Differences and similarities between scalar inferences and scalar modifiers: The case of quantifiers

Yaron McNabb


Despite the rich theoretical and experimental work on scalar implicature, many of the studies on this topic were limited to some vs. all, neglecting the cross-categorial pervasiveness of the phenomena. The few experimental studies involving a more diverse group of scalar implicatures have found variation among expressions in the likelihood they give rise to scalar implicature, thereby challenging the assumption that scalar implicature (and generalized conversational implicature) is a uniform phenomenon (Doran, Baker, McNabb, Larson & Ward 2009; Doran, Ward, Larson, McNabb & Baker 2012; Van Tiel, Van Miltenburg, Zevakhina & Geurts 2014). This paper presents a first, systematic investigation of the degree to which a large group of quantifiers give rise to the implicature ‘not all’ using an utterance compatibility task with a modified Likert scale. Two accounts for the variation among quantifiers are proposed: (i) Shared semantic properties among three coherent groups of quantifiers account for the degree they give rise to upper- bound implicature; or (ii) the likelihood of an implicature is a function of the scalar distance between the various quantifiers and ‘all’. The predictions these two accounts make are discussed, charting the way to a future investigation of the heterogeneity of scalar implicature. 

Full Text:



Ariel, Mira. 2004. Most. Language 80(4). 658–706.

Baker, Andrew. 2004. Japanese whisky culture: how it became both staple and status symbol. The Telegraph .

Baker, Rachel, Matthew Berends, Alex Djalali, Ryan Doran, Meredith Larson, Yaron McNabb & Gregory Ward. 2008. The effects of scale type and salience on the interpretation of scalar implicature. In LSA Annual Meeting, Linguistic Society of America.

Barwise, Jon & Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 159–219.

Biemann, Chris, Felix Bildhauer, Stefan Evert, Dirk Goldhahn, Uwe Quasthoff, Roland Schäfer, Johannes Simon, Leonard Swiezinski & Torsten Zesch. 2013. Scalable construction of high-quality web corpora. Journal for Language Tech- nology and Computational Linguistics 28(2). 23–60.

Bott, Lewis & Ira A Noveck. 2004. Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of memory and language 51(3). 437–457.

Christensen, Rune Haubo Bojesen. 2012. Ordinal Regression Models for Ordinal Data R, Package Version 2012.01-19.

Cummins, Chris & Napoleon Katsos. 2010. Comparative and superlative quantifiers: Pragmatic effects of comparison type. Journal of Semantics 27(3). 271 –305.

Davies, Mark. 2008. The corpus of contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990-present.

Degen, Judith. 2015. Investigating the distribution of some (but not all) implicatures using corpora and web-based methods. Semantics and Pragmatics 8(11). 1–55.

Doran, Ryan, Rachel M. Baker, Yaron McNabb, Meredith Larson & Gregory Ward. 2009. On the non-unified nature of scalar implicature: An empirical investigation. International Review of Pragmatics 1(2). 211–248.

Doran, Ryan, Gregory Ward, Meredith Larson, Yaron McNabb & Rachel E. Baker. 2012. A novel experimental paradigm for distinguishing between ‘what is said’ and ‘what is implicated’. Language 88(1). 124–154.

Evert, Stefan. 2010. Google web 1t 5-grams made easy (but not for the computer). In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Sixth Web as Corpus Workshop, 32–40. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. Academic Press New York.

Geurts, Bart. 2006. Take ’five’: the meaning and use of a number word. In Lilliane Tasmowski & Svetlana Vogeleer (eds.), Indefiniteness and plurality, Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Geurts, Bart. 2010. Quantity implicatures. Cambridge University Press.

Geurts, Bart & Rick Nouwen. 2007. ‘At least’ et al.: The semantics of scalar modifiers. Language 83(3). 533–559.

Guasti, Maria Teresa, Gennaro Chierchia, Stephen Crain, Francesca Foppolo, Andrea Gualmini & Luisa Meroni. 2005. Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes 20(5). 667– 696.

Hackl, Martin. 2009. On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: ‘most’ versus ‘more than half’. Natural Language Semantics 17. 63–98.

Hansen, Nat & Emmanuel Chemla. 2013. Experimenting on contextualism. Mind & Language 28(3). 286–321.

Hirschberg, Julia Linn Bell. 1985. A theory of scalar implicature: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.

Horn, Laurence. 1992. The said and the unsaid. In Chris Barker & David Dowty (eds.), SALT II: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 40), 163–192. Columbus: Ohio State University.

Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English: UCLA dissertation.

Horn, Laurence R. 2001. A Natural History of Negation. Stanford: CSLI Publica- tions. Originally published 1989 by University of Chicago Press.

Huang, Yi Ting, Elizabeth Spelke & Jesse Snedeker. 2013. What exactly do numbers mean? Language Learning and Development .

Kennedy, Christopher. 2013. A scalar semantics for scalar readings of number words. In Ivano Caponigro & Carlo Cecchetto (eds.), From grammar to meaning: The spontaneous logicality of language, Cambridge University Press.

Klima, Edward S. 1964. Negation in English. In Jerry A. Fodor & Jerrold J. Katz (eds.), The Structure of Language, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Krifka, Manfred. 1999. At least some determiners aren’t determiners. In K. Turner (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from different points of view, 257–291. Oxford: Elseviewer Science.

Lasersohn, Peter. 1999. Pragmatic halos. Language 75(3). 522–551.

Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press.

McNabb, Yaron & Doris Penka. 2014. The interpretation of superlative modifiers and deontic modals: An experimental investigation. In Urtzi Etxeberria, Ana- maria Fa ̆la ̆us ̧, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, 271–288. Bayonne and Vitoria-Gasteiz.

Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Yuan Kui Shen, Aviva Presser Aiden, Adrian Veres, Matthew K Gray, Joseph P Pickett, Dale Hoiberg, Dan Clancy, Peter Norvig, Jon Orwant et al. 2011. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized

books. science 331(6014). 176–182.

Musolino, J. 2004. The semantics and acquisition of number words: integrating linguistic and developmental perspectives. Cognition 93(1). 1–41.

Pouscoulous, Nausicaa, Ira A Noveck, Guy Politzer & Anne Bastide. 2007. A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language acquisition 14(4). 347–375.

R Development Core Team. 2006. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Viena.

Sanford, AJ & L Moxey. 2004. Exploring quantifiers: Pragmatics meets the psy- chology of comprehension. In Ira A. Noveck & Dan Sperber (eds.), Experimetal Pragmatics, 116–137. Palgrave Macmillan.

Sauerland, Uli & Penka Stateva. 2007. Scalar vs. epistemic vagueness: evidence from approximators. In M. Gibson & T. Friedman (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XVII, 228–245. New York: CLC Publications.

Solt, Stephanie. 2009. The semantics of adjectives of quantity: The City University of New York dissertation.

Van Tiel, Bob, Emiel Van Miltenburg, Natalia Zevakhina & Bart Geurts. 2014. Scalar diversity. Journal of Semantics ffu017.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3124