Chapter published in:
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

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
Published online: 12 April 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.210.06hoe
References

References

Atlas, Jay D.
2005 Logic, meaning, and conversation. Semantical undeterminacy, implicature and their interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef
1996 Directionality and logical form. On the scope of focusing particles and wh-in-situ. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crain, Stephen
2012 The emergence of meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia
1998 Polarity sensitivity as (non) veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Dutch ENIG: From nonveridicality to downward entailment. Natural language & linguistic theory 28(4). 837–859. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit & Fred Landman
1993 Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(4). 353–422. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koppen, Marjo van & Crit Cremers
2008 Boolean agreement in Tegelen Dutch. Lingua 118. 1064–1079. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana
1994 Negative and positive polarity: A binding approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna
2004 Positive polarity–negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 409–452. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna & Bill Haddican
2004 Conjunction meets negation: A atudy in cross‐linguistic variation. Journal of Semantics 21(3). 219–249. CrossrefGoogle 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