Cover not available

Article published In: Constructional Approach(es) to Discourse-Level Phenomena: Theoretical challenges and empirical advances
Edited by Renata Enghels and María Sol Sansiñena
[Constructions and Frames 13:1] 2021
► pp. 55–81

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Not-fragments and negative expansion

 | Université de Lille | Laboratoire STL UMR 8163 – CNRS
Published online: 2 August 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00047.cap
Abstract
This paper focuses on emphatic sentence fragments of the type Not in a million years!. 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 It will never happen. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not ever.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Some theoretical considerations on fragments and ellipsis
  • 3.The Not X! construction
    • 3.1Why Not X! is not produced by deletion
    • 3.2A constructionist treatment of Not X!
  • 4.Negative expansion
  • 5.Conclusion and further questions
  • Notes
  • References
References (54)
References
Akmajian, A. (1984). Sentence types and the form-function fit. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2(1): 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergs, A. (2008). Can we take Construction Grammar beyond sneezing napkins off tables? In K. Stierstorfer (Ed.), Proceedings of the Anglistentag Münster 2007 (pp. 269–276). WVT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. [URL]
Cappelle, B. (2005). Particle patterns in English: A comprehensive coverage. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Leuven.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions? In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line (pp. 345–376). Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Not on my watch and similar not-fragments: Stored forms with pragmatic content. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 52(2), 217–239. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. (1998). Conscious thinking: Language or elimination? Mind and Language, 13(4): 457–476. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1962). Explanatory models in linguistics. In E. Nagel, P. Suppes, & A. Tarski (Eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science (pp. 528–550). Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. (1999). Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory, and Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). The simpler syntax hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10(9), 413–418. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). same-except: A domain-general cognitive relation and how language expresses it. Language, 88(2), 305–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Ellipsis in Simpler Syntax. In J. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmerman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis (pp. 162–187). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): One billion words, 1990–2019. [URL]
(2019a–). The TV Corpus: 325 million words, 1950–2018. [URL]
(2019b–). The Movie Corpus: 200 million words, 1930–2018. [URL]
Delahunty, G. P. (2001). Discourse functions of inferential sentences. Linguistics 39(3). 517–545. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Depraetere, I., & Salkie, R. (2017). Free pragmatic enrichment, expansion, saturation, completion: A view from linguistics. In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line (pp. 1–37). Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(5), 219–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Perek, F. (2019). Ellipsis in Construction Grammar. In J. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmerman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis (pp. 188–204). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, A. (2019). Fragments. In J. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmerman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis (pp. 605–623). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hankamer, J., & Sag, I. (1976). Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7(3), 391–426.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Bergs, A. (2012). ‘Are you construction in disguise’: Investigating the role of context in football chant constructions. Paper presented at the 7th international conference on construction grammar. August 9–12, 2012. Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul, South Korea.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. (Eds). 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1973). The base rules for prepositional phrases. In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 345–76). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobson, P. 2016. The short answer: implications for Direct Compositionality (and vice versa). Language 92, 2, 331–375. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology, vol. 1. Henry Holt and Co. [Reprinted, Dover Books, 1950.] Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1990). ‘What me worry?’ Mad magazine sentences revisited. In K. Hall et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Volume 16 (pp. 215–228). Berkeley Linguistics Society. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. s.d. not so fast. [URL]
Merchant, J. (2004). Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(6), 661–738. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Yet another look at deep and surface anaphora. Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. In J. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmerman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis (pp. 19–45). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merchant, J., Frazier, L., Clifton, Jr. Ch., & Weskott, Th. (2009). Fragment answers to questions: A case of inaudible syntax. In L. Goldstein (Ed.), Brevity (pp. 21–35). Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mercier, H., & D. Sperber. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Science, 34(2), 57–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Ph., & Pullum, G. K. (2014). Exophoric verb phrase ellipsis. In P. 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Nykiel, J., & Hawkins, J. A. (2020). English fragments, Minimize Domains, and Minimize Forms. Language and Cognition, 12(3), 411–443. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (1999). Coherence through understanding through discourse patterns: Focus on news reports. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, & E. Ventola (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 77–100). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions (pp. 121–144). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paul, I., & Stainton, R. (2006). Really intriguing, that Pred NP! Philosophy Publications, 241. [URL]
Progovac, L. (2013). Non-sentential vs. ellipsis approaches: Review and extensions. Language and Linguistics Compass 71, 597–617. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1969). Guess who. In R. 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Sag, I. A., & Hankamer, J. (1984). Towards a theory of anaphoric processing. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7(3), 325–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2013). Is usage more than usage after all? The case of English not that. Linguistics, 51(1), 75–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shopen, T. (1972). A generative theory of ellipsis. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szczésniak, K., & Pachoł, M. (2015). What? Me, lie? The form and reading of the Incredulity Response Construction. Constructions online. [URL]
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1979). Ordered entailments: An alternative to presuppositional theories. In C. K. Oh & D. Dinneen (Eds), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 11: Presupposition (pp. 299–323). Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Fernández-Pena, Yolanda & Javier Pérez-Guerra
2025. An Ecology of Fragmentary Constructions in English: A Corpus-Driven Cognitive Categorisation. In How to Do Things with Corpora [Linguistik in Empirie und Theorie/Empirical and Theoretical Linguistics, ], ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo
Sambre, Paul, Julien Perrez, Pascale Van Keirsbilck, Cornelia Wermuth, Françoise Gallez & Manon Hermann
2022. Constructing the future self: a contrastive approach to L1 and L2 Dutch and French. In Cognition and Contrast, ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue