Home
Publications
Research
Teaching
Contact
M Aloni. Nothing is Logical (with overview of recent experiments), slides Linguistics Colloquium, Bielefeld University, 14 May 2025
M Aloni (joint work with M Degano). How to be (non-)specific: diachronic tendencies and cross-linguistic variation. slides FoDS 9, Bologna, November 2024
M Aloni (joint work with T Klochowicz and G Sbardolini). Neglect-zero and no-split: cognitive biases at the semantic-pragmatic interface, slides, Free Choice Inferences: Theoretical and experimental approaches, 15 May 2024
M Aloni (joint work with M Degano). (Non-)specificity across languages: constancy, variation, v-variation, slides Presented at ZAS semantic circle talk, Berlin, 25 June 2024; NYU Semantics Group Meeting, 12 October 2023.
M Aloni. Nothing is Logical, slides The New York Philosophy of Language Workshop, 16 October 2023
M Aloni. Neglect-zero effects at the semantics-pragmatics interface, slides UMass Amherst Linguistics Colloquium, 6 October 2023
Recent studies use semantic structural priming to show that various cases of linguistic strengthening happen through a common mechanism: generation of implicatures through alternative-based (scalar) reasoning. In this paper, we used priming to investigate another group of cases, where strengthening is postulated to follow from the tendency to systematically neglect structures that verify a sentence by virtue of an empty configuration (neglect-zero): empty-set quantifiers (’at most/fewer than’) and disjunction under a universal quantifier. We report data indicating semantic priming between these two structures, but not between them and scalar ’some’. We propose that 1. there is a common mechanism in use for strengthening constructions postulated to follow from the neglect-zero tendency, and that 2. this mechanism is different from the one involved in alternative-based reasoning.
@inproceedings{Klochowiczetal2025,
author = {Klochowicz, Tomasz and Schlotterbeck, Fabian and Bott, Oliver and Ramotowska, Sonia and Aloni, Maria},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 47},
title = {Neglect zero: evidence from priming across constructions},
year = {2025},
external = {https://escholarship.org/uc/item/36w6x7z9}
}
@article{DeganoAloni2025,
author = {Degano, Marco and Aloni, Maria},
id = {Degano2025},
journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},
title = {How to be (non-)specific},
notes = {Accepted},
year = {2025}
}
Plain disjunctive sentences, such as The mystery box contains a blue ball or a yellow ball, typically imply that the speaker does not know which of the two disjuncts is true. This is known as an ignorance inference. We can distinguish between two aspects of this inference: the negated universal upper bound part (i.e., the speaker is uncertain about each disjunct), which we call uncertainty, and the existential lower bound part (i.e., the speaker considers each disjunct possible), which we call possibility. In the traditional approach, uncertainty is derived as a primary implicature, from which possibility follows. In this paper, we report on two experiments using a sentence-picture verification task based on the mystery box paradigm that challenge the traditional implicature approach. Our findings show that possibility can arise without uncertainty, and we thus call for a reevaluation of the traditional view of disjunction and ignorance inferences. Our experimental findings are related to similar results involving disjunction in embedded contexts and pave the way for alternative theories that can account for the observed patterns of inference derivation in a unified fashion. We discuss how recent implicature and non-implicature theories can account for the derivation of existential lower bound inferences without the presence of negated universal upper bound inferences.
@article{Deganoetal2025,
author = {Degano, Marco and Marty, Paul and Ramotowska, Sonia and Aloni, Maria and Breheny, Richard and Romoli, Jacopo and Sudo, Yasutada},
doi = {10.1007/s11050-024-09226-3},
id = {Degano2025},
isbn = {1572-865X},
journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
title = {The ups and downs of ignorance},
volume = {33},
number = {},
pages = {1--41},
year = {2025}
}
@inproceedings{Bottetal2024,
author = {Bott, Oliver and Schlotterbeck, Fabian and Klochowicz, Tomasz and Ramotowska, Sonia and Aloni, Maria},
booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB) 29},
title = {Neglect-Zero Effects in the Interpretation of Quantifiers and Disjunction},
year = {2024},
notes = {Accepted}
}
@inproceedings{Yanal2024,
author = {Yan, Jialiang and Aloni, Maria and Liu, Fenrong},
booktitle = {Proceedings of AWPL 2024},
title = {Perspective Shifts: Formalizing Epistemic Might in Multi-agent Models.},
year = {2024},
notes = {Accepted}
}
We study the mathematical properties of bilateral state-based modal logic (BSML), a modal logic employing state-based semantics (also known as team semantics), which has been used to account for free choice inferences and related linguistic phenomena. This logic extends classical modal logic with a nonemptiness atom which is true in a state if and only if the state is nonempty. We introduce two extensions of BSML and show that the extensions are expressively complete, and develop natural deduction axiomatizations for the three logics.
@article{Antilla2024,
author = {Aloni, Maria and Anttila, Aleksi and Yang, Fan},
journal = {Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic},
title = {State-based Modal Logics for Free Choice},
volume = {65},
number = {4},
pages = {367--413},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1215/00294527-2024-0027},
year = {2024}
}
The article presents a bilateral update semantics for epistemic modals which captures their discourse dynamics as well as their potential to give rise to fc inferences. The latter are derived as neglect-zero effects. Neglect-zero is a tendency in human cognition to disregard structures that verify sentences by virtue of an empty witness set. The upshot of modelling the neglect-zero tendency in a dynamic setting is a notion of dynamic logical consequence which makes interesting predictions concerning possible divergences between everyday and logico-mathematical reasoning.
@inproceedings{Aloni2022yx,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
booktitle = {Dynamics in Logic and Language},
editor = {Deng, Dun and Liu, Mingming and Westerstahl, Dag and Xie, Kaibo},
number = {13524},
publisher = {Springer},
series = {LNCS},
title = {Neglect-zero effects in Dynamic Semantics},
year = {2023},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25894-7_1},
slides = {DynamicBSML2022-slides.pdf}
}
We present a number of puzzles arising for the interpretation of modified numerals. Following Büring and others we assume that the main difference between comparative and superlative modifiers is that only the latter convey disjunctive meanings. We further argue that the inference patterns triggered by disjunction and superlative modifiers are hard to capture in existing semantic and pragmatic analyses of these phenomena (neo-Gricean or grammatical alike), and we propose a novel account of these inferences in the framework of bilateral state-based modal logic defining a first order extension of Aloni’s BSML.
@article{AlonivOrmondt23,
author = {Aloni, Maria and van Ormondt, Peter},
journal = {Journal of Logic, Language and Information},
volume = {32},
number = {},
pages = {539–567},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-023-09399-w},
title = {Modified numerals and split disjunction: the first-order case},
year = {2023}
}
Data involving epistemic modals suggest that some classically valid argument forms, such as reductio, are invalid in natural language reasoning as they lead to modal collapses. We adduce further data showing that the classical argument forms governing the existential quantifier are similarly defective, as they lead to a de re–de dicto collapse. We observe a similar problem for disjunction. But if the classical argument forms for negation, disjunction and existential quantification are invalid, what are the correct forms that govern the use of these items? Our diagnosis is that epistemic modals interfere with hypothetical reasoning. We present a modal first-order logic and model theory that characterizes hypothetical reasoning with epistemic modals in a principled manner. One upshot is a sound and complete natural deduction system for reasoning with epistemic modals in first-order logic.
@article{AloniEtAl2022,
author = {Aloni, Maria and Incurvati, Luca and Schloeder, Julian},
journal = {Erkenntnis},
number = {},
pages = {3551–3581},
title = {Epistemic Modals in Hypothetical Reasoning},
volume = {88},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1007/s10670-022-00517-x}
}
Indefinites are known to give rise to different scopal (specific vs nonspecific) and epistemic (known vs unknown) uses. Farkas & Brasoveanu (2020) explained these specificity distinctions in terms of stability vs. variability in value assignments of the variable introduced by the indefinite. Typological research (Haspelmath 1997) showed that indefinites have different functional distributions with respect to these uses. In this work, we present a formal framework where Farkas & Brasoveanu (2020)’s ideas are rigorously formalized. We develop a two-sorted team semantics which integrates both scope and epistemic effects. We apply the framework to explain typological variety of indefinites, their restricted distribution and licensing conditions, and some diachronic developments of indefinite forms.
@inproceedings{AloniDegano2022y,
author = {Aloni, Maria and Degano, Marco},
booktitle = {Proceedings of Semantic and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 32, (Mexico City, 8-10 June 2022).},
title = {(Non-)specificity across languages: constancy, variation, v-variation},
year = {2022},
slides = {Aloni-DeganoSALT2022.pdf}
}
In this paper we study how different FC inferences are derived in cases of sluiced sentences that differ just by the verb embedding the sluice, improving on Fusco (2019). We propose to add a new economy condition to Rudin (2019) that is able to derive - together with other existing constraints - the desired sluices from certain syntactico-semantic properties (temporal orientation, (Condoravdi, 2001)) of embedding verbs. We then present an analysis in which the attested FC inferences are derived from the different sluices through the interplay of scopal parallelism (Chung et al., 1995; Fusco, 2019) and uniqueness presupposition of singular which clauses (Dayal, 1996).
