Negative concord and the scope of universals

Abstract

In this paper, I propose an analysis of Greek negative concord (NC) in terms of quantifier scope. It is shown that there is no evidence that Greek NC n-words are indefinites or negative quantifiers. NC n-words are analysed as universal quantifiers, which are sensitive to negative polarity, and which must QRraise above negation in order to be properly interpreted. If correct, the analysis proposed here will provide a strong argument for retaining QR as a necessary device at the syntax-semantics interface.

Ouk ´Ismen Oudén: Negative Concord and Negative Polarity in the History of Greek

“…*anyone didn't see John), it seems that NPIs in English must always fall within the semantic scope of negation: '[it is not the case that [any X …]]' We should note, however, that many NPIs, including any in English, may also be used in a range of 'affective' environments, including interrogative, modal, habitual, conditional, future-referring, and imperative sentences, where they might more precisely be called 'affective polarity items' or APIs. These all involve what Giannakidou (1998Giannakidou ( , 2000aGiannakidou ( , 2000bGiannakidou ( , 2005Giannakidou ( , 2011 has called non-veridicality, i.e. semantic functions that do not ensure truth.…”

“…There is further disagreement about how best to deal with NC, a matter which depends largely on whether NQs/NPIs are treated as negative or not. See Giannakidou 2000a, 2000b, 2005, Horn and Kato 2000, Werle 2002, and Penka 2010 for a range of views and their consequences, and Horn 2010 for a recent general bibliography. The detailed investigation of such issues is beyond the scope of this article, but the positions adopted here (more or less following Giannakidou 1998Giannakidou , 2000aGiannakidou , 2000bGiannakidou , 2005Giannakidou , 2011 must first be briefly stated.…”

“…Indefinite tis in AG vs Indefinite tis/tinás in MedG23 A number of issues relating to negation and negative polarity in Greek, both ancient and modern, have been examined in the recent literature (e.g. Giannakidou 1998Giannakidou , 2000aGiannakidou , 2000bGiannakidou , 2005Giannakidou , 2011, Klein 2011, Tsimpli and Roussou 1996, Willmott (2013, and, in part, Chatzopoulou 2012); Kiparsky and Condoravdi mean either 'she met no one' or 'she didn't meet any random person' (implying that she did meet someone specific). The importance of this for Greek will become apparent in 3.2.…”