How to say no and don’t
-
Gertjan Postma
Abstract
After reviewing some earlier analyses of negative imperatives, we argue that there is a correlation between the (non-)availability of negative imperatives in a language and the merger of the anaphoric negator ( no ) and sentence negator ( not ). This shows up not only as lexical identity of these two types of negation (e.g. Portuguese n ã o ‘no’/’not’), but also in the syntactic merger of the corresponding functional projections. The interaction between this merger and the imperative will be studied in the light of Hoekstra and Jordens’s (1994) data from Dutch child language, in which there is a lexical distinction between boulemaeic negation ( nee ) and epistemic negation ( niet ). In the adult language, the corresponding functional projections have grammaticalised to an A-bar and A-projection, respectively. These two projections undergo complete merger in languages where the negators coincide lexically. In this way, the absence of the negative imperative can be viewed as a consequence of relativised minimality, an insight due to Rivero and Terzi (1995) , which will be shown to crucially involve the A-bar properties of the imperative operator (with V-movement skipping negation on its way to COMP) and the A/Abar properties of negation.
Abstract
After reviewing some earlier analyses of negative imperatives, we argue that there is a correlation between the (non-)availability of negative imperatives in a language and the merger of the anaphoric negator ( no ) and sentence negator ( not ). This shows up not only as lexical identity of these two types of negation (e.g. Portuguese n ã o ‘no’/’not’), but also in the syntactic merger of the corresponding functional projections. The interaction between this merger and the imperative will be studied in the light of Hoekstra and Jordens’s (1994) data from Dutch child language, in which there is a lexical distinction between boulemaeic negation ( nee ) and epistemic negation ( niet ). In the adult language, the corresponding functional projections have grammaticalised to an A-bar and A-projection, respectively. These two projections undergo complete merger in languages where the negators coincide lexically. In this way, the absence of the negative imperative can be viewed as a consequence of relativised minimality, an insight due to Rivero and Terzi (1995) , which will be shown to crucially involve the A-bar properties of the imperative operator (with V-movement skipping negation on its way to COMP) and the A/Abar properties of negation.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- List of contributors vii
- Imperative clauses in generative grammar 1
- On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and German 95
- Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives 113
- Clitic climbing in Spanish imperatives 135
- Topics in imperatives 153
- Embedded imperatives 181
- How to say no and don’t 205
- Analysing word order in the English imperative 251
- On participial imperatives 273
- ‘Inverted’ imperatives 297
- Pronominal clitics and imperatives in South Slavic 323
- Index of languages 341
- Index of names 343
- Index of subjects 347
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- List of contributors vii
- Imperative clauses in generative grammar 1
- On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and German 95
- Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives 113
- Clitic climbing in Spanish imperatives 135
- Topics in imperatives 153
- Embedded imperatives 181
- How to say no and don’t 205
- Analysing word order in the English imperative 251
- On participial imperatives 273
- ‘Inverted’ imperatives 297
- Pronominal clitics and imperatives in South Slavic 323
- Index of languages 341
- Index of names 343
- Index of subjects 347
