On the absence of exceptionally optional negative concord in Turkish

This paper presents a novel account for the optionality of negative concord observed withneither...norcoordinations, in an otherwise strict negative concord language—Turkish. I argue that the apparently optional negative concord is a surface phenomenon that can be traced back to a structural ambiguity arising from the type-flexibility of coordination operators. The semantic type of the coordination affects its syntactic position relative to the Turkish NegP, which results in different surface facts: whenever theneither...norcoordination is of a generalized quantifier type, it originates in the vP below the NegP, akin to other negative concord items likenobody, triggering negative concord with sentential negation; whenever it is a propositional coordination, it contains the NegP position, and there is no negative concord. We can account for this exceptionally optional negative concord phenomenon by seamlessly importing these facts into an existing negative concord architecture (Zeijlstra 2004, 2012), with no significant modifications. This reductionist analysis contrasts with alternative approaches that explain optionality by adding complexity to the mechanics of the negative concord system (Şener and İşsever 2003 for Turkish; Szabolcsi 2018a for Hungarian). Finally, this account crucially relies on a theory of coordination operators as type-flexible, and therefore contributes an argument against a view of coordinators as having a rigid propositional type (Hirsch 2017; Schein 2017).

In this study we examine the co-occurrence or preclusion of negative words (n-words) with sentential negation in Vincentian Creole which has drawn much of its lexicon from English. In this creole, sentential negation occurs preverbally and may combine optionally with n-words like the negative indefinite nobadi ‘nobody’, when they are in subject position. In other syntactic environments, the n-word obligatorily triggers sentential negation, such that the co-occurrence of sentential negation and n-words yields a single negative interpretation. Vincentian Creole therefore participates in Negative Concord (as treated by Labov 1972 and Giannakidou 2000; 2006, among others. We posit that Vincentian Creole is a non-strict negative concord language given that n-words appearing as subjects do not systematically licence sentential negation whereas post-verbal n-words do.

The article presents the results of a syntactic experiment aimed at identifying the conditions necessary for licensing of negative pronouns embedded in an adjective phrase (AdjP) by sentential negation ( ‘The trainer was not content with anybody of the sportsmen’). The experimental results demonstrate that such licensing is possible if the adjective is predicative, and impossible if it is attributive. At the same time, for predicative AdjPs, the licensing of negative pronoun complements does not depend on the morphological form of the adjective, being possible for both long-form and short-form adjectives. As for attributive adjectives, licensing is impossible regardless of the grammatical function and case marking of the noun phrase modified by such an adjective. In particular, even adjectives modifying nominals in the genitive of negation cannot take negative pronouns as complements, if the only potential licensor of such a pronoun is the sentential negation. The article also discusses possible approaches to formal modeling of the identified constraints using the apparatus of generative syntax. The most promising approach is based on the concept of a horizon for an Agreement probe proposed by Stefan Keine (2016). Such an analysis allows one to take into account language-specific nature of the identified restrictions on the locality of intra-clausal negative concord, since negative pronouns that are complements of attributive adjectives can be licensed by sentential negation (in a contradistinction to Russian) in Spanish (a language with a non-strict negative concord) and Polish (which, as Russian, features strict negative concord).

The paper reports the results of a syntactic experiment which was aimed at comparing locality conditions imposed on two well-known longdistance syntactic processes: intra-clausal negative concord (licensing of negative pronouns by sentential negation) and wh-movement in matrix constituent questions (placement of interrogative pronouns at the beginning of the clause). Since only the latter non-local interaction nearly always results in overt displacement (while negative pronouns may remain in their base position upon agreeing with the Neg0 head), we hypothesized that sentences exemplifying negative concord should receive higher scores than sentences with wh-movement. Two structural configurations were investigated: the negative pronoun or the interrogative pronoun was (i) either (the head of) the direct object of the verb, (ii) or it was embedded inside a nominal (NP/DP). In addition to sentences with negative concord and wh-movement, our materials also included those without any such long-distance interactions. Thus, we asked 60 native speakers of Russian to judge such sentences (as well as some fillers) on a 7-point Likert scale. The results, somewhat surprisingly, did not bear out our expectations. Encapsulating the Goal of an Agree relationship inside a nominal does not lead to a significant change in mean scores (except for sentences with negative concord), while there is a statistically significant difference between sentences with negative concord on the one hand and other types of sentences (those containing wh-movement and those without any non-local dependencies) on the other. Such a stark contrast between negative concord and wh-movement casts doubt on approaches trying to assimilate them (and eventually aiming to reduce negative concord to Aʹ-movement of negative pronouns to their licensor).

Is negation negative? For some authors, in some languages, it is not. This is the case for so-called strict negative concord languages (e.g., Russian), in which negation is taken to be non-negative, following the cross-linguistic analysis for negative concord systems proposed by Hedde Zeijlstra’s work “Sentential negation and negative concord”. However, this analysis is focused on languages with SVO word order. In this paper, I propose to reconsider the typology of negative concord by zooming out of the focus on SVO languages that current literature has relied on. I discuss the case of SOV languages where observing a strict NC pattern leads to weaker conclusions about the nature of negation than for SVO languages with strict negative concord, leaving the negativity status of negation in those languages underdetermined. I then take a look at Turkish, an SOV language with three sentential negation markers: plain sentential negation -mA, copular negation değil, and existential negation yok. Evidence from the interaction of these markers with neither..nor phrases suggests that değil and yok, in contrast with -mA, are non-negative for some speakers. In order to explain the variation, I put forward a hypothesis about the learning process, in which there is sometimes insufficient evidence in the input to determine whether değil and yok are negative, and learners choose between two conflicting heuristics that result in the negativity or non-negativity of these markers.

In this chapter, I turn to the question of which negative words in negative concord have negative force. Feature-based accounts of negative concord, for example Zeijlstra (2004), argue that only one negative word in concord bears negative force and is interpretable as a negative operator at LF. This chapter considers evidence for variation and change in the negative force associated with negative arguments and negative adverbials in early English, then examines how this variation and change interacts with the Jespersen Cycle in negative concord environments.

This paper provides a descriptive and theoretical account of negation and negative concord in Mauritian within a constraint-based framework. It is argued that sentential negation is canonically preverbal but appears postverbally with neg-raising verbs, and that only the former participates in negative concord. Mauritian is moreover identified as a strict concord language notwithstanding the particular behavior of the NCI zame, which can appear without pa in preverbal positions. The idiosyncrasies of both NCIs and sentential negation in Mauritian are formalized by exploiting a lexicalist account within the SBCG framework.

This article is concerned with the interpretation of negative concord items (NCIs henceforth) as fragment answers to negative questions in Turkish. Turkish is known as a strict negative concord language; however, a judgment test showed that the behavior of NCIs as fragment answers in negative questions is rather unexpected. NCIs as fragments do not pattern with their counterparts in other strict negative concord languages since they only display the negative concord reading. The double negation reading in which each instance of negation is interpreted is almost never available. Therefore, an analysis that includes a covert negative operator in order to explain an otherwise double negation reading is not possible in Turkish. Instead, to account for this unambiguous reading I argue for an analysis in which fragment NCIs are locally licensed by sentential negation. The findings reveal a typological distinction among negative concord languages in terms of NCI licensing as well as their interpretation.

Unlike its Portuguese source, Guinea-Bissau Kriyol is a strict negative concord (NC) language, meaning that everything that can be negative in a negative sentence must be negative: cf. Ningin ka bindi nada {nobody neg sell nothing} ‘Nobody sold anything’. Portuguese, in contrast, is a partial NC language: NC only obtains if no negative word precedes the negator: cf. O João não vendeu nada {the John neg sold nothing} ‘John didn’t sell anything’ vs. Ninguém vendeu nada {nobody sold nothing} ‘Nobody sold anything’. The present article attempts to account for this difference. First, it shows it cannot be directly ascribed to the influence of the languages Kriyol is mostly in contact with (Mandinka, Manjaku, Wolof) as they have anti-NC grammars in which generic nouns meaning ‘person’ or ‘thing’ are used in negative contexts with the meaning of negative polarity items such as anybody and anything. The transition from partial to strict NC is therefore likely to be an internal process, the main cause of which is identified as a change in the lexical category of the negator. Whereas Portuguese não is an adverb, Kriyol ka is a polarity marker belonging to the verbal complex along with TMA markers. (This is where contact languages may have interfered.) Formalizing the data in a linear syntax framework allows one to show how such a lexical difference will result in the observed syntactic difference, as well as to propose a few tentative generalizations about the possible occurrence of partial NC as a type, next to the more widespread strict NC (Kriyol), no-NC (Standard English), and anti-NC (Mandinka).

This chapter integrates the results on sentential negation (from Chapter 3) with the analysis of negative concord and double negation (from Chapter 4). Section 1 develops the classification of co-occurrence restrictions between sentential negation and negative indefinites in negative concord and double negation languages. The grammar of negative spread supports the claims made by de Swart and Sag’s (2002) that in the presence of n-words, the marker of sentential negation in negative concord languages is semantically redundant (Section 2).

In this article I will describe the general properties of Negative Concord in Russian, which is a strict Negative Concord language, where all negative indefinites must co-occur with sentential negation. However, there are several cases where the negation marker can be absent (like in fragment answers) or can appear in a non-standard position (like at the left of an embedded infinitival). I will take into consideration all these specific cases described by the literature on the negation system of Russian and analyse them according to current approaches to Negative Concord.

This chapter investigates the sequence of changes leading from the Latin system of negation to the various Romance outcomes. While Classical Latin is a Double Negation language, the earliest Romance varieties show a Negative Concord grammar. In the proposed analysis, this seemingly paradoxical development is explained by situating the prerequisites for Negative Concord already at the Late Latin stage. In Late Latin, a featural and structural reanalysis of the negative marker entails the activation of a projection in the clause where sentential negation has to be identified. This, in turn, triggers the grammaticalization of new negatively marked indefinites licensed in the scope of negation. These indefinites establish a syntactic relation first with the Focus Phrase (as negation strengtheners) and subsequently with the Negation Phrase, yielding a Negative Concord system. This study highlights the importance of generative research on the nature and format of syntactic features for our understanding of diachrony.

Reviewed by: Romance languages and linguistic theory 1999 ed. by Yves D’ Hulst, Johan Rooryck, Jan Schroten Jan Holeš Romance languages and linguistic theory 1999. Ed. by Yves D’Hulst, Johan Rooryck, and Jan Schroten. (Current issues in linguistic theory 221.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001. Pp. 406. ISBN 1588111318. $95 (Hb). The volume contains selected papers from the thirteenth ‘Going Romance’ conference (Leiden University, 9–11 December 1999). The fifteen articles in the volume deal with a variety of topics and theoretical perspectives. Six focus on negation as the conference included a one-day workshop on negation, while others concern various syntactic, semantic, and lexical aspects of Romance languages. Four papers deal directly or indirectly with the phenomenon of ‘negative concord’. António Branco and Berthold Crysmann investigate multiple negative items jointly expressing a single negation in Romance languages. Francis Corblin and Lucia M. Tovena derive the negative concord phenomena from more general principles and constraints on the occurrence of negative expressions within clause boundaries. Gabriela Matos presents a minimalist approach to this phenomenon, and Akira Watanabe shows systematic differences between Italian and West Flemish with respect to the negative concord system. Paul Rowlett presents the distinction between two main types of negative markers in Romance languages (preverbal vs. postverbal) and the contexts in which the preverbal type appears in nonverbal contexts in French. Manuela Ambar and Rita Veloso address some puzzling questions concerning wh-phrases, their constituency and distribution. The data taken from Portuguese, French, Hungarian, and Tetum exemplify the apparently diverse behavior of wh-interrogatives. Ana Maria Brito’s article discusses certain aspects of clause structure in European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese related to the positions of the adverb sempre. Raffaella Folli focuses on the relation of priority between causative and inchoative constructions in Italian and proposes a unified analysis of different possibilities. Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach discusses Spanish exclamative constructions exhibiting a wide variety of patterns and a number of additional issues pertaining to the syntax/semantics interface and to specific exclamative constructions. Jaume Mateu Fontanals revises some former lexical relational analysis of the so-called ‘locative verbs’ and ‘locatum verbs’ on the basis of Romance and especially Catalan data. Nicola Munaro provides an analysis of the internal structure of a class of WH-items attested in Piedmontese, Valdotain, and Ligurian dialects. Gemma Rigau’s article illustrates the lexical properties and syntactic behavior of certain Romance temporal existential verbs. Svetlana Vogeleer argues that French avant and jusqu’à are [End Page 343] not logically equivalent in negative sentences, as some linguists have proposed for their English counterparts before and until. The semantic difference derives from their syntactic status since avant-phrases are time constituents whereas jusqu’à-phrases are duration constituents. M. Teresa Espinal explores the property-denoting objects in idiomatic constructions on data taken especially from Catalan. Jean-Marie Marandin postulates the presence of unaccusative inversion in French, implying for the grammar of French that the phenomenon analyzed in traditional and in generative grammar under the heading ‘subject inversion’ should be divided into two types: stylistic inversion and unaccusative inversion. Marandin summarizes the main differences and similarities between them. The languages investigated include Catalan, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, and a number of Northern Italian dialects. Almost all of the papers assume a synchronic perspective of description. The variety of topics and theoretical perspectives represent quite well the state of affairs in regard to theoretical approaches to Romance linguistics. Jan Holeš Palackého University Czech Republic Copyright © 2004 Linguistic Society of America

In Modern Italian (MI), negative additives (e.g. neanche ‘neither/not even’) contain a negative morpheme ne - and obey negative concord (NC) with sentential negation. In Old Italian (OI), negative additives such as neanche are not attested. Instead, a non-negative additive, anche, combines with a negative marker: e.g. né/non…anche (‘neither/not even’). In OI (i) anche can be used both in negative, and positive contexts; (ii) anche can function either as an aspectual marker (= ‘(not) yet’), or as an additive focalizer (= ‘neither/not even’); (iii) different syntactic positions mirror its different interpretations. We suggest that the grammaticalization of neanche originates from the contexts in which additive anche occurs immediately right adjacent to the negative disjunction né (i.e. né + anche > neanche).

This paper provides arguments based on Czech, Polish, Russian, and Serbo-Croatian that distributive universal subjects of negated sentences allow the surface scope interpretation on the order subject > negation , contrary to. This observation agrees with theories of negative concord that take negative concord items as universal quantifiers taking scope above sentential negation. The arguments are based on available scope interpretations and correlations between word order and scope.