§ 3 The verb
51
The plain form occurs in three main constructions, one of which has two subtypes:
[2] i
imperative
Take great care!
ii
subjunctive
It is essential [that he take great care].
iii a. TO-infinitival
I advise you [to take great care].
b. bare infinitival
You must [take great care].
Note, then, that on our account imperative, subjunctive, and infinitival are clause con-
structions, not inflectional forms of the verb. To in [iiia] is a VP subordinator, not part
of the verb.
■ Finite and non-finite
These terms likewise apply to clauses (and by extension VPs), not to verb inflection. Finite
clauses have as head a primary form of a verb or else a plain form used in either the
imperative or the subjunctive constructions. Non-finite clauses have as head a gerund-
participle or past participle form of a verb, or else a plain form used in the infinitival
construction.
■ Auxiliary verbs
Auxiliary verbs are distinguished syntactically from other verbs (i.e. from lexical verbs)
by their behaviour in a number of constructions, including those illustrated in:
[3]
auxiliary verb
lexical verb
i a. I have not seen them.
b.
∗
I saw not them.
ii a. Will you go with them?
b.
∗
Want you to go with them?
Thus auxiliary verbs can be negated by a following not and can invert with the subject
to form interrogatives, but lexical verbs cannot. To correct [ib/iib] we need to insert the
dummy (semantically empty) auxiliary do: I did not see them and Do you want to go with
them? It follows from our syntactic definition that be is an auxiliary verb not only in
examples like She is working or He was killed but also in its copula use, as in They are
cheap (cf. They are not cheap and Are they cheap?).
Our analysis of auxiliary verbs departs radically from traditional grammar in that we
take them to be heads, not dependents. Thus in She is writing a novel, for example, is is
a head with writing a novel as its complement; the constituent structure is like that of
She began writing a novel. Note, then, that is writing here is not a constituent: is is head
of one clause and writing is head of a non-finite subordinate clause.
■ Tense and time
There are two tense systems in English. The primary one is marked by verb inflection
and contrasts preterite (She was ill) and present (She is ill). The secondary one is marked
by the presence or absence of auxiliary have and contrasts perfect (She is believed to have
been ill) and non-perfect (She is believed to be ill). The perfect can combine with primary
tense to yield compound tenses, preterite perfect (She had been ill) and present perfect
(She has been ill).
We distinguish sharply between the grammatical category of tense and the semantic
category of time. In It started yesterday, You said it started tomorrow, and I wish it started
tomorrow, for example, started is a preterite verb-form in all three cases, but only in the
Chapter 2 Syntactic overview
52
first does it locate the starting in past time. Once this distinction is clearly drawn, it is
easy to see that English has no future tense: will and shall belong grammatically with
must, may, and can, and are modal auxiliaries, not tense auxiliaries.
■ Aspect and aspectuality
We make a corresponding distinction between grammatical aspect and semantic as-
pectuality. English has an aspect system marked by the presence or absence of the
auxiliary be contrasting progressive (She was writing a novel) and non-progressive
(She wrote a novel). The major aspectuality contrast is between perfective and im-
perfective. With perfective aspectuality the situation described in a clause is presented
in its totality, as a whole, viewed, as it were, from the outside. With imperfective as-
pectuality the situation is not presented in its totality, but viewed from within, with
focus on the internal temporal structure or on some subinterval of time within the
whole. The main use of progressive VPs is to express a particular subtype of imperfective
aspectuality.
■ Mood and modality
Again, mood is a matter of grammatical form, modality a matter of meaning. Irrealis
were, mentioned above, is a residual mood-form, but the main markers of mood in
English are the modal auxiliaries can, may, must, will, shall, together with a few less
central ones.
Three main kinds of modal meaning are distinguished:
[4] i deontic
You must come in immediately.
You can have one more turn.
ii epistemic
It must have been a mistake.
You may be right.
iii dynamic
Liz can drive better than you.
I asked Ed to go but he won’t.
Deontic modality typically has to do with such notions as obligation and permission,
or – in combination with negation – prohibition (cf. You can’t have any more). In the
central cases, epistemic modality qualifies the speaker’s commitment to the truth of the
modalised proposition. While It was a mistake represents an unqualified assertion, It
must have been a mistake suggests that I am drawing a conclusion from evidence rather
than asserting something of whose truth I have direct knowledge. And You may be right
merely acknowledges the possibility that “You are right” is true. Dynamic modality
generally concerns the properties and dispositions of persons, etc., referred to in the
clause, especially by the subject. Thus in [iii] we are concerned with Liz’s driving ability
and Ed’s willingness to go.
All three kinds of modality are commonly expressed by other means than by modal
auxiliaries: lexical verbs (You don’t need to tell me), adjectives (You are likely to be fined),
adverbs (Perhaps you are right), nouns (You have my permission to leave early).
4 The clause: complements
Dependents of the verb in clause structure are either complements or modifiers. Com-
plements are related more closely to the verb than modifiers. The presence or absence of
particular kinds of complement depends on the subclass of verb that heads the clause: the
verbuse, for example, requires an object (in canonical clauses), whilearriveexcludes one.
§ 4 The clause: complements
53
Moreover, the semantic role associated with an NP in complement function depends on
the meaning of the verb: in He murdered his son-in-law, for example, the object has the
role of patient (or undergoer of the action), while in He heard her voice it has the role of
stimulus (for some sensation). Ch. 4 is mainly concerned with complements in clause
structure.
■ Subject and object
One type of complement that is clearly distinguished, syntactically, from others is the
subject: this is an external complement in that it is located outside the VP. It is an
obligatory element in all canonical clauses. The object, by contrast, is an internal com-
plement and, as just noted, is permitted – or licensed – by some verbs but not by others.
Some verbs license two objects, indirect and direct. This gives the three major clause
constructions:
[1]
intransitive
monotransitive
transitive
a. She smiled
b. He washed the car
c. They gave me the key
S
P
S
P
O d
S
P
The i
O d
The terms intransitive, monotransitive, and ditransitive can be applied either to the
clause or to the head verb. Most verbs, however, can occur with more than one ‘comple-
mentation’. Read, for example, is intransitive in She read for a while, monotransitive in
She read the newspaper, and ditransitive in She read us a story.
Example [1c] has the same propositional meaning as They gave the key to me, but to
me is not an indirect object, not an object at all: it is syntactically quite different from
me in [1c]. Objects normally have the form of NPs; to me here is a complement with the
form of a PP.
■ Predicative complements
A different kind of internal complement is the predicative (PC):
[2]
complex-intransitive
complex-transitive
a. This seems a good idea / fair.
b. I consider this a good idea / fair.
S
P
PC
S
P
O d
PC
We use the term complex-intransitive for a clause containing a predicative complement
but no object, and complex-transitive for one containing both types of complement.
The major syntactic difference between a predicative complement and an object is that
the former can be realised by an adjective, such as fair in these examples. Semantically,
an object characteristically refers to some participant in the situation but with a different
semantic role from the subject, whereas a predicative complement characteristically
denotesapropertythatisascribedtothereferentofthesubject(inacomplex-intransitive)
or object (in a complex-transitive).
Ascriptive and specifying uses of the verb be
Much the most common verb in complex-intransitive clauses is be, but here we need to
distinguish two subtypes of the construction:
[3]
ascriptive
specifying
a. This is a good idea / fair.
b. The only problem is the cost.
The ascriptive subtype is like the construction with seem: the PC a good idea or fair gives
a property ascribed to “this”. Example [b], however, is understood quite differently: it
serves to identify the only problem. It specifies the value of the variable x in “the x
Chapter 2 Syntactic overview
54
such that x was the only problem”. Syntactically, the specifying construction normally
allows the subject and predicative to be reversed. This gives The cost is the only problem,
where the subject is now the cost and the predicative is the only problem.
■ Complements with the form of PPs
The complements in [1–3] are all NPs or AdjPs. Complements can also have the form of
subordinate clauses (I know you are right,I want to help), but these are dealt with in Ch.11
(finite clauses) and Ch. 14 (non-finites). In Ch. 4 we survey a range of constructions
containing prepositional complements. They include those illustrated in:
[4] i a. He referred to her article.
b. He blamed the accident on me.
ii a. This counts as a failure.
b. He regards me as a liability.
iii a. She jumped off the wall.
b. She took off the label.
The verbs refer and blame in [i] are prepositional verbs. These are verbs which take
a PP complement headed by a specified preposition: refer selects to and blame selects
on. (Blame also occurs in a construction in which the specified preposition is for: He
blamed me for the accident.) Although the to in [ia] is selected by the verb, it belongs in
constituent structure with her article (just as on in [ib] belongs with me): the immediate
constituents of the VP are referred + to her article. Count and regard in [ii] are likewise
prepositional verbs; these constructions differ from those in [i] in that the complements
of as are predicatives, not objects.
The clauses in [4iii] look alike but are structurally different: the VP in [iiia] contains
a single complement, the PP off the wall, while that in [iiib] contains two, off and the
NP the label. Off is a PP consisting of a preposition alone (see §7 below). It can either
precede the direct object, as here, or follow, as in She took the label off. Complements
which can precede a direct object in this way are called particles.
5 Nouns and noun phrases
Prototypical NPs – i.e. the most central type, those that are most clearly and distinctively
NPs – are phrases headed by nouns and able to function as complement in clause
structure: The dog barked (subject), I found the dog (object), This is a dog (predicative).
The three main subcategories of noun are common noun (e.g. dog in these examples),
proper nouns (Emma has arrived), and pronouns (They liked it). As noted in Ch. 1,
§4.2.2, we take pronoun to be a subcategory of noun, not a distinct primary category
(part of speech).
■ Determiners and determinatives
One important kind of dependent found only in the structure of NPs is the determiner:
the book, that car, my friend. The determiner serves to mark the NP as definite or indef-
inite. It is usually realised by a determinative or determinative phrase (the, a, too many,
almost all) or a genitive NP (the minister’s speech,one member’s behaviour). Note then the
distinction betweendeterminer, a function in NP structure, anddeterminative, a lexical
category. In traditional grammar, determinatives form a subclass of adjectives: we follow
the usual practice in modern linguistics of treating them as a distinct primary category.
Just as the determiner function is not always realised by determinatives (as illustrated
by the genitive NP determiners above), so many of the determinatives can have other
§ 5 Nouns and noun phrases
55
functions than that of determiner. Thus the determinative three is determiner in three
books, but modifier in these three books. Similarly, determinative much is determiner in
much happiness but a modifier in AdjP structure in much happier.
■ Modifiers, complements, and the category of nominal
Other dependents in NP structure are modifiers or complements:
[1] i a. a young woman
b. the guy with black hair
[modifiers]
ii a. his fear of the dark
b. the claim that it was a hoax
[complements]
In these examples, the first constituent structure division is between the determiner and
the rest of the NP, namely a head with the form of a nominal. Young woman in [ia], for
example, is head of the whole NP and has the form of a nominal with woman as head
and young as modifier. The nominal is a unit intermediate between an NP and a noun.
The three-level hierarchy of noun phrase, nominal, and noun is thus comparable to that
between clause, verb phrase, and verb.
In an NP such asa woman, with no modifier or complement,womanis both a nominal
and a noun – so that, in the terminology of Ch. 1, §4.2.1, we have singulary branching
in the tree structure. For the most part, however, nothing is lost if we simplify in such
cases by omitting the nominal level and talk of the noun woman as head of the NP.
The underlined elements in [1], we have said, function in the structure of a nominal; as
such, they are, from the point of view of NP structure, internal dependents, as opposed
to the external dependents in:
[2]
a. quite the worst solution
b. all these people
The underlined elements here modify not nominals but NPs, so that one NP functions
as head of a larger one. Quite is, more specifically, an NP-peripheral modifier, while all in
[b] is a predeterminer. There are also post-head peripheral modifiers, as in [The director
alone] was responsible.
The internal pre-head dependent young in [1ia] is called, more specifically, an attribu-
tive modifier. The most common type of attributive modifier is adjectival, like this one,
but other categories too can occur in this function: e.g. nominals (a federal government
inquiry), determinatives (her many virtues), verbs or VPs (in gerund-participle or past
participle form: a sleeping child, a frequently overlooked problem). With only very re-
stricted exceptions, attributive modifiers cannot themselves contain post-head depen-
dents: compare, for example,
∗
a younger than me woman or
∗
a sleeping soundly child.
■ Indirect complements
The complements in [1ii] are licensed by the heads of the nominals, fear and claim: we
call these direct complements, as opposed to indirect complements, which are licensed
by a dependent (or part of one) of the head. Compare:
[3]
a. a better result than we’d expected
b. enough time to complete the work
The underlined complements here are licensed not by the heads result and time, but
by the dependents better (more specifically by the comparative inflection) and enough.
Indirect complements are not restricted to NP structure, but are found with most kinds
of phrase.
Chapter 2 Syntactic overview
56
■ Fused heads
In all the NP examples so far, the ultimate head is realised by a noun. There are also NPs
where the head is fused with a dependent:
[4] i a. I need some screws but can’t find [any].
b. [Several of the boys] were ill.
ii a. [Only the rich]will benefit.
b. I chose [the cheaper of the two].
The brackets here enclose NPs while the underlining marks the word that functions
simultaneously as head and dependent – determiner in [i], modifier in [ii]. Traditional
grammar takes any and several in [i] to be pronouns: on our analysis, they belong to the
same category, determinative, as they do in any screws and several boys, the difference
being that in the latter they function solely as determiner, the head function being realised
by a separate word (a noun).
■ Case
A few pronouns have four distinct case forms, illustrated for we in:
[5]
nominative accusative dependent genitive independent genitive
we
us
our
ours
Most nouns, however, have a binary contrast between genitive and non-genitive or plain
case (e.g. genitive dog’s vs plain dog – or, in the plural, dogs’ vs dogs).
Case is determined by the function of the NP in the larger construction. Genitive case
is inflectionally marked on the last word; this is usually the head noun (giving a head
genitive, as in the child’s work) but can also be the last word of a post-head dependent
(giving a phrasal genitive, as in someone else’s work).
Genitive NPs characteristically function as subject-determiner in a larger NP. That
is, they combine the function of determiner, marking the NP as definite, with that of
complement (more specifically subject). Compare, then,the minister’s behaviour withthe
behaviour of the minister, where the determiner and complement functions are realised
separately by the and of the minister (an internal complement and hence not a subject).
The genitive subject-determiner can also fuse with the head, as in Your behaviour was
appalling, but [the minister’s] was even worse.
■ Number and countability
The category of number, contrasting singular and plural, applies both to nouns and to
NPs. In the default case, the number of an NP is determined by the inflectional form
of the head noun, as in singular the book vs plural the books. The demonstratives this
and that agree with the head, while various other determinatives select either a singular
(a book, each book) or a plural (two books, several books).
Number (or rather number and person combined) applies also to verbs in the present
tense and, with be, in the preterite. For the most part, the verb agrees with a subject
NP whose person–number classification derives from its head noun: [The nurse] has
arrived ∼ [The nurses] have arrived. There are, however, a good few departures from this
pattern, two of which are illustrated in:
[6]
a. [A number of boys] were absent
b. [Three eggs] is plenty.
The head of the subject NP in [a] is singular number, but the subject counts as plural;
conversely, in [b] the head noun is plural, but the subject NP is conceived of as expressing
a single quantity.
§ 6 Adjectives and adverbs
57
Nouns – or, more precisely, senses of nouns – are classified as count (e.g. a dog) or
non-count (some equipment). Count nouns denote entities that can be counted, and
can combine with the cardinal numerals one, two, three, etc. Certain determiners occur
only, or almost only, with count nouns (a, each, every, either, several, many, etc.), certain
others with non-count nouns (much,little,a little, and, in the singular,enough,sufficient).
Singular count nouns cannot in general head an NP without a determiner: Your taxi is
here, but not
∗
Taxi is here.
6 Adjectives and adverbs
The two major uses of adjectives are as attributive modifier in NP structure and as
predicative complement in clause structure:
[1]
attributive modifier
predicative complement
a. an excellent result
b. The result was excellent.
Most adjectives can occur in both functions; nevertheless, there are a good number
which, either absolutely or in a given sense, are restricted to attributive function (e.g. a
sole parent, but not
∗
The parent was sole), and a few which cannot be used attributively
(The child was asleep, but not
∗
an asleep child).
Adjectives may also function postpositively, i.e. as post-head modifier in NP structure:
something unusual, the money available.
■ The structure of AdjPs
The distinction between modifiers and complements applies to the dependents of ad-
jectives too: compare It was [very good] or He seems [a bit grumpy] (modifiers) and She
is [ashamed of him] or I’m [glad you could come] (complements). Complements always
follow the head and hence are hardly permitted in attributive AdjPs – though they com-
monly occur in postpositives (the minister [responsible for the decision]). Complements
generally have the form of PPs or subordinate clauses: with minor exceptions, adjectives
do not take NPs as complement.
The structure of AdjPs is considerably simpler than that of clauses or NPs, and we
need only two category levels, AdjP and adjective. In examples like those in [1], excellent
is both an AdjP (consisting of just a head) and an adjective, but as with nominal we will
simplify when convenient and omit the AdjP level.
■ Adverbs and AdvPs
Adverbs generally function as modifiers – or as supplements, elements prosodically
detached from the clause to which they relate, as in Unhappily, the letter arrived too
late. Unlike adjectives, they do not occur in predicative complement function: Kim was
unhappy but not
∗
Kim was unhappily.
As modifiers, adverbs differ from adjectives with respect to the categories of head
they combine with: adjectives modify nominals, while adverbs modify other categories
(including NPs). Thus the adverbalmostcan modify verbs (She[almost died]), adjectives
(an [almost inaudible] response), adverbs (He spoke [almost inaudibly]), or NPs (They
ate [almost the whole pie]).
Not all adverbs can modify heads of all these categories, however, and differences
on this dimension make the adverb the least homogeneous of the traditional parts of
Chapter 2 Syntactic overview
58
speech. Some unity is accorded to it, however, by the fact that a high proportion of
adverbs are morphologically derived from adjectives by suffixation of ·ly, as in pairs
like excellent ∼ excellently. In this grammar, moreover, we have significantly reduced
the syntactic heterogeneity of the adverb category by redrawing the boundary between
adverbs and prepositions: see §7 below.
Adverbs can themselves be modified in a similar way to adjectives: compare quite
excellent and quite excellently. However, only a very small number of adverbs license
complements, as in independently of such considerations. As with adjectives, we need
only two category levels, AdvP and adverb, and again we will often simplify by omitting
the AdvP level in examples like a [remarkably good] performance.
7 Prepositions and preposition phrases
One of the main respects in which the present grammar departs from traditional gram-
mar is in its conception of prepositions. Following much work in modern linguistics,
we take them to be heads of phrases – preposition phrases – which are comparable in
their structure to phrases headed by verbs, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs. The NPs in
to you, of the house, in this way, etc., are thus complements of the preposition, and the
underlined expressions in a few minutes before lunch or straight after lunch are modifiers.
Complements of a preposition, like those of a verb, may be objects, as in the exam-
ples just cited, or predicatives, as in They regard him [as a liability] or It strikes me [as
quite reasonable]. Some prepositions, moreover, can take AdvPs or clauses as comple-
ment: I didn’t meet him [until recently] and It depends [on how much they cost]. Within
this framework, it is natural to analyse words such as before as a preposition in I saw
him [before he left] (with a clause as complement) as well as in I saw him [before lunch]
(with an NP as complement). And just as phrases of other kinds do not necessarily
contain a complement, so we allow PPs with no complement. Thus in I hadn’t seen him
[before], for example, before is again a preposition. And in I saw him [afterwards] we
have a preposition afterwards that never takes a complement. Many of traditional gram-
mar’s adverbs and most of its subordinating conjunctions, therefore, are here analysed
as prepositions.
■ Preposition stranding
An important syntactic property of the most central prepositions is that they can be
stranded, i.e. occur with a gap in post-head complement position. Compare:
[1] i a. She was talking [to a man].
b. I cut it [with a razor-blade].
ii a. [To whom] was she talking?
b. the razor-bladei [with whichi ] I cut it
iii a. Whoi was she talking [to i ]?
b. the razor-bladei that I cut it [with i ]
In [i] we have the ordinary construction where to and with have an NP complement,
with the whole PP occupying its basic position in the clause. In [ii] the PP is in prenuclear
position, in an interrogative clause in [iia], a relative clause in [iib]. In [iii], however,
the preposition is stranded, with the complement realised by a gap. In [iiia] the gap is
co-indexed with the interrogative phrase who in prenuclear position, while in [iiib] it is
§ 8 The clause: adjuncts
59
co-indexed with razor-blade, the head of the nominal containing the relative clause as
modifier.
8 The clause: adjuncts
We use the term ‘adjunct’ to cover modifiers in clause (or VP) structure together
with related supplements, such as the above Unhappily, the letter arrived too late
(see §15).
Ch. 8 is complementary to Ch. 4. The latter focuses on core complements (subjects,
objects, predicatives) and complements realised by PPs where the preposition is specified
by the verb; Ch. 8 is mainly concerned with adjuncts, but also covers certain types of
complement that are semantically related to them. Manner expressions, for example, are
mostly adjuncts, but there are a few verbs that take manner complements: inThey treated
us badly, the dependent badly counts as a complement by virtue of being obligatory (for
They treated usinvolves a different sense oftreat). Similarly, while locative expressions are
generally adjuncts in clauses describing static situations, as in I spoke to her in the garden,
those occurring with verbs of motion are generally complements, licensed by the verb
of motion. We distinguish here between source and goal, as in Kim drove from Berlin to
Bonn, where the source from Berlin indicates the starting-point, and the goal to Bonn the
endpoint.
The adjuncts considered are distinguished, and named, on a semantic basis. They
include such traditional categories as time (or temporal location, as we call it, in order
to bring out certain similarities between the spatial and temporal domains), duration,
frequency, degree, purpose, reason, result, concession, and condition, as well as a number
of less familiar concepts.
9 Negation
Negative and positive clauses differ in several respects in their syntactic distribution,
i.e. in the way they combine with other elements in larger constructions. Three such
differences are illustrated in:
[1]
negative clause
positive clause
i a. He didn’t read the report, not even the
b.
∗
He read the report, not even the
summary.
summary.
ii a. He didn’t read the report, and nor did
b. He read the report, and so did
his son.
his son.
iii a. He didn’t read it, did he?
b. He read it, didn’t he?
Negative clauses allow a continuation with not even, but positive clauses do not. The
connective adjunct nor (or neither) follows a negative clause, whereas the corresponding
adjunct following a positive clause is so. The third difference concerns the the form of
the confirmation ‘tag’ that can be appended, with [iiia] taking a positive tag (did he?),
and [iiib] taking a negative one (didn’t he ?).
Chapter 2 Syntactic overview
60
Clauses which count as positive by the above criteria may nevertheless contain negative
elements within them, and we accordingly distinguish between clausal negation, as in
[1i], and subclausal negation, as in:
[2] i Not for the first time, she found his behaviour offensive.
ii We’ll do it in no time.
iii They were rather unfriendly.
These do not allow not even (e.g.
∗
They were rather unfriendly, not even towards me), take
so rather than nor (e.g. Not for the first time, she found his behaviour offensive, and so
indeed did I), and take negative confirmation tags (We’ll do it in no time, won’t we?).
■ Polarity-sensitive items
A number of words or larger expressions are sensitive to polarity in that they favour
negative over positive contexts or vice versa. Compare:
[3] i a. She doesn’t live here any longer.
b.
∗
She lives here any longer.
ii a. He was feeling somewhat sad.
b.
∗
He wasn’t feeling somewhat sad.
(We set aside the special case where [iib] is used to deny or contradict a prior assertion
that he was feeling somewhat sad.) We say, then, that any longer is negatively oriented,
and likewise (in certain senses at least) any, anyone, ever, determinative either, yet, at
all, etc. Similarly somewhat is positively oriented, and also some, someone, pretty (in the
degree sense), already, still, and others.
It is not, however, simply a matter of negative vs positive contexts: any longer, for
example, is found in interrogatives (Will you be needing me any longer ?) and the comple-
ment of conditional if (If you stay any longer you will miss your bus). These clauses have
it in common with negatives that they are not being used to make a positive assertion:
we use the term non-affirmative to cover these (and certain other) clauses. Any longer
thus occurs in non-affirmative contexts, and we can also say that any longer is a non-
affirmative item, using this as an alternative to negatively-oriented polarity-sensitive
item.
■ The scope of negation
One important issue in the interpretation of negatives concerns the scope of negation:
what part of the sentence the negation applies to. Compare, for example, the interpre-
tation of:
[4] i Not many members answered the question.
[many inside scope of not]
ii Many members did not answer the question.
[many outside scope of not]
These sentences clearly differ in truth conditions. Let us assume that there are a fairly large
number of members – 1,000, say. Then consider the scenario in which 600 answered,
and 400 didn’t answer. In this case, [ii] can reasonably be considered true, but [i] is
manifestly false.
The difference has to do with the relative scope of the negative and the quantification.
In [4i] many is part of what is negated (a central part, in fact): “The number of members
who answered was not large”. In [ii] many is not part of what is negated: “The number
of members who didn’t answer was large”. We say, then, that in [i] many is inside the
