Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper focuses on emphatic sentence fragments of the type . While such fragments can be partially accounted for by a known type of ellipsis, namely ‘stripping’, it is argued here that this type is best treated as a construction in its own right, with formal, semantic and pragmatic properties specific to it. One useful concept is what could be called ‘negative expansion’. This is a discourse-level construction whereby an already negative clause is followed by one or more negative clause fragments, whose negation is a repetition, rather than cancellation, of the negation in the preceding clause, as in


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Akmajian, A.
    (1984) Sentence types and the form-function fit. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory2(1): 1–23. 10.1007/BF00233711
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00233711 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bergs, A.
    (2008) Can we take Construction Grammar beyond sneezing napkins off tables?InK. Stierstorfer (Ed.), Proceedings of the Anglistentag Münster 2007 (pp.269–276). WVT.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brems, L., & Van Linden, A.
    (2018) No way and no chance as emphatic negative response items. BAAHE (Belgian Association of Anglicists in Higher Education) conference on intensity, University of Mons, 30 November. https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/227862
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cappelle, B.
    (2005) Particle patterns in English: A comprehensive coverage. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (2017) What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions?InI. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line (pp.345–376). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑32247‑6_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_8 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2020) Not on my watch and similar not-fragments: Stored forms with pragmatic content. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 52(2), 217–239. doi:  10.1080/03740463.2020.1812365
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2020.1812365 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cappelle, B., & Depraetere, I.
    (2016) Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions: Some evidence from The Simpsons. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 7–39. 10.1075/cf.8.1.02cap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.1.02cap [Google Scholar]
  8. Carruthers, P.
    (1998) Conscious thinking: Language or elimination?Mind and Language, 13(4): 457–476. 10.1111/1468‑0017.00087
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00087 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chomsky, N.
    (1962) Explanatory models in linguistics. InE. Nagel, P. Suppes, & A. Tarski (Eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science (pp.528–550). Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Culicover, P. W.
    (1999) Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory, and Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R.
    (2005) Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2006) The simpler syntax hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10(9), 413–418. 10.1016/j.tics.2006.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2012) same-except: A domain-general cognitive relation and how language expresses it. Language, 88(2), 305–340. 10.1353/lan.2012.0031
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0031 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2019) Ellipsis in Simpler Syntax. InJ. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmerman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis (pp.162–187). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Davies, M.
    (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): One billion words, 1990–2019. https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2019a–) The TV Corpus: 325 million words, 1950–2018. https://www.english-corpora.org/tv/
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2019b–) The Movie Corpus: 200 million words, 1930–2018. https://www.english-corpora.org/movies/
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Delahunty, G. P.
    (2001) Discourse functions of inferential sentences. Linguistics39(3). 517–545. 10.1515/ling.2001.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.022 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2006) A relevance theoretic analysis of not that sentences: “Not that there is anything wrong with that”. Pragmatics, 16(2/3), 213–245. 10.1075/prag.16.2‑3.01del
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.16.2-3.01del [Google Scholar]
  21. Depraetere, I., & Salkie, R.
    (2017) Free pragmatic enrichment, expansion, saturation, completion: A view from linguistics. InI. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line (pp.1–37). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑32247‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6 [Google Scholar]
  22. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(5), 219–224. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  24. Goldberg, A. E., & Perek, F.
    (2019) Ellipsis in Construction Grammar. InJ. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmerman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis (pp.188–204). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Grice, H. P.
    (1975) Logic and conversation. InP. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts (pp.41–58). Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hall, A.
    (2019) Fragments. InJ. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmerman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis (pp.605–623). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hankamer, J., & Sag, I.
    (1976) Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7(3), 391–426.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hoffmann, T., & Bergs, A.
    (2012) ‘Are you construction in disguise’: Investigating the role of context in football chant constructions. Paper presented at the7th international conference on construction grammar. August 9–12, 2012. Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul, South Korea.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G.
    (Eds) 2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  30. Jackendoff, R.
    (1973) The base rules for prepositional phrases. InS. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp.345–76). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jacobson, P.
    2016 The short answer: implications for Direct Compositionality (and vice versa). Language92, 2, 331–375. 10.1353/lan.2016.0038
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0038 [Google Scholar]
  32. James, W.
    (1890) The principles of psychology, vol. 1. Henry Holt and Co. [Reprinted, Dover Books 1950.] 10.1037/10538‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10538-000 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jespersen, Otto
    (1924) The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Jurafsky, D.
    (1992) An on-line computational model of human sentence interpretation: A theory of the representation and use of linguistic knowledge. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California at Berkeley. 10.21236/ADA604298
    https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA604298 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lambrecht, K.
    (1990) ‘What me worry?’ Mad magazine sentences revisited. InK. Hall (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Volume 16 (pp.215–228). Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v16i0.1730
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v16i0.1730 [Google Scholar]
  36. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
    Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. s.d.not so fast. https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/not-so-fast
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Merchant, J.
    (2004) Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(6), 661–738. 10.1007/s10988‑005‑7378‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2013) Yet another look at deep and surface anaphora. Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2019) Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. InJ. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmerman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis (pp.19–45). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Merchant, J., Frazier, L., Clifton, Jr. Ch., & Weskott, Th.
    (2009) Fragment answers to questions: A case of inaudible syntax. InL. Goldstein (Ed.), Brevity (pp.21–35). Oxford University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Mercier, H., & D. Sperber
    (2011) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Science, 34(2), 57–111. 10.1017/S0140525X10000968
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968 [Google Scholar]
  42. Miller, Ph., & Pullum, G. K.
    (2014) Exophoric verb phrase ellipsis. InP. Hofmeister & E. Norcliffe (Eds.), The Core and the Periphery: Data-driven Perspectives on Syntax Inspired by Ivan A. Sag (pp.5–32). CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Nykiel, J., & Hawkins, J. A.
    (2020) English fragments, Minimize Domains, and Minimize Forms. Language and Cognition, 12(3), 411–443. 10.1017/langcog.2020.6
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2020.6 [Google Scholar]
  44. Östman, J.-O.
    (1999) Coherence through understanding through discourse patterns: Focus on news reports. InW. Bublitz, U. Lenk, & E. Ventola (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp.77–100). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.63.08ost
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63.08ost [Google Scholar]
  45. (2000) Postkortsdiskurs: med den språkliga periferin som centrum [Postcard discourse: placing the linguistic periphery at the center]. Sphinx 1999–2000 [The Yearbook of the Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters], 7–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. (2005) Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. InJ.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions (pp.121–144). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3 [Google Scholar]
  47. Paul, I., & Stainton, R.
    (2006) Really intriguing, that Pred NP!Philosophy Publications, 24. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/philosophypub/24
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Progovac, L.
    (2013) Non-sentential vs. ellipsis approaches: Review and extensions. Language and Linguistics Compass7, 597–617. 10.1111/lnc3.12044
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12044 [Google Scholar]
  49. Ross, J. R.
    (1969) Guess who. InR. I. Binnick, A. Davison, G. M. Green & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (pp.252–286). University of Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Sag, I. A., & Hankamer, J.
    (1984) Towards a theory of anaphoric processing. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7(3), 325–345. 10.1007/BF00627709
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627709 [Google Scholar]
  51. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2013) Is usage more than usage after all? The case of English not that. Linguistics, 51(1), 75–116. 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0003 [Google Scholar]
  52. Shopen, T.
    (1972) A generative theory of ellipsis. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California at Los Angeles.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Szczésniak, K., & Pachoł, M.
    (2015) What? Me, lie? The form and reading of the Incredulity Response Construction. Constructions online. www.constructions-journal.com
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
    (1979) Ordered entailments: An alternative to presuppositional theories. InC. K. Oh & D. Dinneen (Eds), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 11: Presupposition (pp.299–323). Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368880_014
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368880_014 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): constructions; ellipsis; negative expansion; not-fragment; stripping
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