PACLIC 17 10/03/2003 Singapore
Non-monotonic Negativity
Sumiyo Nishiguchi
Osaka University
UCLA
1
New Description of
NPI Licensers

Non-Upward Entailingness


Downward entailing + Non-monotonic
 contra Ladusaw 1979,1980
 expansion from Progovac 1992,1994
Non-monotonic licensers
 Exclusivity condition
 license weak NPIs (any, ever)
2
Anti UEness
Ladusaw’s DE
theory

DE
Nonmonotonic
UE
Non-UE
License
weak NPIs
3
Negative Polarity Items (NPIs)
► any,
anything, anymore, ever, at all, whatsoever,
budge an inch, care to VP, bother V-ing.
(1)a. I didn’t realize that he admired her at all.
b. *He admired her at all.
►
(Klima 1964:282)
(2)a. None of the rivals said anything whatsoever.
b. *Some of the rivals said anything whatsoever.
(Hoeksema 1986a:35)
4
Varieties of NPI licensers
►
►
►
►
►
►
(3) At most:
a.
At most three women have ever loved him.
b.
?At least three women have ever loved him.
(4) Every:
a.
Every student who had ever read anything
about phrenology attended the lecture.
b.
*Some student who had ever read anything
about phrenology attended the lecture.
►
►
(Ladusaw 1980:3)
(5) Only:
a.
Only Bill had ever read anything about phrenology.
b.
*Even Bill had ever read anything about phrenology.
5
Attempts to capture the common
feature of NPI licensers








Ladusaw (1979,1980)
Linebarger (1980)
Zwarts (1993)
van der Wouden (1997)
Giannakidou (1998)
Progovac (1988,1992,1994)
von Fintel (1999)
Yoshimura (1992)
Counterexamples
6
Ladusaw’s DE Theory
(Ladusaw 1979, 1980)
 “A negative-polarity item is acceptable only if it is
interpreted in the scope of a downward-entailing
expression.”
(Ladusaw 1980:13)
 Every:
↓MON
✓TRIGGER
(7)a. Every student who had ever read anything on
phrenology attended the lecture.
b. *Every student who attended the lecture had ever read
anything about phrenology.
c.
Every man walks.
→
Every father walks.
d.
Every man walks. −/→
Every man walks slowly.
(ibid.:6)
man
father
7
Problems with DE theory
Linebarger 1980; Hoeksema 1986; Nishiguchi 2002
Only: ⇞⇟ MON ⇞⇟
(8)a.
b.
✓ TRIGGER ✓
Only people who know a language will be
admitted to the lecture. →??
Only people who know a Romance language
will be admitted to the lecture.
Only people who have ever been to Paris will
be admitted to the lecture.
Superlatives: ⇞⇟ MON ⇞⇟
✓TRIGGER ✓
(9)a.
John is the greatest man who ever lived. ←/→
 b.
John is the greatest man who ever lived in Japan.
Ordinal numerals: ⇞⇟ MON

(10)a.
 b.
✓ TRIGGER
(Nishiguchi 2002)
John is the second European who has ever seen that
sacred statue. ←/→
John is the second European who has ever seen that
sacred female statue.
8
Problems with Linebarger
(1980, 1987)
 Two-fold condition
 Immediate scope contraint
 Negative implicatum (NI)
Counterexamples: glad, happy lack NI, but trigger
NPIs.

(14)

A:
But these tickets are terrible!
B:
Be glad we got ANY tickets!


(15)

(Kadmon and Landman 1993:384)
I am happy you passed the entrance exam.
--/-- >
I had expected that you would not pass the entrance exam.
9
Nonveridicality
Zwarts (1995)
Giannakidou (1998,1999,2001)
Licensing condition for affective polarity items
ⅰ.
An affective polarity item a will be
licensed in a sentence S iff S provides some
expressions g which is nonveridical, and a is
in the scope of g.
ⅱ.
In certain cases, a may be licensed indirectly in
S iff S gives rise to a negative implicature f, and
a is in the scope of negation in f.
(Giannakidou 1998:149)
10
Counterexamples to nonveridicality
 Glad, happy:
 neither nonveridical nor accommodating negative
implicature.
(22)
(23)
I was glad that John had llamas in his apartment.
→
John had llamas in his apartment.

(veridical)
I was glad that John had llamas in his apartment.
--/-->
I had expected that John would not have llamas
in his apartment.
11
A Hierarchy of Negative Expressions
(Zwarts 1993; van der Wouden 1997)
Nonmonotonic









weak
strong
superstrong
monotone decreasing: few, seldom, hardly
f(X)f(Y) f(XY)
f(XY) f(X)f(Y)
anti-additive: nobody, never, nothing
f(X)f(Y) f(XY)
f(XY) f(X)f(Y)
f(X)f(Y)  f(XY)
antimorphic
not, not the teacher, not Judas
f(XY)  f(X)f(Y)
f(X)f(Y)  f(XY)
f(XY) f(X)f(Y)
f(X)f(Y)  f(XY)
(van der Wouden 1997:106)
.
12
 Strawson DE
(von Fintel 1999)
 A Binding Approach
(Progovac 1988, 1992, 1994)
 Cognitive Structure of Negation
(Yoshimura 1992, 1996)
13
Anti-UE
Non-UE contexts can license NPIs.
Expansion on Progovac (1992) on questions

(42) A function f of type <s, t> is the NPI
licenser iff for all x, y of type s such that
x → y, f(x)−/→ f(y)
14
Anti UEness

Ladusaw’s
DE theory
DE
Nonmonotonic
UE
Non-UE
15
Non-monotonic determiners
Ordinal numerals
(48) Ordinal numerals: ⇞⇟ MON ✓TRIGGER
(Nishiguchi 2002)

a.
John is the second European who
has ever seen that sacred statue.
←/→

b.
John is the second European who has
ever seen that sacred female statue.
Fred was the first to ever swim
across the Adriatic.
(Hoeksema 2000:116)
C.

It was the first time she had ever
seen fear in Connor O'Dell's eyes.
(British National Corpus FPM 369 )
16
determiner the
generic NP






(49) The: ⇞⇟ MON, ✓TRIGGER
a.
The man who has ever learned any language was
admitted to the lectures. ←/→
The man who has ever learned a Romance language
was admitted to the lectures.
(50) Generic NP: ⇞⇟ MON, ✓TRIGGER
a.
Dogs have four legs. −/→
Dogs that have been in accidents involving chain
saws have four legs.

b.
(Heim 1984:103)
Students who have ever read anything about
phrenology attended the lecture.
17
exactly n, the n
- Non-monotonic determiners
(43) Exactly n: ⇞⇟MON ⇞⇟

a.
✓TRIGGER ✓
(Ladusaw 1980)
Exactly five people who had ever learned anything
about phrenology attended the lectures.

c.

Exactly ten people played sports. ←/→
Exactly ten women played sports.
(44) The n: ⇞⇟MON

a.

b.
✓TRIGGER
The five men walk. ←/→
The five young men walk.
The four people who dared to have a bite were
poisoned.
18
(precisely) n, nearly all
-Non-monotonic determiners

(45) (Precisely) n : ⇞⇟MON⇞⇟ ✓ TRIGGER ✓
 a.
Seven men walk. ←/→Seven young men walk.
 b.
Seven men walk. ←/→ Seven men walk slowly.
 c.
Five people who dared to have a bite were
poisoned.

(46) Nearly all: ⇞⇟MON ✓ TRIGGER
 a.
Nearly all men walk. ←/→ Nearly all young men
walk.


b.
Nearly all men who have ever learned anything
c.
about phrenology were admitted to the lectures.
Nearly all people who dared to have a bite were
poisoned.
19
few
-Non-monotonic determiner
(47) Few2: ⇞⇟ MON ✓TRIGGER

a.
Few men walk down the street.
←/→


b.

c.
Few young men walk down the street.
Few men who have ever learned
anything about phrenology were
admitted to the lectures.
Few men who dared to have a bite
were poisoned.
20
Non-monotonic expressions




If-clause
If and only if-clause
be happy
be glad
21
If
If and only if
(51)


(52)


If-clause:
(Linebarger 1980)
a.
If you ever come to Japan you will have
fun. −/→
b.
If you ever come to Japan and become
sick, you will have fun.
If and only if – clause:
a.
The ER series will end if and only if John
Carter is ever assassinated. ←/→
b.
The ER series will end if and only if any of
the staff is ever assassinated.
22
glad, happy

(53) Glad:
a.
b.
John is glad he will teach, but John is not glad
he will teach on Tuesdays. He prefers Wednesdays.
I’m glad ANYBODY likes me!


(Kadmon and Landman 1993:384)
(54) Happy:
(Lee 1999)



a.
b.
I am happy that there is any food left.
I am happy he bought a car. ←/→
I am happy he bought a Honda.
23
hope

(55)a.
These razor blades are going like
hotcakes. I hope there’s any left.

b.
(Horn 2001:184)
Nicholas hopes to get a free trip on the
Concorde. So Nicholas hopes to get a trip on
the Concorde.

(Asher 1987:171)
24
Non-monotonic licensers:

NM determiners

⇞⇟MON ⇞⇟ ✓TRIGGER✓:
only, exactly n, (precisely) n, superlatives

⇞⇟ MON
the, the n, ordinal numerals, Generic NPs, nearly
all, few2



✓TRIGGER :
NM non-determiners

if, if and only if, happy, glad, hope
25
Exclusivity:
Common feature of NM
determiners

(57)
a is a non-monotonic licenser of
type <et, <et,t>>
iff
[[a]] =lf D<e,t> . [lg  D<e,t> .
for all xDe such that g(x)=1, f(x)=1]
(58)
[[the]] = lf  D<e,t> . [lg  D<e,t> .
for all x De such that g(x)=1,
f(x) = 1]
26
the n

(58)


(59)
[[the three]] =lf  D<e,t> .
[lg  D<e,t> . there are some x1, x2,
and x3, such that f(x1)= 1, f(x2)=1,
f(x3)=1, g(x1)= 1, g(x2)=1, and g(x3)=1,
and for all y such that f(y) = 1, y≠x1,
y≠x2, and y≠x3, g(y) = 0]
The three men walk. ←/→
The three men walk slowly.
27
No other than x is g(y):
common assertion











(63) Only Muriel voted for Hubert. ---->
No one other than Muriel voted for Hubert.
(Horn 1969:98-99)
(65) Exactly five children were injured. ---->
No other children than the exactly five were injured.
(66) Joan is the most beautiful woman I have ever met. ---->
No one other than Joan is the most beautiful woman.
(67) Franklin was the second man who came in. ---->
No one other than Franklin was the second man who came in.
(68) Few students came in. ---->
No one other than few students came in.
28
Exclusivity:
non-determiners

(68)
I will go if and only if it does not
rain.
---->
I will not go if it rains.
I hope to get a new car.



(69)


---->
I do not hope to get anything else,
like an old car.
29
Generalization
(70)
Non-monotonic contexts
which meet exclusivity
condition can license weak
NPIs.
30
Strengthening effect: Motivation
behind NPI licensing in NM contexts

(72) a.
b.

Taro is the only Japanese who has ever been
to Shostka.
Taro is the only Japanese who has been to
Shostka.
(73) a.
Men with any sense avoid installment plans.
 b.
Men with sense avoid installment plans.
Wideners any and ever create stronger statements, excluding
any possibilities (Kadmon and Landman 1993).
31
SUMMARY
• New description of NPI licensers
• Non UE
• Exclusivity
• Non-monotonic scope triggers weak NPIs
• Strengthening effects motivate licensing
NPIs in non-monotonic contexts
32