On the characterization of alternatives

Natural Language Semantics 19 (1):87-107 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The computation of both Scalar Implicatures (SI) and Association with Focus (AF) is characterized with reference to sets of alternatives. However, it has generally been assumed that the relevant alternatives are determined in different ways for the two processes. Specifically, it has been assumed that the alternatives for SI – scalar alternatives – are computed by a special procedure specifically designed for implicatures, whereas the alternatives for AF – focus alternatives – are determined by the general theory of association with focus – focus semantics. As far as we know, the only attempt to connect the two is Krifka (1995), under which scalar alternatives and focus alternatives are identical and determined by focus semantics. However, Krifka’s result is based on a specific stipulation about scalar items, which he borrows from Horn and incorporates into focus semantics, namely that scalar items are inherently focused and have their Horn Scale as their lexically specified focus values.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,408

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-09-21

Downloads
183 (#96,418)

6 months
6 (#197,500)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Studies in the Way of Words.D. E. Over - 1990 - Philosophical Quarterly 40 (160):393-395.
Questions in montague english.Charles L. Hamblin - 1973 - Foundations of Language 10 (1):41-53.
A theory of focus interpretation.Mats Rooth - 1992 - Natural Language Semantics 1 (1):75-116.
An investigation of the lumps of thought.Angelika Kratzer - 1989 - Linguistics and Philosophy 12 (5):607 - 653.
Relevant implication.David Lewis - 1988 - Theoria 54 (3):161-174.

View all 14 references / Add more references