Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 297–315 | Cite as

Towards a uniform analysis of any

Open Access
Article

Abstract

In this paper, Universal any and Negative Polarity Item any are uniformly analyzed as ‘counterfactual’ donkey sentences (in disguise). Their difference in meaning is reduced here to the distinction between strong and weak readings of donkey sentences. It is shown that this explains the universal and existential character of Universal- and NPI-any, respectively, and the positive and negative contexts in which they are licensed. Our uniform analysis extends to the use of any in command and permission sentences. It predicts that whereas the use of any in permission sentences is licensed and gives rise to a universal reading, it is not licensed in command sentences.

Keywords

Any Counterfactuals Free choice Negative polarity 

References

  1. Abrusan, M. 2006. Even and free choice any in Hungarian. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 11, ed. E. Waldmüller, 1–15. Barcelona: Universitat Pompev Fabra.Google Scholar
  2. Aloni, M. 2006. Free choice and exhaustification: An account of subtrigging effects. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 11, ed. E. Waldmüller, 16–30. Barcelona: Universitat Pompev Fabra.Google Scholar
  3. Aloni, M., and R. van Rooij 2007. Free-choice items and alternatives. In Proceedings of KNAW Colloquium: Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation in 2004, VLN 190, 5–26.Google Scholar
  4. Alonso-Ovalle, L. 2005. Distributing the disjuncts over the modal space. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society, vol. 35, ed. L. Bateman and C. Ussery. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
  5. Chierchia G. (2006) Broadening your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 535–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Choi, J. 2007. Free choice and negative polarity: A compositional analysis of Korean polarity sensitivity. PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  7. Dayal, V. 1997. Free relatives and ever: Identity and free choice readings. In Proceedings of SALT 7, 72–93.Google Scholar
  8. Dayal V. (1998) ANY as inherently modal. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 433–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dayal, V. 2004. The universal force of free choice any. In Linguistic variation yearbook, vol. 4, ed. J. Rooryck, 5–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.Google Scholar
  10. Dekker, P. 1993. Transsentential meditations. PhD Thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Fox, D. 2006. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  12. Giannakidou A. (2001) The meaning of free choice. Linguistics and Philosophhy 24: 659–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD Diss, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  15. Heim, I. 1984. A note on polarity sensitivity and downward entailingness. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society, vol. 14, ed. C. Jones and P. Sells, 98–107. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
  16. Jacobson, P. 1995. On the quantificational force of English free relatives. In Quantification in natural language, ed. E. Bach, et al., 451–486. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. Jayez, J. and Tovena, L. 2005. When ‘widening’ is too narrow. In Proceedings of the 15th A’dam Colloquium, ed. P. Dekker and M. Franke, 131–136. Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
  18. Kadmon N., Landman F. (1993) Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 353–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kamp, H. 1979. Semantics versus pragmatics. In Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural language, ed. F. Guenthner and J. Schmidt, 225–278. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  20. Kamp, H. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal methods in the study of language, ed. Groenendijk, et al., 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematise Centrum.Google Scholar
  21. Kim, M., and S. Kaufman. 2006. Domain restriction in freedom of choice. A view from Korean Indet-Na items. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 11, ed. E. Waldmüller, 375–389. Barcelona.Google Scholar
  22. Kratzer, A., and J. Shimoyama 2002. Indeterminete pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Proceedings of 4th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 1–15. Tokyo: Hituzisyobo.Google Scholar
  23. Krifka M. (1995) The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–258Google Scholar
  24. Ladusaw, W. A. 1979. Negative polarity as inherent scope. PhD Thesis, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  25. Legrand, J. 1975. Or and any: The syntax and semantics of two logical operators. PhD diss, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  26. Lewis D.K. (1973) Counterfactuals. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis, D.K. 1970/1979. A problem about permission. In Essays in honour of Jaakko hintikka. ed. E. Saarinen et al., Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  28. Menendez-Benito, P. 2005. The grammar of choice, PhD Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  29. Root, R. 1986. The semantics of anaphora in discourse. PhD Thesis, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  30. Rooth, M. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation in Montague grammar, file change semantics, and situation semantics. In Generalized quantifiers, ed. P. Gärdenfors, 237–269. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  31. Saeboe K.J. (2001) The semantics of Scandinavian Free Choice Items. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 737–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schulz K. (2005) A pragmatic solution to the paradox of free choice permission. Synthese 147: 343–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schulz, K. 2008. Performative ‘may’. Ms., Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  34. Schulz K., van Rooij R. (2006) Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 205–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Seuren, P. 1973. The comparative. In Generative grammar in Europe, ed. F. Kiefer and N. Ruwet, 528–564. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  36. Stalnaker, R.C. 1968. A theory of conditionals. In Studies in logical theory, American philosophical quarterly monograph series, no. 2, ed. N. Rescher, 98–112. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. van Rooij R. (2003) Negative polarity items in questions. Journal of Semantics 20: 239–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Rooij R. (2006a) Free choice counterfactual donkeys. Journal of Semantics 23: 383–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Rooij, R. 2006b. How to donkey FC-and NPI-any. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 11, ed. E. Waldmüller, 479–493. Barcelona.Google Scholar
  40. Veltman F. (1996) Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25: 221–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vlachou, E. 2007. Free choice in and out of context: Semantics and distribution of French, Greek and English free choice items. PhD Thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  42. von Stechow A. (1984) Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3: 1–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC)University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations