AIMS: The primary goal of the presented research was to investigate the memory effects of implicit negation, conveyed using implicatures, as compared to explicit negation. We also speculated that implicit negation might require more cognitive effort.

METHODS: Three experiments were conducted (total N = 181), in which participants were presented with a description containing implicit or explicit negation, followed by a memory recognition test of items present, negated or not mentioned in the description. We manipulated the pace at which the description was presented (own pace vs. fixed) and whether participants were informed about the upcoming recognition test.

RESULTS: We found no differences between explicit and implicit negation in the number of false alarms to negated and not mentioned items, response times or time spent reading the source material. Bayesian analyses indicated a 90% probability that there were no differences in the number of false alarms between explicit and implicit negation.

CONCLUSIONS: Implicit and explicit negation lead to a similar quality of recognition, and seem to require a similar amount of time to process, indicating comparable cognitive effort.

Negation was analysed by Indian grammarian-philosophers from the very beginning of the linguistic thought in India. Over the centuries its understanding developed from purely formal to more semantically and pragmatically oriented analysis. Some of this analysis was influenced by concepts developed by other philosophical schools, which led to the change in the interpretation of negation in the school of Vyākaraṇa. The article first presents the early interpretations of negative expressions in the school of Sanskrit grammarians and then discusses the semantic shift that took place around the 11th century CE in the meaning of negation, especially the implicative ( paryudāsa) type. It analyses the passages from various grammatical and philosophical commentaries which introduce the concept of āropa (superimposition) to interpret negation.

This paper is the first part of Alonso Pascua (in press). Both address the question as to why Jespersen’s Cycle (JC) evolved differently in Romance, focusing on the analysis of negation patterns in two West Iberian languages: Spanish and Asturleonese. The hypothesis that JC gets blocked when speakers are provided with evidence that negation is complex, but activated when this evidence is unavailable, will be tested. It will be contended that the alternation of two forms for negation in Old Spanish, triggered by adjacency with object clitics (OCs), provided speakers with evidence of the complex nature of negation and contributed to the blocking of JC. Conversely, it will be argued that the lack of such an alternation in Asturleonese hampered the speaker’s awareness of this complexity and favoured the activation of JC. This evidence will be used to support the hypothesis tested and thus contribute to a better understanding of the long-standing question of JC triggers.

Prezentowany artykuł jest zachętą do podjęcia refleksji nad festiwalami, wid-zianymi nie jako okazje do celebrowania czegoś lub formy transgresji, lecz raczej jako „gry” znaczeń i komunikacja. Folklor jest dla autora prawdziwym laboratorium, w którym obserwować można codzienne życie. Dla zilustrowania swoich analiz przy-tacza przykłady karnawału w Binche (Belgia) i Święto Pracy (1-Maja), interpretując je zgodnie z koncepcją „gry” amerykańskiego antropologa Gregory’ego Batesona, który stosował ją do opisu gry zwierząt podczas walki. Prowadzi to autora do silnego podkreślenia drobnych detali zachowań, które zawsze mają znamię pewnej negacji, charakterystycznej dla kontekstów rytualnych .