Abstract
In producing and interpreting sentences, speakers constantly process information about other things that could have been said. The alternative linguistic forms that a speaker chooses not to use often play a significant part in the grammaticality and felicity of an utterance in a given context. As a result, both semantic and pragmatic theories need to provide an explicit model of alternatives and their relation to assertions. The idea that the well-formedness of sentences may be determined by a selection among competing forms or interpretations plays a key part in many linguistic phenomena and has been at the core of several theoretical frameworks.1 In semantics and pragmatics, the issue became more prominent when an increasing number of phenomena were argued to have a semantics that makes direct reference to alternatives. Among them, there are three main topics that have been extensively studied and constitute the primary sources of alternative semantics (i.e. semantics based on alternatives): questions (e.g. Hamblin 1973, Karttunen 1977, Groenendijk and Stokhof 1984, Hagstrom 1998, Shimoyama 2001, Lahiri 2002), focus (e.g. Rooth 1985, 1992, Beck 2006, Wagner 2006, Beaver and Clark 2008), and implicatures (e.g. Horn 1972, 1989, Gazdar 1979, Hirschberg 1985, Levinson 2000, Zimmermann 2000, Chierchia 2004, Sauerland 2004, Fox 2007, Geurts 2010). Although the range of applications of alternative semantics has been constantly expanding, these are the domains that have shaped the definition of alternatives as semantic/pragmatic objects. The proposed alternative-based accounts make use of alternative sets, but do not necessarily rely on a common set of assumptions regarding alternatives.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aloni, M. (2007) ‘Free Choice, Modals and Imperatives’. Natural Language Semantics 15: 65–94.
Aloni, M. and R. van Rooij (2007) ‘Free Choice Items and Alternatives’ in G. Bouma, I. Kraemer, and J. Zwarts (eds) Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation (Amsterdam:Edita KNAW).
Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2006) ‘Disjunction in Alternative Semantics’, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Alonso-Ovalle, L. and P. Menéndez-Benito (2010) ‘Modal Indefinites’, Natural Language Semantics, 18(1): 1–31.
Arregui, A. (2006) ‘Cualquier, Exception Phrases and Negation’ in J. Doetjes and P. Gonzalez (eds) Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory (Amsterdam: Benjamins), pp. 1–22.
Atlas, J. D., and S. Levinson (1981) ‘It-Clefts, Informativeness and Logical Form: Radical Pragmatics (Revised Standard Version)’ in P. Cole (ed.) Radical Pragmatics (New York: Academic Press), pp. 1–62.
Beaver, D. and B. Clark (2008) Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning (Oxford: Blackwell).
Beck, S. (1996) ‘Wh-Constructions and Transparent Logical Form’, PhD dissertation, University of Tübingen.
Beck, S. (2006) ‘Intervention Effects Follow from Focus Interpretation’, Natural Language Semantics, 14: 1–56.
Büring, D. (1997) The Meaning of Topic and Focus - The 59th Street Bridge Accent (London: Routledge).
Büring, D. (2005) Binding Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Chemla, E. and B. Spector (2011) ‘Experimental Evidence for Embedded Scalar Implicatures’, Journal of Semantics, 28(3): 359–400.
Chemla, E., V. Homer, and D. Rothschild (2011) ‘Modularity and Intuitions in Formal Semantics: the Case of Polarity Items’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 34(6): 537–70.
Chierchia, G. (2004) ‘Scalar Implicatures, Polarity Phenomena, and the Syntax/Pragmatics Interface’ in A. Belletti (ed.) Structures and Beyond (Oxford University Press), pp. 39–103.
Chierchia, G. (2006) ‘Broaden Your Views. Implicatures of Domain Widening and the Spontaneous Logicality of Language’, Linguistic Inquiry, 37(4): 535–90.
Chierchia, G. (2013) Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Chierchia, G., D. Fox, and B. Spector (2012) ‘The Grammatical View of Scalar Implicatures and the Relationship between Semantics and Pragmatics’ in P. Portner, C. Maienborn, and K. von Heusinger (eds) Semantics: an International Handbook ofNatural Language Meaning (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter).
Ciardelli, I., J. Groenendijk, and F. Roelofsen (2012) ‘Inquisitive Semantics: a New Notion of Meaning’, to appear in Language and Linguistics Compass.
Cohen, A. (1999) ‘How Are Alternatives Computed?’, Journal of Semantics, 16: 43–65.
Coppock, E. and D. Beaver (2011) ‘Sole Sisters’ in N. Ashton, A. Chereches, and D. Lutz (eds) Proceedings of the 21st Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (Rutgers University: eLanguage).
Crnič, L. (2011) ‘Getting Even’, PhD dissertation, MIT.
Dalrymple, M., M. Kanazawa, Y. Kim, S. Mchombo, and S. Peters (1998) ‘Reciprocal Expressions and the Concept of Reciprocity’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 21: 159–210.
Dayal, V. (1998) ‘Any as Inherently Modal’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 21: 433–76.
Dayal, V. (2004) ‘The Universal Force of Free Choice Any’, Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 4: 5–40.
Farkas, D. (2002) ‘Varieties of Indefinites’ in Proceedings from SALT XII (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University), pp. 59–83.
Farkas, D. (2006) ‘Free Choice in Romanian’ in B. Birner and G. Ward (eds) Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 71–95.
Fauconnier, G. (1975) ‘Polarity and the Scale Principle’, Papers from the 11th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society), pp. 188–99.
Fox, D. (2000) Economy and Semantic Interpretation (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Fox, D. (2007) ‘Free Choice Disjunction and the Theory of Scalar Implicatures’ in U. Sauerland and P. Stateva (eds) Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan).
Fox, D. and R. Katzir (2011) ‘On the Characterization of Alternatives’, Natural Language Semantics, 19: 87–107.
Gazdar, G. (1979) Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form (New York: Academic Press).
Geurts, B. (2010) Quantity Implicatures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Giannakidou, A. (2001) ‘The Meaning of Free Choice’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 24(6): 659–735.
Giannakidou, A. and J. Quer (2011) ‘Against Universal Free Choice: Free Choice and Referentially Vague Indefinites in Greek, Catalan, and Spanish’, manuscript.
Grice, P. (1975/1989) Studies in the Way of Words (Harvard: Harvard University Press).
Groenendijk, J. and F. Roelofsen (2009) ‘Inquisitive Semantics and Pragmatics’, Language, Communication and Rational Agency, Stanford, USA, May 30–31, 2009.
Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof (1984) Studies in the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers (Amsterdam: Akademish Proefschrift).
Hagstrom, P. (1998) ‘Decomposing Questions’, PhD dissertation, MIT.
Hagstrom, P. (2003) ‘What Questions Mean’, Glot International, 7: 188–201.
Hamblin, C. (1973) ‘Questions in Montague English’, Foundations of Language, 10: 41–53.
Haspelmath, M. (1997) Indefinite Pronouns (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Heim, I. (2001) ‘Notes on Interrogative Semantics’, MIT.
Heim, I. (2007) ‘Forks in the Road to Rule I’ in M. Abdurrahman, A. Schardl, and M. Walkow (eds) Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, pp. 256–84.
Hendriks, P. and H. de Hoop (1999) ‘Optimality Theoretic Semantics’, manuscript, University of Groningen (Cognitive Science and Engineering Prepublications 98–3).
Hinterwimmer, S. (2011) ‘Information Structure and Truth-Conditional Semantics’ in P. Portner, C. Maienborn, and K. von Heusinger (eds) Semantics: an International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 2 (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 1875–908.
Hirschberg, J. (1985) ‘A Theory of Scalar Implicature’, Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Horn, L. (1972) ‘On the Semantic Properties of the Logical Operators in English’, Doctoral dissertation, UCLA. Distributed by IULC, Indiana University.
Horn, L. (1984) ‘Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-Based and R-Based Implicature’ in D. Schiffrin (ed.) Meaning,Form,andUseinContext: Linguistic Applications (Washington: Georgetown University Press), pp. 11–42.
Horn, L. (1989) A Natural History of Negation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Israel, M. (2011) The Grammar of Polarity. Pragmatics, Sensitivity, and the Logic of Scales (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Jackendoff, R. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Jayez, J. and L. Tovena (2005) ‘Free Choice and Non-Individuation’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 28: 1–71.
Kadmon, N. (2001) Formal Pragmatics: Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition and Focus (Oxford: Blackwell).
Kadmon, N. and F. Landman (1993) ‘Any’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 15: 353–422.
Karttunen, L. (1977) ‘Syntax and Semantics of Questions’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(1): 3–44.
Katzir, R. (2008) ‘Structurally-Defined Alternatives’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 30: 669–90.
Keshet, E. (2006) ‘Scalar Implicatures with Alternative Semantics’ in M. Gibson and J. Howell (eds) Proceedings of SALT XVI (Cornell University, Ithaca: CLC Publications), pp. 88–101.
Kim, S.-S. (2002) ‘Intervention Effects Are Focus Effects’ in N. Akatsuka and S. Strauss (eds) Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 10 (Stanford: CSLI), pp. 615–28.
Kratzer, A. (1991) ‘The Representation of Focus’ in A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds) Semantik: an International Handbook ofContemporary Research (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), pp. 825–34.
Kratzer, A. (2005) ‘Indefinites and the Operators they Depend On: From Japanese to Salish’ in G. N. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (eds) Reference and Quantification: the Partee Effect (Stanford: CSLI), pp. 113–42.
Kratzer, A. and J. Shimoyama (2002) ‘Indeterminate Pronouns: the View from Japanese’ in Y. Otsu (ed.) Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo), pp. 1–25.
Krifka, M. (1992) ‘A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Constructions’, Linguistische Berichte, 17–53.
Krifka, M. (1995) ‘The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polarity Items’, Linguistic Analysis, 25: 209–57.
Krifka, M. (2006) ‘Association with Focus Phrases’ in V. Molnar and S. Winkler (eds) The Architecture of Focus (Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 105–36.
Krifka, M. (2011) ‘Questions’ in P. Portner, C. Maienborn, and K. von Heusinger (eds) Semantics: an International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning,Vol.2 (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 1742–85.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) ‘Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language’, PhD dissertation, MIT.
Lahiri, U. (1998) ‘Focus and Negative Polarity in Hindi’, Natural Language Semantics, 6: 57–125.
Lahiri, U. (2002) Questions and Answers in Embedded Contexts (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Lee, Y.-S. and L. Horn (1994) ‘Any as Indefinite plus Even’, manuscript, Yale University.
Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Levinson, S. (2000) Presumptive Meanings (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Matsumoto, Y. (1995) ‘The Conversational Condition on Horn Scales’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 18: 21–60.
Mayr, C. (2010) ‘The Role of Alternatives and Strength in Grammar,’ PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
Menéndez-Benito, P. (2005) ‘The Grammar of Choice’, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Morzycki, M. (2010) ‘Metalinguistic Comparison in an Alternative Semantics for Imprecision’, Natural Language Semantics, 19: 39–86.
Müller, G. and W. Sternefeld (2000) ‘The Rise of Competition in Syntax: a Synopsis’ in G. Müller and W. Sternefeld (eds) Competition in Syntax (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 1–68.
Murray, S. (2009) ‘A Hamblin Semantics for Evidentials’ in E. Cormany and S. Ito (eds) Proceedings of SALT 19, eLanguage, pp. 324–41.
Panizza, D., G. Chierchia, and C. Clifton, Jr (2009) ‘On the Role of Entailing Patterns in the Interpretation and Processing of Numerals and Scalar Quantifiers’, Journal of Memory and Language, 61: 503–18.
Prince, A. and P. Smolensky (1993) Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Ramchand, G. (1997) ‘Questions, Polarity, and Alternative Semantics’ in Proceedings of NELS 27 (Amherst: GLSA), pp. 383–96.
Rawlins, K. (2008) ‘(Un)Conditionals: an Investigation in the Syntax and Semantics of Conditional Structures’, PhD dissertation, UCSC.
Reinhart, T. (1983) Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation (London: Croom Helm)
Reinhart, T. (2006) Interface Strategies (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Rooth, M. (1985) ‘Association with Focus’, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Rooth, M. (1992) ‘A Theory of Focus Interpretation’, Natural Language Semantics, 1(1): 75–117.
Rooth, M. (1996) ‘Focus’ in S. Lappin (ed.) The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 271–97.
Sauerland, U. (2004) ‘Scalar Implicatures in Complex Sentences’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 27: 367–91.
Sauerland, U. (2007) ‘Copying vs Structure Sharing: a Semantic Argument’, Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 7: 27–51.
Sauerland, U. (2012) ‘The Computation of Scalar Implicatures: Pragmatic, Lexical, or Grammatical?’, Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(1): 36–49.
Schlenker, P. (2012) ‘The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface’, manuscript, final version to appear in M. Aloni and P. Dekker (eds), Handbook of Semantics.
Shan, C. (2004) ‘Binding alongside Hamblin Alternatives Calls for Variable-Free Semantics’ in R. B. Young (ed.) Proceedings of SALT XIV (Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications), pp. 289–304.
Shimoyama, J. (2001) ‘Wh-Constructions in Japanese’, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Shimoyama, J. (2006) ‘Indeterminate Phrase Quantification in Japanese’, Natural Language Semantics, 14: 139–73.
Szabolcsi, A., J. D. Whang, and V. Zu (2012) ‘Compositionality questions: quantifier words and their multi-functional(?) parts’, manuscript, NYU.
von Stechow, A. (1989) ‘Focusing and Background Operators’ in W. Araba (ed.) Discourse Particles (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 37–84.
von Stechow, A. (1991) ‘Current Issues in the Theory of Focus’ in A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds) Semantik: an International Handbook of Contemporary Research (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), pp. 804–25.
Wagner, M. (2005) ‘NPI-Licensing and Focus Movement’ in E. Georgala and J. Howell (eds) Proceedings of SALT XV (Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications), pp. 276–93.
Wagner, M. (2010) ‘Focus and Givenness: a Unified Approach’ in I. Kučerová and A. Neeleman (eds) Information Structure. Contrasts and Positions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Winter, Y. (2001) ‘Plural Predication and the Strongest Meaning Hypothesis,’ Journal of Semantics, 18: 333–65.
Yanovich, I. (2005) ‘Choice-Functional Series of Indefinite Pronouns and Hamblin Semantics’ in E. Georgala and J. Howell (eds) Proceedings of SALT XV (Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications), pp. 309–26.
Zimmerman, E. (2000) ‘Free Choice Disjunction and Epistemic Possibility’, Natural Language Semantics, 8: 255–90.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Anamaria Fӑlӑuş
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fӑlӑuş, A. (2013). Introduction: Alternatives in Semantics and Pragmatics. In: Fӑlӑuş, A. (eds) Alternatives in Semantics. Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137317247_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137317247_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-59421-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-31724-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Religion & Philosophy CollectionPhilosophy and Religion (R0)