EXHAUSTIFICATION

1. (Semantics) A process where one proposition is asserted, and stronger alternatives to that proposition are negated. It's something that's often used in work on questions, scalar implicatures, and focus particles, to name a few areas. | Curt Anderson, 2020
2. (Semantics) The "grammatical approach to implicatures" provides a way to square Cooperative Speaker with the facts (cf. Krifka 1995, Fox 2007, Chierchia et al. 2012). The idea is that we have to tinker with the grammar after all. The core of the proposal is the postulation of a covert lexical item, EXH_C, which composes with a sentence φ, its prejacent, to affirm φ and negate a selection of φ's alternatives. | Tue Trinh, 2019
3. (Semantics) The term exhaustiveness was first used by Baker (1968) to refer to the requirement that a constituent question be given a complete answer. For example, (1b) would not be fully adequate as an answer to (1a) if Mary had eaten a calzone too. If such were the case, (1c) would be a correct answer.
   1. a. What did Mary eat?
      b. Mary ate a pizza.
      c. Mary ate a pizza and a calzone.
    As an answer, we can think of (1b) as being ruled out by (1c), because (1c) is more exhaustive, in the sense that it contains additional true information. A number of researchers (e.g., Kuno 1972, Atlas and Levinson 1981, Horn 1981, Szabolcsi 1981, É. Kiss 1998) have noted that exhaustification effects are not limited to questions. More precisely, there are a range of syntactic and phonological devices for signalling exhaustive listing interpretations. For example, the cleft (2a) and the pseudocleft (2b) both require such an interpretation:
   2. a. It was a pizza that Mary ate.
      b. What Mary ate was a pizza.
    Both sentences in (2) say:
   1. that Mary ate a pizza, and
   2. that Mary ate nothing else.
    That (ii) is part of the assertion of these sentences and not a conversational implicature is confirmed by tests devised by Szabolcsi (1981) and Donka Farkas. | Alastair Butler, 2001

EXHAUSTIFICATION OPERATOR
(Semantics) According to grammatical accounts of Scalar Implicatures (SIs), SIs are triggered by an exhaustification operator, exh, which asserts both its prejacent and the negation of each of its excludable alternatives (Gennaro Chierchia et al. 2011, a.o.).
 For a structure φ of propositional type and context c:

1. ⟦exh(φ)⟧ = ⟦φ⟧ ∧ ⋀ ¬ ⟦ψ⟧ : ψ ∈ Excl(φ) ∧ ⟦ψ⟧ ∈ R.
2. Excl(φ) is a subset of the set of formal alternatives of φ, such that, for each ψ ∈ Excl(φ), ⟦ψ⟧ isn't logically entailed by ⟦φ⟧ (or equivalently, such that ⟦φ⟧ is logically consistent with ¬⟦ψ⟧).
3. R = a contextually assigned 'relevance' predicate which minimally satisfies the following two conditions:
   1. the prejacent, φ, is relevant, i.e. ⟦φ⟧ ∈ R, and
   2. any proposition that is contextually equivalent to the prejacent is also in R
       (i.e., if ⟦φ⟧ ∩ c ≡ ⟦ψ⟧ ∩ c, then ⟦ψ⟧ ∈ R).

EXHAUSTIVE IDENTIFICATION MARKING
(Semantics) In Wolof (West Atlantic Niger-Congo, Senegal), exhaustive identification of a DP involves moving it to Spec,CP, as in (1). The complementizer that hosts the moved nominal in its specifier is the A′-movement complementizer (l)a.

1.  Exhaustive Identification
    
    

   Musaa
   Moussa

   l-a
   l-C_WH

   ñu
   they

   gis.
   see

    'It's Moussa who they saw.'

1. It is obligatory in long-distance extraction.
2. It occurs in every C position in successive-cyclic movement (as the Irish aL; McCloskey 2000, 2001).
3. It exhibits a subject/non-subject asymmetry, akin to the that-trace effect: it surfaces as a in case of subject extraction, and as la in case of non-subject extraction (Martinović 2013).

2. a. Exhaustive Identification of a non-subject
    
    

   Goloi
   monkey

   l-a
   l-C_WH

   xale
   child

   yi
   DEF.PL

   gis
   see

   t_i
   t_i.

     'It's a monkey that the children saw.'
   b. Exhaustive Identification of a subject
    
    

   Xale
   child

   yi-a (>yee)
   DEF.PL-C_WH

   gis
   see

   golo.
   monkey

     'It's the children that saw the monkey.'

EXISTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
(Syntax) Or, existential clause construction. The term has been used in two senses:

1. For construction-functions (e.g. Clark 1978).
2. For construction-strategies (e.g. McNally 2016, Creissels 2019).

1. English
   There is a bird on the roof.
   A bird is on the roof.
2. Finnish
   Kato-lla
   roof-ADESS

   on
   is

   lintu.
   bird

   'There is a bird on the roof.'

   (Cf. Lintu on katolla. 'The bird is on the roof.')
3. Logudorese Sardinian
   In
   in

   custu
   this

   istradone
   road

   nch'
   there

   at
   have.3SG

   una
   a

   creža.
   church

   'In this road there is a church.'

   (Lit. 'It there has a church in this road.') (Bentley et al. 2015)
4. Tagalog
   May
   EXV

   mga
   PL

   tao
   person

   sa
   LOC

   labas.
   outside

   'There are people outside.' (Sabbagh 2009)
5. Wambaya (Mirndi, Australia)
   Garnguji
   many.NOM

   julaji-rdarra
   bird-GROUP.NOM

   gayangga
   high

   darranggu-ni.
   tree-LOC

   'There are lots of bird up in the trees.' (Nordlinger 1998)
6. German
   1. Temporary Location of Existent
      Auf
      on

      dem
      the

      Tisch
      table

      stehen
      stand

      Blumen.
      flowers

      'There are flowers on the table.'

      (Cf. ?* Auf dem Tisch gibt es Blumen.)
   2. Permanent Presence of Existent
      In
      in

      Thailand
      Thailand

      gibt
      gives

      es
      it

      Tiger.
      tigers

      'There are tigers in Thailand.'

      (Cf. ?* In Thailand sind Tiger.)

EXISTENTIAL MARKER
(Grammar) A word, found in a distinct clause type, which marks a referent's existence.
 The word hay in (1) is an existential marker:

1. Spanish
   Hay
   EXIST

   muchos
   many

   libros
   books

   en
   in

   la
   the

   biblioteca.
   library

   'There are many books in the library.' (Schachter 1985)

EXOCENTRIC COMPOUND

1. (Morphology) A form or a word which does not have a head. This means that there is not one morphological segment that contributes the core meaning, and instead the meaning is comprised of all components together. | INLP Linguistic Glossary, 2021
2. (Morphology) A compound that is not a hyponym of one of its elements, and thus appears to lack a head or perhaps to have a head (or "center") external to the compound itself. English examples such as redhead 'a person with red hair', flat-foot 'policeman (slang)' and egghead 'intellectual' abound. | Laurie Bauer, 2008

EXOCENTRIC CONSTRUCTION
(Syntax) A construction that does not contain any head element that is capable of being a syntactically adequate substitution for the whole construction.
 Examples, in English:

1. Prepositional phrase:
   Neither the component preposition nor the noun phrase may substitute for the whole prepositional phrase.
2. Clause:
   No single element of the clause may substitute for the whole.

EXPANDING FOCUS

1. (Information Structure) When the focused referent extends the set of referents mentioned in a previous (incomplete) statement for which the proposition is true. If the previous statement had an exhaustive aspect of meaning, the extension corrects this exhaustivity, as in (1).
   1.  A: Did you buy beans?
       B: Yes, but I also bought [ rice ] _FOC .
    | Jenneke van der Wal and Stavros Skopeteas, 2019
2. (Information Structure) Among the many kinds of focus that linguists have written about, I found a particularly large number of examples of Expanding Focus (Dik 1987). Expanding focus is a mechanism for adding information to the previously presupposed information. This is easy to identify operationally because it involves creating lists, as in (1).
   1.  A: Sally drinks coffee with breakfast.
       B: Yes, but she also drinks [ orange juice ] _FOC .
    | Rebecca A. Hatch, 2014

EXPECTATION-BASED MINIMALIST GRAMMAR
(Syntax) Abbreviated e-MG. Any of certain simplified versions of the (Conflated) Minimalist Grammars, (C)MGs, formalized by Stabler (Stabler 2011, 2013, 1997) and Phase-based Minimalist Grammars (PMGs; Chesi 2005, 2007, Stabler 2011). The crucial simplification consists of driving structure building only using lexically encoded categorial top-down expectations. The commitment on a top-down procedure (in e-MGs and PMGs, as opposed to (C)MGs, Chomsky 1995, Stabler 2011) allows us to define a core derivation that is the same in both parsing and generation (Momma and Phillips 2018). | Cristiano Chesi, 2021

EXPLETIVE

1. (Grammar) From Latin expletivus 'serving to fill out or take up space' (Beaven 2017, Halsi 1891). A word or phrase inserted into a sentence that is not needed to express the basic meaning of the sentence (Svenonius 2002). It is regarded as semantically null or a placeholder (Moro 1997). Expletives are not insignificant or meaningless in all senses; they may be used to give emphasis or tone, to contribute to the meter in verse, or to indicate tense (Lederer 1995, Lounsbury 1907).
    Examples:
   1. The teacher was not, in fact, present.
   2. Indeed, the teacher was absent.
    In conversation the expressions like and you know, when they are not meaningful, are expletives (Scott 1965). | Wikipedia, 2022
2. (Syntax) A grammatical element having no semantic content and occurring in theta-bar positions. Examples:
   1. There is a man in the room.
   2. It seems that John is ill.
    (Chomsky 1981, 1986, 1993) | Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics, 2001

EXPLICATURE
(Pragmatics) There are two types of communicated assumptions on the relevance-theoretic account: explicatures and implicatures. An explicature is a propositional form communicated by an utterance which is pragmatically constructed on the basis of the propositional schema or template (logical form) that the utterance encodes; its content is an amalgam of linguistically decoded material and pragmatically inferred material. An implicature is any other propositional form communicated by an utterance; its content consists of wholly pragmatically inferred matter (see Sperber and Wilson 1986). So the explicature / implicature distinction is a derivational distinction and, by definition, it arises only for verbal (or, more generally, code-based) ostensive communication. For example, an utterance of (1a), in an appropriate context, can express the proposition in (1b), which, if ostensively communicated, is an explicature; the same goes for the propositional form in (2b) expressed by an utterance of (2a):

1. a. It's raining.
   b. It's raining in Christchurch, New Zealand, at time t_x.
2. a. Bill ran into John and John stopped his car in an illegal position.
   b. [ Bill_i ran into John at t_x ]_P & [ as a result of P, John_j stopped at t_x+y in an illegal position ]

 I. Since the content of explicatures is derived from the two distinct processes of decoding and pragmatic inference, different token explicatures which have the same propositional content may vary with regard to the relative contributions made by each of these processes. That is, they may vary in degree of explicitness:

3. a. Mary Jones put the book by Chomsky on the table in the downstairs sitting-room.
   b. Mary put the book on the table.
   c. She put it there.
   d. On the table.

Page Halved By Split April 24, 2025

 

B a c k   T o   I n d e x