Book contents
- Exploring Interfaces
- Exploring Interfaces
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Contributors
- Introduction: The Road to Interfaces
- I Syntax–Lexicon Interface
- II Syntax–Semantics Interface
- 5 Negative Idioms
- 6 Scope, Syntax, and Prosody in Russian as a Second or Heritage Language
- 7 On the Syntax of Pronominal Clitics: A View from Greek
- III Linearization
- Index
- References
5 - Negative Idioms
from II - Syntax–Semantics Interface
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 August 2019
By
Book contents
- Exploring Interfaces
- Exploring Interfaces
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Contributors
- Introduction: The Road to Interfaces
- I Syntax–Lexicon Interface
- II Syntax–Semantics Interface
- 5 Negative Idioms
- 6 Scope, Syntax, and Prosody in Russian as a Second or Heritage Language
- 7 On the Syntax of Pronominal Clitics: A View from Greek
- III Linearization
- Index
- References
Summary
Polarity-sensitive items are a peculiar kind of linguistic object. As Israel (2004, p. 207) notes: they are a class of items “which do not themselves express negation or affirmation, but which are restricted to sentences of one or the other polarity.” Broadly speaking, polarity items are expressions whose distribution is sensitive to contexts that express contradiction, contrariety, or reversal (Israel, 2004).
Idioms are also peculiar kinds of objects that have complex syntactic structure but behave like individual lexical units. It turns out that many polarity-sensitive items are idioms, and that intersection provides an interesting insight about both categories, which I will explore in this chapter.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Exploring Interfaces , pp. 111 - 140Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (2009). Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Camacho, J. & Sánchez, L. (2017). Does the verb raise to T in Spanish? In Fernández-Soriano, O., Castroviejo, E., & Pérez-Jiménez, I., eds., Boundaries, Phases, and Interfaces: Case Studies in Honor of Violeta Demonte. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 48–62.Google Scholar
Cépeda, P. (2016). Against expletive negation: the case of Spanish hasta clauses. Paper presented at Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1968). Idiomaticity as an anomaly in the Chomskyan paradigm. Foundations of Language, 4, 109–27.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Belletti, A., ed., Structures and Beyond. Oxford University Press, pp. 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G.(2006). Broaden your views: implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 535–90.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G.(2013). Logic in Grammar Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Csipak, E. (2014). Minimizers in conditional threats and promises. In Etxeberria, U., Falaus, A., Irurtzun, A., & Leferman, B., eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, pp. 95–109. Retrieved from http://semanticsarchive.net/sub2013/SeparateArticles/Csipak.pdf.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. T. (1997). Non-negative negation and wh-exclamatives. In Forget, D., Hirschbühler, P., Martineau, F., & Rivero, M. L., eds., Negation and Polarity: Syntax and Semantics. Selected Papers from the Colloquium Negation: Syntax and Semantics, Ottawa. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 75–94.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. T.(2000a). Expletive negation, negative concord and feature checking. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 47–69.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. T.(2000b). On the semantic status of n-words in Catalan and Spanish. Lingua, 110, 557–80.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. T. & Mateu, J. (2010). On classes of idioms and their interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(5), 1397–411.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1975). Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic inquiry, 6(3), 353–75.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1970). Idioms within a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language, 6, 22–42.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A.(1998). Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A.(1999). Weak and strong polarity: evidence from Greek. In Artemis, A., Horros, G. H., & Stavrou, M., eds., Studies in Greek Syntax. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 113–33.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A.(2011). Negative and positive polarity items. In von Heusinger, K., Maienborn, C., & Portner, P., eds., Handbook of Semantics. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 1660–712.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. & Zanuttini, R. (1991). Negative heads and the NEG criterion. The Linguistic Review, 8, 233–51.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1969). A presuppositional analysis of only and even. In Binnick, R., ed., Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 98–107.Google Scholar
Horn, L.(1970). Ain’t it hard (anymore). In Binnick, R., ed., Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 318–27.Google Scholar
Horn, L.(1972). On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. University of California–Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Israel, M. (1996). Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19(6), 619–66.Google Scholar
Israel, M.(2004). The pragmatics of polarity. In Horn, L. & Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 701–23.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kadmon, N. & Landman, F. (1993). Any. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 353–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. (1973). Compositionality, idiomaticity, and lexical substitution. In Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P., eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, pp. 357–76.Google Scholar
Katz, J. & Postal, P. (1964). An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. (2007). The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(1), 1–45.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1995). The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis, 25, 209–57.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. A. (1980). Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Laka, I. (1990). Negation in syntax: on the nature of functional categories and projections (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1969). Some reasons why there can’t be any some–any rule. Language, 45, 608–15.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (1975). On the semantics of negation. In Donald, W. L., Harper Hockney, J., & Freed, B., eds., Contemporary Research in Philosophical Logic and Linguistic Semantics. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 279–312.Google Scholar
Linebarger, M. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10(3), 325–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mateu, J. & Espinal, M. T. (2007a). Laughing our heads off: when metaphor constrains aspect. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 33, 284–94.Google Scholar
Mateu, J. & Espinal, M. T.(2007b). Argument structure and compositionality in idiomatic constructions. The Linguistic Review, 24(1), 33–59.Google Scholar
McGinnis, M. (2002). On the systematic aspect of idioms. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 665–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendívil Giró, J. L. (1999). Las palabras disgregadas: sintaxis de las expresiones idiomáticas y los predicados complejos. Universidad de Zaragoza.Google Scholar
Neubarth, F. (2006). Polarity, alternatives and scales (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Vienna.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (1998). The syntax of idioms. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 16(2), 279–312.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E. (2001). T-to-C movement: causes and consequences. In Kenstowicz, M. & Keyser, S., eds., Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 355–426.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E.(2004). Tense, case and the nature of syntactic categories. In Guéron, J. & Lecarme, J., eds., The Syntax of Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 495–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E.(2006). Probes, goals and syntactic categories. In Otsu, Y., ed., Proceedings of the Seventh Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing Company, pp. 25–60.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E.(2007). The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Karimi, S., Samiian, V., & Wilkins, W., eds., Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 262–94.Google Scholar
Real Academia Española: CREA Corpus [online]. Corpus de referencia del español actual. www.rae.es.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. (2004). Positive polarity – negative polarity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 22(2), 409–52.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: a typology of event conflation. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 17, 480–519.Google Scholar
Tubau, S. (2008). Negative concord in English and Romance: syntax–morphology interface conditions on the expression of negation (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
van der Linden, E. J. (1993). A Categorial Computational Theory of Idioms. Utrecht: OTS Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Vicente, L. (2009). An alternative to remnant movement for partial predicate fronting. Syntax, 12(2), 180–213.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1994). A reinterpretation of evidence for verb movement in French. In Lightfoot, D. & Hornstein, N., eds., Verb Movement. Cambridge University Press, pp. 189–206.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H.(2013). Negation and negative polarity. In den Dikken, M., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cambridge University Press, pp. 793–826.Google Scholar