Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:23:14.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anyone for non-scalarity?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2010

PATRICK J. DUFFLEY  and
PIERRE LARRIVÉE
PATRICK J. DUFFLEY
Affiliation:
Département de langues, linguistique et traduction, 1030, avenue des Sciences-Humaines, Université Laval, Québec, QC, G1V 0A6, [email protected]
PIERRE LARRIVÉE
Affiliation:
School of Languages and Social Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the status of scalarity in the analysis of the meaning of the English determiner any. The latter's position as a prime exemplar of the category of polarity-sensitive items has led it to be generally assumed to have scalar meaning. Scalar effects are, however, absent from a number of common uses of this word. This suggests that any does not involve scales as part of its core meaning, but produces them as a derived interpretative property. The role of three factors in the derivation of the expressive effect of scalarity is explored: grammatical number, stress and the presence of gradable concepts in the NP. The general conclusions point to the importance of developing a causal semantic analysis in which the contributions of each of the various meaningful components of an utterance to the overall message expressed are carefully distinguished.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 1 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Beaver, David I. & Clark, Brady Z.. 2008. Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the ‘logicality’ of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 535–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 1998. Any as inherently modal. Linguistics and Philosophy 21, 433–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2004. The universal force of free choice any. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4, 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 2005. Free choice in Romanian. In Birner, Betty J. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn, 71–94. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975. Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry 6, 353–75.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1978. Implication reversal in a natural language. In Guenthner, Franz & Schmidt, S. J. (eds.), Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural language, 289–301. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Kit. 1985. Reasoning with arbitrary objects. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2001. The meaning of free choice. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (6), 659–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2007. The landscape of even. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25 (1), 39–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerzoni, Elena. 2004. Even-NPIs in yes/no questions. Natural Language Semantics 12, 319–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier. 1998. Rhetorical questions, relevance and scales. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11, 139–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutierrez-Rexach, Javier & Schwenter, Scott. 2002. Propositional NPIs and the scalar nature of polarity. In Gutierrez-Rexach, Javier (ed.), From words to discourse: Trends in Spanish semantics and pragmatics, 237–62. Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1984. A note on negative polarity and downward entailingness. NELS 14, 98–107.Google Scholar
Hirst, Daniel. 1977. Emphatic intonation in generative grammar. In Séguinot, André (ed.), L'accent d'insistance, 123–36. Montreal: Didier.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack & Rullmann, Hotze. 2001. Scalarity and polarity: A study of scalar adverbs as polarity items. In Hoeksema, Jack, Rullmann, Hotze, Sanchez-Valencia, Victor & Van der Wouden, Ton (eds.), Perspectives on negation and polarity items, 129–71. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 2000a. Pick a theory (not just any theory): Indiscriminatives and the free-choice indefinite. In Horn, Laurence R. & Kato, Yasuhiko (eds.), Negation and polarity: Syntactic and semantic perspectives, 147–92. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 2000b. Any and (-)ever: Free choice and free relatives. MS Yale University. 39 pages. Appeared in 2001 in Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics, 71–111.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 2005. Airport ’86 revisited: Toward a unified indefinite any. In Carlson, Gregory N. & Pelletier, Francis Jeffrey (eds.), The Partee effect, 179–205. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Israel, Michael. 1998. The rhetoric of grammar: Scalar reasoning and polarity sensitivity. PhD dissertation, University of California in San Diego.Google Scholar
Jayez, Jacques and Tovena, Lucia. 2004. Free choiceness and non-individuation. Linguistics and Philosophy 28, 1–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit & Landman, Fred. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 353–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika and Shimoyama, Junko. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. Paper presented at the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 1–25.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25, 209–57.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1979. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Published New York: Garland, 1980.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Utpal. 1998. Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6, 57–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, Utpal. 2001. Even-incorporated NPIs in Hindi definites and correlatives: Perspectives on negation and polarity items. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and plurality. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Larrivée, Pierre. 2007a. Du tout au rien: libre-choix et polarité négative. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Larrivée, Pierre. 2007b. La scalarité des indéfinis à sélection arbitraire. Travaux de linguistique 54, 94–107.Google Scholar
Lee, Young-Suk & Horn, Laurence R., 1995. Any as indefinite plus even. MS Yale University.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quer, Josep. 1998. Mood at the interface. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Rohrbaugh, Eugene. 2007. The role of focus in the licensing and interpretation of negative polarity items. In Forget, D. et al. (eds.), Negation and polarity: Syntax and semantics, 311–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saeboe, Kjell Johan. 2001. The semantics of Scandinavian free choice items. Linguistics and Philosophy 24, 737–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tovena, Lucia M. & Jayez, Jacques. 1999. Any: From scalarity to arbitrariness. In Corblin, F., Dobrovie-Sorin, C. & Marandin, J. M. (eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics 2, 39–57. The Hague: Thesus.Google Scholar
van Rooy, Robert. 2003. Negative polarity items in questions: Strength as relevance. Journal of Semantics 20 (3), 239–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zepter, Alex. 2003. How to be universal when you are existential: Entailment along a scale. Journal of Semantics 20, 193–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar