Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:55:47.503Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The asymmetric behavior of English negative quantifiers in negative sentences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2020

SUSAGNA TUBAU Open the ORCID record for SUSAGNA TUBAU [Opens in a new window]
SUSAGNA TUBAU*
Affiliation:
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
*
Author’s address: Departament de Filologia Anglesa i de Germanística, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Carrer de la Fortuna, Facultat de Filosofia i Lletres, 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Barcelona, Spain[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, the unexpected behavior of object negative quantifiers in some diagnostic tests of sentential negation is accounted for within a Minimalist framework assuming that: (i) negative quantifiers decompose into negation and an existential quantifier; (ii) negative quantifiers are multidominant phrase markers, as Parallel Merge allows the verb to c-select their existential part but not their negative part, thus giving negation remerge flexibility; (iii) tag questions involve or-coordination of TPs, and neither/so clauses involve and-coordination of TPs; (iv) two positions for sentential negation are available in English, one below TP (PolP2), and one above TP (PolP1). Activation of either PolP1 or PolP2 in the absence of other scope-taking operators corresponds to two distinct grammars. If PolP1 is active, the negative part of an object negative quantifier remerges in its Specifier valuing the [upol: ] feature of Pol1 as negative ([upol:neg]) while skipping the TP-domain. As no negative formal feature is present in the TP, a negative question tag is required, as well as so-coordination, too-licensing and Yes, I guess so ‘expression of agreement’. Conversely, if PolP2 is active, the negative part of the object negative quantifier remerges in the TP-domain (in Spec, PolP2), thus requiring a positive question tag, neither-coordination, either-licensing, and No, I guess not.

Keywords

negative quantifiersdecompositionalitymultidominancesentential negationgrammatical variationEnglish
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , November 2020 , pp. 775 - 806
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This research has been supported by two grants awarded by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (FFI2017-82547-P, FFI2016-81750-REDT), and by a grant awarded by the Generalitat de Catalunya (2017SGR634). I thank three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees for helping me significantly improve the paper. All errors remain my own. The following abbreviations have been used throughout the paper: C and CP = Complementizer and Complementizer Phrase, D and DP = Determiner and Determiner Phrase, N = Noun, Neg and NegP = Negation and Negation Phrase, PF = Phonetic Form, Pol and PolP = Polarity and Polarity Phrase, Spec = Specifier of, T and TP = Tense and Tense Phrase, v and vP = little v and little v Phrase, V and VP = Verb and Verb Phrase.

References

Abels, Klaus & Martí, Luisa. 2010. A unified approach to Split Scope. Natural Language Semantics 18, 435–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acquaviva, Paolo. 1997. The logical form of negation: A study of operator–variable structures in syntax. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Bech, Gunnar. 1955/57. Studien über das deutsche Verbum infinitum (Danske Videnskabernes Selskab: Historisk-filologiske meddelelser). Kopenhagen: Munskgaard.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Roberts, Ian. 2011. Negative words and related expressions: A new perspective on some familiar puzzles. In Larrivée, Pierre & Ingham, Richard P. (eds.), The evolution of negation, 23–60. Berlin & Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, Bronwyn. 2010. A syntactic correlate of semantic asymmetries in clausal coordination. In Fainlaib, Yelena, LaCara, Nicholas & Park, Yangsook (eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-first Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 41), vol. 2, 99–112. Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Student Association (GSLA), University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Elementary syntactic structures: A Minimalist inquiry. Ms., Harvard University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2009. Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27.3, 455–496.Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian, De Clercq, Karen, Farkas, Donka & Roelofsen, Floris. 2014. Question tags and sentential negativity. Lingua 145, 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram. 1979. Tag questions, transformational grammar and pragmatics. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 9, 5–22.Google Scholar
Butler, Johnny. 2003. A Minimalist treatment of modality. Lingua 113, 967–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Greg N.1977. Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Cattell, Ray. 1973. Negative transportation and tag questions. Language 49, 612–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–54. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2002. Mapping functional structure: A project. In Cinque, Guglielmo (ed.), Functional structure in DP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 1, 3–14. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2006. Restructuring functional heads: The cartography of syntactic structures. vol. 4. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2005. On the nature of Merge: External Merge, Internal Merge, and Parallel Merge. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 475–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2011. Multidominance. In Boeckx, Cédric (ed.), Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, 96–118. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cormack, Annabel & Smith, Neil. 2002. Modals and negation in English. In Barbiers, Sjef, Beukema, Frits & van der Wurff, Wim (eds.), Modality and its interaction with the verbal system, 133–163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 1992. English Tag questions in Universal Grammar. Lingua 88, 193–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary(ed.). 1999. Semantics and syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The resource logic approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Clercq, Karen. 2010a. Neg-shift in English: Evidence from PP-adjuncts. In An, Duh-Ho & Kim, Soo-Yeon (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar: 2010 Movement in Minimalism, 231–251. Seoul: Hankuk.Google Scholar
De Clercq, Karen. 2010b. Noin PPs: Evidence for Neg-shift in English. Presented at the Fifth Newcastle-upon-Tyne Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics, Newcastle University.Google Scholar
De Clercq, Karen, Haegeman, Liliane & Lohndal, Terje. 2012. Medial adjunct PPs in English: Implications for the syntax of sentential negation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35.1, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Clercq, Karen, Haegeman, Liliane & Lohndal, Terje. 2017. Medial adjunct PPs in English: Implications for the syntax of sentential negation. In Lohndal, Terje (ed.), Formal grammar: Theory and variation across English and Norwegian, 265–286. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
De Swart, Henriëtte. 2000. Scope ambiguities with negative quantifiers. In von Heusinger, Klaus & Egli, Urs (eds.), Reference and anaphoric relations, 109–132. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka & Bruce, Kim. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27, 81–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 1996. On ‘no’. Journal of Semantics 13, 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Fuente, Santiago, Tubau, Susagna, Espinal, M. Teresa & Prieto, Pilar. 2015. Is there a universal answering strategy for rejecting propositions? Typological evidence on the use of prosody and gesture. Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 6, article 899.Google Scholar
Gotham, Matthew. 2015. Towards Glue Semantics for Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 8.4, 56–83.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The syntax of negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2000. Negative preposing, negative inversion, and the split CP. In Horn, Laurence & Kato, Yasuhiko (eds.), Negation and polarity, 21–61. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2003. Yes/no questions and the relation between tense and polarity in English and Finnish. In Pica, Pierre & Rooryck, Johan (eds.), Linguistic variation yearbook 3, 43–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. 1970. Two approaches to the analysis of tags. Journal of Linguistics 6, 215–222.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine & Sichel, Ivy. 2011. Negative DPs, A-movement, and scope diminishment. Linguistic Inquiry 42, 595–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1980. Lexical decomposition in Montague Grammar. Theoretical Linguistics 7, 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1982. Syntax und Semantik der Negation im Deutschen. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1991. Negation. In von Stechow, Arnim & Wunderlich, Dieter (eds.), Semantik. Ein internationals Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, 560–596. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 2010. Multidominance and movement. Presented at the Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar. Konkuk University, August 2010. http://people.umass.edu/kbj/homepage/Content/sicogg_lectures.pdf(accessed 10 October 2017).Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 2012. Towards deriving differences in how Wh movement and QR are pronounced. Lingua 122.6, 529–553.Google Scholar
Kato, Yasuhiko. 2000. Interpretive asymmetries of negation. In Horn, Laurence R. & Kato, Yasuhiko (eds.), Negation and polarity: Syntactic and semantic perspectives, 62–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. 1964. Negation in English. In Fodor, Jerry A. & Katz, Jerrold J. (eds.), The structure of language, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2013. Response particles as propositional anaphors. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 23, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2016. Questions, answers and the structuring of information (III): Questions, answers and focus in Commitment Space Semantics. Presented at the Centre de Lingüística Teòrica, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 5–7 September 2016.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1992. Expressing negation. In Barker, Chris & Dowty, David (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 2 (Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 40) 237–259. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Larson, Robert, den Dikken, Marcel & Ludlow, Peter. 1997. Intensional transitive verbs and abstract clausal complementation. Ms., SUNY at Stony Brook & Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. https://semlab5.sbs.sunysb.edu/∼rlarson/itv.pdf (accessed 12 December 2017).Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1972. Analyses of negation in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1988/1998 [2nd edn.]. The syntactic phenomena of English. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moscati, Vincenzo. 2006. The scope of negation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Siena.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Narita, Hiroki. 2009. Multiple Transfer in service of recursive Merge. Presented at the 32nd GLOW Colloquium, 15–18 April 2009.Google Scholar
Penka, Doris. 2007. Negative indefinites. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Penka, Doris. 2011. Negative indefinites. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Penka, Doris & Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2010. Negation and polarity: An introduction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28, 771–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Karimi, Simin, Samiian, Vida & Wilkins, Wendy (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 2004. Skeptical Linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, Chris. 2000. When even ‘no’s neg is splittsville. Jorge Hankamer’s webfest, http://ling.ucsc.edu//Jorge/index.html(accessed 17 November 2017).Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998a. Structure for coordination (Part I). GLOT International 3.7, 3–3–6.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998b. Structure for coordination (Part II). GLOT International 3.8, 3–9.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Negation. In Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum et al., The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 785–849. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1973. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the Left Periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Amsterdam: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. On the position of Int(errogative) in the Left Periphery of the clause. In Cinque, Guglielmo & Salvi, Gianpaolo (eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax: Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 287–296. Amsterdam: Elsevier-North Holland.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and Left Periphery. In Belletti, Adriana (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, 223–251. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1973. Slifting. In Gross, Maurice, Halle, Morris & Schützenberger, M-P. (eds.), The formal analysis of natural languages, 133–169. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze. 1995. Geen einheid. Tabu 25, 195–198.Google Scholar
Sailor, Craig. 2009. Tagged for deletion: A typological approach to VP ellipsis in tag questions. MA thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
Sailor, Craig. 2012. Tag questions and the typology of VP ellipsis. Ms., UCLA. http://www.craigsailor.net/#papers(accessed 15 September 2017).Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2000. No ‘no’: On the crosslinguistic absence of a determiner ‘no’. In Sauerland, Uli (ed.), Proceedings of the Tsukuba Workshop on Determiners and Quantification, 415–444. Tsukuba: Tsukuba University.Google Scholar
Shu, Chih-hsiang. 2011. Sentence adverbs in the kingdom of Agree. Ph.D. dissertation, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2002. Strains of negation in Norwegian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 69, 121–146.Google Scholar
Swan, Michael. 2005. Practical English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Temmerman, Tanjia. 2012. Multidominance, ellipsis, and quantifier scope. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel & Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2006. Tag questions in British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics 34, 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tubau, Susagna. 2008. Negative concord in English and Romance: Syntax–morphology interface conditions on the expression of negation. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona/University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Tubau, Susagna. 2016. On the syntax of English minimizers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34.2, 739–760.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple Spell-Out. In Epstein, Samuel David & Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Working Minimalism, 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2010. The syntax of ellipsis: Evidence from Dutch dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira. 2004. The genesis of negative concord: Syntax and morphology of negative concord. Linguistic Inquiry 35.4, 559–612.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2011. On the syntactically complex status of negative indefinites. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 14, 111–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar