Negative wh-construction and its semantic properties



Widely attested cross-linguistically, the Negative WH (NWH)-construction involves the special use of wh-words (e.g., ‘where’, ‘what’, and ‘how’) to convey negation in certain specific contexts. The first half of this paper identifies the negative assertion as the primary meaning of the NWH construction, in addition to two conventional implicatures. In the second half, I argue that the grammatical features in NWHCs in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese strongly suggest that NWHCs should be analyzed as interrogative wh-questions. The quantification domain of NWH-words is the sets of propositions that pick out the conversational backgrounds of the sentence (Kratzer 1977; Portner 2009). The NWHC can be paraphrased as “What is the proposition q such that in view of q, p is true?” However, the interrogative question can only receive a negative rhetorical interpretation (i.e., a question without a true answer) because the conventional implicatures make it impossible for p to be true against any of the conversational backgrounds.


Negation Wh-construction Quantification domain Rhetorical question Conversational background 

The following is a list of abbreviations used in the glossing:








Question particle










Relativization marker


Sentence particle


Declarative marker




Past tense


Rhetorical question particle


  1. Caponigro, Ivano, and Jon Sprouse. 2007. Rhetorical questions as questions. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, ed. E. Puig-Waldmüller, 121–133. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
  2. Cheng, Lisa. 1991. On the typology of wh-questions. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  3. Cheung, Lawrence Y.-L. 2008. The negative wh-construction. PhD dissertation, UCLAGoogle Scholar
  4. Choi, Jinyoung. 2005. Another type of free choice effect: Korean Amwu N-Lato. In Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. John Alderete et al., 88–96. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla (Proceedings Project., document #1210).
  5. Fiengo Robert. (2007) Asking questions: Using meaningful structures to imply ignorance. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3, ed. P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hamblin Charles. (1973) Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53Google Scholar
  8. Han Chung-Hye. (2002) Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical questions. Lingua 112: 201–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heim, Irene. 2000. Notes on interrogative semantics. MIT “Advanced Semantics” Spring 2000.
  10. Heim Irene, Angelika Kratzer. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Malden MA, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  11. Hsieh, Miao-Ling. 2001. Form and meaning: Negation and question in Chinese. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  12. Karttunen Lauri. (1977) Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kratzer Angelika. (1977) What must and can must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(3): 337–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee-Goldman, Russell. 2006. Rhetorical questions and scales: Just what do you think constructions are for? Paper presented at the international conference on construction grammar 4, Tokyo University.Google Scholar
  15. Oxford English Dictionary. 1989. “World,” n.16. OED Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed 13 Sep 2009.
  16. Portner Paul. (2009) Modality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Potts Christopher. (2005) The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Sadock, Jerrold M. 1971. Queclaratives. In Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 223–232. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  19. Sadock Jerrold M. (1974) Towards a linguistic theory of speech acts. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. von Fintel, Kai. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  21. von Fintel, Kai, and Irene Heim. 2009. Lecture notes on intensional semantics. MIT Spring 2009.
  22. Wang, Li. 1958/1988. Hanyu Shigao [A sketch of the history of the Chinese language]. Vol. 9 of In Collection of Essays of Wang Li. Jinan: Shandong Education Publisher.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations