WHEN NI- AND -NIBUD’ ARE LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT: EVIDENCE FROM RUSSIAN NOMINALIZATIONS Текст научной статьи по специальности «Языкознание и литературоведение»

Лингвистика

DOI: 10.31862/2500-2953-2020-1-9-23 A. Gerasimova

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation;

Pushkin State Russian Language Institute, Moscow, 117485, Russian Federation

When ni- and -nibud' are logically equivalent: Evidence from Russian nominalizations

This paper deals with the two sets of polarity sensitive items in Russian: ni- and -nibud' pronouns. Non-specific indefinite -nibud' pronouns (NSIs) are possible only in propositions that do not ensure truth, i.e. non-veridical contexts. Although clause-mate negation creates such a context, NSIs are incompatible with it and are substituted by negative ni- pronouns that are licensed only by negative concord. The incompatibility of NSIs with negation can be resolved in subjunctive sentences and embedded purpose cfoby-clauses, however, the licensing conditions in these cases are not defined. In this paper I introduce another context which licenses both types of pronouns, namely, negated process nominalizations. I determine the licensing conditions for the two types of pronouns in nominalization, and test previous approaches against the new data. In particular, I argue that -nibud' pronouns are licensed in the scope of the nonveridical operator that is introduced in the main clause.

Key words: negative pronouns, non-specific indefinite pronouns, negative polarity items (NPI), nominalization, Russian

Acknowledgments. The study has been supported by RSF, project #18-18-00462 "Communicative-syntactic interface: typology and grammar" at the Pushkin State Russian Language Institute.

FOR CITATION: Gerasimova A. When ni- and -nibud' are logically equivalent: Evidence from Russian nominalizations. Rhema. 2020. № 1. Pp. 9-23.

DOI: 10.31862/2500-2953-2020-1-9-23

© Gerasimova A., 2020

Контент доступен по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License The content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

ISSN 2500-2953 Rhema. Рема. 2020. № 1 _)

DOI: 10.31862/2500-2953-2020-1-9-23

А.А. Герасимова

Московский государственный университет имени М.В. Ломоносова, 119991 г. Москва, Российская Федерация; Государственный институт русского языка имени А.С. Пушкина, 117485 г. Москва, Российская Федерация

Логическая эквивалентность местоимений на нии местоимений на -нибудь: опыт анализа русских номинализаций

Статья посвящена исследованию условий лицензирования отрицательных местоимений и местоимений на -нибудь в русских событийных номинализа-циях. Указанные два класса местоимений находятся в дополнительной дистрибуции: в контексте отрицания обязательна замена местоимения на -нибудь отрицательным местоимением, в то время как отрицательные местоимения невозможны ни в каких других контекстах, кроме как под отрицанием. Тем не менее, в случае предложений с сослагательным наклонением, а также в придаточных цели с союзом чтобы оба класса местоимений оказываются возможны. Чтобы уточнить условия лицензирования в двух названных случаях, в статье представляется еще один контекст, который допускает оба типа местоимений, а именно, отрицательные номинализации. Предлагается анализ, согласно которому во всех названных случаях местоимения на -нибудь лицензируются неве-ридикативным оператором главной клаузы.

Ключевые слова: отрицательные местоимения, местоимения на -нибудь, отрицательно полярные единицы, номинализация, русский язык

Благодарности. Исследование выполнено в рамках проекта РНФ № 18-18-00462 «Коммуникативно-синтаксический интерфейс: типология и грамматика», реализуемого в Государственном институте русского языка имени А.С. Пушкина.

ДЛЯ ЦИТИРОВАНИЯ: Герасимова А.А. Логическая эквивалентность местоимений на ни- и местоимений на -нибудь: опыт анализа русских номинализаций // Рема. Rhema. 2020. № 1. С. 9-23. DOI: 10.31862/2500-2953-2020-1-9-23

1. ni- and -nibud' pronouns in Russian

Polarity sensitive items (PSIs) are elements that are restricted to a set of contexts that have certain truth-conditional properties. In Russian there are traditionally distinguished four main classes of PSIs: negative ni-pronouns, non-specific indefinite -nibud' pronouns, negatively polarized -libo pronouns and free-choice NPIs lyuboi and ugodno [Paducheva, 1985; Haspelmath, 1997].

Two series of polarity sensitive items in Russian are in complementary distribution, namely, ni- and -nibud' pronouns. Negative ni- pronouns belong to strict negative polarity items [Giannakidou, 2011], or n-words [Laka, 1990], as they are licensed only under negative concord, can provide a negative fragment answer and block double-negation readings. According to [Paducheva, 2014], ni- pronouns are licensed in the context of clausemate sentential negation and banned from the scope of constituent negation. The licensing of ni- pronouns in the scope of superordinate negation is subject to structural restrictions (contra [Pereltsvaig, 2004]): as shown by [Gerasimova, 2015], negative pronouns can be licensed in infinitival clauses not bigger than TP.

Non-specific indefinite -nibud' pronouns (NSIs) are licensed only in non-veridical context, which is introduced by operators that do not ensure truth [Paducheva, 1985, 2014; Giannakidou, 2011]. Importantly, clause-mate negation creates an anti-morphic context that belongs to non-veridical contexts. Therefore, one would expect that NSIs are licensed by negation. However, -nibud' pronouns are incompatible with negative concord and are obligatory substituted by negative ni- pronouns (cf. (1)-(2)). This property of Russian NSIs is referred to as the Bagel Problem [Pereltsvaig, 2004]: the anti-morphic context figuratively speaking creates "a bagel hole" with respect to NSIs as they are not licensed in it (see Fig. 1).

(1) Vanya ne priglasil "knikogo / *kogo-nibud' Vanya neg invited nobody(N-woRD) / anyone(Nsi) na festival'

to the festival

'Vanya didn't invite anyone to the festival'

(2) Esli *nikto / if nobody(N-WORD) / pozvoni mne call me 'If anyone comes, call me'

kto-nibud' pridet anyone(Nsi) comes

NSIs

n-words

Fig.1. An illustration for The Bagel Problem

The Bagel Problem, however, can be resolved. [Paducheva, 2018] documents two contexts in Russian in which both NSIs and ni- pronouns are acceptable under negative scope with equivalent interpretation: subjunctive sentences (3) and embedded purpose ctoby-clauses (4)-(5).

(3) Ne naiti sem'i neg find family

[v kotoroi by oknikto / okkto-nibud'

in which subj no one (n-word) / someone (nsi) ne postradal] neg be hurt

'It's almost impossible to find a family, in which no one was hurt'

(4) My shli ostorozhno we were going cautiously

a. [chtoby oknigde ne upast' ] comp nowhere (n-word) neg fall down

b. [chtoby okgde-nibud' ne upast' ] comp anywhere (nsi) neg fall down

'We were going slowly to avoid falling from anywhere'

Paducheva supposes that the substitutability of the two pronouns is not absolute: the two NPIs create logically equivalent, but not synonymous sentences. This lack of synonymity can be seen in (5): while in (5a) a ni-pronoun is used entailing that no one from the known set of people was hurt, in (5b) NSI refers to a particular person, though randomly chosen.

(5) a. On vzyal vinu na sebya, chtoby oknikto ...

he took the blame comp no one (n-word)

12

J

(5) b. On vzyal vinu na sebya, chtoby okkto-nibud' ... he took the blame comp someone (nsi)

ne postradal neg be hurt

'He took the blame so that no one was hurt'

To model the licensing conditions of NSIs in negative concord, Paducheva introduces the notion of non-standard negation. This is negation which appears in the scope of non-veridical operator introduced by conjunction ctoby and by subjunctive mood. NSIs can appear under the scope of nonstandard negation: that is, they are not banned as in case of (standard) negative concord. However, Paducheva states that NSIs are still licensed by the nonveridical operator.

The idea of non-standard negation is quite problematic as this kind of negation is postulated ad hoc only for two contexts and it is not clear how exactly negation receives its specific properties. In this paper I introduce another context which licenses both types of pronouns, namely, negated process nominalizations. The research question is the following: What licensing conditions help to resolve the Bagel problem? To answer this question I determine the licensing conditions for the two types of pronouns in nominalization, and test Paducheva's approach against the new data. In particular, I argue that -nibud' pronouns are licensed in the scope of the nonveridical operator that is introduced in the main clause. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 2 I present a brief overview of negated process nominalizations in Russian. In Section 3 I analyze the licensing conditions for ni- and -nibud' pronouns taking into account how the presence of negation, non-veridicality and specificity of a nominalization can influence acceptability of NSIs. In Section 4 I present the consequences that my analysis has with respect to one more context in which NSIs are licensed. Section 5 concludes.

2. Negated process nominalizations

Russian process nominalizations are nominals derived with the productive suffixes -nij-/-tij- [Shvedova, 1980] that have the argument structure associated with the vP functional layer [Alexiadou, 2001], with AspP being the highest available projection in the structure [Pazel'skaya, Tatevosov, 2008]. [Pazel'skaya, 2006] argues that negation cannot merge in process nominalizations because presenting the absence of a process as another process is semantically obscure. Pazel'skaya presents the possible candidates such as nekormlenie 'NEG-feeding', nepodmetanie 'NEG-brooming',

nepodderzhanie 'NEG-supporting', neraskachivanie 'NEG-swinging', nekhrapenie 'NEG-snoring' and judges them to be unacceptable.

However, negated nominalizations with process interpretation are found in colloquial speech and, in particular, in The General Internet-Corpus of Russian1 [Belikov et al., 2013]. As shown in [Gerasimova, 2019], the GICR reveals more than 30 000 results with over 1000 instances of negated nominalizations. In particular, all the instances of negated nominalizations mentioned as possible but unacceptable candidates in [Pazel'skaya, 2006] are found in colloquial speech together with other stems, e.g.: nenapisanie 'NEG-writing', nesledovanie 'NEG-following', nevladenie 'NEG-mastering', neuspevanie 'NEG-keeping up', e.g. (6).

(6) Yavlyaetsya li nepodderzhanie is whether NEG-supporting blagotvoritel 'noi initsiativy grekhom charity initiative sin 'Whether not supporting a charity initiative is a sin'

The corpus study revealed that negated process nominals possess the same structural properties as affirmative event nominalizations: in particular, they obligatorily take internal arguments (6), and may take aspectual modifiers (7).

(7) a. postoyannoe nevyderzhivanie avtorskikh dlitel'nostei

constant NEG-keeping original (note) values

'the constant not keeping the original note values' b. Ezhednevnoe neumolkanie everyday NEG-going silent

'the everyday not going silent'

According to Pazel'skaya, negation in nominalizations creates the same context as clausal negation. Therefore, we would expect to observe the Bagel Problem: the licensing of ni- pronouns and unacceptability of NSIs in negated nominalizations. However, the GICR study shows that both types of pronouns are available within negated event nominalizations (8), (9).

(8) Prichinoi avarii stalo cause for breakdown became [ne-srabatyvanie ni odnoi sistemy zashchity] NEG-operating no(N-woRD) safety system

lit. 'the failure to operate of any safety system caused the breakdown'

1 The GICR is a corpus of Russian internet texts that contains materials from the largest Russian Internet resources and represents both colloquial and standardized speech in different genres and registers.

(9) kolossal'noe [ne-vladenie kakim-nibud' tekstovym redaktorom] colossal NEG-posessing some(Nsi) text editor

lit. 'colossal not possessing the skills in any text editor'

I argue that negated process nominalizations constitute the same context as in cases observed by Paducheva. The structural position of negation was examined in [Gerasimova, 2019]. The diagnostics show that negation appears high in the syntactic structure, at least above all arguments and possibly even above the nominalizer. In particular, a pilot acceptability study has shown that n-words in nominalization can be licensed distantly from the matrix clause. Consequently, the nominalizer does not serve as a barrier for the strict NPI licensing. This means that n-words in negated nominalizations can be licensed by negation that is located above the nominalizer. Another proposal made by [Gerasimova, 2019] is that all arguments of a nominalization are generated before the [NEG]-feature is introduced and fall under the negative scope. That is, in nominalizations we observe instances of clausal negation which has properties similar to those of negation in subjunctive sentences and embedded purpose ctoby-clauses.

3. Licensing conditions for ni- and -nibud'

So far we have seen that negated process nominalizations provide context which licenses both negative ni- pronouns and non-specific indefinite -nibud' pronouns. While for ni- pronouns the hypothesis is that negation is the licensor, it is less clear what operator could provide the nonveridical scope in nominalization that would license -nibud' pronouns. One possible solution could be that the nominalizer itself contains the covert non-veridical operator, as according to [Weinreich, 1963], nominalization is an assertion suspending device. However, in this case the nominalization would always provide the non-specific interpretation for its arguments, which is not the case.

I propose that nominalizer keeps the stem neutral with respect to quantificational operators. In order to establish the licensing conditions, I suggest systematically examining in which contexts which type of pronouns is licensed taking into account the three parameters. The first parameter is the presence/absence of negation in nominalization, which determines the complementary distribution of the two types of pronouns. The second parameter is the presence/absence of the non-veridical operator. On the one hand, nonveridicality can be introduced in the main clause with sentential aspectual operators such as habitual, generic and iterative: e.g. vsegda 'always' in (10a). In this case aspectual operators allow for the nonspecific interpretation of the nominalization and therefore NSIs may be licensed. On the other hand, nonveridicality can be introduced within

J

the nominalization, e.g. by the overt operator postoyannoe 'constant' (10b), which also creates a plausible context for NSI licensing.

(10) a. podrazhanie kakomu-nibud' masteru

copying some(Nsi) master

vsegda ubivaet individual'nost' always kills individuality 'copying after some master always kills individuality' b. ego postoyannoe podrazhanie kakomu-nibud' masteru his constant copying some(Nsi) master

ubilo v nem individual'nost' killed in him individuality 'hisi constant copying after some master killed individuality in himi'

The final parameter is the specificity of the nominalization. This parameter is the crucial one as specificity of a noun phrase restricts the usage on nonspecific indefinite pronouns (11a). I suppose that specificity is introduced at DP which serves as the referential semantics domain. If the non-veridical operator is within a specific DP, it can license -nibud' pronouns (11b). However, when the noun phrase is specific, the clausal non-veridical operator cannot license NSIs (11c). Therefore, specificity serves as a restrictor for NSI licensing by a clausemate non-veridical scope and can be used as a diagnostic of whether there is non-veridical scope created in nominalization.

(11) a. *ego podarki kakim-nibud' devochkam

his presents some(NSI) girls 'his present to some girls'

b. ego postoyannye podarki kakim-nibud' devochkam his constant presents some(NSI) girls

'his constant presents to some girls'

c. *ego podarki kakim-nibud' devochkam

his presents some(NSI) girl vsegda menya udivlyali always me surprises

'his presents to some girls always surprised me'

The different combinations of the mentioned parameters allow us to establish the licensing conditions for ni- and -nibud' pronouns and define whether there are any interactions between different scopes. Below we provide observations that are based on judgments from 15 native speakers (ages 22-55).

First, we shall examine the factor of specificity. When the nominalization is specific, non-veridical operators from the main clause cannot license NSI in nominalization. The licensing of NSIs in specific nominalizations does not depend on whether nominalization is negated or not and whether the context is affirmative or non-veridical.

(12) a. Specific negated nominalization in the non-veridical main clause

Ego ne-podrazhanie oknikakomu / *kakomu-nibud' masteru His NEG-copying after no(N-woRD) / any(Nsi) master

vsegda menya udivlyalo always me impressed

'His not copying after any master always impressed me'

b. Specific negated nominalization in the veridical main clause

Ego ne-ispytyvanie oknikakikh / *kakikh-nibud' chuvstv his NEG-experiencing no(N-woRD) / any(Nsi) feelings

udivilo menya impressed me

'His not experiencing any feelings impressed me'

c. Specific nominalization in the non-veridical main clause

Ego podrazhanie *nikakomu / *kakomu-nibud' masteru

his copying after no(N-woRD) / any(Nsi) master

vsegda menya udivlyalo

always me impressed

'His copying after some master always impressed me'

d. Specific nominalization in the veridical main clause

Ego podrazhanie *nikakomu / *kakomu-nibud' masteru His copying after no(N-woRD) / any(Nsi) master

udivilo nas

impressed us

'His copying after some master impressed us'

On the contrary, when the nominalization is non-specific, NSIs can be licensed by non-veridical operators from the main clause (13). The licensing conditions of NSI do not depend on whether nominalization is nega- | ted or not. However, when the clause is affirmative -nibud pronouns are no longer licensed: even though there is no restriction on licensing in the form of specificity, there is no non-veridical operator in the main clause either (14)—(15).

J

(13) a. Non-specific negated nominalization in the non-veridical main

clause

Eto motiviruet menya na ne-napisanie this motivates me to NEG-writing

oknikakoi / ok kakoi-nibud' eresi

no(N-woRD) / any(Nsi) nonsense

'This motives me for not writing any nonsense' b. Non-specific nominalization in the non-veridical main clause: Podrazhanie *nikakomu / ok kakomu-nibud' masteru copying after no(N-woRD) / any(Nsi) master

vsegda ubivaet individual'nost' always kills individuality 'Copying after some master always kills individuality'

(14) Non-specific negated nominalization in the veridical main clause: Direktor odobril ne-vmeshatel'stvo

principal approved neg -intervening okni v kakie / * v kakie-nibud' dela

in no(N-woRD) / in any(Nsi) business

'The principal approved not intervening in any business'

(15) Non-specific nominalization in the veridical main clause:

Direktor odobril podrazhanie

principal approved copying after *nikakomu / *kakomu-nibud' masteru

no(N-woRD) / any(Nsi) master

'The principal approved copying after some master'

In case there is a non-veridical operator in the nominalization, the observation is, as expected, that this operator would be the licensor of NSIs (16).

(16) Specific (negated) nominalization in the non-veridical main clause:

Ego postoyannoe (ne)podrazhanie okkakomu-nibud' masteru his constant (NEG)copying after any(Nsi) master

sdelalo ego izvestnym made him famous

'His copying after some master made him famous'

To sum up, we observe the following distribution of ni- and -nibud' pronouns. NSIs are not licensed in specific nominalization and in nonspecific nominalization in affirmative clause. However, -nibud' pronouns can be licensed in non-specific nominalization in non-veridical clause and by non-veridical operator within specific nominalization. These observations

are summarized in Table 1. The provided examples also show that ni-pronouns are licensed only in negated nominalizations.

Table 1

Licensing conditions of ni- and -nibud' pronouns

Example Specificity [neg] NV ni- -nibud' Operators at LF

12a + + + + * *D ., > -nibud' specific okNeg > ni-

12b + + - + *

12c + - + * *

12d + - - * *

13a - + + + + okD > -nibud' > Neg non-specitic 0

13a - + + + +

14 - + - + * *Verid, D ... > -nibud' > Neg ' non-specific °

15 - - - * *

16 + + + within + + ok Non Verid, D fi > -nibud' specific

+ - * +

The data above allows us to conclude on what is the relative order of the operators at LF. The crucial observation is that the licensing of -nibud' pronouns does not depend on the presence/absence of negation. Importantly, the specificity of nominalization influences the availability of non-veridical operator from the main clause, which can license -nibud' pronouns.

I argue that there is no need in postulating the non-standard negation, as negation is not necessary for NSI-licensing. Although linearly -nibud' pronoun appears under the scope of two operators, it is not necessarily in the negative scope at LF. In other words, NSI undergoes LF movement, gets out of the scope of negative operator but is still in the scope of non-veridical operator. Herewith, nonveridical operator is located above the negative one. The same course of reasoning can be applied to the cases of subjunctive sentences and embedded purpose ctoby clauses.

4. Consequences of eliminating the non-standard negation

The elimination of the non-standard negation can help in solving another puzzle connected to -nibud' licensing conditions. In particular [Paducheva, 2018] reports some marginal examples that contradict the generalization that negation cannot license -nibud' pronouns. In particular, in (17a) -nibud'

I _

ISSN 2500-2953 Rhema. Рема. 2020. № 1

pronoun is licensed under the negative scope of nepravda 'lie', while it is prohibited in an affirmative variant of the same sentence (17b). Thus, it can be argued that derivational negation in nepravda 'lie' is the operator that is licensing the NSI.

(17) [Paducheva, 2018, (108)]

a. Eto nepravda, chto on kogo-nibud' ubedil this lie that he anyone(Nsi) convinced 'It is not true that he convinced someone' (= he didn't convince anyone)

b. * Eto pravda, chto on kogo-nibud' ubedil.

this truth that he anyone(Nsi) convinced 'It is true that he convinced someone'

I suggest that these examples can be explained using the idea that NSIs can only be licensed by non-veridical operators. If NSIs are licensed by nonveridical operators, then the prediction is that they are ungrammatical in affirmative contexts. An affirmative context is exactly what we see in (17b): the head for the embedded clause pravda 'truth' ensures truth of this embedded clause. On the contrary, in (17a) we observe a context, that does not ensure truth and, therefore, contains a non-veridical licensor for NSI.

A similar situation is found in examples like (18), that contain negation in the semantic structure of the verb vrat' 'lie'. Remarkably, NSIs are licensed within the bare verb and prohibited under the double negation. I argue that in (18b) the matrix clause ensures truth of the embedded clause. That is, the context is veridical and, consequently, NSIs cannot be licensed.

(18) [Paducheva, 2018, (109)]

a. On vret, chto kogo-nibud' ubedil

he lies that anyone(Nsi) convinced 'He lies that he convinced someone'

b. * On ne vret, chto kogo-nibud' ubedil.

he neg lies that anyone(Nsi) convinced 'He does not lie that he convinced someone'

5. Conclusion

To summarize, in this paper I have examined the licensing conditions for the two polarity sensitive items in Russian, ni- and -nibud' pronouns. While these types of pronouns are usually in complementary distribution, two contexts were found in which both of them are available. In order to model this exceptional licensing of NSIs under the negative scope, [Paducheva,

2018] introduced the notion of non-standard negation, which appears under the scope of non-veridical operator. The limitation of such an approach is that this is an ad hoc solution which does not provide any explanation regarding the mechanisms that underlie licensing.

To investigate the exceptional NSI licensing conditions I introduced another context which licenses both types of pronouns, viz. negated process nominalizations. I tested Paducheva's approach against the new data. In particular, by assessing acceptability of sentences with all possible combinations of presence/absence of negative, non-veridical operators and specificity, I have shown that negation does not affect NSI licensing in any way. The crucial observation is that NSIs are always licensed by non-veridical operators in case they are not in a specific DP which restricts the scope of the clausal operator. Remarkably, the obtained results correspond to the crosslinguistic generalization from [Giannakidou, 2006]: n-words obey syntactic locality restrictions and are licensed by a clause-mate antiveridical expression, while non-veridical operators exhibit long distance licensing.

References

Alexiadou, 2001 - Alexiadou A. Functional structure in Nominals: Nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam, 2001.

Belikov et al., 2013 - Корпус как язык: от масштабируемости к дифференциальной полноте / Беликов В.И., Копылов Н.Ю., Дилерски А.Ч. и др. // Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии: По материалам ежегодной Международной конференции «Диалог» (Бекасово, 29 мая - 2 июня 2013 г.). Вып. 12 (l9). М., 2013. [Belikov V., Kopylov N., Piperski A., et al. Corpus as language: From scalability to register variation. Komp'juternaja Lingvistika i Intellektual'nye Tehnologii: Po materialam ezhegodnoy Mezhdunarodnoy konferentsii «Dialog» (Bekasovo, 29 maya - 2 iyunya 2013 g.). Vol. 12 (19). Moscow, 2013. Pp. 83-95. (In Russ.)]

Gerasimova, 2015 - Герасимова А.А. Лицензирование отрицательных местоимений через границу инфинитивного оборота в русском языке // Типология морфосинтаксических параметров. Материалы международной конференции «ТМП-2015» / Под ред. Е.А. Лютиковой, А.В. Циммерлинга, М.Б. Коношен-ко. М., 2015. С. 47-61. [Gerasimova A. Licensing negative pronouns in Russian infinitives. Tipologija Morfosintaksicheskih Parametrov. Materialy mezhdunarodnoj konferencii "TMP-2015". Vol. 2. Moscow, 2015. Pp. 47-61. (In Russ.)]

Gerasimova, 2019 - Gerasimova A. Licensing negative polarity items in Russian event nominalizations. ConSOLE XXVII: Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe (21-23 February 2019, Hum-boldt-Universitat zu Berlin). Student Organisation of Linguistics in Europe Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, 2019. Pp. 106-117.

Giannakidou, 2006 - Giannakidou A. Only, emotive factive verbs, and the dual nature of polarity dependency. Language. 2006. Vol. 82. Pp. 575-603.

Giannakidou, 2011 - Giannakidou A. Positive polarity items and negative polarity items: Variation, licensing, and compositionality. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, P. Portner (eds.). De Gruyter Mouton, 2011. Pp. 1660-1712.

Haspelmath, 1997 - Haspelmath M. From space to time. Lincom, 1997. Laka, 1990 - Laka I. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. PhD diss., MIT. 1990.

Paducheva, 1985 - Падучева Е.В. Высказывание и его соотнесенность с действительностью (Референциальные аспекты семантики местоимений). М., 1985. [Paducheva E.V. Vyskazyvanie i ego sootnesennost's s deistvitel'nost'yu (referentsial'nye aspekty semantiki mestoimeniy) [The statement and its correlation with reality (referential aspects of the semantics of pronouns)]. Moscow, 1985.]

Paducheva, 2014 - Падучева Е.В. Снятая утвердительность и невериди-кативность // Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии: По материалам ежегодной Международной конференции «Диалог» (Бекасово, 4-8 июня 2014 г.). Вып. 13 (20). М., 2014. С. 489-505. [Paducheva E.V. Suspended assertion and nonveridicality. Kompjuternaja lingvistika i intellektual'nye tehnologii. Vol. 13 (20). Moscow, 2014. Pp. 489-505. (In Russ.)]

Paducheva, 2017 - Падучева Е.В. Отрицание // Материалы к корпусной грамматике русского языка. Вып. II. Синтаксические конструкции и грамматические категории / Отв. ред. выпуска В.А. Плунгян, Н.М. Стойнова. СПб., 2017. С. 283-343. [Paducheva E.V. Negation. Materialy k korpusnoy grammatike russkogo yazyka. Vol. II. Syntactic constructions and grammatical categories. V.A. Plungyan, N.M. Stoynova (eds.). St. Petersburg, 2017. Pp. 283-343. (In Russ.)]

Paducheva, 2018 - Падучева Е.В. Нереферентные местоимения на -нибудь // Материалы к корпусной грамматике русского языка. Вып. III. Части речи и лек-сико-грамматические классы / Отв. ред. выпуска В.А. Плунгян, Н.М. Стойнова. СПб., 2018. С. 261-286. [Paducheva E.V. Non-specific -nibud' pronouns. Materialy k korpusnoy grammatike russkogo yazyka. Vol. III. Parts of speech and lexico-grammar classes. V.A. Plungyan, N.M. Stoynova (eds.). St. Petersburg, 2018. Pp. 261-286. (In Russ.)].

Pazel'skaya, 2006 - Пазельская А.Г. Наследование глагольных категорий именами ситуаций: на материале русского языка: Дис. ... канд. филол. наук. М., 2006. [Pazel'skaya A.G. Nasledovanie glagolnykh kategoriy imenami situatsiy: na materiale russkogo yazyka [Inheritance of verbal categories by deverbal nouns in Russian]. PhD diss., Lomonosov Moscow State University. 2006.]

Pazel'skaya, Tatevosov, 2008 - Пазельская А.Г., Татевосов С.Г. Отглагольное имя и структура русского глагола // Исследования по глагольной деривации / Под ред. В.А. Плунгяна, С.Г. Татевосова. М., 2008. С. 348-380. [Pazel'skaya A., Tatevosov S. Deverbal nouns and the structure of Russian verb. Issledovaniya po glagolnoy derivatsii. Plungyan V.A., Tatevosov S.G. (eds.). Moscow, 2008. Pp. 348-380. (In Russ.)]

Pereltsvaig, 2004 - Pereltsvaig A. Negative polarity items in Russian and the 'Bagel Problem'. Negation in Slavic. S. Brown, A. Przepiorkowski (eds.). Bloomington, 2004. Pp. 153-178.

Weinreich, 1963 - Weinreich U. On the semantic structure of language. Universals of Language. J. Greenberg (ed.). Cambridge, MA, 1963. Pp. 114-171.

Статья поступила в редакцию 10.11.2019, принята к публикации 15.12.2019 The article was received on 10.11.2019, accepted for publication 15.12.2019

Об авторе / About the author

Герасимова Анастасия Алексеевна - магистрант кафедры теоретической и прикладной лингвистики филологического факультета, Московский государственный университет имени М.В. Ломоносова; лаборант-исследователь лаборатории общей семантики, Государственный институт русского языка имени А.С. Пушкина, г. Москва

Anastasia А. Gerasimova - MA student at the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics of the Faculty of Philology, Lomonosov Moscow State University; research assistant at the Laboratory of General Linguistics and Grammar Theory, Pushkin State Russian Language Institute, Moscow, Russian Federation ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4686-5598 E-mail: [email protected]