Knowledge

Downward entailing

Source đź“ť

80:(the upward-entailing context does not license such a polarity item). This approach explains many but not all typical cases of polarity item sensitivity. Subsequent attempts to describe the behavior of polarity items rely on a broader notion of 31:) propositional operator is one that constrains the meaning of an expression to a lower number or degree than would be possible without the expression. For example, "not," "nobody," "few people," "at most two boys." Conversely, an 164:
Giannakidou (2002) argues that Strawson-DE allows not just the presupposition of the evaluated sentence but just any arbitrary proposition to count as relevant. This results in over-generalization that validates the use if
54:"John ran," but not conversely. But a downward-entailing context reverses this strength; for example, the proposition "At most two boys ran" entails that "At most two boys ran fast" but not the other way around. 57:
An upward-entailing operator preserves the relation of semantic strength among a set of expressions; for example "more than three ran fast" entails "more than three ran" but not the other way around.
35:
operator constrains the meaning of an expression to a higher number or degree, for example "more than one." A context that is neither downward nor upward entailing is
108:
This is not a downward-entailing context because the above proposition does not entail “Only John ate kale for breakfast” (John may have eaten spinach, for example).
115:
does not exhibit the classical DE pattern, it can be shown to be DE in a special way. He defines a notion of Strawson-DE for expressions that come with
32: 259: 319: 793: 661: 328: 285:
CLS 38: Papers from the 38th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Parasession on Polarity and Negation
748: 869: 743: 402: 312: 521: 342: 407: 77: 889: 551: 372: 221: 894: 844: 606: 495: 305: 949: 813: 392: 944: 490: 216: 51: 974: 646: 616: 591: 531: 430: 362: 277: 874: 768: 733: 621: 596: 440: 357: 859: 666: 445: 278:"Licensing and sensitivity in polarity items: from downward entailment to nonveridicality" 8: 939: 854: 798: 701: 686: 656: 636: 611: 480: 465: 174: 1005: 984: 909: 884: 829: 758: 738: 676: 671: 581: 571: 556: 500: 253: 297: 267:
Von Fintel, Kai (1999). "NPI-Licensing, Strawson-Entailment, and Context-Dependency".
964: 919: 904: 864: 803: 773: 753: 546: 475: 1010: 969: 899: 788: 566: 778: 681: 576: 541: 116: 81: 959: 954: 879: 763: 641: 536: 377: 170: 60:
Ladusaw (1980) proposed that downward entailment is the property that licenses
999: 651: 626: 460: 226: 61: 914: 839: 706: 586: 470: 450: 231: 834: 808: 691: 455: 382: 17: 979: 631: 397: 352: 347: 783: 601: 526: 505: 435: 387: 367: 20: 696: 485: 46:
among expressions. An expression like "run fast" is semantically
68:" is downward entailing and admits the negative polarity item 561: 283:. In Maria Andronis; Anne Pycha; Keiko Yoshimura (eds.). 169:
in contexts where it is, in fact, ungrammatical, such as
327: 136:
Here, (2) is the intended presupposition. For example:
42:
A downward-entailing operator reverses the relation of
206:* Both students who saw anything reported to the Dean. 92:
Downward entailment does not explain the licensing of
203:* Each student who saw anything reported to the Dean. 997: 794:Segmented discourse representation theory (SDRT) 246:Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations 50:than the expression "run" since "John ran fast" 313: 149:Therefore, only John ate kale for breakfast. 275: 146:Only John ate any vegetables for breakfast. 104:Only John ate any vegetables for breakfast. 320: 306: 266: 258:: CS1 maint: location missing publisher ( 157:is a Strawson-DE and therefore licenses 243: 111:Von Fintel (1999) claims that although 998: 119:. The reasoning scheme is as follows: 749:Discourse representation theory (DRT) 301: 662:Quantificational variability effect 329:Formal semantics (natural language) 13: 14: 1022: 96:in certain contexts such as with 143:Somebody ate kale for breakfast. 276:Giannakidou, Anastasia (2002). 744:Combinatory categorial grammar 87: 1: 522:Antecedent-contained deletion 237: 189:* It was John who talked to 7: 210: 10: 1027: 403:Syntax–semantics interface 222:Monotonicity of entailment 39:, such as "exactly five." 932: 895:Question under discussion 845:Conversational scoreboard 822: 726: 719: 622:Intersective modification 607:Homogeneity (linguistics) 514: 423: 416: 335: 244:Ladusaw, William (1980). 132:Therefore, ] (P) is true. 950:Distributional semantics 945:Computational semantics 687:Subsective modification 491:Propositional attitudes 217:Entailment (pragmatics) 975:Philosophy of language 617:Inalienable possession 597:Free choice inferences 592:Faultless disagreement 363:Generalized quantifier 173:, preposed exhaustive 64:. Indeed, "Nobody saw 875:Plural quantification 769:Inquisitive semantics 734:Alternative semantics 860:Function application 667:Responsive predicate 657:Privative adjectives 269:Journal of Semantics 140:Kale is a vegetable. 940:Cognitive semantics 855:Existential closure 799:Situation semantics 702:Temperature paradox 672:Rising declaratives 637:Modal subordination 612:Hurford disjunction 572:Discourse relations 985:Semantics of logic 910:Strict conditional 885:Quantifier raising 850:Downward entailing 830:Autonomy of syntax 759:Generative grammar 739:Categorial grammar 677:Scalar implicature 582:Epistemic modality 557:De dicto and de re 25:downward entailing 993: 992: 965:Logic translation 928: 927: 920:Universal grinder 905:Squiggle operator 865:Meaning postulate 804:Supervaluationism 774:Intensional logic 754:Dynamic semantics 715: 714: 547:Crossover effects 496:Tense–aspect–mood 476:Lexical semantics 196:* John talked to 126:] (P) is defined. 44:semantic strength 1018: 970:Linguistics wars 900:Semantic parsing 789:Montague grammar 724: 723: 567:Deontic modality 421: 420: 408:Truth conditions 343:Compositionality 336:Central concepts 322: 315: 308: 299: 298: 294: 292: 291: 282: 272: 263: 257: 249: 72:, while *"I saw 33:upward-entailing 1026: 1025: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1017: 1016: 1015: 996: 995: 994: 989: 924: 818: 779:Lambda calculus 711: 682:Sloppy identity 642:Opaque contexts 577:Donkey anaphora 542:Counterfactuals 510: 412: 331: 326: 289: 287: 280: 251: 250: 240: 213: 117:presuppositions 90: 82:nonveridicality 12: 11: 5: 1024: 1014: 1013: 1008: 991: 990: 988: 987: 982: 977: 972: 967: 962: 960:Inferentialism 957: 955:Formal grammar 952: 947: 942: 936: 934: 930: 929: 926: 925: 923: 922: 917: 912: 907: 902: 897: 892: 887: 882: 880:Possible world 877: 872: 867: 862: 857: 852: 847: 842: 837: 832: 826: 824: 820: 819: 817: 816: 811: 806: 801: 796: 791: 786: 781: 776: 771: 766: 764:Glue semantics 761: 756: 751: 746: 741: 736: 730: 728: 727:Formal systems 721: 717: 716: 713: 712: 710: 709: 704: 699: 694: 689: 684: 679: 674: 669: 664: 659: 654: 652:Polarity items 649: 644: 639: 634: 629: 624: 619: 614: 609: 604: 599: 594: 589: 584: 579: 574: 569: 564: 559: 554: 549: 544: 539: 537:Conservativity 534: 529: 524: 518: 516: 512: 511: 509: 508: 503: 501:Quantification 498: 493: 488: 483: 478: 473: 468: 463: 458: 453: 448: 443: 438: 433: 427: 425: 418: 414: 413: 411: 410: 405: 400: 395: 390: 385: 380: 378:Presupposition 375: 370: 365: 360: 355: 350: 345: 339: 337: 333: 332: 325: 324: 317: 310: 302: 296: 295: 273: 264: 248:. Garland, NY. 239: 236: 235: 234: 229: 224: 219: 212: 209: 208: 207: 204: 201: 194: 151: 150: 147: 144: 141: 134: 133: 130: 129:] (Q) is true. 127: 124: 106: 105: 89: 86: 62:polarity items 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1023: 1012: 1009: 1007: 1004: 1003: 1001: 986: 983: 981: 978: 976: 973: 971: 968: 966: 963: 961: 958: 956: 953: 951: 948: 946: 943: 941: 938: 937: 935: 931: 921: 918: 916: 913: 911: 908: 906: 903: 901: 898: 896: 893: 891: 888: 886: 883: 881: 878: 876: 873: 871: 868: 866: 863: 861: 858: 856: 853: 851: 848: 846: 843: 841: 838: 836: 833: 831: 828: 827: 825: 821: 815: 812: 810: 807: 805: 802: 800: 797: 795: 792: 790: 787: 785: 782: 780: 777: 775: 772: 770: 767: 765: 762: 760: 757: 755: 752: 750: 747: 745: 742: 740: 737: 735: 732: 731: 729: 725: 722: 718: 708: 705: 703: 700: 698: 695: 693: 690: 688: 685: 683: 680: 678: 675: 673: 670: 668: 665: 663: 660: 658: 655: 653: 650: 648: 647:Performatives 645: 643: 640: 638: 635: 633: 630: 628: 627:Logophoricity 625: 623: 620: 618: 615: 613: 610: 608: 605: 603: 600: 598: 595: 593: 590: 588: 585: 583: 580: 578: 575: 573: 570: 568: 565: 563: 560: 558: 555: 553: 550: 548: 545: 543: 540: 538: 535: 533: 530: 528: 525: 523: 520: 519: 517: 513: 507: 504: 502: 499: 497: 494: 492: 489: 487: 484: 482: 479: 477: 474: 472: 469: 467: 464: 462: 461:Evidentiality 459: 457: 454: 452: 449: 447: 444: 442: 439: 437: 434: 432: 429: 428: 426: 422: 419: 415: 409: 406: 404: 401: 399: 396: 394: 391: 389: 386: 384: 381: 379: 376: 374: 371: 369: 366: 364: 361: 359: 356: 354: 351: 349: 346: 344: 341: 340: 338: 334: 330: 323: 318: 316: 311: 309: 304: 303: 300: 286: 279: 274: 271:(16): 97–148. 270: 265: 261: 255: 247: 242: 241: 233: 230: 228: 227:Polarity item 225: 223: 220: 218: 215: 214: 205: 202: 199: 195: 192: 188: 187: 186: 184: 180: 176: 172: 168: 162: 160: 156: 148: 145: 142: 139: 138: 137: 131: 128: 125: 122: 121: 120: 118: 114: 109: 103: 102: 101: 99: 95: 85: 83: 79: 75: 71: 67: 63: 58: 55: 53: 49: 45: 40: 38: 34: 30: 26: 22: 19: 915:Type shifter 890:Quantization 849: 840:Continuation 707:Veridicality 587:Exhaustivity 552:Cumulativity 471:Indexicality 451:Definiteness 446:Conditionals 373:Logical form 288:. Retrieved 284: 268: 245: 232:Veridicality 197: 190: 182: 178: 166: 163: 158: 154: 152: 135: 112: 110: 107: 97: 93: 91: 78:unacceptable 73: 69: 65: 59: 56: 47: 43: 41: 37:non-monotone 36: 28: 24: 15: 835:Context set 809:Type theory 692:Subtrigging 456:Disjunction 383:Proposition 88:Strawson-DE 1000:Categories 980:Pragmatics 632:Mirativity 398:Speech act 353:Entailment 348:Denotation 290:2011-12-15 238:References 18:linguistic 1006:Inference 784:Mereology 720:Formalism 602:Givenness 527:Cataphora 515:Phenomena 506:Vagueness 436:Ambiguity 388:Reference 368:Intension 358:Extension 254:cite book 21:semantics 933:See also 823:Concepts 697:Telicity 532:Coercion 486:Negation 481:Modality 431:Anaphora 211:See also 74:anything 70:anything 66:anything 48:stronger 1011:Grammar 441:Binding 198:anybody 191:anybody 52:entails 870:Monads 417:Topics 177:, and 171:clefts 153:Hence 562:De se 466:Focus 424:Areas 393:Scope 281:(PDF) 175:focus 123:P → Q 76:" is 260:link 183:both 179:each 155:only 113:only 98:only 23:, a 814:TTR 167:any 159:any 94:any 16:In 1002:: 256:}} 252:{{ 185:: 161:. 100:: 84:. 29:DE 321:e 314:t 307:v 293:. 262:) 200:. 193:. 181:/ 27:(

Index

linguistic
semantics
upward-entailing
entails
polarity items
unacceptable
nonveridicality
presuppositions
clefts
focus
Entailment (pragmatics)
Monotonicity of entailment
Polarity item
Veridicality
cite book
link
"Licensing and sensitivity in polarity items: from downward entailment to nonveridicality"
v
t
e
Formal semantics (natural language)
Compositionality
Denotation
Entailment
Extension
Generalized quantifier
Intension
Logical form
Presupposition
Proposition

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