The 80th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America
January 5-8, 2006
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Towards a typology of negation
in non-verbal and existential
sentences
Ljuba Veselinova
Eastern Michigan Univesity
[email protected]
Why is this interesting
„
„
Negation is said to be a feature truly
specific to human language. It is not
found in other communication systems
Negation is one of the few
characteristics which are more or less
universal in that all known languages
have a way to express it
Previous studies on negation
(a very brief excursion)
Abundant philosophical literature on
„
„
„
Negation
„
Existence
Cross-linguistic studies on negation tend to concentrate
on sentences with an overt verb predicate e.g.
Mary does not sing
Negation of copula clauses is excluded
from [X] because it may differ from
standard negation
Some examples: Dahl 1979, Payne 1985, Kahrel 1996,
Miestamo 2003
„
Abundant cross-linguistic studies on copula and
existential sentences but almost complete absence of
studies on their negation (except for Croft 1991, Pål
Eriksen 2005, p.c.)
Focus of this paper
Non-verbal sentences
„
i.
ii.
This is not Mary
Mary is not a nurse
Existential sentences
„
i.
ii.
Green lions do not exist
There are no green lions
Ma
Sources
„
„
Grammars
Elicitation from language experts (native
speakers, grammar authors or field
workers)
The classification is tentative
because of:
„
„
Insufficient material for some languages
Restrictions on the collected data
Restrictions on the data (1)
„
Have not looked at the interaction of negation and tense
Hebrew (Afro-Asiatic, Semitic)
Dan
eyno rəcini
Dan
not.be rəcini
‘Dan is not serious’
Dan
lo
haya
rəcini
Dan
neg
be.pst serious
‘Dan wasn’t serious’
My data are restricted, the extent possible, to statements
where the tense-aspect category is the least marked one
in language X.
Restrictions on the data (2)
„
Have not looked at the interaction of negation
and focus
Mandarin (Sino-Tibetan, Chinese)
1. Fèlyòng
bú
hěn
Expenses
not.be
very
’The expenses are not very high’
2. Fèlyòng
bù
hěn
Expenses
not
very
’The expenses are not very high’
gāo
high
gāo
high
Terminology
„
„
„
Mary does not sing standard/verbal negation (S)
This is not Aragog nominal negation (N)
There are no dark wizards existential negation (E)
General overview of the data
„
„
Six general strategies are observed for the
languages in the sample, tentatively called types
named A through F
The identified types are presented as follows
„
„
First, a familiar case from Indo-European languages
(Type A)
I will then proceed with the others (starting with F,
then those in between A and F)
Type A:
No distinction between standard,
nominal and existential negation
„
Swedish (Indo-European, North Germanic)
1.
Maria sjunger
inte
Maria sings
NEG
’Maria doesn’t sing’
2.
Maria är
inte
lärare
Maria is
NEG
teacher
’Maria is not a teacher’
3.
Gröna lejon
finns
inte
green lions
exist
NEG
’Green lions do not exist’
Type F:
Three way distinction
„
Turkish (Altaic, Turkic)
1a. Gel-ecek
come-FUT
’(she) will come’
2a. Hasta yim
sick I.am
’I am sick’
3a. Su
var-di
water exist-PAST
’There is water’
1b. Gel-me-yecek
come-NEG-FUT
’(she) will not come’
2b. Hasta degil-yim
sick NEG-I.am
’I am not sick’
yok-ti
3b. Su
water exist.not-PAST
’There is no water’
Verbal negation
Nominal negation
Verbal negation
Nominal negation
Existential negation
A
B C
Existential negation
D E
F
Type B:
Standard and Nominal
vs. Existential Negation
„
Bagirmi (Nilo-Saharan, Central Sudanic) (Stevenson 1969: 83,
91, 130)
1a. Ma m-’de
1.SG 1.SG-come
’I came’
1b. Ma
m-’de
1.SG 1.SG-come
’I didn’t come’
li
NEG
2a. Ma Ahmed
I
Ahmed
’I am Ahmed’
Ahmed
2a. Ma
I
Ahmed
’I am not Ahmed’
eli
lol(o)
3a. Ma m-ɜt
I
1.SG-be.present here
’I am here’
gwoto
3b. Ne
He
be.absent
’He is not here’
lol(o)
NEG
here
Type C:
Standard and Existential vs.
Nominal Negation
„
Usan (Trans-New Guinea, Madang-Adelbert Range), (Miestamo 2003:
361, Reesnik 1987: 141, 143)
1.
Se
itumut
ye
me
now
in.the.morning I
NEG
’This morning, I did not go down’
is-au
go.down-NMLZ
2.
ʔomon
eŋ
e
me
igo
custom
the
here
not
be.3.SG.PRES
’That custom does not exist here’
3.
Munon
eŋ
yonou bain
older.brother
Man
the
my
’The man is not my older brother’
ue
NEG
Type D:
Standard vs.
Nominal and Existential Negation
„
Sentani (Trans-New Guinea, Main Section, Sentani),
(Miestamo 2003: 344, Hartzler 1994: 52-3, 57, 60)
1.
O-boro-i
2.
E-me-i
3.
A
hele
ban
4.
Weyæ
fa
bele?
NEG-hear-NON.TEMPORAL
’I didn’t/do not/will not hear’
NEG-come-NON.TEMPORAL
’I didn’t/do not/will not come’
word
true
’It’s not true’
NEG
You
child
with
’Do you have any children?
Fa
ban
child
not.existent.animate
’No, I don’t’
Frequency of the identified types of
negation strategies
Type: F
14 langs
18%
Type: A
20 langs
26%
Type A: S = N = E
Type B: S and N vs. E
Type: E
6 langs
8%
Type C: S and E vs. N
Type D: S vs. N and E
Type: D
6 langs
8%
Type: C
11 langs
14%
Type: B
20 langs
26%
Type E: S vs. E, N
unclear
Type F: S vs. N vs. E
Structural properties of Standard,
Nominal and Existential negators
S
N
E
Bound morpheme
31 (38%)
11 (17%)
14 (18%)
Lexical item
2 (3%)
12 (18%)
33 (40%)
Preverbal particle
24 (30%)
15 (23%)
14 (18%)
Pre-auxiliary particle
_
1 (2%)
_
Discontinous particles
4 (5%)
5 (8%)
6 (8%)
Particle before verbal group 4 (5%)
2 (3%)
2 (3%)
Postverbal particle
6 (8%)
8 (12%)
4 (5%)
Post-auxiliary particle
2 (3%)
2 (3%)
1 (1%)
Sentence initial particle
4 (5%)
6 (9%)
3 (4%)
Sentence final particle
2 (3%)
3 (5%)
3 (4%)
Use of copula in affirmative nominal
sentences and choice of negation strategy
(1)
„
Languages where the nominal negator is the
same as the standard negator
„
„
Type A: 20 languages
„ 8 don’t have a copula
„ 12 must use a copula
Type B: 20 languages
„ 11 don’t have a copula
„ 9 must use a copula
Use of copula in affirmative nominal
sentences and choice of negation strategy (2)
„
Languages where the nominal negator differs from the standard
negator
„
„
„
„
Type C: 11 languages
„ 6 do not use a copula
„ 4 may use a copula
„ 1 must use a copula
Correlation:
• The available data seem to point to a
correlation between absence of copula in
nominal sentences and a nominal negator
that differs from the standard negator
Type D: 6 languages
„ 4 do not use a copula
„ 2 languages must use a copula; it is replaced by the non-standard
negator
Type E: 6 languages: nominal sentences are unclear in the reference
material
Type F: 14 languages
„ 8 do not use a copula
„ 2 use a copula optionally
„ 4 must use a copula in id sentences. In 2 of them it is replaced by
the nominal negator
Use of copula in affirmative existential
sentences and choice of negation strategy
(1)
„
Languages where the standard negator is the
same as the existential negator
„
„
Type A: 20 languages
„ 3 do not use a copula
„ 1 may use a copula
„ 12 must use a copula
Type C: 11 languages
„ 1 does not use a copula
„ 1 may use a copula
„ 9 must use a copula
Use of copula in affirmative existential
sentences and choice of negation strategy (2)
„
Languages where the standard negator differs from the existential negator
„
„
„
„
Type B: 20 languages
„ 2 do not use a copula
„ 1 may use a copula
„ 17 must use a copula. It is replaced by the special negator in 12 of them.
Type D: 6 languages
„ 2 do not use a copula
„ 2 may use a copula
„ 2 languages must use a copula; it is replaced by the non-standard negator
Type E: 6 languages
„
1 may use a copula
„
5 must use a copula; it is replaced by the non-standard negator
Type F: 14 languages
„ 2 do not use a copula
„ 1 may use a copula
„ 12 must use a copula in id sentences. In 8 of them it is replaced by the
existential negator
Conclusions
„
„
The observation that negation of copulas may differ from standard negation can be
specified in the following ways
„ Negation of existential verbs tends to be set apart from standard negation
„ Negation of nominal clauses tends to differ from standard negation if the
language does not employ any copula in affirmative nominal clauses. However,
more data are necessary for this to be confirmed.
As regards the expression of verbal, nominal and existential negation, the
languages in this sample can be shown on a continuum, using from one,
two or three different strategies for these domains.
„
„
More than half of the languages in the sample use two negation strategies
„ The most common common case is to make a distinction between standard
and existential negation. In those cases, nominal negation is expressed by
the standard negator
„ The least common case seems to be a two-way distinction between standard
negation and non-standard (non-verbal) negation
Expression of negation
„ Clear preferences for
„ bound morphemes or preverbal particles for verbal negation
„ lexicalization when negating existence
„ No preferred expression for nominal negation has been identified in this sample
Questions?