16.3586, Review: Semantics/Pragmatics: Bultinck (2005)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-3586. Sun Dec 18 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.3586, Review: Semantics/Pragmatics: Bultinck (2005)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Lindsay Butler <lindsay at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at dooley at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 14-Dec-2005
From: Rick Nouwen < rick.nouwen at let.uu.nl >
Subject: Numerous Meanings 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 05:33:53
From: Rick Nouwen < rick.nouwen at let.uu.nl >
Subject: Numerous Meanings 
 

AUTHOR: Bultinck, Bert
TITLE: Numerous Meanings
SUBTITLE: The Meaning of English Cardinals and the Legacy of Paul 
Grice
SERIES: Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: 
Volume 15
PUBLISHER: Elsevier Ltd. 
YEAR: 2005
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-2481.html 

Rick Nouwen, Utrecht Institute for Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University, 
The Netherlands

OVERVIEW

The meaning of simple numeral expressions like 'two', 'three', 'twenty-
seven' etc. has turned out to be one of the most problematic issues 
within linguistic semantics and pragmatics. Part of the problem is that 
there seem to be several candidates for 'the' meaning of an English 
cardinal.  Numerals can be used in many ways, three of which have 
been the focus of discussion in the pragmatic literature of the past 
thirty to thirty five years: 'two' as specifying exact cardinality, 'two' as 
specifying a lower bound and 'two' as specifying an upper bound. 
Bultinck's book 'numerous meanings' is an attempt at tackling the 
issue by comparing the most influential theoretical trend of the past 
three decades, the so-called neo-Gricean programme, with the results 
of an extensive corpus study of numerals. The book contains a 
detailed discussion of the legacy of Paul Grice's theory of 
conversation, with particular focus on the repercussions for the 
analysis of English cardinals. It is argued that the 'conventional' 
meaning of a numeral needs to be established by means of a corpus 
analysis. As Bultinck subsequently aims to show, such an analysis 
undermines the neo-Gricean assumption that numerals present a 
lower bound in their coded meaning.

CONTENTS

Bultinck starts with an thorough discussion of Grice's original motives 
and proposals (CHAPTER TWO). Crucial is the distinction between 
conventional meanings and implicated meanings. Whereas the former 
are to be seen as the 'coded' or 'literal' meaning of an expression, the 
latter arise through inferences licensed by the assumption that the 
speaker observes maxims on the quantity, quality, relevance and 
manner of what (s)he says. Grice intended to keep the semantics of 
expressions simple by showing that a single conventional meaning 
could give rise to more than one meaning by means of conversational 
implicatures. The content of the conversational principles as well as 
their formalisation have subsequently been much debated and 
Bultinck describes these developments in considerable detail. 

While acknowledging the general success of Grice's theory and its 
offspring, Bultinck argues that Grice's goal to combine a theory of 
conversation with the intention of preserving the logical meaning of 
logical expressions is misguided. He states that there is no 
methodological justification for taking the conventional meaning of a 
logical natural language expression (like 'or', 'and', 'if...then') to be 
exactly that of their logical counterparts. Bultinck associates what is 
conventional with what is familiar and therefore argues that frequency 
data can help determine which meaning is more conventional than 
others. 

In CHAPTER THREE, Bultinck continues his discussion of Grice's 
legacy, but now focusing entirely on the literature on numerals. Most 
attention goes to the neo-Gricean line of theories that is 
labeled 'minimalism' and that is inspired by Horn's 1972 notion 
of 'scalar implicature', a generalisation over phenomena where a weak 
item on a scale implicates the negation of the stronger items. 
Minimalists argue that if the numerous meanings displayed by 
numerals are to be explained by means of conversational implicatures, 
then it must be the case that their coded meanings line up in an 
entailment scale. So, numerals are thought to form an entailment scale 
such that a sentence like ''two students came'' is entailed by the 
stronger ''three students came''. By uttering ''two students came'', the 
speaker therefore (potentially) implicates that the stronger alternative 
is false, thus arriving at the meaning ''exactly two students came''. The 
entailments are accounted for by assuming that the conventional 
meaning of a numeral like 'two' is 'at least two'. In the following 
chapters Bultinck aims at showing that his corpus data falsifies this 
line of thinking, but in the theoretical discussion he also presents 
some non-empirical counterarguments, most of which are familiar from 
the literature. His most salient critique, however, is a repetition of the 
methodological critique he presented in chapter two. Bultinck argues 
that what Grice aimed at with his notion of conventional meaning was 
a standard meaning. Bultinck proposes to identify conventional 
meaning with ''familiar meaning''. Conventionality is thus equated with 
a relative high level of frequency. He argues that this implies that 
conventional meanings are frequent. The minimalist's choice for a 
conventional 'at least' meaning, however, is not based on frequency at 
all. In fact, conventional meanings are solely chosen on the basis of 
their potential for conversational inferences.

In chapter three, there is furthermore a short discussion of the 
underspecification account (Carston 1988), where the ''logical form'' of 
a numeral is underdetermined and can be enriched by specifying 
with 'at least', 'at most', 'exactly' or even 'approximately'. Some other 
positions (called 'marginal' by Bultinck), like those arguing for bilateral 
conventional meanings or ambiguity, are discussed as well.

In CHAPTER FOUR, a ''general corpus analysis'' is discussed which 
aims at discovering the different forms and functions of numerals. The 
analysis involves one thousand occurrences of ''two'' from the British 
National Corpus. In chapter five, Bultinck analyses the core meaning 
of numerals, namely the cardinal one. Chapter four, however, is 
focused on a more general analysis which aside from taking the 
syntactic form and function into account, focuses on all possible ways 
of using a numeral. Apart from the core use of the specification of 
cardinality, these include the numeral as a label, the numeral as a 
temporal indicator and the numeral as a mathematical primitive. 
Bultinck isolates a wealth of variation in usages and discusses the 
underlying corpus data in great detail. He stresses that the data 
clearly demonstrate that it is a mistake to simply assume that the 
meaning of numerals can be reduced to a notion of cardinality. One 
clear result of the analysis, however, is a correspondence between 
adnominal uses and the expression of cardinality. Almost all 
adnominal numerals in some sense express the cardinality of a group. 
Bultinck tries to come to a hierarchy of numeral constructions in terms 
of the degree of cardinality that is involved and concludes that ''the 
expression of cardinality is clearly the most important function of 'two''' 
(p. 153), followed by the expression of measurement, which, as 
acknowledged by Bultinck, in many respects involves cardinality as 
well.

In CHAPTER FIVE, a corpus analysis is presented that focuses on 
what kind of meanings cardinal uses of numerals display. It is this 
analysis that is supposed to contribute to the issue of the conventional 
meaning of 'two'. Again, Bultinck refers to the corpus method as ''the 
methodological outcome of [Grice's] theoretical insights'' (p. 168).

Bultinck distinguishes four possible meanings (pp. 176,177): 
'''at least n': necessarily n + possibly more than n;
'at most n': possibly n + not possible more than n;
'exactly n': necessarily n + not possible more than n + not possible 
less than n''; and '''absolute value n': non-modal, the group of 
elements denoted by the NP is determined as having n elements''.

Crucial here is the assumption that the first three of these meanings 
involve modal statements about cardinality. The 'absolute value n' 
meaning, on the other hand, is relatively simple. In fact, Bultinck 
maintains that it is 'cognitively' simple, since it refers to nothing more 
than cardinality of a group, and that the other interpretations are 
therefore in some sense marked. That is, the first three meanings 
make what is said (understood in a non-Gricean way) about the 
cardinality much more prominent than the 'absolute value' 
interpretation does. 

The majority of occurrences of 'two' turn out to be either of 
the 'absolute value'-type or of the 'exactly n'-type. Bultinck notices that 
the 'exactly n' readings are mostly caused by definite markers. There 
are no findings in the corpus of 'absolute value' uses with such 
markers. This observation also serves to explain the distribution of the 
different usages over different syntactic positions. For instance, the 
majority of direct objects contain numerals of the 'absolute value' type, 
whereas the majority of numerals in adverbial phrases are used 
as 'exactly n'. According to Bultinck this distribution is simply a reflex of 
the attested fact that direct objects are generally good candidates for 
introducing new topics, whereas it is less likely that material in 
adverbial phrases is there to (existentially) introduce a new referent.

In subject position, occurrences of 'two' without definite markers are 
mostly 'absolute value' or 'exactly n'. But the difference between these 
two usages is blurred. The trend is that subject position indefinite 
numerals are less likely to allow for a subsequent revision of the 
involved cardinality than object indefinite numerals. Bultinck proposes 
that this is due to the fact that it is marked to use a subject for the 
introducing of a new referent. The focused use of the numeral hints at 
excluding the possibility of there being more than the 'n' elements that 
are expressed. This means that there is a continuum from 'absolute 
value' to 'exactly n' meanings. In 'pure absolute value' use there is a 
neutrality toward the possibility of there being more elements. This 
neutrality is reduced in subject position. A further finding supports this 
idea of a continuum. In predicative constructions (such as existential 
there sentences), most samples show the absolute value meaning of 
the numeral. Bultinck's idea is that such constructions hardly change 
the default 'absolute value' interpretation of the numeral. Although 
Bultinck is careful not to present it as a clear result from his corpus 
research, he hypothesises that the continuum from 'absolute value' 
to 'exactly n' is paired with a scale of syntactic constructions, ranging 
from existential there sentences, to objects, to subjects, to adverbials. 

The picture emerging from this is one where a great multitude of 
factors influence the 'value interpretation' of a numeral. In particular, it 
seems generally the case that when there is an 'exactly n' 
interpretation of the ''meaning complex'' that contains the numeral, this 
meaning can be reduced to a combination of the 'absolute value' 
meaning and the influence of other co-textual factors. It follows 
that ''[the] 'absolute value' interpretation is the starting-point for the 
interpretation of 'two''' (p. 225), or as Bultinck concludes in chapter 
six, ''the conventional meaning (the ''coded content'') of 'two' is 
the 'absolute value' meaning'' (p. 307).

The corpus analysis shows that 'at least n' uses of numerals are 
highly infrequent (3,9%). This, Bultinck claims, is highly problematic for 
the neo-Griceans. In fact, the corpus analysis shows that the few 'at 
least' uses that are found are all due to the co-occurrence with a 
linguistic element and, in most cases, that element is 'at least'.

Another finding from the corpus discredits the neo-Gricean account of 
numerals in another way. One of the traditional arguments for 
assuming the 'at least n' meaning to be conventional is that 
were 'exactly n' conventional, then it would be redundant to combine 
the numeral with 'exactly'. It is not and hence, the argument 
goes, 'exactly n' cannot be the coded meaning of 'n'. The corpus 
shows, however, some very clear facts about numeral modifiers 
(called 'restrictions' by Bultinck). The most common kind of 
modification is with 'at least' (44.8%), whereas combinations of 'two' 
with 'exactly' are relatively rare at 9.5%. If the neo-Gricean argument 
holds, exactly the reverse distribution of 'exactly' and 'at least' would 
be expected.

CHAPTER SIX briefly sums up the results of Bultinck's work and 
repeats the general conclusions. 

CRITICAL EVALUATION

The first half of the book is devoted to the discussion of the literature 
on (neo-)Gricean implicatures in general and the pragmatics of 
numerals in particular. A shorter discussion might have been more 
effective, since one has to wait a long time for Bultinck's main feat, the 
discussion of his corpus study of numerals (chapters four and five). 
Furthermore, the literature discussion is often overly detailed and 
repetitive. For instance, some of the arguments Bultinck discusses in 
the chapter on Gricean pragmatics are repeated in both his discussion 
of the literature on numerals and in the discussion of the corpus data. 
Nevertheless, it is certainly admirable that Bultinck so successfully 
weaves together discussions from linguistic pragmatics, corpus 
linguistics and cognitive linguistics. Although tedious at some points, 
the many repetitions might actually guarantee that this book is suitable 
for the broad audience it sets out to reach.

A more serious problem is the fact that the discussion in chapters two 
and three is in many ways dated. Browsing the references, one finds 
that the most recent literature that is being discussed dates from 2001 
(the book is published in 2005). Of course, many of the high points of 
the discussion of scalar implicatures can be traced back to the 1970s 
and 1980s, so it is perhaps not entirely unexpected to find mostly 
older literature. However, in the past few years the study of 
implicatures and numerals has flourished once again. Now, there is a 
wealth of new findings and theoretic proposals (e.g. Geurts 1998, 
Chierchia 2002, Recanati 2003, van Rooy and Schulz 2004). 
Furthermore, an increase in the interest of psycholinguists into 
pragmatic issues has lead to a considerable amount of empirical data 
challenging the traditional theoretic approaches to make more precise 
predictions (see, for instance, Noveck 2001, Papafragou and 
Musolino 2003 and, especially, Musolino 2004). Unfortunately, such 
recent works are completely absent from Bultinck's discussions and 
arguments. This may be explained by the fact that this book, as I 
understand it, is a published version of Bultinck's dissertation which 
dates from 2001. Curiously, however, this fact is not mentioned in the 
book.

The main objective of Bultinck's corpus analysis seems to be to 
discredit the idea that numerals carry a conventional meaning that 
involves a lower bound. With this in mind, I think the three most 
relevant findings are: (A) the corpus is argued to display the 
infrequency of this alleged coded meaning; (B) the data suggest that 
there are 'numerous meanings' associated with English cardinals and 
that these are less rigidly distributed than the neo-Gricean programme 
would have it; and (C) the 'absolute value' meaning is the most basic 
one of these numerous meanings.

It is not entirely clear to what extend Bultinck's 'at least n' meaning 
corresponds to the lower bound conventional meaning defended by 
the minimalists. I doubt whether the neo-Griceans really had a modal 
coded meaning in mind. It is certainly not the case that the lower 
bound meaning necessarily involves modality. It is quite easy to 
imagine a 'cognitively simple' lower bound analysis which simply 
describes the cardinality of a group as being 'greater or equal than n'. 
In fact, such a proposal comes very close to Bultinck's own 'absolute 
value' meaning. This becomes clear from Bultinck's specification of the 
four candidate meanings. The 'at least n' meaning is described 
as ''necessarily n + possibly more then n'' (p. 176). Note that in this 
definition, one needs to assume that the number symbol 'n' has a 
greater-or-equal reading itself. If the cardinality of a group is 
necessarily 'n', how can it at the same time be possible that this 
cardinality is 'more than n'? A formulation like this one presupposes 
once again that numerals somehow line up in entailment scales. It 
follows that the 'absolute value' meaning is really a lower bound 
meaning. Consequently, one could characterise Bultinck's proposal as 
minimalistic, except that the conversational implicatures have been 
replaced by co-textual factors that trigger modal cardinality statements.

So how well does this proposal account for the data? The 'absolute 
value' meaning of numerals seems consistent with the data in the 
corpus. It is important, however, to explain in detail how the 
compositional meaning of numerals is defined, especially since these 
very meanings have turned out to be so remarkably deceptive. 
Unfortunately, the semantic processes Bultinck refers to are often not 
specified enough to assess how the sentential meanings are derived 
from a single core lexical meaning. 

Nevertheless, 'numerous meanings' contains a wealth of data and 
ideas that will stimulate the ongoing discussion of the semantics of 
simplex and complex English numerals. Anyone working on a linguistic 
topic that is somehow related to numeral meaning will definitely find a 
lot to learn in this book, especially since Bultinck's most important 
point, I feel, is not theoretical but methodological. The data are much 
more varied and complex than the neo-Gricean theories have 
assumed. On the basis of this, Bultinck argues convincingly that it is a 
mistake to search for 'the' meaning of English cardinals. 

REFERENCES

Carston, R. 1988. Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic 
semantics. In Kempson, R. (ed.), Mental Representations: The 
interface between Language and Reality. 

Chierchia, G. 2004. Scalar Implicatures, Polarity Phenomena, and the 
Syntax/Pragmatics Interface. In Belletti, B. (ed.), Structures and 
Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Vol. 3. New York, 
NY: Oxford University Press.

Geurts, B. 1998. Scalars. In Ludewig, P. and Geurts, B. (eds.) 
Lexicalische Semantik aus Cognitiver Sicht. Tuebingen: Gunter Narr. 
95-117.

Horn, L. 1972. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in 
English. UCLA dissertation. Distributed by Indiana University 
Linguistics Club, 1976. 

Musolino, J. 2004. The semantics and acquisition of number words: 
Integrating linguistic and developmental perspectives. Cognition 93(1): 
1-41.

Noveck, I. 2001. When children are more logical than adults: 
Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 79: 165-
188. 

Papafragou, A. and Musolino, J. 2003. Scalar implicatures: 
Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition 86(3): 
253-282.

Recanati, F. 2003. Embedded Implicatures, Philosophical Perspectives 
17(1): 299-332.

van Rooy, R. and Schulz, K. 2004. Exhaustive interpretation of 
complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 13: 
491-519. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Rick Nouwen is a postdoctoral researcher at the Utrecht Institute for 
Linguistics OTS in the Netherlands. His main research interest is the 
semantics and pragmatics of quantifiers.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-3586