Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 473–517 | Cite as

Presupposed ignorance and exhaustification: how scalar implicatures and presuppositions interact

  • Benjamin Spector
  • Yasutada Sudo
Open Access
Article

Abstract

We investigate the interactions between scalar implicatures and presuppositions in sentences containing both a scalar item and presupposition trigger. We first critically discuss Gajewski and Sharvit’s previous approach. We then closely examine two ways of integrating an exhaustivity-based theory of scalar implicatures with a trivalent approach to presuppositions. The empirical side of our discussion focuses on two novel observations: (i) the interactions between prosody and monotonicity, and (ii) what we call presupposed ignorance. In order to account for these observations, our final proposal relies on two mechanisms of scalar strengthening, the Presupposed Ignorance Principle and an exhaustivity operator which lets the presuppositions of negated alternatives project.

Keywords

Scalar implicature Presupposition Exhaustification Presupposed ignorance 

References

  1. Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  2. Beaver, D., & Krahmer, E. (2001). A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 10(2), 147–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaver, D., & Zeevat, H. (2007). Accommodation. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 503–538). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bochvar, D. A. (1981). On a three-valued logical calculus and its application to the analysis of the paradoxes of the classical extended functional calculus. History and Philosophy of Logic 2, 87–112. Translated by Merrie Bergmann [Originally published as ”Ob odnom trechznacnom iscislenii i ego primenenii k analizu paradoksov klassiceskogo rassirennogo funkcional’nogo iscislenija. Matematiceskij Sbornik, 4(46), 287–308 (1939).].Google Scholar
  5. Breheny, R., Klinedinst, N., Romoli, J., & Sudo, Y. (2016). The symmetry problem: Current theories and prospects. London: Ms. University College London and Ulster University.Google Scholar
  6. Büring, D. (2007). The least at least can do. In C. B. Chang & H. J. Haynie (Eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 26 (pp. 114–120). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
  7. Chemla, E. (2008). An epistemic step for anti-presuppositions. Journal of Semantics, 25(2), 141–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chemla, E. (2009). Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Ms.Google Scholar
  9. Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures (pp. 39–103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chierchia, G. (2006). Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “Logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(4), 535–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2012). Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 2297–2331). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Crnič, L. (2011). Getting even, Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  13. Fox, D. (2007). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics (pp. 71–112). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fox, D. (2008). Two short notes on Schlenker’s theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics, 34(3), 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox, D., & Hackl, M. (2006). The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(5), 537–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fox, D., & Katzir, R. (2011). On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics, 19(1), 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gajewski, J. (2011). Licensing strong NPIs. Natural Language Semantics, 19(2), 109–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gajewski, J., & Sharvit, Y. (2012). In defense of grammatical approach to local implicatures. Natural Language Semantics, 20(1), 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. George, B. (2008). A new predictive theory of presupposition projection. Proceedings of SALT, 18, 358–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gettier, E. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis, 23(6), 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geurts, B. (2008). Implicture as a discourse phenomenon. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 11, 261–275.Google Scholar
  23. Geurts, B. (2009). Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. Mind & Language, 24(1), 51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Geurts, B. (2010). Quantitiy implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers, Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  26. Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In WCCFL 2, pp. 114–125.Google Scholar
  27. Heim, I. (1991). Artikel und Definitheit. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung/Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 487–535). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  28. Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of the logical operators, Ph.D. thesis, University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  29. Horn, L. (1997). Presupposition and implicature. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Ivlieva, N. (2013) Scalar implicatures and the grammar of plurality and disjunction, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  31. Jacobson, P. (2012). The direct compositionality and “uninterpretability”: The case of (sometimes) “uninterpretable” features on pronouns. Journal of Semantics, 29(3), 305–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kadmon, N. (2001). Formal pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Karttunen, L. (1971). Implicative verbs. Language, 47(2), 340–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Karttunen, L., & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicature. In C.-K. Oh & D. Dinneen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 11: Presupposition (pp. 1–56). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Katzir, R. (2007). Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(6), 669–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayr, C., & Romoli, J. (2016). A puzzle for theories of redundancy: Exhaustification, incrementality, and the notion of local context. Semantics and Pragmatics, 9(7), 1–48.Google Scholar
  37. Meyer, M.-C. (2013) Ignorance and grammar, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  38. Percus, O. (2006). Antipresuppositions, Technical report. Report of the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), Project No: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. 15320052.Google Scholar
  39. Peters, S. (1979). A truth-conditional formulation of Karttunen’s account of presupposition. Synthese, 40(2), 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Potts, C. (2008). Wait a minute! What kind of discourse strategy is this? Annotated data. Ms. http://christopherpotts.net/ling/data/waitaminute/.
  41. Potts, C. (2015). Presupposition and implicature. In S. Lappin & C. Fox (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (2nd ed., pp. 168–202). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Romoli, J. (2012). Soft but strong: Neg-raising, soft triggers, and exhaustification, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  43. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  44. Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1(1), 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rothschild, D. (2011). Explaining presupposition projection with dynamic semantics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 4(3), 1–43.Google Scholar
  46. Rullmann, H. (2003). Additive particles and polarity. Journal of Semantics, 20(4), 329–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Russell, B. (2006). Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 23(4), 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sauerland, U. (2004). Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(3), 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sauerland, U. (2008). Implicated presuppositions. In A. Steube (Ed.), The discourse potential of underspecified structures. Language, context and cognition (pp. 581–600). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  50. Sauerland, U. (2013). Presuppositions and the alternative tier. In Proceedings of SALT 23, pp. 156–173.Google Scholar
  51. Schlenker, P. (2008). Be Articulate! A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics, 34(3), 157–212.Google Scholar
  52. Schlenker, P. (2009). Local contexts. Semantics & Pragmatics, 2, 1–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schlenker, P. (2012). Maximize presupposition and Gricean reasoning. Natural Language Semantics, 20(4), 391–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schwarz, B. (2016). Consistency preservation in quantifity implicature: The case of at least. Semantics & Pragmatics, 9(1), 1–47.Google Scholar
  55. Sharvit, Y., & Gajewski, J. (2008). On the calculation of local implicatures. In WCCFL, Vol. 26, pp. 411–419.Google Scholar
  56. Simons, M. (2001). On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) (pp. 431–448).Google Scholar
  57. Simons, M. (2006). Notes on the embedded implicatures. Pittsburgh: Ms. Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  58. Singh, R. (2011). Maximize presupposition! and local contexts. Natural Language Semantics, 19(2), 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Spathas, G. (2010) Focus on anaphora, Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
  60. Spector, B. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In B. ten Cate (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th ESSLLI student session, Vienna, pp. 277–288.Google Scholar
  61. Spector, B. (2007). Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In M. Aloni, A. Butler, & P. Dekker (Eds.), Questions in Dynamic Semantics (pp. 225–249). Emerald: Bingley.Google Scholar
  62. Spector, B. (2014). Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semantics & Pragmatics, 7(11), 1–61.Google Scholar
  63. Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. Munitz & P. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and Philosophy (pp. 197–213). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Stalnaker, R. (1998). On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 7, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(5–6), 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sudo, Y. (2012). On the semantics of Phi features on pronouns, Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  67. Sudo, Y. (2016). The existential problem of scalar implicatures and anaphora across alternatives. In C. Piñón (Ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 11 (pp. 225–244). http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss11/index_en.html.
  68. Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C., & Simons, M. (2011). Towards a taxonomy of projective content. Ms., Ohio State University, University of Texas, Austin, and Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  69. van der Sandt, R. (1988). Context and presupposition. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  70. van Rooij, R., & Schulz, K. (2004). Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 13(4), 491–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. von Fintel, K. (1999). NPI licensing, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics, 16(2), 97–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The king of France is back! (Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions). In M. Reimer & A. Bezuidenhout (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond (pp. 315–341). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. von Fintel, K. (2008). What is presupposition accomodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives, 22(1), 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. von Fintel, K., & Matthewson, L. (2008). Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review, 25(1–2), 139–201.Google Scholar
  75. Zondervan, A. J. (2010). Scalar implicatures or focus: An experimental approach, Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département d’études cognitives, Institut Jean Nicod (CNRS-ENS-EHESS)Ecole Normale Supérieure - PSL Research UniversityParisFrance
  2. 2.University College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations