Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 257–321 | Cite as

Presuppositional and negative islands: a semantic account

  • Márta Abrusán
Article

Abstract

This paper proposes a new explanation for the oddness of presuppositional and negative islands, as well as the puzzling observation that these islands can be obviated by certain quantificational elements. The proposal rests on two independently motivated assumptions: (i) the idea that the domain of manners contains contraries and (ii) the notion that degree expressions range over intervals. It is argued that, given these natural assumptions, presuppositional and negative islands are predicted to lead to a presupposition failure in any context.

Keywords

Weak islands Negative islands Presuppositional islands Interval-based semantics for degrees Contradiction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abels, K. 2004. Why “surprise”–predicates do not embed polar interrogatives. In Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 79, 203–222. Leipzig: University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
  2. Abrusán, M. 2007a. Even and free choice any in Hungarian. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, ed. Estela Puig-Waldmüller, 1–15. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
  3. Abrusán, M. 2007b. Contradiction and grammar: The case of weak islands. PhD diss., MIT.Google Scholar
  4. Abrusán, M. and B. Spector. 2010. An interval-based semantics for degree questions: Negative islands and their obviation. Journal of Semantics. Advance access under doi: 10.1093/jos/ffq013.
  5. Abusch, D. 2002. Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presuppositions. In Proceedings of SALT 12, ed. B Jackson, 1–19. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Atlas J. (1993) The importance of being only: Testing the neo-Gricean vs. neo-entailment paradigms. Journal of Semantics 10: 301–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atlas J. (1996) Only noun phrases, pseudo-negative generalized quantifiers, negative polarity items and monotonicity. Journal of Semantics 13: 265–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barwise J., Cooper R. (1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beaver D. (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Beaver D. (2004) Five ‘only’ pieces. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 45–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beck, S. 1996. Wh-constructions and transparent logical form. PhD diss., University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  12. Beck S. (2001) Reciprocals are definites. Natural Language Semantics 9: 69–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Beck S. (2006) Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14: 1–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Beck S., Rullmann H. (1999) A flexible approach to exhaustivity in questions. Natural Language Semantics 7: 249–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cattell R. (1978) On the source of interrogative adverbs. Language 54: 61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chemla, E. 2008. Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Manuscript, École normale supérieure.Google Scholar
  17. Chemla, E. 2009. An experimental approach to adverbial modification. In Semantics and pragmatics: from experiment to theory, ed. U. Sauerland and K. Yatsushiro, 249–263. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Chierchia, G. 1984. Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  19. Chomsky N. (1995) The minimalist program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. Cinque G. (1990) Types of A-dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  21. Comorovski, I. 1989. Discourse and the syntax of multiple constituent questions. PhD diss., Cornell University.Google Scholar
  22. Cresti D. (1995) Extraction and reconstruction. Natural Language Semantics 3: 79–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dayal V. (1996) Locality in WH quantification. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  24. de Cuba, C.F. 2007. On (non)factivity, clausal complementation and the CP-field. PhD diss., Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
  25. de Swart, H. 1992. Intervention effects, monotonicity and scope. In Proceedings of SALT 2, ed. C. Barker and D. Dowty, 387–406. Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  26. den Dikken M., Giannakidou A. (2002) From hell to polarity: “aggressively non-D-linked” wh-phrases as polarity items. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 31–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. den Dikken, M., and A. Szabolcsi. 2002. Islands. In The second state of the article book, ed. L. Cheng and R. Sybesma, 213–240. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  28. Dowty D. (1979) Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  29. Dukes, M. 1992. Factives, “stance” predicates and weak islandhood. Manuscript, UCLA.Google Scholar
  30. Egré, P. 2008. Question-embedding and factivity. Grazer Philosophische Studien 77, ed. F. Lihoreau, 85–125. University of Graz.Google Scholar
  31. Fox D. (2000) Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  32. Fox, D. 2007. Too many alternatives: Density, symmetry and other predicaments. In Proceedings of SALT 17, ed. M. Gibson and T. Friedman, 89–111. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Fox, D. 2010. Negative islands and maximization failure. Manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
  34. Fox D., Hackl M. (2007) The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 537–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gajewski, J. 2002. L-analyticity in natural language. Manuscript, MITGoogle Scholar
  36. Gajewski, J. 2005. Neg-raising: Polarity and presupposition. PhD diss., MIT.Google Scholar
  37. Geurts B., van der Sandt R. (2004) Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Guerzoni, E. 2003. Why even ask? On the pragmatics of questions and the semantics of answers. PhD diss., MIT.Google Scholar
  39. Hacquard, V. 2006. Aspects of modality. PhD diss., MIT.Google Scholar
  40. Haegeman L. (2006) Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116: 1651–1669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hamblin C. (1973) Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53Google Scholar
  42. Hegarty, M. 1992. Adjunct extraction without traces. In Proceedings of WCCFL 10, 209–223. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Heim, I. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Proceedings of WCCFL 2, 114–125. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Heim, I. 1984. A note on negative polarity and downward entailingness. In Proceedings of NELS 14, 98–107. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  45. Heim, I. 2006. Remarks on comparative clauses as generalized quantifiers. Manuscript. MIT.Google Scholar
  46. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  47. Honcoop M. (1998) Dynamic excursions on weak islands. Holland Academic Graphics, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  48. Horn, L. 1969. A presuppositional approach to only and even. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 5, 98–107. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  49. Horn L. (1989) A natural history of negation. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  50. Horn L. (1996) Exclusive company: Only and the dynamics of vertical inference. Journal of Semantics 13: 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ippolito, M. 2006. Remarks on only. In Proceedings of SALT 16, 77–87. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  52. Jacobson, P. 1995. On the quantificational force of English free relatives. In Quantification in natural languages, ed. E. Bach et al., 451–486. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  53. Karttunen L. (1977) Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kiss K. (1993) Wh-movement and specificity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11: 85–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kiparsky, P., and C. Kiparsky. 1971. Fact. In Semantics. An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, ed. D.D. Steinberg and L.A. Jacobovits, 345–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Klein, E. 1975. Two sorts of factive predicate. Pragmatics Microfiche it 1.1. frames B5-C14.Google Scholar
  57. Ko Heejeong (2005) Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [Spec,CP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 867–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Krifka M. (1995) The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–257Google Scholar
  59. Kroch, A. 1989. Amount quantification, referentiality, and long wh-movement. Manuscript, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  60. Kuno S., Takami K. (1997) Remarks on negative islands. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 553–576Google Scholar
  61. Ladusaw, W. 1986. Principles of semantic filtering. Papers from the 5th Western Conference on Formal Linguistics, 129–141. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
  62. Lahiri U. (1998) Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Landman F. (1989) Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 559–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Linebarger M. (1981) The grammar of negative polarity. Indiana University Linguistics Club, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  65. Link, G. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, ed. R. Bäuerle et al., 302–232. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  66. Löbner S. (1985) Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Longobardi, G. 1987. Extraction from NP and the proper notion of head government. The syntax of noun phrases, ed. A. Giorgi and G. Longobardi, 57–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Magri G. (2009) A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 17: 245–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Manzini R. (1998) A minimalist theory of weak islands. Syntax and Semantics 29: 185–209Google Scholar
  70. McCawley J. (1993) Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic but were ashamed to ask. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  71. Obenauer H. (1984) On the identification of empty categories. The Linguistic Review 4: 153–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Oshima, D. 2006. On factive islands: Pragmatic anomaly vs. pragmatic infelicity. In New Frontiers in artificial intelligence: Joint JSAI 2006 Workshop Post-Proceedings, ed. Ken Saroh et al., 147–161. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  73. Pesetsky, D. 1987. Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding. The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  74. Rizzi L. (1990) Relativized minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  75. Roberts, C. 2006. Only, presupposition and implicature. Manuscript, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  76. Romero, M. 1998. Focus and reconstruction effects in wh-phrases. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  77. Rooth, M. 1985. Association with focus. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  78. Rullmann, H. 1995. Maximality in the semantics of wh-constructions. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  79. Sauerland, U. 2007. Intervals have holes. A note on comparatives with differentials. Manuscript, ZAS Berlin.Google Scholar
  80. Schlenker, P. 2003. The lazy Frenchman’s approach to the subjunctive. In Proceedings of Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory, ed. T. Geerts et al., 269–309. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  81. Schlenker P. (2008) Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34(3): 157–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schwarzschild R. (1994) Plurals, presuppositions and the sources of distributivity. Natural Language Semantics 2: 201–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schwarzschild, R. 2004. Scope-splitting in the comparative. Handout at MIT-colloquium.Google Scholar
  84. Schwarzschild R., Wilkinson K. (2002) Quantifiers in comparatives: A semantics of degree based on intervals. Natural Language Semantics 10: 1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Simons, M. 2001. On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. Proceedings of SALT 21, ed. R. Hasting et al., 431–448. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  86. Spector, B. 2003. Scalar implicatures: exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning? In Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2003, ed. B. ten Cate, Student Session, Vienna.Google Scholar
  87. Spector, B. 2005. Aspects de la pragmatique des opérateurs logiques. PhD diss., Université de Paris 7.Google Scholar
  88. Spector, B. 2007. Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher-order implicatures. Manuscript, École normale supérieure.Google Scholar
  89. Starke, M. 2001. Move dissolves into merge: A theory of locality. PhD diss., University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  90. Szabolcsi, A. 2006. Strong vs. weak islands. The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. 4, ed. M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, 479–531. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  91. Szabolcsi A., Haddican B. (2005) Conjunction meets negation: A study in crosslinguistic variation. Journal of Semantics 21: 219–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Szabolcsi, A., and F. Zwarts. 1990. Semantic properties of composed functions and the distribution of whphrases. Proceedings of the Seventh Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. Stokhof, M. and L. Torenvliet, 529–555. Amsterdam: ILLI.Google Scholar
  93. Szabolcsi A., Zwarts F. (1993) Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking. Natural Language Semantics 1: 235–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Szabolcsi, A., and F. Zwarts. 1997. Weak Islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking. In Ways of scope taking, ed. A Szabolcsi, 217–262. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  95. van Benthem J.F. (1989) Logical constants across types. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 30: 315–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. van Rooij, R., and K. Schulz. 2005. Only: Meaning and implicature. Manuscript, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  97. von Fintel K. (1993) Exceptive constructions. Natural Language Semantics 1: 123–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. von Stechow A. (1984) Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3: 1–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. von Stechow A., Zimmermann T. (1984) Term answers and contextual change. Linguistics 22: 3–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Zucchi A. (1995) The ingredients of definiteness and the definiteness effect. Natural Language Semantics 3: 33–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Somerville CollegeUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations