Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructional Approach(es) to Discourse-Level Phenomena: Theoretical challenges and empirical advances
Edited by Renata Enghels and María Sol Sansiñena
[Constructions and Frames 13:1] 2021
► pp. 55–81

Not-fragments and negative expansion

 | Université de Lille | Laboratoire STL UMR 8163 – CNRS
This paper focuses on emphatic sentence fragments of the type Not in a million years!. While such fragments can be partially accounted for by a known type of ellipsis, namely ‘stripping’, it is argued here that this type is best treated as a construction in its own right, with formal, semantic and pragmatic properties specific to it. One useful concept is what could be called ‘negative expansion’. This is a discourse-level construction whereby an already negative clause is followed by one or more negative clause fragments, whose negation is a repetition, rather than cancellation, of the negation in the preceding clause, as in It will never happen. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not ever.
Keywords: constructions, ellipsis, negative expansion, not-fragment, stripping
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Some theoretical considerations on fragments and ellipsis
  • 3.The Not X! construction
    • 3.1Why Not X! is not produced by deletion
    • 3.2A constructionist treatment of Not X!
  • 4.Negative expansion
  • 5.Conclusion and further questions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00047.cap
References (54)
References
Akmajian, A. (1984). Sentence types and the form-function fit. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2(1): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A. (2008). Can we take Construction Grammar beyond sneezing napkins off tables? In K. Stierstorfer (Ed.), Proceedings of the Anglistentag Münster 2007 (pp. 269–276). WVT.Google Scholar
Brems, L., & Van Linden, A. (2018). No way and no chance as emphatic negative response items. BAAHE (Belgian Association of Anglicists in Higher Education) conference on intensity, University of Mons, 30 November. [URL]
Cappelle, B. (2005). Particle patterns in English: A comprehensive coverage. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Leuven.Google Scholar
(2017). What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions? In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line (pp. 345–376). Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Not on my watch and similar not-fragments: Stored forms with pragmatic content. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 52(2), 217–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B., & Depraetere, I. (2016). Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions: Some evidence from The Simpsons . Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 7–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, P. (1998). Conscious thinking: Language or elimination? Mind and Language, 13(4): 457–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1962). Explanatory models in linguistics. In E. Nagel, P. Suppes, & A. Tarski (Eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science (pp. 528–550). Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. (1999). Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory, and Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). The simpler syntax hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10(9), 413–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). same-except: A domain-general cognitive relation and how language expresses it. Language, 88(2), 305–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Ellipsis in Simpler Syntax. In J. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmerman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis (pp. 162–187). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): One billion words, 1990–2019. [URL]
(2019a–). The TV Corpus: 325 million words, 1950–2018. [URL]
(2019b–). The Movie Corpus: 200 million words, 1930–2018. [URL]
Delahunty, G. P. (2001). Discourse functions of inferential sentences. Linguistics 39(3). 517–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Depraetere, I., & Salkie, R. (2017). Free pragmatic enrichment, expansion, saturation, completion: A view from linguistics. In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line (pp. 1–37). Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(5), 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Perek, F. (2019). Ellipsis in Construction Grammar. In J. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmerman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis (pp. 188–204). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, A. (2019). Fragments. In J. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmerman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis (pp. 605–623). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J., & Sag, I. (1976). Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7(3), 391–426.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Bergs, A. (2012). ‘Are you construction in disguise’: Investigating the role of context in football chant constructions. Paper presented at the 7th international conference on construction grammar. August 9–12, 2012. Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul, South Korea.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. (Eds). 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1973). The base rules for prepositional phrases. In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 345–76). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Jacobson, P. 2016. The short answer: implications for Direct Compositionality (and vice versa). Language 92, 2, 331–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology, vol. 1. Henry Holt and Co. [Reprinted, Dover Books, 1950.] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1992). An on-line computational model of human sentence interpretation: A theory of the representation and use of linguistic knowledge. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California at Berkeley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1990). ‘What me worry?’ Mad magazine sentences revisited. In K. Hall et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Volume 16 (pp. 215–228). Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. s.d. not so fast. [URL]
Merchant, J. (2004). Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(6), 661–738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Yet another look at deep and surface anaphora. Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
(2019). Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. In J. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmerman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis (pp. 19–45). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, J., Frazier, L., Clifton, Jr. Ch., & Weskott, Th. (2009). Fragment answers to questions: A case of inaudible syntax. In L. Goldstein (Ed.), Brevity (pp. 21–35). Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Mercier, H., & D. Sperber. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Science, 34(2), 57–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Ph., & Pullum, G. K. (2014). Exophoric verb phrase ellipsis. In P. Hofmeister & E. Norcliffe (Eds.), The Core and the Periphery: Data-driven Perspectives on Syntax Inspired by Ivan A. Sag (pp. 5–32). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nykiel, J., & Hawkins, J. A. (2020). English fragments, Minimize Domains, and Minimize Forms. Language and Cognition, 12(3), 411–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (1999). Coherence through understanding through discourse patterns: Focus on news reports. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, & E. Ventola (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 77–100). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Postkortsdiskurs: med den språkliga periferin som centrum [Postcard discourse: placing the linguistic periphery at the center]. Sphinx 1999–2000 [The Yearbook of the Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters], 7–26.Google Scholar
(2005). Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions (pp. 121–144). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, I., & Stainton, R. (2006). Really intriguing, that Pred NP! Philosophy Publications, 241. [URL]
Progovac, L. (2013). Non-sentential vs. ellipsis approaches: Review and extensions. Language and Linguistics Compass 71, 597–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1969). Guess who. In R. I. Binnick, A. Davison, G. M. Green & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 252–286). University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A., & Hankamer, J. (1984). Towards a theory of anaphoric processing. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7(3), 325–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2013). Is usage more than usage after all? The case of English not that . Linguistics, 51(1), 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shopen, T. (1972). A generative theory of ellipsis. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Szczésniak, K., & Pachoł, M. (2015). What? Me, lie? The form and reading of the Incredulity Response Construction. Constructions online. [URL]
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1979). Ordered entailments: An alternative to presuppositional theories. In C. K. Oh & D. Dinneen (Eds), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 11: Presupposition (pp. 299–323). Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Sambre, Paul, Julien Perrez, Pascale Van Keirsbilck, Cornelia Wermuth, Françoise Gallez & Manon Hermann
2022. Constructing the future self: a contrastive approach to L1 and L2 Dutch and French. In Cognition and Contrast, ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.