Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2016 / At least and ignorance: A reply to Coppock & Brochhagen 2013

At least and ignorance: A reply to Coppock & Brochhagen 2013

Paper · 2016 · Bernhard Schwarz

Summary

This commentary examines how "at least" with a numeral (e.g. "At least two apples fell") signals that the speaker does not know the exact number. Coppock & Brochhagen (2013) explained this in inquisitive semantics. They treat the sentence as denoting a set of propositions and add a new principle, the Maxim of Interactive Sincerity (MIS): once a plural denotation is intersected with the speaker's belief state, more than one consistent option must remain.

Schwarz compares the full pragmatic meanings predicted by MIS with those of a neo-Gricean quantity-implicature account (the "Q analysis", building on Büring 2008). He shows that:

  • the two accounts make different predictions;
  • MIS fails to yield all the desired inferences for "at least";
  • MIS also fails for disjunctions.

A hybrid that adds quantity implicature (CB-IQ) does match the Q analysis. But then MIS becomes redundant: it can be dropped entirely if "at least two" is given the two-member denotation {exactly 2, 3 or more}. The conclusion is that quantity implicature is the more economical explanation.

Key points

  • Both accounts give "At least two apples fell" the truth-conditional content "two or more apples fell" and assume the speaker believes it (a quality inference).
  • The Q analysis treats [2] ("exactly two") and [3,...) ("three or more") as stronger alternatives. Quantity reasoning concludes the speaker believes neither. Combined with quality, this means the speaker considers both possible, which is the ignorance inference.
  • C&B's denotation for "at least two" is an infinite set: {[2,...), [3,...), ...} or the two-sided {[2], [3], ...}. MIS applied to these does not reproduce all of the Q analysis's inferences, and it does not deliver ignorance for disjunctions.
  • The proposed IQ analysis keeps inquisitive semantics but drops MIS. With the denotation {[2], [3,...)} it derives exactly the same inferences as the Q analysis.
  • The related Maxim of Attentive Sincerity (Pruitt & Roelofsen 2011) gives inferences that are too weak in some cases and too strong in others. For instance, it predicts total ignorance, which wrongly rules out a speaker who knows the count isn't four.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Compare competing theories by spelling out each one's complete predicted meaning and checking how they relate logically, rather than accepting that both "derive ignorance."
  • I2. Ignorance follows from two parts: "speaker doesn't believe the stronger alternative" plus "speaker believes what was said," which together yield "speaker thinks it is possible."
  • I3. Prefer one general mechanism over a special-purpose principle that only does work for the case it was built for.
  • I4. An inference can be too strong, not just missing: total ignorance over every number contradicts acceptable uses, such as a speaker who knows the count isn't four.
  • I5. How the alternative set is chosen ({exactly 2, 3+} versus an infinite list) determines the predictions.

For Mova

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

  • I1 (frames): When two implicature rules seem to agree, compute their full outputs on test sentences and diff them before choosing one.
  • I2 (frames): The implicature module can model "at least N" as two alternatives, exactly N and more than N. It then marks both as speaker-possible, giving an explainable epistemic state.
  • I3 (learn): When self-induced repair rules multiply, test whether a rule only fires on its original motivating case and prune it if a general rule already covers it.
  • I4 (learn): Evaluation should include negative-control sentences that check the reader does NOT over-infer ignorance or exclusions.
  • I5 (world): Store "at least N" quantities in the world model as a lower bound with an open upper bound, without enumerating or excluding specific values the text never ruled out.

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

 Institutions

🎓McGill UniversityMontreal · Canada51 works · 10,476 citations

📚 Shelves 4The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Computer Science · 9,085 worksArtificial Intelligence · 8,888 worksArts and Humanities · 9,296 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 9,206 works

Cite

Cite as Bernhard Schwarz. 2016. At least and ignorance: A reply to Coppock & Brochhagen 2013. Semantics and Pragmatics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.3765/sp.9.10

@article{schwarz2016at,
  title = {{At least and ignorance: A reply to Coppock \& Brochhagen 2013}},
  author = {Bernhard Schwarz},
  journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
  year = {2016},
  doi = {10.3765/sp.9.10},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.10}
}

References

29 references, 4 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Aloni, Maria. 2007. Free choice, modals, and imperatives. Natural Language Semantics 15(1). 65–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9010-2. ↗
  2. Alonso-Ovalle, Luis. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics. University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation. http://semanticsarchive.net/ Archive/TVkY2ZlM/alonso-ovalle2006.pdf. ↗
  3. Büring, Daniel. 2008. The least at least can do. In Charles B. Chang & Hannah J. Haynie (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 26, 114–120. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/26/paper1662.pdf. ↗
  4. Ciardelli, Ivano, Jeroen Groenendijk & Floris Roelofsen. 2011. Attention! Might in inquisitive semantics. In Ed Cormany, Satoshi Ito & David Lutz (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 19, 91–108. CLC Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v19i0.2520. ↗
  5. Coppock, Elizabeth & Thomas Brochhagen. 2013. Raising and resolving issues with scalar modifiers. Semantics and Pragmatics 6(3). 1–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.3. ↗
  6. Cummins, Chris & Napoleon Katsos. 2010. Comparative and superlative quantifiers: Pragmatic effects of comparison type. Journal of Semantics 27(3). 271–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq006. ↗
  7. Fox, Danny. 2007. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Uli Sauerland & Penka Stateva (eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, 71–120. Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1057/9780230210752_4. ↗
  8. Gamut, L.T.F. 1991. Logic, language, and meaning, volume 1: Introduction to logic. University of Chicago Press. ↗
  9. Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York, NY: Academic Press New York. find
  10. Geurts, Bart. 2011. Quantity implicatures. Cambridge University Press. find
  11. Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. University of Amsterdam dissertation. http://dare.uva.nl/document/2/27444. ↗
  12. Hirschberg, Julia. 1991. A theory of scalar implicature. New York: Garland. find
  13. Bernhard Schwarz Horn, Laurence. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. University of California, Los Angeles dissertation. find
  14. Horn, Laurence. 1989. A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press. find
  15. Katzir, Roni. 2007. Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(6). 669–690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9029-y. ↗
  16. Kennedy, Christopher. 2015. A “de-Fregean” semantics (and neo-Gricean pragmatics) for modified and unmodified numerals. Semantics and Pragmatics 8(10). 1–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.8.10. ↗
  17. Krifka, Manfred. 1999. At least some determiners aren’t determiners. In Ken Turner (ed.), The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view, 257–291. Amsterdam: Elsevier. find
  18. Mayr, Clemens. 2013. Implicatures of modified numerals. In Ivano Caponigro & Carlo Cecchetto (eds.), From grammar to meaning: The spontaneous logicality of language, 139–171. Cambridge University Press. ↗
  19. Meyer, Marie-Christine. 2013. Ignorance and grammar. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/84420. ↗
  20. Pruitt, Kathryn & Floris Roelofsen. 2011. Disjunctive questions: Prosody, syntax, and semantics. Presented at a seminar at the Georg August Universität Göttingen. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byr4N94S79X7dE9qa29Cbl9WUUU. Roberts, Craige. 1996/2012. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5(6). 1–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6. ↗
  21. Roelofsen, Floris & Sam van Gool. 2010. Disjunctive questions, intonation, and highlighting. In Maria Aloni, Harald Bastiaanse, Tikitu de Jager & Katrin Schulz (eds.), Logic, language and meaning: 17th Amsterdam colloquium, revised selected papers, 384–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14287-1_39. ↗
  22. Sauerland, Uli. 2004. Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(3). 367–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000023378. 71748.db. ↗
  23. Schwarz, Bernhard. 2013. At least and quantity implicature: Choices and consequences. In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Amsterdam Colloquium 19. http://www.illc.uva.nl/AC/AC2013/uploaded_ files/inlineitem/24_Schwarz.pdf. At least and ignorance Schwarz, Bernhard. 2016. Consistency preservation in Quantity implicature: The case of at least. Semantics and Pragmatics 9(1). 1–47. http://dx.doi. org/10.3765/sp.9.1. ↗
  24. Schwarz, Bernhard & Junko Shimoyama. 2011. Negative islands and obviation by wa in Japanese degree questions. In Nan Li & David Lutz (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20, 702–719. CLC Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2563. ↗
  25. Simons, Mandy. 2000. Issues in the semantics and pragmatics of disjunction. New York: Garland. find
  26. Simons, Mandy. 2005. Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Natural Language Semantics 13(3). 271–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11050-004-2900-7. ↗
  27. Soames, Scott. 1982. How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 13(3). 483–545. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178288. ↗
  28. Spector, Benjamin. 2006. Aspects de la pragmatique des opérateurs logiques. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5372992/THESE_SPECTOR.htm. Université Paris 7 — Denis Diderot dissertation. ↗
  29. Zimmermann, Thomas Ede. 2000. Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8(4). 255–290. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1011255819284. Bernhard Schwarz Department of Linguistics McGill University 1085 Dr. Penfield Montreal, QC H3A 1A7 Canada bernhard.schwarz@mcgill.ca ↗

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/schwarz-2016-least-ignorance-reply-coppock-brochhagen/