Unbinding equatives

While traditional degree semantics posits that comparison constructions operate on scalar dimensions, property equatives–which compare individuals with respect to categorical properties–present a theoretical challenge to this view. I demonstrate that property equatives, despite lacking inherent scalar structure, exhibit parallel structural constraints with degree equatives, suggesting a unified semantic operation underlying both constructions. Based on novel data evidence, I propose a QUD-based semantics for equatives that accounts for both scalar and non-scalar interpretations. This analysis suggests that the scalar interpretation of degree equatives emerges from the interaction between question-based similarity assessment and the ordered nature of gradable predicates, rather than from inherent scalar semantics in the comparison operation itself

Neglect-Zero Effects in the Interpretation of Quantifiers and Disjunction

This paper presents a cross-experimental comparison investigating the interpretation and processing of four semantic/pragmatic phenomena, for which natural language interpretation deviates from literal meaning. In particular, we compared so-called neglect-zero phenomena in the case of quantifier interpretation – both for empty restrictors and empty scope sets – as well as distributivity inferences of disjunction embedded under universal quantification to the interpretation of scalar implicature in the case of some. The experiments employed a timed question-answering task which allowed us to test the just-mentioned phenomena embedded in polar questions. The data lend support to a broad differentiation of the phenomena into 1) presupposition violation in the case of empty restrictors, 2) neglect-zero effects for empty quantifier scope and distributivity inferences, and 3) negation of scalar alternatives for some

Revisiting the role of structural complexity in symmetry breaking

Many recent theories of strengthening assume following Katzir (2007); Fox and Katzir (2011) that the alternatives used to derive strengthened meanings may be at most as complex as the prejacent. We explore a novel response to several known problems for this view that maintains three of its core assumptions: the selection criterion is (i) structure-based, (ii) indifferent to whether the alternatives form entailment-based scales, and (iii) cannot be overruled by relevance. Contra Fox and Katzir, the crucial structural criterion is not complexity per se, but similarity to the prejacent. Moreover, this property only applies to break stalemates between symmetric alternatives; in the absence of stalemates, alternatives are structurally unconstrained. We suggest that while assumptions (i) and (ii) have good empirical consequences, this account is not entirely successful because (iii) is too strong: In certain special cases, which seem to have an information-structural characterization, stalemates can be broken by relevance

Why \u27not numeral NP\u27 requires \u27but\u27 but not \u27not many NP\u27

This paper observes that negated numerals require but (e.g. Not three *(but four) students arrived), whereas not many doesn’t (e.g. Not many students arrived). Drawing on the additional observation that negated non-quantifier DPs require but (e.g. Max eats not spinach *(but chard)), I propose that constituent negation presupposes that the utterance containing the negation must entail a true alternative utterance, if there exists such a true alternative. This is generally satisfied by an overt but-phrase, except with the not-many-sentence because it entails an alternative sentence on its own–Some students arrived. I also take the contrast between not many and negated numerals as evidence that they have different types of assertion, in support of Kennedy (2013, 2015): many asserts at least n, while numerals assert at least n and at most n at the same time. Therefore, in contrast to not many, which entails some, not three does not entail not one or not two, and thus requires the but-phrase to introduce the true alternative

Aspectual shift in Romance: A preliminary study

Bare plurals in English are known to induce a shift in the aspectual properties of verbal complexes, turning telic eventualities into atelic ones. In this respect, they contrast with singular indefinites (e.g., a) and non-specific plural indefinites (e.g., some) which have been claimed to not trigger such an aspectual shift. In this work, we address two questions: (i) how much different types of indefinites vary in their ability to cause aspectual shift and (ii) what happens to aspectual shift in languages where bare plurals have a more constrained distribution than in English or are altogether unattested. We investigate these questions through two experimental studies in three closely related Romance languages: French, Italian and Romanian. We also discuss consequences of our findings for current theoretical proposals on the topic. To our knowledge, this work constitutes the first attempt to investigate aspectual shift across languages experimentally

Believing p, discovering ¬p: \u27Meğer\u27 and epistemic shifts

This paper provides the first formal semantic treatment of meğer clauses in Turkish, focusing on their presuppositional and evidential properties. Meğer clauses uniquely encodes a doxastic shift, asserting a proposition that the speaker previously believed to be false but now believes to be true. Additionally, the study explores the obligatory occurrence of the so-called indirect evidential marker -mI in meğer clauses, proposing that the contexts satisfying the presuppositions of meğer inherently satisfy the presuppositions of -mIș . Hence, in such contexts, -mIș is preferred over direct evidentiality as a result of Maximize Presupposition! (Heim, 1991). By analyzing meğer, this study aims to contribute to the broader understanding of evidentiality, presuppositions, and epistemic shifts in natural language

Similative disjunction and strengthening

Many natural languages have a simplex form and a complex form of disjunction, and it is commonly assumed that the complex form has stronger exclusive and exhaustive inferences. This study investigates Hindi disjunction, in its simple form and complex form. We report that Hindi disjunction follows the general tendency, but crucially, its simplex form can also give rise to a ”similative inference”. We propose an analysis treating Hindi disjunction as a ”similative disjunction”, and demonstrate how this similative disjunction can be strengthened into an exhaustive disjunction

Disjunction with additives

We present compositional semantic analyses of complex disjunction involving an additive particle in Igbo and Thai. In Igbo, complex disjunction is constructed with an additive particle and a possibility modal in the first clause. We analyze this structure as involving conjoined possibilities, along the lines of Zimmermann’s (2000) analysis of disjunction. In Thai, the relevant construction involves a combination of negation and an additive particle which is independently observed in conditionals. We analyze this construction as an indicative conditional with a negated consequent of the form ‘if p, then not q’. We examine predictions of these analyses and discuss their implications, especially on the role of additive particles and modality in the realization of disjunctions cross-linguistically

Another look at contrafactive predicates: The case of Spanish \u27creerse\u27

Verbs that presuppose the falsehood of their complement are rare in natural language. Anvari et al. (2019) suggest that Spanish contains one such “contrafactive predicate,” creerse, formed from creer (‘believe’) and the reflexive pronoun. We examine the behavior of creerse under negation, where the mood of the complement affects the inferences that get drawn, in complicated ways. We propose an account on which the aspects of meaning that go beyond simple belief trace back to elements beyond the basic belief predicate creer. Our account is linked to a particular view of mood alternation in negative contexts

Exclusivity and exhaustivity of disjunction(s): a cross-linguistic study

Most natural languages have more than one linguistic form available to express disjunction. One of these forms is often reported by native speakers to be more exclusive than the other(s) and, in recent years, it has been claimed that some languages may in fact have dedicated exclusive disjunctions. In this paper, we report on a series of verification studies investigating the robustness of the exclusivity inference associated with different disjunction markers within and across five different languages and extend this investigation to another, related type of inference, namely the exhaustivity inference. In our results, we found that complex disjunctions were generally more likely to be interpreted exclusively than simplex ones and that, in some languages, further differences exist among the complex disjunctions. Exhaustivity inferences were much less robust and, by contrast, showed little-to-no difference among disjunction types. We lay out possible directions for interpreting these results