Abstract
We argue that a large part of the typology of linguistic inferences can be replicated with gestures, including some that one might not have seen before. While gesture research often focuses on co-speech gestures, which co-occur with spoken words, our study is based on pro-speech gestures (which fully replace spoken words) and post-speech gestures (which follow expressions they modify). We argue that pro-speech gestures can trigger several types of inferences besides entailments: presuppositions and anti-presuppositions (derived from Maximize Presupposition), scalar implicatures and ‘Blind Implicatures,’ homogeneity inferences that are characteristic of definite plurals, and some expressive inferences that are characteristic of pejorative terms. We further argue that post-speech gestures trigger inferences that are very close to the supplements contributed by appositive relative clauses. We show in each case that we are not dealing with a translation into spoken language because the fine-grained meanings obtained are tied to the iconic properties of the gestures. Our results argue for a generative mechanism that assigns new meanings a specific place in a rich inferential typology, which might have consequences for the structure of semantic theory and the nature of acquisition algorithms.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A note about the terminology: a pro-speech gesture replaces a spoken word, just as a pronoun replaces a noun and a proconsul replaces a consul.
Some related French data were discussed with French-speaking colleagues but are not reported here.
Lexical entries may be rather abstract, as when one posits a special lexical entry for a ‘comma intonation’ in appositive relative clauses (Potts 2005).
We write ‘yes’ in this cell because, on Potts’s analysis, a special lexical entry is needed to handle appositive relative clauses, namely what he calls the ‘comma intonation.’ As hinted in the text, although the phonological realization of this lexical entry is rather abstract (possibly involving just a pause), it involves a semantic specification that does not follow from independent principles and is thus lexical in nature.
In several recent theories (e.g. Spector 2006), an alternative \(S'\) to a sentence S can be negated in case it is non-weaker than S, or in other words if S and not S′ is not contradictory. For instance, The first group member attended may evoke the sentence The second group member attended, which is not more informative, but which can be denied without contradicting the first sentence. The second sentence can thus be negated on this revised view, yielding the inference that the second group member didn’t attend. See for instance Schlenker (2016) for a survey that discusses this issue.
A contradiction is obtained on the assumption, made by Magri and others, that it is presupposed that there are Italians (or more generally that the NP restrictor of some and all has a non-empty denotation).
The length does not just intensify the adjective: it is difficult to understand The talk was shoooort as meaning that the talk was very short.
This expression should be understood by analogy with the ‘projection problem for presuppositions,’ which consists in determining how the presuppositions of complex sentences are inherited from the at-issue and presuppositional contributions of their component parts.
Schlenker (to appear b) speculates that some aspects of the semantics of co-, pro- and post-speech gestures can be derived from broadly Gricean considerations of manner, depending on whether (i) they can be eliminated without affecting the grammaticality of the sentence, and (ii) they have their own time slot.
In this case, x drinks a lot is both structurally more complex and logically stronger than x drinks. But in other cases, a more complex expression is logically weaker. For instance, x drinks or smokes is asymmetrically entailed by x drinks, but it is more complex than it and thus evokes it as an alternative.
See Sect. 5 for a more thorough discussion of unpunctuated repetitions. Suffice it to say for the moment that these involve iterations of an expression in different parts of gestural space, with short and relatively indistinct breaks between the iterations.
Our point is not that the weak reading denying that the speaker saw exactly one cross does not exist, just that it is not the only possible reading (a similar issue arises with numerals in English, we have ‘exactly’ readings in addition to their ‘at least’ readings; see Spector 2013b for a survey).
Two remarks should be added. First, we can check by embedding that it probably has an ‘at least two crosses’ reading (although this need not be the only possible reading): (i)a can be understood to imply in particular that nobody saw at least two crosses, like (i)b and unlike (i)c.
- (i)
Second, the issue of finding the ‘right’ alternative to yield the ‘exactly one’ reading of a singular indefinite is not trivial even for the English expression ‘a cross’; see for instance Spector (2007) for discussion.
The ability of subjects to infer the gradient geometric position of an object relative to a ground was used in Emmorey and Herzig (2003) to investigate the iconic uses of classifiers in ASL.
Interestingly, when - appears under negation, as in (i)a, we might well get the inference that the speaker didn’t see any crosses (rather than: the speaker didn’t see more than one cross); this is also the behavior displayed by existential plurals in English, as in I didn’t see crosses (see for instance Spector 2007). But the judgments arguably change when - is replaced with -, as in (i)b: we arguably obtain an inference that the speaker didn’t see a lot of crosses but still saw some crosses. This would be expected if - is evoked as an alternative by -, which is a strictly more complex gesture. But one would still need to explain why (i)a doesn’t evoke the alternative I didn’t see, which should trigger the implicature that the speaker did see one cross.
- (i)
We leave this question open here, noting that related issues arise but have yet to be investigated with respect to sign language unpunctuated and punctuated repetitions (see Schlenker and Lamberton to appear).
A further issue is whether, on this ‘exactly that very height’ reading, the height in question counts as tall or not. As a referee observes, facial expressions might play a role in triggering the latter inference (the referee mentions for instance ‘a facial expression with puffy cheeks or widened eyes’).
As an anonymous reviewer notes, if a warm country were replaced with warm counties, (21)a would stop being deviant, and it would trigger the (standard) scalar implicature that not all Italians come from warm counties.
We use two identical pictures for simplicity, but each occurrence of should in fact be realized in a slightly different part of gestural space.
In this case, the larger (more complex) sign, for instance -, was more informative than its subpart (i.e. ), and for this reason the implicature triggered without contextual alternatives had to be an indirect one: with negation, John isn’t- triggers the implicature that John is.
It is standardly assumed that an expression should not be trivial, in the sense that it should not follow from its ‘local context’ (Stalnaker 1978; Schlenker 2009). Applied to the first conjunct (= be on the ground), this requirement amounts to an anti-presupposition. This means that the conjunction be on the ground and then take off is not just a presupposition-free control, but comes with an anti-presupposition on its own. This is a standard problem when one wishes to find controls for presuppositional expressions.
While get behind the wheel might be a bit more natural than be behind the wheel, get behind the wheel triggers the presupposition that the agent is not initially behind the wheel (thanks to E. Chemla and L. Tieu for discussion of this point). As discussed in fn. 21, be behind the wheel only triggers an anti-presupposition to the effect that this expression is not trivial in its local context.
It might be important to realize the gesture so as to evoke sipping rather than doing a (quick) vodka shot, as the latter gesture might weaken or erase the presupposition. Lyn Tieu (p.c.) suggests that a clearer effect might be found if the gesture is modified so as to involve sipping something from a small cup. (Thanks to Lyn Tieu for discussion of this point.)
It might be that - triggers the opposite presupposition, to the effect that the agent is in a shooting position; but the data (and the details of the realization of the gesture) would need to be investigated more closely.
See Schlenker et al. (2013) for a discussion of the optionality of height marking with sign language pronouns. (Note that their examples do not involve similar attempts to make very salient the competition between a high and a normal locus.)
These are just extreme possibilities. It could also be that the algorithm needed for iconic presupposition generation extends to some but not to all presuppositions triggered by spoken words. Let us add that Abrusán’s triggering mechanism (Abrusán 2011), which was developed for the case of spoken words, seems to us to be in a good position to derive several of our gestural results, but we must leave a detailed discussion for another occasion (see Schlenker 2018).
Here and in (44)c, we only mean that the sentence does not trigger the inference that the addressee will in fact take all or none. We do not make a claim as to what is required for the addressee to win the prize; but in this connection the gestural judgments seem to us to be similar to those obtained if _-- is replaced with the spoken words take them.
As Manuel Križ (p.c.) notes, one may in the future study further realizations of the gestural predicate involving a repetition of the verb to indicate a plurality of actions. This option is open in sign language (Kuhn 2015) as well as in gestures (Schlenker 2017), and it would thus be interesting to see how it interacts with homogeneity effects.
Appositive relative clauses display a behavior which is very close to that of clausal parentheticals, as shown in (i)–(ii), and for this reason more sophisticated data would be needed to decide whether post-speech gestures behave like parentheticals or like appositives (as is granted by Schlenker to appear a, to appear b).
- (i)
- (ii)
For present purposes, the difference doesn’t matter, since both classes exhibit varieties of supplemental meanings. (In some restricted environments, appositives can take narrow scope with respect to some logical operators, whereas this is difficult for clausal parentheticals. See Schlenker 2010, 2013a, 2013b for discussion.)
As mentioned in Sect. 2.2.3, Schlenker (to appear a, to appear b) argues that co-speech gestures and co-speech/sign facial expressions display a very different behavior: they are not prohibited in the immediate scope of negative expressions, and they do not trigger supplements, but rather presuppositions whose content is conditionalized on the meaning of the modified expression.
Thanks to Lyn Tieu for discussion of these examples.
Things are complicated by the fact that some sentences of the form (p orq\(q'\)), where q\(q'\) carries a presupposition q, give rise to readings in which the entire sentence presupposes q (see for instance Beaver 2001; Beaver and Geurts 2011; and Schlenker 2016 for discussion of the general issue, often labelled the ‘Proviso Problem’). Our point is that this is not the only possible reading for (53)c, whereas (53)b obligatorily carries the implication that the speaker is in fact prejudiced against the French.
Needless to say, our examples are mentioned, not used. We refrain from including pictures to reduce any offensiveness. We apologize for any offense these examples may cause despite these precautions.
As an anonymous referee suggests, this is certainly the case of co-speech gestures as well: the sentence in (i), where the gesture co-occurs with John, suggests that the speaker is prejudiced against Asian / gay / handicapped people (and that John belongs to the relevant group). We don’t further discuss co-speech gestures here because their interaction with the modified words raises complexities of its own (see for instance Schlenker to appear a).
- (i)
References
Abbott, Barbara. 2000. Presuppositions as nonassertions. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1419–1437.
Abner, Natasha, Kensy Cooperrider, and Susan Goldwin-Meadow. 2015. Gesture for linguists: A handy primer. Language and Linguistics Compass 9(11): 437–449.
Abrusán, Márta. 2011. Predicting the presuppositions of soft triggers. Linguistics & Philosophy 34(6): 491–535.
Abusch, Dorit. 2010. Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics 27(1): 37–80.
Abusch, Dorit. 2012. Applying discourse semantics and pragmatics to co-reference in picture sequences. In Sinn und Bedeutung 17, eds. Emmanuel Chemla, Vincent Homer, and Grégoire Winterstein, 9–25.
Beaver, David I.. 2001. Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford: CSLI.
Beaver, David I., and Bart Geurts. 2011. Presupposition. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/. Accessed 19 April 2018.
Bergen, Leon, Roger Levy, and Noah Goodman. 2016. Pragmatic reasoning through semantic inference. Semantics and Pragmatics 9(19): 1–55.
Chemla, Emmanuel. 2009. Presuppositions of quantified sentences: Experimental data. Natural Language Semantics 17(4): 299–340.
Chemla, Emmanuel. 2010. Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Ms., LSCP, Paris.
Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector. 2012. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, eds. Paul Portner, Claudia Maienborn, and Klaus von Heusinger. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coppola, Marie, Elizabet Spaepen, and Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2013. Communicating about quantity without a language model: Number devices in homesign grammar. Cognitive Psychology 67: 1–25.
Cumming, Samuel, Gabriel Greenberg, and Rory Kelly. 2017. Conventions of viewpoint coherence in film. Philosophers’ Imprint 17(1): 1–29.
Davidson, Kathryn. 2015. Quotation, demonstration, and iconicity. Linguistics & Philosophy 38(6): 477–520.
Ebert, Cornelia, and Christian Ebert. 2014. Gestures, demonstratives, and the attributive/referential distinction. Handout of a talk given at Semantics and Philosophy in Europe (SPE) 7, Berlin.
Emmorey, Karen, and Melissa Herzig. 2003. Categorical versus gradient properties of classifier constructions in ASL. In Perspectives on classifier constructions in signed languages, ed. Karen Emmorey, 222–246. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Esipova, Maria. 2017. Focus on what’s not at issue: Gestures, presuppositions, supplements under Contrastive Focus. Talk given at Sinn und Bedeutung 2017, Berlin-Potsdam.
Feldstein, Emily. 2015. The development of grammatical number and space: Reconsidering evidence from child language and homesign through adult gesture. Ms., Harvard University.
von Fintel, Kai. 2008. What is presupposition accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives 22(1): 137–170.
Fricke, Ellen. 2008. Grundlagen einer multimodalen Grammatik des Deutschen: Syntaktische Strukturen und Funktionen. Habilitation treatise, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder).
Gajewski, Jon. 2005. Neg-raising: Polarity and presupposition. PhD diss., MIT.
Geurts, Bart. 2011. Quantity implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giorgolo, Gianluca. 2010. Space and time in our hands. PhD diss., Uil-OTS, Universiteit Utrecht.
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, and Diane Brentari. 2017. Gesture, sign and language: The coming of age of sign language and gesture studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 40(e46).
Goodman, Noah D., and Andreas Stuhlmüller. 2013. Knowledge and implicature: Modeling language understanding as social cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science 5(1): 173–184.
Greenberg, Gabriel. 2013. Beyond resemblance. Philosophical Review 122(2): 215–287.
Grice, H. P. 1981. Presupposition and conversational implicature. In Radical pragmatics, ed. P. Cole, 183–198. New York: Academic Press.
Heim, Irene. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 2, eds. Michael Barlow, Daniel Flickinger, and Michael Westcoat, 114–126. Stanford University: CSLI.
Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. PhD diss., University of California at Los Angeles.
Katzir, Roni. 2007. Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics & Philosophy 30(6): 669–690.
Katzir, Roni, and Danny Fox. 2011. On the characterization of alternative. Natural Language Semantics 19(1): 87–107.
Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Križ, Manuel. 2015. Aspects of homogeneity in the semantics of natural language. PhD diss., University of Vienna.
Križ, Manuel. 2016. Homogeneity, non-maximality, and all. Journal of Semantics 33(3): 493–539.
Križ, Manuel, and Benjamin Spector. 2017. Interpreting plural predication: Homogeneity and non-maximality. Ms., Institut Jean-Nicod.
Kuhn, Jeremy. 2015. Cross-categorial singular and plural reference in sign language. PhD diss., New York University.
Ladewig, Silva. 2011. Syntactic and semantic integration of gestures into speech: Structural, cognitive, and conceptual aspects. Frankfurt (Oder). PhD diss., European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder).
Lascarides, Alex, and Matthew Stone. 2009. A formal semantic analysis of gesture. Journal of Semantics 26(3): 393–449.
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Löbner, Sebastian. 2000. Polarity in natural language: Predication, quantification and negation in particular and characterizing sentences. Linguistics & Philosophy 23: 213–308.
Macià, Josep. 2002. Presuposicion y significado expresivo. Theoria: Revista de Teoria, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 17(3): 499–513.
Magri, Giorgio. 2009. A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 17(3): 245–297.
Magri, Giorgio. 2017. Blindness, short-sightedness, and Hirschberg’s contextually ordered alternatives: A reply to Schlenker (2012). In Linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches on implicatures and presuppositions, eds. Salvatore Pistoia-Reda and Filippo Domaneschi, 9–54. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
McNeill, David. 2005. Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Okrent, Arika. 2002. A modality-free notion of gesture and how it can help us with the morpheme vs. gesture question in sigh language linguistics (or at least give us some criteria to work with). In Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, eds. Richard P. Meier, Kearsy A. Cormier, and David G. Quinto-Pozos, 175–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Percus, Orin. 2006. Anti-presuppositions In Theoretical and empirical studies of reference and anaphora: Toward the establishment of generative grammar as an empirical science, ed. Ayumi Ueyama, 52–73. Report of the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), Project No. 15320052, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
Pfau, Roland, and Markus Steinbach. 2006. Pluralization in sign and in speech: A cross-modal typological study. Linguistic Typology 10: 49–135.
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richard, Mark. 2008. When truth gives out. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Romoli, Jacopo. 2015. The presuppositions of soft triggers are obligatory scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 32: 173–219.
Rooth, Mats, and Dorit Abusch. 2017. Picture descriptions and centered content. Sinn und Bedeutung 21.
Sauerland, Uli. 2003. Implicated presuppositions. Handout for a talk given at the University of Milan Bicocca.
Sauerland, Uli. 2007. Beyond unpluggability. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 231–236.
Sauerland, Uli. 2008. Implicated presuppositions. In Sentence and context: Language, context, and cognition, ed. Anita Steube. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2007. Expressive presuppositions. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 237–246.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2009. Local contexts. Semantics & Pragmatics 2(3): 1–78. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.2.3.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2010. Supplements within a unidimensional semantics I: Scope. In Logic, language and meaning: 17th Amsterdam colloquium, eds. Maria Aloni, Harald Bastiaanse, Tikitu de Jager, and Katrin Schulz, 74–83. Berlin: Springer.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2011. Iconic agreement. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3–4): 223–234.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2012. Maximize presupposition and Gricean reasoning. Natural Language Semantics 20(4): 391–429.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2013a. Supplements within a unidimensional semantics II: Epistemic status and projection. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 40, eds. Seda Kan, Claire Moore-Cantwell, and Robert Staubs, 167–182. Vol. 2. Amherst: GLSA.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2013b. Supplements without bidimensionalism. Ms., Institut Jean-Nicod and New York University.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2015. Gestural presuppositions. Snippets (Issue 30). https://doi.org/10.7358/snip2015-030-schl.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2016. The semantics/pragmatics interface. In The Cambridge handbook of formal semantics, eds. Maria Aloni, and Paul Dekker, 664–727. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139236157.023.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2017. Gestural grammar. Ms., Institut Jean-Nicod and New York University.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2018. Triggering iconic presuppositions. Ms., Institut Jean-Nicod and New York University.
Schlenker, Philippe. to appear a. Gesture projection and cosuppositions. Linguistics & Philosophy.
Schlenker, Philippe. to appear b. Iconic pragmatics. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.
Schlenker, Philippe, and Emmanuel Chemla. to appear. Gestural agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.
Schlenker, Philippe, Jonathan Lamberton, and Mirko Santoro. 2013. Iconic variables. Linguistics & Philosophy 36(2): 91–149.
Schlenker, Philippe, and Jonathan Lamberton. to appear. Iconic plurality. Linguistics & Philosophy.
Simons, Mandy. 2001. On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 11, eds. Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson, and Zsofia Zvolenszky, 431–448.
Simons, Mandy, Judith Tonhauser, David Beaver, and Craige Roberts. 2010. What projects and why. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20, eds. Nan Li and David Lutz, 309–327.
Singh, Raj. 2011. Maximize presupposition! And local contexts. Natural Language Semantics 19(2): 149–168.
Slama-Cazacu, Tatiana. 1976. Nonverbal components in message sequence: The “mixed syntax”. In Language and man: Anthropological issues, eds. William C. McCormack and Stephen A. Wurm, 217–227. Mouton: The Hague.
Spector, Benjamin. 2006. Aspects de la pragmatique des opérateurs logiques. PhD diss., University of Paris VII.
Spector, Benjamin. 2007. Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher-order implicatures. In Presuppositions and implicatures in compositional semantics, eds. Uli Sauerland and Roumiana P. Stateva, 243–281. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Spector, Benjamin. 2013a. Homogeneity and plurals: From the strongest meaning hypothesis to supervaluations. Presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 18, University of the Basque Country.
Spector, Benjamin. 2013b. Bare numerals and scalar implicatures. Language and Linguistics Compass 7(5): 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12018.
Spector, Benjamin. 2014. Scalar implicatures, blindness and common knowledge-comments on Magri (2011). In Pragmatics, semantics and the case of scalar implicatures, ed. Salvatore Pistoia Reda 146–169. London: Palgrave.
Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics and philosophy, eds. Milton Munitz and Peter Unger 197–213. New York: New York University Press.
Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. In Syntax and semantics 9, 315–332. New York: Academic Press.
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics & Philosophy 25(5–6): 701–721.
Thommen, Tristan. 2017. Are expressives presuppositional? The case of slurs. Ms., Institut Jean-Nicod, CNRS.
Tieu, Lyn, Philippe Schlenker, and Emmanuel Chemla. 2018. Linguistic inferences without words. Manuscript.
Tonhauser, Judith, David Beaver, Craige Roberts, and Mandy Simons. 2013. Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89(1): 66–109.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Emmanuel Chemla and Lyn Tieu for detailed discussions of every aspect of this piece, and for their considerable patience in discussing examples. I also wish to thank Amir Anvari, Salvador Mascarenhas, Rob Pasternak and Benjamin Spector for discussion of several parts. In addition, I benefited from the suggestions of colleagues at the Paris/Berlin ETAPS meeting (May 7, 2017), as well as from the constructive comments of three anonymous referees and one Editor for Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Grant acknowledgments The research leading to these results received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013)/ERC Grant Agreement N°324115–FRONTSEM (PI: Schlenker). Research was conducted at Institut d’Etudes Cognitives, Ecole Normale Supérieure—PSL Research University. Institut d’Etudes Cognitives is supported by grants ANR-10-LABX-0087 IEC and ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL*.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schlenker, P. Gestural semantics. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 37, 735–784 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9414-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9414-3