UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ THE LOGIC OF CONVENTIONAL IMPLICATURES A ...

165 Pages·2003·0.77 MB·English

UNIVERSITYofCALIFORNIA
SANTACRUZ
THELOGICOFCONVENTIONALIMPLICATURES
Adissertationsubmittedinpartialsatisfactionofthe
requirementsforthedegreeof
DOCTOROFPHILOSOPHY
in
LINGUISTICS
by
ChristopherPotts Copyright(cid:1)c by
June2003 ChristopherPotts
2003
TheDissertationofChristopherPottsisap-
proved:
ProfessorGeoffreyK.Pullum,Chair
ProfessorWilliamA.Ladusaw
ProfessorJamesMcCloskey
FrankTalamantes
ViceProvostandDeanofGraduateStudies
2 Alogicforconventionalimplicatures 56
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.2 Independenceoftruthvalues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.3 Ameaninglanguagedistinction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Contents
2.4 At-issueandCItypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.5 Linguisticmotivationforthelimitedsetoftypes. . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.5.1 At-issueneverappliestoCI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.5.2 CIneverappliestoCI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Abstract ix
2.6 Modesofcombination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Acknowledgements xi 2.6.1 Onenodestructures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.6.2 At-issuefunctionalapplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
1 Apreliminarycaseforconventionalimplicatures 1
2.6.3 At-issueintersection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
1.1 Afreshlookatanolddefinition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.6.4 CIapplication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
1.2 Abriefhistory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6.5 IsolatedCIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
1.3 FactualsupportforCIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.6.6 Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
1.3.1 Supplementalexpressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.6.7 Parsetreeinterpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
1.3.2 Expressives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.6.8 Insum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
1.4 Kindsofmeaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.7 Remarksonappealstoameaninglanguage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
1.4.1 CIsversusconversationalimplicatures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.8 Discoursestructures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
1.4.2 CIsversusat-issueentailments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.8.1 Thediscourselayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
1.4.3 CIsversuspresuppositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.8.2 Thelowerlayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
1.4.4 CIsversusintonationalmeanings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.8.3 Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
1.4.5 Closingremarksonkindsofmeaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.9 Theheritagefunction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
1.5 Chaptersummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
iii iv
2.10 The‘binding’problem(orvirtue). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 3.6.1 Theanchor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165
2.11 One-dimensionaltranslations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108 3.6.2 Theappositive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175
2.12 Anoteonresourcesensitivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 3.6.3 Commaintonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178
2.13 Chaptersummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116 3.6.4 Therearenoinvertedcases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
3.6.5 NAssummedup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185
3 Supplements 118
3.7 Supplementaryadverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .186
3.1 Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
3.7.1 Speaker-orientedadverbs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187
3.2 Somedescriptiveterminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122
3.7.2 Topic-orientedadverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192
3.2.1 Theterm‘supplement’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122
3.7.3 Utterance-modifiers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194
3.2.2 Thepiecesofnominalappositives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124
3.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203
3.2.3 Relativeclausenomenclature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125
3.3 Theanalysisinbrief. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129 4 Expressivecontent 205
3.4 Aconservativesyntax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137 4.1 Compositionanddenotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205
3.4.1 Adjacency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137 4.2 Aworkingdefinition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209
3.4.2 Right-adjunction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141 4.3 Expressiveadjectivesandepithets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212
3.4.3 Case-marking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141 4.3.1 Anundistinguishedsyntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .219
3.5 Basicsemanticproperties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147 4.3.2 Lexicalmeanings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222
3.5.1 Nondeniablemeanings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147 4.4 Quantifiersandavariableenvironmentdimension . . . . . . . . . . . .232
3.5.2 Antibackgrounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148 4.5 Ascope-shiftingalternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237
3.5.3 Nonrestrictiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149 4.6 HonorificsinJapanese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .241
3.5.4 Independenceofmeaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151 4.6.1 Argument-orientedhonorification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .243
3.5.5 Widest-scopeinterpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152 4.6.2 Performativehonorifics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .247
3.5.6 Definitesandindefinites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160 4.7 GermanKonjunktivI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .249
3.6 TheinternalstructureofNAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165 4.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258
v vi
5 Thesupplementrelation:Asyntacticanalysis 260 A.2.2 Semanticparsetrees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .300
5.1 Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .260 A.2.3 Semanticparsetreeinterpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .301
5.2 McCawley’s(1998)analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262 A.2.4 IntensionalmodelsforL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .301
CI
5.3 Thecoordinateinterpretedstructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .264 A.2.5 InterpretationforL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .302
CI
5.4 Thetransformationalmapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267 A.3 ThelogicL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .302
U
5.5 Thesurface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .269 A.3.1 SyntaxofL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .302
U
5.5.1 Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .270 A.3.2 Discoursestructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .304
5.5.2 Supplementsanddominance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .272 A.4 InterpretationforL andL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .305
CI U
5.5.3 Supplementsandthesupplementrelation . . . . . . . . . . . .275
Bibliography 318
5.5.4 Interpretingsupplementstructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .278
5.5.5 Insum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281
6 AlookoutsideGrice’sdefinition 282
6.1 Neighboringterritory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282
6.2 Minuslexicality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .283
6.3 Minuscommitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .284
6.4 Minusspeaker-orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .285
6.5 Minusmultidimensionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .290
6.6 Insum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .292
A ThelogicsL andL 293
CI U
A.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .293
A.2 ThelogicL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .294
CI
A.2.1 ThesyntaxofL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .294
CI
vii viii
Abstract structures.InthesettingofthelogicIdefine,conventional-implicaturecontentisoften
distinguishedsolelyinthemeaninglanguage. Thus,thefactsunderdiscussionseem
TheLogicofConventionalImplicatures
toprovidereasontoviewarepresentationallanguageformeaningsasanessentialpart
by
ofsemantictheory. Iclosebyaskingwhathappenswhenwemakeslightrevisionsto
ChristopherPotts Grice’sdefinition.Removingspeaker-orientationresultsinanotherrichclassofseman-
ticallymultidimensionalconstructions,includingmanythatwereoriginallyclassified
Thehistoryofconventionalimplicaturesisrocky,theircurrentstatusuncertain.Ireturn
asconventional-implicaturecontributors. Ishowthatthemeaninglanguagedefined
toGrice’s(1975)originaldefinitionwithaneyeopenfornovelsupport. Iarguethat,
hereyieldsatheoryofthemaswell.
evenwithouttextbookexamplessuchasthereforeandbut,conventionalimplicatures
wouldstillbewidelyattestedinnaturallanguage. Grice’sdefinitioncharacterizesa
classofspeaker-orientedcommitmentsthattracebacktoindividuallexicalitemsand
invariablyyieldsemanticmultidimensionality.Thesepropertiesunifythe(syntactically
diverse)factualdomain,whichdividesfairlyeasilyintotwobroadclasses:(i)supple-
ments,includingappositiverelatives,nominalappositives,As-parentheticals,speaker-
andtopic-orientedadverbs,andutterancemodifiers(chapter3);and(ii)expressives,in-
cludingadjectiveslikedamn,thedescriptivecontentofepithets,somekindsofsubjunc-
tivevoice,andhonorificationinJapanese(chapter4). Idefineahigher-orderlambda
calculusthatprovidesthetoolsweneedforformalizingGrice’sdefinitionandinturn
formodellingthemeaningsoftheexpressionsin(i)–(ii). Thelogic,whichextends
andsharpenstheinsightsofKarttunenandPeters(1979),imbuesthelabel‘conven-
tionalimplicature’withtheoreticalcontent. Thoughconsiderableattentionispaidto
themodel-theoreticaspectsoftheinvestigation,particularlyastheyrelatetotheformal
modellingofdiscourses,muchofthedissertationconcernsthenatureofnaturallan-
guagesemanticcomposition,whichwecanstudyindependentlyofaspecificclassof
Acknowledgements This dissertation was greatly improved by discussions with David Adger, Luis
Alonso-Ovalle,KentBach,ChrisBarker,BenCaplan,SandyChung,PatrickDavidson,
WhenwediscussedGrice’s‘Logicandconversation’inmyUCSCSemanticsIIclass
DonkaFarkas,KaivonFintel,LynFrazier,JamesIsaacs,PaulineJacobson,Shigeto
inthespringof2002,Ididmybesttododgequestionsaboutconventionalimplicatures.
Kawahara,ChrisKennedy,JohnKingston,AngelikaKratzer,AftonLewis,SallyMc-
Ifeltunsureofhowtoidentifytheminthewild,soIhopedthatabitoftalkaboutbut
Connell-Ginet,JasonMerchant,ØysteinNilsen,StanPeters,GillianRamchand,Tom
wouldsuffice.Butthestudents(particularlyLauraBuhl)persisted,inthatmischievous
Roeper,UliSauerland,BarrySchein,KenShan,YaelSharvit,PeggySpeas,RolySus-
waythatonlyintelligentundergraduateshave. Iwentofftotrytomakesenseofthe
sex,IdaToivonen,andaudiencesatUConn,NELS33,UMass,Amherst,andUSC.
scenemyself.Ayearlater,Ifeelpreparedtogivethelecturetheywereaskingfor.
IbecamealinguistasanNYUundergraduate,studyingunderPaulPostal. Ihope
Ididnotreachthispointalone.ItwasactuallyBillLadusawwhofirstpushedmein
thatmyworkcontinuestoshowPaul’sinfluence. LarryHutchinsonalsohelpedtoset
thedirectionofconventionalimplicatures,inthatmischievouswaythatonlyBillhas.
meoffintherightdirection(asdidthegiftofalibraryoflinguisticsbooksfromLarry
Hisinsightsandadviceledmetosomeofthemajorproposalsofthisdissertation,and
andDeirdreWheeler). DanielBu¨ringandJorgeHankamerwereearlyandimportant
I’llalwaysbegratefulforhisguidanceonhowbesttointerpretandpresentthematerial.
influencesformeinSantaCruz. SandyChungcanalwaysbecountedonfortough
Throughoutmytimeasagraduatestudent,Ibenefittedfromthewide-rangingex-
questions—andcontinuedencouragementwhennoanswersareforthcoming.
pertiseofJimMcCloskey.Duringdiscussionswithhim,Ienjoyedsomeunforgettable
ItiscertainthatIwouldnotbewithoutthehelpofmyparents.Iamgratefultothem,
‘Aha!’ moments,momentsthatmarkedmajorturningpointsinmywork. Forthese
tomysisterAli,andtomyGrandmaNancyfortheirsupportandencouragement.They
(amongmanyothers),Iowehimmydeepestthanks.
areallteachersinonewayoranother.Theyknowwhat’simportant.
AshAsudehreadandcommenteduponadraftofthisdissertationwithamixof
Finally,Iextendmymostheartfeltthankstomyadvisor,GeoffPullum. Ibegan
encouragementandincisivecriticism—thekindoffeedbackthatismostusefultoan
anglingforachancetoworkwithGeoffthemomentIarrivedinSantaCruz. Isoon
author. Hishelpleddirectlytomajorimprovements. AmongthemanyreasonsIam
learnedthatbig, ambitiousprojectsgethisattention, soIbotheredhimcontinually
gladthisworkiscompleteisthatIcannowturnmyattentiontothecollaborativework
withmajorresearchproposalsuntilhetookmeunderhiswing. Geoffintroducedme
heandIhavebeenplanningforsometime.
tomanyoftheconceptsandideasthatarenowattheheartofmyintellectuallife. No
IfeeltremendouslyluckytocountLineMikkelsenasafriendandcolleague(800+
onewhodidnotruntheBigSurMarathonin2003hashadamoreimportant,lasting
e-mailsandcounting). IwillmisshavingherasanofficemateandPogoniptrailmate.
influenceonmeasathinkerandhumanbeing.
It’samazinghowmuchintellectualgroundwe’vecoveredwhilewalking.
xi xii
beenquestioned.Bach(1999)mountsadirectassaultontheusualfactualbasis;many
otherworkingsemanticistsusetheterm‘conventionalimplicature’synonymouslywith
‘presupposition’,implicitlydenyingtheneedforadescriptiveortheoreticaldistinction.
Thus,itiscrucialtopresentarichbodyofevidenceforCIs.Butitisequallyimportant
Chapter 1
toaccompanythisevidencewithargumentsthatnootherclassificationsuffices.These
arethedescriptivetasksathand,andtheyrightlyoccupymuchofthepresentwork.
Thedescriptionisinformedthroughoutbyatype-drivenmultidimensionalsemantic
A preliminary case for conventional
translationlanguage,thebasisformytheoryofCIs.IventurethatpartofthereasonCIs
havereceivedshortshriftfromsemanticistsisthatfewattemptshavebeenmadetopro-
implicatures
videatheoreticalimplementation.Alinguiststudyingpresuppositions,conversational
implicatures,orintonationalmeaningshasawealthofdescriptionlogicsavailableto
useandassess.But‘conventionalimplicature’isusuallyjustalabel.Itlacksbite;only
1.1 Afreshlookatanolddefinition whensupportedbyalogicalsystemcanitbesaidtomakepredictions.Forthisreason,
chapter2ispivotal. Itprovidesanexplicitdescriptionlogicandrelatesittofamiliar
Thehistoryofconventionalimplicaturesisrocky,theircurrentstatusuncertain. Soit conceptsfromcurrentsemantictheories.
seemswisetoreturntotheirsourceandstartfresh,withanopen-mindedreadingofthe TheevidenceforCIsisdrawnfromdiverseareasofnaturallanguagesemantics,
originaldefinition(Grice1975)andaneyeopenfornovelfactualsupport.Supposethe roughlydivisibleintotwosuperclasses: supplementalexpressions(appositives, par-
textbookexamples(therefore,even,butanditssynonyms)disappeared.Wherewould entheticals)andexpressives(e.g.,epithets,honorifics). Iprovidesomerepresentative
conventionalimplicaturesbethen?Thisdissertation’sprimarydescriptiveclaimisthat examplesin(1.1).
theywouldstillenjoywidespreadfactualsupport. Imatchthiswithatheoreticalpro-
posal:ifwemovejustafewyearsforwardfromthegenesisofCIs,wefindinKarttunen
andPeters’(1979)multidimensionalsemanticsthebasisforanidealdescriptionlogic.
AsuccessfulcaseforCIsissuretobehardwon, sincetheirveryexistencehas
1 2
(1.1) supplements controversialpropositionsorcarrythemainthemesofadiscourse. Rather,CIexpres-
sionsareusedtoguidethediscourseinaparticulardirectionortohelpthehearerto
a. “I spent part of every summer until I was ten with my grandmother,
wholivedinaworking-classsuburbofBoston.”1 betterunderstandwhytheat-issuecontentisimportantatthatstage. Forinstance,ifI
(supplementaryrelative)
utter(1.3),myprimaryintentionistoarriveataninformationstatethatentailsthetruth
b. “Afterfirstagreeingtolendmeamodemtotest,Motorolachangedits
mindandsaidthat,amazingly,ithadnonetospare.”2 ofthepropositionthatEd’sclaimishighlycontroversial.
(speaker-orientedadverb)
(1.3) Ed’sclaim,whichisbasedonextensiveresearch,ishighlycontroversial.
(1.2) expressives
a. “Weboughtanewelectricclothesdryer,andIthoughtalltherewasto WiththeCIcontentexpressedbythesupplementaryrelative,Iprovideaclueastohow
itwaspluggingitinandconnectingtheventhose. Nowherediditsay
thatthedamnthingdidn’tcomewithanelectricplug!”3 theinformationshouldbereceived. Thisexampleisfelicitousinasituationinwhich,
(expressiveattributiveadjective) forexample,Iwanttoconveytomyaudiencethatthecontroversyshouldnotnecessary
b. saamiha-l-maZduub n@se l-mawQad
scareusawayfromEd’sproposal—afterall,itisextensivelyresearched. OrImight
Sami 3-the-idiot.SMforgot.3SMthe-appointment
‘Sami,thisidiot,forgottheappointment.’ (Aounetal.2001:385,(37a))
usetheexamplewithagroupofdetractorsfromEd’sclaim. Thenthesupplementary
(LebaneseArabicepithet)
c. Yamadasensei-ga o-warai-ni nat-ta. relativecouldindicatethatwecannotexpecttodispelEd’sclaimsolelyonthebasisof
Yamadateacher-NOMHON-laugh-DATbe-PERF itscontroversialnature.
‘ProfessorYamadalaughed.’ (Shibatani1978:54,citedinToribio
1990:539) Expressivecontentisusedinessentiallythesameway. Thoughwewillseethat
(Japanesesubjecthonorific)
expressivesandsupplementsdifferinimportantrespects,theirdiscoursefunctionsare
EachconstructionprovidesanovelsettinginwhichtoexploretheCIhypothesisand closelyrelated. Forinstance,(1.4)wouldtakeustoaninformationstateinwhichthe
evaluatesyntacticandsemanticalternatives.Twogeneralnotionsunifythefactualdo- speakermustmowthelawn; damn’scontentwouldletusknowthatthespeakeris
main:thesemeaningsarespeaker-orientedentailmentsandindependentoftheat-issue displeasedbythisobligation.
entailments. I use ‘at-issue entailment’ as a coverterm for regular asserted content
(1.4) Ihavetomowthedamnlawn.
