Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:54:43.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

De la sémantique du or affectif et des coordinations elliptiques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

J.-Marc Authier
J.-Marc Authier*
Affiliation:
Université d’Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Parmi les analyses récentes dont le but est de rendre compte de la distribution des lexèmes à polarité négative (LPN) en anglais, comme par exemple les faits contrastifs concernant any en (1a) vs (1b), deux traitements radicalement opposés retiennent l’attention du linguiste.

    1. a. Paul didn’t catch any fish today.

    2. b. *Paul caught any fish today.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , December 1990 , pp. 317 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Références

Baker, Carl L. 1970 Double Negatives. Linguistic Inquiry 1:169–186.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark 1988 Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg N. 1981 Distribution of Free-Choice Any. Pp. 8–23 dans Proceedings of CLS 17. Hendrick, Roberta, Masek, Carrie, and Miller, Mary Frances, réds. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles 1975 Polarity and the Scale Principle. Pp. 188–199 dans Proceedings of CLS 11. Grossman, Robin, San, James, and Vance, Timothy, réds. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles 1979 Theoretical Implications of Some Global Phenomena in Syntax. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert 1974 Semantic Conditions on Surface Structure. Thèse de doctorat, MIT.Google Scholar
Heggie, Lorie Ann 1988 The Syntax of Copular Structures. Thèse de doctorat, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Hudson, R.A. 1982 Incomplete Conjuncts. Linguistic Inquiry 13:547–550 Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William A. 1980 On The Notion Affective in the Analysis of Negative Polarity Items. Journal of Linguistic Research 1:1–16.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William A. 1983 Logical Form and Conditions on Grammaticality. Linguistics and Philosophy 6:373–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, Erich 1977 Semantik der Koordinativen Verknüpfung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1985 On the Syntax of Disjunction Scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3:217–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeGrand, Jean E. 1975 Or and Any: The Semantics and Syntax of Two Logical Operators. Thèse de doctorat, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Linebarger, Marcia 1987 Negative Polarity and Grammatical Representation. Linguistic and Philosophy 10:325–387.Google Scholar
Pelletier, Francis J. 1977 Or. Theoretical Linguistics 4:61–74.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana 1988 A Binding Approach to Polarity Sensitivity. Thèse de doctorat, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana 1990 Free-Choice Bilo in Serbo-Croatian: Existential or Universal? Linguistic Inquiry 21:130–135.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. 1952 Methods of Logic. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats, and Partee, Barbara 1982 Conjunction, Type Ambiguity and Wide Scope Or . Pp. 353–362 dans Proceedings of WCCFL 1. Flickenger, Daniel, Macken, Marlys and Wiegand, Nancy, réds. Palo Alto: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Siegel, Muffy 1984 Gapping and Interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry 15:523–530.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas 1979 Anaphora in Generative Grammar. Ghent: Story-Scientia.Google Scholar