Expression and Interpretation of Negation: an OT Typology

Home , Adjunct (grammar), Affirmation and negation, Lexical semantics, Markedness

[Re v i e w ] Expression and Interpretation of Negation: An OT Typology

By Henriëtte de Swart, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 77, Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York, 2010, xvii+279pp.

Ki y o k o Kata o k a Kanagawa University*

Keywords: bidirectional Optimality Theory, negative concord, double negation, universality, markedness

1. Introduction The work aims to give a unified view of negation, polarity, and- con cord across different languages, dialects and diachronic stages of a language. The author takes her work as providing a general theory of human language and cognition to account for cross-linguistic variation in synchronic terms as well as diachronic terms. The basic view comes from the thesis by Dahl (1979) that negation is a universal category of natural language and also the thesis by de Swart (2009) that it is presumably a universal category of human cognition. Though cross-linguistic variation is a major topic, from both a synchronic (typology) and a diachronic (language change) perspective, the book inves- tigates mainly the negative indefinites (so-called n-words, which de Swart refers to as Neg-expressions) to draw the whole picture of Negative Concord (NC), where more than one Neg-expression leads to a single negation, and Double Negation (DN), where two Neg-expressions lead to a double negation. Under the assumption that knowledge of first-order logic is part of human cognition, de Swart concentrates on how propositional negation in sentence structure is derived involving Neg-expressions, and tries to con- struct the same underlying mechanisms to exploit the relations between form

* I am very grateful to Jennifer L. Smith for her generous support to this review work. Her careful comments and insightful suggestions helped me understand the con- tent more deeply. I could not have completed this project without the meaningful dis- cussions with her. I also thank the reviewer for the careful comments and suggestions, which were very helpful in finishing this article. Of course, any remaining errors are mine.

English Linguistics 29: 1 (2012) 155–165 －155－ © 2012 by the English Linguistic Society of Japan 156 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 29, NO. 1 (2012) and meaning in different ways, which lead to differences on the surface. In this review, I first summarize the main claims of the book and then give a brief illustration of how the proposed system works as a useful tool of description and analysis. I then point out some problematic issues from the theoretical point of view, and discuss empirical issues making use of negative expressions in Japanese, which is my native language.

2. Main Claims and the Proposed System 2.1. Basic Assumptions The basic view of negation by de Swart is as follows (Chapter 1). (1) Negation as a universal category: Negation is a universal category of natural language (Dahl 1979, Chapter 3), and presumably of human cognition (de Swart 2009). The most significant observation to support this view is that all natural languages have ways to express negation, i.e. something that corresponds to the first-order logical connective ¬, and that it is a universal feature ofhuman cognition that speakers are able to conceptualize the meaning ¬p as well as p and express both affirmation and negation in their mother tongue. The primary basic assumption is the markedness of negation (Chapter 3). (2) Markedness of negation Negation is formally and interpretationally marked compared to affirmation. This general assumption is rooted in the observation that the expression of negation involves special grammatical means, whereas the expression of affirmation does not, for instance, not and zero forms in English. There is an asymmetry between the expression of p and its negative counterpart ¬p in that negation is always overtly marked.

2.2. Bidirectional Optimality Theory as a Model of Grammar The theoretical framework adopted in this study is Optimality Theory (OT) (Chapter 2). Its base is a connectionist cognitive architecture ad- vocated in Smolensky and Legendre (2006); complex cognitive functions are computed by the brain network—mathematical models of neural computation—and, when the network achieves a state of maximal harmony—a maximized measure of well-formedness—, it has optimally satisfied the constraints. For language, a possible linguistic structure is evaluated by a set of well-formedness constraints, each of which defines one desirable- as pect of an ideal linguistic representation. Since no structure meets all the REVIEWS 157 constraints, a mechanism is needed to decide which constraints are the most important, such that the structures that optimally satisfy the constraints are well-formed or grammatical. In an ordinal OT grammar, a set of constraints that are ranked in a strict domination hierarchy define the preferred characteristics of linguistic representations. The constraints themselves are universal, but their ranking varies across languages and the language specific rankings must be learned. Grammatical knowledge of a particular language is knowledge of the constraint hierarchy, and use of the knowledge consists of determining which linguistic structures optimally satisfy the hierarchy. Thus the model of a grammar in OT is explicitly embedded in a broader cognitive architecture, and can capture the generalization that languages make use of the same underlying mechanisms, but are different in the relations between form and meaning, which is the key insight of the book. The particular model adopted is a bidirectional OT. The empirical phe- nomenon of negation is situated at the syntax-semantics interface, and thus optimization is needed in two directions (from meaning to form and from form to meaning); expressive optimization is needed for a theory of syntax, and interpretive optimization is needed for a theory of semantics, allowing the theory to work in two directions. Ordinal and strong bidirectional OT is used whenever possible, and extensions to stochastic OT (Boersma and Hayes 2001) or weak bidirectionality are adopted only when a strict and strong model cannot work as in intermediate cases (see 2.3.3).

2.3. Proposed System 2.3.1. Universally Ranked Constraints In addition to the markedness of negation, de Swart assumes that human speakers wish to distinguish between affirmative and negative statements in their language. The proposed system translates those assumptions into the model as two general constraints of faithfulness and markedness (Smolensky and Legendre (2006)), FNe g and *Ne g (Chapter 3). (3) FNe g Be faithful to negation, i.e. reflect the nonaffirmative nature of the input in the output. (4) * Ne g Avoid negation in the output. The desire to distinguish the two kinds of statement leads to the universal ranking FNe g >> *Ne g . *Ne g works as an economy constraint. Under strong evolutionary pressure, languages form optimal systems of communication, which is reflected in Horn’s (1984) principle that natural languages respect the speaker’s division of pragmatic labor. According to this prin- 158 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 29, NO. 1 (2012) ciple, unmarked/simple meanings (affirmation) pair up with unmarked forms (zero), and marked/complex meanings (negation) with marked forms. Due to economy, the use of marked forms/meanings tends to be avoided or rela- tively infrequent.

2.3.2. Variation in Ranking (I): Sentential Negation The universal ranking FNe g >> *Ne g requires negation to be overtly expressed in all languages, and thus accounts for Dahl’s (1979) typologi- cally based observation that negation is a universal category of natural language. This ranking, however, leaves a wide range of variation as to the means to express negation, and the integration of the negation marker in the grammar of a particular language, such as preverbal, postverbal, and discontinuous negation. Concentrating on propositional negation in sentence structure, two constraints are added to govern the placement of negation. (5) Ne g Fi r s t Negation precedes the finite verb. (6) Fo c u s La s t New information comes last in the sentence. It is how the constraints in a higher rank are optimally satisfied that will decide which structure is the most well-formed. A higher ranking of Ne g - Fi r s t leads to preverbal negation (Italian); a higher ranking of Fo c u s La s t leads to postverbal negation (German). If both outrank *Ne g and those two are not in competition, discontinuous negation emerges (written French, Tableau 8 in Chapter 3, 3.3.2). The typology can be interpreted in a synchronic as well as a diachronic perspective as the result of re-ranking the three constraints with respect to each other. Thus the three main phases of the Jespersen cycle (Chapter 1), which formulates the diachronic pattern of negation—a shift from preverbal to postverbal via a discontinuous stage—are also accounted for by the system. Even with intermediate stages, for instance, where a preverbal negation is obligatory but a postverbal marker is optional, or where a postverbal negation is obligatory but a preverbal marker is optional, languages eventu- ally stabilize on an ordinal ranking. Since those processes are diachronically unstable according to Haspelmath (1997), an extension toward stochastic OT is required to allow overlapping ranges of constraints in the rankings and to deal with the intermediate stages.

2.3.3. Variation in Ranking (II): Negative Indefinites In Chapters 4, 5 and 6, after illustrating the distributional phenomena of negative indefinites (called Neg-expressions) and how DN and NC readings ensue, de Swart provides the relevant constraints and their rankings to ac- REVIEWS 159 count for variations diachronically as well as synchronically. Her starting point is the claim by Dahl (1979) and Horn (1989) that all languages have, in addition to ways to express propositional negation, pronominal or adver- bial expressions negating the existence of individuals having a certain prop- erty. Following the idea by Jespersen (1917) that negation is frequently attracted to an argument, a constraint Ne g At t r a c t is introduced. (7) Ne g At t r a c t Realize (clausal) negation on an indefinite in argument or adjunct position. Whether or not a language realizes negation on an indefinite, rather than on the marker of sentential negation (SN), depends on the ranking of Ne g At- t r a c t . De Swart assigns negative indefinites the lexical semantics ¬∃x, following Zanuttini (1991), Haegeman and Zanuttini (1996), Watanabe (2004), and others, and gives them the capacity to satisfy FNe g like the SN marker. For the interpretation of Neg-expressions, polyadic quantification by de Swart and Sag (2002) is adopted; all Neg-expressions contribute semantic negation, and are stored in an N-store when the sentence is parsed, given the assumption that interpretation takes place at the clausal level. A sequence of Neg-expressions is then interpreted in two different ways upon retrieval from the N-store; in NC languages, resumption gives rise to a single negation, while DN languages value first-order iteration, resulting in DN. The distributional variation of Neg-expressions, which de Swart is most concerned with is: the first case (type I), where Neg-expressions always require an SN marker but lead to an NC with single negation (Greek, Roma- nian and Japanese), the second case (type II), where they never require an SN marker, and two Neg-expressions lead to a DN (English), and the third case (type III), where a postverbal Neg-expression requires an SN marker but a preverbal one does not (Italian and Spanish). (8) Nimeni *(nu) a venit. [NC (single negation)] [Romanian] nobody *(s n ) has come. ‘Nobody came.’ (7.1.3, (4a)) (9) a. Nobody has said nothing. [DN] [English] (7.1.3, (2a)) b. Nobody has (*not) come. [English] (10) a. Nadie (*?no) ha dicho nada. [NC (single negation)] [Spanish] nobody (*?s n ) has said nothing ‘Nobody said anything.’ (5.3, (20b)) b. *(No) ha visto nadie. [Spanish] *(SN) has seen nobody ‘He hasn’t seen anybody.’ (5.3, (20a)) 160 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 29, NO. 1 (2012)

In addition to the constraints provided above in (3)–(7), the author intro- duces Ma x Ne g for syntactic faithfulness (to guarantee a syntactic contribu- tion) and In t Ne g for semantic faithfulness (to guarantee a semantic contri- bution), and proposes, as a factorial typology, the rankings in (13), where FNe g is universally higher than the other three, to distinguish NC languages (type I and III) from DN languages (type II). (11) Ma x Ne g Mark ‘negative variables’ (i.e. mark indefinites in argument or adjunct position that are interpreted in the scope of an anti-additive operator such as negation, as formally negative). (12) In t Ne g Force Iteration (i.e. interpret every Neg-expression in the input form as contributing a semantic negation at the first-order level in the output). (13) a. Negative Concord language: FNe g >> Ma x Ne g >> *Ne g >> In t Ne g b. Double Negation language: FNe g >> In t Ne g >> *Ne g >> Ma x Ne g As *Ne g works as an economy constraint, when ranked higher than In t Ne g it rules out the use of an SN marker in combination with a Neg- expression, since the basic role of an SN marker is to satisfy FNe g , but Neg-expressions contribute semantic negation to satisfy FNe g making the SN marker redundant. The ranking *Ne g >> In t Ne g thus leads to negative spread with single negation as in (10), while the ranking In t Ne g >> *Ne g leads to DN as in (9a). For the preverbal/postverbal asymmetry in type III languages, de Swart proposes the ranking FNe g >> {Ma x Ne g , Ne g Fi r s t } >> *Ne g >> In t Ne g where {A, B} means A and B are not in direct competition (Chapter 5, 5.3), which produces both cases as optimal. For the obligatory presence of an SN marker in type I as in (8), Ma x SN is introduced for syntactic faithfulness, and the ranking FNe g >> {Ma x - Ne g , Ma x SN} >> Ne g Fi r s t >> *Ne g >> In t Ne g is proposed to guarantee the presence of an SN marker (Chapter 5, 5.4). (14) Ma x SN A negative clause (i.e. a clause that conveys a negative proposition) must bear a marker of sentential negation. Ma x SN is functionally motivated by the claim that the scope and focus of negation are marked by different expressions (negation and n-words, respec- tively). Scope marking is the exclusive responsibility of the SN marker in strict NC languages, and a high ranking of Ma x SN is responsible for the obligatory presence of the negation marker. The proposed system thus distinguishes three language types; strict NC (I), DN or negative spread (II), and nonstrict NC (III). The variation in the REVIEWS 161 ranking of the constraints, balanced by economy, is applied synchronically as well as diachronically, to account for typological variation regarding Neg- expressions. For a mixture of strict and nonstrict types such as Catalan and Basque Spanish, where, with a preverbal n-word, the SN marker is optional, Ne g - Fi r s t in (5) is ranked above *Ne g , but Ma x SN somehow interacts with *Ne g . Ne g Fi r s t >> {Ma x SN, *Ne g } is proposed for the grammar to generate two optimal outputs. Ambiguity cases, which allow both a single and a double negation depending on the context like Corblin (1996)’s cases in (15) are accounted for by an overlapping range of the interpretive constraints In t Ne g and *Ne g ; a higher ranking of the former results in DN, while a higher ranking of the latter results in NC. (15) a. Personne n’ aime personne [French] nobody SN loves nobody = No one loves anyone. [NC]/=Everyone loves someone. [DN] (1.5.1, (71a)) b. Personne n’ est l’ enfant de personne. nobody SN is the child of nobody = No one is the child of anyone. [NC] = Everyone is the child of someone. [DN] (1.5.1, (71b)) Following an idea by de Swart and Sag (2002), NC is driven not by the SN marker but by Neg-expressions, which satisfy FNe g ; the SN marker typically functions as a scope marker. While FNe g and *Ne g are reflected both in forms and meanings, In t Ne g is the only semantic faithfulness constraint, and its interaction with Ma x Ne g and *Ne g forms the core of the bidirectional grammar, and their ranking determines the type (see (13)).

3. Theoretical Problems: Autonomy of the Language Faculty A thesis widely taken by generative grammar is that the cognitive system for grammar, i.e. the language faculty, is an autonomous component. As the author notes (Chapter 7), her bidirectional OT focuses on the communi- cative process between users of a language, and aims to be embedded in a pragmatic theory of speaker-hearer interactions so that the project may ben- efit the interdisciplinary field of cognitive science that linguistics isapart of. She also claims: Natural languages respect Horn’s (1984) principle on the division of pragmatic labor, according to which unmarked meanings pair up with unmarked forms, and marked meanings with marked forms, and this principle, combined with evolutionary pressure, makes languages form opti- 162 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 29, NO. 1 (2012) mal systems of communication. These ideas of markedness and optimality are the base of de Swart’s analysis of grammar in terms of rankings of constraints. However I would like to note that it is not very clear how much the autonomous system of the grammar is affected by pragmatic factors such as speaker-hearer interactions. Pragmatic factors vary for each person and are infinitely different depending on the speaker, but the grammar seems to stabilize anyway and make language use possible.

4. Empirical Problems: How can the System Be Applied to Japanese? I examine briefly how the present model works for negation in Japanese, which the author claims is a strict NC language, since the SN marker must always appear with Neg-expressions as in (16). As Japanese is a head-final language, the predicate occupies the sentence-final position, to which the SN marker (-nai) is attached. The SN marker thus is always in the sentence- final position, which is also a position of syntactic scope (so-called c-command domain), and can be assumed to take the whole sentence (VP) as its scope, as illustrated in (17). (16) Dare-mo nani-mo iw-anai / *iu nobody nothing say-SN / say ‘Nobody says anything.’ [NC, single negation]

(17) Position and domain of Neg in Japanese: [S[VP[VP … V][Neg-nai]]] Under de Swart’s system, the ranking/balancing of the two constraints for syntax Ne g Fi r s t in (5) and Fo c u s La s t in (6) accounts for the typological variation of preverbal-postverbal negation. However, for Japanese, Ne g - Fi r s t is needed in order for Neg-expressions to precede the verb, and Fo- c u s La s t is needed for postverbal -nai; the two contrary constraints must be ranked equally high, resulting in redundancy against economy. I would suggest that the problem stems from how scope and focus are defined and captured. Though Fo c u s La s t is specified to restrict the position of negation, negation is not necessarily new information/focus and focus and negation cannot both be treated under the same restriction. If we take the scope of α as α’s c-command domain as in (17), with its focus being in that domain, as is usually taken in the syntactic literature, then the scope of an SN marker is captured in general for preverbal as well as postverbal negation. Only one more general constraint, in place of the two, would be required to determine head-final or head-initial in terms of generative syntax, maintaining Ma x SN in (14) for the obligatory existence of an SN marker but not for its scope-marking. If the author is to capture the scope of ne- REVIEWS 163 gation in syntax, it should be defined in configurational terms as is generally done, rather than making reference to precedence relations, though she admits that syntactic concerns are left open for future work. The next problem is regarding de Swart’s interpretation system involving polyadic quantification. Under that system, more than one Neg-expression gives rise to a single negation by resumption, which operates at the clausal level as she discusses in Chapter 4, 4.3. Consequently, constructions involving multiple negative clauses would not participate in one process of NC, since Neg-expressions occurring across a clause boundary could not be stored for the same single process of interpretation in order to give rise to a single negation through resumption; each one of those Neg-expressions existing in a different clause would induce a negation. Morphological negation would not allow NC either, since an expression with affixal negation does not qualify as a Neg-expression to take part in the NC process under de Swart’s system. It is thus predicted that Neg-expressions can not occur across a clause boundary or with negative particles, inducing a single negation. However, the Japanese examples below are possible. (18) a. Hanako-wa kai-ni daremo sanka-suru-to Hanako-Top meeting-at nobody join-do-Comp iw-anakat-ta / sir-anakat-ta. say-SN-Past / know-SN-Past ‘Hanako did not say/know that anybody would join the meeting.’ b. Dare-mo hu-goukaku-dat-ta / hu-tekikaku-dat-ta. Nobody not-passed-Copula-Past / in-appropriate-Copula-Past ‘Nobody passed it / was appropriate.’ c. Ano-zyokyoo-de-wa teekoo-wa nanimo that-situation-in-Top resistance-Top nothing hu-kanoo-dat-ta im-possible-Copula-Past ‘In that situation, no resistance was possible.’ Although, as a researcher not very familiar with OT, my understanding of the system may not be sufficient, it seems to be necessary to discuss these facts more, including the thesis that Japanese is an NC language with the Neg-expressions being n-words, as Watanabe (2004) claims.

5. Concluding Remarks As is shown by the brief illustration above, the proposed system in bidi- 164 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 29, NO. 1 (2012) rectional OT can be a very useful tool to draw a comprehensive picture of the linguistic phenomena of negation and put them in order in consideration of significant factors. As the author admits, more typological variation may be found, especially outside the family of Indo-European languages as in the case of Japanese (see 4), and it is expected that new findings will improve the system and exploit a richer system of constraints.

REFERENCES Boersma, Paul and Bruce Hayes (2001) “Empirical Tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm,” Linguistic Inquiry 32, 45–86. Corblin, Francis (1996) “Multiple Negation Processing in Natural Language,” Theo- ria 17, 214–259. Dahl, Östen (1979) “Typology of Sentence Negation,” Linguistics 17, 79–106. Haegeman, Liliane and Raffaella Zanuttini (1996) “Negative Concord in West Flem- ish,” Parameters and Functional Heads, ed. by Adriana Belletti and Luigi Rizzi, 117–180, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Haspelmath, Martin (1997) Indefinite Pronouns, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Horn, Laurence (1984) “Towards a New Taxonomy of Pragmatic Reference: Q-based and R-based Implicature,” Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, 11–42, Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C. Horn, Laurence (1989) A Natural History of Negation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Jespersen, Otto (1917) Negation in English Grammar, reprinted in 1964, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL. Smolensky, Paul and Géraldine Legendre (2006) The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-theoretic Grammar, Vol. 1: Cognitive Architecture, Vol. 2: Linguistic and Philosophical Implications, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Swart, Henriëtte de (2009) “Negation in Early L2: A Window on Language Gen- esis,” Language Evolution: The View from Restricted Linguistic Systems, ed. by Rudolf Botha and Henriëtte de Swart, 59–100, LOT Publications, Utrecht. Swart, Henriëtte de and Ivan Sag (2002) “Negation and Negative Concord in Ro- mance,” Linguistics and Philosophy 25, 373–417. Watanabe, Akira (2004) “The Genesis of Negative Concord: Syntax and Morphology of Negative Doubling,” Linguistic Inquiry 35, 559–612. Zanuttini, Raffaella (1991) Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A Compara- tive Study of Romance Languages, Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsyl- vania.

[received July 27 2011, revised and accepted December 29 2011] REVIEWS 165

e-mail: [email protected]