Homogeneity, Non-Maximality, andall

Abstract

This paper develops a theory of the non-maximal readings of sentences with plural definite descriptions that treats them as a pragmatic phenomenon that arises from the context-dependent interaction of the well-known homogeneity property of plural predication on the one hand with independent pragmatic principles on the other. This allows us to, among other things, explain the dual effect of all: as a matter of its semantics, it removes the homogeneity property, but because that is one of the necessary ingredients for non-maximal readings, the function of all as a maximiser/"slack regulator" emerges as a consequence.

Non‐culminating accomplishments

“…In contrast, the English and French perfective counterparts of (28) and (29) typically cannot be made true by event parts that correspond to only 10% of the whole event. This follows from the pragmatic constraints bearing on the non-maximal use of determiners: The non-maximal use often only tolerates slight deviation from strict maximality (see, e.g., Kriz, 2016), which accounts for the non-availability of 10%-only readings.…”

Homogeneity effects in natural language semantics

“…We thus need a way to state homogeneity that applies both to distributive and to collective predication. Križ () offers a generalisation that, simplified slightly, amounts to the following: Homogeneity generalisation (adapted from Križ, )A homogeneous predicate that is not true of a plurality a is undefined of a if it is true of some plurality b that overlaps (i.e., has parts in common) with a . …”

“…Križ () presents the following example, where the context is such that the exception is plausibly considered irrelevant: Context: All the professors in the jury are smiling in response to a job talk, except for Prof. Smith, who is known to always have a dour expression. He never smiles, so this doesn't mean much.…”

“…This link is in need of a principled explanation, and two types of theories have been proposed. According to the first (Križ, ), homogeneity is semantic, and non‐maximality is post‐semantic and explanatorily downstream of homogeneity. The second approach (Bar‐Lev, ; Križ & Spector, ) has it that both homogeneity and non‐maximality are consequences of the same underlying mechanism that involves, in one way or another, the manipulation of a set of meaning alternatives of some sort (i.e., neither is downstream of the other).…”

“…We thus need a way to state homogeneity that applies both to distributive and to collective predication. Križ (2016) offers a generalisation that, simplified slightly, amounts to the following:…”