Abstract
Many languages have pairs of additive markers that exhibit a common morphological core. This paper focuses on the Romanian pair şi and nici and offers an analysis that derives their distribution and interpretation. The crux of the analysis is the claim that nici spells out the negative marker n and the additive particle add; n is argued to contribute the negative polarity component while add is assumed to make the same contribution as the positive particle, şi.
I am indebted to Gennaro Chierchia, Luka Crnič, Anamaria Fălăuş, Uli Sauerland and Yasu Sudo for their time and knowledge shared while discussing these issues with me, as well as the many anonymous reviewers who have assessed this work in its various previous forms and the editors of TLLM2020. This research was supported by the German Science Foundation (DFG) via grant NI 1850/2-1.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
All Romanian data reported in this paper are the author’s, a native speaker of Romanian, and have been checked with at least one other person for both grammaticality and acceptability judgements.
- 2.
- 3.
The antecedent proposition does not have to include the sentential negation, unlike the host proposition. It is enough if it’s claimed that Paul dislikes wine.
- 4.
There is interesting ongoing work discussing the differences between only and exh, specifically as they relate to these two points [5, among others].
- 5.
- 6.
There are some caveats to this condition that are tangential to the point at hand.
- 7.
Y. Sudo (pers. comm.) wonders whether this does not lead to overgenerating in the case of embedded implicatures, e.g. Mary didn’t complete some of the assignments. In other words, if vacuous embedded exhaustification can be made available by the mechanism proposed above, what prevents it from applying to this case? I want to argue that these cases are different since in the case of scalar implicatures, the entailed negated component is necessarily about the same event time, so it does not end up being presupposed under Abrusán’s system.
- 8.
Other neg-words in Romanian are created from nici and a wh-phrase (niciunde ‘nowhere’ and nicidecum ‘no way’) or from nici and an indefinite NP (nicio fată ‘no girl’). A detailed discussion of these elements is beyond the scope of this paper.
- 9.
- 10.
In fact, nothing prevents us from claiming that the alternative derived via deletion of add, namely p, is also an alternative. Given the interpretation of add, however, including this alternative will not add anything.
- 11.
More recent work does away with recursive exhaustification and instead adopts a notion of innocent inclusion of alternatives as a way to derive the conjunctive inference [7]. I believe that this new approach will be equally suitable in the case at hand but I leave it to future work to probe it further.
- 12.
I simplified the presentation by ignoring the conjunctive alternative since its inclusion is orthogonal to the derivation of the free choice implicature.
- 13.
One reviewer has asked why we don’t also consider alternatives without the negation, since we consider alternatives obtained via deletion. Note that if we were to consider such alternatives, then all the alternatives would be symmetric, and thus none would be excludable, resulting in the vacuous application of exh. While this will have to remain a stipulation for now, the same stipulation regarding the non-deletion of negation has to be adopted even in the simpler cases involving indirect implicatures, i.e. cases of strong scalar items giving rise to implicatures when they occur in the scope of negation.
- 14.
One might wonder whether the first instance of \(\textsc {exh}^{\textsc {n}}\) does not count as vacuous. While at the point of insertion it is, its global contribution does lead to strengthening given that its presence alters the alternatives under consideration by the higher instance of exh.
References
Abrusán, M.: Predicting the presuppositions of soft triggers. Linguist. Philos. 34, 491–535 (2011)
Abrusán, M.: On the focus-sensitive presupposition triggers too, again, also, even. In: Etxeberria, U., Fălăuş, A., Irurtzun, A., Leferman, B. (eds.) Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB), vol. 18, pp. 6–23. Bayonne and Vitoria-Gasteiz (2014)
Abrusán, M.: Presupposition cancellation: explaining the ‘soft-hard’ trigger distinction. Nat. Lang. Semant. 24, 165–202 (2016)
Ahn, D.: The semantics of additive either. In: Csipak, E., Zeijlstra, H. (eds.) Sinn und Bedeutung 19, vol. 1, pp. 20–35 (2015)
Alxatib, S.: Only, or and free choice presuppositions. Nat. Lang. Seman. 28, 395–429 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-020-09170-y
Bade, N.: Obligatory presupposition triggers in discourse. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Tübingen (2015)
Bar-Lev, M.E., Fox, D.: Universal free choice and innocent inclusion. In: Burgdorf, D., Collard, J., Maspong, S., Stefánsdóttir, B. (eds.) Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), vol. 27, pp. 95–115. LSA, Washington (2017)
Chemla, E., Spector, B.: Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. J. Semant. 28, 359–400 (2011)
Chierchia, G.: Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In: Belletti, A. (ed.) Structures and Beyond, vol. 3, pp. 39–103. Oxford University Press (2004)
Chierchia, G.: Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the ‘logicality’ of language. Linguist. Inq. 37(4), 535–590 (2006)
Chierchia, G.: Logic in Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)
Chierchia, G., Fox, D., Spector, B.: Scalar implicatures as a grammatical phenomenon. In: Maienborn, C., Portner, P., von Heusinger, K. (eds.) Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 3, pp. 2297–2332. Mouton de Gruyter/de Gruyter edn. New York (2012)
Crnič, L.: Getting even. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (2011)
Crnič, L.: Non-monotonicity in NPI licensing. Nat. Lang. Semant. 22(2), 169–217 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-014-9104-6
Crnič, L.: Any: logic, likelihood, and context. Lang. Linguist. Compass 13(11), e12353 (2019)
Fox, D.: Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicatures. In: Sauerland, U., Stateva, P. (eds.) Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, pp. 71–120. Palgrave Macmillan, New York (2007)
Fox, D., Katzir, R.: On the characterization of alternatives. Nat. Lang. Semant. 19(1), 87–107 (2011)
Fox, D., Spector, B.: Economy and embedded exhaustification (2009). unpublished ms. (MIT and Institut Jean Nicod)
Fox, D., Spector, B.: Economy and embedded exhaustification. Nat. Lang. Semant. 26(1), 1–50 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9139-6
Fălăuş, A.: (Partially) free choice of alternatives. Linguist. Philos. 37(2), 121–173 (2014)
Fălăuş, A., Nicolae, A.C.: Fragment answers and double negation in strict negative concord languages. In: Moroney, M., Little, C.R., Collard, J., Burgdorf, D. (eds.) Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), vol. 26, pp. 584–600 (2016)
Gajewski, J.: L-analiticity and natural language , Ms. University of Connecticut (2002)
Gast, V., van der Auwera, J.: Scalar additive operators in the languages of Europe. Language 87(1), 2–54 (2011)
Gonzalez, A.: Residue of universality, Harvard ms (2020)
Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M.: Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands (1984)
Heim, I.: Presupposition projection. In: van der Sandt, R. (ed.) Reader for the Nijmegen Workshop on Presupposition, Lexical Meaning, and Discourse Processes (1990)
Iatridou, S., Zeijlstra, H.H.: Negation, polarity and deontic modals. Linguist. Inq. 44(4), 529–568 (2013)
Kamali, B., Krifka, M.: Focus and contrastive topics. Theor Linguist. 46(1–2), 1–71 (2020)
Katzir, R.: Structurally defined alternatives. Linguist. Philos. 30(6), 669–690 (2007)
Krifka, M.: The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguist. Anal. 25, 209–257 (1995)
Krifka, M.: Additive particles under stress. In: Strolovitch, D., Lawson, A. (eds.) Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), vol. 8, pp. 111–128 (1998)
Kripke, S.A.: Presupposition and anaphora: remarks on the formulation of the projection problem. Linguist. Inq. 40(3), 367–386 (2009)
Lahiri, U.: Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Nat. Lang. Semant. 6, 57–123 (1998)
Mitrović, M., Sauerland, U.: Decomposing coordination. In: Iyer, J., Kusmer, L. (eds.) North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 44, pp. 39–52 (2014)
Mitrović, M., Sauerland, U.: Two conjunctions are better than one. Acta Linguist. Hung. 63(4), 471–494 (2016)
Nicolae, A.C.: Negation-resistant polarity items. In: Piñón, C. (ed.) Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9, pp. 225–242 (2012)
Nicolae, A.C.: Deriving the positive polarity behavior of plain disjunction. Semant. Pragmat. 10(5), 1–21 (2017)
Nicolae, A.C.: A new perspective on the shielding property of positive polarity. In: Burgdorf, D., Collard, J., Maspong, S., Stefánsdóttir, B. (eds.) Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), vol. 27, pp. 266–281 (2017)
Nicolae, A.C.: Additional questions on contrastive topics. Theor. Linguist. 46(1–2), 81–87 (2020)
Rooth, M.: Association with Focus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA (1985)
Saebo, J.K.: Conversational contrast and conventional parallel: topic implicatures and additive presuppositions. J. Semant. 2, 199–217 (2004)
Sauerland, U.: Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguist. Philos. 27(3), 367–391 (2004)
Sauerland, U.: Intermediate scalar implicatures. In: Pistoia Reda, S. (ed.) Pragmatics, Semantics and the Case of Scalar Implicatures, pp. 72–98. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2014)
Spector, B.: Aspects de la Pragmatique des Opérateurs Logiques. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris-VII, Paris, France (2006)
Spector, B.: Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semant. Pragmat. 7(11), 1–61 (2014)
Szabolcsi, A.: Additive presuppositions are derived through activating focus alternatives. In: Cremers, A., van Gessel, T., Roelofsen, F. (eds.) Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 455–464 (2017)
Zeijlstra, H.H.: Universal quantifier PPIs. Glossa 2(91), 1–25 (2017)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Nicolae, A.C. (2020). Negative Polarity Additive Particles. In: Deng, D., Liu, F., Liu, M., Westerståhl, D. (eds) Monotonicity in Logic and Language. TLLM 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12564. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62843-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62843-0_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-62842-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-62843-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)