Volume 34, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919


This paper aims at describing Q(uantity)-words, i.e. and , from a typological perspective, and presenting typological generalisations based on it. The typological sample provides support for a mass-count and positive-negative dimension in the domain of Q-words. Both dimensions also intersect. Along the negative dimension, it seems that languages fall into two groups: those having an opaque strategy for and those having only an analytic strategy (). Four patterns can be discerned on the basis of the sample, which are each exemplified by means of one language, i.e. English, Dutch, Wolof and Western Armenian. In addition, I make an attempt at developing a nanosyntactic analysis of the data, which aims to show how language variation in the domain of Q-words can be accounted for in terms of varying the size of lexically stored trees ( Starke 2014 ). Finally, I show how one missing type of pattern is underivable on the basis of the analysis proposed.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Baker, Mark & Jim McCloskey
    2007 “On the relationship of typology to theoretical syntax.” Linguistic Typology11: 285–296. doi: 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.023
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2007.023 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baunaz, Lena , Karen De Clercq , Liliane Haegeman & Eric Lander
    eds. to appear. Exploring Nanosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beghelli, Filippo
    1995 “The phrase structure of quantifier scope.” PhD diss., UCLA.
  4. Bobaljik, Jonathan
    2012Universals In Comparative Morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Borer, Hagit
    2005The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brasoveanu, Adrian , Karen De Clercq , Donka Farkas & Floris Roelofsen
    2014 “Question tags and sentential negativity.” Lingua145: 173–193. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.03.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bresnan, Joan
    1973 “Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English.” Linguistic Inquiry4: 275–343.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Caha, Pavel
    2009 “The nanosyntax of case.” PhD diss., University of Tromsø, Tromsø.
  9. Collins, Chris & Paul Postal
    2014Classical neg raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Corver, Norbert
    1997 “Much-support as a last resort.” Linguistic Inquiry28: 119–164.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cowper, Elizabeth & Daniel Currie Hall
    2012 “Aspects of individuation.” Count and Mass across Languages, ed. by Diane Massam , 27–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  12. De Clercq, Karen
    2013 “A unified syntax of negation.” PhD diss., Ghent University, Gent.
  13. 2017 “The nanosyntax of French negation.” Studies on Negation: Syntax, Semantics, and Variation, ed. by Silvio Cruschina , Katharina Hartmann & Eva-Maria Remberger , 49–80. Vienna: Vienna University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. De Clercq, Karen & Guido Vanden Wyngaerd
    2017 “Why affixal negation is syntactic.” Proceedings of WCCFL 34, ed. by Aaron Kaplan , Abby Kaplan , Miranda McCarvel & Edward Rubin , 151–158. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Heim, Irene 2006 “Little.” Proceedings of SALT XVI, ed. by Masayuki Gibson & Jonathan Howell , 35–58. Cornell University.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum
    2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  17. Keenan, Edward L. & Denis Paperno
    eds. 2012Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural language. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑2681‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2681-9 [Google Scholar]
  18. Khanjian, Hrayr
    2012 “Quantification in Western Armenian.” Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language, ed. by Edward Keenan & Denis Paperno , 845–890. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑2681‑9_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2681-9_16 [Google Scholar]
  19. Klima, Edward
    1964 “Negation in English.” The Structure of Language, ed. by Jerry Fodor & Jerrold Katz , 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Neeleman, Ad , Hans van de Koot & Jenny Doetjes
    2006 “Degree expressions.” The Linguistic Review21: 1–66. doi: 10.1515/tlir.2004.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2004.001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Partee, Barbara
    1989 “Many quantifiers.” Proceedings of ESCOL, ed. by Joyce Powers & Kenneth de Jong , vol.5, 383–402. Columbus, OH: Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Quirk, Randolph , Sidney Greenbaum , Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
    1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Rett, Jessica
    2016 “The semantics of many, much, few and little .” Ms. UCLA.
  24. Rijkhoff, Jan , Dik Bakker , Kees Hengeveld & Peter Kahrel
    1993 “A method of language sampling.” Studies in Language17: 169–203. doi: 10.1075/sl.17.1.07rij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17.1.07rij [Google Scholar]
  25. Ritter, Elizabeth
    1992 “Cross-linguistic evidence for number phrase.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics37: 197–218.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Solt, Stephanie
    2015 “Q-adjectives and the semantics of quantity.” Journal of Semantics32(2): 221–273. doi: 10.1093/jos/fft018
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft018 [Google Scholar]
  27. Starke, Michal
    2009 “Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language.” Nordlyd36: 1–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2014 “Towards elegant parameters: Language variation reduces to the size of lexically-stored trees.” Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework, ed. by M. Carme Picallo , 140–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702894.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702894.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  29. . to appear. “Complex left branches, spellout, and prefixes.” Exploring Nanosyntax ed. by Lena Baunaz , Karen De Clercq , Liliane Haegeman & Eric Lander . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Tamba, Khady , Harold Torrence & Malte Zimmerman
    2012 “Wolof quantifiers.” Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language, ed. by Edward Keenan & Denis Paperno , 891–940. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑2681‑9_17
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2681-9_17 [Google Scholar]
  31. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1996Semantics:primes and universals. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): negation; Q-words, typological sample; syntax, nanosyntax
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error