De Morgan’s laws and NEG-raising: a syntactic view

Krivochen, Diego Gabriel

doi:10.2478/lf-2018-0009

Abstract

In this paper, we will motivate the application of specific rules of inference from the propositional calculus to natural language sentences. Specifically, we will analyse De Morgan’s laws, which pertain to the interaction of two central topics in syntactic research: negation and coordination. We will argue that the applicability of De Morgan’s laws to natural language structures can be derived from independently motivated operations of grammar and principles restricting the application of these operations. This has direct empirical consequences for the hypothesised relations between natural language and logic.

References

[1] Barwise, J., 1977. An introduction to first-order logic. In Barwise, J. (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical logic. London: Elsevier, pp. 5–46.10.1016/S0049-237X(08)71097-8
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[2] McCawley, J. D., 1993. Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic…but were ashamed to ask. 2^nd edn. London: Blackwell.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[3] Collins, C., Postal, P., 2016. Interclausal NEG raising and the scope of negation. <https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002891>.10.5334/gjgl.79
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[4] Zwarts, F., 1996. Facets of negation. In Van der Does, J., van Eijck, J. (Eds.), Quantifiers, logic, and language. Stanford, California: CSLI, pp. 385–421.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[5] Lakoff, G., 1970. Linguistics and natural logic. Synthese, 22(1–2), 151–271.10.1007/BF00413602
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[6] van Benthem, J., 1988. The semantics of variety in categorial grammars. In Buszkowski, W., Marciszewski, W., van Benthem, J. (Eds.), Categorial grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 33–55.10.1075/llsee.25.06ben
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[7] van Benthem, J., 1991. Language in action: categories, lambdas and dynamic logic. Studies in Logic. North-Holland.10.1007/BF00250539
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[8] Sánchez Valencia, V., 1991. Studies on natural logic and categorial grammar. PhD thesis, University Amsterdam.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[9] MacCartney, B., Manning, C., 2009. An extended model of natural logic. In Proceedings of the eighth international conference on computational semantics, 140–156. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Association for Computational Linguistics. <http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W09-3714>10.3115/1693756.1693772
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[10] Krivochen, D., Schmerling, S. F., 2016. Two kinds of coordination and their theoretical implications: rethinking structural uniformity. Ms. <https://www.academia.edu/13207764/_2016_Two_kinds_of_coordination_and_their_theoretical_implications>
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[11] Krivochen, D., 2016. Divide and…conquer? On the limits of algorithmic approaches to syntactic- semantic structure. Czech and Slovak Linguistic Review, 1, 15–37.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[12] Schmerling, S. F., 1975. Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation. In Cole, P., Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, 211–231. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368811_009
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[13] Culicover, P. W., 2013. OM-sentences. In Culicover, P. W., Explaining syntax, 15–52. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660230.003.0002
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[14] Ross, J. R., 1967. Constraints on variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[15] Williams, E., 1978. Across-the-Board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry, 9(1), 31–43.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[16] Postal, P. M., 1998. Three investigations on extraction. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6820.001.0001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[17] Fillmore, C., 1963. The position of embedding transformations in a grammar. Word, 19(2), 208–231.10.1080/00437956.1963.11659796
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[18] Horn, L. R., 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[19] Horn, L. R., 1978. Remarks on Neg-raising. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: pragmatics, 129–220. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368873_007
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[20] Collins, C., Postal, P., 2014. Classical NEG raising. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.001.0001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[21] Collins, C., Postal, P. 2017. Interclausal NEG raising and the scope of negation. Glossa: Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 1–29.10.5334/gjgl.79
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[22] Horn, L. R., 2014. The cloud of unknowing. In Hoeksema, J., Gilbers, D. (Eds.), Black book: a festschrift in honor of Frans Zwarts. Groningen: University of Groningen, pp. 78–96.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[23] Carden, G., 1970. A note on conflicting idiolects. Linguistic Inquiry, 1(3), 281–290.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[24] Goodall, G., 1984. Parallel structures in syntax. PhD Thesis, University of California, San Diego.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[25] Chomsky, N., 1970. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Jakobson, R., Kawamoto, S. (Eds.), Studies in general and oriental linguistics presented to Shirô Hattori on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Tokyo: TEC Corporation for Language and Education Research, pp. 52–91.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[26] Schmerling, S. F., 2018. Sound and grammar: towards a Neo-Sapirian theory of language. London: Brill.10.1163/9789004378261
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[27] Schmerling, S. F., 1972. Apparent counterexamples to the coordinate structure constraint: a canonical conspiracy. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 2(1), 91–104.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[28] Goldsmith, J., 1985. A principled exception to the coordinate structure constraint. Papers from the general session at the twenty-first regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. University of Chicago, Illinois. Available online at <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244998803_A_Principled_Exception_to_the_Coordinate_Structure_Constraint> [Accessed on 13/6/2015].
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[29] Lakoff, G., 1986. Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[30] Na, Y., Huck, G., 1992. On extracting from asymmetrical structures. In Brentari, D., Larson, G. N., MacLeod, L. A. (Eds.), The joy of grammar: a festschrift in honor of James D. McCawley. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 251–274.10.1075/z.55.16na
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[31] Partee, B., 2011. Formal semantics: origins, issues, early impact. In Partee, B., Glanzberg, M., Šķilters, J. (Eds.), Formal semantics and pragmatics. Discourse, context, and models. The Baltic yearbook of cognition, logic, and communication, vol. 6. Manhattan: New Prairie Press, pp. 1–52.10.4148/biyclc.v6i0.1580
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[32] Zeijlstra, H., 2018. Does Neg-raising involve Neg-raising? Topoi, 37(3), 417–433.10.1007/s11245-017-9461-0
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

De Morgan’s laws and NEG-raising: a syntactic view

Abstract

Paradigm

My account