否定辞繰り上げについて : I don't think型とI think not型の語用論と機能論

Although, as we shall see, the quarry under pursuit here can be tracked back more than half a century ago, nothing specific has been agreed within even a traditional transformational grammar on the so-called negative raising phenomena. A semantic and pragmatic account yields diverse arguments, such as Cattell's (1973) the umbrella of negation and Horn's (1978a, 1989) mid-scalar predicates and short-circuited implicature. However, the main argument is one: whether I don't think is ambiguous between it is not the case that I think and I think not, and has a sense in which it is synonymous with I think not. We shall argue that I don't think is equivalent to I think not semantically and logically in that the higher clause (contradictory) negation is subsumed under the lower clause (contrary) understanding of negation. However, the (near) semantic and logical synonymy of the two types of negation is not in keeping with a pragmatic and functional account. Functionally, we can observe that the two types do not correlate each other and are used either in topic (I don't think) or comment (I think not). Pragmatically, as is claimed by Jespersen and Bolinger, I don't think strikes us as a bit weaker and milder in negative force than I think not. Finally, we shall point out that a unified theory cannot be maintained without seeking such diverse matters as syntactic, pragmatic and functional account, i. e. no one theory cannot be maintained.

公開日:2010年1月24日で登録したコンテンツは、国立情報学研究所において電子化したものです。