Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T05:29:44.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Polarity Subjunctives in German and Russian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Kjell Johan Sæbø
Kjell Johan Sæbø*
Affiliation:
University of Oslo
*
[k.j.sabo@ilos.uio.no]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Subjunctives are typically used in intensional, or modal, contexts to talk about possible worlds, but they can also be licensed in negative contexts. While prior work has sought to unify these ‘polarity’ subjunctives with ‘intensional’ subjunctives, in this article I build a case that they represent, in German and Russian at least, a distinct use as negative polarity items (NPIs). This usage fills a gap in the typology of NPIs: unlike known items such as any or ever, which are taken to activate alternatives consisting of individuals, eventualities, or times, these items activate alternatives consisting of worlds.

Keywords

subjunctive moodnegative polarityNPIsGermanRussian

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 99 , Issue 2 , June 2023 , pp. 317 - 350
Copyright
Copyright © 2023 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

B-Violette, Laurence. 2019. The development of the polarity subjunctive in Romance languages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation. Online: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:42029737.Google Scholar
Baker, Carl Leroy. 1970. Double negatives. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 169–86. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177551.Google Scholar
Barker, Chris. 2018. Negative polarity as scope marking. Linguistics and Philosophy 41. 483–510. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-018-9234-2.10.1007/s10988-018-9234-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondarenko, Tanya. 2021. When clauses are weak NPIs: Polarity subjunctives in Russian. Handout of paper presented at the MECORE Kickoff Workshop, University of Edinburgh. Online: http://tbond.scripts.mit.edu/tb/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/polarity-subjunctives-2021.pdf.Google Scholar
Čermáková, Jaroslava. 2007. Emploi libre et emploi imposé du subjonctif. Brno: Masarykova Univerzita master's thesis. Online: https://is.muni.cz/th/125225/ff_b/subj.pdf.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697977.001.0001.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697977.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro, Fox, Danny; and Spector, Benjamin. 2012. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 3, ed. by Maienborn, Claudia, Heusinger, Klaus von, and Portner, Paul, 2297–2332. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris, and Postal, Paul M.. 2014. Classical NEG raising: An essay on the syntax of negation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crnič, Luka. 2014. Non-monotonicity in NPI licensing. Natural Language Semantics 22. 169–217. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-014-9104-6.10.1007/s11050-014-9104-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crnič, Luka. 2019. Any: Logic, likelihood, and context (Pt 2). Language and Linguistics Compass 13. 121–56. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12353.Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte. 2010. Expression and interpretation of negation: An OT typology. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-3162-4.10.1007/978-90-481-3162-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrushina, Nina Rolandovna. 2010. Subjunctive in Russian relative clauses. Oslo Studies in Language 2. 181–210. DOI: 10.5617/osla.124.10.5617/osla.124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrushina, Nina Rolandovna. 2016. Soslagatel'noe naklonenie v russkom jazyke: Opyt issledovanija grammatičeskoj semantiki. Praha: Animedia Company.Google Scholar
Mojmír, Dočekal, and Dotlačil, Jakub. 2016. Experimental evidence for neg-raising in Slavic. Linguistica 56. 93–109. DOI: 10.4312/linguistica.56.1.93-109.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2012. The many careers of negative polarity items. Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections, ed. by Davidse, Kristin, Breban, Tine, Brems, Lieselotte, and Mortelmans, Tanja, 299–326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.130.12eckCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabregas, Antonio. 2014. A guide to subjunctive and modals in Spanish: Questions and analyses. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 3. 1–94. DOI: 10.7557/1.3.2.3064.10.7557/1.3.2.3064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine, Solfjeld, Kåre; and Pitz, Anneliese. 2018. Der Konjunktiv: Formen und Spielräume. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1985. Intensional descriptions and the Romance subjunctive mood. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1992. On the semantics of subjunctive complements. Romance languages and modern linguistic theory: Selected papers from the XX Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. by Hirschbühler, Paul and Koerner, Konrad, 69–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.91.07farCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 2003. Assertion, belief and mood choice. Paper presented at the Workshop on Conditional and Unconditional Modality, ESSLLI, Vienna. Online: https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mM5MDYwY/farkasmood.pdf.Google Scholar
Forßmann, Juliane (ed.) 2009. Hueber Wörterbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache: Student's dictionary. Ismaning: Hueber.Google Scholar
Gajewski, Jon R. 2005. Neg-raising: Polarity and presupposition. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/33696.Google Scholar
Gajewski, Jon R. 2011. Licensing strong NPIs. Natural Language Semantics 19. 109–48. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-010-9067-1.10.1007/s11050-010-9067-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2007. Existential import. Existence: Semantics and syntax, ed. by Comorovski, Ileana and Heusinger, Klaus von, 253–71. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6197-4_9.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1995. Subjunctive, habituality and negative polarity items. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 5. 4–112. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v5i0.2703.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/la.23.10.1075/la.23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2011. (Non)veridicality and mood choice: Subjunctive, polarity, and time. Tense across languages, ed. by Musan, Renate and Rathert, Monika, 59–90. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI: 10.1515/9783110267020.59.10.1515/9783110267020.59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Quer, Josep. 1997. Long-distance licensing of negative indefinites. Negation and polarity: Syntax and semantics: Selected papers from the colloquium Negation: Syntax and Semantics, ed. by Forget, Danielle, Hirschbühler, Paul, Martineau, France, and Rivero, María Luisa, 95–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hedin, Eva. 2016. Negation and modality: A study of some epistemic predicates in Modern Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 16. 155–80. DOI: 10.1163/15699846-01602001.10.1163/15699846-01602001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1962. Knowledge and belief: An introduction to the logic of the two notions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Homer, Vincent. 2008. Disruption of NPI licensing: The case of presuppositions. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 18. 429–46. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v18i0.2483.Google Scholar
Homer, Vincent. 2020. Negative polarity. The Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics, ed. by Gutzmann, Daniel, Matthewson, Lisa, Meier, Cécile, Rullmann, Hotze, and Zimmermann, Ede. London: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781118788516.sem057.Google Scholar
Homer, Vincent. 2021. Domains of polarity items. Journal of Semantics 38. 1–48. DOI: 10.1093/jos/ffaa006.10.1093/jos/ffaa006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1978. Remarks on neg-raising. Syntax and semantics, vol. 9: Pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 129–220. New York: Academic Press. DOI: 10.1163/9789004368873_007.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 2014. The cloud of unknowing. Black book: A festschrift in honor of Frans Zwarts, ed. by Hoeksema, Jack and Gilbers, Dicky, 178–96. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 231–70. DOI: 10.1162/002438900554352.10.1162/002438900554352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, Olga. 2013. Semantics of genitive objects in Russian: A study of genitive of negation and intensional genitive case. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-5225-2.10.1007/978-94-007-5225-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klapheke, Alexander, and Davidson, Kathryn. 2019. NPI intervention: Crosslinguistic data. Proceedings of Linguistic Evidence 2018: Experimental data drives linguistic theory, 85–100. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen. DOI: 10.15496/publikation-32629.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1969. A syntactic argument for negative transportation. Chicago Linguistic Society 5. 140–47.Google Scholar
Lindholm, Robin. 1969. Negative raising and sentence pronominalization. Chicago Linguistic Society 5. 148–58.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1980. Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic but were ashamed to ask. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1981. The syntax and semantics of English relative clauses. Lingua 53. 99–149. DOI: 10.1016/0024-3841(81)90014-0.10.1016/0024-3841(81)90014-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 1994. Attitude reports, events, and partial models. New York: CUNY, Graduate Center, ms. Online: http://www.friederike-moltmann.com/pdf/attitudes.pdf.Google Scholar
Morzycki, Marcin. 2021. Structure and ontology in nonlocal readings of adjectives. Concepts, frames and cascades in semantics, cognition and ontology, ed. by Löbner, Sebastian, Gamerschlag, Thomas, Kalenscher, Tobias, Schrenk, Markus, and Zeevat, Henk, 65–99. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-50200-3_4.10.1007/978-3-030-50200-3_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obrembalski, Mark. 2008. Untersuchungen zu negativ-polaren Verben im Deutschen. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen master's thesis. Online: http://www.obrembalski.de/verben_als_polaritaetselemente.pdf.Google Scholar
Paducheva, Elena V. 2006. Genitiv dopolnenija v otricatel'nom predloženii. Voprosy jazykoznanija 6. 21–43.Google Scholar
Paducheva, Elena V. 2015. Suspended assertion and nonveridicality: The case of Russian negative polarity items. Russian Linguistics 39. 129–62. DOI: 10.1007/s11185-015-9145-6.Google Scholar
Panzeri, Francesca. 2008. Subjunctive relative clauses. Proceedings of the 2004 Texas Linguistics Society Conference, 60–68. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/tls/2004/abstract1506.html.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara Hall. 1973. The semantics of belief-sentences. Approaches to natural language, ed. by Hintikka, Jaakko, Moravcsik, Julius, and Suppes, Patrick, 309–36. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-010-2506-5_18.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara Hall. 2008. Negation, intensionality, and aspect: Interaction with NP semantics. Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, ed. by Rothstein, Susan, 291–317. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.110.12parCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penka, Doris. 2020. Negative and positive polarity items. The Cambridge handbook of Germanic linguistics, part IV: Semantics and pragmatics, ed. by Putnam, Michael and Page, Richard, 639–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781108378291.028.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 1997. The semantics of mood, complementation, and conversational force. Natural Language Semantics 5. 167–212. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008280630142.10.1023/A:1008280630142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2018. Mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quer, Josep. 1997. In the cause of subjunctive. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1997. 171–82. DOI: 10.1075/avt.14.17que.Google Scholar
Quer, Josep. 1998. Mood at the interface. Utrecht: Utrecht University dissertation. Online: https://www.lotpublications.nl/mood-at-the-interface.Google Scholar
Quer, Josep. 2001. Interpreting mood. Probus 13. 81–111. DOI: 10.1515/prbs.13.1.81.10.1515/prbs.13.1.81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, Frank, and Radó, Janina, 2014. Negative polarity in German: Some experimental results. Journal of Semantics 31. 43–65. DOI: 10.1093/jos/ffs023.10.1093/jos/ffs023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauerland, Uli, and Yatsushiro, Kazuko. 2023. Domain size matters: An exceptive that forms strong NPIs. The size of things II: Movement, features, and interpretation, ed. by Shen, Zheng and Laszakovits, Sabine. Berlin: Language Science, to appear.Google Scholar
Schaebbicke, Katharina, Seeliger, Heiko; and Repp, Sophie. 2021. The diverse landscape of negative polarity items: On the use of German NPIs as experimental diagnostics. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 50. 1461–18. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-021-09793-0.10.1007/s10936-021-09793-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smirnova, Anastasia. 2011. Evidentiality and mood: Grammatical expressions of epistemic modality in Bulgarian. Columbus: The Ohio State University dissertation. Online: http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1306917645.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. 1987. Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content. Philosophical Topics 15. 47–87. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43153993.10.5840/philtopics198715112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sočanac, Tomislav. 2017. Subjunctive complements in Slavic languages: A syntax-semantics interface approach. Geneva: University of Geneva dissertation. DOI: 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:98563.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1993. Syntax of tense. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, ms.Google Scholar
van Rooij, Rob, and Schulz, Katrin. 2007. Only: Meaning and implicatures. Questions in dynamic semantics, ed. by Aloni, Maria, Butler, Alastair, and Dekker, Paul, 193–223. Leiden: Brill. DOI: 10.1163/9780080470993_010.10.1163/9780080470993_010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 1999. NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics 16. 97–148. DOI: 10.1093/jos/16.2.97.10.1093/jos/16.2.97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2007. Modal concord. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 17. 317–32. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v17i0.2961.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2017. Universal quantifier PPIs. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2(1):91. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.220.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger; and Strecker, Bruno. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110872163.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Frans. 1998. Three types of polarity. Plural quantification, ed. by Hamm, Fritz and Hinrichs, Erhard, 177–238. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-017-2706-8_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar