FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2613589075> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2613589075 endingPage "749" @default.
• W2613589075 startingPage "744" @default.
• W2613589075 abstract "The Pragmatics of Number Anna Papafragou (anna4@linc.cis.upenn.edu) Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, 3401 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA Julien Musolino (musolino@indiana.edu) Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, 200 S. Jordan Avenue Bloomington, IN 47405 USA Abstract In terms of their semantic and pragmatic properties, number expressions (one, two, three…) have standardly been considered similar to quantifiers (some, a few, all). For instance, both kinds of expression form a scale: typically, an assertion containing a weaker member of the scale (Some/Two of the dwarfs loved Snow White) can be used to implicate that the stronger term of the scale doesn’t apply (Not all/No more than two of the dwarfs loved Snow White). We report here results from two experiments with young speakers of Modern Greek which support the opposite conclusion: namely, that number terms and quantifiers behave differently in terms of the scalar inferences they support. We discuss implications of these findings for linguistic theories of the semantics/pragmatics of numerals, as well as for developmental theories of the acquisition of number words. Introduction In terms of their semantic and pragmatic properties, number expressions (one, two, three…) have standardly been considered as scalar expressions similar to quantifiers (some, a few, all). Semantically, both numerals and quantifiers have been assigned an ‘at least’ meaning (Horn, 1972; Grice, 1989): on this 'minimalist' analysis, two means at least two and some means some (and possibly all). Pragmatically, both numerals and quantifiers can be used to give rise to so- called scalar implicatures. Such implicatures arise when a speaker uses a weak member of the numerical or quantificational scale in order to implicate that the stronger term of the scale does not hold. For instance, an utterance such as (1) is typically used to implicate (1) Some/Two of the dwarfs loved Snow White. (2) Not all/No more than two of the dwarfs loved Snow White. The derivation of scalar implicatures is generally assumed to follow Gricean lines: for instance, if the speaker knew that the more informative statement with all (or a higher numeral) were true and relevant, other things being equal, s/he would have preferred to use it. The fact that s/he didn't offers grounds for assuming that such a more informative statement isn't true. More recently, several objections have been raised to the view that the scalar semantic/pragmatic profile of numerals is identical to that of quantifiers (Carston, 1985; 1998; Horn, 1992). First, it has been observed that cardinals, but not 'inexact' quantifiers, can feature in contextually induced reversals of scale: in (3), three is used to communicate at most three: (3) These houses are big enough for families with three kids. But it is not possible to use some in a similar way (e.g. to implicate at most some). Second, number terms are regularly used with an 'exact' interpretation in mathematical statements (Two plus three makes five), a fact which is hard to reconcile with an 'at least' semantics for numerals (unless we assume that cardinals are ambiguous). Third, the scalar properties of numerals disappear under incorporation: a four-sided figure has exactly (not at least) four sides. Finally, approximation seems to work differently with numerals: I have $300 is more likely to receive an 'at least' interpretation than its unrounded counterpart I have $300.17. For these and related reasons, it has been proposed that cardinals are, in fact, distinct from other scalar expressions. According to these proposals, numerals do not have an 'at least' semantics upper- bounded by a scalar implicature; rather, they are best analyzed as underspecified among an 'at least', 'exact' and 'at most' reading. Pragmatic considerations then are used to determine which reading is more appropriate in a specific context. There is by now a vast linguistic literature which attempts to adjudicate between the 'minimalist' proposal and alternative theories for number terms (for reviews, see Carston, 1998; Levinson, 2000). The outcome of this debate is important, since theories of scalar predication are a valuable source of insights about how semantic information and contextual cues co-ordinate with each other and contribute to utterance meaning." @default.
• W2613589075 created "2017-05-19" @default.
• W2613589075 creator A5015159758 @default.
• W2613589075 creator A5087724733 @default.
• W2613589075 date "2019-04-24" @default.
• W2613589075 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2613589075 title "The Pragmatics of Number" @default.
• W2613589075 cites W2044695978 @default.
• W2613589075 doi "https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315782379-163" @default.
• W2613589075 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2613589075 type Work @default.
• W2613589075 sameAs 2613589075 @default.
• W2613589075 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W2613589075 countsByYear W26135890752012 @default.
• W2613589075 countsByYear W26135890752015 @default.
• W2613589075 countsByYear W26135890752020 @default.
• W2613589075 crossrefType "book-chapter" @default.
• W2613589075 hasAuthorship W2613589075A5015159758 @default.
• W2613589075 hasAuthorship W2613589075A5087724733 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConcept C11693617 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConcept C184337299 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConcept C204160518 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConcept C40422974 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConceptScore W2613589075C11693617 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConceptScore W2613589075C138885662 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConceptScore W2613589075C154945302 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConceptScore W2613589075C15744967 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConceptScore W2613589075C184337299 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConceptScore W2613589075C199360897 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConceptScore W2613589075C204160518 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConceptScore W2613589075C33923547 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConceptScore W2613589075C40422974 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConceptScore W2613589075C41008148 @default.
• W2613589075 hasConceptScore W2613589075C41895202 @default.
• W2613589075 hasLocation W26135890751 @default.
• W2613589075 hasOpenAccess W2613589075 @default.
• W2613589075 hasPrimaryLocation W26135890751 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W1743382491 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W1937722267 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W1966831173 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W2022429923 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W2025754600 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W2069812862 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W2169333291 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W2179709005 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W2397873786 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W2398707480 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W2408143125 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W2476945644 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W2577547690 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W2767356513 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W2924530784 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W308122504 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W3095618468 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W634230072 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W651319892 @default.
• W2613589075 hasRelatedWork W222101532 @default.
• W2613589075 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2613589075 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2613589075 magId "2613589075" @default.
• W2613589075 workType "book-chapter" @default.