This paper aims to provide a brief overview of the past studies on negation, starting from Jespersen (1917) to the more recent ones that are elaborated within the generative grammar and based on Klima (1964). In the work of Klima (1964) and all subsequent works on the grammar of negation, such as Lasnik (1972), Pollock (1989), Laka (1990), Progovac (1994, 2005), Haegeman (1995) and Zanuttini (1997), attention has been confined to a formal means for expressing the meaning of sentence negation. Linguists have been trying to establish whether natural languages have a universal formal feature that corresponds to the meaning of negation. As a formal representation of negation they proposed the Neg symbol, the NegP projection and the Spec-Head relation. Furthermore, the focus of their studies has been onthe licensing of negative polarity items (henceforth, the NPI licensing), relative scope of negation and c-command. T he NPI licensing has been examined in terms of whether the licensing principles mainly syntactic in nature, semantic-pragmatic, or both, and whether it is autonomous in the sense that functions only for the NPI licensing or it is tied to the principles of other modules. Studies on relative scope of negation and c-command have been trying to determine to what extent, if at all, syntactic structures are responsible for the scope of negation.
Keywords: generative grammar, Jesperson (1917), Klima (1964), formal representation of negation, Negsymbol, NegPprojection, Spec-Head relation, NPI licensing, scope of negation and c-command
References
1.
Radford A. Analysing English Sentences. 2009.
2.
Levinson SC. Pragmatics. 1983.
3.
Linebarger M. The Grammar of Negative Polarity.
4.
May R. The Grammar of Quantification.
5.
May R. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation.
6.
Ota A. The Meaning of Negation: Prolegomena to Semantics.
7.
Ota A. Semantic Interpretation of NPs Containing No. Sophia Linguistica. 7:13–28.
8.
OUHALLA J. SENTENTIAL NEGATION, RELATIVISED MINIMALITY AND THE ASPECTUAL STATUS OF AUXILIARIES. The Linguistic Review. 1990;7(2).
9.
Pollock JY. Verb Movement, UG, and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry. 20:365–424.
10.
Progovac L. Negative and Positive Polarity. 1994.
11.
Progovac L. A Syntax of Serbian: clausal architecture.
12.
Radford A. English Syntax: An Introduction.
13.
Lasnik H. Analyses of Negation in English.
14.
Reinhart T. Interface Strategies, OTS Working Papers.
15.
Rizzi L. Relativized Minimality.
16.
Rizzi L. Residual Verb Second and the Wh-Criterion. Parameters And Functional Heads. 1996. p. 63–90.
17.
Rullmann H. Two Types of Negative Polarity Items. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society. 26:335–50.
18.
Williams E. A reinterpretation of evidence for verb movement in French. Verb Movement. 1994. p. 189–206.
19.
Woulden T van der. Negative Contexts: Collocation, Negative Polarity, and Multiple Negation.
20.
Zanuttini R. Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation.
21.
Zanuttini R. Negation and Clausal Structure. 1997.
22.
Zeijlstra H. Negative Concord is Syntactic Agreement.
23.
Zwicky AM, Pullum GK. Cliticization vs. Inflection: English N’T. Language. 1983;59(3):502.
24.
Horn LR. Flaubert triggers, squatitive negation, and other quirks of grammar. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today. 2001. p. 173–200.
25.
Aoun J, Li YA. Syntax of Scope.
26.
Chomsky N. Some Notes on the Economy of Derivation. In: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
27.
Chomsky N. The Minimalist Program.
28.
Baker CL. Double negatives. Paper in Linguistics. 1969;1(1):16–40.
29.
Baker CL. The Syntax of English Not: The Limits of Core Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry. 22:387–429.
30.
Fox D. Economy and scope. Natural Language Semantics. 1995;3(3):283–341.
31.
Haegeman L. The Syntax of Negation. 1995.
32.
Negative Preposing, Negative Inversion and the Split CP. Negation and Polarity. 2000. p. 21–61.
33.
HAEGEMAN L, ZANUTTINI R. NEGATIVE HEADS AND THE NEG CRITERION. The Linguistic Review. 1991;8(2–4).
34.
Hoeksema J. On the Grammaticalization of Negative Polarity Items. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 20(1):273.
35.
Horn LR. A Natural History of Negation.
36.
Acquaviva P. The Logical Form of Negation.
37.
Huddleston R, Pullum GK. Some remarks aboutThe Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. English Studies. 2006;87(6):740–51.
38.
Israel M. Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy. 1996;19(6):619–66.
39.
Jespersen O. Negation in English and Other Languages.
40.
Kadmon N, Landman F. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy. 1993;16(4):353–422.
41.
Kayne R. Two Notes on the NCI. In: Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar. p. 314–46.
42.
Klima E. Negation in English.
43.
Ladusaw WA. On the Notion „Affective“ in the Analysis of Negative Polarity. Journal of Linguistic Research. 1:1–15.
44.
The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. 1997. p. 321–41.
45.
Laka I. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections.
46.
Lakoff G. On Derivational Constraints. Proceeding of the Chicago Linguistics Society. 5:117–39.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
