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

Not surprisingly, the public would know about this one day.

Multiple Negations and Double negation

In English, there are double negations and triple negations. In a sentence with double negation, there are two negative markers, which can be ‘not’ plus ‘not’, ‘not’ plus an ‘N-negator’, ‘not’ plus a negative affix, an ‘N-negator’ plus a negative affix and so on. The negatives should not be in the same clause however, in the case of two ‘nots’, and usually what we find in the same clause are “not’ or an ‘N-negator’ with a negative affix.

Putting two 'nots' together does not mean this will bring out the positive side, but other combinations of markers can do just that. Let’s look at the pairs of examples below.

1) I won’t force them not to tell him the truth. = I allow them to tell him the truth.

                                                               (≠ I force them to tell him the truth.)

2) I can’t do nothing and just stand there. = I have to do something rather than just standing there.

                                                              (≠ I can do something rather than                                                              just standing there.)

  3) I wasn’t dissatisfied with the result. = I was satisfied, by the result.

                                                              (≠ I was satisfied by the result.)

As far as the tone is concerned, double negation can produce both understatements and overstatements, depending on the wording. Let’s have a look at the following sentences.

1) The movie wasn’t uninteresting.

2) I answered the question not in an unskillful way, I think.

The two examples above are understatements. Example #1 reveals that the movie was quite interesting, while in example #2, the writer thinks that he or she answered the question quite skillfully.

Double negation can also be used for emphatic purpose, for example:

1) I won’t find anywhere to go.

  2) You will get nothing, if you tell anyone about this.

In making concession and rebuttal argument, double negation is also applicable. For example:

We do not deny our government is imperfect, but it has improved and is still improving. [ 5 ]  

 

                          Concession                               Rebuttal

 

1) I can’t do nothing no more = I can do more.

  2) No one never say nothing.(Gao, 1997) = Every one will say something sometimes.

What to Watch out for in Using Negation

Accomplished writers may find no problem in using negative statements in writing. But there are some subtle usages of negation that students may overlook.

Several problematic areas regarding the usage of negation will be discussed below.

Affixal and Non-Affixal Negation

Whether to use affixal or non-affixal negation in English writing may not be too much of a concern, as many writers think that the two are more or less the same. However, if a writer ignores the difference between the two, he or she can produce not only stylistically awkward sentences, but even ungrammatical ones too.

It is better to use a negative affix rather than a negative marker in front of an adjective. For example:

This will lead to an undesirable result. <---> This will lead to a not desirable result.

Some a non-affixal negation can be ungrammatical, for example.

How uncomfortable the bed was. ≠ How not comfortable the bed was.

It is an invaluable and imperfect artwork. ≠ It is a not valuable and not                                                                                  perfect artwork.

You may undo the change by clicking that button. ≠You may not do the                                                                                      change by clicking that button.

I suffered a great discomfort. ≠I suffered a great not comfort.

In addition, there are some confusing cases where the meaning of the word with a negative prefix is not equivalent to the antonym of that word without the prefix.

I feel uneasy to speak in front of my father. <---> I feel not easy to speak in                                                                                            front of my father.

The ‘uneasy’ in the first sentence means ‘uncomfortable’; whereas the ‘not easy’ in the second sentence means ‘not difficult’.

Scope of Negation

Scope of negation concerns the governing power of the negative marker in a sentence. The negator may have a semantic influence on the phrases nearby and thus the location of the negator may affect the meaning of the sentence. Here are some examples:

1) Many people did not come to school today. ≠ Not many people came to school today.

2) She definitely didn’t speak to him. ≠ She didn’t definitely speak to him. [ 6 ]     

The same negator ‘not’ is used in the examples. Nevertheless, the different locations of the ‘not’ can lead to different meanings. In the first pair, the focus of the first sentence is put on ‘did not come’; while the second sentence has its focus on ‘not many people’. This causes a difference in the implications of the two sentences. The first one means that there were many people absent today and the second means a few people came back today. The second pair shows a similar disjunction. The focus of the first sentence is ‘didn’t tell’ and the second one is ‘didn’t definitely’. Therefore, the implication of the first sentence becomes ‘It’s definite that she didn’t speak to him.’ And the implication of the second sentence is ‘It is not definite that she spoke to him.’

Even if the position of ‘not’ is fixed, the scope of negation can still influence more than one part and causes semantic ambiguity. Let’s discuss some examples cited by Swan. [ 7 ] 

Arthur didn’t write to Sue yesterday.

Arthur didn’t write to Sue yesterday.

  Arthur didn’t write to Sue yesterday.

The above three examples show that the negator ‘not’ can affect the action ‘write’, the object ‘Sue’ or the time ‘yesterday’. This, therefore, leads to three different implications.

Arthur didn’t write to Sue yesterday. (because he phoned her rather than wrote to her)

  Arthur didn’t write to Sue yesterday. (because he wrote to Ann rather than Sue)

Arthur didn’t write to Sue yesterday. (because he wrote to Sue this morning)

As a result, when writing English essays, the writer should clarify what message is intended in the negation by elaborating on the point.

Negators and Assertive Items

Negators can pair with non-assertive items such as ‘anything’ and ‘anyone’, but in many circumstances, they cannot be used with assertive ones, like ‘something’ and someone’. [ 6 ]      

I can’t find anything inside. <---> I can’t find something inside.

I didn’t go out with anyone this weekend. <---> I didn’t go out with                                                                                           someone this weekend.

I never give my girl friend anything <---> I always give my girl friend                                                                                    nothing.

There are some other assertive items – e.g. ‘quite’, ‘pretty’ and ‘rather’ – that cannot be used in a negative statement.

This writing is quite good. <---> This writing is not quite good.

The dinner was pretty nice. <---> The dinner was not pretty nice.

The test was rather difficult. <---> The test was not rather difficult.

 

 

 

1.1.2 Negative elements

 

Before defining negative elements properly, we will give examples of elements that count as negative elements. Based on syntactic, semantic and lexical differences, four kinds of negative elements can be distinguished. First, negative markers indicate negation and are generally used to express sentential negation. [33]

a. John walks

        b. John does not walk English

Second, negative quantifiers are negative elements. Negative quantifiers are elements that do not only negate a clause or constituent but also bind a particular variable within that clause or constituent46.

a. John sees n-thing

b. John sees nothing

Third, there is a class of negative elements, which depending on their position within a syntactic configuration give or do not give rise to negation. Sometimes the interpretation of such a negative element is equivalent to the interpretation of a negative quantifier, sometimes it is similar to the interpretation of a non-negative existential quantifier.

a. ‘Nobody eats anything’

b. N-thing neg.is done by n-body

‘Nothing is done by anybody’

a. N-body has called

‘Nobody called’

b. Neg has called n-body

‘Nobody called’

Finally, some elements do not have a strict negative reading, but have a clear negative semantic connotation. Several verbs (fear, fail, doubt) and prepositions (without, unless) express ‘negative’ relationships. Note that their positive counterparts in combination with a negation can easily paraphrase the semantics of these elements.

a. Mary has killed John without knife

b. Few girls like John

 

Negative elements

 

Negative element	Properties	Examples
Negative markers	Yield (sentential) negation	Not (English)
Negative quantifiers	Quantifiers that always introduce a negation and that bind a variable within the domain of negation	Nothing (English)
N-words	Quantifiers that introduce negation in particular syntactic configurations
Semi-negatives	Verbs or prepositions that have a negative connotation and that can be paraphrased with a true negative sentence	Few (English)

 

In order to define these four classes of negative elements formally we need to define the common property that is shared by all these elements, but that does not apply to any non-negative element.

A natural attempt to define this property would be negation, i.e. the introduction of a negation in the semantics. However, this assumption faces two serious problems:

1) n-words do not always introduce a negation to the semantics;

2) semi-negatives do not introduce a negation to the semantics either; only their paraphrases do.

An explanation in terms of semi-negatives having an underlying negative lexical semantics (like without = not with) is not of any help either, since such an argument suffers from circularity: the only motivation to assume this underlying lexical semantics is to account for the fact that they are negative elements.

Another property, which is shared by all elements, is that these elements are able to license Affective Items. Affective Items are elements that may occur in particular contexts only. A subset of the set of Affective Items is referred to as Negative Polarity Items, since negation (among others) is able to license these elements, as is shown in the examples: [ 9 ]  

a. John doesn't like any spinach English

b. John likes any spinach

a. Nobody ate any spinach English

b. Somebody ate any spinach

a. N-body eats any of the vegetables

‘Nobody eats any vegetables’

b. Somebody eats any of the vegetables

‘Somebody eats any vegetable’

a. Few people ate any spinach English

b. Many people ate any spinach

Although the class of Negative Polarity Items licensers is broader than the set of the negative elements, a subset of this class is identical to the set of negative elements. Hence if it is clear which property is responsible for Negative Polarity Items licensing, the property that constitutes negative elements can be defined in terms of this Negative Polarity Items -licensing property. Therefore, the study of Negative Polarity Items and their licensing conditions is fruitful in order to provide a working definition of negative elements. Note that this approach does not suffer from circularity: I will describe some general properties of Negative Polarity Items licenser, that therefore automatically also applies to negation. A subset of these properties should then apply only for negative elements, as Negative Polarity Items are always licensed under negation.

 

 

1.1.3 Negative Polarity Items and their licensing conditions

 

The study of Negative Polarity Items has been dominated by four research questions, formulated as follows: [10]    

- The licenser question

-The licensee (marking) question

-The licensing (relation) question

-The status question

The licenser question is essential for the determination of what counts as a negative context, since it addresses the question what conditions a proper NPI-licenser needs to fulfill. The licensee question seeks an answer to the question why certain elements are only allowed to occur in particular contexts and what distinguishes them from polarity-insensitive elements. The licensee question will play a less important role in this subsection, but will be addressed in the further chapters. The licensing question addresses the question of the relation between licenser and its licensee and its answer consists of the conditions for such a relation to be allowed (generally answered in terms of c-command). Finally the status question addresses the status of sentences containing unlicensed Negative Polarity Items: are these sentences syntactically ill formed, or semantically or pragmatically infelicitous. My analysis of n-words presupposes a non-syntactic (i.e. semantic or pragmatic) account of unwell formed Negative Polarity Items expressions.

Negative Polarity Items can be licensed by negative contexts, and negative contexts are introduced by negative elements. However, it is not only negation that can license Negative Polarity Items.

Yes/no questions or conditionals are for example also capable of licensing Negative Polarity Items. Hence we need to determine which property it is that the negative contexts share, but those contexts also license Negative Polarity Items do not.

a. Do you like any wine?

b. If you want to have any wine, please tell me.

Several approaches have been formulated in order to account for Negative Polarity Items licensing.

Apart from semantic approaches that I will discuss in detail in this section, syntactic or pragmatic approaches to Negative Polarity Items licensing have been formulated too. Progovac, Neeleman & Van de Koot account for Negative Polarity Items licensing in terms that are similar to binding theory; Kadmon & Landman, Krifka  and Van Rooij account for Negative Polarity Items licensing in pragmatic terms. However, as the primary interest is to seek the shared semantic properties of negative elements and Negative Polarity Items licensers, we will focus on the semantic approaches in this subsection. Roughly speaking, two main approaches have been formulated in the semantic literature in Negative Polarity Items licensing: the first approach, put forward by Ladusaw’s, Zwarts, Zwarts and Van der Wouden’s account for Negative Polarity Items licensing in terms of downward entailment relations. The second approach, proposed by Giannakidou, following Zwarts, argues that Negative Polarity Items licensing follows from the notion of non-veridicality. [11]  

Ladusaw, following an idea by Fauconier, argues that the common property elements licensing Negative Polarity Items is downward entailment. A function is downward entailing (also known as monotone decreasing, or downward monotonic) if the following relation holds. [12] 

This definition allows for reasoning from sets to subsets. [9]

Thus it can be proven that nothing or few people and not are downward entailing functions, contrary to something or many:

a. Nothing works - Nothing works well

           Something works - Something works well

b. Few people sing - Few people sing loudly

           Many people sing - Many people sing loudly

c. John doesn’t like girls - John doesn’t like Mary

          John likes girls - John likes Mary

So far this seems to be a property that is shared by all four classes of negative elements. However, Van der Wouden shows that downward entailment cannot be the only property that underlies negation. First he argues that some Negative Polarity Items need stronger negative contexts than pure downward entailment thus advocating against downward entailment as a sufficient condition for Negative Polarity Items licensing.[9]

This does not have to have any consequences for the quest for the definition of negative contexts, since downward entailment can still be regarded as a sufficient condition for negative contexts. Stronger negative contexts require additional conditions, such as anti-additivity or anti-multiplicativity.

Second, contexts introduced by yes/no questions may license Negative Polarity Items. This does not form any problem either for a definition of negative contexts in terms of downward entailment, since these contexts are not downward entailing themselves. Giannakidou argues correctly that this is a serious problem for Van der Wouden’s theory of Negative Polarity Items licensing, as Van der Wouden tries to define all contexts that allow for Negative Polarity Items licensing in terms of monotonic properties of contexts. [11]

Third, and more importantly, he shows that some non-negative contexts are also downward entailing. I will discuss two examples: comparative clauses and the first argument of every.

a. Every car is ugly - Every Ford is ugly.

           Every car that is owned by any man is ugly.

b. He runs faster than we thought he could.

    He runs faster than I thought he could.

    He runs faster than anyone thought he could.

Intuitively these contexts should not be regarded as negative contexts, given the classification. Although the comparative clauses may be rephrased by a

negation, which could be an argument in favour of classifying comparatives as

semi-negatives too, this is not the case for universal quantifiers.

He runs faster than we thought he could.

We did not think he could run (any) faster.

Hence we have to look for a property that introduces a subset of downward entailment contexts, thus excluding cases such as the ones mentioned above. I argue that this notion is Giannakidou’s notion of anti-veridicality. She derives antiveridicality from the notion of non-veridicality, which is an expansion of downward entailment. [11]

From these definitions it follows that negative markers and negative adverbs like ‘never’ are anti-veridical.

a. John didn’t come - ̚ come

b. John never came - ̚ come

From this it follows that negative arguments like nobody or nothing are nonveridical.

a. Nobody came to the party.

b. No man danced.

The preposition without is also an anti-veridical element. But even ‘every’ is non-veridical with respect to its restrictive clause.

He left without saying goodbye.

Every man who owns a BMW has no taste.

However, non-monotonic items also trigger these wideners. Exclusivity or uniqueness characterizes non-monotonic operators, such as only, exactly n, superlatives, ordinal numerals, the determiner the, generic NPs, and also if and only if clauses, hope, happy, glad and others.