Neg-raising and positive polarity: The view from modals

Homer, Vincent

doi:10.3765/sp.8.4

Cited by 32 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, English must is a PPI (cf. Iatridou & Zeijlstra 2013;Homer 2015). That shows that it is not inherently impossible for a universal quantifier to be a PPI.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Szabolcsi 2004). For a detailed description and application of these tests to modal PPIs I refer to Iatridou & Zeijlstra (2013) and Homer (2015), but for the sake of illustration I address two tests already here, which will also prove to be relevant in the remainder of this article. The first test concerns intervention effects, where a scopetaking intervener disrupts the relation between an (anti-)licenser and a polarity item.…”

Section: Modal Ppismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As has been pointed out by Israel (1996), Iatridou & Zeijlstra (2010 and Homer (2015), universal modals that take wide scope with respect to sentential negation, like English must, should or ought to, should be analysed as PPIs. (14) a.…”

Section: Modal Ppismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…She must not leave. Iatridou & Zeijlstra (2010 and Homer (2015) Iatridou & Zeijlstra (2010 argue that modals auxiliaries are basegenerated in a position below negation, where they should also be interpreted, regardless of whether they raise to a higher position at the surface structure or not. This then explains that the modals in (15) and (16) take scope below negation.…”

Section: Modal Ppismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More importantly, their approach only applies to non-universal epistemic modal PPIs, whereas the reported modal PPIs here are all deontic modals (cf. Iatridou & Zeijlstra 2013;Homer 2015). 8 Third, the strongest piece of evidence, however, comes from the hitherto unreported observation that PPIs under this approach should be able to "self-intervene" (though see Iatridou & Zeijlstra 2013: 557, footnote 40).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Universal Quantifier PPIs

Zeijlstra

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) that denote lower scalar endpoints, such as existentials like any or ever, are often said to be only fine in Downward Entailing contexts, since outside such contexts their semantics would give rise to a contradiction. According to Chierchia (2006Chierchia ( , 2013, this contradiction arises as such NPIs both obligatorily introduce domain alternatives and trigger the presence of a covert exhaustifier. Following this line of reasoning, I argue it should be expected that elements with the same properties that denote the highest endpoint of a scale, such as universal quantifiers, are Positive Polarity Items (PPIs). Indeed, universal quantifier PPIs have been attested in the domain of modals (quantifiers over possible worlds) -English must and should are good examples of such universal quantifier PPIs (cf. Iatridou & Zeijlstra 2010, 2013; Homer 2015) -but not in the domain of quantifiers over individuals. In this paper, I argue that PPIs that are universal quantifiers over individuals actually do exist. However, since the covert exhaustifier that is induced by these PPIs (and responsible for their PPI-hood) can act as an intervener between the PPI and its anti-licenser, universal quantifier PPIs may still scope below negation and thus appear in disguise; their PPI-like behaviour only becomes visible once they morpho-syntactically precede their anti-licenser. Universal quantifier PPIs may surface under negation, but may not reconstruct under negation once they appear above it. This article concludes that Dutch iedereen ('everybody'), unlike English everybody, is actually such a PPI.

show abstract

“…For example, English must is a PPI (cf. Iatridou & Zeijlstra 2013;Homer 2015). That shows that it is not inherently impossible for a universal quantifier to be a PPI.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Modal Ppismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modal Ppismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modal Ppismentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Universal Quantifier PPIs

Zeijlstra

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Weak Necessity

Rubinstein

2020

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Getting the meaning of ought right and accounting for its relation to must has proven to be a considerable challenge for deontic logic as well as formal semantic analyses of modality. This chapter aims to give a language‐independent characterization of weak necessity as a phenomenon of gradable modality, focusing on morphological, semantic, and discursive properties of modals like ought . Weak necessity requires us to distinguish between degrees of necessity. Two theoretical frameworks for doing so are evaluated in the chapter. The two frameworks are shown to have complementary strengths, highlighting the distinction between probability‐based weak necessities and priority‐oriented ones.

show abstract

Epistemic Modals and Sensitivity to Contextually-Salient Partitions

2016

Thought: A Journal of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expressivists and relativists about epistemic modals often motivate their view by arguing against contextualist treatments of certain cases. However, I argue that even expressivists and relativists should consider being a kind of contextualist. Specifically, data involving mixed disjunctions motivate taking epistemic modals to be sensitive to contextually-salient partitions, and thus context-sensitive.Keywords epistemic modals; contextualism; expressivism; relativism; partitions; disjunction DOI:10.1002/tht3.203 Expressivism and relativism about epistemic modalsThe most plausible accounts of descriptivism about epistemic modals are also contextualist, in that the information state-body of knowledge, belief, or evidence-relevant for the evaluation of epistemic modal sentences depends on context. 1 Accordingly, epistemic modal sentences concern the possibility, necessity, or likelihood of certain propositions relative to contextually-determined information states. Noting this, expressivists and relativists often motivate their view by arguing against contextualist treatments of certain cases, taking the presumed success of their arguments against contextualism to automatically disqualify any combination of descriptivism and contextualism. 2 However, I argue that even expressivists and relativists should consider being a kind of contextualist. Specifically, data involving mixed disjunctions motivate taking epistemic modals to be sensitive to contextually-salient partitions, and thus context-sensitive.In the rest of this section, I outline expressivism and relativism about epistemic modals. In Section 2, I present data, involving mixed disjunctions, that should inform our semantic theorizing. In Section 3, I present a domain semantics, which I take expressivists and relativists to want to adopt, showing that it fares poorly in light of our data. In Section 4, I suggest incorporating a refinement for a domain semantics that takes epistemic modals to be sensitive to contextually-salient partitions.Let me begin by saying a bit more about expressivists and relativists. Consider an ordinary sentence such as:(1) It's raining.

show abstract

Neg-raising and positive polarity: The view from modals

Cited by 32 publications

References 51 publications

Universal Quantifier PPIs

Universal Quantifier PPIs

Weak Necessity

Epistemic Modals and Sensitivity to Contextually-Salient Partitions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About