Advertisement

The Positive Morpheme and Its Interaction with Only

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

Abstract

In this chapter, an answer is proposed to the first main question of the book: why only∼[(very) few]F and only∼[(very) rarely]F do not assert “some” and “sometimes”, respectively, as predicted. The answer, briefly, is that getting these readings is bound up with contradictory inferences, coming from only on the one hand and from the so-called “positive morpheme” on the other.

References

  1. Bartsch, R., & Vennemann, T. (1972). The grammar of relative adjectives and comparison. Linguistische Berichte, 21, 19–32.Google Scholar
  2. Beaver, D., & Clark, B. (2008). Sense and sensitivity. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaver, D., & Zeevat, H. (2007). Accommodation. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, S. (1996). Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language Semantics, 4, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, S. (2006). Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 14, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck, S., & Kim, S.-S. (2006). Intervention effects in alternative questions. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 9, 165–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. van Benthem, J. (1986). Essays in logical semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buccola, B., & Spector, B. (2016). Modified numerals and maximality. Linguistics and Philosophy, 39, 151–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Büring, D. (2007). More or less. In M. Elliott, J. Kirby, O. Sawada, E. Staraki, & S. Yoon, (Eds.), CLS 43. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  10. Cresswell, M. (1976). The semantics of degree. In B. Partee (Ed.), Montague grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fara, D. G. (2000). Shifting sands: An interest-relative theory of vagueness. Philosophical Topics, 28, 45–81. Originally published under the name “Delia Graff”.Google Scholar
  12. Fernando, T. & Kamp, H. (1996). Expecting many. In T. Galloway & J. Spence (Eds.), SALT VI. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  13. von Fintel, K. & Heim, I. (2011). Intensional Semantics. Unpublished Class Notes.Google Scholar
  14. Hackl, M. (2000). Comparative Quantifiers. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  15. Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis, UMass, Amherst.Google Scholar
  16. Heim, I. (2006). Little. In C. Tancredi, M. Kanazawa, I. Imani, & K. Kusumoto (Eds.), SALT XVI. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Heim, I. (2008). Decomposing antonyms? In A. Grønn (Ed.), SuB 12. Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, University of Oslo, Oslo.Google Scholar
  18. Hoeksema, J. (1983). Plurality and conjunction. In A. G. B. ter Meulen (Ed.), Studies in model-theoretic semantics. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  19. Honcoop, M. (1998). Dynamic Excursions on Weak Islands. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
  20. Keenan, E. L., & Stavi, J. (1986). A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 253–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Landman, F. (2004). Indefinites and the type of sets. London: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Partee, B. (1986). Noun Phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers (pp. 115–143). Dordrecht: Foris. Reprinted in Partee 2004.Google Scholar
  24. Partee, B. (1989). Many quantifiers. In J. Powers & K. de Jong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (pp. 383–402). Columbus: Ohio State University. Reprinted in Partee 2004.Google Scholar
  25. Pesetsky, D. (2000). Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rett, J. (2008). Degree Modification in Natural Language. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers.Google Scholar
  27. Rett, J. (2015). The semantics of evaluativity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Romero, M. (2015). The conversativity of many. In T. Brochhagen, F. Roelofsen, & N. Theiler (Eds.), Amsterdam colloquium 20. Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
  29. Rullmann, H. (1995). Maximality in the Semantics of Wh-Constructions. Ph.D. thesis, UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
  30. Solt, S. (2009). The Semantics of Adjectives of Quantity. Ph.D. thesis, CUNY.Google Scholar
  31. von Stechow, A. (2006). Times as degrees: früh(er) ‘early(er)’, spät(er) ‘late(r)’, and phase adverbs. Revised and published as von Stechow 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations