Chapter published in:
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. 5375
References
Beaver, David I., and Brady Z. Clark
2008Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Blackwell Pub. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia
2007 “The Landscape of EVEN.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25 (1): 39–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guerzoni, Elena
2003Why Even Ask? On the Pragmatics of Questions and the Semantics of Answers. MIT Dissertation.Google Scholar
Herburger, Elena
2000What 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. CrossrefGoogle 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
1991The Meaning of Focus Particles. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, Utpal
1998 “Focus and Negative Polarity in Hindi.” Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1985Association with Focus. University of Massachusetts, Amherst Dissertation.Google Scholar
1992 “A Theory of Focus Interpretation.” Natural Language Semantics 1 (1): 75–116. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, Franz
1998 “Three Types of Polarity.” In Plurality and Quantification, ed. by F. Hamm, and E. Hinrichs, vol. 69, 177–238. Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar