Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Constraints on the lexicalization of logical operators

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We revisit a typological puzzle due to Horn (Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA, 1972) regarding the lexicalization of logical operators: in instantiations of the traditional square of opposition across categories and languages, the O corner, corresponding to ‘nand’ (= not and), ‘nevery’ (= not every), etc., is never lexicalized. We discuss Horn’s proposal, which involves the interaction of two economy conditions, one that relies on scalar implicatures and one that relies on markedness. We observe that in order to express markedness and to account for a bigger typological puzzle, namely the absence of lexicalizations of ‘XOR’ (= exclusive or), ‘all-or-none’, and many other imaginable logical operators, one must restrict the basic lexicalizable elements to a small set of primitives. We suggest that an ordering based perspective, following Keenan and Faltz (Boolean semantics for natural language, 1985), makes the stipulated primitives that we arrive at more natural. We also propose a modification to Horn’s proposal, based on recent work on implicatures, in which only the implicature condition is operative and in which markedness is part of the definition of the alternatives for scalar implicatures rather than an independent condition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abels K., Martí L. (2010) A unified approach to split scope. Natural Language Semantics 18: 435–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrusán M. (2011) Presuppositional and negative islands: A semantic account. Natural Language Semantics 19: 257–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barwise J., Cooper R. (1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Béziau J.-Y. (2003) New light on the square of oppositions and its nameless corner. Logical Investigations 10: 218–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanché R. (1953) Sur l’opposition des concepts. Theoria 19: 89–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanché, R. (1969). Structures intellectuelles. Paris: J. Vrin.

  • Bresnan J. (1973) Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 275–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Chemla, E. (2009). Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Under revision for Semantics and Pragmatics.

  • Davey, B. A., & Priestley, H. A. (2002). Introduction to lattices and order (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • de Swart, H. (2000). Scope ambiguities with negative quantifiers. In K. von Heusinger & U. Egli (Eds.), Reference and anaphoric relations (pp. 109–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Farkas D. F., Kiss K. E. (2000) On the comparative and absolute readings of superlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 417–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D. (2007). Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics (pp. 71–120). New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.

  • Fox D., Hackl M. (2006) The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 537–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox D., Katzir R. (2011) On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 19: 87–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gajewski J. (2010) Superlatives, NPIs and most. Journal of Semantics 27: 125–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazdar G. (1979) Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazdar G. (1980) A cross-categorial semantics for coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy 3: 407–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazdar, G., & Pullum G. K. (1976). Truth functional connectives in natural language. In Papers from the regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 12, pp. 220–234), Chicago, IL.

  • Geurts B. (1996) On no. Journal of Semantics 13: 67–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice P. (1989) Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Doctoral Dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

  • Hackl M. (2009) On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: Most versus more than half. Natural Language Semantics 17: 63–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Heim, I. (1985). Notes on comparatives and related matters. Ms., University of Texas at Austin.

  • Heim I. (1990) E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1999). Notes on superlatives. MIT lecture notes. Ms., MIT.

  • Higginbotham J., May R. (1981) Questions, quantifiers and crossing. The Linguistic Review 1: 1–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschberg, J. (1985/1991). A theory of scalar implicature. New York: Garland.

  • Hoeksema, J. (1999). Blocking effects and polarity sensitivity. In J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, & Y. Venema (Eds.), Jfak: Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

  • Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA.

  • Horn, L. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicatures. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context (pp. 11–42). Washington: Georgetown University Press.

  • Horn L. (1989) A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. (1990). Hamburgers and truth: Why Gricean inference is Gricean. In BLS (Vol. 16, pp. 454–471).

  • Horn L. (2000) From IF to IFF: Conditional perfection as pragmatic strengthening. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 289–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. (2011). Histoire d’*O: Lexical pragmatics and the geometry of opposition (pp. 383–416). Bern: Peter Lang.

  • Hunter, T., & Lidz, J. (2012). Conservativity and learnability of determiners. Journal of Semantics, 29(3).

  • Hunter, T., Lidz, J., Wellwood, A., & Conroy, A. (2009). Restrictions on the meaning of determiners: Typological generalisations and learnability. In E. Cormany & S. Ito (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT XIX. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Ionin T., Matushansky O. (2006) The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics 23: 315–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs J. (1980) Lexical decomposition in Montague grammar. Theoretical Linguistics 7: 121–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaspers, D. (2005). Operators in the lexicon: On the negative logic of natural language. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Leiden, Leiden.

  • Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk (Ed.), Formal methods in the study of language. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center.

  • Katzir R. (2007) Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 669–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzir, R., & Singh R. (2009). On the absence of XOR in natural language. In P. ÉgrÉ & G. Magri (Ed.), Presuppositions and implicatures: Proceedings of the MIT-Paris workshop (pp. 118–129). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.

  • Keenan, E. L., & Faltz, L. (1978). Logical types for natural language. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA.

  • Keenan E. L., Faltz L. (1985) Boolean semantics for natural language. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Keenan E. L., Stavi J. (1986) A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 253–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kneale, W., & Kneale, M. (1962). The development of logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Kotek, H., Sudo, Y., Howard, E., & Hackl, M. (2011). Three readings of most. In Proceedings of SALT (Vol. 21, pp. 353–372).

  • Krasikova, S. (2012). Definiteness in superlatives. In Logic, language and meaning (pp. 411–420). Berlin: Springer.

  • Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In H. Eickmeyer & H. Rieser (Eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts (pp. 38–74). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Kratzer, A. (1986). Conditionals. (Reprinted from Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, by A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich, Eds., 1991, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.)

  • Kratzer, A. (1998). Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. 163–196). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Landman F. (1989a) Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 559–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landman F. (1989b) Groups, II. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 723–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landman, F. (2004). Indefinites and the type of sets. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Lewis, D. (1975). Adverbs of quantification. In E. Keenan (Ed.), Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretic approach. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language (pp. 303–323). Berlin: De Gruyter.

  • Löbner, S. (1983). Phase quantification: A uniform treatment of some quantifiers from different categories. In Proceedings of the second Japanese-Korean Joint workshop on formal grammar at Kyoto, pp. 127–140, The Logico-Linguistic Society of Japan, Japan.

  • Ludlow P., Neale S. (1991) Indefinite descriptions: In defense of Russell. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 171–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthewson L. (2001) Quantification and the nature of crosslinguistic variation. Natural Language Semantics 9: 145–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthewson, L. (2011). Strategies of quantification in st’át’imcets and the rest of the world. Ms., University of British Columbia.

  • McCawley, J. D. (1972). A program for logic. In Semantics of natural language (pp. 157–212). Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • Montague, R. (1974). The proper treatment of quantification in English. In R. H. Thomason (Ed.), Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • Moretti, A. (2012). Why the logical hexagon? Logica Universalis (pp. 1–39). doi:10.1007/s11787-012-0045-x.

  • Parsons T. (1997) The traditional square of opposition: A biography. Acta Analytica 18: 23–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers. Dordrecht: Foris.

  • Partee, B. H., & Rooth, M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language (pp. 362–383). Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Reinhart T. (1997) Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rullmann, H. (1995). Maximality in the semantics of wh-constructions. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA.

  • Russell B. (1919) Introduction to mathematical philosophy. Allen and Unwin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, U. (1998). The meaning of chains. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

  • Sauerland, U. (2000). No ‘no’: On the crosslinguistic absence of a determiner ‘no’. In Proceedings of the Tsukuba workshop on determiners and quantification (pp. 415–444).

  • Sauerland U. (2004) Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seuren P. (2006) The natural logic of language and cognition. Pragmatics 16: 103–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevi, A. (2005). Exhaustivity: A semantic account of ‘quantity’ implicatures. Doctoral Dissertation, Tel-Aviv University.

  • Sharvit Y., Stateva P. (2002) Superlative expressions, context, and focus. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 453–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solt, S. (2011). How many Most’s? In I. Reich, E. Horch, & P. Dennis (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15 (pp. 565–579). Saarbrücken: Saarland Universiy Press.

  • Spector, B. (2006). Aspects de la pragmatique des opérateurs logiques. Doctoral Dissertation, Université de Paris 7, Paris.

  • Strawson P. F. (1952) Introduction to logical theory. Methuen, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson E. (2010) Structurally defined alternatives and lexicalizations of XOR. Linguistics and Philosophy 33: 31–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szabolcsi, A. (1986). Comparative superlatives. In N. Fukui, T. Rapoport, & E. Sagey (Eds.), Papers in theoretical linguistics (Vol. 8, pp. 245–265). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.

  • Szabolcsi, A. (2010). Quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Szabolcsi, A. (2012). Compositionality without word boundaries: (The) more and (the) most. In Proceedings of SALT (Vol. 22, pp. 1–25).

  • Szabolcsi, A., Whang, J. D., & Zu, V. (2012). Compositionality questions: Quantifier words and their multi-functional parts. Ms., NYU, June 2012

  • Szabolcsi A., Zwarts F. (1993) Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking. Natural Language Semantics 1: 235–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benthem J. (1984) Questions about Quantifiers. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 49: 443–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooij R., Schulz K. (2004) Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13: 491–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fintel K. (1999) NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics 16: 97–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fintel K., Matthewson L. (2008) Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review 25: 139–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter Y. (1997) Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 399–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeijlstra H. (2011) On the syntactically complex status of negative indefinites. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4: 111–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zweig, E. (2006). Nouns and adjectives in numeral NPs. In L. Bateman & C. Ussery (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 35 (pp. 663–675). Amherst, MA: GLSA.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics and Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Roni Katzir

  2. Institute of Cognitive Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada

    Raj Singh

Authors
  1. Roni Katzir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raj Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roni Katzir.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Katzir, R., Singh, R. Constraints on the lexicalization of logical operators. Linguist and Philos 36, 1–29 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9130-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9130-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation