Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 669–690 | Cite as

Structurally-defined alternatives

  • Roni KatzirEmail author
Research Article


Scalar implicatures depend on alternatives in order to avoid the symmetry problem. I argue for a structure-sensitive characterization of these alternatives: the alternatives for a structure are all those structures that are at most as complex as the original one. There have been claims in the literature that complexity is irrelevant for implicatures and that the relevant condition is the semantic notion of monotonicity. I provide new data that pose a challenge to the use of monotonicity and that support the structure-sensitive definition. I show that what appeared to be a problem for the complexity approach is overcome once an appropriate notion of complexity is adopted, and that upon closer inspection, the argument in favor of monotonicity turns out to be an argument against it and in favor of the complexity approach.


Scalar implicature Horn scales Complexity Alternatives 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Atlas J.D. and Levinson S. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness and logical form. In: Cole, P. (eds) Radical pragmatics, pp. Academic Press, New York Google Scholar
  2. Blutner R. (2000). Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics 17: 189–216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Fox, D. (2006). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  5. Gamut, L. T. F. (1991). Logic, language, and meaning. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gazdar G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. Academic Press, New York Google Scholar
  7. Geurts, B. (2007). Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. URL Ms., University of Nijmegen, May 2007.
  8. Grice P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Google Scholar
  9. Halle M., Marantz A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In: Hale K., Keyser J. (eds). The view from Building 20 (pp. 111–176). MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hirschberg, J. (1985/1991). A theory of scalar implicature. PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  12. Horn L. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicatures. In: Schiffrin, D. (eds) Meaning, form and use in context, pp 11–42. Georgetown University Press, Washington Google Scholar
  13. Horn L. (1989). A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Google Scholar
  14. Horn L. (2000). From IF to IFF: Conditional perfection as pragmatic strengthening. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 289–326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kroch, A. (1972). Lexical and inferred meanings for some time adverbials. Quarterly Progress Reports of the Research Laboratory of Electronics 104. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar
  16. Landman F. (2000). Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht Google Scholar
  17. Levinson S. (2000). Presumptive meanings. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Google Scholar
  18. Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In A. Dimitriadis, L. Siegel, C. Surek-Clark, & A. Williams, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, volume 4.2 of UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics, 201–225.Google Scholar
  19. Matsumoto Y. (1995). The conversational condition on Horn Scales. Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 21–60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCawley, J. D. (1978). Conversational implicatures and the lexicon. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 9: Pragmatics, pp. 245–259). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Parikh P. (2000). Communication, meaning and interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 185–212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Poser W.J. (1992). Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In: Sag, I. and Szabolsci, A. (eds) Lexical matters, pp 111–130. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA Google Scholar
  23. Russell B. (2006). Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 23: 361–382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sauerland U. (2004). Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367–391 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sevi, A. (2005). Exhaustivity: A semantic account of ‘quantity’ implicatures. Doctoral Dissertation, Tel-Aviv University.Google Scholar
  26. Soames S. (1982). How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 483–545 Google Scholar
  27. Spector, B. (2007). Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In M. Aloni, A. Butler, & P. Dekker (Eds.), Questions in dynamic semantics (pp. 229–254). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  28. van Rooij R. (2004). Signalling games select Horn strategies. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 493–527 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van Rooij R., Schulz K. (2004). Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13: 491–519 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. von Fintel, K., & Fox, D. (2002). Classnotes for 24:954: Pragmatics in linguistic theory. DSpace. URL
  31. Zipf G.K. (1949). Human behaviour and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linguistics and PhilosophyMITCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations