12
11 th WoSSP, June 5-6 2014 Autonomous University of Barcelona 1 How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English and Russian Lena Borise, Harvard University [email protected] 1. 1. 1. 1.1. 1. 1. 1. Some background: Negative polar questions Some background: Negative polar questions Some background: Negative polar questions Some background: Negative polar questions There are two ways of responding to a standard yes/no question (YNQ): with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’, which correspond straightforwardly to the two alternatives, affirmative and negative. Answers to negative polar questions like (1), however, lack this clean-cut correlation, often being a puzzle for linguists and speakers alike: (1) A: Is John not coming to the party? B: No. (= No, he is not. OR = No, it is not the case that he is not coming= he is coming. ) Yes. (= Yes, he is. OR = Yes, it is the case that he is not coming OR *Yes) Cross-linguistic variation with respect to the meaning of the alternative replies is wide, and the ways in which languages cope with this communicative problem seem to differ equally widely. However, I will show in this talk that the polarity-reversal strategies used in languages otherwise significantly different, namely English and Russian, are syntactically exceedingly similar. I will concentrate on bare Yes and No replies, but full versions will become relevant later on. 1. 1. 1. 1.2. 2. 2. 2. Polarity and Polarity and Polarity and Polarity and polarity heads. polarity heads. polarity heads. polarity heads. Most proposals on the structure of negative YNQs recognise that there are several sites within a clause where negation can be merged/interpreted. According to Laka (1990), there are two Σ (polarity) heads in a clause, a high one in the CP-domain and a low one within the TP, c-commanded by T. In a similar vein, Ladd (1981) tentatively proposes to differentiate between inner and outer negation in negative polar questions and Kramer & Rawlins (K&R) elaborate on this intuition in their latest work (2010, 2011, 2012), using Laka’s idea of the Σ-head: (2) (from K&R, 2012:36) Holmberg (2013) distinguishes three heights of negation - high, low and middle - for English, and a subset of these - high and middle - for Swedish. High negation in his proposal is interpreted within

How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English ... · How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English and Russian Lena Borise, Harvard University

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    4

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English ... · How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English and Russian Lena Borise, Harvard University

11th WoSSP, June 5-6 2014 Autonomous University of Barcelona

1

How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English and Russian

Lena Borise, Harvard University

[email protected]

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. Some background: Negative polar questionsSome background: Negative polar questionsSome background: Negative polar questionsSome background: Negative polar questions

There are two ways of responding to a standard yes/no question (YNQ): with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’, which

correspond straightforwardly to the two alternatives, affirmative and negative. Answers to negative

polar questions like (1), however, lack this clean-cut correlation, often being a puzzle for linguists and

speakers alike:

(1) A: Is John not coming to the party?

B: No. (= No, he is not. OR = No, it is not the case that he is not coming= he is coming. )

Yes. (= Yes, he is. OR = Yes, it is the case that he is not coming OR *Yes)

Cross-linguistic variation with respect to the meaning of the alternative replies is wide, and the ways in

which languages cope with this communicative problem seem to differ equally widely. However, I will

show in this talk that the polarity-reversal strategies used in languages otherwise significantly different,

namely English and Russian, are syntactically exceedingly similar. I will concentrate on bare Yes and No

replies, but full versions will become relevant later on.

1.1.1.1.2. 2. 2. 2. Polarity and Polarity and Polarity and Polarity and polarity heads. polarity heads. polarity heads. polarity heads.

• Most proposals on the structure of negative YNQs recognise that there are several sites within a

clause where negation can be merged/interpreted.

• According to Laka (1990), there are two Σ (polarity) heads in a clause, a high one in the CP-domain

and a low one within the TP, c-commanded by T.

• In a similar vein, Ladd (1981) tentatively proposes to differentiate between inner and outer

negation in negative polar questions and Kramer & Rawlins (K&R) elaborate on this intuition in

their latest work (2010, 2011, 2012), using Laka’s idea of the Σ-head:

(2)

(from K&R, 2012:36)

• Holmberg (2013) distinguishes three heights of negation - high, low and middle - for English, and a

subset of these - high and middle - for Swedish. High negation in his proposal is interpreted within

Page 2: How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English ... · How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English and Russian Lena Borise, Harvard University

11th WoSSP, June 5-6 2014 Autonomous University of Barcelona

2

the CP domain, middle negation - in the IP, but with sentential scope, and low negation is

interpreted with vP scope.

• Contrary to the usually assumed binary opposition between Σ values, affirmative and negative,

Holmberg (2013) proposes that the polarity head Pol (his equivalent to Laka’s Σ) can have three

different values: affirmative, negative, and open.

• Open polarity is what non-negative YNQs have.1

• In a non-negative YNQ, the open Pol head [uPol] originates in PolP (the highest projection in the TP

domain). It is then probed and attracted by Foc in the CP domain, and undergoes movement to

Spec FocP:

(3) Is he coming?

(From Holmberg 2013:36)

• Answers to yes-no questions (YNAs) share the IP with the YNQ (this is why the IP is often elided in

YNAs, under identity with that of the YNQ). The answer particle yes or no is merged into SpecFocP;

the particle is an operator that assigns a value to the unvalued Pol in the IP. The value can be

positive or negative.

(4) Yes, (he is coming).

(From Holmberg 2013:37)

• What happens when the Pol of the YNQ has a negative value?

(5) Doesn’t John drink coffee?

1 If simple non-negative YNQs had Pol specified for [Aff], it would be hard to account for the [Neg] value of the IP

in corresponding YNAs. Hypothetically:

- Is [Aff] John coming?

- No [Neg], he isn’t [Neg].

Analysing polarity as open in non-negative YNQs allows to get around this problem. Thank you to the reviewer

for pointing it out.

Page 3: How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English ... · How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English and Russian Lena Borise, Harvard University

11th WoSSP, June 5-6 2014 Autonomous University of Barcelona

3

• In this case, as (1) shows, the replies yes and no become ambiguous or, in some cases with yes,

infelicitous. This is because the negative YNQ like (5) has its Pol valued [Neg]. When the IP of the YNQ

is copied into YNA, it preserves its original [Neg] value.

• Then, when the answer particle yes is merged into SpecFocP, there is a feature clash: the operator

yes has no variable to bind, because Pol in the IP is already specified for [Neg]. Therefore, yes is

(often, though on language-specific basis) not a felicitous to a negative YNQ:

(6) A: Doesn’t John drink coffee?

B: ??Yes ( = he drinks coffee).

(From Holmberg 2013:37)

• What is the way to contradict the negation of a negative YNQ?

2. Polarity rever2. Polarity rever2. Polarity rever2. Polarity reversingsingsingsing strategiesstrategiesstrategiesstrategies

2.2.2.2.1.1.1.1. SpecialSpecialSpecialSpecial particles.particles.particles.particles.

• Some languages have developed a special polarity-reversing particle: French si, German doch, Polish

owszem, Swedish jo, etc.:

(7) A: - Jean il (ne) parle pas français? French

John he NEG speak NEG French

Doesn’t John speak French?

B: - Non. ( = he doesn’t)

- *Oui.

- Si. ( = he does)

(8) A: - Kom Johan inte i tid? Swedish

came Johan not on time

Didn’t Johan come on time?

B: - Nej. ( = he didn’t come on time)

-*Ja.

- Jo. ( = he did come on time)

• Structurally, the polarity-reversing particle behaves like the two other answer particles: it is an

operator merged in SpecFocP that seeks to bind a Pol variable lower in the IP, but its polarity feature

is specified as [REV], that is, ‘reverse polarity to Aff’.

• What if a language doesn’t have a polarity-reversing particle though?

Page 4: How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English ... · How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English and Russian Lena Borise, Harvard University

11th WoSSP, June 5-6 2014 Autonomous University of Barcelona

4

• This is where the different structural positions of negation become relevant. As the next section will

show, in languages that do not have a special polarity-reversing particle, the polarity-reversing

strategy depends on the ‘height’ of negation used.

2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2. High negation: no special strategyHigh negation: no special strategyHigh negation: no special strategyHigh negation: no special strategy

• High negation, in Holmberg’s analysis, is merged within the CP; it is roughly equivalent to outer

negation in Ladd’s and K&R’s terminology.

• -n’t attached to the auxiliary verb as opposed to the main verb is (in most cases - see below)

indicative of high negation in English.

(9) - Isn’t John coming, (too)? (genuine question, positive bias)

- Yes. ( = John is coming)

- No. ( = John is not coming)

• Unlike English, Russian doesn’t have high negation. A possible factor contributing to the lack of high

negation in Russian is the fact that Russian doesn’t have auxiliary verbs, so there is no reliable way to

tell whether the negation is in the CP- or IP-domain - unlike in English, where both auxiliary verbs

and main verbs can bear negation (Isn’t John coming? vs. Is John not coming?) With modals and

passives, both of which make use of auxiliary verbs, Russian employs middle negation.

• In English high negation the negative head of a high negation YNQ is interpreted in its derived

position in the CP. In this way, the Pol head within the IP of a YNQ (recall that Pol is the highest

projection within the IP) doesn’t have a negative value, because the negation is interpreted higher in

the CP.

(10)

• Therefore, when the IP of the YNQ is copied into a YNA, there is no feature clash and the answer

particle operator can bind the unvalued Pol in the IP, just like in a non-negative YNQ (cf. (2)):

Page 5: How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English ... · How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English and Russian Lena Borise, Harvard University

11th WoSSP, June 5-6 2014 Autonomous University of Barcelona

5

(11)

⇒ In other words, there is no need for a special polaritythere is no need for a special polaritythere is no need for a special polaritythere is no need for a special polarity----reversing strategy. reversing strategy. reversing strategy. reversing strategy. In this sense, high

negation is not interesting for our purposes, since YNQs with high negation behave essentially

as non-negative YNQs.

2.3. Middle and low negation2.3. Middle and low negation2.3. Middle and low negation2.3. Middle and low negation

2.2.2.2.3.1. English 3.1. English 3.1. English 3.1. English

• Middle and low negation in English share the same polarity reversal strategy, so I will discuss them

together. Let us start with middle negation.

• Middle negationMiddle negationMiddle negationMiddle negation is interpreted inside the IP, but with sentential scope.

• Unavailability of bare yes as a felicitous answer to a negative YNQ seems to be the main diagnostic

for middle negation in English. Variants with both not and -n’t attached to the auxiliary verb are

possible, though there is some inter-speaker variation in acceptability of the variants:

(12) - Isn’t John coming (either)?

(negative bias; unacceptable for some speakers, see below)

Or

- Is John not coming?

- No. ( = John is not coming)

- *Yes. (infelicitous/indeterminate)

- Yes, he ishe ishe ishe is. (= John is coming; emphatic)

“Some speakers of English find [the first question in (12)] sharply ungrammatical. There may be a

partial correlation with American vs. British English, with British speakers more often accepting the

construction as perfectly well formed. But there are American English speakers who accept it …

and some very preliminary investigation of mine indicates that not all British speakers do.”

(Holmberg, 2013:38)

• In middle negation YNQs, the negative head is interpreted within the IP, thus making the IP of the

YNQ bear Pol valued [Neg]:

Page 6: How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English ... · How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English and Russian Lena Borise, Harvard University

11th WoSSP, June 5-6 2014 Autonomous University of Barcelona

6

(13)

• A bare yes is then an infelicitous answer, because of the feature clash between the [Aff] value of yes

and the [Neg] value of the IP inherited from the question (as discussed in section 1, see (6)).

• To reverse the polarity, it is necessary for the Pol of the IP in the YNA to be valued [Aff].

• We can make sure it is by copying (and therefore eliding) just the vP/VP from the YNQ to YNA;

because the negation is merged in the IP, the vP/VP alone won’t bear the negative value.

• This prediction is confirmed by the fact that the IP he is cannot be elided from Yes, he is in (12). This

is because ellipsis is possible under polar identity of the IPs of the YNQ and YNA; if they are not

identical, the IP in YNA needs to be spelled out in full:

(14)

(From Holmberg 2013:37)

⇒ Therefore, the polarityTherefore, the polarityTherefore, the polarityTherefore, the polarity----reversing strategy for reversing strategy for reversing strategy for reversing strategy for middle negation is to merge the affirmative particle middle negation is to merge the affirmative particle middle negation is to merge the affirmative particle middle negation is to merge the affirmative particle

yesyesyesyes to a [Aff] polarity PolPto a [Aff] polarity PolPto a [Aff] polarity PolPto a [Aff] polarity PolP,,,, and copyand copyand copyand copy from the YNQfrom the YNQfrom the YNQfrom the YNQ (and then elide) just (and then elide) just (and then elide) just (and then elide) just the the the the vp/vp/vp/vp/VP.VP.VP.VP.

• Low negationLow negationLow negationLow negation, , , , in turn, is interpreted within the vP/VP.

• Availability of bare yes as a felicitous answer to a negative YNQ is indicative of low negation used in

the YNQ:

(15) - Is John not coming?

- Yes. ( = John is not coming)

- No. ( = John is not coming)

-Yes, he ishe ishe ishe is. ( = John is coming; emphatic)

• Because the negative head is merged within the vP/VP, it turns out to be too deeply embedded to

clash with the Pol head at the top of the IP.

• In the YNA, the answer particle operator assigns an [Aff] or [Neg] value to the Pol in the IP, but that

doesn’t affect the contents of the vP/VP. Therefore, regardless of whether yes or no is used, the

negation of the YNQ is confirmed in the YNA - so called negative neutralisation in K&R’s terms.

Page 7: How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English ... · How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English and Russian Lena Borise, Harvard University

11th WoSSP, June 5-6 2014 Autonomous University of Barcelona

7

(16)

(17)

• In order to get rid of the negative neutralisation effect, an non-negative IP needs to be merged into

the YNA.

⇒ In low negation, tIn low negation, tIn low negation, tIn low negation, the polarityhe polarityhe polarityhe polarity----reversing strategy isreversing strategy isreversing strategy isreversing strategy is thereforethereforethereforetherefore the same as inthe same as inthe same as inthe same as in middle negation middle negation middle negation middle negation ----

spelling out the IP with [Aff]spelling out the IP with [Aff]spelling out the IP with [Aff]spelling out the IP with [Aff]----valued Pol (within the IP).valued Pol (within the IP).valued Pol (within the IP).valued Pol (within the IP).

2.3.2. Russian2.3.2. Russian2.3.2. Russian2.3.2. Russian

• Recall that the test for middle negmiddle negmiddle negmiddle negationationationation is the unavailability of bare yes as a felicitous answer.

According to this criterion, middle negation in Russian is in place:

(18) - Džon ne pridёt? (genuine question, positive bias; rising intonation)

John NEG will-come

Is John not coming?

- Net. ( = John is not coming)

No

- *Da. (infelicitous/indeterminate)

Yes

- Pridёt/Pridёt, pridёtPridёt/Pridёt, pridёtPridёt/Pridёt, pridёtPridёt/Pridёt, pridёt. ( = John is coming)

Will come/ will come, will come.

⇒ The polarityThe polarityThe polarityThe polarity----reversing strategreversing strategreversing strategreversing strategy for middle negation, as in (18y for middle negation, as in (18y for middle negation, as in (18y for middle negation, as in (18), is uttering or reduplicating ), is uttering or reduplicating ), is uttering or reduplicating ), is uttering or reduplicating (to (to (to (to

make the polarity contrast more prominent) the bare verbmake the polarity contrast more prominent) the bare verbmake the polarity contrast more prominent) the bare verbmake the polarity contrast more prominent) the bare verb.

Page 8: How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English ... · How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English and Russian Lena Borise, Harvard University

11th WoSSP, June 5-6 2014 Autonomous University of Barcelona

8

• Recall that the characteristic features of low negationlow negationlow negationlow negation are the availability of yes as a felicitous answer,

as well as the negative neutralisation effect.

• It turns out that there is some dialectal (idiolectal?) variation with respect to the availability of low

negation in Russian (recall the inter-speaker variation with respect to middle negation in English

Holmberg reports):

(19) - Džon ne pridёt? (negative bias, falling intonation)

John NEG will-come

Is John not coming?

- Net. ( = John is not coming)

- %Da. (= John is not coming)

- Pridёt/ PridёtPridёt/ PridёtPridёt/ PridёtPridёt/ Pridёt, pridёtpridёtpridёtpridёt. ( = John is coming; emphatic)

Will come.

• Some speakers find da ‘yes’ infelicitous as a reply to the question in (19), which leads to the

conclusion that those speakers’ Russian lacks low negation and thus has middle negation only. This

pattern requires further investigation, but it is not very relevant for the present purposes, since the

polarity reversing strategy for middle and low negation is the same.

⇒ In Russian, like in English, tIn Russian, like in English, tIn Russian, like in English, tIn Russian, like in English, the polarityhe polarityhe polarityhe polarity----rrrreversing strategy is the same for middle and eversing strategy is the same for middle and eversing strategy is the same for middle and eversing strategy is the same for middle and low negationlow negationlow negationlow negation....

3. Middle and low negation reversal: 3. Middle and low negation reversal: 3. Middle and low negation reversal: 3. Middle and low negation reversal: ((((aaaan attempn attempn attempn attempt at) at at) at at) at at) a unified accountunified accountunified accountunified account

• It seems non-accidental that in Russian, like in English, the same polarity reversing strategy is

employed both in middle and low negation. The properties and the nature of this phenomenon

deserve further investigation.

• You could have noticed that in Russian, unlike in English, neither the answer particle nor the

arguments of the verb surface in the polarity-reversing YNA. In fact, constituents other than the verb

seem to be prohibited from appearing in a polarity reversing YNA (more on this below).

• The structure of a polarity-reversing reply in Russian, then, involves extracting the main verb and

merging it into the SpecFocP of a polarity-reversing YNA. The rest of the tree is then deleted (in the

spirit of Holmberg 2001, 2013):

(20)

Page 9: How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English ... · How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English and Russian Lena Borise, Harvard University

11th WoSSP, June 5-6 2014 Autonomous University of Barcelona

9

• Stranded verbs as replies to YNQs are attested cross-linguistically and are usually analysed as

movement of the verb to the Foc projection with subsequent ellipsis of the rest of the clause.

Holmberg (2001) proposes such an analysis for Finnish, Morris-Jones (1999) for Welsh and Martins

(1994, 2006) for Romance varieties. Cf. also Merchant (2004) that thoroughly justifies the same

strategy - fronting and subsequent ellipsis - to derive fragment answers more generally.

• This analysis can be extended to Russian, especially since in Russian verbs can be fronted in other

contexts, when no ellipsis is involved:

o Thetic structures:

(21) Goreli fonari.

burned lanterns

There were lanterns burning. (Bailyn, 2012: 255)

o Corrective replies:

(22) A: Džon priedet na mashine?

John wil come by car

Will John come by car?

B: Priletit on, (a ne priedet).

Will fly in he but not will come

He will fly in (and not come by car).

• As the reviewer points out, a potential problem with this analysis is the fact that the overt correlate

of ellipsis in (20) is predicted to be grammatical, since ellipsis is usually considered to be an optional

phenomenon, but in fact the unelided version is nothing other than word-salad:

(23) *Pridёt Džon ne.

However, this fact - unavailability of the unelided full-version of the reply - is a part of a more general

problem with fragment answers, especially those involving vP/VP (as opposed to TP) fronting, as

identified, for example, by Merchant (2004):

(24) A: What is John doing?

B: John is washing the car.

Washing the car.

*Washing the car, John is.

According to Merchant (2004:697), the third reply in (24)

“…is distinctly odd in standard American English. For better or for worse, the reasons for this oddity (as

opposed to, say, their status in some British English varieties, where such VP-predicate fronting is fully

acceptable) are poorly understood at the moment. One safe conclusion that can be drawn … is that the

constraints that give rise to the oddity are constraints which can be (perhaps trivially) satisfied by non-

pronunciation, similar to a wide range of amelioration effects induced by ellipsis.”

• In both languages, therefore, in cases when the IP of the YNQ bears a [Neg] polarity value, which

needs to be reversed in the YNA, the IP of the YNQ cannot be copied into the YNA and then elided

Page 10: How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English ... · How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English and Russian Lena Borise, Harvard University

11th WoSSP, June 5-6 2014 Autonomous University of Barcelona

10

under identity; instead, the IP of the YNA needs to be created afresh, with reversed polarity, and

needs to be overt.

• The key difference between the two languages lies in the fact that in an English polarity-reversing

YNA the answer particle and the subject are there (Yes, he is.), while in Russian it is the bare verb

(Pridёt.)

• This distinction is due to a combination of syntactic and non-syntactic factors.

• The relevant syntactic factor is EPP strength. English has strong EPP, therefore, subjects always need

to be overt - subjects of YNAs are no exception.

• Russian, on the other hand, has weak EPP (Bailyn, 2012) - consequently, the presence of a subject is

not obligatory.

• Though the conditions for subject-drop in Russian are still not well-understood (cf. McShane, 2009),

polarity-reversing YNAs seem to provide a context where subjects can - in fact, must - be dropped.

• Furthermore, recall that in Russian polarity-reversing YNAs it is not just subjects that are dropped - in

fact, the presence of any constituent apart from the verb makes the YNA strongly degraded:

(25) A: - Ty ne vzjala den’gi?

You NEG took money

Didn’t you take the money?

B: - (*Ja) vzjala (*den’gi).

I took money

(*I) took (*the money).

• This looks like an instance of a more general interdependency between subject-drop and object-drop

in ordinary YNAs in Russian: either both arguments are overt or both are silent (cf. McShane (2009)

for Russian, Huang (1984) for the same phenomenon in Chinese, and Liu (to appear) for a recent

analysis of the Chinese facts):

(26) A: Bill videl Džona?

Bill see-PAST John

Did Bill see John?

B: a. Da, on videl ego.

Yes he saw him

Yes, he saw him.

b. *Da, Ø videl ego.

*Yes, Ø saw him.

c. *Da, on videl Ø.

*Yes, he saw Ø.

d. Da, Ø videl Ø.

Yes, Ø saw Ø.

Page 11: How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English ... · How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English and Russian Lena Borise, Harvard University

11th WoSSP, June 5-6 2014 Autonomous University of Barcelona

11

• This is due to a non-syntactic factor: Non-verbal constituents in Russian YNAs are interpreted as

contrastive, which is in conflict with the polarity answer - cf. (27) as potential replies to the question

in (25) above:

(27) - *Da, den'gi vzjala

(implies a contrast between money and something else, so not a felicitous reply to a

YNQ).

- *Da, vzjala den'gi

(implies a contrast between the action of money-taking and some other unelated

action).

• The general conclusion therefore is that the strategies of polarity reversal in YNAs in English and

Russian are more similar underlyingly than what the surface facts suggest: the general polarity-

reversing strategy is to front the unnegated version of the predicate, and then elide the rest of the

clause.

CCCConclusiononclusiononclusiononclusion and directions for further researchand directions for further researchand directions for further researchand directions for further research:

I have discussed in this talk the strategies of polarity reversal in replies to negative YNQs in English and

Russian, which turn out to be exceedingly similar, despite the fact that the negation mechanisms in

English and Russian are different. Section 1 introduced the basic facts about negative YNQs, while

section 2 turned to the analysis of language-specific polarity-reversal strategies. I adopted Holmberg’s

(2013) proposal about the different structural positions negation can occupy and showed that Russian,

unlike English, has middle and low negation only, with middle negation being the only option available

for some speakers.

Further, I showed that the strategies of polarity reversal in YNAs in English and Russian are more similar

underlyingly than what the surface facts suggest. This similarity might be part of a general trend -

regardless of the surface dissimilarity of language-specific negation patterns and availability of structural

positions in which negation can be merged, the polarity-reversing strategies do not vary equally widely

- instead, the general polarity-reversing strategy is to front the unnegated version of the predicate, and

then elide the rest of the clause. More general language-specific properties, like the EPP strength, and

pragmatic factors, can come into play too, obscuring the underlying mechanism of polarity reversal. The

unelided version of the reply is often infelicitous, which has been observed in the literature too. The

reasons for this are poorly understood at the moment.

Turning to directions for further research, prosody of a YNQ is a factor extremely relevant to the

phenomena observed, yet rarely brought up. A while ago, Ladd (1981:170) noted that the intonational

differences are not superficial phonetic phenomena, but factors important for distinguishing basic types

of questions. As research on the syntax-phonology interface receives more attention, it becomes

obvious that the prosody of polar questions is not just a superficial PF phenomenon, since the bias of

the question reflected in its prosody affects its interpretation and is one of the factors crucial for

identifying the height of negation.

Page 12: How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English ... · How to say ‘no’ to a ‘no’: polarity reversal in English and Russian Lena Borise, Harvard University

11th WoSSP, June 5-6 2014 Autonomous University of Barcelona

12

Acknowledgments:Acknowledgments:Acknowledgments:Acknowledgments:

I would like to thank Maria Polinsky and Brad Larson for the discussion of the earlier version of this talk

and their helpful advice on the topic, and the audience at ECO-5 (University of Maryland, 2014) for

their comments.

References: References: References: References:

Bailyn, John. 2012. The Syntax of Russian. Cambridge University Press.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Oxford

University Press, New York.

Holmberg, A. 2001. The syntax of yes and no in Finnish. Studia Linguistica 55, 141-174.

Holmberg, A. 2007. Null subjects and polarity focus. Studia Linguistica 61, 212-236.

Holmberg, Anders. 2013. The syntax of answers to polar questions in English and Swedish. Lingua 128,

31-50.

Huang, J. C.-T. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 531-

574.

Kramer, Ruth & Rawlins, Kyle. 2010. Polarity particles and ellipsis: a (somewhat) cross-linguistic

perspective. Handout from Polarity Particles Workshop, January 2010.

Kramer, Ruth & Rawlins, Kyle. 2011. Polarity particles: an ellipsis account. In: Lima, S., Mullin, K.,

Smith, B. (Eds.), NELS 39: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic

Society. GLSA, University of Massachusetts.

Kramer, Ruth & Rawlins, Kyle. 2012. An ellipsis approach to answer particles in positive and negative

contexts. Paper presented at ‘Workshop on the Syntax of Answers to Polar Questions’,

Newcastle University, June 2012.

Ladd, Robert. 1981. A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag

questions. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 17, 164-171.

Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax: on the nature of functional categories and projections. Ph.D.

dissertation, MIT.

Liu, L. C.-M. 2014. A Modular Theory of Radical Pro Drop. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard

University.

Martins, Ana Maria. 1994. Enclisis, VP-deletion and the nature of Sigma. Probus 6, 173-205.

Martins, Ana Maria. 2006. Emphatic Affirmation and Polarity: Contrasting European Portuguese with

Brazilian Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan and Galician. Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory

2004, ed. by Jenny Doetjes & Paz Gonzalez. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 197-

223.

McShane, M. 2009. Subject ellipsis in Russian and Polish. Studia Linguistica 63, 98 - 132

Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27.6, 661-738.

Morris-Jones, Bob. 1999. The Welsh answering system. Walter de Gruyter.