“Scalar implicatures” is a phrase used to refer to some inferences arising from the competition between alternatives: typically, “Mary read some of the books” ends up conveying that Mary did not read all books, because one could have said “Mary read all books”. The so-called grammatical theory argues that these inferences obtain from the application of a covert operator \( exh \), which not only has the capability to negate alternative sentences, but also the capability to be embedded within sentences under other linguistic operators, i.e. \( exh \) has the potential to add to the meaning of expressions (not necessarily full sentences), the negation of their alternatives. This view typically seeks support from the existence of readings that could not be explained without the extra-capability of \( exh \) to occur in embedded positions. However, if some embedded positions seem to be accessible to \( exh \), not all conceivable positions that \( exh \) could occupy yield sensible results. In short: the \( exh \) approach is powerful, maybe too powerful. Various approaches based on logical strength and monotonicity have been proposed to justify on principled grounds the limited distribution of \( exh \); these approaches are mostly based on a comparison between possible parses, and considerations of monotonicity (e.g., the Strongest Meaning Hypothesis). We propose a new constraint based instead on “connectedness”, ruling out parses because of inherent problems their outcome may raise. Connectedness is a sister notion of monotonicity, which has been recruited to explain certain lexical restrictions on nouns, adjectives and more recently quantifiers; we propose here that connectedness could play a similar role at the level of propositional meanings.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(2), 159–259.
Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Chemla, E. (2009). Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data. Semantics and Pragmatics, 2(2), 1–33.
Chemla, E., Buccola, B., & Dautriche, I. (2019). Connecting content and logical words. Journal of Semantics, 36, 531–547.
Chemla, E., Dautriche, I., Buccola, B., & Fagot, J. (2018). Constraints on the lexicons of human languages have cognitive roots present in baboons (Papio papio). Ms. CNRS, University of Edinburgh, Aix-Marseille University. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004172/current.pdf.
Chemla, E., & Spector, B. (2011). Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 28(3), 359–400.
Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2011). The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In P. Portner, C. Maienborn, & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 3, pp. 2297–2332). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Coppock, E., & Beaver, D. (2014). Principles of the exclusive muddle. Journal of Semantics, 31(3), 371–432.
Dalrymple, M., et al. (1998). Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21(2), 159–210.
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). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2018). Economy and embedded exhaustification. Natural Language Semantics, 26(1), 1–50.
Gärdenfors, P. (2004). Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gärdenfors, P. (2014). The geometry of meaning: Semantics based on conceptual spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gotzner, N., & Benz, A. (2018). The best response paradigm: A new approach to test implicatures of complex sentences. Frontiers in Communication, 2, 21.
Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In P. Portner & B. Partee (Eds.), Formal semantics: The essential readings (pp. 249–260). Oxford: Blackwell.
Horn, L. R. (1973). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of California.
Katzir, R. (2007). Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistic and Philosophy, 30(6), 669–690.
Katzir, R., & Singh, R. (2013a). Constraints on the lexicalization of logical operators. Linguistics and Philosophy, 36(1), 1–29.
Katzir, R., & Singh, R. (2013b). Hurford disjunctions: embedded exhaustification and structural economy. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 18, 201–216.
Kratzer, A, & Shimoyama, J. (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Y. Otsu (Ed.) Proceedings of the Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics, (vol. 3, pp. 1–25). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Kratzer, A. (1979). Conditional necessity and possibility. In R. Bäuerle, U. Egli, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Semantics from different points of view (pp. 117–147). Berlin: Springer.
Kratzer, A. (1981). Partition and revision: The semantics of counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 201–216.
Krifka, M. (1993). Focus and presupposition in dynamic interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 10(4), 269–300.
Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lewis, D. (1981). Ordering semantics and premise semantics for counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 10(2), 217–234.
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.
Potts, C., Lassiter, D., Levy, R., & Frank, M. C. (2016). Embedded implicatures as pragmatic inferences under compositional lexical uncertainty. Journal of Semantics, 33(4), 755–802.
Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, 49, 91–136.
Roberts, C. (2006). Only, presupposition and implicature. Ms., The Ohio State University.
Sauerland, U. (2012). The computation of scalar implicatures: Pragmatic, lexical or grammatical? Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(1), 36–49.
Schlenker, P. (2008). Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics, 34(3), 157–212.
Schulz, K., & van Rooij, R. (2006). Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(2), 205.
Schwarzschild, R. (1999). GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics, 7(2), 141–177.
Solt, S., & Waldon, B. (2019). Numerals under negation: Empirical findings. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 113.
Spector, B. (2006). Aspects de la pragmatique des opérateurs logiques. Ph.D. thesis. Université Paris 7.
Spector, B. (2016). Comparing exhaustivity operators. Semantics and Pragmatics, 9(11), 1–33.
Stalnaker, R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In W. Harper, R. Stalnaker, & G. Pearce (Eds.), IFS (pp. 41–55). Dordrecht: Springer.
van Rooij, R., & Schulz, K. (2004). Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 13(4), 491–519.
von Fintel, K., & Matthewson, L. (2008). Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review, 25(1–2), 139–201.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
We would like to thank Brian Buccola and Benjamin Spector for important discussions. This work has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013)/ERC Grant Agreement No. 313610 and was supported by ANR-17-EURE-0017.
About this article
Cite this article
Enguehard, É., Chemla, E. Connectedness as a constraint on exhaustification. Linguist and Philos 44, 79–112 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-019-09286-3