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

Open access


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.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Barwise J. 1977. An introduction to first-order logic. In Barwise J. (Ed.) Handbook of mathematical logic. London: Elsevier pp. 5–46.

  • [2] McCawley J. D. 1993. Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic…but were ashamed to ask. 2nd edn. London: Blackwell.

  • [3] Collins C. Postal P. 2016. Interclausal NEG raising and the scope of negation. <>.

  • [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.

  • [5] Lakoff G. 1970. Linguistics and natural logic. Synthese 22(1–2) 151–271.

  • [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.

  • [7] van Benthem J. 1991. Language in action: categories lambdas and dynamic logic. Studies in Logic. North-Holland.

  • [8] Sánchez Valencia V. 1991. Studies on natural logic and categorial grammar. PhD thesis University Amsterdam.

  • [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. <>

  • [10] Krivochen D. Schmerling S. F. 2016. Two kinds of coordination and their theoretical implications: rethinking structural uniformity. Ms. <>

  • [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.

  • [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.

  • [13] Culicover P. W. 2013. OM-sentences. In Culicover P. W. Explaining syntax 15–52. Oxford: OUP.

  • [14] Ross J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation MIT.

  • [15] Williams E. 1978. Across-the-Board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9(1) 31–43.

  • [16] Postal P. M. 1998. Three investigations on extraction. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.

  • [17] Fillmore C. 1963. The position of embedding transformations in a grammar. Word 19(2) 208–231.

  • [18] Horn L. R. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD Dissertation University of California at Los Angeles.

  • [19] Horn L. R. 1978. Remarks on Neg-raising. In Cole P. (Ed.) Syntax and semantics 9: pragmatics 129–220. New York: Academic Press.

  • [20] Collins C. Postal P. 2014. Classical NEG raising. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.

  • [21] Collins C. Postal P. 2017. Interclausal NEG raising and the scope of negation. Glossa: Journal of General Linguistics 2(1) 1–29.

  • [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.

  • [23] Carden G. 1970. A note on conflicting idiolects. Linguistic Inquiry 1(3) 281–290.

  • [24] Goodall G. 1984. Parallel structures in syntax. PhD Thesis University of California San Diego.

  • [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.

  • [26] Schmerling S. F. 2018. Sound and grammar: towards a Neo-Sapirian theory of language. London: Brill.

  • [27] Schmerling S. F. 1972. Apparent counterexamples to the coordinate structure constraint: a canonical conspiracy. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 2(1) 91–104.

  • [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 <> [Accessed on 13/6/2015].

  • [29] Lakoff G. 1986. Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.

  • [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.

  • [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.

  • [32] Zeijlstra H. 2018. Does Neg-raising involve Neg-raising? Topoi 37(3) 417–433.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 48 48 8
PDF Downloads 18 18 2