Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 249–270 | Cite as

Constraining the derivation of alternatives

  • Tue Trinh
  • Andreas HaidaEmail author
Article

Abstract

Inferences that result from exhaustification of a sentence S depend on the set of alternatives to S. In this paper, we present some inference patterns that are problematic for previous theories of alternatives and propose some structural constraints on the derivation of formal alternatives which derive the observations.

Keywords

Alternatives Exhaustification Implicature Focus Symmetry 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atlas, J.D., and S.C. Levinson. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form: Radical pragmatics. In Radical pragmatics, ed. P. Cole, 1–61. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Chemla E. (2009) Presuppositions of quantified sentences: Experimental data. Natural Language Semantics 17(4): 299–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chierchia, G., D. Fox, and B. Spector. 2012. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, ed. P. Portner, C. Maienborn, and K. von Heusinger, 2297–2332. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Crnič L. (2012) Focus particles and embedded exhaustification. Journal of Semantics 30(4): 533–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fox, D. 2007a. Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, ed. U. Sauerland and P. Stateva, 71–120. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Fox, D. 2007b. Pragmatics in linguistic theory. MIT class notes.Google Scholar
  8. Fox D., Katzir R. (2011) On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 19: 87–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  10. Hintikka, J. 1969. Semantics for propositional attitudes. In Philosophical logic, ed. J.W. Davis et al., 21–45. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  11. Horn, L. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Katzir R. (2007) Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 669–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Katzir, R. 2008. Structural competition in grammar. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  14. Klinedinst, N. 2004. Only scalar only. Handout presented at the ‘Presupposition and Implicature’ workshop, Paris.Google Scholar
  15. Krifka M. (1995) The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25(3–4): 209–257Google Scholar
  16. Kroch A. (1972) Lexical and inferred meanings for some time adverbials. Quarterly Progress Reports of the Research Laboratory of Electronics 104: 260–267Google Scholar
  17. Lewis D. (1988) Relevant implication. Theoria 54(3): 161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Magri G. (2009) A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 17(3): 245–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Magri, G. 2011. Another argument for embedded scalar implicatures based on oddness in downward entailing environments. Semantics and Pragmatics 4(6): 1–51. doi: 10.3765/sp.4.6.
  20. Penka, D. 2011. Negative indefinites. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Romoli, J. 2012a. A problem for the structural characterization of alternatives. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  22. Romoli, J. 2012b. Soft but strong: Neg-raising, soft triggers, and exhaustification. PhD thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  23. Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sauerland U. (2004) Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(3): 367–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sauerland, U. 2012. The computation of scalar implicatures: Pragmatic, lexical or grammatical? Language and Linguistic Compass 6: 36–49.Google Scholar
  26. Spector, B. 2006. Scalar implicatures: Local or global? Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. Unpublished manuscript, Institut Jean Nicod, Paris.Google Scholar
  27. Spector, B. 2010. Scalar implicatures and grammar alternatives for focus and scalar implicatures (based on Fox and Katzir). Handout for ESSLLI, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  28. von Fintel, K., and I. Heim. 1997. Pragmatics in linguistic theory. MIT class notes.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of Wisconsin - MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Department of English and American StudiesHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations