Content uploaded by Olli Silvennoinen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Olli Silvennoinen on Sep 18, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Olli O. Silvennoinen
Comparing corrective constructions: Contrastive negation in parallel and monolingual data
1
Abstract
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.
Keywords: contrastive negation, corrective conjunctions, Europarl, multiple correspondence
analysis, parallel corpus
Olli O. Silvennoinen, Department of Languages, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 24 (Unioninkatu
40), FI-00014 University of Helsinki, olli.silvennoinen@helsinki.fi
1 Introduction
Corpus data are increasingly used in cross-linguistic studies involving more than two languages.
While even early typological studies made occasional use of corpora (Greenberg 1966), corpus-based
cross-linguistic studies cannot be said to have taken off until the past two decades or so, largely
because of the advent of readily usable parallel corpora (see e.g. Cysouw and Wälchli 2007; Aijmer
2008), i.e. corpora made up of translated texts aligned at the level of words, sentences or paragraphs.
These have ranged from small-scale datasets comprising only a handful of languages to “massively
parallel texts” (Cysouw and Wälchli 2007: 95) such as parts of the Bible, which exist in thousands of
languages. An alternative to parallel corpora is comparable corpora, i.e. monolingual corpora of the
same genre in different languages.
Both monolingual and parallel corpus data are used in this study to examine contrastive negation.
Empirically, the goal of the paper is to achieve an account of how contrastive negation is expressed
in 11 European national languages, belonging to the Germanic, Romance and Uralic groups.
Methodologically, the goal is to see the extent to which parallel and monolingual data can be used to
1
I wish to thank the following people for their help in a pilot study of this article: Pieter Claes, Andrei Călin Dumitrescu,
Agata Dominowska, Lotta Jalava, Maarit Kallio, Katharina Ruuska, Ksenia Shagal and Max Wahlström. I also express
my gratitude to Matti Miestamo, Minna Palander-Collin, Jouni Rostila and Johan van der Auwera as well as two
anonymous referees for their comments on previous versions of this paper. All remaining mistakes are naturally my
responsibility.
2
answer research questions and how monolingual corpus data can be used to validate (or disconfirm)
the results of parallel corpus analysis.
Contrastive negation refers to expressions that combine a negated and an affirmed element so that
the affirmed element replaces the negated element in the discourse universe (see Gates Jr. and Seright
1967; McCawley 1991; Silvennoinen 2017). Consider examples (1)–(3):
(1)
Shaken, not stirred
(2)
Not once but twice
(3)
It’s not you—it’s me.
As the examples show, in English, there are many ways of expressing contrastive negation. These
examples by no means exhaust the constructional options that English offers, but they do enable us
to chart the terrain in three respects. First, the negative may follow the affirmative (as in (1)) or it
may precede it (as in (2) and (3)). Second, the constructions may be asyndetic (i.e. without
conjunction, as in (1) and (3)) or syndetic (i.e. with a conjunction, in this case a corrective use of but,
as in (2)). Third, the contrasted elements may take the form of clauses (as in (3)) or sub-clausal units
(as in (1) and (2)). Similarly, in other European languages, contrastive negation may appear in several
constructional formats.
The approach to contrastive negation adopted in this paper draws on contrastive linguistics and
typology, but with a particular focus on European languages. Especially when comparing more than
two languages, cross-linguistic studies have traditionally relied on reference grammars and elicitation
as sources of data. The latter typically includes questionnaires encompassing a list of translation
sentences, for which a verbatim equivalent is requested from an expert or a native speaker of the
language.
2
For several reasons, these data types are not ideal for contrastive negation. First, they are
most appropriate for domains that are marked overtly with a dedicated or semi-dedicated marker,
while contrastive negation may be expressed without any explicit marking as a sequence of an
affirmative and a negated element. Second, the variation among contrastive negation constructions is
multifactorial and gradient (Silvennoinen 2018), and this type of syntactic variation is unlikely to be
found in reference grammars or questionnaire data. Third, the stable parts of contrastive negation
constructions are negators, focus particles and conjunctions. These are typically polysemous items,
for which contrastive negation constructions are usually only one, often marginal syntactic
environment among several. In other words, contrastive negation often does not have a dedicated
marker, which means that it may not be covered even in an extensive reference grammar. For these
reasons, a cross-linguistic study of contrastive negation requires corpus data.
Compared with reference grammars and elicitation, the traditional data sources of typology,
parallel corpora buttressed with multivariate statistical techniques have enabled typologists and others
interested in comparing more than two or three languages at a time to take intralinguistic variation
into account better, especially in the case of grammatical domains in which the variation even within
a single language is multifactorial (e.g. Levshina 2016a). Parallel corpora have been used successfully
to investigate domains as diverse as epistemic modality (van der Auwera, Schalley and Nuyts 2005),
motion verbs (Wälchli and Cysouw 2012) and causatives (Levshina 2015; 2016a).
Despite their potential, parallel corpora raise questions, and with reason. Lewis (2006: 140–141),
who studies English on the contrary and its French counterpart au contraire in comparable corpora
of political discourse, offers a number of arguments against parallel data: translations differ in how
faithfully they aim to represent the source text, they frequently vary in quality, they may represent
2
Some cross-linguistic have also used non-linguistic elicitation materials, such as picture books, to create comparable
corpora (Berman and Slobin 1994). These kinds of datasets have similar advantages and drawbacks as other types of
comparable corpus data, an issue to which I return below.
3
translationese rather than the studied language itself, and they may follow the structural choices of
the source text in ways that untranslated texts do not. A counter-point to this is the feasibility of
studying many languages: while there have been some studies using comparable corpora even in
typology (e.g. Stivers et al. 2009), these tend to be multi-author studies requiring extensive resources.
By contrast, a parallel corpus gives the researcher access to many languages relatively cheaply. While
a parallel corpus study might not give an ideal picture of an individual language, this is not the point:
a broader comparative perspective necessarily has a smaller resolution than an approach that only
contrasts a couple of often closely related languages. In more general terms, Mauranen (1999: 165–
167) points out that criticisms of parallel corpora rest on a dubious distinction between “pure”
language on one hand and translations on the other. She argues that translations are normal language
use, created in a specific setting and for a specific purpose, just like all naturally occurring language.
That said, parallel corpora are a data type that needs to be handled with care. As many authors have
argued (e.g. Van Olmen 2011: 114–115), they are most useful as complements to, rather than
replacements of, other kinds of data.
In this paper, I shall show that parallel corpora offer an appropriate methodological tool for cross-
linguistic comparison even in the domain of contrastive negation, in which formally and functionally
analogous translation equivalents are readily available. To do so, I use the Europarl corpus (Koehn
2005; Tiedemann 2012), which consists of proceedings of the European parliament translated into
the official languages of the member states of the European Union. My analytic approach draws on
quantitative corpus linguistics (Gries 2009). In particular, I shall use multiple correspondence analysis
(Glynn 2014; Greenacre 2017), an exploratory dimensionality reduction technique that allows the
visualisation of similarities and differences in the expression of contrastive negation in the data. The
paper will proceed as follows: Section 2 will present previous monolingual and cross-linguistic
research on contrastive negation. Data and methods are presented in Section 3. In Section 4, the
findings of the case studies will be reported, and in Section 5, they will be discussed.
2 Contrastive negation and corrective coordination
In cross-linguistic studies, a distinction is often made between comparative concepts and descriptive
categories (Haspelmath 2010). Comparative concepts are typically functional notions that are meant
for cross-linguistic comparison. Thus, they are not meant to be psychologically real to any speaker
nor do they need to correspond exactly to a natural class of constructions in any given language being
studied, though they may do so. Descriptive categories, on the other hand, are language-specific and
(possibly) psychologically real to the speakers of those languages, such as specific constructions. In
practice, however, the distinction between comparative concepts and descriptive categories is not
always so neat (see van der Auwera and Sahoo 2015). In this study, the term contrastive negation
refers to both: it is a functional notion meant for cross-linguistic comparison but it also groups
together construction types in specific languages so that we may talk about English or Portuguese
contrastive negation, for instance. Contrastive negation as a comparative concept is defined in (4):
(4)
Contrastive negation refers to expressions which are combinations of affirmation
and negation in which the focus of negation is replaced in the affirmative part of
the expression. The relationship between the affirmed and the negated part of the
expression is not causal or concessive, and the negation must have overt scope.
This definition presupposes certain other comparative concepts, the most important ones being
negation (and by extension, affirmation) as well as focus and scope. According to Miestamo’s (2005)
definition, negation as a comparative concept is a construction that flips the truth value of the
corresponding affirmative. However, in the case of contrastive negation, this definition needs some
caveats. Most of the literature on contrastive negation deals with metalinguistic negation (Horn 1985;
1989: 362–444). Metalinguistic negation refers to cases such as those in (5) (taken and adapted from
4
Horn 1989: 370–373). In (5a), the speaker corrects the pronunciation of another speaker. In (5b), the
negation targets a stylistically inappropriate expression. In the last two examples, what is negated is
an implicature: if left unnegated, A’s utterance in (5c) would implicate that the woman in question is
not the wife of X, and in (5d), the negation corrects the scalar implicature that there are men who are
not chauvinists.
(5)
a. He didn’t call the [pólis], he called the [polís].
b. Grandpa isn’t feeling lousy, Johnny, he’s just a tad indisposed.
c. A: X is meeting a woman this evening.
B: No, he’s not—he’s meeting his wife!
d. SOME men aren’t chauvinists—ALL men are chauvinists.
In all these cases, the negation does not target the propositional content of the sentence, at least
not purely (in (5c) and (5d), the negation targets an implicature that is not part of the literal meaning
of the sentence – the wife is a woman and ‘all men are chauvinists’ logically entails that some are; of
course, the implicature can be expressed as a proposition in its own right). Thus, it is debatable, and
indeed has been debated, whether such cases have to do with truth conditions at all. A review of the
literature on metalinguistic negation is beyond the scope and focus of this paper (but see e.g. Carston
1996; Geurts 1998; Pitts 2011; Moeschler 2015; Larrivée 2018). Here, I simply follow Carston
(1996), who argues that negation is truth-functional even when metalinguistic, but the relevant truth
value pertains to a representation. Thus, to take (5a) as an example, it is not true that [pólis]
appropriately represents police. For present purposes, it is important to note that metalinguistic
negation is probably prototypically (though not obligatorily: Carston 1996: 314) expressed by
contrastive negation, as the affirmative part of the construction renders the metalinguistic reading
clear. However, the opposite is not true: contrastive negation mostly targets the literal or “descriptive”
(Horn 1985) content of an utterance (Silvennoinen 2018).
