Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton February 13, 2018

Introduction: Current perspectives on positive polarity

Mingya Liu and Gianina Iordăchioaia
From the journal Linguistics

Abstract

Polarity sensitivity has been an established key topic of linguistic research for more than half a century. The study of polarity phenomena can be extremely revealing about the internal structure of a language, as they usually involve an interaction at the interface between syntax, semantics and pragmatics. In the past, most attention was paid to negative polarity items. However, recent years have witnessed a growing interest in positive polarity items. As a continuation of this trend, this issue collects four papers dedicated to positive polarity items, which enrich the empirical domain with novel observations from different languages and appeal to diverse theoretical concepts such as scalarity and presupposition in their modeling of positive polarity. The results show that positive polarity is a distributional phenomenon that has different sources and most likely cannot be modeled in a unifying way, although there may be subsets of positive polarity items that allow unifying accounts.

Acknowledgments

We thank the editors of Linguistics for their comments and feedback on this material, as well as other editorial assistance. Gianina Iordăchioaia’s contribution to this issue has been supported by a DFG (German Research Foundation) grant to Project B1, within the SFB 732 at the University of Stuttgart. Mingya Liu’s contribution to this issue has been supported by a DFG grant to her project within the Priority-Program XPrag.de on “The Semantics and Pragmatics of Conditional Connectives: Cross-linguistic and experimental Perspectives” (GZ: LI 2938/1-1) at Osnabrück University.

References

Baker, C. Lee. 1970. Double negatives. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 169–186.10.1080/08351816909389104Search in Google Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Adriana Belleti (ed.), Structures and beyond, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697977.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Csipak, Eva, Regine Eckardt, Mingya Liu & Manfred Sailer (eds.). 2013. Beyond “any” and “ever”. New explorations in negative polarity sensitivity. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110305234Search in Google Scholar

Eckardt, Regine. 2005. Too poor to mention: Subminimal events and negative polarity items. In Angelika Wöllstein-Leisten & Claudia Maienborn (eds), Event arguments in syntax, semantics and discourse, 301–330. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110913798.301Search in Google Scholar

Ernst, Thomas. 2009. Speaker-oriented Adverbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27. 497–544.10.1007/s11049-009-9069-1Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975. Pragmatic scales and logical structures. Linguistic Inquiry 6(3). 353–375.Search in Google Scholar

Fintel, Kai von. 1999. NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics 16(2). 97–148.10.1093/jos/16.2.97Search in Google Scholar

Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.23Search in Google Scholar

Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2012. Positive polarity items and negative polarity items: Variation, licensing, and compositionality. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus Von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, 2nd edn., 1660–1712. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Giannakidou, Anastasia & Alda Mari. 2016. The semantic roots of positive polarity: Epistemic modal verbs and adverbs in Greek and Italian. Paris: Manuscript, University of Chicago and Institut Jean Nicot.Search in Google Scholar

Goro, Takuya & Sachie Akiba. 2004. The acquisition of disjunction and positive polarity in Japanese. In Vineeta Chand, Ann Kelleher, Angelo J. Rodríguez & Benjamin Schmeiser (eds.), WCCFL 23 proceedings, 251–264. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Search in Google Scholar

Guerzoni, Elena. 2003. Why even ask? On the pragmatics of questions and the semantics of answers. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1992. Affirmative polarity items and negation in Japanese. In Carol Georgopoulos & Roberta Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to language. Essays in honor of S.‐Y. Kuroda, 271–286. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-3818-5_14Search in Google Scholar

Hoeksema, Jack. 1994. On the grammaticalization of negative polarity items. In Susanne Gahl, Andy Dolbey & Christopher Johnson (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session dedicated to Charles J. Fillmore, 273–282. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.10.3765/bls.v20i1.1458Search in Google Scholar

Hoeksema, Jack. 2000. Negative polarity items: Triggering, scope, and C-command. In Laurence R. Horn & Yasuhiko Kato (eds.), Negation and polarity: Syntactic and semantic perspectives, 115–146. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hoeksema, Jack. 2010. Negative and positive polarity items: An investigation of the interplay of lexical meaning and global conditions on expression. In Laurence R. Horn (ed.), The expression of negation, 187–224. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110219302.187Search in Google Scholar

Homer, Vincent. 2011. Polarity and modality. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Iatridou, Sabine & Hedde Zeijlstra. 2013. Negation, polarity and deontic modals. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 529–568.10.1162/LING_a_00138Search in Google Scholar

Iordăchioaia, Gianina. 2010. Negative concord with negative quantifiers: A polyadic quantifier approach to Romanian negative concord. Tübingen: University of Tübingen dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Iordăchioaia, Gianina & Frank. Richter. 2015. Negative concord with polyadic quantifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33(2). 607–658.10.1007/s11049-014-9261-9Search in Google Scholar

Israel, Michael. 1996. Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(6). 619–666.10.1007/BF00632710Search in Google Scholar

Israel, Michael. 2011. The grammar of polarity – Pragmatics, sensitivity, and the logic of scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511975288Search in Google Scholar

Jayez, Jacques & Lucia Tovena. 2007. Evidentiality and Determination. In Atle Grønn (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 12, 271–286. Oslo: University of Oslo.Search in Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Kopenhagen: Hoest.Search in Google Scholar

Junghanns, Uwe. 2006. Scope conflicts involving sentential negation in Czech. In Sue Brown & Adam Przepiórkowski (eds.), Discontinuous constituency, syntax and semantics, vol. 20, 105–133. Bloomington,: Slavica Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Kadmon, Nirit & Fred Landman. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(4). 353–422.10.1007/BF00985272Search in Google Scholar

Klein, Henry. 1998. Adverbs of degree in Dutch and related languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.21Search in Google Scholar

Klima, Edward. 1964. Negation in English. In Jerry A. Fodor & Jerrold J. Katz (eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25. 209–257.Search in Google Scholar

Ladusaw, William A. 1979. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Larrivée, Pierre. 2012. Positive polarity, negation, activated propositions. Linguistics 50(4). 869–900.10.1515/ling-2012-0027Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Chungmin. 1997. Negative polarity and free choice: Where do they come from?. In Paul Dekker, Martin Stokhof & Yde Venema (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium, 217–222. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Chungmin. 2015. Wh-indefinites as PPIs in wh-NPI Languages. Paper presented at the workshop Varieties of Positive Polarity Items within the annual meeting of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS), University of Leipzig, 4–6 March 2015.Search in Google Scholar

Linebarger, Marcia. 1987. Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10. 325–387.10.1007/BF00584131Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Mingya. 2012. Multidimensional semantics of evaluative adverbs (Current Research in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface 26). Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004248496Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Mingya. 2017. Negative entailment, positive implicature and polarity items. In Chungmin Lee, Ferenc Kiefer & Manfred Krifka (eds.), Contrastiveness in information structure, alternatives and scalar implicatures, 227–244. Amsterdam: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-10106-4_11Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Mingya, Peter König & Jutta L. Mueller. 2017. Novel ERP evidence for processing differences between negative and positive polarity items in German. Manuscript, Osnabrück University.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Mingya & Jan-Philipp Soehn. 2009. An empirical perspective on positive polarity items in German. In Susanne Winkler & Sam Featherston (eds.), The fruits of empirical linguistics, vol. 2, 197–216. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110216158.197Search in Google Scholar

Nicolae, Andreea. 2017. Deriving the positive polarity status of plain disjunction. Semantics & Pragmatics 10(5). 1–21.10.3765/sp.10.5Search in Google Scholar

Nilsen, Øystein. 2004. Domains for adverbs. Lingua 114. 809–847.10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00052-4Search in Google Scholar

Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Progovac, Ljiljana. 1994. Negative and positive polarity: A binding approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511554308Search in Google Scholar

Reis, Marga. 1993. Satzfügung und kommunikative Gewichtung: Zur Grammatik und Pragmatik von Neben- vs. Unterordnung am Beispiel der implikativen und-Konstruktion. In Marga Reis (ed.), Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur (Linguistische Arbeiten), 203–249. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111658469.203Search in Google Scholar

Romero, Maribel & Chung-Hye Han. 2004. On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 609–658.10.1023/B:LING.0000033850.15705.94Search in Google Scholar

Ruppenhofer, Josef & Laura A. Michaelis. 2016. Frames, polarity and causation. Corpora 11. 259–290.10.3366/cor.2016.0094Search in Google Scholar

Saddy, Douglas, Heiner Drenhaus & Stefan Frisch. 2004. Processing polarity items: Contrastive Licensing Costs. Brain and Language 90. 495–502.10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00470-XSearch in Google Scholar

Săvescu–Ciucivara, Oana. 2007. Oarecare indefinites are not just any indefinites. In Gabriela Alboiu, Andrei Avram, Larisa Avram & Daniela Isac (eds.), Pitar Moș: A building with a view. Papers in honour of Alexandra Cornilescu, 205–225. Bucharest: Bucharest University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Sawada, Osamu. 2016. Varieties of positive polarity minimizers in Japanese. Manuscript, Mie University. http://faculty.human.mie-u.ac.jp/~sawadao/minimizer_PPIs.pdf10.3765/salt.v0i20.2577Search in Google Scholar

Seuren, Pieter A. M. 1985. Discourse semantics. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Simons, Mandy, Judith Tonhauser, David Beaver & Craige Roberts. 2010. What projects and why. In Nan Li & David Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20, 309–327. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584Search in Google Scholar

Spector, Benjamin. 2014. Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semantics and Pragmatics 7(11). 1–61.10.3765/sp.7.11Search in Google Scholar

Szabolcsi, Anna. 2004. Positive polarity – Negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(2). 409–452.10.1023/B:NALA.0000015791.00288.43Search in Google Scholar

Wouden, Ton van der. 1997. Negative contexts: Collocation, polarity and multiple negation. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Yurchenko, Anna, Dirk-Bard Den Ouden, Jack Hoeksema, John C. Olga Dragoy, J. Hoeks & Laurie A. Stowe. 2013. Processing polarity: ERP evidence for differences between positive and negative polarity. Neuropsychologia 51(1). 132–141.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.10.028Search in Google Scholar

Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2004. Sentential negation and negative noncord. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2013. Universal quantifier PPIs. In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium 2009, 273–280. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Search in Google Scholar

Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2017. Universal quantifier PPIs. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 2(1), 91. 1–25.Search in Google Scholar

Zimmermann, Malte. 2016. Wird schon stimmen! A degree operator analysis of schon. Manuscript. University of Potsdam.10.1093/jos/ffy010Search in Google Scholar

Zwarts, Frans. 1998. Three types of polarity. In Fritz Hamm & Erhard Hinrichs (eds.), Plural quantification, 177–238. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-017-2706-8_5Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-2-13
Published in Print: 2018-2-23

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston