Titlebook: Contrastiveness in Information Structure, Alternatives and Scalar Implicatures; Chungmin Lee,Ferenc Kiefer,Manfred Krifka Book 2017 Spring

A保存的

978-3-319-79168-5Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

gratify

Contrastive Topic, Contrastive Focus, Alternatives, and Scalar Implicaturesstivity condition that exactly one disjunct holds. CT and CF constructions are cross-linguistically witnessed. CF, in parallelism with ALT-Q, may shed some light on the problematic exceptions to suspension of scalar implicatures in DE contexts such as antecedents of conditionals, and similar problems as well.

pellagra

ABYSS

Deriving the Properties of Structural Focusbe referentially identified). The referential identification of a set consists in the exhaustive listing of its members—hence the exhaustivity of focus. It is claimed that this analysis also accounts for properties of focus movement constructions that current alternative theories cannot explain.

手术刀

et al.: Scalar Adverbs Revisitedr this “radical pragmatic” line, one persistent problem acknowledged by Sadock and not dispelled since is the resistance of the . . →  . . implication to cancelation. New evidence for and against Sadock’s approach and competing analyses of the proximatives is considered and a solution presented.

延期

机密

Book 2017el, state-of-the-art views on some of the central topics in linguistic research, and will appeal to an audience of graduate and advanced undergraduate researchers in linguistics, philosophy of language and computational linguistics.

Charitable

Topic, Focus, and Exhaustive Interpretationnows, if he is competent) that at least one alternative of the form . . . not entailed by the sentence is true. It will be shown that in terms of this analysis we can also account for all the scope-inversion data of Büring (Linguist Philos 20: 175–194, .), without giving rise to some of the problems of the latter analysis.

figure

Judicious

On the Distribution and the Semantics of the Korean Focus Particle –, similar to English . and the additive particle –., which is similar to .. Furthermore, to account for the difference between –. and . or ., I assume that –. in –. introduces an additive presupposition weaker than that of ., . or ..