2026-09-20T12:09:43Zhttps://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/requestoai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/844142026-06-16T18:17:11Zcom_1721.1_7582com_1721.1_7581col_1721.1_131022
Irene Heim and Martin Hackl.
Al Khatib, Sam (Samer)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy
2014-01-23T18:42:39Z
2014-01-23T18:42:39Z
2013
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/84414
868024376
Thesis (Ph. D. in Linguistics)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy, 2013.
Cataloged from PDF version of thesis. "September 2013."
Includes bibliographical references (pages 138-144).
A problem is detected in how only, traditionally viewed, associates with Negative Quantifiers (NQs) like few, [at most n], and [less than n]. The predicted meanings, which negate the stronger alternatives of the relevant NQs, is shown to be incorrect. The attested meanings are shown to be truth-conditionally equivalent to the result of removing only, hence giving the illusion that only is vacuous. It is further observed that, given an NQ, sentences where only appears to be vacuous become ungrammatical when the NQ is replaced with its positive counterpart. I argue for a view that relates the two phenomena: the ungrammaticality of the only-positive cases explains the unavailability of the predicted meanings in only-negative cases. The attested readings for the negatives, where only appears to be vacuous, is derived from LFs that feature a silent existential quantifier above the NQ. Thesis supervisor:
by Sam Al Khatib.
Ph.D. in Linguistics
144 pages
eng
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
M.I.T. theses are protected by
copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but
reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written
permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582
Linguistics and Philosophy.
'Only' and association with negative antonyms
Thesis
application/pdf
false
Publication
unknown
unknown
<Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="c2eae836-dc89-4539-bb65-85d8dac6e78b">
<Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843</Type>
<Language>eng</Language>
<Title>'Only' and association with negative antonyms</Title>
<PublishedIn>
<Publication>
</Publication>
</PublishedIn>
<PublicationDate>2013</PublicationDate>
<Authors>
<Author>
<DisplayName>Al Khatib, Sam (Samer)</DisplayName>
<Affiliation>
<OrgUnit>
</OrgUnit>
</Affiliation>
</Author>
</Authors>
<Editors>
</Editors>
<Publishers>
<Publisher>
<DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</DisplayName>
<OrgUnit />
</Publisher>
</Publishers>
<License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</License>
<Keyword>Linguistics and Philosophy.</Keyword>
<Abstract>A problem is detected in how only, traditionally viewed, associates with Negative Quantifiers (NQs) like few, [at most n], and [less than n]. The predicted meanings, which negate the stronger alternatives of the relevant NQs, is shown to be incorrect. The attested meanings are shown to be truth-conditionally equivalent to the result of removing only, hence giving the illusion that only is vacuous. It is further observed that, given an NQ, sentences where only appears to be vacuous become ungrammatical when the NQ is replaced with its positive counterpart. I argue for a view that relates the two phenomena: the ungrammaticality of the only-positive cases explains the unavailability of the predicted meanings in only-negative cases. The attested readings for the negatives, where only appears to be vacuous, is derived from LFs that feature a silent existential quantifier above the NQ. Thesis supervisor:</Abstract>
<Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right"
>
</Access>
</Publication>