Scholarlink

This article proposes a novel ambiguist approach to negation, distinguishing between two types: NEG1 and NEG2. NEG1, functioning as a standard negator, operates within a narrow scope, negating predicates rather than existential quantification, and introduces new negative information about the topic of the clause. Semantically, NEG1 is of type &lt;<e_t>,<e_t>&gt;: it takes a predicate as input and produces another predicate–the opposite of the first–as output. This negation is inherently lexical, targeting a predicate or concept and resulting in a corresponding negative form. In contrast, NEG2 is a marked negator capable of scoping above positive polarity items (PPIs), leading to a mandatory wide scope reading akin to explicit external negation. It signifies the falsity of the root proposition and is classified as a truth function of type <t_t>, where it takes a proposition as input and generates the opposite truth value as output. The distinctions between these negators are formalized using dynamic semantics, which accounts for how information is updated and modified in discourse. This analysis also offers a novel explanation for the scopal interaction between some-PPIs and negation. The article elucidates the distribution and distinct behaviors of NEG1 and NEG2. By examining synchronic and diachronic data from diverse linguistic phenomena, the study reveals consistent patterns in marked negation across different languages. Four key observations support this approach: (1) contexts in English where some-type PPIs can operate under negation, (2) the distribution of “light negation” in German, (3) cross-linguistic instances of wide-scope negation, and (4) the origin and function of two negators in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and the Sicilian dialect of Mussomeli. Finally, the paper explores the interplay between formal semantics and historical linguistics, discussing the methodological insights derived from this study and highlighting the importance of historical linguistics in formal analyses of natural language semantics.</t_t></e_t></e_t>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Two Types of Negation: Semantics, Distribution and History

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2025年

查看全文
  • Elitzur A. Bar-Asher Siegal

摘要

This article proposes a novel ambiguist approach to negation, distinguishing between two types: NEG1 and NEG2. NEG1, functioning as a standard negator, operates within a narrow scope, negating predicates rather than existential quantification, and introduces new negative information about the topic of the clause. Semantically, NEG1 is of type <,>: it takes a predicate as input and produces another predicate–the opposite of the first–as output. This negation is inherently lexical, targeting a predicate or concept and resulting in a corresponding negative form. In contrast, NEG2 is a marked negator capable of scoping above positive polarity items (PPIs), leading to a mandatory wide scope reading akin to explicit external negation. It signifies the falsity of the root proposition and is classified as a truth function of type , where it takes a proposition as input and generates the opposite truth value as output. The distinctions between these negators are formalized using dynamic semantics, which accounts for how information is updated and modified in discourse. This analysis also offers a novel explanation for the scopal interaction between some-PPIs and negation. The article elucidates the distribution and distinct behaviors of NEG1 and NEG2. By examining synchronic and diachronic data from diverse linguistic phenomena, the study reveals consistent patterns in marked negation across different languages. Four key observations support this approach: (1) contexts in English where some-type PPIs can operate under negation, (2) the distribution of “light negation” in German, (3) cross-linguistic instances of wide-scope negation, and (4) the origin and function of two negators in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and the Sicilian dialect of Mussomeli. Finally, the paper explores the interplay between formal semantics and historical linguistics, discussing the methodological insights derived from this study and highlighting the importance of historical linguistics in formal analyses of natural language semantics.