This volume combines extensive empirical coverage with advanced theoretical analysis. It covers an impressive number of languages, including endangered ones, and spans methodology from elicitation and corpus studies to experimental work. The contributions also encompass various theoretical issues regarding Negative Concord (NC): What is the syntax of negation in NC languages? What distinguishes Negative Concord Items (NCIs) and Negative Polarity Items (NPIs)? What makes a phrase an NCI? What is the locality profile of NC? This volume brings us one step closer to answering these questions.
In Chapter 1, the editors introduce the volume by reviewing theoretical approaches to the crucial issues that have been raised with respect to NC. Firstly, the status of negative (concord) items, often called neg-words in the NC literature. There are two sub-issues here: (i) whether the negative items are semantically negative, or just have to be licensed by the negative operator like NPIs; (ii) whether, again like NPIs, they are a kind of indefinite in the scope of negation, or if they have universal quantificational force.
After the discussion of earlier approaches, the chapter turns to the treatment of neg-words as non-negative items, which is the more widespread view nowadays. Though this is a discussion of the neg items’ semantic properties, it has direct consequences for narrow syntax. As outlined in Chapter 1, and amply illustrated in other contributions of the volume (Chapter 2 for East Slavic languages, Chapter 4 for Czech, Chapter 5 for Slovenian, Chapter 6 for Vepsian, Chapter 8 for Meadow Mari), neg-words in NC are not parallel to NPIs: they show a different distribution.
The lack of semantic negativity together with the insufficiency of a semantic account (i.e., treatment along with NPIs) are the motivations behind the syntactic approach to NC (Zeijlstra Reference Zeijlstra2004) that is presented in Chapter 1. In this framework, NC is modeled through Agree: the neg-item bears an uninterpretable [uNeg] feature that needs to be checked against the interpretable [iNeg] feature on the negative operator. A typological matter that this theory aims to account for is the split of NC languages into strict and non-strict NC. In strict NC, all neg-words need a negative marker in order to be licensed. In non-strict NC, post-verbal neg-words also require licensing, while pre-verbal neg-words do not, and can license the post-verbal neg-words themselves. In Zeijlstra’s theory, this variation comes down to whether the negative marker bears [iNeg] (non-strict), or is a negative concord item itself and bears [uNeg] (strict). In strict NC, the negative operator is always inserted in the left periphery, licensing all neg-words and the negative marker. In non-strict NC, the negative operator is only inserted at the left periphery as a last resort in case of a pre-verbal neg-word.
The authors outline a few possible challenges for a syntactic account. Firstly, an Agree-based account brings in the associated locality expectations. As the authors note, this account can conflict with some versions of phase theory: if vP is a phase, neg-words within it may not be accessible for the negation probe higher in the structure. Even more problematic, according to the authors, are the widespread cases of long-distance NC, where negation licenses neg-words inside an infinitive across a clause boundary. I should add that many such recorded cases may be instances of restructuring, because the matrix predicates in examples of long-distance NC, including the ones presented in Chapter 8 of this volume, tend to be restructuring predicates (Grano Reference Grano2015 shows this for Italian and Greek). That is not to exclude long-distance NC from the list of potential challenges. To my knowledge, at least in Russian, long-distance NC is attested with non-restructuring control complements. Aside from locality, the second potential challenge the authors bring up are the double negation readings arising with two negative markers in strict NC languages. This could be salvaged by postulating a sort of one null negative operator per one overt negative marker rule. To make matters worse, however, in some corners of strict NC even neg-words can invoke double negation readings in the presence of negation (McMahon & Pember Reference McMahon and Pember2022).
The theoretical review is carefully constructed to familiarize the reader with the theoretical significance of the issues that the following chapters investigate: the status of negative items and negative markers in NC languages, and the typology of their distribution. It is followed by a typological overview of NC patterns.
In Chapter 2, Tsedryk insightfully points out that most theoretical work on NC tends to treat NCIs as a whole and rarely takes a compositional approach. Tsedryk investigates the distribution of the particle ni (the element responsible for the NCI status of wh-based neg-words and other neg-phrases) in Belorussian, Russian, and Ukrainian. He proposes that ni is an operator that takes a set of alternatives and returns an empty set. This is a semantic analysis that also does an important job for any Agree-based syntactic analysis of NC. It constrains the space of possible [uNeg] bearers (to empty sets). This is necessary because, as Tsedryk shows, ni cannot just attach to any phrase and form a grammatical sentence in the presence of negation: ni doesn’t just spell out [uNeg] but has a semantic denotation that restricts what kinds of phrases can be combined with it. The proposal in Chapter 2 also allows the author to account for cases of free-standing NCIs.
In Chapter 3, Ruda and Witkoś use ellipsis as a diagnostic to examine two morpho-syntactic phenomena typical of negative contexts: NC and Genitive of Negation (GoN). Although descriptively both are talked about as occurring under sentential negation, Chapter 3 shows that in Polish their properties differ. GoN can be bled by ellipsis and movement, unlike NC. In turn, NCIs are not licensed under expletive negation, while GoN is fine in that context. The authors conclude that two different heads are responsible for GoN (Σ/Neg) and NC (Pol). Using ellipsis, they determine that Σ/Neg is merged lower in the clause, below T, while Pol, hosting the negative operator, is merged above the Tense Phrase (TP) and immediately below the Complementizer Phrase (CP). In addition to strengthening the evidence base for the view that the negative marker in strict NC languages is not isomorphic with the negative operator, this two-head proposal is a valuable result for the discussion of the relationship between the morpho-syntactic and semantic aspects of NCI licensing.
Chapter 4 is an example of high-level experimental work. Dočekal and Dotlačil notice that the licensing contexts for NCIs bear close similarity to those of strong NPIs (negation, the preposition without). They conduct experiments to answer two questions: (i) whether NC languages have a separate class of strong NPI; and (ii) whether, if so, there is significant inter-speaker variation in the treatment of those strong NPIs. The experiments were aimed at comparing the behavior of ani ‘even’ (a potential NPI), and žádný ‘any’ (an NCI). The results showed they differ in ability to appear in certain contexts exactly as to be expected if ani were a strong NPI. That is, it is judged more acceptable than the NCI in the embedded finite CP of a neg-raising predicate (an environment that does not license NCIs), and judged less acceptable than the NCI in fragment answers and modifying expressions on high end-points of a scale (which should not be possible for NPIs as they are minimizers). This result is an interesting addition to the discussions around delineating NPIs and NCIs, including the Bagel Problem (the observation that in NC languages NPIs are not grammatical with clausemate negation).
In Chapter 5, Gregorčič, Ilc and Lenardič conclude that Slovenian NCIs are universal quantifiers based on the tests presented in Giannakidou (Reference Giannakidou1998): they are acceptable in fragment answers, can be modified by ‘almost’, and cannot be bound in donkey anaphora. However, they are not just universals, they are constrained by bearing the [uNeg] feature. The authors assume they undergo scope freezing. This chapter presents a meticulous investigation of two series of Slovenian negative indefinites: bare and koli-pronouns. This sheds new light on the Bagel Problem, because both these NPI series uncharacteristically appear with clausemate negation. The authors discover that both series in these cases are not licensed strictly by negation and still exhibit a relativized version of the Bagel Problem. In addition to proposing a detailed analysis of the Bagel Problem drawing on the particularities of licensing Slovenian NPIs, this chapter also suggests a modification to the implicational map of indefinite pronouns. This chapter makes a valuable contribution both to the theoretical accounts of negative item licensing and the typological study of indefinites.
Chapter 6 presents a comparative study of Vepsian negative indefinites examined against patterns of other Finnic languages and Russian. Däbritz shows that Vepsian diverges from most Finnic languages, presumably under the influence of Russian, in employing NCIs. The particle responsible for the negative morphology of the items is also loaned from Russian. Vepsian is demonstrated to be a strict NC language. This work makes an important contribution from a less-studied language to the cross-linguistic perspective on the study of NC. Additionally, it provides data on the results of language contact between Vepsian and Russian.
In Chapter 7, Dalmi demonstrates that a syntactic analysis of Hungarian NCI licensing and their interaction with focus and clause negation can be formulated without reference to formal semantic apparatus. In order to do that, the author employs the cartographic framework. The proposal deals with both s-words, the items exhibiting strict NC, and sem-phrases, exhibiting non-strict NC. S-words are licensed by the OpNEG…….NEG0 chain: both syntactically through Agree-based licensing and semantically. Preverbal sem-phrases are negative quantifiers and only need semantic licensing by OpNEG. This proposal furthers the perspective on NC considering it a more complex process involving two heads, similarly to what Ruda and Witkoś propose for Polish negation involving a higher left-periphery head Pol hosting the negative operator, and a lower head Neg.
In Chapter 8, Hirvonen and Bradley present the NC patterns in Meadow Mari. They show that NCIs are licensed by sentential negation, multiple non-finite negation strategies, and the postposition ‘without’. This chapter crucially brings up the matter of the locality profile of NC. Converbs that are complements of auxiliaries turn out to be transparent for NCI licensing. This, as the authors note, is unsurprising, because the structure is still monoclausal. As a more unusual result, they present the fact that complement infinitives are also transparent for NCI licensing. As I noted earlier, the predicates presented take restructuring complements cross-linguistically, which may mean that in this case the structures are monoclausal as well. This raises the interesting question of the potential transparency of non-restructuring infinitives in Mari.
Chapter 9 contains an examination of neg-items and their licensing contexts in Selkup. One of the strengths of this chapter is a detailed account of dialectal variation: each Selkup dialect uses a subset of the three available wh-based neg-item series. Wagner-Magy shows that Selkup falls under strict NC languages, all neg-items requiring a negative element in the clause to be licensed. Possible negative elements are the negative particle ašša, and negative verbs used in locative, existential and possessive sentences. Interestingly, in some dialects, when one negation licenses more than one neg-word, both take an emphatic element.
Chapter 10 concludes the volume with a bigger picture perspective on the comparative enterprise. It rightfully notes the data collection, typological and theoretical contributions of the volume’s works as well as its didactic value.
