Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: van der Auwera, Johan

6 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.644
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.878

CiteScore 2017: 0.79

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.418
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.386

Online
ISSN
1613-396X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 56, Issue 2

Issues

Positive polarity indefinites? On how (not) to identify them: An exhaustification-based perspective

Anamaria Fălăuș
  • Corresponding author
  • CNRS, Laboratoire de Linguistique de Nantes (LLING UMR 6310), Chemin de la Censive du Tertre, BP 81227, 44312 Nantes, France
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-02-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0042

Abstract

This paper discusses a class of so-called “marked” or “modal” indefinites in Romance, (e.g., Romanian un NP oarecare, Italian un NP qualunque, French quelque N), which have been shown to display the locality, shielding and rescuing effects familiar from the study of positive polarity items (PPIs) like someone (e.g., Săvescu-Ciucivara 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: Editura Universității din București; Jayez and Tovena 2007, Evidentiality and determination. In Atle Grønn (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12, 271–286. Oslo: Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, University of Oslo; Chierchia 2013, Logic in grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press). Taking Romanian as a case study, I show that in positive contexts, these indefinites exhibit properties (obligatory non-specificity, free choice inferences) that set them apart from someone-PPIs and make them very similar to free choice indefinites. Adopting the framework in Chierchia (2013), we account for the interpretation of indefinites like un NP oarecare by assuming they activate scalar and domain alternatives. The computation of these alternatives is argued to be responsible for the observed interpretation and interaction with negation (as well as other positive polarity features). The proposed account emphasizes the connection between free choice and positive polarity and suggests that positive polarity behavior stems from more than one source.

Keywords: positive polarity indefinites; free choice; alternatives; Romance

References

  • Aloni, Maria & Angelika Port. 2015. Epistemic indefinites and methods of identifications. In Luis Alonso-Ovalle & Paula Menéndez-Benito (eds.), Epistemic indefinites, 117–140. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Alonso-Ovalle, Luis & Paula Menéndez-Benito. 2010. Modal indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 18. 1–31.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Alonso-Ovalle, Luis & Paula Menéndez-Benito. 2015. Epistemic indefinites: An overview. In Luis Alonso-Ovalle & Paula Menéndez-Benito (eds.), Epistemic indefinites, 1–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Baker, C. Lee. 1970. Double negatives. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 169–186.Google Scholar

  • Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14. 1–56.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bhatt, Rajesh. 1999. Covert modality in non-finite contexts. University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox & Benjamin Spector. 2012. Scalar implicatures as a grammatical phenomenon. In Claudia Maienborn, Paul Portner & Klaus Von Heusinger (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 3, 2297–2332. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Corblin, Francis. 2004. ‘Quelque’, In Francis Corblin & Henriette de Swart (eds.), Handbook of French Semantics, 99–107. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Dayal, Veneeta. 1997. Free relatives and ever: Identity and free choice readings. In Aaron Lawson (ed.), Proceedings of SALT VII, 99–116. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar

  • Fălăuş, Anamaria. 2009. Polarity items and dependent indefinites in Romanian. University of Nantes dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Fălăuş, Anamaria. 2013. Broaden your views, but try to stay focused: A missing piece in the polarity system. In Ivano Caponigro & Carlo Cecchetto (eds.), From grammar to meaning: The spontaneous logicality of language, 81–107. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fălăuş, Anamaria. 2015. Romanian epistemic indefinites. In Luis Alonso-Ovalle & Paula Menéndez-Benito (eds.), Epistemic indefinites, 60–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fălăuș, Anamaria. 2014. (Partially) Free choice of alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 37. 121–173.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Farkas, Donka. 2002. Extreme non-specificity in Romanian. In Claire Beyssade, Reineke Bok-Bennema, Frank A. C. Drijkoningen & Paola Monachesi (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2000, 127–153. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Farkas, Donka & Adrian Brașoveanu. 2013. A typology of specificity. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, LVIII (4). 355–369.Google Scholar

  • Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975. Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry 6. 353–375.Google Scholar

  • Fox, Danny. 2007. Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Uli Sauerland & Penka Stateva (eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, 71–120. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Gajewski, Jon. 2002. L-analiticity and natural language. Ms., University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

  • Gajewski, Jon. 2011. Licensing strong NPIs. Natural Language Semantics 19. 109–148.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2001. The meaning of free choice. Linguistics and Philosophy 24. 659–735.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Giannakidou, Anastasia & Josep Quer. 2013. Exhaustive and non-exhaustive variation with free choice and referential vagueness: Evidence from Greek, Catalan, and Spanish. Lingua 126. 120–149.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Homer, Vincent. 2011. Polarity and modality. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Horn, Lawrence R. 1978. Some aspects of negation. In Joseph Greenberg, Charles Ferguson & Edith Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language, vol IV: Syntax, 127–210. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Iatridou, Sabine & Hedde Zeijlstra. 2013. Negation, polarity and deontic modals. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 529–568.Google Scholar

  • Israel, Michael. 2011. The grammar of polarity – pragmatics, sensitivity, and the logic of scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jayez, Jacques & Lucia Tovena. 2006. Epistemic determiners. Journal of Semantics 23(3). 217–250.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jayez, Jacques & Lucia Tovena. 2007. Evidentiality and determination. In Atle Grønn (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12, 271–286. Oslo: Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, University of Oslo.Google Scholar

  • Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: A. F. Host.Google Scholar

  • Kadmon, Nirit & Fred Landman. 1993. ‘Any’. Linguistics and Philosophy 16. 353–422.Google Scholar

  • Kratzer, Angelika & Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Yukio Otsu (ed.), Proceedings of the third Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar

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

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

  • Lahiri, Utpal. 1998. Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6. 57–123.Google Scholar

  • Mayr, Clemens. 2013. Consequences of an alternative semantics for the analysis of intervention effects. In Anamaria Fălăuş (ed.), Alternatives in semantics (Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition), 123–149. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Nicolae, Andreea. 2012a. Negation-resistant polarity items. In Christopher Piñón (ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, vol. 9, 225–242. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss9/ (accessed 20 February 2017).

  • Nicolae, Andreea. 2012b. Positive polarity items: An alternative-based account. In Ana Aguilar Guevara, Anna Chernilovskaya & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16(2), 475–488. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. http://mitwpl.mit.edu/catalog/sube01/ (accessed 20 February 2017).

  • Nicolae, Andreea. 2017. Deriving the positive polarity behavior of plain disjunction. Semantics and Pragmatics 10(5). 1–21.Google Scholar

  • Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2004. Negative polarity items in Russian and the “Bagel Problem”. In Adam Przepiorkowski & Sue Brown (eds.), Negation in Slavic, 153–178. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Progovac, Liliana. 1994. Negative and positive polarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Quer, Josep. 1998. Mood at the interfaces. Utrecht: University of Utrecht dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Sauerland, Uli. 2004. Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 367–391.CrossrefGoogle 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: Editura Universității din București.Google Scholar

  • Spector, Benjamin. 2014. Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semantics and Pragmatics 7(11). 1–61.Google Scholar

  • Szabolcsi, Anna. 2004. Positive polarity – Negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(2). 409–452.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • van Rooij, Robert & Katrin Schulz. 2006. Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(2). 205–250.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zamparelli, Roberto. 2007. On singular existential quantifiers in Italian. In Ileana Comorovski & Klaus von Heusinger (eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax, 293–328. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2013. Universal quantifier PPIs. In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 273–280. http://events.illc.uva.nl/AC/AC2013/ (accessed 20 February 2017).

  • Zwarts, Frans. 1998. Three types of polarity. In Fritz Hamm & Erhard Hinrichs (eds.), Plural quantification, 177–238. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-02-13


Citation Information: Linguistics, Volume 56, Issue 2, Pages 301–331, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0042.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in