Classical NEG Raising: An Essay on the Syntax of Negation

9. Confounding Cases: Strict NPIs and Scope

Confounding Cases: Strict NPIs and Scope 9.1 Scope Issues and Nonfinite Complement Clauses Consider examples like (1a,b) and (2a,b): (1) a. Andrea doesn’t believe/think that Carl said jackshitA about compilers. b. *Andrea doesn’t accept/grasp that Carl said jackshitA about compilers. (2) a. No expert believes/thinks that Carl said jackshitA about compilers. b. *No expert accepts/states that Carl said jackshitA about compilers. Similar pairs with analogous judgment markings play a key role throughout this monograph. By analogous judgment markings, we mean that cases like (1a) and (2a), with CNRP main verbs, are taken to be grammatical, while those like (1b) and (2b), with non-CNRP main verbs, are taken to be ungrammatical. By similar pairs, we mean that both (a)- and (b)-type examples have a strict NPI in the complement clause. However, such examples manifest certain complexities and raise various issues. These require clarification in order to justify the heavy weight we place on pairs like (1a,b) and (2a,b). These complexities will require discussion of quantifier scope as well as the behavior of a range of strict NPIs distinct from the type in the examples above. To begin, consider the following observation: (3) (Kempson 1985:236) “The final datum about any and its construal is that any in negative polarity environments is ambiguous, any in a non-negative polarity environment is not. That is, any case where an ‘existential’ interpretation of any is available can always be over-ridden by a focusing device such as contrastive stress, giving rise to ambiguity.” 9 80 Chapter 9 Kempson’s invocation here of contrastive stress has pointed us to the fact that stress contrasts are relevant to the ambiguities of NPI any forms as well as to those of other nominal NPIs. Consider: (4) Vaughn didn’t accept to write anything about radiation. Example (4) has two readings involving the differential scope of the DP represented by anything. On one reading, associated with weak stress on this form, its scope is internal to the complement. On this reading, (4) paraphrases (5): (5) Vaughn didn’t accept to write something about radiation. In our terms, (4) is a reversal case; the initiator of the NEG deletion chain involved in the covertness of the two NEGs underlying any is taken to be the negated main verb [NEG accept]. A scenario where such an interpretation is natural is one where the chief editor of the paper is handing out topics for people to write on. She asks Vaughn to write something about radiation, but he refuses. Later on, she reports his reaction using (4). A second reading of (4) is associated with strong stress on anything; the scope of the quantifier is in the main clause. On this reading, (4) is equivalent to (6): (6) There is nothing about radiation that Vaughn accepted to write. In terms of the assumptions and notations adopted in this monograph, the relevant aspects of this reading of (4) would be represented most fully as follows: (7) Vaughn did NEG1 [ SOME] thing]5> [accept to write DP5]] The key observations about (4) on the reading represented in (7) are the following: (i) accept is not a CNRP, (ii) no reversal structure is involved, and (iii) the surface position of the DP with main clause scope is in the complement clause. Despite these properties, a structure like (7) nonetheless yields an output with the NEG raised to a position immediately adjacent to the matrix clause Aux from the higher occurrence of DP5. On its reading equivalent to (6), the structure of (4) thus involves no raising of a NEG out of the complement clause. This is possible because under our assumptions, the main clause NEG in (7) starts out in the DP in a main clause scope position. The NEG can then raise out of the DP in the high-scope position internal to the main clause. No Classical NR is present in (7) or required to account for its properties. In examples like (8), analogous to (4) except that the main verb is replaced by a CNRP, the situation is slightly more complex: (8) Vaughn didn’t want to write anything about radiation. Confounding Cases: Strict NPIs and Scope 81 Presumably, such cases have a pair of readings of the type seen for (4) (which are rather difficult to get) but also a distinct one that involves...