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.
-
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
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- The empirical turn and its consequences for theoretical syntax
- Linguistic typology in action: how to know more
- Large language models are better than theoretical linguists at theoretical linguistics
- On the goals of theoretical linguistics
- Social meaning
- Large Language Models and theoretical linguistics
- It’s time for a complete theory of partial predictability in language
- Theoretical Linguistics and the philosophy of linguistics
- Speech and sign: the whole human language
- Cross-linguistic insights in the theory of semantics and its interface with syntax
- Reflections on the grammatical view of scalar implicatures
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- The empirical turn and its consequences for theoretical syntax
- Linguistic typology in action: how to know more
- Large language models are better than theoretical linguists at theoretical linguistics
- On the goals of theoretical linguistics
- Social meaning
- Large Language Models and theoretical linguistics
- It’s time for a complete theory of partial predictability in language
- Theoretical Linguistics and the philosophy of linguistics
- Speech and sign: the whole human language
- Cross-linguistic insights in the theory of semantics and its interface with syntax
- Reflections on the grammatical view of scalar implicatures