Focus intervention, multiple association, and the unity of focus and wh alternatives

Subjective language has attracted substantial attention in the recent literature in formal semantics and philosophy of language (see overviews in MacFarlane in Assessment sensitivity: relative truth and its applications, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014; van Wijnbergen-Huitink, in Meier, and van Wijnbergen-Huitink (eds) Subjective meaning: alternatives to relativism, De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 1–19, 2016; Lasersohn in Subjectivity and perspective in truth-theoretic semantics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017; Vardomskaya in Sources of subjectivity, Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, IL, 2018; Zakkou in Faultless disagreement: a defense of contextualism in the realm of personal taste, Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt a. M., 2019b). Most current theories argue that Subjective Predicates (SPs), which express matters of opinion, semantically differ from ordinary predicates, which express matters of fact. We will call this view “SP exceptionalism”. This paper addresses SP exceptionalism by scrutinizing the behavior of SPs in attitude reports, which, as we will argue, significantly constrains the space of analytical options and rules out some of the existing theories. As first noticed by Stephenson (Linguist Philos 30(4):487–525, 2007a; Towards a theory of subjective meaning, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2007b), the most prominent reading of embedded SPs is one where they talk about the attitude holder’s subjective judgment. As is remarked sometimes (Sæbø in Linguist Philos 32(4):327–352, 2009; Pearson in J Semant 30(1):103–154, 2013a), this reading is not the only one: embedded SPs may also talk about someone else’s, non-local, judgment. We concentrate specifically on such cases and show that non-local judgment is possible if and only if SPs are used within a DP that is outside main predicate position and that entire DP is read de re. We demonstrate that the behavior of SPs in attitude reports does not differ from that of ordinary predicates: it follows from general constraints on intersective modification and intensional quantification (Farkas in Szabolcsi (ed) Ways of scope taking, Springer, Dordrecht, pp 183–215, 1997; Musan in On the temporal interpretation of noun phrases, Garland, New York, 1997; Percus in Nat Lang Semant 8(3):173–229, 2000; Keshet in Good intensions: paving two roads to a theory of the de re/de dicto distinction, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2008). We argue that this unexceptional behavior of SPs in fact has unexpected consequences for SP exceptionalism. Precisely because SPs have been argued to be semantically different from ordinary predicates, not all theories correctly predict these less-studied data: some overgenerate (e.g. Stephenson 2007a, b; Stojanovic in Linguist Philos 30(6):691–706, 2007; Sæbø 2009) and some undergenerate (e.g. McCready in McNally, and Puig-Waldmüller (ed) Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, vol 11, pp 433–447, 2007; Pearson 2013a). Out of the currently available theories, only relativist accounts (Lasersohn in Linguist Philos 28(6):643–686, 2005; MacFarlane 2014; Bylinina in J Semant 34(2), 291–331, 2017; Coppock in Linguist Philos 41(2):125–164, 2018) predict the right interpretation, and only that interpretation. We thus present a novel empirical argument for relativism, and, more generally, formulate a constraint that has to be taken into consideration by any view that advocates SP exceptionalism.

This paper presents an extensional account of manyand few that explains data that have previously motivated intensional analyses of these quantifiers (cf. Fernando and Kamp, Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory, 1996; Lappin, Linguist Philos, 23(6):599–620, 2000). The key insight is that their semantic arguments are themselves set intersections: the restrictor is the intersection of the predicates denoted by the N’ or the V’ and the restricted universe, U, and the scope is the intersection of the N’ and V’. Following Cohen (J Semant, 16:43–65, 1999 ; Nat Lang Semant, 9:41–67, 2001), I assume that the universe consists of the union of alternatives to the nominal and verbal predicates, where an alternative to a property ψ is one that shares a pragmatic presupposition with ψ, and a pragmatic presupposition is one that is selected by context from a set of potential presuppositions associated with the sentence. A many/few-quantified sentence is then true iff the proportion of the scope to the restrictor is greater/less than some threshold, n. In addition to explaining various problematic cases from the literature, the analysis shows how the readings of a many/few-quantified sentence (proportional, reverse, focus-affected, and cardinal) can be derived from the same syntactico-semantic structure, it being unnecessary to claim lexical or structural ambiguity. The analysis also provides strong support for the idea that natural language quantification is always purely extensional.

This paper examines multiple-classifier constructions in Chinese, in which two classifiers are stacked in one nominal position. The following three properties are found in these constructions: (i) strict linear ordering between different types of classifiers, (ii) definiteness/specificity of the lower DP, and (iii) obligatory non-distributive readings. The properties of multiple-classifier constructions allow us to study the syntax and semantics of nominal expressions in Chinese from a novel point of view. We argue that, syntactically, and against the bare NP analysis in Chierchia (in: Rothstein S (ed) Events and grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 53–103, 1998a, Nat Lang Semant 6:339–405, 1998b) and the Classifier Phrase analysis in Cheng and Sybesma (Linguist Inq 30:509–542, 1999; in: Cinque G, Kayne R (ed) The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, Oxford University Press, pp 259–292, 2005), from the properties of multiple-classifier constructions, a universal DP analysis is favored (as in Li, Linguist Inq 29: 693–702, 1998). Incorporating the theories in Zamparelli (in: Alexiadou A, Wilder C (eds) Linguistics today: possessors, predicates and movement in the determiner phrase, vol 22, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 259–301, 1998) and Dayal (Linguist Philos 27:393–450, 2004), we demonstrate that a generalized Chierchian approach (without his semantic parameter) best captures the syntax–semantics mappings within nominal expressions in Chinese. From a compositional semantic point of view, we argue that multiple-classifier constructions should be treated as an instance of partitive construction with an empty partitive head. The hypothesis of an empty partitive head not only accounts for the properties of the multiple-classifier constructions, but it also offers explanations for the asymmetry of partitive readings in Chinese relative clauses.

The structural approach to alternatives (Katzir in Linguist Philos 30(6):669–690, 2007; Fox and Katzir in Nat Lang Semant 19(1):87–107, 2011; Katzir in Semantics, pragmatics and the case of scalar implicatures, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 40–71, 2014) is the most developed attempt in the literature at solving the symmetry problem of scalar implicatures. Problematic data with indirect and particularised scalar implicatures have however been raised (Romoli in Snippets 27:14–15, 2013; Trinh and Haida in Nat Lang Semant 25(4):249–270, 2015). To address these problems, Trinh and Haida (2015) proposed to augment the theory with the Atomicity Constraint. Here we show that this constraint falls short of explaining minimal variants of the original problems, and moreover that it runs into trouble with the inferences of sentences involving gradable adjectives like full and empty. We furthermore discuss how the structural approach suffers at times from the problem of ‘too many lexical alternatives’ pointed out by Swanson (Linguist Philos 33(1):31–36, 2010), and at other times from the opposite problem of ‘too few lexical alternatives’. These three problems epitomise the challenge of constructing just enough alternatives under the structural approach to solve the symmetry problem in full generality. Finally, we also sketch another recent attempt at solving the symmetry problem, Bergen et al. (Semant Pragmat 9(20), 2016), which is based on relative informativity and complexity. We argue that Bergen et al. do not provide a general solution to the symmetry problem either, by pointing to some of the open problematic cases that remain for this approach as well. We conclude that while important progress has been made in the theory of alternatives for scalar implicatures in the last few years, a full solution to the symmetry problem has not yet been attained.

This paper offers a new unified theory about the meaning of the imperfective and progressive aspects that builds on earlier of analyses in the literature that treat the imperfective as denoting a universal quantifier (e.g. Bonomi, Linguist Philos, 20(5):469–514, 1997; Cipria and Roberts, Nat Lang Semant 8(4):297–347, 2000). It is shown that the problems associated with such an analysis can be overcome if the domain of the universal quantifier is taken to be a partition of a future extending interval into equimeasured cells. Treating the partition-measure (the length of each partition-cell) as a contextually dependent variable allows for a unified treatment of the habitual and event-in-progress readings of the imperfective. It is argued that the contrast between the imperfective and the progressive has to do with whether the quantifier domain is a regular partition of the reference interval or a superinterval of the reference interval.

One of the challenges confronted by language learners is to master the interpretation of sentences with multiple logical operators (e.g., nominal quantifiers, modals, negation), where different interpretations depend on different scope assignments. Five-year-old children have been found to access some readings of potentially ambiguous sentences much less than adults do (Lidz and Musolino, Lang Acquis 13(2):73–102, 2006; Musolino, Universal Grammar and the acquisition of semantic knowledge, 1998; Musolino and Lidz, Lang Acquis 11(4):277–291, 2003, among many others). Recently, Gualmini et al. (Nat Lang Semant 16:205–237, 2008) have shown that, by careful contextual manipulation, it is possible to evoke some of the putatively unavailable interpretations from young children. Their proposal is quite general, but the focus of their work was on sentences involving nominal quantifiers and negation. The present paper extends this investigation to sentences with modal expressions. The results of our two experimental studies reveal that, in potentially ambiguous sentences with modal expressions, the kinds of contextual manipulations introduced by Gualmini and colleagues do not suffice to explain children’s initial scope interpretations. In response to the recalcitrant data, we propose a new three-stage model of the acquisition of scope relations. Most importantly, at the initial stage, child grammars make available only one interpretation of negative sentences with modal expressions. We call this the Unique Scope Assignment (USA) stage.

Mandarin universal terms such as mei-NPs in preverbal positions usually require the presence of dou ‘all/even’. This motivates the widely accepted idea from Lin (Nat Lang Semant 6:201–243, 1998) that Mandarin does not have genuine distributive universal quantifiers, and mei-NPs are disguised plural definites, which thus need dou—a distributive operator (or an adverbial universal quantifier in Lee (Studies on Quantification in Chinese. Ph. D. thesis, UCLA), Pan (in: Yufa Yanjiu Yu Tansuo [Grammatical Study and Research], vol 13, pp 163-184. The Commercial Press)—to form a universal statement. This paper defends the opposite view that mei-NPs are true universal quantifiers while dou is not. Dou is truth-conditionally vacuous but carries a presupposition that its prejacent is the strongest among its alternatives (Liu in Linguist Philos 40(1):61–95, 2017b). The extra presupposition triggers Maximize Presupposition (Heim in: Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenssischen Forschung, pp 487-535. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1991), which requires [douS] block [S] whenever dou’s presupposition is satisfied. This explains the mei-dou co-occurrence, if mei-NPs are universal quantifiers normally triggering individual alternatives (thus stronger than all the other alternatives). The proposal predicts a more nuanced distribution of obligatory-dou, not limited to universals and sensitive to discourse contexts.

Indeterminate pronouns in Old English (expressions like hwa ‘who/what’ and hwelc ‘which’) permit several interpretations in addition to their use as interrogative pronouns, for example readings as universal or existential quantifiers. They combine with morphological prefixes (ge- ‘and, also’ and a- ‘always, ever’), which change the range of possible interpretations. Old English indeterminate pronouns are shown to contribute a crosslinguistically hitherto unattested pattern of available interpretations. In particular, bare indeterminate pronouns have a universal interpretation and ge-indeterminate pronouns can be both universal and existential. This paper offers an alternative semantic analysis in the spirit of Hamblin (Found Lang 10:41–53, 1973) and Shimoyama (Nat Lang Semant 14:139–173, 2006). A compositional semantics is given for the pronouns and the prefixes, which derives the available readings. The paper ends with a proposal for compositional semantic change relating Old English indeterminate pronouns to their modern descendants.

Karen Lewis (Philos Stud, 158:313–342, 2012) argues that recognizing the importance of plans helps settle a debate regarding the semantics and pragmatics of indefinites. More specifically, Lewis argues against the dynamic approach (e.g., Kamp (In Groenendijk et al., Formal Methods in the Study of Language, pp. 277–322, Mathematics Center, Amsterdam, 1981), Heim (The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1982), Groenendijk and Stokhof (Linguist Philos, 14:39–100, 1991), Kamp and Reyle (From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993), and Asher and Lascarides (Logics of Conversation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003)), according to which indefinite expressions are subject to a semantic Novelty condition. Drawing on data of the so-called summary uses, she claims that Novelty is best analyzed as a pragmatic, cancelable implicature. This chapter throws significant doubt on Lewis’ analysis. Not only is her objection in large part a misreading of dynamic semantics, but the proposed pragmatic account offers no real explanation of even the alleged counterexamples. Once we consider a wider range of linguistic phenomena involving indefinites, the verdict is on the side of the dynamic approach.

Fox and Spector (Nat Lang Semant 26:1–50, 2018) use multiple instances of the exhaustivity operator EXH to derive the correct meaning of utterances that include pitch-focus marked disjunction in downward-entailing environments. They argue that the $$\sim $$ operator evaluates alternatives to be used by EXH. Though the method is sound and gets the right result, we argue that the way in which EXH would need to interact with other instances of EXH, as well as other focus-sensitive elements, is at odds with how EXH is used to explain other phenomena. Specifically, the analysis in Fox and Spector (2018) predicts intervention effects for cases where EXH interacts with other focus-sensitive elements. This is problematic for many cases in which EXH is used to derive the desired inferences. We propose a different way of focus association for EXH that would work for the approach introduced in Fox and Spector (2018) as well as elsewhere. In addition, our account does not require a covert element to be focused.

The paper presents both new data and a new analysis of the semantic and pragmatic properties of the class of absolute scalar adjectives (ex. dry, wet, straight, bent, flat, empty, full...) within an extension of a well-known logical framework for the analysis of gradable predicates: the delineation semantics framework (DelS) (see Klein, Linguist Philos 4:1-45, 1980 ; van Benthem, Pac Philos Q 63:193-203, 1982 ; van Rooij, J Semant 28:335-358, 2011b , among many others). It has been long observed that the context-sensitivity, vagueness and gradability features of absolute scalar predicates give rise to certain puzzles for their analysis within most, if not all, modern formal semantic frameworks. While there exist proposals for solving these puzzles within other major frameworks (such as the degree semantics framework), it has been argued that some of their aspects are particularly challenging for the analysis of absolute scalar predicates within the delineation approach. By combining insights into the relationship between context-sensitivity and scalarity from the DelS framework with insights into the relationship between tolerance/similarity relations and the Sorites paradox from Cobreros et al.'s ( 2012 ) Tolerant, Classical, Strict (TCS) framework, I propose a new logical system, called Delineation TCS (DelTCS), in which to set analyses of four classes of adjectival predicates. I argue that this new framework allows for an analysis of absolute scalar adjectives that answers these challenges for delineation-based frameworks, while still preserving the heart of the Klein-ian approach

This paper presents a new logical analysis of quantity comparatives (i.e. More linguists than philosophers came to the party.) within the Delineation Semantics approach to gradability and comparison (McConnell-Ginet in Comparison constructions in English. PhD thesis, University of Rochester, Rochester, 1973; Kamp in Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1975; Klein in Linguist Philos 4:1---45, 1980) among many others. Along with the Degree Semantics framework (Cresswell in Montague grammar. Academic Press, New York, 1976; von Stechow in J Semant 3:1---77, 1984; Kennedy in Projecting the adjective. PhD thesis. University of California, Santa Cruz, 1997, among many others) Delineation Semantics is one of the dominant logical frameworks for analyzing the meaning of gradable constituents of the adjectival syntactic category; however, there has been very little work done investigating the application of this framework to the analysis of gradability outside the adjectival domain. This state of affairs distinguishes the Delineation Semantics framework from its Degree Semantics counterpart, where such questions have been investigated in great deal since the beginning of the twenty-first century. Nevertheless, it has been observed [for example, by Doetjes (Seventeenth amsterdam colloquium. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 2011); van Rooij (The vagueness handbook. Springer, Dordrecht, 2011c)] that there is nothing inherently adjectival about the way that the interpretations of scalar predicates are calculated in Delineation Semantics, and therefore that there is enormous potential for this approach to shed light on the nature of gradability and comparison in the nominal and verbal domains. This paper is a first contribution to realizing this potential within a Mereological extension of a simple version of the DelS system.

The exclusive component of unembedded disjunctions is standardly derived as a conversational implicature by assuming that or forms a lexical scale with and. It is well known, however, that this assumption does not suffice to determine the required scalar competitors of disjunctions with more than two atomic disjuncts (McCawley, Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic* (But were ashamed to ask). Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1993, p. 324; Simons, “Or”: Issues in the semantics and pragmatics of disjunction. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1998). To solve this, Sauerland (Linguist Philos 27(3): 367–391, 2004) assumes that or forms a lexical scale with two otherwise unattested silent connectives (\({\mathbb{L}}\) and \({\mathbb{R}}\)) that retrieve the left and right terms of a disjunction. A number of recent works have proposed an Alternative Semantics for indefinites and disjunction to account for their interaction with modals and other propositional operators (Kratzer and Shimoyama, In: Otsu Y (ed) The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo, pp. 1–25, 2002; Aloni, In: Weisgerber M (ed) Proceedings of the Conference “SuB7—Sinn und Bedeutung”. Arbeitspapier Nr. 114. Konstanz, pp. 28–37, 2003; Simons, Nat Lang Semantics 13: 271–316, 2005; Alonso-Ovalle, Disjunction in alternative semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 2006). We note that the McCawley–Simons problem does not arise in an Alternative Semantics, if we assume that the set of pragmatic competitors to a disjunction is the closure under intersection of the set of propositions that it denotes. An adaptation of the strengthening mechanism presented in Fox (In: Sauerland U, Stateva P (eds) Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics. MacMillan, Palgrave, pp. 71–120, 2007) allows for the derivation of the exclusive component of disjunctions with more than two atomic disjuncts without having to rely on the \({\mathbb{L}}\) and \({\mathbb{R}}\) operators. The proposal extends to the case of disjunctions with logically dependent disjuncts.

ObjectivesPapillary thyroid carcinomas frequently occur as two or more separate foci within the thyroid gland (18%-87%). However, those multifocal tumors are easy to be undetected by preoperative radiologic evaluations, which lead to remnant disease after initial surgery. We aimed to study the incidence of multifocal papillary thyroid microcarcinomas (PTMCs), diagnostic accuracy of preoperative radiologic evaluation, predictive factors, and the chance of bilateral tumors.MethodsTwo hundred and seventy-seven patients with PTMC were included in this study. All patients underwent total thyroidectomy as an initial treatment. Medical records, pathologic reports, and radiological reports were reviewed for analysis.ResultsMultifocal PTMCs were detected in 100 of 277 patients (36.1%). The mean number of tumors in each patient was 1.6±1.1, ranging from 1 to 10. The additional tumor foci were significantly smaller (0.32±0.18 cm) than the primary tumors (0.63±0.22 cm) (P<0.001). There was no significant relationship between primary tumor size and the presence of contralateral tumors. With more tumors detected in one lobe, there was greater chance of contralateral tumors; 18.8% with single tumor focus, 30.2% with 2 tumor foci, and 46.2% with 3 or more tumor foci in one lobe. Sensitivity of preoperative sonography was 42.7% for multifocal tumors and 49.0% for bilateral tumors. With multivariate analysis, nodular hyperplasia was the only significant factor for multifocal tumors.ConclusionIn cases of PTMCs, the incidence of multifocal tumors is high. However, additional tumor foci are too small to be diagnosed preoperatively, especially under the recent guidelines on radiologic screening tests for papillary thyroid carcinoma. Multifocal PTMCs have high risk of bilateral tumors, necessitating more extensive surgery or more thorough follow-up.

Brasoveanu (Linguist Philos 34:93–168, 2011) argues that “different” exhibits what he calls association with distributivity: a distributive operator such as “each” creates a two-part context that propagates through the compositional semantics in a way that can be accessed by a subordinate “different”. We show that Brasoveanu’s analysis systematically undergenerates, failing to provide interpretations of sentences such as “Every1 boy claimed every girl read a different1 poem”, in which “different” can associate with a non-local distributive operator. We provide a generalized version of association with distributivity, implemented using de Groote’s (in: Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory XVI, 2006) continuation-based dynamic semantics. We compare our analysis with the one in Brasoveanu (2011), drawing conclusions about computational tractability, scope of indefinites, and whether it is possible or even desirable to arrive at a unified analysis of internal and external readings of “different”.