According to the alternative semantics for focus, the semantic reflec of intonational focus is a second semantic value, which in the case of a sentence is a set of propositions. We examine a range of semantic and pragmatic applications of the theory, and extract a unitary principle specifying how the focus semantic value interacts with semantic and pragmatic processes. A strong version of the theory has the effect of making lexical or construction-specific stipulation of a focus-related effect in association-with-focus constructions (...) impossible. Furthermore, while focus has a uniform import, the sources of meaning differences in association with focus are various. (shrink)

In this theory, both adverbs and heads, which encode the functional notions of the clause, are ordered in a rigid sequence.

The paper re‐examines the relevance of Carlson's (1977) distinction between stage level predicates and individual level predicates for several modules of grammar. In the first part of the paper, it is argued that rather than assume a uniform stage level vs. individual level distinction, we have to distinguish several similar but independent contrasts. Thus it is demonstrated that a unified explanation of all linguistic phenomena that are considered to be sensitive for this distinction is not possible or desirable. The second (...) part of the paper focuses on one group of apparent contrasts between stage level and individual level predicates: the distribution of weak subjects. We will argue that it is the well‐established contrast between stative and eventive predicates that lies at the bottom of these effects. This simple picture is blurred by interaction with topic‐comment structure. We will propose a dynamic semantics of topicality that enables us to derive the observed effects formally. (shrink)

This book revives the study of conventional implicatures in natural language semantics. H. Paul Grice first defined the concept. Since then his definition has seen much use and many redefinitions, but it has never enjoyed a stable place in linguistic theory. Christopher Potts returns to the original and uses it as a key into two presently under-studied areas of natural language: supplements and expressives. The account of both depends on a theory in which sentence meanings can be multidimensional. The theory (...) is logically and intuitively compositional, and it minimally extends a familiar kind of intensional logic, thereby providing an adaptable, highly useful tool for semantic analysis. The result is a linguistic theory that is accessible not only to linguists of all stripes, but also philosophers of language, logicians, and computer scientists who have linguistic applications in mind. (shrink)

We review Potts’ influential book on the semantics of conventional implicature (CI), offering an explication of his technical apparatus and drawing out the proposal’s implications, focusing on the class of CIs he calls supplements. While we applaud many facets of this work, we argue that careful considerations of the pragmatics of CIs will be required in order to yield an empirically and explanatorily adequate account.

This study offers syntactic and semantic evidence that there are three types of locative modifiers within the verbal domain that differ with respect to their syntactic base position and interpretation. Two of them are subject to semantic indeterminacy, thereby leading to multiple utterance meanings. The study aims at showing that the full range of interpretations can be derived within a rigid account of lexical and compositional semantics. Locative modifiers are invariably treated as first-order predicates adding a locative constraint. All semantic (...) differences originate from the structural environment they are embedded in and the pragmatic resolution of semantic indeterminacy. The syntactic distribution of locative modifiers is shown to be derivable from interface conditions. (shrink)

This book investigates the nature of the relationship between phonology and syntax and proposes a theory of Minimal Indirect Reference that solves many classic problems relating to the topic. Seidl shows that all variation across languages in phonological domain size is due to syntactic differences and a single domain parameter specific to phonology.