Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:30:34.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Progovac on polarity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Laurence R. Horn  and
Young-Suk Lee
Laurence R. Horn
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Yale University
Young-Suk Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , September 1995 , pp. 401 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, C. L. (1970). Double negatives. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 169–186.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics & Philosophy 4. 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borkin, A. (1971). Polarity items in questions. Papers from the 7th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 53–62.Google Scholar
Bos, E. P. (1985). John of Holland: four tracts on logic. Nijmegen: Ingenium.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D. (1983). The avoid pronoun principle and the elsewhere principle. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 13. 29–36.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1991). The morphological basis of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 27. 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, G. (1981). Distribution of free choice any. Papers from the 17th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 8–23.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (to appear). Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics 19.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Davison, A. (1979). Any as universal or existential. In van, der Auwera J. (ed.) The semantics of determiners. London: Croom Helm. 11–40.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1980). Comments on the paper by Bach and Partee. Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora. 29–40. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1975). Polarity and the scale principle. Papers from the 11th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 188–199.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1984). A note on negative polarity and downward entailingness. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 14. 98–107.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J. (1983). Negative polarity and the comparative. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 403–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, J. (1986). Monotonicity phenomena in natural language. Linguistic Analysis 16. 25–40.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1970). Ain't it hard (anymore). Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 318–327.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1978a). Remarks on neg-raising. In Cole, P. (ed.) Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 129–220.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1978b). Some aspects of negation. In Greenberg, J. (ed.) Universals of human language. Vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 127–210.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference. Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Meaning, form, and use in context (GURT'84). Washington: Georgetown University Press. 11–42.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1991). Duplex negatio affirmat...: the economy of double negation. Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2: Papers from the Parasession on Negation. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 80–106.Google Scholar
Horn, L. & Bayer, S. (1984). Short-circuited implicature: a negative contribution. Linguistics & Philosophy 7. 397–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61. 121–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. & Lee, Y.-S. (1995). Too many any's: diagnosing the diagnostics. Paper delivered at annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. (1991). A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 27. 301–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y. (1994). The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora: a study with special reference to Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kas, M. (1993). Essays on Boolean functions and negative polarity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Kim, S.-H. (1993). Division of labor between grammar and pragmatics: the distribution and interpretation of anaphora. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
Klima, E. (1964). Negation in English. In Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J. (eds.) The structure of language. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. 246–323.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1990). Some remarks on polarity items. In Zaefferer, D. (ed.) Semantic universals and universals of semantics. Dordrecht: Foris. 150–189.Google Scholar
Koster, J. & Reuland, E. (eds.) (1991). Long-distance anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladusaw, W. (1980). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1970). Pronominalization, negation, and the analysis of adverbs. In Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P. (eds.) Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn. 145–165.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1969). A syntactic argument for negative transportation. Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 140–147.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1987). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: a partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena. Journal of Linguistics 23. 379–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (1991). Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27. 107–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindholm, J. (1969). Negative-raising and sentence pronominalization. Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 148–158.Google Scholar
Linebarger, M. (1981). The grammar of negative polarity. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Linebarger, M. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics & Philosophy 10. 325–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linebarger, M. (1991). Negative polarity and linguistic evidence. Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2: Papers from the Parasession on Negation. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 165–188.Google Scholar
May, R. (1985). Logical form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. (1970). On the criterion of identity for noun phrase deletion. Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 380–389.Google Scholar
Parker, F., Riley, K. & Meyer, C. F. (1990). Untriggered reflexive pronouns in English. American Speech 65. 50–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pott, A. F. (1859). Etymologishe Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der indo-germanischen Sprachen. (Vol. 1.) Lemgo and Detmold: Meyer.Google Scholar
Progovac, L. (1988). A binding approach to polarity sensitivity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Progovac, L. (1993). Negative polarity: entailment and binding. Linguistics & Philosophy 16. 149–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983).Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
de, Rijk L. M. (ed.) (1982). Some 14th century tracts on the probationes terminorum. Nijmegen: Ingenium Publishers.Google Scholar
Rosen, C. (1981). The relational structure of reflexive clauses: evidence from Italian. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. (1983). The necessary overlapping of grammatical components. Papers from the parasession on the interplay of phonology, morphology, and syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 198–221.Google Scholar
Safir, K. (1992). Implied non-coreference and the pattern of anaphora. Linguistics & Philosophy 15. 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez, Valencia V. (1991). Studies on natural logic and categorial grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Sánchez, Valencia V. (1994). Monotonicity in Medieval logic. Language and Cognition, 4. (Yearbook 1994 of the research group for theoretical and experimental linguistics of the University of Groningen.) 161–174.Google Scholar
Schmerling, S. (1971). A note on negative polarity. Papers in Linguistics 4. 200–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. (1974). Meaning and negation. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
van, der Wouden T. (1994).Negative contexts. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (1989). Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 65. 695–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, F. (1986). Categoriale grammatica en algebraïsche semantiek. Een stuide naar negatie en polariteit in het Nederlands. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar