Skip to main content

Negative concord with polyadic quantifiers

The case of Romanian

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).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. List of abbreviations: ACC ‘accusative case marker’, CL ‘clitic’, DN ‘double negation’, NC ‘negative concord’, NM ‘negative marker’, NQ ‘negative quantifier’, NPI ‘negative polarity item’, SJ ‘subjunctive marker’.

  2. See also Fălăuş (2007) and de Swart (2010), for further DN examples in Romanian and other strict NC languages, and Iordăchioaia (2010), for details on the information structure of DN sentences in Romanian.

  3. An NLLT reviewer correctly points out that if the denial of speaker B targets the object position of speaker A’s utterance (e.g., A: No student read this book; B: No student read no book), the DN reading is not available anymore in Romanian. This is most likely due to the different information structural status of subjects and objects in Romanian, an issue that needs further investigation independently of negation.

  4. A function f is anti-additive iff for each pair of sets X and Y, f(XY)=f(X)∩f(Y).

  5. Although vreun/vreo behave as NPIs with negation, their distribution is more complex than this might suggest. See Farkas (2002) for more details and Fălăuş (2010) for a recent discussion of the distribution of vreun outside negative contexts.

  6. We thank an anonymous NLLT reviewer for bringing the strong NPI data in (14) to our attention.

  7. Following an NLLT reviewer’s comment, we note that in Neg raising contexts, n-words may sometimes be licensed across a that-complementizer as below:

    1. (17)
      figure q

    Although we will not investigate them further, such examples are not fundamentally at odds with our observations, since we assume with Sailer (2006) that in Neg raising constructions the negation only outscopes the embedded verb. By contrast, the presence of an n-word in the matrix clause forces the negative operator to outscope the matrix verb with the result that the embedded predicate lacks the negation that is locally required by its own n-word argument, which leads to the ungrammaticality of (18):

    figure r
  8. The scope disambiguating function of the verbal prefix is reminiscent of the domain restriction effect of modal adverbs that Huitink (2012) describes for modal concord of adverbs and modal verbs in Dutch. However, as Huitink emphasizes, it is unclear if modal concord and NC can be treated analogously under the perspective of polyadic quantification.

  9. See Barker (2007) for a compositional continuation semantic analysis of same and different as adjectives. Another compelling instance of polyadic quantification is discussed by Moltmann (1995:260), who argues that the denotation of the exception sentence in (26) involves subtracting the pair (John, Mary) from the set of pairs of men and women.

    1. (26)

      Every man danced with every woman except John with Mary.

  10. We ignore the negative marker nu, because we already know that it is not interpreted independently in the presence of an n-word but always enters into a concord relation.

  11. Example adapted from Iordăchioaia (2010:102).

  12. For an argument why this fails even for the simplest mode of polyadic composition, iteration, which corresponds semantically to function application, see Iordăchioaia (2010:142–146). The reason that compositionality fails for iteration is that the syntax of natural language does not appropriately map onto the syntax of a logical language with iteration.

  13. The syntax underlying our LRS implementation will treat it as a family of constants. For that reason, we refer to our logical languages as Ty2, although strictly speaking the present definition presents Ty2 augmented by syncategorematic polyadic quantifiers.

  14. Initially we will not employ the type s of possible worlds in our representations. Possible worlds will be added in Sect. 5.

  15. We follow the notational convention in the LRS literature of grouping related resources by tags with the same integer: In the present examples, the contributions of studenţi are designated by 3, the contributions of trei by 4, followed by lower case letters.

  16. As a reviewer remarks, this strategy of purely lexicalized semantic resources seems at odds with work in Construction Grammar that assumes semantic effects of constructions in addition to the words that occur in them. The apparent incompatibility of these assumptions is weaker than it appears: Work in LRS also assumes phrasal lexical entries, which license phrases that contribute semantic resources because they are conceived of as complex lexical items. The theory of idiomatic phrases and phraseological clauses of Richter and Sailer (2009) develops central aspects of this approach and compares it to Sign-based Construction Grammar. A detailed discussion is beyond the scope of the present paper.

  17. For mathematical details of how object languages such as Ty2 can be specified in a feature logic for HPSG, see Sailer (2003); Penn and Richter (2004, pp. 426–429) present a feature logical signature and a set of axioms of LRS that can easily be extended to capture the version of Ty2 with polyadic quantification we use here.

  18. We follow the most recent version of LRS presented in Richter and Kallmeyer (2009).

  19. For simplicity, the var attribute is not shown in Fig. 1; (34a) above contains the complete LRS specification with determiner selection and local var and main values of the word.

  20. The lack of a negation prefix at the non-finite verb is presumably due to the presence of fără, which could be syntactically marked ([marking marked]), thus assimilating fără to HPSG’s marker category. One might argue that this lends additional support to the idea that Romanian n-words need a syntactic scope marker in verbal projections. As fără is a good scope marker in this context, no second scope marker is necessary. Its function as a scope marker is also a unifying property with negated finite verbs, which makes it plausible that the Neg Criterion applies to both, as the two elements serve the same syntactic purpose with respect to negation.

  21. See Iordăchioaia (2004) for further properties of these constructions and an HPSG formalization in which negative quantifiers are treated along the lines of the Cooper storage mechanism of Pollard and Sag (1994).

  22. See Zeijlstra (2004) for a recent overview.

  23. For example, negative polar indefinites are in distributional competition with n-words in strict NC languages and in weaker competition in non-strict NC languages, with non-NC languages providing yet another set of restrictions on the distribution of both types of elements, n-words and corresponding negative polarity items. See Hoeksema (2010, 2012) for thrilling cross-linguistic observations on different kinds of contextual effects on the diachronic development of fine-grained lexical distribution patterns in connection with negation.

  24. See Richter and Sailer (2006) for a comprehensive discussion of data for all three languages, which we do not replicate here. The French data are all from European French. Especially with respect to the NC behavior of pas ‘not’, European French differs from other varieties of French.

  25. Negation faithfulness only applies to standard German. There is a certain amount of dialectal variation with respect to the availability of NC.

  26. Richter and Sailer (2006) discuss the diachronic reasons for the peculiar distribution properties of pas and relate them to dialectal synchronic data that suggest an analysis in terms of lexical distribution restrictions. HPSG supports a precise formulation of these constraints.

  27. All French examples are from Richter and Sailer (2006).

  28. For this quick overview of Italian core data, we ignore left dislocation, which we assume to be correlated with additional information-structural effects. We should also note that DN readings in Italian are reportedly highly marked and context-dependent like in Romanian.

  29. Like English and other languages, Romanian also has Neg raising predicates, which may sometimes interact with the licensing of n-words, as illustrated in (17) and (18). Neg raising in Romanian deserves a separate study, as it occurs both with subjunctive and ‘that’-clauses and thus requires a more complex fragment of grammar. The technical insight, however, would follow the analysis of strict NPI licensing with Neg raising verbs in Sailer (2006), which is compatible with our present account of negative concord.

  30. We will assume that proper names are rigid designators.

  31. Unembedded signs in HPSG are the type of signs which occur as independent utterances; they also play a crucial role in the model theory of grammars. See Richter (2007) for details. An extension of our present fragment would of course allow other unembedded signs beyond declarative sentences.

  32. A symptomatic example for the conceptually unsatisfactory situation in the framework of compositional LF-semantics is provided by the analysis of exception sentences in Moltmann (1995:275–276). As the desired integration of polyadic quantification is impossible, the theory must be formulated on a post-semantic level of implications which need to repair the semantics. Major architectural design decisions should not be forced upon linguists by limitations of their framework but rather by empirical evidence.

References

  • 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 

  • Barker, Chris. 2007. Parasitic scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (4): 407–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copestake, Ann, Dan Flickinger, Carl Pollard, and Ivan A. Sag. 2005. Minimal Recursion Semantics: an introduction. Research on Language and Computation 3: 281–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • de Swart, Henriëtte. 1993. Adverbs of quantification: a generalized quantifier approach. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Swart, Henriëtte. 2010. Expression and interpretation of negation. An OT typology. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Swart, Henriëtte, and Ivan A. Sag. 2002. Negation and negative concord in Romance. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 373–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egg, Markus, Alexander Koller, and Joachim Niehren. 2001. The constraint language for lambda structures. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10 (4): 457–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Fălăuş, Anamaria. 2010. Alternatives as sources of semantic dependency. In Proceedings of SALT 20, eds. Nan Li and David Lutz, 406–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallin, Daniel. 1975. Intensional and higher-order modal logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamut, L. T. F. 1991. Logic, language and meaning. Intensional logic and logical grammar, Vol. 2. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Vol. 23 of Linguistik aktuell. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The syntax of negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haegeman, Liliane, and Raffaella Zanuttini. 1991. Negative heads and the Neg criterion. The Linguistic Review 8: 233–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeksema, Jack. 2010. Dutch ENIG: from nonveridicality to downward entailment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 837–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeksema, Jack. 2012. On the natural history of negative polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 38 (1–2): 3–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huitink, Janneke. 2012. Modal concord: a case study of Dutch. Journal of Semantics 29 (3): 403–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, Edward L. 1992. Beyond the Frege boundary. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 199–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ladusaw, William A. 1980. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladusaw, William A. 1992. Expressing negation. In Proceedings of SALT 2, 237–259. Columbus: The Ohio State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindström, Per. 1966. First order predicate logic with generalized quantifiers. Theoria 32: 186–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, Robert. 1989. Interpreting logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 387–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moltmann, Friederike. 1995. Exception sentences and polyadic quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 223–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penka, Doris. 2011. Negative indefinites. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Peters, Stanley, and Dag Westerståhl. 2006. Quantifiers in language and logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Przepiórkowski, Adam, and Anna Kupść. 1997. Negative concord in Polish. Technical report, Institute of Computer Science, Polish Academy of Sciences.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Rowlett, Paul. 1998. A non-overt negative operator in French. PROBUS International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics 10 (2): 185–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem, Johan. 1989. Polyadic quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 437–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Wouden, Ton. 1997. Negative contexts. Collocation, polarity and multiple negation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watanabe, Akira. 2004. The genesis of negative concord: syntax and morphology of negative doubling. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 559–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1991. Syntactic properties of sentential negation. A comparative study of Romance languages. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.

  • 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 

  • Zeijlstra, Hedde H. 2004. Sentential negation and negative concord. Utrecht: LOT Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank five anonymous reviewers and our NLLT editor, Louise McNally, for insightful criticism and numerous suggestions for improvements. It is only due to their persistent requests that the presentation of LRS became as self-contained as it is. Students at Universität Tübingen and the audience of the 2009 International HPSG Conference in Göttingen asked for clarifications that informed subsequent modifications. Christopher Piñón and Ivan Sag went to great lengths to provide extensive comments that led to substantive revisions and what we hope is a much more lucid line of argumentation than in earlier drafts. Janina Radó did the proofreading, bringing our thoughts into readable shape. Without Manfred Sailer we would not have written this paper. Barbara Partee has much more to do with it than meets the eye: Thank you!

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gianina Iordăchioaia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Iordăchioaia, G., Richter, F. Negative concord with polyadic quantifiers. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 33, 607–658 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9261-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9261-9

Keywords

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