Advertisement

Aspects of the Pragmatics of Plural Morphology: On Higher-Order Implicatures

  • Benjamin Spector
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition book series (PSPLC)

Abstract

This chapter argues that the semantic behavior of bare plurals (and some other plural indefinites) provides evidence for the existence of higher-order implicatures, i.e. pragmatic inferences based on the comparison of a given sentence with the pragmatic meanings of its alternatives (and not only with their literal meanings). In a nutshell, I claim that a bare plural noun like horses denotes the set of individuals, be they atomic or complex, whose atomic parts are individual horses, and that the at-least-two-reading that one gets in sentences such as John has seen horses in the garden is an implicature that derives from the comparison of this sentence with John has seen a horse in the garden. In terms of its literal meaning, the latter sentence is true if and only if John has seen at least one horse in the garden, but gets pragmatically strengthened into John has seen exactly one horse in the garden (scalar implicature). As a result, John has seen horses in the garden will implicate the negation of John has seen exactly one horse in the garden, so that it will end up meaning John has seen several horses. I give an explicit formalization of the processes that lead to higher-order implicatures, based on the possibility of iterating an exhaustivity operator. The proposal accounts for the readings of plural indefinites in various linguistic contexts (monotone-decreasing contexts, non-monotonic contexts, and universally quantified contexts).

Keywords

Literal Meaning Scalar Implicature Dynamic Semantic Compositional Semantic Discourse Referent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beck, S. & U. Sauerland (2000) ‘Cumulation is needed: reply to Winter (2000)’, Natural Language Semantics 8: 349–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carlson, G. (1977) Reference to Kinds in English, PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  3. Chierchia, G. (1998) ‘Reference to kinds across languages’, Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chierchia, G. (2002) ‘Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface’, in A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Corblin, F. (1987) Indéfini, défini et démonstratif Constructions linguistiques de la référence, Genève, DrozGoogle Scholar
  6. Dayal, V. (1999) ‘Bare NP’s, Reference to Kinds, and Incorporation’, Proceedings of SALT IXGoogle Scholar
  7. Diesing, M. (1992) Indefinites. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Eijck, J. van (1983), ‘Discourse representation theory and plurality’, in Alice ter Meulen (ed.), Studies in Model-theoretic Semantics, pp. 85–106. Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  9. Fox, D. (2006) ‘Free-choice and the theory of scalar implicatures’, this volume.Google Scholar
  10. Gazdar, G. (1979) Pragmatics. Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hoeksema, J. (1983) ‘Plurality and conjunction’, in Alice ter Meulen (ed.), Studies in Model-theoretic Semantics, pp. 63–83. Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  12. Horn, L. (1972) ‘On the semantic properties of logical operators in English’, PhD thesis, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Kamp, H. and U. Reyle (1993) From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Krifka, M. (1989) ‘Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics’, in R. Bartsch et al. (ed.), Semantics and Contextual Expressions, pp. 75–116. Foris.Google Scholar
  15. Krifka, M. (1993) ‘Focus, presupposition, and dynamic interpretation’, in K. Bimbo & A. Maté (eds), Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Logic and Language. Budapest: Aron Publishers, 31–60.Google Scholar
  16. Krifka, M. (1995) ‘Common Nouns: A Contrastive Analysis of English and Chinese’, in G.N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (eds), The Generic Book, pp. 398–411. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Landman (2000) Events and Plurality, Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Link, G. (1983) ‘The logical analysis of plural and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach’, in R. Bauerle, C. Swharze and A. von Stechow (eds), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, pp. 302–23. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Rooij, R. van & K. Schulz (2006) ‘Pragmatic Meaning and Non-monotonic Reasoning: the case of Exhaustive Interpretation’, in Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 205–50.Google Scholar
  21. Rooij, R. van & K. Schulz (forthcoming) ‘Only: Meaning and implicatures’, in M. Aloni et al. (eds), Questions in Dynamic Semantics: Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  22. Sauerland, U. (2003) ‘A new semantics for number’, in R. Young and Y. Zhou (eds), Proceedings of SALT 13, CLC Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
  23. Sauerland, U. (2004a) ‘Scalar implicatures in complex sentence’, Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sauerland, U. (2004b) ‘A comprehensive semantics for agreement’, Paper presented at the ’Phi-Workshop, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. August 2004.Google Scholar
  25. Sauerland, U., J. Anderssen & K. Yatsushiro, 2005. ‘The plural is semantically unmarked,’ in Stephan Kepser and Marga Reis (eds) Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, 413–34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schwarzschild, R. (1996) Pluralities, Dordrech: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Szabolcsi, A. (2004) ‘Positive polarity-negative polarity’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Spector, B. (2003) ‘Scalar implicatures: exhaustivity and gricean reasoning’, in B. ten Caten (ed.), Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2003 student session, Vienna.Google Scholar
  29. Spector, B. (forthcoming) ‘Scalar implicatures: exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning’ (rev. version of Spector, 2003), to appear in M. Aluni et al. (ed), Questions in Dynamic Semantics, Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, Elsevier.Google Scholar
  30. Spector, B. (2006) Aspects de la pragmatique des opérateurs logiques, PhD thesis University of Paris 7.Google Scholar
  31. Zweig, E. (2005) ‘The implications of dependent plural readings’, Ms, New York University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Benjamin Spector 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin Spector
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecole Normale SupérieureHarvard UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations