Consequence φ ⊧ ψ ⇐ William Starr ∣ SALT 26 ∣ UT Austin ∣ Slides: williamstarr.net/salt26.pdf William Starr ∣ SALT 26 ∣ UT Austin ∣ Slides: williamstarr.net/salt26.pdf 7 8 Free Choices, Hard Choices Expressing Permission Conclusion References Free Choices, Hard Choices Expressing Permission Conclusion References Consequence of the Orthodoxy Dual Prohibition Possibility and Disjunction Good for the Orthodoxy, Bad for the Un-orthodoxy Fact 1: ◇ A ∨ ◇ B ⊭ ◇ A and ◇ ( A ∨ B ) ⊭ ◇ A Authoritative labor representative to union members : (7) a. Members may not vote for Anderson or Brady 1 First would require: • � ◇ A � ∪ � ◇ B � ⊆ � ◇ A � b. Members may not vote for Anderson and members may not vote for Brady • But this only holds when � ◇ B � = ∅ Dual Prohibition (DP) 2 Second would require: • � A ∨ B � ⊆ � A � ¬ May ( A ∨ B ) ⇒ ¬ May A ∧ ¬ May B • Would hold only when � B � = ∅ (Alonso-Ovalle 2006; Fox 2007) • Orthodox Explanation: ¬◇ ( A ∨ B ) ⊧ ¬ ◇ A ∧ ¬ ◇ B • Orthodoxy doesn’t explain NFC or WFC • Un-orthodoxy: May ( A ∨ B ) is semantically equivalent to May A ∧ May B (e.g. Geurts 2005; Simons 2005) • More unorthodox semantics or Unorthodox LF/Pragmatics? William Starr ∣ SALT 26 ∣ UT Austin ∣ Slides: williamstarr.net/salt26.pdf William Starr ∣ SALT 26 ∣ UT Austin ∣ Slides: williamstarr.net/salt26.pdf 9 10
Free Choices, Hard Choices Expressing Permission Conclusion References Journal of Semantics , 33, 2016: 269–298 The Dilemma doi:10.1093/jos/ffv001 Advance Access publication March 3, 2015 Hard Choices Children’s Knowledge of Free Choice Inferences More Unorthodox Semantics and Scalar Implicatures 1 Aloni (2007) • Semantic explanation of NFC • Potential semantic explanation of DP LYN TIEU ´cole Normale Supe • No account of WFC ´rieure E 2 Barker (2010) JACOPO ROMOLI • Semantic explanation of NFC University of Ulster • Pragmatic explanation of DP • Evidence for pragmatic account of DP holds for NFC PENG ZHOU • Problematic account of WFC Macquarie University 3 Aher (2012); Willer (2015) STEPHEN CRAIN • Semantic explanation of NFC, DP Macquarie University • No account of WFC William Starr ∣ SALT 26 ∣ UT Austin ∣ Slides: williamstarr.net/salt26.pdf William Starr ∣ SALT 26 ∣ UT Austin ∣ Slides: williamstarr.net/salt26.pdf 11 12 Free Choices, Hard Choices Expressing Permission Conclusion References Free Choices, Hard Choices Expressing Permission Conclusion References Resource Sensitivity Resource Sensitivity Permission as Partial, Discrete Information Comes In and Permissions Expire (Asher & Bonevac 2005:304) (8) Authoritative labor representative : (9) Authoritative labor representative to union : a. Members may vote for Anderson or Brady Members may vote for Anderson or Brady b. # Members may vote for both Anderson and (10) Every member just voted for Anderson. Senior Brady members are about to cast additional vote : c. # Members may not vote for both Anderson and # Members may vote for Brady Brady (Simons 2005; Barker 2010) Resource Sensitivity (RS) 1 May ( A ∨ B ) ⇏ May ( A ∧ B ) Resource Sensitivity (RS) 2 May ( A ∨ B ) ⇏ ¬ May ( A ∧ B ) 1 May ( A ∨ B ) ⇏ May ( A ∧ B ) 3 May ( A ∨ B ) , A ⇏ May B 2 May ( A ∨ B ) ⇏ ¬ May ( A ∧ B ) William Starr ∣ SALT 26 ∣ UT Austin ∣ Slides: williamstarr.net/salt26.pdf William Starr ∣ SALT 26 ∣ UT Austin ∣ Slides: williamstarr.net/salt26.pdf 13 14
Recommend
More recommend
