Abstract
In this paper, I explore the possibility of understanding locality restrictions on the distribution of Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) as a consequence of covert movement. The present proposal restates Linebarger’s Immediate Scope Constraint in terms of morphology-driven checking requirements. These requirements cannot be met if a blocking element intervenes between the NPI feature and its morphosemantic licenser at Logical Form (LF). The empirical generalization is that the class of NPI ‘blocking expressions’ (a.k.a. ‘interveners’) overlaps to a large extent with interveners identified in wh-questions. Therefore, the same grammatical checking mechanisms operating in that domain, rather than the presence of an implicature, are here shown to be responsible both for apparent violations to Linebarger’s constraint (contra Linebarger) and for intervention effects (contra Krifka, 1995, and Chierchia, 2004). This approach is argued to be superior on empirical grounds as it predicts facts that are left unaccounted for in a theory like Linebarger’s, where pragmatics rescues otherwise ill-formed structures. In addition, the proposal allows us to view the locality constraints operating in the domain of NPI-licensing as an instance of more general (though yet to be fully understood) principles of the grammar whose effects are attested in other domains, such as wh-questions in German, Discourselinked (D-linked) wh-questions in English, and Negative Concord (NC) configurations (e.g. in Italian and French).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aoun J., Hornstein N. (1985). Quantifiers types. Linguistic Inquiry, 16(4): 623–637
Beck S. (1996a). Quantified structures as barriers for LF-movement. Natural Language Semantics, 4: 1–56
Beck S. (1996b). Wh-constructions and transparent logical form. PhD dissertation, Universität Tübingen.
Bruening B. (2001). QR obeys superiority: ACD and frozen scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(2): 233–273
Chierchia G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In: Belletti A. (eds). Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 3. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 39–103
Chierchia, G. (2005). Broaden your views. Implicatures of domain widening and the ‘logicality’ of language. Unpublished manuscript. Milan: University of Bicocca.
Chomsky N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press
Dayal V. (1998). Any as inherently modal. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21: 433–476
von Fintel K. (1999). NPI-licensing, Strawson-entailment and context dependency. Journal of Semantics, 16(2): 97–148
Fox, D. (1999). Focus, parallelism and accommodation. Paper presented at the 9th conference on semantics and linguistic theory, UC Santa Cruz, February 1999.
Giannakidou, A. (1997). The landscape of polarity items. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen (Published by GRODIL, Groningen).
Guerzoni, E. (2003). Why even ask? On the pragmatics of questions and the semantics of answers. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (Published by GLSA, Amherst, Mass.).
Heim I. (1984). A note on negative polarity and downward entailingness. In: Jones C., Sells P. (eds). Proceedings of the 14th North Eastern Linguistic Society meeting. Amherst, GLSA, pp. 98–107
Honcoop, M. (1998). Dynamic excursions on weak islands. PhD Dissertation, Universiteit Leiden. Available at: http://www.ulcl.leidenuniv.nl/content_docs/faculty/honcoop.
Kadmon N., Landman F. (1993). Any. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 353–422
Karttunen L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(3): 3–44
Karttunen, L., & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicature. In Syntax and semantics 11: Presuppositions (pp. 1–56).
Kelepir, M. (2000). Scope of negation: Evidence from Turkish NPIs and quantifiers. Paper presented at the 2nd Generative Linguistics of the Old World meeting (GLOW) in Asia, Nagoya, Japan, September 2000.
Kennedy C. (1997). Antecedent contained deletion and the syntax of quantification. Linguistic Inquiry, 28: 662–688
Kim, S-S. (2002). Focus matters: Two types of intervention effects. Paper presented at the 21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, UC, Santa Cruz, April 2002.
Kratzer, A., & Shimoyama, J. (2002). Indeterminate noun phrases: The view form Japanese. Paper presented at The 3rd Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics, Tokyo, 2000.
Krifka M. (1995). The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis, 25(3–4): 209–257
Kroch, A. S. (1974). The semantics of scope in English. PhD Dissertation, MIT (Published by MITWPL, Cambridge, Mass.).
Ladusaw, W. (1979). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relation. PhD Dissertation, University of Texas.
Lahiri U. (1998). Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics, 6: 57–123
Larson R. (1985). On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3: 217–264
Larson R., May R. (1990). Antecedent containment or vacuous movement: Reply to Baltin. Linguistic Inquiry, 21: 103–122
Linebarger, M. C. (1981). The grammar of negative polarity. PhD dissertation, MIT (Published by MITWPL. Cambridge, Mass).
Linebarger M.C. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10: 325–387
Pesetsky D. (2000). Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge Mass, MIT Press
Progovaé L. (1994). Negative and positive polarity: A binding approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (Published by GLSA, Amherst, Mass).
Rooth M., Partee B. (1982). Conjunction, type ambiguity and wide scope or. In: Flickinger D., Macken M., Wiegand N. (eds). Proceedings of the 1st West Coast conference on formal linguistics. Somerville, Cascadilla Press, pp. 353–362
Ruys, E. (1993). The scope of indefinites. PhD dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht.
Sag, I. (1976). Deletion and logical form. PhD dissertation, MIT (Published by MITWPL, Cambridge, Mass).
Sauerland U. (2004). Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27: 367–391
Sohn, K.-W. (1995). Negative polarity items. Scope and economy. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Valencia, V. S. (1996). Polarity, predicates and monotonicity. Unpublished manuscript, Universiteit Groningen.
Winter, J. (2000). On some scopal asymmetries of coordination. In H. Bennis & M. Everaert (Eds.), Interface strategies. Amsterdam: KNAW.
Zwarts F. (1996). Facets of negation. In: Van der Does J., Van Eijk J. (eds). Quantifiers, logic and language. Stanford, CSLI, pp. 385–421
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
My greatest thanks go to Kai von Fintel, Danny Fox, Jon Gajewski, Martin Hackl, Irene Heim, and David Pesetsky for their very generous help, extremely valuable comments, and support during various stages of development of this paper. Many thanks also to Gennaro Chierchia for his comments on an early draft of this work. I would also like to thank the two NALS reviewers for very constructive feedback and insightful questions which helped improve this paper and restate more clearly its contribution to the study of intervention effects. Thanks also to the audience and the organizers of CONSOLE 8, where part of this paper was presented in 1998.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Guerzoni, E. Intervention effects on NPIs and feature movement: towards a unified account of intervention. Nat Lang Semantics 14, 359–398 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9008-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9008-9