Abstract
The semantics of association with focus and the pragmatic conditions governing the appropriateness of focus in discourse are usually taken to depend on focus alternatives. According to a common view, these alternatives are generated by a permissive process. This permissive view has been challenged by Michael Wagner, who has noted that certain alternatives are systematically excluded from consideration. Wagner describes a more restrictive view, on which only contrastive alternatives are relevant for association with focus and for the appropriateness of focus in discourse. I use recent work on the role of contradiction to show that the standard, permissive view derives the same results as the contrast-based view for the basic cases. These basic cases involve a contradiction that prevents us from using them to distinguish the two approaches. I show that when this contradiction is eliminated, evidence of non-contrastive alternatives emerges, supporting the permissive standard view over the restrictive contrast-based one.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Büring, Daniel. 2012. What’s given (and what’s new) in the theory of focus?. In Proceedings of the thirty-fourth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 8–10 2008, ed. Sarah Berson et al., 403–424. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Fox, Danny. 2007a. Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, ed. Uli Sauerland and Penka Stateva, 71–120. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Fox, Danny. 2007b. Too many alternatives: Density, symmetry and other predicaments. In Proceedings of SALT 17, ed. Tova Friedman and Masayuki Gibson, 89–111. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Fox D., Hackl M. (2006) The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 537–586
Fox D., Katzir R. (2011) On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 19: 87–107
Gajewski, Jon. 2009. Innocent exclusion is not contradiction free. Ms., University of Connecticut.
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Katzir R. (2007) Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 669–690
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116
Sauerland, U. 2004a. On embedded implicatures. Journal of Cognitive Science 5: 107–137.
Sauerland, U. 2004b. Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367–391.
Sauerland, U. 2005. Don’t interpret focus! Why a presuppositional account of focus fails, and how a presuppositional account of givenness works. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9, ed. Emar Maier et al., 370–384. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.
Schwarzschild, R. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–177.
Sevi, Aldo. 2005. Exhaustivity: A semantic account of ‘quantity’ implicatures. Doctoral dissertation, Tel-Aviv University.
Spathas, Giorgos. 2010. Focus on anaphora: Accent placement and the syntax and semantics of anaphors. Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht.
Spector, Benjamin. 2007. Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In Questions in dynamic semantics, ed. Maria Aloni et al., 229–254. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
van Rooij, R., and K. Schulz. 2004. Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13: 491–519.
Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and recursion. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Wagner, Michael. 2006. Givenness and locality. In Proceedings of SALT 16, ed. Jonathan Howell and Masayuki Gibson, 295–312. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Wagner, Michael. 2012. Focus and givenness: A unified approach. In Contrasts and positions in information structure, ed. Ivona Kučerová and Ad Neeleman, 102–147. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Katzir, R. A note on contrast. Nat Lang Semantics 21, 333–343 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-013-9095-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-013-9095-8