What does a negative mean? Or why are scalar implicatures blocked by negation?

FACULTÉ DES LETTRES Département de linguistique

What does a nega,ve u/erance mean?

Or why are scalar implicatures blocked by nega,on?

Jacques Moeschler Department of linguis,cs University pf Geneva

[email protected] h/ps://sites.google.com/site/moeschlerjacques/

1

mailto:[email protected]

https://sites.google.com/site/moeschlerjacques/


What am I interested in?Two examples from the Cluny market last Saturday: 1. on a poster to be sent in a market shop

Nous ne sommes pas des humains vivant une expérience spirituelle, nous sommes des êtres spirituels vivant une expérience humaine (Teilhard de Chardin)We are not human beings living a spiritual experience, we are spiritual beings living a human experience

2. at the grocer’s The seller (to a customer and me) : Vous êtes ensemble? (Are you together?) The customer: Pas encore! (Not yet)

What do these u+erances mean? What is the meaning of nega4on in these u+erances?

2


an informal analysisTeilhard de Chardin’s mo/o is a classical chiasmus.

a. a descrip,ve interpreta,on: there is a contrast between two proposi,ons 1. we are human beings living a spiritual experience 2. we are spiritual beings living a human experience

b. a metalinguis,c interpreta,on: 3. the author cannot assert that we are human

beings living a spiritual experience, because… customer’s reply

pas encore ↝ not yet living in a couple

3


a more theore,cal issue

Why are some proposi,ons – here NEG and COR – in seman,c and pragma,c rela,ons? How can we detect inferences triggered by nega,ve u/erances?

4


a prac,cal roadmapTwo main hypotheses on nega4ve u+erances:

1. Nega,ve u/erances (NEG) entertain some seman,c/pragma,c rela,ons with their posi,ve counterparts (POS) and with u/erances correc,ng them (COR)

RQ1: what are the rela,ons between NEG, POS and COR?

2. NEG inherits some seman,c and pragma,c meaning components, and blocks others.

RQ2: what are the meaning component inherited by NEG and why?

5


The general frameworkThis paper is part of a more global research project, funded by the Swiss Na,onal Science Founda,on (2014-‐2017)

LogPrag: the seman4cs and pragma4cs of Logical words h/ps://sites.google.com/site/moeschlerjacques/recherche

The main goal of the LogPrag project is to describe, explain and experiment the pragma,c behavior of nega,on and logical connec,ves (conjunc,on, disjunc,on, condi,onal)

One of the main thesies of the LogPrag project is the Domain Restric4on Hypothesis: Pragma,c meanings of LWs are restric,ons on their logical meanings. One specific issue for the Pragma,cs of Nega,on is to describe and explain how nega,on takes its scope.

6

https://sites.google.com/site/moeschlerjacques/recherche


overview of the talk

Part I: the rela,ons between NEG, POS and COR Part II: the pragma,c effects of metalinguis,c nega,on

7


Part INEG, POS and COR

8


Three main usages of nega,on

1. ordinary nega4on (downward nega,on) COR entails NEG

2. metalinguis4c nega4on 1 (upward nega,on) COR entails POS

3. metalinguis4c nega4on 2 (presupposi,onal nega,on) COR entails NEG and its PPs and entailments

9


some examples Abi n’est pas laide (NEG), elle est belle (COR)Abi is not ugly, she is beau,ful

COR ➞ NEG Abi is beau,ful ➞ Abi is not ugly

Abi n’est pas belle (NEG), elle est extraordinaire (COR)Abi is not beau,ful, she is gorgeous

COR ➞ POS Abi is gorgeous ➞ Abi is beau,ful

Abi ne regreGe pas d’avoir échoué (NEG), elle a réussi (COR)Abi does not regret having failed, she passed

COR ➞ NEG & NEG-‐PP Abi passed ➞ Abi does not regret having failed & Abi did not fail

10


entailment rela,ons

The seman,c or logical analysis is based on entailment rela,ons between NEG, POS and COR.

a. descrip4ve nega4on: COR makes POS entailments true or false

b. metalinguis4c nega4on 1: POS implicature is defeated by COR

c. metalinguis4c nega4on 2: COR defeats both POS and its presupposi,on PP

11


some examples1. I didn’t buy a chow (NEG), I bought

a WesKe (COR) COR entails POS entailment

CHOW(x) ➞ DOG(x) WESTIE(x) ➞ DOG(x)

2. I didn’t buy a chow (NEG), I bought a Siamese (COR)

COR defeats POS entailment CHOW(x) ➞ DOG(x) SIAMESE(x) ➞ CAT(x)

3. Anne does not have three children (NEG), she has four (COR)

COR ➞ POS Anne has three children ↝ Anne does not have four children COR defeats POS implicature

4. Abi does not regret having failed (NEG), she passed (COR)

COR ➞ NEG & NEG-‐PP Abi passed ➞ not(Abi regret) & not(Abi failed) COR defeats POS and its PP

12


a general pictureWhat are the rela,ons between asser4on, entailment, presupposi4on and implicature in these three types of nega,on?

13

asser4on entailment presupposi4on implicature

descrip4ve nega4on not-‐P Q or not-‐Q Q

upward nega4on not-‐P P and Q not-‐Q

presupposi4onal nega4on not-‐P not-‐Q not-‐Q


pragma,c criteria

Entailment rela,ons are not the only criteria for dis,nguishing these three types of nega,on. Discourse rela4ons, connec4ves and contextual hypotheses can be used to confirm the classifica,on.

14


discourse rela,onsDescrip4ve nega4on: CORRECTION

a CORRECTION rela,on between NEG and COR holds if POS is a false descrip,on of the world, COR a true descrip,on, and COR entails NEG.

Upward nega4on: CONTRAST a CONTRAST rela,on holds between NEG and COR if POS implicates not-‐COR and if COR entails POS

Presupposi4onal nega4on: EXPLANATION an EXPLANATION rela,on holds between NEG and COR if COR explains why NEG is the case and COR entails NEG and the nega,on of its entailments

15


examples1. Abi is not beauKful, she is ordinary

⟦Abi is beauKful ⟧ = 0

⟦Abi is ordinary⟧ =1

Abi is ordinary ➞ not(Abi is beau,ful) 2. Abi is not beauKful, she is gorgeous

Abi is gorgeous ➞ Abi is beau,ful Abi is beau,ful ↝ not(Abi is gorgeous)

3. Abi does not regret having failed; she passed Abi passed ➞ not(Abi failed) & not(Abi regre/ed)

16


connec&vesOrdinary nega4on -‐ CORRECTION -‐ au contraire (on the contrary)

1. Abi n’est pas belle, au contraire elle est quelconqueAbi is not beau&ful, on the contrary she is ordinary

Upward nega4on -‐ CONTRAST -‐ mais (but) 2. Abi n’est pas belle, mais extraordinaire

Abi is not beau&ful, but gorgeous Presupposi4onal nega4on -‐ EXPLANATION -‐ parce que/puisque (because/since)

3. Abi ne regreGe pas d’avoir échoué, parce que/puisqu’elle a réussi Abi does not regret having failed, because/since she passed

17


connec&ves and discourse rela&ons

Descrip4ve nega4on -‐ CORRECTION -‐ au contraire, maisSN (sondern)

1. Abi n’est pas belle, au contraire elle est quelconque

2. Abi n’est pas belle maisSN quelconque

3. Abi n’est pas belle, parce qu’elle est quelconque (EXPLANATION)

Upward nega4on -‐ CONTRAST -‐ maisPA (aber), ??au contraire, ?parce que

4. Abi n’est pas belle, mais extraordinaire.

5. ?? Abi n’est pas belle, au contraire elle est extraordinaire.

6. ? Abi n’est pas belle, parce qu’elle est extraordinaire

Presupposi4onal nega4on -‐ EXPLANATION -‐ parce que/puisque, *au contraire, *mais

7. Abi ne regreGe pas d’avoir échoué, parce que/puisqu’elle a réussi

8. *Abi ne regreGe pas d’avoir échoué, au contraire elle a réussi

9. *Abi ne regreGe pas d’avoir échoué, mais elle a réussi

18


a general picture

19

Entailments Discourse rela4ons Connec4ves

Ordinary nega4on COR ➞ NEG CORRECTION au contraire

Upward nega4on COR ➞ POS CONTRAST mais

Presupposi4onal nega4on

COR ➞ NEG (P & PP) EXPLANATION parce que puisque


Nega&ve uIerances and their contexts

Are the contexts for the different nega&on interpreta&ons the same? Nega&ve uIerances are pragma&cally processed against contexts in which some assump&ons and some previous uIerances are required. What are these contexts?

20


Ordinary downward nega&on

a. The relevant context contains POS. b. COR strengthens NEG (COR ➞ NEG)

c. The main posi4ve cogni4ve effect of NEG & COR is to suppress POS from the actual context. 1. A: Anne a trois enfants.

B: Non, elle n’a pas trois enfants, elle en a deux.A: Anne has three children B: No, she does not have three children, she has two

Inference schema

a. Contextual assump4on POS b. U+erance NEG & COR c. Contextual effect POS

Jus4fica4on a. POS b. NEG & COR c. COR d. COR ➞ NEG e. NEG f. NEG ➞ not(POS) g. not(POS)

21


Upward nega&onIn upward nega&on, POS is maintained, and NEG & COR do not cancel it. The main posi&ve cogni&ve effect of NEG +& COR is the strengthening of POS, that is, the addi&on of a stronger value to POS. 1. A: Abi est belle, tu ne trouves

pas? B: Non, elle n’est pas belle, elle est extraordinaire. A: Abi is beau&ful, isn’t she? B: No, she is not beau&ful, she is gorgeous.

Inference schema

a. Contextual assump4on POS b. U+erance NEG & COR c. Contextual effect POS+

Jus4fica4on d. POS e. NEG & COR f. COR g. COR ➞ POS h. POS+

The strengthening contextual effect (POS+) is a result of inferring from true premisses a proposi&on which belongs to the set of premises.

22


Presupposi&onal nega&onIn presupposi&onal nega&on, the context is either NEG or POS with a presupposi&on PP. NEG & COR defeat both POS & PP and NEG & PP.

1. A: J’ai vu Abi. Apparemment, elle regre=e d’avoir échoué à ses examens. B: Non, elle ne regreGe pas d’avoir échoué à ses examens, parce qu’elle les a réussis.A: I met Abi. Apparently, she regrets having failed. B: No, she doesn’t regret having failed, since she passed.

2. A: J’ai vu Abi. Apparemment, elle ne regre=e pas d’avoir échoué à ses examens. B: En effet, elle ne regreGe pas d’avoir échoué ses examens, parce qu’elle les a réussi. A: I met Abi. Apparently, she doesn’t regret having failed. B: In effect, she doesn’t regret having failed, since she passed. Context 1 (POS) a. Contextual assump4ons: POS & PP b. U+erance: NEG & COR c. Contextual effect: POS & PP

Context 2 (NEG) a. Contextual assump4ons: NEG & PP b. U+erance: NEG & COR c. Contextual effect: NEG & PP

23


Summary The different contexts are consistent with the logical and pragma&c features of nega&on.

Scope is the result of contextual assump4ons and entailments. Discourse rela4ons and connec4ves are the result of the cogni4ve effects of nega4on.

24

Entailments Discourse rela4on Connec4ves Contextual

assump4ons U+erances Cogni4ve effects

Ordinary nega4on COR ➞ NEG CORRECTION au contraire POS NEG & COR POS

Upward nega4on COR ➞ POS CONTRAST mais POS NEG & COR POS+

Presupposi4onal nega4on

COR ➞ NEG (P & PP) EXPLANATION parce que

puisquea. POS & PP b. NEG & PP NEG & COR a. POS & PP

b. NEG & PP


Part IIMetalinguis&c nega&on

25


the issue of metalinguis&c nega&ons

One property of implicature is cancelability. Metalinguis4c nega4on 1 has as a target the conversa4onal implicature of POS. Why and how is this the case?

26


descrip&ve nega&on with scale predicates

With scalar predicates, descrip4ve nega&on is downward. The downward scope of descrip4ve nega4on does not target scalar implicature of POS. In descrip4ve nega4on, the POS implicature is out of the scope of nega4on. Its scope is iden&cal to the set of entailments of NEG:

Anne does not have three children (she has two of them)

27

ENTAILMENTS SCOPE OF NEGATIONchildren

3

2

1

4


scalar implicature and metalinguis&c nega&on

Without COR, NEG entails LESS_THAN_POS. 1. Anne does not have three children

a. ➞ Anne has two children b. ➞ Anne has one child

POS implicates the nega&on of its upward entailments: 2. Anne has three children

c. ↝ Anne does not have four children In metalinguis4c nega4on, NEG targets the conversa&onal implicature of POS, and COR entails POS. But POS implicature is no more ac&ve: 3. Anne does not have three children, she has four of them

d. ➞ Anne has four children e. ➞ Anne has three children

28

ENTAILMENTS

SCOPE OF NEGATION

children

3

2

1

4


consequences

With descrip4ve nega&on, the scalar implicature is ruled out because it is out of the scope of the entailments of NEG. With metalinguis4c nega&on, POS scalar implicature is defeated by COR. In other words, descrip&ve nega&on has as a side effect to put aside the implicature of POS. Metalinguis&c nega&on targets the implicature of POS.

29


is a logical solu&on possible?

Descrip&ve nega&on should be compa&ble with the POS implicature, but it is not.

If Anne does not have three children, she has two and she should not have four of them, i.e. the implicature of POS. But it is not the case, because the set of entailments of NEG, for reasons of relevance, limits the domain of valid inferences.

One argument for this result is the downward orienta4on of descrip4ve nega4on.

The ruling out of the POS implicature by the descrip&ve nega&on is a result of its downward orienta&on. As a result, this default property makes descrip4ve nega4on NOT ambiguous between its downward and upward entailments.

30


an ambiguist solu&on?

One consequence of the alterna&ve solu&on, the ambiguist one, is the seman&c underdermina&on of nega&on WITHOUT COR.

Disambigua&on occurs contextually or through a discourse rela&on or a connec&ve introducing COR. It implies that entailment rela&ons are of no help in compu&ng scope and contextual effects of nega&ve uIerances.

The proposed monoguist solu&on has a cost: NEG without COR is computed descrip4vely, in as much entailments play a role in contextual effects and are supported by contextual assump&ons.

31


what is the limit?

One test for tes&ng the limit of this analysis is to examine accommoda4ons with nega&ve uIerance implying conceptual structures. This last issue will show that pragma4c accommoda4on does not require a metalinguis&c analysis because entailments of nega&ve uIerances are safe.

32


some basic examples1. Nath did not buy a chow,

a. he bought a WesKe b. he bought a cat

2. I did not buy a Mac, a. I bought a PC b. I bought a TV In COR (a), the entailment of POS is true. In COR (b), it is false. In NEG, entailment of POS can be true or false

If POS entails Q, then NEG entails Q or not-‐Q

33


some more complex examples

1. Nath did not buy a Chow, he bought a goldfish 2. I did not buy a Mac, I bought a toaster Are these correc&ons pragma&cally acceptable? Where is the contrast? One hypothesis is that the contrast is pragma&cally accommodated.

34

FACULTÉ DES LETTRES Département de linguistique 35

pet

dog

chowWes&e

cat

SiamesePersian

mammal

vertebrate

fish

goldfish salmon

etc.etc.

etc.

NEG

Nath did not buy a Chow, he bought a goldfish


I did not buy a Mac, I bought a toaster

36

computers

Mac PC

TV

audio-‐visual equipment

mobiles

household appliances

toaster

NEG


Is nega&on metalinguis&c?

No. COR entails NEG, as in ordinary or descrip&ve nega&on. The discourse rela&on is CORRECTION, and the appropriate connec&ve is au contraire or maisSN.

1. Nath n’a pas acheté un chow chow, maisSN un poisson rouge. Nath did not buy a chow, but a goldfish

2. Je n’ai pas acheté un Mac, maisSN un grille-‐pain. I did not buy a Mac, but a toaster

37


conclusionThere are seman&c (logical) and pragma&c criteria for dis&nguishing three types of nega&on usages:

descrip&ve nega&on: downward nega&on metalinguis&c nega&on 1: upward nega&on metalinguis&c nega&on 2: presupposi&onal nega&on

The downward orienta&on of descrip&ve nega&on is seman&cally driven, supported by the appropriate contextual assump&ons. In metalinguis&c nega&on 1, nega&on targets POS implicature. In descrip&ve nega&on, POS implicature is out of its scope for reasons of relevance and entailment.

38


referencesCarston R. (2002), Thoughts and UGerances, Oxford, Blackwell. Carston R. (1996), Metalinguis&c nega&on and echoic use, Journal of PragmaKcs 25, 309-‐30. Moeschler J. (2006), Néga&on, polarité, asymétrie et événements, Langages 162, 90-‐106. Moeschler J. (2010), Nega&on, scope and the descrip&ve/metalinguis&c dis&nc&on, GeneraKve Grammar in Geneva 6, 29-‐48. Moeschler J. (2012), Pourquoi le sens est-‐il structuré? Nouveaux cahiers de linguisKque française 30, 53-‐71. (clf.unige.ch) Moeschler J. (2013), Is a speaker-‐based pragma&cs possible? Or how can a hearer infer a speaker’s commitment? Journal of Pragma&cs 43, 84-‐97. Moeschler (2014), How much ‘logical’ are logical words? Nega&on and its descrip&ve vs. metalinguis&c uses, in in Taboada M. & Trnavac R. (eds.), Nonveridicality, evaluaKon and coherence relaKons, Leiden, Brill, 76-‐110.

39


thanks for your aIen&on

40

Documents

What does a negative mean? Or why are scalar implicatures blocked by negation?