The Pragmatics of Negation

Negative meanings, uses and discursive functions

| University of Stockholm
ISBN 9789027256881 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
ISBN 9789027264947 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00

Negation is one of the most discussed phenomena within linguistics, on all language levels though it never seems to be exhausted. This operator establishes complex sentence structures and constantly challenges – from a cognitive, syntactical, semantic and morphologic viewpoint – presuppositions on language internal relations as rational and logic. It therefore arouses interest through all fields within language sciences. From a pragmatic perspective, where negation is conceived a marked structure, using negation often produces meanings beyond the one of a reversed affirmation "it is not the case that X”. This book explores the various uses and pragmatic meanings of negation in authentic communication, in different text types and in different languages, predominately romance languages. The multilingual composition marries a macro-micro perspective where aspects of genre, sociocultural context, memory, rhetoric and argumentation interplay with the negative morpheme’s nature and embedded instructions. This broad approach makes this book a unique contribution to negation studies and to pragmatics in general. The book is important and enriching reading for scholars in all linguistic domains, but particularly for researchers in semantics, pragmatics, argumentation and, discourse analysis.

[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 283]  2017.  ix, 270 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Malin Roitman
Part I. Reinforcements of negatives
Chapter 1. Metalinguistic negation and rejection discourse markers in Spanish
María Marta García Negroni
Chapter 2. Metalinguistic negation and explicit echo, with reference to English and Spanish
Inés Olza
Chapter 3. Metalinguistic negation vs. descriptive negation: Among their kin and foes
Chungmin Lee
Chapter 4. Intervention Effects are (lack of) informativity: The case of negative interrogatives
Pierre Larrivée
Chapter 5. Discourse-pragmatic change and emphatic negation in Spoken French: Or coming full circle
Bonnie B. Fonseca-Greber
Part II. Negation and linguistic polyphony
Chapter 6. Interpretations of the French negationne…pas
Henning Nølke
Chapter 7. French negation as a marker of (external/internal) polyphony
Merete Birkelund
Part III. Negation and polyphony in discourse analysis
Chapter 8. Negation as a rhetorical tool in climate change discourse
Øyvind Gjerstad and Kjersti Fløttum
Chapter 9. Negation and straw man fallacy in French election debates 1974–2012
Malin Roitman
“After syntax and semantics, negation has become a central topic for pragmatics. This collective book is one of the first tackling the pragmatics of negation, from different perspectives (formal and functional), as well as from different traditions (Grice and Ducrot). A milestone for anyone who is concerned by research on linguistic negation.”
The Pragmatics of Negation focuses on pragmatic effects of negation in Spanish, French, English and Korean. This book addresses various issues such as the reinforcements of negatives, the polyphony of negative sentences, and the role of negation as an argumentative tool. It will be of great use to the scholars and students interested in negation and more widely in pragmatics. The book offers valuable insights of the complexity of the use and understanding of negation in communicative situations. It is a significant and useful contribution to the domain of negation and more widely, to pragmatics.”
“There is no doubt that negation is one of the most exciting subjects in the field of semantics, but one of the driest. By reading this book, one discovers that negation is not only a logic operator but also a place where various voices and various speakers meet.”


Adolphs, Senja
2008Corpus and Contexts. Investigating Pragmatic Functions in Spoken Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra
2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alcina Franch, Juan, and José M. Blecua
1975Gramática española. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot
1977”Deux mais en français?Lingua 43: 23–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1983L’argumentation dans la langue. Brussels: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude
1990 “Thème, espaces discursives et représentation événementielle.” In Fonctionnalisme et pragmatique. À propos de la notion de thème, ed. by Jean-Claude Anscombre and Gino Zaccaria, 43–150. Milan: Edizioni Unicopli.Google Scholar
2009 “La comédie de la polyphonie et ses personnages.” Langue Française 164: 11–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “L’introduction du pronom neutre dans les marqueurs médiatifs à verbe de dire de type Comme dit le proverbe / Como dice el refrán: étude sémantique contrastive d’une contrainte polyphonique.” Langages 184: 13–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Apothéloz, Denis, Pierre-Yves Brandt, and Gustavo Quiroz
1993 ”The Function of Negation in Argumentation.” Journal of Pragmatics 19: 23–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1938On Sophistical Refutations. Transl. by Edward S. Forster, Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
1939Topica. Transl. by E. S. Forster, Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ashby, William J.
1976 “The Loss of the Negative Morpheme Ne in Parisian French.” Lingua 39: 119–137. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1977aClitic Inflection in French: An Historical Perspective. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
1977b “Interrogative Forms in Parisian French.” Semasia 4: 35–52.Google Scholar
1980 “Prefixed Inflection in Parisian French.” In Italic and Romance Linguistic Studies in Honor of Ernst Pulgram [Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 18], ed. by Herbert J. Izzo, 195–207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1981 “The Loss of the Negative Particle ne in French: A Syntactic Change in Progress.” Language 57: 674–687. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988 “Français du Canada/français de France: divergence et convergence.” The French Review 61 (5): 693–702. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991 “When does Variation Indicate Linguistic Change in Progress.” Journal of French Language Studies 1 (1): 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 “The Variable Use of on versus tu/vous for Indefinite Reference in Spoken French.” Journal of French Language Studies 2: 135–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995 “French Presentational Structures.” In Contemporary Research in Romance Linguistics: Papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL) El Paso/Ciudad Juarez, February 1992 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 123], ed. by Jon Amastae, Grant Goodall, Mario Montalbetti, and Marianne Phinney, 91–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999”Au sujet de quoi? La fonction du sujet grammatical, du complément d’objet direct, et de la construction présentative en français parlé.” The French Review 72 (3): 481–492.Google Scholar
2001 “Un nouveau regard sur la chute du ne en français parlé tourangeau: S’agit-il d’un changement en cours?Journal of French Language Studies 11: 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auger, Julie, and Anne-José Villeneuve
2008 “ Ne Deletion in Picard and in Regional French: Evidence for Distinct Grammars.” In Social Lives in Language – Sociolinguistics and Multilingual Speech Sommunities: Celebrating the Work of Gillian Sankoff [IMPACT: Studies in Language and Society 24], ed. by Miriam Meyerhoff and Naomi Nagy, 223–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan
2009 “The Jespersen Cycles”. In Cyclical Change [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 146], ed. by Elly van Gelderen, 35–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Abrusán, Márta
2008 “A Semantic Analysis of Negative Manner Islands with Manner Questions.” In Proceedings of SUB12, ed. by Atle Grønn, 1–16. Oslo: ILOS.Google Scholar
Avanzi, Matthieu, Marie-José Béguelin, and Federica Diémoz
2012-2015 “Corpus Oral de français de Suisse Romande (OFROM).” Université de Neuchâtel. http://​www​.unine​.ch​/ofrom
Bacha, Jacqueline, Ammar Azouzi, et Khaled Saddem
(eds) 2011La négation en discours. Facultés des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de Sousse et de Kairouan. Université de Sousse: Unité de recherche en syntaxe sémantique et pragmatique.Google Scholar
Bacri, Nicole and Bénédicte de Boysson-Bardies
1977 ”Portée de la négation et référenciation chez les enfants de 4 à 10 ans.” L'année psychologique 77 (1): 117–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bally, Charles
1932Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Paris: Leroux.Google Scholar
Banfield, Ann
1982Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bardel, Camilla
2000La negazione nell’italiano degli sevesi. Sequence acquisizionali e influssi translinguistici. Études Romances de Lund (61).Google Scholar
Bardzokas, Valandis
2015“Correction-but: A relevance-theoretical reappraisal.” Language & Communication: 27–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Betsy K.
1985The Pragmatics of Left-Detachment in Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barra-Jover, Mario
2012“Método y teoría del cambio lingüístico: argumentos en favor de un método idiolectal” IX Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española (Cádiz, 10–14 septiembre, 2012.
Beck, Sigrid, and Shin-Sook Kim
2006 “Intervention Effects in Alternative Questions.” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9 (3): 165–208. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid
1996”Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement.” Natural Language Semantics 4: 1–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “Intervention Effects follow from Focus Interpretation.” Natural Language Semantics 14 (1): 1–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Bentham, Johan, Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Frank Veltman
(eds) 1996Logic and Argumentation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile
1966Problèmes de linguistique générale. Tome 1. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
1974Problèmes de linguistique générale. Tome 2. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bello, Andrés
1988 (1847)Gramática de la lengua castellana. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Bermúdez, Fernando
2004 “La categoría evidencial del castellano: metonimia y elevación de sujeto.” Boletín de lingüística 22: 3–31.Google Scholar
2005 “Los tiempos verbales como marcadores evidenciales: El caso del pretérito perfecto compuesto.” Estudios Filológicos 40: 165–188.Google Scholar
Berrendonner, Alain
1981Eléments de pragmatique linguistique. Paris: Editions du Minuit.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan
1999Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Birkelund, Merete
2005 “Modalité et négation.” In Temporalité et attitude, Structuration du discours et expression de la modalité [Cahiers Chronos 12], ed. by A. Molendijk and C. Vet, 97–108. Amsterdam – New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2000Modalité et temporalité dans les contrats commerciaux rédigés en français. Une analyse de l’emploi des temps verbaux dans les énoncés performatifs. Institut for Sprog og Kommunikation, Odense: Syddansk Universitet (thèse ph.d.).Google Scholar
2009 “ Pierre n’est pas français mais danois. Une structure polyphonique à part.” Langue française 164 (4): 123–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blattner, Géraldine, and Lawrence Williams
2011 “L’emploi variable du ne dans le discours électronique synchrone: une étude variationniste en temps apparent.” Langage et société 138: 109–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blutner, Reinhard
2004 “Pragmatics and the Lexicon.” In Handbook of pragmatics, ed. by Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 488–514. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1972Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borschev, V., E. V. Paducheva, B. H. Partee, Y. G. Testelets, and I. Yanovich
2006 “Sentential and Constituent Negation in Russian BE-Sentences Revisited.” Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL 14), Citeseer.
Bourdieu, Pierre
1972/2000Esquisse d’une théorie pratique. Paris: Seuil. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, Thomas E., et al.
2009 “Creating a Common Climate Language.” Science 3: 36–37.Google Scholar
Bradley, Francis Herbert
1883 (1912)Principles of Logic. London: Elibron Classic Series.Google Scholar
Brandtler, Johan
2008 “Why We Should Ever Bother about Wh-questions.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 81: 83–102.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine
2008”Grammaticalization, Subjectification and Leftward Movement of English Adjectives of Difference inthe Noun Phrase.” Folia Linguistica: Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae 42 (2): 259–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Breheny, Richard, Napoleon Katsos, and John Williams
2006 “Are Generalised Scalar Implicatures Generated by Default? An on-line Investigation into the Role of Context in Generating Pragmatic Inferences.” Cognition 100 (3): 434–463. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Breheny, Richard, and Ye Tien
2016 “Dynamic Pragmatic View of Negation Processing. ” In Negation and Polarity: Experimental Perspectives [Language, Cognition and Mind Series], Vol. 1, ed. by P. Larrivee and C. Lee, 21–43. Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bres, Jacques, and Alexandra Nowakowska
2008 “J’exagère? … Du dialogisme interlocutif. ” In L’énonciation dans tous ses états. Mélanges offerts à Henning Nølke à l’occasion de ses soixante ans, ed. by Merete Birkelund, Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen, and Coco Norén, 1–27. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Budescu, David V., Stephen Broomell, and Han-Hui Por
2009 “Improving Communication of Uncertainty in the Reports of the IPCC.” Psychological Science 20 (3): 299–308. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buring, Daniel
2003 “On D-Trees, Beaans, and B-Accents.” Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 511–545. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel
1989 “On Horn’s Dilemma: Presupposition and Negation.” Journal of Linguistics 25 (1): 95–125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caillat, Domitille
2014”Les recours au discours rapporté dans le débat de l’entre-deux tours de 2007 : des usages sexués ?” In Discours rapporté, genre(s) et media, ed. by F. Sullet-Nylander, M. Roitman, J.-M. Lopez-Muñoz, S. Marnette et L. Rosier. Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.Google Scholar
Camacho Adarve Matilde, María
2009Análisis del discurso y repetición: palabras, actitudes y sentimientos. Madrid: Arco/Libros.Google Scholar
Carpenter, P., and M. Just
1975 “Sentence Comprehension: A Psycholinguistic Processing Model of Verification.” Psychological Review 82 (1): Jan 1975, 45–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn
1988”Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics.” In Mental representations: The interface between language and reality, ed. by Ruth M. Kempson, 155–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1996 “Metalinguistic Negation and Echoic Use.” Journal of Pragmatics 25: 309–330 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998”Negation, ‘presupposition’ and the semantics/pragmatics distinction.” Journal of Linguistics. Cambridge University Press: 309–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002”The pragmatics of negation.” In Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn, and Eun-Ju Noh
1996 “A Truth Functional Account of Metalinguistic Negation, with Evidence from Korean.” Language Sciences 18: 485–504. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Casado Velarde, Manuel
1996 “Notas sobre la historia de los marcadores textuales de explicación es decir y o sea .” In Scripta Philologica in memoriam Manuel Taboada Cid, Vol. I, ed. by Manuel Casado, et al., 321–328. La Coruña: Universidad.Google Scholar
Cattel, Ray
1978 “On the Source of Interrogative Adverbs.” Language 54 (1): 61–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1986 “Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing.” In Evidentiality. The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. by Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols, 261–272. Norwood: Alex Publishing.Google Scholar
1987 “Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow.” In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, ed. by Russell Tomlin, 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. and Alberta Austin
2015A Grammar of the Seneca Language. Oakland California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chase, Stuart
1956Guides to Straight Thinking: With Thirteen Common Fallacies. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Chellas, Brian F.
1980Modal Logic. An Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Johan Rooryck
2000 “Licensing wh-in-situ.” Syntax 3 (1): 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny
1997 “Involvement in ‘standard’ and ‘nonstandard’ English.” In Taming the Vernacular: From Dialect to Written Standard Language, ed. by Jenny Cheshire and Dieter Stein, 68–82. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
1999 ‘English Negation from an Interactional Perspective’. In Negation in the History of English, ed. by I. Tieken-Boon et al., 29–53. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 “Taming the Vernacular: Some Repercussions for the Study of Syntactic Variation and Spoken Grammar.” Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa 8: 59–80.Google Scholar
2013 “Grammaticalisation in Social Context. The Emergence of a New English Pronoun.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 17 (5): 608–633. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, Lawrence Yam-Leung
2009 “Negative wh-constructions and its Semantic Properties.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18 (4): 297–321. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cho, S.-Y., and H.-G. Lee
2002 “Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of the NPI yekan in Korean.” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10: 509–521.Google Scholar
Choi, Y., and C. Lee
2017 “Expletive Negation and Polarity Alternatives.” In Contrastiveness in Information Structure, Alternatives, and Scalar Implicatures, ed. by C. Lee, F. Kiefer, and M. Krifka, 175–202. Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1990Types of A’-Dependencies. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1974 “Semantics and Comprehension.” Current Trends in Linguistics, Linguistics and Adjacent Arts 12: 1291–1428.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Eve V. Clark
1977Psychology and language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Javanovich.Google Scholar
Clarke, Charles C.
1904”The actual force of the French ne”. Modern Philology 2: 279–287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Compernolle, Rémi A.
2008 “Morphosyntactic and Phonological Constraints On Negative Particle Variation in French-Language Chat Discourse.” Language Variation and Change 20 (2): 317–339. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “Emphatic Ne in Informal Spoken French and Implications for Foreign Language Pedagogy.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19 (1): 47–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “The (Slightly More) Productive Use of Ne in Montréal French Chat.” Language Sciences 32: 447–463. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Constant, Noah
2012”English rise-fall-rise: A study in the semantics and pragmatics of intonation.” Linguistique and Philosphy 35 (5): 407–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Constantin De Chanay, Hugues
2009”Corps à corps en 2007. ”Nicolas Sarkozy face à Ségolène Royal.” Itinéraires. Littérature, textes et cultures 1: 61–80.Google Scholar
Corblin, Francis, Viviane Déprez, Henriëtte de Swart, and Lucia Tovena
2004 “Negative concord.” In Handbook of French Semantics, ed. by Francis Corblin and Henriëtte de Swart, 417–452. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Corner, Adam, and Ulrike Hahn
2009 “Evaluating Science Arguments: Evidence, Uncertainty, and Argument Strength.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 15 (3):199–212.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert
2007Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi-) Auxilliaries. A Cognitive-Functional Approach. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cornish, Elizabeth R., and P. C. Wason
1970“The Recall of Affirmative and Negative Sentences in Incidental Learning Task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 22 (2): 109–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coveney, Aidan
1996Variability in Spoken French: A Sociolinguistic Study of Interrogation and Negation. Exeter: Elm Bank Publications.Google Scholar
1998 “Awareness of Linguistic Constraints on Variable Ne Omission.” Journal of French Language Studies 8: 159–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003”Anything you can do, tu can do better: tu and vous as substitutes for indefinite on in French.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 7: 164–191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cristea, Teodora
1971La structure de la phrase négative en français contemporain. Bucarest: Société Roumaine de Linguistique Romane.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1991 “The Evolution of Negation.” Journal of Linguistics 27 (1): 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer
2010 “Convergent Evidence for Categorial Change in French: From Subject Clitic to Agreement Marker.” Language 86 (1): 85–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ősten
1979 “Typology of Sentence Negation.” Linguistics 17: 79–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deane, Paul
1992Grammar in Mind and Brain: Explorations in Cognitive Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, Keith S.
1966 “Reference and Definite Descriptions.” Philosophical Review 75: 281–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drenhaus, Heiner, Douglas Saddy, and Stefan Frisch
2005 “Processing Negative Polarity Items: When Negation Comes Through the Backdoor.” In Linguistic Evidence – Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, ed. by S. Kepser and M. Reis, 145–165. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drenhaus, Heiner, Joanna Blaszczak, and Juliane Schütte
2006 “Some Psycholinguistic Comments on NPI Licensing.” Proceed’s of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 180–193. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Drozd, Ken
2001 “Metalinguistic Sentence Negation in Child English.” In Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items, ed. by Jacob Hoeksema, et al., 49–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
1996 “Focus, Pragmatic Presupposition, and Activated Propositions.” Journal of Pragmatics 26: 475–523. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “Position of negative morpheme with respect to subject, object, and verb.” In World Atlas of Language Structures Online, ed. by Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library.Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald
1972Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
1980Les mots du discours. Paris: Éditions de minuit.Google Scholar
1984 “Esquisse d’une théorie polyphonique de l’enonciation.” In Le dire et le dit, 171–233. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
2004 “Sentido y argumentación.” In Homenaje a Oswald Ducrot, ed. by Elvira Arnoux and Ma. Marta García Negroni, 359–370. Buenos Aires: Eudeba.Google Scholar
Edwards, Jane A.
2001 “The Transcription of Discourse.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi Hamilton, 321–348. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F., and R. Grootendorst
1987 “Fallacies in a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.” Argumentation 1: 283–301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
1992Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Erlbaum: Hillsdale.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas
2009 “Speaker-oriented Adverbs.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27 (3): 497–544. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Ma. Victoria
1999 “Los enunciados interrogativos. Aspectos semánticos y pragmáticos.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 3929–3991. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
2010 “Futuro y evidencialidad.” Anuario de Lingüística Hispánica 26: 9–34.Google Scholar
Evans, John D. G.
1977Aristotle's Concept of Dialectic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. S.B. T., J. Clibbens, and B. Rood
1996 “The Role of Implicit and Explicit Negation in Conditional Reasoning Bias.” Journal of Memory and Language 35 (3): 392–409. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
1995Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
2003Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
1979 “Implication Reversal in a Natural Language.” In Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages, ed. by F. Günther and S. J. Schmidt, 289–301. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
1994Mental Spaces. New York: Cambridge University Press. (1985 Cambridge: MIT Press.) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Filliettaz, Laurent, and Eddy Roulet
2002 “The Geneva Model of Discourse Analysis: An Interactionist and Modular Approach to Discourse Organization.” Discourse Studies 4 (3): 369–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
1985 “Frames and the Semantics of Understanding.” Quaderni di Semantica 6 (2): 222–251.Google Scholar
Floricic, Franck
(ed) 2007La négation dans les langues romanes, Collection Linguisticae Investigationes Supplementa 26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fløttum, Kjersti
2005 “MOI et AUTRUI dans le discours scientifique: l’exemple de la négation NE…PAS .” In Dialogisme et polyphonie: Approches linguistiques, ed. by Jacques Bres, Patrick P. Hallet, Sylvie Mellet, Henning Nølke, and Laurence Rosier, 323–337. Brussels: De Boeck and Larcier.Google Scholar
2014 “Linguistic Mediation of Climate Change Discourse.” Asp 65: 7–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fløttum, Kjersti, Trine Dahl, and Torodd Kinn
2006Academic Voices – across Languages and Disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fløttum, Kjersti, and Trine Dahl
2011 “Climate Change Discourse: Scientific Claims in a Policy Setting.” Fachsprache 3-4: 205–219.Google Scholar
2014 “IPCC communicative practices: A linguistic comparison of the Summary for Policymakers 2007 and 2013.” The LSP Journal – Language for Special Purposes, Professional Communication, Knowledge Management and Cognition 5 (2): 66–83.Google Scholar
Fløttum, Kjersti and Øyvind Gjerstad
2016”Narratives in climate change discourse.” WIREs Climate Change 8.Google Scholar
Fonseca-Greber, Bonnie B.
1998 “Corpus of Conversational Swiss French.” (corpus, 1998).
Fonseca-Greber, Bonnibeth Beale
2000 “The Change from Pronoun to Clitic to Prefix and the Rise of Null Subjects in Spoken Swiss French.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona.
Fonseca-Greber, Bonnie, and Linda R. Waugh
2003a “On the radical difference between the subject personal pronouns in written and spoken European French.” In Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use. Language and Computers [Studies in Practical Linguistics 46], ed. by P. Leistyna and C. F. Meyer, 225–240. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2003b “The Subject Clitics of Conversational European French: Morphologization, Grammatical Change, Semantic Change, and Change in Progress.” In A Romance Perspective on Linguistic Knowledge and Use [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 238], ed. by Rafael Núñez-Cedeño, Luis López, and Richard Cameron, 99–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fonseca-Greber, Bonnibeth Beale
2007 “The Emergence of Emphatic ‘ne’ in Conversational Swiss French.” Journal of French Language Studies 17 (3): 249–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fonseca-Greber, Bonnie
2013 “La morphologisation de qui .” Journal of French Language Studies 23 (3): 401–421. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “The Norm, Diglossia, and Linguistic Identity Formation: The Case of French.” Paper presented at Forging Linguistic Identities, Towson University, Towson, MD, March 17, 2011.
Fonseca-Greber, Bonnie B.
2016 “Frequency, Lexical Restriction, and the Negative Cycle: Interdisciplinary Insights.” Paper presented at High Desert Linguistics Society 12, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque NM, November 12–14 2016.
Fontanella de Weinberg, Ma. Beatriz
1987El español bonaerense. Cuatro siglos de evolución lingüística. Buenos Aires: Hachette.Google Scholar
(eds) 2000El español de la Argentina y sus variedades regionales. Buenos Aires: Hachette.Google Scholar
Foolen, Ad
1991 “Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity: Some Comments on a Proposal by Laurence Horn.” Pragmatics 1 (2): 217–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forest, Robert
1992 “L'interprétation des énoncés négatifs.” Langue française 94: 35–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forslid, Erik, and Niklas Wikén
2015 “Automatic Irony- and Sarcasm Detection in Social Media.” UPTEC F15 045.
Fox, Danny, and Martin Hackl
2006 “The Universal Density of Measurement.” Linguistics and Philosophy 29 (5): 537–586. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fracchiolla, Béatrice
2014“Circulation ordinaire des discours sexistes et sens symbolique : La campagne "Mademoiselle, la case en trop!” In Discours rapporté, genre(s) et medias, ed. by Françoise Sullet-Nylander, Malin Roitman, Juan-Manuel Lçpez-Muñoz, Sophie Marnette et Laurence Rosier. Stockholm: Romanica Stockholmiensia.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1996 “Pragmatic Markers.” Pragmatics 6 (2): 167–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob
1971 (1918)Écrits logiques et philosophiques. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Gaatone, David
1971Étude descriptive du système de la négation en français contemporain [Publication romaines et françaises, CXIV]. Genève: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
Gadet, Françoise
2003La variation sociale en français. Gap, France: Ophrys.Google Scholar
2007La variation sociale en français nouvelle édition revue et augmentée. Gap, France: Ophrys.Google Scholar
García Negroni, Ma. Marta
2002 “Disqualification, confirmation et (représentation du) discours de l'autre. A propos des répliques introduites par ¡Pero si…!. .” Cahiers de linguistique française 24: 243–264.Google Scholar
2009 “Negación y descalificación. A propósito de la negación metalingüística.” Ciências e Letras 45: 61–82.Google Scholar
2012 “ Ma qué y otra que: dos marcadores de descalificación del español rioplatense.” Anuario de Lingüística Hispánica 28: 57–75.Google Scholar
García Negroni, Ma. Marta, y Manuel Libenson, and Ana S. Montero
2013 “De la intención del sujeto hablante a la representación polifónica de la enunciación. Acerca de los límites de la noción de intención en la descripción del sentido.” Revista de Investigación Lingüística 16: 237–262.Google Scholar
García Negroni, Ma. Marta, y Manuel Libenson
2014 “Esto/eso, que x/ de que x en contraste. Del significado evidencial perceptivo al significado evidencial citativo.” Estudios de Lingüística de la Universidad de Alicante 28.Google Scholar
García Negroni, Ma. Marta
2016 “Polifonía, evidencialidad citativa y tiempos verbales. Acerca de los usos citativos del futuro morfológico y del futuro perifrástico.” In La evidencialidad en español: teoría y descripción, ed. by Ramón González Ruiz, Dámaso Izquierdo Alegría, and Óscar Loureda Lamas. Madrid: Vervuert/Iberoamericana. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald
1979Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gettrup, Harald, and Henning Nølke
1984 “Stratégies concessives: Une étude de six adverbes français.” Revue Romane 19 (1): 3–47.Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart
1998 “The Mechanisms of Denial.” Language 74 (2): 274–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel
2006 “Anything Negatives can do Affirmatives can do Just as Well, Except for Some Metaphors.” Journal of Pragmatics 38 (7): 981–1014. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1978 “Negation in Language: Pragmatics, Function, Ontology.” In Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 69–112. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gjerstad, Øyvind
2011La polyphonie discursive: pour un dialogisme ancré dans la langue et dans la situation, doctoral dissertation. Bergen: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
2013”Voices and identities.” In Speaking of Europe. Approaches to Complexity in European Political Discourse, ed. by Kjersti Fløttum, 110–134. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Godard, Danièle
2004 “French negative dependency.” In Handbook of French Semantics, ed. by F. Corbin and H. de Swart, 351–390. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
González, Calvo, José Manuel
1984 “Sobre la expresión de lo ”superlativo” en español (I).” Anuario de Estudios Filológicos 7: 173–205.Google Scholar
González Ramos, Elisa
2009 “La expresión de la opinión personal: a propósito del signo complejo evidencial en mi opinión. .” Interlingüística 18: 553–563.Google Scholar
González Ruiz, Ramón, and Inés Olza
2011 “Eco y emoción: funciones pragmadiscursivas de algunos fraseologismos somáticos con narices .” In Gramática y discurso. Nuevas aportaciones sobre partículas discursivas del español, ed. by Ramón González Ruiz and Carmen Llamas Saíz, 105–134. Pamplona: EUNSA.Google Scholar
Govier, Trudy
1992A Practical Study of Argument, 3rd ed. Wadsworth: Belmont.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1966Universals of language, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P.
1975 “Logic and Conversation.” Syntax and Semantics 3 Speech Acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guillaume Gustave, Valin Roch
(éd) 1973. – Principes de linguistique théorique de Gustave Guillaume. Paris, Klincksieck, Québec: Presses de l'Univ. Laval, p. 17.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L.
1958 “Questions.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 36: 159–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Han, Chung-hye
2002 “Interpreting Interrogatives as Rhetorical Questions.” Lingua 112 (3): 201–229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Berit Anita and Isabelle Malderez
2004”Le ne de négation en région parisienne: une étude en temps réel.” Langage et société 1 (107): 5–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard
1998The Function of Discourse Particles: A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 53]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “Negative Cycles and Grammaticalization.” In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, ed. by Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine, 570–579. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hara, Urie
2006 “Implicature Unsuspendable: Japanese Contrastive wa.” In Proceedings of Texas Linguistics Society 8. Cascadilla Press.
Harness Goodwin, Marjorie
1983 “Aggravated Correction and Disagreement in Children’s Conversations.” Journal of Pragmatics 7 (6): 653–677. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Martin
1978The Evolution of French Syntax: A Comparative Approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Harrison, Luke
. “Conversation with Author.” May 5 2015.
Haspelmath, Martin
2006 “Against Markedness (and what to replace it with).” Journal of Linguistics 42: 25–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 “Why is Grammaticalization Irreversible?Linguistics 37 (6): 1043–1068. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, John, and David Manley
2012The Reference Book. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, Michael
2016Modality and Propositional Attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer
1991Grammaticalization. A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heldner, Christina
1981La portée de la négation. Un examen de quelques facteurs sémantiques et textuels pertinents à sa détermination dans des énoncés authentiques. Stockholm: Norstedts tryckeri AB.Google Scholar
Hidalgo-Downing, Laura
2000Negation, Text Worlds, and Discourse: The Pragmatics of Fiction. Stamford US: Ablex Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack
1994The Corpus Study of Negative Polarity Items.” Web, University of Groningen.
2012 “On the Grammaticalization of Negative Polarity Items.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society .
Hofmeister, Philip, and Ivan A. Sag
2010 “Cognitive Constraints and Island Effects.” Language 86 (2): 366–415. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth C. Traugott
1993 [2003]Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R.
1985 “Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity.” Language 61 (1): 121–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1989A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence
2001”Flaubert polarity, squatitive negation, and other quirks of grammar.” In Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items,ed. by J. Hoeksema, H. Rullmann, V. Sánchez-Valencia and T. van der Wouden, 173–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence. R.
2014 “The Cloud of Unknowing.” In Black Book. A Festschrift in Honour of Frans Zwarts, ed. by J. Hoeksema and D. Gilbers, 178–196. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullman
2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Langauge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe Antuñano, Iraide
2008 “Vision Metaphors for the Intellect: Are They Really Cross-Linguistic?Atlantis. Journal of the Association of Anglo-American Studies 30 (1): 15–33.Google Scholar
Iglésias, Olivier, and Pierre Larrivée
2014 "Une approche idiolectale de la chute de ne en français contemporain." CMLF-14. http://​www​.shs​-conferences​.org​/articles​/shsconf​/pdf​/2014​/05​/shsconf​_cmlf14​_01179​.pdf
InterAcademy Council
2010 “Climate Change Assessments. Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC.” Prepublication Copy 04.082011 http://​reviewipcc​.interacademycouncil​.net​/report​.html
Israel, Michael
1996 “Polarity Sensitivity as Lexical Semantics.” Linguistics and Philosophy 19 (6): 619–666. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004”The pragmatics of polarity.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 701–723. Blackwell: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Iwata, Seizi
1998 “Some Extensions of the Echoic Analysis of Metalinguistic Negation.” Lingua 105 (1–2): 49–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1960 “Linguistics and Poetics.” In Style in Language, ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, 350–377. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1990On Language, ed. by Linda R. Waugh and Monique Monville-Burston. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jasinskaja, Katja
2011 “Review of Quantity Implicatures by Bart Geurts” (2010). LINGUIST List 22.3291. URL: http://​linguistlist​.org​/issues​/22​/22​-3291​.html
Jasinskaja, Katja, and Henk Zeevat
2008 “Explaining Additive, Adversative and Contrast Marking in Russian and English.” Revue de Sémantiqueet Pragmatique 24: 65–91. [Draft (PDF)]Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1917Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: A. F. Høst and Søn.Google Scholar
Johnson, Ralph H., and J. Anthony Blair
2006Logical Self-Defense. New York: Idea Press. (Reprint of 1983, 1st United States edition.)Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri, and Stanley Peters
1979 “Conventional Implicature.” Syntax and Semantics, Presupposition 11: 1–56.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold
1972Semantic Theory. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J.
1979 “A Solution to the Projection Problem for Presupposition.” In Syntax and semantics: Presupposition, Vol. 11, ed. by C.-K. Oh, 91–126. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L.
1971 “Two Kinds of Presupposition.” In Studies in Linguistic Semantics, ed. by C. J. Fillmore and D. T. Langėndoen, 45–54. Irvington.Google Scholar
Kelepir, Meltem
2004 “Intervention Effects in the Interpretation of Turkish and Japanese Indefinites.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 46: 49–63.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi
1994On language change: The invisible hand in language (translated). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher
2007 �Vagueness and Grammar: The Semantics of Relative and Absolute Gradable Adjectives.� Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 1�45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
1999Les interactions verbales, 3 tomes. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Kim, Ji-yung, and Chungmin Lee
2008 “ Why Multiple Clefts are Disallowed.” In Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Charles B. Chang and Hannah J. Haynie, 332–339. Sommerville: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S.
1964 “Negation in English.” In The Structure of Language. Readings in the Philosophy of Language, ed. by J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz. Englewood: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert
1998 “On the Distinction Between Strong and Weak Islands: A Processing Perspective.” Syntax and Semantics 29: 241–279.Google Scholar
Komorowski, Tomasz
1996”Diffusion approximation for the advection of particles in a strongly turbulent random environment.” The Annals of Probability 24 (1): 346–376. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kovacci, Ofelia
1990El comentario gramatical. Teoría y práctica, Tomo I. Madrid: Arco LibrosGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelica
1991 “Modality.” In Semantics – An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, ed. by Arnim von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 639–650. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony
1989 “Amount Quantification, Referentiality, and Long Wh-movement.” MS, University of Pennsylvania. 18 pages.
Kroeger, Paul R.
2014”External negation in Malay/Indonesian.” Language 90 (1): 137–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kronning, Hans
2002 “Le conditionnel ’journalistique’: médiation et modalisation épistémiques.” Romansk forum 16 (2): 561–575. Available: http://​www​.digbib​.uio​.no​/roman​/page21​.htmlGoogle Scholar
2005 “Polyphonie, mediation et modalisation: le cas du conditionnel épistémique.” In Dialogisme et polyphonie, ed. by Jacques Bres, Patrick Pierre Haillet, Sylvie Mellet et Henning Nolke, 297–312. Brussels: Editions Duculot.Google Scholar
2006 “Polyfoni, modalitet och evidentialitet. Om epistemiska uttryck i franskan, särskilt epistemisk konditionalis.” In Sproglig polyfoni. Tekster om Bachtin and ScaPoLine, ed. by Rita Therkelsen, Nina Møller Andersen, and Henning Nølke, 301–324. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, and John Whitman
2004 “Licensing of Multiple Negative Polarity Items.” In Studies in Korean Syntax and Semantics, ed. by Susumu Kuno, Y. Kim-Renaud, and J. Whitman, 207–228. Seoul: Pagijong.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, and Ken-Ichi Takami
1997 “Remarks on Negative Islands.” Linguistic Inquiry 28 (4): 553–576.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, and Soo-Yoen Kim
2004 “On Syntactic Intervention.” Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics X: 3–33.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
1991 “Remarks on Quantifier Scope.” In Current English Linguistics in Japan, ed. by Heizo Nakajima, 261–287. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kutas, Marta, and Cyma Van Petten
1994 “Psycholinguistics Electrified, Event–Related Brain Potential Investigations.” In Handbook of Psycholinguistics, ed. by M. A. Gernsbacher, 83–143. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kutas, Marta, and Kara D. Federmeier
2011 “Thirty Years And Counting: Finding Meaning in the N400 Component of the Event Related Brain Potential (ERP).” Annual Review of Psychology 62: 621–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laberge, Suzanne, and Gillian Sankoff
1980 “Anything You Can Do.” In The Social Life of Language, ed. by Gillian Sankoff, 271–293. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
1978”Women’s role in linguistic change.” Paper presented at Linguistic Society of America (LSA) Annual Meeting.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
1980 [2003]Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Larrivée, Pierre
2001L'interprétation des phrases négatives: portée et foyer des négations en français. Champs linguistiques. Brussels: Duculot.Google Scholar
2005 “Les voix de la polyphonie négative.” In Dialogisme et polyphonie: Approches linguistiques, ed. by Jacques Bres, Pierre Patrick Haillet, Sylvie Mellet, Henning Nolke, and Laurence Rose, 313–322. Brussels: Editions Duculot.Google Scholar
Larrivée, Pierre, and Estelle Moline
2009 “ Comment ne pas perdre la tête? À propos des effets d’intervention dans les interronégatives en comment et de leur suspension dans les questions rhétoriques.” Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris CIV (1): 185–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larrivée, Pierre
2010 “The Pragmatic Motifs of The Jespersen Cycle: Default, Activation, and the History of Negation in French.” Lingua 120 (9): 2240–2258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011a “Au-delà de la polyphonie.” Le Français moderne 79 (1): 223–234.Google Scholar
2011b“La définition de la négation métalinguistique”. In La négation en discourse sousse, ed. by Jacqueline Bacha, Ammar Azouzi and Khaled Salddem. 53–69.Google Scholar
2012 “Positive Polarity Items, Negation, Activated Propositions.” Linguistics 50 (4): 869–900. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larrivée, Pierre, and Laurent Perrin
2010 “Voix et point de vue de la négation.” In La question polyphonique ou dialogique en sciences du langage, ed. by Marion Colas-Blaise, Laurent Perrin, and André Petitjean, 175–199. Metz: Université Paul Verlaine-Metz.Google Scholar
Larrivée, Pierre, and Lee Chungmin
(eds) 2016Negation and Polarity: Experimental Perspectives. Language, Cognition, and Mind 1. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larrivee, Pierre and Chungmin Lee
(eds.) 2017Negation and Polarity: Experimental Perspectives, Language, Cognition and Mind Series, Vol. 1. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Lawler, John M.
1971 “ Any questions?CLS 7: 163–173.Google Scholar
Lee, Chungmin, and Seungjin Hong
2016 “The Cloud of Knowing: Non-factive al-ta ‘know’ (as a Neg-raiser) in Korean.” In Proceedings of PACLIC 30.
