Pronouns of the type chto-nibud’ ‘something’ in negative sentences

It is well-known that -nibud’ pronouns in Russian are prohibited in the scope of negation: in the context of negation they are replaced by negative pronouns, e. g. IT IS NOT TRUE THAT (on chto-nibud’ izmenil v svoej stat’e) = On nichego ne izmenil v svoej stat’e ‘he changed nothing in his paper’. However, it was noticed that this rule is not always applied, cf. such examples as Otkusila, podstaviv snizu ladoshku lodochkoi, chtoby chego-nibud’ ne uronit’ ‘she bit [it] off holding her hand close to her mouth so that she wouldn’t drop anything’, where the -nibud’ pronoun in the scope of negation is possible. The paper demonstrates that this phenomenon is restricted to contexts of suspended assertion (i. e. to modal contexts and their cognates), in other words, to contexts of nonveridicality.

Keywords

existential pronouns, negation, nonveridicality, suspended assertion

Received

13.06.2016

Publication date

13.06.2016

Number of characters

699

Cite

GOST	Paducheva E. Pronouns of the type chto-nibud’ ‘something’ in negative sentences // Voprosy Jazykoznanija – 2016. – Issue 3 C. 22-36 [Electronic resource]. URL: http://ras.jes.su/vopjaz/s207987840000111-1-2-en (circulation date: 26.04.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0001000-9
MLA	Paducheva, Elena V "Pronouns of the type chto-nibud’ ‘something’ in negative sentences." Voprosy Jazykoznanija 3 (2016):22-36. DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0001000-9
APA	Paducheva E. (2016). Pronouns of the type chto-nibud’ ‘something’ in negative sentences. Voprosy Jazykoznanija (3), pp.22-36 DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0001000-9

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 1, views: 1097

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Boguslavsky I. M. Issledovaniya po sintaksicheskoi semantike: sfery deistviya logicheskikh slov [Studies in syntactic semantics: Scopes of logical words]. Moscow: Nauka, 1985.

2. Boguslavsky I. M. Sandhi in syntax: The puzzle of the Russian phrase uzhe ne. Voprosy jazykoznanija. 2002. No. 5. Pp. 19—37.

3. Weinreich U. On semantic structure of language. Transl. by Melčuk I. A. Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike. Zvegintsev V. A. (ed.). No. V: Yazykovye universalii. Moscow: Progress, 1970. Pp. 163—249.

4. Gerasimova A. A. Licensing of negative pronouns across the border of the infinitive clause in Russian. Tipologiya morfosintaksicheskikh parametrov. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «TMP-2015». No. 2. Lyutikova E. A., Tsimmerling A. V., Konoshenko M. B. (eds.). Moscow: Moscow State Pedagogical Univ. (in print).

5. Natsional’nyi korpus russkogo yazyka [Russian National Corpus]. Available at: http://www.ruscorpora.ru.

6. Paducheva E. V. O semantike sintaksisa. Materialy k transformatsionnoi grammatike russkogo yazyka [On semantics of syntax. Materials for a transformational grammar of the Russian language]. Moscow: Nauka, 1974 (2nd ed.: Moscow: URSS, 2007).

7. Paducheva E. V. The concept of presumption and its linguistic applications. Semiotika i informatika. No. 8. Moscow: All-Union Institute for Scientific and Technical Information, 1977. Available at: http://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/TextPdf1/presumption-77.pdf.

8. Paducheva E V. Vyskazyvanie i ego sootnesennost’ s deistvitel’nost’yu [Utterance and its correlation with reality]. Moscow: Nauka 1985. (6th ed., corr. Moscow: Izd-vo LKI, 2010. Available at: http://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/TextPdf1/paducheva1985.pdf).

9. Paducheva E. V. Dinamicheskie modeli v semantike leksiki [Dynamic models in the semantics of lexicon]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kul’tury, 2004. Available at: http://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/TextPdf1/PaduDinamMod2004.pdf.

10. Paducheva E. V. Effects of suspended assertion: global negation. Russkii yazyk v nauchnom osveshchenii. 2005. No. 2 (10). Pp. 17—42. Available at: http://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/TextPdf2/ryns2005.pdf.

11. Paducheva E. V. Russkoe otritsatel’noe predlozhenie [The Russian negative sentence]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kul’tury, 2013.

12. Paducheva E. V. Suspended assertion and nonveridicality (case study of the Russian pronouns with negative polarity). Russian Linguistics. 2015. Vol. 39. No. 2. Pp. 129—162.

13. Peshkovskii A. M. Russkii sintaksis v nauchnom osveshchenii [Russian syntax from the scientific point of view]. 8th ed., enlarged. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kul’tury, 2001.

14. Fitzgibbons N. What -nibud’-items reveal about Russian. Annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The second College Park meeting, 2010. Bailyn J. F. (ed.). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 2012. Pp. 17—32.

15. Giannakidou A. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998.

16. Giannakidou A. Positive polarity items and negative polarity items: variation, licensing, and compositionality. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2011. Pp. 1660—1712.

17. Goddard C. Have to, Have got to, and Must: NSM analyses of English modal verbs of ‘necessity’. Nonveridicality and evaluation: Theoretical, computational and corpus approaches. Taboada M., Trnavac R. (eds.). Leiden: Brill, 2014. Pp. 52—74.

18. Haspelmath M. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.

19. Partee B. H., Borschev V. Genitive of negation and scope of negation in Russian existential sentences. Annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The second Ann Arbor meeting 2001 (FASL 10). Toman J. (ed.). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publ., 2002. Pp. 181—200.

20. Pereltswaig A. Monotonicity-based vs. veridicality-based approaches to negative polarity: Evidence from Russian. Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Philadelphia meeting 1999. King T. H., Sekerina I. A. (eds.). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publ., 2000. Pp. 328—346.

21. Weinreich U. On the semantic structure of language. Universals of Language. Greenberg J. (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1963. Pp. 114—171.

22. Zwarts F. Nonveridical contexts. Linguistic analysis. 1995. Vol. 25. Pp. 286—312.