The Lack of Full Pro Drop as a Consequence of Featural Overspecification

Despite the enormous attention that pro drop has received in the linguistic literature, there is no generally accepted answer to the question why relatively rich Germanic languages do not have argumental null subjects, neither is there a fundamental answer to the question why English would not allow them in at least 3SG contexts, where the agreement marker uniquely identifies the features of the unexpressed subject, just like in Italian. We argue that a closer inspection of the Germanic languages reveals that tense and agreement are expressed mono-morphemically, whereas Romance pro drop languages have distinct morphemes for tense and agreement. This allows us to postulate that the lack of pro drop in Germanic languages is a consequence of overspecification: the presence of the tense features makes licensing of a null subject impossible. Germanic variants that have partial pro drop, such as Frisian and Bavarian German, can be naturally accommodated in our approach by reference to complementizer agreement

Not a light negation

In languages like Dutch and German, certain instances of negation, such as negated indefinites, are ruled out in out-of-the-blue contexts, i.e. with the unmarked reading where negation outscopes an unfocused indefinite (*Er kann nicht eine Fremdsprache ('He speaks not a foreign language')). Such instances are, however, fine in NPI licensing contexts. Schwarz (2004) and Bhatt & Schwarz (2006) argue that in such cases the negative marker is not a plain negation, but rather a homophonous marker of light negation, which they take to be an NPI. In this paper I argue, though, that this phenomenon can be explained by adopting standard pragmatic assumptions. In short, I argue that such instances of negation are bad due to the existence of some alternative expression that only conveys the unmarked reading (in this example an expression containing a negative indefinite: er kann keine Fremdsparache ('he speaks no foreign language')). Uttering a less simple construction, such as the example above with the negated indefinite, will give rise to an implicature that states that the speaker does not intend such utterances with their unmarked readings, since the unmarked reading could have been conveyed in a simpler manner. This implicature, then, is suppressed in NPI licensing contexts

Negative sensitive items and the discourse-configurational nature of Japanese

We take up three Negative Sensitive Items (NSIs) in Japanese, Wh-MO plain negative indefinites, exceptive XP-sika, and certain minimizing indefinites, such as rokuna N (‘any decent N’). Although these three NSIs behave differently, we demonstrate that the two traditional NSI categories of Negative Concord Items (NCIs) and Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) are sufficient for characterizing these items. We argue that Wh-MO and XP-sika are NCIs, thus they contain a neg feature ([uneg]) which enters into (upward) agreement with its corresponding an uninterpretable feature ([ineg]). The third NSI, rokuna N, is an NPI. Two issues arise with XP-sika. First, it has an inherent focus feature, which distinguishes it from the other two. Second, this focus feature is syntactically active – meaning that movement is forced – only for the argument XP-sika. We argue that these properties of XP-sika associated with focus are independent of NP-sika as an NSI, and should be dealt with as an overall property of Japanese being a discourse configurational language. We introduce a case-theoretic solution to how focus becomes syntactically active solely with argument XP-sika

Towards a New Explanation of Sequence of Tense

Past-under-past embeddings have two readings, a simultaneous and a backward-shifted one. While existing accounts derive these readings via distinct mechanisms, be it by means of an ambiguity at the level of LF or via blocking of a cessation implicature, we propose an alternative account which avoids such ambiguity. For us, the meaning of a past tense morpheme, like -ed, is comprised of two components. Syntactically, every past tense morpheme carries an uninterpretable past feature [uPAST], to be checked by a (single) covert past tense operator Op- PAST carrying an interpretable feature [iPAST]. Semantically, the past tense marker encodes a relative non-future with respect to its closest c-commanding tense node (informally: "not later than"), immediately yielding the two distinct readings

Proceedings of the Workshop on Negation and Polarity

This volume contains the papers presented at the Workshop on Negation and Polarity, held in Tübingen, March 8 – 10, 2007. They focus on the syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of negation and polarity items. Both topics have been central to linguistic study in the last few decades. The reason for this is that these phenomena are to some extent universal: Every language has some mode to express negation and some set of lexical elements or (idiomatic) expressions that can only be felicitously uttered in negative contexts. However, languages exhibit strong differences with respect to the way this is executed. Hence, the study of negation and polarity phenomena requires on the one hand in-depth studies of the syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in particular languages, whereas on the other hand typological research of cross-linguistic differences is to be carried out. Especially the latter involves the application of linguistic database systems to collect and categorize data, observed in either the literature or during fieldwork. These proceedings not only contain a rich collection of different investigations on the above-mentioned phenomena, but also represent what is currently going on in the process of obtaining a better understanding of negation and polarity and therefore provide a proper overview of the state of the art in this branch of linguistics and philosophy

Emerging NPIs: The acquisition of Dutch hoeven ‘need’

Dutch modal verb hoeven ‘need’ is a Negative Polarity Item (NPI) because of its restricted distribution to certain negative contexts only. By investigating the distribution of this NPI in child Dutch, the paper explores a solution to a learnability problem raised by the existence of NPIs: how can a child acquire the limited distribution of an NPI in the absence of both direct and indirect negative evidence? Corpus data collected through CHILDES confirm children’s employment of a conservative widening learning strategy to solve the learnability problem. This strategy entails that children start out with the strictest assumption of hoeven, exhibiting a lexical dependency with the negative marker niet ‘not’, and weaken the assumption down to a less rigid reanalysis of this NPI, associated with an abstract negation in its underlying syntactic representation. The initial learning process turns out to be distribution-based only, i.e., without presuming any innate knowledge of NPIs and their restricted occurrences. However, distributional properties alone are not sufficient for children to reanalyze the NPI. Children’s linguistic knowledge of negative indefinites as exhibiting a decomposable negation plays a crucial role in the subsequent reanalyzing process. The reanalysis emerging shortly after age four signifies exactly how adult speakers analyze the NPI, also explaining hoeven’s strength as a polarity item

Negative Concord in Russian. An Overview

In this article I will describe the general properties of Negative Concord in Russian, which is a strict Negative Concord language, where all negative indefinites must co-occur with sentential negation. However, there are several cases where the negation marker can be absent (like in fragment answers) or can appear in a non-standard position (like at the left of an embedded infinitival). I will take into consideration all these specific cases described by the literature on the negation system of Russian and analyse them according to current approaches to Negative Concord

Agree to Agree: Agreement in the Minimalist Programme

Agreement is a pervasive phenomenon across natural languages. Depending on one’s definition of what constitutes agreement, it is either found in virtually every natural language that we know of, or it is at least found in a great many. Either way, it seems to be a core part of the system that underpins our syntactic  knowledge. Since the introduction of the operation of Agree in Chomsky (2000), agreement phenomena and the mechanism that underlies agreement have garnered a lot of attention in the Minimalist literature and have received different theoretical treatments at different stages. Since then, many different phenomena  involving dependencies between elements in syntax, including movement or not, have been accounted for using Agree. The mechanism of Agree thus provides a powerful tool to model dependencies between syntactic elements far beyond φ-feature agreement. The articles collected in this volume further explore these topics  and contribute to the ongoing debates surrounding agreement. The authors gathered in this book are internationally reknown experts in the field of Agreement

Agree to Agree: Agreement in the Minimalist Programme

Agreement is a pervasive phenomenon across natural languages. Depending on one’s definition of what constitutes agreement, it is either found in virtually every natural language that we know of, or it is at least found in a great many. Either way, it seems to be a core part of the system that underpins our syntactic  knowledge. Since the introduction of the operation of Agree in Chomsky (2000), agreement phenomena and the mechanism that underlies agreement have garnered a lot of attention in the Minimalist literature and have received different theoretical treatments at different stages. Since then, many different phenomena  involving dependencies between elements in syntax, including movement or not, have been accounted for using Agree. The mechanism of Agree thus provides a powerful tool to model dependencies between syntactic elements far beyond φ-feature agreement. The articles collected in this volume further explore these topics  and contribute to the ongoing debates surrounding agreement. The authors gathered in this book are internationally reknown experts in the field of Agreement