(‘whatissaid’,inGrice’sterms). ‘At-issueentailment’setsupausefulcontrastwith
Thus,welearnnotonlythatthespeakermustmowthelawn,butthatwewoulddowell
CIs,whicharesecondaryentailmentsthatcooperativespeakersrarelyusetoexpress
nottoreplywithanearnestandsincere“Oh,Ienvyyou”;thisuseofdamnsuggeststhat
1Thurman,Judith.Doingitintheroad.TheNewYorker,June10,2002(p.86).
2<http://www.hamline.edu/apakabar/basisdata/1997/03/21/0066.html> thediscourseshouldheadinadirectioninwhichlawn-mowingisviewednegatively.
3<http://jjdavis.net/blog/arc20010325.html>
3 4
Theeffectthatdamnhasonthisdiscourseisapproximatelythatofthesupplemen- withdiverseenoughtypestoisolateCIs.
taryrelativeinIhavetomowthelawn,whichIhatedoing.Sincethelogicpresentedin
chapter2assignssupplementsandexpressivesthesamekindofcompositionscheme, 1.2 Abriefhistory
wehaveallthetoolsweneedtostatethesepragmaticgeneralizationsprecisely.
Notably,nohighlightedexpressionintheclassrepresentedby(1.1)–(1.2)makesa Conventionalimplicatureswerebornintoneglect.Grice(1975)advancedthetermand
nontrivialat-issuecontribution.Forinstance,removingdamnfrom(1.2a)hasnoeffect adefinition, butonlysothathecouldsetsuchmeaningsaside. In‘Logicandcon-
ontheat-issuepropositionexpressedbyitsfinalsentence.Ibelievethisisnonacciden- versation’,heisconcernedtoderiveconversationalimplicaturesfromthecooperative
tal,andsoformulateitasageneralizationtobecapturedbythedescriptionlogicfor principleandthemaximsofconversation. Inanearlypassage,heacknowledgesthat
CIs: CIsfalloutsidetheboundsofthispragmatictheory,inlargepartbecausetheyrepre-
sentarbitraryfeaturesofindividuallexicalitems.Thereisthusnohopeofcalculating
(1.5) Nolexicalitemcontributesbothanat-issueandaCImeaning.
theirpresenceornaturebasedongeneralprinciplesofcooperativesocialinteraction.
Thisislikelytoprovecontroversial. ItexcludesbutfromtheclassofCIs,sincethat
Thepassage’smainpurposeistodisposeofaclassofmeaningsthathewishesnotto
itemhastheat-issuemeaningofandandapurportedCIdimensioncontrastingtwo
discuss.
properties. But Bach (1999) make a compelling case thatbuthas entirely at-issue
Thepassageisnonethelesspotentiallyexciting. AsIsaid, itdrawsarestrictive
content. Istrengthenthecaseinsection1.4.5below; chapter6addressesingreater
boundaryaround(Grice’s(1975))pragmatictheory,placingCIssquarelyoutsideofit.
depththekindofmultidimensionalmeaningthatbutdetermines.
Moreimportantly,itprovidessometerminologyfortalkingaboutaclassofexpressions
Thisintroductorychapterbeginswithacriticaloverviewoftheearlyhistoryof
thatpermitspeakerstocommentupontheirassertions,todoabitofeditorializingin
conventionalimplicatures(section1.2).Ithenmovetoaseriesofbriefintroductionsto
themidstofaskingquestionsandimposingdemands. Suchexpressionsareboundto
theconstructionsthatmotivateCIsinthisdissertation. Becausetheyarelittlestudied
besignificant,bothforwhattheytellusabouthownaturallanguagesemantictheory
atpresent, itisnecessarytoestablishsometerminologyandjustifycertaindistinc-
shouldlookandforwhattheycantellusabouthowspeakersusetheirlanguages.Thus,
tionsamongexpression-types. Thesebriefremarksenrichsection1.4,whichmoves
itisworthpullingthepassageapart,literallyandconceptually,inordertoisolateits
systematicallythroughthekindsofmeaningincurrenttheories,supportingarangeof
maininsights.Thefollowingseriesofquotationscomesfromasingleparagraphearly
descriptivegeneralizationsthatjustifytheindependenceofCIsfromallofthem.
inGrice1975.
