Phase-Edge Features and the Syntax of Polarity Particles

Abstract

In this article, I argue that the phase edge in the C field shares features via Agree with an intermediate layer (FinP) and with a lower projection (⌺P), allowing it to determine the type of clause and its polarity. I adopt a feature-sharing relation of Agree that connects all of the polarity features present on heads (be they ⌺, Fin, and, in some cases, VFoc) to a polarity feature in Force, the relevant phase-edge position for clausal typing. This explains, among other things, why embedded clauses containing a polarity feature can only satisfy the selectional properties of a particular class of (matrix) verbs.(1) Q: Did Jason fall?A: Yes, he fell. AЈ: No, he didn't fall.(2) Q: Est-ce que Jason est tombé? A: Oui, il est tombé. AЈ: Non, il n'est pas tombé.(3) a. Je crois que oui/non. (Lit. I think that yes/no.) b. Peut-être que oui/non. (Lit. Maybe that yes/no.)(4) a. *I think that yes/no. (cf. I think so/not.) b. *Maybe that yes/no. (cf. Maybe so/not.)(5) a. Julie veut se marier, mais Anne, non. b. Julie n'aime pas les moules, mais les huîtres, oui/si.(6) a. ??Julie wants to get married, but Anne, no. (cf. . . . but Anne doesn't.) b. *Julie doesn't like mussels, but oysters, yes. (cf. . . . but she does oysters.)The article is organized as follows. In section 2, I give some background information about polarity particles in general, and English and French ones in particular. More specifically, I introduce several notions that are at the heart of the analysis defended here: relative and absolute polarity features (Farkas 2009), clausal typing (Cheng 1991), and the feature-sharing version of Agree argued for by Pesetsky and Torrego (2007). I conclude with a brief overview of how these notions can be used to account for the properties of English polarity particles and the ellipsis they sometimes license in echo assertions. In section 3, I first examine the distribution of polarity particles in elliptical embedded clauses and elliptical right conjuncts expressing contrastive polarity, and I argue that such particles lexicalize phase-edge clausal-typing features. I then address the question of why languages like French, Hungarian, Polish, and Romanian can effect clausal typing in embedded contexts via yes/no-type polarity particles but English cannot. This, I argue, follows from the inability of English-type languages to license embedded TP-ellipsis, leaving English with two options to express embedded polarity in a reduced form: so-pronominalization and VP-ellipsis. In section 4, I argue that the position of French polarity particles in the C field is the head of FinP, a projection that closes the C domain downward. I then show how the sharing version of Agree as applied to clausal-typing features explains how a French polarity particle located in Fin can inherit the ( positive or negative) value of Laka's (1990) ⌺ and ''pass it on'' to Force, allowing a matrix verb to ''see'' whether the clause it has merged with satisfies its selectional properties. In section 5, I consider special uses of French polarity particle...

Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions

“…Kramer & Rawlins 2009, Authier 2013, Krifka 2013 for discussion). There are similarities but also important differences between polarity particles in responses and their close relatives in embedded contexts, which await further empirical and theoretical investigation.…”

French adverbial clauses, rescue by ellipsis and the truncation versus intervention debate

“…From the point of view of truncation, the answers to such questions are usually assumed to be related to the availability of illocutionary force (see Bayer 2001, Krifka 2001, and Haegeman 2003, or to discourse related features (see Bianchi and Frascarelli 2010), but the degree to which such concepts are syntactically encoded has not yet been fully formalized and raises a number of problems of implementation that are far from trivial (see Heycock 2006, Authier 2013, and Haegeman 2012a. In contrast, the intervention approach attributes the parametric variation observed in the availability of left peripheral positions to the variation in intervention effects.…”

On the Relationship between Forward and Backward Gapping

“…I follow Laka (), Lopez‐Carretero (), Holmberg (), Kazenin (), Authier (), Citko (), and Gribanova (), among others, and assume that in addition to the clause internal Neg head, there is a higher left‐peripheral Polarity (Pol) head that can license ellipsis. Both types of gapping involve coordination of two Polarity Phrases, and in both the remnants move to the specifier of the Polarity head .…”

“…I propose that structurally the presence of two copies in forward gapping is a result of the elliptical structure in (2a), whereas the presence of one copy in backward gapping is a consequence of a multidominant structure in (2b). I follow Laka (1990), Lopez-Carretero (1995), Holmberg (2001), Kazenin (2006), Authier (2013), Citko (2015), and Gribanova (2017), among others, and assume that in addition to the clause internal Neg head, there is a higher left-peripheral Polarity (Pol) head that can license ellipsis. Both types of gapping involve coordination of two Polarity Phrases, and in both the remnants move to the specifier of the Polarity head.…”