Advertisement

Neg-Raising and Neg movement

  • Paul Crowley
Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

This paper is about the phenomenon known as Neg-Raising. All previous analyses of Neg-Raising fall into one of two categories: syntactic and semantic/pragmatic. The syntactic approach derives the unexpected interpretation of Neg-Raising expressions from a Neg movement operation in the syntax (Fillmore in Word 19:208–231, 1963) while the semantic/pragmatic approach derives it as an inference attributed to an excluded middle associated with Neg-Raising predicates (Bartsch in Linguistische Berichte 27:1–7, 1973). In this squib, I discuss a collection of novel and known data, which I argue indicate that both a Neg movement operation as well as an excluded middle are necessary to account for the full range of data. I propose that Neg-Raising is an intrinsically semantic/pragmatic phenomenon and that the Neg movement operation is conditioned by the presence of an excluded middle. I offer a generalization that takes a step towards understanding this mysterious dependency.

Keywords

Negation Neg-Raising NPIs Ellipsis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I’m very grateful to Irene Heim, Sabine Iatridou, Norvin Richards, Roger Schwarzchild, Kai von Fintel, and especially Danny Fox for help on this project. I’m also grateful to the reviewer for comments which improved the paper, and to the audiences at MIT where this work was presented.

References

  1. Bartsch, Renate. 1973. ‘Negative Transportation’ gibt es nicht. Linguistische Berichte 27: 1–7.Google Scholar
  2. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, ed. Adriana Belletti, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collins, Chris, and Paul Postal. 2014. Classical NEG Raising: An essay on the syntax of negation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, Chris, and Paul Postal 2017. Interclausal NEG Raising and the scope of negation. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2: 1–29.Google Scholar
  6. Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975. Polarity and the scale principle. Chicago Linguistics Society 11: 188–199.Google Scholar
  7. Fillmore, Charles. 1963. The position of embedding transformations in grammar. Word 19: 208–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gajewski, Jon. 2005. Neg-Raising: Polarity and presupposition. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  9. Gajewski, Jon. 2007. Neg-Raising and polarity. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 289–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gajewski, Jon. 2011. Licensing strong NPIs. Natural Language Semantics 19: 109–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guerzoni, Elena. 2006. Intervention effects on NPIs and feature movement. Natural Language Semantics 14: 359–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heim, Irene. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In WCCFL 2, ed. M. Barlow, D. Flickinger and M. Wescoat, 114–125.Google Scholar
  13. Horn, Lawrence. 1978. Remarks on Neg-Raising. In Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics, ed. P. Cole, 129–220. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 1–49.Google Scholar
  15. Ladusaw, William. 1979. Polarity as inherent scope relations. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  16. Lakoff, Robin. 1969. A syntactic argument for negative transportation. Chicago Linguistic Society 5: 149–157.Google Scholar
  17. Linebarger, Marcia. 1981. The grammar of negative polarity. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  18. Linebarger, Marcia. 1987. Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 325–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Prince, Ellen. 1976. The syntax and semantics of Neg-Raising, with evidence from French. Language 52: 404–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Romoli, Jacopi. 2013. A scalar implicature-based approach to Neg-Raising. Linguistics and Philosophy 36: 291–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ross, John Robert. 1973. Slifting. In The formal analysis of natural languages: Proceedings of the first international conference, ed. M. P. Schutzenburger, M. Gross and M. Halle, 133–169. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  22. Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  23. von Fintel, Kai. 1999. NPI licensing, Strawson entailment and context dependency. Journal of Semantics 16: 97–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zwarts, Frans. 1998. Three types of polarity. In Plural quantification, ed. Fritz Hamm, and Erhard Hinrichs, 177–238. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Philosophy and LinguisticsMITCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations