A Cross-Linguistic Study of the Non-at-issueness of Exhaustive Inferences

  • Emilie Destruel
  • Daniel Velleman
  • Edgar Onea
  • Dylan Bumford
  • Jingyang Xue
  • David Beaver
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 45)

Abstract

Several constructions have been noted to associate with an exhaustive inference, notably the English it-cleft, the French c’est-cleft, the preverbal focus in Hungarian and the German es-cleft. This inference has long been recognized to differ from exhaustiveness associated with exclusives like English only. While previous literature has attempted to capture this difference by debating whether the exhaustiveness of clefts is semantic or a pragmatic phenomenon, recent studies such as (Velleman et al. 2012, Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory (SALT) 22, pages 441–460) supplement the debate by proposing that the notion of at-issueness is the culprit of those differences. In light of this notion, this paper reconsiders the results from previous experimental data on Hungarian and German (Onea and Beaver 2011, Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 19, pages 342–359; Xue and Onea 2011, Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2011 Workshop on Projective Meaning, Ljubljana, Slovenia) and presents new data on English and French, showing that the “Yes, but” test used in these four languages to diagnose the source of the exhaustive inference (semantics vs. pragmatics), in fact diagnoses its status (at-issue vs. non-at-issue). We conclude that the exhaustiveness associated with clefts and cleft-like constructions is not at-issue, or in other words, exhaustiveness it is not the main point of the utterance.

Keywords

Exhaustivity Cleft structure Focus (Non)-at-issueness Information Structure 

References

  1. Atlas, J. D., and S. C. Levinson. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics. In Radical pragmatics, ed. P. Cole, 1–62. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beaver, D., and B. Clark. 2008. Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolinger, D. 1972. A look at equations and cleft sentences. In Studies for einar haugen, ed. E. Firchow, 96–114. Den Haag: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Büring, D. and Kri\v z, M. 2013. It’s that, and that’s it! Exhaustivity and homogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites). Semantics and Pragmatics 6:1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byram Washburn, M., E. Kaiser, and M. Zubizarreta. 2013. The English it-cleft: No need to get exhausted. Poster presented at The Linguistic Society of America, Boston.Google Scholar
  6. Carston, R. 1988. Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In Mental representations: The Interface between language and reality, 155–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Reprinted in Steven Davis (ed.) (1991), Pragmatics: A Reader, 33–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  7. Delin, J. L. 1990. A multi-level account of cleft constructions in discourse. Coling 90: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics 2:83–88.Google Scholar
  8. Delin, J., and J. Oberlander. 1995. Syntactic constraints on discourse structure: The case of it-clefts. Linguistics 33 (3): 465–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drenhaus, H., M. Zimmermann, and S. Vasishth. 2011. Exhaustiveness effects in clefts are not truth-functional. Journal of Neurolinguistics 24:320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ducrot, O. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire. Principes de sémantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
  11. Dyakonova, M. 2009. A phase-based approach to Russian free word order. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  12. Grice, H. P. 1967. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hedberg, N. 2000. On the referential status of clefts. Language 76:891–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horn, L. R. 1981. Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society, ed. V. Burke and J. Pustejovsky, 125–142. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  15. Horn, L. R. 2013. Exhaustivity and focus revisited. Talk given at DGFS. Berlin. Task given at 35th Annual Conference of the German Linguistic Society (DGPS). Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar
  16. Jayez, J. 2005. How many are “several”? Argumentation, meaning and layers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 19:187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jayez, J. 2010. Projective meaning and attachment. Logic, Language and Meaning. Lecture notes in Computer Science 6042:325–334. (Springer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jayez, J., and L. Tovena. 2008. Presque and almost: How argumentation derives from comparative meaning. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7:217–240.Google Scholar
  19. Kiss, K. E. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74:245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Onea, E. 2013. Potential questions in discourse and grammar. MS. (Grant research in the Semantics Pragmatics Inter face (RiSPI)).Google Scholar
  21. Onea, E., and D. Beaver. 2011. Hungarian focus is not exhausted. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), 19, ed. E. Cormany, S. Ito, and D. Lutz, 342–359. The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  22. Percus, O. 1997. Prying open the cleft. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the North-East Linguistics Society (NELS), ed. K. Kusumoto, 337–351. Glsa: Mc Gill University.Google Scholar
  23. Recanati, F. 1989. The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language 4:295–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reeve, M. 2010. Clefts. Ph.D. thesis, UCL.Google Scholar
  25. Roberts, C., M. Simons, D. Beaver, and J. Tonhauser. 2009. Presupposition, conventional im plicature and beyond: A unified account of projection. In New Directions in the Theory of Presupposition, ESSLLI workshop, ed. N. Klinedinst and D. Rothschild. Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
  26. Simons, M., J. Tonhauser, D. Beaver, and C. Roberts. 2011. What projects and why. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XX:309–327.Google Scholar
  27. Szabolcsi, A. 1981. The semantics of topic-focus articulation. In Formal methods in the study of language, ed. T. J. Jan Groenendijk and M. Stokhof, 513–541. Amsterdam: Matematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
  28. Szabolcsi, A. 1994. All quantifiers are not equal: The case of focus. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 42:171–187.Google Scholar
  29. Tonhauser, J. 2012. Diagnosing (not-)at-issue content. Proceedings of Semantics of Under-represented Languages of the Americas (SULA) 6:239–254. (UMass, Amherst. GLSA).Google Scholar
  30. van Kuppevelt, J. 1996. Inferring from topics. scalar implicatures as topic-dependent inferences. Linguistics and Philosophy 19:393–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Velleman, D., D. Beaver, E. Destruel, D. Bumford, E. Onea, and E. Coppock. 2012. It-clefts are it (inquiry terminating) construction. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory (SALT) 22:441–460.Google Scholar
  32. Wedgwood, D., G. Pethő, and R. Cann. 2006. Hungarian ‘Focus Position’ and english it-clefts: The semantic underspecification of ‘Focus’ readings. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  33. Xue, J., and E. Onea. 2011. Correlation between presupposition projection and at-issueness: An empirical study. Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2011 workshop on projective meaning, 171–184. Ljubljana, Slovenia.Google Scholar
  34. Zondervan, A. 2010. Scalar implicatures or focus: An experimental approach. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht, Utrecht.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emilie Destruel
    • 1
  • Daniel Velleman
    • 2
  • Edgar Onea
    • 3
  • Dylan Bumford
    • 4
  • Jingyang Xue
    • 3
  • David Beaver
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of French and Italian & FLAREUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  3. 3.Courant Research Centre “Text structures”University of GóttingenGóttingenGermany
  4. 4.Department of LinguisticsNewYork UniversityNewYorkUSA

Personalised recommendations