A unified approach to split scope

Abels, Klaus; Martí, Luisa

doi:10.1007/s11050-010-9060-8

Cited by 33 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As has been observed by DE SWART (2000) and ABELS & MARTÍ (2010), split scope readings do not only arise with negative quantifiers, but also with other downward monotonic quantifiers like few and numerals modified by fewer than or at most. This is illustrated in the following examples.…”

Section: From Potts 2000]supporting

confidence: 61%

“…This split reading cannot be derived under the standard analysis of negative indefinites as negative quantifiers where the negation and the existential quantifier form a lexical unit. Several analyses have been proposed, some maintaining the assumption that negative quantifiers are lexical units (DE SWART 2000;ABELS & MARTÍ 2010) others decomposing them into a negation and an indefinite (among others JACOBS 1980;RULLMANN 1995;PENKA 2011).…”

Section: From Potts 2000]mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Studies on Negation

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: From Potts 2000]supporting

confidence: 61%

Section: From Potts 2000]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Studies on Negation

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…b. Negation never lowers at LF; it is interpreted in its surface position and may only raise to a higher position at LF if it moves along with another, independently raising element (see Horn 1989, Penka and von Stechow 2001, Zeijlstra 2004, Abels and Martí 2010, Penka 2010). c. Deontic modals are base-generated lower than I 0 .…”

Section: Q2: How Do Deontic Modals Take Scope With Respect To Negatiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Negation, Polarity, and Deontic Modals

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Universal deontic modals may vary with respect to whether they scope over or under negation. For instance, English modals like must and should take wide scope with respect to negation; modals like have to and need to take narrow scope. Similar patterns have been attested in other languages. In this article, we argue that the scopal properties of modals with respect to negation can be understood if (a) modals that outscope negation are positive polarity items ( PPIs); (b) all modals originate in a position lower than I 0 ; and (c) modals undergo reconstruction unless reconstruction leads to a PPI-licensing violation.

show abstract

“…With certain quantifiers, Abels & Martí's (2010) Suppose that a choice function variable combines with the restriction below the modal and below negation. Must takes semantic scope over negation; whether must is syntactically higher than negation (as claimed in Section 3) or achieves wide scope through a homogeneity inference (assuming, contrary to fact, that deontic must is a neg-raiser) doesn't change the prediction.…”

Section: A Appendixmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neg-raising and positive polarity: The view from modals

Homer¹

2015

S&P

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article shows that the deontic modals must, should and supposed to are all Positive Polarity Items which can raise in order to avoid being in an anti-licensing environment; it also establishes that should has a dual nature, i.e., it is not just a PPI, but it is also a neg-raising predicate, which can achieve wide scope through a homogeneity inference, and that supposed to, also a PPI, exhibits a neg-raising behavior under certain pragmatic conditions which shed new light on the neg-raising phenomenon.

show abstract

A unified approach to split scope

Cited by 33 publications

References 17 publications

Studies on Negation

Studies on Negation

Negation, Polarity, and Deontic Modals

Neg-raising and positive polarity: The view from modals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About