\documentclass{beamer}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{graphicx}
%\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{verbatim}
%\usepackage{lmodern}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
%\usepackage{natbib}
\mode<presentation>
\usetheme{CambridgeUS}
\usefonttheme{professionalfonts}
\setbeamercovered{transparent}
%\definecolor{blue}{rgb}{0.1,0.1,0.7}
\definecolor{blue}{rgb}{0.51,0.0,0.0} %bordeaux
\setbeamertemplate{navigation symbols}{}

\title[] % (optional, use only with long paper titles)
{Pragmatic scale analysis of \emph{any}
}
\subtitle[]
{\emph{  }}

\author[] % (optional, use only with lots of authors)
{Andreas van Cranenburgh (0440949)}

\institute[] % (optional, but mostly needed)
{Indefinites project, University of Amsterdam}

\date[] % (optional)
{\today}

\subject{Indefinites project}
% If you wish to uncover everything in a step-wise fashion, uncomment
% the following command:

%\beamerdefaultoverlayspecification{<+->}

\begin{document}

\section{Title}
\begin{frame}
  \titlepage
\end{frame}
\renewcommand{\emph}[1]{\textcolor{blue}{#1}}

\section{Pragmatic scales}
\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Any}

Fauconnier (1975)

\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{any} can have universal or existential force. or both (ambiguous).
	\begin{itemize}
	\item universal: Alfred will eat \emph{absolutely/just} any food
	\item existential: \emph{There is}n't any noise he can stand
	\item ambiguous: Can you hear any noise?
	\end{itemize}
\item Two theories:
	\begin{itemize}
	\item Any is \emph{ambiguous} between $\exists$ and $\forall$
	\item Unitarian-universalist: both meanings are $\forall$ with different scope
	\end{itemize}
	Both of these theories are \emph{wrong}.
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Superlatives}

Fauconnier notes a parallel with superlatives:

\begin{itemize}
\item My uncle would hear \emph{any} noise
\item $=$ My uncle would hear \emph{the faintest} noise
\item $=$ My uncle would hear \emph{the hum of a bee}
\end{itemize}

Negation introduces a reversal:

\begin{itemize}
\item My deaf uncle wouldn't hear \emph{any} noise
\item $=$ My deaf uncle wouldn't hear \emph{the loudest} noise
\item $=$ My deaf uncle wouldn't hear \emph{a jetplane taking off}
\end{itemize}

The \emph{there is} and the \emph{absolutely/just} test also work for
these quantifying superlatives.

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Scales}

Reason for quantifying effect of superlatives:

\begin{itemize}
\item They imply a scale, e.g., loudest - $x_1$ - $x_2$ - faintest
\item Scale principle: if $R$ (e.g., bothers) holds for the lowest element on
	the scale, then it holds for all other elements as well 
\item Thus, if the faintest noise bothers him, any other noise will bother 
	him as well.
\end{itemize}

Note also that the scale reverses with a negation,
because if we have $R(x_2) \rightarrow R(x_1)$
then also $\neg R(x_1) \rightarrow \neg R(x_2)$

\end{frame}
% even

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Minimum quantity}

A restricted class of adjectives exist that violate the scale principle
by applying to both the low and the high points of the scale:

Martha didn't hear any noise $\Rightarrow$

\begin{itemize}
\item Martha didn't hear even the loudest noise (implied: there was noise)
\item Martha didn't hear even the faintest noise (suggests: there was no noise)
\end{itemize}

But in contrast:

\begin{itemize}
\item He did not eat the most delicious food
\item *He did not eat the most awful food
\end{itemize}

These adjectives are \emph{minimum quantity} adjectives, e.g., faint, remote,
slight, small, tiny, least. \\
But: difficult to characterize this set (e.g., inaudible not a member).
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Any as superlative}

Superlatives shares properties with quantifiers. Two options:

\begin{itemize}
\item Reduce superlatives to quantifiers
\item Explain \emph{any} as a sort of superlative using the scale principle. \\
	in this case \emph{any} indicates the low point on an arbitrary scale.

$\Rightarrow$ I don't see any problem \\
paraphrased: I don't see the slightest/most obvious/easiest problem
\end{itemize}

Fauconnier argues for the latter.
\end{frame}

\section{Horn}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{NPI \& FC any}
Horn (2005)

\begin{itemize}
\item FC: I can catch any raven $\Rightarrow$ even the most elusive raven \\
	Non-reversed scale, in generic or non-episodic context associated with
	a kind scale (e.g., most difficult, very difficult, difficult)
\item NPI: I didn't see any pigs $\Rightarrow$ not a single raven \\
	Reversed scale, minimal element on quantity scale \\ 
	(one problem, two problems, ...)
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Indiscriminacy}

NPI \& FC any often has the feature of indiscriminacy:

\begin{itemize}
\item anti-indiscriminacy: I didn't talk to just anyone \\
	(implies: I did talk to someone) \\
	versus: I didn't talk to anyone
\item Supplementary any: I am looking for a bicycle, any bicycle, that works. \\
\end{itemize}

A diagnostic for indiscriminacy is \emph{at all} and \emph{whatsoever}. 

$\Rightarrow$ No other universal or existential operator can be modified by at
	all or whatsoever.

$\Rightarrow$ universal character of \emph{any} is epiphenomal, derivative
of monotonicity of relevant scale
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Exceptives}
\begin{itemize}
\item Exceptives (except, but, ...) seem to combine only with universal quantifiers: \\
   $\Rightarrow$ Anyone/everyone/no one/*someone but me
\item This seems to indicate that FC any is universal, \\
	\emph{but:} then NPI any would be universal as well! \\
	$\Rightarrow$ I wouldn't vote for anyone but Arnold.
\item FC any with exceptive also appears with clear existential meaning:
	$\Rightarrow$ Pick any card but the ace of spades
\item Horn: exceptives licensed if conventionally universal or scalar endpoint
\end{itemize}

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Almost}
\emph{Almost} is often cited as diagnostic distinguishing between FC (OK)
and NPI any (not OK).

But exceptions can be found:

\begin{itemize}
\item I don't like almost any boybands, but ...
\item I don't like almost any of the food that is traditionally served on
	Thanksgiving
\item She doesn't like almost any of her teachers
\end{itemize}

Rather it appears that almost is licensed in exact (e.g., almost 50) and in 
	end-of-scale (almost any) contexts.
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Conclusion}

\begin{itemize}
\item There is a unified analysis of \emph{any} as an indefinite, 
	relying on pragmatic scales
\item both NPI and FC any refer to an endpoint of a scale
\item neither the ambiguist nor the unitarian-universalist theory \\
	is compatible with the data presented
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}

\frametitle{Bibliography}

\begin{description}
\item[Fauconnier,] Gilles (1975),
	Pragmatic scales and logical structure,
	Linguistic inquiry volume VI, Number 9, pp.~353--375.

\item[Horn,] Laurence R. (2005), 
	Airport '86 revisited: toward a unified indefinite any \\
	In: Reference and quantification: the Partee effect. Eds.~ Gregory N. Carlson \& Francis Jeffry Pelletier.
\end{description}
\end{frame}
\end{document}