How and why conventional implicatures project

Noortje Joost Venhuizen, Johan Bos, Petra Hendriks, Harm Brouwer

Abstract


Conventional Implicatures (CIs; in the sense of Potts 2005) are part of a larger class of projection phenomena. These phenomena also include presuppositions and anaphora, and can described as content that is not at-issue (cf. Simons, Tonhauser, Beaver & Roberts 2010). Despite the shared property of projection, CIs differ from other projection phenomena with respect to the information status of their contribution. Presuppositions, for instance, refer to established, or old information, whereas CIs contribute novel information to the discourse, like at-issue content. Here, we propose a unidimensional analysis of CIs and at-issue content, which highlights the similarity in projection behaviour of CIs, presuppositions, and anaphora. This analysis treats CIs as ‘piggybacking’ on their anchor; they introduce an anaphoric dependency on the interpretation site of their anchor, while at the same time requiring their anchor to refer to a specific referent in the discourse context. CIs are thus elaborations on the description of the referent referred to by their anchor. This analysis of CIs is formalized in Projective Discourse Representation Theory (PDRT; Venhuizen, Bos & Brouwer 2013), a representational framework in which the property of projection is accounted for by explicitly distinguishing between the introduction and interpretation site of semantic content. Our formal analysis explains the interpretational differences between CIs, presuppositions, anaphora, and at-issue content, without stipulating a fundamental distinction between them. 


Full Text:

PDF

References


Amaral, Patricia, Craige Roberts & E. Allyn Smith. 2007. Review of “The Logic of Conventional Implicatures” by Chris Potts. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(6). 707–749.

AnderBois, Scott, Adrian Brasoveanu & Robert Henderson. 2010. Crossing the appositive/at-issue meaning boundary. In Proceedings of SALT, vol. 20, 328–346.

Asher, Nicholas. 1986. Belief in discourse representation theory. Journal of Philosophical Logic 15(2). 127–189.

Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press.

Bach, Kent. 1999. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(4). 367–421.

Basile, Valerio, Johan Bos, Kilian Evang & Noortje Joost Venhuizen. 2012. Developing a large semantically annotated corpus. In Proceedings of the Eighth Inter- national Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12), 3196– 3200. Istanbul, Turkey: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).

Bos, Johan, Valerio Basile, Kilian Evang, Noortje J. Venhuizen & Johannes Bjerva. to appear. The Groningen Meaning Bank. In Nancy Ide & James Pustejovsky (eds.), Handbook of Linguistic Annotation – Part Two: Case studies Text, Speech and Language Technology, Springer.

Del Gobbo, Francesca. 2003. Appositives at the Interface: University of California, Irvine dissertation.

Geurts, Bart. 1999. Presuppositions and pronouns. Elsevier.

Geurts, Bart. 2007. Really fucking brilliant. Theoretical Linguistics 33. 209–271. Geurts, Bart & Emar Maier. 2003. Layered DRT. Ms.

Geurts, Bart & Emar Maier. 2013. Layered Discourse Representation Theory. In Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo & Marco Carapezza (eds.), Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics, vol. 2 Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 311–327. Springer International Publishing.

Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts, 41–58. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Heringa, Herman. 2012. Appositional Constructions: University of Groningen dissertation.

Hoeks, John C. J. & Harm Brouwer. 2014. Electrophysiological research on conversation and discourse processing. In T. M. Holtgraves (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, chap. 23, 365–386. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hunter, Julie. 2013. Presuppositional indexicals. Journal of Semantics 30(3). 381–421.

Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J.A.G. Groenendijk, T.M.V. Janssen & M.B.J. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language 135, 277–322. Mathematisch Centrum.

Kamp, Hans, Joseph van Genabith & Uwe Reyle. 2011. Discourse Representation Theory. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 15, 125–394. Springer Netherlands.

Kamp, Hans & Uwe Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Karttunen, Lauri & Annie Zaenen. 2005. Veridicity. In G. Katz, J. Pustejovsky & F. Schilder (eds.), Annotating, Extracting and Reasoning about Time and Events (Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 05151), Dagstuhl, Germany: IBFI.

Koev, Todor. 2014. Two puzzles about appositives: Projection and perspective shift. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, 217–234.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1999. Beyond Ouch and Oops. How descriptive and expressive meaning interact. Cornell Conference on Theories of Context Dependency. Comments on a paper by Kaplan.

Maier, Emar. 2009. Presupposing acquaintance: a unified semantics for de dicto, de re and de se belief reports. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(5). 429–474.

McCawley, James D. 1998. The syntactic phenomena of English. University of Chicago Press.

Muskens, Reinhard. 1996. Combining Montague Semantics and Discourse Representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(2). 143–186.

Nouwen, Rick. 2007. On appositives and dynamic binding. Research on Language & Computation 5. 87–102.

Nouwen, Rick. 2014. A note on the projection of appositives. In E. McCready, K. Yabushita & K. Yoshimoto (eds.), Formal approaches to semantics and pragmatics: Japanese and Beyond, vol. 95 Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Springer.

Poesio, Massimo & Renata Vieira. 1998. A corpus-based investigation of definite description use. Computational Linguistics 24(2). 183–216.

Potts, Christopher. 2003. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures: University of California dissertation.

Potts, Christopher. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford University Press, USA.

Reyle, Uwe. 1993. Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification. Journal of Semantics 10(2). 123–179.

Reyle, Uwe. 1995. On reasoning with ambiguities. In Proceedings of the seventh European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1–8. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.

van der Sandt, Rob. 1992. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9. 333–377.

Schlenker, Philippe. 2013. Supplements without bidimensionalism. Ms.

Simons, Mandy, Judith Tonhauser, David Beaver & Craige Roberts. 2010. What projects and why. In Proceedings of SALT, vol. 20, 309–327.

Venhuizen, Noortje J., Johan Bos & Harm Brouwer. 2013. Parsimonious semantic representations with projection pointers. In Katrin Erk & Alexander Koller (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2013) – Long Papers, 252–263. Potsdam, Germany: Association for Computational Linguistics. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W13-0122.

Venhuizen, Noortje J., Johan Bos, Petra Hendriks & Harm Brouwer. in prep. Har- nessing projection: implementing Projective Discourse Representation Theory. Manuscript in preparation.

Zeevat, Henk W. 1996. A neoclassical analysis of belief sentences. In Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam colloquium, 723–742. ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v24i0.2392