1932

Abstract

Alternatives and competition in language are pervasive at all levels of linguistic analysis. More specifically, alternatives have been argued to play a prominent role in an ever-growing class of phenomena in the investigation of natural language meaning. In this article, we focus on scalar implicatures, as they are arguably the most paradigmatic case of an alternative-based phenomenon. We first review the main challenge for theories of alternatives, the so-called symmetry problem, and we briefly discuss how it has shaped the different approaches to alternatives. We then turn to two more recent challenges concerning scalar diversity and the inferences of sentences with multiple scalars. Finally, we describe several related alternative-based phenomena and recent conceptual approaches to alternatives. As we discuss, while important progress has been made, much more work is needed both on the theoretical side and on understanding the empirical landscape better.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031220-012013
2022-01-14
2024-06-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/8/1/annurev-linguistics-031220-012013.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031220-012013&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abusch D. 2010. Presupposition triggering from alternatives. J. Semant. 27:137–80
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexandropoulou S. 2018. On the pragmatics of numeral modifiers: the availability and time course of variation, ignorance and indifference inferences. PhD Thesis Utrecht Univ. Utrecht, Neth:.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexandropoulou S, Bylinina L, Nouwen R 2020. Is there any licensing in non-DE contexts? An experimental study. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 24 1 ed. M Franke, N Kompa, M Liu, JL Mueller, J Schwab 35–47 Osnabrück/Berlin: Osnabrück Univ./Humboldt Univ. Berlin
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aloni M. 2018. FC disjunction in state-based semantics Work. Pap., Univ. Amsterdam Amsterdam:
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker R, Doran R, McNabb Y, Larson M, Ward G. 2009. On the non-unified nature of scalar implicature: an empirical investigation. Int. Rev. Pragmat. 1:2211–48
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barker C. 2018. Negative polarity as scope marking. Linguist. Philos. 41:5483–510
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bar-Lev M. 2018. Free choice, homogeneity and innocent inclusion. PhD Thesis Hebrew Univ. Jerusalem Jerusalem:
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bar-Lev M, Fox D 2020. Free choice, simplification, and innocent inclusion. Nat. Lang. Semant. 28:3175–223
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Barner D, Brooks N, Bale A 2011. Accessing the unsaid: the role of scalar alternatives in children's pragmatic inference. Cognition 118:184–93
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Benz A, Bombi C, Gotzner N. 2018. Scalar diversity and negative strengthening. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22 1:191–203 Berlin: ZAS
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Benz A, Gotzner N. 2020. Embedded implicature: What can be left unsaid?. Linguist. Philos. 14:1099–130
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bergen L, Levy R, Goodman N. 2016. Pragmatic reasoning through semantic inference. Semant. Pragmat. 9:20
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bierwisch M, Schreuder R. 1992. From concepts to lexical items. Cognition 42:1–323–60
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Blutner R. 2000. Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. J. Semant. 17:3189–216
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Braun B, Tagliapietra L. 2010. The role of contrastive intonation contours in the retrieval of contextual alternatives. Lang. Cogn. Process. 25:7–91024–43
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Breheny R. 2008. A new look at the semantics and pragmatics of numerically quantified noun phrases. J. Semant. 25:93–139
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Breheny R. 2019. Scalar implicatures. The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics C Cummins, N Katsos Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198791768.013.4
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  18. Breheny R, Klinedinst N, Romoli J, Sudo Y. 2017. The symmetry problem: current theories and prospects. Nat. Lang. Semant. 26:285–110
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Brown P, Levinson SC. 1987. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, Vol. 4: Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Buccola B, Dautriche I, Chemla E 2018. Competition and symmetry in an artificial word learning task. Front. Psychol. 9:2176
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Buccola B, Križ M, Chemla E. 2021. Conceptual alternatives: competition in language and beyond. Linguist. Philos. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-021-09327-w
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  22. Chemla E. 2009. Universal implicatures and free choice effects: experimental data. Semant. Pragmat. 2:2
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Chemla E. 2010. Similarity: towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection Work. Pap., ENS Paris:
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Chemla E, Bott L 2014. Processing inferences at the semantics/pragmatics frontier: disjunctions and free choice. Cognition 130:3380–96
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Chemla E, Homer V, Rothschild D 2011. Modularity and intuitions in formal semantics: the case of polarity items. Linguist. Philos. 34:6537–70
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Chemla E, Singh R 2014. Remarks on the experimental turn in the study of scalar implicature, Part I. Lang. Linguist. Compass 8:9373–86
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Chemla E, Spector B 2011. Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. J. Semant. 28:3359–400
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Chierchia G 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. Structures and Beyond A Belletti 39–103 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Chierchia G. 2013. Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Chierchia G. 2017. Scalar implicatures and their interface with grammar. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 3:245–64
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Chierchia G, Fox D, Spector B 2012. Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning 3 C Maienborn, K von Heusinger, P Portner 2297–331 Berlin: De Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Ciardelli I, Groenendijk J, Roelofsen F. 2018. Inquisitive Semantics Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Clifton C Jr., Dube C. 2010. Embedded implicatures observed: a comment on Geurts and Pouscoulous (2009). Semant. Pragmat. 3:7
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Coppock E, Brochhagen T 2013. Raising and resolving issues with scalar modifiers. Semant. Pragmat. 6:3
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Cremers A. 2018. Plurality effects in an exhaustification-based theory of embedded questions. Nat. Lang. Semant. 26:3193–251
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Cremers A, Chemla E. 2016. A psycholinguistic study of the exhaustive readings of embedded questions. J. Semant. 33:149–85
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Cremers A, Coppock E, Dotlačil J, Roelofsen F 2021. Ignorance implicatures of modified numerals. Linguist. Philos. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-021-09336-9
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  38. Cremers A, Kane F, Tieu L, Kennedy L, Sudo Y et al. 2018. Testing theories of temporal inferences: evidence from child language. Glossa 3:1139
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Crnič L. 2011. Getting even. PhD Thesis MIT, Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Crnič L. 2014. Non-monotonicity in NPI licensing. Nat. Lang. Semant. 22:2169–217
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Dayal V. 2016. Questions Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  42. de Carvalho A, Reboul AC, der Henst V, Cheylus A, Nazir T et al. 2016. Scalar implicatures: the psychological reality of scales. Front. Psychol. 7:1500
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Degen J, Tanenhaus MK. 2015. Processing scalar implicature: a constraint-based approach. Cogn. Sci. 39:4667–710
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Degen J, Tanenhaus MK. 2016. Availability of alternatives and the processing of scalar implicatures: a visual world eye-tracking study. Cogn. Sci. 40:1172–201
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Doran R, Ward G, McNabb Y, Larson M, Baker RE. 2012. A novel paradigm for distinguishing between what is said and what is implicated. Language 88:124–54
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Fălăuş A. 2017. (Partially) Free choice of alternatives. Linguist. Philos. 37:121–73
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Foppolo F, Guasti MT, Chierchia G. 2012. Scalar implicatures in child language: Give children a chance. Lang. Learn. Dev. 8:4365–94
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Fox D 2007. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics U Sauerland, P Stateva 71–120 Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Fox D, Katzir R 2011. On the characterization of alternatives. Nat. Lang. Semant. 19:187–107
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Franke M. 2011. Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation. Semant. Pragmat. 4:1
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Franke M, Bergen L. 2020. Theory-driven statistical modeling for semantics and pragmatics: a case study on grammatically generated implicature readings. Language 96:2e77–96
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Gajewski J. 2002. L-analyticity in natural language Work. Pap. MIT:
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Gajewski J, Sharvit Y. 2012. In defense of the grammatical approach to local implicatures. Nat. Lang. Semant. 20:131–57
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Gazdar G. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Geurts B. 2010. Quantity Implicatures Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Geurts B, Pouscoulous N. 2009. Embedded implicatures?!?. Semant. Pragmat. 2:4
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Goldstein S. 2019. Free choice and homogeneity. Semant. Pragmat. 12:23
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Gotzner N 2015. What's included in the set of alternatives? Psycholinguistic evidence for a permissive view. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19 E Csipak, H Zeijlstra 252–67 Göttingen, Ger.: Georg-August-Univ. Göttingen
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Gotzner N. 2017. Alternative Sets in Language Processing: How Focus Alternatives Are Represented in the Mind London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Gotzner N. 2019. The role of focus intonation in implicature computation: a comparison with only and also. Nat. Lang. Semant. 27:3189–226
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Gotzner N, Barner D, Crain S. 2020. Disjunction triggers exhaustivity implicatures in 4- to 5-year-olds: investigating the role of access to alternatives. J. Semant. 37:2219–45
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Gotzner N, Mazzarella D. 2021. Face management and negative strengthening: the role of power relations, social distance and gender. Front. Psychol. 12:602977
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Gotzner N, Romoli J. 2018. The scalar inferences of strong scalar terms under negative quantifiers and constraints on the theory of alternatives. J. Semant. 35:195–126
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Gotzner N, Solt S, Benz A. 2018. Scalar diversity, negative strengthening, and adjectival semantics. Front. Psychol. 9:1659
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Gotzner N, Spalek K. 2019. The life and times of focus alternatives: tracing the activation of alternatives to a focused constituent in language comprehension. Lang. Linguist. Compass 13:2e12310
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Gotzner N, Wartenburger I, Spalek K 2016. The impact of focus particles on the recognition and rejection of contrastive alternatives. Lang. Cogn. 8:159–95
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Grice HP 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics 3 P Cole, JL Morgan 41–58 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Grice HP. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words Cambridge, UK: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Grodner DJ, Klein NM, Carbary KM, Tanenhaus MK. 2010. Some,” and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition 116:142–55
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Groenendijk JAG, Stokhof MJB. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD Thesis Univ. Amsterdam, Amsterdam:
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Heim I 1994. Interrogative semantics and Karttunen's semantics for know. Proceedings of IATL 1 R Buchalla, A Mittwoch 128–44 Jerusalem: Hebrew Univ. Jerusalem
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Homer V. 2015. Neg-raising and positive polarity: the view from modals. Semant. Pragmat. 8:4
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Horn LR. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD Thesis Univ. Calif. Los Angeles:
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Horn LR. 1989. A Natural History of Negation Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Huang YT, Snedeker J. 2009. Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: insight into the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cogn. Psychol. 58:3376–415
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Huang YT, Spelke E, Snedeker J. 2013. What exactly do numbers mean?. Lang. Learn. Dev. 2:9105–29
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Husband EM, Ferreira F. 2016. The role of selection in the comprehension of focus alternatives. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 31:2217–35
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Ivlieva N. 2013. Scalar implicatures and the grammar of plurality and disjunction. PhD Thesis MIT, Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Katzir R. 2007. Structurally defined alternatives. Linguist. Philos. 30:669–90
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Katzir R 2014. Semantics, pragmatics, and the case of scalar implicatures. On the Roles of Markedness and Contradiction in the Use of Alternatives S Pistoia Reda 40–71 London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Kennedy C. 2015. A “de-Fregean” semantics (and neo-Gricean pragmatics) for modified and unmodified numerals. Semant. Pragmat. 8:10
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Kennedy C, McNally L 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81:2345–81
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Kim CS, Gunlogson C, Tanenhaus MK, Runner JT. 2015. Context-driven expectations about focus alternatives. Cognition 139:28–49
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Klinedinst N. 2007. Plurality and possibility. PhD Thesis Univ. Calif. Los Angeles:
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Krifka M 2007. Negated antonyms: creating and filling the gap. Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics U Sauerland, P Stateva 163–77 Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Kroch A. 1972. Lexical and inferred meanings for some time adverbs. Q. Progr. Rep. Res. Lab. Electron. 104:260–67
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Leffel T, Cremers A, Gotzner N, Romoli J. 2019. Vagueness in implicature: the case of modified adjectives. J. Semant. 36:2317–48
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Levelt WJ, Roelofs A, Meyer AS. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behav. Brain Sci. 22:11–38
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Magri G. 2009. A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory implicatures: constraint promotion for optimality theory. PhD Thesis MIT, Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Magri G. 2014. An account for the homogeneity effects triggered by plural definites and conjunction based on double strengthening. Pragmatics, Semantics and the Case of Scalar Implicatures S Pistoia-Reda 99–145 Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Marty P. 2017. Implicatures in the DP domain. PhD Thesis MIT, Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Marty P, Romoli J 2021. Presupposed free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. Linguist. Philos. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-020-09316-5
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  93. Marty P, Romoli J, Sudo Y, Breheny R. 2020. Negative free choice Work. Pap., Univ. Coll. London/Univ. Bergen https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zQzZWI0N/NFC.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Mayr C. 2015. Plural definite NPs presuppose multiplicity via embedded exhaustification. Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 25)204–24 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Mazzarella D, Gotzner N. 2021. The polarity asymmetry of negative strengthening: dissociating adjectival polarity from face-threatening potential. Glossa 6:147
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Meyer MC. 2013. Ignorance and grammar. PhD Thesis MIT, Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Mihoc D. 2019. Decomposing logic: modified numerals, polarity, and exhaustification. PhD Thesis Harvard Univ. Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Musan R. 1995. On the temporal interpretation of noun phrases. PhD Thesis MIT, Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Nicolae AC. 2013. Any questions? Polarity as a window into the structure of questions. PhD Thesis Harvard Univ. Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Nicolae AC 2016. Simple disjunction PPIs—a case for obligatory epistemic inferences. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 46) 3 C Hammerly, B Prickett 49–62 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Nicolae AC. 2017. Deriving the positive polarity behavior of plain disjunction. Semant. Pragmat. 10:5
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Nicolae AC, Sauerland U. 2020. Quantity implicatures. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem109
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  103. Noveck I. 2001. When children are more logical than adults: investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78:2165–88
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Noveck I. 2018. Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Pagliarini E, Bill C, Tieu L, Crain S. 2018. On children's variable success with scalar inferences: insights from disjunction in the scope of a universal quantifier. Cognition 178:178–92
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Papafragou A, Musolino J. 2003. Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognition 86:253–82
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Penka D. 2007. Negative indefinites. PhD Thesis Universität Tübingen Tübingen, Ger:.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Pires de Oliveira R, Chierchia G. 2020. Contemporary issues in natural language semantics: an interview with Gennaro Chierchia. Delta 36:1 https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-460X2020360111
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  109. Potts C, Lassiter D, Levy R, Frank MC. 2016. Embedded implicatures as pragmatic inferences under compositional lexical uncertainty. J. Semant. 33:4755–802
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Rees A, Bott L 2018. The role of alternative salience in the derivation of scalar implicatures. Cognition 176:1–14
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Repp S, Spalek K. 2021. The role of alternatives in language. Front. Commun. 6:682009
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Romoli J. 2012. Soft but strong: neg-raising, soft triggers, and exhaustification. PhD Thesis Harvard Univ. Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Romoli J. 2013. A scalar implicature-based approach to Neg-raising. Linguist. Philos. 36:4291–353
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Rooth M. 1985. Association with focus. PhD Thesis Univ. Mass. Amherst:
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Rooth M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Nat. Lang. Semant. 1:75–116
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Ruytenbeek N, Verheyen S, Spector B. 2017. Asymmetric inference towards the antonym: experiments into the polarity and morphology of negated adjectives. Glossa 2:192
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Santorio P, Romoli J. 2017. Probability and implicatures: a unified account of the scalar effects of disjunction under modals. Semant. Pragmat. 10:13
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Sauerland U. 2000. No ‘no’: on the crosslinguistic absence of a determiner ‘no’. Proceedings of the Tsukuba Workshop on Determiners and Quantification U Sauerland 415–44 Tsukuba, Jpn.: Tsukuba Univ.
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Sauerland U. 2004. Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguist. Philos. 27:367–91
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Sauerland U. 2012. The computation of scalar implicatures: pragmatic, lexical or grammatical?. Lang. Linguist. Compass 6:136–49
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Schlenker P, Chemla E, Arnold K, Lemasson A, Ouattara K et al. 2014. Monkey semantics: two ‘dialects’ of Campbell's monkey alarm calls. Linguist. Philos. 37:6439–501
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Schulz K, van Rooij R. 2006. Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: the case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguist. Philos. 29:2205–50
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Simons M, Warren T. 2018. A closer look at strengthened readings of scalars. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 71:1272–79
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Singh R, Wexler K, Astle-Rahim A, Kamawar D, Fox D 2016. Children interpret disjunction as conjunction: consequences for theories of implicature and child development. Nat. Lang. Semant. 24:4305–52
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Spector B 2006. Scalar implicatures: exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. Questions in Dynamic Semantics M Aloni, A Butler, P Dekker 229–54 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Spector B 2007. Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: on higher-order implicatures. Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics U Sauerland, P Stateva 243–81 Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Spector B. 2014. Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semant. Pragmat. 7:11
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Starr W. 2016. Expressing permission. Proceedings of the 26th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 26)325–49 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Sudo Y, Romoli J. 2017. Lifetime effects as presuppositional scalar strengthening. UCL Work. Pap. Linguist. 39:30–42
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Swanson E. 2010. Structurally defined alternatives and lexicalizations of XOR. Linguist. Philos. 33:131–36
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Thomas G. 2012. Temporal implicatures. PhD Thesis MIT Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Tieu L, Romoli J, Zhou P, Crain S. 2016. Children's knowledge of free choice inferences and scalar implicatures. J. Semant. 33:2269–98
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Tieu L, Schlenker P, Chemla E. 2019. Linguistic inferences without words. PNAS 116:209796–801
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Tieu L, Yatsushiro K, Cremers A, Romoli J, Sauerland U, Chemla E. 2017. On the role of alternatives in the acquisition of simple and complex disjunctions in French and Japanese. J. Semant. 34:1127–52
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Tomlinson JM, Gotzner N, Bott L. 2017. Intonation and pragmatic enrichment: how intonation constrains ad hoc scalar inferences. Lang. Speech 60:2200–23
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Trinh T. 2018. Keeping it simple. Nat. Lang. Semant. 26:111–24
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Trinh T. 2019. Exhaustification and contextual restriction. Front. Commun. 4:47
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Trinh T, Haida A 2015. Constraining the derivation of alternatives. Nat. Lang. Semant. 23:249–70
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Uegaki W. 2015. Interpreting questions under attitudes. PhD Thesis MIT, Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  140. van Rooij R, Schulz K. 2006. Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: the case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguist. Philos. 29:205–50
    [Google Scholar]
  141. van Tiel B, van Miltenburg E, Zevakhina N, Geurts B. 2016. Scalar diversity. J. Semant. 33:1107–35
    [Google Scholar]
  142. von Fintel K. 1993. Exceptive constructions. Nat. Lang. Semant. 1:2123–48
    [Google Scholar]
  143. von Fintel K. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD Thesis Univ. Mass., Amherst:
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Waldon B, Degen J. 2020. Symmetric alternatives and semantic uncertainty modulate scalar inference. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2020) S Denison, M Mack, Y Xu, BC Armstrong 123–29 Austin, TX: Cogn. Sci. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Willer M 2017. Widening free choice. Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium A Cremers, T van Gessel, F Roelofsen 511–20 Amsterdam: ILLC Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Zweig E. 2009. Number-neutral bare plural and the multiplicity implicature. Linguist. Philos. 32:353–407
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031220-012013
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031220-012013
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error