A note on contrast

Natural Language Semantics

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 333-343

  Katzir, Roni ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

Contradiction; Contrast; Exhaustivity; Focus alternatives; Innocent exclusion

Indexed keywords

EID: 84889080754     PISSN: 0925854X     EISSN: 1572865X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11050-013-9095-8     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Fox D., Hackl M. (2006) The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 537-586.
5. Fox D., Katzir R. (2011) On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 19: 87-107.
6. Gajewski, Jon. 2009. Innocent exclusion is not contradiction free. Ms., University of Connecticut.
7. Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
8. Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Katzir R. (2007) Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 669-690.
10. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
11. Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75-116.
12. Sauerland, U. 2004a. On embedded implicatures. Journal of Cognitive Science 5: 107-137.
13. Sauerland, U. 2004b. Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367-391.
14. 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.
15. Schwarzschild, R. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7: 141-177.
16. Sevi, Aldo. 2005. Exhaustivity: A semantic account of 'quantity' implicatures. Doctoral dissertation, Tel-Aviv University.
17. Spathas, Giorgos. 2010. Focus on anaphora: Accent placement and the syntax and semantics of anaphors. Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht.
18. Spector, Benjamin. 2007. Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In Questions in dynamic semantics, ed. Maria Aloni et al., 229-254. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
19. van Rooij, R., and K. Schulz. 2004. Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13: 491-519.
20. Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and recursion. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
21. Wagner, Michael. 2006. Givenness and locality. In Proceedings of SALT 16, ed. Jonathan Howell and Masayuki Gibson, 295-312. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
22. 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.