Earticle

초록

영어

Hurford's Constraint (HC) states that a disjunction A or B is infelicitous when its disjuncts are in an entailment relation. Singh (2006, 2008) argues that HC must be modified in two ways: (i) HC is to be checked incrementally at the basic meaning of each disjunct to the right before it can be strengthened by implicature, and (ii) HC requires inconsistency, not non-entailment, between disjuncts. These modifications are, however, empirical generalizations entirely drawn from linguistic data, and do not provide explanations why they should be so, as Singh (2006) himself admits. The aim of this paper is to provide explanations to Singh's generalizations. I argue that Singh's two generalizations can be explained under the assumption that a disjunction has the property of a correction construction. First, inconsistency between a corrective claim and its antecedent in a correction construction is almost a truism; otherwise, it is not a correction. Second, I propose that a corrective claim is an argument in that it is a reason advanced for the falsity of its antecedent, and show that only asserted, not implicated, meaning is qualified as an argument. It follows then that when inconsistency is checked between disjuncts, only the asserted meaning of the second disjunct counts, which corresponds to a corrective claim in a correction construction

목차

Abstract
 1. Introduction
 2. Singh's (2008) Modifications if HC
  2.1. Incremental Checking of Hc
  2.2. Inconsistency
  2.3. Incremental Constraint Enforcing Inconsistency
  2.4. Discussion
 3. Proposals
  3.1. Analogies between disjunction and Correction
  3.2. A Property of Corrective Claims
  3.3. Explaining Singh's Generalizations
 4. Concluding Remarks
 References

키워드

이접 허포드 제약 소진화 함축 논증 교정문 disjunction Hurford's Constraint exhaustification implicature argument correction

저자

• 송재균 [ Jae-gyun Song | 인제대학교 ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물