Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 607–658 | Cite as

Negative concord with polyadic quantifiers

The case of Romanian
Article
  • 321 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper we develop a syntax-semantics of negative concord in Romanian within a constraint-based lexicalist framework. We show that n-words in Romanian are best treated as negative quantifiers which may combine by resumption to form polyadic negative quantifiers. Optionality of resumption explains the existence of simple sentential negation readings alongside double negation readings. We solve the well-known problem of defining general semantic composition rules for translations of natural language expressions in a logical language with polyadic quantifiers by integrating our higher-order logical object language in Lexical Resource Semantics (LRS), whose constraint-based composition mechanisms directly support a systematic syntax-semantics for negative concord with polyadic quantification in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG).

Keywords

Negative concord Romanian Polyadic quantifiers Head-driven phrase structure grammar Lexical resource semantics 

References

  1. Barbu, Ana-Maria. 2004. The negation NU: lexical or affixal item. In Understanding Romanian negation. Syntactic and semantic approaches in a declarative perspective, ed. Emil Ionescu, 68–82. Bucharest: Bucharest University Press. Google Scholar
  2. Barker, Chris. 2007. Parasitic scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (4): 407–444. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Copestake, Ann, Dan Flickinger, Carl Pollard, and Ivan A. Sag. 2005. Minimal Recursion Semantics: an introduction. Research on Language and Computation 3: 281–332. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corblin, Francis, and Lucia M. Tovena. 2001. On the multiple expression of negation in Romance. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 1999, eds. Yves D’Hulst, Johan Rooryck, and Jan Schroten, 87–115. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Swart, Henriëtte. 1993. Adverbs of quantification: a generalized quantifier approach. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  6. de Swart, Henriëtte. 2010. Expression and interpretation of negation. An OT typology. Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Swart, Henriëtte, and Ivan A. Sag. 2002. Negation and negative concord in Romance. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 373–417. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Egg, Markus, Alexander Koller, and Joachim Niehren. 2001. The constraint language for lambda structures. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10 (4): 457–485. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farkas, Donka. 2002. Extreme non-specificity in Romanian. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2000, eds. Claire Beyssade, Reineke Bok-Bennema, Frank Drijkoningen, and Paola Monachesi, 127–151. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fălăuş, Anamaria. 2007. Le paradoxe de la double négation dans une langue à concordance négative stricte. In La négation dans les langues romanes, ed. Franck Floricic, 75–97. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  11. Fălăuş, Anamaria. 2010. Alternatives as sources of semantic dependency. In Proceedings of SALT 20, eds. Nan Li and David Lutz, 406–427. Google Scholar
  12. Gallin, Daniel. 1975. Intensional and higher-order modal logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Google Scholar
  13. Gamut, L. T. F. 1991. Logic, language and meaning. Intensional logic and logical grammar, Vol. 2. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  14. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Vol. 23 of Linguistik aktuell. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2007. N-words and negative concord. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, eds. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, Vol. III. Malden: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  16. Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The syntax of negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haegeman, Liliane, and Raffaella Zanuttini. 1991. Negative heads and the Neg criterion. The Linguistic Review 8: 233–251. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoeksema, Jack. 2010. Dutch ENIG: from nonveridicality to downward entailment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 837–859. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoeksema, Jack. 2012. On the natural history of negative polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 38 (1–2): 3–33. Google Scholar
  20. Huitink, Janneke. 2012. Modal concord: a case study of Dutch. Journal of Semantics 29 (3): 403–437. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ionescu, Emil. 1999. A quantification-based approach to negative concord in Romanian. In Proceedings of Formal Grammar 1999, eds. Geert-Jan M. Kruijff and Richard T. Oehrle, 25–35. Utrecht. Google Scholar
  22. Ionescu, Emil. 2004. The semantic status of Romanian n-words in negative concord constructions. In Understanding Romanian negation. Syntactic and semantic approaches in a declarative perspective, ed. Emil Ionescu, 83–118. Bucharest: Bucharest University Press. Google Scholar
  23. Iordăchioaia, Gianina. 2004. N-words as negative quantifiers in Romanian. In Understanding Romanian negation. Syntactic and semantic approaches in a declarative perspective, ed. Emil Ionescu, 119–150. Bucharest: Bucharest University Press. Google Scholar
  24. Iordăchioaia, Gianina. 2010. Negative concord with negative quantifiers: a polyadic quantifier approach to Romanian negative concord. PhD diss., University of Tübingen. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:21-opus-48224.
  25. Isac, Daniela. 2004. Focus on negative concord. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2002: selected papers from ‘going romance’, Groningen, 28–30 November 2002, eds. R. Bok-Bennema, et al., 119–140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keenan, Edward L. 1992. Beyond the Frege boundary. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 199–221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keenan, Edward L., and Dag Westerståhl. 1997. Generalized quantifiers in linguistics and logic. In Handbook of language and logic, eds. Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, 837–893. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klima, Edward. 1964. Negation in English. In The structure of language, eds. Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
  29. Ladusaw, William A. 1980. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  30. Ladusaw, William A. 1992. Expressing negation. In Proceedings of SALT 2, 237–259. Columbus: The Ohio State University. Google Scholar
  31. Lindström, Per. 1966. First order predicate logic with generalized quantifiers. Theoria 32: 186–195. Google Scholar
  32. May, Robert. 1989. Interpreting logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 387–435. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moltmann, Friederike. 1995. Exception sentences and polyadic quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 223–280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Penka, Doris. 2011. Negative indefinites. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  35. Penn, Gerald, and Frank Richter. 2004. Lexical Resource Semantics: from theory to implementation. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, ed. Stefan Müller, 423–443. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  36. Peters, Stanley, and Dag Westerståhl. 2006. Quantifiers in language and logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  37. Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  38. Przepiórkowski, Adam, and Anna Kupść. 1997. Negative concord in Polish. Technical report, Institute of Computer Science, Polish Academy of Sciences. Google Scholar
  39. Przepiórkowski, Adam, and Anna Kupść. 1999. Eventuality negation and negative concord in Polish and Italian. In Slavic in HPSG, eds. Robert Borsley and Adam Przepiórkowski, 211–246. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  40. Richter, Frank. 2007. Closer to the truth: a new model theory for HPSG. In Model-theoretic syntax at 10. Proceedings of the ESSLLI’07 workshop MTS@10, eds. James Rogers and Stephan Kepser, 101–110. Dublin: Trinity College. Google Scholar
  41. Richter, Frank, and Laura Kallmeyer. 2009. Feature logic-based semantic composition: a comparison between LRS and LTAG. In Typed feature structure grammars, eds. Anders Søgaard and Petter Haugereid, 32–92. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang. Google Scholar
  42. Richter, Frank, and Manfred Sailer. 1999. LF conditions on expressions of Ty2: an HPSG analysis of negative concord in Polish. In Slavic in HPSG, eds. Robert Borsley and Adam Przepiórkowski, 247–282. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  43. Richter, Frank, and Manfred Sailer. 2004. Basic concepts of Lexical Resource Semantics. In ESSLLI 2003—Course material I. Vol. 5 of Collegium logicum. Wien: Kurt Gödel Society Wien. ISBN 3-901546-00-6. Google Scholar
  44. Richter, Frank, and Manfred Sailer. 2006. Modeling typological markedness in semantics: the case of negative concord. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, ed. Stefan Müller, 305–325. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  45. Richter, Frank, and Manfred Sailer. 2009. Phraseological clauses in constructional HPSG. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, ed. Stefan Müller, 297–317. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  46. Rowlett, Paul. 1998. A non-overt negative operator in French. PROBUS International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics 10 (2): 185–206. Google Scholar
  47. Sailer, Manfred. 2003. Combinatorial semantics and idiomatic expressions in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Phil. diss. (2000). Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340. 161, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen. Google Scholar
  48. Sailer, Manfred. 2006. Don’t believe in underspecified semantics: Neg raising in Lexical Resource Semantics. In Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 6, eds. Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, 375–403. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6. Google Scholar
  49. Teodorescu, Alexandra. 2005. Romanian n-words and the finite/non-finite distinction. In Theoretical and experimental approaches to Romance linguistics, eds. Randall S. Gess and Edward J. Rubin, 273–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Benthem, Johan. 1989. Polyadic quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 437–464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van der Wouden, Ton. 1997. Negative contexts. Collocation, polarity and multiple negation. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  52. Watanabe, Akira. 2004. The genesis of negative concord: syntax and morphology of negative doubling. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 559–612. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1991. Syntactic properties of sentential negation. A comparative study of Romance languages. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar
  54. Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1994. Re-examining negative clauses. In Paths towards universal grammar. Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne, eds. G. Cinque, J. Koster, J. Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi, and R. Zanuttini, 427–451. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press. Google Scholar
  55. Zeijlstra, Hedde H. 2004. Sentential negation and negative concord. Utrecht: LOT Publications. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Linguistik: AnglistikUniversität StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Institut für England- und Amerikastudien, Abteilung LinguistikGoethe Universität Frankfurt a.M.Frankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations