Clarification by misnegation: The view from pragmatics (updated and semi-retracted)

« previous post | next post »

In a comment on Mark Liberman's post "Clarification by misnegation", Stephen Hart makes a point that the rest of us have missed (or at least haven't raised), and that deserves wider attention:

I may be missing something here.

Slightly restated, Trump said, originally:
US Intelligence says it is Russia. Putin says it isn't Russia.
I don't see any reason why it would be Russia.
(What would Russia have to gain?)

The new statement seems to be:

US Intelligence says it is Russia. Putin says it isn't Russia.
I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia.
(Everybody does it.)

Update: Now that I think about this, I may have misinterpreted the point of this comment, in which case the point it makes was not something others have missed and that deserves wider attention, but rather was something of a restatement of the obvious. My initial impulse was to delete the post, but on reflection I'm leaving it up, as an object lesson in the way that this multiple-negation stuff can make your head spin.



3 Comments

  1. EvelynU said,

    July 18, 2018 @ 5:34 pm

    Here's the problem I have with the idea that this is a problem of multiple negation: The original statement contains but a single, clear negation.

    To paraphrase:
    "I don't see any reason why" = I don't think, I don't believe

    "that it would be Russia." –>

    I don't think Russia would do it.

    There's no multiple negation going on at all, until Trump "clarifies" it.

  2. Stephen Hart said,

    July 18, 2018 @ 11:19 pm

    I think that's exactly the point of my comment.
    Each version of Trump's statement fits with many of his previous public statements. And a correction that isn't a correction also fits with many of his previous public statements. (The Washington Post mentioned this.)

  3. dainichi said,

    July 25, 2018 @ 2:03 am

    I didn't originally understand Stephen's point, although I think I do now with his explanation. But now I'm wondering what Neal thought Stephen meant (originally and when writing the update)…

    I don't think
    > it wouldn't be Russia. (Everybody does it.)
    quite works, though. "it" in "it wouldn't be Russia" implies there's just one culprit. If "everyone does it", wouldn't it have to be "it wouldn't be Russia too" or something like that?

RSS feed for comments on this post