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

The Linguistic Review

Editor-in-Chief: Hulst, Harry

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.676
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.831

CiteScore 2016: 0.52

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.662
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.573

Online
ISSN
1613-3676
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Ahead of print

Issues

Free Choice under Ellipsis

Luka Crnič
Published Online: 2017-05-23 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2017-0002

Abstract

The ellipsis of a VP whose antecedent contains an occurrence of so-called free choice any is highly constrained: it is acceptable only if the elided VP is appropriately embedded. We show that while this is unexpected on the common approaches to free choice and ellipsis, it is predicted on a theory of any that takes its domain to stand in a dependency relation with a c-commanding alternative-sensitive operator (cf. Lahiri 1998, Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6(1). 57–123) and that takes free choice inferences to be generated by covert exhaustification in grammar (e.g., Fox 2007, Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Uli Sauerland & Penka Stateva (eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, 71–120. Palgrave Macmillan; Chierchia 2013, Logic in grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Keywords: free choice; polarity items; VP ellipsis; parallelism; even

References

  • Bar-Lev, Moshe & Daniel Margulis. 2014. Hebrew kol: A universal quantifier as an undercover existential. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18. 60–76.Google Scholar

  • Bowler, Margit. 2014. Conjunction and disjunction in a language without ‘and’. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 24. 137–155.Google Scholar

  • Bresnan, Joan. 1971. A note on the notion “identity of sense anaphora”. Linguistic Inquiry 2(4). 589–597.Google Scholar

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

  • Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox & Benjamin Spector. 2011. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Paul Portner, Claudia Maienborn & Klaus von Heusinger (eds.), Handbook of semantics. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

  • Collins, Chris & Paul Postal. 2014. Classical NEG raising. Cambride, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Crnič, Luka. 2013. How to get even with desires and imperatives. In Eva Csipak, Regine Eckardt & Manfred Sailer (eds.), Beyond any and ever, 127–154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Crnič, Luka. 2014. Non-monotonicity in NPI licensing. Natural Language Semantics 20. 169–217.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Crnič, Luka, Emmanuel Chemla & Danny Fox. 2015. Scalar implicatures of embedded disjunction. Natural Language Semantics 23(4). 271–305.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dayal, Veneeta. 1998. Any as inherently modal. Linguistics and Philosophy 21(5). 433–476.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dayal, Veneeta. 2004. The universal force of free choice any. Linguistic variation yearbook 4(1). 5–40.Google Scholar

  • Dayal, Veneeta. 2009. Variation in English free choice items. Universals and variation: Proceedings of GLOW in Asia VII 237–256.Google Scholar

  • Dayal, Veneeta. 2013. A viability constraint on alternatives for free choice. In Anamaria Falaus (ed.), Alternatives in semantics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Eckardt, Regine. 2005. Too poor to mention: Subminimal events and negative polarity items. In Claudia Maienborn & Angelika Wöllstein (eds.), Event arguments in syntax, semantics and discourse, 301–330. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Fiengo, Robert & Robert May. 1994. Indices and identity, vol. 24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Fox, Danny. 2007. Free choice 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

  • Fox, Danny & Roni Katzir. 2011. On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 19(1). 87–107.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fox, Danny & Benjamin Spector. 2009. Economy and embedded exhaustification. Handout from a talk at Cornell. Cambridge, MA: MIT & ENS.Google Scholar

  • Gajewski, Jon. 2009. Innocent exclusion is not contradiction free. Manuscript, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

  • Gajewski, Jon. 2013. An analogy between a connected exceptive phrase and polarity items. In Eva Csipak, Regine Eckardt & Manfred Sailer (eds.), Beyond any and ever, vol. 262, 183–212. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2000. Negative … concord? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18(3). 457–523.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Greenberg, Yael. 2015. A novel problem for the likelihood-based semantics of even. Semantics & Pragmatics 9(2). 1–28.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Griffiths, James & Anikó Lipták. 2014. Contrast and island sensitivity in clausal ellipsis. Syntax 17(3). 189–234.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Hardt, Daniel. 1993. Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning, and processing. University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Heim, Irene. 1997. Predicates or formulas? Evidence from ellipsis. In Aaron Lawson & Eun Cho (eds.), Semantics and linguistic theory 7, 197–221. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

  • Kadmon, Nirit & Fred Landman. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(4). 353–422.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Katzir, Roni. 2013. On the roles of markedness and contradiction in the use of alternatives. Manuscript, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar

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

  • Lahiri, Utpal. 1998. Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6(1). 57–123.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lahiri, Utpal. 2006. Scope, presuppositions and dimensions of meaning: Some observations on scalar additive particles in English, Hindi and Spanish. Handout from Sinn und Bedueutung 11, Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu-Fabra.Google Scholar

  • Lee, Young-Suk & Laurence R. Horn. 1994. Any as indefinite + even. Manuscript, Yale University.Google Scholar

  • Menéndez-Benito, Paula. 2010. On universal free choice items. Natural Language Semantics 18(1). 33–64.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar

  • Merchant, Jason. 2013. Polarity items under ellipsis. In Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds.), Diagnosing syntax, 441–462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Meyer, Marie-Christine. 2016. Generalized free choice and missing alternatives. Journal of Semantics 33(4). 703–754.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2012. The scope of even and quantifier raising. Natural language semantics 20(2). 115–136.Google Scholar

  • Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Rooth, Mats. 1992. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Steve Berman & Arild Hestvik (eds.), Proceedings of the stuttgart ellipsis workshop. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik, Bericht Nr. 29–1992.Google Scholar

  • Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Schwarz, Bernhard. 2000. Notes on even. Manuscript, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar

  • Singh, Raj, Ken Wexler, Andrea Astle, Deepthi Kamawar & Danny Fox. 2013. Children interpret disjunction as conjunction: consequences for the theory of scalar implicature. Manuscript, Carleton University, MIT, Hebrew University Jerusalem.Google Scholar

  • Spector, Benjamin. 2006. Aspects de la pragmatique des opérateurs logiques. Université Paris 7 dissertation.Google Scholar

  • van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2010. The syntax of ellipsis: Evidence from dutch dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Jason Merchant. 2013. Ellipsis phenomena. In Marcel Den Dikken (ed.), The cambridge handbook of generative syntax, 701–745. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-05-23


Citation Information: The Linguistic Review, ISSN (Online) 1613-3676, ISSN (Print) 0167-6318, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2017-0002.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in