Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T00:48:45.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 27 - Negative and Positive Polarity Items

from Part IV - Semantics and Pragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
Doris Penka
Edited by
Michael T. Putnam  and
B. Richard Page
Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

As many, if not all, other languages, the Germanic languages have expressions that are sensitive to the polarity of the clause in which they occur. Negative polarity items (NPIs) can only occur in clauses that are in some sense negative, whereas positive polarity items (PPIs) can only occur in clauses that are affirmative. This chapter reviews some lines of inquiry on polarity sensitive items that have been developed within the framework of generative grammar. It is shown that syntax, semantics, and pragmatics closely interact in the constraints that govern the distribution of polarity items. Questions addressed include the following: What are the lexical properties of polarity sensitive items? How can the environments in which NPIs can occur and PPIs cannot occur be characterized as natural class? How is the licensing condition to be formulated? Why are polarity items sensitive to the polarity of the context in which they occur?

Keywords

polarity sensitivitynegative polarity itempositive polarity itemnegationdownward entailment
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 639 - 660
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, C. L 1970. “Double Negatives,” Linguistic Inquiry 1: 169–186.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Zeijlstra, H. 2012. “Negative concord in Afrikaans: Filling a typological gap,” Journal of Semantics 29: 345–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandtler, J. 2012. The Evaluability Hypothesis: The Syntax and Semantics of Polarity Item Licensing in Swedish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büring, D. 1997. The Meaning of Topic and Focus – The 59th Street Bridge Accent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. 2013. Logic in Grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C. and Postal, P. M.. 2014. Classical NEG Raising: An Essay on the Syntax of Negation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crnič, L. 2014. “Non-monotonicity in NPI Licensing,” Natural Language Semantics 22:169–217.Google Scholar
de Swart, H. 1998. “Licensing of negative polarity items under inverse scope,” Lingua 105: 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, M. 2002. “Direct and Indirect Polarity Item Licensing,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 35–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1975. “Pragmatic Scales and Logical Structure,” Linguistic Inquiry 6: 353–376.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1979. “Implication reversal in a natural language.” In Guenther, F. and Schmidt, S. J. (eds.), Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Reidel: 289–301.Google Scholar
Gajewski, J. R. 2011. “Licensing Strong NPIs,” Natural Language Semantics 19.2: 109–148.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerzoni, E. 2004. “Even-NPIs in Yes/No Questions,” Natural Language Semantics 12.4: 319–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1984. “A Note on Negative Polarity and Downward Entailingness.” In Jones, C. and Sells, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th North Eastern Linguistic Society meeting. Amherst: GLSA: 98–107.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J. 1999. “Blocking Effects in the Expression of Negation,” Leuvense Bijdragen 80: 403–423.Google Scholar
Homer, V. in press. “Domains of Polarity Items,” Journal of Semantics.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. 1978. “Remarks on Neg-raising.” In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press: 129–220.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. 1985. “Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity,” Language 61.1: 121–174.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. 2001. “Flaubert triggers, squatitive negation, and other quirks of grammar.” In Hoeksema, J., Rullmann, H., Sanchez-Valencia, V., and van der Wouden, T. (eds.), Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 173–200.Google Scholar
Israel, M. 1996. “Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics,” Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 619–666.Google Scholar
Israel, M. 2001. “Minimizers, maximizers and the rhetoric of scalar reasoning,” Journal of Semantics 18: 297–331.Google Scholar
Kadmon, N. and Landman, F. 1993. “Any,” Linguistics and Philosophy 16.4: 353–422.Google Scholar
Klima, E. 1964. “Negation in English.” In Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J. (eds.), The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall: 246–323.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. and Shimoyama, J. 2002. “Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese.” In Otso, Y. (ed.), Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 1995. “The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items,” Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–258.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. A. 1979. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Published 1980 by Garland, New York.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. A. 1992. “Expressing negation.” In Barker, C. and Dowty, D. (eds.), Proceedings of SALT II, Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 40. Columbus: Ohio State University: 237–259.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. A. 1997. “Negation and polarity items.” In Lappin, S. (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell: 321–341.Google Scholar
Lahiri, U. 1998. “Focus and negative polarity in Hindi,” Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123.Google Scholar
Laka, I. 1990. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Linebarger, M. C. 1980. The Grammar of Negative Polarity. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Linebarger, M. C. 1987. “Negative polarity and grammatical representation,” Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 325–387.Google Scholar
Nicolae, A. 2012. “Positive polarity items: An alternative-based account.” In Guevara, A. Aguilar, Chernilovskaya, A., and Nouwen, R. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16: 475–488.Google Scholar
Penka, D. 2011. Negative Indefinites. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. van Orman 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Spector, B. 2014. “Global Positive Polarity Items and Obligatory Exhaustivity,” Semantics and Pragmatics 7. 11: 1–61.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 2004. “Positive polarity – negative polarity,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 2: 409–452.Google Scholar
van der Wouden, T. 1997. Negative Contexts: Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
van Rooy, R. 2003. “Negative polarity items in questions: Strength as relevance,” Journal of Semantics 20: 239–273.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K. 1999. “NPI Licensing, Strawson-entailment, and Context Dependency,” Journal of Semantics 16: 97–148.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. 2017. Universal quantifier PPIs. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2.1: 91.1–25. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.220.Google Scholar
Zwarts, F. 1995. “Nonveridical contexts,” Linguistic Analysis 25: 286–312.Google Scholar
Zwarts, F. 1996. “A hierarchy of negative expressions.” In Wansing, H. (ed.), Negation: A Notion in Focus. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 169–194.Google Scholar
Zwarts, F. 1998. “Three Types of Polarity.” In Hamm, F. and Hinrichs, E. (eds.), Plurality and Quantification. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 177–238.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×