UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ THE LOGIC OF CONVENTIONAL IMPLICATURES A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in LINGUISTICS by Christopher Potts Copyright c by June 2003 Christopher Potts 2003 The Dissertation of Christopher Potts is ap- proved: Professor Geoffrey K. Pullum, Chair Professor William A. Ladusaw Professor James McCloskey Frank Talamantes Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies 2 A logic for conventional implicatures 56 2.1 Introduction . .............................. 56 2.2 Independence of truth values . ...................... 59 2.3 A meaning language distinction . .................. 62 Contents 2.4 At-issue and CI types . .......................... 68 2.5 Linguistic motivation for the limited set of types . .......... 72 2.5.1 At-issue never applies to CI . .................. 73 2.5.2 CI never applies to CI ...................... 76 Abstract ix 2.6 Modes of combination .......................... 79 Acknowledgements xi 2.6.1 One node structures . ...................... 80 2.6.2 At-issue functional application .................. 81 1 A preliminary case for conventional implicatures 1 2.6.3 At-issue intersection . ...................... 82 1.1 A fresh look at an old definition . .................. 1 2.6.4 CI application . .......................... 83 1.2 A brief history . .............................. 6 2.6.5 Isolated CIs . .......................... 84 1.3 Factual support for CIs .......................... 12 2.6.6 Features .............................. 85 1.3.1 Supplemental expressions . .................. 12 2.6.7 Parsetree interpretation ...................... 87 1.3.2 Expressives . .......................... 17 2.6.8 In sum .............................. 89 1.4 Kinds of meaning . .......................... 25 2.7 Remarks on appeals to a meaning language . .............. 90 1.4.1 CIs versus conversational implicatures .............. 30 2.8 Discourse structures . .......................... 96 1.4.2 CIs versus at-issue entailments .................. 37 2.8.1 The discourse layer . ...................... 96 1.4.3 CIs versus presuppositions . .................. 39 2.8.2 The lower layer .......................... 98 1.4.4 CIs versus intonational meanings . .............. 46 2.8.3 Interpretation . .......................... 99 1.4.5 Closing remarks on kinds of meaning .............. 48 2.9 The heritage function . ..........................102 1.5 Chapter summary . .......................... 54 iii iv 2.10 The ‘binding’ problem (or virtue) . ..................104 3.6.1 The anchor . ..........................165 2.11 One-dimensional translations . ......................108 3.6.2 The appositive ..........................175 2.12 A note on resource sensitivity . ......................111 3.6.3 Comma intonation . ......................178 2.13 Chapter summary . ..........................116 3.6.4 There are no inverted cases . ..................183 3.6.5 NAs summed up . ......................185 3 Supplements 118 3.7 Supplementary adverbs ..........................186 3.1 Remarks ..................................118 3.7.1 Speaker-oriented adverbs . ..................187 3.2 Some descriptive terminology ......................122 3.7.2 Topic-oriented adverbs ......................192 3.2.1 The term ‘supplement’ ......................122 3.7.3 Utterance-modifiers . ......................194 3.2.2 The pieces of nominal appositives . ..............124 3.8 Conclusion . ..............................203 3.2.3 Relative clause nomenclature . ..................125 3.3 The analysis in brief . ..........................129 4 Expressive content 205 3.4 A conservative syntax . ..........................137 4.1 Composition and denotation . ......................205 3.4.1 Adjacency . ..........................137 4.2 A working definition . ..........................209 3.4.2 Right-adjunction . ......................141 4.3 Expressive adjectives and epithets . ..................212 3.4.3 Case-marking . ..........................141 4.3.1 An undistinguished syntax . ..................219 3.5 Basic semantic properties . ......................147 4.3.2 Lexical meanings . ......................222 3.5.1 Nondeniable meanings ......................147 4.4 Quantifiers and a variable environment dimension . ..........232 3.5.2 Antibackgrounding . ......................148 4.5 A scope-shifting alternative . ......................237 3.5.3 Nonrestrictiveness . ......................149 4.6 Honorifics in Japanese ..........................241 3.5.4 Independence of meaning . ..................151 4.6.1 Argument-oriented honorification . ..............243 3.5.5 Widest-scope interpretation . ..................152 4.6.2 Performative honorifics ......................247 3.5.6 Definites and indefinites . ..................160 4.7 German Konjunktiv I . ..........................249 3.6 The internal structure of NAs . ......................165 4.8 Conclusion . ..............................258 v vi 5 The supplement relation: A syntactic analysis 260 A.2.2 Semantic parsetrees . ......................300 5.1 Remarks ..................................260 A.2.3 Semantic parsetree interpretation . ..............301 5.2 McCawley’s (1998) analysis . ......................262 A.2.4 Intensional models for LCI ....................301 5.3 The coordinate interpreted structure . ..................264 A.2.5 Interpretation for LCI .......................302 5.4 The transformational mapping ......................267 A.3 The logic LU ...............................302 5.5 The surface . ..............................269 A.3.1 Syntax of LU ...........................302 5.5.1 Trees . ..............................270 A.3.2 Discourse structures . ......................304 5.5.2 Supplements and dominance . ..................272 A.4 Interpretation for LCI and LU .......................305 5.5.3 Supplements and the supplement relation . ..........275 Bibliography 318 5.5.4 Interpreting supplement structures . ..............278 5.5.5 In sum ..............................281 6 A look outside Grice’s definition 282 6.1 Neighboring territory . ..........................282 6.2 Minus lexicality ..............................283 6.3 Minus commitment . ..........................284 6.4 Minus speaker-orientation . ......................285 6.5 Minus multidimensionality . ......................290 6.6Insum...................................292 A The logics LCI and LU 293 A.1 Overview . ..............................293 A.2 The logic LCI ...............................294 A.2.1 The syntax of LCI .........................294 vii viii Abstract structures. In the setting of the logic I define, conventional-implicature content is often distinguished solely in the meaning language. Thus, the facts under discussion seem The Logic of Conventional Implicatures to provide reason to view a representational language for meanings as an essential part by of semantic theory. I close by asking what happens when we make slight revisions to Christopher Potts Grice’s definition. Removing speaker-orientation results in another rich class of seman- tically multidimensional constructions, including many that were originally classified The history of conventional implicatures is rocky, their current status uncertain. I return as conventional-implicature contributors. I show that the meaning language defined to Grice’s (1975) original definition with an eye open for novel support. I argue that, here yields a theory of them as well. even without textbook examples such as therefore and but, conventional implicatures would still be widely attested in natural language. Grice’s definition characterizes a class of speaker-oriented commitments that trace back to individual lexical items and invariably yield semantic multidimensionality. These properties unify the (syntactically diverse) factual domain, which divides fairly easily into two broad classes: (i) supple- ments, including appositive relatives, nominal appositives, As-parentheticals, speaker- and topic-oriented adverbs, and utterance modifiers (chapter 3); and (ii) expressives, in- cluding adjectives like damn, the descriptive content of epithets, some kinds of subjunc- tive voice, and honorification in Japanese (chapter 4). I define a higher-order lambda calculus that provides the tools we need for formalizing Grice’s definition and in turn for modelling the meanings of the expressions in (i)–(ii). The logic, which extends and sharpens the insights of Karttunen and Peters (1979), imbues the label ‘conven- tional implicature’ with theoretical content. Though considerable attention is paid to the model-theoretic aspects of the investigation, particularly as they relate to the formal modelling of discourses, much of the dissertation concerns the nature of natural lan- guage semantic composition, which we can study independently of a specific class of Acknowledgements This dissertation was greatly improved by discussions with David Adger, Luis Alonso-Ovalle, Kent Bach, Chris Barker, Ben Caplan, Sandy Chung, Patrick Davidson, When we discussed Grice’s ‘Logic and conversation’ in my UCSC Semantics II class Donka Farkas, Kai von Fintel, Lyn Frazier, James Isaacs, Pauline Jacobson, Shigeto in the spring of 2002, I did my best to dodge questions about conventional implicatures. Kawahara, Chris Kennedy, John Kingston, Angelika Kratzer, Afton Lewis, Sally Mc- I felt unsure of how to identify them in the wild, so I hoped that a bit of talk about but Connell-Ginet, Jason Merchant, Øystein Nilsen, Stan Peters,