Listofabbreviations
accaccusative acidallegedconventionalimplicaturedevice benbenefactive ciconventionalimplicature clclassifier compcomplementizer condconditional datdative decldeclarative dimdiminutive epi.modepistemicmodal focfocus gengenitive honhonorific impimperative infinfinitive loclocative necnegativeevaluationconstraint negnegative nmnominalizer nomnominative npinegativepolarityitem pcparametricclassification prfperfect polpolite perf.honperformativehonorific ppipositivepolarityitem predpredicative prespresent prtparticiple qquestionmarker qudquestionunderdiscussion sub.honsubjecthonorific subjunctsubjunctive toptopic
.Aim
Scalarityisoneofthemostfundamentalconceptsofhumancognition.Itispervasiveinlanguage,andmanylinguisticexpressionsinherentlyhaveascalarmeaning: comparatives,adjectives,adverbs,nouns,quantifiers,measurephrases,numeralclassifiers,polarityitems(e.g.,minimizers),scalarfocusparticles(e.g., even),intensifiers (e.g., very, much),hedges(e.g., moreorless, approximately),exclamatives,expressives (e.g., damn),andsoon.Scalarityisoftenusedformeasuringorcomparingthings, objectively(e.g., Thisbuildingis20meterstall).Furthermore,italsoplaysanimportantroleinevaluatingthingssubjectivelybasedonacontextuallydeterminedstandard orpersonaltaste(e.g., Tomistall; tennisisfun; thiscoffeeistoostrong ).
Thisbookinvestigatesthescalarphenomenonofnaturallanguagefromthe standpointoftheinterfacebetweensemanticsandpragmatics.Morespecifically, thisbookwillfocusonthemeaninganduseofpragmaticscalarmodifiers,and considers(i)the(non)parallelismbetweensemanticandpragmaticscalarmodifiers (i.e.,theconventionalimplicaturetriggeringscalarmodifiers);(ii)thecompositionalityanddimensionalityofpragmaticscalarmodifiers;(iii)thesourceofvariationin themeaningofpragmaticscalarmodifiers;and(iv)theinterpretationofpragmatic scalarmodifiersinanembeddedcontent.
Aninterestingpointofpragmaticscalarmodifiersisthattheyoftenhavea“dualusephenomenon.”Thedual-usephenomenonisaphenomenonwhereadegree morphology/scalarconceptusedforexpressingat-issuescalarmeaning(i.e.,partof “whatissaid”)canalsobeusedforexpressinganot-at-issuescalarmeaning(i.e.,not partof“whatissaid”).
Aswewilldiscussindetail,thedual-usephenomenonisquitepervasiveinscalar expressionsofnaturallanguage,includingcomparatives(Chapter3),minimizers (Chapter4),intensifiers(Chapter5),andscale-reversaladverbs(Chapter6),andscalarityisutilizednotjustformeasuringanindividualoreventinthesemanticlevel, butalsoforexpressingvarioussubjectivefeelingsordiscourse-pragmaticinformation suchaspoliteness,priorityofutterance,thespeaker’sattitude,andunexpectednessat thepragmaticlevel.
Thedual-usephenomenonisimportantfortheoriesatthesemantics/pragmatics interfacebecauseitstronglysuggeststhattherearebothsimilaritiesanddifferences betweensemantics(at-issuemeaning)andpragmatics(not-at-issuemeaning).
PragmaticAspectsofScalarModifiers.Firstedition.OsamuSawada. ©OsamuSawada2018.Firstpublished2018byOxfordUniversityPress.
TheGriceanapproachtothemeaning/useofnaturallanguageoftenassumesadistinctionbetweenat-issuemeaningandconventionalimplicature(CI),whichisnotat-issue,althoughtheyarebothpartsofthemeaningsofwords(Grice1975,1989). At-issuemeaningcontributestothetruthconditionofagivensentence(whichcan berepresentedatthelevelofsemanticrepresentation/logicalform),whileCI(not-atissuemeaning)doesnot.IntermsofGrice’sterminology,at-issuemeaningbelongsto “whatissaid,”whileCIbelongsto“whatisimplicated”(Grice1975,1989).
Grice’s(1975,1989)discussionofthenotionofCIisbrief,withonlyafewexamples provided(e.g., therefore, but, moreover,and ontheotherhand).However,recently (especiallyafterPotts’(2005)seminalwork),manyresearchershaveshownthereare manyphenomenathatcanbecountedasCIsinnaturallanguage,suchasexpressivesandsupplements(Potts2005,2007a,b);honorifics/anti-honorifics(e.g.,Pottsand Kawahara2004;J.Sawada2016),datives(e.g.,Horn2007,2009);discourseparticles (e.g.,Kratzer1999;McCready2009,2010);exclamatives(CastroviejoMiró2010); Japanesediminutives(Sawada2013a);degreeadverbs(e.g.,McCreadyandSchwager 2009;Sawada2010;Beltrama2015;Gutzmann2011,2015);modaldemonstratives (SawadaandSawada2013);Japanesebenefactives(KubotaandUegaki2011);evaluativeadverbs(e.g.,MayolandCastroviejo2013;Liu2012),etc.(SeealsoBach(1999b) andPotts(2015)forthelistofallegedconventionalimplicatureitems.)
ToillustrateCI,letusconsiderthefollowingexamples:
(1)(Appositive)
LanceArmstrong,thecyclist,battledcancer.
At-issue:LanceArmstrongbattledcancer
CI:LanceArmstrongisacyclist.
(2)(Utterancemodifier)
Franklyspeaking,Ithinkthiscoststoomuch. At-issue:Ithinkthiscoststoomuch.
CI:Iamtalkingtoyouinaseriousway/inadirectway.
(3)(Expressiveadjective bastard)
ThatbastardKresgeisfamous.
At-issue:Kresgeisfamous.
CI:ThespeakerhasanegativefeelingtowardKresge.
(4)(Honorifics,Japanese)
Yamada Yamada sensei-ga teacher-nom o-warai-ni sub.hon-laugh-sub.hon nat-ta. become-past
At-issue:Prof.Yamadalaughed.
CI:ThespeakerhonorsProf.Yamada.
Potts(2005)claimsthatthemeaningstriggeredbyparentheticals(Huddlestonand Pullum2002;Potts2005,2007a)asin(1),utterancemodifiers(e.g.,Bellert1977;Potts 2005)asin(2),theexpressive bastard asin(3),andJapanesehonorifics(Harada1976; PottsandKawahara2004)asin(4)areindependentof“whatissaid”andtheyshould beanalyzedasaCI.
OnesupportivepieceofevidencefortheideathattheyareCIscomefromthefact thatwecannotchallengetheCIpartsofthesentencesbysaying“Nothat’snottrue!” Thenegativeresponsecanonlytargettheat-issuepartofthesentences.Thesephenomenasuggestthatthereisafundamentaldistinctionbetweenat-issuemeaningand aCI.(WewilldiscussthispointandothersupportiveevidenceindetailinChapter2.)
Inthecurrentliteratureonsemantics/pragmatics,theviewthatCIsandat-issue entailmentarelogicallyindependentofeachotheriscalledamultidimensional approach.
VariousscholarshavequestionedthestatusofCIsandmadevariousalternativeproposalsforthedistinctionbetweenat-issuemeaningandCImeaning,suchasBach’s (1999a)second-orderspeechactapproach,andrelevance-theoreticapproaches(e.g., Blakemore1987,1992,2002;Carston2002;Wilson2011).Thesetheoriesalsoconsider thereisafundamentaldistinctionbetweenat-issuemeaningandmeaningcorrespondingtotheGrice’snotionofCIs(althougheachtheoreticalapproachandassumptionsaredifferent).
However,ifwelookcloselyatthescalarphenomenonofnaturallanguage,wesee caseswhereadegreemorphology(concept)usedtoexpressanat-issuescalarmeaning isalsousedtoexpressameaningthatcorrespondstothenotionofCI.Thisfactissignificantforthetheoryofthesemantics/pragmaticsinterface,becausethephenomenon suggeststhereisarelationbetweenat-issuesemanticmeaningandCImeaning.Let usconsidersomeexamples.
.Dual-usephenomenonofscalarmodifiers
..Comparisonwithanindeterminatepronoun
InJapanese,sentenceswith nani-yori-mo ‘lit.what-than-MO’canexpresstwokinds ofcomparisonwithindeterminateness:
(5)(Comparisonwithindeterminateness)
Nani-yori-mo
What-than-mo tenisu-wa tennis-top tanoshii. fun
a.At-issuesemantics:Tennisismorefunthananything.
b.At-issuesemantics:Tennisisfun.CI:Theutterancethattennisisfunismore noteworthythananyalternativeutterance.
Inthefirstreading,tennisiscomparedwith(contextuallydetermined)individualalternatives(e.g.,soccer,basketball,reading,picnicking,etc.),whileinthesecondreading,theutterance“tennisisfun”iscomparedwithalternativeutterancesintermsof “noteworthiness,”andconstruedasthemostnoteworthy.
Intermsoflevelsofmeaning,themeaningof nani-yori-mo inthefirstreadingcontributestothesentence’spropositional(at-issue)content,whileinthesecondreading themeaningof nani-yori-mo isnotpartofthesentence’spropositionalcontent(i.e.,it isnotat-issue);instead,itcomparestheat-issueutterancewithalternativeutterances, therebyfunctioningatthelevelofdiscourse.Thisiscorroboratedbythefactthatthe phrase nani-yori-mo inthesecondreading(i.e.,thenoteworthyreading)isnotnecessaryinthesecondreadingforcalculatingthetruthvalueofthepropositionexpressed.
Interestingly,asimilarphenomenonoccursinlanguagesotherthanJapanese.For example,weseethesameambiguityintheKoreanexpression mwues-pota-to ‘whatthan-TO’:
(6)Mwues-pota-to what-than-to teynisu-nun tennis-top caymi-itta. fun-decl (Korean)
Individualreading:Tennisismoreinterestingthananything. Noteworthyreading:Morethananything,tennisisinteresting.
WecanseeasimilarphenomenoninEnglishaswell.AlthoughinEnglish,surface formdistinguishesanindividualcomparisonandanoteworthycomparison,theyboth useexactlythesamedegreemorphology:
(7)Tennisismoreinterestingthananything.(Individualreading)
(8)a.Morethananything,tennisisinteresting.(Noteworthyreading)
b.Tennisis,morethananything,interesting.(Noteworthyreading)
Thesedatastronglysuggestthatdual-usephenomenonofcomparisonwithindeterminatenessiscross-linguisticallypervasive.
..MinimizerPPIs
Insomelanguages,thedual-usephenomenonoccursinminimizers.Forexample,in Japanese, chotto and sukoshi canmodifyagradablepredicate:
(9)Kono This doa-wa door-top {chotto/sukoshi} alittle/alittle ai-teiru. open-perf ‘lit.Thisdoorisalittleopen.’(=Thisdoorisslightlyopen.)
However, chotto,butnot sukoshi,canalsoappearinacontextwherethereisno gradablepredicatethatitcancombinewith:
(10){Chotto/∗ sukoshi}
Alittle/alittle hasami scissors aru? exist
At-issuesemantics:Aretherescissors?
CI:Iamminimizingthedegreeofimpositionofmyquestion(request).
Matsumoto(1985,2001)observesthatthistypeof chotto isahedge/lexicalspeechact qualifiersimilarto kindof and sortof (G.Lakoff1972).Intermsofthesemantics/ pragmaticsdistinction,itseemsnaturaltoviewtheminimizerin(9)asbelongingto thelevelof“whatissaid,”whileconsideringtheminimizerin(10)asbelongingtothe domainofCI.Itdoesnotparticipateinthetruthconditionoftheat-issuequestion. AsimilarphenomenoncanalsobeobservedinGreek:
(11)Greek
a.Ligi
Abit-feminine brizola steak parakalo? please (Amountreading)
‘Pleasegivemeabitofsteak.’
b.Ligo
Abit.neuter brizola steak parakalo? please (Expressivereading) ‘LIGO,pleasegivemesteak.’ (AnastasiaGiannakidou,personalcommunication)
Wecanusetheminimizer ligo (aneuterform)asapoliterequestsimilarto(10).
..Intensifiers
Recentstudiesofintensifiershaveshownthatintensificationofmeaningisrepresentedatbothat-issueandnot-at-issuelevels,e.g.,theEnglish totally, fully (McCready andSchwager2009;Beltrama2014;Irwin2014),theGerman ur ‘lit.absolutely’and theJapaneseparticle zenzen ‘lit.atall’(McCreadyandSchwager2009);theJapanese totemo ‘lit.very’(Sawada2014a);theGermanexpressiveintensifiers sau/voll/total ‘totally’(GutzmannandTurgay2015);theItalian issimo ‘extremely’(Beltrama2014; BeltramaandBochnak2015).
Forexample,McCreadyandSchwager(2009)claimthattheEnglishintensifier fully hasbothanat-issueuseandanexpressive/pragmaticuse:
(12)a.Thepipeisfullystraight.(At-issueuse) (KennedyandMcNally2005:355)
b.Brendaisfullygoingtoflykickme!(Expressiveuse) (McCreadyandSchwager2009)
In(12a)theadverb fully isusedatthelevelofsemantics.Itdenotesthattherelevant degreeisatamaximumlevelonthescaleofstraightness.Ontheotherhand,(12b)uses fully atthepragmaticlevel.McCreadyandSchwager(2009)arguethat fully in(12b) behavesasanexpressivewheretheCIisthatthespeakerismaximallyepistemically committedtohis/herjustificationforhis/heruseoftheproposition.
TheJapaneseintensifier totemo ‘very’alsohasadual-usephenomenon,butitsdual propertyisquitedifferentfromthatofintensifierslike fully:
(13)Kono This ie-wa house-top totemo very ookii. big ‘Thishouseisverybig.’
However, totemo canalsointensifyanegativemodalstatement: (14)a.(Abilitymodal)
Tetsuya-nado
Stayingupallnight-nado totemo totemo {deki-na-katta/∗ deki-ta}. can-neg-past/can-past ‘Stayingupallnightwasimpossible.’ (CI:Iamemphasizingtheimpossibility.)
b.(Epistemicmodal)
Taro-ga Taro-nom shaken-ni exam-in ukaru-nado pass-nado totemo totemo {arisooni-nai/∗ arisoo-da}. likely-neg/likely-pred ‘ItisunlikelythatTarowillpasstheexam.’ (CI:Iamemphasizingtheunlikelihood.)
Descriptively,in(14a), totemo emphasizesamodalstatementthatisconcernedwith ability.Ontheotherhand,in(14b), totemo emphasizesanepistemicmodalstatement.Itemphasizesthemodalstatementthat“itisunlikelythatTarowillpassthe exam.”
Thisuseof totemo isnot-at-issue,notpartof“whatissaid.”Thisissupportedby thefactthatin(14a)themeaningof totemo isnotwithinthescopeofthepast-tense operator.Thespeaker’semphaticemotion/intensificationisanchoredtothetimeof utterance.TheinterestingpointoftheJapanese totemo isthatunlikeotherspeakerorientedintensifierslike fully and totally, totemo hastoappearinanegativecontext. Furthermore,ithastoco-occurwithanegativemodalpredicate.
Theabovedataclearlyshowthatintensificationispervasiveinthenot-at-issue dimension.Howcanweexplainthisvariation?
..Comparativeintensifier motto (Japanese)
InJapanese,intensifiedcomparisoncanoccuratbothat-issuelevelandtheCIlevel. Asexample(15)shows,asentencewiththeJapanesedegreeadverb motto canbe ambiguousbetweenadegreereadingandanegativereading:
(15)Motto MOTTO hayaku fast hashi-re! run-imp
a.‘Runstillmuchfasterthannow!’
b.At-issue:Runfast!
CI:Yourspeedofrunningisnowslow.
Inthedegreereading(15a),thesentenceisinterpretedasacomparativeinwhichthe adverb motto behavesasacomparativemorphemewhosemeaningcontributestothe at-issuesemantics.Moreprecisely, motto hasameaningofintensifiedcomparison withanorm-relatedpresupposition.Inthisreading,thespeakerisurgingthelistener torunevenfaster.
Notethatinthisreading,theadverb motto receivesapitchaccent.
Ontheotherhand,inthenegativereading(15b),thesentence’sat-issuemeaningis viewedasasimpleimperative,‘runfast,’with motto conveyingthespeaker’snegative attitude/perspectivetowardthecurrentsituationbycomparing/contrastingthecurrentandexpectedspeedsofrunning.Inthisreading,theadverb hayaku ‘fast’(notthe degreeadverb motto)receivesapitchaccent.
Intermsofthestatusofmeaning,itispossibletoarguethatwhilethemeaningof motto inthefirstreadingcontributestothetruthconditionofagivensentence,its meaninginthesecondreadingdoesnot.Atissueiswherethenegativeimplication comesfrom.
..Counter-expectationalscalaradverbs
Synchronically,theJapanesecounter-expectationalscalaradverbs yoppodo and kaette donothavedual-usecharacteristics.
However,historically,thecurrentpragmaticuseswerederivedfromat-issuemeanings.Forexample,historically, yoppodo wasusedasanintensifierlike extremely or
very 1 However,currently,itisnotamereintensifier.Ithascounter-expectational meaningaswell:
(16)(Context:Taroislookingataramenrestaurantfromoutside.Heseesmany peoplewaitinginfrontoftherestaurant.)
Ano That raamen-ya-wa ramen-restaurant-top yoppodo yoppodo oishii-nichigainai. delicious-must
At-issue:Thatramenrestaurantmustbeverydelicious.Not-at-issue:Iam inferringthedegreeviaevidenceandthedegreeismorethanmyexpectation.
Yoppodo in(16)denotesahighdegreeattheat-issuelevelandconventionallyimplies thatthegivendegreeisabovethespeaker’sexpectation,basedonsomeevidence.
Notethat yoppodo in(16)hasthepropertyofamodalconcord(e.g.,Geurtsand Huitink2006;Zeijlstra2008)ormodalmatching(Grosz2010)inthatitalwayshas tocoincidewithanevidentialmodal.Ifthereisnomodalelement,thesentenceis ill-formed:
(17) ∗ Ano That raamen-ya-wa ramen-restaurant-top yoppodo yoppodo oishii. delicious ‘Thatramenrestaurantisyoppodo(delicious).’
Regarding kaette,historically,thecounter-expectationwasdevelopedbycombining theverb kaeru ‘toreverse’andtheparticle te (Nihonkokugodaijiten).
Kaette conventionallyimplicatesthattheoppositeisnormallythecase: (18)(Context:thespeakerhaslosthiswayinasubwaystationinTokyo.Morethan fivelinesintersectatthestation.)
Tokyo-wa Tokyo-top kaette reversal fuben-da. inconvenient-pred
At-issuesemantics:Tokyoisinconvenient.
CI:Generallyspeaking,Tokyoisconsideredtobeconvenient.
..Mainquestions
Thedual-usephenomenonobservedinsection1.2.5providesanimportantperspective forconsideringrelationsbetweensemantics(at-issuemeaning)andpragmatics(notat-issuemeaning).
Althoughthestandardtheoriesofsemanticsandpragmaticsassumethatthereisa distinctionbetweenthetwo,dual-usephenomenonofscalarmodifiersalsosuggests arelationbetweenthem.
Inthisbook,Iinvestigatethesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweensemanticand pragmaticscalarmodifiersintermsofthesemanticsandpragmaticsinterface.More specifically,Iaddressthefollowingquestions:
(19)Q1:Whatarethesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweensemantic(at-issue)scalar modifiersandpragmatic(not-at-issue)scalarmodifiers?Canweanalyze thesimilaritiesanddifferencesinasystematicway?
1 Historically, yoppodo (yohodo)originallycomefrom yokihodo ‘good/moderatelevel’(seeChapter).
Q2:Whatkindofvariationsarethereinpragmaticscalarmodifiers?Canwe capturethevariationinasystematicway?
Q3:Howarethepragmaticscalarmodifiersinterpretedinanembedded environment?Whathappensifthepragmaticmeaningsofpragmaticscalar modifiersareembeddedunderanattitudepredicatelike think/believe, whichdescribesasubject’sbelief/thoughtsasanat-issuemeaning?
Q4:Towhatextentarepragmaticscalarmodifierspervasive?Underwhatcircumstancescansemanticscalarmodifierschangeintopragmaticscalar modifiers?
Q5:Whatdoesthedual-usephenomenonofscalarmodifiersimplyforthetheoryofsemantics/pragmaticsinterface?
Asregardsthefirstquestion,Iarguethatalthoughsemanticandpragmaticscalar meaningarecompositionallyanddimensionallydifferent,thereisastrikingparallelismbetweensemanticandpragmaticusesintermsofscalestructure.Ishowthatthe scalaritystructureutilizedformeasuringanindividualoreventatthesemanticlevel isalsoutilizedforsignalingvariousaspectsofpragmaticinformation,includingpoliteness,priorityofutterance,thespeaker’sattitude,andthesalienceofthediscourse context.Iwillanalyzethesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweensemanticandpragmatic usageutilizingamultidimensionalcompositionsystem.
Withregardtothesecondquestion(whichconcernssemanticvariations),Iwill proposethattherearetwotypesofpragmaticscalarmodifiers,ahigher-levelpragmaticscalarmodifierandalower-levelpragmaticscalarmodifier.Ahigher-levelmodifierutilizesanimplicitpragmaticscale,whilealower-levelmodifierrecyclesthescale ofanat-issuegradablepredicate.Iwillshowthatthesemodifiertypeshavedifferent compositionalanddiscourse-pragmaticcharacteristics.
Regardingthethirdquestion,Iwillclaimthatifpragmaticscalarmodifiersareembeddedunderacomplementofanattitudepredicate,theirinterpretationscanradicallychange.First,themeaningsoftheembeddedpragmaticscalarmodifier(and otherCI-triggeringexpressionsaswell)canbesubject-orientedand“at-issue”(nota CI).Second,inlower-levelpragmaticscalarmodifiers,theembeddedpragmaticscalar modifierscanbespeaker-oriented(canprojectoutofthecomplementofanattitude predicate)onlywhenthereisamodalinthemainclause.Asforthefirstpoint,wewill proposethatthereisasemanticshiftfromaCItoasecondary-at-issuemeaning.As forthesecondpoint,wewillexplaintheseeminglypuzzlingprojectiveoflower-level pragmaticscalarmodifiersbyassumingthattheirjudgemustbeconsistentwiththe judgeintheat-issuelevel.
Asforthefourthquestion(regardingpervasiveness),Iinvestigatethisissue fromahistoricalpointofview.Myclaimisthatalthoughthedual-usephenomenoniscross-linguisticallypervasiveandtherelationshipbetweenat-issueand not-at-issuescalarmodifierscanbecapturedunderageneralpathofsemantic change/grammaticalization(i.e.,propositional > (textual) > expressive)(Traugott 1982),thesemanticshiftofscalarmodifiersisnotlexicallyrandom.
Iarguethatthesemanticchangeofscalarmodifiersisconstrained/regulatedby theirlexicalandmorphosyntacticproperties.Ialsoshowthatinsomecases(totemo) thedirectionalityofsemanticchangeisfromexpressivetopropositional.
Semanticandpragmaticscalarmodifiers
Asforthefinalquestion(implicationsforthesemantics/pragmaticsinterface), Iclaimthatdual-usephenomenaprovidesupportiveevidenceforamultidimensionalapproachtotheinterface(Potts2005;McCready2010;Gutzmann2012).Ialso comparehowothertheoriestreatGrice’snotionofCI(e.g.,aproceduralapproach; Blakemore1987;Bach1999b),andshowthatonlyamultidimensionalapproachcan theoreticallycapturebothsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweensemanticandpragmaticscalarmodifiers.
.Similaritiesanddifferencesbetweensemanticandpragmatic scalarmodifiers(Q)
..Differencesbetweensemanticandpragmaticscalarmodifiers
Themeaningsofsemanticandpragmaticscalarmodifiersaredifferentintermsofuse. Semanticscalarmodifiersspecifytherelationofdegreesofindividualsorthingstoan appropriatestandardassociatedwithagradablepredicate(e.g.,KennedyandMcNally 2005):
(20)Nani-yori-mo
What-than-mo tenisu-wa tennis-top tanoshii. fun (Individualreading) ‘Tennisismorefunthananything.’
(21)Kono This doa-wa door-top {chotto/sukoshi} abit/abit ai-teiru. open-perf (Degreereading) ‘Thisdoorisalittleopen.’
(22)Kono This hon-wa book-top totemo very omoshiroi. interesting ‘Thisbookisveryinteresting.’
(23)Motto motto hayaku fast hashi-re! run-imp (Degreereading) ‘Runevenmuchfasterthannow!’
In(20),thedegreeof“fun-ness”oftennisisrelatedtoacontextualstandard;in(21), thedegreeof“openness”ofthedoorisrelatedtoaminimumstandard;in(22)the “interestingness”ofthebookisrelatedtoacontextualstandard,andin(23),the expecteddegreeoftheaddressee’srunningspeedisrelatedtothecurrentspeed.2
2 Strictlyspeaking,thereisaslightdifferenceinmeaningbetween sukoshi and chotto.Althoughboth denotealowdegreeoramount,eachminimizerconveysadifferentmodeofmeasurement.While sukoshi conventionallyimpliesthatagivenmeasurementisprecise, chotto conventionallyimpliesthatitisimprecise. Iwillclaimthat sukoshi and chotto are“mixedcontent”(McCready;Gutzmann)thatcontainboth asemanticandCImeaningwithinasingleword:
(i)Kono This sao-wa rod-top {sukoshi/chotto} abit/abit magat-teiru. bend-state
At-issue:Thisrodisabitbent.(Thedegreeofthisrodishigherthanthestandard(zero)byasmall degree.)CIfrom sukoshi:Iammeasuringthedegreeinapreciseway.CIfrom chotto:Iammeasuring thedegreeinanimpreciseway.
(24)a.Tomisverytall.
b.Thisbookisextremelyexpensive.
c.Thisrodispartiallybent.
Crucially,here,themeaningofsemanticscalarmodifiersis“partofwhatissaid.” Namely,theyarepartofthepropositionalcontent.Thisideaissupportedbythefact thatthescalarmeaningtriggeredbyat-issuescalarmodifierscanbechallengedby saying“Nothat’sfalse.”
(25)a.No,that’sfalse!
b.Iya, No sore-wa that-top uso-da. false-pred ‘No,that’sfalse.’
Ontheotherhand,thescalarmeaningsofpragmaticscalarmodifiersarenotpartof “whatissaid.”Theydonotcontributetothetruthconditionsofagivenproposition. Rathertheyconveysomekindofspeaker-orientedmeaning.Observethefollowing examples:
(26)Speaker’sevaluationofhis/herutterance(Noteworthycomparison)
Nani-yori-mo
What-than-mo tenisu-wa tennis-top tanoshii. fun
At-issue:Tennisisfun.CI:Theutterancethattennisisfunismorenoteworthy/ preferablethananyotherutterance.
(27)Speaker’sregulationofhis/herownutterance(Expressive chotto)
Chotto Alittle jikan-ga time-nom nai-desu. neg-perf.hon
At-issue:Idon’thavetime?CI:Iamminimizingtheillocutionaryforceofmy utterance.
(28)Thespeaker’semotionofrejection
Sonnnakoto Suchathing boku-ni-wa I-to-top totemo totemo deki-na-katta. can-neg-past
At-issue:Icouldn’tdosuchathing.CI:Iamemphasizingtheinability.
(29)Thespeaker’snegativeemotiontowardanutterancesituation
Kono This mise-no store-gen keeki-wa cake-top motto motto oishi-katta. delicious-past
At-issue:Thisstore’scakewasdelicious.
CI:Thedegreeofdeliciousnessofthestore’scakeinthepast(intheactualworld) ismuchgreaterthanthecurrentdegreeofdeliciousnessofthestore’scake.)
(CI:Thisstore’scakeisnotdeliciousnow.)
InthisbookIwillanalyzethedegreeuseof sukoshi asmixedcontent(McCready;Gutzmann) inthatithasbothanat-issuecomponentandaCIcomponentwithinasingleword. Typicalexamplesofmixedcontentarepejoratives/ethnicslurslike Broche (Bach;McCready; Gutzmann;Williamson)andTVdistinction(Bach;Horn;Pottsa).Ethnicslurs havemixedcontent.Forexample, Broche hasatruth-conditionalmeaningequivalentto“German,”butin additiontothis,itconventionallyimplicatesthatthespeakerhasanegativeattitudetowardGermans.See Chapterforthedetaileddiscussiononmixedcontent.
In(26),thespeakerisusing nani-yori-mo inordertoconveythathe/shethinksthat, giventheutterancesituation,theat-issueutteranceisthemostnoteworthy.In(27),the speakerisusing chotto inordertominimizethedegreeofimpositionofhis/herown utterancetotheaddressee.Asfor(28),thespeakerisusing totemo tosignalthemeaningofrefusal/rejection,andin(29) motto issignalingaspeaker’scomplaintregarding thecurrent(low)degreeofdeliciousnessofthestore’scake.
Crucially,thespeaker-orientedmeaningsin(26)–(29)cannotbechallengedby denial:
(30)Iya, No sore-wa that-top uso-da. false-pred
‘No,that’sfalse!’
Denialcanonlytargettheat-issuepartofthesentences.
Inarguingfortheideathatthesepragmaticscalarmodifiershavethepropertyof non-truth-conditionality(CI-hood),Iwillprovidefurtheradditionalevidencethat theirpragmaticmeaningscannotbewithinthesemanticscopeoflogicaloperators. Forexample,in(28),thespeaker’semphaticmeaningstriggeredby totemo in(28)and motto in(29)cannotbewithinthescopeofthepasttense.
..Similaritiesbetweenat-issueandnot-at-issuescalarmodifiers
Despitetheabovedifferences(non-parallelism)betweenpragmaticandsemantic scalarmodifiers,thereisastrikingparallelismbetweenthemintermsofscale structure.
Forexample,inthecaseof nani-yori-mo ‘lit.whatthan-mo’(Chapter4),Iwillargue thatbothanindividualcomparisonreadingandanoteworthycomparisonreading haveexactlythesamescalarmeaning,i.e.,asuperlative-likecomparativemeaning.
(31)Nani-yori-mo
What-than-mo tenisu-wa tennis-top tanoshii. fun
a.At-issue:Tennisismorefunthananything.(Individualreading)
b.At-issue:Tennisisfun.CI:Theutterance“Tennisisfun”ismorenoteworthy thananyotheralternativeutterance.(Noteworthyreading)
Intheindividualreading, nani-yori-mo (=31a)comparesanat-issueindividualwith everyalternativeindividualandsaysthattheformeristhehighestonthescaleassociatedwithagradablepredicate.Ontheotherhand,inthenoteworthyreading,(=31b) nani-yori-mo comparesanat-issueutterancetoeveryalternativeutteranceandsays thattheformeristhehighestonthescaleofnoteworthiness.
Asforthecaseofminimizers(Chapter5),Iclaimthatthedegreetypeofminimizer (=32a)andanexpressiveminimizerhaveexactlythesamescalarmeaning“greater thanastandardbyasmallamount/degree”:
(32)a.Kono
This doa-wa door-top {chotto/sukoshi} alittle/alittle ai-teiru. open-perf
At-issue:Thedegreeofbentnessofthisrodisslightlygreaterthanaminimumstandard(zerodegree).
b.{Chotto/∗ sukoshi}
Alittle/alittle hasami scissors aru? exist
At-issuesemantics:Aretherescissors?CI:Thedegreeofimpositionofmy utteranceontheaddresseeisslightlygreaterthanaminimumstandard.
Degreeminimizersmeasurethedegreeofanindividual/entityandsemantically denotethedegreeisgreaterthanastandardassociatedwithagradablepredicate. Ontheotherhand,inthecaseoftheexpressiveminimizer,itmeasuresthedegree ofimpositionofanat-issuespeechactontheaddresseeandimpliesthatthedegreeof impositionisslightlygreaterthanastandard(i.e.,thedegreeofthespeaker’simpositionoftheat-issuespeechactontheaddressislow).
Asforcomparativeadverbs(Chapter6),Iarguethereisaparallelismbetweenanatissueuseandanot-at-issue/expressiveuseintermsofscalestructure.Asforthecomparativeadverb motto,adegreeuseandanegativeusehavethesamescalarmeaning, i.e.,intensification:
(33)Motto motto hayaku fast hashi-re! run-imp
Degreereading:Runevenfaster!
Negativereading:At-issue:Runfast!CI:Theexpecteddegreeofrunningspeed ismuchgreaterthanthedegreeofthecurrentspeed.(=Thedegreeofthecurrentrunningspeedislow.)
Inthedegreeuse(=33a), motto expressesanintensifiedcomparisonbetweentwo individuals x and y.Ontheotherhand,inthenegativeuse(=33b), motto comparesthe sameindividualbasedontwodifferentsituations.Namely,itcomparesanindividual x inanutterancesituationto x’sdegreeinanalternativeexpectedsituationinthe domainofCIanddenotestheexpecteddegreeismuchgreaterthanthecurrentdegree. Iarguethatthenegativeinferenceofthenegative motto comesfromthelargegap betweenacurrentdegreeandanexpecteddegree.
Thenon-comparativeintensifier totemo ‘very’alsohasaparallelismbetweenthe at-issueandnot-at-issueuseintermsofintensity:
(34)a.Taro-wa Taro-top totemo very kashikoi. smart ‘Taroisverysmart.’
b.Konnna Such muzukashii difficult mondai-wa problem-top watashi-ni-wa I-to-top totemo totemo tok-e-nai. solve-can-neg
At-issue:Ican’tsolvesuchadifficultproblem.Not-at-issue:Iamemphasizingtheimpossibilityofsolvingtheproblem.
Finally,asforthecounter-expectationaladverbs, kaette and yoppodo (Chapter7), althoughtheydonothaveadual-usecharacteristic,theirnot-at-issue/CImeaning
hasthesamescalestructureastheirsourcemeanings.Theadverb kaette ishistorically derivedfromtheverb‘toreverse,’andtheCImeaningof kaette utilizesthisfunction intheCIdimension.TheCIisthattheoppositeoftheat-issuegradablepredicateis normallytruewithrespecttothetarget:
(35)Koko-wa
Here-top kaette reversal abunai-desu. dangerous-perf.hon
At-issue:Itisdangeroushere.
CI:Generally,itissafehere.
Asforthecounter-expectationalintensifier yoppodo,originallyithadapureatissueintensifieruse.Althoughthecurrentuseof yoppodo hasthenot-at-issuecomponentonevidentialityandcounter-expectation,itstillhasanat-issueintensification component:
(36)Taro-wa
Taro-top yoppodo yoppodo isogasii-nichigainai. busy-must
At-issue:Taromustbeverybusy.
CI:Iaminferringthedegreeviaevidence,andthedegreeisabovemy expectation.
Theseparallelismsstronglysuggestthatthescalestructureatthesemanticlevelcan beextendedatthediscourse-pragmaticlevelinaparallelmanner.
Sections1.3.1and1.3.2suggestthattherearebothsimilaritiesanddifferences betweensemanticandpragmaticscalarmodifiers.Inthisbook,Itrytoexplainthe similaritiesanddifferencesinasystematicwayusingamultidimensionalcompositionsystem(Potts2005;McCready2010;Gutzmann2011).
.Twotypesofpragmaticscalarmodifiers(Q)
Thesecondcorequestionofthismonographisthevariationofpragmaticscalarmodifiers.Inconsideringthesemanticvariations,Iwillpositthattherearetwotypesof pragmaticscalarmodifiers:higher-andlower-levelones.Theformerareplacedata higherlevelandoperateonanentireutterance,whilethelatterareplacedlowerand modifyapredicate,asillustratedin(37)and(38):
(37)Ahigher-levelpragmaticscalarmodifier
