Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 149–180 | Cite as

Negative polarity: Entailment and binding

  • Ljiljana Progovac


Artificial Intelligence Computational Linguistic Negative Polarity 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aoun, J.: 1985,A Grammar of Anaphora, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  2. Aoun, J.: 1986,Generalized Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  3. Aoun, J. and A. Y.-H. Li: 1989, ‘Scope and Constituency’,Linguistic Inquiry 20(2), 141–172.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, C. L.: (1970) ‘Problems of Polarity in Counter-factuals’, in J. M. Sadock and A. L. Vanek, (eds.),Studies Presented to Robert B. Lees by His Students, pp. 1–15, Linguistic Research, Inc., Carbondale, USA/Edmonton, Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Barss, A. and H. Lasnik: 1986: ‘A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects’,Linguistic Inquiry 17, 347–354.Google Scholar
  6. Battistella, E.: 1989, ‘Chinese Reflexivization: A Movement to INFL Approach’,Linguistics 27(6), 987–1012.Google Scholar
  7. Besten, H. den: 1978, ‘On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules’, paper presented at the 1978 GLOW conference, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  8. Borkin, A.: 1971, ‘Polarity Items in Questions’, inPapers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 53–62.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N.: 1981,Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N.: 1986a,Barriers, the MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N.: 1986b,Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Cole, P., G. Hermon, and L.-M. Sung: 1990, ‘Principles and Parameters of Long-Distance Reflexives’,Linguistic Inquiry 21(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  13. Emonds, J. E.: 1976,A Transformational Approach to English Syntax, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Fauconnier, G.: 1975, ‘Polarity and the Scale Principle’, inPapers from the Eleventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 188–199.Google Scholar
  15. Fiengo, R. and J. Higginbotham: 1981, ‘Opacity in NP’,Linguistic Analysis 7, 395–421.Google Scholar
  16. Hamblin, C. L.: 1973, ‘Questions in Montaque English’,Foundations of Language 10, 41–53.Google Scholar
  17. Hasegawa, N.: 1987, ‘INFL Movement and the Scope of Negation’, ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  18. Heim, I.: 1984, ‘A Note on Negative Polarity and Downward Entailingness’, inProceedings of NELS 14, 98–107.Google Scholar
  19. Hoeksema, J.: 1983, ‘Negative Polarity and the Comparative’,Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 403–434.Google Scholar
  20. Kadmon, N. and F. Landman: 1990, ‘Polarity SensitiveAny and Free ChoiceAny’, inProceedings of the Seventh Amsterdam Colloquium, ITLI, Universit van Amsterdam, pp. 227–251.Google Scholar
  21. Karttunen, L.: 1977, ‘Syntax and Semantics of Questions’,Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 3–44.Google Scholar
  22. Klima, E.: 1964, ‘Negation in English’, in J. Fodor and J. Katz (eds.),The Structure of Language, pp. 246–323, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  23. Klima, E. S.: 1965, ‘Studies in Diachronic Transformational Syntax’, Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  24. Koopman, H.: 1983, ‘ECP Effects in Main Clauses’,Linguistic Inquiry 14, 346–350.Google Scholar
  25. Koster, J.: 1975, ‘Dutch as an SOV Language’,Linguistic analysis 1, 111–136.Google Scholar
  26. Kroch, A. S.: 1975,The Semantics of Scope in English, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  27. Ladusaw, W. A.: 1980,Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations, Garland Publishing, Inc., New York and London.Google Scholar
  28. Ladusaw, W. A.: 1982, ‘On the NotionAffective in the Analysis of Negative-Polarity Items’,Journal of Linguistic Research 2, 1–16.Google Scholar
  29. Ladusaw, W. A.: 1983, ‘Logical Form and Conditions on Grammaticality’,Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 373–292.Google Scholar
  30. Laka, I.: 1990,Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections, MITWPL, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  31. Larson, K. R. and W. A. Ladusaw: 1986, ‘Notes on Negation and Polarity’, ms., MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  32. Lasnik, H. and M. Saito: 1984, ‘On the Nature of Proper Government’,Linguistic Inquiry 15, 235–289.Google Scholar
  33. Lasnik, H. and J. Uriagereka: 1988,A Course in GB Syntax, the MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  34. Lawler, A.: 1971, ‘Any Questions, inPapers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 163–173.Google Scholar
  35. Linebarger, M. C.: 1981,The Grammar of Negative Polarity, The Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
  36. Martin, J.: 1987, ‘Some Implications of Treating Polarity Phenomena Within Binding Theory’, paper presented at the Winter LSA Meeting, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  37. May, R.: 1977,The Grammar of Quantification, Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  38. May, R.: 1985,Logical Form, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  39. McDowell, J. P.: 1987, ‘Assertion and Modality’, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  40. Milner, J.-C.: 1979, ‘Le Systeme de la Negation en Francais et l'Opacite du Sujet’,Langue Francaise 44, 110–163.Google Scholar
  41. Pica, P.: 1987, ‘On the Nature of the Reflexivization Cycle’,Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting, NELS, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  42. Platzak, C.: 1986, ‘The Position of the Finite Verb in Swedish’, in Haider, H. and M. Prinzhorn (eds.),Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages, pp. 27–47. Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  43. Pollock, J.-Y.: 1989, ‘Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP’,Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
  44. Progovac, L.: 1988, ‘A Binding Approach to Polarity Sensitivity’, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  45. Progovac, L.: 1990a, ‘Free-ChoiceBilo in Serbo-Croatian: Existential or Universal?’,Linguistic Inquiry 21(1), 130–135.Google Scholar
  46. Progovac, L.: 1990b, ‘Inversion as a Purely Structural Phenomenon’, paper presented at the 1990 Mid-America Linguistics Conference in Lawrence, Kansas; to appear in thePapers from MALC.Google Scholar
  47. Progovac, L.: 1991, ‘Polarity in Serbo-Croatian: Anaphoric NPIs and Pronominal PPIs’,Linguistic Inquiry 22(3), 567–572.Google Scholar
  48. Progovac, L. to appear, ‘Relativized SUBJECT: Long-Distance Reflexives Without Movement’,Linguistic Inquiry 23(4).Google Scholar
  49. Radford, A.: 1988,Transformational Grammar, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Rizzi, L.: 1990,Relativized Minimality, The MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  51. Sedivy, J.: 1990, ‘Against a Unified Analysis of Negative Polarity Licensing’,Cahiers Linguistiques D'Ottawa 18, 95–105, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
  52. Stowell, T. A.: 1981,Origins of Phrase Structure, Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  53. Taraldsen, K. T.: 1986, ‘On Verb Second and the Functional Content of Syntactic Categories’, in H. Haider and M. Prinzhorn (eds.),Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages, pp. 1–25. Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  54. Travis, L.: 1984, ‘Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation’, Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  55. Weerman, F.: 1989,The V 2 Conspiracy: A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis of Verbal Positions in Germanic Languages, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ljiljana Progovac
    • 1
  1. 1.English DepartmentWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations