Focusing attention on contexts without pseudopartitive direct objects (but see footnote 12), I assume that negative adverbs are generated in an adjoined position. This was the conclusion I came to in section 2.1, with respect to pas,
12. This is something of a simplification. Following Cinque (1995, 1996, 1998), these elements may attach higher in clause structure. This has no implications for the analysis proposed here, which, incidentally, differs from Rowlett (1996c), section 4.4.3. I do not make strong claims about the order of the two VP-adjoined elements in (46). For example, given its interpretation (“always-not” as opposed to “not-always”), it may make sense to assume that jamais is base-generated above Op.
As for the licensing of pseudopartitives, as in (i), I assume that Op is generated in SpecNumP and subsequently raised to SpecNegP, as suggested in section 2.2.4, for pas. This is illustrated in (ii). (i) Julie n’ a jamais lu de romans.
J. ne has jamais read of novels ‘J. has never read any novels.’
N eg P V P N u m P
(ii) . . . n’a [ Op (. . .) jamais . . . lu . . . [ . . . [ t [ de romans ]]]]
z--- _m
and I see no reason why the same is not the case for the negative adverbs, especially in view of my characterization of the negative adverbs with respect to Di Sciullo and W illiams’s (1986) distinction between different types of modification; if pas produces a composite function with the predicate by adjunc- tion, it seems likely that the negative adverbs do too. (But see Cinque 1995, 1996, 1998 for an analysis of adverbs based on distinct functional projections rather than adjoined positions.)
As mentioned, however, this is not to claim that pas and the negative adverbs necessarily occupy identical surface positions. W hile the negative operator pas
necessarily raises overtly to SpecNegP in order to license ne and to mark sen- tential negation, my claim is that this is crucially not the case for the negative adverbs. This is attributable to the fact that the negative adverbs are not in fact negative, that is, do not bear the feature [+N EG]. They cannot therefore license
ne or mark sentential negation by raising to SpecNegP. Rather, the negative adverbs co-occur, in the relevant contexts, with Op, the non-overt negative operator. It is therefore Op that crucially needs to raise to SpecNegP at S- structure to mark sentential negation. W here the negative adverbs themselves raise to SpecN egP, it is in a sense parasitic on movement of the operator, rather than as a result of any of their own inherent features. For concreteness, I assume the base structure in (46), in which Op and the negative adverbs are adjoined to VP.12 (46) VP e i XP VP ! 3 Op XP* VP ! 4 guère . . . plus jamais
To mark sentential negation, a negative operator has to be in a spec-head configuration with an appropriate functional head, such as NegE, at S-structure.
Failure of pas to raise in the relevant contexts was shown in chapter 2 to have two consequences. First, ne becomes unavailable. Second, the negation has local scope. In contrast, in the sentences considered here, ne is available, and negation has wide scope. I therefore assume that O p has raised to SpecNegP. This is illustrated in (47): (47) NegP e i Spec NegN ! r y i Op NegE . . . : ! y VP z---_ne 3 i t VP 3 XP* VP ! 4 jamais . . . guère plus
A further possibility, suggested by the examples in (40a) and (41a), would be for Op to be accompanied by the negative adverb (or adverbs)see section 4.3.4.4) as it raises into SpecNegP. This is illustrated for (40a) very schematically in (48): (48) NegP w o Spec NegN 6 r y Op jamais NegE . . . : ! y VP z---_ ne 3 t VP 4 . . .
In the second case, the overt adverb in (46) parasitically raises into SpecNegP while, in the first case, it remains in situ in its adjoined position. Given that TP and M oodP intervene between the base VP-adjoined position of the negative adverb and SpecN egP, this analysis has the attraction of predicting that negative adverbs can either precede or follow an infinitive in TE/M oodE. In both sce- narios, crucially, Op appears in SpecNegP (as required by the need to mark
sentential negation). DA then ensures that ne is licensed and endowed with the feature [+N EG]; negation has wide scope and the sentence is negative.
4.3.4
Examples
Some exemplification is perhaps in order at this point, especially since, unlike in chapter 2, where I considered the syntax of pas, assumptions about the position of the negative adverbs interact in much more complex fashion with the syntax of infinitives. M y assumptions about Verb M ovement patterns in Standard French)motivated in chapter 1)were given in (20) and are repeated here: (49) Overt Verb Movement patterns in French:
a. All finite verbs move to AgrSE.
bN. Infinitival auxiliaries (être, avoir) freely move to M oodE, TE, or AgrSE.
bO. Infinitival modal verbs (e.g., pouvoir, devoir) move to M oodE or TE,
and only exceptionally to AgrSE.
b. Infinitival lexical verbs move to MoodE or TE, but not as far as AgrSE. Thus, while tensed verbs always appear in AgrSE at S-structure, infinitivals can, depending on the nature of the verb, appear either in AgrSE (auxiliaries, excep- tionally modals, but not lexical infinitives) or in TE/M oodPE (auxiliaries, mo- dals, and lexical verbs). In example 1, the clause is finite, and the verb must therefore move to AgrSE. Examples 2 and 3 contain an auxiliary and a modal infinitive, respectively. The two possible surface orderings of verb + adverb and
adverb + verb are discussed. Finally, in example 4, an infinitival lexical verb co- occurs with two negative adverbs.
4.3.4.1
Example 1
(50) Pierre ne boit plus. P. ne drinks plus
‘P. no longer drinks.’
In this example, the clause contains a finite intransitive verb, boit ‘drinks’, which, in line with (49a), raises to AgrSE. The pre-verbal particle ne will move along with the finite verb to AgrSE. Op raises to SpecNegP to mark sentential negation. Depending on whether or not plus follows Op into SpecNegP, the negative adverb will either remain in situ, VP-adjoined, as in (52), or occupy SpecNegP, as in (51). In either case, the adverb is in post-verbal position.
AgrSN NegP Spec TP MoodP VP
(51) [Pierre [ ne boit [ [ Op plus ] [ t [ [ . . . ]]]]]]
AgrSN NegP Spec TP MoodP VP
4.3.4.2 Example 2
(53) . . . afin de ne jamais être sans argent in-order of nejamais be without money ‘ . . . in order never to be without money’
Here, an infinitival clause containing an auxiliary is introduced by a complex complementiser afin de ‘in order to’, whose structure will not be investigated here. Following (49bN), I assume that the verb moves at least as far as M oodE. Given its pre-verbal position, I assume that jamais occupies SpecNegP, that is, that it has raised with O p to SpecN egP (as in (48)), and that the verb has not raised above TE.
NegP Spec NegN TP/MoodP VP VP
(54) . . . ne [ [ Op jamais ][ [ être [ t [ sans argent ]]]]]
4.3.4.3
Example 3
(55) . . . faire preuve de ne vouloir guère que cela soit le cas do proof of ne want guère that that be-S U B J the case ‘ . . . prove that PRO hardly wants that to be the case’
In contrast to example 2, which contains a (nonmodal) auxiliary, the infinitival clause in example 3 contains the modal verb vouloir ‘to want’. Here, the nega- tive adverb follows the verb, yet precedes the finite CP complement of the verb. Given the nature of the complement of the modal, that is, a finite CP, and the position of the negative adverb, it cannot be claimed that the negative is associa- ted with the CP. (See footnote 8.) I conclude, then, that the “negative” is left- VP-adjoined and that the modal has raised either to M oodE or to TE, as in (56). Sentential negation is marked and ne is licensed since Op has raised to Spec- NegP.
AgrSN NegP TP/MoodP VP VP VP CP
(56) [ ne [ Op [ vouloir [ t [ guère [ [ . . . ]]]]]]]
4.3.4.4
Example 4
(57) Dis-lui de ne plus jamais venir. say- him of neplusjamais come ‘Tell him/her never to come again.’
In the infinitival clause in example 4, which is the complement of the imperative, the verb is preceded by two negative adverbs, as in (5a!c). However, although I have discussed the possibility of negative adverb concatenation, I have not yet proposed a syntactic analysis of this phenomenon. Given the approach to the examples discussed in section 4.3.3, it seems sensible to assume that multiple negative adverbs are successively adjoined to VP, as in (58), and can both subsequently parasitically raise with O p into SpecNegP, as has presumably hap- pened in (57), given their pre-verbal position.
VP VP VP VP
(58) . . . [ Op [ plus [ jamais [ . . . ]]]]
Recall that it was observed that these adverbs are not polarity-reversing ele- ments, that is, not inherently specified [+N EG]. In the structure proposed in (46), which, it was suggested, underlies the use of a single negative adverb, the struc- ture receives its negative interpretation by virtue of the presence of Op. W hat is characteristic, of course, about the interpretation of the structures in (5a!c) and example 4 here is that the apparent negativity of one adverb does not cancel out that of another. (Recall also the discussion in section 4.2.1 and the informal cha- racterization in (10)!(13) of multiple “negatives” in French.) I interpret this fact as suggesting that, in structures containing two or more adverbs, there is only one Op, producing a single instance of negation, as in (58). Given that the rela- tionship between Op and the lexical negative adverb is unselective binding, the ability of two adverbs to “share” a single operator becomes clear. O p can in principle bind any number of suitable items; in this example, it binds two nega- tive adverbs. The surface structure in (57) is a result of short or medium Verb M ovement (to M oodE/TE) and movement of both Op and the negative adverbs to SpecNegP, exactly as in previous examples.
The question then arises as to whether it is possible for just one of the two negative adverbs to follow Op into SpecNegP. T he example in (59) suggests that this is not ruled out by the grammar.
(59) Elle était contente de ne plus avoir jamais à faire l’ amour avec son she was happy of ne plus have-IN Fjamais to do the love with her
mari. husband
‘She was glad she didn’t ever have to make love to her husband again.’ Here, while plus has raised with Op to SpecNegP, jamais can remain in situ, as shown by their position with respect to the infinitive. (Of course, it is also possible for jamais to raise with plus to give the order [ne plus jamais avoir].)