Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this article I show that, when compared to other English negative quantifiers, no behaves unexpectedly when diagnostic tests of sentential negation are applied. I argue that this can be accounted for within an approach to negative quantifiers that assumes them to be complex syntactic objects involving a negative head and an existential Determiner Phrase (DP) and that allows Parallel Merge to generate multidominant phrase markers. Within this view, the verb selects just the existential part of the negative quantifier, while Negation (Neg) also (Parallel) Merges with it. In the case of no I claim that, unlike what is the case for other negative quantifiers, Neg only targets the D head rather than the entire existential DP. This results in a complex left-branching structure that, as such, needs to be transferred upon Merge, thus freezing Neg in the Tense Phrase (TP). As TP is the syntactic domain that sentential negation tests are sensitive to, no can do nothing but behave consistently in sentential negation tests, showing, unlike other negative quantifiers, no asymmetry related to the position where it occurs. En este artículo se muestra que, en comparación con otros cuantificadores negativos del inglés, no se comporta de forma inesperada cuando se aplican los diagnósticos de negación oracional. Se argumenta que esto se puede explicar en un enfoque donde los cuantificadores negativos son objetos sintácticos complejos con un núcleo negativo y un Sintagma Determinante (SD) existencial y que permite que el Ensamble Paralelo genere marcadores sintagmáticos multidominantes. Así, el verbo selecciona sólo la parte existencial del cuantificador negativo, mientras que la Negación (Neg) también se Ensambla (Paralelamente) con ésta. En el caso de no se afirma que, a diferencia de lo que sucede con otros cuantificadores negativos, la Neg sólo se combina con el núcleo D y no con el SD existencial entero. El resultado es una estructura compleja que se ramifica a la izquierda que, como tal, debe transferirse en cuanto se Ensambla, congelando así la Neg en el Sintagma Tiempo (ST). Dado que el ST es el dominio sintáctico al que los diagnósticos de negación oracional son sensibles, no no puede más que comportarse de forma consistente en los diagnósticos de negación oracional, sin mostrar, a diferencia de otros cuantificadores negativos, ninguna asimetría relacionada con la posición en la que ocurre.

In this paper we investigate the diachronic changes in negation and Emphatic Focus that are responsible for the distribution of negated adjuncts in Present Day English. These can occur clause-medially and clause-initially, but generally not clause-finally. While clause-initial negated adjuncts move to the left-periphery triggering Negative Inversion for emphasis, clause-medial negated adjuncts are argued to occur in their first-merged position as v P-adjuncts. We relate the inability of clause-final negated adjuncts to express sentential negation to the loss of Prosodic-movement and Negative Concord in the transition from Late Middle English to Early Modern English. The eventual loss of Negative Concord is related to the reanalysis of negative words from non-negative (i.e. [ u Neg]) to negative (i.e. [ i Neg]). Upon loss of Prosodic-movement, reanalysis of negative words as [ i Neg] results in the rise of Negative Inversion to express Focus.

In this paper, the unexpected behavior of object negative quantifiers in some diagnostic tests of sentential negation is accounted for within a Minimalist framework assuming that: (i) negative quantifiers decompose into negation and an existential quantifier; (ii) negative quantifiers are multidominant phrase markers, as Parallel Merge allows the verb to c-select their existential part but not their negative part, thus giving negation remerge flexibility; (iii) tag questions involve or-coordination of TPs, and neither/so clauses involve and-coordination of TPs; (iv) two positions for sentential negation are available in English, one below TP (PolP2), and one above TP (PolP1). Activation of either PolP1 or PolP2 in the absence of other scope-taking operators corresponds to two distinct grammars. If PolP1 is active, the negative part of an object negative quantifier remerges in its Specifier valuing the [upol: ] feature of Pol1 as negative ([upol:neg]) while skipping the TP-domain. As no negative formal feature is present in the TP, a negative question tag is required, as well as so-coordination, too-licensing and Yes, I guess so ‘expression of agreement’. Conversely, if PolP2 is active, the negative part of the object negative quantifier remerges in the TP-domain (in Spec, PolP2), thus requiring a positive question tag, neither-coordination, either-licensing, and No, I guess not.

En este artículo se muestra que, en comparación con otros cuantificadores negativos del inglés, no se comporta de forma inesperada cuando se aplican los diagnósticos de negación oracional. Se argumenta que esto se puede explicar en un enfoque donde los cuantificadores negativos son objetos sintácticos complejos con un núcleo negativo y un Sintagma Determinante (SD) existencial y que permite que el Ensamble Paralelo genere marcadores sintagmáticos multidominantes. Así, el verbo selecciona sólo la parte existencial del cuantificador negativo, mientras que la Negación (Neg) también se Ensambla (Paralelamente) con ésta. En el caso de no se afirma que, a diferencia de lo que sucede con otros cuantificadores negativos, la Neg sólo se combina con el núcleo D y no con el SD existencial entero. El resultado es una estructura compleja que se ramifica a la izquierda que, como tal, debe transferirse en cuanto se Ensambla, congelando así la Neg en el Sintagma Tiempo (ST). Dado que el ST es el dominio sintáctico al que los diagnósticos de negación oracional son sensibles, no no puede más que comportarse de forma consistente en los diagnósticos de negación oracional, sin mostrar, a diferencia de otros cuantificadores negativos, ninguna asimetría relacionada con la posición en la que ocurre.

In this paper we experimentally investigate (i) how native speakers of English interpret negative quantifiers (e.g. nobody, nothing) when used as fragment answers to negative wh-questions in the absence of a biasing context, and (ii) whether their preferences correlate to their interpretation of full sentences with a negative quantifier co-occurring with a negative marker. Despite an overall preference for double negation interpretation, in which each syntactic negation contributes independently to the semantics, our results show that speakers also allow single negation to different extents both for fragment answers and for full clauses. Results also revealed a correlation between participants’ interpretation. If they interpreted fragment answers as single negation, then they also tended to interpret full clauses as single negation, and the same was true for double negation interpretations. We account for these findings by postulating the existence of two different lexical variants for English negative indefinites (a negative quantifier one, ¬∃, and a Negative Concord Item one, ∃[neg]) that can explain why both a double negation and a single negation reading are possible for our participants when interpreting full sentences. For fragments, we show that both double negation and single negation readings can obtain with either of the two lexical variants for nothing, nobody and the like in approaches to ellipsis with different degrees of strictness on syntactic identity of the fragment with the antecedent.

The syntactic behaviour of English minimizers such as (not) alone word, (not) alone bit and (not) sleep alone wink is puzzling: while they can behave as polarity items (PIs) in non-negative and negative contexts, they become negative quantifiers (NQs) when merged with a negation in negative contexts. Unlike previous accounts, where emphasis is put mainly on highlighting the similarity of minimizers to any-PIs and on supporting the contribution of an even-reading, I integrate the peculiar behaviour of minimizers in English within an analysis of negative indefinites as existential quantifiers that can structurally associate with negation in different ways. I claim that English minimizers contain three basic ingredients: a Numeral Phrase, a Focus particle and, in negative contexts, a Negative Phrase, not. The presence of a Focus particle even in the structure of minimizers plus the flexible merging possibilities of not with respect to the other two components of the minimizer result in their NQ-like behaviour, which can be now fully integrated into a theory of negative indefinites as syntactic objects that are compositionally built.

In the present paper a syntactic analysis is put forward for the particle innit within a cartographic approach to pragmatic particles and a theory of speech acts. I claim here that when functioning as facilitative and epistemic, innit is not a non-canonical question tag, but rather a confirmatory pragmatic particle that requires the addressee to confirm that the proposition asserted is treated as common ground. Furthermore, the fact that the confirmatory particle innit is inherently negative explains some parallelisms between the syntax of declarative clauses containing innit, the syntax of questions with question tags and the syntax of negated polar questions where negation is interpreted high (outside Tense Phrase). Adapted from the source document

In the present paper I investigate, from a Minimalist perspective and using data from the Freiburg English Dialect corpus, the patterns of Negative Concord (NC) attested in different Traditional Dialects of British English. By arguing that lexical variation exists in the negative operator used to express sentential negation, which is truly semantic in Standard English but carries an interpretable negative feature in Traditional Dialects of British English, I explain why NC, understood as syntactic Agree between [iNeg] and [uNeg] features, is attested in the latter but not in the former. In the same vein, by arguing that in Traditional Dialects of British English two lexical entries are possible for n-words which contrast in the interpretability of the negative feature they carry ([iNeg] vs. [uNeg]), the optionality of NC in the studied Non-Standard dialects of English as well as the different patterns observed in the data can be accounted for.

In this paper, we revisit the phenomenon of Negative Concord focusing on the Strict vs. Non-Strict divide. With Catalan as a case in point, we show that Negative Concord Items (NCIs) are not negative quantifiers (NQs) or polarity items (PIs) but inherently negative indefinites by virtue of carrying a negative feature [neg] that contributes a negative semantics to the proposition and is subject to a syntax–phonology constraint that forces it to overtly c-command Tense in compliance with Jespersen’s NegFirst principle. We argue that to satisfy such constraint, [neg] can disembody from the NCI via overt Move F(eature) to adjoin at a pre-Infl(ection) position and be Spelled-Out homophonous to the negative marker. The Strict vs. Non-Strict contrast follows from whether [neg] always moves independently from the rest of the NCI via Move F (Strict Negative Concord) or predates, whenever possible, on another movement of the NCI that places [neg] in the required pre-Infl position (Non-Strict Negative Concord) thus not having to disembody.

This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation that looks into the acceptability and interpretation judgements that Basque native speakers give to sentences with multiple i-/bat ere indefinites in declarative sentences. It is argued that Basque i-/bat ere indefinites are Polarity Items (PIs) rather than Negative Concord Items (NCIs), as they are consistently associated with an existential reading in unacceptable declarative sentences without an overt negative licensor. That is, Basque i-/bat ere indefinites never give rise to a negative interpretation in the absence of an overt negative marker. It is also argued that Basque PIs differ from NCIs in Strict Negative Concord languages such as Greek in relevant ways, thus reinforcing the conclusion that Basque is not a NC language. This study contributes to a better understanding of the conditions that an indefinite expression must meet to be classified as a PI or as an NCI.