As to focus, I rely on Lambrecht (1994), who defines focus as that part of an assertion (whether
affirmative or negative) that is new, i.e. not recoverable from presupposed information. Scope is
larger than focus: it refers to all elements in a clause or other negative unit that can be the focus of
negation (e.g. Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 790–799). For example, in the clause I don’t want my
martini shaken, the scope is usually all the words following don’t but the focus may be shaken (‘I
want my martini stirred’), my martini (‘I want my margarita shaken’) or even the verb phrase headed
by want (‘I don’t just want but need my martini shaken’). However, the scope (and, by extension,
focus) may also fall on the subject I (‘It is she who wants her martini shaken’). As pointed out in
Fillmore, Kay and O’Connor (1988: 521–522), there may also be several focal elements (‘I don’t
want my martini shaken but my gin and tonic stirred’). Moreover, my definition of contrastive
negation includes (6), which has an ellipted focus, but excludes (7), which has a negative pro-sentence
that by definition does not have an overt scope.
(6)
A: Do you go to the gym often?
B: I don’t [go to the gym], I go running instead.
(7)
A: Do you go to the gym often?
B: No, I go running instead.
An alternative way of phrasing the definition in (4) would be that contrastive negation refers to an
affirmation and a negation that are in an antithetical relation to one another. My understanding of
antithesis is informed by Rhetorical Structure Theory (Thompson and Mann 1987): thus, the size or
syntactic rank of the elements in an antithetical relation is not constrained. As a consequence, my
definition of contrastive negation does not presuppose that the contrasted elements need to be in the
5
same orthographic sentence. Also, my definition is intentionally vague as to whether the relationship
between the affirmed and the negated parts is coordinate or subordinate since this would prioritize
certain kinds of constructions over others. In addition, the literature on English is not unanimous as
to whether the [Y not X] construction (e.g. (1)) is coordinate (Huddleston and Pullum 2002),
subordinate (Gates Jr. and Seright 1967) or between the two (McCawley 1991). This uncertainty
would be problematic if (4) were to constrain the investigation to, say, coordinate constructions, but
a definition of contrastive negation that is uncommitted in this regard avoids this problem.
That said, prototypically, contrastive negation in European languages is expressed using
coordinate constructions, whether syndetic or asyndetic. Coordination as a functional domain is
generally split into three semantic sub-domains, which Mauri (2009) calls combination relations,
contrast relations and alternative relations. In broad terms, these correspond to English and, but and
or, respectively. Contrastive negation is a kind of contrast relation. For the purposes of this study, I
divide contrast relations into two groups, following Anscombre and Ducrot (1977). These two groups
are exemplified in (8) and (9), in which the (a) versions come from English, the (b) versions from
Spanish:
3
(8)
a.
Peter is intelligent but he doesn’t work.
b.
Spanish
Pedro
Pedro
es
be.3SG
inteligente
intelligent
pero
but
no
NEG
trabaja.
work.3SG
(9)
a.
Peter is not intelligent but stupid.
b.
Spanish
Pedro
Pedro
no
NEG
es
be.3SG
inteligente
intelligent
sino
but
estúpido.
stupid
Anscombre and Ducrot analyze such examples in terms of argumentation. In (8), the two conjoined
clauses are arguments for different conclusions: if Peter/Pedro is intelligent, he would be expected to
work under the speaker’s model of the world, so the fact that he does not is construed as dampening
the argumentative force of the first clause. The relationship between the clauses is thus concessive
and (8) is therefore not a case of contrastive negation. In (9), by contrast, the conjoined phrases argue
for the same conclusion: not being intelligent is compatible with being stupid, and ‘intelligent’ is
replaced by ‘stupid’. Thus, (9) is a case of contrastive negation. Both examples contain the
conjunction but in English. By contrast, in Spanish, the first example contains the general adversative
pero whereas the second example contains the corrective conjunction sino. German makes a
distinction similar to Spanish, with pero corresponding to aber and sino to sondern.
In the subsequent discussion, I adopt the following terminological conventions. Following
Anscombre and Ducrot, conjunctions like Spanish pero will be PA conjunctions (pero/aber) and
those like sino SN conjunctions (sino/sondern). Conjunctions like English but will be PA/SN
conjunctions.
4
The semantic relation between the elements contrasted by an SN conjunction is called
corrective, but this relation can also be expressed asyndetically, with a PA/SN conjunction or
sometimes another type of conjunction, as we will see below. The whole construction will be called
contrastive negation or contrastive negation construction. Following Croft (2016), I regard the use of
3
The glossing conventions in this paper follow the Leipzig rules. Default categories such as singular (in nouns), indicative
or nominative are not glossed separately. Glosses that do not appear in the rules but are used here: ADE (adessive case),
ALL (allative case), CNG (connegative), COND (conditional mood), ELA (elative case), ILL (illative case) and PRT (partitive
case).
4
Some languages make further splits in the PA domain (Foolen 1991; Malchukov 2004; Mauri 2007; Izutsu 2008; Mauri
2009). 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, 2012).
6
SN and PA/SN conjunctions as different strategies for expressing the comparative concept of
contrastive negation in a language.
Mauri (2007; 2009: 283–284) notes that there is some areality in whether a language makes the
distinction between PA and SN or not: in Europe, languages with the PA/SN strategy, i.e. a
conjunction that expresses both adversativity and correctivity, form a continuous area in western
central Europe (e.g. Danish, Dutch, English, French). By contrast, languages that make a distinction
between PA and SN are located either in the north and east (e.g. Estonian, Finnish, German, Swedish,
as well as many Slavonic languages) or in Spain (e.g. Spanish and Basque). Italian displays both
strategies.
Previous research on contrastive negation has largely focused on conjunctions (e.g. Dascal and
Katriel 1977; Koenig and Benndorf 1998; Birkelund 2009; Jasinskaja 2010, 2012). As seen in the
introduction, however, asyndetic forms of contrastive negation are also possible and indeed
commonplace (Silvennoinen 2017). On a more general level, languages differ as to the degree to
which conjunctions are conventionalized as markers of specific types of coordination (Lehmann
1988; Mithun 1988). In most of the previous studies, the distinction between PA and SN coordination
is presented as a categorical one, at least implicitly: if a language makes a distinction between a PA
and an SN conjunction, this distinction is always observed. An exception is Mauri (2009), who notes
that a language may have several conjunctions to express correctivity and that even languages that
have a dedicated SN conjunction may also use the conjunction used in adversative contexts for this
(e.g. Italian). Thus, it is possible for a language to have a system with both a PA/SN and an SN
conjunction (I see no reason why the reverse situation could not hold as well). When and why the two
conjunctions are used is not addressed in Mauri’s study, however. This study will thus look more
deeply into the differences in usage among the various forms of contrastive negation.
3 Data and methods
3.1 Data collection
As stated in the introduction, this study uses both parallel and monolingual corpus data. The data
comes from the Europarl corpus (Koehn 2005; Tiedemann 2012), which consists of the proceedings
of the European Parliament translated into the official languages of the European Union. The corpus
thus gives us access to a relatively large number of European languages. Parliamentary discourse is
particularly suited to studying contrastive negation since it has been found to favor argumentative
genres (Silvennoinen 2017). In addition, Europarl offers ways of circumventing or at least mitigating
several criticisms of parallel corpora made in previous research. Firstly, all the translations have been
prepared professionally and for the same purpose, with strict in-house rules regarding how free or
literal they may be. Secondly, the source languages vary. While this does not remove the source text
bias, it means that it will not be based on one language only.
5
Thirdly, and most importantly, the corpus contains data from only one parliament. Thus, the
institutional and legal context is constant. This is arguably a major strength compared to most
comparable corpora of parliamentary or political discourse that might be compiled since political
cultures in general and their discursive characteristics in particular are subject to cross-cultural as
well as institutional variations (Bayley 2004). It is not at all clear, for instance, that parliamentary
discourse in the British House of Commons and the Finnish Eduskunta could be called instances of
the same genre: the former is the lower of two chambers, has two parties and houses debates that are
famously adversarial, while the latter is unicameral, has substantial representation from multiple
parties and has a notably calmer atmosphere.
5
I conducted a pilot study using subtitling data from Levshina (2016b). While subtitles represent a more informal register
than parliamentary discourse, the space restrictions in this type of data make them less well suited for studying contrastive
negation, which is a domain with constructions of varying degrees of compactness. In practice, subtitlers often translate
an expanded construct (i.e. one that consists of two full clauses: I don’t like it, I love it) with a syndetic construction (e.g.
I don’t like but love it) because the latter tend to be more compact.
7
A problem that cannot be fully resolved is that of translationese or translation universals.
Therefore, the results of the present study should be seen as indicative of the patterns of the target
languages. I assume that translation shifts allow us to gauge the extent to which otherwise analogous
constructions in different languages are conventionalized. Methodologically, my study falls under
quantitative corpus linguistics (see e.g. Gries 2009). Previous research indicates that there is a large
degree of cognitive synonymy between the various constructions of contrastive negation
(Silvennoinen 2018). Because of the abstract nature and comparatively large number of these
constructions, the variation is difficult to describe in categorical terms and therefore an exploratory
multivariate statistical analysis is the best way to get a handle on the data.
Another issue with Europarl is the fact that some of the speakers give their speeches in English
even though it is not their native language. This may potentially cause L2 interference or English as
a lingua franca effects in the data. However, the problem this causes is likely to be small given the
careful editing that Europarl texts undergo, both before the speeches are given and during
transcription.
The analysis was restricted to 11 languages. Of those, two are Uralic (Estonian, Finnish). The
remaining 10 languages are Indo-European, from the Germanic (Danish, Dutch, English, German,
Swedish), and Romance (French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish) branches. Table 1 lists the
conjunctions used in the languages in question.
Table 1. The languages and conjunctions
Languages without the PA/SN
distinction
Languages with a distinction between PA and SN
Language
PA/SN
conjunction(s)
Language
PA conjunction
SN
conjunction
Danish
men
Estonian
aga
vaid
Dutch
maar
Finnish
mutta
vaan
English
but
German
aber
sondern
French
mais
Italian
ma
bensì
Portuguese
mas6
Spanish
pero
sino
Swedish
men
utan
To get an idea of translation effects in the parallel corpus study, I also conducted a small-scale
case study on comparable monolingual corpus data in Finnish. The Finnish data also comes from
Europarl; the query was restricted to interventions made in Finnish.
7
Because of the randomization in
the extraction of examples, the datasets in the parallel and the monolingual corpus study are different.
While obtaining comparable corpus data from all the languages in the Europarl data is beyond what
can be achieved in this study, the Finnish data is used as a control to gauge the extent to which the
parallel corpus data can present a realistic view of the constructions of a language.
Contrastive negation presents something of a challenge for corpus-linguistic studies. There are
several constructional formats available in all languages in this study. Furthermore, these formats
utilize items that are often highly polysemous. The English corrective conjunction but, for instance,
is polysemous not only with the general adversative meaning but also with meanings such as
exceptivity (e.g. That person is nothing but trouble) and restrictiveness (e.g. She is but a child). This
restricts the number of exemplars that can reasonably be included in the study as the forms cannot be
extracted purely through a query but must be identified semi-manually. The cross-linguistic nature of
6
Rudolph (1996: 301) points out that at least one author in her data uses senão, a calque on the Spanish sino. This is not
an entrenched part of Portuguese grammar and does not appear in my data.
7
Unfortunately, the OPUS interface for EuroParl did not display the language the speaker used at the time the study was
conducted. For this reason, the Finnish data was sought from the Finnish Language Bank’s Korp interface
(https://korp.csc.fi), which includes Finnish EuroParl data as part of the FinnTreeBank 3 corpus.
8
this study poses an additional difficulty since different languages carve the same conceptual space in
slightly different ways. Thus, where one language uses contrastive negation, another might opt for
another construction type.
Keeping these caveats in mind, I searched the corpus for contrastive negation semi-manually. The
procedure draws on that used in Silvennoinen (2017) and therefore the query language was English
for the parallel corpus part of the study, regardless of whether the original language of the examples
was English or whether the examples had been translated into English. Thus, to borrow Gast’s (2015)
metaphor, English contrastive negation is used as the anchor with which variation in other languages
is studied in the parallel corpus study. I queried the corpus for all negators in English: not, no, neither,
never, nobody, none, no one/no-one, nor, nothing, nowhere, as well as the contracted form n’t.
8
For
the monolingual Finnish data, I searched for all inflected forms of the Finnish negative auxiliary e-
(including the syncretic negative form äl-). The query window was set to one orthographic sentence
on either side of the target sentence to allow for the detection of constructs that extend over two
sentences and for seeing the context of the examples. For the parallel Europarl dataset, I analyzed
manually 1,500 random results of this query for whether they included contrastive negation. This
yielded 240 cases. For the Finnish data, I randomly analyzed 1,000 concordance lines. This yielded
155 cases.
3.2 Analysis
The variation in the domain of contrastive negation is likely to be multifactorial in the languages
being studied. For this reason, the datasets were coded for several variables that were expected to be
associated with the constructional variation of this domain, either because of previous research on
contrastive negation (Silvennoinen 2018) or other domains.
First, the constructional schemas (CXN) of the cases in each language were coded. In this case, I
opted for a simple coding scheme, recording whether a construct is negative-first or negative-second
and what type of linking is found between the parts, if any. Thus, I gloss over the syntactic rank of
the contrasted elements. In addition, I only focus on linking by means of conjunctions, leaving the
marking of correctivity by discourse markers such as rather and on the contrary outside the scope of
this study. The only exception to this is from Portuguese, in which the discourse marker sim is often
but not always fused onto the conjunction mas (Rudolph 1996: 301).
The constructional schemas in which the negative precedes the affirmative are exemplified in
Swedish in (9)–(11). (9) shows an SN and (10) a PA conjunction, and (11) an asyndetic linking
between the contrasted elements.
(9)
CXN: [Neg X SN Y]
Swedish
Och den har varit och fortsätter att vara en stabil stöttepelare,
‘[A]nd it has been and continues to be a pole of stability,’
inte
NEG
bara
only
för
for
den
DEF
europeiska
European.DE
F
ekonomin,
economy.DE
F
utan
butSN
också
also
för
for
den
DEF
globala
global.DEF
ekonomin.
economy.DE
F
‘not just for the European economy, but also for the global economy.’ (Europarl: Joaquín
Almunia)
8
The contracted form n’t was queried by searching for the combination of an apostrophe and the letter “t” as a separate
word. The word cannot was queried separately. Words such as hardly and scarcely were excluded from the search since
they are only marginally used contrastively. A similar restriction is made by Tottie (1991), for instance.
9
(10)
CXN: [Neg X PA Y]
Swedish
Budgeten
budget.DEF
kommer
come
att
to
utökas
raise.PASS.IN
F
till
to
400
400
miljoner
million.PL
euro
euro
som
as
ni
you.PL
vet,
know
inte
NEG
i
in
år
year
men
butPA
2013.
2013
‘The budget will increase - as you know, not this year but in 2013 - to EUR 400 million.’
(Europarl: Benita Ferrero-Waldner)
(11)
CXN: [Neg X, Y]
Swedish
Den
DEF
internationella
international.DE
F
finanskrisen
financial.crisis.D
EF
började
begin.PST
inte
NEG
på
on
öarna.
island.PL.DE
F
Den
it
började
begin.PST
i
in
USA […].
USA
‘The international financial crisis did not start on the islands. It started in the United States
[…].’ (Europarl: Robert Goebbels)
Analogously, the constructional formats in which the negative follows the affirmative are
exemplified in French in (12)–(13). Again, (12) shows a syndetic and (13) an asyndetic coordination.
(12)
CXN: [Y Conj Neg X]
French
Cela
this
signifie
mean.3SG
également
also
que
that
les
DEF.PL
APE
EPA
devraient
should.COND.3PL
être
be
dynamiques
–
dynamic.PL
et
and
non
NEG.FOC
statiques
[…].
static.PL
‘It also means that EPAs should be dynamic and not static […].’ (Europarl:
Catherine Ashton)
(13)
CXN: [Y Neg X]
French
Les
DEF.PL
pays
country.PL
dévoyés
errant.M.PL
étaient
be.PST.3PL
l’
DEF
exception,
exception
non
NEG.FOC
la
DEF.F
règle.
rule
‘Errant countries were the exception and not the rule.’ (Europarl: Edward Scicluna)
Each of the categories in (9)–(13) includes both clausal and sub-clausal contrasted elements. In
addition, there are categories for “other contrastive negation” and, for languages other than English,
“not contrastive negation”, exemplified in (14) and (15), respectively. (14a) shows a construction
from Portuguese in which there is a conjunction between the contrasted elements but not one that is
either the PA or the SN conjunction in the language; rather, the conjunction como ‘as’ is an adverbial
subordinator. Since the construction is a combination of a negated and an affirmed element, it
10
nevertheless counts as contrastive negation under the definition adopted in this study. (14b) shows a
case from French in which the translator has opted for et ‘and’ as the conjunction between a negative
and the affirmative that follows it; the original Italian (not reproduced here) uses the unambiguous
SN conjunction bensì. (15) shows a case from Finnish in which the translator has replaced a
contrastive negation with a construction that does not fall under the definition of contrastive negation
adopted here. The construction [paitsi X myös Y], literally ‘except X, also Y’, contains the
semantically but not syntactically negative preposition paitsi ‘except’. Since lexical negatives fall
under the definition of contrastive negation, so does this construction. I return to some of the ways of
avoiding a contrastive negation in translation in the results below.
(14)
CXN: other contrastive negation
a.
Portuguese
Graças aos intercâmbios de estudantes, como sucede no programa
Erasmus,
‘Thanks to student exchanges, such as Erasmus,’
os
DEF.PL.M
nossos
our.PL.M
jovens
young.PL
não
NEG
apenas
only
aprofunda
m
deepen.3PL
os
DEF.PL.M
seus
their
conheciment
os
knowledge.PL
em
in
domínios
domain.P
L
específicos
specific.M.
PL
como
as
também
also
alargam
broaden.3PL
os
DEF.PL.M
seu
s
thei
r
horizontes.
horizon.PL
‘our young people are not only furthering their knowledge in specific
subject areas, but are also broadening their horizons.’ (Europarl: Czesław
Adam Siekierski)
b.
French
C’
it
est
be.3SG
pourquoi
why
je
1SG
n’
NEG
ai
AUX.1SG
pas
NEG
voté
vote.PTCP
contre
against
et
and
que
that
j’
1SG
ai
have.1SG
préféré
prefer.PTC
P
m’
1SG.ACC
abstenir.
abstain.IN
F
‘This has led me not to vote against it, but rather to abstain.’ (Europarl:
Luca Romagnoli)
(15)
CXN: not contrastive negation
Finnish
Mielestäni
in.my.vie
w
senkaltain
en
such
suhtautumin
en
disposition
maahanmuutto
on
immigration.IL
L
on
be.3
SG
paitsi
except
väärin
wrong
myös
also
vaarallista.
dangerous.P
RT
11
‘In my view, focusing on immigration in that way is not only wrong but also
dangerous.’ (Europarl: Juan Fernando López Aguilar)
For those parts of the analysis that focus on individual languages, more fine-grained language-
specific categories may be used.
Second, the functional features of each case were coded along five parameters. The functional
parameters used in this study are the following (mnemonic names in parentheses; these will figure in
the analysis later on):
Semantic type of the construct (SEMTYPE) refers to scalarity and can be either replacive, additive
or restrictive. Replacives are the basic type: there is no scalarity invoked between X and Y. In
additives, the affirmed element is construed as higher on a scale, which is shown by a scalar element
in the scope of the negation, as in the English [not only X but Y] construction. Conversely, in
restrictives, the negated element is higher on a scale, as shown by a scalar in the affirmed element, as
in the English [not X, just Y] construction. The categories are based on Dik et al. (1981). The three
levels of the variable SEMTYPE are exemplified in (16)–(18):
(16)
SEMTYPE: rep
Shaken, not stirred.
(17)
SEMTYPE: add
Not only stirred but shaken.
(18)
SEMTYPE: rst
Not shaken, just stirred.
Note that the expression of scalarity need not be a scalar adverb. In Finnish for instance, additivity
may be expressed by negating the lexical verb riittää ‘be enough’, as in (19):
(19)
Finnish
Ei
NEG.3SG
nimittäin
namely
riitä,
be.enough.CN
G
että
that
valitsee
choose.3S
G
hyllystä
shelf.EL
A
ympäristömerkillä
environmental.label.A
DE
varustetun
attach.PTCP.GE
N
paketin,
package.GEN
vaan
butS
N
sitä
it.PRT
on
be.3SG
osattava
know.PTCP
myös
also
käyttää.
use.INF
‘It is not enough to choose a packet with an environmental label off the shelf: people also
have to be able to use the product correctly.’ (Europarl: Eija-Riitta Korhola)
The target of negation (NEGTARGET) captures whether the negation targets only propositional
content or not. By default, negation targets propositional content, but it may also target
presuppositions, implicatures and formal features of a previous or imagined utterance. Such non-
propositional cases include metalinguistic negation (see Section 2). They also include additive cases
that target scalar implicatures but are not strictly speaking metalinguistic because of the presence of
a scalar adverb (e.g. only) in the scope of the negation. Propositional, non-propositional metalinguistic
and non-propositional non-metalinguistic negation are exemplified in (20)–(21). (21a) is
12
metalinguistic because the simple negation She doesn’t have two children is untrue under a strictly
truth-conditional reading in case she has three, since three subsumes two.
9
(20)
NEGTARGET: prop
She doesn’t have three children but two.
(21)
NEGTARGET: non_prop
a. She doesn’t have two children but three.
b. She doesn’t have only two children but three.
Structural difference (STRDIFF) refers to the kind of difference that obtains between the
contrasted elements. Drawing on Lambrecht’s (1994: chap. 5) classification of focus structures, I
divide the possibilities into three: narrow, predicate and other.
10
When the difference is classified as
“narrow”, it is a constituent below the finite verb phrase, as in (22). When the difference is classified
as “predicate”, it is a finite verb phrase, as in (23). When the domain of the contrast cannot be stated
as either the verb phrase or a narrower constituent of the clause, the focus structure is classified as
“other”, as in (24), in which the first (negative) part has our sole concern as subject whereas the latter
(affirmative) part has we in that role. The structural difference types are ordered from the most
restricted (narrow) to the most extensive (other) change.
(22)
STRDIFF: narrow
These plants represent a danger to public health and to the ecosystem, not only
[in their country of origin], but also [throughout Europe and the world].
(Europarl: Marisa Matias)
(23)
STRDIFF: predicate
Parliament managed to find the right compromises that do not [flush the text of
its content] but, instead, [put real pressure on those who, in the Commission,
want the Single Market to continue to adopt a purely free market approach,
without including social issues, tax issues or environmental issues]. (Europarl:
Pascal Canfin)
(24)
STRDIFF: other
In future, our sole concern should not just be the cooperation between the police
and judicial authorities as regards mutual recognition; we must also look at the
establishment of procedural standards. (Europarl: Jan Philipp Albrecht)
Deontic modality (DMOD) refers to the moral desirability of a future state of affairs (e.g. Nuyts
2006: 4–5) as well as permission and obligation.
11
My definition thus combines what Nuyts, Byloo
and Diepeveen (2010) and Van linden and Verstraete (2011: 155) call deontic and directive, the
9
The truth conditions of metalinguistic negations are a matter of debate; see e.g. Carston (1996) and Moeschler (2015).
This matter has no consequences for the analysis presented here and will therefore be set aside.
10
Lambrecht uses the term “argument focus” instead of “narrow focus”. However, not all such foci are in fact arguments
in their respective clauses, which is why I have appropriated Van Valin’s (2005) term “narrow focus”. Lambrecht’s
typology also includes a third type, sentence focus, which is subsumed under “other” in this classification. Note that in
this paper, I am not classifying foci, which can be quite subjective and difficult, but the difference between the contrasted
elements, which can be larger than the focus.
11
This differs from definitions of deontic modality that exclusively refer to permission and obligation (e.g. Palmer 2001:
9–10, 70–76). However, in parliamentary discourse, what is at issue is rather the desirability of a certain course of action
or policy, as the speakers are not in a position to give commands to one another. See Nuyts (2006: 4–5; Nuyts, Byloo,
and Diepeveen 2010: 17–18, 23–24) on defining deontic modality.
13
former referring to moral desirability and the latter to the illocutionary forces of permitting and
obligating “Moral” is here understood as a scale construed by the conceptualizer, ranging from
acceptable to necessary (and, in the negative, to unacceptable). This variable has two levels: neutral
(no deontic modality is indicated in the example) and deontic (there is a marker of deontic modality
in the context). (25) exemplifies the neutral case, whereas (26) illustrates different kinds of deontic
modality: imperative mood in (26a), modal auxiliary in (26b) and modal adjective in (26c) (see Van
linden and Verstraete 2011).
(25)
DMOD: neutral
In this context, statistics not only monitor specific tourism policies, but are also
useful in the broader context of regional policies and sustainable development.
(Europarl: Licia Ronzulli)
(26)
DMOD: deontic
a. Do not listen too much to the Member States; listen instead to the Spanish
Presidency, because it has some good ideas on this subject. (Europarl:
Guy Verhofstadt)
b. I am frankly concerned about the current situation in Egypt and about
today’s developments, so I believe that we must not show calm but must
rather show solidarity. (Europarl: Marisa Matias)
c. The most important issue is not to punish the illegal workers from third-
party states, but to penalise the employers, who are in a much stronger
position. (Europarl: Jörg Leichtfried)
Weight (WEIGHT) refers to the syntactic weight of the contrasted elements. This is operationalized
as the number of words of the negative and affirmative focus (see Szmrecsanyi 2004 for why the
number of words is an adequate measure). The variable has three levels: “aff-heavy” (when the
affirmative focus has more words than the negative focus, as in (27)), “balanced” (when the number
of words is equal in both, as in (28)) and “neg-heavy” (when the negative focus has more words than
the affirmative focus, as in (29)). Scalar elements that count towards making a construct either
additive or restrictive as well as linking adverbs (e.g. instead, on the contrary) were not counted.
Including the scalar elements would bias additive constructs towards neg-heavy and restrictive
constructs towards aff-heavy. Including the linking adverbs would bias the data towards whichever
element comes second since adversative linking adverbs appear predominantly on the second element
of an adversatively connected pair of clauses.
(27)
WEIGHT: aff_heavy
OK, it was not [their fault], but apparently [the fault of others]. (Europarl: Guy
Verhofstadt)
(28)
WEIGHT: balanced
These are not even [British] dud banks, they are [foreign] dud banks, and I hear
today that the British taxpayer is being asked to fork out for Portugal. (Europarl:
Godfrey Bloom)
(29)
WEIGHT: neg_heavy
You will not achieve good results [with 27 national states acting unilaterally],
but only [by pooling forces]. (Europarl: Helga Trüpel)
14
The functional variables were coded on the basis of the English data. Unfortunately, the Europarl
metadata does not indicate the original language for all contributions. In addition, English is often
used in the European Parliament even by MEPs who do not speak it as a native language. In practice,
the variables are consistent across languages; however, an exception to this is seen in the analysis of
the monolingual Finnish data in Section 4.2.
The functional variables were used to create a semantic map of contrastive negation (see Croft
2001; Haspelmath 2003). A semantic map is a graphic representation of a given domain or set of
domains. The idea behind semantic maps is that similar meanings tend to be encoded in similar ways
across languages. The maps can be either connectivity maps or probabilistic maps (van der Auwera
2013). Since it is expected that the ways of expressing contrastive negation vary across multiple
parameters at the same time and compete against not only other constructions of contrastive negation
but also other construction types, this study uses a probabilistic map, as these are better at representing
gradient and partially overlapping patterns of variation. For connectivity maps relevant to the domains
of adversativity and correctivity, see Malchukov (2004), Lewis (2006: 146) and Mauri (2009).
Probabilistic maps are constructed using statistical techniques that produce a graphical output. For
this reason, various dimensionality-reduction techniques have been used in previous studies, such as
multidimensional scaling (Croft and Poole 2008; Wälchli and Cysouw 2012; Levshina 2016b). The
statistical method used to construct the map in this study is multiple correspondence analysis (MCA)
with supplementary points, which is a member of the larger family of correspondence analysis (Glynn
2014; Greenacre 2017). MCA is a dimensionality-reduction technique for multivariate categorical
data. Its input is a data frame that only includes categorical variables. MCA looks for associations
between the variables to reduce the number of dimensions that are needed to represent the data. The
dimensions are typically agglomerates of several “raw” variables. As a result, the data can be
represented in a low-dimensional space. As an exploratory technique, MCA is useful when there are
no clear hypotheses regarding the associations between explanatory and outcome variables, which is
the case here as the outcome variables are different for each language of the dataset.
4 Results
4.1 Parallel data
In this section, I present the results of the analysis on the Europarl data. I begin by discussing the
descriptive statistics of the constructions in the individual languages and then the functional variables.
I then move on to the exploratory statistical analysis using MCA. All statistical analyses were done
using the open-source statistical environment R (R Core Team 2016).
Table 2 shows the distributions of the strategies for expressing contrastive negation in the
languages studied. Note that for some individual cases, there is not a translation in all languages of
the corpus, which is why all rows do not add up to 240. As might be expected, translations are quite
consistent across languages: for example, syndetic negative-first constructions in one language tend
to be rendered as syndetic negative-first constructions in the others, too. The ordering of the
contrasted elements tends to be retained in translation as well. Danish, Dutch, English, French,
German, Spanish and Swedish seem very similar in this table, if one ignores whether they make a
distinction between PA and SN or not. By contrast, Estonian, Finnish, Italian and Portuguese display
divergences.
Table 2. Raw frequencies of the strategies
[Neg X
SN Y]
[Neg X
PA/SN
Y]
[Neg X,
Y]
[Y, and Neg
X]
[Y, Neg
X]
other form
of
contrastive
negation
not
contrastive
negation
Danish
0
122
59
27
20
1
7
Dutch
0
128
49
27
15
-
15
15
English
0
131
57
24
25
3
-
Estonian
113
1
53
8
34
3
24
Finnish
97
1
45
24
16
1
45
French
0
128
55
28
14
1
14
German
136
2
53
28
15
1
5
Italian
24
110
44
24
16
5
17
Portuguese
0
103
61
29
11
24
12
Spanish
128
3
54
26
21
3
5
Swedish
127
3
53
23
22
1
11
Perhaps surprisingly, the table shows that even languages with dedicated SN conjunctions exhibit
their PA conjunctions in the dataset. Mostly, these are one-offs, as the Swedish example in (10),
repeated here as (30):
(30)
Swedish
Budgeten
budget.DEF
kommer
come
att
to
utökas
raise.PASS.INF
till
to
400
400
miljoner
million.PL
euro
euro
som
as
ni
you.PL
vet,
know
inte
NEG
i
in
år
year
men
butPA
2013.
2013
‘The budget will increase - as you know, not this year but in 2013 - to EUR 400
million.’ (Europarl: Benita Ferrero-Waldner)
Italian is the only language analyzed here that shows a sustained presence both for the SN and the
PA/SN strategies. The SN conjunction bensì, which is rarer, only appears in replacive contexts, as in
(31). The PA/SN conjunction ma occurs with both replacives and additives, the latter of which is
shown in (32).
(31)
Italian
Il bilancio sarà incrementato – como sapete,
‘The budget will increase – as you know,’
non
NEG
quest’
this
anno,
year
bensì
butSN
nel
in
2013
2013
a
to
400
400
milioni
millions
di
of
euro.
euro
‘not this year but in 2013 – to 400 million euros.’ (Europarl: Benita Ferrero-Waldner)
(32)
Italian
[…] nuove sfide, come il cambiamento climatico, probabilmente destabilizzeranno le
scorte alimentari già in diminuzione,
‘[…] new challenges, such as climate change , are likely to destabilise already dwindling
food stocks, ’
non
NEG
solo
only
in
in
Europa
Europe
ma
butPA/SN
in
in
tutto
all
il
the
mondo.
world
‘not only in Europe, but also worldwide.’ (Europarl: Daciana Octavia Sârbu)
16
Another finding that we can make at the outset is that the languages differ quite a lot in the
prevalence of construction types other than contrastive negation. Finnish and Estonian have the
largest shares of translation strategies that do not involve contrastive negation, followed by Italian.
The Italian data has a large number of cases in which the translators have opted for lexical negatives.
A case in point is (33) which uses the semantically negative preposition contro ‘against’ in lieu of
contrastive negation.
(33)
Italian
Vorrei dire che il nostro Parlamento, votando questo compromesso sul pacchetto sulle
telecomunicazioni, opera una scelta:
‘I would like to say that our Parliament, in voting in favor of this compromise on the
telecoms package, will be indicating a clear choice:’
una
INDF.F
scelta
choice
a
P
favore
favor
della
of.DEF.F
regolamentazione
regulation
del
of.DEF.M
mercato,
market
e
and
contro
against
la
DEF.F
concorrenza
competition
senza
without
regole.
regulation
‘that of a regulated market, and not of unregulated competition.’ (Europarl: Catherine
Trautmann)
In the Estonian and Finnish data, on the other hand, constructions that the translators have used to
replace contrastive negation include antithetical constructions without negation. For instance in
Finnish, expressions that are used to translate replacive contrastive negation include the postpositions
lisäksi ‘in addition’ and sijaan ‘instead’. Additive contrastive negation can be translated by the
correlative construction [paitsi X myös Y] ‘except X also Y’, which uses the semantically negative
preposition paitsi.
12
(34) is an example of an additive case rendered with contrastive negation, while
(35)–(37) present alternative strategies ((37) is repeated from (15) for convenience).
(34)
Finnish
Ei
NEG.3SG
ainoastaan
only
yksittäisillä
single.PL.ADE
mailla
country.PL.ADE
vaan
butSN
koko
whol
e
alueella
region.ADE
on
be.3SG
meille
1PL.ALL
suuri
large
strategine
n
strategic
merkitys
.
meaning
‘The whole region is of major strategic significance to us, not just the individual
countries.’ (Europarl: Elmar Brok)
(35)
Finnish
Kyse
issue
on
be.3SG
uskottavuuden
credibility.GEN
lisäksi
in.addition
valmiudestamme
readiness.ELA.POSS:1P
L
olla
be.IN
F
läsnä
present
Kuubassa.
Cuba.INE
12
The construction with paitsi falls outside of my definition of contrastive negation as it is only semantically but not
grammatically negative. Finnish makes a distinction between bounded and unbounded Objects through case marking. In
grammatically negative clauses, this distinction is neutralised: negative Objects behave like unbounded ones, even when
they are bounded. Paitsi does not cause this neutralisation: its complement can take both bounded and unbounded case
marking.
17
‘What is at stake is not only that credibility, but also our capacity to be present in Cuba.’
(Europarl: Andris Piebalgs)
(36)
Finnish
EAMV:n
ESMA.GEN
pitäisi
should.COND.3S
G
olla
be.INF
ainoa
sole
valvonnasta
supervision.ELA
vastaava
responsibl
e
viranomainen
authority
kansallisten
national.PL.GEN
viranomaisten
authority.PL.GE
N
sijaan […].
instead
‘ESMA, not the national authorities, should be the only authority with responsibility for
this matter […].’ (Europarl: Harlem Désir)
(37)
Finnish
Mielestän
i
in.my.vie
w
senkaltainen
such
suhtautuminen
disposition
maahanmuuttoo
n
immigration.ILL
on
be.3SG
paitsi
excep
t
väärin
wrong
myös
also
vaarallista.
dangerous.PRT
‘In my view, focusing on immigration in that way is not only wrong but also dangerous.’
(Europarl: Juan Fernando López Aguilar)
Finally, Portuguese has a high number of cases that do not fall under the main strategies. I will
come back to this observation below.
I now move to the functional variables. Table 3 shows the raw frequencies of each of the variable
levels as well as their percentages. The variables are quite skewed: restrictives in particular are a rare
category in the data. For this reason, the data was recoded so that restrictives were subsumed into
replacives in the statistical analysis to follow.
Table 3. Frequencies and proportions of the functional variable levels in the Europarl data
Variable
Level
Freq
%
SEMTYPE
rep
139
57.9
add
96
40.0
rst
5
2.1
NEGTARGET
prop
200
83.3
non_prop
40
16.7
STRDIFF
narrow
176
73.3
predicate
44
18.3
other
20
8.3
DMOD
neutral
171
71.3
deontic
69
28.8
WEIGHT
aff_heavy
151
62.9
balanced
36
15.0
neg_heavy
53
22.1
Recall that the functional variables were coded according to the English data. The idea is that the
co-occurrence patterns of the variable levels are used to create a semantic space that is common to all
the languages studied in this paper. The method for doing this is multiple correspondence analysis
(MCA). Creating one space for all languages allows us to visualize the similarities and differences
18
between the different constructions not only within one language (e.g. the difference between [not X
but Y] and [Y not X] in English) but also across languages (e.g. the difference between [nicht X
sondern Y] in German and [non X bensì Y] in Italian). Thus, we get to see patterns that would be
difficult if not impossible to detect merely by examining the dataset manually or by only looking at
the data in numerical form. The particular flavor of MCA used in this study is adjusted MCA, which
was performed using the packages ca (Nenadic and Greenacre 2007) and FactoMineR (Lê, Josse and
Husson 2008). Visualization was done in part using the package factoextra (Kassambara and Mundt
2017).
According to the analysis, the five variables can be condensed into three underlying dimensions,
which together explain 66.0% of the variation. The contributions of the variables are summarized in
Table 4. The table shows the dimensions, their principal inertias (amount of variance), the proportion
of the variance that each dimension explains as a raw and as a cumulative percentage, and, finally, a
scree plot showing the percentage of variance explained by each variable in a visual way. The
dimensions are ordered so that dimension 1 accounts for the biggest proportion of the co-variation
patterns in the data. Dimension 2 then accounts as much of the remaining variation. As the table
shows, dimension 1 is by far the most powerful one: it accounts for 49.5% of the variation, while
dimension 2 only accounts for 11.1% and dimension 3 for 5.5%. As shown by both the percentages
and the scree plot, dimension 4 has a negligible contribution and therefore it will be ignored in what
follows. The first three dimensions together capture around two thirds of the variance in the data. The
resulting biplots (see below) are thus interpretable but do not account for around one third of the
variance, which needs to be kept in mind.
Table 4. Principal inertias (eigenvalues) of MCA
Dimension
Principal inertia
%
Cumulative %
Scree plot
1
0.011964
49.5
49.5
*******************
2
0.002677
11.1
60.6
****
3
0.001320
5.5
66.0
**
4
5.8e-050
0.2
66.3
Table 5 shows the contributions of each variable to the first three dimensions. Dimension 1 mainly
takes SEMTYPE and NEGTARGET into account, with a moderate contribution from STRDIFF.
Dimension 2, on the other hand, is mostly about WEIGHT and DMOD. Dimension 3 takes into account
WEIGHT and STRDIFF.
Table 5. Contributions of the functional variables to the MCA dimensions
Dimension 1
Dimension 2
Dimension 3
SEMTYPE
0.426
0.074
0107
NEGTARGET
0.486
0.206
0.000
STRDIFF
0.302
0.181
0.359
DMOD
0.074
0.310
0.102
WEIGHT
0.149
0.421
0.544
More precise information on the contributions of each of the variable levels is presented in Figure
1. The left-hand side shows dimensions 1 and 2, and the right-hand side dimensions 1 and 3. The
positive end of dimension 1 is associated with non-propositional targets of negation, additive
semantics and, to a lesser extent, narrow and balanced foci. The negative end of dimension 1 is
associated with propositional targets of negation, replacives (including restrictives) and foci that are
neither narrow nor predicates. The positive end of dimension 2 is associated with negative-heavy and
deontic constructs. The negative end of dimension 2 is associated with their opposites: affirmative-
heavy and deontically neutral constructs. Dimension 3 in its positive pole is associated with balanced
19
constructs and narrow foci, and affirmative-heavy constructs with predicate-level structural
differences in its negative pole.
Figure 1. Variable levels in MCA dimensions
The space created in this analysis is largely similar to the one in Silvennoinen (2018), which is
based on English newspaper data: the semantic type of additivity forms a natural pairing with negation
targeting scalar elements since both denote moving upwards from a value on a scale (e.g. not only
once but twice). In the English data, the semantic types were associated with different constructions:
additives with the [not X but Y] construction (to form [not only X but also Y]), restrictives with the
[not X, Y] construction (to form [not X, just Y]). In the Europarl data, the former tendency is borne
out while the latter is not, in part because the number of restrictives is so small as to not permit
generalizations.
Let us now turn to how the languages fill the space created. Space does not permit a full analysis
of each language, so I will focus on the most distinctive ones. For all languages, I first show
dimensions 1 against dimension 2, and then dimension 1 against dimension 3. In this way, all three
dimensions are shown, but emphasis is given to dimension 1, which explains the largest share of the
co-occurrences in the data. Furthermore, for each language, the same colors will be used for the same
constructional strategies: blue for syndetic negative-first PA/SN coordination (e.g. English but), red
for syndetic negative-first SN coordination (e.g. German sondern), orange for asyndetic negative-
first coordination, green for all negative-second coordination, brown for other forms of contrastive
negation, and black for cases not expressed as contrastive negation. Further distinction are drawn as
needed.
I begin with the English data, presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3. As seen in both figures,
dimension 1 makes a difference between syndetic and asyndetic negative-first constructions in
English. Syndetic coordination (i.e. the [Neg X but Y] construction, represented in blue) mostly
occupies the right-hand side of both figures, which is where the positive pole of dimension 1 lies.
Thus, as expected, the [Neg X but Y] construction is associated with additive semantics and non-
propositional targets. By contrast, asyndetic negative-first constructs in English (represented in
orange) tend to have replacive semantics and propositional targets. In addition, the asyndetic strategy
is mostly on the positive side of dimension 2. This side is favored by deontic and, surprisingly,
negative-heavy cases. Dimension 3 does not change the picture much, except for the fact that
-2 -1 0 1 2
-1 012
MCA factor map
Dim 1 (20.54%)
Dim 2 (17.03%)
add
rep
non_prop
propnarrow
other predicate
deontic
neutral
aff_heavy balanced
neg_heavy
-2 -1 0 1 2
-1 012
MCA factor map
Dim 1 (20.54%)
Dim 3 (15.89%)
add
repnon_prop
prop
narrow
other
predicate
deontic
neutral
aff_heavy
balanced
neg_heavy
20
negative-second constructs (represented in green) tend towards its positive end, i.e. balanced and
narrow foci.
Figure 2. MCA biplot for English, dimensions 1 and 2
Figure 3. MCA biplot for English, dimensions 1 and 3
The patterns in the English data are largely replicated in the geographically closest languages
Dutch, French and German as well as the genealogically related Danish and Swedish. Spanish also
patterns in quite a similar way. In all these languages, the [Neg X Conj Y] strategy is predominantly
used in additive contexts. Because of the similarities, I will not show the maps for these languages.
Portuguese and Italian show more divergent behavior. The Portuguese data is shown in Figure 4
and Figure 5. Portuguese presents a wider array of contrastive negation constructions than some of
the other languages. On the one hand, in the additive domain, Portuguese tends to make use of either
the regular [Neg X mas Y] construction or another construction that uses the conjunction como ‘as’
−0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Dim1 (20.5%)
Dim2 (17%)
en
en_NegX_butY
en_NegX_Y
en_otherCN
en_Y_NegX
MCA − Biplot
−1.0
−0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Dim1 (20.5%)
Dim3 (15.9%)
en
en_NegX_butY
en_NegX_Y
en_otherCN
en_Y_NegX
MCA − Biplot
21
as the corrective element (represented as pink). The latter construction was classified under “other
forms of contrastive negation” in Table 2. These two constructions are exemplified in (38) and (39):
(38)
Portugues
e
Esta
this.F
situação
situation
não
NEG
penalizará
punish.FUT.3
SG
apenas
only
para
P
os
DEF.PL.M
transportadore
s,
carrier.PL
mas
butPA/SN
também
also
os
DEF.PL.M
seus
their
clientes
client.PL
directos,
direct.PL
retalhistas
retailer.PL
e
and
consumidor
es
consumer.PL
finais
final.PL
da
of.DEF.F
União
union
Europeia.
European.F
‘It will not only be the carriers which will suffer as a result of this, but also their direct
customers, retailers and end customers in the European Union.’ (Europarl:
Bilyana Ilieva Raeva)
(39)
Portuguese
Graças aos intercâmbios de estudantes, como sucede no programa Erasmus,
‘Thanks to student exchanges, such as Erasmus,’
os
DEF.PL.M
nossos
our.PL.M
jovens
young.PL
não
NEG
apenas
only
aprofunda
m
deepen.3PL
os
DEF.PL.M
seus
their
conheciment
os
knowledge.PL
em
in
domínios
domain.PL
específicos
specific.PL
como
as
também
also
alargam
broaden.3PL
os
DEF.PL.M
seus
their
horizontes.
horizon.PL
‘our young people are not only furthering their knowledge in specific subject areas, but
are also broadening their horizons.’ (Europarl: Czesław Adam Siekierski)
The construction with como appears in the same region as the one with mas in Figure 4, and in
Figure 5, because of its additive semantics. The use of como is reminiscent of the construction [tanto
X como Y] ‘both X and Y’, which has a similarly additive function.
On the other hand, the PA/SN conjunction mas is frequently followed by sim ‘yes’ to the extent
that this collocation is mentioned in reference works as a single connective (e.g. Rudolph 1996: 300–
301). The cases with mas sim mostly appear in the center of both figures (represented in light blue).
This follows from the fact that they are mostly replacive: 19 out of 21 cases of mas sim are replacive,
while only 2 are additive. This contrasts with simple mas, which appears in 47 replacives and 35
additives (and 1 restrictive). In addition, mas sim prefers narrow structural differences (19 out of 21),
as opposed to predicate-level (2 out of 21) and more extensively different (0 out of 21) cases. The
latter tend to be rendered through two asyndetically combined clauses, as in the other languages of
the dataset. An example of the construction with mas sim is (40).
(40)
Portuguese
Tudo
all.M
isto
this
Não
NEG
é,
be.3SG
em
in
primeiro
first.M
22
lugar
place
e
and
Acima
Above
de
of
tudo,
all.M
uma
INDF.F
questão
question
de
of
Acordo
agreement
ou
or
de
of
dinheiro,
money
mas
butPA/SN
sim
yes
de
of
humanidade
humanity
e
and
de
of
engenho.
ingenuity
‘All this is not, first and foremost, a question of agreement and money, but of our
humanity and ingenuity.’ (Europarl: Pál Schmitt)
Figure 4. MCA biplot for Portuguese, dimensions 1 and 2
−0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Dim1 (20.5%)
Dim2 (17%)
pt
pt_NegX_comoY
pt_NegX_massimY
pt_NegX_masY
pt_NegX_Y
pt_notCN
pt_otherCN
pt_Y_NegX
MCA − Biplot
23
Figure 5. MCA biplot for Portuguese, dimensions 1 and 3
Figure 6 and Figure 7 present the Italian data. Unlike the other SN conjunctions in the data, bensì
does not prefer additive contexts: out of the 24 cases of bensì, only 6 are in cases coded as “additive”
based on the English data, and one of these is even translated as a replacive. Rather, bensì is
predominantly replacive, which shows in the rather small area that it occupies on the map. Similarly
to Portuguese mas sim, bensì prefers to appear with narrow (20 out of 24) and predicate (4 out of 24)
foci and thus its domain does not extend to the left of the figures. In Italian, the default conjunction
for contrastive negation constructions in which the negative precedes the affirmative is ma, both in
terms of function and frequency.
Figure 6. MCA biplot for Italian, dimensions 1 and 2
−1.0
−0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Dim1 (20.5%)
Dim3 (15.9%)
pt
pt_NegX_comoY
pt_NegX_massimY
pt_NegX_masY
pt_NegX_Y
pt_notCN
pt_otherCN
pt_Y_NegX
MCA − Biplot
−0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Dim1 (20.5%)
Dim2 (17%)
it
it_NegX_bensiY
it_NegX_maY
it_NegX_Y
it_notCN
it_otherCN
it_Y_NegX
MCA − Biplot
24
Figure 7. MCA biplot for Italian, dimensions 1 and 3
Finally, I look at Uralic languages, concentrating on Finnish. The Estonian data is similar to
Finnish, except for the fact that the difference from the Indo-European languages is somewhat less
extreme. The Finnish data is shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9. The construction with the Finnish SN
conjunction vaan occupies a large area in the figures: it appears in replacive (58 cases out of 97) cases
as well as additive ones (38 out of 97), in addition to one stray restrictive case. The few cases that use
the PA conjunction mutta are far from the additive cases; they are grouped under “not contrastive
negation” in the figures.
Figure 8. MCA biplot for Finnish, dimensions 1 and 2
−1.0
−0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Dim1 (20.5%)
Dim3 (15.9%)
it
it_NegX_bensiY
it_NegX_maY
it_NegX_Y
it_notCN
it_otherCN
it_Y_NegX
MCA − Biplot
−0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Dim1 (20.5%)
Dim2 (17%)
fi fi_NegX_vaanY
fi_NegX_Y
fi_notCN
fi_otherCN
fi_Y_NegX
MCA − Biplot
25
Figure 9. MCA biplot for Finnish, dimensions 1 and 3
Like Portuguese, Finnish differs from English in how it codes the additive cases. Unlike
Portuguese, however, English additive constructs of the type [not only X but (also) Y] are often
rendered through means other than contrastive negation in the Finnish dataset. This is shown in that
the black dots are distributed mainly to the right of the center, i.e. towards the positive pole of
dimension 1.
The results obtained in this section indicate that parallel corpus data brings forth meaningful
differences in the uses and forms of contrastive negation. In addition, for languages such as Finnish,
the results suggest that especially additivity is a domain with a great number of competing
constructions. In the next section, the results of the parallel corpus investigation will be compared to
comparable control data from Finnish.
4.2 Monolingual data
This section turns to the analysis of monolingual corpus data of Finnish. The aim is to see the extent
to which comparable corpus data replicates the findings of the parallel corpus analysis.
Table 6 compares the Finnish datasets. According to Fisher’s exact test there is no statistically
significant difference between the strategies used in the two datasets. Indeed, the distributions are
remarkably similar.
Table 6. A comparison of the constructional strategies in the Finnish datasets
Parallel data
Monolingual data
Freq (N=184)
%
Freq (N=155)
%
[Neg X Conj Y]
98
53.3
81
52.3
[Neg X, Y]
45
24.5
31
20.0
[Y Conj Neg X]
24
13.0
19
12.3
[Y Neg X]
16
8.7
21
13.5
other form of
contrastive
negation
1
0.5
3
1.9
−1.0
−0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Dim1 (20.5%)
Dim3 (15.9%)
fi fi_NegX_vaanY
fi_NegX_Y
fi_notCN
fi_otherCN
fi_Y_NegX
MCA − Biplot
26
I now turn to the functional variables. Table 7 shows the functional variables in the parallel and
monolingual datasets. Note that the parallel data columns only include those cases that are expressed
using contrastive negation in Finnish. For this reason, the figures are slightly different from those in
Table 3.
Table 7. A comparison of the functional variables in the Finnish datasets
Parallel data
Monolingual data
Variable
Level
Freq (N=184)
%
Freq (N=155)
%
SEMTYPE
rep
126
68.5
101
65.2
add
54
29.3
44
28.4
rst
4
2.2
10
6.5
NEGTARGET
prop
153
83.2
129
83.2
non_prop
31
16.8
26
16.8
STRDIFF
narrow
126
68.5
71
45.8
predicate
38
20.7
24
15.5
other
20
10.9
60
38.7
DMOD
neutral
123
66.8
112
72.3
deontic
61
33.2
43
27.8
WEIGHT
aff_heavy
113
61.4
87
56.1
balanced
25
13.6
31
20.0
neg_heavy
46
25.0
37
23.9
The table shows that the two datasets mirror each other in the distributions of the functional
variable levels. Thus, the finding that Finnish contrastive negation is used less for additive meanings
finds support also in the comparable data, and it would seem that the translators who have produced
the Europarl data have managed to avoid overusing contrastive negation in additive contexts.
