David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- September 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780199602537
- eISBN:
- 9780191758164
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602537.003.0001
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Historical Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter provides an overview of the typical pathways for the development of negation, focusing on the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean. It considers the frequency and causes of ...
More
This chapter provides an overview of the typical pathways for the development of negation, focusing on the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean. It considers the frequency and causes of Jespersen’s cycle, the emergence of new markers of negation from emphatic constructions that eventually come to replace the original marker of negation. It looks at the sources of new negative markers, from minimizers (‘not a bit’) and generalizers (‘not in any possible way’) and at the historical progress of the negative cycle that has occurred in almost every language in western Europe, showing considerable differences in detail despite overall commonality. The chapter also considers how expression of negative indefinites (e.g. ‘nothing, nowhere’) changes over time, including changes in negative concord systems. Common developments here include, for instance, the tendency for items to become more ‘negative’ (the quantifier cycle) and for free-choice items (‘anything you like’) to spread into negative contexts.Less
This chapter provides an overview of the typical pathways for the development of negation, focusing on the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean. It considers the frequency and causes of Jespersen’s cycle, the emergence of new markers of negation from emphatic constructions that eventually come to replace the original marker of negation. It looks at the sources of new negative markers, from minimizers (‘not a bit’) and generalizers (‘not in any possible way’) and at the historical progress of the negative cycle that has occurred in almost every language in western Europe, showing considerable differences in detail despite overall commonality. The chapter also considers how expression of negative indefinites (e.g. ‘nothing, nowhere’) changes over time, including changes in negative concord systems. Common developments here include, for instance, the tendency for items to become more ‘negative’ (the quantifier cycle) and for free-choice items (‘anything you like’) to spread into negative contexts.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.001.0001
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This book considers examples such as the one below on the interpretation where Nancy thinks that this course is not interesting: Nancy doesn't think this course is interesting. It argues that such ...
More
This book considers examples such as the one below on the interpretation where Nancy thinks that this course is not interesting: Nancy doesn't think this course is interesting. It argues that such examples instantiate a kind of syntactic raising known as Classical NEG Raising (NR). This involves the raising of a NEG (negation) from the embedded clause to the matrix clause. The book develops three main arguments to support its claim. First, it shows that Classical NR obeys island constraints. Second, it documents that a syntactic raising analysis predicts both the grammaticality and particular properties of what it terms Horn clauses (named for Laurence Horn, who discovered them). Finally, it argues that the properties of certain parenthetical structures strongly support the syntactic character of Classical NR. The book also offers a detailed analysis of the main argument in the literature against a syntactic raising analysis (which it calls the Composed Quantifier Argument). It shows that the facts appealed to in this argument not only fail to conflict with their approach but actually support a syntactic view. The book also touches on a variety of related topics, including the syntax of negative polarity items, the status of sequential negation, and the scope of negative quantifiers.Less
This book considers examples such as the one below on the interpretation where Nancy thinks that this course is not interesting: Nancy doesn't think this course is interesting. It argues that such examples instantiate a kind of syntactic raising known as Classical NEG Raising (NR). This involves the raising of a NEG (negation) from the embedded clause to the matrix clause. The book develops three main arguments to support its claim. First, it shows that Classical NR obeys island constraints. Second, it documents that a syntactic raising analysis predicts both the grammaticality and particular properties of what it terms Horn clauses (named for Laurence Horn, who discovered them). Finally, it argues that the properties of certain parenthetical structures strongly support the syntactic character of Classical NR. The book also offers a detailed analysis of the main argument in the literature against a syntactic raising analysis (which it calls the Composed Quantifier Argument). It shows that the facts appealed to in this argument not only fail to conflict with their approach but actually support a syntactic view. The book also touches on a variety of related topics, including the syntax of negative polarity items, the status of sequential negation, and the scope of negative quantifiers.
Chiara Gianollo
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- December 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780198812661
- eISBN:
- 9780191850448
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780198812661.003.0005
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Historical Linguistics, Semantics and Pragmatics
This chapter explores some determining factors for the development of indefinites participating in Negative Concord from Latin to Romance (with special attention to Old French and Old Italian). In ...
More
This chapter explores some determining factors for the development of indefinites participating in Negative Concord from Latin to Romance (with special attention to Old French and Old Italian). In particular, the discussion concentrates on the subclass of Romance n-words formed with the negative morpheme ne- / ni- < Latin nec. In its role as building block of the new indefinites, nec is a negative scalar focus particle meaning ‘even not’ (a use that first emerges in Post-Classical Latin); the cardinal numeral unus provides the scalar end point. With nec specific syntactic patterns are observed that quite systematically result in the redundant expression of negation, this occurring already in Classical Latin. These structures are easily prone to reanalysis once the prerequisites for Negative Concord are present. The chapter provides a reconstruction of how the facts emerging from Latin may help toward an improved understanding of optional Negative Concord in Early Romance.Less
This chapter explores some determining factors for the development of indefinites participating in Negative Concord from Latin to Romance (with special attention to Old French and Old Italian). In particular, the discussion concentrates on the subclass of Romance n-words formed with the negative morpheme ne- / ni- < Latin nec. In its role as building block of the new indefinites, nec is a negative scalar focus particle meaning ‘even not’ (a use that first emerges in Post-Classical Latin); the cardinal numeral unus provides the scalar end point. With nec specific syntactic patterns are observed that quite systematically result in the redundant expression of negation, this occurring already in Classical Latin. These structures are easily prone to reanalysis once the prerequisites for Negative Concord are present. The chapter provides a reconstruction of how the facts emerging from Latin may help toward an improved understanding of optional Negative Concord in Early Romance.
Cleo Condoravdi
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- September 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780262083799
- eISBN:
- 9780262274890
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262083799.003.0027
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Lexicography
Until-phrases are polarity sensitive when construed with telic event descriptions and polarity insensitive when construed with atelic event descriptions. They are interpreted like temporal frame ...
More
Until-phrases are polarity sensitive when construed with telic event descriptions and polarity insensitive when construed with atelic event descriptions. They are interpreted like temporal frame adverbials in the former case and durative adverbials in the latter case. In addition, until is often referred to as “punctual until” in the former case and “durative until” in the latter case. The punctual and durative readings of until have been attributed to either lexical ambiguity or scopal ambiguity. This chapter examines lexical ambiguity and its implications for the interpretation of negation, and discusses the semantics of punctual until. It incorporates scalarity into the meaning of punctual until and considers negative polarity items as opposed to positive polarity items.Less
Until-phrases are polarity sensitive when construed with telic event descriptions and polarity insensitive when construed with atelic event descriptions. They are interpreted like temporal frame adverbials in the former case and durative adverbials in the latter case. In addition, until is often referred to as “punctual until” in the former case and “durative until” in the latter case. The punctual and durative readings of until have been attributed to either lexical ambiguity or scopal ambiguity. This chapter examines lexical ambiguity and its implications for the interpretation of negation, and discusses the semantics of punctual until. It incorporates scalarity into the meaning of punctual until and considers negative polarity items as opposed to positive polarity items.
Chiara Gianollo
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- December 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780198812661
- eISBN:
- 9780191850448
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780198812661.003.0004
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Historical Linguistics, Semantics and Pragmatics
This chapter is a study of Latin indefinites in direct-negation contexts. These indefinites are interesting from a theoretical point of view because of their extreme dependence on the surrounding ...
More
This chapter is a study of Latin indefinites in direct-negation contexts. These indefinites are interesting from a theoretical point of view because of their extreme dependence on the surrounding structural conditions, and because of the variety of their instantiations in different linguistic systems. Two phenomena of Latin grammar with wide-ranging implications for the development of Romance indefinites are discussed: the syntax of negation and the diachronic pathways followed by indefinites interacting with it. Latin is a Double Negation language, whereas Early Romance exhibits Negative Concord. The study proposes that this typological shift is linked to another major change from Latin to Romance, namely the change from OV to VO. Late Latin is analyzed as a ‘concealed’ nonstrict Negative Concord language, in which restrictions in the use of the ‘old’ negative indefinites emerge, as well as new patterns with (new) negative-polarity items.Less
This chapter is a study of Latin indefinites in direct-negation contexts. These indefinites are interesting from a theoretical point of view because of their extreme dependence on the surrounding structural conditions, and because of the variety of their instantiations in different linguistic systems. Two phenomena of Latin grammar with wide-ranging implications for the development of Romance indefinites are discussed: the syntax of negation and the diachronic pathways followed by indefinites interacting with it. Latin is a Double Negation language, whereas Early Romance exhibits Negative Concord. The study proposes that this typological shift is linked to another major change from Latin to Romance, namely the change from OV to VO. Late Latin is analyzed as a ‘concealed’ nonstrict Negative Concord language, in which restrictions in the use of the ‘old’ negative indefinites emerge, as well as new patterns with (new) negative-polarity items.
Gennaro Chierchia
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- September 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780199697977
- eISBN:
- 9780191765971
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697977.003.0005
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Semantics and Pragmatics, Syntax and Morphology
Chapter 4 discusses presuppositionality, concord and (in a preliminary way) intervention phenomena as they relate to polarity. It has been noticed in the literature that some NPI licensing ...
More
Chapter 4 discusses presuppositionality, concord and (in a preliminary way) intervention phenomena as they relate to polarity. It has been noticed in the literature that some NPI licensing environments (overt only, or verbs like surprise) are DE only in a weak way (‘Strawson-DE’). However, adopting Strawson-DE as a licensing condition gives rise to several empirical and conceptual problems. It is argued that such problems can be overcome by splitting each clause in an assertive and a presuppositional component (á la Karttunen and Peters) under the assumption that exhaustification for weak NPIs only looks at the assertive component. This paves the way for an exhaustification based approach to strong NPIs: the latter are characterized by the fact that all components of their meaning (assertive, presuppositional and implicational) must be factored in (by the exhaustification process). This idea explains directly why strong NPIs can only be licensed by strongest members of negative scales (e.g. by no but not by few or less than n). Finally concord phenomena and N-words are analyzed as an overt syntactic realization of exhaustification. The observation that N-words tend to be indefinites is argued to be derived by the intervention of positive implicatures induced by indefinites under negation.Less
Chapter 4 discusses presuppositionality, concord and (in a preliminary way) intervention phenomena as they relate to polarity. It has been noticed in the literature that some NPI licensing environments (overt only, or verbs like surprise) are DE only in a weak way (‘Strawson-DE’). However, adopting Strawson-DE as a licensing condition gives rise to several empirical and conceptual problems. It is argued that such problems can be overcome by splitting each clause in an assertive and a presuppositional component (á la Karttunen and Peters) under the assumption that exhaustification for weak NPIs only looks at the assertive component. This paves the way for an exhaustification based approach to strong NPIs: the latter are characterized by the fact that all components of their meaning (assertive, presuppositional and implicational) must be factored in (by the exhaustification process). This idea explains directly why strong NPIs can only be licensed by strongest members of negative scales (e.g. by no but not by few or less than n). Finally concord phenomena and N-words are analyzed as an overt syntactic realization of exhaustification. The observation that N-words tend to be indefinites is argued to be derived by the intervention of positive implicatures induced by indefinites under negation.
Pieter A. M. Seuren
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- February 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199559480
- eISBN:
- 9780191721144
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199559480.003.0010
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Semantics and Pragmatics, Psycholinguistics / Neurolinguistics / Cognitive Linguistics
Presupposition is a systematic discourse‐anchoring device in the semantics of natural language. Presuppositions are generated by the preconditions of predicates. Operational criteria are provided. ...
More
Presupposition is a systematic discourse‐anchoring device in the semantics of natural language. Presuppositions are generated by the preconditions of predicates. Operational criteria are provided. Data show that two kinds of falsity must be distinguished, one that preserves and one that cancels presuppositions. This leads to a trivalent presuppositional logic. For predicate logic, this takes two forms: the basic‐natural logic of Chapter 3 and the Square of Opposition extended with a presuppositional component.Less
Presupposition is a systematic discourse‐anchoring device in the semantics of natural language. Presuppositions are generated by the preconditions of predicates. Operational criteria are provided. Data show that two kinds of falsity must be distinguished, one that preserves and one that cancels presuppositions. This leads to a trivalent presuppositional logic. For predicate logic, this takes two forms: the basic‐natural logic of Chapter 3 and the Square of Opposition extended with a presuppositional component.
Cecilia Poletto
- Published in print:
- 2016
- Published Online:
- August 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780199677108
- eISBN:
- 9780191808821
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0051
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Language Families, Historical Linguistics
The main goal of this chapter is critically to address from a comparative perspective some of the most important issues in Romance negation, covering such topics as the source of different types of ...
More
The main goal of this chapter is critically to address from a comparative perspective some of the most important issues in Romance negation, covering such topics as the source of different types of negators and negative polarity items; the cyclical interaction of reanalysis and analogy in the emergence and grammaticalization of Romance negators; issues surrounding the unidirectional development of Romance negative structures inherent in Jespersen’s Cycle and the discreteness of the three proposed stages; the development and loss of negative concord and the licensing of negative polarity items; the development and specialization of different negative markers in accordance with temporal, aspectual, modal and finiteness distinctions; multiple sentential positions for negation; negative raising; pleonastic negation. Specific topics dealt with include: form(s) and position(s) of the negative marker; Jespersen’s Cycle; postverbal negators (French, northern Italian dialects, Catalan); position of postverbal negators; form of postverbal negators; new preverbal negative markers; interaction between negation and verbal forms; negation and modality; negation and aspect; N-words and negative concord; negation and focus.Less
The main goal of this chapter is critically to address from a comparative perspective some of the most important issues in Romance negation, covering such topics as the source of different types of negators and negative polarity items; the cyclical interaction of reanalysis and analogy in the emergence and grammaticalization of Romance negators; issues surrounding the unidirectional development of Romance negative structures inherent in Jespersen’s Cycle and the discreteness of the three proposed stages; the development and loss of negative concord and the licensing of negative polarity items; the development and specialization of different negative markers in accordance with temporal, aspectual, modal and finiteness distinctions; multiple sentential positions for negation; negative raising; pleonastic negation. Specific topics dealt with include: form(s) and position(s) of the negative marker; Jespersen’s Cycle; postverbal negators (French, northern Italian dialects, Catalan); position of postverbal negators; form of postverbal negators; new preverbal negative markers; interaction between negation and verbal forms; negation and modality; negation and aspect; N-words and negative concord; negation and focus.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0016
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter discusses the Composed Quantifier Argument, a widely accepted and apparently devastating argument against a syntactic view of Classical NEG Raising (NR), and argues that it is faulty and ...
More
This chapter discusses the Composed Quantifier Argument, a widely accepted and apparently devastating argument against a syntactic view of Classical NEG Raising (NR), and argues that it is faulty and in no way conclusive in view of the general framework for understanding negation (NEG). The Composed Quantifier Argument depends on the existence of a variant of the Classical NR phenomenon involving not an overt main clause auxiliary instance of NEG (for example, in “Graham did not expect that she would arrive until Saturday”), but instead one or another negative quantifier phrase. The chapter considers examples, each of which has a Classical NR predicate in the main clause and a strict negative polarity item (NPI) in the embedded clause, but none of which manifests a matrix clause containing an overt NEG that could have raised from its embedded complement clause. It also shows that one can avoid wrong meanings and obtain the right ones without lexicalization of raised NEGs, and that Horn clauses licensed in composed quantifier structures strongly supports the syntactic view of Classical NR.Less
This chapter discusses the Composed Quantifier Argument, a widely accepted and apparently devastating argument against a syntactic view of Classical NEG Raising (NR), and argues that it is faulty and in no way conclusive in view of the general framework for understanding negation (NEG). The Composed Quantifier Argument depends on the existence of a variant of the Classical NR phenomenon involving not an overt main clause auxiliary instance of NEG (for example, in “Graham did not expect that she would arrive until Saturday”), but instead one or another negative quantifier phrase. The chapter considers examples, each of which has a Classical NR predicate in the main clause and a strict negative polarity item (NPI) in the embedded clause, but none of which manifests a matrix clause containing an overt NEG that could have raised from its embedded complement clause. It also shows that one can avoid wrong meanings and obtain the right ones without lexicalization of raised NEGs, and that Horn clauses licensed in composed quantifier structures strongly supports the syntactic view of Classical NR.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0013
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter focuses on certain contexts, dubbed Horn clauses, that demand the syntactic presence of a negative constituent. It first considers fronted negative polarity items (NPIs) by giving ...
More
This chapter focuses on certain contexts, dubbed Horn clauses, that demand the syntactic presence of a negative constituent. It first considers fronted negative polarity items (NPIs) by giving examples that represent standard cases of the Negative Inversion construction. The most obvious characteristic of the construction is that the extracted non-wh-constituent in the clause-initial position, termed Negative Inversion focus, co-occurs with subject-auxiliary inversion, which is obligatory. Sentences containing Horn clauses, such as Carl did (not) claim that penguins were mammals and neither did I and Carl claimed that penguins were not mammals (and neither did I), involve syntactic raising of a negation (NEG) from the embedded clause. The chapter proposes for Horn clause cases an analysis that treats examples as resulting from the raising via Classical NR of the NEG. It also shows that Classical NEG Raising (NR) out of Horn clauses is subject to the same set of island constraints holding for non-Horn clause island structures.Less
This chapter focuses on certain contexts, dubbed Horn clauses, that demand the syntactic presence of a negative constituent. It first considers fronted negative polarity items (NPIs) by giving examples that represent standard cases of the Negative Inversion construction. The most obvious characteristic of the construction is that the extracted non-wh-constituent in the clause-initial position, termed Negative Inversion focus, co-occurs with subject-auxiliary inversion, which is obligatory. Sentences containing Horn clauses, such as Carl did (not) claim that penguins were mammals and neither did I and Carl claimed that penguins were not mammals (and neither did I), involve syntactic raising of a negation (NEG) from the embedded clause. The chapter proposes for Horn clause cases an analysis that treats examples as resulting from the raising via Classical NR of the NEG. It also shows that Classical NEG Raising (NR) out of Horn clauses is subject to the same set of island constraints holding for non-Horn clause island structures.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0006
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter focuses on polyadic quantification, which exists when n-tuples (n > 1) of determiner phrases (DPs) yield a single quantifier interpreted as quantifying over n-tuples of individuals. It ...
More
This chapter focuses on polyadic quantification, which exists when n-tuples (n > 1) of determiner phrases (DPs) yield a single quantifier interpreted as quantifying over n-tuples of individuals. It begins by considering the ordinary standard English sentence No one ever showed me anything, in which the any phrase is commonly assumed to be a negative polarity item (NPI), licensed by the c-commanding no one phrase. It then gives a nonstandard example, No one ever showed me nothing, which represents a distinct phenomenon known as negative concord and is deformed by various NEG deletions. In yet another example, No man loves any woman, in which, under polyadic interpretation, the two quantifiers are not interpreted independently. The chapter also discusses syntactic determiner sharing between the different DPs whose noun phrases denote the sets quantified over, the semantics of determiner sharing, and the realizations of polyadic quantifier structures.Less
This chapter focuses on polyadic quantification, which exists when n-tuples (n > 1) of determiner phrases (DPs) yield a single quantifier interpreted as quantifying over n-tuples of individuals. It begins by considering the ordinary standard English sentence No one ever showed me anything, in which the any phrase is commonly assumed to be a negative polarity item (NPI), licensed by the c-commanding no one phrase. It then gives a nonstandard example, No one ever showed me nothing, which represents a distinct phenomenon known as negative concord and is deformed by various NEG deletions. In yet another example, No man loves any woman, in which, under polyadic interpretation, the two quantifiers are not interpreted independently. The chapter also discusses syntactic determiner sharing between the different DPs whose noun phrases denote the sets quantified over, the semantics of determiner sharing, and the realizations of polyadic quantifier structures.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0009
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter focuses on the scope of strict negative polarity items (NPIs). It first considers scope issues concerning nonfinite complement clauses, with particular emphasis on similar pairs with ...
More
This chapter focuses on the scope of strict negative polarity items (NPIs). It first considers scope issues concerning nonfinite complement clauses, with particular emphasis on similar pairs with analogous judgment markings, the relevance of stress contrasts to the ambiguities of NPI any forms as well as to those of other nominal NPIs, and the differential scope of the determiner phrase represented by anything (“Vaughn didn't accept to write anything about radiation”). It then turns to cases of infinitival complements containing strict NPIs, along with cases where the issue of high-scope confounds involve finite complement clauses. Finally, it suggests that any attempt to diagnose the presence or absence of Classical NEG Raising (NR) must always take into account the possibility of NEG raising out of main clause scope positions.Less
This chapter focuses on the scope of strict negative polarity items (NPIs). It first considers scope issues concerning nonfinite complement clauses, with particular emphasis on similar pairs with analogous judgment markings, the relevance of stress contrasts to the ambiguities of NPI any forms as well as to those of other nominal NPIs, and the differential scope of the determiner phrase represented by anything (“Vaughn didn't accept to write anything about radiation”). It then turns to cases of infinitival complements containing strict NPIs, along with cases where the issue of high-scope confounds involve finite complement clauses. Finally, it suggests that any attempt to diagnose the presence or absence of Classical NEG Raising (NR) must always take into account the possibility of NEG raising out of main clause scope positions.
Veneeta Dayal
- Published in print:
- 2016
- Published Online:
- January 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780199281268
- eISBN:
- 9780191757396
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199281268.003.0003
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Semantics and Pragmatics, Theoretical Linguistics
This chapter considers three types of answers: weakly exhaustive, strongly exhaustive, and non-exhaustive/mention-some answers. Two lines of approach are discussed, one that locates the variation ...
More
This chapter considers three types of answers: weakly exhaustive, strongly exhaustive, and non-exhaustive/mention-some answers. Two lines of approach are discussed, one that locates the variation between strong and weak exhaustiveness in answerhood operators, another where variation is due to the optional presence of exhaustification operators in the question nucleus. The second issue addressed is the ambiguity between mention-some and mention-all readings. Under one view questions are ambiguous, with different contexts making different readings salient; under another view they only have mention-all readings but partial answers may count as complete answers in certain contexts. The possibility of three classes of predicates, those that select for strong exhaustiveness, those that select for both strong and weak exhaustiveness, and those that select only for weak/non-exhaustiveness is considered as evidence for these distinctions. Negative polarity items are also considered a diagnostic for the grammatical status of the divide between strong, weak, and non-exhaustiveness.Less
This chapter considers three types of answers: weakly exhaustive, strongly exhaustive, and non-exhaustive/mention-some answers. Two lines of approach are discussed, one that locates the variation between strong and weak exhaustiveness in answerhood operators, another where variation is due to the optional presence of exhaustification operators in the question nucleus. The second issue addressed is the ambiguity between mention-some and mention-all readings. Under one view questions are ambiguous, with different contexts making different readings salient; under another view they only have mention-all readings but partial answers may count as complete answers in certain contexts. The possibility of three classes of predicates, those that select for strong exhaustiveness, those that select for both strong and weak exhaustiveness, and those that select only for weak/non-exhaustiveness is considered as evidence for these distinctions. Negative polarity items are also considered a diagnostic for the grammatical status of the divide between strong, weak, and non-exhaustiveness.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0005
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter focuses on the assumption that the negative polarity item (NPI) phrase occupies a scope position as well as the object position, suggesting that NEG raising takes place only from the ...
More
This chapter focuses on the assumption that the negative polarity item (NPI) phrase occupies a scope position as well as the object position, suggesting that NEG raising takes place only from the scope position. It also claims that [[NEG SOME] thing] must occupy a scope position, a common assumption in the syntax and semantics literature; that for a determiner phrase (DP) with a scope occurrence, the scope occurrence is the unique available launching point for NEG raising; and that if the NEGs of quantifier DPs raise out of nonscope positions, “overgeneration” will result in certain clear cases, whereas if such raising can only launch from scope positions, the overgeneration is avoided. In the sentence Rodney claimed that Evelyn did not own any cheetah, the scope of the quantifier DP is internal to the complement clause. The chapter also considers a structure with negation in the main clause in the sentence Rodney did not claim that Evelyn owned any cheetah.Less
This chapter focuses on the assumption that the negative polarity item (NPI) phrase occupies a scope position as well as the object position, suggesting that NEG raising takes place only from the scope position. It also claims that [[NEG SOME] thing] must occupy a scope position, a common assumption in the syntax and semantics literature; that for a determiner phrase (DP) with a scope occurrence, the scope occurrence is the unique available launching point for NEG raising; and that if the NEGs of quantifier DPs raise out of nonscope positions, “overgeneration” will result in certain clear cases, whereas if such raising can only launch from scope positions, the overgeneration is avoided. In the sentence Rodney claimed that Evelyn did not own any cheetah, the scope of the quantifier DP is internal to the complement clause. The chapter also considers a structure with negation in the main clause in the sentence Rodney did not claim that Evelyn owned any cheetah.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0012
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter shows that Classical NEG Raising (NR) is sensitive to syntactic islands and considers a range of cases where it is blocked by island constraints, such as those involving clausal ...
More
This chapter shows that Classical NEG Raising (NR) is sensitive to syntactic islands and considers a range of cases where it is blocked by island constraints, such as those involving clausal complements of nouns. At issue are examples invoking the Complex NP Constraint, clause-internal topics, truth predicates, wh-islands, clause-internal clefts, pseudoclefts, and Negative Inversion. The clear generalization is that Classical NR is never possible from an island. Such a generalization is especially striking for cases where all known semantic conditions on Classical NR are met (for example, for truth predicates), but Classical NR is still not possible. Because syntactic raising phenomena are subject to island constraints, it is possible to account naturally for the above generalization under the assumption that classical NR is a syntactic raising phenomenon. The chapter also examines island types that block strict negative polarity items (NPIs) but not nonstrict NPIs.Less
This chapter shows that Classical NEG Raising (NR) is sensitive to syntactic islands and considers a range of cases where it is blocked by island constraints, such as those involving clausal complements of nouns. At issue are examples invoking the Complex NP Constraint, clause-internal topics, truth predicates, wh-islands, clause-internal clefts, pseudoclefts, and Negative Inversion. The clear generalization is that Classical NR is never possible from an island. Such a generalization is especially striking for cases where all known semantic conditions on Classical NR are met (for example, for truth predicates), but Classical NR is still not possible. Because syntactic raising phenomena are subject to island constraints, it is possible to account naturally for the above generalization under the assumption that classical NR is a syntactic raising phenomenon. The chapter also examines island types that block strict negative polarity items (NPIs) but not nonstrict NPIs.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0001
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This book deals with Classical NEG Raising (NR), a kind of syntactic raising wherein a negation (NEG) is raised from the embedded clause to the matrix clause. Part I of the book presents the general ...
More
This book deals with Classical NEG Raising (NR), a kind of syntactic raising wherein a negation (NEG) is raised from the embedded clause to the matrix clause. Part I of the book presents the general conception of negation it is proposing, with particular emphasis on the following assumptions: that NEGs are not limited to modifying clausal constituents; that there is NEG raising; that there is NEG deletion; and that every negative polarity item (NPI) is modified by at least one NEG. Part II develops arguments favoring a syntactic approach to Classical NR and offers a precise view of the syntax and semantics of the subtype of polyadic quantification relevant to NPIs. The book shows that Classical NR is sensitive to syntactic islands and cites certain contexts, dubbed Horn clauses, that demand the syntactic presence of a negative constituent. It also makes a fundamental distinction between two types of NPIs, those originating with one NEG (unary-NEG NPIs) and those originating with two NEGs (binary-NEG NPIs). Finally, it challenges the assumptions of the Composed Quantifier Argument against a syntactic view of Classical NR.Less
This book deals with Classical NEG Raising (NR), a kind of syntactic raising wherein a negation (NEG) is raised from the embedded clause to the matrix clause. Part I of the book presents the general conception of negation it is proposing, with particular emphasis on the following assumptions: that NEGs are not limited to modifying clausal constituents; that there is NEG raising; that there is NEG deletion; and that every negative polarity item (NPI) is modified by at least one NEG. Part II develops arguments favoring a syntactic approach to Classical NR and offers a precise view of the syntax and semantics of the subtype of polyadic quantification relevant to NPIs. The book shows that Classical NR is sensitive to syntactic islands and cites certain contexts, dubbed Horn clauses, that demand the syntactic presence of a negative constituent. It also makes a fundamental distinction between two types of NPIs, those originating with one NEG (unary-NEG NPIs) and those originating with two NEGs (binary-NEG NPIs). Finally, it challenges the assumptions of the Composed Quantifier Argument against a syntactic view of Classical NR.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0003
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter discusses Classical NEG Raising (NR) against a background assumption about negative polarity items (NPIs). It considers a standard NPI example like ever in the sentence Chloe did not ...
More
This chapter discusses Classical NEG Raising (NR) against a background assumption about negative polarity items (NPIs). It considers a standard NPI example like ever in the sentence Chloe did not ever taste beer. On the standard view, because ever is an NPI, it can only occur in contexts where it relates in specific ways to a form standardly called its licenser. In the above example, the licenser would be not, while the sentence Chloe ever tasted beer would be ungrammatical because of the absence of a legitimate licenser. This chapter explores different ways of capturing the fact that the raising of the NEG in Chloe did not ever taste beer is semantically vacuous, citing Minimalist syntax where the natural treatment of the semantic vacuity of NEG raising would be in terms of reconstruction. It also analyzes verbal negation, support for the negation analysis of NPIs, the JACK class minimizers, and the semantics of negation.Less
This chapter discusses Classical NEG Raising (NR) against a background assumption about negative polarity items (NPIs). It considers a standard NPI example like ever in the sentence Chloe did not ever taste beer. On the standard view, because ever is an NPI, it can only occur in contexts where it relates in specific ways to a form standardly called its licenser. In the above example, the licenser would be not, while the sentence Chloe ever tasted beer would be ungrammatical because of the absence of a legitimate licenser. This chapter explores different ways of capturing the fact that the raising of the NEG in Chloe did not ever taste beer is semantically vacuous, citing Minimalist syntax where the natural treatment of the semantic vacuity of NEG raising would be in terms of reconstruction. It also analyzes verbal negation, support for the negation analysis of NPIs, the JACK class minimizers, and the semantics of negation.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0010
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter addresses the commonly suggested semantic condition that a strict negative polarity item (NPI) occurs in the scope of an antiadditive operator, arguing that it is not sufficient to ...
More
This chapter addresses the commonly suggested semantic condition that a strict negative polarity item (NPI) occurs in the scope of an antiadditive operator, arguing that it is not sufficient to account for the distribution of strict NPIs. It first considers a context that is antiadditive (hence decreasing) but nonetheless does not allow strict NPIs by presenting the following cases: I didn't find a person who ate vegetables and I didn't find a person who ate green vegetables. The first sentence clearly entails the second, indicating that the context “I didn't find a person who ate__” is decreasing. A similar deduction goes through if the subject of the main clause is a negative quantifier determiner phrase. The chapter then gives more examples suggesting that the distribution of strict NPIs cannot be accounted for simply in terms of a requirement to appear in an antiadditive context. It also examines Gajewski's proposal, the main thrust of which is the development of a Bartsch-style approach to Classical NEG Raising (NR) that can account for the fact that strict NPIs are licensed in the complement of negated Classical NR predicates.Less
This chapter addresses the commonly suggested semantic condition that a strict negative polarity item (NPI) occurs in the scope of an antiadditive operator, arguing that it is not sufficient to account for the distribution of strict NPIs. It first considers a context that is antiadditive (hence decreasing) but nonetheless does not allow strict NPIs by presenting the following cases: I didn't find a person who ate vegetables and I didn't find a person who ate green vegetables. The first sentence clearly entails the second, indicating that the context “I didn't find a person who ate__” is decreasing. A similar deduction goes through if the subject of the main clause is a negative quantifier determiner phrase. The chapter then gives more examples suggesting that the distribution of strict NPIs cannot be accounted for simply in terms of a requirement to appear in an antiadditive context. It also examines Gajewski's proposal, the main thrust of which is the development of a Bartsch-style approach to Classical NEG Raising (NR) that can account for the fact that strict NPIs are licensed in the complement of negated Classical NR predicates.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0019
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter considers the role of nonfinite clauses in the distribution of Classical NEG Raising (NR). It first considers the literature bias toward finite hosts in standard Classical NR cases, ...
More
This chapter considers the role of nonfinite clauses in the distribution of Classical NEG Raising (NR). It first considers the literature bias toward finite hosts in standard Classical NR cases, along with proposals in nonsyntactic approaches that the Classical NR phenomenon is purely a function of the interaction of the meanings of the Classical NR predicates (CNRPs) with independent semantic or pragmatic principles. Since it is obscure how the semantic properties of CNRPs could be systematically different in their finite and nonfinite instances, on semantic/pragmatic treatments one expects that the same relations should systematically hold when the negation (NEG) sits in a nonfinite host. The chapter outlines the basics of the distinction between finite and nonfinite hosts and presents examples indicating the lack of a Classical NR reading for a NEG raised into a nonfinite clause and the impossibility of a strict negative polarity item (NPI) in the relevant complement clause. It also discusses the Classical NR Nonfiniteness Condition and composed quantifier cases.Less
This chapter considers the role of nonfinite clauses in the distribution of Classical NEG Raising (NR). It first considers the literature bias toward finite hosts in standard Classical NR cases, along with proposals in nonsyntactic approaches that the Classical NR phenomenon is purely a function of the interaction of the meanings of the Classical NR predicates (CNRPs) with independent semantic or pragmatic principles. Since it is obscure how the semantic properties of CNRPs could be systematically different in their finite and nonfinite instances, on semantic/pragmatic treatments one expects that the same relations should systematically hold when the negation (NEG) sits in a nonfinite host. The chapter outlines the basics of the distinction between finite and nonfinite hosts and presents examples indicating the lack of a Classical NR reading for a NEG raised into a nonfinite clause and the impossibility of a strict negative polarity item (NPI) in the relevant complement clause. It also discusses the Classical NR Nonfiniteness Condition and composed quantifier cases.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0004
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter examines cases in terms of double negation (NEG) structures, also known as reversals, a term motivated by the fact that a second NEG scoping over the first nullifies the semantic ...
More
This chapter examines cases in terms of double negation (NEG) structures, also known as reversals, a term motivated by the fact that a second NEG scoping over the first nullifies the semantic consequences of the first one. It considers the following three sentences: a) At most half of the class knows some physics; b) Everybody who steals some candy will get caught; c) If you steal some candy, you will be caught. It argues that there are at least two kinds of contrasting NEG structures depending on whether they involve single NEGs (unary-NEG structures) or two NEGs (binary-NEG or reversal structures). The distinction between unary- and binary-NEG structures interacts with the view that all negative polarity items (NPIs) involve at least one instance of NEG to yield a parallel typology of NPIs based on whether they represent unary- or binary-NEG structures. The chapter also discusses a constraint on NEG deletion in reversals, alternation with non-NPI indefinites, discourse anaphora, negative inversion, verb phrase ellipsis, intensives, and NPI types that do not permit reversal structures.Less
This chapter examines cases in terms of double negation (NEG) structures, also known as reversals, a term motivated by the fact that a second NEG scoping over the first nullifies the semantic consequences of the first one. It considers the following three sentences: a) At most half of the class knows some physics; b) Everybody who steals some candy will get caught; c) If you steal some candy, you will be caught. It argues that there are at least two kinds of contrasting NEG structures depending on whether they involve single NEGs (unary-NEG structures) or two NEGs (binary-NEG or reversal structures). The distinction between unary- and binary-NEG structures interacts with the view that all negative polarity items (NPIs) involve at least one instance of NEG to yield a parallel typology of NPIs based on whether they represent unary- or binary-NEG structures. The chapter also discusses a constraint on NEG deletion in reversals, alternation with non-NPI indefinites, discourse anaphora, negative inversion, verb phrase ellipsis, intensives, and NPI types that do not permit reversal structures.
