Negative raising  In linguistics, negative raising is a phenomenon that concerns the raising of negation from the embedded or subordinate clause of certain predicates to the matrix or main clause. The higher copy of the negation, in the matrix clause, is pronounced; but the semantic meaning is interpreted as though it were present in the embedded clause. The NEG-element was first introduced by Edward Klima, but the term "neg raising" has been accredited to the early transformational analysis as an instance of movement. Charles J. Fillmore was the first to propose a syntactic approach called "neg transportation" but is now known solely as "negative raising." This syntactic approach was supported in the early beginnings by evidence provided by Robin Lakoff, who used, in part, strong/strict Polarity items as proof. Laurence R. Horn and Robin Lakoff have written on the theory of "negative raising", which is now considered to be the classical argumentation on this theory. Chris Collins and Paul Postal have also written in more recent times in defense of the classical argumentation to negative raising. These early accounts attributed "negative raising" to be derived syntactically, as they thought that the NEG element was c-commanding onto two verbs. Not all agreed with the syntactic view of "negative raising." To counter the syntactically derived theory of "neg raising," Renate Bartsch and a number of others argued that a syntactic analysis was insufficient to explain all the components of the "neg raising (NR)" theory. Instead they developed a presuppositional, otherwise known as a semantically based account. In English, negative raising constructions utilize negation in the form of, "not," where it is then subject to clausal raising. In the phenomenon of negative raising, this negation cannot be raised freely with any given predicate. Consider the following example proposed by Paul Crowley, in which the verb "say" attempts to display negative raising:   As seen in this example, "say" is not a predicate that can be used for Neg-Raising, as the raising of the negation to the matrix clause creates the reading "Mary didn’t say it would snow," which holds a different meaning than "Mary said it would not snow," where the negation resides in the embedded clause. To account for this fact, Laurence Horn has identified 5 distinct classes to account for the general predicates involved negative raising, as seen below in English:  Consider the Perception predicate, "look like," in which we can posit the following readings:   In this regard, “It does not look like [it will rain today]” is seen as a paraphrase of “It looks like [it will not rain today]."