Ambiguity of “not.... because”



You are not hired because you are qualified.



I think this means you are hired but it is not because you are qualified. But I think this can also means you are not hired, and the reason for it is that you are qualified.


Does this ambiguity really exist or do I mistake anything?



Answer



Yes, there is ambiguity:



When a sentence containing a clause-modifying adjunct, such as a because clause, is negated, the resulting example is ambiguous.
Because clauses and negative polarity licensing



The paper uses the terms "Negated Head" and "Negated Adjunct" to describe the two readings:


NH: You are not hired and the reason is you are qualified.
NA: You are hired but not because you are qualified.



In the NH readings, it is the head proposition which is negated. In the NA readings, it is the relation introduced by the adjunct which is negated.





The ambiguity can be eliminated by rewording the sentence. The NA version is fine, but the NH one is awkward. Instead, try inverting the sentence:



Because you are qualified, you are not hired.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

verbs - "Baby is creeping" vs. "baby is crawling" in AmE

commas - Does this sentence have too many subjunctives?

grammatical number - Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

etymology - Where does the phrase "doctored" originate?

phrases - Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey

typography - When a dagger is used to indicate a note, must it come after an asterisk?

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"