Negative indefinites like nobody and nothing are traditionally analyzed as negative quantifier. This analysis faces a compositionally problem in languages exhibiting negative concord, where semantic negation is expressed by more than one morphosyntactically negative element. This chapter critically discusses the most influential approaches to negative concord. The first type of analyses considers negative indefinites as negative quantifiers, the second as negative polarity items and the fourth as ambiguous between negative quantifiers and negative polarity items. A forth type of analyses views negative concord syntactic agreement. 1 Negative indefinites Languages do not only express negation by means of sentential negative markers, such as English not, but also by means of negative indefinites, such as English nobody, no man or never. The traditional view on the semantics of negative indefinites, going back to Aristotle, holds that they are negative quantifiers, that is their lexical entry contains a negation as well as an existential meaning component (see Horn (2001) for an extensive historical overview). In the framework of Generalized Quantifier Theory (Barwise and Cooper, 1981), the lexical entry generally assigned to nobody, for instance, is the one shown in (1). (1) [[ nobody ]] = λP.¬∃x[ person(x) & P (x) ] This view on the semantics of negative indefinites, however, is challenged by a phenomenon called negative concord, which occurs in many of the world’s languages. In these languages negative indefinites co-occur with other items expressing negation in the same clause and nevertheless the sentence is interpreted as containing only one negation. This is illustrated in the following examples from Italian, Russian and non-standard English, where a negative indefinite co-occurs with the sentential negative marker. (2) a. Maria Maria non neg ha has visto seen nessuno. n-person (Italian) ‘Maria hasn’t seen anybody.’ b. Nikto n-person ne neg videl saw nikogo. (Russian) n-person ‘No-one saw anyone.’ (from Brown, 1999, 35)

Abstract Negative sentences in Creole languages, provocatively claimed to be the world ‘simplest languages’ (Mc Whorter 2001), commonly present a puzzling multiplicity of redundant negative expressions with a single negative interpretation that appear to systematically violate logical compositionality. An intriguing solution to this puzzle proposes that, contrary to appearances, negation is entirely abstract in Creoles, i.e. solely represented by a phonologically null operator dubbed NEG (Homer 2013; Zeijlstra 2004 and following) and has, de facto, no actual direct morpho-phonological exponent. On this, view, not only expressions like pèsonn `nobody’ or anyen `nothing’ are not negative, but neither is the morpheme pa. Revisiting Haitian Creole negative dependencies on the basis of novel data drawn from a corpus of Haitian writings and internet data, this paper critically reviews this approach, showing that it makes a number of incorrect predictions, both with respect to the distribution of Negative Concord items (NCIs) as well as with the morpheme pa, especially on its so called ‘expletive negation’ use, which is investigated here for the first time. The paper argues for a less radical solution that brings Haitian negative dependencies in line with other classic NPI dependencies, claiming that Haitian NCIs are in fact strong NPIs that can be licensed by sentential negation under reconstruction. The puzzle, hence, receives a different solution, keeping with the idea that NCI are non-negative expressions, but also with the more concrete view that pa is the core negation morpheme in Haitian.

Abstract We divorce Negative Concord (NC) among two or more n-items, which is invariably present in Romance languages, from the mutual exclusion or cooccurrence between clausal negation markers (CNMs) and other n-items. The standard minimalist treatment in terms of Agree with respect to a formal feature [n] (for [negation]) is maintained here. However, an EPP-like principle, conceived as a (parametrized) condition regulating the representation of [n] at phase edges is introduced to deal with CNMs. By divorcing the n-EPP condition from n-Agree, we eliminate Zeijlstra’s Upward Agree in favor of Multiple Downward Agree between a phase head probe endowed with Formal Feature FF and one or more elements endowed with the same interpretable feature FF in the WorkSpace. We argue that these theoretical moves are beneficial from an empirical point of view. Focusing on varieties spoken in Northern Italy, we argue that an exhaustive typology of Romance negative systems can be derived by the parametrized [n]-EPP. We claim that the present approach allows this variation to be accounted for within the syntax – specifically, no recourse is made to semantic variation.

Languages may vary greatly in the way they express negation. Most languages exploit specifically designated negative markers, such as English not. Many languages may also use negative indefinites (such as English nobody or nothing) to express negation. The behavior of these negative indefinites is subject to crosslinguistic variation: In some languages, negative markers and negative indefinites cannot express a single semantic negation (nobody didn't come means that everybody came and not that nobody came), but in other languages they can. Languages with these properties, such as Italian, are called Negative Concord languages. In this review, I discuss the difference between negative indefinites in languages that exhibit Negative Concord and languages that do not. I also compare the behaviors of negative indefinites in languages that exhibit Negative Concord and so-called Negative Polarity Items. This article provides an accurate overview of recent developments in the study of negation and negative dependencies.

In this book, Doris Penka delivers a cross-linguistic, unified analysis of the semantics and syntax of negative indefinites, as in the expressions nobody, nothing, no (as determiner), never and nowhere and their counterparts in other ... In this book, Doris Penka delivers a cross-linguistic, unified analysis of the semantics and syntax of negative indefinites, as in the expressions nobody, nothing, no (as determiner), never and nowhere and their counterparts in other languages. While it is standard to assume that negative indefinites behave like negative quantifiers, the author argues that these expressions are not inherently negative and are only licensed by a covert negation.In an analysis motivated by three phenomena found in the structure and semantics of negative indefinites in different languages - namely negative concord (in which multiple occurrences of negative constituents express a single negation), split readings (in which negative and indefinite parts take scope independently of each other), and the limited di

The present research paper endeavors to compare English and Lingala as far as the use of negative concord is concerned with regard to Morphology and Semantics. After the description on the use of negative concord in both languages, it has been found that the two languages are similar at the morphological level since they use two or more negative forms in the same sentence to express a single semantic negation. The disparities have occurred at the semantic level, where referring to negative concord in Standard English to render a single semantic negation is considered ungrammatical and a double negation reading is attributed to it, i.e., a positive meaning. In contrast, the use of negative concord in the Lingala language is allowable since it is used to express the negation. The study has revealed that the two languages coincide at morphological level since in both languages two negative elements are used in the same sentence and also negative concord is used to express the emphasis in English as well as in Lingala.

This chapter investigates double negation readings in negative concord languages. This may look like a contradiction in terms. After all, negative concord is a system in which multiple expressions of negation combine to convey a single negation reading. If so, then how is it possible to express double negation in such languages? I will discuss three cases in which this arises.

This paper has three main points. First, contrary to what is often stated, negative concord is not all that frequent and certainly not the most frequent strategy to express single clausal negation in a clause with an indefinite noun phrase or adverbial in the scope of the negation. Second, the subtype of negative concord called ‘strict negative concord’ is much more frequent than the subtype of ‘non-strict negative concord’. These two claims are based on a worldwide sample of 179 languages. Third, it is argued that non-strict negative concord shows too much variation for it to be seen as the one choice of a two-way split between strict and non-strict negative concord. Given the relative rarity of non-strict negative concord, this claim is not based on the worldwide sample, but on a survey of the research literature.

George.") For constituent negation, Greek employs negative concord. The negated constituent is marked with a negative-polarity item (e.g. κανένας 'any, anybody/nobody' The grammar of Modern Greek, as spoken in present-day Greece and Cyprus, is essentially that of Demotic Greek, but it has also assimilated certain elements of Katharevousa, the archaic, learned variety of Greek imitating Classical Greek forms, which used to be the official language of Greece through much of the 19th and 20th centuries. Modern Greek grammar has preserved many features of Ancient Gr The grammar of Modern Greek, as spoken in present-day Greece and Cyprus, is essentially that of Demotic Greek, but it has also assimilated certain elements of Katharevousa, the archaic, learned variety of Greek imitating Classical Greek forms, which used to be the official language of Greece through much of the 19th and 20th centuries. Modern Greek grammar has preserved many features of Ancient Greek, but has also undergone changes in a similar direction as many other modern Indo-European languages, from more synthetic to more analytic structures. The lack of an infinitive. In Greek, verbal complementation in contexts where English would use an infinitive is typically… Δεν του ζήτησα να έρθει. (Den tou zitisa na erthei, "I didn't ask him to come.") Του ζήτησα να μην έρθει. (Tou zitisa na min erthei, "I asked him not to come.") When used alone with a subjunctive verb in the second person, prohibitive μην serves as the functional equivalent to a negative imperative, which itself cannot be negated. Thus, the negation of the positive imperative τρέξε ([ˈtrekse], 'run!') is μην τρέξεις ([min ˈtreksis], 'don't run!'). The particle όχι serves as the stand-alone utterance of negation ('no'), and also for negation of elliptical, verbless sentences and for contrastive negation of individual constituents: Κάλεσα τη Μαρία, όχι τον Γιώργο. (Kalesa ti Maria, ochi ton Giorgo, "I invited Mary, not George.") For constituent negation, Greek employs negative concord. The negated constituent is marked with a negative-polarity item (e.g. κανένας 'any, anybody/nobody', τίποτα 'anything/nothing', πουθενά 'anywhere/nowhere'), and the verb is additionally marked with the sentence negator δεν (or μην). In verbless, elliptical contexts the negative-polarity items can also serve to express negation alone. Δε θέλω κανέναν εδώ. (De thelo kanenan edo, "I want nobody here.") —Είναι κανείς εδώ; —Όχι, κανείς. (—Einai kaneis edo? —Ochi, kaneis, "'Is anyone here?' 'No, nobody.'") Δεν έκανα κανένα λάθος. (Den ekana kanena lathos, "I have made no mistake.") On the other hand, the negative pronoun ουδείς ([uˈðis], oudeis), from the learned tradition of Ancient Greek, is used without negative concord: