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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 333-343 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Natural Language Semantics |
| Volume | 21 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Dec 2013 |
Keywords
- Contradiction
- Contrast
- Exhaustivity
- Focus alternatives
- Innocent exclusion
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Philosophy
- Linguistics and Language
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'A note on contrast'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver