Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 707–749 | Cite as

Review of The Logic of Conventional Implicatures by Chris Potts

Review Article

Abstract

We review Potts’ influential book on the semantics of conventional implicature (CI), offering an explication of his technical apparatus and drawing out the proposal’s implications, focusing on the class of CIs he calls supplements. While we applaud many facets of this work, we argue that careful considerations of the pragmatics of CIs will be required in order to yield an empirically and explanatorily adequate account.

Keywords

Conventional implicature Semantics Pragmatics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbott B. (2000). Presuppositions as non-assertions. Journal of Pragmatics 32(10): 1419–1437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asudeh A. and Crouch R. (2002). Derivational parallelism and ellipsis parallelism. In: Mikkelsen, L. and Potts, C. (eds) Proceedings of the 21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp 1–14. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA Google Scholar
  3. Austin J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Clarendon Press, Oxford Google Scholar
  4. Bach K. (1999). The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 327–366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banfield A. (1982). Unspeakable sentences: Narration and representation in the language of fiction. Routledge & Kegan Paul, Boston Google Scholar
  6. Bar-Hillel Y. (1971). Pragmatics of natural language. Reidel, Dordrecht Google Scholar
  7. Barker C. and Jacobson P. (2007). Direct compositionality. Oxford University Press, New York Google Scholar
  8. Bellert I. (1977). On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 227–251 Google Scholar
  9. Boër S.E. and Lycan W.G. (1980). A performadox in truth-conditional semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 4.1: 71–100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonami O. and Godard D. (2005). Evaluative adverbs and underspecified semantic representations. In: Richter, F. and Sailer, M. (eds) Proceedings of the ESSLLI Workshop on Empirical Challenges and Analytical Alternatives to Strict Compositionality. Heriok Waitl University, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonami O., Godard D. and Kampers-Mahne R. (2004). Adverb classification. In: Corblin, F., de Swart H. (eds) Handbook of French semantics. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Chierchia G. (1988). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chomsky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gazdar G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. Academic Press, NY Google Scholar
  15. Geurts B. (1996). Local satisfaction guaranteed: A presupposition theory and its problems. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(3): 211–257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geurts B. (1998). The mechanisms of denial. Language 74: 274–307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geurts B. (1999). Presuppositions and pronouns. Elsevier, Amsterdam Google Scholar
  18. Geurts B. and Maier E. (2005). Quotation in Context. In: de Brabanter P. (eds) Hybrid quotations, pp 109–128. Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. Grice H.P. (1961). The causal theory of perception. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 35: 121–152 Google Scholar
  20. Grice, H. P. (1967). Logic and Conversation. William James Lectures, Harvard University. Reprinted in P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.) (1975). Syntax and Semantics 3. Academic Press, New York, and in Grice (1989), Studies in the way of words (pp. 22–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Groenendijk J. and Stokhof M. (1990). Dynamic Montague grammar. In: Kálman, L. and Pólos, L. (eds) Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, pp 3–48. Budapest, Adakémiai Kiadó Google Scholar
  22. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  23. Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions (pp. 114–126). WCCFL 2, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  24. Heim I. (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Horn L.R. (1989). A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Reissued 2001 by CSLIGoogle Scholar
  26. Horn L.R. (1991). Given as new: When redundant affirmation isn’t. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 313–336 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Horn, L. R. (2002). Assertoric inertia and NPI licensing. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 38, Part Two: The Panels. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  28. Jackendoff R.S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. MITPress, Cambridge, MA Google Scholar
  29. Kadmon, N. (2000). Some theories of the interpretation of accent placement. Ms., Tel Aviv University (talk at Colloque de Syntax et Sémantique, Paris 2000).Google Scholar
  30. Kadmon N. (2001). Formal pragmatics. Blackwell, Oxford Google Scholar
  31. Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, Vol. I. Amsterdam: Mathematische Centrum. Reprinted in J. Groenendijk & M. Stokhof (Eds.) (1984), Truth, interpretation and information. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  32. Kamp H. and Reyle U. (1993). From discourse to logic: Introduction to model theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Kluwer, Dordrecht Google Scholar
  33. Karttunen L. and Peters S. (1979). Conventional implicature. In: Oh, C.-K. and Dineen, D.A. (eds) Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 11). Academic Press, NY Google Scholar
  34. Kay P. (1990). Even. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 59–111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kipins A. (1999). Angry young men. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, p 90Google Scholar
  36. Kratzer A. (1998). Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites?. In: Rothstein, S. (eds) Events and grammar, pp 163–196. Kluwer, Dordrecht Google Scholar
  37. Kratzer, A. (1999). Beyond Ouch and Oops. How descriptive and expressive meaning interact. Comments on a paper by Kaplan, Cornell Conference on Theories of Context Dependency, March, 1999.Google Scholar
  38. Lakoff G. (1972). Linguistics and natural logic. In: Davidson, D. and Harmon, G. (eds) Semantics of natural language, pp 545–665. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  39. Lakoff, G. (1975). Pragmatics in natural logic. In E. L. Keenan (Ed.), Formal semantics of natural language (pp. 253–286). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Levinson S.C. (1985). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  41. Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lewis, D. (1970). General semantics. Synthese, 22, 18–67. Reprinted in D. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.) (1972), Semantics of natural language (pp. 169–218). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  43. McCready E.S. (2004). Two Japanese adverbials and expressive content. In: Watanabe, K. and Young, R. (eds) Proceedings of SALT 14, pp 163–178. CLC, Ithaca Google Scholar
  44. Partee B.H. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In: Groenendijk, J., de Jong D. and Stokhof, M. (eds) Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, pp 115–143. Foris Publications, Dordrecht Google Scholar
  45. Percus O., Sauerland U. (2002). Pronoun movement in dream reports. In: Kadowaki M., Kawahara S. (eds) (2003), Proceedings of the 33rd North East Linguistics Society Meeting (pp. 265–283). Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  46. Pollard C., Sag I. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. CSLI Press.Google Scholar
  47. Portner, P. (2005). Instructions for interpretation as separate performatives. Ms., Georgetown University. Available on his website: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/portnerp/.
  48. Potts C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford University Press, New York Google Scholar
  49. Potts, C. (2006). The expressive dimension. To appear with invited commentaries in Theoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar
  50. Potts, C. (2007). The dimensions of quotation. In C. Barker & P. Jacobson (Eds.), Direct compositionality (pp. 405–431). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Potts C. and Kawahara S. (2004). Japanese honorifics as emotive definite descriptions. In: Watanabe, K. and Young, R.B. (eds) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (Vol. 14), pp 235–254. CLC Publications, Ithaca NY Google Scholar
  52. Recanati F. (2001). Open quotation. Mind 110: 637–687 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Roberts C. (1989). Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(6): 683–721 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roberts, C. (1996a). Anaphora in intensional contexts. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  55. Roberts, C. (1996b) Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J. H. Yoon & A. Kathol (Eds.), OSUWPL Volume 49: Papers in Semantics, 1996. The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics. Available in updated form on the Semantics Archive.Google Scholar
  56. Roberts, C. (2004). Pronouns as definites. In M. Reimer & A. Bezuidenhout (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Roberts C. (2007). Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 287–350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roberts, C. (to appear). Only: Presupposition and implicature. Accepted with revisions by the Journal of Semantics.Google Scholar
  59. Roberts, C. (in progress). Resolving focus. Ms., presented at Sinn und Bedeutung XI, Barcelona, September, 2006.Google Scholar
  60. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  61. Rooth M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ross J.R. (1970). On declarative sentences. In: Jacobs, R.A. and Rosenbaum, P.S. (eds) Readings in English transformational grammar, pp 222–272. Ginn, Waltham Google Scholar
  63. Sadock J.M. (1974). Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. Academic Press, New York Google Scholar
  64. Sauerland, U., & Heck, F. (2002). LF-intervention effects in Pied-Piping. Handout, NELS 33, MIT.Google Scholar
  65. Schwarzschild R. (1999). GIvenNess, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7(2): 141–177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shannon B. (1976). On the two kinds of presuppositions in natural language. Foundations of Language 14: 247–249 Google Scholar
  67. Simons M. (2001). On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory 11: 431–448 Google Scholar
  68. Stalnaker R.C. (1979). Assertion. In: Cole, P. (eds) Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics, pp 315–332. Academic Press, New York Google Scholar
  69. Stump G. (1985). The semantic variability of absolute constructions. Kluwer, Dordrecht Google Scholar
  70. van der Sandt R. (1992). Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. van Rooij R. (2005). A modal analysis of presupposition and modal subordination. Journal of Semantics 22(3): 281–305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. von Fintel, K. (2000). What is presupposition accommodation? Retrieved November 10, 2007, from http://web.mit.edu/fintel/www/accomm.pdf.
  73. von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The king of France is back! Presuppositions and truthvalue intuitions. In M. Reimer & A. Bezuidenhout (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. von Stechow A. (2003). Binding by verbs: Tense, person andmoodunder attitudes. In: Kadowaki, M. and Kawahara, S. (eds) Proceedings of the 33rd North East Linguistics Society Meeting, pp 1–2. GLSA, Amherst, MA Google Scholar
  75. Wang L., Reese B. and McCready E. (2005). The projection problem of nominal appositives. Snippets 10: 13–14 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Amaral
    • 1
  • Craige Roberts
    • 1
  • E. Allyn Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.The Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations