Exclusive Updates

  • Elizabeth Coppock
  • David Beaver
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7218)


This paper develops a type of dynamic semantics in which contexts include not only information, but also questions, whose answers are ranked by strength. The questions can be local to the restrictor of a quantifier, and the quantifier can bind into them. The proposed framework satisfies several desiderata arising from quantificational expressions involving exclusives (e.g. only, just, mere and sole), allowing: (i) presupposed questions; (ii) presuppositional constraints on the strength ranking over the answers to the question under discussion; (iii) quantificational binding into such presupposed questions; and (iv) compositional derivation of logical forms for sentences.


Information State Relative Clause Natural Language Semantic Dynamic Semantic Discourse Referent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aloni, M., Beaver, D., Clark, B., van Rooij, R.: The dynamics of topics and focus. In: Aloni, M., Butler, A., Dekker, P. (eds.) Questions in Dynamic Semantics. CRiSPI. Elsevier, Oxford (2007)Google Scholar
  2. Beaver, D.: Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. CSLI Publications, Stanford (2001)Google Scholar
  3. Beaver, D.I., Clark, B.Z.: Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester (2008)Google Scholar
  4. Coppock, E., Beaver, D.: Sole sisters. In: Ashton, N., Chereches, A., Lutz, D. (eds.) Proceedings of SALT 21, pp. 197–217. Rutgers University, eLanguage (2011)Google Scholar
  5. Jäger, G.: Only updates. In: Dekker, P., Stokhof, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam (1996)Google Scholar
  6. Karttunen, L., Peters, S.: Conventional implicatures. In: Oh, C.-K., Dinneen, D.A. (eds.) Presuppositions. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 11. Academic Press, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  7. Krifka, M.: At least some determiners aren’t determiners. In: Turner, K. (ed.) The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View, pp. 257–291. Elsevier, Oxford (1999)Google Scholar
  8. Krifka, M.: Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9, 1–40 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Roberts, C.: Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In: Yoon, J.-H., Kathol, A. (eds.) OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Papers in Semantics. The Ohio State University, Columbus (1996)Google Scholar
  10. Rooth, M.: A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Coppock
    • 1
  • David Beaver
    • 2
  1. 1.Heinrich Heine UniversityDüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.University of Texas at AustinUSA

Personalised recommendations