1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 2, 2016
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 2, 2016

Negation and Negative Dependencies

Abstract

Languages may vary greatly in the way they express negation. Most languages exploit specifically designated negative markers, such as English . Many languages may also use negative indefinites (such as English or ) to express negation. The behavior of these negative indefinites is subject to crosslinguistic variation: In some languages, negative markers and negative indefinites cannot express a single semantic negation ( means that everybody came and not that nobody came), but in other languages they can. Languages with these properties, such as Italian, are called Negative Concord languages. In this review, I discuss the difference between negative indefinites in languages that exhibit Negative Concord and languages that do not. I also compare the behaviors of negative indefinites in languages that exhibit Negative Concord and so-called Negative Polarity Items. This article provides an accurate overview of recent developments in the study of negation and negative dependencies.

Keyword(s): negation, negative concord, negative indefinites, Negative Polarity Items, split scope
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-125126
2016-01-14
2024-10-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/2/1/annurev-linguistics-030514-125126.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-125126&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abels K, Marti L. 2010. A unified approach to split scope. Nat. Lang. Semant. 18:435–47 [Google Scholar]
  2. Carlson G. 1977. Reference to kinds in English PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ. Mass., Amherst 311 [Google Scholar]
  3. Chierchia G. 2006. Broaden your views: implicatures of domain widening and the logicality of language. Linguist. Inq. 37:535–90 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chierchia G. 2013. Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  5. Chomsky N. 1995. The Minimalist Program Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  6. Chomsky N. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A Life in Language M Kenstovicz 1–54 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  7. Collins C, Postal P. 2014. Classical NEG Raising Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  8. de Swart H. 2000. Scope ambiguities with negative quantifiers. Stud. Linguist. Philos. 72:109–32 [Google Scholar]
  9. de Swart H. 2010. Expression and Interpretation of Negation: An OT Typology Dordrecht, Neth: Springer [Google Scholar]
  10. de Swart H, Sag I. 2002. Negative concord in Romance. Linguist. Philos. 25:373–417 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fauconnier G. 1975. Polarity and the scale principle. Chicago Linguist. Soc. 11:188–99 [Google Scholar]
  12. Frege G. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Z. Philos. Philos. Krit. 100:25–50 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gajewski J. 2002. L-analyticity in natural language Work. pap., Dep. Linguist., MIT [Google Scholar]
  14. Gajewski J. 2005. Neg-raising: polarity and presupposition PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., MIT, Cambridge, MA 184 [Google Scholar]
  15. Geurts B. 1999. On no. J. Semant. 13:67–86 [Google Scholar]
  16. Giannakidou A. 1997. The landscape of polarity items PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ. Groningen, Groningen, Neth 230 [Google Scholar]
  17. Giannakidou A. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  18. Giannakidou A. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguist. Philos. 22:367–421 [Google Scholar]
  19. Giannakidou A. 2000. Negative … concord?. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 18:457–523 [Google Scholar]
  20. Giannakidou A. 2011. Negative polarity and positive polarity: licensing, variation, and compositionality. The Handbook of Natural Language Meaning K von Heusinger, C Maienborn, P Portner 1660–712 Berlin: de Gruyter, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  21. Haegeman L. 1995. The Syntax of Negation Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  22. Haegeman L, Lohndal T. 2010. Negative concord and (multiple) agree: a case study of West Flemish. Linguist. Inq. 41:181–211 [Google Scholar]
  23. Haegeman L, Zanuttini R. 1996. Negative concord in West Flemish. Parameters and Functional Heads. Essays in Comparative Syntax A Belletti, L Rizzi 117–79 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  24. Haspelmath M. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  25. Herburger E. 2001. The negative concord puzzle revisited. J. Semant. 9:289–333 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hiraiwa K. 2001. Multiple agreement and the defective intervention effect. Proceedings of the MIT–Harvard Joint Conference (HUMIT 2000) O Matushansky 67–80 Cambridge, MA: MIT Work. Pap. Linguist. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hoeksema J. 2008. Distributieprofielen van negatief-polaire uitdrukkingen: een vergelijking van het Nederlands, Engels en Duits. Tabu 37:111–95 [Google Scholar]
  28. Horn LR. 1989. A Natural History of Negation Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  29. Iatridou S, Sichel I. 2011. Negative DPs, A-movement, and scope diminishment. Linguist. Inq. 42:595–629 [Google Scholar]
  30. Jacobs J. 1980. Lexical decomposition in Montague grammar. Theor. Linguist. 7:121–36 [Google Scholar]
  31. Janssen T. 1997. Compositionality (with an Appendix by B. Partee). Handbook for Logic and Language J Van Benthem, A Ter Meulen 417–73 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  32. Kadmon N, Landman F. 1993. ‘Any.’. Linguist. Philos. 16:353–422 [Google Scholar]
  33. Klima E. 1964. Negation in English. The Structure of Language JA Fodor, JJ Katz 246–323 Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall [Google Scholar]
  34. Krifka M. 1991. Some remarks on polarity items. Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics D Zaefferer 150–89 Berlin/New York: Foris [Google Scholar]
  35. Krifka M. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items in assertion. Linguist. Anal. 15:209–57 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ladusaw WA. 1979. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ. Tex., Austin 215 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ladusaw WA. 1992. Expressing negation. Proceedings of the 2nd Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 2) C Barker, D Dowty 237–59 Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. [Google Scholar]
  38. Ladusaw WA. 1996. Negation and polarity items. The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory S Lappin 321–41 Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  39. Laka MI. 1990. Negation in syntax: on the nature of functional categories and projections PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., MIT, Cambridge, MA 270 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lin J, Weerman F, Zeijlstra H. 2014. Mandarin SHENME as a superweak NPI. Black Book: A Festschrift in Honor of Frans Zwarts J Hoeksema, D Gilbers 229–51 Groningen, Neth: Univ. Groningen [Google Scholar]
  41. Lin J, Weerman F, Zeijlstra H. 2015. Emerging NPIs: the acquisition of Dutch hoeven (‘need’). Linguist. Rev. 32:333–74 [Google Scholar]
  42. May R. 1985. Logical Form Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  43. Penka D. 2007. Negative indefinites PhD thesis, Eberhard-Karls-Univ. Tübingen, Tübingen, Ger. [Google Scholar]
  44. Penka D. 2010. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 32 Negative Indefinites Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  45. Postal P. 2000. An introduction to the grammar of Squat Work. pap., Dep. Linguist., NYU [Google Scholar]
  46. Postal P. 2004. The structure of one type of American English vulgar minimizer. Skeptical Linguistic Essays P Postal 159–72 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  47. Progovac L. 1993. A binding approach to polarity sensitivity PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ. South. Calif., Pasadena 850 [Google Scholar]
  48. Progovac L. 1994. Positive and Negative Polarity: A Binding Approach Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  49. Rullmann H. 1995. Geen eenheid. Tabu 25:194–97 [Google Scholar]
  50. Szabolcsi A. 2004. Positive polarity—negative polarity. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 22:409–52 [Google Scholar]
  51. Ura H. 1996. Multiple feature-checking: a theory of grammatical function splitting PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., MIT, Cambridge, MA 477 [Google Scholar]
  52. van der Wouden T. 1994. Negative contexts PhD thesis, Dutch Dep., Univ. Groningen, Groningen, Neth 243 [Google Scholar]
  53. von Fintel K, Iatridou S. 2003. Epistemic containment. Linguist. Inq. 34:173–98 [Google Scholar]
  54. Watanabe A. 2004. The genesis of negative concord. Linguist. Inq. 35:559–612 [Google Scholar]
  55. Zanuttini R. 1991. Syntactic properties of sentential negation: a comparative study of Romance languages. PhD thesis, Univ. Pa., Philadelphia [Google Scholar]
  56. Zanuttini R. 1997. Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. New York/Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  57. Zanuttini R. 2001. Sentential negation. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory M Baltin, C Collins 511–35 New York: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  58. Zeijlstra H. 2004. Sentential negation and negative concord PhD thesis, Univ. Amsterdam315 [Google Scholar]
  59. Zeijlstra H. 2007. Negation in natural language: on the form and meaning of negative elements. Lang. Linguist. Compass 1:498–518 [Google Scholar]
  60. Zeijlstra H. 2008. On the syntactic flexibility of formal features. The Limits of Syntactic Variation T Biberauer 143–73 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  61. Zeijlstra H. 2011. On the syntactically complex status of negative indefinites. J. Comp. Ger. Linguist. 14:111–38 [Google Scholar]
  62. Zeijlstra H. 2013. Negation and polarity. The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax M den Dikken 793–826 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  63. Zeijlstra H. 2015. The morpho-syntactic realization of sentential negation. The International Syntax Handbook A Alexiadou, T Kiss 275–310 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  64. Zimmermann E. 1993. On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs. Nat. Lang. Semant. 1:149–79 [Google Scholar]
  65. Zwarts F. 1995. Nonveridical contexts. Linguist. Anal. 25:286–312 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-125126
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error