Negative Polarity and Domain Broadening: Evidence from Exceptive ʔilla in Levantine Arabic
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35516/hum.v52i6.7120Keywords:
Domain Broadening, Exceptive Semantics, Exhaustification, Levantine ArabicAbstract
Objectives: A standard approach to the meaning and semantic licensing of negative polarity items (NPIs) takes an NPI likeindefinite any to be a scalar expression that obligatorily activates alternatives to its contextual restriction based on the notion of Domain Widening (Kadmon and Landman 1993, Chierchia 2006). The generalization underlying this approach is that an NPI induces a domain broadening effect which is subject to exhaustification in grammar. This paper contributes further evidence to this generalization by presenting and analyzing an occurrence of exceptive ʔilla in Levantine Arabic (LA) as a strong negative polarity item (NPI) with a domain broadening effect.
Methods: The paper explains an analogy between NPIs and exceptive ʔilla not only through restricted distribution in semantic licensing but also through a shared tendency to showing variation in distributional strength.
Results: Based on these observations, the paper finds that NPI exceptive ʔilla requires a (multi-)dimensional exhaustification analysis that attends to both truth conditional and non-truth conditional dimensions of meaning (e.g., implicatures or presuppositions).
Conclusions: This finding lends further support to an NPI theory of exceptive phrases that captures their truth conditional and distributional facts by grammatical exhaustification (See Gajewski 2011; Crnič 2018; Sauerland and Yatsushiro 2023).
Downloads
References
Bar-Lev, M. E., & Fox, D. (2020). Free choice, simplification, and innocent inclusion. Natural language semantics, 28(3), 175-223.
Chierchia, G. (2006). Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic inquiry, 37(4), 535-590.
Chierchia, G. (2013). Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. OUP Oxford.
Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2012). Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. In Handbücher zur Sprach-und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science Semantics, (3). de Gruyter.
Cinque, G. (1988). On si constructions and the theory of arb. Linguistic inquiry, 19(4), 521-581.
Crnič, L. (2014). Non-monotonicity in NPI licensing. Natural Language Semantics, 22, 169-217.
Crnič, L. (2018). A note on connected exceptives and approximatives. Journal of Semantics, 35(4), 741-756.
Crnič, L. (2019). Any: Logic, likelihood, and context (Pt. 2). Language and Linguistics Compass, 13(11), e12353.
Fox, D. (2007). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics (pp. 71-120). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Fox, D., & Katzir, R. (2011). On the characterization of alternatives. Natural language semantics, 19, 87-107.
Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2018). Economy and embedded exhaustification. Natural Language Semantics, 26(1), 1-50.
von Fintel, K. U. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Massachusetts Amherst.
von Fintel, K. (1999). NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of semantics, 16(2), 97-148.
Gajewski, J. (2008). NPI any and connected exceptive phrases. Natural Language Semantics, 16, 69-110.
Gajewski, J. (2011). Licensing strong NPIs. Natural Language Semantics 19.2: 109–48.
Álvarez, I. G. (2009). Generality and exception: A study in the semantics of exceptives, Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
Hirsch, A. (2016). An unexceptional semantics for expressions of exception. In University of Pennsylvania working papers in linguistics, 22(1), 138–148. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Kadmon, N., & Landman, F. (1993). Any. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 353-422.
Krifka, M. (1995). The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis, 25, 209–57.
Ladusaw, W. A. (1979). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Texas, Austin.
Lahiri, U. (1998). Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural language semantics, 6(1), 57-123.
Lappin, S. (1996). Generalized quantifiers, exception phrases, and logicality. Journal of Semantics, 13(3), 197-220.
Moltmann, F. (1995). Exception sentences and polyadic quantification. Linguistics and philosophy, 18, 223-280.
Peters, S., & Westerståhl, D. (2006). Quantifiers in language and logic. OUP Oxford.
Shlonsky, U. (1988). Clause Structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic. OUP Oxford.
Stanley, J., & Gendler Szabó, Z. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language, 15(2‐3), 219-261.
Vostrikova, E. (2021). Conditional analysis of clausal exceptives. Natural Language Semantics, 29(2), 159-227.
Westerstahl, D. (1988). Quantifiers in formal and natural languages. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 4. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Zwarts, F. (1998). Three types of polarity. In Plurality and quantification (pp. 177-238). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Dirasat: Human and Social Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Accepted 2024-07-10
Published 2025-06-01
