Anscombre, J.-C. & Ducrot, O.. 1983. L'Argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga.Google Scholar

Aranovich, R. 1996. “Negation, polarity, and indefiniteness: a comparative study of negative constructions in Spanish and English.” Ph.D. dissertation, UC San Diego.

Atlas, J. D. 1984. “Comparative adjectives and adverbials of degree: an introduction to radically radical pragmatics.” Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 347–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atlas, J. D. 1996. “‘Only’ noun phrases, pseudo-negative generalized quantifiers, negative polarity items, and monotonicity.” Journal of Semantics 13: 265–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atlas, J. D.Atlas, J. D.& Levinson, S. C.. 1981. “It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form: radical pragmatics (revised standard version).” In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 1–61.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. [1956] 1970. “Ifs and cans.” In Urmson, J. O. & G. J. Warnock, (eds.), Philosophical Papers. Clarendon: Oxford University Press, 205–32.Google Scholar

Baker, C. L. 1970. “Double negatives.” Linguistic Inquiry 1: 169–86.Google Scholar

Barker, C. 1995. Possessive Description. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S.. 2000. Usage-Based Models of Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Barwise, J. & Cooper, R.. 1981. “Generalized quantifiers and natural language.” Linguistics and Philosophy 4.2: 150–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beaver, D. I. & Clark, B. Z.. 2003. “Always and only: why not all focus sensitive operators are alike.” Natural Language Semantics 11: 323–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beaver, D. I. 2007. Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Malden, MA / Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bender, E. & Kathol, A.. 2001. “Constructional effects of just because … doesn't mean.” In BLS 27, Berkeley: University of California, 13–25.Google Scholar

Benveniste, E. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Editions Gallimard.Google Scholar

Bergen, B. & Chang, N.. 2005. “Embodied construction grammar.” In Östman, J.-O. & Fried, M. (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 147–90.Google Scholar

Bergen, A. & Bergen, K.. 1993. Negative Polarität im Englischen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar

Bernini, G. 1987. “Attempting the reconstruction of negation patterns in PIE.” In Ramat, A. G., Carruba, O. & Bernini, G. (eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 57–69.Google Scholar

Birner, B. & Ward, G. (eds.) 2006. Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Bolinger, D. 1960. “Linguistic science and linguistic engineering.” Word 16: 374–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bolinger, D. 1972. Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borkin, A. 1971. “Polarity items in questions.” In CLS 7. Chicago: CLS, 53–62.Google Scholar

Bosque, I. 1980. Sobre la negación. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar

Bouvier, Y.-F. 2002. “A featural account of polarity phenomena.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva.

Bowerman, M. 1988. “The ‘no negative evidence’ problem: how do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar?” In Hawkins, J. A. (ed.), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 73–101.Google Scholar

Braine, M. 1971. “On two types of models of the internalization of grammars.” In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The Ontogenesis of Grammar: A Theoretical Symposium. New York: Academic Press, 153–86.Google Scholar

Bréal, M. [1900] 1964. Semantics: Studies in the Science of Meaning. Trans. Mrs. Cust, H.. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar

Brown, P. & Levinson, S.. 1978. “Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena.” In Goody, E. (ed.), Questions and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56–289. Reissued as a monograph: Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar

Buyssens, E. 1959. “Negative contexts.” English Studies 40: 163–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam/Philadelphia; John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, J. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W.. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Caffi, C. & Janney, R. W.. 1994. “Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication.” Journal of Pragmatics 22: 325–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carlson, G. 1980. “Polarity any is existential.” Linguistic Inquiry 11: 799–804.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. 1942. Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Carston, R. 1995. “Quantity maxims and generalized implicature.” Lingua 96: 213–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carston, R. 1996. “Metalinguistic negation and echoic use.” Journal of Pragmatics 25: 309–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carston, R. 1998. “Informativeness, relevance, and scalar implicature.” In Carston, R. & Uchida, S. (eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 179–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carston, R. 2002. “Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics.” Mind and Language. Special Issue on Pragmatics & Cognitive Science 17.1–2: 127–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carlson, G. 1981. “Distribution of free-choice any.” In CLS 17. Chicago: CLS, 8–23.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. 2004. “Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface.” In Belleti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press, 39–103.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cormack, A. & Smith, N.. 2002. “Modals and negation in English.” In Barbiers, S., Beukema, F. & Wurff, W. (eds.), Modality and Its Interaction with the Verbal System. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 133–64.Google Scholar

Coulson, S. 2001. Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crain, S. & Pietroski, P.. 2002. “Why language acquistion is a ‘snap’.” The Linguistic Review 19: 163–183.Google Scholar

Croft, W. 1991. “The evolution of negation.” Journal of Linguistics 27: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A.. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cutrer, M. 1994. “Time and tense in narrative and in everyday language.” Ph.D. dissertation, UC San Diego.

Davison, A. 1980. “Any as universal or existential.” In J. Auwera, (ed.), The Semantics of Determiners. London: Croom Helm, 11–40.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. 1967. “Truth and meaning.” Synthese 17: 304–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dayal, V. 1998. “Any as inherent modal.” Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 433–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dayal, V. 2004. “The universal force of free choice any.” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4: 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boer, A., Jong, J. & Landeweerd, R. (eds.) 1993. Language and Cognition 3: Yearbook 1993 of the Research Group for Theoretical and Experimental Linguistics. Groningen: TENK.

Declerck, R. 1995. “The problem of not … until.” Linguistics 33: 51–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dikken, M. 2002. “Direct and indirect polarity item licensing.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 35–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dowty, D. 1991. “Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.” Language 67.3: 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dowty, D. 1994. “The role of negative polarity and concord marking in natural language reasoning.” In M. Harrey & L. Santelmann (eds.), SALT IV. Ithaca: Dept. of Modern Languages and Liguistics, Cornell University, 114–44.

Ducrot, O. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar

Ducrot, O. 1973. La Preuve et le dire. Paris: Maison Mame.Google Scholar

Ducrot, O. 1980. Les Échelles argumentatives. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar

Duffley, P. J. 1994. “Need and dare: the black sheep of the modal family.” Lingua 94: 213–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duffley, P. J. & Larrivee, P.. 2010. “Anyone for non-scalarity?” English Language and Linguistics 14.1: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edmondson, J. A. 1981. “Affectivity and gradient scope.” In CLS 17. Chicago: CLS, 38–44.Google Scholar

Edmondson, J. A. 1983. “Polarized auxiliaries.” In Heny, F. and Richards, B. (eds.), Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles, Vol. I. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 49–68.Google Scholar

Emanatian, M. 1983. “Everything you always wanted to no.” Unpublished ms., UC Berkeley.

Falkenberg, G. 2001. “Lexical sensitivity in negative polarity verbs.” In Hoeksema et al. (eds.), 79–97.

Farkas, D. 2002. “Extreme non-specificity in Romanian.” In Beyssade, C.Bok-Bennema, R., Drijkoningen, F. & Monachesi, P. (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2000. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 127–51.Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G. 1975a. “Polarity and the scale principle.” In Grossman, R. E., San, L. J. & Vance, T.J. (eds.), CLS 11. Chicago: CLS, 188–199.Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G. 1975b. “Pragmatic scales and logical structures.” Linguistic Inquiry 6: 353–75.Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G. [1976] 1980. Etude de certains aspects logiques et grammaticaux de la quantification et de l'anaphore en français et en anglais. Lille: Atelier Reproduction des Thèses.Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G. 1978. “Implication reversal in a natural language.” In Guenther, F. & Schmidt, S. J. (eds.), Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 289–301.Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G. 1980. “Pragmatic entailment and questions.” In Searle, J. R., Kiefer, F. & Bierwisch, M. (eds.), Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 57–71.Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press. Republished, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M.. 2002. The Way We Think. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. J. 1982. “Frame semantics.” In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, 111–37.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. J. 1985. “Frames and the semantics of understanding.” Quaderni di Semantica 6: 222–54.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. & O'Connor, M. C.. 1988. “Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone.” Language 64: 501–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fintel, K. von. 1999. “NPI-licensing, strawson-entailment, and context dependency.” Journal of Semantics 16: 97–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fintel, K. von. 2006. “Modality and Language.” In Borchert, D. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edn. Detroit: MacMillan Reference USA.Google Scholar

Forget, D., Hirschbühler, P., Martineau, F. & Rivero, M. L. (eds.) 1997. Negation and Polarity: Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Francescotti, R. M. 1995. “Even: the conventional implicature approach reconsidered.” Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 153–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gaatone, D. 1971. Etude descriptive du système de la négation en français contemporain. Geneva: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar

Garrido, J. 1992. “Expectations in Spanish and German adverbs of change.” Folia Linguistica 26: 357–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gazdar, G. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Geis, M. 1995. Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geis, M. & Lycan, W. G.. 1993. “Nonconditional conditionals.” Philosophical Topics 21: 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giannakidou, A. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giannakidou, Anastasia 1999. “Affective dependencies.” Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 367–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giannakidou, Anastasia 2001. “The meaning of free choice.” Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 659–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giannakidou, Anastasia 2006. “Only, emotive factive verbs, and the dual nature of polarity dependency.” Language 82.3: 575–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gill, D. 1994. “Conjunctive operators in South-Asian languages.” In Davison, A. & Smith, F. M. (eds.), Papers from the Fifteenth South Asian Language Analysis Roundtable Conference, Iowa City: South Asian Studies Program, University of Iowa, 82–105.Google Scholar

Giannakidou, Anastasia 2005. “Conjunctions and universal quantifiers.” In Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Gil, D. & Comrie, B. (eds.), World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 230–3.Google Scholar

Givón, T. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford/ New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar

Gordon, D. & Lakoff, G.. 1971. “Conversational postulates.” In CLS 7: 63–84.

Grady, J. 2005. “Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration.” Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1595–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, L. J. 2002. African American English: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grice, H. P. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics. Vol.III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41–58.Google Scholar

Guerzoni, E. 2004. “Even-NPIs in yes/no questions.” Natural Language Semantics 12: 319–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haan, F. 1997. The Interaction of Modality and Negation: A Typological Study. New York/London: Garland.Google Scholar

Hamilton, Sir W. 1858. Discussions on Philosophy and Literature. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar

Hankamer, J. 1973. “Why there are two than's in English.” In CLS 9. Chicago: CLS, 179–91.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heim, I. 1984. “A note on negative polarity and downward entailingness.” In Jones, C. & Sells, P. (eds.), NELS 14. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA, 98–107.Google Scholar

Heinämäki, O. 1974. Semantics of English Temporal Connectives. Reproduced by Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1978.

Herburger, E. 2000. What Counts: Focus and Quantification. Lingusitic Inquiry, Monograph 36. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hinds, M. 1974. “Doubleplusgood polarity items.” In CLS 10. Chicago: CLS, 259–68.Google Scholar

Hirschberg, J. B. 1985. “A theory of scalar implicature.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Hoeksema, J. 1983. “Negative polarity and the comparative.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 403–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoeksema, J. 1986. “Monotonicity phenomena in natural language.” Linguistic Analysis 16: 25–40.Google Scholar

Hoeksema, J. 1994. “On the grammaticalization of negative polarity items.” In Gahl, S., Dalbey, A. & Johnson, C. (eds.), BLS 20. Berkeley: University of California, 273–82.Google Scholar

Hoeksema, J. 1996. “Review of Progovac,” 1994 Studies in Language: 196–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoeksema, J. 1997. “In days, weeks, months, years, ages: a class of temporal negative polarity items.” ms., Groningen University.

Hoeksema, J. 1998. “Corpus studies of negative polarity items.” In Turell, M. T. & Vallduvi, E. (eds.), IV-V Jornades de corpus lingüístics 1996–1997. Barcelona: Institut Universitari Lingüística Aplicada, 67–86.Google Scholar

Hoeksema, J. 2000. “Negative polarity items: triggering, scope and c-command.” In Horn & Kato (eds.), 115–46.

Hoeksema, J. 2007. “Parasitic licensing of negative polarity items.” Journal of Comparative German Linguistics 10: 163–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoeksema, J. & Rullmann, H.. 2001. “Scalarity and polarity: a study of scalar adverbs as polarity items.” In Hoeksema et al. (eds.), 129–71.CrossRef

Hoeksema, J., Rullmann, H., Valencia, V. Sánchez & Wouden, T. (eds.) 2001. Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Horn, L. R. 1969. “A presuppositional analysis of only and even.” In Binnick, R. I, Davison, A., Green, G. M. & Morgan, J. L. (eds.), CLS 5. Chicago: CLS, 98–107.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. 1970. “Ain't it hard anymore.” In CLS 6. Chicago: CLS, 318–27.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. 1971. “Negative transportation: unsafe at any speed?” In CLS 7. Chicago: CLS, 120–33.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. 1972. “On the semantic properties of logical operators in English”. Ph.D. dissertation, UC Los Angeles, distributed by IULC, 1976.

Horn, L. R. 1978. “Some aspects of negation.” In Greenberg, J., Ferguson, C. & Moravcsik, E. (eds.), Universals of Human Language, Vol IV: Syntax. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 127–210.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. 1984. “Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature.” In Schiffrin (ed.), 11–42.

Horn, L. R. 1985. “Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity.” Language 61: 121–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horn, L. R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago / London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. 1991. “Duplex negatio affirmat …: the economy of double negation.” In Dobrin, Lise M., Nichols, Lynn & Rodriguez, Rosa M. (eds.), CLS: Papers from the Parasession on Negation, 27, 2. Chicago: CLS, 80–106.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. 1996. “Exclusive company: only and the dynamics of vertical inference.” Journal of Semantics 13: 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horn, L. R. 1997. “All John's children are as bald as the King of France: existential import and the geometry of opposition.” In Singer, K., Eggert, R. & Anderson, G. (eds.), CLS 33. Chicago: CLS, 155–80.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. 2000a. “Pick a theory (not just any theory): indiscriminatives and the free choice indefinite.” In Horn & Kato (eds.), 147–92.

Horn, L. R. 2000b. “Any and (-)ever: free choice and free relatives.” In Wyner, A. (ed.), Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics (IATL), 71–111.

Horn, L. R. 2000c. “From if to iff: conditional perfection as pragmatic strengthening.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 289–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horn, L. R. 2001. “Flaubert triggers, squatitive negation, and other quirks of grammar.” In Hoeksema et al. (eds.), 173–200.

Horn, L. R. 2002. “Assertoric inertia and scalar inference.” In Andronis, M., Deberport, E., Pycha, A. & Yeshimura, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the Panels of the CLS 38, 2. Chicago: CLS, 55–82.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. 2005. “Airport '86 revisited: toward a unified indefinite any.” In Carlson, G. & Pelletier, F. J. (eds.), The Partee Effect. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 179–205.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. forthcoming. “ONLY connect: how to unpack an exclusive proposition.” In Hackl, M. & Thornton, R. (eds.), A Festschrift for Jay Atlas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Horn, L. R. & Kato, Y.. (eds.) 2000. Negation and Polarity: Syntactic and Semantic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. & Lee, Young-Suk. 1995. “Progovac on polarity.” Journal of Linguistics 31: 401–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horn, L. R. & Ward, G. (eds.) 2004. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Basil: Blackwell Publishers.

Hübler, A. 1983. Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Israel, M. 1995a. “Negative polarity and phantom reference.” In BLS 21. Berkeley: University of California, 162–73.Google Scholar

Israel, M. 1995b. “Review of Negative Contexts by Ton van der Wouden.” Glot International 1.5: 10–12.Google Scholar

Israel, M. 1996. “Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics.” Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 619–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Israel, M. 1997. “The scalar model of polarity sensitivity: the case of the aspectual operators.” In Forget, et al. (eds.), 209–29.CrossRef

Israel, M. 1998a. “The rhetoric of grammar: scalar reasoning and polarity sensitivity.” Ph.D. dissertation, UC San Diego.

Israel, M. 1998b. “Ever: polysemy and polarity sensitivity.” Linguistic Notes from La Jolla 19: 29–45.Google Scholar

Israel, M. 1999. “Some and the pragmatics of indefinite construal.” In BLS 25. Berkeley: University of California, 169–82.Google Scholar

Israel, M. 2001. “Minimizers, maximizers, and the rhetoric of scalar reasoning.” Journal of Semantics 18.4: 297–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Israel, M. 2002. “Literally speaking.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: 423–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Israel, M. 2004. “The pragmatics of polarity.” In Horn, & Ward, (eds.), 701–23.

Israel, M. 2006. “Saying less and meaning less.” In Birner & Ward (eds.), 143–62.

Jackson, E. 1994. “Negative polarity, definites under quantification and general statements.” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.

Jacobson, P. 2006. “I can't seem to figure this out.” In Birner & Ward (eds.), 157–76.

Jayez, J. & Tovena, L. M.. 2005. “Free choiceness and non-individuation.” Linguistics and Philosophy 28.1: 1–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jennings, R. E. 1994. The Geneology of Disjunction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: A. F. Host.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd.Google Scholar

Johannessen, J. B. 2003. “Negative polarity verbs in Norwegian.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 71: 33–73.Google Scholar

Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Kadmon, N. & Landman, F.. 1993. “Any.” Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 353–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Karttunen, L. 1974. “Until.” CLS 10: 284–97.Google Scholar

Karttunen, L.& Peters, S.. 1979. “Conventional implicature.” In Oh, C.-K. & Dineen, D. A. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol II: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press, 1–56.Google Scholar

Kas, M. 1993. Essays on Boolean Functions and Negative Polarity. Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics 11. Groningen: Center for Language and Cognition Groningen.Google Scholar

Katz, J. J. 1977. Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar

Kay, P. 1983. “Linguistic competence and folk theories of language: two English hedges.” In BLS 9. Berkeley: University of California, 128–37.Google Scholar

Kay, P. 1989. “Contextual operators: respective, respectively, and vice versa.” In BLS 15. Berkeley: University of California, 181–93.Google Scholar

Kay, P. 1990. “Even.” Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 59–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kay, P. 1997. Words and the Grammar of Context. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publication.Google Scholar

Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. J.. 1999. “Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the what's X doing Y construction.” Language 75: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kirsner, R. S. 1993. “From meaning to message in two theories: cognitive and Saussurean views of the modern Dutch demonstratives.” In Geiger, R. & Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (eds.), Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language. Cognitive Linguistics Research 3. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 81–114.Google Scholar

Klein, H. 1998. Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related Languages. Linguistik Aktuell, vol. 21. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klima, E. S. 1964. “Negation in English.” In Fodor, J. and Katz, J. (eds.), The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 246–323.Google Scholar

Koenig, J.-P. 1999. Lexical Relations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

König, E. 1977. “Temporal and non-temporal uses of noch and schon in German.” Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 173–98.Google Scholar

König, E. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

König, E. & Traugott, E. C.. 1982. “Divergence and apparent convergence in the development of yet and still.” In BLS 8. Berkeley: University of California, 170–9.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. 1991. “Modality.” In Stechow, A. & Wunderlich, D. (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: de Gruyter, 639–50.Google Scholar

Krifka, M. 1992. “Some remarks on polarity items.” In Zaefferer, D. (ed.), Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics. Dordrecht: Foris, 150–89.Google Scholar

Krifka, M. 1994. “The semantics and pragmatics of weak and strong polarity items in assertions.” In Harvey, M. & Santelmann, L. (eds.), Proceedings of SALT IV. Ithaca: Dept. of Modern Language and Linguistics, Cornell University, 195–219.Google Scholar

Krifka, M. 1995. “The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items.” Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–57.Google Scholar

Krifka, M., Carlson, G., Pelletier, F. J., Meulen, A., Chierchia, G. & Links, G.. 1995. “Genericity: an introduction.” In Carlson, G. & Pelletier, F. J. (eds.), The Generic Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1–124.Google Scholar

Kuczaj, S. 1976. “-ing and -ed: a study of the acquisition of certain verb inflections.” ms., University of Minnesota.

Kuroda, S.-Y. 1992. Japanese Syntax and Semantics: Collected Papers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

Labov, W. 1975. What is a Linguistic Fact?Lisse: Peter de Ridder.Google Scholar

Labov, W. 1984. “Intensity.” In Schiffrin, (ed.), 43–70.

Ladusaw, W. 1979. “Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Republished in the series Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York & London: Garland, 1980.

Ladusaw, W. 1983. “Logical form and conditions on grammaticality.” Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 373–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ladusaw, W. 1992. “Expressing negation.” In Barker, C. & Dowty, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the SALT II. Columbus: Linguistics Department, Ohio State University, 237–59.Google Scholar

Ladusaw, W. 1996. “Negation and polarity items.” In Lappin, S. (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford and Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 321–41.Google Scholar

Lahiri, U. 1998. “Focus and negative polarity in Hindi.” Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laka, I. 1990. “Negation in syntax: on the nature of functional categories and projections.” Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Lakoff, G. 1972. “Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.” In Perenteau, P., Levi, J. & Phares, G. (eds.), CLS 8. Chicago: CLS, 183–228.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Lakoff, R. 1969. “A syntactic argument for negative transportation.” In Binnick, R. I., Davison, A., Green, G. M. & Morgan, J. L. (eds.), CLS 5. Chicago: CLS, 140–147.Google Scholar

Lakoff, R. 1970. “Some reasons why there can't be any some-any rule.” Language 45: 608–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakoff, R. 1973. “The logic of politeness; or, minding your p's and q's.” In Colum, C.et al. (eds.), CLS 9, 149–62.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisities. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 1988. “A usage-based model.” In Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 127–61.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 1990. “Subjectification.” Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 1997. “Generics and habituals.” In Athanasiadou, Angeliki & Dirven, René (eds.), On Conditionals Again, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 143. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 191–222.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 2000. “A dynamic usage-based model.” In Barlow, & Kemmer, (eds.), 1–64.

Langacker, R. W. 2002. “One any.” In Korean Linguistics Today and Tomorrow: Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Korean Linguisitcs. Seoul: Association for Korean Linguistics, 282–300.Google Scholar

Langendoen, D. T. 1970. “The ‘can't seem to’ construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 1: 25–35.Google Scholar

Larrivée, P. 1996. “A semantic definition of negative polarity items with evidence from French and English.” Unpublished ms., Université of Laval.

Lee, C. 1996. “Negative polarity items in English and Korean.” Language Sciences 18: 505–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lee, Y. & Horn, L. R.. 1994. “Any as Indefinite plus even.” Unpublished ms., Yale University.

Leech, G. 1980. Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Lees, R. B. 1960. “Review of Bolinger, 1957, Interrogative Structures in American English.” Word 16: 119–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

LeGrand, J. E. 1975. “Or and any: the semantics and syntax of two logical operators,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.

Leuschner, Torsten, 1996. “Ever and universal quantifiers of time: observations from some Germanic languages.” Language Sciences 18. 1–2: 469–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lindholm, J. M. 1969. “Negative raising and sentence pronominalization.” In Binnick, R. I., Davison, A., Green, G. M. & Morgan, J. L. (eds.), CLS 5, 148–58.Google Scholar

Linebarger, M. 1980. “The grammar of negative polarity.” Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Linebarger, M. 1987. “Negative polarity and grammatical representation.” Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 325–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Linebarger, M. 1991. “Negative polarity as linguistic evidence.” In Dobrin, L. M., Nichols, L. & Rodriguez, R. M. (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Negation. 27, 2. Chicago: CLS, 165–88.Google Scholar

Löbner, S. 1987. “Quantification as a major module of natural language semantics.” In Groenendijk, J., d. de Jongh & Stokhof, M. (eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers. Foris: Dordrecht, 53–85.Google Scholar

Löbner, S. 1989. “German schon-erst-noch: an integrated analysis.” Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 167–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lyons, J. 1982. “Deixis and subjectivity: loquor, ergo sum?” In J. Jarvella, R. & Klein, W. (eds.), Speech, Place and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics. New York: Wiley, 101–24.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B. 1995. The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Mahajan, A. 1990. “LF-conditions on negative polarity licensing.” Lingua 80: 330–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mandler, J. M. 1992. “How to build a baby: II conceptual primitives.” Psychological Review 99: 587–604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Margerie, H. 2007. “From downgrading to (over) intensifying: a pragmatic study in English and French.” In Kescskes, I. & Horn, L. R. (eds.), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, 287–312.Google Scholar

Margerie, H. 2008. “A historical and collexeme analysis of the development of the compromiser fairly.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 9,2: 288–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matsumoto, Y. 1995. “The conversational condition on horn scales.” Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 21–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

May, R. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Mazodier, C. 1998. “‘I must have read it in some article’: instabilité qualitative de some + discontinu singulier.” Cahiers de Recherche en Grammaire Anglais, 111–26.

McGloin, N. H. 1972. “Some Aspects of Negation in Japanese.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.

Meillet, A. 1948. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: La Société Linguistique de Paris.Google Scholar

Michaelis, L. A. 1992. “Aspect and the semantics-pragmatics interface: the case of already.” Lingua 87: 321–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Michaelis, L. A. 1993. “‘Continuity’ within three scalar models: the polysemy of adverbial still.” Journal of Semantics 10: 193–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Michaelis, L. A. & Lambecht, K.. 1996. “The exclamative sentence type in English.” In Goldberg, A. E. (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 375–89.Google Scholar

Milsark, G. 1977. “Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English.” Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29.Google Scholar

Mittwoch, A. 1977. “Negative sentences with until.” In CLS 13. Chicago: CLS, 410–17.Google Scholar

Mittwoch, A. 1988. “Aspects of english aspect: on the interaction of perfect, progressive and durational phrases.” Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 203–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moeschler, J. 1997. “La négation comme expression procedurale.” In Forget (eds.), 231–49.

Möhren, F. 1980. Le renforcement affectif de la négation par l'expression d'une valeur minimale en ancien français. ‘Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie,’ 175. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morris, C. W. [1938]1955. “Foundations of the theory of signs.” In Neurath, O., Carnap, R. & Morris, C. W. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol. I.Google Scholar

Morris, C. W. [1946]1998. “The scope and import of semiotic.” In Kasher, A. (ed.), Pragmatics: Critical Concepts, Vol I. London and New York: Routledge, 7–14.Google Scholar

Moxey, L. M. & Sanford, A. J.. 1993. Communicating Quantities: A Psychological Perspective. Hove & Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Palmer, F. R. 1994. “Psychological studies of quantifiers.” Journal of Semantics 11.3: 153–70.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, F. 2003. “Grammar is grammar and usage is usage.” Language 79.4: 682–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Palacios Martinez, I. M. 1999. “Negative polarity idioms in Modern English.” ICAME Journal, No. 23, 65–115.

Palmer, F. R. 1990. Modality and the English Modals. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Palmer, F. R. 1995. “Negation and the modals of possibility and necessity.” In Bybee, J. & Fleischman, S. (eds.), Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 453–71.Google Scholar

Paradis, C. 1997. Degree Modifiers of Adjectives in Spoken British English. Lund Studies in English 92. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar

Paradis, C. 2001. “Adjectives and boundedness.” Cognitive Linguistics 12.1: 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Partee, B. H., Meulen, A. G.&Wall, R.. 1990. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar

Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar

Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A.. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press/Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Portner, P. 2009. Modality. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pott, A. F. 1859. Etymologishce Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Ino-Germanischen Sprachen, Vol. I. Lemgo/Detmold: Meyer.Google Scholar

Powell, M. J. 1992. “Folk theories of meaning and principles of conventionality: encoding literal attitude via stance adverb.” In Lehrer, A. & Kittay, E. F. (eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 333–54.Google Scholar

Progovac, L. 1992. “Negative polarity: a semantico-syntactic approach.” Lingua 86: 271–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Progovac, L. 1994. Negative and Positive Polarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G.&Svartik, J.. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Raghibdoust, S. 1994. “The semantic-pragmatic nature of the persian polarity items.” Unpublished ms., University of Ottawa.

Roberts, C. 2004. “Context in dynamic interpretation.” In Hom & Ward (eds.), 197–220.

Rooy, R. van. 2003. “Negative polarity items in questions: strength as relevance.” Journal of Semantics 20: 239–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rullmann, H. 1996. “Two types of negative polarity items.” In NELS 26, University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA, 335–50.Google Scholar

Rullmann, H. 2002. “A note on the history of either.” In Andronis, M., Debenport, E., Pycha, A. & Yoshimura, K. (eds.), Proceeedings from the Panels of the CLS 38, 2. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar

Rullmann, H. 2003. “Additive particles and polarity.” Journal of Semantics 20: 329–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sadock, J. 1981. “Almost.” In Cole, (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 257–71.Google Scholar

Sánchez Valencia, Víctor. 1991. “Studies on natural logic and categorial grammar.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

Sánchez Valencia, V., Wouden, T. & Zwarts, F.. 1993. “Polarity and the flow of time.” In Jong, Boer & Landeweerd, (eds.), 209–18.

Sapir, E. 1944. “Grading: a study in semantics.” Philosophy of Science 11: 93–116. Reprinted in D. G. Mandelbaum (ed.), Edward Sapir: Selected Writings in Language, Culture, and Personality. Berkeley, Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1985, 122–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schiffrin, D. (ed.) 1984. Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (GURT '84). Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Schmerling, S. 1971. “A note on negative polarity.” Papers in Linguistics 4: 200–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schwenter, S. 1999a. The Pragmatics of Conditional Marking: Implicature, Scalarity, and Exclusivity. New York/London: Garland Press.Google Scholar

Schwenter, S. 1999b. “Two types of scalar particles: evidence from Spanish.” In Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. & Martínez-Gil, F. (eds.), Advances in Hispanic Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 546–61.Google Scholar

Smith, S. 1975. Meaning and Negation. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Spencer, N. J. 1973. “Differences between linguists and nonlinguists in intuitions of grammaticality-acceptability.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2: 83–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.. [1986]1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Spitzbardt, H. 1963. “Overstatement and understatement in British and American English.” Philologica Pragensia 6:45 277–86.Google Scholar

Strawson, P. F. [1970]1985. “Meaning and truth.” 1969 Inaugural Lecture, Oxford University. Reprinted in Martinich, A. P. (ed.), The Philosophy of Language. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 101–12.Google Scholar

Suppes, P. 1974. “The semantics of children's language.” American Psychologist 29: 103–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Swart, H. 1996. “Meaning and use of not…until.” Journal of Semantics 13.3: 221–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sweetser, E. 1988. “Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching.” In Axmaker, S., Jaisser, A. & Singmaster, H. (eds.), BLS 14, University of California, 389–405.Google Scholar

Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology To Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sweetser, E. & Dancygier, B.. 2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Szabolsci, A. 2002. “Hungarian disjunctions and positive polarity.” In Kenesei, I. & Siptar, P. (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 8. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 217–41.Google Scholar

Szabolsci, A. 2004. “Positive polarity – negative polarity.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 409–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Szabolsci, A. and Haddican, B.. 2004. “Conjunction meets negation: a study in cross-linguistic variation.”Journal of Semantics 21: 219–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Talmy, L. 1985. “Force dynamics in language and thought.” In Eilfort, W., Kroeber, P. & Peterson, K. (eds.), CLS: Paracession on causatives and Agentivity, 21. Chicago: CLS, 293–337.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Tovena, L. 1998. The Fine Structure of Polarity Items. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Tovena, L. & Jayez, J.. 1999. “Any: from scalarity to arbitrariness.” In Corblin, F., Dobrovie-Sorin, C. & Marandin, J. M. (eds.), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics, Vol. II. The Hague: Theseus, 39–57.Google Scholar

Tovena, L., Deprez, V. & Jayez, J.. 2004. “Polarity sensitive items.” In Corblin, F. & Swart, H. (eds.), Handbook of French Semantics. CSLI Lecture Notes 17. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 403–27.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. 1988. “Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization.” In Axmaker, S., Jaisser, A. & Singmaster, H. (eds.), BLS 14. Berkeley: University of California 406–16.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. 1989. “On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change.” Language 65.1: 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Traugott, E. C. & Dasher, R. B.. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. & König, E.. 1991. “The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited.” In Traugott, E. C. & Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 189–218.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. & Waterhouse, J.. 1969. “Already and yet: a suppletive set of aspect markers?” Journal of Semantics 5: 287–304.Google Scholar

Uribe-Etxebarria, M. 1994. “Interface licensing conditions on negative polarity items: a theory of polarity and tense interactions.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.

Vallduvì, E. 1994. “Polarity items, n-words, and minimizers in Catalan and Spanish.” Probus 6: 263–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Auwera, J. 1993. “Already and still: beyond duality.” Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 613–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Auwera, J. 2001. “On the typology of negative modals.” In Hoesksema et al. (eds.), 23–48.

Auwera, J. & Plungian, V.. 1998. “Modality's semantic map.” Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124.Google Scholar

Vasishth, S. 1998a. “Monotonicity constraints on negative polarity in Hindi.” Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 51: 147–66.Google Scholar

Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Verhagen, A. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity; Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wagenaar, K. 1930. Etude sur la négation en Ancien Espagnol jusqu'au XVe siècle. Groningen/The Hague: J. B. Wolters Uitgevers-Maatschappij.Google Scholar

Wal, S. 1996. Negative Polarity Items and Negation: Tandem Acquisition. Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics 17. Groningen: Center for Language and Cognition, Groningon.Google Scholar

Warfel, S. L. 1972. “Some, reference, and description.” In Mid-America Linguistics Conference Papers. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma State University, 41–9.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. 1980. Lingua Mentalis: The Semantics of Natural Language. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Wouden, T. 1996a. “Three modal verbs.” Paper presented at the Colloquium, The Germanic Verb, Dublin.Google Scholar

Wouden, T. 1996b. “Negative polarity auxiliaries.” Paper presented at the PIONIER conference Perspectives on Negation, Groningen.Google Scholar

Wouden, T. 1997. Negative Contexts: Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation. London/ New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Wouden, T. & Zwarts, F.. 1993. “A semantic analysis of negative concord.” In Lahiri, L. L. & Wyner, A. Z (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics Theory III. Ithaca, 202–19.Google Scholar

Wright, G. H. 1951. An Essay in Modal Logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

Yoshimura, A. 1994. “A cognitive constraint on negative polarity phenomena.” In Gohl, S., Dolbey, A. & Johnson, C. (eds.), BLS 20. Berkeley: University of California, 599–610.Google Scholar

Zanuttini, R. 1991. “Syntactic properties of sentential negation: a comparative study of Romance languages.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Zanuttini, R. & Portner, P.. 2003. “Exclamative clauses: at the syntax-semantics interface.” Language 79.1: 39–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zepter, A. 2003. “How to be universal when you are existential: negative polarity items in the comparative: entailment along a scale.” Journal of Semantics 20: 193–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zwarts, F. 1996. “A hierarchy of negative expressions.” In Wansing, H. (ed.), Negation: A Notion in Focus. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 169–94.Google Scholar

Zwarts, F. 1998. “Three types of polarity.” In Hamm, F. & Hinrichs, E. (eds.), Plural Quantification. Foris: Dordrect, 177–238.Google Scholar