Circumstantial possibility and embedded disjunction

Finn Matthiessen

University of Amsterdam, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation

Several natural language (e.g. free-choice inferences, negative contexts) phenomena motivate non-classical accounts of disjunction. Mandelkern (2024) proposes that embedded disjunction ˹p v q˺ means (p v q) & ◊p & ◊q, where the interpretation of ◊ is context-dependent. On this account ‘Sofia takes the bus or the bike’ means ‘Sofia takes the bus v bike and might take the bus and might take the bike’, where ‘might’ is an epistemic modal verb. Besides an epistemic reading, he introduces a notion of circumstantial possibility, associated with agential possibility, to provide a non-epistemic interpretation of ◊. This allows, as Mandelkern claims, for a thorough account of embedded disjunction one that rival, purely epistemic accounts, cannot provide. Thus, a proponent of Mandelkern’s proposal must argue that circumstantial possibility is a genuine non-epistemic modality in its own right. This talk argues that reducing circumstantial to agential possibility reintroduces an epistemic component, undermining the claim that the account yields non-epistemic readings of embedded disjunction. The discussion focuses on the Thanksgiving Dinner case in Mandelkern (2024), which is intended to show that purely epistemic accounts of ◊ fail, while a circumstantial reading allow for a suitable interpretation of ˹p v q˺ in this context. Consider the example above with ◊ as circumstantial possibility, that is, ‘Sofia takes the bus v bike and can take the bus and can take the bike’. It is argued that a semantic analysis of ‘can’ involves epistemic notions, allowing inferences to epistemic modalities from agentive modal verbs. This challenges Mandelkern’s proposal and motivates a broader discussion of the inferential interplay between agentive and epistemic modalities. The talk concludes with a mild dilemma: either agential possibility reintroduces an epistemic reading of ◊, or circumstantial possibility cannot be reduced to agential terms and thus lacks a precise interpretation.

Chair: tba

Time:

Location:


Posted

in

by