Free choice permission as resource-sensitive reasoning
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Free choice permission as resource-sensitive reasoning
Free choice permission is a long-standing puzzle in deontic logic and natural language semantics involving a so-called conjunctive use of or: from You may eat an apple or a pear, we can infer that You may eat an apple and that You may eat a pear—but not that You may eat an apple and a pear. Following Lokhorst 1997, I argue that because permission is a limited resource, a resource-sensitive logi...
متن کاملContextual Permission A Solution to the Free Choice Paradox
In this paper, we give a solution to the Free Choice Paradox. This is done in two stages. First, we have a close look at the logical interpretation of the natural language statements that lead to the paradox. This leads to making the important distinction of permitting an action in isolation or permitting it in combination with some or any other action, i.e. in a certain context. This distincti...
متن کاملFree Choice Permission and the Counterfactuals of Pragmatics∗
This paper addresses a little puzzle with a surprisingly long pedigree and a surprisingly large wake: the puzzle of Free Choice Permission. I begin by presenting a popular sketch of a pragmatic solution to the puzzle, due to Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002, which has received a good deal of discussion, endorsement and elaboration in recent work (Aloni & van Rooij, 2004; Alonso-Ovalle, 2006; Chierchi...
متن کاملNICHOLAS ASHER and DANIEL BONEVAC FREE CHOICE PERMISSION IS STRONG PERMISSION
Free choice permission, a crucial test case concerning the semantics/ pragmatics boundary, usually receives a pragmatic treatment. But its pragmatic features follow from its semantics. We observe that free choice inferences are defeasible, and defend a semantics of free choice permission as strong permission expressed in terms of a modal conditional in a nonmonotonic logic.
متن کاملPermission and Choice
When it comes to permission imperatives, a basic question that must be answered is whether they should receive the same basic analysis as strong imperatives (i.e., those which express commands and the like). If the answer is positive, the difference should lie in some aspect of the context. Portner (2004, 2008), Schwager (2005b), and maybe Mastop (2005) take this view. If it is negative, a perm...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Semantics and Pragmatics
سال: 2010
ISSN: 1937-8912
DOI: 10.3765/sp.3.10