Soft but Strong. Neg-Raising, Soft Triggers, and Exhaustification

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Soft but Strong. Neg-Raising, Soft Triggers, and Exhaustification

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Chierchia, Gennaro
dc.contributor.author Romoli, Jacopo
dc.date.accessioned 2012-11-15T17:11:07Z
dash.embargo.terms 2013-10-05 en_US
dash.embargo.terms 2013-10-05
dc.date.issued 2012-11-15
dc.date.submitted 2012
dc.identifier.other http://dissertations.umi.com/gsas.harvard:10566 en
dc.identifier.uri http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:9909638
dc.description.abstract In this thesis, I focus on scalar implicatures, presuppositions and their connections. In chapter 2, I propose a scalar implicature-based account of neg-raising inferences, standardly analyzed as a presuppositional phenomenon (Gajewski 2005, 2007). I show that an approach based on scalar implicatures can straightforwardly account for the differences and similarities between neg-raising predicates and presuppositional triggers. In chapters 3 and 4, I extend this account to “soft” presuppositions, a class of presuppositions that are easily suspendable (Abusch 2002, 2010). I show how such account can explain the differences and similarities between this class of presuppositions and other presuppositions on the one hand, and scalar implicatures on the other. Furthermore, I discuss various consequences that it has with respect to the behavior of soft presuppositions in quantificational sentences, their interactions with scalar implicatures, and their effects on the licensing of negative polarity items. In chapter 5, I show that by looking at the interaction between presuppositions and scalar implicatures we can solve a notorious problem which arises with conditional sentences like (1) (Soames 1982, Karttunen and Peters 1979). The main issue with (1) is that it is intuitively not presuppositional and this is not predicted by any major theory of presupposition projection. (1) I’ll go, if you go too. Finally, I explore in more detail the question of which alternatives should we consider in the computation of scalar implicatures (chapter 6). Traditionally, the answer has been to consider the subset of logically stronger alternatives than the assertion. Recently, however, arguments have been put forward in the literature for including also logically independent alternatives. I support this move by presenting some novel arguments in its favor and I show that while allowing new alternatives makes the right predictions in various cases, it also causes an under- and an over-generation problem. I propose a solution to each problem, based on a novel recursive algorithm for checking which alternatives are to be considered in the computation of scalar implicatures and the role of focus (Rooth 1992, Fox and Katzir 2011). en_US
dc.description.sponsorship Linguistics en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dash.license LAA
dc.subject linguistics en_US
dc.subject intervention effects en_US
dc.subject negative polarity items en_US
dc.subject presuppositions en_US
dc.subject soft triggers en_US
dc.subject scalar implicatures en_US
dc.subject neg-raising en_US
dc.title Soft but Strong. Neg-Raising, Soft Triggers, and Exhaustification en_US
dc.type Thesis or Dissertation en_US
dc.date.available 2013-10-05T07:30:29Z
thesis.degree.date 2012 en_US
thesis.degree.discipline Linguistics en_US
thesis.degree.grantor Harvard University en_US
thesis.degree.level doctoral en_US
thesis.degree.name Ph.D. en_US
dc.contributor.committeeMember Heim, Irene en_US
dc.contributor.committeeMember Fox, Danny en_US
dc.contributor.committeeMember Nickel, Bernhard en_US

Files in this item

Files Size Format View
Romoli_gsas.harvard_0084L_10566.pdf 1.185Mb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters