Antecedent-contained deletion in negative polarity items
| Abstract | This squib investigates a paradox that arises from the interaction of two well-studied domains of grammar: antecedent-contained deletion and the licensing of negative polarity items. The conflict arises from a simple set of facts that have been overlooked in the literature, given in (1). | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,631 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesKimiko Nakanishi (2012). The Scope of Even and Quantifier Raising. Natural Language Semantics 20 (2):115-136.
Jack Hoeksema (2008). There is No Number Effect in the Licensing of Negative Polarity Items: A Reply to Guerzoni and Sharvit. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (4):397-407.
Ton van der Wouden (1997). Negative Contexts: Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation. Routledge.
J. Atlas (1996). 'Only' Noun Phrases, Pseudo-Negative Generalized Quantifiers, Negative Polarity Items, and Monotonicity. Journal of Semantics 13 (4):265-328.
J. Shimoyama (2011). Japanese Indeterminate Negative Polarity Items and Their Scope. Journal of Semantics 28 (4):413-450.
R. van Rooy (2003). Negative Polarity Items in Questions: Strength as Relevance. Journal of Semantics 20 (3):239-273.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2010-12-22Total downloads1 ( #274,507 of 548,973 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
