Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 19:4 (2014) ► pp.530–547

The emergence of implicit meaning

Scalar implicatures with some

| Université de Caen Basse-Normandie
| Université Laval
The purpose of this paper is to show how corpus data can contribute to assessing explicit hypotheses about natural language just as experimental protocols can. The particular hypotheses tested concern the source of generalised conversational implicatures with quantifier some. Is the “some and not all” meaning of some a default interpretation of this item or a requirement of certain contexts? The defaultist approach (Levinson 2000, Chierchia 2004) would predict a preponderance of implicatures in the uses of some, whereas the contextualist approach (Sperber & Wilson 1986; Carston 1988, 2002) would predict that the implicature be found only with identifiable contextual triggers. The analysis of attested usage from the Bergen Corpus of London Teenage English (COLT) is shown to invalidate the former and to support the latter hypothesis. The workings of conversational implicatures are argued to be better understandable through corpus investigation than by recourse to decontextualized, self-fabricated, stock examples.
Keywords: some, implicatures, contextualist approach, relevance theory
Published online: 25 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19.4.04lar
References (36)
Ariel, M. 2004. “Most”. Language, 80 (4), 658–706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breheny, R., Katsos, N. & Williams, J. 2006. “Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences”. Cognition, 100 (3), 434–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breheny, R. 2008. “A new look at the semantics and pragmatics of numerically quantified noun phrases”. Journal of Semantics, 25 (2), 93–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bultinck, B. 2005. Numerous Meanings. The Meaning of English Cardinals and the Legacy of Paul Grice. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Carston, R. 1988. “Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics”. In R.M. Kempson (Ed.), Mental Representations: The Interface Between Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 155–181.Google Scholar
. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapman, S. 2008. Language and Empiricism. After the Vienna Circle. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. 2004. “Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface”. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Duffley, P.J. & Larrivée, P. 2012. “Exploring the relation between the qualitative and quantitative uses of the determiner some ”. English Language and Linguistics 16 (1), 131–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, M. & Harnish, R.M. 2009. “Q-Phenomena, I-Phenomena and impliciture: Some experimental pragmatics”. International Review of Pragmatics, 1 (1), 84–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gennari, S.P. & MacDonald, M.C. 2006. “Acquisition of negation and quantification: Insights from adult production and comprehension”. In K. Drozd (Ed.), Special Issue of Language Acquisition, 13 (2), 125–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geurts, B. 2006. “Take ‘five’. The meaning and use of a number word”. In S. Vogeleer & L. Tasmowsky (Eds.), Non-definiteness and Plurality. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 311–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Scalar implicature and local pragmatics”. Mind and Language, 24 (1), 51–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geurts, B. & Pouscoulou, N. 2009. “Embedded implicatures?!?”. Semantics and Pragmatics, 2 (4), 1–34.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Metuki, N. & Stern, P. 2010. “Negation as a metaphor-inducing operator”. In L.R. Horn (Ed.), The Expression of Negation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 225–256.Google Scholar
Grice, H.P., 1975. “Logic and conversation”. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 31. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grodner, D.J., Klein, N.M., Carbary, K.M. & Tanenhaus, M.K. 2010. “Some, and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment”. Cognition, 116 (1), 42–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, L.R. 1972. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles.
. 2004. “Implicature”. L.R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 3–28.Google Scholar
Huang, Y.T. & Snedeker, J. 2009. “Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface”. Cognitive psychology, 58 (3), 376–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, K.M. 2006. “Defaults in semantics and pragmatics”. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: [URL] (accessed June 2014).
Landman, F. 2000. Events and Plurality. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I.A. & Sperber, D. 2007. “The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of ‘scalar inferences’”. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Advances in Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 184–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I.A. & Reboul, A. 2008. “Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12 (11), 425–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potts, C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Récanati, F. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (Ed.) 2008. Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A Mutualistic Entente. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sahlin, E. 1979. Some and Any in Spoken and Written English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. 2010. “Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition”. Lingua, 120 (10), 2444–2462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tottie, G. & Neukom-Hermann, A. 2010. “Quantifier-negation interaction in English: A corpus linguistic study of all… not constructions”. In L.R. Horn (Ed.), The Expression of Negation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 149–185.Google Scholar
Zondervan, A.J. 2010. Scalar Implicatures or Focus: An Experimental Approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht, Utrecht.
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Rahman, Abduwali & Zhenqian Liu
2023. The cognitive psychological distinctions between levels of meaning. Language Sciences 100 ► pp. 101583 ff. DOI logo
Duffley, Patrick & Pierre Larrivée
2019. The use ofanywith factive predicates. Linguistics 57:1 ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
Noveck, Ira
2018. Experimental Pragmatics, DOI logo
Grossman, Eitan & Ira Noveck
2015. What can historical linguistics and experimental pragmatics offer each other?. Linguistics Vanguard 1:1 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.