NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency

Abstract

The Fauconnier-Ladusaw analysis of negative polarity licensing (that NPIs are licensed in the scope of downward entailing operators) continues to be the benchmark theory of negative polarity. In this paper, I consider some of the moves that are needed to maintain its basic intuition in some recalcitrant arenas: negative polarity licensing by only, adversatives, superlatives, and conditionals. We will see that one has to (i) use a notion of entailment that I call Strawson Entailment, which deals with presuppositions in a particular way, and (ii) prohibit (even natural) context change during an inference. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how to justify these constraints and to see in detail how the semantics of the problematic constructions has to work in order for these moves to successfully rescue the Fauconnier-Ladusaw analysis. I will first show the two assumptions at work in the analysis of NPI licensing by only and adversatives (building on proposals by Kadmon & Landman). I then turn to NPI licensing in the antecedent of conditionals. The standard Stalnaker-Lewis semantics for conditionals-ifp, q is true iff q is true in the closest p-woild(s)-might make one suspect that once one has an explanation for NPI licensing by superlatives, that would immediately deliver an explanation for NPI licensing in conditionals. But it turns out that the particular analysis that seems appropriate for NPI licensing by superlatives cannot plausibly carry over to conditionals. Instead, one does better by appealing to an alternative analysis of conditionals, one that I have elsewhere argued for on independent grounds. I BASICS Negative polarity items (NPIs) are expressions that can prototypically occur in the semantic scope of negation but not in 'positive' environments. Two examples are arty and ever. (1) a. I don't think we have any potatoes. #1 think we have any. potatoes, b. I don't think there will ever be another Aristotle. #1 think there will ever be another Aristotle. Since NPIs occur not just in the scope of negation but also in a variety of other 'affective' environments (the term is due to Klima 1964), one needs a theory of NPI licensing. Building on an idea from Fauconnier (1975, 1979),

Spotting, collecting and documenting negative polarity items

“…However, her approach is suitable for the Greek kanenas-indefinites, which have a distribution that is essentially broader than that of any or brauchen 'need'. Another attempt to remedy the shortcomings of the Standard DE theory is made by von Fintel (1999), who applies a more restricted, presupposition-dependent notion of entailment (Strawsonentailment), which is also used by Condoravdi (2010).…”

On root modality and thematic relations in Tagalog and English

“…Additionally, we assume that NEED's prejacent and its negation must both be compatible with the modal base, as assumed for want (cf. Heim 1992, von Fintel 1999. Our denotation for NEED is given in (32).…”

Negation and polarity: an introduction

“…More precisely, the validity of entailment inferences has to be judged in situations in which the presuppositions of the conclusion are fulfilled. von Fintel (1999) proposes that this notion of downward entailment where the presuppositions of the consequent are taken to be true, called 'Strawson downward entailment',3 is the one relevant for NPI licensing. This accounts for the licensing of NPIs in the scope of only.…”

“…While these contexts have often figured in specific analyses of NPI licensing (e.g., Linebarger 1987;Zwarts 1995;von Fintel 1999), Condoravdi offers the first systematic and comprehensive account. She shows that occurrences of NPIs in temporal clauses headed by before, after, since, and until can be reduced entirely to standard accounts of NPI licensing.…”