Cover not available
Part of
Crossroads Semantics: Computation, experiment and grammar
Edited by Hilke Reckman, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng, Maarten Hijzelendoorn and Rint Sybesma
[Not in series 210] 2017
► pp. 93–106

Chapter 6
Polarity licensing and intervention by conjunction

| University of Groningen
The licensing of polarity items by negation and other operators may be disrupted by an intervening conjunction. Conjunction intervenes when the polarity item is a conjunct or part of a conjunct, and negation or another licensor is outside the conjunction, having scope over it. Intervention effects on the licensing of polarity items have been studied at least since Linebarger (1980), but not much empirical research has been done on the peculiar problems posed by intervention by conjunction. In this paper, I present evidence from corpus data (from English, Dutch and German) that the intervention effect noted in the literature is not always absolute and sometimes even nonexistent. Asymmetric types of conjunction are an important exception, and for a variety of polarity items even regular conjunction does not lead to any disruption of licensing.
Keywords: Polarity, negation, intervention, conjunction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Chierchia’s account
  • 3.Asymmetric conjunction
  • 4.Polarity items in conjunctions
  • 5.Movement of NPIs: A way out?
  • 6.Further problems
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.210.06hoe
References (47)
References
Atlas, Jay D. 2005. Logic, meaning, and conversation. Semantical undeterminacy, implicature and their interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1996. Directionality and logical form. On the scope of focusing particles and wh-in-situ. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. Logic in grammar. Polarity, free choice and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crain, Stephen. 2012. The emergence of meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cremers, Crit. 1993. On parsing coordination categorially. Leiden University dissertation.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1988. Type raising, functional composition, and nonconstituent conjunction. In Emmon Bach, Richard T. Oehrle & Deirdre Wheeler (eds.), Categorial grammars and natural language structures, 153–197. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975. Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry 6(3), 353–375.Google Scholar
Fintel, Kai von. 1999. NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of semantics 16(2). 97–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1981. Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 155–184.Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2007. Existential import. In Ileana Comorovski and Klaus von Heusinger (eds.), Existence: semantics and syntax, 253–271. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
. 2010. Quantity implicatures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non) veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Positive polarity items and negative polarity items: variation, licensing, and compositionality. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1985. A principled exception to the coordinate structure constraint. In William H. Eilfort, Paul D. Kroeber & Karen L. Peterson (eds.), CLS 21, Part 1: Papers from the general session, 133–143. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Goro, Takuya & Sachie Akiba. 2004. The acquisition of disjunction and positive polarity in Japanese. In G. Garding and M. Tsujimura, Proceedings of WCCFL 23, 101–114. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Guerzoni, Elena. 2006. Intervention effects on NPIs and feature movement: towards a unified account of intervention. Natural Language Semantics 14(4). 359–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hagstrom, Paul. 2008. Intervention and NPIs (Guerzoni 2006). Unpublished manuscript, Boston University.Google Scholar
Haslinger, Irene & Marjo van Koppen. 2002–3. De verbale hendiadys als pseudocoördinatie. Taal en Tongval 15–16. 102–122.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 1988. The semantics of non-Boolean and. Journal of Semantics 6(1). 19–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Dutch ENIG: From nonveridicality to downward entailment. Natural language & linguistic theory 28(4). 837–859. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack & Hotze Rullmann, 2001. Scalarity and polarity. In Jack Hoeksema, Hotze Rullmann Victor Sanchez-Valencia and Ton van der Wouden (eds.), Perspectives on negation and polarity items, 129–171. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jong, Franciska de & Henk Verkuyl. 1985. Generalized quantifiers: the properness of their strength. In Johan van Benthem & Alice ter Meulen, (eds.) Generalized quantifiers in natural language, 21–43. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit & Fred Landman. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(4). 353–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koppen, Marjo van & Crit Cremers. 2008. Boolean agreement in Tegelen Dutch. Lingua 118. 1064–1079. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25(3–4). 209–257.Google Scholar
Kürschner, Wilfried. 1983. Studien zur negation im Deutschen. Gunter Narr, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William A. 1980. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Linebarger, Marcia. 1980. The grammar of negative polarity. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Linebarger, Marcia C. 1987. Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10(3). 325–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1994. Negative and positive polarity: A binding approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert, 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Russell, Benjamin. 2006. Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 23(4). 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Valencia, Victor. 1991. Studies on natural logic and categorial grammar. University of Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2012. The computation of scalar implicatures: Pragmatic, lexical or grammatical? Language and Linguistics Compass 6(1). 36–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmerling, Susan F. 1975. Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol 3: Speech Acts, 211–232. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Spector, Benjamin. 2014. Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semantics and Pragmatics 7(11). 1–61.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark J. 1985. Dependency and coördination in the grammar of Dutch and English. Language 61(3). 523–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2004. Positive polarity–negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 409–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna & Frans Zwarts. 1991. Unbounded dependencies and algebraic semantics. Lecture notes for the 3rd European Summer School in Language, Logic and Information, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
. 1993. Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking. Natural Language Semantics 1(3). 235–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna & Bill Haddican, 2004. Conjunction meets negation: A atudy in cross‐linguistic variation. Journal of Semantics 21(3). 219–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandeweghe, Willy. 1980. Ook maar X. Studia Germanica Gandensia 21. 15–56.Google Scholar
Wouden, Ton van der. 1994. Negative contexts. University of Groningen dissertation.Google Scholar
, 1997. Negative contexts: Collocation, polarity and multiple negation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Frans. 1986a. Categoriale grammatica en algebraïsche semantiek. Een onderzoek naar negatie en polariteit in het Nederlands. University of Groningen dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1986b. Polariteit: De reikwijdte van een lexicale eigenschap. In Cor Hoppenbrouwers, Ineke Schuurman, Ron van Zonneveld & Frans Zwarts (eds.), Syntaxis en lexicon, 157–192. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar