Documentation

Linglib.Studies.FillmoreKayOConnor1988

[FKOC88]: Let Alone #

"Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone" (Language 64(3):501–538), the founding Construction Grammar paper: let alone is a formal idiom — a productive syntactic pattern F ⟨X A Y let alone B⟩ whose semantics requires a presupposed scalar model (Appendix, definitions A1–A5) and whose pragmatics resolves a conflict between Gricean Quantity (the informative full clause) and Relevance (the contextually given reduced clause). The idiom typology of §1 lives in ConstructionGrammar.Idiom; §2.1's conclusion that let alone is a formal idiom is derived from the construction's typed form (let_alone_formal_idiom).

The paper's scalar models are n-dimensional with n > 1 (definition A1; fn. 16: "a scalar model must contain at least two dimensions"). The military-rank model below is a deliberate one-dimensional simplification of the paper's colonel/general example, not a paper-licit scalar model; the linguists × languages model is the paper's own 2D example.

Main declarations #

Scalar models (§2.3.2, Appendix) #

The argument space Dˣ is a product of scales carrying its product order: definition A2's "dᵢ is lower than dⱼ" (p. 536) — no coordinate higher, at least one strictly lower — is di < dj in that order. Propositions are ordered by entailment — P dj ≤ P di, pointwise over states — so definition A5's "stronger" (p. 537) is strict entailment P dj < P di. Definition A3 (p. 536) then classifies propositional functions: ⟨S, T, Dˣ, P⟩ is a scalar model iff, for distinct dᵢ, dⱼ, P(dⱼ) entails P(dᵢ) just in case dᵢ is lower than dⱼ.

@[instance_reducible]
instance FillmoreKayOConnor1988.instDecidableLeForallPropOfFintypeOfDecidablePred_linglib {S : Type u_2} {P Q : SProp} [Fintype S] [DecidablePred P] [DecidablePred Q] :
Decidable (P Q)
Equations
@[instance_reducible]
instance FillmoreKayOConnor1988.instDecidableLtForallPropOfFintypeOfDecidablePred_linglib {S : Type u_2} {P Q : SProp} [Fintype S] [DecidablePred P] [DecidablePred Q] :
Decidable (P < Q)
Equations
def FillmoreKayOConnor1988.IsScalarModel {Point : Type u_1} {S : Type u_2} [Preorder Point] (P : PointSProp) :

Definition A3 (p. 536): for distinct points, entailment of the propositions reflects the reversed point order. The biconditional is demanding: a state space too sparse to separate the points produces artifact entailments between incomparable points and fails it (see ll_sparse_fails_A3).

Equations
Instances For
    @[instance_reducible]
    instance FillmoreKayOConnor1988.instDecidableIsScalarModelOfDecidableEqOfDecidableLTOfFintypeOfDecidablePred {Point : Type u_1} {S : Type u_2} [Preorder Point] [DecidableEq Point] [DecidableLT Point] [Fintype Point] [Fintype S] (P : PointSProp) [(d : Point) → DecidablePred (P d)] :
    Decidable (IsScalarModel P)
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    def FillmoreKayOConnor1988.NegEntails {Point : Type u_1} {S : Type u_2} (P : PointSProp) (di dj : Point) :

    Definition A4 (p. 536): ¬P(dᵢ) entails ¬P(dⱼ) — the direction at work in the canonical negative let alone sentences: "he didn't make colonel; a fortiori, he didn't make general" (p. 523).

    Equations
    Instances For
      @[instance_reducible]
      instance FillmoreKayOConnor1988.instDecidableNegEntailsOfFintypeOfDecidablePred {Point : Type u_1} {S : Type u_2} [Fintype S] (P : PointSProp) [(d : Point) → DecidablePred (P d)] (di dj : Point) :
      Decidable (NegEntails P di dj)
      Equations

      The let alone construction (§2.1–2.4) #

      The let alone construction: form F ⟨X A Y let alone B⟩ (ex. 20a, p. 512), where F is a negative polarity operator, X and Y are shared non-focused material, and the paired foci A and B are points in a presupposed scalar model. The typed form is the paired-foci core, eliding the shared X/Y material.

      Equations
      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
      Instances For

        Let alone is not fully compositional: a formal idiom with paired focus, scalar entailment, and NPI licensing requirements that cannot be derived from the universal combination schemata (see isFullyCompositional).

        Let alone "must ... be given treatment as the kind of formal idiom or special construction we have been discussing" (§2.1): the paired focus slots A and B are open.

        structure FillmoreKayOConnor1988.LetAloneConditions (Point : Type u_3) (S : Type u_4) :
        Type (max u_3 u_4)

        Felicity conditions on let alone sentences (p. 528): (1) the two clauses express propositions from the same scalar model; (2) the propositions are of the same polarity; (3) the proposition expressed by the initial, full clause is the stronger one.

        The propositions include the polarity operator F, so condition (3) runs through definition A4 in the negative case: in "he didn't make colonel, let alone general" (ex. 21), ¬P(colonel) is stronger than ¬P(general) because colonel is the lower point. The paper itself flags the potential confusion between point-strength and clause-strength here (p. 532).

        • P : PointSProp

          The presupposed scalar model's propositional function

        • focusA : Point

          Argument point for the A focus (in the initial, full clause)

        • focusB : Point

          Argument point for the B focus (in the reduced clause)

        • Condition (2): shared polarity of the two clauses

        • fullClauseStronger : match self.polarity with | Features.Polarity.negative => NegEntails self.P self.focusA self.focusB ¬NegEntails self.P self.focusB self.focusA | Features.Polarity.positive => self.P self.focusA < self.P self.focusB

          Condition (3): the full clause expresses the stronger proposition — via A4 under negation, via A5's strict entailment directly under positive polarity (the attested positive cases, exx. 71–72, p. 519)

        Instances For

          The let alone family (p. 533): conjunctions presupposing a scalar model relating their conjuncts. "Let alone, together with much less and not to mention, presents the stronger statement first"; in fact and if not present it second.

          Instances For
            @[instance_reducible]
            Equations
            Equations
            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
            Instances For

              Environments licensing let alone (exx. 62–70, p. 518). The paper names five types — "simple negation, too complementation, comparison of inequality, only as determiner of the subject, and various minimal attainment qualifiers, these and more" — over nine examples; the last three cases are formalizer labels for the remaining illustrated environments.

              • simpleNegation : LetAloneNPITrigger

                Ex. 62: "He didn't reach Denver, let alone Chicago."

              • tooComplementation : LetAloneNPITrigger

                Ex. 63: "I'm too tired to get up, let alone go running with you."

              • comparisonOfInequality : LetAloneNPITrigger

                Ex. 64.

              • onlyDeterminer : LetAloneNPITrigger

                Ex. 65: "Only a linguist would BUY that book, let alone READ it."

              • minimalAttainment : LetAloneNPITrigger

                Ex. 66: "I barely got up in time for lunch, let alone breakfast."

              • conditionalSurprise : LetAloneNPITrigger

                Ex. 68.

              • failureVerb : LetAloneNPITrigger

                Ex. 69: "failed to reach the sixth GRADE … get a B.A.".

              • anyoneWhod : LetAloneNPITrigger

                Ex. 70: "Anyone who'd been to HIGH SCHOOL, let alone GRADUATE students in MATH, should be able to solve that problem."

              Instances For
                @[instance_reducible]
                Equations
                Equations
                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                Instances For

                  The garden-variety coordination construction let alone is measured against (§2.2.1): two like-category conjuncts joined by a coordinating conjunction. Present as the parent node of the inheritance link below.

                  Equations
                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                  Instances For

                    Let alone against the coordination diagnostics of §2.2.1 (p. 514–517). Shared with coordinating conjunctions: joins like categories, right node raising, gapping. Overridden: no VP ellipsis (exx. 39–41), no IT-clefting of the full constituent (exx. 33–34), fragment second conjunct, scalar requirement, NPI status. The inheritance-link framing is retrospective — the 1988 paper predates Goldberg's link typology.

                    Equations
                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                    Instances For

                      The §2.2.1 comparison as a two-node network.

                      Equations
                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                      Instances For

                        Other constructions of §1 #

                        The X-er the Y-er comparative correlative (exx. 1–2, introduced in §1.1.3 as the flagship formal idiom). The construction's "the" is "not, so far as we can tell, found generally elsewhere in the language" (p. 507; fn. 4 notes relatives like "all the more reason" and the Old English instrumental demonstrative source).

                        Equations
                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                        Instances For

                          The Incredulity Response construction ("Him be a doctor?", ex. 14h in the §2 opening list, pp. 510–511; the type is introduced in §1.1.4): a non-nominative subject with a bare-stem predicate, "used to challenge or question a proposition just posed by an interlocutor" (p. 511).

                          Equations
                          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                          Instances For

                            A one-dimensional rank model (ex. 21) #

                            Ex. 21 (p. 513): "I doubt he made COLONEL in World War II, let alone GENERAL." The paper names only second lieutenant ("the lowest commissioned rank"), colonel, and general; the intermediate ranks are world-knowledge interpolation. States are the down-sets of the rank chain, so the model separates every pair of ranks and satisfies full A3 — at the cost of being one-dimensional, which definition A1 (n > 1) disallows for genuine scalar models; see the module docstring.

                            Commissioned military ranks (ex. 21's scale; intermediate members interpolated).

                            Instances For
                              @[instance_reducible]
                              Equations
                              Equations
                              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                              Instances For
                                @[instance_reducible]
                                Equations
                                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

                                Career outcomes: the down-sets of the rank chain — either no commission, or every rank up to some ceiling.

                                Instances For
                                  Equations
                                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                  Instances For
                                    @[instance_reducible]
                                    Equations

                                    The rank model satisfies full definition A3: for distinct ranks, entailment holds exactly when the entailed point is lower. The down-set state space is what makes the biconditional (not just its forward half) go through.

                                    "He made general" entails "he made colonel" (A3, forward).

                                    "He made colonel" does not entail "he made general" (A3, converse direction for the higher point).

                                    Making general is the stronger positive proposition (A5's strict entailment). NB the paper's warning (p. 532): in ex. 21 the clauses are negated, so the stronger clause is "didn't make colonel" — see ex21Conditions.

                                    The felicity conditions of p. 528, instantiated for ex. 21 "I doubt he made COLONEL, let alone GENERAL": negative polarity, A focus colonel, B focus general; the full clause ¬P(colonel) is stronger by definition A4 because colonel is the lower point.

                                    Equations
                                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                    Instances For

                                      Second lieutenant is the lowest point: no rank is lower. This is the paper's explanation (p. 526) of ex. 107's anomaly — with B the lowest point, the a-fortiori inference has nothing to conclude.

                                      The linguists × languages model (§2.3.2, Tables 1–2) #

                                      The paper's own 2D example (pp. 526–527; Appendix Tables 3–4, p. 535): four professors ordered by erudition, four languages ordered by accessibility, and the propositional function "X can read L".

                                      Linguists ordered by erudition, most erudite lowest (definition A2's worked example, p. 537): "Apotheosis reads English" is the easiest proposition to satisfy.

                                      Instances For
                                        @[instance_reducible]
                                        Equations
                                        Equations
                                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                        Instances For
                                          @[instance_reducible]
                                          Equations
                                          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

                                          Languages ordered by accessibility, most accessible lowest.

                                          Instances For
                                            @[instance_reducible]
                                            Equations
                                            Equations
                                            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                            Instances For
                                              @[instance_reducible]
                                              Equations
                                              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

                                              States of who-reads-what. Every state assigns each professor an initial segment of the accessibility scale (threshold).

                                              • allFalse : LLState

                                                Table 2a (p. 527): nobody reads anything.

                                              • topLeft : LLState

                                                Table 2b: only Apotheosis reads English.

                                              • twoTrue : LLState

                                                Table 2c: Apotheosis reads English and French, Brilliant English.

                                              • allTrue : LLState

                                                Table 2d: everybody reads everything.

                                              • diagonal : LLState

                                                A constructed staircase state (not in the paper), included to refute converse entailments.

                                              Instances For
                                                @[instance_reducible]
                                                Equations
                                                Equations
                                                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                                Instances For
                                                  @[instance_reducible]
                                                  Equations
                                                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

                                                  "Professor X can read language L" in a state: L falls within X's initial segment of the accessibility scale.

                                                  Equations
                                                  Instances For
                                                    @[instance_reducible]
                                                    Equations
                                                    @[instance_reducible]
                                                    Equations

                                                    The 2D model satisfies the forward half of A3 over the five states: lower points' propositions are entailed.

                                                    The five-state space is too sparse for full A3: incomparable points end up with artifact entailments (e.g. "Brilliant reads Hittite" entails "Competent reads French" over these states, though the points are incomparable), violating A3's only-if direction. A genuine model of the paper's Table 2 universe would need the full space of nested states.

                                                    "Brilliant can read Hittite" entails "Brilliant can read English": Hittite is less accessible, so reading it is the stronger claim.

                                                    The paper's worked example (p. 537): (Brilliant, English) is lower than (Brilliant, Greek).

                                                    (Competent, French) and (Brilliant, Hittite) are incomparable (definition A2): Competent > Brilliant on erudition but French < Hittite on accessibility.

                                                    Judgment data #

                                                    The paper's judgment data — basic let alone (exx. 15–16), NPI licensing and the barely/almost/only contrast (exx. 62–66, 113–115), constituency probes (topicalization, VP ellipsis, wh-extraction, IT-clefting; exx. 31–34, 39–41), scalar anomalies (exx. 104, 106–107, 121–122), and the attested positive-polarity cases (exx. 71–72) — live in the generated module Data.Examples.FillmoreKayOConnor1988 (Examples.all, Examples.ex113, ...), sourced from Linglib/Data/Examples/FillmoreKayOConnor1988.json.

                                                    The positive-polarity examples (exx. 71–72) are judged acceptable — the attested cases LetAloneConditions.polarity := .positive covers, challenging a purely syntactic NPI account.

                                                    The barely/almost/only minimal triple (exx. 113–115): barely licenses let alone; almost and non-subject only do not.