<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>Dear Linguistlist members,</DIV>
<DIV>David writes: <<if you say something like MARY NEG THINK JOHN SMART,
this can not usually be taken to mean "Mary thinks that John is not smart".
>>. Especially if you have a binary choice (such as “smart/not-smart”, or
“right/wrong”, “just/not just”) the first and usual meaning of MARY
NEG THINK JOHN <EM>X </EM>is exactly MARY THINK JOHN IS NOT
<EM>X</EM>. Whether we have ‘NEG-raising’ or not is another question,
namely if you believe in ‘movement metaphors’ (Daniel)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Paolo</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=DEVERETT@BENTLEY.EDU
href="mailto:DEVERETT@BENTLEY.EDU">Everett, Daniel</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Friday, December 02, 2011 12:08 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
href="mailto:LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG">LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: Negative raising</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">Martin,
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks for this. Aside from my clumsy use of the "S-comp" phrase, I was
purposely trying to avoid using Neg-raising, because, though it is a
well-established term, I was trying to focus on the scope phenomena
without a movement metaphor. Or standardized terminology (which I am not a big
fan of). Also, I am mainly interested in non-European languages, which I don't
believe Larry Horn or anyone else has done a survey of. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>From the replies that I have received so far there seems to be
considerable variation as to whether languages allow this or not (I will post a
summary at some point).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>These are excellent references, of course. Thanks for mentioning
them.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-- Dan </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Dec 2, 2011, at 5:26 AM, Martin Haspelmath wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">The phenomenon that Dan Everett was
trying to describe goes by the well-established term "negative raising" (see
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://www.glottopedia.de/index.php/Negative_raising">http://www.glottopedia.de/index.php/Negative_raising</A>).<BR><BR>The
most detailed discussion of it is perhaps still Larry Horn's treatment in his
"Natural history of negation". The only broadly cross-linguistic discussion of
the phenomenon that I am aware of is ch. 9 of the following book:<BR><BR>
<DIV style="LINE-HEIGHT: 1.35; TEXT-INDENT: -2em; PADDING-LEFT: 2em"
class=csl-bib-body>
<DIV class=csl-entry>Bernini, Giuliano & Paolo Ramat. 1996. <I>Negative
sentences in the languages of Europe: a typological approach</I>. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.</DIV><SPAN class=Z3988
title=url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fzotero.org%3A2&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Negative%20sentences%20in%20the%20languages%20of%20Europe%3A%20a%20typological%20approach&rft.place=Berlin&rft.publisher=Mouton%20de%20Gruyter&rft.aufirst=Giuliano&rft.aulast=Bernini&rft.au=Giuliano%20Bernini&rft.au=Paolo%20Ramat&rft.date=1996></SPAN></DIV><BR>They
looked at 45 languages of Europe and found very little variation worth
reporting. All seem to be more or less like English or Hebrew in this
regard.<BR><BR>Martin<BR><BR><BR>On 01/12/2011 23:04, David Gil wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:4ED7F9E0.5010707@eva.mpg.de type="cite">Dan and all,
<BR><BR>I'm suspect many other LINGTYP readers, and not just me, are not
sure what you mean by "an S-comp rule". <BR><BR>The colloquial varieties of
Indonesian that I am familiar with do not have an overt
complementizer. And indeed, if you say something like MARY NEG THINK
JOHN SMART, this can not usually be taken to mean "Mary thinks that John is
not smart". Are you suggesting that these two facts are related?
<BR><BR>I have argued elsewhere that the Indonesian/English contrast is one
manifestation of a general tendency for Indonesian to be more iconic, or
"Behagelian", in its constituency than languages like English. So I
would also be very interested to learn how common so-called "neg-raising" is
cross-linguistically -- with or without a complementizer. <BR><BR>David
<BR><BR><BR>PS rereading your query, I can add that Hebrew works like
English. <BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">I am interested in knowing whether a certain
pattern is more or less common. The question is whether languages with an
S-comp rule usually have the possibility of negation switching scope
across the matrix clause into the subordinate clause. So for example, in
English in examples like "Mary doesn't think that John is smart" one
meaning of this is that "Mary thinks that John isn't smart." <BR>My
question is whether English is rare or not. Even in English, the features
seems to be limited to epistemic verbs, like "think". <BR><BR>So do
readers of this list know of non-Indo European languages with this type of
negative scope possibility? If so, is it limited to specific classes of
verbs? <BR><BR>If you'd rather respond to me off-line, that is fine. I
will later post a summary if there are enough answers. <BR><BR>Thanks,
<BR><BR>Dan <BR><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><PRE class=moz-signature cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath (<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:haspelmath@eva.mpg.de">haspelmath@eva.mpg.de</A>)
Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6
D-04103 Leipzig
Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616
</PRE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>