History of German Negation

History of German Negation Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provid...

Author: Agnes Jäger

91 downloads 2037 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

History of German Negation

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.

General Editors Werner Abraham

University of Vienna / Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Elly van Gelderen

Arizona State University

Advisory Editorial Board Cedric Boeckx

Christer Platzack

Guglielmo Cinque

Ian Roberts

Günther Grewendorf

Lisa deMena Travis

Liliane Haegeman

Sten Vikner

Hubert Haider

C. Jan-Wouter Zwart

Harvard University University of Venice

J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt University of Lille, France University of Salzburg

Volume 118 History of German Negation Agnes Jäger

University of Lund

Cambridge University McGill University

University of Aarhus University of Groningen

History of German Negation Agnes Jäger J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data History of German negation / Agnes Jäger. p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 0166-0829 ; v. 118) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. German language--Negatives. 2. German language--Syntax--History. PF3359.N4 J34

2008

435--dc22

2007038187

isbn 978 90 272 5501 3 (Hb; alk. paper) © 2008 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements

ix

1.

Introduction

1

1.1.

Aim and Scope of the Investigation

1

1.2.

Empirical basis and theoretical framework

5

1.3.

Negation – Basic concepts

13

2.

The negation particle

26

2.1.

Typology of negation particles

26

2.2. 2.2.1. 2.2.2. 2.2.3.

NegP analysis Why assume NegP The place of NegP Head or specifier: phrase-structural status of negation particles

31 31 36 39

2.3. 2.3.1. 2.3.2. 2.3.3. 2.3.4. 2.3.5.

The negation particle in Modern German VP-internal or –external position of nicht Nicht left or right of V/VP? Nicht as Neg0 or SpecNegP? Head-initial or head-final NegP? Position of NegP relative to other projections?

48 50 52 54 56 56

2.4. 2.4.1. 2.4.2. 2.4.3. 2.4.4. 2.4.5. 2.4.6.

The negation particle in Old High German The negation particle ni Phrase-structural status of ni: ni as the head Neg0 Phrase-structural position of ni The focus-indicating negation particle nalles The ‘negation strenghteners’ nieht, wiht, and drof Grammaticalization of niht

58 58 78 86 92 103 107

VI

HISTORY OF GERMAN NEGATION

2.5. 2.5.1. 2.5.2. 2.5.3.

The negation particle in Middle High German The particles en/ne and niht Syntactic analysis: The position of en/ne and niht En/ne only or niht only instead of en/ne ... niht

115 115 122 139

2.6.

Summary

147

3.

Indefinites in the scope of negation and Negative Concord

151

3.1.

Typology of indefinites in the scope of negation

151

3.2.

Typology of Negative Concord

164

3.3.

Theories of n-indefinites and NC

171

3.4.

Indefinites and NC in Modern German

176

3.5. Old High German n-indefinites and NC 3.5.1. The OHG system of indefinites 3.5.2. OHG indefinites in the scope of negation 3.5.3. OHG NPI-indefinites 3.5.4. OHG n-indefinites 3.5.5. Indefinite determination in the scope of negation in OHG 3.5.6. OHG Negative Concord and competing syntactic patterns 3.5.7. Other types of NC in OHG 3.5.8. Pattern I vs. II: ni+V ± n-indefinite 3.5.9. Pattern I vs. III: n-indefinite ± ni 3.5.10. Text-specific explanations and Latin influence 3.5.11. Syntactic analysis of OHG NC

181 181 185 188 198 201 206 214 217 236 239 248

3.6. 3.6.1. 3.6.2. 3.6.3. 3.6.4. 3.6.5. 3.6.6. 3.6.7.

252 252 256 258 260 275 278 282

Middle High German n-indefinites and NC The system of MHG indefinites Indefinites in the scope of negation MHG NPI-indefinites NPIs changing into n-indefinites Original n-indefinites Indefinite determination in the scope of negation in MHG MHG Negative Concord and competing syntactic patterns

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VII

3.6.8. Other types of NC in MHG 3.6.9. Pattern I vs. III: n-indefinite ± en

302 303

3.7.

Summary

318

4.

Conclusion

321

Bibliography

329

Index

347

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book is a revised version of my 2006 doctoral thesis, submitted to Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena. I am indebted to a number of people who have contributed directly or indirectly to this book, and of whom I can only name a few. First and foremost, I would like to thank Peter Gallmann for his continuous and motivating interest in my work and for his open-hearted support. I am very grateful to Karin Donhauser for her encouragement and advice especially in the early stages of this project, as well as to Helmut Weiß and Jürg Fleischer for their many helpful comments on earlier versions of this book. The book has also profited a lot from extensive discussions with a number of colleagues, notably Joanna Błaszczak, Doris Penka, Frank Richter, Arnim von Stechow and Hedde Zeijlstra. I would furthermore like to thank Rosemarie Lühr for her advice on Indoeuropean, as well as Susanna Neri and Ute Rieger for their help with some of the Old High German examples. Further thanks are due to the series editors, Elly van Gelderen and Werner Abraham, for their support and comments. I would like to thank my family and Holger for their love and care, as well as many friends, in particular Anne Breitbarth, Kathrin Würth, Stefan Lotze and everyone at the Jena Linguistics Stammtisch. Finally, I thank Josef Bayer for drawing my attention to the intruiging field of negation in the first place. This book is dedicated to my father, Eckehart Jäger, who with his own passion for language – ever so often getting up from the dinner table to look up the etymology of words – kindled my interest in linguistics.

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1.

Aim and Scope of the Investigation

The possibility of expressing negation is a very basic property of human language. All natural languages possess it. However, there is a certain amount of variation in the linguistic means employed for this purpose. This variation is not only found between different languages but also between the various diachronic stages within one language. This is not surprising as those historical stages constitute different grammatical systems of their own and can thus be regarded as different languages, too. The present work investigates this variation and change of negation in the history of German, placing it within the typology of negation systems and explaining it in the context of recent syntactic theory. The investigation of different grammatical systems contributes to the understanding of universals underlying the variation. Studying closely related grammars, one may observe minimal parametric variation. Looking into grammatical systems that follow on from each other diachronically will in addition elucidate principles of language change in general and of syntactic change in particular. This work is intended as a contribution to the area of diachronic syntax of German as well as to the syntax of negation in general. The aim is to study large-scale diachronic developments in German negation; to describe and account for the main patterns and changes in the syntax of negation. On the basis of a corpus study of several Old High German (OHG) and Middle High German (MHG) texts and comparing the results to the situation in Modern German, crucial aspects of the syntax of negation such as the negation particle, indefinites in the scope of negation and the phenomenon of Negative Concord (NC) are investigated in order to answer the following research question: What did the average negated clause look like in the various stages of German, how did this change and how can it be accounted for in terms of current theory of negation and against the background of crosslinguistic research? The classic publications on diachronic syntax of negation stem from the early twentieth century. The only more comprehensive overview over the history of negation in German is given in an article by Behaghel (1918), building on some work from the 19th century. Mouřek (1902) investigated negation in Middle High German. Another classical work in the area of the his-

2


tory of negation is Jespersen (1917). Concentrating on English but also discussing other languages he described the systematic development of negative particles. More recently, Lehmann (1978) discussed the relation of negative particles in the history of German and VO vs. OV word order. An important contribution to the investigation of the history of negation in German is Pensel’s (1981) more comprehensive study on Early New High German negation. Two recent articles by Donhauser (1996, 1998) discuss negation in OHG. While the article by Lenz (1996) compares negative strengthening in German and other European languages without giving any new data, Müller (2001) presents a corpus study of the MHG text of Prose-Lancelot on the interaction of modal verbs and negation. In historical grammars and syntax handbooks of German, negation is generally treated only briefly. Furthermore, the empirical basis is often not very representative. Ebert’s (1978) and Admoni’s (1990) monographs on historical German syntax as well as Prell’s (2001) MHG syntax contain no chapter on negation at all, Admoni only has a few scattered remarks on the topic under “Communicative, qualitative-functional and emotional aspects of the clause: The aspect of affirmativity and modality”. A comparatively extensive treatment of negation is found in Paul’s (1920: 330-357) German grammar. However, it consists mostly of lists of examples and contains few generalizations. Brief chapters on negation that mostly discuss the different negation particles and occasionally mention the phenomenon of NC and expletive negation are contained in Dal’s (1966: 163166) and Lockwood’s (1968: 207-212) historical German syntax, Keller’s (1986: 207, 301) history of German, de Boor/Wisniewski’s (1998: 186-191) and Paul’s (2007: 388-395) MHG grammars, and Schrodt’s (2004: 135f.) OHG syntax. Examples that are given are mostly from Tatian and Otfrid for OHG and from verse texts for MHG. The accounts are based on a largely impressionistic approach looking for contrasts with Modern German, rather than on a systematic quantitative analysis of individual texts. Indeed, as Paul (2007: 389) puts it: “Genaues statistisches Material über den Gebrauch bei einzelnen Autoren steht nicht zur Verfügung” (‘Exact statistic material on the use by indivual authors is not available’) – a significant gap that the present investigation will help closing. While the history of German negation was somewhat neglected, there have been remarkable advances in the theory of negation over the past decades, notably within the framework of Generative Grammar. Within early generative transformational grammar, negation was brought into the focus of linguistic research through Klima’s (1964) analysis of the syntax of English negation that

1.1

AIM AND SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION

3

consequently inspired work on German such as Stickel (1970), Jacobs (1982) and Kürschner (1983). The early generative interest in negation also led to a few investigations into Older Germanic languages including OHG, notably by Coombs (1976) and Wheelock Labrum (1982). Typology since also gained an interest in negation. Cross-linguistic studies such as Dahl (1979), Payne (1985), Bernini/Ramat (1996), Kahrel/van den Berg (eds.) (1993) and Miestamo (2005) were conducted. Since the early nineties there has been a renewed interest in negation in Generative Grammar producing analyses of negation mostly in Romance languages, English and (varieties of) Dutch. With much syntactic research focusing on functional categories within the Principles and Parameters model, there was new scope for analysing negation. The assumption that the IP layer consists of several subprojections as argued for in Pollock (1989) lead to allocating negation its own syntactic place in terms of a functional projection, forming part of IP. Syntactic structures including this negation phrase (NegP), or polarity phrase (PolP) as in Laka (1990), proved helpful in analysing such phenomena as language variation with respect to properties of negation particles and verb-negation word order (Pollock 1989, Zanuttini 1997), the order of verbal negation and other morphemes (Ouhalla 1991), word order regularities of negative indefinite phrases (Haegeman 1995), and Negative Concord (Haegeman/Zanuttini 1991). The licensing conditions for negative indefinites, or n-words, and items sensitive to negation (Negative Polarity Items, NPIs) turned out to be another fruitful field of research (cf. Ladusaw 1979, Kadmon/ Landman 1993, Zwarts 1995, Acquaviva 1997, Giannakidou 1998, Déprez 1999, Błaszczak 2001, Zeijlstra 2004 and others). The first comprehensive analysis of Modern German negation in terms of NegP was proposed by Grewendorf (1990). Further accounts of German negation that utilize NegP were given in Hauptmann (1994), Santelmann (1994), Büring (1994), and Weiß (1998). The increase of research on and new insights into the syntax of negation in the early nineties has recently lead to some diachronic studies mostly on English and Dutch such as Burridge (1993), Frisch (1997), Wouden (1998), Kemenade (2000), Hoeksema (2001), Harbert (2002), Ingham (2003), and Mazzon (2004), but also on Old Norse, e. g. Eythórsson (2002), and Old Romance languages, e. g. Martins (2000). First accounts of historical German negation in terms of NegP were suggested by Weiß (1998), Abraham (2003), and Jäger (2005). Yet, so far there is no comprehensive, diachronic analysis of German negation that takes into account the insights into negation gained in typological research and syntactic theory since the early nineties.

4


The purpose of this work is thus twofold: first, to render a description of the history of negation in German on the basis of a quantitative corpus study that has been a desideratum of descriptive German linguistics for a long time, and second, to make use of the vast insights of typological research and syntactic theory in the analysis and thus to contribute in turn to the theory of negation. This work consists of two main parts discussing the two central phenomena in the syntax of negation, the negation particle on the one hand and indefinites in the scope of negation and NC on the other hand. In both cases, a typological overview, followed by a discussion of current theoretical approaches and an account of the situation in Modern German form the background to a detailed description and analysis of the situation in OHG and in MHG. The final chapter presents a synopsis of the main patterns and changes. With respect to the negation particle, it will be shown that the clitic negation particle ni on the verb, that can be analysed as Neg0, was basically obligatory in negated clauses in OHG, which thus clearly constitutes a Jespersen-stage-I language. The grammaticalization of the second, verb-independent neg-particle starts in Late OHG. I will argue that it is based on a reanalysis of the SpecNegP-adjacent, adverbially used indefinite into SpecNegP. While in MHG, there are still instances of the clitic neg-particle ne/en on its own or forming a bipartite neg-particle with niht, the verb-independent neg-particle niht is in fact used on its own in most cases in all texts under investigation, so that MHG is closer to Modern German than expected and there is no evidence for a stable stage-II period. In clauses with indefinites in the scope of negation, I will demonstrate that there are three different syntactic patterns in OHG and MHG: the cooccurrence of the neg-particle and an n-indefinite (Negative Concord), negmarking by means of the neg-particle only, or finally by means of an n-indefinite only. A crucial result of this study concerning Negative Concord (NC) in the history of German is that the main pattern of NC was the same in OHG and in MHG, viz. co-occurrence the verbal clitic neg-particle and an n-indefinite. Co-occurrence of several n-indefinites or of niht and an n-indefinite is hardly attested (so that the NC types found in Modern German NC dialects cannot be regarded as remains from the mediaeval language history but represent more recent developments). In OHG, the pattern mainly competing with NC is that of neg-marking by the neg-particle only. The corpus results suggest that there was free variation between these two patterns with no strict correlation to factors such as word order, syntactic function etc. In MHG, the main syntactic pattern com-

1.2

EMPIRICAL BASIS AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

5

peting with NC is neg-marking by an n-indefinite only. In fact, this is the most common pattern in MHG, whereas OHG surprisingly used NC most of the time. This shows that, on the one hand, the former optionality of the type of indefinite used in the scope of negation was lost, and that NC, in contrast to accounts in the literature so far, already significantly decreased from OHG to MHG. These developments will be shown to be crucially linked to the loss of the overt Neg0 neg-particle according to Jespersen’s Cycle on the one hand and to changes in the system of indefinites based on the enrichment with or loss of lexical polarity features of individual indefinites, on the other hand, notably the reduction from three polarity types of indefinites to a two-set system.

1.2.

Empirical basis and theoretical framework

The investigation is based on a corpus of negated clauses from several OHG and MHG texts. During the period covered, i. e. from the early 9th to the late 13th century, crucial changes took place in the syntax of negation in German. By the end of this period, the vast majority of negated sentences (over 90 % in Berthold) already show the same syntactic patterns as Modern German. The texts were chosen so as to cover different historical stages and dialect areas. As the study investigates syntactic phenomena, only texts of sufficient length and mostly ones written in prose were included. However, for each period one verse text was chosen, too, in order to compare the different genres. Some shorter texts were additionally investigated for the sake of comparison. There is only a limited number of texts from the OHG period that are sufficiently long for syntactic analysis. The two longer prose texts written in OHG are Tatian’s gospel harmony (before 850 AD, Central German: East Franconian) and the translation of Isidor’s De fide catholica (around 800 AD, Central German: South Rhine Franconian). Both are translations of Latin originals. In order to be able to estimate the influence of Latin on the OHG texts, the originals were considered in each case and compared to the German version. The OHG Tatian used to be considered a very close translation unlike the Isidor translation (cf. Lippert 1974, Dittmer 1992). However, within the limits of the individual lines, the structure is often changed in Tatian against the Latin original to comply with OHG standards, in many aspects more so than in Isidor (cf. Masser 1994, Dittmer/Dittmer 1998)1 so that the structures 1

Lippert (1974), who refers to Tatian as ‘a bad piece of translatory literature’, notes, however, that articles and subject pronouns for instance are in fact introduced against the Latin original much more in Tatian than in Isidor.

6


diverging from Latin represent a very valuable source for the historical syntax of German (cf. Fleischer 2006). Another long text from the OHG period is Otfrid’s gospel book (863-871 AD, Central German: South Rhine Franconian). This text has the advantage of not being a direct translation of any Latin or other original. On the other hand, it is written in verse, which may influence word order and choice of lexemes to varying degrees that are harder to pin down than the Latin influence in the aforementioned texts which is evident from the comparison with the originals. The samples for my corpus were taken from an edition of the oldest and best manuscript of Otfrid’s gospel book, viz. the Vienna manuscript. In order to capture the development within the OHG period and the transition to MHG, Notker’s Psalms translation (before 1020 AD, Upper German: Alemannic) written in Late OHG was also included in the corpus. In addition, the shorter texts of Hildebrandslied, Wessobrunner Predigt (Wessobrunn Sermon), Otlohs Gebet (Otloh’s Prayer), and Pariser Gespräche (Paris Conversations) were analysed for comparison. However, their extremely low number of negated clauses does not allow for a proper quantitative analysis. Just to illustrate the kind of methodological challenges that an empirical study like this one faces, I will say a few more words on the issue of translatory texts. Regarding these texts, it is important for any linguistic analysis to make a difference between clauses following the original and those diverging from it. According to the so-called principle of difference (“Differenzprinzip”, cf. Dittmer/Dittmer 1998) only clauses that diverge from the original should be considered. Note, however, that the translation may diverge in different ways, as I will illustrate here with examples from the OHG Tatian. Consider first a clause such as: (1)

(& Iniustitia In illo non est.) Inti unreht nist In imo. and injustice NEG-is in him ‘and there is no wrong in him’ T 167, 17

The translators did not simply produce a word-by-word translation of the Latin text but imposed OHG syntax on the clause by changing the word order so that a V2 clause resulted. Yet with respect to negation, there is no divergence from the Latin text: negation is marked by a clitic neg-particle on the finite verb. On the other hand, this is the most common pattern to negate a clause also in a text such as Otfrid which is not a direct translation. Of course, clauses that diverge

1.2


7

with respect to negation are more crucial to consider in a study on negation. Yet it would be wrong to simply exclude clauses such as (2) from the investigation, since they represent genuine OHG syntax of negation that just happens to coincide with Latin in this case. It is important to be aware of which clauses do not diverge from Latin with respect to negation, to establish the main patterns on independent grounds (non-translatory texts, clauses diverging w.r.t. negation) first and then to judge each example individually against this background and also depending on the specific research question. Diverging from the Latin original with respect to negation may also mean more than one thing. The following clause falls into that category because the translators added the neg-particle on the finite verb: (2)

+ diverging neg-particle, – diverging indefinite: (quia nemo est / In cognatione tua qui uoc&tur / hoc nomine,) nioman nist / In thinemo cunne thie thar genemnit sî / thesemo nobody NEG-is in your kin who COMP called be this namen, name ‘There is nobody in your kin who is called by this name.’ T 30, 26-28

Thus the OHG clause contains several neg-markers in contrast to the Latin original. This example should therefore definitely be included in the investigation. However, the negative indefinite pronoun in the scope of negation (nindefinite or n-word) nioman corresponds directly to Latin nemo. Depending on the research question, this clause may or may not be considered a diverging example. For instance regarding the question whether indefinites in the scope of negation were always n-indefinites in OHG, this example is not very useful as it is in fact converging with the Latin original. The opposite may also be the case. The following clause is a valuable example with respect to the question just mentioned. On the other hand it cannot be used as a core example to decide the question whether the finite verb always had to be neg-marked in addition to the indefinite, because the neg-particle ni on the verb corresponds to Latin non:

8


(3)

– diverging neg-particle, + diverging indefinite: (ego non iudico quemquam.) ih nituomu niomannen. I NEG-judge nobody ‘I do not judge anybody.’ T 214, 21

Only rarely is it the case that a clause diverges from the original both with respect to the neg-particle and the indefinite, such as: (4)

+ diverging neg-particle, + diverging indefinite: (neque patrem quis nouit nisi filius.) nioman nibi ther sun noh then fater niuueiz nor the father NEG-knows nobody if-not the son ‘nor does anybody know the father but the son’ T 104, 5

The correct heuristic approach to translatory texts can therefore not simply be to differentiate diverging from converging examples with respect to the original, but to differentiate and judge examples relative to the research question. At any rate, each negated clause containing several neg-markers will necessarily diverge from the Latin original in some way because Latin does not allow for this construction of so-called Negative Concord (see chpt. 1.3. below). For the MHG period, the amount of autochthonous prose texts of sufficient length is much greater. The MHG Prose-Lancelot (before 1250, Central German: Low Franconian)2 and the sermons of Berthold von Regensburg (approx. 1275, Upper German: Bavarian) were included in the MHG corpus. Furthermore, the Nibelungenlied (1190-1200, Upper German: South Bavarian) was investigated in order to compare prose and verse texts. The samples were taken from manuscript A with comparison to B and C.

2

The MHG Prose-Lancelot is based on an Old French text. However, according to Müller (2001: 246-248), the syntax of negation in the MHG text does not correlate with the Old French version.

1.2


9

In addition to the printed text editions, electronic versions of the texts were used wherever available.3 However, the negated clauses were all searched by hand so as to avoid missing any unexpected neg-markers, especially morphologically non-negative ones. As discussed above, the aim of the study is to describe and analyse the main patterns and changes in German negation in a properly diachronic manner rather than to render an indepth-investigation of one specific author or period, in other words, a larger picture rather than one particular mosaic piece. Therefore, the first 100 negated clauses from each text were included in a database, with the exception of the texts of Tatian and Isidor that were analysed entirely, producing 956 negated clauses from Tatian but only 50 from the shorter text of Isidor. Alltogether, the portions of text considered for the core corpus are as follows: -

Tatian: completely, edition by Masser (1994), additionally for comparison the edition by Sievers (1892)

-

Isidor: completely, edition by Eggers (1964)

-

Otfrid: up to book I, chapter. 15, 7, edition by Kleiber (2004: Ir-26v) = 52 pages of text, additionally for comparison the edition by Kelle (1856)

-

Notker “Psalter”: up to Ps 12, 1 (p. 37, l. 24f.), edition by Tax (1979: 9– 37)

-

Nibelungenlied: up to verse 283 in ms. A, edition by Batts (1971: 2-86), additionally for comparison the edition by de Boor (1996)

-

Prose-Lancelot: up to sentence 266, p. 52, edition by Kluge/Steinhoff (1995: 10-52) = approximately 25 pages of text

-

Berthold von Regensburg “Predigten”: up to sentence 299, p. 48, edition by Röcke (1983: 4-48), additionally for comparison the edition by Pfeiffer (1862)

Being based on a systematic quantitative corpus analysis, this study produces a representative picture of the main syntactic patterns of negation and the diachronic changes that extends the accounts in various historical grammars in important ways and at the same time relativizes their overdrawings. 3

Electronic versions of Tatian, Otfrid, Nibelungenlied, Prose-Lancelot and Berthold are available from the Titus online text corpus, University Frankfurt/M. However, there are no openly available tagged or parsed corpora for historical German, yet.

10


Each sample sentence in the corpus was analysed as to the negative markers it contains, i. e. negation particles, negative indefinites, other negative markers such as subjunctions etc. Furthermore, non-negated indefinites in the scope of negation were noted. The negation particles were analysed as to whether they appear as clitics on the verb or not and which particle they correspond to in translatory texts or whether they were added in comparison to the original. For all sample sentences containing negative or non-negative indefinite phrases, i. e. indefinite pronouns, adverbs or full NPs, the relative position of these with respect to the verb, adjacency or non-adjacency to the verb, and the syntactic function (subject, object, adverbial etc.) was determined. All indefinites under negation occurring in texts based on Latin originals were classed as convergent or divergent with respect to the Latin original. In addition, all sentences were categorized as to the position of the finite verb. Sample sentences that are direct translations were entered together with the Latin original. Line breaks were indicated in the examples. This is especially relevant in Tatian where the word order was generally not changed across lines (cf. Masser 1994, Dittmer/Dittmer 1998). The following sample database entry illustrates the categorizations: (5) example

Sample database entry:

(Iota unum aut unus apex/ non pr&eribit ex lege) – ein.i. odo ein houbit/ nifurferit fon thero euvu 0 Neg ni (non) n-indef. non-neg. indef. ein+N indef. bare NP syntactic function of the indef. S [= subject] adjacent to Vfin + word order w.r.t. Vfin v [= before Vfin] verb placement V2 line break + indefinite convergent + other neg-markers other source T 62, 5f.

1.2


11

Thus the occurence or non-occurence and varying properties of negation particles, negative indefinites and Negative Concord of different kinds could be systematically investigated in their interplay with various syntactic factors. For the core investigation, a total of 1506 negated clauses was analysed (plus approximately 30 negated clauses from the shorter OHG texts). In addition, further data was collected for specific research questions, for instance concerning verbal placement in clauses introduced by wanta (‘because’),4 or concerning the distribution and status of individual indefinites such as dehein (‘any’/‘no’), einig (‘any’), or iht (‘at all’/‘not’).5 In order to elucidate further the question of a possible stage-II period in MHG, the first 100 negated clauses from the early MHG text of Wiener Genesis (approx. 1060-80 AD) as well as from a later rendition of Notker's Psalter, the so-called Wiener Notker (around 1100) were investigated in addition6 so that, altogether, approximately 2300 relevant clauses were analysed. The theoretical framework adopted for the analysis is a version of Minimalism as laid out in Chomsky’s (1995) Minimalist Program and subsequent work: The syntactic structure is formed by the operations Merge, combining two elements to form a costituent, and Move, displacing a constituent to some place higher up in the syntactic structure. Movement is triggered by features of lexical items and functional heads. There is an important distinction between interpretable, semantically relevant features, and non-interpretable, formal features. At some point during the derivation, the syntactic structure is spelt out (roughly equivalent to surface-structure in Government and Binding theory cf. Chomsky 1981, 1986), i. e. it reaches the interface with phonetic form. Post-spell-out syntactic operations eventually lead to the derivation of the Logical Form (LF), the input to semantic interpretation. Formal features are only relevant within syntax and are not interpretable at this level. Therefore, they must be abolished before the interface with semantics is reached. This is done through a process called feature checking under the local Specifier-head configuration or through checking under c-command, also referred to as Agree. In my analysis, I will suggest among other things that negative indefinites (n-indefinites) bear a merely formal negative feature that is 4

Additional corpus of wanta-clauses: T 266 clauses, Is 25 clauses, O 5 clauses. Additional corpus of indefinites (examples per text): dehein: O 27, N 9, Nib 45, Lanc 40, Bert 40; einig: T 10, Is 5, O 20, Nib 1, Lanc 3, Bert 11; iht: Nib 20, Lanc 20, Bert 16. 6 The portions of text considered are up to Wiener Genesis 549, edition by Kathryn Smits (1972), and up to Wiener Notker 20vb, 2, edition by Richard Heinzel/Wilhelm Scherer (1876). I am grateful to Ralf Plate of the MHG dictionary workgroup, Trier, and Thomas Klein of the MHG grammar workgroup, Bonn, respectively, for making electronic versions of these texts available to me. 5

12


checked against the interpretable neg-feature of the functional negative head under c-command once the latter is merged. As far as syntactic change is concerned, I will adopt Longobardi’s (2001) Inertness Theory of syntactic change which is close in spirit to Minimalism because it attempts to reduce syntax as much as possible to interface relations. It advances the strong heuristic hypothesis that syntax is never directly subject to language change but only changes secondarily due to lexical or phonological change. With respect to the changes of the negation particle in German, I will thus suggest that the syntactic structure remained the same but only the lexical filling of specific positions within that structure, viz. the specifier and the head position of the functional projection NegP, changed.7 Furthermore, I propose that lexical items may be diachronically enriched with or lose formal features resulting in changes in their licensing requirements. In German, it will be argued, this is for instance the case for kein and its predecessor dehein (‘any’>‘no’). Following the basic ideas of Paul (91975), Lightfoot (1979), Kroch (1989) and others, language change is linked in an important way to language acquisition: language learners construct a grammar (their internal or Ilanguage) on the basis of the linguistic input that they are confronted with by the speakers of their language (external or E-language), as well as on the basis of universal grammar and principles of economy. Structurally ambiguous sentences may thus become associated with a different, more economical or less marked structure than the one that formed the basis for this sentence in the parents’ grammar, so that the children’s grammar may differ but is compatible with the sentences that formed their linguistic input. In Lightfoot’s terms, language change can be understood against the background of the idea of language-universal principles and language-specific parameters as parameter resetting during language acquisition. Frequency changes in the parents’ Elanguage due to extra-linguistic factors such as social esteem of certain constructions etc. may additionally provoke language change. In the present study, reanalysis by language learners plays a role in the explanation of the grammaticalization of niht (‘not’) as the second neg-particle: I assume that niht was reanalysed as occupying the specifier position of NegP, a position that it occurred adjacent to when used adverbially. Furthermore, language acquisition is central in the polarity type changes of indefinites. 7

With respect to the diachrony of subordinate clauses and verbal placement, Lenerz (1984) arrives at a similar result: The basic syntactic structures are the same as in Modern German, however, their use partly changed as well as the lexical items and their characteristics in terms of subcategorization etc.

1.3

NEGATION – BASIC CONCEPTS

13

Languages change within the limits of Universal Grammar, that is, the same principles that restrict synchronic variation also restrict diachronic variation. This insight is for instance formulated in Lass’s (1997: 26) Uniformity Principle stating that nothing that is now impossible in principle was ever the case in the past. This is reflected in the approach taken in this study to model diachronic variation, for instance with respect to the negative particle or types of NC, along the lines of typological variation.

1.3.

Negation – Basic concepts

Before discussing individual negation phenomena in the history of German against a typological background, I will introduce some basic concepts of negation in this chapter. Negation operates on liguistic contents that are logically equivalent to propositions, i. e. units able to bear a truth-value. Negation logically speaking is a function that reverses the truth-value of the expression that it is applied to.8 In that respect, negation is secondary to the formation of the proposition. Accordingly, negated expressions are marked in all languages in comparison to non-negated ones in that they are more complex. Negation cannot be equivocated with a type of negative speech act such as denial (cf. Jacobs, 1991: 560). This is evident for instance in negated questions, imperatives or conditionals:

8

(6)

Who did not come? ≠ I deny (that I ask) which person came

(7)

Do not close the door! ≠ I deny (that I demand that) you close the door

(8)

If my boyfriend had not had time to come along I would have still gone on this hiking trip.

Semantic accounts of negation in natural language differ in that they either take negation to be a non-quantificational sentence operator as in logic or to be an unselectively binding quantifier that binds the event variable or variables introduced by indefinites (cf. Ouhalla 1997, Beghelli/Stowell 1997). According to the first approach, the quantifier binding the event variable is not part of the interpretation of negation but is introduced by some other semantic operation, e. g. existential closure. Accounts such as Admoni’s (1990: 46) of negation as the denial of a relation between subject and predicate, however, represent pre-modern, antique views that have been obsolete since the development of modern logic in the early 20th century (Frege: 1918).

14


≠ I deny that if my boyfriend had had time I would have still gone on the trip In this work, I will be concerned with syntactic negation, i. e. negation operating on propositions expressed by syntactic means. I will not be concerned with lexical negation by derivational affixes such as German in-, dis-, un-, miss-, -los etc. which tend to form antonyms or contraries of concepts and are thus semantically different from contradictory negation that reverses the truth-value of a proposition. Among the syntactic means of negation, the most prominent ones are negative particles (glossed as NEG) and negative indefinite phrases (n-indefinites): (9)

Otto half mir nicht Otto helped me NEG ‘Otto did not help me.’

(10)

Otto half {niemandem; keinem Menschen} Otto helped nobody no person ‘Otto did not help anybody/any person.’

This investigation concentrates on the development of negative particles and nindefinites in German. However, the issue of negative subjunctions and disjunctions will also be touched on. Other syntactic means of negation employed crosslinguistically are negative verbs or auxiliaries (cf. Dahl 1979, Payne 1985). All of these syntactic elements are generally referred to as negative markers (neg-markers). Negative particles differ crosslinguistically as to whether they consist of a single or a bipartite particle and whether they attach to the finite verb or are syntactically independent of it and may (also) occur after the finite verb. Since Pollock (1989), a functional projection NegP above VP is generally assumed. The different syntactic behaviour of neg-particles observed crosslinguistically is explained through different positions that the neg-particle may occupy within this projection: it may be its head Neg0 or its specifier. This will be discussed in detail below and applied to the different neg-particles in the history of German. Regarding the diachrony of neg-particles, Jespersen (1917) described that neg-particles in many languages including German change in similar ways. This diachronic process is also referred to as Jespersen’s Cycle. After a stage during which the negative particle cliticized to the verb, a second particle is grammaticalized from a so-called minimizer referring to a minute quantity or

1.3

15


from an (n-)indefinite so that a bipartite neg-particle results. In the third stage the clitic particle is lost. The remaining second neg-particle is now the actual marker of negation. Eventually it may turn into a verbal clitic that will over time be strengthened again by a further element so that the cycle starts again. (11)

Jespersen’s Cycle: grammaticalization of minimizer or (n)-indefinite clitic

clitic + free morpheme

free morpheme loss of clitic

German English French

stage I: clitic nisagu ic ne secge jeo ne di

stage II: clitic + free morpheme ih ensage niht I ne seye not je ne dis pas

stage III: free morpheme ich sage nicht I say not je dis pas

In terms of NegP, Jespersen’s Cycle may be interpreted as Neg0 > Neg0 + SpecNegP > SpecNegP, thus modelling diachronic variation along the lines of crosslinguistic variation. As far as n-indefinites are concerned, it is important to note that they mark sentential negation just as the negative particle does. N-indefinites (in Laka (1990) also referred to as n-words) are indefinite pronouns or adverbs in the scope of negation meaning ‘nobody’, ‘nothing’, ‘none’, ‘never’, ‘nowhere’ etc. They are often also morphologically marked for negation and will give rise to a negative interpretation if used in isolation for instance in elliptical answers. The term n-words is slightly misleading because not only individual words but also entire phrases are concerned. Furthermore, the term n-word is often em-

16


ployed with a specific theory of Negative Concord in mind. Therefore, I will use the theory-neutrall and phrase-structurally neutral term n-indefinites. The n-indefinites meaning ‘nobody’, ‘no one’, ‘nothing’, ‘none’ and ‘no’ are of category D. Whereas the latter may occur with an NP argument, the former ones do not take an argument. Thus for instance the entire DP keinem Menschen (‘no person’) in example (10) constitutes an n-indefinite just as niemandem (‘nobody’), so that the term n-indefinite is somewhat more appropriate than the term n-word:9 (12)

a.

DP

b.

DP

D0

D0

NP

niemandem

keinem

N0 Menschen

Note that the determiner kein may also appear without an argument NP in German. Both uses are attested throughout the history of German (see chpt.s 3.5.3. and 3.6.2. below). I will subsume both the indefinite pronouns or determiners in question, as well as the respective adverbs under the term nindefinites, because they are semantically comparable: they all involve existential quantification in the scope of negation with varying restrictions such as ‘person’, ‘time’ etc. It is crucial to understand that n-indefinites do not represent cases of constituent negation (or in German “Konstituentennegation”, “Sondernegation”) in contrast to what is implied for instance by the terminology in Harbert (2002), but identify sentential negation.10 There is no difference along the lines suggested in the 19th century by Gebauer (1885) between a supposed qualitative negation expressed by the neg-particle and a so-called quantitative negation expressed by n-indefinites. Despite the fact that negation is marked on one particular constituent, the entire clause is negated as the semantic paraphrase of (10) indicates:

9

Furthermore, the neg-feature of an n-indefinite determiner that is embedded in a PP may project so that the entire PP constitutes an ‘n-word’ or rather n-phrase, consider for example Otto spricht [PP mit keinem Menschen] ‘Otto talks to no person’. 10 It will be argued below, that they are not the bearer of sentential negation but are in fact licensed by the semantic negation higher up in the clause that may also be abstract, i. e. nonovert.

1.3


(10)

Otto half {niemandem; keinem Menschen} Otto helped nobody no person ‘Otto did not help anybody/any person.’

(10’)

It is not the case, that Otto helped anybody/any person.

17

The entire clause, not just the indefinite DP, is in the so-called scope of negation, the area that the negation operates on, semantically. Further arguments for the equivalence of sentential negation marked by the neg-particle nicht and n-indefinites come from the facts that firstly, n-indefinites are ‘split up’ into non-negative indefinites and nicht in certain cases when they are topicalized: (13)

a.

Otto würde [{niemandem; keinem Menschen} weh tun]. Otto would nobody no person harm do

b.

[{Jemandem; Einem Menschen}weh tun] würde Otto anybody a person harm do would Otto nicht. NEG ‘Otto would not harm anybody/any person.’

Secondly, when an expression containing an n-indefinite is ellided for instance in coordination, nicht occurs to mark negation instead: (14)

Otto würde {niemandem; keinem Menschen} weh tun, und sein Otto would nobody no person harm do and his Hund auch nicht. dog also NEG ‘Otto would not harm anybody/any person and his dog wouldn’t, either.’

Finally, yet another argument that one is dealing with standard sentential negation comes from the licensing of Negative Polarity Items (NPIs). Amongst the NPIs there are indefinites such as English any, ever or German je(mals) (‘ever’), verbs such as German epistemic brauchen (‘need to’), NPs such as

18


German die Bohne (‘the bean’), but also grammatical categories such as specific cases e. g. the genitive of negation in Slavic languages. A fairly comprehensive list of Modern German NPIs is given in Kürschner (1983). NPIs are licensed in negated but generally not in affirmative declarative clauses: (15)

Otto braucht mir nicht zu helfen Otto need me NEG to help ‘Otto does not need to help me.’

(16)

Otto braucht {niemanden; keinem Menschen} zu helfen Otto need nobody no person to help ‘Otto does not need to help anybody/any person.’

(17)

*Otto braucht mir zu helfen Otto need me to help ‘Otto has to help me.’

The fact that the NPI braucht is licensed in (16) just as in (15) demonstrates that both represent cases of sentential negation. Klima (1964) also mentions NPI licensing as a criterion for sentential (vs. constituent) negation. He also noted that NPIs are often licensed in specific other contexts such as clauses dependent on negated or so-called adversative predicates (‘to deny’, ‘to forbid’, ‘to reject’ etc.), conditionals, the standard of comparison, questions, and the syntactic context of elements such as ‘hardly’, ‘without’ and ‘before’. He characterized NPI-licensing contexts on the whole as affective. The following examples illustrate some non-negative, affective contexts that license NPIs: (18)

clause dependent on matrix negation: Otto glaubt nicht, dass er mir zu helfen braucht. Otto believes NEG that he me to help needs ‘Otto does not believe that he has to help me.’

(19)

standard of comparison: Otto hilft mir mehr, als er mir zu helfen braucht. Otto helps me more than he me to help needs ‘Otto helps me more than he has to.’

1.3


(20)

19

context of ‘hardly’: Otto brauchte mir kaum zu helfen. Otto needed me hardly to help ‘Otto hardly had to help me.’

NPIs in different languages but also within one language differ as to which of the so-called affective contexts they are licensed in (German je ‘ever’ is for instance also licensed in questions and conditionals, brauchen ‘need to’ is not, die Bohne ‘the bean’/’a bit’ is even only possible in the scope of negation). In the literature, there are various proposals of how to give a unified account of NPI licensing, i. e. how to characterize affective contexts. Since ccommand by negation appears to be a basic condition for NPI-licensing, syntactic analyses have been suggested that include a non-overt c-commanding negation element (or polarity head) in the syntactic representation of other NPI-licensing contexts (Laka 1990, Progovac 1994). However, decomposition into an expression containing negation is not possible for all affective contexts. It is problematic for instance for questions or conditionals. Therefore, NPIs are generally taken to be licensed semantically rather than syntactically. Ladusaw (1979) discovered that affectivity can basically be identified with the semantic property of downward-entailment. This means that the truthvalue of the sentence remains the same if the predicate (in the logical sense) is substituted for a predicate that refers to a subset of the original predicate. This holds for negated clauses (21), but also for various other affective contexts such as the context of ‘hardly’ (22), conditionals (23) or comparisons (24), yet not for ordinary affirmative declaratives, where the entailment relation only holds in the opposite direction (25): (21)

He does not [dance] → He does not [dance to this kind of music]

(22)

He hardly [dances] → He hardly [dances to this kind of music]

(23)

If he [dances] he will make a fool out of himself. → If he [dances to this kind of music] he will make a fool out of himself

(24)

He dances worse than [any other person] → He dances worse than [any other man]

(25)

He dances ← He dances to this kind of music

20


Since, however, some NPI-licensing contexts such as questions cannot be said to be downward-entailing, Giannakidou (1998) suggests that affectivity is better understood as non-veridicality. A function is non-veridical if a combination of it with a proposition p does not entail p. Thus, if for instance the question operator is combined with the proposition He dances producing Does he dance? it does not follow from this resulting question that he does indeed dance. All contexts that may license NPIs can be characterized in this way as non-veridical. Zwarts (1995) and van der Wouden (1997) propose a hierarchy of NPI contexts of different semantic strength starting with the strongest negative contexts, including sentential negation proper and ‘without’, and going down to downward-entailing and finally merely non-veridical contexts.11 In sum, NPI licensing is basically semantic in nature. Besides in the scope of sentential negation, NPIs may be licensed in several other, not strictly speaking negative, but semantically related contexts. The latter ones are also referred to as weak NPI contexts, whereas sentential negation represents a strong NPI context (van der Wouden 1997). In this study, I will be primarily concerned with negative contexts proper. However, the previous discussion will be relevant in several respects, for instance in my account of elements such as dehein/kein (‘any’/’no’) that diachronically changed from an NPI into an n-indefinite – a process that was accompanied by a reduction of its licensing contexts from various affective contexts to the context of sentential negation only. Furthermore, the identification of several ‘less negative’ contexts helps to explain the occasional occurrence of neg-markers with non-negative interpretation in contexts other than sentential negation in some languages, a phenomenon also referred to as expletive or pleonastic negation. Finally, the distinction between NPIs and nindefinites will play a role in judging whether certain clauses represent cases of Negative Concord (NC). Coming back again briefly to the issue of sentential versus constituent negation. Whenever the semantic scope of negation covers the entire proposition of the clause, as in the case of n-indefinites, one is dealing with sentential negation.12 This is the type of negation that this ivestigation concen11

Neg-Hierarchy: AMO c AA c DE c NV Antimorphic (AMO) functions are both antiadditive and antimultiplicative, e. g. sentential negation, ‘without’. A function f is antiadditive (AA) iff f(a∨b) = f(a) ∧ f(b) (= one half of de Morgan’s law for negation) e. g. ‘nobody’. A function f is antimultiplicative iff f(a∧b) = f(a) ∨ f(b) (= second half of de Morgan’s law for negation). DE = downward-entailing, NV = non-veridical. See also chpt. 3.1. below. 12 Certain elements generally occur outside the scope of negation, notably evidentials (“Satzmodale”) like glücklicherweise (‘luckily’), wahrscheinlich (‘probably’) etc., which

1.3


21

trates on. One may only properly speak of constituent negation if the semantic scope of negation is indeed restricted to one constituent. This may for instance be the case when the negation marker is more deeply embedded in some constituent: (26)

In der Küche stehen mehrere nicht geöffnete Weinflaschen in the kitchen stand several NEG opened winebottles ‘There are several unopened bottles of wine in the kitchen.’

This sentence cannot be adequately paraphrased with the entire proposition in the scope of negation, because there may of course be several open wine bottles in the kitchen, in this example, too ((26) ≠ (26’)): (26’)

Es ist nicht der Fall, dass in der Küche mehrere geöffnete Weinflaschen stehen. ‘It is not the case that there are several open bottles of wine in the kitchen’

Even in this type of example with narrow scope, negation takes scope over a semantic proposition though, viz. that the winebottles have been opened. Syntactic negation always operates on some proposition13 (unlike possibly lexical negation). In the case of constituent negation this is not the proposition of the entire clause. Many other cases of what is traditionally called constituent negation are – just as clauses with n-indefinites – in fact constructions with sentential scope of negation. However, the so-called focus of negation is more narrow than usual. With a negated sentence one normally conveys more information than just the fact that the expressed proposition is false. Rather, the attention is additionally focussed on part of the sentence. This is called the focus of negation. If this focussed part were substituted appropriately for an element from an alternative set, the proposition would no longer be false. The domain of the focus of negation is contained within that of the scope of negation. express the speaker’s evaluation or degree of certainty that something is or is not the case. That is, the proposition and its truth-value need to be established before they can be applied. Furthermore, there is a universal tendency for generically quantified expressions to be interpreted outside the scope of negation, unlike existentially quantified expressions, for which an interpretation in the scope of negation is universally preferred. 13 In languages like Japanese, the only way to express negation with narrow scope is in fact by a negated subordinate clause (Kato 2000: 71).

22


In many languages there are specific syntactic positions or constructions, e. g. clefting, to express focus. In German, focus is available in various syntactic positions. Intonation and/or focus particles – in the case of negation the placement of nicht (‘not’), which simultaneously functions as a focus particle, immediately before the focussed constituent14 – serve to mark the focus. With negated clauses, one may make the focus explicit additionally by a contrastive sondern(‘but’)-phrase. The default focus of negation is equivalent to the wide informationstructural focus, i. e. VP. With this standard focus of negation, the German negation particle nicht, is situated immediately left of VP (for a more detailed discussion of its syntactic position see chapter 2.3.). Note that contrastive negation (in German “Kontrastnegation” or “replazive Negation”) is not restricted to cases with a narrow focus of negation. Narrow focus of negation often comes with a contrastive reading, but there is no one-to-one relation. A contrastive reading is also possible with a wide focus of negation, in which case the entire VP that establishes the proposition of the clause (rather than for instance just one argument or the verb itself) is contrasted with another one, e. g.: (27)

Karl ist nicht nach Berlin geflogen, sondern hat das Wochenende Karl is NEG to Berlin flown but has the weekend hier verbracht. here spent ‘Karl did not go to Berlin, but spent the weekend here.’

Those cases that are often referred to as constituent negation are ones where the focus of negation is more narrow than the standard focus domain of VP. This is signalled by the position of nicht before the focussed element15 and/or stress of the focussed element (indicated by capital letters in the following examples): 14 The fact that nicht and the focussed element may be topicalized together could be taken as evidence that they form one constituent. Alternatively, the focussed constituent may occupy the prefield position (SpecCP) whereas nicht is adjoined to CP, as has been suggested for other focus particles such as nur (‘only’) by Büring/Hartmann (2001). 15 Clauses with negative indefinites display the same possibilities of focus choice as with the negation particle nicht (Jacobs 1991): Luise KAUFte kein Haus, sondern MIEtete eines ‘Luise BOUGHT no house, she RENTED one’.

1.3


(28)

Karl ist nicht nach Berlin geFLOgen (, sondern mit dem Zug gefahren). = Karl ist nach Berlin nicht geFLOgen. ‘Karl did not FLY to Berlin (but went by train).’

(29)

KARL ist nicht nach Berlin geflogen (, sondern Otto). = Nicht KARL ist nach Berlin geflogen. ‘It’s not Karl who flew to Berlin (but Otto).’

23

Despite of the focus deviating from the standard focus of negation in these cases, the term constituent negation is misleading in so far as it is still the entire proposition of the clause that is in the semantic scope of negation as is evident from paraphrases like: (28’)

Es ist nicht der Fall, dass Karl nach Berlin geFLOgen ist. ‘It is not the case that Karl FLEW to Berlin.’

(29’)

Es ist nicht der Fall, dass KARL nach Berlin geflogen ist. ‘It is not the case that KARL flew to Berlin.’

However, there is specific additional information about which element of the proposition would have to be substituted appropriately to render the proposition true (cf. Jacobs 1991). Negation with marked, narrow focus will play a role in this study with respect to the different negation particles and their (un)ability to function as a focus particle. After having discussed some basic characteristics of negation and individual neg-markers, we will now look at another central phenomenon of the syntax of negation: Negative Concord (NC, in German “Negationskongruenz”, “Negationsharmonie”). In many languages, two or more negative markers can co-occur within one clause that is interpreted as containing simple sentential negation. This phenomenon is called Negative Concord. In the case of NC, the negative markers do not cancel each other out semantically. The opposite phenomenon is called Double Negation (DN): Here each negative marker is interpreted as signalling negation so that, at the level of logical form (LF), two negations cancel each other out according to the laws of logic and the final interpretation of the sentence is positive if there is an even number of negative markers. Whether a language displays the syntactic phenomenon of NC or not is generally taken to be subject to parametric variation, i. e. there are non-NC and

24


NC-languages.16 Modern Standard German is a non-NC language, whereas some Modern German dialects such as Bavarian show NC. Typological research has shown that there are quite a number of NC-languages among the world’s languages (van der Wouden 1998: 312; Haspelmath 1997: 201f.). The following example is from Italian: (30)

Non ho visto nessuno. NEG have seen no-one ‘I have not seen anyone.’

Italian

The fact that most languages display NC17 and also that creole languages, which generally opt for unmarked values of syntactic parameters, tend to develop NC (cf. Déprez 1999 for a discussion of Haitian Creole) suggests that NC is in fact the unmarked option with respect to the indefinites occurring in the scope of negation, whereas the lack of it is marked. There are different syntactic patterns that are subsumed under the term NC, notably the co-occurrence of the neg-particle and an n-indefinite, also referred to as Neg-Doubling, and the co-occurrence of several n-indefinites, socalled Neg-Spread (den Besten 1986, van der Wouden/Zwarts 1993). Note that I will not class the mere occurrence of a bipartite neg-particle such as French ne ... pas or MHG en/ne ... niht as NC (in line with Bernini/Ramat 1996, Holmberg 2002, but contra van der Wouden 1998, Simpson/Wu 2002). Crucially to this study, NC also formed part of the syntax of the older stages of German, notably OHG and MHG, in contrast to Modern Standard German and also to Latin, the source language of several OHG translations. The description and analysis of NC in OHG and MHG and its diachronic development is one of the central aims of this study. It will be shown that the main pattern of NC was the same in OHG and in MHG, viz. Neg-Doubling with the Neg0 neg-particle. Neg-Spread is only rarely attested or not at all, depending on the classification of dehein/kein (see chp. 3.6.7. below). Contrary to accounts in the literature so far, NC had already decreased considerably by the MHG period. Thus the parametric change towards a marked syntax of negation of Modern Standard German (in contrast to some Modern German

16

Note that DN is not only available in non-NC languages: NC and DN do not exclude each other as possibilities within one language. Specific word order or intonation force DN readings in many NC languages (cf. Zeijlstra 2004). 17 In Haspelmath’s (1997: 201f.) sample of 40 languages, 32 use the negative particle in addition to the n-indefinites.

1.3


25

dialects such as Bavarian that have NC) was well under way. This development was linked to the development of the neg-particle. There are two basic theoretic approaches to NC that relate to two different views on n-indefinites. According to what one might call the Neg-Criterion approach, n-indefinites are inherently negative quantifiers that move in overt syntax (Haegeman 1995) or at the latest at LF into SpecNegP due to a requirement for negative XPs to be in a Spec-Head relation with a negative head and vice versa, the Neg-Criterion (Haegeman/Zanuttini 1991). After this movement process, semantic factorization (just as assumed for multiple-wh constructions after movement due to the wh-Criterion) and absorption take place, i. e. a complex quantifier is formed and the various occurrences of logical negation are absorbed into one. This last step is, however, problematic since it cannot be defined in compliance with the laws of logic. Furthermore, it is unclear why the availability of this semantic operation should be parametrized so that non-NC and NC-languages result: LF processes are generally taken not to be subject to parametrization (Zeijlstra 2004). In view of evidence that n-indefinites do not obligatorily move in overt syntax (Déprez 1999) and other evidence that they need to be in situ even at LF in a number of cases (Penka/Stechow 2001) in contrast with the Neg-Criterion, I will follow the second basic approach to NC according to which n-indefinites are not semantically negative but rather licensed by the semantic negation in the clause that may be abstract (Laka 1990, Ladusaw 1992, Penka/Stechow 2001, Weiß 2002a, Zeijlstra 2004, Penka 2007). No semantic process of absorption is required as there is only one semantic negation in the clause in the first place. Yet, I will assume that n-indefinites are not simply NPIs, either (contra Laka 1990, Ladusaw 1992), but bear a formal, uninterpretable negfeature that is checked under c-command by the interpretable neg-feature of the semantic negation, e. g. Neg0, without the necessity of movement of n-indefinites (contra Weiß 2002a). The suggested analysis builds on ones recently proposed by Błaszczak (2001), Zeijlstra (2004) and Penka (2007).

2.

THE NEGATION PARTICLE

2.1.

Typology of negation particles

In order to better understand the syntax of negation in German and its history, let us look at different basic patterns we find crosslinguistically to see which of the options German instantiates and how this changed over the centuries. In the world’s languages, one common strategy in the syntax of negation is the use of a negation particle. The term particle refers to the fact that the neg-marker is a lexical item that is not inflected. Another, but less common strategy is the use of neg-markers in the form of negative verbs or auxiliaries as it is found for example in Finno-Ugric languages and languages of the Polynesian area (cf. Payne 1985: 207-222, Dahl 1979: 84f.). The negation particle may be an invariant element (e. g. Italian non, Russian ne, German nicht) or it may be sensitive to grammatical categories such as mood (e. g. Hungarian ne/nem), tense, or aspect (e. g. Standard Arabic lam/lā), cf. Payne (1985: 223). With respect to its syntactic behaviour in relation to the finite verb, one can distinguish two basic patterns: the negation particle may either be associated with the verb, i. e. occur in an adjacent position, possibly cliticize to it or even form part of the verbal morphology as an affix (the latter pattern is treated as a separate type besides neg-particles in some accounts, e. g. Dahl 1979: 81 morphological vs. syntactic negation, Payne 1985: 226-228 morphological negatives), or alternatively, it may be independent of the verb and generally display a syntactic behaviour similar to adverbs. •

neg-particle asssociated with Vfin or verbal affix:

(31)

Nie wiem NEG know ‘I do not know.’

Polish (Dahl 1979: 83)

(32)

Gel - me - di come-NEG-Past ‘(S)he did not come.’

Turkish (van Schaaik 1994: 39)

2.1

27

TYPOLOGY OF NEGATION PARTICLES

•

neg-particle independent of Vfin:

(33)

Loopt Jan niet? / Jan loopt niet Dutch (Zeijlstra 2004: 104f.) Walks John NEG / John walks NEG ‘Doesn’t John walk? / John does not walk.’

(34)

Kwela diuna play a mi buk that woman pleases to me NEG ‘I do not like this woman.’

Western Romansh (Bernini/Ramat 1996: 19)

Another criterion according to which neg-particles may be differentiated typologically is the relative word order of the negation particle and the finite verb. Under this perspective, three main types are distinguished (Bernini/ Ramat 1996: 17, Zanuttini 1997: 3-5), viz. preverbal and postverbal neg-particles and the combination of the two, i. e. discontinuous or bipartite negparticles. The three different strategies for expressing sentential negation described by Jespersen (1917) in a diachronic perspective can thus also be found at the synchronic level. An understanding of the typological variation will therefore provide us with a better understanding of the historical variation. The three types are illustrated in the following examples: •

preverbal neg-particle:

(35)

Ion nu mănîncă peştele John NEG eat fish ‘John does not eat fish.’

(36)

usne kām nāhī kiyā he work NEG did ‘He did not work.’

•

Romanian (Bernini/Ramat 1996: 17)

Hindi (Bernini/Ramat 1996: 28)

discontinuous/bipartite neg-particle (pre- and postverbal neg-particle):

(37)

Joan no menja pas peix John NEG eat NEG fish ‘John does not eat fish.’

Catalan (Bernini/Ramat 1996: 17)

28


(38)

•

Yārinyā bà tà tàfi gōnā ba Hausa (Payne 1985: 225) girl NEG she go farm NEG ‘The girl did not go to the farm.’

postverbal neg-particle:

(39)

Brazilian Portuguese Ele fala português não He speak Portuguese NEG (Bernini/Ramat 1996: 40) ‘He does not speak Portuguese.’

(40)

Jag ser honom inte. I see him NEG ‘I do not see him.’

Swedish (Dahl 1979: 92)

The word order relative to the finite verb correlates to some extent with the association with or independence of the finite verb. Preverbal particles tend to be linked to the finite verb18 whereas postverbal ones display a more adverbiallike behaviour, as one can also observe in the examples above: for instance the Romanian preverbal particle in (35) is associated with the finite verb whereas the Brazilian Portuguese one in (39) appears later in the clause, even after the object. This is accounted for in recent syntactic accounts by assigning them different phrase-structural status, viz. head or specifier status (Pollock 1989; Ouhalla 1990, Zanuttini 1997), see chpt. 2.2.3. below. In earlier typological work, a correlation was suggested between the placement of the neg-particle and the basic word order type of the language: A correlation of OV word order with preverbal neg-particles and VO-order with postverbal neg-particles is assumed in Bartsch/Vennemann (1972: 133) and Vennemann (1974). Exactly the opposite stance is taken by Lehmann (1978: 95) who holds that the neg-particle is placed after the verb in OV languages but before the verb in VO languages. In view of the changes with respect to the neg-particle in German, he concludes that a change in the basic word order must have taken place. However, both Bartsch/Vennemann’s as well as Lehmann’s hypothesis are to be rejected: According to Dahl (1979, 91ff., 1993: 918) there is a universal tendency for preverbal placement of the neg-particle irrespective of the 18

Zanuttini (1997: 6/100) further distinguishes between strong and weak preverbal negparticles depending on whether they can negate a clause by themselves or not, whether they precede complement clitics or not, and whether true (rather than suppletive) negated imperatives of main verbs are possible.

2.1

TYPOLOGY OF NEGATION PARTICLES

29

word order type of the language. In his sample of 240 languages, neg-particles are placed before the verb three times as often as after the verb, most often immediately before the verb. As far as Lehmann’s (1978) specific conclusion for the history of German is concerned, there is thus firstly no typological basis to his claim since the universal preference for preverbal neg-particles is also evident in OV languages: According to Dryer (1988: 106), there are more OV languages with pre- than with postverbal negation. Secondly, there is no evidence that the basic word order of German changed along with the negparticle (see chpt.s 2.4, 2.5, 4 below). The universal preference for preverbal neg-particles indicates according to Dahl (1979: 95f.) and Bernini/Ramat (1996: 38/44) that postverbal and discontinuous neg-particles are marked in terms of naturalness theory in contrast with unmarked or natural preverbal negparticles. The universal tendency towards preverbal neg-placement is also reflected in creoles and pidgins as well as in language acquisition (Bernini/ Ramat 1996: 38-40, Clahsen 1988). With respect to the two major typological criteria mentioned, i. e. the association with or independence of the verb as well as the placement relative to the verb, German used negation particles of all main types in the course of its history as it underwent Jespersen’s Cycle as will be discussed in detail later in this chapter (sections 2.4. and 2.5.). OHG had the preverbal neg-particle ni that cliticizes to the finite verb. (41)

sí ni mohta inbéran sin she NEG could do-without him ‘She could not do without him.’ O I. 8, 3

A bipartite neg-particle occured in Late OHG and in MHG in the form of the verbal clitic ne/en together with the verb-independent, adverbial-like ni(e)ht that may also appear postverbally. Note that the peverbal-postverbal distinction is not quite apt to capture ni(e)ht which may appear pre- as well as postverbally simply because there are two possible positions for the finite verb in German: German is an SOV language with V2 effect. (42)

Ich enwil es niht erwinden I NEG-want it NEG omit

30


‘I do not want to omit it.’ Nib (C) III 117, 119 Ni(e)ht/nicht was already predominantly used as the only neg-particle in the clause in MHG and still is the standard neg-particle in Modern German. In other words, German developed from a less marked towards a more marked system of negation also with respect to the neg-particle. (43)

Des ist mir niht ze mvote that is me NEG to mind ‘That is not on my mind.’ Nib (A) III 61, 120

Since German possessed all these different types of neg-particles, an analysis of the history of negation in German will profit significantly from typological insights and crosslinguistic comparison and at the same time provides a perfect testing ground for any generalizations and predictions drawn from typological research and analyses based thereon. Against the typological background one may see more clearly which options with respect to the neg-particle are available in principle and evidenced in the world’s languages, which of these German ‘opted for’ in its various historical stages and thus which languages it resembled typologically. As the negation systems of some individual languages have been well-studied, one may gain new insights on the different stages of German by comparing them to languages of the same types and working out the similarities and possible differences. By contrast, a typology of negation such as the one suggested in Miestamo (2005) hardly provides any insights for the description of the history of German negation. He divides languages into ‘symmetric’ or ‘asymmetric’ depending on whether the finite verb in negated clauses differs in its morphological make-up from the form it would take in the non-negated clause, for instance with respect to mood or tense marking. The asymmetric languages are further subdivided accordingly. As the verbal morphology is the same in negated and non-negated clauses (that is, if OHG ni is analysed as a clitic negparticle rather than an affix, see discussion chpt. 2.4.2. below), German in its various stages as well as for instance English, French, Russian etc. all belong to one type, viz. Miestamo’s symmetric languages. 19

Mss.:A/B: Ich ne wils niht erwinden. Mss. B/C: Des enist mir niht {ce/ze} mvote.

20

2.2

31

NEGP ANALYSIS

2.2.

NegP analysis

2.2.1. Why assume NegP As far as the syntactic analysis of negation is concerned, the typological variation is captured and explained very neatly in recent syntactic theory under the assumption of a specific functional category NegP. The analyses suggested for English, Romance languages and others carry over to German and provide an understanding of the changes concerning the neg-particle. At first glance, one might simply assimilate adverb-like neg-particles to other adverbials and clitic neg-particles to other clitics, e. g. pronominal ones. However, a closer look reveals crucial differences which led Pollock (1989) and others to the assumption of the functional projection NegP. Pollock (1989) starts out comparing word-order variation between English and French verbs in relation to adverbs in sentences like the following: (44)

(45)

a.

*John kisses often Mary.

b.

John often kisses Mary.

a.

Jean embrasse souvent Marie.

b.

*Jean souvent embrasse Marie.

Pollock’s conclusion is that there are differences with respect to verb movement to I between English and French: under the assumption that the adverbs occur between I and VP, French main verbs move out of VP whereas English main verbs do not, cf. Jackendoff (1972), Emonds (1976). A similar word-order contrast between English and French is found with respect to verb-negation order: (46)

a.

*John likes not Mary.

b.

Jean (n’)aime pas Marie.

Thus one might assume that neg-particles such as English not and French pas should be analysed in the same way as adverbs like often or souvent since they seem to pattern alike judging by the examples above. In other words, going by the standard analyses for adverbs, the respective negation particles could be analysed as VP-adjuncts. This has also repeatedly been suggested for German

32


nicht, e. g. by Jacobs (1982), Webelhuth (1990), Grewendorf (1990),21 Haider (1997) and more recently Penka/Stechow (2001), Zinsmeister (2001) and Zeijlstra (2004).22 A number of distributional differences suggest, however, that negation particles cannot simply be assimilated to VP-adverbs. Let us look at English and French again, first. Apart from the fact that, in contrast to adverbs, the English neg-particle may also appear as a clitic (n’t) on the verb, there is a crucial difference in that finite main verbs can follow VP-adverbs in English but cannot follow the neg-particle: (47)

a.

Mary often smiles.

b.

*Mary not smiles.

In French, infinitival main verbs precede VP-adverbs whereas they cannot precede the negation particle pas, but have to follow it: (48)

a.

paraître souvent triste

b.

*ne paraître pas triste

c.

ne pas paraître triste ‘(not) to appear often sad’

Thus, treating the negation particle on a par with VP-adverbs would make the wrong predictions.23 The data is better captured if one assumes with Pollock (1989) that the negation particle is in fact part of a specific functional projection NegP. The analysis as a functional category furthermore corresponds to the intuition that neg-markers have properties in common with other functional elements: they express grammatical meaning and form a closed class (Zanuttini 2001: 523). On the basis of the word order differences reported for English and French above, Pollock (1989) assumes further subprojections of IP besides NegP, viz. TP, AgrP. The differences between languages concerning verbal 21

Grewendorf (1990) assumes a specific projection NegP but assimilates it to adverbials by adjoining it to VP. 22 Zeijlstra (2004) does not generally reject the NegP approach. However, he argues that only NC-languages have a NegP. 23 Hauptmann (1994: 50f.) makes a similar point for Modern German from distributional differences between nicht and modifiers/VP-adverbs, see below.

2.2

33

NEGP ANALYSIS

placement and between main verbs and auxiliaries/modals within one language are then explained as differences in how far the respective verbs move due to factors such as the feature make-up of Agr0, the richness of verbal morphology and properties of the verbs in question, the details of which need not concern us here. The syntactic structure that Pollock suggests is given in (49). (49)

... TP SpecTP

T’ T0

NegP

SpecNegP

Neg’ Neg0

AgrP SpecAgrP Agr0

Agr’ VP

This kind of account differs from early transformational analyses like those of Klima (1964) or Lasnik (1972) in so far as negation is generated in a position inside the clause where it actually surfaces (unless it cliticizes to the verb and is moved along with it, see below), rather than being generated in a clause-initial position – motivated by the semantic scope of negation including the entire proposition – and then being lowered or incorporated into an element (AUX or an indefinite) further down in the clause through some transformational process. The account of Pollock (1989) is more straightforwardly motivated by syntactic considerations. An analysis in terms of NegP explains the basic difference between the negation particle and VP-adverbs in English as illustrated by the contrast in (47). Under the assumption that not occupies Neg0, it intervenes between T0 and V0, the overt position of main verbs in English. Therefore it prevents the formation of the relevant head chain for the finite verb in V0 to be licensed, or in minimalist terms, it blocks the post-spell-out movement of the finite verb to T0. This covert movement is necessary in order for V0 to check the relevant features in T0. If the post-spell-out movement of V0 to T0 is blocked as in the

34


case of intervening Neg0, these uninterpretable features are not checked and therefore the derivation crashes at LF. Notice that it is crucial that not be a head c-commanded by T0 and c-commanding V0. In an analysis of NegP as an adjunct along the lines of the standard analysis for VP-adverbs, the head of NegP would not c-command V. This provides another argument for NegP as a functional projection dominating VP. The fact that finite verbs can appear after VP-adverbs in English on the other hand is due to the fact that, unlike not, they do not constitute intervening heads between T and V (because they are VP-adjuncts as according to the standard analysis, or specifiers but not heads of functional projections dominating VP as according to Cinque’s (1999) analysis). Just as adverb-like neg-particles cannot simply be assimilated to adverbs, the clitic neg-particles known from typological research cannot simply be assimilated to other clitics such as pronominal clitics with which at least the negation particles that attach to the verb share some similarities at first glance (cf. Zanuttini 2001: 518f.). But a uniform analysis of clitic negation particles and pronominal particles is not only implausible from a semantic point of view – the two kinds of elements have completely different semantic functions, pronominal clitics being nominal elements which can bear a thematic role, negation particles conveying sentential negation. The two kinds of expressions also differ in their syntactic distribution. The Italian negation particle non for instance, which always occurs adjacent to the verb, precedes the verb also in infinitival clauses, whereas pronominal clitics follow it in Italian (examples from Zanuttini 2001: 519): (50)

Gianni non le mangia. John NEG them eats ‘John does not eat them.’

(51)

Gianni preferisce non mangiarle. John prefers NEG to-eat-them ‘John prefers not to eat them.’

Italian

Furthermore, unlike pronominal clitics, the clitic negation particle can bear contrastive stress: (52)

a.

Preferisco NON farlo. prefer NEG do-it ‘I’d prefer NOT to do it.’

2.2

35

NEGP ANALYSIS

b.

*Preferisco non farLO.

These facts suggest that clitic negation particles cannot simply be assimilated to other clitic elements such as pronominal clitics but belong to a distinct syntactic category. An analysis in terms of NegP with the clitic negation particle as Neg0 captures this observation and at the same time correctly predicts the similarity in distribution, because both kinds of expressions cliticize to the verb. Analysing negation as a separate functional category not only captures its uniqueness and distributional differences compared to otherwise similar elements, it also explains the basic typological patterns described above with respect to the negation particle. The analysis of negation as a syntactic projection in its own right leaves scope for analysing the negation particle as either the head or the specifier of this projection. In fact this correlates nicely with the observation that the negation particle is either associated with the verb, possibly as a verbal clitic, or that its behaviour is more like that of an adverb, or that there is a combination of the two. Thus French ne cliticizes to the finite verb as it moves up to T0: The verb is subject to the head movement constraint (HMC, Travis 1984) according to which head movement may only take place to the next c-commanding head. On its way to higher functional projections, the verb therefore moves through the various c-commanding heads above VP including Neg0 where ne attaches to the verb and is moved along with it.24 Pas on the other hand can be taken to be the specifier of NegP. As the finite verb moves up to T0, pas stays behind. Pas being a maximal category, the head movement of V is not affected by it. The two different basic ways a negation particle can behave syntactically as known from crosslinguistic research are thus elegantly captured by analysing the negation particle as the head or the specifier of NegP, respectively (for a more detailed discussion see chpt. 2.2.3. below). The NegP analysis of sentential negation has proved extraordinarily fruitful as studies by Laka (1990), Ouhalla (1990), Newson (1998), Haegeman (1995), Zanuttini (1997), Giannakidou (1998), Zeijlstra (2004) and others demonstrate who argue for a projection NegP in various languages such as Italian, Spanish, different Romance dialects, Hungarian, Greek, Turkish, Berber and a number of Slavic languages including Polish, Czech, and SerboCroatian. And also for German, a NegP is widely assumed in the literature, for instance in Grewendorf (1990, however not yet as a functional projection dom24

Whether a Neg0 neg-particle will attach to the verb and be moved along, or block verbal movement depends on the lexical features of the neg-particle in question (see 2.2.3 below).

36


inating VP but adjoined to it), Büring (1994), Santelmann (1994), Hauptmann (1994), Haegeman (1995), Weiß (1998). A NegP account also provides valuable insights into the diachronic development of the German neg-particle, as will be demonstrated below. Besides its crosslinguistic applicability and capability to predict correctly the interaction of different neg-particles with different types of syntactic dependencies, its diachronic explanatory force is indeed one major advantage of the NegP approach. This diachronic dimension of the NegP analysis has only recently been recognized by Rowlett (1998), Jäger (1998), van Kemenade (2000) and van Gelderen (2004): Jespersen’s Cycle can be neatly reinterpreted in terms of the diachronic filling of NegP. At one stage, only the head is overt. Through grammaticalization of another element at the next stage both head and specifier are overt. Later on, the head is no longer overtly realized, leaving only the specifier overt, which eventually is reanalysed as the head of NegP, and the cycle starts again. With respect to the diachronic development in German, I will argue specifically that the OHG neg-particle ni occupies the head Neg0, beginning in late OHG a second element, viz. ni(e)ht, is grammaticalized as SpecNegP and already during the MHG period the head is mostly non-overt. The last step of the cycle has not yet taken place in German: The present-day German neg-particle nicht is still in SpecNegP position, as will be discussed below. A reinterpretation of Jespersen’s Cycle in terms of NegP has two important advantages: First, it allows one to model diachronic variation along the lines of typological variation, which is a central aim of this study. Second, it brings out similarities with other grammaticalization processes that might otherwise go unnoticed. As van Gelderen (2004) shows, the development from a specifier into a head is a common pattern of grammaticalization. One may add that this kind of development is also found elsewhere in German: Elements occupying SpecCP were frequently reanalysed as complementizers, e. g. nachdem (‘after that’ > ‘after’), (alldie)weil (‘all the time’ > ‘while’ > ‘because’). 2.2.2. The place of NegP Negation mostly occurs in clause-internal position. Early transformational approaches like Klima (1964) who introduced negation as a clause-initial element were superceded by analyses with NegP (or an equivalent) lower than C and above VP, motivated more directly by surface word order facts. How-

2.2

37

NEGP ANALYSIS

ever, differing assumptions about the exact place of NegP, be it universally fixed or language-specific, have been made in the literature. As discussed above, Pollock (1989) in his original account of French and English proposed that NegP is dominated by TP and dominates AgrP, which in turn dominates VP. According to Zanuttini (1991), NegP dominates TP, at least in languages with a preverbal neg-particle that does not appear in imperatives or participle constructions such as Italian. That is, overt Neg0 takes a tensed complement. (53)

*Non parla! NEG talk-2Sg ‘Don’t talk!’

Italian

Belletti (1990) assumes that NegP dominates TP in all Romance languages. Zeijlstra (2004), on the other hand, argues for a universal position of NegP below TP (cf. also Rouveret 1991) on the basis of restrictions on NPIs occurring as subjects: (54)

*Anyone didn’t buy a book.

English

The ungrammaticality of (54) is due to the fact that Neg0 does not c-command the subject position SpecTP and therefore, according to Zeijlstra, the NPI fails to be licensed. On the other hand, the fact that subjects are not always interpreted outside the semantic scope of sentential negation speaks in favour of the VP-internal-subject hypothesis that I will also assume for the various historic stages of German. Various authors have argued that the relative order of projections within IP is in fact subject to parametric variation. Thus Laka (1990) suggests parametrization of the relative order of NegP and TP. Ouhalla (1990) extends this parametrization approach and formulates the following negation parameter: (55)

Neg-parameter (Ouhalla 1990: 194): – Neg selects VP – Neg selects TP

Ouhalla provides compelling evidence from Berber and Turkish where negation cliticizes to the verb next to tense, mood and agreement morphemes. The relative order of these morphemes varies between the two languages. Under Baker’s (1985) Mirror Principle, this is due to a different order of the respective functional heads in the syntax of the two languages, with the

38


morphological order mirroring the syntactic one (examples from Ouhalla 1990: 189): (56)

John elmalar-i ser - me - di - 0 John apples-ACC like-NEG-PAST-3Sg ‘John did not like apples.’

Turkish

(57)

Ur - ad - y xdel Mohand dushda. NEG-will-3mascSg-arrive M. tomorrow ‘Mohand will not arrive tomorrow.’

Berber

Within the context of Minimalism as proposed by Chomsky (1995) and subsequent work, parametrization of functional structure is somewhat problematic. The principle order of functional projections is assumed to be universal. Crosslinguistic variation according to minimalist reasoning resides in feature strength or presence or absence of features (notably the EPP feature) resulting in movement before (i. e. overt syntax ) or after spell-out. As an alternative to parametrization in the spirit of Ouhalla’s Neg-parameter, it has been suggested that multiple positions for NegP are universally available and that languages vary as to which of these they instantiate. For instance, Zanuttini (1997) differentiates four possible NegP positions in the functional domain above VP, one for preverbal neg-particles and three for the postverbal ones in different languages. The most pronounced approach of this kind is presented in Cinque (1999). He does not assimilate negation to adverbs in analysing both kinds of elements as VP-adjuncts, rather he assimilates adverbs to the NegP analysis of negation in analysing adverbs as specifiers of functional projections in their own right resulting in a great number of functional projections above VP. A syntactic structure of this kind (a so-called cartographic approach) captures the relative positions of adverbs and negation at the cost of structural simplicity.25 A syntactic structure including several NegPs per negated clause has recently also been suggested by Simpson/Wu (2002) and Bell (2004). They propose to analyse bipartite neg-particles as residing in two seperate projections (Simpson/Wu’s 2002: 302 “dual Neg-shell approach to double negation”, Bell’s 2004: 98 “split NegP-hypothesis”). 25

For a semantic rather than syntactic account of the relative position of various adverbs and negation see Ernst (2002) who explains the fact that ‘higher’ adverbs such as possibly, allegedly, probably, fortunately etc. appear outside the scope of negation by virtue of their being Positive Polarity Items (PPIs).

2.2

NEGP ANALYSIS

39

For the semantic interpretation of sentential negation, one instance of negation is needed. NegP was originally conceived as the place where the relevant feature resides that will give rise to negation in the semantic interpretation.26 Under this assumption, an approach that assumes several NegPs in a syntactic structure that is to be interpreted as containing single sentential negation is conceptually unattractive from the point of view of the syntaxsemantics interface. It requires further stipulations about which of the NegPs is interpreted as semantic negation and which one is not. Furthermore, assuming one NegP when there is one negation particles and two NegPs when there are two negation particles is obviously very surface-oriented and appears to be restating the facts, loosing a major advantage of the NegP approach, namely to capture this variation within one syntactic projection and explaining it as presence of an overt Spec and/or head element. For the present work, I will therefore keep the number of NegPs to a minimum and adhere to the original idea of NegP as the seat of semantic negation. As will be evident from the analysis below, the relevant data can basically be captured under the assumption of a single NegP above VP.27 2.2.3. Head or specifier: phrase-structural status of negation particles As indicated above, a strong point of the analysis in terms of NegP is that the association of the neg-particle with the verb in some languages as well as the verb-independent, adverbial-like behaviour of the neg-particle in other languages is expected, since the negation particle may in principle be the head or the specifier of NegP, or both, in the case of a bipartite neg-particle. This basic option is a major source of crosslinguistic variation with respect to negation particles. In this section, I will discuss criteria for determining whether the respective negation particle should be analysed as a head or a maximal projection, viz. Neg0 or SpecNegP. In order to determine the status unequivocally, one needs to find defining properties, i. e. properties that constitue

26

Zeijlstra (2004) on the other hand explicitly assumes that the semantic negation may also appear elsewhere in the clause rather than within NegP. 27 In order to capture the phenomenon of negative complementizers that will only be treated in passing in this study (see chpt. 2.4.1. below), one might either assume a second NegP within the CP-layer (cf. Cinque 1999: 201, footn. 20: doubling of IP projections in CP) or that the neg-COMPs are licensed through Spec-Head agreement within CP (compare the standard analysis for neg-inversion in English). Neg in C suffices to identify sentential negation. It thus appears that negation can be marked anywhere in the V-I-C chain or a direct constituent of it (cf. n-indefinites, similar to focus projection).

40


both necessary and sufficient conditions for the head or phrase status of the neg-particle, respectively. One necessary but not sufficient criterion for the head status of a negation particle is its morphological simplicity: only single words (or of course affixes or clitics) can possibly be regarded as heads. Negation particles generally fulfil this criterion. Therefore they may but need not be the head of NegP. It is just as possible that they project their own phrase which in turn resides in SpecNegP. Another criterion lies in the affixal or clitic nature of a negation particle. Affixality or cliticization form a sufficient but not necessary condition for its head status. If affixes and clitics are analysed as head adjuncts they must be heads themselves. Thus negation particles such as the Turkish verbal affix me or the French verbal clitic ne etc. are Neg0s. Note that both neg-clitics, i. e. syntactic items, and neg-affixes, i. e. morphological items, are analysed in the same way as Neg0 elements in syntactic theory (cf. Pollock 1989, Ouhalla 1990). The fact that a given negation particle is non-affixal or non-clitic, on the other hand, is not conclusive as to whether it is the head or specifier of NegP since heads may or may not be affixal or clitic dependent on their lexical specifications. A third criterion for phrase-structural status is whether the respective element can move to phrasal positions or not. This criterion is also discussed for German (see chpt. 2.3.3. below). If a negation particle can for instance appear on its own in a topicalized position, this is good evidence that it is the specifier rather than the head of NegP. For Neg0 it is expected that it cannot be topicalized i. e. move to an XP-position due to the chain uniformity principle. The opposite, on the other hand, is not sufficient evidence for an analysis of the negation particle as Neg0: The fact that a given constituent does not move to a higher XP-position does not prove that it is not a maximal projection. Rather, according to the minimalist approach to movement, there might be no need for movement, e. g. no uninterpretable feature that could only be checked as a result of this particular movement operation, and therefore the movement would be blocked for economy reasons. Lack of movement to XP positions is thus again a necessary but not sufficient condition for a negation particle to be analysed as Neg0. If a negation particle generally co-occurs with a phrasal negative element, e. g. an n-indefinite or a phrasal negation particle and cannot express sentential negation on its own, this is evidence for the head status of the negation particle in question according to Haegeman (1995: 117/127f.). This is

2.2

41

NEGP ANALYSIS

the case for instance for French ne and West Flemish en (examples from Haegeman 1995: 128): (58)

da ze nor us *(nie) en-goat that she to home NEG NEG-goes ‘that she does not go home’

(59)

Jean ne mange *(pas) de chocolat Jean NEG eats NEG of chocolate ‘Jean does not eat chocolate.’

West Flemish

French

Haegeman explains this phenomenon with the help of the Neg-Criterion (see chpt. 1.3. above) according to which a negative head has to occur in a Spechead configuration with a negative XP and vice versa.28 This may also be fulfilled if the head or the specifier is not overt.29 However, if a neg-particle needs to co-occur with an overt negative XP and is insufficient on its own for sentential negation, it is Neg0. On the other hand, not every Neg0 needs to be licensed by an overt negative XP. This criterion therefore represents a sufficient but not necessary condition for the head status of the neg-particle. In fact OHG ni and to some extent also MHG ne/en, which will be argued to be Neg0s in chpt.s 2.4.3. and 2.5.2. below, do not need to be licensed by an overt negative XP but are sufficient to express sentential negation on their own. Another criterion is discussed by Merchant (2001): He assumes that the combination of ‘why’ and a neg-particle is a kind of phrasal adjunction. XPs such as ‘why’-phrases cannot be adjoined to heads. Accordingly ‘why’ plus neg-particle is ungrammatical if the neg-particle is a head. Note, however, that the English neg-particle which is presumably a head, can be combined with ‘why’: (60)

28

a.

*Počemune?

Russian

b.

*Waarom en?

West Flemish

c.

*Perche non?

Italian

d.

Warum nicht?

German

Haegeman (1995) assumes that n-indefinites are moved into the relevant Spec position. For the view that they are not, see chpt. 3.3 below. 29 Or even both, as according to Haegeman (1995) in the case of object n-indefinites in English.

42


e.

Pourquoi pas/*ne?

French

f.

Why not?

English

The most decisive criterion for the phrase-structural status of a negation particle consists in evidence from interference (or the lack of it) with different types of dependencies, notably those created by movement. According to Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 1990), a negation particle that is situated in Neg0 will interfere in head chains, whereas a negation particle in SpecNegP will not, but will interfere in A’-dependencies since it is itself in an A’ (non-argument) position. One example for interference of the negation particle with head dependencies are the blocking effects on so-called clitic-climbing (cf. Travis 1984, Kayne 1989, Rizzi 1990, Zanuttini 2001). In languages such as French or Italian, clitics can move from an embedded into the matrix clause. In the presence of negation, this movement, which is considered as an instance of head-movement, results in ungrammaticality: The clitic may not move across the neg-particle non (examples from Zanuttini 2001: 524f.). (61)

a.

Gianni li vuole vedere Gianni them wants to-see ‘Gianni wants to see them.’

b.

*Gianni li vuole non vedere Gianni them wants NEG to-see ‘Gianni does not want to see them.’

Italian

Another instance of a head dependency that certain neg-particles interfere with is verb movement. Neg0 elements that are lexically specified as affixal or clitic such as French ne, are head-adjoined to the finite verb as it moves through Neg0 and move along with it. This is different for non-affixal or non-clitic heads: they may block verb movement. A first case in point is V-I-chain formation in English. In minimalist accounts, this is post-spell-out verbal movement to I, or T/Agr, respectively. Finite main verbs in English are in V0 position in overt syntax. They are illicit after the negation particle not which blocks the necessary head-chain between V and I (or T/Agr). Not blocks the covert post-spell-out movement of V which is necessary to check and thus remove its uninterpretable inflectional features that otherwise cause the derivation to crash at LF.

2.2

43

NEGP ANALYSIS

(62)

a.

Simon snores.

b.

*Simon snores not.

English

In negated sentences the main verb cannot bear finiteness features. Instead the dummy verb do is inserted to bear the inflectional features (so-called dosupport). (63)

Simon does not snore.

In contrast with main verbs, finite modals and auxiliaries are possible also in negated sentences. Do-support is ungrammatical in these cases. (64)

a.

Simon {will, should} not snore.

b.

*Simon does not {will, should} snore.

Pollock (1989), Pesetzky (1989) and Rizzi (1990) concentrate on this kind of data in their discussion of English negation. They assume that finite modals and auxiliaries raise from V to I/T in English and conclude that the negation particle not must be the specifier rather than the head of NegP, because it does not interfere with this supposed movement. However, the ungrammaticality of finite main verbs after not remains unexplained.30 Therefore the alternative analysis of not as Neg0 is preferable as it clearly predicts interaction with head-chains. The different behaviour of main verbs on the one hand and modals and auxiliaries on the other hand can be explained by assuming that auxiliaries and modals originate in a position above NegP (cf. Ouhalla 1990). A second case of head-dependencies created by verbal movement is movement of the finite verb to C. This occurs for example in questions resulting in subject-verb inversion in SVO languages As Zanuttini (2001) reports, the negation particle interferes with subject clitic inversion in questions in some Northern Italian dialects, e. g. in Paduan (examples from Zanuttini 2001: 525f.):

30

Rizzi (1990) notices this problem and suggests that the tense features turn the finite main verb into an operator and therefore the LF-movement of the verb is an instance of A’movement. Thus the analysis of not as SpecNegP can be maintained. However, the assumption that covert verbal movement is A’-movement is highly controversial.

44


(65)

El (no) vien. SUBJCL (NEG) comes ‘He is (not) coming.’

(66)

Vien - lo? comes-SUBJCL ‘Is he coming?’

(67)

a.

*No vien-lo? NEG comes-SUBJCL

b.

Nol vien? NEG-SUBJCL comes

Paduan

‘Isn’t he coming?’ Evidence for the interaction of the negation particle with verbal movement is not restricted to blocking effects. In many languages the negation particle cliticizes to the verb and moves along with it. This can also be observed for OHG ni and MHG ne/en which are therefore to be regarded as Neg0s in contrast to nicht, see chpt. 2.4.2. and 2.5.2. below. This kind of syntactic behaviour indicates that the respective negation particle is a head that ccommands V. Instead of being prevented from moving by the overt element in Neg0, the verb moves through Neg0 on its way to higher functinal heads according to the HMC in these cases. It is head-adjoined to the negation particle which is incorporated into the verb and the entire complex of V and Neg0 moves higher up. This way, the association of certain neg-particles with the finite verb is explained. Whether a negation particle that is Neg0 blocks head movement accross it or moves along with the respective head depends on its lexical properties. In languages where the negation particle does not interact with verb movement, the respective particle is the specifier rather than the head of NegP. This is true for instance of Catalan and French pas or the negation particles of North-western Italian dialects and some Germanic languages such as Swedish or Dutch. (68)

La Maria l’ha mangià no la carne. Pavese the M. SUBJCL-has eaten NEG the meat (Zanuttini 1997: 92) ‘Maria hasn’t eaten the meat’

2.2

45

NEGP ANALYSIS

(69)

a.

om Jan inte köpte boken if J. NEG bought books ‘if Jan did not buy any books’

b.

Jan köpte inte boken. J. bought NEG books ‘Jan did not buy any books.’

Swedish (Rizzi 1990: 22)

The lack of interaction with verb movement is also characteristic of the Modern German negation particle nicht, which indicates that it is situated in SpecNegP rather than Neg0 (see below 2.3.3.). Interference with head-movement is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for the head-status of a negation particle, the lack of it for its status as a maximal projection. Minimality effects are triggered by elements of the same type. Just as an intervening head interferes with head-dependencies, an intervening element in A’-position interferes with A’-dependencies. Therefore a negative element in SpecNegP, a non-argument position, will interact with A’-movement across it. Considering that the English neg-particle is a Neg0 element, it is rather surprising that these kind of effects can also be observed in English. Ross (1983) described effects of this kind as inner/negative island effects with respect to extraction. Wh-movement of non-arguments is blocked by negation unlike wh-movement of arguments: (70)

a.

Bill is here, which they (don’t) know

b.

Bill is here, as they (*don’t) know

English

Similarly the adverbial/non-argument reading of the extracted wh-element what is not available in the negated clause in (71b) (Rizzi 1990): (71)

a.

What do you believe he weighed?

– Potatoes – 200 pounds

b.

What do you not believe he weighed? – Potatoes – *200 pounds

The fact that negation prohibits extraction of adverbials from embedded clauses is also illustrated by the following example (Travis 1984, Kayne 1986, Rizzi 1990):

46


(72)

a.

It is for this reason that I believe that John was fired.

b.

It is for this reason that I don’t believe that John was fired.

The first sentence is ambiguous between a reading where the clefted adverbial is associated with the embedded clause and a reading where it is associated with the matrix clause. The negated sentence can only have the second reading: With negation intervening, the adverbial cannot be understood as having raised from the embedded clause. On the basis of this kind of data, Rizzi (1990) concludes that negation particles are always specifiers and never heads. However, the interaction of negation particles in certain languages with head-dependencies suggests that these particles should be analysed as Neg0s. Yet, even in languages where the negation particle is clearly a head, one can find the described interference of negation with A’-dependencies. This is true for English not (compare (70)-(72) above) but also for Greek dhen (cf. Ouhalla 1990: 221). Dhen cliticizes to the finite verb and obligatorily moves with it to C in wh-questions. Verb movement across dhen results in ungrammaticality. Therefore it ought to be regarded as Neg0. (73)

a.

O Yanis dhen efage ta mila. The Y. NEG ate the apples ‘Yanis didn’t eat the apples.’

b.

*Ti efage dhen o Yanis? what ate NEG the Y.

c.

Ti dhen efage o Yanis? what NEG ate the Y.

Greek

‘What didn’t Yanis eat?’ At the same time, extraction of adjuncts is impossible in the presence of dhen, a fact that is unexpected since heads do not cause minimality effects with respect to phrasal movement: (74)

Aftos ine o logos pu (dhen) nomizi o Yanis oti apolithike this is the reason that (NEG) thinks the Y. that was-fired

2.2

NEGP ANALYSIS

47

o Petros. the P. ‘It is for this reason that Yanis {thinks/doesn’t think} that Petros was fired’ As in the English example (72) above, negation makes impossible the reading in which the adverbial is associated with the embedded rather than the matrix clause rendering the sentence unambiguous in contrast to the affirmative version. Thus negation in some languages appears to display contradictory properties with respect to minimality effects. This is explained under the assumption that in languages where the negation particle itself takes up the head rather than the specifier position of NegP there is a phonetically empty negative operator in SpecNegP position which is identified through Spec-head agreement with the lexically filled Neg0 (cf. Ouhalla 1990: 220, Haegeman 1995: 106/193). The negative operator in SpecNegP is then the cause for minimality effects with respect to A’-dependencies31 whereas at the same time the lexically filled Neg0 interferes with head-dependencies. Interaction with A’-dependencies, or negative island phenomena, are therefore invalidated as a criterion for the phrase-structural status of the negation particle (cf. Ouhalla 1990, Jäger 1998, Zanuttini 2001). These effects show that there must be a specifier of NegP but they are not conclusive evidence that the negation particle itself rather than an empty negative operator takes up this position. Note that the assumption of an empty Neg0 in languages where the negation particle is in SpecNegP follows from basic assumptions about phrase structure in general, viz. the principle of endocentricity, while the assumption of an empty element in SpecNegP in the reverse case is based on the specific syntactic phenomena just described: the interaction with A’-dependencies even when the negation particle itself is clearly the head rather than the specifier of NegP. Figure (75) summarizes the correlations between different types of elements in NegP and interaction with different types of dependencies:

31

Alternatively, if sentential negation is analysed as a quantifier as in Weiß (2002b), the blocking can be explained without an empty neg-operator under the assumption that quantifiers form syntactic barriers for extraction.

48


(75)

NegP SpecNegP

Neg’ Neg0

overt neg-particle interferes in non-overt neg-Op. A’-dependencies

overt neg-part. interferes in X0-dep. non-overt head

2.3.

...

-

The negation particle in Modern German

Before looking at the syntax of the neg-particle in historical stages of German, it is useful to consider what the syntactic structure of negated clauses looks like in Modern German. I will argue for the following structure in which the negparticle nicht occupies the specifier position of NegP: (76)

... TP SpecTP

T’ T0

NegP SpecNegP nicht

Neg’ VP

Neg0

As indicated above, an alternative would be to assimilate nicht to adverbials and to analyse it as a VP-adjunct, as for instance Jacobs (1982), Haider (1997), Zinsmeister (2001) and Zeijlstra (2004: vP-adjunct) propose. However, as we have seen in a crosslinguistic perspective, one cannot simply assimilate verb-independent neg-particles to adverbials in general. Also in German, there are distributional differences. Hauptmann (1994: 50f.) argues for a NegP approach to German because VP-adverbs can appear before or after a definite object DP, whereas the neg-particle nicht appears after it:

2.3

THE NEGATION PARTICLE IN MODERN GERMAN

(77)

weil Berta gründlich das Buch las because B. carefully the book read ‘because Berta read the book carefully’

(78)

weil Berta das Buch gründlich las because B. the book carefully read ‘because Berta read the book carefully’

(79)

weil Berta das Buch nicht las because B. the book NEG read ‘because Berta did not read the book’

49

Placing the negation particle before a definite object DP results in what Hauptmann according to traditional terminology refers to as ‘constituent negation’; in fact it is negation with marked focus (cf. chpt. 1.3. above): the definite DP forms the focus or is included in the focus of negation, whereas in the unmarked case, definite DPs occur outside of the focus domain of negation. (80)

weil Berta nicht das Buch las because B. NEG the book read ‘because Berta didn’t read the BOOK’

Hauptmann’s argument hinges on how different negation with unmarked and with marked focus are. As discussed above, since the scope of negation is the entire proposition in both cases, one is also dealing with sentential negation in (80). One might even argue that nicht is in the same place, only the definite DP has not moved. This would mean that Hauptmann’s argument is not conclusive. In contrast, she emphasizes the difference between the two kinds of clauses and argues for quite different syntactic structures.32 A clearer distributional contrast between adverbials and nicht can be seen in topicalization. In the middle field, nicht occupies a similar position to sentence adverbials. In contrast to these, however, topicalization to the prefield position is very awkward or ungrammatical:

32 Since Hauptmann (1994) wrongly holds that placing nicht after a definite object DP does not constitute sentential negation, she does not assume a functional projection NegP in these cases.

50


(81)

(82)

a.

dass Omi vielleicht im Garten arbeitet that granny perhaps in-the garden works ‘that granny is perhaps working in the garden’

b.

dass Omi nicht im Garten arbeitet that granny NEG in-the garden works ‘that granny isn’t working in the garden’

a.

Vielleicht arbeitet Omi im Garten perhaps works granny in-the garden ‘Granny is perhaps working in the garden’

b.

*/??Nicht arbeitet Omi im Garten NEG works granny in-the garden ‘Granny isn’t working in the garden’

Besides this kind of evidence, there are two advantages that speak in favour of a NegP analysis. First, it allows for a crosslinguistically comparable analysis. Secondly, as will become clear in the course of the following chapters, a NegP analysis is motivated by the historical German data and elegantly captures the diachronic changes with respect to the neg-particle in a way that eluminates parallels to other grammaticalization processes. The cliticization of the OHG neg-particle ni and its MHG counterpart ne, the occurence of a bipartite negation particle in MHG, the difference in syntactic behaviour between these two particles, the syntactic properties of the Modern German neg-particle as compared to that of OHG for instance, as well as the placement of the historical development within the context of grammaticalization as argument/ adjunct XP > Specifier > head, all follow naturally from an analysis of the negation particle as head or specifier of a functional projection NegP. 2.3.1. VP-internal or –external position of nicht The Modern German negation particle nicht normally occurs as part of the topological middle field, that is, between the two parts of the sentence frame, i. e. C and V. In the case of unmarked focus of negation which I will be primarily concerned with, nicht is positioned after pronominal DPs, the subject, generally definite object DPs (except for ones that form part of DP-verb collocations, such as die Haare schneiden ‘to cut one’s hair’, der Meinung sein ‘to be of the opinion’ etc.), high averbials (sentence adverbs, causal, certain

2.3


51

temporal adverbials) and modal particles such as ja or doch, but before lower adverbials (modal, local, directional adverbials), PPs, predicatives and nounverb collocations33 (83)

weil ihr Bertram den Brief ja offensichtlich gestern because her Bertram the letter Modpart obviously yesterday nicht in den Briefkasten gesteckt hat NEG in the letterbox put has ‘because Bertram obviously did not put the letter in the letterbox for her yesterday’

This indicates that nicht is in a VP-external position: I assume with Webelhuth (1990: 55) that it demarcates the left edge of VP. This fact is already wellcaptured descriptively in Heidolph et al. (1981: 223) who argue that nicht is placed immediately before the ‘predicate group’ (“Prädikatsgruppe”), their term for VP. In topological terms, the neg-particle is thus in the centre of the middle field (rather than at the right edge of the middle field as Zifonun et al. (1997: 1551-56) report). PPs and lower adverbials are part of VP whereas higher adverbials, modal particles and pronominal DPs are positioned outside of VP. The latter ones are moved out of VP to the so-called Wackernagel position immediately to the right of C. The subject, for which I assume a VP-internal base position, is commonly moved out of VP, too. This is also generally true of definite DPs unless they are meant to be inside the focus of negation. They leave VP due to scrambling as argued by Webelhuth (1990: 54), Fanselow (1991: 105f.), and Büring (1994), who analyses scrambling as movement for discourse-semantic reasons.34 The fact that non-referential phrases do not scramble explains why for instance PPs and APs occur after nicht. Placement left of nicht is therefore generally taken as evidence for a VP-external position. 33

As discussed above, in the case of marked, narrow focus of negation, there are two basic possible analyses, viz. that nicht occurs within VP and forms a constituent with the focussed element or that it occurs in the same position as with unmarked focus but the movement of VPinternal XPs differs. 34 Santelmann (1994) and Hauptmann (1994) argue for a movement of DPs out of VP to the specifier of a projection AgrOP for case checking reasons. However, there is no strong evidence for this, compare VP-topicalization data including object DPs, e. g. [VP Einen Hund richtig erziehen] könnte Berta durchaus. ‘Berta could well educate a dog properly.’ Therefore I will bear with the scrambling analysis.

52


Under the assumption that nicht is in a fix, VP-external position in the standard case and that VP may be emptied through movement, the fact that nicht occurs left-adjacent to the verb in many cases is a derived phenomenon. (84)

Meine Nachbarin hat [die Pflanzen]i nicht [VP ti [V gegossen]]. My neighbour has the plants NEG watered ‘My neighbour did not water the plants’

Analyses such as Bayer (1990), Haider (1997), Abraham (2003) according to which nicht occupies a VP-internal position adjacent to V0 start out from this secondary surface adjacency and thus face the challenge of explaining how PPs in situ etc. can intervene between nicht and V0. These facts follow directly from a fix, VP-external position of nicht. 2.3.2. Nicht left or right of V/VP? Not only the hierarchical position of nicht but also its linear position with respect to V/VP has been analysed in different ways. Grewendorf (1990) argues for a basic word order of SOVNeg in German on the basis of examples where nicht occurs left-adjacent to the finite verb in verb-final clauses but for instance after a definite object DP, e. g.: (85)

weil meine Nachbarin die Pflanzen nicht gießt because my neighbour the plants NEG waters ‘Because my neighbour does not water the plants’

One can also find this idea in descriptive grammars, e. g. in Helbig/Buscha (2001: 549f.) who hold that nicht is placed at the end of the clause and then go into some trouble to list all the cases when nicht is in fact not in clause-final position. More recently, the idea of a clause-final position of nicht was taken up again in Abraham (2003). Grewendorf assumes that in clauses like (85), the finite verb has moved to some functional I position (e. g. T) right of VP and that the definite object DP remains in VP (contrary to the assumptions by Webelhuth (1990), Büring (1994), Santelmann (1994), Hauptmann (1994) and others, cf. discussion above). He concludes that the linear ordering is VP– nicht–Vfin: (86)

weil meine Nachbarin [[VP die Pflanzen tj] nicht] [T gießtj]

2.3


53

Placing nicht right of VP raises several problems. As noted above, PPs and other VP-internal material may appear between nicht and the finite verb in verb-final clauses, which clearly suggests that nicht is in a position left of VP. (87)

nicht – VP-internal material – Ve: weil Bertram den Brief nicht in den Briefkasten gesteckt hat because Bertram the letter NEG in the letterbox put has ‘because Bertram did not put the letter in the letterbox’

Furthermore, verb complexes pose a problem since normally the entire complex, not just the finite verb, follows nicht: (88)

a.

weil sie dieses Spieli nicht [VP ti verlieren tj] kannj because she this game NEG lose can

b.

*weil sie [VP dieses Spiel verlieren tj] nicht [kannj] because she this game lose NEG can ‘because she cannot lose this game’

This is unexpected if nicht is right of VP and only the finite verb moves further to the right to check its tense/agreement features. Thirdly, the behaviour of verbal particles poses a problem for an anlysis along the lines of Grewendorf (1990): It is generally assumed that they are stranded in V when the finite verb leaves VP. With nicht right of VP and the finite verb in T in verb-final clauses, the expected order would be particle-nicht-Vfin. This order is ungrammatical. Nicht always precedes verbal particles in Modern Standard German: (89)

a.

*dass Reinhold die große Tasche mit nicht nimmt that Reinhold the big bag VPART NEG takes

b.

dass Reinhold die große Tasche nicht mitnimmt that Reinhold the big bag NEG VPART-takes ‘that Reinhold doesn’t take the big bag’

Therefore I will follow Webelhuth (1990), Bayer (1990), Büring (1994), Hauptmann (1994), Santelmann (1994) and others and assume that nicht is positioned left of V/VP.

54


2.3.3. Nicht as Neg0 or SpecNegP? Having established that nicht is in a position left of VP in the standard case and assuming a functional projection NegP in German, I assume that the negparticle nicht forms its specifier rather than its head. Both analyses have been suggested in the literature. Bayer (1990), Weiß (1998, 2002) and more recently for instance Abraham (2003) argue that nicht (or its Bavarian counterpart ned, respectively) is a head. However, as demonstrated above, the occasional adjacency of nicht and the finite verb in Ve clauses is better analysed as derived by VP-emptying through scrambling. This is corroborated by V1 and V2 clauses, in which the neg-particle clearly remains in its fix middle field position rather than occurring left-adjacent to Vfin. Bayer (2002: 286) and van Gelderen (2004: 80) suggest that nicht is ambiguous between Neg0 and SpecNegP. I follow Büring (1994), Hauptmann (1994), Santelmann (1994), Haegeman (1995) and others in assuming that nicht occupies the specifier position of NegP. The main argument for the specifier rather than head status of nicht comes from its non-interaction with verb movement. Several other criteria that seem to hint at a phrasal status of nicht are not conclusive. This is for instance true of the fact that nicht is non-clitic. Heads do not need to be clitic and this goes for Neg0 as well.35 From cliticization one may conclude head status of the neg-particle but nothing follows from the lack of cliticization. Another problematic piece of evidence is the possibility or non-possibility of nicht taking up the prefield. The topological prefield position in German, i. e. SpecCP, can only be occupied by phrases but not by heads. Examples such as the following with nicht in prefield position do very rarely occur, which provides evidence against analysing nicht as Neg0. However, these constructions are considered marginal by most speakers, in many cases even ungrammatical (cf. (82 b) above):36 (90)

35

Nicht konnte ich es unternehmen, Ihnen das gesamte NEG could I it endavour you the entire

For instance I assume with Ouhalla (1990), Haegeman (1995) and others that the English negation particle not is a head also in its non-clitic form. 36 Prefields consisting of a modifier like schon gar (‘especially’), ganz und gar (‘absolutely’) and nicht are more acceptable, cf. Duden (2005: 927).

2.3


55

Stadtbuchwesen vorzuführen. town-book-system to-demonstrate ‘I could not endavour to show you the entire town book system.’ (www.uni-koeln.de/~ahz26/dateien/rehme.htm; June 2004) On the other hand, if nicht could not move to the prefield, as holds for many speakers of German, this would not disprove its specifier status. It rather suggests that either there is no need for nicht to move higher up and therefore, for reasons of economy it does not move. An alternative possibility is that nicht needs to be in SpecNegP, for reasons like the Neg-criterion, i. e. it has to be the specifier of a head with negative feature [+ neg]. Or maybe it cannot move for other reasons, such as the fact that it is a focus-indicating particle comparable to nur (‘only’), sogar (‘even’) etc. which are known not to be freely available as prefields. The decisive piece of evidence for the specifier status of nicht consists in the fact that it neither blocks V-movement for instance to C nor moves along with the finite verb. In other words, HMC effects cannot be observed for nicht. As nicht does not interfere in head chains, it is not a head itself. (91)

a.

weil Omi vermutlich nicht im Garten arbeitet because granny presumably NEG in-the garden works

b.

Omi arbeitet vermutlich nicht im Garten granny works presumably NEG in-the garden

c.

*Omi nicht arbeitet vermutlich im Garten granny NEG works presumably in the garden

d.

*Omi arbeitet nicht vermutlich im Garten37 granny works NEG presumably in-the garden ‘(Because) presumably, granny isn’t working in the garden’

Abraham (2003) concludes from the lack of interaction with V-movement that there is no functional projection NegP in Modern German. However, if nicht is 37

At most with marked, narrow focus on verMUTlich ‘not presumably (but certainly)’.

56


analysed as the specifier of NegP, this behaviour is not only compatible with a NegP approach but quite correctly predicted. The diachronic investigation of German neg-particles in fact produces further valuable evidence for the view that nicht occupies SpecNegP rather than Neg0: In OHG and partly still in MHG, one may observe what a Neg0 negparticle behaves like in German. As will be discussed in detail below, OHG ni and MHG ne/en indeed display the interaction with V-movement that is expected for a Neg0 neg-particle. Unlike nicht, they always appear immediately before the finite verb, notably also in V1 and V2 clauses. 2.3.4. Head-initial or head-final NegP? A further issue that needs to be considered under the NegP approach is the question whether the head of NegP is left or right of its complement, (that is, unless one assumes a version of antisymmetry in the vain of Kayne (1994) or Haider (1993), in which case all heads are uniformly left, or right, respectively). As nicht is positioned left of VP, Bayer (1990), Weiß (1998, 2002), Abraham (2000, 2003), who take nicht to be Neg0, consequently assume a leftheaded NegP. However, since nicht is the specifier rather than the head of NegP as argued above, the position of nicht is inconclusive as to the position of Neg0. In line with the standard assumption of a right-headed IP in German and following Büring (1994: 79), Hauptmann (1994: 64), Santelmann (1994: 162), I assume a right-headed NegP. Apart from the argument by analogy to the German IP projection in general, there is no direct evidence from verbplacement or similar phenomena in Modern German that would help determine the directionality of Neg0. In this respect, diachronic data may once again provide crucial evidence because Neg0 was overt in OHG and partly also in MHG. Data from historical stages of German can be taken to corroborate the Neg0-final hypothesis (see chpt. 2.4.3. below). 2.3.5. Position of NegP relative to other projections? As with the directionality of Neg0, the relative position of NegP with respect to other functional projections is hard to determine in German. As argued above, nicht is positioned outside VP in the standard case with unmarked, wide focus of negation. Thus NegP dominates VP. How many functional projections there are above VP in German is subject to much debate. In verb-final clauses the verb is immediately right to

2.3


57

VP or at the right edge of VP, with no elements possibly marking the right edge of VP and intervening between V0 and the finite verb.38 For simplicity I will assume a single further functional projection TP. However, the exact number of IP-subprojections (or whether there even are any apart from NegP) is not crucial with respect to the present topic. Word order is inconclusive as to the relative ordering of TP and NegP. The fact that the subject generally occurs left of nicht and outside the focus of negation may indicate that TP dominates NegP, which Zeijlstra (2004) takes to be the universal order of these two functional projections. (92)

...[TP SUBJi [NegP nicht [VP ti ...] Neg0] T0]

The order [IP/TP ...[Negp ...]] is also what Weiß (1998: 210) assumes for the German dialect of Bavarian. As discussed above, Zanuttini (1989) argues on the basis of the ungrammaticality of negated imperatives that Neg0 obligatorily takes TP as a complement in Italian. Judging by this criterion the fact that negated imperatives are possible in German would indicate that the above analysis is appropriate:39 (93)

38

Lach nicht! Laugh NEG ‘Don’t laugh!’

Thus Haider (1993) and Sternefeld (2006) argue that there is no further verbal position between V and C in German. 39 However, Wratil (2004: 220/233f.) argues that incompatibilities of negation and imperatives are due to differing syntactic representations of imperative constructions on the one hand, and the phrase structural status of the neg-particle on the other: Incompatibilities only appear in languages with a Neg0 neg-particle in which the verb is not sufficiently specified for finiteness before it reaches Neg0. Languages with a SpecNegP neg-particle do not exhibit these incompatibilities, so that, on the whole, incompatibilities of imperatives and negation might not form a good criterion for the relative position of TP and NegP. In line with Haegeman’s (1995: 115) analysis of West Flemish (but in contrast to Pollock’s (1989:397/414) analysis of French and English), Wratil (2004: 187) assumes that NegP is dominated by AgrP and dominates TP in German.

58


2.4.

The negation particle in Old High German

In OHG, the standard neg-particle is the verbal clitic ni. Apart from this, a special neg-particle nalles for negation with marked focus, often in combination with a contrastive reading is used that occurs in various syntactic positions left-adjacent to the focus of negation. Later on in the OHG period, a former indefinite is becoming grammaticalized as a second, verb-independent negparticle, viz. uuiht (< ‘anything’) and nieht (< ‘nothing’), respectively. I will argue for the following basic syntactic structure to accomodate the main negparticles in OHG: (94)

CP C’ C

TP

ni+V

T’ T

NegP Spec

Neg’ Neg0

Op (/uuiht/nieht) VP ...

V

ni

V-movement

2.4.1. The negation particle ni The standard negation particle in OHG is the verbal clitic ni (Behaghel 1918: 229, Paul 1920: 330, Dal 1966: 163, Lockwood 1968: 207, Keller 1986: 207, Admoni 1990: 46, Schrodt 2004: 135). In Late OHG, the vowel is reduced. Thus in Notker, the clitic neg-particle consistently occurs as ne.40 OHG inherited the clitic negation particle from Germanic *ni which in turn can be traced back to Indoeuropean (compare Latin ne as in nescio, or Sanskrit na). Cognates of OHG ni are attested in all other Old Germanic languages: Gothic 40

Abraham’s (2003) statement that the oldest texts have ne is thus not correct: Isidor, Tatian, Otfrid and also shorter texts such as Hildebrandslied consistently use ni.

2.4

59

THE NEGATION PARTICLE IN OLD HIGH GERMAN

ni, Old Saxon ni, Old English ne, Old Norse ne (besides the Old Norse verbal enclitic neg-particle at). The majority of all negated clauses in the investigated OHG corpus from Tatian, Isidor, Otfrid and Notker’s Psalms contains ni (or ne in Notker),41 as the table (95) illustrates. (95)

Ratio of ni in negated clauses

negated clauses in the corpus negated clauses including negation particle ni ni only neg-marker in the clause ni + further neg-marker: a) n-indefinite b) nalles c) noh42 d) neg-particle nieht e) other

Isidor 50

Tatian 956

Otfrid 100

Notker 100

47 = 94% 39 = 78%

873 = 91% 770 = 81%

93 = 93% 85 = 85%

88 = 88% 65 = 65%

a) 2 b) c) 4 d) e) 1 (inuni)

a) 60 b) 5 c) 38 d) e) -

a) 6 b) c) 2 d) e) -

a) 11 b) c) 8 d) 4 e) -

In the vast majority (on average 77%) of negated clauses in all texts, ni is the only negative marker in the clause. There is only a slight decrease of this pattern towards Later OHG. The following examples illustrate the common use of ni as the only marker of negation: (96)

41

(Et ecce eris tacens & non poteris / loqui usque) Inti nu uuirdist thû suigenti Inti nimaht / sprehhan unzan and now become you silent and NEG-can speak until

Wheelock LaBrum (1982, 219f.): reports for Notker’s Boethius translation that 80% of the clauses containing a neg-particle have simple preverbal ne, and 20% ne V niht. 42 Cases of noh ‘neither/nor’ and neg-particle ni co-occurring in the same clause. Note that noh ‘neither/nor’ (corresponding to Latin nec/neque) has to be carefully distinguished from noh ‘still/yet’ (corresponding to Latin nondum), e. g. nec mihi fecistis. – noh mir nitatut. ‘nor did to me’ (T 268, 12) vs. quinquaginta annos nondum habes – finfzug Iaro noh nihabes ‘you are not fifty years old yet’ (T 220, 6).

60


(In diem quo / haec fiant.) then tag In themo / thisu uuerdent. the day in that these happen ‘And now you will become mute and will not be able to speak until the day that this will happen.’ T 27, 17-19 (97)

(Ipsis uidelicet iudeis, qui non credunt.) bauhnenti dea selbun iudeoliuti, dea ni galaubant. showing the same jews that NEG believe ‘showing the same jews who do not believe’ Is I, 7

(98)

ni gíbit uns thaz álta, thaz thiu iúgund scolta. NEG gives us the old-age that the youth owed ‘Old age does not give us what the youth owed us.’ O I. 4, 54

(99)

Fone diû negesêhent dih unréchte. from that NEG-see you unjust ‘Therefore, the unjust do not see you.’ N Ps 5, 5 (= 17, 6)

Ni may also co-occur with another neg-marker, viz. an n-indefinite (negmarked indefinite pronoun or adverb; see chpt. 3.5.6. below), a disjunction such as noh (‘nor’),43 or another neg-particle such as nalles (see chpt. 2.4.4. below) or in a few cases in Late OHG nieht (see chpt. 2.4.5. below), illustrating the fact that OHG, in contrast to Latin and also to Modern German, was a Negative-Concord language.

43

Noh could appear in either conjunct (in contrast to Modern German which uses the distinct weder ‘neither’ and noch ‘nor’) or introduce a conjunct after a clause that contained some other neg-marker. If the noh-conjunct contained a finite verb, the verbal clitic neg-particle ni generally occurred in addition to noh (e. g. Is II, 3; T 69, 16f.; O I. 2, 15f.; N Ps 1, 5 (= 10, 11f.)), suggesting that – much as n-indefinites (see chpt. 3.3 below) – noh is not semantically negative but is licensed by the semantic negation in NegP.

2.4


(100)

(& non respondit ei / ad ullum uerbum) Inti niantligita imo / zi noheinigemo uuorte and NEG-answered him to no word ‘And did not answer to a single word’ T 310, 16f.

(101)

(nec apostolus dicit nec propheta conperit) Dhazs ni saget apostolus noh forasago ni bifant that NEG says apostle nor prophet NEG found-out

61

(nec angelus sciuit nec creatura cognouit) noh angil gotes ni uuista noh einic chiscaft ni archennida. nor angel god’s NEG knew nor any creature NEG recognized ‘No apostle had said this, nor any prophet discovered it, nor had any angel of god known it, nor any creature recognized it.’ Is II, 3 (102)

(Non omnis qui dicit mihi / domine domine. Intrabit Nalles iogiuuelih ther mir quidit / truhtin truhtin nigat NEG anyone who me says lord lord NEG-goes in regno celorum) in himilo rihhi in heaven kingdom ‘Not anyone who calls to me “Lord, Lord” will go to the heavenly kingdom.’ T 74, 20f.

(103)

in geméitun sô uîlo geuuêinot. Ih nehábo niêht I NEG-have not at all/NEG in vain so much cried ‘I did not cry that much in vain.’ N Ps 6, 11(= 20, 23f.)

As is evident from the table above, there is also a small number of negated clauses without the negative particle ni. Most of these cases consist of elliptical

62


structures and include the negative particle nalles. Since ni generally cliticizes to the finite verb, it does of course not appear when the finite verb is ellided. (104)

(quia homo est natus nobis, non sibi.) huuanda ir uns uuard chiboran, nalles imu selbemu. because he us became born NEG him self ‘Because he was born for us, not for himself.’ Is V, 2

In other negated clauses without ni, negation is marked in a small number of clauses only by means of an n-indefinite (see chpt. 3.5.6. below). As the table illustrates, ni was the major syntactic means of marking negation in OHG, which was thus a stage-I language in terms of Jespersen’s Cycle. The data speak clearly against the view that ni never had the monopoly of negation in German as claimed by Paardekooper (2002). This is also evident from those texts which are direct translations of Latin originals, i. e. Tatian, Isidor, and partly Notker: Where these deviate from the Latin originals with respect to negation, it is mostly in that they add the negative particle ni against an original Latin construction which did not contain non (or ne, nec, neque, nolle, nescire etc.) but marked negation only by means of an indefinite pronoun or adverb. Far from being unsuitable as sources for syntactic research, translatory texts actually provide a valuable basis in this respect: in their deviations from the Latin original, a picture of genuin OHG grammar emerges. While the negation particle is added in many cases against the Latin original, even in Tatian, which is generally considered a rather close translation, a negation particle in the Latin original is never ommitted in the OHG translation. This indicates that there was a strong grammatical rule requiring the presence of ni in OHG in negated clauses. One may go as far as concluding that ni was obligatory in negated clauses (cf. Donhauser 1998: 287, but see also the discussion chapter 3.5.6. below). The following examples from Tatian illustrate the different kinds of Latin constructions that were rendered as clauses negated by the verbal clitic ni in the OHG translation: (105)

non → ni: (quia non potes unum capillum / album facere aut nigrum) uuanta thú nimaht ein hár thes fahses / uuizaz gituon odo suarz because you NEG-can one strand the hair white make or black

2.4


‘because you cannot turn a single hair white or black’ T 64, 24f. (106)

neque →(noh) ni: (neque calumniam faciatis,) noh harm ni tuot, nor harm NEG do ‘nor do any harm’ T 46, 32

(107)

nec → (noh) ni: (&si deum non timeo nec hominem / reuereor.) oba ih nu got niforhtu noh man/ ni Intrâtu. if I now god NEG-fear nor man NEG dread ‘though I don’t fear God nor dread man’ T 201, 8f.

(108)

ne → ni: (ne deterius tibi aliquid / contingat) daz dir sihuuaz uuirseren / nigibure that you anything worse NEG happen ‘that nothing worse will happen to you’ T 136, 9f.

(109)

nescire etc. → ni: (uos nescitis quicquam) ir niuuizzut îouuiht. you NEG-know anything ‘You don’t know anything.’ T 234, 10

63

64


(110)

no neg-particle → ni: (quia nemo est / In cognatione tua qui uoc&tur /) nioman nist / In thinemo cunne thie thar genemnit sî / nobody NEG-is in your family who PART called be (hoc nomine) thesemo namen this name ‘There is nobody in your family who is called by this name.’ T 30, 26-28

Occasionally, Latin non was rendered as OHG nalles, instead: (111)

non → nalles: (non pro his autem rogo / tantum. sed pro eis qui ...) nalles furi thie bittih / eccrodo. nibi furi thie the ... NEG for these beg-I only but for these who ‘I do not only beg for these, but for the ones who ...’ T 292, 17–19

I investigated a subset of 217 negated clauses from Tatian with respect to the question of how the translators treated the neg-particle. (112)

Relation of negation particles in Latin and OHG Tatian

Latin non (neque, nec, ne) non -* -* non

OHG ni nalles ni

neg-particle taken over 75 36 neg-particle added 59 (5x incl. line break) -* neg-particle not added 47 (17x incl. line break) – (no ni/ neg-particle ommitted* 0 nalles)

(*negation expressed by an n-indefinite)

2.4


65

In this sample, OHG ni corresponds to the Latin negation particle non (or equivalents ne, nec, neque, nolle, nescire etc.) in 75 cases. 59 clauses contain ni against the Latin original which did not contain a neg-particle but marked negation for instance by using an n-indefinite. (In six of these cases the nindefinite in Latin and the verb to which ni is added in the translation are separated by a line break, which indicates that the marking of negation could be shifted accross line breaks in the Tatian translation, i. e. marked in a different line of the text, cf. also the results for NC in chpt. 3.5.10 below. By contrast, the finite verb, for instance, was never moved accross line breaks, as demonstrated in Masser (1994) and Dittmer/Dittmer (1998), in order to preserve a line-to-line correspondence of Latin original and OHG translation.) In 47 negated clauses, on the other hand, the neg-particle is not added but is lacking, as in the Latin original. (Only 17 of these include a relevant line break between the n-indefinite and the finite verb.) Non and its equivalents are always rendered in the OHG translation (mostly as ni, but also as nalles) and never ommitted. Thus the translators followed the Latin original when it contained a neg-particle. When the negparticle was lacking they added it in in their OHG translation more often than they did not. In other words, when they changed anything with respect to the neg-particle in comparison with the Latin original, as they did in just under a third of all cases, they added the neg-particle ni in OHG. This supports the hypothesis that ni was obligatory in OHG, but that Tatian occasionally displays the influence of the Latin original (cf. Donhauser 1996: 204; 1998: 297). In Isidor, there are 47 cases of negation including ni. The negation particle ni is added compared to the Latin original in 12 cases and corresponds to the Latin neg-particle non (or nec, nescire etc.) in all other 35 cases. (113)

no neg-particle → ni: (si dauid mentiar: semen eius in eternum manebit.) ni liugu ih dauid, sin samo ardot in æuuin. NEG lie I David his semen remains in eternity ‘I do not lie to David: His semen will remain in eternity.’ Is IX, 1

66


(114)

non → ni: (et misericordiam meam non auferam ab eo,) endi mina miltnissa ni nimu ih ab imu, and my mercy NEG take I from him ‘And I will not take my mercy away from him’ Is IX, 2

Just as in Tatian, the neg-particle in the OHG Isidor translation corresponds for the most part to one in the Latin original. The fact that in both texts, the negparticle was also added against the Latin original in a number of cases indicates that the use of the preverbal neg-particle was a genuine pattern in OHG so that the clauses where ni corresponds directly to non should not be excluded altogether on the basis of the Principle of Difference (“Differenzprinzip”) but regarded as instances in which the Latin and the OHG grammar converge. Notker’s Psalter is only in parts a translation of the Latin original. For the most part, he explains and interprets the biblical text. Therefore, most of his usage of the neg-particle ne is entirely independent of any Latin original. Of the negated clauses that are direct translations, ne corresponds to a Latin negparticle in 22 cases (17x non, 5x neque/nisi/ne) and in two sentences, it is added against the original: (115)

non → ne: (Non / est oblitus orationem pauperum.) Er ne-fergizet déro armôn / gebétes . he NEG-forgets the poor prayers ‘He does not forget the prayer of the poor.’ N Ps 9, 13 (= 29, 8-10)

(116)

no neg-particle → ne: (nequando irascatur dominus . et pere-/atis) daz / sih gót éteuuenne ne-bélge . unde ir neg[l]eslîphent that REFL god ever NEG-anger and you NEG-slip (de uia iusta.) ába re-/ htemo uuége. off right way

2.4

67


‘that god will never get angry and that you will not slip off the right path’ N Ps 2, 12 (= 12, 23-26) Almost all instances of ne in the translatory parts of Notker thus correspond to Latin non or an equivalent expression. The negative particle ni virtually always occurs as a proclitic on the finite verb (as already noted by Behaghel 1918: 227, Paul 1920: 330 et al., but only implicit in Schrodt 2004: 136). This observation is crucial for determining the phrase-structural status and position of ni within OHG syntax. In a few cases, ni cliticizes to a non-finite verb or occurs elsewhere in the clause in some texts (see examples (125)-(129), (134)-(139) below). (117)

Placement of OHG ni

neg. clauses incl. ni in the corpus ni proclitic on Vfin ni proclitic on Vinf ni elsewhere

Isidor 47

Tatian 873

Otfrid 93

Notker 88

46 (98%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%)

858 (98%) 9 (1%) 6 (0,7%)

84 (90%) 0 (0%) 9 (10%)

87 (99%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%)

Ni/ne is generally a proclitic but not an enclitic element in OHG, unlike in MHG in a few cases: In my OHG corpus, ni/ne never attaches enclitically to an element before the verb.44 As is evident from table (117), it is the finite verb that ni attaches to as a proclitic in the standard case: in 90% in Otfrid and as often as 98 or 99% in Isidor, Tatian and Notker. The data from various shorter OHG texts support this: All negated clauses in Hildebrandslied, Wessobrunn Sermon and the Paris Conversations have ni/ne as a proclitic on the finite verb. This pattern is not restricted by any morphosyntactic specifications of the verb. Ni cliticizes to verbs with different tense and mood features: Besides present tense indicative verb forms (compare examples above), past tense is also attested, as well as subjunctive verb forms:

44

Apparently, in Late OHG, secondary encliticization to the constituent before the finite verb became also possible eventually: One example from Williram is quoted in Admoni (1990: 27) and (Braune/Reiffenstein 2004: 242). However, there are no examples in my corpus from the Late OHG text of Notker’s Psalter.

68


•

past tense:

(118)

theru spráha er bilémit uuas, uuant er gilóubig ni uuas. the language he paralyzed was because he believing NEG was ‘His speach was paralyzed because he did not believe’ O I. 4, 76

(119)

(quia non habebant radicem) bithiu sie nihab&un uuvrzalun because they NEG-have roots ‘because they do not have roots’ T 108, 8

•

subjunctive:

(120)

Fúrder nechóme iûuer zórn. further NEG-come your rage ‘Your rage shall not come any further’ N Ps 4, 5 (= 15, 17)

(121)

(In qua sententia nemo dubitet ...) In dhesemu quhide ni bluchisoe eoman ... in this saying NEG-doubt anyone ‘Nobody shall doubt that in this saying ...’ Is III, 6

Notably, also imperative verb forms combine with ni in contrast for instance to Italian negation data and also any Latin originals where true negated imperative forms do not occur and suppletive forms or neg-marked auxiliaries are used.45

45

However, there is also one suppletive imperative verb or neg-auxiliary in OHG: nolite possidere – nicuret bisizen ‘do not want/aim to own’ (T 76, 18). According to Wratil (2004: 223f.), for true negated imperatives to occur, the imperative verb needs to be sufficiently specified for finiteness before it reaches NegP. She argues that, whereas in languages like Italian the mood features are only licensed in C0, the mood feature of the verb is licensed IPinternally in OHG in a MoodP below NegP in imperative clauses.

2.4


•

69

imperative:

(122)

Ni fórhti thir bíscof! NEG fear thee bishop ‘Do not be afraid, bishop!’ O I. 4, 27

(123)

(neminem concutiatis / neque calumniam faciatis,) niomannen ni bliuu& / noh harm ni tuot, nobody NEG beat nor harm NEG do ‘Do not beat anyone nor harm them’ T 46, 31f.

The cliticization of ni is also often graphematically expressed by writing ni and the verb in one word. However, the spelling varies in this respect, as it does in general in OHG. Even today, the writing systems of closely related languages such as Czech and Polish, whose neg-particles display the same syntactic behaviour, differ in that one renders the cliticization of the negation particle whereas the other puts it as a separate word (cf. Dahl 1979: 83): (124) a. b.

Nie wiem. Nevím. NEG-know ‘I don’t know.’

Polish Czech

Thus, spelling is not a strong linguistic criterion, let alone in OHG where the concept of the graphematic word was not yet fixed.46 But the fact that ni and the verb are often written as one word demonstrates that the scribes perceived it as a unit. Admoni (1990: 27) states for instance, that Notker followed a rule of writing ne and Vfin in one word. Under the influence of Modern German grammar, the 19th century editors of OHG texts often did not render the spelling as in the originals but separated ni and the verb, thus obscuring one of the major differences in the syntax of negation between the OHG and Modern German negation particle. This is for instance striking in Siever’s 1892 edition of Tatian as compared to the 1994 edition by Masser, which is much closer to the manuscript and has ni 46

According to Bischoff (1986: 229) shorter words such as prepositions were often written as one graphematic unit together with the following word.

70


and the verb in one word in a vast number of cases where Sievers consistently split this unit into two seperate words. The interference of early editors with the OHG texts may also lead to wrong generalizations. Thus Wheelock LaBrum (1982: 204) states that OHG ni was normally a separate preverbal particle, apart from combinations with verbs beginning in /i/, which ni would cliticize to. This wrong generalization is the result of the analysis of a sample of negated clauses from Otfrid in the 1856 edition by Kelle. Of course, the cases of fusion and vowel-contraction or -loss referred to, that were even consistently rendered in the older editions, constitute particularly compelling evidence for the cliticization of ni on the verb. The phenomenon is also known from other Old Germanic languages. In Old English, it is attested with verbs beginning in different vowels: ne and is form nis, ne and art form nart etc. (cf. Jespersen 1917: 12). It is furthermore reminiscent of the behaviour of Modern French ne (Elle n’arrive pas etc.). The most common case in OHG is nist as the result of ni cliticising to ist, but the same can be observed for other verbs beginning in /i/, too, such as nintfúarit (O I. 1, 77), ninstánte (O I. 1, 119), nirgange (O I. 2, 18), or nirfuor (T 38, 29).47 In contrast to Old English, contraction is not attested with verbs beginning in vowels other than /i/, thus it is ni eeret (T 127, 8), niougent (T 246, 5), ni archennida (Is II, 3), ni eigun (Is V, 5), ni untarfálle (O I. 1, 79). And even with verbs beginning in /i/, contraction is not a strict rule – or at least not always reflected in writing: Alongside a large number of contracted nist (63 cases), Tatian also has niist (T 221, 3). Besides, there are non-contracted forms such as ni intratu (T 201, 9), ni Intphiengun (T 44, 28), ni intrátent (O I. 1, 98)48 etc. Notker generally does not write contracted forms. Even the combination with ist, he consistently renders as neist. In Isidor, on the other hand, the only cases of verbs under negation beginning in /i/ are instances of ist which consistently occurs in the contracted form nist (10 cases, e. g. Is II, 5; Is III, 4; Is III, 6). While cliticization to the finite verb is the general rule in OHG, ni very rarely occurs as a clitic on a non-finite verb instead. However, this is often so simply because the finite verb is lacking in the respective construction. 47 Braune/Reiffenstein (2004: 73) mention this phenomenon for verbs with the prefixes ir- and int- in Tatian and particularly in Otfrid. 48 In this example (O I. 1, 98), the manuscript arguably has ni and int as one graphematic unit and a spatium before rátent. Kelle in his 1856 edition and Kleiber in his 2004 edition, however, both render it as ni intrátent. This indicates that an in-depth investigation of the spelling of neg-particle and verb, which is beyond the scope of this study, would have to be based on the original manuscripts.

2.4


71

Examples of this kind are almost only found in Tatian, which suggests that cliticization to non-finite verbs is not a genuine OHG pattern but a sign of Latin influence. Ni occurs for instance on the present and past participle in constructions formed after the Latin participium coniunctum or ablativus absolutus, the so-called OHG dativus absolutus: (125)

(amice quomodo / huc Intrasti non habens / uestem nuptialem.) friunt uuvo / giengi thû hera In nihabenti / giuuâti brûtlouftlîh. friend how went you here in NEG-having robe nuptial ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?’ T 206, 24-26

(126)

(Et non Invento corpore eius / venerunt dicentes ... ) Inti nifundanemo sinemo líchamen / quamun quaedenti ... and NEG found his-DAT corpse-DAT came saying ... ‘His corpse not having been found, they came and said ...’ T 331, 8f.

These participle constructions are instances of loan syntax in Tatian (cf. Lippert 1974). Obviously, the OHG rule for ni to be present in a negated clause was so strong that ni even entered into these probably ungrammatical loan constructions. Besides attaching to participles, ni occurs very rarely on the zi-infinitive (to-infinitive) or on the bare infinitive in Tatian. The latter pattern is also attested in Notker. (127)

(Haec oportuit facere / & illa non omittere) Thisiu gilampf zituonne / Inti thiu ni ziforlazzane this was-due to-do and that NEG to-be-omitted ‘It was necessary to do this and not to forget this.’ T 245, 20

(128)

(Ponite ergo in cordibus uestris. / non premeditari /) sezz& in iuuueren herzon / niforalernen / put in your hearts NEG-anticipate (quemadmodum respondeatis) zi uuelicheru uuisun ir antvvurt& to which kind you answer

72


‘Keep it in you hearts not to anticipate in which way you will answer.’ T 251, 22-24 (129)

ih ne irstér-/ben múge . I NEG die may ‘I may not die’ N Ps 3, 7 (=13, 27-14, 1)

The standard pattern with infinitival contructions, however, has ni as a proclitic on the finite rather than the non-finite verb.49 (130)

(que ultra illuc celebrare) dhiu sie eomaer furi dhazs in iro samnunghe dhar haldan which they ever before that in their community there hold (non potuerunt.) ni mahtun. NEG could ‘which they could not hold before that in their community’ Is V, 8

49

(131)

(quia / nemo potest uenire ad me. / nisi ...) uuanta / neoman nimag quemen zi mir / niba ... because nobody NEG-may come to me unless ‘because nobody can come to me unless ...’ T 125, 11-13

(132)

in ánder gizúngi firnéman iz ni kúnni in other language understand it NEG-can ‘(he) could not understand it in another language’ O I. 1, 120

Ni appears on the finite verb of the infinitival construction apparently independent of the semantic scope. However, the examples in question are either coherent constructions where there is only one neg-domain, or so-called bridge-verb constructions with which different scope of negation does not produce substantial differences in reading, a phenomenon formerly analysed as neg-raising ( cf. Dahl 1993: 921f.).

2.4


(133)

73

ih mêino daz er rîcheson ne-uuólta . I think that he reign NEG-wanted ‘I think that he did not want to reign’ N Ps 1, 1 (= 9, 10)

The pattern in (129) could possibly be explained by saying that a verb complex was formed of Vinf+Vfin and ni/ne was simply attached before the complex as a whole. However, this cannot have been a general rule as examples such as (133) illustrate in which Vfin follows Vinf in the verbal complex, but nonetheless, ni/ne attaches to the finite verb. On the whole, unlike Penka/Stechow (2001) state, OHG syntax was not free with respect to whether the neg-particle occurred on the finite or non-finite verb, or even on both in infinitival constructions. The latter pattern does not occur at all in my OHG corpus. Apart from very few exceptions, the negparticle ni always attaches to the finite verb. The few cases where ni does not appear as a verbal clitic that are given in table (117) are most likely reflexes of Latin grammar rather than instances of genuine OHG syntax. There are two cases in Tatian where ni occurs in isolation, once to mean ‘no’ and once after odo (‘or’) with an ellipsis of the rest of the clause. These directly follow the Latin original:

50

(134)

(at ille dixit / non pater abraham) tho quad hér. / ni fater abraham PART said he NEG father Abraham ‘He said: No, father Abraham.’ T 175, 12f.50

(135)

(lic& / censum dari cæsari. an non.) ist arloubit / zins zigebanne themo keisore. odo ní, is allowed tax to-give the emperor or NEG ‘Is it allowed to pay tax to the emperor or not?’ T 207, 10f.

In all other cases, Latin non as the answer particle ‘no’ is already rendered as nein: Responderunt ei: non. – Sie tho antalengitun imo. neín. ‘They answered him: no’ (T 337, 10f.), & ait. non – Thó quad her. nein ‘And he said: no’ (T 109, 4), & respondit. non – Inti her antlingota nein. ‘And he answered: no’ (T 47, 14), alii autem dicebant non – andre quadun nein ‘Others said: no’ (T 166, 22).

74


In another case, ni arguably forms part of the object consituent. Again, this pattern is clearly formed after the Latin original: (136)

(Iam [non multa] loquar uobiscum) iu [ni manigiu] sprihu mit íu already NEG much speak with you ‘I will not speak much to you any more.’ T 281, 23

Otherwise, OHG used the verb-independent focus-indicating neg-particle nalles in similar cases: (137)

(erat autem [non longe] / ab illis grex porcorum multorum /) uuas thar [nalles fér] / fon ín cutti suino managero / was there NEG far from them flock pigs many (pascens) ezenti eating ‘Not far from them, there was a flock of many pigs, feeding.’ T 88, 3-5

Finally, a somewhat similar case is found in the following example in Tatian: (138)

(non continuo / extrah& illum) inti thanne ní slíumo / ziuhit inan uz and then NEG quickly pulls him out ‘and does not quickly pull it out’ T 180, 5f.

If ni was cliticized to the finite verb as would be expected in OHG, the relative scope of the adverb sliumo (‘quickly’) and negation would be wrong.51 Thus it is the required reading rather than for instance the line break that prevented the translators to produce niziuhit – as we saw above, in contrast to the finite verb 51

An alternative explanation for this case would be to assume that the adverb was incorporated into the verb as in English split-infinitive constructions, e. g. He seems to [cleverly write] a letter. This is also possible for instance in Greek and French (cf. Alexiadou 1997; Cardinaletti/ Starke 1999).

2.4


75

or full phrases, ni could in fact be moved across lines in Tatian. Again, the verb-independent nalles could have maybe been used alternatively in this example. One comparable case is also contained in the corpus from Otfrid: ni introduces an elliptical construction with a narrow focus of negation. Since the verb is ellided, ni does not appear as a preverbal clitic. (139)

Sprah ther gótes boto thó, ni doh irbólgono, spoke the god messenger PART, NEG PART furiously ‘And God’s messenger spoke, but not furiously.’ O I. 4, 57

In other constructions like this, Otfrid also uses the verb-independent focusindicating neg-particle nalles (see also chpt. 2.4.4. below): (140)

Zi uns ríht er horn héiles, nales féhtannes, to us directs he horn healing NEG fighting ‘At us, he directs the horn of healing, not of fighting.’ O I. 10, 5

Apart from the exceptions just discussed, there are occasional cases in which ni occurs in the C-domain. It is used as a kind of complementizer in Otfrid (8x in my corpus) and Isidor (1x in total) that are also listed in table (117) in the category of ni occurring elsewhere.52 (141)

kúning nist in uuórolti, ni si imo thíononti, / Noh kéisor king NEG-is in world NEG be him serving nor emperor untar mánne, ni imo géba bringe among men NEG him gift bring ‘There is no king in this world who would not serve him, and no emperor who would not bring him a gift.’ O I. 5, 48f.

52

Interestingly, Tatian never renders the Latin complementizer ne as clause-initial ni, but as a combination of the complementizer thaz and the neg-particle ni on the finite verb, e. g. T 97, 19; T 130, 15f.; T 136, 9f.; T153, 1f., T 294, 2f. Note, that in Gothic, for instance, the negcomplementizer is distinguished from the neg-particle by vowel length. In OHG, this does not appear to be the case.

76


(142)

(In qua sententia nemo dubitet secundam esse personam.) In dhesemu quhide ni bluchisoe eoman, ni dhiz sii chiuuisso in this saying NEG doubt anyone NEG this be certainly dher ander heit godes, selbo druhtin christ. the other personality of-god same Lord Christ ‘Nobody shall doubt that in this saying it is certainly god’s other personality, the same Lord Christ. ’ Is III, 6

The two uses of ni ought to be distinguished so that these cases do not actually constitute occurrences of the neg-particle ni. By the way, note that the neg-marking in the dependent clause in (142), in contrast to the one in (141), is in fact expletive, simply marking affective polarity.53 This kind of expletive neg-marking in clauses dependent on adversative or negated matrix predicates, also referred to as paratactic NC (Zeijlstra 2004), is however not a general rule in OHG: Other dependent clauses, even of the same syntactic type, viz. argument clauses, that depend on negative predicates do not contain any expletive neg-marking.

53

(143)

(ut nemini dicerent / quia ipse ess& ihesus christus;) thaz sie niomanne niquadin / [her uuari heilant crist]. that they nobody NEG-told he was saviour Christ ‘that they did not tell anybody that he was Christ the Saviour’ T 143, 25f.

(144)

(Numquid de illo salomone creditur prophetatum? minime.) Neo nist zi chilaubanne [dhazs fona dhemu salomone sii dhiz never NEG-is to believe that of the Salomo be this

Expletive negation with an adversative or negated matrix predicates is a common phenomenon in various languages (Jespersen 1917: 75 “paratactic negation”) and also found in MHG (de Boor/Wisniewski 1998: 190, Paul 2007: 393f.; see chpt. 2.5.3. below) and up to early Modern German (Behaghel 1918: 248, Paul 1920: 343-351, Lockwood 1968: 212 incl. examples from writers such as Herder and Goethe). This phenomenon is also mentioned in Schrodt’s OHG syntax (Schrodt 2004: 181f.). However, he does not assume expletive negation in these cases. Instead, he suggests somewhat controversially that the negation and the subjunctive cancel each other out semantically so that a positive proposition results. For expletive neg-markers in other languages cf. also chpt. 3.1 below.

2.4


77

chiforabodot]. predicted ‘It is not to be believed that this was predicted of Salomo.’ Is IX, 3 Rare instances of ni in the C-domain are further attested in Tatian (2x) and Isidor (1x) where ni appears after the question particle eno/inu, e. g.: (145)

(Num angelus ęqualem cum deo habet imaginem?) Inu ni angil nist anaebanchiliih gote? QPART NEG angel NEG-is similar god ‘Doesn’t the angel look like God?’ Is III, 5

Eno/inu ni translates Latin num(quid) or nonne, is followed by V1 or V2 questions and arguably occupies a position before the prefield.54 Ni cannot be equated with the standard Neg0 neg-particle ni in these cases either, as it optionally co-occurs with it, as in the example above. In so far as these extremely rare cases can be said to constitute genuine OHG patterns at all (see Petrova/Solf forthc: 35, for arguments that eno/inu constructions may be artefacts of translatory texts, instead), they might indicate the optional presence of neg-features in CP.55 This has also been proposed for Old English by van Kemenade (2000: 74) and for Old Norse by Eythórsson (2002: 216): He suggests that the NegP within the IP-domain is anaphorically dependent on [+ neg] C in these cases.56 Alternatively, the neg-marker in the C-domain may be assumed to be licensed by the semantic negation in NegP. Indeed, we also find cases of NC between eno/inu ni and the preverbal neg-particle ni (see chpt. 3.5.7 below). The need for a distinction from the neg-particle ni holds all the more for the morpheme ni- that forms part of the OHG n-indefinites nioman, ni(o)wiht, nio etc. These cases are accordingly not included in table (117) as occurrences 54

On the question particle enu/inu see also Lühr (1997). Further support for this comes from the complementizer nibi/nibu/noba/nub ‘unless/if not’ (e. g. T 90, 18f., Is II, 5; O I. 1, 85f.) which occurs in Ve clauses that are used equivalently to clauses with ibu/oba ‘if’ and the clitic neg-particle ni on Vfin (e. g. T 162, 28f.). Compare also Modern German so-called light negation with the neg-particle nicht arguably occurring higher than SpecNegP: wenn nicht bald jemand kommt ... (‘if not/unless someone will come soon’). 56 Cinque (1999: 201, footn. 20) suggests that I-projections may generally be doubled within the C-domain. 55

78


of the neg-particle ni. I assume that, synchronically in OHG, this morpheme is not an instance of the OHG neg-particle as occasionally implied in statements such as in Naumann (1915: 29), Paul (1920: 330) or Admoni (1990: 46) that ‘ni could appear as a proclitic on the verb and/or on an indefinite’, or that ‘ni could be repeated on an indefinite’. Rather, the n-indefinites are fully lexicalized already in the earliest texts (cf. Behaghel 1918: 229f., Delbrück 1910, in contrast to Gothic; see also chpt. 3.5.4. below). This is supported by the fact that ni does not appear as a determiner-like element with other indefinites such as full NPs.57 In these cases, the neg-determiner nihein(ig) is used instead.58 This indicates that prefixation of indefinites with ni- was not productive any more, in contrast to the cliticization of the neg-particle ni to finite verbs. To sum up, the OHG neg-particle ni/ne is used in almost all negated clauses, with cases of V-ellipsis and instances of negation through an nindefinite only (possibly a result of Latin influence) forming rare exceptions. The neg-particle occurs virtually always as a proclitic on the finite verb. Under Latin influence, ni appears on non-finite verb forms in very few cases. The occasional use of ni as a complementizer and the occurrence of the morpheme ni- as part of OHG n-indefinites do not constitute instances of the neg-particle. In Notker, ne only occurs as a verbal clitic. In all other texts, cliticization of ni to the verb is also clearly the standard pattern. 2.4.2. Phrase-structural status of ni: ni as the head Neg0 Since the OHG neg-particle ni occurs as a clitic on the finite verb in virtually all cases, I assume that it occupies the head position of the functional projection NegP. Cliticization to the finite verb is evidence for the head status of a negation particle as argued above (chpt. 2.2.3.): since Neg0 c-commands V, the verb has to move through Neg0 on its way to any higher functional projection according to the head movement constraint (HMC). If the negparticle is a clitic, the verb will attach to it as a result of head-adjunction and both will move in the clause as a unit. Cases in which the finite verb moves 57

In the Paris Conversations, there are two cases of full indefinite NPI-nouns apparently prefixed by ne-: Nehaben . ne // trophen . i[d est] . n[on] abeo // quid . (Paris Conv. 74); semigot elfe . neha / bent netrophen . i[d est] si me / d[eu]sadiuuet n[on] abeonihil . (Paris Conv. 48). This is not paralleled in any other text and may be due to Romance influence. These instances of ne may simply constitute corrupted short forms of nehein, as suggested by nen in the following example from the same text: Begotteh eneuitst nenhurt . i[d est] . null // uerbu scio deoc (Paris Conv. 90). 58 Besides, the fact that neg-marked indefinite adverbs also contain the morpheme ni- speaks against an analysis of OHG ni- as a determiner.

2.4


79

across ni for instance to C are correctly predicted not to occur because they would constitute violations of the HMC. Indeed there are no examples of this kind in the OHG corpus. Instead, ni appears as a clitic on the finite verb whether the clause has verb-final, verb-first or verb-second word order:59 (146)

Ve: (Item si christus dominus non est, de quo dicit dauid in psalmo ...) Inu ibu christus druhtin nist, umbi huuenan dauid in psalmom Part if Christ Lord NEG-is, about whom David in Psalm quhad: ... said ‘Also: if Christ is not the Lord about which David said in the psalm: ...’ Is III, 6

(147)

V1: (si dauid mentiar: semen eius in eternum manebit.) ni liugu ih dauid, sin samo ardot in æuuin. NEG lie I David his semen remains in eternity ‘I do not lie to David: His semen will remain in eternity.’ Is IX, 1

59

In the context of so-called Residual V2 (Rizzi 1996), it has been noted that other Old Germanic languages such as Old English (van Kemenade 1999b et al.) or Old Norse (Eythórsson 1995, 2002) as a general rule observe Neg-Vfin-Subj word order in negated (main) clauses (cf. also Behaghel 1932: § 1428), assuming that the finite verb is attracted across the subject position to C by a neg-operator in SpecCP or a neg-feature in C. There is no evidence that any such rule played a role in OHG. OHG is an asymmetric V2 language so that movement to C generally takes place anyway in main clauses (cf. Axel 2005). Subjects occur both before or after the finite verb in negated clauses. Besides, V2 is a misnomer when it comes to clause-initial ni+Vfin: these are in fact V1 clauses, because ni is head-adjoined to the verb and the unit of ni+Vfin is positioned in C.

80


(148)

V2: (et portę non claudentur.) endi dor ni uuerdant bilohhan. and doors NEG become closed ‘And the doors will not be closed.’ Is III, 2

(149)

Ve: thaz thu irrímen ni máht. that you tell NEG can ‘that you cannot tell’ O I. 11, 52

(150)

V1: ni uuas in ther námo námi/ In thínemo kúnne NEG was them the name acceptable in your family ‘The name was not acceptable to them in your family.’ O I. 9, 20

(151)

V2: sí ni mohta inbéran sin she NEG could do-without him ‘She could not do without him’ O I. 8, 3

This syntactic behaviour would be quite unexpected if ni was for instance in an adverbial adjunct position but is correctly predicted by assuming that ni is a syntactic head Neg0 just as French ne, which also attaches to the finite verb and moves with it. Phrase-structural head status is also assumed for ni by Weiß (1998) and Abraham (2003), as well as for Old English ne by van Kemenade (1999a, 2000) and van Gelderen (2004), and for Gothic ni as well as Old Norse ne- (in the oldest stages) and -at by Eythórsson (2002). As an alternative to ni being merged or base-generated in Neg0, the complex of ni and V could be formed in the lexicon and enter syntax as a whole where it would form a chain with Neg0 or move through there for

2.4

81


checking reasons. This is also suggested for Old English ne by van Kemenade (2000: 65f.). The few examples of OHG ni occurring as a clitic on non-finite verbs could be taken as evidence for this analysis in case non-finite verbs do not move to T. However, compared to the number of inifinitival constructions, they are too rare and Latin influence cannot be sufficiently excluded to really constitute a grammatical pattern. Eythórsson’s (2002) argument for base-generating Old Norse ne as a verbal prefix, whereas -at is merged in Neg0, is based on the order of verbal morphemes: In the case of -at, there is conclusive evidence for a separate syntactic position because subject agreement morphemes positioned in T0 and AGRS0, respectively, as well as the middle marker –sk/-mk expressing various types of non-active voice, which is merged in Voice0, are added to the verb stem before the negation. (152)

kalla - ð - i - sk - at V +T+AGRS+VOICE+NEG ‘wasn’t called’

Old Norse

Since there is no such evidence in the case of ne, Eythórsson suggests that it originally started out as Neg0 but was eventually grammaticalized as a verbal prefix. On the other hand, the fact that it is a proclitic rather than enclitic element makes it impossible to establish any order of attachment to the verb stem with respect to the inflectional morphemes discussed so that Eythórsson’s argument is in fact not conclusive for ne. The same holds for OHG ni. Note also that considering ni to be a verbal affix (and thus an instance of morphological negation in the terminology of Dahl 1979 and Payne 1985) rather than a clitic particle would not in itself entail that it was not merged in Neg0: recall that, just as clitic neg-particles such as French ne, verbal negaffixes such as Turkish -me- have been argued to originate as the head of the functional NegP shell. A possible argument for OHG ni being merged in Neg0 rather than added to the verb stem in the lexicon and only checked in syntax against Neg0 comes from the relative order with respect to the perfective prefix gi- and the infinitive marker zi. However, it depends on the status of these elements. If they are assumed to be merged in separate syntactic positions (for instance in Perf0 and T0, respectively), the fact that ni occurs before them and thus at a larger distance to the verb stem suggests that ni is added higher up in the syntactic structure:

82


(153)

ni - gi - leit - est NEG-PERF-lead-2SG ‘do not lead’ T 68, 13

(154)

ni zi-forlazzane NEG to-leave ‘not to leave’ T 245, 20

When it comes down to it, the alternatives of whether ni is merged or checked in Neg0 are really only slight variants with no actual difference in the syntactic structure as such, and my approach is compatible with both views. The crucial point is that ni is linked to the functional head Neg0 rather than for instance to its specifier or an adverbial adjunct position.60 In the literature, however, a different phrase-structural status of ni has occasionally been argued for or sometimes just implied. As an alternative to the NegP account that Abraham (2003) discusses (see figure (161) below), he suggests that ni is an aspect or Aktionsart-marking prefix such as ge- and the like (Abraham 2003: 345/352f.). This view is similar to the alternative just discussed. However, an important difference is that ni is not assumed to be checked against and thus derivationally linked to Neg0. Presumably, there is no NegP at all in OHG and ni is simply one of the class of aspect or Aktionsartmarking prefixes. However, these prefixes – Modern German ge-, be-, ver-, zer-, er-, entetc. and their historic predecessors – cannot co-occur. Yet they can be combined with ni/ne, consider for example: (155)

60

a.

Inti nigileitest unsih in costunga And NEG-guide us in temptation ‘And you do not guide us into temptation’ T 68, 13

Note that, if ni is merged in V0 together with the verb stem, it cannot be considered the scope marker for negation because it would not c-command constituents that are clearly inside the scope of negation as for instance the indefinite subject uuer ‘anybody’ in the following example: giseh& thaz íz uuér níuuizi ‘See to it that nobody knows it’ (T 97, 19). The semantic negation is higher than V0 inside NegP.

2.4


b.

nioman niforduomta thih. Nobody NEG-condemned you. ‘Nobody condemned you.’ T 199, 18

c.

Mêr ne - bedarf er. More NEG -needs he. ‘He does not need more.’ N Ps 9, 35

d.

Êne/ ne-îrstânt . daz sie irtêilet uuérden . those NEG-up-stand that they judged become ‘Those do not stand up to be judged’ N Ps 1, 5 (=10, 12f.)

83

Thus ni cannot have the same status as these prefixes. I take this as evidence for analysing OHG ni as a head Neg0 in its own right (or alternatively as a morpheme of V carrying an uninterpretable neg-feature that needs to be checked against the one of Neg0). Another, more common view that does not treat ni as a head Neg0 is the assumption that ni is a full phrasal category. This is for instance implied in analyses that do not perceive of ni+V as one word unit as suggested by Paul (1920: 330), Dal (1966: 163), Keller (1986: 207) and others, but take ni to be able to occupy the prefield position, i. e. SpecCP,61 or otherwise treat it as a full constituent (“Satzglied”) on a par with sentence adverbials. Thus Lockwood (1968: 207) refers to OHG ni as the “ordinary negative adverb”. Admoni (1990: 78) states that in the clause dat dû noh bî diesem rîhhe reccheo ni wurti ‘that you have not become an exile under this government’ (Hildebrandslied 47f., quoted after Admoni ibd.), five constituents (“Satzglieder”) are contained within the sentence frame, implying that ni is one of them – possibly he is thinking of it as an adverbial, too. In generative terminology, this amounts to saying that ni was a full phrase rather than a functional head. Dittmer/Dittmer (1998: 102) simply mention that clause-initial ni+Vfin could be analysed either as V2 with ni being a constituent in the prefield, or – 61

Note that a similar analysis of the Old English verbal clitic neg-particle ne is implied in van Kemenade (1999b: 155f.): Ne sceal he ... is analysed as a case of (Residual) V2 with sceal in C and ne in SpecCP position, rather than – as I would suggest – as V1 with ne+sceal in C. This contradicts van Kemenade’s own analysis (ibd.: 158) of ne as Neg0 forming a complex head with Vfin.

84


as I would suggest – as V1 with ni as a proclitic particle on the verb. They do not take a stance in favour of one or the other analysis nor do they discuss any arguments that could speak for either approach.62 Also, none of the analyses that clearly assume full constituent status of ni contain an explicit justification for this assumption on the basis of linguistic arguments. Presumably, the respective authors, coming from a Modern German perspective, simply inferred that status. Schrodt (2004: 199) in his OHG syntax also implies constituent status of ni by classing [ni Vfin ...] as only ‘apparent verb-first clauses’ and – besides giving an example of a contraction of ni and the finite verb – points out an example where ni and ist are not contracted but written seperately. However, as we saw above, there is variation in OHG texts in this respect. Most cases do in fact show the contraction. Furthermore, as argued above, arguments based on spelling are not particularly conclusive, especially in OHG. A properly linguistic argument for the topicalisability and thus XP status of ni is suggested in Axel (2002: 20). She gives an argument from distribution: According to Axel, OHG wanta (‘because’) is usually followed by a V2 clause, not a V1 clause. In negated clauses, the order [wanta ni Vfin] is attested, indicating that [ni Vfin ...] is an instance of V2 rather than V1. However, this argument does not hold either. In fact wanta does occasionally also introduce positive verb-first clauses: (156)

(pænitentiam agite, adpropinquavit enim regnum cœlorum.) tuot riuua [uuanta [nahit sih / himilo richi]]. do repentance because nearing-is REFL heavenly kingdom ‘Repent because the heavenly kingdom is drawing near.’ T 44, 1f.

The following pie charts illustrate the distribution of the word orders wanta XP Vfin (=V2), wanta Vfin (=V1), and others (V3, Ve etc.) in positive clauses, as well as wanta XP ni Vfin, wanta ni Vfin, and others in negated clauses in Tatian and Otfrid: 62 Dittmer (1992: 254) suggests the following topological analysis of T 56, 27: (Prefield:) nóh thanne niuuas/ (Middle-Field): iohannes/ (‘End-Field’ (“Schlussfeld”):) gisentit/ (Postfield:) in carcari. Besides the idiosyncratic use of the term ‘End-Field’ instead of Right Sentence Frame, Dittmer fails to differentiate the Left Sentence Frame (the position of Vfin in V1 and V2 clauses and of complementizers in Ve clauses). Accordingly, the fact that he puts ni in the prefield does not entail a strong statement about its phrase-structural status, because uuas is wrongly analysed as part of the prefield, too, i. e. the topological modell is applied incorrectly.

2.4

85


Word order in non-negated and negated wanta-clauses:

(157)

Tatian: without ni

Tatian: with ni wanta XP ni V

wanta XP V

76 102

wanta V

4

wanta ni V

Other

13

6

Other

1

Otfrid: with ni

Otfrid: without ni

wanta XP ni V 17

wanta XP V

3 wanta ni V

wanta V 7

35

Other

1

6

Other

It is striking how similar the distribution patterns are across the two texts (one of which is a prose the other a rhyme text) and, most importantly in this context, across negated and positive clauses if ni+Vfin is treated on a par with just Vfin in non-negated clauses. Quite clearly ni Vfin patterns with just Vfin: Wanta ni Vfin is just as rare as wanta Vfin, i. e. wanta with V1. The most common pattern for negated wanta-clauses is the word order wanta XP ni Vfin, just as for positive wanta-clauses the most common pattern is wanta XP Vfin, i. e. verb-second word order. Compare the entirely parallel wanta-clauses with V2 word order in the following example: (158)

inti scaf/ folgent imo, uuanta siu uuizzun / sina stemma. and sheep follow him because they know his voice. Fremiden/ nifolgent, oh fliohent fon imo, / uuanta sie niuuestun strangers NEG-follow but flee from him because they NEG-know stemma / fremidero. voice strangers

86


‘And the sheep follow him because they know his voice. They do not follow a stranger but flee from him, because they do not know the voice of the strangers.’ T 224, 25-30 Therefore wanta-clauses in fact provide additional compelling evidence for the syntactic unity of ni and the finite verb and against a phrasal status of ni. Ni cannot occupy the prefield otherwise wanta ni Vfin should appear as often as wanta XP Vfin, not as rarely as wanta with V1. To sum up, there is no evidence that ni is a maximal projection or full constituent (“Satzglied”). It does not occur in prefield position but procliticizes to the finite verb. Ni+Vfin in negated clauses patterns with Vfin in non-negated clauses for instance with respect to word order in wanta-clauses. The cliticization to as well as movement with the finite verb constitute clear evidence for the phrase-structural head status of the OHG neg-particle ni. 2.4.3. Phrase-structural position of ni Having established the head status of the OHG neg-particle, I will now discuss its place and the place of NegP in the syntactic structure arguing for the structure already given in (94) above and repeated in (165). Few authors have investigated this issue so far and suggested concrete syntactic analyses for OHG negation. In their early transformational, pre-NegP analyses of Old Germanic negation, Coombs (1976) and Wheelock LaBrum (1982) suggested that negation was base-generated in clause-initial position and subsequently moved into clause-internal, pre-verbal position in the vain of Klima (1964). The first syntactic account in which an explicit syntactic structure including Neg0 ni is given for OHG is that of Weiß (1998: 175): V0

(159) Neg0 ni

V0 (Pref

V0)

Weiß assumes that in OHG, the negation particle ni is simply head-adjoined to V0 with verbal prefixes and particles being head-adjoined lower than ni. However, as discussed above, the order verbal particle+ni+V is also attested, notably with separable particles that have a syntactic representation as also

2.4

87


suggested by the structure in (159). This would require a modification of Weiß’s analysis in this point. (160)

daz er siê fúrder/ ána ne-sêhe. that he her further at- NEG -look ‘that he would not look at her any more’ N Ps 9, 32 (11)

According to Weiß, there is no NegP yet in OHG, but it only develops in the course of the subsequent historical stages of German. One might object that, since crosslinguistic research supports the assumption of a universal functional projection NegP and diachronic variation is not different in principle from crosslinguistic variation, it would be peculiar if a projection such as NegP, supposedly belonging to the core functional make-up of UG, were to appear or to disappear, for that matter, during the historical development of a language. Another analysis of the historical syntax of negation in German in terms of NegP, has been proposed by Abraham (2003). In his paper, he eventually discards this analysis in favour of analysing ni as a kind of aspectual prefix on V, as mentioned above. Abraham discusses the following structure (Abraham 2003: 355; traces and arrows added in for clarification, A. J.): (161)

AgrSP NegP1 Spec

Neg’ 0

[Neg +V]

TP NegTP [tNeg0+V]

VP ...

NegP2

[tV]

[ni(uui)ht]

In this suggested structure, Abraham also analyses OHG ni/ne as a head but he assumes that this head originates in a projection NegTP below NegP1 itself and is only moved to Neg0 along with the verb. (According to Abraham’s analysis, a second NegP optionally hosts the n-indefinite niuuiht that is later on grammaticalized into the second neg-particle. See also discussion below, chpt. 2.4.5)

88


A major drawback of Abraham’s analysis of ni/ne is that it fails to predict the word order in verb-final negated clauses in OHG (and MHG) where ni/ne+V clearly appears at the right edge rather than at the left edge of VP: (162)

(que ultra illuc celebrare dhiu sie eomaer furi dhazs in iro samnunghe dhar haldan which they ever before that in their community there hold non potuerunt.) ni mahtun. NEG could ‘which they could not hold before that in their community’ Is V, 8

According to the structure in (161), however, any verb would have to move to a position left of VP in order to pick up the neg-particle ni in the first place. In this respect Weiß’s analysis for OHG, in which ni/ne does not precede VP, captures the data better. Abraham’s analysis resembles structures suggested for Old English in assuming head-initial functional projections:63 van Kemenade (1999b, 2000) suggests the structure in (163) for Old English; van Gelderen’s (2004) structure for Old English is given in (164). (163)

[CP Spec [C’ [C Vfin] [FP Pron [F’ [F Vfin] [NegP na [Neg’ [Neg ne-Vfin] [TP Subj [T’ [T Vfin] ([NegP [Neg’ [Neg]) [VP ...]]]]]]]]]]]64

(164)

[CP Spec [C’ [C n-isi] [NegP [DP nan scild]k [Neg’ [Neg ti] [ti ...tk]]]]]

As mentioned above, Abraham (2003: 352f.) eventually discards the assumption of a functional layer NegP later on in his paper and assumes that the OHG negation particle operated directly on V, to which it attaches as an aspectual prefix rather than taking sentential scope. Abraham (2003: 357) 63

It is not obvious to me how the structures in (163) and (164) even yield the correct word order for Old English verb-final negated clauses, though. Of course one might universally assume head-initial structures on pincipled grounds in the spirit of Kayne (1994). However, in contrast to the head-initial NegP analyses just discussed, one would have to assume some kind of additional remnant-VP movement in order to derive verb-final negated clauses. 64 The structures given in van Kemenade (1999b: 158) and (2000: 65) do not include the second, lower NegP. However, it is argued for in the text and also indicated in van Kemenade (2000: 74, figure 31).

2.4


89

speaks of a “pre-logical status” of negation in OHG in this context. However, it remains unclear how this corresponds to the observation that, semantically, the negation does have sentential scope. His main argument against NegP is the fact that OHG ni is no maximal projection and can therefore not be analysed as NegP (Abraham 2003: 352f.). I agree with the non-XP-status of ni. However, I do not agree with the conclusion. Rather, the fact that ni attaches to the finite verb is, in my view, clear evidence that ni is indeed the head of a functional projection NegP that dominates VP. Thus of course, ni on its own does not form the complete NegP. VP is part of that projection. Following Longobardi’s (2001) Inertness Theory of syntactic change as a heuristic maxime, I will assume as few changes in the syntactic structure as possible and stress the diachronic continuity. Only changes that are necessary to assume and well motivated also syntax-externally should be postulated. Thus, I propose that the syntactic structure of OHG was much the same as that of Modern German. There was also a functional projection NegP above VP. The principle difference with respect to the syntax of negation lies in the different lexical filling of the constituents of NegP at the various stages of the diachronic development. Since there is no empirical evidence for a second NegP, in particular no evidence for a separate position of the negated verb right of C0 but left of V0, I assume that there is only one NegP in German in contrast to van Kemenade’s (2000) assumptions for Old English and Zanuttini’s (1997) clause structure based on various Romance languages including four NegPs. However, as Zanuttini says, different languages may instantiate different NegPs of the universally available ones. Throughout the history of German, I assume, just one NegP dominating VP is instantiated. The structure I assume is repeated in (165) below. The head Neg0 of NegP c-commands V and is filled by (or linked to) the negation particle ni. The specifier position is filled by an empty operator as it is also assumed for other languages in crosslinguistic research (cf. Ouhalla 1990, Haegeman 1995) and historical stages of related languages such as Old English (cf. van Kemenade 2000; van Gelderen 2004). Only in Late OHG is a second element, viz. uuiht or nieht, beginning to be grammaticalized as an additional neg-particle in SpecNegP as indicated in brackets in the structure above (see also chpt. 2.4.5.). NegP dominates VP.

90


(165)

CP C’ C

TP

ni+V

T’ T

NegP Spec

Neg’ Neg0

Op (/uuiht/nieht) VP ...

V

ni

V-movement

There is no decisive empirical evidence for the relative ordering and number of any further split-IP projections. In so far as lack of negated infinitival verb forms and imperatives is regarded as evidence for TP being below NegP (Zanuttini 1997, for Italian), the fact that these do occur in OHG could be taken as evidence that TP is above NegP.65 Some evidence for the opposite ordering of NegP and TP comes from constructions with the infinitival marker zi, the equivalent of English to and Modern German zu. Here, a relative order of ni-zi-infinitive can be observed: (166)

(illa non omittere) Inti thiu ni zi-forlazzane and this-one NEG to-leave ‘and not to leave this one’ T 245, 20

According to Baker’s (1985) Mirror Principle, the relative closeness of morphemes to the stem corresponds to a reverse hierarchical order of functional heads in syntax. Under the assumption that zi originates in T or I, as for instance Stechow/Sternefeld (1988: 380/ 444f.) propose for the Modern German equivalent zu, the described order suggests that NegP should dominate 65

As mentioned above, this constitutes the universal ordering according to Zeijlstra (2004), whereas Wratil (2004) assumes the opposite order in OHG and explains the compatibility with imperative mood on the basis of an IP-internal MoodP in OHG imperative clauses.

2.4


91

TP: The verb moves first to T0, picks up zi, and then moves higher to Neg0 where it additionally picks up ni. This ordering would also correspond to van Kemenade’s (1999b) analysis of Old English. If on the other hand the complex of zi+V is formed in the lexicon, the relative order of zi and ni is not conclusive as to the ordering of T0 and Neg0. However, for my analysis the relative position or even the mere existence of TP is not decisive. My approach is entirely compatible with a view that there are no INFL projections at all in German (cf. Haider 1993, Sternefeld 2006) – apart from NegP, of course.66 Besides the hierarchical position of NegP, the linear ordering of NegP and its complement ought to be determined. In line with the standard analysis for the German IP, I assume a right-headed NegP, but the analysis does not hinge on this. Possible evidence for a right-headed NegP comes from verb-final clauses with the order verbal particle – ni/ne – V. (167)

daz er siê fúrder/ ána ne-sêhe. that he her further at- NEG -look ‘that he would not look at her any more’ N Ps 9, 32 (11)

(168)

(Vt non apponat ultra magni-/ ficare se homo super terram.) Daz sih fúrder niôman ána ne-/ sézze ze mîchellîchonne that himself further nobody on NEG-put to praise óbe érdo . above earth ‘that nobody shall further put himself to praise above the earth’ N Ps 9, 39 (18)

Here, the verbal particle is stranded in VP, whereas the verb arguably moves to the right into a higher functional head within the IP layer. Under the assumption that this head is Neg0, ni/ne should therefore be located to the right of VP. OHG non-separable verbal prefixes occur after ni, of course, as they are not

66

Van Gelderen (2004: 81) proposed a similar syntactic structure for Old English: NegP is directly dominated by CP.

92


stranded but move together with the verb stem, e. g. ne-îrstânt ‘NEG-stand-up’ N Ps 1, 5 (= 10, 13f.), ne-ferlâzest ‘NEG-leave’ N Ps 9, 11 (=28, 25f.).67 (169)

... NegP Op

Neg’ Neg0

VP ...

ni-sehe

V Part

V

ana

tsehe

This kind of evidence for the headedness of NegP is lacking in Modern German which does not posses an overt Neg0 element. If the OHG complex of ni/ne and the finite verb is formed in the lexicon and enters syntax as a whole, as in the alternative approach discussed above, the relative order of negation and verbal particle is not necessarily conclusive as to order of heads in syntax. Note however, that NegP has to be right-headed if ni is taken to be merged there and if no further INFL projection apart from NegP is assumed. A headinitial NegP would, in this case, wrongly predict a consistent pre-VP placement of the negated verb even in verb-final clauses (see discussion of Abraham’s (2003) analysis above). 2.4.4. The focus-indicating negation particle nalles OHG has another negation particle nalles (also occuring as nalas, nals). Unlike ni, it is used only very occasionally. Yet, it appears in all texts in the investigated OHG corpus:68

67

If this generalization holds, the position of the neg-particle would form an additional criterion for the status of verbal particles as separable vs. non-separable. Note that in general, the respective particles were not as closely linked to the verb in OHG as in Modern German, viz. not head-adjoined to V but higher in the structure allowing for V-complex formation including reordering of verbs with the particle staying in place, resulting in constructions still attested in dialects today such as Es hat [an [zu regnen gefangen]] ‘It has started to rain’ (J. Fleischer, p.c.).

2.4

93


(170)

Nalles in the OHG corpus

Tatian negated clauses in 956 the corpus negated clauses 41 (4, 3 %) incl. nalles

Isidor 50

Otfrid 100

Notker 100

2 (4 %)

5 (5%)

11 (11%)

As the table illustrates, the ratio of nalles in my OHG data is consistantly around four to five percent, with an increase in the Late OHG text of Notker to eleven percent. Since it is a comparatively rare neg-marker, nalles has not received very much attention in studies of historical German negation although it is quite an illustrative phenomenon and should therefore also be briefly discussed here. Nalles or variants thereof are found not only in OHG but also in Old English (for instance in Beowulf), so that this particle could be considered as general West Germanic; however, it is not attested in Old Saxon (cf. Mourek 1903: 37, Behaghel 1918: 229). The form nalles corresponds directly to Modern English not at all or French pas du tout (‘not at all’). Nalles is derived from a combination of ni and alles ‘all’ (cf. Behaghel 1918: 229, Keller 1986: 207, and Schrodt 2004: 135), where alles represents an adverbial genitive form of the pronoun ‘all’ (Braune/Reiffenstein 2004: 233). Behaghel and Keller misleadingly treat nalles on a par with n-indefinites such as nio ‘never’ (< ni + io) and nihein ‘no (one)’ (< ni + ein). However, it should be noted that nalles never functioned as an n-indefinite pronoun in that way, meaning somthing like ‘not all/everybody’. Rather, through the adverbial case of the pronoun, an adverb has been formed (Braune/Reiffenstein 2004: 233). It has been observed (Horn 1989: 253-255) that languages universally lack a lexical item for a negated universal quantifier, i. e. a single word for ‘not all’. According to Horn, this is because negated universal quantification represents a generalized scalar implicature of non-negated existential quantification, for which there is an item in the lexicon. Using ‘some’ implies that the statement does not hold for all, otherwise one would have had to say ‘all’ on the basis of the conversational maxim of quantitiy (Grice 1975: 45) which demands that the contribution be as informative as is required. Thus ‘not all’ is an implicature of ‘some’ and does not need to be separately lexicalized (Horn 68

In the shorter texts of Hildebrandslied, Wessobrunn Sermon and Paris Conversations, it is not attested at all. On the whole, the number of negated clauses that these texts contain is very small, and nalles is generally rarely used.

94


1989: 256). It would be most remarkable if OHG formed a true exception to this generalization. However, OHG nalles was only used as a neg-particle, but not as an n-indefinite. Schützeichel (1995: 220) lists OHG nalles with the meaning ‘not, but not, and not, not at all’. This is also what Horn (1989: 261) states for the Old English cognate nalles/nealles: It is only an apparent contradiction to the ban on lexicalization of negated universal quantification, because it is in fact only used in the meaning ‘no, not, not at all’, but never meaning ‘not all’. While Schrodt (2004: 135) simply mentions OHG nalles as a negmarker but does not give examples or discuss its use, there are some further hints in Mouřek (1903: 37/41f.) who states that nalles was used ‘concessively’ or ‘correctively’, as well as in Behaghel (1918: 229) and Paul (1920: 331) who say that nalles was used to negate individual non-verbal constituents. Why did OHG have this second negation particle besides ni? In the translatory texts, it generally stands for Latin non, just like ni. The specific point of nalles, that was already hinted at in earlier works, becomes clear from a comparison of its syntactic and semantic properties, which set it apart from ni. Syntactically, while ni is bound to the (finite) verb as described above, nalles is much more free. The verbal clitic ni is not particulaly suited to signal marked focus of negation, especially narrow focus of negation on one particular constituent of the clause, which is what Behaghel and Paul referred to as ‘negation of an individual non-verbal constituent’. Notably in writing, focus cannot be as easily expressed because it cannot be identified by means of intonation as in the spoken language. Thus a means of marking focus syntactically on the respective constituent is highly usefull. This is the main function that nalles fulfills. Nalles is a focus-indicating negation particle. Similarly, other languages in which the standard neg-particle or negmorpheme always attaches to the finite verb have special neg-particles for negation with marked focus. In Turkish, for instance, negation is generally expressed by the verbal affix -me-. In order to express narrow focus of negation and contrastive readings, however, a special verb-independent neg-particle değil is used (examples van Schaaik 1994: 39/42): (171)

Gel - me - di come-NEG-Past ‘(S)he did not come.’

Turkish

2.4


(172)

95

Ali değil, Hasan gel - di. Ali NEG Hasan come-Past ‘Not Ali, (but) Hasan came.’

In terms of diachronic development of negation systems, this kind of special focus-indicating negation particle would typically be expected in stage-I languages of Jespersen’s Cycle. In so far, it is quite telling that we find it in OHG. Since a marked focus of negation often, though not necessarily, comes with a contrastive reading, nalles is common with contrastive focus of negation, thus Schützeichel’s (1995: 225) paraphrase as ‘and/but not’.69 Nalles can co-occur with another focus-indicating particle such as eccrodo/echert ‘only’. Often, the focus indicated by nalles is further indentified by a focusexplicating, contrastive ‘but’-phrase introduced by o(u)h/nibi/nube (corresponding to Latin sed in translations). This is notably the case with ‘not (only) x, but y’-type contrasts (terminology after Wheelock LaBrum 1982: 247f.) where Modern German uses a focus-explicating sondern-phrase. •

‘not (only) x, but y’-type contrast:

(173)

(Nec tres deos, sed in tribus personis unum) Nalles sie dhrie goda, oh ist in dhesem dhrim heidem ein NEG they three gods but is in this three persons single (nomen indiuiduę maiestatis.) namo dhes unchideiliden meghines. name the undivided majesty ‘They are not three gods, but in the three persons, there is a single name of the undivided majesty’ Is IV, 1

(174)

69

(quia ihesus moriturus erat / pro gente. & non tantum) thaz ther heilant sterbenti uuas. / furi thiota. Inti nalles ecrodo that the saviour dying was for people and NEG only

The two cases in Isidor, 27 of the 41 cases in Tatian, the five cases in the corpus from Otfrid, and the 11 cases in the corpus from Notker have contrastive readings (with or without a ‘but’phrase).

96


(pro gente / sed ut filios dei qui erant / dispersi) furi thiota / oh thaz thiu gotes kind thiu thar uuarun/ cispreitiu for peoples but that the god’s children who Part were scattered (congregaret In unum.) gisamanoti In ein gathered in one ‘The saviour died for the people, and not only for the people but in order that he gathered the children of God, who were scattered, in one’ T 234, 18-21 (175)

(non moyses dedit uobis / panem de celo. sed pater meus / dát) nalles moyses gab íu / brot fon himile nibi fater miner / gibit NEG Moses gave you bread from heaven but father my gives (uobis panem de celo uerum.) íu brót fon himile uúaraz. you bread from heaven true ‘It is not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven but my father who gives you the true bread from heaven’ T 122, 4-6

(176)

Ze rîhtenne demo uuêisen unde démo diêmuôtin. Nals échert to make-right the wise and the humble NEG only uuêi- / sen .nube diê-muôtemo uuêisen. wise but humble wise ‘to bring justice to the wise and the humble one – not only the wise one but the humble wise one’ N Ps 9, 39 (18) (=34, 2-4)

Besides the kind of ‘but’-phrases occurring in the examples above, corresponding to Latin sed and Modern German sondern, nalles could also occur with ‘but’ corresponding to Latin nisi and Modern German außer. In the first type of cases, what is expressed is roughly that the proposition is false and that

2.4


97

an element from the appropriate alternative set would render the proposition true. In the second type of cases, the proposition is (unexpectedly) false for all elements of the respective set apart from one. (177)

(Non quia patrem uidit quisquam. / nisi ís qui est a domino) nalles thaz then fater gisah einiger / nibi ther thiethar ist fon gote NEG that the father saw anyone but the who-PART is from god ‘because no one saw the father but he who is from God’ T 123, 17f.

In English, but can be equally used for both (He didn’t meet Bill, but John. He didn’t meet anyone but John.), just as OHG nisi. In Modern German, on the other hand, there is a strict lexical distinction between sondern and außer (cf. Jacobs 1982). OHG nalles was furthermore used in ‘x, not y’-type contrasts. •

‘x, not y’-type contrast:

(178)

(quia homo est natus nobis, non sibi.) huuanda ir uns uuard chiboran, nalles imu selbemu. because he us was born NEG him self ‘because he was born for us, not for himself’ Is V, 2

(179)

(misericordiam uolo & non sacrificium.) íh uúili miltida nalles bluostar I want mercy NEG sacrifice ‘I want mercy, not sacrifice.’ T 91, 23

(180)

Tho uuas er bóuhnenti, nales spréchenti then was he showing NEG speaking ‘He was showing then, not speaking.’ O I. 4, 77

(181)

Daz ist kehêiz nals fluôh. this is promise NEG curse ‘This is a promise, not a curse.’ N Ps 5, 11 (= 18, 17)

98


While the special verb-independent neg-particle nalles is obviously particularly suitable for indicating marked focus of negation, this is very rarely also achieved by the verbal clitic neg-particle ni70 in combination with a focusexplicating, contrastive ‘but’-phrase (introduced by nibi/nibu/nube or suntar). Contrastive readings are in principle available for negation with marked, i. e. narrow, as well as unmarked focus (see chpt. 1.3. above). Both types appear with ni: (182)

ni méid sih, suntar sie óugti, then gotes sún sougti. NEG spared REFL but she showed the god son breast-fed ‘She did not spare herself but she showed and breast-fed the son of God.’ O I. 11, 38 (unmarked neg-focus)

(183)

Thaz ih ni scríbu thuruh rúam, súntar bi thin lóbduan that I NEG write through fame but at your praise ‘that I do not write for fame, but for your praise’ O I. 2, 17 (narrow neg-focus on PP)

(184)

Daz liêcht ne-múgen uuîr oculis ui- / dere nube mente. this light NEG-may we eyes see but mind ‘We cannot see this light with our eyes, but with our minds.’ N Ps 4, 7 (= 16, 1f.) (narrow neg-focus on adverbial DP)

(185)

(quia non ante mortem dauid sed post mortem eius) Huuanda ni uuardh ir îr dauides dode nibu after sinemu dode because NEG was he before David death but after his death (pronuntiatus fuerat suscitandus.) chiforabodot zi aruuehhanne. predicted to raise

70 Narrow focus of negation may even be achieved with an n-indefinite, e. g.: & nemo eorum mundatus est/ nisi neman syrus., – Inti nioman iro gireinit uuard/ nibi neman ther syr. ‘And nobody of them was cleansed but Neman the Syrian’ (T 115,5f., compare also T 197,16f., T 61,15f., T 170, 30, T 104, 4, T 104, 5, T 125, 11-13, T 199, 25, T 25-28 with and without ni).

2.4


99

‘because not before David’s death but after his death was he predicted to raise’ Is IX, 3 (narrow neg-focus on P) (186)

(& signum / non dabitur ei. nisi signum / ionae) inti zeihhan / niuuirdit imo gigeban nibi zeihhan / ionases and sign NEG-is him given but sign Jonas (proph&e.) thes uuizagen. the prophet ‘ and no sign is given to him but the sign of Jonas the prophet’ T 92, 27-29 (narrow focus on object DP)

However, because of the relative syntactic freedom of nalles compared to ni, narrow focus of negation can be marked more precisely, especially in sentences without a focus-explicating ‘but’-conjunct. This explains why nalles is used much more widely in these contexts. Furthermore, due to its syntactic properties, nalles can mark negation in elliptical constructions without verbs, where ni, being bound to the verb, cannot appear. In most cases both phenomena, a reading including marked focus of negation and an elliptical syntactic structure, overlap. Especially with a contrastive reading, it is generally only the focussed constituent that is expressed whereas the rest of the clause, which is equivalent to the contrasting positive conjunct, is ellided, see examples (178)-(181) above. Nalles is also used to avoid wrong scope readings. For instance, quantified phrases in the prefield (SpecCP) that should be in the scope of negation but, unlike indefinite pronouns, adverbs and full indefinite DPs, cannot be neg-marked, otherwise could be wrongly interpreted as having scope over negation. As ni is bound to the finite verb it cannot be higher in the clause than C, the highest verbal position. In this position, it does not c-command the constituent in the prefield. The syntactically free particle nalles functions to disambiguate the semantic scope in this case:71

71

Similarly in T 234, 13-15 for a universally quantified DP in the middle-field of a verb-final clause. If the universally quantified expression follows the finite verb, it is correctly interpreted inside the scope of negation and nalles is not necessary: non estis mundi omnes – ni birut alle subre ‘You are not all clean’ (T 270, 26).

100 (187)


(non omnes capiunt / uerbum istud.) nalles alle nigifahent / thiz uuort. NEG all NEG-grasp this word ‘Not all do grasp this word.’ T161,17f.

Without nalles, the clause is likely to be misinterpreted as ‘Everybody does not understand this word’. The relative syntactic freedom of nalles also enables it to function as a marker for negation not just with narrow focus but with narrow scope, i. e. proper constituent negation in the semantic sense: (188)

(erat autem non longe / ab illis grex porcorum multorum/ pascens) uuas thar nalles fér / fon ín cutti suino managero / ezenti was there NEG far from them flock pigs many eating ‘Not far from them, there was a flock of many pigs, feeding.’ T 88, 3-5

(189)

(et non post multos dies / congregatis omnibus/ adolescentior) nalles after manegen tagon/ gisamonoten allen/ ther iungoro NEG after many days gathered all the younger (filius / peregre profectus est / in regionem longinquam) sun / elilentes fuor. in uerra lantscaf son hurrying went in far region ‘Not many days later, having gathered everything, the younger son went quickly to a region far away’ T 154, 26-30

These cases are quite rare.72 The main function of nalles is the one discussed above as a focus-indicating negation particle used with marked, narrow focus of negation. Semantically, the focus adds information about which element would have to be substituted for the appropriate alternative element to render the proposition true. Nonetheless, the entire proposition of the clause is in the scope of negation (see chpt. 1.3. above). These semantics of narrow-focus 72

For example in Tatian nalles marks narrow scope (rather than just narrow focus) of negation in two of 41 cases.

2.4


101

negation are even expressed syntactically in OHG in so far as nalles occasionally occurs together in one clause with Neg0 ni on the verb, also against Latin originals: (190)

(Non omnis qui dicit mihi / domine domine. Intrabit in ) Nalles iogiuuelih ther mir quidit / truhtin truhtin nigat in NEG anyone who me says lord lord NEG-goes in (regno celorum; / sed qui facit uoluntatem patris mej / qui In) himilo rihhi / ouh ther the tuot mines fater uuillon / ther in heaven kingdom but he who does my father’s will who in (caelis est ipse Intrabit / In regno caelorum) himile ist hér gát / In himilo rihhi., heaven is he goes in heaven kingdom ‘Not anyone who calls to me “Lord, Lord” will go to the heavenly kingdom but he who does the will of my father who is in heaven will go to the heavenly kingdom.’ T 74, 20-24

However, in most cases in Tatian and all cases from my corpus of Isidor, Otfrid and Notker, there is no additional Neg0 ni. On the other hand, this is often due to ellipsis of the finite verb so that ni of course cannot occur, e. g.:73

73

(191)

(quia homo est natus nobis, non sibi.) huuanda ir uns uuard chiboran, nalles imu selbemu. because he us was born NEG him self ‘because he was born for us, not for himself’ Is V, 2

(192)

(Sabbatum propter hominem factum est / & non homo propter) sambaztag thuruh man gitan ist / nalles man thuruh Sabbath through man made is NEG man through

Of the 41 cases with nalles in Tatian, for instance, five have additional ni on the verb. Of the 36 that do not, one third has V-ellipsis so that ni cannot possibly occur in the first place.

102


(sabbatum.) then sambaztag the Sabbath ‘The Sabbath was made because of man, not man because of the Sabbath.’ T 106, 4 (193)

Sie lértun sie iz mit suuérton, nálas mit then uuórton they taught them it with swords NEG with the words ‘They taught it to them with swords, not with words.’ O I. 1, 83

(194)

Daz ist kehêiz nals fluôh. this is promise NEG curse ‘This is a promise, not a curse.’ N Ps 5, 11 (= 18, 17)

Yet, in Tatian there is also some evidence that ni could be lacking even when the finite verb was present: (195)

(non pro mundo rogo / sed pro his quos dedisti mihi) nalles furi uueralt bittu / nibi furi thie thiedu mir gabi NEG for world beg but for those who-you me gave ‘I do not beg for the world, but for those who you gave to me’ T 291, 13f.

One may conclude that, unless this kind of construction is only due to Latin influence, ni was possible but not obligatory with nalles. At any rate, nalles sufficed in elliptical contexts to identify NegP, the locus of semantic negation. Judging by its syntactic behaviour and the fact that it frequently cooccurs with Neg0 ni, nalles is not to be analyzed as Neg0. Its relatively free position suggests that it is not the specifier of NegP, either. Nalles is not placed in a fix position but occurs in various positions immediately left of the respective focussed constituent. Nalles can occur in the prefield together with the element in the focus of negation. Therefore I assume that it forms part of that respective constituent and is situated in its specifier position (as one might also assume for Modern German nicht when used with narrow focus). Alternatively, nalles might be adjoined to CP when the focussed constituent is

2.4


103

topicalized (see footn. 14 above). Since nalles is a focus-indicating particle linked to negation, and NegP is the syntactic place of semantic negation, I assume that, in case of sentential negation, nalles co-occurs with this functional projection whose head may indeed optionally be overt. With the grammaticalization of another verb-independent negation particle towards stage II of Jespersen’s Cycle, viz. Late OHG and MHG ni(e)ht, there ceased to be a need for the special particle nalles and it consequently disappeared: in the MHG corpus, nalles is not attested any more (see chpt. 2.5.1. below). 2.4.5. The ‘negation strenghteners’ nieht, wiht, and drof There are several elements in OHG that emphasize negation in a similar way to English not at all or not a bit. In his way, they ‘strengthen’ the neg-particle ni with which they co-occur. That is to say, they do not strengthen negation in a semantic sense – the clause is already marked by ni on the verb as semantically negated, but they lend additional support to the marking of that negation. With several of these items, one can observe the beginning of a process of grammaticalization that turns them into a second neg-particle. Through this process, stage II of Jespersen’s Cycle is reached. Among the cross-linguistically relevant types of elements that form the diachronic source of a second, verb-independent negation particle, there are (i) negative indefinites, (ii) non-negative indefinites, especially those with few or unspecific semantic restrictions (‘thing’, ‘being’), and (iii) so-called minimizers or minimal-unit expressions denoting very small entities or quantities such as ‘jot’, ‘drop’, ‘crumb’. In OHG all three types of elements are to be found, yet not in all texts. The first type, an n-indefinite being used as a ‘neg-strengthener’ and subsequently as a neg-particle, is found in Late OHG: Notker occasionally uses the negative indefinite pronoun nieht ( not, Dutch niet > niet, Old Norse eittki > ekki, Danish ikke, Swedish icke, Dan./Swed. inte; and even in non-Germanic languages this kind of grammaticalization of the former n-indefinite meaning ‘nothing’ is found, e. g. Greek oudén > dén. In German, Notker is the first author to use niouuiht/nieht adverbially as a second neg-particle to any extent, cf. Behaghel (1918: 230), who further states that in Williram, the use of niht as a neg-particle is already a basic rule. It has been suggested, however, that the very first attestion of this use in OHG is found in Otfrid (cf. Behaghel 1918: 230, Lockwood 1968: 207, Wheelock LaBrum 1982: 210): (197)

ni zawêta imo es niawiht NEG succeeded him (of-)it nothing/not at all ‘He did not succede {at any of it/at it at all}.’ O II 5, 12

Donhauser (1996: 207) argues that the valency of the verb zâwen which is only attested in Otfrid is not entirely clear so that it cannot be excluded that niawiht is an argument here, as in all other cases in Otfrid. Furthermore, from my data it seems that Otfrid did indeed occasionally use an indefinite as a ‘negstrengthener’ or second neg-particle, viz. the non-negative uuiht (see below), but not the n-indefinite niawiht. At times, another n-indefinite displays tendencies to be used as a second neg-particle: nio (in altere) ‘never’ occurs in this way without its temporal meaning as early as in Tatian. (198)

(nequaquam minima és / In principibus Iuda.) nio In altere bist thu minnista / In then heriston iudeno. never in age/NEG are you smallest in the princes jewish ‘thou art not the least among the princes of Juda ‘ T 39, 27f.

2.4


105

The temporal n-indefinite is generally prone to be semantically bleached and develop into a neg-particle. This kind of development can also be found in Old English (cf. Jespersen 1917:16). The same tendency can be observed for MHG nimmer/nie that is still used as a neg-particle by some Modern German speakers. The second type of element mentioned above that is commonly used as a ‘neg-strengthener’ and subsequently as a second neg-particle is attested for instance in Otfrid: He employs the non-negative indefinite pronoun wiht in this way, as already recognized by Kelle (1881: 681-683: “oft nur zur Verstärkung der Negation wie drof” – often only for strengthening of negation just as drof). Again, this indefinite also appears in argument position meaning ‘anything’ (see below, e. g. O I. 5, 63f.) and noted in Wheelock LaBrum (1982: 212f.). The adverbial neg-strengthener also takes the form of genitive wihtes or the PP mit wihtu.75 According to Kelle (1881: 681-683) there are 18 examples of adverbial wiht in the entire text of Otfrid. However, according to my results, book one contains more occurrences than listed by Kelle, so that the total number is presumably higher. Among the first 100 negated clauses I found seven examples arguably including adverbial wiht, e. g.:76 (199)

mih thaz ér mir hiar ni dérre, ouh uuíht that he me here NEG let-wither also at all/NEG me ni gimérre. NEG obstruct ‘that he will not let me wither here and not obstruct me at all’ O I. 2, 30

I would suggest that, just as nieht, wiht was starting to be grammaticalized as a second neg-particle in OHG, though presumably more restricted in its areal distribution. While the use of the neg-marked equivalent niht became more widespread and was already the general standard by MHG times (see 2.5.1. below), the use of a non-neg-marked neg-particle uuiht, MHG iht (< OHG

75

Compare the Modern German emphatic negation particle mitnichten (‘not at all’). The seven examples are O I. 1, 58; O I. 1, 105f.; O I. 2, 50; O I. 2, 51f.; O I. 4, 80; O I. 11, 5; O I. 2, 30. 76

106


iouuiht/uuiht)77 also continued and is still found in some present-day Upper German dialects such as South-East Swabian and North-East Swiss dialects that use it or et as a negation particle instead of nit or net/ned (see 2.5.1. below). The third type of element mentioned above, i. e. a minimizer78 as a ‘neg-strengthener’ or neg-particle, is also attested in Otfrid: As an alternative to wiht, Otfrid uses drof ‘drop’ to emphasize negation. The strikingly parallel use is obvious from the following examples: (200)

a.

drof ni forahtet ir iu drop/NEG NEG fear you you ‘Do not be afraid at all.’ O III 13, 9

b.

ni forahtet ir iu uuiht at all/NEG NEG fear you you ‘Do not be afraid at all.’ O III 8, 29; O V 4, 37

Among the first 100 negated clauses there are two examples including drof (O I. 5, 28; O I. 4, 27). Kelle (1881: 78) notes 18 occurences of drof in this use in the entire text – the same number that he gives for wiht as a neg-strengthener. Minimizers used as ‘neg-strengtheners’ and subsequent neg-particles are of course well-known from the history of French where pas (‘step’), mie (‘crumb’), point (‘point’), goutte (‘drop’) and others were equally used in this way until finally pas was grammaticalized as the standard second neg-particle. As already pointed out by Lockwood (1968: 208), Otfrid’s home Weissenburg in Lorraine (now Wissembourg) was not far from the linguistic frontier so that one may assume a mutual influence. Otfrid’s use of ni ... drof could thus have been inspired by French ne ... goutte (‘not ... a drop’), cf. also Wheelock LaBrum (1982: 221). The hypothesis of a French influence in the case of drof is also supported by the fact that the OHG Paris Conversations, which are known to show a lot of Romance influence, have two occurrences of netrophen 77

MHG iht < OHG iouuiht (cf. Schmeller 1872, I: 30; Grimm/Grimm 1877: 2033-2035; Grimm 1890: 47; Paul 2007: 229), but also < OHG uuiht (cf. Schmeller 1872, I: 30; Grimm 1890: 714; Wheelock LaBrum 1982: 221). 78 In MHG, a large variety of neg-strengthening minimizers occurs such as ein har (‘a hair’), ein bon (‘a bean’), ein stro (‘a straw’), ein ber (‘a berry’), ein stoub (‘a (grain of) dust’) etc., cf. Grimm (1890: 706-709), Paul (2007: 388f.).

2.4


107

(NEG-drop) as translations of Latin nihil (‘nothing’) or quid (‘anything’) in the scope of negation (Paris Conv. sentences 48 and 74). Grimm (1890: 704/724) implies that the influence took place vice versa and that the French ‘negstrengtheners’ mie and goutte were inspired by German equivalents. 2.4.6. Grammaticalization of niht As mentioned above, the first one of the three kinds of ‘neg-strengtheners’, viz. the former n-indefinite ni(o)uuiht/nieht ‘nothing’ was eventually grammaticalized as a new neg-particle, beginning in Late OHG and being fully established by the MHG period. Interestingly, this grammaticalization process of the former n-indefinite meaning ‘nothing’ into a neg-particle is repeated in some varieties of immigrant German, so-called “Kanak Sprak” where nix (‘nothing’) is used as a neg-particle which is also partly adopted in Colloquial German: (201)

wobei die Sparsame Flohmarkt kauft und nix teuer however the econmical market buys and NEG expensive kalkulierte SecHand in teuer Ladengeschäft. calculated second-hand in expensive shop ‘However, the economical one buys at the market and not expensive second-hand clothes in an expensive shop’ (http://www.wer-weiss-was.de/theme68/article3332799.html; January 2006)

A central question of any history of negation in German is of course: How did the grammaticalization of ni(o)uuiht/nieht/niht/nicht proceed and how can it be analysed in syntactic terms? There are several implicit or explicit suggestions on this issue in the literature. According to Weiß (1998: 175-177), when niht is grammaticalized as a second neg-particle, a new projection NegP is introduced whose head position is taken up by niht. This NegP is adjoined to VP, as illustrated in (202) below. There are a couple of problems with this analysis. As already discussed above, it is questionable whether functional projections such as NegP that presumably belongs to the universal core functional make-up may come into existence (or disappear) during language change.

108


(202)

Weiß (1998): OHG

>

MHG

V0

VP

Neg0 ni

V0 0

(Prf

V)

NegP

VP

niht

V0 Neg0

V0

ne However, even granted this possibility, one would further have to assume that a Neg0 head does not necessarily entail the introduction of a semantic negoperator in the derivation: The MHG structure in (202) comprises of two Neg0 heads, yet the clause contains only a single semantic negation. Finally, it is controversial that niht should at once become the head of the higher NegP. Syntactic grammaticalization processes are known to turn the specifier of one projection into the specifier of another one, to turn an adjacent XP into the specifier of the respective adjacent projection, or to turn a specifier into the head of the same projection etc. (cf. van Gelderen 2004). The grammaticalization of a phrase directly into the head position of another projection, on the other hand, does not appear to be a common path of syntactic change. Abraham (2003), too, assumes a separate NegP, besides the one that hosts ni, as the place of niht. (203)

Abraham (2003): AgrSP NegP1 Spec

Neg’ [Neg0+V]

TP NegTP [tNeg0+V]

VP ...

NegP2

[tV]

[ni(uui)ht]

2.4


109

According to his analysis, NegP2 develops from a verbal complement in OHG into a V or VP adjunct in MHG (and finally into a verbal head-adjunct in Early New High German and Modern German). Niht itself is a full NP in OHG and is grammaticalized into an adverb in the specifier position of NegP2 (and eventually into the head of that projection). This line of developments is more plausible against the background of other known paths of grammaticalization. My own account will resemble this approach in that I also assume that ni(uui)ht was grammaticalized as SpecNegP after an intermediate step of being used adverbially. However, with respect to Abraham’s analysis, one may raise the same question about how the two Neg0s/NegPs correspond to a single semantic negation. More importantly, placing niht as the specifier of NegP2 at the right edge of VP wrongly predicts a consistently clause-final placement of niht. Already in the OHG examples from Notker including nieht as a second neg-particle, there is evidence that it was placed left of VP, compare example (196) above, with two VP-adverbials and a non-finite verb that forms the right sentence frame and follows nieht. Simpson/Wu (2002) have suggested yet a different structural explanation of how the second neg-particle is grammaticalized. They illustrate their analysis with the example of French pas but it might carry over to other languages. According to their analysis, French pas originated in an optional focus phrase associated with negation. This optional FocusNegP was dominated by NegP and was eventually reanalysed as a second NegP agreeing with the upper NegP (that will eventually disappear). They suggest the following syntactic development (Simpson/Wu 2002: 300f.): (204)

[NegP1[Neg’1 [Neg°1 α] [NegP2Focus [Spec (pas)] [Neg ’2Focus [Neg °2Focus (β)] [ZP]]]]] → [NegP1[Neg’1 [Neg°1 ne] [NegP2Agr [Spec pas] [Neg’2Agr [Neg°2Agr] [VP]]]]]

It has been suggested in the literature (e. g. Wheelock LaBrum 1982: 307) that English not originated as a focus device. Thus Simpson/Wu’s analysis might be applicable to the development of the second neg-particle in English. However, as we saw above, OHG had a special verb-independent neg-focus particle nalles. If the development had proceeded as argued by Simpson/Wu, nalles should have been generalized as a second neg-particle in German. Indeed my data show a slight increase of nalles towards Late OHG so that nalles could have been a competitor for grammaticalization, however, ni(e)ht won out. In

110


contrast to nalles, there is no evidence that the first neg-particle-like uses of nieht were specifically linked to the marking of neg-focus (cf. also Wheelock LaBrum 1982: 247f. who discusses the possibility of nieht originating as a focussing particle but casts it aside in view of her OHG data). Therefore, Simpson/Wu’s analysis cannot be extended to the development in German. In contrast to the analyses discussed above, I assume as little syntactic change as possible in line with Longobardi’s (2001) Inertness Theory of Syntax – a heuristic hypothesis according to which, much in the spirit of Minimalism, purely syntactic change does not occur, but is always a result of changes at the interfaces, for instance phonetic or lexical changes. Every change in the syntactic structure that is assumed must be well-motivated. In particular, I do not assume that functional projections such as NegP may appear or disappear in the course of language change. Furthermore, an analysis that captures the three stages of Jespersen’s Cycle as a change from one to two and back to one NegP as the approaches discussed above seems too surfaceoriented and does not use the concept of NegP to its full potential. I assume that diachronic variation can be analysed along the lines of synchonic variation (see 2.2.1/2.2.3 above) as variation in the lexical filling of NegP: the neg-particle may occupy its head or its specifier position, or both. Jespersen’s Cycle can thus be reinterpreted as overt Neg0, grammaticalization of a second element into the specifier SpecNegP of that same projection at the second stage, the head remaining non-overt at the third stage, and finally, the specifier being reanalysed as the head Neg0 (cf. Jäger 1998, Rowlett 1998, van Gelderen 2004, Jäger 2005). Note that the syntactic structure itself does not need to change at all with respect to negation. The possibility to explain Jespersen’s Cycle in this way in terms of changes of the lexical filling of the positions universally available within NegP is, I would argue, a major strength of the NegP approach. Once an analysis along these lines is assumed, another question that one needs to adress is how the second neg-particle came to be grammaticalized as the specifier of the NegP projection. Roberts/Roussou (1999), van Kemenade (2000), and van Gelderen (2004) suggest a syntactic analysis for the grammaticalization of English not. Seeing as the grammaticalization of not is parallel to the development of German nicht, their analysis is highly significant in the present context. However, there are problems with it and therefore I will argue for an alternative approach below. The explanation they give rests on the assumption of an obligatory movement of n-indefinites according to the NegCriterion (Haegeman/Zanuttini 1991). As discussed above (chpt. 1.3.), the Neg-Criterion requires a negative head to be in a Spec-head relation with a

2.4

111


negative XP and vice versa. It is assumed that n-indefinites have to move into the SpecNegP position either before spell-out (cf. Haegeman 1995) or at LF in order to fulfil this requirement and to check their neg-feature against that of Neg0. After a period during which nought/not was always moved to SpecNegP from its original, VP-internal position, it would eventually be merged directly into SpecNegP for economy reasons. Merge is universally preferred over the more costly operation of Move so that a diachronic change from Merge to Move is a common pattern in languages (van Gelderen 2004). Applying this analysis to the OHG structure argued for above (figure (165)), the grammaticalization of niht would be represented as follows: (205)

NegP Spec

NegP Neg’

ni(o)uuihti VP

> Neg0 ni/ne

Spec niht

Neg’ VP

Neg0 ni/ne

... ti ...

In this way, the grammaticalization of niht would be explained elegantly, while at the same time sticking to the idea of a single NegP in German with changes only in its lexical filling. Yet, there are a few questions one might raise about this analysis. First, why is it that, out of all n-indefinites, the n-indefinite meaning ‘nothing’ (or to some degree the one meaning ‘never’) were grammaticalized? Presumably, all n-indefinites had to move to SpecNegP. One might expect another n-indefinite to be grammaticalized, notably the most common one which, in my OHG corpus for instance, is nioman (‘nobody’) rather than ni(o)uuiht/nieht. Secondly, why were elements other than n-indefinites, viz. non-negative indefinites and minimizers, also grammaticalized in some languages as SpecNegP in a parallel fashion? Unlike n-indefinites, these items have no neg-feature that they needed to check in SpecNegP. Thus, they are not subject to the Neg-Criterion and the supposed, resulting movement to SpecNegP that presumably formed the syntactic input condition for the grammaticalization as a second neg-particle. Yet, famously French pas diachronically changed into a second neg-particle. The same happened to some extent in German where the morphologically non-negative counterpart of ni(o)uuiht (‘nothing’), viz. OHG (io)uuiht (‘anything’) was grammaticalized into the SpecNegP negation particle in some Upper German varieties in which

112


it still occurs as it/et. This entirely parallel development could not be captured on the basis of original movement of the respective items to SpecNegP due to the Neg-Criterion. Finally, the diachronic Move-to-Merge analysis for negparticles is called into question by evidence against a compulsory movement of n-indefinites. This movement is not generally visible in overt syntax. But even an obligatory movement at LF cannot be assumed, as argued by Déprez (1999) and Penka/Stechow (2001) (see also chpt. 3.3. below). This not to say that nindefinites never move; however, a universal movement requirement on all nindefinites in all languages cannot be maintained. More specifically, with respect to historical German, there is no conclusive evidence for this movement. Therefore, I would like to argue for a different analysis according to which the syntactic input configuration for the grammaticalization of the second neg-particle was the adjacency of the adverbially used (n-)indefinite to SpecNegP (cf. Jäger 2005). This takes up Behaghel’s (1918: 230) claim that the origin of the use of niht as a neg-particle was the adverbial use of the nindefinite ni(o)uuiht. Adverbial use of accusative DPs is a common phenonomenon in OHG. Assuming a VP-adjoined position of the adverbially used ni(o)uuiht/nieht, a string-neutral reanalysis from VP-adjunct to SpecNegP is possible.79 The diachronic development proposed here for German is illustrated in (206): (206)

NegP Spec

NegP Neg’

VP NP ni(o)uuiht

> 0

Neg

VP ni/ne

Spec niht

Neg’ VP

Neg0 ni/ne

Under the assumption that a VP-adjoined adverbial position formed the input condition for the reanalysis, it is quite expected that another high adverbial such as nio (in altere) (‘never’) could be easily reanalysed as SpecNegP, too. The original transition from a VP-internal argument use of ni(o)uuiht to VP-adjoined non-argumental ni(o)uuiht in turn would have started out from 79

A grammaticalization into SpecNegP starting from VP-adjoined position has also been suggested by Pearce (1993) for French pas. However, she again assumes previous movement into that position

2.4


113

ambiguous syntactic structures. Optionally transitive verbs represent one such source of ambiguity. Another possible source are verbs with varying case government (e. g. accusative or genitive case) used with an accusative-object ni(o)uuiht (or uuiht) including an attributive genitive-DP. The latter structures could be renalysed as containing a genitive-object DP and a VP-adjoined DP ni(o)uuiht with adverbial accusative case. Indeed, a number of examples that could be classed as instances of adverbial or neg-particle use of ni(o)uuiht (or uuiht) could also be argued to consist of argumental n(o)uuiiht with attributive genitive-DP. This is also true of the one example from Otfrid (O II 5, 12) that has been argued to constitute the first occurrence of adverbial ni(o)uuiht: (207)

a.

ni zawêta

imo

[[es] niawiht]

ACC

NEG succeeded him of-it nothing ‘He did not succeede at any of it.’ b.

ni zawêta

imo [es] [niawiht] GEN

NEG succeeded him it not at all/NEG ‘He did not succeede at it at all.’ Just as linguists have argued about the analysis of these ambiguous structures, learners may easily parse them wrong, i. e. associate them with a different structure compared to their parents so that their grammar differs from their parents’ and language change occurs (cf. Paul 91975, Lightfoot 1979). Note that the challenge that the diachronic Move-to-Merge analysis for neg-particles faced, of explaining why ni(o)uuiht was grammaticalized out of all n-indefinites rather than for instance the most common one, viz. nioman, is met under this approach. If previous movement formed the basis to the grammaticalization of neg-particles, nioman, that would have filled SpecNegP in more cases under the assumption of obligatory neg-movement could have been expected to simply be merged there eventually, as argued above. If we discard the theoretically and empirically controversial assumption of obligatory neg-movement as the basis to this grammaticalization process (see also chpt. 3.3 below) and take adverbial use and the corresponding placement in SpecNegP-adjacent VP-adjunct position as the input configuration, this puzzle

114


is dissolved. Ni(o)uuiht could easily be used adverbially meaning ‘in nothing’/’in no way’ (compare also Modern English You look nothing like your father) due to its lack of semantic restrictions, unlike nioman with its restriction to people. Thus nioman never ended up in the adverbial VP-adjoined position that formed the input configuration to the reanalysis as SpecNegP. This line of reasoning also correctly predicts that n-indefinites meaning ‘never’ such as OHG nio(mer) are also prone to grammaticalization as neg-particles. They are already placed in the required adverbial, SpecNegP-adjacent position to start with. However, their greater semantic content compared to the nindefinites meaning ‘nothing’, viz. their restriction to times, may inhibit the grammaticalization. If adjacency formed the basis to the grammaticalization of the second neg-particle rather than Neg-Criterion based obligatory movement, one can also see how non-n-indefinites, i. e. items not bearing a neg-feature which could therefore not be subject to any kind of neg-movement, could be grammaticalized in the same way starting out from adverbial use meaning ‘a bit’/‘at all’ in negated clauses. Thus, just like ni(o)uuiht, OHG (io)uuiht in VPadjoined adverbial position could be reanalysed as being merged in the adjacent SpecNegP position, which is how a few regional varieties of German developed the neg-particle it/et instead of ni(ch)t/net.

2.5

2.5.

THE NEGATION PARTICLE IN MIDDLE HIGH GERMAN

115

The negation particle in Middle High German

MHG predominantly uses two negation particles: en or n(e), the phonetically weakened form of OHG ni, and niht, which was grammaticalized from a negative indefinite pronoun meaning ‘nothing’ in adverbial use to a new negation particle (see 2.4.6. above). Very occasionally, the morphologically non-negative equivalent iht is used instead of niht. En and niht occur together as a bipartite negation particle instantiating Jespersen’s stage II, but also suffice to negate sentences on their own. In fact, in the majority of cases in which a neg-particle is used, it is already simple niht in all texts in the MHG corpus. The syntactic structure is unchanged with respect to negation. However, in contrast to ne/en, the neg-particle niht occupies the SpecNegP position, which explains its different syntactic behaviour. In MHG, it is rarely only the head Neg0 that is overt. More frequently both, Neg0 and SpecNegP are filled, but the most common pattern with respect to the neg-particle is already a NegP with niht in its specifier and a non-overt Neg0 head. Thus, MHG is closer to Modern German with respect to negation than it is generally portrayed to be. The following discussion is based on a corpus of the first 100 negated clauses each from Nibelungenlied (manuscript A with comparison to B and C), the Prose-Lancelot and the sermons by Berthold von Regensburg with additional data collected for individual phenomena. 2.5.1. The particles en/ne and niht The negation particle en The OHG negation particle ni appears in MHG in the weakened form en or n(e) (as already in Late OHG, cf. Notker), that is, the full vowel is reduced to /ә/ or lost completely.80 During the course of the MHG period, en/ne decreases and eventually becomes extinct. This process takes place earlier in Upper German dialects (Lehmann 1978: 103) where en/ne is already rare by the end of the 13th century, whereas it is kept throughout the MHG period in Central and Low Franconian (Behaghel 1918: 246). According to Dal (1966: 164) and 80

As an alternative to en/ne, a truely morphological neg-marking may be used (cf. Schmidt 1993: 276, Paul 2007: 389): negation can be marked on MHG past participles by un-. As un- in these cases is reported to mark sentential negation, too, I assume that it constitutes a negfeature on the verb that is checked by Neg0. However, this kind of construction is not attested in my MHG corpus.

116


Lockwood (1968: 207f.), en had virtually become extinct by 1300. Ebert/Reichmann/Solms/Wegera (1993: 426) state that en disappeared in the 16th century, except for a few dialects. According to Pensel (1981), en is still occasionally found around 1500 in Lower German dialects and rarely in West Central German dialects, but not attested any more around 1700. My corpus data also clearly shows that MHG en is much less dominant compared to OHG ni which was contained in virtually every negated OHG clause. None of the texts under investigation has en in even half of all negated clauses. (208)

Ratio of neg-particle en/ne in MHG negated clauses

neg-particle en/ne en/ne as only neg-marker

Nibelungenlied (A) 26% (12 en, 10 n, 4 ne) (B: 40%, C: 48%) 7%

Lancelot 44% (44 en)

Berthold 7% (7 en)

2%

3%

In Berthold, less than a tenth of all negated clauses contain en. In Nibelungenlied, there is a contrast between manuscript A on the one hand, which was mainly used for this investigation and has en in about a quarter of all negated clauses, and manuscripts B and C on the other hand, which have between 40 and 48 percent en and are closer in that respect to the prose Lancelot. The quantitative investigation of the neg-particles in the main manuscripts of Nibelungenlied thus supports the view that – in contrast to Lachmann’s original classification – A is younger than B and C: According to Schulze (1997), B and C are from the second quarter of the 13th century, whereas A is a couple of decades younger but still before 1280. My results from the syntax of negation corroborate this hypothesis. While in OHG, the ratio of negated clauses including ni was relatively stable around 90 percent, there is a rapid diachronic decrease in MHG of en. Compared to Nibelungenlied ms. A, the percentage is still quite high in Lancelot, however, it is lower than in Nibelungenlied ms. C. It is noteworthy that despite of constituting courtly poetry, Nibelungenlied is no more conservative on the whole with respect to the negation particle so that genre or the contrast between rhyme and prose does not reflect in the syntax of negation. In all MHG texts, en/ne very rarely still occurs as the only neg-marker in the respective clause – the last remains of Jespersen’s stage I in German. This will be discussed in more detail in chapter 2.5.3. below.

2.5

117


When investigating the clitic neg-particle in MHG, one has to be particularly careful in the choice of texts and editions: 19th century editors of MHG texts, especially of the great heroic poetry, often interfered with the manuscripts, aiming to restore what they perceived as classic MHG. This notably includes the addition of the clitic neg-particle in the editions against the manuscripts (cf. Paul 2007: 388).81 In choosing prose texts and more recent editions of poetic texts that stay true to the manuscripts as for instance in the case of Michael S. Batts’s edition of the Nibelungenlied, this problem is avoided. The negation particle niht Besides ne/en, niht is widely used as a negation particle in MHG. In the corpus, it also occurs as nih (in Nibelungenlied), nit or nicht (in Lancelot). The original negative indefinite pronoun OHG ni(o)uuiht/nieht (‘nothing’) had already occasionally been used as an adverbial ‘neg-strengthener’ and subsequently as a second neg-particle in Late OHG (cf. chpt. 2.4.5. above, Notker). In MHG, the frequency of niht multiplies in such a way that in all texts under investigation, the number of the neg-particle niht is higher than that of en/ne. Roughly half or more of all negated clauses contain the neg-particle niht: (209)

Ratio of neg-particle niht in MHG negated clauses

neg-particle niht niht as only neg-marker

Nibelungenlied (A) 48% niht/nih (+ 1 iht) 35%

Lancelot 56 % ni(ch)t 28%

Berthold 50 % niht (+ 1 iht) 45%

Along with the increase in frequency, the special emphatic or ‘neg-strengthening’ character of niht is lost.82 It is fully grammaticalized as a negative particle. At the same time, niht continues to be used as a negative indefinite pronoun meaning ‘nothing’ (see chpt. 3.6.2. below). Niht is not only more common than en/ne on the whole, it is also considerably more common as the only neg-marker in a clause, which supports statements in the literature that niht could appear as the only neg-marker since the 12th century (Donhauser 1996: 211), and was increasingly used that way 81

Lehmann (1978: 102f.) demonstrates this very graphically with the example of Leitzmann’s edition of Hartmann’s Erec. 82 Niht is “no longer optional strengthener, but bearer of the negative sense proper” (Lockwood 1968: 207).

118


since the middle of the 13th century, even in non-Upper German dialects since the middle of the 15th century (Donhauser 1996: 208, Pensel 1981: 306f.). In my data, half or more of all occurrences of niht in the MHG corpus appear in constructions corresponding to Jespersen’s stage III. Again, this will be discussed in more detail below (chpt. 2.5.3.). Very occasionally, iht is used as a negative particle instead of its morphologically neg-marked counterpart niht, compare the following example from my MHG corpus: (210)

Wir sulen den iungen herren enphahen dester baz, / daz wir iht we shall the young lord receive all-the better that we NEG verdienen des snellen rechen haz. deserve the fast warrior hatred ‘We shall receive the young lord all the better, so that we do not deserve the hatred of the fast warrior.’ Nib (A) III 105, 2

This use of the morphologically non-negative iht is reminiscent of Otfrid’s use of OHG uuiht as an adverbial ‘neg-strengthener’ or neg-particle. Indeed, the form iht that is derived from OHG iouuiht ‘anything’, is also linked etymologically to uuiht by some scholars.83 In order to investigate MHG iht in detail, further occurrences of iht were examined, in addition to the MHG corpus that hardly contained iht. All 16 examples from Berthold as well as 20 examples each from Nibelungenlied and Lancelot were examined (see detailed discussion 3.6.4. below). Just as niht, iht also occurs as an argument. However, there is a tendency of a diachronic shift towards adverbial iht, whereas the argumental use of iht decreases. In Nibelungenlied, iht is used mostly in adverbial function. In Lancelot the two functions are equally often attested. In Berthold almost all occurences constitute adverbial rather than argumental iht. 83

MHG iht < OHG iouuiht (cf. Schmeller 1872, I: 30; Grimm/Grimm 1877: 2033-2035; Grimm 1890: 47; Paul 2007: 229), but also < OHG uuiht (cf. Schmeller 1872, I: 30; Grimm 1890: 714; Wheelock LaBrum 1982: 221). Grimm (1890: 714) also considers the alternative possibility of it/et through aphaeresis of n in net/nit but decides against it because there is no evidence of similar developments with other neg-marked words, instead, he also argues that iht/uuiht acquired a negative meaning independently. The loss of initial w from uuiht to iht is, however, problematic because this kind of sound change is unparalleled. The development from iouuiht is thus more likely.

2.5

119


Another diachronic shift is to be found in the distribution of adverbial iht. It is restricted to affective contexts, i. e. ones that can be characterized as semantically as downward-entailing or, more generally, non-veridical (see chpt. 3.1 above) and license NPIs. Within the affective contexts, the centre of its distribution changes from affective, non-negative contexts, i. e. weak NPI contexts such as conditionals, clauses dependent on negated matrix-clauses, or the standard of comparison where iht does not give rise to a negative interpretation but is simply interpreted as ‘at all’, to negative contexts in the strict sense, i. e. the scope of sentential negation. Besides being more and more associated with negation distributionally, iht already suffices to identify sentential negation in a number of cases (see for instance example (210) above). These cases demonstrate that iht is not to be regarded as a mere ‘negstrengthener’ but as a neg-particle. As it was increasingly used adverbially in negated clauses, it was grammaticalized into the adjacent SpecNegP position and thus became a neg-particle comparable to niht.84 As far as the syntactic analysis of iht is concerned, what is said about niht in this chapter also applies ceteris paribus to iht. While the use of the morphologically non-negative negparticle iht, just as its OHG equivalent uuiht in Otfrid, is only attested in a minority of cases in MHG, this pattern nonetheless survived and is still found in some Upper German dialects such as certain Bavarian (Schmeller 1872: 30/176), South-East Swabian (Grimm 1890: 714) and North-East Swiss dialects that use it or et as a negation particle even today instead of nit or net/ ned which are otherwise used in Upper German dialects: (211)

Des ka it sei. that can NEG be ‘That’s not possible.’

Swabian

The bipartite neg-particle A particular trait of the MHG syntax of negation is the possibility of the cooccurrence of both neg-particles en/ne and niht: (212)

84

er en-kvnd-ez niht verenden he NEG-could-it NEG accomplish

As will be argued in chapter 3.6.4. below, iht in argumental use is also developing into a syntactic neg-marker, changing from an NPI into an n-indefinite.

120


‘He could not accomplish it’ Nib (A) III 96, 485 (213)

Nochda enhatt er die koniginne Gynovier nicht lang gehabt still-then NEG-had he the queen Gynovier NEG long had ‘He still had not had queen Ginovier for a long time, yet.’ Lanc 12, 17

(214)

daz ich drîzic pfunt niht ennaeme that I thirty pound NEG NEG-take ‘that I would not take thirty pound’ Bert I,.176 (30)

The possibility of syntactic negation by means of the bipartite negation particle en/ne ... niht, that instantiates Jespersen’s stage II, is a construction that largely distinguishes MHG from both OHG as well as ENHG86 and Modern German. Since it is such a distinctive and – against the background of Modern German– highly noticeable feature, historical grammars and textbooks generally take this bipartite negation particle to be the standard in MHG, compare Wolf (2000: 1356): “Im Mittelhochdeutschen ist die doppelte Negation ne + niht geradezu die Norm” (‘In MHG, the double neg-particle ne + niht is really the norm’, cf. also Paul 2007: 389, Dal 1966: 164, Grewendorf 1990: 86, Schmidt 1993: 276 et al.). However, an investigation of the MHG data in my corpus shows that only a minority of negated clauses actually contains both particles: (215)

Bipartite neg-particle en/ne ... niht in MHG negated clauses

en/ne ... niht

Nibelungenlied (A) 13 %

Lancelot 27 %

Berthold 4%

This negation pattern occurs in the Prose-Lancelot in only just over a quarter of all negated clauses in the corpus, in Nibelungenlied just over ten percent87 and 85

Nibelungenlied mss. B/C: ern chvndez/kundes niht verenden. Pensel (1981) reports that there are remains of en ... nicht in ENHG around 1500 in Lower German and partly also in Central German dialects, whereas around 1700, nicht alone was used in the entire German-speaking area. 87 The rate is slightly higher in the older manuscripts of Nibelungenlied (B: 20 %, C: 25 % of negated clauses containing the bipartite neg-particle), but still lower than in Lancelot. 86

2.5


121

in Berthold not even in five percent of all negated clauses. The latter observation suggests that, on the whole, there was quite a decrease in the use of the bipartite neg-particle in the course of the MHG period. More strikingly, in none of the texts is this pattern the one dominant way to express sentential negation. In other words, in the diachronic data there is a missing link of a stable stage-II period. This result for German contrasts with languages such as French in which the use of ne ... pas has been the norm over centuries. In French, this may partly be attributed to prescriptive language conservation. If there ever was a stage in the development of German when en/ne ... niht was indeed more common than the use of the individual neg-particles as the only neg-markers in the respective clause, this would at most have been a brief transitionary period in early MHG. This question will have to remain for future research. The additional analysis of the first 100 negated clauses from the early MHG text of Wiener Genesis (approx. 1060-80 AD), at any rate, corroborated my results: Of the negated clauses that do not contain n-indefinites but only a neg-particle, the majority have only a single neg-particle. In Wiener Genesis, this is still like in OHG the verbal clitic neg-particle (cf. chpt. 4): It is used on its own five times as often as either the bipartite neg-particle ne ... niht or niht on its own.88 A similar result is found by Frisch (1997) for Middle English: there is no stable stage-II period in English, in fact Frisch argues that the bipartite negation particle does not constitute an independent system but rather the temporal overlap of two competing systems. This could also be argued for German: The results from Wiener Genesis indicate that the stage-I-pattern was still overwhelmingly used in early MHG and once the second neg-particle nieht was fully grammaticalised and really increased in use in classical MHG, it already occurred mostly on its own, i. e. in the stage-III pattern. Compared to Frisch’s data for Middle English, MHG had even progressed much further in the development towards using the verb-independent neg-particle only.89

88 Of the first 100 negated clauses, 45 contain an n-indefinite (with or without additional ne/en on the verb). Of the ones without an n-indefinite 40 contain ne, 8 ne + nieht and 7 just nieht. 5 cases of niene+Ve could possibly be argued to constitute bipartite neg-particles rather than nindefinite + ne. Even then, the occurrences of a bipartite neg-particle would only be a fraction of those of ne as the only marker of negation. The syntax of negation in Wiener Notker (around 1100), on the other hand, is virtually identical to that of Notker's original version of the Psalter. 89 For the period from 1220 to 1290 that is roughly comparable to my MHG corpus, Frisch (1997: 32) reports that ne as the only neg-marker is almost twice as common as ne + not, which in turn is more than ten times as common as not only. In my MHG corpus, only ne/en is generally the minority pattern and niht as the only neg-marker is used in the majority of cases, a stage that is only reached in English in the second half of the 14th century.

122


On the whole, my data suggest that MHG cannot be said to be a proper stage-II language. It still shows remains of stage I, has some amount of stage-II constructions, but the majority of cases already corresponds to stage III in using the verb-independent neg-particle only. Some more aspects of this will be discussed below (chpt. 2.5.3.). Note that, beside the use of the bipartite neg-particle or just one of the two neg-particles as the only neg-marker in the respective negated clause, another major means of marking negation in MHG is of course neg-marking through n-indefinites which occasionally also co-occur with a neg-particle but, in contrast to OHG, mostly constitute the only neg-marker in the respective clause (see 3.6.7. below) so that neither en/ne nor niht are obligatory to mark sentential negation in MHG. As far as the analysis of the bipartite neg-particle constructions is concerned, it is instructive to look at crosslinguistic variation. A bipartite negation particle is also found in other languages such as standard French, literary Welsh, West Flemish (see 2.1. above) and historical varieties corresponding to MHG such as Middle English or Middle Dutch. With the concept of a functional projection NegP, the existence of bipartite neg-particles is quite expected and neatly analysed: the verbindependent neg-particle is positioned in SpecNegP and the verbal clitic is the head Neg0 of the same projection. The assumption that they belong to the same functional projection explains how the two neg-particles can be associated with single semantic sentential negation. 2.5.2. Syntactic analysis: The position of en/ne and niht I propose to analyse the MHG optionally bipartite negation particle in analogy to those of other languages with bipartite neg-particles, such as French (Pollock 1989) or West Flemish (Haegeman 1995) as given in (216) below. Note the continuity in the syntactic structure compared to OHG (figure (165) above). The only change is in the lexical filling of NegP. Both the head and the specifier of NegP may be filled with a negative particle at the same time. In contrast to Weiß (1998), Simpson/Wu (2002) and Abraham (2003) I do not assume a separate NegP hosting the second neg-particle: ne/en and niht form part the same functional projection (cf. Pollock 1989 for French, Haegeman 1995 for West Flemish, van Gelderen 2004 for Old/Middle English). In what follows, I will argue in more detail for positioning en/ne in Neg0 and niht in SpecNegP, respectively.

2.5

123


(216)

CP C’ C

TP

(en/ne+)V

T’ T

NegP Spec niht

Neg’ Neg0

VP ...

V

(en/ne)

V-movement

Position of en Let us first look at the syntactic analysis of en/ne. As mentioned above, MHG en/ne continues OHG ni. This is reflected in its syntactic status and position as the functional head Neg0 of NegP. En/ne is still bound as a proclitic to the finite verb and moves with it from clause-final to second or first position, i. e. C0 . (217)

Ve: daz ich drîzic pfunt niht ennaeme that I thirty pound NEG NEG-take ‘that I would not take thirty pound’ Bert I, 176 (30)

(218)

V1: Enwert ir uch auch nit, so sint ir werlich ein verreter. NEG-defend you yourself also NEG so are you truely a traitor ‘If you do not defend yourself, you are truely a traitor.’ Lanc 36, 174

124 (219)


V2: “Ich enwil es niht erwinden”, sprach aber der chune man. I NEG-want it NEG omit said but the brave man ‘I do not want to omit it, said the brave man.’ Nib (C) III, 117, 190

The fact that verb-movement never takes place across en/ne leaving it behind further right in the clause is prime evidence for this negation particle to be a head that c-commands V0, just as ni in OHG. Therefore in continuation of the OHG situation, en/ne is analysed as the head Neg0 of NegP. Weiß (1998) and Abraham (2003) also assume this phrase-structural status for en/ne. In other words, this negation particle only changed phonetically but not syntactically. The placement of ne/en can be well-captured by the assumption that ne/en constitutes the head Neg0 to which the finite verb moves and headadjoins due to the Head Movement Constraint, and which may be subsequently displaced if the finite verb moves on to C, for instance. Note that, as in OHG, I assume a head-final NegP.91 The assumption of a head-initial NegP above VP (cf. Simpson/Wu 2002, Abraham 2003) would make the wrong prediction that any negated verb will have to occur left of VP (and also left of niht), which is clearly contradicted by negated verb-final clauses e. g. example (217) above. According to Simpson/Wu’s (2002: 301) analysis, if we were to apply it directly to MHG (substituting ne for en/ne and pas for niht), a negated clause with the clitic neg-particle on a finite verb that has NOT moved to C is wrongly predicted to display the word order “en-Vfin – niht – VP-internal material”: (220)

... [NegP1[Neg’1 [Neg°1 en-Vfin] [NegP2Agr [Spec niht] [Neg’2Agr [Neg°2Agr] [VP ...]]]]]

Abraham’s (2003: 355) syntactic analysis of MHG wrongly predicts the word order “en-Vfin – VP-internal material – niht” in these cases: (221)

... [NegP(/TP) [Neg(T)’ [Neg(T)° en-Vfin] [VP ... [NegP2 niht]]]]

That is, both analyses fail to derive simple Ve clauses, i. e. clauses of the word order “niht – VP-internal material – en-Vfin”, because they opt for placing 90 91

A/B: “Ich ne wils niht erwinden”, sprach der kuone man. Compare Haegeman’s (1995) analysis of West Flemish with a head-final Neg0 hosting en.

2.5


125

Neg0, the position where en/ne is attached to the finite verb, left rather than right of VP. My structure in (216) correctly derives this order. Once Neg0 is moved along with the finite verb to C, it may then secondarily attach as an enclitic to the element immediately preceding the verb, notably to (personal) pronouns or to adverbs or particles such as so, do, ia, nu.92 As a result, the vowel of en/ne may be lost altogether, which is also reflected in spelling. (222)

[A:] nune ruoche , ist ez ieman liep oder leit [B:] sone rvoch ich, ist daz iemn lieb od leit [C:] iane rvche ich, ist iemen liep oder leit {now/so/well}-NEG care I is {it/that} anyone joy or sorrow ‘So I do not care, whether it is joy or sorrow to anyone.’ Nib III, 114, 2

(223)

miern zerinne miner frivnde, in wirt arebeit bechant. me-NEG vanish my friends them becomes trouble known ‘Unless my friends should vanish, they shall get to know some trouble.’ Nib (A) IV, 170, 4

(224)

sin kvnde in baz descheiden niht der gvoten she-NEG could him well conceal NEG the good ‘She could not well conceal him from the good one.’ Nib (A) I, 14, 293

Of the texts included in the corpus, only Nibelungenlied contains examples of ne as an enclitic to the word before the finite verb. In the other texts, the negation particle always attaches as a proclitic to the (finite) verb. This is also the case in just over half of the examples containing the clitic negation particle in Nibelungenlied: Of the 26 examples containing Neg0 among the first 100 negated clauses 14 have the negation clitic on the verb and 12 on the word before it. However, in contrast to previous approaches, I would like to argue that syntactically, the clitic is still linked to the finite verb. Note that without being 92

Encliticization of en/ne is also mentioned by de Boor/Wisniewski (1998: 187), Paul (2007: 388) and others. 93 Mss. B/C: si ne chvndes niht besceiden/beschaiden baz der gvoten/gvten.

126


moved along with the finite verb to C0, ne never occurs as an enclitic element on clause-initial pronouns or adverbs. There is a conspicuous correlation between verb encliticization and verb placement: Cliticization to a pronoun or adverb in the prefield is only attested in V2 clauses in my corpus, whereas procliticization to the verb can be found in V1, V2 as well as Ve clauses. •

[CP XP en-V ... tXP ...tNeg-V]

•

[CP XP-ne V ... tXP ... tNeg-V]

•

not attested: *[CP XP-ne ... V]

There is one example in the corpus in which en/ne secondarily occurs as an enclitic on an element before Ve. 94 •

[CP ... XP-ne V]:

(225)

([A:] si heten noch manigen reken, der ich genennen niht <en>) [B:] si heten noch manegen rechen, des ich genennen niene chan. [C:] si heten noch manigen rechen, des ich genennen nienen kan. they had still many-a warrior that I name never-NEG can ‘They had still many a warrior who I cannot name.’ Nib I, 10, 4

The important generalization is that the clitic negation particle occurs immediately left-adjacent to the finite verb whether the verb is in clause-final, clause-initial, clause-second or any other position. This is also the case when the negative particle en/ne is cliticized to another word. The negation particle is linked to and moved along with the finite verb. Cliticization to the word preceding the finite verb is only a secondary PF effect. Whether this secondary effect occurs or not is apparently subject to free variation. Possibly, it is only a reflex of the writers’ uncertainty which units they should treat as graphematic words. Thus, for identical syntactic contexts, we find variation among the different manuscripts A, B and C of Nibelungenlied as to whether en/ne is attached to the finite verb or the preceding word in spelling or even spelt as a separate word:

94

Note that, in examples as the following one, ne is not an enclitic to the infinitive before the finite verb in Ve position: same si ze lebne heten niht mere wan einen tac. ‘as though they had to live not more than a day’ (Nib (A) II 43, 3 [B: lebne, C: lebene]). Instead, leb(e)ne is an inflected form of the infinitive after ze ‘to’.

2.5


127

(226)

{[B:] desn han/[C:] des enhan} ich niht vernomen. that-NEG have/ that NEG-have I NEG heard ‘I have not heard that.’ Nib IV, 147, 295

(227)

{[A:] er enkvndez/[B/C:] ern chvndez/kundes} niht verenden he NEG-could-it/ he-NEG could-it NEG accomplish ‘He could not accomplish it.’ Nib III, 96, 4

(228)

a.

[A:] sin kvnde in baz descheiden niht der gvoten she-NEG could him well conceal NEG the good ‘She could not well conceal him from the good one.’

b.

[B/C:] si ne chvndes niht besceiden/beschaiden baz she NEG could-it NEG conceal well der {gvoten/gvten} the good ‘She could not well conceal it from the good one.’ Nib I, 14, 2

Besides attaching to the finite verb (and then optionally secondarily to the word before it), there seem to be rare exceptions where en/ne attaches to a non-finite verb: According to Behaghel (1918: 227), en occasionally occurs on the infinitive in infinitival constructions, especially when the infinitive stands immediately right of the second negation particle niht, e. g:96 95

The clitic neg-particle is lacking in ms. A. This phenomenon could possibly be explained in terms of verb-complex formation and ensuing procliticization of en/ne to the entire complex. There are only few examples of negated Ve clauses with complex predicates in the corpus. They generally have the order Vfin Vinf and en/ne attaches before Vfin as is to be expected (e. g. Lanc 28, 109: enmúßent thun – with narrow scope of negation, vs. e. g. Polish (Frank Richter, p.c.), Lanc 42, 203: nit enmocht gewesen, Lanc 46, 229: endörfft gesehen). However, Nib I 10, 3f. (des ich genennen {niht <en>/ niene/ nienen} kan) might suggest that en/ne could also intervene in the verbal complex when the order was Vinf Vfin unless genennen has moved further left in the clause as the additional intervention of niht/nie between the two verbs suggests. Note that w. r. t. infinitive constructions, there is crosslinguistic variation whether Neg0 is used or not, e. g. West Flemish infinitive constructions occur only with niet, never en, cf. Haegeman 1995: 146ff. 96

128 (229)


daz ich ein künicriche für ir minne niht ennemen wolde that I a kingdom for her love NEG NEG-take want ‘That I would not want to take a kingdom instead of her love’ Ms. H. I, 55a (quoted after Behaghel 1918: 227)

In my corpus there is only a single example matching Behaghel’s description of niht en-Vinf: (230)

aber nicht enthun, so muß ich ... Enwollent irs NEG-want you-it but NEG NEG-do so must I ‘If you do not want to do it, I shall have to ...’ Lanc 50, 252

In this case, en bizzarely appears on both the finite and the infinitival verb. To all likelyhood, the doubling of en in this case is a mistake. At any rate there is no further example of this kind in my corpus.97 In all other infinitival constructions with Neg0 (15 each in Nibelungenlied and Prose-Lancelot, 1 in Berthold),98 en/ne appears on the finite verb but not on the infinitive, just as would be expected. This is for instance the case in:

97

(231)

er enkvndez niht verenden he NEG-could-it NEG accomplish ‘He could not accomplish it.’ Nib (A) III, 96, 499

(232)

das ir uns dheyne hant gethan noch fúrbas enmúßent thun that you us none have done nor further NEG-must do

One can certainly not assume two NegPs, since there is only one semantic negation. Scoping facts cannot play be a reason for the additional en- on the infinitive, either, since negation is meant to have wide scope. Unless it is indeed a mistake, one might assume a kind of PF-copy of en- (cf. Molnarfi 2001 for neg-particle doubling in Afrikaans) or assimilate the case to expletive paratactic NC. 98 Clauses with verbal complex containing en in the MHG corpus: Nibelungenlied: 15 (kunnen 8, durfen 2, wellen 2, haben 1, mugen 1, wesen 1) of 26 clauses containing en; Lancelot: 16 (incl. 1 with en also on Vinf; mugen 4, wellen 3, durfen 2, kunnen 2, haben 1, lusten 1, muoszen 1, sollen 1, werden 1) of 44 clauses containing en; Berthold: 1 (wellen 1) of 7 clauses containing en. 99 Nibelungenlied mss. B/C: ern chvndez/kundes niht verenden.

2.5


129

‘that you have not done any to us nor may do yet’ Lanc 28, 109 Position of niht We will now look a bit more closely at the syntactic position of niht. Unlike en/ne, the negation particle niht is not bound to the finite verb and does not move along with it. Niht generally stays in a fixed position while the finite verb moves across it to C0 and thus appears to the right of niht in Ve but to the left of niht in V1 and V2 clauses (compare also examples (217) to (219), above): (233)

sit wir ir niht erchennen since we them NEG recognize ‘Since we do not recognize them’ Nib (A) III, 84, 3

Ve

(234)

haeten sie niht kirchen oder pfrüende had they NEG churches or benefices ‘If they did not have churches or benefices’ Bert I, 142 (24)

V1

(235)

Des enthun ich nit that NEG-do I NEG ‘I will not do that.’ Lanc 18, 45

V2

→ (...) C0 (...) niht (...) Vfin

Crosslinguistically, niht thus resembles its West Flemish cognate niet or Modern French pas, whereas en/ne is similar to French ne and West Flemish en. From the lack of interaction with head-movement, one can conclude that niht is not Neg0 but SpecNegP, just like French pas or West Flemish niet. Furthermore, niht patterns with Middle English not which remained in SpecNegP position up to Early Modern English as the possibility of verbmovement across not indicates. In present-day English, however, head-chain formation between V and T across not is not possible any more, because not has changed from SpecNegP to Neg0 (thus do-support is necessary) and Jesper-

130


sen’s Cycle has come full circle in English. As for German, the phrasestructural status and position of the negation particle niht in MHG is the same as that of Modern German nicht still has today (see chpt. 2.3. above). Additional evidence for the XP rather than head status of niht comes from examples where niht is moved to A’-positions, e. g. extraposed (see examples (249) and (250) below) or arguably moved into prefield position as in: (236)

Sit daz noch beide lebten Sigmunt vnde Sigelint, / since that still both lived Sigmunt and Sigelint niht wolde tragen krone ir beider liebez kint. NEG wanted bear crown their both beloved child ‘Since both still lived, Sigmunt and Sigelint, their beloved child did not want to bear a crown.’ Nib (A) II 45, 1f.

As discussed above (chpt. 2.4.5.), I assume that niht was diachronically introduced into SpecNegP position as a result of a reanalysis of the VP-adjoined adverbially used niouuiht/nieht into the left-adjacent position SpecNegP. Crucially, niht as the specifier of NegP is situated left of VP and forms part of the topological middle-field (see figure (216) above) as in Modern German (for MHG cf. also Weiß 1998, vs. Abraham 2003). Placing niht left of VP correctly predicts that VP-internal elements such as in-situ PPs, certain adverbials, predicate nouns, and non-finite verbs, as well as the finite verb in clause-final position (= Right Sentence Frame) follow niht: •

VP-internal PP after niht:

(237)

swaz ich frivntliche niht ab in erbit what I friendly NEG from him beg ‘Whatever I may not beg of him in a friendly manner’ Nib (A) III, 58, 2f.

(238)

die niht von rehte gesetzet sîn which NEG by right put are ‘which are not established by right’ Bert I, 81 (14)

2.5


•

VP-internal adverb after niht:

(239)

Nv verspriche ez niht ze sere now promise it NEG too much ‘Now do not promise it too much!’ Nib (A/B) I, 16, 1100

(240)

das er die burgk nit licht kunt gewinnen that he the castle NEG easily could win ‘that he could not easily win the castle’ Lanc 16, 35

•

131

VP-internal predicate noun after niht:

(241)

daz ist niht gîtikeit that is NEG meanness ‘That is not meanness’ Bert I, 256

(242)

wann ir ensint nit krancker dann er sy because you NEG-are NEG iller than he is ‘Because you are not iller than he is’ Lanc 36, 170

Niht cannot be placed right of VP (as in Abraham’s 2003 analysis of MHG), since VP-internal material appears to the right of it. Thus niht is positioned to the left, and not just to the immediate left of V0 (cf. Bayer 1990 for Modern German/Bavarian) but to the left of VP since VP-internal XPs may intervene between niht and V0. When niht appears immediately before V0 or at the very end of the clause, this is because the respective VPs have been emptied by scrambling and verb movement (cf. Webelhuth 1990, Bühring 1994; see chpt. 2.3. above). VPexternal constituents and those that move left within the middle field out of VP, notably pronouns that undergo movement to the so-called Wackernagel position as well as full definite DPs that undergo scrambling, precede niht as in Modern German:

100

C: Nvne versprich ez niht ze sere

132


(243)

ich enwúst es nit. I NEG-knew it NEG ‘I did not know it’ Lanc 48, 246

(244)

sie möhten die kristenheit niht berihten. they might the christianity NEG correct ‘They could not correct christianity’ Bert I, 142 (24)

→ Pron./SUBJ/OBJdef / ... niht [VP t ...V] Contrary to examples such as (237) and (238) with VP-internal PPs after niht, PPs also occur before niht in a few cases, e. g.: (245)

Warumb wart ir an im nicht verliben? why were you with him NEG stayed ‘Why did you not stay with him?’ Lanc 30, 134

(246)

Swer sîn amt mit triuwen niht üebet, der tuot im whoever his task with sincerity NEG practises that does it niht rehte. NEG right ‘Whoever does not do his job with sincerity, does not do it right.’ Bert I, 66 (12)

In exceptional cases, even indefinite object DPs may occur before niht: (247)

die jungfrauw sprach ein wort nicht the maiden spoke a word NEG ‘The maiden spoke not a (single) word’ Lanc 46, 226

2.5


133

One possibility in view of these data might be to assume a second, VP-internal position for niht, possibly even a second, low NegP (cf. van Kemenade 2000 for Old English), for instance: (245’)

[CP Warumb [C wart [TP ir twarumb [VP [VP [PP an im] niht verliben] tVfin] tVfin]]]

However, the examples above can be better explained in keeping with the structure suggested for MHG if one assumes that the respective phrases have scrambled – probably for focussing reasons – resulting in a structure such as: (245’’) [CP Warumb [C wart [TP ir twarumb [PP an im] [NegP niht[Neg’ [VP [VP tPP verliben] tVfin] [Neg tVfin]]] tVfin]]] It is possible that MHG allowed for scrambling more than does Modern German. In the cases just analysed, this assumption is not even necessary: The respective PP could also move out of VP and before nicht in Modern German (possibly with a focussing effect on geblieben ‘stayed’): (248)

Warum bist du bei ihm nicht geblieben? why are you with him NEG stayed ‘Why didn’t you stay with him?’

While these cases can thus be explained without assuming a different position for niht, there are also a few cases in the MHG corpus, in which niht somewhat unexpectedly occurs after the finite verb in verb-final clauses, i. e. in the topological post-field, compare the following example (where LSF stands for Left Sentence Frame and RSF for Right Sentence Frame): (249)

LSF

Middlefield

RSF

Postfield

Ob│ ir vnd iwer brueder │hetet│niht die wer if you and your brothers had NEG the defence ‘If you and your brothers were not armed’ Nib (A) III, 121, 1f. If one wanted to maintain that niht was situated in SpecNegP here, one could assume that the finite verb hetet has moved to some higher functional head (such as T0 or Agr0) left of niht. Note, however, that this would require the assumption of head-initial INFL projections in German, in contrast to the

134


approach taken here. However, there is again a much more straightforward way to analyse these cases in terms of the suggested syntactic structure: I propose that niht is extraposed, i. e. moved into the postfield in these cases. The DP die wer would be extraposed separately – it is not uncommon for several constituents to be extraposed in MHG. The following example with niht in postfield position shows that the alternative analysis of leftward-movement of the verb to some T/Agr head left of VP would not work, at any rate: (250)

Prefield

LSF

Middlefield

RSF

Postfield

sin │kvnde│ in baz │descheiden│ niht der gvoten she-NEG could him well conceal NEG the good ‘She could not well conceal him from the good one.’ Nib (A) I, 14, 2101 Here, the (VP- and NegP-internal) non-finite verb descheiden precedes niht. Since it is not the finite verb of the clause, movement to T/Agr is not plausible. Note that similar constructions with nicht in the postfield are possible under poetic license even in Modern German: (251)

Sie konnt ihn doch verschweigen nicht der Guten she could him PART conceal NEG the good ‘She could not well conceal him from the good one.’

As suggested above, these constructions should therefore be analysed as cases of movement of niht from SpecNegP to the post-field (“Ausklammerung”). In the example (250) above, niht and der guoten do not form a constituent (there is no narrow neg-focus on der guoten), but they are moved into the postfield independently for reasons of rhyme and metre (compare also the word order in manuscripts B and C where baz and der guoten are moved but niht remains in SpecNegP and thus left of the non-finite verb). In fact this analysis supports the hypothesis that niht is a maximal projection as only maximal projections can be moved to the post-field. Yet the extraposition of niht is rather marked and appears to be possible only in poetic speech, as a closer investigation of the relative word order of niht and elements of the right sentence frame reveals. None of the prose texts in the MHG corpus have niht after the finite verb in verb-final clauses. In the poetic text of Nibelungenlied, this pattern is 101 B/C: si ne chvndes niht besceiden/beschaiden baz der gvoten/gvten ‘She could not well conceal it from the good one’.

2.5

135


also clearly dispreferred. The negative particle niht precedes rather than follows the finite verb in more than three quarters of all verb-final clauses (i. e. clauses with Vfin in the Right Sentence Frame) containing niht. (252)

Ratio of niht following the finite verb in Ve clauses

niht in Ve-clauses of which niht after Ve

Nibelungenlied 13 3

Lancelot 19 -

Berthold 19 -

A similar observation can be made regarding the position of niht in infinitive constructions and sentences containing verbal complexes as illustrated in table (253): (253)

Position of niht in infinitive constructions/verbal complexes

Nibelungenlied Vfin in C ... niht (...) Vinf 21 (+ 1 only ms. C)

Lancelot 11

Berthold 13

2

7

13 -

3 -

(= Modern Standard German)

Vfin in C ... Vinf niht (...) 2 ... niht (...) Vinf Vfin 2 (= Modern Standard German)

... niht (...) Vfin Vinf ...Vinf niht Vfin ...Vinf Vfin niht (...) (254)

4 (+ 1 only ms. C) 2 1

Vfin in C ...niht (...) Vinf: Des solt dû niht tuon. that shall you Neg do ‘You shall not do that.’ Bert I, 59 (12)

(255)

Vfin in C ...Vinf niht (...): sin kvnde in baz descheiden niht der gvoten she-NEG could him well conceal NEG the good ‘She could not well conceal him from the good one.’ Nib (A) I 14, 2

136 (256)


... niht (...) Vinf Vfin: das er by der welt nicht me verliben wolt that he with the world NEG more stay wanted ‘that he did not want to stay in this world any more’ Lanc 50, 255

(257)

... niht (...) Vfin Vinf: ob er mir nicht wol helffen in den vierczig tagen if he me NEG wanted help in the forty days ‘if he does not want to help me within the forty days’ Lanc 20, 59

(258)

... Vinf niht Vfin: hundert ganze wagene ez heten niht getragen hundred entire waggons it had NEG carried ‘A hundred waggons could not have carried it’ Nib (A) III, 95, 2

(259)

... Vinf Vfin niht (...): same si ze lebne heten niht mere wan einen tac. as-though they to live had NEG more than one day ‘as though they had no more than a single day left to live’ Nib (A) II, 43, 3

Note that the two word orders that correspond to Modern Standard German grammar, viz. “Vfin in C ... niht (...) Vinf” in V1/2 clauses and “... niht (...) Vinf Vfin” in Ve clauses, are on the whole already the most frequent in MHG. Apart from a few examples in Nibelungenlied, niht is always positioned before the verbal elements that occupy the right sentence frame. Within the right sentence frame, the relative order of the verbal elements in the verbal complex varies: whereas in Berthold the order Vinf Vfin, which is also the order in Modern Standard German, is the most common, in Nibelungenlied and especially in the prose Lancelot the opposite order Vfin Vinf is clearly preferred. The verb forms in the right sentence frame are generally adjacent

2.5


137

(apart from two cases of “Vinf niht Vfin” word order in Nibelungenlied) so that verb-projection raising can be excluded. The Nibelungenlied is the only text in the MHG corpus in which niht also occurs in a different place rather than before the verbal complex. Niht appears intervening between Vinf and Vfin, and in the postfield. Any other logically possible word orders such as clause-final “Vfin niht Vinf” are not attested in the corpus. Since only the Nibelungenlied contains these ‘unexpected’ word orders they can possibly be attributed to the requirements of metre and rhyme.102 Niht also functions as a focus-indicating particle in MHG. However, my data suggest that this is not its origin as a neg-particle (see chpt. 2.4.5 above). Niht arguably only acquired that function once it was fully grammaticalized as a neg-particle. As a focus-indicating particle, niht is generally placed left of the constituent in the focus of negation which is equivalent to VP in the standard case. Since niht is not bound to the finite verb, it is free to mark narrow focus of negation on various constituents. Thus, it was able to take over the major function of OHG nalles which consequently disappeared from the language with the grammaticalization of the verb-independent negation particle niht (cf. chpt. 2.4.4. above). Thus, it is clearly not the case that with the loss of nalles, German did not have a means for this function ‘for a long time’, as Quian (1987: 31) puts it. Niht was already in the process of being grammaticalized in OHG, notably in Notker, when nalles was still in use. In other words, the later means for indicating marked focus of negation was already there before nalles eventually died out. The following pairs of examples contrast MHG cases of narrow focus of negation marked by niht with quite parallel constructions in OHG using nalles highlighting the similarity in usage: (260)

102

Wan dîn zît gêt dir niht alleine unnützelîchen hin, sie because your time goes you NEG only uselessly away she

Note that the fact that “Vinf niht Vfin” is attested whereas “Vfin niht Vinf” is not is unexpected under the generalization for West-Germanic Verb-Raising languages (Sapp 2006: 6) that constituents may only intervene in the right sentence frame under left-governing order within the verbal complex. However, Sapp (2006: 6, fn. 1) also notes that the neg-particle nicht forms a rare exception to this rule in his early ENHG corpus, which further supports the view that nicht is indeed not to be simply assimilated to constituents (Satzglieder) such as adverbials as discussed in chpt. 2.2.1 above. The above-mentioned generalization for West-Germanic Verb-Raising languages maybe only holds for full constituents (Satzglieder).

138


get dir halt unnützelîchen unde schentlîchen unde süntlîchen hin. goes you PART uselessly and disgracefully and sinfully away ‘because your time is not only spent uselessly, but uselessly, disgracefully and sinfully’ Bert 1, 174 (30) (261)

(quia ihesus moriturus erat / pro gente. & non tantum) thaz ther heilant sterbenti uuas. / furi thiota. Inti nalles ecrodo that the saviour dieing was for people and NEG only (pro gente / sed ut filios dei qui erant / dispersi) furi thiota / oh thaz thiu gotes kind thiu thar uuarun / cispreitiu for peoples but that the god’s children who Part were scattered (congregaret In unum.) gisamanoti In ein gathered in one ‘The saviour died for the people and not only for the people but in order that he gathered the children of God, who were scattered, in one.’ T 234, 18-21

(262)

als ér wil und niht als wír wellen. as he wants and NEG as we want ‘as he wants and not as we want’ Bert I, 51 (10)

(263)

(non quod ego uolo / sed quod tu.) nalles thaz ich uuili / nibi thaz thu. NEG that I want but that you ‘not what I want, but what you want’ T 294, 24f.

(264)

es enwas auch nit ferre off den tag. it NEG-was also NEG far off the day

2.5


139

‘It wasn’t far off the day.’ Lanc 46, 223 (265)

(erat autem non longe / ab illis grex porcorum multorum/ pascens) uuas thar nalles fér / fon ín cutti suino managero / ezenti was there NEG far from them flock pigs many eating ‘Not far from them, there was a flock of many pigs, feeding.’ T 88, 3-5

As suggested for Modern German focus-indicating nicht (chpt. 1.3., footn. 14) and OHG nalles (chpt. 2.4.4.), niht appears to form a constituent in these cases with the focussed element rather than being in SpecNegP position, or alternatively, it is merged in SpecNegP but can be moved and adjoined to CP when the focussed element is topicalized. 2.5.3. En/ne only or niht only instead of en/ne ... niht In MHG, both negation particles can co-occur as a bipartite neg-particle, but they also appear individually as the only negative marker in the respective clause, as mentioned above, so that all three stages of Jespersen’s Cycle are attested in MHG. In the following section, I will discuss aspects of the use of en/ne only or niht only instead of the bipartite neg-particle. Only en The use of the negation particle en/ne as the only neg-marker in a clause as a continuation of OHG stage-I syntax of negation is quite rare but still attested in my MHG corpus. Although it appears in all texts in the corpus, the bipartite negation particle en/ne ... niht is more frequent than en/ne appearing on its own, especially in Nibelungenlied and Lancelot (Nib 7:13, Lanc 2:27, Bert 3:4). (266)

miern zerinne miner frivnde, in wirt arebeit bechant. me-NEG vanish my friends them becomes trouble known ‘Unless my friends should vanish, they shall get to know some trouble.’ Nib (A) IV, 170, 4

(267)

Da enwart nymand konig, er enwúrd darzu erkorne. there NEG-became nobody king he NEG-was it-to chosen

140


‘Nobody became king there if he was not chosen.’ Lanc 10, 9 (268)

sô hât er dirz gestoln, dû enweist hiute wie so has he you-it stolen you NEG-know today how ‘He has stolen it from you and you don’t know today how.’ Bert I, 126 (22)

As stated in table (208) above, these cases of en/ne as the only neg-marker make up seven, two and three percent, respectively, of all negated clauses in the corpus from Nibelungenlied, Lancelot and Berthold. In all other cases in which en/ne is used, it either co-occurs with the negative particle niht, the negative disjunction noh (cf. chpt. 3.6.8 below), or a negative indefinite (cf. chpt. 3.6.7 below). The fact that MHG en/ne can appear as the only neg-marker in a clause sets it apart from otherwise comparable neg-markers such as the West Flemish verbal clitic en which is only licensed in clauses containing another neg-marker as described in Haegeman (1995: 129). It furthermore contradicts Abraham’s (2003: 343f.) so-called Asymmetrical Neg-Criterion for historical German which requires an overt neg-head to stand in a Spec-head relationship with an overt neg-XP, but not vice versa. Contrary to Abraham’s claim, this generalization neither holds in OHG nor in MHG. However, according to Paul (2007: 389f.), since the 12th century, en/ne only occurs on its own in certain contexts. Let us look at a few factors that characterize these contexts in which MHG en/ne can still occur as the only neg-marker and niht is lacking. Niht hardly ever appears together with an nindefinite (see 3.6.7. below), but it is not only lacking in these cases. In this respect, MHG is similar to French. However, in French it is an even more strict rule that only ne but not pas may co-occur with n-indefinites, yet again it is not only in these cases that pas is lacking: The phenomenon relevant in the present context is that French ne can occur on its own in clauses depending on certain adversative predicates,103 however, here it occurs as an expletive and does not mark semantic negation (a phenomenon also referrred to as paratactic NC), or with the verbs pouvoir ‘be able to’, oser ‘dare’, savoir ‘know’, cesser ‘stop’. One may ask whether the contexts for MHG en/ne are similar. In fact, some remarks in the literature on MHG negation are reminiscent of the situation in French.

103

For example: Je peurs [qu’il ne vienne] ‘I fear that he will come’.

2.5


141

Generally, a connection with the kind of verb is observed: According to Behaghel (1918: 230), Paul (2007: 389f.), de Boor/Wisniewski (1998: 187), Dal (1966: 164), Lockwood (1968: 207f.), Schmidt (1993: 275) and others, en/ne suffices to mark sentential negations when it occurs on modals (dürfen ‘to need to’, künnen ‘can’, mügen ‘may’, suln ‘should’, türren ‘to dare’, wellen ‘want’), notably when the embedded infinitive is ellided, furthermore on lâzen ‘to let/leave’, tun ‘to do’, ruochen ‘to care’, and wizzen ‘to know’,104 notably with a dependent wh-clause.105 Besides, this pattern is found in subjunctives giving the sense ‘unless’ Lockwood (1968: 207f., cf. Paul 2007: 402f., de Boor/Wisniewski 1998: 190 “konjunktivische Sätze mit exzipierender Bedeutung”) and in idioms (such as nû enwelle got, cf. Dal 1966: 164). In my MHG corpus, both simple en/ne and en/ne ... niht occur with various kinds of verbs. There is no clear preference for modals to occur with simple en/ne. In my data, the modals mugen, kunen and weln as well as durfen in the sense of ‘need to’ are attested with the bipartite neg-particle, mugen also with simple en/ne. Of the auxiliaries, sin/wesen and haben appear with the bipartite negation particle, werden with simple en/ne. Main verbs also occur with simple en/ne or with en/ne ... niht. This is also true of ruochen and wissen which, in contrast to what might be expected in view of the generalizations in the literature, occurs more frequently with the bipartite negation particle en/ne ... niht than with simple en/ne in the corpus. On the other hand, all instances of en/ne as the only neg-marker in the respective clause that are contained in my corpus can arguably be subsumed under the contexts mentioned above: there are cases of negation of turren, tuon, mugen, ruochen, wizzen, as well as subjunctive ‘unless’-clauses (“konjunktivische Sätze mit exzipierender Bedeutung”), and expletive en/ne in a subordinate clause dependent on an adversative or negated predicate (paratactic negation in the terminology of Jespersen 1917). The latter case is attested in my corpus in only two examples (Nib III, 117, 2f. and Nib V, 290, 3). The matrix verb is not an adversative predicate, but is syntactically negated in both cases, e. g.: (269)

104

die hoh gemvoten degne wolden des niht lan, / the high spirited warriors wanted that NEG omit

Jespersen (1917: 14) observes that the clitic negation is kept longer with verbs such as ‘to know’ in several languages. He mentions Latin nolo and ne scio, French je ne sais, English nill, and also MHG en will. 105 Dal (1966: 164), Schmidt (1993: 275): matrix clauses with a subordinate clause ‘linked very closely to it’ (bei “sehr eng mit dem Verb des Hauptsatzes verbundenem Gliedsatz”). Presumably, what is meant are verbs with embedded argument clauses.

142


sin drvngen da si sahen die minnechlichen meit. they-NEG penetrated there they saw the lovely maiden ‘The bold warriors did not want to refrain from this – they forced their way through to where they saw the lovely maiden.’ Nib (A) V, 290, 3106 On the other hand, verbal placement seems to play more of a role than has been acknowledged so far in the literature. From my corpus the following generalizations107 regarding the question of whether en/ne occurs as the only neg-marker in the clause or whether en/ne ... niht is used can be drawn with due caution because of the low number of cases with en/ne only: •

•

•

i) Complementizerless conditional subordinate clauses with V2 word order (meaning ‘unless ...’) are negated by simple en/ne, and not by en/ne ... niht. ii) Verb-final clauses are negated by means of the bipartite particle en/ne ... niht, and not by simple en/ne. iii) Clauses with V1 or V2 word order other than the ones covered by the first generalization are negated in either way.

The correlation with verbal placement is possibly due to a parsing-based preference for neg-marking early in the clause, also referred to as the Neg-First principle (Horn 1989, Haspelmath 1997) or Negative Attraction (Jespersen 1917: 58). The earlier in the parsing process of a clause something as crucial as sentential negation is recognized, the better. This might be the reason why there are no verb-final clauses attested in my data in which negation is only marked by the preverbal clitic en/ne, i. e. only on the last element in the clause. In V1 and V2 clauses, on the other hand, the preverbal neg-particle obviously appears very early in the clause so that the additional use of niht does not contribute to an earlier recognition of negation in the parsing process and is therefore optional. The type of verb only plays a role, it seems, in these V1 and V2 contexts mentioned under (iii). Case (i) is quite common. It is found in every text under investigation and is illustrated for instance in examples (266) and (267) above. It corresponds to the contexts described above as subjunctives giving the meaning ‘unless’ (or “konjunktivische Sätze mit exzipierender 106

B/C: ... sine drvngen ... . Note that the generalization are formulated as logical subjunctions. They do not hold vice versa. 107

2.5


143

Bedeutung”). According to Postma (2002), the cases in (i) arguably also constitute expletive use of en/ne. At any rate, en/ne as the only neg-marker in a clause in MHG appears at least partly only with expletive function (e. g. in. example (269) above). As far as the Nibelungenlied is concerned, the influence of metre and rhyme always has to be considered as an additional factor. If the usual nit was lacking and the clause was negated only by en/ne, the metre would not be fulfilled in some cases. Nit is a full syllable, unlike en/ne which is frequently reduced to n even in writing and hardly plays a role in metric considerations.108 It cannot be entirely excluded that niht/nit is sometimes added just to comply better with the metre. However, nit is not generally used in addition to en/ne for this reason alone, as the following example illustrates: (270)

[A:] Don chvnd im niht gestriten daz starke getwerch. [B:] Done chvnd im niht gestriten daz starche getwerch. then-NEG could him NEG fight the strong dwarf [C:] Done chunde im gestriten daz starche getwerch. then-NEG could him fight the strong dwarf ‘The strong dwarf could not defeat him then’ Nib III, 101, 1

In this example, the metre could be fulfilled by a full verbal ending as is evident from the version in manuscript C which has only en as a negation particle. Nonetheless, manuscripts A and B contain an additional niht which would result in too many syllables. They resort to apokope of the verbal ending rather than simply omitting niht. Thus in this case, the scribes of manuscripts A and B felt that the bipartite negation particle was to be preferred over simple en independent of metric considerations and consequently worked the metre around it. A comparison of the three main manuscripts of Nibelungenlied thus enables one in some cases to estimate the relative role of grammatical and poetic constraints. Only niht While on the one hand en/ne continues to be used as the only neg-marker in the clause in some cases like ni used to in OHG (Jespersen’s stage I), and on the other hand and somewhat more often, the bipartite neg-particle en/ne ... niht 108

See chpt. 3.6.9. below.

144


occurs (Jespersen’s stage II), niht is already used as the only neg-marker (Jespersen’s stage III) in just under a third up to almost half of all negated clauses, i. e. much more frequently than en/ne on its own but surprisingly also more frequently than the bipartite neg-particle, so that MHG grammar is already approaching Modern German in that respect. (271)

Ratio of neg-particles in MHG

en/ne as only neg-marker en/ne ... niht niht as only neg-marker

Nibelungenlied (A) 7% 13% 35%

Lancelot 2% 27% 28%

Berthold 3% 4% 45%

Note that the percentages do not add up to 100 since en/ne co-occurs with an nindefinite in several cases, or occasionally with another neg-marker such as the disjunction noh. Furhermore, a large number of negated clauses do not contain any neg-particle at all. Instead, negation is identified by an n-indefinite only (see chpt. 3.6.7. below). The percentage of clauses that contain simple niht as the only negative marker is higher in all texts than that negated by means of the bipartite negation particle en/ne ... niht, in Nibelungenlied and Berthold quite considerably higher. Especially in the case of Nibelungenlied, this is somewhat surprising as one might expect the scribes of poetic, heroic texts to hold on to a more archaic stage of the language, i. e. to the use of the clitic neg-particle. On the whole, one may observe a diachronic increase of the use of niht without en/ne during the course of the MHG period. MHG has thus progressed along Jespersen’s Cycle more than has so far been acknowledged in the literature and is closer to Modern German in that respect than has been previously assumed. In all texts, there are more cases of stage III with only a verb-independent, adverbial-like neg-particle than of stage II with a bipartite neg-particle. In Nibelungenlied and Berthold, most occurences of niht are ones where it represents the only neg-marker in the respective clause. In Lancelot, this is true of half of all occurences of niht:

2.5

145


(272)

Ratio of neg-particle niht in MHG

neg-particle niht niht as only neg-marker

Nibelungenlied (A) 48% 35%

Lancelot 56 % 28%

Berthold 50% 45%

When niht is not the only neg-marker in the clause it co-occurs in MHG with en/ne, but hardly or not at all with n-indefinites, see below (chpt. 3.6.7.). Whether en/ne appears in addition to niht or not, is at least partly conditioned syntactically. Lehmann (1978: 101) suggests also partly phonetic conditioning in that en/ne is lacking first on verbs with unstressed prefixes. However, in my MHG corpus where en/ne is largely lacking, there are also cases with en/ne before such prefixes, e. g.: (273)

wann ich enbegerte nie kein ding also sere because I NEG-wanted never no/any thing as much ‘because I never wanted anything that much’ Lanc 48, 242

(274)

wann er engesah nye so getrúwen ritter mit synen augen because he NEG-saw never so true knight with his eyes ‘because he never saw such a faithful knight with his eyes’ Lanc 38, 187

Furthermore, according to Behaghel (1918: 246), the dialects that kept en/ne longest also kept it with prefix-verbs. One syntactic factor that plays a certain role again for the presence of additional overt Neg0 is the position of the finite verb: The vast majority of clauses containing en/ne are verb-second clauses in all texts. That is, when the finite verb is moved towards the front of the sentence, viz. C, it is more likely to be neg-marked than at the end of the sentence, which could again be preferred for parsing reasons (Neg-First principle). On the other hand, en/ne is lacking in verb-second as well as in verb-final clauses without a clear tendency for one or the other across all texts:

146


(275)

total Ve V2 V1 other

Relation of verbal placement and en/ne in MHG

Nibelungenlied

Lancelot

with en/ne

without en/ne

with en/ne

without en/ne

Berthold with en/ne

without en/ne

26 4 22 -

74 30 41 1 2x V3

44 9 29 6 -

56 31 21 2 2x V-ellipsis

7 1 6 -

93 33 54 6 -

The fact that it is mostly in verb-second clauses that en/ne appears on the finite verb is unexpected on the basis of Behaghel’s (1918: 245, compare also Lehmann 1978: 101) observation that en/ne is kept mainly in verb-final clauses with niht immediately preceding the finite verb. The configuration ni(h)t enVfin is found only in a minority of clauses containing en/ne: three cases each in Nibelungenlied and Lancelot, one in Berthold. (276)

dann ob ich da nit enwere than if I there NEG NEG-was ‘than if I was not there’ Lanc 20, 61

In other words, not even all verb-final clauses containing en/ne match this pattern. Furthermore, there are several examples of verb-final clauses with ni(h)t left-adjecent of the finite verb where one would expect en/ne to occur according to Behaghel’s generalization and yet it does not occur: In Nibelungenlied there are five examples of this kind, in Lancelot and Berthold there are seven cases each, consider for instance: (277)

kunten gewinnen Da sie sahen das sie syn nit then they saw that they him NEG could win ‘when they saw that they could not defeat him’ Lanc 30, 127

Thus, of the examples matching Behaghel’s description of ni(h)t occurring immediately before the finite verb in a verb-final clause, there are more without rather than with en/ne in all texts.

2.6

SUMMARY

147

In the poetic text of Nibelungenlied, the requirements of the metre might influence whether en/ne was used in addition to niht or not. However, a comparison of the main manuscripts shows that en/ne was generally quite irrelevant for the metre. In the following example, for instance, manuscripts A and C use ne in addition to niht, but B does not. Note that the wording is identical, otherwise. (278)

[A/C:] nune wil ìch niht erwinden, vntz ez mir werde bechant. now-NEG want I NEG step back until it me become known [B:] nv wil ich niht erwinden, vnz ez mir <werde> bechant. now want I NEG step back until it me become known ‘Now, I will not step back until it will be known to me’ Nib III, 112, 4

Thus metric considerations presumably played no important role in the choice of whether to use en/ne or not, as is expected seeing that it is an unstressed syllable and is often even reduced to /n/ forming the onset to the next syllable. To sum up, the choice of whether the clitic neg-particle en/ne is used in addition is at least partly also syntactically conditioned in so far as verb placement play a role: Most of all negated clauses containing en/ne are V2 clauses. However, lack of en/ne is equally attested with different types of verbal placement. In other words, one has to assume a certain degree of optionality with respect to the lack of en/ne, cf. also Müller (2001: 246-248), who checked various factors such as emphasis and narrow versus wide scope of negation in negated modal verb constructions in Lancelot, concluding that the use or lack of en/ne is subject to free variation.109

2.6.

Summary

Negation particles differ typologically in their syntactic behaviour, notably their placement and relative dependence or independence with respect to the verb. The different types of neg-particles found in crosslinguistic research correspond to different stages of the diachronic development of neg-particles 109

“Man wird ihr Auftreten als freie Variation akzeptieren müssen, auch wenn es das Linguistenherz schmerzt.” ‘One will have to accept its occurrence as free variation, even though it hurts the linguist’s heart’ (Müller 2001: 248).

148


identified by Jespersen (1917), known as Jespersen’s Cycle. Three main stages can be distinguished: a first stage with a clitic neg-particle on the verb, a second stage during which the clitic neg-particle co-occurs with another, verbindependent particle that was grammaticalized from a (possibly morphologically negative) indefinite or a minimizer, and a third stage during which, after the loss of the clitic neg-particle, only the free neg-particle remains until it is in turn reduced to a clitic and the cycle starts again. The contrast between verbal-clitic and verb-independent neg-particles is captured in recent syntactic theory by the assumption of a functional projection NegP which forms part of the INFL domain (cf. Pollock 1989, Haegeman 1995 et al.). The neg-particle may occupy the head Neg0, the specifier of NegP or both positions in case of a bipartite neg-particle. Since Neg0 c-commands V0, a neg-particle that is to be analysed as the head of NegP will interfere with verbal movement according to the Head Movement Constraint, whereas a neg-particle in SpecNegP will not. The Modern German neg-particle nicht is accordingly analysed as SpecNegP. In terms of NegP, Jespersen’s Cycle can be reinterpreted as a change from a first stage where only Neg0 is filled, to a stage where some XP is grammaticalized as SpecNegP so that both the head and the specifier position of NegP are filled, to a third stage during which the head is non-overt and only SpecNegP is overt and may eventually undergo Spec-to-head grammaticalization (cf. Jäger 1998, Rowlett 1998, van Gelderen 2004). In contrast to previous analyses of the diachronic development in German in terms of NegP that assume comparatively drastic phrase-structural changes (Weiß 1998, Abraham 2003), I argued for an analysis according to which the syntactic structure is not changed with respect to negation: There is a single, head-final NegP above VP throughout the history of German, however, the lexical filling changes. Thus, in keeping with Lass’s (1997) Uniformity Principle, diachronic variation is modelled along the lines of crosslinguistic variation. The results from my corpus analysis showed that the clitic neg-particle ni is virtually obligatory in negated OHG clauses and also represents the only means of marking negation in the clause in the vast majority of cases. It nearly always occurs as a proclitic on the finite verb, only rarely also on a non-finite verb. In those cases where it introduces subordinate clauses, one is dealing with the complementizer ni instead, rather than the neg-particle. As its cliticization to the verb indicates, the OHG neg-particle ni occupies the Neg0 position. Contrary to what is at times assumed in the literature, ni could be shown not to appear in prefield position. A comparison of word order in negated and nonnegated wanta-clauses demonstrated clearly that ni+Vfin in negated clauses

2.6

SUMMARY

149

patterns exactly with Vfin in non-negated clauses and is to be treated as one syntactic unit that occupies C0 in V1 and V2 clauses. Besides ni, OHG occasionally uses the neg-particle nalles which as I demonstrated, functions as a specific focus-indicating neg-particle. While ni is bound to the finite verb, nalles is free to occur before the respective constituent that is in the focus of negation. Accordingly, nalles often occurs in contrastive constructions. A specific neg-particle for indicating marked focus of negation is also found in other languages where, as in OHG, negation is standardly marked on the finite verb. Nalles may co-occur with ni but arguably also suffices to identify negation on its own. Especially in later OHG, a number of elements occur as so-called ‘negstrengtheners’, notably nieht (‘nothing/ not at all’), uuiht (‘anything/ (not) at all’) and drof (‘drop’). The first one is eventually grammaticalized as a second neg-particle. However, uuiht also shows a tendency towards grammaticalization in Otfrid. The grammaticalization of nieht, I argued, is not to be based on a diachronic change from Move to Merge into SpecNegP based on a general movement requirement on n-indefinites according to the Neg-Criterion as suggested by Roberts/Roussou (1999), van Kemenade (2000), and van Gelderen (2004). Instead, the adjacency of the adverbially used, VP-adjoined n-indefinite (or NPI as in the case of OHG uuiht or French pas) to SpecNegP formed the syntactic input condition for a string-neutral reanalysis as SpecNegP. The MHG corpus data show that all three stages of Jespersen’s Cycle are still evidenced in MHG. However, the use of en/ne, the successor of ni, as the only marker of negation is only marginally attested in a small number of contexts, partly only in expletive function. The corpus analysis suggests that furthermore verbal placement plays a role: en/ne does not suffice to mark negation in verb-final clauses, possibly due to a parsing-based preference for early neg-marking (Neg-First principle). As in OHG, en/ne virtually always occurs as a proclitic on the finite verb, suggesting that it is also to be analysed as Neg0. However, secondarily, it may attach to the element immediately preceding the verb, notably once it has moved along with the finite verb into the C-domain. Jespersen’s stage II is attested in MHG in the form of en/ne cooccurring with niht. My corpus analysis revealed, however, that this bipartite neg-particle is much less common than statements in the literature suggest where en/ne ... niht is generally characterized as the MHG standard. Again, it is V1 and V2 clauses in which the bipartite particle is kept longer. The majority pattern with respect to neg-marking through a neg-particle in all MHG texts

150


under investigation is already stage III, i. e. the use of niht only. One striking result of my corpus study is thus that there is no evidence for a stable stage-II period in German. MHG is a lot closer to Modern German than expected. MHG niht is already placed in SpecNegP (left of VP, contrary to Abraham 2003). It is only in the poetic text of Nibelungenlied that it rarely occurs in another position than in the topological Middlefield at the left edge of VP. Those rare exceptions are for instance the result of extraposition of niht into the postfield (“Ausklammerung”). Furthermore, they are due to verbcomplex formation. On the other hand, even in infinitive constructions, the majority patterns of relative word order of niht, finite verb and non-finite verb are already exactly the patterns that are found in Modern Standard German. I showed that in MHG, niht took over the function of indicating marked focus of negation, too – a function that it also still occurs in today. As a verb-independent neg-particle, niht is free to be placed before the respective constituent that forms the focus of negation. The former special neg-particle nalles was not necessary any more and consequently disappeared. An interesting side-observation is that, instead of niht, the morphologically non-negative equivalent iht (< OHG iouuiht ‘anything/at all’) was very occasionally used as a neg-particle in MHG, continuing the pattern already found for OHG uuiht (‘anything/ at all’) in Otfrid. This pattern survives until today in several Upper German dialects that use the morphologically nonnegative particle it/et to mark sentential negation. For the most part, however, the development that was already fairly progressed in MHG, viz. the generalization of the former n-indefinite niht, was accomplished so that the SpecNegP-particle nicht is the only neg-particle in Modern Standard German today.

3.

INDEFINITES IN THE SCOPE OF NEGATION AND NEGATIVE CONCORD

Negation can be syntactically marked by other means than a negation particle. In many languages special indefinite pronouns, determiners and adverbs of different types are used in the semantic scope of negation. Those special indefinite elements that may also act as syntactic markers of negation will be referred to as n-indefinites and distinguished from other elements which are also licensed by negation, viz. NPIs. A phenomenon that is closely linked to the use of n-indefinites is Negative Concord (NC), i. e. the co-occurrence of two or more negative markers within one clause that is nonetheless interpreted as containing a single semantic negation. Under NC the neg-markers do not cancel each other out semantically. In contrast to Modern Standard German, the historical stages of German were NC-languages. In this chapter, I will describe and analyse OHG and MHG NC against the background of crosslinguistic research and recent semantic and syntactic theory and thus again not just look at historical German in isolation, but place it in the wider context of the patterns found in different languages and of semantic and syntactic theories of NC. Since n-indefinites take part in NC, and theories of NC are often essentially theories about the nature of n-indefinites, the one cannot be discussed without the other. Therefore the investigation into NC will be combined with an investigation of nindefinites in the history of German.

3.1.

Typology of indefinites in the scope of negation

The morphological form of indefinite pronouns, determiners or adverbs is often sensitive to the syntactic and semantic context. In many languages, the indefinite may accordingly take one of three forms: a ‘normal’ indefinite, an NPIindefinite, or an n-indefinite. The indefinite pronouns, determiners and adverbs in question will all be referred to as ‘indefinites’ here, since they share a comparable semantics of existential quantification with a restriction on entities, people, places, times etc.

152


As a background to this classification, I will distinguish three main types of contexts with the help of the feature [± affective],110 a term used in Klima (1964) and in much subsequent work (e. g. Ladusaw 1979, Giannakidou 1998) as a cover term for NPI-licensing contexts, and the feature [± negative]: (279)

syntactic contexts [– affective]

[+ affective]

PPI contexts

(NPI-contexts) [– negative] weak NPI contexts

110

[+ negative] strong NPI contexts/ scope of negation111

•

questions

•

conditionals

•

standard of comparison

•

clauses dependent on negated matrix clauses (‘indirect negation’)

•

clauses dependent on adversative matrix predicates such as ‘deny’, ‘forbid’, ‘fear’, ‘refuse’, ‘doubt’ etc.

•

restrictive clauses on universal quantifiers or superlative noun phrases

•

complement clauses of ‘too’

•

context of lexical items meaning ‘hardly’, ‘rarely’, ‘before’, ‘without’ etc.

The feature [± affective] corresponds to [± non-affirmative] in Jäger (2007) A number of the affective contexts can indeed be characterized as non-affirmative, but not all (e. g. the difference between ‘to believe that’ and ‘to doubt that ‘ is not captured by ± non-affirmative). Therefore, I will use the term affective as a cover term for all NPI contexts. 111 Indefinites occuring in a negated clause but outside the semantic scope of negation do not take a specific form marked for non-affirmative polarity or negation. Note the difference between, e. g. Somebody did not come (∃x (Person’x ∧ ¬ Come’x) vs. Nobody came/ It is not the case that anybody came (¬∃x (Person’x ∧ Come’x).

3.1

TYPOLOGY OF INDEFINITES IN THE SCOPE OF NEGATION

153

In line with markedness theory, the plus values of each feature constitute the marked values. Note that there is a feature hierarchy in that [+ neg] presupposes [+ affec] or is a special subcase of it. In order to capture the distribution and change of indefinites and a number of other phenomena related to negation and polarity, it is not sufficient to merely distinguish between negative and positive clauses, as is often done. Besides the ‘properly positive’ [– affec, – neg] contexts (notably most affirmative declaratives) that also license PPIs (positive polarity items), it is crucial to differentiate [+ affec, – neg] contexts as a separate type. These [+ affec, – neg] contexts are also referred to as weak NPI contexts (cf. van der Wouden 1997, ‘non-assertive’ or ‘modal’ contexts cf. Martins 2000) since they may license NPIs (negative polarity items such as English any)112 even though they do not involve sentential negation and thus differ in turn from [+ affec, + neg] contexts, that are also called strong NPI contexts (the scope of negation). As listed above, among the weak NPI contexts there are:113 (280)

questions: Did you see anything?

(281)

conditionals: If you saw anything ...

(282)

standard of comparison: This vision was more beautiful than anything I have seen

112

Some of these contexts also license so-called expletive or pleonastic neg-markers, a phenomenon that is found in a number of languages and also attested in the German language history (cf. Behaghel 1918: 248, Paul 1920: 343-351, Lockwood 1968: 212), see also footn. 53 above. 113 NPIs such as English anything etc. may occasionally also appear in non-affective contexts. with quite a different, so-called free-choice reading (comparable to ‘no matter what/who/when’ etc. or ‘everything/everybody/always’ etc., i. e. generic rather than existential): e. g. He would do anything to impress you. These do not constitute a further NPI context. Rather, NPI and Free-Choice uses of indefinites should be clearly distinguished.

154 (283)


clauses dependent on negated matrix clauses: I don’t think that you’ve seen anything

(284)

clauses dependent on adversative matrix predicates such as ‘deny’, ‘forbid’, ‘fear’, ‘refuse’, ‘doubt’ etc.: I doubt that you’ve seen anything

(285)

restrictive clauses on universal quantifiers: Everyone who has seen anything ...

(286)

complement clauses of ‘too’: She was too busy to notice anything.

(287)

context of lexical items meaning ‘hardly’, ‘before’, ‘without’ etc.: I hardly saw anything

These contexts will also play an important role in the discussion of types of indefinites in OHG and MHG and their development in chapters 3.5 and 3.6 below. Semantic decomposition approaches constituted an attempt to interpret every affective context as involving sentential negation. Whereas this seems promising enough for adversative predicates and the like (‘to deny’ = ‘to say that not’ etc.), it does not work for all affective contexts. Ladusaw (1979) therefore argued that the basic NPI-licensing property of affective contexts is that they are semantically downward-entailing (DE) or inference-reversing (compare also chpt. 1.3 above).114 Giannakidou (1998) additionally found that some NPIs do not require downward-entailing contexts but are licensed also in

114

The truth-value of the sentence remains the same if the predicate (in the logical sense) is substituted for a predicate that refers to a subset of the original predicate: He does not [dance] entails He does not [dance to this kind of music]. In order to capture additional affective contexts that are not strictly speaking downward-entailing such as the context of ‘only’, von Fintel (1999) introduced the extended notion of Strawson downward-entailment according to which the presuppositions of all premisses and all conclusions have to be fullfilled.

3.1


155

merely non-veridical (NV) contexts.115 Downward-entailing contexts are a proper subset of non-veridical contexts. On the basis of additional semantic criteria, one may differentiate further subtypes of NPI contexts: Some of the downward-entailing contexts additionally satisfy the first half of de Morgan’s law.116 These are called antiadditive (AA) contexts. Among the latter, there is finally a subset of contexts that also satisfy the second half of de Morgan’s law.117 These so-called antimorphic (AMO) contexts represent the strongest negative contexts in the semantic sense. Thus sentential negation constitutes an antimorphic context, but interestingly the preposition ‘without’ does, too. This way, a complete hierarchy of affective contexts can be established (cf. Zwarts 1995, van der Wouden 1997, Błaszczak 2001, Nilsen 2003; see also chpt. 1.3. above) with negative strength decreasing from left to right:118 (288)

Neg-Hierarchy: AMO c AA c DE c NV

NPIs may differ among languages but also within one language with respect to which of these contexts they are licensed in.119 The Neg-hierarchy predicts that changes with respect to polarity licensing should proceed in this order. I will however concentrate on the three main polarity types of contexts bearing in mind that a more fine-grained subdivision of NPI-licensing or affective contexts is possible. Note that according to the present approach, only two features suffice to distinguish the three main types of polarity contexts. In particular, the PPI contexts fall out as the unmarked type of context being neither negative nor affective, rather than bearing their own ‘positive’ feature.120

115

A function f is non-veridical if the result of its application to a proposition p does not entail p, cf. also chpt. 1.3 above. 116 First half of de Morgan’s law for negation: f(a∨b) = f(a) ∧ f(b). 117 Second half of de Morgan’s law for negation: f(a∧b) = f(a) ∨ f(b). 118 A kind of Neg-Hierarchy is also implicit in Haspelmath’s (1997) implicational map of functions that indefinites fulfil. He distinguishes (i) ± known to the speaker, (ii) ± specific, (iii) negative polarity/“scale reversal”, (iv) “emphasis”/“scalarity”, (v) free choice indefinites, (vi) direct and indirect negation, and (vii) standard of comparison. In contrast to the NegHierarchy discussed above, the individual categories are defined on the basis of quite heterogenous kinds of criteria – pragmatic, syntactic, semantic. 119 For example, NPIs sensitive to AMO contexts: Dutch hoeven ‘need to’, AA contexts: German einen Finger rühren ‘lift a finger’, DE contexts: lift a finger, German brauchen ‘need to’, NV contexts: Greek tipota ‘anything’ (cf. van der Wouden 1997, Penka 2002) 120 Martins (2000) in contrast uses three features to discriminate the three types of contexts.

156


The indefinite pronouns, determiners and adverbs of a language may take a different form in the three polarity types of contexts, resulting in up to three types of indefinites, cf. typological work by Dahl (1979), Kahrel (1996: 36), Bernini/Ramat (1996: 109f.)121 and others based on a wide range of languages. These can be characterized as possessing the features [± affec] and [± neg] as lexical features that will lead to compatibility or incompatibility with the respective types of contexts thus restricting the distribution. I will follow lexical underspecification theory (cf. Wunderlich/Fabri 1995 and others) and assume that only marked feature values, that is plus-valued features are stored in the lexicon. Underspecified as well as minus-valued features do occur in lexical entries. The three polarity types of indefinites can accordingly be characterized as illustrated in table (289) with the help of English. (289)

Polarity types of indefinites

type of indefinite ‘normal’ indefinite

lexical features [ ]

NPI-indefinite

[+ affec]

n-indefinite

[+ affec, + neg]

examples e. g. somebody, something, somewhere, some e. g. anybody, anything, anywhere, any e. g. nobody, nothing, nowhere, no

A lexical feature specified for a plus-value is only licensed in the respective type of context (the [+ affec] feature presumably being licensed semantically by downward-entailment or non-veridicality, the [+ neg] feature being licensed syntactically by Agree, cf. chapters 3.3 and 3.5.11 below). An underspecified item, on the other hand, is compatible with any kind of context. Negation does not, for instance, require a [+ neg] specification of a lexical item: Most lexemes occurring in negated clauses do not bear any specific polarity feature at all. ‘Normal’ indefinites are characterized here by underspecification with respect to the two polarity features, or rather – in line with the lexical underspecification approach – as not bearing any lexical polarity features. However, ‘normal’ indefinites are often excluded in contexts other than [– affec, – neg] contexts, i. e. constitute PPIs, as in the case of the English some-series, in contrast for instance to the English indefinite determiner a that can indeed appear in any kind of polarity context. One might capture these distributional facts by 121

Terminologically, NPI-indefinites in my classification correspond to ‘special’ indefinites in Bernini/Ramat (1996).

3.1

157


assigning the PPI indefinites the lexical features [– affec, – neg].122 I would like to argue for an alternative approach to PPIs that captures their distributional restrictions in the form of a Specificity Principle or Elsewhere Condition in the vain of Kiparsky (1973): The existence of a comparable lexical entry more specific to this type of context precludes the distributionally less restricted item from occurring. In other words, the fact that there is the anyseries, which is restricted to affective contexts and the no-series which is restricted to negative contexts proper prevents the some-indefinites from occurring in those contexts.123 This analysis is quite in line with lexical underspecification theory: First, no minus-values need to be assumed in the lexicon, secondly, Elsewhere Conditions generally play a crucial role in underspecification theory for lexical selection. Furthermore, this analysis is attractive because some Elsewhere Condition is independently needed for the so-called Bagel problem. In languages such as English and to some extent in Romance languages there is a certain optionality whether an NPI indefinite or an n-indefinite is used in the scope of negation.124 (290)

(291)

a.

I got nothing for my birthday.

b.

I did not get anything for my birthday.

a.

Non ha telefonato a nessuno. NEG has phoned to nobody ‘She/He didn’t call anybody’

b.

Non ha telefonato a qualcuno/un alma. NEG has phoned to anybody/a soul ‘She/He didn’t call anybody/a single person’

English

Italian

In Slavic languages, for instance, the most specific indefinite for each context has to be chosen, i. e. in the scope of negation, only n-indefinites are licensed (cf. Pereltsvaig 2004). That means that the NPI indefinites are excluded from one central subset of the otherwise NPI licensing downward-entailing con122

Thus Martins (2000: 206) assigns PPIs a lexical feature that is incompatible with negative contexts. 123 In fact, occasionally some-indefinites occur in affective contexts (e. g. If you find anything/something ...), which demonstrates that they indeed cannot generally be said to be specified as [– affec, – neg]. 124 For possible semantic/pragmatic factors governing the choice see chpt. 3.5.8 above.

158


texts125 so that, figuratively speaking, there is a hole in the middle of their licensing area, compare the following example from Serbo-Croatian in which the ‘normal’ ne-indefinite is ungrammatical and the corresponding n-indefinite from the ni-series has to be used (Ranko Matasovič, p. c.): (292)

Nisam vidio {nikoga, *nekoga} Serbo-Croatian NEG-AUX-1SGPRT see-PPP no one/someone-ACCSG ‘I did not see anyone’

From the perspective of an Elsewhere-approach, however, there is of course no hole, but something more specific in that area: The distributionally more restricted n-indefinites preclude the NPI indefinites from occurring.126 Again, this could be achieved by stating that the NPI indefinites in those languages were lexically specified as [+ affec, – neg]. However, a crosslinguistically uniform analysis is possible by adopting the Elsewhere Principle and stating that this principle may hold to varying degrees between different polarity types of indefinites and in different languages resulting in inclusive vs. exclusive distribution of indefinites. (293)

Inclusive and exclusive distribution of indefinite-types

lexical features [ ] [+ affec] [+ affec, + neg]

English somebody anybody nobody

Russian kto kto-libo nikto

Again, no minus-valued lexical features need be invoked. As indicated above, the Elsewhere Condition governs lexical selection among otherwise semantically comparable lexemes. I will follow current semantic approaches (see chpt. 3.3 below) in assuming that there is indeed no semantic difference between the different polarity types of indefinites and that the features affective and negative as lexical features on indefinites are uninterpretable in terms of Minimalism (Chomsky 1995 and subsequent work), that is, they are merely 125

In other words, Slavic NPIs are excluded in antimorphic contexts, a proper subset of downward entailing contexts, that they are generally licensed in, compare also Błaszczak (2001). 126 Instead of a bagel, the more appropriate metaphor would thus be a jam doughnut: There is not nothing in the centre, but in fact something more special than dough for which the dough has to make room.

3.1


159

morpho-syntactically, but not semantically relevant. Notably, I assume that the difference between for instance nothing and anything does not reside in the former being semantically negative. Sentential negation, if present, is introduced by some overt or covert negation operator higher in the structure that licenses the n-indefinite. This does not mean, however, that the distinction between NPI indefinites and n-indefinites should be given up, as Haspelmath (1997: 199) proposes.127 In many cases, the distinction between NPI indefinites and nindefinites is evident from oppositions within the system. N-indefinites are often also morphologically marked for negation as in the case of the English no-series or the German indefinites niemand ‘nobody’, nichts ‘nothing’, nie ‘never’, nirgendwo ‘nowhere’ etc. Note, however, that this is not always the case: Morphologically non-negative items such as French personne, Spanish nada (< (res) nata ‘born thing’), or indeed German dehein/kein ‘any/no’ (see chpt. 3.6.4. below) diachronically turned into n-indefinites.128 Another difference is that n-indefinites are always also licensed in subject position by a clause-mate negation, whereas NPI indefinites in many languages are not (cf. Kato 2000, Zeijlstra 2004).129 Another criterion that works in most but not all languages is the distributional restriction of n-indefinites to [+ affec, + neg] contexts. In a number of Romance languages such as Spanish, Catalan, Italian, and to a small extent Portuguese, but also in Ukranian and other languages, nindefinites are also licensed in certain [+ affec, – neg] contexts, i. e. weak NPI contexts. Which of the weak NPI contexts licenses these expletive n-indefinites 127

Haspelmath (1997) argues against a distinction of NPI (or ‘special’) indefinites and nindefinites and proposes to refer to an item as n-indefinite (negative indefinite) if it has “direct negation as an important function”, i. e. has a distribution that includes or has an emphasis on [+ neg] contexts. However, this way, some important distinctions are lost. Thus Haspelmath classes nothing and anything alike as n-indefnites and consequently classes Modern Standard English as an NC language so that the typological difference to e. g. African-American Vernacular, Cockney or historical stages of English, and more generally any diachronic shifts from NPI to n-indefinite status or vice versa cannot be captured. 128 The opposite case of morphologically negative indefinites diachronically turning into NPI indefinites or ‘normal’ indefinites is arguably also found, for instance in Slavic, Celtic and Baltic languages (cf. Jäger under review). 129 N-indefinites are generally taken to be licensed more locally: According to Haegeman/Zanuttini (1991) and Haegeman (1995), n-indefinites, unlike NPIs, need to be in Spec-head relation with some neg-X0. According to Zeijlstra (2004) n-indefinites are clausebounded in contrast to NPIs. Note however, that expletive n-indefinites may be licensed by the matrix predicate in a few languages. Furthermore, the licensing requirements arguably hold with respect to different moduls of grammar: syntactic licensing of n-indefinites, semantic licensing of NPIs.

160


differs from language to language, which supports the point of a further subdivision of NPI contexts according to Neg-hierarchy. The expletive use of n-indefinites, by the way, supports the view that will be discussed in more detail below (chpt. 3.3) that n-indefinites are not inherently semantically negative. (294)

clause dependent on negated or adversative matrix predicate: Pedro duda que venga nadie Pedro doubts that comes nobody ‘Pedro doubts that anyone will come’

(295)

conditional: Si hi trobeu cap defecte, digueu-m’ ho if in-it you-find no defect tell me about-it ‘If you find any defect, let me know.’

(296)

Example from Laka (1990). Example from Martins (2000). 132 Example from Bernini/Ramat (1996). 133 Example from Marques (2003). 131

Portuguese133

complement of ‘without’: Natalka pryshla bez zhodnoj prodjapyny zi sholy. Natalka came without no scratch out school ‘Natalka came out of school without a scratch’

130

Italian132

standard of comparison: O Paulo sabe isso melhor do que ninguém. the Paulo knows that better than nobody ‘Paulo knows that better than anyone else’

(298)

Catalan131

indirect question: Si domandava se sarebbe venuto nessuno herself she-asked if would-be come no one ‘She wondered if anyone would come.’

(297)

Spanish130

Ukranian134

3.1

161


These distributional patterns can often be explained on a diachronic basis as the result of polarity type change of indefinites (cf. Jäger under review) as will be illustrated in detail for some German indefinites below (chpt. 3.6.4). The fact that the distribution with respect to the contexts distinguished above does not always form a sufficient criterion for NPI or n-indefinite status is further illustrated in table (299): (299)

Distribution of NPIs and n-indefinites

[+ affec, + neg] contexts strong NPIs (e. g. Dutch hoeven ‘need to’) n-indefinite ‘expletive n-indefinites’ (e. g. n-indefinites in most lanCatalan n-indefinites res, gens) guages NPI

[+ affec, ± neg] contexts weak NPIs (e. g. English any)

The most reliable criterion for n-indefinite status, that is also employed for instance by Bernini/Ramat (1996) in their typological study of negation in European languages, is the fact that, unlike NPI indefinites, n-indefinites are licensed in one-word answers, even in languages where they obligatorily cooccur with the negation particle in full sentences, and give rise to a negative interpretation in these cases:135 (300)

(301)

134

a.

Personne n’est venu. nobody NEG-is come ‘Nobody came.’

b.

Qui est venu? – Personne. who is come nobody ‘Who came? – Nobody.’

a.

Ničevo ne videla. nothing NEG saw ‘I saw nothing.’

French

Russian

Example from Paslawska (2002). Their [+ neg] feature presumably identifies the negative operator in the ellided part of the clause. 135

162


b.

Čto videla? – Ničevo. what saw nothing ‘What did you see? – Nothing.’

NPIs on the other hand are ungrammatical in this kind of context (cf. Laka 1990, Zanuttini 1989: 71, Zeijlstra 2004): (302)

¿Quién vino? who came

Spanish136

– Nadie. ‘noone’ – *A un alma. ‘a single soul’

The distinction of the three main polarity types of indefinites is especially important from a diachronic perspective, because a number of diachronic changes can only be described against this background. This also holds for the history of German: While it may be difficult to determine the status of an indefinite at times of transition and there may be stages of lexical ambiguity involved in this type of change (see discussion chpt. 3.6.4. below), the fact that an element such as German dehein/kein clearly behaved as an NPI roughly thousand years ago and is a n-indefinite today, calls for a distinction of the two categories in order to be able to capture this development. Obviously, not all languages differentiate three different polarity types of indefinites. Depending on whether both, just one or even none of the two polarity features leads to oppositions among the indefinites, we arrive at a whole typology of indefinite systems as given in table (303): (303)

Typology of indefinite systems

I [ ] [+ affec] [+ affec, + neg]

II [ ] [+ affec]

III [ ]

IV [ ]

[+ neg]

These options are instantiated by different languages as the crosslinguitic study by Weiß (2002a) demonstrates. Besides English, languages such as Slovene, Hungarian, Korean and Malayalam have a different indefinite series for each of 136

Example from Zeijlstra (2004: 211).

3.1

163


the three types of context, viz. [– affec, – neg], [+ affec, – neg] and [+ affec, + neg] contexts. The assumptions made above, that languages may also reflect only the opposition of [± affec] or just [± neg] in their system of indefinites, are also confirmed: Languages with two indefinite series such as Spanish, Greek or Hindi differentiate between non-affective and affective contexts, whereas Polish, which also has two sets of indefinites, differentiates between nonnegative and negative contexts. Table (304) illustrates Weiß’s findings. I have applied my classification of contexts as [± affec, ± neg] as introduced above to Weiß’s data.137 (304)

Typology of indefinite systems (based on Weiß 2002a)

type of context [– affec, – neg]

Slovene (+NC) kdo, kaj

[+ affec, – neg]

nekdo, nekaj

Spanish (+NC) alguien, algo ↑

[+ affec, + neg]

nikdo/ nihce, nic

nadie, nada

Greek (-NC) kapjos, kati kanenas, tipota ↓

Polish (+NC) ktos, cos ↓ nikt, nic

Different pronouns or adverbs within one language may also display different patterns. English, for instance has three sets of indefinite pronouns, determiners and adverbs, however, the indefinite determiner any (vs. some) is distributed according to II in (303) in [+ affec, ± neg] contexts, i. e. is lexically specified as [+ affec], whereas the indefinite determiner a instantiates pattern IV, i. e. occurs in all three main types of context and thus does not bear any lexical polarity features, as table (305) illustrates:

137

The arrows indicate that Spanish nadie, nada, for instance are n-indefinites that are also used in weak NPI contexts, whereas Greek kanenas, tipota are NPIs that are also used in the scope of negation.

164


(305)

Typology of indefinite determiners

type of context

‘normal’ indef. Det (e. g. Engl. a)

indefinite NPI-Det (e. g. Engl. any)

n-indefinite Det (e. g. Engl. no)

[– affec, – neg]

My neighbours have got a dog.

—

—

[+ affec, – neg]

If my neighbours had a dog … Do your neighbours have a dog?

If my neighbours had any pets … Do your neighbours have any pets?

—

[+ affec, + neg]

My neighbours don’t have a dog.

My neighbours don’t have any pets.

My neighbours have no pets.

As we will see in the discussion of the development in German, diachronic change in this area may involve three kinds of phenomena: First, individual indefinites may change in their polarity type, i. e. change with respect to their lexical feature specification as is the case for instance with German dehein/kein ‘any/no’ and to some extent iht ‘anything/nothing’ (cf. chapters 3.6.1. and 3.6.4). Secondly, change may involve an increasing or diminishing importance of relevant Elsewhere Conditions leading to inclusive or exclusive distribution. German has changed in the course of its history with respect to the type of indefinite used in the scope of negation from a larger degree of optionality to a more or less fix choice of n-indefinites (cf. chapters 3.5 and 3.6. below). Thirdly, the changes of individual indefinites may lead to a change in the type of the entire indefinite system. As will be argued below (chpt. 3.5.1.), remains of a system with three polarity types of indefinites can be found in OHG. This system is more and more reduced throughout the history of German towards a two-set system (cf. chapters 3.4 and 3.6.1).

3.2.

Typology of Negative Concord

Since not only the neg-particle but also n-indefinites may function as negmarkers, a number of negated clauses, notably those with indefinites in the scope of negation, may contain several neg-markers. This phenomenon is indeed attested in various languages and referred to as Negative Concord (NC,

3.2

TYPOLOGY OF NEGATIVE CONCORD

165

in German also “Negationskongruenz”; “Negationskonkordanz”, “Mehrfachnegation”; see also chpt. 1.3. above).138 (306)

Negative Concord (NC): co-occurrence of several neg-markers in a clause that is interpreted as containing a single semantic negation

The availability of this type of construction is generally taken to be a languagespecific option. Accordingly, languages can be classed typologically as NC- or non-NC languages. In terms of the Generative Principles and Parameters theory one is dealing with a case of parametric variation which can be formulated as the NC-parameter: (307)

NC-parameter:

+ NC – NC

What is particularly significant in the context of historical syntax is that there is parametric change in this area: A diachronic change from a non-NC to an NC language took place for instance in Turkish, the opposite change from an NCto a non-NC language took place from Ancient to Modern Greek (cf. Weiß 2002a), from Old and Middle English to Modern Standard English, and also from OHG and MHG, which were also NC languages, as will be discussed in detail below (chapters 3.5.6 and 3.6.7.), to Modern German. There is an important typological link between the phrase-structural status of the neg-particle as the head or specifier of NegP (evident notably from its attachment to or independence of the finite verb, cf. chpt. 2.2.3. above) and NC. Zanuttini’s (1991, 1997) generalization based on Romance languages is basically that an overtly filled Neg0 is necessary for NC and that NC is impossible with an overtly filled SpecNegP, compare for example French where NC is possible with Neg0 ne but not with SpecNegP pas. This generalization also has important implications for her theoretic explanation of NC (see chpt. 3.3 below). The same basic correlation was already observed by Jespersen (1924: 333) and is also rephrased in terms of NegP by Rowlett (1998: 87). 138

Occasionally, the misleading term “Doppelnegation”/double negation is also used for NC. However, I follow the general usage of calling double negation (DN) the oppposite phenomeneon, namely that of two co-occurring neg-markers that cancel each other out semantically. According to Zeijlstra (2004) DN is not only possible in non-NC languages but also in NC languages. Yet, it is mostly non-NC languages that display DN.

166 (308)


Correlation between status of neg-particle and ±NC (after Jespersen 1924, Zanuttini 1991, Rowlett 1998): Neg0 neg-particle ↔ Negative Concord (NC)

Hebrew, Spanish, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenean, Polish, Russian, Czech and Italian, for example, have Neg0 neg-particles and are NC-languages, whereas the neg-particle in Dutch, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, and also German is not Neg0 and they are non-NC languages. As will be discussed below (chapters 3.6.7 and 4), the loss of NC in German is crucially related to the loss of the Neg0 neg-particle. This also supports the typological link. However, the correlation above is contradicted by NC-languages with a neg-particle that is not in Neg0 such as Bavarian (example from Weiß 1998: 167),139 Yiddish or Quebecois (examples after Zeijlstra 2004: 142): (309)

Koa Mensch is ned kema no person is NEG come ‘Nobody came’

Bavarian

(310)

Keiner efnt nit mayn tir. none opens NEG my door ‘Nobody opens my door’

Yiddish

(311)

Il y a pas personne en ville. it there has NEG nobody in town ‘There is nobody in town’

Quebecois

Zeijlstra (2004) therefore suggests that the relation to the syntactic status of the neg-particle holds only one way: Whenever a language has a Neg0 neg-particle, it will also have NC. On the other hand, the existence of a neg-particle in SpecNegP can be seen as a necessary condition for the possibility of double negation (DN) in a language. Zeijlstra’s generalizations can be summed up in the following way:140

139

Like its counterpart nicht, ned does not interact with verb movement and thus constitutes SpecNegP (compare also Haegeman 1995, Zeijlstra 2004; vs. Bayer 1990, Weiß 1998). 140 Both for the generalization formulated by Zanuttini, Rowlett and others, as well as for the one given by Zeijlstra, English not represents a problem in so far as it can be argued to be Neg0 on the basis of its interference in head-chains (cf. Ouhalla 1990, Haegeman 1995), but English is a non-NC language. Rowlett and Zeijlstra argue that not should not be analysed as Neg0.

3.2

167


(312)

Correlation between status of neg-particle and ±NC (after Zeijlstra 2004):141 Neg0 neg-particle → Negative Concord (NC) Double Negation (DN) → “free neg-particle”/SpecNegP negparticle

Depending on the kinds of neg-markers that partake in NC, one can differentiate several subtypes of NC (cf. den Besten 1986, van der Wouden 1997, Rowlett 1998, Ingham 2003, Zeijlstra 2004).142 If the neg-particle and an nindefinite co-occur one speaks of Negative Doubling. (313)

Neg-Doubling (neg-particle + n-indefinite): Non ha detto niente NEG has said nothing ‘(S)he has not said anything’

Italian

If several n-indefinites co-occur, this is called Negative Spread. (314)

Neg-Spread (n-indefinite + n-indefinite): Nessuno ha detto niente. nobody has said nothing ‘Nobody said anything’

Italian

Both kinds of NC may also appear in combination.

141

Zeijlstra takes it that both generalizations are logically equivalent, in so far as DN ↔ ¬ NC, and (neg-particle = SpecNegP) ↔ ¬ (neg-particle = Neg0). However, this is not the case since first, DN and NC do not exclude each other but are occasionally both possible in one language, and second, a language may posses both a neg-particle in Neg0 and one in SpecNegP. 142 Another typology of NC is introduced by Déprez (1999): She distinguishes between type A in which n-indefinites obligatorily co-occur with the standard neg-particle (NC incl. the negoperator), NC is unbounded and n-indefinites are not quantifiers but resemble bare plurals, and type B in which there is only NC between n-indefinites (no co-occurrence with standard negparticle/neg-operator), NC is clause-bounded and n-indefinites are quantifiers that resemble numerals. Déprez’s type A is thus reminiscent of Neg-Doubling, type B of Neg-Spread.

168 (315)


Neg-Doubling + Neg-Spread: Nikto ne skasal ničego nobody NEG said nothing ‘Nobody said anything’

Russian

N-indefinites are central, although not absolutely necessary for NC, compare Molnarfi (2001: 106), in contrast to Weiß (1999: 822) who takes the existence of n-indefinites in a language as a necessary precondition for NC. Besides nindefinites and neg-particles, there are other syntactic neg-markers in many languages that are often not taken into account in studies on NC, viz. negative complementizers and disjunctions. They will be treated at least in passing in this study (chapters 3.5.7. and 3.6.8. below). The co-occurrence of these with a negative particle and/or n-indefinite should also be included under NC. The mere occurrence of a bipartite negation particle, on the other hand, will not be counted as an instance NC.143 Here, the two parts of the particle really form the marker for sentential negation together.144 If a bipartite negation particle or one part of it co-occurs with another neg-marked constituent (as for instance French ne + n-indefinite personne, rien etc.), this will be classed as a case of NC, following Zanuttini (1989: 71f.), van der Wouden (1998: 312) and others.145 While the definitions of NC occasionally differ in detail in the literature,146 typological investigations concur in the observation that NC is a common phenomenon. Bernini/Ramat (1996) investigated negation in the languages of Europe. According to their study, there are 28 languages with obligatory and seven with optional or restricted NC. Examples of NC languages are Polish, Russian, Slovenean, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Hungarian and Turkish as well as non-standard and diachronic varieties of Germanic languages such as English, Dutch and – as mentioned above – German. Only ten European languages are non-NC languages. NC is found not only within Europe but also amongst wider samples of the world’s languages. In Haspelmath’s (1997: 201f.) sample of 40 languages, 143

In contrast e. g. to Simpson/Wu (2002: 288). Cf. for instance Weiß (1998: 169), Holmberg (2002): French ne pas is a single, discontinous negation, distinct from NC. 145 Bernini/Ramat (1996) on the other hand class the French cases as non-NC since the second and at least phonologically main part of the negation particle, pas, is lacking. 146 Often the term NC is implicitly or explicitly restricted to the co-occurrence of n-indefinites with the negation particle, i. e. Neg-Doubling: For instance Zanuttini (1989: 71) defines NC as the co-occurrence of the negation particle with negative XPs. 144

3.2

169


32 use the negation particle in addition to the n-indefinites, i. e. display NC in the form of Neg-Doubling according to the classification above. In a further three, the additional use of the negation particle is optional or restricted to certain constructions. Only in seven languages does the n-indefinite not cooccur with the negation particle in a simple negated clause. When several indefinites occur in the scope of negation, NC between these, i. e. Neg-Spread in the terminology above, is also the typologically unmarked option according to Haspelmath (1997: 218). Amongst the languages that display Neg-Doubling, most employ this pattern consistently (so-called strict NC languages), others use the neg-particle in addition to an n-indefinite optionally or only in certain contexts (so-called non-strict NC languages), for instance several Romance languages, historical variants of Slavic languages and non-standard English as described in Labov (1972) (cf. Haspelmath 1997: 211).147 In Italian, for instance, the neg-particle non is not used when the n-indefinite is in preverbal and thus VP-external position but is otherwise obligatory (cf. Zanuttini 1991):148 (316)

147

a.

Nessuno (*non) telefona a Gianni. nobody NEG phones to Gianni ‘Nobody phones Gianni’

b.

A nessuno Gianni (*non) telefona. to nobody Gianni NEG phones ‘Gianni phones nobody’

c.

Gianni *(non) telefona a nessuno. Gianni NEG phones to nobody ‘Gianni does not phone anybody’

Italian

The existence of non-strict NC languages invalidates Progovac’s (2000: 108f.) contention that all n-indefinites that are arguments or temporal/local adverbials (and thus neg-mark the predicate in Progovac’s terminology) are obligatorily licensed by a neg-particle on the verb in NC languages. 148 Zanuttini (1989: 72) concludes that in NC languages, negation has to be marked at Sstructure in a position c-commanding T and Agr so that an n-indefinite inside VP alone is not sufficient. The NC languages of OHG and MHG also sometimes mark negation only by means of an n-indefinite. However, this does not strictly correlate with VP-internal vs. VP-external surface-structural position of the n-indefinite, cf. chapters 3.5.9. and 3.6.9. below.

170


Besides restrictions of NC to certain syntactic configurations in some languages, locality effects on NC suggest that NC is a syntactically constrained phenomenon. NC generally does not extend across clause boundaries.149 (317)

*Gianni non ha detto [CP che ha telefonato a nessuno] Gianni NEG has said that has phoned to nobody ‘Gianni did not say that he phoned anybody’

In addition, there are language-specific locality conditions on NC.150 Languages in which n-indefinites cannot co-occur with another neg-marker in the same clause in a concordant reading are comparatively rare amongst the world’s languages. Modern Standard German is of course one example. Others are English, Dutch, Greek, Hindi, Malayalam, Chinese, Korean and local varieties of NC languages such as Piemontese, a variety of Italian (cf. Weiß 2002a, Zanuttini 1991). What is significant in the context of the present study is that Latin, the language of many texts that served as originals for OHG translations, was also a non-NC language. Haspelmath (1997: 203) argues that non-NC is dispreferred because it is not iconic151 and only exists as an “unwanted side effect” of diachronic change (Jespersen’s Cycle or what Haspelmath refers to as “diachronic negative absorption”). Weiß (1999, 2002) even claims that non-NC is possibly inconsistant with Universal Grammar. This raises the question whether the diachronic loss of NC can be regarded as a natural development or is simply due to language-external factors such as pressure by prescriptive grammar and language purism. As will be argued below (chpt. 3.6.7.), a significant decrease of NC can already be observed from OHG to MHG, well before the influence of prescriptive grammars. This development indeed appears to be largely a ‘side effect’ of Jespersen’s Cycle since the main pattern of NC in both OHG and MHG is Neg-Doubling between the Neg0 neg-particle and an n-indefinite. With the decrease of overt Neg0, this construction also decreases, of course. At 149

The occurrence of expletive neg-markers (neg-particle, n-indefinites) in clauses dependent on negated or adversative matrix predicates in some languages that is also referred to as paratactic negation and occasionally subsumed under NC (Jespersen 1917: 75, Zeijlstra 2004; see also chpt. 2.5.3. above) will not be classed as an instance of NC. 150 In Welsh, for instance, only one XP may intervene between the concordant elements (cf. Borsley 2000). In Serbo-Croatian (cf. Progovac 2000: 110), Russian (Payne 1985: 236) and other languages NC into PPs is ungrammatical/dispreferred and the neg-morpheme of the indefinite moves in front of the PP (e. g. SC ni [PP za kago] ‘for nobody’, Russ. ni [PP o čem] ‘about nothing’). 151 For a critical discussion of this view see footn. 152.

3.3

THEORIES OF N-INDEFINITES AND NC

171

the same time, the loss of NC can be linked to changes in the system of indefinites in German, notably the virtual extinction of NPI-indefinites (cf. chpt.s 3.6.1, 3.7 and 4).

3.3.

Theories of n-indefinites and NC

After this overview of typological data concerning n-indefinites and NC, we turn to theoretical analyses of n-indefinites and NC.152 NC poses a challenge for compositional semantics: If the meaning of a sentence is derived from the meaning of its constituents and the way they are combined, the question arises of how a single sentential negation can be derived in semantics on the basis of a sentence containing several neg-markers in overt syntax. One conceptually unattractive option would be to give up the principle of compositionality in semantics and derive the meaning of the sentences in question non-compositionally. In order to be able to maintain the principle of compositionality as the basis of semantics there are basically two other approaches to derive the correct semantics for sentences containing NC, based on two different analyses of nindefinites. The most straightforward semantic analysis of n-indefinites is to treat them as inherently negative quantifiers (INQs), i. e. as containing negation and existential153 quantification (cf. Montague 1973, Barwise/Cooper 1981, 152

In contrast to the question of how to analyse NC semantically and syntactically, the question of why there is NC in the first place has not attracted much attention in recent research. Ideas voiced in the 19th century (Gebauer 1885, Mouřek 1903; criticized by Delbrück 1910) that the neg-marking on the verb expresses ‘qualitative negation’ whereas the one on the n-indefinite expresses ‘quantitative negation’, and that NC represents a ‘higher logical state’ (“höherer logischer Zustand”) have been refuted since. There is only one type of negation that corresponds to the neg-operator in logic (the neg-marking on the n-indefinite identifies exactly the same kind of sentential negation that the neg-particle marks). Similarly Haspelmath’s (1997) view that NC is more iconic because the two markings of negation identify both the scope and the focus of negation is misleading. The n-indefinite forms part of the neg-focus but cannot be equated with it. According to Weiß (2002a/2002b), NC helps to dissolve scope ambiguities. In so far as any kind of agreement can be argued to facilitate parsing, redundant neg-marking in the form of NC can also be said to serve this task, as already proposed by Jespersen (1917: 71f.). 153 Zanuttini (1989), Laka (1990), Zanuttini (1991), Haegeman/Zanuttini (1996) and others have argued to analyse an n-indefinite such as ‘nobody’ instead as the logically equivalent λQ ∀x (PERSONx → ¬ Qx) because like universal quantifiers and unlike existential quantifiers, nindefinites can be modified by ‘almost’ (almost everybody/ almost nobody/ *almost somebody). However, the ‘almost’-test is problematic (cf. Zeijlstra 2004) and, unlike universally quantified phrases (definiteness effect), n-indefinites can be used with ‘there is/are’ (There is somebody/nobody/*everybody in the garden).

172


Jacobs 1991: 561/564, Dahl 1993: 919, Haider 1997: 95f. and others). An nindefinite such as ‘nobody’ is for instance interpreted as in (318) and a sentence such as ‘Nobody grins’ is accordingly interpreted as in (319). (318)

‘nobody’:

λQ ¬∃x (PERSONx ∧ Qx)

(319)

‘Nobody grins’: ¬∃x (PERSONx ∧ GRINx)

In NC constructions one thus ends up with several semantic negations that need to be transformed into a single negation through some process. Zanuttini (1991) and Haegeman/Zanuttini (1991, 1996) proposed a process of semantic factorization and absorption in analogy to the analysis of multiple-wh questions by Higginbotham/May (1981). According to the wh-Criterion, all wh-phrases are moved to SpecCP at the latest at LF to stand in a Spec-Head-relation to the [+wh]-head C. Through an ensuing process called factorization, one complex quantifier is formed from the various wh-quantifiers. The simplified LF of the question Who owns what? can be given as in (320) which is transformed via factorization into (320’). (320)

WHx WHy (OWNx,y)

(320’)

WH(x,y) (OWNx,y)

Zanuttini (1991) and Haegeman/Zanuttini (1991) assume that by analogy, all nindefinites need to be in a Spec-head relation with a negative head at the latest at LF (according to Haegeman 1995 at surface-structure) due to a parallel NegCriterion (see also chpt. 1.3. above). (321)

154

Neg-Criterion (Haegeman/Zanuttini 1991: 244): a.

Each Neg X0 must be in a Spec-Head relation with a neg-operator;

b.

Each Neg operator must be in a Spec-Head relation with a neg-X0.154

A negative operator is a negative phrase, notably an n-indefinite, in a left-peripheral A' position, which excludes right-peripheral positions and the base-generated position of VPadverbials (Haegeman/Zanuttini 1991: 243).

3.3


173

In some languages, a movement of n-indefinites arguably into SpecNegP due to the Neg-Criterion can be observed in overt syntax, for instance in West Flemish, cf. Haegeman/Zanuttini (1991: 245f.):155 (322)

da Valère woarschijnlijk niemand en-kent that Valère probably nobody NEG-knows ‘that Valère probably does not know anybody’

(323)

West Flemish

NegP Spec

Neg’

n-indefi Neg0

VP

Spec-Head-Agr

... ti ... neg-movement

Then, a single neg-quantifier is formed at LF from all n-indefinites in SpecNegP through a process of factorization. What is problematic, however, is the assumption of a parallel semantic absorption of the various semantic negations into one. It remains unclear how any number of negations is turned into a single negation in a way consistent with the general definition of the negation operator in semantics. Furthermore, the question is why this LFprocess that leads to NC is available only in some but not all languages or even only in certain constructions within one language, considering that LF processes are generally taken to be language-universal. Besides the fact, that obviously not all languages display overt negmovement of n-indefinites, it can be shown that even at LF, n-indefinites cannot generally be assumed to have moved but often need to be interpreted in situ as argued in Jacobs (1980, 1991) and Penka/Stechow (2001).156 This

155

As discussed in chpt. 2.4.6 above, the neg-movement analysis for n-indefinites has also been employed for accounts of the grammaticalization of neg-particles. In view of the fact that not only n-indefinites may become neg-particles and also of the problems with the INQ and neg-movement approach discussed in this section, I have argued for a reanalysis-based grammaticalization of the originally SpecNegP-adjacent, adverbially used indefinite into SpecNegP position. 156 Déprez (1999) has shown for Haitian Creole that covert wh-movement subject to ECP, yet supposed covert movement of concordant n-indefinites is not, despite the fact that ECP and island effects are also predicted to hold for NC/n-indefinites by Zanuttini (1991). Furthermore,

174


phenomenon is also referred to as neg-split. One case in point are n-indefinites embedded under modals.157 The sentence in (324) has the two readings (i) and (ii), but not (iii):158 (324)

Du musst keinen Schlips tragen. you must no tie wear (i) ‘It is not necessary that you wear a tie’ (ii) ‘It is necessary that you wear no tie’ ≠ (iii) ‘There is no tie for which it is necessary that you wear it’

The negative indefinite phrase keinen Schlips (‘no tie’) is the object of tragen (‘to wear’) which is embedded under the modal musst (‘must’/‘have to’). Yet the negation can take semantic scope over the modal as is evident from the first reading, which is in fact the preferred reading of (324). For this interpretation, the ‘negative’ and the indefinite part of the indefinite are so to speak split up semantically. Negation is interpreted above the modal while the indefinite is interpreted in situ in its embedded position. The interpretation of keinen Schlips as an INQ would result in the readings (ii) or (iii). The preferred reading (i) could not be derived. The attempt to derive wide scope of negation over the modal by means of the neg-movement analysis for n-indefinites (or quantifier raising at LF) would result in reading (iii) only, a reading which is not available for (324). Further empirical evidence comes from negation and coordination (cf. also Weiß 2004: 658), consider: (325)

weil Max kein Sieb hat und sein Freund auch nicht [kein Sieb hat] because M. no sieve has and his friend also NEG no sieve has ‘because Max does not have a sieve, nor does his friend’

the prediction of the INQ and neg-movement analysis of incompatibility of a SpecNegP negparticle and NC is not born out (cf. chpt. 3.2 above). 157 Besides in embeddings under modals and other coherent infinitive constructions, Neg-Split can also be observed in so-called inverse-linking or I-topicalization contexts, or with nindefinites as objects of object-intensional verbs such as ‘to look for’: Ich suche kein Einhorn’I am not looking for something that is a unicorn’, ≠ ‘I am looking for something that is no unicorn’, ≠ ‘There is no unicorn that I am looking for’. 158 Unless tragen bears contrastive stress, e. g. in: Die hässlichen Schlipse, die du von deinem Vater geerbt hast, solltest du schon alle aufheben, aber du musst keinen Schlips TRAgen (= iii).

3.3


175

The n-indefinite kein forms part of the structure that is ellided in the second conjunct. The neg-particle nicht has to occur in the second conjunct in order to recover negation. Under the INQ-analysis of n-indefinites, a DN-reading would be wrongly predicted for the second conjunct, because at LF, the ellided structure including the n-indefinite is reconstructed. The arguments against an INQ and neg-movement analysis of nindefinites and NC make plausible an alternative approach that I will follow in the present study, namely that n-indefinites should be treated as semantically non-negative indefinites that are licensed by the semantic negation higher in the clause that may remain abstract or may be overt in the form of a negparticle. This way, NC is no problem for compositional semantics because there is in fact only one semantic negation present, even in NC constructions. However, I will not follow Laka (1990), Ladusaw (1992), Giannakidou (1998, 2000), Rizzi (1982), Bosque (1980) and others and assume that n-indefinites are simply NPIs. As discussed in chpt. 3.1 above, it makes sense to distinguish NPIs and n-indefinites. In contrast to the former, the latter are often morphologically neg-marked, distributionally restricted to [+ affec, + neg] contexts in most languages, and – most importantly – licensed in elliptical contexts such as one-word answers, giving rise to a negative interpretation. Some scholars have resorted to assuming that n-indefinites are therefore NPIs in some cases but INQs after all in others (cf. Herburger 2001, van der Wouden/Zwarts 1993, van der Wouden 1997). I will adopt an approach in the vain of Penka (2007)159 and hold that n-indefinites in NC as well as non-NC languages are never semantically negative (INQs), nor are they NPIs. Just as their non-neg-marked counterparts, n-indefinites can be considered as indefinites in the sense of Heim (1982), i. e. they introduce a restricted variable that is bound in the default case by existential closure.160 The semantic negation resides in NegP and may remain abstract. It licenses n-indefinites under ccommand. The semantic negation in NegP is interpretable at LF. As discussed in chpt. 3.1 above, n-indefinites bear a formal, uninterpretable [+ neg] feature that is checked under c-command when Neg0 or an empty neg-operator in

159

Similar analyses in terms of syntactic checking have also been proposed by Weiß (2002a), who, however, assumes local checking in a Spec-head relation in the spirit of the NegCriterion, and Zeijlstra (2004), who assumes checking via Agree in NC languages, but proposes that n-indefinites in non-NC languages are semantically negative, after all. 160 Possibly, just as non-neg indefinites, n-indefinites may occasionally also constitute true quantifiers rather than variables (cf. Diesing 1992, Kratzer 1995). At any rate, they are not semantically negative.

176


SpecNegP are merged (an instance of Agree in the sense of Chomsky 1999)161 thus licensing them.162 Since the prefield position SpecCP is not inside the ccommand domain of Neg0, and is a derived position for n-indefinites, I will assume that n-indefinites are licensed at their base positions (cf. also Błaszczak 2001), both in NC and in non-NC languages (with the difference that the licensing semantic negation is abstract or overtly realized).163 Unlike n-indefinites, NPIs do not posses a formal [+ neg] feature. Therefore, they cannot identify negation in isolation, e. g. in elliptical constructions, as n-indefinites can, unless the respective NPIs become associated with a neg-feature in the course of language change and thus in fact turn into n-indefinites or neg-particles.

3.4.

Indefinites and NC in Modern German

Modern Standard German has basically two series of indefinite pronouns and adverbs that are relevant to the classification above. (Irgend)ein, (irgend)jemand, (irgend)etwas etc. are used in affirmative, i. e. [– affec, – neg], contexts as well as in [+ affec, – neg] contexts.164 These indefinites are thus underspecified with respect to [± affec], but also [± neg]: They may even occur in [+ neg] contexts if an n-indefinite precedes them. The n-indefinites kein, niemand, nichts etc. occur only in [+ affec, + neg] contexts. The first indefinite 161

Agree was originally conceived as a one-to-one relation. However, for mutiple whquestions or the licensing of nominatives in Japanese (Haraiwa 2005), multiple Agree has been suggested, as well. 162 Note that Penka (2007), however, proposes checking under c-command only for nindefinites in NC languages, whereas those in non-NC languages such as German are licensed under adjacency to the abstract neg-operator. 163 However, languages appear to differ with respect to the locality constraints on the syntactic licensing configuration, but the parametrization in this point does not correlate with the NCnon-NC distinction. In some languages the syntactic licensing relation is Agree (non-local checking under c-command), in some languages (e. g. Westflemish and arguably Bavarian) the relation apparently needs to be a local checking relation in a Spec-head configuration resulting in adjacency that is achieved by movement if necessary (possibly reconstructed at LF). At any rate, one cannot assume obligatory movement of all n-indefinites in all languages, notably not for historical German. 164 The optional irgend-, that roughly means ‘at all’ (on its development from an NPI placeindefinite see chpt. 3.6.1 below), adds more of an NPI taste to the indefinite taste (it can have the domain widening effect typical of NPIs cf. Kadmon/Landman 1993) which for instance makes irgend-indefinites slightly better in comparatives. However, irgend- indefinites can be equally used in [– affec, – neg] contexts such as positive declaratives without resulting in a free-choice reading and are thus also underspecified w.r.t. [± affec].

3.4

INDEFINITES AND NC IN MODERN GERMAN

177

(in non-specific reading) that occurs in the scope of negation has to take the form of an n-indefinite. Neg-marking by the neg-particle instead, and the use of a ‘positive’ indefinite is generally excluded. Thus also in German, there is an Elsewhere Condition according to which one has to use an n-indefinite wherever possible. (However, German being a non-NC language, it is only possible for the first indefinite in the scope of negation.) The n-indefinite determiner kein is used even with NPs that would occur as bare NPs in the equivalent non-negated clause, i. e. mass nouns and indefinite plurals.165 There are two noteworthy peculiarities in the system: First, for the indefinite manner adverb irgendwie (‘anyhow’/‘in any way’) there is no negmarked counterpart, yet, in the standard language. This is because irgendwie represents a relatively recent formation – indefinite manner adverbs did not exist in the indefinite system in older stages of the language (cf. chapters 3.5.1 and 3.6.1 below). However, in colloquial German, the parallel word formation pattern with the former place n-indefinite nirgend and the corresponding whelement is employed by analogy to complete the paradigm, resulting in nirgendwie ‘in no way’: (326)

... einen selber vor Monaten erstellten Ordner [...] der ist a self before months created folder which is leer und ist nirgendwie geöffnet, kommt trotzdem die empty and is in-no-way opened comes nonetheless the Fehlermeldung ... error-message ‘... a folder that I created months ago that is empty and not opened in any way, nonetheless the error message comes up ...’ (http://www.wer-weiss-was.de/theme119/article715502.html, June 2001)

The second ‘odditiy’ in the system is that, amongst the temporal adverbs, there is a specific NPI je(mals) that is used in [+ affec, – neg] (and 165 Under topicalization, the normal indefinite Det (Sg.: ein, Pl./mass nouns: no Det) occurs instead of the n-indefinite Det kein, and the neg-particle nicht marks negation (an interesting counter-example to the Neg-First principle). e. g.: Ich habe keinen Fernseher– Einen Fernseher

habe ich nicht ‘I don’t have a tv-set’. Other cases where ein (or a bare NP) is exceptionally used instead of kein are certain noun-verb collocations, emphatic use, and occasionally NPs in PPs, cf. Jäger (2007).

178


after an n-indefinite also in [+ neg]) contexts. Table (327) gives a survey of the Modern German indefinites and their distribution, which is further illustrated in the examples (328)-(331). (327)

Modern German system of indefinite pronouns and adverbs

context Det entity person [– affec, (irgend) (irgend)- (irgend)– neg] -ein (et)was jemand, [+ affec, (irgend)– neg] wer * [+ affec, kein nichts * niemand + neg]

*

place (irgend)wo

time irgendwann je (mals)

*

nirgendwo, nirgends

*

nie(mals)

*

manner irgendwie -

= ‘positive’ indefinite possible after n-indefinite in the scope of negation

(328)

Sie hat {(irgend)jemanden; (irgend)wen} getroffen. she has somebody/anybody met ‘She met somebody’

(329)

Wenn sie {(irgend)jemanden; (irgend)wen} trifft, ... if she somebody/anybody meets ‘If she meets anybody’

(330)

Hat sie {(irgend)jemanden; (irgend)wen} getroffen? has she somebody/anybody met ‘Did she meet anybody’

(331)

Sie hat niemanden getroffen. she has nobody met ‘She did not meet anybody’

German is comparable to the Polish pattern given in table (304) above, in so far as the same indefinites are used in positive as well as in [+ affec, – neg] contexts. German differs from Polish, however, in that it is a non-NC language. An n-indefinite is always the only means of marking negation in its respective clause. The neg-particle nicht is not used additionally, except for proper Double Negation where the two negations cancel each other out, semantically. There is also no NC of the Neg-Spread type. If several indefinites occur in the scope of negation, only the first one will be an n-indefinite, as mentioned above.

3.4

INDEFINITES AND NC IN MODERN GERMAN

(332)

179

Sie hat nie {(irgend)jemanden; (irgend)wen} getroffen. she has never somebody/anybody met ‘She never met anybody’

In contrast to the standard language, NC is found in some German dialects. The best-described German NC-dialect is certainly Bavarian, which has been investigated in several studies, notably Bayer (1990) and Weiß (1998). (333)

Koa Mensch is ned kema (Weiß 1998: 167) no human is NEG come ‘Nobody came’

(334)

Mia hod neamad koa stikl broud ned gschengt (Weiß 1998: 186) me has nobody no piece bread NEG given ‘Nobody gave a piece of bread to me’

NC is also found in other dialects, for instance in some Central German dialects. The following examples are from Thuringian dialects: (335)

die war aus Berlin un hatte von nischt nech offn Dorfe she was from Berlin and had of nothing NEG at-the village änne Ahnung a clue ‘She was from Berlin and did not have a clue about anything in the village’ Blankenhain (TWB, vol. 4, 871 f.)

(336)

närjend war kei Schwein ze fingen nowhere was no pig to ind ‘No pig was to be found anywhere’/‘Nobody was around’ Mansfeld area (TWB, vol. 4, 888)

(337)

ich bin nerngds net hiekumme I am nowhere NEG get ‘I didn’t get around’ Greiz (TWB, vol. 4, 888)

180


Note that both in Bavarian and in Thuringian, there is evidence for NegDoubling with the SpecNegP neg-particle ned/net/nech (corresponding to Standard German nicht), as well as for Neg-Spread. NC is particularly common with the n-indefinite determiner koa/kee ‘no’ (Standard German kein). As will be argued below (chapters 3.6.4. and 3.6.7), this is because of its historical development during which it changed in type of indefinite. NC is furthermore attested in Saxon, South-Hessian, Palatine, Brandenburg-Berlin, and Mecklenburgian dialects.166 Thus the data presented in Appel (2007) suggest that there is Neg-Doubling with the SpecNegP neg-particle nich in Lower German, too:167 (338)

Hebbt se dat noch nie nich sehn? (Appel 2007: 91) have you that yet never NEG seen ‘Have you never seen that yet?’

While a number of Swiss German dialects do not show NC at all, some SwissGerman dialects have NC of the Neg-Spread type only: (339)

defür. Es cha niemer nüüt it can nobody nothing there-for ‘It’s nobody’s fault’ (www.medical-info.ch/samwunsch/playlist.php, July 2006)

According to Eroms (1993: 10), most present-day German dialects display NC. However, he gives no concrete list or data to support his hypothesis. A short list of German NC dialects is contained in Behaghel (1918: 242), some of which are very local varieties, some are spoken in wider dialect areas. He mentions the local varieties spoken in Riesa, Leipzig and Frankfurt, as well as Egerlandish, Altenburgish and Swabian. On the other hand, several of these do not display NC any more. At any rate, it appears exaggerated to claim that most present-day dialects of German are NC languages. However, a complete overview of Modern German NC- and non-NC dialects is beyond the scope of this study.

166

I thank Susanne Wiegand of theThuringian Dictionary, Jena, for the information. Appel (2007: 92) also reports remains of MHG en in Lower German. However, in the only example he gives, n is not attached to the verb and is arguably no neg-marker at all. 167

3.5

3.5.

OLD HIGH GERMAN N-INDEFINITES AND NC

181

Old High German n-indefinites and NC

3.5.1. The OHG system of indefinites N-indefinites play an important role in OHG NC. In order to understand the phenomenon of OHG NC and competing syntactic patterns, it is important to gain an overview over the basic possibilities in OHG grammar in this respect, especially the system of indefinites, first. The syntax of OHG and MHG indefinite pronouns and adverbs has been little investigated. Regarding their distribution, there are a few remarks on restrictions for individual indefinites in the OHG grammar by Braune/Reiffenstein (2004: 253-256). Erben’s (1950) ‘syntactic investigation’ of the history of indefinites in fact contains little syntactic information but mainly constitutes a list of often highly idiosycratic paraphrases of their different meanings. Lockwood (1968: 78-82) and Donhauser (1998: 288) give a few conrete categorizations of indefinites. Recently, Fobbe (2004) investigated indefinite pronouns in a number of bible translations from OHG to Modern German. An indepth investigation of the syntax of indefinites in the history of German is beyond the scope of this study. However, on the basis of statements in the literature and some own empirical explorations against the typological background given in previous chapters, the following picture emerges: The system of indefinite pronouns and adverbs in OHG encompasses several sets of indefinites. Ones that are morphologically neg-marked (n-indefinites) and ones that are not. In that respect, the OHG system resembles that of Modern German. However, in contrast to Modern German, there are a number of special NPI-indefinites, the indefinite determiners dehein(ig) and einig and arguably the io-indefinites. Among the ‘normal’ indefinites, at least some are PPIs (positive polarity items), notably the determiner sum, presumably also the ete(s)-indefinites. This system is illustrated in table (340):168

168

The indefinites that include universal quantifiers or are bound by these, i. e. equivalents of ‘all’, ‘every’ etc. were not included in this overview because they systematically lack negmarked counterparts in all languages (see chpt. 2.4.4. above).

182 (340)


OHG system of indefinite pronouns and adverbs Det

‘normal’ indef./ sum(ilih); PPI-indefinite eteswelih, eteslih/ etilih; ein NPI-indefinite dihein/ dohein/ dehein(ig), einig/ einic(h) n-indefinite nihein(ig)/ nohein(ig)

‘entity’

‘person’

time

place

ete(s)waz, ete(s)wer, ete(s)wenne etewar waz wer

(io)wiht/ ieht

ioman

io (mer/ (io)wergin/ wanne/ in iergen, altere) io(gi)wâr, ioner

ni(o)wiht

ni(o)man

nio (mer/ in (niowergin/ altere), niergent), ni(e)wanne nioner

A couple of remarks in the literature hint at the PPI status of at least some of the indefinites listed under ‘normal’ or PPI-indefinites. Thus, Lockwood (1968: 78) states that sum is the equivalent of ‘some’ (as opposed to ‘any’) in earliest German. Donhauser (1998: 288) also holds that sum(ilih) is a PPI. This is corroborated by the results of Fobbe (2004) who states that this indefinite is only ound in the “specific known” function in OHG, but not in questions, conditionals, comparatives, or with direct or indirect negation.169 According to Lockwood (1968: 79), sum soon disappeared and was replaced by the ete(s)series; he specifically mentions ete(s)wer, ete(s)waz and ete(s)welîh/ete(s)lîh. Again, Donhauser (1998: 288) shares this observation; she mentions (etes)waz. The results of Fobbe (2004) also suggest PPI status for eteswaz, eteswer and eteslih. As PPIs the respective indefinites are restricted to [– affec, – neg] contexts in a way similar to the English some-indefinites. The other ‘normal’ indefinites are presumably underspecified with respect to the syntactic contexts they may appear in and could accordingly be used in all kinds of contexts. As far as the category of NPI-indefinites is concerned, there is clear evidence that the determiners einig and dehein(ig) belong to this type of indefinite, as already indicated by remarks in Braune/Reiffenstein (2004) and Lockwood (1968), see detailed discussion in chpt. 3.5.3. below. The same distributional restrictions that Braune/Reiffenstein (2004) note for einig and deheinig, viz. restriction to negated clauses, questions and some (not further 169

Coombs (1976: 85), however, quotes one example from Otfrid in which sumilih apparently occurs in a negative context: Ni bidrahtot unser sumilih.

3.5


183

specified) dependent clauses, are mentioned for the indefinites wiht and iowiht, too (but not for ioman, fo instance). Again, Donhauser (1998: 288) also supports the classification of wiht and iowiht as an NPIs. Köbler’s (1993) translation of ioman as English any, anyone suggests that it is an NPI. Kelle (1881: 290), on the other hand, says that Otfrid uses ioman mostly in positive clauses. However, the cases he lists are in fact weak NPI contexts. Besides, ioman is also attested in negated clauses in Otfrid. Similarly, he states that iauuiht is used in positive clauses unlike uuiht, which mostly occurs in negated clauses (Kelle 1881: 292f.). According to Lockwood (1968: 79), wer represents the oldest German equivalent of ‘any’, but soon declines and is replaced by ioman and iowiht (or einig and deheinig in the use as an indefinite determiner). The results of Fobbe (2004) also support the NPI status of iowiht and ioman: She found that both indefinites are restricted to the same contexts, viz. uqestions, conditionals and direct and indirect negation. Further indefinites from the io-series that are mentioned in the literature are the local adverbs iowergin (Lockwood 1968: 80, Köbler 1993 who, however, translates it as English somewhere, Schützeichel 1995: 175), ioner (Schützeichel 1995: 175) and io(gi)wâr (Kelle 1881, Köbler 1993), as well as the temporal adverbs iowanne (Köbler 1993 translates it as English once/sometimes/ever) and of course io (Lockwood 1968, 51: io ‘ever/always’, < *aiws, corresponding to Gothic aiw, the Acc. Sg. of the lost noun aiws ‘eternity’), which, in its secondary non-temporal use, represents the morpheme with which the other io-indefinites were formed and functions in these cases as a pure polarity marker comparable to any- with English NPI indefinites. Many languages form NPI-indefinites with a marker originally meaning something like ‘ever’ or ‘even’. While it seems clear that the io-indefinites were used in NPI contexts, some of the translations given in the literature and also some data seem to suggest at first glance that they could also be used as ‘normal’ indefinites. Compare the following example with io in a non-affective context: (341)

Uuir éigun iz firlázzan . thaz mugen uuir íó riazan / we have it left that may we ever lament ioh zen inheimon íó emmizigen uuéinon also to-the home ever constantly cry ‘We have left it. That, we shall lament for ever more and always constantly cry towards our home’ O I. 1, 98

184


It is conceivable that a shift from certain NPI-indefinites to unspecific ‘normal’ indefinites, that has later for instance taken place in the case of ioman > jemand, was already beginning in the OHG period as part of a general diachronic change of the German indefinite system (that also included the change from NPIs to n-indefinites, see 3.6.4. below). Lockwood (1968: 81) holds that io, whose successor je is the only NPI left in the Modern German indefinite system, changed in the opposite direction in that it originally meant ‘always’ and only later came to mean ‘ever’, implying that it turned into an NPI. Note, however, that for instance the English NPI ever can also take on the meaning of ‘always’ in certain contexts. (342)

He has ever loved me. ‘He has always loved me.’

This is reminiscent of the way that NPIs acquire a universal-quantificational reading when used as Free Choice items: (343)

He would do anything to impress you. ‘He would do everything to impress you’

Thus, the apparent conterexamples to classing the io-indefinites as NPIs may reduce to Free-Choice-like uses of the respective items and therefore in a way confirm the NPI status. This question will have to remain for future research. With respect to their distribution in negative contexts, my corpus data yield clear results: The respective items are all attested in the scope of negation, too (except for the local adverb, which is however neither attested in its NPI form iowergin/io(gi)war nor in its n-indefinite form niwergin, in my corpus). Alternatively, n-indefinites are used in the scope of negation. The OHG n-indefinites – like their Modern German counterparts – are restricted to [+ affec, + neg] contexts. In my corpus, there is no example of an OHG nindefinite occurring in a weak NPI context. Looking at the OHG system from the perspective of typology, as discussed above (chpt. 3.1.), we thus find evidence for a system with three sets of indefinites for the three main types of syntactic contexts as in type I in table (303), illustrated with Slovenian in table (304). However, the different types of indefinites do not show an entirely complementary distribution but allow a certain amount of distributional overlap notably in so far as the NPI indefinites may also be used in the scope of negation so that the system is a bit closer to one like English as illustrated in table (293) rather than to the systems found in

3.5


185

Slavic languages. The inventory of indefinites in German is diachronically more or less reduced to a system with only two sets of indefinites: n-indefinites and ‘normal’ indefinites (with the exception of the temporal NPI-indefinite je). This systematic change had possibly already started in OHG. Yet, with a number of indefinites, the distinctions are still fairly clear. The distributional restrictions of individual OHG indefinites as well as the apparent doubling of lexemes with seemingly identical semantics such as eteswaz besides iouuiht etc., find a natural explanation against the background of the typology of indefinite systems. So far, the indefinites in historical stages of German have hardly been investigated under this perspective. Instead of looking at the system that emerges on the basis of distributional, i. e. syntactic factors, indefinites have generally been categorized only according to their semantic restriction, i. e. indefinites with a restriction on ‘people’, ‘place’, ‘time’ etc. (for example in Braune/Reiffenstein 2004, Erben 1950). Fobbe’s (2004) investigation is an exception in so far as her main interest was in fact the distribution. However, she only investigated indefinite pronouns/determiners and not adverbs. Table (340) thus represents a first tentative attempt at an explicit systematic overview of OHG indefinites according to polarity types. As indicated above, future research will have to elucidate further the distributional regularities of individual indefinites, notably in non-negated and non-affective contexts that were obviously not at the center of attention in the present study on negation. The indefinites that are specific to negative contexts, viz. NPI-indefinites and notably n-indefinites, will be discussed in more detail below. 3.5.2. OHG indefinites in the scope of negation As indicated in the overview above, indefinites in the scope of negation did not necessarily take the form of an n-indefinite in OHG in contrast to MHG where basically all indefinites in the scope of negation were neg-marked, and to Modern German where an indefinite is also generally neg-marked (unless it is not the first indefinite in the scope of negation). Quite a large subset of the OHG indefinite pronouns and adverbs could be used in negated contexts. In my OHG corpus consisting of the entire texts of Isidor and Tatian and the first 100 negated clauses of Otfrid and Notker’s Psalter, the following indefinite pronouns and adverbs occur in the scope of negation, i. e. in [+ affec, + neg] contexts:

186 (344)


Indefinites in the scope of negation in the OHG corpus a.

Isidor:

Det n-indef. other indef. 4 einic(h)

‘entity’ ‘person’ 2 neouuihd 1 eouuihd 1 eoman

‘time’ 1 neo 2 eo 1 eomaer

‘entity’ ‘person’ 27 niouuiht 46 nioman 1 niuuiht 6 neoman 1 neman

‘time’ 3 neo/ 7 nio (in aldere/ alt(e)re) 1 niomer

1 uuiht 8 iouuiht 1 uuaz 1 sihuuaz

2 uuer

3 io( in altere)

‘entity’ -

‘person’ -

‘time’ 1 neo

8 wiht170

-

7 io 1 iowanne

2 einig(h)an + N 1 ein + N b.

Tatian:

Det 3 nih(h)ein 4 nohhein 5 niheinig 1 niheinag 1 noheinig (+ N) other indef. 3 einig 1 einerogiuuelih 2 iogiuuelih + N 5 ein ± N n-indef.

c.

Otfrid:

Det 7 nihein 1 niheinig other indef. 1 thiheinig n-indef.

d.

Notker:

n-indef.

Det 2 nehein 3 nehein + N

‘entity’ ‘person’ (4 nieht as 1 nieman neg-particle) 1 nioman

other indef.

1 dehein + N

-

170

Mostly adverbially/neg-particle.

-

‘time’ 1 nieo 3 nio 1 niomer 1 étewenne

3.5

187


Non-neg-marked indefinites, more specifically NPIs, such as (io)wiht, io, (thih)einig etc. are comparatively common in the scope of negation in Isidor and Otfrid. Since the latter is no translationary text this was presumably a genuine pattern in OHG grammar. The two texts differ in that Otfrid uses the n-indefinite determiner nihein(ig) quite frequently that is not attested at all in Isidor. On the other hand, the most used n-indefinite in Isidor is neowihd for which Otfrid consistently has wiht but not the n-indefinite. Tatian has non-negmarked indefinites in all semantic categories but n-indefinites clearly form the majority of indefinites under negation. However, this is partly due to Latin influence, compare table (345): (345)

Relation of indefinites in the scope of negation to Latin original

indefinite ± diverging from Latin original n-indefinite – div. + div. non-n-indef. – div. + div.

Isidor

Tatian

Notker171

2 1 1 11

91 15 25 2

1 4 0 1

The choice of a non-neg-marked indefinite or an n-indefinite in the OHG translation of Tatian mostly follows the Latin original which uses n-indefinites more often than other indefinites in the scope of negation. However, with both types of indefinites, there are also several cases that diverge from Latin, suggesting again that both possibilities represent genuine OHG grammar. There is notably quite a number of n-indefinites that were used in OHG against the Latin original. In the translation of Isidor, the picture is similar in so far as both among the n-indefinites and the non-n-indefinites, some follow the Latin original and some diverge from it. In contrast to Tatian, however, when the Isidor translation diverges from the Latin original, it is mostly in using non-nindefinites. Notker’s Psalter is only partly a direct translation of a Latin text. Most indefinites that he uses, occur in his own OHG explanations and comments on the biblical text. In this Late OHG text, the proportion of nindefinites amongst the indefinites in the scope of negation increases (already 171

The numbers in Notker are so low because the text is only partly a translation of the Latin Psalm texts, but for the most part consists of Notker’s original explanations and commentaries so that most indefinites cannot be said to either diverge from or follow any Latin original.

188


approaching the MHG situation).172 The non-neg-marked indefinites that occur in the scope of negation have all been argued to be NPI-indefinites in the literature (see above), with a single exception: etewenne, which was tentatively classed as a PPI, but occurs in the following negated clause from Notker in combination with the clitic Neg0 particle on the finite verb as a translation for Latin nequando ‘never’: (346)

(nequando irascatur dominus .) daz/ sih gót éteuuenne ne-bélge . that REFL god some-time NEG-infuriate ‘that God will not get angry at some point’ N Ps 2, 12 (= 12, 23-26)

This context possibly allows the exceptional occurrence of a PPI, compare the English translation incl. some. From all other cases, one may conclude that there was a choice in OHG of using an NPI-indefinite or an n-indefinite in the scope of negation.173 3.5.3. OHG NPI-indefinites OHG had a number of NPI-indefinites. As discussed above, the indefinites of the io-series could be classed as NPIs. In the following section, I will investigate in some more detail the two indefinite determiners dehein(ig) and einig and present data that supports their classification as NPIs (cf. also Jäger 2007). There is no Modern German equivalent to dehein(ig) or einig, since Modern German has a ‘normal’ indefinite determiner and an n-indefinite determiner like OHG, but it lacks an indefinite NPI-determiner, which makes these OHG items particularly interesting. Dehein(ig) The determiner dehein(ig), the formal predecessor of Modern German kein (‘no’), is very rare in OHG: It is not attested at all in the entire texts of Tatian or Isidor, and only very occasionally in Otfrid (in the form of thihein, thehein 172

In Notker, almost all indefinites in the scope of negation are n-indefinites (15:1). Behaghel (1918: 239) states that Notker uses only n-indefinites, and that this is also the rule from Notker onwards. 173 In Hildebrandslied, there is also evidence for both types of indefinites in the scope of negation: dat du neo dana halt mit sus sippan man dinc ni gileitos; so man mir at burc enigeru banun ni gifasta. For a discussion of possible factors governing this choice see chpt. 3.5.8. below.

3.5


189

and theheinig), and in Notker (in the form of dehein and dohein). This might suggest that dehein(ig) only starts to appear in the course of the OHG period, which would coincide with Behaghel’s (1913: 178) statement that thihein/ dehein is found only starting with Otfrid. Yet according to Lloyd et al. (1998: 562f.), dehein(ig) is already attested as early as the ninth century. The etymology of dehein(ig) has been subject to some controversy: The hypothesis of a composition of OHG dih/deh and ein cf. Braune/Reiffenstein (2004: 253) is to be rejected since dih/deh is otherwise not attested in OHG (cf. Bech 1964, Lloyd et al. 1998). Bech (1964) and Danielsen (1968) assume a combination of the demonstrative *þes and the numeral *ain-, conjoined by the copulative particle *-hw. However, the presupposed development -sh- > -hh is unparalleled according to Lloyd et al. (1998: 563) who assume that doh- in dohein can be linked to OHG doh and that dihein and dehein were formed under the influence of the parallel n-indefinites nohein/nihein/nehein. I will not contribute to this etymological debate, but focus on the syntax of dehein(ig). There are a few remarks in the literature regarding the distribution of dehein(ig). Kelle (1881) notes that it is used in clauses dependent on negated matrix clauses. Behaghel (1913: 179) already gives quite a comprehensive list of contexts. He mentions negated clauses, conditionals, the standard of comparison and questions, but also a few ‘affirmative’ clauses. Danielsen (1968: 96, 116f.) states that dehein(ig) is “decidedly positive” and “restrictive”. According to Lloyd et al. (1998: 562), it occurs in negative clauses, conditional clauses, clauses after comparatives, and questions. As mentioned above, Braune/Reiffenstein (2004: 254) also list negative clauses and questions as licensing contexts, as well as “several kinds of dependent clauses” that they do not specify any further. Lockwood’s (1968: 79) description of dehein as an equivalent of English any, rather than some, also suggests that it occurs in NPI contexts, as does Fobbe’s (2004) result that OHG dehein(ig) is restricted to negated clauses, questions, conditionals, clauses depending on negated matrix clauses or free-choice use. Since dehein(ig) is rather rare – in the core OHG corpus there is only one example each from Otfrid and Notker, and dehein(ig) is not contained in the entire texts of Isidor and Tatian – I additionally investigated the entire texts of Otfrid and Notker. All occurrences of dehein were categorized according to the type of context they appear in, i. e. [– affec, – neg], [+ affec, – neg] and [+ affec, + neg] contexts. The results from this investigation as illustrated in (347) support the proposed NPI status of dehein(ig):

190


(347)

Distribution of OHG dehein(ig) and variants

Otfrid: thihein/thehein(ig)

Notker: dehein/dohein

20

20

15

15

10

10

5

5

0

0 -affec, - +affec, - +affec, neg neg +neg

-affec, - +affec, - +affec, neg neg +neg

Dehein(ig) is evidently only licensed in affective contexts. It is lacking in [– affec, – neg] contexts.174 Thus Danielsen’s (1968) characterization of dehein(ig) as decidedly positive is not adequate. This is partly due to his failure to differentiate [± affec] contexts. Dehein(ig) cannot be said to be generally licensed in positive contexts. The basic contexts that Kelle (1881), Behaghel (1913), Lloyd et al. (1998) and Braune/Reiffenstein (2004) mention are all affective contexts.175 In both texts, dehein(ig) is predominantly used in [+ affec, – neg] contexts. Among these [+ affec, – neg] licensing contexts for dehein(ig) in Otfrid and Notker there are: •

the complement position of āna (‘without’)

(348)

theist ouh fésti ubar ál/ ána theheinig zwíval that-is also fix above all without any doubt ‘That is definitely the case without any doubt’ O V. 11, 14

174 However, there is one possible counterexample in Otfrid: Sin drút thehein ther wúrti / er síneru gibúrti, // firnám thaz scolti wérdan tház ‘One of his friends who was born before him had heard that that was going to happen’ (O IV 5, 63). Behaghel (1913: 179) also quotes this sentence as a “quite singular” (“ganz vereinzelt”) example. There is another case, but this in fact corroborates the NPI status of thehein since it receives a free-choice reading just as anyone would as opposed to someone: thehein thes muate horti / in sulicheru noti. ‘Anyone would listen to their heart in such trouble’ (O IV 13, 52). 175 In fact, Behaghel’s (1913) rare examples of dehein in ‘affirmative’ contexts also constitute weak NPI contexts that would license any in English (e. g. daz du den iemer hazzen muost, deme dehein ere geschiht Iw. 141 ‘that you must always hate him, who any honour is given to’).

3.5


•

conditionals

(349)

•

191

War imo sulih man thihein so quami wisheiti heim was him such man any so came wisdom home ‘if he had any such man, wisdom would come home’ O II. 4, 13

the standard of comparison

(350)

Vuanda rêinerun/ lîchamen/ sêla kîbest dû mir. danne dehêin because purer body soul give you me than any corpus uuerden múge. body become may ‘because you give me a spiritual body purer than any body may be’ N Ps 50 (= 177, 12-14)

•

clauses dependent on negated matrix clauses or on adversative matrix predicates

(351)

Nist ther io gihogeti in alleru worolti,/ thaz kuning NEG-is who ever remembered in all world that king thihein fuari mit sulicheru zieri any went with such adornment ‘There is no one in all the world who would remember that any king ever went with such adornment’ O IV. 4, 24

Dehein(ig) is also used in the scope of negation, i. e. in [+ affec, + neg] contexts, but clearly less often. (352)

Nals taz got mit munde/ unde mit násun dehêinen hûoh tûe . NEG that god with mouth and with nose any breath do

192


nube daz ... but that ‘Not that God would breathe with mouth and nose, but that ...’ N Ps 2, 4 (= 11, 10f.) The contexts listed above are clearly all NPI contexts (cf. chpt. 3.1 above). Thus the apparently random range of licensing contexts for dehein(ig) observed in the literature can be captured in a unified account of dehein(ig) by stating that it is a weak NPI, i. e. is lexically specified as [+ affec]. Accordingly, it is not surprising that one major licensing context for dehein(ig) is also the complement position of āna (‘without’) – a fact that seems to have gone unnoticed in the literature so far. The equivalents of ‘without’ are known to license NPIs in various languages (in some languages even n-indefinites). This is quite expected against the background of the Neghierarchy (cf. chpt. 3.1 above). Just as sentential negation proper, the complement position of ‘without’ constitutes an antimorphic context, i. e. the strongest type of negative context. Since dehein(ig) is never used as the only means of identifying negation in OHG, it is not an n-indefinite but an NPI corresponding to English any, as observed by Lockwood (1968). In contrast to Eroms’s (1993) statement that dehein/kein started out as a ‘neg-strengthener’, my investigation of the distribution of this element in OHG texts thus reveals that it originally was a special indefinite NPI-determiner used in affective contexts. It served to ‘strengthen’ negation just as little as any does in present-day English. Einig Several indefinites in OHG occur in variants with and without the suffix -ig. This is true for instance of the determiners dehein/deheinig as well as nihein/ niheinig. Whereas with these, the suffix makes no particular difference in meaning or in distribution, the determiners ein and einig differ. Ein, which is used as the numeral ‘one’ and also starts to be used as the indefinite determiner ‘a’ (cf. Karg-Gasterstädt et al./AWB 1971: 128, Kelle 1881: 93, Lloyd et al. 1998: 989f., Splett 1993: 172, Philippi 1997), appears under negation as well as in positive clauses. It is not restricted according to [± affec, ± neg]. Einig, on the other hand, is more restricted in its distribution. As I will demonstrate, OHG einig is in fact a weak NPI just as dehein(ig), and thus not simply a variant of ein but a different lexeme. In contrast to dehein(ig), the NPI-indefinite einig is already attested in the earliest texts of my OHG corpus.

3.5


193

This prooves Behaghel’s (1913: 181) statement wrong that einig only stepped in later for deheinig with the meaning equivalent to Latin ullus. The proposed NPI-status of einig is all the more plausible in view of the fact that the OHG form einig corresponds directly to Old English ǃnig, the predecessor of the Modern English NPI any. Furthermore Dutch enig in the meaning of ‘any’ is still restricted to NPI contexts (Hedde Zeijlstra, p. c.): (353)

Heb jij enig idee wat dat zou kunnen betekenen? Have you any idea what that shall can mean – ?/*Ja, ik heb enig idee. Yes I have any idea ‘Do you have any idea what that could mean? – Yes, I have some idea.’

A few comments in the literature already indicate the NPI character of OHG einig. Braune/Reiffenstein (2004: 253) state that this indefinite, too, occurs only in negative clauses, questions and several kinds of dependent clauses. Karg-Gasterstädt et al. (1971: 191-194) mention as syntactic contexts for einig: negated clauses, ‘negated phrases’ (phrases with āna ‘without’ and noch ‘nor’), questions, conditional clauses, dependent interrogative clauses, clauses dependent on negated matrix clauses, ‘modal clauses’, ‘hypothetic clauses’ (counterfactuals), certain attributive clauses (restrictors of universal quantifiers). Furthermore, they report that einig is used to translate Latin ullus in glosses, which also corroborates the hypothesis that einig is an NPI since ullus is an NPI in Latin.176 Similarly, Lockwood (1968: 79) lists einig as another historical German equivalent of Modern English any. Fobbe (2004) found OHG einig only in questions, conditionals and clauses dependent on matrix negation – interestingly not in negated clauses. In order to elucidate further the syntactic distribution of einig, I analysed all occurences of einig in the entire texts of Tatian, Isidor and Otfrid in addition to my core OHG corpus.177 For a correct interpretation of the results, it 176

According to Karg-Gasterstädt et al. (1971: 193), einig is rarely found in non-negated matrix clauses. The only example they give is: einig [est denique] quoddam (Ms. aliquod). However, this example is inconclusive, especially since the manuscript apparently has aliquod rather than quoddam. 177 In Notker’s Psalter, for which no digitalized version was available, I checked the first 50 pages of text in the edition by Tax (1979): Up to Ps 18, 13 (page 58, line 26) there are no occurrences of einig at all.

194


is crucial to differentiate the indefinite einig meaning ‘any’ from the adjective einig meaning ‘unique/alone/single’.178 Whereas the former corresponds to Old English ǃnig, the latter is the equivalent of Old English ānga (cf. Karg-Gasterstädt et al. 1971: 171, 191).179 Occasionally, it is hard to differentiate the two lexemes. A phrase consisting of einig in isolation or einig and a noun, for instance, is in principle syntactically ambiguous between a DP including the indefinite determiner einig and a bare NP including the adjective einig: (354)

(nec apostolus dicit [...]nec creatura cognouit) Dhazs ni saget apostolus [...] noh einic chiscaft ni archennida. That NEG says apostle nor any creature NEG reckognized ‘Neither does the apostle say that [...] nor did any creature reckognize it’ Is II, 3

In the example above, the Latin original is not conclusive either, because there is no equivalent to einig in the Latin text. However, this fact in turn hints at einig being a determiner, added in to clarify that the Latin bare NP creatura is indeed to be understood as an indefinite DP: Determiners are often added in OHG compared to the Latin originals, whereas APs are not. In many cases, the Latin original is helpful for differentiating indefinite and adjectival einig. The former occurs as a translation of Latin quisquam or quis, or, in combination with the neg-particle ni on the finite verb in OHG also as a translation of Latin nullus,180 the latter translates Latin unicus or unigenitus. Furthermore, in OHG DPs including a form of the definite determiner ther (‘the’) or possessive min (‘my’), sin (‘his’) etc. that takes up the determiner position, einig clearly occurs as an adjective. This is often corroborated

178

Since the 16th century, German adjectival einig is attested with the Modern German meaning ‘in agreement/of one opinion’, cf. Pfeifer 1989: 340f. 179 Note that Modern Dutch enig preserves both uses. Besides the NPI-use corresponding to ‘any’, it is also used as an adjective meaning ‘only’/’unique’: Dat is de enige manier om het te doen ‘That is the only way to do this’, Wat een enige jurk heb je aan! ‘What a unique(/great) skirt you are wearing!’. Furthermore, it is used in a similar way to the Modern German determiner einig ‘a little/a few/some’: Ik heb wel enig vertrouwen in hem ‘I do put some trust in him/I trust him’ (Hedde Zeijlstra, p.c.). 180

There is one case where it translates Latin aliquis in a question: Numquid aliquis ex principibus credidit in eum aut ex Phariseis? – Enoni ening fon then heriston/ giloubta In Inan odo fon then pharisęis? T 213, 6f.

3.5

195


by the contextual meaning, cf. phrases such as ther gotes einigo sun ‘God’s only son’ (O II. 3, 23). The graphs in (355) illustrate the distribution of all occurrences of einig across the three main types of contexts in the entire texts of Isidor, Tatian and Otfrid, additionally differentiated according to indefinite and adjectival einig: (355)

Distribution of OHG einig einig in Tatian

einig in Isidor 4

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

3 2 1 0 [-affec, - [+affec, - [+affec, neg] neg] +neg] indefinite

adjective

[-affec, - [+affec, - [+affec, neg] neg] +neg] indefinite

adjective

einig in Otfrid 20 15 10 5 0

[-affec, - [+affec, - [+affec, neg] neg] +neg] indefinite

adjective

Note that einig occurs only as an indefinite in Isidor but only as an adjective in Otfrid181. Tatian has both uses. Adjectival einig is used in all three main types 181

Compare also Kelle (1881: 94f.).

196


of contexts as is evident from the graphs above, mostly in affirmative contexts. Just as would be expected, it is no polarity-sensitive item. In the context of the present study, it is only the indefinite einig that is relevant, i. e. the light grey columns in the graphs in (355). Just as dehein(ig), the indefinite einig is indeed restricted to affective contexts, both negative and non-negative ones. Thus, it may occur in the scope of negation:182 (356)

(Neque enim mendax esse potest osee propheta, qui dicit ...) Noh einich lughin ni mac uuesan osee propheta, dher quhad ... nor any liar NEG may be Osee prophet who said ‘nor may the prophet Osee be a liar, who said ...’ Is VIII 3

Besides, the following [+ affec, – neg] contexts for the indefinite determiner einig are attested: •

yes/no-questions:

(357)

(numquid aliquis ex principibus/ credidit In eum aut ex enoni ening fon then heriston/ giloubta In Inan odo fon PART any of the lords/ believed in him or of pharisæis?) then phariseis? the pharisees ‘And did any of the lords or the pharisees believe in him?!’ T 213, 6f.

•

conditionals:

(358)

(Quodsi de cyro persarum rege quis hoc crediderit prophetatum) Ibu dhanne einic chilaubit, dhazs dhiz fona cyre persero chuninge if then anyone believes that this by Cyrus Persian king sii chiforabodot ... was predicted ...

182

In contrast to the results in Fobbe (2004).

3.5


197

‘If anyone believes that this was predicted by the Persian king Cyrus ...’ Is III 3 •

the complement position of āna/ ūzzan (‘without’):

(359)

(et antequam tempus uirginis parturiendi ueniret, enti aer danne dera magadi ziit biquami za gaberanne, and before than the maiden time came to give-birth genuit eum sine tempore pater.) gabar inan fater ano einigero ziteo bigin. gave-birth to-him father without any time beginning ‘and before the time came for the virgin to give birth, he was born by the father without/beyond any time’ Is II 1

(360)

(procul dubio [...] cognoscitur) buuzssan einigan zuuiuun ist dhanne archennit, dhazs ... without any doubt is then recognized that ‘It is recognized without any doubt that ...’ Is VI 5

These contexts are of course typical weak NPI contexts so that, just as its English cognate any, einig should indeed be classed as a weak NPI, i. e. as being lexically specified as [+ affec].183 As the figures in (355) show, the majority of occurences of the indefinite einig is, found in negative contexts, that is in the semantic scope of sentential negation. In this respect einig differs from dehein(ig) that was used mostly in [+ affec, – neg] contexts, cf. (347). On the other hand, einig behaves just as dehein(ig) in that it is licensed in affective contexts and therefore is to be considered a weak NPI. If one compares the weak NPI contexts that the two indefinites are licensed in, they are both attested in the complement position of 183

Like any, einig is used with plural nouns (e. g. ano einigero ziteo bigin ‘before the begin of times’ Is II 2). Einig is also licensed as a subject in negated clauses. However, it is ccommanded by some neg-marker in all those cases, e. g. Is VIII 3 cf. example (356), Is III 3 cf. example (369), just as is possible for subject any, e. g. ... nor will anyone come.

198


âna ‘without’, as mentioned above, a context of equal negative strength to sentential negation (antimorphic context), and in conditionals. On the other hand in contrast to dehein(ig), einig is not attested in the standard of comparison or clauses dependent on negated or adversative matrix predicates, but in questions, which belong to the weakest type of context on the Neghierarchy (chpt. 3.1. above), viz. non-veridical contexts. In other words, while there is no direct evidence for this from my data for dehein(ig) – it is probably simply not be attested in all contexts in the investigated texts, by coincidence – einig is licensed in the strongest as well as in the weakest affective contexts. 3.5.4. OHG n-indefinites The OHG series of n-indefinites is widely attested in my corpus from Isidor, Tatian, Otfrid and Notker, in which the following n-indefinites occur: •

nihein(ig)/nohein/nehein

‘no’/‘none’/‘noone’

•

neowihd/niowiht/niwiht/nieht

‘nothing’(/‘in no way’)

•

neoman/nioman/neman/niman

‘nobody’

•

neo/nio(mer)

‘never’/‘no more’

The fact that there is also a temporal n-indefinite in OHG contradicts Coombs (1976) who claims that there are no such n-indefinites in OHG. On the other hand, my findings support Wheelock LaBrum’s (1982: 210) statement that there are no local n-indefinites such as *niowergin (for wergin ‘somewhere’) which is, however, listed in Köbler’s (1993: 827) OHG dictionary, or nioner which is, however, attested in Notker and Williram according to Schützeichel (1995: 223). These local n-indefinites were obviously very rare and are presumably simply by chance not attested in my corpus. However, they are not mentioned in the section on sentential negation in Schrodt (2004: 135f.), either. Based on their morphological make-up, there are basically three different types of n-indefinites in OHG: ni+indefinite, n(i)+io+indefinite and nih-/neh-+indefinite. The neg-morpheme ni- of n-indefinites such as niwiht or niman is obviously formally identical with the neg-particle ni.184 Typologically speaking, this is a common state of affairs: According to Bernini/Ramat (1996: 29) there are only few exceptions to this amongst the Indoeuropean languages. However, the n-indefinites were already fully lexicalized in OHG and not synchronically formed with the neg-particle (cf. Behaghel 1918: 229f.). The ni184

This is also true for instance for niwedar ‘neither’, formed on the basis of the wh-element wedar ‘which one (of the two)’ rather than an indefinite.

3.5


199

morpheme of the OHG n-indefinites should therefore not be considered as an instance of the OHG neg-particle ni (cf. chpt. 2.4.1. above). Note, however, that this assumption is often tacitly made in the literature (e. g. by Naumann 1915: 29, Paul 1920: 330, Admoni 1990: 27/46, Lockwood 1968: 207 “The particle could be repeated before an indefinite pronoun, combining with it to give rise to a new word”, Paardekooper 2002). Etymologically, these n-indefinites may have been composed of a neg-particle and an indefinite part. They would thus correspond to Haspelmath’s (1997: 229f.) type of ‘diacronic negabsorption’, evidently modelled on Klima’s (1964) concept of negative absorption whereby the sentential negation that starts out higher up in the clause is absorbed into and thus surfaces on an indefinite.185 Or they could diachronically be analysed in terms of a reduction of a syntactic shell structure of a former NegP and a focus projection dependent on it, that presumably hosted the indefinite, into a single XP that was eventually collapsed into a new form (cf. Simpson/Wu 2002: 304 for Latin non < ne oenum). At any rate, the nindefinites are already lexicalized in OHG and are not synchronically derived in syntax. Thus, it would be wrong to analyse the following examples as the neg-particle occurring once on the indefinite and once on the verb, or as the nindefinite appearing as a unit in on case and syntactically split up in the second case (as suggested by Paardekooper 2002): (361)

(& benefacite. & mutuum date./ nihil disperantes.) Inti tuot ín uuola. Inti uuehsalgeb&/ niuuiht zuruuanenti and do them good and each-other-give nothing hoping ‘and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return’ T 66, 14f.

(362)

(& sine Ipso/ factum est nihil) Inti ûzzan sín/ ni uuas uuiht gitanes and without him NEG was (any)thing made ‘And without him, nothing was made’ T 25, 21f.

Rather, there was a choice in OHG whether to use an NPI-indefinite or an nindefinite in the scope of negation. As a general rule, the neg-particle appeared 185

The sources for n-indefinites according to Haspelmath (1997) are: (i) non-negative scalar focus particle, (ii) negative scalar focus particle, (iii) diachronic negative absorption, (iv) minimal-unit expressions, (v) maximal-unit expressions.

200


on the finite verb in negated clauses, irrespective of whether an indefinite occurred and of which type the indefinite was. However occasionally, an nindefinite was used as the only neg-marker in the clause (see discussion chpt. 3.5.6. below). In most cases, the verbal neg-particle ni was used even when there was already an n-indefinite in the clause, which again demonstrates that the ni-morpheme on n-indefinites is not the neg-particle ni, since the latter could, and in the vast majority of cases does, occur in addition and – as described above – only on the verb. Besides n-indefinites such as niwiht and niman, there are ones , such as niowiht and nioman that include the free-choice or polarity morpheme -ioderived from the NPI-indefinite io ‘ever’. In terms of Haspelmath’s (1997) typology of diachronic sources for n-indefinites, they arguably belong to the type derived from what Haspelmath calls negative scalar focus particles. These are for instance formed on the basis of the number ‘one’, the generic noun ‘thing’, the indefinite ‘somebody’ or bare interrogatives. In the case of the OHG n-indefinite pronouns or generic nouns form the basis: niowiht ‘nothing’ is based on wiht ‘being/anything’, nioman ‘nobody’ on man ‘man, person, human’. According to Haspelmath (1997: 222), n-indefinites that are derived from negative scalar focus particles often encompass the focus particle ‘not, not even’. The morpheme -io- could be interpreted in this way as a scalar focus particle. This analysis is supported by the correlation that Haspelmath observes with NC: in contrast to languages with n-indefinites formed by diachronic negative absorption, languages in which the n-indefinites are derived from negative scalar focus particles generally display a concordant neg-marking of the verb and the indefinite. This is indeed the standard pattern in OHG (see chpt. 3.5.6 below). The third type of n-indefinite in OHG is found in nehein/nihein/nohein. These are derived from the numeral ‘one’ in combination with a morpheme corresponding to Protoindoeuropean *ne-kue ‘and not’.186 The noh- in nohein can be linked to OHG noh ‘and not/nor’ with semantic change from ‘until now’ to ‘and not’ according to Lloyd et al. 1998: 562f.. Syntactically, the OHG n-indefinites are restricted to the scope of negation, i. e. [+ affec, + neg] contexts, just as their counterparts in Modern German. In my OHG corpus, there are no cases of n-indefinites other than in the scope of negation.187 In crosslinguistic perspective, the OHG n-indefinites 186

Again, this formation could arguably be subsumed under Haspelmath’s (1997) type of nindefinites derived from negative scalar focus particles. 187 O I. 1, 93f. – mistakingly classed as an instance of an n-indefinite occurring in a nonnegated context in Jäger (2005) – does not constitute a counterexample: Nist untar ìn thaz

3.5


201

therefore resemble the n-indefinites of languages such as English and differ from those in languages such as Spanish or Ukranian that are also licensed in certain weak NPI contexts (see chpt. 3.1. above). In contrast to NPI-indefinites, n-indefinites may occur as the only negmarker in a clause in OHG (for a detailed discussion see chapters 3.5.6. and 3.5.9 below): (363)

(In quo nondum quisquam/ positus fuerat.) Inthemo noh nu níoman/ Ingisezzit uuas. in-which still now nobody put was ‘in which nobody had been put yet’ T 322, 5f.

They also give rise to a negative interpretation in elliptical contexts, which further differentiates them from NPIs:188 (364)

firmonêt thih hiar nû iaman? niaman, quad si listens you here now anybody nobody said she ‘Does anybody listen to you here? – Nobody, said she.’ O III. 17, 56

Furthermore, all OHG n-indefinites are clearly morphologically marked for negation by the morpheme n(i)-. This distinguishes them from n-indefinites that are not morphologically neg-marked as they occur for instance in Romance languages and also partly in MHG and Modern German, notably in the case of kein ‘no/none’ that originated in the NPI dehein (see chpt. 3.6.4. below). 3.5.5. Indefinite determination in the scope of negation in OHG According to the system of indefinites as described above, there are three syntactic patterns that a full indefinite NP in the scope of negation can take: It can occur with the ‘normal’ indefinite determiner ein, with the non-neg-marked thúlte thaz kúning iro uuálte/ in uuórolti nihéine ni si thíe sie zugun héime ‘There is no one among them who would bear a king to reign over them, none in the world other than those they raised at home’. 188 The example is taken from Kelle (1881: 424). The only example in the corpus is from Tatian but converges with the Latin original: numquid aliquid defuit uobis/ at illi dixerunt nihil. – eno uuas íu iouuiht thes uuan/ sie quadun imo niouuiht. ‘Did you lack anything? They answered him: Nothing.’ (T 282,4f.).

202


NPI determiner dehein(ig) or einig, or with the n-indefinite determiner nihein. All three patterns are in fact attested in the scope of negation. •

‘normal’ indefinite determiner ein:

(365)

•

(& ipsi uno digito/ uestro non tangitis sarcinas.) Inti ir mit einemo fingare/ íuuueremo niruoret thia burdin. And you with a finger yours NEG-touch the burden ‘and do not touch the burden with a single finger of yours’ T 246, 26f.

indefinite NPI-determiner dehein(ig), einig:

(366)

a.

Ni mag thiu worolt, wizit thaz, / haben in iu theheinan NEG can the world, know that, have in you any haz, hatred ‘You must know that the world cannot bear any hatred against you’ O III. 15, 29

b.

•

(& neque catenis/ iam quisquam eum poterat ligare) noh mit k&inon/ giu mohta ín einig mán gibintan nor with chains once could him any man bind ‘nor could any man bind him with chains’ T 87, 12f.

n-indefinite determiner nihein(ig):

(367)

ni si mán nihein so úeigi NEG be man none so cowardly ‘No man shall be so cowardly’ O I. 11, 10

All three types of determiners could be used both adnominally and pronominally, i. e. with or without an N0 already in OHG and throughout their history.

3.5


(368)

(Videte ne condemnatis/ unum ex his pussillis) gisehet thaz ir ni uornidaret/ einan fon thesen luzilon see that you NEG despise one of these little ones ‘Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones’ T 153,1f.

(369)

a.

203

(quia nullus in regno israhel cyrus est dictus.) In andra uuiis ni uuardh eo einic in israhelo riihhe cyrus in other way NEG was ever any in Israel kingdom Cyrus chinemnit. called ‘Otherwise, no one had ever been called Cyrus in the kingdom of Israel’ Is III, 3

b.

zi ¡n sprah / thar er sie f¡sgon gisah, Oba ¡ro thehein to them said when he them fishing saw if they anyone wiht habeti / thes in in weidu zaweti, anything had that them in haul granted-was ‘... asked them when he saw them fishing whether anyone of them had caught anything’ O V. 13, 9189

(370)

189

(& precepit/ illis. ne cui dicerent.) gibot her/ in tho thaz sie niheinagamo nisagatin told he them then that they none NEG-said ‘He told them not to tell anyone’ T 130, 15f.

This is of course an example of pronominal dehein(ig) in a non-negative affective context, viz. a question. In my OHG data, there are no instances of dehein(ig) with an empty noun in the scope of negation. However, this is probably only due to the low overall number of occurrences of dehein(ig).

204


Besides, there is a fourth syntactic pattern of full indefinite NPs in the scope of negation viz. indefinite bare NPs, that is NPs without any determiner. •

bare NP/no determiner:

(371)

(& non erat illis filius.) Inti niuuard In sun. and NEG-was them son ‘and they had no son’ T 26, 6

The four patterns of indefinite determination in the scope of negation, that are also found in other languages,190 are thus as given in table (372): (372)

Syntactic patterns of indefinite determination in the scope of negation

no Det/bare NP ∅

‘normal’ indefinite Det ein

indefinite NPI-Det n-indefinite Det einig, dehein(ig)

nihein(ig)

In contrast to the latter two patterns, which only occur in affective contexts, the first two are not restricted in their distribution.191 The proportions of the four patterns possible in the scope of negation, i. e. bare NPs and NPs determined by ein, einig, dehein(ig) or nihein(ig) are given for each text in the OHG corpus in (373).

190

Compare for instance English where in the scope of negation the indefinite determiners a, any, no occur (cf. table (305) above), but also bare NPs are used (for instance with indefinite plurals). 191 In contrast to Modern German where bare NPs are generally only possibly in the case of indefinite plurals or mass nouns, whereas ein is used with indefinite singular nouns (though both hardly appear under negation where kein is generally used), in OHG, bare NPs are also common in the case of indefinite singulars and, even more strikingly, ein is also used with indefinite plurals: las ih ... in einen buahhon ‘I read in a book (pl.)’, fora einen ôstaron ‘before Easter’ (Otfrid). This pattern is still attested in MHG: daz was in einen zîten dô vrou Helche erstarp ‘that was at a time when Lady Helche died’ (Nib).

3.5

205


(373)

Proportions of OHG patterns of indefinite determination in the scope of negation

60

57

50 bare NP

40

ein 30

einig

20 10 0

dehein(ig)

16 5

6 1

0 0 Isidor

5 3

0 Tatian

9

8 001 Otfrid

nihein(ig) 6

5

00 1 Notker

The figure shows that the two main patterns of full indefinite NPs in the scope of negation in OHG are bare NPs and those with the determiner nihein(ig). This confirms Behaghel’s (1913: 179) statement that, while dehein and nehein are equivalently used in negated clauses, nehein prevails in OHG. (According to Behaghel, this state of affairs continues until the end of the 12th century). In Contrast to MHG and especially Modern German, bare NPs are generally common in OHG since the indefinite article ein only began to be grammaticalized (on the rise of articles in Late OHG/MHG cf. Lockwood 1968: 90, Oubouzar 1992, Leiss 1994, Philippi 1997). This also explains why it only occurs so rarely under negation. The two NPI determiners einig and dehein(ig) do not equally occur in all texts. The early texts of Tatian and Isidor make use of the NPI determiner einig. In Isidor, this is even the standard syntactic pattern under negation, besides bare NPs. The second NPI determiner, dehein(ig), is generally rare. It only occurs in Otfrid and Notker (see 3.5.3. above). The variety of syntactic patterns of indefinite determination in the scope of negation in OHG contrasts with Modern German where mostly only one pattern, viz. an NP determined by the n-indefinite kein ‘no’ is used (see chpt. 3.4. above).

206


3.5.6. OHG Negative Concord and competing syntactic patterns Since OHG possesses a series of n-indefinites, negation can in principle be marked more than once in clauses containing an indefinite pronoun, determiner or adverb in the scope of negation. Alternatively, negation could be marked only by the neg-particle on the verb while a non-n-indefinite is used, or through the n-indefinite only without the additional neg-particle on the verb. (374)

Basic syntactic patterns of clauses with indefinites in the scope of negation in OHG:

•

I

Neg0 ni on V, n-indefinite (NC)

•

II

Neg0 ni on V, no neg-marking on the indefinite (NPI indef. or ‘normal’ indefinite)

•

III

no Neg0 ni on V, n-indefinite

All three syntactic patterns are attested in the OHG corpus. Firstly, negation can be marked on both the verb (Neg0 ni) and on the indefinite resulting in NC, as illustrated in (375) and (376). •

I

(375)

Neg0 ni on V, n-indefinite (NC): n-indefinite before ni+V: (Nemo potest duobus dominis seruire) Nioman nimag zuueion herron thionon nobody NEG-can two lords serve ‘Nobody can serve two lords’ T 69, 29

(376)

n-indefinite after ni+V: (& non respondit ei/ ad ullum uerbum) Inti niantligita imo/ zi noheinigemo uuorte and NEG-answered him to no word ‘And did not answer to a single word’ T 310, 16f.

3.5


207

OHG can accordingly be classed as an NC-language, just as some Modern German dialects, but in contrast to Modern Standard German. This confirms the typological correlation between the syntactic status of the neg-particle and NC discussed in chpt. 3.2 above: OHG with its Neg0 neg-particle ni is correctly predicted to display NC. Note also that OHG allows the neg-particle to cooccur with an n-indefinite that is preverbal as well as postverbal unlike languages such as Italian or Spanish. OHG thus differs from non-strict NC language. However, OHG does not consistently display NC. Negation can also be marked just on the verb but not on the indefinite. In this case an indefinite without a formal neg-feature, a special NPI-indefinite or a ‘normal’ indefinite, is used instead of the corresponding n-indefinite, as in (377) and (378). •

II

(377)

Neg0 ni on V, no neg-marking on the indefinite: indefinite before ni+V: er then dróst habeti Er tothes íó ni chóreti, er he death ever NEG chose before he the consolation had ‘He never chose death before he had this consolation’ O I. 15, 7

(378)

indefinite after ni+V: (& sine Ipso/ factum est nihil) gitanes Inti ûzzan sín/ ni uuas uuiht and without him NEG was (any)thing made ‘And without him, nothing was made’ T 25, 21f.

Thirdly, negation can be marked just on the indefinite but not on the verb: •

III

(379)

n-indefinite, no Neg0 ni on V: (In quo nondum quisquam/ positus fuerat.) Inthemo noh nu níoman/ Ingisezzit uuas. in-which still now nobody put was ‘in which nobody had been put yet’ T 322, 5f.

208


I investigated the distribution of these three patterns in my corpus of negated clauses from Isidor, Tatian, Otfrid and Notker. (380)

Distribution of negation patterns I, II and III in OHG192 I (NC: ni+V, n-indef.) 18 % (2) 87% (60) 35% (6) 85% (11) 56 %

Isidor Tatian Otfrid Notker average (381)

II (ni+V, indef.) 82% (9) 9% (6) 65% (11) 8% (1) 41 %

III (V, n-indef) 0% (0) 4% (3) 0% (0) 8% (1) 3%

Distributional graphs for negation patterns I, II and III in OHG Isidor

0

2

Tatian

I: NC

I: NC

3

6

II: only neg-part.

II: only neg-part. 60

III: only n-indef.

9

Otfrid

0

III: only n-indef.

Notker

I: NC 6

1

1

I: NC

II: only neg-part.

II: only neg-part.

11 III: only n-indef.

192

11

III: only n-indef.

Note that the total numbers are lower than the number of indefinites listed in table (344) above for several reasons: (i) Here, I counted clauses rather than individual indefinites. Some of these clauses contain several indefinites. (ii) A number of indefinites occur in clauses with V-ellipsis so that the respective clause does not fall into any of the three categories. (iii) For the investigation of OHG NC, only examples that diverge from Latin with respect to the syntax of negation were included from the translations of Tatian and Isidor, i. e. clauses that contain more neg-markers or mark negation on a different element compared to the Latin original.

3.5


209

Table (380) presents the results of this quantitative corpus study which are further illustrated by the graphs in (381). The first pattern, i. e. Negative Concord, is somehwat surprisingly the most common pattern in OHG and can be found already in the earliest texts. This contradicts Admoni’s (1990: 46f.) statement that OHG was predominantly ‘mononegative’ and that NC only rose in Late OHG. It rather supports Lockwood’s (1968: 209) view that n-indefinites commonly co-occur with the negative particle in OHG (cf. also Donhauser 1998, Schrodt 2004: 136). Patterns two with a non-neg-marked indefinite and three with no negmarking on the verb but only an n-indefinite are less frequent on the whole, with no occurrences at all of pattern three in Otfrid and Isidor. This coincides with Donhauser’s (1998: 291) observation that Otfrid uses the neg-particle ni more consistently also in addition to n-indefinites than Tatian. These results support the hypothesis that, in OHG negated sentences, ni obligatorily occurred on the verb (see chpt. 2.4.1. above). The fact that pattern II is chosen at all in examples such as (377) and (378) contradicts Abraham’s (2003: 351) generalization for OHG and MHG that simple Neg0 is not sufficient for sentential negation in clauses with an overt middle field (i. e. NC/pattern I should be obligatory). From this generalization he also concludes that simple ni is illicit in verb-final clauses. (377) shows that this does not hold either. More generally, (377) and (378) contradict Abraham’s (2003: 343) Asymmetrical Neg-Criterion (see also chpt. 2.5.3. above) according to which SpecNegP must be filled (under the assumption, that is not shared here, that n-indefinites also occupy SpecNegP) in order to realize Neg0 but not vice versa. Accordingly, one would predict a large number of clauses where negation is marked on the indefinite only, but no examples where it is marked by Neg0 ni on the verb only. The opposite is the case: Negmarking on the indefinite only (pattern III) is marginal and even not attested at all in two of the four texts I investigated. Lack of neg-marking on the indefinite and neg-marking on the verb only (pattern II) is comparatively common and even the majority pattern in two of the four texts. Abraham’s Asymmetrical Neg-Criterion thus fails to capture OHG NC, in contrast to his own claim (Abraham 2003: 344). Neg0 could appear without an overt neg-element in SpecNegP, or anywhere else in the clause for that matter, in OHG. In this respect OHG differs from languages such as West Flemish as described in Haegeman (1995) where Neg0 only occurs if there is

210


some negative XP in the clause. In my OHG corpus ni occurs on average about 15 times as often on its own as together with an n-indefinite.193 The individual texts differ quite considerably with respect to patterns I and II. Pattern II with negation marked on the verb only but not on the indefinite is even more frequent than pattern I, i. e. NC, in Isidor and Otfrid. This corresponds to Wheelock LaBrum’s (1982: 211) conclusion that Otfrid generally preferred to use a ‘positive’ indefinite and mark negation on the verb only.194 Both in the OHG Tatian and in Notker’s translation of the psalms, on the other hand, the NC-pattern makes up 85% or more of all constructions with indefinites in the scope of negation. Thus NC is clearly the standard pattern in these texts. As is particularly evident from the graphs above, Isidor thus patterns with Otfrid, Tatian with Notker. This result cannot entirely be attributed to similarities in the respective dialects. Isidor and Otfrid are both written in the Central German dialect of South Rhine Franconian, on the other hand, Tatian is written in the Central German dialect of East Franconian but Notker’s works are written in the Upper German dialect of Alemannic. Instead, one will probably have to take the type of text into consideration. Isidor, for example, represents a highly scholarly, argumentative theological work. NC might have been considered ‘unlogical’ in this context. Notker’s psalm commentary is possibly closer to everyday language in that respect. Note, however, that the absolute numbers from Isidor are very low because the entire text contains only few negated clauses. Accordingly, the negation data from Isidor should generally be treated with due caution. The translation of Tatian aimed to provide the OHG reader with an understanding of the Latin text, including certain Latin constructions. In so far as it is generally not considered a very free translation, the amount of NC, 87% of all clauses with indefinites in the scope of negation, is quite astonishing since NC constructions necessarily deviate from the Latin original. On the other hand, the Latin original may have led the translators to chose an n-indefinite more often than an NPI or ‘normal’ indefinite. As the preverbal neg193

T: 956 negated clauses, 873 incl. Neg0 ni, of which 60 incl. n-indefinite, Is: 49 negated clauses, 46 incl. Neg0 ni, of which 2 incl. n-indefinite, O: of 100 negated clauses 93 incl. Neg0 ni, of which 6 incl. n-indefinite, N: of 100 negated clauses 88 incl. Neg0 ne, of which 11 incl. n-indefinite (in addition 4 with second neg-particle nieht). 194 With the exception of nehein, cf. Wheelock LaBrum (1982: 219). Donhauser (1998: 296), on the other hand, concludes that Isidor corresponds to Tatian and Otfrid w.r.t. the distribution of the different patterns. She mentions only one case of a non-n-indefinite occurring in the scope of negation in Isidor.

3.5


211

particle was apparently virtually obligatory in OHG clauses, they would add it in a large number of cases, producing a high ratio of NC (see chpt. 3.5.10. below). Otfrid explicitly acknowledges and accepts the difference of Latin and his own language with respect to NC in the dedication letter for his work,195 but in fact produces NC less often. On the other hand, this is linked to the special status of the indefinite uuiht in this text: Otfrid hardly ever uses the corresponding n-indefinite ni(o)wiht – in my corpus from Otfrid, it is not attested at all.196 Instead, uuiht is generally used. However, as discussed above (chpt. 2.4.5.), this uuiht occurs mostly in adverbial or ‘neg-strengthening’ function and is in the process of being grammaticalized as a second negparticle in Otfrid. Accordingly, one could argue that these cases should not be counted as instances of pattern II, a non-neg-marked indefinite with a negmarked verb. Excluding these cases with arguably neg-particle-like uuiht, the following picture emerges: (382)

Distributional graph for neg-patterns I, II and III in Otfrid (excluding adverbial/neg-particle-like uuiht)

Otfrid 0

I: NC

4 II: only neg-part. 6

III: only n-indef.

If ni-V + uuiht is treated as a separate pattern, the distribution in Otfrid is more comparable to that in Tatian and Notker in that, while it was not obligatory, NC clearly prevails. Under this perspective, there is an obvious contrast between Isidor and the later OHG texts, suggesting that the system changes quite considerably, which has recently also been argued for other phenomena such as verb placement or pro-drop by Axel (2005). With respect to indefinites in the scope of negation, my data suggest that there was more of a choice of the type 195

O, Ad Liutbertum, 95 – 99, see chpt. 3.5.10. below. Donhauser (1998: 295) also states that (ni)wiht forms an exceptional case in Otfrid: Almost only uuiht occurs; niawiht is only used three times according to Donhauser (O II 5, 12; O I 25, 27; O V 19, 57). However, Kelle (1881: 430f.) lists 18 occurrences of niawiht for the entire text.

196

212


of indefinite used in early OHG resulting in a lower rate of NC, whereas nindefinites were more consistenly chosen in the later texts. This diachronic scenario is all the more convincing since the development continued in the same direction: Indefinites virtually obligatorily took the form of n-indefinites in the scope of negation in MHG (see chpt. 3.6.7 below). In order to estimate how high the ratio of NC between the neg-particle and an n-indefinite is amongst all clauses where this kind of construction would in principle be possible, one could additionally include the competing syntactic pattern of indefinite bare NPs. Since these could have also occurred with the n-indefinite determiner nihein (cf. chpt. 3.5.5. above), they constitute further constructions where NC would have been possible but was not chosen. Thus taking into account in addition to all clauses containing indefinites, that we considered before, all clauses that do not contain any of these elements but do contain an indefinite bare NP, the ratios are as given in table (383): (383)

Ratio of NC amongst all clauses allowing NC

clauses with NC possible (= I+II+III+ indef. bare NPs) Isidor 15 Tatian 118 Otfrid 29 (without adv. uuiht: 22) Notker 16 average -

clauses with NC/ pattern I (ni+V, n-indef.) 2 = 13 % 60 = 51 % 6 = 21 % (without adv. uuiht: 27%) 11 = 69 % 38, 5 %

Again, Tatian patterns with Notker in using NC in more than half of all clauses where NC could in principle have occurred. Otfrid clearly has lower rates of NC, again depending on whether cases with adverbial uuiht are included. Isidor, the oldest text, shows the lowest rates of NC. The rates in Isidor and Tatian could possibly have been higher if it was not for the influence of the Latin originals: Virtually all indefinite bare NPs that appear in the scope of negation in these two texts correspond to a Latin bare NP (see chpt. 3.5.10.). Relative to the total number of all negated clauses in the OHG corpus, the percentage of pattern I (NC) is even lower: Isidor 4%, Tatian 6%, Otfrid 6%, Notker 11%. However, this is mainly due to the fact that not all negated sentences contain indefinites. The low rate of NC amongst negated sentences as a whole may be one reason why the phenomenon of NC in OHG has not received very much attention in the literature so far. Note that the overall ratios

3.5


213

of the OHG texts are quite similar to each other with a slight diachronic increase. NC is generally instantiated in OHG in the form of Negative Doubling, the co-occurrence of the preverbal neg-particle and an n-indefinite referred to here as pattern I. When several indefinites occur in the scope of negation, generally only one occurs as an n-indefinite, i. e. NC in the form of Neg-Spread is not a general rule in OHG. This fact has already been described in Behaghel (1918: 240) and Donhauser (1998: 297). Generally, as in Modern German, it is the first one of several indefinites that is neg-marked: (384)

(Deum nemo uidit umquam.) got nioman nigisah io in altere God nobody NEG-saw ever in ages ‘Nobody has ever seen god’ T 45, 21

Occasionally, the opposite pattern occurs, i. e. of two indefinites the second one is realized as an n-indefinite, even though both are inside the scope of negation: (385)

mih íó gómman nihein in min múat ni biréin. me ever man no in my mind NEG touched ‘No man ever crossed my mind’ O I. 5, 38

However, there is one example with Negative Spread from Tatian in my corpus: (386)

(cui nemo unquam/ hominum sedit) in theme neoman neo in aldere/ manno saz in which nobody never in ages of-man sat ‘in which no man ever sat’ T 189, 6f.

Taking into account the fact that occurrences of several indefinites in the scope of negation are generally rare and considering the fact that the translators used the second n-indefinite against the Latin original in this case, one may still take this individual example seriously enough to conclude that, even though NegDoubling was clearly the more common type of NC, Neg-Spread was at least

214


optionally possible in OHG. This is also supported by rare examples of NegSpread from other works by Notker, e. g.:197 (387)

(Quam non relicturam nemo umquam poterit esse securus) Tiu niom-er niomanne guis neuuirdet which never nobody sure NEG-becomes ‘which never will be certain to anybody’ Notker, Boethius 45, 15f.

(388)

dara-uuidere nioman nieht ke-tuon nemag. there-against nobody nothing do NEG-can ‘against which nobody can do anything’ Notker, Martianus Capella 112, 18f.

3.5.7. Other types of NC in OHG The phenomenon of NC is not restricted to the co-occurrence of the negation particle and an n-indefinite (Neg-Doubling) or possibly several n-indefinites (Neg-Spread), see chpt. 3.2. above. In OHG, there are also a few other types of NC. The preverbal neg-particle ni is for instance used in a concordant reading together with the negative disjunction noh (‘nor’) or the negative focus particle nalles (‘not’), compare also examples (101) and (102) above. (389)

(Neque peccatores in consilio iustorum.) Noh súndige ne-sizzent dánne in demo râte dero recton. nor sinners NEG-sit then in the council the righteous ‘nor do sinners sit in the council of the righteous’ N Ps 1, 5 (= 10, 11f.)

(390)

(non omnes capiunt/ uerbum istud.) nalles alle nigifahent/ thiz uuort. NEG all NEG-grasp this word ‘Not all do grasp this word’ T 161,17f.

In a number of cases, ni+V would be expected to co-occur with noh or nalles but is lacking due to ellipsis. But there are also cases in which there is a finite 197

I thank Jürg Fleischer for pointing these examples out to me.

3.5


215

verb but no neg-marking on it (see chpt. 2.4.4. above). Both noh and nalles can also co-occur with an n-indefinite, which constitutes further instances of NC: (391)

(nec / ab ullo potuit curari) noh / fon iro niheinigemo mohta uuesan giheilit nor by them noone could be healed ‘nor could be healed by any of them’ T 95,5f.

(392)

íú scal sin fon góte heil, nales fórahta nihéin. you shall be from god salvation NEG fear no ‘You shall receive salvation from God, not fear’ O I. 12, 8

It is even possible that noh is used together with ni on V and an n-indefinite so that negation is marked three times in one clause. There is one example of this in the OHG corpus: (393)

(neque patrem quis nouit nisi filius.) noh then fater niuueiz nioman nibi ther sun nor the father NEG-knows nobody if-not the son ‘nor does anybody know the father but the son’ T 104, 5

Yet, this is not always the case when it would be possible: Occasionally a nonn-indefinite or a bare NP is used instead of an n-indefinite that would constitute a third neg-marker, as in the following example where the NPI-determiner einig occurs, rather than nihein(ig). (394)

(nec creatura cognouit) noh einic chiscaft ni archennida. nor any creature NEG recognized ‘nor any creature recognized (it)’ Is II, 3

Finally, there is another syntactic pattern in the OHG corpus that could be subsumed under NC, viz. the co-occurrence of clause-initial (enu/inu) ni with the preverbal neg-particle:

216 (395)


(Num angelus ęqualem cum deo habet imaginem?) Inu ni angil nist anaebanchiliih gote? QPART NEG angel NEG-is similar god ‘Doesn’t the angel look like God?’ Is III, 5

Table (396) shows the number of occurrences of the additional NC patterns in the OHG corpus. (396)

Other types of NC in OHG

noh + ni on V Isidor 4 Tatian 38 Otfrid 2 Notker 8

noh + n-indefinite 2 (of which 1 + ni) -

nalles + ni on V 5 -

nalles + n-indefinite 1 -

enu ni + ni on V 1 -

Clearly, the most common among the aforementioned patterns is the cooccurrence of the disjunction noh with the verbal neg-particle ni. This NC pattern is attested in all texts in the corpus. It appears to be a general rule that if a finite verb is contained within the noh-conjunct, it is neg-marked by ni.198 The other types of NC are rather rare. If these additional types of NC are also taken into account, the ratio of clauses containing NC amongst all negated clauses almost doubles. (397)

Ratio of NC amongst all negated clauses

total neg. clauses in the corpus Isidor 50 Tatian 956 Otfrid 100 Notker 100 average -

198

Cf. footn. 43.

Neg-Doubling (+ Neg-Spread) 2=4% 61 = 6 % 6=6% 11 = 11 % 7%

other NC total NC cases 5 = 10 % 7 = 14 % 44 = 5 % 105 = 11 % 3 = 3% 9=9% 8=8% 19 = 19 % 6, 5 % 13 %

3.5


217

The data further suggest that diachronically, Neg-Doubling increased slightly in the course of the OHG period, whereas the other types of NC did not. Considering the different kinds of NC in OHG and the varying percentages depending on which types of NC are included, and whether the overall number of negated clauses, the number of indefinite pronouns and adverbs, or the number of all indefinite phrases containing bare NPs is used as a basis, it is obviously important to be clear on what is counted and in comparison with which other patterns whenever one is dealing with the question of overall ratio of NC. 3.5.8. Pattern I vs. II: ni+V ± n-indefinite Coming back to the issue of indefinites in the scope of negation, I will discuss possible factors for the choice of NC (Neg-Doubling) or the competing patterns in the following sections. While NC in the form of Neg-Doubling (pattern I) is the standard pattern whenever indefinites occur in the scope of negation, OHG did not consistenly display NC in these cases, as described above. One obvious question is therefore: Given a clause that is to be negated and that contains an indefinite pronoun or adverb, under which circumstances does NC occur in OHG? When was negation marked on the verb only or on the indefinite only, instead, i. e. patterns II or III chosen over pattern I? Several factors have been suggested in the literature. Others are known to be relevant in other languages or play a role with other grammatical phenomena and might also be decisive for the question of NC. These factors basically relate the presence or absence of NC to syntactic position or word order facts. According to the data presented in chapter 3.5.6 above, the main pattern competing with NC in the form of Neg-Doubling (pattern I), the most common type of NC in OHG, is to mark negation only on the verb and to use an indefinite other than the respective n-indefinite, notably an NPI indefinite (pattern II). The decisive question can therefore be phrased as: When does an indefinite in the scope of negation in a clause that contains a neg-particle occur as an n-indefinite or not? Syntactic function of the n-indefinite One syntactic factor that may play a role in NC is the syntactic function of the indefinite. In many languages, the syntactic function of phrases is important for grammatical rules and leads to subject-object or argument-non-argument asymmetries. These asymmetries could also occur when it comes to NC.

218


Late Middle English as described by Ingham (2003) is similar to OHG in that there is variation as to whether there is neg-marking on the indefinite pronoun or adverb in addition to the occurrence of the neg-particle. Ingham (2003) also investigated the influence of the syntactic function on this variation by comparing adverbial indefinites to direct object indefinites. His results show, however, that there is no decisive difference: The grammatical function of the constituent did not pose any strong restrictions on whether the indefinite was neg-marked or not, in Middle English. In order to ascertain the role of the syntactic function of the indefinite for its neg-marking in OHG, I analysed all indefinites in the corpus according to their syntactic function so as to detect any possible subject-object or argument non-argument asymmetry. Yet, neither of these occur in OHG NC. There is no strict subject-object asymmetry: Both positive and neg-marked indefinites are used as subjects and as objects. (398)

a.

subject n-indefinite: (neque patrem quis nouit nisi filius.) noh then fater niuueiz nioman nibi ther sun nor the father NEG-knows nobody if-not the son ‘nor does anybody know the father but the son’ T 104, 5

b.

subject ‘positive’ indefinite (NPI): (In qua sententia nemo dubitet ...) In dhesemu quhide ni bluchisoe eoman, ni in this saying NEG doubt anyone NEG dhiz sii chiuuisso ... this be certainly ‘Nobody shall doubt that in this saying, it is certainly...’ Is III, 6

(399)

a.

object n-indefinite: ni intrátent sie nihéinan unz se ínan eigun héilan. NEG worry-about they none until they him have whole

3.5

219


‘They do not worry about anyone until they have him whole’ O I. 1, 98 b.

object ‘positive’ indefinite (NPI): (non habeant quod proponant) dhazs sie ni eigun eouuihd, huuazs sie dhar uuidhar that they NEG have anything what they there against setzan put ‘that they do not have anything to counter with’ Is V, 5

(400) Isidor Tatian Otfrid Notker

Indefinites as subjects or objects199 n-indef. subj. 2 (0 div.indef.) 52 (3 div. indef.) 4 5

‘pos.’ indef. subj. 5 (5 div. indef.) 9 (0 div. indef.) 1 0

n-indef. obj. 0 36 (8 div. indef.) 2 2

‘pos.’ indef. obj. 3 (2 div. indef.) 14 (1 div. indef.) 0 1

In Tatian, both subject and object indefinites are more often neg-marked than not, as table (400) illustrates. However, most of these correspond to the Latin orignal.200 Considering only examples that diverge from Latin with respect to negation, most contain object indefinites of which again a vast majority but not all are neg-marked. In Isidor there are no object n-indefinites. However, this fact should not be overrated as there are only very few relevant examples of subject or object indefinites in Isidor on the whole. In the first 100 negated clauses of Otfrid, most subject and object indefinites are neg-marked, as in Tatian. The same holds for Notker. The subject indefinites he uses in the first 100 negated clauses in the Psalter are all neg-marked. On the whole, there is no 199

Based on all indefinites in the corpus as listed in table (344) above. A number of additional cases diverge with respect to negation in adding the neg-particle. On the OHG-Latin correspondences w.r.t. the type of indefinite see also table (345) above and chpt. 3.5.10 below. 200

220


obvious subject-object asymmetry. Both kinds of indefinites are neg-marked in most cases. In Isidor, however, the situation is vice versa with no neg-marked object indefinites at all. The data from the OHG corpus suggest that there are no argument/nonargument asymmetries in OHG, either: Besides being used as arguments (cf. examples (398 a/b) and (399 a/b) above), non-neg-marked indefinites as well as n-indefinites occasionally also occur as non-arguments, mostly as temporal adverbials, cf. (402) and (403). The data are summarized in table (401). Indefinites as arguments or non-arguments201

(401)

Otfrid

argument n- arg. ‘pos.’ indef. indef. 2 (0 div. 8 S/O indef.) (7 div. indef.), 1 predicate noun (1 div. indef.) 88 S/O 23 (1 div. (11 div. indef.) indef.), 3 predicate nouns (0 div. indef.) 6 1

Notker

7

Isidor

Tatian

201

1

non-argument n-indef. 1 neo (1 div. indef.)

non-arg. ‘pos.’ indef. 3 eo (3 div. indef.)

11 neo/nio (mer/ in altere) (2 div. indef.), 4 in PP (2 div. indef.) 1 noe, 1 in PP 5 ni(e)o(mer)

3 io (in altere) (1 div. indef.), 1 in PP (0 div. indef.) 7 uuiht, 8 io(uuanne) 1 eteuuenne

(402)

(quae non discedebat de templo.) thiu nirfuor nio fon themo temple. who NEG-came never from the temple ‘who never came down from the temple’ T 38, 29

(403)

thes man nihéin íó gimáh in uuorolti ér ni gisah. that man no ever done in world before NEG-saw

Based on all indefinites in the corpus as listed in table (344) above.

3.5


221

‘which nobody had ever seen done before in this world’ O I. 9, 31f. In Tatian and Notker, there is a clear preference again for n-indefinites as arguments as well as non-arguments. In Isidor, most indefinites lack neg-marking again, whether argument or non-argument ones. Otfrid is the only text that shows diverging tendencies for arguments and non-arguments: The former are mostly neg-marked whereas the majority of the latter are not. Yet, there is no strict correlation of neg-marking and argument status here, either. My findings for OHG thus resemble those by Ingham (2003) for Late Middle English. This result is not entirely unexpected since asymmetries of this kind generally only appear when subjects and objects or arguments and non-arguments are in quite different positions. In German, the subject can remain VP-internal, for instance, just as objects. In-situ or derived position of the indefinite A second hypothesis relates the neg-marking on the indefinite or the lack of it to the position of the indefinite: Donhauser (1998: 295) suggests that in-situ indefinites lack neg-marking as opposed to moved ones. Checking the hypothesis that neg-marking of the indefinite is related to syntactic movement poses a certain empirical problem as in many sentences with indefinites in the middle field and no adverbials to mark the left edge of VP, it is hard to ascertain that the indefinites are in situ and not in some scrambling position, that is if one assumes that indefinites with weak readings can scramble at all. Diesing (1992) and Büring (1994) among others argue that this is generally not the case and that weak indefinites remain VP-internal. At any rate there are cases in which the n-indefinite in the middle field is arguably in a VP-internal position. Consider for instance the following example: (404)

(& non respondit ei / ad ullum uerbum) imo / zi noheinigemo uuorte Inti niantligita and NEG-answered him to no word ‘And did not answer to a single word’ T 310, 16f.

In (404), the n-indefinite is part of a PP. Since PPs generally do not scramble, the entire PP in the middle field is presumably in situ, including the n-indefinite.

222


Examples such as this one contradict a strict relation of in-situ position and non-neg-marking. The converse relation does not hold either: Moved indefinites are not always neg-marked, as rare examples of positive indefinites in prefield position show, cf. (410a). An asymmetry of moved versus in-situ indefinites might be expected under the assumption of obligatory neg-movement of n-indefinites to SpecNegP. However, it appears that in OHG, there is no correlation of the kind predicted. Adjacency of the indefinite and ni+V A further syntactic relation that has been proposed to capture the licensing of n-indefinites in OHG is adjacency to ni+V (Donhauser 1998: 294). According to this hypothesis, indefinites adjacent to ni+V are neg-marked, others are not. Adjacency has indeed been identified as a requirement on NC in some languages. Haegeman (1995) notes that in West Flemish, n-indefinites need to appear left-adjacent to the neg-particle. Her explanation is based on the NegCriterion: According to her account, the n-indefinites need to be in SpecNegP at surface-structure and therefore move out of VP and line up in that position left-adjacent to the neg-particle. Bayer (2002) and Weiß (1998, 1999) describe a similar constraint on NC in the Modern German dialect of Bavarian: Under NC, the n-indefinites all line up left-adjacent to the neg-particle.202 (405)

a.

Des geizige Gnack hot-ma im Wirthaus [koan the stingy bastard has-me in-the pub no Schnaps] ned zoit. schnapps NEG paid ‘The stingy bastard did not buy me a schnapps in the pub.’

b.

202

*Des geizige Gnack hat-ma im Wirtshaus ned [koan Schnaps] zoit.

Examples taken from Bayer (2002: 285). As Weiß (1998: 200-205, 1999: 822) shows, this adjacency requirement does not have to be fulfilled at surface-structure/spell-out. Adjacency of an intermediate trace of the n-indefinite to the neg-particle ned is sufficient.

3.5


c.

223

*Des geizige Gnack hot-ma [koan Schnaps] im Wirtshaus ned zoit.

Bayer (2002: 285) and Weiß (1998: 204f.) adopt Haegeman’s explanation of adjacency resulting from obligatory movement of all n-indefinites into SpecNegP positions.203 Adjacency to negation also forms the basis of the licensing requirement formulated by Penka (2007) for Modern German n-indefinites. However, she assumes right- rather than left-adjacency of the n-indefinite to the licensing negation, and secondly, negation refers to the (possibly abstract) semantic neg-operator that is not always identical with the negparticle or with Neg0.204 The generalization that Donhauser (1998: 297) suggests for OHG is that n-indefinites are licensed only left- or right-adjacent to the complex of ni+V. The first case would presumably be analysed as in the accounts of West Flemish and Bavarian mentioned above, whereas for the latter case, Donhauser proposes right-adjunction to Neg0. However, the first scenario would not yield the intended result because, as argued above, OHG NegP cannot be headinitial, otherwise negated Ve clauses where ni+V occurs after VP-internal material could not be explained. Even if the n-indefinites could be shown to move to SpecNegP, they would thus not end up in a syntactic position adjacent to ni+V. The second scenario is also problematic, because n-indefinites constitute entire phrases (including full NPs with an n-indefinite determiner). These cannot be head-adjoined on principled grounds. At any rate, it would be surprising if both left- and right-adjacent positions were the only licensing positions for n-indefinites because entirely different syntactic structures would be needed to derive these, so that one would not be dealing with a uniform constraint on NC at all. And indeed, the descriptive generalization does not hold in the first place. The data from my corpus given in table (406) show that there is no adjacency requirement for n-indefinites in OHG, be it left- or right-adjacency to ni+V: There are both neg-marked and non-neg-marked indefinites in both adjacent and non-adjacent positions with respect to ni+V.

203

They analyse ned as Neg0 (inspite of the fact that verb movement takes place across it), so that SpecNegP is available to host the n-indefinites. 204 This requirement is assumed to hold at surface-structure. However, traces may intervene between the neg-operator and the n-indefinite, so that in fact a kind of PF-adjacency is implied, rather than syntactic adjacency.

224 (406)


Adjacency of the indefinite phrase and ni+V205

n-indef. adj. ‘pos.’ indef. to ni+V adj. to ni+V Tatian 48 3 Isidor 2 6 Otfrid 2 4 Notker 4 1

n-indef. nonadj. to ni+V 12 0 4 7

‘pos.’ indef. nonadj. to ni+V 3 3 7 0

In Tatian, most n-indefinites are indeed adjacent to ni+V, but in Notker and Otfrid, for instance, most n-indefinites are non-adjacent to ni+V. Generally speaking, lack of neg-marking on the indefinite is far less frequent than nonadjacency of the indefinite and ni+V: the average is about 25 % non-n-indefinites of all indefinites in the corpus vs. 45 % non-adjacent indefinites. In other words, there is no direct correlation between adjacency and neg-marking of the indefinite.206 Contrary to the conclusion in Schrodt (2004: 136), this does of course not mean that one cannot analyse OHG negation in terms of NegP or assume licensing of the n-indefinites by ni: Licensing (feature checking in Minimalism) does not require the local relationship of adjacency. I assume non-local checking under c-command by ni (Agree) once it is merged as licensing OHG n-indefinites (see also chpt. 3.5.11. below). Relative order of indefinite and ni+V One factor that is mentioned several times in the literature as governing whether the indefinite is additionally neg-marked or not in OHG is the relative order of the indefinite and the cluster of the neg-particle ni and the finite verb.207 Lehmann (1978) holds that before ni+V, neg-marking of the indefinite is optional whereas it never occurs afterwards in OHG. That is, according to Lehmann (1978), n-indefinites may be found before ni+V but never after ni+V. Lehmann’s generalization is clearly contradicted by my OHG data: Both n205

The constructions listed in table (380) split up according to n-indef./‘pos.’ indef. ± adjacent to ni+V. 206 The assumption that the adjacency requirement maybe does not have to hold at surfacestructure, but could be fulfilled by intermediate traces of the n-indefinites in SpecNegP (cf. Weiß 1998 for Bavarian) is not feasible either, because there are also cases in which an nindefinite is licensed in situ in OHG (cf. example (404) above). 207 Recall that in several Romance languages, too, the relative order of indefinite and verb determines whether there is NC or not; however, this is not because a different type of indefinite is chosen accordingly, but because the neg-particle is omitted when there is a preverbal n-indefinite (see chpt. 3.2. above).

3.5


225

indefinites and their non-neg-marked counterparts appear before as well as after ni+V, compare examples (375)–(378) above. In Tatian and Notker nindefinites are by far the most common in either position (see table (407) below), including the postverbal position that should not even be possible according to Lehmann (1978). A different correlation has been proposed by Behaghel (1918) and more recently again by Donhauser (1998): Their hypothesis is that indefinites before ni+V tend to be rather neg-marked than those afterwards. Table (407) illustrates the choice of the indefinite with respect to its position relative to the negmarked, finite verb. (407)

Relative order of the indefinite and ni+V208

indefinite before ni+V indefinite after ni+V n-indef ... ‘pos.’ indef. ... ni+V ... n- ni+V ... ‘pos.’ ni+V ni+V indef. indef. Isidor 2 4 0 5 Tatian 37 3 23 3 Otfrid 2 8 4 3 Notker 7 1 4 0 As is evident from the table, there is at most a small tendency in my data supporting this hypothesis, notably in Tatian and Notker where most, yet in contrast to Behaghel’s (1918: 239) results for Tatian, not all indefinites before ni+V are indeed n-indefinites. In both texts, however, n-indefinites make up the clear majority of indefinites in both positions. The tendency is also present in Isidor where non-neg-marked indefinites appear before and after the verb, whereas n-indefinites are only attested in preverbal position. Unfortunately, the overall number of examples in Isidor is rather low. Otfrid, on the other hand, uses non-neg-marked indefinites before the verb far more frequently than nindefinites which straightforwardly contradicts the suggested relation.209 According to Behaghel (1918: 239), Otfrid represents an older stage in the development than Tatian: Originally, non-neg-marked indefinites could be used before and after the verb, later they became increasingly restricted to postverbal positions. Donhauser (1998: 295) takes the opposite view that, 208

The constructions listed in table (380) split up according to n-indef./‘pos.’ indef. before or after ni+V. 209 Compare Wheelock LaBrum (1982: 211); Donhauser (1998: 293): ‘pos.’ indefinites before or after V in Otfrid.

226


compared to Tatian, the original OHG system was maybe already falling apart in Otfrid. The respective age of the texts – Tatian was written before 850 AD, Otfrid 863-871 AD – would support the latter hypothesis. On the other hand, the further development in the history of German continues and extends the situation in Tatian and Notker, rather than that in Otfrid: In any syntactic position within a negated clause mostly – and by MHG exclusively – n-indefinites are used.210 While there is a tendency towards preverbal positioning of n-indefinites in several OHG texts, there is no clear division between indefinites preceding and following ni+V in any of the texts, such that the former are consistently neg-marked and the latter consistently are not. An explanation for the reported tendency could be that the relative order of indefinite and verb plays a role for parsing reasons according to the Neg-First principle (Jespersen 1917, Horn 1989, Haspelmath 1997): The parser will recognize faster that a clause is negated if the first constituent that can possibly be neg-marked is neg-marked. If this constituent is the verb, the parser recognizes negation by the clitic Neg0 as soon as he reaches the verb. An additional neg-marking on the indefinite following the verb will not make a difference as to how fast negation is recognized. (Note that it is still used most of the time.) If the indefinite precedes the verb, negation will be parsed faster if the indefinite takes the form of an n-indefinite. Weiß’s (1998: 224; 2002b) hypothesis that NC, more specifically NegDoubling, serves to resolve scope ambiguities could also serve as an explanation: An indefinite that is placed further at the beginning of the clause before the verb could be misinterpreted as not being in the semantic scope of negation (and to be interpreted outside the domain of existential closure, i. e. as specific rather than non-specific) unless it is neg-marked, whereas the chance of the same misinterpretation is lower when the indefinite follows the negated verb.211 210

One way to explain the free positioning of indefinites relative to ni+V in Otfrid is to attribute this for OHG otherwise untypical situation to the influence of rhyme and metre in Otfrid (cf. Donhauser 1998: 294). 211 This has to do with the fact that semantic scope is generally based on syntactic c-command and indefinites before the verb are outside the c-command domain of negation, at least in V2 clauses. In this way the true explanation for any possible correlation with relative order would come down to the relation of c-command (see below). However, as Joanna Błaszczak (p. c.) points out, NPIs cannot be interpreted outside the scope of negation, either, because they, too, are licensed by it. Furthermore, for objects of intensional verbs such as modals ‘to try’, ‘to look for’ etc. a specific reading is generally dispreferred or impossible so that the indefinite could not be given a specific interpretation even if it was preverbal. Instead, there might be an

3.5

227


Topological position of the indefinite The fact that the relative order only plays a role as a tendency rather than a strict correlation could be due to the fact that this generalization does not take into account that the position of the finite verb varies roughly according to sentence types in German, so that the absolute position of the indefinite may differ, even though relative to ni + V it may be the same, compare figure (408).212 (408)

Pre-/postverbal indefinite position depending on verbal placement CP SpecCP

C’ C0

TP/AgrP TP/AgrP

YP

SpecTP/AgrP

T’/Agr’ T0/Agr0

NegP SpecNegP

Neg’ Neg0

VP SpecVP XP a) V2 b) Ve c) V1/V2 d) Ve

Prefield indefinite

LSF ni+V ni+V

V’ V0

Middle Field

RSF

indefinite indefinite

ni+V ni+V

Postfield

indefinite

(possible verbal positions: LSF = left sentence frame, RSF = right sentence frame)

information-structural difference in that n-indefinites are quasi-topical/categorical, whereas NPI-indefinites are thetical (cf. Giannakidou 1998). 212 On verbal placement in OHG see also Axel (2005).

228


For an indefinite to be in a position before the finite verb could, for instance, mean for it to be in the topological middle field (possibly in situ) in a Ve clause, or to be in the prefield, i. e. SpecCP, in a V2 clause. Postverbal placement, on the other hand, for the most part occurs in V1/V2 clauses with the finite verb in C and the indefinite in middle field position. The indefinite could also be positioned in a different topological field of the clause, viz. in the postfield after the position of the finite verb in Ve clauses for instance, which is much rarer. The different basic possibilities a)-d) summarized in figure (408), with a) and b) resulting in preverbal positioning and c) and d) resulting in postverbal positioning of the indefinite are illustrated by the following examples:213 (409)

a.

n-indefinite ... ni+V2: (Numquid de illo salomone creditur prophetatum? minime.) Neo nist zi chilaubanne dhazs fona dhemu never NEG-is to believe that of the salomone sii dhiz chiforabodot. Salomo be this predicted ‘It is not to be believed that this was predicted of Salomo’ Is IX, 3

b.

n-indefinite ... ni+Ve: (uide nemini dixeris.) gisih thaz thu iz niomanne niquedes see that you it nobody NEG-tell ‘Make sure you do not tell anyone’ T 82, 30

213

In principle, there is a third possibility for postverbal indefinites: They could occur in the postfield of a V1 or V2 clause. This case is often indistinguishable from middle field position in V1 or V2 clauses. Unambiguous cases of it are not contained in the corpus.

3.5


c.

229

ni+V1/V2 ... n-indefinite: (& non respondit ei/ ad ullum uerbum) imo/ zi noheinigemo uuorte Inti niantligita and NEG-answered him to no word ‘And did not answer to a single word’ T 310, 16f.

d.

ni+Ve ... n-indefinite: (quia in eo/ nullam causam inuenio ex his / thaz ih in imo/ nifand niheiniga sahha fon then / that I in him NEG-found no thing of those in quibus eum accusatis) In thendir inan ruoget in that-you him accuse ‘that I found him guilty of none of the things that you accuse him of’ T 308, 14-16

(410)

a.

‘pos.’ indefinite ... ni+V2: (Iota unum aut unus apex/ non pr&eribit ex lege) fon thero euvu ein .i. odo ein houbit/ nifurferit a i or a dot NEG-passes from the law ‘one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law‘ T 62, 5f.

b.

‘pos.’ indefinite ... ni+Ve: thaz mír iz íóuuanne zi uuíze nirgange. that me it ever to punishment NEG-turn-out ‘that it will never turn out as punishment for me’ O I. 2, 18

230


c.

ni+V1/V2 ... ‘pos.’ indefinite: (quia nullus in regno israhel cyrus est dictus.) In andra uuiis ni uuardh eo einic in israhelo riihhe in other way NEG was ever any in Israel kingdom cyrus chinemnit. Cyrus called ‘Otherwise, no one had ever been called Cyrus in the kingdom of Israel’ Is III, 3

d.

ni+Ve ... ‘pos.’ indefinite: (conclusi dum non habeant quod proponant) so bifangolode sindun simbles, dhazs sie ni eigun so cornered are always that they NEG have eouuihd, huuazs sie dhar uuidhar setzan. anything what they there against put ‘they are always so much driven into a corner that they do not have anything to counter with’ Is V, 5

In a way, the question of pre- or postverbal positioning of the indefinite is too simply put when one is dealing with a V2 language such as German. Therefore, I additionally investigated the position of the indefinites relative to V1/V2 (i. e. V in C) and Ve, and thus in effect their absolute position according to the three topological fields in German. Table (411) shows that there are almost as many n-indefinites in prefield as in middle field position. Amongst the non-nindefinites, the majority occurs in the middle field.

3.5

231


Topological positions of ±n-indefinites214

(411)

Prefield (a)

Isidor Tatian Otfrid Notker

Postfield (d)

(c)

ni+Ve n-indef.

n-indef ... ni+Ve

ni+V1/V2 n-indef.

2 31 0 0

0 6 2 7

0 22 4 4

0 1 0 0

‘pos.’ indef. ... ni+V2

‘pos.’ ni+Ve

ni+V1/V2 ... ‘pos.’ indef.

ni+Ve ... ‘pos.’ indef.

2 2 0 0

2 1 8 1

4 3 2 0

1 0 1 0

n-indef. ni+V2

Isidor Tatian Otfrid Notker

Middle Field (b) ...

indef

...

...

...

In Isidor, n-indefinites only occur in the prefield, other indefinites are frequent in the middle field but also in pre- and postfield position. Generally, of the indefinites both in prefield and in middle field position, the vast majority are nindefinites. Indefinites in the postfield are extremely rare even though the sentence frame or rather the rule that the postfield is mostly empty, as it holds for Modern German, had not yet been fully grammaticalized, cf. Bolli (1975), Borter (1982), Admoni (1967), Polenz (1991: 202), Admoni (1990: 129), Ebert (1978: 57-64).215 Among the few examples, both indefinites with and without neg-marking are to be found, see examples (409 d) and (410 d) above. There are only a few examples with ‘positive’ indefinites in prefield position, and only in Isidor and Tatian. Furthermore, these are all slightly problematic: The examples from Tatian converge with the Latin originals.216 In the examples from Isidor the non-neg-marked indefinite indeed precedes the 214

The constructions listed in table (380) split up according to topological position of the nindefinite/‘pos.’ indefinite. 215 On the other hand, indefinite bare NPs, that were not included in these resluts, appear quite frequently in postfield position. This can be explained by the fact that indefinite pronouns and adverbs are weaker elements phonologically and structurally and are thus more prone to stand in the middle field, cf. Behaghel’s (1932: 84f.) “Gesetz der wachsenden Glieder”: heavier constituents are placed further back in the clause. 216 (& ipsi uno digito/ uestro non tangitis sarcinas.) Inti ir mit einemo fingare/ íuuueremo niruoret thia burdin. (T 246, 26f.), (Iota unum aut unus apex/ non pr&eribit ex lege) – ein .i. odo ein houbit/ nifurferit fon thero euvu (T 62, 5f.).

232


neg-marked verb in second position, however it follows the negative disjunction noh (‘neither/nor’) in each case.217 On this basis, one may conclude that non-neg-marked indefinites could at most appear in prefield position if they followed some other neg-marker. C-command of ni The syntactic relation that is presumably at the base of tendencies concerning the relative order of ni+V and the indefinite is c-command.218 It has been suggested that indefinites that are part of the scope of negation but stand outside the c-command domain of the neg-particle at surface-structure need to be neg-marked (cf. Ladusaw 1993, Weiß 2002a). This might explain the tendency concerning linear word order: A position before ni+V will mostly coincide with a position outside the c-command domain of ni. C-command plays a role for NC also in other languages. Molnarfi (2001: 112f.) describes such a constraint on Afrikaans NC: In order to obtain an NC reading, n-indefinites in Afrikaans may not occur inside the c-command domain of the (first) neg-particle. Inside that domain, only ‘positive’ indefinites may be used; otherwise, a double-negation reading results. (412)

217

a.

Ek het niks (nie) gelees nie I have nothing NEG read NEG ‘I haven’t read anything.’ (= NC)

b.

Ek het nie niks gelees nie I have NEG nothing read NEG ‘I have not read nothing.’ (= DN)

c.

Ek het nie iets gelees nie I have NEG anything read NEG ‘I haven’t read anything.’

Afrikaans

(Illud denuo queritur, quomodo idem sit genitus, dum sacre natiuitatis eius archana nec apostolus dicit nec propheta conperit nec angelus sciuit nec creatura cognouit) – Dhazs ni saget apostolus noh forasago ni bifant noh angil gotes ni uuista noh einic chiscaft ni archennida. (Is II, 3), (Neque enim mendax esse potest osee propheta, qui dicit:) Noh einich lughin ni mac uuesan osee propheta, dher quhad heilegu gheistu: (Is VIII, 3). 218 C-command: A node a c-commands a node b iff (i) a does not dominate b, nor b a and (ii) the first branching node that dominates a also dominates b.

3.5


233

The empirical evaluation of the hypothesis proposed above for OHG partly depends on the analysis of where ni+V stands in Ve clauses. If, as suggested above, the verb raises from V through Neg0 and possibly to some higher functional head (e. g. T0), ni would always c-command every element inside VP and the specifiers of all functional projections through which the verb has moved. So none of the indefinites in the middle field are outside of the relevant c-command domain. In V1, V2 or V3 clauses, ni+V is positioned in C0 and ccommands everything after it, but not the prefield SpecCP. N-indefinites in the middle field, especially inside VP demonstrate that a position outside the c-command of Neg0 ni is not a necessary condition for neg-marking on indefinites so that OHG differs from languages such as Afrikaans. For c-command by Neg0 to be a sufficient condition for the indefinite taking the form of an n-indefinite, on the other hand, one would not expect any non-neg-marked indefinites to occur outside the c-command of Neg0 ni, most notably in the prefield. And indeed, with only a few possible exceptions (cf. example (410) above), this does not occur.219 However, the pertaining variation between pattern I and II in the middle field is not explained on this basis. The results from my corpus suggest that neg-marking of the indefinite was possibly necessary outside the c-command domain of Neg0 but optional inside that domain, so that c-command by Neg0 constitutes a necessary but not sufficient condition for the indefinite occurring as an n-indefinite. I assume that the n-indefinites are licensed under c-command by Neg0 ni that checks their uninterpretable neg-feature when it is merged. Yet, ‘positive’ indefinites (notably NPI indefinites) are also licensed and so the n-indefinite may but need not be used. Semantic/pragmatic differences None of the syntactic factors discussed above stands in a strict one-to-one relation with the choice of the indefinite. While certain tendencies persist, such as the tendency to use an n-indefinite in preverbal positions and outside the ccommand domain of the finite verb, there is a degree of syntactic optionality with respect to the choice of the type of indefinite. OHG thus differs from Slavic languages and also from Modern German – languages that obligatorily use n-indefinites wherever they are possible so that the use of an NPI would generally result in ungrammaticality (cf. Blaszczak 2001, Pereltsvaig 2004 on Slavic). OHG is more comparable to English, where there is a certain optional219

If c-command by ni is decisive and it is alternatively assumed that ni resides in V0 in Ve clauses, rare examples like (377) would represent further counterexamples.

234


ity whether the indefinite takes the form of an NPI or an n-indefinite in the scope of negation (cf. chpt. 3.1 above). Of course, Modern Standard English differs from OHG in that it is a non-NC language so that the neg-particle is not used in addition if an n-indefinite is chosen in a negated clause. (413)

a.

I did not hear anything.

b.

I heard nothing.

Kadmon/Landman (1993) suggest that the choice between the two patterns is due to a semantic difference. Compared to n-indefinites, NPIs have an effect of what they refer to as domain widening (cf. Krifka 1995: NPIs introduce alternatives). A negated clause containing an NPI therefore results in a stronger reading than the one with an n-indefinite. This is illustrated by the following contrast: (414)

a.

I got nothing for my birthday; well, a plantpot from my husband.

b.

I did not get anything for my birthday; */#well, a plantpot from my husband.

The qualifying continuation is possible after the negated clause containing an n-indefinite but not felicitous after the one containing an NPI. Similar factors appear to play a role in Romance languages, too. The choice of an NPI instead of an n-indefinite does not result in ungrammaticality, unlike in Slavic languages, but is possible in order to attain a certain, stronger, possibly more emphatic reading. Even in Modern Standard German, one may choose a non-neg-marked indefinite in the scope of negation in some cases to add emphasis – note, however, the obligatory stress on the non-n-indefinite – otherwise, ungrammaticality results: (415)

a.

Er hat keinen seiner Freunde angerufen he has none his friends phoned ‘He did not call any of his friends.’

b.

Er hat nicht EInen seiner Freunde angerufen he has NEG a/one his friends phoned ‘He did not call a single one of his friends.’

3.5


235

The choice of the type of indefinite is a lot more restricted than in OHG, on the other hand. Thus non-n-indefinites such as jemand ‘somebody/anybody’ or etwas ‘something/anything’ cannot be used in the same way alternatively to niemand ‘nobody’, nichts ‘nothing’ (even though they can occur as the second indefinite after another n-indefinite): (416)

a.

Er hat niemanden angerufen he has nobody phoned ‘He didn’t call anybody’

b.

*Er hat nicht jemanden/JEmanden angerufen he has NEG anybody phoned ‘He didn’t call anybody’

In an extinct corpus language such as OHG, it is hard to ascertain such subtle reading differences. Yet, it is quite plausible to assume that similar semantic factors may have also influenced the choice of the type of indefinite in OHG, and that the question of when an n-indefinite and when an NPI-indefinite was used is better answered on semantic rather than on purely syntactic grounds, or a combination of the two. In an example such as the following clause from Isidor, one could for instance argue that the NPI-indefinite determiner einig was used because it possibly resulted in a stronger reading than niheinig, so that the clause expresses that nobody at all, not a single creature knew it: (417)

(nec apostolus dicit nec propheta conperit nec Dhazs ni saget apostolus noh forasago ni bifant noh that NEG says apostle nor prophet NEG found-out nor angelus sciuit nec creatura cognouit) angil gotes ni uuista noh einic chiscaft ni archennida. angel god NEG knew nor any creature NEG recognized ‘No apostle had said this, nor any prophet discovered it, nor had any angel known it, nor any creature (at all) recognized it.’ Is II, 3

236


3.5.9. Pattern I vs. III: n-indefinite ± ni Neg-marking of the indefinite only without an additional neg-marking by the verbal clitic neg-particle ni on V (pattern III), is chosen very rarely over NC (pattern I), apart from literal translations of Latin originals. In the corpus from Isidor and Otfrid there are no examples of pattern III at all. Thus, pattern III may largely reduce to Latin influence, even though Notker uses this pattern also independently of any Latin original. At any rate, it is not a strong competing pattern for NC and the question of when it was chosen is somewhat less pressing, in contrast to MHG, see chpt. 3.6.9. below, where this is the central question that decides whether NC occurred or not. Since among the texts in my OHG corpus, pattern III only ever occurs in Tatian and Notker, these are the only texts that can be considered with respect to this issue. Type of verb One factor for the choice of pattern III over I might be the kind of verb to which ni would attach. For instance, it might be expected that ni does not appear on particle or prefix verbs on which it also diachronically disappears earlier (Behaghel 1918). Furthermore ni might be obligatory on modals on which it is kept longer diachronically as compared to main verbs (Behaghel 1918). However, ni does also appear in spite of particles or prefixes on the verb. Amongst the rare examples without ni, there are prefix verbs but also main verbs without a prefix, as well as modal verbs. Thus the kind of verb does not seem to be decisive for the absence or presence of ni. Relative order of the n-indefinite and (ni+)V Again the relative position of (ni+)V and the n-indefinite has been suggested as a factor in the literature: Behaghel (1918) observes that preverbal ni is more common with n-indefinites after (ni+)V than with those before it. Paul (1920: 330), Dal (1966) and Coombs (1976) state that ni is optional if the n-indefinite is situated before (ni+)V. Indeed, in my corpus the n-indefinite is in a preverbal position in all examples without Neg0. Yet even then, additional ni on the verb is much more common than the lack of it, as is evident from table (418).

3.5

237


(418)

Relative order of the n-indefinite and (ni+)V 220

n-indef ni+V Tatian 37 Notker 7

... n-indef. ... V 3 1

ni+V ... n-indef.

V ... n-indef.

23 4

0 0

Thus, while NC in the form of Neg-Doubling is the standard pattern by far, verbs after n-indefinites did at least in Tatian and Notker not necessarily need to be neg-marked, another fact that could be linked to the Neg-First principle. When the finite verb preceded the indefinite, ni was obligatory on the verb. Behaghel (1918: 236f.) reports similar results for Notker: Postverbal n-indefinites co-occurr basically always, preverbal ones mostly with ni on V. He furthermore observed that 30 percent of verbs in negated clauses with a preverbal nindefinite occur without the clitic neg-particle ni in his data from Otfrid. In the first 100 negated clauses from Otfrid included in my corpus, I found not a single example of this kind.221 Syntactic function of the n-indefinite The function of the n-indefinite as argument vs. non-argument or subject vs. object might also play a role here. Progovac (2000) takes it that in any NC language, n-indefinites that are arguments of the verb, or temporal/local adverbials need to be licensed by overt Neg0. This is contradicted by examples from my corpus in which an n-indefinite functions as a subject, object, or temporal adverbial but Neg0 ni on the verb is lacking:222 (419)

subject n-indefinite: (& testimonium eius nemo accepit) Inti sin giuuizscaf nioman íntphieng and his testimony nobody received ‘And nobody receiced his testimony’ T 57,23

220

The respective constructions listed in table (380) split up according to relative order of the n-indef. and (ni+)V. 221 Donhauser (1998: 292) reports the same findings for Otfrid (however, on the same page, she also gives the contradicting generalization that preverbal ni is obligatory if the finite verb follows the indefinite). 222 However, there are no examples for this in Tatian that diverge from Latin.

238 (420)


object n-indefinite: daz siê îro nehêinen loûgen getórsten háben. that they her no denial dared have ‘that they did not dare to deny her’ N Ps 3, 8 (=14, 7)

(421)

adverbial n-indefinite: (quia numquam/ noui uós) bithiu uuanta ich nio in altere / iuuih uuesta because I never you knew ‘because I never knew you’ T 74,31f.

According to Coombs (1976), ni is optional when the n-indefinite is not an argument, especially with temporal or modal adverbials. However, lack of ni is no more frequent in my corpus with temporal n-indefinites than with those that function as a subject or object. (422)

Syntactic function of the n-indefinite 223

n-indef. = subject +ni on V -ni on V Tatian 24 1 Notker 5 0

n-indef. = object +ni on V -ni on V 28 0 1 1

n-indef. = temp. adv. +ni on V -ni on V 4 1 5 0

As can be seen in table (422), there is no asymmetry either with respect to ni in OHG between clauses where the n-indefinite is a subject and those where it is an object. In Tatian, object n-indefinites always co-occur with ni on V, in Notker, on the other hand, this holds for subject and (temporal) adverbial nindefinites. However, neg-marking on the verb is generally much more common no matter what syntactic function the n-indefinite has. Since pattern III is extremely rare (except for literal translations from Latin) it makes sense to assume for OHG, as Donhauser (1998) does, that n223

The respective constructions listed in table (380) split up according to syntactic function of the n-indef. Note that the total numbers for patterns I and II are slightly lower here for Tatian than the numbers in (380), because several of the n-indefinites occur in for instance as complements in PPs, rather than as subjects, objects or temporal adverbials.

3.5


239

indefinites generally had to be licensed by Neg0 ni and that the few apparent counterexamples in Tatian and Notker can be attributed to external factors. At any rate, postverbal n-indefinites always co-occur with ni on V.

3.5.10. Text-specific explanations and Latin influence Besides explanations for the OHG data in terms of syntactic or semantic/pragmatic rules, it is important to take into account the specific character of the individual source texts. These particularities constitute factors that are external to the linguistic system and may be reflected to varying degrees in the choice of NC or competing syntactic patterns. Line breaks One external factor that might be expected to play a role in the OHG text of Tatian is the influence of line breaks (cf. chpt. 2.4.1 above). According to Masser (1997), the OHG translators aimed at a line by line correspondence with the Latin text and would alter the word order according to OHG regularities – for instance to V2 in declaratives – only within one line, but not across line breaks (cf. also Dittmer/Dittmer 1998). Therefore, one might speculate that in the case of a line break separating the indefinite and the finite verb, the OHG translators would have opted against NC so that only in the same line that contained a neg-marker in Latin, there would be one in the OHG version of the text. Vice versa, with the indefinite and the finite verb on the same line, NC could have been introduced in the OHG translation without extending the use of neg-markers across more lines than in the Latin original thus fulfilling the aim of line by line correspondence. In other words, pattern II or III might have only been used instead of the OHG standard pattern I (NC) if there was a line break. I checked this hypothesis against my data from Tatian by analysing each example according to the presence or absence of line breaks intervening between the indefinite phrase and the verb. The results in table (423) show that it is not the case that NC was applied against the Latin original only within one line and not across a line break.

240 (423)


Indefinites in the scope of negation and line breaks in Tatian224 total number

I: ni+V, n-indef. (NC) II: ni+V, indef. III: V, n-indef ni+V, indef. bare NP

60 (13 div. n-indef.)225 27 (2 div. indef.) 46 (2 div. n-indef.) 57 (all like Latin original)

of which incl. line breaks 7 12 18 17

Furthermore, not all cases where NC (pattern I) was not used and a competing pattern (II or III) was chosen instead, can be attributed to line breaks, by far. Less than half of all examples in which the OHG translators opted against the use of NC contain a line break between the indefinite phrase and the verb. Therefore, the choice of a syntactic pattern other than NC in Tatian cannot be reduced to the influence of line breaks, just as NC was also introduced across line breaks (indicated in the examples by slashes): (424)

NC (pattern I) introduced across line break: (& non est tibi / cura de aliquo.) Inti nist thir / suorga fon niheinigemo and NEG-is you worry of nobody ‘and you do not worry about anybody’ T 207, 7f.

(425)

no NC/only ni+V (pattern II) within one line: (uos nescitis quicquam) ir niuuizzut îouuiht. you NEG-know anything ‘You don’t know anything’ T 234,10

224

For all indefinites as listed in (344). Note that the numbers for patterns II and III are considerably higher here than in table (380), because the non-diverging examples are of course explicitly included here to work out the amount of Latin influence, whereas they were excluded in (380). 225 All other cases of pattern I (NC) also diverge from Latin, of course, notably through the additional use of the neg-particle ni on V in OHG, but not with respect to the n-indefinite.

3.5


(426)

241

no NC/only n-indefinite (pattern III) within one line: (& nemo poterat / eum domare.) inti nioman mohta / ín gizemen and nobody could him tame ‘and nobody could tame him’ T 87,17

While the presence of line breaks played an important role in Tatian for other syntactic phenomena such as verbal placement, the choice of NC or competing patterns is not linked to this factor. Metre and rhyme In Otfrid, quite a different grammar-external factor may have influenced the choice of NC or non-NC, viz. metre and rhyme. This factor is rather more difficult to estimate (cf. Donhauser 1998, Fleischer 2006): In which cases do the grammatical options coincide with the demands of metre and rhyme and where was grammaticality maybe infringed upon for poetic license? The choice of the indefinite or the presence or lack of the neg-particle ni on the finite verb would have made no difference in terms of the end rhyme that Otfrid used, because only the beginning of the respective word is concerned rather than the rhyming final syllable. Similarly for the metre, the occurrence or nonoccurence of the clitic neg-particle ni will not have made a lot of difference. Indeed, in my corpus from Otfrid, ni on V is always present in addition to an indefinite, i. e. pattern III does not occur. There are no examples in which Otfrid missed off ni for poetic reasons. The choice of the indefinite did not necessarily make a difference in terms of metre, either, if for instance thiheinig was used instead of niheinig or, as is common in Otfrid, io instead of nio. The use of uuiht instead of ni(o)uuiht on the other hand was possibly relevant in metrical terms. However, it is more likely that Otfrid chose the nonneg-marked indefinite here for the same extra-poetic reasons that compelled him to use io rather than nio in most cases.226 While the choice of pattern II instead of pattern I (NC) can therefore generally not be reduced to poetic influences, the word order of the respective clauses may diverge from OHG standards due to metre and rhyme. Donhauser (1998: 294) attributes the

226

Besides, in a number of cases uuiht is arguably used not as an indefinite pronoun but as a second neg-particle.

242


comparatively free positioning of non-neg-marked indefinites in Otfrid to these factors. Another area where rhyme and metre possibly played a role is the preference for bare NPs over NPs with an indefinite determiner. Indefinite bare NPs are used approximately twice as often under negation as NPs with an indefinite determiner in my corpus from Otfrid. Without an indefinite determiner, there are – depending on the indefinite and on the syntactic context – one (e. g. ein) to four (e. g. niheinigan) syllables less in the phrase. Examples such as the following are quite common: (427)

Nist líut thaz es gigínne, thaz uuidar ín ringe NEG-is people that it begin that against him fight ‘There is no people that would start to fight against them.’ O I. 1, 81

An additional determiner (thih/nih)ein(ig) in front of liut would clash with the metre. Yet again, the question is whether the determiner was missed off in order to fulfill the demands of the metre or whether the syntactic pattern of a bare NP was chosen independent of poetic considerations and was then built in in agreement with the constraints of metre and rhyme. In other words, is the syntactic pattern and the high frequency with which it is used an artefact of poetry or a genuine part of OHG grammar and metre and rhyme fitted around it? With respect to indefinite bare NPs in the scope of negation, I would argue for the latter: This pattern is a major syntactic pattern in all OHG texts under consideration (cf. figure (373) above). One could argue that, as in Tatian, the ideal of the Latin language played a certain role in Otfrid, maybe also in his frequent choice of pattern II over the NC-pattern I that is incommensurable with Latin. As is evident from Otfrid’s unique and highly interesting discussion of his mother tongue in comparison to Latin in the dedicational letter to Liutbert at the beginning of his gospel book, Otfrid was well aware of this: Duo etiam negatiui, dum in latinitate rationis dicta confirmant, in huius linguae227 usu pene assidue negant, et quamis hoc interdum praecauere ualerem, ob usum tamen cotidianum, ut morum se locutio praebuit, dictare curaui.

227 The local mother tongue that Otfrid is talking about here, he also refers to as franzisce and theotisce.

3.5


243

‘While two negative markers signify confirmation in Latin, in this language they almost always negate, and even though I could have avoided this at times, I wanted to adhere to the general way of speaking in my writing out of consideration for the everyday usage.’ O, Ad Liutbertum, 95-99 Otfrid clearly realized that Latin differed from OHG in that it is a non-NC language. Nevertheless, he frequently used NC in his work. As is evident from his discussion of negation, it explicitly was not his aim to comply with Latin standards in this respect, rather, he deliberately diverged from it. In view of this, the frequent occurrence of the non-NC pattern II cannot be due to Latin influence in Otfrid. What is more, if Otfrid’s programmatic statement is to be taken seriously, his syntax of negation can be considered genuine OHG, if maybe influenced by poetic requirements. Latin influence Latin influence played an important role in OHG. Especially the syntax of negation of those texts that are literal translations of Latin originals, i. e. Tatian and Isidor, shows this influence. In order to interpret the data correctly, it is therefore imperative to consider the way in which and the degree to which the translations followed the originals in this respect. The text-specific peculiarities should not only be considered obstacles that blur the effect of the grammatical constraints of OHG and need to be substracted from the data to get at the real picture. On the opposite, one can use them positively to gain more refined answers (cf. Donhauser 1998, Fleischer 2006). This is even the case with texts that are largely influenced by Latin, viz. Tatian and Isidor. The Latin originals form a background against which the picture of OHG negation emerges in contrast to Latin: The cases in which the translators felt compelled to diverge from Latin and used a different syntactic pattern to express negation presumably constitute examples of genuine OHG, even more so than for instance the data from Otfrid that may be distorted by the demands of metre and rhyme in ways that are much harder to controll, as discussed above. There are basically two ways in which an OHG clause may differ from the Latin original with respect to the syntax of negation as already indicated above (chpt. 1.2.): The clause may contain more neg-markers or it may mark negation on a different element compared to the original. Since in

244


Isidor, the absolute number of relevant negated clauses is extremely low, Tatian constitutes a much more valuable source in this respect. As far as pattern I, i. e. NC in the form of Neg-Doubling is concerned, all of those examples necessarily diverge from any Latin original. Latin is a non-NC language. NC was a genuine part of the OHG syntax of negation that the OHG translators felt compelled to use even against the Latin original in a vast number of cases. While NC in the form of Neg-Doubling only makes up about a fifth of all negated clauses containing indefinite pronouns or adverbs in Isidor, it is clearly the majority pattern in Tatian with almost 90%, as discussed above, cf. table (380). The doubled neg-marking of the indefinite and the verb is mainly achieved in one of two ways: Either the Latin original marked negation on the indefinite only and the OHG translator added the negation particle on the verb, or the Latin clause contained the negation particle but a non-neg-marked indefinite or no indefinite at all, and the translators opted for an n-indefinite. (428)

Latin n-indefinite → OHG n-indefinite, ni on V added: (quia nihil proficimus) thaz uuir niouuiht ni dihemes that we nothing NEG achieve ‘We do not achieve anything’ T 236, 15

(429)

a.

Latin non, ‘pos.’ indef. → OHG ni+V, n-indef.: (non rapi& eas quisquam de manu mea.) Inti ni nimit siu nioman fon mineru henti. and NEG takes them nobody from my hands ‘and nobody takes them from my hands’ T 227, 11

b.

Latin non, bare NP → OHG ni+V, n-indef. added: (Ego enim non inuenio in eo causam) ih nifindu in imo niheiniga sahha I NEG-find in him no thing ‘I do not find him guilty of any thing’ T 308, 28

3.5


245

In Tatian, it is mostly the first way that led to NC in the OHG text: The Latin original contained only an n-indefinite but the translators additionally used the neg-particle in 47 of the 60 cases of pattern I. The other 13 cases were achieved in the second way described, by changing the indefinite into an n-indefinite or adding one in. These cases are particularly telling with respect to the hypothesis that n-indefinites were preferredly used preverbally in OHG: 12 of the 13 indefinites that the OHG translators felt compelled to use even against the Latin originals are in postverbal position. This is once again clear evidence against Lehmann’s (1978) generalization that n-indefinites never occur postverbally in OHG. Furthermore, the Neg-First Principle fails as an explanation in these cases. The translators had a holy, biblical text in front of them that they aimed to render as closely as possible. They could have followed the original and marked negation by way of the neg-particle only and not on the indefinite following it. And nonetheless they felt the need to diverge from the Latin text and neg-mark the postverbal indefinite also. This is strong evidence that the postverbal position was a genuine position for n-indefinites, too, in OHG. The only two examples of pattern I in Isidor are in line with the situation in Tatian: In both of them, the neg-particle was added against the Latin original. Concerning the n-indefinite, the translators followed the original in one case, in the other case they changed the formulation and added the n-indefinite as a new constituent. (Both n-indefinites are in preverbal position.) (430)

(qua nihil dulcius.) huuanda dhemu neouuihd nist suuozssera. because that nothing NEG-is sweeter ‘because nothing is sweeter than this’ Is VI, 1

(431)

(Numquid de illo salomone creditur prophetatum? minime.) Neo nist zi chilaubanne dhazs fona dhemu salomone sii dhiz never NEG-is to believe that of the Salomo be this chiforabodot. predicted ‘It is not to be believed that this was predicted of Salomo’ Is IX, 3

246


Regarding pattern II with neg-marking by the neg-particle on V only and a non-neg-marked indefinite, one can observe a strong Latin influence in Tatian. 25 of the 27 examples of this pattern converge with the original with respect to the indefinite, cf. table (423) above. Yet, the fact that not all examples of pattern II are equivalents of the Latin original suggests that pattern II, while it definitely was not the standard pattern for negation in Tatian, was still a genuine grammatical option for the OHG translators which they even chose to use without the direct Latin example. This impression is even stronger in Isidor where of the 9 cases in which a non-neg-marked indefinite was used and negation was marked on the verb only, 8 diverge from the Latin original with respect to the choice of the indefinite. (432)

(In qua sententia nemo dubitet secundam esse personam.) In dhesemu quhide ni bluchisoe eoman, ni dhiz sii chiuuisso ... in this saying NEG doubt anyone NEG this be certainly ‘Nobody shall doubt that in this saying, it is certainly...’ Is III, 6

(433)

(& sine Ipso / factum est nihil) Inti ûzzan sín / ni uuas uuiht gitanes and without him NEG was (any)thing made ‘And without him, nothing was made’ T 25, 21f.

A great extent of correspondence to the Latin original can be found in both texts in the case of non-neg-marked indefinite bare NPs under negation: All 57 examples from Tatian and all 5 examples from Isidor converge with the original. On the other hand, this syntactic pattern is also common in those texts that are not literal translations of Latin texts. Therefore, as generally whenever the OHG construction is identical to the Latin one, it is hard to ascertain whether the syntactic pattern is genuinely OHG and simply happened to correspond to Latin syntax, or whether one is dealing with a massive influence from the original. A similar picture emerges for pattern III in Tatian: Virtually all (44 of 46) cases in which negation is marked on the indefinite only and not additionally by the neg-particle on the verb converge with the Latin text.228 Therefore, it would be quite convincing to argue that pattern III is basically an artefact in228

Cf. table (423) above.

3.5

247


duced by the Latin original, especially considering that it hardly or not at all occurs in other texts (see table (380) above). There are also no examples of pattern III in Isidor. Table (434) gives an overview over how the translators of Tatian and Isidor proceeded when they encountered an indefinite in the scope of negation in the Latin original (compare also table (345) above). (434)

Indefinites in the scope of negation in Latin original and OHG translation229

Latin ‘pos.’ indef. indef. bare NP n-indef.

OHG ‘pos.’ indef. indef. bare NP n-indef.

n-indef.

‘pos.’ indef.

‘pos.’ indef. -

n-indef. ‘pos.’ indef. n-indef.

indefinite taken over as non-negmarked taken over as negmarked changed to non-negmarked changed to neg-marked new non-neg-marked new neg-marked

Isidor 1 5 2

Tatian 25 57 91

4

1

7 1

10 1 5

In many cases, the translators followed the Latin text in their choice of the indefinite type. The translators of Tatian chose the indefinite corresponding to the Latin one in the clear majority of cases, and in Isidor, the translators followed the Latin example in about half of the cases. Looking at what the translators changed with respect to the indefinites against the Latin original, in Tatian the tendency is clearly towards neg-marking of the indefinite, which can therefore be considered a genuine trait of the OHG syntax of negation. (435)

(ego non iudico quemquam.) ih nituomu niomannen. I NEG-judge nobody ‘I do not judge anybody’ T 214, 21

Yet, there are rare cases where the translators missed off the neg-marking on the indefinite or added a new, non-neg-marked indefinite in the scope of negation. This tendency is even stronger in Isidor where most indefinites that were 229

For all indefinites as listed in table (344) above.

248


changed in comparison with the Latin original or added in new are indeed nonneg-marked, cf. example (432) above. This confirms that the use of non-negmarked indefinites in the scope of negation was also a genuine grammatical option in OHG just as there is for instance a choice in Modern English to some extent. Furthermore, it supports the hypothesis that there was a difference in that respect between the early OHG text of Isidor and later OHG. On the basis of the way the translators dealt with indefinites in the scope of negation, one may also judge how the two translatory texts of Tatian and Isidor compare. Isidor is generally considered a superior translation (cf. Lippert 1974) that is more free from the original, whereas the aim of the translators of Tatian was to help native speakers of German with their understanding of the Latin text rather than to produce a consistent German text that could stand alone (cf. Masser 1994). Therefore, the OHG text of Tatian is reminiscent of interlineary glosses at times. However, the translators of Tatian also occasionally changed the syntax, e. g. the verbal placement, according to OHG grammar. Both texts use the same type of indefinites as the Latin original in a number of cases. The ratio of convergence with the Latin text is, however, greater in Tatian than in Isidor so that Isidor may indeed be considered a more free translation also in this respect. On the other hand, the indefinite bare NPs under negation in both texts all correspond to Latin ones. Furthermore, both texts are similar in so far as, when NC occurs in OHG in contrast to Latin, this is mostly so because the translators not only rendered the Latin n-indefinite in OHG but added the neg-particle on the verb. The two texts differ according to the tendencies of the divergences: The changes that the translators of Isidor applied in comparison with the Latin original are mostly changes towards pattern II (neg-marking by ni+V, ‘pos.’ indefinite), whereas in Tatian they go towards pattern I (NC in the form of Neg-Doubling). In so far as pattern I, i. e. NC, is impossible in Latin, the changes applied by the translators of Tatian mean that, on the whole, the syntax of negation in Tatian actually moves further away from the Latin syntax of negation than in Isidor. 3.5.11. Syntactic analysis of OHG NC Following the arguments presented in chapter 3.3 above, I assume that the OHG n-indefinites were merely formally neg-marked and not semantically negative. They thus posses an uninterpretable neg-feature [+ neg] (or

3.5


249

[uNeg])230 that is checked and deleted in a non-local checking relation under ccommand against the interpretable [+ neg]-feature (or [iNeg]) that resides in NegP. NC (in the sense of Neg-Doubling, the major NC pattern in OHG) is explained very neatly under this view because the n-indefinites are semantically equivalent to their non-neg-marked counterparts. There is just one negation in the sentence viz. Neg0, i. e. ni in OHG which licenses the occurrence of n-indefinites.231 These check their uninterpretable neg-feature against the interpretable one in Neg0. In view of arguments from typological and semantic research that speak against an obligatory movement of all n-indefinites into SpecNegP, and in view of the fact that, in OHG, n-indefinites are also licensed in situ (cf. example (404) above), I assume that this process of checking does not necessarily require a Spec-head relation. Rather the feature is checked under c-command once Neg0 is merged, an instance of the so-called Agreerelation (Chomsky 1999). A clause as in (436) would accordingly be analysed as in (437) below. The difference between the non-NC language of Modern German and the NC-language of OHG as analysed here is that Neg0 is never spelt out in Modern German. When n-indefinites occur in Modern German, neither SpecNegP (otherwise occupied by nicht), nor Neg0 is filled overtly. (436)

230

(& precepit/ illis. ne cui dicerent.) gibot her/ in tho thaz sie niheinagamo nisagatin told he them then that they nobody NEG-told ‘Then he told them not to tell anybody’ T 130, 15f.

I assume that the feature itself stems from the lexicon, as also suggested by Weiß (2002a). Alternatively, one might propose a process of feature percolation from Neg0 and ensuing spellout of this feature, as suggested by Molnárfi (2001), though the exact nature of this process would yet have to be explained. 231 Alternatively, one could assume that the semantically relevant negator is an abstract negoperator in SpecNegP.

250 (437)


CP C’ C thaz

TP NP sie

T’ NegP

T nisagatin

OP

Neg’ Neg0 tni-sag-

VP tsie

V’

NP niheinigemo

[iNeg]

V tsag-

[uNeg] checking under c-command (‘Agree’)

The required licensing relation also holds for the OHG cases where the nindefinite occurs in isolation and gives rise to a negative interpretation, for instance in one-word answers such as: (438)

(numquid aliquid defuit uobis/ at illi dixerunt nihil.) eno uuas íu iouuiht thes uuan/ sie quadun imo niouuiht. and was you anything that wanting they told him nothing ‘And did you lack anything? They answered him: Nothing.’ T 282, 4f.

The structure including the licensing Neg0 is simply not pronounced due to ellipsis. However, the ellided NegP contributes the semantic negation. The arguably also genuine OHG pattern II with negation marked on the verb only and a ‘normal’ or NPI-indefinite in the scope of negation indicates that n-indefinites were licensed but not obligatory in the c-command domain of Neg0. Pattern III with neg-marking by the n-indefinite only and no neg-particle on the verb is very rare and largely due to Latin influence. To the extent to

3.5


251

which it could be said to constitute a part of OHG grammar at all, one would have to assume that Neg0 could occasionally be abstract, as obviously also later in MHG. The fact that, besides the standard pattern I (NC), the competing nonNC patterns II or, less often III are used indicates a certain degree of optionality of NC in OHG. Optionality of NC has been described for other languages, too. According to Haegeman (1995), the West Flemish neg-particle en optionally occurs on the verb when there is a negative XP such as an nindefinite in the clause, so that NC in the form of Neg-Doubling results. Alternatively the n-indefinite may just as well occur as the only neg-marker in the clause. Weiß (1998: 182/219) describes a similar situation for Bavarian: When n-indefinites are present, especially ones meaning ‘never’ or ‘nowhere’, the neg-particle may be missed off without a change in meaning.232 (439)

Koa Mensch is (ned) kema. no person is NEG come ‘Nobody came.’

Weiß (1998: 219) analyses the lack of the neg-particle as a case of surfacestructural deletion. Thus ned is supposedly present syntactically but deleted lateron in the syntactic derivation. In Afrikaans, the neg-particle is doubled by a second neg-particle at the end of the clause. According to Molnárfi (2001: 106) this is obligatory. On the other hand, there is optionality concerning whether all or none of the indefinites are neg-marked (Molnárfi 2001: 119). In OHG, the variation mostly concerns the choice of the indefinite pronoun or adverb (pattern I or II) rather than the presence or lack of the negparticle (pattern I or III) as described above. NC was generally the preferred pattern but there was a certain degree of optionality in using an n-indefinite or a non-neg-marked indefinite.

232

Example taken from Weiß (1998: 182).

252

3.6.


Middle High German n-indefinites and NC

3.6.1. The system of MHG indefinites Again it is helpful to see the indefinite pronouns and adverbs that the MHG writers used in the scope of negation against the background of the general system of indefinites. On the basis of the accounts in Paul (2007), de Boor/ Wisniewski (1998), Mettke (1989), Lockwood (1968), Fobbe (2004), the dictionaries by Benecke/Müller/Zarncke (1854) and Lexer (1872) and my own investigations, the system of indefinite pronouns and adverbs in MHG basically maps out as sketched in (440) (indefinites meaning ‘all’ are not included again, because there are no n-indefinite counterparts): (440)

MHG system of indefinite pronouns and adverbs Det

‘entity’

‘normal’ sum(elih), et(e)waz indefinite/ ete(s)lîch, PPI-indefinite iet(es)lîch, ieweder/ geweder, ein NPI-indefinite (↑) (einig)

n-indefinite

de(ch)weder/ iht/ iet eindeweder, de(c)hein/kein (/sichein) ↓ ↓ ne(c)hein/ enhein / nicht/nît enkein, neweder

‘person’

‘time’

ete(s)wer

eteswenne ete(s) wâ

iendert, iener, iergen

(↑) ieman

(↓) nieman(d)

‘place’

ie (mer)

(↓) nie (mer), niender, nimmer niergent

As the system is inherited from OHG, there are a number of similarities, compare table (340) above. For most indefinites, there are neg-marked and a non-neg-marked variants. These are basically the successors of the respective OHG indefinites. The three-set system with ‘normal’/PPI-indefinites, NPIindefinites and n-indefinites that was still mostly intact in OHG is, however, changing diachronically as indicated by the arrows in (440) and eventually

3.6

MIDDLE HIGH GERMAN N-INDEFINITES AND NC

253

turning into a system of indefinites with largely only two sets – ‘normal’ indefinites and n-indefinites – that we find in Modern German today, cf. table (442) below. A number of the crucial changes and shifts within the indefinite system took place during or at the end of the MHG period. The indefinite PPI determiner sum(ilih), the cognate of English some, died out (cf. Mettke 1989: 170), as did the original n-indefinite determiner nehein/enhein (cf. Behaghel 1913: 179) except for some Upper German dialects (cf. Swiss German ekei, cf. chpt. 3.6.4). In most varieties of German and also in the Standard language, it was replaced by the former NPI determiner dehein/kein which changed into an n-indefinite during the course of the MHG period, as will be discussed in detail in chpt. 3.6.4 below. In contrast to dehein/ kein, einig, the cognate of the NPI-determiner any, became very rare in MHG, cf. chpt. 3.6.3. below. It only survives with the changed meaning of ‘a few/a couple’, after the original distributional distinction to the PPI233 indefinite etlich that can still be observed in some ENHG texts (cf. Lockwood 1968: 79) was given up and einig generally came to be used in all non-negative contexts. The ‘normal’ indefinite determiner ein ‘a’ that was starting to be grammaticalized in late OHG also remained in MHG.234 Among the indefinites referring to entities, the n-indefinite ni(o)wiht > nicht ‘nothing’ remained in MHG. It is still used in Modern German, however only in its original genitive form nichts that is already attested in this function in my MHG corpus.235 The NPI-indefinite (io)wiht > iht/ieht ‘anything’, adverbially ‘at all’, partly showed tendencies to turn into an n-indefinite similarly to dehein/kein, cf. chpt. 3.6.4 below: Both in its argumental and its nonargumental use, it also appears as the only neg-marker in negated clauses in MHG. In the latter use, it survived as a neg-particle in some dialects (see example (211) above). Apart from those remains, however, it became extinct. The original PPI-indefinite ete(s)waz > etwas ‘something’ extended its distribution to weak NPI contexts and thus came to cover both non-affective and affective non-negative contexts. Among the indefinites with a restriction to person, the opposite development took place: In classical MHG, the distinction between the PPI eteswer 233

The results of Fobbe (2004) indicate PPI status in Old High German with an extension to some weak NPI contexts in Middle High German. 234 The results of Fobbe (2004) indicate PPI status in Old High German and extension to various NPI contexts in Middle High German. However, ein is already attested even in the scope of negation in Old High German, cf. chpt. 3.5.5 above. 235 This is probably due to the common use of genitive rather than accusative as the object case under negation.

254


and the NPI ieman was still made, but was blurred later on (Lockwood: 1968: 79). The PPI-indefinite ete(s)wer died out in the 15th century (cf. Paul 2007: 227). The original NPI indefinite ioman > ieman temporarily also showed tendencies to turn into an n-indefinite (cf. de Boor/Wisniewski 1998: 191, Paul 2007: 377) but was eventually extended to non-affective contexts instead and thus became a ‘normal’ indefinite used in opposition to the n-indefinite nioman > nieman that was again kept from OHG. Interestingly, in some Upper German dialects, the development was opposite to that in the standard language and thus exactly parallel to that among the indefinites referring to entities: The NPI indefinite ioman > ieman died out and the former PPI-indefinite ete(s)wer (Bavarian ebba, Swiss German öpper) was extended to weak NPI contexts, turning into a ‘normal’ indefinite.236 Among the indefinites with a restriction to time, the ‘normal’/PPIindefinite ete(s)wenne died out and was replaced by the newly formed ‘normal’ indefinite adverb irgendwann. Both the former n-indefinite nio (mer) > nie/ nimmer as well as the NPI-indefinite io > ie remained. Recall that the latter represents the only remaining NPI in the system of indefinite pronouns, determiners and adverbs in Modern German. In the combination io mer ‘any/ever more’ > iemer/immer, it was occasionally used as an n-indefinite in MHG (cf. de Boor/Wisniewski 1998: 191, Paul 2007: 394f.), but this change was not accomplished. Immer survived in the meaning ‘always’, following on from the free-choice reading that was already attested for OHG io (compare also English ever in example (342) above). Note that in some varieties of Modern German, immer is still also used as an NPI, for instance in questions: (441)

#Wann hast du nächste Woche immer Zeit? when have you next week ever/at all time ‘When do you have time next week?’

Among the local indefinite adverbs, the former PPI ete(s)wa ‘somewhere’ remained in the language as etwa but changed its meaning to ‘approximately’. Of the n-indefinites, nioner > niender eventually became extinct, whereas niowergin > nirgend(s) survived. In composition with the wh-place-indefinite wo ‘where’, a further local n-indefinite was formed later on, viz. nirgendwo. The former local NPI ioner > iener/iendert ‘anywhere’ also became extinct, whereas (io)wergin > iergen/irgend survived and is still used in Modern 236

I thank Peter Gallmann and Helmut Weiß for pointing this out to me.

3.6

255


German in archaic style but with the changed meaning of ‘at all’. In combination with various wh-indefinites and ‘normal’ indefinites it also formed new ‘normal’ indefinites later: irgendwer/irgendjemand ‘somebody, anybody’, irgendwas/irgendetwas ‘something, anything’, irgendwann ‘some/any time’, irgendwo ‘somewhere, anywhere’ and also irgendwie ‘somehow, in some/any way’. Table (442) roughly summarizes the developments in German by contrasting the OHG and the Modern German system. (442) ‘normal’/

Development of indefinite system from OHG to Modern German Det sum(ilih)

‘entity’

ete(s)wer ete(s)waz

PPI-indef. ein eteslih

‘person’

ein

etwas

NPI-indef. einig

(io)wiht

jemand ioman

dehein(ig) n-indef.

‘normal’/

nihein(ig)

kein ni(o)wiht

‘time’

‘place’

ete(s)wenne

etewar

nichts ni(o)man

niemand

irgendwann

PPI-indef. NPI-indef. io

je

(io)wergin

irgendwo

ioner n-indef.

nio

nie

niowergin

nirgends

nioner

nirgendwo

While the changes described above occasionally went into opposite directions, they have the same overarching effect: The former division into three polarity types of indefinites including the category of NPI indefinites, is virtually reduced to two types – n-indefinites in the scope of negation on the one hand, and ‘normal’ indefinites for all other cases on the other hand. This is achieved by the extinction or shift in type of former PPI indefinites, n-indefinites and NPI indefinites. The latter partly replace n-indefinites or PPIs inherited from OHG. In terms of the feature characterization introduced in chpt. 3.1 above, these changes involve either enrichment of lexical items with a plus-valued

256


feature (as in the case of dehein/kein [+ neg]) or complete feature loss (as in the case of ioman/ieman loss of [+ affec]),237 or, with the extinction of NPIcounterparts, the distributional extension of the arguably underspecified PPIs into weak NPI contexts from which they had been excluded per Elsewhere Condition by the existence of the distributionally more restricted NPI forms (as in the case of etwas). Such polarity type changes are not specific to the German language history but are attested in a vast number of languages (cf. chpt. 3.6.4 below and Jäger under review). The profound change in German from a threeset to a two-set system in which the feature affective virtually plays no role any more (except for the NPI indefinite je) is linked to a number of changes in the syntax of negation as will become evident below. 3.6.2. Indefinites in the scope of negation In contrast to OHG, the subset of indefinites that is used in the scope of negation is much more restricted in MHG. Virtually only n-indefinites are used in [+ affec, + neg] contexts. In my corpus of the first 100 negated clauses each from Nibelungenlied, Prose-Lancelot and Berthold’s sermons, the following indefinite pronouns, determiners and adverbs occur in the scope of negation: (443)

Indefinites in the scope of negation in the MHG corpus Nibelungenlied:238

a. n-indef.

Det 5 dehein

‘entity’ 1 niht

other indef.

4 ein

-

237

‘person’ 16 niemen/ nieman -

‘time’ ‘place’ 22 nie (mer)/ 1 ninder nim(m)er 1 ie -

Note that the predicted types of change are quite in line with underspecification theories of language acquisition (cf. Eisenbeiß 2002): Only plus-valued features may be acquired so that no diachronic change to a minus value would be possible: Either there is not enough evidence for the learner and the feature is not acquired at all (diachronic feature loss) or there is evidence and then this will always constitute evidence for the marked feature value, i. e. the plus value. 238 Concerning the use of n-indefinites, the three main manuscripts of Nibelungenlied are almost identical. They only differ a little with respect to the use of de(h)ein/chein (in my corpus A: 5 dehein, B: 5 dehein, 1 chein, C: 7 d(e)hein).

3.6

257


b.

Lancelot:

Det ‘entity’ nichts/ 14 keyn, 5 8 dheyn nicht/nit (1 iht239) other indef. 1 ein n-indef.

c. n-indef.

Det 7 kein, 2 dekein

other indef. -

‘person’ 12 nyman(d/t)

‘time’ 5 nye 1 nie

‘place’

-

-

-

Berthold: ‘entity’ ‘person’ 8 nieman 2 niht, 2 nihtes niht, (1 iht240) -

‘time’ ‘place’ 28 niemer (mêr(e)), 3 nie -

Non-neg-marked indefinites, whether ‘normal’ or NPI indefinites hardly occur in the scope of negation any more. Besides one example including ie (‘ever’) in Nibelungenlied, it is only the positive indefinite determiner ein that is found as an instance of a non-neg-marked indefinite in a few negated clauses in the MHG corpus.

239

(444)

ich wene nie ingesinde groezer milte ie gepflac. I think never attendants greater mildness ever cultivated ‘I do not think that any attendants ever acted with such great mildness’ Nib (A) II, 43, 4

(445)

wir heten ninder einen zagen. we had nowhere a hesitation ‘We did not hesitate at any point’ Nib (A) IV, 231, 4

Und hútent wol das er myner fert icht wißse ‘and take heed that he knows nothing(/not) about my trip’ (Lanc 22, 75). 240 Dû machest einen alten hadern, der fûl ist und ungenaeme unde dâ mite man billîcher eine want verstieze, wan ez zuo anders iht nütze sî: ‘... because it is useful for nothing else’ (Bert I, 105 (p. 18)).

258


Note that in both examples, the ‘positive’ indefinite occurs after an n-indefinite where in Modern German and generally also in OHG (see chpt. 3.5.6. above) only ‘positive’ indefinites occur anyway. In the case of the latter example, other manuscripts of Nibelungenlied demonstrate, however, that a different indefinite would have been possible: (445’)

wir heten ninder {cheinen zagn / dheinen zagen}. we had nowhere any/no hesitation / any/no hesitation ‘We did not hesitate at any point’ Nib (B/C) IV, 231, 4

On the issue of the classification of dehein/kein and the question whether several n-indefinites could co-occur in MHG, i. e. whether Neg-Spread was possible see chapter 3.6.7 below. Apart from these rare examples with nonneg-marked indefinites (that would also correspond to Modern German), the use of n-indefinites is generalized: As Paul (1920: 330) states, since the end of OHG, only n-indefinites were used in the scope of negation. In that respect, MHG is approaching the Modern German situation where the indefinites that occur under negation are generally n-indefinites,241 i. e. a stronger Elsewhere Condition holds since MHG requiring the use of the distributionally more restricted n-indefinites wherever possible. 3.6.3. MHG NPI-indefinites As indicated above, indefinites in the scope of negation virtually always take the form of an n-indefinite in MHG. Some of the former NPI-indefinites changed into ‘normal’ indefinites or n-indefinites (see chpts. 3.6.1 and 3.6.4), some became virtually extinct. In this section, I will discuss in some more detail the development of the NPI-determiner einig. With the great increase of dehein in MHG (cf. chpt. 3.6.4 below), the indefinite NPI determiner einig is virtually lost. It is not even mentioned in the chapters on indefinites in standard MHG grammars such as Penzl (1989), Mettke (1989), de Boor/Wisniewski (1998), or Paul (2007). In the MHG dictionary by Benecke/Müller/Zarncke (1854: 424b), there is only an entry for adjectival einig, or einec respectively. Here, they explicitly state that the second use that this word had in OHG, viz. that of an indefinite pronoun, is not found in MHG and only ‘returned’ in Modern German einige ‘a few’. On the 241

However, Modern German is a non-NC language. Thus as discussed above (chpt. 3.4) only the first indefinite pronoun or adverb in the scope of negation appears as an n-indefinite.

3.6


259

other hand, Lexer (1872: 525) in his MHG dictionary has a separate entry for einic with the meaning ‘irgendein’/‘any(one)’. Thus the indefinite einig was presumably not entirely lost in MHG but hardly ever appeared at all in contrast to the omnipresent dehein/kein. In my MHG corpus of negated clauses, einig is found only once, but in arguably adjectival use cf. (447). I therefore additionally checked the entire texts of Nibelungenlied, Lancelot and Berthold’s “Four Sermons”. There are only very few examples of einig. The clear cases are all instances of adjectival einig ‘unique/single’ cf. (446), so that in the ambiguous cases, cf. (447), einig is also more likely to be an adjective. Recall the same situation already held in Otfrid, whereas the NPI determiner einig was only attested in the earlier OHG texts of Tatian and Isidor. (446)

daz ir iemer ein einigez wort von in gelernet. that you never a single word from them learn ‘that you never learn a single word from them’ Bert 3, 770

(447)

und hâst aller wâren riuwe niht sô vil als einigen tropfen. and have all true remorse NEG as much as single drop ‘and you feel not as much as a single drop of remorse’ Bert 1, 198

My data thus support the view that the second original NPI determiner einig was lost or extremely marginalized by the MHG period. This development is surprising in so far as, of the two indefinite NPI determiners, einig was mainly found in [+ affec, + neg] contexts in OHG, whereas dehein(ig) was predominantly used in [+ affec, – neg] contexts. Accordingly, einig might have been more prone to become associated with the lexical feature [+ neg] and thus develop into an n-indefinite than dehein. It was probably due to the support from the parallel form nehein that dehein could supercede einig. However, remains of the indefinite NPI determiner einig are still found in the ENHG (448) and even the Early Modern German period cf. (449):242 (448)

242

es weisz Reinhart meher von streits übung wan einicher ritter der it knows Reinhart more of fight practice than any knight the

The Modern German einige ‘a few/several’ is evidenced with that meaning since around 1700 cf. Pfeifer (1989: 341). It is not restricted to affective contexts.

260


ganzen welt whole world ‘Reinhart knows more about fighting practice than any knight in the whole world’ Hutten (quoted after Grimm/Grimm 1862: 210) (449)

dasz sie weder an leibe noch vermögen einige kränkung that they neither at body nor property any loss erdulden sollen suffer shall ‘that they shall not suffer any loss concerning their body or property’ Goethe (quoted after Grimm/Grimm 1862: 210)

3.6.4. NPIs changing into n-indefinites While some former NPI indefinites became virtually extinct or eventually turned into ‘normal’ indefinites, others changed into n-indefinites. At the point of transition, it is sometimes difficult to class the respective items clearly. As discussed in chapter 3.1 above, the decisive criterion for n-indefinites is the fact that they give rise to a negative interpretation in isolation. As this is the case with some MHG indefinites in contrast to their OHG predecessors, I conclude that they diachronically developed into n-indefinites. However, they are still also licensed in some weak NPI contexts. Dehein/kein One of the indefinites that developed from an NPI into an n-indefinite in MHG is dehein/kein (cf. Jäger 2007). In contrast to OHG thehein/ dehein(ig), MHG dehein/kein occurs quite frequently in the scope of negation. In my MHG corpus 5 % of all negated clauses from Nibelungenlied, 20 % of those from Lancelot and 9 % of those from Berthold contain this indefinite pronoun. Recall that in the OHG corpus, there were only 1% each in Otfrid and Notker, and no occurrences at all in Tatian and Isidor. In all texts in the MHG corpus, variants both with and without de- can be found: dehein/dechein/dhein and chein/kein. One can observe a diachronic shift from a majority of forms with de- to a majority of forms without de-.

3.6


261

Dehein is the direct ancestor of Modern German kein (cf. Behaghel 1913: 180, Lockwood 1968: 79, Eroms 1993: 2, Lloyd et al. 1998: 562f.). Kein may partly follow on from nehein also (cf. Pfeifer 1989: 823, Danielsen 1968: 92/99, Lloyd et al. 1998: 563), but this n-indefinite determiner had already largely become extinct before the rise of dehein and kein (cf. chpt. 3.6.6 below). Furthermore, there is a straightforward phonetic development from dehein to kein. Behaghel (1913: 180) therefore concludes that dehein formed the only source for kein.243 The following phonetic development can be assumed: Starting from deh.ein, the syllable boundary shifted (cf. Braune/ Reiffenstein 2004: 151) producing de.hein. Ensuing ǩ apocope (cf. Lloyd et al. 1998: 562) led to the form dhein/dchein which is also evidenced in writing: (450)

wann dhein man enmöcht nymer so großen jamer erdencken because any/no man NEG-may never so great sorrow think-up ‘because no man may ever think up such a great sorrow’ Lanc 54, 287

Eventually, a place assimilation of the initial stop took place rendering kein. The same kind of place assimilation of an initial dental to a following fricative can for instance be observed in Swiss German where the combination d’chind (‘the children’) of the definite article [t] and the noun [xind] (‘children’) is pronounced as [kxind]. As argued above (chpt. 3.5.3), the determiner dehein(ig) was an NPI in OHG. Paul’s (2007: 375) statement that dehein occurs in ‘hypothetical clauses’ as well as clauses dependent on negated matrix predicates or on questions (what is meant here, is probably in fact that it could occur in questions) indicates that dehein still functioned as an NPI in MHG. On the other hand, he also reports that it could occur as the only neg-marker in negated clauses. Behaghel (1913: 180) lists negated clauses, conditionals, the standard of comparison and questions as licensing contexts. Furthermore, he mentions rare cases of positive clauses. However, looking at the examples he gives – a relative clause that forms a restriction on a universal quantifier, and an ‘if’-clause – these are in fact weak NPI contexts, too. Fobbe (2004) found MHG dehein/kein 243

For the controversy concerning kein see also Gerring (1927), Lloyd et al. (1998). Even if nehein possibly formed an additional diachronic source for kein, it cannot have been the major source as the distributional facts confirm: nehein was never used in [+ affec, – neg], kein, on the other hand frequently occurs in these, which supports the hypothesis that it is derived from dehein(ig) which was predominantly used in these contexts but also in the scope of negation in OHG.

262


only in comparatives, negated clauses and clauses dependent on matrix negation. The distribution of dehein and its variants in the three MHG texts in the corpus across the three main types of contexts that I distinguished, viz. [– affec, – neg], [+ affec, – neg] and [+ affec, + neg], is given in (451).The distribution was analysed for all up to the first 20 examples of each variant of dehein in each text. Close variants such as dehein and dechein are grouped together in the graphs. Forms with and without d(e)-, on the other hand, are differentiated in order to capture any possible differences in distribution. (451)

Distribution of MHG dehein and variants244

Nibelungenlied

Lancelot

Berthold

20

20

20

15

15

15

10

10

10

5

5

5

0

0

-affec, - + affec, - + affec, neg neg +neg de(c)hein chein/kein ne/enhein

- affec, - + affec, + affec, neg. - neg. + neg. dheyn/dhein keyn/kein

0 - affec, - + affec, - + affec, neg. neg. + neg. dehein/dekein kein

The diagrams in (451) show that the various forms of dehein occur mostly in negative contexts. This is particularly so for the forms kein/keyn/chein without de- as compared to dehein, which indicates a development that eventually led to Modern German kein as an element entirely restricted to [+ affec, + neg] contexts. The different MHG variants of dehein are still fairly common in [+ affec, – neg] contexts, notably the forms with de- but also those without. They are not attested at all in [– affec, – neg] contexts. This last result contradicts Pensel (1981), who explicitly speaks of negative and affirmative dehein.

244

The graph for Nibelungenlied additionally illustrates the distribution of the corresponding nindefinite nehein/enhein that is only attested in Nibelungenlied of the texts in my MHG corpus.

3.6


263

Dehein does not occur in non-affective affirmative contexts in any of the three texts. Paul’s (2007) statement that dehein is used in “hypothetic clauses” or clauses dependent on negated matrix clauses, Behagel’s (1913) observation that they are licensed also e. g. in conditionals and the standard of comparison and the contexts reported by Fobbe (2004) are supported by my data. The [+ affec, – neg] licensing contexts that MHG dehein is attested in in my corpus are: • conditionals:245 (452)

Nu dunckest du mich als wise, sol kein man radt Now seem you me as wise, should any/no man advice darzu geben, das thust auch du. to-that give, that do also you ‘Now you seem to me just as wise. If any man should give advice on this, so should you’ Lanc 88, 521

•

the standard of comparison:246

(453)

Du bist milt und gut, me dann ye kein konig wart, beide You are mild and good, more than ever any/no king was, both gegen got und gegen der welt. towards god and towards the world ‘You are mild and good, more than ever any king was, both towards god and towards the world’ Lanc 138, 872

•

245

occasionally clauses dependent on negated matrix clauses or adversative predicates such as furhten (‘to fear’), verbieten (‘to forbid’) etc.:

Which were obviously not attested in Fobbe’s (2004) MHG corpus for dehein/kein. According to Behaghel (1913: 180), dehein/kein continues to be licensed in the standard of comparison into the 18th century. He attributes this fact to French influence. 246

264


(454)

Wan ez wart niemer gehört von anegenge der werlte, daz ie Because it was never heard from beginning of-the world that ever dehein mensch sô bittern tôt ie erlite any/no man such bitter death ever suffered ‘Because it was never heard since the beginning of the world that any man ever suffered such a bitter death’ Bert 4, 1098

•

the syntactic context of selten (‘rarely’), ee (‘before’), kûme (‘hardly’) etc.

(455)

ich zeih iv einen wirt,/ daz ir ce hvse selten so wol bechomen I show you a landlord that you to house rarely so well come birt / in {[ms. A:] deheime/[ms. B:] deheinen/[ms. C:] keinem are in any/no any/no any/no frömden} lande, als iv hi mach geschehen foreign country as you here may happen ‘I will show you a landlord such that you have rarely come to a house so well in any (foreign) country as may happen to you here’ Nib XXVI, 1711, 1-3

Comparing the graphs in (451) to those given above in (347) for OHG dehein(ig), there is a diachronic shift in distribution from predominantly [+ affec, – neg] contexts in OHG towards predominantly [+ affec, + neg] contexts in MHG, or, employing the terminology of van der Wouden (1997), from weak towards strong NPI contexts for thehein/dehein/kein. In the course of the historic development of German, kein slowly shifts from an NPI determiner to an n-indefinite. While it started out as an element that was licensed in various affective contexts, it finally became restricted to negative contexts.247 That is, it was already lexically specified as [+ affec] in OHG and additionally aquired the feature [+ neg] in MHG. 247

Erben (1950: 202/214) also notices in passing the fact that dehein is more and more restricted to negative contexts without however investigating its exact distribution and diachronic changes.

3.6


265

The classification of dehein/kein as starting out as an NPI explains why it appears to be randomly ‘negative’ at times and ‘positive’ at others, a fact that has been little understood so far. Dehein/kein is licensed in a number of contexts of which sentential negation is only one and which are known to license also other (weak) NPIs. In so far, its distribution is quite regular and expected. It is not a random collection of ‘positive’ contexts that it occurs in, but only affective contexts. Semantically, dehein/kein is never inherently negative, even as an n-indefinite (recall that the feature [+ neg] is an uninterpretable formal feature on indefinites cf chpt. 3.1 below). If dehein/kein gives rise to a negative semantic interpretation, it is in fact the overt or later on covert semantic negation higher up in the clause that dehein/kein indentifies and is licensed by in [+ affec, + neg] contexts, that leads to this semantic interpretation just as with all other n-indefinites (cf. the semantic analysis of n-indefinites in chpt. 3.3 above). Over the course of time, the distribution of dehein/kein shifted more and more to [+ affec, + neg] contexts. Eventually it sufficed to identify the sentential negation on its own without any additional overt neg-marker present in the clause (according to Paul 2007: 376 since the 12th cent.; according to Lloyd et al. 1998: 562 since around 1200), that is dehein/kein was finally reanalysed as an n-indefinite (or negative item/NI in the sense of Weiß 2002a). N-indefinites differ from NPIs in that they are associated with a formal [+ neg]-feature that may suffice to identify sentential negation. Indeed, whereas OHG thehein(ig)/dehein was never used as the only means of identifying negation in a clause (compare also Donhauser 1996), in the MHG corpus there are frequent cases of dehein/kein as the only neg-marker in the clause: (456)

ovch hoere iuch selben der degenheite iehen,/ daz man kvnich also hear you self the bravery tell that man king habe gesehen. deheinen chuoner any/none more-courageous has seen ‘I also hear yourself being praised of such bravery that one has not seen any more courageous king’ Nib III, 112, 1f.

(457)

das sol das buch vil wol hernach gesagen, wann wir haben es that shall the book very well later tell, because we have it

266


yczo keyn stadt now any/no place ‘The book shall tell that later, because we do not have any room for it now’ Lanc 10, 3 (458)

gesîn. roub unde diepheit daz mac kein amt robbery and theft that may any/no profession be ‘Robbery and theft – that cannot be a profession’ Bert I, 94 (16)

Besides cases where it is the only neg-marker, dehein/kein also appears in the scope of negation together with other neg-markers, just as do other MHG nindefinites. The ratio of dehein/kein in [+ affec, + neg] contexts with and without a further neg-marker is given in table (459). (459)

Nib Lanc Bert

MHG dehein/kein in [+ affec, + neg] contexts +/– further negmarker dehein/kein + neg-marker 1 14 6

dehein/kein as only neg-marker 4 8 4

I(c)ht Another former NPI indefinite that is showing tendencies of developing into an n-indefinite in MHG is the indefinite pronoun iht (< OHG iouuiht). In negative contexts, iht is quite rare compared to other indefinites. In my core corpus, there are only three examples from Nibelungenlied, two from Lancelot and one from Berthold.248 In order to investigate iht in detail, I therefore extended the data again and examined all 16 occurrences of iht in Berthold and the first 20 occurrences each from Nibelungenlied and Lancelot. Just as its neg-marked counterpart niht, iht is used as an argument (‘anything’/‘nothing’) as well as adverbially (‘in any way’/‘in no way’, ‘not’) , in the latter function arguably also as a second neg-particle (cf. chpt. 2.5.1. above). In argumental as well as non-argumental use, it occurs in weak NPI 248

Bert I, 105; Lanc 22, 75; Lanc 34, 165; Nib III, 105, 2; Nib III, 119, 1-3; Nib V, 288, 3f.

3.6


267

contexts as well as in the scope of negation, even as the only neg-marker in the respective clause, i. e. as an n-indefinite. (460)

a.

argument, [+ affec, – neg] context: wann haltent mich zu recht als ir gelobet hant, ob ich because keep me at right as you promised have if I uff keynen uwern man icht zu fordern han of any your man anything/nothing to claim have oder er off mich, das ir uns beyde zu recht haltent or he of me that you us both at right keep ‘Do justice to me as you promised: if I have anything to claim from one of your men or he from me, that you do justice to both of us’ Lanc 34, 165

b.

argument, [+ affec, + neg] context: nütze sî wan ez zuo anders iht because it for other anything/nothing useful is ‘because it is useful for nothing else’ Bert I, 105 (p. 18)

(461)

a.

non-argument, [+ affec, – neg] context: Wir han des niht gedingen, sprach do Gernot, / daz wir we have that NEG hoped said then Gernot that we iht lande ertwingen ... at all/NEG country conquer ‘We did not hope that (if) we ever conquer a country ...’ Nib III, 119, 1-3

268


b.

non-argument, [+ affec, + neg] context: Wir sulen den iungen herren enphahen dester baz, / daz We shall the young lord receive the better that wir iht verdienen des snellen rechen haz. we at all/NEG earn the fast warrior’s hatred ‘We shall receive the young lord all the better so that we do not earn the hatred of the fast warrior in any way‘ Nib III, 105, 2

In Nibelungenlied and Berthold, iht is used more frequently in adverbial function than as an argument (13 vs. 7 and 12 vs. 4 examples), in Lancelot, the two syntactic functions are equally often attested. The graphs in (462) below illustrate the syntactic distribution of iht across the three main types of context differentiated according to the syntactic function of iht. One diachronic tendency that can be observed on the basis of these graphs is that iht is increasingly used adverbially, or rather as a negparticle (just as adverbial niht, cf. discussion chpt. 2.5.1. above) rather than as an argument. Looking at the syntactic distribution, one may observe furthermore that there are no examples of iht in non-affective contexts in any of the texts. It is clearly restricted to affective contexts. In the case of argumental iht, most occurrences are to be found in [+ affec, – neg] contexts, i. e. in weak NPI contexts. In Lancelot argumental iht is even restricted to these contexts. Concerning adverbial iht, the individual texts differ. In Nibelungenlied the majority occur in weak NPI contexts again. Non-argumental iht occurs less than half as often in negated clauses as in other NPI contexts. In Lancelot the distribution over weak and strong NPI contexts, i. e. [+ affec; ± neg] contexts, is equal. In Berthold, the clear majority of occurences is found in [+ affec, + neg] contexts. All except for one of the dozen examples of non-argumental iht in Berthold are to be found in negated clauses. This could be interpreted as a diachronic tendency for adverbial iht to shift in its distribution from mostly [+ affec, – neg] contexts to mostly [+ affec, + neg] contexts over the roughly 100 years covered by these three sources. Comparing the graphs in (462) to those in (347) and (451), one notices that this shift from non-negative, nonaffirmative contexts to negative contexts echoes the development of dehein/ kein but is taking place at least a century later.

3.6


(462)

269

Distribution of MHG iht Lancelot

Nibelungenlied 10

10

8

8

6

6

4

4

2

2

0

0 -affec, +affec, +affec, -neg -neg +neg

argument

non-argument

-affec, - +affec, +affec, neg -neg +neg argument

non-argument

Berthold 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -affec, - +affec, +affec, neg -neg +neg argument

non-argument

Just as dehein/kein, iht appears in negative contexts as the only means of identifying negation (cf. also examples (460 b) and (461 b) above) – a fact that identifies iht as an n-indefinite, at least in those cases. Very rarely, it also occurs together with another neg-marker:249 (463)

daz sie an sîner stat einen ieglîchen kristenmenschen behüeten that they at his place a each christian-man look-after gevelschet werde mit [...], daz der edele schatz iht that the prescious treasure at all/NEG spoiled become with

249

In the examined data there are only examples where iht co-occurs with dehein.

270


deheiner bôsheit, alse verre sie ez erwenden mügen. any/no malice as far they it prevent may ‘that they look after each christian man in his place so that the precious treasure is not spoiled by any malice, as far as they can prevent it‘ Bert 23, 950 In almost all cases in which iht is used in negative contexts, however, it is the only means of identifying negation as table (464) illustrates. (464)

MHG iht in [+ affec, + neg] contexts +/– further neg-marker iht + neg-marker 1 (+ dheyn) 1 (+ dehein)

Nib Lanc Bert

iht as only neg-marker 5 4 10

The shift in its distribution in combination with the fact that, in contrast to its OHG predecessor iouuiht, iht is also used as the only means of identifying negation in a clause indicates that iht is in fact developing from an NPI into an n-indefinite. The [+ affec, – neg] contexts that it is still also licensed in are basically the same that also license dehein/kein as well as the expletive n-indefinites in certain Romance other languages (cf. chpt. 3.1). The weak NPI contexts that license iht in the three texts are: •

conditionals:250

(465)

koufen wilt, sô soltû nieman swenne dû iht whenever you anything/nothing buy want so should-you nobody sînen kouf swechen his deal lessen ‘Whenever you want to buy anything, do not lessen anybody’s deal’ Bert 10, 472

250

In Berthold, this is basically the only weak NPI context that also still licenses iht.

3.6


•

271

clauses dependent on adversative or negated matrix predicates:

(466)

der kvnde niht geiehen, / daz er ce dirre werlde hete the could NEG say that he at this world had schoeners gesehen. iht anything/nothing more-beautiful seen ‘he could not say that he had seen anything more beautiful in this world’ Nib V, 288, 3f.

•

clauses dependent on ze (‘too’) + adjective:

(467)

•

yes/no-questions:

(468)

•

Darzuo was er ze riche, daz er iht nemen solt. there-to was he too rich that he anything/nothing take should ‘He was too rich to take anything’ Nib IV, 264, 1

ist {vns/mir} iht maneger tot? is us/me at-all/NEG many dead ‘Did many (of us) die at all?’ Nib (B/C) IV, 231, 2251

syntactic context of vil luezel (‘hardly’) and ee (‘before’):

(469)

wiedder sie spreche, da hetten sie ee dann ich icht before than I anything/nothing against them speak PART had they mir dry wunden durch den ruck geworffen mit yren meßern me three wounds through the back thrown with their knives ‘Before I could even say anything to them, they had already inflicted three wounds on my back with their knives’ Lanc 200, 1319

251

Ms. A: ist vns ieman tot?

272

•


after âna (‘without’)

(470)

An daz dv iht trovtest, sprach der kvnich do, / mine without that you at-all/NEG trust said the king then my lieben vrowen, anders bin vro. dear mistress otherwise am content ‘Without you trusting my dear mistress at all, the king said, I would not be content’ Nib X, 674, 1

In its original NPI use, iht was eventually surplanted by etewaz which turned into the ‘normal’ indefinite referring to entities in non-negated clauses, whereas niht and later nichts remained as the corresponding n-indefinite. Thus iht virtually died out in the early Modern German period (cf. Lockwood 1968: 79). However, it survived in a few Upper German dialects as a neg-particle it/et (see example (211) above). The development that I illustrated here with the examples of MHG dehein/kein and iht, i. e. the development of NPIs into n-indefinites, is a common path in language change. NPIs are frequently used in the scope of negation as is already obvious from the term negative polarity item. They may eventually become that much associated with negation that the actual negparticle may be non-overt because the presence of the NPI suffices to identify negation. The rationale behind this development could be construed as follows: If the clause that an NPI occurs in is not one of the licensing weak NPI contexts, the respective clause cannot be a positive clause, either, as the NPI would not be licensed otherwise.252 The clause must therefore be a negative clause. Over time, former NPIs, that were only specified lexically as [+ affec], 252

According to Behaghel (1918: 205f.), Dal (1966: 164f.), Lockwood (1968: 209f.), de Boor/ Wisniewski (1998: 191) and Paul (2007: 392), this use of NPIs as n-indefinites is particularly common in clauses dependent on waenen, adhortative clauses or clauses dependent on adversative predicates, especially in dependent clauses with a predicate in the subjunctive form, e. g. Wolfram: den gebôt si allen an den lîp, daz si immer ritters würden lût ‘she commanded them all on pain of death that they should never speak about a knight’, Helmbrecht: ich wæne, ieman gesæhe / sô manegen vogel ûf hûben ‘I ween nobody (ever) saw so many birds (depicted) on a cap’ (quoted after Lockwood 1968). Note that these contexts also license expletive neg-markers. The subjunctive is known to be a typical feature of nonveridical, i. e. weak NPI contexts (cf. Zwarts 1995: 299). In some cases, this may also be linked to a semantic change of the matrix predicate (e. g. verbieten ‘order’ > ‘forbid’).

3.6

273


thus develop into n-indefinites and become associated with the formal [+ neg]feature. This change in the feature make-up of the respective lexical item is accompanied by a shift in syntactic distribution as described above since the new feature imposes additional licensing requirements. The range of licensing contexts is narrowed down from underspecified or [+ affective, ± neg] contexts to [+ affective, + neg] contexts. In order to be able to describe this kind of change at all, it is of course important to make the typological distinction between NPIs and n-indefinites. The development can be summarized as follows: (471) weak NPI

Development of NPIs into n-indefinites > strong NPI

> n-indefinite

licensed in various mostly or entirely suffices to identify a [+ affec] contexts restricted to [+ affec, context as [+ affec, + neg] contexts + neg] Similar diachronic developments have taken place within the system of indefinites in other languages, too. In Greek, the entire set of Classical Greek nindefinites has been surplanted by former NPI indefinites. The development of aliquis and its successors in various Romance languages is another case in point (Elisabeth Stark, p.c.): Classical Latin aliquis was restricted to [– affec, – neg] contexts, i. e. was a PPI indefinite. In Post-Classical Latin, its distribution shifted so that it could also be used in [+ affec, – neg] contexts, i. e. weak NPI contexts. Italian alcuno (< aliquis + unus) is a weak NPI. French aucun, on the other hand, is used only very occasionally in [+ affec, – neg] and mostly in [+ affec, + neg] contexts. It may even give rise to a negative interpretation in one-word answers, already:253 (472)

Quels gâteaux as-tu achetés? – Aucun. which cakes have-you bought any/none ‘Which cakes did you buy? – None.’

French

In English, a similar development can currently be observed in the case of the NPIs such as squat or Jack shit that are now also used without the licensing negation being overt: 253

For examples from further languages but also for the opposite development of n-indefinites towards ‘more positive’ cf. Jäger (under review).

274 (473)


You (don’t) know Jack shit ‘You don’t know anything’

English

The use of expressions such as OHG drof (‘drop’) and MHG ein har (‘a hair’), ein bon (‘a bean’), ein stro (‘a straw’), ein ber (‘a berry’), ein stoub (‘a (grain of) dust’) etc. as neg-markers (cf. Grimm 1890: 706-709, Paul 2007: 388f.) also belongs in this context. The grammaticalization of minimal-unit expressions, so-called minimizers, into NPIs is again attested in a wide range of languages (cf. Hoeksema 1998: 103). While it is evident that an indefinite such as dehein was an NPI and not an n-indefinite in OHG, and its successor kein is an n-indefinite but not an NPI in Modern German,254 the status at the time of transition in MHG is not always easily determined. This is an issue for any NPI that is diachronically turning into an n-indefinite in any language (or in fact any other polarity type changes). There are basically two approaches: One may opt to class the respective indefinite as an n-indefinite as soon as there are the first cases in which it occurs as the only neg-marker in a negated clause, i. e. suffices to identify negation,255 since this is a distinctive characteristic of n-indefinites (cf. chpt. 3.1. above). In this case, any co-occurrence of the element in question with another negmarker in the same clause under a concordant reading would constitute an instance of NC (which, especially in the case of dehein/kein, for instance, has repercussions on the question of which types of NC are attested in MHG, see chpt. 3.6.7. below). The fact that the new n-indefinite is licensed not only in the scope of negation but also still in a few weak NPI contexts could then be seen as a remnant of its NPI-past. Note that the fact that the respective items are (still) also licensed in some NPI contexts is also generally not taken to be problematic for the classification of e. g. Spanish nada, nadie etc. as n-

254

Dehein/kein is an n-indefinite at the latest from the point on when it is only licensed in the scope of negation. This would mean, only since the more recent Modern German period, because it was still used in NPI contexts as late as ENHG and even Early Modern German for example in the standard of comparison, e. g. by Luther (quoted after Lockwood 1968: 212): das Wort Gottes ist schärfer denn kein zweischneidiges Schwert ‘The word of God is sharper than a double-bladed sword’ and by Goethe (quoted after Behaghel 1913: 180): mehr als kein anderer ‘more than anybody else’. 255 Note that in line with recent syntactic and semantic theory (chpt. 3.3 above), I assume that n-indefinites are not semantically negative but are licensed by the (possibly abstract) semantic negation. Accordingly, dehein/kein or iht is never actually semantically negative, either.

3.6

275


indefinites. Indefinites such as MHG dehein/kein or iht, if uniformly classed as n-indefinites, would typologically resemble these items.256 Alternatively, one may assume that, during the transitional period, there is a lexical ambiguity or polysemy between an NPI and an n-indefinite version, and the NPI-use eventually died out (cf. Martins 2000 for historical Romance languages, Herburger 2001 for Modern Spanish, compare also Hoeksema 1998 who assumes polysemy for the Dutch NPI vs. ‘normal’ indefinite ooit ‘ever/ once’).257 This ambiguity approach would make sense for MHG dehein/kein, for instance, if one emphasizes the distributional differences in comparison to other n-indefinites in MHG, notably with respect to the co-occurrence with other neg-markers (see chpt. 3.6.7. below). 3.6.5. Original n-indefinites Besides the new n-indefinites that developed from former NPI indefinites, most of the former n-indefinites continue to be used. In my MHG corpus, the following n-indefinites that were inherited from OHG still occur: •

nehein/enhein

‘no’/‘none’/‘noone’

< nihein/nohein

•

ni(c)ht/nit

‘nothing’ (/‘in no way’)

< ni(o)wiht

•

nieman

‘nobody’

< nioman

•

nie(mer)

‘never’/‘no more’

< nio(mer)

•

ninder

‘nowhere’

< nioner

The local n-indefinite was not attested in my OHG corpus and is still very rare in MHG.258 The most common n-indefinites are nie(mer) and nieman in all three texts (cf. table (443) above). Dehein/kein, if it is already consistently classed as an n-indefinite, follows in terms of frequency. Somewhat less often, niht occurs. In my corpus, there is also evidence for the original genitive form 256

The uninterpretable [+ neg]-feature of these items would then have to be licensed in weak NPI contexts by some [+ neg] element, too, in line with earlier semantic decomposition approaches (which are, however, somewhat problematic cf. chpt. 3.1), or it is only ‘activated’ if the item occurs in a context that is otherwise non-affective. 257 Whereas Herburger (2001) sees this ambiguity as one between an NPI and an inherently negative quantifier, I assume that neither items are semantically negative (see chpt. 3.3 above), but that the difference resides in the fact that n-indefinites unlike NPIs bear a formal negfeature. 258 There is only one example from Nibelungenlied in my corpus. OHG possibly already had an equivalent local n-indefinite that is simply not attested.

276


nihtes/nichts that later on surplants niht as the n-indefinite for entities so that it is sufficiently distinct from the second neg-particle. (474)

und sagt im das er seh das im nichts gebrest an sim roß and tells him that he see that him nothing-GEN lacks at his horse ‘and tells him that he should see to it that nothing is wrong with his horse’ Lanc 22, 68

Another example is contained later on in Lancelot: (475)

underwinden ich wil mich nichtes I shall me nothing-GEN take-upon ‘I shall take nothing upon me’ Lanc 212, 1416

In ambiguous structures, the former genitive-object or partitive genitive could be reanalysed as an accusative-object or a subject. A peculiar form is attested in Berthold: He occasionally uses the emphatic phrase nihtes niht, where nihtes constitutes an attributive genitive. This construction could also form a source for the later n-indefinite nichts in so far as the attributive genitive nihtes could be taken to be a genitive object whereas niht would be reanalysed as an instance of the new neg-particle. (476)

dû vindest rehte nihtes niht an mir you find by-rights nothing-GEN nothing/NEG at me ‘By rights, you will not find anything (wrong) with me’ Bert I, 210 (34)

In comparison with nie, nieman or niht, the n-indefinite determiner ne-/enhein has become very rare in MHG. It is not contained within the first 100 negated clauses of any of the texts. On searching the entire texts, ne-/enhein is only found in later parts of some manuscripts of Nibelungenlied. Unlike the new nindefinite determiner dehein/kein, ne-/enhein is restricted to negative contexts. Altogether, there are six examples of nehein in manuscript A and one each in manuscripts B and C of Nibelungenlied, as well as one example each of enhein in manuscripts A and C and two examples in manuscript B. There is no case in which all manuscripts coincide in using ne-/enhein. One may conclude that the n-indefinite determiner nehein is becoming extinct in the MHG period. Indeed,

3.6


277

according to Behaghel (1913: 179), nehein virtually disappeared after Nibelungenlied.259 According to Lloyd et al. (1998: 563) this process is complete by the 16th century. It survived only in certain dialects of German, compare Swiss German variants of nekein/ekein. 260 (477)

Ich gang no go poschte, mir händ {kei/ekei} Brot me I go yet go shopping, we have no bred more ‘I am going to go shopping, we don’t have any bred any more’

While ne-/enhein decreases, the original NPI determiner dehein/kein increases and eventually surplants ne-/enhein as the n-indefinite determiner in the course of the MHG period. This development finds its natural continuation in the Modern German system where the original NPI determiner kein is an n-indefinite determiner that is now even restricted entirely to negative contexts, and there is no special indefinite NPI determiner any more. As already indicated above, the use of n-indefinites increases noticeably in MHG because basically all indefinite pronouns and adverbs in the scope of negation are realized as n-indefinites. Almost half of all negated clauses in the MHG corpus contain at least one n-indefinite. In the three earlier OHG, texts the ratio had only been around 10% and less, with a slight increase towards the Late OHG text of Notker with around 15% of negated clauses containing nindefinites. Another noteworthy change consists in the highly frequent use of nindefinites as the only neg-marker in the clause. This syntactic pattern (pattern III) was a minority pattern of negation in OHG. It did not occur at all in two of the OHG texts under consideration, viz. Isidor and Otfrid, and only 4% of all nindefinites in Tatian and 8% of those in Notker occurred as the only negmarker in the respective clause. In the MHG texts, the majority of n-indefinites 259

Behaghel (1913: 179) counted only four cases of nehein/enhein in ms. A of Nibelungenlied and altogether two in B and C. He summarizes the ensuing development as: “von nun an ist nehein so gut wie verschwunden. Leider ist die Verdrängung des nehein durch dehein nicht genauer zu verfolgen, da gerade für die Wende des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts beweisende Handschriften kaum vorhanden sind.” (‘From now on, nehein has virtually disappeared. Unfortunately, the ousting of nehein by dehein cannot be followed in more detail because there are hardly any manuscripts from the turn of the 12th to 13th century.’) The Milstädter ms., for instance, almost consistently exchanges nehein of Wiener Genesis for dehein. 260 In various Swiss German dialects both ekein and kein are possible with no semantic difference (Guido Seiler, p.c.). The form nekein, on the other hand, appears to be very rare or extinct by now. In Schweizer Idiotikon (vol. 3, column 316/319) it is listed for the dialect of Solothurn. In Sprachatlas der deutschen Schweiz (vol. 3, p. 234) only the forms with e- but not those with ne- are mentioned.

278


is used as the only means of identifying negation in the clause. Among the texts in the corpus, the ratio is lowest in Lancelot with 56% (26 of 46) of the nindefinites occurring as the only neg-marker in their clause. As for Nibelungenlied and Berthold, it is no exaggeration to say that the standard syntactic pattern of negation with n-indefinites is that the n-indefinite is the only neg-marker in the clause. In these texts, this is the case for 84% (37 of 44) and 85% ( 45 of 53) of all n-indefinites in the corpus. This is quite a surprising result considering the common opinion that NC was the standard pattern in MHG (cf. chpt. 3.6.7. below).261 In fact, MHG was already much closer than it is usually portrayed to be to the Modern German pattern of n-indefinites as the only negmarker in their respective clause. This pattern is not only already attested in MHG – as it already was very occasionally in OHG, but it is used in the vast majority of cases in which an indefinite pronoun or adverb occurs in the scope of negation. 3.6.6. Indefinite determination in the scope of negation in MHG Against the background of what was said about the system of MHG indefinites, let us now take a look at the syntax of full indefinite NPs in the scope of negation, again. The main patterns that were already used in OHG are still to be found in MHG; however, dehein/kein is developing from an NPI into an nindefinite determiner: •

bare NP/no determiner:

(478)

Es enwart nye frauw die also sere mynnet gejegcz zu It NEG-was never woman who quite-so much loved hunting at wald als sie det. wood as she did ‘There never was a woman who loved hunting in the wood quite as much as she did’ Lanc 24, 94

261

Compare also the results in Müller (2001: 246-248): 21% of the negated modal-verb constructions in the Prose Lancelot are negated by niemand or keyn only, 66% by nicht/nie/ nirgends only (unfortunately, Müller did not differentiate the neg-particle from n-indefinite adverbs, here), 14% contain en. He concludes that the n-indefinites were already mostly grammaticalized as the ‘bearers of negation’ in Lancelot.

3.6


•

‘normal’ indefinite determiner ein:

(479)

•

wir heten ninder einen zagen. we had nowhere a hesitation ‘We did not hesitate at any point’ Nib IV, 231, 4262

(NPI>) n-indefinite determiner dehein/kein:

(480)

•

279

wann Claudas [...] enwolt im dheynen dienst geben because Claudas NEG-wanted him any/no service give ‘because Claudas did not want to serve him’ Lanc 10, 7

n-indefinite determiner nehein(ig):

(481)

daz man helt neheinen so schoenen nie gesach. that one hero none so beautiful never saw ‘that one never saw any such beautiful hero’ Nib (A) V, 292, 4263

Due to the diachronic shifts in the system of indefinites described above, the proportions of the different patterns of indefinite determination in the scope of negation change in MHG. They are illustrated for each MHG text in the corpus in figure (482) below. Comparing the graph to the one for OHG given in (373) above, there are a number of changes: As discussed above, the original n-indefinite determiner ne-/enhein decreases in MHG and is not contained at all in the first 100 negated clauses of any of the texts under consideration, whereas nihein-NPs represented the second most common pattern for full indefinite NPs under negation in OHG. The ‘normal’ indefinite determiner ein is quite rare in MHG. The NPI-determiner einig is not attested in the MHG corpus. The former, relatively rare NPI-determiner and new n-indefinite determiner dehein/kein increases massively and becomes one of the main two patterns of indefinite 262

Note that einen occurs after an n-indefinite, here. Manuscripts B and C indicate, however, that a different type of indefinite would have been possible as well: B/C: cheinen zagn/dheinen zagen. If dehein/kein is classed as an n-indefinite, these are instances of NC of the Neg-Spread type. On the issue of Neg-Spread in MHG see also chpt. 3.6.7. below. 263 Mss. B/C: helt deheinen.

280


determination in the scope of negation. In Lancelot, the majority of full indefinite NPs under negation are determined by dehein/kein. (482)

Proportions of MHG patterns of indefinite determination in the scope of negation

25 22 20 17

16

15

16

bare NP ein

10

9

5

4 5

0

0 Nibelungenl.

dehein/kein nehein

1

0 Lancelot

0 0 Berthold

The second main syntactic pattern for full indefinite NPs in the scope of negation is still the bare NP. In Nibelungenlied and Berthold, it is the most frequent pattern. In Lancelot it amounts to approximately 40 percent. Bare NPs in the scope of negation are still possible in MHG in cases where they would be ungrammatical in Modern German (compare also example (478) above): (483)

also grozer krefte nie mer reke gewan. all-that great strengths never more warrior gained ‘Never again did a warrior have such great strength’ Nib III, 103, 4

But bare NPs are also used in the scope of negation where this pattern is still possible in Modern German, e. g. •

in noun-verb collocations:

(484)

Dû muost dich sîn abe tuon, oder dîn wirt niemer rât. you must yourself it off do or you will-be never rescue ‘You have to cut it out, or you will never be saved’ Bert I, 95 (16)

3.6

281


•

as predicative NPs:

(485)

•

with topicalization:

(486)

•

Da enwart nymand konig, er enwúrd darzu erkorne. there NEG-became nobody king he NEG-was it-to chosen ‘Nobody became king there if he was not chosen’ Lanc 10, 9

wann andere vogel waren da nicht because other birds were there NEG ‘because there weren’t any other birds there’ Lanc 32, 143

following an n-indefinite:

(487)

wann vom konig Artus gewinnet er nymer hilff because from king Artus gets he never help ‘because he will not get any help from king Artus’ Lanc 18, 49

The majority of indefinite bare NPs in fact occur in clauses that already contain an n-indefinite, as the following table shows. (488)

Co-occurrence of MHG bare NPs with neg-markers

indef. bare NPs under neg. with n-indefinite only with neg-particle

Nibelungenlied 17 11 6

Lancelot 16 11 5

Berthold 16 9 7

However, the n-indefinite may also follow the indefinite bare NP rather than vice versa. Thus MHG does not entirely comply with Modern German grammar in this respect where always the first indefinite phrase is realized as an n-indefinite. Furthermore, the alternative syntactic pattern where even in a clause containing an n-indefinite, the full indefinite NP is accompanied by the n-indefinite determiner dehein/kein is also attested in MHG (see chpt. 3.6.7. below). This pattern is ungrammatical in Modern Standard German. In MHG, however, a full indefinite NP following an n-indefinite could also be accom-

282


panied by dehein/kein rather than occur as a bare NP. This can be explained on the basis that dehein/kein used to be an NPI as discussed above. While bare NPs are still fairly common, there is a diachronic decrease of this syntactic pattern for full indefinite NPs in the scope of negation from OHG to MHG. With the rise of articles in the MHG period (cf. Oubouzar 1992, Leiss 1994, Philippi 1997, Paul 2007), fewer bare NPs are used in general. Since the writers often resort to n-indefinites as determiners for indefinite NPs under negation, the rise of determiners leads to an increase of NC as a secondary effect. The following parallel examples of a full indefinite NP with N0 stein/steyn (‘stone’) in the scope of negation, once in OHG and once in MHG, are quite illustrative of the development away from bare NPs. •

OHG: bare NP → MHG: NP with n-indefinite determiner:

(489)

(& non relinquent In te/ lapidem super lapidem) Inti niforlazent In thir/ stein obar steine and NEG-leave in you stone above stone ‘and they do not leave inside you one stone above the other’ T 192, 6f.

(490)

und wart das lant allenthalben so zurfuret das nye keyn and was the country in-every-way so destroyed that never any/no steyn off dem andern beleib; stone on the other remained ‘and the country was so much destroyed that no stone remained above the other’ Lanc 12, 13

3.6.7. MHG Negative Concord and competing syntactic patterns NC is generally taken to be a typical feature of MHG. Historical grammars and syntax books attribute the phenomenon of NC much more to MHG than to OHG, e. g. Behaghel (1918: 24), Keller (1986: 301), Admoni (1990: 102), de Boor/Wisniewski (1998: 187), Paul (2007: 394). However, the results from my corpus analysis reveal that NC is less common in MHG than might be expected.

3.6


283

As in OHG (see chpt. 3.5.6. above), there are several basic syntactic patterns that can be used in MHG when an indefinite pronoun/determiner or adverb occurs in the scope of negation. Recall from OHG the following three basic syntactic patterns that are also found in MHG (with arguably more variety of NC patterns, but see discussion below): Basic syntactic patterns of clauses with indefinites in the scope of negation in MHG: •

I

NC:

a. b.

n-indefinite + neg-part. (Neg-Doubling) n-indefinite + n-indefinite (Neg-Spread)

•

II

neg-marking only through neg-particle, NPI/‘normal’ indefinite

•

III

n-indefinite only, no neg-particle or other neg-marker

Besides NC constructions, which will be discussed in detail in the remainder of this section, negation can thus be marked in clauses containing an indefinite in the scope of negation in MHG through the use of an n-indefinite only without any negation particle occurring in the clause (pattern III) or, very rarely, through the neg-particle only (pattern II). •

I

(491)

•

II

(492)

264

neg-particle, n-indefinite (NC): des enchunde im gevolgen nieman, so michel was sin kraft that NEG-could him follow nobody so big was his power ‘Nobody could follow him in that, so great was his power.’ Nib III, 134, 3264 neg-particle, no neg-marking on the indefinite: Was die koniginne sprach, die jungfrauw sprach ein wort nicht; what the queen said the maiden said a word NEG ‘Whatever the queen said, the maiden did not say a word.’ Lanc 46, 226

Ms. C: no Neg0 en.

284

•


III

(493)

n-indefinite, no neg-particle or further neg-marker: Und sie hatten nymant miteinander gewunnen dann ein junges and they had nobody with-each-other won than a young knebelin kleyn boy small ‘and they had no children apart from a little boy’ Lanc 10, 3

Table (494) gives the distribution of the three main patterns in the MHG corpus from Nibelungenlied, Prose-Lancelot and Berthold, which is further illustrated in the graphs in (495) below. (494)

Distribution of negation patterns I, II and III in MHG265

I (NC: NegDoubling/Neg-Spread) Nibelungenlied 17% (8) Lancelot 37% (16) Berthold 9% (4) average 21%

II (neg-part., indef.) 4% (2)266 2% (1) 2%

III (no negparticle, n-indef.) 79% (37) 61% (26) 91% (42) 77%

The distribution of the respective syntactic patterns relativizes accounts in the literature that treat NC as a particularly typical feature of MHG as opposed to OHG. While NC is still often attested in MHG, the majority of clauses containing an indefinite in the scope of negation mark negation on the indefinite only, i. e. use the pattern that is the standard in Modern German. Recall that, in contrast, NC was the most used pattern on average in OHG in clauses with indefinites in the scope of negation, with 85% and more in Tatian and Notker (cf. (380), (381) above).

265

Dehein/kein are included as n-indefinites, but see discussion below. Bare NPs were not included in this table. 266 Plus 3x non-n-indefinite after an n-indefinite, without neg-particle.

3.6

285


(495)

Distributional graphs for negation patterns I, II and III in MHG Prose-Lancelot

Nibelungenlied I: NC

I: NC

8 2

37

II: only neg-part. III: only nindef.

16 26 1

II: only negpart. III: only nindef.

Berthold I: NC 4 0 II: only negpart. 42

III: only nindef.

Pattern II with neg-marking through the neg-particle only and no neg-marking on the indefinite pronoun or adverb – a pattern that was comparatively common in OHG (even the majority pattern in Isidor and Otfrid) – is hardly attested any more in the MHG corpus. This is an important change compared to OHG. In MHG, indefinite pronouns and adverbs generally take the form of nindefinites rather than NPIs or ‘normal’ indefinites in the scope of negation. In other words, in contrast to OHG, a stronger Elsewhere Condition holds requiring the use of the distributionally more restricted n-indefinites where they are licensed. However, as is still the case in Modern German, ein can appear in exceptional cases with an emphatic, numeral reading ‘one/a single’ and after nindefinites, (see chpt. 3.6.6 above). This pattern is possible both with the indefinite before and after the neg-marker. (496)

Was die koniginne sprach, die jungfrauw sprach ein wort nicht; what the queen said the maiden said a word NEG ‘Whatever the queen said, the maiden did not say a word’ Lanc 46, 226

As mentioned above, pattern III with neg-marking only through the n-indefinite, which was extremely rare in OHG and not even attested in all texts in the

286


OHG corpus, is in fact the most common syntactic pattern of clauses with indefinite pronouns or adverbs in the scope of negation in MHG. On average three quarters of all clauses with indefinites in the scope of negation adhere to this pattern in my corpus. Again, this is a noteworthy change from OHG. (497)


(498)

Sie was so starck das sie nymant kund gewinnen ane she was so strong that her nobody could win without verhungern oder verretterye. starving or betrayal ‘It [= the castle] was so strong that nobody could conquer it other than by starving everyone out or by betrayal.’ Lanc 14, 21

(499)

dû laest mich niemer geruowen you let me never rest ‘You never let me rest.’ Bert I, 193 (32)

MHG is thus already approaching Modern German, which generally employs pattern III in these cases: In Standard NHG clauses with an indefinite in the scope of negation, negation is marked on the (first) indefinite only. MHG is thus – surprisingly, yet plausibly – closer to NHG than OHG is. There is a straightforward continuing decrease of NC in constructions with indefinites in the scope of negation over the course of the history of German. The loss of this type of NC is largely complete by ENHG: As Pensel (1981) reports, NegDoubling of en and an n-indefinite is only rarely found around 1500 – mostly in lower German, partly also still in Central German dialects.267 According to his results, this pattern had died out in all of the German-speaking area by around 1700. My findings for indefinites in the scope of negation replicate what I found for the neg-particle: The Modern German standard patterns with 267

Pensel (1981) reports 4,2 % of en + n-indefinite on average in his data from 1470 to 1530.

3.6


287

respect to both the neg-particle and indefinites under negation are already the majority patterns in the MHG corpus. NC is decreasing diachronically. It is not a majority pattern any more in MHG, which clearly contradicts statements as those by Admoni (1990: 103) that in most cases in MHG, there is NC (Neg-Spread or Neg-Doubling).268 However, while the ratio of NC among clauses with indefinites in the scope of negation decreases (on average OHG 56% > MHG 21%), the ratio of NC constructions among the total number negated clauses increases slightly (on average OHG 7% > MHG 9%) which may mislead one into assuming that NC is more typical of MHG under a more superficial, impressionistic approach. This overall increase is simply due to the fact that the total number of clauses with indefinite pronouns or adverbs in the scope of negation increases. The ratio of NC constructions among these in fact decreases as becomes clear under the quantitative approach taken in this investigation. The loss of NC can therefore be understood as a natural development that is already starting in the MHG period, well before any prescriptive grammars demand the use of a single neg-marker per negated clause on logical grounds. These only produced post-hoc justifications once NC had already nearly died out and thus become archaic due to natural language change. This change is linked to changes in the indefinite system as well as the loss of the Neg0 negative particle according to Jespersen’ Cycle. It is interesting to observe the correlation this latter development and the loss of NC. (500)

Ratio of Neg0 and NC in MHG

Neg0 ne/en on V Nibelungenlied 26 Lancelot 44 Berthold 7

NC (Neg-Doubl., Neg-Spread) 8 16 4

In Lancelot, overt Neg0 is found more often than in Nibelungenlied. The former text also displays more NC than the latter. Although Nibelungenlied is a text of courtish poetry that observes metre and rhyme and might be expected to aim at a more archaic language style, it is in fact more modern than the ProseLancelot with respect to the syntax of negation. Berthold’s sermons contain a lot less instances of overt Neg0 and accordingly also less NC. Recall that in OHG, the Neg0 neg-particle was used in over 90% of negated clauses (cf. table 268

Admoni (1990: 103) “in den meisten Fällen Dopplung von ne an Indef. [Neg-Spread] oder an Indef. und V [Neg-Doubling]”.

288


(95) above) and NC occurred on average in 56% of constructions with indefinites in the scope of negation, in Tatian and Notker even in 85% and more (cf. table (380) above). The loss of Neg0 furthered the loss of NC in German. A similar correlation has also been suggested for English (Frisch 1997: 33). These observations support the link that has been established typologically between Neg0 neg-particles and NC (see chpt. 3.2 above). Note, however, that according to Zeijlstra (2004) this link is unidirectional: Languages with a Neg0 neg-particle will display NC, yet NC may or may not occur in languages without a Neg0 neg-particle, although if it does, these forms of NC are marked and accordingly rarer among the world’s languages. As discussed above (chpt. 3.4.), the Modern German dialect of Bavarian, some varieties of Thuringian and other dialects instantiate this pattern: They have a phrasal neg-particle ned/nich but also NC. Both Neg-Doubling and Neg-Spread are possible in Bavarian and the Thuringian NC-dialects. In contrast to my results for MHG, Ingham (2003: 149) found for Middle English that, while Neg0 ne was vanishing in the 14th century, NC between not and an n-indefinite or between several n-indefinites is still frequently attested for at least another century. He states that the non-use of ne seems not to have co-varied in any systematic way with the use of NC (Ingham 2003: 161). However, all texts with a particularly high percentage of Neg0 (20% or more) displayed NC in the majority of cases allowing for NC. Ingham concludes that if there is a link between the loss of ne and the loss of NC, they are at most consecutive rather than parallel processes in English (except possibly for North English varieties in the late 14th century). As will be discussed in detail below, MHG arguably also marginally allowed NC between phrasal neg-markers without the presence of Neg0 en/ne. While NC (pattern I), somewhat surprisingly, is not the most common pattern in clauses with indefinites in the scope of negation in MHG, it is still a common phenomenon even if less so than portrayed in the literature. Compared to OHG, one might expect a larger variety of NC patterns in MHG when an indefinite pronoun or adverb is used in the scope of negation because, as described in chapter 2.5.1. above, MHG has two negation particles: the verbal clitic ne/en that still suffices in rare cases to mark negation, and the free particle niht that sometimes co-occurs with ne/en but most of the time is already used as the only negation particle in the clause. As a consequence of this syntactic variation with respect to the negation particle, there are more possible syntactic patterns of NC in the sense of Neg-Doubling, i. e. the cooccurrence of n-indefinites with the negation particle in MHG than in OHG. Table (501) illustrates the ratio of NC of various types as it is found in my

3.6

289


MHG corpus from Nibelungenlied, Prose Lancelot and Berthold’s sermons. The indefinite dehein/kein is treated separately in this survey because it is only developing into an n-indefinite so that its status is best categorized once the picture for the original n-indefinites has been worked out.269 Indeed, dehein/ kein behaves rather differently in NC constructions, which adds plausibility to the hypothesis of a lexical ambiguity or polysemy of dehein/kein in the MHG period as discussed in chapter 3.6.4. above. (501)

Ratio of different NC types in MHG270 Nibelungenlied Lancelot

ne/en on Vfin + n-indefinite: a) dehein/kein b) other n-indefinite niht + n-indefinite: a) dehein/kein b) other n-indefinite ne/en on Vfin + niht + nindefinite several n-indefinites (NegSpread): a) dehein/kein b) other n-indefinite Neg-Spread + Neg-Doubl.

Berthold

0 7

5271 6272

0 0

0 0 0

1273 0 1 (dhein)

1 0 0

1

(nimmer dehein)

0 0

+

1274 (nie + 3 (2x niemer/1x kein)

niemen + kein)

0 0 2 (en + nie 0 + kein)

Σ NC

8

16

4

(Neg-Doubl., Neg-Spread)

One has to be cautious with inferences on the basis of these data, as the total number of NC constructions in the MHG corpus is obviously rather low. Leaving aside the cases involving dehein/kein for a minute, the only type of

269

Other former NPIs e. g. iht are hardly attested in the corpus and therefore not singled out. The mere occurrence of the bipartite neg-particle ne/en ... niht is, according to typological praxis, not classed as NC. For NC including the neg-disjunction noh see below. 271 Of which 1 with additional noch; plus 1 ne + niht + n-indefinite, plus 2 with additional nindefinite. 272 Plus 2 with additional kein. 273 Plus 1 ne + niht + dhein. 274 Plus 2 with additional en. 270

290


NC evidenced in the MHG corpus is that of Neg-Doubling with overt Neg0. It is found in Nibelungenlied (cf. ex. (491) above) and Lancelot. •

MHG NC in the form of Neg-Doubling (neg-particle + n-indefinite):

(502)

Neg0 ne/en on Vfin + n-indefinite: als er nichts darumb enwúst as he nothing there-about NEG-knew ‘as though he did not know anything about it’ Lanc 30, 129

This was the prevalent NC pattern already in OHG. In other words, there is a significant diachronic continuity in that the main type of NC consists in NegDoubling between the Neg0 neg-particle ni/ne/en and an n-indefinite. In the literature, this common type of Neg-Doubling is often the only type of NC that is described for MHG. This is for instance the case in the accounts by Keller (1986: 301) and Weddige (1999: 75). De Boor/Wisniewski (1998:188f.) explicitly mention the possibility of a co-occurrence with ne even only for nie and nieman, but not for the other n-indefinites nie or niender that they discuss. However, they state in a more general fashion that nehein and deweder may co-occur with further neg-markers. The correlation of NC with overt Neg0 and the fact that NC is rarer in Berthold are to be understood in the light of these results: Neg-Doubling with ne/en is the most common form of NC in MHG (just as in OHG), however, in Berthold there are hardly any instances of overt Neg0 any more. Therefore there is also hardly any NC in Berthold (depending on the status of kein). MHG inherited NC in the form of Neg-Doubling with overt Neg0 as a syntactic pattern from OHG. With the gradual loss of Neg0 ne/en, NC also decreases. In the course of the MHG period, Neg-Doubling between Neg0 and an n-indefinite becomes largely extinct. According to my corpus data, this process is already basically complete in Berthold.275 Let us now take into account the cases in which dehein/kein co-occurs with some neg-marker. Dehein/kein behaves just as the original n-indefinites (niht ‘nothing’, nieman ‘nobody’, nie(mer) ‘never/no more’, ninder ‘nowhere’)

275

In Middle English, this process apparently took slightly longer. According to Ingham (2003: 162), this type of Neg-Doubling was lost in the 14th century, whereas co-occurrence of several negative XPs (Neg-Doubling with not, Neg-Spread) is attested for at least a century after that.

3.6


291

in those cases in which it co-occurs with Neg0 ne/en. There are a number of examples of this type in my corpus from Lancelot. (503)

und sin kint was cleyn und jungk, und enmocht im and his child was small and young and NEG-could him keyn hilff gethun. no/any help do ‘And his child was small and young and could not help him.’ Lanc 40, 193

The categorization of dehein/kein as an n-indefinite in these constructions would not alter the overall picture. This is quite different with respect to other types of NC. In contrast to the original n-indefinites in my corpus, dehein/kein is for instance also attested together with the bipartite neg-particle ne/en ... niht or the SpecNegP particle niht. These examples (one case each in Lancelot and Berthold) would constitute further MHG Neg-Doubling patterns if dehein/kein was classed as an n-indefinite. Note that the fact that there is a difference between the two neg-particles with respect to Neg-Doubling shows how important it is to differentiate neg-particles of different phrase-structural status in order to describe and understand the distribution of syntactic patterns of negation. •

MHG NC in the form of Neg-Doubling (neg-particle + n-indefinite):

(504)

Neg0 ne/en on Vfin + SpecNegP niht + dehein/kein: dheyn so gebryset ritter noch so hoch enist in dißer welt nicht no/any so praised knight nor so high NEG-is in this world NEG ‘There is no knight so praised or so high in this world ...’ Lanc 36, 167

(505)

SpecNegP niht + dehein/kein: wan er des niht enbern wil von dekeinem menschen der ze because he that Neg miss wants of no/any man who to

292


sînen tagen komen ist his days come is ‘because he does not want to miss it of any man who has come to his days’ Bert I, 24 (6) Neg-Doubling of the neg-particle niht with an n-indefinite is not widely mentioned in the literature, either. Examples of this type of NC are contained in Paul (2007: 391). The results from my corpus concur with Behaghel (1918: 241f.), who remarks that this phenomenon rarely occurs in MHG, in some MHG texts it is not found at all.276 He lists a few examples mostly from Nibelungenlied, a text in which this type of NC is not particularly common either, according to my analysis: Among the first 100 negated clauses not one contains Neg-Doubling between niht and an n-indefinite. Significantly and in contrast to my data, Paul and Behaghel also give examples of original n-indefinites co-coccurring with the SpecNegP neg-particle niht:277 (506)

waz ob er hie heime iu niemer mê niht gewirret what if he here at-home you never more NEG disturb ‘Maybe he will never disturb you any more here at home’ Wa 29, 21 (quoted after Paul 2007: 391)

(507)

ichn gehôrt bî mînen tagen nie selhes niht gesagen I-NEG heard by my days never such NEG say ‘All my days, I have never heard anything like that being said’ Iw 547f. (quoted after Paul 2007: 391)

These examples indicate that Neg-Doubling with the phrasal negation particle niht was marginally possible also with original n-indefinites, which would speak in favour of classing dehein/kein as an n-indefinite in the cases in which it co-occurs with niht, too. However, this pattern was obviously very rare in MHG in contrast to Middle English, for instance, where Neg-Doubling with not was apparently quite common (cf. Ingham 2003: 156f). (Example (507) suggests further that, unlike for instance in Bavarian where the equivalent Neg276 According to Behaghel (1918: 242), Neg-Doubling of the neg-particle niht with an n-indefinite is lacking in Rolandslied, Berthold, Füeterer’s Lancelot, Eilhart-Prose. 277 Behaghel (1918: 241) mentions the following cases: niemen niht (Nib 370,4; 801, 4; 1786, 2; 1863, 1), nie niht (Nib 1418, 2; 1713, 4), nimmer niht (Nib 1258, 3; 2283, 4).

3.6


293

Doubling pattern is also found, there was no adjacency requirement for the nindefinite and the neg-particle in MHG.) For ENHG, Pensel (1981) also reports very low rates of Neg-Doubling with niht (around 1500 1,8 % of negated clauses vs. 4,2 % of negated clauses containing Neg-Doubling of the type en+n-indefinite, further decrease to 0,6 % niht + n-indefinite around 1700). He found this pattern – as in MHG – almost only with kein, only rarely also with niemand and nie. Since Neg-Doubling with niht is extremely rare and virtually only occurs with dehein/kein in MHG and later on, I would argue that the rise of this new type of NC is linked to the change of dehein/kein from an NPI into an n-indefinite (see below: figure (515) and discussion). The fact that at any rate Neg-Doubling with the phrasal neg-particle is so rare could be explained in different ways. Under the Neg-Criterion approach, it is due to the blocking of SpecNegP by the neg-particle (cf. Zanuttini 1991, 1997):278 Under the assumption that n-indefinites need to move into SpecNegP, a neg-particle in that position will make this movement impossible so that the n-indefinite is not licensed. Zanuttini (1991) thus predicts that NC in the form of Neg-Doubling with a SpecNegP neg-particle is impossible. However, this prediction is contradicted by the very fact that occasionally, this kind of construction does seem to occur in MHG (and regularily occurs in presentday Bavarian279 or certain Thuringian dialects). In this respect, MHG differs from languages such as French, which is otherwise quite comparable regarding its syntax of negation: There are two neg-particles that may co-occur with each other – one in Neg0 and one in SpecNegP. Furthermore, it is an NC language. Yet Standard French strictly does not allow NC between the SpecNegP negparticle pas and an n-indefinite. In MHG, this pattern is apparently marginally possible and notably occurs with the former NPI dehein/kein. Neg-Doubling with a SpecNegP neg-particle (as well as Neg-Spread) could, however, be captured under a version of the Neg-Criterion approach such as Newson (1998): in his optimality theoretic analysis of NC, he includes a constraint that bans mul278

Zanuttini (1997) predicts that there will be no NC in languages where the negation particle occupies SpecNegP, as movement of n-indefinites to this position and ensuing Spec-HeadAgreement resulting in a concordant reading will be blocked. This is not necessary if one assumes the possibility of multiple specifiers (as does Newson 1998 to analyse Negative Doubling vs. Negative Spreading) in order to be able to account for NC between a neg-particle in SpecNegP and n-indefinites as in Yiddish, Bavarian or (partly) in MHG. But then, the explanation for the low rate of Neg-Doubling with niht on the basis of its positioning in SpecNegP no longer holds. 279 Weiß (1998) analyses ned as Neg0 (vs. Haegeman 1995: 166, Zeijlstra 2004: 141/144) despite of its non-interaction with verbal movement, thus Bavarian NC is compatible with Zanuttini’s prediction under his approach.

294


tiple specifiers which will have the effects predicted by Zanuttini (1991) if ranked high in a language. In languages where it is ranked low, multiple specifiers may occur so that NC between several phrasal neg-markers is not precluded. Under an approach as the one adopted here that does not subscribe to the obligatory movement of n-indefinites to SpecNegP according to the NegCriterion, there must be a different explanation for the rarety of Neg-Doubling with niht. I propose that it is because, for economy reasons, niht stepped in to additionally identify negation mainly in those cases where negation was not already sufficiently identified by an n-indefinite. This resulted in a nearly complementary distribution of niht and n-indefinites. Thus no movement of nindefinites need be invoked to explain this phenomenon. Coming back to the issue of types of NC attested in the MHG corpus and the classification of dehein/kein. Just as in the case of Neg-Doubling including niht, the classification of dehein/kein as an n-indefinite would change the result of the corpus analysis with respect to the availability of Neg-Spread: The original n-indefinites do not co-occur with each other in my corpus so that, on this basis, there is no evidence for Neg-Spread, yet they may co-occur with dehein/kein. The n-indefinite that co-occurs most often with dehein/kein is the temporal adverb nie/niemer/nimmer (‘never’). Niemen (‘nobody’) is also attested. •

MHG NC in the form of Neg-Spread (n-indefinite + n-indefinite):

(508)

n-indefinite + dehein/kein: aber sîn freude hât niemer mêr kein ende but his joy has never more no/any end ‘but his joy will never have an end’ Bert I, 14 (4)

Very rarely, this pattern is even combined with Neg-Doubling with ne/en, yet this is by no means necessary. In this respect, MHG differs from languages such as Polish and Russian where Neg-Spread needs to be licensed by the overt neg-particle cf. Giannaikidou (1998). •

MHG NC in the form of Neg-Spread + Neg-Doubling (neg-particle + n-indefinite + n-indefinite):

3.6


(509)

295

Neg0 ne/en on Vfin + n-indefinite + dehein/kein: Da macht sie so großen jamer das nye keyn man there makes she such big mourning that never no/any man gesehen merern jamer endörfft bigger mourning NEG-might see ‘She was in such great mourning that nobody may ever see greater mourning’ Lanc 46, 229

Although considering the small number of cases in my corpus it is hard to draw any specific inferences, one can nontheless state that dehein/kein played a special role compared to the original n-indefinites. The fact that the picture changes quite considerably if dehein/kein is consistently classed as an n-indefinite adds plausibility to the hypothesis of a lexical ambiguity or polysemy of dehein/kein between an NPI and an n-indefinite. As discussed above (chpt. 3.6.4.), dehein/kein also differs syntactically from other n-indefinites in that it is still licensed in a number of weak NPI contexts. Where it suffices to give rise to a negative interpretation, it is clearly already an n-indefinite. This analysis would also be possible for the Neg-Doubling cases with ne/en. In contexts where original n-indefinites are not or hardly attested in MHG, however, one could assume that dehein/kein is still an NPI. Under this approach, there is no evidence for Neg-Doubling other than with Neg0 ne/en in my MHG corpus, and what is more, no evidence for Neg-Spread (no more than for OHG, in fact less since there was one exceptional case of Neg-Spread in the OHG corpus, viz. example (386) above).280 Furthermore, there are a number of cases with several indefinite phrases in the scope of negation of which only the first is neg-marked whereas the second one is a non-neg-marked indefinite or an indefinite bare NP.281 NegSpread would have been possible but is not realized, i. e. Neg-Spread is certainly not obligatory in MHG: 280

Note that the phrase nihtes niht in Berthold where nihtes is an attribute to niht constitutes neither Neg-Doubling nor Neg-Spread: The two n-indefinites form one constituent together rather than two seperate neg-marked constituents with a concordant reading. At most, one could speak of DP-internal NC. 281 Obviously, all cases listed in table (488) of bare NPs co-occurring with an n-indefinite also constitute counter-examples to Neg-Spread.

296


(510)


(511)

ie gepflac. ich wene nie ingesinde groezer milte I think never attendants greater mildness ever cultivated ‘I think that no attendants ever acted with such great mildness’ Nib (A) II, 43, 4

(512)

Es enwart nye frauw die also sere mynnet gejegcz zu It NEG-was never woman who quite-so much loved hunting at wald als sie det. wood as she did ‘There never was a woman who loved hunting in the wood quite as much as she did.’ Lanc 24, 94

MHG is quite different from related languages such as Middle English as described in Ingham (2003: 145/156f.): In Early Middle English, all indefinites in the scope of negation had to be strictly neg-marked. By the end of the 14th century, over 96% of indefinites following an n-indefinite or the neg-particle not still occurred as n-indefinites in South England, in Northern varieties this was the case for about two thirds of those indefinites. On the other hand, data given in the literature or contained in later parts of the texts in my corpus suggest that the conclusion that there was no NegSpread in MHG would be too strong, just as in the case of Neg-Doubling with niht. The MHG phenomenon of Neg-Spread is mentioned – although not in that terminology – by Paul (2007: 391)282 and Behaghel (1918: 241f.).283 They also give examples with original n-indefinites, e. g. (513). Similar cases are for instance found in later parts of Nibelungenlied that I did not include in the core MHG corpus, see example (514). 282

However, most examples given in Paul (2007) for the co-occurrence of several negative pronouns or adverbs are in fact not Neg-Spread but Neg-Doubling constructions with the negparticle niht and and the former NPI kein. 283 Behaghel (1918: 241): nie nehein (Genesis 1070; Rol. 4595/ 4876/ 5176/ 5408) nie niemen (Nib 1764, 3) etc.

3.6


•

297

MHG NC in the form of Neg-Spread (n-indefinite + n-indefinite):

(513)

daz umbe ir reise und umbe ir vart nie nieman that about their travelling and about their journey never nobody nihtes inne wart nothing knew ‘that nobody should ever know anything about their journey’ G 9499-9500 (quoted after Paul 2007: 391)

(514)

daz man helt neheinen so schoenen nie gesach. that one hero none so beautiful never saw ‘that one never saw any such beautiful hero’ Nib (A) V, 292, 4284

According to Behaghel (1918: 241), Neg-Spread in MHG mostly involves the n-indefinite nehein. Judging by my data, Behaghel’s statement would hold rather for the original NPI dehein/kein. Behaghel (1918: 241) further states that the co-occurrence of several neg-marked XPs increases since the 12th century, but that it is never used to a very large extent. According to Behaghel, it is in fact a rather rare phenomenon. The rarety is confirmed by my data. If dehein/ kein is already consistently classed as an n-indefinite, one could also speak of a diachronic increase. Yet, that increase is only notable later in the 13th century. Dal (1966: 165) also mentions the co-occurrence of several n-indefinites as a possibility in older stages of German. However, she does not differentiate between OHG and MHG here, in contrast to Donhauser (1998: 297), who explicitly says that NC occurs as Neg-Doubling in OHG, but as Neg-Spread in MHG. At the very least one can conclude from my data that this statement does not hold in the strict sense: While Neg-Spread is arguably marginally possible in both, but was never very widespread nor compulsory with several indefinites, Neg-Doubling with Neg0 is clearly the most common type of NC by far in OHG and MHG. This result is indicative of the approach taken in the present study: On the basis of a quantificational corpus analysis, a representative picture of the main syntactic patterns emerges, rather than a collection of individual ‘freak’ 284

Mss. B/C use the former NPI indefinite, instead: helt deheinen.

298


examples that are picked in contrast with Modern German and give a very skew picture of the actual historical situation. Chances are that not every rare or more marginal pattern is captured. However, the aim of this study is to work out the bigger picture in a properly diachronic manner and to place it in the context of negation in the world’s languages. As far as the issue of the classification of dehein/kein is concerned, the data from the corpus speak in favour of an ambiguity approach (cf. chpt. 3.6.4 above) because then a uniform picture of MHG NC as Neg-Doubling with Neg0 ne/en emerges. However, in the light of additional examples of NegSpread and Neg-Doubling including the neg-particle niht with original n-indefinites, a consistent n-indefinite analysis of dehein/kein would also be possible. In fact, it is likely that the ambiguous status of dehein/kein formed the basis to language change with respect to NC (cf. the reflection in Behaghel 1918: 241):285 (515)

Neg-Spread and Neg-Doubling with nicht through ambiguity of dehein/kein: dehein/kein + neg-XP NPI > n-indefinite n-indef. + neg-XP

generalized to other n-indef.s

Neg-Spread, Neg-Doubling incl. nicht In OHG – and largely in MHG – NC took the form of Neg-Doubling with Neg0. Neg-Spread and Neg-Doubling with SpecNegP niht as they are rarely found in later stages of the historical development for instance in ENHG (cf. Pensel 1981) and early Modern German286 or in the present-day dialect of Bavarian could evolve, because dehein/kein as an original NPI could of course co-occur with SpecNegP niht or with n-indefinites. The language learner acquired this rule. At the same time the learner was confronted with unequivocal cues for dehein/kein being an n-indefinite in MHG: There are cases 285

“Sollte die Doppelbedeutung von dehein (irgend einer, keiner) an der Zunahme der Häufung beteiligt sein, d.h. sie zuerst bei dehein sich ausgebildet haben?” – ‘Should this double meaning of dehein (any, no) play a role in the increase of the accumulation [= NC], i. e. should it first have occurred with dehein?’ (Behaghel (1918: 241). 286 For instance Nirgends war keine Seele zu sehen ‘Nowhere was there a single soul to be seen’ (Goethe), Das disputiert ihm niemand nicht ‘Nobody will dispute him this’ (Schiller), quoted after Lockwood (1968: 210).

3.6


299

where it is the only element in the clause that identifies negation. The learner would then extend the possibility of an element that is also an n-indefinite partaking in Neg-Spread and Neg-Doubling with niht to the other n-indefinites by way of economizing rules through adopting maximal generalizations. This kind of generalization becomes even more likely as occurrences of dehein/kein in [+ affective, – negative] contexts decrease (cf. chpt. 3.6.4. above) and the learner is less and less likely to encounter cues for the NPI-hood of dehein/kein. This language change extends over a relatively long period of time: The special status of kein compared to other n-indefinites with respect to its larger range of distribution and ability to co-occur with neg-markers is still attested in early Modern German. And even in Modern German NC dialects such as Bavarian, kein is particularly common in NC constructions (cf. Donhauser 1996: 210). Besides the question of which typologically attested forms of NC can be found in MHG, one may ask how many elements could partake in NC. Again, the answer to this question partly depends on the classification of dehein/kein (cf. Admoni 1990:103).287 There is evidence that more than two neg-markers could co-occur with a concordant reading in MHG.288 Example (513) given above for Neg-Spread demonstrates that even three n-indefinites could be involved in NC in MHG (nie nieman nihtes). Constructions with three or more indefinites in the scope of negation are highly marked pragmatically and generally rare. There are no examples of this kind amongst the first 100 negated clauses of any of the MHG texts under investigation. In my corpus, there is only evidence for negated clauses with three concordant neg-markers in constructions including dehein/kein. In Lancelot, Neg-Doubling of dehein/kein with the bipartite neg-particle is attested, as mentioned above. This pattern was also possible with original nindefinites, as the following example illustrates: (516)

287

ichn gehôrt bî mînen tagen nie selhes niht gesagen I-NEG heard by my days never such NEG say

“Die Zahl der Negationen im Satz läßt sich oft schwer festtellen, da solche Formen wie iht und dehein sowohl bejahend als verneinend gebraucht werden” – ‘The number of negations in a clause is often hard to ascertain because forms such as iht and dehein are used affirmatively [rather: as NPIs] as well as negatively’ (Admoni 1990:103). 288 The maximum that I found are three neg-markers per clause. However, if two or three nindefinites may co-occur in an NC construction, there is from a typological and syntaxtheoretic perspective no reason why NC of four or more n-indefinites should be ungrammatical.

300


‘All my days, I have never heard anything like that being said.’ Iw 547f. (quoted after Paul 2007: 391) Further evidence comes from constructions that combine Neg-Doubling and Neg-Spread. Within the MHG corpus there are only two examples, both from Lancelot, which involve the Neg0 neg-particle ne/en, an original n-indefinite and the former NPI dehein/kein, cf. ex. (509) above and (517): (517)

wann ich enbegerte nie kein ding also sere because I NEG-wanted never no/any thing that much ‘because I never wanted anything that much’ Lanc 48, 242

These examples contrast with the data from my OHG corpus in which no more than two neg-markers occur in one clause in OHG. This may, however, be due to the rarety of constructions that would allow for more than two neg-markers. In MHG, constructions with more than two neg-markers are not particularly widespread either, and in my corpus they are only attested involving dehein/kein. Recall, however, that additional Late OHG examples from Notker (examples (387) and (388) above) already contained Neg-Spread in combination with Neg-Doubling with Neg0. Alternatively, one is dealing here with another language change with respect to the syntax of negation: NC would have been a on-to-one relation in earlier OHG but a relation possibly including multiple exponents in Late OHG and MHG. Based on an analysis of NC as an instance of the operation Agree, viz. feature checking under c-command by Neg0 once it is merged, a diachronic change of this kind could be modelled as a difference in the availability of the operation Multiple Agree that has independently been argued for (cf. footn. 161 above) with respect to multiple whconstructions so that Neg0 could check the uninterpretable neg-features of several n-indefinites.289 The basic syntactic analysis for MHG NC is the same as for OHG NC discussed in chapter 3.5.11. above, however, Neg0 remains abstract most of the time. In sum, one can conclude on the basis of the corpus analysis that the main pattern of NC in MHG is Neg-Doubling with the overt Neg0 neg-particle, which was already the main NC pattern in OHG. Other types of NC, viz. NegDoubling incl. niht and Neg-Spread, were apparently possible as additional data indicates, yet they were not common by far. In the corpus they are only 289

An alternative concept would be the formation of a neg-dependency or neg-chain (cf. Haegeman 1995, Roberts/Roussou 1999).

3.6


301

attested with the former NPI indefinite dehein/kein. From this, the second conclusion follows: dehein/kein behaved differently from original n-indefinites not only in that it was still licensed in weak NPI contexts (cf. chpt. 3.6.4. above) but also with respect to NC. This adds plausibility to the hypothesis of a lexical ambiguity or polysemy in MHG between NPI- and n-indefinite dehein/kein. A third conclusion is reached by contrasting the situation with respect to NC in Modern German NC dialects with the corpus results for MHG: In Modern German NC dialects such as Bavarian, we find NC in the form of NegDoubling with the SpecNegP particle nicht/ned and Neg-Spread. These were at best marginally possible in MHG. The MHG standard NC pattern of NegDoubling with Neg0 ne/en is not found at all in Bavarian. Thus dialects such as Bavarian cannot be said to directly continue the MHG situation with respect to NC. The contrast is obvious even in comparison with the Bavarian MHG texts of Nibelungenlied and Berthold. It would be wrong to assume that NC declined in the standard language but was kept as it was in the Middle Ages in dialects such as Bavarian. Instead, the situation we find in Bavarian must be due to a later development. As indicated above, the development and increase of the new forms of NC was arguably made possible by the ambiguity of dehein/kein that was already a clear n-indefinite in some cases in MHG and could, in other cases, be used together with niht and other n-indefinites. This pattern was then generalized to other n-indefinites. In comparison to OHG, one can observe a clear decrease of NC constructions. Among the clauses containing indefinites in the scope of negation, an average of 21% contain NC in MHG as opposed to 56% in OHG, the maximum found in individual texts amounting to 87% in OHG but only 37% in MHG. This is so despite of the fact that the syntactic pattern that was mainly competing with NC in OHG, viz. neg-marking through the preverbal neg-particle only and the use of an NPI/‘normal’ indefinite, is hardly attested any more in MHG where indefinites in the scope of negation are virtually always realized as n-indefinites. In fact the loss of this optionality of indefinite type in the scope of negation through a stronger Elsewhere Condition arguably furthered the loss of NC: as n-indefinites became the obligatory type for an nindefinite in the scope of negation, negation could increasingly be identified by the indefinite and the clitic negation particle that was weakened independently through Jespersen’s Cycle became even more dispensable in these cases. In sum, we have to adjust our picture of MHG compared to OHG with respect to negation. NC is in fact more typical of OHG than of MHG. During the latter period, the language is already much closer to NHG: The NHG standard pattern of neg-marking only through the n-indefinite is used in over three

302


quarters of all relevant cases on average. Furthermore, it follows that the loss of NC is really a natural development290 in German that already started in the MHG period and correlates with the loss of overt Neg0. This is because the main type of NC largely remained Neg-Doubling of an n-indefinite and overt Neg0 on the verb. With the loss of the Neg0 neg-particle, the amount of clauses with only an n-indefinite identifying negation increases. The virtual loss of NPI indefinites and obligatory use of n-indefinites in the scope of negation additionally furthered this process. 3.6.8. Other types of NC in MHG While this is not at the centre of this study, it should nonetheless be mentioned that MHG also allowed other types of NC beyond Neg-Doubling or NegSpread. Just as in OHG (see chpt. 3.5.7. above), the neg-disjunction noh ‘nor’ occasionally co-occurs with another neg-marker, constituting further cases of NC. Noh co-occurs in the MHG corpus with Neg0 en and/or n-indefinites: (518)

Und da sie zu irselber kam, da ensah sie noch and when she to herself came then NEG-saw she nor enhort ir kint. NEG-heard her child ‘And when she recovered, she neither saw nor heard her child.’ Lanc 46, 228

(519)

Sô rihtet dem armen als dem rîchen, dem fremden als dem so judge the poor as the rich the foreigner as the kunden, dem lantman als dem mâge, weder durch liep familiar the countryman as the relative neither through love noch durch leit noch durch guotes miete noch durch nor through harm nor through good bribery nor through

290

Cf. Behaghel (1918: 242) “Bei diesem verhältismäßig spärlichen Auftreten der gehäuften Verneinung wäre die selbständige Entwicklung zum völligen Schwinden nichts Auffallendes.” – ‘With multiple negation [= NC] occurring this scarcely, the independent development towards total disappearance would not be conspicuous.’

3.6


303

kein dinc wan nâch dem rehten, noch nemet von niemen no(/any) thing than after the right nor take from nobody kein guot wan iuwer rehte buoze; no(/any) good than your right due ‘So judge the poor man as the rich one, the foreign one as the familiar one, the countryman as the relative, neither on the basis of love nor sorrow nor bribery nor any cause other than the right one, nor take any goods of anyone other than what you are entitled to.’ Bert I, 84 (14)291 Table (520) shows the distribution of these patterns in the MHG corpus. (520)

Other types of NC in the MHG corpus

noh + neg-particle Nibelungenlied 0 Lancelot 3 en Berthold 0

noh + n-indefinite 0 3 (of which 1 + en) 2

Notice that the SpecNegP neg-particle niht is not attested together with noh. However, the ratio of noh co-occurring with a neg-particle or any neg-marker, for that matter, is very low. In comparison with the OHG data given in table (396) above, one may conclude that, even in the case of NC with noh, NC decreased diachronically from OHG to MHG, again mostly due to the disappearance of Neg0 that co-occurs with noh in all OHG texts but only in one MHG text in the corpus, viz. in Lancelot. 3.6.9. Pattern I vs. III: n-indefinite ± en As discussed in the previous section, the main competing pattern for NC (pattern I) in MHG is the use of an n-indefinite only (pattern III). Neg-marking on 291

As this example illustrates, a finite verb in the noh-conjunct could occasionally appear without the clitic ne/en, as in OHG. In contrast to OHG, however, the first conjunct never contains noh in my MHG data, but is negated by other means. The example further shows that there is already evidence for the disjunction weder ... noch (‘neither ... nor’) in Berthold that is the standard in Modern German (on weder noch cf. also Paul 2007: 392, Schmidt 1993: 276).

304


the verb only and the use of an NPI or ‘normal’ indefinite in the scope of negation (pattern II) hardly plays a role any more. The crucial question for NC or the lack of it in MHG is therefore whether Neg0 ne/en appears on the verb in a clause containing an n-indefinite or not. In other words, whereas in order to determine the conditions on NC in OHG, one mainly had to look at factors governing the choice of pattern I vs. II, one has to look at those for pattern I vs. III in MHG. In what follows, various possible syntactic factors are discussed. To this end, NC-constructions in the form of Neg-Doubling between an n-indefinite and Neg0 are compared to the pattern III cases.292 The investigation of the presence or lack of en in addition to an n-indefinite is interesting also in comparison to the development of the negation particle and the question of how often and under which conditions en is still used in addition to niht (cf. chpt. 2.5.3. above). Are the ratios of presence and lack of additional Neg0 on the verb and the factors for this comparable in both cases? Behaghel (1918: 233) holds that the loss of en with niht and with nindefinites is a parallel development. Donhauser (1996: 211) on the other hand states that the loss of en with n-indefinites takes place first. This observation is obviously correct in longer diachronic terms: In OHG negated clauses, Neg0 ni is basically always present on the verb. In the few cases where niht or variants thereof are already used as a neg-particle in later OHG, Neg0 is always present on the verb, too. However, the loss of Neg0 on the verb in clauses containing an n-indefinite already starts in OHG, cf. the instances of pattern III in OHG discussed in chapter 3.5.6. above. So the process of the loss of Neg0 starts with n-indefinites before the SpecNegP neg-particle niht is even fully grammaticalized. But how far has this process progressed in MHG and is it becoming parallel to the loss of Neg0 en with niht during that period of the language history? The results from my corpus analysis are given in table (521) and further illustrated in the graphs in (522). The development is parallel for the two types of constructions in so far as in all cases, the majority is already lacking overt Neg0 en. Furthermore, where the loss of en is more progressed with niht, notably in Berthold, it is also more progressed with n-indefinites compared to a more conservative text such as Lancelot where niht frequently co-occurs with en and there is also a higher ratio of Neg-Doubling of an n-indefinite and en. 292

Neg-Doubling with en/ne of course only constitutes a subset of the cases of pattern I in MHG. Yet, the other cases, viz. Neg-Doubling with niht and Neg-Spread are rather rare. Furthermore, what is in the focus in this section, is the question of additional occurrence or lack of en, so Neg-Doubling with niht and Neg-Spread can be neglected in the present context.

3.6

305


(521)

Niht ±en and n-indefinites ±en in MHG Nibelungenlied 13 35 7 37

en+V + niht niht as only neg-marker en+V + n-indefinite only (one) n-indefinite (522)

Lancelot 27 28 15 (original n-indef.s: 9) 26

Berthold 4 45 0 42

Distributional graphs for niht ±en and n-indefinites ±en

Nibelungenlied: niht ±en

Nibelungenlied: n-indefinites ±en

7

13 +en

+en

-en

-en

35

37

Lancelot: niht ±en

27

Lancelot: n-indefinites ±en

15 +en

+en

-en

28

-en 26

Berthold: niht ±en

Berthold: n-indefinites ±en 0

4

45

+en

+en

-en

-en 42

Yet in all texts, the process of the loss of Neg0 is indeed slightly more advanced with n-indefinites than with niht showing that the loss of Neg0 is taking

306


place with both niht and n-indefinites in MHG, yet this development that started earlier with n-indefinites in diachronic terms is also more progressed synchronically with n-indefinites in MHG, contra Behaghel (1918). Relative order of n-indefinite and (ne/en+)Vfin As with OHG, the relative word order of the n-indefinite and the verb has been suggested in the literature as a condition on NC in MHG. Indeed, as discussed in chapter 3.2. above, in a number of Romance and other so-called non-strict NC languages, pre- vs. postverbal placement is decisive: With a preverbal nindefinite, the Neg0 neg-particle does not appear, whereas with a postverbal one, it has to appear in addition.293 De Boor/Wisniewski (1998: 188) state for MHG that a finite verb before nie or nieman is more likely to be accompanied by the clitic neg-particle than one after it. In their account they concur with Paul (2007: 390), who additionally qualifies it for different authors: After nieman or nie, the finite verb mostly occurs without ne/en in Hartmann, Nibelungenlied and Gottfried. A finite verb before an n-indefinite mostly carries ne/en in Hartmann (“um der Deutlichkeit willen” ‘for clarity’s sake’). In Nibelungenlied and Gottfried, on the other hand, the contrast is not as clear according to Paul: Also before an n-indefinite, the finite verb is often used without ne/en. In my MHG corpus, both possible relative word orders are attested with and without Neg0 ne/en on the finite verb. The fact that there is evidence for all four possible options means that there is no strict one-to-one correlation between one specific word order and NC or the lack of it, in contrast to languages such as Italian or Spanish. Thus, like OHG, MHG does not behave like a non-strict NC language. •

additional Neg0 en on V (pattern I):

(523)

a.

preverbal n-indefinite: und wolt sich weren als er nichts and wanted himself defend as-though he nothing darumb enwúst there-about NEG-knew

293

The same holds for Ancient Greek.

3.6


307

‘and wanted to defend himself as though he did not know anything about it’ Lanc 30, 129 b.

postverbal n-indefinite: ir enchvnde in dirre werlde nimmer leider sin her NEG-could in this world never worse be geschehen happened ‘Never could anything worse have happened to her in this world.’ Nib I, 13, 3f.

•

no additional Neg0 on V (pattern III):

(524)

a.

preverbal n-indefinite: Mit gewalte nieman erwerben mach die maget. with force nobody gain may the maiden ‘Nobody may gain this maiden by force.’ Nib III, 60, 1

b.

postverbal n-indefinite: wann nymant kan sich behuten vor verretery because nobody can himself protect from treachery ‘because nobody can protect himself from treachery’ Lanc, 20, 66

Table (525) below shows the distribution of these options in the MHG corpus. The suggested correlation is most noticeable in Lancelot where the post-nindefinite verbs mostly lack en whereas the pre-n-indefinite verbs mostly carry en. However, almost as many of the pre-n-indefinite verbs lack en. Recall that in those OHG texts where pattern III was attested at all (cf. table (418) above), lack of Neg0 was not attested with pre-n-indefinite verbs, but only with post-nindefinite verbs and even then, additional Neg0 was clearly preferred. The

308


MHG data thus continue, if less pronounced, the contrast already present in OHG between pre- and post-n-indefinite verbs that could be related to the NegFirst principle. On the other hand, pattern I was generally vastly preferred over III in OHG, whereas the situation is reversed in MHG. (525)

Relative word order of the n-indefinite and (ne/en+)V n-indefinite ... n-indefinite ... en+V V 1 21 5 18 0 14

Nib Lanc Bert

en+V ... n-indefinite 6 10 0

V ... n-indefinite 15 8 28

My results furthermore support Paul’s observation that the contrast is not as clear in Nibelungenlied: The majority of verbs lack en independently of the word order relative to the n-indefinite. At least, the ratio of verbs carrying en is still slightly higher in pre-n-indefinite verbs than in post-n-indefinite ones. In Berthold, on the other hand, the relative word order plays no role at all: Entirely independently of word order facts, the verb is never neg-marked in addition to the n-indefinite. Topological position of the indefinite Recall from the discussion of OHG (chpt. 3.5.8) that, since the finite verb may in principle occupy two distinct topological positions in German viz. the left (C0) or the right sentence frame (a functional head within the IP domain or arguably V0), the same relative word order with respect to the n-indefinite may correspond to different topological positions of the n-indefinite. Therefore, I looked at the topological positions in addition, again. With prefield and middle field n-indefinites, both verbs with and without Neg0 en are attested. N-indefinites in postfield position are extremely rare in the general. In my MHG corpus, there are only two examples for this from Nibelungenlied. Neg0 is lacking in both cases. •


(526)

a.

prefield n-indefinite before V2: dheyn so gebryset ritter noch so hoch enist in dißer no/any so praised knight nor so high NEG-is in this

3.6

309


welt nicht world NEG ‘There is no knight so praised or so high in this world ...’ Lanc 36, 167 b.

middle field n-indefinite before Ve: Auch ducht yn das in aller der welt kein so also seemed him that in all the world no/any such gute enwere. good NEG-was ‘Also, it seemed to him that there was none as good as this in the world.’ Lanc 24, 89

c.

middle field n-indefinite after V1/V2: des enchvnde iu ze ware niemen gar ein ende that NEG-could you to true nobody quite an end geben give ‘Truly, nobody could give you an end to this.’ Nib I, 12, 2-4

•


(527)

a.

prefield n-indefinite before V2: wann dißer haßset mich sere durch uwern willen, because this hates me much through your will und durch anders dheyn sach and through other no/any thing

spricht er mich an. speaks he me to

310


‘because he hates me very much because of your will, and for no other reason does he challenge me’ Lanc 36, 170 b.

middle field n-indefinite before Ve: Obe ez ander nieman were wan Hagene der degen if it other nobody was than Hagen the warrior ‘if it was nobody other than Hagen, the warrior’ Nib III, 57, 1f.

c.

middle field n-indefinite after V1/V2: zu dirre zytt spúlget nymand zu machen friede mit synen at this time uses-to nobody to make peace with his dötigen finden deathly enemies ‘At this time, nobody usually makes peace with his deathly enemies.’ Lanc 28, 109

d.

postfield n-indefinite after Ve: daz im daz sagte nieman, daz was Gunthere leit that him that said nobody that was Gunther grief ‘That nobody told it to him, that galled Gunther.’ Nib III, 83, 4294

The distribution of those patterns is illustrated in table (528) and the corresponding diagrams in (529) below. N-indefinites in prefield position are relatively rare. Most n-indefinites occur in middle field position. Accordingly, most cases with additional Neg0 en on the finite verb are ones with a middle field nindefinite.

294

Ms. C: daz im daz niemen sagete, daz was im groezliche leit. (n-indefinite in middle-field position before Ve).

3.6

311


(528)

Topological position of the n-indefinite and (ne/en+)V

Prefield (a)

Middle Field (b)

n-indef. ... en+V2

n-indef ... en+Ve

en +V1/V2 n-indef.

1 4 -

6 10 -

n-indef ... Ve

V1/V2 n-indef.

17 15 14

13 8 28

Nib Lanc 1 Bert n-indef. ... V2

Nib 4 Lanc 3 Bert (529)

Postfield (d)

(c) ...

en +Ve ... n-indef.

...

Ve ... n-indef.

2 -

N-indefinites in different topological positions and (ne/en+)V Nibelungenlied

Lancelot

30

30

20

20

10

10

0

0 PreF

n-indef + en-V

MF

PostF

n-indef - en-V

Berthold 50 40 30 20 10 0 PreF n-indef + en-V

MF

PostF

n-indef - en-V

PreF n-indef + en-V

MF

PostF

n-indef - en-V

312


Yet, the ratio of n-indefinites with and without additional en on the verb is quite comparable for pre- and middle field n-indefinites: It is 1:7 in total with the former (Nib 0:4, Lanc 1:3, Bert 0:0) and 1:5 with the latter (Nib 1:4; Lanc 1:2, Bert 0:42). In other words, middle field n-indefinites are slightly more often attested with en on the verb than prefield n-indefinites are, but there is so little contrast that, on this basis, there is clearly no correlation with the topological position of the n-indefinite. Pattern III with an n-indefinite only is generally vastly preferred over the competing NC pattern whether the n-indefinite is positioned in the prefield or the middle field. Since clauses with prefield n-indefinites do not show a uniform pattern and there is no clear contrast to ones with middle field n-indefinites, one can also exclude a strict correlation of ±NC with moved vs. in situ n-indefinites.295 Note however, that in the corpus from Nibelungenlied, prefield n-indefinites are only attested without neg-marking on the verb. However, prefield nindefinites are generally rare as pointed out above. In the corpus from Berthold, there are no prefield n-indefinites at all. Verbal placement Another factor that might influence the choice of using an n-indefinite only or Neg-Doubling with en is the position of the finite verb itself, independent of the n-indefinite. Table (530) illustrates the results from my MHG corpus: (530)

Verbal placement and n-indefinite ±en on V

I: en+V1/V2 Nib 6 Lanc 11 Bert 0

III: V1/V2 without en 17 11 28

I: en+Ve 1 4 0

III: Ve without en 19 15 14

In Nibelungenlied and even more clearly in Lancelot, V1 and V2 clauses are more likely to contain Neg-Doubling with Neg0 en than Ve clauses. This tendency may, however, be a consequence of the influence of the relative word order of n-indefinite and finite verb: In Ve clauses, the n-indefinite almost always precedes the verb so that the verb is less likely to be neg-marked in addition. In V2 clauses, on the other hand, the n-indefinite mostly follows the 295

Furthermore, since prefield n-indefinites occur both with and without Neg0 en on the finite verb, c-command of the n-indefinite by (en+)V at surface-structure/spell-out cannot be strictly decisive, either.

3.6


313

finite verb. The relation between the two factors could also be vice versa. However, the correlation of lack of NC with preverbal n-indefinites is slightly clearer than the correlation with Ve clauses. With postverbal n-indefinites, there is still a preference for lack of NC in Nibelungenlied but it is less pronounced than with preverbal n-indefinites. In Lancelot, preverbal placement correlates with a preference for NC. The correlation with V1/V2 on the other hand, yields no preference with respect to ±NC in Lancelot. In sum, the opposition V1/V2 vs. Ve results in less clear contrasts for the distribution of ±NC than the opposition postverbal vs. preverbal n-indefinite. One may conclude from this that the correlation with word order relative to the n-indefinite is more basic. On the other hand, the tendency for V1/V2 clauses to contain more additional en/ne than Ve clauses confirms the parallel observation that was made for niht ±en (cf. table (275) above). Adjacency of n-indefinite and Vfin Besides the relative order of the finite verb and the n-indefinite, adjacency of these two constituents could play a role. My corpus results show, however, that there is no strict correlation, either: N-indefinites with and without additional Neg0 en on the verb are attested both adjacent and non-adjacent to the verb. •


(531)

a.

n-indefinite adjacent to en+V: dvn doerftest nimmer geriten in Gunthers lant. you-NEG may never ride in Gunther’s country ‘You may never ride into Gunther’s country’ Nib III, 59, 3

b.

n-indefinite non-adjacent to en+V: Das enwil ich nymand off zu lehen geben. that NEG-want I nobody up to fief give ‘I do not want to give this as a fief to anybody.’ Lanc 38, 177

314

•



(532)

a.

n-indefinite adjacent to V: das ir uns dheyne hant gethan that you us none/any have done ‘that you have not done any to us’ Lanc 28, 109

b.

n-indefinite non-adjacent to V: ez sint in mime huose vnchvnde degne, / die niemen it are in my house unknown warriors who nobody hie bekennet. here recognizes ‘In my house, there are unknown warriors who nobody here recognizes.’ Nib III, 86, 2f.

Table (533) shows the distribution of these patterns in the MHG corpus: (533)

Nib Lanc296 Bert

Adjacency of the n-indefinite and (en+)V n-indefinite adjacent to en+V 2 6 0

n-indefinite adjacent to V 21 16 13

n-indefinite non-adjacent to en+V 5 11 0

n-indefinite non-adjacent to V 15 10 29

The picture that emerges is very similar to that for the different relative word orders. While there is no strict correlation, there is a clear tendency towards lack of en on the verb with adjacent n-indefinites in all texts. With non-adjacent n-indefinites, Nibelungenlied still shows a preference for lack of NC, yet this preference is less pronounced. In Lancelot, non-adjacent n-indefinites are 296 The number of cases of n-indefinite + en-V in Lancelot is higher than 15 here, because there are two examples with two n-indefinites each.

3.6


315

used more often with NC than without it. The contrasts (and even the absolute numbers) with respect to ±NC are almost the same for adjacency vs. nonadjacency as for pre- vs. postverbal position of the n-indefinite (cf. table (525) above). Syntactic function of the n-indefinite Finally, another factor for the presence or lack of en on the verb in addition to the use of an n-indefinite could be the syntactic function of that n-indefinite.297 As already in OHG, most n-indefinites in the MHG corpus are either subjects, objects or temporal adverbs.298 All three kinds are attested with and without Neg-Doubling with en. •

additional Neg0 en on V (pattern I)

(534)

a.

subject n-indefinite: des enchvnde iu ze ware niemen gar ein ende that NEG-could you to true nobody quite an end geben give ‘Truly, nobody could give you an end to this.’ Nib I, 12, 2-4

b.

object n-indefinite: wesse niemen, den minnen wolde ir lip. daz sine that she-NEG know nobody that love wanted her body ‘that she did not know anyone whom her body wanted to love’ Nib (B/C) I, 18, 3299

297

French data suggest that the syntactic complexity of the subject plays a role for the presence or absence of ne (cf. Dufter/Stark forthc.). I will have to leave it to future research to determine the role of this factor in MHG. 298 Besides being subjects, objects or temporal adverbials, n-indefinites occasionally occur in the MHG corpus as complements of prepositions, as predicate nouns or as local adverbials. 299 Ms. A: without Neg0 ne.

316


c.

temporal adverbial n-indefinite: ich sol si miden beidiv; sone chan mir nimmer I shall them avoid both so-NEG can me never missegan. go-wrong ‘I shall avoid both so I will never fare badly.’ Nib I, 17, 4

•


(535)

a.

subject n-indefinite: wan ez ist nû liegen unde triegen als gemeine because it is now lying and betraying so general wil. worden, daz sich sîn nieman schemen become that REFL it nobody be-ashamed wants ‘because lying and betraying is now so widespread that nobody wants to be ashamed of it’ Bert I, 96 (16)

b.

object n-indefinite: gewunnen Und sie hatten nymant miteinander and they had nobody with-each-other won dann ein junges knebelin kleyn than a young boy small ‘and they had no children apart from a little boy’ Lanc 10, 3

3.6

317


c.

temporal adverbial n-indefinite: man gesach an helden nie so herlich gewant. one saw on heroes never so great clothes ‘One never saw such beautifully dressed heroes.’ Nib III, 75, 4

As table (536) indicates, n-indefinites in all of three main syntactic functions are mostly used without NC: (536)

Nib Lanc300 Bert

Syntactic function of the n-indefinite and ±en on Vfin n-indefinite =S

n-indefinite =O

∑ n-indefinite = n-indefinite = argument temp. adverbial

+en

-en

+en

-en

+en

-en

+en

-en

2 4 0

7 10 3

1 9 0

9 8 8

3 13 0

16 18 11

4 4 0

16 5 27

In Nibelungenlied, the preference for the lack of en is greatest with object nindefinites, in Lancelot with subject n-indefinites whereas object n-indefinites are even used slightly more often with en on the verb than without it. Yet, this does not warrant the assumption of a subject-object asymmetry in Lancelot: Objects are placed after the verb more often than subjects so that the difference could be explained on the basis of the correlation of ±NC with post- and preverbal n-indefinites. Comparing the numbers for the argument n-indefinites (subjects and objects) to those for the temporal adverbs, an argument-non-argument asymmetry can be excluded as a factor. Recall that in OHG, too, the syntactic function of the n-indefinite did not play a decisive role for the presence or lack of additional Neg0 (cf. table (422) above). The former syntactic pattern was generally preferred over the latter in OHG, in contrast to MHG, where overt Neg0 is lacking in most cases.

300 The number of cases of n-indefinite + en-V in Lancelot is higher than 15 here, because there are two examples with two n-indefinites each.

318

3.7.


Summary

The discussion in the third part of this investigation has shown that indefinite pronouns, determiners and adverbs play an important role in the syntax of negation. In many languages, they take a specific form in the scope of negation. Typologically, one can distinguish three main polarity types of indefinites: ‘normal’ (or PPI) indefinites, NPI indefinites and n-indefinites. While some languages have indefinite systems with three sets of indefinites, others have two sets etc. NPI- and n-indefinites are specific to negative contexts. They are lexically specified as [+ affec] and [+ affec, + neg], respectively. NPIs may accordingly also occur in various other special, so-called affective contexts, for instance after ‘without’ or ‘before’, in clauses dependent on adversative or negated matrix predicates, conditionals, the standard of comparison or questions. Semantically, these contexts can be characterized as non-veridical, most of them also as downward-entailing. On semantic grounds, they can be arranged into a Neg-hierarchy. In a few languages, n-indefinites are even licensed in several of these contexts. However, n-indefinites may be distinguished from NPIs not only because they are morphologically marked for negation in most languages, but crucially because they may give rise to a negative interpretation in isolation, for instance in elliptical one-word answers. Many languages that have specific n-indefinites use these in negated clauses in addition to the neg-particle (Neg-Doubling) or may even use several n-indefinites (Neg-Spread) in one clause that is interpreted as containing a single sentential negation – phenomena subsumed under the cover term of Negative Concord (NC). Languages differ parametrically as to whether they allow NC or not. There is a typological link between the phrase-structural status of the neg-particle and NC: A language that has a Neg0 neg-particle will also have NC. Some NC languages do not consistently use NC in clauses with indefinites in the scope of negation, but employ this syntactic pattern dependent on factors such as the relative order of the indefinite and the verb. In recent syntactic and semantic theory, there are two basic approaches to n-indefinites and NC: Under the first approach, n-indefinites are analysed semantically as inherently negative quantifiers and NC is based on a semantic process of factorization and absorption after movement of all n-indefinites into the specifier position of the negative head according to the Neg-Criterion. I have argued for the alternative approach according to which n-indefinites are not semantically negative but bear an uninterpretable or formal [+ neg]-feature that is licensed by the (possibly abstract) semantic negation in the clause. With

3.7

SUMMARY

319

respect to the historical stages of German, I assume that this checking is done non-locally under c-command when Neg0 is merged (Agree). In Modern German, there are basically only two sets of indefinites – ‘normal’ indefinites and n-indefinites (with the exception of the NPI-indefinite je ‘ever’). The first indefinite in the scope of negation has to take the form of an n-indefinite and will constitute the only neg-marker in the respective clause: Modern Standard German (in contrast to some dialects) is a non-NC language. The most noticeable difference to historical stages of German is that OHG and MHG were NC languages. Against the typological background, it becomes clear that they also differ with respect to the indefinite system. In OHG, we still find a system with basically three complete sets of indefinite pronouns/determiners and adverbs: PPI or ‘normal’ indefinites notably of the ete(s)-series, the NPI indefinites of the io-series and others, and n-indefinites beginning in ni(o)-. This system is largely reduced to two sets of indefinites in MHG: The former NPI indefinites die out (as eventually in the case of iht), or change into n-indefinites as in the case of dehein/kein or into ‘normal’ indefinites as in the case of ioman/iemen, surplanting the respective former n-indefinites (e. g. nehein) or PPIs/‘normal’ indefinites (e. g. etewer). This change in the system is linked to changes in the syntax of negation. When indefinites occur in the scope of negation, there are three basic syntactic patterns that may be used in OHG and MHG: NC (pattern I), negmarking on the verb only together with a ‘positive’ (‘normal’ or NPI) indefinite (pattern II), or neg-marking through the n-indefinite and no additional neg-particle on the verb (pattern III). In OHG, NC in the form of Neg-Doubling between the n-indefinite and Neg0 on the finite verb is the most common syntactic pattern in clauses with indefinites in the scope of negation (on average 56%, in individual texts up to 87%). The main competing pattern is pattern II with neg-marking on the verb only, which is even more common than NC in some texts. It was thus a genuine option especially in earlier OHG, to use an NPI indefinite instead of an n-indefinite in the scope of negation. Of several syntactic factors that might influence the choice of the indefinite, we saw that there is at most a tendency for preverbal indefinites (and those outside the ccommand domain of Neg0 at surface-structure) to be neg-marked rather than postverbal ones. Factors such as adjacency of indefinite and neg-marked verb, or the syntactic function of the indefinite do not play a role. The choice of the indefinite may partly be based on semantic/pragmatic grounds as arguably in Modern English and partly in Romance languages where the use of an NPI results in a stronger reading. In translatory texts, the choice of the type of indefinite is partly influenced by the Latin original. On the other hand, Latin is

320


a non-NC language so that the massive use of NC in some translatory texts, notably in Tatian, represents a noteworthy divergence from Latin. This is mostly achieved, however, by following the original in using an n-indefinite, but adding the neg-particle on the verb in OHG against the original. In contrast to pattern II, the other syntactic pattern potentially competing with NC, viz. pattern III with neg-marking through the n-indefinite only, is extremely rare in OHG and does not even occur in all texts under investigation. In MHG, on the other hand, pattern III is the main competitor for NC. The choice of the indefinite is basically fix. This is related to the changes in the system of indefinites: As mentioned above, the category of NPI indefinites largely disappeared from the system. In the scope of negation, virtually only nindefinites appear. However, there is an important diachronic continuity in that NegDoubling between an n-indefinite and the Neg0 neg-particle is the major NC pattern in both OHG and MHG. This is so despite of the fact that, due to the availability of two neg-particles, one could expect a larger variety of NC patterns in MHG. Yet, other patterns (Neg-Spread, Neg-Doubling with the SpecNegP neg-particle niht) occur only marginally, notably with the former NPI dehein/kein that could therefore be considered ambiguous between an nindefinite and an NPI, considering that it further differs from other n-indefinites in that it is still licensed in various weak NPI contexts, too. Since those at most marginally possible MHG NC patterns are exactly the only ones found in Modern German NC dialects, these dialects cannot be said to simply continue the MHG system of negation but represent more recent developments that arguably became possible because of the ambiguity of dehein/kein. The use or lack of Neg0 ne/en in addition to an n-indefinite in MHG is again partly due to relative word order of finite verb and n-indefinite: A finite verb before an n-indefinite is more likely to still be neg-marked than one after an n-indefinite. Adjacency or syntactic function of the n-indefinite do not play a role in MHG, either. One important result of the corpus analysis is, however, that independently of relative word order or other factors, pattern III is generally preferred in MHG over pattern I. That is, in contrast to various accounts in the literature, there is in fact a clear decrease of NC from OHG to MHG where pattern I is only used in 21% of clauses with indefinites in the scope of negation on average, whereas pattern III makes up 77% on average. Thus, the loss of NC is a natural development linked to the loss of overt Neg0 and furthered by the changes in the indefinite system. Just as with respect to the neg-particle, MHG is closer to Modern Standard German than expected in that the majority syntactic patterns of negation are the ones that are still used today.

4.

CONCLUSION Main patterns of negation in the history of German

After we have looked at two main issues in the syntax of negation, the negation particle and indefinites in the scope of negation including the phenomenon of NC separately for different stages in the history of German, let us look at the results in a synopsis in order to see more clearly the diachronic developments with respect to the syntax of negation. In fact, the strong point of the approach adopted in this study is that, unlike investigations that are limited to one very specific phenomenon in the syntax of negation or to one specific point in the historical development, it captures the main syntactic patterns of negation over a longer period of time and thus makes it possible to answer the question: What did the average negated clause look like and how did this change in the history of German? The Venn-diagrams in (537) below illustrate the ratio of the main means by which negation is marked in the negated clauses of the OHG and MHG texts.301 The size of the circles and the area of overlap is iconic to the number of clauses for the respective patterns as given below the graphs.302 The grey area corresponds to the negated clauses including Neg0 ni/ne/en, white symbolizes clauses containing n-indefinites, and black stands for clauses containing the SpecNegP neg-particle niht (or, in the case of Otfrid, wiht). This synopsis brings out very clearly the main patterns and the main changes. In OHG, the standard way of negating a sentence was by marking negation with ni on the finite verb only. The amount of clauses in which negation is only marked by the verbal clitic is so vast that any other syntactic possibility, notably the marking of negation by means of an n-indefinite, is really a minority pattern. In Tatian and Otfrid, the number of clauses containing Neg0 is approximately 15 times as large as the number of clauses containing an n-indefinite, in Isidor it is even 23 times as large.

301

Note that, for simplicity, only the main neg-markers, viz. the Neg0 and SpecNegP neg-particles and n-indefinites are depicted in the diagrams, but not nalles or noh. 302 I thank Mathias Hegner for providing me with a Venn-diagram plotter for two overlapping sets. The diagram for Lancelot is not entirely iconic since the black and white area overlap quite a bit but not in fact as much with the grey area, which is mathematically impossible to depict in an exactly iconic manner using circles, but the diagram is a close approximation.

Neg0: 46 n-indef.: 2

Neg0: 873

Neg : 71 n-indef.: 45 Spec: 49

Neg : 26

0


Otfrid (863-871)

n-indef.: 43 Spec: 56

Neg : 44

0


Neg0: 7

n-indef.: 52

Berthold: Sermons (around 1275)

Spec: 4

Notker: Psalter (before 1020)


Prose-Lancelot (before 1250)


Nibelungenlied (1190-1200)

Spec: 0

(grey = Neg0 neg-particle, black = SpecNegP neg-particle, white = n-indefinites)

Spec: 15

0

Wiener Genesis (1060-80)

Spec: 0

Tatian (before 850)

Development of main patterns of negation in German

Isidor (around 800)

(537)

4.

CONCLUSION

323

When n-indefinites occur, they are mostly or always used in addition to Neg0 in the OHG texts. In the diagrams, the white area is more or less contained in the grey area. A number of the clauses in which negation is identified by Neg0 only, could in principle have also contained an n-indefinite. However, a different indefinite (bare NP, ‘normal’ indefinite, or notably an NPI indefinite) was chosen instead. In the later texts of Otfrid and Notker, a further pattern of negation occurs in some rare cases, viz. the use of a negative adverbial, arguably the beginning of the grammaticalization of a second neg-particle (SpecNegP) wiht or nieht, respectively. The area that is indicated in black is entirely contained in the grey area, i. e. uuiht/nieht was only used in addition to overt Neg0. Note also, that there is no overlap between the black and the white area: wiht/nieht was never used in clauses with an n-indefinite. Towards the later OHG text of Notker, the amount of negated clauses containing Neg0 decreases slightly. Yet, Notker303 clearly forms part of the OHG period also with respect to the syntax of negation: The picture for the main patterns resembles the other OHG ones much more than the MHG ones. In fact, the usual periodization of German based on phonological and morphological differences is confirmed by my results. There is a clear contrast between the texts of the OHG and the MHG period. While in OHG in the average negated clause, negation was simply marked by the clitic neg-particle on the finite verb and only very rarely by an additional n-indefinite or later by a second neg-particle in a minority of cases, the picture is less uniform in MHG. In addition to the texts from the core corpus, data from the early MHG text of Wiener Genesis was included, which nicely shows the transition from OHG to MHG. While most negated clauses still simply contain the Neg0 neg-particle ne/en, the number of clauses containing the SpecNegP neg-particle nieht depicted in black and even more so of those containing n-indefinites depicted in white increases. At the same time, their overlap with the Neg0 area decreases: Only one half of the set overlaps with ne/en in both cases. These changes continue in the other MHG texts. There is a drastic decrease of overt Neg0. If one understands the diagrams as representing a dynamic process, the area of overt Neg0 basically shrinks until it is quite negligible by the late 13th century, whereas the white area of the n-indefinites on the one hand, and the black area of the SpecNegP neg-particle niht on the other hand, increase and so to speak step out of the shadow of the Neg0 neg-particle 303

The situation in the additionally investigated later rendition of Wiener Notker (around 1100) is virtually unchanged (SpecNegP: 4, Neg0: 86, n-indef.: 13).

324


in a largely parallel development. This process is already complete, however, for n-indefinites in Berthold, while niht still rarely co-occurs with overt Neg0. By looking at the entire development in this synopsis, one can see quite graphically how the two main syntactic patterns of negation that we find in Modern German today, viz. the neg-particle niht and n-indefinites, originated as minor patterns generally co-occurring with the otherwise overwhelming pattern of neg-marking through Neg0, but became increasingly important and independent of overt Neg0 which hardly plays a role any more in classsical MHG. The two major patterns of negation in MHG – neg-marking by ni(c)ht only and neg-marking by an n-indefinite only – are exactly the two patterns we still find in Modern German today.304 With regard to the development of the negation particle, the diagrams above illustrate once more that there is no evidence for a stable stage II period in terms of Jespersen’s Cycle from my corpus. OHG is clearly a stage I language. The tiny black circles in the later OHG texts only indicate the beginning language change towards the next stage. In all of the MHG texts in the corpus, however, the area of niht occurring on its own is larger already than the area of overlap with overt Neg0. The loss of the Neg0 neg-particle is already much more advanced than might be expected, also in clauses containing niht. In that respect, classical MHG is in fact a stage-III language with respect to the average negated clause. I will have to leave it to future research to determine whether any texts in between the OHG and MHG texts in my corpus actually have a bipartite neg-particle in the majority of clauses that are negated just by a neg-particle. Modern German is still a stage-III language, i. e. the last step of a reanalysis of the SpecNegP neg-particle niht as the head Neg0 has not yet taken place (in contrast to English, for instance), as the lack of interference of the neg-particle with verb movement indicates. This is presumably due to the fact that the learner has enough robust evidence that nicht and the verb do not form a syntactic unit from verb-final clauses with VP-internal phrases intervening between nicht and the finite verb since German is an OV language. In a VO language like English, adjacency of a SpecNegP neg-particle to V will occur more often, giving rise to a reanalysis of SpecNegP as a Neg0 neg-particle that forms a unit with the verb. The basic word order of OV vs. VO has also been appealed to by some authors as the driving force behind Jespersen’s Cycle. Vennemann (1974) and van der Horst/van der Wal (1979) suggest that Jespersen’s Cycle is due to a 304

This confirms Müller’s (2001: 248) conclusion from his investigation of Lancelot that the development of the negation system was largely complete by that time.

4.

CONCLUSION

325

word order change from OV, connected to preverbal negation, to VO with postverbal negation. Exactly the opposite hypothesis is proposed by Lehmann (1978) and taken up in Grewendorf (1990), namely that preverbal neg-particles are typical of VO languages, whereas OV languages have postverbal neg-particles, and therefore Jespersen’s Cycle is supposedly due to a change from VO to OV. Both hypotheses are clearly contradicted by typological as well as diachronic research. Typological studies have shown that there is no link between the basic word order and pre- or postverbal placement of the neg-particle. Entirely independent of word order, preverbal neg-particles are universally preferred (cf. Dahl 1979: 91ff ; 1993: 918, see chpt. 2.1. above). Lehmann’s hypothesis is specifically contradicted by the fact that only a minority of SOV languages have postverbal neg-particles (cf. Dryer 1988). Lehmann’s view is furthermore proved wrong in diachronic terms because both German and English underwent Jespersen’s Cycle but neither OHG nor Old English were VO languages. The opposite hypothesis defended by Vennemann and others is also contradicted by historical linguistic data: Italian and Spanish constantly retained a preverbal neg-particle but are VO languages. Furthermore, Modern German would have to be VO. However, German was presumably constantly an OV language. Thus Jespersen’s Cycle is quite independent of changes in the basic word order (cf. also Horn 1989: 452ff., van der Wouden 1998: 324). Jespersen’s (1917) original hypothesis of phonetic weakening and strengthening, rephrased by Horn (1989) as opposing tendencies of least effort and preserving information, is still more likely to capture the driving force behind Jespersen’s Cycle. One may also wonder whether Jespersen’s Cycle and the phenomenon of NC are connected. It is not the case, however, that Jespersen’s Cycle presupposes NC: In German, it was indeed a concordant n-indefinite that was grammaticalized as the second neg-particle. On the other hand, minimizers such as French pas or NPI indefinites such as MHG iht that still occurs in certain Modern German dialects as the neg-particle it/et (cf. example (211) above) could also form the source for the second neg-particle. Yet, in so far as the typological generalization that languages with a Neg0 neg-particle are NC languages is correct, stage I and II languages in terms of Jespersen’s Cycle will also be NC languages. A loss of NC from stage II to III is not predicted by this generalization, however, because it only holds one way (cf. chpt. 3.3 above). With respect to NC itself, one important conclusion from the present investigation is that the main type of NC was the same in OHG as in MHG, namely Neg-Doubling of the Neg0 neg-particle and an n-indefinite. Another re-

326


sult is that NC was never obligatory, and that the main pattern competing with NC changed, indicating a change in the system. In OHG, the source of the optionality with respect to NC was the choice between using an n-indefinite or an NPI-indefinite in the scope of negation. OHG is in this respect comparable to Modern English (but differed in allowing NC), and contrasts with Slavic languages where n-indefinites basically have to be used wherever they are licensed and NPIs would result in ungrammaticality. In MHG, the optionality of NC was due to the optional use of overt Neg0 in addition to an n-indefinite. MHG is thus rather comparable to Colloquial French or to West Flemish (from which it differed, however, in still also allowing Neg0 as the only neg-marker). I have argued that the change in the system, that this development is linked to, is a change in the system of indefinites from three sets of indefinites including NPI indefinites to largely only two sets. The former NPIs became extinct or changed into a different type of indefinite as in the case of dehein/ kein ‘any/no’ that turned into an n-indefinite. This can be analysed as enrichment with formal features, in this case with an uninterpretable, formal [+ neg]feature that needs to be checked, which is why parallel to the change from NPIto n-indefinite, the number of licensing contexts is narrowed down along the Neg-hierarchy until only sentential negation proper remains. However, there is no unidirectionality in polarity type changes from the underspecified or less specific to the more specific, in this case ‘more negative’: The opposite change also took place in German in terms of the former NPI indefinite ioman/ieman/ jemand ‘anybody/somebody’ that is used in Modern German as the ‘normal’ indefinite in opposition to the n-indefinite niemand ‘nobody’, i. e. it diachronically lost its formal [+ affec]-feature. This change was possible because of the extinction of the corresponding PPI etewer ‘somebody’. Accordingly, the oppositions and elements in the surrounding system also play a role for the directionality of change. As the category of NPI indefinites largely disappeared from the system, n-indefinites took over in the scope of negation and became virtually obligatory. Thus negation was increasingly identified by n-indefinites. As a result, neg-marking only through the n-indefinite became the main pattern competing with NC (instead of neg-marking only through the preverbal neg-particle, as in OHG). Furthermore, because the use of n-indefinites in the scope of negation was now the rule, the additional neg-particle became dispensable. Another crucial result with respect to NC is that the loss of NC in German is to be regarded as a natural development that started well before the

4.

327

CONCLUSION

influence of any prescriptive grammars:305 From OHG to MHG, the ratio of NC constructions among clauses with indefinites in the scope of negation decreased by 35% on average. This contradicts the general view (e. g. Admoni 1990: 46f./103) that NC increased towards MHG – the opposite is the case. Note also that the significantly lower ratio of NC in the 13th in contrast with the 11th century is clearly not due to Latin influence that has been repeatedly invoked as the cause for loss of NC (cf. Paul 1920: 336; Dal 1966: 165; Lockwood 1968: 210; Quian 1987).306 In fact, at a time when the Latin influence on German texts was overwhelming, viz. in the 9th and 10th century, the ratio of NC was noticably higher: In a text that is as strongly influenced by Latin as the OHG Tatian translation, an astonishing 87% of clauses with indefinites in the scope of negation contain NC against the Latin original – the holy text of the bible that the translators aimed to diverge from as little as possible. My investigation has shown that, instead, the decrease of NC has to be understood as crucially linked to the development of the neg-particle. (538)

Loss of Neg0 and loss of NC (Neg-Spread/Neg-Doubling):

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

% Neg° of all neg. clauses

305

Bert

Lanc

N

Nib

O

T

Is

% NC of neg. clauses incl. indefinites

This has recently also been argued for Middle English by Ingham (2003: 164) and Mazzon (2004: 63). Prescriptive grammars often only confirm and post-hoc justify diachronic developments that are already well under way. Note further that, as van der Wouden (1998: 325) points out, language planning can also have the opposite effect of conserving NC, as in the case of the Académie Française supporting the use of ne and thus NC in the form of Neg-Doubling in French. Van der Wouden also concludes that language prescriptivism may at most accelerate or slow down language change processes that take place anyway. 306 Furthermore, Quian (1987: 299) absurdly proposes that NC had originally been introduced into German under Greek influence. The point that NC did not decrease due to Latin influence is also stressed for Middle English by Mazzon (2004: 63).

328


As the graph in (538) illustrates, the loss of NC largely correlates with the loss of Neg0. Isidor and Otfrid behave differently for various reasons (cf. chpt. 3.5.6.): The total amount of negated clauses in Isidor is very low. In Otfrid, the low percentage of NC constructions is due to the frequent use of the non-negmarked indefinite uuiht in the scope of negation which, on the other hand, should arguably not be included as counter-examples to NC because uuiht is used as a kind of second neg-particle in Otfrid, comparable to nieht in Notker. What is very obvious from the graph, however, is that the massive decrease of overt Neg0 in the MHG texts is entirely parallel to the decrease of NC. This fact is easily explained on the basis of the corpus data: Recall that the major NC pattern in both OHG and MHG is Neg-Doubling of the Neg0 negparticle and an n-indefinite. As overt Neg0 disappears, NC accordingly largely disappears, too. Other types of NC, viz. Neg-Doubling with the SpecNegP negparticle niht or Neg-Spread were only marginally used in MHG and only later became the major NC patterns in some regional German NC varieties. In sum, the present corpus analysis against the background of typological research and recent theory of negation shows that the development that we saw depicted in the diagrams in (537) of the SpecNegP neg-particle niht on the one hand and the n-indefinites on the other hand, diachronically ‘stepping out of the shadow’ of the Neg0 neg-particle is the result of a combination of a change of the neg-particle along Jespersens’s Cycle and a change in the system of indefinites: The use of overt Neg0 decreases, the former category of NPI indefinites more or less disappears from the system and the choice of the type of indefinite in the scope of negation becomes fix. Thus, in clauses containing an indefinite in the scope of negation, negation is marked by an n-indefinite, in other clauses, it is marked by niht, yielding the two main syntactic patterns of negation that we find in Modern German today.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary sources Berthold von Regensburg, Vier Predigten Mittelhochdeutsch/Neuhochdeutsch. Werner Röcke (ed.) Stuttgart: Reclam, 1983. TITUS text entry by H. Knaus et al., TITUS version by J. Gippert, Frankfurt/M., 1998–2003. http://titus. fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/ [= Bert]. Das Hildebrandslied. In Althochdeutsches Lesebuch. 17th edition. Wilhelm Braune and Ernst Ebbinghaus (eds.), 84-85. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1994. Das Nibelungenlied. Paralleldruck der Handschriften A, B und C nebst Lesarten der übrigen Handschriften. Michael S. Batts (ed.) Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1971. TITUS text entry by B. Karner and H. Reichert. TITUS version by J. Gippert, Frankfurt/M., 1998-2003. http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/ texte/etcc/germ/mhd/nibelung/nibel.htm [= Nib]. Der althochdeutsche Isidor. Nach der Pariser Handschrift und den Monseer Fragmenten. Hans Eggers (ed.) Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1964. TITUS text entry by P. Fernández Alvarez et al. TITUS version by J. Gippert, Frankfurt/M., 1997–2000. http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/germ/ ahd/isidor/isido.htm [=Is]. Die frühmittelhochdeutsche Wiener Genesis. Kritische Ausgabe mit einem einleitenden Kommentar zur Überlieferung. Kathryn Smits (ed.) Berlin: Schmidt, 1972. [= Wiener Genesis]. Die lateinisch-althochdeutsche Tatianbilingue Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen Cod. 56. Achim Masser (ed.) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. [=T]. Lancelot und Ginover I. Prosalancelot I. Nach der Heidelberger Hs. Cod. Pal. germ. 147. Reinhold Kluge (ed.), erg. durch Hs. Ms. allem. 8017–8020 Bibl.de l’Arsenal Paris. H.-H. Steinhoff (ed.) Frankfurt/Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, 1995. TITUS text entry by H. Knaus et al., TITUS version by J. Gippert, Frankfurt/M., 1999–2003. http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/ texte/etcc/germ/mhd/proslan1/prosl.htm [= Lanc]. Notker der Deutsche: Boethius “De consolatione philosophiae”. Book 1/2. Petrus Wilhelmus Tax (ed.) Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1986. Notker der Deutsche: Der Psalter. Petrus Wilhelmus Tax (ed.) Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1979. [=N]. Notker der Deutsche: Martianus Capella “De nuptiis philologiae et Mercurii”. James C. King (ed.) Tübingen: Niemeyer 1979.

330


Notkers Psalmen. Nach der Wiener Handschrift. Richard Heinzel and Wilhelm Scherer (eds.) Strassburg/London: Trübner, 1876 [= Wiener Notker]. Otfrid von Weissenburg: Evangelienbuch. Johann Kelle (ed.) Regensburg: Manz, 1856. TITUS text entry by R. Schuhmann, M. Bayer et al. TITUS version by J. Gippert, Frankfurt/M., 1997–2003. http://titus.fkidg1.unifrankfurt.de/texte/etcs/germ/ahd/otfrid/otfri.htm. Otfrid von Weissenburg: Evangelienbuch. Wolfgang Kleiber (ed.) Vol. 1. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2004 [=O]. Otlohs Gebet. In Althochdeutsches Lesebuch. 17th edition. Wilhelm Braune and Ernst Ebbinghaus (eds.), 80-81. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1994. Pariser Gespräche. In “In Francia fui”. Studien zu den romanisch-germanischen Interferenzen und zur Grundsprache der althochdeutschen Pariser (Altdeutschen) Gespräche, nebst einer Edition des Textes. Haubrichs, Wolfgang/Pfister, Max (eds.). Mainz: Akad. der Wiss. und der Literatur, 1989. Tatian: lateinisch und altdeutsch. Eduard Sievers (ed.). 2nd ed., Paderborn: Schöningh, 1892. TITUS text entry by P. Fernández Alvarez, M. M. GarcíaBermejo Giner et al. TITUS version by J. Gippert, Frankfurt/M., 1997–2003. http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/germ/ahd/tatian/ tatia.htm Wessobrunner Predigt. In Althochdeutsches Lesebuch. 17th edition. Wilhelm Braune and Ernst Ebbinghaus (eds.), 82-83. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1994.

Secondary references Abraham, Werner. 2000. Mehrfachnegation im Deutschen und im Afrikaans. In Sprachspiel und Bedeutung. Festschrift für Franz Hundsnurscher zum 65. Geburtstag, Susanne Beckmann (ed.), 221-226. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Abraham, Werner. 2003. Autonomous and non-autonomous components of ‘grammatic(al)ization’: Economy criteria in the emergence of German negation. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 56: 325–365. Acquaviva, Paolo. 1997. The logical form of negation. A study of operatorvariable structures in syntax. New York/ London: Garland. Admoni, Wladimir. 1967. Der Umfang und die Gestaltungsmittel des Satzes in der deutschen Literatursprache bis zum Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (H) 89: 144-199. Admoni, Wladimir. 1990. Historische Syntax des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Alexiadou, Artemis. 1997. Adverb placement: a case study in antisymmetric syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

331

Appel, Heinz-Wilfried. 2007. Untersuchungen zur Syntax niederdeutscher Dialekte. Forschungsüberblick, Methodik und Ergebnisse einer Korpusanalyse. Frankfurt/M.: Lang. Axel, Katrin. 2002. Zur diachronen Entwicklung der syntaktischen Integration linksperipherer Adverbialsätze im Deutschen. Ein Beispiel für syntaktischen Wandel? Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 124: 1-43. Axel, Kathrin. 2005. Studien zur althochdeutschen Syntax. Linke Satzperipherie, Verbstellung und Verb-Zweit. PhD Dissertation, Universität Tübingen. Baker, Mark. 1985. The mirror priniciple and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373-415. Bartsch, Renate and Theo Vennemann. 1972. Semantic Structures. A Study in the Relation between Semantics and Syntax. Frankfurt: Athenäum. Barwise, John and Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159-219. Bayer, Josef. 1990. What Bavarian negative concord reveals about the syntactic structure of German. In Grammar in Progress, Joan Mascaró (ed.), 1324. Dordrecht: Foris. Bayer, Josef. 2002. Minimale Annahmen in Syntax und Morphologie. In Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen der Kognitionswissenschaft: Sprachliches und nichtsprachliches Wissen [Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 79]. Anita Steube (ed.), 277-297. Universität Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik. Bech, Gunnar. 1964. Zur Etymologie des althochdeutschen Pronomens dehhein. Studia Neophilologia 36: 211-216. Beghelli, Filippo and Tim Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and Negation: The Syntax of each and every. In Ways of Scope Taking, Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), 71-98. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Behaghel, Otto. 1913. Von deutschen Bindewörtern. Wissenschaftliche Beihefte zur Zeitschrift des allgemeinen deutschen Sprachvereins 5 (36): 165182. Behaghel, Otto. 1918. Die Verneinung in den deutschen Sprachen. Wissenschaftliche Beihefte zur Zeitschrift des allgemeinen deutschen Sprachvereins 5 (38/40): 225-252. Behaghel, Otto. 1932. Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Vol. IV: Worstellung, Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Winter. Bell, Arthur. 2004. How n-words move. Bipartite negation and ‘split-NegP’. In Triggers, Anne Breitbarth and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), 77-113. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

332


Belletti, Adriana. 1990. Generalized verb movement. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier. Benecke, Georg Friedrich, Wilhelm Müller and Friedrich Zarncke. 1854. Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Vol. I. Leipzig: Hirzel. Bernini, Giuliano and Paolo Ramat. 1996. Negative sentences in the languages of Europe. A typological approach. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Besten, Hans den. 1986. Double negation and the genesis of Afrikaans. In Substrates versus Universals in Creole Languages, Peter Muysken and N. Smith (eds.) , 185-230. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bischoff, Bernhard. 1986. Paläographie des römischen Altertums und des abendländischen Mittelalters. 2nd edition. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. Błaszczak, Joanna. 2001. Investigation into the interaction between the indefinites and negation. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Bolli, Ernst. 1975. Die verbale Klammer bei Notker. Untersuchungen zur Wortstellung in der Boethius-Übersetzung. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Boor, Helmut de and Roswitha Wisniewski. 1998. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. 10th edition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Borsley, Robert. 2000. Negation and the Neg-Criterion in Welsh. Paper presented at the linguistics colloquium, Universität Jena. Borter, Alfred. 1982. Syntaktische Klammerbildung in Notkers Psalter. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bosque, Ignacio. 1980. Sobre la negación. Madrid: Cáthedra. Braune, Wilhelm and Ingo Reiffenstein. 2004. Althochdeutsche Grammatik. 15th ed. Vol. 1: Laut- und Formenlehre. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Büring, Daniel. 1994. Mittelfeldreport V. In Was determiniert Wortstellungsvariation? Studien zu einem Interaktionsfeld von Grammatik, Pragmatik und Sprachtypologie, Haftka, Brigitta (ed.), 79–96. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Büring, Daniel and Katharina Hartmann. 2001. The Syntax and Semantics of Focus-Sensitive Particles in German.. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 229–281. Burridge, Kate. 1993. Syntactic change in Germanic: Aspects of language change in Germanic, with particular reference to Middle Dutch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cardinaletti, Anna and Michal Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), 145-233. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

333

Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Bare Phrase Structure. In Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, Gert Webelhuth (ed.), 385-439. Cambridge MA: Blackwell. Chomsky, Noam. 1999. Derivation by Phase. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Clahsen, Harald. 1988. Kritische Phasen der Grammatikentwicklung. Eine Untersuchung zum Negationserwerb bei Kindern und Erwachsenen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 7: 3-31. Coombs, Virginia Mae. 1976. A Semantic Syntax of Grammatical Negation in the Older Germanic Dialects. Göppingen: Kümmerle. Dahl, Östen. 1979. Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 17: 79–106. Dahl, Östen. 1993. Negation. In Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. Vol. 1, Joachim Jacobs et al. (eds.), 914-923. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dal, Ingerid. 1966. Kurze deutsche Syntax auf historischer Grundlage. 3rd edition. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Danielsen, Niels. 1968. Die negativen unbestimmten Pronominaladjektive im althoch- und mittelhochdeutschen. Zeitschrift für deutsche Sprache 24: 92117. Delbrück, Berthold. 1910. Germanische Syntax I. Zu den negativen Sätzen. Abhandlung der philologisch-historischen Klasse der königlichen sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 28: 1-64. Déprez, Viviane. 1999. The roots of Negative Concord in French and Frenchlexicon creoles. In Language creation and language change, Michel DeGraff (ed.), 375-427. Cambridge MA/London: MIT Press. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Dittmer, Arne and Ernst. 1998. Studien zur Wortstellung, Satzgliedstellung in der althochdeutschen Tatianübersetzung. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. Dittmer, Ernst. 1992. Die Wortstellung im althochdeutschen Tatian. In Althochdeutsch. Syntax und Semantik, Desportes, Yvon (ed.), 245-258. Lyon: Centre d’études linguistiques Jacques Goudet. Donhauser, Karin. 1996. Negationssyntax in der deutschen Sprachgeschichte. Grammatikalisierung oder Degrammatikalisierung? In Deutsch – typologisch, Ewald Lang and Gisela Zifonun (eds.), 201-217. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

334


Donhauser, Karin. 1998. Negationssyntax im Althochdeutschen. Ein sprachhistorisches Rätsel und der Weg zu seiner Lösung. In Deutsche Grammatik. Thema in Variationen. Festschr. f. Hans-Werner Eroms, Karin Donhauser and Ludwig Eichinger (eds.) 283-298. Heidelberg: Winter. Dryer, Matthew. 1988. Universals of negation position. In Studies in syntactic typology, E. Moravcsik et al. (eds.), 93-124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dudenredaktion (eds.). 2005. Duden. Die Grammatik. 7th edition, by Peter Eisenberg, Jörg Peters, Peter Gallmann, Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen, Damaris Nübling, Irmhild Barz, Thomas Fritz, Reinhard Fiehler. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. [= Duden] Dufter, Andreas and Elisabeth Stark. forthc. La linguistique variationelle et les changements linguistiques ‘mal compris’. Le cas de ne de négation. Ebert, Robert Peter. 1978. Historische Syntax des Deutschen. Stuttgart: Metzler. Ebert, Robert Peter, Oskar Reichmann, Hans-Joachim Solms, and Klaus-Peter Wegera. 1993. Frühneuhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Eisenbeiß, Sonja. 2002. Merkmalsgesteuerter Grammatikerwerb. Eine Untersuchung zum Erwerb der Sruktur und Flexion von Nominalphrasen. PhD Dissertation, Universität Düsseldorf. Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York : Academic Press. Erben, Johannes. 1950. Syntaktische Untersuchungen zu einer Grundlegung der Geschichte der indefiniten Pronomina im Deutschen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 72: 193–221. Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eroms, Hans-Werner. 1993. Der indefinite Nominalnegator kein im Deutschen. In Studien zur Syntax und Semantik der Nominalgruppe, Marcel Vuillaume et al. (eds.), 1-18. Tübingen: Narr. Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 1995. Functional categories, cliticization, and verb movement in the early Germanic languages. PhD Dissertation, Cornell University. Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2002. Negation in C: The syntax of negated verbs in Old Norse. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 25: 190-224. Fanselow, Gisbert. 1991. Minimale Syntax [= Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 32]. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Fintel, Kai von. 1999. NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics 16: 97-148.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

335

Fleischer, Jürg. 2006. Zur Methodologie althochdeutscher Syntaxforschung. Aus Anlass des Erscheinens von Richard Schrodt Althochdeutsche Grammatik II. Syntax. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 128: 25-69. Fobbe, Eilika. 2004. Die Indefinitpronomina des Deutschen. Aspekte ihrer Verwendung und ihrer historischen Entwicklung. Heidelberg: Winter. Frege, Gottlob. 1918. Die Verneinung. Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus 1: 143-157. Frisch, Stefan. 1997. The change in negation in Middle English: A NEGP licensing account. Lingua 101: 21-64. Gebauer, J. 1885. Über die Negation insbesondere im Altböhmischen. Ein Beitrag zur Lösung des Negationsproblems. Archiv für slavische Philologie 8: 177-193. Gelderen, Elly van. 2004. Economy, Innovation, and Prescriptivism: From Spec to Head and Head to Head. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7: 59-98. Gerring, Hugo. 1927. Die unbestimmten Pronomina auf –ein im alt- und mittelhochdeutschen bis zum Anfang des 14. Jahrhunderts. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2000. Negative ... concord? Natural language and linguistic theory 18: 457-523. Grewendorf, Günther. 1990. Verb-Bewegung und Negation im Deutschen. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 30: 57-125. Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts, P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Grimm, Jacob. 1890. Deutsche Grammatik. Vol. 3. Besorgt durch G. Roethe u. E. Schröder. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. Grimm, Jacob and Wilhelm. 1862. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Vol. 3. Reprint 1984. München: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag. Grimm, Jacob and Wilhelm. 1877. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Vol. 10. Reprint 1984. München: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag. Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haegeman, Liliane and Rafaella Zanuttini. 1991. Negative Heads and the NegCriterion. Linguistic Review 8: 233-251.

336


Haegeman, Liliane and Rafaella Zanuttini. 1996. Negative Concord in West Flemish. In Parameters and functional heads. Essays in comparative syntax, Adriana Belletti and Luigi Rizzi (eds.), 117-179. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax – generativ. Vorstudien zu einer projektiven Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr. Haider, Hubert. 1997. Projective Economy. On the minimal functional structure of the German clause. In German. Syntactic problems – problematic syntax, Werner Abraham and Elly van Gelderen (eds.), 83-103. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Haraiwa, Ken. 2001. Multiple agreement and the defective intervention effect. ms. MIT. Harbert, Wayne. 2002. The syntax of indefinite phrases in negative sentences in Germanic. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 7: 101-126. Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hauptmann, Regina. 1994. Sentential Negation in German: Evidence for NegP. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 46-71. Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Helbig, Gerhard and Joachim Buscha. 2001. Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. Berlin: Langenscheidt. Herburger, Elena. 2001. The negative concord puzzle revisited. Natural language semantics 9: 289-333. Higginbotham, James and May Robert. 1981. Questions, quantifiers and crossing. The Linguistic Review 1: 41-79. Hoeksema, Jack. 1998. On the (non)loss of polarity sensitivity. Dutch ooit. In Historical linguistics 1995. Selected papers from the 12th international conference on historical linguistics, Manchester, August 1995, Richard Hogg and Linda van Bergen (eds.), 101-114. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hoeksema, Jack. 2001. Negation and negative concord in Middle Dutch. In Negation and Polarity [CILT 155], Jack Hoeksema et al. (eds.), 139-156. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Holmberg, Anders. 2002. Introduction. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 25: 121124. Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University Chicago Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

337

Horst, Joop van der and Marijke van der Wal. 1979. Negatieverschijnselen en woordvolgorde in de geschiedenis van het Nederlands. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 45: 6-37. Ingham, Richard. 2003. Negative concord and the loss of the negative particle ne in Late Middle English. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 145166. Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: MIT press. Jacobs, Joachim. 1980. Lexical decomposition in Montague Grammar. Theoretical Linguistics 7: 121–136. Jacobs, Joachim. 1982. Syntax und Semantik der Negation im Deutschen. München: Fink. Jacobs, Joachim. 1991. Negation. In Semantik. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), 560-596. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Jäger, Agnes. 1998. Kopf oder Spezifizierer. Zum Status des Negationselements nicht. ms. Universität Jena. Jäger, Agnes. 2005. Negation in Old High German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 24: 227-262. Jäger, Agnes. 2007. ‘No’ changes. On the history of German indefinite determiners in the scope of negation. In Nominal determination. Typology, context constraints, and historical emergence, Elisabeth Stark, Elisabeth Leiss and Werner Abraham (eds.), 141-170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jäger, Agnes. under review. On the diachrony of polarity types of indefinites. ms. Universität Frankfurt/M. (under review for the proceedings of the Negation and Polarity Workshop 2007, Tübingen). Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Kopenhagen: Høst. Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin. Kadmon, Nirit and Fred Landman. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 353-422. Kahrel, Peter (1996): Aspects of negation. PhD Dissertation, Universiteit Amsterdam. Kahrel, Peter and René van den Berg (eds.). 1993. Typological Studies in Negation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Karg-Gasterstädt, Elisabeth, Theodor Frings and Rudolf Große. 1971. Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch: Auf Grund der von Elias von Steinmeyer hinterlassenen Sammlungen. Vol. 3. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

338


Kato, Yasuhiko. 2000. Interpretive asymmetries of negation. In Negation and Polarity. Syntactic and Semantic Perspectives, Laurence Horn and Yasuhiko Kato (eds.), 62-87. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Kayne, Richard. 1986. Connexité et inversion du sujet. In La grammaire modulaire, Mitsou Ronat and Daniel Couquaux (eds.), 127-147. Paris: Editions de Minuit. Kayne, Richard. 1989. Null Subjects and Clitic Climbing. In The Null Subject Parameter, Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth Safir (eds.), 239-261. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kelle, Johann. 1881. Glossar der Sprache Otfrids. Regensburg: Manz. Keller, Rudolf E. 1986. Die deutsche Sprache und ihre historische Entwicklung. Hamburg: Buske. Kemenade, Ans van. 1999a. Functional categories, morphosyntactic change, grammaticalization. Linguistics 37: 997-1010. Kemenade, Ans van. 1999b. Sentential negation and clause structure in OE. In Negation in the history of English, Tieken-Boon et al. (eds.), 147-165. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kemenade, Ans van. 2000. Jespersen’s cycle revisited. Formal properties of grammaticalization. In Diachronic syntax. Models and mechanisms, Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas and Anthony Warner (eds.), 51–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Elsewhere in phonology. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky (eds.), 93-106. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Klima, Edward. 1964. Negation in English. In The Structure of Language. Readings in the Philosophy of Language, Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz (eds.), 246-323. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall. Köbler, Gerhard. 1993. Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen Sprachschatzes. Paderborn: Schöningh. Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The Generic Book, Gregory N. Carlson (ed.), 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 209-258. Kroch, Anthony. 2001. Syntactic change. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds.), 699-729. Malden MA/ Oxford: Blackwell.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

339

Kürschner, Wilfried. 1983. Studien zur Negation im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr. Labov, William. 1972. Negative Attraction and Negative Concord in English Grammar. Language 48: 773-818. Ladusaw, William Allen. 1979. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. PhD Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Ladusaw, William Allen. 1992. Expressing negation. In SALT II. Proceedings from the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Chris Barker and David Dowty (eds.), 237-259. Columbus: Ohio State University. Laka, Miren Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax. On the nature of functional categories and projections. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Lasnik, Howard. 1972. Analyses of negation in English. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lehmann, Winfried. 1978. Changes in the negative sentence patterns in German. In Sprache in Gegenwart und Geschichte. Festschr. f. Heinrich Matthias Heinrichs, D. Hartmann, H. Linke and O. Ludwig (eds.), 94-109. Köln/Wien: Böhlau. Leiss, Elisabeth. 1994. Die Entstehung des Artikels im Deutschen. Sprachwissenschaft 19: 307–319. Lenerz, Jürgen. 1984. Syntaktischer Wandel und Grammatiktheorie. Eine Untersuchung an Beispielen aus der deutschen Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Lenz, Barbara. 1996. Negationsverstärkung und Jespersens Zyklus im Deutschen und in anderen europäischen Sprachen. In Deutsch – typologisch, Ewald Lang and Gisela Zifonun (eds.), 183-200. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lexer, Matthias. 1872. Mittelhochdeutsches Handwörterbuch. Vol. I. Leipzig: Hirzel. Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lippert, Jörg. 1974. Beiträge zur Technik und Syntax althochdeutscher Übersetzungen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Isidorgruppe und des althochdeutschen Tatian. München: Fink. Lloyd, Albert Lancaster, Otto Springer and Rosemarie Lühr. 1998. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen. Vol. 2. Göttingen/Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

340


Lockwood, William Burley. 1968. Historical German Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 275-302. Lühr, Rosemarie. 1997. Altgermanische Fragesätze. Der Ausdruck der Antworterwartung. In Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis Indoeuropea hoy, Madrid, 21-24 de septiembre de 1994, Emilio Crespo and Jose García-Ramón (eds.), 327-362. Madrid/Wiesbaden: Reichert. Marques, Rui Ribeiro. 2003. Para uma semântica dos construções comparativas em português. PhD Dissertation, Universidade de Lisboa. Martins, Ana Maria. 2000. Polarity Items in Romance: Underspecification and Lexical Change. In Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms, Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas and Anthony Warner (eds.), 191-219. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Masser, Achim. 1994. Die Handschrift Cod. Sang. 56. In Die lateinisch-althochdeutsche Tatianbilingue Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen Cod. 56, Achim Masser (ed.), 27-35. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Masser, Achim. 1997. Syntaxprobleme im althochdeutschen Tatian. In Semantik der syntaktischen Beziehungen, Yvon Desportes (ed.), 123-140. Heidelberg: Winter. Mazzon, Gabriella. 2004. A history of English negation. Harlow: Longman. Merchant, Jason. 2001. Why no(t). ms. University Chicago. Mettke, Heinz. 1989. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. 6th ed. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut. Miestamo, Matti. 2005. The negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Molnárfi, László. 2001. On the interpretation of multiple negation in spoken and written Afrikaans. In Making sense. From lexeme to discourse [Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 44], Geart van der Meer and Alice ter Meulen (eds.), 102-121. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in English. In Approaches to natural language. Proceedings of the 1970 Stanford workshop on grammar and semantics, P. Suppes (ed.), 221-242. Dordrecht: Reidel. Mouřek, Vaclav. 1903. Über die Negation im Mittelhochdeutschen. Sitzungsberichte der königlichen böhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Classe für Philosophie, Geschichte und Philologie 12: 1-30.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

341

Müller, Reimar. 2001. Modalverben, Infinitheit und Negation im ProsaLancelot. In Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, Reimar Müller and Marga Reis (eds.), 239-262. Hamburg: Buske. Naumann, Hans. 1915. Kurze historische Syntax der deutschen Sprache. Strassburg: Trübner. Newson, Mark. 1998. On the nature of inputs and outputs. A case study of negation. In Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, Pilar Barbosa et al. (eds.), 315-336. Cambridge MA/London: MIT press. Nilsen, Oystein. 2003. Eliminating positions. PhD Dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht. Oubouzar, Erika. 1992. Zur Ausbildung des bestimmten Artikels im Althochdeutschen. In Althochdeutsch: Syntax und Semantik: Akten des Lyonner Kolloquiums zur Syntax und Semantik des Althochdeutschen, Yvon Desportes (ed.), 71–87. Lyon: Centre d’études linguistiques Jacques Goudet. Ouhalla, Jamal. 1990. Sentential Negation, Relativised Minimality and the Aspectual Status of Auxiliaries. The Linguistic Review 7: 183-231. Ouhalla, Jamal. 1991. Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. London/New York: Routledge. Ouhalla, Jamal. 1997. The structure and logical form of negative sentences. Linguistic Analysis 27: 220-224. Paardekooper, Petrus Cornelis Jozef Maria (2002): Opkomst en ondergang van ne/en. Paper presented at Grammatical Models group colloquium, Universiteit Tilburg. Paslawska, Alla. 2002. Negative Polaritätselemente und ihre Lizenzierung im Ukrainischen. In Investigations into Formal Slavic Linguistics. Proceedings of FDSL IV, P. Kosta et al. (eds.), 673-683. Frankfurt/M.: Lang. Paul, Hermann. 1920. Deutsche Grammatik. Vol. IV, Part IV: Syntax. Halle: Niemeyer. Paul, Herrmann. 1975. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 9th, unchanged edition. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Paul, Hermann. 2007. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. 25th ed., by Thomas Klein, Hans-Joachim Solms, Klaus-Peter Wegera, Heinz-Peter Prell. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Payne, John R. 1985. Negation. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. I: Clause Structure, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 197-242. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Pearce, Elisabeth. 1993. Diachronic change and negation in French. Rivista di Linguistica 5: 301-328.

342


Penka, Doris and Arnim von Stechow. 2001. Negative Indefinita unter Modalverben. In Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, Reimar Müller and Marga Reis (eds.), 263-286. Hamburg: Buske. Penka, Doris. 2007. Negative indefinites. PhD Dissertation, Universität Tübingen. Pensel, Franzjosef. 1981. Die Satznegation. In Zur Ausbildung der Norm der deutschen Literatursprache auf der syntaktischen Ebene (1470-1730). Der Einfachsatz. 2nd edition, Gerhard Kettmann and Joachim Schildt (eds.), 287326. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Penzl, Herbert. 1989. Mittelhochdeutsch. Eine Einführung in die Dialekte. Bern: Peter Lang. Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2004. Negative Polarity Items in Russian and the “Bagel Problem”. In Negation in Slavic, Adam Przepiorkowski and Sue Brown (eds.), 1-28. Bloomington: Slavica Publishers. Petrova, Svetlana and Michael Solf. forthc. Syntaktischer Wandel und Satzmodus. Beobachtungen zur Wortstellung in direkten Fragesätzen des Althochdeutschen. To appear in Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur. Pfeifer, Wolfgang. 1989. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Philippi, Julia. 1997. The rise of the article in the Germanic languages. In Parameters of morphosyntactic change, Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent (eds), 62–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Polenz, Peter von. 1991. Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. Vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424. Postma, Gertjan. 2002. De enkelvoudige clitische negatie in het Middelnederlands en de Jespersen cyclus. Nederlandse Taalkunde 7: 44-82. Prell, Heinz-Peter. 2001. Der mittelhochdeutsche Elementarsatz. Eine syntaktische Untersuchung an Prosatexten des 11. bis 14. Jahrhunderts. Oslo: Unipub Forl. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1994. Negative and positive polarity. A binding approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Progovac, Ljiljana. 2000. Coordination, c-command, and ‘logophoric’ n-words. In Negation and Polarity. Syntactic and Semantic Perspectives, Laurence Horn and Yasuhiko Kato (eds.), 88-114. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

343

Qian, Minru. 1987. Untersuchungen zur Negation in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Eine mikro- und makrostrukturelle Analyse. Heidelberg: Groos. Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 1996. Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In Parameters and functional heads. Essays in comparative syntax, Adriana Belletti and Luigi Rizzi (eds.), 63-90. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou. 1999. A formal approach to “grammaticalization”. Linguistics 37: 1011-1041. Rouveret, Alain. 1991. Functional Categories and Agreement. The Linguistic Review 8: 353–387. Rowlett, Paul. 1998. Sentential negation in French. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Santelmann, Lynn. 1994. Evidence for NegP and Object Shift in German. Cornell working papers in linguistics 12: 154-182. Sapp, Christopher. 2006. Verb order in subordinate clauses from Early New High German to Modern German. PhD Dissertation, Indiana University. Schaaik, Gerjan van. 1994. Turkish. In Typological studies in negation, Peter Kahrel and René van den Berg (eds.), 35-50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schmeller, Andreas. 1872. Bayerisches Wörterbuch. 2nd ed. München: Oldenbourg. Schmidt, Wilhelm. 1993. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. 6th edition, by Helmut Langner et al. Stuttgart/Leipzig: Hirzel. Schrodt, Richard. 2004. Althochdeutsche Grammatik II. Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Schulze, Ursula. 1997. Das Nibelungenlied. Stuttgart: Reclam. Schützeichel, Rudolf. 1995. Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. 5th edition. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Simpson, Andrew and Zoe Wu. 2002. Agreement, shells, and focus. Language 78: 287-313. Splett, Jochen. 1993. Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Vol.1. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Stechow, Arnim von and Wolfgang Sternefeld. 1988. Bausteine syntaktischen Wissens. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2006. Syntax. Eine merkmalbasierte generative Analyse des Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Stickel, Gerhard. 1970. Untersuchungen zur Negation im heutigen Deutsch. Braunschweig: Vieweg.

344


Travis, Lisa DeMena. 1984. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Vennemann, Theo. 1974. Topics, subjects and word order. From SXV to SVX via TVX. In Historical Linguistics. Vol. 1, John M. Anderson and Charles Jones (eds.), 339-376. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Webelhuth, Gert. 1990: Diagnostics for Structure. In Scrambling and Barriers, Günther Grewendorf and Wolgang Sternefeld (eds.), 41-75. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Weddige, Hilkert. 1999. Mittelhochdeutsch. 3rd edition. München: Beck. Weiß, Helmut. 1998: Syntax des Bairischen. Studien zur Grammatik einer natürlichen Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Weiß, Helmut. 1999. Duplex negation non semper affirmat. A theory of double negation in Bavarian. Linguistics 37: 819-840. Weiß, Helmut. 2002a. Indefinite pronouns: Morphology and syntax in crosslinguistic perspective. In Pronouns: Grammar and representation, Horst Simon and Heike Wiese (eds.), 85-107. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Weiß, Helmut. 2002b. A Quantifier Approach to Negation in Natural Languages or Why Negative Concord is Necessary. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 25: 125-153. Weiß, Helmut. 2004. A question of relevance. Some remarks on standard languages. Studies in Language 28: 648-674. Wheelock LaBrum, Rebecca. 1982. Conditions on Double Negation in the History of English with Comparison to Similar Developments in German. PhD Dissertation, Stanford: University Microfilms International. Wolf, Norbert Richard. 2000. Syntax des Mittelhochdeutschen. In Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung. 2nd edition. [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 2], Werner Besch, Anne Betten, Oskar Reichmann and Stefan Sonderegger (eds.), 1351-1358. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Wouden, Ton van der. 1997. Negative contexts. Collocation, polarity and multiple negation. London/New York: Routledge. Wouden, Ton van der. 1998. On the development of marked negation systems: The Dutch situation in the seventeenth century. In Historical Linguistics 1995. Vol. 2, Richard M. Hogg and Linda van Bergen (eds.), 311-329. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Wouden, Ton van der and Frans Zwarts. 1993. A semantic analysis of negative concord. In SALT III. Proceedings of the third conference on semantics and linguistic theory, U. Lahiri and A. Wyner (eds.), 202-219. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

345

Wunderlich, Dieter and Ray Fabri. 1995. Minimalist morphology. An approach to inflection. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 14: 236-294. Wratil, Melanie. 2004. Die Syntax des Imperativs. PhD Dissertation, Universität Frankfurt/M. Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1989. The position of negative markers in Romance languages. GLOW Newsletter 22: 71-72. Zanuttini, Rafaella. 1991. Syntactic properties of sentential negation. A comparative study of Romance languages. PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Zanuttini, Rafaella. 1997. Negation and clausal structure. A comparative study of Romance languages. New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zanuttini, Rafaella. 2001. Sentential Negation. In The Handbook of Contemporary Sytactic Theory, Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds.), 511-535. Malden MA/Oxford: Blackwell. Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2002. Syntactic vs. semantic negation. On the expression of sentential negation and the interpretation of multiple negation. ms. Universiteit Amsterdam. Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2004. Sentential negation and negative concord. Utrecht: LOT publications. Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann and Bruno Strecker. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Zinsmeister, Heike. 2001. Negation in German. PhD Dissertation, Universität Stuttgart. Zwarts, Frans. 1995. Non-veridical contexts. Linguistic Analysis 25: 286-312.

INDEX adjacency of neg-particle and verb 26, 5254, 126, 324 of n-indefinite and neg-particle 222-224, 293, 313f. adversative predicates 152, 154, 263 Agree 176, 249, 300 bare NP 177, 204f., 242, 246, 278282 Berthold von Regensburg 144, 257, 284f., 289f., 305, 322 bipartite neg-particle 119-122, 142 clause structure 56, 87, 89, 122, 227, 249 clitic neg-particle 58-92, 115-117, 139-143, 321-323 loss of 115f., 144, 304f., 323f. placement 67, 86, 92, 123-126 comparison 18, 153, 160, 191, 263 conditionals 153, 191, 196, 263, 270 constituent negation 16, 20-23, 49, 100 contrastive negation 22, 94-99 dehein 188-192, 260-266, 279, 290 dependent clauses 76, 141, 152, 154, 160, 191, 263f., 271 determiner 151, 164, 177, 201-205, 278-282 Differenzprinzip (principle of difference) 6, 66 disjunctions 216, 302 do-support 43

Double Negation 23, 166 downward-entailment 19f., 154 drof 106, 274 einig 192-198, 202, 235, 258-260 ellipsis 61f., 101f., 175f., 201 emphatic negation 103-106, 234, 276 encliticization 67, 125f. see also clitic neg-particle, placement of expletive negation 76, 140f., 159, 270 features affective 152f., 156, 190-192, 196f., 256, 264, 272 negative 152, 156, 175, 248, 256, 264, 273, 326 focus of negation 21f., 49, 74f., 9498, 102, 109, 137 free choice 153, 184, 189, 254 grammaticalization of neg-particle 36, 104-106, 107-114, 119 of NPIs 274 head movement constraint (HMC) 35, 78, 124 Hildebrandslied 67, 83, 188 iht 118, 266 imperatives 37, 57, 68 Inertness Theory 12, 89, 110 infinitival constructions 127f., 135 see also non-finite verbs infinitival marker 90 io 183f., 187, 200

348 Isidor 59, 65, 67, 70, 93, 186f., 205, 208, 211f., 231, 246-248, 321f. it 119 Jespersen’s Cycle 14, 36, 62, 103, 110, 130, 139, 144, 324 Lancelot 144, 257, 284f., 289, 305, 322 languages Afrikaans 232, 251 Arabic 26 Bavarian 119, 166, 179, 222, 251, 301 Berber 38 Brazilian Portuguese 28 Catalan 27, 160, 161 Czech 69 Danish 104 Dutch 27, 104, 161 Early New High German (ENHG) 120, 259, 286, 293 English 15, 31f., 42f., 45, 97, 104, 110f., 129, 153, 156-158, 163f., 165, 184, 273f. French 15, 31f., 41f., 70, 106, 109, 140, 159, 161, 273 German (Modern Standard German) 14, 16-24, 28f., 4857, 176-179 Gothic 58, 80 Greek 46f., 104, 163, 165, 273 Hausa 28 Hindi 27 Hungarian 26 Italian 24, 34, 37, 41f., 157, 160, 167, 169, 273 Latin 60, 68, 193, 199, 273 Lower German 180


Middle English 121, 218, 288, 296 Middle High German (MHG) 115-147, 252-317, 322-328 Old English 70, 80, 88, 93f., 194 Old High German (OHG) 58107, 181-251, 321-328 Old Norse 59, 80f., 104 Old Saxon 59, 93 Paduan 44 Pavese 44 Polish 26, 69, 163 Portuguese 160 Quebecois 166 Romanian 27 Russian 41, 158, 161, 168 Sanskrit 58 Serbo-Croatian 158 Slovene 163 Spanish 159f., 162, 163 Swabian 119 Swedish 28, 45, 104 Swiss German 180, 261, 277 Thuringian 179 Turkish 26, 38, 94f., 165 Ukranian 160 West Flemish 41, 173, 222 Western Romansh 27 Yiddish 166 Latin influence 6f., 62-66, 71, 73, 187, 210, 242-248, 327 line breaks in Tatian 65, 239-241 markedness theory 153 Mehrfachnegation see Negative Concord metre and rhyme 134, 143, 147, 241 Minimalism 11, 38, 42, 158 minimizers 103, 106, 274

INDEX

mirror principle 37, 90 movement A’-movement 45, 130 of neg-particle with verb 35, 44, 78f., 123-125 of n-indefinites (neg-movement) 110, 173, 221, 223 verb movement 33, 42f., 129 nalles 64, 92-103, 109, 137, 214 negation in CP 54, 77, 126 negation particle see bipartite neg-particle, clitic neg-particle, verb-independent neg-particle negative complementizer see negation in CP Negative Concord (NC) 164-176, 179, 206-217, 249f., 282-303 loss of 287, 327 optionality of 168f., 251, 326 Neg-Criterion 41, 110, 172, 293 Neg-Doubling 167-169, 180, 213, 226, 244, 249, 288-292, 297-301, 319 neg-first principle 142, 226, 237, 245 neg-hierarchy 155, 192, 198 neg-movement see movement, of n-indefinites NegP 31-48, 58, 122 Neg-Split 174 Neg-Spread 167, 169, 180, 213f., 294-301 nehein 253, 276, 279 Nibelungenlied 116, 137, 143f., 256, 284f., 289, 305, 322 ni/ne/en see clitic neg-particle

349 nicht/nieht/niht see verb-independent neg-particle nihein 187, 200, 202, 279 n-indefinites 15f., 156-161, 171, 175f., 198-201, 275-278 in situ 173, 221, 249 position of 224-232, 236, 306312 syntactic function of 217, 237, 315-317 see also movement, of n-indefinites non-finite verbs 70-73, 127 see also infinitival constructions Notker 59, 66f., 70, 93, 103f., 186188, 208, 322f. NPI contexts 18-20, 152-155, 192, 197, 270 NPIs 17-19, 156-159, 161, 177, 182f., 188-198, 202, 234, 253255, 258-275 one-word answers 161, 250, 273 Otfrid 59, 67, 93, 104-106, 186, 208-211, 221, 241-243, 321-323 OV/VO word order 28, 324 parameters NC-parameter 165 Neg-parameter 37 Pariser Gespräche (Paris Conversations) 67, 78, 106 PPIs 153, 155f., 182, 253, 273 quantifiers 93, 99, 151, 171, 175 residual V2 79, 83 scope of negation 17, 20f., 99f., 174, 226 Sondernegation see constituent negation spelling 69f., 84, 125f.

350 Tatian 5f., 59, 62-65, 67, 69-74, 93, 186f., 208-210, 239-241, 245-248, 321f. see also line breaks in Tatian topological fields 227 underspecification theory 156 verbal complex 135-137 verbal particles 53, 86, 91 verbal position 55-57, 79, 88, 123, 129, 227, 312 verbal prefixes 82, 91 verb-independent neg-particle 4857, 117-119, 143-147, 323 in prefield position 49, 54, 130 NC with 291-294 placement of 48-53, 129-139 see also grammaticalization, of neg-particle wanta 84 Wessobrunner Predigt (Wessobrunn Sermon) 67, 93 Wiener Genesis 11, 121, 322f. Wiener Notker 11, 121, 323 wiht 105f., 183, 211, 323


Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers’ website, www.benjamins.com 119 Fortuny, Jordi: The Emergence of Order in Syntax. viii, 211 pp. Expected January 2008 118 Jäger, Agnes: History of German Negation. 2008. ix, 350 pp. 117 Haugen, Jason D.: Morphology at the Interfaces. Reduplication and Noun Incorporation in Uto-Aztecan. xv, 257 pp. Expected January 2008 116 Endo, Yoshio: Locality and Information Structure. A cartographic approach to Japanese. 2007. x, 235 pp. 115 Putnam, Michael T.: Scrambling and the Survive Principle. 2007. x, 216 pp. 114 Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera: Beyond Coherence. The syntax of opacity in German. 2007. viii, 206 pp. 113 Eythórsson, Thórhallur (ed.): Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory. The Rosendal papers. vi, 458 pp. + index. Expected February 2008 112 Axel, Katrin: Studies on Old High German Syntax. Left sentence periphery, verb placement and verbsecond. 2007. xii, 364 pp. 111 Eguren, Luis and Olga Fernández Soriano (eds.): Coreference, Modality, and Focus. Studies on the syntax–semantics interface. 2007. xii, 239 pp. 110 Rothstein, Susan (ed.): Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. vi, 439 pp. + index. Expected February 2008 109 Chocano, Gema: Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form. Scrambling in the Germanic languages. 2007. x, 333 pp. 108 Reuland, Eric, Tanmoy Bhattacharya and Giorgos Spathas (eds.): Argument Structure. 2007. xviii, 243 pp. 107 Corver, Norbert and Jairo Nunes (eds.): The Copy Theory of Movement. 2007. vi, 388 pp. 106 Dehé, Nicole and Yordanka Kavalova (eds.): Parentheticals. 2007. xii, 314 pp. 105 Haumann, Dagmar: Adverb Licensing and Clause Structure in English. 2007. ix, 438 pp. 104 Jeong, Youngmi: Applicatives. Structure and interpretation from a minimalist perspective. 2007. vii, 144 pp. 103 Wurff, Wim van der (ed.): Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar. Studies in honour of Frits Beukema. 2007. viii, 352 pp. 102 Bayer, Josef, Tanmoy Bhattacharya and M.T. Hany Babu (eds.): Linguistic Theory and South Asian Languages. Essays in honour of K. A. Jayaseelan. 2007. x, 282 pp. 101 Karimi, Simin, Vida Samiian and Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.): Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds. 2007. vi, 424 pp. 100 Schwabe, Kerstin and Susanne Winkler (eds.): On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Generalizations across languages. 2007. vii, 570 pp. 99 Martínez-Gil, Fernando and Sonia Colina (eds.): Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. 2007. viii, 564 pp. 98 Pires, Acrisio: The Minimalist Syntax of Defective Domains. Gerunds and infinitives. 2006. xiv, 188 pp. 97 Hartmann, Jutta M. and László Molnárfi (eds.): Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax. From Afrikaans to Zurich German. 2006. vi, 332 pp. 96 Lyngfelt, Benjamin and Torgrim Solstad (eds.): Demoting the Agent. Passive, middle and other voice phenomena. 2006. x, 333 pp. 95 Vogeleer, Svetlana and Liliane Tasmowski (eds.): Non-definiteness and Plurality. 2006. vi, 358 pp. 94 Arche, María J.: Individuals in Time. Tense, aspect and the individual/stage distinction. 2006. xiv, 281 pp. 93 Progovac, Ljiljana, Kate Paesani, Eugenia Casielles and Ellen Barton (eds.): The Syntax of Nonsententials. Multidisciplinary perspectives. 2006. x, 372 pp. 92 Boeckx, Cedric (ed.): Agreement Systems. 2006. ix, 346 pp. 91 Boeckx, Cedric (ed.): Minimalist Essays. 2006. xvi, 399 pp. 90 Dalmi, Gréte: The Role of Agreement in Non-Finite Predication. 2005. xvi, 222 pp. 89 Velde, John R. te: Deriving Coordinate Symmetries. A phase-based approach integrating Select, Merge, Copy and Match. 2006. x, 385 pp. 88 Mohr, Sabine: Clausal Architecture and Subject Positions. Impersonal constructions in the Germanic languages. 2005. viii, 207 pp.

87 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54

Julien, Marit: Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. 2005. xvi, 348 pp. Costa, João and Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva (eds.): Studies on Agreement. 2006. vi, 285 pp. Mikkelsen, Line: Copular Clauses. Specification, predication and equation. 2005. viii, 210 pp. Pafel, Jürgen: Quantifier Scope in German. 2006. xvi, 312 pp. Schweikert, Walter: The Order of Prepositional Phrases in the Structure of the Clause. 2005. xii, 338 pp. Quinn, Heidi: The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English. 2005. xii, 409 pp. Fuss, Eric: The Rise of Agreement. A formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal inflection. 2005. xii, 336 pp. Burkhardt, Petra: The Syntax–Discourse Interface. Representing and interpreting dependency. 2005. xii, 259 pp. Schmid, Tanja: Infinitival Syntax. Infinitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy. 2005. xiv, 251 pp. Dikken, Marcel den and Christina M. Tortora (eds.): The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. 2005. vii, 292 pp. Öztürk, Balkız: Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. 2005. x, 268 pp. Stavrou, Melita and Arhonto Terzi (eds.): Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou. 2005. viii, 366 pp. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.): UG and External Systems. Language, brain and computation. 2005. xviii, 398 pp. Heggie, Lorie and Francisco Ordóñez (eds.): Clitic and Affix Combinations. Theoretical perspectives. 2005. viii, 390 pp. Carnie, Andrew, Heidi Harley and Sheila Ann Dooley (eds.): Verb First. On the syntax of verbinitial languages. 2005. xiv, 434 pp. Fuss, Eric and Carola Trips (eds.): Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. 2004. viii, 228 pp. Gelderen, Elly van: Grammaticalization as Economy. 2004. xvi, 320 pp. Austin, Jennifer R., Stefan Engelberg and Gisa Rauh (eds.): Adverbials. The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure. 2004. x, 346 pp. Kiss, Katalin É. and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.): Verb Clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch. 2004. vi, 514 pp. Breul, Carsten: Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An integrated syntactic, semantic and intonational approach. 2004. x, 432 pp. Mišeska Tomić, Olga (ed.): Balkan Syntax and Semantics. 2004. xvi, 499 pp. Grohmann, Kleanthes K.: Prolific Domains. On the Anti-Locality of movement dependencies. 2003. xvi, 372 pp. Manninen, Satu Helena: Small Phrase Layers. A study of Finnish Manner Adverbials. 2003. xii, 275 pp. Boeckx, Cedric and Kleanthes K. Grohmann (eds.): Multiple Wh-Fronting. 2003. x, 292 pp. Boeckx, Cedric: Islands and Chains. Resumption as stranding. 2003. xii, 224 pp. Carnie, Andrew, Heidi Harley and MaryAnn Willie (eds.): Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar. In honor of Eloise Jelinek. 2003. xii, 378 pp. Schwabe, Kerstin and Susanne Winkler (eds.): The Interfaces. Deriving and interpreting omitted structures. 2003. vi, 403 pp. Trips, Carola: From OV to VO in Early Middle English. 2002. xiv, 359 pp. Dehé, Nicole: Particle Verbs in English. Syntax, information structure and intonation. 2002. xii, 305 pp. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 2: Morphology, phonology, acquisition. 2003. vi, 309 pp. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 1: Syntax and semantics. 2003. vi, 405 pp. Coene, Martine and Yves D’hulst (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 2: The expression of possession in noun phrases. 2003. x, 295 pp. Coene, Martine and Yves D’hulst (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 1: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases. 2003. vi, 362 pp. Baptista, Marlyse: The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole. The Sotavento varieties. 2003. xxii, 294 pp. (incl. CD-rom).

53 Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter and Werner Abraham (eds.): Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax (Groningen, May 26–27, 2000). 2002. xiv, 407 pp. 52 Simon, Horst J. and Heike Wiese (eds.): Pronouns – Grammar and Representation. 2002. xii, 294 pp. 51 Gerlach, Birgit: Clitics between Syntax and Lexicon. 2002. xii, 282 pp. 50 Steinbach, Markus: Middle Voice. A comparative study in the syntax-semantics interface of German. 2002. xii, 340 pp. 49 Alexiadou, Artemis (ed.): Theoretical Approaches to Universals. 2002. viii, 319 pp. 48 Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Sjef Barbiers and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.): Dimensions of Movement. From features to remnants. 2002. vi, 345 pp. 47 Barbiers, Sjef, Frits Beukema and Wim van der Wurff (eds.): Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System. 2002. x, 290 pp. 46 Panagiotidis, Phoevos: Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns. ‘Pronominality’ and licensing in syntax. 2002. x, 214 pp. 45 Abraham, Werner and C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds.): Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology. 2002. xviii, 336 pp. 44 Taylan, Eser Erguvanlı (ed.): The Verb in Turkish. 2002. xviii, 267 pp. 43 Featherston, Sam: Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. 2001. xvi, 279 pp. 42 Alexiadou, Artemis: Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. 2001. x, 233 pp. 41 Zeller, Jochen: Particle Verbs and Local Domains. 2001. xii, 325 pp. 40 Hoeksema, Jack, Hotze Rullmann, Víctor Sánchez-Valencia and Ton van der Wouden (eds.): Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. 2001. xii, 368 pp. 39 Gelderen, Elly van: A History of English Reflexive Pronouns. Person, Self, and Interpretability. 2000. xiv, 279 pp. 38 Meinunger, André: Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. 2000. xii, 247 pp. 37 Lutz, Uli, Gereon Müller and Arnim von Stechow (eds.): Wh-Scope Marking. 2000. vi, 483 pp. 36 Gerlach, Birgit and Janet Grijzenhout (eds.): Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. 2001. xii, 441 pp. 35 Hróarsdóttir, Thorbjörg: Word Order Change in Icelandic. From OV to VO. 2001. xiv, 385 pp. 34 Reuland, Eric (ed.): Arguments and Case. Explaining Burzio’s Generalization. 2000. xii, 255 pp. 33 Puskás, Genoveva: Word Order in Hungarian. The syntax of Ā-positions. 2000. xvi, 398 pp. 32 Alexiadou, Artemis, Paul Law, André Meinunger and Chris Wilder (eds.): The Syntax of Relative Clauses. 2000. vi, 397 pp. 31 Svenonius, Peter (ed.): The Derivation of VO and OV. 2000. vi, 372 pp. 30 Beukema, Frits and Marcel den Dikken (eds.): Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. 2000. x, 324 pp. 29 Miyamoto, Tadao: The Light Verb Construction in Japanese. The role of the verbal noun. 2000. xiv, 232 pp. 28 Hermans, Ben and Marc van Oostendorp (eds.): The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory. 2000. viii, 322 pp. 27 Růžička, Rudolf: Control in Grammar and Pragmatics. A cross-linguistic study. 1999. x, 206 pp. 26 Ackema, Peter: Issues in Morphosyntax. 1999. viii, 310 pp. 25 Felser, Claudia: Verbal Complement Clauses. A minimalist study of direct perception constructions. 1999. xiv, 278 pp. 24 Rebuschi, Georges and Laurice Tuller (eds.): The Grammar of Focus. 1999. vi, 366 pp. 23 Giannakidou, Anastasia: Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. 1998. xvi, 282 pp. 22 Alexiadou, Artemis and Chris Wilder (eds.): Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. 1998. vi, 388 pp. 21 Klein, Henny: Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related Languages. 1998. x, 232 pp. 20 Laenzlinger, Christopher: Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation. Adverbs, pronouns, and clause structure in Romance and Germanic. 1998. x, 371 pp. 19 Josefsson, Gunlög: Minimal Words in a Minimal Syntax. Word formation in Swedish. 1998. ix, 199 pp. 18 Alexiadou, Artemis: Adverb Placement. A case study in antisymmetric syntax. 1997. x, 256 pp.

17 Beermann, Dorothee, David LeBlanc and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.): Rightward Movement. 1997. vi, 410 pp. 16 Liu, Feng-hsi: Scope and Specificity. 1997. viii, 187 pp. 15 Rohrbacher, Bernhard Wolfgang: Morphology-Driven Syntax. A theory of V to I raising and prodrop. 1999. viii, 296 pp. 14 Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Henk van Riemsdijk and Frans Zwarts (eds.): Materials on Left Dislocation. 1997. viii, 349 pp. 13 Alexiadou, Artemis and T. Alan Hall (eds.): Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological Variation. 1997. viii, 252 pp. 12 Abraham, Werner, Samuel David Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson and C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds.): Minimal Ideas. Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework. 1996. xii, 364 pp. 11 Lutz, Uli and Jürgen Pafel (eds.): On Extraction and Extraposition in German. 1996. xii, 315 pp. 10 Cinque, Guglielmo and Giuliana Giusti (eds.): Advances in Roumanian Linguistics. 1995. xi, 172 pp. 9 Gelderen, Elly van: The Rise of Functional Categories. 1993. x, 224 pp. 8 Fanselow, Gisbert (ed.): The Parametrization of Universal Grammar. 1993. xvii, 232 pp. 7 Åfarlí, Tor A.: The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions. 1992. xii, 177 pp. 6 Bhatt, Christa, Elisabeth Löbel and Claudia Maria Schmidt (eds.): Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases and Sentences. 1989. ix, 187 pp. 5 Grewendorf, Günther and Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.): Scrambling and Barriers. 1990. vi, 442 pp. 4 Abraham, Werner and Sjaak De Meij (eds.): Topic, Focus and Configurationality. Papers from the 6th Groningen Grammar Talks, Groningen, 1984. 1986. v, 349 pp. 3 Abraham, Werner (ed.): On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Papers from the 3rd Groningen Grammar Talks (3e Groninger Grammatikgespräche), Groningen, January 1981. 1983. vi, 242 pp. 2 Ehlich, Konrad and Jürgen Rehbein: Augenkommunikation. Methodenreflexion und Beispielanalyse. 1982. viii, 150 pp. With many photographic ills. 1 Klappenbach, Ruth (1911–1977): Studien zur Modernen Deutschen Lexikographie. Auswahl aus den Lexikographischen Arbeiten von Ruth Klappenbach, erweitert um drei Beiträge von Helene MaligeKlappenbach. (Written in German). 1980. xxiii, 313 pp.

History of German Negation

A Natural History of Negation

A brief history of negation

Negation, Subjectivity, and the History of Rhetoric

Sentential Negation in French

Negation and Abstention

Panzer History German

The Course of German History: A Survey of the Development of German History since 1815

German Literature of the Nineteenth Century, 1832-1899 (Camden House History of German Literature) (Camden House History of German Literature)

The Cambridge History of German Literature

The Cambridge History of German Literature

Luftwaffe: History of German Airforce in WWII

The Seduction of Culture in German History

Negation and Control in Prolog

Syntax of Persian and English Negation

German History from the Margins

Welsh Negation and Grammatical Theory

Negative Contexts: Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation

Reading German History: A German Reading Course for Beginners

Routledge History of Philosophy. The Age of German Idealism

On an Argument on Behalf of Classical Negation

Negation in English and Other Languages

The Literature of German Romanticism, Vol. 8 (Camden House History of German Literature)

German Literature of the High Middle Ages (Camden House History of German Literature)

German Literature of the Early Middle Ages (Camden House History of German Literature)

German Literature of the Eighteenth Century: The Enlightenment and Sensibility (Camden House History of German Literature) (Camden House History of German Literature)

German Helicopters, 1928-1945 (Schiffer Military History)

World War One: German Army (Brassey's History)

Medicine and the German Jews: A History

History of German Negation

A Natural History of Negation

A brief history of negation

Negation, Subjectivity, and the History of Rhetoric

Sentential Negation in French

Negation and Abstention

Panzer History German

The Course of German History: A Survey of the Development of German History since 1815

German Literature of the Nineteenth Century, 1832-1899 (Camden House History of German Literature) (Camden House History of German Literature)

The Cambridge History of German Literature

The Cambridge History of German Literature

Luftwaffe: History of German Airforce in WWII

The Seduction of Culture in German History

Negation and Control in Prolog

Syntax of Persian and English Negation

German History from the Margins

Welsh Negation and Grammatical Theory

Negative Contexts: Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation

Reading German History: A German Reading Course for Beginners

Routledge History of Philosophy. The Age of German Idealism

On an Argument on Behalf of Classical Negation

Negation in English and Other Languages

The Literature of German Romanticism, Vol. 8 (Camden House History of German Literature)

German Literature of the High Middle Ages (Camden House History of German Literature)

German Literature of the Early Middle Ages (Camden House History of German Literature)

German Literature of the Eighteenth Century: The Enlightenment and Sensibility (Camden House History of German Literature) (Camden House History of German Literature)

German Helicopters, 1928-1945 (Schiffer Military History)

World War One: German Army (Brassey's History)

Medicine and the German Jews: A History

Recommend Documents