Abstract

This article is about metalinguistic negation and the types of criteria making a straightforward distinction between descriptive (DN) and metalinguistic negation (MN). First, I will distinguish three types of negation: one type of DN and two types of MN, where MN1 is upward metalinguistic negation and MN2 presuppositional metalinguistic negation. This distinction is based on two semantic criteria (entailment and scope of negation), and one discursive or pragmatic criterion (connectives). Then, the use of the connective criterion will imply that maisSN (Ger. sondern and Sp. sino) triggers DN, whereas maisPA (Ger. aber, Sp. pero) licenses MN1 and a causal connective like parce que ‘because’ or puisque ‘since’ generates MN2. The general philosophy of the analysis of negation is both monoguist (negation is semantically unambiguous, and its meaning is logical) and contextual (there is no reinterpretation of the negative clause when negation is metalinguistic). Finally, this article aims to lend theoretical support to the experimental work on negation reported in Blochowiak & Grisot (2018).

Highlights

  • The issue of negation has been radically changed by Horn’s article on metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity (Horn 1985)

  • This article is about metalinguistic negation and the types of criteria making a straightforward distinction between descriptive (DN) and metalinguistic negation (MN)

  • The best way to do this is by either presenting it as new information, introduced by parce que ‘because’, or old information with puisque ‘since’, which contradicts what is believed to belong to the common ground (Zufferey 2012). This could not be accomplished by a corrective clause nor by a contrastive connective, such as on the contrary or but, because COR in MN2 introduces the negation of POS presupposition (89), while mais can either introduce the negation of POS implicature in MN1, or indirectly negate POS via its entailment (NEG) in Descriptive negation (DN) (90): (89) Entailments in MN2: COR → ¬POS ∧ ¬PPPOS

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The issue of negation has been radically changed by Horn’s article on metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity (Horn 1985). The main point of my analysis is that negation cannot be descriptive – that is, scoping over the proposition ‘Abi is beautiful’ The reason for this is simple: if this is the case, the speaker would have produced a contradiction, saying both P and not-P, since gorgeous entails beautiful:. (62) Abi is gorgeous → Abi is beautiful (63) It is not the case that Abi is beautiful, and Abi is beautiful Note that this contradictory step is exactly what is predicted by a speech act analysis: first, negation is taken to be descriptive, and it is reinterpreted as metalinguistic, since the ambiguity interpretation at the semantic level (Burton-Roberts 1989) first predicts a narrow scope (descriptive) interpretation, and it is only by way of a second step that a wide scope interpretation involving SI cancellation arises.. I intend to show that these criteria are compatible (a possible outcome), but practically inevitable (a necessary outcome)

Criteria for DN
Why and how is PA compatible with MN?
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call