Пасічник Наталія

Чернівецький національний університет ім. Ю.Федьковича

The polynegation on the syntactical level

Thus the problem in the Old English was discussed many times but it still demands deeper investigation. All the works that are dedicated to the mentioned question can be divided into two main groups: 1) works which deal with ascertaining of the fact of the polynegation in the Old English and explanation of the reasons of its disappearance in the Modern English; 2) works which deal with the explanation of the Old English polynegation.

The investigation by L.K. Kudova, made on the basis of the Old English literature (Bede, Cædmon, Widsith (7^th century), Gnomic Verses (the beginning of the 8^th century, poems by Cynewulf (750-825 A.D.), Beowulf (7-8 century A.D.), Alfred’s prose (849-901 A.D.), Alfric’s prose (1008 A.D.), Wulfstan (1023 A.D.).

She mentions that poetry is rich in mononegative sentences, while in prose it is possible to find a great number of polynegative sentences. For example, Alfric uses only polynegative sentences. Alfred uses mononegative sentences, but rarely. So, it is important to mention that there is a preference of mononegative sentences in poetry. All the mentioned poetical works are older than prosaic works and they continue the initial Indo-European type that was mentioned before. The accumulation of negation in the sentence becomes a norm for prosaic works, but there are interesting exceptions that can explain this phenomenon. As it was stated all the 8 sentences in the Gnomic Verses are mononegative. In three sentences the pronoun nænig is used, in two – sunig (negation with the predicate, i.e. ne v…æfre); in three - æfre (ne v…æfre); in one – nowiht. In the poems by Cynewulf in 5 sentences it is possible to find examples with nænig, in the 21^st - ænig (ne v…ænig); in 11 – næfre, in 7 – æfre, in 2 – nan. So, all sentences, besides 2 are mononegative and they include the pronoun nan.

For example, Juliana, 516 “…heah fæ dra nan ne witgena; Christ, 290. nan swylc ne cwom ænig other ofer ealle men”. But even this last sentence proves the regularity, because there is a form “ænig”, and not “nænig”. In Beowulf there are examples of nænig in 8 sentences, ænig – in 24 sentences, næfre in 8 sentences, æfre – in 2 sentences – nan. So, in Beowulf there are only two examples of the nan-usage. 1460 næfre at hildene swac manna ængum; 798 pone syncathan ænig ofer eorpan irrena cyst, guthbilla nan, gretan nolde. But in the first sentence there is “ængum” but not “nængum” and in the second usage of “nolde” but not “wolde” is explained by the demands of alliteration, while “guthbillar” would not give the needed sense.

Speaking about the difference between pronouns “nænig/ænig” and “nan” they perform the same syntactical function in the sentence but according to their dialectical distribution, “ænig” performs only the function of the indefinite pronoun (i.e. “ne v…ænig”) but in the West-Saxon writers, including Flfred and Alfrec. In works by Alfrec there are only three examples of the “næanig” – usage. Alfred uses “nænig” only once. Alfric, famous for his disposition to the accumulation of negation in one sentence didn’t use at all, i.e. all the West-Saxon writers used only “nan” – contracted form, that wasn’t used in comparison with “nænig” in full form (nev…an). It is a well-known fact that negative contraction in the prestressed syllables is peculiar not only to pronouns, but to predicates too. Among Germanic languages the Old English and the Old Frisian have the largest level of contraction. According to P. Levin (“NegativeContraction: an Old and Middle English Dialect Criterion”. JEGP 57,1958), the West-Saxon dialect preferred the contracted forms while the Anglish dialect was rich in contraction. For example, in Alfric’s works were found only 4 full forms and 477 contracted forms. But in works by Wulfstan, the contemporary of Alfric there are only 17 contracted forms and 281 full forms. And when the West-Saxon writers don’t use the pronoun “nænig” (ne v…ænig), in Wulfstan’s 98 sentences “nan” is used only 14 times. Then, among all 119 sentences (according to D. Betherum “The Homilies of Wulfstun”, Oxford, 1957) 23 are polynegative (19%) and among 23 sentences “nan” is used in 14 of them. The other are næfre…ne v. It seems that such difference is explained by the anglision of Wulfstun’s sermons [2; 39].

All the poetical works, mentioned above, are written in the Anglish dialect, and they do not include the pronoun “nan”. It cannot be found in the earliest works at all. For example, in poems by Cædmon or in Gnomic Verses. Perhaps, the cases of its usage in the poems “Christ”, “Guliana”, “Beowulf” should be considered as borrowing. So, it seems that polynegation in the Old English is not a general linguistic phenomenon, that is why it is impossible to speak about the general Old English. But dialectical phenomenon that is peculiar to the West-Saxon dialect then becomes the norm in the national language. On the other hand, polynegation was caused by the usage of the pronoun “nan”.

Bibligraphy

1. Зупарходжаева Д.А. Коммуникативная функция отрицания в простом повествовательном предложении современного английского языка // Сборник научных трудов МГПИИЯ им. М. Тореза. – М., 1985. – Вып. 246. – С. 14-27.

Иванова И.П. О полевой структуре частей речи в английском языке. // Теория языка, методы его исследования и преподавания – Л., 1981. – С. 125-129.

2.Кедова Л.А. К вопросу о полинегативности древнеанглийского языка//Вестник Харьковского университета №322, ст.37-40.