Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 361–391

A question of strength: on NPIs in interrogative clauses

Research Article

Abstract

We observe that the facts pertaining to the acceptability of negative polarity items (henceforth, NPIs) in interrogative environments complex than previously noted. Since Klima [Klima, E. (1964). In J. Fodor & J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language. Prentice-Hall], it has been typically assumed that NPIs are grammatical in both matrix and embedded questions, however, on closer scrutiny it turns out that there are differences between root and embedded environments, and between question nucleus and wh-restrictor. While NPIs are always licensed in the nucleus of root questions, their acceptability in the restrictor of wh-phrases and in the nucleus of any embedded question depends on the logical properties of the linguistic environment: its strength in terms of exhaustivity [Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatic answers. Amserdam (NL), Post-Doctoral Dissertation. Heim, I. (1994). In R. Buchalla & A. Mittwoch (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th annual IATL conference and of the 1993 IATL workshop on discourse (pp. 128–144). Akademon, Jerusalem. Beck, S., & 16 Rullmann, H. (1999). Natural Language Semantics, 7, 249–298. Sharvit, Y (2002). Natural Language Semantics, 10, 97–123] and its monotonicity properties (in the sense of von Fintel [von Fintel, K. (1999). Journal of 19 Semantics, 16, 97-148]).

Keywords

Negative polarity items Interrogative clauses 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abels, K. (2003). Who gives a damn about minimizers in questions? Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 13.Google Scholar
  2. Baker C.L. (1970). Double negatives. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 169–189Google Scholar
  3. Beck S., Rullmann H. (1999). A flexible approach to exhaustivity in questions. Natural Language Semantics 7: 249–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cable, S. (2002). Some remarks on two theories of negative polarity. Ms. MIT (http://web.mit.edu/ scable/www/work/papers/semantics-squib.pdf).Google Scholar
  5. Dayal, V. (1996). Locality in WH quantification: Questions and relative clauses in hindi. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Fauconnier G. (1975). Polarity and the scale principle. Chicago Linguistics Society 11: 188–199Google Scholar
  7. Fauconnier G. (1978). Implication reversal in a natural language. In: Guenthner F., Schmidt S.J. (eds) Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural languages. Dordrecht, Reidel, pp. 289–302Google Scholar
  8. von Fintel K. (1999). NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependencies. Journal of Semantics 16: 97–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giannakidou, A. (1997). The landscape of polarity items. PhD Dissertation, Groningen.Google Scholar
  10. Giannakidou, A. (2004). Licensing and sensitivity in polarity items: From downward entailment to nonveridicality. In M. Andronis, A. Pycha, & K. Yoshimura (Eds), CLS 38: Papers from the 38th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Parasession on Polarity and Negation.Google Scholar
  11. Giannakidou A. (2007). The landscape of Even. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 39–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1982). Semantic analysis of WH-complements. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 175–233Google Scholar
  13. Groenendijk, J. & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatic of answers. Amsterdam (NL), Post-Doctoral Dissertation.Google Scholar
  14. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1989). Type-shifting rules and the semantics of interrogatives. In G. Chierchia, B. Partee, & R. Turner (Eds.), Properties, Types and Meanings (Vol. 2, Semantic Issues, pp. 21–68). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  15. Guerzoni, E. (2001). Even-NPIs in questions. In The Proceedings of NELS 32 (pp. 153–170). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Guerzoni, E. (2003). Why even ask? On the pragmatics of questions and the semantics of answers. PhD Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  17. Guerzoni E. (2004). Even-NPIs in yes/no Questions. Natural Language Semantics 12: 319–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamblin C.L. (1971). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53Google Scholar
  19. Heim, I. (1984). A note on negative polarity and downward entailingness. In The Proceedings of NELS 14 (pp. 98–107). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Heim, I. (1994). Interrogative complements of Know. In R. Buchalla, & A. Mittwoch (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th annual IATL conference and of the 1993 IATL workshop on discourse (pp. 128–144). Jerusalem: Akademon.Google Scholar
  21. Higginbotham, J. (1991). Either/or. Proceedings of NELS 21.Google Scholar
  22. Higginbotham, J. (1993). Interrogatives. In K. Hale, & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 195–227). MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kadmon N., Landman F. (1993). Any Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 353–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karttunen L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klima, E. (1964). Negation in English. In J. Fodor, & J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Krifka M. (1995). The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25(3–4): 209–257Google Scholar
  27. Ladusaw, W. (1979). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. PhD Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  28. Ladusaw W. (1980). On the notion “Affective” in the analysis of negative polarity items. Journal of Linguistic Research 1: 1–16Google Scholar
  29. Lahiri, U. (1991). Embedded interrogatives and predicates that embed them. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Distributed by MITWPL.Google Scholar
  30. Lahiri U. (1998). Focus and negative polarity in hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lahiri, U. (2002). Questions and answers in embedded contexts. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Linebarger, M. (1980). The grammar of negative polarity. PhD Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  33. Linebarger M. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 325–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Munsat S. (1986). Wh-complementizers. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 191–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Progovac L. (1993). Negative polarity: Entailment and binding. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 149–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Rooy R. (2003). Negative polarity items in questions: Strength as relevance. Journal of Semantics 20: 239–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rullmann, H., & Beck, S. (1998). Presupposition projection and the interpretation of Whichquestions. In D. Strolovitch, & A. Lawson (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 8 (pp. 215–232). Cornell University.Google Scholar
  38. Sharvit Y. (2002). Embedded questions and De Dicto readings. Natural Language Semantics 10: 97–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sharvit, Y., & Guerzoni, E. (2003). Reconstruction and its problems. In P. Dekker, & R. van Rooy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 205–210). University of Amsterdam. von Stechow, A. (1996). Against LF pied-piping. Natural Language Semantics, 4, 57–110.Google Scholar
  40. Strawson P.F. (1952). Introduction to logical theory. London, MethuenGoogle Scholar
  41. Zwarts F. (1995). Nonveridical contexts. Linguistic Analysis 25: 286–312Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ConneticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations