Kahrel. Aspects of negation in English (thesis)(158s).pdf: eKnigu

Home / lib / L_Languages / LF_Formal theory /

Kahrel. Aspects of negation in English (thesis)(158s).pdf

Size 0.9Mb
Date Feb 23, 2004

Tables, ﬁgures and maps
Tables 1. Distr ibution of the types 37 2. Sample languages classiﬁed 38 3. Function of negative elements per language 71 4. Number of negative elements in each language 79 5. Non-factual environments 91 7. Sample languages listed by genetic aﬃliation 97 8. Distr ibution of languages across continents 102 9. Distr ibution of ter m negation types across continents 104 10. Distr ibution of ter m negation types relative to each type 108 11. Distr ibution of the ter m negation types across Nichols’ macro-areas 109 12. Typological character istics of languages using more than one ter m negation type 109 13. Distr ibution of ter m negation types in Ber nini and Ramat’s sample 111 14. Distr ibution of ter m negation types in Haspelmath’s sample 114 15. Distinct negative markers in imperatives across continents (Dryer’s areas) 116 16. Distinct negative markers in imperatives across continents (Nichols’ areas) 118 17. Distr ibution of word order types across continents 120 18. Distr ibution of ter m negation types across word order types 121 19. Multiple ter m negation per word order type 122 20. Distr ibution of zero quantiﬁcation versus other types 126 Figures 1. The clause structure 13 2. Levels and var iables 14 3. Croft’s types 74 4. The structure of Amer ind 101 5. The structure of Niger-Kordofanian 102 6. Distr ibution of basic word order types 120...

Neg-incorporation applies when N E G fuses with other constituents in the sentence. For example, in many languages N E G is expressed in the mor phology of the main verb, as in the following Gilyak example: (6) Kobon (Davies 1981: 78) Nipe ip hag ñ-ag-a. 3SG 1SGOBJ say give-NEG-PAST3SG ‘He did not tell me.’ In other cases N E G fuses with the deter miner of a nominal constituent, which can be illustrated by Indo-European languages like English and Dutch. Klima (1964), for example, proposed to analyze nothing as the expression of the fusion of N E G and an indeﬁnite. (Kraak 1966 gives a similar analysis for Dutch negative indeﬁnites.) Sometimes quite drastic operations are required to account for the for m of the negative element, such as an expletive rule that transfor ms N E G plus some into any (Klima 1964) as in (3). The analysis of sentence negation outlined above still prevails in most versions of generative grammar (see for example Rizzi 1982 for a discus-...

1.3 A note on ter minology
The investigation of ‘ter m negation’ will be restr icted in this study to for ms of negation which cor respond to what in English is expressed by...

2 Negation in Functional Grammar
The F G treatment of negation, including ter m negation, can only be fully appreciated with some pr ior knowledge of the F G framework. Accordingly, section 2.1 outlines the F G model of grammar. The F G approach to var ious types of sentence negation is elaborated in section 2.2. Finally, section 2.3 deals speciﬁcally with ter m negation....

The structure of FG Figure 1. The clause structure 2 1 predV (A ) 1 nuclear predication core predication extended predication proposition clause...

For reasons that I will not discuss here, Dik chooses to analyze these for ms as the result of predicate for mation. He distinguishes three distinct for ms of predicate negation: complementary for mation (married/unmarried), contrary for mation (deep/shallow) and litotes (a not unattractive man). Litotes is treated in detail in Hoﬀmann (1987). 2.2.2 Predicational and propositional negation Since the nature of predicational and propositional negation can best be appreciated by juxtaposing the two, I will discuss them together here. Predicational negation is character ized as the objective statement of the...

2.3 Ter m negation
We have just seen that sentential negation (predicational, propositional and illocutionary) is analysed in F G by means of a level 2 or a level 3 negative operator. Since, as shown in section 1.1, ter m negation qualiﬁes as an instance of sentential negation according to the standard syntactic tests, it could in theory be treated on a par with with other types of sentential negation in F G . Note that examples such as (19) meet the semantic character of predicational negation in F G , ie., they present objectively the non-occur rence of a S oA ....

Apart from these functions, Dik introduces the function s that assigns a size to an ensemble:6...

3.1 Outline of the typology
The expression of ter m negation in my language sample can be captured by means of the following typology: Type 1: negation at clause level – with mor phological change in ter m; i.e. neg plus indeﬁnite Type 2: negation at clause level – without mor phological change in ter m; i.e. neg plus special indeﬁnite Type 3: negation at ter m level; i.e. zero quantiﬁcation Type 4: combination of 1 and 3; i.e. neg plus zero quantiﬁcation Type 5: negation above clause level; i.e. a negative existential construction The distinction between types 1 and 2 is minor in that there is only a mor phological diﬀerence in the indeﬁnite ter m. But languages make a clear and consistent distinction between the two, and as will be shown later in section 3.4, languages may use both types alongside each other.2 The actual realizations of each of these types will be presented in detail in the course of the chapter. But to provide an immediate idea of the above typological distinctions, here are examples of each type in pseudo-English: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. John not bought something John not bought anything John bought nothing John not bought nothing There is nothing that John bought...

In many languages, it appears to be the case that patter ns such as (26a) are histor ically more stable than the one in (26b). For example, in French the negative ne can be left out, but only when the indeﬁnite follows ne. When the indeﬁnite is preposed or when the Subject is indeﬁnite (as in 26b), ne must be used: (27) a. *Personne ar r ivait. b. Rien ne va plus. c. *Rien va plus. That patter ns such as (26a) seem to be more stable than those in (26b) can also be shown by data from Russian and Spanish. In Russian, when a zero ter m precedes the verb, the predication operator ne is still expressed – see (28a). In older for ms of Russian, however, it was left out (Payne 1985). Thus, (28b) was well for med in older Russian but is unacceptable in moder n Russian. (28) Russian (Payne 1985: 237) a. Nikto ne pr išël. nobody N E G came ‘Nobody came.’ b. *Nikto pr išël. In Spanish we ﬁnd the reverse situation. When a zero ter m preceded the verb in older Spanish, the negation operator no was expressed; in moder n Spanish, by contrast, the negation operator is omitted (García 1976). Thus, moder n Spanish and old Russian patter n like Italian. It is for these reasons that I took into consideration only sentences displaying active standard word order. There is also a practical reason for doing so: in most language descr iptions the interaction between zero ter ms and negative operators in diﬀerent sentence structures is not discussed...