Advertisement

An Experimental Comparison Between Presuppositions and Indirect Scalar Implicatures

  • Jacopo RomoliEmail author
  • Florian Schwarz
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 45)

Abstract

We compare two aspects of meaning, namely the presupposition of stop in the scope of negation (John didn’t stop going to the movies. ↪ John used to go to the movies.) and the scalar implicature associated with the strong scalar item always under negation (didn’t always go to the movies. ↪ John sometimes went to the movies.) (‘Indirect Scalar Implicatures’ (ISIs); Chierchia, Structures and Beyond, 2004). In our results, ISIs are found to pattern with presuppositions in that responses reflecting an interpretation without an inference (corresponding to a ‘literal’ interpretation) are slower than ones based on the relevant inference (Chemla and Bott, Lang Cogn Process, 38:241–260, 2013), contrary to what has been found for direct scalar implicatures (Bott and Noveck, J Mem Lang, 51:437–457, 2004, among others). These results are puzzling from the traditional perspective that ISIs are generated in the same way as direct implicatures. We explore two possible interpretations: first, strong scalar terms could receive a presuppositional analysis as well and presuppose that their domain is non-empty. Alternatively, we could group stop and ISIs together from another angle and see them as obligatory scalar implicatures, in contrast to the non-obligatory direct ones.

Keywords

Presuppositions Implicatures Indirect scalar implicatures Processing Experimental pragmatics Covered box task Reaction time Presupposition projection Local accommodation Negation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

For discussion and suggestions, thanks to Cory Bill, Emmanuel Chemla, Gennaro Chierchia, Stephen Crain, Alexandre Cremers, Raj Singh, Benjamin Spector, Yasutada Sudo, and the audience at Sinn und Bedeutung 18 in Vitoria. Thanks to Rachel Stults, Jamie Fisher, and Robert Wilder for assistance with data collection and to Dorothy Ahn for images used in the experimental stimuli. The work reported here was in part supported by a grant from the University Research Foundation of the University of Pennsylvania.

References

  1. Abusch, D. 2010. Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics 27 (1): 37–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barr, D. J., R. Levy, C. Scheepers, and H. J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68 (3): 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates, D. M. 2005. Fitting linear mixed models in R. R News 5:27–30.Google Scholar
  4. Beaver, D. 2001. Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  5. Beaver, D., and B. Geurts. 2012. Presupposition. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 3, ed. C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  6. Beaver, D., and H. Zeevat. 2012. Accommodation. In Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. G. Ramchand and C. Reiss. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bott, L., and I. A. Noveck. 2004. Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language 51 (3): 437–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bott, L., T. M. Bailey, and D. Grodner. 2012. Distinguishing speed from accuracy in scalar implicatures. Journal of Memory and Language 66 (1): 123–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breheny, R., N. Katsos, and J. Williams. 2006. Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition 100 (3): 434–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chemla, E. 2009a. Presuppositions of quantified sentences: Experimental data. Natural Language Semantics 17 (4): 299–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chemla, E. 2009b. Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Under revision for Semantics and Pragmatics.Google Scholar
  12. Chemla, E. 2009c. Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data. Semantics and Pragmatics 2 (2): 1–33.Google Scholar
  13. Chemla, E., and L. Bott 2013. Processing presuppositions: Dynamic semantics vs pragmatic enrichment. Language and Cognitive Processes 38 (3): 241–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chemla, E., and L. Bott. In press. Processing inferences at the semantics/pragmatics frontier: Disjunctions and free choice. Manuscript, Ecole Normal Superieure, Paris.Google Scholar
  15. Chierchia, G. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Structures and beyond, ed. A. Belletti. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Chierchia, G. In press. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Chierchia, G., and S. McConnell-Ginet. 1990. Meaning and grammar. An introduction to semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Chierchia, G., D. Fox, and B. Spector. 2012. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 3, ed. C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Cremers, A., and E. Chemla. 2013. Direct and indirect scalar implicatures share the same processing signature. Manuscript, Ecole Normal Superieure, Paris.Google Scholar
  20. Fox, D., and R. Katzir. 2011. On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 19 (1): 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geurts, B. 2010. Quantity implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grice, H. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics: Speech acts, ed. P. Cole and J. Morgan. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  23. Grodner, D. J., N. M. Klein, K. M. Carbary, and M. K. Tanenhaus. 2010. “Some,” and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition 116 (1): 42–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heim, I. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In WCCFL 2, ed. M. Barlow, D. Flickinger, and M. Wescoat, 114–125.Google Scholar
  25. Horn, L. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Ph.D. Diss., UCLA.Google Scholar
  26. Huang, Y. T., and J. Snedeker. 2009. Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology 58 (3): 376–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huang, Y., E. Spelke, and J. Snedeker. 2013. What exactly do number words mean? Language Learning and Development 9 (2): 105–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kamp, H. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal methods in the study of language: Proceedings of the third Amsterdam colloquium, vol. I, ed. J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof, 227–321. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  29. Karttunen, L. 1973. Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4 (2): 169–193.Google Scholar
  30. Karttunen, L. 1974. Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1:181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Katsos, N., C. Andrés Roqueta, R. A. C. Estevan, and C. Cummins. 2011. Are children with specific language impairment competent with the pragmatic and logic of quantification? Cognition 119:43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Katzir, R. 2007. Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistic and Philosophy 30 (6): 669–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewis, D. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. In Semantics from different points of view, ed. R. Bäuerle, U. Egli, and A. von Stechow. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Musolino, J., and J. Lidz. 2006. Why aren’t children universally successful with quantification? Linguistics 44 (4): 817–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Panizza, D., G. Chierchia, and Charles Clifton Jr. 2009. On the role of entailment patterns and scalar implicatures in the processing of numerals. Journal of Memory and Language 61 (4): 503–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Romoli, J. 2012. Soft but strong: Neg-raising, soft triggers, and exhaustification. Ph.D. Diss., Harvard University.Google Scholar
  37. Romoli, J. In press. The presuppositions of soft triggers are obligatory scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics.Google Scholar
  38. Romoli, J., Y. Sudo, and J. Snedeker. 2011. An experimental investigation of presupposition projection in conditional sentences. In Proceedings of SALT 21, ed. N. Ashton, A. Chereches, and D. Lutz, 592–608.Google Scholar
  39. Rooth, M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1 (1): 117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sauerland, U. 2004. Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (3): 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schlenker, P. 2008. Presupposition projection: The new debate. In Proceedings of SALT 18, ed. T. Friedman and S. Ito. Ithaca: CLC.Google Scholar
  42. Schwarz, F. 2007. Processing presupposed content. Journal of Semantics 24 (4): 373–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schwarz, F., and S. Tiemann. 2012. Presupposition Processing—The case of German wieder. In Proceedings from the 18th Amsterdam colloquium, ed. M. Aloni, V. Kimmelman, F. Roelofsen, G. Weidman Sassoon, K. Schulz, and M. Westera. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Schwarz, F., and S. Tiemann. 2013. The path of presupposition projection in processing—The case of conditionals. In Proceedings of SuB 17, ed. E. Chemla, V. Homer, and G. Winterstein, 509–526. Paris: semanticsarchive.netGoogle Scholar
  45. Simons, M. 2001. On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In Proceedings of SALT 11, ed. R. Hastings, B. Jackson, and Z. Zvolenszky, 431–448.Google Scholar
  46. 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. Basingstove: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  47. Stalnaker, R. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics and philosophy, ed. M. K. Milton, and P. K. Unger. NewYork: NewYork University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Stalnaker, R. 1978. Assertion. In Pragmatics, ed. P. Cole., vol. 9, 315–322. NewYork: Academic.Google Scholar
  49. von Fintel, K. 2008. What is presupposition accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives 22 (1): 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Room 17E10, School of CommunicationUniversity of UlsterNewtownabbeyUK
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations