Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contextual blindness in implicature computation

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, I defend a grammatical account of scalar implicatures. In particular, I submit new evidence in favor of the contextual blindness principle, assumed in recent versions of the grammatical account. I argue that mismatching scalar implicatures can be generated even when the restrictor of the universal quantifier in a universal alternative is contextually known to be empty. The crucial evidence consists of a hitherto unnoticed oddness asymmetry between formally analogous existential sentences with reference failure NPs. I conclude that the generation of mismatching scalar implicatures does not require contextual access.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrusán Márta., Kriszta Szendroi. (2013) Experimenting with the king of France: Topics, verifiability and definite descriptions. Semantics and Pragmatics 6: 1–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abusch, Dorit, and Mats Rooth. 2004. Empty-domain effects for presuppositional and nonpresuppositional determiners. In Context dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning (Current research in the semantics/pragmatics interface vol. 11), ed. Barbara Partee and Hans Kamp, 7–28. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Philosophie et Langage. Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga.

  • Beaver David., Brady Clark. (2008) Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning (Explorations in semantics 12). Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blanché Robert. (1966) Structures Intellectuelles. Essai Sur l’Organisation des Concepts. Vrin, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Structures and beyond, vol. 3, ed. Adriana Belletti, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Chierchia Gennaro. (2006) Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the ‘logicality’ of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37(4): 535–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector. 2012. Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 3, ed. C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner, 2297–2331. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • De Jong, Franciska, and Henk Verkuyl. 1985. Generalized quantifiers: The properness of their strength. In Generalized quantifiers in natural language (Groningen-Amsterdam studies in semantics 4), ed. Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, 21–43. Dordrecht: Foris.

  • Duncan, George Martin. 1908. The philoophical work of Leibnitz, 2nd ed. New Haven: Tuttle, Morehouse and Taylor.

  • Fox, Danny. 2007. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Presuppositions and implicatures in compositional semantics (Palgrave studies in pragmatics, language and cognition), ed. Uli Sauerland and Penka Stateva. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Geurts, Bart. 2007. Existential import. In Existence: Semantics and syntax, ed. Ileana Comorovski and Klaus von Heusinger, 253–271. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Geurts Bart. (2010) Quantity implicatures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins John. (1991) On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics 27(2): 405–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zu zeitgenössischen Forschung, ed. Armin von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 487–535. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Hirschberg Julia Linn Bell. (1985) A theory of scalar implicature. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, Laurence. 1969. A presuppositional analysis of “only” and “even”. In Papers from the fifth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. The Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Horn Laurence. (1989) A natural history of negation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzir, Roni, and Raj Singh. 2015. Economy of structure and information: Oddness, questions, and answers. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19, ed. Eva Csipak and Hedde Zeijlstra, 302–319. Göttingen University.

  • Krifka, Manfred. 2014. Embedding illocutionary acts. In Recursion, complexity cognition (Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics 43), ed. Tom Roeper and Margaret Speas, 125–155. Berlin: Springer.

  • Lappin Shalom., Tanya Reinhart. (1988) Presuppositional effects of strong determiners: A processing account. Linguistics 26(6): 1021–1038

    Google Scholar 

  • Magri Giorgio. (2009) A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 17(3): 245–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magri, Giorgio. 2011. Another argument for embedded scalar implicatures based on oddness in downward entailing environments. Semantics and Pragmatics 4: 6–1.

  • Magri Giorgio. (2016) Two puzzles raised by oddness in conjunction. Journal of Semantics 33(1): 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Magri, Giorgio. 2017. Blindness, short-sightedness, and Hirschberg’s contextually-ordered alternatives: A reply to Schlenker (2012). In Linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches on implicatures and presuppositions (Palgrave studies in pragmatics, language and cognition), ed. Salvatore Pistoia-Reda and Filippo Domaneschi. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • McCall Storrs. (1967) Connexive implication and the syllogism. Mind 76(303): 346–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pistoia-Reda, Salvatore (ed.). 2014. Pragmatics, semantics and the case of scalar implicatures. Palgrave studies in pragmatics, language and cognition. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Pistoia-Reda, Salvatore, and Filippo Domaneschi (eds.). to appear. Linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches on implicatures and presuppositions (Palgrave studies in pragmatics, language and cognition). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Pistoia-Reda, Salvatore, and Jacopo Romoli. 2017. Oddness in conjunction. In Linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches on implicatures and presuppositions (Palgrave studies in pragmatics, language and cognition), ed. Salvatore Pistoia-Reda and Filippo Domaneschi. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Recanati François. (2003) Embedded implicatures. Philosophical Perspectives 17(1): 299–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart Tanya. (2006) Interface strategies. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49, ed. J. H. Yoon and A. Kathol. Columbus: The Ohio State University.

  • Romoli Jacopo. (2012) Obligatory scalar implicatures and relevance. Snippets 25: 11–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, Uli. 2008. Implicated presuppositions. In Sentence and context, ed. A. Steube, 581–600. Berlin: De Gruyter.

  • Sauerland, Uli. 2014. Intermediate scalar implicatures. In Pragmatics, semantics and the case of scalar implicatures (Palgrave studies in pragmatics, language and cognition), ed. Salvatore Pistoia-Reda. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Schlenker Philippe. (2012) Maximize Presupposition and Gricean reasoning. Natural Language Semantics 20(4): 391–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, Benjamin. 2014. Scalar implicatures, blindness and common knowledge: Comments on Magri (2011). In Pragmatics, semantics and the case of scalar implicatures (Palgrave studies in pragmatics, language and cognition), ed. Salvatore Pistoia-Reda. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Von Fintel, Kai. 1998. Evidence for presuppositional indefinites. Manuscript, MIT.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Berlin, Germany

    Salvatore Pistoia-Reda

Authors
  1. Salvatore Pistoia-Reda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salvatore Pistoia-Reda.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pistoia-Reda, S. Contextual blindness in implicature computation. Nat Lang Semantics 25, 109–124 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-016-9131-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-016-9131-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation