A Viability Constraint on Alternatives for Free Choice

This chapter takes the universal force of free choice items (henceforth FCIs) to be an implicature that arises when an assertion with existential force interacts with a set of lexically triggered exhaustified alternatives, as proposed by Chierchia (to appear). It departs from him in capturing the distribution of FCIs through a Viability Constraint on alternatives, adapting the notion of fluctuation in Dayal (2009) to the view of FCIs as existential. A substantive consequence of the proposed viability constraint is that FCIs can only ever be licensed if they take wide scope over modals (of the appropriate sort). The chapter establishes that apparent counterexamples involve nontrivial interactions between FCIs and modality. When the FCI is complex it can participate in split-quantification, with one part taking scope over the modal and the other taking scope under it. Alternatively, if there are two modals, the FCI can be scopally lower than one but still be licensed because it has scope over the other. A striking confirmation of this approach comes from imperatives. Though long thought to unconditionally admit FCIs, it is shown here that this is not so. In addition to accounting for the more nuanced empirical generalization regarding imperatives, the viability constraint is argued to be generally a simpler way of predicting the distribution of FCIs than the one proposed by Chierchia.

[1]  Z. Vendler Linguistics in Philosophy , 1967 .

[2]  Florian Schwarz,et al.  Two Types of Definites in Natural Language , 2009 .

[3]  R. E. Jennings,et al.  The Genealogy of Disjunction , 1994 .

[4]  Veneeta Dayal Free Relatives and "Ever": Identity and Free Choice Readings , 1997 .

[5]  Paula Menéndez-Benito On universal Free Choice items , 2010 .

[6]  Anastasia Giannakidou,et al.  Polarity sensitivity as (non) veridical dependency , 2000 .

[7]  Chung-hye Han,et al.  The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar , 2000 .

[8]  Maria Aloni,et al.  Free choice, modals, and imperatives , 2007 .

[9]  Veneeta Dayal The universal force of free choice any , 2004 .

[10]  J. Gajewski On Analyticity in Natural Language , 2004 .

[11]  Mürvet Enç,et al.  Tense without scope : an analysis of nouns as indexicals , 1986 .

[12]  J. Peregrin LINGUISTICS AND PHILOSOPHY , 1998 .

[13]  E. Villalta Mood and gradability: an investigation of the subjunctive mood in Spanish , 2008 .

[14]  Evangelia Vlachou,et al.  Free choice in and out of context: semantics and distribution of French, Greek and English Free Choice Items , 2007 .

[15]  Jean Ehrenkranz Legrand Or and any : the semantics and syntax of two logical operators , 1975 .

[16]  G. Chierchia,et al.  Broaden Your Views: Implicatures of Domain Widening and the Logicality of Language , 2006, Linguistic Inquiry.

[17]  Paula Menéndez-Benito,et al.  The Grammar of Choice , 2007 .

[18]  J. Jayez,et al.  Free Choiceness and Non-Individuation , 2005 .

[19]  Anastasia Giannakidou,et al.  The Meaning of Free Choice , 2001 .

[20]  Veneeta Dayal Slightly modified version of paper in Proceedings of Asian GLOW 7 DRAFT – Nov 2009 VARIATION IN ENGLISH FREE CHOICE ITEMS , 2009 .

[21]  Veneeta Dayal Licensing "any" in Non-Negative / Non-Modal Contexts , 1995 .

[22]  J. Quer Mood at the interface , 2000 .

[23]  Veneeta Dayal,et al.  Any as Inherently Modal , 1998 .