Where is the destructive update problem?

Charlow, Simon

doi:10.3765/sp.12.10

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 38 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We are now in a position to build the tools needed to analyze negative concord. Recall that there are two proposed components to the meaning of negative concord: (i) the introduction of a in van Eijck and Cepparello (1994), Aloni (1997), andCharlow (2019c). discourse referent, synonymous to an existential, and (ii) a test that the extension of the discourse referent is empty.…”

Section: Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dynamics of negative concord

Kuhn

2021

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concord describes a natural language phenomenon in which a single logical meaning is expressed syntactically on multiple lexical items. The canonical example is negative concord, in which multiple negative expressions are used, but a single negation is interpreted. Formally similar phenomena have been observed for the redundant marking of distributivity and definiteness. Inspired by recent dynamic analyses of these latter two phenomena, we extend a similar dynamic analysis to negative concord. We propose that negative concord items introduce a discourse referent (like an existential), but then test that no discourse referent has been introduced in any assignment. These apparently contradictory requirements are licensed with split scope around negation: introduction occurs below negation; the test appears above it. The analysis successfully predicts that negative concord items must be licensed by a sufficiently local negative operator. We further show that modulation of what is at-issue can account for cases in which NC items themselves carry negative force.

show abstract

Section: Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dynamics of negative concord

Kuhn

2021

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

On Groenendijk and Stokhof’s “Dynamic Predicate Logic”

Gillies

2012

Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negative Polarity Items in Definite Superlatives

Bumford

Sharvit

2022

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ordinary superlative descriptions are well-known to provide safe harbor to negative polarity items (NPIs), as in the longest book anyone read. What is less well-known is that relative superlative descriptions also sometimes host NPIs, as in the loudest that anyone sang. We observe that this latter pattern is more general than has been previously described. In fact, relative superlatives can license NPIs outside of their own descriptions. On the one hand, we argue that this provides evidence that the superlative adjectives take sentential rather than nominal scope. But on the other, following insights in Howard 2014, we argue that traditional semantic accounts of scope-taking superlatives do not present the right monotonicity profile to account for the NPIs either. A recent, dynamic take on superlative semantics (Bumford 2017) is shown to do better.

show abstract

Where is the destructive update problem?

Cited by 3 publications

References 38 publications

The dynamics of negative concord

The dynamics of negative concord

On Groenendijk and Stokhof’s “Dynamic Predicate Logic”

Negative Polarity Items in Definite Superlatives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About