Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 1–50 | Cite as

Economy and embedded exhaustification

  • Danny Fox
  • Benjamin SpectorEmail author
Article

Abstract

Building on previous works which argued that scalar implicatures can be computed in embedded positions, this paper proposes a constraint on exhaustification (an economy condition) which restricts the conditions under which an exhaustivity operator can be licensed. We show that this economy condition allows us to derive a number of generalizations, such as, in particular, the ‘Implicature Focus Generalization’: scalar implicatures can be embedded under a downward-entailing operator only if the (relevant) scalar term bears pitch accent. Our economy condition also derives specific predictions regarding the licensing of so-called Hurford disjunctions.

Keywords

Exhaustivity Scalar implicatures Hurford disjunctions Redundancy Focus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Emmanuel Chemla, Luka Crnic, Roni Katzir, Giorgio Magri, Paolo Santorio, and Philippe Schlenker.

Funding

Funding was provided by Agence Nationale de la Recherche (Grant Nos. ANR-10-LABX-0087 IEC, ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL*) and H2020 European Research Council (Grant No. 324115-FRONTSEM).

References

  1. Alonso-Ovalle, Luis. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  2. Alonso-Ovalle, Luis. 2008. Innocent exclusion in an alternative semantics. Natural Language Semantics 16 (2): 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaver, David, and Brady Clark. 2000. ‘Always’ and ‘Only’: Why not all focus sensitive operators are alike. Manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  4. Breheny, Richard. 2008. A new look at the semantics and pragmatics of numerically quantified noun phrases. Journal of Semantics 25 (2): 93–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chemla, Emmanuel. 2009. Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Manuscript, CNRS–ENS–EHESS.Google Scholar
  6. Chemla, Emmanuel, and Benjamin Spector. 2011. Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 28 (3): 359–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Structures and beyond, vol. 3, ed. Adriana Belletti, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the ‘logicality’ of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 535–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector, 2009. Hurford’s Constraint and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Presuppositions and implicatures: Proceedings of the MIT–Paris Workshop (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 60), ed. Paul Egré and Giorgio Magri, 47–62. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  10. Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector. 2012. Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. In An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 3, ed. Paul Portner, Claudia Maienborn, and Klaus von Heusinger, 2297–2331. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, L. Jonathan. 1971. Some remarks on Grice’s views about the logical particles of natural language. In Pragmatics of natural languages, ed. Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, 50–68. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crnic, Luka, Emmanuel Chemla, and D. Fox. 2015. Scalar implicatures of embedded disjunction. Natural Language Semantics 23 (4): 271–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dalrymple, Mary, Makoto Kanazawa, Yookyung Kim, Sam Mchombo, and Stanley Peters. 1998. Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21 (2): 159–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fox, Danny. 2004. Implicatures and exhaustivity, Class 4. Class handout at MIT. http://lingphil. mit.edu/papers/fox/class_4.pdf.
  15. Fox, Danny. 2007a. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, ed. Penka Stateva and Uli Sauerland, 71–120. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fox, Danny. 2007b. Too many alternatives: Density, symmetry, and other predicaments. In Proceedings of SALT 17, 89–111. Washington, DC: LSA. Google Scholar
  17. Fox, Danny. 2008. Two short notes on Schlenker’s theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34 (3): 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox, Danny. 2014. Cancelling the Maxim of Quantity: Another challenge for a Gricean theory of scalar implicatures. Semantics and Pragmatics 7 (5): 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.5.Google Scholar
  19. Fox, Danny, and Martin Hackl. 2006. The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 537–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fox, Danny, and Roni Katzir. 2011. On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 19 (1): 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Franke, Michael. 2011. Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation. Semantics and Pragmatics 4 (1): 1–82.  https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.4.1.Google Scholar
  22. Gajewski, Jon, and Yael Sharvit. 2012. In defense of the grammatical approach to local implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 20 (1): 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gamut, L.T.F. 1991. Logic, language, and meaning, vol. 1. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Geurts, Bart. 2009. Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. Mind and Language 24 (1): 51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Geurts, Bart. 2011. Quantity implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Geurts, Bart, and Nausicaa Pouscoulous. 2009. Embedded emplicatures?!? Semantics and Pragmatics 2 (4): 1–34.Google Scholar
  28. Geurts, Bart, and Bob van Tiel. 2013. Embedded scalars. Semantics and Pragmatics 2 (4): 1–34.Google Scholar
  29. Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1984a. On the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. In Varieties of formal semantics: Proceedings of the Fourth Amsterdam Colloquium (1982), ed. Fred Landman and Frank Veltman, 3–73. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  30. Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1984b. Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  31. Horn, Lawrence R. 1969. A presuppositional approach to only and even. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 5, 98–107. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
  32. Horn, Lawrence R. 1972. The semantics of logical operators in English. PhD dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
  33. Horn, Lawrence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Horn, Lawrence R. 2009. WJ-40: Implicature, truth, and meaning. International Review of Pragmatics 1 (1): 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hurford, James. 1974. Exclusive or inclusive disjunction. Foundations of Language 11: 409–411.Google Scholar
  36. Ippolito, Michela. 2008. On the meaning of only. Journal of Semantics 25 (1): 45–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ippolito, Michela. 2011. A note on embedded implicatures and counterfactual presuppositions. Journal of Semantics 28 (2): 267–278.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Katzir, Roni. 2007. Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (6): 669–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Katzir, Roni. 2013. A note on contrast. Natural Language Semantics 21 (4): 333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Katzir, Roni, 2014. On the roles of markedness and contradiction in the use of alternatives. In Pragmatics, semantics and the case of scalar implicatures, ed. Salvatore Pistoia Reda, 40–71. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Katzir, Roni, and Raj Singh. 2013. Hurford disjunctions: Embedded exhaustification and structural Economy. In Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB) 18, ed. Urtzi Etxeberria et al., 201–216. http://semanticsarchive.net/sub2013/ProceedingsSuB18.pdf.
  42. Kennedy, Chris. 2013. A scalar semantics for scalar readings of number words. In From grammar to meaning: The spontaneous logicality of language, ed. Ivano Caponigro and Carlo Cecchetto, 172–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kennedy, Chris. 2015. A ‘de-Fregean’ semantics (and neo-Gricean pragmatics) for modified and unmodified numerals. Semantics and Pragmatics 8 (10): 1–44.Google Scholar
  44. Klinedinst, Nathan. 2006. Plurality and Possibility. PhD dissertation. UCLA.Google Scholar
  45. Krifka, Manfred. 1993. Focus and presupposition in dynamic interpretation. Journal of Semantics 10 (10): 269–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Landman, Fred. 1998. Plurals and maximalization. In Events and grammar, ed. Susan Rothstein, 237–271. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Levinson, S.C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Magri, Giorgio. 2009. A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 17 (3): 245–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Magri, Giorgio. 2011. Another argument for embedded scalar implicatures based on oddness in downward entailing environments. Semantics and Pragmatics 4: 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mandelkern, Matthew, and Jacopo Romoli. 2017. Parsing and presuppositions in the calculation of local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics 10(7).  https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.10.7.
  51. Meyer, Marie-Christine. 2013. Ignorance and grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  52. Meyer, Marie-Christine. 2014. Deriving Hurford’s Constraint. In Proceedings of SALT 24, ed. Todd Snider et al., 577–596. Washington, DC: LSA.Google Scholar
  53. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/handle/1813/28568.
  54. Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Russell, Benjamin. 2006. Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 23 (4): 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Russell, Benjamin. 2011. Topics in the computation of scalar implicatures. PhD dissertation, Brown University.Google Scholar
  57. Sauerland, Uli. 2004. Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (3): 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sauerland, Uli. 2012. The computation of scalar implicatures: Pragmatic, lexical or grammatical? Language and Linguistics Compass 6 (1): 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schlenker, Philippe. 2008. Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34 (3): 157–212.Google Scholar
  60. Schlenker, Philippe. 2009. Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics 2 (3): 1–78.Google Scholar
  61. Schulz, Katrin, and Robert van Rooij. 2006. Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29 (2): 205–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schwarzschild, Roger. 1997. Why some foci must associate. Manuscript, Rutgers University. http://semarch.linguistics.fas.nyu.edu/Archive/WZjNGRmN/schwarzschild.why.pdf.
  63. Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. Givenness, AvoidF, and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7 (2): 141–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sevi, Aldo. 2006. Exhaustivity: A semantic account of “quantity” implicatures. PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
  65. Singh, Raj. 2008a. Modularity and locality in interpretation. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  66. Singh, Raj. 2008b. On the interpretation of disjunction: Asymmetric, incremental, and eager for inconsistency. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (2): 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Spector, Benjamin. 2003. Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In Proceedings of the Eighth ESSLLI Student Session, ed. Balder ten Cate, 277–288. Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  68. Spector, Benjamin. 2006. Aspects de la pragmatique des opérateurs logiques. Manuscript, Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
  69. Spector, Benjamin. 2007. Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In Questions in dynamic semantics (Current research in the semantics/pragmatics interface 17), ed. Maria Aloni, Paul Dekker, and Alastair Butler, 225–249. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  70. Spector, Benjamin. 2013. Bare numerals and scalar implicatures. Language and Linguistics Compass 7 (5): 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Spector, Benjamin. 2014. Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semantics and Pragmatics 7 (11): 1–61.  https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.11.Google Scholar
  72. Spector, Benjamin. 2016. Comparing exhaustivity operators. Semantics and Pragmatics 9 (11): 1–33.  https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.11.Google Scholar
  73. van Rooij, Robert, and Katrin Schulz. 2004. Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13 (4): 491–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. van Rooij, Robert, and Katrin Schulz. 2006. Only: Meaning and implicatures. In Questions in dynamic semantics (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface 17), ed. Maria Aloni, Alistair Butler, and Paul Dekker, 193–223. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  75. Winter, Yoad. 2001. Plural predication and the Strongest Meaning Hypothesis. Journal of Semantics 18 (4): 333–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and PhilosophyMITCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Institut Jean Nicod (ENS – EHESS – CNRS), Département d’Études Cognitives, École Normale SupérieurePSL Research UniversityParisFrance

Personalised recommendations