Scalar Implicatures in Numerals and Quantifiers: A Comparative Analysis

Jolanta Sak-Wernicka

Abstract


Scalar implicatures have long been central to debates at the interface of semantics and pragmatics. Traditional neo-Gricean accounts assume a uniform interpretive mechanism across scalar expressions, but recent research highlights significant variation across scales. In particular, quantifiers and numerals, despite apparent similarities, differ in interpretation, acquisition, and processing. This paper argues that variation arises not only across scales but also within them. While numerical scales are relatively stable and predictable, quantificational expressions exhibit internal heterogeneity. The findings suggest that uniform accounts of scalar implicatures require refinement by taking into account the internal structure of scalar expressions and the lexical properties of individual scale members.


Keywords


numerals; quantifiers; scalar implicature; scale

Full Text:

PDF

References


Baker, R., Doran, R., McNabb, Y., Larson, M., & Ward, G. (2009). On the Non-Unified Nature of Scalar Implicature: An Empirical Investigation. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(2), 211–248. https://doi.org/10.1163/187730909X12538045489854

Benz, A., & Hesse, C. (2022). Modified Numerals, Vagueness, and Scale Granularity. In N. Gotzner & U. Sauerland (Eds.), Measurements, Numerals and Scales: Essays in Honour of Stephanie Solt (pp. 35–57). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73323-0_3

Breheny, R. (2004). Some scalar implicatures really aren’t quantity implicatures. But some are. In Proceedings of the 9th annual meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik (Sinn und Bedeutung VIIII). Nijmegen, The Netherlands. University of Nijmegen. https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2005.v9i0.718

Carston, R. (1995). Quantity maxims and generalised implicature. Lingua, 96, 213–244. (Reprinted from UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 1–31, 1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(95)00016-S

Chierchia. G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In A. Belletti (Ed.) Structures and Beyond (pp. 39–103). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0003

Degen, J. (2015). Investigating the distribution of some (but not all) implicatures using corpora and web-based methods. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8(11), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.8.11

Dehaene, S. (2011). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics, revised and updated edition. Oxford University Press.

Geurts, B. (2006). Take ‘five’: The meaning and use of a number word. In S. Vogeleer & L. Tasmowski (Eds.), Non-Definiteness and Plurality (pp. 311–329). John Benjamins. https://hdl.handle.net/2066/40435

Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). Academic. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003

Hirschberg, J. (1985). A theory of scalar implicature (Publication No. AAI8603648) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI8603648/

Horn, L. R. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles]. Indiana University Linguistics Club.

https://linguistics.ucla.edu/images/stories/Horn.1972.pdf

Horn, L. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. The University of Chicago Press.

Huang, Y. (2014). Pragmatics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Huang, Y. T., & Snedeker, J. (2009). Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 376–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.00

Hurewitz, F., Papafragou, A., Gleitman, L., & Gelman, R. (2006). Asymmetries in the Acquisition of Numbers and Quantifiers. Language Learning and Development, 2(2), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15473341lld0202_1

Katsos, N., Cummins, C., Ezeizabarrena, M.-J., Gavarró, A., Kuvač Kraljević, J., Hrzica, G., ... Noveck, I. (2016). Cross-linguistic patterns in the acquisition of quantifiers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(33), 9244–9249. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1601341113

Kennedy, C. (2013). A scalar semantics for scalar readings of number words. In I. Caponigro, & C. Cecchetto (Eds.) From Grammar to Meaning: The spontaneous logicality of language (pp. 172–200). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519328.010

Koenig, J. P. (1991). Scalar predicates and negation: Punctual semantics and interval interpretations. In L. Dobrin, L. Nichols & R. Rodriguez (Eds.) Proceedings of CLS, 27, 140–155. Chicago Lingustic Society.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, S. C. (2000) Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press.

Marty, P., Chemla, E., & Spector, B. (2013). Interpreting numerals and scalar items under memory load. Lingua, 133, 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.03.006

Mazzaggio, G., Foppolo, F., Job, R., & Surian, L. (2021). Ad-hoc and scalar implicatures in children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Communication Disorders, 90, 106089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2021.106089

McNabb, Y. (2015). Differences and similarities between scalar inferences and scalar modifiers: The case of quantifiers. Proceedings of SALT, 25, 325–345. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3051

Noveck, I. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition, 78, 165–188.

Panizza, D., & Chierchia, G. (2011). Scalar implicatures and the pragmatics of number. Proceedings of the 35th Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 35) (pp. 1–12). Cascadilla Press.

Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognition, 86, 253–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00179-8

Pouscoulous, N., Noveck, I., Politzer, G., & Bastide, A. (2007). A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language Acquisition, 14(4), 347–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489220701600457

Ramotowska, S., Haaf, J., van Maanen, L., & Szymanik, J. (2024). Most quantifiers have many meanings. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02327-5

Sadock, J. M. (1984). Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. Academic Press.

Sauerland, U. (2014). Intermediate scalar implicatures. In S. P. Reda (Ed.), Pragmatics, semantics and the case of scalar implicatures (pp. 72–98). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137278425_5

Shetreet, E., Chierchia, G., & Gaab, N. (2014). When Three Is Not Some: On the Pragmatics of Numerals. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(4): 854–863. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00514

Spector, B. (2013). Bare numerals and scalar implicatures. Language and Lingustics Compass, 7, 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12018

Spychalska, M. (2011). From inference to meaning: Experimental study on reasoning with quantifiers some and most. In N. Bezhanishvili, S. Löbner, K. Schwabe & L. Spada (Eds.), Logic, Language, and Computation (LNCS 6618, pp. 337–352). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20920-8_25

Van Tiel, B., van Miltenburg, E., Zevakhina, N., & Geurts, B. (2016). Scalar diversity. Journal of Semantics, 33(1), 137–175. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffu017




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/lsmll.2026.50.3.132-143
Date of publication: 2026-10-30 11:38:01
Date of submission: 2026-04-16 10:20:14


Statistics


Total abstract view - 252
Downloads (from 2020-06-17) - PDF - 39

Indicators



Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2026 Jolanta Sak-Wernicka

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.