Theformalizationbeginsinchapter2withthepresentationofalambdacalculus
5 6
(1.6) “Insomecases,theconventionalmeaningofthewordsusedwilldetermine ments,whereasconversationalimplicaturesarenot—theyarecontext-dependentand
whatisimplicated,besideshelpingtodeterminewhatissaid.”(p.44)
alwaysnegotiable. IfIsay,“Eddiehasthreebicycles”,Iconversationallyimplicate
Thephrase“theconventionalmeaningofthewords”isthecruxofthisstatement,since that,foranyngreaterthan3,itisfalsethatEddiehasnbicycles.Butthisisnotacom-
it locates CIs in the lexicon. The ‘conventional’ part of ‘conventional implicature’ mitment;Icouldfelicitouslycontinue,“Hey,let’sbehonest: Eddiehastenbicycles.
standsinfor‘notcalculablefromtheconversationalmaximsandthecooperativeprin- He’sabikejunky”. CIspermitnosuchcancellation;followinganyofthesentences
ciple’.Thisisinitial(andcompelling)motivationforadividinglinebetweenthephe- in(1.1)–(1.2)withadenialofthecontentofthehighlightedexpressionresultsinan
nomenathatpragmaticprinciplesshouldcover(conversationalimplicatures)andthose incoherentdiscourse.Inthissense,CIspatternwithat-issueentailments.
thattheycannot(CIs,amongothers). ButGricetakesstepstodistinguishCIsfromat-issueentailmentsaswell:
Onecanandshouldrefine(1.6): manyexpressionsharborcontentthatdoesnot (1.8) “ButwhileIhavesaidthatheisanEnglishmanandsaidthatheisbrave,I
donotwanttosaythatIhavesaid(inthefavoredsense)thatitfollowsfrom
reduce to at-issue entailments, presuppositions, intonational meanings, or conversa-
hisbeinganEnglishmanthatheisbrave,thoughIhavecertainlyindicated,
tionalimplicatures.Thename‘conventionalimplicature’isausefulcovertermforthis andsoimplicated,thatthisisso. Idonotwanttosaythatmyutteranceof
thissentencewouldbe, strictlyspeaking, falseshouldtheconsequencein
morearticulatedcharacterization,andGrice’sdescriptionmatchesthefactsdiscussed
questionfailtohold.”(p.44–45)
here. Thoughthedescriptiveandlogicalworkofthisdissertationiseasilydivorced
Innouncertainterms,GricedefinesCIsasdisjointfromat-issueentailments.Itakese-
fromGrice’sterminology,Imaintainthattheconnectionisimportant. Hisdefinition
riouslytheintuitionexpressedin(1.8),whichisasuitablearticulationoftheuneasiness
isessentialtoseeingthattheconstructionsdiscussedinthisdissertationareunifiedin
onehasaboutthesemanticvalueofanutterancecontainingafalseorinappropriatecon-
significantways. WhileIbelievethatthe‘implicature’partof‘conventionalimplica-
ventionalimplicature.Onceitisaccepted(followingJackendoff(1972),Bellert(1977),
ture’isunfortunate,andthatGricefailedtolocatetheproperfactualbasisforCIs,this
andBach(1999))thatsomesentencescanexpressmultiple,nonconjoinedpropositions,
dissertation’scentralthemesnonethelesstracebacktohiswork.
Grice’sintuitioncanbemadepreciseandformallyimplemented.
Grice’spassagecontinueswithanexample:
ThepassagealsorelativizesCIcontenttothespeakeroftheutteranceinquestion
(1.7) “IfIsay(smugly),HeisanEnglishman;heis,therefore,brave,Ihavecer- (thisisnotedalsobyChierchiaandMcConnell-Ginet(1990:§6.4.3),thoughtheyread
tainlycommittedmyself,byvirtueofthemeaningofmywords,toitsbeing
thecasethathisbeingbraveisaconsequenceof(followsfrom)hisbeingan thepassagesomewhatdifferently).Thistooisasignificantaspectoftheargumentfor
Englishman.”(p.44)
CIs. AllgenuineexamplesofCIsinvolveacontributionthatthespeakermakestoan
Thispassageagainsetsupacontrastwithconversationalimplicatures. CIsareentail- utterance. Theyarespeaker-orientedcommentsonasemanticcore(at-issueentail-
7 8