• Language and Information
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.127-153
• /
• 2015

Negative expressions have their semantic function of classical negation as a pure reverser of truth-values. They also have various kin and foes of their pragmatic functions such as association of bad feelings (Russell 1948), emphasis/attenuation by negative polarity items, sarcasm, and metalinguistic negation (MN). This paper explores how MN and descriptive negation (DN) differ and whether the difference creates pragmatic ambiguity (Horn 1987) or reflects merely contextual variations of one logical negation (Carston 1996). To test the debate, this paper treats certain degree modifiers licensed exclusively by MN as in Mia-ka POTHONG/Yekan yeppu-n key an-i-a [external neg] (vs. modifier NPIs like cenhye 'at all', licensed only by DN) and contrasts them with bad utterances of the MN modifiers in [short form neg] sentences (not for MN) such as Mia-ka POTHONG an yeppu-e. The ERP results of the well-formed vs. ill-formed conditions evoked the N400 at Cz in written stimuli and the N400 near the center on both hemispheres in spoken stimuli. The results suggest that the anomalies are meaning-related and tend to support the pragmatic ambiguity.

• Korean Linguistics
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.223-257
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to get characteristics about Korean negative sentences in the 17th century. In this paper used method is to classify and collect statistics of negative sentences in the 17th century Korean literatures, then to reclassify according to morphological characteristics of predicates. The subjects of analysis are 'ani'(don't)' and 'mos(can't)' negative sentences except for 'malta(forbid)' negative sentences.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Language and Information Conference
• /
• 2002.02a
• /
• pp.59-68
• /
• 2002

In this paper, we address two questions concerning negative imperatives in Korean: (i) what is the morpho-syntactic nature of mal in negative imperatives\ulcorner; and (ii) why is it impossible to form negative imperatives with short negation an\ulcorner We will argue that the clause structure of imperatives include a projection of deontic modality and a projection of imperative operator encoding illocutionary force, and that oaf is a lexicalization of long negation and deontic modality. We then propose that a negative imperative with short negation is ruled out because such construction maps onto incoherent interpretation which can be spelled out as I direct you to bring about a negative state or a negative event.