Cover not available
Part of
Semantics in Language Acquisition
Edited by Kristen Syrett and Sudha Arunachalam
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 24] 2018
► pp. 301–324

Chapter 13
Developmental insights into gappy phenomena

Comparing presupposition, implicature, homogeneity, and vagueness

| Western Sydney University | Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University
| Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University
| University of Pennsylvania
| Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University | Ulster University
| University of Pennsylvania
In natural language, we encounter various sentence types that, under certain circumstances, are evaluated as neither true nor false. For instance, it is intuitively difficult to assess the truth value of a sentence whose presupposition is not satisfied in the context. A common theoretical approach is to characterize the status of such sentences with a third value of one kind or another. In this chapter, we consider children’s acquisition of four linguistic phenomena that can give rise to ‘gappy’ judgments that correspond neither to True nor False: scalar implicature, presupposition, homogeneity, and vagueness. We discuss how young children’s interpretations of such sentences can provide insight into how these phenomena should be treated within semantic theories.
Keywords: scalar implicature, presupposition, homogeneity, vagueness, truth value gaps
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The phenomena
    • 1.2The starting point
  • 2.Presupposition and implicature
    • 2.1Theoretical background
    • 2.2Experiment: Bill, Romoli, Schwarz, & Crain (2016)
    • 2.3Implications
  • 3.Homogeneity and implicature
    • 3.1Theoretical background
    • 3.2Experiment: Tieu, Križ & Chemla (2015)
    • 3.3Implications
  • 4.Presupposition and vagueness
    • 4.1Theoretical background
    • 4.2Experimental background
    • 4.3Potential insights from acquisition
  • 5.General discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.24.13tie
References (54)
References
Abusch, D. (2002). Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presupposition. In B. Jackson (Ed.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 12 (pp. 1–19).Google Scholar
(2010). Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics, 27(1), 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaver, D., & Geurts, B. (to appear). Presuppositions. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 3). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logo
Bill, C., Romoli, J., Schwarz, F., & Crain, S. (2016). Scalar implicatures versus presuppositions: The view from acquisition. In Presuppositions: Philosophy, linguistics, and psychology. Special issue of Topoi, 35(1), 57–71.Google Scholar
Breheny, R. (2005). Exhaustivity, homogeneity, and definiteness. In P. Dekker & M. Franke (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 59–65).Google Scholar
Büring, D., & Križ, M. (2013). It’s that and that’s it! Exhaustivity and homogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites). Semantics & Pragmatics, 6(6), 1–29.Google Scholar
Caponigro, I., Pearl, L., Brooks, N., & Barner, D. (2012). Acquiring the meaning of free relative clauses and plural definite descriptions. Journal of Semantics, 29, 261–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chemla, E. (2009). Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission, and presupposition projection (Unpublished manuscript). LSCP.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2011). The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 3). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Investigations in Universal Grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cremers, A., Križ, M., & Chemla, E. (2015). Probability judgments of gappy sentences (Unpublished manuscript). Ecole Normale Supérieure.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (1975). Vagueness, truth and logic. Synthese, 30(3–4), 265–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, D. (2007). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics (pp. 71–120). Houndmills: Palgrave.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Presupposition projection from quantificational sentences: Trivalence, local accommodation, and presupposition strengthening (Unpublished manuscript). The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Gajewski, J. (2005). Neg-raising: Polarity and presupposition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
George, B. R. (2008). Presupposition repairs: A static, trivalent approach to predicting projection (Unpublished MA thesis). UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In D. Davidson & G. H. Harman (Eds.), The logic of grammar (pp. 64–75). Encino, CA: Dickenson.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J. A. G., Janssen, T. M. V., & Stokhof, M. B. J. (1984). Truth, interpretation and information: Selected papers from the third amsterdam colloquium. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
(1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In D. P. Flickinger (Ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL 2 (pp. 114–125). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. T., Spelke, E., & Snedeker, J. (2013). What exactly do numbers mean? Language Learning and Development, 9, 105–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). A functional approach to child language: A study of determiners and reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1974). Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics, 1, 181–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katsos, N., & Bishop, D. V. (2011). Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition, 120, 67–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klinedinst, N. (2010). Totally hardcore semantic presuppositions (Unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
Križ, M., & Chemla, E. (2015). Two methods to find truth-value gaps and their application to the projection problem of homogeneity. Natural Language Semantics 23(3), 205–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Križ, M., & Spector, B. (2017). Interpreting plural predication: Homogeneity and non-maximality (Unpublished manuscript). Institut Jean-Nicod, CNRS, Paris.Google Scholar
Löbner, S. (1987). The conceptual nature of natural language quantification. In I. Rusza & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Proceedings of the ’87 Debrecen Symposium on Logic and Language. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
(2000). Polarity in natural language: Predication, quantification and negation in particular and characterizing sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23, 213–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magri, G. (2009). A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
(2014). An account for the homogeneity effects triggered by plural definites and conjunction based on double strengthening. In S. Pistoia Reda (Ed.), Pragmatics, semantics and the case of scalar implicatures (pp. 99–145). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mehlberg, H. (1958). The reach of science. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Munn, A., Miller, K., & Schmitt, C. (2006). Maximality and plurality in children’s interpretation of definites. In D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia, & C. Zaller (Eds.), BUCLD 30: Proceedings of the 30th annual Boston University Conference on Child Language Development (pp. 377–387). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Romoli, J. (2012). Soft but strong: Neg-raising, soft triggers, and exhaustification (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard University.Google Scholar
(2014). The presuppositions of soft triggers are obligatory scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 32(2), 173–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, R. (1994). Plurals, presuppositions and the sources of distributivity. Natural Language Semantics, 2(3), 201–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simons, M. (2001). On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson, & Z. Zvolenszky (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 11 (pp. 431–448).Google Scholar
Spector, B. (2007). Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher-order implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics (pp. 243–281). Houndmills: Palgrave.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Homogeneity and plurals: From the strongest meaning hypothesis to supervaluations. (Presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 18).
(2015). Multivalent semantics for vagueness and presupposition. Topoi, 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. Munitz & D. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and philosophy (pp. 197–213). New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Sudo, Y. (2012). On the semantics of Phi features on pronouns (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Tieu, L., Križ, M., & Chemla, E. (2015). On the acquisition of homogeneity in plural definites. Poster presented at the 40th Boston University Conference on Language Development.
(2017). Children’s acquisition of homogeneity in plural definite descriptions. (Unpublished manuscript). Ecole Normale Supérieure, Institut Jean Nicod, Paris.Google Scholar
Tieu, L., Romoli, J., Zhou, P., & Crain, S. (2016). Children’s knowledge of free choice inferences and scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 33(2), 269–298.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tye, M. (1994). Sorites paradoxes and the semantics of vagueness. Philosophical Perspectives, 8, 189–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Rooij, R., & Schulz, K. (2004). Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 13, 491–519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1966). Singular terms, truth-value gaps, and free logic. Journal of Philosophy, 63(17), 481–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, K. (2008). What is accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives, 22(1), 137–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. (1994). Vagueness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zehr, J. (2014). Vagueness, presupposition and truth value judgments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ecole Normale Supérieure, Institut Jean Nicod, Paris.Google Scholar
(2015, July). Vagueness, presupposition and truth-value gaps: An empirical investigation. Poster presented at Experimental Pragmatics 2015.