Causal necessity and sufficiency in implicativity

Prerna Nadathur

Abstract


Karttunen's (1971) implicative verbs are notable for generating inferences over their complements. English "manage to X", for instance, entails the truth of X: the entailment reverses with matrix negation and seems tied to the elusive presuppositional contribution of the implicative predicate (Coleman 1975).  Building on Baglini & Francez (2015), and drawing on insights provided by implicative data from Finnish, I propose an account of the implicative class which links the lexical presuppositional content of an implicative verb to inferences over the truth-value of its complement via a model of causal necessity and sufficiency between contextually-salient variables (Schulz 2011).  The proposal also provides a natural explanation for the commonalities between "manage" and weaker one-way implicatives like Finnish "jaksaa"(=have.strength), which only entail under one matrix polarity.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Baglini, Rebekah & Itamar Francez. 2015. The implications of managing. Journal of Semantics, to appear.

Bhatt, Rajesh. 1999. Ability modals and their actuality entailments. In Kimary Shahin, Susan Blake & Eun-Sook Kim (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 17, 74-87. Stanford: CSLI.

Coleman, Linda. 1975. The case of the vanishing presupposition. In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Flint, Aili. 1980. Semantic structure in the Finnish lexicon: verbs of possibility and sufficiency. Columbia University PhD dissertation.

Geis, Michael & Arnold Zwicky. 1971. On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 561-566.

Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation.

Hacquard, Valentin. 2006. Aspect of modality. Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD dissertation.

Homer, Vincent. 2011. French modals and perfective. In Mary Washburn, Katherine McKinney-Bock, Erika Varis, Ann Sawyer & Barbara Tomaszewicz (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 28, 106-114. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. Implicative verbs. Language 47. 340-358.

Karttunen, Lauri. 2012. Simple and phrasal implicatives. In Proceedings of *SEM: the first joint conference on lexical and computational semantics, 124-131.

Karttunen, Lauri. 2014. Three ways of not being lucky. Slides from SALT 24, New York University.

Kaufmann, Stefan. 2013. Causal premise semantics. Cognitive Science 37. 1136-1170.

Kiparsky, Paul & Carol Kiparsky. 1970. Fact. In Bierwisch & Heidolph (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, 1-56. New York: Academic Press.

Mari, A. & Fabienne Martin. 2007. Tense, abilities, and actuality entailments. In Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium.

McCarthy, J. 1980. Circumscription: a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13. 27-39.

Piñón, Christopher. 2003. Being able to. In G. Garding & M. Tsujimura (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 22, 384-397. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schulz, Katrin. 2011. If you'd wiggled A, then B would've changed. Synthese 179. 239-251.

Schulz, Katrin & Robert van Rooij. 2006. Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: the case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29. 205-250.

White, Aaron Steven. 2015. Soft implicative entailments. Presentation, LSA Annual Meeting, Portland OR.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3863

Copyright (c) 2016 Prerna Nadathur