Which judgments show weak exhaustivity? (And which don't?)

Natural Language Semantics 21 (4):401-427 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper considers two of the most prominent kinds of evidence that have been used to argue that certain embedded questions receive weakly exhaustive interpretations. The first kind is exemplified by judgments of consistency for declarative sentences that attribute knowledge of a wh-question and ignorance of the negation of that question to the same person, and the second concerns asymmetries between the role of positive and negative information in validating question-embedding surprise ascriptions, and similar judgments for other attitudes. I argue that neither type suffices to show weak exhaustivity. The first can be analyzed in terms of strong exhaustivity in combination with domain restriction effects, while the second can be analyzed in terms of a mention-some interpretation. These kinds of evidence have served as the empirical basis for many claims about weakly exhaustive readings, so the observation that they are unreliable calls into questions a large body of established work on the semantics of question embedding

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Responding to alternative and polar questions.María Biezma & Kyle Rawlins - 2012 - Linguistics and Philosophy 35 (5):361-406.
A Question of Strength: On NPIs in Interrogative Clauses. [REVIEW]Yael Sharvit - 2007 - Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (3):361 - 391.
Erotetic implications.Andrzej Wiśniewski - 1994 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 23 (2):173 - 195.
Bilattices and the semantics of natural language questions.R. Nelken & N. Francez - 2002 - Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (1):37-64.
Improving moral judgments: Philosophical considerations.Annemarie Kalis - 2010 - Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 30 (2):94-108.
Linguistig frameworks and metaphysical questions.James W. Comman - 1964 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 7 (1-4):129 – 142.
Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics.Uli Sauerland & Penka Stateva (eds.) - 2007 - Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-08-31

Downloads
37 (#374,850)

6 months
1 (#1,040,386)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

B. R. George
University of California, Los Angeles (PhD)

Citations of this work

The * hope-wh puzzle.Wataru Uegaki & Yasutada Sudo - 2019 - Natural Language Semantics 27 (4):323-356.

Add more citations