Additive Particles and Polarity

Rullmann, Hotze

doi:10.1093/jos/20.4.329

Cited by 62 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An obvious difference I will take as a starting point is their syntactic position and furthermore assume that this difference correlates with their ability to take scope. This assumption is supported by facts reported by Rullmann (2003), namely that too tends to scope below negation, illustrated in (25a). In contrast, preverbal also can easily take wide scope, shown in (25b).…”

Section: The Additive Puzzle Revisitedsupporting

confidence: 71%

Additives pitching in: L*+H signals ordered Focus alternatives

Göbel

2019

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Approaches to the meaning of intonational contours differ in associating each subcomponent with a meaning that remains invariant across contours or treating a contour as contributing its meaning holistically. This paper argues for a common core of the L*+H pitch accent across two intonation contours, the Rise-Fall-Rise (RFR), and a novel contour coined the Downscale-Contour (DSC). Both contours are analyzed as indicating the presence of an alternative with respect to a scale inferred from the QUD, but differ in the relative strength of this alternative, with the DSC indicating a weaker and the RFR a stronger one. Each contribution is derived compositionally from the meaning of additivity and exhaustification respectively.

show abstract

Section: The Additive Puzzle Revisitedsupporting

confidence: 71%

Additives pitching in: L*+H signals ordered Focus alternatives

Göbel

2019

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead, the focus structure difference is encoded prosodically (König, 1991; Rullman, 2003; Beaver & Clark, 2008; Kripke, 2009). In both cases, the subject argument bears (secondary) prominence; however, while also is non-prominent when focus is in the VP as in (19), it bears primary prominence when the subject is focused, as in (17b).…”

Section: Experiments 4: the Lexical Contribution Of The Focus Operatormentioning

confidence: 99%

Context-driven expectations about focus alternatives

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is conveyed by a sentence frequently depends not only on the descriptive content carried by its words, but also on implicit alternatives determined by the context of use. Four visual world eye-tracking experiments examined how alternatives are generated based on aspects of the discourse context and used in interpreting sentences containing the focus operators only and also. Experiment 1 builds on previous reading time studies showing that the interpretations of only sentences are constrained by alternatives explicitly mentioned in the preceding discourse, providing fine-grained time course information about the expectations triggered by only. Experiments 2 and 3 show that, in the absence of explicitly mentioned alternatives, lexical and situation-based categories evoked by the context are possible sources of alternatives. While Experiments 1-3 all demonstrate the discourse dependence of alternatives, only explicit mention triggered expectations about alternatives that were specific to sentences with only. By comparing only with also, Experiment 4 begins to disentangle expectations linked to the meanings of specific operators from those generalizable to the class of focus-sensitive operators. Together, these findings show that the interpretation of sentences with focus operators draws on both dedicated mechanisms for introducing alternatives into the discourse context and general mechanisms associated with discourse processing.

show abstract

“…Many languages have scalar expressions similar to English even that behave as negative polarity items (cf., among others, Rooth 1985;Lahiri 1998;Hoeksema and Rullmann 2001;Rullmann 2003;Guerzoni 2003;Schwarz 2005;Giannakidou 2007). A case in point is German auch nur 'also only', a complex particle cluster with NPI status.…”

Section: Even-type Npismentioning

confidence: 99%

There is no number effect in the licensing of negative polarity items: a reply to Guerzoni and Sharvit

Hoeksema

2008

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Guerzoni and Sharvit (Linguistics and Philosophy 30:361-391, 2007) provide an argument that plural, but not singular, wh-phrases may contain a negative polarity item in their restriction, and connect this with the semantic property of exhaustivity. I will show that this claim is factually incorrect, and that the theory of negative polarity licensing does not need to be complicated by taking number distinctions into account. In addition, I will argue that number distinctions do not appear to be relevant for polarity items in the restriction of definite noun phrases either.

show abstract

Additive Particles and Polarity

Cited by 62 publications

References 0 publications

Additives pitching in: L*+H signals ordered Focus alternatives

Additives pitching in: L*+H signals ordered Focus alternatives

Context-driven expectations about focus alternatives

There is no number effect in the licensing of negative polarity items: a reply to Guerzoni and Sharvit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About