The Projection of Not-at-issue Meaning via Modal Support: The Meaning and Use of the Japanese Counter-Expectational Adverbs

  • Osamu SawadaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10091)


This paper discusses the phenomenon of what I call the “projection of non-at issue meaning via modal support” shown in the Japanese counter-expectational intensifier yoppodo and the counter expectational scale-reversal adverb kaette, and considers the variation of projective content from a new perspective. I show that, unlike the typical conventional implicatures (CIs) like appositives and expressives (e.g., Potts [19]), kaette and yoppodo can project out of the complement of a belief predicate only if there is a modal in the main clause. I argue that yoppodo and kaette belong to a new class of projective content that requires consistency between an at-issue meaning and a CI meaning in terms of a judge. This paper provides a new perspective for the typology of projective content.


Projection Judge Modal support Obligatory local effect Consistency of a judge 


  1. 1.
    Amaral, P., Roberts, C., Smith, A.: Review of the logic of conventional implicatures by chris potts. Linguist. Philos. 30, 707–749 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cresswell, M.J.: The semantics of degree. In: Partee, B. (ed.) Montague Grammar, pp. 261–292. Academic Press, New York (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    von Fintel, K., Gillies, A.: Must \(\ldots \) Stay \(\ldots \) Strong!. Nat. Lang. Seman. 18, 351–383 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grice, P.H.: Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, iii: Speech Acts, pp. 43–58. Academic Press, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grosz, P.: Grading modality: a new approach to modal concord and its relatives. In: Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14, pp. 185–201 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gutzmann, D.: Use-conditional Meaning: studies in multidimensional semantics. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Frankfurt (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harris, J.A., Potts, C.: Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressive. Linguist. Philos. 32(6), 523–552 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karttunen, L.: Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguist. Inq. 4(2), 169–193 (1973)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karttunen, L., Zaenen, A.: Veridicity. In: Katz, G., Pustejovsky, J., Schilder, F. (eds.) Annotating, Extracting and Reasoning about Time and Events. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 05151. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaufmann, M.: Discourse particle ‘Ruhig’: discourse effects, desires, and modality. In: 3rd Cornell Workshop in Linguistics and Philosophy: Modal Talk and Reasoning (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kennedy, C., McNally, L.: Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81(2), 345–381 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kennedy, C.: Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguist. Philos. 30(1), 1–45 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klein, E.: Comparatives. In: von Stechow, A., Wunderlich, D. (eds.) Semantik: Ein Internationales Handbuch der Zeitgenossischen Forschung, pp. 673–691. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (1991)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCready, E.: Varieties of conventional implicature. Semant. Pragmatics 3, 1–57 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCready, E., Sudo, Y.: Operating on presuppositions: ‘Sekkaku’ revisited. In: Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 5, pp. 155–166. MA: MITWPL, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Portner, P.: Modality. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Potts, C.: Presupposition and implicature. In: Lappin, S., Fox, C. (eds.) The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 2nd edn, pp. 168–202. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Potts, C.: The expressive dimension. Theor. Linguist. 33(2), 165–197 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Potts, C.: The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sauerland, U.: Beyond unpluggability. Theor. Linguist. 33(2), 231–236 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sawada, H.: Modaritii (Modality). Kaitakusya, Tokyo (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sawada, O.: Polarity sensitivity and update refusal: the case of the Japanese negative totemo ‘very’. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics (LENLS 11), pp. 313–326 (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sawada, O.: Pragmatic aspects of scalar modifiers. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seuren, P.A.M.: The comparative. In: Kiefer, F., Ruwet, N. (eds.) Generative Grammar in Europe, pp. 528–564. Reidel, Dordrecht (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stalnaker, R.C.: Pragmatic presupposition. In: Munitz, M.K., Unger, P.K. (eds.) Semantics and Philosophy, pp. 197–214. New York University Press, New York (1974)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sudo, Y.: On the semantics of phi features on pronouns. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C., Simons, M.: Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89, 66–109 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    von Stechow, A.: Comparing semantic theories of comparison. J. Seman. 3, 1–77 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang, L., Brian, R., McCready, E.: The projection problem of nominal appositives. Snippets 10, 13–14 (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Watanabe, M.: Hikakufukushi yohodo ni tuite (On the Comparative Adverb Yohodo.) Sophia University, Kokubungakka kiyoo 4, 39–52 (1987)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HumanitiesMie UniversityTsuJapan

Personalised recommendations