SANDHI

1. (Phonology) The ways in which speech sounds influence each other when they are neighbors is of great interest to contemporary phoneticians and phonologists (cf. assimilation and coalescence), but the subject is also one which interested the Sanskrit grammarians of India (who introduced the term) over two thousand years ago. The notion of sandhi is used mainly in the area between morphology and phonology, and it is not much used in the study of pronunciation. It is most commonly found in discussion of tone languages and the contextual influences on tones. | Peter Roach, 2011
2. (Phonology) Literally, juncture phenomena: assimilation or other combinatory phenomena that cross word boundaries. Example: Deletion of /t/ in the Dutch phrase post brengen. | Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics, 2001
3. (Morphophonology) From Sanskrit सधि, lit. 'joining'. Any of a wide variety of sound changes that occur at morpheme or word boundaries. Examples include fusion of sounds across word boundaries and the alteration of one sound depending on nearby sounds or the grammatical function of the adjacent words. Sandhi belongs to morphophonology.
    Sandhi occurs in many languages, e.g. in the phonology of South Asian languages (especially Sanskrit, Tamil, Sinhala, Telugu, Marathi, Hindi, Pali, Kannada, Bengali, Assamese, Malayalam). Many dialects of British English show linking and intrusive R. | Wikipedia, 2024

SATELLITE-FRAMING
See VERB-FRAMING.

SATISFACTION
(Syntax) A probe H interacts with feature F by copying F back to H. A probe H is satisfied by feature G iff copying G back to H terminates further probing for G by H. | Amy Rose Deal, 2015

SATISFACTION THEORY OF PRESUPPOSITION
(Pragmatics) The idea underlying the satisfaction theory of presupposition is a simple and attractive one. It is that the utterance of a sentence changes the context in which it is made, and that the way in which a sentence affects its context determines its projection characteristics. Presuppositions that are triggered within the scope of a negation operator, for example, tend to "escape from" that scope because of the way negated sentences interact with their contexts. This picture is appealing because it implies that the projection problem doesn't call for a solution at all: the problem simply dissolves once we have a theory of context change, which we want to have anyhow. | Bart Geurts, 1996

SCALAR ADVERB

1. (Semantics) Such as perhaps, certainly, never, often, very, completely. | Isabelle Lorge and Janet B. Pierrehumbert, 2023
2. (Semantics) The adverbs of degree, manner, and frequency whose positive and negative counterparts display the opposing word order behavior illustrated in (1)-(6) all have scalar meanings.

   Hungarian

   1. János
      John

      nagyon
      very.much

      el
      PRT

      -fáradt.
      got.tired

      'John got tired very much.'
   2. János
      John

      alig
      barely

      fáradt
      got.tired

      el.
      PRT

      'John barely got tired.'
   3. János
      John

      jól
      well

      meg-oldotta
      PRT solved

      a
      the

      feladatot.
      problem

      'John solved the problem well.'
   4. János
      John

      rosszul
      badly

      oldotta
      solved

      meg
      PRT

      a
      the

      feladatot.
      problem

      'John solved the problem badly.'
   5. János
      John

      gyakran
      often

      el
      PRT

      -késik.
      late.is

      'John is often late.'
   6. János
      John

      ritkán
      seldom

      késik
      late.is

      el.
      PRT

      'John is seldom late.'
   
    Ernst (2002) calls them gradable adverbs. Kiefer (1964) attributes to them a [+contrast] feature, encoding the intuition that they come in pairs representing opposite values in the positive and negative domains of a bidirectional scale. It is adverbs in the negative domain of bidirectional scales that are obligatorily focused.
    Being scalar elements, these adverbs are subject to the generalizations formulated in (7), (8) and (9).
   7.  The meaning of a scalar element n in natural language is 'at least n'.
   8.  The 'at least n'; 'n or more' reading of a scalar modifier in the negative domain of a bidirectional scale leads to a semantic anomaly.
   9.  A scalar expression denoting a negative value in a bidirectional scale must be focused.
   
    Thus a scalar adverb of degree, manner, or frequency denoting a scalar value n means 'at least n'—owing to the fact that section n of the given scale also represents a subsection of the higher values of the same scale. In case a pair of adverbs establishes a bidirectional scale (e.g. nagyon 'very much' / alig 'barely', szépen 'beautifully' / csúnyán 'uglily', gyakran 'frequently' / ritkán 'rarely), the adverb denoting a scalar value in the negative domain of the scale resists this kind of upward extending interpretation. On a bidirectional scale, a positive scalar value does not entail a negative one, e.g., very much does not entail barely, beautifully does not entail uglily, and frequently does not entail rarely—hence barely cannot be understood as an understatement for very much, uglily cannot be understood as an understatement for beautifully, and rarely cannot be understood as an understatement for frequently. The upward extending interpretation of these adverbs must be blocked, and it is blocked by their obligatory focusing. | Katalin É Kiss, 2007

SCALAR EXPRESSION
(Semantics; Pragmatics) An expression which involves scales in its interpretation. Scalar expressions include logical quantifiers (e.g. all, some), quantifying determiners (e.g. few, half), quantifying time expressions (e.g. always, often), scalar adverbs (almost, only, more than), and scalar predicates (e.g. love, like; must, shall). The nature of such scales is controversial, being conceived both in terms of strength (e.g. "all is stronger than some") and of direction (almost and more activate a scale which is in a positive direction, by contrast with the negative direction of only and less than). | David Crystal, 2000

SCALAR IMPLICATURE

1. (Pragmatics) Where a weaker term on a scale implicates the negation of a stronger term.
   1. John ate some of the chocolates.
      The implicature: John did not eat all of the chocolates.
   
    Some includes the meaning of all, but, given the Maxim of Quantity, the speaker will only use some if he is not in a position to use all. Hence, his use of some implicates that there were chocolates not eaten by John. Notice that an implicature can be cancelled, when the speaker explicitly strengthens his utterance:
   2. John ate some of the chocolates, in fact, he ate all of the chocolates.
   
    Scalar implicatures are an instance of generalized implicatures (that normally follow from the utterance), in distinction to particularized implicatures (that one follows in special contexts). (Grice 1975, Levinson 1983) | Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics, 2001
2. (Pragmatics) The inference that a speaker chose a less informative statement because the more informative statement is not true (e.g., some implies some and not all)
   1.  Some sea otters sleep on their backs.
       → Not all sea otters sleep on their backs.
    | Anna Papafragou, 2023
3. (Pragmatics) (1) is a quantity (or scalar) implicature: the speaker implicates the denial of a proposition stronger than the one said.
   1. Not all athletes smoke.
    | Wayne Davis, 2005

SCALAR PREDICATE

1. (Semantics) We take a scalar predicate to be a predicate that expresses a scale, where a scale is defined as in (1).
   1. A scale is "a dense linearly ordered set of points, or 'degrees', where the ordering is relativized to a dimension." (Kennedy 1999)
   
    Thus, a scale must include three elements: a set of degrees [D], with a linear ordering [R], in a specific dimension [Δ]. Scales associated with scalar predicates (e.g. adjectives) vary in structure. An adjective like Spanish alto 'tall' denotes a set of degrees of height which are linearly ordered. This scale has neither a minimal nor a maximal value and is therefore an open scale. On the other hand, an adjective like despierto 'awake' also denotes a set of linearly ordered degrees of awakeness, but in this case, the scale has a minimal value, i.e. there is a minimal positive point of awakeness below which one can no longer predicate the awakeness of something. It is therefore a lower-closed scale. | Isabel Oltra-Massuet and Isabel Pérez-Jiménez, 2014
2. (Semantics) If we wish to preserve the notion that the use of a scalar predicate always involves some comparison, we can say that the use of a verb denoting a scalar change involves the comparison of the degree to which a scalar property holds of an object at the beginning of the event and the degree to which the same property holds of the object at the end of the event (Kennedy and Levin 2008). Since the standard of comparison is inherent in the meaning of the verb—the value of the attribute at the beginning of the event—it doesn't have to be contextually specified. Therefore, a sentence such as (1) can be appropriate even if a person's hair got a bit longer but is still considered short.
   1. His hair lengthened.
   
    | Malka Rappaport Hovav, 2014

SCALAR QUANTIFIER

1. (Semantics; Pragmatics) Scalar quantifiers are often used as a case study to illustrate the interaction between semantics (the truth-conditional content of utterances) and pragmatics (the inferential analysis component of language). Both semantics and pragmatics contribute to the interpretation of standard scalar expressions such as some, thereby allowing them to have two interpretations: the weak reading ('some and possibly all') and the strong reading ('some but not all'). Another class of scalar quantifiers, numerals, is often compared with standard scalars because they, too, can have two interpretations: the exact reading, (two means 'two and no more') or the at-least reading (two means 'two and possibly more'). | Qingqing Wu, 2013
2. (Semantics; Pragmatics) Classically, the meaning of quantifiers is described in terms of clearcut binary truth conditions (e.g. Barwise and Cooper 1981, Peters and Westerståhl 2008). For example, the sentence schema Some of the As are Bs is true just in case there is at least one A that is also a B. On top of that, it is widely held that the scalar quantifier some, if used in the appropriate contexts, conveys a scalar implicature, roughly, that some but not all of the As are Bs (cf. Grice 1975, Levinson 1983). | Michael Franke, 2014

SCALE OF UNIQUENESS
(Semantics; Pragmatics) The multi-layered approach to DPs we've pursued finds a correlate in the Uniqueness Scale of Löbner (1985, 2011), further developed in Ortmann (2014), who proposes "a continuum of types of uniqueness" (Sichel to appear [2019]). Semantic uniqueness involves reference due to a noun's inherent meaning ('the sun'). Pragmatic uniqueness comes from the context, such as deictic or anaphoric ('the man'):

1. Scale of uniqueness
   deictic SN (sortal noun) < anaphoric SN < SN with establishing relative clause < definite associate anaphors < IN/FN1 < proper names < 3rd person personal pronouns < 2nd and 1st person personal pronouns

2. a. Definite articles become more obligatory as we move higher up the scale, less obligatory as we move down the scale.
   b. Over time, the use of definite articles will spread downward along the scale, not upward.

SCOPE AMBIGUITY

1. (Semantics) The kind of ambiguity that arises when an operator can enter into different scope relations with other scoped elements.
    (1) has the two readings, (2) and (3). In (2) every farmer is construed as having scope over a donkey and in (3) a donkey is construed as having scope over every farmer:
   1. Every farmer loves a donkey.
   2. For every farmer there is a donkey such that he loves him.
   3. There is a donkey such that every farmer loves him.
   
    (May 1977, Montague 1974) | Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics, 2001
2. (Semantics) An ambiguity that occurs when two quantifiers or similar expressions can take scope over each other in different ways in the meaning of a sentence.
   1. Every man loves a woman.
   2. Every student did not pass the exam.
   
    Let's look at (1) to see the ambiguity. The more prominent meaning of (1) is that for every man, there is a woman, and it's possible that each man loves a different woman. But the sentence also has a second possible meaning, which says that there is one particular woman who is loved by every man. This reading becomes clearer if we continue the example by adding namely Brigitte Bardot.
    To further underline the difference, have a look at the two readings represented in first-order logic.

   1. ∀x.MAN (x) → (∃y.WOMAN (y) ∧ LOVE ( x, y))
   2. ∃y.WOMAN (y) ∧ (∀x.MAN (x) → LOVE (x, y))

    We see that (1) has two different meanings: it is ambiguous. Moreover, there is no good reason to assume that the ambiguity should be syntactic. So we can say that scope ambiguities are genuine semantic ambiguities. It is important to observe here that both readings are made up of the same material (the semantic representations of the quantified NPs every man and a woman, and the nuclear scope love). The only difference is the way in which the material is put together.
    Example (2) shows that not only quantifiers can give rise to scope ambiguities. If you find (2) a little odd, you can play the same game with the German Jeder Student hat nicht bestanden. In (2) it is the relative scope of the quantifier and the negation that is ambiguous. The two readings mean that either every single student failed, or, respectively, that not everyone of the students passed.
    In formulae:

   1. ∀x.STUDENT (x) → ¬PASS (x)
   2. ¬∀x.(STUDENT (x) → PASS (x))

    | Aljoscha Burchardt, Stephan Walter, Alexander Koller, Michael Kohlhase, Patrick Blackburn and Johan Bos, 2003

SCRAMBLING
(Syntax) A phenomenon wherein sentences can be formulated using a variety of different word orders without any change in meaning. Scrambling often results in a discontinuity, since the scrambled expression can end up at a distance from its head. Scrambling does not occur in English, but it is frequent in languages with freer word order, such as German, Russian, Persian and Turkic languages. The term was coined by Haj Ross in his 1967 dissertation and is widely used in present work, particularly with the generative tradition.
 Typical instances:

1. German
   daß
   that

   der
   the

   Mann
   man

   der
   the

   Frau
   woman

   die
   the

   Bohnen
   beans

   gab
   gave

   'that the man gave the woman the beans'
2. daß der Mann die Bohnen der Frau gab
3. daß der Frau der Mann die Bohnen gab
4. daß der Frau die Bohnen der Mann gab
5. daß die Bohnen der Mann der Frau gab
6. daß die Bohnen der Frau der Mann gab

SECONDARY PREDICATE
(Syntax) A (mostly adjectival) predicative expression that conveys information about the subject or the object but is not the main predicate of the clause. This structure may be analyzed in many different ways. These may be resultative, as in (1) and (2), or descriptive (also called depictive), as in (3).

1. She painted the town red.
2. The film left me cold.
3. Susan walked around naked. (Depictive over the subject, or subject-oriented depictive.)
4. John ate the meat raw. (Depictive over the object, or object-oriented depictive.)
5. All men are created equal.

SELECTIVE OPACITY EFFECTS
(Syntax) Configurations in which the same constituent is opaque for some operations but transparent for others. Classical observations of selective opacity lie in the realm of movement. Finite clauses, for instance, are opaque for A-movement but transparent for Ā-extraction, a pattern that generalizes beyond the A/Ā distinction. | Stefan Keine, 2019
See Also SEMANTIC TRANSPARENCY.

SELOSÍSMO
(Syntax) Mexican speech has a non-standard use of se los/las to express a plural indirect object and a singular direct object; something that would normatively be expressed as se lo/la, the classic example being se los dije [a ellos] rather than se lo dije. The author proposes the name selosísmo to define the phenomenon that, until now, has had multiple names. | Riley VanMeter, 2023

Page Halved By Split April 24, 2025

 

B a c k   T o   I n d e x