@inproceedings{PintonAloni2022,
author = {Pinton, Lorenzo and Aloni, Maria},
booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB) 27, (Prague, September 2022).},
title = {You may like or dislike this talk, and we do care which: Sluicing and free choice},
year = {2022},
slides = {SuB22.pdf}
}
Free choice inferences represent a much discussed case of a divergence between logic and language (Kamp 1973, Zimmermann 2000). Grice influentially argued that the assumption that such divergence does in fact exist is a mistake originating “from inadequate attention to the nature and importance of the conditions governing conversation” (Grice 1989: 24). I will first show that when applied to free choice phenomena, the standard implementation of Grice’s view, representing semantics and pragmatics as two separate components, is empirically inadequate. I will then propose a different account: a bilateral state-based modal logic modelling next to literal meanings also pragmatic factors and the additional inferences that arise from their interaction. The pragmatic factor I will consider connects to a tendency of language users to neglect empty configurations when engaging in linguistic interpretation. The non-emptiness atom (ne) from team semantics provides a perspicuous way to formally represent this tendency and to rigorously study its impact on interpretation. In terms of ne, I will define a pragmatic enrichment function and show that, in interaction with disjunction occurring in positive contexts and only in these cases, pragmatic enrichment yields non-trivial effects including predicting free choice inferences and their cancellation under negation. The latter result relies on the adopted bilateralism, where each connective comes with an assertion and a rejection condition and negation is defined in terms of the latter notion.
@article{AloniSP2022,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
title = {Logic and conversation: {The} case of free choice},
journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
volume = {15},
number = {5},
month = jun,
pages = {1--60},
doi = {10.3765/sp.15.5},
keywords = {free choice, disjunction, modality, implicature, modal logic},
year = {2022}
}
Indefinites display a great functional variety and they give rise to different pragmatic effects. We focus on free choice indefinites and in particular on the Italian qualsiasi. Our aim is to reconstruct the grammaticalization path of this item and understand how diachronic data might shed some light on existing semantic theories of free choice. We employ corpus-based tools to build a database containing occurrences of qualsiasi from its origin and early forms to its current usage. We show that qualsiasi emerged from a particular unconditional construction and we outline the different stages which led to its grammaticalization. We analyze the compatibility of our diachronic study with formal accounts of free choice inferences, with a focus on Alternative Semantics analyses for indefinite pronouns and so-called grammatical theories of free choice. Our work shows that an integration between formal semantics and historical linguistics is fruitful and worth pursuing.
@article{DeganoAloni2021,
author = {Degano, Marco and Aloni, Maria},
journal = {Natural Language & Linguistic Theory},
volume = {40},
pages = {447–484},
title = {Indefinites and free choice: When the past matters},
doi = {10.1007/s11049-021-09518-x},
year = {2022}
}
The article investigates the diachronic development of irgend-indefinites in the German language. Most scholars assume that the particle irgend emerged from the Old High German form io-wergin with a locative meaning similar to anywhere/somewhere. We present the result of corpus studies covering Middle High German, Early New High German and Present Day German. In view of our findings, we conjecture four stages in the development of irgend from a locative particle to a modifier of an indefinite: (Phase 1) in Old High German till Early Middle High German the particle irgend is a non-specific existential expression with a locative meaning; (Phase 2) in Classical Middle High German the particle is still a non-specific existential, but is no longer necessarily locative; (Phase 3) in Early New High German the first indefinite modifier uses emerge expressing semantic variation; in this process the particle loses its existential force and keeps only non-specificity (semantic variation) as its lexical contribution; (Phase 4) the indefinite modifier acquires new functions and establishes its current wide distribution, which includes semantic variation (non-specificity) as well as pragmatic variation (ignorance effect). The article aims to offer some insights on how an indefinite emerges and extends its use to new functions and which steps might be necessary for such an extension of use. We conjecture that some bleaching in the lexical contribution of irgend took place during this development.
@unpublished{AloniPort21,
author = {Port, Angelica and Aloni, Maria},
note = {Manuscript, ILLC, University of Amsterdam},
title = {The diachronic development of German \emph{Irgend}-Indefinites},
year = {2021}
}
The article discusses theoretical repercussions of a number of diachronic corpus studies establishing the patters of development of marked indefinites across languages (AguilarGuevara et al. 2012). The focus is on the case of wh-based free choice (fc) indefinites. After summarising the key results of two studies on the historical development of Spanish cualquiera and Dutch wie dan ook, we present a semantic analysis of the diachronic phases of these two fc indefinites demonstrating how historical data provide additional support for the abstract operators posited by analyses in Alternative Semantics style (Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002, Aloni 2007, Menendez-Benito 2010).
@incollection{Aloni2021a,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
title = {Indefinites as fossils: the case of wh-based free choice},
booktitle = {Determiners and quantifiers: functions, variation, and change},
publisher = {Brill},
editor = {Gianollo, Chiara and von Heusinger, Klaus and Napoli, Maria},
year = {2021}
}
@unpublished{AloniEtAl2019a,
author = {Aloni, Maria and Incurvati, Luca and Schloeder, Julian},
note = {Presented at APA 2019, and Bilateral Approaches to Meaning},
title = {Weak assertion meets information states: a logic for epistemic modality and quantification},
year = {2019},
slides = {AloniEtAl2019.pdf}
}
It is a long-standing puzzle why predicates like believe embed declarative but not interrogative complements (e.g., Bill believes that/*whether Mary left) and why predicates like wonder embed interrogative but not declarative complements (e.g., Bill wonders whether/*that Mary left). This paper shows how the selectional restrictions of a range of predicates (neg-raising predicates like believe, truth-evaluating predicates like be true, inquisitive predicates like wonder, and predicates of dependency like depend on) can be derived from semantic assumptions that can be independently motivated.
@article{TheilerEtAl2019,
author = {Theiler, Nadine and Roelofsen, Floris and Aloni, Maria},
doi = {10.1007/s11050-019-09152-9},
journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
keywords = {attitude predicates,inquisitive semantics,modality,questions,theoretical linguistics},
title = {Picky predicates: Why believe doesn't like interrogative complements, and other puzzles},
volume = {27},
pages = {95-134},
year = {2019}
}
This paper offers an account of the fact that certain verbs license wh-questions as their complement but not whether-questions. For instance, it is felicitous to say It is surprising who Bill had invited but not to say It is surprising whether Bill had invited his wife. We refer to this contrast as the *whether puzzle. We propose an account which crucially rests on the assumption that the relevant kind of verbs are sensitive to the semantic objects that their complement clause brings into salience, rather than just its truth/resolution conditions. It has been argued in previous work that the semantic objects that matrix questions bring into salience are important to understand the role of such questions in discourse. The present paper is, to the best of our knowledge, the first to argue that this aspect of meaning is also crucial for understanding the role of embedded questions in grammar.
@incollection{RoelofsenEtAl2019,
author = {Roelofsen, Floris and Herbstritt, Michele and Aloni, Maria},
title = {The *whether puzzle},
booktitle = {Questions in Discourse},
doi = {10.1163/9789004378308_005},
editor = {von Heusinger, Klaus and Zimmermann, Malte and Onea, Edgar},
keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,attitude predicates,modality,highlighting},
pages = {172-197},
publisher = {Brill},
year = {2019}
}
@unpublished{Aloni2018,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
note = {Presented at Linguistics & Philosophy Seminar (UCL, London, 2016), Disjunction Days (ZAS Berlin, 2016), LACL16 (Nancy, 2016), APA (Chicago, 2018), Logic Colloquium (Munich, 2018), Foundations and Methods of NL Semantics (Barcelona, 2018).},
title = {FC disjunction in state-based semantics},
year = {2018},
slides = {APA-chicago.pdf}
}
This paper proposes a semantics for declarative and interrogative complements and for so-called responsive verbs, like know and forget, which embed both kinds of complements. Following Groenendijk & Stokhof (1984), we pursue a uniform account in the sense that we take both kinds of complements to be of the same semantic type and we assume a single lexical entry for each responsive verb. This approach avoids a number of problems for non-uniform theories, such as the reductive theories of Karttunen (1977), Heim (1994), Lahiri (2002), Spector & Egré (2015), among others, and the twin relations theory of George (2011). On the other hand, our account also addresses the main limitation of Groenendijk & Stokhof’s (1984) proposal, which is that it is primarily designed to derive strongly exhaustive readings for interrogative complements. Our account is more flexible in that it straightforwardly derives non-exhaustive and intermediate exhaustive readings as well.
@article{TheilerEtAl2018,
author = {Theiler, Nadine and Roelofsen, Floris and Aloni, Maria},
doi = {10.1093/jos/ffy003},
journal = {Journal of Semantics},
keywords = {attitude predicates,inquisitive semantics,modality,questions,theoretical linguistics,exhaustivity},
number = {3},
pages = {409-466},
title = {A uniform semantics for declarative and interrogative complements},
volume = {35},
year = {2018}
}
@inproceedings{Aloni2016,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
booktitle = {Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. Celebrating 20 Years of LACL (1996--2016)},
editor = {Amblard, M. and de Groote, P. and Pogodalla, S. and Retor\'e, C.},
number = {10054},
publisher = {Springer},
series = {LNCS},
title = {FC disjunction in a state-based semantics},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-53826-5},
slides = {fc_disjunction.pdf}
}
This article proposes an account of knowing-who constructions within a generalisation of Hintikka’s (1962) quantified epistemic logic employing the notion of a conceptual cover (Aloni, 2001). The proposed logical system captures the inherent context-sensitivity of knowing-wh constructions (Boer and Lycan, 1985), as well as expresses non-trivial cases of so-called concealed questions (Heim, 1979). Assuming that quantifying into epistemic contexts and knowing-who are linked in the way Hintikka had proposed, the context dependence of the latter will translate into a context dependence of de re attitude ascriptions and this will result in a ready account of a number of traditionally problematic cases including Quine’s well-known double vision puzzles (Quine, 1956).
@incollection{Aloni2016a,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
booktitle = {Jaakko Hintikka on Knowledge and Game Theoretical Semantics},
publisher = {Springer},
title = {Knowing-who in quantified epistemic logic.},
year = {2016},
editor = {van Ditmarsch, Hans and Sandu, Gabriel},
pages = {109-129},
series = {Outstanding Contributions to Logic},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-62864-6_4}
}
The article discusses the interpretation of indexicals within the framework of quantified modal logic. The dominant theory on this topic is Kaplan’s two-dimensional analysis. Since its appearance in 1977, Kaplan’s analysis has been challenged on various grounds. I will argue that by revising the way of modelling the objects we refer to in conversation, we can account for counterexamples to Kaplan’s theory, while maintaining Kaplan’s basic insights concerning the meaning of ’you’ and ’I’.
@article{Aloni2016Grazer,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
journal = {Grazer Philosophische Studien},
number = {3},
pages = {334-362},
title = {\emph{You} and \emph{I} in modal logic},
volume = {93},
year = {2016},
slides = {Aloni2018nyu.pdf}
}
@inproceedings{Aloni2016c,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
title = {Indefinites as fossils},
booktitle = {Indefinites between Theory and Language Change (DGfS)},
address = {Konstanz, Germany},
year = {2016},
slides = {Aloni2016konstanz.pdf}
}
@incollection{Aloni2016b,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
title = {Disjunction},
booktitle = {The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy},
editor = {Zalta, Edward N.},
year = {2016},
external = {https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disjunction/},
publisher = {Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University}
}
@book{AloniDekker2016,
editor = {Aloni, Maria and Dekker, Paul},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
title = {Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics},
doi = {10.1017/CBO9781139236157},
year = {2016}
}
The chapter proposes an account of epistemic indefinites cross-linguistically, focusing on the case of German irgendein and Italian un qualche. Four main functions for EIs are identified initially: specific unknown (SU); epistemic unknown (epiU); negative polarity (NPI); and the deontic free choice (deoFC). It is subsequently observed that while irgendein qualifies for all functions, un qualche qualifies only for the first two. The second part of the chapter proposes an account of these data in the framework of a Dynamic Semantics with Conceptual Covers. Our point of departure is the assumption that epistemic indefinites are existentials with two additional characteristics: (i) they induce an obligatory domain shift and (ii) they are felicitous only if such a shift is for a reason.
@incollection{AloniPort2015,
author = {Aloni, Maria and Port, Angelika},
booktitle = {Epistemic Indefinites},
editor = {Alonso-Ovalle, Luis and Menendez-Benito, Paula},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
title = {Epistemic indefinites and methods of identifications},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665297.003.0006},
slides = {handout-MIT.pdf}
}
@unpublished{Aloni2015a,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
title = {Concealed questions and specificational subjects},
note = {Presented at SPE 7 (ZAS Berlin 2014), LoLaCo 2014, NYU 2015},
year = {2015},
slides = {Aloni2015c.pdf}
}
@incollection{AloniPort2014,
author = {Aloni, Maria and Port, Angelika},
booktitle = {Weak Referentiality},
editor = {Aguilar-Guevara, A. and Bruyn, B. Le and Zwarts, J.},
publisher = {John Benjamins},
title = {Modal inferences in marked indefinites: the case of {G}erman \emph{irgend}-indefinites},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.1075/la.219.02alo}
}
The goal of this paper is to explain the meaning and distribution of indefinites in comparatives, focusing on English some and any and German irgend-indefinites. We consider three competing theories of comparatives in combination with an alternative semantics of some and any, and a novel account of stressed irgend-indefinites. One of the resulting accounts, based on Heim’s analysis of comparatives, predicts all the relevant differences in quantificational force, and explains why free choice indefinites are licensed in comparatives.
@article{AloniRoelofsen2014,
author = {Aloni, Maria and Roelofsen, Floris},
journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
pages = {145-167},
title = {Indefinites in comparatives},
volume = {22},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.1007/s11050-013-9103-z}
}
In this article we investigate how conceptual perspectives and context interact in the determination of the truth of sentences in which ‘knowing-wh’ constructions occur.
@incollection{AloniJacinto2014,
author = {Aloni, Maria and Jacinto, Bruno},
title = {Knowing who: How perspectives and context interact},
booktitle = {Epistemology, Context and Formalism},
editor = {Lihoreau, Franck and Rebuschi, Manuel},
publisher = {Springer},
pages = {81-107},
volume = {369},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-02943-6_6}
}
Since Ross’s observation that the instruction ’Post this letter’ does not entail ’Post this letter or burn it’, imperatives have constituted a challenge for the logician. Building on ideas from inquisitive semantics, we propose an account in which imperatives are regarded as partial specifications of a set of options. We show that this account avoids Ross’s paradox and gives rise to a sensible notion of imperative entailment.
@incollection{AloniCiardelli2013,
author = {Aloni, Maria and Ciardelli, Ivano},
booktitle = {The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of $\phi$, $?\phi$, and $\diamondsuit\phi$},
editor = {Aloni, Maria and Franke, Michael and Roelofsen, Floris},
pages = {1-17},
publisher = {Institute for Logic, Language and Computation},
title = {A logical account of free choice imperatives},
year = {2013}
}
The paper examines the logic and semantics of knowledge attributions of the form “s knows whether A or B”. We analyze these constructions in an epistemic logic with alternative questions, and propose an account of the context-sensitivity of the corresponding sentences and of their presuppositions.
@article{AloniEtAl2013,
author = {Aloni, Maria and \'Egr\'e, Paul and de Jager, Tikitu},
journal = {Synthese},
number = {4},
pages = {2595-2621},
title = {Knowing whether {A} or {B}},
volume = {190},
year = {2013},
doi = {10.1007/s11229-009-9646-1}
}
@incollection{AloniFranke2013a,
author = {Aloni, Maria and Franke, Michael},
booktitle = {From Grammar to Meaning: The Spontaneous Logicality of Language},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
title = {On the free choice potential of epistemic and deontic modals},
year = {2013},
editor = {Caponigro, Ivano and Cecchetto, Carlo},
pages = {108-138},
doi = {10.1017/CBO9781139519328.008},
place = {Cambridge},
slides = {AloniFranke2013.pdf}
}
@book{AloniRoelofsenFranke2012,
editor = {Aloni, Maria and Franke, Michael and Roelofsen, Floris},
publisher = {ILLC, University of Amsterdam},
title = {The dynamic, inquisitive and visionary life of $\phi$, $?\phi \$ , and $\diamondsuit \phi$. A Festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof and Frank Veltman},
external = {http://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/},
year = {2013}
}
@inproceedings{Aloni2013,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
title = {Questions, identity and knowledge},
booktitle = {American Philosophical Association (APA) Eastern Division Meeting},
year = {2013}
}
Natural languages possess a wealth of indefinite forms that typically differ in distribution and interpretation. Although formal semanticists have strived to develop precise meaning representations for different indefinite functions, to date there has hardly been any corpus work on the topic. In this paper, we present the results of a small corpus study where English indefinite forms any and some were labelled with fine-grained semantic functions well-motivated by typological studies. We developed annotation guidelines that could be used by non-expert annotators and calculated inter-annotator agreement amongst several coders. The results show that the annotation task is hard, with agreement scores ranging from 52% to 62% depending on the number of functions considered, but also that each of the independent annotations is in accordance with theoretical predictions regarding the possible distributions of indefinite functions. The resulting annotated corpus is available upon request and can be accessed through a searchable online database.
@inproceedings{AloniEtAl2012,
author = {Aloni, Maria and van Cranenburgh, Andreas and Fernandez, Raquel and Sznajder, Marta},
title = {Building a Corpus of Indefinite Uses Annotated with Fine-grained Semantic Functions},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'12)},
year = {2012},
publisher = {European Language Resources Association (ELRA)}
}
This squib gives a critical review of the monograph entitled Conflicts in Interpretation (Hendriks et al., 2010) written by Petra Hendriks, Helen de Hoop, Irene Krämer, Henriette de Swart and Joost Zwarts, which was published in 2010 by Equinox Publishing, London. After sketching the relevant background of optimality theoretic approaches to semantics and pragmatics, we give a detailed summary of the contents of this book, discuss its merits and mention a few critical issues that, we feel, future research in this tradition may wish to adress more carefully
@article{FrankeAloni2012,
author = {Franke, Michael and Aloni, Maria},
journal = {Journal of Cognitive Science},
title = {Conflicts in Interpretation - A Critical Review},
year = {2012},
pages = {197-209},
volume = {13}
}
@book{AloniEtAl2011,
editor = {Aloni, Maria and Kimmelman, Vadim and Roelofsen, Floris and Schulz, Katrin and Sassoon, Galit and Westera, Matthijs},
publisher = {Springer},
title = {Logic, Language and Meaning},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7},
year = {2012}
}
The article discusses the methodology adopted for a cross-linguistic synchronic and diachronic corpus study on indefinites. The study covered five indefinite expressions, each in a different language. The main goal of the study was to verify the distribution of these indefinites synchronically and to attest their historical development. The methodology we used is a form of functional labeling which combines both context (syntax) and meaning (semantics) using as a starting point Haspelmath’s (1997) functional map. In the article we identify Haspelmath’s functions with logico-semantic interpretations and propose a binary branching decision tree assigning each instance of an indefinite exactly one function in the map.
@inproceedings{AguilarEtAl2011c,
author = {Aguilar-Guevara, Ana and Aloni, Maria and Port, Angelika and \v{S}im\'{i}k, R. and de Vos, M. and Zeijlstra, H.},
title = {Semantics and pragmatics of indefinites: methodology for a synchronic and diachronic corpus study},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the DGfS Workshop ''Beyond Semantics: corpus-based investigations of pragmatic and discourse phenomena''},
optpages = {1-16},
publisher = {Bochumer Linguistische Arbeitsberichte},
year = {2011},
slides = {AguilarEtAl2011a.pdf}
}
Concealed questions are determiner phrases that are naturally paraphrased as embedded questions (e.g., ’John knows the capital of Italy’ ≈
’John knows what the capital of Italy is’). This paper offers a novel account of the interpretation of concealed questions, which assumes
that an entity-denoting expression α may be type-shifted into an expression ?z.P(α), where P is a contextually determined property,
and z ranges over a contextually determined domain of individual concepts. Different resolutions of P and the domain of z yield a
wide range of concealed question interpretations, some of which were not noted previously. On the other hand, principled constraints
on the resolution process prevent overgeneration.
@article{AloniRoelofsen2011,
author = {Aloni, Maria and Roelofsen, Floris},
journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},
number = {5},
pages = {443-478},
title = {Interpreting concealed questions},
volume = {34},
year = {2011},
doi = {10.1007/s10988-011-9102-9},
slides = {CQ-slides.pdf}
}
The goal of this paper is to explain the meaning and distribution of indefinites in comparatives, focusing on the case of English some and any and German irgend-indefinites. We combine three competing theories of comparatives with an alternative semantics of some and any, and a novel account of stressed irgend-indefinites. One of the resulting theories, based on Heim’s (2006) analysis of comparatives, predicts all the relevant differences in quantificational force, and explains why free choice indefinites are licensed in comparatives.
@inproceedings{AloniRoelofsen2011a,
author = {Aloni, Maria and Roelofsen, Floris},
booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT 21},
title = {Indefinites in comparatives},
year = {2011},
slides = {AloniRoelofsen2011b.pdf}
}
@article{AloniEgre2010,
author = {Aloni, Maria and \'Egr\'e, Paul},
doi = {10.1111/j.1467-9213.2008.606.x},
journal = {The Philosophical Quarterly},
number = {238},
pages = {1-27},
title = {Alternative questions and knowledge attribution},
volume = {60},
year = {2010}
}
@book{AloniEtAl2014,
editor = {Aloni, Maria and Bastiaanse, Harald and de Jager, Tikitu and Schulz, Katrin},
publisher = {Springer},
title = {Logic, Language and Meaning},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-14287-1},
year = {2010}
}
@article{Aloni2008,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
journal = {Grazer Philosophische Studien},
note = {Special issue on 'Knowledge and Questions' edited by Franck Lihoreau},
pages = {191-216},
title = {Concealed Questions Under Cover},
volume = {77},
year = {2008},
doi = {10.1163/18756735-90000848}
}
@incollection{Aloni2007a,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Sixth International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation},
editor = {ten Cate, B. and Zeevat, H.},
pages = {1-20},
title = {Expressing ignorance or indifference. {Modal} implicatures in {B}i{OT}},
year = {2007},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-540-75144-1_1}
}
@incollection{AloniEtAl2007,
author = {Aloni, Maria and Beaver, David and Clark, Brady and van Rooij, Robert},
booktitle = {Questions in Dynamic Semantics},
editor = {Aloni, Maria and Dekker, Paul and Butler, Alastair},
publisher = {Brill},
series = {CRiSPI},
title = {The dynamics of topics and focus},
year = {2007},
doi = {10.1163/9780080470993_007}
}
@incollection{DekkerEtAl2007,
author = {Dekker, Paul and Aloni, Maria and Butler, Alastair},
booktitle = {Questions in Dynamic Semantics},
editor = {Aloni, Maria and Dekker, Paul and Butler, Alastair},
publisher = {Brill},
series = {CRiSPI},
title = {The semantics and pragmatics of questions},
doi = {10.1163/9780080470993_002},
year = {2007}
}
@incollection{AloniRooij2007,
author = {Aloni, Maria and van Rooij, Robert},
booktitle = {Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation},
title = {Free choice items and alternatives},
year = {2007},
editor = {Bouma, G. and Kraemer, I. and Zwarts, J.},
pages = {5-26},
publisher = {Edita KNAW}
}
@incollection{AloniEtAl2007a,
author = {Aloni, Maria and Butler, Alastair and Hindsill, Darrin},
title = {Nuclear Accent in Bidirectional Optimality Theory},
booktitle = {Questions in Dynamic Semantics},
publisher = {Brill},
series = {CRiSPI},
pages = {251–268},
year = {2007},
doi = {10.1163/9780080470993_012}
}
@book{AloniEtAl2007d,
editor = {Aloni, Maria and Dekker, Paul and Butler, Alaistair},
publisher = {Brill},
series = {CRiSPI},
title = {Questions in Dynamic Semantics},
doi = {10.1163/9780080470993},
year = {2007}
}
@inproceedings{Aloni2005dialor,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
title = {Utility and implicatures of imperatives},
booktitle = {Proceedings of DIALOR'05},
address = {Loria, Nancy, France},
year = {2005}
}
@inproceedings{Aloni2003,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
title = {On choice-offering imperatives},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Fourteenth Amsterdam Colloquium},
editor = {Dekker, Paul and van Rooy, Robert},
organization = {ILLC},
address = {Amsterdam},
year = {2003}
}
@incollection{Aloni2002a,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
booktitle = {Words, Proofs, and Diagrams},
editor = {Barker-Plummer, D. and Beaver, D. and van-Benthem, J. and de Luzio, P. Scotto},
publisher = {CSLI, Stanford},
title = {Questions under Cover},
year = {2002}
}
@inproceedings{AloniRooij2002,
author = {Aloni, Maria and van Rooij, Robert},
title = {The Dynamics of Questions and Focus},
booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT 12},
editor = {Jackson, B.},
address = {Cornell University},
year = {2002}
}
@phdthesis{Aloni2001,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
school = {ILLC, University of Amsterdam},
title = {Quantification under Conceptual Covers},
year = {2001}
}
@inproceedings{Aloni2001a,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
title = {Optimization games: An application},
booktitle = {Proceedings of TARK '01},
address = {University of Siena},
year = {2001}
}
@inproceedings{Aloni2001b,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
title = {Pragmatics for Propositional Attitudes},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Thirteenth Amsterdam Colloquium},
editor = {van Rooy, Robert and Stokhof, Martin},
organization = {ILLC},
address = {Amsterdam},
year = {2001}
}
@inproceedings{AloniRooij2001,
author = {Aloni, Maria and van Rooy, Robert},
title = {Topical Domain Restrictions},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 3rd and 4th International Symposium on Language Logic and Computation},
editor = {de Jong, D. and Zeevat, H. and Nilsenova, M.},
year = {2001}
}
@incollection{Aloni2000,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
title = {Conceptual Covers in Dynamic Semantics},
booktitle = {Logic, Language and Computation, Vol. III},
organization = {CSLI},
address = {Stanford, CA},
editor = {Cavedon, Lawrence and Blackburn, Patrick and Braisby, Nick and Shimojima, Atsushi},
year = {2000}
}
@inproceedings{AloniEtAl1999,
author = {Aloni, Maria and Beaver, David and Clark, Brady},
title = {Focus and Topic Sensitive Operators},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Twelfth Amsterdam Colloquium},
editor = {Dekker, Paul},
year = {1999}
}
@inproceedings{Aloni1997,
author = {Aloni, Maria},
title = {Quantification in Dynamic Semantics},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Eleventh Amsterdam Colloquium},
editor = {Dekker, Paul and Stokhof, Martin and Venema, Yde},
organization = {ILLC},
address = {Amsterdam},
year = {1997}
}
