|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)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Kimiko 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.
Anastasia Giannakidou, Licensing and Sensitivity in Polarity Items: From Downward Entailment to (Non)Veridicality.
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.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads1 ( #274,507 of 548,973 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?