Positive Polarity indefinites (PPI indefinites), such as some in English, are licensed in simplex negative sentences as long as they take wide scope over negation. When it surfaces under a clausemate negation, some can in principle take wide scope either by movement or by some semantic mechanism; e.g., it can take pseudoscope if it is interpreted as a choice function variable. Therefore, there is some uncertainty regarding the way in which PPI indefinites get licensed: can pseudoscope suffice? In this article we show, using novel data from Hindi-Urdu and English, that pseudoscope is not sufficient, and that it is the syntactic position of PPI indefinites at LF, rather than their actual scope, which is relevant for licensing. These facts support a unified view of PPI indefinites as generalized quantifiers, and disfavor analyses where they are, or can be, interpreted as choice function variables.

中文翻译：

---

PPI不定式许可：运动还是伪镜？

正极性不定式（PPI不定式）（例如英语中的某些符号）只要在否定范围内具有广泛的意义，就可以通过单面否定句获得许可。当它表面有clausemate否定下，一些原则上可以通过移动或某种语义机制来涵盖广泛的范围；例如，如果将其解释为选择函数变量，则可以使用伪作用域。因此，PPI不定式获得许可的方式存在一些不确定性：伪作用域是否足够？在本文中，我们使用北印度语和英语中的新数据表明，伪镜是不够的，并且它是LF中PPI不定式的句法位置，而不是它们的实际范围，这与许可有关。这些事实支持将PPI不定式作为广义量词的统一视图，并且不赞成将其作为或可以解释为选择函数变量的分析。