Home Problems for a uniform analysis of ancora in Italian
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Problems for a uniform analysis of ancora in Italian

  • Daniele Panizza

    Daniele Panizza is an Assistant Professor of Linguistics at the University of Messina, Department of Cognitive Sciences, Psychology, Education, and Cultural Studies. He has conducted theoretical and experimental work on several topics including the interpretation of numerals, scalar implicatures, scalar particles, Negative Polarity Items, and attitude verbs.

    EMAIL logo
    and Yasutada Sudo

    Yasutada Sudo is a Professor of Linguistics at the Department of Linguistics of University College London. He has worked on a number of topics on the semantics and pragmatics such as presupposition, implicature, plurality, question semantics, pronominal anaphora, focus semantics.

Published/Copyright: April 9, 2025
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

The Italian additive particle ancora has uses that can be paraphrased by again and still in English. Michela Ippolito’s uniform analysis of still and again in English could be the foundation for a uniform analysis of the two uses of ancora, but we argue that it faces serious challenges. Her core idea is that still and again have the same presupposition about a past eventuality and differ only in the assertion such that still asserts that the same eventuality is still happening at the reference time while again asserts that another eventuality is. The idea has appealing features, but this analysis of again fails to entail the ‘discontinuity inference’ that the past eventuality came to an end before the reference time, and furthermore, this analysis of still is not general enough to account for examples where the presupposition and assertion are about different eventualities. Through the critical discussion, we will elucidate the specific issues that need to be solved in order to achieve a uniform analysis of the different uses of ancora.


Corresponding author Daniele Panizza, University of Messina, Messina ME, Italy, E-mail:

About the authors

Daniele Panizza

Daniele Panizza is an Assistant Professor of Linguistics at the University of Messina, Department of Cognitive Sciences, Psychology, Education, and Cultural Studies. He has conducted theoretical and experimental work on several topics including the interpretation of numerals, scalar implicatures, scalar particles, Negative Polarity Items, and attitude verbs.

Yasutada Sudo

Yasutada Sudo is a Professor of Linguistics at the Department of Linguistics of University College London. He has worked on a number of topics on the semantics and pragmatics such as presupposition, implicature, plurality, question semantics, pronominal anaphora, focus semantics.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for constructive and useful feedback. All remaining errors are our own.

References

Beck, Sigrid. 2020. Readings of scalar particles: noch/still. Linguistics and Philosophy 43. 1–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-018-09256-1.Search in Google Scholar

Bernard, Timothée & Lucas Champollion. 2024. Negative events and compositional semantics. Journal of Semantics 40. 585–620. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffad018.Search in Google Scholar

Greenberg, Yael. 2009. Presupposition accommodation and informativity considerations with aspectual still. Journal of Semantics 26. 49–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffn009.Search in Google Scholar

Greenberg, Yael. 2012. Event-based additivity in English and modern Hebrew. In Patricia Cabredo Hofherr & Brenda Laca (eds.), Verbal plurality and distributivity, 127–158. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110293500.127Search in Google Scholar

Heim, Irene. 1990. Presupposition projection. In Rob van der Sandt (ed.), Reader for the Nijmegen workshop on presupposition, lexical meaning, and discourse process. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.Search in Google Scholar

Homer, Vincent. 2021. Domains of polarity items. Journal of Semantics 38. 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffaa006.Search in Google Scholar

Ippolito, Michela. 2004. An analysis of still. In Robert B. Young (ed.), Proceedings of SALT 14, 127–144. Ithaca, NY: Linguistic Society of America.10.3765/salt.v14i0.2900Search in Google Scholar

Ippolito, Michela. 2007. On the meaning of some focus-sensitive particles. Natural Language Semantics 15. 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9004-0.Search in Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard. 1977. Temporal and non-temporal uses of ‘noch’ and ‘schon’ in German. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 173–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351102.Search in Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard. 2002. The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. Abingdon: Routledge10.4324/9780203212288Search in Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 2000. Alternatives for aspectual particles: Semantics of still and already. In Lisa J. Conathan, Jeff Good, Darya Kavitskaya, Alyssa B. Wulf & Alan C. L. Yu (eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual meeting of the berkeley linguistics society: General session and parasession on aspect, 401–412. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistic Society.10.3765/bls.v26i1.1125Search in Google Scholar

Kripke, Saul. 2009. Presupposition and anaphora: Remarks on the formulation of the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.367.Search in Google Scholar

Löbner, Sebastian. 1989. German schon – erst – noch: An integrated analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 12. 167–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627659.Search in Google Scholar

Michaelis, Laura A. 1993. Continuity’ within three scalar models: The polysemy of adverbial still. Journal of Semantics 10. 193–237. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/10.3.193.Search in Google Scholar

Mittwoch, Anita. 1993. The relationship between schon/already and noch/still: A reply to Löbner. Natural Language Semantics 2. 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01255432.Search in Google Scholar

Nicolae, Andreea. 2017. A new perspective on the shielding property of positive polarity. In Dan Burgdorf, Jacob Collard, Sireemas Maspong & Brynhidur Stefánsdóttir (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 27, 266–281. Ithaca, NY: Linguistic Society of America.10.3765/salt.v27i0.4156Search in Google Scholar

Soames, Scott. 1989. Presupposition. In Dov Gabbay & Franz Guenther (eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. IV, 553–616. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-1171-0_9Search in Google Scholar

Szabolcsi, Anna. 2004. Positive polarity – negative polarity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22. 409–452. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALA.0000015791.00288.43.10.1023/B:NALA.0000015791.00288.43Search in Google Scholar

Tellings, Jos. 2017. Still as an additive particle in conditionals. In Dan Burgdorf, Jacob Collard, Sireemas Maspong & Brynhidur Stefánsdóttir (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 27, 1–21. Ithaca, NY: Linguistic Society of America.10.3765/salt.v27i0.4117Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2025-04-09
Published in Print: 2025-03-26

© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 21.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ip-2025-0006/html
Scroll to top button