Abstract

In this chapter, I am concerned with the explanation of scalar implicatures; specifically, with the question whether scalar implicatures should be explained in the pragmatics or in the semantics of a sentence.* In this discussion, I use the terms implicative and scalar implicative simply as labels for a certain range of facts. Grice (1967, 1975, 1989) introduced the term implkature for a variety of cancellable inferences and simultaneously suggested an explanation of implicatures on the basis of his maxims — a pragmatic explanation. Horn (1972) extended this type of account to scalar implicatures. However, many in the field (e.g., Levin-son 2000; Chierchia 2004) have already used Grice’s and Horn’s terms as descriptive labels for a range of phenomena, without committing to a specific explanation, as I will in the following.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beck, Sigrid. 2012. Comparison constructions. In Claudia Maienborned, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner (eds), Handbook of Semantics. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  2. Breheny, Richard. 2008. A new look at the semantics and pragmatics of numerically quantified noun phrases. Journal of Semantics 25:93–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlson, Greg, and Francis Jeffry Pelletier. 2002. The average American has 2.3 children, journal of Semantics 19:73–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carsten, Robyn. 1988. Implicarurc, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In R.M. Kempson (ed.), Mental Representations: the Interface between Language and Reality, 155–181. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chemla, Emmanuel. 2009. Universal implicatures and free choice effects: experimental data. Semantics and Pragmatics 2:1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chemla, Emmanuel, and Benjamin Spector. 2011. Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 28:359–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond, 39–103. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37:535–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector. 2009. Hurford’s constraint and the theory of scalar implicatures: evidence for embedded implicatures. Semanticsarchive.Google Scholar
  11. Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector. 2012. Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn, and Paul Portner (eds), Handbook of Semantics, volume 3, 2297–2331. Mouton de G ruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, Ariel, and Manfred Krifka. 2011. Superlative quantifiers as meta speech acts. In Barbara Partee, Michael Glanzberg, and Jurgis Skilters (eds), The Baltic Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 1–56.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, Jonathan. 1971. Some remarks on Grice’s views about the logical particles of natural language. In Y. Bar-Hillel (ed.), Pragmatics of Natural Languages, 50–68. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cummins, Chris, and Napoleon Katsos. 2010. Comparative and superlative quantifiers: pragmatic effects of comparison type, journal of Semantics 27(3): 271–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox, Danny. 2007. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Uli Sauerland and Penka Staleva (eds), Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, 71–120. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Fox, Danny, and Roni Katzir. 2011. On the characterization of alternatives. Natural language semantics 19:87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gajewski, Jon, and Yael Sharvit. 2012. In defense of the grammatical approach to local implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 20:31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and logical Form. New York, N.Y.: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Geurts, Bart. 2009. Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. Mind and Language 24:51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geurts, Bart, and Nausicaa Pouscoulous. 2009. Embedded implicatures?!? Semantics and Pragmatics 2:1–34.Google Scholar
  21. Grice, Paul. 1967. Logic and conversation. Unpublished lecture notes from William James Lectures at Harvard.Google Scholar
  22. Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and Jennifer L. Morgan (eds), Speech Acts, number 3 in Syntax and Semantics, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gualmini, Andrea, Sarah Ilusley, Valentine Ilacquard, and Danny Fox. 2008. The question-answer required for scope assignment. Natural Language Semantics, 16:205–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hackl, Martin. 2000. Comparative Quantifiers. Doctoral Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  26. Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Doctoral Dissertation. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
  27. Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hurford, James R. 1974. Inclusive or exclusive disjunction. Foundations of Language 11:409–411.Google Scholar
  29. Katzir, Roni. 2007. Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30:669–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kennedy, Christopher. 1997. Projecting the adjective: the syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. Doctoral Dissertation. Santa Cruz: University of California.Google Scholar
  31. Kennedy, Christopher. 2013a. A scalar semantics for scalar readings of number words. In Ivano Caponigro and Carlo Cecchetto (eds), From Grammar to Meaning: The Spontaneous Logicality of Language, 172–200. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kennedy, Christopher. 2013b. A “de-Fregean” semantics for modified and unmodified numerals. Unpublished Ms., University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  33. Kennedy, Christopher and Jason Stanley. 2009. On ‘average’. Mind 118:583–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Mayr, Clemens, and Benjamin Spector. 2009. Not too strong! generalizing the scope economy condition. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14, 305–321.Google Scholar
  36. McNabb, Yaron, and Doris Pcnka. 2013. The interpretation of superlative modifiers and deontic modals: an experimental investigation. Presentation at Sinn und Bedeutung.Google Scholar
  37. Meyer, Marie-Christine. 2013. Ignorance and grammar. Doctoral Dissertation., Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  38. Meyer, Marie-Christine, and Uli Sauerland. 2009. A pragmatic constraint on ambiguity detection: a rejoinder to Büring and Hartmann and to Reis. Natural Language fk Linguistic Theory 27:139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Musolino, Julien. 2004. The semantics and acquisition of number words: integrating linguistic and developmental perspectives. Cognition 93:1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nouwen, Rick. 2010. Two kinds of modified numerals. Semantics and Pragmatics 3:1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Russell, Ben. 2006. Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. journal of Semantics 23:361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sauerland, Uli. 2004a. On embedded implicatures. Journal of Cognitive Science 5:103–137.Google Scholar
  43. Sauerland, Uli. 2004b. Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27–367-391.Google Scholar
  44. Sauerland, Uli. 2010. Embedded implicatures and experimental constraints: a reply to Geurts & Pouscoulous and Chemla. Semantics & Pragmatics 3:2:1–13.Google Scholar
  45. Sauerland, Uli. 2012. The computation of scalar implicatures: pragmatic, lexical, or grammatical? Language and Linguistics Compass 6:36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scharten, Rosemarijn. 1997. Exhaustive interpretation: a discourse-semantic account. Doctoral Dissertation. Nijmegen, Netherlands: Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  47. Singh, Raj. 2006. Eager for distinctness. Proceedings of the Eleventh ESSLLI Student Session, Janneke Huitink & Sophia Katrenko (editors).Google Scholar
  48. Spector, Benjamin. 2013a. Bare numerals and scalar implicatures. Language and Linguistics Compass 7:273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Spector, Benjamin. 2013b. Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaus-lificalioii. Semanlicsarchive.Google Scholar
  50. Spector, Benjamin. 2013c. Homogeneity and plurals: from the stronger meaning hypothesis to supervaluations. Sinn und Bedeutung 18, Abstract Booklet.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Uli Sauerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uli Sauerland
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for General Linguistics (ZAS)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations