Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-76mfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T15:14:49.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scalar Additive Operators in the Languages of Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Volker Gast  and
Johan van der Auwera
Volker Gast*
Affiliation:
Friedrich Schiller University Jena
Johan van der Auwera*
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
*
Gast, Friedrich Schiller University Jena Department of English and American Studies Ernst-Abbe-Platz 8 07743 Jena, Germany [volker.gast@uni-jena.de]
van der Auwera, Center for Grammar, Cognition, and Typology University of Antwerp Prinsstraat 13 B-2000 Antwerpen, Belgium [johan.vanderauwera@ua.ac.be]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scalar additive operators, such as Engl. even, Fr. même, Germ, sogar, Sp. aun, and so forth, vary crosslinguistically in terms of their distributional behavior, in particular with respect to semantic and pragmatic properties of the sentential environment (scale-reversing vs. scale-preserving, negative vs. nonnegative). This article proposes a semantic framework for the crosslinguistic analysis of scalar additive operators and a typology based on that framework. Five major types of operators are distinguished and the distribution of these types in forty European languages is surveyed. The synchronic patterns found in the languages of the sample are interpreted in the light of historical developments in the domain of investigation, and implications for the division of labor between lexical meaning and sentential context are discussed.

Keywords

pragmatic strengthscalarityfocusscopepolaritytypology

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 87 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 2 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abrusán, Marta. 2007. Even and free choice any in Hungarian. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, ed. by McNally, Louise and Puig-Waldmüller, Estela, 1–15. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, Robert. 1736. Dictionary, English and Latin. London: Rivington & Woodfall.Google Scholar
Altmann, Hans. 1976. Die Gradpartikeln im Deutschen: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1972. How to get even. Language 48.893–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Ducrot, Oswald. 1983. L'argumentation dans la langue. Liège: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Barker, Stephen. 1991. Even, still and counterfactuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 14.1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, Jon, and Cooper, Robin. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 5.403–18.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1996. Directionality and logical form: On the scope of focusing particles and wh-in-situ. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David I., and Clark, Brady Z.. 2008. Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Jonathan. 1982. Even if. Linguistics and Philosophy 5.403–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berckmans, Paul. 1993. The quantifier theory of even. Linguistics and Philosophy 16.589–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berneker, Erich. 1913. Slawisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Buchholz, Oda, and Fiedler, Wilfried. 1987. Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Buchholz, Oda, Fiedler, Wilfried; and Uhlisch, Gerda. 1992. Wörterbuch Albanisch-Deutsch. Leipzig: Langenscheidt.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26.511–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Lauri. 1983. Dialogue games: An approach to discourse analysis. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1974. Language and consciousness. Language 50.111–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles N., 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Corblin, Francis, Déprez, Viviane, de Swart, Henriëtte; and Tovena, Lucia. 2004. Negative concord. Handbook of French semantics, ed. by Corblin, Francis and de Swart, Henriëtte, 417–52. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Diez, Friedrich. 1887. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der romanischen Sprachen. Bonn: Marcus.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1980. Les échelles argumentatives. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975a. Polarity and the scalar principle. Chicago Linguistic Society 11.188–99.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975b. Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry 6.353–75.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1978. Implication reversal in a natural language. Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural languages, ed. by Guenthner, Franz and Schmidt, Siegfried J., 289–301. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1965. Entailment rules in a semantic theory. POLA report 10.60–82. Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Francescotti, Robert M. 1995. Even: The conventional implicature approach reconsidered. Linguistics and Philosophy 18.153–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1971. An analysis of even in English. Studies in linguistic semantics, ed. by Fillmore, Charles J. and Langendoen, D. Terence, 141–80. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1918. Der Gedanke: Eine logische Untersuchung. Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus 2.58–77.Google Scholar
Gamut, L. T. F. 1991. Logic, language and meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker, and van, Johan Auwera, der. 2010. Vers une typologie des opérateurs additifs scalaires. Approches de la scalarité, ed. by Hadermann, Pascale and Inkova, Olga, 285–311. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker, and van, Johan Auwera, der. 2011. What is ‘contact-induced grammaticalization‘? Evidence from Mesoamerican languages. Grammaticalization and language contact, ed. by Wiemer, Björn and Hansen, Björn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, to appear.Google Scholar
Geber, Dana. 2005. Telling 'even's apart. Proceedings of the 2005 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. by Gurski, Claire. Online: http://westernlinguistics.ca/Publications/CLA-ACL/Geber.pdf.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1997. The landscape of polarity items. Groningen: University of Groningen dissertation.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2000. Negative ... concord? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18.457–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2007. The landscape of even. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25.39–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1996. Interrogatives: Questions, facts and dialogue. The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. by Lappin, Shalom, 385–422. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Glanzberg, Michael. 2002. Context and discourse. Mind and Language 17.333–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. by Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L., 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guerzoni, Elena. 2003. Why even ask? Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Guerzoni, Elena. 2004. Even-NPIs in yes/no questions. Natural Language Semantics 12.319–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinites. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Coordination. Language typology and syntactic description, 2nd edn., ed. by Shopen, Timothy, 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herburger, Elena. 2003. A note on Spanish ni siquiera, even, and the analysis of NPIs. Probus 15.237–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1973. Logic, language-games and information: Kantian themes in the philosophy of logic. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Hirvensalo, Lauri. 1963. Saksa-Suomi-Suursanakirja. Helsinki: Werner Söderström.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack, and Rullmann, Hotze. 2001. Scalarity and polarity: A study of scalar adverbs as polarity items. Perspectives on negation and polarity items, ed. by Hoeksema, Jack, Rullmann, Hotze, Sanchez-Valencia, Victor, and van, Ton Wouden, der, 129–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack, and Zwarts, Frans. 1991. Some remarks on focus adverbs. Journal of Semantics 8.51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hole, Daniel. 2004. Focus and background marking in Mandarin Chinese: System and theory behind cái, jiù, dōu and yě. (Asian linguistics 5.) London: RoutledgeCurzon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Lawrence. 1969. A presuppositional analysis of only and even. Chicago Linguistic Society 5.97–108.Google Scholar
Horn, Lawrence. 1971. Negative transportation: Unsafe at any speed? Chicago Linguistic Society 7.120–33.Google Scholar
Horn, Lawrence. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio, and Ortiz, Jon Urbina, de. 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iten, Corinne. 2002. Even if and even: The case for an inferential scalar account. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14.119–57.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1982. Syntax und Semantik der Negation im Deutschen. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1983. Fokus und Skalen: Zur Syntax und Semantik der Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1984. The syntax of bound focus in German. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 25.172–200.Google Scholar
Junghanns, Uwe. 2006. Scope conflicts involving sentential negation in Czech. Negation in Slavic, ed. by Brown, Sue and Przepiórkowski, Adam, 105–33. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Kalerikos, Alexis. 1995. Even: How to make theories with a word. Journal of Pragmatics 24.77–98.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1969. Discourse referents. Austin: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1976. Discourse referents. Syntax and semantics, vol. 7: Notes from the linguistic underground, ed. by McCawley, James D., 363–85. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Frances, and Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Even questions. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 7.115–34.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri, and Peters, Stanley. 1979. Conventional implicature in Montague grammar. Syntax and semantics, vol. 11: Presuppositions, ed. by Oh, Choon-Kyu and Dinneen, David A., 1–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Katara, Pekka, and Schnellbach-Kopra, Ingrid. 1997. Suomi-saksa-suursanakirja. [Finnish-German dictionary.] Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1990. Even. Linguistics and Philosophy 13.59–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang, and Stutterheim, Christiane von. 1987. Quaestio und referentielle Bewegung in Erzählungen. Linguistische Berichte 109.163–83.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang, and Stutterheim, Christiane von. 1992. Textstruktur und referentielle Bewegung. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 86.67–92.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward. 1964. Negation in English. The structure of language, ed. by Fodor, Jerry A. and Katz, Jerrold J., 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1981a. The meaning of scalar particles in German. Words, worlds and contexts: New approaches in word semantics, ed. by Eikmeyer, Hans J. and Rieser, Hannes, 107–32. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1981b. Kontrastive Analyse und zweisprachige Wörterbücher: Die Gradpartikel even und ihre Entsprechungen im Deutschen. Partikeln und Deutschunterricht: Abtönungspartikeln für Lerner des Deutschen, ed. by Weydt, Harald, 277–304. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1989. On the historical development of focus particles. Sprechen mit Partikeln, ed. by Weydt, Harald, 318–29. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1997. Adverbial subordination: A typology and history of adverbial subordinators based on European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1991. A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 1.128–57.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items in assertion. Linguistic Analysis 15.209–57.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55.243–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladusaw, William A. 1979. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Austin: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Utpal. 1998. Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6.57–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch. (Arbeiten des Kölner Universalienprojekts 48.) Cologne: Tnstitut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Lerner, Jean-Yves, and Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1984. Zum Skopus der Negation im komplexen Satz des Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 3.159–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1969. Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian. 1990. Wahr neben Falsch: Duale Operatoren als die Quantoren natürlicher Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lycan, William G. 1991. Even and even if. Linguistics and Philosophy 14.115–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mari, Alda, and Tovena, Lucia Maria. 2006. A unified account for the additive and the scalar uses of Italian neppure. New perspectives on Romance linguistics, vol. 1: Morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, ed. by Nishida, Chiyo and Montreuil, Jean-Pierre, 187–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McConvell, Patrick. 1983. ‘Only’ and related concepts in Gurindji. Darwin: School of Australian Linguistics, ms.Google Scholar
Meyer, Gustav. 1891. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der albanesischen Sprache. Strasbourg: Trübner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miklošich, Franz. 1886. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der slavischen Sprachen. Vienna: Braunmüller.Google Scholar
Miklošich, Franz. 1890. Die türkischen Elemente in den südost- und osteuropäischen Sprachen (Griechisch, Albanisch, Rumänisch, Bulgarisch, Serbisch, Kleinrussisch, Großrussisch, Polnisch). Vienna: Tempsky.Google Scholar
Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2006. Even, only, and negative polarity in Japanese. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 16.138–55.Google Scholar
Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2008. On compositionality of even: A case study of German auch nur. Proceedings of the 2008 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. by Jones, Susie. Online: http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2008/CLA2008_Nakanishi.pdf.Google Scholar
Poljakova, Svetlana. 2000. Fokusdomäne von Gradpartikeln im Deutschen und Russischen. Linguistik Online 6.2. Online: http://www.linguistik-online.com/2_00/poljakov.html.Google Scholar
Poljakova, Svetlana. 2001. Negative Gradpartikeln im Russischen und Deutschen. Current issues in formal Slavic linguistics, ed. by Zybatow, Gerhild, Junghanns, Uwe, Mehlhorn, Grit, and Szucsich, Luka, 447–60. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Press, Ian. 1986. A grammar of Modern Breton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1994. Negative and positive polarity: A binding approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics (Papers in semantics) 49.91–136.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2004. Context in dynamic interpretation. Handbook of contemporary pragmatic theory, ed. by Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory, 197–220. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1.75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1996. Focus. Handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. by Lappin, Shalom, 271–97. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze. 1997. Even, polarity, and scope. University of Alberta Papers in Experimental and Theoretical Linguistics 4.40–64.Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze. 2003. Additive particles and polarity. Journal of Semantics 20.329–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze, and Hoeksema, Jack. 1997. De distributie van ook maar en zelfs maar. Een corpusstudie. Nederlandse Taalkunde 2.281–317.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Bernhard. 2005. Scalar additive particles in negative contexts. Natural Language Semantics 13.125–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. Givenness, AvoidF, and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7.141–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, Scott. 1999a. Pragmatics of conditional marking: Implicative, scalarity and exclusivity. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott. 1999b. Two types of scalar particles: Evidence from Spanish. Advances in Hispanic linguistics, ed. by Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier and Martinez-Gil, Fernando, 546–61. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott. 2000. Lo absoluto y lo relativo de las partículas escalares incluso e hasta. Oralia 3.169–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, Scott. 2002. Additive particles and scalar endpoint marking. Journal of Belgian Linguistics 16.119–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. Semantics and philosophy, ed. by Munitz, Milton K. and Unger, Peter K., 197–214. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. Syntax and semantics, vol. 9: Pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 315–32. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1998. On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7.3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stojanov, Stojan, and Janakiev, Miroslav. 1983. Studienwörterbuch Altbulgarisch-Deutsch. Sofia: Kliment Ochridski.Google Scholar
Stubblefield, Morris, and Miller, Carol. 1991. Diccionario Zapoteco de Mitla, Oaxaca. Mexico City: Instituto Linguistico de Verano.Google Scholar
Sudhoff, Sebastian. 2010. Focus particles in German: Syntax, prosody and information structure. Frankfurt: Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taglicht, Josef. 1984. Message and emphasis: On focus and scope in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. 2006. The semantic development of scalar focus modifiers. The handbook of the history of English, ed. by Kemenade, Ans van and Los, Bettelou, 335–59. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric. 1994. Polarity items, n-words and minimizers in Catalan and Spanish. Probus 6.263–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. 1985. Only if. Logique et Analyse 109.61–74.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. 2008. In defense of classical semantic maps. Theoretical Linguistics 34.39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. 2009. The Jespersen cycles. Cyclical change, ed. by Gelderen, Elly van, 35–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan, and Plungian, Vladimir. 1998. Modality's semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2.49–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan, and Temürcü, Çeyhan. 2006. Semantic maps. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., ed. by Brown, Keith, 131–34. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
van der Wouden, Ton. 1997. Negative contexts: Collocation, polarity and multiple negation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vandeweghe, Willy. 1981. Ook maar X. Studia Germanica Gandensia 21.15–56.Google Scholar
Vasmer, Max. 1953. Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Visconti, Jacqueline. 2004. Sintassi e uso delle particelle perfino, persino e addirittura in italiano antico. La sintassi dell'italiano antico, ed. by Dardano, Maurizio and Frenguelli, Gianluca, 445–63. Rome: Editrice L'Aracne.Google Scholar
Visconti, Jacqueline. 2005. On the origins of scalar particles in Italian. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6.237–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1991. Current issues in the theory of focus. Semantik: Ein Internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung [Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research], ed. by Stechow, Arnim von and Wunderlich, Dieter, 804–25. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 2007. Schritte zur Satzsemantik. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Karina. 1996. The scope of even. Natural Language Semantics 4.193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Sperber, Dan. 2004. Relevance theory. Handbook of contemporary pragmatic theory, ed. by Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory, 607–32. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1922. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Frans. 1995. Nonveridical contexts. Linguistic Analysis 25.286–312.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Frans. 1998. Three types of polarity. Plurality and quantification, ed. by Hamm, Fritz and Hinrichs, Erhard, 177–238. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar