Abstract
This paper addresses the issue of negative polarity items in the restrictor of definite descriptions. This matter has received little attention in the literature and the discussion of data has been contradictory. The goal of this paper is to review existing approaches to licensing and to offer additional data points to the debate. This paper reports two experiments. The first is a pen and paper judgment survey conducted in a large undergraduate course. The experiment explored subjects’ fine intuitions about NPIs in the restrictors of definite descriptions, as opposed to other environments. The second experiment was conducted online through the Amazon Mechanical Turk website. This experiment simultaneously investigated the influence of grammatical number and genericity/habituality on judgments concerning NPIs in the restrictors of definite descriptions.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
A reviewer rightly points out that this conclusion may have to be reconsidered if plural definite descriptions carry an ‘excluded middle’ or all-or-nothing presupposition, as proposed for example in Löbner (2000).
- 3.
A reviewer observes that the badness of (18)b, c derives more from the speaker having particular individuals in mind, rather than the existence presupposition itself. The reviewer finds the following conclusion to (18) greatly improved, though it still carries the existence presupposition:
-
(i) B: No doubt the students who had any desire to leave the party left.
-
- 4.
For our purposes, we will discuss cases in which distribution is down to the atomic parts of an individual. In intermediate distributivity, there may be distribution to sub-pluralities.
- 5.
A reviewer observes that similar problems could arise with more distributive predicates. For example, we can say (i) truthfully even if a small subset of the linguists are not tall. Suppose the subset is the set of semanticists. Then we could not conclude that the semanticists are a tall bunch.
-
(i) The linguists are a tall bunch.
I leave the effect of definites’ tolerance of exceptions on licensing for further research.
-
- 6.
A superfund site in the United States is one that has been contaminated by radioactivity. One can easily imagine gravel being used in such a site, contaminated and then removed to another site. This facilitates the use of the NPI adverb ever. A reviewer finds this example ungrammatical.
- 7.
A reviewer wonders why definites are being compared to quantificational determiners, since these are likely of different types. I compare them assuming that they share similar syntactic structures and that it is possible that the definite determiner like the quantifiers may be a licenser. But see Sect. 6 below.
- 8.
It should be noted that sometimes environments that ‘should not’ license NPIs—according to the Fauconnier/Ladusaw Hypothesis—actually do. See von Fintel (1999) for discussion of only and others. The controls in the experiments are rather uncontroversial, however.
- 9.
Ever does, however, have certain very limited and often archaic-sounding uses outside NPI-licensing environments, e.g. it was ever thus, ever so tired, ever the optimist.
- 10.
A reviewer kindly points out that this result converges with corpus studies such as Hoeksema (2012) that show that despite being very frequent, definite determiners are rare licensers of NPIs.
- 11.
Horn (2013) points to the importance of existence inferences in NPI-licensing definites by comparing the to the only:
-
(i) The *(only) man who could ever reach me was the son of a preacher man.
-
References
Cable, S. (2002). Some remarks on two theories of negative polarity. Ms., MIT.
Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339–405.
Gajewski, J. (2011). Licensing strong NPIs. Natural Language Semantics, 19(2), 109–148.
Giannakidou, A. (2002). Licensing and sensitivity in polarity items: From downward entailment to non-veridicality. CLS, 39, 29–54.
Guerzoni, E., & Sharvit, Y. (2007). A question of strength: On NPIs in interrogative clauses. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 361–391.
Hoeksema, J. (1986). Monotonie en superlatieven. In C. Hoppenbrouwers, et al. (Eds.), Proeven van Taalwelenschap (pp. 38–49). Groningen: TABU.
Hoeksema, J. (2008). There is no number effect in the licensing of negative polarity items: A reply to Guerzoni and Sharvit. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 397–407.
Hoeksema, J. (2012). On the natural history of negative polarity items. Linguistic Analysis, 38, 3–33.
Homer, V. (2010). Presuppositions and NPI-licensing. Ms., UCLA.
Horn, L. (2013). Focus and exhaustivity revisited. Paper presented at DGfS, Potsdam.
Jackson, E. (1995). Weak and strong negative polarity items: Licensing and intervention. Linguistic Analysis, 25, 181–208.
Ladusaw, W. A. (1979). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Landman, F. (1989). Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(5), 559–605
Lahiri, U. (1998). Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 57–123.
Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plural and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language (pp. 302–323). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Löbner, S. (2000). Polarity in natural language: Predication, quantification and negation in particular and characterizing sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23, 213–308.
Pelletier, F. J. (1975). Non-singular reference: Some preliminaries. Philosophia, 5(4), 451–465.
Sharvy, R. (1980). A more general theory of definite descriptions. Philosophical Review, 89(4), 607–624.
von Fintel, K. (1999). NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependencies. Journal of Semantics, 16(2), 97–148.
Zwarts, F. (1996). Facets of negation. In J. van der Does & J. van Eijck (Eds.), Quantifiers, logic, and language (pp. 385–421). Stanford: Stanford University.
Zwarts, F. (1998). Three types of polarity items. In F. Hamm & E. Hinrichs (Eds.), Plurality and quantification (pp. 177–238). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Acknowledgments
This work has benefited greatly from discussion with Elena Guerzoni, Chris Hsieh, Michael Jacques and Yael Sharvit. Michael Jacques also played an instrumental role in assembling and administering Experiment One above. All errors in this work are mine.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gajewski, J. (2016). Another Look at NPIs in Definite Descriptions: An Experimental Approach. In: Larrivée, P., Lee, C. (eds) Negation and Polarity: Experimental Perspectives. Language, Cognition, and Mind, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17464-8_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17464-8_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17463-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17464-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)