![\"Loading..\"](\"//bibbase.org/img/ajax-loader.gif\")
\n\n\n generated by\n \n ![\"bibbase.org\"\n](\"//bibbase.org/img/logo.svg\"\n "\\"BibBase")
\n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n\n
\n\n\n - \n\n
- \n \n Group by\n \n \n
- \n
- \n Year\n \n
- \n Author\n \n
- \n Type\n \n
- \n Keyword\n \n
- \n Downloads\n \n
\n\n\n - \n \n \n \n \n
- \n
- \n \n Expand/Collapse All\n \n \n
- \n \n Download BibTeX\n \n \n
- \n \n RSS Feed\n \n \n
\n\n \n\n\n \n
\n\n Excellent! Next you can\n create a new website with this list, or\n embed it in an existing web page by copying & pasting\n any of the following snippets.\n\n
\n\n \n JavaScript\n (easiest)\n
\n \n
\n\n PHP\n \n <script src=\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=http%3A%2F%2Falexandrecremers.com%2FListOfPublications-website.bib&folding=1&jsonp=1&jsonp=1\"></script>\n \n \n
\n\n iFrame\n (not recommended)\n \n <?php\n $contents = file_get_contents(\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=http%3A%2F%2Falexandrecremers.com%2FListOfPublications-website.bib&folding=1&jsonp=1\");\n print_r($contents);\n ?>\n \n \n
\n\n \n <iframe src=\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=http%3A%2F%2Falexandrecremers.com%2FListOfPublications-website.bib&folding=1&jsonp=1\"></iframe>\n \n \n For more details see the documention.\n
\n\n\n This is a preview! To use this list on your own web site\n or create a new web site from it,\n create a free account. The file will be added\n and you will be able to edit it in the File Manager.\n We will show you instructions once you've created your account.\n
\n\n \n\n
\n\n To the site owner:
\n\nAction required! Mendeley is changing its\n API. In order to keep using Mendeley with BibBase past April\n 14th, you need to:\n
- \n
- renew the authorization for BibBase on Mendeley, and \n
- update the BibBase URL\n in your page the same way you did when you initially set up\n this page.\n \n
\n \n \n Fix it now\n
\n\n \n \n
\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n\n\n
\n\n \n \n 2025\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n
\n \n \n \n
\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Does hearing ``and'' help children understand ``or''? Insights into scales and relevance from the acquisition of disjunction in child Romanian.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Bleotu, A. C.; Panaitescu, M.; Bı̂lbı̂ie, Gabriela; Cremers, A.; Nicolae, A. C.; Benz, A.; and Tieu, L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Child Language,1–34. 2025.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n![\"Does](\"//bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg\"\n\t "\\"")
link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@article{Bleotu:2025a,\n\tabstract = {Children are known to derive more implicatures when the required alternative is made salient through contrast or when it is made contextually relevant through a story or a Question Under Discussion. We investigated the exclusivity implicature of three disjunctions (sau "or", sau{\\ldots} sau, and fie{\\ldots}fie "either{\\ldots}or") in child Romanian, an understudied language in the previous literature. Three experiments reveal that the mere presence of the stronger alternative, that is, simply hearing unrelated conjunctive statements in the course of the experiment, is not enough to boost implicatures. Rather, implicatures increase as a result of both access to alternatives and contextual relevance (expressed through conjunctive questions such as Did the hen push the train and the boat?). Interestingly, the boost in implicatures was observed only for sau-based disjunctions, not for fie{\\ldots}fie, which we conjecture may be due to children treating the latter as ambiguous between disjunction and conjunction.},\n\tauthor = {Bleotu, Adina Camelia and Panaitescu, Mara and B{\\^\\i}lb{\\^\\i}ie, Gabriela and Cremers, Alexandre and Nicolae, Andreea Cristina and Benz, Anton and Tieu, Lyn},\n\tdoi = {10.1017/S0305000925100068},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Child Language},\n\tpages = {1--34},\n\ttitle = {Does hearing ``and'' help children understand ``or''? Insights into scales and relevance from the acquisition of disjunction in child Romanian},\n\turl_link = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000925100068},\n\tyear = {2025}}\n\n\n\n Children are known to derive more implicatures when the required alternative is made salient through contrast or when it is made contextually relevant through a story or a Question Under Discussion. We investigated the exclusivity implicature of three disjunctions (sau \"or\", sau… sau, and fie…fie \"either…or\") in child Romanian, an understudied language in the previous literature. Three experiments reveal that the mere presence of the stronger alternative, that is, simply hearing unrelated conjunctive statements in the course of the experiment, is not enough to boost implicatures. Rather, implicatures increase as a result of both access to alternatives and contextual relevance (expressed through conjunctive questions such as Did the hen push the train and the boat?). Interestingly, the boost in implicatures was observed only for sau-based disjunctions, not for fie…fie, which we conjecture may be due to children treating the latter as ambiguous between disjunction and conjunction.\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Children interpret some disjunctions conjunctively: Evidence from child Romanian.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Bleotu, A. C.; Panaitescu, M.; Bı̂lbı̂ie, G.; Cremers, A.; Nicolae, A.; Benz, A.; Casa, M.; and Tieu, L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Semantics,(in press). 2025.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n@article{Bleotu:2025b,\n\tauthor = {Adina Camelia Bleotu and Mara Panaitescu and Gabriela B{\\^\\i}lb{\\^\\i}ie and Alexandre Cremers and Andreea Nicolae and Anton Benz and Monica Casa and Lyn Tieu},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Semantics},\n\tpages = {(in press)},\n\ttitle = {Children interpret some disjunctions conjunctively: Evidence from child {Romanian}},\n\tyear = {2025}}\n\n\n\n
\n\n \n \n 2024\n \n \n (4)\n \n \n
\n \n \n \n
\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n On the Role of Alternatives and QUD in Implicatures with Disjunction in Child Romanian.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Bleotu, A. C.; Nicolae, A.; Benz, A.; Bı̂lbı̂ie, Gabriela; Cremers, A.; Panaitescu, M.; and Tieu, L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In AlThagafi, H. A. A.; and Ray, J., editor(s), Proceedings of the 48th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, volume 48, pages 87–100, 2024. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n![\"On](\"//bibbase.org/img/filetypes/pdf.svg\"\n\t "\\"")
link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@inproceedings{Bleotu:2024a,\n\tabstract = {superseded by JCL paper in 2025},\n\tauthor = {Bleotu, Adina Camelia and Nicolae, Andreea and Benz, Anton and B{\\^\\i}lb{\\^\\i}ie, Gabriela and Cremers, Alexandre and Panaitescu, Mara and Tieu, Lyn},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of the 48th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development},\n\teditor = {AlThagafi, Hayat Abdullah Ali and Jupitara Ray},\n\tpages = {87--100},\n\ttitle = {On the Role of Alternatives and QUD in Implicatures with Disjunction in Child Romanian},\n\turl_link = {https://www.lingref.com/bucld/48/BUCLD48-07.pdf},\n\tvolume = {48},\n\tyear = {2024}}\n\n\n\n superseded by JCL paper in 2025\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n More than one way to free choice: A view from child Romanian.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Bleotu, A. C.; Panaitescu, M.; Cremers, A.; Nicolae, A.; Benz, A.; Bîlbîie, G.; and Tieu, L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Carcassi, F.; Johnson, T.; Knudstorp, S. B.; Domı́nguez Parrado, S.; Robledo, P. R.; and Sbardolini, G., editor(s), Proceedings of the 24th Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 36–43, 2024. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@inproceedings{Bleotu:2024b,\n\tabstract = {Studies show that children draw from modalized disjunctive statements of the structure X is allowed to do P or Q (♢(P ∨Q)) a Free Choice (FC) inference, namely X is allowed to do P and X is allowed to do Q (♢P ∧♢Q). Their ability to compute free choice inferences is surprising in light of their well-known difficulties with scalar implicatures involving non modalized disjunction (Tieu, Romoli, et al. 2016), particularly on accounts that unify free choice inferences and scalar implicatures (e.g., Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002; Chierchia 2013). Recent work by Cochard, van Hout, and Demirdache (2024b), however, argues that some children only seemingly derive free choice: these children actually interpret ♢(P ∨Q) as ♢(P ∧Q), which follows from their conjunctive understanding of non-modalized disjunction. In the present study, we extend the investigation by comparing the same children's performance on non-modalized and modalized utterances in Romanian, an understudied language. Specifically, we tested the same group of 5-year-old monolingual Romanian-speaking children and adult controls, balanced for order. Our findings provide partial evidence for Cochard, van Hout, and Demirdache (2024b)'s hypothesis: some children were inclusive with non-modalized disjunction, and appeared to derive genuine free choice on the free choice task, while some children indeed exhibited conjunctive interpretations in both tasks.},\n\tauthor = {Bleotu, Adina Camelia and Mara Panaitescu and Alexandre Cremers and Andreea Nicolae and Anton Benz and Gabriela B\\^ilb\\^iie and Lyn Tieu},\n\tbooktitle = {{Proceedings of the 24th Amsterdam Colloquium}},\n\teditor = {Fausto Carcassi and Tamar Johnson and S{\\o}ren Brinck Knudstorp and Sabina Dom{\\'\\i}nguez Parrado and Pablo Rivas Robledo and Giorgio Sbardolini},\n\tpages = {36--43},\n\ttitle = {More than one way to free choice: A view from child {Romanian}},\n\turl_link = {https://platform.openjournals.nl/PAC/article/view/21771},\n\tyear = {2024}}\n\n\n\n Studies show that children draw from modalized disjunctive statements of the structure X is allowed to do P or Q (♢(P ∨Q)) a Free Choice (FC) inference, namely X is allowed to do P and X is allowed to do Q (♢P ∧♢Q). Their ability to compute free choice inferences is surprising in light of their well-known difficulties with scalar implicatures involving non modalized disjunction (Tieu, Romoli, et al. 2016), particularly on accounts that unify free choice inferences and scalar implicatures (e.g., Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002; Chierchia 2013). Recent work by Cochard, van Hout, and Demirdache (2024b), however, argues that some children only seemingly derive free choice: these children actually interpret ♢(P ∨Q) as ♢(P ∧Q), which follows from their conjunctive understanding of non-modalized disjunction. In the present study, we extend the investigation by comparing the same children's performance on non-modalized and modalized utterances in Romanian, an understudied language. Specifically, we tested the same group of 5-year-old monolingual Romanian-speaking children and adult controls, balanced for order. Our findings provide partial evidence for Cochard, van Hout, and Demirdache (2024b)'s hypothesis: some children were inclusive with non-modalized disjunction, and appeared to derive genuine free choice on the free choice task, while some children indeed exhibited conjunctive interpretations in both tasks.\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Vagueness and pragmatic reasoning in quantified sentences.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cremers, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Carcassi, F.; Johnson, T.; Knudstorp, S. B.; Domı́nguez Parrado, S.; Robledo, P. R.; and Sbardolini, G., editor(s), Proceedings of the 24th Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 95–101, 2024. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n@inproceedings{Cremers:2024,\n\tauthor = {Alexandre Cremers},\n\tbooktitle = {{Proceedings of the 24th Amsterdam Colloquium}},\n\tdate-added = {2025-10-27 11:01:55 +0200},\n\tdate-modified = {2025-10-27 11:06:11 +0200},\n\teditor = {Fausto Carcassi and Tamar Johnson and S{\\o}ren Brinck Knudstorp and Sabina Dom{\\'\\i}nguez Parrado and Pablo Rivas Robledo and Giorgio Sbardolini},\n\tpages = {95--101},\n\ttitle = {Vagueness and pragmatic reasoning in quantified sentences},\n\turl_link = {https://platform.openjournals.nl/PAC/article/view/21825},\n\tyear = {2024}}\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n An Empirical Comparison of Semantics for Quantified Vague Sentences.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cremers, A.; and Kalvelytė, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Problemos,58–77. Dec. 2024.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@article{CremersKalvelyte:2024,\n\tabstract = {We investigate the compositional semantics of vague quantified sentences, focusing on sentences such as ``All of the students are tall,'' where a non-vague quantifier quantifies into a vague predicate. While much work has been done on vagueness in natural language, including the semantics of vague adjectives, little attention has been paid so far to how vagueness interacts with complex sentences. We present an experiment that gathers data on na{\\"\\i}ve speakers' interpretation of such sentences after collecting their judgment on the applicability of the vague predicate for each individual in the restrictor. We then compare how three prominent fuzzy logics -- G{\\"o}del, product, and {\\L}ukasiewicz -- predict the acceptability of the quantified sentences. Our results indicate that G{\\"o}del logic best matches human behavior. We then prove an equivalence between G{\\"o}del logic and a probabilistic form of Williamson's epistemicism for the sentences we have tested, and discuss how our findings inform the broader debate on the semantics of vagueness, particularly between epistemicism and graded-truth approaches.},\n\tabstractnote = {We investigate the compositional semantics of vague quantified sentences, focusing on sentences such as ``All of the students are tall,'' where a non-vague quantifier quantifies into a vague predicate. While much work has been done on vagueness in natural language, including the semantics of vague adjectives, little attention has been paid so far to how vagueness interacts with complex sentences. We present an experiment that gathers data on na{\\"\\i}ve speakers' interpretation of such sentences after collecting their judgment on the applicability of the vague predicate for each individual in the restrictor. We then compare how three prominent fuzzy logics -- G{\\"o}del, product, and {\\L}ukasiewicz -- predict the acceptability of the quantified sentences. Our results indicate that G{\\"o}del logic best matches human behavior. We then prove an equivalence between G{\\"o}del logic and a probabilistic form of Williamson's epistemicism for the sentences we have tested, and discuss how our findings inform the broader debate on the semantics of vagueness, particularly between epistemicism and graded-truth approaches.},\n\tauthor = {Cremers, Alexandre and Kalvelyt{\\.e}, Julija},\n\tdate-added = {2025-10-27 11:01:55 +0200},\n\tdate-modified = {2025-10-27 11:07:17 +0200},\n\tdoi = {10.15388/Problemos.Priedas.24.5},\n\tjournal = {Problemos},\n\tmonth = {Dec.},\n\tpages = {58--77},\n\ttitle = {An Empirical Comparison of Semantics for Quantified Vague Sentences},\n\turl_link = {https://www.journals.vu.lt/problemos/article/view/38284},\n\tyear = {2024}}\n\n\n\n We investigate the compositional semantics of vague quantified sentences, focusing on sentences such as ``All of the students are tall,'' where a non-vague quantifier quantifies into a vague predicate. While much work has been done on vagueness in natural language, including the semantics of vague adjectives, little attention has been paid so far to how vagueness interacts with complex sentences. We present an experiment that gathers data on naı̈ve speakers' interpretation of such sentences after collecting their judgment on the applicability of the vague predicate for each individual in the restrictor. We then compare how three prominent fuzzy logics – Gödel, product, and Łukasiewicz – predict the acceptability of the quantified sentences. Our results indicate that Gödel logic best matches human behavior. We then prove an equivalence between Gödel logic and a probabilistic form of Williamson's epistemicism for the sentences we have tested, and discuss how our findings inform the broader debate on the semantics of vagueness, particularly between epistemicism and graded-truth approaches.\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n \n \n 2023\n \n \n (3)\n \n \n
\n \n \n \n
\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Putting plural definites into context.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Augurzky, P.; Bonnet, M.; Breheny, R.; Cremers, A.; Ebert, C.; Mayr, C.; Romoli, J.; Steinbach, M.; and Sudo, Y.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 27, 2023. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n@inproceedings{Augurzky:2023,\n\tauthor = {Augurzky, P. and Bonnet, M. and Breheny, R. and Cremers, Alexandre and Ebert, C. and Mayr, C. and Romoli, J. and Steinbach, M. and Sudo, Y.},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of {{S}inn und {B}edeutung 27}},\n\ttitle = {Putting plural definites into context},\n\tyear = {2023},\n\turl_link = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/download/1050/961/1840}}\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The importance of being earnest: How truth and evidence affect participants' judgments.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cremers, A.; Fricke, L.; and Onea, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Glossa Psycholinguistics, 2(1): 1–17. 2023.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@article{Cremers:2023b,\n\tabstract = {Truth-value judgments are one of the most common measures in experimental semantics and pragmatics, yet there is no standardized way to elicit such judgments. Despite anecdotal remarks on how proper choice of prompts or response options could help disentangle pragmatic from semantic effects, little is known regarding the relation between parameters of the task and what it actually measures. We tested a range of prompts and two response options for their sensitivity to truth of the target sentence, prior evidence, and the interaction between these two factors. We found that participants attribute high value to true statements, even when they are not backed by evidence. Moreover, our results confirm that prompts vary wildly in their sensitivity to pragmatic factors, and should allow researchers to make an informed choice depending on what they want to test. There was no difference between the results generated by the response options, although the Likert scale required fewer participants and may therefore be preferable. In addition, we discuss some theoretical consequences of our results for pragmatics, philosophy of language, and social psychology. },\n\tauthor = {Cremers, Alexandre and Fricke, Lea and Onea, Edgar},\n\tjournal = {Glossa Psycholinguistics},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tpages = {1--17},\n\ttitle = {The importance of being earnest: How truth and evidence affect participants' judgments},\n\turl_link = {https://doi.org/10.5070/G6011172},\n\tvolume = {2},\n\tyear = {2023}}\n\n\n\n Truth-value judgments are one of the most common measures in experimental semantics and pragmatics, yet there is no standardized way to elicit such judgments. Despite anecdotal remarks on how proper choice of prompts or response options could help disentangle pragmatic from semantic effects, little is known regarding the relation between parameters of the task and what it actually measures. We tested a range of prompts and two response options for their sensitivity to truth of the target sentence, prior evidence, and the interaction between these two factors. We found that participants attribute high value to true statements, even when they are not backed by evidence. Moreover, our results confirm that prompts vary wildly in their sensitivity to pragmatic factors, and should allow researchers to make an informed choice depending on what they want to test. There was no difference between the results generated by the response options, although the Likert scale required fewer participants and may therefore be preferable. In addition, we discuss some theoretical consequences of our results for pragmatics, philosophy of language, and social psychology. \n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Exhaustivity and anti-exhaustivity in the RSA framework: Testing the effect of prior beliefs.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cremers, A.; Wilcox, E.; and Spector, B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Cognitive Science, 47(5): e13286. 2023.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@article{Cremers:2023a,\n\tabstract = {During communication, the interpretation of utterances is sensitive to a listener's probabilistic prior beliefs. In this paper, we focus on the influence of prior beliefs on so-called <i>exhaustivity interpretations</i>, whereby a sentence such as ``Mary came'' is understood to mean that <i>only</i> Mary came. Two theoretical origins for exhaustivity effects have been proposed in previous literature. On the one hand are perspectives that view these inferences as the result of a purely <i>pragmatic</i> process (as in the classical Gricean view, and more recent Bayesian approaches); on the other hand are proposals that treat them as the result of an encapsulated <i>semantic</i> mechanism (Chierchia, Fox & Spector 2012). We gain traction on adjudicating between these two approaches with new theoretical and experimental evidence, focusing on the behavior of different models for exhaustivity effects, all of which fit under the Rational Speech Act modeling framework (RSA, Frank & Goodman, 2012). Some (but not all!) of these models include an encapsulated semantic mechanism. Theoretically, we demonstrate that many RSA models predict not only exhaustivity, but also <i>anti-exhaustivity</i>, whereby ``Mary came'' would convey that Mary and someone else came. We evaluate these models against data obtained in a new study which tested the effects of prior beliefs on both production and comprehension, improving on previous empirical work. We find that the models which have the best fit to human behavior include an encapsulated exhaustivity mechanism. We conclude that, on the one hand, in the division of labor between semantics and pragmatics, semantics plays a larger role than is often thought, but, on the other hand, the tradeoff between informativity and cost which characterizes all RSA models does play a central role for genuine pragmatic effects.},\n\tauthor = {Alexandre Cremers and Ethan Wilcox and Benjamin Spector},\n\tdate-added = {2022-10-19 09:20:39 +0300},\n\tdate-modified = {2023-05-21 13:16:20 +0300},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/cogs.13286},\n\tjournal = {Cognitive Science},\n\tnumber = {5},\n\tpages = {e13286},\n\ttitle = {Exhaustivity and anti-exhaustivity in the {RSA} framework: Testing the effect of prior beliefs},\n\turl_link = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.07023},\n\tvolume = {47},\n\tyear = {2023},\n\tbdsk-url-1 = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.07023}}\n\n\n\n During communication, the interpretation of utterances is sensitive to a listener's probabilistic prior beliefs. In this paper, we focus on the influence of prior beliefs on so-called exhaustivity interpretations, whereby a sentence such as ``Mary came'' is understood to mean that only Mary came. Two theoretical origins for exhaustivity effects have been proposed in previous literature. On the one hand are perspectives that view these inferences as the result of a purely pragmatic process (as in the classical Gricean view, and more recent Bayesian approaches); on the other hand are proposals that treat them as the result of an encapsulated semantic mechanism (Chierchia, Fox & Spector 2012). We gain traction on adjudicating between these two approaches with new theoretical and experimental evidence, focusing on the behavior of different models for exhaustivity effects, all of which fit under the Rational Speech Act modeling framework (RSA, Frank & Goodman, 2012). Some (but not all!) of these models include an encapsulated semantic mechanism. Theoretically, we demonstrate that many RSA models predict not only exhaustivity, but also anti-exhaustivity, whereby ``Mary came'' would convey that Mary and someone else came. We evaluate these models against data obtained in a new study which tested the effects of prior beliefs on both production and comprehension, improving on previous empirical work. We find that the models which have the best fit to human behavior include an encapsulated exhaustivity mechanism. We conclude that, on the one hand, in the division of labor between semantics and pragmatics, semantics plays a larger role than is often thought, but, on the other hand, the tradeoff between informativity and cost which characterizes all RSA models does play a central role for genuine pragmatic effects.\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n \n \n 2022\n \n \n (3)\n \n \n
\n \n \n \n
\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Interpreting gradable adjectives: rational reasoning or simple heuristics?.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cremers, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Bîlbîie, G.; Crysmann, B.; and Schaden, G., editor(s), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 14, pages to appear, 2022. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 9 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 9 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@inproceedings{Cremers:2022d,\n\tabstract = {Gradable adjectives can be categorized into relative adjectives (`tall', `far',\n`happy'), which are vague and context-dependent, and absolute ones (`dry', `dirty',\n`full'), which are much less context-dependent and can receive a strict interpretation. Di\u001dfferent explanations have been proposed in the literature to explain this\nsplit, most saliently: a lexical approach, where the category is determined by properties of the scale on which the adjectives measures entities (Kennedy & McNally\n2005), and a pragmatic approach, which refers to properties of the distribution\nof measurements in the comparison class (Lassiter & Goodman 2013, a.o.). A related debate concerns the nature of the cognitive processes responsible for integrating contextual information: simple heuristics or sophisticated rational reasoning?\nPragmatic approaches are split between theories which assume rationality at the\nspeaker's level and evolutionary theories which instead focus on long-term optimality, while lexicalist approaches tend to rely on heuristics. The experimental\nliterature has established an e\u001dect of the comparison class on the interpretation of\nrelative adjectives, but it is still unclear whether it can determine an adjective's category, and rational models have not been directly compared with simpler heuristics. We present an experiment using nonce adjectives (to control for lexical information and world knowledge), in which the range of the scale is always closed.\nComparison classes vary in the probability mass they place at scale boundaries, a\nfactor which probabilistic pragmatic accounts take to be the determining factor. We\nfound that simple heuristics perform as well as the best rational model, and that the\ndegree distribution within the comparison class can lead to categorical distinctions\nin the interpretation of nonce adjectives, although it remains unclear whether the\nresulting categories constitute genuine absolute and relative meanings.},\n\tauthor = {Alexandre Cremers},\n\tbooktitle = {Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 14},\n\tdate-added = {2022-10-19 09:20:39 +0300},\n\tdate-modified = {2022-10-19 09:38:27 +0300},\n\teditor = {Gabriela B\\^ilb\\^iie and Berthold Crysmann and Gerhard Schaden},\n\tpages = {to appear},\n\ttitle = {Interpreting gradable adjectives: rational reasoning or simple heuristics?},\n\turl_link = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mZlMWMwY/Cremers%20-%20EISS%20-%20Alexandre%20Cremers.pdf},\n\tyear = {2022}}\n\n\n\n Gradable adjectives can be categorized into relative adjectives (`tall', `far', `happy'), which are vague and context-dependent, and absolute ones (`dry', `dirty', `full'), which are much less context-dependent and can receive a strict interpretation. Di\u001dfferent explanations have been proposed in the literature to explain this split, most saliently: a lexical approach, where the category is determined by properties of the scale on which the adjectives measures entities (Kennedy & McNally 2005), and a pragmatic approach, which refers to properties of the distribution of measurements in the comparison class (Lassiter & Goodman 2013, a.o.). A related debate concerns the nature of the cognitive processes responsible for integrating contextual information: simple heuristics or sophisticated rational reasoning? Pragmatic approaches are split between theories which assume rationality at the speaker's level and evolutionary theories which instead focus on long-term optimality, while lexicalist approaches tend to rely on heuristics. The experimental literature has established an e\u001dect of the comparison class on the interpretation of relative adjectives, but it is still unclear whether it can determine an adjective's category, and rational models have not been directly compared with simpler heuristics. We present an experiment using nonce adjectives (to control for lexical information and world knowledge), in which the range of the scale is always closed. Comparison classes vary in the probability mass they place at scale boundaries, a factor which probabilistic pragmatic accounts take to be the determining factor. We found that simple heuristics perform as well as the best rational model, and that the degree distribution within the comparison class can lead to categorical distinctions in the interpretation of nonce adjectives, although it remains unclear whether the resulting categories constitute genuine absolute and relative meanings.\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A Rational Speech-Act model for the pragmatic use of vague terms in natural language.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cremers, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Culbertson, J.; Perfors, A.; Rabagliati, H.; and Ramenzoni, V., editor(s), Proceedings of CogSci 44, pages 149–155, 2022. Cognitive Science Society\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@inproceedings{Cremers:2022c,\n\tabstract = {The question of <i>why</i> human language relies so heavily on vague terms has received a great deal of attention from philosophers, linguists, and more recently cognitive scientists, yet much less is known about their effect on other aspects of language use. In this paper, we propose a model for the interaction between vagueness and implicatures, an important pragmatic phenomenon, incorporating recent work in the RSA framework and insights from the philosophical literature on vagueness. We show that the model offers a good fit of data from earlier studies, and discuss the scope of the model more broadly.},\n\tauthor = {Alexandre Cremers},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of {CogSci} 44},\n\tdate-added = {2022-10-19 09:20:39 +0300},\n\tdate-modified = {2022-10-19 09:30:04 +0300},\n\teditor = {J. Culbertson and A. Perfors and H. Rabagliati and V. Ramenzoni},\n\tpages = {149--155},\n\tpublisher = {Cognitive Science Society},\n\ttitle = {A {Rational} {Speech-Act} model for the pragmatic use of vague terms in natural language},\n\turl_link = {https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2ww8r8dt},\n\tyear = {2022},\n\tbdsk-url-1 = {https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2ww8r8dt}}\n\n\n\n The question of why human language relies so heavily on vague terms has received a great deal of attention from philosophers, linguists, and more recently cognitive scientists, yet much less is known about their effect on other aspects of language use. In this paper, we propose a model for the interaction between vagueness and implicatures, an important pragmatic phenomenon, incorporating recent work in the RSA framework and insights from the philosophical literature on vagueness. We show that the model offers a good fit of data from earlier studies, and discuss the scope of the model more broadly.\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Ignorance implicatures of modified numerals.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cremers, A.; Coppock, L.; Dotlačil, J.; and Roelofsen, F.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Linguistics and Philosophy, 45(3): 683–740. 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 17 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 17 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@article{CremersEtal:2022,\n\tabstract = {Modified numerals, such as at least three and more than five, are known to sometimes give rise to ignorance inferences. However, there is disagreement in the literature regarding the nature of these inferences, their context dependence, and differences between at least and more than. We present a series of experiments which sheds new light on these issues. Our results show that (a) the ignorance inferences of at least are more robust than those of more than, (b) the presence and strength of the ignorance inferences triggered by both at least and more than depends on the question under discussion (QUD), and (c) whether ignorance inferences are detected in a given experimental setting depends partly on the task that participants are asked to perform (e.g., an acceptability task versus an inference task). We offer an Optimality Theoretic account of these findings. In particular, the task effect is captured by assuming that in performing an acceptability task, participants take the speaker's perspective in order to determine whether an expression is optimal given a certain epistemic state, while in performing an inference task they take the addressee's perspective in order to determine what the most likely epistemic state of the speaker is given a certain expression. To execute the latter task in a fully rational manner, participants have to perform higher-order reasoning about alternative expressions the speaker could have used. Under the assumption that participants do not always perform such higher-order reasoning but also often resort to so-called unidirectional optimization, the task effect finds a natural explanation. This also allows us to relate our finding to asymmetries between comprehension and production that have been found in language acquisition.},\n\tauthor = {Cremers, Alexandre and Coppock, Liz and Dotla{\\v{c}}il, Jakub and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tda = {2021/08/16},\n\tdate-added = {2021-09-02 09:47:48 +0300},\n\tdate-modified = {2022-10-19 09:21:56 +0300},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s10988-021-09336-9},\n\tid = {Cremers2021},\n\tisbn = {1573-0549},\n\tjournal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\tpages = {683--740},\n\ttitle = {Ignorance implicatures of modified numerals},\n\tty = {JOUR},\n\turl_link = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-021-09336-9},\n\tvolume = {45},\n\tyear = {2022},\n\tbdsk-url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-021-09336-9}}\n\n\n\n Modified numerals, such as at least three and more than five, are known to sometimes give rise to ignorance inferences. However, there is disagreement in the literature regarding the nature of these inferences, their context dependence, and differences between at least and more than. We present a series of experiments which sheds new light on these issues. Our results show that (a) the ignorance inferences of at least are more robust than those of more than, (b) the presence and strength of the ignorance inferences triggered by both at least and more than depends on the question under discussion (QUD), and (c) whether ignorance inferences are detected in a given experimental setting depends partly on the task that participants are asked to perform (e.g., an acceptability task versus an inference task). We offer an Optimality Theoretic account of these findings. In particular, the task effect is captured by assuming that in performing an acceptability task, participants take the speaker's perspective in order to determine whether an expression is optimal given a certain epistemic state, while in performing an inference task they take the addressee's perspective in order to determine what the most likely epistemic state of the speaker is given a certain expression. To execute the latter task in a fully rational manner, participants have to perform higher-order reasoning about alternative expressions the speaker could have used. Under the assumption that participants do not always perform such higher-order reasoning but also often resort to so-called unidirectional optimization, the task effect finds a natural explanation. This also allows us to relate our finding to asymmetries between comprehension and production that have been found in language acquisition.\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n \n \n 2021\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n \n \n \n
\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Testing the distribution of pair-list questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n van Gessel, T.; and Cremers, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 25, 2021. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@inproceedings{vanGessel:2021,\n\tabstract = {Questions with quantifiers such as `Which book did every student read?' can receive a pair-list\nreading, but the availability of this reading depends on the quantifier, as well as the environment of the question (matrix or embedded under various predicates), with possible interactions\nbetween these factors. The details of these interactions have been a subject of debate in the\nliterature.\nWe tested the acceptability of pair-list readings with 5 quantifiers (<i>most, two, no, every,</i> and <i>fewer than three</i>) in 4 different environments (matrix, <i>find out, be certain,</i> and <i>wonder</i>). Our\nresults confirm that the availability of pair-list interpretations for questions with quantifiers\ndepends heavily on both the quantifier and the environment in which the question appears, and\nmore specifically that there is a qualitative divide between responsive and rogative predicates,\nnot between intensional and extensional predicates.},\n\tauthor = {van Gessel, Thom and Alexandre Cremers},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 25},\n\tdate-added = {2021-09-02 09:43:21 +0300},\n\tdate-modified = {2022-10-19 09:35:19 +0300},\n\ttitle = {Testing the distribution of pair-list questions},\n\turl_link = {https://thomvangessel.nl/downloads/sub2021.pdf},\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tbdsk-url-1 = {https://thomvangessel.nl/downloads/sub2021.pdf}}\n\n\n\n Questions with quantifiers such as `Which book did every student read?' can receive a pair-list reading, but the availability of this reading depends on the quantifier, as well as the environment of the question (matrix or embedded under various predicates), with possible interactions between these factors. The details of these interactions have been a subject of debate in the literature. We tested the acceptability of pair-list readings with 5 quantifiers (most, two, no, every, and fewer than three) in 4 different environments (matrix, find out, be certain, and wonder). Our results confirm that the availability of pair-list interpretations for questions with quantifiers depends heavily on both the quantifier and the environment in which the question appears, and more specifically that there is a qualitative divide between responsive and rogative predicates, not between intensional and extensional predicates.\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n \n \n 2019\n \n \n (5)\n \n \n
\n \n \n \n
\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A Prior-Uncertainty Model for gradable adjectives.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Zhao, Z.; and Cremers, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2019.\n Ms. UvA\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@unpublished{ZhaoCremers:2019,\n\tabstract = {Gradable adjectives and the distinction between absolute\nand relative adjectives have been the focus of recent efforts in the field\nof probabilistic pragmatics. We propose a refinement of the Speaker-Oriented Model of Qing & Franke (2014). The main innovation is to\nmodel the uncertainty about the prior with hyperpriors instead of relying\non sub-optimality. We show that this move greatly increases the empirical\nadequacy of the model, in particular with absolute adjectives. Adopting\nthe semantics of Klein (1980), the model makes reasonable predictions\nfor intensified adjectives as well.},\n\tauthor = {Zhuoye Zhao and Alexandre Cremers},\n\tdate-added = {2020-05-08 10:30:19 +0300},\n\tdate-modified = {2022-10-19 09:43:06 +0300},\n\tnote = {Ms. UvA},\n\ttitle = {A Prior-Uncertainty Model for gradable adjectives},\n\turl_link = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DdkNmZlM/ZhaoCremers18-PUM%20-%20Alexandre%20Cremers.pdf},\n\tyear = {2019}}\n\n\n\n Gradable adjectives and the distinction between absolute and relative adjectives have been the focus of recent efforts in the field of probabilistic pragmatics. We propose a refinement of the Speaker-Oriented Model of Qing & Franke (2014). The main innovation is to model the uncertainty about the prior with hyperpriors instead of relying on sub-optimality. We show that this move greatly increases the empirical adequacy of the model, in particular with absolute adjectives. Adopting the semantics of Klein (1980), the model makes reasonable predictions for intensified adjectives as well.\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Negation and Alternatives in Conditional Antecedents.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n McHugh, D.; and Cremers, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Schlöder, J. J.; McHugh, D.; and Roelofsen, F., editor(s), Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 289–298, 2019. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n@inproceedings{McHughCremers:2019,\n\tauthor = {McHugh, Dean and Cremers, Alexandre},\n\tbooktitle = {{Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium}},\n\tdate-added = {2020-05-08 10:27:09 +0300},\n\tdate-modified = {2020-05-08 10:29:34 +0300},\n\teditor = {Julian J. Schl\\"{o}der and Dean McHugh and Floris Roelofsen},\n\tpages = {289--298},\n\ttitle = {Negation and Alternatives in Conditional Antecedents},\n\turl_link = {https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Negation-and-Alternatives-in-Conditional-McHugh-Cremers/8dc77753797beb3e8da801dcde5107be9443ff1b},\n\tyear = {2019}}\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Testing formal pragmatics of questions through their ignorance inferences.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Zhao, Z.; and Cremers, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Schlöder, J. J.; McHugh, D.; and Roelofsen, F., editor(s), Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 91–100, 2019. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@inproceedings{ZhaoCremers:2019b,\n\tabstract = {Questions are well-studied in semantics, including from a psycholinguistics perspective. They also play a key role in pragmatics through <i>questions under discussions</i>, which are known to affect a wide range of phenomena (e.g., focus, implicatures) . The pragmatics of questions themselves however is largely understudied, with very few theoretical proposals and only a handful of experimental studies. Pragmatics studies how speakers choose an utterance over possible competitors, and how listeners can draw complex inferences by reconstructing the speaker's reasoning leading to this choice. While we have a good understanding of the factors at play when a speaker utters a declarative sentence, much less is known about questions. The goal of this paper is to test two proposals extending Grice's Maxims to questions: van Rooij's entropy as a measure of question utility, and Groenendijk & Roelofsen's inquisitive pragmatics. The two theories make opposite predictions regarding the choice between polar and wh-questions in ignorance and partial knowledge situations, and therefore the implicatures they give rise to regarding the questioner's knowledge. The results of two experiments corroborate the predictions of van Rooij's proposal. In passing, we establish that the cornering effect of negative alternative questions (Biezma 2009) is independent from their ignorance requirements. },\n\tauthor = {Zhuoye Zhao and Alexandre Cremers},\n\tbooktitle = {{Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium}},\n\tdate-added = {2020-05-08 10:27:09 +0300},\n\tdate-modified = {2022-10-19 09:28:56 +0300},\n\teditor = {Julian J. Schl\\"{o}der and Dean McHugh and Floris Roelofsen},\n\tpages = {91--100},\n\ttitle = {Testing formal pragmatics of questions through their ignorance inferences},\n\turl_link = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GM1NGI2Z/Zhao-Cremers-QuestPrag.html},\n\tyear = {2019}}\n\n\n\n Questions are well-studied in semantics, including from a psycholinguistics perspective. They also play a key role in pragmatics through questions under discussions, which are known to affect a wide range of phenomena (e.g., focus, implicatures) . The pragmatics of questions themselves however is largely understudied, with very few theoretical proposals and only a handful of experimental studies. Pragmatics studies how speakers choose an utterance over possible competitors, and how listeners can draw complex inferences by reconstructing the speaker's reasoning leading to this choice. While we have a good understanding of the factors at play when a speaker utters a declarative sentence, much less is known about questions. The goal of this paper is to test two proposals extending Grice's Maxims to questions: van Rooij's entropy as a measure of question utility, and Groenendijk & Roelofsen's inquisitive pragmatics. The two theories make opposite predictions regarding the choice between polar and wh-questions in ignorance and partial knowledge situations, and therefore the implicatures they give rise to regarding the questioner's knowledge. The results of two experiments corroborate the predictions of van Rooij's proposal. In passing, we establish that the cornering effect of negative alternative questions (Biezma 2009) is independent from their ignorance requirements. \n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Vagueness in Implicature: The Case of Modified Adjectives.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Leffel, T.; Cremers, A.; Gotzner, N.; and Romoli, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Semantics. 01 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@article{Leffel:2019,\n\tabstract = {We show that the interpretation of sentences like John is not very Adj depends on whether Adj is vague. We argue that this follows from a constraint on the interaction between vagueness and conversational implicature, a domain that has not been studied extensively. The constraint states that implicatures are not drawn if they lead to ``borderline contradictions''' (see Ripley 2011; Alxatib & Pelletier 2011; a.o.), a natural extension of the idea that implicatures should not contradict assertions (Hackl 2006; Fox 2007; a.o.). Experiment 1 establishes that not very Adj gives rise to the implicature Adj for the non-vague absolute adjective late, but not for the vague relative adjective tall (in the terminology of Kennedy & McNally 2005a). Experiment 2 generalizes this result to three relative adjectives in the positive form (tall, hot, fast), against those same adjectives in their (non-vague) comparative forms (taller/hotter/faster than the average X). We also constructed quantitative meaning representations for complex predicates of the form Adj & very Adj, using fuzzy logic to model the contribution of boolean connectives and our experimental data to represent the meanings of adjectives. The results of these analyses suggest that strengthening not very Adj with Adj leads to a more contradictory interpretation when Adj is vague than when it is not, as expected on our theory. While our results apply directly to only a specific set of lexical items, we hypothesize that they reflect a more general pattern among gradable predicates. This motivates more systematic investigation into the role that vagueness can play in the derivation of conversational implicatures.},\n\tauthor = {Leffel, Timothy and Cremers, Alexandre and Gotzner, Nicole and Romoli, Jacopo},\n\tdate-added = {2019-02-02 14:37:07 +0100},\n\tdate-modified = {2022-10-19 09:36:06 +0300},\n\tdoi = {10.1093/jos/ffy020},\n\tjournal = {{Journal of Semantics}},\n\tmonth = {01},\n\ttitle = {{Vagueness in Implicature: The Case of Modified Adjectives}},\n\turl_link = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mM1Yzc5Y/},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tbdsk-url-1 = {https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffy020}}\n\n\n\n We show that the interpretation of sentences like John is not very Adj depends on whether Adj is vague. We argue that this follows from a constraint on the interaction between vagueness and conversational implicature, a domain that has not been studied extensively. The constraint states that implicatures are not drawn if they lead to ``borderline contradictions''' (see Ripley 2011; Alxatib & Pelletier 2011; a.o.), a natural extension of the idea that implicatures should not contradict assertions (Hackl 2006; Fox 2007; a.o.). Experiment 1 establishes that not very Adj gives rise to the implicature Adj for the non-vague absolute adjective late, but not for the vague relative adjective tall (in the terminology of Kennedy & McNally 2005a). Experiment 2 generalizes this result to three relative adjectives in the positive form (tall, hot, fast), against those same adjectives in their (non-vague) comparative forms (taller/hotter/faster than the average X). We also constructed quantitative meaning representations for complex predicates of the form Adj & very Adj, using fuzzy logic to model the contribution of boolean connectives and our experimental data to represent the meanings of adjectives. The results of these analyses suggest that strengthening not very Adj with Adj leads to a more contradictory interpretation when Adj is vague than when it is not, as expected on our theory. While our results apply directly to only a specific set of lexical items, we hypothesize that they reflect a more general pattern among gradable predicates. This motivates more systematic investigation into the role that vagueness can play in the derivation of conversational implicatures.\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Distributive ignorance inferences.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cremers, A.; Roelofsen, F.; and Uegaki, W.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Semantics & Pragmatics, 12(5): 1–60. 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@article{CremersEtal:2019,\n\tabstract = {A sentence like ``Mary wonders whether Ann, Bill or Carol broke the vase'' implies that Mary still consider all disjuncts possible. This inference has been referred to as a distributive ignorance inference (Roelofsen & Uegaki 2016). We present two experiments examining the distributive ignorance inferences triggered by two verbs, `wonder' and `believe', with different types of complements and different types of quantificational subjects.\nThe results of these experiments show that the distributive ignorance inferences triggered by the two verbs pattern very much alike. We argue that the data are best explained by an account that involves a strengthening mechanism which is sensitive to the syntactic structure of the complement of the verbs involved and optionally applies locally, as part of the semantic composition process.},\n\tauthor = {Cremers, Alexandre and Floris Roelofsen and Wataru Uegaki},\n\tdate-added = {2017-12-07 15:26:50 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2023-05-21 13:07:50 +0300},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/sp.12.5},\n\tissn = {1937-8912},\n\tjournal = {Semantics \\& Pragmatics},\n\tnumber = {5},\n\tpages = {1--60},\n\ttitle = {Distributive ignorance inferences},\n\turl_link = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.5},\n\tvolume = {12},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tbdsk-url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.5}}\n\n\n\n A sentence like ``Mary wonders whether Ann, Bill or Carol broke the vase'' implies that Mary still consider all disjuncts possible. This inference has been referred to as a distributive ignorance inference (Roelofsen & Uegaki 2016). We present two experiments examining the distributive ignorance inferences triggered by two verbs, `wonder' and `believe', with different types of complements and different types of quantificational subjects. The results of these experiments show that the distributive ignorance inferences triggered by the two verbs pattern very much alike. We argue that the data are best explained by an account that involves a strengthening mechanism which is sensitive to the syntactic structure of the complement of the verbs involved and optionally applies locally, as part of the semantic composition process.\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n \n \n 2018\n \n \n (4)\n \n \n
\n \n \n \n
\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Experimental evidence for a semantic account of Free choice.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Hoeks, M.; Lisowski, G.; Pesetsky, J.; and Cremers, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n@unpublished{Hoeks:2018,\n\tauthor = {Morwenna Hoeks and Grzegorz Lisowski and Jonathan Pesetsky and Alexandre Cremers},\n\ttitle = {Experimental evidence for a semantic account of Free choice},\n\turl_link = {https://alexandrecremers.com/docs/Hoeks%20et%20al%20(2018)%20-%20FreeChoice.pdf},\n\tyear = {2018}}\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Testing theories of temporal inferences: Evidence from child language.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cremers, A.; Kane, F.; Tieu, L.; Kennedy, L.; Sudo, Y.; Folli, R.; and Romoli, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 3(1). 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@article{CremersEtal:2018,\n\tabstract = {Sentences involving past tense verbs, such as ``My dogs were on the carpet'', tend to give rise to the inference that the corresponding present tense version,``My dogs are on the carpet'', is false. This inference is often referred to as a cessation or temporal inference, and is generally analyzed as a type of implicature. There are two main proposals for capturing this asymmetry: one assumes a difference in informativity between the past and present counterparts (Altshuler & Schwarzschild 2013), while the other proposes a structural difference between the two (Thomas 2012). The two approaches are similar in terms of empirical coverage, but differ in their predictions for language acquisition. Using a novel animated picture selection paradigm, we investigated these predictions. Specifically, we compared the performance of a group of 4--6-year-old children and a group of adults on temporal inferences, scalar implicatures arising from ``some'', and inferences of adverbial modifiers under negation. The results revealed that overall, children computed all three inferences at a lower rate than adult controls; however they were more adult-like on temporal inferences and inferences of adverbial modifiers than on scalar implicatures. We discuss the implications of the findings, both for a developmental alternatives-based hypothesis (eg, Barner et al. 2011; Singh et al. 2016; Tieu et al. 2016; 2018), as well as theories of temporal inferences, arguing that the finding that children were more (and equally) adult-like on temporal inferences and adverbial modifiers supports a structural theory of temporal inferences along the lines of Thomas (2012).},\n\tauthor = {Cremers, Alexandre and Kane, Frances and Tieu, Lyn and Kennedy, Lynda and Sudo, Yasutada and Folli, Raffaella and Romoli, Jacopo},\n\tdate-added = {2019-01-14 20:06:42 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2019-02-02 14:59:57 +0100},\n\tjournal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tpublisher = {Ubiquity Press},\n\ttitle = {Testing theories of temporal inferences: Evidence from child language},\n\turl_link = {http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.604},\n\tvolume = {3},\n\tyear = {2018}}\n\n\n\n Sentences involving past tense verbs, such as ``My dogs were on the carpet'', tend to give rise to the inference that the corresponding present tense version,``My dogs are on the carpet'', is false. This inference is often referred to as a cessation or temporal inference, and is generally analyzed as a type of implicature. There are two main proposals for capturing this asymmetry: one assumes a difference in informativity between the past and present counterparts (Altshuler & Schwarzschild 2013), while the other proposes a structural difference between the two (Thomas 2012). The two approaches are similar in terms of empirical coverage, but differ in their predictions for language acquisition. Using a novel animated picture selection paradigm, we investigated these predictions. Specifically, we compared the performance of a group of 4–6-year-old children and a group of adults on temporal inferences, scalar implicatures arising from ``some'', and inferences of adverbial modifiers under negation. The results revealed that overall, children computed all three inferences at a lower rate than adult controls; however they were more adult-like on temporal inferences and inferences of adverbial modifiers than on scalar implicatures. We discuss the implications of the findings, both for a developmental alternatives-based hypothesis (eg, Barner et al. 2011; Singh et al. 2016; Tieu et al. 2016; 2018), as well as theories of temporal inferences, arguing that the finding that children were more (and equally) adult-like on temporal inferences and adverbial modifiers supports a structural theory of temporal inferences along the lines of Thomas (2012).\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Polarity sensitivity of question embedding: experimental evidence.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n van Gessel, T.; Cremers, A.; and Roelofsen, F.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Semantics and Linguistic Theory, volume 28, pages 217–232, 2018. LSA\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@inproceedings{vanGessel:2018,\n\tabstract = {Attitude predicates can be classified by the kinds of complements they can embed: declaratives, interrogatives or both. However, several authors have claimed that predicates like <i>be certain</i> can only embed interrogatives in specific environments. According to Mayr, these are exactly the environments that license negative polarity items (NPIs). In his analysis, both NPIs and embedded interrogatives are licensed by the same semantic strengthening procedure.\nIf this is right, one would expect a correlation between acceptability of <i>be certain whether</i> and NPIs. The analysis also predicts a contrast between antecedents vs. consequents of conditionals and restrictors vs. scopes of universal quantifiers.\nThis paper tests these predictions experimentally through an acceptability judgment task. We find that judgments for <i>be certain whether</i> do not clearly correlate with judgments on NPIs, which suggests that <i>be certain whether</i> and NPIs are in fact licensed by different mechanisms.},\n\tauthor = {van Gessel, Thom and Cremers, Alexandre and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory},\n\tdate-added = {2019-01-14 20:00:21 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2019-02-02 15:12:22 +0100},\n\tpages = {217--232},\n\tpublisher = {LSA},\n\ttitle = {Polarity sensitivity of question embedding: experimental evidence},\n\turl_link = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/28.217},\n\tvolume = {28},\n\tyear = {2018}}\n\n\n\n Attitude predicates can be classified by the kinds of complements they can embed: declaratives, interrogatives or both. However, several authors have claimed that predicates like be certain can only embed interrogatives in specific environments. According to Mayr, these are exactly the environments that license negative polarity items (NPIs). In his analysis, both NPIs and embedded interrogatives are licensed by the same semantic strengthening procedure. If this is right, one would expect a correlation between acceptability of be certain whether and NPIs. The analysis also predicts a contrast between antecedents vs. consequents of conditionals and restrictors vs. scopes of universal quantifiers. This paper tests these predictions experimentally through an acceptability judgment task. We find that judgments for be certain whether do not clearly correlate with judgments on NPIs, which suggests that be certain whether and NPIs are in fact licensed by different mechanisms.\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Plurality effects in an exhaustification-based theory of embedded questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cremers, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Natural Language Semantics, 26(3): 193–251. 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@article{Cremers:2018,\n\tabstract = {Questions embedded under responsive predicates and definite descriptions both give rise to a variety of phenomena which can be grouped under the term plurality effects: quantificational variability, cumulativity, and homogeneity effects. This similarity has not gone unnoticed, and many proposals have taken inspiration in theories of definite plurals to account for these effects with embedded questions (Dayal 1996; Lahiri 2002; a.o.). Recently these phenomena have received less attention, as the field has focused on the so-called intermediate exhaustive reading of embedded questions instead, after Spector (2005) called into question the traditional dichotomy between weak and strong exhaustive readings. As a result, the intermediate exhaustive reading has been accounted for at the expense of empirical coverage in other areas. In this paper, I propose a modular theory which derives the currently much discussed exhaustive readings without giving up the rich semantics necessary to account for plurality effects. My account of quantificational variability, cumulativity, and homogeneity effects builds on recent work on these phenomena in the nominal domain by adopting a categorial approach to embedded questions, while the strong and intermediate exhaustive readings are implemented using an independent strengthening mechanism suggested in Klinedinst and Rothschild (2011). The resulting theory not only recovers important results on plurality effects; it offers new, simple solutions for some puzzles presented in George (2013) and Paill{\\'e} and Schwarz (2018), naturally derives readings that had been postulated in previous literature (Preuss 2001), makes correct predictions in many unexplored cases, and is compatible with recent results in psycholinguistics. In the last sections I justify my assumptions and show how possible limitations I inherit from the theories I build on can be accommodated under standard assumptions.},\n\tauthor = {Cremers, Alexandre},\n\tdate-added = {2019-01-14 20:00:07 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2019-02-02 15:11:39 +0100},\n\tday = {01},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11050-018-9145-3},\n\tissn = {1572-865X},\n\tjournal = {Natural Language Semantics},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\tpages = {193--251},\n\ttitle = {Plurality effects in an exhaustification-based theory of embedded questions},\n\turl_link = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-018-9145-3},\n\tvolume = {26},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tbdsk-url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-018-9145-3}}\n\n\n\n Questions embedded under responsive predicates and definite descriptions both give rise to a variety of phenomena which can be grouped under the term plurality effects: quantificational variability, cumulativity, and homogeneity effects. This similarity has not gone unnoticed, and many proposals have taken inspiration in theories of definite plurals to account for these effects with embedded questions (Dayal 1996; Lahiri 2002; a.o.). Recently these phenomena have received less attention, as the field has focused on the so-called intermediate exhaustive reading of embedded questions instead, after Spector (2005) called into question the traditional dichotomy between weak and strong exhaustive readings. As a result, the intermediate exhaustive reading has been accounted for at the expense of empirical coverage in other areas. In this paper, I propose a modular theory which derives the currently much discussed exhaustive readings without giving up the rich semantics necessary to account for plurality effects. My account of quantificational variability, cumulativity, and homogeneity effects builds on recent work on these phenomena in the nominal domain by adopting a categorial approach to embedded questions, while the strong and intermediate exhaustive readings are implemented using an independent strengthening mechanism suggested in Klinedinst and Rothschild (2011). The resulting theory not only recovers important results on plurality effects; it offers new, simple solutions for some puzzles presented in George (2013) and Paillé and Schwarz (2018), naturally derives readings that had been postulated in previous literature (Preuss 2001), makes correct predictions in many unexplored cases, and is compatible with recent results in psycholinguistics. In the last sections I justify my assumptions and show how possible limitations I inherit from the theories I build on can be accommodated under standard assumptions.\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n \n \n 2017\n \n \n (4)\n \n \n
\n \n \n \n
\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Children's exhaustive readings of questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cremers, A.; Tieu, L.; and Chemla, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Language Acquisition, 24(4): 343-360. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@article{CremersTieuChemla:2017,\n\tabstract = {Questions, just like plain declarative sentences, can give rise to multiple interpretations. As discussed by Spector & Egr{\\'e} (2015), among others, questions embedded under know are ambiguous between weakly exhaustive (WE), intermediate exhaustive (IE), and strongly exhaustive (SE) interpretations (for experimental evidence of this ambiguity, see Cremers & Chemla 2014). These three interpretations are related in terms of strength. The SE reading entails both the IE and WE readings, and the IE reading entails the WE reading. Certain proposals derive the stronger readings from weaker ones through the same process of enrichment that underlies scalar implicatures, in particular through comparison with alternatives (Klinedinst & Rothschild 2011). Given previous developmental studies of scalar implicatures that suggest children typically perform this enrichment less often than adults do (Noveck 2001; Chierchia, Crain, Guasti & Thornton 2001; Papafragou & Musolino 2003, among many others), such proposals lead us to expect that children may initially prefer weak readings of embedded questions. The present study revealed that 5-year-olds were sensitive to the multiple readings of questions embedded under savoir `know'. Compared to adults, however, children were more tolerant of weak readings. These findings relate scalar implicatures and exhaustive readings of embedded questions from a developmental perspective, and are consistent with a close connection between the two: in both cases, children are sensitive to the various possible interpretations but favor the weaker one more than adults do.},\n\tauthor = {Alexandre Cremers and Lyn Tieu and Emmanuel Chemla},\n\tdate-added = {2017-10-01 13:19:29 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2019-02-02 15:09:44 +0100},\n\tdoi = {10.1080/10489223.2017.1366207},\n\teprint = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2017.1366207},\n\tjournal = {Language Acquisition},\n\tnumber = {4},\n\tpages = {343-360},\n\tpublisher = {Routledge},\n\ttitle = {Children's exhaustive readings of questions},\n\turl_paper = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/2I1ZTAyM/QuestionsAcquisition.pdf},\n\tvolume = {24},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tbdsk-url-1 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2017.1366207}}\n\n\n\n Questions, just like plain declarative sentences, can give rise to multiple interpretations. As discussed by Spector & Egré (2015), among others, questions embedded under know are ambiguous between weakly exhaustive (WE), intermediate exhaustive (IE), and strongly exhaustive (SE) interpretations (for experimental evidence of this ambiguity, see Cremers & Chemla 2014). These three interpretations are related in terms of strength. The SE reading entails both the IE and WE readings, and the IE reading entails the WE reading. Certain proposals derive the stronger readings from weaker ones through the same process of enrichment that underlies scalar implicatures, in particular through comparison with alternatives (Klinedinst & Rothschild 2011). Given previous developmental studies of scalar implicatures that suggest children typically perform this enrichment less often than adults do (Noveck 2001; Chierchia, Crain, Guasti & Thornton 2001; Papafragou & Musolino 2003, among many others), such proposals lead us to expect that children may initially prefer weak readings of embedded questions. The present study revealed that 5-year-olds were sensitive to the multiple readings of questions embedded under savoir `know'. Compared to adults, however, children were more tolerant of weak readings. These findings relate scalar implicatures and exhaustive readings of embedded questions from a developmental perspective, and are consistent with a close connection between the two: in both cases, children are sensitive to the various possible interpretations but favor the weaker one more than adults do.\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Experiments on the acceptability and possible readings of questions embedded under emotive-factives.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cremers, A.; and Chemla, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Natural Language Semantics, 25(3): 223–261. Sep 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 10 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 10 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@article{Cremers:2017,\n\tabstract = {Emotive-factive predicates, such as surprise or be happy, are a source of empirical and theoretical puzzles in the literature on embedded questions. Although they embed wh-questions, they seem not to embed whether-questions. They have complex interactions with negative polarity items such as any or even, and they have been argued to preferentially give rise to weakly exhaustive readings with embedded questions (in contrasts with most other verbs, which have been argued to give rise to strongly exhaustive readings). We offer an empirical overview of the situation in three experiments collecting acceptability judgments, monotonicity judgments, and truth-value judgments. The results straightforwardly confirm the special selectional properties of emotive-factive predicates. More interestingly, they reveal the existence of strongly exhaustive readings for surprise. The results also suggest that the special properties of emotive-factives cannot be solely explained by their monotonicity profiles, because they were not found to differ from the profiles of other responsive predicates.},\n\tauthor = {Cremers, Alexandre and Chemla, Emmanuel},\n\tdate-added = {2017-10-01 13:14:10 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2019-02-02 15:11:20 +0100},\n\tday = {01},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11050-017-9135-x},\n\tissn = {1572-865X},\n\tjournal = {Natural Language Semantics},\n\tmonth = {Sep},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\tpages = {223--261},\n\ttitle = {Experiments on the acceptability and possible readings of questions embedded under emotive-factives},\n\turl_link = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GRhZmM4N/Cremers-Chemla-ExpEmotiveFactives.html},\n\tvolume = {25},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tbdsk-url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9135-x},\n\tbdsk-url-2 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9135-x}}\n\n\n\n Emotive-factive predicates, such as surprise or be happy, are a source of empirical and theoretical puzzles in the literature on embedded questions. Although they embed wh-questions, they seem not to embed whether-questions. They have complex interactions with negative polarity items such as any or even, and they have been argued to preferentially give rise to weakly exhaustive readings with embedded questions (in contrasts with most other verbs, which have been argued to give rise to strongly exhaustive readings). We offer an empirical overview of the situation in three experiments collecting acceptability judgments, monotonicity judgments, and truth-value judgments. The results straightforwardly confirm the special selectional properties of emotive-factive predicates. More interestingly, they reveal the existence of strongly exhaustive readings for surprise. The results also suggest that the special properties of emotive-factives cannot be solely explained by their monotonicity profiles, because they were not found to differ from the profiles of other responsive predicates.\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n On the Role of Alternatives in the Acquisition of Simple and Complex Disjunctions in French and Japanese.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Tieu, L.; Yatsushiro, K.; Cremers, A.; Romoli, J.; Sauerland, U.; and Chemla, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Semantics, 34(1): 127. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@article{Tieu:2017,\n\tabstract = {When interpreting disjunctive sentences of the form `A or B', young children have been reported to differ from adults in two ways. First, children have been reported to interpret disjunction inclusively rather than exclusively, accepting `A or B' in con- texts in which both A and B are true (Gualmini, Crain, Meroni, Chierchia & Guasti 2001; Chierchia, Crain, Guasti & Thornton 2001). Second, some children have been reported to interpret disjunction conjunctively, rejecting `A or B' in contexts in which only one of the disjuncts is true (Paris 1973; Braine & Rumain 1981; Chierchia, Guasti, Gualmini, Meroni, Crain & Foppolo 2004; Singh, Wexler, Astle, Kamawar & Fox 2015). In this paper, we extend the investigation of children's interpretation of disjunction to include both simple and complex forms of disjunction, in two typologically unrelated languages: French and Japanese. First, given that complex disjunctions have been argued to give rise to obligatory exclusivity inferences (Spector 2014), we investigated whether the obligatoriness of the inference would play a role in the acquisition of the exclusive interpretation. Second, using a paradigm that makes the use of disjunc- tion felicitous, we aimed to establish whether the finding of conjunctive interpretations would be replicated for both simple and complex forms of disjunction, and in languages other than English. The main findings from our experiment are that both French- and Japanese-speaking children interpreted the simple and complex disjunctions either inclusively or conjunctively; in contrast, adults generally accessed exclusive readings of both disjunctions. We argue that our results lend further support to the proposal put forth in Singh et al. (2015), according to which the reason some children compute conjunctive meanings while adults compute exclusive meanings is that the two groups differ in their respective sets of alternatives for disjunction. Crucially, adults access conjunction as an alternative to disjunction, and compute exclusive interpretations; in contrast, children access only the individual disjuncts as alternatives, and therefore either interpret the disjunction literally or compute conjunctive inferences. More generally, our findings can be explained quite naturally within recent proposals according to which children differ from adults in the computation of scalar inferences because they are more restricted than adults in the set of scalar alternatives they can access (Barner, Brooks & Bale 2011; Tieu, Romoli, Zhou & Crain 2015b, among others).},\n\tauthor = {Tieu, L. and Yatsushiro, K. and Cremers, A. and Romoli, J. and Sauerland, U. and Chemla, E.},\n\tdate-added = {2017-05-24 12:44:41 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2019-02-02 15:09:32 +0100},\n\tdoi = {10.1093/jos/ffw010},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Semantics},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tpages = {127},\n\ttitle = {On the Role of Alternatives in the Acquisition of Simple and Complex Disjunctions in French and Japanese},\n\turl_link = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mE4YmYwN/TYCRSC-AcqDisj.html},\n\tvolume = {34},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tbdsk-url-1 = {+%20http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffw010},\n\tbdsk-url-2 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffw010}}\n\n\n\n When interpreting disjunctive sentences of the form `A or B', young children have been reported to differ from adults in two ways. First, children have been reported to interpret disjunction inclusively rather than exclusively, accepting `A or B' in con- texts in which both A and B are true (Gualmini, Crain, Meroni, Chierchia & Guasti 2001; Chierchia, Crain, Guasti & Thornton 2001). Second, some children have been reported to interpret disjunction conjunctively, rejecting `A or B' in contexts in which only one of the disjuncts is true (Paris 1973; Braine & Rumain 1981; Chierchia, Guasti, Gualmini, Meroni, Crain & Foppolo 2004; Singh, Wexler, Astle, Kamawar & Fox 2015). In this paper, we extend the investigation of children's interpretation of disjunction to include both simple and complex forms of disjunction, in two typologically unrelated languages: French and Japanese. First, given that complex disjunctions have been argued to give rise to obligatory exclusivity inferences (Spector 2014), we investigated whether the obligatoriness of the inference would play a role in the acquisition of the exclusive interpretation. Second, using a paradigm that makes the use of disjunc- tion felicitous, we aimed to establish whether the finding of conjunctive interpretations would be replicated for both simple and complex forms of disjunction, and in languages other than English. The main findings from our experiment are that both French- and Japanese-speaking children interpreted the simple and complex disjunctions either inclusively or conjunctively; in contrast, adults generally accessed exclusive readings of both disjunctions. We argue that our results lend further support to the proposal put forth in Singh et al. (2015), according to which the reason some children compute conjunctive meanings while adults compute exclusive meanings is that the two groups differ in their respective sets of alternatives for disjunction. Crucially, adults access conjunction as an alternative to disjunction, and compute exclusive interpretations; in contrast, children access only the individual disjuncts as alternatives, and therefore either interpret the disjunction literally or compute conjunctive inferences. More generally, our findings can be explained quite naturally within recent proposals according to which children differ from adults in the computation of scalar inferences because they are more restricted than adults in the set of scalar alternatives they can access (Barner, Brooks & Bale 2011; Tieu, Romoli, Zhou & Crain 2015b, among others).\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Mention-some readings of plural-marked questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Xiang, Y.; and Cremers, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Lamont, A.; and Tetzloff, K. A., editor(s), Proceedings of NELS 47, 2017. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n@inproceedings{XiangCremers:2017,\n\tauthor = {Xiang, Yimei and Alexandre Cremers},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of NELS 47},\n\tdate-added = {2016-03-14 16:04:20 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2019-02-02 15:09:20 +0100},\n\teditor = {Andrew Lamont and Katerina A. Tetzloff},\n\ttitle = {Mention-some readings of plural-marked questions},\n\turl_paper = {https://yimeixiang.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/nels47-xiang-cremers.pdf},\n\tyear = {2017}}\n\n\n\n
\n\n \n \n 2016\n \n \n (3)\n \n \n
\n \n \n \n
\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Anti-Homogeneity implicatures.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cremers, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2016.\n Unpublished MS\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@unpublished{Cremers:2016,\n\tabstract = {``The students didn't all sing'' implicates that some of the students thing. This cannot be derived as a standard indirect implicature, since there is no existential alternative to the floating quantifier `all' (``The students didn't *some/*any sing''). In this manuscript I argued that the indirect implicature arises from competition with the homogeneous form without the floating quantifier.},\n\tauthor = {Alexandre Cremers},\n\tdate-added = {2020-05-08 10:25:26 +0300},\n\tdate-modified = {2022-10-19 09:31:10 +0300},\n\tnote = {Unpublished MS},\n\ttitle = {Anti-Homogeneity implicatures},\n\turl_link = {http://alexandrecremers.com/docs/AntiHomogeneityImplicatures.pdf},\n\tyear = {2016}}\n\n\n\n ``The students didn't all sing'' implicates that some of the students thing. This cannot be derived as a standard indirect implicature, since there is no existential alternative to the floating quantifier `all' (``The students didn't *some/*any sing''). In this manuscript I argued that the indirect implicature arises from competition with the homogeneous form without the floating quantifier.\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A Psycholinguistic Study of the Exhaustive Readings of Embedded Questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cremers, A.; and Chemla, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Semantics, 33(1): 49-85. 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@article{CremersChemla:2016,\n\tabstract = {What is the semantic content of a question? As pointed out by Karttunen (1977), declarative sentences that embed interrogative complements (such as `John knows which students called') can provide relatively easy access to the semantics of questions. Recent theories attribute different readings to such sentences and their predictions depend in various ways on the embedding verb (`know' in this example). Through a series of four experiments, we provide quantitative offline data to evaluate critical judgments from the literature. We show that the so-called strongly exhaustive reading is not the only available reading for `know', providing an argument against approaches inspired by Groenendijk & Stokhof (1982, 1984). We also describe processing data which may further constrain theories, provided hypotheses about the derivation processes are made explicit.},\n\tauthor = {Cremers, Alexandre and Chemla, Emmanuel},\n\tdate-added = {2016-02-27 15:43:59 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2019-02-02 15:14:07 +0100},\n\tdoi = {10.1093/jos/ffu014},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Semantics},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tpages = {49-85},\n\ttitle = {A Psycholinguistic Study of the Exhaustive Readings of Embedded Questions},\n\turl_link = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DU3YWU2M/cremerschemla-semarch.html},\n\tvolume = {33},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tbdsk-url-1 = {http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/1/49.abstract},\n\tbdsk-url-2 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffu014}}\n\n\n\n What is the semantic content of a question? As pointed out by Karttunen (1977), declarative sentences that embed interrogative complements (such as `John knows which students called') can provide relatively easy access to the semantics of questions. Recent theories attribute different readings to such sentences and their predictions depend in various ways on the embedding verb (`know' in this example). Through a series of four experiments, we provide quantitative offline data to evaluate critical judgments from the literature. We show that the so-called strongly exhaustive reading is not the only available reading for `know', providing an argument against approaches inspired by Groenendijk & Stokhof (1982, 1984). We also describe processing data which may further constrain theories, provided hypotheses about the derivation processes are made explicit.\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Probability Judgments of Gappy Sentences.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cremers, A.; Križ, M.; and Chemla, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Pistoia-Reda, S.; and Domaneschi, F., editor(s), Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Approaches on Implicatures and Presuppositions. Springer, 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
link\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@incollection{CKC:ProbasGaps,\n\tabstract = {Numerous linguistic phenomena have been described as giving rise to truth value gaps: presuppositions, homogeneity, vagueness, as well as various sorts of implicatures. The sim- ilarities and differences between these phenomena are most traditionally studied through their projection properties, investigating whether these various sources of gap give rise to the same behavior under negation, modals, in the restrictors and scopes of various quan- tifiers, etc. We propose to add a new method in the linguist toolbox to address the same comparative question, asking how probabilities are assigned to sentences under the risk of a truth value gap. This question is directly imported from the classical issue in philosophy of language concerned with deciding what the probability of a conditional sentence is, and we also import experimental methods which have been used to illuminate this issue. In three experiments, we show that homogeneity and vagueness consistently behave alike by this measure, while presuppositions behave differently, with surprising differences within the class of presupposition triggers, however.},\n\tauthor = {Alexandre Cremers and Manuel Kri\\v{z} and Emmanuel Chemla},\n\tbooktitle = {Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Approaches on Implicatures and Presuppositions},\n\tdate-added = {2015-06-15 12:41:55 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2019-02-02 15:13:13 +0100},\n\teditor = {Salvatore Pistoia-Reda and Filippo Domaneschi},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\ttitle = {Probability Judgments of Gappy Sentences},\n\turl_link = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DZjNWY0N/Cremers-Kriz-Chemla-ProbasAndGaps.html},\n\tyear = {2016}}\n\n\n\n Numerous linguistic phenomena have been described as giving rise to truth value gaps: presuppositions, homogeneity, vagueness, as well as various sorts of implicatures. The sim- ilarities and differences between these phenomena are most traditionally studied through their projection properties, investigating whether these various sources of gap give rise to the same behavior under negation, modals, in the restrictors and scopes of various quan- tifiers, etc. We propose to add a new method in the linguist toolbox to address the same comparative question, asking how probabilities are assigned to sentences under the risk of a truth value gap. This question is directly imported from the classical issue in philosophy of language concerned with deciding what the probability of a conditional sentence is, and we also import experimental methods which have been used to illuminate this issue. In three experiments, we show that homogeneity and vagueness consistently behave alike by this measure, while presuppositions behave differently, with surprising differences within the class of presupposition triggers, however.\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n \n \n 2014\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n \n \n \n
\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Direct and indirect scalar implicatures share the same processing signature.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cremers, A.; and Chemla, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Reda, S. P., editor(s), Semantics, Pragmatics and the Case of Scalar Implicatures. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@incollection{CremersChemla:2014,\n\tabstract = {Following the seminal work of Bott and Noveck (2004), investigations into the psycholinguistic properties of scalar implicatures (SIs) have mostly focused on direct SIs, e.g. when a sentence with `some' is understood as negating a stronger alternative with `all' (``Some x are y'' implies that it is not the case that ``All x are y''). Most previous studies found that SIs incur a processing cost. In this study, we investigate indirect SIs, i.e. implicatures which arise when a sentence with `all' is understood as negating an alternative with `some'. This typically happens in negative sentences (``Not all x are y'' implies some x are y), for negation reverses entailment relations between sentences. We report on two truth-value judgement tasks designed to compare direct and indirect SIs. In Exp. 1, we found the traditional cost observed for direct SIs but not for indirect SIs. However, in Exp. 2 we show that once effects of negation are factored out, the two classes of SIs can be seen to share the same processing properties. Hence, there is a cost inherent to SIs and it generalizes across different subclasses of the phenomenon. This ``signature'' of SIs should now be compared with other kinds of inferences, either to understand these inferences and their relation to SIs (Chemla and Bott, 2011, 2012) or to better identify which subprocesses specifically involved in the derivation of an SI are responsible for this cost. },\n\tauthor = {Cremers, Alexandre and Emmanuel Chemla},\n\tbooktitle = {Semantics, Pragmatics and the Case of Scalar Implicatures},\n\tdate-added = {2014-07-15 13:34:27 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2019-02-02 15:15:41 +0100},\n\teditor = {Reda, Salvadore Pistoia},\n\tpublisher = {Palgrave Macmillan},\n\ttitle = {Direct and indirect scalar implicatures share the same processing signature},\n\turl_paper = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WM0NGE5Z/Cremers-Chemla-IndirectSIprocessing.pdf},\n\tyear = {2014}}\n\n\n\n Following the seminal work of Bott and Noveck (2004), investigations into the psycholinguistic properties of scalar implicatures (SIs) have mostly focused on direct SIs, e.g. when a sentence with `some' is understood as negating a stronger alternative with `all' (``Some x are y'' implies that it is not the case that ``All x are y''). Most previous studies found that SIs incur a processing cost. In this study, we investigate indirect SIs, i.e. implicatures which arise when a sentence with `all' is understood as negating an alternative with `some'. This typically happens in negative sentences (``Not all x are y'' implies some x are y), for negation reverses entailment relations between sentences. We report on two truth-value judgement tasks designed to compare direct and indirect SIs. In Exp. 1, we found the traditional cost observed for direct SIs but not for indirect SIs. However, in Exp. 2 we show that once effects of negation are factored out, the two classes of SIs can be seen to share the same processing properties. Hence, there is a cost inherent to SIs and it generalizes across different subclasses of the phenomenon. This ``signature'' of SIs should now be compared with other kinds of inferences, either to understand these inferences and their relation to SIs (Chemla and Bott, 2011, 2012) or to better identify which subprocesses specifically involved in the derivation of an SI are responsible for this cost. \n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n \n \n 2012\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n \n \n \n
\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n On the Analysis of Scope Ambiguities in Comparative Constructions: Converging Evidence from Real-Time Sentence Processing and Offline Data.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Breakstone, M. Y.; Cremers, A.; Fox, D.; and Hackl, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Proceedings of SALT, volume 21, pages 712–731, 2012. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n \n
paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n@inproceedings{Breakstone:2012,\n\tabstract = {This paper compares two accounts of an ambiguity that arises when a comparative phrase containing an exactly differential is embedded under an intensional operator (Heim 2000). Under one account, the comparative phrase is responsible for the ambiguity (the er-scope theory), and, under the other, the ambiguity is attributed to the exactly phrase (the exactly-scope theory). We present converging evidence from the distribution of de re and de dicto readings and real time sentence processing that supports the er-scope theory. Since the er-scope theory presupposes a quantificational analysis of the comparative, such an analysis is ipso facto supported by our results.},\n\tauthor = {Breakstone, Micha Yochanan and Cremers, Alexandre and Fox, Danny and Hackl, Martin},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of SALT},\n\tdate-added = {2013-02-13 11:34:09 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2019-02-02 15:16:54 +0100},\n\tpages = {712--731},\n\ttitle = {On the Analysis of Scope Ambiguities in Comparative Constructions: Converging Evidence from Real-Time Sentence Processing and Offline Data},\n\turl_paper = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/download/2609/2356},\n\tvolume = {21},\n\tyear = {2012}}\n\n\n This paper compares two accounts of an ambiguity that arises when a comparative phrase containing an exactly differential is embedded under an intensional operator (Heim 2000). Under one account, the comparative phrase is responsible for the ambiguity (the er-scope theory), and, under the other, the ambiguity is attributed to the exactly phrase (the exactly-scope theory). We present converging evidence from the distribution of de re and de dicto readings and real time sentence processing that supports the er-scope theory. Since the er-scope theory presupposes a quantificational analysis of the comparative, such an analysis is ipso facto supported by our results.\n
\n\n\n