Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Ljudmila Geist (2008)
Predication and Equation in Copular Sentences: Russian vs. English
Deirdre Wilson (2000)
Metarepresentation in linguistic communication
Laurence Horn (1985)
Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic AmbiguityLanguage, 61
J. Bulhof, Steven Gimbel (2004)
A tautology is a tautology (or is itJournal of Pragmatics, 36
R. Carston (1996)
Metalinguistic negation and echoic useJournal of Pragmatics, 25
Xiaoshi Li (2004)
A CONTRASTIVE STUDY OF TAUTOLOGY BETWEEN CHINESE AND ENGLISH
E. Vilinbakhova, M. Kopotev (2017)
Does “X est’ X” mean “X eto X”? Looking for an answer in synchrony and diachrony
H. Grice (1975)
Logic and conversationSyntax and Semantics, 3
Sam Alxatib, Peter Pagin, U. Sauerland (2013)
Acceptable Contradictions: Pragmatics or Semantics? A Reply to Cobreros et al.Journal of Philosophical Logic, 42
B. Partee (2010)
Specificational Copular Sentences in Russian and EnglishOslo Studies in Language, 2
Gennaro Chierchia (2013)
Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention
Saul Kripke (1980)
Naming and Necessity
Eun-Ju Noh, Si Yoon, Sungryong Koh (2012)
The Markedness of Metalinguistic Negation: An Eye-tracking StudyKorean Journal of Linguistics, 37
A. Pereltsvaig (2007)
Copular Sentences in Russian: A Theory of Intra-Clausal Relations
Eun-Ju Noh, Hyeree Choo, Sungryong Koh (2013)
Processing metalinguistic negation: Evidence from eye-tracking experimentsJournal of Pragmatics, 57
J. Moeschler (2010)
Négation, scope and the descriptive/metalinguistic distinction, 6
Etsuzo Miki (1996)
Evocation and tautologiesJournal of Pragmatics, 25
A. Foolen (1991)
Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity: Some comments on a proposal by Laurence HornPragmatics, 1
Siobhan Chapman (1996)
Some observations on metalinguistic negationJournal of Linguistics, 32
David Ripley (2009)
Contradictions at the Borders
J. Hintikka (1962)
Cogito, Ergo Sum: Inference or Performance?The Philosophical Review, 71
H. Reichenbach (1948)
Elements of symbolic logic
V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti (2011)
4 On the Rigidity of Procedural Meaning
Eun-Ju Noh (2000)
Metarepresentation: A Relevance-Theory Approach
B. Geurts (1998)
The mechanisms of denialLanguage, 74
Pablo Cobreros, P. Égré, David Ripley, R. Rooij (2010)
Tolerant, Classical, StrictJournal of Philosophical Logic, 41
R. Carston (2016)
The heterogeneity of procedural meaningLingua, 175
Line Mikkelsen (2005)
Copular Clauses: Specification, predication and equation
S. Levinson (2001)
Presumptive Meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature
J. Meibauer (2008)
Tautology as presumptive meaningPragmatics & Cognition, 16
D. Sperber, Deirdre Wilson (1986)
Relevance: Communication and Cognition
S. Okamoto (1993)
Nominal repetitive constructions in Japanese: The ‘tautology’ controversy revisitedJournal of Pragmatics, 20
Elena Albu (2017)
Description versus rejection in the analysis of negation: Evidence from Romanian and EnglishLingua, 191
A. Wierzbicka (1988)
Boys will be boys: A rejoinder to Bruce FraserJournal of Pragmatics, 12
T. Autenrieth (1997)
Tautologien sind Tautologien
B. Fraser (1988)
Motor oil is motor oilJournal of Pragmatics, 12
Laurence Horn (1981)
A pragmatic approach to certain ambiguitiesLinguistics and Philosophy, 4
M. Macmillan (2000)
An odd kind of fame : stories of Phineas Gage
Iksoo Kwon (2014)
Categorization and its embodiment: Korean tautological constructions in mental spaces theoryLanguage Sciences, 45
R. Gibbs, N. McCarrell (1990)
Why Boys will be boys and girls will be girls: Understanding colloquial tautologiesJournal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19
R. Carston (2002)
Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication
H. Kamp, B. Partee (1995)
Prototype theory and compositionalityCognition, 57
K. Fintel, A. Gillies (2007)
An Opinionated Guide to Epistemic Modality
Barbara Sonnenhauser (2017)
Tautologies at the interfaces: Wer kann, der kannJournal of Pragmatics, 117
R. Carston, Eun-Ju Noh (1996)
A Truth-Functional Account of Metalinguistic Negation, With Evidence from Korean.Language Sciences, 18
M. Vidal (1990)
Estrategias en la interpretación de enunciados contradictorios
M. Farghal (1992)
Colloquial Jordanian Arabic tautologiesJournal of Pragmatics, 17
J. Moeschler (2018)
A set of semantic and pragmatic criteria for descriptive vs. metalinguistic negation, 3
V. Escandell-Vidal, E. Vilinbakhova (2018)
Intercultural Pragmatics
R. Carston (1999)
Negation, ‘presupposition’ and metarepresentation: a response to Noel Burton-RobertsJournal of Linguistics, 35
AbstractThis paper investigates utterances with the structure A is not A, showing that they can be fully informative and are felicitously used and understood in discourse. Relying on the notions of metalinguistic and metarepresentational negation, we argue that the class of utterances A is not A is heterogeneous and differs in regard to the lower-order representation under the scope of the negative operator. Specifically, we distinguish negated tautologies and copular contradictions. The understanding of negated tautologies involves identifying the corresponding affirmative deep tautology (Bulhof & Gimbel, 2001) and rejecting the assumptions derived from it. The interpretation of copular contradictions is based on distinguishing each of the occurrences of the repeated constituent as describing (a) one single referent with different properties; (b) two different referents satisfying the same description in different evaluation worlds; (c) two different referents, with different properties, which are accessed by means of the same linguistic expression.
International Review of Pragmatics – Brill
Published: May 14, 2019
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.