https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/gateway/plugin/WebFeedGatewayPlugin/atomSemantics and Linguistic Theory2023-12-31T00:00:00+00:00Juhyae Kim and Burak Oneysalt-mailbox@cornell.eduOpen Journal SystemsThis periodical publication contains articles developed from work presented at the annual <a title="SALT conference home" href="https://saltconf.github.io" target="_blank">Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) conference</a>, North America's foremost conference devoted to natural language semantics with relevance to linguistic theory.https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.001Ordinal numbers: Not superlatives, but modifiers of superlatives2024-01-19T00:11:47+00:00Johanna Victoria Alstott
<p>The few existing accounts of the semantics of ordinal numbers attribute to them all or almost all of the semantic properties of superlatives. This work discusses a construction problematic for existing theories of ordinals: the ordinal superlative construction (e.g. <em>Joel climbed the third highest mountain</em>). Existing theories give ordinals and superlatives such similar semantics that they struggle to explain how an ordinal and a superlative could join together and form a complex modifier. As an alternative, I propose a semantics according to which ordinals are exceptive modifiers of superlatives. For example, the n-th highest mountain is the mountain that, with n - 1 exceptions, is the highest. When an ordinal does not co-occur with an overt superlative (e.g. <em>the second train</em>), I posit a covert superlative adjective that represents the contextual ordering. Not only does this approach account for the ordinal superlative construction, but it lends itself to a principled explanation of differences between ordinals and superlatives with respect to plurality.</p>
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Johanna Victoria Alstotthttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.002Arguments, Suppositions, and Conditionals2024-01-19T01:13:46+00:00Carlotta Pavese
<p>Arguments and conditionals are powerful means natural languages provide us to reason about possibilities and to reach conclusions from premises. These two kinds of constructions exhibit several affinities—e.g., they both come in different varieties depending on the mood; they share some of the same connectives (i.e., ‘then’); they also allow for similar patterns of modal subordination. In the light of these affinities, it is not surprising that prominent theories of conditionals—old and new suppositionalisms and dynamic theories of conditionals—as well as certain reductive theories of arguments tend to semantically assimilate conditionals and arguments. In this paper, I shall marshall some linguistic evidence as well as some theoretical considerations for thinking that, despite these similarities, arguments and conditionals should be given a different semantics. In the final part of the paper, extending and improving on Kocurek & Pavese 2022, I make some progress outlining a framework that has the potential to capture the affinities of conditionals and arguments, while modeling their differences too.</p>
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Carlotta Pavesehttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.003Semifactives in comparatives2024-01-19T00:11:47+00:00Nicholas Fleisher
<p><em>This is more complicated than I realized.</em> How are we to understand the status of <em>realize</em>'s complement in a sentence like this? What sort of relationship must this complement bear to its matrix environment, in light of <em>realize</em>'s status as a cognitive factive or semifactive predicate (Kiparsky & Kiparsky 1970; Karttunen 1971)? Comparative constructions, I suggest, do much to illuminate the nature of semifactives and the semantic–pragmatic status of their clausal complements. Specifically, I propose that semifactives support graded awareness—knowledge of something less, but not more, than the full truth with respect to some question or issue—while requiring that their complement be informationally consistent with the matrix environment, rather than presupposed true. The picture that emerges fits naturally with pragmatic approaches to presupposition generation and projection (Beaver 2010; Simons, Beaver, Roberts & Tonhauser 2017; Degen & Tonhauser 2022) and depends on sensitivity to scalar polarity and orientation (Kennedy 2001).</p>
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Nicholas Fleisherhttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.004Kinds, properties and atelicity2024-01-22T21:33:31+00:00Gennaro Chierchia
<p>Since at least Vendler 1967, one of the most widely discussed data points, often viewed as the ultimate test for (a)telicity, is the behavior of durative modifiers with respect to different VP types as in <em>John killed mosquitos/*a mosquito for an hour</em>. In the present paper, I explore a new blend of the two most widespread approaches to this issue, namely (i) the view of durative modifiers as universal quantifiers (e.g., Dowty 1979, a.o.) and (ii) their view as aspect sensitive measure adverbials (e.g., Krifka 1998, a.o.). The blend explored here is based on an economy constraint specific to the scope of adverbial quantification (‘do not weaken’ cf. Bassa Vanrell 2017) combined with the identification of the special role that kinds <em>and properties</em> may play as direct bearers of thematic relations in an event-based semantics.</p>
2024-01-22T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2023 Gennaro Chierchiahttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.005Perspectival biscuits2024-01-22T21:33:31+00:00Karl MulliganKyle Rawlins
This paper describes a novel class of biscuit conditional, the 'perspectival biscuit', which arises when an <em>if</em>-clause containing a generic pronoun (e.g., generic <em>you</em>) is used to shift perspective for the interpretation of a perspective-sensitive item in the consequent: e.g., fixing the directionality of <em>behind</em> in "If you're at the door, the cat is behind the desk." This sentence is like a biscuit conditional in that it entails a fully-specified, propositionally stable consequent describing the spatial configuration of cat and desk, but this reading vanishes in favor of a conditional dependence reading when the antecedent contains any non-generic DP, a prediction that is not straightforwardly accounted for by existing theories of biscuit conditionals. An analysis is given demonstrating that biscuithood for perspectival biscuits arises due to generic quantification exclusively over individuals, not worlds.
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2023 Karl Mulligan, Kyle Rawlinshttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.006Scalar implicature rates vary within and across adjectival scales2024-01-22T21:33:31+00:00Helena AparicioEszter Ronai
<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>Recent experimental literature has investigated across-scale variation in scalar implicature calculation: lexical scales significantly differ from each other in how likely they are to be strengthened (e.g., </span><em>old </em><span>→ </span><em>not ancient </em><span>vs. </span><em>smart </em><span>→ </span><em>not brilliant</em><span>). But in existing studies of this </span><span>scalar diversity</span><span>, not enough attention has been paid to potential variation introduced by the carrier sentences that scales occur in. In this paper, we carry out the first systematic investigation of the role of sentential context on scalar diversity. Focusing on scales formed by two grad- able adjectives, we manipulate the comparison class, specifically whether a noun is likely to have the property described by the scalar adjective (e.g., </span><em>brilliant employee </em><span>vs. </span><em>brilliant scientist</em><span>). Our results show within-scale variation: a significant effect of comparison class on the likelihood of scalar implicature calculation. We explain this result in terms of the adjectival threshold distance between the weaker (</span><em>smart</em><span>) and stronger (</span><em>brilliant</em><span>) adjective, conditioned on the comparison class (</span><em>employee </em><span>vs. </span><em>scientist</em><span>). Our findings also highlight the methodological importance of controlling carrier sentences. </span></p></div></div></div>
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Helena Aparicio, Eszter Ronaihttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.007Everyone except possibly Ann2024-01-22T21:33:31+00:00Clemens MayrEkaterina Vostrikova
<div class="page" title="Page 1"> <div class="layoutArea"> <div class="column"> <p>This paper deals with the interaction of modals and exceptives as in <em>Every student passed, except possibly Ann</em>. Arguments are put forward motivating a parse for at least some such sentences combining features of the two standard analyses for exceptive constructions, namely the phrasal and clausal analyses. A novel approach based on the well-known idea of exception as set subtraction coupled with exhaustification contributed by an operator <em>EXH </em>is proposed. Crucially, on this approach the prejacent <em>S</em> of <em>EXH</em> is conjoined with [ <em>modal EXH S</em> ]. That is, the modal is only present in the second conjunct where it takes scope over the clause <em>EXH S</em>, which is partially elided. This leads us to consider further data suggesting that the <em>EXH</em> used in such constructions does not assert the prejacent but rather only excludes alternatives. That is, it is the first conjunct alone that contributes assertion of the prejacent.</p> </div> </div> </div>
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Clemens Mayr, Ekaterina Vostrikovahttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.008Partial plurality inferences of plural pronouns and dynamic pragmatic enrichment2024-01-22T21:33:31+00:00Takanobu Nakamura
<p>I explore the semantics/pragmatics of plural pronouns by discussing the <em>partial plurality inference</em> that arises under <em>quantificational subordination</em>. I propose an anti-presupposition account coupled with Sudo’s (2023) <em>dynamic implicature</em> approach to plurality inferences based on<em> plural information states</em>, i.e. sets of variable assignments (van den Berg 1996). I further discuss the implications of the proposed analysis to the locality of anti-presupposition calculation and difference between animate instances and inanimate instances of plural pronouns in English.</p>
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Takanobu Nakamurahttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.009Deriving the evidence asymmetry in positive polar questions2024-01-22T21:33:31+00:00Kyle Rawlins
This paper explores a famous puzzle about English positive polar questions introduced by Buring and Gunlogson 2000: while in many contexts they seem to indicate nothing whatsoever about what the speaker takes for granted or thinks likely, in contexts that provide evidence against the content proposition of the question, they are infelicitous. This pattern, which I term the "evidence asymmetry", has been particularly troubling for standard accounts of polar questions that treat the positive and negative answers on par with each other. However, given that polar questions are felicitous in neutral contexts, it doesn't have an easy solution: polar questions in general don't seem to place constraints on evidence or context. I propose that polar questions have a fairly weak presupposition requiring just the content alternative to be possible (but say nothing about its negation), and (building on Trinh 2014) that this together with Maximize Presupposition-based reasoning about competitor questions (specifically"or not" alternative questions) can derive the evidence asymmetry. This account does not require the covert evidential marker of Trinh 2014, and essentially proposes that the evidence asymmetry follows from norms for English polar questions.
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Kyle Rawlinshttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.010Clustering and declustering things: The meaning of collective and singulative morphology in Ukrainian2024-01-22T21:33:31+00:00Marcin WągielNatalia Shlikhutka
<p>Many languages have systems of collective and singulative derivational morphology (e.g., de Vries 2021; Dali & Mathieu 2021b). Recent research on Slavic collectives (Grimm & Dočekal 2021; Wągiel 2021a) and singulatives (Kagan & Nurmio to appear; Kagan, Geist & Erschler to appear) shows the significance of these data for the study of linguistic mechanisms of individuation. In this paper,<br />we contribute by investigating the semantics of two derivational morphemes in Ukrainian: the collective suffix <em>-j-</em> and the singulative suffix <em>-yn-</em>, and the interaction between the two in secondary singulatives, e.g., <em>pero</em> ‘a feather’⇒<em>pirja</em> ‘clustered feathers’⇒<em>pirjina</em> ‘a (small) feather’, and secondary collectives, e.g., <em>popil</em> ‘ash’ ⇒ <em>popelyna</em> ‘a speck of ash’ ⇒ <em>popelynnja</em> ‘clustered specks of ash’. Building on the theory of Grimm (2012), we propose a mereotopological account that explains the Ukrainian data in terms of the ontological distinction between integrated objects and clusters: <em>-j-</em> turns properties of integrated objects into properties of clusters, whereas <em>-yn-</em> takes properties of clusters and yields properties of integrated objects.</p>
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Marcin Wągiel, Natalia Shlikhutkahttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.011From temporal to concessive meanings: a semantic analysis of 'still'2024-01-22T21:33:31+00:00Aynat RubinsteinElena Herburger
We develop a new proposal about the historical connection between the durative and concessive readings of English <em>still</em> and Hebrew <em>ʕadain</em>, a connection that shows striking parallels in the two languages. Building on a corpus study of Hebrew (Rubinstein forthcoming), we argue that durative 'still' precedes the concessive 'still' and that the latter first arises in bridging contexts (and earlier than previously thought). In contrast to previous literature, our proposal places the temporal-to-concessive development squarely in the semantics. We argue that concessive 'still' emerges when an originally durative 'still' gets "infected" with a concessive meaning that is expressed explicitly in the rest of the sentence.
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Aynat Rubinstein, Elena Herburgerhttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.012More exceedingly comparative: Adverbial and attributive Exceed comparatives2024-01-22T21:33:31+00:00Mary Moroney
<p>Novel fieldwork data from Shan (Kra-Dai) adds to the cross-linguistic account of comparative constructions, especially Exceed-type comparatives. Shan can form comparative expressions from adverbs, which had not been analyzed in previous accounts of Exceed-type comparatives (Bochnak 2013; Howell 2013; Clem 2019; a.o.). Synthesizing previous semantic accounts of phrasal comparatives can account for the presented data.</p>
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Mary Moroneyhttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.013Are there “weak” definites in bare classifier languages?2024-01-22T21:33:31+00:00Ka-Fai YipUshasi BanerjeeMargaret Chui Yi Lee
<span>This paper motivates a new view on the typology of definiteness that integrates (quasi-)names. The primary data is drawn from Cantonese and Bangla, where both bare classifier constructions and bare nominals are recruited for definite expressions. We argue that these bare nominals, while often analyzed as the so-called “weak”/unique definites in other languages, are indeed name-like expressions akin to the quasi-name </span><em>Mom</em><span> in English, in contrast with the definite descriptions denoted by bare classifier constructions. We propose that quasi-names, as well as proper names, are derived by a definite determiner that encodes a functional relation between the discourse participants and the referent. We further discuss cases where quasi-names compete with definite descriptions and proper names. The findings not only suggest that names should be brought into the picture, but also shed light on how pragmatic principles interact and determine the choice of referring expressions.</span>
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Ka-Fai Yip, Ushasi Banerjee, Margaret Chui Yi Leehttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.014Acts, occasions and multiplicatives: A mereotopological account2024-01-22T21:33:31+00:00Marcin Wągiel
<p>In this paper, I argue for the relevance of structured part-whole configurations in the domain of events. The evidence comes from the well-known event-internal/external distinction, which concerns mutliplicative adverbials quantifying either over separate occasions or occasion-internal acts, respectively (e.g., Cusic 1981, Andrews 1983, Cinque 1999, Zhang 2017). In order to capture this distinction, I postulate that the relationship between the two categories is based on a part-whole relation. In particular, inspired by proposals advocating the role of eventive higher-order units (Landman 2006, Henderson 2017) and building on the theories of (Grimm 2012) and (Mazzola 2019), I propose to extend mereotopology to the domain of events. I argue that this allows for capturing acts as simplex events conceptualized as bounded integrated MSSC wholes, whereas occasions as clusters, i.e., temporally structured configurations, of such simplex events.</p>
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Marcin Wągielhttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.015The theory of argument formation: between kinds and properties2024-01-22T21:33:31+00:00Jianan LiuShravani PatilHagay SchurrDaria SeresOlga BorikBert Le Bruyn
<p class="p1">Abstract <span class="s1">Chierchia </span>(<span class="s1">1998</span>) developed a cross-linguistic extension to Carlsons seminal work on bare nouns (BNs), producing the most influential theory of argument formation to date, henceforth the Kinds Approach (KA). The core achievements of the KA included the derivation of the generalized narrow scope behavior of BNs and of the existence of generalized classifier languages. There are cracks in the picture, though. The narrow scope behavior of BNs is more fine-grained than is generally assumed and the KA lacks the flexibility to deal with it (<span class="s1">Le Bruyn & </span><span class="s1">Swart 2022</span>). The appeal of the KAs derivation of the existence of generalized classifier languages heavily relied on all nouns in these languages being mass-like, an assumption that has since been abandoned (<span class="s1">Chierchia 2010</span>; <span class="s1">Jiang 2020</span>). These developments call for a reassessment of the KA and one of its closest competitors: <span class="s1">Krifka 2003</span>. Krifka assumes nouns never start life as kinds but as predicates, leading us to qualify his approach as a Properties Approach (PA).We adopt a translation corpus approach and assess the explanatory potential of the KA and the PA by comparing the distribution of BNs and related expressions in (in)definite contexts across six typologically different languages. Our results show that the PA has a distinct advantage over the KA and identify pseudo-incorporation and the way it varies across languages as a primary focus for future research.</p>
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Jianan Liu, Shravani Patil, Hagay Schurr, Daria Seres, Olga Borik, Bert Le Bruynhttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.016Two question-embedding strategies and answer-orientedness2024-01-22T21:33:31+00:00Deniz ÖzyıldızWataru Uegaki
<p><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">Japanese and Turkish attitude predicates combine with two main kinds </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">of embedded clauses: Nominalizations, and clauses introduced by the morphemes </span><em><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">to</span></em> <span dir="ltr" role="presentation">and</span> <em><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">diye</span></em><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">. We describe their interrogative variants, showing that nominalizations </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">give rise to answer-oriented inferences with responsive predicates (e.g., factivity, </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">belief), but that</span> <em><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">diye</span></em><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">/</span><em><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">to</span></em> <span dir="ltr" role="presentation">interrogatives are question-oriented and entail that the </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">attitude holder linguistically produces the interrogative. We propose a compositional </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">fragment where attitude predicates take nominalizations as arguments, which they </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">may impose semantic restrictions on, and where</span> <em><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">diye</span></em><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">/</span><em><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">to</span></em><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">-clauses modify and enrich </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">attitude meanings with a linguistic production inference.</span></p>
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Deniz Özyıldız, Wataru Uegakihttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.017Movement and interpretation of quantifiers in internally-headed relative clauses2024-01-22T21:33:31+00:00Rebecca Jarvis
<p>This paper addresses the semantic typology of internally-headed relative clauses using a case study of two West African languages, Atchan (Kwa) and Bùlì (Gur). Both languages exhibit syntactically-similar relatives, involving overt movement of the head. However, quantifiers on the head are interpreted differently in the two languages. In Atchan, quantifiers on the relative-clause head take the entire relative clause as their restriction; in Bùlì, quantifiers on the head take only the head noun as their restriction. I propose that the former is interpreted via NP reconstruction and Trace Conversion, the latter via DP reconstruction. The empirical difference between these two languages motivates a revision to the typology developed by Grosu (2012), which tightly links head movement and the Atchan-like quantifier interpretation pattern. This work further supports a a modular view in which languages can adopt different strategies to interpret movement-involving structures.</p>
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Rebecca Jarvishttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.018Preliminaries for a substitution theory of de re2024-01-24T01:50:09+00:00Ido Benbaji-Elhadad
<p> We examine whether several challenges for transparent evaluation theories of <em>de re</em> can be accounted for by a single mechanism of propositional substitution. We provide necessary conditions for replacing the prejacent of an attitude with another salient proposition, and review some merits and weaknesses of this approach.</p>
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Ido Benbajihttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.019Commitments de lingua and assertoric commitments: the case of expressives2024-01-22T21:33:31+00:00Leopold HessCorien BaryBob van Tiel
<p><span dir="ltr">This paper presents the results of two series of experimental studies </span><span dir="ltr">concerning the interpretation of expressives (e.g., ‘the jerk’) and the sentences </span><span dir="ltr">they occur in. While expressives are known for their strong speaker-orientation, </span><span dir="ltr">Harris & Potts (2009) found that in the right context, i.e. when a different subject </span><span dir="ltr">is introduced into the discourse as a reported speaker, it is possible to interpret </span><span dir="ltr">the expressive from this subject’s perspective. In our first series of experiments </span><span dir="ltr">we corroborated the systematic availability of non-speaker oriented readings of </span><span dir="ltr">expressives, but we also found a strong correlation between the attribution of the </span><span dir="ltr">expressive and that of the sentence content: participants who attribute the expressive </span><span dir="ltr">to the subject rather than the speaker, also tend to attribute the sentence as a whole </span><span dir="ltr">to the subject. In other words, shifted interpretations of expressives do occur, but </span><span dir="ltr">tend to go hand-in-hand with a reportative reading of the sentence in which the </span><span dir="ltr">expressive occurs. In our second series of experiments, we identified factors that </span><span dir="ltr">influence such a reportative reading. Following Kaiser (2015), we found that when </span><span dir="ltr">we made the subject more prominent as an anchor—by removing the reference to </span><span dir="ltr">the actual speaker and by adjusting the tense to facilitate a free indirect discourse </span><span dir="ltr">reading—the number of subject-oriented readings grew significantly. On the basis of </span><span dir="ltr">these findings we argue for a pragmatic account in terms of commitment attribution </span><span dir="ltr">with three constraints at work: (i) commitments </span><span dir="ltr"><em>de lingua</em> </span><span dir="ltr">for expressives need a </span><span dir="ltr">salient anchor, (ii) commitments </span><span dir="ltr"><em>de lingua</em> </span><span dir="ltr">tend to be attributed in concert with </span><span dir="ltr">assertoric commitments, and (iii) the main speaker is the most salient anchor by </span><span dir="ltr">default. These three constraints jointly explain the observations in the experiments.</span></p>
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Leopold Hess, Corien Bary, Bob van Tielhttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.020Homogeneity and the illocutionary force of rejection2024-02-08T16:44:18+00:00Giorgio Sbardolini
Homogeneity inferences arise whenever an assertion implies a universal positive (<em>every/both</em>) and its denial implies a universal negative (<em>no/neither</em>). I present an account of homogeneity inferences based on two assumptions which together constrain the behavior of negation: rejection is non-classical, and vacuous models may be omitted (Neglect Zero). If both assumptions are enforced, the only definable negatives are universal (<em>no/neither</em>), predicting the homogeneity gap.
2024-02-08T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2023 Giorgio Sbardolinihttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.021Trivalent Exh and summative predicates2024-02-08T16:44:18+00:00Mathieu Paillé
Many expressions display 'homogeneity': they quantify as universals in positive sentences, but as negated existentials in negative sentences. This paper aims to partly rethink work claiming that homogeneity is the result of exhaustification. I focus on 'summative' predicates like colour adjectives, and the claim that they are universal in positive sentences because they exclude one another. Three puzzles arise on this approach: the existence of truth-value gaps in non-homogeneous situations, the existence of non-maximality, and contrasts between sentential negation and other downward-entailing environments. I show that all of these difficulties can be resolved if exhaustification is trivalent rather than bivalent.
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Mathieu Pailléhttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.022On the meaning of intonational contours: a view from scalar inference2024-02-08T16:44:18+00:00Alexander GöbelEszter Ronai
This paper investigates the meaning of intonational contours by experimentally testing how they affect the likelihood of scalar inference (SI) calculation. Our main test case is the rise-fall-rise contour (RFR) which, based on prior theoretical work, is predicted to either increase or decrease the likelihood of SI. We conducted two experiments using an inference task: one where participants first produce a target sentence with their choice of contour and one where participants listen to a pre-recorded target sentence with a particular contour. The experiments converged in showing that the RFR increases SI rate relative to a neutral fall. Additionally, production data revealed the frequent use of another contour that resembles the Contradiction Contour, which we label Concession Contour. This contour also led to an increase in SI rate, although to a lesser extent than the RFR. In addition to informing the theoretical literature on RFR, our results also highlight the methodological importance of controlling for intonation in the study of SI.
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2023 Alexander Göbel, Eszter Ronaihttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.023Focus on demonstratives: Experiments in English and Turkish2024-02-08T16:44:18+00:00Ankana SahaYağmur SağKathryn Davidson
This paper deals with an unexpected contrast between demonstrative descriptions and definite descriptions on their anaphoric uses. If two (or more) discourse referents are introduced in the preceding sentence, it is perfectly natural to refer to one of them in the following sentence using a definite description. Use of demonstrative descriptions in the same context, however, is degraded, with existing accounts of anaphoric demonstratives and definites providing no explanation for this contrast. We present experimental evidence from two languages, one with definite determiners (English) and one without (Turkish), and show that the acceptability of demonstratives depends independently both on (i) whether one or two NPs are introduced in the initial sentence, and (ii) whether the follow-up sentence introduces a new situation or not. We propose a focus-driven information structural approach to demonstratives to account for this pattern. Following Dayal & Jiang (2021) (building on Schwarz 2009) in assuming that definite and demonstrative expressions in anaphoric contexts are similar in including an anaphoric index argument, we argue that demonstratives essentially differ in evoking focus alternatives on the index argument.
2024-01-23T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2023 Ankana Saha, Yağmur Sağ, Kathryn Davidsonhttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.024Alternative comparison in underspecified degree operators2024-02-08T16:44:18+00:00Ang Li
<p>This paper proposes a new theory for the recurrent ambiguities between the meaning of comparison, additivity, and continuation (CAC) across languages. The theory has two pillars. One is a semantic reanalysis of CAC meanings. I will show that all three meanings can be cashed out via comparisons between alternatives, and that by doing so we can establish inherent logical connections between them. The second pillar is a de-compositional analysis of lexical items expressing CAC meanings (henceforth CAC operators), which makes use of their logical connections to derive the ambiguities as results of underspecification. </p>
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Ang Lihttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.025Telescoping in incremental quantification2024-02-08T16:44:18+00:00Yusuke Yagi
<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>Bumford </span><span>(</span><span>2015</span><span>) argues that universal quantification in dynamic semantics should be analyzed as generalized dynamic conjunction for empirical benefits. However, this analysis is incompatible with the existing telescoping analyses, which use a pluralized dynamic system (</span><span>van den Berg 1996</span><span>; </span><span>Nouwen 2003</span><span>; </span><span>Brasoveanu 2007</span><span>: a.o.). This study aims to resolve this conflict. It is proposed that quantification over events and their participants allows us to account for telescoping without the pluralized dynamic system.</span></p></div></div></div>
2024-01-23T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2023 Yusuke Yagihttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/5618Simplifying the evidential condition on asking polar questions2024-02-08T16:44:18+00:00Daniel Goodhue
<p>In classic accounts of polar question semantics, positive polar questions like "Did Mo sing?", low negation questions like "Did Mo not sing?", and high negation questions like "Didn't Mo sing?" all denote the same set of answers: {<em>that Mo sang</em>, <em>that Mo didn’t sing</em>}. At the same time, it is well known that these three question types have different distributions. In particular, they have different requirements with respect to contextual evidence for the answers, the Evidential Condition on polar questions. Despite widespread discussion of this fact, no universally accepted explanation has emerged. In this paper, I make the novel argument that high negation questions do not have an Evidential Condition, and so only the conditions for positive and low negation questions need to be explained. I then argue that an explanation can be given based on general principles of markedness and information structure, even while maintaining a classic {<em>p, not-p</em>} semantics for both positive and low negation questions. I discuss ramifications for polar question semantics.</p>
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Daniel Goodhuehttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.027The role of intonation and context in lack of necessity meanings in negated deontic necessity modals in child Romanian2024-02-08T16:44:18+00:00Adina Camelia BleotuGabriela SlăvuțeanuAnton Benz
<p>The current paper experimentally addresses the question of whether Romanian 5-year-olds interpret negated deontic necessity modals as interdiction initially, and to what extent intonation and situational context may act as cues for a more adult-like interpretation. We find that, in the absence of situational context, children initially interpret all negated deontic modals as interdiction. Prosodic cues are on their own not enough to lead to an adult interpretation. However, in the presence of situational context, children are able to tease lack of necessity and interdiction apart and even show sensitivity to prosodic differences among negated modals.</p>
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2023 Adina Camelia Bleotu, Gabriela Slăvuțeanu, Anton Benzhttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.028Epistemic bias anti-lincenses NPIs in polar questions2024-02-08T16:44:18+00:00Tue Trinh
There is general agreement that the distribution of <em>any</em> is unrestricted in polar questions. I argue that this is not the case: in contexts where there is epistemic bias in favor of the prejacent of a polar question, the question exhibits the same behavior as a declarative with respect to the licensing of <em>any</em>. I provide an account for this observation in terms of intervention: epistemic bias forces polar questions to be parsed as having a silent modal <em>E</em> which intervenes between <em>any</em> and the question operator <em>whether</em> that otherwise licenses <em>any</em>.
2024-01-19T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2023 Tue Trinhhttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.029Weakening is external to only2024-02-08T16:44:18+00:00Luis Alonso-OvalleAron Hirsch
<p>By default, <em>only</em> (p) presupposes the ‘prejacent’ p, as predicted by the classical analysis in Horn 1969. Yet, in some cases, <em>only </em>(p) instead presupposes a weaker existential claim that some alternative is true (e.g. Klinedinst 2005). What is the mechanism by which the presupposition of <em>only</em> is weakened? Crniˇc (2022) takes the presupposition of <em>only</em> to involve quantification, and derives weakening from domain restriction. We present a challenge to this approach, and offer an alternative. In Alonso-Ovalle & Hirsch 2022, we proposed that the grammar makes available a covert operator, which can occur in the complement of <em>only</em>, weakening its argument. We show that this approach offers a straightforward analysis of cases where the presupposition of <em>only</em> is weakened to existential.</p>
2024-01-24T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2023 Luis Alonso-Ovalle, Aron Hirschhttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.030Structural ambiguity in DPs with quantity nouns2024-02-08T16:44:18+00:00Luis Alonso-OvalleBernhard Schwarz
<p>DPs with quantity nouns (QDPs), like<em> that amount of nuts</em>, can combine with predicates of quantities, as in<em> That amount of nuts is low</em>, or with predicates of entities, as in <em>Bo ate that amount of nuts</em>. One account of such selectional flexibility, inspired by Selkirk (1977) and Rothstein (2009), assumes that the two types of predication are transparently encoded through two types of syntactic structures. In this paper, we draw attention to a syntactic challenge for this account of QDPs, viz.that in certain cases it requires two interpreted occurrences of an entity noun like <em>nuts</em> even though only one is pronounced. We argue, however, that this challenge must<br />be met and cannot be avoided by abandoning the structural approach. We make this case by arguing against an alternative analysis of the selectional flexibility of QDPs developed in Scontras 2017. On this alternative, quantity predication and entity predication with QDPs are derived from a uniform syntax, and entity predication with QDPs parallels entity predication with DPs with <em>kind</em>, like <em>that kind of nuts</em>, under the classic Carlsonian account (Carlson 1977) as developed in Chierchia 1998. We argue that Scontras’ analysis is mistaken, both in positing a unified syntax for the two types of predication with QDPs, and in unifying the analysis of QDPs with<br />the Carlsonian analysis of<em> kind</em>-DPs.</p>
2024-01-22T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2023 Luis Alonso-Ovalle, Bernhard Schwarzhttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.031Generality, genericity and subjective predicates: What propositional attitude verbs, alien viruses, and COVID can tell us2024-02-08T16:44:18+00:00Elsi KaiserHaley Hsu
<p>In uttering a subjective opinion like <em>Donuts are tasty</em>, is a speaker expressing her own opinion or also making a generalization about people-in-general? While researchers largely agree that generic readings of subjective predicates exist, there is no consensus on how central genericity is for theories of subjective meaning. We report a psycholinguistic study that tests what influences the level of prevalence that comprehenders attribute to opinions, expressed with subjective predicates, about unfamiliar information. Specifically, if you overhear an alien expressing an opinion about an unfamiliar virus (e.g. <em>The zorgavirus is dangerous</em>), how many other aliens do you think share this alien's opinion? We find that the perceived generalizability of subjective predicates is modulated by the presence/absence of embedding under propositional attitude verbs (whether the speaker is explicitly mentioned with <em>I think/consider)</em> and by participants' extra-linguistic attitudes, namely their anxiety levels about COVID. This work uncovers a new link between subjective predicates and humans’ egocentric cognitive biases.</p>
2024-02-05T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2023 Elsi Kaiser, Haley Hsuhttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.032On the emergence of an aspectual NPI: comparative polysemy and the case of Diyari marla2024-02-12T17:39:02+00:00Josh PhillipsWill WegnerClaire Bowern
<p>Cross-linguistically, morphological material that expresses comparison (e.g. <em>more</em>) appears to be colexified with aspectual (“phasal”) adverbs that, under negation, encode the termination of some eventuality (CESSATIVEs, e.g. *<em>(not).</em>..<em>anymore</em>). Using data drawn from the Diyari language of central Australia, we propose a diachronic trajectory for the lexical item <em>marla</em> ‘very, truly’. This word first developed a comparative semantics and, subsequently, a cessative reading restricted to negative polar contexts. This proposal moves us towards a lexical entry that permits for the unification of comparative and aspectual readings for items which exhibit this polysemy and—on the basis of robust pragmatic principles— predicts their polarity-sensitive distribution cross-linguistically.</p>
2024-02-05T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2023 Josh Phillips, Will Wegner, Claire Bowernhttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.033Donkey disjunctions and overlapping updates2024-02-08T16:44:18+00:00Patrick David Elliott
<p>This paper is devoted to an analysis of anaphoric dependencies in disjunctive sentences, and consequences for the understanding of the ∃/∀ ambiguity observed with donkey anaphora. The primary focus is on <em>donkey disjunctions</em>, which are sentences where a (negated) existential in an initial disjunct appears to bind a pronoun in a later disjunct, such as "Either there's no bathroom, or its upstairs". The main empirical focus is that donkey disjunctions, like donkey anaphora, exhibit the ∃/∀ ambiguity, and more generally oscillate between homogeneous and heterogeneous readings in a context-sensitive fashion. The paper then proceeds in two steps: first, a principled analysis of donkey disjunctions is developed in the context of a Bilateral Update Semantics (BUS). BUS, by default, generates heterogeneous readings for donkey anaphora/donkey disjunctions (i.e., ∃ readings, in a positive context). In order to account of homogeneous readings, the conjecture is that sentences may be interpreted <em>exhaustively </em>relative to their negations. This has non-trivial consequences due to the non-classicality of BUS — specifically, a failure of the <em>Law of Non-Contradiction.</em></p>
2024-02-05T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2023 Patrick David Elliotthttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.034On the modeling of live possibilities2024-02-08T16:44:18+00:00Yichi Zhang
<p>I<span dir="ltr" role="presentation">n this paper, I evaluate two ways to model the notion of</span> <em><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">live possibilities</span></em><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">: </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">the supervaluation-based approach, and the alternative-based approach. I argue </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">that the alternative-based approach is more promising in fulfilling certain desirable </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">constraints governing live possibilities. However, the existing alternative-based </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">accounts fail to be fully satisfactory. To address this inadequacy, I devise a new </span><span dir="ltr" role="presentation">alternative-based framework and explore its logical features.</span></p>
2024-01-23T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2023 Yichi Zhanghttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.035Not very easy: Towards the unification of scalar implicature and understatement2024-02-08T17:14:43+00:00Stephanie Solt
<p>Modified and unmodified gradable adjectives give rise to two distinct and opposing varieties of pragmatic enrichment: scalar implicature and understatement. While earlier work in pragmatics took these to be complementary inferences derived from opposing conversational principles, more recent work in the formal tradition has placed the focus firmly on scalar implicature and related phenomena, with no attempt to also account for understatement. In this paper I argue that there are good reasons to pursue a unified treatment of the two, and outline one possible way of doing so, framed within the commitment approach to assertion, where I take the commitments that come with asserting a proposition to encompass not only liability for its truth but also acceptance of the social consequences of expressing it. I further discuss how this approach can shed light on recent experimental findings regarding the role of lexical semantics in the pragmatic inferences available to gradable adjectives, as well as a puzzle that these findings pose.</p>
2024-02-08T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2023 Stephanie Solthttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.036An approach to Hurford Conditionals2024-02-08T17:14:43+00:00Alexandros Kalomoiros
<div class="page" title="Page 1"> <div class="layoutArea"> <div class="column"> <p>We propose a redundancy-based solution to the puzzle of Hurford con- ditionals. We argue that the puzzle goes away once we recognise that negated and unnegated Hurford disjunctions are not on par. We develop a theory, dubbed super-redundancy, that captures this contrast, and investigate how it can be paired with different approaches to conditionals. It turns out that under super-redundancy, the Hurford conditional paradigm follows under the material implication and strict semantics approaches to conditionals, but not under the variably strict semantics. Finally, we extend our theory to capture some puzzling cases of Hurford phenom- ena that have recently received attention in Marty & Romoli (2022).</p> </div> </div> </div>
2024-01-23T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2023 Alexandros Kalomoiroshttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.037Referring and quantifying without nominals: headless relative clauses across languages2024-02-08T17:14:43+00:00Ivano Caponigro
<p>Nominals can be used to refer to or quantify over individuals, while clauses convey propositional content, with the exception of set-denoting restrictive headed relative clauses. This well-attested crosslinguistic syntax/semantics mapping needs to be broadened. Recent crosslinguistic findings show that headless relative clauses—embedded argument or adjunct clauses with a missing constituent—are widely attested and are used to refer to or quantify over individuals, similar to nominals. The present work contributes to the investigation of the syntax/semantics interface of different varieties of headless relative clauses and begins to develop a much-needed close comparison with the syntax/semantics interface of nominals in order to establish which principles are at play in both families of constructions.</p>
2024-01-22T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2023 Ivano Caponigrohttps://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/33.038Hebrew nonverbal sentences wear reconstruction on their sleeve2024-02-09T02:35:34+00:00Omri Doron
<p class="p1">In this paper, I discuss a particle in Hebrew which has been termed Pron by Doron (1983). While its surface form is that of a pronoun, its distribution resembles that of a copula – it appears between the subject and the predicate in nonverbal present-tensed sentences. However, its distribution is limited in unexpected ways for a copula, which gained it some attention in the literature. Contra the standard line of analysis, I argue that Pron is in fact a resumptive pronoun left by the subject as it raises to a higher position. I show that this analysis ties together many of Pron’s <em>prima facie</em>-surprising distribution patterns.</p>
2024-02-09T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2023 Omri Doron