Negation and diachrony

• Another problem that has not been solved is the one of the fact that very different elements can turn into negation by means of different evolutionary paths.

• Furthermore, only some n-words can turn into the standard negative marker, not all of them.

• The big NegP hypothesis is more precise in this sense, because it leads us to expect that only those elements which lexicalize one of the features contained in the big NegP can be reinterpreted as the standard negative marker.

• The big NegP hypothesis can be shown to explain the evolutionary path of different standard sentential negators.

• I will adopt a new perspective on grammaticalization proposed by Kayne in recent work: he assumes that grammaticalization is not simply a process that changes the category of the original elements, but can be explained by assuming that it is the silent elements that go with the grammaticalized element that change, not the element itself.

• When an element like Franco-provencal ‘ren’, which is etymologically nothing else than an existential light N meaning THING, comes to represent negation, we can interpret this change by assuming the following:

• since the big NegP contains an existential feature/projection, it can be represented by its existential portion as a whole, although its visible portion is much smaller.

• This means that an element like ren is structurally ambiguous, since it can be interpreted as an existential, or as the only lexicalized portion of the big NegP which contains the existential.

• This might help to settle a long debated question whether n-words are really negative or not.

• The big NegP hypothesis is compatible with the idea that n-words can be ambiguous between a polarity and a negative reading (depending on their morphological make-up) but their internal structure in the two cases must be different.

• The basic idea is still the same: the whole NegP can be spelled out by a single formative or by more than one, depending on the language, but not by elements that do not encode one of these formatives.

• Here I will compare two types of evolutionary paths of negative markers to give the jest of the argumentation.

• I will show that the positions of the different standard negators correspond to the original position of the element when it was not a standard negator, i.e. the four NegPs Zanuttini has discovered in Italian dialects are not NegPs, but the original quantifier positions of the elements from which the negative marker has taken its form.

• This means that we do not have to postulate more than one NegP position in the syntax, but that negative formatives remain in their original position, the position of the completed semantic process of negating a clause could still require a null element in the CP.

Minimizer-negation and Q-negation.

• It is a well known fact in typological studies that different “new negators” have a different evolutionary path when turning into standard negation.

• Since two of them are minimally different, one of them coming from a n-word, i.e. the work meaning ‘nothing’, while another from a minimizer, both originally occurring inside the vP as (part of ) arguments of the verb, we will briefly observe their two distinct evolutionary paths.

Examples of minimizer negation

• ‘step’: Piedmontese/Valdotain pa; ‘crumble’: Emilian brisa; Milanese miga/minga; Veneto mina/mia; Italianmica;

‘bite’: Romansh bucca; Livigno Lombard ca

‘point’: Florentine punto;‘thread’: Salentino filu;‘flower’: Old Florentine fiore;‘drop’: Old Venetian gozo.

• M-negations behave like a natural class of elements, since they display common syntactic properties. Usually, they appear higher than adverbs encoding Aspect and Tense Anterior, this position is occupied by both standard negative markers and reinforcers of negation. (but see lesson II for some exceptions).

• a. A l’ha pa gia ciamà. (Piedmontese, from Zanuttini 1997)SCL SCL has NEG already called‘He has not already called.’

b. I n’an briza beli ciamà. (Emilian, from Colombini 2007, § 5.6.1)

SCL NEG have NEG already called‘They have not already called.’

c. Non hanno mica già chiamato. (Italian, from Cinque 1999)NEG have NEG already called‘They have not already called.’

d. Elts an buca magliau trasora. (Romansh, from Manzini-Savoia 2005)

SCL have NEG eaten already‘They have not already eaten.’

• According to Jespersen, this type of negative marker develops from emphatic contexts with a special class of verbs: i.e. pas should come from an expression with a verb of movement of the following sort

Non ha bevuto neanche una goccia di alcool.NEG has drunk not-even a drop of alcohol‘He did not drink any alcohol at all.’Non ha mosso un passo.NEG has moved a step‘He did not budge’

• In Old French I was not able to find any of these contexts.

• The same observation is made by Larrivée (2011:11), who notices that in Old French: “Little evidence supports the hypothetical pathway from measure to polarity to negative.”

• In particular Larrivée argues that there is no empirical evidence of the use of measure phrase of pas.

• The polarity status of pas is also called into question, since it is only found in interrogatives and vernaculars do not provide any evidence for a polarity use of pas.

• However, Old Italian provides clear cases in which minimizers used indeed as a measure phrase.

• Minimizer negation starts out indeed as a measure element indicating a small amount of something, and as such can also occur in positive contexts:

Mica di

• a. On sté de scisceri e miga de vin d’intrà.(Lancino Curti 6-14)

• one staio of chickpeas and MIGA of wine of income

• ‘One staio (20 l) of chickpeas and a little of wine as income…’

• b. Là no se sente miga de male.(Barsegapé 2430)

• there NEG REFL feels MIGA of pain• ‘There one does not feel any pain.’

• In these cases mica is clearly still a noun, although a functional one, since it requires a complement nominal expression in the genitive (i.e. introduced by the preposition di)

• Another minimizer brings additional arguments that this was really the diachronic path followed by this type of negative marker.

• Garzonio (2010): In Old Florentine punto can be used as a measure phrase in various polarity contexts and as such occurs with a PP complement.

Punto di

El tempio d’ Ercule […] a chi ha punto dellethe temple of Hercules to whom has PUNTO of.storie romane letto, è manifesto. (Commento a

Ovidio 471)the histories roman read is manifest

‘The temple of Hercules is manifest to whom has read a little of roman histories.’

Punto di

E quando hai punto di tempo quieto pensa a’ and when have PUNTO of time quiet think

benifici di Dio. (G. delle Celle – Lettere 1392.10)about benefits of god‘When you have a little of quiet time, think

about the benefits of God.’

Punto di

Il re d’Inghilterra fu a gran pericolo con sua oste […] che 8the king of England was at great peril with his army that

8 daysdì stettono, che non ebbono se non poco pane né punto

di vino.stayed that NEG had but NEG little bread and-NEG

PUNTO of wine (G. Villani Nuova Cronica 13.66)‘The king of England was in great peril with his army, since for 8 days they had not but a little of bread and had no wine.’

Punto is a light noun

• The fact that punto can select a complement with the usual preposition di ‘of’ means that it is still a noun, with the usual properties of nouns, i.e. at this point of its evolution, the element is still sitting in the object position.

• In some dialects traces of the original complex DP structure can still be found. For instance, in the Alpine Lombard variety of Quarna Sotto, when the m-negation mia is used, the object can appear in the genitive (partitive) case, even if it expresses a singular non-quantifiable entity:Nə caman mia d əu te frial. (Quarna Sotto, from Manzini-Savoia 2005)NEG-SCL call NEG of the your brother‘They do not call your brother.’

• However, already in Old Florentine minimizers can be used as adverbials as well as arguments.

• When they are used as adverbials, they occupy the same position the standard negative marker occupies today in dialects that only have a minimizer as its standard negative marker:

Elleno non poteano punto ancora essere trovate. (Difenditore della Pace)

they NEG could PUNTO yet to.be found‘They could not be found yet.’ Here punto occurs in front of the adverb

ancora, as minimizer negation does.

• Hence, the position minimizers that have developed into negative markers tend to occupy is not an effect of grammaticalization of these elements into negative markers, as put forth by Roberts and Roussou (2003), it is an effect of their original properties when they were not yet standard negative markers.

• Grammaticalization of negation does not involve any movement of the negative marker up the clausal spine.

Modern Florentine

La radio la un funziona punto. (Florentine)the radio SCL NEG works PUNTO“The radio does not work at all.”un l’ho mandato in punti posti.(Pisano)NEG him-have sent in PUNTO.M.PL places“I have sent him nowhere.”

Punto works like a reinforcer of negation but can also be generated inside the VP in an argumental position.

Punto agrees with the N

• An indication that minimizers come indeed from inside an argumental position in the VP comes from modern Florentine:

Un vedo punti libri. (Florentine)NEG see PUNTO.M.PL. books“I see no books.”• In the modern variety, punto has become a

measure adjective, not a noun.

Un l’ho punta sentita questa storia.NEG her have PUNTO.F.SG heard this story‘I have not heard at all about this story.’• The fact that there is agreement between

punta and questa storia but the past participle intervenes shows that even when it comes from the VP, the element punto can raise to the adverbial space.

• This shows that the adverbial position of punto is available even to the argumental punto, not only to the adverbial one.

French

• The same hypothesis, namely that pas comes from the object position has been put forth by Rowlett (2003): he proposes that pas originates in a position similar to beaucoup and then is raised by the same mechanism of split quantification that we have to assume for Qs in French.

• This would account for the fact that pas also requires a genitive object.

• Hirschbühler and Labelle (1998) argue against this hypothesis and bring several arguments in order to show that pas and beaucoup do not behave the same.

• Notice however, that it is not necessary to assume that pas originates in the VP sinchronically, this can be just the diachronic path of the negative marker, which has never changed its position.

• The diachronic path would thus not be one of movement up the structural tree, but simply a first versus second merge difference: pas is directly merged in the low IP and not in the VP and then moved.

• We conclude that the position of the modern standard negative minimizer negation is NOT a negative position per se, but a quantificational one which is already available when the element has not turned into a (standard) negative marker yet.

The development of Q-negation

I (n) mandj (pa) nia nkoeI not eat not not today/ I am not going to eat I (n) mandj (pa) nia soni nkoe. (S. Leonardo

Ladin)I NEG eat NEG NEG potatoes today/ ia do not eat potatoes today

Q-negation derives from the n-word ´nothing´

First stage

• Bayer notices that the usage of Southern German nichts in constructions like „ich habe nichts geschlafen“ can be derived by assuming that the n-word is located in the empty object position and then raised.

• Breithbart (2014) notices that in Old Low German the spread of nicht as a negative marker is related to the same class of intransitive verbs singled out by Bayer.

• The etymological origin of nicht and nia/nen is the same: there is n-morpheme plus an existential light noun. In German it is related to the word for ‚body‘, in Italian the element ente has been either analyzed as ‚people‘ or as ‚thing‘. In both cases it is an existential light noun.

• Although Bayer (2009) notices that nichts in Southern German is only possible with verbs that have an empty direct object position, this is not always the case in Italian varieties.

Second stage

a. Nol lavora gnente.(Venetian)

NEG-SCL works nothingb. Nol dorme gnente.

NEG-SCL sleeps nothingc. *Nol leze gnente i libri.

NEG-SCL reads nothing the booksd. Nol leze gnente libri.

NEG-SCL reads nothing books

a. No la crese gnente. (Venetian)NEG SCL grows nothing

b. Nol me piaze gnente.NEG-SCL me likes nothing

c. *Nol riva gnente.NEG-SCL arrives nothing

Q-negation is only compatible with non- telic predicates.

Old Italian

Sì che non era nostra intenzione essere che cene sia neente rendutoso that not was our intention be.inf that usof.it is nothing given.back‘So that we did not want that anything of it

would be given us back’ (Giachino 17)The n-word already occurs in front of the past

participle

• In French some bare Quantifiers move higher than their object position in the VP:

Il a tout beaucoup apprecie´. 'He has everything much appreciated.Il n´a rien bien comprisHe not has nothing well understood The position of the negative marker is still the

same position of the n-word inside a field for quantifiers like tout/tous.

• Q-negation starts ist history as the non standard negative marker from a different class of constructions with respect to minimizers.

• However, also in this case, we notice that the position of niente found in the modern dialects is the same Q-position found in Old Italian.

Focus and Negation

• Another type of negative marker found in macro and micro-variation work is the one related to Focus, and stemming from different elements that can encode Focus in various languages. Here we analyze examples: the case of Sicilian neca and the case of Northern Italian no.

• Sicilian has developed a negative marker coming from a cleft clause, as it is clear from its form: neca where the n-corresponds to the negative morpheme, the vowel is the third form of the present of the verb ‘be’ and ca is the complementizer. Since Sicilian is a pro drop language, there is no subject pronoun present.

Neca ti vogliu imbrogliari! (Corleone)“NEG you want th.cheat” [ASIt 159]Neca ci cridi! (Corleone)“Not it believes” [ASIt 197]

• That neca is a negative marker and not a whole clause is shown

• A. by the fact that the form of the verb cannot be inflected for any other person or tense

• The form of the negative marker is reduced from nun/un to n-

• The fact that no element can intervene between the verb and the complementizer

They did not want to go:*a. N era ca ci vonsi jiri. (Mussomeli)

not was that there want to.gob. Neca ci vonsi jiri. (Mussomeli)

NEG there want to.goc. Unn’era ca ci vonsi jiri. (Mussomeli) not was that there want go

• That neca is located in Focus is shown by the fact that it is incompatible with a preverbal Focus: a. *I piatta neca purtavu. (Mussomeli)

the dishes not brought‘It is the dishes that I did not bring.’

b. *cu Mariu neca parlavu. with Mario not spoke ‘It is with Mario that I did not speak.’

• As expected by the layering of Topic and Focus in Italian, neca is compatible with a left dislocated XP and must follow it.

a. I piatta, neca i purtavu.the dishes not them brought‘I did not bring the dishes.’

b. *Neca i piatta i purtavu.

• Once again we conclude that the position of the negative marker is not a NegP, but Focus, which is one of the basic components of the big NegP.

Postverbal no

• Another negative marker related to Focus is the one found in Lombard, Veneto and Trentino varieties which corresponds to the sentential negative marker and is similar to Brazilian Portuguese nao.

• No ghe vado NO! Veneto• Not there go NO• ‘I won’t go there’

• The same element is also used in sentence initial position

• NO che non ghe vado Veneto• NO that not there go • ‘Iwon’t go there’[CPFocus NO [FinP [Fin° che …[IP no ghe vado]]]

The two constructions can be analyzed as stemming from a single derivation where the negative marker is always in the Focus position and the following clause can raise or remain in situ.

[SpecGroundP [IP no ghe so ndà] [Ground° [CPFocus NO] [FinP [IP no ghe so ndà]]]

• When the clause raises to GroundP it goes through FinP and deletes the complementizer:

• [SpecGroundP [IP no ghe so ndà] [Ground° [CPFocus NO] [FinP [IP no ghe so ndà]]] [Fin° [IP no ghe so ndà]]]

• Independent evidence that the two constructions are related comes from cases where the clause is spelled out twice

• No ghe vado NO che no ghe vado• Not there goe NO that not there go• I am really not going!• This shows that the position of NO is always

Focus and that the sentence final or sentence initial position is derived by movement.

• The relation between Focus and negation has been noticed by many scholars (see lesson II the part on relativized minimality, lesson I the part on negative markers in typological variation)

• The position of neca and NO is the one usually related to Focus in Italian (see Cruschina 2012), i.e. also these negative markers do not occupy NegP, but an independent position that could correspond to one of the semantic operations involved in creating negation in natural languages.

• We conclude that the position where negative markers occur are not NegP positions, but the position where the original element could be moved.

• The same can be shown to be the case for the sentence final negative marker of Afrikaans, which according to Biberauer (2007)derives from a negative tag located after the whole clause.

• Hence, we do not need to postulate any special movement when the element is „grammaticalized“ into the negative marker, and we do not need to postulate several distinct NegP projections in the clause.

• „negative markers“ are just what they look, i.e. minimizers, n-words, Focus etc.

• This analysis differs from the one proposed by Zanuttini (1997) in one aspect: she assumes that there is indeed a real NegP/PolP in the sentence, and that this is located higher than TP but lower than CP.

• I propose that each of the possible negative markers we have investigated encodes one of several features of negation, each of them spelling out one (or more) semantic component of the complex necessary to achieve negation.

• In a sense, this is a cartographic refinement of Zeijlstra’s proposal that some negative markers correspond to the negative operator (as in non-strict negative concord languages) while others do not (like in strict negative concord languages).

• Some negative markers pied pipe the whole complex structure, while others are extracted out of it and move indipendently.