Cover not available
Part of
New Directions in Grammaticalization Research
Edited by Andrew D.M. Smith, Graeme Trousdale and Richard Waltereit
[Studies in Language Companion Series 166] 2015
► pp. 121–134

The Neg-Raising Phenomenon as a product of grammaticalization

| Kanazawa University
| Nagoya University
In this paper, we argue that the Neg-Raising Phenomenon (NRP) is a product of grammaticalization. Support of this argument comes from similarities to epistemic parentheticals which are themselves derived through grammaticalization. Both epistemic parentheticals and NRP have a hedging function of toning down the main clause assertion. Consequently, conditions on the subject and the predicate are also similar. Furthermore, they manifest two main characteristics of grammaticalization: decategorization and phonetic reduction. Looking at NRP this way, we can delimit more precisely the predicates that allow for NRP. Furthermore, it is possible to explain why seemingly synonymous predicates in different languages (e.g. think in English and kangaeru in Japanese) sometimes differ in NRP predicate status.
Published online: 8 April 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.166.06mor
References (38)
References
Abusch, Dorit. 2005. Triggering from alternative sets and projection of pragmatic presupposition. Ms, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think—an English modal particle. In Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, Tori Swan & Olaf Jansen Westwik (eds), 1-47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartsch, Renate. 1973. “Negative transportation” gibt es nicht. Linguistische Berichte 27(1): 1-7.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Scheibman, Joanne. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37(4): 575-596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Cuba, Carlos. 2007. Negative polarity licensing, factivity, and the CP field. International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philosophy 41: 11-24.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger & Tomasello, Michael. 2001. The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2): 97-141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gajewsky, Jon R. 2007. Neg-raising and polarity. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(3): 289-328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington IN: Indiana University PressGoogle Scholar
Groefsema, Marjolein. 1991. ‘Can you pass the salt?’: A short-circuited implicature? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 213-240.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1984. A note on negative polarity and downward entailingness. In Proceedings of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society 14, Charles Jones & Peter Sells (eds) 98–107. Amherst MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
. 2000. Degree operators and scope. In Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory X, Brendan Jackson & Tanya Matthews (eds), 40–64. Ithaca NY: CLC PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1975. On assertive predicates. In Syntax and Semantics 4, John P. Kimball (ed.), 91-124. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 17-35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 1978. Remarks on neg-raising. In Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 129-220. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence & Bayer, Samuel. 1984. Short-circuited implicature: A negative contribution. Linguistics and Philosophy 7(4): 397-414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1971. On some questionable arguments about quantifiers and negation. Language 47(2): 282-297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I think [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 115]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. The role of I guess in conversational stance taking. In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164], Robert Englebretson (ed.), 183-219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1969. Some observations on factivity. Papers in Linguistics 4(1): 55-69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladusaw, William A. 1979. Polarity as Inherent Scope Relations. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularities in Syntax. New York NY: Holt.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1969. A syntactic argument for negative transportation. CLS 5: 140-147.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20, 303-318.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L. 1978. Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Pragmatics [Syntactic and Semantics 9], Peter Cole (ed.), 261-280. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Morita, Yoshiyuki. 1989. Kiso Nihon-go Jiten (Basic Japanese Dictionary). Tokyo: Kadokawa.Google Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna. 1997. A medieval case of grammaticalization, methinks . In Grammaticalization at Work: Studies of Long-term Developments in English, Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö & Kirsi Heikkonen (eds), 371-403. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1976. The syntax and semantics of NEG-raising, with evidence from French. Language 52(2): 404-426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. Object complements and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1): 125-163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Mulac, Anthony. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Approaches to Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 313-339. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2007. The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 18(4): 523-557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Variation, Selection, Development: Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change, Regine Eckhardt, Gerhard Jäger & Tonjes Veenstra (eds), 189-218. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2008. Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In Constructional Approaches to English Grammar, Graeme Trousdale & Nikolas Gisborne (eds), 33-67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie. 2010. A constructional taxonomy of I think and related expressions: Accounting for the variability of complement-taking mental predicates. English Language and Linguistics 14(3): 399-427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics 49(2): 295-332.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Frans. 1996. Facets of negation. In Quantifiers, Logic and Language, Jaap van der Does & Jan van Eijck (eds), 385–421. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar