Schlenker, Philippe. 2010. "Supplements Within a Unidimensional Semantics"

(This is a series of two conference papers that presents work in progress on 'supplements'. Some of the arguments and conclusions are tentative.)

• "Supplements within a Unidimensional Semantics I: Scope". To appear in the Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium 2009 (edited by Maria Aloni and Katrin Schulz, Springer) [pdf]
  
  Abstract:  Potts (2005, 2007) claims that Grice’s ‘conventional implicatures’ offer a powerful argument in favor of a multidimensional semantics, one in which certain expressions fail to interact scopally with various operators because their meaning is located in a separate dimension. Focusing on Non-Restrictive Relative Clauses (= NRRs), we explore an alternative to Potts’s bidimensional account. In our analysis,  (1) NRRs can be syntactically attached with matrix scope, despite their appearance in embedded positions; (2) NRRs can in some cases be syntactically attached within the scope of other operators (whether attitudinal or not), in which case they semantically interact with them; (3) NRRs are semantically conjoined with the rest of the sentence, but (4) they are subject to a pragmatic rule that requires that their content be relatively easy to accommodate – hence some non-trivial projection facts when NRRs do not have matrix scope.  In this paper, we only develop (1) and (2), which pertain to the scopal behavior of NRRs. (1), which is in full agreement with the classic ‘high attachment’ analysis of NRRs, shows that Potts’s semantic machinery is not necessary: its effects follow from more conservative semantic assumptions once an adequate syntax is postulated. Because of (2), Potts’s machinery makes incorrect predictions when NRRs have a non-matrix attachment and interact scopally with other operators. Semantic arguments for (2) were given in Wang et al. 2005 and Amaral et al. 2007, but were re-analyzed in pragmatic terms in Harris and Potts 2009a, b; we provide new evidence that suggests that in some cases the latter analysis is implausible.
  
  
• "Supplements within a Unidimensional Semantics II: Epistemic Status and Projection". To appear in the Proceedings of NELS 2009 [pdf]
  
  Abstract:  This is the second part of the preceding article.  After summarizing some arguments that suggest that NRRs can sometimes have semantic scope under other operators, we concentrate on (3)-(4) and argue that in some such cases NRRs give rise to ‘projection patterns’ that are reminiscent of presupposition projection. But since their epistemic status is very different from that of presuppositions (Potts 2005), we cannot claim that supplements must be entailed by their local context (i.e.  that they are locally trivial) given a context set C. Rather, we will suggest that if an NRR is uttered in a global context C, it should be possible to add to C uncontroviersial assumptions to obtain a context C+ in which the NRR is ‘locally trivial’. This accounts both for the epistemic difference between supplements and presuppositions, and for the similarity in (some of) their projection patterns.