English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This article is about metalinguistic negation and the types of criteria making a straightforward distinction between descriptive (DN) and metalinguistic negation (MN). First, I will distinguish three types of negation: one type of DN and two types of MN, where MN1 is upward metalinguistic negation and MN2 presuppositional metalinguistic negation. This distinction is based on two semantic criteria (entailment and scope of negation), and one discursive or pragmatic criterion (connectives). Then, the use of the connective criterion will imply that mais SN (Ger. sondern and Sp. sino ) triggers DN , whereas mais PA (Ger. aber , Sp. pero ) licenses MN1 and a causal connective like parce que ‘because’ or puisque ‘since’ generates MN2. The general philosophy of the analysis of negation is both monoguist (negation is semantically unambiguous, and its meaning is logical) and contextual (there is no reinterpretation of the negative clause when negation is metalinguistic). Finally, this article aims to lend theoretical support to the experimental work on negation reported in Blochowiak & Grisot (2018).

A set of semantic and pragmatic criteria for descriptive vs. metalinguistic negation