Nominal negative quantifiers as adjuncts

Original Paper

Abstract

The topic of the following article is an exceptional use of the negative quantifier nothing and its correspondents in German, Dutch and Italian in which this element turns out to act like a negative polarity item (NPI). The circumstances under which this is the case have very briefly been described in Bayer (2006). Nothing is interpreted like an NPI whenever it is not licensed as an argument. Closer inspection reveals that adjunct status alone is too coarse a distinction, and that nothing must in fact be associated with the structural object position of the verb. The article is organized as follows. Section 1 presents the key observation using English data. Sections 2, 3 and 4 present constructed as well as attested data from English, German and Dutch respectively. Section 5 contains considerations of argument structures which trigger the interpretation of nothing as an NPI. Section 6 presents the core account. Section 7 sketches a diachronic scenario. Section 8 turns to negative concord and expands the account to Italian data. Section 9 contains a conclusion.

Keywords

Argument structure Diachrony Negation Negative polarity Negative strengthening 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acquaviva, Paolo. 1993. The logical form of negation: A study of operator variable structures in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa. Published 1997 by Garland.Google Scholar
  2. Bayer, Josef. 1997. Word order in Bavarian multiple negation. Handout. Wuppertaler Kolloquium.Google Scholar
  3. Bayer, Josef. 2006. ‘Nothing’ / ‘nichts’ as negative polarity survivors? In Between 40 and 60 Puzzles for Krifka, eds. H.-M. Gärtner, S. Beck, R. Eckardt, R. Musan, and B. Stiebels. http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/publications/40-60-puzzles-for-krifka/pdf/bayer.pdf.
  4. Bayer, Josef, and Markus Bader. 2007. On the syntax of prepositional phrases. In Interface and interface conditions, ed. A. Späth, 157–179. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  5. Bayer, Josef, Markus Bader, and Michael Meng. 2001. Morphological underspecification meets oblique case: Syntactic and processing effects in German. Lingua 111: 465–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beukema, Frits, and Olga Tomic. 1995. Negation in English. A diachronic view. Folia Linguistica Historica 16: 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brody, Michael. 1997. Perfect chains. In Elements of grammar, ed. L. Haegeman, 139–167. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Corblin, Francis, Viviane Depréz, Henriette de Swart, and Lucia Tovena. 2004. Negative concord. In Handbook of French semantics, eds. F. Corblin, and H. de Swart. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  9. Donhauser, Karin. 1996. Negationssyntax in der deutschen Sprachgeschichte: Grammatikalisierung oder Degrammatikalisierung? In Deutsch – typologisch, eds. E. Lang, and G. Zifonoun, 201–217. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  10. Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-Roles, argument selection, and lexical semantic defaults. Language 67(3): 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feller, Otto. 1914. Das Fürwort in der Mundart von Gerolzhofen (Ufr.). Ein Beitrag zur Syntax der ostfränkischen Mundarten. Würzburg: Drescher und Reichart.Google Scholar
  12. Folli, Raffaella, and Heidi Harley. 2007. Causation, obligation and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38(2): 197–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grimm, Jacob, and Wilhelm Grimm. 1852/1971. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Leipzig/Stuttgart: S. Hirzel Verlag. http://germazope.uni-trier.de/Projects/DWB.
  14. Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The syntax of negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Haegeman, Liliane, and Raffaella Zanuttini. 1991. Negative heads and the neg criterion. The Linguistic Review 8: 233–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
  17. Hoeksema, Jack. 1994. On the grammaticalization of negative polarity items. BLS (Berkeley Linguistic Society) 2: 273–282.Google Scholar
  18. Hoeksema, Jack. 1997. Negation and negative concord in Middle Dutch. In Negation and Polarity, eds. D. Forget, P. Hirschbühler, F. Martineau, and M.-L. Rivero, 139–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  19. Horn, Laurence R. 2001. Flaubert triggers, squatative negation and other quirks of grammar. In Perspectives on negation and polarity items, eds. J. Hoeksema, H. Rullman, V. Sanchez-Valencia, and T. van der Wouden, 173–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  20. Jäger, Agnes. 2000. Unterspezifikation am Beispiel des Pronomens ‘was’. Zur Grammatik eines w-Elements. MA thesis, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.Google Scholar
  21. Jäger, Agnes. 2005. Negation in Old High German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 24: 227–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jäger, Agnes. 2008. History of German negation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  23. Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: A.F. Høst.Google Scholar
  24. Kadmon, Nirit, and Fred Landman. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 353–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kayne, Richard S. 1998. Covert vs. overt movement. Syntax 1(2): 128–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kayne, Richard S. 2005. A short note on where vs. place. Ms. New York University.Google Scholar
  27. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase stucture and the lexicon, eds. J. Rooryck, and L. Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  28. Ladusaw, William A. 1992. Expressing negation. In Proceedings from SALT II, eds. C. Barker, and D. Dowty, 237–259. Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  29. Merchant, Jason. 2000. Antecedent-contained deletion in negative polarity items. Syntax 3(2): 144–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paul, Hermann. 1919/1954. Deutsche Grammatik. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  31. Penka, Doris, and Arnim von Stechow. 2001. Negative Indefinita unter Modalverben. In Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, eds. R. Müller, and M. Reis, 263–286. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
  32. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, eds. S. Karimi, V. Samiian, and W. K. Wilkins, 262–294. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  33. Poletto, Cecilia. 2008. On negation splitting and doubling. Handout. University of Venice.Google Scholar
  34. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3): 365–424.Google Scholar
  35. Staudinger, Bernhard. 1997. Sätzchen: Small clauses im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  36. Tommaseo, Niccolò, and Bernardo Bellini. (1859–79) Dizionario della lingua italiana. Milano: Rizzoli. http://www.dizionario.org/.
  37. Weiß, Helmut. 2002a. Three types of negation: A case study in Bavarian. In Syntactic microvariation, eds. S. Barbiers, L. Cornips, and S. van der Kleij, 305–332. Meertens Institute Electronic Publications in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  38. Weiß, Helmut. 2002b. A quantifier approach to negation in natural languages. Or why negative concord is necessary. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 25: 125–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Westergaard, Marit. 2009. Microvariation as diachrony: A view from acquisition. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12(1).Google Scholar
  40. Zinsmeister, Heike. 2003. Negation in German. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of KonstanzKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations