Establishing the limits between Polarity Sensitivity, Negative Polarity and Negative Concord

IF 1.7 2区文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS

Linguistic Typology Pub Date : 2024-04-04 DOI:10.1515/lingty-2022-0083

Urtzi Etxeberria, M. Espinal, Susagna Tubau

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, by focussing on the behaviour of polarity elements from a variety of languages from different language families (namely, Basque, Hindi, English, Romanian, Spanish, Greek, Czech, and Russian) we investigate the relationship between Polarity Sensitive Items (PSIs) and Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) on the one hand, and between PSIs and Negative Concord items (NCIs) on the other. Based on a number of contrasts that we find, we argue that: (i) if a language has PSIs it does not necessarily have NCIs; (ii) PSIs need to be distinguished from NPIs; (iii) NCIs emerge as a subtype of PSIs, not of NPIs; and (iv) all languages that show Negative Concord (NC) also have Polarity Sensitivity (PS), but the opposite does not hold. We thus postulate that PS is a general phenomenon across languages with Negative Polarity (NPol) and NC as possible subtypes of PS but independent among them, and argue against the standard hypothesis that NC is a special subtype of NPol.

查看原文本刊更多论文

确定极性灵敏度、负极性和负协之间的界限

在本文中，我们重点研究了来自不同语系（即巴斯克语、印地语、英语、罗马尼亚语、西班牙语、希腊语、捷克语和俄语）的多种语言中极性要素的行为，一方面研究了极性敏感词（PSI）和负极性词（NPI）之间的关系，另一方面研究了极性敏感词（PSI）和负协和词（NCI）之间的关系。根据我们发现的一些对比，我们认为(i) 如果一种语言有 PSI，那么它不一定有 NCI；(ii) PSI 需要与 NPI 区分开来；(iii) NCI 是 PSI 的一种子类型，而不是 NPI 的一种子类型；(iv) 所有显示出 Negative Concord（NC）的语言也有极性敏感性（PS），但反之则不成立。因此，我们推测极性敏感性是所有语言的普遍现象，负极性（NPol）和 NC 是极性敏感性的可能子类型，但在它们之间是独立的，并反驳了 NC 是 NPol 的特殊子类型的标准假设。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Linguistic Typology Multiple-

CiteScore

3.70

自引率

5.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Linguistic Typology provides a forum for all work of relevance to the study of language typology and cross-linguistic variation. It welcomes work taking a typological perspective on all domains of the structure of spoken and signed languages, including historical change, language processing, and sociolinguistics. Diverse descriptive and theoretical frameworks are welcomed so long as they have a clear bearing on the study of cross-linguistic variation. We welcome cross-disciplinary approaches to the study of linguistic diversity, as well as work dealing with just one or a few languages, as long as it is typologically informed and typologically and theoretically relevant, and contains new empirical evidence.