The only variable that shows a statistically significant difference between the two datasets is
structural difference (Fisher’s exact: p = 1.657e-08): in the monolingual dataset, there is much more
of the category “other” and less of “narrow” and “predicate”. This result stems from the structural
differences between Finnish and most other European languages. Finnish is a Uralic language that
largely relies on case marking to express syntactic roles in a clause. Different argument structures
assign different cases so that when two clauses have different predicates, the surrounding arguments
may also be coded differently. Consider (41):
(41)
Finnish
Jos
if
jatkamme,
continue.1PL
niin
so
seuraava
next
velkakriisi
debt.crisis
ei
NEG.3SG
koske
concern.CNG
valtiota,
state.PRT
vaan
but
kyseessä
issue.INE
on
be.3SG
Euroopan
Europe.GEN
keskuspankin
central.bank.GEN
velkakriisi.
debt.crisis
‘[We cannot go on as a European Union buying our own debt.] If we do, the next
debt crisis will not be in a country, but will be a debt crisis of the European Central
Bank itself. [lit. If we continue, then the next debt crisis does not concern a state but
at issue is a debt crisis of the European Central Bank]’ (Europarl: Nigel Farage)
The source language is English. In the original, the conjunction but connects two full VPs although
the actual difference is only the subject predicative (in a country vs. a debt crisis of the European
Central Bank itself) and so the example has been classified as exhibiting a “narrow” structural
difference. By contrast, in (41), the conjunction vaan connects two full clauses that share no clause
27
elements. The contrasted elements are not parallel: the first clause is transitive and the second copular,
and their one shared lexical element (the noun velkakriisi ‘debt crisis’) has a different function in both
clauses (Subject of the transitive verb in the first clause, Subject Predicative of the copula in the
second). Thus, the contrast is not based on the pairing of an argument or even a predicate VP but on
the contrastiveness of the clauses as wholes.
After this difference between the parallel and the monolingual data was found, I recoded the
parallel data on STRDIFF, this time with Finnish as the basis for coding. The proportions of the three
levels of STRDIFF in the three datasets are shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10. STRDIFF in parallel English, parallel Finnish and monolingual Finnish datasets
What Figure 10 shows is a fairly typical translation effect. Since a similar difference in this variable
was not found in the Indo-European languages of the study, we can regard the left-hand bar as an
approximation of the three types of structural difference in the corpus at large. As previously, it shows
“narrow” as the largest category, followed by “predicate” and then “other”. The Finnish monolingual
data in the right-hand column, on the other hand, has almost equal shares of “narrow” and “other”;
the proportion of “predicate” does not seem to differ much from the left-hand bar. Displayed in the
central bar, the Finnish part of the parallel datasets is a compromise between the two: the proportions
of both “narrow” and “other” fall between the extreme values of the parallel English data on one hand
and monolingual Finnish data on the other. This suggests that when translating from the Indo-
European languages into Finnish, the translators sometimes change the structural difference, and it
seems that typically this happens away from “narrow” and to “other”. This is a real translationese
effect on the data: not only does coding the data on the basis of English distort the picture of how
STRDIFF is distributed in the parallel data (as shown in the difference between the first two bars), but
the parallel data itself is biased (as shown in the difference between the last two bars).
Eng (parallel) Fin (parallel) Fin (monolingual)
%
020 40 60 80 100
other
pred
narrow
28
5 Discussion
Section 4 showed the results of a parallel corpus study and compared them to comparable
monolingual data from Finnish. In this section, I will relate the findings to previous research as well
as to methodological concerns.
The most important finding of this study is that the strategies for expressing contrastive negation
are much more varied than the literature’s focus on PA and SN conjunctions would let us believe (e.g.
Anscombre and Ducrot 1977; Rudolph 1996; Izutsu 2008). For one thing, even though SN
conjunctions are generally discussed as a homogenous group, they actually display a lot of variation
even among languages that are closely related genealogically, culturally and areally: bensì in Italian
or vaan in Finnish do not display quite the same behavior as sondern in German. This is further
support to the hypothesis that constructions are language-specific (Croft 2001).
Another point where the results of this study break with those of the previous studies is the
association between corrective conjunctions and additive semantics. Additive constructions are
seldom mentioned in studies on SN conjunctions and contrastive negation (e.g. Anscombre and
Ducrot 1977; Horn 1985; McCawley 1991), and, conversely, studies on additivity rarely make a
connection with corrective conjunctions (e.g. Forker 2016; but for counter-examples, see Svensson
2011; Andorno and De Cesare 2017). Additives were also a locus of much cross-linguistic variation,
with Portuguese having a special construction, [não X como Y], solely for additivity and with Finnish
showing a large amount of constructional competition in this area. This is a natural finding, given
that the semantic relation of additivity is arguably more general than other similar relations (see Mauri
2009: 80–83; De Cesare 2017: 1–2).
This study is, to my knowledge at least, the first large-scale cross-linguistic investigation that
specifically focuses on contrastive negation in all its formal and functional variety. Many areas of
interest were discussed only cursorily or not at all. A particularly interesting area is forms of linking
between the contrasted elements that fall outside of conjunction systems. I have largely glossed over
discourse markers such as rather, instead and on the contrary (see Lewis 2006; 2011). Such
expressions interact with the conjunctions in the constructionalization of contrastive negation by
strengthening the corrective interpretation of an emerging conjunction, as in the collocation but rather
in the development of the English corrective but (Rissanen 2008: 352–353); bensì in Italian
(Giacalone Ramat and Mauri 2011: 661) and mas sim in Portuguese are other instances of this.
Another gap not addressed here is the role of the negator: for instance in French, the special negator
non (and non pas) specifically appears in contrastive constructions, though it is optional in them.
Svensson (2011) finds that French and Swedish differ as to the degree to which the combination of
‘not’ and ‘only’ is constructionalized into a fixed unit. Whether this parameter also follows the areal
pattern seen here and in other previous research remains to be seen.
Mauri’s (2007; 2009: 147–149) typological study suggests that corrective conjunctions are more
common in Europe than elsewhere, and the relation is frequently expressed asyndetically. This
follows the general pattern by which conjunctions are more typical in languages with a written
tradition (Mithun 1988). Interestingly, at least Finnish has been noted to have borrowed the distinction
between mutta and vaan from Swedish or possibly German (Hakulinen 1955: 309). The picture is
complicated by the fact that the basic typological divide between languages that make a distinction
between PA and SN and those that do not does not follow clear genealogical or areal lines. Even
neighboring, genealogically closely related languages such as Swedish and Danish or Spanish and
Portuguese use different strategies. On the other hand, the patterns of conjunction use did show some
areal tendencies: among the languages studied here, those spoken in central western Europe (Dutch,
English, French, German) display similar behavior in how they use corrective conjunctions, be they
PA/SN or SN. Languages further away from this nexus (Estonian, Finnish, Italian, Portuguese)
displayed more divergence. These findings are largely compatible with Mauri (2007; 2009), who
notes that western European languages have similar conjunction systems. In fact, the results of this
paper suggest that there are additional similarities to the ones uncovered by Mauri: in her study,
29
German is an outlier among the central western European languages as it makes the distinction
between PA and SN conjunctions. However, a closer examination of the usage patterns makes
sondern seem quite similar to its neighboring PA/SN conjunctions.
All in all, the data resists an interpretation on purely areal or genealogical lines. Further diachronic
work may shed light on how the differences and similarities have come about and whether this has
something to do with processes of standardization, for instance. An intriguing possibility from this
paper’s point of view is the possible role played by translations in the spread of contrastive negation
strategies. As one of the reviewers points out, especially the additive constructions may be rooted in
the Latin [non solum X sed etiam Y] ‘not only X but also Y’ (see also Rudolph 1996: 302).
From a methodological point of view, I hope to have shown that parallel corpora can be profitably
used in cross-linguistic studies. Contrastive negation is prima facie a bad candidate for a parallel
corpus study: on the face of it, all the languages studied here would seem to have rather similar
constructional inventories, which would enable translators to just render them verbatim. However,
the analysis did uncover differences among the languages, both categorical (e.g. the restriction of
Portuguese como to additive contexts) and gradient (the dispreference for additive constructions in
Finnish). While a parallel corpus study cannot replace in-depth studies into the constructions of
individual languages, it does uncover meaningful differences as well as similarities. Moreover, the
examination of a comparable set of Finnish data showed that monolingual corpus data may provide
useful context for the findings of a parallel corpus study. For some fine-grained semantic distinctions,
comparable corpora may be more useful, as Lewis (2006) argues. However, for broader cross-
linguistic comparison, the more modest aim of uncovering the strategies used in a given domain does
not necessarily require comparable corpus data. The results obtained here support a nuanced view of
translations as linguistic data: they are not a “third code” (Frawley 1984) but a natural form of
language use.
I hope that future studies extend this one in several respects. First, contrastive negation is still
mostly poorly described in languages spoken outside western Europe. There is much room for both
more extensive typological work and contrastive linguistic studies on a more restricted set of
languages drawing on comparable corpora. Also, the areal patterning in eastern Europe is interesting
and deserves to be looked at in a future study. Second, the cross-linguistic tendencies related to genre
need to be explored. In this study, I have only looked at one very particular genre, parliamentary
proceedings. However, previous research has shown contrastive negation to be highly register-
sensitive at least in English (Silvennoinen 2017). As parallel corpus resources improve, genre and
register considerations become easier to incorporate in contrastive research. Third, the connections
of corrective conjunctions to other functional domains may be of interest. This will potentially help
us to describe the various grammaticalization paths of corrective conjunctions, for instance. Thus, not
only are contrastive negation construction interesting, but there is also a lot we can still learn about
them.
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2008. Parallel and comparable corpora. In Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.),
Corpus linguistics: An international handbook. Volume 1, 275–292. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Andorno, Cecilia & Anna-Maria De Cesare. 2017. Mapping additivity through translation: From
French aussi to Italian anche and back in the Europarl-direct corpus. In Anna-Maria De Cesare
& Cecilia Andorno (eds.), Focus on additivity: Adverbial modifiers in Romance, Germanic and
Slavic languages, 157–200. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
doi:10.1075/pbns.278.06and.
Anscombre, Jean-Claude & Oswald Ducrot. 1977. Deux mais en français? Lingua 43(1). 23–40.
doi:10.1016/0024-3841(77)90046-8.
30
Bayley, Paul. 2004. Introduction: The whys and wherefores of analysing parliamentary discourse. In
Paul Bayley (ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse, 1–44.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia. doi:10.1075/dapsac.10.01bay.
Berman, Ruth A. & Dan Isaac Slobin. 1994. Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic
developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ & Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Birkelund, Merete. 2009. Pierre n'est pas français mais danois. Une structure polyphonique à part.
Langue française 164(4). 123–136. doi:10.3917/lf.164.0123.
Carston, Robyn. 1996. Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics 25(3). 309–
330.
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001.
Croft, William. 2016. Comparative concepts and language-specific categories: Theory and practice.
Linguistic Typology 20(2). 377–393. doi:10.1515/lingty-2016-0012.
Croft, William & Keith T. Poole. 2008. Inferring universals from grammatical variation:
Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics 34(1). 1–37.
doi:10.1515/THLI.2008.001.
Cysouw, Michael & Bernhard Wälchli. 2007. Parallel texts: using translational equivalents in
linguistic typology. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung: STUF 60(2). 95–99.
doi:10.1524/stuf.2007.60.2.95.
Dascal, Marcelo & Tamar Katriel. 1977. Between semantics and pragmatics: The two types of
“but”—Hebrew “aval” and “ela”. Theoretical Linguistics 4(1–3). 143–172.
doi:10.1515/thli.1977.4.1-3.143.
De Cesare, Anna-Maria. 2017. Introduction: On “additivity” as a multidisciplinary research field. In
Anna-Maria De Cesare & Cecilia Andorno (eds.), Focus on additivity: Adverbial modifiers in
Romance, Germanic and Slavic languages, 1–20. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
doi:10.1075/pbns.278.00dec.
Dik, Simon, Maria E. Hoffmann, Jan R. de Jong, Sie Ing Djiang, Harry Stroomer & Lourens de Vries.
1981. On the typology of focus phenomena. In Teun Hoekstra, Harry van der Hulst & Michael
Moortgat (eds.), Perspectives on Functional Grammar, 41–74. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in
grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3). 501–538.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/414531 (accessed 26 September 2018). doi:10.2307/414531.
Forker, Diana. 2016. Toward a typology for additive markers. Lingua 180. 69–100.
doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2016.03.008.
Frawley, William. 1984. Prolegomenon to a theory of translation. In William Frawley (ed.),
Translation: Literary, linguistic and philosophical perspectives, 159–175. London & Toronto:
Associated University Presses.
Gast, Volker. 2015. On the use of translation corpora in contrastive linguistics: A case study of
impersonalization in English and German. Languages in Contrast 15(1). 4–33.
doi:10.1075/lic.15.1.02gas.
Gates Jr., Dave L. & Orin Dale Seright. 1967. Negative-contrastive constructions in standard modern
English. American Speech 42(2). 136–141. doi:10.2307/453965.
Geurts, Bart. 1998. The mechanisms of denial. Language 74(2). 274–307.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/417868 (accessed 26 September 2018). doi:10.2307/417868.
Giacalone Ramat, Anna & Caterina Mauri. 2011. The grammaticalization of coordinating interclausal
connectives. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of
grammaticalization, 656–667. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0054.
Glynn, Dylan. 2014. Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In Dylan
Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in
31
polysemy and synonymy, 443–485. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
doi:10.1075/hcp.43.17gly.
Greenacre, Michael. 2017. Correspondence analysis in practice. Third edn. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor
& Francis.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language universals: With special reference to feature hierarchies.
Reprinted. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gries, Stefan Th. 2009. Quantitative corpus linguistics with R: A practical introduction. New York:
Routledge.
Hakulinen, Lauri. 1955. Suomen kielen käännöslainoista [On calques in Finnish]. Virittäjä 59(4).
305–318. https://journal.fi/virittaja/article/view/33253 (accessed 26 September 2018).
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-
linguistic comparison. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive
and functional approaches to language structure, volume 2, 211–242. London: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic
studies. Language 86(3). 663–687. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40961695 (accessed 26
September 2018). doi:10.1353/lan.2010.0021.
Horn, Laurence R. 1985. Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61(1). 121–
174. https://www.jstor.org/stable/413423 (accessed 26 September 2018). doi:10.2307/413423.
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita. 2008. Contrast, concessive, and corrective: Toward a comprehensive study
of opposition relations. Journal of Pragmatics 40(4). 646–675.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.001.
Jasinskaja, Katja. 2010. Corrective contrast in Russian, in contrast. Oslo Studies in Language 2(2).
433–466.
Jasinskaja, Katja. 2012. Correction by adversative and additive markers. Lingua 122(15). 1899–1918.
doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.015.
Kassambara, Alboukadel & Fabian Mundt. 2017. factoextra: Extract and visualize the results of
multivariate data analyses. R package version 1.0.5. https://CRAN.R-
project.org/package=factoextra.
Koehn, Philipp. 2005. Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. MT summit
2005.
Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Beate Benndorf. 1998. Meaning and context: German aber and sondern. In
Jean-Pierre Koenig (ed.), Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap, 365–386. Stanford: CSLI
Publications.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental
representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511620607.
Larrivée, Pierre. 2018. Metalinguistic negation from an informational perspective. Glossa: A journal
of general linguistics 3(1). https://www.glossa-journal.org/articles/10.5334/gjgl.403/#
(accessed 26 September 2018).
Lê, Sébastien, Julie Josse & François Husson. 2008. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate
analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 25(1). doi:10.18637/jss.v025.i01.
Lehmann, Christian. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In John Haiman & Sandra A.
Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 181–225.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tsl.18.09leh.
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. European analytic causatives as a comparative concept: Evidence from a
parallel corpus of film subtitles. Folia Linguistica 49(2). 487–520. doi:10.1515/flin-2015-0017.
32
Levshina, Natalia. 2016a. Why we need a token-based typology: A case study of analytic and lexical
causatives in fifteen European languages. Folia Linguistica 50(2). 507–542. doi:10.1515/flin-
2016-0019.
Levshina, Natalia. 2016b. Verbs of letting in Germanic and Romance languages: A quantitative
investigation based on a parallel corpus of film subtitles. Languages in Contrast 16(1). 84–117.
doi:10.1075/lic.16.1.04lev.
Lewis, Diana M. 2006. Contrastive analysis of adversative relational markers, using comparable
corpora. In Karin Aijmer & Anne-Marie Simon-Vanderbergen (eds.), Pragmatic markers in
contrast, 139–153. Oxford: Elsevier.
Lewis, Diana M. 2011. A discourse-constructional approach to the emergence of discourse markers
in English. Linguistics 49(2). 415–443. doi:10.1515/ling.2011.013.
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2004. Towards a semantic typology of adversative and contrast marking.
Journal of Semantics 21(2). 177–198. doi:10.1093/jos/21.2.177.
Mauranen, Anna. 1999. Will “translationese” ruin a contrastive study? Languages in Contrast 2(2).
161–185. doi:10.1075/lic.2.2.03mau.
Mauri, Caterina. 2007. Conjunctive, disjunctive and adversative constructions in Europe: Some areal
considerations. In Paolo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds.), Europe and the Mediterranean as
linguistic areas: Convergencies from a historical perspective, 183–213. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/slcs.88.10mau.
Mauri, Caterina. 2009. Coordination relations in the languages of Europe and beyond. Berlin/New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
McCawley, James D. 1991. Contrastive negation and metalinguistic negation. CLS 27(2). 189–206.
Miestamo, Matti. 2005. Standard negation: The negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a
typological perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mithun, Marianne. 1988. The grammaticization of coordination. In John Haiman & Sandra A.
Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 331–359.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tsl.18.13mit.
Moeschler, Jacques. 2015. Qu’y a-t-il de représentationnel dans la négation métalinguistique ?
Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française 32. 11–26.
Nenadic, Oleg & Michael Greenacre. 2007. Correspondence analysis in R, with two- and three-
dimensional graphics: The ca package. Journal of Statistical Software 20(3).
doi:10.18637/jss.v020.i03.
Nuyts, Jan. 2006. Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In William Frawley (ed.), The expression
of modality, 1–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110197570.1.
Nuyts, Jan, Pieter Byloo & Janneke Diepeveen. 2010. On deontic modality, directivity, and mood:
The case of Dutch mogen and moeten. Journal of Pragmatics 42(1). 16–34.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.012.
Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and modality. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9781139167178.
Pitts, Alyson. 2011. Exploring a “pragmatic ambiguity” of negation. Language 87(2). 346–368.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23011627 (accessed 26 September 2018).
doi:10.1353/lan.2011.0035.
R Core Team. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation
for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
Rissanen, Matti. 2008. From “quickly” to “fairly”: On the history of rather. English Language and
Linguistics 12(2). 345–359. doi:10.1017/S1360674308002657.
Rudolph, Elisabeth. 1996. Contrast: Adversative and concessive expressions on sentence and text
level. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Silvennoinen, Olli O. 2017. Not only apples but also oranges: Contrastive negation and register. In
Turo Hiltunen, Joe McVeigh & Tanja Säily (eds.), Big and rich data in English corpus
33
linguistics: Methods and explorations. (Studies in variation, contacts and change in English
19.) Helsinki: VARIENG. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/19/silvennoinen/.
Silvennoinen, Olli O. 2018. Constructional schemas in variation: Modelling contrastive negation.
Constructions and Frames 10(1): 1–37. doi:10.1075/cf.00009.sil.
Stivers, Tanya, N. J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann,
Gertie Hoymann, et al. 2009. Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(26). 10587–10592.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0903616106.
Svensson, Maria. 2011. Marqueurs corrélatifs en français et en suédois : l'exemple de non seulement...
mais et inte bara... utan. Revue française de linguistique appliquée XVI(2). 41–56.
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2004. On operationalizing syntactic complexity. In Gérard Purnelle, Cédrick
Fairon & Anne Dister (eds.), Le poids des mots. Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis. Louvain-la-Neuve, March 10-12, 2004, Vol.
2, 1032–1039. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
Thompson, Sandra A. & William C. Mann. 1987. Antithesis: a study in clause combining and
discourse structure. In Ross Steele & Terry Threadgold (eds.), Language topics: Essays in
honour of Michael Halliday. Volume II, 359–381. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tiedemann, Jörg. 2012. Parallel data, tools and interfaces in OPUS. Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012), 2214–2218.
Tottie, Gunnel. 1991. Negation in English speech and writing: A study in variation. San Diego:
Academic Press.
van der Auwera, Johan. 2013. Semantic maps, for synchronic and diachronic typology. In Anna
Giacalone Ramat, Caterina Mauri & Piera Molinelli (eds.), Synchrony and diachrony: A
dynamic interface, 153–176. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
doi:10.1075/slcs.133.07auw.
van der Auwera, Johan & Kalyanamalini Sahoo. 2015. On comparative concepts and descriptive
categories, such as they are. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 47(2). 136–173.
doi:10.1080/03740463.2015.1115636.
van der Auwera, Johan, Ewa Schalley & Jan Nuyts. 2005. Epistemic possibility in a Slavonic parallel
corpus – a pilot study. In Björn Hansen & Petr Karlík (eds.), Modality in Slavonic languages:
New perspectives, 201–217. Munich: Otto Sagner.
Van linden, An & Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2011. Revisiting deontic modality and related
categories: A conceptual map based on the study of English modal adjectives. Journal of
Pragmatics 43(1). 150–163. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.031.
Van Olmen, Daniël. 2011. The imperative in English and Dutch: A functional analysis in comparable
and parallel corpora. Antwerp: University of Antwerp doctoral dissertation.
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610578.
Wälchli, Bernhard & Michael Cysouw. 2012. Lexical typology through similarity semantics: Toward
a semantic map of motion verbs. Linguistics 50(3). 671–710. doi:10.1515/ling-2012-0021.
