---
title: "A probabilistic, question-based approach to additivity (2026)"
description: "Additive particles such as too, also and either are usually analysed as needing a salient antecedent sentence. 58 references."
authors: ["William C. Thomas"]
year: 2026
venue: "Semantics and Pragmatics"
source: "https://semprag.org/index.php/sp/article/view/sp.19.1"
doi: "10.3765/sp.19.1"
licence: "CC BY 3.0"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/thomas-2026-probabilistic-question-based-approach-additivity/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/thomas-2026-probabilistic-question-based-approach-additivity/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2026](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2026/page/20/) / A probabilistic, question-based approach to additivity

# A probabilistic, question-based approach to additivity

**Authors:** William C. Thomas · **Year:** 2026 · **Venue:** [Semantics and Pragmatics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/semantics-and-pragmatics/) ([Semantics and Pragmatics 2026](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/semantics-and-pragmatics/2026/)) · **Publisher:** [Linguistic Society of America](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/linguistic-society-of-america/) · **Licence:** [CC BY 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.19.1) · [PDF](https://semprag.org/index.php/sp/article/download/sp.19.1/3127) · [DOI 10.3765/sp.19.1](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.19.1) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W7125682688)

**Citations:** 0 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14)

## Summary
Additive particles such as too, also and either are usually analysed as needing a salient antecedent sentence. That antecedent is taken to be either a focus alternative of the host clause or a partial answer to the same Question Under Discussion. Thomas points to a use of too that these accounts miss, the argument-building use, attested in COCA. In one example, a hotel room has become free and, on top of that, it looks fancy. Here the two statements jointly back an unstated conclusion rather than answering one shared question. The paper gives a single account covering both this use and the canonical one. Too is licensed when some relevant question exists that the antecedent counts as answering, and adding the prejacent makes the case for one resolution of that question stronger than the antecedent alone does. Answerhood is modelled by combining resolutions from Inquisitive Semantics with Bayesian context update in the style of the Rational Speech Act framework. The result is a shared core for additivity, stated as Antecedent, Conjunction and Prejacent Conditions, which can be used to compare also, as well, either and even.

## Key points
- The empirical motivation rests on argument-building uses of too found in naturally occurring data, sourced from COCA (Davies 2008–), a large corpus of present-day American English.
- The paper reviews and extends several earlier accounts:
  - Kripke's anaphoric view and Heim's individual-based presupposition.
  - Rullmann's requirement that a salient focus alternative be true.
  - Winterstein's same argumentative orientation, which explains why too fails in the maths-exam example.
  - Beaver & Clark's CQ partial-answer account, which adds a non-entailment condition (#"Sam is happy. He's ecstatic, too").
  - Zeevat & Jasinskaja's generalized additivity.
- The felicity of too is broken into three conditions (Antecedent, Conjunction, Prejacent), all stated relative to a contextually relevant question (RQ).
- For wh-questions with too, the author suggests the conditions must hold for every value of the bound variable. This explains why "What other books did John read, too?" needs the domain restriction.
- The paper predicts differences across particles:
  - Sentence-initial also escapes part (ii) of the Prejacent Condition, and also generally favours canonical uses.
  - As well appears to lack argument-building uses, possibly because its Conjunction Condition requires different resolutions.
  - Either needs extra NPI constraints.
  - Even links to the Bayesian analysis by Winterstein et al. (2018).

## Interesting ideas
- A discourse particle is licensed by a comparison of evidence: does the antecedent plus the new clause support some conclusion more than the antecedent alone? This turns a vague notion of salience into a testable delta.
- The antecedent and the question it answers can both be implicit, even recovered through implicature, as long as a relevant question can be reconstructed.
- Argumentative orientation gives a crisp failure case: too breaks when antecedent and host push the same question in opposite directions.
- For quantified questions, the particle's conditions must hold for every assignment of the bound variable, which forces the domain to exclude the antecedent.
- An additive is odd when the host entails the antecedent, as with ecstatic entailing happy.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (frames): when prag sees too/also, it could search for a conclusion whose support rises after adding the clause, and record that conclusion as an explainable implicature of the argument-building kind.
- **I2** (world): the world of the text could store accommodated propositions and candidate questions as separate, traceable entries, so later steps can tell stated facts from inferred background.
- **I3** (learn): minimal pairs that flip orientation (e.g., "did not solve all" vs "solved some") could serve as negative controls checking that the pragmatics module rejects such too-uses.
- **I4** (answer): when a question contains too/also ("Who else wants one too?"), the reader could automatically exclude entities already given as answers in the text.
- **I5** (back): the generator could block inserting too when the new clause entails the earlier one, using WordNet-style scales from the compiled knowledge.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [The Ohio State University](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/the-ohio-state-university/) — University, Columbus, United States · 90 works · 19,112 citations
- [Oklahoma State University](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/oklahoma-state-university/) — University, Stillwater, United States · 4 works · 81 citations

📚 Shelves (5): [🖥️ Computer Science](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/) · 18,614 works · [🤖 Artificial Intelligence](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/artificial-intelligence/) · 17,965 works · [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 17,450 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 17,296 works · [🤔 Philosophy](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/philosophy/) · 287 works

🧭 Topics (1): [🔗 Coreference resolution](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/coreference-resolution/) · 575 works

## Cite

Cite as: William C. Thomas. 2026. A probabilistic, question-based approach to additivity. Semantics and Pragmatics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@article{thomas2026probabilistic,
  title = {{A probabilistic, question-based approach to additivity}},
  author = {William C. Thomas},
  journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
  year = {2026},
  doi = {10.3765/sp.19.1},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.19.1}
}
```

- [← previous A Practical Evaluation Method for Long-Form Simultaneous Speech-to-Speech Translation](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/xue-2026-practical-evaluation-method-long-form/)
- [next → A Proposal for a More Universal Annotation of Relative Clauses in Universal Dependencies](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/herrera-2026-proposal-more-universal-annotation-relative/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2026](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2026/page/20/)

## References

58 references, 2 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Ahn, Dorothy. 2015. The semantics of additive either. Sinn und Bedeutung 19. 20–35. [https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/219](https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/219). [↗](https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/219)
2. Anscombre, Jean-Claude & Oswald Ducrot. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Brussels: Mardaga. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Anscombre%2C+Jean%2DClaude+%26+Oswald+Ducrot%2E+1983%2E+L%E2%80%99argumentation+dans+la+langue%2E+Brussels%3A+Mardaga%2E)
3. William C. Thomas Beaver, David & Henk Zeevat. 2012. Accommodation. In Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 503–538. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/978 0199247455.013.0017. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/978)
4. Beaver, David I. & Brady Z. Clark. 2008. Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Beaver%2C+David+I%2E+%26+Brady+Z%2E+Clark%2E+2008%2E+Sense+and+sensitivity%3A+How+focus+determines+meaning%2E+Malden%2C+MA%3A+Blackwell%2E)
5. Bošković, Željko. 2001. On the interpretation of multiple questions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1(1). 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.1.03bos. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.1.03bos)
6. Büring, Daniel. 2003. On d-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(5). 511–545. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025887707652. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025887707652)
7. Ciardelli, Ivano, Jeroen Groenendijk & Floris Roelofsen. 2019. Inquisitive Semantics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [https://fdslive.oup.com/www.oup](https://fdslive.oup.com/www.oup) .com/academic/pdf/openaccess/9780198814788.pdf. [↗](https://fdslive.oup.com/www.oup)
8. Ciardelli, Ivano, Floris Roelofsen & Nadine Theiler. 2017. Composing alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 40(1). 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9195-2. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9195-2)
9. Coppock, Elizabeth & David Beaver. 2011. Exclusive updates! Brought to you by your local QUD. Amsterdam Colloquium 18. 271–281. [https://platform.openj](https://platform.openj) ournals.nl/PAC/article/view/22517. Davies, Mark. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/. [↗](https://platform.openj)
10. Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in WH quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy (SLAP) 62). Dordrecht: Kluwer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Dayal%2C+Veneeta%2E+1996%2E+Locality+in+WH+quantification%3A+Questions+and+relative+clauses+in+Hindi+%28Studies+in+Linguistics+and+Philosophy+%28SLAP%29+62%29%2E+Dordrecht%3A+Kluwer%2E)
11. Dayal, Veneeta. 2002. Single-pair versus multi-pair answers: Wh-in-situ and scope. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3). 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2002.33.3.512. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2002.33.3.512)
12. Degen, Judith, Michael Franke & Gerhard Jäger. 2013. Cost-based pragmatic inference about referential expressions. Cognitive Science Society 35. 376– 381. [https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1td8n2r7](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1td8n2r7). [↗](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1td8n2r7)
13. Degen, Judith & Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2015. Processing scalar implicature: A constraint-based approach. Cognitive Science 39(4). 667–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12171. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12171)
14. Frank, Michael C. & Noah D. Goodman. 2012. [Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/frank-2012-predicting-pragmatic-reasoning-language-games/). Science 336(6084). 998. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.12 18633. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.12)
15. Franke, Michael C. & Gerhard Jäger. 2016. Probabilistic pragmatics, or why Bayes’ rule is probably important for pragmatics. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 35(1). 3–44. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2016-0002. A probabilistic, question-based approach to additivity Gast, Volker & Johan van der Auwera. 2011. Scalar additive operators in the languages of Europe. Language 87(1). 2–54. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.201 1.0008. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2016-0002)
16. Geurts, Bart & Rob van der Sandt. 2004. Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30(1). 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2004.005. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2004.005)
17. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2007. The landscape of EVEN. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(1). 39–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9006-5. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9006-5)
18. Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1996. Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In Jerry Seligmann & Dag Westerståhl (eds.), Logic, language, and computation, vol. 1, 221–237. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ginzburg%2C+Jonathan%2E+1996%2E+Dynamics+and+the+semantics+of+dialogue%2E+In+Jerry+Seligmann+%26+Dag+Westerst%C3%A5hl+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Logic%2C+language%2C+and+computation%2C+vol%2E+1%2C+221%E2%80%93237%2E+Stanford%2C+CA%3A+CSLI+Publications%2E)
19. Godden, David & Frank Zenker. 2018. A probabilistic analysis of argument cogency. Synthese 195(4). 1715–1740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1 299-2. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1)
20. Goodman, Noah D. & Michael C. Frank. 2016. Pragmatic language interpretation as probabilistic inference. Trends in Cognitive Science 20(11). 818–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.08.005. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.08.005)
21. Goodman, Noah D. & Andreas Stuhlmüller. 2013. Knowledge and implicature: Modeling language understanding as social cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science 5(1). 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12007. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12007)
22. Greenberg, Yael. 2016. A novel problem for the likelihood-based semantics of even. Semantics and Pragmatics 9(2). 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.2. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.2)
23. Greenberg, Yael. 2017. A revised, gradability-based semantics for even. Natural Language Semantics 26(1). 51–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9140 -0. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9140)
24. Grubic, Mira. 2018. Two strategies of reopening QUDs—evidence from German auch & noch. Sinn und Bedeutung 21(1). 517–534. [https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/152](https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/152). [↗](https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/152)
25. Grubic, Mira. 2019. Additives and accommodation. In Daniel Gutzmann & Katharina Turgay (eds.), Secondary content: The semantics and pragmatics of side issues (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface 37), 168–199. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004393127_008. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004393127_008)
26. Guerzoni, Elena. 2004. Even-NPIs in yes/no questions. Natural Language Semantics 12(4). 319–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-004-8739-0. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-004-8739-0)
27. Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10(1). 41–53. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/25000703](http://www.jstor.org/stable/25000703). [↗](http://www.jstor.org/stable/25000703)
28. Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9(3). 183–221. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.3.183. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.3.183)
29. William C. Thomas Hintikka, Jaakko. 1976. The semantics of questions and the questions of semantics: Case studies in the interrelations of logic, semantics, and syntax (Acta Philosophica Fennica 28(4)). Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=William+C%2E+Thomas+Hintikka%2C+Jaakko%2E+1976%2E+The+semantics+of+questions+and+the+questions+of+semantics%3A+Case+studies+in+the+interrelations+of+logic%2C+semantics%2C+and+syntax+%28Acta+Philosophica+Fennica+28%284%29)
30. Horn, Lawrence. 1969. A presuppositional analysis of only and even. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 5. 97–107. [https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content](https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content) one/cls/pcls/1969/00000005/00000001/art00011. [↗](https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content)
31. Kamp, Hans & Antje Rossdeutscher. 1994. DRS-construction and lexically-driven inference. Theoretical Linguistics 20(2/3). 165–236. https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1994.20.2-3.165. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1994.20.2-3.165)
32. Karttunen, Frances & Lauri Karttunen. 1977. Even questions. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 7. 115–34. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Karttunen%2C+Frances+%26+Lauri+Karttunen%2E+1977%2E+Even+questions%2E+North+East+Linguistic+Society+%28NELS%29+7%2E+115%E2%80%9334%2E)
33. Karttunen, Lauri. 1974. Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1(1–3). 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1974.1.1-3.181. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1974.1.1-3.181)
34. Kay, Paul. 1990. Even. Linguistics and Philosophy 13(1). 59–111. https://doi.org/1 0.1007/BF00630517. [↗](https://doi.org/1)
35. Kotek, Hadas. 2016. On the semantics of wh-questions. Sinn und Bedeutung 20. 430–447. [https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/2](https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/2) 74. [↗](https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/2)
36. Krifka, Manfred. 1998. Additive particles under stress. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 8. 111–128. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v8i0.2799. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v8i0.2799)
37. Kripke, Saul A. 2009. Presupposition and anaphora: Remarks on the formulation of the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 40(3). 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.367. van Kuppevelt, Jan. 1996. Inferring from topics: Scalar implicatures as topic-dependent inferences. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(4). 393–443. http://ww w.jstor.org/stable/25001633. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.367)
38. Lauer, Sven. 2013. Towards a dynamic pragmatics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University PhD thesis. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lauer%2C+Sven%2E+2013%2E+Towards+a+dynamic+pragmatics%2E+Stanford%2C+CA%3A+Stanford+University+PhD+thesis%2E)
39. Merin, Arthur. 1999. Information, relevance, and social decisionmaking: Some principles and results of decision-theoretic semantics. In Lawrence S. Moss, Jonathan Ginzburg & Maarten de Rijke (eds.), Logic, language, and computation, vol. 2, 179–221. Palo Alto: CSLI. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Merin%2C+Arthur%2E+1999%2E+Information%2C+relevance%2C+and+social+decisionmaking%3A+Some+principles+and+results+of+decision%2Dtheoretic+semantics%2E+In+Lawrence+S%2E+Moss%2C+Jonathan+Ginzburg+%26+Maarten+de+Rijke+%28eds%2E%29%2C+L)
40. Pistoia-Reda, Salvatore & Louise McNally. 2022. Rhetorically-based scalar-additivity: The view from Italian addirittura. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 32. 463–480. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v1i0.5397. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v1i0.5397)
41. Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Toward an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49. 91–136. A revised version was published in Roberts 2012. A probabilistic, question-based approach to additivity Roberts, Craige. 2012. [Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/roberts-2012-information-structure-discourse-towards-integrated/). Semantics & Pragmatics 5(1). 1–69. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6. van Rooij, Robert. 2004. Cooperative versus argumentative communication. Philosophia Scientia 8(2). 195–209. https://doi.org/10.4000/philosophiascie ntiae.576. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6)
42. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts at Amherst PhD thesis. [https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/28568/Rooth-1985-PhD.pdf](https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/28568/Rooth-1985-PhD.pdf). [↗](https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/28568/Rooth-1985-PhD.pdf)
43. Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1). 75–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02342617)
44. Rullmann, Hotze. 2003. Additive particles and polarity. Journal of Semantics 20(4). 329–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/20.4.329. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/20.4.329)
45. Ruys, E.G. 2015. On the anaphoricity of too. Linguistic Inquiry 46(2). 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00184. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00184)
46. Sæbø, Kjell Johan. 2004. Conversational contrast and conventional parallel: Topic implicatures and additive presuppositions. Journal of Semantics 21(2). 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/21.2.199. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/21.2.199)
47. Stalnaker, Robert C. 1978. Assertion. In Peter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics (Syntax and Semantics 9). New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004 368873_013. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004)
48. Surányi, Balázs. 2007. Focus structure and the interpretation of multiple questions. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning, and form: Generalizations across languages (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100), 228–253. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.100.14sur. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/la.100.14sur)
49. Theiler, Nadine. 2019. When additive particles can associate with wh-phrases. Sinn und Bedeutung 23(2). 345–362. https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2019.v23 i2.618. [↗](https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2019.v23)
50. Thomas, William. 2021. Toward a unified semantics for English either. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 31. 446–465. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v31i 0.5126. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v31i)
51. Tonhauser, Judith, David Beaver, Craige Roberts & Mandy Simons. 2013. Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89(1). 66–109. https://doi.org/1 0.1353/lan.2013.0001. [↗](https://doi.org/1)
52. Umbach, Carla. 2012. Strategies of additivity: German additive noch compared to auch. Lingua 122(15). 1843–1863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.0 1.011. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.0)
53. William C. Thomas Winterstein, Grégoire. 2011. The meaning of the additive too: Presupposition and discourse similarity. In Nick Bezhanishvili, Sebastian Löbner, Kerstin Schwabe & Luca Spada (eds.), Logic, language, and computation: 8th international Tbilisi symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation, TbiLLC 2009, Bakuriani, Georgia, September 21-25, 2009. Revised selected papers, 322–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22303-7_21. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22303-7_21)
54. Winterstein, Grégoire, Regine Lai, Daniel Tsz-hin Lee & Zoe Pei-sui Luk. 2018. From additivity to mirativity: The Cantonese sentence final particle tim1. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1): 88. 1–38. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.446. [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.446)
55. Winterstein, Grégoire & Henk Zeevat. 2012. Empirical constraints on accounts of too. Lingua 122(15). 1787–1800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.003. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.003)
56. Zeevat, Henk. 2002. Explaining presupposition triggers. In Kees van Deemter & Rodger Kibble (eds.), Information sharing: Reference and presupposition in language generation and interpretation (CSLI Lecture Notes 143), 61–87. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Zeevat%2C+Henk%2E+2002%2E+Explaining+presupposition+triggers%2E+In+Kees+van+Deemter+%26+Rodger+Kibble+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Information+sharing%3A+Reference+and+presupposition+in+language+generation+and+interpretation+%28CSLI+Le)
57. Zeevat, Henk & Katja Jasinskaja. 2007. And as an additive particle. In Mixel Aurnague, Kepa Korta & Jesus M. Larrazabal (eds.), Language, representation, and reasoning: Memorial volume to Isabel Gómez Txurruka, 315–340. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Zeevat%2C+Henk+%26+Katja+Jasinskaja%2E+2007%2E+And+as+an+additive+particle%2E+In+Mixel+Aurnague%2C+Kepa+Korta+%26+Jesus+M%2E+Larrazabal+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Language%2C+representation%2C+and+reasoning%3A+Memorial+volume+to+Isabel+G%C3%B3mez)
58. Zimmermann, Malte. 2014. Was glaubt EDE, wer der Mörder ist? On D-trees, embedded foci, and indirect scope marking. In Daniel Gutzmann, Jan Köping & Cécile Meier (eds.), Approaches to meaning: Composition, values, and interpretation (Current Research in the Semantics / Pragmatics Interface 32), 306–337. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004279377_014. William Thomas Room 4.055 Keplerstraße 17 70174 Stuttgart Germany william.thomas@ling.uni-stuttgart.de [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004279377_014)

*Updated 2 November 2026*