Broaden Your Views: Implicatures of Domain Widening and the Logicality of Language

This article presents a unified theory of polarity-sensitive items (PSIs) based on the notion of domain widening. PSIs include negative polarity items (like Italian mai ever), universal free choice items (like Italian qualunque any/whatever), and existential free choice items (like Italian uno qualunque a whatever). The proposal is based on a recursive, grammatically driven approach to scalar implicatures that breaks with the traditional view that scalar implicatures arise via post- grammatical pragmatic processes. The main claim is that scalar items optionally activate scalar alternatives that, when activated, are then recursively factored into meaning via an alternative sensitive operator similar to only. PSIs obligatorily activate domain alternatives that are factored into meaning in much the same way.

[1]  Jean Ehrenkranz Legrand.  Or and any : the semantics and syntax of two logical operators , 1975 .

[2]  C. L. Hamblin.  QUESTIONS IN MONTAGUE ENGLISH , 1976 .

[3]  Gerald Gazdar,et al.  Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form , 1978 .

[4]  G. Gazdar,et al.  Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics: Peter Cole, ed., New York: Academic Press. 1978. pp. xii + 340. , 1980 .

[5]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Semantic analysis of wh-complements , 1982 .

[6]  Mats Rooth.  Association with focus , 1985 .

[7]  Laurence R. Horn.  A Natural History of Negation , 1989 .

[8]  D. Over,et al.  Studies in the Way of Words. , 1989 .

[9]  Dag Westerstaåhl,et al.  Quantifiers in Formal and Natural Languages , 1989 .

[10]  I. Laka.  Negation in syntax--on the nature of functional categories and projections , 1990 .

[11]  L. T. F. Gamut.  Logic, language, and meaning , 1991 .

[12]  L. T. F. Gamut.  Intensional logic and logical grammar , 1991 .

[13]  A. Avramides.  Studies in the Way of Words , 1992 .

[14]  Mats Rooth.  A theory of focus interpretation , 1992, Natural Language Semantics.

[15]  Alice ter Meulen,et al.  Genericity: An Introduction , 1995 .

[16]  Francis Jeffry Pelletier,et al.  The Generic book , 1997 .

[17]  Fred Landman,et al.  Plurals and Maximalization , 1998 .

[18]  M. Dalrymple,et al.  Reciprocal Expressions and the Concept of Reciprocity , 1998 .

[19]  Utpal Lahiri.  Focus and Negative Polarity in Hindi , 1998 .

[20]  Veneeta Dayal,et al.  Any as Inherently Modal , 1998 .

[21]  Kai von Fintel,et al.  NPI Licensing, Strawson Entailment, and Context Dependency , 1999, J. Semant..

[22]  O. Percus.  Constraints on Some Other Variables in Syntax , 2000 .

[23]  Anastasia Giannakidou,et al.  The Meaning of Free Choice , 2001 .

[24]  Kjell Johan Saeboe.  The Semantics Of Scandinavian Free Choice Items , 2001 .

[25]  Susan Rothstein.  Events and Grammar , 2001 .

[26]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of Philosophical Logic Vol. 10 , 2001 .

[27]  Angelika Kratzer.  Scalar Implicatures: Are There Any? , 2003 .

[28]  M. Krifka,et al.  The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polarity Items , 2003 .

[29]  Luigi Rizzi,et al.  Locality and Left Periphery , 2004 .

[30]  Adriana Belletti,et al.  Structures and beyond , 2004 .

[31]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  Scalar Implicatures in Complex Sentences , 2004 .

[32]  Paula Menéndez-Benito,et al.  The Grammar of Choice , 2007 .

[33]  J. Hoeksema.  Dutch ENIG: from nonveridicality to downward entailment , 2010 .

[34]  Adrian Brasoveanu,et al.  Donkey pluralities: plural information states versus non-atomic individuals , 2008 .

[35]  A. Kratzer.  The Notional Category of Modality , 2008 .