1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Lingvisticæ Investigationes
  4. Volume 43, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 43, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4169
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9927
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Summary

The paper discusses the occurrence of emphatic negative polarity items (NPIs) in high degree result clause constructions. We will identify four distributional patterns for Romanian emphatic NPIs. These will range from NPIs that only occur occasionally in result constructions to NPIs that are bound to such constructions and even do not show any truth-conditionally relevant semantic contribution. We reformulate a scalar, pragmatic theory of NPIs in a constraint-based, representational framework, . We propose a scalar extension of a standard semantics of result clauses in order to capture the high degree, i.e. intensification readings. The constraint-based, representational perspective of this paper allows for an elegant modeling of the data: (i) We can capture the four distributional patterns as a lexical property of the discussed NPIs. (ii) The semantics and pragmatics of Romanian result clause constructions is accounted for by lexical properties of the result clause complementizers. (iii) A scalar analysis of emphatic NPIs can be applied in embedded clauses and even when the NPI itself does not contribute to the at-issue content of the overall utterance.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/li.00042.riz
2020-10-16
2023-09-30

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/li.00042.riz
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bach, K.
    1999 The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(4), 327–366. 10.1023/A:1005466020243
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005466020243 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bargmann, S. & Sailer, M.
    2018 The syntactic flexibility of semantically non-decomposable idioms. InM. Sailer & S. Markantonatou, Eds., Multiword Expressions: Insights from a Multi-lingual Perspective, p.1–29. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bos, J.
    1996 Predicate logic unplugged. InP. Dekker & M. Stokhof, Eds., Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium, p.133–143. ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Chierchia, G.
    2004 Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. InA. Belletti, Ed., Structure and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, volume3, p.39–103. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 2006 Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(4), 535–590. 10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dowty, D.
    2000 ‘The garden swarms with bees’ and the fallacy of ‘argument alternation’. InY. Ravin & C. Leacock, Eds., Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches, p.111–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Eckardt, R.
    2005 Too poor to mention: Subminimal events and negative polarity items. InC. Maienborn & A. Wöllstein, Eds., Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications, p.301–330. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110913798.301
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110913798.301 [Google Scholar]
  8. Eckardt, R. & Csipak, E.
    2013 Minimizers: Towards pragmatic licensing. InE. Csipak, M. Liu, R. Eckardt & M. Sailer, Eds., Beyond “any” and “ever”. New Explorations in Negative Polarity Sensitivity, p.267–298. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110305234.267
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110305234.267 [Google Scholar]
  9. Findlay, J. Y., Bargmann, S. & Sailer, M.
    2019 Why the butterflies in your stomach can have big wings: combining formal and cognitive theories to explain productive extensions of idioms. Presentation at Europhras 2019, Santiago de Compostella.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Gutzmann, D.
    2011 Expressive modifiers & mixed expressives. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, 8, 123–141. www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss8/
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Gutzmann, D. & McCready, E.
    2016 Quantification with pejoratives. InR. Finkbeiner, J. Meibauer & H. Wiese, Eds., Pejoration, number 2016 in Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, p.75–102. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hasegawa, A. & Koenig, J.-P.
    2011 Focus particles, secondary meanings, and Lexical Resource Semantics: The case of Japanese shika. InS. Müller, Ed., Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, p.81–101. Stanford: CSLI Publications. cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2011/hasegawa-koenig.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Hoeksema, J.
    2009 The swarm alternation revisited. InE. Hinrichs & J. Nerbonne, Eds., Theory and Evidence in Semantics, p.53–80. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Hoeksema, J. & Napoli, D. J.
    2019 Degree resultatives as second-order constructions. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 31(3), 225–297. 10.1017/S1470542719000084
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542719000084 [Google Scholar]
  15. Iordăchioaia, G. & Richter, F.
    2015 Negative concord with polyadic quantifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33, 607–658. 10.1007/s11049‑014‑9261‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9261-9 [Google Scholar]
  16. Karttunen, L. & Peters, S.
    1979 Conventional implicature. InC. Oh & D. Dinneen, Eds., Presupposition, volume 11 of Syntax and Semantics, p.1–56. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Krifka, M.
    1995 The semantics and pragmatics of weak and strong polarity items. Linguistic Analysis, 25(3–4), 209–257.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Meier, C.
    2003 The meaning of too, enough, and so … that. Natural Language Semantics, 11(1), 69–107. 10.1023/A:1023002608785
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023002608785 [Google Scholar]
  19. Park, S.-H., Koenig, J.-P. & Chaves, R. P.
    2019 A semantic underspecification-based analysis of scope ambiguitites in gapping. InM. Espinal, E. Castroviejo, M. Leonetti, L. McNally & C. Real-Puigdollers, Eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung23, volume2, p.237–251, Barcelona. https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/Tg3ZGI2M/SuB23-twovolume.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Penn, G. & Richter, F.
    2005 The other syntax: Approaching natural language semantics through logical form composition. InH. Christiansen, P. R. Skadhauge & J. Villadsen, Eds., Constraint Solving and Language Processing. First International Workshop, CSLP 2004, Roskilde, Denmark, September 1–3, 2004, Revised Selected and Invited Papers, volume 3438 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, p.48–73. Berlin: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A.
    1994 Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Potts, C.
    2005 The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Richter, F.
    2019 Formal background. InS. Müller, A. Abeillé, R. D. Borsley & J.-P. Koenig, Eds., Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The handbook. Chapter 3. Berlin: Language Science Press. Prepublished version. https://hpsg.hu-berlin.de/Projects/HPSG-handbook/PDFs/formal-background.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Richter, F. & Sailer, M.
    2004 Basic concepts of Lexical Resource Semantics. InA. Beckmann & N. Preining, Eds., ESSLLI 2003 – Course Material I, volume 5 of Collegium Logicum, p.87–143. Vienna: Kurt Gödel Society Wien.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 2006 Modeling typological markedness in semantics. the case of negative concord. InS. Müller, Ed., Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, p.305–325. Stanford: CSLI Publications. cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/7/richter-sailer.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Richter, F. & Soehn, J.-P.
    2006 Braucht niemanden zu scheren: A survey of npi licensing in german. InS. Müller, Ed., Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, p.421–440. Stanford: CSLI Publications. web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/HPSG/2006/richter-soehn.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Rizea, M.-M. & Sailer, M.
    2019 Representing scales: Degree result clauses and emphatic negative polarity items in romanian. InS. Müller & P. Osenova, Eds., Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, p.79–99. Stanford: CSLI Publications. cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2019/hpsg2019-rizea-sailer.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Sailer, M.
    2004 Local semantics in HPSG. InO. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr, Eds., Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics, volume5, p.197–214. www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss5/eiss5.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 2007 NPI licensing, intervention and discourse representation structures in HPSG. InS. Müller, Ed., Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, p.214–234. Stanford: CSLI Publications. cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/14/sailer.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 2009 On reading-dependent licensing of strong NPIs. InA. Riester & T. Solstad, Eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, volume 5 of SinSpeC. Working Papers of the SFB 732, p.455–468. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart. https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/565/511
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Sailer, M. & Am-David, A.
    2016 Definite meaning and definite marking. InD. Arnold, M. Butt, B. Crysmann, T. H. King & S. Müller, Eds., Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar, p.641–661. Stanford: CSLI Publications. cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2016/headlex2016-sailer-am-david.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Soehn, J.-P., Liu, M., Tráwiński, B. & Iordăchioaia, G.
    2010 Nicht sonderlich oder doch sattsam bekannt? Positive und Negative Polaritätselemente als lexikalische Einheiten mit Distributionsidiosynkrasien. InJ. Korhonen, W. Mieder, E. Piirainen & R. Piñel, Eds., EUROPHRAS 2008 Beiträge zur internationalen Phraseologiekonferenz vom 13.–16.8.2008 in Helsinki, p.273–281, Helsinki.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Tonhauser, J.
    2001 An approach to polarity sensitivity and negative concord by lexical underspecification. InD. Flickinger & A. Kathol, Eds., Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, p.285–304. Stanford: CSLI Publications. web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/HPSG/2000/hpsg00tonhauser.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C. & Simons, M.
    2013 Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language, 89(1), 66–109. 10.1353/lan.2013.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. van der Wouden, T.
    1997 Negative Contexts. Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/li.00042.riz
Loading
A constraint-based modeling of negative polarity items in result clause constructions in Romanian
Lingvisticæ Investigationes 43, 129 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00042.riz
/content/journals/10.1075/li.00042.riz
/content/journals/10.1075/li.00042.riz
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Lexical Resource Semantics; negative polarity item; projective meaning; result clause semantics; Romanian

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error