In: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
Published online: 8 April 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.166.06mor
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.166.06mor
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.
References (38)
Abusch, Dorit. 2005. Triggering from alternative sets and projection of pragmatic presupposition. Ms, Cornell University.
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.
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.
de Cuba, Carlos. 2007. Negative polarity licensing, factivity, and the CP field. International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philosophy 41: 11-24.
Diessel, Holger & Tomasello, Michael. 2001. The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2): 97-141.
Green, Georgia M. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press
Groefsema, Marjolein. 1991. ‘Can you pass the salt?’: A short-circuited implicature? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 213-240.
Haugh, Michael. 2002. The intuitive basis of implicature: Relevance theoretic implicitness versus Gricean implying. Pragmatics 12(2): 117-134.
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.
. 2000. Degree operators and scope. In Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory X, Brendan Jackson & Tanya Matthews (eds), 40–64. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications
Hooper, Joan B. 1975. On assertive predicates. In Syntax and Semantics 4, John P. Kimball (ed.), 91-124. New York NY: Academic Press.
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.
Horn, Laurence. 1978. Remarks on neg-raising. In Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 129-220. New York NY: Academic Press.
Horn, Laurence & Bayer, Samuel. 1984. Short-circuited implicature: A negative contribution. Linguistics and Philosophy 7(4): 397-414.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1971. On some questionable arguments about quantifiers and negation. Language 47(2): 282-297.
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.
. 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.
Ladusaw, William A. 1979. Polarity as Inherent Scope Relations. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20, 303-318.
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.
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.
Prince, Ellen. 1976. The syntax and semantics of NEG-raising, with evidence from French. Language 52(2): 404-426.
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. Object complements and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1): 125-163.
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.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2007. The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 18(4): 523-557.
. 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.
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.
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.
