Logical Integrity

Anvari, Akbar

doi:10.3765/salt.v28i0.4419

Cited by 9 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…up presupposed as a result of applying EXH -if q is satisfied in c, then the PIP will generate the conflicting ignorance inference ¬ CG(q), from which infelicity should follow. In the next subsection, we turn to the challenge to presupposition satisfaction and the proposal by Anvari (2018Anvari ( , 2019.…”

Section: (7)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another challenge comes from the observation that MP-like effects may arise even though the stronger presupposition of the competing alternative is not satisfied in context, an observation originally from Percus 2010 and recently extended in Anvari 2018Anvari , 2019. This observation directly challenges another key ingredient of MP, the requirement that the presupposition of the competitor be satisfied in the context.…”

Section: The Challenge To Presupposition Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the basis of cases like (13), among others, Anvari (2019) proposes to replace MP with a different principle, which he dubs Logical Integrity (LI henceforth). In fact, LI is a generalisation which aims at capturing the unacceptability of a variety of sentences, some of which were previously captured by MP or the PIP.…”

Section: The Challenge To Presupposition Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the initial analysis of the motivating cases in (1)-(2), MP has been successfully applied to a variety of phenomena, and the classical picture sketched above has been extended and implemented in different versions (a.o., Percus 2006Percus , 2010Sauerland 2008;Chemla 2008;Schlenker 2012;Katzir and Singh 2013;Rouillard and Schwarz 2017;Magri 2009;Marty 2017;Anvari 2019). Crucially, most (if not all) of its reformulations thus far have retained the three key ingredients of the classical formulation in (3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These data appear very similar to the ones licensed by MP on the received view, yet they are unexpectedly infelicitous. To accommodate these data, some researchers have proposed to relax the restrictions on the scope of phenomena MP was held to apply to: on their view, the competition in question should be extended to sentences which are not contextually equivalent (Spector and Sudo 2017) and whose presuppositions are not satisfied in the context (Anvari 2018(Anvari , 2019.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Presuppositions, implicatures, and contextual equivalence

Marty

Romoli

2021

Nat Lang Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maximize Presupposition! (MP), as originally proposed in Heim (Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, pp. 487–535, 1991) and developed in subsequent works, offers an account of the otherwise mysterious unassertability of a variety of sentences. At the core of MP is the idea that speakers are urged to use a sentence ψ over a sentence ϕ if ψ contributes the same new information as ϕ, yet carries a stronger presupposition. While MP has been refined in many ways throughout the years, most (if not all) of its formulations have retained this characterisation of the MP-competition. Recently, however, the empirical adequacy of this characterisation has been questioned in light of certain newly discovered cases that are infelicitous, despite meeting MP-competition conditions. This has led some researchers to broaden the scope of MP, extending it to competition between sentences which are not contextually equivalent (Spector and Sudo in Linguistics and Philosophy 40(5):473–517, 2017) and whose presuppositions are not satisfied in the context (Anvari in Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 28, pp. 711–726, 2018; Manuscript, IJN-ENS, 2019). In this paper, we present a body of evidence showing that these formulations of MP are sometimes too liberal, sometimes too restrictive: they overgenerate infelicity for a variety of felicitous cases while leaving the infelicity of minimally different cases unaccounted for. We propose an alternative, implicature-based approach stemming from Magri (PhD dissertation, MIT, 2009), Meyer (PhD dissertation, MIT, 2013), and Marty (PhD dissertation, MIT, 2017), which reintroduces contextual equivalence and presupposition satisfaction in some form through the notion of relevance. This approach is shown to account for the classical and most of the novel cases. Yet some of the latter remain problematic for this approach as well. We end the paper with a systematic comparison of the different approaches to MP and MP-like phenomena, covering both the classical and the novel cases. All in all, the issue of how to properly restrict the competition for MP-like phenomena remains an important challenge for all accounts in the literature.

show abstract

Section: (7)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Challenge To Presupposition Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Challenge To Presupposition Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Presuppositions, implicatures, and contextual equivalence

Marty

Romoli

2021

Nat Lang Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Presupposed free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures

Marty

Romoli

2021

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A disjunctive sentence like Olivia took Logic or Algebra conveys that Olivia didn’t take both classes (exclusivity) and that the speaker doesn’t know which of the two classes she took (ignorance). The corresponding sentence with a possibility modal, Olivia can take Logic or Algebra, conveys instead that she can take Logic and that she can take Algebra (free choice). These exclusivity, ignorance and free choice inferences are argued by many to be scalar implicatures. Recent work has looked at cases in which exclusivity and ignorance appear to be computed instead at the presupposition level, independently from the assertion. On the basis of those data, Spector and Sudo (Linguist Philos 40(5):473–517, 2017) have argued for a hybrid account relying on a pragmatic principle for deriving implicatures in the presupposition. In this paper, we observe that a sentence like Noah is unaware that Olivia can take Logic or Algebra has a reading on which free choice appears in the presupposition, but not in the assertion, and we show that deriving this reading is challenging on Spector and Sudo’s (2017) hybrid account. Following the dialectic in Fox (Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, Palgrave, London, pp 71–120, 2007), we argue against a pragmatic approach to presupposition-based implicatures on the ground that it is not able to account for presupposed free choice. In addition, we raise a novel challenge for Spector and Sudo’s (2017) account coming from the conflicting presupposed ignorance triggered by sentences like #Noah is unaware that I have a son or a daughter, which is infelicitous even if it’s not common knowledge whether the speaker has a son or a daughter. More generally, our data reveals a systematic parallelism between the assertion and presupposition levels in terms of exclusivity, ignorance, and free choice. We argue that such parallels call for a unified analysis and we sketch how a grammatical theory of implicatures where meaning strengthening operates in a similar way at both levels (Gajewski and Sharvit in Nat Lang Semant 20(1):31–57, 2012; Magri in A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures, MIT dissertation, 2009; Marty in Implicatures in the DP domain, MIT dissertation, 2017) can account for such parallels.

show abstract

Iconic presuppositions

Schlenker

2020

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why are some linguistic inferences treated as presuppositions? This is the 'Triggering Problem', which we attack from a new angle: we investigate highly iconic constructions in gestures (speech-replacing gestures or 'pro-speech gestures') and in signs (classifier predicates in ASL) and show that some regularly trigger presuppositions. These iconic constructions can be created and understood 'on the fly', with two advantages over lexical words: they suggest the existence of a productive 'triggering algorithm', since presuppositions can arguably be generated with no prior exposure to the iconic construction; and they make it possible to minimally modify the target constructions to determine which do and which don't generate presuppositions. Our investigation does not just target standard presuppositions, but also 'cosuppositions', initially defined as conditionalized presuppositions triggered by co-speech gestures. We show that pro-speech gestures and classifier predicates alike can trigger cosuppositions, which are thus an inferential class that goes beyond the confines of co-speech gestures (Aristodemo 2017). Our data argue for a triggering algorithm that can generate presuppositions on iconic grounds, and we offer a generalization of cosupposition theory on which these can be triggered for reasons of manner (co-speech gestures), but also for conceptual reasons.

show abstract

Logical Integrity

Cited by 9 publications

References 7 publications

Presuppositions, implicatures, and contextual equivalence

Presuppositions, implicatures, and contextual equivalence

Presupposed free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures

Iconic presuppositions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About