A scalar implicature-based approach to neg-raising

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 (Bartsch 1973and Gajewski 2005 comes from the differences between presuppositions and neg-raising inferences, noticed by Gajewski (2005Gajewski ( , 2007 and Homer (2012). 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 (2002Abusch ( , 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 the revived syntactic approach by Collins & Postal (2012).

Probability and implicatures: A unified account of the scalar effects of disjunction under modals

“…We think the source of this contrast lies in the fact that likely, but not certain, is a neg-raising predicate (see Horn 1978, Gajewski 2007, Romoli 2013). This means that (i) is typically interpreted as in (iii).…”

Interclausal NEG raising and the scope of negation

“…Initially, this seems like a devastating counterargument against syntactic views of sc inr in general and not just against the particular one in Collins & Postal (2014). And it would potentially provide a powerful argument for theoretically alternative semantic/ pragmatic approaches to inr such as that of Bartsch (1973), Gajewski (2007) and Romoli (2013). That follows since those analyses systematically assume that the overt NEG in an sc inr case originates in, and is interpreted in, the main clause.…”

“…These include e.g. Horn (1978;[2001), Horn & Bayer (1984), Tovena (2001), Pullum & Huddleston (2002: 838-843), Larrivee (2004: 103-105), Gajewski (2005;2007;, Sailer (2005;, Boškovič & Gajewski (2008), Homer (2010), and Romoli (2013); see the discussion in Collins & Postal (2014: Chapter 1). Moreover, Klima (1964: 292-295) proposed an analysis independent of semantics in which an sc inr structure was represented by a main clause with an unraised NEG as well as a complement clause with a NEG which was in effect deleted (absorbed in his terminology).…”

Alternatives in different dimensions: a case study of focus intervention

“…Although the jury is still out as to which analysis best captures the existential import of wh-questions, it is widely recognized that this existential import can be rather felicitously denied by a negative answer in a conversation like (10) (see also Dayal 1996 andComorovski 1996 Dayal (in press) discusses the differences between ordinary wh-questions and clefted wh-questions in English, noting that a clefted wh-question cannot take a negative answer. She suggests that this distinction can be captured by analyzing the existential import in wh-questions as a soft presupposition (in the sense of Abusch 2002, and Romoli 2013 and the existential import in clefted wh-questions as a strong presupposition. In Mandarin, the existential import of a wh-question with shi associating with a wh-phrase also cannot be denied by a negative answer, as evidenced by the problematic conversation in (11) von Prince (2012) argues that shi triggers an existential presupposition on its associate.…”