The Negation Markers in Modern Inner Mongolian
Lina Bao, Megumi Hasebe, and Hideki Maki
Osaka University, Yokohama National University, and Gifu University
1. Introduction
This paper investigates the properties of the negation markers in modern Inner
Mongolian (Mongolian, hereafter), and points out that there are two types of languages in theworld in marking the scope of negation: (i) in languages like Mongolian, the type of thenegation marker determines the scope relation between negation and a quantifier, not the LF
position of the quantifier or the negation marker, and (ii) in languages like Japanese, the LF
position of the quantifier seems to determine the scope relation between negation and aquantifier, not the type of the negation marker, as there seems to exist only one negation
marker in Japanese, for example. If this is correct, LF movement of quantifiers is totallyirrelevant to quantifier interactions in Mongolian. It is further argued that there is another casein Mongolian where the LF positions of quantifiers are irrelevant to scope interactions (pairlist readings) between an existential quantifier and a universal quantifier. In this case again, aparticular element plays a crucial role rather than the quantifiers themselves.
2. Data
Mongolian has two distinct elements for negation: ügei ‘not’ and biši ‘not.’ The former
is used for total negation, and the latter for partial negation. Consider the examples in (1)-(2).
(1)

a.

b.

(2)

a.

b.

Öcügedür Ulaɣan-ø jübken miqa-ø ide-gsenügei.
yesterday Ulagan-Nom only meat-Acc eat-past.Adn not‘Yesterday, Ulagan did not eat only meat.’
Total negation (only meat > not)Öcügedür Ulaɣan-ø jübken miqa-ø ide-gsenbiši.
yesterday Ulagan-Nom only meat-Acc eat-past.Adn not‘Yesterday, Ulagan did not eat only meat.’
Partial negation (not > only meat)Öcügedür jübken Ulaɣan-ø
miqa-ø ide-gsenügei.
yesterday only Ulagan-Nom meat-Acc eat-past.Adn not‘Yesterday, only Ulagan did not eat meat.’
Total negation (only Ulagan > not)Öcügedür jübken Ulaɣan-ø
miqa-ø ide-gsen
biši.
yesterday only Ulagan-Nom meat-Acc eat-past.Adn not‘Yesterday, only Ulagan did not eat meat.’
Partial negation (not > only Ulagan)

In (1), the quantifier with jübken ‘only’ jübken miqa-ø ‘only meat-Acc’ is in the object
position, and in (2), the quantifier with jübken ‘only’ jübken Ulaɣan-ø ‘only Ulagan’ is in thesubject position. In the a-examples in (1)-(2), the negation marker is ügei ‘not,’ and in the bexamples in (1)-(2), it is biši ‘not.’ The positions of the object and the subject are identical in
the a- and the b-examples, so are the positions of the negation markers (at the right peripheryof the sentences), yet, the quantifier with jübken ‘only’ takes scope over negation in the aexamples, and negation takes scope over the quantifier with jübken ‘only’ in the b-examples.
1

If this is correct, LF movement of quantifiers is totally irrelevant to quantifier interactions inMongolian.
Note here that Japanese, for instance, has only one type of negation marker nai ‘not,’and only has the interpretations in the a-examples in (1)-(2), where the quantifiers with ‘only’
take scope over negation, which seems to indicate that the quantifiers should raise to theposition higher than the negation marker at LF in Japanese.
3. An Extension
Interestingly enough, there is another case in Mongolian where the LF positions ofquantifiers are irrelevant to scope interactions. Mongolian has the reflexive pronoun yen,which plays a crucial role in the pair-list reading between an existential quantifier (EQ) and auniversal quantifier (UQ). Consider the examples in (3).
(3)

a.
b.
c.

Tere rali du, yamar nige kümün-ø kümün bükün-i qara-jai.
(*pair list)that rally at someone-Nom
everyone-Acc see-past.CON‘Someone saw everyone at the rally.’
Tere rali du, yamar nige kümün-ø kümün bükün-yen qara-jai.
(OKpair list)that rally at someone-Nomeveryone-RPsee-past.CON
Tere rali du, kümün bükün-i yamar nige kümün-ø t qara-jai.
(*pair list)that rally at everyone-Acc someone-Nomsee-past.CON

In (3a), the EQ yamar nige kümün ‘someone’ c-commands the UQ kümün bükün ‘everyone.’
The pair list reading of the UQ is impossible in (1a), where the UQ is followed by theaccusative case marker i, but is possible in (3b), where the UQ is followed by the reflexive
pronoun yen. The pair list reading of the UQ is also impossible in (1c), where the UQ is
moved across the EQ by scrambling, and the UQ c-commands the EQ at S-Structure. Basedon these and other data, we argue that the reflexive pronoun in Mongolian moves to theclosest universal quantifier at LF, and functions as a distributor of the universal quantifier, notthe universal quantifier itself. Therefore, c-command is irrelevant to scope determination atthe “S-Structure” representation in Mongolian. Also, LF movement of quantifiers is irrelevant
to quantifier interactions in Mongolian.
Note here that Japanese, for instance, does not have a reflexive pronoun that
corresponds to the reflexive pronoun yen in Mongolian, and has the pair-list reading only inthe structure in (3c), where the UQ c-commands the EQ at S-Structure (and at LF).

2