A relevance theoretic analysis of Not that sentences: “Not that there is anything wrong with that”

Gerald P. Delahunty

Abstract

Not that sentences (NTSs), like the one in the title, have been little studied. This paper, based on a corpus of authentic instances of the form, provides the first thorough examination of the interpretations assigned to NTSs in context and an account for those interpretations. The brief version of the account is that the NTS structure encodes procedural instructions to the effect that NTSs are to be interpreted as the rejection of conclusions derived from contextual assumptions.

Keywords:
Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Austen, Jane
(1964 [1816]) Emma. New York: Signet Classics.Google Scholar
(1972 [1818]) Northanger Abbey. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bar-Lev, Zev, and A. Palacas
(1980) Semantic command over pragmatic priority. Lingua 51: 137-46. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty, and Gregory Ward
(1998) Information status and non-canonical word order in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
(1987) Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1988) So as a constraint on relevance. In R. Kempson, Mental representations: The interface between language and reality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 183-196.Google Scholar
(1996) Are apposition markers discourse markers? Journal of Linguistics 32: 325-347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997a) Restatement and exemplification. Pragmatics and Cognition 5.1: 1-19. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1997b) On non-truth conditional meaning. Linguistische Berichte: Special Issue on Pragmatics 8: 92-102.Google Scholar
(2001) Discourse and relevance theory. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H.E. Hamilton (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2002) Relevance and linguistic meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2004) Discourse markers. In L. Horn and G. Card (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blass, Regina
(1990) Relevance relations in discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Brill’s Content
March (2001).Google Scholar
Carson, Paul
(1998) Scalpel. London: Arrow Books.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn
(2002) Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Crossref  MetBibGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald
(1990) Language and literature. In N.E. Collinge An encyclopaedia of language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cross, Donna Woolfolk
(1996) Pope Joan: A novel. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff
(2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalby, Liza
(2001) The tale of Murasaki. New York: First Anchor Books.Google Scholar
De Bhaldraithe, Tomás
(1959) English-Irish dictionary. Baile Átha Cliath: Oifig an tSoláthair.Google Scholar
Delahunty, Gerald
(2001) Discourse functions of inferential sentences. Linguistics 39.3: 517-545. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Delahunty, Gerald, and Maura Velazquez-Castillo
(2002) The X is that: A lexico-grammatical device for local discourse management. In James F. Lee, Kimberly L. Geeslin, and J. Clancy Clements (eds.), Structure, meaning, and acquisition in Spanish: Papers from the 4th Hispanic linguistics symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 46-64.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
(1968) Logic and conversation. In Steven Davis (ed.) (1991) Pragmatics: A reader. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 305-315.Google Scholar
Hillerman, Tony
(1989) Talking god. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
(1990) Coyote waits. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia
(1991) A theory of scalar implicature. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry
(1979) Coherence and co-reference. Cognitive Sciences 3: 67-90. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R
(1989) A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hovy, Eduard H., and Elizabeth Maier
(1995) Parsimonious or profligate: How many and which discourse structure relations? Unpublished ms.
Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey Pullum
(eds.) (2002) Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Irish Emigrant
(2000) May 22.Google Scholar
Irving, John
(1973) The 158 pound marriage. New York: Pocket Books.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knut
(2001) The analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39.3: 463-516. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Le Carré, John
(1962) A murder of quality. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
(1995) Our game. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
(1999) Single and Single. New York: Pocket Star Books.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen
(2000) Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  BoP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Littwin, Mike
(2005) Wrong as it sounds, Owens is right on TABOR. Rocky Mountain News. March 19.Google Scholar
Lively, Penelope
(1987) Moon tiger. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
London Times
(1988) August 30. Obituary for H. Paul Grice.
McCabe, Patrick
(1995) The dead school. New York: Dell.Google Scholar
McCall, Andrew
(1979) The medieval underworld. New York: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar
McLaverty, Bernard
(2002) The anatomy school. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Millet, Larry
(1998) Sherlock Holmes and the Ice Palace murders. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Newsweek
(2000) July 31.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Kate
(1987 [1931]) Without my cloak. New York: Virago.Google Scholar
(1988 [1934]) The ante-room. New York: ViragoGoogle Scholar
(1988 [1942]) The land of spices. New York: Virago.Google Scholar
Osaragi, Jiro
(2000) The journey. Boston: Tuttle.Google Scholar
Perret, Geoffrey
(1999) Eisenhower. Holbrook, MA: Adams Media Corp.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen
(1978) A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in disourse. Language 54: 883-906. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1985) Fancy syntax and ‘shared knowledge‘. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 65-81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, Rick
(2003) Where have all the young men gone? Time, February 17.Google Scholar
Ross, John R
(1969) ‘Guess who.’ In R.I. Binnick, A. Davison, G.M. Green, and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th annual meeting of CLS, pp. 252-286.Google Scholar
Saint Paul
Epistle to the Philippians 3: 8-14.
Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren, and Leonard M. Noordman
(1993) Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 15.1: 1-36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shakespeare, William
Julius Caesar. Crossref
Othello. Crossref
Sinclair, John
(ed.) (1990) Collins CoBuild English grammar. London: HarperCollins.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Somerville, Edith, and Martin Ross
(1977 [1894]) The real Charlotte. London: Quartet.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
(1995 [1986]) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel
(1991) Negation in English speech and writing. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory, and Betty Birner
(2004) Information structure and non-canonical syntax. In L. Horn and G. Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 153-174.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre
(1998) Discourse, coherence, and relevance: A reply to Rachel Giora. Journal of Pragmatics 29: 57-74. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
(2004) Relevance theory. In L. Horn and G. Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 607-632.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Rafaella, and Paul Portner
(2003) Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-semantics interface. Language 79: 39-81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar