Chapter 8
Negation and related phenomena
Negation:
Negative and positive clauses
It is marked by:
1. individual words (such as not, no, never)
2. or by affixes within a word (such as ·n 't, un·, non·).
Very often, however, there is an effect on the whole clause. In the following pair, for example, we
have a contrast between a positive clause and the corresponding negative clause:
a. He has signed the agreement. [+]
b. He hasn't signed the agreement. [-]
The grammatical system in which positive and negative contrast is called polarity: clause [a]
has positive polarity, while [b] has negative polarity.
Semantically, a simple pair of positive and negative clauses like these are related in such a way
that they cannot both be true, but they also cannot both be false. One of them has got to be
true: either he has signed the agreement or he hasn't.
Syntactically, positive is the default polarity. All canonical clauses are positive.
Negative clauses are marked as such by the presence of a specific negative element, like the
negative verb-form hasn't in [b] . And positive and negative clauses differ in the way they
combine with other expressions in the structure of larger units.
Three tests to determine the Polarity of a clause
(whether Positive or Negative)
Here are the three major differences between Positive and Negative clauses.
(a) Addition of not even P:149
After a negative clause we can add a constituent introduced by not even, and it makes sense.
This is not possible with positive clauses :
[2] POSITIVE CLAUSE: 2.a. * I have read your book, not even the introduction. [+]
NEGATIVE CLAUSE: 2.b. I haven't read your book, not even the introduction. [-]
I haven't read your book, even the introduction. (The not isn't obligatory)
The addition in [2.b] is interpreted as "I haven't even read the introduction“.
(b) The connective adjuncts so and neither or nor P:150
When we add a related clause of the same polarity, the positive pair may be linked by so, the negative pair by
neither or nor:
(Positive clause1 and so Positive clause2)
(Negative clause1 and neither Negative clause2) = (Negative clause1 and nor Negative clause2)
[3] POSITIVE: 3.a. I have read your book, and so have my students.
NEGATIVE: 3.b. I haven't read your book, and neither have my students. = (and nor have my students).
Switching the connectives leads to ungrammaticality.
(c) Confirmatory tags P:150
• It is a mini-question known as a tag following a statement and is mainly used to seek confirmation.
• It generally consists of just an auxiliary verb + personal pronoun subject.
• Its polarity is the reverse of that of the clause to which it is attached:
[4] 4.a. POSITIVE CLAUSE + NEGATIVE TAG: They have read my book, haven 't they? 
4.b. NEGATIVE CLAUSE + POSITIVE TAG: They haven't read my book, have they?
+/ -/+
These reversed polarity tags have to be distinguished from those with constant polarity.
constant polarity don't ask for confirmation, but suggest an attitude such as surprise, disbelief,
disapproval or the like: an author might say:
So they have read my book, have they? Amazing!
For many speakers constant polarity tags aren't used with negative clauses:
% So they haven't read my book, haven't they?
The previous construction will be rejected by many speakers of Standard English.
Subclausal negation P:150-151
We have seen that the effect of a negative element is very often to make the clause containing it negative.
Negative elements don't always make a clause negative, however. In these cases, the negation is subclausal.
1. Affixal negation
The most obvious case where negative elements don't make a clause negative is where the negative element is an
affix other than the n't that appears on auxiliary verbs. For example:
1. Negative prefixes: as in dislike, inattentive, non-negotiable, or unwilling
2. Suffixes such as: ·less in homeless.
We can show that these affixes don't make the whole clause negative.
Compare: [+] He was unkind (contains the prefix un·) with [-] He wasn't kind (contains a negative verb-form)
The latter clause is of course negative, but the former is positive, as is evident from the following data:
[5]
SUBCLAUSAL NEGATION
CLAUSAL NEGATION
1.a. *He was unkind, not even to me.
1.b. He wasn't kind, not even to me.
 Addition of not even test
2.a. He was unkind, and so was Sue.
2.b. He wasn't kind, and neither was Sue.  Negative connective adjunct test
3.a. He was unkind, wasn't he ?
3.b. He wasn't kind, was he ?
 tag test
He wasn't kind behaves just like the earlier I haven 't read your book: it accepts not even, takes neither (or nor) as
connective, and selects a positive confirmation tag. He was unkind, by contrast, behaves like the obviously positive I have
read your book: it doesn't accept not even, it does take so as connective, and it selects a negative tag. We call the negation in
He was unkind subclausal because it works below the level of the clause. Notice that there is a semantic difference between
He was unkind and He wasn't kind. If He wasn't kind is false, then He was kind must be true; but if He was unkind is false, it
doesn't follow that He was kind is true: he could be neutral, neither kind nor unkind.
Other cases of subclausal negation P:151
Some further contrasts between subclausal and clausal negation are illustrated in [6] :
[6]
SUBCLAUSAL NEGATION - positive
CLAUSAL NEGATION - negative
1.a. She works for nothing. (for free)
1.b. She's interested in nothing.
2.a. It was no mean achievement. (very great)
2.b. It was no great deal.
3.a. This is a not uncommon mistake.
3.b. This is not an uncommon mistake.
4.a. Not surprisingly, he complained.
4.b. Surprisingly, he did not complain.
• Again the tests differentiate clearly between the [a] and [b] examples: the right confirmation tag for [1a] would be
doesn't she?, while the one for [1b] would be is she?, and so on.
• Nothing and no generally mark clausal negation. In [1a] and [2a] we have exceptional cases where they don't.
• The contrast in [3] is due to the fact that the not in [3a] is in an attributive modifier in NP structure (not
uncommon), whereas in [3b] the not is modifying the verb is.
• In [4a], not modifies surprisingly, and the main predication is positive: "He complained, which wasn' t
surprising". In [4b], by contrast, the negation applies to complain: "He didn't complain, which was surprising".
Clausal negation P:151-152
Within clausal negation there is a further distinction between verbal and nonverbal negation:
[7] VERBAL NEGATION
NON-VERBAL NEGATION
1.a. She didn't tell me anything.
2.b. She told me nothing.
2.a. She does not live here any more.
2.b. She no longer lives here.
3.1 Verbal negation P:152
Verbal negation is marked either by:
• negative inflection on the verb, as in [1a]
• or by modification of the verb by the separate word not, as in [2a] .
The grammatical significance of the distinction between verbal and nonverbal negation is
that verbal negation requires the insertion of the dummy auxiliary do under certain
conditions, whereas non-verbal negation never does. This difference is evident in [7]
above, where do is required in the [a] examples but not the [b] ones.
Conditions for the insertion of dummy do with verbal negation P:152
(a) In clauses with a primary verb-form
Negative clauses of this kind require the presence of an auxiliary verb. If there is no auxiliary in the corresponding
positive clause, formation of the negative involves the insertion of do as
described in Ch.3 and illustrated in [8]:
[8]
POSITIVE
1.a. She is lenient with them.
2.a. She rejected his offer.
NEGATIVE
1.b. She isn't lenient with them.
2.b. She didn't reject his offer.
In [1a] is is an auxiliary verb, so we do NOT insert do when negating the clause.
In [2a] reject is a lexical verb, so we MUST insert do to form the negative.
(b) In imperative clauses
Imperative clauses with verbal negation A LWAYS require do :
[9] 1.a. Be lenient with them.
1.b. Don't be lenient with them.
2.a. Reject his offer.
2.b. Don't reject his offer.
Notice, then, the difference between [9.1.b] and [8.1.b]: do is added in the imperative, but not in the declarative.
Inflectional verb-form vs not P:152-153
We said that verbal negation is marked either by negative inflection on the verb itself
or by using the separate word not to modify the verb. Inflectional negation is
admissible only in those constructions where dummy do occurs (under the
conditions described above): that is, in clauses with a primary verb-form and in
imperative clauses, as illustrated in [8] and [9] respectively. Elsewhere, neither do
nor negative inflection is permitted, as seen in the subjunctive clauses in [10]:
[ 10]
MARKING BY INFLECTION
1.a. * It is vital [that we ben't disturbed].
2.a. * It is vital [that he don 't delay].
MARKING BY NOT
1.b. It is vital [that we not be disturbed].
2.b. It is vital [that he not delay].
Notice that where marking by not is the only option, the not normally comes before the verb
rather than after it.
In constructions that permit both kinds of verbal negation, the difference between them is
primarily one of style. Marking by not is characteristic of more formal style than inflectional
negation.
Non-verbal clausal negation P:153
Non-verbal clausal negation is marked either by not modifying a constituent other than a verb,
or else by various negative words that are not used for verbal negation: nothing, never, few,
etc.
Not as a marker of non-verbal negation
Not can modify a considerable range of non-verbal elements, but NOT all.
In a comprehensive grammar we would need to detail all the possibilities, but in this short
introduction we will merely provide a sample, including some that illustrate the limitations on
the use of not as a modifier.
In the following examples, the blue font highlights not and single underlining marks the
element that it modifies - admissibly in the [a] examples, inadmissibly in the [b] examples:
[11]
ADMISSIBLE
INADMISSIBLE
1.a. Not everybody agrees with you.
1.b. *Not somebody agrees with you.
2.a. Not all her friends supported her.
2.b. *Not each of her friends supported her.
3.a. Not even Tom liked it.
3.b. *Not Tom liked it.
Other markers of non-verbal negation P:153-154
We confine our attention here to items that can mark clausal negation. This excludes the affixes un' , non', in' ,
etc., which mark subclausal negation as illustrated before.
There are two groups to consider: absolute negators and approximate negators.
(1) Absolute negators
These are listed in [12] , with some examples of clausal negation given in [13] :
[12]
1- no, none, nobody, no one, nothing, nowhere, no place
- (In verbal negation, they can be replaced by: {auxiliary + not any/anybody/anyone…etc.}
2- neither, nor, never
- (In verbal negation, they can be replaced by: {auxiliary + not + ever/or/either…etc.}
[13] 1.a. Nobody objected to her plan.
2. b. Neither Kim nor Pat has arrived.
2.a. We found no mistakes.
2. b. He never apologises.
Where the negator follows the subject in clausal negation, as in [ 1 3ii], there is usually an equivalent clause with
verbal negation:
[14]
NON-VERBAL NEGATION
EQUIVALENT VERBAL NEGATION
1.a. We found no mistakes. (= 13.2.a)
1.b. We didn't find any mistakes.
2.a. There is no one here.
2.b. There isn't anyone here.
3. a. He never apologises. (= 13.2.b)
3.b. He doesn't ever apologise.
The versions with verbal negation have forms with any, anybody, anyone, etc., in place of the negators in [12.1],
and either, or, and ever in place of those in [12.2] .
(2) Approximate negators P:154
These are listed in [15], and in [16] we again give examples involving clausal negation:
[15] few, little; rarely, seldom; barely, hardly, scarcely
[16] 1.a. Few of them realised it was a hoax.
2.a. She hardly spoke a word all evening.
1.b. He rarely goes to church nowadays.
2.b. There's scarcely any food left.
Few of them comes close in meaning to none of them:
• none indicates absolutely zero.
• few puts the number within a small part of the scale down at the end close to zero.
This is why we say it is an approximate negator.
In a similar way, rarely approximates to never; hardly spoke a word approximates to didn't speak a word;
and scarcely any food approximates to no food.
Although only approximate semantically, these items largely follow the pattern of the absolute negators
with respect to the tests for clausal negation. In particular, the confirmation tags for the examples in [16]
are those that attach to absolute negative clauses. For [1.a] we have did they?, for [1.b] does he?, for
[2.a] did she?, and for [2.b] is there? Note here the contrast between few, which is negative, and a few,
which is positive - witness A few of them realised it was a hoax, didn't they?  negative tag because it is
positive.
Non-affirmative items P:154-155
A fair number of words or larger expressions are polarity-sensitive in the sense that
they occur readily in clauses of one polarity but not of the other.
Compare, for example:
[17] POSITIVE
1.a. I have some objections to make.
2.a. * I have any objections to make.
NEGATIVE
1.b. * I don't have some objections to make.
2.b. I don 't have any objections to make.
Some is not wholly excluded from negative clauses, but it is subject to restrictions
that do not apply to the positive: we say, therefore, that it
has positive orientation.
Conversely any (in the sense it has here) has negative orientation: it occurs freely
in negatives but is excluded from positives like [2.a] .
The majority of polarity-sensitive items have negative orientation, and our main focus here will be on these.
What excludes any from [17.2.a] is not just that the clause is positive: it is also declarative. If we look instead at an
interrogative clause, we find it is freely admitted:
[18] 1.a. Have you any objections to make?
1.b. Who has any objections to make?
We refer to items like any, therefore, as non-affirmatives. (The verb affirm contrasts with question and hence
suggests declarative; the adjective affirmative is a synonym of positive.)
In general, then, the restriction on non-affirmative items is that they cannot occur in clauses that are both declarative
and positive.
A sample of non-affirmative items is given in [19].
[19] 1- any, anybody, any longer/more, anyone, anything, anywhere
2- at all, either, ever, long, much, till/until, whatever, yet
3- dare, need, bother (+ infinitival), budge, can bear, can stand, give a damn/fig, have a clue, lift a finger,
move a muscle, see a thing
The following examples illustrate the differences between polarity-sensitive and non-polarity-sensitive versions of the
five items anybody, either, ever, long, and can stand:
[20] NON-AFFIRMATIVE
NOT POLARITY-SENSITIVE
1.a. Did you see anybody ?
1.b. Anybody can make promises.
2.a. I didn't see either of them.
2.b. Either version would do
3. a. Will it ever end?
3.b. It will last for ever.
4.a. I won 't stay long.
4.b. It has been a long day.
5.a. No one can stand the pressure.
5.b. Everyone can stand for a minute.
Notice also that dare and need are non-affirmative as modal auxiliaries but not as lexical verbs; see Ch. 3, §3.3.
Other constructions that accept non-affirmatives P:155
It is not only negatives and interrogatives that allow non-affirmative items to appear.
They are also found in a number of other constructions, as illustrated in [21].
[21]
1. She was too taken aback to say anything.
2. She ran faster than she had ever run before.
3. We slipped away without anyone noticing.
The constructions concerned all have semantic affinities with negation.
• Because of the too in [1] , we understand that she did NOT say anything.
• Because of the comparative, [2] indicates that she had NEVER run that fast before.
• Because of the meaning of without, it follows from [3] that NO ONE noticed.
Read
Prescriptive Grammar Note
P:156
Scope of negation P:156-157
The scope of negation is the part of the sentence that the negative applies to semantically. Scope is
best understood by examination of contrasts like the one in [23 ]:
[23] NEGATION HAS SCOPE OVER MANY
MANY HAS SCOPE OVER NEGATION
a. Not many people believed him.
b. Many people didn't believe him.
The difference in meaning is considerable:
[a] entails that the number of people who believed him is relatively small, but certainly
[b] does not (we might be talking, for example, about a major political figure in a country
with a huge population, where there are many people who didn't believe him and many
others who did).
In [a] the negation applies to many: the number of people who believed him was not large.
We say then that many falls within the scope of the negation - or that the negation has
scope over many.
In [b], however, the negation does not apply to many: it does not have scope over it. On the
contrary, the quantification expressed by many has scope over the negation, since it gives
the size of the set of people who had the property that they didn't believe him.
The same kind of contrast is found in the following pairs, where again the item with double underlining has scope
over the one with single underlining:
[24] 1.a. I didn't omit my name deliberately.
1.b. I deliberately didn't omit my name.
2.a. You needn't tell anyone about it.
2.b. You mustn't tell anyone about it.
In [1a] the negative has scope over the adjunct deliberately: omitting my name was not something I made a point
of doing. In [1b] , by contrast, deliberately has scope over the negation: I made a point of not omitting my name.
In [1a] the negation has scope over the modal auxiliary need, expressing deontic necessity: "It isn't necessary for
you to tell anyone about it". In [2b] , however, modal must, likewise expressing deontic necessity, has scope over
the negation: "It is necessary that you not tell anyone about it".
Note that in cases where some element has scope over the negation, it is normally possible to find a paraphrase
in which the negative marker is located in a subordinate clause.
For [23b] , for example, we have There were many people [who didn't believe him] .
For [24.1.b]: I deliberately chose [not to omit my name].
For [24.2.b], You are required [not to tell anyone about it]; and so on.
There is a significant degree of correlation between semantic scope and grammatical order. Very often, a
negative element has scope over what follows but is within the scope of elements that precede. For example,
in [23] and [24.1] the negative marker in [a] precedes the element over which it has scope and in [b] follows the
element which has scope over it. But the correlation is clearly only partial. In [24ii] , for example, there is no
difference in grammatical structure between [a] and [b]: the scope difference is attributable to specific
properties of the modal auxiliaries must and need.
Clausal Negation
Verbal Negation
n’t
not+V
NEGATION
Mind Map
Non-verbal Negation
Not+elements other than verb
Nothing, no longer, never…etc.
Absolute
Negators
Approximate
Negators
Sub-clausal Negation
Affixal Negation
disinun-less
Other Cases
no nothing not
Making a positive clause
This Week’s Assignment
Page: 158
EX: 2, 3 & 4