Emphatic NPI/FCI and Adversative Discourse Relations, a Probabilistic Approach

  • Margot Colinet
  • Grégoire Winterstein
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7258)

Abstract

This paper deals with the discursive effects of the use of emphatic Negative Polarity Items and Free Choice Items such as any. In this work, we show that the use of the emphatic any, be it an NPI or an FCI, has a direct effect on the introduction of subsequent discourse segments. Our theoretical observations are backed up by experimental results. To account for the data, an explicit link between two probabilistic approaches to natural language semantics is proposed. The first one deals with the semantics of NPIs and FCIs, respectively van Rooy (2003), Jayez (2010), and the second one tackles the interpretation of discourse markers, Merin (1999).. It is shown that, modulo some formal tinkering, the two accounts interact nicely together to explain the data.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Natural Language Semantic Bare Plural Discourse Marker Negative Polarity Item 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anscombre, J.-C., Ducrot, O.: L’argumentation dans la langue. Pierre Mardaga, Liège (1983)Google Scholar
  2. Asher, N., Lascarides, A.: Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  3. Blakemore, D.: Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge University Press (2002)Google Scholar
  4. Jayez, J.: Entropy and Free-choiceness. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Alternative-Based Semantics. Laboratoire de Linguistique de Nantes–Université de Nantes (2010)Google Scholar
  5. Kadmon, N., Landman, F.: Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(4), 353–422 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Krifka, M.: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Weak and Strong Polarity Items. Linguistic Analysis 25, 209–257 (1995)Google Scholar
  7. Lakoff, R.: If’s, And’s and Buts about conjunction. In: Fillmore, C.J., Terence Langendoen, D. (eds.) Studies in Linguistic Semantics, pp. 114–149. de Gruyter, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  8. Merin, A.: Information, Relevance and Social Decision-Making. In: Moss, L.S., Ginzburg, J., de Rijke, M. (eds.) Logic, Language, and Computation, vol. 2, pp. 179–221. CSLI Publications, Stanford (1999)Google Scholar
  9. van Rooij, R.: Cooperative versus argumentative communication. Philosophia Scientia 2, 195–209 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. van Rooy, R.: Negative Polarity Items in Questions: Strength as Relevance. Journal of Semantics 20, 239–273 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sæbø, K.J.: Presupposition and Contrast: German aber as a Topic Particle. In: Weisgerber (ed.) Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, Constance, vol. 7, pp. 257–271 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. Umbach, C.: Contrast and Information Structure: A focus-based analysis of but. Linguistics 43(1), 207–232 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Vendler, Z.: Each and Every, Any and All. In: Vendler, Z. (ed.) Linguistics in Philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1967)Google Scholar
  14. Winterstein, G.: La dimension probabiliste des marqueurs de discours. Nouvelles perspectives sur l’argumentation dans la langue. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris Diderot–Paris 7 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. Zwarts, F.: A Hierarchy of Negative Expressions. In: Wansing, H. (ed.) Negation: A Notion in Focus, pp. 169–194. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margot Colinet
    • 1
  • Grégoire Winterstein
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Linguistique FormelleUniversité Paris Diderot-Paris 7France
  2. 2.Laboratoire Structures Formelles du LangageUniversité Paris 8France

Personalised recommendations