Disruption of NPI Licensing: the Case of Presuppositions

Homer, Vincent

doi:10.3765/salt.v18i0.2483

Cited by 35 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By studying the behavior of any in configurations with collective predicates, we provide new empirical arguments that the descriptive condition concerning intervention must be stated with reference to the content of the clausal constituents in which NPIs may occur, and not merely with reference to operators c-commanding them. This is in line with recent arguments for environment-based formulations of NPI licensing conditions (e.g., Homer 2008, Gajewski 2011. We conclude by discussing how the condition fits in with some recent theories of intervention (especially Guerzoni 2006, Chierchia 2013).…”

supporting

confidence: 86%

“…In the remainder of this remark, we present evidence that casts doubt on (5). We provide new arguments that the descriptive condition on NPI licensing, (1), must be environment-based (rather than operator-based), and must reference full sentential alternatives (rather than scalemates), thus replacing (5) (see, e.g., Kadmon & Landman 1993, Lahiri 1998, Homer 2008, Gajewski 2011, Chierchia 2004, 2013, Crnič 2014, 2019a,b, 2020, Buccola & Spector 2016 for further arguments). Specifically, we argue that the acceptability of a sentence instantiating an intervention configuration does not depend simply on the position that the relevant operator occupies in its scale, but rather depends on the logical relation that the pertinent constituent dominating the operator (i.e., the pertinent environment) bears to its alternatives.…”

Section: The Received Viewmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

NPIs, intervention, and collectivity

Buccola

Crnič

2021

S&P

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negative polarity items are subject to so-called intervention effects (Linebarger 1980(Linebarger , 1987. Specifically, they are unacceptable in the immediate scope of certain non-downward-entailing operators, even if they occur in the scope of a (higher) downward-entailing operator. By studying the behavior of any in configurations with collective predicates, we provide new empirical arguments that the descriptive condition concerning intervention must be stated with reference to the content of the clausal constituents in which NPIs may occur, and not merely with reference to operators c-commanding them. This is in line with recent arguments for environment-based formulations of NPI licensing conditions (e.g., Homer 2008, Gajewski 2011. We conclude by discussing how the condition fits in with some recent theories of intervention (especially Guerzoni 2006, Chierchia 2013).

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 86%

Section: The Received Viewmentioning

confidence: 98%

NPIs, intervention, and collectivity

Buccola

Crnič

2021

S&P

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is possible, however, only if the Any Condition is stated as above-in terms of constituents dominating any (that is, environments) having a specific property (cf. Gajewski, 2011;Homer, 2008). It is not possible if the Any Condition is stated in terms of operators c-commanding any having a specific property (esp., Fauconnier, 1975;Ladusaw, 1979;von Fintel, 1999).…”

Section: Previewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Any: Logic, likelihood, and context (Pt. 1)

Crnič

2019

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Any has a more restricted distribution than other determiners. While it is uncontroversial that providing an adequate description of this distribution requires recourse to semantics, a full description has remained elusive. This holds, in particular, due to the intricate behavior of any in modal and non‐monotone environments, where sensitivity to extra‐grammatical factors is sometimes attested. Drawing on the insights of Kadmon and Landman, and on independently motivated mechanisms in grammar, we show that such descriptive challenges can be answered without abandoning a uniform treatment of any across the different environments. The resulting picture falls naturally out of an approach that takes any to be accompanied by covert even. There are two parts to this review. Part I attends to the distribution of any in entailment‐reversing and modal environments. Part II turns to an explanation of this distribution, its predictions about the distribution of any in non‐monotone environments, and to differences between any and some allied expressions. The review concludes by pointing out several open questions left for future research.

show abstract

“…'Every student who took math or physics passed the exam.' This is reminiscent of the behavior of strong NPIs like English 'until' and 'in weeks' which, unlike weak NPIs such as 'any' and 'ever', are acceptable under negation but not in the environments above (Homer 2009, Gajewski 2011, Chierchia 2013.…”

Section: Overgeneration Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%