Abstract
We investigate the interactions between scalar implicatures and presuppositions in sentences containing both a scalar item and presupposition trigger. We first critically discuss Gajewski and Sharvit’s previous approach. We then closely examine two ways of integrating an exhaustivity-based theory of scalar implicatures with a trivalent approach to presuppositions. The empirical side of our discussion focuses on two novel observations: (i) the interactions between prosody and monotonicity, and (ii) what we call presupposed ignorance. In order to account for these observations, our final proposal relies on two mechanisms of scalar strengthening, the Presupposed Ignorance Principle and an exhaustivity operator which lets the presuppositions of negated alternatives project.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford: CSLI.
Beaver, D., & Krahmer, E. (2001). A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 10(2), 147–182.
Beaver, D., & Zeevat, H. (2007). Accommodation. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 503–538). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bochvar, D. A. (1981). On a three-valued logical calculus and its application to the analysis of the paradoxes of the classical extended functional calculus. History and Philosophy of Logic 2, 87–112. Translated by Merrie Bergmann [Originally published as ”Ob odnom trechznacnom iscislenii i ego primenenii k analizu paradoksov klassiceskogo rassirennogo funkcional’nogo iscislenija. Matematiceskij Sbornik, 4(46), 287–308 (1939).].
Breheny, R., Klinedinst, N., Romoli, J., & Sudo, Y. (2016). The symmetry problem: Current theories and prospects. London: Ms. University College London and Ulster University.
Büring, D. (2007). The least at least can do. In C. B. Chang & H. J. Haynie (Eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 26 (pp. 114–120). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Chemla, E. (2008). An epistemic step for anti-presuppositions. Journal of Semantics, 25(2), 141–173.
Chemla, E. (2009). Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Ms.
Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures (pp. 39–103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chierchia, G. (2006). Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “Logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(4), 535–590.
Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2012). Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 2297–2331). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Crnič, L. (2011). Getting even, Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Fox, D. (2007). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics (pp. 71–112). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fox, D. (2008). Two short notes on Schlenker’s theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics, 34(3), 237–252.
Fox, D., & Hackl, M. (2006). The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(5), 537–586.
Fox, D., & Katzir, R. (2011). On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics, 19(1), 87–107.
Gajewski, J. (2011). Licensing strong NPIs. Natural Language Semantics, 19(2), 109–148.
Gajewski, J., & Sharvit, Y. (2012). In defense of grammatical approach to local implicatures. Natural Language Semantics, 20(1), 31–57.
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.
George, B. (2008). A new predictive theory of presupposition projection. Proceedings of SALT, 18, 358–375.
Gettier, E. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis, 23(6), 121–123.
Geurts, B. (2008). Implicture as a discourse phenomenon. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 11, 261–275.
Geurts, B. (2009). Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. Mind & Language, 24(1), 51–79.
Geurts, B. (2010). Quantitiy implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers, Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In WCCFL 2, pp. 114–125.
Heim, I. (1991). Artikel und Definitheit. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung/Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 487–535). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of the logical operators, Ph.D. thesis, University of California Los Angeles.
Horn, L. (1997). Presupposition and implicature. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ivlieva, N. (2013) Scalar implicatures and the grammar of plurality and disjunction, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Jacobson, P. (2012). The direct compositionality and “uninterpretability”: The case of (sometimes) “uninterpretable” features on pronouns. Journal of Semantics, 29(3), 305–343.
Kadmon, N. (2001). Formal pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Karttunen, L. (1971). Implicative verbs. Language, 47(2), 340–358.
Karttunen, L., & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicature. In C.-K. Oh & D. Dinneen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 11: Presupposition (pp. 1–56). New York: Academic Press.
Katzir, R. (2007). Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(6), 669–690.
Mayr, C., & Romoli, J. (2016). A puzzle for theories of redundancy: Exhaustification, incrementality, and the notion of local context. Semantics and Pragmatics, 9(7), 1–48.
Meyer, M.-C. (2013) Ignorance and grammar, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Percus, O. (2006). Antipresuppositions, Technical report. Report of the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), Project No: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. 15320052.
Peters, S. (1979). A truth-conditional formulation of Karttunen’s account of presupposition. Synthese, 40(2), 301–316.
Potts, C. (2008). Wait a minute! What kind of discourse strategy is this? Annotated data. Ms. http://christopherpotts.net/ling/data/waitaminute/.
Potts, C. (2015). Presupposition and implicature. In S. Lappin & C. Fox (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (2nd ed., pp. 168–202). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Romoli, J. (2012). Soft but strong: Neg-raising, soft triggers, and exhaustification, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University.
Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1(1), 75–116.
Rothschild, D. (2011). Explaining presupposition projection with dynamic semantics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 4(3), 1–43.
Rullmann, H. (2003). Additive particles and polarity. Journal of Semantics, 20(4), 329–401.
Russell, B. (2006). Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 23(4), 361–382.
Sauerland, U. (2004). Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(3), 367–391.
Sauerland, U. (2008). Implicated presuppositions. In A. Steube (Ed.), The discourse potential of underspecified structures. Language, context and cognition (pp. 581–600). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sauerland, U. (2013). Presuppositions and the alternative tier. In Proceedings of SALT 23, pp. 156–173.
Schlenker, P. (2008). Be Articulate! A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics, 34(3), 157–212.
Schlenker, P. (2009). Local contexts. Semantics & Pragmatics, 2, 1–78.
Schlenker, P. (2012). Maximize presupposition and Gricean reasoning. Natural Language Semantics, 20(4), 391–429.
Schwarz, B. (2016). Consistency preservation in quantifity implicature: The case of at least. Semantics & Pragmatics, 9(1), 1–47.
Sharvit, Y., & Gajewski, J. (2008). On the calculation of local implicatures. In WCCFL, Vol. 26, pp. 411–419.
Simons, M. (2001). On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) (pp. 431–448).
Simons, M. (2006). Notes on the embedded implicatures. Pittsburgh: Ms. Carnegie Mellon University.
Singh, R. (2011). Maximize presupposition! and local contexts. Natural Language Semantics, 19(2), 149–168.
Spathas, G. (2010) Focus on anaphora, Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht.
Spector, B. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In B. ten Cate (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th ESSLLI student session, Vienna, pp. 277–288.
Spector, B. (2007). Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In M. Aloni, A. Butler, & P. Dekker (Eds.), Questions in Dynamic Semantics (pp. 225–249). Emerald: Bingley.
Spector, B. (2014). Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semantics & Pragmatics, 7(11), 1–61.
Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. Munitz & P. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and Philosophy (pp. 197–213). New York: New York University Press.
Stalnaker, R. (1998). On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 7, 3–19.
Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(5–6), 701–721.
Sudo, Y. (2012). On the semantics of Phi features on pronouns, Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Sudo, Y. (2016). The existential problem of scalar implicatures and anaphora across alternatives. In C. Piñón (Ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 11 (pp. 225–244). http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss11/index_en.html.
Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C., & Simons, M. (2011). Towards a taxonomy of projective content. Ms., Ohio State University, University of Texas, Austin, and Carnegie Mellon University.
van der Sandt, R. (1988). Context and presupposition. London: Croom Helm.
van Rooij, R., & Schulz, K. (2004). Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 13(4), 491–519.
von Fintel, K. (1999). NPI licensing, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics, 16(2), 97–148.
von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The king of France is back! (Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions). In M. Reimer & A. Bezuidenhout (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond (pp. 315–341). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
von Fintel, K. (2008). What is presupposition accomodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives, 22(1), 137–170.
von Fintel, K., & Matthewson, L. (2008). Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review, 25(1–2), 139–201.
Zondervan, A. J. (2010). Scalar implicatures or focus: An experimental approach, Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit Utrecht.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The authors’ names are alphabetically ordered.
The present work has greatly benefitted from discussions with a number of colleagues, especially, Klaus Abels, Sam Alxatib, Emmanuel Chemla, Luka Crnič, Danny Fox, Nathan Klinedinst, Todor Koev, Clemens Mayr, Andreea Nicolae, Rick Nouwen, Jacopo Romoli, Uli Sauerland, Philippe Schlenker, Yael Sharvit, and Raj Singh. We also thank the audiences at University College London, Queen Mary, University of London, Utrecht University, ZAS, LFRG at MIT, the Semantics Research Seminar at Keio University, and Sinn und Bedeutung 19 at Georg August University at Göttingen for their feedback on earlier versions of the present work.
Benjamin Spector and Yasutada Sudo acknowledge support from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (Grants ANR-10-LABX-0087 IEC, ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL) and the European Research Council (ERC Grant Agreement No. 324115-FRONTSEM, recipient: Philippe Schlenker). Benjamin Spector also received support from an additional ANR Grant (ANR-14-CE30-0010-01 TriLogMean).
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Spector, B., Sudo, Y. Presupposed ignorance and exhaustification: how scalar implicatures and presuppositions interact. Linguist and Philos 40, 473–517 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-017-9208-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-017-9208-9