Natural Language Semantics 28 (2):111-140 (2020)

There have been a variety of arguments over the decades both for and against syntactic Neg Raising. Two recent papers :559–576, 2018; Crowley in Nat Lang Semant 27, 1–17, 2019) focus on the interaction of NR effects with ellipsis. These papers examine similar types of data, but come to opposite conclusion: Jacobson shows that the ellipsis facts provide evidence against syntactic NR, whereas Crowley argues in favor of syntactic NR. The present paper revisits the evidence, showing that the key case in Crowley that he uses to argue for syntactic NR contains a confound, while the broader set of evidence in Jacobson continues to support the non-syntactic account. In addition, I reply here to an argument for syntactic NR due originally to Prince and Smaby and elaborated on by Crowley. The key generalization can be shown to disappear once contexts are carefully controlled for. Moreover, Crowley extends the Prince/Smaby argument to show that no inference-based account of NR can survive, but this conclusion rests on the claim that there are cases where ever is vacuous; I show that this is not the case. I also consider the question—discussed in much previous literature—of why under the syntactic approach to NR the class of predicates allowing NR is limited to just those which easily support an Excluded Middle inference. Crowley attempts to provide a principled explanation, speculating that NR is allowed just in case it is ‘semantically vacuous’. I argue that this proposal is problematic and so the challenge to syntactic approaches remains. Finally, I provide a new argument against syntactic NR which centers on the behavior of guess.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11050-020-09161-z
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 53,682
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Licensing Strong NPIs.Jon R. Gajewski - 2011 - Natural Language Semantics 19 (2):109-148.
A Scalar Implicature-Based Approach to Neg-Raising.Jacopo Romoli - 2013 - Linguistics and Philosophy 36 (4):291-353.
Neg-Raising and Polarity.Jon Robert Gajewski - 2007 - Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (3):289-328.
Neg-Raising and Neg movement.Paul Crowley - 2019 - Natural Language Semantics 27 (1):1-17.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Neg-Raising and Neg movement.Paul Crowley - 2019 - Natural Language Semantics 27 (1):1-17.
Reflexives and Ellipsis.Arild Hestvik - 1995 - Natural Language Semantics 3 (2):211-237.
Syntactic Representation in the Lemma Stratum.Holly P. Branigan & Martin J. Pickering - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (2):296-297.
Non-Sentential Assertions.Robert James Harold Stainton - 1993 - Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Linearization-Based Word-Part Ellipsis.Rui P. Chaves - 2008 - Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (3):261-307.
Economy and Scope.Danny Fox - 1995 - Natural Language Semantics 3 (3):283-341.


Added to PP index

Total views
13 ( #692,148 of 2,349,382 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #83,875 of 2,349,382 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes