Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 297–324 | Cite as

Association by movement: evidence from NPI-licensing

  • Michael Wagner
Article

Abstract

‘Only’ associates with focus and licenses NPIs. This paper looks at the distributional pattern of NPIs under ‘only’ and presents evidence for the movement theory of focus association and against an in situ approach. NPIs are licensed in the ‘scope’ (or the second argument) of ‘only’, but not in the complement (or its first argument), which I will call the ‘syntactic restrictor’. While earlier approaches argued that ‘only’ licenses NPIs in the unfocused part of the sentence it occurs in except in its focus, evidence from DP-‘only’ shows that NPIs are also not licensed in the unfocused part of the syntactic restrictor. The distribution of NPIs provides a test for the size of the syntactic restrictor, and this test is applied to the case of VP-‘only’. The evidence shows that (i) the restrictor can be smaller than the entire VP and is not necessarily identical to the surface complement of ‘only’; (ii) in the case of association with a head the restrictor comprises an XP containing the head; and (iii) in cases of association into an island, the restrictor comprises the entire island. Generalizations (i)–(iii) can be captured straightforwardly by a movement approach but are incompatible with an in situ analysis. Contextual domain- restriction of the kind used in in situ approaches accounts for the appropriate semantics in cases where the semantic focus is properly contained in the syntactic restrictor of ‘only’.

Keywords

Focus Focus association Only NPI-licensing Alternative semantics Contrastive negation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson S. (1972). How to get ‘even’. Language 48: 893–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atlas J. (1993). The importance of being “only”: Testing the neo-Gricean versus neo-entailment paradigms. Journal of Semantics 10: 301–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atlas J. (1996). ‘Only’ noun phrases, pseudo-negative generalized quantifiers, negative polarity items, and monotonicity. Journal of Semantics 13: 265–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barwise J., Cooper R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaver D. (2004). Five only pieces. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 45–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaver D., Clark B. (2002). Monotonicity and focus sensitivity. In: Jackson B.(eds) Proceedings of SALT 12. Ithaca, CLC Publications, pp 40–58Google Scholar
  7. Beaver, D., & Clark, B. (2003). “Always” and “only”: Why not all focus sensitive operators are alike. Ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
  8. Bruening B. (2001). QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 233–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Büring, D. (to appear). Focus projection and default prominence. In V. Molnár, & S. Winkler (Eds.), Proceedings from the symposium ‘Informationsstruktur–Kontrastiv’ (working title), Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  10. Cable S. (2002). Some remarks on two theories of negative polarity. Ms, MITGoogle Scholar
  11. Chomsky N. (1976). Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2: 303–351Google Scholar
  12. Clark, B. (2006). Polarity items and the interdefinability of universals and exclusives. Talk presented at the LSA Meeting Albuquerque January 2006.Google Scholar
  13. Drubig, H. B. (1994). Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus. In Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340: Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen der Computerlinguistik (Vol. 51). Tübingen/Stuttgart: Universität Tübingen/Universität StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  14. Fauconnier G. (1975). Polarity and the scale principle. In: Srossman R.E., San L.J., Vance T.J. (eds) Papers from the 11th annual meeting of the society. Chicago, Chicago Linguistics Society, 188–199Google Scholar
  15. Fauconnier G. (1979). Implication reversal in a natural language. In: Guenthner F., Schmidt S.J.(eds) Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural languages. Dordrecht, Reidel, pp. 289–302Google Scholar
  16. von Fintel K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains.PhD dissertation, University of Massachussetts, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  17. von Fintel K. (1997). Bare plurals, bare conditionals, and only. Journal of Semantics 14: 1–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. von Fintel K. (1999). NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics 16: 97–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fox D., Nissenbaum J.R., Sauerland U. (2001). Association with focus. Lecture notes, MITGoogle Scholar
  20. Gajewski, J. (2005). Neg-raising: Polarity and presupposition. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  21. Geurts B., van der Sandt R. (2004). Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giannakidou A. (2006). Only, emotive factive verbs, and the dual nature of polarity dependency. Language 82: 575–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guerzoni, E. (2003). Why even ask? On the pragmatics of questions and the semantics of answers. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  24. Guerzoni E. (2004). Intervention effects on NPIs and feature movement: Towards a unified account of intervention. Ms., MITGoogle Scholar
  25. Guerzoni E., Sharvit Y. (2006). A question of strength: On NPIs in interrogative clauses. Ms, USC/University of ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  26. Heim I. (1991). Artikel und Definitheit. In: von Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik Ein internationales Handbuch der Zeitgenössischen Forschung (HSK 6). Berlin, de Gruyter, pp 487–535Google Scholar
  27. Hoeksema J. (1986). Monotonie en superlatieven. In: Hoppenbrouwers C., Houtman J., Schuurman I., Zwarts F. (eds) Proeven van taalwetenschap (tabu-special). Groningen, Nederlands, Instituut RUG, pp 38–49Google Scholar
  28. Horn, L. (1969). A presuppositional analysis of only and even. In Papers from the 5th annual meeting of the Chicago linguistic society CLS 4(pp. 98–108). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  29. Horn L. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and linguistic ambiguity. Language 61: 121–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Horn L. (1996). Exclusive company: Only and the dynamics of vertical inference. Journal of Semantics 13: 1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Horn L. (2000). Pick a theory (not just any theory): Indiscriminatives and the free-choice indefinite. In: Horn L., Kato Y. (eds) Negation and polarity. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp 147–192Google Scholar
  32. Horn L. (2002). Assertoric inertia and NPI licensing. In: Andronis M., Debenport E., Pycha A., Yoshimura K. (eds) Proceedings of CLS 38: The Panels. Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society, pp 55–82Google Scholar
  33. Horn, L. (to appear). ONLY connect: How to unpack an exclusive proposition. In M. Hackl, & R. Thornton (Eds.), A festschrift for Jay Atlas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Horvath J. (2000). Interfaces vs. the computational system in the syntax of focus. In: Bennis H., Everaert M., Reuland E. (eds) Interface strategies. Amsterdam, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, pp 183–206Google Scholar
  35. Ippolito, M. (2006). Remarks on only. To appear in Proceedings of SALT 16.Google Scholar
  36. Jackendoff R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  37. Jacobs J. (1982). Syntax und Semantik der Negation im Deutschen. München, Wilhelm Fink VerlagGoogle Scholar
  38. Jacobs J. (1983). Fokus und Skalen. Zur Syntax und Semantik der Gradpartikel im Deutschen. Tübingen, NiemeyerGoogle Scholar
  39. Jacobs J. (1991). Negation. In: von Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik Ein Internationales Handbuch der Zeitgenössischen Forschung (HSK 6). Berlin, de Gruyter, pp 560–596Google Scholar
  40. Jacobs J. (2004). Focus, presuppositions, and discourse restrictions. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jaeger, F., & Wagner, M. (2003). Association with focus and linear order in German. Ms., Stanford University. Available at the Semantics Archive. http://www.semanticsarchive.net/ Archive/DVKNDY4M.Google Scholar
  42. Karttunen L., Peters S. (1979). Conventional implicature. In: Dinneen D.A., Oh C.-K. (eds) Syntax and semantics 11: Presupposition. New York, Academic Press, pp 1–56Google Scholar
  43. Kayne R. (1998). Overt vs. covert movement. Syntax 2: 128–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Keenan E., Stavi J. (1986). A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Lingustics and Philosophy 9: 253–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kiss K.È. (1998). Identification focus and information focus. Language 74: 245–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Klima E. (1964). Negation in English. In: Fodor J.A., Katz J.J. (eds) The structure of language: readings in the philosophy of language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall, pp 246–323Google Scholar
  47. Klooster W. (1998). Monotonicity and scope of negation. Ms., HIL/University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  48. König E. (1991). The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Kratzer A. (1991). The representation of focus. In: von Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (HSK 6). Berlin, de Gruyter, pp 825–834Google Scholar
  50. Kratzer A. (2004). Interpreting focus: Presupposed or expressive meanings?. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Krifka, M. (1996). Frameworks for the representation of focus. In Proceedings of the Conference on Formal Grammar. 9th European Summer School in Logic, Language, and Information. (pp. 99–112). Prague: Folli.Google Scholar
  52. Krifka M. (2004). Association with focus phrases. Ms., Humboldt-UniversitätGoogle Scholar
  53. Kuroda S.-Y. (1969) Attachment transformations. In: Reibel D.A., Schane S. (eds) Modern studies in English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, pp 331–351Google Scholar
  54. Ladusaw, W. (1979). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Distributed by IULC, 1980.Google Scholar
  55. Lahiri U. (1998). Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lakoff G. (1970). Repartee, or: A reply to ‘Negation, conjunction, and quanti- fiers’. Foundations of Language 6: 389–422Google Scholar
  57. Lappin S. (eds) (1996). The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. London, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  58. Larson R. (2005). Sentence final adverbs and scope. In: Moulton K., Wolff M. (eds) Proceedings of NELS 34. Amherst, Mass, GLSA, pp 23–43Google Scholar
  59. Lee Y. (2005). Exhaustivity as agreement: The case of Korean man ‘only’. Natural Language Semantics 13: 169–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Linebarger, M. (1980). The grammar of negative polarity. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  61. Linebarger M. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 325–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. May R. (1985). Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, Mass, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  63. McCawley, J. (1991). Contrastive negation and metalinguistic negation. In Proceedings of CLS 27. Part II: The parasession on negation (pp. 189–206). Chicago: Chicago linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  64. McCawley J. (1993). Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic but were ashamed to ask (2nd ed). Chicago, University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  65. Roberts C. (2006). Only, presupposition and implicature. Ms, the Ohio State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  66. Rooth M. (1985). Association with focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachussetts, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  67. Rooth M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rooth M.(1996). Focus. In: Lappin S. (eds) The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. London, Blackwell, pp. 271–297Google Scholar
  69. Rooth M. (1999). Association with focus or association with presupposition?. In: Bosch P., van der Sandt R. (eds) Focus. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 232–244Google Scholar
  70. Sag, I. (1976). Deletion and logical form. PhD Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  71. Schwarzschild R. (1999). Givenness, AVOIDF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schwarzschild, R. (2004). Association with only, givenness and anaphora resolution. Talk given at the University of Stuttgart, December 2004.Google Scholar
  73. von Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) (1991). Semantik. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (HSK 6). Berlin, de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  74. Taglicht, J. (1984). Message and emphasis. On focus and scope in English (Vol. 15 of English Language Series). London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  75. Tancredi, C. (1990). Syntactic association with focus. In D. Meyer, S. Tomioka, & L. Zidani- Eroglu (Eds.), Proceedings from the first meeting of the formal linguistic society of Mid-America, University of Wisconsin at Madison (pp. 289–303). Madison: Department of Linguistics, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  76. Tancredi C. (2004). Associative operators. Gengo Kenkyu 125: 31–82Google Scholar
  77. Van Rooij R., Schulz K. (2005). Only: Meaning and implicature. Manuscript, ILLC/University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  78. Wagner, M. (2005). Prosody and recursion. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  79. Wold D. (1996). Long-distance selective binding: The case of focus. In: Galloway T., Spence J. (eds) Proceedings of SALT 6. Ithaca, NY, CLC Publications, pp 311–328Google Scholar
  80. Zwart F. (1998). Three types of polarity. In: Hamm F., Hinrichs E. (eds) Plural quantification. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp 177–288Google Scholar
  81. Zwarts F. (1995). Non-veridical contexts. Linguistic Analysis 25: 286–312Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations