Abstract
Since Fodor 1970, negation has worn a Homogeneity Condition to the effect that homogeneous predicates (e.g., (1), (2)) denote homogeneously—all (1) or nothing (2)—to characterize the meaning of (1)–(2) when uttered out-of-the blue, in contrast to (3)–(4):
-
(1)
The mirrors are smooth.
-
(2)
The mirrors are not smooth.
-
(3)
The mirrors circle the telescope’s reflector.
-
(4)
The mirrors do not circle the telescope’s reflector.
It has been a problem for philosophical logic and for the semantics of natural language that (5)–(6) appear to defy the Principle of Excluded Middle while (7)–(8) do not—
-
(5)
Smooth(m)
-
(6)
¬Smooth(m)
-
(7)
Circle(m)
-
(8)
¬Circle(m).
An impoverished logical form (5)–(8) has been the occasion to embellish all else—Boolean algebra, lexical presuppositions, Strongest Meaning Hypothesis, trivalence, supervaluation, double strengthening, etc., enriching the semantics and pragmatics with what remains a special theory of negation, which may be dismissed when the logical syntax and semantics of negation reflects that negated sentences are also tensed sentences.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aloimonos, Y. (1997). Visual navigation: From biological systems to unmanned ground vehicles. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barwise, J. (1979). On branching quantifiers in English. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 47–80.
Breheny, R. (2005). Exhaustivity, homogeneity, and definiteness. In P. Dekker & M. Franke (Eds.), Fifteenth Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 59–65). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Bricker, P. (1989). Quantified modal logic and the plural de re. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 14, 372–394.
Brisson, C. (1997). Distributivity without (very much) scope. In Rutgers working papers in linguistics (Vol. 1).
Brisson, C. (1998). Distributivity, maximality, and floating quantifiers. PhD Discussion, Rutgers University.
Brisson, C. (2003). Plurals, all and the nonuniformity of collective predication. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26(2), 129–184.
Burge, T. (1974). Demonstrative constructions, reference and truth. Journal of Philosophy, 71(7), 205–223.
Casati, R., & Varzi, A. C. (1999). Parts and places: The structures of spatial representation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Castañeda, H.-N. (1967). Comments. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of decision and action. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton & Co.
Davies, M. (1991). Acts and scenes. In N. Cooper & P. Engel (Eds.), New inquiries into meaning and truth (pp. 41–82). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Dowty, D. (1987). Collective predicates, distributive predicates and all. In F. Marshall (Ed.), Proceedings of the third ESCOL. Columbus: Ohio State University.
Fodor, J. D. (1970). The linguistic description of opaque contexts. PhD Discussion, MIT.
Gajewski, J. (2005). Neg-raising: Polarity and presupposition. PhD Discussion, MIT.
Gallistel, C. R. (1990). The organization of learning. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gillon, B. (1990). Plural noun phrases and their readings: A reply to Lasersohn. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 477–485.
Golledge, R. G. (Ed.). (1999a). Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Golledge, R. G. (1999b). Human wayfinding and cognitive maps. In R. G. Golledge (Ed.), Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes (pp. 5–45). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hackl, M. (2001a). Comparative quantifiers and plural predication. In K. Megerdoomian & L. A. Bar-el (Eds.), Proceedings WCCFL 20 (pp. 234–247). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Hackl, M. (2001b). Comparative quantifiers. PhD discussion, MIT.
Hackl, M. (2002). The ingredients of essentially plural predicates. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society, 32, 171–182.
Herburger, E. (2000). What counts: Focus and quantification. Linguistic inquiry monographs no. 36. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Higginbotham, J. (1994). Mass and count quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy, 17, 447–480.
Higginbotham, J., & Schein, B. (1989). Plurals. In J. Carter & R.-M. Déchaine (Eds.), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society 19 (pp. 161–175). Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Students Association, University of Massachusetts.
Keenan, E. (1987). Unreducible n-ary quantifiers in natural language. In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Generalized quantifiers: Linguistic and logical approaches. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Krifka, M. (1996). Pragmatic strengthening in plural predications and donkey sentences. In T. Galloway & J. Spence (Eds.), Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) (Vol. 6, pp. 136–153). Ithaca: CLC Publications.
Larson, R. K., & Segal, G. (1995). Knowledge of meaning. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Liberman, M. (1974). On conditioning the rule of subject-auxiliary inversion. NELS, 5, 77–91.
Lindstrom, P. (1966). First-order predicate logic with generalized quantifiers. Theoria, 32, 186–195.
Löbner, S. (1985). Definites. Jourmal of Semantics, 4, 279–326.
Löbner, S. (2000). Polarity in natural language: Predication, quantification and negation in particular and characterizing sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23, 213–308.
Lohndal, T. (2014). Phrase structure and argument structure: A case study of the syntax-semantics interface. Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lønning, J. T. (1987). Mass terms and quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10(1), 1–52.
Loomis, J. M., Klatzky, R. L., Golledge, R. G., & Philbeck, J. W. (1999). Human navigation by path integration. In R. G. Golledge (Ed.), Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes (pp. 125–151). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Magri, G. (2013). An account for the homogeneity effects triggered by plural definites and conjunction based on double strengthening. MS, CNRS Paris 8.
Ogihara, T. (1995). The semantics of tense in embedded clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 26(4), 663–679.
Palmer, S. E. (1999). Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. “Perceiving motion and events,” chapter 10. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Partee, B. H. (1973). Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. Journal of Philosophy, 70(18), 601–609.
Partee, B. H. (1984). Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7, 243–286.
Prior, A. N. (1968). On spurious egocentricity. In Papers on time and tense. New York: Oxford University Press.
Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Redish, A. D. (1999). Beyond the cognitive map: From place cells to episodic memory. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.
Roeper, P. (1983). Semantics for mass terms with quantifiers. Noûs, 17(3), 251–265.
Russell, B. (1940). Inquiry into meaning and truth. New York: Allen & Unwin.
Schein, B. (1993). Plurals and events. Current studies in linguistics no. 23. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Schein, B. (2002). Events and the semantic contents of thematic relations. In G. Preyer & G. Peter (Eds.), Logical form and language (pp. 263–344). New York: Oxford University Press.
Schein, B. (2006). Plurals. In E. Lepore & B. Smith (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of language (pp. 716–767). New York: Oxford University Press.
Schein, B. (2012). Event semantics. In G. Russell & D. G. Fara (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy of language (pp. 280–294). New York: Taylor-Francis.
Schein, B. (2016). Nip & tuck for definite description. MS.
Schein, B. (2017). ‘And’: Conjunction reduction redux. MS, MIT Press, Cambridge. Accessed December 27, 2015.
Schwarzschild, R. (1993). Plurals, presuppositions and the sources of distributivity. Natural Language Semantics, 2(3), 201–248.
Schwarzschild, R. (1996). Pluralities. Studies in linguistics and philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Sharvy, R. (1980). A more general theory of definite descriptions. Philosophical Review, 89(4), 607–624.
Sher, G. (1990). Ways of branching quantifiers. Linguistics & Philosophy, 13(4), 393–422. Reprinted in G. Sher, The bounds of logic: A generalized viewpoint. Chapter 5. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Shipley, T. F., & Zacks, J. M. (2008). Understanding events: From perception to action. Oxford series in visual cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spector, B. (2013). Homogeneity and plurals: From the strongest meaning hypothesis to supervaluations. In Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 18).
Spelke, E. S. (1990). Principles of object perception. Cognitive Science, 14, 29–56.
Stone, M. (1999). Reference to possible worlds. RuCCS Report 49, Rutgers University, April 1999.
Szabolcsi, A. (Ed.). (1997). Ways of Scope Taking. Studies in Linguistic & Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Szabolcsi, A. (2010). Quantification. Research surveys in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Szabolcsi, A., & Haddican, B. (2004). Conjunction meets negation: A study of cross-linguistic variation. Journal of Semantics, 21(3), 219–250.
Taub, A. (1989). Collective predicates, aktionsarten and all. In E. Bach, A. Kratzer, & B. Partee (Eds.), Papers on quantification. Amherst: Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts.
Taylor, B. (1985). Modes of occurrence. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
von Fintel, K. (1997). Bare plurals, bare conditionals, and only. Journal of Semantics, 14, 1–56.
Westerståhl, D. (1987). Branching generalized quantifiers and natural language. In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Generalized quantifiers: Linguistic and logical approaches. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Williams, A. (2015). Arguments in syntax and semantics. Key topics in syntax. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Winsor, F. (1956). The space child’s mother goose. Marian Parry, Illustrator. Reprinted Keller, TX: Purple House Press, 2001, Chapter 30.
Winter, Y. (1998). Flexible boolean semantics: Coordination, plurality & scope in natural language. PhD Discussion, University of Utrecht.
Winter, Y. (2002). Flexibility principles in boolean semantics: The interpretation of coordination, plurality, and scope in natural language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Yoon, Y. (1996). Total and partial predicates and the weak and strong interpretations. Natural Language Semantics, 4(3), 217–236.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
For discussion sine qua non, much thanks to Elena Herburger, Yael Sharvit and Anna Szabolcsi, and thanks too to audiences at the University of Arizona, Tucson and Stanford University and to two anonymous reviewers for sound and critical advice.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schein, B. Noughty bits: the subatomic scope of negation. Linguist and Philos 39, 459–540 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9194-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9194-3