The asymmetric behavior of English negative quantifiers in negative sentences

In this paper, the unexpected behavior of object negative quantifiers in some diagnostic tests of sentential negation is accounted for within a Minimalist framework assuming that: (i) negative quantifiers decompose into negation and an existential quantifier; (ii) negative quantifiers are multidominant phrase markers, as Parallel Merge allows the verb to c-select their existential part but not their negative part, thus giving negation remerge flexibility; (iii) tag questions involve or-coordination of TPs, and neither/so clauses involve and-coordination of TPs; (iv) two positions for sentential negation are available in English, one below TP (PolP₂), and one above TP (PolP₁). Activation of either PolP₁ or PolP₂ in the absence of other scope-taking operators corresponds to two distinct grammars. If PolP₁ is active, the negative part of an object negative quantifier remerges in its Specifier valuing the [upol:[ feature of Pol₁ as negative ([upol:neg]) while skipping the TP-domain. As no negative formal feature is present in the TP, a negative question tag is required, as well as so-coordination, too-licensing and Yes, I guess so 'expression of agreement'. Conversely, if PolP₂ is active, the negative part of the object negative quantifier remerges in the TP-domain (in Spec, PolP₂), thus requiring a positive question tag, neither-coordination, either-licensing, and No, I guess not.