{"title":"The effects of negation on discourse structure","authors":"Eva Klingvall, Fredrik Heinat","doi":"10.1016/j.pragma.2024.11.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In five sentence continuation studies we investigated how different forms of negation (negative quantifier, clausal negation, lexical negation) impact discourse structure in Swedish. We looked at what set of referents (the reference set for which some property holds, or the complement set, for which the property does not hold) speakers considered most noteworthy (speaker salient), and what form they used to refer to this set (reflecting its givenness status, i.e. hearer salience) in their sentence continuations. Most continuations targeted the complement set when the prompt included a negative quantifier. When negation was in the form of clausal negation, the reference set was targeted. Having a lexically negated verb in addition to the negative quantifier as subject mattered only when speakers were not prompted to make one of the sets the sentence topic. In this case, reference set continuations were also common. The conclusion is that although the types of negation convey similar negative meanings, they give rise to differences in discourse structure, and crucially the lexical properties of the predicate can influence the strong tendency of negative quantifier to focus the complement set.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16899,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pragmatics","volume":"235 ","pages":"Pages 115-131"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216624002133","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In five sentence continuation studies we investigated how different forms of negation (negative quantifier, clausal negation, lexical negation) impact discourse structure in Swedish. We looked at what set of referents (the reference set for which some property holds, or the complement set, for which the property does not hold) speakers considered most noteworthy (speaker salient), and what form they used to refer to this set (reflecting its givenness status, i.e. hearer salience) in their sentence continuations. Most continuations targeted the complement set when the prompt included a negative quantifier. When negation was in the form of clausal negation, the reference set was targeted. Having a lexically negated verb in addition to the negative quantifier as subject mattered only when speakers were not prompted to make one of the sets the sentence topic. In this case, reference set continuations were also common. The conclusion is that although the types of negation convey similar negative meanings, they give rise to differences in discourse structure, and crucially the lexical properties of the predicate can influence the strong tendency of negative quantifier to focus the complement set.
期刊介绍:
Since 1977, the Journal of Pragmatics has provided a forum for bringing together a wide range of research in pragmatics, including cognitive pragmatics, corpus pragmatics, experimental pragmatics, historical pragmatics, interpersonal pragmatics, multimodal pragmatics, sociopragmatics, theoretical pragmatics and related fields. Our aim is to publish innovative pragmatic scholarship from all perspectives, which contributes to theories of how speakers produce and interpret language in different contexts drawing on attested data from a wide range of languages/cultures in different parts of the world. The Journal of Pragmatics also encourages work that uses attested language data to explore the relationship between pragmatics and neighbouring research areas such as semantics, discourse analysis, conversation analysis and ethnomethodology, interactional linguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, media studies, psychology, sociology, and the philosophy of language. Alongside full-length articles, discussion notes and book reviews, the journal welcomes proposals for high quality special issues in all areas of pragmatics which make a significant contribution to a topical or developing area at the cutting-edge of research.