Negation and Antonyms in Tlingit Seth Cable December 9, 2015

Transcription

1 Negation and Antonyms in Tlingit Seth Cable December 9, The Basic Facts: Negation in Negative Antonyms If you crack open one of the dictionaries for Tlingit, you ll find that positive-negative antonym pairs come in (at least) four varieties. (1) The Variety of Antonym Pairs a. Distinct Roots The positive and negative antonyms have entirely different roots (i) yatʼáa hot (ii) si.áatʼ cold (iii) yasátk fast (iv) lichʼéeyaḵw slow (v) yawúxʼ wide (vi) yasaa narrow (vii) likʼátsʼ sharp (viii) yaawdig íl dull b. Pure Negation The negative antonym is simply the negation of the positive. (i) naaléi far (ii) tlél unalé near (iii) x ʼalitseen expensive (iv) tléil x ʼeiltseen cheap c. Negation, Plus Classifier Change The negative antonym is formed by negating the positive and changing the socalled verbal classifier prefix to sh (i) yakʼéi good (ii) tlél ushkʼé bad (cf. tlél ukʼé not good) (iii) yaa kudzigei smart (iv) tlél yaa kushgé dumb (cf. tlél yaa ḵusgé not smart) (v) lix éitl lucky (vi) tlél ushx éitl unlucky (cf. tlél ulx éitl not lucky) d. Negation, Plus Root Change The negative antonym is formed by negating the positive and a consonantal change on the root. (i) litseen strong (ii) tlél ulcheen weak (cf. tlél ultseen not strong) Why This Might be Interesting: Recent work has argued that negative adjectives in English (e.g. short, weak, bad, etc.) actually contain syntactic negation; e.g. short = [ AP NOT [ A TALL ]] (Buering 2007; Heim 2008) It s pretty interesting, then, that their translations into Tlingit sometimes overtly have negation in them ; ) 1

2 (2) Some Obvious Questions a. Are the forms in (1b) really negative and positive antonyms? At present, I don t have any convincing evidence that tlél unalé can mean anything stronger than just not far. However, my analysis for the forms in (1c)-(1d) will predict that a stronger, antonymic reading of the negated forms in (1b) is possible b. Is the negation in the forms in (1c) and (1d) true clausal negation? Or is the negation in these cases incorporated into the verb? (e.g. not lucky vs. unlucky) I ll present syntactic evidence that the negation in (1c)-(1d) is truly clausal (i.e., it occupies the NegP projected by vp, and isn t internal to vp itself). c. How are the meanings of the negated forms in (1c)-(1d) derived? What, exactly, is the semantic contribution of the classifier/root change, and how does it arise compositionally? (3) Suggested Terminology: NEG Antonyms I ll refer to forms in (1b)-(1d) containing negation as NEG Antonyms 2. Further Interesting Facts: Interactions with Comparative Constructions (4) Comparative Degree Phrases in Tlingit a. a yáanáx more than he/she/it (beyond he/she/it) b. a kín less than he/she/it (falling short of he/she/it) Illustration: c. a yáanáx yatʼáa d. a kín yatʼáa 3O.more.than 3S.hot 3O.less.than 3S.hot It is hotter (than that). It is less hot (than that). (5) NEG Antonyms in Comparatives When a NEG antonym is in a comparative construction, the degree phrase must come to the left of the negation. 2

3 (6) Comparatives and NEG Antonyms a. (i) A yáanáx áwé yakʼei yáatʼa (MD) 3O.more.than FOC 3S.good this.one This one is better than it. (ii) A yáanáx tléil ushkʼé (JM) 3O.more.than NEG 3S.good+SH It is worse than it. b. (i) Wéitʼaa áwé a yáanáx litseen (WF) that.one FOC 3O.more.than 3S.strong That one is stronger than him. (ii) A yáanáx áwé tlél ulcheen (JM, CM) 3O.more.than FOC NEG 3S.strong+RootChange He is weaker than him. c. (i) Ax yáanáx yaa ḵoodzig éi (MD) 1sgO.more.than 3S.smart She is smarter than me. (ii) Héitʼaa yáanáx hél yaa ḵooshgé (MD) that.one more.than NEG 3S.smart+SH He s dumber than that one. d. (i) Kúnáx a yáanáx naalée (MD) very 3O.more.than 3S.far It s a lot farther than that. (ii) A yáanáx tléil unalí (MD) 3O.more.than NEG 3S.far It s closer than that. e. (i) Yáatʼaa a yáanáx x ʼalitseen (MD) this.one 3O.more.than 3S.expensive This one is more expensive than that. (ii) A yáanáx áwé ḵúnáx tléil x ʼeiltseen yáatʼaa (MD) 3O.more.than FOC very NEG 3S.expensive this.one This one is much cheaper than that. (7) The Negation of a Comparative If a comparative construction is being negated, then the negation occurs to the left of the degree phrase. 3

4 (8) Negations of Comparative Constructions a. Scenario: Two glasses of water are the same temperature. Hél a yáanáx uʼtá. (MD) NEG 3O.more.than 3S.hot It s not hotter than that. b. Scenario: Two hats are equally expensive. (i) Tléil tlax a yáanáx x ʼeiltseen (MD) NEG very 3O.more.than 3S.expensive It s not more expensive than that. (ii) # A yáanáx tlél x ʼeiltseen 3O.more.than NEG 3S.expenstive It s cheaper than that. (Judgment: Doesn t fit this scenario) c. Scenario: Two plates of food are equally good. (i) Tlél a yáanáx ukʼé (MD) NEG 3O.more.than 3S.good It s not better than that. (ii) # A yáanáx tlél ushkʼé 3O.more.than NEG 3S.good+SH It s worse than that. (Judgment: Doesn t fit this scenario) (9) Comment: The use of (1b) NEG antonyms with comparatives does suggest that they truly have negative antonym readings However, we d want to somehow check that these aren t a case of some kind of meta-linguistic comparison (e.g. shorter versus more not-tall ) 4

5 3. Clausal Negation or Incoporated Negation? A few facts strongly point to the idea that the negation in the NEG antonyms is clausal negation, and isn t simply incorporated into the verb (like English in- or un-) (10) Effects Upon the Inflectional Morphology Clausal negation in Tlingit triggers irrealis morphology on the verb, with concomitant changes in the realization of certain TAM categories. The NEG antonyms all obligatorily appear with this irrealis morphology. Typically, morphologically incorporated negation does not have effects on inflectional morphology (11) Separation from the Verbal Root Just as with clear cases of clausal negation, the NEG in a NEG antonym can be separated from the verbal root by other material, including DPs. a. Focus Particle Intervening between NEG and the Antonymic Root (i) Tlél áwé ushkʼé (WF) NEG FOC 3S.good+SH It s bad. (ii) Tlél áwé ulcheen (WF, MD) NEG FOC 3S.strong+RootChange He s weak. (iii) Tléil áwé x ʼeiltseen (WF) NEG FOC 3S.expensive It s cheap. b. DP Argument Intervening between NEG and the Antonymic Root (i) Tlél daa sá ukʼéi (WF) NEG anything 3S.good Nothing is good. (Judgment: Acceptable if some things are just so-so ) (ii) Tlél daa sá ushkʼé (WF) NEG anything 3S.good+SH Everything is bad. (Judgment: Not acceptable if some things are just so-so ) 5

6 (12) Blocks Additional Negation Just as with clausal negation but unlike incorporated or constituent negation the NEG in a NEG antonym prevents a separate clausal negation from appearing in the sentence. a. (i) * Tlél tlél ushx éitl. NEG NEG 3S.lucky+SH (ii) Tlél yéi utí tlél ushx eitl NEG thus 3S.be NEG 3S.lucky+SH He s not unlucky. (Lit. It s not so that he s unlucky.) b. (i) * Tlél tlél ushkʼé NEG NEG 3S.good+SH (ii) Tlél wáa sá utí (WF) NEG how Q 3S.be It s not bad. (Lit. It s not any way) c. * Tlél tlél yaa ḵushgé NEG NEG 3S.smart+SH He s not dumb. 4. Licensing of the Classifier / Root Change In cases like (1c)-(1d), the presence of clausal negation appears to license a morphophonological change on the verb that brings a concomitant change in meaning. One might wonder what the exact licensing conditions of this morpho-phonological change are (13) Downward Entailing-ness Alone is Not Sufficient In Tlingit, the antecedent of a conditional licenses existential readings of wh-words, but not the sh-classifier of the verbal forms in (1d). a. Daa sá kʼéiyi, ax éeshch yax ayagux sax áa. (WF) what Q 3S.good.SUB my father.erg 3O.FUT.3S.eat.EXH If anything is good, my father will eat it all up. b. * Daa sá shakʼéiyi, ax éeshch yax ayagux sax áa. what Q 3S.good+SH.SUB my father.erg 3O.FUT.3S.eat.EXH 6

7 (14) Morpho-Phonological Change Not Licensed Cross-Clausally a. (i) Yéi x w a a j é e tlél ushkʼéyi (JM) thus 1sgS.think NEG 3S.good+SH I think that it s bad. (ii) * Tlél yéi x wají ushkʼéyi NEG 1sgS.think 3S.good+SH b. (i) Tlél ax tuwáa ushgú tlél x at ushkʼé. (JM) NEG my mind.face.at 3S.glad+SH NEG 1sgS.good+SH I don t want to be bad. (ii) * Tlél ax tuwáa ushgú x at ushkʼé. NEG my mind.face.at 3S.glad+SH 1sgS.good+SH (15) Generalization: The morpho-phonological change at work in (1c)-(1d) can only be licensed by a clausemate negation 5. Towards an Analysis As mentioned at the beginning, some have argued that negative adjectives like short actually contain negation in their abstract morphosyntax (Buering 2007, Heim 2008). The analysis below builds upon many of the formal tools proposed in those works. (16) Adjectives are Relations Between Entities and Degrees a. [[ lei / far ]] = [ λd : λx : distance(x) d ] b. [[ yak ei / good ]] = [ λd : λx : goodness(x) d ] c. [[ litseen / strong ]] = [ λd : λx : strength(x) d ] (17) The POS Head [[ POS ]] = [ λp <dt> : L c P ] L c is the contextually determined no mans land of non-extreme degrees. o For example, in the case of good, it s those degrees of goodness that neither count as good nor as bad. 7

8 (18) Illustration of Positive Sentences a. Sentence: Yak éi it is good b. LF: [ POS [ OP 1 [ 1 [ pro [ t 1 [ yak éi ] ] c. Predicted Truth-Conditions: L c { d : goodness(x) d } If the degrees of goodness that are lower than x s goodness contains the no man s land, that must mean that x s goodness is above the no-mans land (19) Comparative Phrases [[ yáanáx ]] = [ λp <dt> : [ λq <dt> : P Q ] ] (20) Illustration of Comparative Sentences a. Sentence: A yáanáx yak éi x is better than y b. LF: [ [ [ OP [ 3 [ pro 4 [ t 3 yak éi ] ] yáanáx ] [OP 1 [ 1 [ pro 2 [ t 1 yak éi ] ] c. Predicted Truth-Conditions: { d : goodness(y) d } { d : goodness(x) d } If the degrees of goodness that are lower than x s goodness contains the degrees of goodness lower than y s goodness, that must mean that x s goodness is above y s (21) The Negative Degree Relative Operator [[ NEG-REL ]] = [ λp <dt> : P ] Like other degree OPs, this guy is inserted as the degree argument to an adjective. Like other degree OPs, for type-theoretic reasons, it must undergo movement. Unlike other degree OPs, it is only licensed in SpecNegP Unlike other degree OPs, it is exceptionally permitted to cross negation. Morpho-Phonological Effect: When adjacent to some verbs, NEG-REL induces a change in the classifier (1c) When adjacent to some verbs, NEG-REL induces a mutation in the root (1d) Sometimes, NEG-REL in SpecNegP induces suppletion in the NEG+V complex (1a) When adjacent to some verbs, there is no effect at all of NEG-REL (1b) 8

9 (22) Illustration: NEG Antonyms a. Sentence: Tlél ushk é it is bad b. LF: [ POS [ NEG-REL 1 [ 1 [ NEG [ pro [ t 1 [ yak éi ] ] c. Predicted Truth-Conditions: L c { d : (goodness(x) d ) } Note that {d : (goodness(x) d ) } = { d : goodness(x) < d } Therefore, these truth-conditions state that the degrees that are higher than x s goodness are a superset of the no-man s land. But, this must mean, then, that x s degree of goodness falls below the noman s land Finally, this must mean that x s degree of goodness counts as bad. (23) Illustration: Negation of a Positive Adjective a. Sentence: Tlél uk éi it is not good b. LF: [ NEG [ POS [ OP 1 [ 1 [ pro [ t 1 [ good ] ] c. Predicted Truth-Conditions: ( L c { d : goodness(x) d } ) (24) Illustration: Comparative of a NEG Antonym a. Sentence: A yáanáx tléil ushkʼé x is worse than y b. LF: [ [ [ NEG-REL 3 [ 3 [ NEG [ pro 4 [ t 3 yak éi ] ] yáanáx ] [ NEG-REL 1 [ 1 [ NEG [ pro 2 [ t 1 yak éi ] ] c. Predicted Truth-Conditions: { d : (goodness(y) d ) } { d : (goodness(x) d ) } Note, again, that this is equivalent to: { d : goodness(y) < d } { d : goodness(x) < d } This means that the degrees that are above than x s goodness contain the degrees that are above than y s goodness. This must mean that x has a lower degree of goodness than y does 9

10 (25) Illustration: Negation of a Comparative a. Sentence: Tlél a yáanáx ukʼé x is not better than y b. LF: [ NEG [ [ [ OP 3 [ 3 [ pro 4 [ t 3 yak éi ] ] yáanáx ] [OP 1 [ 1 [ pro 2 [ t 1 yak éi ] ] c. Predicted Truth-Conditions: ({ d : goodness(y) d } { d : goodness(x) d }) Note: This is consistent with x being equally good or not as good as y. (25) Observation As shown in (24)-(25), we correctly predict the generalizations in (5) and (7): When a NEG antonym is in a comparative construction, the degree phrase must come to the left of the negation. If a comparative construction is being negated, then the negation occurs to the left of the degree phrase. (26) Further Prediction We also predict that the sentence in (26a) should be bad. a. A yáanáx tlél ukʼé 3O.more.than NEG 3S.good The only LF that (26a) could receive is one where more.than is outscoping NEG. But, this would require that there be movement of a degree OP over NEG o But the only Deg OP that s permitted to cross NEG and appear in SpecNegP is NEG-REL o But then that would necessitate the presence of the sh-classifier I actually haven t asked yet about this form, but I do expect that it s bad 10

11 (27) Further Prediction We also correctly predict the possibility and reported meaning of (11bii) a. Tlél daa sá ushkʼé (WF) NEG anything 3S.good+SH Everything is bad. (Judgment: Not acceptable if some things are just so-so ) b. Predicted LF: [ POS [ NEG-REL 1 [ 1 [ NEG [ anything [ t 1 [ yak éi ] ] c. Predicted Truth-Conditions: L c { d : ( x. goodness(x) d ) } o These truth-conditions are equivalent to the following: L c { d : x. goodness(x) < d ) } o Thus, these truth-conditions state that: The degrees of goodness that are higher than everything s degree of goodness contain the no-mans land o This can only be the case if everything has a degree of goodness lower than the no-mans land. o Thus, this can only be the case if everything is bad! (28) Antonymic Readings without Morphological Change? a. Question: Does our analysis predict that the sentence in (23) could get the reading observed for sentence (22)? b. Answer: NO! o In order to get the reading of (23), sentence (22) would require movement of a degree OP into SpecNegP. o The only operator that s allowed to do that is NEG-REL, which would necessarily induce the classifier shift on the verb (29) Question: Other than the fact above, is there any other reason for only allowing NEG-REL to move into SpecNegP? 11

12 (30) Intervention Effects with DegP Movement in Tlingit a. Answer to (29): If we freely allowed DegPs to move over quantificational operators like NEG and every, then we d wrongly predict that sentences like (30b) can receive LFs like (30c), and so truth-conditions like (30d), which hold in scenarios like (30e). b. Ldakát hás áwé du ḵín has koodligéi Bill. everyone FOC 3O.less.than PL.3O.3S.big Bill Everyone is less tall than Bill. Judgment: Acceptable is Bill is the tallest. Unacceptable if one person is taller than Bill. c. Impossible LF: [ [ [ OP 2 [ 2 [ Bill [ t 2 ligéi ] ] ḵín ] [OP 1 [ 1 [ Ldakát hás [ t 1 has koodligéi ] ] d. Reading Assigned to LF (30c): { d : height(bill) d } { d : x. height(x) d } o These truth-conditions state that the degrees lower than Bill s height contain the degrees of height that are lower than everyone (else) s height. o This means only that Bill s height is greater than the height of the shortest person. e. Scenario Witnessing Truth-Conditions in (30d): James is 5 feet tall. Bill is 5.5 feet tall. Tom is 6 feet tall. (31) Conclusion: The only DegP movement we want to permit across a quantificational operator is the movement of NEG-REL over NEG (and into SpecNegP). 6. Further Directions: Cross-Polar Nomalies in English and Tlingit (32) A Curious Contrast in English: Cross-Polar (A)nomalies (Buering 2007) a. This board is shorter than it is wide. b. * This board is taller than it is narrow. 12

13 (33) Generalization (Buering 2007) In a subcomparative, the polarities of the adjectives can differ only if the positive adjective is in the comparative phrase. (34) Two Analyses of (32)-(33) a. Buering 2007: (i) (ii) Pre-Spell Out (S-Structure) Form of (32a): [ This board [ [ not -er ] tall ] [ than it is wide ] ] PF Form of (32a): [ This board [ not tall ] -er ] ] [ than it is wide ] ] SPELL OUT: [not tall] à short [ short -er ] à shorter (iii) LF of (32a): [ [ not -er ] [ 1 [ this board t 1 tall ] ] [ than it is wide ] ] SEMANTICS: [[ not -er ]] = [[ less ]] b. Heim 2008: Totally different syntactic analysis o Much more complicated LF (lots o remnant movement) o Not committed to PF manipulations that Buering is (35) Problems Applying Buering s (2007) Analysis to Tlingit Buering s analysis works straightforwardly for a language like English, where the standard of comparison (ThanP) is the second argument of the comparative head. In Tlingit, however, the Deg head (yáanáx, kín) seems to take the standard as its first argument (it forms a constituent with it). Consequently, extending Buering s analysis to Tlingit would require introducing additional, more elaborate (or implausible) PF operations. o In this sense, Beuring (2007) predicts (strictu dictu) that Tlingit shouldn t show the contrast in (32). That is, both (32a,b) should be bad in Tlingit. In as much as Heim (2008) isn t committed to Buering s PF operations, her analysis predicts that Tlingit should show the same contrast in (32) It would therefore be very interesting to know which of these predictions is true! 13