Sentential negation and Negative Concord (1)

(1)

Nataniel Siek

331436

Sentential negation and Negative Concord

Negacja zdaniowa i uzgodnienie negacji

(2)

SUMMARY

This thesis presents sentential negation, i.e. the negation of entire propositions, focusing in particular on Negative Concord. Sentential negation is present in all natural languages and exhibits a range of diversity in how it is expressed, most notably with respect to the number and types of negative elements utilized, as well as the way instances of multiple negative elements in one sentence are interpreted.

In Negative Concord languages multiple negative elements are used to produce a single negative reading. The fact that negative elements in these constructions do not cancel each other out as they would in formal logic poses an apparent challenge to compositional-ity. Resolving this conflict broadens the understanding of language as a rule-governed sys-tem, in which even seemingly capricious phenomena are motivated by consistent mecha-nisms, and provides a deeper insight into how meaning is constructed out of multiple expressions. At the same time, it makes it possible to counter allegations of illogicality lev-elled against languages employing Negative Concord, such as nonstandard varieties of English, and to empower the speakers of these varieties.

(3)

STRESZCZENIE

Praca przedstawia negację zdaniową, tj. negację całych twierdzeń, skupiając się w szcze-gólności na uzgodnieniu negacji. Negacja zdaniowa występuję we wszystkich językach naturalnych, a sposób jej wyrażania wykazuje różnorodność między innymi w ilości i typie używanych negatywnych elementów, oraz w interpretacji przypadków występowania wię-cej niż jednego elementu negatywnego w jednym zdaniu. W przypadku uzgodnienia nega-cji wykorzystuje się wielokrotne elementy negatywne do przedstawienia pojedynczego zaprzeczenia. Fakt, że w konstrukcjach tych negatywne wyrazy nie znoszą się wzajemnie, jak miałoby to miejsce w logice formalnej, wydaje się podważać zasadę kompozycjonalno-ści. Wyjaśnianie tego konfliktu poszerza zrozumienie języka jako systemu kierowanego pewnymi prawami, w którym nawet pozorne aberracje podlegają spójnym zasadom, oraz daje głębszy wgląd w to, jak znaczenie tworzone jest z mnogich wyrażeń. Tym samym daje to możliwość odparcia zarzutów o nielogiczności języków stosujących uzgodnienie nega-cji, takich jak niestandardowe odmiany języka angielskiego, i wzmocnienia pozycji ich użytkowników.

(4)

zachodniofla-Poznań, dnia ...

OŚWIADCZENIE

Ja, niżej podpisany Nataniel Siek student Wydziału Anglistyki Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu oświadczam, że przedkładaną pracę dyplomową pt:

Sentential Negation and Negative Concord

napisałem samodzielnie. Oznacza to, że przy pisaniu pracy, poza niezbędnymi konsulta-cjami, nie korzystałem z pomocy innych osób, a w szczególności nie zlecałem opracowania rozprawy lub jej części innym osobom, ani nie odpisywałem tej rozprawy lub jej części od innych osób. Oświadczam również, że egzemplarz pracy dyplomowej w formie wydruku komputerowego jest zgodny z egzemplarzem pracy dyplomowej w formie elektronicznej. Jednocześnie przyjmuję do wiadomości, że przypisanie sobie, w pracy dyplomowej, autorstwa istotnego fragmentu lub innych elementów cudzego utworu lub ustalenia nauko-wego stanowi podstawę stwierdzenia nieważności postępowania w sprawie nadania tytułu zawodowego.

[ ]* - wyrażam zgodę na udostępnianie mojej pracy w czytelni Archiwum UAM [ ]* - wyrażam zgodę na udostępnianie mojej pracy w zakresie koniecznym do ochrony mojego prawa do autorstwa lub praw osób trzecich

*Należy wpisać TAK w przypadku wyrażenia zgody na udostępnianie pracy w czytelni Archiwum UAM, NIE w przypadku braku zgody. Niewypełnienie pola oznacza brak zgody na udostępnianie pracy.

(5)

List of figures

(8)

(9)

Introduction

Negation is a notion represented in all languages and exhibits a wide range of diversity cross-linguistically which can nonetheless be classified and described within the constraints of syntactic rules. Its application to entire propositions, i.e. sentential negation, varies most notably with respect to the number of negative expressions used to mark a single negation. The use of multiple negative elements to express sentential negation is termed Negative Concord, and it can be found in languages such as Polish, Standard French or nonstandard varieties of English, in particular African American Vernacular English. The fact that nega-tive elements in these constructions do not cancel each other out poses an apparent chal-lenge to compositionality, and leads some speakers of Standard English to deride varieties using Negative Concord as illogical and incorrect.

(10)

Describing the rules and mechanism through which multiple negative elements can be used to express a single negation in Negative Concord without violating compositional-ity is the primary goal of this thesis. The work also aims to present the various ways of ex-pressing sentential negation across languages, including the number and type of negative marker used, the potential presence of a syntactic negative projection, and ways of inter-preting multiple negation constructions in different systems.

