Superlative Quantifiers as Modifiers of Meta-Speech Acts

• Main Authors: Ariel Cohen, Manfred Krifka
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: New Prairie Press 2010-12-01
• Series: The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.4148/biyclc.v6i0.1578

<p>The superlative quantifiers, <em>at least</em> and  <em>at most</em>, are commonly assumed  to have the same truth-conditions as the comparative quantifiers  <em>more than </em>and  <em>fewer than</em>. However, as Geurts &amp; Nouwen (2007)  have demonstrated, this is wrong, and several theories have been proposed to account for them. In this paper we propose that superlative quantifiers are illocutionary operators; specifically, they modify meta-speech acts.<br /><br /> Meta speech-acts are operators that do not express a speech act, but a willingness to make or refrain from making a certain speech  act. The classic example is speech act denegation, e.g. <em>I don't promise to come</em>, where the speaker is explicitly refraining from performing the speech act of promising What denegations do is to delimit the future development of conversation, that is, they delimit future admissible speech acts. Hence we call them meta-speech acts. They are not moves in a game, but rather commitments to behave in certain ways in the future. We formalize the notion of meta speech acts as commitment development spaces, which are rooted graphs: The root of the graph describes the commitment development up to the current point in conversation; the continuations from the  root describe the admissible future directions.<br /> <br /> We define and formalize the meta-speech act GRANT, which indicates that the speaker, while not necessarily subscribing to a proposition, refrains from asserting its negation. We propose that superlative quantifiers are quantifiers over GRANTs. <br />Thus, <em>Mary petted at least three rabbits</em> means that the minimal number n such that the speaker GRANTs that Mary petted  n rabbits is n = 3. In other words, the speaker denies that Mary petted two, one, or no rabbits, but GRANTs that she petted more.<br /><br /> We formalize this interpretation of superlative quantifiers in terms of commitment development spaces, and show how the truth conditions that are derived from it are partly entailed and partly conversationally implicated. We demonstrates how the theory accounts for a wide variety of phenomena regarding the interpretation of superlative quantifiers, their distribution, and the contexts in which they can be embedded.</p><p><strong>References</strong></p><p>Bolinger, D. 1978. ‘Yes-No Questions are not Alternative Questions’. In H. Hiz (ed.) ‘Questions’, Dordrecht: Reidel.<br /><br />Borkin, A. 1971. ‘Polarity Items in Questions’. In ‘Papers from the 7th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society’, 53–62.<br /><br />Bott, L. &amp; Noveck, I. A. 2004. ‘Some Utterances are Underinformative: The Onset and Time Course of Scalar Inferences’. Journal of Memory and Language 51, no. 3: 437–457.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006<br /></a><br />Brasoveanu, A. 2009. ‘Modified Numerals as Post-Suppositions’. In ‘Proceedings of the 17th Amsterdam Colloquium’, .<br /><br />Büring, D. 2007. ‘The least “at least" can do’. In ‘Proceedings of WCCFL 26’, 114–20. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.<br /><br />Chierchia, G. 2004. ‘Scalar Implicatures, Polarity Phenomena and the Syntax/Pragmatics Interface’. In A. Belletti (ed.) ‘Structures and Beyond’, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br /><br />Cohen, A. 2010. ‘Epistemic Modals as Speech Act Modifiers’. Paper presented at Sentence Types, Sentence Moods and Illocutionary Forces: An International Conference to Honor Manfred Bierwisch, ZAS, Berlin.<br /><br />Coniglio, M. 2011. Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.<br /><br />Cummins, C. &amp; Katsos, N. 2010. ‘Comparative and Superlative Quantifiers: Pragmatic Effects of Comparison Type’. Journal of Semantics 27: 271–305.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq006" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq006</a><br /><br />Fodor, J. 1975. The Language of Thought. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.<br /><br />Geurts, B. &amp; Nouwen, R. 2007. ‘At Least et al.: The Semantics of Scalar Modifiers’. Language 83, no. 3: 533–559.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0115" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0115<br /></a><br />Geurts, B., Katsos, N., Cummins, C., Moons, J. &amp; Noordman, L. 2010. ‘Scalar Quantifiers: Logic, Acquisition, and Processing’. Language and Cognitive Processes 5, no. 1: 244–253.<br /><br />Hacohen, A., Kozlowski, D. &amp; Cohen, A. 2011a. ‘The Truth Shall Make You Slow: Superlative Quantifiers as Illocutionary Operators’. Presented at the Experimental Pragmatics Conference, Barcelona.<br /><br />Hacohen, A., Kozlowski, D. &amp; Cohen, A. 2011b. ‘Superlative Quantifiers as Speech Act Modifiers: Experimental Evidence’. Presented at a workshop on The Proper Use of Quantification in Ordinary Language, Ljubljana.<br /><br />Hare, R. M. 1970. ‘Meaning and speech acts’. The Philosophical Review 79: 3–24.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2184066" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2184066<br /></a><br />Horn, L. R. 1972. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.<br /><br />Kadmon, N. 1987. On Unique and Non-Unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.<br /><br />Kadmon, N. &amp; Landman, F. 1993. ‘Any’. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 353–422.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00985272" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00985272<br /></a><br />Karttunen, L. 1977. ‘Syntax and semantics of questions’. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00351935" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00351935</a><br /><br />Kay, P. 1992. ‘At Least’. In A. Lehrer &amp; E. F. Kittay (eds.) ‘Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization’, 309–331. Hillsdayle, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.<br /><br />Keenan, E. L. &amp; Stavi, J. 1986. ‘A Semantic Characterization of Natural Language Determiners’. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, no. 3: 253–326.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00630273" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00630273<br /></a><br />Krifka, M. 1991. ‘Some Remarks on Polarity Items’. In D. Zaefferer (ed.) ‘Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics’, 150–189. Berlin/New York: Foris.<br /><br />Krifka, M. 1995. ‘The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polarity Items’. Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–257.<br /><br />Krifka, M. 1999a. ‘At Least Some Determiners Aren’t Determiners’. In K. Turner (ed.) ‘The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View’, 257–291. Amsterdam: Elsevier.<br /><br />Krifka, M. 1999b. ‘Quantification into Question Acts’. In ‘Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 9’, Cornell: CLC Publications.<br /><br />Krifka, M. 2001. ‘Quantification into Question Acts’. Natural Language Semantics 9: 1–40.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1017903702063" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1017903702063<br /></a><br />Krifka, M. to appear. ‘Embedding Speech Acts’.<br /><br />Lakoff, R. 1969. ‘Some Reasons Why There Can’t Be Any Some-Any Rule’. Language 45, no. 3: 608–615.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/411442" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/411442</a><br /><br />Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</p><p>Nilsen, Øystein. 2007. ‘At Least—Free Choice and Lowest Utility’. Talk given at the ESSLLI Workshop On Quantifier Modification, Dublin.<br /><a href="http://www.let.uu.nl/~Rick.Nouwen/qm/nilsen.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.let.uu.nl/~Rick.Nouwen/qm/nilsen.pdf</a>.<br /><br />Nouwen, R. 2009. ‘The Semantics of Minimal Requirements’. Paper presented at the 7th Conference on Semantics and Modelisation (JSM09), Paris.<br /><br />Noveck, I. 2001. ‘When Children are More Logical than Adults: Experimental Investigations of Scalar Implicature’. Cognition 78: 165–188.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00114-1" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00114-1<br /></a><br />Pope, E. 1972. Questions and Answers in English. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.<br /><br />Roelofsen, F. &amp; van Gool, S. 2009. ‘Disjunctive Questions, Intonation, and Highlighting’. In M. Aloni &amp; K. Schulz (eds.) ‘Proceedings of the Seventeenth Amsterdam Colloquium’, .<br /><br />Schlenker, P. 2002. ‘A Plea for Monsters’. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 29–120.<br /><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022225203544" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022225203544<br /></a><br />Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br /><br />Shapira, R. 2010. ‘Surveying the Evaluative Sense of Superlative Quantifiers When Embedded as Conditional Antecedents’. Guided research paper, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.<br /><br />Sweetser, E. 1996. ‘Reasoning, Mappings, and Meta-Metaphorical Conditionals’. In M. Shibatani &amp; S. Thompson (eds.) ‘Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning’, Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br /><br />von Fintel, K. &amp; Iatridou, S. 2005. ‘What to Do if You Want to Go to Harlem: Anankastic Conditionals and Related Matters’. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.<br /><br />von Stechow, A., Krasikova, S. &amp; Penka, D. 2005. ‘Anankastic conditionals’. Ms., University of Tubingen.<br /><br /></p>