Downward Entailing - Strawson-DE

Strawson-DE

Downward entailment does not explain the licensing of any in certain contexts such as with only:

Only John ate any vegetables for breakfast.

This is not a downward entailing context because the above proposition does not entail “Only John ate kale for breakfast” (John may have eaten spinach, for example).

Von Fintel (1999) claims that although only does not exhibit the classical DE pattern, it can be shown to be DE in a special way. He defines a notion of Strawson-DE for expressions that come with presuppositions. The reasoning scheme is as follows:

1. P → Q
2. ] (P) is defined.
3. ] (Q) is true.
4. Therefore, ] (P) is true.

Here, (2) is the intended presupposition. For example:

1. Kale is a vegetable.
2. Somebody ate kale for breakfast.
3. Only John ate any vegetables for breakfast.
4. Therefore, only John ate kale for breakfast.

Hence only is a Strawson-DE and therefore licenses any.

Giannakidou (2002) argues that Strawson-DE allows not just the presupposition of the evaluated sentence but just any arbitrary proposition to count as relevant. This results in over-generalization that validates the use if any' in contexts where it is, in fact, ungrammatical, such as clefts, preposed exhaustive focus, and each/both:

* It was John who talked to anybody.

* JOHN talked to anybody.

* Each student who saw anything reported to the Dean.

* Both students who saw anything reported to the Dean.