The paper is organized into three chapters. Chapter 1 looks at negative elements, in particular negative markers, which are used to indicate sentential negation. Their syntactic status is considered and the potential availability of the negation syntactic category and its projection NegP is discussed.

Chapter 2 deals with diverse methods of expressing sentential negation, using the Jespersen's Cycle model to convey the diachronic change in the number and type of nega-tive markers utilized. It further described how multiple instances of neganega-tive elements in one clause can yield different interpretations, following their classification into Double, Weakening, Emphatic Negation and Negative Concord.

(11)

Chapter 1: Negative markers

1.1.Negative elements

Negation is typically expressed by means of negative markers. Particular languages differ in the number, syntactic position and syntactic status of the markers they use, both diachronically and synchronically. For example, Polish employs a preverbal negative marker for sentential negation:

(1) Licho nie śpi Polish Evil neg sleep

'Evil doesn't sleep'

German, on the other hand, uses a single negative adverb, as does Standard English when not using a contracted form, as in (3)a. Standard English can also express negation via the contracted negative marker n't as in (3)b, which attaches to the right side of the auxiliary, though Zeijlstra (2004: 144) considers it a marker that attaches to the finite verb, putting it in the same category as the preverbal marker in Polish.

(2) Der Hund schwimmt nicht German The dog swims neg

'The dog doesn't swim'

(3) a. Dragons do not exist Standard English

(12)

Standard French obligatorily takes both a negative adverb pas and a preverbal negative marker ne in sentential negation. Other languages use only one of these obligatorily, while the other is optional. For example, the negative adverb is optional in Catalan and the preverbal marker is necessary, while in West Flemish the situation is reversed.

(4) Je ne parle pas francais Standard French I neg speak neg French

'I don't speak French'

Negative markers are a subclass of a larger group of expressions which participate in negation. Zeijlstra (2004: 37-9) labels this group negative elements and divides it into four kinds. The first, as mentioned, are negative markers, which indicate negation. The second are negative quantifiers, such as English nothing, which both negate a constituent or clause and bind a specific variable within it. The third are n-words, which either give rise to a negation, or function as a non-negative existential quantifier, depending on their position within a syntactic configuration. Finally, semi-negatives are verbs and prepositions which have clear negative connotations, but no strict negative reading, e.g. doubt, without, few.

Zeiljstra (2004: 40-45) defines negative elements through their ability to introduce negative contexts and license Negative Polarity Items, using the notion of antiveridicality. According to Giannakidou (2011: 1675-1680) and Zeiljstra (2004: 43), antiveridicality is a property of sentence embedding functions which express the negation of a proposition, so that an operator Op(p) is anti-veridical if and only if Op(p) is true, p is false. Antiveridicality is a subset of nonveridicality, the property of operators which do not entail the truth of a statement, as opposed to veridical operators, where if Op(p) is true, p is true (Giannakidou 2011: 1674-1675).

(5) Kiwis can’t fly Standard English

(13)

(6) Few philosophies make any sense → Not many philosophies make any sense

The semi-negative few in (6) is not a nonveridical element, as it does presuppose that there are philosophies that make some sense, but the sentence can be restated using the antiveridical not, thus indirectly introducing a negative context and making it possible to license NPI's. Giannakidou (2006, as cited in Giannakidou 2011: 1687) calls this NPI rescuing. To come back to negative elements, Zeiljstra (2004: 45) defines them as elements which introduce a negative context, that is, as antiveridical operators, or operators that enable the sentences they are in to give rise to an implicature containing an antiveridical operator. Since n-words may or may not give rise to a negation, they are described as indefinite or quantifying elements that introduce a negative context only under certain well-defined conditions, which differentiates them from negative quantifiers, which always introduce a negative context.

1.2.Syntactic status of negative markers

Negative markers are typically used to express sentential negation. Negative adverbs and preverbal markers are the most common strategy, the latter being either particles that are separate words, or affixes and clitic-like elements that are part of verbal morphology (Zeil-jstra 2004: 152). Additionally, Payne (1985, as cited in Zanuttini 2001: 512-13) notes that, besides particles and affixes, some languages instead use negative verbs taking a sentential complement, as in Tongan (7), or negative finite auxiliaries followed by a non-finite lexical verb, as in Evenki (8), which uses a fixed form of the negated lexical verb (FFNLV).

(7) Na'e 'ikai' [ke 'alu 'a Siale] Tongan

ASP neg [ASP go ABS Charlie]

‘Charlie didn't go’

(14)

(8) Nuŋan min-du purta-va e-che-n bū-re Evenki He I-DAT knife-ACC neg-PAST-3SG give-FFNLV

‘He did not give me the knife’

(Kahrel, Van den Berg 1994: 2)

These strategies of marking negation are less common, however, and Zeiljstra (2004: 52) suggests that negative verbs and auxiliaries may be thought of as zero verbs with negative inflection.

Syntactically, the status of negative markers can be determined by tests taking ad-vantage of movement blocking stemming from locality, that is the fact that an element can-not move across acan-nother element of the same type. As Zanuttini (2001: 523) points out, heads interfere with the movement of heads and maximal projections interfere with the movement of other maximal projections, therefore examining the behaviour of negative markers in the presence of other heads and maximal projections provides information on the markers' phrasal status. Zanuttini notes that preverbal markers block clitic climbing and V-to-C movement, which leads to the conclusion that they are syntactic heads.

(9) a. Jean la1 fait manger t1 á Paul StandardFrench

(Kayne 1989, as cited in Zanuttini 2001: 524)

c. Jean ne l1'a pas fait manger t1 á Paul

John neg it.has neg makes eat to Paul 'John hasn't made Paul eat it'

(Zeiljstra 2004: 153)

(15)

in the embedded clause, such a movement leads to ungrammaticality as in (9)b, because it is blocked by the intervening marker. For the sentence to be well-formed, the clitic must remain to the right of the preverbal marker, as in (9)c. Similar phenomena take place in the case of so-called long clitic climbing in Italian, where certain matrix predicates take an in-finitival clause as complement and the pronominal clitics which are arguments of the em-bedded predicate may move into the matrix clause, in front of the finite verb, as in (10)a.

(10) a. Gianni li vuole vedere Italian

If a negative marker non is present in the complement clause, clitic climbing yields a malformed sentence (10)b, as non blocks head movement. The sentence is entirely gram-matical only if the clitic remains in the embedded clause, as in (10)c.

The head status of the preverbal negative marker is also visible in that it blocks V-to-C movement in yes/no questions in languages such as Paduan, an Italian dialect (Zanut-tini 2001: 525-26). In positive questions, the finite verb moves to overtly fill the C head, as in (11)a, but the presence of an intervening marker no precludes this movement, as pre-dicted by the assumption that the preverbal marker is a syntactic head.

(11) a. Vien-lo? Paduan

(16)

b.*No vien-lo?

Neg comes-he? 'Isn't he coming?'

(Zanuttini 2001: 525-26)

The above provides evidence that preverbal negative particles, which act as inde-pendent words, are syntactic heads. Zanuttini (1998, as cited by Zeilstra 2004: 157-58) calls these strong preverbal markers, distinguishing them from weak preverbal markers and those that are part of verbal morphology. Weak markers require that another negative marker accompany them and they attach to the finite verb or to a clitic which attaches to a verb, as in (12).

(12) U n-i va nent Cairese

SUB-CL neg.LOC-CL goes neg

‘He doesn’t go there’

(Zeijlstra 2004: 157)

Zanuttini takes them to be syntactic heads base-generated in a head-adjoined to Vo

position, supported by the fact that clitics, which also adjoin to Vo_{, can appear both to the}

left and the right of them. Many romance varieties have a weak preverbal negative marker occurring to the left of first, second person and reflexive clitics, but to the right of third person, locative and partitive clitics (Zanuttini 1998, as cited by Zeilstra 2004: 157). As only heads can adjoin to other heads, it follows that both clitics and weak preverbal nega-tive markers are heads. Zanuttini (2001:513) treats weak preverbal markers as separate from negative inflectional morphemes, such as the Turkish negative -mE- in (13), which precedes affixes expressing tense mood, person and number, but follows those of recipro-cals, reflexives, causatives and passives.

(13) a. Gel-me-di Turkish

come-neg-PAST

(17)

b. Inan-il-ma-z

believe-PAS-neg-AOR

‘Unbelievable’

(Kahrel, Van den Berg 1994: 39)

However, Zeiljstra (2004: 158) argues that there is only a fundamental difference between them if it is assumed that Lexical Items enter the derivation fully inflected, but if verbs are considered to inflect by a process of acquiring their affixes in derivation, then in both cases the underlying structure is that of syntactic heads which attach to the verb.

Negative adverbs, in contrast, are maximal projections. The first line of evidence comes from their lack of influence on head movement. Zanuttini (2001: 527-528) points out that in Swedish, the negative adverb inte precedes verbs in embedded clauses as in (14)a, but, because it does not block the verb's movement into second position, it follows the verb in matrix clauses, as in (14)b. Zeiljstra (2004: 160) notes the same for Standard Dutch.

(Holmberg and Platzack 1988, as cited in Zanuttini 2001: 527)

Another test used by Zeijlstra (2004: 161) is the 'why not' test. The why not con-struction is analysed as a form of phrasal adjunction, in the sense that it is only allowed where the negative marker has phrasal status, as is the case in languages with an adverbial negative marker. Preverbal markers are not allowed in a why not construction.

(15) a. Why not? English

(18)

e. Purquoi pas? French f. *Purquoi ne?

g. *Giati dhen? Greek why neg?

h. *Pochemune? Russian why -neg?

On the basis of movement blocking and the 'why not' test, it can be concluded that all types of preverbal negative markers are heads, whereas adverbal negative markers are maximal projections. The consequence of this is that the distinction of preverbal versus adverbal markers can be replaced by one in terms of heads versus maximal projections, as suggested by Zeijlstra (2004: 165).

1.2.1.The negative projection

The treatment of negation as a separate category stems from Pollock's (1989: 420-21) de-velopment of the Split IP Hypothesis, which posits that IP, the projection of verbal inflec-tion, should be split up into discrete entities TP, AgrP, and NegP where necessary. The negative projection is made up of the negative head Nego_{, hosting the preverbal negative}

marker, and a specifier (Spec,NegP), hosting the adverbal marker, as in (16) (Pollock 1989: 414):

(16) NegP

SpecNeg Neg

pas Nego

Ne

(19)

Other details of his analysis were also subject to debate, including the internal structure of NegP, the origin of the elements within it, the availability of more than one NegP position in the clause, or indeed the availability of any NegP in a given language (Zeijlstra 2004: 167).

Though all preverbal negative markers are heads, only strong preverbal markers originate as Nego_{(Zeijstra 2004: 167-168). As has been mentioned in 1.2, weak markers}

are generated adjoined to Vo_{. Zeiljstra notes that they may then move to Neg}o _{along with}

the verb in certain languages, notably those with Subject-Verb-Object word order, or re-main in situ, likely in Subject-Object-Verb languages. This movement is motivated by fea-ture checking, as the negative marker on the verb possesses an uninterpretable negative feature [uNEG], which needs to be eliminated by checking it against an interpretable nega-tive feature [iNEG]. In order to do so, according to Zeijstra (2004:168), [uNEG] moves out of the verbal domain to project NegP and move into Nego_{, where it can merge with an}

ab-stract negative operator carrying [iNEG] and be eliminated under specifier-head agreement. This movement happens even when the verb and marker remain in place, with the negative feature moving independently and projecting NegP.

Pollock (1989: 421) suggests that negative adverbs, like the French pas, are gener-ated as specifiers of NegP. However, Rowlett (1998, as cited by Zeijlstra 2004: 169) states that they are generated in a vP-adjunct position, which is the smallest syntactic domain in-cluding the entire proposition, and later move to Spec,Neg; Negative adverbs host an inter-pretable negative feature and they move to allow the [uNEG] feature of Nego_{to be}

checked. Zeijlstra (2004: 169, 172) further argues that the adverbial marker need not move at all and remains in vP-adjunct position in languages where there is no positive evidence of [uNEG], be it as a negative affix or preverbal marker, overt movement of the adverb to a higher position, or overt agreement with an element carrying a phonologically apparent [uNEG] feature. In such cases, Nego_{would either hold a phonologically empty [uNEG]}

feature which doesn't block verb movement, or there would simply be no [uNEG] present and there would be no motivation for the negative adverb to move. Zeijlstra points out that it is impossible to empirically distinguish between these possibilities and the adjunct ap-proach is preferable from a theoretical point of view.

(20)

(21)

Chapter 2: Expressing sentential negation

2.1.Sentential negation and the Jespersen Cycle

According to Zeiljstra (2004: 47), if negation is connected to the presence of a negative operator, as has been suggested in 1.1, then the difference between sentence negation and constituent negation is a matter of the scope of said operator. When negation only applies to a particular constituent, that is constituent negation; when the entire proposition is under the scope of the negative operator, the negation is sentential. Seeing as vP is the smallest syntactic domain encompassing the whole proposition, with all arguments selected for within it, Zeijlstra (2004: 51) refers to sentential negation when the negative operator dominates vP. He points out, however, that this does not rule out other approaches, such as Jackendoff's semantic take on negation, merely captures a specific notion of whether nega-tion dominates all material at Logical Form.

Languages, apart from those with special negative verbs as in examples (7) and (8), employ different configurations of negative markers to express sentential negation, using either a preverbal marker as in (1), an adverbal marker as in (2), or a combination of the two, as in (4). Both markers may be obligatory in a language, or one of them may be op-tional. The variation in expressions of sentential negation is not only synchronic, among contemporary languages, but also diachronic. Jespersen (1917: 4) observed a tendency in the development of sentential negation in various languages:

(22)

These tendencies can be described as the Jespersen Cycle, and Zeijlstra (2004: 56) analyses it into seven phases, the first and last being the same. In phase I, negation is ex-pressed by a single negative marker attached to the finite verb. In the history of English, this phase can be seen in Old English sentences such as (17), where negation is expressed through the preverbal marker ne, or (18), where ne wolde combines into nolde:

(17) Ic hie ne cuðe Old English

Phase II sees the negative head marker weaken and become insufficient. An adver-bial marker is introduced as an optional secondary marker and both single-marker and dou-ble-marker constructions appear in the language. The phase is a transitional point before phase III, where both the preverbal and adverbial marker are obligatory to express senten-tial negation. This was the case in Early Middle English, as seen in example (19), where a post-verbal negative element noht reinforces the earlier ne. Zeijlstra (2004: 54) points out that this second element shows up in various forms, also as na, nauht, which have been analysed as contracted nawith, Old English 'no thing'.

(19) nis his strengðe noht wurð Early Middle English neg-is his strength neg worth

'his strength is not important'

(Gelderen 2006: 130)

(23)

ad-verbial negative marker. In English history, this occurred in Late Middle English, with a negative adverb not or nat following the verb being the sole marker of sentential negation, as in (20).

(20) He may nat wepe, althogh hym soore smerte Late Middle English He may neg weep, although him truly hurts

'He may not weep, although he hurts sorely’

(Gelderen 2006: 130)

This pattern is still seen in present day English constructions such as (21).

(21) It is not a werewolf Standard English

In phase V, since there is no negative head marker, the whole negative projection may be unavailable, if there is no other overt manifestation of the [uNEG] feature, as de-scribed in 1.2.1. This is true for languages such as Dutch (Zeijlstra 2004: 176).

The sole negative marker in phase VI begins to appear in two forms, either as an adverbial marker, or as a preverbal marker attached to the finite verb. Both can be available simultaneously. For English, this began with the entry of do-support in XV century (Zeijlstra 2004: 54) and it eventually becoming standard for negatives and questions in Modern English to use a DO auxiliary, as in (22)a and (22)c. Later on it became possible for not to be reduced to n't, a phonologically weaker marker attached to the auxiliary, as in (22)b and (22)d. Both of these strategies are available in Standard English, the uncontracted

not being a negative adverb, while its weak form n't is a negative head marker.

(22) a. I do not always eat all the cookies Standard English neg-ADV

b. I don't always eat all the cookies AUX-neg

c. I have not always eaten all the cookies

neg-ADV

(24)

Finally, phase VII is a repetition of phase I, with negation being expressed by a sin-gle, preverbal negative marker. While Standard English generally remains in stage VI, col-loquial English uses the reduced n't form as the standard means of expressing negation and it has become obligatory in certain varieties of English, such as African American Vernacu-lar English (AAVE), seen in (23) (Zeiljstra 2004: 55).

(23) Don't nothing come to a sleeper but a dream AAVE

AUX-neg

'Nothing comes to a sleeper but a dream'

(Green 2002: 78)

Zeiljstra (2004: 57) notes that this model can be used to not only analyse the dia-chronic development of a language, but also as a typological tool. He poses that contempo-rary languages can be linked to particular Jespersen Phases, showing their alleged position in the cycle, and describes several languages from this point of view (Zeijlstra 2004: 121-148). For example, Slavic languages such as Polish are phase I languages, Catalan is a phase II language, Standard French is phase III but Colloquial French is phase IV, German is a phase V language, while present day Standard English is phase VI (Zeijlstra 2004: 147).

2.2.Interpretations of multiple negation

From the fact that sentential negation can be expressed via varying numbers of negative markers follows that multiple instances of negative elements in one clause can give rise to different interpretations. Van der Wouden (1994, as cited in Zeijlstra 2004: 57) describes four classes of multiple negation: Double Negation, Weakening Negation, Negative Con-cord and Emphatic Negation.

(25)

Emphatic Negation and Negative Concord do not. Zeiljstra (2004: 74) further formulates a language typology based on the available interpretations of multiple negation, which can be seen in Fig. 1 below. In this typology, Polish would be a Strict Negative Concord language.

Fig. 1 Multiple Negation typology (after Zeijlstra 2004: 74)

2.2.1.Double Negation

Double Negation (DN) refers to two negative elements cancelling each other out and yield-ing an affirmative, the same way as it happens in formal logic (Zeijlstra 2004: 58). It ap-pears in sentences such as (24):

(24) I don't not want ice cream Standard English

'I want ice cream'

(26)

sen-is meant to respond to and deny another speaker's negative statement. An example can be seen in (25):

(25) a. ?Nobody was not impressed Standard English

b. A: The concert went badly. I shouldn't have chosen a Liszt composition. Nobody was impressed by it.

B: Are you kidding me? Nobody was not impressed by it!

The limitation is not syntactic nor semantic, as (25)a is grammatically well-formed. The usage conditions on clause-internal DN are narrow, but they are also universally avail-able, as DN readings are possible even in languages using multiple concordant markers to express a single negation, as in (26).

(26) Nie jest z niczego niezadowolona Polish neg is with n-thing neg-pleased

'She is not displeased with anything' → 'She is pleased with everything'

2.2.2.Weakening Negation

In Weakening Negation the presence of two negative elements is still interpreted as one negation, but weakened, the meaning between a negative and a positive. This applies in particular in sentences containing a scalar predicate, e.g. unfriendly in (27), that is one that forms a continuum of meaning rather than a binary (Zeijlstra 2004: 60).

(27) She is not unfriendly Standard English

(27)

others can be expressed in simpler terms, without any additional negation. Only a specific context, such as negating a previous statement, will warrant using not unfriendly instead of

friendly, which is one word, or very unfriendly, which does not duplicate negatives, while

neither friendly nor unfriendly can never be expressed in simpler terms than not unfriendly.

2.2.3.Negative Concord

Negative Concord (NC) sees two or more negative elements in a clause yielding a single negative interpretation (Zeiljstra 2004: 61). Languages using multiple negative markers to express sentential negation, such as those in Jespersen phases II-IV, e.g. French (28)a, are necessarily NC languages. However, aside from multiple negative markers, NC also mani-fests as multiple n-words, with the negative feature being spread across a number of indefi-nite expressions. Those languages which use a preverbal negative marker, and thus have an available [uNEG] feature, exhibit NC as well, even if it is the sole marker of sentential ne-gation (Zeiljstra 2004: 149). This is the case in phase I languages such as Polish (28)b.

(28) a. Ils n' ont pas dit French

They neg' AUX-PAST neg said

'They did not say anything'

b. Oni nic nikomu nie powiedzieli Polish They n-thing n-body neg told

'They did not tell anything to anybody'

NC can either be Strict, requiring n-words to be accompanied by a negative marker, or Non-Strict, allowing an n-word in a subject position to occur without a negative marker (Zeijstra 2004: 64). Italian is a Non-Strict NC language and (29) shows the contrast be-tween situations where n-words occur with and without a negative marker.

(29) a. Gianni non ha telefonato a nessuno Italian Gianni neg has called to n-body

(28)

b. Ieri nessuno ha telefonato a nessuno

Yesterday n-body has called to n-body ‘Nobody called anybody yesterday'

(Penka, Zeijlstra 2010: 779)

Negative Concord will be described in greater detail in Chapter 3.

2.2.4.Emphatic Negation

In Emphatic Negation one negative element reinforces another, creating a stronger nega-tion, as in (30)b and (30)c.

(30) a. Hij heeft nergens zin in Dutch

He has n-where lust in ‘He doesn't feel like anything' b. Hij heeft nergens geen zin in

He has n-where no lust in 'He doesn't feel like anything at all' c. Jan geeft niemand niets

John gives n-body n-thing

'John doesn't give anything to anybody at all'

(Zeijlstra 2004: 67-68)

(29)

Chapter 3: Negative Concord

3.1.Types of Negative Concord

According to Giannakidou (2000: 458), Negative Concord generally refers to the situation where negation is seemingly expressed multiple times in one clause, but is interpreted only once. It can manifest as what Giannakidou calls Negative Concord proper, wherein a sen-tential negative marker co-occurs with one or more n-word, or as Negative Spread (NS), where multiple n-words exist without a negative marker. NC proper can arise both with preverbal and adverbal negative markers, as seen in (31) a and b respectively. Preverbal markers, which have been determined to be syntactic heads in 1.2, are termed light markers by Giannakidou (2000: 459), while adverbal markers, maximal projections according to 1.2, are termed heavy markers. It is worth noting that in the study by Zeiljstra (2004: 149) all languages using head negative markers belonged to a class of NC languages, while some languages using maximal projection markers were Double Negation language.

(31) a. Milan ne vidi nista Serbian/Croatian

Milan neg see n-thing 'Milan cannot see anything'

b. Ich bin froh, dass ich keine Rede nicht haldehn brauch. Bavarian I am glad that I neg talk neg hold must

'I'm glad I don't have to give a talk'

(30)

Negative Spread is exemplified by constructions such as (29)b. Giannakidou (2000: 460-62) notes that certain languages use NC proper exclusively, obligatorily taking a nega-tive marker, whereas no language seems to use solely NS. She terms those varieties which require a negative a marker Strict NC languages, establishing the Strict vs Non-Strict NC distinction. Penka and Zeijlstra (2010: 779) describe Non-Strict NC languages as establish-ing concord between any number of n-words in postverbal position, and only one preverbal element, either a negative marker or an n-word, as in (32); Strict NC varieties allow the negative marker to intervene between a preverbal n-word and the verb, on the other hand, resulting in multiple preverbal negative elements, as in (33).

(32) a. Gianni non ha visto niente Italian

(31)

obso-lete, as they do not contribute to the negative meaning of the sentence. Penka and Zeijlstra (2010: 781; also Zeijlstra 2004: 244-45) argue that negation in NC languages is an instance of syntactic agreement, not unlike subject-verb agreement. In this view, n-words are syntac-tically marked for negation, carrying a [uNEG] feature which must be checked against a semantically negative element carrying an [iNEG] feature, a negative operator, via the tactic operation Agree. Since feature checking involves a relation with an appropriate syn-tactic head (Zeijlstra 2004: 265), NC languages require the presence of Nego _{and the}

nega-tive projection, described in 1.2.1. Conversely, every language in which NegP is available is an NC language.

The negative operator is not synonymous with the negative marker. According to Zeijlstra (2004: 245), there are two options concerning negative markers, both of which are realised in natural languages: either the negative marker carries [uNEG] or it carries [iNEG]. The latter is the case in Non-Strict NC, whereas the former is true of Strict NC, which can be demonstrated in scope differences in sentences such as (34) and (35). The negative operator and negative marker take different positions in Strict NC, which is visible when negation scopes over elements dominating the negative marker.

(34) Dużo Jan nie zjadł Polish (Strict NC)

Much John neg ate

neg > much: 'John didn't eat much'/'There isn't much that John ate' *much > neg: 'There is much that John didn't eat'

(35) Molto non ha mangiato Gianni Italian (Non-Strict NC) Much neg has eaten Gianni

*neg > much: 'Gianni didn't eat much'/'There isn't much that Gianni ate' much > neg: 'There is much that Gianni didn't eat'

(32)

non-subject NPIs can occur to the left of negative markers in Strict NC languages, for ex-ample nikomu in (33), as the negative operator licensing them is in a higher position, while in Non-Strict NC languages they must be to the right of the negative marker.

In short, according to Zeijlstra (2004: 258), the difference between Strict and Non-Strict NC is the difference between the negative marker carrying a [uNEG] feature which must be checked against a separate negative operator carrying [iNEG], and the negative marker carrying [iNEG] itself and being the realisation of the negative operator.

3.2.1.Negative Concord as Multiple Agree

Considering NC an instance of agreement and feature checking raises the question of rela-tions between two or more elements carrying an uninterpretable feature. For example, every instance of Strict NC sees at least two [uNEG] features, one carried by the negative marker, and that carried by an n-word. Zeijlstra (2004: 248) argues that NC is the result of Multiple Agreement, which allows multiple elements carrying uninterpretable features to be checked against a single element carrying an interpretable feature. This is made possible by employing a weaker, derivational version of the Defective Intervention Constraint (Harawa 2001, as cited in Zeijlstra 2004: 248), which allows a probe to check for all possi-ble goals in its local domain. While inactive goals, which had been checked at an earlier stage of the derivation, are not allowed to intervene, there is no such restriction for those in the active phase. Examples of feature checking and Multiple Agree in NC are provided in (36), (37) and (38).

(36) Jan nie je Polish

John neg eats ‘John doesn’t eat’

[NegP Op¬ [iNEG] Nego[uNEG][vP Jan [vº nie[uNEG] je]]]

Example (36) shows a sentence with a single negative element, the negative marker

(33)

projects the category Nego_{, the specifier position of which is filled by the negative operator}

Op¬, carrying [iNEG]. [uNEG] is deleted through feature checking under spec-head agreement in NegP (Zeijlstra 2004: 249).

(37) Jan nie je niczego Polish

John neg eats n-thing ‘John doesn’t eat anything’

[NegP Op¬ [iNEG] Nego[uNEG][vP niczego[uNEG][vP Jan [vº nie[uNEG] je niczego]]]]

[NegP Op¬ [iNEG] Nego[uNEG][vP niczego[uNEG][vP Jan [vº nie je]]]]

(37) shows a sentence with an additional n-word in object position, niczego. Both the negative marker nie, cliticized onto the finite verb, and the n-word possess uninter-pretable [uNEG] features, which need to be deleted in the derivation. Again, the [uNEG] feature on nie projects Negº, and Op¬ fills occupies Spec,NegP. Niczego moves into vP adjunct position to fulfil the locality conditions of Agree, requiring the negative verb and object to be in the same phase as the negative operator or the edge of the lower. According to Zeijlstra (2004: 250), both negative elements have their features checked against the same Op¬ carrying [iNEG] under Multiple Agree. Negative Concord constructions in non-standard English varieties undergo the same process, as in (38).

(38) John didn’t do nothing Nonstandard English

‘John didn’t do anything’

[NegP Op¬ [iNEG] [Negº n’t [uNEG][vP do nothing[uNEG]]]]

(34)

3.2.1.1.Criticism of Negative Concord as Multiple Agree

Haegeman and Lohndal (2010: 189-196, 2013: 358-364) indicate several problems with considering NC to be Multiple Agree (MA). The MA approach sees negative concord as a one-to-many relation between one unique operator and every n-word, but without any in-teraction between the individual n-words and without the locality restriction against inter-vening features of the same type. Haegeman and Lohndal (2010: 182) consider this aban-doning of a strict locality condition to be one of MA’s conceptual problems, along with the fact that Zeijlstra’s system reverses the typical direction of Agree. They point out that in the standard view, the probe with the uninterpretable feature c-commands the goal carrying the interpretable feature, whereas here the goal, Op¬ with [iNEG], c-commands the probe or probes, n-constituents with [uNEG] (Haegeman, Lohndal 2010: 187). Besides conceptual difficulties and perhaps more pertinently, Haegeman and Lohndal (2013: 361-362) show empirical data from West Flemish which contradict the MA model: local relations between negative elements, essentially ruled out by MA, are relevant to determining NC in West Flemish. Examples in (39) a-c show a series of clauses including niemand (n-body), niet

(negative marker), and niet lange (not long) in different configurations. Based on examples a-c, all three elements can be said to carry a [uNEG] feature which is checked by a senten-tial negative operator (Haegeman, Lohndal 2012: 361), and all enter into NC with one an-other. Following this, example (39)d would be expected to be grammatical with an NC reading, but it is not, only a Double Negation is available, and even that marginally.

(35)

d. *dat Valère doa niet lange niet gewerkt eet

The unacceptability of an NC reading in (39)d and e is not due to a ban on the co-occurrence of niet lange and niet, as both appear in (39)c. It is also not a matter of anti-adjacency, as they are separated by the prepositional phrase in dat us in (39)e, which is still incorrect. Should niemand be placed between niet lange and niet, however, the sentence would be rescued. Haegeman and Lohndal (2013: 362-363) find that different types of n-constituents in West Flemish have restrictions on their positions relative to each other, based on their featural make-up, which the MA approach does not account for.

3.2.2.Negative Concord as Binary Agree

What Haegeman and Lohndal (2010:196) suggest as a solution to issues raised in 3.2.1.1 is Binary Agree with the ability to establish relations between two [uNEG] features and a locality restriction against intervening features of the same type. They allow for agreement between two uninterpretable features, with the effect that the uninterpretable feature sur-vives on the higher element, but not between two interpretable features, as that would lead to the deletion of one of them and violate Full Interpretation (Haegeman, Lohndal 2010: 197). Rather than by one sweeping, across-the-board operation, as in Multiple Agree, in this approach NC is derived through a series of step-wise operations, schematically shown in (40).

(40) a. [C[uNEG]] [D[uNEG]]  Agree

(36)

c. [B[uNEG]] [C[uNEG]] [D[uNEG]]  Agree

d. [B[uNEG]] [C[uNEG]] [D[uNEG]] Merge [A[iNEG]]

e. [A[iNEG]] [B[uNEG]] [C[uNEG]] [D[uNEG]]  Agree

f. [A[iNEG]] [B[uNEG]] [C[uNEG]] [D[uNEG]]

(Haegeman, Lohndal 2010: 198)

This approach allows for managing relations and intervention effects between indi-vidual n-constituents in West Flemish Negative Concord (Heageman, Lohndal 2010: 207). It also accounts for DP-Internal NC, wherein several [uNEG] carrying elements merge into a constituent with a single [uNEG] feature (Heageman, Lohndal 2010: 194-196).

3.3.Summary

(37)

Conclusion

The aim of this thesis has been to look at the means of expressing sentential negation in various languages, with primary focus on negative concord wherein multiple negative ele-ments in a sentence yield one negation on the proposition. This multiplication of apparent negations without cancellation may seem counterintuitive, and the work sought to explore why multiple negations in negative concord languages do not function as they would in formal logic.

To understand this phenomenon, it was first necessary to look at negative elements, negative markers in particular, whose number and relations are a significant aspect of ex-pressing sentential negation and negative concord. The syntactic status of negative markers as syntactic heads and maximal projections was considered and the negative phrase NegP, originating in Pollock’s (1989) recognition of negation a separate syntactic category, was described as their host and possible place of in certain languages. However, NegP was found to be available only in languages with a visibly present uninterpretable [uNeg] fea-ture. Negative Concord languages, for which interpretable and uninterpretable negative features are crucial, were found to require the presence of NegP.

(38)

Finally, in order to resolve the issue of Negative Concord’s apparent compositional-ity violation, it was assumed that certain negative elements are negative syntactically, but not semantically, and are governed by mechanisms of feature checking and syntactic agreement. Two approaches to Negative Concord as agreement were presented, Multiple Agree and step-wise Binary Agree, explaining how multiple expressions carrying uninter-pretable negative features interact and check against a single interuninter-pretable negative feature to yield one negative interpretation. It should be noted that while only minimalist, agree-ment-based explanations were included in this presentation, other approaches do exist, in-cluding ones assuming semantic negativity for all elements and resolving compositionality issues through semantic absorption.

(39)

References

Gelderen, Elly Van. 2006. A history of the English language. Amsterdam: John Benja-mins Publishing Co, 126-132.

Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2000. “Negative… Concord?”, Natural Language and Linguis-tic Theory 18: 457-523.

Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2011. “Positive polarity items and negative polarity items: variation, licensing, and compositionality”, in: Clauda Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger and Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1674-1684.

Green, Lisa. 2002. African American English: a linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 77-80.

Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. “Introduction”, in: Lilliane Haegeman, The syntax of nega-tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-51.

Haegeman, Liliane, Lohndal, Terje. 2010. “Negative Concord and (Multiple) Agree: a case study of West Flemish”, Linguistic Inquiry 41, 2: 181-211.

Haegeman, Liliane, Lohndal, Terje. 2013. “Negation”, in: Silvia Luraghi and Claudia Parodi (eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax. New York, London: Bloomsbury Academic, 354-364.

Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: A. F. Høst, 3-14.

Kahrel, Peter, Van den Berg, René (eds). 1994. Typological studies in negation. Am-sterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 2, 39.

(40)

Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. “Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP”, Linguistic Inquiry 20, 3: 365-424.

Sweet, Henry (ed.). 1871. King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care. London: The Early English Text Society, 3-34.

Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2001. “Sentential negation”, in: Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 511-535.

Sentential negation and Negative Concord (1)

Nataniel Siek