BEYOND WORDS: PRAGMATICS OF SILENT NEGATION

This article seeks to challenge the commonly held belief that silence primarily signifies consent. In contrast to traditional assumptions, it argues that silence can function as a powerful and intentional act of negation in communication. The research focuses on the phenomenon of silent negation — a form of disagreement or refusal conveyed not through direct verbal means, but rather through silence itself or linguistic representations of silence in written discourse. The aims of this study are: first, to define a typology of silent negation that reflects the pragmatic functions of silence within communicative acts; and second, to identify the strategies by which silent negation is expressed linguistically, particularly in literary texts. To achieve this, the article applies a combination of contextual analysis, cognitive analysis, typological classification, and hermeneutic interpretation. These methods are used to trace how silence operates pragmatically in literature, where authors cannot rely on non-verbal cues and must instead “verbalize” silence through various linguistic devices. The theoretical foundation of the article is based on the works of Adam Jaworski, who views silence as a strategic and context-dependent communicative act, and Abbé Joseph Dinouart, who introduced an early typology of silence in the 18th century. Their contributions are revisited and extended through the development of a new classification system more suitable for written discourse. The study suggests four main categories of silent negation: Descriptive Silent Negation (DSN), where authors narrate a character’s deliberate silence and refusal; Elliptical Silent Negation (ESN), in which punctuation and unfinished sentences imply negation; Silent Disagreement through Action (SDA), conveyed via gestures and behaviors described narratively; and Silent Interpersonal Negation Monologue (SINM), where internal thoughts of characters reject ideas without verbalizing them. Each of these types is supported with examples from literary texts. The findings emphasize that silent negation is not only a frequent but also a pragmatically rich feature of discourse. It is especially relevant in cultural or hierarchical contexts where open disagreement may be regarded as inappropriate. Silent negation plays a vital role in narrative dynamics, character development, and interpersonal tension. This study thus addresses a gap in linguistic pragmatics by systematizing the ways in which silence can negate and by demonstrating that the absence of speech can convey complex meaning. The findings emphasize that silent negation is not only a frequent but also a pragmatically rich feature of discourse. It is especially relevant in cultural or hierarchical contexts where open disagreement may be regarded as inappropriate. Silent negation plays a vital role in narrative dynamics, character development, and interpersonal tension. This study thus addresses a gap in linguistic pragmatics by systematizing the ways in which silence can negate and by demonstrating that the absence of speech can speak volumes.