E-Book, Englisch, Band Band 003, 216 Seiten
Syntax, Semantics, and Variation
E-Book, Englisch, Band Band 003, 216 Seiten
Reihe: Wiener Arbeiten zur Linguistik
ISBN: 978-3-8470-0560-5
Verlag: V&R unipress
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 0 - No protection
Negation is a universal feature of human language that is inherently logical in nature, presents typologically diverse manifestations, and plays a fundamental role in the mapping between syntactic structure and semantic interpretation. The aim of this volume is to complement the vast body of research literature by offering a set of cutting-edge studies on negation. All the contributions are related to recent questions bearing on the syntax and semantics of negative elements and the variation in their form, and follow the central assumption that a proper understanding of the multifaceted expression of negation is central to our understanding of the grammar as a whole. With this in mind, different approaches and a variety of empirical and analytic details have been included in this volume.
Autoren/Hrsg.
Fachgebiete
Weitere Infos & Material
1;Title Page;4
2;Copyright;5
3;Table of Contents;6
4;Silvio Cruschina, Katharina Hartmann & Eva-Maria Remberger: Introduction;8
5;Body;8
5.1;1. Presentation of the volume;8
5.2;2. Themes of the volume;9
5.2.1;2.1 Syntactic representation of negation;10
5.2.2;2.2 Types of negative markers;12
5.2.3;2.3 Scope readings in negative contexts;14
5.3;3. Structure and contents of this volume;14
5.4;Acknowledgements;18
5.5;References;19
6;Anne Breitbarth: Jespersen's Cycle Minimize Structure + Feature Economy;22
6.1;1. Overview;22
6.2;2. Jespersen's Cycle in historical Low German;23
6.3;3. NegP approaches to Jespersen's cycle;26
6.4;4. Jespersen's Cycle without NegP;31
6.4.1;4.1 Penka's NegP-free approach to NC and negation typology;31
6.4.2;4.2 Jespersen's Cycle (and negation typology) Minimize Structure + Feature Economy;32
6.4.3;4.3 Back to Jespersen's Cycle in historical Low German;39
6.5;5. No one's problem;40
6.6;6. Conclusion;45
6.7;References;46
7;Karen De Clercq: The nanosyntax of French negation: A diachronic perspective;50
7.1;1. Introduction;51
7.2;2. Jespersen's Cycle;52
7.3;3. Classifying negative markers;56
7.4;4. The Nanosyntax of negation;61
7.5;5. French;69
7.5.1;5.1 Le bon usage French;69
7.5.2;5.2 Colloquial French;73
7.5.3;5.3 A note on diachronic change;75
7.5.4;5.4 A note on negative arguments;76
7.5.5;5.5 Summary;76
7.6;6. Conclusion;77
7.7;References;77
8;Cecilia Poletto: Negative Doubling: In favour of a “Big NegP” analysis;82
8.1;1. Introduction;82
8.2;2. On the internal layering of NegP;84
8.2.1;2.1 Movement of negative markers;88
8.3;3. Negative doubling and clitic doubling;92
8.3.1;3.1 NegP doubling has the same properties as DP doubling;93
8.3.2;3.2 Clause bound phenomenon;95
8.3.3;3.3 Constituent negation;95
8.4;4. Possible combinations between negative markers;96
8.5;5. The internal structure of NegP;100
8.6;6. Concluding remarks;102
8.7;References;103
9;Adam Ledgeway: Marking presuppositional negation in the dialects of southern Italy;106
9.1;1. Introduction;107
9.2;2. Southern Italian negator manco;108
9.2.1;2.1 Northern Calabrian mancu;110
9.2.1.1;2.1.1 Northern Calabrian Presuppositional Negation: Syntactic Marking;112
9.3;3. Salentino filu;114
9.3.1;3.1 Salentino presuppositional negation: lexical marking;116
9.3.2;3.2 Florentine punto: A short excursus;122
9.3.3;3.3 Salentino filu revisited;124
9.4;4. Calabrian mancu revisited;126
9.5;5. Conclusion;127
9.6;References;129
10;Maria Barouni: Challenging the strict vs. non-strict distinction of Negative Concord: A syntactic proposal;132
10.1;1. Introduction;133
10.1.1;1.1 Negative Concord in Greek;133
10.1.2;1.2 New evidence. Class of ou- elements;134
10.2;2. Zeijlstra's theory and the class of ou-elements;136
10.2.1;2.1 Zeijlstra (2004, 2008a,b);136
10.2.2;2.2 The negative operator;138
10.2.3;2.3 Applying Zeijlstra's (2004, 2008a,b) and B&Z's (2012) theory;139
10.3;3. Status of the NMs in NCLs;141
10.3.1;3.1 Criteria for the status of NMs;141
10.3.1.1;3.1.1 Different readings with quantificational DPs;141
10.3.1.2;3.1.2 Data in conflict: evidence from Greek, Romanian, Italian and Spanish;142
10.3.1.3;3.1.3 Non-strict NC languages;144
10.3.2;3.2 (Non) optionality of the NM;146
10.4;4. The proposal;147
10.4.1;4.1 Status of the NMs;147
10.4.2;4.2 Status of n-words: n-words with interpretable versions, [iNEG] or [uNEG];149
10.4.3;4.3 Is there independent evidence for the existence of the covert operator?;152
10.5;5. Predictions of the theory;153
10.6;6. Summary;153
10.7;References;154
11;Jakob Steixner: Focus Intervention and Double Negation in Bavarian;158
11.1;1. Introduction;159
11.2;2. Basic Properties of Bavarian Negative Concord;161
11.2.1;2.1 Optionality of NC;161
11.2.2;2.2 Intervening elements;162
11.3;3. Syntax of Bavarian Negative Concord;163
11.3.1;3.1 A low position of the negation marker ned;164
11.3.2;3.2 The negative operator;166
11.3.3;3.3 Deriving double negation;168
11.3.4;3.4 Agree vs. Absorption;169
11.4;4. Negative Concord and information structure;171
11.4.1;4.1 Background;171
11.4.2;4.2 Contrastivity;171
11.4.2.1;4.2.1 Contrast on DPs preceding ned;171
11.4.2.2;4.2.2 ned-NI orders and contrastivity;174
11.4.3;4.3 Focus and intervention effects;175
11.4.4;4.4 Quantifying adverbs;177
11.4.4.1;4.4.1 Blocking of NC with ?often';177
11.4.4.2;4.4.2 NC and ?often' with Topicalization;178
11.5;5. Summary and Outlook;180
11.6;References;182
12;Doris Penka: Splitting at most;186
12.1;1. Introduction;186
12.2;2. Superlative modifiers and ignorance inferences;189
12.2.1;2.1 Speaker insecurity and authoritative readings of at least and at most;189
12.2.2;2.2 Ignorance inferences as quantity implicatures;191
12.2.3;2.3 Interaction of superlative modifiers with necessity modals;194
12.2.4;2.4 Interaction of superlative modifiers with possibility modals;197
12.2.5;2.5 Summary of predictions of the neo-Gricean account;199
12.3;3. A decompositional analysis of at most;199
12.3.1;3.1 Decomposing at most;199
12.3.2;3.2 Alternatives and ignorance inferences of at most;201
12.3.3;3.3 Interaction of at most with possibility modals;202
12.3.4;3.4 Interaction of at most with necessity modals;206
12.4;4. A unified analysis of split scope?;209
12.5;5. Summary and conclusion;210
12.6;References;211
13;Index;214
