THE SYNTAX OF COMPLEMENT

CLAUSES

Lecture 4
Negative Sentences
 So far….
Negative sentences:
 Pass the negative S tests
 Types:
(i) NOT/N’T in the functional layer
(ii) with negative quantifiers (licensed by neg features
in Neg)
(iii) emphatic negative sentences
• Negative Concord
• Polarity items
 Today

• Polarity items cont.

 The Polarity Reversal Rule
 Polarity items in embedded clauses
• Negative transport
• Negation and other operators
 The Polarity Reversal Rule
 I once bought some raw salmon.

 I never bought any raw salmon./ I didn’t ever buy

any raw salmon

In a negative clause all the polarity items are affected

=
The Polarity Reversal Rule
 The Polarity Reversal Rule
 I once bought some raw salmon.

 I never bought any raw salmon./ I didn’t ever buy

any raw salmon

In a negative clause all the polarity items are affected

=
The Polarity Reversal Rule
 Task

 Someone told me something about this guy.

 He managed to buy something cheaper somewhere
else.
 We have already had some snow this month.
 We can still do something about it.
 She is pretty slim.
 Task

 No one told me anything about this guy.

 He didn’t manage to buy anything cheaper anywhere
else.
 We have not had any snow this month yet.
 We can’t do anything about it anymore.
 She isn’t that slim.
 NPIs in embedded clauses

I’m not sure I can remember any of them.

He denied he had ever hurt anyone on any occasion.
We did not acknowledge the fact that someone had left
the building at midnight.
The Polarity Reversal Rule can
also affect the polarity items in the
embedded clause of a non-
assertive matrix, provided the
clause has argument status
 Task

She was amazed that .............could behave like that.

someone/anyone

It is unlikely that ....of these books gets published ......

some/any
somewhere/anywhere
NPIs in embedded clauses

There is no denying the fact that he hurt someone

at the station.
vs.
It wasn’t a house that anyone could buy.
 If the matrix contains a
non-assertive trigger a
non-argumental clause
will license NPIs
 NPIs in embedded clauses
The only thing [that anyone should do now ] is
leave for London as soon as possible.
NO The only book [he has ever read ] is a grammar
ANY book.
A/AN The worst book [anyone could ever read
THE FIRST anywhere]
THE LAST You should not marry the first guy you have
THE Adj-est ever set eyes on.
THE ONLY That was the last time we had ever talked about
anything related to that issue.
This is not a fact that anyone could easily admit.
 TASK
Compare:

This is not a fact that anyone could easily admit.

We did not acknowledge the fact that someone had left
the building at midnight.
 NPIs in embedded clauses & factivity
I don’t believe that John has a red cent to his name.
*I don’t regret that John has a red cent to his name.

I regret I told you about that.

I don’t regret that I told you about it.
 the complement is a fact.

retention of the factives: regret, forget,

presupposition resent, realize, notice, admit,
under negation discover, remember, recall,
observe, notice....
NPIs in embedded clauses & factivity
 non-factives: believe, think, assume, claim, doubt

I don’t believe she slept a wink last night.

They don’t think she can sing a note.
NPIs in embedded clauses & factivity
*I don’t regret I slept a wink last night.
*They did not forget that she could sing a note.
*She didn’t realize that he had touched a drop.

Factive verbs create NPI ‘islands’,

i.e. Negation in a S with a factive
verb does not turn the embedded
clause into a non-assertive island
NPIs in embedded clauses & factivity
Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970): factive verbs contain a deleted
or silent noun fact:
a. I regret the fact that....
b. *I regret John to have left.

*I don’t regret the fact that he slept a wink.

the embedded clause of factive verbs is NOT an argument
Compare to:
There is no denying the fact [that he hurt someone at the
station].
NPIs and manner-of-speaking verbs
a. *I believe (that) John slept a wink last night.
b. I don’t believe (that) John slept a wink last night.

a. *He whispered that John slept a wink last night.

b. *He didn’t whisper that John slept a wink last night.

Negation in the matrix does not turn the CP complement

of MoS verbs into a non-assertive context
 NPIs and manner-of-speaking verbs
 MoS verbs behave like factives with respect to ‘NPI islands’: if
they are negative this does not turn the complement clause in a
non-assertive context and NPIs are disallowed.

MoS verbs: the focus is on the manner of speaking, not on the

content of the complement clause:

She didn’t mumble that he left.

= She didn’t MUMBLE the content....
NPIs and manner-of-speaking verbs
MoS are exceptional in that their lexical semantics includes the
activity, the physical noise (and the “content”)  they have
specialized meaning   sound emission and, when “given”,
content of sound emission cannot be separated (Krifka 2003)

 Stowell (1981): MoS verbs  explicit specifications with

respect to the nature of their thematic objects, i.e. their direct
object argument must denote the speech signal itself,
and cannot denote a proposition
NPIs and manner-of-speaking verbs
MoS are exceptional in that their lexical semantics includes the
activity, the physical noise (and the “content”)  they have
specialized meaning   sound emission and, when “given”,
content of sound emission cannot be separated (Krifka 2003)

 Stowell (1981): MoS verbs  explicit specifications with

respect to the nature of their thematic objects, i.e. their direct
object argument must denote the speech signal itself,
and cannot denote a proposition
NPIs and manner-of-speaking verbs

He whispered the whisper that…..

He regrets the fact that ….

= a possible unifying account for the behaviour of

factive verbs and MoS with respect to ‘NPI islands’
 Summing up
 According to the Polarity Reversal Rule...
 The Polarity Reversal Rule can affect the polarity items in the
embedded clause of a non-assertive matrix, provided the clause has
......status
 The Polarity Reversal Rule can affect the polarity items in a non-
argumental embedded clause of a non-assertive matrix if the matrix
contains a............................
 The Polarity Reversal Rule can affect the polarity items in the
embedded clause of a non-assertive matrix, provided the verb in the
matrix is not ............................
 Optional negative transport
a. I think you haven’t met my wife.
b. I don’t think you have met my wife.

a. They believe that he is not a good candidate.

b. They don’t believe he is a good candidate.

in certain cases negation can be placed

either in the matrix or in the embedded
clause
negative raising/ negative transfer
 Optional negative transport
a. I think you haven’t met my wife.
b. I don’t think you have met my wife.

a. They believe that he is not a good candidate.

b. They don’t believe he is a good candidate.

in certain cases negation can be placed

either in the matrix or in the embedded
clause
negative raising/ negative transfer
 Optional negative transport

It is likely that Dragnea will not be elected President.

 negation in the embedded clause

It isn’t likely that Dragnea will be elected President.

 negation in the matrix
 Optional negative transport

predicates of OPINION: predicates of PERCEPTION

believe appear
expect feel like
imagine look like
reckon seem
suppose sound like
think predicates of PROBABILITY
? figure likely
? guess probable
certain
 Optional negative transport

predicates of INTENTION  predicates –

/VOLITION OBLIGATION/ADVICE
choose advise
intend advisable
plan had better
want suggest
*desire recommend
 Optional negative transport

She seems not to like you.

She doesn’t seem to like you.

I advise you not to go there alone.

I don’t advise you to go there alone.

I intend not to talk to them about it.

I don’t intend to talk to them about it.
 Optional negative transport

BUT:

I hope it won’t snow again.

* I don’t hope it will snow again.
Optional negative transport

No difference between the two structures?

 Optional negative transport

Transfer of negation in the matrix signals lack of

certainty on the part of the speaker.

It ‘has the effect of softening down the negativity

of a sentence’ (Poutsma 1929)

= a hedging device
Next

 Scope of negation ….
 Scope of negation
So far .... Sentence negation takes scope over the whole
clause

(1) John didn’t read this book for the exam.

< John read this book for the exam.
 Scope of negation
So far .... Sentence negation takes scope over the whole clause

(1) John didn’t read this book for the exam.

< John read this book for the exam.

Scope = the domain to which a semantic element applies

1. He often [doesn’t eat lunch.] often > not

2. He doesn’t often eat lunch. not > often
 Scope of negation

John read this book for the exam.

a. There was a reading activity.
b. This reading activity was performed by John.
c. This reading activity was ‘performed’ on this book. ....
 Scope of negation
John didn’t read this book for the exam.
a. There was no reading activity.
b. This reading activity was not performed by John.
c. This reading activity was not ‘performed’ on this book.

 The negative has scope over all these components , i.e.

over everything in the sentence
 Scope of negation
• Syntactic structure can reflect the scope of negation

John intentionally deleted the file

John didn’t intentionally delete the file.
Neg has scope over intentionally (wide scope)

John intentionally didn’t delete the file.

 Neg is inside the scope of intentionally (narrow scope)
 Scope of negation

 There are cases when the negative does not take scope over all
the elements in the clause:

Many students didn’t attend the lecture.

There were many students who did not attend the lecture.

 many has scope over Negation

 If an element X has scope
IP over another element Y, X
3A must c-command Y.
many students I’
3
I NegP
did 3
Neg’
3
Neg VP
not 5
<many students> attend the lecture
Scope of negation

 Everybody didn’t go.

(i) Everybody > not

= for everybody it is the case that they did not go
/nobody went
(i) Not > Everybody
= not everybody went
 IP
3A everybody c-commands not
everybody I’
3
I NegP
did 3
Neg’
3
Neg VP
not 5
<everybody> go
 Scope of negation

BUT
Not > Everybody
= not everybody went

It requires the inverse scope relation, where not c-commands

everybody
 IP
3A everybody c-commands not
everybody I’
3
I NegP
did 3
Neg’
3
Neg VP
not 5
<everybody> go

The subject in Spec,IP c-commands NegP. Its trace in Spec

VP is c-commanded by NegP  ambiguity
 Scope of negation
 Two possible scope relations :
(i) When the reading < the subject takes high scope = the
surface scope reading
(ii) When the reading < negation takes scope over the
unpronounced copy = the inverse scope reading
< the subject is semantically reconstructed into its first
Merge position
= scope reconstruction
 Negation and quantifiers

(1) Many students didn’t attend the lecture.

(2) All that glitters is not gold.
(3) Everybody didn’t support the proposal, but most did.
(4) All men are not born to reign.
(6) They aren’t all of them jerks.
(7) I did not agree with many of the points they made.

 both the negative and a quantifier  relative scope

 Negation and quantifiers
Quantifiers

(i) Negative Q: nobody, no one, nothing

(ii) Universal Q: all, each, every, free choice any
(iii)Existential Q: someone, something, somewhere
(iv) Lexical Q: many, few, much, little
(v) Cardinal Q: two, three,...
 Negation and quantifiers
= operators
= take an open sentence (with a free variable) and turn it into a
proposition by binding this free variable
x left.
Somebody left.

= they do not designate individuals

uniquely
John vs. someone
these students vs. everybody
 Negation and quantifiers
 Negation interferes with Qs

(8) I always haven’t liked people who lie.

(9) I haven’t always liked linguistics.
(10) I once haven’t studied for the LEC exam.
(11) I haven’t once studied for the LEC exam.
 the preferred reading matches scope with linear
order:
the left-most operator is interpreted as having wider
scope.
Negation and quantifiers

Many students didn’t back the proposal.

 narrow scope negative

The proposal wasn’t backed by many students.

 preferred reading: wide scope negative
 Negation and quantifiers

I always haven’t liked people who lie.

 Q takes scope over NEG

I haven’t always liked linguistics.

 NEG takes scope over Q
Negation and quantifiers
I once haven’t studied for the LEC exam.
Neg is within the scope of once

I haven’t once studied for the LEC exam.

Neg takes scope over once

I once haven’t tried to fool him.

I haven’t once tried to fool him.
 Negation and quantifiers
I haven’t bought all the papers.
= but I bought some
► all is within the scope of Neg (‘not all’)

They haven’t failed all the exams.

= but they failed some
► all is within the scope of Neg (‘not all’)
Negation and quantifiers

She hasn’t got many friends.

Neg takes scope over many. (‘not many’)

Many students didn’t attend the first seminar.

many takes scope over Neg (‘many ...not’)
 Negation and quantifiers
BUT (1)
All that glitters is not gold.
(i) Not all that glitters is gold.
(ii) All that glitters is different from gold.
Everybody didn’t pass the exam.
(i) … but most did.
(ii) nobody passed the exam

 if the subject is a universal quantifier (all, every, each), it

can be interpreted within the scope of Negation even when
it precedes it
 Negation and quantifiers
BUT (2)
If : heavy stress on Q, it will escape the scope of Neg

The film was not appreciated by ALL of the students.

= All the students did not .....

She was not understood by MANY of her friends.

 Negation and quantifiers

 The (ultimate) scope of the operators : at LF

 e.g. Q can escape the scope of Neg by movement/raising to
a higher position at LF = it adjoins to IP

IP
3
QP IP
5
= Covert movement
 Negation and quantifiers
BUT (3)

a. Quantifiers that have variable scope which interfere with Neg

b. Quantifiers that have inherent scope:

e.g. I didn’t talk to several of the guests.

= there were several of … that I did not talk to

NOT: the number of … was less than ‘several’
 Negation and quantifiers

• some quantifiers do not readily occur within the scope of

Neg

I hadn’t read most of it.

= salient interpretation: Most of it I had not read.
 Task.
• You've never seen anything like it.
 Nowhere have I seen anything like it.
 He can barely speak a smattering of Japanese.
 They are not at home.
 One rabbit can finish off a hundred young trees in no time.
 Not surprisingly, two were defeated in California that November.
 Robertson, not unexpectedly, claimed afterwards that …
 Not infrequently two or more adjacent cells may become …
 Cats appear from nowhere.
 It's in the middle of nowhere, isn't it?
 Task. What licenses the NPIs in the
Ss below? (BJL)

 Does anyone ever ring the bell?

 Do you need any more, anybody?
 Wonder if Tamsin had any luck selling her house.
 If they haven't got any scampi get an extra fishcake and an extra
spring roll.
 If there are any problems, we can….
 I was with him before anyone else was.
 He opened his mouth but before he could get any words out,
Matthew said, "I don't want to sell my share either."
 Mr Raynolds seemed reluctant to discuss anything.
 But 1 very rarely fry anything anyway.
 Ten minutes had gone by without anybody's coming to see if they
were hit or not/
 It requires you to guess at[…] without ever giving you the answers.
 The company can mend its ways and make cars as reliable as any of
its competitors'.
 I can trust you, Babes, more than anybody.
 This area produces more aquarium plants than any other area.
 Task

 I won't belong to anything, ever again.

 1 don't think [we had any cheese] did we?
 I don't suppose [it's there any more].
 1 haven't noticed [I've lost any weight].