Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2017
Edited by Sander Lestrade and Bert Le Bruyn
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 34] 2017
► pp. 31–46

The internal syntax of Q-words

 | Ghent University/FWO
This paper aims at describing Q(uantity)-words, i.e. many/much and few/little, from a typological perspective, and presenting typological generalisations based on it. The typological sample provides support for a mass-count and positive-negative dimension in the domain of Q-words. Both dimensions also intersect. Along the negative dimension, it seems that languages fall into two groups: those having an opaque strategy for few/little and those having only an analytic strategy (not-much/many). Four patterns can be discerned on the basis of the sample, which are each exemplified by means of one language, i.e. English, Dutch, Wolof and Western Armenian. In addition, I make an attempt at developing a nanosyntactic analysis of the data, which aims to show how language variation in the domain of Q-words can be accounted for in terms of varying the size of lexically stored trees (Starke 2014). Finally, I show how one missing type of pattern is underivable on the basis of the analysis proposed.
Keywords: Q-words, typological sample, negation, syntax, nanosyntax
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The data
    • 2.1Pattern 1: English
    • 2.2Pattern 2: Dutch
    • 2.3Pattern 3: Wolof
    • 2.4Pattern 4: Western Armenian
  • 3.The feature system of Q-words
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Prerequisites for the analysis
    • 4.2The grammar of Q-words
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 23 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.34.03dec
References (31)
References
Baker, Mark & Jim McCloskey. 2007. “On the relationship of typology to theoretical syntax.” Linguistic Typology 111: 285–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baunaz, Lena, Karen De Clercq, Liliane Haegeman & Eric Lander, eds. to appear. Exploring Nanosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logo
Beghelli, Filippo. 1995. “The phrase structure of quantifier scope.” PhD diss., UCLA.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2012. Universals In Comparative Morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian, Karen De Clercq, Donka Farkas & Floris Roelofsen. 2014. “Question tags and sentential negativity.” Lingua 1451: 173–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1973. “Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English.” Linguistic Inquiry 41: 275–343.Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2009. “The nanosyntax of case.” PhD diss., University of Tromsø, Tromsø.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris & Paul Postal. 2014. Classical neg raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corver, Norbert. 1997. “Much-support as a last resort.” Linguistic Inquiry 281: 119–164.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth & Daniel Currie Hall. 2012. “Aspects of individuation.” Count and Mass across Languages, ed. by Diane Massam, 27–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Clercq, Karen. 2013. “A unified syntax of negation.” PhD diss., Ghent University, Gent.Google Scholar
. 2017. “The nanosyntax of French negation.” Studies on Negation: Syntax, Semantics, and Variation, ed. by Silvio Cruschina, Katharina Hartmann & Eva-Maria Remberger, 49–80. Vienna: Vienna University Press.Google Scholar
De Clercq, Karen & Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 2017. “Why affixal negation is syntactic.” Proceedings of WCCFL 34, ed. by Aaron Kaplan, Abby Kaplan, Miranda McCarvel & Edward Rubin, 151–158. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 2006. “Little.” Proceedings of SALT XVI, ed. by Masayuki Gibson & Jonathan Howell, 35–58. Cornell University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Denis Paperno, eds. 2012. Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural language. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khanjian, Hrayr. 2012. “Quantification in Western Armenian.” Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language, ed. by Edward Keenan & Denis Paperno, 845–890. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward. 1964. “Negation in English.” The Structure of Language, ed. by Jerry Fodor & Jerrold Katz, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, Hans van de Koot & Jenny Doetjes. 2006. “Degree expressions.” The Linguistic Review 211: 1–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1989. “Many quantifiers.” Proceedings of ESCOL, ed. by Joyce Powers & Kenneth de Jong, vol. 51, 383–402. Columbus, OH: Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rett, Jessica. 2016. “The semantics of many, much, few and little .” Ms. UCLA.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan, Dik Bakker, Kees Hengeveld & Peter Kahrel. 1993. “A method of language sampling.” Studies in Language 171: 169–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1992. “Cross-linguistic evidence for number phrase.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 371: 197–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solt, Stephanie. 2015. “Q-adjectives and the semantics of quantity.” Journal of Semantics 32(2): 221–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starke, Michal. 2009. “Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language.” Nordlyd 361: 1–6.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Towards elegant parameters: Language variation reduces to the size of lexically-stored trees.” Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework, ed. by M. Carme Picallo, 140–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. to appear. “Complex left branches, spellout, and prefixes.” Exploring Nanosyntax, ed. by Lena Baunaz, Karen De Clercq, Liliane Haegeman & Eric Lander. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tamba, Khady, Harold Torrence & Malte Zimmerman. 2012. “Wolof quantifiers.” Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language, ed. by Edward Keenan & Denis Paperno, 891–940. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics:primes and universals. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

D'Antuono, Nicola
2024. The syntax of emphatic negation in Modern Irish. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Poletto, Cecilia & Cecilia Poletto
2021.  Very …. extracted. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2018 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 357], ► pp. 249 ff. DOI logo
Klockmann, Heidi
2020. The article <i>a(n)</i> in English quantifying expressions: A default marker of cardinality. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5:1 DOI logo
Caha, Pavel, Karen De Clercq & Guido Vanden Wyngaerd
2019. The Fine Structure of the Comparative. Studia Linguistica 73:3 ► pp. 470 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.