DOCSLIB.ORG

Probing Syntax and Semantics with French Propre A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Probing Syntax and Semantics with French Propre A UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles On her own Parsimonious Compositionality: Probing Syntax and Semantics with French propre A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics by Isabelle Charnavel 2012 © Copyright by Isabelle Charnavel 2012 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION On her own Parsimonious Compositionality: Probing Syntax and Semantics with French propre by Isabelle Charnavel Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Los Angeles, 2012 Professor Dominique Sportiche, Chair This dissertation focuses on the French word propre roughly meaning ‘characteristic-of’ and corresponding to English own found in ‘her own thesis’. This adjective makes extremely varied and complex contributions to the meaning and properties of sentences it occurs in. The present work addresses the question of how these contributions arise. Parsimoniously assuming a unique lexical entry for propre, these contributions are compositionally derived by a specific DP-internal structure and different interactions with focus. More precisely, propre is analyzed as taking as argument a possessive relation characterized as most specific. Unlike postnominal propre , prenominal propre exhibits ii three main readings called restrictive, possessor and possessum propre : restrictive propre has a standard intersective truth-conditional effect; possessor and possessum propre do not, but induce focus alternatives respectively to the possessor and to the possessum; possessum propre moreover gives rise to scalarity effects. These readings are argued to derive from a principle of minimization and different interactions with focus; in particular, the behavior of possessum propre shows the presence of a covert focus operator akin to even . When combined with a pronominal possessor like son (‘his’), the behavior of propre provides probes bearing on binding theoretic issues. First, son propre exhibits complex correlations between focus, locality and animacy: possessor propre is subject to locality only when it is inanimate, unlike possessum propre not so constrained. The difference between possessor and possessum propre underscores an interaction between focus and binding. Moreover, the distribution of possessor son propre sheds new light on how to formulate condition A supporting the relevance of local binding domain (for non-exempt anaphors) and the need for exemption (from condition A). As inanimate French anaphors like son propre are never exempt, they provide a crucial tool for delimiting locality, allowing a reduction of condition A (at least in French) to phase theory based architectural principles. iii The dissertation of Isabelle Charnavel is approved. Hilda Koopman Philippe Schlenker Yael Sharvit Dominique Sportiche, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2012 iv Scientiae In Libertate, Libertati In Scientia v TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1. The project: parsimony and compositionality ......................................................................... 1 2. Theoretical questions ............................................................................................................... 3 3. Results ...................................................................................................................................... 5 4. Outline ................................................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 1: Describing the meaning and the distribution of propre 1. Roadmap ................................................................................................................................ 11 2. DP-internal distribution of propre ......................................................................................... 12 2.1. Postnominal propre ....................................................................................................... 13 2.2. Prenominal propre ........................................................................................................ 16 2.3. Syntactic analysis .......................................................................................................... 22 2.3.1. A raising adjective selecting a possessive relation ............................................... 23 2.3.1.1. Derivation of postnominal propre with complement ................................................................................................. 24 2.3.1.1. Derivation of prenominal propre ......................................................................................................................................... 26 2.3.1.2. Derivation of postnominal propre without complement .......................................................................................... 28 2.3.2. Superlative ............................................................................................................ 30 2.3.3. Summary: assumptions about prenominal propre for the rest of the study .......... 31 3. The different readings of prenominal propre ........................................................................ 32 3.1. Restrictive propre (truth-conditional propre ) ............................................................... 33 3.2. Possessor propre ........................................................................................................... 36 3.3. Possessum propre ......................................................................................................... 41 3.4. Further readings ............................................................................................................ 46 3.4.1. Agentive propre .................................................................................................... 47 3.4.2. Reflexive propre ................................................................................................... 47 3.4.3. Ownership propre ................................................................................................. 47 4. The sentential distribution of son propre ............................................................................... 48 4.1. Possessor son propre: correlation between locality and inanimacy ............................. 50 4.2. Possessum son propre: no correlation between locality and inanimacy ...................... 54 5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 57 6. Appendix: Questionnaire (possessor son propre : correlation between inanimacy and locality) ......................................................................................................................................... 58 6.1. Design and material ...................................................................................................... 59 6.2. Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 63 6.3. Results ........................................................................................................................... 64 vi CHAPTER 2: Deriving the different readings of prenominal propre 1. Roadmap ................................................................................................................................ 69 2. Basic elements of the analysis: economy and focus .............................................................. 71 2.1. Principle of minimization .............................................................................................. 72 2.1.1. Principle of minimization: relevance .................................................................... 73 2.1.2. Principle of minimization: focus (possessor propre ) ............................................ 74 2.1.3. Principle of minimization: focus and relevance (possessum propre ) ................... 75 2.2. Interaction of propre with focus ................................................................................... 76 2.2.1. The problem of possessor propre .......................................................................... 76 2.2.2. Readings and focus targets .................................................................................... 78 3. Theory of focus ...................................................................................................................... 79 3.1. The questions ................................................................................................................ 79 3.2. Some influential theories of focus ................................................................................ 82 3.2.1. Rooth (1985, 1992) ............................................................................................... 82 3.2.1.1. Focus semantic value ................................................................................................................................................................. 82 3.2.1.2. The case of focusing adverbs ................................................................................................................................................. 85 3.2.1.3. The case of multiple foci ........................................................................................................................................................... 86 3.2.2. Schwarzschild (1999) ............................................................................................ 87 3.2.2.1. Givenness ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Generative Lexicon
    The Generative Lexicon James Pustejovsky" Computer Science Department Brandeis University In this paper, I will discuss four major topics relating to current research in lexical seman- tics: methodology, descriptive coverage, adequacy of the representation, and the computational usefulness of representations. In addressing these issues, I will discuss what I think are some of the central problems facing the lexical semantics community, and suggest ways of best ap- proaching these issues. Then, I will provide a method for the decomposition of lexical categories and outline a theory of lexical semantics embodying a notion of cocompositionality and type coercion, as well as several levels of semantic description, where the semantic load is spread more evenly throughout the lexicon. I argue that lexical decomposition is possible if it is per- formed generatively. Rather than assuming a fixed set of primitives, I will assume a fixed number of generative devices that can be seen as constructing semantic expressions. I develop a theory of Qualia Structure, a representation language for lexical items, which renders much lexical ambiguity in the lexicon unnecessary, while still explaining the systematic polysemy that words carry. Finally, I discuss how individual lexical structures can be integrated into the larger lexical knowledge base through a theory of lexical inheritance. This provides us with the necessary principles of global organization for the lexicon, enabling us to fully integrate our natural language lexicon into a conceptual whole. 1. Introduction I believe we have reached an interesting turning point in research, where linguistic studies can be informed by computational tools for lexicology as well as an appre- ciation of the computational complexity of large lexical databases.
    [Show full text]
  • Acquaintance Inferences As Evidential Effects
    The acquaintance inference as an evidential effect Abstract. Predications containing a special restricted class of predicates, like English tasty, tend to trigger an inference when asserted, to the effect that the speaker has had a spe- cific kind of `direct contact' with the subject of predication. This `acquaintance inference' has typically been treated as a hard-coded default effect, derived from the nature of the predicate together with the commitments incurred by assertion. This paper reevaluates the nature of this inference by examining its behavior in `Standard' Tibetan, a language that grammatically encodes perceptual evidentiality. In Tibetan, the acquaintance inference trig- gers not as a default, but rather when, and only when, marked by a perceptual evidential. The acquaintance inference is thus a grammaticized evidential effect in Tibetan, and so it cannot be a default effect in general cross-linguistically. An account is provided of how the semantics of the predicate and the commitment to perceptual evidentiality derive the in- ference in Tibetan, and it is suggested that the inference ought to be seen as an evidential effect generally, even in evidential-less languages, which invoke evidential notions without grammaticizing them. 1 Introduction: the acquaintance inference A certain restricted class of predicates, like English tasty, exhibit a special sort of behavior when used in predicative assertions. In particular, they require as a robust default that the speaker of the assertion has had direct contact of a specific sort with the subject of predication, as in (1). (1) This food is tasty. ,! The speaker has tasted the food. ,! The speaker liked the food's taste.
    [Show full text]
  • Property Modifiers
    Property Modifiers Marie Duží and Michal Fait VSB-Technical University Ostrava, Department of Computer Science FEI, 17. listopadu 15, 708 33 Ostrava, Czech Republic [email protected], [email protected] Abstract. In this paper, we deal with property modifiers defined as func- tions that associate a given root property P with a modified property [MP]. Property modifiers typically divide into four kinds, namely intersective, subsective, privative and modal. Here we do not deal with modal modi- fiers like alleged, which appear to be well-nigh logically lawless, because, for instance, an alleged assassin is or is not an assassin. The goal of this paper is to logically define the three remaining kinds of modifiers. Fur- thermore, we introduce the rule of pseudo-detachment as the rule of left subsectivity to replace the modifier M in the premise by the property M* in the conclusion, and prove that this rule is valid for all kinds of modifiers. Furthermore, it is defined in a way that avoids paradoxes like that a small elephant is smaller than a large mouse. Key words: Property modifier, subsective, intersective, privative, the rule of pseudo-detachment, Transparent intensional logic, TIL, intensional essentialism 1 Introduction We introduce a logic of property modifiers modelled as a mapping from proper- ties to properties, such that the result of the application of a modifier to a property is another property. This is because the result of modification does not depend on the state of the world, nor on time. For instance, if one applies the modifier Skilful to the property Surgeon, they obtain the property of being a skilful surgeon.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 Mirativity and the Bulgarian Evidential System Elena Karagjosova Freie Universität Berlin
    Chapter 6 Mirativity and the Bulgarian evidential system Elena Karagjosova Freie Universität Berlin This paper provides an account of the Bulgarian admirative construction andits place within the Bulgarian evidential system based on (i) new observations on the morphological, temporal, and evidential properties of the admirative, (ii) a criti- cal reexamination of existing approaches to the Bulgarian evidential system, and (iii) insights from a similar mirative construction in Spanish. I argue in particular that admirative sentences are assertions based on evidence of some sort (reporta- tive, inferential, or direct) which are contrasted against the set of beliefs held by the speaker up to the point of receiving the evidence; the speaker’s past beliefs entail a proposition that clashes with the assertion, triggering belief revision and resulting in a sense of surprise. I suggest an analysis of the admirative in terms of a mirative operator that captures the evidential, temporal, aspectual, and modal properties of the construction in a compositional fashion. The analysis suggests that although mirativity and evidentiality can be seen as separate semantic cate- gories, the Bulgarian admirative represents a cross-linguistically relevant case of a mirative extension of evidential verbal forms. Keywords: mirativity, evidentiality, fake past 1 Introduction The Bulgarian evidential system is an ongoing topic of discussion both withre- spect to its interpretation and its morphological buildup. In this paper, I focus on the currently poorly understood admirative construction. The analysis I present is based on largely unacknowledged observations and data involving the mor- phological structure, the syntactic environment, and the evidential meaning of the admirative. Elena Karagjosova.
    [Show full text]
  • Compositional and Lexical Semantics • Compositional Semantics: The
    Compositional and lexical semantics Compositional semantics: the construction • of meaning (generally expressed as logic) based on syntax. This lecture: – Semantics with FS grammars Lexical semantics: the meaning of • individual words. This lecture: – lexical semantic relations and WordNet – one technique for word sense disambiguation 1 Simple compositional semantics in feature structures Semantics is built up along with syntax • Subcategorization `slot' filling instantiates • syntax Formally equivalent to logical • representations (below: predicate calculus with no quantifiers) Alternative FS encodings possible • 2 Objective: obtain the following semantics for they like fish: pron(x) (like v(x; y) fish n(y)) ^ ^ Feature structure encoding: 2 PRED and 3 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 2 PRED 3 7 6 pron 7 6 ARG1 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 ARG1 1 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 4 5 7 6 7 6 7 6 2 3 7 6 PRED and 7 6 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 2 3 7 7 6 6 PRED like v 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 ARG1 6 ARG1 1 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 ARG2 6 6 ARG2 2 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 4 5 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 2 3 7 7 6 6 PRED fish n 7 7 6 6 ARG2 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 ARG 2 7 7 7 6 6 6 1 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 4 5 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 4 5 7 6 7 4 5 3 Noun entry 2 3 2 CAT noun 3 6 HEAD 7 6 7 6 6 AGR 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 4 5 7 6 7 6 COMP 7 6 filled 7 6 7 fish 6 7 6 SPR filled 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 INDEX 1 7 6 2 3 7 6 7 6 SEM 7 6 6 PRED fish n 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 ARG 1 7 7 6 6 1 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 4 5 7 4 5 Corresponds to fish(x) where the INDEX • points to the characteristic variable of the noun (that is x).
    [Show full text]
  • Intersective Entailments with Adverbials?
    Class 4 Modification and Events Modifiers in syntax Modifier = constituent that doesn’t change syntactic category of its sister. happy – adjective (phrase) very happy – adjective phrase (AP) very is an AP modifier women – noun (phrase) tall women – noun phrase (NP) tall is an NP modifier (adnominal) More examples? ran quickly – verb phrase (VP) modifier (adverb, adverbial) very quickly – (also) adverb modifier Further? men in the kitchen, men who knit, men and/or women, almost every man Semantics: Modifier Functions Modifier function = a function of type aa. happy – et very happy – et very – (et )( et ) very denotes a modifier function women – et tall women – et tall – (et )( et ) every man – (et )t Alternatively: almost every man – (et )t every – (et )(( et )t) almost – (( et )t)(( et )t) almost every – (et )(( et )t) almost – (( et )(( et )t))(( et )(( et )t)) Syntax-Semantics Hypothesis: All modifiers in syntax denote modifier functions. [ In categorial grammar: Type(N)=et Type(N N)=(et)(et) Type(NP)=(et)t Type(NP NP)=((et)t)((et)t) In general: Type(X X) = (Type(X))(Type(X)) ] But what denotations should modifier functions have? Intersective adnominal modifiers [[ fast cars ]] = car ∩ fast [[ houses in England ]] = house ∩ in_England [[ houses where I lived ]] = house ∩ { x∈E : live_in(I,x) } A function F of type ( et )( et ) is an intersective modifier if there is a set of entities B s.t. for every function get characterizing a set A, the et function F(g) characterizes the set A∩B. Adverbials – similarity to adnominals Adnominals Adverbials Adjectives/ Adverbs fast cars ate fast Preposition Phrases houses in England ate in England Relative Clauses houses where I lived ate where I lived Question: Can we treat adverbials as intersective modifiers? Common answer: - Surely not as (et)(et) modifiers.
    [Show full text]
  • A Syntactic Analysis of Rhetorical Questions
    A Syntactic Analysis of Rhetorical Questions Asier Alcázar 1. Introduction* A rhetorical question (RQ: 1b) is viewed as a pragmatic reading of a genuine question (GQ: 1a). (1) a. Who helped John? [Mary, Peter, his mother, his brother, a neighbor, the police…] b. Who helped John? [Speaker follows up: “Well, me, of course…who else?”] Rohde (2006) and Caponigro & Sprouse (2007) view RQs as interrogatives biased in their answer set (1a = unbiased interrogative; 1b = biased interrogative). In unbiased interrogatives, the probability distribution of the answers is even.1 The answer in RQs is biased because it belongs in the Common Ground (CG, Stalnaker 1978), a set of mutual or common beliefs shared by speaker and addressee. The difference between RQs and GQs is thus pragmatic. Let us refer to these approaches as Option A. Sadock (1971, 1974) and Han (2002), by contrast, analyze RQs as no longer interrogative, but rather as assertions of opposite polarity (2a = 2b). Accordingly, RQs are not defined in terms of the properties of their answer set. The CG is not invoked. Let us call these analyses Option B. (2) a. Speaker says: “I did not lie.” b. Speaker says: “Did I lie?” [Speaker follows up: “No! I didn’t!”] For Han (2002: 222) RQs point to a pragmatic interface: “The representation at this level is not LF, which is the output of syntax, but more abstract than that. It is the output of further post-LF derivation via interaction with at least a sub part of the interpretational component, namely pragmatics.” RQs are not seen as syntactic objects, but rather as a post-syntactic interface phenomenon.
    [Show full text]
  • Sentential Negation and Negative Concord
    Sentential Negation and Negative Concord Published by LOT phone: +31.30.2536006 Trans 10 fax: +31.30.2536000 3512 JK Utrecht email: [email protected] The Netherlands http://wwwlot.let.uu.nl/ Cover illustration: Kasimir Malevitch: Black Square. State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia. ISBN 90-76864-68-3 NUR 632 Copyright © 2004 by Hedde Zeijlstra. All rights reserved. Sentential Negation and Negative Concord ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus Prof. Mr P.F. van der Heijden ten overstaan van een door het College voor Promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Universiteit op woensdag 15 december 2004, te 10:00 uur door HEDZER HUGO ZEIJLSTRA geboren te Rotterdam Promotiecommissie: Promotores: Prof. Dr H.J. Bennis Prof. Dr J.A.G. Groenendijk Copromotor: Dr J.B. den Besten Leden: Dr L.C.J. Barbiers (Meertens Instituut, Amsterdam) Dr P.J.E. Dekker Prof. Dr A.C.J. Hulk Prof. Dr A. von Stechow (Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen) Prof. Dr F.P. Weerman Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen Voor Petra Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................V 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................1 1.1 FOUR ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NEGATION.......................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Property Modifiers and Intensional Essentialism
    Computación y Sistemas ISSN: 1405-5546 [email protected] Instituto Politécnico Nacional México Duží, Marie Property Modifiers and Intensional Essentialism Computación y Sistemas, vol. 21, núm. 4, 2017, pp. 601-613 Instituto Politécnico Nacional Distrito Federal, México Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=61553900004 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative ISSN 2007-9737 Property Modifiers and Intensional Essentialism Marie Duží VSB-Technical University of Ostrava, Department of Computer Science, Czech Republic [email protected] Abstract. In this paper, I deal with property modifiers characteristic function from individuals to truth- defined as functions that associate a given root property values. So, for an individual to instantiate a P with a modified property [M P]. Property modifiers property, whether modified or not, is to be an typically divide into four kinds, namely intersective, element of its extension at a given world and time. subsective, privative and modal. Here I do not deal with The novel contribution of this paper is a new modal modifiers like alleged, which appear to be well- nigh logically lawless, because, for instance, an alleged definition of subsective and privative modifiers in assassin is or is not an assassin. The goal of this paper terms of intensional essentialism. is to logically define the three remaining kinds of Kamp’s seminal [9] seeks to draw a line modifiers together with the rule of left subsectivity that I between those adjectives whose meaning is a launch as the rule of pseudo-detachment to replace the property and those adjectives whose meaning is a modifier M in the premise by the property M* in the function that maps properties to properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Tagalog Pala: an Unsurprising Case of Mirativity
    Tagalog pala: an unsurprising case of mirativity Scott AnderBois Brown University Similar to many descriptions of miratives cross-linguistically, Schachter & Otanes(1972)’s clas- sic descriptive grammar of Tagalog describes the second position particle pala as “expressing mild surprise at new information, or an unexpected event or situation.” Drawing on recent work on mi- rativity in other languages, however, we show that this characterization needs to be refined in two ways. First, we show that while pala can be used in cases of surprise, pala itself merely encodes the speaker’s sudden revelation with the counterexpectational nature of surprise arising pragmatically or from other aspects of the sentence such as other particles and focus. Second, we present data from imperatives and interrogatives, arguing that this revelation need not concern ‘information’ per se, but rather the illocutionay update the sentence encodes. Finally, we explore the interactions between pala and other elements which express mirativity in some way and/or interact with the mirativity pala expresses. 1. Introduction Like many languages of the Philippines, Tagalog has a prominent set of discourse particles which express a variety of different evidential, attitudinal, illocutionary, and discourse-related meanings. Morphosyntactically, these particles have long been known to be second-position clitics, with a number of authors having explored fine-grained details of their distribution, rela- tive order, and the interaction of this with different types of sentences (e.g. Schachter & Otanes (1972), Billings & Konopasky(2003) Anderson(2005), Billings(2005) Kaufman(2010)). With a few recent exceptions, however, comparatively little has been said about the semantics/prag- matics of these different elements beyond Schachter & Otanes(1972)’s pioneering work (which is quite detailed given their broad scope of their work).
    [Show full text]
  • Amount Superlatives and Measure Phrases
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 9-2018 Amount Superlatives and Measure Phrases E. Cameron Wilson The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2949 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] AMOUNT SUPERLATIVES AND MEASURE PHRASES by E. CAMERON WILSON A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Linguistics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2018 © 2018 E. CAMERON WILSON All Rights Reserved ii Amount Superlatives and Measure Phrases by E. Cameron Wilson This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Linguistics in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. _____________________ ________________________________ Date Sam Al Khatib Chair of Examining Committee _____________________ ________________________________ Date Gita Martohardjono Executive Officer Supervisory Committee: Sam Al Khatib William McClure Jon Nissenbaum Yael Sharvit THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii ABSTRACT Amount Superlatives and Measure Phrases by E. Cameron Wilson Advisor: Sam Al Khatib This dissertation provides a novel analysis of quantity superlatives by bringing together research on three interrelated topics: superlative ambiguity, semantic constraints on measure constructions, and the internal structure of the extended nominal phrase. I analyze the quantity words, most, least, and fewest as superlatives of quantificational adjectives (Q-adjectives), but argue that these are often embedded inside a covert measure construction, rather than directly modifying the overt noun.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Negation in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective
    Chapter 1 Negation in a cross-linguistic perspective 0. Chapter summary This chapter introduces the empirical scope of our study on the expression and interpretation of negation in natural language. We start with some background notions on negation in logic and language, and continue with a discussion of more linguistic issues concerning negation at the syntax-semantics interface. We zoom in on cross- linguistic variation, both in a synchronic perspective (typology) and in a diachronic perspective (language change). Besides expressions of propositional negation, this book analyzes the form and interpretation of indefinites in the scope of negation. This raises the issue of negative polarity and its relation to negative concord. We present the main facts, criteria, and proposals developed in the literature on this topic. The chapter closes with an overview of the book. We use Optimality Theory to account for the syntax and semantics of negation in a cross-linguistic perspective. This theoretical framework is introduced in Chapter 2. 1 Negation in logic and language The main aim of this book is to provide an account of the patterns of negation we find in natural language. The expression and interpretation of negation in natural language has long fascinated philosophers, logicians, and linguists. Horn’s (1989) Natural history of negation opens with the following statement: “All human systems of communication contain a representation of negation. No animal communication system includes negative utterances, and consequently, none possesses a means for assigning truth value, for lying, for irony, or for coping with false or contradictory statements.” A bit further on the first page, Horn states: “Despite the simplicity of the one-place connective of propositional logic ( ¬p is true if and only if p is not true) and of the laws of inference in which it participate (e.g.
    [Show full text]