Interdisciplinary Colloquium
Prof Yael Greenberg, Bar Ilan University
As part of the department’s weekly research colloquium,
held every Thursday from 16:15 to 17:45 in the Webb Building (Room 103),
the following lecture by Prof. Yael Greenberg from Bar Ilan University will take place:
Another, exclusivity and alternatives
Abstract:
English another is analyzed in Thomas 2011 as an+other, where, following Kamp 2001, other has an entry along the lines of (1) (where y* is a contextually salient individual and Ä is 'overlap'):
(1) λP. λx: P(y*). P(x) ^ ¬xÄy*
This entry can account for the properties of another in (2):
(2) (Context: A tells B about several students of his. Later on B asks about John)
A1: He is another student of mine
A2: He is not another student of mine
(i) He is not a student of mine, OR
(ii) He is one of the students of mine that I was talking about earlier.
(I.e. negation targets either P(x) or ¬xÄy*)
The focus of this talk is a use of English another illustrated in the attested examples in (3)-(4):
(3) "Today was an incredible victory,” explained Marquez. “You can say ‘oh another victory at Sachsenring’ but it’s not another victory; every year I have more pressure, every year it’s more difficult – especially this year. We had the whole weekend in dry conditions, It was very, very tough"
(4) This is not another movie about the Civil War. It does not gloss over the ugly parts and does not make the tender parts too pretty.
I show that this use of another differs from the well-studied use in (2) in both interpretation and projective properties under negation, namely the fact that, unlike what is seen in (2A2), in (3) and (4) neither P(x), nor ¬xÄy* seem to be targeted by negation.
To capture these properties I propose an analysis where the new use of another involve an exclusive operator (EXC), which can be covert, as in (3)-(4), or overt (with just / merely), and which, following Coppock & Beaver 2014, presupposes MIN(p) (an alternative which is at least as strong as p is true, and assers MAX(p) (stronger alternatives are false). The crucial step in the proposal is taking the focus associate of EXC to be other (in another). Given this step, and taking the main contribution of other to be non-overlap (¬xÄy* in (1)), the interesting question is what counts as the alternatives which are stronger than p in sentences like (3)-(4). I propose an answer which, in addition to deriving the basic interpretation and projectivity properties of the new use of other, can correctly predict several additional properties (e.g. constraints on the modified noun, subjectivity and evaluativity).
I end by discussing issues and questions that the data and the proposal raise, regarding (a) cross linguistic variations in expressing the non-overlap relation with this construction (e.g. Hebrew and Russian incrementals od / esche) (b) the nature of the covert EXC in (3)-(4), compared to another (?), well-studied covert exclusive, namely exh (e.g. Chierchia et al 2011), and (c) a comparison of (not) just another with (not) just any.
All are welcome!
