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 (22)
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 (1)

Cited by one other publication

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 16 july 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.