<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Dear All,</DIV>
<DIV>I sympathize with Bjoern views: how can we be sure that “I don't
think that Floyd hit Roscoe” is derived via NEG-raising from “I think that
Floyd didn't hit Roscoe”? Both sentences refer to the same state of
affairs, but the speaker <STRONG>makes use</STRONG> of different
focussing strategies. Unless we accept the so-called Universal Base
Hypothesis and the Linear Correspondence Axiom of Kayne 1994, the
assumption that NEG has been raised in the second sentence is not
well-founded. As Haberland rightly states, <FONT face="Times New Roman">“I
hope that he is not a werewolf” is certainly not equivalent to “</FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman">I don't hope that he is a werewolf” –but ‘hope’ is not an
epistemic verb and the NEG refers primarily to ‘hope’: no need to speak of
a raising of ‘not’. My (strong and, may be, not very popular) conclusion:
</FONT>NEG-raising is an a priori assumption, as the other ‘alpha-movements’. An
usage-based approach to linguistic facts needs not this kind of
assumptions.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best,</DIV>
<DIV>Paolo Ramat</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=wiemerb@UNI-MAINZ.DE
href="mailto:wiemerb@UNI-MAINZ.DE">Bjoern Wiemer</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 17, 2013 12:24 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: NEG Raising</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<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">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 class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:wiemerb@uni-mainz.de">wiemerb@uni-mainz.de</A>
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://www.staff.uni-mainz.de/wiemerb/">http://www.staff.uni-mainz.de/wiemerb/</A>
</PRE></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>