Upper-Bounded Scalars and Argumentation-in-Language Theory
Scalar implicatures, such as the ‘not all’-implicature attached to “some”, have been at the center of debates on the semantics-pragmatics interface ever since Horn (1972). The question is whether ‘not all’ is part of the semantics of “some” or rather pragmatically inferred in context. The latter the...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Presses Universitaires du Midi
2019-12-01
|
| Series: | Anglophonia |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.openedition.org/anglophonia/2580 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832579272384970752 |
|---|---|
| author | Laura Devlesschouwer |
| author_facet | Laura Devlesschouwer |
| author_sort | Laura Devlesschouwer |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Scalar implicatures, such as the ‘not all’-implicature attached to “some”, have been at the center of debates on the semantics-pragmatics interface ever since Horn (1972). The question is whether ‘not all’ is part of the semantics of “some” or rather pragmatically inferred in context. The latter theory, inspired by Grice’s (1975, 1989) work, is by far the more popular one. It analyzes scalars such as “some” as semantically lower-bounded, i.e. as meaning ‘at least some’. I will defend the view that “some” is both lower- and upper-bounded, i.e. on which “some” means ‘some, not all’. In order to do so, I will first propose a distinction between ‘upper bound’ and ‘scalar implicature’, following Ariel (2003, 2004, 2006, 2015). I will thereby defend the idea that scalars such as “some” are semantically upper-bounded, but not that scalar implicatures are semantic. Second, I will give an overview of the most cited arguments against ‘not all’-semantics for “some”: the entailment from “All…” to “Some…”, the non-redundancy of the expression “some, but not all”, the cancelability of scalar implicatures, and the non-paraphrasability of “some” as “some, but not all”. In the discussion of the non-redundancy argument, I will use Anscombre and Ducrot’s (1983) theory of ‘argumentation in language’, which has been largely ignored by pragmaticists working on scalar implicatures. This theory will also permit me to reanalyze some problematic examples presented by Ariel (2015) that have led her to conclude that scalar implicatures with “some” and “most” are rare. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-de028a3741bf487887c13d964fcfb9b6 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1278-3331 2427-0466 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2019-12-01 |
| publisher | Presses Universitaires du Midi |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Anglophonia |
| spelling | doaj-art-de028a3741bf487887c13d964fcfb9b62025-01-30T12:32:50ZengPresses Universitaires du MidiAnglophonia1278-33312427-04662019-12-012810.4000/anglophonia.2580Upper-Bounded Scalars and Argumentation-in-Language TheoryLaura DevlesschouwerScalar implicatures, such as the ‘not all’-implicature attached to “some”, have been at the center of debates on the semantics-pragmatics interface ever since Horn (1972). The question is whether ‘not all’ is part of the semantics of “some” or rather pragmatically inferred in context. The latter theory, inspired by Grice’s (1975, 1989) work, is by far the more popular one. It analyzes scalars such as “some” as semantically lower-bounded, i.e. as meaning ‘at least some’. I will defend the view that “some” is both lower- and upper-bounded, i.e. on which “some” means ‘some, not all’. In order to do so, I will first propose a distinction between ‘upper bound’ and ‘scalar implicature’, following Ariel (2003, 2004, 2006, 2015). I will thereby defend the idea that scalars such as “some” are semantically upper-bounded, but not that scalar implicatures are semantic. Second, I will give an overview of the most cited arguments against ‘not all’-semantics for “some”: the entailment from “All…” to “Some…”, the non-redundancy of the expression “some, but not all”, the cancelability of scalar implicatures, and the non-paraphrasability of “some” as “some, but not all”. In the discussion of the non-redundancy argument, I will use Anscombre and Ducrot’s (1983) theory of ‘argumentation in language’, which has been largely ignored by pragmaticists working on scalar implicatures. This theory will also permit me to reanalyze some problematic examples presented by Ariel (2015) that have led her to conclude that scalar implicatures with “some” and “most” are rare.https://journals.openedition.org/anglophonia/2580semantics-pragmatics interfaceargumentation in languagescalar implicaturescancelabilityargumentative scales |
| spellingShingle | Laura Devlesschouwer Upper-Bounded Scalars and Argumentation-in-Language Theory Anglophonia semantics-pragmatics interface argumentation in language scalar implicatures cancelability argumentative scales |
| title | Upper-Bounded Scalars and Argumentation-in-Language Theory |
| title_full | Upper-Bounded Scalars and Argumentation-in-Language Theory |
| title_fullStr | Upper-Bounded Scalars and Argumentation-in-Language Theory |
| title_full_unstemmed | Upper-Bounded Scalars and Argumentation-in-Language Theory |
| title_short | Upper-Bounded Scalars and Argumentation-in-Language Theory |
| title_sort | upper bounded scalars and argumentation in language theory |
| topic | semantics-pragmatics interface argumentation in language scalar implicatures cancelability argumentative scales |
| url | https://journals.openedition.org/anglophonia/2580 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT lauradevlesschouwer upperboundedscalarsandargumentationinlanguagetheory |