S. A. Sidorova

Negation in English: a Diachronic Perspective (XVI–XX c.)

The last decade of the researches in the field of linguistics has seen a remarkable upsurge of interest in problems of language universals using the data from a wide range of languages to reveal generalizations across them and determine the properties of the human language [1, p. 48]. One of such phenomena found in various languages that has always arisen constant interest of philosophers, linguists, mathematicians and logicians is negation.

Historically the study of negation is traced back to the works of ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato, logicians, namely L. Horn, H. Wright, H. Wansing and psychologists N. McWilliams, A. Freud, S. Freud, etc. 

As a linguistic category negation and means of its expression in Modern English (ME) have been investigated by D. Buring, B. Fedorovicz-Bacz, O. Jespersen, J. Lawler, I. Palacios, A. Pisarska. The outcomes of these investigations allow other researchers to distinguish between different types of negation (O. Jespersen, W. Ladusaw, J. Lawler, R. Quirk et al., H. Zeijlstra), to explain the phenomenon of multiple negation (N. Blake, A. Charezinska, T. Nevalainen, R. Quirk et al.), to take a closer look at the stylistic value of negation, its usage in idioms and inversion (D. Buring, I. Palacios). Negation has also been studied in a diachronic perspective (R. Hogg, G. Mazzon, T. Nevalainen).

Despite the fact that negation has been described from different points of view and many of its peculiarities have been revealed there are still some areas that require further investigation. Taking into consideration the paramount importance of Early Modern English (EME) period (XVI – XVII c.) in the history of the English language it is necessary to more thoroughly study negation and means of its expression starting from the XVI c. and up to the present.

Our article is aimed at tracing the historical dynamics of the ways of expressing negation in the English language in the XVI – XX c.

The phenomenon of negation as a linguistic universal has been studied by researchers for a long time. All of them emphasized different aspects of negation and defined it depending on the scientific field and perspective. But in our study we will view negation in accordance with the definition provided by O. Selivanova, who interprested it as a language universal; functional-semantic category which integrates language and speech units of different levels on the basis of common semantics of negating. Means of language representation of this category are negative prefixes, particles, verbs, syntactic constructions, intonation and word order, negative sentences [2, p. 240]. Due to its focus on the universal character of negation and specification of the relation between the form and meaning this definition seems to be appropriate and compliant with the modern approaches to language study.

Generally, research people tend to differentiate several types of negation according to its manifestation in languages of the world. Thus, W. Ladusaw distinguishes between: 1) explicit negation; 2) non-verbal negation; 3) affixal negation; 4) implicit negation [3, p. 26].

Explicit negation is the most common type of all mentioned. In the English language this type of negation is expressed by putting a negative particle not or using conjunctions neither..nor / either:

Non-verbal negation is achieved by using such negative words as nobody, never, nowhere to negate the clause.

In affixal negation a negative meaning bares a word with a negative affix. Among the negative affixes in English prefixes in-, un-, il-, ir-, im- can be mentioned, as well as some suffixes such as -less.

Implicit negation can be achieved by using words with negative meaning [3, p. 27].

Another approach to differentiating negation into various types is suggested by R. Quirk et al. According to these authors’ point of view three main types of negation in the English language can be distinguished depending on the influence on the semantics of the sentences it causes: 1) clause negation; 2) local negation; 3) predication negation [4, p. 775].

Thus, clause negation, which can be also called sentential, is a type of negation through which the whole clause is syntactically treated as negative [4, p. 776]. Clause negation possesses several features that reveal its usage in a language, namely the scope of negation and the focus of negation [26, p. 789].

In local negation one constituent (not necessarily a clause element) is negated, that is why in some resources this type of negation is called constituent [4, p. 790]. It can be achieved by adding negative affixes to different parts of speech. To negate adjectives in English such prefixes as: in-, un-, il-, ir-, im-, de- and suffix -less are added. Prefixes with negative meaning for nouns are: dis-, mis-, un-:

Predication negation is a minor type, in which the predication is negated. In predication negation, a modal auxiliary is used with a different scope of negation than is normal for that auxiliary [4, p.797].

Multiple or double negation cannot but be mentioned. It involves a combination of clausal and local negation.

Having studied these classifications we have singled out both similarities and differences in them. The typology given by W. Ladusaw is concentrated on means of expressing negation, while R. Quirk et al. are more focused on the semantic influence of the negation. To characterize the development of the means of expressing negation we will rely on the typology suggested by W. Ladusaw since it is based on the markers used to manifest negative semantics.

In EME, after the loss of ne, there was a tendency to express explicit negation by placing not in preverbal and postverbal positions [6, p. 121]. The examples of this type of negation we can observe in the following extracts selected from the works of literature of the XVI – XVII c:

(1) …bade him harden his ears, and not make his eyes abortive before their time… (T. Nashe The unfortunate traveler).

(2) Let not thy mother lose her prayers, Hamlet… (W. Shakespeare Hamlet, prince of Denmark).

Since EME was critical for the formation and / or consolidation of various analytical forms and, in particular, do-support (or do-periphrasis) development [7, p. 265], one more position for the negation marker not can be singled out. It was sometimes placed between the auxiliary (do/does/did) and the first non-finite form of the verb:

(3) …for I do not know if there be… (T. More Utopia).

The particle not could also be attached to a modal or immediately follow it, as in abstract (4).

(4) …though they cannot be called a monopoly (T. More Utopia).

Explicit negation in the XVI – XVII c. could also be expressed by the constructions neither/ neither…nor / either:

(5) Admit that you had neither wit nor capacity… (T. Nashe The unfortunate traveler).

Non-verbal negation in the XVI – XVII c. was widely used and can be observed in these examples:

(6) I would never have gone so far over the shoes to pluck you out of the mire (T. Nashe The unfortunate traveler).

Affixal negation can be demonstrated by the following examples:

(7) …a beardless boy had disappointed all his expectations (T. More Utopia).

(8) And never come mischance between us twain! (W. Shakespeare Hamlet, prince of Denmark).

The instances of implicit realization of negation are not very numerous in our data. In abstract (9) this type of negation is manifested by the verb to fail:

(9) …it is supposed that they have failed in their duty (T. More Utopia).

Starting from the XVIII c. several means of expressing negation became more widely used than they were in the XVI – XVII c. Explicit type of negation was still very popular, but it was mainly manifested by adding not to an auxiliary (as in example (10)) rather than in preverbal or postverbal positions. This development was connected with the gradual stabilization in the usage of do-support for interrogation and negation [6, p. 34].

(10) I do not remember that I had, in all that time … (D. Defoe The life and adventurous of Robinson Crusoe).

According to our data explicit negation expressed with the help of neither/ neither…nor/ either constructions as, for instance, in sentence (11) decreased in the course of the XVIII – XIX c.:

(11) They neither bring ruin upon others, nor ever receive it from alien hands (O. Wilde The picture of Dorian Gray).

In the data illustrating the XVIII – XIX c. period both non-verbal (12) and affixal negation (13), (14) are used, the latter becoming more common compared to EME. For example:

(12) I never knew, any more than my father or mother knew what became of me (D. Defoe The life and adventurous of Robinson Crusoe).

(13) It is an irrevocable vow that I want to take (O. Wilde The picture of Dorian Gray).

(14) …you prevailed on me to publish a very loose and uncorrect account of my travels (J. Swift Gulliver’s travels into several remote nations of the world).

As well as the affixal negation the implicit one was also becoming more popular than in previous centuries. Its manifestation is illustrated by the abstracts (15):

(15) You would hardly care for such an arrangement, Basil (O. Wilde The picture of Dorian Gray).

The analysis of the XX c. data has revealed that in ME one of the most productive negation patterns of explicit negation was auxiliary + not. What is more it was the only type which was used to form a contraction. This has become common in published materials in recent decades.

(16) Don’t let him come in again (H.G. Wells. The invisible man).

Structures with neither…nor/ neither/ either as means of expressing explicit negation have not lost their popularity in ME:

(17) If it neither reflects nor refracts… (H.G. Wells. The invisible man).

Non-verbal negation was still used in the XX c. and numerous examples of its realization could be observed in the data:

(18) There was nowhere to escape (J. Fawles The collector).

It should be mentioned that in certain dialects never could sometimes be used instead of not with the same meaning [6, p. 36].

(19) He never said a word; just glared, and put his sleeve back in his pocket quickly (H.G. Wells. The invisible man).

As for the manifestation of negation by affixal means or implicitly, according to our data, no visible changes occurred to here in the XX c.

One more type of negation that is distinguished by R. Quirk et al. is predication negation which can be observed only in a limited number of examples in the data of the XVI –XVII c. and has not been singled out in the data for the XVIII – XIX c.:

(20) …persuasions among them may not agree (are allowed not to agree); for every sect performs (T. More Utopia).

All things considered, we have come to the conclusion that though all four types of negation have been used throughout the period under investigation, there is some variation in the frequency of their occurrence. Moreover, the realization of explicit negation with the help of putting not in preverbal and postverbal positions has considerably decreased in ME compared to EME and Late ME. Among the innovations of the XX c. the increasing use of contractions for auxiliary + not and never instead of not in certain dialects should be mentioned.

Another phenomenon of negation should be described – multiple (double) negation or negative concord. It is the use of two or even more negative markers in a statement. Multiple negation was considered perfectly acceptable in most forms of Early and Late MdE. Although it began to disappear rapidly in the first part of the XVI c., this process was not completed even in the first half of the XVIII c.

Multiple negation in EME can be illustrated with a number of examples from our data:

(21) It is not, nor it cannot come to good; But break my heart… (W. Shakespeare Hamlet, prince of Denmark).

In the course of the XVII c. the phenomenon of multiple negation was becoming less popular in wide usage, but could still be found in many context and works of literature. For instance:

(22) Nor did they not perceave the evil … (J. Milton Paradise lost).

The decrease in the frequency of occurrence of multiple negation and its gradual transfer from «correct» to «incorrect» could probably be attributed to the popular seventeenth-century belief of logicians and linguists, who treated it as illogical, because two negatives form positive. On the other hand, according to some scientists, multiple or the so-called cumulative negation possesses an emphatic effect [2, p. 125], as in (37):

(23) …and what nobody don’t understand, and what everybody is very anxious to understand (H.G. Wells. The invisible man).

Though in the XVIII – XIX c. multiple negation was forced out from official language it is still widely used in more informal types of spoken English. The appearance of it is either emphasis or lack of proper education:

(24) …there wasn’t none. Just blackness (H.G. Wells. The invisible man).

All in all, we have come to the conclusion that the phenomenon of multiple negation has been present in the English language for a considerable period of time, but the attitude to it has changed from being appropriate in PG, OE and MdE to being grammatically incorrect in the XX c.

The frequency of usage of different types and means of expressing negation depends on the century. The most widely used type of negation in the XVI – XVII c. was explicit negation (86%) as it is characterized with a wide range of means. Among the means of negation manifestation the following were found most frequently: adding particle to a modal verb (19%), not in a preverbal position (14%). In the XVIII – XIX c. the types of negation singled out are the same. But the frequency of occurrence of different means of expressing negative semantics changed. Thus, adding not to an operator was the dominant one (19%), while the number of cases where not was used postverbally or preverbally or added directly to the verb decreased (9 % and 7% respectively). In the XX c. several new means of expressing explicit negation appeared. They are contracted forms of auxiliaries + not (19 %) and using never instead of not (4%). Multiple negation began to disappear rapidly in the first part of the XVI c. Nevertheless, in the XVIII – XIX c. it regularly occurred in informal written language and is still found in more informal types of Spoken English where it emphasizes the negated thought or sometimes due to the lack of education.

Thus, having achieved the aim set we traced the historical dynamics of the ways of expressing negation in the English language in the XVI – XX c. Further researches into the field may be concentrated on the study of negation in a wider historical context analyzing the data from OE and until now. Negation can also be studied taking into consideration the data from different languages, namely English, Russian, Ukrainian.

References

1. Comrie B. Language universals and linguistic typology / B. Comrie. – Chicago : The University of Chicago Press, 1989. – 232 p. 2. Селіванова О. Сучасна лінгвістика: термінологічна енциклопедія / О. Селіванова. – Полтава : Довкілля-К, 2006. – 716 p. 3. Ladusaw W. Expressing negation / W. Ladusaw. – Santa Cruz : University of California, 2001. – 81 p. 4. Quirk R. A comprehensive grammar of the English language / R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, J. Svartvik. – London : Pearson-Longman, 1985. – 1779 p. 5. Harbert W. The Germanic languages / W. Harbert. – Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2007. – 510 p. 6. Есперсен О. Философия грамматики / О. Есперсен. – М. : Иностранная литература, 1958. – 415 с. 7. Расторгуева Т. А. История английского языка : учебник / Т. А. Расторгуева. – М. : Астрель: АСТ, 2005. – 248 с.

The article is devoted to the study of the peculiarities of expressing negation in the English language in XVI – XX c. The main types and means of expressing negation and their frequency of usage in the XVI c., XVIII c., XX c. were examined.

Key words: negation, types of negation, multiple negation, scope of negation, focus of negation, means of expressing negation.