Abstract
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.
O. Sawada—I would like to thank Chris Davis, Ikumi Imani, Robert Henderson, Magdalena Kaufmann, Stefan Kaufmann, Koji Kawahara, Susumu Kubo, Ai Kubota, Yusuke Kubota, Takeo Kurafuji, Lars Larm, Eric McCready, Kenta Mizutani, David Oshima, Harumi Sawada, Jun Sawada, Ayaka Sugawara, Eri Tanaka, Jérémy Zehr and the reviewers of LENLS 12 for their valuable comments and discussions. Parts of this paper were presented at the International Modality Workshop at Kansai Gaidai (2015), the Semantics Workshop in Tokai (2015), and LSA (2016), and I thank the audiences for their valuable comments and discussions. This paper is based upon work supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 26770140. All remaining errors are of course my own.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Note that there are also other uses of yoppodo, e.g. comparative-intensifier use, a conditional use, or an eventive/volitive use, and these do not require an evidential modal:
In this paper, I mainly focus on the evidential/adjective use of yoppodo.
- 2.
Notice, however, that there is also an expressive/CI use of totemo, which intensifies an unlikelihood/impossibility of a given proposition (Sawada [22]).
- 3.
See McCready [14] for a detailed discussion on the difference between a resource-sensitive CI application(shunting application) and Potts’ resource-insensitive one.
- 4.
- 5.
Note that kaette is a kind of degree adverb. Although it does not intensify a degree, it reverses the polarity of a gradable predicate. As illustrated in (i), if an attached predicate is not gradable, the resulting sentence becomes ill-formed:
.
- 6.
However, it may be possible to analyze the meaning of kaette in terms of ‘pragmatic presupposition’ (Stalnaker [25]). In the pragmatic presupposition approach, presuppositions are considered to be “the background beliefs of the speaker”— propositions whose truth he takes for granted, or seems to take for granted, in making his statement (Stalnaker [25], pp. 48). It seems that the meaning triggered by kaette often corresponds to a common knowledge. Whether the meaning of kaette is a CI or a presupposition needs further investigation. I leave this question for future research. In this paper, I will assume that kaette is a CI.
- 7.
Recall that appositives and expressives can have a non-speaker orientation as well.
References
Amaral, P., Roberts, C., Smith, A.: Review of the logic of conventional implicatures by chris potts. Linguist. Philos. 30, 707–749 (2007)
Cresswell, M.J.: The semantics of degree. In: Partee, B. (ed.) Montague Grammar, pp. 261–292. Academic Press, New York (1976)
von Fintel, K., Gillies, A.: Must \(\ldots \) Stay \(\ldots \) Strong!. Nat. Lang. Seman. 18, 351–383 (2010)
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)
Grosz, P.: Grading modality: a new approach to modal concord and its relatives. In: Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14, pp. 185–201 (2010)
Gutzmann, D.: Use-conditional Meaning: studies in multidimensional semantics. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Frankfurt (2012)
Harris, J.A., Potts, C.: Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressive. Linguist. Philos. 32(6), 523–552 (2009)
Karttunen, L.: Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguist. Inq. 4(2), 169–193 (1973)
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)
Kaufmann, M.: Discourse particle ‘Ruhig’: discourse effects, desires, and modality. In: 3rd Cornell Workshop in Linguistics and Philosophy: Modal Talk and Reasoning (2013)
Kennedy, C., McNally, L.: Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81(2), 345–381 (2005)
Kennedy, C.: Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguist. Philos. 30(1), 1–45 (2007)
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)
McCready, E.: Varieties of conventional implicature. Semant. Pragmatics 3, 1–57 (2010)
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)
Portner, P.: Modality. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)
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)
Potts, C.: The expressive dimension. Theor. Linguist. 33(2), 165–197 (2007)
Potts, C.: The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)
Sauerland, U.: Beyond unpluggability. Theor. Linguist. 33(2), 231–236 (2007)
Sawada, H.: Modaritii (Modality). Kaitakusya, Tokyo (2006)
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)
Sawada, O.: Pragmatic aspects of scalar modifiers. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago (2010)
Seuren, P.A.M.: The comparative. In: Kiefer, F., Ruwet, N. (eds.) Generative Grammar in Europe, pp. 528–564. Reidel, Dordrecht (1973)
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)
Sudo, Y.: On the semantics of phi features on pronouns. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT (2012)
Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C., Simons, M.: Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89, 66–109 (2013)
von Stechow, A.: Comparing semantic theories of comparison. J. Seman. 3, 1–77 (1984)
Wang, L., Brian, R., McCready, E.: The projection problem of nominal appositives. Snippets 10, 13–14 (2005)
Watanabe, M.: Hikakufukushi yohodo ni tuite (On the Comparative Adverb Yohodo.) Sophia University, Kokubungakka kiyoo 4, 39–52 (1987)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Sawada, O. (2017). The Projection of Not-at-issue Meaning via Modal Support: The Meaning and Use of the Japanese Counter-Expectational Adverbs. In: Otake, M., Kurahashi, S., Ota, Y., Satoh, K., Bekki, D. (eds) New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. JSAI-isAI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10091. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50953-2_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50953-2_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50952-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50953-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)