2026-09-19T18:50:28Zhttps://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/requestoai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/336962022-01-13T07:54:31Zcom_1721.1_7582com_1721.1_7581col_1721.1_131022
Irene Heim.
Gajewski, Jon Robert
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy
2006-07-31T15:24:40Z
2006-07-31T15:24:40Z
2005
2005
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/33696
64637993
Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy, 2005.
Includes bibliographical references (p. 177-184).
In this thesis, I advance a semantic theory of Neg-Raising rooted in the work of Bartsch (1973) and Heim (2000) and defend it against syntactic and pragmatic alternatives. The primary source of support for my position on Neg-Raising comes from the natural way in which the approach explains a variety of facts about NPI-licensing in environments containing Neg-Raising predicates. In Chapter 2, a principled account is offered of a previously ill-understood contrast in NPI-licensing under stacked Neg-Raising predicates, first pointed out in Horn (1972). Also addressed are facts advanced in favor of the syntactic theory of Neg-Raising by Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970) and Prince (1976). Horn's (1989) attractive account of Neg-Raising is reviewed in detail in Chapter 3 and found to have deficiencies, particularly in the domain of NPI-licensing. The most compelling aspect of Horn's analysis is his derivation of Neg-Raising from general principles. The purposes of Chapters 4 and 5 is to develop an alternative analysis of Neg-Raising that attains a comparable depth of explanation. First, I compare the behavior of negated Neg-Raising predicates to that of negated definite plurals.
(cont.) Next, I show that there is a significant correlation across constructions between obeying the Excluded Middle and having the properties of definite plurals. Finally, I offer a tentative explanation of why definite plurals obey the Excluded Middle.
by Jon Robert Gajewski.
Ph.D.
184 p.
9641426 bytes
9649169 bytes
application/pdf
application/pdf
eng
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582
Linguistics and Philosophy.
Neg-raising : polarity and presupposition
Thesis
application/pdf
false
Publication
unknown
unknown
<Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="5a3462fb-b9c8-4904-993e-31cef207ad9a">
<Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843</Type>
<Language>eng</Language>
<Title>Neg-raising : polarity and presupposition</Title>
<PublishedIn>
<Publication>
</Publication>
</PublishedIn>
<PublicationDate>2005</PublicationDate>
<Authors>
<Author>
<DisplayName>Gajewski, Jon Robert</DisplayName>
<Affiliation>
<OrgUnit>
</OrgUnit>
</Affiliation>
</Author>
</Authors>
<Editors>
</Editors>
<Publishers>
<Publisher>
<DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</DisplayName>
<OrgUnit />
</Publisher>
</Publishers>
<License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</License>
<Keyword>Linguistics and Philosophy.</Keyword>
<Abstract>In this thesis, I advance a semantic theory of Neg-Raising rooted in the work of Bartsch (1973) and Heim (2000) and defend it against syntactic and pragmatic alternatives. The primary source of support for my position on Neg-Raising comes from the natural way in which the approach explains a variety of facts about NPI-licensing in environments containing Neg-Raising predicates. In Chapter 2, a principled account is offered of a previously ill-understood contrast in NPI-licensing under stacked Neg-Raising predicates, first pointed out in Horn (1972). Also addressed are facts advanced in favor of the syntactic theory of Neg-Raising by Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970) and Prince (1976). Horn's (1989) attractive account of Neg-Raising is reviewed in detail in Chapter 3 and found to have deficiencies, particularly in the domain of NPI-licensing. The most compelling aspect of Horn's analysis is his derivation of Neg-Raising from general principles. The purposes of Chapters 4 and 5 is to develop an alternative analysis of Neg-Raising that attains a comparable depth of explanation. First, I compare the behavior of negated Neg-Raising predicates to that of negated definite plurals.</Abstract>
<Abstract>(cont.) Next, I show that there is a significant correlation across constructions between obeying the Excluded Middle and having the properties of definite plurals. Finally, I offer a tentative explanation of why definite plurals obey the Excluded Middle.</Abstract>
<Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right"
>
</Access>
</Publication>