Correction by adversative and additive markers

Jasinskaja, Katja

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.015

Cited by 22 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research on contrastive negation has largely focused on conjunctions (e.g. Dascal and Katriel 1977;Koenig and Benndorf 1998;Birkelund 2009;Jasinskaja 2010Jasinskaja , 2012. As seen in the introduction, however, asyndetic forms of contrastive negation are also possible and indeed commonplace (Silvennoinen 2017).…”

Section: Contrastive Negation and Corrective Coordinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing corrective constructions: Contrastive negation in parallel and monolingual data

Silvennoinen¹

2020

New Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is a quantitative study of contrastive negation in 11 European languages, using parallel and monolingual corpus data. Contrastive negation refers to expressions that combine a negated and an affirmed element so that the affirmed element replaces the negated one. In the languages being studied, there is typically a large number of constructions that fall under this definition. One of the ways of expressing contrastive negation is through a corrective conjunction (e.g. but in not once but twice). In this paper, constructions with a corrective conjunction are compared to other contrastive negation constructions by constructing a probabilistic semantic map on the basis of a multivariate statistical analysis of parallel corpus data using multiple correspondence analysis (MCA). The data comes from the Europarl corpus, which represents the proceedings of the European Parliament. The results suggest that in this discourse type, corrective conjunctions are associated with additive contrasts (e.g. not only once but twice), while constructions without an additive are mostly replacive (e.g. It's not you, it's me). However, some languages also display correctives that are more weakly or not at all associated with additivity. The results display an areal and genealogical core of Germanic languages and French, with the other Romance and the Finnic languages studied deviating from this core in various ways. The results are evaluated against monolingual corpus data from the Finnish component of the same corpus. Overall, the study suggests that parallel corpora are a promising source of data even for a grammatical domain in which the languages studied have seemingly analogous constructions.

show abstract

Section: Contrastive Negation and Corrective Coordinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, as these do not apply to contrastive negation, I do not discuss them here. Also outside of the scope of this paper are languages like Russian, in which the same conjunction can be used not only in adversative and corrective but also additive contexts(Jasinskaja 2010(Jasinskaja , 2012.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing corrective constructions: Contrastive negation in parallel and monolingual data

Silvennoinen¹

2020

New Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has generally been conflated with other construction types (Keevallik 2017; see also Deppermann and De Stefani 2019: 147), and even then the studies have not considered the full range of constructions that are treated here. In addition, the few existing comparative studies (Anscombre and Ducrot 1977;Deppermann and De Stefani 2019;Jasinskaja 2012;Keevallik 2017;Mauri 2009;Rudolph 1996) have not been based on systematically collected and comparable usage data. In contrast with the previous research, this paper will focus on contrastive negation as a linguistically defined class of expressions using comparable data from English and Finnish.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From constructions to functions and back: Contrastive negation in English and Finnish

Silvennoinen

2020

Folia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a comparative investigation of contrastive negation in English and Finnish, i. e. combinations of a negated and an affirmed part construed as alternatives to one another. In both languages, there are several constructions that express contrastive negation, but their division of labour remains unclear. The aims of the paper are two-fold: first, to see what constructional strategies are available for contrastive negation in the two languages and, second, to see how the strategies are motivated by its interactional functions. In English, contrastive negation may be expressed by using the adversative conjunction but correctively (e. g. It’s not the bikers but the other vehicle on the road), whereas standard Finnish has a specialised corrective conjunction vaan alongside the adversative mutta. Moreover, many constructions can express contrastive negation, including ones without a conjunction (e. g. It’s not the bikers, it’s the other vehicle on the road). An analysis of conversational data shows that English favours constructions without conjunctions, while in Finnish constructions both with and without conjunctions are frequent. The uses of contrastive negation are divided into reactive and non-reactive. The pragmatic functions largely explain the usage patterns, and these in turn can explain the cross-linguistic regularities of corrective conjunctions.

show abstract

“…For instance, Sentence (7) is likely to be harder to process than Sentence (6) because the connective “so” facilitates the integration of sentences that have an intrinsic causal relationship in (6) but not when this relationship is absent in (7). Moreover, while most research has focused on the processing of causal relations, similar effects are observed for connectives, such as “but” and “although,” that indicate an adversative relationship (Jasinskaja, 2012; Murray, 1994, 1997; Umbach, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 86%

Pragmatic influences on sentence integration: Evidence from eye movements

Chen

Paterson

et al. 2019

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To understand a discourse, readers must rapidly process semantic and syntactic information and extract the pragmatic information these sources imply. An important question concerns how this pragmatic information influences discourse processing in return. We address this issue in two eye movement experiments that investigate the influence of pragmatic inferences on the processing of inter-sentence integration. In Experiments 1a and 1b, participants read two-sentence discourses in Chinese in which the first sentence introduced an event and the second described its consequence, where the sentences were linked using either the causal connective “suoyi” (meaning “so” or “therefore”) or not. The second sentence included a target word that was unmarked or marked using the focus particle “zhiyou” (meaning “only”) in Experiment 1a or “shi” (equivalent to an it-cleft) in Experiment 1b. These particles have the pragmatic function of implying a contrast between a target element and its alternatives. The results showed that while the causal connective facilitated the processing of unmarked words in causal contexts (a connective facilitation effect), this effect was eliminated by the presence of the focus particle. This implies that contrastive information is inferred sufficiently rapidly during reading that it can influence semantic processes involved in sentence integration. Experiment 2 showed that disruption due to conflict between the processing requirements of focus and inter-sentence integration occurred only in causal and not adversative connective contexts, confirming that processing difficulty occurred when a contrastive relationship was not possible.

show abstract

Correction by adversative and additive markers

Cited by 22 publications

References 19 publications

Comparing corrective constructions: Contrastive negation in parallel and monolingual data

Comparing corrective constructions: Contrastive negation in parallel and monolingual data

From constructions to functions and back: Contrastive negation in English and Finnish

Pragmatic influences on sentence integration: Evidence from eye movements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About