Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A scalar implicature-based approach to neg-raising

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, I give an analysis of neg-raising inferences as scalar implicatures. The main motivation for this account as opposed to a presupposition-based approach like Gajewski (Linguist Philos 30(3):289–328, 2007) comes from the differences between presuppositions and neg-raising inferences. In response to this issue, Gajewski (2007) argues that neg-raising predicates are soft presuppositional triggers and adopts the account of how their presuppositions arise by Abusch (J Semantics 27(1):1–44, 2010). However, I argue that there is a difference between soft triggers and neg-raising predicates in their behavior in embeddings; a difference that is straightforwardly accounted for in the present approach. Furthermore, by adopting Abusch’s (2010) account of soft triggers, Gajewski (2007) inherits the assumptions of a pragmatic principle of disjunctive closure and of a non-standard interaction between semantics and pragmatics—assumptions that are not needed by the present proposal, which is just based on a regular theory of scalar implicatures. I also show that the arguments that Gajewski (2007) presents in favor of the presuppositional account can be explained also by the scalar implicatures-based approach proposed here. Finally, while the main point of the paper is a comparison with the presuppositional account, I sketch a preliminary comparison with more syntactic approaches to neg-raising.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abusch, D. (2002). Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presupposition. In B. Jackson (Ed.), Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) (Vol. 12, pp. 1–19). Ithaca, NY: CLC.

  • Abusch D. (2010) Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics 27(1): 1–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartsch, R. (1973). “Negative transportation” gibt es nicht. Linguistische Berichte, 27, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D. (2010). Have you noticed that your belly button lint colour is related to the colour of your clothing? In R. Bauerle, U. Reyle, & T. E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Presuppositions and discourse: Essays offered to Hans Kamp, Crispi. Bingley: Emerald Group.

  • Beaver, D., & Clark, B. Z. (2009). Sense and sensitivity. How focus determines meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Beaver, D., & Geurts, B. (2011). Presuppositions. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 3). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Charlow, S. (2009). “Strong” predicative presuppositional objects. In Proceedings of ESSLLI 2009, Bordeaux.

  • Chemla, E. (2008). An anti-introduction to presuppositions. In P. Egré & G. Magri (Eds.), Presuppositions and implicatures: Proceedings of MIT-France workshop on scalar implicature and presupposition (Vol. 60). Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

  • Chemla, E. (2009a). Presuppositions of quantified sentences: Experimental data. Unpublished previous version of Chemla (2009b). http://www.emmanuel.chemla.free.fr .

  • Chemla E. (2009b) Presuppositions of quantified sentences: Experimental data. Natural Language Semantics 17(4): 299–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chemla, E. (2009c). Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data. Semantics and Pragmatics, 2(2), 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chemla, E. (2010). Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 3, pp. 39–103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Chierchia, G. (in press). Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (in press). The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 3). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Chierchia, G., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2000). Meaning and grammar: An introduction to Semantics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Collins, C., & Postal, P. (2012). Classical NEG-raising. Unpublished manuscript. Available on LingBuzz. lingbuzz/001498.

  • Dayal, V. (1996). Locality in Wh-quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Donati C. (2000) A note on negation in comparison. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica 10: 55–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore C. (1963) The position of embedding transformations in grammar. Word 19: 208–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D. (2007). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics (pp. 71–120). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

  • Fox, D. (2012). Presupposition projection from quantificational sentences: Trivalence, local accommodation, and presupposition strengthening. MS the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

  • Fox D., Katzir R. (2011) On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 19(1): 87–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gajewski, J. (2005). Neg-raising: Polarity and presupposition. MIT dissertation.

  • Gajewski, J. (2007). Neg-raising and polarity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(3), 289–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gajewski, J. (2009). L-triviality and grammar. Ms, UConn.

  • Gajewski J. (2011) Licensing strong NPIs. Natural Language Semantics 19(2): 109–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.

  • Geurts, B. (1995). Presupposing. University of Stuttgart dissertation.

  • Geurts, B. (1998). Presuppositions and anaphors in attitude contexts. Linguistic and Philosophy, 21, 545–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagstrom P. (2003) What questions mean. GLOT International 7: 188–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In D. P. Flickinger (Ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL (Vol. 2, pp. 114–125). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, CSLI Publications.

  • Heim I. (1992) Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1994). Interrogative semantics and Karttunen’s semantics for know. In R. Buchalla & A. Mittwoch (Eds.), Proceedings of IATL 1. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

  • Heim, I. (2000). Degree operators and scope. In B. Jackson & T. Matthews (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT X (pp. 40–64). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, CLC Publications.

  • Heim, I. (2011). Pragmatics class. Lecture notes. Cambridge: MIT.

  • Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

  • Heycock, C., & Kroch, A. (2002). Topic, focus, and syntactic representation. Proceedings of WCCFL, 21, 141–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, J. (1969). Semantics for propositional attitudes. In J. W. Davis, D. J. Hockney, & W. K. Wilson (Eds.), Philosophical logic (pp. 21–45). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

  • Homer, V. (2012). Neg-raising and positive polarity: The view from modals. Ms., Ecole Normal Superieure, Paris.

  • Horn, L. (1971). Negative transportation: Unsafe at any speed? In Proceedings of Chicago Linguistics Society (Vol. 7, pp. 120–133). Chicago: CLS.

  • Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. UCLA dissertation.

  • Horn, L. (1975). Neg-raising predicates: toward an explanation. In L. J. San, R. E. Grossman, & T. J. Vance (Eds.), In papers from the eleventh regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Horn, L. (1978). Remarks on neg-raising. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.

  • Horn, L. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Hurford, J. R. (1974). Exclusive or inclusive disjunction. Foundations of Language, 11, 409–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iatridou, S., & Sichel, I. (2008). Negative DPs and scope diminishment: Some basic patterns. In Proceedings of NELS 38. Amherst: GLSA.

  • Karttunen, L. (1973). Presupposition of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(3), 169–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzir R. (2007) Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistic and Philosophy 30(6): 669–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klinedinst, N. (2007). Plurality and possibility. UCLA dissertation.

  • Kratzer, A. (2006). Decomposing attitude verbs. Talk given at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

  • Lakoff G. (1969) A syntactic argument for negative transportation. In Chicago linguistics society 5: 149–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Linebarger, M. C. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10, 325–387.

  • Magri, G. (2010). A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.

  • Magri, G. (2013). An account for the homogeneity effects triggered by plural definites and conjunction based on double strengthening. Unpublished manuscript CNRS.

  • Meier C. (2003) The meaning of too, enough, and so...that. Natural Language Semantics 11(1): 69–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merin, A. (1999). Information, relevance and social decisionmaking. Some principles and results of decision-theoretic semantics. In L. Moss, J. Ginzburg, & M. de Rijke (Eds.), Logic, language and computation. Stanford: CSLI.

  • Moltmann, F. (2012). Truth predicates in natural language. In D. Achourioti, H. Galinon, & J. Martinez (Eds.), Unifying the philosophy of truth. Dordrecht: Synthese Library Springer.

  • Moulton, K. (2009). Clausal complementation and the wager-class. In A. Schardl & M. Walkow (Eds.), In proceedings of NELS 38. Amherst: GLSA.

  • Penka, D. (2007). Negative indefinites. Universität Tübingen dissertation.

  • Postal, P. (2005). Suppose (if only for an hour) that negative polarity items are negation-containing phrases. New York: MS NYU.

  • Reeve, M. (2012). Clefts and their relatives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Roberts, C. (2004). Context in dynamic interpretation. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell.

  • Romoli, J. (2011). The presuppositions of soft triggers aren’t presuppositions. In N. Ashton, A. Chereches, & D. Lut (Eds.), Semantic and linguistic theory (SALT) 21. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

  • Romoli, J. (2012). Soft but strong: Neg-raising, soft triggers, and exhaustification. Harvard University dissertation.

  • Sauerland, U. (2000). No ‘no’: on the crosslinguistic absence of a determiner ‘no’. In Proceedings of the tsukuba workshop on determiners and quantification. Tsukuba: Tsukuba University.

  • Sauerland U. (2004) Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(3): 367–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, U. (2008). Implicated presuppositions. In A. Steube (Ed.), Sentence and context: Language, context and cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Seuren, P. (1974). Autonomous versus semantic syntax. In Semantic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Simons, M. (2001). On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson, & Z. Zvolenszky (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 11 (pp. 431–448). Ithaca, NY: CLC.

  • Singh, R. (2008). On the interpretation of disjunction: Asymmetric, incremental, and eager for inconsistency. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 245–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Rooij, R. (2002). Relevance implicatures. MS, ILLC, Amsterdam.

  • von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. University of Massachusetts-Amherst dissertation.

  • von Fintel, K. (1997). Bare plurals, bare conditionals and only. Journal of Semantics 14(1), 1–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, K. (1999). Counterfactuals in dynamic contexts. In U. Sauerland & O. Percus (Eds.), The interpretive tract (pp. 123–152). Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

  • von Fintel, K. (2001). Conditional strengthening: A case study in implicature. Unpublished manuscript.

  • von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The king of france is back! presuppositions and truth-value intuitions. In M. Reimer & A. Bezuidenhout (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Winter Y. (2000) Distributivity and dependency. Natural Language Semantics 8(1): 27–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zondervan, A. (2009). Experiments on QUD and focus as a contextual constraint on scalar implicature calculation. In U. Sauerland & K. Yatsushiro (Eds.), From experiment to theory, presuppositions, negation and scalar implicatures. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

  • Zwarts, F. (1998). Three types of polarity. In E. Hinrichs & F. Hamm (Eds.), Plural quantification (pp. 177–238). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cognitive Science, C5C Level 4, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia

    Jacopo Romoli

Authors
  1. Jacopo Romoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacopo Romoli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Romoli, J. A scalar implicature-based approach to neg-raising. Linguist and Philos 36, 291–353 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9136-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9136-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation