Home Reflections on the grammatical view of scalar implicatures
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Reflections on the grammatical view of scalar implicatures

  • Bo Xue and Haihua Pan EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: July 4, 2024
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

This paper first introduces the standard recipe for deriving quantity implicatures in the neo-Gricean framework. Then, it compares this pragmatic stance with the grammatical view that argues that scalar implicatures should be generated via an operator in syntax. After showing how the grammatical view can derive canonical scalar implicatures, motivations for this view are discussed which include embedded implicatures, obligatory scalar implicatures concerning the Hurford Constraint, and Free Choice inferences. This paper finally examines basic tenets of the grammatical view and points out three potential problems for this approach.


Corresponding author: Haihua Pan, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, E-mail:

  1. Research funding: This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No. 22&ZD295).

References

Bade, Nadine & Konstantin Sachs. 2019. EXH passes on alternatives: A comment on Fox and Spector (2018). Natural Language Semantics 27. 19–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-9149-7.Search in Google Scholar

Bar-Lev, Moshe & Danny Fox. 2020. Free choice, simplification, and innocent inclusion. Natural Language Semantics 28. 175–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-020-09162-y.Search in Google Scholar

Bassi, Itai, Guillermo Del Pinal & Uli Sauerland. 2021. Presuppositional exhaustification. Semantics and Pragmatics 14(11). 1–48 https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.14.11.Search in Google Scholar

Chemla, Emmanuel & Benjamin Spector. 2011. Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 28. 359–400. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq023.Search in Google Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37. 535–590. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535.Search in Google Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697977.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox & Benjamin Spector. 2012. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Portner Portner (eds.), An international handbook of natural language meaning, 2297–2332. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Ciardelli, Ivano & Floris Roelofsen. 2017. Hurford’s constraint, the semantics of disjunction, and the nature of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 25. 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9134-y.Search in Google Scholar

Del Pinal, Guillermo. 2021. Oddness, modularity, and exhaustification. Natural Language Semantics 29. 115–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-020-09172-w.Search in Google Scholar

Fox, Danny. 2007. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Uli Sauerland & Penka Stateva (eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, 71–120. Basingstoke: Palgrave.10.1057/9780230210752_4Search in Google Scholar

Fox, Danny & Roni Katzir. 2011. On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 19. 87–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9065-3.Search in Google Scholar

Fox, Danny & Benjamin Spector. 2018. Economy and embedded exhaustification. Natural Language Semantics 26. 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9139-6.Search in Google Scholar

Gajewski, Jon & Yael Sharvit. 2012. In defense of the grammatical approach to local implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 20. 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-011-9074-x.Search in Google Scholar

Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Geurts, Bart. 2010. Quantity implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511975158Search in Google Scholar

Geurts, Bart & Bob van Tiel. 2013. Embedded scalars. Semantics & Pragmatics 6(9). 1–37. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.9.Search in Google Scholar

Geurts, Bart & Nausicaa Pouscoulous. 2009. Embedded implicatures? Semantics and Pragmatics 2(4). 1–34. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.2.4.Search in Google Scholar

Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1984. On the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. In Fred, Landman & Frank Veltman (eds.), Varieties of Formal Semantics, 143–170. Dordrecht: Foris.Search in Google Scholar

Horn, Larry. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Ph.D. UCLA.Search in Google Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika & Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Yukio Otsu (ed.), The proceedings of the third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Marty, Paul & Jacopo Romoli. 2021. Presupposed free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. Linguistics and Philosophy 45. 91–152.10.1007/s10988-020-09316-5Search in Google Scholar

Recanati, Francois. 2010. Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

van Rooij, Robert & Katrin Schulz. 2004. Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13. 491–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-004-2118-6.Search in Google Scholar

Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02342617.Search in Google Scholar

Russell, Benjamin. 2006. Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 23. 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffl008.Search in Google Scholar

Sauerland, Uli. 2004. Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 367–391. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:ling.0000023378.71748.db.10.1023/B:LING.0000023378.71748.dbSearch in Google Scholar

Sauerland, Uli. 2012. The computation of scalar implicatures: Pragmatic, lexical or grammatical. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.321.Search in Google Scholar

Schulz, Katrin & Robert van Rooij. 2006. Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29. 205–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-3760-4.Search in Google Scholar

Soames, Scott. 1982. How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 483–545.Search in Google Scholar

van Tiel, Bob. 2014. Embedded scalars and typicality. Journal of Semantics 31. 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft002.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2024-07-04
Published in Print: 2024-06-25

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 28.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/tl-2024-2010/html
Scroll to top button