Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2025 / Conjoined Predication and Scalar Implicature

Conjoined Predication and Scalar Implicature

Paper · 2025 · Ratna Kandala

Summary

The paper revisits an open problem from Magri (2016). In Magri's theory, oddness arises when a scalar implicature, computed without regard to context, clashes with common knowledge. Some Italians come from a warm country is odd because its implicature "not all" contradicts the fact that Italians share one country. Adding a second predicate (…and are blond) should remove the clash, since "not all are warm-country and blond" is consistent with world knowledge. Yet the sentence still sounds odd, and no mismatching alternative explains why.

Kandala gives a conceptual, non-empirical analysis. The conjoined predicate is read collectively and concurrently: the same Italians hold both properties at once. This reading keeps the warm-country question live in the discourse and produces an indirect contextual contradiction. The paper supports this by contrasting distributive paraphrases and sequential conjunctions, which are not odd. It concludes that implicature generation may have pragmatic aspects that exhaustification-based grammatical accounts do not capture.

Key points

  • The paper builds on Magri's two conjunction puzzles. Magri solved the second through relevance: a prior sentence that settles whether Italians come from a warm country removes the oddness. The first puzzle he left open.
  • Anvari's (2018) Logical Integrity principle cannot explain the conjoined case, because no suitable alternative is available for it to apply to.
  • A follow-up test supports the analysis. A hearer can continue with "and in fact all Italians…" but not with "and in fact not all…". This shows the universal implication stays entrenched under the current question under discussion.
  • Distributive versions avoid the special oddness. One example joins two separately quantified clauses, one stating that some Italians are from a warm country and the other that some Italians are blond. Another splits the quantifier off the second conjunct. These either behave like ordinary implicature cases or can simply be rebutted.
  • Pistoia-Reda & Romoli's (2017) Portugal pair (won Euro 2016 and are tall vs. won Euro 2016 and left the team) is reanalysed through event order:
    • In the felicitous sentence the conjuncts happen in sequence, so the predicate is non-intersective.
    • That yields a split-situation rather than a concurrent reading, and so no oddness.
    • Poortman (2017) is cited as psycholinguistic evidence on split-situation readings of conjoined predicates.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Conjoined verb phrases whose conjuncts must occur in a fixed temporal order should not be treated as a plain set intersection, because swapping them changes the meaning.
  • I2. Oddness can be detected in two steps: first compute the implicature without looking at context, then check it against common knowledge and flag any clash.
  • I3. Felicity of continuations ("and in fact all" vs. "and in fact not all") serves as a probe for which inference is entrenched under the current discourse question.
  • I4. A preceding sentence that settles a question makes the related scalar alternatives irrelevant, which switches off the implicature.
  • I5. Minimal pairs that differ only in collective vs. distributive or concurrent vs. sequential readings isolate the factor behind a judgment.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (world): When building the world of a text, mark conjoined predicates as concurrent or sequential, and add event-order edges only for the sequential ones.
  • I2 (frames): The prag crate could run this check against compiled knowledge to explain why a sentence sounds infelicitous, giving the conflicting implicature as the justification.
  • I3 (answer): Readers could test candidate continuations against the tracked question under discussion to decide which implied content a QA answer may rely on.
  • I4 (frames): Keep a discourse-level list of settled questions and prune the alternatives for scalar items whose question is already resolved.
  • I5 (learn): Build such pairs as negative controls when evaluating the implicature module, so that a correct verdict cannot come from surface word overlap.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Fields, topics and concepts

📚 Shelves 5The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Computer Science · 16,667 worksArtificial Intelligence · 16,194 worksArts and Humanities · 16,039 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 15,891 worksPhilosophy · 284 works

🧭 Topics 1Research subjects and languages the work is about.Implicature · 138 works

Cite

Cite as Ratna Kandala. 2025. Conjoined Predication and Scalar Implicature. arXiv:2506.07429.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2506.07429 · arXiv 2506.07429

@misc{kandala2025conjoined,
  title = {{Conjoined Predication and Scalar Implicature}},
  author = {Ratna Kandala},
  year = {2025},
  doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2506.07429},
  eprint = {2506.07429},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2506.07429}
}

References

38 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Anvari, A. (2018). Logical integrity. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 28, 711–726. find
  2. Asher, N. (2012). Implicatures and discourse structure. Lingua, 132, 13-28. ↗
  3. Bassi, I., Del Pinal, G., & Sauerland, U. (2021). Presuppositional exhaustification. Semantics and Pragmatics, 14, 1-48.
  4. Bott, L., & Noveck, I. A. (2004). Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(3), 437–457. ↗
  5. Burton-Roberts N. (2010). Cancellation and intention. In B. Soria & E. Romero (Eds.), Explicit communication: Robyn Carston's pragmatics (pp. 138-155). Palgrave Macmillan. ↗
  6. Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2011). The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In P. Portner, Claudia C. Maienborn & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Handbook of semantics (pp. 2297–2332). Mouton de Gruyter. find
  7. Chierchia, G. (2013). Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford University Press. find
  8. Del Pinal, G. (2021). Oddness, modularity, and exhaustification. Natural Language Semantics, 29, 115–158. ↗
  9. Enguehard, É., & Chemla, E. (2021). Connectedness as a constraint on exhaustification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 44, 79–112. find
  10. 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). Palgrave Macmillan. ↗
  11. Fox, D., & Katzir, R. (2011). On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics, 19, 87–107. ↗
  12. Geurts, B. (2009). Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. Mind and Language, 24(1), 51-79. ↗
  13. Grice, H. Paul. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics (pp. 41–58). Academic Press. ↗
  14. Heim, I. (1991). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 397–405). Oxford University Press. find
  15. Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. [Doctoral thesis, University of California]. Los Angeles. find
  16. Horn, L. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago University Press. find
  17. Horn, L. (2000). From IF to IFF: Conditional perfection as pragmatic strengthening. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 289–326. ↗
  18. Katzir, R. (2007). Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 669–690. ↗
  19. Keenan, Edward L., & Stavi, J. (1986). A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9(3), 253-326. ↗
  20. Keenan, Edward L. (2006). Quantifiers: Semantics. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of language and Linguistics (2nd ed., vol. 10, pp. 302–308). Elsevier. find
  21. Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. find
  22. Levinson, Stephen C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicatures. MIT Press. find
  23. Magri, G. (2009). A Theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures. Natural Language Semantics, 17(3), 245-297. ↗
  24. Magri, G. (2011). Another argument for embedded scalar implicatures based on oddness in downward entailing environments. Semantics & Pragmatics, 4, 1-51. ↗
  25. Magri, G. (2016). Two puzzles raised by oddness in conjunction. Journal of Semantics, 33(1), 1-17. find
  26. Marty, P., & Romoli, J. (2022). Presupposed free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. Linguistics and Philosophy, 45, 91-152. ↗
  27. Mayol, L., & Castroviejo, E. (2013). How to cancel an implicature. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 84-104. ↗
  28. Pistoia-Reda, S., & Romoli, J. (2017). Oddness in conjunction. In S. Pistoia-Reda & F. Domaneschi (Eds.), Linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches on implicatures and presuppositions (pp. 55-71). Palgrave Macmillan. find
  29. Pistoia-Reda, S. (2017). Contextual blindness in implicature computation. Natural Language Semantics, 25, 109–124. ↗
  30. Poortman, Eva B. (2017). Concept typicality and the interpretation of plural predicate conjunction. In James A. Hampton & Y. Winter (Eds.), Compositionality and concepts in Linguistics and Psychology (pp. 139–162). Springer Nature. ↗
  31. Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Toward an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 49, 91-136. find
  32. Sauerland, U. (2004). Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, 367–91. ↗
  33. Schlenker, P. (2012). ‘‘Maximize Presupposition’’ and Gricean reasoning”. Natural Language Semantics, 20, 391–429. find
  34. Spector, B., & Sudo, Y. (2017). Presupposed ignorance and exhaustification: How scalar implicatures and presuppositions interact. Linguistics and Philosophy, 40, 473–517. ↗
  35. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell. find
  36. Stalnaker, R. (1998). On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 7, 3–19. ↗
  37. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In Laurence R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Blackwell. find
  38. Zhang, Z., Bergen, L., Paunov, A., Ryskin, R., & Gibson, E. (2023). Scalar implicature is sensitive to contextual alternatives. Cognitive Science, 47(2), e13238. ↗

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/kandala-2025-conjoined-predication-scalar-implicature/