Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 51–115 | Cite as

Approximating the limit: the interaction between quasi ‘almost’ and some temporal connectives in Italian

Research Article


This paper focuses on the interpretation of the Italian approximative adverb quasi ‘almost’ by primarily looking at cases in which it modifies temporal connectives, a domain which, to our knowledge, has been largely unexplored thus far. Consideration of this domain supports the need for a scalar account of the semantics of quasi (close in spirit to Hitzeman’s semantic analysis of almost, in: Canakis et al. (eds) Papers from the 28th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 1992). When paired with suitable analyses of temporal connectives, such an account can provide a simple explanation of the patterns of implication that are observed when quasi modifies locational (e.g. quando ‘when’), directional (e.g. fino ‘until’ and da ‘since’), and event-sequencing temporal connectives (e.g. prima ‘before’ and dopo ‘after’). A challenging empirical phenomenon that is observed is a contrast between the modification of fino and da by quasi, on the one hand, and the modification of prima and dopo by the same adverb, on the other. While quasi fino and quasi da behave symmetrically, a puzzling asymmetry is observed between quasi prima and quasi dopo. To explain the asymmetry, we propose an analysis of prima and dopo on which the former has the meaning of the temporal comparative più presto ‘earlier’, while the latter is seen as an atomic predicate denoting temporal succession between events (Del Prete, Nat Lang Semantics 16:157–203, 2008). We show that the same pattern of implication observed for quasi prima is attested when quasi modifies overt comparatives, and propose a pragmatic analysis of this pattern that uniformly applies to both cases, thus providing new evidence for the claim that prima is underlyingly a comparative. A major point of this paper is a discussion of the notion of scale which is relevant for the semantics of quasi; in particular, we show that the notion of Horn (entailment-based) scale is not well-suited for handling modification of temporal connectives, and that a more general notion of scale is required in order to provide a uniform analysis of quasi as a cross-categorial modifier.


Approximative adverbs Scalar adverbs Temporal connectives Focus semantics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amaral, P. (2006). On the semantics of almost. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, University of New Mexico.Google Scholar
  2. Amaral, P. (2007). The meaning of approximative adverbs: Evidence from European Portuguese. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  3. Beaver D., Clark B. (2003) Always and only: Why not all focus sensitive operators are equal. Natural Language Semantics 11: 323–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caudal P., Nicolas D. (2005) Types of degrees and types of event structures. In: Maienborn C., Wöllstein A. (eds) Event arguments: Foundations and applications. Tübingen, Niemeyer, pp 277–300Google Scholar
  5. Davidson D. (1967) The logical form of action sentences. In: Rescher N. (ed.) The logic of decision and action. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp 81–120Google Scholar
  6. Del Prete F. (2008) A non-uniform semantic analysis of the Italian temporal connectives Prima and Dopo. Natural Language Semantics 16: 157–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. García-Medall J. (1993) Sobre casi y otros aproximativos. Dicenda. Cuadernos de Filologia Hispanica 11: 153–170Google Scholar
  8. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Malden & OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Hirschberg, J. (1985). A theory of scalar implicature. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  10. Hitzeman J. (1992) The selectional properties and entailments of “Almost”. In: Canakis C.P., Chan G.P., Marshall Denton J. (eds) Papers from the 28th regional meeting of the CLS. CLS, Chicago, pp 225–238Google Scholar
  11. Horn, L. R. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  12. Horn L.R. (1996) Exclusive company: Only and the dynamics of vertical inference. Journal of Semantics 13: 10–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horn, L. R. (2002). Assertoric inertia and NPI-licensing. In Papers from the 38th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Parasession on polarity and negation, pp. 55–82.Google Scholar
  14. Horn, L. R. (2008). Almost et al.: Scalar adverbs revisited. Ms., Yale University.Google Scholar
  15. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the english language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kennedy C. (1999) Projecting the adjective. The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. Garland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Kennedy C., McNally L. (2005) Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81: 345–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Landman F. (1991) Structures for semantics. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  19. Landman F. (2000) Events and plurality. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  20. Lasersohn P. (1999) Pragmatic halos. Language 75: 522–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lewis D. (1979) Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morzycki, M. (2001). Almost and its kin, across categories. In Proceedings from semantics and linguistic theory, XI (pp. 306–325). Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Nouwen R. (2006) On the polar orientation of almost. In: Weijer J., Los B. (eds) Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006. Amisterdam, BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  24. Parsons T. (1985) Underlying events in the logical analysis of English. In: LePore E., McLaughlin B. (eds) Actions and events: Perspectives on the philosophy of Donald Davidson. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp 235–267Google Scholar
  25. Parsons T. (1990) Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. Penka, D. (2006). Almost there: The meaning of almost. In C. Ebert & C. Endriss (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, (Vol. 10, pp. 275–286). Berlin: ZAS Papers in Linguistics 44.Google Scholar
  27. Rapp I., von Stechow A. (1999) Fast ‘almost’ and the visibility parameter for functional adverbs. Journal of Semantics 16: 149–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. Ph.D. dissertation, UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
  29. Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 65–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rothstein S. (2004) Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Sadock J.M. (1981) Almost. In: Cole P. (ed.) Radical pragmatics. Academic Press, New York, pp 257–271Google Scholar
  32. Sevi, A. (1998). A semantics for almost and barely. M.A. thesis, Tel-Aviv University.Google Scholar
  33. Winter, Y. (2006). Closure and telicity across categories. extended version of the SALT 16 paper,
  34. Zwicky A. (1982) Stranded to and phonological phrasing in English. Linguistics 20: 3–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Università degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations