Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 11: Selected papers from the 44th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), London, Ontario
Edited by Silvia Perpiñán, David Heap, Itziri Moreno-Villamar and Adriana Soto-Corominas
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 11] 2017
► pp. 53–75

Chapter 3
How French sheds new light on scalar particles

| Harvard University

This paper examines the behavior of the French scalar focus-sensitive particles même, quand même, ne serait-ce que, and seulement as compared to English even and only. I first show that French même displays a more restricted distribution than even; this behavior and that of its antonym quand même argue for the scope theory against the ambiguity theory of even. Secondly, I demonstrate that the behavior of ne serait-ce que and seulement reveal the existence of an intrinsic link between even-like particles and only-like particles. To capture this observation, and more generally the organic relation between scalar particles, I propose a new, parsimonious, theory that builds scalarity, additivity, and exclusivity of scalar particles into a conjunctive or disjunctive meaning.

Keywords: scalarity, focus, even , only , French
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.How même and quand même argue in favor of the scope theory
    • 2.1Background: The two theories of even and their issues
    • 2.2 French même
    • 2.3 French quand même
  • 3.How French scalar particles reveal an intrinsic link between even and only
    • 3.1 Ne serait-ce que
    • 3.2 Seulement
    • 3.3Crosslinguistic link between even and only
  • 4.A new theory of scalar particles
    • 4.1 French seulement
    • 4.2 French même, quand même, ne serait-ce que
    • 4.3Crosslinguistic consequences
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.11.03cha
References
Beaver, David I., and Brady Z. Clark
2008 Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Blackwell Pub. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crnič, Luka
2011  Getting even. MIT Dissertation.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker, and Johan van der Auwera
2011 “Scalar Additive Operators in the Languages of Europe.” Language 87 (1): 2–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia
2007 “The Landscape of EVEN.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25 (1): 39–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guerzoni, Elena
2003 Why Even Ask? On the Pragmatics of Questions and the Semantics of Answers. MIT Dissertation.Google Scholar
Herburger, Elena
2000 What Counts: Focus and Quantification, vol. 36. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack, and Hotze Rullmann
2001 “Scalarity and Polarity: a Study of Scalar Adverbs as Polarity Items”. In Perspectives on Negation and Polarity, ed. by Jack Hoeksema et al., 129–171. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R.
1971 “Negative Transportation: Unsafe at any Speed”. CLS 7: 120–133.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri, and Stanley Peters
1979 “Conventional Implicature.” In Syntax and Semantics, ed. by C.-K. Oh, and D. A. Dinneen, vol. 11, 1–56. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Klinedinst, Nathan
2004 “Only Scalar Only .” Handout at Presupposition and Implicature Workshop, Paris.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard
1991 The Meaning of Focus Particles. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, Utpal
1998 “Focus and Negative Polarity in Hindi.” Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Jean-Yves, and Thomas E. Zimmermann
1981 “Mehrdimensionale Semantik. Die Präsuppositionen und die Kontextabhängigkeit von nur [Multidimensional Semantics. The Presuppositions and Context Dependency of nur ].” Arbeitspapier des Sonderforschungsbereichs 99. Universität KonstanzGoogle Scholar
Nakanishi, Kimiko
2006 “ Even, Only, and Negative Polarity in Japanese.” Proceedings of SALT 16: 138–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1985 Association with Focus. University of Massachusetts, Amherst Dissertation.Google Scholar
1992 “A Theory of Focus Interpretation.” Natural Language Semantics 1 (1): 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze
1997 “ Even, Polarity, and Scope.” Papers in Experimental and Theoretical Linguistics 4: 40–64.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Bernhard
2005 “Scalar Additive Particles in Negative Contexts.” Natural Language Semantics 13: 125–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shank, Scott
2002 “ Just and its Negative Polarity Variants in Salish.” Ms. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Tomaszewicz, Barbara M.
2012 “A Scalar Opposite of Scalar Only .” Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics: 324–334.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Karina
1996 “The Scope of Even .” Natural Language Semantics 4: 193–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, Franz
1998 “Three Types of Polarity.” In Plurality and Quantification, ed. by F. Hamm, and E. Hinrichs, vol. 69, 177–238. Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Greenberg, Yael
2022. On the scalar antonymy of only and even. Natural Language Semantics 30:4 ► pp. 415 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.