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

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

First floor vs ground floor, usage origin

usage - "there doesn't seem" vs. "there don't seem"

pronunciation - Where does the intrusive R come from in “warsh”?

Abbreviation of "Street"

etymology - Since when has "a hot minute" meant a long time?

meaning - What is synonyme of "scale"?