Lee, Chungmin
1973Abstract and Korean with Reference to English. Seoul: Thaehaksa.Google Scholar
1978 “An Analysis of the Verb al `know'.” [in Korean]. Maum (`Mind') 1: 60–65. Seoul: Ywushimhoy.Google Scholar
2000”Topic, Contrastive Topic and Focus: What’s on Our Minds.” Journal of Cognitive Science 1–2, 21–38.Google Scholar
2006 “Contrastive Topic/Focus and Polarity in Discourse.” In Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics, ed. by Klaus von Heusinger and Ken Turner, 381–420. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
2007”Contrastive (Predicate) Topic, Intonation, and Scalar Meanings.” In Topic and Focus: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation, Chungmin Lee, M. Gordon, D. Büring, 151–175. Springer: Dordrecht. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Information Structure in PA/SN or Descriptive/Metalinguistic Negation: with Reference to Scalar Implicatures.” In Contrasting Meaning in Languages of the East and West, ed. by Dingfang Shu and Ken Turner, 33–73. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2016 “Metalinguistically Negated vs. Descriptically Negated Adverbials: ERP and Other Evidence.” In Negation and Polarity: Experimental Perspectives [Language, Cognition and Mind Series] Vol. 1, 229–255, ed. by P. Larrivee and C. Lee. Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Chungmin, Ferenc Kiefer, and Manfred Krifka
(eds) 2017Contrastiveness in Information Structure, Alternatives and Scalar Implicatures (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 91). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Chungmin
In Prep. “Wh-indefinites as PPIs and wh-indefinites plus -to ‘even’ as NPIs in Korean and other Languages.”
Lee, Young-Suk, and Larry Horn
1994 “Any as Indefinite plus even.” Manuscript, Yale University.
Leech, Geoffrey N.
1983Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
2000Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewkowicz, Sergio, and Thierry Bokanowski
2011 “On Freud's "Constructions in Analysis.” In (1937) Contemporary Freud: Turning Points & Critical Issues, ed. by Georges Pragier. London: Karnac Books.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel, and Ma. Victoria Escandell-Vidal
2003 “On the Quotative Readings of Spanish Imperfecto.” Cuadernos de Lingüística X: 135–154.Google Scholar
Lodge, Anthony R.
1993French: From Dialect to Standard. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Loureda Lamas, Óscar
2001 “Del metalenguaje y sus tipos (con especial referencia al criterio de los modos de significar.” Quaderni di Semantica 22 (2): 287–333.Google Scholar
Magaña, Elsie
2005 “El paso de 'dice que' a 'dizque', de la referencia a la evidencialidad.” Contribuciones desde Coatepec 8: 59–70.Google Scholar
Maingueneau, Dominique
2016Analyser les textes de communication. Paris: Armand Collin.Google Scholar
Malraux, André
1933La Condition humaine. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson
1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marnette, Sophie
2005Speech and Thought Presentation in French: Concepts and Strategies. Philadelphia, USA: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Robert
1983Pour une logique du sens. Linguistique nouvelle. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Martineau, France, and Raymond Mougeon
2003 “A Sociolinguistic Study of the Origins of Ne Deletion in European and Quebec French.” Language 79: 118–152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D.
1991 “Contrastive Negation And Metalinguistic Negation.” CLS 27: 189–206.Google Scholar
1998The Syntactic Phenomena of English, Vol. 2. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti
2005Standard Negation. The Negation of Declarative Verbal Main Clauses in a Typological Perspective [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 31]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. xiii, 490.Google Scholar
2011 “How Pragmatics Shapes the Structure of Negatives – A Cross-Linguistic Perspective.” Presentation on “The Pragmatics of Negation” Panel at the 12th International Pragmatics Association, Manchester, UK, July 4, 2011.
Mittwoch, Anita
1979 “Final Parentheticals with English Questions: Their Illocutionary Function and Grammar.” Journal of Pragmatics 3: 401–412. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques
1982Dire et contredire. Pragmatique de la négation et acte de réfutation dans la conversation. Berne: Peter Lang, coll. “Processus discursifs.”Google Scholar
1992 “The Pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Negation: Speech Act, Argumentation and Pragmatic Inference.” Argumentation 6 (1): 51–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997”La négation comme expression procédurale.” In Negation and Polarity. Syntax and Semantics, ed. by D. Forget, P. Hirschbühler, F. Martineau, and M-L. Rivero, 231–249. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moeschler Jacques
2013a“How ‘Logical’ are Logical Words? Negation and its Descriptive vs. Metalinguistic Uses.” In Nonveridicality, Evaluation and Coherence Relations, ed. by M. Taboada and R. Trnavac, 76–110. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques
2013b“Négation, portée et distinction négation descriptive/métalinguistique”. In La linguistique de la contradiction, ed. by Jacques François, Pierre Larrivée, Dominique Legallois, et Franck Neveu, 163–179. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques, and Anne Reboul
1994Dictionnaire encyclopédique de pragmatique. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Moline, Estelle, and Pierre Larrivée
2015 “Combien d’articles n’a-t-on pas écrits sur le sujet? Négation, quantification et interrogation.” In Actes du colloque de Timisoara 2012, ed. by Jan Goes et Mariana Pitar. Arras: Presses de l’Université d’Artois.Google Scholar
Montolío, Estrella
1999a “ ¡Si nunca he dicho que estuviera enamorada de él! Sobre construcciones independientes introducidas por si con valor replicativo.” Oralia 2: 37–69.Google Scholar
1999b “Las construcciones condicionales.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 3643–3737. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Muller, Claude
1991La negation en français. Syntaxe, sémantique et éléments de comparaison avec les autres langues romanes. Genève: Libraire Droz.Google Scholar
Mura, Angela, and Leonor Ruiz Gurillo
2010 “De la construcción a la fórmula: estudio contrastivo de un esquema fraseológico en español e italiano.” Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 17: 47–64.Google Scholar
Mushin, Ilana
2001Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neveu, Franck, Jacques François, Pierre Larrivée, and Dominique Legallois
(eds) 2013La linguistique de la contradiction. GRAMM-R. Studies of French Linguistics. Berne: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noh, E. J., H. R. Choo, and S. R. Koh
2013 “Processing Metalinguistic Negation: Evidence from Eye-Tracking Experiments.” Journal of Pragmatics 57: 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nølke, Henning
1992 “Ne…pas: négation descriptive ou polémique ? Contraintes formelles sur son interprétation.” Langue Française 94: 48–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993Le regard du locuteur. Pour une linguistique des traces énonciatives. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
1994Linguistique modulaire: de la forme au sens. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
2004 “Connecteurs pragmatiques: l’apport de quelques connecteurs à la structure polyphonique.” Le Français Moderne 74 (1): 32–42.Google Scholar
2006 “Pour une théorie linguistique de la polyphonie: problèmes, avantages, perspectives. ” In Le sens et ses voix. Dialogisme et polyphonie en langue et en discours, ed. by Laurent Perrin, 243–269. Metz: Université Paul Verlaine.Google Scholar
2007 “French Enonciation Linguistics. Some remarks on Argumentation, Polyphony and Connectors.” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 39: 101–123. Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “La polyphonie linguistique avec un regard sur l’approche scandinave.” In Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française – CMLF08, ed. by Jacques Durand, Bénoît Habert, and Bernard Laks, 129–145. Available: http://​www​.linguistiquefrancaise​.org doi: CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “Polyphonie et connecteurs: une analyse linguistique.” In Voix et marqueurs du discours, ed. by Amalia R. Somolinos. Bruxelles: De Boeck-Duculot.Google Scholar
2013 “La polyphonie linguistique”. Lalies 33: 7–75.Google Scholar
Nølke, Henning, Kjersti Fløttum, and Coco Norén
2004ScaPoLine. La théorie scandinave de la polyphonie linguistique. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
Nølke, H.
2017Linguistic Polyphony. The Scandinavian Approach: ScaPoLine. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norrick, Neal
2007 “Discussion Article: Pragmatic Markers, Interjections and Discourse.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 159–168.Google Scholar
Noveck, Ira A., and Dan Sperber
2007 “The Why and How of Experimental Pragmatics: the Case of “Scalar Inferences.”” In Advances in Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Roberts, 184–212. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Nye, Rachel
2009How pseudo-questions and the Interpretation of Wh-Clauses in English. MA Thesis, University of Ghent.Google Scholar
Olza, Inés
2011aCorporalidad y lenguaje. La fraseología somática metalingüística del español. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2011b “On the (Meta) Pragmatic Value of Some Spanish Idioms Based on Terms for Body Parts.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (12): 3049–3067. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011c “ ¡Qué fraseología ni qué narices! Fraseologismos somáticos del español y expresión del rechazo metapragmático.” In Paremiología y herencia cultural, ed. by Antonio Pamies Bertrán, Juan de D. Luque Durán, and Patricia Fernández Martín, 181–191. Granada: Educatori.Google Scholar
2012 “Análisis contrastivo de la fraseología del español y del inglés con nariz/nose .” In “Por seso e por maestría.” Homenaje a Carmen Saralegui, ed. by Concepción Martínez Pasamar and Cristina Tabernero Sala, 425–449. Pamplona: EUNSA.Google Scholar
Osgood, C., and M. M. Richards
1973 “From Yang and Yin to and Orbut.” Language 49: 380–412. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, Lee, and Janet Nicol
1999 “On the Distinctiveness, Independence, And Time Course of the Brain Responses to Syntactic and Semantic Anomalies.” Language and Cognitive Processes 14 (3): 283–317. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Palasis, Katarina
2013The Case for Diglossia: Describing the Emergence of two Grammars in the Early Acquisition of Metropolitan French. Cambridge university press.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank
1986Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Park, Myung-Kwan, Wonil Chung, Euiyon Cho, and Euhee Kim
2016 “A Fine Differentiation of Korean NPIs: Evidence from ERP Responses.” At 40th Linguistic Society of Korea Conference.
Partee, Barbara
2009 “Predicates of Personal Taste, Epistemic Modals, First-Person Oriented Content, and Debates About the Implicit Judge(s).” Lecture Notes. UMass.
Patt, Anthony G., and Daniel P. Schrag
2003 “Using Specific Language to Describe Risk and Probability.” Climatic Change 61: 17–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David
1987 “Wh-in situ: Movement and Unselective Binding.” In The Representation of Indefinites, ed. by Eric J. Reuland and Alice G. B ter Meulen, 98–129. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Peeters, Bert
2006“Nous on vous tu(e)’: La guerre pacifique des pronoms personnels.” Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 122: 201–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petit, François-Xavier
2013”Dire et ne pas dire. Le scandale de l'iconoclasme protestant de 1562 par Charles de Bourgueville.” Hypothèses 16 (1): 191–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Colin
2006 “The Real-Time Status of Island Phenomena.” Language 82: 795–823. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, and Anne St.-Amand
2007 “A real-time window on 19th-century vernacular French: The Récits du français Québécois d’autrefois .” Language in Society 36: 707–734. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul
2004 “A Remark on English Double Negatives.” In Syntax, Lexis and Lexicon-Grammar. Papers in honor of Maurice Gross, ed. by Chrsitian Leclère, Eric Laporte, Mireille Piot, and Max Silberstein, 497–508. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Potts, Christopher and Shigeto Kawahara
2004”Japanese honorifics as emotive definite descriptions.” In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14, ed. by Kazuha Watanabe and Robert B. Young. 235–254. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Raju, R. T.
1954 “The Principle of Four-Cornered Negation in Indian Philosohy.” Review of Metaphysics 7: 694–713.Google Scholar
Reagan, Timothy
1997When is a Language not a Language? Challenges to ‘Linguistic Legitimacy’ In Educational Discourse. Educational Foundations 11: 5–28.Google Scholar
Recanati, François
1993Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1981 “Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics.” Philosophica 27, 53–94.Google Scholar
Reyes, Graciela
1994Los procedimientos de cita: citas encubiertas y ecos. Madrid: Arco/Libros.Google Scholar
Rhodes, Sinead, and David I. Donaldson
2008 “Association and Not Semantic Relationships Elicit the N400 Effect: Electrophysiological Evidence from an Explicit Language Comprehension Task.” Psychophysiology 45: 50–59.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1990Relativized Minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, L.A., Y.E. Geda, H.M. Topazian, R.O. Roberts, D.S. Knopman, V.S. Pankratz, T.J. Christianson, B.F. Boeve, E.G. Tangalos,R.J. Ivnik, and R.C. Petersen
2011“Engaging in cognitive activities, aging, and mild cognitive impairment: A population-based study.” Journal of Neuropsychiatry Clinical Neuroscience Springer 23 (2): 149–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez Ramalle, Ma. Teresa
2008 “Estudio sintáctico y discursivo de algunas estructuras enunciativas y citativas del español.” Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 21: 269–288.Google Scholar
2014 “Sobre marcadores y su relación con la modalidad evidencial.” In Marcadores del discurso: perspectivas y contrastes, ed. by Ma. Marta García Negroni, 233–250. Buenos Aires: Santiago Arcos.Google Scholar
Roitman, Malin
2004Configuration polyphonique et stratégie rhétorique. Étude de l’emploi de la négation ne...pas dans les éditoriaux du Figaro, de Libération et du Monde. Stockholms universitet.Google Scholar
2006Polyphonie argumentative: étude de la négation dans des éditoriaux du Figaro, de Libération et du Monde. Doctoral dissertation. Stockholm: University of Stockholm. http://​urn​.kb​.se​/resolve​?urn​=urn:nbn:se:su:diva​-1053Google Scholar
2011 “Refutation and Negation in French Political Debates.” Presentation on “The Pragmatics of Negation” Panel at the 12th International Pragmatics Association, July 4, 2011.
2014“Presidential candidates’ ethos of credibility in the 2012 Hollande-Sarkozy debate.” Discourse & Society. An International Journal for the Study of Discourse and Communication in their Social, Political and Cultural Contexts. SAGE 25 (6): 741–765.Google Scholar
2015 “Refutations of the Other’s Discourse. A Study of the Traditional Presidential Debate: Chirac/Jospin (1995) vs Sarkozy/Royal (2007).” Argumentation. Springer 29 (1): 19–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats E.
1996 “Focus.” In Handbook of Semantics, ed. by Shalom Lappin, 271–298. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Roulet, Eddy
2001 “L’organisation relationnelle.” In Un modèle et un instrument d’analyse de l’organisation du discours, ed. by Eddy Roulet, Laurent Filliettaz and Anne Grobet, 27–52. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Roulet, Eddy, Laurent Filliettaz and Anne Grobet
2001 (eds.) Un modèle et un instrument d’analyse de l’organisation du discours. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ruiz Gurillo, Leonor, and Xose A. Padilla García
(eds) 2009Dime cómo ironizas y te diré quién eres: una aproximación pragmática a la ironía. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand
1905 “On denoting.” Mind 14: 479–493. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1948Human Knowledge, its Scope and Limits. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
1997 (1912)The Problems of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Russon, John Edward
1993 "Hegel's Phenomenology of Reason and Dualism." Southern Journal of Philosophy 31 (1): 71–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sakai, H.
2013 “Computation for Syntactic Dependency at Language Culture Interface: A View from ERP Studies on Japanese Honorific Processing.” Konkuk University Talk.
Sanell, Anna
2005Parcours acquisitionnel de la négation en français L2 des chez apprenants suédophones. Thèse de doctorat. Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, and Diane Vincent
1977“L'emploi productif de ne dans le francais parlé à Montréal.” Le Français Moderne 45: 243–256.Google Scholar
1980 “The Productive Use of Ne in Montreal French.” In The Social Life of Language, ed. by Gillian Sankoff and Diane Vincent, 295–310. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Santos Río, Luis
2002 “Significación y contexto: importancia de las expresiones reactivas.” In Cien años de investigación semántica: de Michel Bréal a la actualidad, ed. by Marcos Martínez Hernández, et al., 887–904. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.Google Scholar
2003Diccionario de partículas. Salamanca: Luso-Española de Ediciones.Google Scholar
Schwegler, Armin
1988”Word-order changes in predicate negation strategies in Romance languages.” Diachronica 5: 21–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, Scott
1999 “Evidentiality in Spanish Morphosyntax. A Reanalysis of (de) queísmo.” In Estudios de variación sintáctica, ed. by Ma. José Serrano, 65–87. Madrid: Iberoamericana.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A.
2005 “The Pragmatics of Negation in Brazilian Portuguese.” Lingua 115: 1427–1456. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, Scott
2006 “Fine-Tuning Jespersen’s Cycle.” In Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning; Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn [Studies in Language Companion Series 80], ed. by Betty J. Birner and Gregory Ward, 327–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R.
1969Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Segerberg, Krister
1971An Essay in Classical Modal Logic, Vol. 1–3. Uppsala University: Uppsala Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
Seuren, Pieter A. M.
1990”Burton-Roberts on presupposition and negation.” Journal of Linguistics 26 (2): 425–453. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shao, Jenny, and Helen Neville
1998 “Analyzing Semantic Processing Using Event-Related Brain Potentials.” Center for Research in Language Newsletter, 11, 3–20.Google Scholar
Sobin, Nicholas
2010 “Echo Questions in the Minimalist Program.” Linguistic Inquiry 41(1): 131–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sornig, Karl
1977 “Disagreement and Contradiction as Communicative Acts.” Journal of Pragmatics 1 (4): 347–374. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spector, Benjamin
2006Aspects de la pragmatique des opérateurs logiques. PhD dissertation. Université de Paris 7.Google Scholar
Spenader, Jennifer, Erik-Jan Smits, and Petra Hendriks
2009 “Coherent Discourse Solves the Pronoun Interpretation Problem.” Journal of Child Language 36 (1): 23–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Speranza, J. L., and Laurence R. Horn
2012 “A Brief History of Negation.” Handbook of the History of Logic 11: 127–172. Oxford, Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell and Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deidre Wilson
2004 “Relevance Theory.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by G. Ward and L. Horn, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Staab, Jenny, Tomas P. Urbach, and Maria Kutas
2009 “Negation Processing in Context is not (always) Delayed.” Center for Research in Language Technical Reports 20 (3): 3–34.Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte
1998b “Licensing Of Negative Polarity Items Under Inverse Scope.” Lingua 105: 175–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Expression and Interpretation of Sentential Negation: An OT Typology. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, A.
2004 “Positive Polarity – Negative Polarity.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 409–452. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talisse, Robert, and Aikin Scott F.
2006 “Two Forms of the Straw Man.” Argumentation 20: 345–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
The New York Times
The Telegraph
Tian, Ye, and Richard Breheny
2016 “Dynamic Pragmatic View of Negation Processing.” In Negation and polarity: Cognitive and Experimental Perspectives, ed. by Pierre Larrivée and Chungmin Lee. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi
2007 “Pragmatics of LF Intervention Effects: Japanese and Korean Interrogatives.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (9): 1570–1590. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “Why-questions, Presuppositions, and Intervention Effects.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18: 253–271. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Toosarvandani, Maziar
2014 “Contrast and the Structure of Discourse.” Semantics & Pragmatics 7 (4): 1–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torrent, Aina
2014 “La figura de la litotes en los sistemas fraseológicos del español y del alemán desde el punto de vista de la traductologie.” In Kontrastive Phraseologie Deutsch-Spanisch, ed. by C. Mellado Blanco, 23–36. Tübingen: Julius Groos Verlag.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel
1991Negation in English Speech and Writing: A Study in Variation. San Diego: Academic Press, Print.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2010 “(Inter)subjectivity and (Inter)subjectification: A Reassessment.” In Subjectification, Intersubjectification, and Grammaticalization, ed. by Kristin Davidse, Kieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens, 29–71. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan
2008 “Left Periphery and how-why Alternations.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17 (2): 83–115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van der Sandt, Rob
1991“Presupposition, anaphora, and lexical content.” In Text Understanding in LiLOG, ed. by O. Herzog and C.-R. Rollinger, 259–296. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van der Sandt, Rob and J. Huitink
2003“Again.” In Proceedings of the 14th Amsterdam Colloquium, Amsterdam ILLC.
Van Fraassen, Bas C.
1966.“Singular Terms, Truth-Value Gaps, and Free Logic.” The Journal of Philosophy 63 (17): 481–495. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly
2004 “Economy, Innovation, and Prescriptivism: From Spec to Head and Head to Head. Journal of Comparative Germanic Languistics 7: 59–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Gelderen, Elly
2011The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef
1999Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
2000 “Notes on the Role of Metapragmatic Awareness in Language Use.” Pragmatics 10 (4): 439–456. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas
1996 “The Straw Man Fallacy”. In Logic and Argumentation, ed. by Johan van Bentham, Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Frank Veltman. Amsterdam: Royal Academy of Art and Sciences.Google Scholar
Wason, Philip N.
1961 “Response to Affirmative and Negative Binary Statements.” British Journal of Psychology 52: 133–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waugh, Linda R.
1982 “Marked and Unmarked: A Choice between Unequals in Semiotic Structure.” Semiotica 38: 299–318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010a “Power and Prejudice: Their Effects on the Co-Construction of Linguistic and National Identities.” Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 7 (2-3): 112–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waugh, L. R.
2010b “Pronominal choice in French conversational interaction: Indices of national identity in identity acts.” In Organization and discourse: The interactional perspective, 81–100 [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 203] ed. by Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen, Marja-Liisa Helavuo, Marjut Johansson & Mia Raitaniemi. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waugh, Linda R. and Bonnie Fonseca-Greber
2002“Authentic materials for everyday spoken French: Corpus linguistics vs. French textbooks.” Arizona Working Papers in SLAT 9: 114–127.Google Scholar
Waugh, Linda R., Bonnie Fonseca-Greber, Caroline Vickers, and Betil Eröz
2007 “Multiple Paths to a Complex Analysis of Discourse.” In Methods in Cognitive Linguistics: Ithaca [Human Cognitive Processing 18], ed. by Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson, and Michael J. Spivey, 120–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Arielle
2015 “La chute de ne dans les corpus ESLO: Une étude diachronique vers une didactique moderne. ” Master’s paper, University of Louisville.
Wible, David, and Eva Chen
2000 “Linguistic Limits on Metalinguistic Negation: Evidence from Mandarin and English.” Language and Linguistics 1 (2): 233–255.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1996Semantics: Primes and Universals: Primes and Universals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas
1988 “A Cross-linguistic Survey of the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality.” Studies in Language 2: 51–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Lawrence, and Rémi A. van Compernolle
2009 “ On versus tu and vous: Pronouns with Indefinite Reference in Synchronous Electronic French Discourse.” Language Sciences 31: 409–427. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Lawrence
2009 “Sociolinguistic Variation in French Computer-Mediated Communication: A Variable Rule Analysis of the Negative Particle Ne .” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14 (4): 467–491. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deidre
1975Presupposition and Non-Truth-Conditional Semantics. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Windisch, Uli
1987Le K.O. verbal, la communication conflictuelle. Lausanne: l’Âge d’Homme.Google Scholar
Wu, Ching-Huei Teresa
2004 “On de/bu and the Syntactic Nature of Resultative Verbal Compounding.” Language and Linguistics 5 (1): 271–329.Google Scholar
Yaeger-Dror, Malcah
2002Register and prosodic variation, a cross language comparison. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1495–1536. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yeom, Jae-Il
2016 “ Yekan and Focus.” Language Research 52 (3): 451–489.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne
2011”Pour un modèle diglossique de description du français : quelques implications théoriques, méthodologiques et didactiques.” Journal of French Language Studies 21 (2): 231–256. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Girju, Roxana
2020. Negation and Speculation Detection. By Noa P. Cruz Diáz and Manual J. Maña López (University of Huelva). John Benjamins (Natural Language Processing, 13), ix+95 pp; hardcover, ISBN 9789028202178, USD 143.00, EUR 95.00; paperback ISBN 9789027202161, USD 49.95; EUR 33.00; e-book, ISBN 9789027262950, Computational Linguistics 45:4  pp. 819 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 november 2021. 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.

Subjects & Metadata
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009030 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Pragmatics
ONIX Metadata
ONIX 2.1
ONIX 3.0
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2017041508 | Marc record