Forking Paths and Polarity Items Licensing

There is an elegant account, proposed by Beaver and Condoravdi (2003), that assumes that the temporal connectives 'before' and 'after' are converses (i.e., they are analyzed by means of a unified lexical schema), and that explains away their different logical and veridical behavior appealing to other factors. There is an elegant explanation that connects the licensing of Polarity Items to informational strengthening requirements: Polarity Items are viewed as existentials that lead to a widening of the domain of quantification, and they are predicted to be legitimate only when this widening leads to a stronger statement (roughly, in downward monotone contexts). My plan is to connect these two approaches by proposing an amendment in the definition Beaver and Condoravdi presented for 'before' and 'after' that is meant to account also for their Polarity Items licensing behavior.