A Cross-Linguistic Study of the Non-at-issueness of Exhaustive Inferences

Several constructions have been noted to associate with an exhaustive inference, notably the English it-cleft, the French c’est-cleft, the preverbal focus in Hungarian and the German es-cleft. This inference has long been recognized to differ from exhaustiveness associated with exclusives like English only. While previous literature has attempted to capture this difference by debating whether the exhaustiveness of clefts is semantic or a pragmatic phenomenon, recent studies such as (Velleman et al. 2012, Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory (SALT) 22, pages 441–460) supplement the debate by proposing that the notion of at-issueness is the culprit of those differences. In light of this notion, this paper reconsiders the results from previous experimental data on Hungarian and German (Onea and Beaver 2011, Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 19, pages 342–359; Xue and Onea 2011, Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2011 Workshop on Projective Meaning, Ljubljana, Slovenia) and presents new data on English and French, showing that the “Yes, but” test used in these four languages to diagnose the source of the exhaustive inference (semantics vs. pragmatics), in fact diagnoses its status (at-issue vs. non-at-issue). We conclude that the exhaustiveness associated with clefts and cleft-like constructions is not at-issue, or in other words, exhaustiveness it is not the main point of the utterance.

[1]  Shravan Vasishth,et al.  Exhaustiveness effects in clefts are not truth-functional , 2011, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[2]  David I. Beaver,et al.  Presuppositions, Conventional Implicature, and Beyond: A unified account of projection , 2009 .

[3]  J. Oberlander,et al.  Syntactic constraints on discourse structure: the case of it-clefts , 1995 .

[4]  Robyn Carston,et al.  Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics , 1998 .

[5]  F. Petit Dire et ne pas dire , 2013 .

[6]  J. van Kuppevelt,et al.  Inferring from topics , 1996 .

[7]  K. Kiss Identificational focus versus information focus , 1998 .

[8]  L. Tovena,et al.  Presque and almost : how argumentation derives from comparative meaning , 2008 .

[9]  A. Avramides Studies in the Way of Words , 1992 .

[10]  F. Récanati The Pragmatics of What is Said , 1989 .

[11]  J. Atlas,et al.  It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version) , 1981 .

[12]  Anna Szabolcsi,et al.  The semantics of topic-focus articulation , 1981 .

[13]  Arjen Zondervan,et al.  Scalar implicatures or focus: an experimental approach , 2010 .

[14]  David I. Beaver,et al.  Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning , 2008 .

[15]  David I. Beaver,et al.  It-clefts are IT (inquiry terminating) constructions , 2012 .

[16]  R. Cann,et al.  Hungarian ‘ focus position ’ and English it-clefts : the semantic underspecification of ‘ focus ’ readings , 2006 .

[17]  Edgar Onea Potential Questions in Discourse , 2016 .

[18]  Marina Dyakonova,et al.  UvA-DARE ( Digital Academic Repository ) A phase-based approach to Russian free word order , 2009 .

[19]  Judith Tonhauser,et al.  Diagnosing (not-)at-issue content , 2011 .

[20]  L. T. F. Gamut Logic, language, and meaning , 1991 .

[21]  Nancy Hedberg,et al.  The Referential Status of Clefts. , 2000 .

[22]  Jacques Jayez Projective Meaning and Attachment , 2009, Amsterdam Colloquium on Logic, Language and Meaning.

[23]  Judy L. Delin,et al.  A Multi-Level Account of Cleft Constructions in Discourse , 1990, COLING.

[24]  O. Ducrot Dire et ne pas dire : principes de sémantique linguistique , 1980 .

[25]  David I. Beaver,et al.  Hungarian focus is not exhausted , 2009 .

[26]  S. Glucksberg Mental Representations: The Interface Between Language and Reality. , 1990 .

[27]  Daniel Büring,et al.  It's that, and that's it! Exhaustivity and homogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites) , 2013 .

[28]  David I. Beaver,et al.  What projects and why , 2010 .