Connectedness as a constraint on exhaustification
- 14 Downloads
“Scalar implicatures” is a phrase used to refer to some inferences arising from the competition between alternatives: typically, “Mary read some of the books” ends up conveying that Mary did not read all books, because one could have said “Mary read all books”. The so-called grammatical theory argues that these inferences obtain from the application of a covert operator \( exh \), which not only has the capability to negate alternative sentences, but also the capability to be embedded within sentences under other linguistic operators, i.e. \( exh \) has the potential to add to the meaning of expressions (not necessarily full sentences), the negation of their alternatives. This view typically seeks support from the existence of readings that could not be explained without the extra-capability of \( exh \) to occur in embedded positions. However, if some embedded positions seem to be accessible to \( exh \), not all conceivable positions that \( exh \) could occupy yield sensible results. In short: the \( exh \) approach is powerful, maybe too powerful. Various approaches based on logical strength and monotonicity have been proposed to justify on principled grounds the limited distribution of \( exh \); these approaches are mostly based on a comparison between possible parses, and considerations of monotonicity (e.g., the Strongest Meaning Hypothesis). We propose a new constraint based instead on “connectedness”, ruling out parses because of inherent problems their outcome may raise. Connectedness is a sister notion of monotonicity, which has been recruited to explain certain lexical restrictions on nouns, adjectives and more recently quantifiers; we propose here that connectedness could play a similar role at the level of propositional meanings.
KeywordsSemantics Exhaustification Connectedness Monotonicity Implicatures
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
- Chemla, E. (2009). Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data. Semantics and Pragmatics, 2(2), 1–33.Google Scholar
- Chemla, E., Dautriche, I., Buccola, B., & Fagot, J. (2018). Constraints on the lexicons of human languages have cognitive roots present in baboons (Papio papio). Ms. CNRS, University of Edinburgh, Aix-Marseille University. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004172/current.pdf.
- Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2011). The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In P. Portner, C. Maienborn, & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 3, pp. 2297–2332). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Gärdenfors, P. (2004). Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In P. Portner & B. Partee (Eds.), Formal semantics: The essential readings (pp. 249–260). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Horn, L. R. (1973). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of California.Google Scholar
- Katzir, R., & Singh, R. (2013b). Hurford disjunctions: embedded exhaustification and structural economy. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 18, 201–216.Google Scholar
- Kratzer, A, & Shimoyama, J. (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Y. Otsu (Ed.) Proceedings of the Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics, (vol. 3, pp. 1–25). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
- Kratzer, A. (1981). Partition and revision: The semantics of counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 201–216.Google Scholar
- Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Potts, C., Lassiter, D., Levy, R., & Frank, M. C. (2016). Embedded implicatures as pragmatic inferences under compositional lexical uncertainty. Journal of Semantics, 33(4), 755–802.Google Scholar
- Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, 49, 91–136.Google Scholar
- Roberts, C. (2006). Only, presupposition and implicature. Ms., The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
- Schlenker, P. (2008). Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics, 34(3), 157–212.Google Scholar
- Spector, B. (2006). Aspects de la pragmatique des opérateurs logiques. Ph.D. thesis. Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
- Spector, B. (2016). Comparing exhaustivity operators. Semantics and Pragmatics, 9(11), 1–33.Google Scholar
- von Fintel, K., & Matthewson, L. (2008). Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review, 25(1–2), 139–201.Google Scholar