Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 34, Issue 6, pp 537–570 | Cite as

Modularity and intuitions in formal semantics: the case of polarity items

  • Emmanuel ChemlaEmail author
  • Vincent Homer
  • Daniel Rothschild
Research Article


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.


Modularity Polarity Scalar implicatures Monotonicity Intuitions Experiment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bard E. G., Robertson D., Sorace A. (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72(1): 32–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borkin A. (1971) Polarity items in questions. Chicago Linguistics Society 7: 53–62Google Scholar
  3. Chemla, E. (2008). Présuppositions et implicatures scalaires: études formelles et expérimentales. PhD thesis, EHESS.Google Scholar
  4. Chemla E. (2009a) Presuppositions of quantified sentences: Experimental data. Natural Language Semantics 17(4): 299–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chemla E. (2009b) Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data. Semantics and Pragmatics 2(2): 1–33Google Scholar
  6. 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.
  7. Chemla E., Spector B. (2011) Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 28(3): 359–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chierchia G. (2004) Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomenon, and the syntax/pragmatic interface. In: Belleti A. (Ed.), Structures and beyond. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Chierchia G. (2006) Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic inquiry 37(4): 535–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N. (1959). Syntactic structures (The Hague: Mouton, 1957). Review of verbal behavior by BF Skinner. Language, 35:26–58.Google Scholar
  12. Cowart W. (1997) Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: SageGoogle Scholar
  13. 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): 295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fauconnier G. (1975a) Polarity and the scale principle. Chicago Linguistics Society 11: 188–199Google Scholar
  15. Fauconnier G. (1975b) Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry 6(3): 353–375Google Scholar
  16. 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 289–301Google Scholar
  17. Fox, D. (2006). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  18. Gajewski, J. R. (2005). Neg-raising: Presupposition and polarity. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  19. Geurts B., van der Slik F. (2005) Monotonicity and processing load. Journal of Semantics 22(1): 97–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giannakidou A. (1999) Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 367–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grice P. (1967/1989) Logic and conversation. In Studies in the ways of words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  22. Guerzoni, E. (2003). Why even ask? On the pragmatics of questions and the semantics of answers. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  23. Heim I. (1984) A note on negative polarity and downward entailingness. Proceedings of NELS 14: 98–107Google Scholar
  24. Homer, V. (2010). Presuppositions and NPI licensing. Ms., UCLA.Google Scholar
  25. Homer, V. (in press). Domains of polarity items. Journal of Semantics.Google Scholar
  26. Horn, L. (1972). The semantics of the logical operators in English. PhD thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
  27. Israel M. (1996) Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 619–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Israel M. (2011) Grammar of polarity: Pragmatics, sensitivity and the logic of scales. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kadmon N., Landman F. (1993) Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2): 279–298Google Scholar
  30. Kanazawa M. (1994) Weak vs. strong readings of donkey sentences and monotonicity inference in a dynamic setting. Linguistics and Philosophy 17(2): 109–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krifka M. (1995) The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–257Google Scholar
  32. Ladusaw, W. (1979). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. PhD thesis, University of Texas Austin.Google Scholar
  33. Lahiri U. (1998) Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicatures. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  35. Linebarger, M. C. (1980). The grammar of negative polarity. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  36. Linebarger M. C. (1987) Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 325–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Montague R. (1974) Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague. Yale University Press, New Haven CTGoogle Scholar
  38. Rothschild, D. (2006). Non-monotonic NPI-licensing, definite descriptions and grammaticalized implicatures. In Proceedings of SALT (Vol. 16). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Schmerling, S. F. (1971). A note on negative polarity. In Papers in linguistics (Vol. 4.1, pp. 200–206). Champaign, IL: Linguistic Research Inc.Google Scholar
  40. Schütze C. T. (1996) The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  41. 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)).Google Scholar
  42. Spector, B. (2006). Aspects de la pragmatique des opérateurs logiques. PhD thesis, Université Paris 7, Denis Diderot.Google Scholar
  43. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 225–249Google Scholar
  45. 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: 274–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tarski A. (1944) The semantic concept of truth: And the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4: 13–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Rooij R., Schulz K. (2004) Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13(4): 491–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. von Fintel K. (1999) NPI-licensing, strawson-entailment, and context-dependency. Journal of Semantics 16(1): 97–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zwarts F. (1996) Facets of negation. In: van der Does J., Eijck J. (Eds.),Quantifiers, logic, and language. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 385–421Google Scholar
  50. Zwarts F. (1998) Three types of polarity. Plurality and Quantification 69: 177–238Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emmanuel Chemla
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vincent Homer
    • 2
  • Daniel Rothschild
    • 3
  1. 1.EHESS/CNRS/DEC-IEC-ENS, Ecole Normale Supérieure – LSCPParisFrance
  2. 2.DEC-IEC, Ecole Normale SupérieureParisFrance
  3. 3.All Souls CollegeOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations