Skip to main content
Log in

Presuppositional and negative islands: a semantic account

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abels, K. 2004. Why “surprise”–predicates do not embed polar interrogatives. In Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 79, 203–222. Leipzig: University of Leipzig.

  • 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.

  • Abrusán, M. 2007b. Contradiction and grammar: The case of weak islands. PhD diss., MIT.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Atlas J. (1993) The importance of being only: Testing the neo-Gricean vs. neo-entailment paradigms. Journal of Semantics 10: 301–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atlas J. (1996) Only noun phrases, pseudo-negative generalized quantifiers, negative polarity items and monotonicity. Journal of Semantics 13: 265–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barwise J., Cooper R. (1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver D. (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CSLI Publications, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaver D. (2004) Five ‘only’ pieces. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 45–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S. 1996. Wh-constructions and transparent logical form. PhD diss., University of Tübingen.

  • Beck S. (2001) Reciprocals are definites. Natural Language Semantics 9: 69–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck S. (2006) Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14: 1–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck S., Rullmann H. (1999) A flexible approach to exhaustivity in questions. Natural Language Semantics 7: 249–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell R. (1978) On the source of interrogative adverbs. Language 54: 61–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chemla, E. 2008. Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Manuscript, École normale supérieure.

  • 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.

  • Chierchia, G. 1984. Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Chomsky N. (1995) The minimalist program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinque G. (1990) Types of A-dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Comorovski, I. 1989. Discourse and the syntax of multiple constituent questions. PhD diss., Cornell University.

  • Cresti D. (1995) Extraction and reconstruction. Natural Language Semantics 3: 79–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dayal V. (1996) Locality in WH quantification. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • de Cuba, C.F. 2007. On (non)factivity, clausal complementation and the CP-field. PhD diss., Stony Brook University.

  • 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.

  • den Dikken M., Giannakidou A. (2002) From hell to polarity: “aggressively non-D-linked” wh-phrases as polarity items. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 31–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Dowty D. (1979) Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Dukes, M. 1992. Factives, “stance” predicates and weak islandhood. Manuscript, UCLA.

  • Egré, P. 2008. Question-embedding and factivity. Grazer Philosophische Studien 77, ed. F. Lihoreau, 85–125. University of Graz.

  • Fox D. (2000) Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Fox, D. 2010. Negative islands and maximization failure. Manuscript, MIT.

  • Fox D., Hackl M. (2007) The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 537–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gajewski, J. 2002. L-analyticity in natural language. Manuscript, MIT

  • Gajewski, J. 2005. Neg-raising: Polarity and presupposition. PhD diss., MIT.

  • Geurts B., van der Sandt R. (2004) Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 1–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerzoni, E. 2003. Why even ask? On the pragmatics of questions and the semantics of answers. PhD diss., MIT.

  • Hacquard, V. 2006. Aspects of modality. PhD diss., MIT.

  • Haegeman L. (2006) Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116: 1651–1669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin C. (1973) Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, M. 1992. Adjunct extraction without traces. In Proceedings of WCCFL 10, 209–223. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

  • Heim, I. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Proceedings of WCCFL 2, 114–125. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

  • Heim, I. 1984. A note on negative polarity and downward entailingness. In Proceedings of NELS 14, 98–107. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

  • Heim, I. 2006. Remarks on comparative clauses as generalized quantifiers. Manuscript. MIT.

  • Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • Honcoop M. (1998) Dynamic excursions on weak islands. Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. 1969. A presuppositional approach to only and even. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 5, 98–107. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

  • Horn L. (1989) A natural history of negation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn L. (1996) Exclusive company: Only and the dynamics of vertical inference. Journal of Semantics 13: 1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ippolito, M. 2006. Remarks on only. In Proceedings of SALT 16, 77–87. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • 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.

  • Karttunen L. (1977) Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiss K. (1993) Wh-movement and specificity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11: 85–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Klein, E. 1975. Two sorts of factive predicate. Pragmatics Microfiche it 1.1. frames B5-C14.

  • Ko Heejeong (2005) Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [Spec,CP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 867–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krifka M. (1995) The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroch, A. 1989. Amount quantification, referentiality, and long wh-movement. Manuscript, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Kuno S., Takami K. (1997) Remarks on negative islands. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 553–576

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladusaw, W. 1986. Principles of semantic filtering. Papers from the 5th Western Conference on Formal Linguistics, 129–141. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association.

  • Lahiri U. (1998) Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landman F. (1989) Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 559–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linebarger M. (1981) The grammar of negative polarity. Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Löbner S. (1985) Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Magri G. (2009) A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 17: 245–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manzini R. (1998) A minimalist theory of weak islands. Syntax and Semantics 29: 185–209

    Google Scholar 

  • McCawley J. (1993) Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic but were ashamed to ask. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Obenauer H. (1984) On the identification of empty categories. The Linguistic Review 4: 153–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Rizzi L. (1990) Relativized minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C. 2006. Only, presupposition and implicature. Manuscript, The Ohio State University.

  • Romero, M. 1998. Focus and reconstruction effects in wh-phrases. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Rooth, M. 1985. Association with focus. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Rullmann, H. 1995. Maximality in the semantics of wh-constructions. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Sauerland, U. 2007. Intervals have holes. A note on comparatives with differentials. Manuscript, ZAS Berlin.

  • 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.

  • Schlenker P. (2008) Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34(3): 157–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzschild R. (1994) Plurals, presuppositions and the sources of distributivity. Natural Language Semantics 2: 201–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzschild, R. 2004. Scope-splitting in the comparative. Handout at MIT-colloquium.

  • Schwarzschild R., Wilkinson K. (2002) Quantifiers in comparatives: A semantics of degree based on intervals. Natural Language Semantics 10: 1–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Spector, B. 2003. Scalar implicatures: exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning? In Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2003, ed. B. ten Cate, Student Session, Vienna.

  • Spector, B. 2005. Aspects de la pragmatique des opérateurs logiques. PhD diss., Université de Paris 7.

  • Spector, B. 2007. Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher-order implicatures. Manuscript, École normale supérieure.

  • Starke, M. 2001. Move dissolves into merge: A theory of locality. PhD diss., University of Geneva.

  • 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.

  • Szabolcsi A., Haddican B. (2005) Conjunction meets negation: A study in crosslinguistic variation. Journal of Semantics 21: 219–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Szabolcsi A., Zwarts F. (1993) Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking. Natural Language Semantics 1: 235–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • van Benthem J.F. (1989) Logical constants across types. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 30: 315–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rooij, R., and K. Schulz. 2005. Only: Meaning and implicature. Manuscript, University of Amsterdam.

  • von Fintel K. (1993) Exceptive constructions. Natural Language Semantics 1: 123–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow A. (1984) Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3: 1–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow A., Zimmermann T. (1984) Term answers and contextual change. Linguistics 22: 3–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucchi A. (1995) The ingredients of definiteness and the definiteness effect. Natural Language Semantics 3: 33–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Márta Abrusán.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abrusán, M. Presuppositional and negative islands: a semantic account. Nat Lang Semantics 19, 257–321 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9064-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9064-4

Keywords

Navigation