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

a. Not many of us wanted the war. 

b. Many of us didn’t want the war.

According to Jespersen only the latter example exhibits sentential negation; according to Jackendoff only the former does. However, Jackendoff’s test in terms of negative paraphrases leads to other problems, e.g. neg-raising:

a. I don’t think that John will arrive tomorrow.

b. It is not the case that I think that John will arrive tomorrow.

c. I think that it is not the case that John will arrive tomorrow.

The meaning of a is rather c than b. Hence in Jackendoff’s line of reasoning a would not exhibit sentential negation, whereas within the syntactic approach  a would be analysed as sentential negation. Hence the usage of different tests may give rise to conflicting results. [22]

Note that the fact that some of the diagnostics lead to conflicting results depends on the fact that Klima’s tests and Jackendoff’s test are diagnostics for different notions: Klima’s test are designed to investigate whether a verb is marked for negation, whereas Jackendoff’s test are meant to indicate whether the entire proposition is under the scope of negation. Hence the correctness of diagnostics for sentential negation depends on a theoretical definition of the notion of sentential negation: is the notion defined in syntactic or semantic terms? [3]

However, as syntax operations can take place after Merge with negation, new material can be included such as adverbs that are not under the scope of negation a or (existential) quantifiers moving out of vP to a higher position in the clause b.

a. John probably doesn’t go to school.

b. Somebody doesn’t go to school.

Assuming that the scopal order with respect to negation is read off at surface

structure, this explains why sentences that are syntactically negative do not give rise to ‘it is not the case that …’ paraphrases. Hence the difference between the syntactic and semantic version of sentential negation can be reduced to the fact that negation is merged in a low position after which other syntactic operators can take place.

 

 

1.3.1 The problem of multiple negation in English language

 

Contrary to formal logical systems, it is not generally the case that two negations cancel each other out and yield an affirmation. Van der Wouden describes four different classes of multiple negation. In this section I discuss these four classes and show that this classification can be reduced to a binary classification: application of the Law of Double Negation (LDN) vs. no application of LDN. [9]

The four classes of multiple negation that Van der Wouden distinguishes are:

Double Negation: Two negative elements cancel each other out and yield an affirmative.

Weakening Negation: One negative element weakens the negation of another negative element. The result is somewhere between a positive and a negative.

Negative Concord: two or more negative elements yield one negation in the semantics.

Emphatic Negation: One negative element enforces another negative element.   

The result is stronger than it would be the case with just the second negative element.

Both Double Negation and Weakening Negation are the result of the same semantic mechanism (application of the Law of Double Negation) and that their different interpretations follow from the difference in their pragmatics. Moreover I will argue that Negative Concord and Emphatic Negation are two phenomena that belong to the same class: both seem to violate LDN. However ,Emphatic Negation is not a subclass of Negative Concord or vice versa.

Multiple negation is a quite common phenomenon in most European languages. [2] Structures of this kind are frequent in the languages of the Slavic family (e.g. Russian, Macedonian, Czech, Bulgarian, Lithuanian) as well as in the Romance languages (e.g. Portuguese, Sardinian, Frulian, Galician, Catalan, Italian, Spanish, French). However, multiple negation does not normally apply to modern Germanic languages, such as Danish, German, Dutch, Icelandic, Swedish, Frisian, as well, of course, as English itself.

The multiple negation was already dying out in the Middle of the Early Modern period, however. It is rarely found in Standard English after the time of Shakespeare, except that it continues to be possible to use a second negative after initial nor, as a following extract from Congreve’s Love for Love. [24]

Foresight:   Why if I was born to be a Cuckold, there’s no more to be said –

Sir Sampson: Nor no more to be done, Old Boy.

Gabriella Mazon discussed the nature and acceptability of the phenomenon of multiple negation. After alluding to different elements that may account for the stigmatization of this negative type, she shows that multiple negation in written English seems to grow less and less frequent than the time when it was censured by prescriptivist grammarians Lowth, Campbell, Clarke, and Greenwood and that very few occurrences appear in the eighteenth century. From this she concludes that «the statement that is often found to the effect that multiple negation was excluded from the standard as a consequence of the grammarians’ attacks is not correct, since the phenomenon had been on its way out of this variety for some time already». [11]

According to Jespersen's account of the development of negation in English, multiple negation disappears simultaneously «the disappearance of ne precipitates the corrosion of multiple negation». It is certainly true that multiple negation is no longer a feature of formal standard English; this must have been the case for some time prior to its use being prohibited by the normative grammars of the eighteenth century. Greenwood appears to have been the first grammarian to comment on the use of double negation, observing that «Two Negatives, or two Adverbs of Denying do in English affirm», and it first came to be objected to around the middle of the century. Throughout the eighteenth century multiple negation is rarely found in the more formal types of language, such as informative prose styles and even the less public styles of certain letter writers. Nevertheless, the comments of the eighteenth-century grammarians suggest that multiple negation was still common in the spoken language of the period. [25]

Multiple negation may have been banned from the written language, but its use in the more informal types of spoken English hardly appears to have been affected by the grammarians strictures. In the eighteenth century it regularly occurs in informal written language, as for example in journals and private letters, and today it is still widely used, though mostly in different constructions. The use of multiple negation is stigmatised, and many speakers of standard English, if asked, would deny that they make use of multiple negation in their speech. Nevertheless, in the more informal, colloquial registers the use of multiple negation is widespread. Some present-day English examples are the following:

(1)  «I didn't want to talk female intimacies. Not with her.» [24]

(2)  It never did happen to me before, he said, not like that. [24]

(3)  «Mt Vine's a pretty big operation.»

«Not for me he isn't» [24]

(4)  We should never have got married, I don't think. [24]

In terms of the distinction into logical and non-logical types of multiple negation, examples (4) – (7) should all be characterised as belonging to the non-logical category; after all the negatives do not cancel each other out. Instead, they usually produce a distinctly emphatic effect, and as emphasis is frequently taken to be one of the functions of multiple negation, these sentences must be regarded as instances instances of multiple negation. They are even fairly acceptable from a normative point of view, possibly as a result of their not being easily recognisable as instances of multiple negation. In any case, they represent types of multiple negation which are different from those usually found in the eighteenth century and before; the earlier types survive mostly in non-standard dialects of English, or working-class speech according to Hughes and Trudgill, and they are generally avoided by speakers of standard English. [26]

Most kinds of double negative are inappropriate in spoken and written Standard English, except in jocular use: Don’t never say that again. I can’t do nothing about it. Eighteenth-century grammarians decided that since two negatives made a positive in mathematics and logic, they must do so in spoken and written English too. This was not always so, however, and the double negative remains one of the best illustrations of what was once a perfectly acceptable locution being driven by the decisions of grammarians, not out of the language, but out of Standard use. Chaucer used double and even triple negatives, and so did Shakespeare: these were simply powerful, heavily stressed, multiple negatives. And many speakers still use these constructions today, even though they are now shibboleths that mark speakers of Vulgar English.

Hughes and Trudgill observes hyperbolically that «in Vulgar American the double negative is so freely used that the simple negative appears to be bandoned». Single negatives «appear to be affectations when encountered». Fries, however, seems to have taken these words more literally than they were probably intended, commenting that «such a complete use of the multiple negative construction as he displays will only be heard from those who consciously attempt to caricature Vulgar English'. For a description of multiple negation in Black English Vernacular, in which it is particularly common. [26]

Lowth alludes to the phenomenon of double negation in particular, and his rule number 16 specifically states that «two negatives in English, destroy one another, or are equivalent to an affirmative». As can be gathered from this citation, the foundation of his rules is reason; in other words, Language is treated in logical terms. As a consequence, multiple negation is objected to, since it goes against the rules of Logic, according to which two negative premises or propositions affirm rather than negate. [11]

Traditional grammar also holds that double negatives combine to form an affirmative. We will therefore interpret the sentence He cannot just do nothing as an affirmative statement meaning «He must do something» unless we are prompted to view it as dialect or nonstandard speech. We will also assign an affirmative meaning to constructions that yoke not with an adjective or adverb that begins with a negative prefix such as in – or un-, as in a not infrequent visitor, a not unjust decision. In these expressions the double negative conveys a weaker affirmative than would be conveyed by the positive adjective or adverb by itself. Thus, a not infrequent visitor seems likely to visit less frequently than a frequent visitor. A double (or more accurately, multiple) negative is considered unacceptable in Standard English when it is used to convey or reinforce a negative meaning, as in He didn't say nothing (meaning «he said nothing» or «he didn't say anything»). Such constructions are standard in many other languages and in fact were once wholly acceptable in English. Thus, Chaucer could say of the Friar, «Ther nas no man nowher so vertuous». In spite of this noble history, grammarians since the Renaissance have objected to the double negative in English. [27]

In their eagerness to make English conform to formal logic, they conceived and promulgated the notion that two negatives destroy each other and make a positive. This rule, vigorously advocated by teachers of grammar and writing, has become established as a fundamental of standard usage. · The ban on multiple negatives also applies to the combination of negatives with adverbs such as hardly and scarcely. It is therefore regarded as incorrect to say I couldn't hardly do it or The car scarcely needs no oil. These adverbs have a minimizing effect on the verb. They mean something like «almost not at all.» They resemble negative adverbs such as not and never in that they are used with any, anybody, and similar words rather than none, nobody, and other negatives. Thus, in standard usage one says You barely have any time left, just as one says You don't have any time left, but You barely have no time left is considered an unacceptable double negative. Nevertheless, multiple negatives continue to be widely used in a number of nonstandard varieties of English and are sometimes used by speakers of all educational levels when they want to strike a colloquial or popular note, as when President Reagan taunted his political opponents by saying «You ain't seen nothing yet.» · The ban on using double negatives to convey emphasis does not apply when the second negative appears in a separate phrase or clause, as in I will not surrender, not today, not ever or He does not seek money, no more than he seeks fame. Commas must be used to separate the negative phrases or clauses in these examples. The sentence He does not seek money no more than he seeks fame is unacceptable, whereas the equivalent sentence with any is perfectly acceptable and requires no comma: He does not seek money any more than he seeks fame.

 

 

  1.3.2 Approaches to the multiple negation classification

 

According to Palacios Martinez, different studies on the expression of negation in several non-standard varieties of English also draw our attention to multiple negative structures. Crystal, for example, records the existence of treble and quadruple negatives in the English spoken in Farnworth, a municipal borough in the Greater Bolton area, north of Manchester. Trudgill also mentions that many non-standard dialects of British English such as Cockney have retained the old negative form, so that it is possible to come across expressions such as I don 't want no dinner. We also learn that in general Scottish English, multiple negation seems to be excluded from the system; however, in the Glasgow dialect, multiple negation is quite common. Finally, Labov and Baugh among others explain in great detail the expression of multiple negation in Black English Vernacular. [28]Fascinating examples like the following are recorded: It ain't no cat can't get in no coop; Back in them times, there ain't no kid around that ain't-wasn't even thinkin' about smokin' no reefers; It ain't no way no girl can't wear no platforms to no amusement park. [29]

The rise and decline of multiple negation has been one of the central issues in the study of English negation and called forth active discussions, but there seems to be no agreement about the date when the decline of multiple negation begins to take place. This is mainly because the definitions of multiple negation vary from one scholar to another depending on the period(s) under discussion.

From all the studies available on multiple negation, Jespersen's account is no doubt the most complete, thorough and illustrative. [10] He first refers to cases where negation expresses a positive meaning (e.g. not without some doubt), and then he explains what he calls «cumulative negation» or structures of double negatives as they are found in present-day non-standard English (such as He didn't find nothing). In his view, the existence of these constructions may be explained by the emotional character of repeated negation. As a separate variety of multiple negation he treated what might be called «resumptive negation». This is especially frequent when not is followed by a disjunctive combination with neither…nor or a restrictive addition with not even: «he cannot sleep neither at night nor in the daytime» or «he cannot sleep, not even after taking an opiate». A special case of «resumptive negation» is seen when not is softened down by an added hardly, which in itself would have been sufficient to express the idea: «He wasn’t changed at all hardly» (R. Kipling). [30]

Closely connected with «resumptive negation» is paratactic negation: a negative is placed in a clause dependant on a verb of negative import, e.g «deny, forbid, hinder, doubt», as if the clause had been an independent sentence, or as if the corresponding positive verb had been used in the main sentence, e.g. «It never occurred to me to doubt that your work… would not advance our common object in the highest degree».

To speak about «resumptive negation», it is a second class of emphatic negation comprises, the characteristic of which is that after a negative sentence has been completed, something is added in a negative form with the obvious result that the negative result is heightened….In its pure form, the supplementary negative is added outside the frame of the first sentence, generally as an afterthought, as in ‘I shall never do it, not under any circumstances, not on any condition, neither at home nor abroad’, etc.

This type of negation can be divided into three categories:

Type I:

(1)     a. He cannot sleep, neither at night nor in the daytime.

b. He cannot sleep, not even after taking an opiate.

c. He has no money, not so much as a dime

d. Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.

Type II

The second type is not cited by Jespersen or Van der Wouden (as a separate type), nor elsewhere, except among a listing of types of «multiple negations’ in: [9]

(2)     a. I can’t go to the party, not with my clothes looking like this.

b. No, you may not borrow the car, not without doing your homework first.

c. You won’t be offered the job, not if I have anything to do with it.

d. I don’t have time to meet with you, not this afternoon anyway.

e. Would you use a shotgun to kill an elephant? Not and live to tell about it.

f. Can linguists study negation? Not and stay sane they can’t.

Type III

(3)  That isn’t really legal, I don’t believe.

Type III is different from types I and II in that the second negated phrase contains a propositional attitude verb, and the proposition expressed by the main clause plays the role, semantically, of the object of that verb. Types I and II have no propositional attitude verb in the second phrase; rather, that phrase most resembles an adjunct to the main clause.

Jespersen (1940:451), referring to the double (or treble) attraction, states that «in Elizabethan English this particular kind of repeated negation is comparatively rare, while the «resumptive accumulation» is frequent».

On the other hand, Iyeiri, whose major concern is Middle English, classifies multiple negation into the following three types: [25]

Type I                  multiple negation with the negative adverb ne (ne…not)

Type II                 multiple negation with conjunctive ne/nor

Type III      multiple negation with the combination of not, neither, never, no, ets.

As an overall conclusion, Iyeiri remarks that «much of the declining process of multiple negation, in fact, takes place during the Middle English period». [25]

Seright's study is much more restricted than Jespersen's. He confines himself to the analysis of standard double negative constructions, such as It is not inconceivable or It is not impossible. These sentences contain a negative verb or clause negation followed by a case of local negation, inconceivable and impossible, which constitute two examples of morphological or affixal negation. In his view, numerous instances of such standard double-negative constructions can be found and, in contrast to the examples typical of non-standard English such as They don't do nothing, they are generally «limited to the speech of the educated». Mention is also made of sequences such as Not to mash nor break the grains, which contain a negative correlative conjunctive. Seright insists that the use of double negatives of this type is quite wide. [26]

Rissanen observes that multiple negation was common in the sixteenth century. It must be noted here that Rissanen's definition of multiple negation is broad, as is evident from the four examples he gives: [22]

(1) They cowd not fynd no londe at iiij score fadom

(2) that the Capper nor none other persone shalnot take by hym self or any other persone to his use…

(3) I am not asham'd of my Name–nor my Face neither.

(4) that no woman has; nor neuer none Shall mistris be of it.

Baker analyses what he calls «logical double sentences». From the perspective of the generative theory of that time, he formulates a polarity-reversal rule to explain the grammaticality of sentences such as There isn 't anyone in this camp who wouldn't rather be in Montpelier. The polarity-reversal rule operates on the cycle of the subordinate clause as it changes the derivational feature associated with would rather to [+ negative]. Its operation on the cycle of the main clause changes the polarity of would rather from [+ negative] to [– negative] and the polarity of anyone from [– negative] to [+ negative]. Attention is also paid to what he defines as pseudo-negative sentences, that is, verbal complements found with predicates such as surprised, disappointed, relieved, glad, sorry, lucky, odd or strange, which provide suitable environments for any, ever, and other elements normally required in negative contexts (e.g. We're surprised that anyone bought anything at all; John is sorry that anything happened; It's strange that anyone could solve the mystery in such short order). [31]

Horn, for his part, discusses the expression of litotes by means of double negative constructions. By litotes is meant the «a two-component structure in which two negations are joined to give a positive evaluation. Thus «not unkindly» actually means «kindly», though the positive effect is weakened and some lack of the speaker's confidence in his statement is implied. The first component of a litotes is always the negative particle «not», while the second, always negative in semantics, varies in form from a negatively affixed word (as above) to a negative phrase. [2]

Litotes is especially expressive when the semantic centre of the whole structure is stylistically or/and emotionally coloured, as in the case of the following occasional creations: «Her face was not unhandsome» or «Her face was not unpretty».

The function of litotes has much in common with that of understatement – both weaken the effect of the utterance. The uniqueness of litotes lies in its specific «double negative» structure and in its weakening only the positive evaluation.

Pragmatically, the use of double negatives as in «It's not impossible» may be justified, according to Horn, by a series of motivations: politeness (the speaker does not want to commit oneself to a particular option), irony (the speaker acts as if hesitant or unsure on purpose), weight or impressiveness of style (the speaker intends to convey formality to the interlocutor), absence of corresponding positive (there is no word to refer to the opposite term), parallelism of structure (a similar construction was used before), quality (the speaker is neither sure nor unsure about what is being said) and minimisation of processing (in contexts of direct rebuttal or contradiction as a reply to a previous assertion). [2]