1932

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-125126
2016-01-14
2024-06-15
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
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