The syntax of answers to polar questions in English and Swedish
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 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.’]
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)
Knowledge of Language
(1986)The Minimalist Program
(1995)Derivation by phase
Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Crosslinguistic Perspective
(1999)- et al.
Modals and negation in English
- 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....
The Syntax of Negation
(1995)- et al.
Negative concord and multiple agree: a case study of West-Flemish
Linguistic Inquiry
(2010)
The syntax of yes and no in Finnish
Studia Linguistica
Yes/no questions and the relation between tense and polarity in English and Finnish
Null subjects and polarity focus
Studia Linguistica
The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax
The Welsh Answering System
Negation in English
Cited by (57)
Exclamatives as responses at the syntax-pragmatics interface
2020, Journal of PragmaticsCitation 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.
The dynamics of yes and no in and as context
2020, LinguaFrom No, she does to Yes, she does: Negation processing in negative yes-no questions by Mandarin speakers of English
2021, Applied PsycholinguisticsOn the Performative Use of the Past Participle in German
2020, Journal of Germanic LinguisticsA Pragmatic Approach to Negated Predicate-Modifying How-Questions
2024, Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics