Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 87–107

On the characterization of alternatives

Article

Abstract

We present an argument for revising the theory of alternatives for Scalar Implicatures and for Association with Focus. We argue that in both cases the alternatives are determined in the same way, as a contextual restriction of the focus value of the sentence, which, in turn, is defined in structure-sensitive terms. We provide evidence that contextual restriction is subject to a constraint that prevents it from discriminating between alternatives when they stand in a particular logical relationship with the assertion or the prejacent, a relationship that we refer to as symmetry. Due to this constraint on contextual restriction, discriminating between alternatives in cases of symmetry becomes the task of focus values. This conclusion is incompatible with standard type-theoretic definitions of focus values, motivating our structure-sensitive definition instead.

Keywords

Alternatives Scalar implicature Focus semantics Contextual restriction Relevance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrusán, Márta. 2007. Contradiction and grammar: The case of weak islands. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  2. Chemla, Emmanuel. 2009. Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Under revision for Semantics and Pragmatics.Google Scholar
  3. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Structures and beyond, ed. A. Belletti. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chierchia Gennaro. (2006) Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 535–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector. 2008. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Handbook of semantics, ed. Paul Portner, Claudia Maienborn, and Klaus von Heusinger. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  6. Fox, Danny. 2007a. Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, ed. Uli Sauerland and Penka Stateva, 71–120. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Fox, Danny. 2007b. Too many alternatives: Density, symmetry and other predicaments. In Proceedings of SALT 17, ed. T. Friedman and M. Gibson, 89–111. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Grice Paul. (1989) Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  10. Hamblin C.L. (1973) Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53Google Scholar
  11. Horn, Laurence. 1972. On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  12. Horn Laurence. (2000) From IF to IFF: Conditional perfection as pragmatic strengthening. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 289–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kadmon Nirit. (2001) Formal pragmatics: Semantics, pragmatics, presupposition, and focus. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Katzir Roni. (2007) Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 669–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katzir, Roni. 2008. Structural competition in grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  16. Kratzer Angelika. (1989) An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 607–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. (1995) The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 1–49Google Scholar
  18. Kroch, Anthony. 1972. Lexical and inferred meanings for some time adverbials. Quarterly Progress Reports of the Research Laboratory of Electronics 104, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  19. Lewis David. (1988) Relevant implication. Theoria 54: 161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Magri Giorgio. (2009) A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 17: 245–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Matsumoto Yo. (1995) The conversational condition on Horn Scales. Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 21–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. PhD dissertation at University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  23. Rooth Mats. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sauerland Uli. (2004a) On embedded implicatures. Journal of Cognitive Science 5: 107–137Google Scholar
  25. Sauerland Uli. (2004b) Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sevi, Aldo. 2005. Exhaustivity: A semantic account of ‘quantity’ implicatures. PhD dissertation, Tel-Aviv University.Google Scholar
  27. Singh Raj. (2008) On the interpretation of disjunction: Asymmetric, incremental, and eager for inconsistency. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 245–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Singh, Raj. 2010. A note on ignorance inferences. Handout of talk presented at MOSAIC, June 2010.Google Scholar
  29. Spector, Benjamin. 2006. Aspects de la pragmatique des opérateurs logiques. PhD dissertation, Université de Paris 7, Paris.Google Scholar
  30. von Fintel, Kai. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  31. von Fintel, Kai, and Danny Fox. 2002. Classnotes for ‘Pragmatics in linguistic theory’ DSpace. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/36355.
  32. von Fintel, Kai, and Irene Heim. 1997. Classnotes on pragmatics. MIT.Google Scholar
  33. van Rooij Robert, Katrin Schulz. (2004) Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13: 491–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Westerståhl, Dag. 1984. Determiners and context sets. In Generalized quantifiers in natural language, ed. Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, 45–71. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  35. Zondervan, Arjen. 2009. Experiments on QUD and focus as a contextual constraint on scalar implicature calculation. In Semantics and Pragmatics: From Experiment to Theory, ed. Uli Sauerland and Kazuko Yatsushiro, 98–110. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MITCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Tel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations