78:, which allows inversion to occur much more often than in English, so they may not acknowledge negative inversion as a specific phenomenon. While negative inversion is a common occurrence in English, a solid understanding of just what elicits the inversion has not yet been established. It is, namely, not entirely clear why certain fronted expressions containing a negation elicit negative inversion, but others do not.
743:(or copying) is necessary to maintain the strictly binary branching structures, as the tree on that right shows. To maintain the strictly binary and right branching structure, at least two instances of movement (or copying) are necessary. The following trees show a similar movement-type analysis, but this time a flatter, dependency-based understanding of sentence structure is now assumed:
703:
The paraphrases below the examples restate the meaning of each sentence. When negative inversion occurs as in the a-sentences, the meaning is much different than when it does not occur as in the b-sentences. The meaning difference is a reflection of the varying status of the fronted expressions. In
197:
When the phrase containing the negation appears in its canonical position to the right of the verb, standard subject-auxiliary word order obtains. When the phrase is fronted, as in the b-sentences, subject-auxiliary inversion, (negative inversion) must occur. If negative inversion does not occur in
753:
The flatter structure allows for a simpler analysis to an extent. The subject and auxiliary verb can easily invert without affecting the basic hierarchy assumed so only one discontinuity is perceived. The following two trees illustrate a different sort of analysis, one where feature passing occurs
585:
A close examination of the fronted phrases in these sentences reveals that each is a depictive predication over the subject argument (an adjunct over the subject), as opposed to a predication over the entire main clause (an adjunct over the clause). The examples therefore demonstrate that negative
884:
For examples of phrase structure grammars that posit strictly binary branching structures and leftward movement similar (although varying in significant ways) to what is shown here in order to address negative inversion, see
Haegeman (2000), Kato (2000), and Sobin
764:
The phrase structure analysis is on the left and the dependency structure analysis on the right. The analyses reject movement/copying, and in its stead, they assume information passing (feature passing). The nodes in red mark the path (chain of words,
521:
in the fronted clauses makes one might expect negative inversion to occur in the main clauses, but it does not, a surprising observation. More surprisingly, certain adjunct phrases containing a negation do not elicit negative inversion:
874:
Examples like the ones produced here are frequently discussed in the literature on negative inversion. See for instance Klima (1964:300f.), Jackendoff (1972:364f.), Rudanko (1982:357), Haegeman (2000a:21ff.), Kato (2000:67ff.), Büring
769:) along which information about the fronted phrase is passed to the governor of the fronted expression. In this manner, a link of a sort is established between the fronted phrase and the position in which it canonically appears.
301:
The c-sentences are bad because the fronted phrase containing the negation requires inversion to occur. In contrast, the d-sentences are fine because there is no negation present requiring negative inversion to occur.
449:
An imperfectly-understood aspect of negative inversion concerns fronted expressions containing a negation that do not elicit negative inversion. Fronted clauses containing a negation do not elicit negative inversion:
748:
441:, not an adjunct. The result is that the b-sentences seem forced, but they are nevertheless acceptable for most speakers. If inversion does not occur in such cases as in the c-sentences, the sentence is simply bad.
759:
734:
912:
Haegeman, L. 2000. Negative preposing, negative inversion, and the split CP. In
Negation and polarity: syntactic and semantic perspectives, eds. L. Horn and Y. Kato, 21-61. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
712:
Like many types of inversion, negative inversion challenges theories of sentence structure. The challenge is because of the fronting of the phrase containing the negation. The phrase is separated from its
739:
The convention is used if the words themselves appear as labels on the nodes in the trees. The tree on the left has canonical word order. When the phrase containing the negation is fronted,
918:
Kato, Y. 2000. Interpretive asymmetries of negation. In
Negation and polarity: syntactic and semantic perspectives, eds. L. Horn and Y. Kato, 62-87, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
704:
the a-sentences, the fronted expression is a clause adjunct or argument of the main predicate, whereas in the b-sentences, it is a depictive predication over the subject argument.
