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

Poletto, Cecilia & Cecilia Poletto
2021. Chapter 13. Very …. extracted. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2018 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 357], ► pp. 250 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
[no author supplied]
2034. Title Pending 10369. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 october 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.