Tracking Down Disjunction

  • Uli SauerlandEmail author
  • Ayaka Tamura
  • Masatoshi Koizumi
  • John M. TomlinsonJr.
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10091)


Kuno (1973) and others describe the Japanese junctor ya as conjunction. But, Sudo (2014) analyzes ya as a disjunction with a conjunctive implicature. We compare ya with other junctors and implicature triggers experimental using mouse-tracking. Our two main results are: (1) ya differs from lexical conjunctions corroborating Sudo’s (2014) proposal. (2) The time-course of the conjunctive implicature of ya argues against the details of Sudo’s (2014) implementation, and instead favors an account similar to other cases of conjunctive implicatures.


Implicature Disjunction Conjunction Alternatives Numerals Mouse-tracking Japanese 



We are grateful to Hye-Jeong Lee, Yasutado Sudo, Kazuko Yatsushiro, four anonymous reviewers, and the audiences of LENLS at the Ochanomizu University, the workshop on Questions and Disjunction at the University of Vienna, and the 39th GLOW colloquium at the University of Göttingen for their comments, and to Ryo Tachibana for technical support. The work reported in this paper was funded primarily by the German research council (DFG project SSI, SA 925/11-1, within SPP 1727 In addition, it was supported in part by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF, Grant No. 01UG1411), the Alexander von Humboldt foundation (postdoctoral fellowship for J. M. Tomlinson Jr.), and Tohoku University.


  1. Barner, D., Brooks, N., Bale, A.: Accessing the unsaid: the role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference. Cognition 118, 87–96 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birkhoff, G.: Lattice Theory. American Mathematical Society, New York (1940)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Bott, L., Noveck, I.A.: Some utterances are underinformative: the onset and time course of scalar inferences. J. Mem. Lang. 51, 437–457 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowler, M.: Conjunction and disjunction in a language without ‘and’. In: Semantics and Linguistic Theory, vol. 24 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. Chemla, E., Bott, L.: Processing inferences at the semantics/pragmatics frontier: disjunctions and free choice. Cognition 130, 380–396 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chierchia, G.: Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Guasti, M.T., Gualmini, A., Meroni, L.: Evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures. In: Do, A.-J., et al. (ed.) BUCLD 25 Proceedings (2001)Google Scholar
  8. Fox, D.: Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In: Sauerland, U., Stateva, P. (eds.) Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, pp. 71–120. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fox, D., Katzir, R.: On the characterization of alternatives. Nat. Lang. Seman. 19, 87–107 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freeman, J.B., Ambady, N.: MouseTracker: software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behav. Res. Methods 42, 226–241 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Homer, V.: Polarity and modality. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA (2011)Google Scholar
  12. Huang, Y.T., Snedeker, J.: Semantic meaning and pragmatic interpretation in 5-year-olds: evidence from real-time spoken language comprehension. Dev. Psychol. 45, 1723–1739 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huang, Y.T., Snedeker, J.: Logic and conversation revisited: evidence for a division between semantic and pragmatic content in real-time language comprehension. Lang. Cogn. Process. 26, 1161–1172 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huang, Y.T., Spelke, E., Snedeker, J.: What exactly do numbers mean? Lang. Learn. Dev. 9, 105–129 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katzir, R.: Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguist. Philos. 30, 669–690 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuno, S.: The Structure of the Japanese Language. MIT Press, Cambridge (1973)Google Scholar
  17. Lee, Y.: Scales and alternatives: disjunction, exhaustivity, and emphatic particles. Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas, Austin (1995)Google Scholar
  18. Meyer, M.-C.: Missing alternatives and disjunction. In: Beltrama, A., Chatzikonstantinou, T., Lee, J., Pham, M. (eds.) Proceedings of CLS 48. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL (2012)Google Scholar
  19. Meyer, M.-C.: Generalized free choice and missing alternatives. J. Semant. 33, 703–754 (2016)Google Scholar
  20. Nicolae, A.C.: Simple disjunction PPIs – a case for obligatory epistemic inferences. NELS 46 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. Noveck, I., Posada, A.: Characterizing the time course of an implicature: an evoked potentials study. Brain Lang. 85, 203–210 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ohori, T.: Coordination in mentalese. In: Coordinating Constructions, vol. 58. John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 41–66 (2004)Google Scholar
  23. R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2012).
  24. Sauerland, U.: Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguist. Philos. 27, 367–391 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Singh, R., Wexler, K., Astle- Rahim, A., Kamawar, D., Fox, D.: Children interpret disjunction as conjunction: Conse- quences for theories of implicature and child development. Nat. Lang. Seman. 24(4), 305–352 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Spector, B.: Comparing exhaustivity operators. Semant. Pragmatics 9, 1–33 (2016)Google Scholar
  27. Spector, B.: Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semant. Pragmat. 7, 1–61 (2014)Google Scholar
  28. Sudo, Y.: Higher-order scalar implicatures of ‘ya’ in Japanese. Handout, TEAL 9, University of Nantes (2014)Google Scholar
  29. Tieu, L., Yatsushiro, k., Cremers, A., Romoli, J., Sauerland, U., Chemla, E.: On the role of alternatives in the acquisition of simple and complex disjunctions in French and Japanese. J. Semant. 34, 127–152 (2017)Google Scholar
  30. Tomlinson, J.M., Bailey, T.M., Bott, L.: Possibly all of that and then some: scalar implicatures are understood in two steps. J. Mem. Lang. 69, 18–35 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uli Sauerland
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ayaka Tamura
    • 2
  • Masatoshi Koizumi
    • 2
  • John M. TomlinsonJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for General Linguistics (ZAS)BerlinGermany
  2. 2.Tohoku UniversitySendaiJapan

Personalised recommendations