상세검색
최근 검색어 전체 삭제
다국어입력
즐겨찾기0
학술저널

Three versus At Least Three

Three versus At Least Three

  • 8
커버이미지 없음

The purpose of this paper is to provide a proper account for the lack of the exactly-reading of, say, at least three, though the bare numeral three is typically understood as "exactly three". My analysis is based on the No Redundancy Principle (NPR), according to which every meaningful expression in a sentence or a text must be non-redundant: Either it must make a contribution to the truth-conditional interpretation, or otherwise its occurrence must be pragmatically licensed. Assuming that the NPR is a rule that regulates all the interpretation processes, I show that the principle provides a natural solution to the puzzle raised by at least.

Ⅰ. Introduction

Ⅱ. Krifka (1999) and Umbach (2005)

Ⅲ. Kadmon (2001) and Schulz and van Rooij (2005)

Ⅳ. Clausal Implicature Analysis

Ⅴ. Proposal

Ⅵ. Conclusions

References

Abstract

(0)

(0)

로딩중