Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (5) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- Negation (5) (remove)
Languages cross-linguistically differ with respect to whether they accept or ban True Negative Imperatives (TNIs). In this paper I show that this ban follows from three generally accepted assumptions: (i) the fact that the operator that encodes the illocutionary force of an imperative universally takes scope from C°; (ii) the fact that this operator may not be operated on by a negative operator and (iii) the Head Movement Constraint (an instance of Relativized Minimality). In my paper I argue that languages differ too with respect to both the syntactic status (head/phrasal) and the semantic value (negative/non-negative) of their negative markers. Given these difference across languages and the analysis of TNIs based on the three above mentioned assumptions, two typological generalisations can be predicted: (i) every language with an overt negative marker X° that is semantically negative bans TNIs; and (ii) every language that bans TNIs exhibits an overt negative marker X°. I demonstrate in my paper that both typological predictions are born out.
This work examines English echo questions (EQs) against the background of Rizzi's (1997) analysis of split CP. It argues that EQs do not behave as the split CP analysis predicts that they should, and that their behavior can instead be straightforwardly explained within the classic CP analysis. Further, what are termed here 'echo negations' of negative inversion constructions are shown not to parallel EQs, a surprising result if negative inversion architecture parallels question architecture, as claimed by split CP proponents. In general, classic CP architecture is more appropriate for analysing this range of phenomena.
Carlotta J. Hübener diskutiert in ihrem Beitrag "Nicht/keinen/kein Fußball spielen? - Inkorporationsprozesse in Substantiv-Verb-Verbindungen" Inkorporationprozesse bei Substantiv-Verb-Verbindungen wie bspw. Fußball spielen. Hierbei fokussiert sie auf die Negation: Während kein(en) Fußball spielen einen Hinweis darauf gibt, dass Fußball noch als eigenständiges Substantiv interpretiert wird, ist nicht Fußball spielen ein Indiz dafür, dass Fußball und spielen als eine konzeptionelle Einheit wahrgenommen werden. Kein negiert nämlich Nomen (Ich mag keinen Spinat), während nicht Verben negiert (Ich hab‘ noch nicht gegessen). Hübener überprüft in ihrem Beitrag anhand des Deutschen Referenzkorpus, inwiefern Frequenz, Idiomatik und Individuiertheit Einfluss auf die Negation von Substativ-Verb-Verbindungen nehmen können.
The current study focuses on the prosodic realization of negators in Saisiyat, an endangered aboriginal language of Taiwan, and compares its prosodic realization of negation with that of English. The results of this study indicate that sentential subjects are the most acoustically prominent items in the Saisiyat negative sentences measured. This contrasts sharply with the English experimental sentences, in which the negator itself was the most acoustically prominent item. These findings suggest that Saisiyat is a pitch-accent language; thus, the presence of negators does not significantly change the prosodic parameters of surrounding words. English, in contrast, is an intonation language, so the presence of negation results in substantial prosodic modification. This suggests that the phenomenon of negation is universally prominent; however, languages with different prosodic systems will adopt different strategies for realizing prominence.
Pasolini was simultaneously a revolutionary Marxist and a man forever influenced by his religious childhood. So his question was: do the revolutionary becoming of history and political negativity represent a destruction of the tragic beauty of the Greek myths and of the peaceful promise of Christianity? Or do we have to speak of a subtraction where an affirmative reconciliation of beauty and peace becomes possible in a new egalitarian world?