Czech Three-Way Negation: Cross-Linguistic Typology #
@cite{repp-2013} @cite{romero-2024} @cite{stankova-2025} @cite{stankova-2025} @cite{gartner-gyuris-2017} @cite{simik-2024}
Bridges between the core three-way negation distinction (CzechThreeWayNeg.lean) and cross-linguistic frameworks: @cite{romero-2024} PQ typology, @cite{simik-2024} Czech PQ forms, @cite{stankova-2025} verb position / context sensitivity.
Also contains example data (CzechNegDatum), bias profiles, and corpus data.
Map Czech negation positions to Romero's PQ form typology.
Czech VSO (interrogative) word order = high negation = HiNQ. Czech SVO (declarative) word order = low negation = LoNQ. Inner and medial are both syntactically low (SVO) but differ in LF scope.
Staňková (2026 §2): "When a PQ has the SVO word order, I call it declarative; when a PQ has the VSO word order, I call it interrogative."
Equations
- Semantics.Negation.CzechNegation.NegPosition.inner.toPQForm = Semantics.Modality.BiasedPQ.PQForm.LoNQ
- Semantics.Negation.CzechNegation.NegPosition.medial.toPQForm = Semantics.Modality.BiasedPQ.PQForm.LoNQ
- Semantics.Negation.CzechNegation.NegPosition.outer.toPQForm = Semantics.Modality.BiasedPQ.PQForm.HiNQ
Instances For
Map Czech negation positions to Romero's evidential bias strength.
Inner negation: strong contextual evidence bias (□_ev > ¬, must be ¬p). Medial negation: weak contextual evidence bias (¬ > □_ev, needn't be p). Outer negation: no contextual evidence bias (FALSUM, not □_ev-based).
Equations
- Semantics.Negation.CzechNegation.NegPosition.inner.biasStrength = Semantics.Modality.BiasedPQ.EvidentialBiasStrength.strong
- Semantics.Negation.CzechNegation.NegPosition.medial.biasStrength = Semantics.Modality.BiasedPQ.EvidentialBiasStrength.weak
- Semantics.Negation.CzechNegation.NegPosition.outer.biasStrength = Semantics.Modality.BiasedPQ.EvidentialBiasStrength.none_
Instances For
Whether the negation position requires obligatory focus.
Only outer negation (FALSUM) is obligatorily focused — it targets discourse polarity and generates alternatives on whether p is or isn't in the CG (Staňková §3.2, §4).
Equations
Instances For
Outer negation maps to HiNQ (high negation = interrogative word order).
Inner and medial both map to LoNQ (low negation = declarative word order). Czech low negation PQs are ambiguous between inner and medial readings, distinguished by polarity items and particles (Table 1).
Czech outer negation (HiNQ) requires original speaker bias for p, matching Romero's Table 1: HiNQs mandatorily convey bias for p.
Czech inner/medial negation (LoNQ) is compatible with neutral original bias, matching Romero's Table 1: LoNQs can be used without prior expectation.
Czech inner negation requires contextual evidence against p (Staňková §3.1, ex. 17a/18a). This matches Romero's Table 2: LoNQs require evidence against p.
Czech outer negation (HiNQ) is compatible with evidence against p (contradiction scenarios, Staňková ex. 24 / Romero ex. 15).
Verb position in Czech polar questions (@cite{stankova-2025} §2).
Czech PQs use two word orders, determined by whether the finite verb moves to clause-initial position:
- V1 (verb-initial): interrogative word order, verb+ne- in PolP
- nonV1 (non-verb-initial): declarative word order, verb+ne- in TP
Since Czech negation prefix ne- is inseparable from the verb, verb position directly determines the syntactic position of negation. This creates the surface syntax–negation interpretation mapping (@cite{zeijlstra-2004} Agree analysis, S&Š eqs. 11–12).
- v1 : VerbPosition
Verb-initial (interrogative) word order. The verb+ne- moves to PolP, within the scope of FALSUM[iNeg]. Only outer negation (FALSUM) is available (S&Š eq. 11).
- nonV1 : VerbPosition
Non-verb-initial (declarative) word order. The verb+ne- stays low in TP. Can be licensed by either FALSUM[iNeg] or Op¬[iNeg], but not both simultaneously (S&Š eq. 12).
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Map negation positions to verb position.
Inner/medial → nonV1 (declarative SVO). Outer → v1 (interrogative VSO).
Equations
- Semantics.Negation.CzechNegation.NegPosition.inner.toVerbPosition = Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.VerbPosition.nonV1
- Semantics.Negation.CzechNegation.NegPosition.medial.toVerbPosition = Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.VerbPosition.nonV1
- Semantics.Negation.CzechNegation.NegPosition.outer.toVerbPosition = Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.VerbPosition.v1
Instances For
A Czech PQ negation example with its reading and Romero classification.
- sentence : String
The Czech sentence
- gloss : String
Glossed translation
- english : String
English translation
- position : Semantics.Negation.CzechNegation.NegPosition
The negation reading (Staňková 2026)
- grammatical : Bool
Whether the example is grammatical
- exampleNum : String
Reference example number from Staňková 2026
- verbPosition : VerbPosition
Verb position derived from negation position
- pqForm : Semantics.Modality.BiasedPQ.PQForm
Romero PQ form derived from negation position
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Ex. (6a): Inner negation with NCI — grammatical.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Ex. (6b): Outer negation with NCI — ungrammatical.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Ex. (7a): Medial negation with PPI — grammatical.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Ex. (7b): Outer negation with PPI — grammatical.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Ex. (11): Outer negation with náhodou — grammatical.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Ex. (15a): Inner negation with fakt — grammatical.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Ex. (15d): Outer negation with fakt — ungrammatical.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Examples predicted grammatical by Table 1 are marked grammatical.
Each Czech example carries its Romero PQ form automatically via
NegPosition.toPQForm. These bridge theorems verify that the classification
is consistent with the word order and bias conditions.
Ex. 6a (inner, nonV1) is a LoNQ.
Ex. 6b (outer, V1) is a HiNQ.
Ex. 7a (medial, nonV1) is a LoNQ.
Ex. 7b (outer, V1) is a HiNQ.
Ex. 11 (outer, V1) is a HiNQ with náhodou.
Ex. 15a (inner, nonV1) is a LoNQ with fakt.
Ex. 15d (outer, V1) is a HiNQ — fakt is incompatible.
Romero's Tables 1–2 make predictions about which Czech examples should be felicitous. These bridge theorems verify that Staňková's Czech data is consistent with Romero's cross-linguistic generalizations.
Ex. 6b is a HiNQ. Romero Table 1 says HiNQ mandatorily conveys original bias for p. The example IS a HiNQ but is ungrammatical because the NCI žádný is incompatible with outer negation — a Czech-specific constraint layered on top of the Romero framework.
Ex. 7b is a HiNQ (outer, V1) with a PPI. Romero Table 1: HiNQ requires original bias for p. The PPI is licensed because outer negation allows PPI outscoping. This is a felicitous Czech HiNQ consistent with Romero.
Ex. 11 is a HiNQ with náhodou 'by chance'. This is the prototypical outer-HiNQ: original speaker bias for p (Romero Table 1), compatible with neutral or against-p evidence (Romero Table 2). Náhodou modifies the epistemic possibility component of FALSUM.
Ex. 7a (medial, nonV1, LoNQ) is felicitous in contexts with some evidence against p. Romero Table 2: LoNQ requires evidence against p. Staňková's medial negation carries weak evidential bias — weaker than inner, but still requires contextual evidence.
Ex. 6a (inner, nonV1, LoNQ) is felicitous only with strong contextual evidence against p. Romero Table 2: LoNQ requires evidence against p. Staňková adds the refinement that inner neg requires strong evidence (the inner/medial split within LoNQ).
Czech reveals a finer-grained distinction within Romero's LoNQ category.
Romero treats LoNQ as a single PQ form. Staňková shows that Czech SVO (= LoNQ) polar questions are actually ambiguous between inner and medial readings, distinguished by their diagnostic signatures (Table 1) and by the strength of their evidential bias.
This is a cross-linguistic prediction: languages with overt NCI/PPI contrasts and diagnostic particles may reveal the inner/medial split within LoNQ.
Czech polar question forms: the 2×2 grid of [Interrogative vs Declarative] × [Positive vs Negative] (@cite{simik-2024} §3.2, exx. 11–17).
Czech uses two independent formal strategies to express bias:
- Negation: positive vs negative (ne- prefix)
- Word order: interrogative (VSO, verb-initial) vs declarative (SVO)
This is finer-grained than Romero's PosQ/LoNQ/HiNQ, because Czech declarative PQs (DeclPQ) are a separate grammatical category not present in English (@cite{simik-2024}: "declarative PQs represent yet another type of utterance with a canonical SVO word order").
- interPPQ : CzechPQForm
InterPPQ: Interrogative (VSO), Positive. Default unbiased PQ.
- interNPQ : CzechPQForm
InterNPQ: Interrogative (VSO), Negative. Conveys positive epistemic bias. Broader distribution than English HiNQ (@cite{simik-2024} §5).
- declPPQ : CzechPQForm
DeclPPQ: Declarative (SVO), Positive. Conveys positive evidential bias.
- declNPQ : CzechPQForm
DeclNPQ: Declarative (SVO), Negative. Requires negative evidential bias.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Map Czech PQ forms to Romero's cross-linguistic PQ typology.
@cite{simik-2024}'s InterNPQ is Romero's HiNQ (outer negation with VSO). @cite{simik-2024}'s DeclNPQ is Romero's LoNQ (inner/medial negation with SVO). @cite{simik-2024}'s InterPPQ and DeclPPQ are both Romero's PosQ.
Equations
- Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.CzechPQForm.interPPQ.toPQForm = Semantics.Modality.BiasedPQ.PQForm.PosQ
- Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.CzechPQForm.interNPQ.toPQForm = Semantics.Modality.BiasedPQ.PQForm.HiNQ
- Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.CzechPQForm.declPPQ.toPQForm = Semantics.Modality.BiasedPQ.PQForm.PosQ
- Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.CzechPQForm.declNPQ.toPQForm = Semantics.Modality.BiasedPQ.PQForm.LoNQ
Instances For
Map negation positions to Czech PQ forms.
Inner/medial → DeclNPQ (SVO, negative). Outer → InterNPQ (VSO, negative).
Equations
- Semantics.Negation.CzechNegation.NegPosition.inner.toCzechPQForm = Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.CzechPQForm.declNPQ
- Semantics.Negation.CzechNegation.NegPosition.medial.toCzechPQForm = Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.CzechPQForm.declNPQ
- Semantics.Negation.CzechNegation.NegPosition.outer.toCzechPQForm = Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.CzechPQForm.interNPQ
Instances For
The CzechPQForm → PQForm mapping is consistent with NegPosition → PQForm.
Czech bias profile (@cite{simik-2024} Table 2, based on @cite{stankova-2023}).
Each cell records which Czech PQ forms are felicitous under a given combination of contextual evidence × original speaker bias. Empty list = no form is natural.
Uses ContextualEvidence and OriginalBias from BiasedPQ
rather than Czech-specific copies — these are the same bias dimensions.
Table 2 (glossing over details): | Evid \ Epist | forP | neutral | againstP | |--------------|--------------------|--------------------|------------| | forP | | DeclPPQ, InterNPQ | DeclPPQ | | neutral | InterPPQ, InterNPQ | InterPPQ | | | againstP | DeclNPQ, InterNPQ | DeclNPQ | |
*DeclPPQ with neutral/neutral is conditioned by information structure. InterNPQ with neutral epistemic requires explanation-seeking context.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.czechBiasProfile Core.Discourse.Commitment.ContextualEvidence.forP Semantics.Modality.BiasedPQ.OriginalBias.forP = []
- Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.czechBiasProfile Core.Discourse.Commitment.ContextualEvidence.neutral Semantics.Modality.BiasedPQ.OriginalBias.againstP = []
- Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.czechBiasProfile Core.Discourse.Commitment.ContextualEvidence.againstP Semantics.Modality.BiasedPQ.OriginalBias.againstP = []
Instances For
InterPPQ is the default (unbiased) Czech PQ — the only form felicitous in quiz scenarios where no bias is intended (@cite{simik-2024} §4.1, ex. 25).
DeclPQs require matching evidential bias (@cite{stankova-2023}, @cite{simik-2024} §3.2): DeclPPQ needs positive evidence, DeclNPQ needs negative evidence.
InterNPQ has the broadest distribution among negative forms — it appears in three bias cells, reflecting Czech outer negation's broader distribution than English HiNQ (@cite{simik-2024} §5).
@cite{simik-2024}'s key generalization: Declarative PQs are specialized for conveying evidential bias. The polarity of the DeclPQ matches the polarity of the evidential bias — DeclPPQ conveys positive evidential bias, DeclNPQ conveys negative evidential bias.
Interrogative PQs, by contrast, convey epistemic bias (speaker's prior belief), and InterNPQ can additionally convey evidential bias.
This is captured by: for any evidential bias, the DeclPQ that appears has matching polarity.
Which negation readings are available for each verb position.
V1 → only outer (FALSUM) — S&Š eq. (11): [ForceP Q [StrengthP FALSUM[iNeg] [PolP NEG-V[uNeg] [CP … [TP SUBJECT tV …]]]]]
nonV1 → inner, medial, or outer — S&Š eq. (12), plus Staňková 2026's medial: [ForceP Q [StrengthP {FALSUM[iNeg]} [CP SUBJECT [TP {Op¬[iNeg]} NEG-V[uNeg] …]]]]
Note: outer negation in nonV1 requires contrastive topic on the subject and contrastive focus on the verb (S&Š ex. 18).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.VerbPosition.v1.availableReadings = [Semantics.Negation.CzechNegation.NegPosition.outer]
Instances For
The default (unmarked) negation reading for each verb position.
Equations
Instances For
V1 only allows outer negation.
V1 default reading is outer.
nonV1 default reading is inner.
V1 default maps to HiNQ (Romero).
nonV1 default maps to LoNQ (Romero).
V1 maps to InterNPQ (@cite{simik-2024}'s finer typology).
nonV1 default maps to DeclNPQ (@cite{simik-2024}'s finer typology).
Whether a verb position's default negation reading requires contextual evidence (evidential bias) to be felicitous.
V1 (FALSUM): no — insensitive to context (S&Š §5.2, §5.3) nonV1 (inner): yes — requires negative evidential bias (S&Š §5.2)
This is the key experimental finding of S&Š: the syntactic position of negation determines sensitivity to contextual evidence.
Equations
Instances For
Context sensitivity correlates with evidential bias strength: V1/outer has no evidential bias requirement (FALSUM is epistemic). nonV1/inner has strong evidential bias (requires contextual evidence for ¬p).
Czech outer negation (FALSUM) is compatible with all types of evidential bias — positive, negative, and neutral — unlike English HiNQs which require negative or neutral evidence.
This is confirmed by the positive-evidence subexperiment (S&Š ex. 14): V1 PQs with positive evidential bias were rated very natural (median 6/7).
The broader distribution follows from Czech FALSUM being tied to epistemic bias (speaker's possibility assessment) rather than to evidential bias. FALSUM^CZ (@cite{simik-2024} eq. 44) only requires that the speaker considers p epistemically possible, regardless of evidence.
Corpus data for náhodou in PQs (@cite{simik-2024} fn. 56).
From 100 random occurrences of náhodou in PQs (SYN v11, Czech National Corpus):
- All 100 involved negation
- 6 had indefinite pronoun/determiners, all were PPIs (no NCIs)
- All diagnosed outer negation
This confirms the fragment-level claim that náhodou requires outer negation and is incompatible with NCIs.
- sampleSize : ℕ
Total random sample size
- withNegation : ℕ
Number involving negation
- withIndefinites : ℕ
Number with indefinite determiners
- ppiIndefinites : ℕ
Number of those indefinites that were PPIs
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.nahodouCorpus = { sampleSize := 100, withNegation := 100, withIndefinites := 6, ppiIndefinites := 6 }
Instances For
All náhodou PQ occurrences involved negation.
All indefinites with náhodou were PPIs (no NCIs).
Categories of InterNPQ use with náhodou (@cite{simik-2024} §5.2, fn. 59).
From 100 random occurrences, the four main categories are:
- Prior speaker belief (conflict-resolving PQ) — 14%
- Explanation-seeking (no prior bias, situational evidence) — 40%
- Relevance PQ (suggesting p is worth discussing) — 20%
- Hope (speaker hopes p is true) — 20%
- belief : InterNPQUseCategory
Conflict between prior epistemic bias for p and evidential bias for ¬p. The prototypical biased HiNQ use.
- explanationSeeking : InterNPQUseCategory
No prior epistemic bias; evidential bias from observed situation. Not available in English HiNQ.
- relevance : InterNPQUseCategory
Speaker suggests p is relevant for further discussion.
- hope : InterNPQUseCategory
Speaker hopes that p, and considers it epistemically possible.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Distribution of InterNPQ+náhodou use categories (@cite{simik-2024} fn. 59).
Equations
- Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.interNPQDistribution Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.InterNPQUseCategory.belief = 14
- Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.interNPQDistribution Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.InterNPQUseCategory.explanationSeeking = 40
- Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.interNPQDistribution Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.InterNPQUseCategory.relevance = 20
- Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.interNPQDistribution Phenomena.Negation.CzechThreeWayNegTypologyBridge.InterNPQUseCategory.hope = 20
Instances For
Explanation-seeking is the most common InterNPQ+náhodou use. This motivates @cite{simik-2024}'s weaker FALSUM^CZ: the attitude holder merely considers p epistemically possible, not that they believe p.