Kahrel - Aspects of Negation

of 158/158
Aspects of Negation
  • date post

    30-Aug-2014
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    116
  • download

    5

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Kahrel - Aspects of Negation

Aspects ot NegationAspects ot Negation:c:irxiscn rrorrscnrir+ter verkrijging van de graad van doctoraan de Lniversiteit van Amsterdam,op gezag van de Pector MagnicusProt. Dr. P.W.M. de Meijerten overstaan van een door het college van dekaneningestelde commissiein het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Lniversiteitop + mei +,,o te +.o uurdoor Pieter ohannus Kahrelgeboren te AmsterdamPromotores: Prot. Dr. H. PinksterProt. Dr. S.C. Dik1ypeset in Bembo +++: by the authorPrinted by Krips Pepro, Meppel, the Netherlands1his research vas supported by the loundation tor Iinguistic Pesearch,vhich vas tunded by the Netherlands Organization tor ScienticPesearch (xvo,.I see nobody on the road, said Alice.I only vish I had such eyes, the King remarked in a trettul tone.1o be able to see Nobody'[|Who did you pass on the road the King vent on, holding out hishand to the Messenger tor some more hay.Nobody, said the Messenger.Quite right, said the King: this young lady sav him too. So otcourse Nobody valks slover than you.I do my best, the Messenger said in a sulky tone. Im surenobody valks much taster than I do'He cant do that, said the King, or else hed have been here rst.Ievis Caroll, ii.e iu 1ouoeriauo1o Simon DikPretaceSimon Dik vas the best teacher one could vish tor. I am extremelygratetul to him tor teaching me various aspects ot linguistics: not onlythe cratt itselt, such as theoretical linguistics and typology, but also ageneral attitude tovards and appreciation ot language and languages.And his students are not only taught linguistics, they get an excellentteachers training course in the process. I am also gratetul to him torsupervising the research project that led to this book. He has been aconstant source ot inspiration and encouragement. I amonly too sorrythat he did not live to see this book nished.While I vas completing this thesis, Simon Dik tell seriously ill andvas no longer able to supervise the last stages ot this book. I am verygratetul toHarmPinkster tor taking over the taskot supervisor. He readthroughthe manuscript several times andgave comments vhichturnedout to be a signicant improvement.I am also very gratetul to my vite, Anna Sievierska. 1his book hasbeen an excercise in patience tor her almost as much as it has been torothers. But I also vish to thank her tor encouraging me to nish thisproject, tor reading the rst dratts and improving both its contents andits style.Over the years, I have presented parts ot this book during a numberot talks and have beneted trom comments trom several ot people. Ivant tosingle out here ohanvan der Auvera, GiulianoBernini, Mach-telt Bolkestein, William Crott, Osten Dahl, Matthev Dryer, MartinHaspelmath, Kees Hengeveld, Simonvande Kerke, ChristianIehmann,IachlanMackenzie, YaronMatras, Pieter Muysken, anPijkho, IeonStassen and Co Vet. I also vant to thank the members ot the lunctionalGrammar vork groups, vho commented on talks I did tor that torum.Anumber ot people have helped me interpret various language dataand provided me vith additional material vhen I could not nd datain descriptive grammars vhich untortunately vas rather otten the case.I vish to thank Peter Bakker (Cree,, Sandra Bertocchi (Italian,,Hans denBesten(Nama,, Martine Cuvulay (Arabic,, Gerrit Dimmen-daal (1urkana,, Casper de Groot (Hungarian,, Katya Gruzdeva (Gilyak,,viii Irefa.ethe late Sie Ing Djiang (Mandarin, Indonesian,, Iars Kristoersen(WestGreenlandic,, Pieter Muysken(Quechua,, Igor Nedyalkov(Chuckchi,Lvenki, Ket,, Ger Peesink (Lsan,, Arie Spruit (Abkhaz,, 1onjes Veen-stra (Saramaccan, and eroen Wiedenhot (Mandarin,. 1he author canbe reached at p.kahreiiau.aster.a..uk.ContentsAbbreviations and conventions xi1ables, gures and maps xiii1 Introduction 1+.+ 1he traditional approach +.: 1ypological adequacy o+. A note on terminology ,: Negation in Iunctional Grammar 1:.+ 1he structure ot lunctional Grammar +:.+.+ Clause Structure +:.+.: 1erms +o:.: Negation in rt +;:.:.+ Predicate negation +:.:.: Predicational and propositional negation +:.:. Illocutionary negation :::. 1erm negation ::..+ 1erm quantication ::..: 1erm negation as zero quantication : A typology ot term negation .+ Outline ot the typology o.+.+ 1ype +: neg plus indenite ,.+.: 1ype :: neg plus special indenite .+. 1ype : zero-quantication o.+. 1ype : neg plus zero-quantication ;.+. 1ype : Lxistential construction :.: Multiple types . Indeniteness o:x Couteuts| 1he negative element o.+ 1he categorial status ot xrt ;o.: Multiple particle negatives ;o.:.+ Quechua ;,.:.: Maparayi +.:. Babungo .:. Arabic .:. Navaho o.:.o Dutch and Basque ;.:.; Negation and locus ,.:. Conclusion ,o 1erm negation and language typology .+ 1he sample ,.+.+ Classication ot the languages ,.+.: Sample design +oo.+. Potential sources ot bias +o.: Areal and genetic distribution +oo. Correlations vith other aspects ot the grammar ++,o Conclusion 1:Appendix +:,Peterences +:Subject index +oIanguage index +:Name index +Abbreviations and conventionsAbbreviationsMost ot the abbreviations used in the text are listed belov. Idiosyncraticabbreviations are explained vhere they occur.:is absolutive:cc accusative:x+ anterior:sr aspect:ut augment:ux auxiliaryci classiercoii collectivecoxc concessivecoxx connectivecor copulai:+ dativeirci declarativeii direct objectrxci encliticrx existentialrx+ extensiverc tree choice particlerrx temininerorx tormative verb prexru+ tuturetrx genitiven:i habitualixxr:s+ immediate pastixr imperativeixrr impertectiveixirr indeniteixiic indicativeixr innitiveix+r intransitiveioc locativex:sc masculinex neuterxrt negativexox nominativexoxizr nominalizerxoxr non-tactualxoxrix nonnitexoxrrr non-reterentialoiJ objectr:r+ partitiver:s+ pastrrrr pertectiveri pluralrxrt past negativeross possessiverr:r+ past participlerrrs presentrrr+ pretiriter+ci particle_ question particlerrcrx+r:s+ recent pastrri relativers relativized subjects subjectst singularss same subjectsuiJ subject+xs tense+r:xs transitivexii ||re:iatious auo .ou:eutiousEamplesLxample sentences are presented as I tound them in the sources. 1heinterlinear glosses and abbreviations used have been streamlined tocomply as much as possible vith Iehmann (+,,. In the event that no or incomplete interlinear glosses vere given by the source, I havereconstructed them as best as possible.Sources are givenvitheachexample sentence. Onrst mention, thelanguage name and the tull reterence are given. lurther examples tromthe same source have only the page reterence atter the translation ot theexample.Language namesIanguages are classied genetically according to Puhlen (+,;,, vithone exception, namely the organizationot vhat Puhlencalls Caucasian(see p. ,,. Ianguage names are spelled as they are in Puhlen. Whenan author uses a dierent name, the name variant used by Puhlen isadopted here tor consistencys sake. Variant names have been checkedvith Grimes (+,,. I use the group names in Puhlen, vith one excep-tion: I vill use Pomance rather than Puhlens name Italic. See Chap-ter tor discussion.1ables, gures and maps1ables+. Distribution ot the types ;:. Sample languages classied . lunction ot negative elements per language ;+. Number ot negative elements in each language ;,. Non-tactual environments ,+;. Sample languages listed by genetic aliation ,;. Distribution ot languages across continents +o:,. Distribution ot term negation types across continents +o+o. Distribution ot term negation types relative to each type +o++. Distribution ot the term negation types across Nicholsmacro-areas +o,+:. 1ypological characteristics ot languages using more than one termnegation type +o,+. Distribution ot term negation types in Bernini and Pamatssample ++++. Distribution ot term negation types in Haspelmaths sample +++. Distinct negative markers in imperatives across continents(Dryers areas, ++o+o. Distinct negative markers in imperatives across continents (Nicholsareas, +++;. Distribution ot vord order types across continents +:o+. Distribution ot term negation types across vord order types +:++,. Multiple term negation per vord order type +:::o. Distribution ot zero quantication versus other types +:oIigures+. 1he clause structure +:. Ievels and variables +. Crotts types ;. 1he structure ot Amerind +o+. 1he structure ot Niger-Kordotanian +o:o. Distribution ot basic vord order types +:oxiv ||re:iatious auo .ou:eutiousMaps+. Iocation ot the sample languages ,o,;:. Iocation ot the term negation types +o;. Ianguages using alternative term negation strategies ++o. Distribution in Bernini and Pamats sample ++:. Distribution ot languages using dierent negative elementsin negative declaratives and negative imperatives ++;1 Introduction1his study vill be concerned vith the analysis ot negative sentencesvhich in Lnglish are expressed by negative indenite torms such as uox, uoue of the x, uo|ooy and uothiu. Although negation in language hasbeen investigated extensively both in philosophy and linguistics, thistype ot negation, vhich I vill somevhat ideosyncratically call +rrxxrt:+iox (see sections +. and:..,, has not. Consequently, it is ottenassumed that the analyses adopted tor other torms ot negation holdequally vell tor the expression ot uothiu, etcetera. 1his, hovever, ishighly questionable, particularly it the cross-linguistic realizations ot thephenomenon under consideration are taken into account.1his book oers precisely such a cross-linguistic perspective. 1heonly tvo vorks that also deal extensively vith this issue are Bernini andPamat (+,,:, and Haspelmath (+,,,. Bernini and Pamats investiga-tion is, hovever, conned to the languages ot Lurope, vhile Haspel-maths study is conducted vithin the broader perspective ot indenitepronouns. As ve shall see, the languages ot Lurope dier considerablytrom those in other areas ot the vorld in regard to the expression ottermnegation. Constructions used inLurope are seldomtound outsideot it, and termnegation types prevailing outside ot Lurope hardly occurin it. Overt indenite pronouns, in turn, vhile an integral part ot mostcross-linguistic realizations ot nothing and nobody, do not in tactteature in all expressions ot these notions.1he aim ot this study is tvotold. lirst ot all, it seeks to provide atypology ot the cross-linguistic realization ot the expression ot termnegation. And secondly, it oers an account ot this phenomenon inlunctional Grammar (rt,. 1he analysis ot Luropean languages vouldlead one to expect that all languages have negative synthetic torms suchas uothiu, yet, as ve shall see, this is not the case. While Lnglish, aparttrom uothiu, also has the torm not anything, in other languages termnegation can only be rendered a verbal negator and an indenite pro-noun, in yet other languages, a verbal negator and a special negativepronoun are used or an existential constructions.: Iutroou.tiouIn most linguistic and logical tramevorks it is generally assumed thataii negative sentences are analysable in terms ot an abstract negative ele-ment added to a positive sentence. It this method is applied to sentencescontaining expressions like uo x, then these expressions must be seenas the result ot tusion ot the abstract negative element and an indenitetermlike a, oue of the x, some|ooy, somethiu, etc. Such an analysis postu-lates a large distance betveenthe underlying structure and the linguis-tic expression and necessitates the tormulation ot a number ot arbitraryrules toaccount tor the morphological realizations andstructural charac-teristics ot the negative element. In this study I vill advocate an alterna-tive analysis, in terms ot lunctional Grammar (rt,, in vhich I vill seekto bridge the gap betveen the underlying and the surtace torms. It villbe shovn that the rt analysis, in contrast not only to the traditional onebut also to other competing analyses, is capable ot accounting tor thetull range ot cross-linguistic data.1he organization ot this book is as tollovs. Chapter : provides anovervievot the rt analysis ot negation and hovit relates to termnega-tion in Lnglish. While constructions involving the verbal negator anda special indenite pronoun(not anything, are shovntobe amena-ble to an analysis via a negative sentential operator, nothing is arguedto involve zero quantication. Lnlike in traditional logic or the theoryot Generalized Quantiers, quantiers inrt are consideredtobe opera-tors onterms (=nominal expressions, rather thanoperators onproposi-tions (see especially Dik +,;, Brovn +,, Dik +,,,. Given that thenegationunder considerationis a tormot quantication(see section:.,and that the negative quantier constitutes a part ot the term, needlessto say in rt, nominal negation can be described trom vithin thequantier system, expressing vhat vill be called in this study zeroquantication.1he appropriateness ot the rt analysis ot the expression ot uothiu inLnglish tor the cross-linguistic reexes ot term negation are examinedin the tolloving tvo chapters. Chapter outlines the typology ot termnegationestablishedonthe basis ot a sample consistingot tortylanguagesand discusses hov the typological data can be accounted tor in rt.Chapter deals vith the negative element employed in term negationLa.krouuo to the resear.h uestious in more detail. Again, as the presentation ot the typological data pro-ceeds, they are accounted tor in terms ot rt, vhich enables a uniedanalysis. Chapter discusses the sample that I have used in this study,discussing its merits and veaknesses and elaborating on a number otinteresting typological aspects ot term negation. 1he remainder ot thischapter sets to place the discussion ot term negation in the context ottraditional theoretical analyses ot sentential negationandcurrent insightsstemming trom language typology.1.1 1he traditional approach1he traditional approach to sentential negation can be summarized onthe basis ot the analysis vithin generative grammar, vhich is based onKlima (+,o,. 1hough much vork has been done on negation sinceKlimas vork, his analysis contains the esence ot vhat continue to bethe central topics ot discussion in the current literature on negation (seeHaegeman +,,: ix, theretore I vill use Klimas approach tor ease otexposition.+. dene criteria tor the notion negative sentence,:. assume that the structure ot each negative sentence consists ot anabstract negative element (xrt, vhichis added tothe correspond-ing positive sentence,. tormulate rules so that the combination ot xrt and the positivesentence is mapped onto the correct surtace structures.Providing criteria tor vhat constitutes a negative sentence is necessaryin viev ot the tact that not every sentence that contains a negativeelement automatically qualies as a negative sentence. Consider, torinstance, the examples in (+, and (:,. Although both sentences containthe negative element uot, typically only (+a, is vieved as a negativesentence, (:a, as a positive sentence in vhich an element is negatedlocally. 1he dierence betveen the tvo sentences can be discerned onthe basis ot several tests that have been proposed tor distinguishing Iutroou.tiounegative sentences trom non-negative sentences. 1vo ot the mostcommonly used tests are the and neither test (Klima +,o, and the itis not so-test ( ackendo +,;:,. 1he rst ot these tests identies asentence as a negative sentence it the sentence can be tolloved by aueither phrase as in (+b,, the second it a sentence s can be paraphrasedby it is not the case that s. As illustrated belov, in terms ot these tests(+, vill emerge as a negative sentence, vhile (:, does not.(+, a. ohn did not buy the car.b. ohn did not buy the car, and neither did im.c. = It is not so that ohn bought the car.(:, a. ohn bought a car not long ago.b. ohn bought a car not long ago, and *neitherso did im.c. It is not so that ohn bought a car long ago.It ve apply the above tests tor negative sentences to instances ot vhatI call termnegation, ve see that these sentences also quality as negativesentences:(, a. Mary bought nothing.b. Mary bought nothing and neither did Sally.c. Mary did not buy anything.d. Mary did not buy anything and neither did Sally.e. It is not so that Mary bought something.1he class ot negative sentences established on the basis ot criteria suchas above is assumed to have an underlying structure vhich, in the caseot (+a, tor example, may be intormally represented as tollovs:(, xrt ( ohn bought a car,.1here are three advantages ot postulating an underlying structure as in(,. lirst ot all, all negative sentences can be unitormly described, sec-ondly, the analysis reects the tact that the vhole sentence is in theLa.krouuo to the resear.h uestious scope ot the negative element, and nally, the underlying structure in(, explicates the existence ot a regular relationship betveen positiveand corresponding negative sentences.1he last step in the traditional analysis involves the tormulation otrules tor the correct expression ot the negative element. 1he requiredrules have been tound to be not only quite complex, but vhat is moredistressing in some instances also arbitrary. 1he most important ot theserules are neg-placement and neg-incorporation.^e pia.emeut places the negative element in the correct position insurtace structure. Structures such as the one in (, require rules thatspecity the surtace realisation ot the xrt element.(, a. xrt ( ohn bought the car,b. ohn did xrt buy the carc. ohn did not buy the car^eiu.orporatiou applies vhen xrt tuses vith other constituents in thesentence. lor example, in many languages xrt is expressed in themorphology ot the main verb, as in the tolloving Gilyak example:(o, Kobon (Davies +,+: ;,Nipe ip hag n-ag-a.st +stoiJ say give-xrt-r:s+stHe did not tell me.In other cases xrt tuses vith the determiner ot a nominal constituent,vhich can be illustrated by Indo-Luropean languages like Lnglish andDutch. Klima (+,o,, tor example, proposed to analyze uothiu as theexpression ot the tusion ot xrt and an indenite. (Kraak +,oo gives asimilar analysis tor Dutchnegative indenites., Sometimes quite drasticoperations are requiredtoaccount tor the tormot the negative element,such as an expletive rule that transtorms xrt plus some into auy (Klima+,o, as in (,.1he analysis ot sentence negationoutlinedabove still prevails inmostversions ot generative grammar (see tor example Pizzi +,: tor a discus-o Iutroou.tiousion ot negative sentences in Italian, Ouhalla +,,o, Haegeman +,,,.Other tramevorks, hovever, tor instance Generalized Quantiers(Barvise and Cooper +,+, Zvarts +,+, +,o, Van Lijck +,, Vander Wouden+,,, recognize the special status ot negative sentences andprovide a distinct treatment ot this torm ot negation, as does a proposalin the context ot rt, by Brovn (+,,.1.: 1ypological adequacyOne ot the advantages ot the classical analysis ot negative sentences isthat the latter can be described in a unitorm vay. Lase and simplicityot description are ot course important goals in any theoretical analysis,but at the same time a theory should be descriptively adequate. Lventhe most cursory glance at negative sentences in languages other thanIndo-Luropean, reveals that the linguistic data on vhich analyses otnegation in most theoretical tramevorks have been based are by nomeans representative ot the typological variety ot negative sentences ona cross-linguistic basis, in most cases, these analyses must be consideredan over-simplication.lirst ot all, many languages have several negative elements that areused in dierent vays and in dierent environments. lor example,languages may use dierent negative elements in imperative and non-imperative sentences. 1his is vell-knovn trom Ancient Greek andIatin, and Zvicky and Pullum (+,, shoved that this phenomenonoccurs in many languages. A number ot languages in my sample shovthis phenomenon as vell (nineteen out ot , see sections :.:. and .:tor discussion,. Secondly, languages may use dierent negative elementsto indicate vhich part ot the sentence is in the scope ot negation. In1urkana, tor example, several negative elements are used: ma in non-verbal sentences, pe in verbal sentences in vhich the tocus ot attentionis onthe verb, and i inverbal sentences invhichthe tocus ot attentionis on a category other than the verb (tocus ot attention is not to becontused vith emphasis,. 1he tolloving examples illustrate:lypoioi.ai aoeua.y ;(;, 1urkana (Dimmendaal +,:: ,+M` ` r` a-y` p -ka-pil-a-n`i.xrt I vitchI am not a vitch.(, P--a-ra-i` pesi -ka-ita-tam-a-ni.xrt--r:s+-be-:sr he teacherHe vas uot a teacher. (,(,, -e-los-een--t pi-kilyok a-pey-o ` -mam e-kicolop.xrt--go-n:i-:sr-ri men visit -lack headrestMen dont go on a visit vithout a headrest. (:,1urkana also employs vhat I vill call a negative existential construction(this notion vill be elaborated in Chapter :,. In this type ot clause thenegative existential verb mam is used:(+o, ` -mam a-p` s ka nege`.-lack girl trom here1he girl is not here. (o,In other languages dierent negative elements may be used to indicatethe condence ot the speaker vith regard to the content ot his utter-ance, or dierent elements may be used depending on presuppositionsconcerning the truth or the talsity ot the statement. In Navaho, torexample, the choice ot the negative verbal ax i presupposes the truthot the proposition, vhile o does not (Schauber +,;,: ::,.In Kannada, dierent negative particles are used to indicate variousmodalities. In the rst example, (++a,, the sentence particle iiia is used,(++b, shovs the negative prohibitive particle, and in (++c, a particle isused that carries vith it some moral implication.(++, Kannada (Bhatia +,;: +,a. Y ar- u maneyolage baral-illa.someone-rxci house:into came-xrtNo-one came into the house. Iutroou.tioub. Nnu allige h oga-b e da.you there go-xrtDont go there.c. Nnu allige h oga-b aradu.you there go-xoixrtYou should not go.Another example is Cree, in vhich ve dierent negative morphemesare used (see Stark +,;,. 1he choice ot the precise negative particle isdetermined by intricate syntactic and semantic rules.Such a range ot possibilities to express dierent kinds ot negativesentences is by no means uncommon in the languages ot the vorld.Needless to say, no attempt to provide a unitorm analysis ot negativesentences can hope to do justice to the existing typological diversity.No doubt the bias tovards a unitorm description ot all negative sen-tences is due tothe Germanic-centeredoriginot most theoretical analy-ses. But once the database is extended beyond the Germanic languages,the limitations ot the unitormdescriptionbecome all tooobvious. 1hatnegation is a vell-studied phenomenon in various logical tramevorks it inadequately trom the linguistic point ot viev may also accounttor the relative simplicity ot the approaches insome linguistically orien-tated tramevorks. 1ypological research, in contrast, should bring outthe intricacies ot the investigated constructions.Another advantage ot typologically adequate investigations is thatthey reduce to tables all sorts ot linguistic prejudices. lor example, inclassical logic and normative linguistics, it is generally assumed that tvonegations in one clause cancel each other out. In a number ot WesternLuropean languages, examples like (+:a, are judged illogical becausethey contain tvo negations.(+:, a. I dont talk to nobody.b. I talk to nobody.It turns out, hovever, that correct sentences such as (+:b, are, cross-^ote ou termiuoioy ,linguistically, the exception rather than the rule. In the o-languagesample that I have used only ve languages used sentence types such as(+:b,, the majority ot the languages using constructions deemed illogicalby Western linguists and logicians. 1he traditional prejudice againstsentences ot type (+:a, is evident vhen one considers vhere languagesusing (+:a, are spoken. lromBernini andPamats (+,,:,, Haspelmaths(+,,, and my sample based approach it appears that on the vhole, suchlanguages are an isolated phenomenon in North-West Lurope. 1heconclusion then, that (+:b, is illogical, is the sad result ot the intellectualdominance and Luro-centered attitude ot West Luropean scholars andthe inuence ot logic on tormal linguistics. Although this contentionis not original it vas stated by St. Augustine in the th century :i,Molinelli (+,: , typological researchis still neededtomodity suchrmly established prejudices.lunctional Grammar, unlike some other theoretical tramevorks, setsgreat store by the typological adequacy ot the linguistic analyses that itposits. Pather than attempting to t the cross-linguistic manitestationsot grammatical phenomena into a single, Luropean, mold, it seeks toadjust itselt tocross-linguistic ndings. Consequently, vhat may appearto be a unitorm semantic phenomenmon need not necessarily receivea unitormanalysis. We vill see in the tolloving chapters that termnega-tion is a case in point. In order to meet the goal ot typological adequacyadoptedby lunctional Grammar, this study is basedondata dravntroma stratied sample ot o languages, in vhich all language phyla denedby Puhlen (+,;, are represented. 1he results ot the typological surveyvill be given in chapters and , vhile in chapter I vill discuss somegeneral issues inconnection vithsamples ingeneral, the motivationtorthe sample used here, and some general typological characteristics in thesample.1. A note on terminology1he investigation ot term negation vill be restricted in this study totorms ot negation vhich correspond to vhat in Lnglish is expressed by+o Iutroou.tiounegative indenites denoting persons and things, as in the tollovingexample:(+, ohn sav nobodynothingNegative indenites ot place (uouhere), time (ue:er) and manner (iu uouuay) vill not be taken into account. 1he exclusion ot these expressionsvas dictated purely by practical reasons. Intormation on negativeindenites expressing persons andthings is notoriously dicult tocomeby, many a grammar does not deal vith cursorily it at all. Data on theexpression ot negative indenites ot place, time and manner are scarcerstill. I vas simply unable to gather the relevant intormation tor morethan just a handtul ot languages.Also excluded tromthe investigation vill be torms ot local negationas in (+a,, axal negation (+b, and contrastive negation (+c,, all otvhich may supercially resemble the tormot negation in the expressionot term negation in one language or another.(+, a. We do not alvays go there.b. Peter is unhappy.c. He bought not lemons but pears.My use ot the label term negation tor the expression ot uothiu oruo|ooy inexamples suchas the Lnglish(+, is intended todirectly reectthe rt analysis ot these torms alluded to in the introduction. Hovever,as ve shall see, the cross-linguistic equivalents ot (+, do not necessarilyinvolve term negation. lor instance, in Gilyak (+, and Nasioi (+o, thenegative element is expressed on the verb rather than on the term. Andin the Lnglish alternations to (+,, namely those in (+;,, the negativeelement is expressed on the auxiliary verb oo.(+, Gilyak (Katya Gruzdeva, pc.,:Ni komnata-ux na r-tip nri-avr-d.I room-ioc someone see-xrt-+xsI sav noone in the room.^ote ou termiuoioy ++(+o, Nasioi (Pausch +,+:: +,Nanin nanu-aru-i.someone go-xrt-rrcrx+r:s+No-one vent.(+;, ohn did not see anybodyanything.1he label termnegation is theretore merely a cover termtor the cross-linguistic renditions ot uothiu and uo|ooy, vhich corresponds to oneot the Lnglish reexes ot these expressions. 1hough my choice ot asemantic phenomenon as a cover termmay be misleading, I have optedto use the label term negation rather than indenite negation, sinceterm negation complements the semantic typology ot negation re-quired in rt, vhich is characterized in relation to the rt typology otdierent orders ot entities.Note+. Dimmendaal notes that althoughsynchronicallym r is mono-morphemic,it is probably based on the negative marker ma and a conjugated torm ot theverb to be somebodysomething, tor vhich he reconstructs the tormmara. m r is alvays in the position reserved tor auxiliaries in non-verbal sen-tences.: Negation in Iunctional Grammar1he rt treatment ot negation, including termnegation, can only be tullyappreciated vith some prior knovledge ot the rt tramevork. Accord-ingly, section :.+ outlines the rt model ot grammar. 1he rt approachtovarious types ot sentence negationis elaborated insection:.:. linally,section :. deals specically vith term negation.:.1 1he structure ot Iunctional GrammarIn rt all the content elements ot a language are considered to be predi-cates, vhich are expressions that dene properties ot or relations be-tveen entities. Predicates are tormatted as structures vhich are calledpreoi.ate frames. 1he structures denedinthe predicate trames constitutethe input to a number ot operations (to be claried belov, vhich resultin an elaborate underlying clause structure (ucs,. 1he ucs is subse-quently mapped onto a linguistic expression by the application ot ex-pression rules, vhich determine both the torm and the order ot theelements ot the underlying clause structure.1he rt lexicon contains all the basic predicate trames ot a language.1here are three types ot predicate trames: verbal, adjectival, and nomi-nal. Apart trom these predicate trames, the lexicon also contains thepronouns and irregular torms. 1he structure ot a predicate trame is illus-trated in (+, on the basis ot the verbal predicate i:e.(+, giveV (xi: anim (xi,,Ag (xj,Go (xk: anim (xk,,PecAs shovn in (+,, predicate trames specity the essential characteristics otpredicates, vhich are taken to be: 1he predicate (eg. i:e,. 1he category ot the predicate: v (verbal,, x (nominal,, or : (adjecti-val,.+ Iuu.tiouai rammar 1he argument positions conventionallyassociatedviththe predicate.In the above example, i:e is associated vith three arguments. 1he semantic tunctions associated vith the argument positions. lorexample, the rst argument position ot i:e has the semantic tunctionAgent, the second argument Goal, the third Pecipient. 1he selection restrictions imposed on each argument position. lorexample, the rst and third arguments ot i:e must be animate (sinceonly animate entities can give or receive anything,, vhile there areno restrictions on the second argument: anything can be given, beit animate or inanimate, concrete or non-concrete (tor example,|ooks, the u, io:e, etc,.In addition to the above, predicate trames also contain the tollovingintormation: Irregular torms ot predicates. 1hese include tor example irregularverbal paradigms and irregular plural torms. In general, all torms thatcannot be derived by a rule are stored in the lexicon. 1hus, betoreapplying the expression rule to inect a verb, ve need to check rstit there is an irregular torm in the lexicon. It there is, that torm isused. It not, the expression rule is applied to inect the verb. Meaning postulates. 1hese are structures that dene (aspects ot , thelexical meaning ot a predicate. Here is an example ot the meaningpostulate ot the predicate kiss:+(:, kissV (x+: hum (x+,,Ag (x:: hum (x:,,Go -touchV (x+,Ag (x:,Go (x: lips (x,,Instr 1he meaning postulate in (:, says that x+ kisses x: means that x+touches x: vith the lips.:.1.1 Clause Structure1he underlying clause structure as envisaged in rt is represented in lig-ure +. In addition to the nuclear predication, vhich consists ot a predi-lhe stru.ture of rt +Iigure 1. 1he clause structurer r r: r+ predV (:, o+ o: o onuclear predicationcore predicationextended predicationpropositionclauseIigure :. Levels and variableslevel structure unit type ot entity variable clause speech act L proposition possible tact X: predication state ot aairs e+ predicate property or relation tterm entity xcate trame vith argument positions (:, lled in by terms, there are tourlevels: the core predication, extended predication, proposition andclause. We see that each layer is associated vith an operator (rn, and asatellite (on,. Operators are grammatically expressed elements. lorexample, categories such as tense, mood, and aspect are represented asoperators in the underlying structure. Satellites on the other hand arelexically expressed elements. Lxamples are iu the aroeu, iast ueek, etc.1he layers ot the hierarchical structure ot the clause are taken toreect the multiple tunctions that the clause tullls in the act ot commu-nication. 1he three predication levels nuclear, core and extended together designate a particular type ot State ot Aairs (so:,, ie, theconception ot something that can be said (to occur, take place or obtain,insome vorld. 1he proposition level expresses a possible tact, ie. some-thing that can be armed, denied, doubted, contradicted, etc. Andnally, the clause designates the nature ot the speech act (eg. stating atact, asking a question or issuing an order, pertormed by the speaker inuttering the clause. 1hese tunctions ot the various levels ot the clausestructure are shovn schematically in ligure :, together vith the vari-ables corresponding to each level.+o Iuu.tiouai rammar1he operators and satellites associated vith each level ot structure aretaken to be distinguishable on the basis ot the nature ot their contribu-tion to the meaning ot the clause. Since the relevant distinctions villbe ot import tor the discussion in section :, the tunction or cluster ottunctions characteristic ot each level ot satellite or operator is summa-rized belov.Level 1On this level a turther specication ot the internal state ot aairs isgiven. Operators on this level include pertective and impertectiveaspect. Satellites on this level include expressions tor Manner (ooo),Speed (ui.kiy), and Instrument (uith a ueeoie).Level :1his level is used tor the temporal, spatial and cognitive orientation otthe predication. Operators include tense and objective modality. Satel-lites on this level include 1ime (tomorrou, iast ueek) and Iocation (iumsteroam).Level Onlevel , the proposition, ve ndoperators expressing speaker evalu-ation or attitude ( ]ohu may .ome |a.k this e:euiu). Lxamples ot satellitesexpressing these notions are iu my opiuiou and to teii you the truth.Level |On the highest level, the clause, ve nd illocutionary operators andsatellites. Operators on this level are illocutionary operators such asdeclarative, imperative, and interrogative. Satellites on this level are torexample |riey.:.1.: 1erms1erms are expressions that can be used to reter to an entity in somevorld. 1heir general structure can be described as tollovs:(, (Dxi: 4+(xi,: 4:(xi,: ... 4n(xi,,^eatiou iu rt +;In this structure, xi is the term variable, vhich ranges over the set otpotential reterents ot the term, Dstands tor one or more termoperators,and each 4(xi, is an open predication in xi. 1he colon (:, indicates thatthe intormation to the right gives a specication ot or a restriction onthe possible values ot xi as it has been specied on the lett it can beread as such that. Here is an example ot a term:(, (i+xi: sonnetN (xi,o: beautitulA (xi,o,a beautitul sonnet1he termoperators i and1standtor indenite andsingular, respectively.o stands tor the semantic tunction zero. 1he term in (, can be readas tollovs: indenite singular entity xi such that sonnet xi such thatbeautitul xi. Other examples ot termoperators are deniteindenite,specicgeneric, demonstrative, and quantication. 1he last type villbe discussed in some detail in the next section.Lntities are mental constructs (Dik +,,: ++,. 1erms expressionsused to reter to entities can be used in tvo vays: to construct reterentsand to identity reterents. When a reterent is constructed, a speakerinstructs a hearer to construct that entity in his mental model. 1hatreterent is then also introduced into the discourse domain (more aboutthis belov,. On the other hand, vhen a reterent is identied, a speakerinstructs a hearer to identity a reterent already present in his mentalvorld.:.: Negation in Substantial treatments ot negationinrt canbe toundinBossuyt (+,:,,Dik (+,;, +,,,, Homann (+,;,, Moutaouakil (+,,+, and Dik (tc,.Hovever, only the last tvo deal vith the issue in the context ot thelayeredclause currently adoptedinrt. Since the rt vievot hovdier-ent torms ot negation are distributed over the layered structure ot theclause is ot direct relevance to my treatment ot term negation to be+ Iuu.tiouai rammardiscussed in section :., let me summarize the proposals made to datein this regard.Dik (tc., adopts the semantic typology ot negation elaborated byIyons (+,;;, and relates it directly to the rt layered model ot the clause.He distinguishes tour semantic types ot negation: predicate negation,predicational negation, propositional negation and illocutionary nega-tion. 1he rst three types ot negation are vieved as involving a negativeoperator at the predicate, predicational and propositional levels, respect-ively. 1he operator involved in illocutionary negation, on the otherhand, is not actually an illocutionary level operator but a predicationlevel one vith an eect on the indirect illocution ot an utterance. Asve shall see belov, the rt analysis ot illocutionary negation is not un-problematic. 1he tour semantic types ot negation are briey discussedin turn trom the lovest to the highest level, ie. trom predication toillocution.:.:.1 Predicate negationPredicate negation is conned to the predicate itselt. In Lnglish, thistype ot negation is usually expressed morphologically, as in the tollov-ing examples:(, a. unintelligentb. meaninglessc. non-constructivelor reasons that I vill not discuss here, Dik chooses to analyze thesetorms as the result ot predicate tormation. He distinguishes three distincttorms ot predicate negation: complementary tormation (marrieouumarrieo), contrary tormation (oeepshaiiou, and litotes (a uot uuattra.ti:emau,. Iitotes is treated in detail in Homann (+,;,.:.:.: Predicational and propositional negationSince the nature ot predicational and propositional negation can bestbe appreciated by juxtaposing the tvo, I vill discuss themtogether here.Predicational negation is characterized as the objective statement ot the^eatiou iu rt +,non-occurrence ot some so: and is opposed to propositional negation,vhich is seen as the subjective denial ot the truth ot a proposition. InLnglish the distinction betveen these tvo types ot negation is achievedby prosodic means and theretore it is not immediately apparent in thevritten language. 1o illustrate, (ob,, as a response to (oa,, constitutesan instance ot predicational negation, and (;b, as a tollov-up to (;a, isan instance ot propositional negation.(o, a. Is ohn richb. No, hes not rich.(;, a. ohn is rich.b. xo, he is xo+ rich'In (;b, the speaker lls the intormation gap vith respect to vhether ornot the so: ot ohn being rich obtains vith a negative value. In (;b,,by contrast, the speaker denies that the proposition that ohn is richis true. 1hus a possible paraphrase ot (;b, vould be contrary to vhatyou say or suppose, it is not the case that ohn is rich. Although inLnglish this type ot negation is expressed by prosodic means, otherlanguages appear to use distinct negative elements tor propositional andpredicational negation. Belov are examples trom Vietnamese andNavaho. 1hat these languages use distinct negative elements torpredicational and propositional negation is probably due to the tact thatthey are tone languages.:In Vietnamese, khu is used tor predicationalnegation, uo tor propositional negation.(, Vietnamese (1hompson +,o: :+o,a. 1oi khong hi` eu.+st xrt understandI do not understand.b. 1oi d nao ng u.+st :x+ xrt sleepI certainly did not sleep (contrary to vhat you suggest, (:++,:o Iuu.tiouai rammarIn Navaho, predicational negation is expressed by the discontinuousnegative ooooa (ooo is a particle indicating the locus ot the negation,and oa is suxed to the verb, see (,a,,. But vhen a proposition hasbeen asserted and the speaker vants to deny that proposition, the parti-cle hauii is used (additionally, the position ot hauii indicates vhich partis being denied,.(,, Navaho (Schauber +,;,: +,,a. aan doo Bostong adoobasda.ohn xrt Boston:to +:r:drive:xrtohn vont be driving to Boston.b. Ashkii hanii ii nabiigo.boy xrt horse ::r:s+:throvIt is not the boy the horse threv, but (:o,Since predicational negation is vieved by Dik as an objective specica-tion ot the non-occurrence ot a so:, the negative operator, like opera-tors ot objective modality is treated as a level : operator. (ob, is thusrepresented as (+o,:(+o, Decl L: X: xrt e: richA ( ohn,oIn propositional negation, in turn, the negation constitutes a subjective(negative, evaluation ot the truth ot the proposition and theretore, ona par vith subjective modality operator, is treated as a level operator.1he rt representation ot (;b, is as in (++,. Note the dierent positionsot the negation operators in (+o, and (++,.(++, Decl L: xrt X: e: richA ( ohn,oWhat Dik calls propositional negation occurs under various names inthe linguistic literature. lor instance, Iyons (+,;;, reters to it as modal-ity negation, Seuren (+,;o, as radical negation and Horn (+,,, asmetalinguistic negation. Some examples citedby Hornare givenin(+:,:^eatiou iu rt :+(+:, a. Chris didnt manage to solve some problems he solved themeasily.b. Some men arent chauvinists all men are chauvinists.c. Its not steved bunny, honey, its civet de lapin.Horns notion metalinguistic negation actually encompasses not onlythe rt propositional negation but also the negation ot parts ot expres-sions as in the examples belov:(+, a. Im not a 1rotskyite, Im a 1rotskyist.b. I didnt manage to trap tvo moneese I managed to trap tvomonooses.Note that the scope ot the negation in (+, is not that ot the propertyexpressed by the predicate, nor ot the so:, nor that ot the proposition.And it certainly does not constitute aninstance ot illocutionary negation(see :.:.,. It thus does not tall under any ot the semantic types ot nega-tion in rt. And indeed this is not semantic negation but rather a distincttype ot negationinvolving the expressionplane. 1his is particularly clearin (+b,, vere the scope ot the negation is an inectional ax. In rt,inectional axes are expressed by expression rules. 1heretore in orderto account tor examples ot negation as in (+b,, rt has to allov tor thetormulation ot an expression rule to be negated. 1his could be accom-plished as tollovs. Iet us assume that (+a, is the underlying structureot the term tuo moueesemouooses, and (+b, and (+c, are the tvoexpression rules required to express the torms mouooses and moueese:(+, a. (i:xi: mongooseN (xi,,Gob. Plur mongoose - mongeesec. Plur N - N (e,sIt speaker : inects mouoose on the basis ot the irregular plural ot oose(eese, he uses expression rule (+b,. Speaker i vho utters (+b, corrects this by applying the the expression rule in (+c,. We maytheretore paraphrase (+b, as mouoose does not have anirregular plural,:: Iuu.tiouai rammarto express its plural, you should apply rule (+b,.:.:. Illocutionary negationIllocutionary negation in Diks sense ot the termis conned to negativepertormatives such as the tolloving:(+, a. I do not order you to leave.b. I do not promise to come to the party.1he basic illocution ot such pertormatives, as ot their positive counter-parts, is Declarative, ie. they are statements. 1he illocution spelled outby the pertormative clause vhich, tolloving Allan (+,o: ::,, I villcall indirect speech act, is that ot acts ot not ordering and not promis-ing. 1he negation thus denies that an act ot ordering or promising isbeing pertormed. 1he basic declarative illocution is not negated. 1henegative operator cannot theretore be vieved as a level operator ona par vith illocutionary modiers such as Iraukiy in (+oa, or e.ouoiyin (+ob,, vhich take vithin their scope the act ot stating the per-tormative sentences and not the pertormative clause.(+o, a. lrankly, I condemn their parents.b. lirst ot all, I admit Im vrong and secondly I promise it villnever happen again.Note that se.ouoiy in (+ob, does not constitute a second act ot promising,but a second act ot stating (Allan +,o: :+,. Nor can the negativeoperator be considered as a propositional operator, since it explicitpertormatives do have a truth value, it is tied to either the basicillocution as statements or to vhether the speaker actually does vhathe says he is doing.Given the above, Dik analyses illocutionary negation as involvingpredicational negation ot the pertormative clause, as in (+;,:(+;, a. I dont say that ohn is a tool.b. Decl L: X: xrt ei: sayV (I,Ag [ej: toolA ( ohn,o|^eatiou iu rt :1his analysis does not, hovever, directly capture the a.ts ot not promis-ing or not ordering, but only the statemeuts ot not promising and notordering. 1he tact that negative pertormatives involve actual acts ot notdoing is lett toturther pragmatic interpretations vithinthe vider theoryot verbal interaction. 1hus, strictly speaking illocutionary negation isnot a grammatical phenomenon in rt.We have seen that sentential negation in rt is treated as an operator,either level : or level . As an operator it may interact vith other opera-tors in relation to torm.1here are a number ot languages in my sample in vhich distinctnegative elements are used tor negative imperatives and negativedeclaratives. Nineteen languages distinguish negative imperatives anddeclaratives (Babungo, Chukchi, Cree, lula, Indonesian, Maparayi,Miskito, Mundari, Nahali, Nadb, Nama, Nasioi, Quechua, Saramac-can, Susu, 1amil, Vietnamese, West Greenlandic, and Yidi,. And oneot these (Babungo, also uses a dierent negative element in negativequestions. 1he extent to vhich the o languages in the sample usedierent negative elements in the three illocutionary types can be sum-marized in the tolloving schema (see Chapter tor the distribution otlanguages vith distinct negative elements in imperatives,:Declarative Imperative Interrogative+ (:.o, x x x+, (o, x x+, (o, x1he examples in (+, illustrate the negations ot the three dierentillocutions, using Babungo as an example: the negative element indeclaratives is ke...m e (+a,, inquestions ke...yim u (+b, and inimpera-tives k..m e (+c,.(+, Babungo (Schaub +,: :o,a. pv ke g` taa yivip m e.he xrt go:rrrr to market xrtHe did not go to the market.: Iuu.tiouai rammarb. 1 uu v` n` ke yijvi yim ueven person r:s+ xrt come:rrrr xrt_Did nobody at all come (p. +o,c. Kr v` bva yigi y m e.xrtixr person be:tired:ixrr speech this xrtNobody should be tired ot this talk. (p. :,Babungo is the only language in the sample that uses distinct negativeelements in negative questions, so tis type seems quite rare. But thatthere are nineteen languages that express negative imperative distincttromnegative declaratives (halt the sample languages, is signicant. 1hiscanbe explainedby Hengevelds (+,,+, suggestionthat imperatives haveno propositional level since their truth value is irrelevant, the tact thatin most languages imperatives are so distinct tromdeclaratives, and thatmore than a third ot the languages in the sample use distinct negativeelements in negative imperatives may be seen to conrm Hengeveldsidea. 1hat negative declaratives and negative yes-no questions typicallydo uot use distinct negative elements runs parallel to the tact that thereare usually not many tormal dierences betveen positive declarativesand questions. Indeed, in many languages, declaratives and questionsare distinguishedby intonationalone. I vill not gointothis issue turtherbecause it has no direct relevance tor this study.:. 1erm negationWe have just seen that sentential negation (predicational, propositionaland illocutionary, is analysed in rt by means ot a level : or a level negative operator. Since, as shovninsection+.+, termnegationqualiesas an instance ot sentential negation according to the standard syntactictests, it could in theory be treated on a par vith vith other types otsentential negation in rt. Note that examples such as (+,, meet thesemantic character ot predicational negation in rt, ie., they presentobjectively the non-occurrence ot a so:.lerm ueatiou :(+,, a. ohn bought no book.b. Nobody came.It term negation as in (+,, vere to be treated as a type ot predicationalnegation in rt, it could be analysed as in (:o,.(:o, Decl L: X: xrt e: buyV (Mary,Ag (ixi: bookN (xi,,GoSuch an analysis vould essentially correspond to Klimas original ac-count and its subsequent modications in+ts siblings. 1he representa-tion in (:+,, hovever, is more appropriate tor (+,, than (:o, is.(:+, Decl L: X: e: buyV (Mary,Ag (oxi: bookN (xi,,GoInLnglish, both(+,a, and (+,b, are used tor talking about nothing. 1hestructure ot (:o, clearly parallels that ot Mary oio uot |uy the |ook viththe negative element at the level ot the predication by means ot a r:negation operator. 1ermnegation as in (+,,, on the other hand, is opento another analysis. Pather than being vieved as objectively stating thenon-occurrence ot a so:, as the expression ot uothiu in (+,,, examplessuch as (+,, may be seen as constituting a positive statement about thesize ot a set denoting a participant in a so:. Lnder this interpretation,term negation as in (+,, qualies as a type ot quantication, zeroquantication, and may be handled analogously to other quantiers,such as aii, mauy, and some.Betore presenting this analysis, let me brieyoutline the rt approach to quantication.:..1 1erm quanticationWhereas in standard predicate logic quantiers are analysed as proposi-tional operators, in recent linguistic vork, quantication is analyzed asoperating on the termlevel (see tor example Barvise and Cooper +,+,Brovn +,, Horn +,,,. 1his is also the approach adopted in rt.Lnder the classical logical analysis, the expression in (::a,, tor exam-ple, vould be analysed as in (::b,::o Iuu.tiouai rammar(::, a. All men are mortal.b. vx(men(x, - mortal(x,,1vo kinds ot problems have been noted vith this kind ot analysis. lirst,the logical problem is that (::b, is not about men, but about every-thing: it states about every individual x that it x is a man, then x ismortal. In other vords: everything is either mortal or non-man. 1hisvas noted by Sommers (+,;o: , and Horn (+,,: oo,. Second, thereis anenormous dierence betveenthe expressionin(::a, andits under-lying structure (::b,. lor example, the implication in (::b, (it then,is not expressed in (::a,. 1his vas noted by Barvise and Cooper (+,+:+o, and Dik (+,,: +,,. In the context ot rt, Dik suggests to analyze(::a, as in (:,:(:, mortalA (all xi: manN(xi,,o1he representation in (:, can be paraphrased as the property mortalcan be assigned to all members ot the set ot men. Such an analysis ismuch more straighttorvard than one like (::b,: there is no conditionalin the underlying structure.Diks treatment ot quantiers tollovs as term operators tollovs pro-posals made by Brovn (+,,, the rst to have vorked out a detailedtheory ot term quantication vithin lunctional Grammar. 1he pro-posed analysis assumes that quantication operates onensembles, vhichmay be either sets or masses. 1he elements in sets are countable, masses,by contrast, cannot be counted, but they can be measured. Brovnproposes tvo tunctions, one to dene the size ot a set (:a,, the otherto assign a measure to a mass (:b,:(:, a. cx = n set x has n members (ie., has cardinality n,b. mx = n mass x has measure nApart trom these tunctions, Dik introduces the tunction s that assignsa size to an ensemble:olerm ueatiou :;(:, sx = n ensemble x has size n1hese distinctions are relevant, as can be seen inthe tolloving examples:(:o, a. ohn bought many books.b. ohn bought much vine.(:;, a. an heett veel boeken gekocht.ohn has many books boughtb. an heett veel vijn gekocht.In Lnglish, mu.h is a measure tunction dening the size ot a mass, mauyis a size tunction that denes the cardinality ot a set. In Dutch, by con-trast, :eei muchmany is not dierentiated, vhich prompted Dik tocall it an ensemble tunction. Dik (+,,: ++, denes three types ot en-semble:(:, a. the Peterent ensemble (r,, the ensemble reterred to by aterm,b. the Domain ensemble (i,, the ensemble trom vhich r istaken as a sub-ensemble,c. the Lniversal ensemble (u,, the ensemble containing all theentities that have the properties specied in the term.1erm operators can be interpreted in the discourse situation created ormaintained during communication, dened by these ensembles. 1akethe tolloving three examples:(:,, a. I like reading books r i ub. I bought ve books r c i = uc. I read three ot the ve books r c i c u(:,a, is a general statement and |ooks is a generic term used to reter tobooks in general. In this example, the reterent ensemble equals the: Iuu.tiouai rammaruniversal ensemble (ru,. In (:,b,, a subset ot ve books is created outot the domain set established by the universal set u (rciu,. In (:,c,nally, three of the :e creates a reterent set r, a subset ot the domain setestablished by :e |ooks (rcicu,.1he reterent set vill usually be a subset ot the domain set, but it mayalso coincide vith it. 1his is the case in universally quantied expres-sions (oa,, and in expressions involving a denite term (ob,:(o, a. All humans are mortal crcib. (All, the students have gone crciOn the basis ot these principles, Brovn denes a large number ot termoperators, ot vhich I vill here give a tev examples.(+, a. Some girls have lettb. Past leaveV (ipxi: girlN,Ag cr ~ +In (+b,, the proposed (simplied, underlying structure ot (+a,, theterm operator i (indenite, is dened as: the cardinality ot the reterentset P (some girls, is bigger than + (the p is the plural term operator,.:..: 1erm negation as zero quanticationImplicit in Brovns proposal, and more vorked out in Dik (tc.,, is thatnegative quantiers like uo can be decribed on a par vith the quan-tiers aii, some, etc. Accordingly, (:a, can be represented as in (:b,,rather than as the traditional (:c,:(:, a. ohn bought no booksb. Past buyV (ohn,Ag (oxi: bookN,Go croc. xrt Past buyV (ohn,Ag (ixi: bookN,GoLnder the traditional analysis (:c,, the termoperator i in the secondargument is the indenite operator. 1o express (:c, as (:a,, rules areneededtotuse thexrt operator viththe indenite operator andexpressit as uo. By contrast, in (:c,, the term operator o (zero, is expressedlerm ueatiou :,directly as uo.Lnder this analysis, (:b, can be paraphrased as the size ot the set Ibought is empty. By using this expression, the speaker species the sizeot the set ot books present in the domain ot discourse. Dik calls thistype ot quantication zero quantication, since these terms designatethe empty set.1he earliest systematic treatment ot term negation vas Klima (+,o,,vho gives an account ot vords like uothiu and auythiu in an early ver-sion ot transtormational grammar. Klimas analysis, hovever, has beenthe accepted one vithin +ts siblings rs+, ti and, to the best ot myknovledge, in the most recent versions ot the generative tramevork.1his analysis is summarised in section +.+.Within the context ot rt, Bossuyt (+,:, vorked out an analysis otterm negation that compared to a large extent vith Klimas (+,o, andKraaks (+,oo, analysis. More recently, Brovn (+,, developed atheory ot termquantication inrt, analyzing quantiers such as uothiuand uo oue as so-called zero-quantied terms. 1he sentence in (a,,vhich vould in Klimas approach be analyzed as in (b, under atusion analysis, is rather represented by Brovn and Dik as in (c,:(, a. ohn bought no books.b. xrt (buyV ( ohn,Ag (ixi: booksN,Goc. buyV ( ohn,Ag (oxi: booksN,GoIn (b,, the term operator i in the second argument is the indeniteoperator. 1o express (b, as (a,, rules are needed to tuse the negoperator vith the indenite operator and express it as uo. By contrast,in (c,, the term operator o (zero, is expressed directly as uo.We sav in section :.+.: that in rt quantiers are analyzed as termoperators, an analysis vhich is compatible vith analyses in a tramevorklike Generalized Quantiers. lromthe rt perspective, it is only a smallstep to include the quantier uo in the same system, and the logicalconclusion is that terms like uothiu and uo|ooy are described in a com-o Iuu.tiouai rammarparable vay. I already hinted at this analysis inconnectionvithexample(+,, vhich tor convenience I repeat in (, belov.(, a. I bought no booksb. Past buyV (I,Ag (oxi: bookN,Go cro1o recapitulate, c is the cardinality tunction that denes the cardinalityot R, the reterent set. In (o, the cardinality is zero, and the underlyingstructure (ob, can be paraphrased as the set ot books that I bought isempty.^o is thus a term quantier representing vhat Dik (tc., calls zeroquantication. ^o is a non-proportional quantier, proportional quanti-ers can be described analogously. Proportional quantiers can be usedin partitive expressions such as four of the .hiioreu, non-proportionalquantiers cannot be used in that vay: *uo of the .hiioreu. (, is anexample ot the representation ot the (proportional, quantier uoue:(, a. I bought none ot the booksb. Past buyV (I,Ag (odmxi: booksN,Go cr (r c i, o(b, can be paraphrased as the subset r ot books that I bought, tromamong the previously established domain set i, is empty. 1he slash (,in (b, translates as ot the.1he zero quantier analysis has tvo advantages over the classicalanalysis outlined in section +.+. lirst, it is completely clear that the zeroquantier is expressed as part ot the term. It is theretore not necessaryto tormulate placement rules. Secondly, under this analysis, zeroquantiers are interpreted directly. 1his means that no recourse isrequired to any decomposition rule that decomposes a negativequantier into a negative and an indenite element. 1he need tor anon-decompositional analysis vas pointed out by Iadusav(+,o, +,,.Dik (tc., goes on to propose that Lnglish (like many other languages,has a number ot zero quantied terms that he describes as syntheticexpressions. Here are a number ot examples:lerm ueatiou +(o, a. (o xi: human, nobodyno oneb. (o xi: inanim, nothingc. (o xi: place, novhered. (o xi: time, neverSimilar cut-and-ready terms are set up tor indenite, interrogative,relative and demonstrative terms, such as the ones in (;,:(;, a. (i xi: human, someoneb. (g xi: human, anyone (g stands tor generic,c. (Q xi: human, vho (interrogative,d. (P xi: human, vho (relative,e. (prox xi: human, this oneSome ot these cut-and-ready terms t naturally in the typology ot termnegation outlined in the introduction, and vill be discussed in detailinchapter . Lxamples ot animate and inanimate indenite terms couldbe tound in all sample languages, but place and time indenites proveddicult tond. 1heretore only the rst tvo types ot indenite humanand inanimate vill be discussed at any length in the discussion ot thetypology in the next chapter.1he above assumptions in regard to zero quantication as a specialcase ot term negation, imply that there are essentially tvo vays ot rep-resenting term negation on a cross linguistic basis. 1vo relevant meansot expression are repeated in (, and (,, belov:(, a. I did not buy aany book.b. X: past neg e: buyV (I,Ag (igxi: bookN,Go(,, a. I bought no books.b. X: past e: buyV (I,Ag (oxi:bookN,Go1hese are, inthe vords ot Dik (tc.,, tvostrategies ot talking about noth-ing:: Iuu.tiouai rammarStrategy a. 1hink about any arbitrary book, I tell you that I did notbuy it.Strategy b. 1hink ot the set ot books that I might have bought, I tellyou that that set is empty (ie. has no members,.1hese same tvostrategies apply tothe cut-and-ready terms exempliedin (;,. 1ake the tolloving tvo examples:(o, a. I did not see someoneanyone.b. X: past xrt e: seeV (I,Ag (igxi: human,Go(+, a. I sav nobodyb. X: past e: seeV (I,Ag (oxi: human,Go1here are considerable tormal and semantic dierences betveen strat-egy a (oa, and strategy b (+a, even though the rt underlying repre-sentations are to an extent similar. lormally, (oa, does but (+a, doesnot contain a negative operator, semantically, (+b, is a set expression,(ob, is not. In spite ot these dierences, both strategies have the samecommunicative value, namely to say nothing or no one. Dik notesthat since the tvo strategies have the same communicative eect, onevould expect both to be used in the languages ot the vorld. Dik retersin this connection to Keenans (+,;, principle ot logical variants,vhich says that it the semantic dierence betveen tvo constructionsis neutralized in a given context, then languages may be expected tovary naturally betveen using either one or the other construction. 1ovhat extent this is indeed so vill be discussed in Chapters and .lerm ueatiou Notes+. In the second part ot this meaning postulate the third argument contains aterm. Note turther that the term operators d (denite, and : (plural, are alsopresent. 1he third argument, then, can only be expressed as uith the iips.:. I have not investigated this correlation systematically, but I knov ot oneother language in the sample that uses distinct negative elements tor proposi-tional and predicational negation, :i:. Mandarin (Van den Berg +,,, Ch. +,Wiedenhot +,,: ,o+o:,.. 1he sample contains o languages, but on tvo (Ket en Mong Njua, I haveno data about negative imperatives, so the percentages pertain to a total ot languages.. Another piece ot evidence that may be cited in this connection comes tromDavava, in vhich the honoric system is based on negation. In Davava, allutterances addressed to social superiors are negatives. 1hus it a social interiorvishes to convey to a social superior the intormation that ohn is not a tool,he vill say something like I dont say that ohn is a tool. But the same utter-ance to a social peer vill be understood as ohn is not a tool (M. Knauber,personal communication,.. Atevyears ago, the Cookie Monster in the Dutch version ot Sesame Streetillustrated the use ot the quantiers aii, some and uo very lucidly. He emptiedthe contents ot a jar ot cookies on a table and said, 1his is all cookies. 1henhe ate some ot themand said, 1his is some cookies. linally, he ate the remain-der ot the cookies and, pointing to the table vhich vas by nov quite empty,said, And this is no cookies.o. Brovn (+,: +, uses the tunction cmX to dene statements that applyto sets and masses (in Brovns terminology, discrete and continuous sets, res-pectively,. Dikuses anextendedversionot Bunts (+,, notionot ensemble. A typology ot term negation1he typological studies ot negation conducted by Dahl (+,;,,, Payne(+,, and Dryer (+,, deal vith the properties and the position ot thenegative element (like uot, but do not cover term negation (uooue,uothiu,. Admittedly, Dahl (+,;,: +o, does mention term negation ina tootnote and even suggests an impressionistic typology, but he did notinvestigate the issue in detail. As I mentioned in the introduction, theonly substantial typological vork actually devoted to term negation isthat ot Bernini and Pamat (+,,:, and Haspelmath (+,,,. Bernini andPamats typology, hovever, is conned to the languages ot Lurope,Haspelmaths investigation is rather biased tovards Lurope vith o otthe torty languages in his sample trom Lurope.+But even thoughBernini and Pamats and Haspelmaths ndings are based on biasedsamples, vhen compared vith the results trom the sample used in thisstudy, they yield interesting results this vill be taken up in chapter .1he typology ot term negation to be presented belov is based on asample that covers all the vorlds language tamilies.1he sample consists ot o languages selected according tothe samplingmethodology developed in Pijkho et ai. (+,,,, vhich vill be elabo-rated in Chapter . lor the present, all that needs to be mentioned inregard to the sample is that it is genetically stratied. Since I knevnothing about the cross-linguistic distribution ot term negation vhenI started this investigation, I reasoned that taking genetic diversity as thebasic criterion tor the inclusion ot languages in the sample vould bethe most promising vay ot obtaining a maximally stratied sample, notonly genetically but also structurally.1he chapter is organized as tollovs. Section .+ outlines the ve typesot term negation tound in the languages ot the vorld and provides anoverviev ot their distribution. 1he subsequent ve subsections (.+.+through.+., illustrate and discuss eachot the distinguished types vithrespect to the torm ot indenite marking used. 1o better illustrate thecoherence ot each type distinguished, the relevant examples vill alsobe presented intheir correspondingrt underlying structures. Insectiono lypoioy of term ueatiou.: the tactors leading to the occurrence ot multiple types ot termnegation are considered. And section . deals vith some additionalissues connected vith the realization ot indeniteness..1 Outline ot the typology1he expressionot termnegationinmy language sample canbe capturedby means ot the tolloving typology:1ype +: negation at clause level vith morphological change interm, i.e. neg plus indenite1ype :: negation at clause level vithout morphological change interm, i.e. neg plus special indenite1ype : negation at term level, i.e. zero quantication1ype : combination ot + and , i.e. neg plus zero quantication1ype : negation above clause level, i.e. a negative existential con-struction1he distinction betveen types + and : is minor in that there is only amorphological dierence in the indenite term. But languages makea clear and consistent distinction betveen the tvo, and as vill be shovnlater in section ., languages may use both types alongside each other.:1he actual realizations ot each ot these types vill be presented indetail in the course ot the chapter. But to provide an immediate ideaot the above typological distinctions, here are examples ot each type inpseudo-Lnglish:+. ohn not bought something:. ohn not bought anything. ohn bought nothing. ohn not bought nothing. 1here is nothing that ohn boughtlor the last type, the existential construction, the pseudo-Lnglish soundsCutiiue of the typoioy ;1able 1. Distribution ot the types1ype Number Percent+ :; o;.: , ::. +:. +:. ; +;.rather strange. Nevertheless it appears tobe the closest literal translationot the examples in the relevant languages. Belov this vill be clariedusing a number ot examples.As tor sentence types, I took into consideration only active sentencesdisplaying standard vord order. 1his is relevant, tor depending on eg.voice (active vs. passive, a language may use dierent types ot termnegation. 1his is elaborated section .+..1he overall distributionot the ve types ot termnegationinthe sam-ple is given in 1able +. 1he ^um|er column gives the number ot timesa type occurs and the Ier.eut column the percentage ot the total tor thegure in the ^um|er column. Notice that the gures in the ^um|ercolumnaddupto, vhile the sample contains only o languages. 1hisis due to the tact that some languages use more than one type ot termnegation tor that reason the percentages add up to more than +oo.1he actual distribution ot the termnegation types per language is givenin 1able :. 1he ve types are in the columns: ++ stands tor type +, +:tor type :, etc. 1he languages are sorted by term negation type, so thattype + languages sort at the top ot the table and type languages at theend. 1he languages that use more than one type are sorted as a groupat the top ot the table (the types are plotted on Map : on p. +o;,. It canbe seen in 1able : that +: ot the o languages use more than one typeot termnegation. lor expository reasons I vill postpone the discussionot the existence ot multiple types to section ..1he typology captures the co-occurrence ot a negation marker anda marker ot indeniteness that these are the tvo parameters ot termnegation vas in tact suggested by Dahl (+,;,,. As vill become apparent lypoioy of term ueatiou1able :. Sample languages classied.Ianguage ++ +: + + +Abkhaz + +Babungo + +West Greenlandic + +Maparayi + +Lvenki + +Chukchi + +1amazight + + +Arabic + +lula + +Krongo + +1urkana + +Mandarin + +Susu +Ket +Nahali +Mong Njua +Vietnamese +Kobon +Nasioi +Lsan +Cree +Cahuilla +Miskito +Quechua +1amil +Saramaccan +Yidi +Basque +Burushaski +Indonesian +Iezgian +Mundari +Navaho +Nama +Dutch +Gilyak +Italian +Hungarian +Hixkaryana +Nadb +Cutiiue of the typoioy ,in the course ot this chapter, ot these tvo parameters the marker otindeniteness is the more variant. 1heretore I vill beginmy illustrationot the establishedtypological distinctions inrelationtothe items labelediuoeuite, spe.iai iuoeuite and :ero uauti.atiou. 1he status and torm otthe negation marker, vhich teatures in only three ot the distinguishedtypes, vill be taken up in chapter . Novlet us consider the character-istics ot each ot the types distinguished in detail..1.1 1ype 1. neg plus indenite1ype + is the most trequent type ot term negation in the sample, itoccurs in :; languages out ot o (is o;.,. It can be exemplied inpseudo-Lnglishby I oio uot see someoue and I oio uot |uy somethiu, vhichin standard Lnglish vould be expressed as I savno one and I boughtnothing, respectively. 1he indenite pronoun in this type ot termnegation is the same as the indenite pronoun in positive sentences.1his is illustrated by the tolloving Nasioi examples:(+, Nasioi (Pausch +,+:: +,a. Nanin nanu-i.someone go-rrcrx+r:s+Someone vent.b. Nanin nanu-aru-i.someone go-xrt-rrcrx+r:s+No-one vent.By these and similar examples, Nasioi can be unambiguously classiedas type +. 1he underlying representations ot (+a-b, are given in (:a-b,:(:, a. Decl L: X: PecPast e: nanuV (ixi: animate,Agb. Decl L: X: xrt PecPast e: nanuV (ixi: animate,Ag1hough most ot the languages in the sample that I classied as type +posed no problems tor classication, a tevproved to be less straighttor-vard. I encountered tvo types ot problems. 1he rst involved theo lypoioy of term ueatiounature and apparent distribution ot the indenites, the second, the na-ture ot the negative element or elements used in the relevant con-structions.Pegarding the nature ot the indenite element, in many languages,indenite and interrogative pronouns are homophonous, the preciseinterpretation ot such a general pronoun being determined by thecontext. 1his canbe illustratedby the tolloving examples tromManda-rin Chinese.(, Mandarin Chinese (Sie Ing Djiang, pc.,a. Zutian ni mai shenmeyesterday :st buy vhatWhat did you buy yesterdayb. Zutian ni mai shenme ma.yesterday :st buy something _Did you buy something yesterdayc. Zutian vo mei mai shenme.yesterday +st xrt buy somethingYesterday I did not buy anything.d. Zutian vo mai ge d ongxi.yesterday +st buy ci thingI bought something yesterday.In (a, the pronoun sheume is interpreted as a question vord, due to theinterrogative contour ot the sentence. In (b,, vhich apart trom theinterrogative contour is identied as a yes-no question by the questionparticle ma, sheume is interpreted as an indenite pronoun hence thetranslation something. In (c,, a negative sentence, sheume is inter-preted as a general indenite again, and in this case it corresponds to theLnglish auythiu. Note that in (d,, a positive armative, sheume cannotbe used. Pather, in such sentences the noun oouxi thing vould beused. 1hese tacts trom Mandarin describe a tairly general situation.Cutiiue of the typoioy +Hovever, Mandarin has one complication, namely that there are anumber ot environments in vhich the general indenite can be usedin positive armative sentences, such as in the context ot non-tactiveverbs (think, and in combination vith uncertainty particles like ie(general uncertainty, and yexu perhaps (Ii +,,:,. 1his is illustratedin the tolloving examples:(, Mandarin Chinese (Ii +,,:: +:,+,a. *1a kandao shenme.st see ixirrHe sav something.b. 1a kandao shenme le.st see ixirr r+ciHe sav something.c. 1a yivei vo xihuan shenme.st think I see ixirrHe thinks I sav something.1hese contexts (uncertainty, negation, yes-no question, are suspiciousto anyone tamiliar vith negative polarity, and it seems indeed to be thecase that sheume behaves like a polarity item.1he most convincingpiece ot evidence in tavour ot such an analysis is that sheume cannot beused in a straighttorvard positive sentence (see a,. Lven though thereis no direct correspondence betveen the positive I savsomething andthe negative I sav no one, I have classied Mandarin as a type + lan-guage. 1he only other option vould be to consider Mandarin as repre-senting type :. But as vill become clear belov, such an analysis vouldbe untenable on tormal grounds.1he secondcategory ot languages that needs some comments is thoselanguages that use more than one negative element in negative sen-tences. Iet us begin again vith some examples. 1vo languages in vhichmore than one negative element is used are Maparayi and Chukchi.Here is a Maparayi example:: lypoioy of term ueatiou(, Maparayi (Merlan +,:: ++,,pinjag pinja o- nipa-m.xrt vho-xox st-arrive-xrtNobody arrived.It is not the case that ija is used tor local negation (such as negationot an xr, as in ^ot ]ohu .ame, |ut ]ames,, and the ax m tor predicationnegation: ija is used tor predication negation as vell. Lxample (,,then, contains tvo negative elements, something not catered tor in theproposed typology. Hovever, there are good reasons to assume that theax m is not really a negative element, but rather a more general ele-ment indicating non-tactualness. lor example, it is used in such envi-ronments as conditionals and sentences indicating vishtul thinking,vhich are clearly not negative. lor this reason I vill treat Maparayi ascontaining only one negative element (ija,. And the combinationvith the general indenite vhich is used in positive sentences as vell leads to the classication ot Maparayi as type +. Negation may there-tore be vieved as a type ot irrealis environment. Accordingly, the Map-arayi example in (, can be assigned the tolloving underlying represen-tation:(o, Decl L: X: xrt e: Past arriveV (ixi: human,AgAs shovn in (o,, there is only one negative operator in the underlyingstructure. 1his vill be expressed as ija. 1he xrt operator qualiesa state ot aairs as non-tactual, and this characteristic is expressed inMaparayi by the sux m.Another language that uses more than one negative element isChukchi, as shovn in (;,:(;, Chukchi (Bogoras +,::,G um-nan ele ranut e-il-ka ti-nti-an.+st-xox xrt ixirr:is xrt-give-xrt +st--stoiJI had not given him anything.Cutiiue of the typoioy 1he Chukchi example in (;, resembles the Maparayi example to a largeextent: there is a negative element onthe verb(eventhoughinChukchithis element is discontinuous, eka.,, and the indenite is preceded byanother negative element, eie. As tar as I can gather trom the source,there are no reasons to assume that the verbal ax in Chukchi is any-thing other than negative. 1hus the case tor including Chukchi as type+ is less strong than that tor Maparayi. Nevertheless I decided to classityChukchi as type +, tor tvo reasons. lirst ot all, I amreluctant to expandthe typology just in order to account tor the number ot negative ele-ments employed in a language as an additional typological parameter.We shall see later on that there are languages that use even more thantvo negative elements. Lxpanding the typology vould lead to a ratherserious loss ot meaningtul generalization. Secondly, as I have alreadypointed out and vill discuss in greater detail belov in those lan-guages that use more than one negative element, the status ot at leastone ot those elements as negative is not alvays clear..1.: 1ype :. neg plus special indenite1ype : is the second most trequent type ot termnegation in the samplevith , cases out ot o or ::.. 1his type ot term negation is semanti-cally but not morphologically homogeneous. All special indenitepronouns appear to be non-reterential pronouns, vhich in Lnglishvould correspond to any or anything. 1hus inLnglish the distinctionbetveen indenite and special indenite corresponds to the expressionssomethiu and auythiu, respectively. Special indenites are typicallyderivedtromthe indenite pronounby axing the tree choice elementto it. In the languages in my sample, tree choice particles or pronounsgenerally mean something like even or also. 1his is illustrated in thetolloving example trom Burushaski.(, Burushaski (Berger +,;: :o,Men ka a-pai._ixirr rc xrt-:ux-strrrs (rc is tree choice,1heres nobody there. lypoioy of term ueatiouInBurushaski, meu is the general indeniteinterrogative vord used toranimate entities.In(,, meu ka is interpreted as nobody inthe contextot a negative element. 1he situation is similar in Abkhaz:(,, Abkhaz (Spruit, pc.,A,-g` d-s-m-ba-yt.ixirr-even him-I-xrt-see-irciI sav no-one.Predication negation in Abkhaz is marked by the ax m on the verb.1he animate indenite pronoun is a . In (,,, this pronoun is axedvith , vhich Spruit (pc., translates as even (see also Hevitt +,;,:;:,.It is straighttorvard to analyze the indenites in (, and (,, as genericterms. 1he underlying representation ot the Burushaski example isshovn in (+o,:(+o, Decl L: X: xrt e: {(O,Ioc} (gxi: humanO: {(there,}Ioc,1his is the representation in rt ot an existential construction. 1he in-denite is a termpredicate, vhich is tormed by a termpredicate torma-tion rule. Note that {(O,Ioc} vill be expressed as the existential there,and the lexical term {(there,}Ioc, as the locative adverb there.1he Abkhaz example can be analyzed as tollovs:(++, Decl L: X: xrt e: baV (I,Ag (gxi: human,GoBoth in Burushaski and in Abkhaz, the generic termoperator g vill beexpressed as the tree choice element. 1his is handled by the expressionrules, vhich vill also determine vhether the tree choice element isrealized as a tree particle as in Burushaski or as a sux as in Ab-khaz,.Some languages have a single root tor indenite, negative indenite,universal, and interrogative pronouns. In Lnglish, |ooy could be takento be a root tor animates, giving the related torms uo|ooy, e:ery|ooy,Cutiiue of the typoioy some|ooy and auy|ooy and in a jocular sense even uho|ooy can be usedas a question vordo. 1amil has several roots, such as yaar (animate, andeuke (location,. 1hese roots are extended by suxes to get the desiredinterpretation (someoue, uo oue, e:eryoue, etc,. In 1amil, the sux umserves to torm the indenite pronoun, vhich, in the context ot thenegative verbal morpheme ie, is interpreted as nobody. 1his is shovnin (+:,.(+:, 1amil (Asher +,:: ;,,Yaar-um vara-le.ixirr-rc come-xrtNobody came.But since yaarum is also the (non-specic, indenite pronoun in pos-itive sentences, I classied 1amil as type +. Similarly, Quechua is classit-ied as type + rather than as type : because the indenite pronoun issimilar in negative and positive sentences. 1his is illustrated by thetolloving examples:(+, Quechua (Cole +,:: o,a. Pi-pash shamu-nga.vho-even come-ru+Someone vill come.b. Mana pi-pash shamu-nga-chu.xrt vho-even come-ru+-xrtNo one vill come. (p. o,Ii is the animate question vord. 1he indenite pronoun is derivedtrom this question vord by axing pash to it. On the tace ot it, thistorm compares vith Lnglish auyoue, but it is used in positive sentencesas vell.o lypoioy of term ueatiou.1. 1ype . zero-quantication^op is perhaps the strangest ot all oo instructions. lrom the instructions name, youmight think that uop doesnt do anything, and so it doesnt' But in the sometimesvhacky vorld ot assembly language programming, even nothing has its purposes.(1om Svan, Masteriu lur|o ssem|ier, p. ++,Zero quantication, type in the typology, occurs ve times in thesample (Lvenki, Dutch, Maparayi, Nama and Chukchi,. It is illustratedbelov on the basis ot Dutch and Chukchi.(+, DutchIk ben niemand tegengekomen.I be:+st nobody encounter:r:s+r:r+I did not meet anybody.(+, Chukchi (Bogoras +,::: ,,Vanevan ni-tvi-nen, enme c n-ayilhau-nen.nothing st-tell-st because +r:xs-tear-stShe told him nothing, because she vas atraid ot him.I dene zero-quantied terms as lexical negative terms, such as Lnglishuothiu. 1he underlying structure ot (+, is as in (+o,:(+o, Decl L: X: Past tegenkomenV (ik,Ag (oxi: human,GoIt is interesting tosee that, leaving aside theoretical issues, across langua-ges so-calledincorporatedtorms like uiemauo nobody are ottenrecon-structible as a negative and an indenite in various degrees. In Lnglish,tor example, it is tempting to decompose uo|ooy as uo and |ooy, anduothiu as uo and thiu. In other languages, incorporation cannot beshovn synchronically at all, such as in Italianuieute nothing and Chuk-chi :au:au.;Instill other languages, the situationis slightly more com-plicated. 1ake the tolloving example trom Pussian:Cutiiue of the typoioy ;(+;, Pussian (Wjcik +,;: ,Ni u kogoxrt at ixirr:trxat no onesIn Pussian, the negative and the indenite are vritten as tvo vordsonly in prepositional phrases like (+;,. It the relevant term is not aprepositional phrase, the indenite is expressed morphologically as onevord. An example is uikto. (1he dierence betveen kto and koo is adierence in case: the tormer is nominative, the latter genitive., 1hisphenomenon occurs in some but not all Slavic languages: it does occurin Pussian, Serbo-Croation, Lkrainian, and Byelo-Pussian, but not,tor example, in Polish and Czech..1.| 1ype |. neg plus zero-quanticationNul ne sait si telle prophetie se realisera. (Le Mouoe, une +st, +,;,1ype , xrt plus zero-quantication, occurs as the standard expressionot term negation in ve languages: Arabic, Gilyak, Hungarian, Italian,and 1amazight. In Lnglish, it can be exemplied by examples that aresometimes labelled sub-standard, as in I aiut ot uothiu. In the 1ama-zight example belov(+,, ur is the negative element and uaiu is the zeroterm.(+, 1amazight (Penchoen +,;: ;,Izay d la ittqra s-iuy-an hm(a, d urhe:continue:rrrr rx+ he:read vith-noise-ri in:order xrtas ttgga tra valu.to:him she:do snake nothingHe vent on reading very loud so that the snake vould not doanything to him.In Italian, term negation is expressed by the negative operator uou anda zero term like uieute nothing or uessuuo nobody: lypoioy of term ueatiou(+,, ItalianNon ho comprato niente.xrt have:+st bought nothingI did not buy anything.1his type ot term negation can be described as a contamination otnegation and zero-quantication. An interesting eect ot the proposedanalysis ot zero quantication is that the issue ot double negation doesnot obtain. What tends to happen vhen tvo negations occur in a singleclause is that they cancel each other out. 1his is the case, tor example,in uot uuiuteiiieut, vhich is interpreted as intelligent. Lnder ananalysisin vhich (+,, contains tvo negatives (uou and uieute,, an explanationis needed tor vhy these tvo negatives do not cancel each other out. 1osee that this problemdoes not arise inmy analysis, consider the underly-ing representation ot (+,,:(:o, Decl L: X: Past xrt e: comprareV (I,Ag (oxi: inanimate,Go1here is only one negative in this structure, namely the xrt operator,vhich vill be expressed as uou. 1hus, that (+,, is a negative sentencetollovs quite naturally trom the tact that uieute is analyzed as a zeroquantied term.Iabov (+,;:,, describing Lnglish sentences such as I aiut ot uothiu,proposed a negative concord rule, vhich copies the negative teaturesot the negative operator onto the indenite. 1hus, in Iabovs underly-ing structure too, there vould be only one negative. But under theanalysis proposedin(:o,, it is immediately clear that ve are dealing vitha negative sentence, and ve do not need any concord rule.In dierent languages, negative concord may apply to a varyingnumber ot terms, depending on the structure ot the language and itspragmatic and morpho-syntactic properties. In some languages, suchas Hungarian, negative concord applies to all indenite terms:Cutiiue of the typoioy ,(:+, Hungarian (C. de Groot, pc,Nem volt soha sehol senki se.xrt ber:s+st never novhere nobody xrt1here vas absolutely nobody there.1he negative marker is uem. 1he torms soha, sehoi and seuki are all zeroquantied terms. 1ypically, all languages ot type behave like Hungar-ian. 1hat is to say, in sentences containing more than one indenite,negative concord applies to all indenites. By contrast, in languages ottype , only one indenite is a zero-term, any other indenites arenormal indenites. 1his dierence can explicated on the basis otLnglish. Standard Lnglish (::a, vould classity as type :, non-standardLnglish (::b, as type :(::, a. Ive never seen anybody do anything right.b. Ive never seen nobody do nothing right.lor the purpose ot the present typology I have not distinguished be-tveen languages in vhich a negative concord rule applies to one, tvo,or more terms: a language is classied as type vhen there is negativeconcord in at least one term. 1his seems reasonable in viev ot the tactthat negative concord may apply to other vords in a sentence thanindenite pronouns. Arather extreme case ot negative concordis toundin Nungubuyu (not a sample language,, in vhich it applies to all rele-vant uoros. In negative clauses every vord in the clause is indexed bya negative element. 1hus (:b, is the negative counterpart ot (:a,.(:, Nunggubuyu (Heath +,o: o,a. Arjambal papgu-na-nyagalgi a-mada-vaj.kangeroo it-sav-me yesterday in-the-grassA kangeroo sav me in the grass yesterday.b. Wa:ri ana:-rjambal pambapgu-na-ni ana:-galgixrt xrt-kangeroo xrtsav-it-me xrt-yesterdayana:-mada-vaj.xrtin-the-grassA1he kangeroo did not see me in the grass yesterday.o lypoioy of term ueatiouHeath calls this phenomenon ueiuoexiu and he explains it as tollovs:since there are hardly any sentence boundaries in Nunggubuyu, thescope ot xrt must be explicitely marked on all elements under thescope ot negation. In Nungubuyu then, a negative sentence is identiedby the vords marked vith the negative concord marker.linally, it must be repeated that in classitying a language as belongingto one ot the ve types embraced by the proposed typology, I took intoconsiderationonly active sentences displaying standardvordorder. 1hisis important, since a language might be classied intodierent categoriesdepending on the sentence structure. 1ake the tolloving Italian exam-ples:(:, Italiana. Non ho comprato niente.xrt have:+st buy:rr:r+ nothingI didnt buy anything.b. Niente stato comprato.nothing be:st be:rr:r+ buy:rr:r+Nothing vas bought.On the basis ot examples like (:a,, I classied Italian as type . Strictlyspeaking, examples like (:b, classity as type . It is possible to add uouto (:b,, but that leads to a double negation interpretation:(:, Niente non stato comprato.Nothing vas not bought.Not all languages ot type behave like Italian. In lrench tor example,the predication negative marker ue is present irrespective vhether thezero term is tronted or not:(:o, lrencha. e nai rien vu.+st xrt:have:+st nothing see:rr:r+I didnt see anything.Cutiiue of the typoioy +b. Personne narrivait.nobody xrt:arrive:str:s+Nobody arrived.In many languages, it appears to be the case that patterns such as (:oa,are historically more stable than the one in (:ob,. lor example, inlrench the negative ue can be lett out, but only vhen the indenitetollovs ue. When the indenite is preposed or vhen the Subject isindenite (as in :ob,, ue must be used:(:;, a. *Personne arrivait.b. Pien ne va plus.c. *Pien va plus.1hat patterns such as (:oa, seem to be more stable than those in (:ob,can also be shovn by data tromPussian and Spanish. In Pussian, vhena zero term precedes the verb, the predication operator ue is still ex-pressed see (:a,. In older torms ot Pussian, hovever, it vas lett out(Payne +,,. 1hus, (:b, vas vell tormed in older Pussian but isunacceptable in modern Pussian.(:, Pussian (Payne +,: :;,a. Nikto ne pril.nobody xrt cameNobody came.b. *Nikto pril.In Spanish ve nd the reverse situation. W