The analysis of negative form expressions in the texts of different styles

To make the analysis more complete we should consult at least one other dictionary. So if it is Oxford Advanced Lerner’s Dictionary of Current English, the result will be the following. [21]

a-: (in nouns, adjectives and adverbs) not; without: amoral (=not moral): atheists

anti-: 1 apposed to; against: anti-tank weapons 2 the opposite of: an anti-hero

contra-: (in nouns, verbs and adjectives) against; opposite : contraflow

de-: (in verbs and related nouns, adjectives and adverbs): the opposite of: decentralization

dis-: (in adjectives, adverbs, nouns and verbs): not; the opposite of: dishonest

il-suffix=in

im-=in

in-: (also il- im- ir-)(in adjectives, adverbs and nouns): not; the opposite of: infinite

ir-=in

mal-: (in nouns, verbs and adjectives): bad or badly; not correct or correctly: malpractice

mis-: (in verbs and nouns) bad or wrong; badly or wrongly

non-: (in nouns, adjectives and adverbs): not: nonsense

un-: 1(in adjectives, adverbs and nouns): not; the opposite of: unable 2 (in verbs that describe the opposite of a process): unlock

less-: (in adjectives): 1without: treeless 2 not doing; not affected by: tireless [21]

Such affixes like mys- and nega-, which are present in the list of negative affixes, are not present in both Longman and Oxford dictionaries, as well as words with them, so we can make a suggestion that they are not productive nowadays, that is no words are built with it. But there are found some words beginning with dys-, like dysfunctional (=not working in a satisfactory or successful way), or dyslexia (=a slight disorder of the brain that causes difficulty in reading and spelling, for example, but does not affect intelligence). Therefore, it should be included in the list of negative affixes to make it more complete. It is obvious, that the prefix dys- really exists and has approximately the same meaning as the prefix dis-.

Analyzing the meanings given by both dictionaries we can make a conclusion that they just slightly differ in meanings in different dictionaries (for example, contra- in Longman Dictionary means “opposite”, while Oxford Dictionary gives a wider definition – “against; opposite”, and like), and according to the examples the meanings given there reflect the additional meaning, which they bring to the derivative word. All the negative affixes posses the meaning of either opposition or lack of something that also carries the idea of negation. The Oxford dictionary marks the word class of the word the affix belongs to, what is not always done in Longman dictionary. It is very useful for our further classificatrional analysis.

But it is known that some words can acquire several negative affixes and new words can seem semantically similar to language learners. It is a rude mistake to misuse the affixes. So on this stage of analysis appears a question, why some words are attached with a certain negative affix and others are attached with others. And it is also very important to find out how not to mix up some affixes with very similar meanings. The Longman dictionary contains an article comparing prefixes un-, in- and non-, which look very much alike at the first sight. “The difference between them is the degree to which they suggest the idea of the opposite rather than negative. Non- is usually just negative (for example, nonalcoholic drinks contain no alcohol), but un- is often used to suggest an opposite quality. Compare: He is applied for a nonscientific job (=not connected with science) in the Civil Service. | It was very unscientific (=showing too little attention to scientific principles) not to measure your results. Of the three prefixes (un-, in-, non-), in- tends most often to suggest opposite qualities. Compare: their inhuman (=very cruel) treatment of political prisoners | The archeologists discovered both human and non-human bones”. This explanation is a great help for language learners and also for the practical purposes of our work. [20]

 

 

1.2.1 The classifications of negative affixes

 

It has already been said that English grammarians usually point out two main criteria for the general classification of morphemes: the positional criterion and the semantic (or functional) criterion. And according to them there are root-morphemes and affixal morphemes, roots and affixes [14]. For example, in the word miscast “cast” is a root and “mis-” is an affix. The semantic difference between them is obvious: root morphemes have the concrete, “material” meaning, while affixes just specify the main meaning, or transform the meaning of the root. In the given example “cast” means “to to choose actors to plat the different parts in the film/movie, play etc.”, while “mis-” means “badly or wrongly” [21]. So the complete meaning of the word is compound from these two meaning, but the first is the main, as it is independent, and the second is additive.

There is also another division of morphemes in Descriptive Linguistics. Morphemes can be free or bound. Free morphemes can build up words by themselves, for example, home. Bound morphemes are used only as parts of words, like dis- in disregard [14]. So, as all the affixes are attached to some root (as affixes do), they are all can be referred to the class of bound morphemes.

Morphemes also can be divided into overt and covert. The latter shows the meaningful absence of a morpheme distinguished in the opposition of grammatical forms in paradigms [14]. For example in the paradigm of noun in the word hand –s is a covert morpheme. As suffixes can be either present or absent in the word structure they can be of both kinds in different contexts.

Full or meaningful morphemes are opposed to empty morphemes. The later ones have no meaning like the full ones, for example, in the word ‘children’ child- is the root of the word, bearing the core of the meaning, -en is the suffix of the plural, while -r- is an empty morpheme. In this case it is clear that suffixes can also be of both kinds, but usually, as it was already mentioned, they have a certain meaning [14].

Segmental morphemes consist of phonemes, while supra-segmental leave the phonemic content of the word unchanged, but the meaning of the word is specified with the help of various supra-segmental lingual units, like in `convert (a noun) - con`vert (a verb). As suffixes refer to the segmental level, they are all segmental morphemes [14].

Additive morphemes, which are freely combined in a word, e.g.: look+ed, small+er, are opposed to replacive morphemes, or root morphemes, which replace each other in paradigms, e.g.: sing -sang – sung [14]. Within this classification affixes are sure to refer to additive morphemes.

And one more division is to continuous and discontinuous morphemes. Continuous ones are combined with each other in the same word, like in worked, while discontinuous consist of two components, used to form analytical forms, for example, is running [14]. As affixes can not consist of several parts, so they are continuous.

The specification of affixes themselves can be of two kinds: lexical and grammatical. And according to this criterion there are lexical, or word-building, or derivational affixes and grammatical, or word changing affixes. The latest group expresses different morphological categories, such as number, case, tense and others. Grammar study is primarily concerned with grammatical affixes, because they change the word according to its grammatical categories and serve to insert the word into an utterance. Lexical affixes serve to build new words, grammatical – to change the form of the word, for example, go – goes [14]. Regarding this classification we can come to a conclusion that negative affixes, which we are interested in, refer to the group of lexical affixes, as they change the lexical meaning of the word, not its form. For example, smoker – a person who smokes; non-smoker – a person who does not smokes. Prefixes in English are only lexical, they do not transform a word into another part of speech (understand-misunderstand). Suffixes can be both lexical and grammatical. For example, home-homeless, but go-goes. Grammatical suffixes are also called inflexions (inflections, inflectional endings) [14].

Grammatical suffixes form word-changing, or morphological paradigms of words, which is typical for inflexional languages, but they can be observed in English too (boy-boys). Lexical affixes are the subject of lexicology, because they change the meaning of the word. In grammar they are regarded as formal indicators of belonging of the word to one or another part of speech. They form lexical (word-building, or derivational) paradigms of words united by a common root, for example, to decide - decision - decisive – decisively. [14]

Affixes can also be divided according to their position. They are divided into prefixes (before the root) and suffixes (after the root). [15] There are other types of affixes in different languages, but prefixes and suffixes are the most typical for English. As we have seen, the negative affixes tend to come mostly from prefixes.

One more meaningful parameter in classification of affixes is their semantic impact, due to which they are united in semantic groups of a type:

-affixes with meaning of similarity (-al, -ial, -ed, -esque, -ful, -ic, -ical, -ish, -like, -ly, -ous, -some, -y, crypto-, neo- etc.);

-affixes with meaning of denying (a-, dis-, in-, non-, un-, -less), and it is the group of our particular interest, as they also can de called negative;

-diminutive affixes (-ette, -ie/-y, -ikin, -let, -ling);

-affixes with meaningof the person (-an, -ian, -arian, -ant, -ard, -by, her(it), -een, -eer, -er, -ess, -ette, -ician, -ie, -ing, -ist, -ister, -kin, -ing, -ster, -ton);

-affixes with meaning of number (bi-, demi-, di-, mono-, multi-, pan-, poly-, semi-, tri-, twi-, uni-); and many others. It is impossible to speak about one complete classification of this type, because many affixes are polysemantic and different lexicologist refer them to different groups. [15]

Prefixes and suffixes form various subgroups depending on what from all variety of properties, that they inherit, is selected as classification parameter. That can become, for example their origin, on the basis of which there is a division into native affixes and borrowed. [15] As an example of borrowed affix we can take anti-, as in anticyclone, and as native – less, as in motionless.

There is also one more very important classification of affixes. It is known that affixes are attached to stems of different parts of speech. And according to this they are called:

-substantive (like anti-, non-, dis-, -less);

-adjectival (like dis-, un-, in-)

-verbal (like dis-, de-, mis-);

-adverbial (like un-, anti-, re-, non-). [15]

For example, if we take a noun ability, it can be attached with a prefix dis-: disability. A verbal stem code can be transformed with the verbal prefix de: decode. An adverbial stem, like easily, can be attached with the adverbial prefix un-: uneasily.

It is also noteworthy to mention, that the basis of the classification can be the part of speech, into which the given affix transforms a word. This classification is referred to suffixes, as their role in definition of the characteristics of derivatives’ parts of speech is more obvious, than that of prefixes. It is interesting that the names of the groups are the same as in the previous classification. So while classification the criteria for it must always be mentioned. The groups are:

-substantive (-dom, -ness);

-verbal (-en, -ize);

-adverbial (-ly);

-adjectival (-less). [15]

As it is seen, there is only one negative affix in this classification – suffix -less, so this classification is not of much importance in our analysis. Due to the suffix –less we can transform a noun colour to the adjective colourless. Prefixes are not included into this classification as they usually do not change the part of speech of the word, but touch only its meaning.

Several more classifications are given in one of the Russian Dictionaries. According to their function affixes are of two kinds:

-of nominative function (serving to denote some objects, phenomena etc.);

-of structural (connecting) function.

To the first group belong word-building affixes and flexions. The first serve to build new words and the second – to refer a word to this or that grammatical form. Affixes of structural function are called interfixes. They are used for connection of two joined morphemes, like in паровоз. [19] They are not typical for English language and all the negative affixes must be referred to the first group.

According to the peculiarities of combinability there is the following opposition:

-regular (multivalent) affixes;

-irregular (univalent) affixes.

Regular affixes are combined within the word with the different kinds of affixal or root morphemes, for example, un- (unable, unacceptable). Irregular affixes posses restricted combinability and are called unifixes (like –ух in двух). It is quite obvious that all the negative affixes are included into the first group too, because all they posses a certain word-building pattern and their degree of combinability is very high. [19]

Summing up, having consulted some sources, we have found out, that there is a number of classifications of morphemes, and affixes in particular, according to different criteria.

 

 

 1.2.2 The functions of negative affixes

 

As it was said above, negative affixes are lexical, because they are used to build new words. And they also always bring some negative additional meaning to the derivative word, changing its meaning to opposite. From this it can be made a conclusion that one of the functions of English negative affixes is:

1)  To create antonyms of the derivatives.

This function is performed only if the part if speech is not changed (and only the suffix less does changes it).

And if we look at them more generally, as a part of the discourse one more function appears:

2)  Bringing the negation to the sentence.

Speaking about the second function it is important to mention that there are 6 ways of negation on the sentence: negative affixes, negative particles, negative pronouns and adverbs, negative conjunctions and negative prepositions. Affixation is a morphological way of negation (while others are sintactical). The most popular negative affixes are un-, dis-, de-. To the verbs such prefixes like un-, dis-, de- give the meaning of opposite action. So, such affixes like dis-, mis-, in-, un-, less- and such bring to the sentence the idea of absence, deprivation and oppositeness. It is important to mention that there are certain rules of combinability of affixes. For example, the prefix un-, Germanic in its origin, is not usually combined with the stem of the word. Such words like unlike are not typical for English. More often the particle not is used instead. The prefix un- should be used with care, as when is attached to the verbs, it tends to bring the meaning of the opposite action, as well as mis-, dis-, de- (tie - untie). There are only several verbs in English with these affixes, possessing the meaning “not”. They are to dislike, disbelieve, mistrust. [18]

Nouns and adjectives are usually attached with such affixes like un-, non-, in- (im-, il-, ir-) dis-, mis-. The closest to each other in meaning are non- and un- (but it was spoken earlier about their difference). The suffix less- is also usually added to nouns and adjectives. The prefix un- is the closest in meaning to this suffix less- (endless - unending, profitless - unprofitable) [18].

So, we can come to the conclusion that the most widely used are the affixes de-, un-, dis; and negative affixes tend to come with nouns and adjectives. The stems of verbs are not combined with them and the negation is expressed in the sentence by the analytical negative verb-form. So, the function of creating antonyms can hardly find its application in verbs, but typical for nouns and adjectives.

 

 

1.3 Sentential negation

 

The definitions for the properties of negative contexts as provided in the previous section apply to both negative constituents and sentential negation. Given the fact that negation has been related to the introduction of an anti-veridical operator, the difference between sentential and constituent negation reduces to the difference in scope of the negative operator. If the entire proposition falls under the scope of the negative operator, the negation yields sentential negation. If the negation only applies to a particular constituent, there is no sentential negation, but only constituent negation. The distinction between sentential and constituent negation can be very subtle in some cases. Moreover, in some cases the distinction between sentential and constituent negation depends on whether sentential negation is defined in syntactic or in a semantic way. Klima, following Jespersen, introduces a tradition in which sentential negation is considered to be a syntactic phenomenon whereas Jackendoff initiates a line of thinking in which sentential negation is a semantic notion. [22]    

The distinction between sentential and constituent negation goes back to Klima (1964) who developed three different tests to distinguish between these two types of negation.

Klima shows that only sentential negation triggers the occurrence of the negative particle either in English. Otherwise the second clause cannot be modified by either but only by too.

a. Bill drives a car and John did too/ either

b. Bill doesn’t drive a car and John too/ either

c. Not long ago Bill drove a car and John did too/ either

A second test Klima developed is the not even test. Not even tags are only possible in the case of sentential negation, not in the case of constituent negation.

a. Bill drives a car, not even a Fiat 500

b. Bill doesn’t drive car, not even a Fiat 500

c. Not long ago Bill drove a car, not even a Fiat 500

Third, Klima presents a test using positive question tags. Only sentential negation allows a positive question tag. In the case of mere constituent negation a positive tag is not allowed.

a. Bill drives a car, does he?

b. Bill doesn’t drive a car, does he?

c. Not long ago Bill drove a car, did he?

Note that the tests for sentential negation are not restricted to the occurrence of a negative marker like not or n’t. The observation also holds for negative quantifiers, negative adverbs and semi-negatives like seldom or hardly.

a. Nobody likes Mary, not even John

b. John never dates a girl, not even Mary

c. Mary seldom dates a guy, not even John

Klima shows that strong (real) and weak (semi-) negative elements can be

distinguished by means of coordination with a neither phrase.

a. Bill will {not/never} drive a care and neither will John

b. Bill will {seldom/rarely} drive a car and neither will John

However all these tests are not sufficient and sometimes give rise to conflicting results. Ross shows examples in which negative quantifiers in object position trigger negative question tags, but negative quantifiers in subject position do not. [23]

Jackendoff also shows examples that form counterarguments to Klima’s tests. [22]

a. Nobody saw John, did(n’t) they?

b. John saw nobody, did(n’t) he?

Ross and Culicover introduce a test that uses negative parentheticals. Only sentential negation allows for a negative parenthetical: constituent negation does not allow for it. [23]

a. It isn’t possible, I don’t think, to solve this problem

b. It is impossible, I don’t think, to solve this problem.

Another test follows from the conclusions in the previous section. As we saw, negative elements license Negative Polarity Items. Hence the fact that sentential negation licenses Negative Polarity Items can form the basis of a new test. But there are three requirements for such a test:

1) constituent negation also licenses Negative Polarity Items. Hence if the Negative Polarity Items is no longer licensed because it is part of a constituent other than the constituent that contains the negation, it is not a case of sentential negation;

a. Bill didn’t drive any car

b. Not long ago Bill drove any car

2) the negation must be the licenser of the Negative Polarity Items. As Negative Polarity Items can also be licensed by some non-negative contexts, it should be the negation that licenses the Negative Polarity Items. This can be checked by removing the negation: the sentence containing the Negative Polarity Items should then no longer be well-formed;

3) a third requirement of this test is that it is only valid if the

Negative Polarity Items is licensed under c-command at surface structure. Hence, even in the case of sentential negation, the Negative Polarity Items cannot be included at any position.

(Any) people didn’t show up.

A similar test follows from the fact that negation always has scope over universal quantifiers when the universal is preceded by the negation, whereas constituent negation does not have any negative scope over universals (unless the universal is part of the negative constituent). So if a universal quantifier at any position in the sentence preceded by the negation falls under the scope of the negation, the negation is sentential. If that is not the case, the sentence contains a constituent negation.

a. Last year Bill didn’t always drive a car.

b. Not long ago Bill always drove a car.

Still it remains unclear what is exactly meant by sentential negation. A sentence such as can be regarded as sentential negation, since the predicate is negative, but the negation does not outscope the existential subject.

Some people didn’t show up.

Examples have in fact led to a debate about what sentential negation really is: in the tradition of Jespersen and Klima, sentential negation is clause based and marked on the finite verb. Seuren and Jackendoff argue that sentential negation is not a syntactic notion but a semantic notion: sentential negation of a proposition p means that the proposition can be paraphrased by ‘it is not the case that p’. This distinction is illustrated in. [1]