We propose a unifying analysis of two readings – exclusive and approximative – of the Hebrew part... more We propose a unifying analysis of two readings – exclusive and approximative – of the Hebrew particle be-sax ha-kol, arguing that under both the particle is a scalar focus sensitive exclusive, expressing a positive and a negative inference, i.e. the truth of its prejacent and the exclusion of stronger focus alternatives, respectively. The difference between the readings is argued to derive from a minimal difference in the overtness vs. covertness of the focus associate of be-sax ha-kol: Whereas the exclusive reading is standardly derived by associating the particle with overt and prosodically marked material, the approximative reading results from its association with the covert pos modifier of gradable expressions, resulting in an “x is pos A, but not maximally A” inference.We show that this approximative reading is only licensed when the scale associated with the gradable expression is upper-bound, but the standard of comparison is not necessarily maximal, pace Kennedy & McNally (...
We offer a unified analysis of the Hebrew be-sax ha-kol (‘all in all’), according to which it is ... more We offer a unified analysis of the Hebrew be-sax ha-kol (‘all in all’), according to which it is a scalar exclusive particle, under a modified definition of exclusives we develop. We claim that be-sax ha-kol differs from classical exclusives particles like only in that it is more flexible with respect to the set of alternatives to its prejacent. In particular, it can operate not only on “Roothian ” alternatives to the prejacent, but also on different interpretational versions of the prejacent. We show how this proposal accounts for the fact that unlike only, be-sax ha-kol can trigger not only a clearly ‘exclusive ’ reading, but also an ‘approximative ’ one. We discuss the projective behavior of the prejacent of be-sax ha-kol in this reading, and the fact that it is infelicitous with L(ower)–scale adjectives. 1.
We offer a unified analysis of the Hebrew be-sax ha-kol ('all in all'), according to whic... more We offer a unified analysis of the Hebrew be-sax ha-kol ('all in all'), according to which it is a scalar exclusive particle, under a modified definition of exclusives we develop. We claim that be-sax ha-kol differs from classical exclusives particles like only in that it is more flexible with respect to the set of alternatives to its prejacent. In particular, it can operate not only on "Roothian" alternatives to the prejacent, but also on different interpretational versions of the prejacent. We show how this proposal accounts for the fact that unlike only, be-sax ha-kol can trigger not only a clearly 'exclusive' reading, but also an 'approximative' one. We discuss the projective behavior of the prejacent of be-sax ha-kol in this reading, and the fact that it is infelicitous with L(ower) –scale adjectives.
We offer a unified analysis of the Hebrew be-sax ha-kol ('all in all'), according to which it is ... more We offer a unified analysis of the Hebrew be-sax ha-kol ('all in all'), according to which it is a scalar exclusive particle, under a modified definition of exclusives we develop. We claim that be-sax ha-kol differs from classical exclusives particles like only in that it is more flexible with respect to the set of alternatives to its prejacent. In particular, it can operate not only on "Roothian" alternatives to the prejacent, but also on different interpretational versions of the prejacent. We show how this proposal accounts for the fact that unlike only, be-sax ha-kol can trigger not only a clearly 'exclusive' reading, but also an 'approximative' one. We discuss the projective behavior of the prejacent of be-sax ha-kol in this reading, and the fact that it is infelicitous with L(ower) –scale adjectives.
Uploads
Papers by Dina Orenstein
be-sax ha-kol differs from classical exclusives particles like only in that it is more flexible with respect to the set of alternatives to its prejacent. In particular, it can operate not only on "Roothian" alternatives to the prejacent, but also on different interpretational versions of the prejacent. We show how this proposal accounts for the fact that unlike only, be-sax ha-kol can trigger not only a clearly 'exclusive' reading, but also an 'approximative' one. We discuss the projective behavior of the prejacent of be-sax ha-kol in this reading, and the fact that it is
infelicitous with L(ower) –scale adjectives.