<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Björn (and all),<br>
<br>
Björn's comments have made it clear to me that I need to qualify my
previous statement to the effect that colloquial Indonesian "lacks
NEG raising". Whereas for the equivalents of 'think' (which would
be <i>ingat, kata, rasa, kira</i> or <i>fikir</i> depending on
region) I'm still pretty sure that NEG raising is unavailable, for
some of the other verbs that he, or rather Mickey Noonan cite, I
suspect NEG raising is indeed possible. In particular, I'm pretty
sure that it is possible for the equivalent of 'want' (<i>mau</i>),
in examples corresponding to (216b) below. My feeling remains that
NEG raising is significantly more restricted in colloquial
Indonesian than in, say, English, but I think Björn is right that
one needs to examine a range of different predicates.<br>
<br>
(BTW, contrary to the implicature in Björn's message, I am not a
native speaker of any variety of colloquial Indonesian; the claims I
make about it are based on years of immersion, plus the usual
research methods of corpus collection and elicitation.)<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/05/2013 19:24, Bjoern Wiemer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51960560.8000602@uni-mainz.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Christopher (and all),<br>
thanks for raising the issue of NEG-raising! In light of your
mail and the response by David Gil I would like to make two
comments and one request on what you two observed.<br>
In his classical paper on complementation Noonan (2007
[1985]: 100f.) gave examples with NEG-raising in English with
the CTP-verbs "think, believe, want". He gave the examples cited
below, the first pair coincides with yours. Now, in a footnote
(f. 21) Noonan remarked that sentence (214b) is ambiguous, since
it allows for both a reading with and without NEG-raising (i.e.
in the latter case there would only negation of the CTP). He
added that this ambiguity might be conditioned by "a
commitment/non-commitment interpretation of the speaker's
evaluation of the complement proposition" (with further
references).<br>
<br>
(214a) I think that Floyd didn't hit Roscoe.<br>
(214b) I don't think that Floyd hit Roscoe.<br>
<br>
(215a) Zeke believes that Martians don't live in caves.<br>
(215b) Zeke doesn't believe that Martians live in caves.<br>
<br>
(216a) Hugh wants Mary Ann not to win.<br>
(216b) Hugh doesn't want Mary Ann to win.<br>
<br>
David Gil wrote that "'I don't think John is a werewolf' cannot
mean 'I think that John is not a werewolf'". Would other native
speakers judge the same way?<br>
<br>
Thus, two questions arise (in my view). First, wouldn't this
judgment depend on how much commitment you ascribe to your
epistemic attitude toward the proposition in the complement?
Second, do such ambiguities (and possible differences in
judgments between native speakers of the same language) show up
with other verbs of the same conceptual domain (epistemic
attitude, report on speech acts, volition, etc.)? Noonan made
his remark quoted above only with respect to "think", "believe"
seems to behave differently. What about other verbs denoting
epistemic attitudes in English?<br>
From this my request arises: Has anybody worked on such
ambiguities and tried to make up a classification of CTP-verbs
(of epistemic attitude, volitional, etc.) within ONE language,
and be it English. That is to say: apart from _cross_linguistic
variation with respect to the liability toward complementation
in general (and the way complementation is marked syntactically
or by lexical means), it would be interesting to understand
whether predicates denoting epistemic attitudes show variation
within even one language, and what are the conditions.<br>
I would be ready to collect such information and make a
small digest out of it, if anybody sends me pertinent references
or reports. Anyway, I'd be grateful to know more about this
issue.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Björn Wiemer.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAoBAF4DVYu8SqA2ghg-4ri3GQex6PBOuu92cnNmETK0f5d6jg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
Dear Typologists,<br>
<br>
Could you tell me if there are languages that you know or know
of that do not permit NEG Raising.<br>
On a NEG Raising reading of (a), it is felt to mean the same
thing as (b):<br>
<br>
a. I don't think John is a werewolf<br>
b. I think that John is not a werewolf<br>
<br>
Also, strict NPIs are licensed:<br>
<br>
c. John won't be here until 6:00<br>
d. I don't think John will be here until 6:00<br>
<br>
In these sentences 6:00 is a strict NPI, and it needs a
negation.<br>
(d) contrasts with (f):<br>
<br>
e. I regret that John won't be here until 6:00<br>
f. *I don't regret John will be here until 6:00<br>
<br>
Other NEG Raising predicates include: think, believe, imagine,
intend, want.<br>
<br>
Chris Collins<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Björn Wiemer
Professor für Slavische Sprachwissenschaft
Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität
Institut für Slavistik
Jakob-Welder-Weg 18
D- 55099 Mainz
tel. ++49/ 6131/ 39 -22186
fax ++49/ 6131/ 39 -24709
e-mail: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wiemerb@uni-mainz.de">wiemerb@uni-mainz.de</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.staff.uni-mainz.de/wiemerb/">http://www.staff.uni-mainz.de/wiemerb/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
David Gil
Department of Linguistics
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany
Telephone: 49-341-3550321 Fax: 49-341-3550119
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@eva.mpg.de">gil@eva.mpg.de</a>
Webpage: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.eva.mpg.de/~gil/">http://www.eva.mpg.de/~gil/</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>