Universal Implicatures and Free Choice Effects: Experimental Data
By Emmanuel Chemla. 2009
114 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Universal inferences like (i) have been taken as evidence for a local/syntactic treatment of scalar implicatures (i.e. theories where the enrichment of "some" into "some but not all" can happen sub-sententially): (i) Everybody read some of the books --> Everybody read [some but not all the books]. In this paper, I provide experimental evidence which casts doubt on this argument. The counter-argument relies on a new set of data involving free choice inferences (a sub-species of scalar implicatures) and negative counterparts of (i), namely sentences with the quantifier "no" instead of "every". The results show that the globalist account of scalar implicatures is incomplete (mainly because of free choice inferences) but that the distribution of universal inferences made available by the localist move remains incomplete as well (mainly because of the negative cases). doi:10.3765/sp.2.2 BibTeX info
Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Language and Linguistics, Philosophy
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5d81fd1cb6cfb22840b3d85db9330fd9f8979302
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Artificial Intelligence
In Language and Linguistics
In Philosophy
Citations in the corpus
- Conjunctive interpretation of disjunction (2010, unknown): “The papers of Geurts & Pouscoulous ( 2009 a) and Chemla ( 2009 ) provide strong empirical evidence that sentences in which a trigger of a scalar impli-cature occurs under a universal does not in general give rise to an embedded implicature.”
- Children interpret disjunction as conjunction: Consequences for theories of implicature and child development (2016, unknown): “…strengthening, so that only an inclusive disjunction reading is expected, whereas (7), when coupled with some theories of STR (Fox 2007, as well as Chemla 2009a and Franke 2011), predicts the possibility of a conjunctive strengthening.9 8This assumption builds on Chierchia et al. (2001), Gualmini…”
- An Experimental Comparison Between Presuppositions and Indirect Scalar Implicatures (2015, background): “See Chemla 2009a; Romoli 2012, Romoli (to appear) for scalar implicature-based account of presuppositions, which do make additional assumptions for deriving their projection behavior.”