Advanced Topics in Language and Cognition
Roberto Zamparelli
Dipartimento di Psicologia e Scienze Cognitive /
Centro Interdipartimentale Mente e Cervello
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
1 / 104
Table of Contents
1
General Info
2
Topics
3
Propositional logic
4
Sentence and contituent negation
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
2 / 104
Course Schedule
Time (from September 22 to Nov. 3, some changes likely)
Tuesday, 09:00–10:45, Palazzo Istruzione, Corso Bettini
Wednesday, 10.45–12.30, Palazzo Istruzione
Thursday, 10.45–12.30
Office hours:
Tuesday, 12–13 and 14–15, CIMEC, Palazzo Fedrigotti, Corso Bettini 31, second
floor, North side. Please email me before coming, if possible.
Office: Palazzo Fedrigotti, Corso Bettini 31, 2nd floor N (C227), tel. 0464 808613
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
3 / 104
Topics of the course
NO
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
4 / 104
Topics of the course
Negation
Logic
Syntax and cross-linguistic distribution
Negation and quantification
Negation presuppositions and focus
Negation and computation
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
5 / 104
Logic
Negation among other logical connectives
Predicate negation
Readings: Any introduction to propositional logic.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
6 / 104
Syntax and cross-linguistic distribution
Where do negative words appear?
English vs. Italian vs. French vs . . .
Is there a unitary analysis of negation?
Readings:
I. Pollock (1989) ‘Verb Movement, Universal Grammar and the Structure of IP”
(first 3 sections)
I. Laka (1990) “Negation in syntax–on the nature of functional categories”. MIT
PhD. Diss. (Parts)
R. Zanuttini (1997)
Syntactic properties of sentential negation. A comparative study of Romance languag
(Parts)
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
7 / 104
Negative Polarity Items
Distribution of Negative Polarity Items
(1)
John had never seen anyone he knew ever do such a thing.
Readings:
Anastasia Giannakidou (2008)
“Negative and positive polarity items: Variation, licensing, and compositionality”, in
Maienborn, Claudia, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner (eds). Semantics: An
International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.‘
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
8 / 104
Negation and Quantification
To what extent can ‘negative quantifiers’ be seen as the combination of negation
and a positive quantifier?
(2)
a.
b.
Not many people accepted.
Few people accepted.
(3)
Gianni non ha visto nessuno
Gianni not has seen nobody
“Gianni didn’t see anybody
(4)
Hai
visto {nessuno / qualcuno}?
Have_you seen {nobody / anybody}
(5)
Lui ha aspettato finchè lei (non) è arrivata.
he has waited untill she (not) has arrived
Readings:
P. Acquaviva (1994) “The representation of operator-variable dependencies in
sentential negation”, Studia Linguistica 48(2) (in dropbox)
H. H. Zeijlstra (2004) Sentential Negation and Negative Concord, PhD. Diss.
(Parts)
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
9 / 104
Negation, Presuppositions, and Focus
Presuppositions and negation:
(6)
a.
b.
The current king of France is bold.
The current king of France isn’t bold.
Presuppositions and focus:
(7)
a.
b.
c.
John didn’t (just) INTRODUCE Mary to Sue.
John didn’t (just) introduce MARY to Sue.
John didn’t (just) introduce Mary to SUE.
Readings:
To be added
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
10 / 104
Negation, Mental processing and Distributions
(8)
a.
b.
c.
The sun is yellow
The sun isn’t yellow
The sun is cubic
Different ERP responses. (8-a) confused with (b) in Distributional Semantics models of
meaning.
Readings:
To be added
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
11 / 104
A logic for complex sentences
Assuming that a simple declarative sentence such as John sleeps denotes a truth
value, what should be the denotation for the complex cases in (9)?
(9)
a.
b.
c.
d.
It isn’t true that [John sleeps].
Either [John sleeps] or [Mary sleeps].
If [John sleeps], [I will wake him up]
[John sleeps] and [Mary sleeps]
The result can be computed using the connectives of propositional calculus.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
12 / 104
Symbols for the logical connectives
“→” material implication (“if A then B”)
“∧” conjunction (“A and B”)
“∨” non-exclusive disjunction (“A or B r both”)
“¬” Negation (Unary) (“It is not the case that A”)
“↔” equivalence (“A if and only if B”, “A iff B”)
Also useful:
“[,(,), ”] round and square parenthesis (useful to disambiguate scope:
(A∨(B∧C)) 6= ((A∨B)∧C)
“∀” “for all”: the Universal Quantifier.
“∃” “there is”: the Existential Quantifier
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
13 / 104
Truth table for the propositional calculus
b
P
0
0
1
1
Zamparelli (Trento)
Q
0
1
0
1
P∧Q
0
0
0
1
P∨Q
0
1
1
1
P→Q
1
1
0
1
Linguistics
P↔Q
1
0
0
1
P XOR Q
0
1
1
0
¬P
1
1
0
0
Unitn 2015
14 / 104
Exercize
Write the PC formulas and calculate a truth value for the following sentences:
(10)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Mary sleeps
If [John sleeps and Mary sleeps], then [John sleeps or Mary sleeps].
[If John sleeps then John sleeps] or [if Mary sleeps then John doesn’t
sleep]
If [if John sleeps then Mary sleeps], then [if Mary doesn’t sleep than John
doesn’t sleep].
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
15 / 104
A language for propositional logic
To define a language L capable of representing the meaning of complex expressions,
we need:
A set of propositional letters (A,B,C,D,...), each of which stands for a truth value.
The logical connectives (∨, ∧, ¬, →, ↔)
Now we can define the notion of well-formed formula (WFF) in L.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
16 / 104
WFF
WFFs of L: inductive definition:
i. A propositional letter in the vocabulary of L is a WFF.
ii. If A is a WFF, then ¬A is a WFF.
iii. If A, B are WFFs, then (A∧B), (A∨B), (A→B) and (A↔B) are WFFs.
iv. Only objects that are generated by steps i.-iii. above are WFFs.
A WFF that does not contain connectives is called atomic.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
17 / 104
A semantics for L
To define a semantics for L we need an evaluation function J. . . K whose domain is
the set of atomic WFF in L and whose range is {0,1}.
For non-atomic WFFs, the effect of J. . . K is defined by induction:
J¬AK = 1 iff JAK = 0
JA∧BK = 1 iff JAK = 1 and JBK = 1
JA∨BK = 1 iff JAK = 1 or JBK = 1
JA→BK = 0 iff JAK = 1 and JBK = 0
JA↔BK =1 iff JAK = JBK
Note that this doesn’t tell us how to determine the truth of atomic WFF!
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
18 / 104
Predicate Logic
Predicate Logic (PL) is a logical system which extends the propositional calculus
introducing the notions of variable, quantifier and predicate.
Propositional Calculus found a linguistic application only complex WFFs, built from
atomic WFF, could be mapped onto complex sentences (sentences containing
negation and/or conjunctions)
With PL (extended with lambda-conversion), we can ‘enter inside’ atomic
declarative sentences and build their meaning starting from the meaning of their
constituents (in obeyance with the Principle of Compositionality).
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
19 / 104
Syntax of Predicate Logic
New ingredients: n-ary predicates, constants, variables, ∀, ∃
1
If P is an n/ary predicate in the vocabulary of L and t1 , ... , tn are constants or
variables, then P(t1 ,...,tn ) is a WFF of L;
2
If φ is a WFF of L, then ¬φ is a WFF of L.
3
If φ and ψ are WFFs of L, then (φ ∧ψ), (φ ∨ψ) (φ →ψ) (φ ↔ψ) are WFFs of L.
4
If φ is a WFF of L and x is a variable, then ∀xφ and ∃xφ are WFFs of L.
5
Only what can be generated by the above steps in a finite number of steps is a
WFF of L.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
20 / 104
A Semantics for Predicate Logic
We now have the tools to attempt to give a semantics for predicate logic, given a model
M (definition by induction on the complexity of the formulas)
If Q(a1 , . . . , an ) is an atomic WFF in L then JQ(a1 , . . . , an )KM = 1 iff
<Ic (a1 ),. . . ,Ic (an )> ∈ IP (Q)
J¬φKM = 1 iff JφKM = 0
Jφ∧ψKM = 1 iff JφKM = 1 and JψKM = 1
Jφ∨ψKM = 1 iff JφKM = 1 or JψKM = 1
Jφ → ψKM = 0 iff JφKM = 1 and JψKM = 0
Jφ ↔ ψKM =1 iff JφKM = JψKM
...
What about the quantifiers?
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
21 / 104
Quantifiers bind free variables in their scope:
(11)
a.
b.
∀x[ ... x ... ∃y[ ... y ... x ... ]] ... x
∀x[ ... x ... ∃x[ ... x ... ]] ... x
In (11-b) the second x is not free to be bound by ∀, since it is bound by a closer
quantifier (∃). The last x is not bound at all (it remain free)
(12)
∀x[son(x) →∃y[mother-of(y,x)]]
“For all x, if x is a son, then there is a y such that y is the mother of x”
Examples of free and bound variables in language:
(13)
a.
b.
he just arrived.
No child liked the shirt that his mother gave him to protect himself while
painting.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
22 / 104
Interpretation of quantifiers by substitution
... semantics of PL, part 2 ...
J∀xφK = 1 iff J[c/x]φK = 1 for all constants c in L.
J∃xφK = 1 iff J[c/x]φK = 1 for at least one constant c in L.
Where [c/x]φ is the result of replacing with the constant c every occurrence of the
variable x which is not bound by a quantifier.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
23 / 104
Interpretation by substitution: problems
(14)
Everybody ran
(15)
∀x[“ran”(x)]
Interpreted as true in a model where D = people, iff (16) is true, for all constants (i.e.
proper names in D)
(16)
“ran”(Jack), “ran”(Mary), “ran”(Fido), . . .
But what to do for a sentence like “Everything changed”?
(17)
∀x[“changed”(x)]
This can be expressed only if I have a constant (= a proper names) for each object in
the domain, which seems unlikely.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
24 / 104
Alternative: quantifier meaning using assignments
(18)
J X KM,g
the interpretation of object X with respect to a model M and an assignment
function g.
g is a function which assigns elements in D to variables of L.
J∀xφKM = 1 iff for all d ∈ D, JφKM,g[x/d] = 1
J∃xφKM = 1 iff for at least one d ∈ D, JφKM,g[x/d] = 1
Here g[x/d] is a function which differs from g only in that it assignes the element d to
the variable x.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
25 / 104
Semantics of subject quantifiers
Appropriate meaning for a sentence containing DPs with quantificational
determiners?
Using the symbols ∀ ( “every”) and ∃ ( “there is/exists”):
(19)
“A man is running” = ∃x [man’(x) ∧ run’(x)]
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
26 / 104
Some
(20)
∃x [man’(x) ∧ run’(x)] =
a. “There is an x such that x is a man and x runs”
b. “There is an x such that x has property of being a man and x has the
propriety of running”
c. “There is an x such that x is an element of the set of men and an element
of the set of runners” = [man’∩run’6= ∅]
(Note that (20) makes no logical distinction between the phrases “a man runs” and “a
runner is a man”).
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
27 / 104
Every
How to render “every man runs?”
First hypothesis:
(21)
∀x[man’(x) ∧ run’(x)]
Too strong! This formula has the meaning “Every x is such that the x is a man and
x runs” or equivalently: “Everything is a man that runs”!
We need: “If something is a man, then it runs” (and it it isn’t, we don’t care what it
does)
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
28 / 104
Every
(22)
a.
b.
If something is a man, then it runs
∀x[man’(x) → run’(x)]
⇒ Basic asymmetry between existential (“a”, “some”, “two”, “a few”) and universal
determiners (“every”, “each”)
Could implication be used for a man, too?
(23)
a.
b.
A man runs
∃x[man’(x) → run’(x)]
Too weak! True if there is something which is not a man.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
29 / 104
No
(24)
No man ran =
(25)
a.
b.
¬∃x[man’(x) ∧ran’(x)]
∀x[man’(x) → ¬ran’(x)]
or equivalently
But then, what about A man didn’t run and every man didn’t run? What should the
representations be?
(26)
a.
b.
∃x[man’(x) ∧¬ran’(x)]
∀x[man’(x) → ¬ran’(x)]
Why did we put the ¬ in front of run’? What would be the meaning of:
∃x[¬man’(x) ∧ran’(x)]
∀x[¬man’(x) →ran’(x)]
(27)
a.
b.
(28)
Every/Some non-man ran
Zamparelli (Trento)
i.e. something ran, but it wasn’t a man
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
30 / 104
Indefinites, beware!
(29)
a.
b.
c.
a bear is omnivorous
∃x[bear’(x) ∧omnivorous’(x)]
∀x[bear’(x) →omnivorous’(x)]
Generically ‘all’
Simple indefinites may just introduce free variables, which must be bound by some
other means (Heim 1982; Kamp 1981; Diesing 1992)
(30)
A bear is omnivorous = [bear’(x) ∧omnivorous’(x)]
x unbound!
A candidate is adverbs of quantification (Lewis 1975)
(31)
A bear is never/sometimes/often omnivorous =
For all x/ Fort many x / For no x [bear’(x) ∧omnivorous’(x)]
x bound by the adverb
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
31 / 104
Out of PL: restricted quantification
(32)
a.
b.
Most dogs bark
The dogs that bark are more than those that don’t.
(33)
Most x [dog’(x) →bark’(x)]
but how does “most” gets at the cardinality of dog?
Alternative: restricted quantification
(34)
a.
b.
c.
[[Most dogs] bark]
[most dogs]
x bark
Restrictive scope
Nuclear scope
(35)
For most x such that x is in the predicate dog’, x barks
(36)
a.
b.
A man runs: ∃x:man’(x).run’(x)
Every man runs: ∀x:man’(x).run’(x)
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
32 / 104
Broadening our ontology: events
(37)
a.
b.
[A tall man] runs
[A tall man who likes ice-cream] runs
(38)
a.
b.
∃x:man’(x) ∧tall’(x) ∧like’(x,ice-cream).run’(x)
There is an x such that x is a man, x is tall, x likes ice-creams, and x runs
But what to do with:
(39)
A man ran {slowly / at 5 / repeatedly}
Not:
(40)
∃x:man’(x) ∧at-five’(x).run’(x)
(41)
a.
b.
(42)
∃e∃x[man’(x) ∧event’(e).run’(x,e) ∧at-five(e)]
the running of the man took place/happened {at 5 / repeatedly}
the manner of his running was slow.
There was an event e and a person y, and the event was a ‘running’ and its participant
was x, and the event was at 5
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
33 / 104
Events and negation
(43)
I didn’t turn off the fire!
(44)
a.
b.
∃e[event’(e). ¬turn-off-fire’(I,e)]
¬∃e[event’(e). turn-off-fire’(I,e)]
Which is better?
Adding implicit restrictions to the nuclear scope:
(45)
∃e[event’(e) ∧right-before-going-out(e). ¬turn-off-fire’(I,e)]
(46)
It was right then that I didn’t turn off the fire!
But:
(47)
She never turns off the light
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
34 / 104
Does negation scope over the subject or not?
(the following sentences are unjudged: you be the judgers)
(48)
a.
b.
c.
No [person who has ever ran a decent race] would take part in this one.
A [person who has ever ran a decent race] would not take part in this one.
Some [person who has ever ran a decent race] would not take part in this
one.
(49)
a.
Nessuna [persona che abbia mai fatto una corsa seria] correrebbe
questa.
Una [persona che abbia mai fatto una corsa seria] non correrebbe questa.
Qualche [persona che abbia mai fatto una corsa seria] non correrebbe
questa.
b.
c.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
35 / 104
(50)
No man runs
a. ¬∃x[man’(x).ran’(x)]
b. ∀x[man’(x).¬ran’(x)]
‘not’ scopes over ‘subject’
‘not’ doesn’t scope over ‘subject’
Can we distinguish which of the two structures is closer to language? Maybe:
(51)
a.
b.
c.
(52)
a.
b.
Nessun medicinale [che abbia mai avuto nessun effetto] è sicuro per l’
FDA!
Un medicinale [che abbia mai avuto nessun effetto] non è sicuro per l’
FDA!
Qualche medicinale [che abbia mai avuto nessun effetto] non è sicuro
per l’ FDA!
No [drug that has had any effect] is safe for the FDA!
A/some [drug that has had any effect] isn’t safe for the FDA!
NB: In English any can be licensed by a universal quantifier, so the test works only in
Italian, where nessuno/nulla ‘nobody/nothing’ in object position cannot be licensed by
being in the scope of a universal:
(53)
a.
Nessuno [che abbia visto nulla]
spiccica parola.
Nobody [who has seen anything] utters a
word
b.??Ognuno
[che ha/abbia visto nulla]
parli!
Every person [who has
seen anything] must speak
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
36 / 104
Pollock 1989: Movement schema
Non-Finite Clauses
French, Aux:
French, Main Verb:
Italian, Aux
Italian, Main Verb:
English, Aux
English, Main Verb:
Ne
Ne
Non
Non
To(?)
To
(Auxinf )
*Vinf
Auxinf
Vinf
Auxinf
*Vinf
pas
pas
mica
mica
not
not
(Auxinf )
(Vinf )
*Auxinf
*Vinf
*Auxinf
*Vinf
ADV
ADV
ADV
ADV
ADV
ADV
(Auxinf )
(Vinf )
*Auxinf
*Vinf
(Auxinf )
Vinf
Main-V/Pred.
(Object)
Main-V/Pred.
(Object)
Main-V/Pred.
(Object)
*Auxpres
*Vpres
*Auxpres
*Vpres
*Auxpres
Vpres
Main-V/Pred.
(Object)
Main-V/Pred.
(Object)
Main-V/Pred.
(Object)
Finite clauses:
French, Aux:
French, Main Verb:
Italian, Aux
Italian, Main Verb:
English, Aux
English, Main Verb:
Zamparelli (Trento)
ne
ne
non
non
Auxpres
Vpres
Auxpres
Vpres
Auxpres
*Vpres
pas
pas
mica
mica
not
not
*Auxpres
*Vpres
*Auxpres
*Vpres
*Auxpres
*Vpres
Linguistics
ADV
ADV
ADV
ADV
ADV
ADV
Unitn 2015
37 / 104
On labeling intermediate projections
(Pollock 1989)
(54)
[ .TP T [ .AgrP Agr [ .VP V ] ] ]
(Belletti 1988)
(55)
[ .AgrP Agr [ .TP Tense [ .VP V ] ] ]
(56)
Arriv-av-ano
Arriv-IMPERFECT-3P.Pl
If the order of morphemes reflect the order in which V reaches the two heads on its
path, it must be T below Agr.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
38 / 104
Position of “ne”
It would seem that French “ne” requires a position still above AgpP.
Since no adverb can intervene between ne and V, ne could be a head ‘picked up’ but V
as it moves up.
(57)
AgrP
Agr’
Spec
SUBJ
Elle
Agr
nei +mangej +PRESk
NegP
Spec
pas
Neg’
Neg
ti
TP
Spec
T’
T
VP
tk
V
tj
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
39 / 104
The position of negation: evidence from deletion
Can this approach extend to other languages where Negation is before the finite AUX,
e.g. to Italian?
(58)
Carlo non ha casa ‘Carlo not has house’
Evidence from VP elision. English:
(59)
a. John has seen this film, but Marc hasn’t.
b. *John has seen this film, but Marc not.
elided ‘seen it’
Italian:
(60)
a. *Gianni ha visto questo film, ma Marco non ha.
b. Gianni ha visto questo film, ma Marco no.
elided ‘visto il film’
Note, however, that no might be different from non ‘not’ (61) (cf. no che non è partita
’no, she hasn’t left’ vs. non che non sia partita ‘not that she has’t left’)
(61)
*Gianni ha visto questo film, ma Marco non.
Gianni has seen this film, but Marco not
It is plausible that deletion tries to apply to any part which can is stated before, so can
still be reconstructed
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
40 / 104
(Zanuttini 1991)
Zanuttini: evidence for multiple NegP layers. Italian non, Spanish no would be hosted
above TP.
(62)
[ Neg1 P
NON [ TP
TENSE [ Neg2 P pas . . . VP ] ] ]
If initial negation was a clitic, it does not behave like other clitic elements.
The behaviour with imperatives (which are certainly tenseless) is different between
‘non-languages’ like Italian or Spanish and ‘pas’-languages like French.
Different behavor of negative object indefinites.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
41 / 104
Clitics
A clitic is a small bound morpheme (typically, a pronoun) which cannot stand by itself
but must ‘lean’ (Greek ‘clino’) onto another word. Clitics must be adjacent to the word
they citicize onto.
They cannot bear stress (except in metalinguistic cases)
Example: Italian atonic pronouns lo,la,gli,le,ci,vi. . .
(63)
a.
b.
Carlo {vede lui / lo vede}
Carlo {sees him / him sees}
Carlo {deve vedere lui / lo vuole vedere / vuole vederlo}
Carlo {must see
him / him must see
/ must see+him}
(64)
Gli-e-li presenta, ‘to_them them introduces’, ce lo da ‘to_us, it gives’
separated by other clitics
(65)
a. *Carlo lo spesso vede
b. *Carlo LO vede
c. *Carlo deve lo vedere
clitics
‘Carlo him often sees’
cf. Carlo vede LUI
‘Carlo must him see’
How does non behave with respect to these properties?
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
42 / 104
Zanuttini: imperatives:
(66)
a. Mangia! ‘eat!’
b. *Non mangia! ‘not eat!’
c. Non mangiare! ‘not eat-INF’
(67)
a.
b.
Parla! ‘speak’
Parla nen!
speak not!
Piedmontese: nen= French pas
If the high negation (Neg1 P) is above TENSE, it is plausible that it might be sensitive to
the absence of tense in imperatives.
But infinitives are equally tenseless — what is happening? The relevant category
seems to be something else.
Note also the odd order of other clitics in:
(68)
Non lo prendere!
not it take!
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
43 / 104
Zanuttini: negative indefinites
(69)
a.
Io sento gnente
I hear nothing
b. *Sento niente
I_hear nothing
c. Non Sento niente
Not I_hear nothing
Piedmontese
Italiano
Only pas-type languages allow negative indefinites without the need to a negative
element before.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
44 / 104
Multiple positions for NegP?
Italian (cf. Northern Italian dialects in Zanuttini 1997)
(70)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Non è partito mica più sempre come faceva una volta.
Not is left
at_all more always as
he used to do
Non è mica partito più sempre
Non è mica più partito sempre
Non è mica più sempre partito
But is this sentential negation?
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
45 / 104
Laka 1990
Laka’s thesis compares Basque (her native language), English and Spanish.
Basque (Euskara): A non Indoeuropean, isolated language, spoken by about 468,000
people in Northern Spain and France.
SOV; prepositions; genitives, articles, adjectives, numerals, relatives after noun heads;
question word initial; verb affix gender agreement obligatory; prefix marks causative;
comparative shown lexically.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
46 / 104
SOV prelude: the case of German
In German main clauses, the finite verb must appear after exactly one constituent: one
of the verbal arguments, typically teh subject, but also an adjunct such as gestern
‘yesterday’.
This is called the V2 ‘verb second’ position.
(71)
a.
Renate hat einen Pilz
entdeckt
Renate has a
mushroom found
b. Gestern hat Renate einen Pilz
entdeckt
yesterday has Renate a
mushroom found
c. *Gestern Renate hat einen Pilz
entdeckt
yesterday Renate has a
mushroom found
In a secondary clause, on the other hand, the finite verb goes at the end of the
sentence, after objects and participle.
(72)
Renate freut sich, weil sie einen Pilz
entdeckt hat
Renate cheers herself, since she a
mushroom found has.
“Renate cheers because she has found a mushroom”
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
47 / 104
SOV: German
In certain cases, the complementizer (e.g. wenn “if/when”) can be omitted in the
secondary clause. When this happens, the verb again appears at the beginning of the
secondary clause.
(73)
a.
b.
Renate wuerde sich freuen, wenn sie einen Pilz
entdeckt haette.
Renate would herself cheer, if
she a
mushroom found had
Renate wuerde sich freuen, haette sie einen Pilz
entdecken.
Renate would herself cheer, had she a
mushroom found
Certain German verbal prefixes, like wieder (cf. re- in redo) appear at the end with the
verb when the verb is in its sentence-final position.
(74)
Renate freut sich, weil sie den Pilz
wiederfindet
Renate cheers herself, since she the mushroom again-finds
In a main clause, the verb appears in V2, but the suffix remains at the end of the
sentence.
(75)
Renate findet den Pilz
wieder
Renate finds the mushroom again-
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
48 / 104
German: Verb final cases
CP
weil
TP
DP
T’
Renate
VP
T
V’
hat
DP
den
Zamparelli (Trento)
V
Pilz
entdeckt
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
49 / 104
German: Verb initial cases (Verb second effects)
CP(root)
DPi
den
C’
Pilz
hatj
TP
DP
T’
Renate
DP
VP
T
V’
tj
V
ti
entdeckt
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
50 / 104
Now we do it again, but with negation:
Secondary clause:
(76)
. . . weil sie den Pilz gefunden hat
(77)
. . . weil sie den Pilz nicht gefunden hat
Root clause:
(78)
Renate hat einen Pilz gefunden
(79)
Renate hat den Pilz nicht gefunden
Root clauses without AUX:
(80)
Renate findet den Pilz
(81)
Renate findet den Pilz nicht
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
51 / 104
German secondary clauses: nice try 1
(82)
. . . weil
TP
DP
T’
Renate
NegP
T
hat
Spec
Neg’
VP
Neg
nicht
Spec
Zamparelli (Trento)
V’
DP
V
den Pilz
gefunden
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
52 / 104
German secondary clauses: nice try 2
Note that in V2 the finite
verb head-moves to C
without any interference
from negation.
(83)
. . . weil
TP
DP
T’
Renate
NegP
T
hat
Spec
Neg’
nicht
VP
Neg
NEG
Spec
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
V’
DP
V
den Pilz
gefunden
Unitn 2015
53 / 104
Negation in German
Not so bad for other cases: V2 with PP, which remain after negation.
(84)
a.
b.
Er soll nicht auf diesem Tisch sitzen
he should not on this
table sit
Er sitzt nicht auf diesem Tisch
he sits not on this
table
Here the PP selected by
main verb.
Zamparelli (Trento)
SITZEN
‘sit’ stays with the participel, or is stranded by a finite
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
54 / 104
V2 of finite AUX:
(85)
Er soll nicht auf
diesem Tisch
sitzen.
CP
DPj
C’
Er
C
TP
Vi
soll
Spec
T’
tj
NegP
T
ti
Spec
Neg’
nicht
VP
Neg
ti
Spec
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
V’
PP
V
auf tiesem Tish
sitzen
Unitn 2015
55 / 104
V2 of finite main Verb:
(86)
Er sitzt nicht auf
diesem Tisch.
CP
DPj
C’
Er
C
TP
Vi
sitzt
T’
Spec
tj
NegP
T
ti
Spec
Neg’
nicht
VP
Neg
ti
Spec
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
V’
PP
V
auf tiesem Tish
ti
Unitn 2015
56 / 104
Embedded clauses:
(87)
... weil Renate
den Pilz nicht
genfunden hat.
German has a
phenomenon, ominously
named scrambling, which
allows other argument or
modifiers to appear above
negation.
. . . weil
TP
DP
T’
Renate
?P
T
hat
DPj
?’
den Pilz
NegP
?
Spec
Neg’
nicht
VP
Spec
Neg
NEG
V’
tj
V
gefunden
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
57 / 104
Now to Basque
With negation (ez ‘not’)
(88)
a.
Etxea erori da
house fallen has
b. *Erori etxea da
fallen house has
c. *Etxea da erori
house has fallen
(89)
Verbs seem to raise overtly to Infl/TP (see
Laka’s Ch.1, ex. 9). According to Laka,
they move via an ‘aspectual’ head.
TP
AspP
VP
a. *Etxea erori ez da
house fallen not has
b. Etxea ez da erori
house not has fallen
c. Ez da etxea erori
Not has house fallen
In fact, any number of constituents can
appear between ez da and erori is
indefinite.
What has happened?
T
Asp
V
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
58 / 104
(91)
(90)
TopicP
NegP
DP
Neg
etxea
ez+daj
t
NegP
TP
DP
etxea
Neg
TP
T’
AspP
ez+daj
tj
ti
T’
AspP
tj
VP
VP
tj
tj
In (91), the subject has moved to a topic position. Cf. Italian:
(92)
Il problema, Maria dice che pro è risolto.
the problem, Maria says that it is solved
But, what is the evidence that NegP is above DP?
And what forces the tensed verb to Neg?
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
59 / 104
Negpol licensing in subject position
(93)
a. I didn’t see anybody
b. *I saw anybody
c. *Anybody didn’t come.
the presence of sentential Neg not sufficient to license subject NEGPOLS.
below
d. I don’t think that [anybody came ]
(94)
a. Non ho visto alcuna persona.
b. *Ho visto alcuna persona.
c. *Alcuna persona non è arrivata.
d. Non penso che [ alcuna persona si arrivata ]
(95)
a. Non ho visto nessuna persona.
b. *Ho visto nessuna persona.
c. Nessuna persona non è arrivata.
d. Nessuna persona è arrivata.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Italian: same facts
=(94-a)
double negation: ‘no person hasn’t ...’
‘no person has arrived’
Unitn 2015
60 / 104
Negpol licensing in subject position
Basque:
(96)
(97)
*Inor etorri da
anybody come has
Ez dio inork Iboni etxea eman
no has anybody Ibon-to house-the given
‘Nobody has given the house to Ibon’
Cf. English
(98)
a.
b.
No way anybody is going to tell me what to do!
Never had anybody seen such a mess!
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
61 / 104
It might be tempting to think that negation should just appear before the element it
licenses:
√
(99)
ez/no . . . inork/anybody
But consider relative clauses in Basque:
(100)
erori ez den
etxea
fallen not has-that house-the
‘the house that didn’t fall down’
(101)
inork
eman ez dion
etxea
anybody given not has-that house-the
‘the house that nobody gave him’ (note: Basque is pro-drop also on DO, IO)
What is the structure of these cases?
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
62 / 104
(102)
a.
b.
Who doesn’t anybody like?
‘Who is the person that nobody likes?’= ‘Who is the person that
everybody dislikes’
Who did anybody not like?
‘Who is the person that nobody likes?’ impossible according to Laka
‘Who did someone dislike?’
(103)
a.
b.
Did anybody like your Facebook page?
Did everybody like your Facebook page?
(104)
Did anybody not like someone? If so, tell me who those people are.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Yes, 3 people
No, only 3 people
Unitn 2015
63 / 104
(Laka 1990): The position of Negation is not unique across languages.
(105)
a.
b.
[ NegP ez [ TP . . . VP ]]
[ TP T [ NegP not . . . VP ]]
Basque .
English
But what forces the tensed verb to Neg?
Laka proposes a universal constraint to have NEG C-command T: the Tense
C-command Condition (TCC)
Rationale: verbs introduce event argument (perhaps, it is their trace after movement
which functions as the relevant event variable); this variable must be bound by Tense
(presumably because it needs to allocate the event to some past, present or future.
Roberto’s question: Adverbs of quantification? What do they bind, then?
(106)
John {was always /is alway /will always be} drunk.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
64 / 104
Laka’s reasoning for the TCC.
The TCC can explain the puzzling problem of do insertion in English.
According to Chomsky (1989), in English Tense and Agr affixes lower to T. This
violates the Empty Category Principle (movement traces must be ‘governed’, i.e.
C-commanded by its antecedent with no barrier intervening, (Chomsky 1986))
in (Chomsky 1989), this is remedied by the Verb plus its affixes raise ‘invisibly’, at
Logical Form.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
65 / 104
On the need for ‘logical forms’ as a part of syntax
Notion of extraction island (Ross 1967)
Subject islands:
(107)
a. Who did you see [ DP a picture of t ]
b. *Who did [ DP a picture of t] please you?
(108)
a. John, who [ I was suprised [that Sue interviewed t ]]
b. *John, who [ [that Sue interviewed t ] surprises me]
(109)
a. Un uomo con cui mi sono sorpreso che Sue parlasse.
b. *Un uomo con cui che Sue parlasse mi ha sorpreso.
Adjunct island
(110)
a. Which city did you witness [the destruction of t ]?
b.??Which city did you leave [after the destruction of t ]?
There are many types of islands. If you are interested: (Szabolcsi and den Dikken
1999) for an overview and (Boeckx 2012) for in-depth explorations.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
66 / 104
Need for LF: representing semantic ambiguities.
(111)
In New York, a man is mugged every three minutes.
(112)
. . . We are here today to interview him.
(113)
a.
b.
c.
Everybody loves someone
[Every x:person(x) [Some y:person(y) [x loves y]]]
[Some x:person(x) [Every y:person(y) [x loves y]]]
Evidence for a syntactic approach to LF: (Huang 1982), (May 1985).
General idea: Contraints which apply to over movement also apply to the (invisible)
movement of quantifiers or unmoved Wh- (i.e. LF movement)
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
67 / 104
Need for LF: examples
Weak crossover:
(114)
a.
b.
(115)
a.??Whoi does hisi mother love ti ?
b.??Hisi mother loves every boyi
(116)
Every boyi loves hisi mother For every x:boy(x).loves(x,x’s mother)
Which boy loves his mother? For which x:boy(x).loves(x,x’s mother)?
*Qx .... pronx .... tx
In-situ Wh- (with multiple questions)
(117)
Who bought what?
(118)
a. Who believes that John dropped what?
b. *Who believes that [ what ] fell?
c. *Who believes that John dropped the ball why?
(119)
Jim, the beer, March, the sausages, . . .
subject island
adjunct island
a. *Which professor do you believe (that) the father of t died?
b. *Who believes (that) [the father of which professor] died?
(see http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/linguistics-and-philosophy/24-952-advanced-syntaxspring-2007/lecture-notes/ced_part2.pdf for a useful, though detailed,
handout)
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
68 / 104
Back to Laka’s object to an LF account
Chomsky (1989): “Let’s pick up the ill-formed traces at LF”
What blocks the Neg to lower and then be saved at LF?
(120)
a. *John goesn’t to the movies.
b. *John didn’t the right thing
Laka’s answer: the TCC!
Since Neg cannot be lower than TP at pronunciation, do is inserted.
Note that since the TCC is a constraint on Tense, it does not operate on non-finite
clauses.
(121)
ez gezurrik esan
no lies-part say
‘Do not say lies’
In these clauses the Neg and the verb can remain unattached.
Imperatives may be tensed or untensed
(122)
a. *Not come here!
b. Do not come here
c. I order you (*do) not to come here!
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
69 / 104
On sentence vs. constituent coordination
Jackendoff (1972), Klima (1964)
(123)
a.
b.
with no clothes is John attractive
with no clothes John is attractive
(124)
a.
b.
With no clothes is John attractive, is/*isn’t he?
With no clothes John is attractive, isn’t/*is he?
(125)
a.
b.
with no clothes is John attractive, and/or Mary either/*too
with no clothes John is attractive, and/or Mary too/*either
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
70 / 104
But:
(126)
[Not every professor] came to the party, did they?
Is this sentence or constituent negation?
Cf. Larson’s analysis of Negation in English (Larson 1972)
(127)
a. Not everyone saw the play.
b. *The play was seen by not everyone
(128)
a. *The students solved not all / many of the problems
b. Not all of the problems were solved by the students
However:
(129)
Gli studenti hanno risolto {non tutti i problemi, ma quasi / non pochi problemi}
the students have solved {not all the problems, but also / not a_few problems}
(130)
Many but not all of the problems have been solved.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
not must be DP internal
Unitn 2015
71 / 104
Acquaviva (1997): sentential negation as event negation
(131)
a.
b.
John didn’t drive
¬∃e[drive(e) ∧ Agent(j, e)]
Horn (1989)
Negation is always the marked option.
Cross-linguistically. it is not only expressed by word order shifts, without an overt
marker.
(Note however that in ASL negative expressions do not always require a sign
showing negation)
(132)
__neg___
ME HAPPY.
I am not happy.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
72 / 104
Four strategies for expressing negation
A ‘negative verb’ taking the clause to be negated (e.g. Tongan), cf. it is not the
case that S
A derivational morpheme on the verb (e.g. Turkish)
A bound particle attaching to the inflected verb (Italian, Spanish)
An adverbial, not attached to the verb (German nicht
Cf. Zanuttini:
(133)
[ NegP1 [ TP1 [ NegP2 [ TP2 [ NegP3 [ AspPperf [ AspPgen/prog [ NegP4 ]]]]]]]]
But then, why not saying that Neg is not specified at all? (Cf. the situation with
and)
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
73 / 104
Zeijlstra (2004):
Negation is bound between a position just above a high VP position (called vP in
recent literature), which introduced the event argument Neg needs to bind, and
the CP area.
Elements that cannot be negative all by themeselves (e.g. French ne) cannot
occupy a Neg head.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
74 / 104
Negative Polarity Items (NPI)
(134)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
we *(didn’t) read any books
I have*(n’t) been there yet
I need*(n’t) do that
I *(didn’t) read the book, and John *(didn’t) either
nobody/*somebody lifted a finger
(135)
Nessuno ha mai fatto un cavolo!
Possibily all langguages have NPI (Haspelmath 1997)
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
75 / 104
Many NPI are licensed in contexts that are not truly negative:
(136)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Every student who knows anything about linguistics, will join the event.
Restrictor of universal Q
If you see any student, let me know.
Antecedent of conditionals
Do you want any cookies?
Y/N questions
At most three students did any homework.
Predicate of certain
quantifiers
John hardly likes any cookies
Predicates with certain adverbs
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
76 / 104
Some questions:
What is in common with all these environments?
Is it a grammatical or a pragmatic effect?
What is the relation between NPI any and Free choice any?
(137)
Any fool could do this!
Are there also positive polarity items?
(138)
a.
b.
I didn’t drink some wine
I am (*not) rather ill
Why do NPI exist at all?
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
77 / 104
What is in common?
Consider determiners as elements that operate on sets
(139)
a.
b.
D(eterminer) R(estrictor) P(predicate)
Some dog barks
Consider that the meterial in R and P can be more or less specific (i.e. denote a wider
or smaller set)
(140)
Doberman ⊂ dog ⊂ mammal ⊂ animal ⊂ living thing
(141)
Yelping ⊂ barking ⊂ making a sound ⊂ doing something
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
78 / 104
(Ladusaw 1977): NPI had to do with the direction of entailment: upward or downward.
(142)
Q is downward entailing if ∀X∀Y[X⊆Y → Q(Y) → Q(X)]
(143)
a.
b.
Mary is wearing a red shirt → Mary is wearing a shirt
Mary is wearing a shirt 6→ Mary is wearing a red shirt
(144)
a.
b.
Mary is not wearing a red shirt 6→ Mary is not wearing a shirt
Mary is not wearing a shirt → Mary is not wearing a red shirt
Let’s check with the family of environments with which we find our NPI.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
79 / 104
Scope of negation
Restrictor of every
Antecedent of if
Questions
Hardly
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
80 / 104
(145)
a.
b.
c.
every student went to bed → every linguistics student went to bed
few people sing → few people sing loudly
at most three students left → at most three students left early
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
81 / 104
Negation is the simplest way to create a downward entailing environments (DE, or ⇓):
(146)
a. *Mary saw anybody.
b. Mary didn’t see anybody.
Double negation (difficult to judge), should reverse again the polarity:
(147)
a.
b.
Nobody didn’t see anybody.
Nessuno non ha visto alcuna persona.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
unjudged
unjudged
Unitn 2015
82 / 104
What about questions?
(148)
a.
b.
c.
Q: Did you see a girl with a shirt here?
A: Yes, I saw a girl with a red shirt
A: No, I just (saw) a girl with something on.
(149)
a.
b.
c.
Q: Who did you see with a shirt on?
A: Anna has a red shirt on.
A: ?Anna was wearing something.
In questions, we are interested in answers which are more precise than the original
question. However.
(150)
a.
b.
John asked whether Mary had a shirt 6→ John asked whether Mary had a
red shirt
Does Mary has a shirt? 6→ Does Mary have a red shirt?
Debate is ongoing as to how and in what sense questions are DE.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
83 / 104
The discovery in the 70ies that NPI are licensed in DE — be them in the restrictor or
the predicate) was very significant.
However, it was soon discovered that:
not all NPI behave alike: some are possible only in a subset of ⇓ environments.
Another relevant contraint is anti-additivity.
In some case NPI (?) might be licensed by other (logical?) operators
(non-veridicality, according to Giannakidou 1997, etc.)
It also matters whether other logical operators intervene between the licenser and
the NPI
Consider:
(151)
I didn’t say that John didn’t see anybody.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
84 / 104
A function f is anti-additive iff f(A ∨ B) ↔ (f(A) ∧ f(B)).
E.g., no student is anti-additive, since no student drinks or smokes is truth-conditionally
equivalent to no student drinks and no student smokes.
Not every is not anti-additive as not everybody drinks and not everybody smokes does
not entail that not everybody drinks or smokes.
Just imagine a room where half of the people smoke and half drink.
What about: everybody? It is antiadditive? On which argument, restrictor o predicate?
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
85 / 104
Hoeksema (1999): Dutch NPI hoeven ‘need’ cannot occur in the first argument of a
universal quantifier, which is DE but not anti-additive, but can occur in other DE
contexts such as weinig (‘few’):
(152)
a. *iedereen die hoeft te vertrekken, moet nu opstaan
everybody who needs to leave
must now get-up
b. weinig mensen hoeven te vertrekken
few people need to leave
Can we find examples in your native language of NPI che are not licensed by all the
environments given above?
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
86 / 104
(153)
a.
Hai
visto nessuno?
have you seen nobody?
b. Hai
mai fumato
have you ever smoked?
c. ?Hai
visto alcuna
persona?
have you seen anybody?
d.??Hai
dormito affatto?
have you slept
at
all?
e.??Hai fatto un cavolo?
Have you done a
cabbage
‘Have you lifted a finger?’
Judgements may vary.
(154)
?Hai
mai {fatto un cavolo / mosso un dito} per questo progetto?
Have you ever {done a cabbage / moved a finger} for this project?
Note that this tends to be a rethorical question, expecting a the negative answer.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
87 / 104
What’s happening in these cases?
(155)
At most 4 people had any food.
(156)
a.
b.
Exactly four people in the rood lifted a finger when I asked for help!
Esattamente/Ben 4 persone hanno mosso un dito per aiutarmi!
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
88 / 104
Giannakidou (1997): Non veridicality:
(157)
A propositional operator F is non-veridical if Fp does not entail or presuppose
that p is true in some individual’s epistemic model. (after Giannakidou 1997,
1999, 2010, 2011).
(158)
a.
b.
perhaps John is ill
unfortunately John is ill
Unlike English any, Greek tipota ‘anything’ can occurr under perhaps.
Note the difference between entailing and presupposing:
(159)
a.
b.
I know that John is ill
I regret that John is ill
Effect of negation on assertions and presuppositions:
(160)
a.
b.
I don’t regret that John is ill
I don’t know that John is ill
he is
he might not be
Find other verbs like regret and know.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
89 / 104
More on presupposition
(161)
a.
b.
c.
John has arrassed her again
John hasn’t arrassed her again
Did you arrass her again.
(162)
a.
b.
c.
John stopped beating his wife
John hasn’t stopped beating his wife.
Did you stop beating your wife?
The most famous discussions of presuppositions concern Wh-question, focus and
definites
(163)
a.
b.
Who brought out the garbage?
Who didn’t bring out the garbage?
Note the difference with the lexical cases.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
90 / 104
Clefts:
(164)
a.
b.
It was John who ate the cake.
It wasn’t John who brought out the garbage
(165)
Only JOHN left.
(166)
John left and for every x, x a person (who might have left), x didn’t leave.
(167)
Not only John left.
What are the meanings of this sentence? Try to write them informally, or formally.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
91 / 104
The case of definite descriptions
Frege (1892), Strawson (1950) vs. Russell (1905) Neale (1990)
(168)
a.
b.
The present king of France is bald
The present king of France isn’t bald
In one account, (168) is respectively false and true. In the other, both lack a truth value.
(169)
[The x: Present-king-of-France(x).¬ Bald(x)] (9) ¬ [The x:
Present-king-of-France(x).Bald(x)]
(170)
a.
(171)
a.??If he exists, the present king of France is bald
b. If he exists, the present king of France must be bald
c. If he existed, the present king of France would be bald
If the present king of France isn’t bald, it is just because there isn’t one.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
92 / 104
Russell’s treatment of the definite determiner:
(172)
the x.P = ∃x[P(x) ∧ ∀y[P(y) → x=y]]
Using a similar technique, try to write a formula for:
(173)
Every child ate a different ice-cream.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
93 / 104
Surface strcuture requirement for NPI
(174)
a. *Anybody didn’t leave
b. Didn’t anybody leave
(175)
a.
b.
A train will not arrive for 4 hours
¬∃x,e[train(x) ∧ arrive(x,e) ∧ 4-hour-from-now(e)]
Difference with pronoun binding, which can happen by LF:
(176)
a.
b.
c.
(177)
Every student drew a picture of himself, which was hang in the
classroom.
The picture of himself that every student drew was hang in the
classroom.
The picture of himself that no student could finish was set aside.
a. No student could finish a picture of any relative
b. *The picture of any relative that no student could finish
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
94 / 104
(178)
a.
b.
Meg non ha letto ogni libro ad un qualche bambino / un bambino o l’altro
Mag non ha letto ogni libro ad alcun bambino.
(179)
a.
b.
c.
Meg non ha letto ogni libro a bambini di qualche tipo
Mag non ha letto ogni libro ad alcun bambino di qualche tipo
Mag non ha letto ogni libro ad alcun bambino o l’altro
(180)
¬∃x[child(x) ∧ ∀y[book(y) → read(M,x,y)]]
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
95 / 104
Evidence for a negative indefinites as split between a negative operator and a positive
indefinite (∃)
(181)
a.
b.
You must bring no tie.
You mustn’t bring a tie (though you could)
German
(182)
(184)
Du musst keine Krawatte anziehen.
You must no tie
wear
(183) a. ‘It is not required that you wear a tie.’
b. ‘There is no tie that you are required to wear.’
c. ‘It is required that you don’t wear a tie.’
¬ > must > ∃
¬ > ∃ > must
must > ¬ > ∃
Oh, non dovevi portare nessuna bottiglia.
Oh, not must-PAST bring no bottle
‘You didn’t need to bring any bottle’ or ‘you shouldn’t have brought a bottle’
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
96 / 104
Italian
(185)
Ogni esploratore che ha mai visto uno yeti ha dimenticato di filmerlo. mai
licensed by ∀
b. *Ogni esploratore che ha visto nessuno yeti ha dimenticato di filmerlo.
nessuno not licensed by ∀
a.
How does nessuno behave, as a licensor?
(186)
a. Nessun esploratore ha (mai) visto nessuno yeti.
b. [Nessun esploratore che ha mai visto uno yeti] lo racconta.
c. ??[Nessun esploratore che ha visto nessuno yeti] lo racconta (mai) (a
nessun collega)
It looks like the universal part is active on the restrictor, but the negative part isn’t.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
97 / 104
Divorcing the universal from the negative part in Ness-uno
TP
DP
NegOP¬
licensed by ne-
D
NP
ne-ssuno
∀+NEG-licensor
Restrictive Scope
DE but not ¬:
licensing NPI “mai”
but not NPI “nessuno”
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Nuclear scope
licensing
any NPI
Unitn 2015
98 / 104
The function of NPI
Kadmon & Landman (1993): Free Choice Any vs. NPI any
(187)
a.
b.
Pick any chocolate!
Don’t pick any chocolate
(188)
a.
b.
(b) ⇒ pick a specific one, the one allotted to you (not just any . . . )
(b) ⇒ pick no chocolate at all.
Zamparelli (Trento)
free choice
ambiguous
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
99 / 104
Environments for NPI any
(189)
a. I didn’t see any elephants.
b. #I saw any elephants.
c. I went out without any coat.
d. #I went out with any coat.
e. If you see any elephant, call me.
f. Every person who sees any elephant, should report it.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
100 / 104
Environments for FC any
Modal contexts expressing deontic possibility but not ones expressing deontic
necessity.
(190)
a. You may pick any flower.
b. #You must pick any flower.
Modal contexts expressing epistemic possibility but not ones expressing epistemic
necessity.
(191)
a. John might be staying at any hotel.
b. #John must be staying at any hotel.
(192)
a. Take any chocolate.
b. #We took any chocolate.
Derived cases (any from modifier)
(193)
a.
b.
I took any chocolate *(that was available in the box)
Ho preso qualsiasi cioccolatino *(fosse disponibile)
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
101 / 104
Semantics of NPI any (or any NPI)
Any adds resistence to exceptions:
(194)
a.
b.
A dog barks (but my dog doesn’t)
Any dog barks (? but my dog doesn’t)
(195)
a.
b.
Every dog barks, (except Fido)
Any dog barks (?, except Fido)
(196)
a.
John doesn’t eat potatoes, {well, only a bit of them / except when
they are deep fried}
John doesn’t eat any potatos, {? well, only a bit of them / except
when they are deep fried}
b.
Cf.
(197)
John literally/truly doesn’t like dogs.
What is the effect on the domain of dogs?
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
102 / 104
Acquaviva, P; (1994) ’The Representation Of Operator-Variable Dependencies In
Sentential Negation’. Studia Linguistica, 48 :91-132
“Uninterpretable Negative Features On Negative Indefinites” Doris Penka
(http://inlist.uni-konstanz.de/pages/home/penka/Pubs/PenkaA CWS.pdf)
Bart Geurts “Existential Import” (http://ncs.ruhosting.nl/bart/papers/eximport.pdf)
Elia Bazzan “On the processing of negation: a sentence-picture verification
eye-tracking study.” Master Thesis, UNITN 2015.
Vender, M., & Delfitto, D. (2010). Towards a pragmatic of negation: The
interpretation of negative sentences in Developmental Dyslexia. GG@G
Generative Grammar at Geneva, 5–32.
Zamparelli (Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
103 / 104
Belletti, A. (1988).
The case of unaccusatives.
Linguistic Inquiry 19.1, 1–34.
Boeckx, C. (2012).
Syntactic islands.
Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986).
Barriers.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1989).
Some notes on the economy of derivation and representation.
In R. Freidin (Ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Diesing, M. (1992).
Indefinites.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Frege, G. (1892).
Über Sinn und Bedeutung.
Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100, 25–50.
Heim, I. (1982).
The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases.
Ph. D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982).
Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar.
Ph. D. thesis, MIT.
Kamp, H. (1981).
A theory of truth and semantic representation.
In J. A.Zamparelli
G. Groenendijk,
T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof
(Eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language.
(Trento)
Linguistics
Unitn 2015
104 / 104