1. food and drink
2. food and grocery retailers
3. grocery stores

11-08-17
1. The basic facts
Predicative definite NPIs in Norwegian
Marit Julien
Lund university
The 2nd N'CLAV Grand Meeting, Gottskär, 25 August 2011
Norwegian: weak quantifier/adjective + noun with
suffixed definite article = NPI:
These nominal phrases can be predicates, arguments,
or parts of adverbials:
(1)a. Ho var ikkje stor-e
she was not big-DEF
‘She was no big girl.’
(2)
jent-a.
girl-DEF
b. Vi gikk
ikkje lang-e
tur-en.
we walked not
long-DEF trip-DEF
‘We did not walk a long distance.’
c.
Ein rapport
er venta
om ikkje
a
report
is
expected in
not
mange dag-ane.
many
day-DEF.PL
‘A report is expected in not many days.’
Dei sa ikkje mange ord-a.
they said not many
word-DEF.PL
‘They did not say many words.’
If the negation is left out, ungrammaticality results:
(3)a. * Ho var stor-e
she was big-DEF
b. * Vi
we
gikk
walked
jent-a.
girl-DEF
lang-e
tur-en.
long- DEF trip-DEF
c. * Dei sa mange
they said many
orda.
word.DEF.PL
d. * Ein rapport
a
report
dagane.
day.DEF.PL
venta
om mange
expected in
many
er
is
Without a quantifier or adjective the phrases do not
display polarity sensitivity:
(4)a. Ho var (ikkje) jent-a.
she was not
girl-DEF
‘She was (not) the girl.’
b. Vi gikk
(ikkje) tur-en.
we walked not
trip-DEF
‘We walked/did not walk the trip.’
c.
Dei sa (ikkje) ord-a.
they said not
word-DEF.PL
‘They said/did not say the words.’
1
11-08-17
Predicative definite NPIs
2. My claims
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
are templatic, i.e. not lexically defined
show an exceptional definiteness marking pattern
lack a D head
are referentially defective
have a more restricted distribution than other nominal
phrases lacking a D head and also more restricted than
other NPIs
•  have licensing requirements not predicted by any of the
current theories of NPI licensing.
Many different combinations of adjective or quantifier and noun are possible:
3. A templatic NPI
(5)a. Jeg har ikke
store
I
have not
big.DEF/PL
‘I don’t have big ambitions.’
ambisjonene.
ambitions.DEF
b. Han var ikke gamle karen.
he was not
old.DEF chap.DEF
‘He was not an old chap.’
c.
Det er ikke mange hjemmekampene
it
is
not many
home.games.DEF
han har gått glipp av.
he has missed
‘He has not missed many home games.’
But the quantifier or adjective must represent the
positive part of a scale :
And adjectives that denote a dimension in space or
time are preferred:
(6)a. * Vi
we
(7)a. * Det var ikkje fine
huset.
it
was not nice.DEF house.DEF
gikk
walked
ikkje korte
turen.
not
short.DEF trip.DEF
b. Vi gikk
ikkje noen kort tur.
we walked not any short trip
‘We did not walk any short distance.’
c.
Vi gikk
ingen kort tur.
we walked no
short trip
‘We walked no short distance.’
b. * Ho var ikkje intelligente
she was not
intelligent.DEF
c. * Han er
he is
(8)
ikkje rike
not rich.DEF
Han har ikkje store
he has not big.DEF
‘He has no big fortune.’
jenta.
girl.DEF
karen.
chap.DEF
formuen.
fortune.DEF
2
11-08-17
The adjectives must refer to a positive value on a
scale without specification or qualification:
(9)a. Ho var ikkje (*kjempe-)store jenta.
she was not giant-big.DEF
girl
‘She was no (enormously) big girl.’
b. Ho skreiv ikkje (*meter-)tjukke
bøkene.
she wrote not meter-thick.DEF/PL books.DEF
‘She did not write any (yard-)thick books.’
The exception is modifiers like særlig and spesielt,
both meaning ‘especially’. These modifiers may well
appear in predicative definite NPIs:
(10)a. Ho var ikkje særlig
store
jenta.
she was not especially big.DEF girl.DEF
‘She was no especially big girl.’
b. Vi gikk
ikkje spesielt lange turen.
we walked not especially long.DEF trip.DEF
‘We did not walk an especially long distance.’
Just like predicative definite NPIs, særlig and
spesielt are attenuating NPIs with a high scalar value
(Israel 2001).
Double definiteness:
(11)
4. The definiteness
puzzle
den
lang-e
tur-en
DEF.SG
long-DEF trip-DEF
‘the long trip’
No prenominal determiner in the predicative definite
NPI:
(12)a. Ho var
ikkje stor-e
she was
not big-DEF
‘She was no big girl.’
jent-a.
girl-DEF
b. Vi gikk
ikkje lang-e
tur-en.
we walked not long-DEF trip-DEF
‘We did not walk a long distance.’
Add a prenominal determiner !
no predicative definite NPI:
(13)a. Ho var (ikkje) den store/vesle jenta.
she was not
DEF big/small
girl.DEF
‘She was (not) the big/small girl.’
b. Vi gikk
(ikkje) den lange/korte turen.
we walked not
DEF long/short
trip-DEF
‘We did (not) walk the long/short distance.’
NPIs are referentially deficient:
(14)
(15)
DP
D
den
!P
AP
!’
store
!
nP
n
Num
N
jent
Num
NumP
n
a
Num
NP
N
John did not see any crumbs on the floor.
3
11-08-17
Optional prenominal determiner:
Mainland Scandinavian bare nouns:
(16)a. (Den) vesle
Anna klappa i hendene.
the
little.DEF Anna clapped in hands.DEF
‘(The) little Anna clapped her hands. ’
(17)a. Hege er lærar.
Hege is teacher
‘Hege is a teacher.’
b. Han heldt gitaren
i (den) høgre handa.
he held guitar.DEF in the right hand.DEF
‘He held the guitar in his right hand.’
c. (Den) beste
låta
på hele skiva.
the
best.DEF track.DEF on whole disc.DEF
‘The best track on the whole record.’
b. Hege kjøpte (ny) billett.
Hege bought new ticket
‘Hege bought a (new) ticket.’
(18)a. Hege er ikkje lærar.
Hege is not teacher
‘Hege is not a teacher.’
b. Hege kjøpte ikkje (ny) billett.
Hege bought not new ticket
‘Hege did not buy a (new) ticket.’
Predicative definite NPIs are unacceptable as
subjects in initial position:
5. Distribution within the
clause
Some get better when they follow the negation:
(20)a.* Da banka ikkje store jenta på døra.
then knocked not big
girl.DEF on door.DEF
Intended meaning: ‘Then no big girl knocked on
the door.’
b.? Da sto
ikkje lange stykket
i avisa
then stood not long piece.DEF in paper.DEF
om
dette.
about this
‘Then no long piece appeared in the paper about this.’
(19)a.* Store jenta banka ikkje på døra.
big
girl.DEF knocked not on door.DEF
Intended meaning: ‘No big girl knocked on the door.’
b.* Lange stykket
sto
ikkje i avisa
long
piece.DEF stood not in paper.DEF
om
dette.
about this
Intended meaning: ‘No long piece appeared in
the paper about this.’
Same effect when predicative definite NPIs appear as
associates of an expletive subject:
(21)a.* Det banka ikkje store jenta på døra.
it
knocked not big girl.DEF on door.DEF
Intended meaning: ‘There was no big girl knocking
on the door.’
b.? Det sto
ikkje lange stykket
i avisa
it
stood not long piece.DEF in paper.DEF
om
dette.
about this
‘There was no long piece appearing in the paper
about this.’
4
11-08-17
But fine when predicative definite NPIs appear in the
focus position of a cleft construction:
(22)a. Det var ikkje store jenta som banka
på
it
was not big girl.DEF that knocked on
døra.
door.DEF
‘It was no big girl that knocked on the door.’
b. Det var ikkje lange stykket
som sto
i
it
was not long piece.DEF that stood in
avisa
om
dette.
paper.DEF about this
‘It was no long piece that appeared in the paper
about this.’
Van der Wouden (1997): NPIs can be subjects if a
licensor is topicalised or located in a higher clause:
(24)a. Aldri har noen som helst
brydd seg.
never has anyone at all
cared REFL
‘Never has anyone at all cared.’
b. Dei tvilte
på at noen som helst
they doubted on that anyone at all
hadde vori der.
had
been there.
‘They doubted that anyone at all had been there.’
(26)a.* Dei tvilte
på at store jenta banka på
they doubted on that big
girl.DEF knocked on
døra.
door.DEF
‘They doubted that any big girl knocked on the door.’
b.* Dei tvilte
på at
lange stykket
sto
they doubted on that long
piece.DEF stood
i
avisa
om
dette.
in paper.DEF about this
‘They doubted that any long piece appeared in the
paper about this.’
A “standard” NPI:
(23)a.* Noen som helst banka
ikkje på døra.
anyone at all
knocked not on door.DEF
‘It was no big girl that knocked on the door.’
b. Da banka
ikkje noen som helst på døra.
then knocked not anyone at all
on door.DEF
‘Then nobody at all knocked on the door.’
c. Det banka
ikkje noen som helst på døra.
it
knocked not anyone at all
on door.DEF
‘Then nobody at all knocked on the door.’
d. Det var ikkje noen som helst som banka
it
was not anyone at all
that knocked
på døra.
on door.DEF
‘It wasn’t anybody at all who knocked on the door.’
Predicative definite NPIs cannot be licensed in this way:
(25)a.* Aldri har store jenta banka
på døra.
never has big
girl.DEF knocked on door.DEF
‘Never has any big girl knocked on the door.’
b.* Aldri har lange stykket stått i
avisa
never has long piece.DEF stood on paper.DEF
om
dette.
about this
‘Never has any long piece appeared in the paper
about this.’
Bare nouns cannot be external arguments either
(Borthen 2003):
(27)a. Søppel-dunk manglar.
garbage-can lacks
‘There is no garbage can.’
b. Sjukebil
er på veg.
ambulance is on way
‘An ambulance is on its way.’
c. Per vart
biten av hoggorm.
Per became bitten by snake
‘Per was bitten by a snake.’
d.* Hoggorm beit Per.
snake
bit Per
Intended meaning: ‘A snake bit Per.’
5
11-08-17
Focus movement of predicative definite NPIs:
Not possible with all Norwegian NPIs (Lindstad 1999):
(28)a. Store jenta var ho
big
girl.DEF was she
‘A big girl, she was not.’
(29)a. Dei er ikkje heime
ennå.
they are not at.home yet
‘They are not at home yet.’
ikkje.
not
b. Lange turen gikk
vi
ikkje.
long
trip.DEF walked we not
‘A long distance, we did not walk.’
c. Store summen handla eg ikkje for.
big
sum.DEF shopped I
not for
‘A great sum, I didn’t shop for.’
b. Ennå er dei
yet
are they
ikkje heime.
not
at.home
(30)a. Dei såg ikkje noen som helst.
they saw not
anyone at all
‘They did not see anyone at all.’
b.* Noen som helst såg
anyone at all
saw
dei ikkje.
they not
(31)a. Ingen av dei sa
noe som helst.
none of them said anything at all
6. Licensing contexts
(32)a.
Nesten ingen sa
noe som helst.
almost nobody said anything at all
b. Ingen av dei
none of them
løfta
lifted
ein finger.
a finger
c. Ingen av dei
none of them
skjønte
bæra.
understood berry.DEF
d. Ingen av dei
none of them
var
was
store
big
e. Ingen av dei
none of them
gikk
was
lange turen.
long trip.DEF
f. Ingen av dei
none of them
hadde store
had
big
Nesten ingen løfta ein finger.
almost nobody lifted a
finger
b. Få av dei
løfta ein finger.
few of them lifted a finger
c.
Nesten ingen skjønte
bæra.
almost nobody understood berry.DEF
c. Få av dei
skjønte
few of them understood
jenta.
girl.DEF
sjansane.
chances.DEF
(33)a. Få av dei
sa
noe som helst.
few of them said anything at all
b.
d.?* Nesten ingen var store
almost nobody was big
jenta.
girl.DEF
bæra.
berry.DEF
d.* Få av dei
var store jenta.
few of them was big girl.DEF
e.?* Nesten ingen gikk lange turen.
almost nobody was long trip.DEF
e.* Få av dei
gikk lange turen.
few of them was long trip.DEF
f.?* Nesten ingen hadde store sjansane.
almost nobody had
big
chances.DEF
f. * Få av dei
hadde
few of them had
store sjansane.
big
chances.DEF
6
11-08-17
(34)a. Ho
she
sa
aldri
said never
noe som helst.
anything at all
(35)a. Eg tvilar på at
ho sa
noe som helst.
I doubt on that she said anything at all
b. Ho løfta aldri ein finger.
she lifted never a
finger
b. Eg tvilar på at
ho løfta ein finger.
I doubt on that she lifted a
finger
c. Ho
she
bæra.
berry.DEF
c. Eg tvilar på at
ho skjønte
bæra.
I doubt on that she understood berry.DEF
jenta.
girl.DEF
d. Eg tvilar på at
ho var store jenta.
I doubt on that she was big
girl.DEF
skjønte
aldri
understood never
d. Ho vart
aldri store
she became never big
e. Vi
we
gikk
aldri
walked never
f. Dei hadde aldri
they had
never
lange turen.
long trip.DEF
e. Eg tvilar på at
dei gikk
lange turen.
I doubt on that they walked long trip.DEF
store sjansane.
big
chances.DEF
f. Eg tvilar på at dei hadde store sjansane.
I doubt on that they had
big chances.DEF
(36)a. Sa ho noe som helst?
Said she anything at all
b. Løfta ho (nokon gong) ein
lifted she ever
a
c. Skjønte
ho
understood she
d. Var ho
was she
e. Gikk
walked
(37)a.
finger? [NB]
finger
bæra?
berry.DEF
store jenta?
big
girl.DEF
dei lange turen?
they long trip.DEF
f. Hadde dei store sjansane?
had
they big
chances.DEF
b.
Viss ho sa noe som helst, så overraskar det meg.
if
she said anything at all
Viss ho løfta ein finger, så var det av tvang.
if
she lifted a finger
[NB]
c.?* Viss ho skjønte
bæra, så vart læraren glad.
if
she understood berry.DEF
[NB]
d. * Viss ho er store jenta, så kan ho bli med.
if
she is big
girl.DEF
[NB]
e. * Viss dei gikk
lange turen, så er dei nok slitne.
if
they walked long trip.DEF
[NB]
f. * Viss dei hadde store sjansane, så hadde vi visst det.
if
they had
big chances.DEF
Blank page here
7
11-08-17
Progovac (1994)
7. Putting the theories to
the test
Main idea: The syntactic behaviour of NPIs can be explained on
the basis of Binding Theory. Some NPIs are subject to Principle
A of the Binding Theory, i.e. they need a clausemate binder;
other NPIs are subject to Principle B of the Binding Theory, i.e.
they behave like pronouns and will not accept a clausemate
binder, although they need a binder within their binding domain.
The binder is either a visibly negative element, or, in NPI
licensing contexts where there is no negative element (like
questions and conditionals), the binder is an empty polarity
operator sitting in the C-projection.
Some polarity items are able to move at LF, so that what seems to
be a long-distance binding relation is in fact a local one, with the
polarity item raised into the vicinity of the licensor.
Adversative predicates like doubt select clausal complements
with a polarity operator in C.
Idiomatic NPIs are listed in the lexicon as negative. That is, the
negation is part of the lexical item itself, and because of this,
idiomatic NPIs necessarily appear with a clausemate negation.
Successfully explained: The NPI noe som helst ‘anything at all’,
if it is of the anaphoric type.
Less successfully explained: The idiomatic NPIs løfte ein finger
‘lift a finger’ and skjønne bæra ‘understand the berry/a thing’ —
their licensing by clausemate licensors and by an adversative
verb in a higher clause, the biased reading in questions, but NOT
the fact that they do not get the same judgements in conditional
clauses.
In polarity questions containing idiomatic NPIs, the polarity
operator in the C-domain must have a negative value, and
because of this, these questions get a negative rhetorical reading.
Not explained: Predicative definite NPIs — licensed by some
clausemate licensors, and by an adversative verb in a higher
clause, but not in conditional clauses. The negative bias in
questions is also a problem.
Van der Wouden (1997)
Nesten ingen is monotone decreasing, since (38a) entails (38b):
Main idea: NPIs of the weakest type require a licensor that is
monotone decreasing (minimal negation), medium strong NPIs
need a licensor that is also anti-additive (regular negation).
(38)a. Nesten ingen
åt
fisk.
almost nobody ate fish
Successfully explained:
•  The three NPIs noe som helst ‘anything at all’, løfte ein finger
‘lift a finger’ and skjønne bæra ‘understand a thing’ must be
weak NPIs, since they are licensed by licensors such as nesten
ingen ‘almost nobody’.
! b. Nesten ingen
åt
kveite.
almost nobody ate halibut
but it is not anti-additive, since (39a) is not equivalent to (39b):
(39)a. Nesten ingen sang eller dansa.
almost nobody sang or
danced
b. Nesten ingen sang og nesten ingen dansa.
almost nobody sang and almost nobody danced
8
11-08-17
•  Predicative definite NPIs are NPIs of medium strength, since
they are licensed by regular negations like ingen av dei ‘none
of them’, aldri ‘never’ and tvile på ‘doubt’. These expressions
are anti-additive (shown for tvile på):
Less successfully explained: Licensing of NPIs in questions and
conditional clauses. The tests that van der Wouden proposed for
the various types of negativity are not directly applicable to
questions or to conditionals.
(40)a. Eg tvilar på at
ho røykte eller drakk.
I doubt on that she smoked or drank
Not explained: Van der Wouden (1997) claims that all verbs with
negative properties are anti-additive. However, for example the
verb angre ‘regret’ does not license predicative definite NPIs:
! b. Eg tvilar
I doubt
tvilar på
doubt on
på at ho
røykte og eg
on that she smoked and I
at ho drakk.
that she drank
(41)
Ho angrar på at ho sa noe som helst.
she regrets on that she said anything at all
‘She regrets that she said anything at all.’
(42) * Ho angrar på at ho gikk
lange turen.
she regrets on that she walked long trip.DEF
Intended meaning: ‘She regrets that she walked a
long distance.
Giannakidou (1998)
Main idea: Licensing contexts for polarity sensitive elements in
general are nonveridical.
Indirect licensing: Licensing in a context that does not contain
any element that in itself induces nonveridicality, but which
nevertheless allows nonveridical or even antiveridical implicatures to be inferred.
For determiners and quantifiers, being nonveridical in a context
means not requiring that the denotation of the NP argument is
nonempty in that context. Determiners and quantifiers that are
downward entailing (mono-tone decreasing/downward monotonic) are also necessarily nonveridical.
Certain polarity sensitive elements can only appear in contexts
that are antiveridical.
For determiners and quantifiers, antiveridicality is not relevant,
since no determiners or quantifiers require that their NP argument
must be empty.
Successfully explained:
Less successfully explained:
•  Aldri ‘never’, an antiveridical operator, licenses all the NPIs in
our test set.
•  Licensing of predicative definite NPIs by quantifiers. If
quantifiers are never antiveridical, they should not license
strong NPIs. However, one could claim that ingen av dei ‘none
of them’ is indirectly antiveridical, while nesten ingen ‘almost
nobody’ and få av dei ‘few of them’ are at best nonveridical.
Then the facts follow.
•  The negative bias in polarity questions with predicative
definite NPIs. While plain polarity questions are nonveridical,
rhetorical questions are indirectly antiveridical. Hence,
predicative definite NPIs are strong NPIs in Giannakidou’s
system.
•  The fact that predicative definite NPIs are not licensed in
factive conditional clauses. These are nonveridical and do not
license strong NPIs.
•  Licensing of predicative definite NPIs by tvile på ‘doubt’, if
tvile på is nonveridical. Tvile på p = [NOT believe p] !
[believe NOT p] ? (Horn 1975)
•  The fact that predicative definite NPIs are not always licensed
in counterfactual conditional clauses, although counterfactual
conditionals are claimed to give rise to antiveridical inferences
in their antecedents .
9
11-08-17
(43)a. * Viss ho hadde vori store jenta, så kunne
if
she had
been big girl.DEF so could
ho fått bli
med.
she got come with
Intended meaning: ‘If she had been a big girl, she
could have come along.’
(43)c. ? Viss dei hadde hatt store sjansane,
if
they had
had big chances.DEF
så ville
eg visst
det.
so would I known it
‘If they had had any big chances, I would have
known.’
b.?* Viss dei hadde gått
lange turen, så
if
they had
walked long trip.DEF so
hadde vi hørt om
det.
had
we heard about it
‘If they had walked a long distance, we would
have heard about it.’
References
Borthen, Kaia (2003). Norwegian Bare Singulars. Doctoral
dissertation, NTNU.
Giannakidou, Anastasia (1998). Polarity sensitivity as (non)
veridical dependency. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Giannakidou, Anastasia (to appear). ”Negative and positive polarity
items: Variation, licensing, and compositionality”. In Claudia
Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, & Paul Portner (eds.) Semantics:
An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (second
edition). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Guerzoni, Elena (2004). “Even-NPIs in yes/no questions.” Natural
Language Semantics 12, 319–343.
Horn, Laurence (1975). “Neg-raising predicates: toward an
explanation.” Chicago Linguistic Society 11, 279-94.
Israel, Michael (2001). “Minimizers, maximizers, and the rhetoric
of scalar reasoning.’ Journal of Semantics 18, 297–331.
Johannessen, Janne Bondi (1997). “Negative polaritetsuttrykk som
lisensieres av ikke.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Oslo.
Julien, Marit (to appear). ”Predicative definite NPIs in Norwegian.”
To appear in Nordlyd.
Lindstad, Arne Martinus (1999). Issues in the syntax of negation
and polarity in Norwegian: a minimalist analysis. Master’s thesis,
University of Oslo.
Progovac, Ljiljana (1994). Negative and positive polarity: a
binding approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Van der Wouden, Ton (1997). Negative contexts: collocation,
polarity and multiple negation. Routledge, London.
10