uinimmiiitumiimanmu - Universidad Complutense de Madrid

un tredu c ti en
of Lhe negative subworld. This classification was considered Lo
be the mosÉ adequate for Lhe purpose of identifying Lhe marked
character of negaLive uLterances and their contribution Lo a
patteril of discourse deviation in Lhe daLa.
In chapLer 6, the corpus and the subcorpus are dealt with
separaLely. The rnethod of analysis is explained in section 3
below, but here 1 would like Lo outline the Lypes of
clasaification adopted in chapter 6. The classifications in Lhe
quantitative study
are carried out according to (a) Lhe grammaLical function of Lhe
negative itern, and Lhe pragwatic function of the negaLive
clause. TÉ proved irnpossible Lo carry out a classification based
on the discourse properties of negation as subworld discusged in
chapter 5, excepL for a generalisation distinguishing the
function of negation as foregrounding negative states and events,
and Éhe function of negation in creating paradox. The reasons why
iL was not pcDssible Lo deal with Lhe discourse functions of
negation are explained in detail in chapters 5 and 6. They have
Lo do wiLh Lhe facL that the notion of negation as subworld is
a discourse notion, in the sense that a subworld may be
understood as a conceptual and semantic domain which stretches
over several utterances. This poses problems regarding Éhe
delimitation of the boundaries of the subworld and regarding the
percepLion of Lhe markedness of a negative over a stretch of
discourse.
Since Lhe corpus í work wiLh is a novel, it presents
idiosyncratic properties which are Lypical of literary discourse.
8