Elsevier

Lingua

Volume 128, May 2013, Pages 31-50
Lingua

The syntax of answers to polar questions in English and Swedish

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.018Get rights and content

Abstract

It is proposed that bare yes and no-answers to yes/no-questions are sentential expressions with the structure [yes/no Foc [IP …[Pol x]…]], where the answer particle is merged in the spec of Focus in the CP-domain, and assigns a value, either affirmative or negative, to the polarity variable in IP. The IP has a polarity variable because it is inherited from the question. For the same reason the IP is typically elided, being identical to the IP of the question. The evidence comes primarily from answers to negative questions in English. The answering system in English is complex, with variation depending on the choice and interpretation of negation in the question. Three cases are distinguished: (a) the negation n’t is interpreted outside IP in the question, and yes affirms the positive alternative, (b) the negation (n’t or not) is interpreted inside IP but with sentential scope, and bare yes is not a well formed answer, and (c) the negation not is interpreted with vP-scope, and yes affirms the negative alternative. When the low negation reading is blocked, by using –n’t in the question, the reading where yes affirms the negation is not available. When the low reading is forced, by inserting a low adverb before the negation in the question, the reading where yes affirms the negation is the only one available. The English and Swedish answering systems are compared, the main difference being that Swedish lacks low negation. There are implications for the distinction between the truth-based (or agreement/disagreement-based) and the polarity-based answering systems. English exhibits both systems, depending on the choice and interpretation of the negation in the question.

Highlights

► The polar particles yes and no are specifiers of a focus head in the C-domain which assign a value to an unvalued Polarity feature in the answer. ► Yes and no answers are full sentences where the IP is usually elided under identity with the IP of the question. ► English has three types of negation in questions: high (n’t), middle (n’t or not), and low (not). ► The meaning of yes and no depends on the choice of negation in the question.

Introduction

This paper will argue that answers to polar questions or yes/no-questions (YNQs) in English are elliptical expressions with basically the structure (1), where IP is identical to the LF of the IP of the question, containing a polarity variable with two possible values, affirmative or negative, which is assigned a value by the focused polarity expression.The crucial data come from answers to negative questions. English turns out to have a fairly complicated system, with variation depending on which negation is used. The meaning of the answer yes in (2) is straightforward, affirming that John is coming.In (3) (for speakers who accept this question as well formed),1 the meaning of yes alone is indeterminate, and it is therefore not a felicitous answer in this context. The longer version is fine, affirming that John is coming.In (4), there is variation regarding the interpretation of yes. Depending on the context it can be a confirmation of the negation in the question, meaning ‘John is not coming’. In other contexts it will be an infelicitous answer, as in (3).In all three cases the (bare) answer no is unambiguous, meaning that John is not coming.

It will be shown that this variation is systematic and dependent on the scope of the negation in the question, which is, in part a matter of choice of negation. The difference between (2) and (3) will be shown to be an effect of where the negation in the question is interpreted, outside or inside IP (basically following Ladd, 1981). When the negation in the question is interpreted IP-internally, this leads to a feature clash with the affirmative meaning of yes in the answer. The variation in (4) is explained in part by the fact that there are two negations not in English, a higher not with sentential scope, and a lower not, with scope over vP only. When the question is analyzed as instantiating the lower not, the answer yes confirms the negation. When the question is analyzed as instantiating the higher not, the answer yes leads to a feature clash between affirmation and negation.

The reason why the precise syntax of the IP of the question matters for the interpretation of the answer is that the answer inherits that IP, although it is elided in the case of the bare yes and no answers. The more general hypothesis defended in this paper is that answers to YNQs have the structure (1) universally, although the focused affirmative or negative operator can take quite different forms. In English and many other languages the operator is spelled out as a particle, by hypothesis externally merged in spec of Focus. In many other languages it is carried by a verb, or a negated verb, echoing the verb in the question, moved to the spec of Focus; see Holmberg, 2001, Holmberg, 2007, Jones (1999) and Martins (1994, 2006). In the latter case the answers are, quite uncontroversially, derived by ellipsis, leaving only a stranded verb or auxiliary spelled out to convey ‘yes’. The claim, to be substantiated in the present paper on the basis of observations mainly from English negative questions and their answers, is that answers to YNQs consisting of just a particle conveying affirmation or negation, are elliptical expressions, too, with the structure (1), where the IP is elided under identity with the IP of the question.

There is a well known difference between languages that have a truth-based answering system, also called an agreement/disagreement system, as in Chinese and Japanese, and languages that have a polarity-based system, as in English and French (Kuno, 1973, Jones, 1999: 8ff.). The received view is that, in the truth-based system, a negative question is answered ‘yes’ to confirm the negation, while in the polarity-based system a negative question is answered ‘no’ to confirm the negation. When it comes to English, this is a simplification, as English exhibits properties of both systems, depending on the syntax of the negation. This suggests that the parameter has to do with differences in the syntax of negation, rather than, for example, differences in the meaning of answering particles.

Section snippets

Two parameters concerning answers to negative YNQs

Basically two parameters are recognized in the literature distinguishing among languages as regards answers to negative YNQs. The first, which is the main issue in the present paper, concerns how to confirm the negation of the question. There are basically two systems, the polarity-based system, typical of English, Finnish, French, and Swedish, among other languages, and the truth-based system (also called the agreement/disagreement system), typical of Chinese and Japanese, among other

Kramer and Rawlins: a theory of answer particles in English

I will begin by brief review of a recent proposal regarding the syntax of answers to YNQs in English, also based on the idea that they are elliptical expressions, and also taking the syntax of negative questions as providing the crucial evidence. Kramer and Rawlins, 2010, Kramer and Rawlins, 2011, henceforth K&R,4

On negative questions with not

Concerning the answer (11a) to negative questions with not (yes meaning ‘he isn’t coming’), Kramer and Rawlins (2010) mention that “there is some variation in how acceptable this response is among English speakers”. In connection with a taught, advanced syntax module in the spring of 2011 at Newcastle University some students did systematic, questionnaire-based investigations of interpretations of answers to negative questions with inner and outer negation. A task format that several students

Valuing polarity

I assume sentence-internal Σ, which I will call Pol(arity), has three values: affirmative, negative, and open, that is neither affirmative nor negative. Open polarity is what YNQs have.

(19)a.Is he coming?
b.
The open polarity feature in PolP (the highest projection in the IP-domain) is probed and attracted by Foc, and undergoes movement (‘T-to-C’, now redefined as Pol-to-C); cf. Holmberg (2003), where I argue that Pol-to-C is a ‘semantically motivated’ movement, essentially wh-movement of open

The two negations not

So how come there is variation with regard to answering yes to a question with not, such that the answer can sometimes, or for some speakers, confirm the negation (‘Yes, he is not coming.’), while in other contexts, or for other speakers, it is a failed disconfirmation of the negation of the question?

Consider the following observation: If the question has an adverb preceding the negation, answering yes unambiguously confirms the negation.

(36)Q:Does John sometimes not show up for work?
A:a.Yes.
b.

Other cases of negative neutralization

K&R make the observation that negative neutralization occurs not just with yes and no but with certain adverbs as well.

(48)Q:Is John not coming?
A:Maybe (so). [‘Maybe he isn’t.’]
A:Maybe not. [‘Maybe he isn’t.’]
Both answers mean that John is maybe not coming. Under K&R's theory, this follows from the ellipsis hypothesis: Ellipsis presupposes that TP (our PolP) in the reply is (interpretable) negative. The variation between maybe (so) and maybe not is (as far as I understand) a matter of which

Negation and adverbs in Swedish

The account of the adverb effect above does not tell the whole story. Consider the fact that the adverb has a similar effect in Swedish as in English, even though Swedish does not have two negations, one corresponding to middle not and one to low not.

First, Swedish has a robustly polarity-based system in that a negative reply to a negative question confirms the negation. Replying with the standard affirmation particle ja is ungrammatical. To contradict the negation, Swedish employs a

Some more predictions and complications

The effect of the low negation not, evidenced by the English double negative construction (39) (You can’t not go to Church, …), which Swedish does not have, is that it causes ‘negative neutralization’, i.e. it makes negative questions with not ambiguous between a reading where not has sentential scope and one where it has vP-scope. This, in turn, is reflected in the possibility of confirming the negation in such a question either by no (confirming sentential not by means of negative concord) or

A piece of evidence of affirmative value in declaratives

I have assumed that finite sentences have a head Pol(arity) which has one of three values, affirmative, negative, or open, where open is the value of (open) questions, which is fixed as either negative or affirmative in the reply. While no-one will deny that negative sentences have a negatively valued element, which may or may not be universally a head (Haegeman, 1995), it is much more controversial whether non-negative declarative sentences have a corresponding affirmative element (for example

Conclusions

It has been shown that the meaning of the answer, yes or no, to negative questions in English depends on the scope of negation in the question. We have distinguished basically three cases.

(a)Highest negation (interpreted outside IP)
Q:Isn’t John coming (too)? (positive bias)
A:Yes. (‘John is coming.’)
A:No. (‘John is not coming.’)
(b)Middle negation (interpreted inside IP, but with sentential scope)
Q:a.Isn’t John coming (either)? (negative bias; unacceptable for some speakers)
b.Is John not coming?
A:

Acknowledgements

The research for this paper is funded by a Major Fellowship from the Leverhulme Trust. Thanks to the students on Topics in the Syntax of English in the spring of 2011 at Newcastle University, especially Nadil Bourkadi, Amy Brown, Thomas Castling, Rosanna Choi, Finlay Davidson, Elizabeth Ekers, Katherine Harmer, Ashleigh Hetherington, Ross Lowery, Manami Matsouda, Sophie Meekings, Tom Sheppey, James Tabbinor and Talya Ventura Lawrence. Thanks to the audiences at GIST 4 at the University of Ghent

References (34)

  • H. Broekhuis
  • N. Chomsky

    Knowledge of Language

    (1986)
  • N. Chomsky

    The Minimalist Program

    (1995)
  • N. Chomsky

    Derivation by phase

  • G. Cinque

    Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Crosslinguistic Perspective

    (1999)
  • A. Cormack et al.

    Modals and negation in English

  • D. Farkas et al.

    On reacting to assertions and polar questions

    Journal of Semantics

    (2010)
  • Farkas, D., Roelofsen, F., 2011. Polarity particles in an inquisitive discourse model....
  • L. Haegeman

    The Syntax of Negation

    (1995)
  • L. Haegeman et al.

    Negative concord and multiple agree: a case study of West-Flemish

    Linguistic Inquiry

    (2010)
  • A. Holmberg

    The syntax of yes and no in Finnish

    Studia Linguistica

    (2001)
  • A. Holmberg

    Yes/no questions and the relation between tense and polarity in English and Finnish

  • A. Holmberg

    Null subjects and polarity focus

    Studia Linguistica

    (2007)
  • Holmberg, A. The syntax of the question particle in Finnish. In: Svenonius, P. (Ed.), Functional Structure from Top to...
  • A. Holmberg et al.

    The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax

    (1995)
  • B.M. Jones

    The Welsh Answering System

    (1999)
  • E.S. Klima

    Negation in English

  • Cited by (57)

    • Exclamatives as responses at the syntax-pragmatics interface

      2020, Journal of Pragmatics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Let us now turn to the second representation in (11) and its empirical and theoretical rationale in connection to what we are claiming in (10). At the outset of this section, we already made clear that one particularly appealing component of Holmberg's (2013, 2015) theory about the syntax of answers is that he deals with different types of answers from an information-structural and thus from a discourse perspective. More specifically, response particles like yes and no are analyzed as providing the information focus of a discourse because they contain the ‘new’ information for the hearer.

    • A Pragmatic Approach to Negated Predicate-Modifying How-Questions

      2024, Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text