Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper discusses constructional variation in the domain of contrastive negation in English, using data from the British National Corpus. Contrastive negation refers to constructs with two parts, one negative and the other affirmative, such that the affirmative offers an alternative to the negative in the frame in question (e.g. ; ; ). The paper utilises multiple correspondence analysis to explore the degree of synonymy among the various constructional schemas of contrastive negation, finding that different schemas are associated with different semantic, pragmatic and extralinguistic contexts but also that certain schemas do not differ from each other in a significant way.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anscombre, J. -C. , & Ducrot, O.
    (1977) Deux mais en français?Lingua, 43(1), 23–40.10.1016/0024‑3841(77)90046‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(77)90046-8 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arppe, A.
    (2008) Univariate, bivariate and multivariate methods in corpus-based lexicography: A study of synonymy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki. Helsinki: Helsinki University Print. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/19274.
  3. Baayen, R. H.
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  4. Behaghel, O.
    (1909/1910) Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen, 25, 110–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Berglund, Y. , Hoffmann, S. , Lee, D. & Smith, N.
  6. Blanco, E. , & Moldovan, D.
    (2013) Retrieving implicit positive meaning from negated statements. Natural Language Engineering, 20(4), 501–535. doi: 10.1017/S1351324913000041
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324913000041 [Google Scholar]
  7. BNC
    BNC = British National Corpus (1991–1994) BNC Consortium. www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bolinger, D.
    (1977) Meaning and form. London & New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bresnan, J. , Cueni, A. , Nikitina, T. , & Baayen, R. H.
    (2007) Predicting the dative alternation. In  G. Bouma , I. Krämer , & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cappelle, B.
    (2006) Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.”Constructions, 8 (Special volume1).
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Carston, R.
    (1996) Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 309–330.10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00109‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00109-X [Google Scholar]
  12. (1998) Negation, “presupposition” and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Journal of Linguistics, 34(2), 309–350.10.1017/S0022226798007063
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226798007063 [Google Scholar]
  13. Charolles, M. , & Lamiroy, B.
    (2007) Du lexique à la grammaire : seulement, simplement, uniquement. Cahiers de lexicologie, 90, 93–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chatar-Moumni, N.
    (2008) Quelques aspects du fonctionnement de la négation en arabe marocain. La Linguistique, 44(2), 81–98.10.3917/ling.442.0081
    https://doi.org/10.3917/ling.442.0081 [Google Scholar]
  15. Croissant, Y.
    (2013) mlogit: multinomial logit model. https://cran.r-project.org/package​=mlogit.
  16. Dik, S. , Hoffmann, M. E. , de Jong, J. R. , Sie, Ing Djiang , Stroomer, H. , & de Vries, L.
    (1981) On the typology of focus phenomena. In T. Hoekstra , H. van der Hulst , & M. Moortgat (Eds.), Perspectives on Functional Grammar (pp.41–74). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fillmore, C. J. , Kay, P. , & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64(3), 501–538.10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gates Jr., D. L. , & Seright, O. D.
    (1967) Negative-contrastive constructions in standard modern English. American Speech, 42(2), 136–141. doi: 10.2307/453965
    https://doi.org/10.2307/453965 [Google Scholar]
  19. Geurts, B.
    (1998) The mechanisms of denial. Language, 74(2), 274–307.10.1353/lan.1998.0264
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0264 [Google Scholar]
  20. Givón, T.
    (1978) Negation in language: Pragmatics, function, ontology. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp.69–112). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Glynn, D.
    (2014) Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.443–485). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.17gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.17gly [Google Scholar]
  22. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Granvik, A. , & Taimitarha, S.
    (2014) Topic-marking prepositions in Swedish: A corpus-based analysis of adpositional synonymy. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 37(2), 257–296.10.1017/S0332586514000201
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586514000201 [Google Scholar]
  25. Greenacre, M.
    (2017) Correspondence Analysis in practice. Third edition. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gries, S. Th.
    (2003) Multifactorial analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York & London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hawkins, J. A.
    (2003) Efficiency and complexity in grammars: Three general principles. In J. Moore & M. Polinsky (Eds.), The nature of explanation in linguistic theory (pp.121–152). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hilpert, M.
    (2015) From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 113–147. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hoffmann, S. , Evert, S. , Smith, N. , Lee, D. , & Berglund Prytz, Y.
    (2008) Corpus Linguistics with BNCweb – a practical guide. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Horn, L. R.
    (1985) Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61(1), 121–174. doi: 10.2307/413423
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413423 [Google Scholar]
  31. (1989) A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Huddleston, R. , & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jones, S. , Murphy, M. L. , Paradis, C. , & Willners, C.
    (2012) Antonyms in English: Construals, constructions and canonicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139032384
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139032384 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kroeger, P.
    (2014) External negation in Malay/Indonesian. Language, 90(1), 137–184.10.1353/lan.2014.0000
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0000 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lambrecht, K.
    (1994) Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  37. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lê, S. , Josse, J. , & Husson, F.
    (2008) FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1). https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v025i01. doi: 10.18637/jss.v025.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i01 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lee, D. Y. W.
    (2001) Genres, registers, text types, domains and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3), 37–72. llt.msu.edu/vol5num3/pdf/lee.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Le Roux, B. , & Rouanet, H.
    (2010) Multiple Correspondence Analysis. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. doi: 10.4135/9781412993906
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412993906 [Google Scholar]
  41. Levshina, N.
    (2015) How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.195
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  42. McCawley, J. D.
    (1991) Contrastive negation and metalinguistic negation. CLS, 27(2), 189–206.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Mughazy, M.
    (2003) Metalinguistic negation and truth functions: The case of Egyptian Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(8), 1143–1160.10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00177‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00177-7 [Google Scholar]
  44. Murphy, M. L.
    (2006) Antonyms as lexical constructions: Or, why paradigmatic construction is not an oxymoron. Constructions, 8 (Special volume1).
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Nenadic, O. , & Greenacre, M.
    (2007) Correspondence Analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(3). doi: 10.18637/jss.v020.i03. https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v020i03.
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v020.i03 [Google Scholar]
  46. Nevalainen, T.
    (1991) BUT, ONLY, JUST: Focusing adverbial change in Modern English 1500–1900. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Paolillo, J. C.
    (2002) Analyzing linguistic variation: Statistical models and methods. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Perek, F.
    (2015) Argument structure in usage-based Construction Grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  49. Prince, E. F.
    (1981) Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp.223–255). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. , & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  52. Sheskin, D. J.
    (2011) Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Silvennoinen, O. O.
    (2017) Not only apples but also oranges: Contrastive negation and register. In T. Hiltunen , J. McVeigh , & T. Säily (Eds.), Big and rich data in English Corpus Linguistics: Methods and explorations. Helsinki: VARIENG. www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/19/silvennoinen/.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Sinclair, J. McH.
    (1987) Collocation: A progress report. In R. Steele & T. Threadgold (Eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday (pp.319–331). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2004) On operationalizing syntactic complexity. In G. Purnelle , C. Fairon , & A. Dister (Eds.), Le poids des mots. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis. Louvain-la-Neuve, March 10–12, 2004, Vol.2 (pp. 1032–1039). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. (2006) Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197808
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197808 [Google Scholar]
  57. Toosarvandani, M. D.
    (2010) Association with foci. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
  58. Tottie, G.
    (1991) Negation in English speech and writing: A study in variation. San Diego: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Traugott, E. C. , & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  60. Van Valin Jr., R. D.
    (2005) Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511610578
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 [Google Scholar]
  61. Wasow, T.
    (1997) Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change, 9(1), 81–105. doi: 10.1017/S0954394500001800
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500001800 [Google Scholar]
  62. Weller, S. C. , & Romney, K.
    (1990) Metric scaling: Correspondence Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.10.4135/9781412985048
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985048 [Google Scholar]
  63. Yeh, L.
    (1995) Focus, metalinguistic negation and contrastive negation. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 23(2), 42–75.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error