Focus, Evaluativity, and Antonymy pp 89-135 | Cite as

# The Proposal

Chapter

First Online:

- 10 Downloads

## Abstract

This chapter provides an answer to the second main question of the book: why *only*∼[(very) *few*]_{F} and *only*∼[(very) *rarely*]_{F} have the meanings that they do intuitively. A possible scope-based account is discussed but rejected, and replaced with an account where “*few*” and “*rarely*” are existentially-closed.

## References

- Alxatib, S. (2013).
*Only and Association with Negative Antonyms*. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar - Alxatib, S. (2019). Actuality entailment and free choice. To appear in
*Journal of Semantics*, 701–720.Google Scholar - 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 - Atlas, J. D. (1993). The importance of being
*only*: Testing the neo-Gricean versus neo-entailment paradigms.*Journal of Semantics, 10*, 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Barner, D., Hochstein, L. K., Rubenson, M. P., & Bale, A. (2018). Four-year-old children compute scalar implicatures in absence of epistemic reasoning. In K. Syrett & S. Arunachalam (Eds.),
*Semantics in language acquisition*(pp. 325–349). Amsterdem: John Benjamins.Google Scholar - Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language.
*Linguistics and Philosophy, 4*, 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Beaver, D., & Clark, B. (2008).
*Sense and sensitivity*. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Beck, S. (2012). DegP scope revisited.
*Natural Language Semantics, 20*, 227–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bonomi, A., & Casalegno, P. (1993).
*Only*: Association with focus in event semantics.*Natural Language Semantics, 2*, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Buccola, B., & Haida, A. (2019). Obligatory irrelevance and the computation of ignorance inferences. To appear in
*Journal of Semantics, 36*: 583–616.Google Scholar - Buccola, B., & Spector, B. (2016). Modified numerals and maximality.
*Linguistics and Philosophy, 39*, 151–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Büring, D. (2008). The least
*at least*can do. In C. B. Chang & H. J. Haynie (Eds.),*WCCFL 26*. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar - Chomsky, N. (1986).
*Barriers*. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar - Drubig, H. B. (1994). Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus. In
*Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340*. Universität Tübingen/Universität Stuttgart, Tübingen/Stuttgart.Google Scholar - Fauconnier, G. (1979). Implication reversal in natural language. In F. Guenther & S. J. Schmidt (Eds.),
*Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural language*. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar - von Fintel, K. (1993). Exceptive constructions.
*Natural Language Semantics, 1*, 123–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Fox, D. (2007b). Too many alternatives: Density, symmetry, and other predicaments. In T. Friedman & M. Gibson (Eds.),
*SALT XVII*. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar - Fox, D. (2016). On why ignorance might be part of literal meaning. Handout of Talk presented at the MIT Exhaustivity Workshop—Commentary on Meyer, Marie-Christine.Google Scholar
- Fox, D., & Hackl, M. (2006). The universal density of measurement.
*Linguistics and Philosophy, 29*, 537–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gajewski, J. (2002). On analyticity in natural language. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Gajewski, J. (2009). Innocent Exclusion is not contradiction free. Ms. Available at https://jon-gajewski.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1784/2016/08/IEnotCF.pdf.
- Gamut, L. T. F. (1991).
*Logic, language, and meaning*(Vol. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar - Gazdar, G. (1979).
*Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form*. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar - Heim, I. (2000). Degree operators and scope. In B. Jackson & T. Matthews (Eds.),
*SALT X*. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar - Heim, I. (2006).
*Little*. In C. Tancredi, M. Kanazawa, I. Imani, & K. Kusumoto (Eds.),*SALT XVI*. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar - Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998).
*Semantics in generative grammer*. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar - Hochstein, L., Bale, A., Fox, D., & Barner, D. (2016). Ignorance and inference: Do problems with Gricean epistemic reasoning explain children’s difficulty with scalar implicature?
*Journal of Semantics, 33*, 107–135.Google Scholar - 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 - Horn, L. R. (1996). Exclusive company:
*only*and the dynamics of vertical inference.*Journal of Semantics, 13*, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Horn, L. R. (2002). Assertoric inertia and NPI licensing. In M. Andronis, E. Debenport, A. Pycha, & K. Yoshimura (Eds.),
*CLS 38*(Vol. 2, pp. 55–82). University of Chicago Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar - Katzir, R. (2007). Structurally-defined alternatives.
*Linguistics and Philosophy, 30*, 669–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, & P. van Erode Boas (Eds.),
*Semantics and contextual expression*. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar - 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 - Ladusaw, W. (1979).
*Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations*. Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar - Linebarger, M. (1980).
*The Grammar of negative polarity*. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar - Linebarger, M. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation.
*Linguistics and Philosophy, 10*, 325–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Magri, G. (2009). A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures.
*Natural Language Semantics, 17*, 245–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Magri, G. (2011). Another argument for embedded scalar implicatures based on oddness in downward entailing environments.
*Semantics and Pragmatics, 4*, 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Morzycki, M. (2016).
*Modification*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Nissenbaum, J. (2000).
*Investigations of Covert Phrase Movement*. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar - Romoli, J. (2013). A problem for the structural characterization of alternatives.
*Snippets, 27*, 14–15.Google Scholar - Sauerland, U. (2004). Scalar implicatures in complex sentences.
*Linguistics and Philosophy, 27*, 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Schwarz, B. (2011). Remarks on class-B numeral modifiers. Handout of talk delivered at Göttingen University.Google Scholar
- Schwarz, B. (2016). Consistency preservation in Quantity implicature: The case of
*at least*.*Semantics and Pragmatics, 9*, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Singh, R. (2009).
*Maximize Presupposition!*and informationally encapsulated implicatures. In A. Riester & T. Solstad (Eds.),*Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13*(pp. 513–526). Stuttgart: OPUS.Google Scholar - Spector, B. (2005).
*Aspects de la pragmatique des opérateurs logiques,*. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris 7.Google Scholar - Stump, G. T. (1981). The interpretation of frequency adjectives.
*Linguistics and Philosophy, 4*, 221–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Trinh, T. & Haida, A. (2015). Constraining the derivation of alternatives.
*Natural Language Semantics, 23*, 249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Wagner, M. (2006). Association by movement: Evidence from NPI-licensing.
*Natural Language Semantics, 14*, 297–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

## Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020