the syntax of auxiliaries and negation in...

THE SYNTAX OF AUXILIARIES

AND NEGATION IN ENGLISH*

MAEDA Shosaku

This paper reviews the controversy over the category

AUX, and concludes that the recent analyses which posit

AUX and stacked VP’s are potentially notational variants

to each other. It also points out that some problems occur

if these analyses are extended to negative sentences; some

problems for all the variants and others for only .some va ・

riants, and then it proposes tentative solutions for these

problems.

1. Controversy over the category AUX

Various analyses of English auxiliaries have been presented ever

since a classical analysis in Chomsky (1957) but, as is usual with

any linguistic field, there have been none which are able to com-

pletely account for the relevant data. ’However, investigation

has revealed that some of the data involve a lot of idiolectal var-

iation and elements of performance. Especially when negation is

involved, the data in this field is extremely influenced by idiolectal

variation and perceptual factors, and have been neglected by most

of the auxiliary analyses. Nevertheless since one of the sentential

taxonomy dichotomizes sentences into ‘affirmative ’and ‘negative ’， negative sentences must occupy a legitimate position in a grammar

and they have to be derived by a grammar anyway. This paper

tries primarily to investigate how a negative formative not is

derived, but since not usually occurs in the auxiliary-verb sequence,

本 This is a revised and integrated version of three unpublished papers of

mine which were sent to Masachiyo Amano, Hiroshima University, while

we discussed English auxiliaries during the latter half of 1980. I have

deeply appreciated the stimulating discussion we had through correspon-

dence.

12 天理大学学報

I'll first review some representative analyses of English auxiliaries

in affirmative sentences.

There are four major facts which any analysis of English aux-

iliaries must account for: (i) what are traditionally called auxil-

iaries undergo ‘AUX-choosing rules' such as Subject-AUX Inver-

sion (hereafter SAi) [Pullum-Wilson, (1977)], (ii) the ordering constraint on the auxiliary elements (e.g. *have may be singing),

(iii) semantic parallelism between modal auxiliaries and catena-

tive verbs such as no voice-neutrality [Palmer (1979)] (e.g. John

may kiss Mary キMary may be kissed by John), (iv) the stacked

S or VP structure evidenced by VP-Deletion (hereafter VPD) and (1)

VP-Fronting phenomena and some restriction on them (some exam-

ples of the former are immediately to be given).

Two opposing analyses have been proposed to deal with the above

facts: the AUX analysis such as Chomsky(l957), Akmajian-Wasow

(1975), and the M V analysis such as Ross, (1969), Pullum-Wilson

(1977). Roughly speaking, the AUX analysis, which posits the

category AUX, successfully accounts for (i) and (ii 〕but fails to

give an elegant account of (iv). The MV analysis, on the other

hand, dispenses with the category AUX and derives auxiliaries as

M V (i.e. main verbs), ,and it neatly accounts for (iv), an obvious

motivation for this analysis, and (i), but gives only a round-about

account of (ii). Both analyses avoid dealing with (iii) by dismiss-

ing an apparent semantic change of modal-containing sentences

effected by Passivization as non-cognitive (i.e. as a mere topic-

change [Jenkins (1972)] or different discourse presuppositions

[Muraki (1972)] etc.). Thus the sore point of each analysis is

(iv) for the AUX analysis and (ii) for the M V analysis. Indeed

this controversy still goes on but many recent analyses have incor-

porated such stacked VP structure as is typical of the M V anal-

ysis so that they may accommodate (iv), the VPD fact. I’ll call

this version of AUX analysis ‘Revised AUX analysis' and my dis-

cussion will focus on them in the following sections.

Now I'll illustrate how this convergence has come to occur. A

variety of deletion involving auxiliary elements in ( 1 ) below is

neatly accounted for (except (e)*) by positing ( 2) as the under-

守唄

THE SYNTAX OF ENGLISH AUXILIARIES 13

lying structure of the second conjuncts in ( 1 ). This is what M V

analysts do.

(2)

( 1 ) Harry may have been singing, and John

(a 〕 may have been singing,

( b) may have been

(c) may have

(d 〕 may

Ce ）＊。

(3)

too.

(2)

111B’』

σb

一－JVA

・m

－Vlnωl暗

句

P

E

－－

～

引

一

S

PAP

－Jt1」

7／

X

I

～、／

Ul｜白

～

／

VA

児

～

4

＋＋

l

DA』

1Ill・4

～v／ぽ

e

～

／

V此

Illl町

～

＋

＋

，

E

PA

－x

＼

v／v凶MIll－－明

Sヘ．＋＋＋

l

／

E

A

n

N

ぬτJ

Every sentence except (a) in ( 1 ) has a constituent deleted. Their

only weakpoint seems to be that there is no immediate explanation

available for (e)* [Araki et al. (1977) p. 7].

On the contrary, the AUX analysts' underlying structure ( 3)

has to have non-constituents torn away to yield the sentences

containing (c) and (d) in ( 1 ).

(3 〕 s －ァAUX VP

M I '¥. "---y

町 have been ↓ Akmajian-Steele-Wasow (1979 〕（hereafter AS＂η，one of the recent

AUX analyses, retains the category AUX ，組 emblem of the AUX

analysis, but borrows the idea of the stacked S or VP originated


in the M V analysis, hence the AUX yn analysis. They posit the

following fragments of Phrase Structure Rules (hereafter PSR ;

this term is to stand for both singular and plural forms of the

unabbreviated phrase 〕，（ 4 ), and revises ( 3) into ( 5 ), where

VPD deletes a constituent yn (where n之l).

(4 〕 Ca) s→NP AUX V3

rTense do1 (b) AUX →L. . . f

l脱lOOal I

（げ yn →II 十V 1) ¥I +AUXI/

(5)

N~V3

Since VPD is reformulated as yn_ Deletion in ASW, they can give

to (1 (e ）勺 a natural e菟planation: AUX is not affected by yn_

Deletion, which is not the case with the M V analysis ( 2). The

next section will examine a group of Revised AUX analyses such

.as are represented by ASW.

:2. Notationally Variant AUX Analyses

There have been quite a few Revised AUX analyses proposed

,during these five years as if they were counterproposed to Ak-

majian-Wasow (1975) (hereafter AW), which supports a classical

version of AUX analysis without VP-stacking. Among them a

,quick examination will be made of four proposals, i.e. Sag (1976),

lwakura (1977, 1980b), ASW, and Arimura (1980), and I'll try to

,demonstrate that, while they each insist on ・superiority over the

-Others, they are mutually notational variants. Let me roughly


define the notion ‘notational variant'. A first approximation to the

definition of this notion is that a pair of apparently different anal-

yses are mutually notational variants if they account for the same

range of data and involve the same theoretical implication, i.e. if

they have attained the same level of descriptive and explanatory (6)

adequacy. Furthermore we are justified to call ‘potentially nota-

tional variants' any pair of analyses which initially fail . to meet

the above conditions but, if slightly modified, could meet them.

In what follows I'll make a pair-wise comparison of the afore-

mentioned four analyses and demonstrate that it is highly probable

that they are potentially. notational variants to each other. Spe・

cificallr, I’II examine them in two points : (i) how VP ’s are stacked

and what formatives have [+AUX] assigned, (ii) how to account

for what I call ‘No stranded ing-form constraint' (immediately to

b空illus 士rated). You might argue that my check is far from ex ・

haustiv.e, but the two checkpoints are crucial in the evaluation of

competing analyses in this domain and the result will be largely

suggestive of the essential property of each analysis.

Before going to a specific pair-check, let me illustrate what I

mean by ‘No stranded ing-form constraint'. The following examples

show that, if VPD yields an S-final ing ・form, the resultant sentence

is ungrammatical.

(6)* Sam ’s being examined by a psychiatrist was just as un ・

reasonable as Bill ’s being.

(7 〕 Which bothers you more: John ’s being noisy or Bill ’s (7)

being *(noisy).

( 8) Just how nasty was Bill being?

Note that ( 8) is OK because it hasn ’t undergone VPD. Thus the

above term refers to the fact that VPD can ’t apply to yield any

ing-form stranded S-finally.

Now let ’s get on with checking. I make three pairs: ASW ・lwakura

(1977,1980 り， ASW ・Arimura (1980), and lwakura (1977, 198Qb).

Arimura (1980), and Sag (1976) will be left alone because it is

largely incorporated into Arimura (1980), but I’II refer to Sag (1976)


whenever it is in order.

First I'll examine the ASW ・lwakura pair. (i)How are their VP ’s stacked? lwakura ’s PSR ( 9 ) borrowed from Emonds (1976) posits

approximately a structure (10) to the sentence ASW analyzes as

( 5 ).

(9) VP →V(VP) (10) s

Nパず＼伊

I iハ p' t 円I p

I I X John may have b巴－s1hg

(10) looks like ASW ’s analysis ( 5 ), but the following trees (12)

and (13 〕show how their difference shows up when they analyze a much simpler sentence (11).

(11) John will sing.

(12 〕 s

./ I VP NP AUX I

｜｜ V

smg

(13) ／イS、

γi lwakura (1980•) claims that the encircled nodes in (13) are redun-

dant and his analysis is more natural. His claim seems plausible (8 〕

to me but he hasn ’t actually given any argument for it. Then we

must see where this difference derives from by closely examining

their VP-(or V0-) rewriting rules, (4(c ））卸d( 9) (repeated be-

low).

( 4 (c ）〕

(9)

yn →（［： :ux])~~-:


Roughly speaking, in the above rules we can identify V0 with VP

and [ !Xux] with V respectively. Then these r山帥r in two

respects: (a) V0 has a superscript n but VP doesn ’t, and (b) the

head-modifier configuration in VP shows a mirror image of that

in V0, i.e. in ASW ’s system an auxiliary element (have-en, be-

ing, be-en) is an optional modifier, followed by a head V0 →， while

in lwakura ’s system an auxiliary element is a head, followed by

an optional VP; schematically (M)H vs H(M). (a) and (b) to ・

gether are responsible for a simple vs deeply embedded structure-

contrast in (12) and (13 〕. However, since Iwakura doesn ’t give

any explicit argument for the superiority of his analysis, ASW

might defend themselves against his charge by saying that this is

not a serious problem but merely ‘aesthetically in bad taste ’. A powerful argument Iwakura could have advanced is the fact that

these redundant nodes are partially responsible for a serious

structural ambiguity in negative sentences, but the last section of

this paper will show how this defect of ASW can be removed.

Another way of ASW ’s self-defence would be to show that Fact

(ii) at p.12(i.e. the ordering constraint on auxiliary elements) can

be neatly accounted for by the V0 system while it is accounted

for in a rather unique manner by Iwakura ’s system. For example,

ASW strictly subcategorizes be-ing as ［一一一V1J, but Iwakura (1980 り

gives the feature [AUX (have-en ）一一VP] to it. ASW ’s feature-specification is simple and local while Iwakura ’s is non-local and

uses a lexical item such as have ・en as well as category symbols. (9)

This is a rather unique way of strict subcategorization. Moreover

ASW has a fringe benifit that they can also subcategorize ordinary,

verbs by specifying the value of n in the V0 which can occur as

a complement to a specific verb. This is not the case with Iwakura.

Summarizing, the V0 system assigns apparently redundant nodes

to a very simple sentence but ASW can counterargue that this

is merely of aesthetic matter in affirmative sentences and there

is a way out to solve a serious problem which occurs in negative

sentences, and that this aesthetic shortcoming is Gompensated for

by a benifit elsewhere. I'll discuss the assignment of the feature


t + AUX] in (ii) below, for Iwakura (1980 りcrucially refers to this

ieature to account for ‘No stranded ing イorm constraint' (hereafter NSIC).

(ii) lwakura (1980 り assigns [ +AUX] to have-en, be-ing, and [ -

AUX] to M V be and have. This feature assignment makes it pos・

sible to posit a filter ＊……V +ing]yp so as to account for NSIC. [ +AUX]

This filter blocks ( 6 ) while allowing ( 8 ) to be generated (both repeated below 〕．

( 6 )* Sam ’s being examined by a psychiatrist was just as un ・

reasonable as Bill ’s being.

( 8) Just how nasty was Bill being?

Since being in ( 6 ) . is Passive be with [+AUX], it is blocked by

the above filter, but being in (8) is M V be with ［一AUX], and

g.enerated all right. Iwakura claims that this filter is unworkable in

ASW ’s system because they assign [+AUX] to be and have of every

kind and this filter will incorrectly throw ( 8) away. However,

here is also a kind of ‘trading relation'. ASW ’s feature assignment

is motivated by a simple statement of Do Replacement which refers

[ +V ] 0 +Auxl ・Note that lwaku ぱ s rule which brings about the the

same effect as Do Replacement has to refer to an adhoc disjunctive

listing of be and have. Then ASW can buy lwakura ’s filter at the

cost of a simple statement of Do Replacement, and easily achieve

the same level of descriptive adequacy as Iwakura (1980 り．To sum up (i) and (ii), the di 任erence between Iwakura and

ASW in the above two respects might be regarded as merely

aesthetic or it can be removed if ASW is slightly modified. There-

fore, supposing that residual minor differences unchecked here

are found to be of a similar kind, they may well be called ‘po ・(10)

tentially notational variants' to each other.

Next, let ’s turn to the ASW ・Arimura (1980 〕 pair. Arimura ’s system is a mixture of Sag (1976) and ASW, for he incorporates

the merits of both analyses. What he borrows from Sag is the CU)

AUX-pruning convention and a PSR rewriting VP as (AUX) VP.


The AUX-pruning convention brings about the same effect as BE-

shift and the filter in ASW and lwakura. He follows ASW in adop-

・ting a version of V0 system and making the topmost AUX obli-

_gatory, and also in assigning [+AUX] to be and have of every 02)

kind.

(i 〕Since there is no difference about the assignment of the

・feature [ +AUX], I’11 show how to remove the apparent PSR dif-

-ference in the two systems. The similarity is obvious in the

;Structure (14) he would assign to what ASW analyzes as C 5〕．

卜¥TP'

¥fl

Note that his PSR VP0 →（AUX)VP0-1 is tantament to the V0 sys-

tem. The only di 任erence is that he counts VP0 in a reverse dir-

-ection and, since he has raised Passive be from the lowest VP, the

value of n ranges from 1 to 4 instead of 3. It is merely notational

whether we count the members of a sequence upward or downward,

.and the ya・ system can be easily extended to the V• system if we

slightly deviate from the general X convention. Thus we will be

.able to identify both PSR ’s if we slightly modify ASW.

(ii) In Arimura (1980) NSIC is taken care of by the AUX-pruning

-convention, which prunes an AUX node which dominates an ing-

form as is shown below.

VP －－－－－－－、、、

AUX

＝令

V+ing V+ing


Note that the SD of Sag ’s VPD is X-AUX-VP-Y, with a general u や

recoverability condition defined on the logical form. Then the re-

suiting tree fails to meet the SD of VPD and V + ing will either

be deleted by VPD or followed by some elements. Thus there is.

no chance to have V + ing stranded S-finally. Since Arimura ’s

, f +V 1 AUX is equivalent to ASW s I +AUX I, this convention can be

(13)

readily incorporated into the V0 system. Alternatively NSIC can

be accommodated by incorporating Iwakura ’s filter into ASW and

allowing ASW ’s BE-shift to move every be but be-ing just as in

Iwakura (1977). Thus ASW can use either alternative to account

for NSIC. Arimura points out some other defects of ASW ’s PSR and BE-shift in a negative context [pp. 301 妊.］ but I’11 try to re-

move them in § 4.

To sum up, their PSR-di 妊erence is notational in the true sense

of the word, and ASW can account for NSIC either by incorporating

Arimura-Sag ’s convention or Iwakura ’s ‘BE-shift ＆日ter' strategy.

Thus it is highly probable that ASW and Arimura are potentially

notational variants, presuming that residual differences are re-

movable in similar ways.

Lastly, let ’s turn on to the Arimura-Iwakura pair and briefly

examine their difference. Since Arimura ’s PSR is essentially a

version of V0 system, it must be subject to the Redundant Node

criticism directed against ASW but we can give the same counter-

arguments and remedy as in the case of ASW. The AUX-pruning

convention is not able to be incorporated into Iwakura ’s system

so readily as it is into ASW ’s, for Iwakura would reject replacing:

the head V of VP with an AUX label. However, his filter and BE-

shift ( 1 〕accounts for the same range of data as the AUX-pruning

convention does. Summarizing, (i) as regards VP ・stacking and the

feature [ +AUX] in the Arimura-Iwakura pair we can say the same

things as we have said for the ASW-Iwakura pair; (ii) this pair

can account for the same range of NSIC data. Thus just as is the

case with the two foregoing pairs, it is highly probable that the

Arimura-Iwakura pair, too, belongs to the class of ‘potentially no ・


tational variants'.

To sum up this section, we examined two major aspects of

three pairs of Revised AUX analyses and found the members of

・each pair to be potentially notational variants to each other. Let

me parenthetically add two pieces of comment. First the degree

・Of cognateness seems to be greater in the AS 羽T-Arimura pair than

in the other two pairs, for 玄 convention predicts the way VP ’s are stacked in Arimura or ASW rather than in Iwakura, thus

Iwakura ’s system seems to imply something different from what

the other two do. However, our conclusion still seems to be rea-

sonable because so far investigation hasn ’t revealed any unsolvable (14)

empirical issues which may have been caused by this difference.

Second, A W and many Revised AUX analyses focus on the VPD

,data and they seem to do a pretty good job with VPD phenomena

in finite sentences and one category of non-finite sentences (i.e.

gerund), but quite a few touchy problems remain in the VPD data

involving infinitives, as is pointed out by Huddleston (1978) and

recapitulated by Arimura. Leaving these problems open, we ’II look

.into another set of data which challenge all the variant analyses

:SO far examined.

:3. Problems with not

This section extends the range of data to negative sentences and

,demonstrates that some data are problematic to tlie Vn system and

白others challenge every variant analysis discussed in the previous

section. As far as I know, there are only a few papers which

,discuss negative sentences within the Revised AUX analysis: Sag

(1976), ASW, Maeda (1980•,b,e), Amano (1980••0). I'll chiefly re-

,capitulate the relevant part of Maeda above, which points out three

・problems concerning not in the Vn system. Note incidentally that

.Amano (198Qb 〕independently points out exactly the same three

・problems plus one, and argues that in Iwakura (1980)'s system

they are either solvable or non-occurring. Then this section will

pont out the above four problems; two of them are an under-

.generation problem that the Vn system, so to speak, undergenerates

.certain types of negative structure, and the other two problems


concern the overgeneration of unmotivated structures and unin-

terpretably multiple negatives (hereafter ‘negative ’or ‘negation ’i

will be abbreviated as NEG).

3.1 Now a first problem with the Vn system is that as the follow-

ing PSR ( 4 )' shows, this system generates Vn-NEG nodes but

lacks an S-NEG node.

(4)' (a) S→NP AUX ya

(b) AU~·－－｛；；：γ。）

( c) yn →働（［：:ux])vn-1

However, there are two sets of data arguing for an S-NEG node_

One set of data such as below is presented by Amano (1980•, b)

and Carden (1972).

(15) John couldn ’t not have been hinting that Algernon is a

sexist. [Amano, Langacker (1974)]

(16) John couldn ’t not have been understanding. [Carden (1972) J

Though the acceptability judgement of these sentences seems to・

be subject to idiolectal variation, it has to be said that those who

accept them internalize a grammar which generates two consecutive

instances of not before have-en. In (15) and (16) ASW can gene-

rate not as V3-NEG but can ’t generate contracted n’t because

there is no S-NEG node as its source between AUX and V3.

Maeda (1980 り presents the other set of data which involve VPD・

and argue for an S-NEG node. The following data suggest that, (15)

when VPD applies, not must be out of V3.

(17) Harry may not have been singing, and John may not,either..

(18)* Harry may not have been singing and John may, either ..

The second conjunct of the input sentence to VPD has to be like.

(19) rather than (20).


(19)

、、－

po

＼

－

e－m

＼

＼

一

…

即

時

3

＼

一

h．剖

VP／一比e

－

il－－』〈十b

－

itn

一X

r

sィ，USIlli－－ua

．

／

A

m

t

P

A

E

NIll－－m

TJ

、Bノnu

qL

r

’E、

h

p

b

＼一

n

、、－pb

＼

一

n

J

j

l

、、－t

S

＼

一

b

3

、、－e

Vトf

一V

』

jII1f

一a

－』，，L1n

－

ゐ

a

－、O

－、、n

－

＼

X

r

sklull－

r．

／

A

m

，P

I

NIlli－－

h

o

yJ

Then not has to be either underlyingly placed as it is in (19) or-

relocated there before VPD applies. However, even if we choose

to relocate it there, the structure-preserving constraint will require (16 〕

an S-NEG node. This point will be discussed in § 4. 2 in more

details. Thus this argument seems to demonstrate that, however

the structure (19) is derived, an S・NEG node must be posited.

Note that this argument crucially assumes that VPD deletes a.

constituent VP or VP ・equivalent such as Vn. Then should it be

demonstrated that VPD deletes a variable, the above argument

would collapse, because a non-constituent ‘V3 minus not' could have

been deleted in (20). Though Sag (1976) vaguely suggests this-

possibility, it has been crucially assumed by every argument using

the VPD data which has been advanced ever since Ross (1969) that

VPD deletes VP ’s as the name of this transformation suggests. This.

assumption has been unaffected even in Revised Extended Standard

Theory (hereafter REST) as is proposed by Chomsky (1975, 1977a, h,

1980), Chomsky ・Lasnik (1977), Fiengo (1980) etc., and this assump--

tion also seems to be shared by those who take an interpretive.

approach to VPD, such as Wasow (1972), William (1977). Moreover,

the acceptability judgement of (17) and (18) is never subject to ・

idiolectal variation as is the case with two consecutive instances.

of not before have-en, and are more reliable in this respect than.

the latter data. Thus we can say that this argument is pretty (1 i〕

strong. If we accept the two arguments above, an S-NEG node,

will have to be posited in any version of AUX analysis.

3. 2 A second problem concerns a structural ambiguity with respect: 08)

to not occurring in the AUX position. If we accept the foregoing・

arguments for an S-NEG node and revise ASW so that it may

generate S・NEG by a rule S→NP AUX(not)V3,ASW will have to,


(19)

analyze the sentence (21) as four way ambiguous: (22 ）～（25).

イ V' (23) ./f"-v3 not ム〆込s

ハlvf

s

ハlvlvA附

ASW, however, erroneously regards (21) non 引 nbigusly as (23),

ignoring the other three possible analyses.

On the other hand, since Iwakura ’s PSR extended by Amano

(1980 り disallows not to be generated independently of the head

of VP, not in (21) is analysed only as two way ambiguous: i.e.

as S-NEG (26) or as VP-NEG (27).

(27) ~VP

noぷ込However, as has been illustrated, the VPD data (28) suggest that

not in this sentence. behaves as an S-NEG.

(28) Harry must not leave the room, and John must べnot),

either.

Therefore Iwakura as well as ASW will have to disambiguate not

in this sentence solely as S-NEG.

3. 3 A third problem concerns another version of overgeneration :

multiple NEG. ASW admits that their system will generate such

problematic multiple NEG ’s as below.


(29) John mustn ’t have not been not listening at that time.

(30)* John mustn ’t not not leave.

(31)* We must have not not won.

Iwakura ’s system can avoid generating (30 〕 and (31) but can ’t avoid generating (29) and some other bizarre sentences similar to

(20)

(30) and (31). Both systems can also generate additional not im-

mediately after contracted n’t in (29 〕．

Lastly, Amano (1980b) points out that whereas not is genarable

after be-en in Iwakura (1980)'s system, it isn ’t so in the V3 system,

and the former has an empirical support. ASW can ’t derive the

sentence (32), for their V0-rewriting rule generates 即 t before be ・

en but not after it and any plausible version of BE-shift would

prohibit be-ing from going out of V1 in (32).

(32) John is being not blowed (but just patted).

Iwakura or Arimura, on the contrary, can generate not after any

[+AUX] element, so the sentence (32) is generable in their sys

tems. A straightforward solution anyone would think of is to have

V• instead of V3, and this will be proposed in the next section.

To sum up this section, there are four problems with the Vn

system: two undergeneration problems (lack of a Post-be-en-NEG

node and of an S-NEG node) and two overgeneration problems

(structural ambiguity and multiple NEG). The latter three pro-

blems above gives a trouble to any version of Revised AUX analy-

ysis. The next section will attempt to solve these problems.

4. To Solve the Problems

This section tries to solve the problems revealed in the previous

section.

4.1 The first problem is lack of an S-NEG node, but a solution

for it is straightforward; i.e. to posit an S-NEG node in the AUX

position or wherever it can be demonstrated as the right place.

For the sake of argument, I’11 arbitrarily follow Culicover(l976), (21)

Jackendoff (1972) etc. rather than Klima (1964) etc. and propose

ヲ司

戸、

(1980)

天理大学学報

th ♀ following revision (33) and (34) in ASW and lwakura

respectively.

26

S→NP AUX (not) ya

S→NP AUX (not) VP

(33)

(34 〕

4. 2 The second problem is an unmotivated structural ambiguity

assigned to a simple sentence such as (21) (repeated below).

John must not leave the room.

This problem should be solved in two steps: first reduce four way (23)

ambiguity to two, and then remove the remaining ambiguity. This

is because the first step is necessary only for the V0 system (in-(24)

eluding Arimura (1980)), and the latter step is necessary for any

version of Revised AUX analysis. In the first step of solution, I'll

revise PSR in the V0 system to yield a notational variant to Iwa-

kura ’s, which avoids this problem. In the latter step I'll propose

a restructuring rule, NOT-shift, for every version of Revised AUX

analysis. Since the fourth problem (i.e. lack of a Post-be-en-NEG

node) requires a revision of PSR as the present problem does, I'll

revise ASW ’s PSR so that both problems may be simultaneously

solved. Let me propose to revise (33) and (4'(c)) (repeated below)

into (35).

(21)

S→NP AUX (not) ya

yn →（not)( I十 V 1)vn-1 ¥L+AUXJ/

S→NP AUX (not] v•

yn →（ (not) I十v l)vn-1 ¥ I +AUXJ/

y1 →（not) V …

(a)

(4)' (c)

(35) (a)

Cb 〕

(c)

(33)

，W

B

i

宏明

(4;:;::n 二三2)

The modification effected is summarized as the following three

changes.

(i) The value of n is 4～2 as opposed to 3～1.


(ii) When 4~n~2. not is allowed optionally to occur only if

[ +V J +AUX I occurs, and under V1, not optionally occurs without

any restriction.

(iii) The dots following yn-1 have been removed.

These modifications as a whole remove (23)', (24)' and (25)', which.

would otherwise have been assigned to the sentence (21) by the.

V4 system, and allow only (22)' and (36) to be derived.

(2りトV'

not ム(23)'~.

.no~

(36 ）／八V'

V'

V'

f 乞斗

Now let me justify each of the three changes enumerated above.

The modification (i 〕converts ASW ’s V3 system into the V• system

such as Arimura (1980), where have-en occurs under V', be-ing-

under V3, be-en under V2, and M V under V1. This modification, as

wassuggested at the end of the last section, is obviously motivated

by a need to generate the sentence (32) (repeated below) within

the yn system. See Iwakura (1980) for some other motivation.

(32) John is being not blowed (but just patted).

The first half of the modification (ii) changes the relation of not

d r +V 1 a J + AUX J element such as have －肌 be-ing, be-en, so that they

cease to be mutually independent and now their relation is such.


／「＋V l¥ that not is a modifier to the head t1.e. I +AUX I) of an optional

／「＋V l¥ string p.e. 仰 t I +AUX IJ・ Note 伽 t we are now analogizi 時出e

「＋v 1 「＋V l relation of not and j +AUX I加出atof I +AUX I and Vn, and using

the terms ‘head ’and 'obligatory ’in their wider senses. For the

term ‘head ’usually refers to the obligatory element of a constit-

uent, such as Vn → in Vn but our term refers to a head-like ele-

(i. [+VJ +V ]) -co 山+AUXI O +AUX

term ‘obligatory ’is used in its relativized sense and means ‘obli-gatory for something to occur ’. With this in mind, you ’11 see how

「＋V l the following sen 蜘 ces support this analysis of 出e not- I +Aux I relation.

(37) Jack could have not been hinting that Algernon is a sexist.

(38) Jack could have been not hinting that Algernon is a sexist.

[Amano, Langacker (1974)]

The scope of not in these sentnces is said to be everything to its

right. In other words we can interpret that there is some semantic

-contrast between (37) and (38) because the focus of NEG has been

shifted onto ‘been ’in (37) from ‘hinting .. .' in (38). This interpre-

tation suggests that not should always have what is loosely called

'head ’as a focus for it to act upon, and it should be disallowed to

-0ccur in a headless context like (23)', (24)' and (25)' above: e.g.

.. v2[not <p v'[go …… This justifies the first half of modification

(ii), which removes (23)', (24)', (25)', where not has no immediate

focus to act upon. The latter half of modification (ii) yields basi-

-cally the same modifier-head configuration where not modifies the

head V.

Note that (i) and (iii) claim to dichotomize the layers of Vn into

v←2 and V•. This claim is justifiable in that v•-2 represent what

has been traditionally treated as a predicate phrase and V1 repre-

sents a traditional VP proper (N.B. M V be and have occur under

V り. This dichotomy improves the original PSR of ASW in yet

寸

てrHE SYNTAX OF ENGLISH AUXILIARIES 29

another way as is shown below.

Arimura [p. 301] criticizes that because of the dots in ( 4 ’（c))

the original PSR generate a wrong structure (39).

／／ペア～～v,P AUX ノぺ、子＼

｛立沙ヰ《L了[+Xux]~ PP ［土Xux] v NP PP

However, this dichotomy, modification (iii) in particular, prevents

(39) from being generated. The above fact clearly shows that, al・

though our dichotomy is initially motivated by a need to account

for the distribution of not, it i器 independently motivated by some

descriptive adequacy attained elsewhere.

すhe modification proposed up 初 this point is required only by

ASW but not by Iwakura (1980). So far, Iw 誌 ura ’s system appears.

superior to ASW. However, as we saw in 3.1, (28 〕（r叩 eated below)

suggests 士ha 主not in the AUX position uniformly behaves as S-NEG

with respect to VPD.

(28) Harry must not leave the room, and John must *(not).

either.

It seems to me that the be 器t way to account for this fact is to

treat it as a syntactic neutralization of VP-NEG into S-N 豆G. The

tree-diagram ( 40) shows that the AUX position is a neutralizing

not


position of not.

'There are several ways to formulate this reanalysis, such as a

movement transformation, a free ride on Neg-Contraction, a re-

structuring rule (hereafter RR). Let me discuss the above three

possibilities. I don ’t choose the first alternative because it wouldn ’t

iit in with REST to posit a transformation for a rebracketing

process which doesn't a妊ect a terminal string. Next, footnote 25

proves it untenable to take a free ride on a version of Neg-Con-(25)

traction. RR, on the contrary, has been proposed in ASW for exactly

this kind of reanalysis. Thus we are justified to formulate this

process along the line of BE-shift in ASW. This putative RR,

NOT-shift, for example, will shift not in the following way.

／〆「一－－r

1λ Within the revised yn system which posits an S-NEG node, this

process meets every condition on RR except the strict locality con-

<lition that a single word must be restructured immediately out of,

,or immediately into, a constituent [ASW p. 31]. This conditoin

predicts that, should not be restructured in (36), it will shift from

under V1 to under V2. Then if we ’d insist on an RR analysis this

condition has to be violated. Under the circumstances we are to

choose out of alternatives : to interpret this condition less strictly

and allow not to shift freely so long as it doesn ’t skip any inter-

vening word, or simply to give up this condition on RR. Everyone

will choose the former alternative if it is empirically supported in

an extended range of data, for the latter alternative will make RR

less constrained and closer to a transformation. Since I’ve not made

any exhaustive check on the relevant data, this choice has to

, .’ 1


(26)

remain a speculation.

To sum up this subsection, solutions have been proposed for two

-problems. The structural ambiguity problem has been solved in

two steps; first a Revised PSR removes unmotivated structures

which may occur only in the Vn system, and then RR removes

the remaining ambiguity which may occur in any version of Revised

AUX analysis. A revised PSR has also solved the Post-be-en-NEG

-problem.

4.3 Both the V‘system and Iwakura (1980 ）’s system will be able

to generate the maximum of five instances of not in an auxiliary-

verb sequence but nobody will accept such excessively multiple

NEG, for it seems to be virtually uninterpretable. However, the

following sentences show that even a single NEG must be subject

to some constraint.

(41)* The students solved not all of the problems.

( 42) Not all of the problems were solved by the students.

(43) Not everyone saw the play.

(44 〕＊ The play was seen by not everyone. [Lasnik (1972)]

Since ( 42) and ( 44 〕are a passive version of (41) and (43) respe-

<:tively, they should be cognitively synonymous, but they are ac-

<:eptable only if not is placed S-initially. Then we have to say that

no semantic condition is involved in the acceptability judgement

・Of the above sentences. McCawley (1973) makes a similar claim

about multiple NEG and says that there is nothing semantically

-0dd about the negation of a negative sentence.

Now I’H repeat the sentences with multiple NEG previously quoted

from ASW, which proposes no way to block them.

(29) John mustn ’t have not been not listening at that time.

(30)* John mustn't not not leave.

(31)* We must have not not won.

ASW suggests that though (29) is not starred, it is virtually un-


interpretable and it should be thrown away together with abom-

inable (30) and (31). Note that our revised V• system generates

(29) but doesn ’t generate (30) and (31), which have what we call

‘headless not'.

The following double NEG sentences represent a typical case of

idiolectal variation, for they are accepted by some people but not

by others.

( 45) Not many of the boys didn ’t talk to John. [McCawley

(1973) p. 201]

( 46) John couldn ’t have not been listening, could he? [ASW p.

47]

Incidentally, Klima (1964) and Lasnik (1972) propose that ‘constit-uent NEG ’like the following should be generated under the con-

stttuent 1t 1s to negate.

(47) I cut class not infrequently. [Lasnik (1972)]

Now (42), (43 〕and (45 〕above show that not can occur S・initially,

and (46) and (47) show that a constituent VP or a certain type of

adverbs can be negated. Then if our revised V• system is extended

to generate not in those two positions, it could even derive a sen-

tence with seven instances of not such as below.

( 48) Not many teachers can ’t not have not been not cutting

class not infrequently not long ago.

Such a sentence, of course, has to be blocked. Many linguists seem

to assume that more than two instances of not are disallowed

in a simplex sentence, but few of them ever tried to formulate

this intuition about multiple NEG. This is so because this domain

of data, as was suggested above, is subject to such an idiolect

variation that it rejects any simple analysis.

Carden (1972) collects very interesting data on idiolectal variation

with respect to doub_le NEG and analyzes them by using what I'd

づ司


like to call a parametric filter device. Let me briefly illustrate

how messy his data are and how skillfully he analyzes them. He

asked sixty informants for their acceptability judgement of sample

double NEG sentences, and classified the dialects into eighteen

categories. His questinonnaire, for example, includes the following

pair of sentences and has revealed that there are three dialects

with respect to this sample pair as the chart below shows.

( 49) Max doesn't not like music.

(50) John doesn ’t often really not understand.

Grammaticality The number Dialect ’s Judgement of

(49) I側Informants Labels

OK I OK I 26 A

＊キ 17 B

＊ 12 C

Nearly half of the informants accept both sentences, and a third

of them reject both while the smallest number of them accept (50)

and reject. ( 49). They are classified into each of the dialect group

A,B, and C respectively. Carden attributes this variation to whether

they have internalized ‘No Double NEG constraint' (hereafter

NDN).

Specifically, A doesn ’t have this constraint while B has, and C is

analyzed as having NDN internalized but he says C differs from

B in how they define NEG for NDN. C seems to count both not ’s in (49) as S-NEG but analyze the second not in (50) as VP-NEG

perhaps because two adverbs separate it from the AUX position.

I find this analysis ・of his very realistic and call it a parametric

filter approach, for the definition of NEG is a parameter whose

value varies, depending on a dialect. NDN itself is also a param ・

eter, to which the dialect A, for instance, has given the value of

zero. The factors which, he says, a妊ect the acceptability of double

NEG are a hearer ’s constituent analysis, NEG quantifier, ellipsis

『冒予v,


etc.. Those enumerated factors are each exemplified as follows.

First, there are some elements, such as intonation, word order,

which seem to make a hearer analyze a sentence in a particular

way. (50) above presents a case where the position of the second

not makes him interpret it as VP-NEG. (51) below is another case

where because of word order, the second not in (b) is ready to be

taken as VP ・NEG but that in (a) is not, consequently people tend

to prefer (b) to (a).

(51) ( a) ( = (16)) John couldn ’t not have been understanding.

( b) John couldn ’t have been not understanding.

Next, Carden reports that some people don ’t count negated quantifier

(e.g. not many people, nothing) as NEG.

Lastly the following dialogue gives a case of an elliptical answer

which is double NEG in disguise.

(52 〕 Q: Who doesn't like music?

A : Not Charlie.

A non-elliptical answer would have been an ungrammatical sen-

tence below.

(53)* Not Charlie doesn ’t like music.

His data show that most of his informants prefer A in (52) to

(53), but surprisingly there is a dialect which prefers (53). The

speakers of this dialect don ’t want to be confused by disguise and

they choose to violate an apparently general condition NDN so as

to prevent misinterpretation.

Now I have outlined Carden's parametric filter approach to Dou-

ble NEG, I'll quickly discuss some of the proposed filters on not,

but first let ’s see how a filter has been justified as a device to

block unacceptable multiple Neg. McCawley (1973) suggests that

multiple NEG is ‘logically ’interpretable but, as ASW labels triple

NEG (29), it may be ‘virtually ’uninterpretable: Then he proposes

一司君


in effect that the base should generate everything logically inter-

pretable and a surface filter is to block everything virtually un-

interpretable, for this system simplifies the transformational com-

ponent and also correctly reflects our intuition. There are, of course,

some alternatives to bring the same filtering e任ect. Carden ’s NDN

filter, for example, actually works as a derivational constraint

rather than a surface filter, or there may be some extragram-

matical level where a specific instance of multiple NEG is graded

for its degree of acceptability. However, I simply assume that a

surface filter approach is involved here because this fits in with

REST.

Now McCawley (1973) and Amano (1980 りpropose a filter which

prohibits two or more instances of not from occurring in VP, and

Amano even tries to formulate this ‘intra-VP NDN ’副総r, and that

as a semantic interpretation filter. Before we see how this filter

is counterexemplified, note that idiolectal variation in this domain

will make it easy to criticize any proposed filter by adducing co ・

unterevidence from a different dialect, therefore real counter-

evidence has to be free of such idiolectal variation. Such real

counterevidence can be adduced from the data already presented.

This filter claims that a sentence is good if it has only one NEG

in VP, but (41) and (44) (repeated below 〕really counterexemplify

this claim, for they are unanimously rejected.

(41 ）ネ The students solved not all of the problems.

( 44)* The play was seen by not everyone.

Now it is my turn to propose a viable filter however tentative

it may be. I consider only a formative not or its contraction (n ’t),

including not in 'not many ’and excluding more deeply incorporated (27)

NEG such as nothing. At the present level of investigation I'll also

have to exclude sentences like (47) where some adverdials are

negated (e.g. 'not infrequently ’）. I'll limit my target data to those

presented in this subsection. Thus my target data represent an

imaginary but probable dialect which rejects all the starred sen-

tences in this subsection plus (29) and (48), which have three or


more instances of not, and accepts every other sentence in this

subsection except C 47) where ‘not infrequently ’occurs : nine good

and seven bad sentences in total.

The target data seem to suggest that there are only two positions

for not to occur: the AUX position and the S 司 initial position. First

the AUX position (i.e. after the first auxiliary element) seems to

be the most comfortable seat for not to sit in; in other words this.

is the unmarked position of not. The unmarkedness of this position

for not is also phonologically supported by the fact that not is

normally unstressed here. However, the definition of the AUX

position has to be revised so that it may cover sentences like ( 46)

(repeated below 〕where one instance of not follows the second

auxiliary element.

C 46) John couldn ’t have not been listening, could he?

Let me extend the domain of the AUX position to what Amano 、

(1980b) informally refers to by the term ‘auxiliary-verb sequence ’，

which is not a constituent. I'll label this extended domain as the

wide AUX position as opposed to the narrow AUX position (i.e.

the old definition). Both positions (i.e. wide and narrow) can be

formally defined on the surface level as follows.

The revised definition of the AUX position: (28)

(i) The wide AUX position is anything which C-commands an_

item which has the feature [ +AUX] or [+VJ, and (ii) the

ム［：~：The narrow AUX oosition ..,.. V NP

[ +AUX] and ／山］ど〉The wide AUX position not m直ny ...

-~


narrow AUX position is such a portion of the wide AUX po ・(29)

sition as is not dominated by V• (or the topmost VP).

This domain is illustrated in the tree-diagram (54) at the pre-

-vious page (N. B. the S-initial AUX in the tree represents an

inverted one).

Next, the S-initial position can be defined much more simply but

1 won ’t formulate it because Ota (1980, p. 353) gives the following (30)

-counterevidence.

(55) Probably not many students could pass the exam.

・This sentence, however, doesn ’t completely nullify our basic claim,

.and yet it suggests that it will be our burden to characterize what

-elements can precede the 'S-initial ’not, but I don ’t pursue this

・matter any further.

In what follows the term ‘the not-position' will refer to the total

.area of these two positions for not to occur in. Now not is re-

stricted to the not-position defined above, let ’s see whether we can

.account for our target data. Out of seven bad sentences above,

-two sentences ( 41 〕and ( 44) are blocked because 'not all' and ‘not

-everyone ’occurs outside the not-position. Sentences (30 〕and (31 〕

・which are labeled ‘abomination ’by ASW, are not derived in our

revised V• system, because they involve headless not ’s. Sentences

(29) and (48 〕（with three and seven instances of not respectively 〕

are virtually uninterpretable, and our filter has to determine the

maximum number of not ’s in order to keep negative sentences

・virtually interpretable. Since six of the mne good sentences in our

-data have two instances of not in them, we ’11 have to infer that

'two ’is the maximum number of not allowable in a simplex sen-

・tence. Then our last job is to collect the data where two instances

-of not in the not-position yield unacceptable sentences. The re-

1evant data are presented below ((53) is repeated).

(53)* Not Charlie doesn ’t like music. [Mccawley (1973)]

(56)* John could have not been not hinting ’that Algernon is a

sexist. [Amano (1980 り］

38 天理大学生詳報

(57)* Not many girls could h,we been not listening.

Although Amano (1980h)'s intra-VP NDN filter was demonstrated

to be wrong, he makes an interesting observation that (56) above

will become much better if the first instance of not is shifted to

the narrow AUX position. Incidentally, Amano (1980 つprudently

refrains from formulating this observation of his into such a filter-

but uses an informal labf;!l ，‘an auxiliary-verb seq1Jence ’and says 、

that two instances of ng.f are allowed in an auxiliary-verb sequence (31)

only if one is interpreted as S-NEG and the other as VP-NEG. Since

we have already argued that our filter should be syntactic, his info.

rmal statement hぉ to be taken as a syntactic filter if it is to work (32)

all right. Then a syntactic version of his filter can be more for-

mally stated in our term as the following : if a sentence has two-

instances of not in the wide AUX position, one instance of not

must occur in the narrow AUX position. This filter correctly blocks

(56) and (57) in our framework but neither of Amano (1980•,h)'s filters makes any prediction about (57), for they don ’t consider an S-initial not. Our problem is that (53) will erroneousl_y pass

through our filter. Lasnik (1972) says that sentences like (53) have

not plus NP instead of not plus a quantifier and this makes such

sentences bad becaus of some semantic incongruity. See Lasnik

(1972) for details.

Since I have accounted for all the tqrget data and some other

relevant data added, let me summarize my filter _system as the

following three-step process of checking a simplex sentence.

(i) Three or more instances of not a,::e blocked.

(ii) T'Yo instances of not in the not-position are allowed only

if one instance. of not occurs in the narrow AUX position.

(iii) One instance of not is allowed anywhere in the not-position.

5. Conclusion

This paper reviewed how the syntactic aspects of English aux--

iliaries have been analyzed in the past two decades, and concluded

that a group of recent analyses which posit the category AUX and

stacked VP ’s are potentially notational variants to each other.

明ヨ


Then it revealed that, if these analyses are extended to cover

negative sentences, they are inadequate at least in the following

four respects :

(i) they lack an S-NEG node,

(ii) they yield unmotivated structural ambiguity,

(iii) they derive unacceptable multiple NEG,

(iv) some of them lack a Post-be-en ・NEG node.

The following. tentative solutions were proposed for each problem

above:

(i) to posit an S・NEG node,

(ii) to revise the PSR of some variant analyses and posit

an RR ‘NOT-shift ’for all the variants,

(iii) to give a formal definition to ‘the position of not'

and posit some filter on sentences with not.

(iv) to posit four layers of VP as some variant has.

already done. (April 21, 1981)

NOTES

C 1〕 Sag (1976, p. 55) ignores the VP-Fronting data in his discussion

of English auxiliaries, for the VP-Fronting is a marked stylistic process,

and the data in this domain seem to him extremely murky.

(2 〕 The sentences ( 1 ) and the tree ( 2 〕are a revised version of those・

in Ross (1969, p. 83).

( 3) Sag (1976, p.14, 17) and Akmajian and Wasow (1975, p. 236) marks

* on sentences like (d 〕and the latter marks ? on sentences like (c 〕．

Interestingly, ASW accepts (c 〕and ( d) and contradict A W ’s judgement. Sag suggests two varieties of PSR for those two dialects. In one variety

one of the AUX-rewriting rules rewrites AUX as Tense (M)(have 〕，

and in the other it rewrites AUX as Tense (M). The former variety・

accounts for one which accepts (c 〕and rejects ( d 〕．

( 4) Tenses and S-final ‘too' are ignored here.

( 5) This rule will be later revised into ( 6) to generate not.

( 6) We will loosen the requirement for ‘the theoretical implication' at

the end of this section.

( 7) *( ) means that the sentence is out if the parenthesized string is

omitted.

( 8) While lwakura's comment (198Qa) on redundant nodes is not a full-

fledged argument, Amano (1980b) tries to argue that these redundancy

actually prevents us from formulating such a simple filter on multiple


NEG as Iwakura (198Qb) would allow us to formulate. However, his

argument is simply wrong because ASW would allow for as simple a

filter as Iwakura, but it will be later shown tbat, as far as they refer

to VP, these filters have no empirical support anyway. 、

( 9) Sag (1976)'s subcategorization features are similar to Iwakura

(198Qb)'s.

(10) See f.n. 14.

(11) Arimura (1980) in e任ect adopts that version of Sag ’s PSR which

rewrites the topmost AUX as Tense くM) and accepts (l(d 〕）. See f.n. 3

for details.

(12) Arimura misinterprets ASW when he says [p. 303] that ASW assigns

[ -AUX] to M V be and have, for ASW would give the follwing under-

lying structure to the sentence “Is John a vegetarian ？”

[John ］悶［Pres-do] AUX v3 [ v2 [ v' [be a vegetarian]]]

「＋V l Unless M V be had I +AUX I• ASW ’s Do Replacement couldn ’t hop be

into the AUX-slot, which then SAI switches with the subject NP to yield

the desired form.

く13 〕 I personally prefer BE-shift to AUX-pruning because the former

seems to me to be more psycholoigcally real as a reanalysis process in

this context.

(14) Thus we have further extended the definition of 'notational variant ・to ignore possibly different theoretical claims which may be implied by a

pair of analyses until they explicitly present some serious empirical issue.

{15 〕 In ASW a reduced version of not (i.e. n’t) hops into AUX by Neg-

Contraction, but an urneduced version of not remains in V". Cf. ASW

(f.n. 36).

{16) Not can be relocated by (i) a transformation or (ii) a restructuring

rule, as will be later discussed, but either of them presupposes an S-

NEG node. This is so because (i) VPD is neither a local nor a root

transformation and a putative not-movement has to be structure-prese-

rving, and (ii) ASW proposes that any restructuring rule be struc・

ture preserving. Thus either way of shifting not out has to be struc・

ture preserving, therefore an S・NEG noede is presupposed.

(17) You might alternatively ar 郡1e that we can maintain VPD as a con-

stituent-deleting process if we note that not is generally undeletable.

Ota (1980 〕attributes a similar analysis of not to G. Lakoff who adduces

such data as •I hope not'. The following data are composed but seem

crucial in this regard, but I haven ’t checked with a native speaker yet.


I suspect that a native speaker ’s intuition varies in this area.

(i) John could have not been listening then, and Mary could have

(not 〕，（お斗(ii) We could always not answer the phone, and they could (always

ム、 ltoO I notJ i l v ’leitherf

(iii) What Tom did may be not feed them any more, and what Mary

け00 I did may be (not), 1;ithert・

Incidentally, Sag (1976) accepts a sentence like (i 〕which retains not in

the second conjunct, and Carden (1972) also reports that some of his

informants don ’t want not to delete in an elliptical answer as we ’11 see

in § 4. 3. However, I’11 ignore the data above until their status are

clarified.

(18) The term ‘the AUX position' refers to the surface position imme-

diately after the first auxiliary element as is exemplified by • in (i 〕．

(i 〕 He must • have been listening.

This definition will be elaborated in the following section.

(19) It will be soon shown that a further revised version of ASW which

postulates v• suffers from five-way ambiguity.

(20) An S-NEG-generating version of lwakura (1980 〕and ASW will apply

Do Replacement (or its equivalent) and Neg-Contraction to (i) to derive

(ii).

(i) John [Tense (do 〕］ AUX not [not have not win] v3(0, vp)

(ii 〕＊ John hasn ’t not not won.

(21) In§ 4. 3 we will try to account for such a double NEG as (i 〕below.

(i) Not many of the boys didn ’t talk to Jack.

Therefore besides (33) and (34) we ’11 have to assume some rule which

derives an S-initial not in (i 〕. Lasnik (1972) discusses two alternative

rules for this purpose, but I don ’t pursue this matter any further.

(22) va will be later revised into V4.

(23) See f.n. 19.

(24) Sag (1976) generates not at the pre-AUX position as a sister of AUX,

so it is a notational variant to either ASW or Iwakura in this respect.

The only difference is that, since he posits a Tense-(M)-(have) sequence

as a constituent (i.e. AUX 〕， no double NEG can occur in this sequence.

He suggests that there is a dialect where this seqence is a non-constituent

as it is in ASW. Arimura (1980) adopts the PSR for this dialect, therefore

he claims basically the same as ASW or Iwakura with respect to how

「


to derive not.

(25) ASW (f.n. 36 〕notes that there is a dialect which inverts an un ・

reduced version of not together with an auxiliary as in the following

sentence.

(i) Could not these problems be due to our corrupt way of life?

They assume that in such a dialect an unreduced version of not can

be part of AUX. Thus they also assume that, since the V0 system gen ・

erates not only in V0, there is a transformation that shifts not to under

AUX without reducing it to 河’t. Then you might argue that sentences

such as the grammatical version of (28) can be derived by taking a free

ride on this transformation to shift not out of V0 before the application

of VPD. However, the trouble is that those who don ’t accept the sentence

(i) don ’t internalize such a not-movement as they can take a free ride

on, and they have to find some device to bring about the same effect.

(26) Ota (1980, p. 560) quotes the following sentences from E. William

(1974 〕to show that their meaning is affected if they undergo a sequence

of Neg-Contraction and SAL

(i) Didn ’t John grow cotton 1 f in order to get government subsidies?

(ii) Did John not grow cottonJ

He says that a purpose-infinitive is in the scope of NEG in (i) while it

can be either out of or in the scope of NEG in (ii). It seems to me that

these data suggest that the RR which shifts not out of V0 has to apply

after the semantic interpretaton but before VPD. For, (iii 〕， if correct,

suggests that what can be semantically interpreted as V0-NEG must be

outside v•. 。ii) Harry did not grow cotton in order to get government sub-

[either]? sidies, and did John not, J }

ltoo I

Then if we adopt the REST model we must give up ASW ’s condition

that RR apply at the beginning of each cycle. Since f.n. 1 suggests that

VP-Fronting data should be ignored, VPD will be the only motivation

for RR, and the above revision will be feasible within the REST model.

(27 〕 I do so because words like 'nothing ’are allowed where phrases like

‘not many ’are not; e.g. in an object position. Carden (1972) ignores

this distributional difference when he classifies both as ‘negated quan ・

tifier ’．

(28) See Reinhart (1976) for the definition of •C-command ’.

(29) We can replace V• with V0 or omit the modifier 'the topmost', for

either terminology refers to the same domain.


(30) You might think that the S-initial position could be defined as a

subcategory of the AUX position, but Lasnik (1972) claims that a se-

quence like •not many ’makes a constituent on the surface level. Though

he gives no argument, if he is correct, the S-initial position can ’t be

incorporated into the definition of the AUX position.

(31 〕 A syntacti_c constraint similar to this is informally suggested by Ota

(1980, p. 458).

(32) Sentences with Modals such as the following suggest that Amano ・

(1980h)'s semantic approach faces some complication when a modal au-

xiliary cooccurs with NEG as in (21 〕（repeated below 〕．

(21) John must not leave the room.

Palmer (1979) and Araki et al. (1977) would paraphrase it as something-

like “It is compulsory that John not leave the room. ” Therefore we

can ’t say that 向。t in (21 〕is S・NEG in the normal sense of the word,

for it negates ‘the whol sentence minus must'. The crucial point is that,

although the semantic interpretation of this not rejects a simple dichot-

omy into S・NEG and VP-NEG, the VPD data such as (28) and (i) below

shows that not in the modal context is no exception to its syntactic

behavior as S-NEG

(28 〕 Harry must not leave the room, and John must *(not 〕， either.

(i 〕 Harry has not left the room, and John has *(not), either.

REFERENCES

Akmajian, Adrian, and Thomas Wasow. 1975. “The Constituent Structure

of VP and AUX and the position of the Verb BE. ”Linguistic Analysis

1. 205-245.

Akamajian, Adrian, Susan M. Steele, and Thomas Wasow. 1979. “The

Category AUX in Universal Grammar. ”Linguistic Inquiry 10. 1--64.

Amano, Masachiyo. 1980•. Saikin-no jodoshi-kenkyu. (a paper read at the

52rd General Meeting of the English Literary Society of Japan. 〕

一一一一一.1980b. fodoshi-doshiku-nai-no not no seisei ni tsuite (mimeo. 〕

Araki, Kazuo, Tsuneo Ono, and Hirozo Nakano. 1977. Jodoshi (gendai-no

eibum ρo 9). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

Arimura, Kaneaki, 1980. “Doshiku to jodoshi ・no naibu-kozo. ” Studies in

English Literature 56. 297 一一315.

Carden, Guy. 1972. “Multiple Dialects in Multiple Negation. ” CLS 8.

32-40.

Chomsky, Noam. 1951. Syntatic Structure The Hague: Mouton.


一一一一一一. 1975. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.

一一一一一一一. 1977•. Essays on Form and Interpretation. New York: North-

Holland.

一一一一一一一. 19771>. “On WR-movement. ”Culicover-Wasow-Akmajian (eds.)

Formal Syntax. 71 ー 132. New York: Academic Press.

一一一一一一一. 1980. “On Binding. ”Linguistic Inquiry 11. 1-46.

•Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1977. “Filters and Control." Ling-

uistic Inquiry 8. 425--504.

.Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax:

Root, Structure-preserving, and Local Transformation. New York: Acad-

emic Press.

Fiengo, Robert. 1980. Surface Structure: The Interface of Autonomous

Components. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Huddleston, Rodney. 1978. "On the Constituent Strucure of VP and AUX. ”

Linguistic Analysis. 4. 31-59.

Iwakura, Kunihiro. 1977. “The Auxiliary System in English. ” Linguistic

Analysis 3. 101 -136.

一一一一一一一. 1980•. Saikin-no jodoshi-kenkyu. (a paper read at the 52rd

General Meeting of the English Literary Society of Japan.)

一一一一一. 1980h. "A Filter on Auxiliary Verbs. ”（mimeo. 〕

Jackendo 任， Ray S. 1972, Semantic Interj うretation in Generative Grammar.

Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

一一一一一一. 1977. X Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge,

Mass. : The MIT Press.

Jenkins, Lyle. 1972. Modality in English Syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.

Reproduced by IULC.

Klima, Edward S. 1964. "Negation in English." Fodor-Katz (eds.) The

Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language. 246-

323. Englewood Cli 任s, N.J. : Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Langacker, Rpnald W. 1974. “Movement Rules in Functional Perspective."

Language 50. 630 ー-664.

工asnik, Howard. 1972. Analysis of Negation in English. Ph.D. Dissertation,

MIT. Reproduced by IULC.

Maeda, Shosaku. 1980-. A Need for the S-negation Node in the Vπ System.

(unpublished mimeo.)

一一一一一一一. 1980h. Some Remarks on Negation in the Vn System. (unpub ・

lished mimeo.)

一一一ー一一一. 1980°. Comments on Amano (1980h). (unpublished mimeo.)

Mccawley, James D. 1973. “A note on Multiple Negations or Why You

可事官官


don ’t not say no sentences like this one." McCawley, Grammar antf

Meening: papers on Syntactic and Semantic Topics. 206-210. Tokyo:

Taishukan.

Muraki, Masatake. 1972. "Intransitive Analysis of Root Modals.'' Studies

in English Literature (English Number 1972).

Ota, Akira. 1980. Hitei-no imi: Imiron-josetsu. Tokyo: Taishukan

Palmer, F.R. 1979. “Why Auxiliaries are not Main Verbs. ”Lingua 47. 1

-25.

Pullum, Geoffrey and Dieirdre Wilson. 1977. "Autonomous Syntax and

the Analysis of Auxiliaries. ”Language 53. 741 ー 788.

Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The Synactic Domain of Anaphora. Ph.D. Disser-

tation, MIT.

Ross, John R. 1969. “Auxiliaries as Main Verbs. ”Todd (ed. 〕Studies iπ

Philosophical Linguistics: Series One. 77-102. Evanston, Ill. : Great Ex-

pectation.

Sag, Ivan A. 1976. Deletion and Logical Form. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.

Reproduced by IULC.

Wasow, Thomas. 1972. Anaphoric Relation in English. Ph.D. Dissertation,

MIT.

William, Edwin S. 1974. Rule Ordering in Syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation,.

MIT.

. 1977. "Discourse and Logical Form. “ Linguistic Inquiry 8_

101-139.

the syntax of auxiliaries and negation in...

Documents