Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0016
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter discusses the Composed Quantifier Argument, a widely accepted and apparently devastating argument against a syntactic view of Classical NEG Raising (NR), and argues that it is faulty and ...
More
This chapter discusses the Composed Quantifier Argument, a widely accepted and apparently devastating argument against a syntactic view of Classical NEG Raising (NR), and argues that it is faulty and in no way conclusive in view of the general framework for understanding negation (NEG). The Composed Quantifier Argument depends on the existence of a variant of the Classical NR phenomenon involving not an overt main clause auxiliary instance of NEG (for example, in “Graham did not expect that she would arrive until Saturday”), but instead one or another negative quantifier phrase. The chapter considers examples, each of which has a Classical NR predicate in the main clause and a strict negative polarity item (NPI) in the embedded clause, but none of which manifests a matrix clause containing an overt NEG that could have raised from its embedded complement clause. It also shows that one can avoid wrong meanings and obtain the right ones without lexicalization of raised NEGs, and that Horn clauses licensed in composed quantifier structures strongly supports the syntactic view of Classical NR.Less
This chapter discusses the Composed Quantifier Argument, a widely accepted and apparently devastating argument against a syntactic view of Classical NEG Raising (NR), and argues that it is faulty and in no way conclusive in view of the general framework for understanding negation (NEG). The Composed Quantifier Argument depends on the existence of a variant of the Classical NR phenomenon involving not an overt main clause auxiliary instance of NEG (for example, in “Graham did not expect that she would arrive until Saturday”), but instead one or another negative quantifier phrase. The chapter considers examples, each of which has a Classical NR predicate in the main clause and a strict negative polarity item (NPI) in the embedded clause, but none of which manifests a matrix clause containing an overt NEG that could have raised from its embedded complement clause. It also shows that one can avoid wrong meanings and obtain the right ones without lexicalization of raised NEGs, and that Horn clauses licensed in composed quantifier structures strongly supports the syntactic view of Classical NR.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0003
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter discusses Classical NEG Raising (NR) against a background assumption about negative polarity items (NPIs). It considers a standard NPI example like ever in the sentence Chloe did not ...
More
This chapter discusses Classical NEG Raising (NR) against a background assumption about negative polarity items (NPIs). It considers a standard NPI example like ever in the sentence Chloe did not ever taste beer. On the standard view, because ever is an NPI, it can only occur in contexts where it relates in specific ways to a form standardly called its licenser. In the above example, the licenser would be not, while the sentence Chloe ever tasted beer would be ungrammatical because of the absence of a legitimate licenser. This chapter explores different ways of capturing the fact that the raising of the NEG in Chloe did not ever taste beer is semantically vacuous, citing Minimalist syntax where the natural treatment of the semantic vacuity of NEG raising would be in terms of reconstruction. It also analyzes verbal negation, support for the negation analysis of NPIs, the JACK class minimizers, and the semantics of negation.Less
This chapter discusses Classical NEG Raising (NR) against a background assumption about negative polarity items (NPIs). It considers a standard NPI example like ever in the sentence Chloe did not ever taste beer. On the standard view, because ever is an NPI, it can only occur in contexts where it relates in specific ways to a form standardly called its licenser. In the above example, the licenser would be not, while the sentence Chloe ever tasted beer would be ungrammatical because of the absence of a legitimate licenser. This chapter explores different ways of capturing the fact that the raising of the NEG in Chloe did not ever taste beer is semantically vacuous, citing Minimalist syntax where the natural treatment of the semantic vacuity of NEG raising would be in terms of reconstruction. It also analyzes verbal negation, support for the negation analysis of NPIs, the JACK class minimizers, and the semantics of negation.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0005
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter focuses on the assumption that the negative polarity item (NPI) phrase occupies a scope position as well as the object position, suggesting that NEG raising takes place only from the ...
More
This chapter focuses on the assumption that the negative polarity item (NPI) phrase occupies a scope position as well as the object position, suggesting that NEG raising takes place only from the scope position. It also claims that [[NEG SOME] thing] must occupy a scope position, a common assumption in the syntax and semantics literature; that for a determiner phrase (DP) with a scope occurrence, the scope occurrence is the unique available launching point for NEG raising; and that if the NEGs of quantifier DPs raise out of nonscope positions, “overgeneration” will result in certain clear cases, whereas if such raising can only launch from scope positions, the overgeneration is avoided. In the sentence Rodney claimed that Evelyn did not own any cheetah, the scope of the quantifier DP is internal to the complement clause. The chapter also considers a structure with negation in the main clause in the sentence Rodney did not claim that Evelyn owned any cheetah.Less
This chapter focuses on the assumption that the negative polarity item (NPI) phrase occupies a scope position as well as the object position, suggesting that NEG raising takes place only from the scope position. It also claims that [[NEG SOME] thing] must occupy a scope position, a common assumption in the syntax and semantics literature; that for a determiner phrase (DP) with a scope occurrence, the scope occurrence is the unique available launching point for NEG raising; and that if the NEGs of quantifier DPs raise out of nonscope positions, “overgeneration” will result in certain clear cases, whereas if such raising can only launch from scope positions, the overgeneration is avoided. In the sentence Rodney claimed that Evelyn did not own any cheetah, the scope of the quantifier DP is internal to the complement clause. The chapter also considers a structure with negation in the main clause in the sentence Rodney did not claim that Evelyn owned any cheetah.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0009
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter focuses on the scope of strict negative polarity items (NPIs). It first considers scope issues concerning nonfinite complement clauses, with particular emphasis on similar pairs with ...
More
This chapter focuses on the scope of strict negative polarity items (NPIs). It first considers scope issues concerning nonfinite complement clauses, with particular emphasis on similar pairs with analogous judgment markings, the relevance of stress contrasts to the ambiguities of NPI any forms as well as to those of other nominal NPIs, and the differential scope of the determiner phrase represented by anything (“Vaughn didn't accept to write anything about radiation”). It then turns to cases of infinitival complements containing strict NPIs, along with cases where the issue of high-scope confounds involve finite complement clauses. Finally, it suggests that any attempt to diagnose the presence or absence of Classical NEG Raising (NR) must always take into account the possibility of NEG raising out of main clause scope positions.Less
This chapter focuses on the scope of strict negative polarity items (NPIs). It first considers scope issues concerning nonfinite complement clauses, with particular emphasis on similar pairs with analogous judgment markings, the relevance of stress contrasts to the ambiguities of NPI any forms as well as to those of other nominal NPIs, and the differential scope of the determiner phrase represented by anything (“Vaughn didn't accept to write anything about radiation”). It then turns to cases of infinitival complements containing strict NPIs, along with cases where the issue of high-scope confounds involve finite complement clauses. Finally, it suggests that any attempt to diagnose the presence or absence of Classical NEG Raising (NR) must always take into account the possibility of NEG raising out of main clause scope positions.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.001.0001
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This book considers examples such as the one below on the interpretation where Nancy thinks that this course is not interesting: Nancy doesn't think this course is interesting. It argues that such ...
More
This book considers examples such as the one below on the interpretation where Nancy thinks that this course is not interesting: Nancy doesn't think this course is interesting. It argues that such examples instantiate a kind of syntactic raising known as Classical NEG Raising (NR). This involves the raising of a NEG (negation) from the embedded clause to the matrix clause. The book develops three main arguments to support its claim. First, it shows that Classical NR obeys island constraints. Second, it documents that a syntactic raising analysis predicts both the grammaticality and particular properties of what it terms Horn clauses (named for Laurence Horn, who discovered them). Finally, it argues that the properties of certain parenthetical structures strongly support the syntactic character of Classical NR. The book also offers a detailed analysis of the main argument in the literature against a syntactic raising analysis (which it calls the Composed Quantifier Argument). It shows that the facts appealed to in this argument not only fail to conflict with their approach but actually support a syntactic view. The book also touches on a variety of related topics, including the syntax of negative polarity items, the status of sequential negation, and the scope of negative quantifiers.Less
This book considers examples such as the one below on the interpretation where Nancy thinks that this course is not interesting: Nancy doesn't think this course is interesting. It argues that such examples instantiate a kind of syntactic raising known as Classical NEG Raising (NR). This involves the raising of a NEG (negation) from the embedded clause to the matrix clause. The book develops three main arguments to support its claim. First, it shows that Classical NR obeys island constraints. Second, it documents that a syntactic raising analysis predicts both the grammaticality and particular properties of what it terms Horn clauses (named for Laurence Horn, who discovered them). Finally, it argues that the properties of certain parenthetical structures strongly support the syntactic character of Classical NR. The book also offers a detailed analysis of the main argument in the literature against a syntactic raising analysis (which it calls the Composed Quantifier Argument). It shows that the facts appealed to in this argument not only fail to conflict with their approach but actually support a syntactic view. The book also touches on a variety of related topics, including the syntax of negative polarity items, the status of sequential negation, and the scope of negative quantifiers.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0014
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter examines Horn clauses in relation to Negative Inversion. It first considers the properties of the Negative Inversion focus and the Negative Inversion Condition (first and second ...
More
This chapter examines Horn clauses in relation to Negative Inversion. It first considers the properties of the Negative Inversion focus and the Negative Inversion Condition (first and second versions), along with various difficulties for the latter condition. In the sentences A human can know a finite number of primes and A finite number of primes can a human know, a finite number is decreasing in the first case, but the second is still ungrammatical. The chapter also considers a range of expressions with decreasing semantic values for which speakers differ with respect to whether Negative Inversion can be triggered, including cases of decreasing expressions that do not systematically form legitimate Negative Inversion foci but involve the numeral zero, which forms decreasing (in fact, antiadditive) determiner phrases. Finally, it discusses the Negative Inversion Condition (third and fourth versions), the relevance of scope to Negative Inversion, and the implications of quasi-Horn clauses for the Horn clause argument concerning the syntactic nature of Classical NEG Raising (NR).Less
This chapter examines Horn clauses in relation to Negative Inversion. It first considers the properties of the Negative Inversion focus and the Negative Inversion Condition (first and second versions), along with various difficulties for the latter condition. In the sentences A human can know a finite number of primes and A finite number of primes can a human know, a finite number is decreasing in the first case, but the second is still ungrammatical. The chapter also considers a range of expressions with decreasing semantic values for which speakers differ with respect to whether Negative Inversion can be triggered, including cases of decreasing expressions that do not systematically form legitimate Negative Inversion foci but involve the numeral zero, which forms decreasing (in fact, antiadditive) determiner phrases. Finally, it discusses the Negative Inversion Condition (third and fourth versions), the relevance of scope to Negative Inversion, and the implications of quasi-Horn clauses for the Horn clause argument concerning the syntactic nature of Classical NEG Raising (NR).
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0017
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter considers parenthetical clauses as a powerful argument in support of the syntactic nature of Classical NEG Raising (NR). In particular, the argument is based on the principles ...
More
This chapter considers parenthetical clauses as a powerful argument in support of the syntactic nature of Classical NEG Raising (NR). In particular, the argument is based on the principles determining under what conditions negative parenthetical clauses can exist. The chapter presents cases showing that parentheticals can appear in various positions with respect to the independent clause they modify, or that parentheticals can only modify main clauses. It also examines the nature of parentheticals by focusing on the relation between the modified clause and the parenthetical, assuming that the parenthetical is a reduction of a full clausal structure involving a complement clause that is covert in the parenthetical itself. Finally, it discusses the Parenthetical Identity Condition, negative parentheticals, clausal ellipsis, and the Parenthetical Nondecreasingness Condition.Less
This chapter considers parenthetical clauses as a powerful argument in support of the syntactic nature of Classical NEG Raising (NR). In particular, the argument is based on the principles determining under what conditions negative parenthetical clauses can exist. The chapter presents cases showing that parentheticals can appear in various positions with respect to the independent clause they modify, or that parentheticals can only modify main clauses. It also examines the nature of parentheticals by focusing on the relation between the modified clause and the parenthetical, assuming that the parenthetical is a reduction of a full clausal structure involving a complement clause that is covert in the parenthetical itself. Finally, it discusses the Parenthetical Identity Condition, negative parentheticals, clausal ellipsis, and the Parenthetical Nondecreasingness Condition.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0001
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This book deals with Classical NEG Raising (NR), a kind of syntactic raising wherein a negation (NEG) is raised from the embedded clause to the matrix clause. Part I of the book presents the general ...
More
This book deals with Classical NEG Raising (NR), a kind of syntactic raising wherein a negation (NEG) is raised from the embedded clause to the matrix clause. Part I of the book presents the general conception of negation it is proposing, with particular emphasis on the following assumptions: that NEGs are not limited to modifying clausal constituents; that there is NEG raising; that there is NEG deletion; and that every negative polarity item (NPI) is modified by at least one NEG. Part II develops arguments favoring a syntactic approach to Classical NR and offers a precise view of the syntax and semantics of the subtype of polyadic quantification relevant to NPIs. The book shows that Classical NR is sensitive to syntactic islands and cites certain contexts, dubbed Horn clauses, that demand the syntactic presence of a negative constituent. It also makes a fundamental distinction between two types of NPIs, those originating with one NEG (unary-NEG NPIs) and those originating with two NEGs (binary-NEG NPIs). Finally, it challenges the assumptions of the Composed Quantifier Argument against a syntactic view of Classical NR.Less
This book deals with Classical NEG Raising (NR), a kind of syntactic raising wherein a negation (NEG) is raised from the embedded clause to the matrix clause. Part I of the book presents the general conception of negation it is proposing, with particular emphasis on the following assumptions: that NEGs are not limited to modifying clausal constituents; that there is NEG raising; that there is NEG deletion; and that every negative polarity item (NPI) is modified by at least one NEG. Part II develops arguments favoring a syntactic approach to Classical NR and offers a precise view of the syntax and semantics of the subtype of polyadic quantification relevant to NPIs. The book shows that Classical NR is sensitive to syntactic islands and cites certain contexts, dubbed Horn clauses, that demand the syntactic presence of a negative constituent. It also makes a fundamental distinction between two types of NPIs, those originating with one NEG (unary-NEG NPIs) and those originating with two NEGs (binary-NEG NPIs). Finally, it challenges the assumptions of the Composed Quantifier Argument against a syntactic view of Classical NR.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0019
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter considers the role of nonfinite clauses in the distribution of Classical NEG Raising (NR). It first considers the literature bias toward finite hosts in standard Classical NR cases, ...
More
This chapter considers the role of nonfinite clauses in the distribution of Classical NEG Raising (NR). It first considers the literature bias toward finite hosts in standard Classical NR cases, along with proposals in nonsyntactic approaches that the Classical NR phenomenon is purely a function of the interaction of the meanings of the Classical NR predicates (CNRPs) with independent semantic or pragmatic principles. Since it is obscure how the semantic properties of CNRPs could be systematically different in their finite and nonfinite instances, on semantic/pragmatic treatments one expects that the same relations should systematically hold when the negation (NEG) sits in a nonfinite host. The chapter outlines the basics of the distinction between finite and nonfinite hosts and presents examples indicating the lack of a Classical NR reading for a NEG raised into a nonfinite clause and the impossibility of a strict negative polarity item (NPI) in the relevant complement clause. It also discusses the Classical NR Nonfiniteness Condition and composed quantifier cases.Less
This chapter considers the role of nonfinite clauses in the distribution of Classical NEG Raising (NR). It first considers the literature bias toward finite hosts in standard Classical NR cases, along with proposals in nonsyntactic approaches that the Classical NR phenomenon is purely a function of the interaction of the meanings of the Classical NR predicates (CNRPs) with independent semantic or pragmatic principles. Since it is obscure how the semantic properties of CNRPs could be systematically different in their finite and nonfinite instances, on semantic/pragmatic treatments one expects that the same relations should systematically hold when the negation (NEG) sits in a nonfinite host. The chapter outlines the basics of the distinction between finite and nonfinite hosts and presents examples indicating the lack of a Classical NR reading for a NEG raised into a nonfinite clause and the impossibility of a strict negative polarity item (NPI) in the relevant complement clause. It also discusses the Classical NR Nonfiniteness Condition and composed quantifier cases.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0012
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter shows that Classical NEG Raising (NR) is sensitive to syntactic islands and considers a range of cases where it is blocked by island constraints, such as those involving clausal ...
More
This chapter shows that Classical NEG Raising (NR) is sensitive to syntactic islands and considers a range of cases where it is blocked by island constraints, such as those involving clausal complements of nouns. At issue are examples invoking the Complex NP Constraint, clause-internal topics, truth predicates, wh-islands, clause-internal clefts, pseudoclefts, and Negative Inversion. The clear generalization is that Classical NR is never possible from an island. Such a generalization is especially striking for cases where all known semantic conditions on Classical NR are met (for example, for truth predicates), but Classical NR is still not possible. Because syntactic raising phenomena are subject to island constraints, it is possible to account naturally for the above generalization under the assumption that classical NR is a syntactic raising phenomenon. The chapter also examines island types that block strict negative polarity items (NPIs) but not nonstrict NPIs.Less
This chapter shows that Classical NEG Raising (NR) is sensitive to syntactic islands and considers a range of cases where it is blocked by island constraints, such as those involving clausal complements of nouns. At issue are examples invoking the Complex NP Constraint, clause-internal topics, truth predicates, wh-islands, clause-internal clefts, pseudoclefts, and Negative Inversion. The clear generalization is that Classical NR is never possible from an island. Such a generalization is especially striking for cases where all known semantic conditions on Classical NR are met (for example, for truth predicates), but Classical NR is still not possible. Because syntactic raising phenomena are subject to island constraints, it is possible to account naturally for the above generalization under the assumption that classical NR is a syntactic raising phenomenon. The chapter also examines island types that block strict negative polarity items (NPIs) but not nonstrict NPIs.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0018
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter deals with the phenomenon known as Never Raising and shows that it represents a syntactic raising phenomenon. It first considers problems in a potential nonsyntactic account of Never ...
More
This chapter deals with the phenomenon known as Never Raising and shows that it represents a syntactic raising phenomenon. It first considers problems in a potential nonsyntactic account of Never Raising similar to the nonsyntactic account associated with Classical NEG Raising (NR). It then examines the paraphrase relations between putative Never Raising cases and otherwise parallel clauses in which the never is in the complement, along with evidence for the syntactic character of the phenomenon from adverbial modification. It also presents sentences that illustrate Never Raising from the complement of a truth predicate, from a clause with a cleft construction, and from a pseudocleft construction. Finally, it discusses parallels between Never Raising and Classical NR.Less
This chapter deals with the phenomenon known as Never Raising and shows that it represents a syntactic raising phenomenon. It first considers problems in a potential nonsyntactic account of Never Raising similar to the nonsyntactic account associated with Classical NEG Raising (NR). It then examines the paraphrase relations between putative Never Raising cases and otherwise parallel clauses in which the never is in the complement, along with evidence for the syntactic character of the phenomenon from adverbial modification. It also presents sentences that illustrate Never Raising from the complement of a truth predicate, from a clause with a cleft construction, and from a pseudocleft construction. Finally, it discusses parallels between Never Raising and Classical NR.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0013
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter focuses on certain contexts, dubbed Horn clauses, that demand the syntactic presence of a negative constituent. It first considers fronted negative polarity items (NPIs) by giving ...
More
This chapter focuses on certain contexts, dubbed Horn clauses, that demand the syntactic presence of a negative constituent. It first considers fronted negative polarity items (NPIs) by giving examples that represent standard cases of the Negative Inversion construction. The most obvious characteristic of the construction is that the extracted non-wh-constituent in the clause-initial position, termed Negative Inversion focus, co-occurs with subject-auxiliary inversion, which is obligatory. Sentences containing Horn clauses, such as Carl did (not) claim that penguins were mammals and neither did I and Carl claimed that penguins were not mammals (and neither did I), involve syntactic raising of a negation (NEG) from the embedded clause. The chapter proposes for Horn clause cases an analysis that treats examples as resulting from the raising via Classical NR of the NEG. It also shows that Classical NEG Raising (NR) out of Horn clauses is subject to the same set of island constraints holding for non-Horn clause island structures.Less
This chapter focuses on certain contexts, dubbed Horn clauses, that demand the syntactic presence of a negative constituent. It first considers fronted negative polarity items (NPIs) by giving examples that represent standard cases of the Negative Inversion construction. The most obvious characteristic of the construction is that the extracted non-wh-constituent in the clause-initial position, termed Negative Inversion focus, co-occurs with subject-auxiliary inversion, which is obligatory. Sentences containing Horn clauses, such as Carl did (not) claim that penguins were mammals and neither did I and Carl claimed that penguins were not mammals (and neither did I), involve syntactic raising of a negation (NEG) from the embedded clause. The chapter proposes for Horn clause cases an analysis that treats examples as resulting from the raising via Classical NR of the NEG. It also shows that Classical NEG Raising (NR) out of Horn clauses is subject to the same set of island constraints holding for non-Horn clause island structures.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0010
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter addresses the commonly suggested semantic condition that a strict negative polarity item (NPI) occurs in the scope of an antiadditive operator, arguing that it is not sufficient to ...
More
This chapter addresses the commonly suggested semantic condition that a strict negative polarity item (NPI) occurs in the scope of an antiadditive operator, arguing that it is not sufficient to account for the distribution of strict NPIs. It first considers a context that is antiadditive (hence decreasing) but nonetheless does not allow strict NPIs by presenting the following cases: I didn't find a person who ate vegetables and I didn't find a person who ate green vegetables. The first sentence clearly entails the second, indicating that the context “I didn't find a person who ate__” is decreasing. A similar deduction goes through if the subject of the main clause is a negative quantifier determiner phrase. The chapter then gives more examples suggesting that the distribution of strict NPIs cannot be accounted for simply in terms of a requirement to appear in an antiadditive context. It also examines Gajewski's proposal, the main thrust of which is the development of a Bartsch-style approach to Classical NEG Raising (NR) that can account for the fact that strict NPIs are licensed in the complement of negated Classical NR predicates.Less
This chapter addresses the commonly suggested semantic condition that a strict negative polarity item (NPI) occurs in the scope of an antiadditive operator, arguing that it is not sufficient to account for the distribution of strict NPIs. It first considers a context that is antiadditive (hence decreasing) but nonetheless does not allow strict NPIs by presenting the following cases: I didn't find a person who ate vegetables and I didn't find a person who ate green vegetables. The first sentence clearly entails the second, indicating that the context “I didn't find a person who ate__” is decreasing. A similar deduction goes through if the subject of the main clause is a negative quantifier determiner phrase. The chapter then gives more examples suggesting that the distribution of strict NPIs cannot be accounted for simply in terms of a requirement to appear in an antiadditive context. It also examines Gajewski's proposal, the main thrust of which is the development of a Bartsch-style approach to Classical NEG Raising (NR) that can account for the fact that strict NPIs are licensed in the complement of negated Classical NR predicates.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0015
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter examines conditions on topicalization and the way topicalization structures interact with Classical NEG Raising (NR). In the majority of cases, when Negative Inversion is possible for a ...
More
This chapter examines conditions on topicalization and the way topicalization structures interact with Classical NEG Raising (NR). In the majority of cases, when Negative Inversion is possible for a particular phrase type, topicalization is impossible. However, in cases such as Under no circumstances would I agree to such a plan, Under no circumstances, I would agree to such a plan, Under those circumstances, I would agree to such a plan, and Under those circumstances would I agree to such a plan, the condition on the fronted phrase for topicalization appears to be essentially the negation of the condition on the fronted phrase for Negative Inversion. The chapter considers the Negative Inversion Condition, the Topicalization Condition, Seuren's Highest-Operator Constraint, and sensitivity of the NEG Raising Condition to syntactic islands.Less
This chapter examines conditions on topicalization and the way topicalization structures interact with Classical NEG Raising (NR). In the majority of cases, when Negative Inversion is possible for a particular phrase type, topicalization is impossible. However, in cases such as Under no circumstances would I agree to such a plan, Under no circumstances, I would agree to such a plan, Under those circumstances, I would agree to such a plan, and Under those circumstances would I agree to such a plan, the condition on the fronted phrase for topicalization appears to be essentially the negation of the condition on the fronted phrase for Negative Inversion. The chapter considers the Negative Inversion Condition, the Topicalization Condition, Seuren's Highest-Operator Constraint, and sensitivity of the NEG Raising Condition to syntactic islands.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0020
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This concluding chapter reviews some of the more general theoretical implications of the argument presented in this book with regard to Classical NEG Raising (NR). It first considers the two types of ...
More
This concluding chapter reviews some of the more general theoretical implications of the argument presented in this book with regard to Classical NEG Raising (NR). It first considers the two types of negative polarity items (NPIs), unary-NEG structures and binary-NEG structures (reversals), and the distinction between them, particularly the fact that only unary-NEG NPIs trigger Negative Inversion in Horn clauses. While it is often assumed that natural language negation (NEG) is a clausal modifier (negating the proposition denoted by the clause), this book has described a broad range of English NEG facts with no appeal to clausal negation at all, showing that the standard cases usually taken to motivate English clausal negation actually represent NEGs raised from verbal/adjectival phrases to a position right-adjacent to auxiliary. It has also discussed the idea of quantificational determiner phrase scope positions.Less
This concluding chapter reviews some of the more general theoretical implications of the argument presented in this book with regard to Classical NEG Raising (NR). It first considers the two types of negative polarity items (NPIs), unary-NEG structures and binary-NEG structures (reversals), and the distinction between them, particularly the fact that only unary-NEG NPIs trigger Negative Inversion in Horn clauses. While it is often assumed that natural language negation (NEG) is a clausal modifier (negating the proposition denoted by the clause), this book has described a broad range of English NEG facts with no appeal to clausal negation at all, showing that the standard cases usually taken to motivate English clausal negation actually represent NEGs raised from verbal/adjectival phrases to a position right-adjacent to auxiliary. It has also discussed the idea of quantificational determiner phrase scope positions.
Chris Collins and Paul M. Postal
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780262027311
- eISBN:
- 9780262323840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.003.0011
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter shows that Classical NEG Raising (NR) is sensitive to syntactic islands and describes the islands resulting from clausal passivization and topicalization. It first considers strict ...
More
This chapter shows that Classical NEG Raising (NR) is sensitive to syntactic islands and describes the islands resulting from clausal passivization and topicalization. It first considers strict negative polarity items (NPIs) and how some Classical NR predicates allow their clausal complements to be passivized or topicalized. This is evident in the verb believe. When a clausal complement of believe contains a strict NPI whose negation (NEG) has undergone Classical NR to the matrix clause, then passivization or topicalization is impossible. Several examples are given to illustrate this generalization. The chapter then discusses a schema in which Classical NR is not blocked by the fact that topics are islands, since raising of the NEG from the clausal object position is not raising out of an island. In particular, it examines an instance of remnant movement of the finite clause from which NEG has raised. Finally, it explains the c-Command Condition on Movement.Less
This chapter shows that Classical NEG Raising (NR) is sensitive to syntactic islands and describes the islands resulting from clausal passivization and topicalization. It first considers strict negative polarity items (NPIs) and how some Classical NR predicates allow their clausal complements to be passivized or topicalized. This is evident in the verb believe. When a clausal complement of believe contains a strict NPI whose negation (NEG) has undergone Classical NR to the matrix clause, then passivization or topicalization is impossible. Several examples are given to illustrate this generalization. The chapter then discusses a schema in which Classical NR is not blocked by the fact that topics are islands, since raising of the NEG from the clausal object position is not raising out of an island. In particular, it examines an instance of remnant movement of the finite clause from which NEG has raised. Finally, it explains the c-Command Condition on Movement.
Pieter A. M. Seuren
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- January 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780199682195
- eISBN:
- 9780191764929
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682195.003.0006
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Historical Linguistics, Semantics and Pragmatics
In this chapter, a number of crucial observations are presented and discussed that prove the inadequacy of current theories of grammar—especially ‘cognitivist’ approaches—which deny any universals ...
More
In this chapter, a number of crucial observations are presented and discussed that prove the inadequacy of current theories of grammar—especially ‘cognitivist’ approaches—which deny any universals and claim that language in the speaker’s mind is merely the result of statistical frequencies. In this sense, the chapter provides a ‘test bed’ for any theory, with the troublesome observations divided into class A and class B facts. The former are typically not the result of language acquisition or language teaching but are brought to awareness via immediate intuition on the basis of even imperfect knowledge of the language in question and are thus strong evidence in favour of language universals. The latter follow from ‘abstract’ rules and principles forming part of specific grammars and thus require a high level of competence in the language at issue. The final conclusion is that ‘abstract’ rules and principles cannot be done without. It is now up to the cognitivists and close relations to provide answers.Less
In this chapter, a number of crucial observations are presented and discussed that prove the inadequacy of current theories of grammar—especially ‘cognitivist’ approaches—which deny any universals and claim that language in the speaker’s mind is merely the result of statistical frequencies. In this sense, the chapter provides a ‘test bed’ for any theory, with the troublesome observations divided into class A and class B facts. The former are typically not the result of language acquisition or language teaching but are brought to awareness via immediate intuition on the basis of even imperfect knowledge of the language in question and are thus strong evidence in favour of language universals. The latter follow from ‘abstract’ rules and principles forming part of specific grammars and thus require a high level of competence in the language at issue. The final conclusion is that ‘abstract’ rules and principles cannot be done without. It is now up to the cognitivists and close relations to provide answers.