scholarly journals Really Expressive Presuppositions and How to Block Them

2020 ◽  
Vol 97 (1) ◽  
pp. 138-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teresa Marques ◽  
Manuel García-Carpintero
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Conventional Implicature ◽  
Affective Attitudes ◽  
Expressive Meaning ◽  
Truth Conditional

Kaplan (1999) argued that a different dimension of expressive meaning (“use-conditional”, as opposed to truth-conditional) is required to characterize the meaning of pejoratives, including slurs and racial epithets. Elaborating on this, writers have argued that the expressive meaning of pejoratives and slurs is either a conventional implicature (Potts 2007) or a presupposition (Macià 2002 and 2014, Schlenker 2007, Cepollaro and Stojanovic 2016). Here the authors argue that an expressive presuppositional theory accounts well for the data, but that expressive presuppositions are not just propositions to be added to a common ground. They hold that expressives, including pejoratives and slurs, make requirements on a contextual record governed by sui generis norms specific to affective attitudes and their expressions.

Information Structure and the Landscape of (Non-)at-issue Meaning

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence Horn
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Category Membership ◽  
Conventional Implicature ◽  
Variable Strength ◽  
Nature Of Information ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Common ◽  
Issue Content

This article examines cases that illustrate the relation of information structure to truth-conditional semantics, grammatical form, and assertoric force. Before discussing the interaction between information structure and (non-)at-issue meaning, it considers the nature of information and what constitutes information. It then looks at two aspects of the common ground, common ground (CG) content and CG management, as well as the criteria of category membership. The article also explores the varying degrees of at-issueness, the role of rhetorical opposition andbutclauses, as well as the variable strength of at-issue content. The landscape of non-at-issue meaning is presented, and the distinction between conventional implicature and assertorically inert entailments is highlighted using a range of distributional diagnostics. The article concludes by analysing the relation between structural focus and exhaustivity using the semantic and pragmatic approaches.

The Semantics of Evidentials

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Murray
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Formal Semantics ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Propositional Content ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Common ◽  
Issue Content

This book gives a compositional, truth‐conditional, crosslinguistic semantics for evidentials set in a theory of the semantics for sentential mood. Central to this semantics is a proposal about a distinction between what propositional content is at‐issue, roughly primary or proffered, and what content is not‐at‐issue. Evidentials contribute not‐at‐issue content, more specifically what I will call a not‐at‐issue restriction. In addition, evidentials can affect the level of commitment a sentence makes to the main proposition, contributed by sentential mood. Building on recent work in the formal semantics of evidentials and related phenomena, the proposed semantics does not appeal to separate dimensions of illocutionary meaning. Instead, I argue that all sentences make three contributions: at‐issue content, not‐at‐issue content, and an illocutionary relation. At‐issue content is presented, made available for subsequent anaphora, but is not directly added to the common ground. Not‐at‐issue content directly updates the common ground. The illocutionary relation uses the at‐issue content to impose structure on the common ground, which, depending on the clause type (e.g., declarative, interrogative), can trigger further updates. Empirical support for this proposal comes from Cheyenne (Algonquian, primary data from the author’s fieldwork), English, and a wide variety of languages that have been discussed in the literature on evidentials.

Slurs, Assertion, and Predication

2019 ◽  
pp. 286-305
Author(s):  
Christopher Hom
Keyword(s):  
Careful Examination ◽  
Conventional Implicature ◽  
Literal Truth ◽  
Truth Conditional

A multidimensional account of the meanings of slurs holds that a slur has both literal, truth-conditional content (which is neutral) and conventional implicature (which is derogatory). This chapter offers a careful examination of the motivations and commitments for a multidimensional account and argues that the theoretic costs for such a view are prohibitive. One of the primary motivations for a multidimensional account over a purely truth-conditional account is the apparent wide-scoping phenomenon of slurs (e.g., that derogatory content does not seem cancellable under negation). The chapter argues that carefully distinguishing between predication and assertion not only dispels the misconception that the phenomena in question is centrally about scope but also vindicates the purely truth-conditional account as a more general and unified explanation.

Lying and Fiction

2018 ◽  
pp. 302-314
Author(s):  
Emar Maier
Keyword(s):  
Speech Acts ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Semantic Framework ◽  
Pragmatic Analysis ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Common ◽  
Maxim Of Quality

Lying and fiction both involve the deliberate production of statements that fail to obey Grice’s first Maxim of Quality (“do not say what you believe to be false”). The question thus arises if we can provide a uniform analysis for fiction and lies. This chapter discusses the similarities, but also some fundamental differences between lying and fiction. It argues that there is little hope for a satisfying account within a traditional truth-conditional semantic framework. Rather than immediately moving to a fully pragmatic analysis involving distinct speech acts of fiction-making and lying, the chapter first explores how far we get with the assumption that both are simply assertions, analyzed in a Stalnakerian framework, i.e., as proposals to update the common ground.

Pronominal Non-Core Datives in Syrian Arabic

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-36
Author(s):  
Nisrine Al-Zahre ◽  
Nora Boneh
Keyword(s):  
Conventional Implicature ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Element Bearing ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Syntactic Properties

In this paper we describe the pragmatic, lexical and syntactic properties of the Syrian Arabic Coreferential Dative Construction (CDC), featuring a dative element bearing agreement features which are identical to those of the subject in the clause, the Coreferential Dative (CD), and an obligatory expression of attenuative vague measure, described by us in Al-Zahre & Boneh (2010). We first show that the CD, which has no truth conditional meaning, contributes to the creation of a Conventional Implicature (Horn 2004, Potts 2005). Second, we propose a way to compositionally integrate the CD into the derivation of these constructions by arguing that the visible pronominal features are non-referential but rather the morphological reflex of checked uninterpretable phi-features on a defective applicative head. To couch the analysis in a wider context, we show how it can extend to other categories of non-core dative in Syrian Arabic.

Expressive compounds in German

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jörg Meibauer
Keyword(s):  
Conventional Implicature ◽  
Left Hand ◽  
Metaphorical Meaning ◽  
Constructional Morphology ◽  
Right Hand ◽  
Expressive Meaning ◽  
Nominal Compounds ◽  
Metaphorical Extension

German adjectival and nominal compounds like ratten+scharf (‘rat sharp’) sau+schlecht, (‘sow bad’) Hammer+auftritt (‘hammer performance’), Arsch+gesicht (‘arse face’) contain meliorative or pejorative elements as part of their structure. The left-hand evaluative members of these compounds are usually considered as so-called semi-prefixes. Contrary to recent approaches within constructional morphology ( Booij 2009 , 2010 ), I will argue that these elements are still lexemes, but that they have undergone metaphorical extension. Evidence stems from the consideration of right-hand members like Kommunisten+schwein (‘communist pig’), which have never been considered as semi-suffixes in a similar way. The metaphorical meaning of these heads and non-heads is systematically connected with expressive meaning. It will be shown that the criteria for expressive meaning proposed by Potts (2007) by and large apply. Furthermore, I will argue against a possible analysis in terms of conventional implicature, as proposed by Williamson (2009 , 2010 ) with respect to the meanings of ethnical slur terms like spic.

Positively bitter and negatively sweet?

Pragmatics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suwon Yoon
Keyword(s):  
Compatibility Condition ◽  
Literal Meaning ◽  
Conventional Implicature ◽  
Figurative Meaning ◽  
Condition Model ◽  
Pragmatic Analysis ◽  
Expressive Meaning ◽  
Occurrence Pattern ◽  
Expressive Dimension

Abstract The goal of this study is to propose a pragmatic analysis of what we call Emotive Taste Terms (ETTs) in Korean, compared to English. What makes Korean taste adjectives special is its multidimensional meaning: In descriptive dimension, (i) the literal meaning concerns the taste; or (ii) it can be extended toward the situation, yielding a figurative meaning. In expressive dimension, (iii) the choice of particular derivation form reflects the speaker’s positive or negative emotional attitude; and (iv) another potential expressive meaning concerns honorification, thought it is not part of the meaning of ETTs. We thus propose that ETTs are a novel subcase of expressive elements, triggering Conventional Implicature. We show how the analysis of ETTs as a CI allows us to successfully derive subtle connotational differences amongst numerous variants. Finally, we show how the co-occurrence pattern of multiple expressives, ETTs and other expressives, within the sentence can be captured by Compatibility Condition Model.

Multiple Sluicing, Scope, and Superiority: Consequences for Ellipsis Identity

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 781-812 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hadas Kotek ◽  
Matthew Barros
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Scalar Implicatures ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
Question Under Discussion ◽  
The Common ◽  
Semantic Identity ◽  
Context Of Utterance

This article defends a semantic identity account of ellipsis licensing. The argument comes from examples of multiple sluicing, especially from Russian. Concentrating on antecedents that contain two quantified statements, we uncover a surprising asymmetry: surface scope antecedents can license a multiple sluice, but inverse scope antecedents cannot. We explain this finding in terms of semantic accounts of ellipsis licensing, where ellipsis is licensed when the sluice corresponds to an (implicit) question under discussion. We show that QUDs cannot be computed from the truth-conditional content of the antecedents alone; instead, they must be computed only after (scalar) implicatures have been calculated and added to the common ground, along with the context of utterance. We further discuss the commitments required of syntactic/LF identity accounts of ellipsis licensing in order to accommodate multiple sluicing with quantified antecedents, and argue that such accounts are practically untenable.

scholarly journals The meanings of positive polarity minimizers in Japanese: a unified approach

2015 ◽  
pp. 599
Author(s):  
Osamu Sawada
Keyword(s):  
Speech Act ◽  
Lexical Item ◽  
Positive Polarity ◽  
Unified Approach ◽  
Expressive Meaning ◽  
Semantics And Pragmatics ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Pragmatic Motivation ◽  
Internal Variation

In Japanese there are multiple lexical items for positive polarity minimizers (hereinafter, minimizer PPIs), each of which can differ in meaning/use. For example, while sukoshi ‘lit. a bit/a little’ can only express a quantitative (amount) meaning, chotto ‘lit. a bit/a little’ can express either a quantitative meaning or an ‘expressive’ meaning (i.e. attenuation in degree of the force of a speech act). The purpose of this paper is to investigate the semantics and pragmatics of the Japanese minimizer PPIs chotto and sukoshi and to consider (i) the parallelism/non-parallelism between truth conditional scalar meanings and non-truth conditional scalar meanings, and (ii) what mechanism can explain the cross-linguistic and language internal variation between minimizer PPIs. As for the semantics/pragmatics of minimizers, I will argue that although the meanings of the amount and expressive minimizers are logically and dimensionally different (non-parallelism), they can systematically be captured by positing a single lexical item (parallelism). As for the language internal and cross-linguistic variations, it will be shown that there is a point of variation with respect to whether a particular degree morpheme allows a dimensional shift (i.e. an extension from a semantic scale to a pragmatic scale). Based on the above proposals, this paper will also investigate the pragmatic motivation behind the use of minimizers in an evaluative context.

scholarly journals The meanings of positive polarity minimizers in Japanese: a unified approach

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 599 ◽  
Author(s):  
Osamu Sawada
Keyword(s):  
Speech Act ◽  
Lexical Item ◽  
Positive Polarity ◽  
Unified Approach ◽  
Expressive Meaning ◽  
Semantics And Pragmatics ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Pragmatic Motivation ◽  
Internal Variation

In Japanese there are multiple lexical items for positive polarity minimizers (hereinafter, minimizer PPIs), each of which can differ in meaning/use. For example, while sukoshi ‘lit. a bit/a little’ can only express a quantitative (amount) meaning, chotto ‘lit. a bit/a little’ can express either a quantitative meaning or an ‘expressive’ meaning (i.e. attenuation in degree of the force of a speech act). The purpose of this paper is to investigate the semantics and pragmatics of the Japanese minimizer PPIs chotto and sukoshi and to consider (i) the parallelism/non-parallelism between truth conditional scalar meanings and non-truth conditional scalar meanings, and (ii) what mechanism can explain the cross-linguistic and language internal variation between minimizer PPIs. As for the semantics/pragmatics of minimizers, I will argue that although the meanings of the amount and expressive minimizers are logically and dimensionally different (non-parallelism), they can systematically be captured by positing a single lexical item (parallelism). As for the language internal and cross-linguistic variations, it will be shown that there is a point of variation with respect to whether a particular degree morpheme allows a dimensional shift (i.e. an extension from a semantic scale to a pragmatic scale). Based on the above proposals, this paper will also investigate the pragmatic motivation behind the use of minimizers in an evaluative context.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document