Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 271–295 | Cite as

Upper-bounded no more: the exhaustive interpretation of non-strict comparison

Open Access
Article

Abstract

The paper concerns the expression of non-strict comparison, focusing in particular on constructions of the form [no(t) . . .-er than] in modified numerals. The main empirical finding is the observation that negated comparatives contrast with regular comparatives in that the former but not the latter can give rise to (scalar) implicatures. It is shown that such a contrast falls out of theories of exhaustive interpretation that claim alternatives to form dense scales. An important result is that the paper sharpens the desiderata for theories of exhaustification.

Keywords

Modified numerals Exhaustive interpretation Comparison 

References

  1. Barwise J., Cooper R.: Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2), 159–219 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bierwisch, M. 1989. The semantics of gradation. In Dimensional adjectives, ed. M. Bierwisch and E. Lang, 71–261. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Fox, D. 2007. Too many alternatives: density, symmetry and other predicaments. In Proceedings of SALT XVI, ed. M. Gibson and T. Friedman, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  4. Fox D., Hackl M.: The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(5), 537–586 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Geurts, B. 2007. Experimental support for a modal analysis of at least and at most. In Unpublished Proceedings of the ESSLLI2007 Workshop on Quantifier Modification, ed. R. Nouwen and J. Dotlacil.Google Scholar
  6. Geurts B., Nouwen R.: At least et al.: the semantics of scalar modifiers. Language 83(3), 533–559 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hackl, M. 2000. Comparative quantifiers. PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  8. Heim, I. 2000. Degree operators and scope. In Proceedings of SALT 10, ed. B. Jackson and T. Matthews, 40–64. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Heim, I. 2006. Remarks on comparative clauses as generalized quantifiers. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  10. Hurford J.: Exclusive or inclusive disjunction. Foundations of Language 11, 409–411 (1974)Google Scholar
  11. Jespersen O.: A modern English Grammar on historical principles part 2 syntax. København, Munksgaard (1949)Google Scholar
  12. Jespersen, O. 1966. Negation in English and other languages, Historisk-filologiske meddelelser / udg. af Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 2nd edn. København: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
  13. Kamp H., Reyle U.: From discourse to logic. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1993)Google Scholar
  14. Keenan E., Stavi J.: A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 253–326 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kennedy C.: Polar opposition and the ontology of ‘degrees’. Linguistics and Philosophy 24, 33–70 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krifka, M. 1999. At least some determiners aren’t determiners. In The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view, Vol. 1 of Current research in the semantics/pragmatics interface, ed. K. Turner, 257–291. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  17. Nouwen R.: On dependent pronouns and dynamic semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36(2), 123–154 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nouwen, R. 2008a. Directionality in modified numerals: The case of ‘up to’. In Proceedings of SALT 18, ed. T. Friedman and S. Ito. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  19. Nouwen, R. 2008b. What’s in a quantifier?. In Theoretical validity and psychological reality, ed. T. Lentz, H. de Mulder, Ø. Nilsen, and A. Zondervan. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  20. Rett, J. 2007. Antonymy and evaluation. In Proceedings of SALT 16 ed. M. Gibson and T. Friedman. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  21. Russell B.: Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 23, 361–382 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sauerland U.: Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 367–391 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sawada, O. 2005. The cognitive characteristics of the idiomatic comparative constructions: the case of the no more/less...than constructions. In: Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the Pan-Pacific Assocation of Applied Linguistics, 273–280. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University Media Mix Corp.Google Scholar
  24. Spector, B. 2005. Aspects de la pragmatique des opérateurs logiques. PhD thesis, Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
  25. Stoffel C.: Studies in English. W.J. Thieme & Co., Zutphen (1894)Google Scholar
  26. van Benthem J.: Essays in logical semantics. Reidel, Dordrecht (1986)Google Scholar
  27. van Rooij R., Schulz K.: Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: the case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29, 205–250 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. von Stechow A.: Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3, 1–77 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Utrecht Institute for Linguistics OTSUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations