Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 491–519 | Cite as

Exhaustive Interpretation of Complex Sentences

Original Article

Abstract

In terms of Groenendijk and Stokhof’s (1984) formalization of exhaustive interpretation, many conversational implicatures can be accounted for. In this paper we justify and generalize this approach. Our justification proceeds by relating their account via Halpern and Moses’ (1984) non-monotonic theory of ‘only knowing’ to the Gricean maxims of Quality and the first sub-maxim of Quantity. The approach of Groenendijk and Stokhof (1984) is generalized such that it can also account for implicatures that are triggered in subclauses not entailed by the whole complex sentence.

Key words

Circumscription conversational implicatures exhaustive interpretation non-monotonic reasoning pragmatics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atlas, J.D. and Levinson, S.C., 1981, “It-clefts, informativeness and logical form,” in Radical Pragmatics, P. Cole, ed., New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Chierchia, G., “Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface,” Manuscript, University of Milan.Google Scholar
  3. Gazdar, G., 1979, Pragmatics, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Green, M., 1995, “Quantity, volubility, and some varieties of discourse,” Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 83–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grice, H.P., 1967, “Logic and Conversation,” typescript from the William James Lectures, Harvard University. Published in P. Grice (1989), Studies in the Way of Worlds, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 22–40.Google Scholar
  6. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 1984, “Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  7. Halpern, J.Y. and Moses, Y., 1984, “Towards a theory of knowledge and ignorance,” pp. 165–193 in Proceedings of 1984 Non-Monotonic Reasoning Workshop, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, New Paltz, NY.Google Scholar
  8. Harnisch, R.M., 1976, “Logical form and implicature,” pp. 313–391 in An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Ability, T.G. Bever, eds., New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
  9. Heim, I., 1982, “The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  10. Hirschberg, J., 1985, “A theory of scalar implicature,” Ph.D. Thesis, UPenn.Google Scholar
  11. Horn, L., 1972, “The semantics of logical operators in English,” Ph.D. Thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
  12. Horn, L., 1989, A Natural History of Negation, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kamp, H., 1981, “A theory of truth and semantic representation,” pp. 277–322 in Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Groenendijk, eds., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  14. Landman, F., 2000, Events and Plurality: The Jeruzalem Lectures, Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  15. Leech, G.N., 1983, Principles of Pragmatics, London: Longman.Google Scholar
  16. Levinson, S.C., 1983, Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Levinson, S.C., 2000, Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Matsumoto, Y., 1995, “The conversational condition on Horn scales,” Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 21–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCarthy, J., 1980, “Circumscription – a form of non-monotonic reasoning,” Artificial Intelligence 13: 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Merin, A., 1994, Decision–Theoretic Pragmatics, Lecture Notes read in Course BA 5, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark.Google Scholar
  21. Sauerland, U., 2004, “Scalar implicatures of complex sentences,” Linguistics and Phiolosophy 27, 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schulz, K., 2003, “You may read it now or later,” Master Thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  23. Soames, S., 1982, “How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem,” Linguistic Inquiry 13: 483–545.Google Scholar
  24. Spector, B., 2003, “Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning?,” in Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2003 Student session, B. ten Cate, ed., Vienna.Google Scholar
  25. van Benthem, J., 1989, “Semantic parallels in natural language and computation,” pp. 331–375 in Logic Colloquium ‘87, H. D. Ebbinghaus, et al., eds., Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. van der Hoek, W., Jaspers, J., and Thijsse, E., 1999, “Persistence and minimality in epistemic logic,” Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 27: 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van der Hoek, W., Jaspers J., and Thijsse, E., 2000, “A general approach to multiagent minimal knowledge,” pp. 254–268 in Proceedings JELIA 2000, M. Ojeda-Aciego, et al. eds., Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. van Rooij, R. and Schulz, K., “Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation,” submitted, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  29. von Stechow, A. and Zimmermann, T.E., 1984, “Term answers and contextual change,” Linguistics 22: 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wainer, J., 1991, “Uses of nonmonotonic logic in natural language understanding: Generalized implicatures,” Ph.D. Thesis, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  31. Zimmermann, T.E., 2000, “Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility,” Natural Language Semantics 8: 255–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Logic, Language and ComputationUniversiteit van AmsterdamCP AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations