Search results for 'negative polarity items' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  21
    Jack Hoeksema (2008). There is No Number Effect in the Licensing of Negative Polarity Items: A Reply to Guerzoni and Sharvit. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (4):397-407.
    Guerzoni and Sharvit (Linguistics and Philosophy 30:361–391, 2007) provide an argument that plural, but not singular, wh-phrases may contain a negative polarity item in their restriction, and connect this with the semantic property of exhaustivity. I will show that this claim is factually incorrect, and that the theory of negative polarity licensing does not need to be complicated by taking number distinctions into account. In addition, I will argue that number distinctions do not appear to be (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  17
    Jason Merchant, Antecedent-Contained Deletion in Negative Polarity Items.
    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).
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  3.  12
    R. van Rooy (2003). Negative Polarity Items in Questions: Strength as Relevance. Journal of Semantics 20 (3):239-273.
    The traditional approach towards (negative) polarity items is to answer the question in which contexts NPIs are licensed. The inspiring approaches of Kadmon & Landman (1990, 1993) (K&L) and Krifka (1990, 1992, 1995) go a major step further: they also seek to answer the question of why these contexts license NPIs. To explain the appropriate use of polarity items in questions, however, we need to answer an even more challenging question: why is a NPI used (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  4.  18
    J. Atlas (1996). 'Only' Noun Phrases, Pseudo-Negative Generalized Quantifiers, Negative Polarity Items, and Monotonicity. Journal of Semantics 13 (4):265-328.
    The theory of Generalized Quantifiers has facilitated progress in the study of negation in natural language. In particular it has permitted the formulation of a DeMorgan taxonomy of logical strength of negative Noun Phrases (Zwarts 1996a,b). It has permitted the formulation of broad semantical generalizations to explain grammatical phenomena, e.g. the distribution of Negative Polarity Items (Ladusaw 1980; Linebarger 1981, 1987, 1991; Hoeksema 1986, 1995; Zwarts 1996a,b; Horn 1992, 1996b). In the midst of this theorizing Jaap (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  5.  14
    A. Zepter (2003). How to Be Universal When You Are Existential: Negative Polarity Items in the Comparative: Entailment Along a Scale. Journal of Semantics 20 (2):193-237.
    Fauconnier (1975a) noticed that existential quantification, if it is related to a scale endpoint, can force entailment along the scale and as such have the effect of universal quantification: assume a partially ordered set (X, ⪰) and a predicate Ø such that for all x, y ∈ X, x ⪰ y, if Ø is true of x, it is also true of y; then if there exists an element z that is ordered before all other elements and Ø(z) is true, (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  11
    J. Shimoyama (2011). Japanese Indeterminate Negative Polarity Items and Their Scope. Journal of Semantics 28 (4):413-450.
    This article investigates scopal properties of negative polarity items (NPIs) in Japanese that are composed of so-called indeterminate pronouns and particle -mo, such as dare-mo ‘who-MO’ and dore-mo ‘which-MO’. Contrary to a commonly held view, data are presented that show that the availability of the universal interpretation of indeterminate NPIs needs to be recognized. Due to the limited licensing environment of these NPIs, which require clausemate sentential negation, a difficulty arises in teasing apart predictions made by a (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Anastasia Giannakidou, Negative and Positive Polarity Items: Variation, Licensing, and Compositionality.
    In this chapter, we discuss the distribution and lexical properties of common varieties of negative polarity items (NPIs) and positive polarity items (PPIs). We establish first that NPIs can be licensed in negative, downward entailing, and nonveridical environments. Then we examine if the scalarity approach (originating in Kadmon and Landman 1993) can handle the attested NPI distribution and empirical variation. By positing a unitary lexical source for NPIs—widening, plus EVEN— scalarity fails to capture the (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  8.  9
    Anna Szabolcsi, Lewis Bott & Brian McElree (2008). The Effect of Negative Polarity Items on Inference Verification. Journal of Semantics 25 (4):411-450.
    The scalar approach to negative polarity item (NPI) licensing assumes that NPIs are allowable in contexts in which the introduction of the NPI leads to proposition strengthening (e.g., Kadmon & Landman 1993, Krifka 1995, Lahiri 1997, Chierchia 2006). A straightforward processing prediction from such a theory is that NPI’s facilitate inference verification from sets to subsets. Three experiments are reported that test this proposal. In each experiment, participants evaluated whether inferences from sets to subsets were valid. Crucially, we (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Anastasia Giannakidou, Metalinguistic Comparatives in Greek and Korean: Attitude Semantics, Expressive Content, and Negative Polarity Items.
    In this paper, we propose an analysis of metalinguistic comparatives (MCs) in Greek and Korean which combines an attitudinal semantics (Giannakidou and Stavrou 2008) with an expressive component. The comparative morpheme supplies the former, and the than-particle supplies the latter. Following Giannakidou and Stavrou, we assume that the MC involves the speaker’s attitude towards the than-proposition— which is deemed less appropriate or preferable— and we discuss novel data from Korean showing a two way distinction between “regular” MCs (signaled by the (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Anastasia Giannakidou (2011). Positive Polarity Items and Negative Polarity Items: Variation, Licensing, and Compositionality. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. De Gruyter Mouton 1660--1712.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  11. R. Van Rooij (2003). Negative Polarity Items in Questions. Journal of Semantics 20:239-273.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  7
    Utpal Lahiri (1998). Focus and Negative Polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6 (1):57-123.
    This paper presents an analysis of negative polarity items (NPIs) in Hindi. It is noted that NPIs in this language are composed of a (weak) indefinite plus a particle bhii meaning ‘even’. It is argued that the compositional semantics of this combination explains their behavior as NPIs as well as their behavior as free choice (FC) items. I assume that weak Hindi indefinites like ek and koi are to be viewed as a predicate that I call (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   18 citations  
  13.  52
    Anna Szabolcsi (2004). Positive Polarity - Negative Polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22 (2):409-452..
    Positive polarity items (PPIs) are generally thought to have the boring property that they cannot scope below negation. The starting point of the paper is the observation that their distribution is significantly more complex; specifically, someone/something-type PPIs share properties with negative polarity items (NPIs). First, these PPIs are disallowed in the same environments that license yet type NPIs; second, adding any NPI-licenser rescues the illegitimate constellation. This leads to the conclusion that these PPIs have the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  14.  57
    F. Richter & J. Rado (2013). Negative Polarity in German: Some Experimental Results. Journal of Semantics (1):ffs023.
    We discuss four experiments in which we investigated the acceptability of a large set of Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) in semantically and syntactically different environments. The first two experiments distinguish two subsets of NPIs whose behavior patterns with semantic definitions of weak and strong NPIs: One set (strong NPIs) is less acceptable in the local environment of non-anti-additive downward-entailing operators than the other set (weak NPIs), but they are all equally acceptable in anti-additive environments. In the next (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  33
    Daniel Rothschild, Definite Descriptions and Negative Polarity.
    The argument here comes from consideration of a certain sort of linguistic expression called negative polarity items (NPIs). These are expressions such as “any,” “at all” and “ever.” NPIs are of particular interest for semantics because they can only be used in contexts with a certain rather abstract semantic feature. However, the precise characterization of the feature is itself a matter of some controversy. For those interested in the semantics of natural language it is worthwhile to figure (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  29
    Ton van der Wouden (1997). Negative Contexts: Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation. Routledge.
    Negative polarity is one of the more elusive aspects of linguistics and a subject which has been gaining in importance in recent years. Written from within the well-defined theoretical framework of Generalized Quantifiers, the three main areas considered in this study are collocations, polarity items and multiple negations. In this mature piece of research, van der Wouden takes into account, not only semantic and syntactic considerations, but also to a large extent, pragmatic ones illustrating a wide (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  17.  24
    Elena Guerzoni & Yael Sharvit (2007). A Question of Strength: On NPIs in Interrogative Clauses. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (3):361 - 391.
    We observe that the facts pertaining to the acceptability of negative polarity items (henceforth, NPIs) in interrogative environments complex than previously noted. Since Klima [Klima, E. (1964). In J. Fodor & J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language. Prentice-Hall], it has been typically assumed that NPIs are grammatical in both matrix and embedded questions, however, on closer scrutiny it turns out that there are differences between root and embedded environments, and between question nucleus and wh-restrictor. While NPIs (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  18.  3
    Elena Guerzoni (2006). Intervention Effects on NPIs and Feature Movement: Towards a Unified Account of Intervention. [REVIEW] Natural Language Semantics 14 (4):359-398.
    In this paper, I explore the possibility of understanding locality restrictions on the distribution of Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) as a consequence of covert movement. The present proposal restates Linebarger’s Immediate Scope Constraint in terms of morphology-driven checking requirements. These requirements cannot be met if a blocking element intervenes between the NPI feature and its morphosemantic licenser at Logical Form (LF). The empirical generalization is that the class of NPI ‘blocking expressions’ (a.k.a. ‘interveners’) overlaps to a large (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  19.  53
    Emmanuel Chemla, Vincent Homer & Daniel Rothschild (2011). Modularity and Intuitions in Formal Semantics: The Case of Polarity Items. Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (6):537-570.
    Linguists often sharply distinguish the different modules that support linguistics competence, e.g., syntax, semantics, pragmatics. However, recent work has identified phenomena in syntax (polarity sensitivity) and pragmatics (implicatures), which seem to rely on semantic properties (monotonicity). We propose to investigate these phenomena and their connections as a window into the modularity of our linguistic knowledge. We conducted a series of experiments to gather the relevant syntactic, semantic and pragmatic judgments within a single paradigm. The comparison between these quantitative data (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  20.  10
    Yael Sharvit (2007). A Question of Strength: On NPIs in Interrogative Clauses. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (3):361 - 391.
    We observe that the facts pertaining to the acceptability of negative polarity items (henceforth, NPIs) in interrogative environments are more complex than previously noted. Since Klima [Klima, E. (1964). In J. Fodor & J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language. Prentice-Hall], it has been typically assumed that NPIs are grammatical in both matrix and embedded questions, however, on closer scrutiny it turns out that there are differences between root and embedded environments, and between question nucleus and wh-restrictor. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  4
    Luka Crnič (2014). Non-Monotonicity in NPI Licensing. Natural Language Semantics 22 (2):169-217.
    The distribution of the focus particle even is constrained: if it is adjoined at surface structure to an expression that is entailed by its focus alternatives, as in even once, it must be appropriately embedded to be acceptable. This paper focuses on the context-dependent distribution of such occurrences of even in the scope of non-monotone quantifiers. We show that it is explained on the assumption that even can move at LF Syntax and semantics, 1979). The analysis is subsequently extended to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  34
    Paul Dedecker, Erik Larsson & Andrea Martin, Polarity Judgments: An Empirical View.
    An electronic poster from "Polarity from Different Perspectives," New York University, 2005. The authors present an experiment that investigated to what extent six negative polarity items (slept a wink, in ages, ever, much, at all, and yet) are licensed by 9 potential licensers.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  23.  24
    Jon Robert Gajewski (2007). Neg-Raising and Polarity. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (3):289-328.
    The representation of Neg-Raising in the grammar is a matter of controversy. I provide evidence for representing Neg-Raising as a kind of presupposition associated with certain predicates by providing a detailed analysis of NPI-licensing in Neg-Raising contexts. Specific features of presupposition projection are used to explain the licensing of strict NPIs under Neg-Raising predicates. Discussion centers around the analysis of a licensing asymmetry noted in Horn (1971, Negative transportation: Unsafe at any speed? In CLS 7 (pp. 120–133)).Having provided this (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  24. Raffaella Bernardi, A Proof Theoretical Account of Polarity Items and Monotonic Inference.
    i. M is positive in M . ii. M is positive (negative) in P Q iff M is positive (negative) in P . iii. M is positive (negative) in P Q iff M is positive (negative) in Q, and P denotes..
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25.  18
    Jon R. Gajewski (2011). Licensing Strong NPIs. Natural Language Semantics 19 (2):109-148.
    This paper proposes that both weak and strong NPIs in English are sensitive to the downward entailingness of their licensers. It is also proposed, however, that these two types of NPIs pay attention to different aspects of the meaning of their environment. As observed by von Fintel and Chierchia, weak NPIs do not attend to the scalar implicatures of presuppositions of their licensers. Strong NPIs see both the truth-conditional and non-truth-conditional (scalar implications, presuppositions) meaning of their licensers. This theory accounts (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  26.  83
    Sarah Moss (2012). The Role of Linguistics in the Philosophy of Language. In Delia Graff Fara & Gillian Russell (eds.), Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language.
    This paper discusses several case studies that illustrate the relationship between the philosophy of language and three branches of linguistics: syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Among other things, I identify binding arguments in the linguistics literature preceding (Stanley 2000), and I invent binding arguments to evaluate various semantic and pragmatic theories of belief ascriptions.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  4
    Duk-Ho An (2007). On the Distribution of NPIs in Korean. Natural Language Semantics 15 (4):317-350.
    In this paper, I offer a novel solution to the well-known problem concerning two polarity items in Korean, amu-(N)-to and amu-(N)-rato, that show a complementary distribution within the set of typical NPI-licensing contexts. I present a uniform analysis of the distribution of these NPIs, where the complementary distribution follows from the opposite scope properties of the emphatic particles to and rato contained in the NPIs in question. As the- oretical background, I adopt Karttunen and Peters’s (1979, Syntax and (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  41
    Anastasia Giannakidou & Marcel den Dikken, From Hell to Polarity: Aggressively Non-D-Linked Wh-Phrases as Polarity Items.
    Pesetsky’s (1987) ‘‘aggressively non-D-linked’’ wh-phrases (like who the hell; hereinafter, wh-the-hell phrases) exhibit a variety of syntactic and semantic peculiarities, including the fact that they cannot occur in situ and do not support nonecho readings when occurring in root multiple questions. While these are familiar from the literature (albeit less than fully understood), our focus will be on a previously unnoted property of wh-the-hell phrases: the fact that their distribution (in single wh-questions) matches that of polarity items (PIs). (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  29.  10
    Lawrence S. Moss (2012). The Soundness of Internalized Polarity Marking. Studia Logica 100 (4):683-704.
    This paper provides a foundation for the polarity marking technique introduced by David Dowty [3] in connection with monotonicity reasoning in natural language and in linguistic analyses of negative polarity items based on categorial grammar. Dowty's work is an alternative to the better-known algorithmic approach first proposed by Johan van Benthem [11], and elaborated by Víctor Sánchez Valencia [10]. Dowty's system internalized the monotonicity/polarity markings by generating strings using a categorial grammar whose categories already contain (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30.  42
    Anastasia Giannakidou, Licensing and Sensitivity in Polarity Items: From Downward Entailment to (Non)Veridicality.
    Polarity phenomena in language are pervasive and quite diverse. A quite familiar polarity item (PI) is any. Any a PI because it exhibits limited distribution: it is ungrammatical in positive sentences, but becomes fine with negation, in questions, with modal verbs, and in the scope of downward entailing quantifiers like few.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  31.  7
    Vincent Homer (forthcoming). Domains of Polarity Items. Journal of Semantics.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  32.  36
    Marcia C. Linebarger (1987). Negative Polarity and Grammatical Representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10 (3):325 - 387.
  33.  14
    Sten Vikner (2011). Trees and Fields and Negative Polarity. Hermes 47:39-55.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34.  28
    Ljiljana Progovac (1993). Negative Polarity: Entailment and Binding. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 16 (2):149 - 180.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  35.  23
    Manfred Krifka (1991). Some Remarks on Polarity Items. In Dietmar Zaefferer (ed.), Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics. Foris Publications 150--189.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  36. William A. Ladusaw (1996). Negation and Polarity Items. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Blackwell Reference 321--341.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  37.  30
    Jay D. Atlas (2007). On a Pragmatic Explanation of Negative Polarity Licensing. In Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan 10--23.
  38. Ljiljana Progovac (1993). Negative Polarity and Grammatical Representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10:49-180.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  39.  3
    Ana Von Klopp (1998). An Alternative View of Polarity Items. Linguistics and Philosophy 21 (4):393-432.
  40.  9
    H. Rullmann (2003). Additive Particles and Polarity. Journal of Semantics 20 (4):329-401.
    This article discusses the semantics of the additive focus particles too and either and the factors governing the alternation between the two. It is argued that too and either are not synonymous, and that this alternation is therefore not a case of morphological suppletion conditioned by polarity. Either must appear in the scope of a downward entailing licensor, just like all negative polarity items (NPIs). Naturally occurring data demonstrate that the licensors of either include not only (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  41.  4
    Elena Herburger (2001). The Negative Concord Puzzle Revisited. Natural Language Semantics 9 (3):289-333.
    This paper investigates Negative Concord, arguing that it results from a systematic lexical ambiguity: the items that participate in Negative Concord ("n-words" in Laka's 1990 terminology) are ambiguous between negative polarity items and their genuinely negative counterparts. I try to show that on empirical grounds the proposed account compares favorably with other analyses that shy away from ambiguity. I furthermore suggest that the ambiguity is not implausible conceptually because it can be viewed as (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  42.  4
    J. Atlas (1997). Negative Adverbials, Prototypical Negation and the De Morgan Taxonomy. Journal of Semantics 14 (4):349-367.
    Gamut (1991) and Atlas (1991, 1993, 1996b) showed that the Generalized Quantifier 1only Proper Name1 licenses Negative Polarity Items but fails to be downwards monotonic in Barwise & Cooper's (1981) sense. In Atlas (1996a, in press) I examined Zwarts's (1996, 1998) De Morgan taxonomy for negative Noun Phrases. Two of the four De Morgan entailments used by Zwarts to characterize the negation of negative Noun Phrases express downward monotonicity of the Noun Phrase Q, viz. Q(For (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  31
    Anastasia Giannakidou, Polarity, Questions, and the Scalar Properties of Even.
    This paper discusses the behavior of three lexically distinct Greek expressions which appear to be the counterparts of English even: akomi ke, oute, and esto. The behavior of these three expressions is examined in positive and negative sentences, and it is demonstrated that they all are polarity sensitive. The distributional constraints of the three even-items, crucially, are shown to follow from their distinct scalar associations. In particular, the low-scalar likelihood of positive even (akomi ke) remains problematic with (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  26
    Raffaella Bernardi & Anna Szabolcsi (2008). Optionality, Scope, and Licensing: An Application of Partially Ordered Categories. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17 (3):237-283.
    This paper uses a partially ordered set of syntactic categories to accommodate optionality and licensing in natural language syntax. A complex but well-studied data set pertaining to the syntax of quantifier scope and negative polarity licensing in Hungarian is used to illustrate the proposal. The presentation is geared towards both linguists and logicians. The paper highlights that the main ideas can be implemented in different grammar formalisms, and discusses in detail an implementation where the partial ordering on categories (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  21
    Thomas F. Icard (2012). Inclusion and Exclusion in Natural Language. Studia Logica 100 (4):705-725.
    We present a formal system for reasoning about inclusion and exclusion in natural language, following work by MacCartney and Manning. In particular, we show that an extension of the Monotonicity Calculus, augmented by six new type markings, is sufficient to derive novel inferences beyond monotonicity reasoning, and moreover gives rise to an interesting logic of its own. We prove soundness of the resulting calculus and discuss further logical and linguistic issues, including a new connection to the classes of weak, strong, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. Anastasia Giannakidou (2001). The Meaning of Free Choice. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (6):659-735.
    In this paper, I discuss the distribution and interpretation of free choice items (FCIs) in Greek, a language exhibiting a lexical paradigm of such items distinct from that of negative polarity items. Greek differs in this respect from English, which uniformly employs any. FCIs are grammatical only in certain contexts that can be characterized as nonveridical (Giannakidou 1998, 1999), and although they yield universal-like interpretations in certain structures, they are not, I argue, universal quantifiers. Evidence (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  47.  7
    Sela Mador-Haim & Yoad Winter (2015). Far From Obvious: The Semantics of Locative Indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 38 (5):437-476.
    Simple locative sentences show a variety of pseudo-quantificational interpretations. Some locatives give the impression of universal quantification over parts of objects, others involve existential quantification, and yet others cannot be characterized by either of these quantificational terms. This behavior is explained by virtually all semantic theories of locatives. What has not been previously observed is that similar quantificational variability is also exhibited by locative sentences containing indefinites with the ‘a’ article. This phenomenon is especially problematic for traditional existential treatments of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  48.  18
    David Beaver & Brady Clark (2003). Always and Only: Why Not All Focus-Sensitive Operators Are Alike. [REVIEW] Natural Language Semantics 11 (4):323-362.
    We discuss focus sensitivity in English, the phenomenon whereby interpretation of some expressions is affected by placement of intonational focus. We concentrate in particular on the interpretation of always and only, both of which are interpreted as universal quantifiers, and both of which are focus sensitive. Using both naturally occurring and constructed data we explore the interaction of these operators with negative polarity items, with presupposition, with prosodically reduced elements, and with syntactic extraction. On the basis of (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  49.  12
    Elena Guerzoni (2004). Even-NPIs in YES/NO Questions. Natural Language Semantics 12 (4):319-343.
    It has been a long-standing puzzle that Negative Polarity Items appear to split into two subvarieties when their effect on the interpretation of questions is taken into account: while questions with any and ever can be used as unbiased requests of information, questions with so-called `minimizers', i.e. idioms like lift a finger and the faintest idea, are always biased towards a negative answer (cf. Ladusaw 1979). Focusing on yes/no questions, this paper presents a solution to this (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  50. Stephen Crain & Paul M. Pietroski (2002). Why Language Acquisition is a Snap. Linguistic Review.
    Nativists inspired by Chomsky are apt to provide arguments with the following general form: languages exhibit interesting generalizations that are not suggested by casual (or even intensive) examination of what people actually say; correspondingly, adults (i.e., just about anyone above the age of four) know much more about language than they could plausibly have learned on the basis of their experience; so absent an alternative account of the relevant generalizations and speakers' (tacit) knowledge of them, one should conclude that there (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000