JL^L^|\ rrvrrLrL^rurEJ/ r\rLrrKl lr rnEl\(JMtNA/
/b S T R U C T U R EA
SN D B E Y O N T )
Second,this domain-extendingfunction must be universally closedat somepoint in
the derivation.Crucially, such an operationof quantificationalclosureis subjectto a
condition (or, if you wish, carries a presupposition).Its result must lead to some-
thing stronger than the corresponding meaning with a plain indefinite. I will make
this idea more preciseshortly. Meanwhile, let me enunciatethe principle:
(113) Strengthening/blocking
Domainexpansions mustbe universallyclosed.Suchclosuremustleadto
with respectto the meaningof the plain indefinite.
strengthening
What quantificational closure over domain-expandingfunctions achievesis twofold.
First, we are freed from having to assumethat NPIs require a specific way of extend-
ing the domain. Second, we can compositionally implement pragmatic strengthen-
ing as a condition on quantificationalclosure.Let me illustrate.Supposewe have an
NPI in a positive sentencesuchas any manwalked in.lts basemeaning,accordingto
our hypothesis,would be as in (114a).If we apply closureto it, we get (114b):
in')
(114) a. Some*ipy'(man')(walked
in')]
b. VgeAIsomeulny'(man')(walked
in')
c. somep'(man')(walked
I am assuming that no form of quantification is ever possible without a domain re-
striction, and universalclosure is no exception.So A in (114b) rangesover the do-
main expansionsthe speakermay be willing to entertain.Formula (115c) represents,
instead, the sentencemeaning corresponding to any man walked in, with the plain
indefinite replacing the NPI (i.e., the competitor).Now, (114c) asymmetricallyen-
tails (1 l4b).23Hence,the condition on strengthening,which closuremust satisfy,is
not met. Consequently,the sentenceis ungrammatical'
Supposenow we embedour examplesentenceunder someDE operatoras in ir
is false that any man walked in. The basemeaningis (115a).The presenceof nega-
tion gives us anotherpossible site for quantificationalclosure,that is, above nega-
tion. The result is given in (115b).
(115) a. r Solnegp;
(man')(walked
in')
in') ]
b. VgeA [r Somegpv'(man')(walked
c. 1 somep'(man')(walked
in')
Formula (115b) says,"For any (reasonable)way of expandingthe domain of quan-
tification it is not the casethat someman in the extendeddomain walked in." Clearly,
(115b) asymmetricallyentails(115c). Hence,the competitor of the NPl-sentenceis
weaker and the condition on closure is met. Moreover, the sentenceis grammatical.
Obviously the basic insight is just K&L's. However, I borrow from Lahiri (1998)
the idea that NPIs must be assignedscope(in our version, the site of quantificational
closure). And, like him, I make this operation contingent upon strengthening.There
are two differences with respectto Lahiri's proposal, one of form, the other of sub-
stance.First, Lahiri requires that the sentencewith the NPI be "less likely" than its
ANU lHt SYNTAX/PRACMATICS INTERFACE 77
alternatives(as he is analyzing the Hindi "even one" construction). My condition is
just equivalentto his since being stronger entails being less likely. Second,Lahiri
,
identifiesNPI scopeassignmentwith associationwith focus. This, ior Hindi, is plau-
sible sinceNPIs in Hindi are literally formed with the use of the focus particle even.
But if we wanted to generalizeLahii' s proposal to other languages(which Lahiri
is
careful not to do), we face a problem. For although NPIs *" rorrrputiblewith focus-
ing, they do not require any special focus assignment(in the form of, say, a special
stresscontour).The relevant alternativesare not evocatedvia focus. It's just a texi-
cal property of any that it contrastswith ordinary indefinites.2a
I mentioned also that with my proposed modification, domain expansion is
no
longer an absolute requirement. More specifically, it may just happenthat the base
domain(i.e., what I have been indicating as D) is already, ro to-rp.ak, the largest
reasonable domain. In this casethe only "extension" of D to be consideredwill UL O
itself (which is allowed since g is not required to be properly increasing).This, as
we
saw, is in keeping with our intuitions. To put it differently, an NpI, in the present
modified view, does not necessarilysignal an actual, specific domain expansion;
it
signals,rather, willingness to expand the domain (an effective way of couching
its
role,which I owe to A. von Stechow).Notice that even in the limiting casein which
thereis no suitable expansionaround, the proposedsemanticsstill ,.ru", a useful
pu{pose'namely, that of signaling that the indefinite must wind up within the scope
of a DE operator (and hence it reducespotential ambiguities). Bu1 such an effect is
not stipulated as the primary role of NPIs. It is rather a byproduct of how their se-
manticsworks out (and, more specifically, of the requirement that the use of NpIs
leadsto formal strengthening).
One further remark: I think that the proper way of thinking of (113) is in terms
of something like "blocking", as is familiar from much work in morphology. The
presuppositionto which NPIs are subjectputs them in an "elsewhere"relation with
indefinites,on the assumptionthat the former are parasitic upon the latter. Intuitively,
NPIs are a more marked version of indefinites (not dissimilar from, say, the relation
betweenpronouns and their clitic counterparts).This brings about a sort of blocking
effect, whereby the use of NPIs is blocked by the indefinites whenever the formei
don't give rise to a communicational advantageover the latter. Distributed morphol-
ogy may provide a good framework for fleshing this out. For the time being, I am
not in condition of being less vague.
Let me now try to be more explicit on how strengtheningis formally implemented.
I will first describe its semanticsand then its syntax. (Readersnot interestedin for-
mal details may safely skip this paragraph).Imagine introducing in our logical form
a variable binding operator oo with the following semantics:
(116) Strengthening (/blocking)
= VgeAll0ll,if VgeAllgllentailsllQ'll;ottrerwise
llOo,g0ll is undefined,
llOa,g0ll
where$' is identicalto q, with all occurrences of g removed.
Suchan operator is what we would use to close off a domain-expandingfunction.
Thesemanticsgiven in (116) is still a first approximation,which might be improved
on in many ways,2sbut it is sufficiently precise to give the reader something to