<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: Fw: queries about quantifiers</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE type=text/css>BLOCKQUOTE {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
DL {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
UL {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
OL {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
LI {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=laurence.horn@yale.edu href="mailto:laurence.horn@yale.edu">Laurence
Horn</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=g-green@uiuc.edu
href="mailto:g-green@uiuc.edu">Georgia</A> ; <A title=asudeh@csli.stanford.edu
href="mailto:asudeh@csli.stanford.edu">Ash Asudeh</A> ; <A
title=bender@csli.stanford.edu href="mailto:bender@csli.stanford.edu">Emily
Bender</A> ; <A title=howard.gregory@phil.uni-goettingen.de
href="mailto:howard.gregory@phil.uni-goettingen.de">howard.gregory@phil.uni-goettingen.de</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=hpsg-l@lists.Stanford.EDU
href="mailto:hpsg-l@lists.Stanford.EDU">hpsg-l@lists.Stanford.EDU</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 19, 2004 2:52 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: Fw: queries about quantifiers</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Hi, all.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>If I can jump in here on both questions, forwarded to me by Georgia:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>On (1), the standard semantic account of Ladusaw (1979 et seq.; see for
example his "Negation and Polarity" article in the Blackwell Handbook of
Contemporary Semantic Theory, Lappin, ed., 1996) correctly predicts that the
restrictor of "all" should be a downward entailing environment. Carl
Pollard writes:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>> Hi Howard.<BR>><BR>> I have no idea about the second point.
Please let us know what you<BR>> learn. But in connection with the first
point, I don't believe MOST DOES<BR>> license NPI's:<BR>><BR>>
Everybody ate something/*anything.<BR>><BR>> Nobody ate
*something/anything.<BR>><BR>> Most people ate
something/*anything<BR>><BR>></DIV>
<DIV>> *Everybody/*most people/nobody gives a rat's ass about NPI
licensing.<BR>><BR>> Note also:<BR>><BR>><BR>> (i) Everyody
who has ever given it any thought supports the euro.<BR>> (ii) All English
people who have ever given it any thought support the e=<BR>>
uro.<BR>><BR>> These are just as good as your examples with MOST, so it
seems to<BR>> be the restrictive relative clause environment, not MOST, that
is<BR>> responsible for the NPI licensing.<BR>><BR>> At least so it
seems to me at first blush.<BR>><BR>> All best,<BR>><BR>> Carl</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>But there are two different issues here. Consider statements of the
form (DET A) B. </DIV>
<DIV>Does the DETERMINER establish a downward entailing (DE) environment?
ALL does, MOST doesn't, MANY doesn't, SOME doesn't, NO does, etc. If so, A
(the restrictor) should accept negative polarity items, as it does in
"{Everybody/Nobody} who has ever eaten raw squid remembers it". If not, it
shouldn't, as it doesn't in "*{Some/Many} people who have ever eaten raw squid
remember it." Thus "ALL" and "NO" are DE determiners. </DIV>
<DIV>Now does the QUANTIFER (DET A) establish a downward entailing environment
(i.e. in the predicate or nuclear scope)? The only quantifier in the above
group that does is "No CN", where CN is the common noun that "No" combines
with. So</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>{No/*Some/*Many/*Most/*All} people who eat raw squid could ever be friends
of mine.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>One of the motivations of Ladusaw's theory was in fact that ALL licenses
polarity items (i.e. in the restrictor) but ALL PEOPLE/EVERYBODY does not (i.e.
in the predicate). But, as "*Some people who have ever eaten raw squid
remember it" shows, it's not restrictors in general that license NPIs, but only
restrictors of DE determiners (like ALL and NO). So indeed, "Most
people give a rat's ass about NPI licensing" is correctly predicted to be bad,
but "Most people who have ever eaten raw squid could be friends of mine", with
the NPI in the restrictor, *should* be bad (because MOST is not a DE determiner)
but it *isn't*. This is a problem for classical DE licensing, and it's one
that has been discussed in the literature. I think Irene Heim, in her NELS
14 paper "A Note on Negative Polarity and Downward Entailingness", around pp.
100-04, is the first to deal with this explicitly; she proposed a notion of
"limited DE-ness" that may or may not strike you as a satisfactory
solution. (Similar questions arise for bare plurals: "People who
have ever eaten raw squid will know what I mean"--not that bad, right?)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Now, as for (2)--</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>At 10:01 PM -0600 1/18/04, Georgia wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">----- Original Message -----</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">From: "Ash Asudeh"
<asudeh@csli.stanford.edu></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">To: "Emily Bender"
<bender@csli.stanford.edu></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">Cc: <hpsg-l@lists.Stanford.EDU><BR>Sent:
Sunday, January 18, 2004 9:19 PM<BR>Subject: Re: queries about
quantifiers<BR><BR><BR>><BR>> Dear Emily, Howard, and list
members,<BR>><BR>> I think (Larry) Horn would make an excellent starting
point for Howard's<BR>> second point. I'm not sure where the relevant stuff
is published, though.<BR>> I'm sure it does appear somewhere, because I
heard him give a related talk<BR>> at CLS a couple of years ago (maybe
check the proceedings for CLS 38 when</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">> they come out).<BR>><BR>> I think
the gist of Horn's LSA talk was that since there is an implicature<BR>>
from "some" to "not all", "not all" is unnecessary (according to
Gricean<BR>> pragmatics).<BR>><BR>> I remember wondering at the time,
though, whether this really explains<BR>> things. Since "not all" equally
implicates "some" (otherwise the speaker<BR>> should use "no" according to
Gricean principles), why isn't "not all"<BR>> lexicalized at "some"'s
expense?<BR>><BR>> I probably missed some detail of the
presentation.<BR>><BR>> Best,<BR>> Ash<BR>><BR>> On Sun, 18 Jan
2004, Emily Bender wrote:<BR>><BR>> > Dear Howard,<BR>>
><BR>> > I believe that Horn addressed your second point (the lack
of<BR>> > lexicalization of "not all") in his talk 'Lexical Pragmatics:
H. Paul,<BR>> > Grice and beyond' at the LSA earlier this month.
He gave a pragmatic<BR>> > explanation for it, although the details
escape me now...<BR>> ></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">> > Emily</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Right; as Emily notes, this is something I've been working on--in fact,
since my 1972 dissertation, Chapter 4 of which is devoted to attempting to
answer it. (I address the same issue in section 4.5 of my 1989 book, A
Natural History of Negation, reissued in 2001 by CSLI. There's also a
summary of my arguments in Levinson's 2000 book,<I> _</I>Presumptive Meanings_
(MIT Press). The basic idea is stated in terms of the traditional
post-Aristotelian square of oppositions. The fact that no natural language
lexicalizes "nall" (for 'not all'), which was noticed first, as far as I know,
by Thomas Aquinas, is attributed in my argument to Gricean reasoning--basically,
the two subcontraries ("some F are G", "not all F are G") essentially implicate
each other, ceteris paribus, so lexicalizations for both are not
necessary. Given that we're dealing with closed class items, such
unnecessary determiners/quantifiers are not tolerated. This finding
extends to modals ("can't" lexicalizes for 'not-possible' or 'not-permitted',
but not for 'possible not' or 'permitted-not'), for binary connectives (we have
both...and, either...or, neither...nor, but no lexicalization noth...nand
corresponding to the Sheffer stroke), and so on. It's not that simple, and
there's some reason to believe there are other factors involved in the
quantifier case as opposed to that of other operators that can be mapped onto
the square, but that's the basic idea. And why, given that the I ("some")
and O ("not all") vertices don't both need to be lexicalized, is it always the I
and never the O that is? I attribute that to the fundamental informational
asymmetry between negation and affirmation, and the markedness of the former in
natural language--this is also discussed in great (maybe TOO great) detail in my
negation book. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>best,</DIV>
<DIV>Larry</DIV></BODY></HTML>