Disentangling two distinct notions of NEG raising

IF 1.4 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Semantics & Pragmatics Pub Date : 2018-05-22 DOI:10.3765/SP.11.5
C. Collins, P. Postal
{"title":"Disentangling two distinct notions of NEG raising","authors":"C. Collins, P. Postal","doi":"10.3765/SP.11.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we consider two analyses of NEG raising phenomena: a syntactic approach based on raising NEG, as recently advocated in Collins & Postal 2014, and a semantic/pragmatic approach based on the Excluded Middle Assumption; see Bartsch 1973. We show that neither approach alone is sufficient to account for all the relevant phenomena. Although the syntactic approach is needed to explain the distribution of strict NPIs and Horn clauses, the semantic/pragmatic approach is needed to explain certain inferences where syntactic NEG raising is blocked. \n \nEARLY ACCESS","PeriodicalId":45550,"journal":{"name":"Semantics & Pragmatics","volume":"11 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Semantics & Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3765/SP.11.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

In this paper we consider two analyses of NEG raising phenomena: a syntactic approach based on raising NEG, as recently advocated in Collins & Postal 2014, and a semantic/pragmatic approach based on the Excluded Middle Assumption; see Bartsch 1973. We show that neither approach alone is sufficient to account for all the relevant phenomena. Although the syntactic approach is needed to explain the distribution of strict NPIs and Horn clauses, the semantic/pragmatic approach is needed to explain certain inferences where syntactic NEG raising is blocked. EARLY ACCESS
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解开NEG提升的两个不同概念
在本文中,我们考虑了对NEG提升现象的两种分析:一种是最近在Collins&Postal 2014中提出的基于提升NEG的句法方法,另一种是基于排除中间假设的语义/语用方法;参见Bartsch 1973。我们表明,这两种方法都不足以解释所有相关现象。尽管需要句法方法来解释严格NPI和Horn子句的分布,但需要语义/语用方法来解释句法NEG提升受阻的某些推论。早期访问
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
50 weeks
期刊最新文献
Using the Anna Karenina Principle to explain why cause favors negative-sentiment complements Putting oughts together Probabilities and logic in implicature computation: Two puzzles with embedded disjunction Context Dynamics Pair-list answers to questions with plural definites
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1