Advertisement

Introduction

  • Sam Alxatib
Chapter
  • 11 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 104)

Abstract

It is shown that the focus particle only behaves unexpectedly with a class of expressions, which are labeled here as “negative antonyms”. The interaction is demonstrated in detail, and its theoretical relevance is discussed. The theoretical proposal is described informally, with short synopses of later chapters.

References

  1. Alxatib, S. (2013). Only and Association with Negative Antonyms. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  2. Alxatib, S., & Ivlieva, N. (2018). van Benthem’s problem, exhaustification, and distributivity. In R. Truswell, C. Cummins, C. Heycock, B. Rabern, & H. Rohde (Eds.), Sinn und Bedeutung 21 (pp. 1–18). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  3. Bassi, I., & Bar-Lev, M. (2018). A unified existential semantics for bare conditionals. In R. Truswell, C. Cummins, C. Heycock, B. Rabern, & H. Rohde (Eds.), Sinn und Bedeutung 21 (pp. 125–144). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  4. Beaver, D., & Clark, B. (2008). Sense and sensitivity. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, S. (2012). DegP scope revisited. Natural Language Semantics, 20, 227–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. van Benthem, J. (1986). Essays in logical semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonomi, A., & Casalegno, P. (1993). Only: Association with focus in event semantics. Natural Language Semantics, 2, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buccola, B. (2018). A restriction on the distribution of exclusive only. Snippets, 33, 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buccola, B., & Spector, B. (2016). Modified numerals and maximality. Linguistics and Philosophy, 39, 151–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fara, D. G. (2000). Shifting sands: An interest-relative theory of vagueness. Philosophical Topics, 28, 45–81. Originally published under the name “Delia Graff”.Google Scholar
  11. von Fintel, K. (1997). Bare plurals, bare conditionals, and only. Journal of Semantics, 14, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fox, D., & Hackl, M. (2006). The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, 537–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gajewski, J. (2002). On analyticity in natural language. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  14. Heim, I. (2006). Little. In C. Tancredi, M. Kanazawa, I. Imani, & K. Kusumoto (Eds.), SALT XVI. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Herburger, E. (2015). Only if: If only we understood it. In E. Csipak & H. Zeijlstra (Eds.), Sinn und Bedeutung 19, 284–301.Google Scholar
  16. Herburger, E. (2019). Bare conditionals in the red. Linguistics and Philosophy, 42, 131–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoeksema, J. (1983). Plurality and conjunction. In A. G. B. ter Meulen (Ed.), Studies in model-theoretic semantics. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  18. Horn, L. R. (1969). A presuppositional analysis of only and even. In R. I. Binnick, A. Davidson, G. M. Green, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), CLS 5 (pp. 98–107). University of Chicago Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  19. Horn, L. R. (1996). Exclusive company: only and the dynamics of vertical inference. Journal of Semantics, 13, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klinedinst, N. (2005). Scales and Only. Master’s thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
  21. König, E. (1991). The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Kratzer, A. (1991). Conditionals. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Vol. 6). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Krifka, M. (1999). At least some determiners aren’t determiners. In K. Turner (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view (Current research in the semantics/pragmatics interface, Vol. 1). Kidlington/Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
  24. Krifka, M. (2000). Alternatives for aspectual particles: Semantics of still and already. In A. Simpson (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Aspect (pp. 401–412).Google Scholar
  25. Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Mullally, J. P. (1945). The summulae logicales of peter of Spain. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  27. Partee, B. (1989). Many quantifiers. In J. Powers & K. de Jong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (pp. 383–402). Columbus: Ohio State University. Reprinted in Partee 2004.Google Scholar
  28. Solt, S. (2009). The Semantics of Adjectives of Quantity. Ph.D. thesis, CUNY.Google Scholar
  29. Solt, S. (2015). Q-adjectives and the semantics of quantity. Journal of Semantics, 32, 221–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. von Stechow, A. (2006). Times as degrees: früh(er) ‘early(er)’, spät(er) ‘late(r)’, and phase adverbs. Revised and published as von Stechow 2009.Google Scholar
  31. Zeevat, H. (2008). “Only” as a mirative particle. In A. Riester & E. Onea (Eds.), Focus at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Working Papers of the SFB 732, Vol. 3, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sam Alxatib
    • 1
  1. 1.The Graduate CenterCUNYNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations