Ignorance in context: The interaction of modified numerals and QUDs

Matthijs Westera, Adrian Brasoveanu

Abstract


We argue for a purely pragmatic account of the ignorance inferences associated with superlative but not comparative modifiers (at least vs. more than). Ignorance inferences for both modifiers are triggered when the question under discussion (QUD) requires an exact answer, but when these modifiers are used out of the blue the QUD is implicitly reconstructed based on the way these modifiers are typically used, and on the fact that "at least n", but not "more than n", mentions and does not exclude the lower bound "exactly n". The paper presents new experimental evidence for the context-sensitivity of ignorance inferences, and also for the hypothesis that the higher processing cost reported in the literature for superlative modifiers is context-dependent in the exact same way.

Keywords: superlative vs. comparative modifiers, ignorance inferences, questions under discussion, experimental semantics and pragmatics


Full Text:

PDF

References


Anand, P., C. Andrews & M. Wagers. 2011. Implicature calculation and the pragmatics of experiments. Poster at XPRAG Experimental Pragmatics Conference, Barcelona, Spain.

Baayen, R. Harald & Petar Milin. 2010. Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research 3(2). 12–28.

Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 255–278.

Bates, D., M. Maechler, B. Bolker & S. Walker. 2014. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using eigen and s4. R package version 1.1-7. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.

Büring, Daniel. 2008. The least at least can do. In 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 114–120. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Christensen, R. H. B. 2013. ordinal—regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2013.9-30. http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal/.

Ciardelli, Ivano, Jeroen Groenendijk & Floris Roelofsen. 2009. Attention! Might in inquisitive semantics. In Satoshi Ito & Ed Cormany (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT XIX), .

Clark, H. H. 1997. Dogmas of understanding. Discourse Processes 23. 567–598.

Coppock, Elizabeth & Thomas Brochhagen. 2013a. Diagnosing truth, interactive sincerity, and depictive sincerity. In T. Snider (ed.), Proceedings of SALT 23, 358–375.

Coppock, Elizabeth & Thomas Brochhagen. 2013b. Raising and resolving issues with scalar modifiers. Semantics and Pragmatics 6. 3:1–57.

Cummins, C. 2011. The Interpretation and Use of Numerically Quantified Expressions: University of Cambridge dissertation.

Cummins, Chris & Napoleon Katsos. 2010. Comparative and superlative quantifiers: Pragmatic effects of comparison type. Journal of Semantics 27. 271–305.

Cummins, Chris, Uli Sauerland & Stephanie Solt. 2012. Granularity and scalar implicature in numerical expressions. Linguistics and Philosophy 35. 135–169.

Davies, M. 2008-. The corpus of contemporary american english: 450 million words, 1990-present. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.

Fodor, Janet Dean. 2002. Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosogy. In B. Bel & I. Marlin (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Speech Prosody, 83–88. Aix-en-Provence, France.

Geurts, Bart, Napoleon Katsos, Chris Cummins, Jonas Moons & Leo Noordman. 2010. Scalar quantifiers: Logic, acquisition, and processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 25.

Geurts, Bart & Rick Nouwen. 2007. At least et al.: The semantics of scalar modifiers. Language 83. 533–559.

Grice, H.P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.

Jansen, C. J. M. & M. M. W. Pollmann. 2001. On round numbers: Pragmatic aspects of numerical expressions. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 8. 187–201.

Kadmon, Nirit & Craige Roberts. 1986. Prosody and scope: The role of discourse structure. In Proceedings of the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, Chicago Linguistics Society 22nd Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society.

Krifka, M. 2009. Approximate interpretations of number words: A case for strategic communication. In E. Hinrichs & J. Nerbonne (eds.), Theory and Evidence in Semantics, 109–132. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per Bruun Brockhoff & Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen. 2014. lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest. R package version 2.0-6.

Nouwen, Rick. 2010. Two kinds of modified numerals. Semantics and Pragmatics 3. 3:1–41.

R Core Team. 2014. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.

Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse. In J.H. Yoon & A. Kathol (eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 49, 91–136. Ohio State University.

Roelofsen, Floris & Sam van Gool. 2010. Disjunctive questions, intonation, and highlighting. In Maria Aloni, Harald Bastiaanse, Tikitu de Jager & Katrin Schulz (eds.), Logic, Language and Meaning: Selected Papers from the 17th Amsterdam Colloquium, 384–394. Berlin: Springer.

Schwarz, Norbert. 1996. Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods and the logic of conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Trueswell, John, Michael Tanenhaus & Susan Garnsey. 1994. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33. 285–318.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v24i0.2436