Minimizers, Maximizers and the Rhetoric of Scalar Reasoning

By Michael Israel. 2001

107 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Language and Linguistics, Linguistics

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

In Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Recursive Deep Models for Semantic Compositionality Over a Sentiment Treebank (2013, background): “For instance, ‘The movie was terrible’ is negative but the ‘The movie was not terrible’ says only that it was less bad than a terrible one, not that it was good (Horn, 1989; Israel, 2001).”
Sarcasm, Pretense, and The Semantics/ Pragmatics Distinction ∗ (2012, background): “The precise characterization and explanation of these licensing environments thus remains a matter of heated dispute, although several theorists have focused on a connection with scalar implicature (e.g. Kadmon and Ladman 1993, Israel 2001, Chierchia 2004), which we'll return to in §4.4.”
Antonymy and negation (2006, background): “…and experimental data concerning the general combinatorial constraints and collocational possibilities between totality modiﬁers and the lexical elements they modify on the one hand and scalar modiﬁers and the elements they modify on the other in terms of boundedness (Paradis, 1997, 2001, 2003b).”
On the negativity of negation (2010, background): “Furthermore, as in effect predicted by Israel (1996, 2001, 2004), emphatic negative polarity items (e.g., any, give a damn) amplify this negativity whereas attenuating negative polarity items (e.g., all that, overmuch) soften it.”
Fine-tuning Jespersen’s Cycle (2006, background): “Given the lack of alternative explanations for the concept in question, I assume, following Israel (1998, 2001), that emphasis describes the high informativity of a proposition relative to a scalar “norm”—“if a proposition entails the norm, its assertion is informative because it exceeds what one…”