Modularity and intuitions in formal semantics: the case of polarity items
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Linguists often sharply distinguish the different modules that support linguistics competence, e.g., syntax, semantics, pragmatics. However, recent work has identified phenomena in syntax (polarity sensitivity) and pragmatics (implicatures), which seem to rely on semantic properties (monotonicity). We propose to investigate these phenomena and their connections as a window into the modularity of our linguistic knowledge. We conducted a series of experiments to gather the relevant syntactic, semantic and pragmatic judgments within a single paradigm. The comparison between these quantitative data leads us to four main results. (i) Our results support a departure from one element of the classical Gricean approach, thus helping to clarify and settle an empirical debate. This first outcome also confirms the soundness of the methodology, as the results align with standard contemporary accounts of scalar implicature (SI). (ii) We confirm that the formal semantic notion of monotonicity underlies negative polarity item (NPI) syntactic acceptability, but (iii) our results indicate that the notion needed is perceived monotonicity. We see results (ii) and (iii) as the main contribution of this study: (ii) provides an empirical interpretation and confirmation of one of the insights of the model-theoretic approach to semantics, while (iii) calls for an incremental, cognitive implementation of the current generalizations. (iv) Finally, our results do not indicate that the relationship between NPI acceptability and monotonicity is mediated by pragmatic features related to SIs: this tells against elegant attempts to unify polarity sensitivity and SIs (pioneered by Krifka and Chierchia). These results illustrate a new methodology for integrating theoretically rigorous work in formal semantics with an experimentally-grounded cognitively-oriented view of linguistic competence.
Supplementary Material (0)
- Bard E. G., Robertson D., Sorace A. (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72(1): 32–68 CrossRef
- Borkin A. (1971) Polarity items in questions. Chicago Linguistics Society 7: 53–62
- Chemla, E. (2008). Présuppositions et implicatures scalaires: études formelles et expérimentales. PhD thesis, EHESS.
- Chemla E. (2009a) Presuppositions of quantified sentences: Experimental data. Natural Language Semantics 17(4): 299–340 CrossRef
- Chemla E. (2009b) Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data. Semantics and Pragmatics 2(2): 1–33
- Chemla, E., & Schlenker, P. (in press). Incremental vs. symmetric accounts of presupposition projection: An experimental approach. Natural Language Semantics. doi:10.1007/s11050-012-9080-7.
- Chemla E., Spector B. (2011) Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 28(3): 359–400 CrossRef
- Chierchia G. (2004) Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomenon, and the syntax/pragmatic interface. In: Belleti A. (Ed.), Structures and beyond. Oxford University Press, Oxford
- Chierchia G. (2006) Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic inquiry 37(4): 535–590 CrossRef
- Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (forthcoming). The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In P. Portner, C. Maienborn, & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Handbook of semantics. Berlin: Mouton.
- Chomsky, N. (1959). Syntactic structures (The Hague: Mouton, 1957). Review of verbal behavior by BF Skinner. Language, 35:26–58.
- Cowart W. (1997) Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
- Evans J. St. B. T., Barston J. L., Pollard P. (1983) On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition 11(3): 295–306 CrossRef
- Fauconnier G. (1975a) Polarity and the scale principle. Chicago Linguistics Society 11: 188–199
- Fauconnier G. (1975b) Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry 6(3): 353–375
- Fauconnier G. (1978) Implication reversal in a natural language. In: Guenther F., Schmidt S.J. (Eds.), Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural languages. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, pp 289–301
- Fox, D. (2006). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. Unpublished manuscript.
- Gajewski, J. R. (2005). Neg-raising: Presupposition and polarity. PhD thesis, MIT.
- Geurts B., van der Slik F. (2005) Monotonicity and processing load. Journal of Semantics 22(1): 97–117 CrossRef
- Giannakidou A. (1999) Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 367–421 CrossRef
- Grice P. (1967/1989) Logic and conversation. In Studies in the ways of words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
- Guerzoni, E. (2003). Why even ask? On the pragmatics of questions and the semantics of answers. PhD thesis, MIT.
- Heim I. (1984) A note on negative polarity and downward entailingness. Proceedings of NELS 14: 98–107
- Homer, V. (2010). Presuppositions and NPI licensing. Ms., UCLA.
- Homer, V. (in press). Domains of polarity items. Journal of Semantics.
- Horn, L. (1972). The semantics of the logical operators in English. PhD thesis, UCLA.
- Israel M. (1996) Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 619–666 CrossRef
- Israel M. (2011) Grammar of polarity: Pragmatics, sensitivity and the logic of scales. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CrossRef
- Kadmon N., Landman F. (1993) Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2): 279–298
- Kanazawa M. (1994) Weak vs. strong readings of donkey sentences and monotonicity inference in a dynamic setting. Linguistics and Philosophy 17(2): 109–158 CrossRef
- Krifka M. (1995) The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–257
- Ladusaw, W. (1979). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. PhD thesis, University of Texas Austin.
- Lahiri U. (1998) Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123 CrossRef
- Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicatures. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
- Linebarger, M. C. (1980). The grammar of negative polarity. PhD thesis, MIT.
- Linebarger M. C. (1987) Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 325–387 CrossRef
- Montague R. (1974) Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague. Yale University Press, New Haven CT
- Rothschild, D. (2006). Non-monotonic NPI-licensing, definite descriptions and grammaticalized implicatures. In Proceedings of SALT (Vol. 16). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
- Schmerling, S. F. (1971). A note on negative polarity. In Papers in linguistics (Vol. 4.1, pp. 200–206). Champaign, IL: Linguistic Research Inc.
- Schütze C. T. (1996) The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
- Spector, B. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In B. ten Cate (Ed.), Proceedings of the eighth ESSLLI student session, Vienna, Austria. (Revised version in Spector (2007b)).
- Spector, B. (2006). Aspects de la pragmatique des opérateurs logiques. PhD thesis, Université Paris 7, Denis Diderot.
- Spector B. (2007a) Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher-order implicatures. In: Sauerland U., Stateva P. (Eds.), Presuppositions and implicatures in compositional semantics. Palgrave-Macmillan, New York
- Spector B. (2007b) Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In: Aloni M., Dekker P., Butler A. (Eds.), Questions in dynamic semantics, volume 17 of Current research in the semantics/pragmatics interface. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 225–249
- Sprouse J. (2011) A test of the cognitive assumptions of magnitude estimation: The cognitive assumptions of magnitude estimation do not hold for acceptability judgments. Language 87: 274–288 CrossRef
- Tarski A. (1944) The semantic concept of truth: And the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4: 13–47 CrossRef
- van Rooij R., Schulz K. (2004) Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13(4): 491–519 CrossRef
- von Fintel K. (1999) NPI-licensing, strawson-entailment, and context-dependency. Journal of Semantics 16(1): 97–148 CrossRef
- Zwarts F. (1996) Facets of negation. In: van der Does J., Eijck J. (Eds.),Quantifiers, logic, and language. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 385–421
- Zwarts F. (1998) Three types of polarity. Plurality and Quantification 69: 177–238
About this Article
- Modularity and intuitions in formal semantics: the case of polarity items
Linguistics and Philosophy
Volume 34, Issue 6 , pp 537-570
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Scalar implicatures