How and why conventional implicatures project

Conventional Implicatures (CIs; in the sense of Potts 2005 ) are part of a larger class of projection phenomena. These phenomena also include presuppositions and anaphora, and can described as content that is not at-issue (cf. Simons, Tonhauser, Beaver & Roberts 2010 ). Despite the shared property of projection, CIs differ from other projection phenomena with respect to the information status of their contribution. Presuppositions, for instance, refer to established, or old information, whereas CIs contribute novel information to the discourse, like at-issue content. Here, we propose a unidimensional analysis of CIs and at-issue content, which highlights the similarity in projection behaviour of CIs, presuppositions, and anaphora. This analysis treats CIs as ‘piggybacking’ on their anchor; they introduce an anaphoric dependency on the interpretation site of their anchor, while at the same time requiring their anchor to refer to a specific referent in the discourse context. CIs are thus elaborations on the description of the referent referred to by their anchor. This analysis of CIs is formalized in Projective Discourse Representation Theory (PDRT; Venhuizen, Bos & Brouwer 2013 ), a representational framework in which the property of projection is accounted for by explicitly distinguishing between the introduction and interpretation site of semantic content. Our formal analysis explains the interpretational differences between CIs, presuppositions, anaphora, and at-issue content, without stipulating a fundamental distinction between them.

[1]  Uwe Reyle,et al.  On Reasoning with Ambiguities , 1995, EACL.

[2]  K. Bach The Myth of Conventional Implicature , 1999 .

[3]  Bart Geurts,et al.  Layered Discourse Representation Theory , 2013 .

[4]  H. Kamp A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation , 2008 .

[5]  Siobhan Chapman Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

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

[7]  Todor Koev Two puzzles about appositives: Projection and perspective shift , 2013 .

[8]  Renata Vieira,et al.  A Corpus-based Investigation of Definite Description Use , 1997, CL.

[9]  Adrian Brasoveanu,et al.  Crossing the Appositive/At-issue Meaning Boundary , 2010 .

[10]  Johan Bos,et al.  Parsimonious Semantic Representations with Projection Pointers , 2013, IWCS.

[11]  Emar Maier,et al.  Presupposing acquaintance: a unified semantics for de dicto, de re and de se belief reports , 2009 .

[12]  James D. McCawley,et al.  The syntactic phenomena of English , 1988 .

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

[14]  R. Nouwen On appositives and dynamic binding , 2007 .

[15]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  Annotating, Extracting and Reasoning About Time and Events , 2005, Annotating, Extracting and Reasoning about Time and Events.

[16]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  Logics of Conversation , 2005, Studies in natural language processing.

[17]  Henk Zeevat,et al.  A Neoclassical Analysis of Belief Sentences , 1996 .

[18]  Christopher Potts The logic of conventional implicatures , 2004 .

[19]  Bart Geurts,et al.  Really fucking brilliant , 2007 .

[20]  I. I. N. Kamp Combining Montague Semantics and Discourse Representation , 1996 .

[21]  Uwe Reyle,et al.  37. Discourse Representation Theory , 2011 .

[22]  P. Schlenker Supplements without Bidimensionalism , 2021, Linguistic Inquiry.

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

[24]  Rick Nouwen,et al.  A Note on the Projection of Appositives , 2014 .

[25]  Nicholas Asher,et al.  Belief in discourse representation theory , 1986, J. Philos. Log..

[26]  E. Allyn Smith,et al.  Review of The Logic of Conventional Implicatures by Chris Potts , 2007 .

[27]  Johan Bos,et al.  Developing a large semantically annotated corpus , 2012, LREC.

[28]  Julie Hunter,et al.  Presuppositional Indexicals , 2013, J. Semant..

[29]  John Hoeks,et al.  Electrophysiological Research on Conversation and Discourse Processing , 2014 .

[30]  Uwe Reyle,et al.  From Discourse to Logic - Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory , 1993, Studies in linguistics and philosophy.