Abstract
Scalar implicature (SI) is often viewed as reasoning from what was said to what was left unsaid.* For example, a speaker who utters John has three children can license the SI that John has exactly three children, not four or more. This is often attributed to the fact that, if the speaker had thought that John had more than three children, the speaker could have conveyed this information by saying John has four children. The speaker didn’t, so we conclude that John doesn’t. Taking into account alternative statements that were not used is an attractive idea, but it requires addressing several non-trivial challenges, such as where in the cognitive architecture the relevant reasoning about such unsaid alternatives is performed and how exactly the alternatives are handled.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Anderson, Stephen. 1969. West Scandinavian Vowel Systems and the Ordering of Phonological Rules. Doctoral Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Atlas, Jay David, and Stephen Levinson. 1981. It-clefts, iniormativeness, and logical form. In Peter Cole (ed.) Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. Büring, Daniel. 2012. What’s given (and what’s new) in the theory of focus. In Sarah Berson el al. (eds), Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 8–10 2008, 403–424. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
von Fintel, Kai, and Irene Heim. 1997. Classnotes on pragmatics. MIT.
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and Semantic Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fox, Danny. 2007. Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implica-tures. In Uli Sauerland and Penka Stateva (eds), Presupposition and Implicative in Compositional Semantics,, 71–120. Palgrave Macmillan.
Fox, Danny, and Martin Hackl. 2006. The universal density of measurement. linguistics and Philosophy 29:537–586.
Fox, Danny, and Roni Katzir. 2011. On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 19:87–107.
Gajewski, Jon. 2009. Innocent exclusion is not contradiction free. Ms., UConn.
Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.
Geurts, Bart. 2010. Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge University Press.
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies in the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. Doctoral Dissertation. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam,.
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed morphology: impoverishment and fission. In B. Bruening, Y. Kang, and M. McGinnis (eds), Papers al the Interface, 125–149. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale and jay Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
I Iambi in, C. L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10:41–53.
Hirschberg, Julia. 1985/1991. A ‘Theory of Scalar Implicature’. New York: Garland.
Horn, Laurence. 1972. On the Semantic Properties of the logical Operators in English. Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA.
Horn, Laurence. 1978. Lexical incorporation, implicature, and the least effort hypothesis. In Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon, 196–209. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
Horn, Laurence. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicatures. In D. Schiffrin (ed.) Meaning, Form, and Use in Context, 11–42. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Horn, Laurence. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Horn, Laurence. 2000. From IF to IFF: conditional perfection as pragmatic strengthening. Journal of Pragmatics 32:289–326.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Katzir, Roni. 2007. Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30:669–690.
Katzir, Roni. 2013. A note on contrast. Natural Language Semantics 21(4): 3.33–343.
Katzir, Roni, and Raj Singh. 2013. Constraints on the lexicalization of logical operators. Linguistics and Philosophy 36:1–29.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. “elsewhere” in phonology. In Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky (eds), A festschrift for Morris Halle, 93–106. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Kroch, Anthony. 1972. Lexical and inferred meanings for some time adver-bials. Quarterly Progress Reports of the Research Laboratory of Electronics 104. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Lewis, David. 1988. Relevant implication. Theoria 54:161–174.
Matsumoto, Yo. 1995. The conversational condition on Horn Scales. Linguistics and Philosophy 18:21–60.
McCawley, James D. 1978. Conversational implicatures and the lexicon. In Peter Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, volume 9: Pragmatics, 245–259. New York: Academic Press.
Poser, William J. 1992. Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolcsi (eds), .Lexical Matters, 111–130. Stanford, CA: CSU Publications
van Rooi], Robert, and Katrin Schulz. 2004. Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13:491–519.
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus. Doctoral Dissertation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts,.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1:75–116.
Sauerland, Uli. 2004a. On embedded implicatures. Journal of Cognitive Science 5:107–137.
Sauerland, Uli. 2004b. Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27:367–391.
Sauerland, Uli. 2005. Don’t interpret focus! Why a presuppositional account of focus fails, and how a presuppositional account: of givenness works. In Emar Maier, Corien Bary, and Janneke Huitink (eds), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9, 370–384. Nijrnegen: University of Nijmegen.
Schwarzschild, Roger. 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, Universileil Ulrechl.
Spector, Benjamin. 2007. Scalar implicatures: exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In Maria Aloni, Alistair Butler, and Paul Dekker (eds), Questions in Dynamic Semantics, 229–254. Elsevier.
Swanson, Eric. 2010. Structurally defined alternatives and lexicalizations of XOR. Linguistics and Philosophy 33:31–36.
Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and Recursion. Doctoral Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Wagner, Michael. 2006. Givenness and locality. In Jonathan Howell and Masayuki Gibson (eds), Proceedings of SALT 16, 295–312. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Wagner, Michael. 2012. Focus and givenness: a unified approach. In Ivona Kucerova and Ad Neeleman (eds), Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure, 102–147. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2014 Roni Kalzir
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Katzir, R. (2014). On the Roles of Markedness and Contradiction in the Use of Alternatives. In: Reda, S.P. (eds) Pragmatics, Semantics and the Case of Scalar Implicatures. Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137333285_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137333285_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-46214-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-33328-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Language & Linguistics CollectionEducation (R0)