LING101

Grammar and Entailment: the case of polarity

items

Benjamin Spector
spector.benjamin@gmail.com

Class #5 - Oct 22, 2020

1 / 27
Distribution of Quoi que ce soit, any

(1) a. *Marie a lu quoi que ce soit d’intéressant

b. Marie n’a pas lu quoi que ce soit d’intéressant
(2) a. *Mary read any book.
b. Mary didn’t read any book.
• Is negation sufficient? Is it necessary?

2 / 27
Distribution of Quoi que ce soit, any

(1) a. *Marie a lu quoi que ce soit d’intéressant

b. Marie n’a pas lu quoi que ce soit d’intéressant
(2) a. *Mary read any book.
b. Mary didn’t read any book.
• Is negation sufficient? Is it necessary?

2 / 27
Neither necessary nor sufficient

(3) Not sufficient

a. *Quand je ne suis pas chez moi, je lis quoi que ce soit
d’intéressant
b. *When I am not home, I do anything

(4) Not necessary

a. Il est interdit de dire quoi que ce soit
b. *Il est autorisé de dire quoi que ce soit

(5) Difference with English ‘any’

a. It is forbidden to say anything
b. It is permitted to say anything

(6) a. (?) Peu d’élèves ont fait quoi que ce soit d’intéressant
b. *Beaucoup d’élèves ont fait quoi que ce soit d’intéressant
c. Few students said anything.
d. *Many students said anything
3 / 27
Neither necessary nor sufficient

(3) Not sufficient

a. *Quand je ne suis pas chez moi, je lis quoi que ce soit
d’intéressant
b. *When I am not home, I do anything

(4) Not necessary

a. Il est interdit de dire quoi que ce soit
b. *Il est autorisé de dire quoi que ce soit

(5) Difference with English ‘any’

a. It is forbidden to say anything
b. It is permitted to say anything

(6) a. (?) Peu d’élèves ont fait quoi que ce soit d’intéressant
b. *Beaucoup d’élèves ont fait quoi que ce soit d’intéressant
c. Few students said anything.
d. *Many students said anything
3 / 27
Neither necessary nor sufficient

(3) Not sufficient

a. *Quand je ne suis pas chez moi, je lis quoi que ce soit
d’intéressant
b. *When I am not home, I do anything

(4) Not necessary

a. Il est interdit de dire quoi que ce soit
b. *Il est autorisé de dire quoi que ce soit

(5) Difference with English ‘any’

a. It is forbidden to say anything
b. It is permitted to say anything

(6) a. (?) Peu d’élèves ont fait quoi que ce soit d’intéressant
b. *Beaucoup d’élèves ont fait quoi que ce soit d’intéressant
c. Few students said anything.
d. *Many students said anything
3 / 27
Some other licensing contexts

(7) a. Si tu avais lu quoi que ce soit d’intéressant, tu aurais

eu de la conversation.
b. *Si tu avais été à l’école, tu aurais lu quoi que ce soit
d’intéressant.
(8) a. Tous les élèves qui ont dit quoi que ce soit
d’intéressant ont été admis.
b. *Tous les élèves ont dit quoi que ce soit
d’intéressant.
(9) Paul a-t-il dit quoi que ce soit d’intéressant ?

4 / 27
Some other licensing contexts

(10) a. If you had read anything, you would know this.

b. ??If you had been to school, you would know anything.
(11) a. Every student who said anything interesting passed.
b. *Every student said anything interesting.
(12) Has she said anything interesting?

5 / 27
Many other NPIs

• “lever le petit doigt”, “lift a finger”’

(13) She lifted a finger ; no idomatic meaning
(14) She didn’t lift a finger ; idiomatic meaning available.
(15) If somone had lifted a finger, it would not have happened.
• (ne pas) fermer l’oeil
• The slightest thing, la moindre chose, ever, un quelconque,
...

6 / 27
Many other NPIs

• “lever le petit doigt”, “lift a finger”’

(13) She lifted a finger ; no idomatic meaning
(14) She didn’t lift a finger ; idiomatic meaning available.
(15) If somone had lifted a finger, it would not have happened.
• (ne pas) fermer l’oeil
• The slightest thing, la moindre chose, ever, un quelconque,
...

6 / 27
A logical property of negation

Negation reverses the direction of entailment relations

(16) a. Mary lives in Paris ⇒Mary lives in France

b. Mary does not live in France ⇒Mary doesn’t live in
Paris
• Contraposition
(17) If A ⇒B, then ¬B ⇒¬A.
• Negation is said to create a decreasing, or
downward-entailing environment.
• This is because it licenses an inference from sets to subsets.

7 / 27
A logical property of negation

Negation reverses the direction of entailment relations

(16) a. Mary lives in Paris ⇒Mary lives in France

b. Mary does not live in France ⇒Mary doesn’t live in
Paris
• Contraposition
(17) If A ⇒B, then ¬B ⇒¬A.
• Negation is said to create a decreasing, or
downward-entailing environment.
• This is because it licenses an inference from sets to subsets.

7 / 27
A logical property of negation

Negation reverses the direction of entailment relations

(16) a. Mary lives in Paris ⇒Mary lives in France

b. Mary does not live in France ⇒Mary doesn’t live in
Paris
• Contraposition
(17) If A ⇒B, then ¬B ⇒¬A.
• Negation is said to create a decreasing, or
downward-entailing environment.
• This is because it licenses an inference from sets to subsets.

7 / 27
A logical property of negation

Negation reverses the direction of entailment relations

(16) a. Mary lives in Paris ⇒Mary lives in France

b. Mary does not live in France ⇒Mary doesn’t live in
Paris
• Contraposition
(17) If A ⇒B, then ¬B ⇒¬A.
• Negation is said to create a decreasing, or
downward-entailing environment.
• This is because it licenses an inference from sets to subsets.

7 / 27
Other downward-entailing environments

(18) a. It is forbidden to smoke in Paris

;It is forbidden to smoke in France
b. It is forbiddent to smoke in France
⇒It is forbidden to smoke in Paris
(19) a. If Ada lives in Paris, I will visit her
;If Ada lives in France, I will visit her.
b. If Ada lives in France, I will visit her
⇒If Ada lives in Paris, I will visit her

8 / 27
Generalization

Quoi/qui que ce soit, anything, other NPIs, are acceptable only in

syntactic environments which reverse the direction of entailments,
i.e. are downward-entailing.

9 / 27
Applying the generalization

Replace ‘qui que ce soit’ with , e.g., ‘un Français’, then with ‘un
Européen’. If the sentence with ‘Européen’ entails the one with ‘un
Français’, then ‘qui que soit’ is predicted to be acceptable.

(20) *Marie a parlé à qui que ce soit

Marie a parlé à un Européren ;Marie a parlé à un
Français
(21) Marie n’a pas parlé à qui que ce soit
Marie n’a pas parlé à un Européen ⇒Marie n’a pas parlé à
un Français

10 / 27
Applying the generalization

Replace ‘anybody’ with , e.g., ‘un French student’, then with ‘a

European student’. If the sentence with ‘European’ entails the one
with ‘French’, then ‘anybody’ is predicted to be acceptable.

(22) *Mary spoke to anybody.

Mary spoke to a European student ;Marie spoke to a
French student
(23) Mary didn’t speak to anybody
Mary didn’t speak to a European student ⇒Mary didn’t
speak to a French student.

11 / 27
Conditional sentences

In general, if φ entails ψ, we have:

(24) a. If ψ, bla bla ⇒if ψ, bla bla

b. if bla bla, φ ⇒if bla bla, ψ
(25) a. If a French person comes, I’ll be surprised ; If a
European person comes, I’ll be surprised.
b. If a European person comes, I’ll be surprised ; If a
French person comes, I’ll be surprised.

We therefore expect NPIs to be ok on the ‘left’-side of the

conditional construction (the if-clause), and not on the right side.

12 / 27
Conditional sentences

In general, if φ entails ψ, we have:

(24) a. If ψ, bla bla ⇒if ψ, bla bla

b. if bla bla, φ ⇒if bla bla, ψ
(25) a. If a French person comes, I’ll be surprised ; If a
European person comes, I’ll be surprised.
b. If a European person comes, I’ll be surprised ; If a
French person comes, I’ll be surprised.

We therefore expect NPIs to be ok on the ‘left’-side of the

conditional construction (the if-clause), and not on the right side.

12 / 27
Universal Quantifiers

(26) a. Every European student came ⇒Every French student

came.
b. Every French student came ;Every European student
came.

We expect NPIs to be ok on the left side of Every A B (i.e. if

occurring in A)
(27) a. Every student is European ;Every student is French
b. Every student is French ⇒Every student is European

We expect NPIs not to be ok on the right side of Every A B (i.e. if

occurring in B)
(28) a. Every student who did anything passed.
b. *Every student did anything.

13 / 27
Universal Quantifiers

(26) a. Every European student came ⇒Every French student

came.
b. Every French student came ;Every European student
came.

We expect NPIs to be ok on the left side of Every A B (i.e. if

occurring in A)
(27) a. Every student is European ;Every student is French
b. Every student is French ⇒Every student is European

We expect NPIs not to be ok on the right side of Every A B (i.e. if

occurring in B)
(28) a. Every student who did anything passed.
b. *Every student did anything.

13 / 27
Determiners, restrictors and nuclear scope

.
Determiners like chaque, un, plusieurs, every, many, etc., combine
with a nominal phrase, resulting in a phrase that itself combines
with a verb phrase.

(29) [DET NP] [VP]

NP is called the restrictor and VP the nuclear scope

14 / 27
Determiners as expressing relations between sets

Every A is B ⇔ A ⊆ B
Some As are Bs ⇔ A ∩ B 6= ∅
No As are Bs ⇔ A ∩ B = ∅
Many As are Bs ⇔ | A ∩ B | > n
Few As are Bs ⇔ | A ∩ B | < n

15 / 27
Monotonicity properties of Determiners

• One can ask whether a Determiner licenses an inference, on

its ‘left’ argument or its ‘right’ argument, from a set to a
subset, or the reverse.

Every animal is European ⇒ Every dog is European

Every animal is European ;Every animal is Italian
Every animal is Italian ⇒Every animal is European

• Every is decreasing/downward-entailing on its

left-argument (Restrictor), but
increasing/upward-entailing on its right-argument
(Nuclear Scope).

16 / 27
Monotonicity properties of Determiners

• One can ask whether a Determiner licenses an inference, on

its ‘left’ argument or its ‘right’ argument, from a set to a
subset, or the reverse.

Every animal is European ⇒ Every dog is European

Every animal is European ;Every animal is Italian
Every animal is Italian ⇒Every animal is European

• Every is decreasing/downward-entailing on its

left-argument (Restrictor), but
increasing/upward-entailing on its right-argument
(Nuclear Scope).

16 / 27
Monotonicity properties of Determiners

• One can ask whether a Determiner licenses an inference, on

its ‘left’ argument or its ‘right’ argument, from a set to a
subset, or the reverse.

Every animal is European ⇒ Every dog is European

Every animal is European ;Every animal is Italian
Every animal is Italian ⇒Every animal is European

• Every is decreasing/downward-entailing on its

left-argument (Restrictor), but
increasing/upward-entailing on its right-argument
(Nuclear Scope).

16 / 27
Monotonicity properties of Determiners

• One can ask whether a Determiner licenses an inference, on

its ‘left’ argument or its ‘right’ argument, from a set to a
subset, or the reverse.

Every animal is European ⇒ Every dog is European

Every animal is European ;Every animal is Italian
Every animal is Italian ⇒Every animal is European

• Every is decreasing/downward-entailing on its

left-argument (Restrictor), but
increasing/upward-entailing on its right-argument
(Nuclear Scope).

16 / 27
Monoticity properties of Determiners

Restricteur Nuclear Scope

plusieurs/several ↑ ↑
un/a ↑ ↑
plus de trois/more than three ↑ ↑
beaucoup/many ↑ ↑
aucun/no ↓ ↓
moins de trois/fewer than three ↓ ↓
peu /few ↓ ↓
chaque/tous les/every/all ↓ ↑

Prediction: NPis are fine within the restrictor (resp. nuclear

scope), if DET is downward-entailing with respect to its
restrictor/nuclear scope

17 / 27
Interaction with syntax: NPI-licensing is local

An NPI can occur in an environment which is globally increasing,

provided one can find a subconstituent that contains the NPI
which, taken in isolation, defines a decreasing environment.

(30) a. Marie n’a pas lu quoi que ce soit d’intéressant

b. Si Marie n’avait pas lu quoi que ce soit
d’intéressant...
c. Marie n’a jamais lu quoi que ce soit d’intéressant
d. Personne n’imagine que Marie n’ait jamais lu quoi
que ce soit d’intéressant
e. I can’t imagine that nobody read any books/lifted a
finger

18 / 27
(31) a. *Je pense que Marie a lu quoi que ce soit d’intéressant
b. Je pense que Marie n’a jamais lu quoi que ce soit
d’intéressant
c. Je ne pense pas que Marie n’ait jamais lu quoi que
ce soit d’intéressant.
(32) a. *I think Adam read anything.
b. I think Adam has never read anything.
c. I don’t think that Adam has never read antying.

19 / 27
Positive Polarity Items

(33) a. Mary heard something

b. ??Mary didn’t hear something
; Possible reading: there is something that Mary
didn’t hear (‘something’ is said to take scope over
negation)
; Impossible: the following is false: ‘Mary heard
something’.
(34) Except in ‘echoı̈c’ contexts
a. Marie a entendu quelque chose.
b. Non! Marie n’a pas entendu quelque chose!
(35) a. *Jean n’a pas des enfants
b. Jean n’a pas d’enfants

20 / 27
Positive Polarity Items

(33) a. Mary heard something

b. ??Mary didn’t hear something
; Possible reading: there is something that Mary
didn’t hear (‘something’ is said to take scope over
negation)
; Impossible: the following is false: ‘Mary heard
something’.
(34) Except in ‘echoı̈c’ contexts
a. Marie a entendu quelque chose.
b. Non! Marie n’a pas entendu quelque chose!
(35) a. *Jean n’a pas des enfants
b. Jean n’a pas d’enfants

20 / 27
Other exemples

The star now means that narrow-scope reading is impossible,

except in an echoı̈c context

(36) a. #Marie n’a pas vu quelques films de Godard.

b. *Le bébé n’a pas bu un peu de lait.
c. ?Il pleut, mais Marie n’a pas un parapluie.
(except with stress on ‘un’, in which case it means
‘not even one’).
d. *Marie n’est pas déjà allée à New York.

21 / 27
And yet others . . .

(37) a. *Jacques parle allemand, mais Marie ne parle pas

allemand aussi
(Intended: it is false that Marie speaks German too)
b. *Marie n’a pas au moins / presque vingt-deux ans.
c. *Ce film n’est pas quelque peu / un peu ennuyeux.
d. #Marie ne parle pas soit allemand soit anglais.

22 / 27
Generalization

In first approximation, PPIs can not be interpreted in the scope of

negation.

23 / 27
Other decreasing environments

Many PPIs are fine in non-negative downward-entailing

environments

(38) a. Si Marie avait entendu quelque chose, . . .

b. Si le bébé avait bu un peu de lait, . . .
c. Très peu d’amis à moi sont déjà allés à New York.
d. If Mary had heard something,
e. Few of my friends have already visited Paris
f. ...

24 / 27
Distant negations

Many PPIs are ok in the scope of negation if negation is sufficient

‘far away’ Un grand nombre d’entre eux peuvent être interprétés
dans la portée d’une négation si cette négation est suffisamment
distante syntaxiquement:

(39) a. #Marie n’a pas vu quelque chose

b. Je ne pense pas que Marie ait vu quelque chose
(40) a. #Mary didn’t see something
b. I don’t think Mary saw something.

(others are more constrained soit . . . soit, at least.)

25 / 27
Rescuing
PPIs under negation are rescued if the structure NEG+PPI is
itself embedded in a downward-entailing environment.

(41) a. *Marie n’est pas déjà allée à New York

b. Si Marie n’était pas déjà allée à NY, . . .
c. Personne n’imagine que Marie ne soit pas déjà allée à
NY.
(42) a. *Mary doesn’t speak some foreign languages
b. If Mary didn’t speak some foreg languages, . . .
c. Nobody believes that Mary doesn’t speak some
foreign languages.
(43) a. #Marie pas lu quelque chose
b. Il est peu probable que Marie n’ait pas lu quelque
chose
(44) a. ??Marie n’a pas lu des livres
b. Il est impossible que Marie n’ait pas lu des livres 26 / 27
Rescuing
PPIs under negation are rescued if the structure NEG+PPI is
itself embedded in a downward-entailing environment.

(41) a. *Marie n’est pas déjà allée à New York

b. Si Marie n’était pas déjà allée à NY, . . .
c. Personne n’imagine que Marie ne soit pas déjà allée à
NY.
(42) a. *Mary doesn’t speak some foreign languages
b. If Mary didn’t speak some foreg languages, . . .
c. Nobody believes that Mary doesn’t speak some
foreign languages.
(43) a. #Marie pas lu quelque chose
b. Il est peu probable que Marie n’ait pas lu quelque
chose
(44) a. ??Marie n’a pas lu des livres
b. Il est impossible que Marie n’ait pas lu des livres 26 / 27
Rescuing
PPIs under negation are rescued if the structure NEG+PPI is
itself embedded in a downward-entailing environment.

(41) a. *Marie n’est pas déjà allée à New York

b. Si Marie n’était pas déjà allée à NY, . . .
c. Personne n’imagine que Marie ne soit pas déjà allée à
NY.
(42) a. *Mary doesn’t speak some foreign languages
b. If Mary didn’t speak some foreg languages, . . .
c. Nobody believes that Mary doesn’t speak some
foreign languages.
(43) a. #Marie pas lu quelque chose
b. Il est peu probable que Marie n’ait pas lu quelque
chose
(44) a. ??Marie n’a pas lu des livres
b. Il est impossible que Marie n’ait pas lu des livres 26 / 27
Summary

• Negative Polarity Items are licensed in downward-increasing

environments, but this condition can be satisfied locally
(within a subconstituent)
• Positive Polarity Items cannot be interpreted in the scope
of a ‘close’ negation, unless this negation is itself in a
downward-entailing environment
• Why is this interesting?

- Ubiquity of the phenomenon: this calls for an explanation!

- The phenomenon shows that logical properties of expressions
play a role in the functioning of certain expressions, namely
the polarity-sensitive expressions.

27 / 27
Summary

• Negative Polarity Items are licensed in downward-increasing

environments, but this condition can be satisfied locally
(within a subconstituent)
• Positive Polarity Items cannot be interpreted in the scope
of a ‘close’ negation, unless this negation is itself in a
downward-entailing environment
• Why is this interesting?

- Ubiquity of the phenomenon: this calls for an explanation!

- The phenomenon shows that logical properties of expressions
play a role in the functioning of certain expressions, namely
the polarity-sensitive expressions.

27 / 27
Summary

• Negative Polarity Items are licensed in downward-increasing

environments, but this condition can be satisfied locally
(within a subconstituent)
• Positive Polarity Items cannot be interpreted in the scope
of a ‘close’ negation, unless this negation is itself in a
downward-entailing environment
• Why is this interesting?

- Ubiquity of the phenomenon: this calls for an explanation!

- The phenomenon shows that logical properties of expressions
play a role in the functioning of certain expressions, namely
the polarity-sensitive expressions.

27 / 27
Summary

• Negative Polarity Items are licensed in downward-increasing

environments, but this condition can be satisfied locally
(within a subconstituent)
• Positive Polarity Items cannot be interpreted in the scope
of a ‘close’ negation, unless this negation is itself in a
downward-entailing environment
• Why is this interesting?

- Ubiquity of the phenomenon: this calls for an explanation!

- The phenomenon shows that logical properties of expressions
play a role in the functioning of certain expressions, namely
the polarity-sensitive expressions.

27 / 27