Similarity: towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection

I propose a new theory of scalar implicatures: the speaker should be in the same epistemic status with respect to alternatives obtained via similar transformations (e.g., replacements of a scalar items with various stronger items). This theory extends naturally to explain presupposition projection. Cases where scalar items and presupposition triggers co-occur are straightforwardly accounted for. The main focus is the unification between various phenomena: scalar implicatures, free choice effects and presupposition projection. Yet, the system can be split into independent proposals for each of these issues.

[1]  O. Nordenskiöld,et al.  The geography of the polar regions , 1928 .

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

[3]  Robert Stalnaker.  Presuppositions , 1973, J. Philos. Log..

[4]  R. A. Nelson,et al.  Common ground. , 2020, Lancet.

[5]  Donald Nute,et al.  Counterfactuals , 1975, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[6]  D. Nute.  Counterfactuals and the Similarity of Words , 1975 .

[7]  David Lewis,et al.  Possible-world semantics for counterfactual logics: A rejoinder , 1977, J. Philos. Log..

[8]  Gerald Gazdar,et al.  Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form , 1978 .

[9]  Gerald Gazdar,et al.  A solution to the projection problem , 1979 .

[10]  Gennaro Chierchia,et al.  Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics , 1990 .

[11]  Alexis Kalokerinos.  A natural history of negation , 1991 .

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

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

[14]  R. Schwarzschild.  Plurals, presuppositions and the sources of distributivity , 1993 .

[15]  David I. Beaver.  When Variables Don't Vary Enough , 1994 .

[16]  Fred Landman,et al.  Plurals and Maximalization , 1998 .

[17]  Robert Stalnaker,et al.  On the Representation of Context , 1996, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[18]  Christopher Gauker.  What Is a Context of Utterance? , 1998 .

[19]  B. Geurts.  Presuppositions and Pronouns , 1999 .

[20]  Bart Geurts.  Specifics , 1915, Buffalo medical journal.

[21]  木村 和夫.  Pragmatics , 1997, Language Teaching.

[22]  Focus and Presupposition in Multi-Speaker Discourse , 1999 .

[23]  T. Zimmermann.  Free Choice Disjunction and Epistemic Possibility , 2000 .

[24]  B. Abbott.  Presuppositions as nonassertions , 2000 .

[25]  Israel Kolvin,et al.  Critical Notice. , 2000, Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines.

[26]  Emiel Krahmer,et al.  A Partial Account of Presupposition Projection , 2001, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[27]  N. Kadmon,et al.  Formal Pragmatics: Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition, and Focus , 2001 .

[28]  Sigrid Beck.  Reciprocals are Definites , 2001 .

[29]  K. Fintel.  Would You Believe It? The King of France is Back! (Presuppositions and Truth-Value Intuitions) , 2001 .

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

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

[32]  Philippe Schlenker,et al.  Conditionals as Definite Descriptions , 2004 .

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

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

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

[36]  Anna Szabolcsi,et al.  Conjunction Meets Negation: A Study in Cross‐linguistic Variation , 2004, J. Semant..

[37]  Katrin Schulz,et al.  You May Read It Now Or Later: A Case Study on the Paradox of Free Choice Permission , 2004 .

[38]  Siobhan Chapman.  Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[39]  D. Abusch.  Triggering from alternative sets and projection of pragmatic presuppositions , 2005 .

[40]  M. Simons.  Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction , 2005 .

[41]  Bart Geurts,et al.  Exclusive disjunction without implicature , 2006 .

[43]  B. Geurts.  Implicatures without propositions , 2006 .

[44]  Benjamin Russell,et al.  Against Grammatical Computation of Scalar Implicatures , 2006, J. Semant..

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

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

[47]  Benjamin Spector.  Aspects of the Pragmatics of Plural Morphology: On Higher-Order Implicatures , 2007 .

[48]  Jan van Eijck,et al.  The Epistemics of Presupposition Projection , 2007 .

[49]  K. Maier.  INQUIRY , 2007 .

[50]  Robert van Rooij,et al.  Strengthening Conditional Presuppositions , 2007, J. Semant..

[51]  Raj Singh,et al.  Formal Alternatives as a Solution to the Proviso Problem , 2007 .

[52]  Emmanuel Chemla,et al.  An Epistemic Step for Anti-Presuppositions , 2007, J. Semant..

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

[54]  The Freedom of Authority , 2008 .

[55]  J. Gajewski,et al.  On the Calculation of Local Implicatures , 2008 .

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

[57]  G. Chierchia,et al.  HURFORD ’ S CONSTRAINT AND THE THEORY OF SCALAR IMPLICATURES : EVIDENCE FOR EMBEDDED IMPLICATURES ⇤ , 2009 .

[58]  E. Chemla.  Presuppositions of quantified sentences: experimental data , 2009 .