Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 24, No. 0, pp.141-154
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2024
Received 06 Feb 2024 Revised 21 Feb 2024 Accepted 22 Feb 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.24..202402.141

A Pragmatic Approach to Negated Predicate-Modifying How-Questions

Hae-Kyung Wee
Professor, Dept. of British and American Humanities, Dankook University 152 Jukjeon-ro, Suji-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea, Tel: 031) 8005-3073 hkwee@dankook.ac.kr


© 2024 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This study primarily aims to provide the felicity condition for predicate-modifying interpretation of negative how-questions by uncovering the reasons behind the distinction between negative how-questions that allow the interpretation of Predicate-Modifying How (PMH) and those that do not. The conditions enabling a PMH interpretation for negative how-questions are specified with two crucial elements: (i) the predicate to be eventive rather than stative and (ii) the negation of the predicate to convey the meaning of the predicate achieving a contextually desirable outcome, what can be called ‘desirability condition’. A secondary goal is to suggest syntactic structures for negated how-questions with PMH interpretations, where not is analyzed as the ‘low negation’ proposed by Holmberg (2012). This structure can represent the PMH questions while ensuring compliance with the ‘desirability condition’. The proposed structure, devoid of a negative island, facilitates movement of the vP-adjunct how to CP without encountering obstacles. Additionally, it is explored why negative how-questions with contracted negation n’t are deemed unacceptable for both PMH and mirative interpretations by most speakers.

Keywords:

predicate-modifying how, negative-island, scope of how, event predicate, stative predicate, low negation, high negation

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to two anonymous reviewers for giving valuable comments and helpful suggestions. The remaining errors and inaccuracies are my own.

References

  • Abrusán, M. 2008. A semantic analysis of negative islands with manner questions. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12, 1-16.
  • Bross, F. 2020. The why-how alternation and a new test for sentential negation—on negated how-questions. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5(1), 1-8. [https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1175]
  • Cormack, A. and N. Smith. 2002. Modals and negation in English. In Sjef Barbiers et al., eds., Modality and Its Interaction with the Verbal System, 133-163. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/la.47.08cor]
  • Cruschina, S. 2011. Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759613.001.0001]
  • Holmberg, A. 2012. Answering negative questions in English and Swedish. Lingua 128, 31-50. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.018]
  • Holmberg, A. 2016. The Syntax of Yes and No. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701859.001.0001]
  • Katz, G. 2000. A semantic account of the stative adverb gap. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 17, 135-151. [https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.17.2000.44]
  • Krifka, M. 2013. Response particles as propositional anaphors. In Proceedings of the 23rd Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference 23, 1-18. [https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v23i0.2676]
  • Kuno, S. and K. Takami. 1997. Remarks on negative islands. Linguistic Inquiry 28(4), 553-576.
  • Ladd, R. D. 1981. A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. In Papers from the 17th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 164-171.
  • Pak, M. 2017. Propositional how questions and negation. In A. Kaplan et al., eds., Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 423-430. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  • Rizzi, L. 2001. On the position of ‘Int(errogative)’ in the left periphery of the clause. In G. Cinque and G. Salvi eds., Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 287-296. Amsterdam: Elsevier. [https://doi.org/10.1163/9780585473949_016]
  • Romero, M. and C. Han. 2004. On Negative Yes/No Questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 609-658. [https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000033850.15705.94]
  • Shlonsky, U. and G. Soare. 2011. Where’s ‘why’?. Linguistic Inquiry 42, 651-669. [https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00064]
  • Smith, C. S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7911-7]
  • Thomason, R. H. and R. C. Stalnaker. 1973. A semantic theory of adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 4(2), 195-220
  • Tsai, W. D. 2008. Left periphery and how-why alternations. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17, 83-115. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-008-9021-0]
  • van Gelderen, E. 2015. The particle how. In J. Bayer, R. Hinterhölzl and A. Trotzke eds., Discourse-Oriented Syntax, 159-174. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/la.226.07gel]