Volume 33, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919


Given a set of alternatives, a speaker can explicitly admit ignorance about which of them hold true. The (in)felicity of such admission-of-ignorance moves immediately following disjunctions and conjunctions follows from the semantics of and However, semantics alone turns out to be insufficient in cases when the disjunction/conjunction and the admission-of-ignorance move are separated by additional conversational moves of acceptance, objection, or removal of an existing assertion. I argue that these patterns follow if admission-of-ignorance are associated to a speech act operator admit whose input is restricted to propositions that the current speaker is publicly committed to at the current conversational stage.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Alonso-Ovalle, Luis
    2006 Disjunction in alternative semantics. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
  2. AnderBois, Scott
    2011 Issues and alternatives. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.
  3. AnderBois, S.
    2014 The semantics of sluicing: beyond truth conditions. Language90:887–926. doi: 10.1353/lan.2014.0110
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0110 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barros, Matthew
    2014 Pseudosluicing and identity in ellipsis. Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers University.
  5. Chung, S. , W. Ladusaw , and J. McCloskey
    1995 Sluicing and Logical Form. Natural Language Semantics3:239–282. doi: 10.1007/BF01248819
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01248819 [Google Scholar]
  6. Farkas, D. , and K. Bruce
    2010 On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of semantics27:81–118. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffp010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp010 [Google Scholar]
  7. Ginzburg, Jonathan
    2012The interactive stance: meaning for conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697922.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697922.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Groenendijk, Jeroen
    2009 Inquisitive semantics: two possibilities for disjunction. InLogic, Language, and Computation, ed. Peter Bosch , David Gabelaia , and Jerome Lang , 80–94. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑00665‑4_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00665-4_8 [Google Scholar]
  9. Groenendijk, Jeroen , and Floris Roelofsen
    2009 Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. InProceedings of SPR 09.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Groenendijk, J. , and Martin S.
    1991 Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics & Philosophy14:39–100. doi: 10.1007/BF00628304
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00628304 [Google Scholar]
  11. Simons, Mandy
    2005 Dividing things up: the semantics of or and the modal/ or interaction. Natural Language Semantics13:271–316. doi: 10.1007/s11050‑004‑2900‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-004-2900-7 [Google Scholar]
  12. Slade, Benjamin M.
    2011 Formal and philological inquiries into the nature of interrogatives, indefinites, disjunction, and focus in Sinhala and other languages. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
  13. Webber, Bonnie Lynn
    1978 A formal approach to discourse anaphora. Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University.
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): alternatives; conjunction; discourse; disjunction
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error