Advertisement

Only and Its Inferences

  • Sam Alxatib
Chapter
  • 9 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 104)

Abstract

A semantic entry for only is developed, based first on Horn (A presuppositional analysis of only and even. In: Binnick RI, Davidson A, Green GM, Morgan JL (eds) CLS 5. Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago, pp 98–107, 1969) but revised with scalar uses in mind, specifically observations from Klinedinst (Scales and Only. Master’s thesis, UCLA, 2005). The scalar presupposition of only is discussed, and argued to be reducible to the ban against its vacuous use.

References

  1. Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2012). The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology, 16, 435–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. van Der Auwera, J., Ammann, A., & Kindt, S. (2005). Modal polyfunctionality and standard average European. In A. Klinge & H. H. Müller (Eds.), Modality: Studies in form and function London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  3. Bear, A., & Knobe, J. (2017). Normality: Part descriptive, part prescriptive. Cognition, 167, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaver, D., & Clark, B. (2008). Sense and sensitivity. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonomi, A., & Casalegno, P. (1993). Only: Association with focus in event semantics. Natural Language Semantics, 2, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 1, 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dozon, A. (1879). Manuel de la langue chkipe ou albanaise. Paris: Leroux.Google Scholar
  8. Fox, D. (2007a). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Friedman, V. (1986). Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. In Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (Advances in discourse processes, Vol. 20). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  10. Friedman, V. (2003). Evidentiality in the Balkans with special attention to Macedonian and Albanian. In A. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  11. Greenberg, Y. (2018). A revised, gradability-based semantics for even. Natural Language Semantics, 26, 51–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  13. Hamblin, C. L. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10, 41–53.Google Scholar
  14. Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D., & Comrie, B. (2005). The world atlas of language structures. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hill, N. W. (2012). “mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in Lhasa Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology, 16, 389–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoepelman, J., & Rohrer, C. (1981). Remarks on noch and schon in German. In P. J. Tedeschi & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Tense and aspect (Syntax and semantics, Vol. 14). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Horn, L. R. (1969). A presuppositional analysis of only and even. In R. I. Binnick, A. Davidson, G. M. Green, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), CLS 5 (pp. 98–107). University of Chicago Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  18. Horn, L. R. (1996). Exclusive company: only and the dynamics of vertical inference. Journal of Semantics, 13, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horn, L. R. (2002). Assertoric inertia and NPI licensing. In M. Andronis, E. Debenport, A. Pycha, & K. Yoshimura (Eds.), CLS 38 (Vol. 2, pp. 55–82). University of Chicago Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  20. Ippolito, M. (2008). On the meaning of only. Journal of Semantics, 25, 45–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacobsen, W. (1964). A Grammar of the Washo Language. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  22. Klinedinst, N. (2005). Scales and Only. Master’s thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
  23. Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistic and Philosophy, 1, 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kratzer, A. (1991). Conditionals. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Vol. 6). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. Krifka, M. (1993). Focus and presupposition in dynamic interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 10, 269–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lazard, G. (1999). Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology, 3, 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Löbner, S. (1989). German Schon - Erst - Noch: An integrated analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 167–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCawley, J. (1981). Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic but were ashamed to ask. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Nauze, F. (2008). Modality in Typological Perspective. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  30. Orenstein, D. (2016). The Semantics, Pragmatics and Focus Sensitivity of Exclusive Particles in Modern Hebrew. Ph.D. thesis, Bar Ilan University.Google Scholar
  31. Riester, A. (2006). Only scalar. In J. Huitink & S. Katrenko (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh ESSLLI student session.Google Scholar
  32. van Rooij, R. & Schulz, K. (2007). Only: Meaning and implicatures. In M. Aloni, A. Butler, & P. Dekker (Eds.), Questions in dynamic semantics. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  33. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. Ph.D. thesis, UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
  34. Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rooth, M. (1996). Focus. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The Handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. 271–297). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Sauerland, U. (2004). Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Steube, A. (1980). Temporale Bedeutung im Deutschen, Studia Grammatica XX. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
  38. Zeevat, H. (2008). “Only” as a mirative particle. In A. Riester & E. Onea (Eds.), Focus at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Working Papers of the SFB 732, Vol. 3, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sam Alxatib
    • 1
  1. 1.The Graduate CenterCUNYNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations