Abstract
Alternatives as in Rooth (1992, Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116) must be distinct from the utterance they are alternatives to. This paper tries to analyse distinctness and thereby to give a proper notion of a contrastor, an utterance that could have been used instead of the actual utterance. I try to derive scalar implicatures, distinctness implicatures and exhaustivity directly from the recognition of contrastors by the hearer without an intervening alternative semantics. Next to intonationally marked contrast, I try to analyse some other discourse relations involving intonational contrast.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
