The symmetry problem: current theories and prospects

  • Richard Breheny
  • Nathan Klinedinst
  • Jacopo Romoli
  • Yasutada Sudo
Open Access
Article

Abstract

The structural approach to alternatives (Katzir in Linguist Philos 30(6):669–690, 2007; Fox and Katzir in Nat Lang Semant 19(1):87–107, 2011; Katzir in Semantics, pragmatics and the case of scalar implicatures, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 40–71, 2014) is the most developed attempt in the literature at solving the symmetry problem of scalar implicatures. Problematic data with indirect and particularised scalar implicatures have however been raised (Romoli in Snippets 27:14–15, 2013; Trinh and Haida in Nat Lang Semant 25(4):249–270, 2015). To address these problems, Trinh and Haida (2015) proposed to augment the theory with the Atomicity Constraint. Here we show that this constraint falls short of explaining minimal variants of the original problems, and moreover that it runs into trouble with the inferences of sentences involving gradable adjectives like full and empty. We furthermore discuss how the structural approach suffers at times from the problem of ‘too many lexical alternatives’ pointed out by Swanson (Linguist Philos 33(1):31–36, 2010), and at other times from the opposite problem of ‘too few lexical alternatives’. These three problems epitomise the challenge of constructing just enough alternatives under the structural approach to solve the symmetry problem in full generality. Finally, we also sketch another recent attempt at solving the symmetry problem, Bergen et al. (Semant Pragmat 9(20), 2016), which is based on relative informativity and complexity. We argue that Bergen et al. do not provide a general solution to the symmetry problem either, by pointing to some of the open problematic cases that remain for this approach as well. We conclude that while important progress has been made in the theory of alternatives for scalar implicatures in the last few years, a full solution to the symmetry problem has not yet been attained.

Keywords

Alternatives Exhaustification Scalar implicature Symmetry problem 

Notes

Acknowledgements

For invaluable discussion and feedback we thank Leon Bergen, Danny Fox, Noah Goodman, Andreas Haida, Roni Katzir, Matt Mandelkern, Tue Trinh, and Wataru Uegaki. Work on this project was partially supported by the British Academy Small Grant SG-153-238 to Jacopo Romoli and Yasutada Sudo and by the Leverhulme Trust grant RPG-2016-100 to Jacopo Romoli.

References

  1. Bartsch, R., and T. Vennemann. 1975. The grammar of adjectives and comparison. Linguistische Berichte 20: 19–32.Google Scholar
  2. Bergen, L., R. Levy, and N. Goodman. 2016. Pragmatic reasoning through semantic inference. Semantics and Pragmatics 9(20). http://semprag.org/article/view/sp.9.20/pdf.
  3. Chemla, E., and B. Spector. 2011. Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 28(3): 359–400.Google Scholar
  4. Chierchia, G., D. Fox, and B. Spector. 2012. Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, ed. C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner, 2297–2331. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  5. Crnic, Luka, L., E. Chemla, and D. Fox. 2015. Scalar implicatures of embedded disjunction. Natural Language Semantics 23(4): 271–305.Google Scholar
  6. Fine, K. 2017. Truth-maker semantics. In A companion to the philosophy of language, 2nd ed, ed. B. Hale. London: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Forster, K., and S. Chambers. 1973. Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12: 627–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fox, D. 2007. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, ed. U. Sauerland and P. Stateva, 71–120. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Fox, D., and R. Katzir. 2011. On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 19(1): 87–107.Google Scholar
  10. Frank, M., and N. Goodman. 2012. Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science 336(6084): 998.Google Scholar
  11. Gazdar, G. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Goodman, N., and A. Stuhlmüller. 2013. Knowledge and implicature: Modeling language understanding as social cognition. Topics in cognitive science 5: 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hirschberg, J.B. 1991. A theory of scalar implicature. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  14. Horn, L. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
  15. Horn, L. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kao, J., L. Bergen, and N. Goodman. 2014a. Formalizing the pragmatics of metaphor understanding. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 36. London: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  17. Kao, J., J. Wu, L. Bergen, and N. Goodman. 2014b. Nonliteral understanding of number words. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (33): 12002–12007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Katzir, R. 2007. Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (6): 669–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Katzir, R. 2014. On the roles of markedness and contradiction in the use of alternatives. In Semantics, pragmatics and the case of scalar implicatures, ed. S. Pistoia-Reda, 40–71. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Kennedy, C. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kennedy, C. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kroch, A. 1972. Lexical and inferred meanings for some time adverbs, Quarterly Progress Report of the Research Laboratory of Electronics 104. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  23. Lassiter, D., and N. Goodman. 2013. Context, scale structure, and statistics in the interpretation of positive-form adjectives. In Proceedings of SALT 23, ed. T. Snyder, 587–610. LSA. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  24. Levelt, W. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Matsumoto, Y. 1995. The conversational condition on Horn scales. Linguistics and Philosophy 18 (1): 21–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McNally, L. 2011. The relative role of property type and scale structure in explaining the behavior of gradable adjectives. In Vagueness in Communication, ed. R. Nouwen, R. van Rooij, U. Sauerland, and H.-C. Schmitz, 151–168. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Romoli, J. 2013. A problem for the structural characterization of alternatives. Snippets 27: 14–15.Google Scholar
  28. Sauerland, U. 2000. No ‘no’: on the crosslinguistic absence of a determiner ‘no’. In Proceedings of the Tsukuba Workshop on Determiners and Quantification, ed. H. Suzuki, 415–444. Tsukuba, Japan: Tsukuba University.Google Scholar
  29. Sauerland, U. 2004. Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(3): 367–391.Google Scholar
  30. Schlenker, P. 2008. Presupposition projection: Explanatory strategies. Theoretical Linguistics 34(3): 287–316.  https://doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2008.021.
  31. Soames, S. 1982. How presuppositions are inherited: a solution to the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 13(3): 483–545.Google Scholar
  32. Spector, B. 2007. Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher-order implicatures. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, ed. U. Sauerland and P. Stateva, 243–281. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  33. Spector, B. 2016. Comparing exhaustivity operators. Semantics & Pragmatics 9(11): 1–33.Google Scholar
  34. Swanson, E. 2010. Structurally defined alternatives and lexicalizations of XOR. Linguistics and Philosophy 33(1): 31–36.Google Scholar
  35. Trinh, T., and A. Haida. 2015. Constraining the derivation of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 25(4): 249–270.Google Scholar
  36. van Rooij, R., and K. Schulz. 2004. Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13(4): 491–519.Google Scholar
  37. van Rooij, R., and K. Schulz. 2006. Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(2): 205–250.Google Scholar
  38. von Fintel, K. 2004. ‘Would you believe it? The King of France is back! Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions. In Descriptions and Beyond, ed. M. Reimer and A. Bezuidenhout, 315–341. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. von Stechow, A. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3(1–2): 1–77.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.University College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Ulster UniversityNewtownabbeyUK

Personalised recommendations