OXFORD STUDIES IN THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS GENERAL EDITORS: David Adger, Queen Mary College London; Hagit Borer, University of Southern California ADVISORY EDITORS: Stephen Anderson, Yale University; Daniel Biiring, Uni versity of California, Los Angeles; Nomi Erteschik-Shir, Ben-Gurion University; Donka Farkas, University of California, Santa Cruz; Angelika Kratzer, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Andrew Nevins, Harvard University; Christopher Potts, University of Massachusetts, Amherst;Barry Schein, University of Southern Cal�for nia; Peter Svenonius, University of Tromso; Moira Yip, University College London RECENT TITLES 13 Aspect and Reference Time by OlgaBorik 14 Direct Compositionality edited by ChrisBarker and Pauline Jacobson 15 A Natural History of Infixation by Alan C. Yu 16 Phi-Theory Phi-Features Across Interfaces and Modules edited by Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and SusanaBej ar 17 French Dislocation Interpretation, Syntax, Acquisition by Cecile De Cat 18 Inflectional Identity edited by AsafBachrach and Andrew Nevins 19 Adjectives and Adverbs Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse edited by Louise McNally and Christopher Kennedy 20 Lexical Plurals by Paolo Acquaviva 21 InterPhases Phase-Theoretic Investigations of Linguistic Interfaces edited by Kleanthes Grohmann 22 Negation in Gapping by Sophie Repp 23 A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure by Luis L6pez 24 Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization edited by Anastasia Giannakidou and Monika Rathert PUBLISHED IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE SERIES The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces edited by Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss For a complete list of titles published and in preparation for the series, see PP·267-8. Negation in Gapping SOPHIE REPP OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS OXFORD UNIV1lRSITY PRESS Great Clarendon Street, Oxford oX2 6DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Sophie Repp 2009 The moral rights ofthe author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) 2009 First published All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by the MPG Books Group ISBN 97S-{)-19 -9 ISBN 978-{)-19 -9 5 1 3 5 7 9 1OS 6 42 Contents General Preface vii Acknowledgements Vlll Abbreviations x 1 Introduction 1 1.1 The problem and outline of the book 1 1.2 Some basic features of gapping 5 1.3 Theories of gapping 15 1.4 Summary and sketch of the proposal 38 2 The syntax of clausal negation: The distributed scope readings in main verb gapping 42 2.1 Clausal negation in English and German 45 2.2 Adjuncts in gapping 66 2.3 The syntax of gapping: Proposal 71 3 The right kind of contrast: Narrow scope readings 83 3.2 And and the principle ofbalanced contrast 102 3-3 Auxiliary gapping and contrasting vPs 106 3.5 Summary 148 4 Negation and the speech act 149 4.1 Corrections and corrective but: More narrow scope readings 149 4.2 The wide scope readings 171 5 Finiteness in gapping 207 5.3 Anchoring and gapping 229 6 Summary 232 References 235 Index 263 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 General Preface The theoretical focus ofthis series is on the interfaces between subcomponents of the human grammatical system and the closely related area of the interfaces between the different subdisciplines oflinguistics. The notion of 'interface' has become central in grammatical theory (for instance, in Chomsky's recent Min imalist Program) and in linguistic practice: work on the interfaces between syntax: and semantics, syntax: and morphology, phonology and phonetics, etc. has led to a deeper understanding of particular linguistic phenomena and of the architecture of the linguistic component of the mindlbrain.
The series covers interfaces between core components of grammar, including syntax/morphology, syntax/semantics, syntax/phonology, syntax/ pragmatics, morphology/phonology, phonology/phonetics, phonetics/speech processing, semantics/pragmatics, intonation/discourse structure as well as issues in the way that the systems of grammar involving these interface areas are acquired and deployed in use (including language acquisition, lan guage dysfunction, and language processing). It demonstrates, we hope, that proper understandings of particular linguistic phenomena, languages, lan guage groups, or inter-language variations all require reference to interfaces. The series is open to work by linguists of all theoretical persuasions and schools of thought. A main requirement is that authors should write so as to be understood by colleagues in related subfields of linguistics and by scholars in cognate disciplines.
In this volume Sophie Repp uses the behaviour of negation in gapping sentences as a probe into the interaction between the syntactic computation and the interface systems. She shows that certain principles of the interpre tation of conjunction are crucial to understanding apparently core syntactic and semantic facts, and argues that a true understanding of the phenomenon requires a theory which details the interaction of syntactic and non-syntactic processes and constraints. David Adger Hagit Borer Acknowledgements This book is a revised version of my doctoral dissertation, which I filed in September 2005 at the Humboldt University, Berlin. Therefore I want to thank especially my three supervisors Chris Wilder, Manfred Krifka, and Gisbert Fanselow.
Chris as a great specialist in ellipsis helped to me look for the right questions and to recognize intriguing problems at a time when I was quite new to the field. I benefited enormously from Manfred's very careful reading of the chapters as I developed them, his many insightful comments and discussion of the implications of my analyses. The study has improved considerably with his help. When Chris had left Berlin, Gisbert, I am glad, also agreed to come on board for my supervision, discussed many syntactic details with me and always reminded me not to forget the great picture over all the little details.
For long discussions of data and theories, I would like to thank especially Andreas Haida, who met up with me time and again and never grew tired of discussing yet another twist to a problem, yet another curious set of data, and very happily and critically commented on what I had written. The book in its present form would not be what it is without the careful reading and very constructive criticism of Katharina Hartmann and Jason Merchant, who reviewed the book for publication. Both of them insisted on a clear explication of my ideas and stringent argumentation which I hope to have supplied. Both of them also were happy to discuss my work beyond the reviewing stage, for which I would like to thank them as well.
I have also benefited greatly from meetings with my colleagues in the Berlin Potsdam linguistics community, including the DFG-funded graduate school 'Economy and Complexity in Language� where I started, as well as the DFG funded Collaborative Research Centre on information structure, where I am a researcher at present, and the Centre for General Linguistics (ZAS). I thank especially Ewald Lang, Holden Hartl, Stefan Hinterwimmer, Roland Hinter h6lz1, Ljudmila Geist, Greg Kobele, as well as Marcela Adamikova, Joanna Blaszczak, Philippa Cook, Cornelia Endriss, Caroline Fery, Werner Frey, Silke Hamann, Thomas Holder, and Sue Olsen. In the wider world, I received very valuable comments from and could discuss my work with Petra Hendrilcs, Kyle Johnson, Jennifer Spenader, Carla Umbach, Susanne Winkler as well as audiences in Cologne, Edinburgh, Manchester, Oslo, Ottawa, Stockholm, and Tiibingen. Acknowledgements IX For generously helping me with native speaker judgements, I would like to thank especially Marcela Adamikova, Jeroen Aspeslagh, Joanna Blaszczak, Dirk Burger, Doreen Bryant, Philippa Cook, Leen Croenen, Nicole Dehe, Eva Engels, Sachiko Hara-Francke, Andreas Haida, Silke Hamann, Stefan Hinterwimmer, Claes Hvilsted-Olsen, Ljudmila Geist, Beata Gyuris, Holden Hartl, Geert van Hout, Nick Hubble, Keri Jones, Jessica Jones, Judith de Jong, Kris Lauwerijs, Leman Mutlu, Robert Schuster, Ichiko Takashima Gitschmann, Chris Wright, Yuko Yoshida, and many others.
For assisting me with formatting and references, I would like to thank Christian Krause. Parts of Chapter 4 appeared as Repp (2006) and are reproduced with kind permission from Springer Science and Business Media. The book is dedicated to a certain film maker, who thinks that linguistics is a crazy subject. Sophie Repp List of Abbreviations ACC accusative Agr agreement AgrP agreement phrase ATB across-the-board ConP conjunction phrase CORR correction CP COMP (complementizer) phrase CSC coordinate structure constraint CT contrastive topic DAT dative DP determiner phrase DUR durative E-feature ellipsis-feature EPP extended projection principle FEM feminine FocP focus phrase FP functional projection H high HPSG head-driven phrase structure grammar IP inflection phrase L low LF logical form MASC masculine NEG negative NegP negation phrase NOM nominative NP noun phrase List ofAbbreviations Xl NPI negative polarity item PART particle PBe principle of balanced contrast PERF perfective PF phonetic form PolP polarity phrase PoI1P polarity phrase 1 PolzP polarity phrase 2 Pos positive PPI positive polarity item PredP predicate phrase REFL reflexive RNR right node raising Spec specifier SUBJ subject TOP topic TP tense phrase vP light V-phrase VP verb phrase VPE verb phrase ellipsis \ falling accent / rising accent 1 Introduction 1.1 The problem and outline of the book This book investigates the behaviour of the negation in gapping, which will be shown to be of a rather changeable nature.
Attention will focus on gapping sentences that contain a negative marker in the first conjunct, which in the second conjunct is-or seems to be-elided. In such sentences, the negation can be interpreted in three different ways. In some environments, the second conjunct, just like the first, is interpreted as negative. An example for this is given in (1.
Such cases can be considered the default case in ellipsis in general: what is elided in the second conjunct, is taken to be identical to an antecedent in the first conjunct.1a), this is hasn't got. I shall call such readings distributed scope readings. In other environments, the negation scopes over the whole coordination, that is the negation takes wide scope. This is illustrated in (1.
There are special conditions on the intonational realization of this reading.1b) to be felicitous, it must be read as a single intonational phrase without a pause between the conjuncts. In addition, there must be an accent on the auxiliary. In the default distributed scope reading, on the other hand, the two conjuncts are realized as two individual intona tional phrases, the verb is deaccented and the contrast pairs are highlighted by accents. I shall come back to the details of this later.
Note that a wide scope reading is also available for (1.1a) if read with the appropriate intonation.1b) cannot receive a distributed scope reading even if the into nation is the appropriate one. The difference between (1.1b) is that in the latter only the auxiliary and the negation are elided whereas the former also elides the main verb. It seems that auxiliary gapping only allows a wide scope reading (Johnson 199612003). A third possibility for the interpretation of the negation in the first conjunct is what I shall call here narrow scope.