Conditional analysis of clausal exceptives

Vostrikova, Ekaterina V.

doi:10.1007/s11050-021-09177-z

Cited by 3 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 Notably, the classic phrasal analysis was initially designed for exceptives introduced by but, like the one in (1a). Such exceptive constructions cannot accommodate modal phrases, as shown in (1b), providing support for the phrasal analysis (Vostrikova 2021).…”

Section: A Clausal Analysismentioning

confidence: 70%

“…Furthermore, Vostrikova (2019Vostrikova ( , 2021 observes that NPIs are licensed inside except-clauses providing exceptions to positive every-claims but are not licensed in except-clauses providing exceptions to negative claims, as the contrast between the two sentences in (5) shows.…”

Section: A Clausal Analysismentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The phrasal analysis contrasts with the clausal analysis, which suggests that the occurrence of possibly in (1) is expected, as except can also contain traces of a clausal structure, making it a clausal exceptive (Vostrikova 2019(Vostrikova , 2021Potsdam & Polinsky 2019). In (4a), what follows except is a PP, and in (4b), except hosts two distinct syntactic elements that do not form one syntactic constituent (Moltmann 1995;Vostrikova 2021).…”

Section: A Clausal Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given this structure, local NPI licensing by negation is predicted in (6a). However, due to the absence of negation in the except-clause and the position of any not being in a downward entailing environment globally in (6b) (see von Fintel 1994;Vostrikova 2021), NPI licensing is not expected.…”

Section: A Clausal Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Everyone except possibly Ann

Mayr,

Vostrikova

2024

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper deals with the interaction of modals and exceptives as in Every student passed, except possibly Ann. Arguments are put forward motivating a parse for at least some such sentences combining features of the two standard analyses for exceptive constructions, namely the phrasal and clausal analyses. A novel approach based on the well-known idea of exception as set subtraction coupled with exhaustification contributed by an operator EXH is proposed. Crucially, on this approach the prejacent S of EXH is conjoined with [ modal EXH S ]. That is, the modal is only present in the second conjunct where it takes scope over the clause EXH S, which is partially elided. This leads us to consider further data suggesting that the EXH used in such constructions does not assert the prejacent but rather only excludes alternatives. That is, it is the first conjunct alone that contributes assertion of the prejacent.

show abstract

Section: A Clausal Analysismentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: A Clausal Analysismentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: A Clausal Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Clausal Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Everyone except possibly Ann

Mayr,

Vostrikova

2024

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This difference has no bearing on the point being made. Since von Fintel ( 1993 ) other accounts of exceptive constructions have been proposed, most of which also explain the ill-formedness of (7b) by reducing it to a contradiction (Gajewski, 2008b ; 2013 ; Crnič, 2021 ; Vostrikova, 2021 ), but some of which explain it in other ways (Moltmann, 1995 ; Hirsch, 2016 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Logicality and the picture theory of language

Trinh

2024

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I argue that there is tension in Wittgenstein’s position on trivialities (i.e. tautologies and contradictions) in the Tractatus, as it contains the following claims: (A) sentences are pictures; (B) trivialties are not pictures; (C) trivialities are sentences. A and B follow from the “picture theory” of language which Wittgenstein proposes, while C contradicts it. I discuss a way to resolve this tension in light of Logicality, a hypothesis recently developed in linguistic research. Logicality states that trivialities are excluded by the grammar, and that under the right analysis sentences which look trivial are in fact contingent. The tools necessary to support Logicality, I submit, were not available to Wittgenstein at the time, which explains his commitment to C. I end the paper by commenting on some points of contact between analytic philosophy and the generative enterprise in linguistics which are brought into relief by the discussion.

show abstract

The syntax of exceptive constructions in Arabic

Saeed

2023

ALing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the underlying structure of exceptive constructions with the Arabic exceptive marker ’illā and reveals the existence of two types of constructions: r(estrictive)-exceptives and s(ubtractive)-exceptives. The underlying factor that distinguishes these two constructions relates to the existence of a subtraction domain in s-exceptive constructions and its absence in r-exceptives. This distinction suggests that the exceptive marker ’illā ‘except' has a different syntactic function in these two constructions. Furthermore, this difference in the functional status of ’illā suggests a different internal and external structure of the ’illā-XP in each of these constructions. I argue that while the ’illā-XP in r-exceptive constructions projects a R-ExP, involving a covert antecedent in the form of the NPIs ’aḥad ‘one' or shay’ ‘thing’ and is a nominal adjunct, in s-exceptive constructions the ’illā-XP forms an S-ExP and can be classified into connected and free exceptives.

show abstract

Conditional analysis of clausal exceptives

Cited by 3 publications

References 43 publications

Everyone except possibly Ann

Everyone except possibly Ann

Logicality and the picture theory of language

The syntax of exceptive constructions in Arabic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About