A puzzle for theories of redundancy: exhaustification, incrementality, and the notion of local context

The present paper discusses novel data which are problematic for assertability conditions based on redundancy (Stalnaker 1979, Fox 2008, Schlenker 2009, Singh 2007, Chierchia 2009, Meyer 2013, Katzir & Singh 2014 among others). The problem comes from disjunctions like Either Mary isn’t pregnant or (she is and) it doesn’t show and in particular from the optional presence of she is (pregnant) . These data are even more puzzling if compared to corresponding conditionals like If Mary is pregnant, (#she is and) it doesn’t show where the she is (pregnant) part is unacceptable as expected. In response to this puzzle, we present a solution based on two ingredients: (i) exhaustification and (ii) a notion of incremental redundancy. As we show, exhaustifying a sentence has an effect on the (incremental) redundancy status of its constituents. As a consequence of this, she is (pregnant) is actually not redundant in the disjunctive sentence above, provided the latter is exhaustified. We explore two possible ways of implementing this solution. The first is based on a definition of incremental redundancy which does not make use of local contexts as proposed by Fox (2008, 2013), building on Schlenker 2008. The second is based on Schlenker’s (2009) incremental theory of local contexts. We then briefly compare the two implementations and point to a potential advantage of the one based on local contexts in dealing with the different readings of the disjunctive sentence above. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.7 BibTeX info

[1]  Laurence R. Horn,et al.  On the semantic properties of logical operators in english' reproduced by the indiana university lin , 1972 .

[2]  Daniel Rothschild,et al.  Explaining presupposition projection with dynamic semantics , 2011 .

[3]  Mandy Simons,et al.  On the Conversational Basis of Some Presuppositions , 2013 .

[4]  Benjamin Spector.  10: Scalar Implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean Reasoning , 2007 .

[5]  Jacopo Romoli,et al.  Soft but Strong. Neg-Raising, Soft Triggers, and Exhaustification , 2012 .

[6]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  Scalar Implicatures in Complex Sentences , 2004 .

[7]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  The Computation of Scalar Implicatures: Pragmatic, Lexical or Grammatical? , 2012, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[8]  Craige Roberts.  Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse , 1989 .

[9]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  On the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers , 1984 .

[10]  Rob A. van der Sandt,et al.  Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution , 1992, J. Semant..

[11]  Philippe Schlenker,et al.  Anti-dynamics: presupposition projection without dynamic semantics , 2007, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[12]  Roni Katzir,et al.  Structurally-defined alternatives , 2007 .

[13]  E Bustos.  Pragmatics, implicature, presuposition and logical form (gazdar g) , 1980 .

[14]  Mats Rooth.  A theory of focus interpretation , 1992, Natural Language Semantics.

[15]  Philippe Schlenker,et al.  Be Articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection , 2008 .

[16]  G. Chierchia,et al.  Hurford disjunctions: embedded exhaustification and structural economy , 2014 .

[17]  Raj Singh.  Assertability Constraints and Absurd Assertions∗ , 2007 .

[18]  H. Savin,et al.  The projection problem for presuppositions , 1971 .

[19]  Raj Singh,et al.  Maximize Presupposition! and local contexts , 2011 .

[20]  Philippe Schlenker,et al.  Local Contexts , 2008 .

[21]  D. Fox.  Free Choice and the Theory of Scalar Implicatures , 2007 .

[22]  Daniel Büring,et al.  On D-Trees, Beans, And B-Accents , 2003 .

[23]  Danny Fox,et al.  Two short notes on Schlenker's theory of presupposition projection , 2008 .

[24]  David I. Beaver.  Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics , 2001 .

[25]  Raj Singh,et al.  On the interpretation of disjunction: asymmetric, incremental, and eager for inconsistency , 2008 .

[26]  Giorgio Magri.  Another argument for embedded scalar implicatures based on oddness in downward entailing environments , 2011 .

[27]  Mandy Simons,et al.  Issues in the semantics and pragmatics of disjunction , 1998 .

[28]  Irene Heim,et al.  Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs , 1992, J. Semant..

[29]  Michael Franke,et al.  Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation , 2011 .

[30]  Benjamin Spector.  Scalar Implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean Reasoning , 2004 .

[31]  Katrin Schulz,et al.  Exhaustive Interpretation of Complex Sentences , 2004, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[32]  Danny Fox,et al.  Presupposition projection from quantificational sentences: trivalence, local accommodation, and presupposition strengthening , 2013 .

[33]  Giorgio Magri.  A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures , 2009 .

[34]  LAURI KARTTUNEN,et al.  PRESUPPOSITION AND LINGUISTIC CONTEXT , 1974 .

[35]  Jae-Il Yeom,et al.  On Presupposition Projection , 2003 .

[36]  G. Chierchia,et al.  The Grammatical View of Scalar Implicatures and the Relationship between Semantics and Pragmatics , 2008 .

[37]  E. Chemla,et al.  Incremental vs. symmetric accounts of presupposition projection: an experimental approach , 2012 .

[38]  B. R. George,et al.  Presupposition Repairs : a Static , Trivalent Approach to Predicting Projection ∗ , 2008 .

[39]  D. Fox,et al.  On the characterization of alternatives , 2011 .

[40]  Dorit Abusch,et al.  Lexical Alternatives as a Source of Pragmatic Presuppositions , 2002 .

[41]  E. Chemla.  Similarity: towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection , 2008 .

[42]  Bart Geurts,et al.  Local satisfaction guaranteed: A presupposition theory and its problems , 1996 .

[43]  Marie-Christine Meyer.  Redundancy and Embedded Exhaustification , 2016 .