In linguistics, negative raising is a phenomenon that concerns the raising of negation from the embedded or subordinate clause of certain predicates to the matrix or main clause. The higher copy of the negation, in the matrix clause, is pronounced; but the semantic meaning is interpreted as though it were present in the embedded clause.
Background The NEG-element was first introduced by Edward Klima, but the term neg raising has been accredited to the early transformational analysis as an instance of movement. Charles J. Fillmore was the first to propose a syntactic approach called neg transportation but is now known solely as negative raising. This syntactic approach was supported in the early beginnings by evidence provided by Robin Lakoff, who used, in part, strong/strict polarity items as proof. Laurence R. Horn and Robin Lakoff have written on the theory of negative raising, which is now considered to be the classical argumentation on this theory. Chris Collins and Paul Postal have also written in more recent times in defense of the classical argumentation to negative raising. These early accounts attributed negative raising to be derived syntactically, as they thought that the NEG element was c-commanding onto two verbs. Not all agreed with the syntactic view of negative raising. To counter the syntactically derived theory of neg raising, Renate Bartsch and a number of others argued that a syntactic analysis was insufficient to explain all the components of the neg raising (NR) theory. Instead they developed a presuppositional, otherwise known as a semantically based account. However, it is suggested by Chris Collins, Paul Postal, and Laurence R. Horn that the divide between these approaches is not necessary. An approach combining the two is argued for by Chris Collins and Paul Postal, who claim that using an exclusionist method is not viable.
NEG-raising in English In the syntactic view of classical Neg-raising, a NEG raises from its origin, the place in which it originates underlyingly, to the host, the place in which sits in the surface representation. In English, negative raising constructions utilize negation in the form of, "not," where it is then subject to clausal raising.
Examples of English NEG-raising In the phenomenon of negative raising, this negation cannot be raised freely with any given predicate. Consider the following example proposed by Paul Crowley, in which the verb "say" attempts to display negative raising:
Mary didn't say it would snow Mary said it would not snow. As seen in this example, "say" is not a predicate that can be used for Neg-raising, as the raising of the negation to the matrix clause creates the reading "Mary didn’t say it would snow," which holds a different meaning than "Mary said it would not snow," where the negation resides in the embedded clause. To account for this fact, Laurence Horn has identified 5 distinct classes to account for the general predicates involved negative raising, as seen below in English:
Chris Collins and Paul Postal refer to these predicates as classical negative raising predicates (CNRPs). It is important to note that some CNRPs such as reckon and guess, exhibit more dialectal variation in their acceptability to speakers. They define what constitutes a CNRP as follows: "If NEG raises from one clause B into the next clause above B, call it clause A, then the predicate of clause A is a CNRP." Consider the Perception predicate, "look like," in which we can posit the following readings:
“It looks like [it will not rain today]” “It does not look like [it will rain today]” In this regard, “It does not look like [it will rain today]” is seen as a paraphrase of “It looks like [it will not rain today]." This is because even with the raising of the negation to the matrix clause, both sentences convey the same meaning, thus the matrix clause negation is to be interpreted as if it were within the embedded clause.
Analysis of English NEG-raising In English, syntactically we can have negative phrase structures with the NEG in the matrix clause - the semantic interpretation of these phrases can be ambiguous;
The negation could apply to the verb in the matrix clause The negation could apply to the verb in the embedded clause
Phrase structure with ambiguous and unambiguous NEG interpretation
Syntax Tree 1
Syntax Tree 2
The English language has a rich inventory of operators; these operators (in this case NEG specifically), differ from each other in terms of their scope orders with respect to other operators (in this case Verb). When we look at negative raising - we are thus looking at the operator NEG, and its scope over the Verbs in a phrase. Sentence with negative raising are thus ambiguous in terms of NEG -
In one reading NEG has scope over the matrix verb (Tree 1) in the other reading NEG has scope over the clausal verb (Tree 2)
Phrase structure showing NEG raising - from lower to upper position
This tree illustrates how NEG can be raised from the embedded clause to the Matrix clause; thus it can be pronounced in the higher position while retaining its scope from the lower position.
Horn clauses Horn clauses, named after the linguist Laurence R. Horn, who discovered the constructions, are clauses which feature a that clause complement containing an extracted NPI, triggering negative inversion, and further undergoing subject-auxiliary inversion. Take, for example, the following clause where the NPI is highlighted: I don't think that ever before have the media played such a major role in a kidnapping. Chris Collins and Paul Postal define rules that Horn clauses must abide by a few rules:
They must be complements. They must be a complement of a CNRP as these manifest a strong reading for main clause negation The following table shows examples of permitted Horn clauses:
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
