Advertisement

N-Words

  • Lena Baunaz
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 83)

Abstract

Witnessing that French N-words successfully pass the tests for negativity discussed in Zanuttini (1991, Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A comparative study of Romance Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania) for Italian, and in Giannakidou (1997, The Landscape of Polarity Items. Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics 18) for Greek, I claim that they are intrinsically negative (Mathieu, 1999, wh in-situ and the intenvention effect. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 441–472; de Swart ans Sag, 2002, Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 373–417.). Because they show semantico-syntactic properties similar to ∀Qs, I claim that they are negative ∀Qs, with the negative operator scoping over the universal operator. My account brings up a new view on French N-words, which are traditionally analysed as indefinites (Déprez, 1997, Probus 9: 103–143; Rowlett, 1998, Sentential Negation in French. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Mathieu, 1999, wh in-sita and the intervention effect. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 441–472.), as well as a new typology of ∀Qs.

Keywords

Negative Operator Sentential Negation Polarity Item Negative Concord Inverse Scope 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Acquaviva, Paolo. 1997 The logical form of negation: A study of operator-variable structures in syntax. Garland Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  2. Ashby, William J. 1981. The loss of the negative particle ne in French: A syntactic change in progress. Language 57(3):674–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babyonyshev, Maria. 1996. Structural connections in syntax and processing: studies in Russian and Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  4. Baunaz, Lena. 2008. Floating quantifiers: french universal quantifiers and N-words. In Selected Proceedings of the 34th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Special Issue of the Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, vol. 33., P. Benincą, F. Damonte N. Penello (eds). Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
  5. Beghelli, Fillipo and Tim Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In Ways of Scope Taking, Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), 71–108. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belletti, Adriana. 1990. Generalized Verb Movement. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
  7. Beyssade, Claire. 2006. la polarité. Notes. http://prevert.upmf-grenoble.fr/~alecomte/polarite.doc. Accessed 18 June 2009.
  8. Bošković, Zeljiko. 2004. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22:681–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brisson, Christine. 1998. Distributivity, Maximality and Floating Quantifiers. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  10. Cardinaletti, Anna and Maria-Teresa Guasti. 1993. Negation in epistemic small clauses. Probus 5:39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christensen, Susan. 2003. Analysis of the Standard French ne-drop Phenomenon. In http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/Linguistics/Papers/2003/christensen_susan.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2009.
  12. Corblin, Francis. 1996. Multiple negation processing in natural language. Theoria 17:214–259.Google Scholar
  13. Corblin, Francis and Lucia Tovena. 2003. L’expression de la négation dans les langues romanes. In Les langues romanes: problèmes de la phrase simple, Danièle Godard (ed.), 279–341. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
  14. Corblin, Francis et al. 2004. Negative concord. In Handbook of French Semantics, Francis Corblin and Henriette de Swart (eds.), 427–461. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Déprez, Viviane. 1994. The weak island effect of floating quantifiers. In Functional Projections: University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17, Elena Benedicto and Jeff Runner (eds.), 63–84. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  16. Déprez, Viviane. 1997. Two types of negative concord. Probus 9:103–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Déprez, Viviane. 1998. Semantic effects of agreement: The case of French participle agreement. Probus 10.1:1–67, Walter De Gryuter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Déprez, Viviane. 1999. The Roots of negative concord in French and French based Creoles. In Language Creation and Language Change: Creole, Diachrony and Development, Michel DeGraff (ed.), 375–428. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Déprez, Viviane. 2000. Parallels (A)symmetries and internal structure of negative expressions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18:253–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Déprez, Viviane. 2003. Concordance négative, syntaxe des mots-N et variation dialectale. Cahier de Linguistique Française 25:97–118.Google Scholar
  21. Déprez, Viviane and France Martineau. 2004. Microparametric variation and negative concord. In Selected Proceedings of LSRL 33, Julie Auger, Clancy Clements and Barbara Vance (eds.), 139–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  22. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen and Claire Beyssade. 2004. Définir les Indéfinis. Coll. Sciences du Langage. Paris: Éditions CNRS.Google Scholar
  23. Doetjes, Jenny. 1997. Quantifiers and Selection. On the Distribution of Quantifying Expressions in French, Dutch and English. Doctoral dissertation, HIL, Leiden University. The Hague: HAG.Google Scholar
  24. Farkas, Donka and Anastasia Giannakidou. 1996. How clause-bounded is the scope of universals? In Proceedings of SALT VI, T. Gallway et al. (eds.), 35–52. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  25. Fauconnier, Gilles. 1974. Polarity and the scale principle. Chicago Linguistic Society 13:188–199.Google Scholar
  26. Fitzpatrick, Justin Michael. 2006. Syntactic and Semantic Routes to Floating Quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  27. Geurts, Bart and Frans van der Slik. 2005. Monotonicity and processing load. Journal of Semantics 22:97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1997. The Landscape of Polarity Items. Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics 18.Google Scholar
  29. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  30. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22:367–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2000. Negative concord and the scope of universals. Transactions of the Philological Society 98:87–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2002a. Licensing and sensitivity in polarity items: From downward entailment to (non)-veridicality. In CLS 38, Parasession on Polarity and Negation, Maria Adonis, Anne Pycha and Keiko Yohimura (eds.), 21pp. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  33. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2002b. N-words and negative concord. Final, pre-publication version, published in 2006. In The Linguistics Companion. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Giusti, Giuliana. 1997. The categorial status of determiners. In The New Comparative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 95–123. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  35. Godard, Danièle. 2004. French negative dependency. In Handbook of French Semantics, F. Corblin and H. de Swart (eds.), 351–389. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  36. Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Haegeman, Liliane and Raffaela Zanuttini. 1991. Negative heads and the neg criterion. The Linguistic Review 8:233–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harves, Stephanie. 2002. Genitive of negation and the syntax of scope. In Proceedings of ConSOLE IX. M. van Koppen, E. Thrift, E. J. van der Torre and M. Zimmerman (eds.), http://www.leidenuniv.nl/hil/sole/, 96–110.
  39. Hoeksema, Jack. 1999. Blocking effects and polarity sensitivity. In JFAK. Essays Dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the Occasion of his 50th Birthday, Vossiuspers/Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam; (version odur.let.rug.nl/∼hoeksema/docs/j50.htm.)Google Scholar
  40. Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  41. Hirschbühler, Paul and Marie Labelle. 1994. Changes in verb position in French negative infinitival clauses. Language Variation and Change 6:149–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Horn, Laurence. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ihsane, Tabea. 2008. The Layered DP. Form and Meaning of French Indefinites Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  44. Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Host.Google Scholar
  45. Junker, Marie-Odile. 1995. Syntax et sémantique des quantifieurs flottants tous et chacun. Distributivité en sémantique conceptuelle. Genève: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
  46. Kayne, Richard. 1981. On certain differences between French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 12:349–371.Google Scholar
  47. Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: ForisGoogle Scholar
  48. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antsymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Kayne, Richards. 2007. A short note on where vs. place. In (a cura di) Miscellanea di Studi Linguistici offerti a Laura Venelli da amici e llievi padovani, R. Maschi, N. Penello, P. Rizolatti (eds.), 245–257. Udine: Forum.Google Scholar
  50. Kiss, É. Katalin. 2002. The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Klima, Edward. 1964. Negation in English. In The Structure of Language. Readings in the Philosophy of Language, Jerry. A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz (eds.), 246–321. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  52. Knüppel, Veronika. 2001. Die Syntax des Negation im Französischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ladusaw, William. 1980. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  54. Ladusaw, William. 1992. Expressing negation. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) II Proceedings, Chris Barker and David Dowty (eds.). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  55. Linebarger, Marcia. 1980. The Grammar of Negative Polarity. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  56. Mathieu, Eric. 1999. Wh in-situ and the intervention effect. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11:441–472.Google Scholar
  57. Mathieu, Eric. 2002. The Syntax of Non-Canonical Quantification: A Comparative Study. Doctoral dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
  58. Merchant, J., 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Mille, Pierre. 1908. Barnavaux et quelques femmes. Paris: Calmann-Lévy.Google Scholar
  60. Molnár, Valerie. 1998. Topic in focus: the syntax, phonology, semantics, and pragmatics of the so-called “contrastive topic” in Hungarian and German. Acta Linguistic Hungarica 45:389–466.Google Scholar
  61. Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1983. Une Quantification Non-Canonique: La Quantification à Distance. Langue Français, 58:66–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1984. On the identification of Empty Categories. The Linguistic Review 4:153–202.Google Scholar
  63. Pereltsvaig, Asya. 1999. The genitive of negation and aspect in Russian. In Y. Rose and J. Steele (eds.), McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 14:111–140.Google Scholar
  64. Partee, Barbara H. 1986. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh and Martin Stokhof (eds.), 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  65. Péters, Hugues. 2001. Raising and negative quantification in French. GG@G 2:71–85.Google Scholar
  66. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20:365–424.Google Scholar
  67. Puskás, Genoveva. 1998. On the neg-criterion in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45:167–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Puskás, Genoveva. 2000. Quantification in the left periphery: A syntactic argument for ‘split’ domains. In CLS 36, Volume 1: The Main Session, John Boyle, Jung-Huyck Lee and Arika Okrent (eds.). Chicago Linguistic Society: Chicago.Google Scholar
  69. Puskás, Genoveva. 2002. Floating quantifiers: What they can tell us about the syntax and semantics of quantifiers. GG@G 3:105–128.Google Scholar
  70. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  71. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–338. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rowlett, Paul. 1998. Sentential Negation in French. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Starke, Michal. 2001. Move Dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  74. de Swart, Henriette and Ivan Sag. 2002. Negation and negative concord in Romance. Linguistics and Philosophy 25:373–417.Google Scholar
  75. Surányi, Balázs. 2002. Multiple Operator Movements in Hungarian, Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht, LOT.Google Scholar
  76. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1981. The semantics of topic-focus articulation. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Groenendijk, Janssen and Stokhofl (eds.). Amsterdam: Matematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
  77. Tovena, Lucia, Viviane Déprez and Jacques Jayez. 2004. Polarity sensitive items. In Handbook of French Semantics, Francis Corblin and Henriette de Swart (eds.), 403–411. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  78. Vallduví, Enric. 1994. Polarity items, n-words, and minimizers in Catalan and Spanish. Probus 6:263–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Van der Wouden, Ton and Frans Zwarts. 1993. A semantic analysis of negative concord. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, U. Lahiri and A.Z. Wyner (eds.), 202–219. Day Hall Lobby Cornell University.Google Scholar
  80. Zanuttini, Raffaela. 1991. Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  81. Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2004. Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series 101.Google Scholar
  82. Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1994. La syntaxe des clitiques nominatifs en français standard et en français avancé. In Travaux de Linguistique et de Philologie, 131–147. Strasbourg-Nancy: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
  83. Zwarts, Frans. 1995. Nonveridical contexts. Linguistic Analysis 25:286–312.Google Scholar
  84. Zwarts, Frans. 1998. Three types of Polarity. In Plurality and Quantification, Fritz Hamm and Erhart W. Hinrichs (eds.), 177–238. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations