Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 169–217

Non-monotonicity in NPI licensing

Article

Abstract

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 (e.g., Karttunen and Peters, in: Oh CK, Dinneen DA (eds.) Syntax and semantics, 1979). The analysis is subsequently extended to occurrences of negative polarity items (NPIs) in these environments, which mirror the abovementioned distribution of even and which invalidate standard characterizations of NPI licensing conditions in terms of downward-entailingness. The idea behind the extension is that NPIs denote weak elements that are associates of covert even (e.g., Lee and Horn, Any as indefinite + even, 1994). The paper concludes by discussing two comprehensive theories of NPI licensing and how our proposal relates to them.

Keywords

Even Non-monotonicity Negative polarity items 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abels, K. 2003. Who gives a damn about minimizers in questions? In Proceedings of SALT 13, ed., R.B. Young and Y. Zhou, 1–18. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Aloni, M. 2007. Free choice, modals, and imperatives. Natural Language Semantics 15(1): 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barwise, J., and R. Cooper. 1981.) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2): 159–219.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, J. 1982. Even if. Linguistics and Philosophy 5(3): 403–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borkin, A. 1971. Polarity items in questions. In Proceedings of CLS, vol. 7, 53–62. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  6. Chierchia, G. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Structures and beyond, ed. A. Belletti, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chierchia, G. 2013. Logic in grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chierchia, G., D. Fox, and B. Spector. 2011. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Handbook of semantics, vol. 2, P. Portner, C. Maienborn, and K. von Heusinger, 2297–2332. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N. 1976. Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2: 303–351.Google Scholar
  10. Crnič, L. 2013a. Focus particles and embedded exhaustification. Journal of Semantics 30(4): 533–558.Google Scholar
  11. Crnič, L. 2013b. How to get even with desires and imperatives. In Beyond ever and any, ed. E. Csipak, R. Eckardt, M. Liu, and M. Sailer, 127–154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Dayal, V. 1998. Any as inherently modal. Linguistics and Philosophy 21(5): 433–476.CrossRefGoogle 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, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  14. von Fintel, K. 1999. NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics 16(2): 97–148.Google Scholar
  15. Fox, D. 2007. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional Semantics, ed. U. Sauerland and P. Stateva, 71–120. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Fox, D. 2010. Lectures on questions. Handout, MIT.Google Scholar
  17. Fox, D., and R. Katzir. 2011. On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 19(1): 87–107.Google Scholar
  18. Gajewski, J. 2005. Neg-raising: Presupposition and polarity. PhD Thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  19. Gajewski, J. 2008. NPI any and connected exceptive phrases. Natural Language Semantics 16(1): 69–110.Google Scholar
  20. Gajewski J (2011) Licensing strong NPIs. Natural Language Semantics 19(2):109–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geurts, B., and R. van der Sandt. 2004. Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 1–44.Google Scholar
  22. Guerzoni, E. 2003. Why even ask? On the pragmatics of questions and the semantics of answers. PhD Thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  23. Guerzoni, E. 2004. Even-NPIs in yes/no questions. Natural Language Semantics 12(4): 319–343.Google Scholar
  24. Guerzoni, E., and Y. Sharvit. 2013. Whether or not anything but not whether anything or not. Manuscript, USC and UCLA.Google Scholar
  25. Halpern, J.Y. 2003. Reasoning about uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Han, C.H., and L. Siegel. 1997. Syntactic and semantic conditions on NPI licensing in questions. In Proceedings of the WCCFL 15, ed. B. Agbayani and S.W. Tang, 177–191. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Heim, I. 1984. A note on negative polarity and downward entailingness. In Proceedings of NELS, vol. 14, 98–107. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Heim, I. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9(3): 183.Google Scholar
  29. Heim, I. 2012. Functional readings without type-shifted nouns. Manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
  30. Hintikka, J. 1962. Knowledge and belief: an introduction to the logic of the two notions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Homer, V. 2012. Domains of polarity items. Journal of Semantics (Accepted for publication).Google Scholar
  32. Kadmon, N., and F. Landman. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(4): 353–422.Google Scholar
  33. Karttunen, L., and S. Peters, 1979. Conventional implicature. In Syntax and semantics, vol. 11, ed. C.K. Oh and D.A. Dinneen, 1–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kay, P. 1990. Even. Linguistics and Philosophy 13(1): 59–111.Google Scholar
  35. Krifka, M. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of weak and strong polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–257.Google Scholar
  36. Lahiri, U. 1998. Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Landman, F. 1998. Plurals and maximalization. In Events and grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 237–271. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  38. Lassiter, D. 2011. Measurement and modality. PhD Thesis, NYU.Google Scholar
  39. Lee, Y.S., and L.R. Horn. 1994. Any as indefinite + even, Manuscript, Yale University.Google Scholar
  40. Linebarger, M. 1980. The grammar of negative polarity. PhD Thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  41. Linebarger, M.C. 1987. Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10(3): 325–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nakanishi, K. 2012. The scope of even and quantifier raising. Natural Language Semantics 20(2): 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nicolae, A. 2013. Any questions? Polarity as a window into the structure of questions. PhD Thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  44. Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Rooth, M. 1985. Association with focus. PhD Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  46. Rooth, M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Rooy, R. 2003. Negative polarity items in questions: Strength as relevance. Journal of Semantics 20(3): 239–274.Google Scholar
  48. Rothschild D (2006) Non-monotonic NPI-licensing, definite descriptions, and grammaticalized implicatures. In Proceedings of SALT 16, ed. M. Gibson and J. Howell, 228–240. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  49. Schlenker, P. 2012. Maximize presupposition and Gricean reasoning. Natural Language Semantics 20(4): 391–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schmerling, S. 1971. A note on negative polarity. Research on Language & Social Interaction 4(1): 200–206.Google Scholar
  51. Schwager, M. 2005. Interpreting imperatives. PhD Thesis, University of Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
  52. Schwarz, B. 2000. Notes on even, Manunscript, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  53. Stalnaker R (1970) Pragmatics. Synthese 22:272–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Villalta, E. 2008. Mood and gradability: An investigation of the subjunctive mood in Spanish. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(4): 467–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wagner, M. 2006. Association by movement: Evidence from NPI-licensing. Natural Language Semantics 14: 297—324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilkinson, K. 1996. The scope of even. Natural Language Semantics 4(3): 193–215.Google Scholar
  57. Yalcin, S. 2011. Bayesian expressivism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 112(2): 123–160.Google Scholar
  58. Yalcin, S. 2012. Context probabilism. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7218, ed. M. Aloni, 12–21. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Language, Logic and Cognition CenterThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations