Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 123–148 | Cite as

Exceptive constructions

  • Kai Von Fintel
Article

Abstract

For the first time a uniform compositional derivation is given for quantified sentences containing exceptive constructions. The semantics of exceptives is primarily one of subtraction from the domain of a quantifier. The crucial semantic difference between the highly grammaticized but-phrases and free exceptives is that the former have the Uniqueness Condition as part of their lexical meaning whereas the latter are mere set subtractors. Several empirical differences between the two types of exceptives are shown to follow from this basic lexical difference.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abney, Steven: 1987, The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  2. Bach, Emmon: 1979, ‘Control in Montague Grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 10, 515–531.Google Scholar
  3. Bach, Emmon: 1981, ‘Discontinuous Constituents in Generalized Categorical Grammars’, Proceedings of NELS 11, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, Emmon and Robin Cooper: 1978, ‘The NP-S Analysis of Relative Clauses and Compositional Semantics’, Linguistics and Philosophy 2, 145–150.Google Scholar
  5. Baltin, Mark: 1985, Toward a Theory of Movement Rules, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Barwise, John and Robin Cooper: 1981, ‘Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language’, Linguistics and Philosophy 2, 159–219.Google Scholar
  7. van Benthem, Johan: 1984, ‘Questions about Quantifiers’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 49, 443–466.Google Scholar
  8. Berman, Steve: 1990, ‘Towards the Semantics of Open Sentences: Wh-Phrases and Indefinites’, in Martin Stokhof and Leen Torenvliet (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Amsterdam Colloquium, ITLI, University of Amsterdam, pp. 53–78.Google Scholar
  9. Blevins, James: 1990, Syntactic Complexity: Evidence for Discontinuity and Multidomination, Ph.D. dissertation, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  10. Chierchia, Gennaro: 1984, Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds, Ph.D. dissertation, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, Robin: 1975, Montague's Semantic Theory and Transformational Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  12. Emonds, Joseph: 1985, A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  13. von Fintel, Kai: 1989, ‘Exception Phrases’, in Emmon Bach, Angelika Kratzer, and Barbara Partee (eds.), Papers on Quantification: NSF Grant BNS 87-19999, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  14. von Fintel, Kai: 1991a, ‘A Semantics for Exception Phrases’, in Dawn Bates (ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL 10, Stanford Linguistics Association, Stanford, California, pp. 493–504.Google Scholar
  15. von Fintel, Kai: 1991b, ‘Exceptive Conditionals: The Meaning of unless’, Proceedings of NELS 22, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  16. Geis, Michael: 1973, ‘If and Unless’, in Braj B. Kachru, Robert B. Lees, Yakov Malkiel, Angelina Petrangeli, and Sol Saporta (eds.), Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp. 231–253.Google Scholar
  17. Hausser, Roland: 1974, Quantification in an Extended Montague Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  18. Hoeksema, Jack: 1986, ‘An Account of Relative Clauses with Split Antecedents’, Proceedings of WCCFL 5, Stanford Linguistics Association, Stanford, California, pp. 68–86.Google Scholar
  19. Hoeksema, Jack: 1987, ‘The Logic of Exception’, Proceedings of ESCOL 4, 100–113.Google Scholar
  20. Hoeksema, Jack: 1990, ‘Exploring Exception Phrases’, in Martin Stokhof and Leen Torenvliet (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Amsterdam Colloquium, ITLI, University of Amsterdam, pp. 165–190.Google Scholar
  21. Hoeksema, Jack: 1991, ‘Complex Predicates and Liberation in Dutch and English’, Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 661–710.Google Scholar
  22. Horn, Laurence: 1989, A Natural History of Negation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  23. Horn, Laurence and S. Bayer: 1984, ‘Short-Circuited Implicature: A Negative Contribution’, Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 397–414.Google Scholar
  24. Huck, Geoffrey and Almerindo Ojeda (eds.): 1987, Discontinuous Constituency (Syntax and Semantics, vol. 20), Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
  25. Jacobson, Pauline: 1983, On the Syntax and Semantics of Multiple Relatives in English, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  26. Jacobson, Pauline: 1984, ‘On the Syntax and Semantics of Multiple Relatives in English’, revised version, ms., Brown University.Google Scholar
  27. Janssen, Theo: 1983, Foundations and Applications of Montague Grammar, Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  28. Jespersen, Otto: 1924, The Philosophy of Grammar, Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
  29. Johnsen, Lars: 1987, ‘There-Sentences and Generalized Quantifiers’, in Peter Gärdenfors (ed.), Generalized Quantifiers: Linguistic and Logical Approaches, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 93–107.Google Scholar
  30. Kadmon, Nirit and Fred Landman: 1990, ‘Polarity Sensitive any and Free Choice any’, in Martin Stokhof and Leen Torenvliet (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Amsterdam Colloquium, ITLI, University of Amsterdam, pp. 227–252.Google Scholar
  31. Karttunen, Lauri and Stanley Peters: 1979, ‘Conventional Implicature’, Syntax and Semantics, vol. 11: Presupposition, pp. 1–56.Google Scholar
  32. Keenan, Edward: 1987, ‘A Semantic Definition of “Indefinite NP”’, in Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 286–317.Google Scholar
  33. Keenan, Edward and J. Stavi: 1986, ‘A Semantic Characterization of Natural Language Determiners’, Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 253–326.Google Scholar
  34. Kempson, Ruth: 1991, ‘Wh-gap Binding and Ellipsis: A Grammar for an Input System’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 14, 41–64.Google Scholar
  35. Kretzmann, Norman: 1982, ‘Syncategoremata, Exponibilia, Sophismata’, in Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg (eds.), The Cambridge History of Late Medieval Philosophy: From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Disintegration of Scholasticism 1100–1600, Cambridge University Press, pp. 211–245.Google Scholar
  36. Landman, Fred and Ieke Moerdijk: 1979, ‘Behalve als voorzetsel’, Spektator: Tijdschrift voor Neerlandistiek 9, 335–347.Google Scholar
  37. Link, Godehard: 1984, ‘Hydras: On the Logic of Relative Clauses’, in Fred Landman and Frank Veltman (eds.), Varieties of Formal Semantics, Foris, Dordrecht, 245–257.Google Scholar
  38. McCawley, James: 1989, ‘Individuation in and of Syntactic Structures’, in Mark Baltin and Anthony Kroch (eds.), Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 117–138.Google Scholar
  39. McCloskey, James: 1978, Questions and Relative Clauses in Modern Irish, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  40. Partee, Barbara: 1984, ‘Compositionality’, in Fred Landman and Frank Veltman (eds.), Varieties of Formal Semantics, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 283–311.Google Scholar
  41. Partee, Barbara: 1987, ‘Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type-Shifting Principles’, in J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, and Martin Stokhof (eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, GRASS 8, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 115–144.Google Scholar
  42. Partee, Barbara: 1988, ‘Many Quantifiers’, Proceedings of ESCOL 5.Google Scholar
  43. Partee, Barbara: 1989, ‘Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts’, Chicago Linguistics Society 25.Google Scholar
  44. Partee, Barbara and Mats Rooth: 1983, ‘Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity’, in Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 361–383.Google Scholar
  45. Reinhart, Tanya: 1989, ‘Non-quantificational LF’, in Asa Kasher (ed.), The Chomskyan Turn, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  46. Rooth, Mats: 1985: Association with Focus, Ph.D. dissertation, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  47. Sadock, Jerry: 1971, ‘Queclaratives’, Chicago Linguistics Society, 7, 223–231.Google Scholar
  48. Srivastav, Veneeta: 1991, ‘The Syntax and Semantics of Correlatives’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 637–686.Google Scholar
  49. Stump, Gregory: 1981, The Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English, Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  50. Stump, Gregory: 1985, The Semantic Variability of Absolute Constructions, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  51. Vendler, Zeno: 1967, Linguistics in Philosophy, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  52. Westerståhl, Dag: 1985, ‘Determiners and Context Sets’, in Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen (eds.), Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 45–71.Google Scholar
  53. Westerståhl, Dag: 1989, ‘Quantifiers in Formal and Natural Languages’, in D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic IV, pp. 1–131.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Von Fintel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Linguistics, South CollegeUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations