-
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to exptions which correspond to
explthat a syntactic operation of logiory of grammar in order to
accit will be characterized by meanative marker or a negative
indecontext; it will be characterizedin explicit syntax) or feature
motax) to an averidical Neg headKey words: syntax, semantics,
Resum. Negaci expletiva, con
Lobjectiu daquest treball s extacticosemntica que
corresponPostular que una operaci sintnecessria en la teoria de la
gramen un context no negatiu i la cadun marcador negatiu lleuger
oun context negatiu i la caracterdespecificador-nucli a la
sintapecificador-nucli no es dna a Paraules clau: sintaxi,
semnt
* This paper has benefited frosupported by the Spanish
Mcollegues M. L. Hernanz, J. vious manuscript of this papSyntax of
Central Romance ference (Groningen, Decem
The content of this paper
CatWPL 8, 2000 47-69
Expletive Negation, Negative Concordand Feature Checking*
M. Teresa EspinalUniversitat Autnoma de Barcelona. Departament
de Filologia Catalana08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona).
[email protected]
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 47lore some aspects of
the syntax-semantics interface representa-etive negation (EN) and
negative concord (NC). I shall postulatecal absorption, conceived
as feature checking, is needed in the the-ount for both phenomena.
EN instantiates a nonnegative context;s of a covert negative
feature movement, from either a light neg-finite, up to a
nonveridical X head. NC instantiates a negative
as either category movement (when the Spec-Head relation
holdsvement (when the Spec-Head relation does not hold in overt
syn-
. negation, Catalan, Spanish.
cordana negativa i comprovaci de trets
plorar alguns aspectes de les representacions de la interfcie
sin-en a la negaci expletiva (EN) i a la concordana negativa
(NC).ctica dabsorci lgica, concebuda com a verificaci de trets,
stica per tal de donar compte dambds fenmens. La EN apareix
racteritzar mitjanant el moviment encobert dun tret negatiu des
dun indefinit negatiu a un nucli X0 no verdic. La NC apareix
enitzar com el moviment duna categoria (quan hi ha una relacixi
explcita) o com el moviment dun tret (quan la relaci des-la sintaxi
explcita) a un nucli Neg0 averdic.ica, negaci, catal, espanyol.
m two project grants (PB93-0893-C04-01 and
PB96-1199-C04-02)inistery of Education and Culture. I would like to
specially thank myMaci, C. Picallo, G. Rigau and J. Sol for their
observations to a pre-er. I would like to thank the audiences at
the Third Workshop on theLanguages (Girona, December 1996) and at
the Going Romance con-ber 1997) for helpful comments.remains
basically as was presented to these conferences.
Received: March 3rd 2000Accepted: October 3rd 2000
-
1. AimIn this paper I shall first pin (1) and (2) (see
below),head which can be non-ture (from now on, FNeg).
Second, I shall describtions with EN and configuchecking,
feature attractionveridical and averidical negfor the phenomenon of
neg
Third, I shall explore sthe theory of grammar.
Some representative exin (1) and (2).(1) Expletive Negation
a. Preferiraprefer+COND.1trabajando todoworking whoI would
rather
b. A cuntas pto how many pSo many people
c. (No) senot himDatCLI must have told
(2) Negative Concord (a. Nadie dijo
nobody said.3sNobody said an
b. No me llamnot meCL calleHe never called
48 CatWPL 8, 2000 M. Teresa Espinal
1. I thank M. Llusa Hernanz fo
Table of Contents1. Aim
2. EN. Structural Configuration3. NC in Catalan and Spanish
4. Similarities and Differences betweenEN and NC5. Related
IssuesReferences
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 48resent a brief
grammatical analysis of the sentences by postulating that their
syntactic structure contains aovert defined with an inherent
negative formal fea-
e some similarities and differences between configura-rations
with NC. Theoretical notions such as feature, and feature strength
of negation, with regard to non-ative features, will become
relevant in order to accountative absorption in natural
languages.everal issues related to this analysis of EN and NC
in
amples of EN and NC, taken from Spanish, are given
(EN)salir con vosotros que (no) estar
sg go-out with you than not beel fin de semana.
le the end of weekgo out with you than be working the whole
weekendersonas (no) habr matado este dictador!eople not
have+FUT.3sg killed this dictator must have been killed by this
dictator!lo habr dicho veces esto! 1itCL have+FUT.1sg told times
this him this so many times!NC)
nada.g anythingything. nunca.
d.3sg never me.
r bringing this example to my attention.
-
Notice that Spanish, like Catalan, typically shows a light
negative marker no inpreverbal position. A light negative marker
refers to its head status (Haegeman 1995),and to the fact that it
appears preverbally and is always adjacent to the verb. The
samenegative marker no, is used for pure sentential negation and
nonnegative negation.
2. EN. Structural ConfigurationEN has been characterized as a
natural language phenomenon induced by speci-fic lexical items
(such as Italian finch, and Catalan ms in (3)) appearing
underspecific structural conditio
(3) Italiana. Resto finch
stay.1sg until Ill stay until s
Catalanb. Val ms que
better that sols.2aloneIts better you
These data illustrate noin specific syntactic envireffective
contributions to tstituent (see the English gthe fact that a
negative itemify the truth value of the p
The relevant syntactic
(4) [ ... [XP X [CP C[NeBesides the classical s
another instance of non-ne
(5) Spanisha. A cuntas
to how manyjuventud!youth(S)he must hav
Expletive Negation, Negative Concord and Feature Checking CatWPL
8, 2000 49
2. The nonoptionality of the ncontiguous que complemen
3. X is the lexical item whoseoccurs when minimality is rwhen
there is no logical oper
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 49ns.
(non) arriva qualcuno.not arrives somebody
omebody arrives.
vingueu que no que us quedeucome.SUBJ.2pl than not that youCL
remain.2pl
come than you stay on your own.
t only the fact that the negative marker (non, no)
appearsonments, but also that this negative marker makes no
he interpretation of the whole string containing this
con-losses). What is characteristic of expletive negation is, which
lexically contributes to negation, does not mod-
roposition in which it occurs. configuration for (1a) and (3) is
given in (4):3
gP Neg ... ]]]]et of examples illustrating EN, natural languages
offergative negation in degree wh- sentences.
personas no engaara en supersons not deceive+COND.3sg in
his/her
e deceived so many people in his/her youth!
egative marker in this particular example must be related to the
twotizers at the output string. inherent FF license an expletive
reading for the negative word. Thisespected among the contiguous
nodes X-que-Neg within the tree, andator intervening between X and
Neg at the level of LF (Espinal 1992).
-
Catalanb. Quin desastre no heu fet!
what disaster not have.2pl madeWhat a mess youve made of
everything!
It seems entirely plausible that the syntactic configuration
corresponding to thesentences which license nonnegative negation in
wh-exclamatives (such as (1b,c)and (5)) should be analysed in
similar terms to clausal structures licensing EN(such as (1a) and
(3)) (see Espinal 1997). In accordance with these hypotheses Ihave
postulated a degree prwith the feature FNeg (besi
The relevant syntactic sgiven in (6).5
This hypothesis is supshow cross-categorial degrdegree) applies
over differpreted as an affective quanquantifiers; the verb,
altho
50 CatWPL 8, 2000 M. Teresa Espinal
4. The basic contrast between of the fact that in the set of
elogical content might be saidlicenses EN cannot be the wan
affective predicate (Laduwords are not specialized fo
5. The order NegP < AgrP is nomodal interpretation of the
f
(6) DegP
Deg
C
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 50ojection above CP with
an implicit affective Deg( defineddes other FF), since it licenses
EN.4tructure of degree wh-exclamatives which license EN is
ported by the fact that sentences such as (1b) and (5)ee, in the
sense that gradability (more specifically, highent categories of
the sentence: the wh quantifier is inter-tifier, it is
non-specific, and has wide scope over otherugh in indicative, has
an intensional interpretation (see
classical instances of EN and EN in degree wh- sentences is a
resultxamples given in (1b,c) and (5) there is no apparent lexical
item whose to be responsible for the phenomenon of EN. The
constituent which
h- word, for it is neither a comparative marker denoting
inequality norsaw 1980, Haegeman 1995), and it is absent in (1c).
Furthermore wh-r exclamatives.t considered as relevant at this
point. MP is postulated for the nonfutureuture marker (see examples
(1b,c)).
CP
NegP
Neg TP
T (MP)
(M) VP
V
-
the glosses in (1b) and (5)); and the negative marker does not
entail falsity of theproposition.6
In support of postulating a functional category DegP we can
adduce variousoutput conditions, since a sentence with an
intensifier Deg constituent has specificsuprasegmental and semantic
properties which build into particular phonetic andsemantic
interpretations. In addition to that, in support of postulating a
DegP pro-jection above a CP projection consider the following four
arguments (Espinal1997).7
First, the sentences in (1b) and (5), always have a wh-
expression in clausalonset position. The only wa CP1 (+ WH( from a
CP2may or may not be inheremore there are degree sentheless license
a degree intthe best scenario seems to concept of
complementizeprojection.
Second, it should be nindependent clauses. If thexpect to find
expletive exthe case. Therefore, Deg s
Third, Deg must be hiand unboundedness of whthese wh-
expressions areclause, under whose scopjection postulated for
ques
Fourth, some overt dedegree position in (6) exitive degree words
such aslicense EN.9
Expletive Negation, Negative Concord and Feature Checking CatWPL
8, 2000 51
6. Furthermore, this hypothesstructural similarities to focand
Greek. There exist, howwh-constituents with inheretential initial
position and within a sentence, (iii) the itrasted with the degree
intetive constructions, and (iv) EN.
7. See Postner Zanuttini (199tive CP higher than the CP p
8. See Bosque - Masullo (19969. See Grevisse (1986) for a d
are claimed to be linguistic ea quality or a property expre
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 51ay to avoid postulating
a DegP would be to distinguish( + WH, + DEG(. However, since most
wh- expressionsntly lexically specified as degree markers, and
further-tences which do not have a wh- expression, but
never-ensification on a bare plural noun (see the example (1c)),be
one which dissociates the concept of degree from ther, and where
the Deg projection is separated from the C
oted that exclamative sentences entailing EN are alwayse degree
operator was fused with the C, then we wouldclamatives in
subordinate clauses, which, in fact, is nothould be separate from
C.gher than C in clause structure, since the nonspecificity-
expressions in exclamatives can only be explained if affected at
the level of LF by some constituent of thee they are licensed,
which is distinct from the CP pro-tions.8gree operators which seem
to alternate with the covertst in both Catalan and Spanish. I am
referring to posi- b, bien and si really, so, well, highly, which
do not
is should be related to the observation that wh- expressions
showused expressions in a number of languages, among them
Hungarianever, some important differences between focalized
constituents andnt degree modification: (i) the latter must
obligatorily move to sen-
cannot remain in situ, (ii) there can only be one degree
constituentdentificational interpretation of focalized constituents
should be con-rpretation of wh- constituents at clause onset
position of exclama-sentences with a focalized constituent do not
license by themselves
8) for an analysis of exclamatives according to which they have
a fac-ostulated in questions.) for a study on the relation between
gradability and unboundedness.escriptive analysis of bien and si in
French as degree adverbs. Theyxpressions which affect the intensity
of an action expressed by a V, ofssed by an A or an Adv.
-
(7) Catalana. B que s ho ha cregut!
really that seReflCL itCL has believed(S)he really did believe
that!
Spanishb. Bien me has engaado.
really meCL have.2sg deceivedYou really did deceive me!
c. Si ser atrevido!very be+FUT.3sg daring(S)he is so daring!
These linguistic expresthey do not license EN. Cfeatures which
make themdegree markers of the sorhaving negative features o
Let me now briefly con
3. NC in Catalan and SpNC is characterized as a lia sentence. NC
is involvedonce, although it is expreinvolves negative markers
ative indefinites in generaalthough they need not beCatalan
n-words).
Unlike Germanic langthe phenomenon of NC. Tative marker with
negativedo not cancel each other oevant data is given in (8) a
(8) Catalana. No ha vist a
not has seen to(S)he has seen
b. Ning (no) hnobody not hNobody has se
52 CatWPL 8, 2000 M. Teresa Espinal
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 52sions may be taken as
evidence for a DegP, even thoughlose to them, other degree
expressions contain negative optimal licensers for EN; for example,
overt and covertt exemplified in (3b) and (5). My analysis will
rely onn these heads.sider the syntactic structure corresponding to
NC data.
anishnguistic phenomenon spread over various items within in
syntactic contexts where negation is interpreted justssed more than
once. In both Catalan and Spanish it
such as no and other constituents (e.g. n-words, and neg-l)
defined by means of an abstract formal feature FNeg,
morphologically negative (consider the case of most
uages, it is well-known that Romance languages showhey have the
possibility of combining a sentential neg- indefinites, in such a
way that the negative constituentsut, but they jointly express a
single negation. Some rel-nd (9).
ning.anybody
no one.a vist res.as seen anythingen anything.
-
(9) Spanisha. No ha visto a nadie.
not has seen to anybody(S)he has seen no one / (S)he has not
seen anybody.
b. Nadie (*no) ha visto nada.nobody not has seen anythingNobody
has seen anything.
The postverbal negative constituent a ning, a nadie no one is
obligatorilypreceded either by a negawith no and postverbal
neexpresses sentential negaNotice the lack of parenth
Examples (8b) and (9verbal no in Catalan and aHowever, it should
be note(consider the data in (10position of negative elemeform
negative polarity ite
(10) Old Spanish (Llora. Ninguno non
nobody not Nobody dares
Dialectal Spanishb. para que ya
so that ana arreglarse ato get-ready iso that nobomore
These examples haveing to one of two perspe(Zanuttini 1991,
Haegemaversal well-formedness conative meaning, and predichave the
properties of univtion operation when a negsecond hypothesis
conceiLaka 1990, 1993), and pronly under an operator-va
Expletive Negation, Negative Concord and Feature Checking CatWPL
8, 2000 53
10. See Espinal (2000) for a receit is argued that n-words
aretifiers, underspecified for q
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 53tive head no or by
another negative item. The examplesgative constituents are similar
to sentences in which notion, in that in both cases pre-verbal no
is obligatory.eses on no in (8a) and (9a).
b) illustrate a preverbal negative item with optional pre-
non-overt negative marker in modern standard Spanish.d that both in
Old Spanish and in some dialectal variants
)) no is overt, regardless of the preverbal or postverbalnts,
which Suer (1995) takes as an argument for a uni-
m status of negative elements in Spanish.ens 1929)los ose
defender.themCL dares defend to defend them.(Snchez Ferlosios El
Jarama)
nunca nadie no venga jamsymore never nobody not come+SUBJ.3sg
ever
mi casan my housedy never ever would come to get ready in my
home any-
been accounted for in the literature by basically adher-ctives.
A first hypothesis postulates a NEG-criterionn-Zanuttini 1991,
Haegeman 1995), conceived as a uni-dition on syntactic
representations, which cancels the neg-
ts that n-words are inherently negative expressions whichersal
quantifiers (i.e. n-words are involved in an absorp-ative operator
has scope over a number of variables). Aves NC as a polarity
construction (Bosque 1980, 1994;edicts that n-words are polarity
items which are licensedriable structure.10
nt analysis on the status of n-words in Catalan and Spanish. In
this paper indefinites incorporated into a numeral meaning (0(, and
weak quan-uantificational force.
-
In the next section I shall compare EN with NC and will show
that movementof negative features (sometimes strong negative
features) to specific targets pro-vide important insights into the
relation between the syntactic structure and thesemantic
interpretation of these representations.
4. Similarities and Differences between EN and NCThe question I
would now like to approach is what sort of relation, if any,
existsbetween EN and NC. I will claim that both these constructions
share: clause-boundedness and strict structural locality to an
X/Neg head with spe-
cific morphosyntactic negative absorption, c sensitivity to
nonverid
4.1. Clause-boundednessFrom a structural perspecfact that both
these phenolocality to some X F Negcal operator in EN
structtures).
Consider the example
(11) Catalana. Abans que pa
before that han aniria.enCL go+COBefore anythi
b. Em temomeCL am-afraiIm afraid tha
c. *Abans [quebefore thatme n anmeCL enCL go
d. *Em temo [director]]meCL afraid tdirector
54 CatWPL 8, 2000 M. Teresa Espinal
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 54 features,onceived as
feature checking, andicality, of which a subset is
averidicality.
and strict localitytive the similarity between EN and NC stems
from themena require not only clause-boundedness but also
strict(which in section 4.3 will be claimed to be a nonveridi-ures
and an averidical operator in the case of NC struc-
s in (11) and (12).
ssi (*gaireb/absolutament) res, jo meppens almost/absolutely
anything I meCL(EN)ND.1sg
ng happens, I would leave.que no escullin nou director. (EN)
d that not elect+SUBJ.3pl new directort a new director would be
elected.
contesti [que passa res, joanswer+SUBJ.3sg that happens
anything, I
iria]
que diguin [que no escolliran nou
hat say+SUBJ.3pl that not elect+FUT.3pl new
(ONLY GRAMMATICAL AS NEGATIVE)
-
(12) a. No funciona (gaireb/absolutament) res com haurianot
works almost/absolutely anything as have+COND.3sgde funcionar.
(NC)of work(Almost/absolutely) Nothing works as it should.
b. Res no funciona com hauria de funcionar. (NC)anything not
works as have.COND.3sg of workNothing works as it should
c. *Res s vernothing is trude funcionar.of work
At his point it is imporLatin noun, can be interptext.
Similarly, no may alscontext; in fact it is nonne
Furthermore, in (11a) existential nonnegative radverbs and has a
negativ
Examples (11c,d) are unegative indefinite and theordinate clause
and are no
In minimalist terms Imovement has applied (seture checking, that
is, covetural closeness.11 See (13)
Expletive Negation, Negative Concord and Feature Checking CatWPL
8, 2000 55
11. In Espinal (1992) it is arguand categorial (i.e. ( N, (
V)
(13) XP
X
Fneg
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 55itat [que no funciona
com hauriae that not works as have.COND.3sg
tant to notice that res, although it derives from a
positivereted as either anything or nothing, depending on con-o get
a nonnegative reading depending on the syntacticgative in (11b) but
fully negative in (12a,b).res cannot be preceded by
almost/absolutely and has aneading, whereas in (12a) res can be
modified by thesee reading.ngrammatical under an expletive reading
because both the light negative marker are embedded within a second
sub-t adjacent to X (abans in (11c) and temo in (11d)). would like
to claim that in EN constructions, once Ce a lexical form such as
finch in (3a)), EN involves fea-rt movement of a FNeg to check
another FNeg, under struc-.
ed that the CP projection, whose head que lacks inherent
referential features, in addition to not blocking government due to
its intrinsic
CP
ti NegP
Neg
Fneg
-
This movement takes place at the level of LF because in this
configuration X,specified from the lexicon with a particular FNeg
that identifies it as the target of adislocation property, attracts
the FNeg that identifies the thing that is to be dislo-cated:
either a Neg head or an n-word, under the Last Resort and the
Minimal Linkconditions (Chomsky 1995:280,297,311).
(14) a. K attracts F if F is the closest feature that can enter
into a checking relation with a sublabel of K
b. Last Resort CoMove F raises Fwith a sublabel
c. Minimal Link CK attracts ( onlattracts (
According to these defture attraction operation mthe feature
checker in theerty: nonveridicality. Theing the polarity items resX
head (abans, temo). O(see section 4.2).
On the other hand, in the negative marker and thative features
of these consappropriately for the paraddency that holds
betweenthey entail the falsity of p
Concerning NC structby the strength of the FNeg oWatanabe
(1997), since in in NC must take place in ture of the phrasal
expressstrong FNeg need a head forative marker no in Catalan a
56 CatWPL 8, 2000 M. Teresa Espinal
properties, does not block mentizer bears temporal inis bound to
the referential feaed and is submitted to a proical head which
governs it,the input to a logical absorp
12. This claim can be made com1993 and Giannakidou 1997allow
long-distance licensin
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 56ndition to target K
only if F enters into a checking relation
of Kondition
y if there is no (, ( closer to K than (, such that K
initions, EN can be said to illustrate the relevance of a
fea-otivated by the properties of the target. My claim is that
target category is a FNeg with a specific semantic prop-refore,
EN involves dislocation of the FNeg characteriz-and no in (11a,b),
and adjunction of this feature to thence this movement has taken
place, absorption applies
the case of NC structures, clause-boundedness betweene n-word at
syntax, and strict locality between the neg-tituents at the level
of LF are required in order to accountigm in (12), as well as for
the averidical semantic depen- the two constituents in italics
(that is, for the fact that).12ures I am going to assume that
feature checking is forcedf specific negative items in the checking
domain. Following
NC structures FNeg is interpretable, the movement involvedovert
syntax, and is triggered by the strong negative fea-ions, not by
the Neg head. Phrasal expressions with the the purpose of checking,
but not viceversa, since the neg-nd Spanish can occur without
phrasal negative expressions.
absorption of negation, and seems to be invisible at LF. The
comple-formation, since the TP of the subordinate clause (in the
subjunctive)tures of the main clause. Therefore, it is claimed that
CT cannot be delet-cess of raising and incorporation (i.e. category
movement) to the lex-
either in the syntax or at LF. The output of complementizer
raising istion operation.patible with the observation already
described in the literature (Quer
) that certain contexts (such as mood and specific selecting
predicates)g of negative items.
-
Elimination of superfluous FNeg is part of the interpretive
processes contingentupon movement to a Neg head. In Catalan,
movement involving NC items makesuse of either adjunction through
pure F movement (see (12a)), or an Spec-Headrelation with a Neg
head which can be full via category movement (as illus-trated in
(12b)).
In the Spanish example (9b), like Italian, the null Neg head
checks the fea-tures of the negative item through category
movement, for the Spec-Head relationholds in overt syntax. In (9a)
the Neg head, represented by no, checks the featuresof the negative
polarity item through feature checking, since the Spec-Head
relationdoes not hold in overt syn
In sum, NC in Romanvated by feature strength. (as in (12a)) or
to the maxieither F movement or catetural representation in (15
To summarize, the phetarget holding a particulaa case of F
movement in ceither category or F moveFNeg .13
4.2. Negative Absorption In (16) I quote Giannakidapproach to
absorption, wNC postulated here.
Expletive Negation, Negative Concord and Feature Checking CatWPL
8, 2000 57
13. I leave for future research thment in overt syntax.
(15) NegP
Neg
weak Fneg
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 57tax.ce languages
illustrates the relevance of movement moti-The output of this
movement is adjunction to either Negmal projection of Neg (as in
(12b)), depending on whethergory movement is the relevant
operation. See the struc-).
nomenon of EN involves the process of F attraction to ar set of
semantic features, and can be accounted for asovert syntax, whereas
the phenomenon of NC involvesment in overt syntax, motivated by the
strength of the
as Feature Checkingous conception of the NEG-criterion and
Watanabeshich seem to be both relevant to the analysis of EN
and
e conditions that control the application of either category or
F move-
...
NegItem
strong Fneg
-
(16) a. Giannakidou (1997:182) reinterprets the NEG criterion as
an agree-ment requirement with respect to averidicality.
b. Watanabe (1997) argues that absorption can be regarded as a
conse-quence of overt movement of pure features (p.19). Movement
involv-ing NC items makes use of either adjunction through pure
feature move-ment or the Spec-head relation via category movement
(p.13). Themovement involved in NC takes place in overt syntax and
it is triggeredby the strong feature of the phrasal expressions,
not by the Neg head(p.14).
In the light of the precEspinal 1992) might be renation of
superfluous negafeature checking, and feaveridicality, in the case
ofof LF. This logical deletionupon movement.
(17) absorbs , = Xiffwith regard to a con(i) [XP Spec [X X(ii)
has been Attr
In the output LF confthere are no maximal projtive absorption
correspondsor of negation (in terms pof natural language
configuwith a nonveridical negatirations licensing NC is asnegative
feature (FAver ).
Thus, logical absorptiofeature or category movemcertain negative
constituependent negative conceptsto provide an interesting
apparently different synta
4.3. Sensitivity to Nonveri
The next hypothesis I wotions of different kinds ofmeans of the
same theore
58 CatWPL 8, 2000 M. Teresa Espinal
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 58eding discussion,
absorption of negation (as defined ininterpreted in feature
checking terms, that is, as elimi-tive features. Logical absorption
is to be understood as
ture deletion of either sensitive FNeg (sensitive to non- EN) or
redundant FNeg (in the case of NC) at the level operation is part
of the interpretive processes contingent
FNeg and = FNeg of a negative item
figuration such as
FNeg ]]acted/Moved to either Spec,XP or to X
iguration ( and ( mutually c-command one another, forection
boundaries between them. The process of nega-s to the factorization
of one single and abstract expres-ut forward by Ladusaw 1992,
1996), which in the caserations licensing EN is associated with a
head X( defined
ve feature (FNonver), and in the case of syntactic
configu-sociated with the Neg head defined with an averidical
n of negation, conceived as feature checking, after eitherent
has applied, provides an explanation of the fact thatnts in
specific configurations are not licensed as inde-. Furthermore, the
operation of feature checking seemsline of research on the
syntactic relation between twoctic structures: EN and NC.
dicalityuld like to point out is that EN and NC are manifesta-
sensitivity to negation, which can be accounted for bytical
tools.
-
Since what is characteristic of EN is the presence of a negative
expression(either a negative marker no or an n-word) which is
absorbed by an attracting head,my claim is that EN is obtained when
the negative marker is interpreted as a polar-ity item. Let us
consider the following definitions:
(18) a. Polarity item (Giannakidou 1997:14,16)(i) A polarity
item a is an expression whose distribution is limited bysensitivity
to some semantic property b of the context of appearance;(ii) The
semantic property bneed not be polar
b. Condition on P(i) A polarity itesion z which sudepends on,
and(ii) z is said to b
Accordingly, to claimitem means that it is a sensto the
definitions in (18)text of grammaticality, annegative marker is
license
Following Montague (1(nonveridicality and averidi
(19) (Non)veridicality (ZLet Obe a monadic Op p is
logicallynonveridical operat
Following Giannakidodependent definition given
(20) Context dependent (In a context c,(i) A propositional
orequires that p be tr(ii) An operator Op require that p be
tru(iii) A nonveridical requires that p be fa
These definitions view(AVERIDICAL ( NONV
Expletive Negation, Negative Concord and Feature Checking CatWPL
8, 2000 59
14. For connections between m15. M(x) stands for some
individ
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 59I-licensingm a is
licensed iff (a) the context provides some expres-
pplies the semantic property b as proper interpretation (b) a is
found in the semantic scope of z
e the trigger of a
that the negative marker in EN structures is a polarityitive
expression, that is, an expression that according can only be
licensed by a property bpresent in the con-d this property is
nonveridicality.14 That is, in EN thed under the scope of a
nonveridical operator.969) and Zwarts (1995), veridicality and the
related notionscality) are viewed as properties of propositional
operators.
warts 1995:287)sentential operator. O is said to be veridical
just in case valid. If O is not veridical, then O is nonveridical.
A
or O is called averidical iff Op p is logically valid
u (1997), (non)veridicality can be assigned the context in
(20).
non)veridicality (Giannakidou (1997:110))
perator Op is veridical iff the truth of Op p in cue in some
model M(x) in cis nonveridical iff the truth of Op p in c does note
in any model M(x) in coperator Op is averidical iff the truth of Op
p in clse in any model M(x) in c15
averidical operators as a subset of the nonveridicalERIDICAL),
so every averidical operator is also non-
ood and non-veridicality, see Quer (1998).uals worldview and
represents the epistemic status of that individual.
-
veridical, but not viceversa. Furthermore, they relativize
(non)veridicality withrespect to context. We can infer from them
that a propositional operator is veridi-cal iff Op entails p, that
is, whenever Op p is true, p is true too. Op is nonveridicaliff Op
does not entail p, that is, whenever Op p is true, p may or may not
be true.Nonveridical operators do not entail the falsity of p.
Entailing the falsity of p is thedefining property of averidical
operators.
In EN the negative marker is to be thought of as a polarity item
sensitive to a spe-cific semantic property: the nonveridicality
supplied by before, until, comparativeoperators denoting
inequality, a specific high degree operator, and some negativeand
adversative predicates.in the semantic scope of anthe negative
marker is licmanifest a polarity item st
(21) Catalana. Abans que (no
before than noBefore anybod
b. Abans que etbefore than yoBefore anyboy
Notice, furthermore, ththe proposition expressed ing you may or
may not b
60 CatWPL 8, 2000 M. Teresa Espinal
16. See Espinal (2000) for an aallow the occurrence of n-wtive
concord structures, areproperty and a variable undtions on the LF
building pro
17. EN is also allowed in the abexample (1b)), but it is not (i
d)).
(i) a. En Joan mor aDet Joan died bJoan died before h
b. ?En Joan mor aDet Joan died bJoan died before h
c. En Joan revisDet Joan checkedJoan checked the
d. * En Joan revisDet Joan checke
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 60 When either a light
negative marker or an n-word appears expression which supplies a
nonveridical property, then
ensed as nonnegative (or expletive) and n-words makeatus.16 This
is illustrated in (21a-b).
) et vegin, vs- te n.t youCL see+SUBJ.3pl go+IMP youCL enCLy
sees you, you should go. vegi ning, vs- te n.uCL see+SUBJ.3sg
anybody go+IMP youCL enCL sees you, you should go.
at in (21) abans before is nonveridical with respect toin the
subordinate clause, in the sense that anybody see-e true.17
nalysis predicting that languages (such Catalan and Spanish)
whichords in polar and negative contexts, as well as in expletive
and nega- those that have n-words lexically defined with a
specified negativeerspecified quantificational force, subject to
various licensing condi-cess.ans before clause in those contexts
where it is inferred that ~ q (seelicensed in those contexts where
it is inferred that q (as illustrated in
bans de conixer els seus nts. ( ~ q)efore of get-to-know the his
grandchildrene got to know his grandchildren.
bans que no conegu els seus nts. ( ~ q)efore that not
got-to-know+SUBJ.3sg the his grandchildrene got to know his
grandchildren.
el cotxe abans de comprar-lo. ( q)the car before of buying
itCL
car before he bought it.el cotxe abans que no el comprs. (
q)
d the car before that not itCL bought+SUBJ.3sg
-
Lack of veridicality is also illustrated in (22), since this
example shows thatSpanish hasta until is nonveridical with refard
to its internal argument: the factthat the speaker be thrown out
may or may not be true.
(22) SpanishMe quedar hasta que (no) me echen.meCL stay+FUT.1sg
until that not meCL throw.3plI will stay until they throw me
out.
Similarly, expletive neas Catalan tmer fear) anto the
proposition expresthat it will rain may or mbe false.
(23) Catalana. Em temo
meCL am-afraiIm afraid that
Spanish (R. Carnicb. Hay quin
is there whohistorias?storiesDoes anybody
Finally, the high degrplement clause, for the pr
Expletive Negation, Negative Concord and Feature Checking CatWPL
8, 2000 61
18. The linguistic literature onexclamative clauses are facis
interesting to notice thatoccur under the scope of a
(i) Catalana. s inslit com
is unusual howIt is unusual how
b. *s increble qis incredible w
(ii) Spanisha. Es extraordinario
is outstandingIt is outstanding h
b. *Me sorprendemeCL surprises
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 61gation is licensed
under the scope of verbs of fear (suchd verbs of doubt, which are
all nonveridical with respect
sed in the subordinate clause. This is illustrated in (23):ay
not be true, and the referred stories may or may not
que (no) plogui.d that not rain+SUBJ.3sg it will rain.er, La
Vanguardia)dude que (no) son falsas las talesdoubt+SUBJ.3sg that
not are false the such
doubt the falseness of such stories?
ee operator is also nonveridical with regard to the
com-oposition expressed may or may not be true.18
exclamatives (Elliott 1974, Grimshaw 1979) shows that positive
wh-tives, that is, they presuppose the truth of the proposition.
However, it neither Catalan nor Spanish wh- exclamatives which
license EN canfactive verb, as the following contrasts make
explicit:
es porta de malament!esReflCl behaves of bad
bad (s)he behaves!uines mentides no diu en Joan!hich lies not
says Det Joan
cuntas tonteras habr dicho este estudiante!how many
stupid-remarks have+FUT.3sg said this student
ow many stupid remarks may have said this student!cunto no
pesarn estos paquetes!how much not weigh+FUT.3sg these parcels
-
(24) CatalanQuantes mentides (no) deu haver dit des que estem
casats!how many lies not must.3sg have told since that are.1pl
married(S)he must have told so many lies since we got married!
To conclude, EN instantiates a nonnegative context, in which the
negative mark-er is a polarity item sensitive to some specific
nonveridical semantic dependen-cies. The target FNeg is associated
with some lexical head (other than Neg) whichhas nonveridical
properties. EN has been formulated as a case of covert F move-ment,
from either the lighFNeg of the target nonveridtional operators,
and averiaveridical FNeg of a light item can be cancelled
undlexical heads.
By contrast, NC instanis an averidical operator wassociated with
the Neg hminimalist program, sincechecking, triggered by theing
domain, we have claimthe Spec-Head relation hoSpec-Head relation
does nmovement has applied, a r
In Section 4 I have shoboth syntactically and semedness, strict
locality andconclusion in a study on tinterface of negative
structuer no (Meibauer 1990) invdifference between EN andis
associated with the NegEN the target FNeg is assohas nonveridical
propertieattraction, whereas in NC syntax.
Accordingly, expletivetion is cancelled, in such anegative
operator. This apptational function: to checkthe local domain. This
doeno can be licensed differeexpressed by various mean
This analysis has the arelations hold in complex
62 CatWPL 8, 2000 M. Teresa Espinal
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 62Negt negative marker or
the negative indefinite, up to theical operator. Since
nonveridicality concerns proposi-
dical expressions form a subset of the nonveridical, thenegative
marker or the nonveridical FNeg of a negativeer feature checking
with a nonveridical FNeg of specific
tiates a negative context, in which the negative markerhich
licenses negative polarity items. The target FNeg isead of the
clause, which has averidical properties. In the negative agreement
has been reinterpreted as feature
strength of the FNeg of the negative items in the check-ed that
NC requires either category movement (when
lds in explicit syntax) or feature movement (when theot hold in
overt syntax) to an averidical Neg. Once thisedundant FNeg is
absorbed.wn that the similarity between EN and NC is
important,antically. Both these phenomena require clause-bound-
negative absorption, which, I think, is a significant
he configuration of negation and the syntax-semanticsres. There
is only one NegP and a single negative mark-olved in different
licensing conditions. The structural NC is due to the fact that
whereas in NC the target FNeg head of the clause, which has
averidical properties, inciated with some lexical head (other than
Neg) whichs. In addition to that, in EN F movement is a result of
Fcategory or F movement is forced by F strength in overt
no is a negative lexical item whose semantic contribu- way that
this marker is not licensed as an independentarent imperfection of
language has of course a compu-
the morphosyntactic and semantic properties present ins lead to
an interesting conclusion: the negative markerntly depending on the
fact that negation itself can bes in natural languages.
dditional advantage that it can account for the meaningexamples
such as those in (25).
-
(25) Catalana. Abans que ning digui res, deixeu -me
before that anybody say+SUBJ.3sg anything let meCLdonar -vos la
benvinguda. (EN)give youCL the welcomeBefore anybody says anything,
let me welcome you.
b. Abans que ning no digui res, anullarem (NC)before that
anybody not say+SUBJ.3sg anything cancel+FUT.1plla reuni.the
meetingBefore nobody
As said with regard toand is nonveridical with clause.
Therefore, in (25a) ning and res are sensitiveabans, defined with a
nonvand res. On the other hanwords, there is a Neg heaveridical
FNeg. In this conand F movement of the FNture (with F checking of
clause), thus entailing an
5. Related IssuesIn this section I shall mentmy analysis of EN
and NC
5.1. The relevance of the dand C/Q (see the spli
Notice the contrast betweeator (such as si, and bien (26)
Spanish
a. Cuntas vechow many timI must have to
b. Si sereally him.DatCI must have to
c. Bien de vecesso of timesI have told him
Expletive Negation, Negative Concord and Feature Checking CatWPL
8, 2000 63
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 63 says anything, well
cancel the meeting.
(21) Catalan abans is a lexical item which licenses PIregard to
the proposition expressed in the subordinateanybody says anything
may or may not be true, and both to the nonveridical semantic
dependency introduced byeridical FNeg which attracts and checks the
FNeg of ning
d, in (25b), in addition to the presence of abans and n-ad in
the subordinate clause defined with an inherenttext, both category
movement of the negative item ningeg of res to the Neg head apply,
thus building a NC struc-negative features with regard to the Neg
head of theaveridical interpretation.
ion some issues, independently motivated, which support.
istinction made in linguistic theory between Degt degree system
hypothesis postulated by Corver 1997)n Spanish sentences which
contain an overt degree oper-really, so, highly), and sentence
(1c).
es se lo habr dicho esto!es him.DatCL itCL have+FUT.1sg told
thisld him this so many times!
lo habr dicho veces esto!L itCL have+FUT.1sg told times thisld
him this so many times!le he advertido. (Moliner 1982)himDatCL
have.1sg noticed so many times!
-
Example (26a), as said before, has a covert degree operator,
whereas (26b-c)have an overt degree operator in italics. (26c)
shows that, when the degree spreadsnot over the whole sentence but
over a noun, bien is next to an explicit QP.
On the other hand, if we consider an example such as (1c)
(repeated here for con-venience),
(27) SpanishNo se lo habr dicho veces esto!not him.DatCL itCLI
must have told him
we shall be able to notice (26b), and the semantic paoperator
(inherently definno.
This paradigm suggestsentence such as (26b), whshould look like
(28),
(28) [DegP Si F Pos [CP/QP C
whereas (27) is assumed t
(29) [DegP Deg F Neg [CP/Q
5.2. The relevance of the ditems (Bosque 1996, G
Notice the ungramaticatain either bien or si and a
(30) a. *Bien no sequite not him
b. *Si no sequite not him.
This phenomenon wathat bien is an adverb of emphatic P, thus in
compsis put forward in this papcome from the lexicon wiLF these
lexical items arepolarity.
By contrast, a sentenceat the level of LF must not
64 CatWPL 8, 2000 M. Teresa Espinal
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 64have+ FUT.1sg said
times this this so many times!
that, in spite of the syntactic superficial similarity
withraphrase relation with (26a,b), (27) has a covert degreeed with
a nonveridical property) which licenses the PI
s that the syntactic representation that corresponds to aich has
a degree head defined with the feature [+ POS],
/Qi [ eci[ veces ]]]]
o have the syntactic structure in (29).
P C/Qi[ NegP no F Neg [ eci[ veces ]]]]]
istinction between triggers of polarity and polarityiannakidou
1997, Progovac 1994).lity, illustrated in (30), of Spanish
sentences which con-
negative marker.
lo puedo haber dicho veces esto..DatCL itCL may.1sg have told
times this
lo habr dicho veces esto.DatCL itCL have+FUT.1sg told times
this
s first described by Hernanz (1995), who postulatedpositive
polarity generated in the Spec position of anlementary distribution
with no. According to the analy-er, I shall claim that bien and si
are degree heads whichth the FF [+ DEG, + Q, + POS], so that at the
level of interpreted as veridical operators that trigger
positive
such as (27) contains a light negative marker no, whichbe
interpreted as a trigger of negative polarity but, rather,
-
as a polarity item with regard to a nonveridical Deg operator,
as has been repre-sented in (29).
5.3. The relevance of F movement at LF (Chomsky 1995)Consider
the data in (31):
(31) Spanisha. A cuntas personas no matar este dictador!
to how many pHow many peo
b. Qu de tonterwhat of nonseThis student ta
c. * Qu de tontwhat of nons
The analysis of degre[Spec,DegP] (either coverand no + V
movement intomeaning of the future tensnonspecific reading of
thexpressions that reject the1997).
5.4. The relevance of F mo(Watanabe 1997)
Although raising without pthe minimalist program it ition of
movement feeds th(1995), a set of FF is carriethat in covert
raising F movical item. It is not movemenframework, since this
mov
However, F movementtax. Thus, the cooccurrencexclamative wh-
sentenceof the FF [+DEG, -PLU] w(32).20
Expletive Negation, Negative Concord and Feature Checking CatWPL
8, 2000 65
19. See En (1996)20. I am most grateful to Jaume
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 65ersons not kill+FUT.3sg
this dictatorple this dictator must be killing!
as no dir este estudiante!nse not say+FUT.3sg this studentlks
such nonsense!
eras en concreto no dir este estudiante!ense specifically not
say+FUT.3sg this student
e wh-exclamatives requires both wh movement intot, in the case
of cuntas, or overt in the case of qu de), Deg, in order to account
for the non-referential modale19, the expletive reading of the
negative marker and thee wh-expressions (i.e. wh-phrases in
exclamatives are specific interpretation, as illustrated in (31c);
Espinal
vement and F pied-piping in overt syntax
ied-piping is more economical in some natural sense, ins assumed
that FF raise along with F because the opera-e feature checking
operation. According to Chomsky
d as a unit when only one of them is attracted. This meansement
automatically pied-pipes the rest of FF of the lex-t of the whole
category, as understood in the preminimalistement is not required
for convergence at PF. and F pied-piping seem also to be relevant
in overt syn-e of the Dutch quantifier een a with a plural noun
in
s can be accounted for by postulating overt movementhich define
een,in this specific configuration. Consider
Sol for bringing these examples to my attention.
-
(32) Dutcha. Wat heeft hij niet een vragen gesteld!
what has he not a questions raisedHe raised so many
questions!
b. Wat heeft hij niet een ellende veroorzaakt!what has he not a
mess causedHe created such a mess!
c. Wat een problemen!what a proHow many pr
It is interesting to notiniet + een is not fused intsupport of
Watanabe (199I would like to suggest tha
The singular determinexclamative wh- sentencetures licensing EN.
A natuis an optional and interpreLF. [PLU] of een mismatcancel out
the derivation.take with it raising of the checking configuration
wition with [+ DEG], since t
5.5. The relevance of bothnon-derivational op-Ctheory
Notice that examples sucderivational chain formedstrength of
FWh.
(33) [wati [[ ti een ] vr
Consider now the Spa
(34) Spanisha. Cuntas vec
how many timI must have to
b. No senot him.DatCL
66 CatWPL 8, 2000 M. Teresa Espinal
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 66blemsoblems!
ce that in Dutch this is one of the very few cases whereo geen,
which actually seems to provide an argument in7)s hypothesis.
Accordingly, in this particular structuret F movement takes place
in overt syntax.er een a can occur with a plural noun exclusively
ins, which in Modern Dutch are the only possible struc-ral way to
account for this could go as follows: [PLU]table feature, and
because of this it cannot be deleted atches [+ PLU] of vragen, and
mismatch of features should Therefore, raising of the [+ DEG]
feature of een must[PLU] feature, so that [ PLU] would be adjoined
in ath [+ DEG], although it would not be in a checking rela-hese
features do not match.
derivational chains (Chomsky 1995) andHAIN representations
(Brody 1993) in linguistic
h as the one in (32a) make explicit the existence of a by
movement, this movement being motivated by the
agen] ]
nish data in (34).
es no se lo habr dicho esto!es not him.DatCL itCL have+FUT.1sg
said thisld him this so many times!lo habr dicho veces esto! (=
1c)itCL have+ FUT.1sg said times this
-
I must have told him this so many times!c. *Cunta vez no se lo
habr dicho esto!
how many time not him.DatCL itCL have+ FUT.1sg said thisd. *No
se lo habr dicho vez esto!
not him.DatCL itCL have+ FUT.1sg said time this
Examples (34a,b) are important because they both show EN in a
degree sen-tence; but whereas (34a) makes explicit a chain formed
by wh- movement, (34b)makes explicit a chain conin degree
exclamatives the only with mass nouns andmassness or plurality.
The analysis of Spanis(expletive) operator-CHAImar in order to
account forin (32a,b) and the Spanish eifier of either a plural
nounconnection to an antecedethe form in (35).
(35) [ Opi [[ eci] veces
Evidence for this assumed in the [Spec,NP] positioveces times
requires a quanegative reading corresponhave a nonveridical
degree
(36) a. *Esto no sethis not him
b. Esto no sethis not him.DI may not have
The chain representatioabstract operator, which hathere would be
an operatoSpanish example in (34b),(32a,b)). The initial expletmine
a specific phonetic ingenerated in [Spec,NP] wou
Expletive Negation, Negative Concord and Feature Checking CatWPL
8, 2000 67
21. I thank M. Llusa Hernanz fo
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 67figuration without
overt movement. (34c,d) show thatdegree marker cannot combine with
singular nouns, but plural nouns, which are intensified for their
feature of
h degree sentences makes explicit that representationalNS la
Brody (1993) are needed in the theory of gram- the syntactic
parallelism between the Dutch examplesxample in (34b), since in
both structures there is a spec- or a mass noun that must be
identified through chain-nt. The structure corresponding to (34b)
can be given
] ]
ption and specifically for the empty category postulat-n stems
from the following contrast, which shows thatntifier.21 Consider
the ungrammaticality of (36a) and theding to (36b), whose syntactic
representation does not operator at head initial position.
lo habr dicho veces..DatCL itCL have+ FUT.1sg said times
lo habr dicho muchas veces.atCL itCL have+ FUT.1sg said many
times said this to him many times.
ns postulated in (33) and (35) would have at the edge ans a
suprasegmental correlate, and at the end of the chainr in [Spec,NP]
(which could be either empty, as in the or filled by a singular
Det, as in the Dutch examplesive operator would be a scope marker
and would deter-terpretation, licensed through intonation. The
operatorld be marked with FDeg and this feature would be
attract-
r bringing this point to my attention.
-
ed to the higher Deg operator at LF, which would determine its
appropriate seman-tic interpretation.
The theoretical implication of this argument is that the grammar
of natural lan-guages seem to require non-derivational op-CHAIN
representations, generated byprinciples of grammar and restricted
by conditions on well-formedness, as well asderivational chains
created by feature checking needs.
To conclude, there are several independent issues which support
some of theassumptions made in the analysis of EN and NC put
forward in this paper: the pos-tulation of a DegP (distinct from
CP/QP), the distinction between triggers of polar-ity and polarity
items, thesyntax, besides F movemeop-CHAIN representation
ReferencesBosque, I. (1980). Sobre la (1994). La negacin y
Gramtica del espaol. Mxico: El Colegio de
(1996). La polaridad mmanuscript.
Bosque, I.; Masullo, P. (19Complutense de Madridin Fullana, O.;
Roca, F. Girona: Universitat de G
Brody, M. (1993). Lexico-College London, unpub
Chomsky, N. (1995). The mCorver, N. (1997). Much suElliott, D.E.
(1974). Toward
p. 231-246.En, M. (1996). Tense and
porary semantic theoryEspinal, M.T. (1992). Ex
Review 9.4, p. 333-358. (1997). Non-negative n
P.; Martineau, F.; RiveroAmsterdam: John Benja
(2000). On the semantp. 557-580.
Giannakidou, A. (1997). Thtion.
Grevisse, M. (1986). Le bonGrimshaw, J. (1979). Com
10.2, p. 279-326.Haegeman, L. (1995). The s
68 CatWPL 8, 2000 M. Teresa Espinal
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 68 postulation of F
movement and F pied-piping in overtnt at LF, and, finally, the
postulation of nonderivationals, besides derivational chains.
negacin. Madrid: Ctedra.el principio de las categoras vacas. In
Demonte, V. (ed.)Publicaciones de la Nueva Revista de Filologa
Hispnica.Mxico, p. 167-199.odal. Universidad Complutense de Madrid,
unpublished
96). On verbal quantification in Spanish. Universidad and
Universidad Nacional del Comahue, manuscript. Also(eds.). Studies
on the syntax of central Romance languages.
irona, 1998.logical form. A radically minimalist approach.
Universitylished manuscript.inimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.pport as a Last Resort. Linguistic Inquiry, 28.1, p. 119-164.
a grammar of exclamations. Foundations of Language 11,
modality. In Lappin, S. (ed.). The handbook of contem-. Oxford:
Blackwell, p. 345-358.pletive negation and logical absorption. The
Linguistic
egation and wh- exclamatives. In Forget, D.; Hirschbhler,, M.L.
(eds.). Negation and polarity. Syntax and Semantics.mins,
p.75-93.ic status of n-words in Catalan and Spanish. Lingua
110,
e landscape of polarity items. Groningen, Ph.D. disserta-
usage. Paris: ditions Duculot.plement selection and the lexicon.
Linguistic Inquiry
yntax of negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Haegeman, L.; Zanuttini, R. (1991). Negative heads and the Neg
Criterion. TheLinguistic Review 8, p. 233-252.
Hernanz, M.L. (1995). Bien y la polaridad positiva en espaol.
Ms. Universitat Autnomade Barcelona. Also in Polaridad y modalidad
en espaol: en torno a la gramtica debien. Bellaterra: Universitat
Autnoma de Barcelona, Research Report GGT-99-6.
Ladusaw, W.A. (1980). On the notion affective in the analysis of
negative-polarityitems. Journal of Linguistic Research 1.2, p.
1-16.
(1992). Expressing negation. University of California Santa
Cruz, Syntax ResearchCenter 92-03.
(1996). Negation and polarity items. In Lappin, S. (ed.). The
handbook of con-temporary semantic theory. Oxford: Blackwell, p.
321-341.
Laka, I. (1990). Negation in syntax: on the nature of functional
categories and projec-tions. MIT, Ph.D. dissertation.
(1993). Negative fronting in Romance: movement to (. In Ashby,
W.J. (ed.).Linguistic perspectives on the Romance languages.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins,p. 315-333.
Llorens, E. (1929). La negacin en espaol antiguo con referencia
a otros idiomas.Anejo de la Revista de
Meibauer, J. (1990). Sentenicht in German. Ling
Moliner, M. (1982). DiccioMontague, R. (1969). On
son, R.H. (ed.). FormaHave: Yale University P
Postner, P.; Zanuttini, R. (19rogatives. Georgetown
Progovac, L. (1994). NegatiCambridge University P
Quer, J. (1993). The syntacBarcelona, MA disserta
(1998). Mood at the inGraphics.
Suer, M. (1995). NegativeReview 12, p. 233-273.
Watanabe, A. (1997). AbsInternational Studies, u
Zanuttini, R. (1991). Syntacof Romance languages.
Zwarts, F. (1995). Nonver
Expletive Negation, Negative Concord and Feature Checking CatWPL
8, 2000 69
CatWPL 8 001-137 29/5/2001 17:29 Pgina 69Filologa Espaola.
Madrid.nce mood, lexical category filling, and
non-propositional
uistische Berichte 130, p. 441-463.nario de uso del espaol.
Madrid: Gredos. the nature of certain philosophical entities. In
Thoma-l philosophy. Selected papers of Richard Montague. Newress,
1974, p. 148-187.98). The force of negation in wh- exclamatives and
inter- University, manuscript.on and positive polarity: A binding
approach. Cambridge:ress.tic licensing of negative items.
Universitat Autnoma detion.terface. Ph.D. Thesis. Amsterdam:
Holland Academic
elements, island effects and resumptive no. The Linguistic
orption as feature checking. Tokyo: Kanda University
ofnpublished manuscript.tic properties of sentential negation: a
comparative study
University of Pennsylvania,Ph.D. dissertation.idical contexts.
Linguistic Analysis 25, p. 286-312.
Expletive Negation, Negative Concord and Feature
CheckingAbstractResum. Negaci expletiva, concordana negativa i
comprovaci de trets
Table of Contents1. Aim2. EN. Structural Configuration3. NC in
Catalan and Spanish4. Similarities and Differences between EN and
NC4.1. Clause-boundedness and strict locality4.2. Negative
Absorption as Feature Checking4.3. Sensitivity to
Nonveridicality
5. Related Issues5.1. The relevance of the distinction made in
linguistic theory between Deg and C/Q5.2. The relevance of the
distinction between triggers of polarity and polarity items5.3. The
relevance of F movement at LF (Chomsky 1995)5.4. The relevance of F
movement and F pied-piping in overt syntax (Watanabe 1997)5.5. The
relevance of both derivational chains (Chomsky 1995) and
non-derivational op-CHAIN representations
References