Abstract
In this paper, we investigate a number of long-standing issues in connection with (i) focus interpretation and its interrelation with complex definite descriptions, and (ii) the intensional properties of sentences with focus constituents. We revitalize the use of Rooth’s (1992) ~ operator, clarify its definition as an anaphoric operator, discuss the principles that govern its placement in logical forms and show how it can be succesfully employed to replace the notion of Krifka’s (2006) focus phrases. Finally, we argue that a proper view of the intensional dimension of retrieving the antecedent sets required by the operator can account for problems relating to the intensionality of sentences with focus sensitive operators that are discussed by Beaver & Clark (2008).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Beaver, D., Clark, B.: Sense and Sensitivity. How Focus Determines Meaning. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester (2008)
Bittner, M.: Tense, Mood and Centering. In: Musan, R., Rathert, M. (eds.) Tense across Languages, Niemeyer, Tübingen (to appear)
Bonomi, A., Casalegno, P.: Only: Association with Focus in Event Semantics. Natural Language Semantics 2(1), 1–45 (1993)
Brasoveanu, A.: Structured Nominal and Modal Reference. PhD thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick (2007)
Drubig, H.B.: Island Constraints and the Syntactic Nature of Focus and Association with Focus. In: Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340, vol. 51 (1994)
Gallin, D.: Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1975)
Geurts, B.: Presuppositions and Pronouns. Elsevier, Oxford (1999)
von Heusinger, K.: Alternative Semantics for Definite NPs. In: Schwabe, K., Winkler, S. (eds.) Information Structure and the Architecture of Grammar. A Typological Perspective, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 485–508 (2007)
Kamp, H.: The Importance of Presupposition. In: Rohrer, C., Roßdeutscher, A. (eds.) Linguistic Form and its Computation. CSLI, Stanford (2001)
Krifka, M.: Association with Focus Phrases. In: Molnár, V., Winkler, S. (eds.) The Architecture of Focus, pp. 105–136. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2006)
Roberts, C.: Modal Subordination and Pronominal Anaphora in Discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(6), 683–721 (1989)
Rooth, M.: Association with Focus. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (1985)
Rooth, M.: A Theory of Focus Interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1), 75–116 (1992)
Rooth, M.: Focus. In: Lappin, S. (ed.) The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, pp. 271–297. Blackwell, Oxford (1996)
van der Sandt, R.: Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution. Journal of Semantics 9, 333–377 (1992)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Riester, A., Kamp, H. (2010). Squiggly Issues: Alternative Sets, Complex DPs, and Intensionality. In: Aloni, M., Bastiaanse, H., de Jager, T., Schulz, K. (eds) Logic, Language and Meaning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6042. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14287-1_38
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14287-1_38
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-14286-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-14287-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)