Abstract
What is the communicative value of negative polarity? That is, why do so many languages maintain a stock of special indefinites (weak Negative Polarity Items) that occur only in a proper subset of the contexts in which ordinary indefinites can appear? Previous answers include: marking the validity of downward inferences; marking the invalidity of veridical inferences; or triggering strengthening implications. My starting point for exploring a new answer is the fact that an NPI must always take narrow scope with respect to its licensing context. In contrast, ordinary indefinites are notorious for taking wide scope. So whatever other functions NPIs may have, they at least serve as an utterly reliable signal that an indefinite is taking narrow scope. As also proposed in recent work of Kusumoto and Tancredi, I will show that NPIs are only licensed in contexts in which the wide scope construal of an indefinite fails to entail the narrow scope. In other words, weak NPIs occur only in contexts in which taking narrow scope matters for interpretation. Thus one part of the explanation for the ubiquity and robust stability of negative polarity is that it signals scope relations.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Barker, C. (2015). Scope. In S. Lappin & C. Fox (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary semantics (2d ed., pp. 47–87). New York: Wiley.
Bernardi, R. (2002). Reasoning with polarity in categorial type logic. PhD, University of Utrecht.
Charlow, S. (2014). On the semantics of exceptional scope. PhD Dissertation, NYU.
Chemla, E., Homer, V., & Rothschild, D. (2011). Modularity and intuitions in formal semantics: The case of polarity items. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34, 537–570.
Chierchia, G. (2006). Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(4), 535–590.
Chierchia, G. (2013). Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ciardelli, I., Cornelisse, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2009). Computing compliance. In X. He, J. Horty, E. Pacuit (Eds.), International workshop on logic, rationality and interaction (pp. 55–65).
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2018). Inquisitive semantics. Oxford University Press.
Collins, C., & Postal, P. (2014). Classical NEG raising: An essay on the syntax of negation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Crnič, L. (2014). Against a Dogma on NPI licensing. In L. Crnič & U. Sauerland (Eds.), The art and craft of semantics: A festschrift for Irene Heim. MITWPL (Vol. 70, 181–198). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dowty, D. (1994). The role of negative polarity and concord marking in natural language reasoning. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, IV, 114–144.
Fauconnier, G. (1975). Polarity and the scale principle. Chicago Linguistics Society, 11, 188–199.
Gajewski, J. (2010a). Superlatives, NPIs and most. Journal of Semantics, 27(1), 125–137.
Gajewski, J. (2010b). Licensing strong NPIs. Natural Language Semantics, 19(2), 109–148.
Gajewski, J., & Hsieh, I. T. C. (2014). Comments on negative polarity items in definite descriptions. In L. Crnič & U. Sauerland (Eds.), The art and craft of semantics: A festschrift for Irene Heim. MITWPL (Vol. 70, pp. 181–198). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Giannakidou, A. (1994). The Semantic licensing of NPIs and the Modern Greek subjunctive. In A. de Boer, H. de Hoop, & H. de Swart (Eds.), Language and cognition (pp. 55–68)., Yearbook of the research group for theoretical and experimental linguistics Groningen: University of Groningen.
Giannakidou, A. (1998). Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Giannakidou, A. (2002). Licensing and sensitivity in polarity items: from downward entailment to non-veridicality. In M. Andronis, A. Pycha, & K. Yoshimura (Eds.), CLS 38: Papers from the 38th annual meeting of the Chicago linguistic society, Parasession on Polarity and Negation (pp. 29–53).
Giannakidou, A. (2011). Negative and positive polarity items. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Handbook of semantics (pp. 1660–1712). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Giannakidou, A. (2015). Polarity., Oxford encyclopedia Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Guerzoni, E., & Sharvit, Y. (2014). Whether or not anything but not whether anything or not. In L. Crnič & U. Sauerland (Eds.), The art and craft of semantics: A festschrift for Irene Heim. MITWPL (Vol. 70, pp. 199–224). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Heim, I. (1984). A note on negative polarity and downward entailingness. In P. Sells, & C. Jones (Eds.), NELS (Vol. 14, pp. 98–107). Amherst: GLSA, UMass.
Hoeksema, J. (1986). Monotonicity phenomena in natural language. Linguistic Analysis, 16, 25–40.
Homer, V. (2008). Presuppositions can be disruptors too: A case against strawson-entailment. In N. Abner & J. Bishop (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th west coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 220–228). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla proceedings project .
Homer, V. (to appear). Domains of polarity items. Journal of Semantics.
Horn, L. (2000). Any and (-)ever: Free choice and free relatives. In A. Wyner (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th annual conference of the Israeli association for theoretical linguistics (pp. 71–111).
Horn, L. (2006). The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective. In K. von Heusinger, K. Turner, et al. (Eds.), Where semantics meets pragmatics (pp. 21–48). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Horn, L. (2016). Licensing NPIs: Some negative (and positive) results. In P. Larrivée, & C. Lee (Eds), Negation and polarity: Experimental perspectives (pp. 281–305). Cham: Springer.
Icard, T., & Moss, L. (2014). Recent progress on monotonicity. LiLT (Linguistic Issues in Language Technology), 9, 167–194.
Israel, M. (2011). The grammar of polarity: Pragmatics, sensitivity, and the logic of scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kadmon, N., & Landman, F. (1993). Any. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16.4, 354–422.
Krifka, M. (1995). The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis, 25, 209–257.
Krifka, M. (2001). Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics, 9(1), 1–40.
Kusumoto, K., Tancredi, C. (2013). Weak NPIs as double scope quantifiers. Reports of the Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies, Vol. 44.
Ladusaw, W. A. (1979). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin. Published 1980 by Garland.
Landman, F. (2004). Explorations in semantics: Indefinites and the type of sets. New York: Wiley.
Linebarger, M. (1980). Polarity any as an existential quantifier. In Kreiman & Ojeda (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixteenth regional meeting of the Chicago linguistic society (pp. 211–219).
Linebarger, M. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10(3), 325–387.
McNally, L. (2016). Existential. In M. Aronoff (Ed.), Oxford bibliographies in linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780199772810-0070.
Nishiguchi, S. (2003). Non-monotonic negativity. In Proceedings of the 17th Pacific Asia conference on language, information, and computation (PACLIC 17) (pp. 204–215). Singapore: COLIPS.
Neale, S. (1999). Persistence, polarity, and plurality. In U. Egli & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Reference and anaphoric relations (pp. 147–153). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Partee, B. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers (pp. 115–141). Dordrecht: USA Foris Publications.
Progovac, L. (1992). Negative polarity: A semantico-syntactic approach. Lingua, 86, 271–299.
Progovac, L. (1994). Negative polarity and positive polarity: A binding approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reinhart, T. (1997). Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 335–397.
Rothschild, D. (2006). Non-monotonic NPI-licensing, definite descriptions, and grammaticalized implicatures. In Proceedings of SALT 16 (pp. 228–240).
Schmerling, S. (1971). A note on negative polarity. Papers in Linguistics, 4(1), 200–206.
Steedman, M. (2012). Taking scope. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Szabolcsi, A. (2004). Positive polarity–negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22(2), 409–452.
Szabolcsi, A. (2010). Quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Szabolcsi, A. (2016). Direct vs. indirect disjunction of wh-complements, as diagnosed by subordinating complementizers. lingbuzz/003090.
Szabolcsi, A., Bott, L., & McElree, B. (2008). The effect of negative polarity items on inference verification. Journal of Semantics, 25(4), 411–450.
van der Wouden, T. (1997). Negative contexts: Collocation, polarity and multiple negation. Abingdon: Routledge.
von Fintel, K. (1999). NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics, 16(2), 97–148.
Zwarts, F. (1998). Three types of polarity. In F. Hamm & E. W. Hinrichs (Eds.), Plurality and quantification (pp. 177–238). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Thanks to Dylan Bumford, Daniel Büring, Simon Charlow, Chris Collins, Anastasia Giannakidou, Kiyomi Kusumoto, Alejandro Pérez Carballo, Daniel Rothschild, Philippe Schlenker, Anna Szabolcsi, Zoltán Szabó, Chris Tancredi, and my excellent referees.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barker, C. Negative polarity as scope marking. Linguist and Philos 41, 483–510 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-018-9234-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-018-9234-2