Cover not available
Part of
Points of Convergence in Romance Linguistics: Papers selected from the 48th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL 48), Toronto, 25-28 April 2018
Edited by Gabriela Alboiu and Ruth King
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 360] 2022
► pp. 225–242

Chapter 13
Cyclical change in affixal negation

| Universitat Rovira i Virgili

This chapter offers a contrastive analysis of the negative prefix iN- in Latin and Romance that shows that this element has undergone a reanalysis throughout the evolution. In particular, it is proposed that iN- has evolved from an adjunct to a categorizing affix, a change that partially fits the negative cycle ‘adjunct > specifier > head > affix’ (van Gelderen 2011). The proposed analysis builds, on the one hand, on Newell’s (2008) morphophonological approach to English negative prefixes; and, on the other hand, on De Clercq’s (2013) and De Clercq & Vanden Wyngaerd’s (2017) work on affixal negation. Alongside, the paper endeavors to show the advantages of using the Nanosyntax model when dealing with diachronic variation at the syntax-lexicon interface.

Keywords: affixal negation, prefix iN-, negative cycle, Nanosyntax, Latin, Romance languages
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Latin vs. Romance iN-
  • 3.A nanosyntactic approach to the syntax-lexicon interface
  • 4.Proposal
    • 4.1Nanosyntax of Romance iN-
    • 4.2Nanosyntax of Latin iN-
    • 4.3From Latin to Romance iN-
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.360.13gib
References
Acedo-Matellán, Víctor & Jaume Mateu
2014 From syntax to roots: A syntactic approach to root interpretation. In Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer & Florian Schäfer (eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax, 14–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allen, Margaret
1978 Morphological Investigations. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Andrews, Edna
1986 A synchronic semantic analysis of de- and un- in American English. American Speech 61(3). 221–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Apothéloz, Denis
2003 Le rôle de l’iconicité constructionnelle dans le fonctionnement du préfixe négatif in-. Cahiers de linguistique analogique 1. 35–63.Google Scholar
Baldi, Philip
1989 Negative prefixation in Latin. L’information grammaticale 43. 3–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baunaz, Lena, Karen De Clercq, Liliane Haegeman & Eric Lander
(eds.) 2018 Exploring Nanosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bornecque, Henri & Fernand Cauët
1941 Le Dictionnaire Latin-Français du Baccalaureat. Paris: Libraire Classique Eugène Belin.Google Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio
1990 Sobre el aspecto en los adjetivos y en los participios. In Ignacio Bosque (ed.), Tiempo y aspecto en español, 177–214. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
1999 El sintagma adjetival. Modificadores y complementos del adjetivo. Adjetivo y participio. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Volume 1, 217–310. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Brea, Mercedes
1976 Prefijos formadores de antónimos negativos en español medieval. Verba 3. 319–341.Google Scholar
Buchi, Éva
2012 Réel, irréel, inréel: depuis quand le français connaït-il deux préfixes négatifs in-? In Mario Barra-Jover, Guylaine Brun-Trigaud, Jean-Philipe Dalbera, Patrick Sauzet & Tobias Scheer (eds.), Études de Linguistique gallo-romane, 323–340. Saint-Denis, France: Presses universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel
2009 The Nanosyntax of case. Tromsø, Norway: University of Tromsø dissertation. [URL]
Chomsky, Noam
2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert
1997 Much-support as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 28(1). 119–164. [URL]Google Scholar
Costa, Sylvia
2008 Negación y prefijación negativa. Algunos aspectos de la forma y la interpretación de las secuencias negativas. Montevideo, Uruguay: Universidad de la República.Google Scholar
De Clercq, Karen
2013 A unified syntax of negation. Ghent, Belgium: University of Ghent dissertation. [URL]
De Clercq, Karen & Guido Vanden Wyngaerd
2017 Why affixal negation is syntactic. In Aaron Kaplan, Abby Kaplan, Miranda McCarvel & Edward J. Rubin (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 34, 151–158. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio
2007 The Exhaustive Lexicalisation Principle. Nordlyd 34(2). 165–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Las nominalizaciones. Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
Gaffiot, Félix
1934 Dictionnaire Latin-Français. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van
2011 The linguistic cycle: Language change and the linguistic faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 Cyclical change and problems of projection. In Anne Breitbarth, Miriam Bouzouita, Lieven Danckaert & Elisabeth Witzenhausen (eds.), Cycles in language change, 13–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibert-Sotelo, Elisabeth
2017 Source and negative prefixes: On the syntax-lexicon interface and the encoding of spatial relations. Girona, Spain: Universitat de Girona dissertation. [URL]
Horn, Laurence R.
[1989] 2001 A Natural history of negation. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2002 Uncovering the un-word: A study in lexical pragmatics. Sophia Linguistica 49. 1–64.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1917 Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: A.F. Høst.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1982 Lexical Morphology and Phonology. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
1983 Word Formation and the Lexicon. In Frances Ingemann (ed.), Proceedings of the 1982 Mid -America Linguistics Conference, 3–29. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Lewis, Charlton T. & Charles Short
1879 A Latin dictionary: Founded on Andrews’ edition of Freund’s Latin Dictionary: Revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D, and Charles Short, LL.D. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [URL]
Marantz, Alec
1997 No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. Penn Linguistics Colloquium (PLC) 21. 201–225.Google Scholar
2001 Words. Ms. Cambridge, MA: MIT. [URL]
Marchand, Hans
1969 The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. Munich: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Maynor, Natalie
1979 The morpheme un. American Speech 54(4). 310–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mendívil-Giró, José Luis
2015 El cambio lingüístico: sus causas, mecanismos y consecuencias. Madrid: Síntesis.Google Scholar
Mendívil-Giró, José Luís
2016 ¿Qué relación hay entre el cambio lingüístico y la evolución del lenguaje? Linred: Lingüística en la Red 14.Google Scholar
Montero Curiel, María Luisa
1999 La prefijación negativa en español. Cáceres: Universidad de Extremadura.Google Scholar
Newell, Heather
2008 Aspects of the morphology and phonology of phases. Montreal, Canada: McGill University dissertation. [URL]
Oltra-Massuet, Isabel
2014 Deverbal adjectives at the interface: A crosslinguistic investigation into the morphology, syntax and semantics of -ble. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (Interface Explorations 28).Google Scholar
Pantcheva, Marina
2011 Decomposing path: The Nanosyntax of directional expressions. Tromsø, Norway: University of Tromsø dissertation. [URL]
Pinkster, Harm
2015 Oxford Latin syntax, Volume I: The simple clause. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian
2008 Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth
1982 The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Siegel, Dorothy
1974 Topics in English Morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Starke, Michal
2009 A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd 36(1). 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Towards elegant parameters: Language variation reduces to the size of lexically stored trees. In M. Carme Picallo (ed.), Linguistic variation in the Minimalist framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2010 Spatial P in English. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), The cartography of syntactic structures, Volume 6, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tranel, Bernard
1976 A Generative treatment of the prefix in- of modern French. Language 52(2). 345–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varela, Soledad
1983 Lindes entre morfemas: el prefijo negativo in-. In Fernando Lázaro Carreter & Emilio Alarcos Llorach (eds.), Serta Philologica: F. Lázaro Carreter. Natalem diem sexagesimum celebranti dicata, Volume 1, 637–648. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
1990 Fundamentos de Morfología. Madrid: Crítica.Google Scholar
2002 Active or subjective adjectival-participles in Spanish. In James F. Lee, Kimberly L. Geeslin & J. Clancy Clements (eds.), Structure, meaning, and acquisition in Spanish. Papers from the 4th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 304–316. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Varela, Soledad & Josefa Martín García
1999 La prefijación. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Volume 3, 4993–5040. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Zimmer, Karl E.
1964 Affixal negation in English and other languages: An investigation of restricted productivity. Supplement to Word 20(2), Monograph 5.Google Scholar