Almost et al.: Scalar Adverbs Revisited

Abstract

The division of labor between semantic and pragmatic aspects of the almost, barely, and other proximatives has been a bone of contention ever since Sadock’s (1981) proposal that a almost $\phi$ ’d is true if a in fact $\phi$ ’d: Chris almost died entails that Chris approached dying while merely conversationally implicating that Chris didn’t die. Given that barely $\phi$ = almost not $\phi$, Dana barely survived would likewise on the same account implicate, not entail, that Dana in fact survived. While additional support has been marshaled for this “radical pragmatic” line, one persistent problem acknowledged by Sadock and not dispelled since is the resistance of the almost $\phi$ →  not $\phi$ implication to cancelation. New evidence for and against Sadock’s approach and competing analyses of the proximatives is considered and a solution presented.