Kehler & Ward

Question 0

Implicatures associated with linguistic scales

Answer 0

Explainable in terms maxim of quantity. Use of a weaker expression (eg some)conversationally implicates that the speaker was not in a position to use a stronger expression (eg all).

Question 1

Title

Answer 1

Referring expressions and conversational implicature

Question 2

Nonfamiliarity implicatures

Answer 2

Implicatures (that are cancelable and reinforce able?) are based on notion of familiarity, not uniqueness or cognitive status.

Question 3

Hawkins analysis

Answer 3

Difference b/w definite and indefinite articles hinges on whether the intended referent is unique within a contextually-determined ‘association set’ called a P-set.

Question 4

Hawkins’s 4 implicatures

Answer 4

1. THE: conventional implicature: P-membership
2. THE: I-implicature: P-membership
   3: A/SOME: Q-implicature: non-uniqueness
   4: A/SOME: I- implicature: P-membership

Question 5

Hawkins implicature III

Answer 5

A/SOME: Q-implicature non-uniqueness
If the speaker could use THE and instead selects A or SOME then he (conversationally) Q-implicates non-uniqueness, I.e., that there is at least one entity satisfying the the description of the indefinite NP and non-identical to the individual or set of individuals whose existence is entailed by this indefinite NP

Question 6

Difference between Hawkins and GHZ

Answer 6

Hawkins proposes horn scale for articles THE and A/SOME based on uniqueness, GHZ place range of different categories of referring expressions on such a scale based on cognitive status

Question 7

Nonfamiliarity implicatures

Answer 7

In unexceptional contexts, the speakers failure to use a referring expression that indicates hearer-familiarity conversationally implicates that the referent is nonfamiliar.

Cancelablity: same entity
Reinforce ability: not same entity