105:
Negative inversion is illustrated with the following b-sentences. The relevant expression containing the negation is underlined, and the subject and finite verb are bolded:
594:
The most intriguing cases of negative inversion are those where the meaning of the sentence shifts significantly based upon whether inversion has or has not occurred:
320:
at times both the inversion and non-inversion variants are possible, whereby there are concrete meaning differences distinguishing between the two.
921:
Rudanko, J. 1982. Towards a description of negatively conditioned subject operator inversion in
English. English Studies 63, 348-359.
856:
Negative inversion is explored directly by, for instance, Rudanko (1982), Haegemann (2000), Kato (2000), Sobin (2003), Büring (2004).
909:
Groß, T. and T. Osborne 2009. Toward a practical dependency grammar theory of discontinuities. SKY Journal of
Linguistics 22, 43-90.
772:
The trees showing movement/copying illustrate the analysis of discontinuities that one might find in derivational theories such as
785:
894:
For a dependency grammar analysis of discontinuities like the one shown here on the right, see Groß and
Osborne (2009).
952:
721:
is perceived. The discontinuity is present regardless of whether one assumes a constituency-based theory of syntax (
24:
780:, and the trees showing feature passing are similar to what one might find in representational theories like
773:
947:
832:
812:
729:). The following trees illustrate how this discontinuity is addressed in some phrase structure grammars:
718:
82:
781:
747:
758:
733:
937:
822:
722:
714:
90:
915:
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic interpretation in
Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
827:
329:
Negative inversion in the b-sentences above is elicited by a negation appearing inside a fronted
67:
334:
317:
certain cases where one would expect negative inversion to occur actually do not allow it; and
586:
inversion is sensitive to how the fronted expression functions within the clause as a whole.
766:
437:
The fronted phrase containing the negation in the b-sentences is an argument of the matrix
8:
942:
438:
310:
Negative inversion has several traits. The following subsections enumerate some of them:
865:
That negative inversion with a fronted argument is stilted is noted by Büring (2004:3).
807:
789:
777:
740:
726:
94:
71:
333:. Negative inversion also occurs when the negation is (or is contained in) a fronted
330:
28:
430:- Fronted argument; sentence is bad because negative inversion has not occurred.
379:- Fronted argument; sentence is bad because negative inversion has not occurred.
81:
As with subject-auxiliary inversion in general, negative inversion results in a
802:
63:
314:
negative inversion involving arguments is possible, but the result is stilted;
931:
837:
294:- Sentence is fine because there is no negation requiring inversion to occur.
228:- Sentence is fine because there is no negation requiring inversion to occur.
75:
260:- Sentence is fine because there is no negation requiring inversion to occur
198:
such cases, the sentence is bad, as the following c-sentences illustrate:
817:
60:
410:
363:
924:
Sobin, N. 2003. Negative inversion as nonmovement. Syntax 6, 183-212.
89:. The problem exists both for the relatively layered structures of
86:
280:- Sentence is bad because negative inversion has not occurred.
247:- Sentence is bad because negative inversion has not occurred.
214:- Sentence is bad because negative inversion has not occurred.
70:. Negative inversion is a phenomenon of English syntax. Other
59:) or a phrase containing one of these words precedes the
66:
necessitating that the subject and finite verb undergo
337:, but the inversion is a bit stilted in such cases:
906:
Büring, D. 2004. Negative inversion. NELS 35, 1-19.
929:
369:appears to enable subject-auxiliary inversion.
666:'It doesn't matter which job Fred has, he is
613:'It doesn't matter what Mary wears, she does
416:appears to enable subject-auxiliary inversion
93:as well as for the flatter structures of
47:, etc.) or a word that implies negation (
695:'When Fred is unemployed, he is happy.'
930:
707:
786:Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar
642:'When Mary is nude, she looks good.'
324:
85:and so is a problem for theories of
13:
754:instead of movement (or copying):
717:in the linear order of words so a
589:
14:
964:
100:
757:
746:
732:
888:
878:
868:
859:
850:
513:The presence of the negations
1:
900:
774:Government and Binding Theory
725:) or a dependency-based one (
662:- Negative inversion present
609:- Negative inversion present
567:- Negative inversion blocked
537:- Negative inversion blocked
535:plastered. (snowball fight)
495:- Negative inversion blocked
465:- Negative inversion blocked
7:
833:Subject-auxiliary inversion
795:
691:- Negative inversion absent
638:- Negative inversion absent
25:subject–auxiliary inversion
16:English grammatical process
10:
969:
782:Lexical Functional Grammar
444:
305:
91:phrase structure grammars
953:Syntactic transformation
844:
823:Phrase structure grammar
723:phrase structure grammar
23:is one of many types of
471:When nothing happened
458:When nothing happened
565:go out in the cold.
501:Because nobody tried
488:Because nobody tried
409:- Fronted argument;
362:- Fronted argument;
190:- Negative inversion
160:- Negative inversion
131:- Negative inversion
74:have a more general
790:dependency grammars
708:Structural analysis
95:dependency grammars
31:. A negation (e.g.
948:Syntactic entities
808:Dependency grammar
778:Minimalist Program
727:dependency grammar
72:Germanic languages
21:negative inversion
692:
663:
639:
610:
568:
543:Behind no barrier
538:
530:Behind no barrier
496:
466:
431:
417:
380:
370:
325:Fronted arguments
295:
281:
261:
248:
229:
215:
191:
161:
132:
960:
895:
892:
886:
882:
876:
872:
866:
863:
857:
854:
761:
750:
736:
690:
661:
637:
608:
579:out in the cold.
566:
536:
494:
493:learn anything.
464:
429:
408:
378:
361:
293:
292:do a keg stand.
279:
278:do a keg stand.
259:
246:
227:
213:
189:
188:do a keg stand.
159:
130:
19:In linguistics,
968:
967:
963:
962:
961:
959:
958:
957:
938:English grammar
928:
927:
903:
898:
893:
889:
883:
879:
873:
869:
864:
860:
855:
851:
847:
842:
798:
710:
592:
590:Distinctiveness
447:
327:
308:
174:do a keg stand
103:
17:
12:
11:
5:
966:
956:
955:
950:
945:
940:
926:
925:
922:
919:
916:
913:
910:
907:
902:
899:
897:
896:
887:
877:
867:
858:
848:
846:
843:
841:
840:
835:
830:
825:
820:
815:
810:
805:
803:Auxiliary verb
799:
797:
794:
709:
706:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
605:does Mary look
591:
588:
583:
582:
581:
580:
573:With no jacket
569:
560:With no jacket
553:
552:
551:
550:
539:
511:
510:
509:
508:
505:nobody learned
497:
481:
480:
479:
478:
467:
446:
443:
435:
434:
433:
432:
418:
398:
384:
383:
382:
381:
371:
351:
326:
323:
322:
321:
318:
315:
307:
304:
299:
298:
297:
296:
282:
265:
264:
263:
262:
249:
233:
232:
231:
230:
216:
195:
194:
193:
192:
179:
165:
164:
163:
162:
149:
136:
135:
134:
133:
120:
102:
101:Basic examples
99:
64:auxiliary verb
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
965:
954:
951:
949:
946:
944:
941:
939:
936:
935:
933:
923:
920:
917:
914:
911:
908:
905:
904:
891:
881:
871:
862:
853:
849:
839:
838:V2 word order
836:
834:
831:
829:
826:
824:
821:
819:
816:
814:
813:Discontinuity
811:
809:
806:
804:
801:
800:
793:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
770:
768:
762:
760:
755:
751:
749:
744:
742:
737:
735:
730:
728:
724:
720:
719:discontinuity
716:
705:
694:
693:
688:
684:
680:
679:
678:
677:
669:
665:
664:
659:
656:
652:
651:
650:
649:
641:
640:
635:
631:
630:In no clothes
627:
626:
625:
624:
616:
612:
611:
606:
603:
602:In no clothes
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
587:
578:
574:
570:
564:
561:
557:
556:
555:
554:
548:
544:
540:
534:
531:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
520:
516:
506:
502:
498:
492:
489:
485:
484:
483:
482:
476:
472:
468:
462:
459:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
442:
440:
427:
423:
419:
415:
413:
406:
403:
399:
396:
392:
388:
387:
386:
385:
376:
372:
368:
366:
359:
356:
352:
349:
346:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
336:
332:
319:
316:
313:
312:
311:
303:
291:
287:
283:
277:
273:
269:
268:
267:
266:
257:
254:
250:
244:
241:
237:
236:
235:
234:
225:
221:
217:
211:
207:
203:
202:
201:
200:
199:
187:
184:
180:
177:
173:
169:
168:
167:
166:
157:
154:
150:
147:
144:
140:
139:
138:
137:
128:
125:
121:
118:
114:
110:
109:
108:
107:
106:
98:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:discontinuity
79:
77:
76:V2 word order
73:
69:
65:
62:
58:
54:
50:
46:
42:
38:
34:
30:
26:
22:
890:
880:
870:
861:
852:
771:
763:
756:
752:
745:
738:
731:
711:
702:
686:
682:
667:
657:
654:
633:
629:
614:
604:
601:
593:
584:
576:
572:
562:
559:
546:
542:
532:
529:
518:
514:
512:
504:
500:
490:
487:
474:
470:
460:
457:
448:
436:
425:
421:
411:
404:
401:
394:
390:
374:
364:
357:
354:
347:
344:
328:
309:
300:
289:
286:At any party
285:
275:
271:
258:tried that.
255:
252:
245:tried that.
242:
239:
223:
220:At some time
219:
209:
205:
196:
185:
182:
175:
171:
158:tried that.
155:
152:
145:
142:
126:
123:
116:
112:
104:
80:
56:
52:
48:
44:
40:
36:
32:
20:
18:
818:Finite verb
788:, and some
683:With no job
655:With no job
617:look good.'
463:surprised.
377:Fred said.
272:At no party
183:At no party
176:at no party
148:tried that.
943:Word order
932:Categories
901:Literature
634:Mary looks
549:plastered.
491:did nobody
477:surprised.
206:At no time
124:At no time
117:at no time
875:(2004:5).
828:Inversion
577:Bill went
507:anything.
439:predicate
426:Larry did
422:To nobody
407:do that.
405:did Larry
402:To nobody
395:to nobody
391:Larry did
345:Fred said
68:inversion
796:See also
776:and the
741:movement
715:governor
563:did Bill
547:Fred was
533:was Fred
414:-support
367:-support
358:did Fred
335:argument
290:he would
276:he would
224:Sam will
210:Sam will
186:would he
172:He would
127:will Sam
113:Sam will
57:scarcely
885:(2003).
689:happy.
687:Fred is
670:happy.'
660:happy.
658:is Fred
515:nothing
475:we were
461:were we
445:Absence
375:Nothing
355:Nothing
348:nothing
331:adjunct
256:Jim has
253:Perhaps
243:Jim has
226:relax.
212:relax.
156:has Jim
143:Jim has
129:relax.
45:nothing
29:English
767:catena
636:good.
607:good.
519:nobody
428:that.
306:Traits
115:relax
87:syntax
61:finite
53:hardly
845:Notes
393:that
360:say.
240:Never
153:Never
146:never
41:never
558:a. *
528:a. *
517:and
486:a. *
456:a. *
420:c. *
373:c. *
270:c. *
238:c. *
204:c. *
49:only
681:b.
668:not
653:a.
628:b.
615:not
600:a.
571:b.
541:b.
499:b.
469:b.
400:b.
389:a.
353:b.
343:a.
284:d.
251:d.
218:d.
181:b.
170:a.
151:b.
141:a.
122:b.
111:a.
33:not
27:in
934::
792:.
784:,
685:,
632:,
575:,
545:,
503:,
473:,
424:,
412:do
365:do
288:,
274:,
222:,
208:,
97:.
55:,
51:,
43:,
39:,
37:no
35:,
397:.
350:.
178:.
119:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
