Negation
Read: 2023-04-13
📇 Index
- grammaticalised negation is a universal phenomenon
- negation is the change of a truth value to its opposite
- [i] META: I really wish these types of reviews had examples (it does, after the first part of the chapter, yay!)
- Typology of negation
- focus on declarative clauses with verbal predicates (“standard”)
- imperatives + non-verbal predications
- Dahl (1979): syntactic vs morphological negation (particles/aux verbs or affixes) (similarly stated in Payne 1085)
- word order
- indefinites
- Miestamo looked extensively at what he calls “symmetric and asymmetric negatives”
- Van der Auwera and Lejeune (2005, 2013): negations are marked differently in prohibitves than in declaratives
- Eriksen (2011): Direct Negation Avoidance
- standard negation produced less frequently
- Standard Negation (Payne 1985) ^6cb6f2
- “negation of declarative main clauses with a verbal predicate” (408f)
- other possibilities: tonal, reduplication, omission of tense markers
- there seems to be a tendency to express negation as close to the to-be-marked constituent as possible, as early as possible
- symmetric
- no structural differences to affirmatives
- same forms in entire verbal paradigm (see French
ne pasconstruction) - [?] 413 | Can languages show both asymmetric and symmetric structures?
- asymmetric
- different types
- A/Fin = finite element added
- A/NonReal = negative has to be accompanied by irrealis
- A/Emph = assertive (rare, Southeast Asia)
- A/Cat = 🐈 (meow) affects Tense-Aspect-Mood (TAM) or Person-Number-Gender (PNG) markers, e.g. losing distinction between actual/potential/perfect marking in negative forms (Burmese)
- [?] “neutralization”
- Non-declaratives
- prohibitives (van der Auwera and Lejeune 2005/2013)
- declarative and imperative negation is marked the same as affirmation
- decl. different
- imp. different
- both different
- [!] languages are very likely to use a different strategy for imperatives
- prohibitives (van der Auwera and Lejeune 2005/2013)
- ein paar blöde Beispielsätze im Deutschen
- Ich esse.
- Ich esse nicht.
- Ich aß.
- Ich aß nicht.
- Iss!
- Iss nicht!
- Ich kann essen.
- Ich kann nicht essen.
Miestamo, Matti Markko Petteri. 2017. Negation. In Alexandra Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics), 405–439. 1st edn. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316135716.013.
- Keywords:: Negation
- Zotero öffnen
Imported: 2023-04-27 17:24
⭐ Main
Highlight ( p. 17)
In distantiating strategies, the predicate is embedded under an expression that has positive polarity and this positive polarity expression is negated: neg [pos [nv-pred]]. In phrase-internal strategies, the predication remains positive and negation appears within the phrase that constitutes the predicate, negating its lexical contents: pos [nv-pred [neg [lex]]].
Highlight ( p. 19)
Zeshan’s (2013) comparative study of sign languages reveals the following set of domains and meanings within them that are the most likely to exhibit what she calls irregular negatives: • cognition: ‘not know’, ‘not understand’ • emotional attitude: ‘not want’, ‘not like’, ‘not care’ • modals: ‘cannot’, ‘need not’, ‘must not’ • possession/existential: ‘not have’, ‘not exist’, ‘not get’ • tense/aspect: ‘will not’, ‘did not’, ‘not finished’ • evaluative judgement: ‘not right’, ‘not possible’, ‘not enough’
Highlight ( p. 19)
Veselinova (p.c.) notes that negative existentials and not-yet expressions are clearly the most common
Highlight ( p. 21)
corresponding meaning is expressed with an existential construction (Nad ̈ eb 34).
Highlight ( p. 23)
contrary (as in happy vs. unhappy) or contradictory (as in married vs. unmar-
mutual exclusivity?
Highlight ( p. 23)
Negative Replies
Highlight ( p. 23)
replies to polar questions
Highlight ( p. 23)
Languages vary as to whether they have a one-word negative reply (such as English no)or whether they lack such a form and repeat the verb or the whole clause of the question in the negative.
Highlight ( p. 23)
whether there is a one-word positive reply
Highlight ( p. 23)
may be identical to the standard negator of the language
Highlight ( p. 24)
Japanese is a language in which a negative reply disagrees with the polarity of the question
Highlight ( p. 25)
Languages have different ways for indicating the scope of negation and restricting it to a specific constituent. This is closely related to the marking of focus in a language: negation tends to interact with focus and when a focused constituent appears in a negative, the result is often a narrow-scope reading with the focused element alone in the scope of negation
Highlight ( p. 25)
In some languages, negatives differ from affirmatives in terms of how NPs in the scope of negation are marked.
Highlight ( p. 26)
Negation is found to affect the use of articles and other determiners
Highlight ( p. 26)
the term double negation has been used to refer to two quite opposite situations
Highlight ( p. 27)
two well-known diachronic developments in the domain of negation: the Jespersen Cycle and Croft’s negative existential cycle
Highlight ( p. 27)
In the development known as Jespersen Cycle, an element that is first introduced to negatives as an emphasizing element gets reinterpreted as a negative marker alongside the original marker of negation, resulting thus in a double marking of negation; the older marker of negation may then gradually be dropped, and the new element ends up functioning as the sole marker of negation.
Highlight ( p. 27)
A link between emphasis and negation is well known, as negation occurs in a discourse context in which it often contradicts something that is assumed in the context if not explicitly said earlier in the discourse (see, e.g., Givo ́ n 1978).
Highlight ( p. 27)
Croft’s (1991) negative existential cycle can be given a dynamic interpretation showing stages in a typical diachronic development path of negators, whereby Type A would develop into Type B, which would further develop into Type C and then back to Type A
Highlight ( p. 17)
In distantiating strategies, the predicate is embedded under an expression that has positive polarity and this positive polarity expression is negated: neg [pos [nv-pred]]. In phrase-internal strategies, the predication remains positive and negation appears within the phrase that constitutes the predicate, negating its lexical contents: pos [nv-pred [neg [lex]]].
Highlight ( p. 19)
Zeshan’s (2013) comparative study of sign languages reveals the following set of domains and meanings within them that are the most likely to exhibit what she calls irregular negatives: • cognition: ‘not know’, ‘not understand’ • emotional attitude: ‘not want’, ‘not like’, ‘not care’ • modals: ‘cannot’, ‘need not’, ‘must not’ • possession/existential: ‘not have’, ‘not exist’, ‘not get’ • tense/aspect: ‘will not’, ‘did not’, ‘not finished’ • evaluative judgement: ‘not right’, ‘not possible’, ‘not enough’
Highlight ( p. 19)
Veselinova (p.c.) notes that negative existentials and not-yet expressions are clearly the most common
Highlight ( p. 21)
corresponding meaning is expressed with an existential construction (Nade¨b 34).
Highlight ( p. 23)
contrary (as in happy vs. unhappy) or contradictory (as in married vs. unmar-
mutual exclusivity?
Highlight ( p. 23)
Negative Replies
Highlight ( p. 23)
replies to polar questions
Highlight ( p. 23)
Languages vary as to whether they have a one-word negative reply (such as English no) or whether they lack such a form and repeat the verb or the whole clause of the question in the negative.
Highlight ( p. 23)
whether there is a one-word positive reply
Highlight ( p. 23)
may be identical to the standard negator of the language
Highlight ( p. 24)
Japanese is a language in which a negative reply disagrees with the polarity of the question
Highlight ( p. 25)
Languages have different ways for indicating the scope of negation and restricting it to a specific constituent. This is closely related to the marking of focus in a language: negation tends to interact with focus and when a focused constituent appears in a negative, the result is often a narrow-scope reading with the focused element alone in the scope of negation.
Highlight ( p. 25)
In some languages, negatives differ from affirmatives in terms of how NPs in the scope of negation are marked.
Highlight ( p. 26)
Negation is found to affect the use of articles and other determiners
Highlight ( p. 26)
the term double negation has been used to refer to two quite opposite situations.
Highlight ( p. 27)
two well-known diachronic developments in the domain of negation: the Jespersen Cycle and Croft’s negative existential cycle
Highlight ( p. 27)
In the development known as Jespersen Cycle, an element that is first introduced to negatives as an emphasizing element gets reinterpreted as a negative marker alongside the original marker of negation, resulting thus in a double marking of negation; the older marker of negation may then gradually be dropped, and the new element ends up functioning as the sole marker of negation.
Highlight ( p. 27)
A link between emphasis and negation is well known, as negation occurs in a discourse context in which it often contradicts something that is assumed in the context if not explicitly said earlier in the discourse (see, e.g., Givo´n 1978).
Highlight ( p. 27)
Croft’s (1991) negative existential cycle can be given a dynamic interpretation showing stages in a typical diachronic development path of negators, whereby Type A would develop into Type B, which would further develop into Type C and then back to Type A
✅ Definition
Highlight ( p. 16)
The relationship between existential and standard negators was addressed by Croft (1991). He identified three types: Type A in which the standard negator is used with the existential predication marker as with any verb (e.g. Finnish 26), Type B in which there is a separate negative existential predication marker distinct from the standard negator (e.g. Turkish 27) and Type C in which one and the same element functions as a negative existential predication marker and as a standard negator combining with any verb
Highlight ( p. 17)
Eriksen (2011) postulates the DNA principle, which says that ‘[a]ll non-standard negation of non-verbal predicates is a means to negate such predicates indirectly’ (p. 277)
Highlight ( p. 19)
Formally, lexicalized negatives can be either fused forms in which a negative marker has fused with the lexeme to be negated, or they can be completely suppletive forms showing no formal relation to the positive lexeme.
Highlight ( p. 20)
Kahrel’s (1996) typology distinguishes five types of construction: Type I in which the same item is used in the scope of negation as is used in positives (Evenki 30), Type II in which there is a special form of the indefinite/adverb under negation (English 31), Type III in which an inherently negative item is used without clausal negation present (German 32), Type IV in which an inherently negative item co-occurs with clausal negation (Romanian 33) and finally Type V in which no indefinite pronouns are found and the
Highlight ( p. 24)
In logic a distinction is made between internal and external negation. In internal negation, the subject (or topic) of the sentence falls outside the scope of negation which is restricted to the predicate (or comment) part of the utterance. In external negation, the whole sentence, including the subject, is in the scope of negation and the existence of the subject is not presupposed.
Highlight ( p. 26)
In Dryer (2013a), double negation refers to the pattern in which clausal negation is expressed by the combination of two negative markers as in French ne … pas. Other terms for this type of negative marking are discontinuous negation and in the case of affixes also circumfixal negation (cf. Dahl’s 1979 terminology above).
Highlight ( p. 26)
In logic, double negation refers to the situation in which two negatives together make a positive (the law of double negation), e.g. I didn’t think he would not come is roughly equivalent to I thought he would come.
Highlight ( p. 27)
This is the story of the French negative marker pas, which originally meant ‘step’ and was first introduced into clauses with verbs of walking and going, and then gradually became part of the negative construction, later ousting the original negator ne in colloquial French.
Highlight ( p. 16)
The relationship between existential and standard negators was addressed by Croft (1991). He identified three types: Type A in which the standard negator is used with the existential predication marker as with any verb (e.g. Finnish 26), Type B in which there is a separate negative existential predication marker distinct from the standard negator (e.g. Turkish 27) and Type C in which one and the same element functions as a negative existential predication marker and as a standard negator combining with any verb
Highlight ( p. 17)
Eriksen (2011) postulates the DNA principle, which says that ‘[a]ll non-standard negation of non-verbal predicates is a means to negate such predicates indirectly’ (p. 277)
Highlight ( p. 19)
Formally, lexicalized negatives can be either fused forms in which a negative marker has fused with the lexeme to be negated, or they can be completely suppletive forms showing no formal relation to the positive lexeme.
Highlight ( p. 20)
Kahrel’s (1996) typology distinguishes five types of construction: Type I in which the same item is used in the scope of negation as is used in positives (Evenki 30), Type II in which there is a special form of the indefinite/adverb under negation (English 31), Type III in which an inherently negative item is used without clausal negation present (German 32), Type IV in which an inherently negative item co-occurs with clausal negation (Romanian 33) and finally Type V in which no indefinite pronouns are found and the
Highlight ( p. 24)
In logic a distinction is made between internal and external negation. In internal negation, the subject (or topic) of the sentence falls outside the scope of negation which is restricted to the predicate (or comment) part of the utterance. In external negation, the whole sentence, including the subject, is in the scope of negation and the existence of the subject is not presupposed.
Highlight ( p. 26)
In Dryer (2013a), double negation refers to the pattern in which clausal negation is expressed by the combination of two negative markers as in French ne … pas. Other terms for this type of negative marking are discontinuous negation and in the case of affixes also circumfixal negation (cf. Dahl’s 1979 terminology above).
Highlight ( p. 26)
In logic, double negation refers to the situation in which two negatives together make a positive (the law of double negation), e.g. I didn’t think he would not come is roughly equivalent to I thought he would come.
Highlight ( p. 27)
This is the story of the French negative marker pas, which originally meant ‘step’ and was first introduced into clauses with verbs of walking and going, and then gradually became part of the negative construction, later ousting the original negator ne in colloquial French.
⭕ Caveats/Lookup
Highlight ( p. 23)
abessive
Highlight ( p. 23)
abessive