Page 434 - Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language

Pragmatics and Speech Act Theory
negative value must be preceded by a clear NEGmark. See, for instance:
PERS. ANIM. PRON&
Ru nikto Eng nobody ModGk kaneis Sp ninguno Wei neb
NTR. PRON>
TEMP>
LOC>
OTHER AOVs
French
Jean n'apas dormi de la nuit
'John hasn't slept all night long'
(23a)
(23b)
value. However it is not (yet) possible tosay:
*Jean a dormi de la nuit
Moreover, inherently negative quantifiers may be restricted to some position. The Australian language Tiwi has karskuwani 'noone' and karzkamini 'nothing' which are restricted to subject position (see Payne 1985:238).
Another phenomenon of the syntax of negation which deserves to be dealt with and can be explained in terms of discourse pragmatics is the so-called 'NEC- raising':
without a clear NEC mark before the NPI (and the verb). On the contrary it is possible tosay:
Je n 'imagine pas que Jean ait dormi de la nuit (24) 'I do not imagine that J. has slept at all during the night'
since the NPI appears in a sentence which is sub- ordinated to a negative main sentence. The general rule for these quantifiers therefore is that in negative sentences an element clearly showing negative value must have in its scope (i.e., must precede) the NPIS and the verb. Compare:
Italian Nessuno venne and Non venne nessuno (25) both meaning 'Nobody/no people came.'
If an NPI comes first in a sentence then it means that its negative value has already fully developed, and no other NEGis strictly required before the verb.
It has already been stated that there may also be languages which do not have a lexeme for negative quantifiers (seeexamples(8a) and (8b)):
John wants the secretaries not to leave early
and:
John does not want the secretaries to leave early.
(28a)
(2Kb)
(26) somebody NEC come was (same meaning as (25))
(Note that NEG precedes the verb and gives a negative meaning to the sentence.)
Four main types may be distinguished for quan- tifiers in negative sentences:
(a) existential quantifier+NEG as in Hindi (exam- ple (26));
(b) 'neutral' (not negative) quantifier+NEG as in English 'John did not see anybody';
(c) NEG+negative quantifier as in Italian Giovanni non vide nessuno (same meaning as the previous English sentence);
(d) negative quantifier without NEG as in German Hans hat niemanden gesehen (same meaning as above).
Otherwise languages may appeal to nonexistential constructions; e.g., Modern Standard Arabic:
These sentences are not completely synonymous. There is indeed a semantic-pragmatic difference. Example (28b) indicates a lesser degree of control on the part of John over the state of affairs, whereas (28a) states as a matter of fact what John's firm wish is. Moreover, the so-called 'raising' of NEGto be observed in (28b) is not possible with every verb. There are semantic constraints: only verbs which admit the possibility of being controlled by the 'subject' (first actant) like think, or want, may let NEG 'leak' into the main sentence. This is not possible with a verb like
fear, although it belongs to the same class of opinion verbs as think:
Hindi koi nahi aya tha
f j biladi- na laysa dayfan
in town IPL NEC:EXIST visitor 'Nobody is a stranger in our town.'
(27)
Now, a transformation rule (here 'move NEG') gov- erned by semantic criteria is hard to accept ingen- erative theory. Moreover, since there is no hint of any trace whatsoever left by the NEGin its original position before the movement, one cannot decide whether NEG has been 'raised' to the main sentence in (28b) or 'lowered' to the subordinate clause in (28a). There seems to be no use in adopting the generative point of view. The position of NEGis determined by the speak- er's intentions of focusing this or that part of the message (see the different message organizations of (28a) versus(28b)).
7. Prohibitive NEC
The difference between declarative and prohibitive NEG was indicated above. Prohibitive is linked to
Crosslinguistic comparison hints at the following hierarchy of negative quantifiers, when they exist (as in case (c) and (d) above):
412
nicto, niiego
nothing never nowhere (noway) tipote pole pouOend
nada nunca
dim(byd)
Ifear that he will not arrive tomorrow
has a completely different meaning from: / do notfear that he will arrive tomorrow.
(29a)
(29b)
nikotda
nigde
nikak