Advertisement

The Significance of Formal Features in Language Change Theory and the Evolution of Minimizers

  • Montserrat BatlloriEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Language, Cognition, and Mind book series (LCAM, volume 1)

Abstract

On the one hand, this paper puts forward that the historical evolution of an n-word is conditioned by the presence or absence of a syntactic formal feature [uNeg]. Particularly, it shows that historically minimizers can either become Polarity Items or Emphatic Polarity Particles (with metalinguistic content) depending on their having an uninterpretable formal feature [uNeg] or not. On the other hand, it points out three different ways of fixing the syntactic expression of negation within natural languages—i.e. three different ways of licensing the [uNeg] formal feature: (1) under an unvalued [iNeg] Pol feature and either a Focus Operator that encodes the meaning [same]/[reverse], or a Force Operator that encodes [objection]; (2) under an anti-veridical operator Op¬ [iNeg]; and (3) under a non-veridical operator. Furthermore, the paper argues in favour of the significant role of syntax in the expression of metalinguistic negation. Hypotheses are tested through a syntactic and discursive characterization of three different types of Catalan negative expressions (pla/poc ‘no’, pas ‘not at all’, gens/gota/mica ‘any, none, nothing’) to show that their diachronic evolution, their distributional behaviour from a Romance comparative standpoint, and their licensing requirements fit perfectly. The contrast between two Old Catalan items with a similar origin, distribution and evolution (pas and gens), displays that pas had a formal [uNeg] feature licensed under a non-veridical or an anti-veridical operator in Old Catalan and, hence, it has evolved into a Negative Emphatic Polarity Particle (NEPP) with metalinguistic content in Modern Catalan, while gens did not and it has become a simple Polarity Item (PI). It is a well-known fact that Catalan pas conveys metalinguistic negation (that is, it intervenes in presupposition-denying contexts, descriptive semantic contradictions or other types of objections to a previous assertion), whereas gens does not. As for the loci of [uNeg] licensing, they are confirmed when tested through the Catalan and Italian data. First, it is shown that pas has undergone a change in its licensing conditions, so that Modern Catalan pas is licensed under anti-veridical operators (i.e., the negative marker no, which is underspecified as Op¬ [iNeg]). Second, Modern Catalan poc has an [uNeg] formal feature which is licensed under an unvalued [iNeg] Pol feature and a Focus Operator that acts as a probe for its movement to the Specifier of FocusP. And third, pla is licensed under an [iNeg] Pol feature and the relative polarity feature [objection] encoded in a ForceP Operator. Comparative data prove that Italian mica has an uninterpretable formal feature [uNeg] that can be licensed under two operators: First of all, under an [iNeg] Pol feature and a Focus Operator, in the same way as Modern Catalan poc. And, secondly, under an anti-veridical operator (Op¬ [iNeg]), like Modern Catalan pas.

Keywords

Formal features Diachronic evolution Negative expressions Metalinguistic negation Licensing conditions Locus of licensing Grammaticalisation pathways Microvariation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Previous versions of this paper were presented at the XXVIIe Congrès International de linguistique et de philologie romanes (CNRS-Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France. July 15–20 2013), at the 19 e Congrès International des Linguistes (Université de Genève. 21–27 2013), at the Ibero-Romance Linguistics Seminar: Spanish and Catalan Linguistics Miniworkshop (University of Cambridge. Queen’s College. March 6th 2014), and at the Workshop on Negation (UAB. Barcelona. December 18th–19th 2014), whose audiences I thank for suggestions, comments, questions, and discussion. Thanks especially to Maria Teresa Espinal, Marie Labelle, Ian Roberts, Álvaro Octavio de Toledo and Ioanna Sitaridou for their suggestions, discussion and encouragement. I am especially grateful to Pierre Larrivée and Chungmin Lee, and to the five anonymous reviewers, whose observations and suggestions were very useful and contributed to considerably improve different aspects of this work. All errors are my own. This research has been supported by two grants from the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (FFI2011-29440-C03-02) and (FFI2014-56968-C4-4-P).

References

  1. Baker, M. C. (2008). The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batllori, M., & Hernanz, M.-L. (2008). Emphatic polarity from latin to romance. Poster presented at the 10th Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference, August 7–9, 2008, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  3. Batllori, M., & Hernanz, M.-L. (2009). En Torno a la polaridad enfática en español y en catalán: un estudio diacrónico y comparativo. In J. Rafel (Ed.), Diachronic linguistics (pp. 319–352). Girona: Documenta Universitaria.Google Scholar
  4. Batllori, M., & Hernanz, M.-L. (2013). Emphatic polarity particles in Spanish and Catalan. Lingua, 128, 9–30.Google Scholar
  5. Batllori, M., Pujol, I., & Sánchez-Lancis, C. (1998). Semántica y sintaxis de los términos negativos en su evolución diacrónica. Paper presented at the XXVIII Simposio de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística, December 14–18, Madrid.Google Scholar
  6. Batllori, M., & Rost, A. (2013). Syntactic and Phonological evidence in favour of the grammaticalization of Northern Catalan negative poc/poca. Paper presented at the 21st International Conference on Historical Linguistics, August 8, Oslo.Google Scholar
  7. Biberauer, T. (2013). Features, categories and parametric hierarchies: Unifying universality and diversity? Lecture at the Seminari del Centre de Lingüística Teòrica (CLT). October 25 2013, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
  8. Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I., & Sheehan, M. (in press). Complexity in comparative syntax: The view from modern parametric theory. In F. Newmeyer & L. Preston (Eds.), Measuring linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Breitbarth, A., De Clercq, K., & Haegeman, L. (2013). The syntax of polarity emphasis. In A. Breitbarth, K. De Clercq & L. Haegeman (Eds.), Polarity emphasis: Distribution and locus of licensing. Lingua, 128, 1–8.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Minimalist essays in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cinque, G. (1976). Mica. Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Padova, 1: 101–112 [reprinted in Cinque, G. 1991. Teoria linguistica e sintassi italian (pp. 311–323). Bologna, Il Mulino].Google Scholar
  13. Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads (pp. 4–11, 120–126). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Escandell-Vidal, M. V., & Leonetti, M. (2000). Categorías funcionales y semántica procedimental. In M. Martínez, et al. (Eds.), Cien años de investigación semántica: De Michel Bréal a la actualidad, (Vol. 1, pp. 363–378). Madrid: Ed. Clásicas.Google Scholar
  15. Espinal, M. T. (1993). The interpretation of no-pas in Catalan. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 353–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Falcinelli, A. (2008). ‘Mica’ es fácil aprenderlo: instrucciones de uso del adverbio italiano. Culture, 21, 197–215.Google Scholar
  17. Farkas, D. F., & Bruce, K. B. (2010). On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics, 27(1), 81–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fonseca-Greber, B. B. (2007). The emergence of emphatic ne in conversational Swiss French. Journal of French Language Studies, 17(3), 249–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giannakidou, A. (2011). Negative and positive polarity items. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn et al. (Eds.), Semantics. An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 2, pp. 1660–1712). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Haegeman, L. (2000). Negative preposing, negative inversion, and the split CP. In L. R. Horn & Y. Kato (Eds.), Negation and polarity. Syntactic and semantic perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Haegeman, L. (2010a). The internal syntax of adverbial clauses. Lingua, 120, 628–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haegeman, L. (2010b). The movement derivation of conditional clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(4), 595–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haegeman, L. (2013). The syntax of adverbial clauses. In S. R. Anderson, et al. (Eds.), L’Interface langage-cognition (pp. 135–156). Geneva: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
  24. Hansen, M.-B. M., & Visconti, J. (2009). On the diachrony of “reinforced” negation in French and Italian. In C. Rossari, C. Ricci, & A. Spiridon (Eds.), Grammaticalisation and pragmatics: Facts, approaches, theoretical issues (pp. 137–171). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  25. Hernanz, M.-L. (2006). Emphatic polarity and C in Spanish. In L. Brugè (Ed.), Studies in Spanish syntax (pp. 105–150). Venezia: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
  26. Hernanz, M.-L. (2010). Assertive bien in Spanish and the left periphery. In P. Benincà & N. Munaro (Eds.), Mapping the left periphery. The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 5, pp. 19–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hoeksema, J. (2010). Dutch ENIG: From nonveridicality to downward entailment. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 28, 837–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Horn, L. R. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61(1), 121–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Horn, L. R. (2001). A natural history of negation. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  30. Horn, L. R. (2002). Assertoric inertia and NPI licensing. CLS, 38, 55–82.Google Scholar
  31. Horn, L. R. (Ed.). (2010a). The expression of negation. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  32. Horn, L. R. (2010b). Multiple negation in English and other languages. In L. R. Horn (Ed.), The expression of negation (pp. 111–148). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  33. Horn, L. R. (2016, this volume). Licensing NPIs: Some negative (and positive) results. In P. Larrivée & C. Lee (Eds.). Negation and polarity: Experimental perspectives (pp. 281–305), Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Horn, L. R., & Kato, Y. (Eds.). (2000). Negation and polarity: Syntactic and semantic perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ingham, R. (2014). Old French negation, the Tobler/Mussafia law, and V2. Lingua, 147, 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Israel, M. (1996). Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19, 619–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jäger, A. (2008). History of German negation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Labelle, M., Espinal, M. T. (2013). Negative expressions and historical change in French. Lecture at the Seminari del Centre de Lingüística Teòrica (CLT). March 1, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
  39. Labelle, M., & Espinal, M. T. (2014). Diachronic changes in negative expressions: The case of French. Lingua, 145, 194–225.Google Scholar
  40. Larrivée, P. (2010). The pragmatic motifs of the Jespersen cycle: Default, activation, and the history of negation in French. Lingua, 120, 2240–2258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Larrivée, P., & Lee, C. (Eds.). (2016). Negation and polarity: Experimental perspectives. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Lee, C. (2016, this volume). Metalinguistically negated versus descriptively negated adverbials: ERP and other evidence. In P. Larrivée & C. Lee (Eds.). Negation and polarity: Experimental perspective (pp. 229–255). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Lightfoot, D. W. (1991). How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Martins, A. M. (2000). Polarity items in Romance: Underspecification and lexical change. In S. Pintzuk, G. Tsoulas, & A. Warner (Eds.), Diachronic syntax. Models and mechanisms (pp. 191–219). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Martins, A. M. (2014). How much syntax is there in metalinguistic negation? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 32, 635–672.Google Scholar
  46. Meillet, A. (1912). L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia, 12, 384–400.Google Scholar
  47. Penka, D., & Zeijlstra, H. (2010). Negation and polarity: An introduction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 28, 771–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pfau, R. (2016, this volume). A featural approach to sign language negation. In P. Larrivée & C. Lee (Eds.). Negation and polarity: Experimental perspectives (pp. 45–74). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Rigau, G. (2004). El quantificador focal pla: un estudi de sintaxi dialectal. Caplletra, 36, 25–54.Google Scholar
  50. Rigau, G. (2012). Mirative and focusing uses of the Catalan particle pla. In L. Brugé, A. Cardinaletti, G. Giusti, N. Munaro & C. Poletto (Eds.), Functional heads (pp. 92–102). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar. Handbook in generative syntax (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  52. Roberts, I. (2007). Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Roberts, I., & Roussou, A. (2003). Syntactic change. A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rossich, A. (1996). Un tipus de frase negativa del nord-est català. Els Marges, 56, 109–115.Google Scholar
  55. Rowlett, P. (1998). Sentential negation in French. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Tubau, S. (2008). Negative concord in English and Romance: Syntax-morphology interface conditions on the expression of negation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
  57. van der Auwera, J. (2010). On the diachrony of negation. In L.R. Horn (Ed.), The expression of negation (pp. 73–101). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  58. Van Gelderen, E. (2004). Gramaticalization as economy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  59. Van Gelderen, E. (2011). The linguistic cycle. Language change and the language faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Vázquez-Rojas, V., & Martín, J. (2007). Fragile equilibrium: (N)PI licensing in Catalan and Spanish. Ms.Google Scholar
  61. Wallage, P. (2016, this volume). Identifying the role of pragmatic activation in the changes to the expression of English negation. In P. Larrivée & C. Lee (Eds.). Negation and polarity: Experimental perspectives (pp. 199–227). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  62. Yoshimura, A. (2013). Descriptive/metalinguistic dichotomy? Toward a new taxonomy of negation. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zeijlstra, H. (2004). Sentential negation and negative concord. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Sources

  1. [CTILC] Institut d’Estudis Catalans. Corpus Textual Informatitzat de la Llengua Catalana. http://ctilc.iec.cat/.
  2. [DCVB] Alcover, A. M., & de Borja Moll, F. (2001–2002). Diccionari català-valencià-balear. IEC-Editorial Moll. http://dcvb.iecat.net/[Alcover, A. M., & de Borja Moll, F. (1930–1961). Diccionari català-valencià-balear: inventari lexical i etimològic de la llengua catalana. Moll, Palma de Mallorca].
  3. [CICA] Directed by J. Torruella, with the collaboration of M. Pérez-Saldanya, & J. Martines. Corpus Informatitzat del Català Antic: http://www.cica.cat/.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departament de Filologia i ComunicacióUniversitat de GironaGironaSpain

Personalised recommendations