Bar-Lev and Fox (Natl Lang Semant 28:175–223, 2020), B-L&F, redefine the exhaustification operator, Exh, so that it negates innocently excludable (IE) alternatives and asserts innocently includable (II) ones. They similarly redefine the exclusive particle only so that it negates IE-alternatives and presupposes II ones. B-L&F justify their revision of only on the basis of Alxatib’s finding (in: Proceedings of NELS 44, 2014) that only presupposes free choice (FC) in cases like Kim was only allowed to eat soup or salad. I show challenges to B-L&F’s view of only and argue against extending II to its meaning. Instead I propose that FC is better treated as a “presuppositional implicature” in such cases. I show the details of how this can be done and identify the necessary (and occasionally novel) auxiliary assumptions.

中文翻译：

---

只有，或和自由选择的预设

Bar＆Lev and Fox（Natl Lang Semant，28：175-223，2020年），BL＆F重新定义了穷尽化运算符Exh，以便否定无害的（IE）替代品，并主张无害的（II）替代品。他们类似地仅重新定义排他性粒子，以便它否定IE替代方案并以II替代方案为前提。BL＆F仅根据Alxatib的发现（在《 NELS 44》，2014年）中证明自己的修订是合理的，该发现仅以自由选择（FC）为前提，例如仅允许Kim吃汤或色拉。我向BL＆F的独一观点表示挑战并反对将II扩展至其含义。相反，我建议在这种情况下将FC更好地视为“预设暗示”。我将详细说明如何做到这一点，并确定必要的（有时是新颖的）辅助假设。