Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 291–303 | Cite as

Not even

  • Chris CollinsEmail author


This paper proposes an analysis of the semantics of even that is consistent with the assumptions about the syntax and semantics of negation in Collins and Postal (Classical NEG raising, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2014). First, I review the distribution of negation, showing how negation may modify quantificational expressions where it gives rise to scope freezing effects. Second, I discuss the fact that even-phrases can be modified by negation, as in Not even John is there. On the basis of this fact, I argue that even is a quantifier. Lastly, I show that my data provides new empirical support for the assumption that there are two kinds of even, depending on the role played by focus in the scalar presupposition.


Even Negation Negative polarity items Scalar presupposition Existential presupposition Scope freezing NEG raising 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barwise, Jon, and Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Collins, Chris, and Paul M. Postal. 2014. Classical NEG raising. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crnič, Luka. 2014. Non-monotonicity in NPI licensing. Natural Language Semantics 22: 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Haegeman, Liliane. 2000. Negative preposing, negative inversion, and the split CP. In Negation and polarity, ed. L. Horn and Y. Kato, 21–61. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hankamer, Jorge, and Ivan Sag. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7(3): 391–426.Google Scholar
  6. Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Hoeksema, Jack, and Frans Zwarts. 1991. Some remarks on focus adverbs. Journal of Semantics 8: 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Horn, Laurence R. 1969. A presuppositional analysis of only and even. In Papers from the 5 th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 5, 98–107. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
  9. Karttunen, Lauri, and Stanley Peters. 1979. Conventional implicature. In Syntax and Semantics 11: Presuppositions, ed. C. Oh and D. Dinneen, 1–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. McCawley, James D. 1991. Contrastive negation and metalinguistic negation. In Papers from the 27 th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part Two: The Parasession on Negation, 189–206. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
  12. Neale, Stephen. 1990. Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Partee, Barbara. 2004. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Compositionality in Formal Semantics, 203–230. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Rooth, Mats E. 1985. Association with focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  15. Rullman, Hotze. 2007. What does even even mean? Handout of a talk at the Linguistic Colloquium, University of Calgary, December 7.Google Scholar
  16. Schwarz, Bernhard. 2000. Notes on “even”. Ms., University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  17. Schwarz, Bernhard. 2005. Scalar additive particles in negative contexts. Natural Language Semantics 13: 125–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wagner, Michael. 2006. Association by movement: Evidence from NPI licensing. Natural Language Semantics 14: 297–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wilkinson, Karina. 1996. The scope of even. Natural Language Semantics 4: 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations