Advertisement

Negative Polarity Additive Particles

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12564)

Abstract

Many languages have pairs of additive markers that exhibit a common morphological core. This paper focuses on the Romanian pair şi and nici and offers an analysis that derives their distribution and interpretation. The crux of the analysis is the claim that nici spells out the negative marker n and the additive particle add; n is argued to contribute the negative polarity component while add is assumed to make the same contribution as the positive particle, şi.

Keywords

Additive marker Polarity Exhaustification Alternatives Coordination Scalarity Presupposition 

References

  1. 1.
    Abrusán, M.: Predicting the presuppositions of soft triggers. Linguist. Philos. 34, 491–535 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrusán, M.: On the focus-sensitive presupposition triggers too, again, also, even. In: Etxeberria, U., Fălăuş, A., Irurtzun, A., Leferman, B. (eds.) Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB), vol. 18, pp. 6–23. Bayonne and Vitoria-Gasteiz (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abrusán, M.: Presupposition cancellation: explaining the ‘soft-hard’ trigger distinction. Nat. Lang. Semant. 24, 165–202 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahn, D.: The semantics of additive either. In: Csipak, E., Zeijlstra, H. (eds.) Sinn und Bedeutung 19, vol. 1, pp. 20–35 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alxatib, S.: Only, or and free choice presuppositions. Nat. Lang. Seman. 28, 395–429 (2020).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-020-09170-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bade, N.: Obligatory presupposition triggers in discourse. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Tübingen (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bar-Lev, M.E., Fox, D.: Universal free choice and innocent inclusion. In: Burgdorf, D., Collard, J., Maspong, S., Stefánsdóttir, B. (eds.) Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), vol. 27, pp. 95–115. LSA, Washington (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chemla, E., Spector, B.: Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. J. Semant. 28, 359–400 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chierchia, G.: Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In: Belletti, A. (ed.) Structures and Beyond, vol. 3, pp. 39–103. Oxford University Press (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chierchia, G.: Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the ‘logicality’ of language. Linguist. Inq. 37(4), 535–590 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chierchia, G.: Logic in Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chierchia, G., Fox, D., Spector, B.: Scalar implicatures as a grammatical phenomenon. In: Maienborn, C., Portner, P., von Heusinger, K. (eds.) Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 3, pp. 2297–2332. Mouton de Gruyter/de Gruyter edn. New York (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Crnič, L.: Getting even. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crnič, L.: Non-monotonicity in NPI licensing. Nat. Lang. Semant. 22(2), 169–217 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-014-9104-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Crnič, L.: Any: logic, likelihood, and context. Lang. Linguist. Compass 13(11), e12353 (2019)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fox, D.: Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicatures. In: Sauerland, U., Stateva, P. (eds.) Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, pp. 71–120. Palgrave Macmillan, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fox, D., Katzir, R.: On the characterization of alternatives. Nat. Lang. Semant. 19(1), 87–107 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fox, D., Spector, B.: Economy and embedded exhaustification (2009). unpublished ms. (MIT and Institut Jean Nicod)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fox, D., Spector, B.: Economy and embedded exhaustification. Nat. Lang. Semant. 26(1), 1–50 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9139-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fălăuş, A.: (Partially) free choice of alternatives. Linguist. Philos. 37(2), 121–173 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fălăuş, A., Nicolae, A.C.: Fragment answers and double negation in strict negative concord languages. In: Moroney, M., Little, C.R., Collard, J., Burgdorf, D. (eds.) Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), vol. 26, pp. 584–600 (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gajewski, J.: L-analiticity and natural language , Ms. University of Connecticut (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gast, V., van der Auwera, J.: Scalar additive operators in the languages of Europe. Language 87(1), 2–54 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gonzalez, A.: Residue of universality, Harvard ms (2020)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M.: Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands (1984)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heim, I.: Presupposition projection. In: van der Sandt, R. (ed.) Reader for the Nijmegen Workshop on Presupposition, Lexical Meaning, and Discourse Processes (1990)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Iatridou, S., Zeijlstra, H.H.: Negation, polarity and deontic modals. Linguist. Inq. 44(4), 529–568 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kamali, B., Krifka, M.: Focus and contrastive topics. Theor Linguist. 46(1–2), 1–71 (2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Katzir, R.: Structurally defined alternatives. Linguist. Philos. 30(6), 669–690 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Krifka, M.: The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguist. Anal. 25, 209–257 (1995)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Krifka, M.: Additive particles under stress. In: Strolovitch, D., Lawson, A. (eds.) Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), vol. 8, pp. 111–128 (1998)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kripke, S.A.: Presupposition and anaphora: remarks on the formulation of the projection problem. Linguist. Inq. 40(3), 367–386 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lahiri, U.: Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Nat. Lang. Semant. 6, 57–123 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mitrović, M., Sauerland, U.: Decomposing coordination. In: Iyer, J., Kusmer, L. (eds.) North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 44, pp. 39–52 (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mitrović, M., Sauerland, U.: Two conjunctions are better than one. Acta Linguist. Hung. 63(4), 471–494 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nicolae, A.C.: Negation-resistant polarity items. In: Piñón, C. (ed.) Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9, pp. 225–242 (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nicolae, A.C.: Deriving the positive polarity behavior of plain disjunction. Semant. Pragmat. 10(5), 1–21 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nicolae, A.C.: A new perspective on the shielding property of positive polarity. In: Burgdorf, D., Collard, J., Maspong, S., Stefánsdóttir, B. (eds.) Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), vol. 27, pp. 266–281 (2017)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nicolae, A.C.: Additional questions on contrastive topics. Theor. Linguist. 46(1–2), 81–87 (2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rooth, M.: Association with Focus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA (1985)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Saebo, J.K.: Conversational contrast and conventional parallel: topic implicatures and additive presuppositions. J. Semant. 2, 199–217 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sauerland, U.: Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguist. Philos. 27(3), 367–391 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sauerland, U.: Intermediate scalar implicatures. In: Pistoia Reda, S. (ed.) Pragmatics, Semantics and the Case of Scalar Implicatures, pp. 72–98. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Spector, B.: Aspects de la Pragmatique des Opérateurs Logiques. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris-VII, Paris, France (2006)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Spector, B.: Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semant. Pragmat. 7(11), 1–61 (2014)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Szabolcsi, A.: Additive presuppositions are derived through activating focus alternatives. In: Cremers, A., van Gessel, T., Roelofsen, F. (eds.) Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 455–464 (2017)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zeijlstra, H.H.: Universal quantifier PPIs. Glossa 2(91), 1–25 (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leibniz Zentrum Allgemeine SprachwissenschaftBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations