Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 461–477 | Cite as

Explaining Quantity Implicatures

Open Access
Article

Abstract

We give derivations of two formal models of Gricean Quantity implicature and strong exhaustivity in bidirectional optimality theory and in a signalling games framework. We show that, under a unifying model based on signalling games, these interpretative strategies are game-theoretic equilibria when the speaker is known to be respectively minimally and maximally expert in the matter at hand. That is, in this framework the optimal strategy for communication depends on the degree of knowledge the speaker is known to have concerning the question she is answering. In addition, and most importantly, we give a game-theoretic characterisation of the interpretation rule Grice (formalising Quantity implicature), showing that under natural conditions this interpretation rule occurs in the unique equilibrium play of the signalling game.

Keywords

Conversational implicatures Pragmatics Game theory 

References

  1. Benz, A., Jäger, G., van Rooij, R. (eds) (2006) Game theory and pragmatics. Palgrave McMillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  2. Blutner R. (2000) Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics 17: 189–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gärdenfors P. (2000) Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  4. Gazdar G. (1979) Pragmatics. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Grice, H. P. (1967). Logic and conversation. The William James lectures, delivered at Harvard University. Republished with revisions in Grice, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. Horn, L. R. (1972). The semantics of logical operators in English. PhD thesis, Yale University.Google Scholar
  7. Ifantidou E. (2001) Evidentials and relevance, volume 86 of pragmatics & beyond new series. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. Jäger G. (2007) The evolution of convex categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(5): 551–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Keenan E. O. (1977) On the universality of conversational implicatures. In: Fasold R. W., Shuy R. W. (eds) Studies in language variation: Semantics, syntax, phonology, pragmatics, social situations, ethnographic approaches. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp 255–269Google Scholar
  10. Levinson S. C. (2000) Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicatures. Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  11. Lewis D. K. (1969) Convention. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Parikh P. (2001) The use of language. csli Publications, Stanford, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  13. Sauerland U. (2004) Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schulz K., van Rooij R. (2006) Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 205–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Spector, B. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning? In B. ten Cate (Ed.), Proceedings of the eighth ESSLLI student session, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  16. Thijsse E. (1983) On some proposed universals of natural language. In: ter Meulen A. G. B. (ed.) Studies in modeltheoretic semantics. Foris Publications, Dordrecht, pp 19–36Google Scholar
  17. Van Benthem J. F. A. K. (1986) Essays in logical semantics. Reidel, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Van Rooij R., Schulz K. (2004) Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13: 491–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Logic, Language and ComputationUniversiteit van AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations