The Syntax of Complement Clauses Spring semester 2013-2014 Maura Cotfas

Lecture 2 NEGATIVE SENTENCES IN ENGLISH Affirmative Sentence: (1) They like syntax vs. Negative Sentence: (2) They do not/dont like syntax. From the p.o.v. of meaning, negative sentences deny the truth of their affirmative counterpart. Negation in English marked by the negative marker not & its contracted form nt but also by words which incorporate negative meaning (no one, nothing, nobody, never, nowhere, etc.): (3) Ive never told her the truth. / No one knows him. / Neither of them could come.

A. Negation is an important problem in English because:

1. negation is a very mobile constituent a. it can be in the auxiliary (as the free morpheme not or the affix nt) (4) He has not / hasnt lost my respect b. it can be incorporated into a quantifier or determiner, an adverb or a pronoun (5) He has seen nobody there / He went nowhere / He has found no money there. c. it can be fronted in emphatic negative sentences (the negative word occupies sentence-initial position and there is SAI): Neg word + aux + Su + V + .... (6) Never have I attended a more entertaining LEC lecture. 2. the presence of negation may trigger the presence of other items, called negative polarity items (7) He hasnt ever seen her vs. *He has ever seen her (8) I dont love you anymore vs. * I dont love you no more

B. Types of Negation
Negation may attach at various syntactic levels: a) at word-level = a negative affix (dislike, unhappy, impossible, a non-resident, careless) b) at phrase-level = negation is attached to a phrase XP: XP 2 not XP (9) He came here [not long ago]/ Not far away, there was a cosy little house./ He arrived in no time. / He may [not know about it] (internal negation, not modifies the modal, not the main verb, so the sentences polarity is affirmative) c) at sentence-level = negation refers to/affects the whole sentence, so the sentence has a negative meaning/polarity.

!The default (natural) situation refers to predicate-negation, in which case the subject is not under the scope of negation: Many students didnt come(many > not). If the subject falls under the scope of negation, there is explicit formal marking: Not many students came (not many >> some) There are cases in which the negative operator may operate changes in the meaning of the sentence: All that glitters is not gold has two readings due to scope ambiguity: a) the subject is outside negation (All > not) = Nothing that glitters is gold b) the subject is under the scope of negation (not > all) = Not all that glitters is gold (but some is) Hence, we are dealing with an important distinction between: a) word/affixal negation (negation marked on individual words, see above) b) phrasal/local/constituent negation (negation affects a single phrase inside a sentence, usually an adverbial constituent, not the verb, so the polarity of the sentence is not affected (i.e., the sentence remains affirmative, in spite of the presence of a negative element): (10) Not long ago, I saw John dancing samba c) Sentence/full negation (negation which is present in the inflectional layer (i.e., on the verb) and thus yields the whole sentence negative)

C. Negative sentences have specific distributional properties which

distinguish between negative sentences and sentences with negative constituents. There are four diagnostic tests for negativity (Klima 1964) a) the tag-question test negative Ss take affirmative tags (11) John is not happy, is he? (>> negative sentence) John is unhappy, isnt he? (>> affirmative sentence, in spite of the presence of affixal negation) b) the not-even tags test negative Ss take not-even tags; affirmative Ss take even tags (12) George doesnt like smart girls, not even pretty ones. (> neg. sentence) George dislikes smart girls, even pretty ones. (>> affirmative sentence, in spite of the presence of affixal negation) c) the either-coordination test [S1 and S2, either] = S2 negative (13) [John stayed at home] and [Mary didnt go anywhere either]. *John didnt go anywhere and Mary stayed at home either. d) the neither-tags test neither-tags require negative hosts (14) John couldnt go anyplace and neither could Mary (notice that neither triggers inversion!)

D. Types of Negative Sentences

1. the negative marker is attached to an auxiliary or a modal verb >> Negation is part of the functional domain of the verb (the IP domain) (15) They have not studied for their exam. / He cant dance. / Ray is not/isnt reading in his room / John does not/doesnt love Susan. 2. Ss in which negation incorporated into a quantifier (= a type of determiner which denotes quantity) >> Negative clauses with negative quantifiers or with lexical negators 2.a. complete/absolute negators: those which are overtly negative

[Type the company name]

(16) Nobody likes John. / John bought nothing interesting. / I never drink milk with coffee. 2.b. incomplete negators: quantifiers with negative meaning (17) Few students had showed up. / I rarely/seldom visit my parents. / I had barely noticed him./ He hardly ever smokes. 3. Emphatic negative sentences: Ss in which the absolute or incomplete negator appears in S-initial position, triggering Su-Aux Inversion (SAI)) (18) Never have I seen a more interesting movie! Hardly had he entered the house when the storm started.

D. 1. Negation in the Inflectional Domain

(19) Jana has not / hasnt spoken a word since she came. / Jana cannot/cant speak English. - in Ss which have have or be or a modal as auxiliary, negation attaches/is marked on these. Q: What happens when there is no auxiliary available (i.e., Ss in the Past Simple or Present Simple)? (20) They speak perfect English / *They speak not/speaknt.... Jana speaks perfect English / *Jana speaks not/speaksnt.... Do Insertion >> They do not/dont speak.../ Jana does not/doesnt speak.... Negation attaches only to auxiliaries/modals in English, never to lexical Vs. (21) They have not/havent been learning lately. / They cant have been swimming in this dirty pool! in a string of auxiliaries, negation is always placed after the first auxiliary NOT = a negative marker which heads is own projection NegP Q: Where is NegP generated in the structure? has not come can not arrive is not reading Infl Neg V >> Neg occurs after the first aux., i.e., below IP and above VP >> IP > NegP > VP This has important consequences for word-order: (22) *She teaches / taught not Lexical verbs cannot be directly negated: they cannot directly precede nor follow Negation (23) She does not teach morphology. She did not leave. >> Do-Insertion or Do-Support Q: why is Do-Insertion required in the derivation? (24) Bill -s not like syntax Infl Neg V. - two options available: 1. Affix Lowering - the affix (-s) cannot lower to V because negation (not) is in the way >>*Bill not likes syntax

[Type the company name]

2. Verb movement - the lexical verb cannot move up to host the affix (s) (remember!! Lexical Vs do not move in English) >> * Bill likes not syntax >> neither of the two options yields grammatical results + the Stranded Affix Filter says that bound morphemes cannot remain stranded; they need a host >> Do is inserted as a last resort, providing a verbal support for the affix. - in sentences which have auxiliaries (have, be) or modal Vs, these are hosted by the Inflection node (Remember! modals are directly generated under the Inflection and the other auxiliaries reach Infl via V-to I movement), hence they can function as appropriate hosts for the affix (-s or ed) >> no Do-insertion needed A word on NOT vs. NT - both convey the sentence where they appear syntactically negative - historically, nt is the reduced & unstressed form of not but they are not freely interchangeable >> - they behave differently: 1) in SAI structures: (25) Susan has not passed the exam > Has Susan t not passed the exam? Susan hasnt passed her exam. > * Has Susan nt passed the exam? Hasnt Susan passed? >> not, as a free morpheme, can be stranded vs. nt - nt behaves like an (inflectional/verbal) affix which is dragged along by the verb when it moves; 2) nt can only attach to finite auxiliaries, vs. not, which can also modify infinitive (non-finite) complements or phrases (see constituent/phrasal negation) (26) Not long ago, he met Susan vs. *Nt long ago, he. He may [not have arrived] vs. *He may [nt have arrived] 3) nt attaches to the highest auxiliary, whereas not can appear lower in the verbal constituent (27) He couldnt have been fired. / *He could havent been fired. He could not have been fired. / He could have not been fired. not can adjoin to non-verbal projections as well >> not necessarily associated to Sentence negation. In other words, a sentence which contains the affix nt (always attached to an auxiliary or a modal) will always be syntactically negative; a sentence which contains the formative not need not be negative, but it may well be (if not is marked on the main predicate (in the inflectional layer)) 1), 2) & 3) above also account for a fourth difference 4) while there can only be one instance of nt in a S, not can appear twice and not can co-occur with nt (the case of double negatives) (28) * He cant havent gone there vs. He cant [not have gone there] [= He must have gone] You cannot [not go] [ = You must/should go] In cases such as the example above (with two instances of not), we are dealing with two different types of not, of which only the first one (the highest) is

[Type the company name]

interchangeable with nt, being the head of NegP. The second one marks constituent negation and if affects the infinitive complement of the modal verb. (29) You cannot [not go] > You cant [not go] / *You cant [nt go] The two instances are known under the labels of functional not and adverbial not (30) You must not [not speak] = You mustnt [not speak] ( = You must speak) functional adverbial the functional head not vs. the adverbial not the whole sentence negative adjoined to any maximal projection a. She couldnt not have noticed it. b. They talked to me not to you. c. They met each other not long ago. the functional negator not negates finite clauses vs. adverbial not is used in non-finite constructions: (31) To be or NOT to be, that is the question adverbial not = a lexical element which affects only the maximal projection to which it adjoins, the result is local negation and hence it does not interfere with finite sentence negation. Evidence that the adverbial not negates non-finite constructions whereas the functional negator not/nt only finite clauses comes from the domain of modal verbs. (32) a. They might [not know about it]. b. She may [not have understood what I taught her] (33) They cannot [speak Chinese]. >> in sentences containing a modal verb negation can affect a) the complement of the modal, in which case it is analysed as being within the scope of the modal (internal negation) (example 32, with both sentences syntactically baffirmative) , or it can b) affect the modal, in which case it is outside the scope of the modal (external negation) (example 33, where negation affects the main predication, hence the sentence is syntactically negative)

D.2. Sentences with Negative Quantifiers / Sentences with non-verbal Negation

(34) a. Theres no need for me to attend this class. b. They had done nothing about it. c. Neither of them could understand the lecture. d. She had never felt happier. >> complete/ absolute negators e. She hardly ever says anything. f. I have few objections g. They seldom socialize. >>incomplete negators [incomplete negators signal an imprecise quantification which is close to or approximates zero (CGEL:816); e.g. few = not many (if any); little = not much; hardly ever = almost never, etc.]
[Type the company name]

- (!in spite of the absence of not or nt) all the above sentences are syntactically negative, since they pass the negativity tests (see section C above): (35) a. Theres no need for me to attend this class, is it? b. They had done nothing about it, and neither had you/ nor had you. c. Neither of them could understand the lecture, not even the smart ones. d. She had never felt happier and I hadnt either. e. She hardly ever says anything, not even when shes happy/ and she doesnt smile either. f. Few students showed up today, not even the most diligent ones. g. They seldom socialize, do they? / not even on Sundays. the negative marker is the overt element which yields the whole clause negative in English, negation can be marked either in the inflectional field (via not & nt - see section D.1. above) or by means of negative quantifiers (the present section), but not both, i.e., negative quantifiers cannot co-occur with negation in the functional domain: (36) a. *There isnt no need for me to look right into your face. b. * They hadnt done nothing about it. Q: What licenses such negative elements/incomplete negators? A: the head of the NegP contains some abstract [neg] features which make the whole sentence negative and which license Negative quantifiers: NegP 2 Neg 2 Neg VP [+ neg] 5 do nothing seldom visit In case there are several elements which can mark negation, negation will be carried by the one which can c-command all the other positions where it can be expressed: (37) a. Nobody knew who she was. b. *Anybody didnt know who she was. (38) a. They sent no invitation to anyone. b. *They sent any invitation to no one in English negation can be overtly expressed only once in case several elements can incorporate negation it will always be incorporated by the first element which c-commands all the other elements !! vs. Romanian > in Romanian, negation is marked in all positions available to it (i.e., on the verb as well as on negative quantifiers): (39) a. Nu a ajutat pe nimeni niciodat. b. *A ajutat pe nimeni niciodat. Thus, we distinguish between:
[Type the company name]

(i) Negative concord languages, where negation is overtly expressed in all the positions where it can occur. (e.g., Romanian) (ii) Non-negative concord languages, where negation is expressed in one single position. (e.g., English). Mind you! - In standard English, double negatives (instances where negation is marked twice) are actually affirmative Ss: (40) a. Dont just say nothing. (= say something!) b. No one didnt consider it a bad idea (= everyone considered it bad) - substandard English behaves like Romanian, i.e. substandard English is a negative concord language, since is allows negation to be marked on both the verb and on quantifiers, whitout yielding an affirmative meaning: (41) a. I didnt do nothin. (= I didnt do anything in standard En.) I did something b. Nobody here didnt point no gun at nobody. c. I cant get no satisfaction. = I cant get any.../ I can get some d.Wasnt nothing wrong with that.

D.3. Emphatic Negative Sentences

(42) a. Never in his life had he heard such nonsense. b. Nowhere had he seen prettier women. c. Seldom have I seen such students. d. Hardly did they notice anyone around. e. Scarcely anyone learns anything these days. To be compared to: Have you ever seen such a nasty person? The syntax of such emphatic negative Ss: they are compared to questions: the negative quantifier/incomplete negator is assumed to move to [Spec CP], i.e. outside the IP domain, triggering the movement of the auxiliary from I to C:

D.4. Negative sentences: Conclusions

(i) (ii) (iii) Pass the negative S tests (see Section C) Types: NOT/NT in the functional layer (D.1) in non-verbal constituents (licensed by neg features in Neg) (D.2.) Emphatic negative sentences (D.3)

E. Polarity Items
Sometimes a negative sentence is characterized not only by the existence of a negative word (such as not or hardly, barely, etc.) but also by the existence of certain elements that, although not negative in meaning, cannot appear in an affirmative context. For example, we can very well say something like: (43) a. She didnt lift a finger to help me. b. She doesnt like our chairman at all. But we couldnt say: (44) a. *She lifted a finger to help me. b. *She likes our chairman at all.

[Type the company name]

These elements that can appear only in non-assertive contexts are called negative polarity items(NPIs). They are lexical items (that is words and (sometimes idiomatic) phrases) and are sensitive to the polarity of the sentence, namely to the assertive or non-assertive nature of the respective sentence. Negative polarity items are sometimes paralleled by Affirmative/Positive Polarity Items, that is by items that can appear only in assertive contexts. That is exactly why we can speak of pairs of Negative and Affirmative Polarity items Any vs. some (I havent any money. / I have some money.) At all vs. somehow/ somewhat (I dont like him at all. / I somehow like him.) Yet vs. already (I havent seen him yet. / I have already seen him.) Any more vs. still (I dont love you any more. / I still love you) Either vs. too (I dont like it, either. / I like it , too.) Hardly ever vs. most of the times ( I hardly ever eat caviar. / I eat caviar most of the times. Until vs. before (He didnt arrive until 5. / He arrived before 5.) Much vs. a lot (I dont like you much. / I like you a lot.), etc.

E.1 The class of NPIs

ANY and its compounds (anybody, any longer, anymore, anyone, anything, anywhere) lexical verbs: bother (+infinitive); budge; faze (45) I never bother to iron shirts. vs. *I always bother to iron shirts./ Nothing seemed to faze her/ She could not budge the wheel At all, either, ever, long, much, till/until, what(so)ever, yet LONG (46) She hasnt known him long. vs. *She has known him long. MUCH (47) Hurry up, we dont have much time. vs. * We have much time. I dont like cooking much. vs. * I like cooking much. UNTIL/TILL (48) We wont see them until December vs.* We wont see them before December. idioms which are inherently NPIs: amount to a row of pins, ask a soul, bat an eye, can abide, can bear, can stand, (can) be bothered tell a soul, touch a drop, worth a row of pins, stop at nothing, take a bit of notice. care a pin, cost a bean, (could) care less, do a (single) thing (about), drink a drop, earn a nickel, eat a bite, eat a thing, get a wink of sleep, give a damn, give a fig, have a clue, have a penny (to ones name), have a red cent, hear a word, hear a sound, hold a candle to, hurt a flea, in ages, in donkeys years, leave no stone unturned, lift a finger, mind a bit, move a muscle, say a word, say a thing, see a (living) soul, sleep a wink, so much as (49) I couldnt sleep a wink last night vs. * I could sleep a wink last night. This car cant hold a candle to yours vs. *This car can hold a candle to yours. They didnt wait so much as a week vs. *They waited so much as a week.

E.2. The Class of APIs

SOME and its compounds: someone, somebody, somewhere, somehow somewhat Determinatives: a few, a little, several, various !! A FEW vs. FEW
[Type the company name]

(50) A few of them had left. (= API) Few of them, if any, had left. (=incomplete negator) !! LITTLE vs. A LITTLE (51) A little liquid spilled. (API) Little of the liquid spilled, not even when the bottle fell over. (incomplete negator) degree adverbs: pretty, fairly, quite, far Connectives: so, too, as well modal idioms: would rather, would sooner, would as soon

E.3. Some systematic relationships

(52) They are still good friends / They arent good friends anymore. They have already got married. / They havent got married yet. I somewhat regret it. / I dont regret it at all . SOME ANY (53) There is some coffee in the jar. / There isnt any coffee in the jar. I met somebody nice at the party. / I didnt meet anybody nice at the party. BUT (54) I met some neighbours. (i) some = [+specific] >> 2 ways to negate it a) I didnt meet some neighbours (but I met others). (ii) some = [-specific] b) I didnt meet any neighbours (= it is not the case that there is any neighbour that I met). ANY (i) Free choice ANY (55) Anyone can do it. (ii) NPI (in the scope of/licensed by negation) (56) I didnt buy any book.

E.4. NPIs and non-assertive contexts

(57) Have you ever been to Paris? / Have you met anyone nice there? NPIs are licensed in interrogative sentences (58) If you receive any letter from him let me know. / If anyone knew about it you might be in trouble. NPIs are licensed in conditionals (59) You are better than any students I have ever had. / She was nicer than he had ever hoped. NPIs are licensed in comparative clauses (60) She was the nicest girl [he had ever met]. These are the best students [anyone could wish for]. NPIs are licensed in relative clauses which modify a superlative in the matrix >> therefore: NPIs are not restricted to negative clauses, but are allowed in a variety of non-assertive contexts, such as: interrogative sentences conditionals comparative clauses relative clauses which modify a superlative in the matrix
[Type the company name]

10

!! There are also LEXICAL ITEMS (V, Adj, Adv, P) which create a non-assertive context: DOUBT (doubt, doubtful, doubted, dubious, sceptical, scepticism) (61) They expressed scepticism about there being any point in talking to her. / It is to be doubted that they will ever make it. DENIAL (deny, reject ) (62) They denied they had ever been there. COUNTER-EXPECTATION (amaze, astound, surprise, shock, flabbergast, take aback) (63) I was shocked anyone could behave like that./ I was very surprised that anyone should have behaved like that. FAILURE (fail, forget, refrain, avoid, neglect, omit) (64) Please forget that I have ever taught you any syntax. NEGATIVE EVALUATION (absurd, annoyed, ashamed, excessive, foolish, monstruous, ridiculous, silly) (65) How stupid of me to ever talk to him! / Its monstruous for anyone to have ever borne such shame! PREVENTION and PROHIBITION (ban, hinder, keep, prevent, prohibit, stop) (66) They kept us from getting in touch with any of our friends. prepositions (without, before, against) (67) They fought against any changes. / They disappeared before anyone could get a hold on them.

[Type the company name]