scholarly journals The meaning of negation in the second language classroom: Evidence from ‘any’

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 218-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kook-Hee Gil ◽  
Heather Marsden ◽  
Melinda Whong
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Negative Polarity ◽  
Textbook Analysis ◽  
Polarity Item ◽  
Negative Polarity Item ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
Lower Accuracy ◽  
Language Classroom ◽  
Arabic Speaking

This article brings together an experimental study involving L2 knowledge of negation in English and an analysis of how English language textbooks treat negation, in order to consider whether textbook explanations of negation could better exploit linguistic insights into negation. We focus on the English negative polarity item any, whose distribution is contingent on negation, whether through the explicit negator not or through lexical semantic negators (e.g. hardly). Our experiment compares Chinese-speaking learners with existing data from Arabic-speaking learners, finding lower accuracy on any with lexical semantic negators in both groups. Our textbook analysis reveals an approach to negation that is limited to form, focusing on the explicit negator not without explicit treatment of other types of negation. We propose that emphasizing the meaning of negation, with explicit treatment of the full range of negative forms could facilitate more complete acquisition across a range of grammatical properties where negation plays a role.

Syntax of the Palestinian Arabic negation-associated exclusive construction

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 103-118
Author(s):  
Samir Khalaily
Keyword(s):  
Negative Polarity ◽  
Polarity Item ◽  
Contrastive Focus ◽  
Negative Polarity Item ◽  
Sentential Negation ◽  
Quantifier Raising ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Right ◽  
Palestinian Arabic

Abstract This paper presents an analysis of a Palestinian Arabic negation-associated exclusive construction featuring the contrastive focus marker illa ‘but’, with theoretical implications for the syntax of negation, negative polarity item licensing, and the categorical status of the root in sentential syntax. It analyzes illa-phrases as constituents licensed by a c-commanding sentential negation (Neg), and illa as a grammatical device encoding contrastiveness. A crucial source for the exclusive semantics of the construction comes from a silent bass ‘only’ immediately following illa that constitutes a syntactic ‘shield’ against Neg scope. Rather than taking an in-situ focus-interpretation approach (cf. Rooth 1985, 1992), we argue for two covert movements at the syntax-semantics interface: quantifier raising of illa-phrases to the designated specifier of polarity Phrase followed by Polarity-to-Focus-raising of Neg. This creates the right syntactic configuration for the truth conditional import of both operators and captures the ‘classical’ thought that focus-sensitive exclusive operators like only quantify over propositional alternatives.

Development of ‘say’-derived constructions

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 296-325
Author(s):  
Mizuho Tamaji
Keyword(s):  
Negative Polarity ◽  
Negative Evaluation ◽  
Positive Polarity ◽  
Polarity Item ◽  
Entire Process ◽  
Negative Polarity Item ◽  
Complement Clause ◽  
Positive Evaluation

Abstract Totemo in contemporary Japanese is a degree adverb (intensifier). Previous studies have reported that totemo derived from the adverb totemo kakutemo, which means ‘either way’ (and hence is a bipolar item) in classical Japanese. These studies also reported that totemo became a negative polarity item (an adverb modifying words for negative evaluation), but then shifted to a positive polarity item (an adverb modifying words for positive evaluation), and that counter-expectation factors played an important role in this shift. It is reported that the ‘say’-derived complementizer develops into a hearsay evidential marker, counter-expectation marker, and in some cases an intensifier (e.g. Wang et al. 2003) in some languages. Tote in classical Japanese is known as a ‘say’-derived complementizer, but it does not grammaticalize into an intensifier. This study maintains that the intensifier totemo also derived from the verb ‘say’ and the entire process of grammaticalization of totemo may be chronologized as follows: concessive use of quotative > concessive use of hearsay evidential > counter-expectation marker > intensifier. Thus, this study reveals the language-specific development of grammaticalization of the intensifier totemo. We also reveal that a reanalysis of the concessive subordinator and the elision of the complement clause preceding totemo as a sentence initial counter-expectation marker further gave rise to the sentence-medial parenthetical phrase (intensifier) totemo.

scholarly journals ‘Not’ in focus:

2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-58
Author(s):  
Jochen Zeller
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Representation ◽  
Negative Polarity ◽  
Polarity Item ◽  
Negative Polarity Item ◽  
The Third ◽  
Bantu Language ◽  
Polarity Focus ◽  
Vp Focus

This paper investigates the interaction of focus and negation in the Bantu language Zulu (Nguni; S42). I discuss four strategies that are used to negate transitive sentences in Zulu. The default strategy, in which an object marker is added to the negated verb, expresses polarity focus by dislocating the object-marked object from the VP-focus domain. In the second strategy, no object marker occurs, and focus falls on the object or the VP. I show that in this strategy, negation typically associates with the focus and is not part of the presupposition, and I argue that this is responsible for a (hitherto unexplained) additional contrastive inference that speakers report with this negation strategy. The third strategy, a cleft, is used to remove the focused object from the scope of negation; as a result, negation can associate with the presupposition. In the fourth strategy, the object noun loses its augment and is interpreted as a negative polarity item (NPI). Based on a proposal by Lahiri (1998), I argue that in negated sentences with NPI-objects, focus is placed on an implicit cardinality predicate which is associated with the semantic representation of the indefinite NPI-object.

scholarly journals The Complex Beauty of Boundary Adverbials: In Years and Until

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-54
Author(s):  
Sabine Iatridou ◽  
Hedde Zeijlstra
Keyword(s):  
Negative Polarity ◽  
Polarity Item ◽  
Negative Polarity Item

In this article, we discuss two negative polarity item (NPI) adverbials: in years (and its cousins in days, in months, etc.) and until. We argue that much is to be gained by analyzing the two in juxtaposition. We first explore in years, following our approach in Iatridou and Zeijlstra 2017; on the basis of our analysis of this item, we then explore until. Our approach permits a unified account of until, whose behavior has led researchers to consider it lexically ambiguous. The commonalities between in years and our unified until also allow us to explain why both these boundary adverbials are strong as opposed to weak NPIs.

Is There a Negative Polarity Item ‮דבר‬‎ in DSS Hebrew?

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-350
Author(s):  
Adina Moshavi
Keyword(s):  
Special Kind ◽  
Negative Polarity ◽  
Biblical Hebrew ◽  
Polarity Item ◽  
Negative Polarity Item ◽  
Diachronic Development

Abstract A negative polarity item (NPI) is a word or expression that occurs grammatically in negative clauses and a variety of other types of clauses such as interrogatives and conditionals, but not in ordinary affirmative sentences. Examples from classical Biblical Hebrew include the pronoun ‮מאומה‬‎ “anything” and the semantically-bleached noun ‮דבר‬‎ “a thing,” which has been produced from the ordinary noun ‮דבר‬‎ “word, matter, action” by the process of grammaticalization. This paper examines the noun ‮דבר‬‎ in the non-biblical DSS with the purpose of determining whether it is used as there as an NPI, as in Biblical Hebrew, or as an ordinary semantically-bleached noun, as in Rabbinic Hebrew. The results show that the diachronic development of ‮דבר‬‎ in the DSS appears to be at an earlier stage than classical Biblical Hebrew, despite the later dating of the scrolls. This finding is explained as a special kind of pseudo-classicism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document