There have been a variety of arguments over the decades both for and against syntactic Neg Raising (NR). Two recent papers (Jacobson in Linguist Inq 49(3):559–576, 2018; Crowley in Nat Lang Semant 27(1), 1–17, 2019) focus on the interaction of NR effects with ellipsis. These papers examine similar types of data, but come to opposite conclusion: Jacobson shows that the ellipsis facts provide evidence against syntactic NR, whereas Crowley argues in favor of syntactic NR. The present paper revisits the evidence, showing that the key case in Crowley (2019) that he uses to argue for syntactic NR contains a confound, while the broader set of evidence in Jacobson (2018) continues to support the non-syntactic account. In addition, I reply here to an argument for syntactic NR due originally to Prince (Language 52:404–426, 1976) and Smaby (pers. comm. to Prince) and elaborated on by Crowley. The key generalization can be shown to disappear once contexts are carefully controlled for. Moreover, Crowley extends the Prince/Smaby argument to show that no inference-based account of NR can survive, but this conclusion rests on the claim that there are cases where ever is vacuous; I show that this is not the case. I also consider the question—discussed in much previous literature—of why under the syntactic approach to NR the class of predicates allowing NR is limited to just those which easily support an Excluded Middle inference. Crowley (2019) attempts to provide a principled explanation, speculating that NR is allowed just in case it is ‘semantically vacuous’. I argue that this proposal is problematic and so the challenge to syntactic approaches remains. Finally, I provide a new argument against syntactic NR which centers on the behavior of guess.

中文翻译：

---

重新讨论负负和省略号（及相关问题）

在过去的几十年中，有很多争论支持和反对句法否定提高（NR）。最近的两篇论文（Jacobson in Linguist Inq 49（3）：559-576，2018; Crowley in Nat Lang Semant 27（1），1-17，2019）专注于NR效应与省略号的相互作用。这些论文研究了相似类型的数据，但得出相反的结论：雅各布森（Jacobson）表明，省略号事实提供了反对句法NR的证据，而克劳利（Crowley）则主张句法NR。本文重新审视了证据，表明克劳利（Crowley）（2019）用来争论句法NR的关键案例存在一个混淆，而雅各布森（2018）的更广泛的证据继续支持非句法解释。另外，我在这里回答句法NR的论点，最初是由Prince（语言52：404-426，1976）和Smaby（pers。comm）引起的。致王子），并由克劳利（Crowley）进行了详细阐述。一旦对上下文进行了仔细的控制，就可以证明密钥概括消失了。此外，克劳利（Crowley）扩展了Prince / Smaby的论点，以表明基于推理的NR不能幸免，但是这一结论基于这样的说法，即在某些情况下曾经是空虚的；我证明事实并非如此。我还考虑了一个问题，这是为什么在NR的句法方法下，允许NR的谓词类别仅限于那些容易支持“排除中间推论”的谓词。Crowley（2019）试图提供一个原则性的解释，推测NR是允许的，以防万一它是``严重的空虚''。我认为该建议存在问题，因此对句法方法的挑战仍然存在。最后，我提供了一个针对句法NR的新论点，它以猜测行为为中心。