Abstract
This study investigates the nature of licensing predicates of expletive negation (ExN) and the role of ExN in Korean/Japanese and French. Recently, ExN-licensing predicates have been analyzed as a subcase of nonveridicality (Knüppel 2001 cited from Godard 2004; Choi and Lee 2009; Yoon 2009, 2013), which introduces polarity alternatives (p and \( \neg \) p) of an embedded complement (Hamblin 1973; Martin 1987; Giannakidou 1997 among others). However, not all nonveridical predicates license ExN. We account for this overgeneration problem of nonveridicality by restricting ExN-licensing predicates to the predicates whose meaning are neg-raisers or can be lexically decomposed into opinion neg-raisers, which are involved in the belief case. On the other hand, in Korean and Japanese, epistemic predicates which are not nonveridical in the sense of Giannakidou (1997) license ExN. We solve the problem by assuming veridicality-suspension by virtue of the question complementizer. This paper analyzes the complement containing ExN in parallel with the positively biased negative question, and argues that regardless of its semantic expletive reading, it implicates that the attitude holder holds a bigger belief of the embedded proposition p than \( \neg \) p. The analysis solves the ‘double negation effect’ with the predicates douter ‘doubt’ and nier ‘deny’ in French and the frozen expression of ExN with epistemic predicates in Korean and Japanese.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The following glosses are used in this paper: ACC = accusative case, COMP = complementizer, Qcomp = question complementizer, Fcomp = factive complementizer, DECL = declarative mood, EN = embracing negation, ExN = expletive negation, IMP = imperative mood, IND = indicative mood, MOD = modal, NEG = negation particle, NOM = nominative case, PST = past tense, PostP = postposition, PRES = present tense, PROG = progressive aspect, Rcomp = reportative complementizer, REL = relativizer, SUBJ = subjunctive mood, TOP = topic marker.
- 2.
“On appelle mots explétifs (adverbe de negation…) des termes vides de sens….”
- 3.
“Qui est usité sans necessité pour le sens ou la syntaxe d’une phrase.”
- 4.
The distribution of ExN will be dealt with in the following section.
- 5.
‘Sentimentally’ is added in front of the term ‘positive’, since ‘positive’ may give the impression of being opposite to the notion of ‘nonveridicality’.
- 6.
- 7.
Some examples that show that douter ‘doubt’ licenses ExN might be found with a Google search.
In fact, the acceptability of ExN with the predicate douter and its polarity seems to be controversial. However, we take Muller (1991:389) and van der Wouden (1994) where ExN is absent after the words of dubitation such as douter ‘doubt’ and nier ‘deny’ when it is not in the scope of negation. - 8.
The underlined part is our addition.
- 9.
- 10.
In fact, -kka is an underlying semantic quasi-Qcomp; a real syntactic Qcomp is licensed by a higher interrogative verb such as mut-ta ‘ask’ (see Lee 1988). Therefore, we believe that the conjectural/presumptive epistemic marker –(u)l, together with Qcomp–kka, came to be licensed by the licensing epistemic or apprehensive verbs. Some grammaticalization seems to have occurred.
- 11.
A native speaker told me that adding the Rcomp -to after Qcomp –ka is more natural in written Japanese. We assume that in spoken Japanese, -to can be covertly added by a pause.
- 12.
In the sense of Giannakidou (1998; 2011), epistemic verbs such as believe, think, and imagine are veridical. She mentions: “When it comes to sentence embedding, Giannakidou 1998, 1999 argues that epistemic attitudes are veridical. For x believes that p to be true, it must be the case that x, the main clause subject, is committed to the truth of the embedded proposition p.” (Giannakidou 2011:26).
- 13.
Yoon (2013) also argues that ExN-licensing predicates in Korean and Japanese have an evaluative function. But she inadequately excludes ‘think’/‘believe’ from ExN-licensing predicates.
- 14.
On the other hand, impossible in French licenses ExN in a negative form, such as “il n’est pas impossible que Paul ne soit venu (it is not impossible that Paul might come).” But Muller (1978:81) mentions that it conveys an apprehensive menaing such as “il est à craindre que Paus ne soit veun (it is feared that Paul might come).”
- 15.
-Kes (K) can be interpreted as either the clausal complementizer ‘that’ or the general nominal entity ‘the thing’, and is used mainly with factive predicates in Korean. The same goes for –koto/-no (J) (Fcomp). The apprehensive adjective/verb twuryep-ta ‘fear/be afraid’/kekcengha-ta ‘worry’ can make a proposition formed with a factive -kes complementizer. On the other hand, without ExN, neg-raising epistemic predicates in K and J typically take the reportative COMP (Rcomp) –ko (K) and -to (J). The Rcomp does not presuppose the truth of the complement clause in an actual world, but the factivity holds to the attitude holder in the subject position. On the other hand, the inherently factive verb al-ta (K) and shiru (J) ‘know’ cannot license ExN. In this connection, see Lee and Hong (2015) and their citation of Lee (1978) for Korean. Lee (1978) notes that al-ta ‘know’ can be either factive or nonfactive depending on whether it takes a –kes-ul ‘Fcomp-ACC’ or –kes-uro ‘Fcomp-DIRECTIVE’ in the complement. The latter becomes a neg-raiser, as shown in the experiment, but it cannot be accommodated in ExN. Therefore, we assume that the Qcomp is crucal for licensing ExN.
- 16.
We changed what x knows into what x believes in Giannakidou (1998:108)
“A model M(X) in a context c is a set of worlds W’ ⊆ W(c) associated with an individual x, representing worlds compatible with what x knows.”
- 17.
We thank Lucia Tovena for pointing out this problem with ExN-licensing predicates (p.c.).
- 18.
The weak NPI wh-(N)-lato ‘any N’ can appear in the complement clause with ExN due to the nonveridicality.
- 19.
- 20.
We owe our account to Tovena (2000), where neg-raising is analyzed as failure in negation. Tovena (2000:349) views that “a ‘neg-raised sentence’ conveys an epistemic attitude towards the proposition expressed by the subordinate clause. The hedge consists in making it clear that a certain conclusion is compatible with the current information state, but cannot be proven.”
- 21.
One of the features of rhetorical questions that is not applied to the embedded complement with ExN is that “rhetorical questions can only be quoted, but not reported or represented.” (Ille 1994:64) The embedded complement with ExN can be followed by the Rcomp –ko (K) or –to(J) either covertly or overtly, except for ship-ta (K) ‘seem’ and twuryep-ta ‘be afraid’ which take only the first person speaker in the subject position.
- 22.
Note that if the higher predicate does not appear, the answer kocen-ul ha. *(ci -anh) -ul -kka is fine but remains as a rhetorical question, which has a real negation. We will present some detailed relations between ExN and rhetorical question in a sequel paper.
- 23.
Two of them are linguists, and four of them are nonlinguists.
- 24.
John Lyons (1977, cited by Kratzer 2002) distinguishes two kinds of epistemic modality, objective and subjective.
- 25.
Seminar ppt 6. http://cpr.nicod.free.fr/Texte/A.Kratzer_6.pdf.
- 26.
The apprehensive predicate in Yiddish also licenses ExN. (Choi and Lee 2009)
- 27.
In Korean, there is a special complementizer –(u)l-kka.po.a ‘(for fear) that’ which is used only with apprehensive predicates.
However, the statements with comp –(u)l-kka.po.a ‘(for fear) cannot license ExN. Further studies should be done to account for this phenomenon.
- 28.
In the original test, the attitude holder was ‘I’.
- 29.
The result of the test.
In fact, the acceptability of ExN with the predicate douter and its polarity seems to be controversial. However, we take Muller (
References
André, Joly. 1972. La négation dite “explétive” en vieil anglais et dans d’autres langues indo-européennes. In Etudes anglaises, 20(1): 30–44. Paris: Klincksieck.
Choi, Yoonhee, and Lee, Chungmin. 2009. Adversative predicates: with reference to nonveridicality and expletive negation. In Proceedings of 18 th congress of international linguists 2008 (CIL 18).
Damourette Jacques et Edouard Pichon. 1911–1940. Des mots à la pensée. Essai de grammaire de la langue française. D’Artrey, Paris.
Dubois, Jean, et al. 1994. Dictionnaire de linguistique et des sciences du language. Larousse.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1997. The landscape of polarity items. Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics, University of Groningen.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2011. (Non)veridicality and mood choice: subjunctive, polarity, and time. In Tense across Languages ed. Musan, R., and Rathert, M. De Gruyter.
Godard, Danièle. 2004. French negative dependency. In Handbook of French Semantics. CSLI Publications.
Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1973. Questions in Montague English. In Foundations of language 10: 41–53.
Han, Chung-hey. 1998. Deriving the interpretation of rhetorical questions. In Proceedings of the 16th west coast conference on formal linguistics (WCCFL 16). 237–253. CSLI. Stanford.
Han, Chung-hey. 2002. Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical questions. Lingua 112: 201–229.
Hoeksema, Jacob, and Klein, Henny. 1995. Negative predicates and their arguments. Linguistic Analysis 25: 146–180.
Hooper, Joan. 1975. On assertive predicates. In Syntax and Semantics 4. ed. Kimball, J. 91–124. New York: Academic Press.
Horn, Laurence. 1989. A natural history of negation. CSLI Publications.
Ille, Cornelia. 1994. What else can I tell you? A pragmatic study of english rhetorical questions as discursive and argumentative acts. Ph.D. dissertation. Stockholm. Sweden: University of Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. In Selected wings of Otto Jespersen. George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Modality in context. In Handout of context & content. Lecture in Paris.
Knüppel, Veronika. 2001. Die Syntax der Negation im Französischen. Tübingen Niemeyer.
Lee, Chungmin. 1988. Speech act terms and mood indicators (in Korean). Acta Linguistica (Hungarica) 39: 127–141.
Lee, Chungmin. 1978. The analysis of al-ta ‘know’ (in Korean). 60–65. Yusimhoy: Maum. Seoul.
Lee, Sungbom, and Hong, Seungjin. 2015. An experimental study of neg-raising in Korean. In Negation and polarity: experiemental perspectives. LCAM Series ed. Larrivee, P., and Lee, C., Springer.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manfred, Sailer. 2006. Don’t Believe in Underspecified Semantics—Neg raising in lexical resource semantics. In Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 6. ed. Bonami, O., and Cabredo Hofherr, P., 375–403.
Marques, Rui. 2010. Modality, Context Change Potential and Mood selection, In Modality and Mood in Romance: Modal interpretation, mood selection, and mood alternation. ed. Becker, M., and Remberger, E. 133–161. La Linguistische Arbeiten 533, Niemeyer/de Gruyter.
Martin, Robert. 1987. Langage et Croyance—Les <Universe de Croyance> dans la theorie sémantique. Pierre Mardaga.
Montague, Richard. 1974. Formal philosophy. selected papers of Richard montague. Edited and with an introduction by Thomason, Richmond H. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Muller, Claude. 1978. La négation explétive dans les constructions complétives. Langue française 39: 76–103.
Muller, Claude. 1991. La Négation en Français. Droz: Genève.
Park, Dongyeol. 2008. L’étude sur NE dit “explétif”-L’étude sur la psychomécanique de NE au point de vue de la linguistique historique et comparative-. Enseignement de Langue et Littérature Française 28: 217–240.
Rey-Debove, Josette and Rey, Alain. 1993. Le Nouveau Petit Robert, dictionnaire de la langue française 1. Le Robert.
Rowlett, Paul. 1998. Sentential negation in French. Oxford University Press.
Tovena, Lucia. 2000. Neg-raising: negation as finite failure?. In Perspectives on negation and polarity items. ed. Hoeksema, J., Rulmann, H., Sanchez Valencia, V., and van der Wouden, T., 331–356. John Benjamins.
Yoo, Sejin, Choi, Yoonhee, and Chungmin Lee. 2008. Aspectual meanings of the verb chac-ta ‘look for/find’ in Korean. Korean Linguistics 52. The Society of Korean Linguistics (Korean), 153–188.
Yoon, Suwon. 2009. Expletive negation in Japanese and Korean. In Japanese/Korean linguistics 18. ed. den Dikken, M., and McClure, W., 423–434. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Yoon, Suwon. 2013. Parametric variation in subordinate expletive negation: Japanese/Korean vs. others. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 22(2): 133–166.
van der Wouden, Ton. 1994. Negative context. Groningen dissertations in linguistics. University of Groningen.
Zwarts, Frans. 1995. Nonveridical contexts. Linguistic Analysis 25(3–4): 286–312.
Acknowledgments
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the CIL18 Workshop on Contrastiveness in Information Structure and/or Scalar Implicatures (2008). We thank the participants of the workshop for their questions, comments, and discussion. We are also grateful to Lucia Tovena, Manfred Krifka, Mingya Liu, Pierre Larrivée, Fumitake Ashino, Margot Colinet, Noam Faust, and Brain Butler for their help, advice, and comments. All the inadequacies remaining are ours. This work was partly supported by the Korean Government through the NRF (Excellent Scholar) Grant 100-20090049, awarded to the second author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Choi, Y., Lee, C. (2017). Expletive Negation and Polarity Alternatives. In: Lee, C., Kiefer, F., Krifka, M. (eds) Contrastiveness in Information Structure, Alternatives and Scalar Implicatures. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 91. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10106-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10106-4_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-10105-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-10106-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)