A constraint-based modeling of negative polarity items in result clause constructions in Romanian

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. Chierchia, G.
   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. Richter, F. & Sailer, M.
    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. Sailer, M.
    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. Sailer, M.
    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]