FREESTANDING NEGATIVE CONCORD ITEMS IN RUSSIAN*
Natalia V. Fitzgibbons
University of Connecticut

1.

Introduction

This paper explores Russian negative concord within a Minimalist syntax framework(Chomsky 1995, 1999, Bošković 2005, 2007). To informally introduce the target data, for asentence that contains two items carrying negative morphology, two readings may in principle
be possible: negative concord and double negation. On the negative concord reading of anegative sentence with two lexical items carrying negative morphology, only sentential
negation carries negative meaning. This is illustrated by the Russian sentence (1), where outof two lexical items with negative morphology, ne and ničego, only ne, which is sentential
negation, carries negative meaning. The word ničego has negative morphology, n-, but it does
not carry negative meaning. It is an n-word, or a negative concord item.
On the double negation reading, the two items carrying negative morphology both havenegative meaning and for this reason cancel each other out, leading to an affirmativeinterpretation. This situation is illustrated in (2). Sentence (2) negates the sentence in (1) withthe help of the negative noun nepravda (‘not-truth’). Nepravda is not an n-word, and thenegative morphology it carries, ne-, gives it the power to negate its complement clause. This
complement clause contains sentential negation ne, and ne and nepravda cancel each otherout, leading to an affirmative interpretation.
(1)

Ivan neIvan notznaet ničego.
knows n-what‘Ivan does not know anything.’(2)

Nepravda, čto Ivan ne znaet ničego.
Not-truth that Ivan not knows n-what.
‘It is not the case that Ivan knows nothing.’ (i.e., Ivan knows something.)

This paper discusses two cases of Russian negative concord which I refer to as the corecase and the extraordinary case. In the core case, sentential negation is required to license nwords, as shown in (3). Examples in (3) are grouped into minimal pairs that differ only in thepresence or absence of sentential negation ne. In the grammatical cases, the n-words occur in*

I am indebted to Željko Bošković, Jonathan Bobaljik, Jon Gajewski and Susi Wurmbrand for help
and inspiration throughout this project, and to Oksana Tarasenkova, Nina Radkevich and Viktor
Litvinov for help with judgments. Mistakes are mine.
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2, 51–63© 2008 Natalia V. Fitzgibbons

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

sentences that also contain sentential negation. In the ungrammatical cases, sentential
negation is absent. This holds equally for n-word subjects (3a, a’), adjuncts (3b, b’), andobjects (3c, c’).
(3)a.

Nikto ne xotel
uxodit’.
N-who not wanted to-leave‘Nobody wanted to leave.’a’. * Nikto xotel
uxodit’.
N-who wanted to-leave‘Nobody wanted to leave.’b.

Muzyka Betxovena
nikogda/nigde ne ustareet.
Music Beethoven.Gen n-when/n-where not become old-fashioned‘Beethoven’s music will (never) become old-fashioned (nowhere).’b’. *Muzyka Betxovena
nikogda/nigde ustareet.
Music Beethoven.Gen n-when/n-where become old-fashioned‘Beethoven’s music will (never) become old-fashioned (nowhere).’c.

Ja nikogo
I n-whonenotvidel.
saw‘I didn’t see anybody.’c’. * Ja nikogo videl.
I n-who saw‘I didn’t see anybody.’
The core case of Russian negative concord has been given a syntactic description in(Brown 1999). Brown argues that n-words carry an uninterpretable negative feature uFNEG,
and the sentential negation carries an interpretable negative feature iFNEG. Sentential negation
heads its own functional projection that I will refer to as Pol(arity) P(hrase)1. N-words
undergo movement to the specifer of PolP to have their uFNEG checked (4).
(4)

PolP
nikogo[uFNEG]

Pol’
Pol
ne
[iFNEG]

1…
(based on Brown 1999)

I follow here the terminology of Progovac (2005a, b).

-52-

Freestanding Negative Concord Items in Russian (N.V. Fitzgibbons)

Besides the core case of negative concord in Russian that Brown (1999) successfully captures,
there exists what I call the ‘extraordinary’ case. In these sentences, sentential negation isabsent, the n-words are apparently freestanding, but the sentences are neverthelessgrammatical, as in (5):(5)

a.

Kto byl ničem, tot
stanetvsem.
Who was n-what, that-person will-become everything‘Those who were nothing will become everything.’b.

Ja sčitaju
tvoego brata
nikem.
I consider yourbrother n-who.INSTR‘I consider your brother a nobody.’c.

Ty isčez
v
nikuda.
You disappeared into n-where‘You disappeared into nowhere.’

The following question arises with respect to (5): is the usage of n-words exemplified in(5) limited to set expressions, or are the n-words in (5) different lexical items from those in(3), or is there a syntactic explanation for (5), perhaps along the lines of (4)? In this paper, I
suggest a syntactic explanation of (5). The reason for this choice is the following. After acareful analysis of Russian freestanding n-words (Fitzgibbons 2007), I have come to theconclusion that the usage exemplified in (5) is restricted to certain environments, whichsuggests that the phenomenon is syntactic. My empirical generalization is the following:(6)

GENERALIZATION
Freestanding n-words are possible in two environments in Russian: small clausepredicates and complements of prepositions.

My goals in this paper are to account for the generalization in (6) and provide a theory ofn-word licensing in Russian that accounts for both licensed and freestanding n-words. The
paper is organized as follows. Section 1 discusses two kinds of negation in Russian. Section 2
looks into meanings of freestanding n-words under negation and concludes that Russian has
two negative heads: sentential negation head ne (SN) and the phonologically null negative
head ∅NEG. In the two sections that follow, I show what the ∅NEG head does, and how. To thisend, Section 3 discusses some aspects of the structure of small clauses, and Section 4
discusses some aspects of the structure of PPs. In Section 5, I present my theory of n-wordlicensing in Russian based on Bošković (2005, 2007). The final section is the conclusion.
2.

Two Kinds of Negation in Russian

Russian has two kinds of negation, sentential negation and constituent negation. Both are
expressed by the word ne, but differ in scope in the following way.

-53-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

When negation is sentential, the predicate is negated and the sentence as a whole isnegative. This is the case in sentence (7) which says, informally, that there was no buying
situation such that Ivan was the agent of it and a Honda – the thing bought:
(7)

Ivan
ne kupil
Xondu.
Ivan.NOM not bought Honda.ACC‘Ivan has not bought a Honda.’

Constituent negation differs from sentential negation in that a constituent that is not thepredicate is negated. The sentence as a whole is affirmative. For example, (8a) says that there
was a buying situation such that Ivan was the agent and the thing bought was not a Honda but
a Toyota. (8b) says that there was a buying situation such that the thing bought was a Toyota,
but the agent was not Ivan, but Pavel. Finally, (8c) says that there was a situation in whichIvan, the agent, acquired a Toyota, but it was not a buying situation, it was a card gamesituation.
(8)

a.

Ivan
Ivan.NOM

kupil nebought not

Xondu,aHonda.ACC but

Tojotu.
Toyota.ACC‘Ivan bought a Toyota, not a Honda.’
b.

Ne
Not

Ivan
Ivan.NOM

kupil
Xondu,a Pavel.
bought Honda.ACC, but Pavel.NOM‘Not Ivan but Pavel bought a Honda.’c.

Ivan
ne kupil Tojotu,
a vyigral v karty.
Ivan.NOM not bought Toyota.ACC, but won in cards‘Ivan did not buy the Toyota, he won it playing cards.’

Only sentential negation licenses negative concord items, as shown in (9). (9a) contains
an n-word and a clausemate sentential negation and is grammatical. (9b-d) contain constituent
negation and n-words, and are not grammatical. 2(9) a.

Ivan
ne kupil ničego.
Ivan.NOM not bought n-what.GEN‘Ivan has not bought anything.’

2

The question arises why this difference should exist – after all, the same word, ne, is used for bothsentential and constituent negation. I would like to tentatively suggest that, whereas sentential
negation is a head, constituent negation is a maximal projection of this head in an adjoined position,
following Zanuttini (1997). This would explain why constituent negation does not license n-words. Nwords move to Spec, PolP to have their uninterpretable negative feature checked. Nevertheless, to thebest of my knowledge, items do not move into adjuncts for feature checking. I am grateful to Željko
Bošković (p.c.) for this suggestion.

-54-

Freestanding Negative Concord Items in Russian (N.V. Fitzgibbons)

b.

*Ivan
kupil ne ničto/ ničego,a Tojotu.
Ivan.NOM bought not n-what.ACC/ n-what.GEN but Toyota.ACC‘Ivan bought a Toyota, not nothing.’c.

* Ne Ivan
kupil ničto/ ničego,a Pavel.
Not Ivan.NOM bought n-what.ACC/ n-what.GEN, but Pavel.NOM‘Not Ivan but Pavel bought nothing.’

d.

*Ivan
ne kupil ničto/ ničego,a vyigral v karty.
Ivan.NOM not bought n-what.ACC/ n-what.GEN, but won in cards‘Ivan did not buy nothing, he won it playing cards.’

3.

Meanings of Freestanding N-Words under Negation

In Russian, there exists an important contrast between freestanding n-words and thoselicensed by sentential negation. N-words licensed by sentential negation allow only thenegative concord reading (10). By contrast, freestanding n-words can lead to double negation
readings if another negative element is present in the sentence (11).
(10) Nikto ne xotel
uxodit’.
N-who not wanted to-leave√ NC: ‘Nobody wanted to leave.’* DN: ‘Somebody wanted to leave.’(11) a.

Vanja sčital
Iru nikem.
Vanja considered Ira n-who‘Vanja considered Ira a nobody.’b.

Vanja ne sčital
Iru
nikem.
Vanja not considered Ira.ACC n-who.INSTR
DN: ‘Vanja did not consider Ira a nobody.’ (he considered her a worthy person)
NC: ‘Vanja did not consider Ira anybody.’ (i.e. had no opinion of her)

How can we explain the possibility of the double negation reading in (11b)? The only
sentence with a double negation reading we have seen so far is (2). In it, there were two items
capable of negating a sentence, and they cancelled each other out. This is, in fact the only way
a double negation meaning can arise. (11b) has a double negation reading as an option. I
conclude that there is another, phonologically null, negative element present in (11b) on the
double negation reading - ∅NEG. ∅NEG licenses the n-word on the DN reading of (11b) and,combining with ne, leads to the double negation reading. In the following two sections, I-55-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

discuss some aspects of the structure of small clauses and PPs and the place of ∅NEG in thisstructure.
4.

Structure of Small Clauses

The small clauses relevant for this paper are ones that have NP and AP predicates. Whatis their structure? Baker (2003) argues that, crosslinguistically, Vs take subjects directly, Ns
and As do not. Nevertheless, Ns and As in all languages can form predicates with the help of
the functional category Pred(ication), which also received a detailed discussion in Bowers(2001, 1993). Semantically, the Pred operator maps individuals to propositional functions(Chierchia 1985).
A negated small clause, then, contains at least two functional projections, PredP and
PolP, as shown in (12a). (12b) is the structure I propose for (11b) on the negative concord
reading, (12c) is the structure I propose for (11b) on the double negation reading. The
difference between (12b) and (12c) is in the presence or absence of PolP in the small clause.
When the small clause has no PolP in it, the n-word that constitutes its predicate raises all theway to the specifier of the matrix PolP headed by ne to have its uFNEG checked. The resulting
reading is negative concord (12b). When a small clause has a PolP, it is headed by ∅NEG, andthe n-word moves to the specifier of this PolP. A lower copy of the n-word is pronounced inboth (12b) and (12c). 3(12) a.

[PolP ∅NEG [PredP NP [Pred’ ∅Pred [NP/AP ...]]]]

3

What happens if the n-word is the subject of a small clause, not the predicate? Empirically, asentence like that is not grammatical:(i)* Ja sčitaju nikogo idiotom.
I consider n-who idiot‘I do not consider anyone an idiot.’

I suggest that the n-word in this case undergoes improper movement. First, it moves to Spec,
PolP to have its uninterpretable negative feature checked. This movement is A’-movement. Next, it
moves to a position within the matrix VP for Case, and this is an A-movement (iia). This situation
does not arise in tensed clauses because in them, PolP dominates TP, so the A-movement for Case
happens before A’-movement to Spec, PolP (iib, b’).
(ii) a. * Ja sčitaju [vP nikogoi [VP… [PolP ti ∅NEG [PredP ti [Pred’ … idiotom]]]].
A-movement
A’-movementb.

Nikto ne uexal.
n-who not left
‘No one has left.’b’. [PolP niktoi ne[TP ti … [vP ti … uexal]]
A’-movement
A-movement-56-

Freestanding Negative Concord Items in Russian (N.V. Fitzgibbons)5.

b.

NC: [PolP n-word ne V NPi [PredP ti [∅Pred [NP/AP n-word]]]]c.

DN: [PolP ne V NPi [PolP n-word ∅ NEG [PredP ti[∅Pred [NP/AP n-word]]]]Structure of PPs and the Necessity of a Negative Head in Some PPs

Small clauses are one environment where freestanding n-words occur in Russian, theother one is PPs. In the previous section I suggested that the freestanding n-words in small
clauses are in fact licensed by the phonetically null negative head ∅NEG. I argued for the
possibility of PolP headed by ∅NEG in small clauses on the basis of the ambiguity observed in(11b). Is there similar evidence showing that freestanding n-words within PPs also licensed by∅NEG? Indeed, ambiguities similar to that found for small clauses can also be observed in PPs,
although they are rare. One example of the relevant ambiguity is given in (13). The sentencein (13a) can be used in two different situations, and these two uses correspond to the double
negation and the negative concord reading:(13) a.

Dokladčik obraščaetsja ni k komu.
Speakeraddresses
n to who.DAT‘The speaker directs his talk to nobody (i.e. does not look at the audience).’b.

Dokladčik ne
Speakernotobraščaetsja ni k komu.
addresses
n to who.DAT

DN: ‘The speaker does not direct his talk to nobody.’ (The thing is, he is almost
blind and is not sure where the audience is.)c.

Dokladčik ne
Speakernotobraščaetsja ni k komu.
addresses
n to who.DAT

NC: ‘The speaker does not address anybody.’ (He just likes to listen to his own
voice.)The examples in (13) indicate that in fact PPs have the option of having a PolP headed by∅NEG in their functional layer. What is the functional layer of a PP like and where can PolP fit
in it? Bošković (2004) argues that extended PPs have a clause-like structure. In fact, they are
CP-like with respect to locality. I will thus refer to the topmost functional projection in an
extended PP as a CP/PP. Based on Baker (2003) and Bowers (2001, 1993), I will assume thatthe minimal requirement for clausal status for a non-verbal phrase is PredP. A PredP
dominates a PP, then, within the CP/PP, like in the case of nominal predicates a PredP
dominates an NP or AP. Last but not least, Progovac (2005a, b) argues that adjunct PPs ofmanner and reason can have their own PolP. Based on the data in Fitzgibbons (2007), I extend
Progovac’s insight to Russian data and say that any PP in Russian can have its own PolP. A
possible structure of extended negated PPs in general is then as in (14a). (14b) is the structureof (13c), the negative concord reading of a CP/PP containing an n-word. The CP/PP has no-57-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

PolP of its own, and the n-word contained in it will have to move to the edge of the CP/PP toaccess the matrix negation. A lower copy of the n-word will be pronounced.4 (14c) is the
structure of (13b), the double negation reading. In this case, the CP/PP contains a PolP headedby ∅NEG, which licenses the n-word. As the negative feature of ∅NEG is interpretable, ∅NEG
and sentential negation cancel each other out.
(14) a.

6.

[CP/PP [PolP ∅NEG [PredP ∅Pred [PP ...]]]]b.

NC: [ … ne V [CP/PP ni [C’ [PredP ∅Pred [PP k komu]]]]]c.

DN: [ … ne V [CP/PP [C’ [PolP ni [Pol’ ∅ NEG [PredP ∅Pred [PP k komu]]]]]A Syntactic Theory of N-Word Licensing in Russian

We have seen some similarities between small clauses and CP/PPs that set them apartfrom clauses with verbal predication. Small clauses and CP/PPs that contain n-words can leadto double negation readings, whereas clauses with verbal predication never do. I havesuggested that this difference is due to the ∅NEG head that may be present in small clauses and
CP/PPs. In this section, I will propose a theory of n-word licensing in Russian based on
Bošković (2005, 2007). My theory will include an account of the distribution of ne and ∅NEG,
a description of the feature make-up of n-words, ne and ∅NEG, and concrete proposals about
the checking relations between n-words and their licensers.
6.1. Co-occurrence Restrictions of the Sentential Negation Head ne and the ∅ NEG Head
It can be easily seen that the ∅NEG head cannot negate a sentence. The only way to say(15) in Russian is using the sentential negation ne, as in (15a). ∅NEG cannot serve this purpose(15b).
(15)

Ivan kissed no-one.
a.

Ivan ne poceloval nikogo.
Ivan not kissed
n-who

b.

*Ivan ∅NEG poceloval nikogo.
Ivan not kissed
n-who

Zanuttini (1996) shows on the material of Italian dialects that sentential negation, when it
is a head, co-occurs with TP. Based on Baker (2003), I suggest that CP/PPs do not have a TP.
Small clauses have been argued by a number of authors not to have Tense either (Chomsky
1981, Bošković 1997, Guéron and Hoekstra 1995, Hoekstra 2004, among others). CP/PPs and4

For a discussion of pronunciation of lower copies in Serbo-Croatian, a language closely related to
Russian, see for example, Stjepanović (2003).

-58-

Freestanding Negative Concord Items in Russian (N.V. Fitzgibbons)small clauses are the only clause types in Russian have no Tense5. Then, the generalization in(6) above is perfectly in accord with Zanuttini’s conclusion: ne co-occurs with TP, and the∅NEG head is the elsewhere case. ∅NEG cannot negate a sentence because it does not co-occur
with TP. Sentential negation ne cannot occur in small clauses and PPs because it co-occurs
with Tense, and small clauses and CP/PPs lack it. (16) illustrates the partial clause structures I
propose for verbal predication (16a), sentences containing small clauses (16b), and sentences
containing CP/PP complements or adjuncts (16c).
(16) a.

[PolP ne [TP NP [VP … ]]]b.

[TP NP [T’ T [VP V NPi [PolP ∅NEG [PredP ti [NP/AP …]]]]]]c.

[TP NP [T’ T [VP V (…) [CP/PP[PolP ∅NEG [PredP [PP…]]]]]]]

6.2. Feature Make-Up of ∅ NEG and Sentential Negation ne
It is very easy to observe another difference between sentential negation ne and ∅NEG: ne
can negate a sentence without an n-word in it (17a), whereas ∅NEG cannot occur in a clausewith no n-word. This is illustrated in (17b) for CP/PPs.
(17) a.

Ivan did not sleep.
Ivan neIvan notspal .
slept[TP NPi [PolP ne [VP ti spal]]]]]b.

Ivan went [PP/CP to Siberia].

i.

Ivan poexal v Sibir’.
[CP/PP [PredP ∅Pred [PP v Sibir’]]]ii. * Ivan poexal ∅NEG v Sibir’‘Ivan went not to Siberia.’* [CP/PP[PolP ∅NEG [PredP ∅Pred [PP v Sibir’]]]]].
The conclusion is that the feature make-up of ne and ∅NEG must be different: both canlicense n-words, but ∅NEG is also itself dependent on n-words, whereas ne is not. In (18a), I

5

Russian sentential negation head ne appears in all clauses with a verbal predicate, including
infinitives and subjunctives. On the theory I am advocating here, this means that Russian infinitives
and subjunctives have Tense. That subjunctives and imperatives have Tense has been argued by
Khomitsevich (2007) and Jensen (2003), respectively. As for infinitives, Stowell (1982) and Martin(2001) propose that control infinitives are specified for Tense, but ECM infinitives are not. Based on
Brecht (1974), Lasnik (1998) shows that Russian lacks ECM infinitives. Russian infinitives, then,have Tense.

-59-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

provide a description of the features of n-words for which there exists empirical evidence.6 I
will be treating the two interpretable features that Russian n-words have, iFIND(efinite) andiFFOC(us) as one feature that I will term iFN(egative)C(oncord) (18b). (18c, d) list the relevant featuresthat ne and ∅NEG must have.
(18) a.

ni - kto
ni- whonuFNEGb.
c.
d.

-iiFFOC(us)n-word:∅NEG:
SN ne:iFIND(efinite)

iFNC, uFNEG
uFNC, iFNEG
iFNEG

We need a theory that incorporates Brown’s (1999) checking relation between thesentential negation ne and n-words, on the one hand, and provides for the mutual dependenceof n-words and ∅NEG, on the other hand. The probe-goal framework of Chomsky (1999) will
not work because in it, sentential negation ne will carry uFNEG and be the probe, contrary tofacts (15a). N-words will be the goal in the probe-goal framework, carrying iFNEG, again
contrary to facts (3a’–c’). In the following section, I present an alternative theory that captures
the data correctly.
6.3. An Alternative Theory
Brown’s (1999) movement analysis of negative concord licensing in Russian captures
the core case of Russian negative concord very well and we want to preserve it. It is based on
the important insight that the uninterpretable negative feature should be placed on the n-word,
not on the negative head.
A syntactic theory that allows to formulate an account of Russian negative concord that
captures both the core case and the extraordinary case while preserving the main ideas ofBrown’s (1999) account has been worked out in Bošković (2005, 2007). In this theory, theuninterpretable feature is placed on the moving element. An uninterpretable feature has tofunction as a probe (Epstein and Seely 2000). The probe needs to c-command a matching goal
to check its uninterpretable features. If the probe merges in a position from which it ccommands the goal, no movement is required and uninterpretable features of the probe arechecked in situ by pure Agree. If the probe merges in a position from which it does not ccommand the goal, it undergoes successive-cyclic movement until it finds itself in a position
from which it c-commands the goal.

6

See Haspelmath (1997) for the analysis of Russian n-words into the negation n-, focus particle -i-,and a bare interrogative that can also be used as an indefinite.

-60-

Freestanding Negative Concord Items in Russian (N.V. Fitzgibbons)

To see how Bošković’s (2005, 2007) theory captures the checking relation between
Russian n-words and negative heads, we need to consider two situations: <∅NEG, n-word>and <sentential negation ne, n-word>. The diagrams in (19) illustrate how the checking
relation works between ∅NEG and an n-word in a small clause. As shown in (18a, b, c), both
∅NEG and the n-word function as probes, and, moreover, each of them is an appropriate goal
for the other. (19a) shows how the uFNEG of an n-word gets checked. The n-word merges in aposition below its goal, ∅NEG, and undergoes successive-cyclic movement until it finds itself
in Spec, PolP, where it c-commands the goal and gets its uFNEG checked. (19b) shows how theuFNC of ∅NEG is checked. ∅NEG merges in a position from which it c-commands its goal, then-word. Hence ∅NEG does not need to move, and its uFNC gets checked in situ by pure Agree.
(19)

a.

PolP
n-wordPol’
iFNC
uFNEG Pol
PredP
∅ NEG
uFNC
tNP
Pred’
iFNEG
Pred
n-word
iFNC
uFNEG

b.

PolP
n-wordPol’
iFNC
uFNEG Pol
PredP
∅ NEG
uFNC tNP
Pred
iFNEG
Pred
n-wordiFNCuFNEG

Let us now consider the pair <sentential negation ne, n-word> to make sure Brown’s(1999) analysis is not lost. (20) is a partial derivation of a negated clause. The n-word merges
in the position of complement of V. Since it carries a uFNEG, it functions as a probe. It
undergoes successive-cyclic movement to Spec, PolP, where it gets its uFNEG checked. The
sentential negation head ne has no uninterpretable features and hence does not function as aprobe, so the only agreement that takes place is between the uFNEG of the moved n-word andthe iFNEG of sentential negation. This is completely in accordance with Brown’s (1999)
account.

-61-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

(20)

AgrP
NPi

Agr
Agr

PolP
NPj
Pol’
iFNC
uFNEG PolTP
neiFNEG tNPi

T’

T

VP
V’
V

7.

tNPj

Conclusion

I have established a novel empirical generalization that freestanding n-words are possible
in Russian in small clause predicates and as complements of Ps. I have argued, based on theavailability of double negation readings of freestanding n-words when sentential negation ispresent, that there are two negative heads in Russian, sentential negation ne and ∅NEG.
Freestanding n-words are in fact licensed by ∅NEG. Following Zanuttini (1996), I have argued
that the sentential negation head ne co-occurs with TP, whereas the other negative head,∅NEG, is the elsewhere case. I have also made specific suggestions about checking relations
between ∅NEG and n-words.

References
Baker, M. (2003) Lexical Categories. Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives. Cambridge University Press.
Bošković, Ž. (1997) The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: an Economy Approach. MIT Press.
Bošković, Ž. (2004) “Object Shift and the Clause/PP Parallelism Hypothesis.” In B. Schmeiser,
V.Chand, A.Kelleher, eds., WCCFL 23 Proceedings, Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA.,
101–104.
Bošković, Ž. (2005) “On the Locality of Move and Agree: Eliminating the Activation Condition,
Generalized EPP, Inverse Case Filter, and the Phase Impenetrability Condition,” UCONN
Occasional Papers in Linguistics 3.
Bošković, Ž. (2007) “On the Locality and Motivation of Move and Agree: An Even More Minimal
Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry 38: 589–644.
Bowers, J. (1993) “The Syntax of Predication,” Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591–656.
Bowers, J. (2001) “Predication.” In M. Baltin and Ch. Collins, eds., The Handbook of Contemporary
Syntactic Theory, Blackwell, Oxford, 299–333.

-62-

Freestanding Negative Concord Items in Russian (N.V. Fitzgibbons)

Brecht, R. (1974) “Tense and Infinitive Complements in Russian, Latin and English.” In Brecht, R.
and C. Chvany, eds., Slavic Transformational Syntax, University of Michigan, 193–218.
Brown, S. (1999) The Syntax of Russian Negation. A Minimalist Approach, CSLI Publications,
Stanford.
Chierchia, G. (1985) “Formal Semantics and the Grammar of Predication,” Linguistic Inquiry 16,
417–444.
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1999) “Derivation by Phase. ” MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18. MITWPL,
Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Epstein, S., and T. D. Seely. (2006) Derivations in Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Fitzgibbons, N. (2007). “A Close-Up of Russian N-words,” Ms., University of Connecticut.
Guéron, J., and T. Hoekstra. (1995) “The Temporal Interpretation of Predication.” In Small Clauses.
Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 28, Academic Press, New York, 77 – 107.
Haspelmath, M. (1997) Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford University Press.
Hoekstra, T. (2004) Arguments and Structure. Studies on the Architecture of the Sentence. Sybesma,R., et. al., eds. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jensen, B. (2003) Imperatives in English and Scandinavian, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oxford.
Khomitsevich, O. (2007) Dependencies across Phases: From Sequence of Tense to Restrictions on
Movement. LOT Dissertation Series 171.
Lasnik, H. (1998) “Exceptional Case marking; Perspectives Old and New.” In Ž. Bošković, S. Franks
and W. Snyder, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, The Connecticut Meeting,Michigan Slavic Publications, Ann Arbor, 187–211.
Martin, R. (2001) “Null Case and the Distribution of PRO,” Linguistic Inquiry 32, 141–166.
Progovac, L. (2005a) “Negative and Positive Feature Checking and the Distribution of Polarity Items.”
In S. Brown and A. Przepiorkowski., eds., Negation in Slavic, Slavica Publishers
Bloomington, IN, 179–217.
Progovac, L. (2005b) A Syntax of Serbian; Clausal Architecture, Slavica Publishers, Bloomington, IN.
Stjepanović, S. (2003) “A Word Order Paradox Resolved by Copy Deletion at PF.” In P. Pica, ed.,
Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2003, 139–177.
Stowell, T. (1982) “The Tense of Infinitives,” Linguistic Inquiry 13, 561–570.
Zanuttini, R. (1996) “On the Relevance of Tense for Sentential Negation.” In A.Belletti and L.Rizzi,
eds., Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax, Oxford University
Press, 181–207.
Zanuttini, R. (1997) Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages,
Oxford University Press.

-63-