Negative concord with negative quantifiers [Elektronische Ressource] : a polyadic quantifier approach to Romanian negative concord / Gianina Nicoleta Iordăchioaia

Informations

• Publié par: eberhard_karls_universitat_tubingen
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2010
• Nombre de lectures: 15
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Negative Concord with Negative Quantifiers:
A Polyadic Quantifier Approach to Romanian Negative Concord
Gianina Nicoleta Iorda˘chioaia
Philosophische Dissertation
angenommen von der Neuphilologischen Fakulta¨t
der Universita¨t Tu¨bingen
am 24. November 2009
Tu¨bingen
2010Gedruckt mit Genehmigung der Neuphilologischen Fakulta¨t
der Universita¨t Tu¨bingen
Hauptberichterstatter: PD Dr. Frank Richter
Mitberichterstatter: Prof. Dr. Erhard W. Hinrichs
Dekan: Prof. Dr. Johannes KabatekAcknowledgements
There are many people whose more or less direct support contributed to my writing this dissertation
and I know that no matter how long these acknowledgments, there will always be somebody I forget
or whom I cannot thank enough.
First and foremost, I thank Frank Richter, my supervisor, for the hours, days and months he spent
reading, analyzing, listening and trying to understand the most undeveloped thoughts on negation I
would come up with. Thanks for the unique inspiring discussions we had, thanks for initiating me into
the secrets of getting a dissertation done, thanks for bringing me up, for being a real Doktorvater to me.
Next, I want to thank Erhard Hinrichs, my second advisor, who played a central role in my decision
to pursue a PhD in Tu¨bingen. Thanks for making my life so much easier at the beginning of my stay
in Tu¨bingen and for introducing me into the academic world.
I am extremely grateful to the other two committee members, Uwe Mo¨nnich and Fritz Hamm, for
always being there for me and doing their best to answer questions that I sometimes didn’t understand
myself. I thank Susanne Winkler and the whole committee of the defense colloquium for being so
supportive that day, for telling me exactly what I needed to hear before and after the defense, for
making the day so special.
I cannot imagine and I may not even want to know what would have happened, had I not met Artemis
Alexiadou at the most critical point in the process of my writing this dissertation. Thank you, Artemis,
for finding a way to make me useful to your department, for the emotional, financial and professional
support, and for making me discover unsuspected energy resources in myself.
While working on my dissertation, I received financial support from the Open Society Institute, which
awarded me a Supplementary Grant in 2007, the German Research Foundation (DFG), via various
short-term project positions I held within the Collaborative Research Centers (SFB) 441 in Tu¨bingen
and 732 in Stuttgart, and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), which facilitated me
with a three-month PhD grant via the Academic Advisory Office of the University of Tu¨bingen. I am
grateful to Dr. Reinhard Brunner for his great help and advice while I was looking for funding options.
However, before I had to deal with the ups and downs of a dissertation, it was the presence of my
university professors Alexandra Cornilescu and Emil Ionescu that had a decisive impact on my pro-
fessional future. I always regretted having to leave Bucharest to pursue a PhD, but this loss was
countervailed by your friendship and permanent support even from thousands of kilometers away.
The few times we met since I left acted like radiant flashes of motivation and intellectual energy on
me and my writing. Thank you for initiating me into linguistics in Bucharest, for your enthusiasm and
for your belief in me. I am also grateful to Andrei and Larisa Avram, Ana-Maria Barbu, Dana Isac,
Cristian Moroianu, and Andra Vasilescu for the engaging courses they taught in Bucharest.
And even before the university it was my high-school teacher of Romanian, Ioan Da˘nila˘, who first
stirred my interest in linguistics. He once observed that I had a special sense for language, but it was
only his fascinating classes that developed this sense in me, when he first told us about Saussure andChomsky, and linguistics as a science. I knew right away that this was what I wanted to do.
Coming back to the time when I wrote my dissertation, I greatly benefited from stimulating discus-
sions with and insightful comments from Henk Barendregt, Edward Keenan, Richard Larson, Manfred
Sailer, and Ede Zimmermann. Thank you so much for taking your time to read, listen to, think of, and
comment on various parts in this dissertation.
There is a special category of people who played a very important role during the time when I was
writing this dissertation: while they started out as my teachers, Ana-Maria Barbu and Janina Rado´
soon became close friends, and their presence has been a joy to me every time I talked to them. More-
over, this dissertation would be much more difficult to follow, hadn’t it been for Janina, who proofread
it and came up with great ideas to improve the readability of the text.
Many people were just there for me when I most needed a friend, a piece of advice, or simply un-
derstanding, and I will always associate them with this time of my life. Thank you, Georgiana Dinu,
Sophia Katrenko, Sandra Ku¨bler, Mingya Liu, Susanne Lohrmann, Mihaela Marchis, Sabine Mohr,
Doris Penka, Jelena Prokic, Zoulfiya Rakhmatoulina, Florian Scha¨fer, Jan-Philipp So¨hn, Cornelia
Stoll, Beata Trawin´ski, Julia Trushkina, Heike Winhart, Holger Wunsch, Hedde Zeijlstra, and Heike
Zinsmeister. Chatting with you now and then, your friendship and support were the daily little sunrays
that cheered me up and kept me going.
Special thanks are due to many other people who provided me with data judgements and/or care-
ful comments. Besides most of the colleagues and friends just above, I mention Ana-Maria Barbu,
Verginica Barbu Mititelu, Gabriela Bˆılbˆıie, Anamaria Fa˘la˘us¸, Cristina Ionica˘, Dana Isac, Roxana
Maftei Ciola˘neanu, Ca˘ta˘lin Mititelu, Dafina Ra¸tiu, Oana Sa˘vescu Ciucivara, Elena Soare, and Dragos¸
Trica˘. Thank you for your patience with the tricky data and my persistent questions.
Finally, I have to mention the least obvious, but most powerful sources of energy for my emotional
survival through this process. First, I thank Cristina for her longstanding friendship despite time and
distance and for her tenacious faith in me at moments when I had almost given up myself. If not this,
I don’t know what a true friend is. Second, I thank my family, Bibi, Zaia, and Dadu, for encouraging
and accepting all my decisions, and especially for coping with the distance I had to put between me
and them to follow my dreams. Finally, I thank Dragos¸ for his love and support over these years, for
listening to endless complaints and processing more linguistics than he had ever imagined he could,
and I hope he will forgive my preference for John in the data.To my parentsShort table of contents
List of abbreviations vii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Negative concord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 The theoretical problem and two possible solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 The contribution of this thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 Theoretical background 9
2.1 Polyadic quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Romanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.3 HPSG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3 The semantic status of Romanian n-words 67
3.1 N-words and NC languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.2 Negation and NC in Romanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.3 N-words between NPIs and NQs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.4 The negative status of n-words and double negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.5 Scope properties of n-words as negative quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
4 Romanian NQs and NC. Towards a syntax-semantics 107
4.1 Iteration and negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
4.2 Romanian NC as resumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
4.3 Resumption and compositionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4.4 Conclusion and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
5 The HPSG analysis of Romanian NC: An LRS account 153
5.1 The representation language: Polyadic quantifiers inTy1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
5.2 Ty1 in RSRL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
5.3 LRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
5.4 NC as resumption in LRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
5.5 The analysis of the NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
5.6 Digression. A discussion on variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
5.7 Locality conditions on NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
5.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
iii SHORT TABLE OF CONTENTS
6 Comparison to other ap