A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures

Abstract

Predicates such as tall or to know Latin, which intuitively denote permanent properties, are called individual-level predicates. Many peculiar properties of this class of predicates have been noted in the literature. One such property is that we cannot say #John is sometimes tall. Here is a way to account for this property: this sentence sounds odd because it triggers the scalar implicature that the alternative John is always tall is false, which cannot be, given that, if John is sometimes tall, then he always is. This intuition faces two challenges. First: this scalar implicature has a weird nature, since it must be surprisingly robust (otherwise, it could be cancelled and the sentence rescued) and furthermore blind to the common knowledge that tallness is a permanent property (since this piece of common knowledge makes the two alternatives equivalent). Second: it is not clear how this intuition could be extended to other, more complicated properties of individual-level predicates. The goal of this paper is to defend the idea of an implicature-based theory of individual-level predicates by facing these two challenges. In the first part of the paper, I try to make sense of the weird nature of these special mismatching implicatures within the recent grammatical framework for scalar implicatures of Chierchia (Structures and beyond, 2004) and Fox (2007). In the second part of the paper, I show how this implicature-based line of reasoning can be extended to more complicated properties of individual-level predicates, such as restrictions on the interpretation of their bare plural subjects, noted in Carlson (Reference to kinds in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1977), Milsark (Linguistic Analysis 3.1: 1–29, 1977), and Fox (Natural Language Semantics 3: 283–341, 1995); restrictions on German word order, noted in Diesing (Indefinites, 1992); and restrictions on Q-adverbs, noted in Kratzer (The Generic Book, ed. Carlson and Pelletier, 125–175, 1995).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Bennett Michael., Barbara Partee. (1972) Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English. Distributed in 1978 by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  2. Berman, Steve. 1990. Toward the semantics of open sentences: Wh-phrases and indefinites. In Proceedings of the seventh Amsterdam colloquium, ed. Martin Stokhof and Leen Torenvliet, 53–78. University of Amsterdam: ITLI.

  3. Burton, S., and G. Jane. 1992. Coordination and VP-internal subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 305–313.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Doctoral diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Published in 1980 by Garland Press, New York.

  5. Chemla Emmanuel. (2006) A problem for the theory of anti-presuppositions. Manuscript, ENS Paris

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Individual-level predicates as inherent generics. In The generic book, ed. G. N. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  7. Chierchia Gennaro. (1998) Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Structures and beyond, ed. A. Belletti. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  9. Chierchia Gennaro. (2006a) Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the ‘logicality’ of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37.4: 535–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006b. Obligatory Implicatures. Talk delivered at Sinn und Bedeutung 11, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.

  11. Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector. to appear. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Handbook of Semantics, ed. Paul Portner, Claudia Maienborn, and Klaus von Heusinger. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  12. Cohen Ariel., Nomi Erteschik-Shir. (2002) Topic, focus and the interpretation of bare plurals. Natural Language Semantics 10: 125–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Condoravdi, Cleo. 1992. Individual-level predicates in conditional clauses. Talk given at the LSA Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.

  14. Diesing Molly. (1992) Indefinites. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dowty, David R. (1979) Word meaning and Montague grammar. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ferreira Marcelo. (2005) Event quantification and plurality. Doctoral diss., MIT

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fodor Janet Dean. (1970) The linguistic description of opaque contexts. Doctoral diss., MIT

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fox Danny. (1995) Economy and scope. Natural Language Semantics 3: 283–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fox Danny. (2000) Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fox, Danny. 2007. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, ed. U. Sauerland and P. Stateva, 71–120. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  21. Fox Danny., Martin Hackl. (2006) The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy 29.5: 537–586

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fox Danny., Jon Nissenbaum., Uli Sauerland. (2001) Association with focus. Manuscript, MIT

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gajewski Jon. (2003) On analyticity in natural language. Manuscript, MIT

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gajewski Jon. (2005) Neg-raising: Polarity and presupposition. Doctoral diss., MIT

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  26. Geurts Bart. (2009) Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. Mind and Language 24: 51–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Glasbey, Sheila. 1997. I-level predicates that allow existential readings for Bare Plurals. In Proceedings of SALT7, ed. Aaron Lawson. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

  28. Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, ed. P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic: Academic Press.

  29. Gruber, J. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Doctoral diss., MIT. Published in 1965 by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.

  30. Hawkins John A. (1991) On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics 27: 405–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Heim, Irene. 1988. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  32. Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, ed. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 487–535. De Gruyter: Berlin.

  33. Higginbotham, J., and G. Ramchand. 1997. The stage-level/individual-level distinction and the mapping hypothesis. In Oxford University working papers in linguistics, philosophy and phonetics, vol. 2, ed. David Willis, 55–83.

  34. Horn, L. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Doctoral diss., UCLA. Distributed by IULC.

  35. Horn, Laurence R. 2005. The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective. In Where semantics meets pragmatics, ed. K. Turner and K. von Heusinger. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  36. Jäger Gerhard. (2001) Topic-comment structure and the contrast between stage level and individual level predicates. Journal of Semantics 18: 83–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kamp, J. A. W. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal methods in the study of language, ed. J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof, 277–321. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.

  38. Kiss, K. E. 1998. On generic and existential bare plurals and the classification of predicates. In Events and Grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 145–162. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

  39. Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The generic book, ed. G. N. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier, 125–175. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  40. (1995) The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–257

    Google Scholar 

  41. Landman, Fr (eds) (2000) Events and plurality. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London

    Google Scholar 

  42. Löbner Sebastian. (1985) Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Magri, Giorgio. 2008. A theory of individual level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures (extended version). MIT manuscript; available at http://web.mit.edu/gmagri/www/ .

  44. Maienborn Claudia. (2001) On the position and interpretation of locative modifiers. Natural Language Semantics 9: 191–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. McNally, L. 1998. Stativity and telicity. In Events and grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 293–307. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

  46. Milsark Gary L. (1977) Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential. Linguistic Analysis 3.1: 1–29

    Google Scholar 

  47. Musan Renate. (1995) On the temporal interpretation of noun phrases. Doctoral diss., MIT

    Google Scholar 

  48. Musan Renate. (1997) Tense, predicates, and lifetime effects. Natural Language Semantics 5: 271–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Percus, Orin. 2001. Pragmatic constraints on (Adverbial) (Temporal) quantification. In Papers in linguistics 22: Papers on predicative constructions, ed. G. Jaeger, A. Strigin, C. Wilder, and N. Zhang. Berlin: ZAS.

  50. Percus, Orin. 2006. Antipresuppositions. In Theoretical and empirical studies of reference and anaphora: Toward the establishment of generative grammar as an empirical science, ed. A. Ueyama. Report of the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), Project no. 15320052, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, 52–73.

  51. Russell Benjamin. (2006) Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 23: 361–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sauerland, Uli. 2003. Implicated presuppositions. In Proceedings of the conference Polarity, scalar phenomena, implicatures. University of Milano Bicocca, 18–20, June 2003.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Schlenker, Philippe. 2006. Maximize presupposition and Gricean reasoning. Manuscript, UCLA and Institute Jean-Nicod.

  55. Schubert, Lenhart K., and Francis Jeffry Pelletier. 1989. Generically speaking, or using discourse representation theory to interpret generics. In Properties, types and meaning, ed. Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara Partee, and Raymond Turner, 193–268. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

  56. Schwarzschild Roger. (1996) Pluralities. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, Boston, London

    Google Scholar 

  57. Singh, Raj. 2009. Maximize presupposition! and informationally encapsulated implicatures. In Proceedings of SuB13, ed. A. Riester and T. Solstad. Stuttgart.

  58. Spector Benjamin. (2006) Aspects de la Pragmatique des Operateurs Logiques. Université Paris 7, Doctoral diss

    Google Scholar 

  59. Spector Benjamin. (2006) Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher-order implicatures. Ecole Normale Supérieure, Manuscript

    Google Scholar 

  60. Spector, Benjamin. 2007. Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In Questions in dynamic semantics, ed. Maria Aloni, Alastair Butler, and Paul Dekker, 229–254. Elsevier.

  61. von Fintel Kai. (1993) Exceptive constructions. Natural Language Semantics 1.2: 123–148

    Google Scholar 

  62. von Fintel Kai. (1997) Bare plurals, bare conditionals, and ‘only’. Journal of Semantics 14: 1–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. van Rooij Robert., Katrin Schulz. (2004) Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29.5: 205–250

    Google Scholar 

  64. van Valin R.D. (1986) An empty category as the subject of a tensed S in English. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 581–586

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giorgio Magri.

Additional information

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at SALT16; at the Theory Group of Harvard University; at the LF Reading Group of MIT; and at the “MIT-France Workshop on Implicatures and Presuppositions.” I thank the audiences at these institutions for valuable comments. I wish to thank Gennaro Chierchia, Kai von Fintel, Danny Fox, and Irene Heim for detailed comments on various versions of this paper and significant suggestions. I also wish to thank Emmanuel Chemla, Ezra Keshet, Benjamin Spector, and Philippe Schlenker. Finally, I wish to thank Christine Bartels for her editorial help.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Magri, G. A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures. Nat Lang Semantics 17, 245–297 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9042-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Individual level predicates
  • Bare plurals
  • Scalar implicatures