LISSIM 6
June 1-15, 2012@ Kangra
Selected Essays
Negative Concord in Polish
Marcin Dadan
MPhil, DU
How did LISSIM 5 help in improved understanding of your research topic?
I arrived in Kangra in May 2011 with the idea of investigating the phenomenon of Negative Concord in Polish language taking the syntactic configuration into focus and trying to account for the different readings of multiple negative elements in various languages from the particular Minimalist perspective. What I learned during LISSIM 5, however, took me much further in my work and helped me to find the plausible answers to many of my doubts, questions, and observations. The main events that fed directly into my research work were the classes and personal appointments with Željko Bošković, the negation and polarity reading group with Utpal Lahiri, and classes taught by Norvin Richards. I am going to discuss all three of them in turn, albeit briefly.
The main claim explored in my work is that all the readings of negation with multiple negative constituents attested cross-linguistically are the output of the parameterized syntactic configurations computed dynamically through the means of ‘Phases’ (Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2008). The framework adopted, enabling the explanation of the phenomena I am working on, is broadly based on Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001,2008) with crucial later additions and modifications; in particular a certain restatementin the form of Phase Theory with reference to distinctions into the ‘rigid’ view of phases cross-linguistically: Chomsky’s 2000, 2001,2008 (‘once a phase, always a phase approach’) versus the‘dynamic’ view of phases: Den Dikken’s 2007; Gallego’s 2010; Bośković’s 2007, 2010 [the real cross-linguistic variation in terms of which projection constitutes a phasal head comes from the amount of structure above the major phrase heads, so any given phase head is affected by the syntactic context in which it is found, to the effect that the highest functional projection above the phrase head counts as a phase]; and Takahashi’s 2010, 2011 (UConn dissertation written under the supervision of Bošković)[contextual determination of phases based on the structural Case valuation; phases=bounding nodes for QR].The last two proposals constitute the foundation of the analysis put forward in the dissertation, and both were introduced to me during LISSIM 5.
The dynamic approaches to phases advocated by both Bošković and Takahashi (the jury is still out, however, as for the decision regarding the small conceptual differences between the two approaches and their faring as to the accounting for the facts encountered in languages I am investigating in my work) enabled me to account for the facts connected with the phenomenon of Genitive of Negation (GoN) in Slavic, as these views offer elegant model consistent with the Phase Theory. Genitive of Negation is an instance of structural Case targeting the internal argument of the negated predicate, which otherwise would have been valued as structural accusative.
(1) a. Jan zobaczyłto.
John.Nom saw it.Acc.
‘John saw it’
b.Jan nie zobaczył tego.
John.Nom neg saw it.Gen.
‘John didn’t see it.’
The use of Genitive of Negation and granting the projection NegP (generated right above the verbal projections and being the functional extension of the negative marker) the uninterpretable Case feature with the value [Genitive] leads to create a phase boundary in that part of the tree.The bond exemplified by NegP and the negative marker corresponds to some other, similar, affinities along the spine of the tree.
|
Edge/Phase |
uCase[] |
Shared with/assigned by |
|
CP /C |
Nom |
TP/T |
|
vP/v |
Acc |
VP/V |
|
NegP/NegH |
Gen
|
vP/v+negM
|
(2)
What we see, therefore, is a perfect example of the system programed in such a way, that its components are connected with each other through the chain of correspondences, and the design of the building blocks reflects the bigger structure; the fractal nature of syntax comes to light here.
MyMphil dissertation inspired by the teachings at LISSIM 5 aims at offering the analysis of negation, Negative Concord and n-constituents in language like Polish, with the view on extending the analysis to negation and Polarity in general. It provides the characterization of the negative marker and characterization of the nature of n-items as indefinites with no inherent negative and quantificational power of their own. I am trying to show that the existence of genitive structural Case in NC language like Polish is a way of strengthening the weakening negative marker (Jespersen 1917). Subscribing to the ‘dynamic’ version of the Phase Theory (especially Bośković 2007, 2010; and Takahashi 2010, 2011) manage to offer a plausible account of the derivation of the NC reading, in which all elements valued by neg are shipped to the interfaces in one chunk. This fact provides additional evidence for the interface-oriented function of Phases (Fox and Pesetsky 2005), with the Narrow Syntax able to ignore this division, as the Agree across phases (Bošković 2007) employed in the current system shows. I used Heim’s (1992) account of the indefinites as free variables and Diesing’s (1992) Mapping Hypothesis as the syntactic account of Heim’s system, updating both systems substantially by the inclusion of the contextual Phase Theory, and testing its repercussions for the QR along the lines of Takahashi’s (2010, 2011) observation of the Phases serving as the bounding nodes for the raise of the quantificational, or quantificationally enriched elements in grammar.
Also, the reading group led by Utpal Lahiri during last year’s LISSIM helped substantially to familiarize myself with the bulk of semantic literature on the Negative Polarity phenomena, and the fact that this instructor has been working on this subject himself created the opportunity to discuss my work with him during our appointments.
Finally, the classes with Norvin Richards dealing with wh-movement and prosody (and the influence of the realization of the former by the latter) convinced me to keep an eye on the importance of the PF while looking at syntax. It also inspired investigating flexibility of grammatical systems and mutual interpenetrations of structures and elements of the combinatorial engine of syntax with the external factors. The main phenomenon investigated in my research is the cyclical change captured by the negative cycle. If Jespersen (1917) was right in attributing this movement down the steps of the six stages he isolated to the phonological weakening of the negative marker, we have a very interesting example of how one of the interfaces (PF) is able to reach deep ‘down’ into the syntactic engine, and trigger certain feedback in its quite rigid structure.My dissertation shows that creating the phase boundary on the negative functional head is a way that the linguistic system can employ to prevent the loss of the way of negating predicate.
Concluding, LISSIM 5 was the experience of the absolutely unique value to me, which enabled me to learn from some of the finest scholars in their respective fields, interact with them personally, and what is the most important, being inspired by some of their ideas. All this convinces me to try to attend LISSIM 6, as the teaching faculty guarantees serious academic adventure once again.
REFERENCES
Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and Motivation of Move and Agree: an even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38(4): 589-644.
Bošković, Željko.2010. Phases beyond clauses. Available on :
http://web2.uconn.edu/boskovic/papers/NPPhase.Revised1.pdf. Accessed on 02.09.2011.
Bošković, Željko.2011. LISSIM 5 Handouts. Kangra, May/June 2011.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On Phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133-166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dikken, Marcel den. 2007. Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33:1-41.
Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky.2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1-45.
Gallego, Angel. 2010.Phase Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Heim, Irene .1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and other Languages. Copenhagen: A.F.Hřst.
Richards,Norvin. 2010. Uttering Trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Richards, Norvin.2011. Prosody and Syntax. LISSIM 5 Handouts. Kangra, May/June 2011.
Takahashi, Masahiko. 2010. Case, phases, and nominative/accusative conversion in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19: 319-355.
Takahashi, Masahiko. 2011. Some theoretical consequences of Case-marking in Japanese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut.
For enquiries, write to
secretary@fosssil.in
|
|
Skype Interview |
|
|
Interview List |
|
|
Latest News |
|
|
LISSIM 6 Page |
|
|
Home |