A copy of this work was available on the public web and has been preserved in the Wayback Machine. The capture dates from 2017; you can also visit <a rel="external noopener" href="http://mwestera.humanities.uva.nl/downloads/Preproceedings2011DEC015tex.pdf">the original URL</a>. The file type is <code>application/pdf</code>.
<i title="Springer Berlin Heidelberg">
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://fatcat.wiki/container/2w3awgokqne6te4nvlofavy5a4" style="color: black;">Lecture Notes in Computer Science</a>
We will propose a novel solution to the free choice puzzle that is driven by empirical data from legal discourse and does not suffer from the same problems as implicature-based accounts. We will argue against implicature-based accounts and provide an entailment-based solution. Following Anderson's violation-based deontic logic, we will demonstrate that a support-based radical inquisitive semantics will correctly model both the free choice effect and the boolean standard entailment relations in<span class="external-identifiers"> <a target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_3">doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_3</a> <a target="_blank" rel="external noopener" href="https://fatcat.wiki/release/vqnczv27vrbh5bekucsnhlocxm">fatcat:vqnczv27vrbh5bekucsnhlocxm</a> </span>
more »... ownward entailing contexts. An inquisitive semantics is especially suited to model sluicing effects where the continuation "but I do not know which" coerces an ignorance reading. It also demonstrates that the counterarguments to deontic reduction failed to take into account the different effects of inquisitive and informative utterances in conversation, such that a refined definition of radical inquisitive entailment renders such inferences invalid. Furthermore, we will argue that the problem of strengthening the antecedent that is used as a counterargument against entailment-based accounts also fails under a refined notion of entailment. Free Choice in Deontic Inquisitive Semantics (DIS) Martin Aher Definition 3. Maximality restriction. Given any χ ⊆ P ow(W ), χ MAX is defined as all the ⊆-maximal elements of χ, ie. σ ∈ χ MAX means that, for any τ ∈ χ with σ ⊆ τ , σ = τ . This allows us to define possibilities and counter-possibilities. We define for every sentence ϕ in our language, the proposition ϕ expressed by ϕ, and the counter-proposition ϕ for ϕ. Both ϕ and ϕ will be sets of possibilities. We will refer to the elements of ϕ as the possibilities for ϕ and to the elements of ϕ as the counter-possibilites for ϕ. Definition 4. Possibilities and counter-possibilities.
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170706091650/http://mwestera.humanities.uva.nl/downloads/Preproceedings2011DEC015tex.pdf" title="fulltext PDF download" data-goatcounter-click="serp-fulltext" data-goatcounter-title="serp-fulltext"> <button class="ui simple right pointing dropdown compact black labeled icon button serp-button"> <i class="icon ia-icon"></i> Web Archive [PDF] </button> </a> <a target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_3"> <button class="ui left aligned compact blue labeled icon button serp-button"> <i class="external alternate icon"></i> springer.com </button> </a>