Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9knnw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-23T02:53:04.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

But and Negation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Ana von Klopp
Ana von Klopp
Affiliation:
Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh, 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, Scotland. Email A.von.Klopp@ed.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

Many languages (e.g. Spanish, German, and Swedish) have more than one morpheme corresponding to the English “but”. It has been argued by Anscombre & Ducrot (1977) and by Horn (1989) that two of these morphemes covary with two different functions of natural language negation. Anscombre's and Ducrot's descriptions of these BUTs are examined, and it is shown that there is no such link. There is, however, an interesting connection between “but” and negation. One of the two morphemes imposes a restriction on the use of negation in the clause that follows it, which suggests that natural language negation does not correspond to a truth function.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , June 1994 , pp. 1 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Allwood, J. 1972. Negation and the strength of presupposition. Logical Grammar Reports 2, Department of Linguistics, University of Göteborg.Google Scholar
Anscombre, J.-C. & Ducrot, O. 1977. Deux mais en francais? Lingua 43, 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombre, J.-C. & Ducrot, O. 1983. L'argumentation dans la langue. Brussels: Pierre Mardaga.Google Scholar
Anscombre, J.-C. & Ducrot, O. 1986. Argumentation et informativité. In De la métaphysique à la rhétorique, pp. 79–94. Brussels: Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cohen, R. 1987. Analyzing the structure of argumentative discourse. Computational Linguistics 13(1–2), 11–24.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. & Barbault, M. C. 1973. Le rôle de la négation dans la langue ordinaire. Chap. VI in Ducrot, O. (ed) La preuve et le dire. Paris: Maison Mame.Google Scholar
Elhadad, M. 1989. A procedure for the selection of connectives. Technical Report CUCS-419–89, Department of Computer Science, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
Elhadad, M. & McKeown, K. R. 1991. What do you need to produce a “but”? Technical Report CUCS-334–88, Computer Science, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. 1975. Conjunction and pragmatics. Filosofiska Studier 2(26). Proceedings from the Scandinavian Seminar of Philosophy of Language, 1974, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1978. Negation in language: Pragmatics, function, ontology. In Cole, P. (ed), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9: Pragmatics, pp. 69–112. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. 1985. Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61, 121–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Jayez, J. 1989. L'inférence en langue naturelle. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M. 1986. Ambiguity and the semantics–pragmatics distinction. In Travis, C. (ed), Meaning and Interpretation, pp. 77–103. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
von Klopp, A. 1993. Negation: Implications for Theories of Natural Language. PhD thesis, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. 1971. If's, and's and but's about conjunction. In Fillmore, C. J. & Langendoen, D. T. (eds), Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Lang, E. 1984. The Semantics of Coordination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melander, J. 1916. Etudes sur MAGIS et les expressions adversatives dans les langues romanes. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. 1989. Modélisation de dialogue: Représentation de l'nférence argumentative. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
Reddy, M. J. 1979. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Ortony, A. (ed), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tobler, A. 1908. “ne … se … non, mais, fors, que.”. In Vermischte Beiträge zur französischen Grammatik, Vol. 3, pp. 78–111. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.Google Scholar