English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper discusses a particular type of optative constructions (which are constructions that express a wish without containing an overt lexical item that means wish): If-clauses in which optativity is apparently licensed by 'at least'. I propose that the connection between 'at least' and optativity is indirect and can be explained as follows. On the one hand, if-clauses generally have an optative reading; on the other hand, optative 'at least' is an instance of concessive 'at least', which conveys desirability and thus supports ('cues') an optative reading. I propose that, as a consequence, the licensing of optativity by 'at least' is a semantic conspiracy: I argue that there is a pragmatic preference for using optativity cues, which blocks optative readings in cue-less utterances.

A uniform analysis for concessive at least and optative at least