Advertisement

Research on Language and Computation

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 397–423 | Cite as

\(\neg\)(A&B). Gapping, negation and speech act operators

  • Sophie ReppEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The paper shows that in gapping sentences where a negative marker in the first conjunct takes wide scope over the whole coordination, the negation obligatorily operates on the level of the speech act rather than on the level of the proposition. In assertions, this is denial negation, and in questions, outer negation. The negation operating on the level of the speech act is argued to be an instantiation of the degrees of strength that are associated with the sincerity conditions of a speech act, which is a feature that it shares with VERUM focus and certain epistemic adverbs. Syntactically, this negation is situated higher than propositional negation, viz. in the CP of the clause. This suggests that gapping with wide scope negation is fundamentally different from ‘ordinary’ gapping which always involves propositional negation.

Keywords

Denial Ellipsis Epistemic modality Gapping Negation Outer negation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bayer J. (2004). Decomposing the left periphery. Dialectal and cross-linguistic evidence. In: Lohnstein H., Trissler S. (eds) The syntax and semantics of the left periphery. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 59–97Google Scholar
  2. Brennan V. (1997). Modalities. Nashville, Tennessee: Ms. Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
  3. Büring D., & Gunlogson C. (2000). Aren’t positive and negative polar questions the same? Ms. Available at semanticsarchive.net.Google Scholar
  4. Butler J. (2003). A minimalist treatment of modality. Lingua 113, 967–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chomsky N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Cinque G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford, OUPGoogle Scholar
  7. Cormack A., Smith N. (1998). Negation, polarity and V positions in English. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 285–322Google Scholar
  8. Culicover P. W. (1991). Topicalisation, Inversion and Complementizers in English. In D. Delfitto, M. Everaert, A. Evers, F. Stuurman (Eds.), Going romance, and beyond: 5th symposium on comparative grammar. OTS working papers, 91-002, pp. 1–43.Google Scholar
  9. Drubig H. B. (1994). Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus. Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340, Nr. 51, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  10. Drubig H.B. (2000). Towards a typology of focus and focus constructions. Tübingen, Ms. Tübingen UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. Erb’s C. (2001). Finite auxiliaries in German. PhD thesis. Tilburg: University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
  12. rege F. L. G. (1919). Die Verneinung. Beiträge zur Philosophie des Deutschen Idealismus, 1, pp. 143-57. Reprinted in P. T. Geach, M. Black (Eds.), Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege (pp. 117–135). Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  13. Groenendijk J., & Stokhof M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD thesis, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  14. Hamblin C.L. (1973). Questions in Montague grammar. Foundations of Language 10, 41–53Google Scholar
  15. Han’s C. (2001). Force, negation and imperatives. The Linguistic Review 18, 289–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hartmann K. (2000). Right node raising and gapping. Interface conditions on prosodic deletion. Benjamins.Google Scholar
  17. Hegarty M. (1992). Adjunct extraction and chain configuration. PhD thesis, Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  18. Höhle T. (1988). VERUM-Fokus. Sprache und Pragmatik 5, 2–7Google Scholar
  19. Höhle T. (1992). über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft, 4/1991-1992, pp. 112–141.Google Scholar
  20. Holmberg A., Platzack C. (1995). The role of inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford, OUPGoogle Scholar
  21. Horn L.R. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61, 121–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horn L.R. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago, The University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobs J. (1982). Syntax und Semantik der Negation im Deutschen. München, FinkGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacobs, J. (1991). Negation. In: von Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds), Semantik. Ein Internationales Handbuch Zeitgenössischer Forschung. Berlin, de Gruyter, pp. 560–596Google Scholar
  25. Johnson K. (1996). In search of the English middle field. Amherst. Ms. University of Massachussets: Revised version from 2003 available at http://people.umass.edu/kbj/homepage/Content/ middle_field.pdf Google Scholar
  26. Kim D.-B. (1991). Metalinguistic negation, neg raising, and nun in Korean. Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the CLS 2: The parasession on negation, pp. 125–139.Google Scholar
  27. Klein W. (1998). Assertion and finiteness. In: Dittmar N., Penner Z. (eds), Issues in the theory of language acquisition. Essays in honor of Jürgen Weissenborn. Bern, Lang, pp. 225–245Google Scholar
  28. Krifka M. (1997). Focus and/or context: A second look at second occurrence expressions. In H. Kamp & B. Partee (Eds.), Context dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning. Proceedings of the workshops in Prague, Feb. 1995; Bad Teinach, May 1995 (pp. 253–276). Institut für maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  29. Krifka M. (2004). Pragmatics. Course materials. Berlin, Humboldt UniversitätGoogle Scholar
  30. Kroch A. (1979). The semantics of scope in English. New York, GarlandGoogle Scholar
  31. Ladd R. D. (1981). A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. Papers from the 17th regional meeting of the CLS, pp. 164–171.Google Scholar
  32. Ladusaw W. (1980). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. New York, GarlandGoogle Scholar
  33. Lasser I. (1997). Finiteness in adult and child German. PhD thesis, City University of New York. Published in MPI Series in Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
  34. Linebarger M. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10, pp. 325-387.Google Scholar
  35. López L., & Winkler, S. (2003). Variation at the syntax-semantics interface: Evidence from gapping. K. Schwabe & S. Winkler (Eds.), The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures (pp. 227–248). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  36. Maas U. (2004). ‘Finite’ and ‘non-finite’ from a typological perspective. Linguistics 42, 359–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCawley J. (1991). Replacive negation and metalinguistic negation. Papers from the 27th regional meeting of the CLS 2: The parasession on negation, pp. 189–206.Google Scholar
  38. McDowell J. P. (1987). Assertion and modality. PhD thesis, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  39. Merin A. (2002). Pragmatic Ontology in Aristotle’s Organon. Forschungsberichte der DFG-Forschergruppe Logik in der Philosophie, 74, Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
  40. Moltmann F. (1992). Coordination and comparatives. PhD thesis. MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  41. Oehrle R.T. (1987). Boolean properties in the analysis of gapping. In: Huck G.J., Ojeda A.E., (eds), Syntax and semantics 20: Discontinuous Constituency. San Diego, Academic Press, pp. 203–240Google Scholar
  42. Piñon C. J. (1991). Presupposition and the syntax of negation in Hungarian. Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the CLS 2: The parasession on negation, pp. 246–262.Google Scholar
  43. Repp S. (2005). Interpreting ellipsis. The changeable presence of the negation in gapping. PhD thesis. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
  44. Rizzi L. (1990). Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  45. Rizzi L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In: Haegeman L. (eds), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 169–337Google Scholar
  46. Roberts I. (2004). The C-system in Brythonic Celtic Languages, V2, and the EPP. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 2, pp. 251–297). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  47. Romero M., Han C. (2004). On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 609–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ross J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. thesis. Distributed by Indiana University.Google Scholar
  49. Roussou A. (1998). Control and raising in and out of subjunctive complements. In: Rivero M.L., Ralli A. (eds) Comparative syntax of the Balkan languages. Oxford, OUP, pp. 74–104Google Scholar
  50. Schwager M. (2003). Negating and conjoining imperatives. In S. Blaho, L. Vicente & M. de Vos (Eds.), Proceedings of console XII.Google Scholar
  51. Searle J.R., Vanderveken D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge, CUPGoogle Scholar
  52. Siegel M.E.A. (1984). Gapping and interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 523–530Google Scholar
  53. Siegel M.E.A. (1987). Compositionality, case, and the scope of auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy 10, 53–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stenius E. (1967). Mood and language game. Synthese 17, 254–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Szabolsci A. (2004). Positive polarity—Negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22, 409–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van der Sandt R. (1991). Denial. Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the CLS 2: The Parasession on Negation, pp. 331–344.Google Scholar
  57. van der Sandt R., & Maier E. (2003). Denials in discourse. Ms. University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  58. Vanderveken D. (1990). Meaning and speech acts 2 Vols. Cambridge, CUPGoogle Scholar
  59. Weiss H. (2002). Three types of negation: A case study of Bavarian. Syntactic Microvariation, pp. 305–332. Available at: www.meertens.knaw.nl/books/synmic Google Scholar
  60. Wilder C. (1995). Some properties of ellipsis in coordination. Geneva Generative Papers, 2, pp. 23–61. Also in Alexiadou A., Hall, T.A. (Eds.), Studies on Universal Grammar and typological variation (pp. 59–107). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  61. Winkler S. (2003). Ellipsis at the interfaces. Habilitation thesis. University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  62. Zanuttini R. (1997). Negation and clausal structure: A comparative study of romance languages. Oxford, OUPGoogle Scholar
  63. Zanuttini R. (2000). Sentential negation. In: Baltin M., Collins C. (eds), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 511–535Google Scholar
  64. Zeijlstra H. (2006). Don’t Negate imperatives! Imperatives and the semantics of negative markers. In: Ebert C., Endriss C. (eds), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung 10. ZAS, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  65. Zimmermann M. (to appear). Discourse particles in the left periphery. In B. Shaer, W. Frey, & C. Maienborn (Eds.), Dislocated elements in discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Deutsche Sprache und LinguistikHumboldt Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations