Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. Negation and means of its expression in English

E.V. Paducheva, 2011

Negation is a specialized language device for expressing the idea that a certain state of affairs does not occur: Cranberries don't grow on trees.

1. The problem of defining negation

Negation exists in all languages ​​of the world: according to Plungyan 2011: 94-100, negation is included in the “Universal Grammatical Set”. Negation is tightly integrated into the system of grammatical categories and into the lexical structure of the language, interacting in a non-trivial way with grammatical and lexical meanings - modal, aspectual, quantifier and others.

From a logical point of view, negation is an operator that constructs from a given sentence another, which is true when the given sentence is false, and, conversely, false if the given sentence is true. For example, a sentence Cranberries don't grow on trees– negation of the proposal Cranberries growing on a tree.

For linguistics, this definition is not enough, if only because negation is used not only in affirmative sentences, but also in interrogative or imperative sentences, which cannot be true or false. In linguistics, the definition of meaning is usually considered to be interpretation: as R. Jakobson writes, “the meaning of a linguistic sign is its translation into another sign, primarily one in which this meaning is more fully expressed” (Jakobson 1955).

A.M. Peshkovsky defines negation as an element of meaning, which indicates that the connection between the components of the sentence, in the opinion of the speaker, does not really exist. However, this definition is tautological, since it itself contains a negation. According to S. Bally, negation in a sentence indicates that the corresponding affirmative sentence is rejected by the speaker as false. This formulation assumes that negation is speech act. Meanwhile, negation can be part of conditions, presumptions and other components of a statement that do not have an independent illocutionary force(For example: If he doesn't come, everything is lost), so this definition is not suitable either. Negation, contrary to the general idea, is not analogous to affirmation: affirmation is a speech act, and negation builds proposition, which can be used in a speech act, or can be part of a more complex proposition.

It remains to recognize that negation in language belongs to the number of initial, uninterpretable concepts. It is included in the list of semantic primitives from Wierzbicka 1996. Further it will be seen that even more than one is needed for primitives corresponding to negation.

2. Means of expressing negation in Russian

The means of expressing negation in different languages ​​are extremely diverse, in particular, they are syntactically specified. For example, a predicate negation may differ from a noun negation; different types of tense and modal forms of a verb can have different negative indicators, etc., see Miestamo 2005.

In the Russian language there is a negation indicator with the widest possible compatibility - particle Not, Wed didn't come, don't go, not Vanya, not Russian, not yesterday etc. Negation is also expressed by the particle neither (the sky is clear;neither hearing nor spirit), pronouns and adverbs with neither- (no one, nothing, never), predicative pronouns with Not- (nowhere, no one), words No and other predicates, adjectives and adverbs with the prefix Not- (impossible, undesirable, unmarried, little). (Keep in mind that the prefix Not- can express not only denial, but also uncertainty, as in words someone, some, some.) Particles and other words expressing negation are also called negations. There are word-forming elements that contain negation in their semantics ( good-natured) or at least the idea of ​​cancellation previous state (fall out of love, unstick).

Consideration should also include implicit negation as part of the meaning of words (such as, for example, refuse, abstain, deprived) and structures (for example, You understand a lot! or So that I can contact him!, So I believed!). The term negative sentence is usually applied to a sentence containing a negation of a finite verb or predicate, since it is such a negation that most often affects the structure of the sentence as a whole. However, negation as part of the lexical meaning of a word can also have syntactic reflexes.

3. Semantic types of negative sentences.

In modern linguistics, as in predicate logic, it is accepted that negation always affects a proposition. In other words, the scope of negation is always a proposition, and not a separate word; about how combinations are understood not Vanya or not Russian, see below.

From a semantic point of view, a distinction is made between general (complete) and specific (incomplete) negation. Accordingly, sentences are divided into general negative and particular negative (Peshkovsky 1956/2001). Negation is general if the sentence is rephrased with the phrase it is not the case that, which appears at the beginning of the sentence. In other words, a sentence is generally negative if the scope of the negation in it is the entire sentence (Jackendoff 1972, Paducheva 1974) - naturally, “minus” the negation. Negation is private if some fragment of meaning is not within the scope (SD) of negation. For example, in sentence (1) there is a general negation, and in (2) there is a particular negation (hereinafter not is an abbreviation for it is not true that / it is not the case that):

(1) They don't quarrel over trifles = not (They quarrel over trifles);

(2) The children do not sleep because of the noise = because of the noise they do not (the children sleep).

A sentence with a particular negation is thought of as being obtained as a result of the fact that a sentence with a general negation entered, in the course of its generation, into the sphere of action of another operator; Thus, in (2) it is a causal conjunction.

A sentence can be ambiguous because it allows interpretation with a general and with a particular negation (in other words, if the negation in it can be understood with a different scope of action):

(3) She won't change her plan because of you =

(i) ‘you are the reason she won’t change her plan’ [ because of you not within the scope of negation];

(ii) ‘you are not a sufficient reason for her to change her plan’ [ because of you comes within the scope of negation].

IN oral speech these two readings are intonated differently. Another example:

(4) Such gas pipelines are not built for two years =

(i) ‘within two years NOT (build such gas pipelines’);

(ii) ‘NOT (such a gas pipeline can be built within two years)’.

Let us clarify that interpretations (i) and (ii) of phrase (4) differ not only in the scope of the negation, but also in the reference of the time circumstance two years– in (i) this is a specific time interval, and in (ii) it is a generalized one.

In logic, since the time of Aristotle, two types of negation have been distinguished - ordinary, contradictory (otherwise mutually exclusive), as in (5b), and contradictory, as in (6b):

(5) a. Alfred is married; b. Alfred Not married.

(6) a. Alfred loves modern music;

b. Alfred Not loves modern music.

The law of excluded middle applies to contradictory negation: either R, or not R, There is no third; those. Of two sentences connected by a contradictory negation, one is necessarily true and the other is false. Two sentences that are connected by a counternegation cannot both be true, but they can both be false (since the truth is, so to speak, “in the middle”). So, regarding Alfred, it may be true that he likes modern music, and that he does not like it ( dislikes).

Contrary denial, i.e. negation with an unexcluded third is seen mainly in words with Not-prefix or in antonymic pairs (such as happy – unhappy). Russian does not love two understandings can be distinguished - Not-prefix, contrarian negation, and Not-particle, contradictory. Further, unless otherwise stated, we are talking about contradictory negation. Contrary negation is a separate primitive. On contrarian negation in its connection with antonymy, see Apresyan 1974: 285-315.

In examples (7), (8), sentences (a) and (b) can both be true:

(7) a. Some committee members are idiots;

b. Some commission members are not idiots.

(8) a. You can go to a concert; b. You don't have to go to the concert.

It is obvious that sentences (a) and (b) in examples (7) and (8) are in no sense negations of one another.

In Party 2007, sentence (9b) is called the counternegation of (9a). It is believed that about Alfred it may be incorrect both that he works at the Russian State University for the Humanities, and that he does not work at the Russian State University for the Humanities - if he does not work at all:

(9) a. Alfred works at the Russian State University for the Humanities;

b. Alfred does not work at the Russian State University for the Humanities;

However, sentence (9b) cannot be understood except with the presumption ‘Alfred is working in some place’. So in a situation where Alfred is not working anywhere, sentence (9b), with a false presumption, is naturally considered not false, but meaningless - or at least misleading.

4. Syntactic types of negative sentences

From a syntactic point of view, a distinction is made between predicate negation (negation with a finite verb or predicative, otherwise phrasal, Paducheva 1974/2009), as in (1), and conditional, as in (2):

(1) Ivan missed to the exhibition,

(2) Not all got to the exhibition.

At first it may seem that the class of sentences with predicate negation coincides with the class of semantically general negative sentences, and the class of sentences with conditional negation coincides with the class of semantically particular negative ones. However, this is not so: all four possibilities are available.

Semantically general negative sentences with predicate negation:

Kolya will not come; Ivan no luck wife to the hospital.

Semantically general negative sentences with conditional negation:

It was not a portrait; He decided Not all tasks; I not always I'll be with you.

Semantically partial negative sentences with predicate negation:

We've been with you for a long time won't see you= ‘not for long<будет иметь место>(we saw each other)’.

Semantically partial negative sentences with conditional negation:

Sometimes he answers not right away= sometimes not (he answers immediately)

The terms predicate negation and conditional negation roughly correspond to the English "sentential negation" and "constituent negation"; but very approximately.

In Russian, it is natural to talk about “verbal” negation rather than “constituent negation,” since Russian syntax, unlike English, traditionally deals with words rather than constituents. However, this runs into difficulties in contexts like Don't get in your own sleigh, where the negation refers, of course, to more than one preposition V, and to the entire component in your sleigh, but these difficulties can be circumvented.

As for the correspondence between sentential negation and predicate negation, the matter is complicated by the fact that in the English-language linguistic literature itself the term “sentential negation” is understood differently. In the classic article on the semantics of negation by Klima 1964, the term sentential negation is understood as a general negation in the semantic sense. In sentences No one objected‘nobody objected’, John ate nothing'John didn't eat anything' Not everyone agreed‘not everyone agreed’, Klima, based, as was customary at that time, only on various kinds of syntactic tests, shrewdly discerned a semantic general negation in these phrases. And for Jespersen, who focuses strictly on form, this will be constituent negation (‘special negation’), since negation does not appear at the predicative vertex of the sentence, but is part of the noun phrase. At the same time, however, none of the authors introduces separate pairs of terms for the semantic and syntactic structure of a sentence.

The term "sentential negation" is sometimes used in Russian-language linguistic literature. We consider it safe to use it only in a syntactic sense - as a synonym for the term predicate (phrasal) negation.

A special syntactic type of negative sentences consists of sentences with displaced predicate negation (Paducheva 1974, Boguslavsky 1985):

I haven't decided all \ your tasks » ‘not solved everything’;

Microbiology did not arise out of nowhere \» ‘did not arise out of nowhere’;

A word in which the negation "must have been before the displacement" is usually marked with contrastive phrasal stress. The displacement always goes up the syntactic tree of the sentence. In what follows, only shifts to a finite verb or predicate are considered.

Another syntactic type is a sentence with cumulative negation. This is a sentence with a negative neither-pronoun (perhaps more than one) and accompanying negation of the verb:

Nobody Not came;

He Not gave nothing to anyone say.

Finally, a separate semantic-syntactic type consists of sentences with contrastive negation (Boguslavsky 1985). The contrast must be expressed explicitly, with the construction “not ..., but”, as in (3a), or clearly implied - so that without clarification the meaning is felt as incomplete, see (3b):

(3) a. He is not in Paris, but in London;

b. He's not in Paris.

Outside of the construction “not..., but” there is no clear boundary between contrastive and simply conventional negation. Yes, in sentences I'm not at home(in past tense – I was not at home), He doesn't love you, unlike sentence (3b), there is no sense of incompleteness. Further, only the one that is part of the construction “not ..., but” is considered an oppositional negation, since it is this that reveals non-trivial semantic-syntactic properties.

5. Ways of expressing general negation

It is clear that only general negative sentences can correspond to any affirmative sentences: in particular negative sentences, a fragment of meaning is negated, which syntactically does not constitute a separate sentence. For example:

It’s a shame you didn’t come = in vain (NOT (you came))? NOT (in vain (you came);

He didn't notice us for a long time = long<длилось состояние>NOT (he noticed us).

So the question is how to construct a sentence that will be the negation of the given. General negative sentences can be of several syntactic types: sentences with predicate negation, with conditional negation, with predicate displaced and with cumulative.

5.1. General negative sentences with predicate and conditional negation

The general rule for the Russian language is that the negation is attached to the word that corresponds to the semantic vertex of the sentence, i.e. the main semantic operator who participates in its construction (Paducheva 1974: 154). In a simple sentence, such an operator is usually a finite verb/predicative - predicate. Then a generally negative sentence has a predicate negation. A sentence expresses a single proposition; she happens to be assertiveness and is negated by the negation of its predicate:

NOT (He went to work) = He did not go to work;

NOT (He loves you) = He loves you does not love;

NOT (He showed his wife the photo) = He didn't show photo for my wife.

Proposition (1b) is a general (complete) negation of (1a). It has an undeniable component – ​​(1c); but this component should not be denied, since it constitutes a presupposition (otherwise - presumption) sentences (1a):

(1) a. Ivan regrets

b. Ivan is not regrets that he went to a conference in Morocco;

V. Ivan went to a conference in Morocco.

So, general negation denies assertion and preserves presumptions. The rule about attaching a negation to a semantic node may not be applicable - for two different reasons (see more in the article presumption):

– if the main semantic operator in a sentence is not an assertion, but a presumption (and therefore is unable to attach a negation); such, for example, is a particle even:

His even Kankrin considered him a very capable person. [YU. N. Tynyanov. Young Vitushishnikov (1933)]

– if the main semantic operator is a conjunction, and the negation has too vague a meaning:

Varvara was smart And extraordinarily beautiful. [Andrey Baldin. Moscow Idle Days (1997)] [= ‘either she’s not smart, or she’s not beautiful, or neither of those’].

The following classes of expressions (besides verbs and predicates) can have a negative particle Not in a semantically general negative sentence.

1) Quantifier word is a semantic operator that includes verbal predication in its scope, i.e. subdues her. For a sentence with a quantifier word, the corresponding general negative has a negation with the quantifier word (for other possibilities, see the section on displaced negation):

NOT (he decided All problems) = He solved Not all tasks;

NOT ( many want change) = Few want change.

In fact, negation of the verb would in this case give a sentence with a particular, i.e., in in this case, with a stronger negation:

Many don't want change = for many<верно>NOT (they want change).

2) Many adverbials are able to form a proposition in which the verbal predication is included in the semantic scope of the adverbial. The corresponding general negative sentence will have a conditional negation in the adverbial form:

NOT (He bought toys On the market) = He bought toys not on the market;

NOT (he called yesterday) = He called not yesterday.

But, being in the thematic position, the same adverbial can, as it were, move from circonstants to actants of the verb and enter the SD of the predicate negation, so that the predicate negation will have a wide SD. Thus, sentences (2), (3) are semantically generally negative:

(2) NOT (He bought On the market toys) = He didn't buy On the market toys;

(3) NOT (he yesterday called) = He yesterday didn't call.

Most adverbials (in particular, the so-called qualitative adverbs, or adverbs of manner), however, do not allow such syntactic rethinking. Thus, sentences from (4b) are anomalous and are not generally negative for sentences from (4a)

(4) a. He braked sharply; He dressed carefully; He left immediately; He soon became a scoundrel;

b. *He didn't brake suddenly; *He did not dress carefully; *He didn't leave immediately; *He soon did not become a scoundrel;

Description of the structure of general negative sentences with adverbials requires reference to the concept of a modifier component, see the article about sentences of this type presumption.

3) Some people are capable of adding negation. unions(obviously semantically subordinating verbal predication):

NOT (he came because he was bored) = He came not because that I missed you.

Wed. in Pekelis 2008 an attempt to answer the question of why negation is attached to That's why, and does not join because the or because.

4) Finally, a generally negative sentence has a conditional negation if this word was in the original sentence rematic, i.e. carried a contrasting emphasis. Thus, sentence (5a), with a natural division into theme and rheme, has a meaning described by a single assertion, and it has a predicate negation (5b). And in sentence (6a), the essential factor is the contrastive stress, which divides the meaning into two propositions – ‘Ivan went somewhere’ [presumption] and ‘where he went is a concert’ [assertion]:

(5) a. Ivan / went to the concert \ ;

b. Ivan / not went\ to the concert;

(6) a. Ivan went to the concert \\ ;

b. Ivan didn't go to the concert \\ .

Therefore, the general negative for (6a) will be sentence (6b) with a conditional negation. More examples.

NOT (he loves you \) = He loves not you = ‘NOT (the one he loves is you)’;

NOT (Bashmet will be the soloist \) = Bashmet will not be the soloist = NOT (the one who will be the soloist is Bashmet).

As already mentioned, there is no clear boundary between contrastive rhematic negation and contrastive, see example (3) from section 4; those. it is unclear when incompleteness and the need to continue “not Bashmet, but who?” arises.

5.2. Sentences with biased predicate negation

These are sentences with sentential negation and with a word that is highlighted by a contrasting accent - ascending if it comes before the verb, or descending if after it.

NOT (he solved all \ problems) = He did not solve all / problems \; He didn't solve all the problems

NOT (I will delay for a long time \) = For a long time / I will not delay \ .

NOT (it's done completely \) = completely / it's not done \ .

A sentence with a displaced negation is quasi-synonymous with a sentence with a conditional negation - with a word with a contrasting accent:

He did not solve all / problems\; He didn't solve all the problems.

Another thing is that displacement can have the effect of equivocation, or understatement. So, I do not know for sure can be said not in a situation “I don’t know for sure”, but in a situation “I don’t know”: a stronger statement is denied, despite the fact that the weaker one is also incorrect.

Jespersen in his “Philosophy of Grammar”, see Jespersen 1924/1958, gives many examples of displaced negation - in English this phenomenon is much more widespread than in Russian. Jespersen writes: “The general tendency is towards the use of nexus<т.е. предикатного>negation even in cases where a special negation would be more appropriate<присловное>.”

(1) I don't complain of your words, but of the tone in which they were uttered [= ‘I’m complaining, not about the words, but about the tone’];

(2) We aren"t here to talk nonsense, but to act ‘we are here not to talk, but to act’;

(3) a. I didn't \ call because I wanted to see her (but for some other reason) [biased negation];

b. I didn't call / | be-cause I wanted to avoid her [usual nexus negation].

(4) He didn’t answer many questions =

(i) he did not answer many questions = NOT (he answered many questions)

(ii) he did not answer many questions = there are many questions such that he did NOT (he answered them).

Jespersen notes the role of phrasal prosody in expressing the difference between ordinary verbal and displaced verbal negation: “in oral speech, ambiguity can be eliminated by intonation.”

In all examples of displacement of negation (from a syntactically lower word to a higher one), the sentence in both positions of negation is semantically generally negative. “Logically”, the negation would have to be attached to this low-ranking word, since it carries phrasal stress, i.e. is a rheme. So the negation of the proposition expressed by this word is, in its meaning, the negation of the statement as a whole.

The displaced sentential negation is not exactly synonymous with the adverbial conditional. This can be shown with the following example:

(a) I didn’t understand right away;

(b) I didn’t understand right away.

Sentence (b) means, approximately (i.e., neglecting the distinction between presumption and assertion), ‘understood, but not immediately’; those. The main emphasis is on ‘I understood later’. And in composition (a) the meaning ‘understood later’ constitutes an implicature and is not very significant. Formally, the difference can be represented as follows: in (b) ‘I understand’ is a presumption, and therefore a proposition that is formed as a separate one; those. in sentence (b) there are two propositions, of which only one is negated; and in (a) the single proposition ‘understood immediately’ is denied; The question of whether I understood later does not arise.

Similarly, the difference between (c) and (d) is that in (c) only “leave immediately” is communicatively significant, while (d) separates leaving and its timing into two separate propositions:

(c) Why didn’t I leave immediately?

(d) Why didn’t I leave right away?

Bias in context withdrawn affirmative, as in example (c), does not require a contrastive emphasis on the potential bearer of the conditional negation.

The synonymy of displaced and undisplaced negation is not complete even where the difference in meaning is difficult to formulate, cf. He won't last long And He won't last long; It doesn't go unnoticed And? It doesn't go unnoticed.

A sentence with a biased negation may not have a corresponding sentence in the “unbiased” version at all, cf. example from Klenin 1978:

Don't eat all the cheese!

5.3. The so-called “rise of negation” – Neg-Raising, Neg-transportation

There is a problem associated with the quasi-synonymous relationship between negative sentences of different syntactic structures, see Klima 1964, Paducheva 1974/2009: 146, Horn 1989: 308-330, etc. This relationship is described by the metaphor of the “rise” of the negation from a subordinate clause to a subordinate one. (The difference from the “shift” of negation is that the shift occurs within one clause.)

Sentence (c) can be attributed a double derivational history: it can be understood as a general negative sentence corresponding to sentence (a), interpretation (i), and as the result of a “syntactic” rise of negation in sentence (b), interpretation (ii); Moreover, interpretations (i) and (ii) are very close in meaning:

(a) I think he will do it;

(b) I think he won't do it;

(c) I don't think he will do it =

(i) ‘NOT (I think he will do it)’;

(ii) ‘I think NOT (he will do it)’.

Quasi-synonymy occurs when there are a small number of predicates that are different in different languages. Under Russian must predicate negation is understood, in practice, only as a result of ascent, see (d); the closest in meaning general negative sentence for You should look back will be (g?):

(d) You must not look back = ‘you must not look back’;

(g?) You don't have to look back.

See more about this in Jordan 1985, where, in particular, an example is given:

Doctor does not advise Tanya change the climate = Doctor advises Tanya Not change the climate.

The rise of negation is a problem of lexical semantics. Words that are translation equivalents of each other in different languages ​​may differ in the possibility and obligation of raising the negation. So, in Russian doesn't tell means only ‘requires not to’, and does not mean ‘does not require’, as, for example, English doesn’t’tdemand.

Typically, quasi-synonymy when raising negation requires a sublated affirmative in the subordinate predication. Indeed, predicates that have a factual presumption regarding their propositional complement are strictly not susceptible to the rise of negation. So, (e) and (d?) are not only not synonymous, but have the opposite meaning:

(d) I'm sorry that he Not stopped by;

(d?) me Not It's a pity he stopped by.

Verbs afraid And hope are not factive predicates; however, they have a presumption regarding the subordinate actant - a presumption of the desirability of the event in the event hope and undesirability in case afraid. Therefore they too do not allow the rise of negation; So, sentences (e) and (f?) are not equal in meaning - just like (d) and (d?):

(e) I hope he doesn't leave;

(e?) I don't hope he'll leave.

The semantic conditions that enable the lifting of negation are not fully understood, see Horn 1989: 308. But the lifted affirmativeness of a proposition is a general condition for intra- and interclausal displacement.

5.4. Sentences with cumulative negation

A sentence with cumulative negation results from the fact that the negation is attached to the pronoun - someday or at least one(quantifier of existence); negative arises neither-pronoun that requires negation Not with a verb (if there is one in the sentence):

NOT (He someone wrote) = He no one did not write

NOT (answered anyone) = Nobody didn't answer

NOT (in the sky though <одна>asterisk) = In the sky neither <одной>stars

NOT (dropped in though<один> once) = Didn't stop by neither once.

Those. neither-pronoun arises as a result of the general negation of a sentence with an indefinite pronoun.

The main carrier of negative value is neither-pronoun: Not with a verb, this is the result of a kind of negative agreement. In fact, verbal negation does not require a negative pronoun - an indefinite pronoun is also possible, see example (1). And a negative pronoun without predicate negation is impossible in the Russian language (Paducheva 1974: 148-149), see (2):

(1) if anyone will not understand … [? ‘if no one understands’]

(2) *Has anyone seen him? Nobody saw him.

In English, repeating the negation of a verb would be an error, cf. Nobodysawhim And * Nobodydidn'ttseehim.

Pronoun on someday impossible outside the scope of negation or another operator that removes affirmative: * Is anyone left(Paducheva 1985: 94, 217). So sentences like No one left, unlike the main part of generally negative sentences, cannot be interpreted, in pragmatic terms, as a negative reaction to some affirmative sentence. They are possible, however, in the context of answering a general question with someday:

- Is anyone left? - Nobody stayed.

So the proposal No one left generally negative because it can be the answer to a “Yes-No question.”

5.5. General negative sentences with a contrasting topic

General negative sentences with conditional negation on a contrastive rheme were discussed in section 5.1: contrastive rhematic stress gives rise to special presumptions in the original sentence, which, naturally, are preserved during negation. From here

NOT (He loves you \) = ‘the one he loves is not you’ = He does not love you \ .

Thematic contrastive stress gives rise to other presumptions (Paducheva 1985: 118). Thus, sentence (a) has implication (c), but (b) does not (cf. the discussion of examples of this kind in Lyons 1979, p. 775):

(a) Masha / didn’t come \;

(b) Masha didn’t come \ .

(c) Someone else came.

Sentence (b) is the answer to the question “Did Masha come?”, and (a) is the answer to the question “Did Masha come?”

5.6. Predicative negative pronouns: the construction “no place to sleep”

In Russian there are predicative negative pronouns like nowhere, no one, no need, in which the predicate (existence) is revealed in the past. and bud. time - there was no where, there will be no where, but is missing in the present. – * no where(see Apresyan, Iomdin 1989):

(1) a. No place to sleep = ‘no place to sleep’;

b. There is no one to work = ‘there are no people who could work’;

Construction " Not+ Pron.rel" (Pron.rel is an abbreviation for relative pronoun) can be compared with the construction " few+ Pron.rel" (see Paducheva 2011 about the design " few+ whether+ Pron.rel"):

(2) a. Few places to sleep = ‘there are few places to sleep’;

b. Few who can work = ‘few people who can work’.

The following differences are of interest.

1) Design " few+ Pron.rel" has wider productivity: Not only compatible with whom, what, where, where, from, why, when. A few also combined with who, which, whose:

For literary earnings not many people who of the emigration writers could live. [“Star”, No. 6, 2003] = ‘ few was writers, which could live on literary earnings.

To get out of six months of military training, not a lot of family will pay several thousand dollars in bribes... ["Moskovsky Komsomolets", 2003.01.14] [= there are few families who will...] ​​= 'there are few families who...'

After a coma few people the brain works as it did before the coma.

2) In the design " few+ Pron.rel” is a finite verb, and the modality can be any. And in the design " Not+ Pron.rel” the infinitive is included, and the only thing that is possible is the modality of possibility.

3) Design " few+ Pron.rel" generates, also idiomatic, pseudo-interrogative construction " few+ whether+ Pron.rel"; and in the construction " Not+ Pron.rel" particle whether converts a relative pronoun into an indefinite pronoun, and only in context nothing, see (3); for other pronouns the question is impossible, (4):

(3) Nothing to eat - Is there anything to eat? = Is there anything to eat?

(4) No place to sleep – *Is there no place to sleep?

Nowhere to go – *Is there nowhere to go?

Word nothing may have an idiomatic meaning: There's nothing to complain about» ‘there is no reason to complain’.

6. Negation and morphology

6.1. Gender case for negation

A distinctive feature of Slavic languages ​​is the connection of negation with case marking; namely, in place of the accusative or nominative case of the noun phrase in the context of negation, the genitive often appears, cf. has the meaning And doesn't matter; there are still doubts And no doubt left.

Until recently, the main part of the research on the genitive negation was aimed at describing the conditions of its use, see, for example, Restan 1960, Apresyan 1985. Meanwhile, the conditions for the use of the genitive construction of negation are changing before our eyes: the genitive - both the subject and the object - gives way, respectively, nominative and accusative, so that at the moment the usus is a motley picture that unites different historical sections. On the one hand, the old norm, with the predominant genitive, has not been completely lost. For example, it is acceptable didn't iron my trousers along with more modern didn't iron my pants. On the other hand, there is an onset of direct cases, which destroys the more or less established semantics of case oppositions. For example, along with the semantically motivated is not responsible(there are 65 examples in the Corpus), perhaps not responsible(7 examples): bank (insurance company, nobody, …) is not responsible for losses (delay, non-performance, …).

The new approach places the focus not on the conditions of use of the genitive, but on the semantics expressed by the genitive construction, as opposed to the nominative or accusative. The task is to understand what the semantics of the genitive of negation is and to distinguish semantic opposition (so, father was not at sea ? father was not at sea, example from Apresyan 1980) from purely stylistic variation, as in the case didn't iron his trousers or is not responsible/responsibility.

6.1.1. Subject genitive

A semantic interpretation of the genitive of negation was proposed in Babby 1980 (see also Arutyunova 1976), where we are talking about semantic factors that force the speaker to use one or another case in a negative sentence. It is significant that Babbie placed the genitive of the subject at the center of attention. The fact is that the genitive of the subject is acceptable in a relatively small class of verbs, and in it the semantic motivation for the choice of case is easier to detect.

L. Babbie's book is called “Existential sentences and Negation in Russian”. Existential sentences are sentences of existence (“existential” according to Arutyunova, Shiryaev 1983), and Babby 1980: 105 says: “… it is only the subject NP of existential sentences that is regularly marked genitive when negation is introduced …”.

A verb in a negative sentence with a genitive subject, indeed, most often expresses non-existence and, accordingly, has a non-referential subject:

(1) Disasters Did not happen; No doubts arose.

The creation verb can also have a non-referential genitive subject - being in the passive voice:

(2) Hotels not built.

However, a genitive subject is also possible with verbs of perception, location, movement - where the subject can also be referent, as in (4):

(3) Deviations not observed,

(4) Father did not have on the sea,

(5) Reply did not come.

One of the puzzles in the semantic approach to the genitive of the subject was the verb be. It traditionally has two meanings: existential and locative, see Lyons 1968/1978. In the existential be the genitive of negation is semantically motivated – existential be included in a wide class of being verbs (such as exist, exist), which usually have a non-referential subject, see Arutyunova 1976. However, a genitive construction is also possible with a locative be, which has a referent nominal group as its subject, cf.:

(6) a. Such a party there was no [being be; non-referential subject];

b. Geological Party wasn't at the base [local be; referent subject].

To the genitive subject in the context of the locative be the following explanation has been proposed (Paducheva 1992). The point is that the genitive subject admits not only being verbs, as Babbie believed, but also verbs of perception (see Itzkovich 1982: 54), as in (3), or verbs with a perceptual component, as in (5) ( it's arrived– means ‘entered the field of view of the observer’). The genitive construction adds to the semantics of the locative be this perceptual component. In other words, it introduces the figure of the observer into the concept of the situation: sentences like (4) or (6b) express not just absence, but observed absence; the subject of observation, by default, is the speaker.

Indeed, for a resident of Moscow (who is normally not in London) to comprehend, say, sentence (7a), it is necessary to assume one or another complex context; meanwhile (7b) in the mouth of the same speaker will be quite natural, since it presupposes an observer in Moscow:

(7) a. If not \ in London;

b. If not in Moscow \ .

Sentence (8a) describes a situation involving an observer, and (8b) is simply the negation of the sentence My champagne was in the refrigerator:

(8) a. my champagne did not have in a refrigerator;

b. My champagne was not in refrigerator.

The classical observer (see Apresyan 1986, Paducheva 1996: 266-271) is a participant with the semantic role of the Experimenter, occupying a certain place in the physical space of the situation (from where he is able to perceive what is happening), but not expressed in the surface structure of the sentence. The term observer is also understood in a broader sense - not only as an implied subject of perception, but also as a subject of consciousness, possession, etc. And the genitive of the subject with non-existent verbs expresses not only absence in the field of vision, as in (3), (4), (7), but also in consciousness, as in (9a), or in the “personal sphere” of the observer-speaker , as in (9b):

(9) a. He did not have the necessary erudition.

b. There is no money left.

The referent of the observer in the semantics of the genitive construction is subject to the same rules of projection (from the speaker to the subject of the subordinating sentence) as in the classical example with the verb appear.

(10) a. °I appeared on the road [an anomaly, since the object and subject of observation coincide];

b. He says that it was at that moment that I appeared on the road [no anomaly].

(11) a. °I am not at home [an anomaly, since the presumption ‘the observer-speaker is in the house contradicts the assertion of the speaker is not in the house’];

b. He was told that I was not at home [no anomaly, since there is no presumption of 'speaker in the house'].

There are several semantic classes of verbs that can have a genitive subject when negated - they can be called genitive. These are verbs of being, having, arising, appearing, manifesting, disappearing, discovering, revealing (see Babby 1980: 128-129) and, of course, verbs of perception - such as to hear, to hear, to be observed, to be noted, to register, to be recorded, to appear, to appear, to dream, to be found.

Strictly speaking, for the final choice of case, it is not the class of the verb that is important, but the presence of the components “non-existence” or “absence from view” as part of its meaning in a given context. Thus, the verb of movement becomes genitive if the movement of a Thing means its appearance in the field of view of the observer, cf. example from Babby 1980 (with different analysis):

(12) Not a single submarine did not emerge = ‘did not come into view’.

Sentence (13a), with a nominative, reflects the view from the inside, and (13.b), with a genitive, from an external observer:

b. Not a single sound did not escape his throat.

The components “non-existence” and “absence from view” can be included in the semantic structure of the verb in various configurations with other components. Yes, X -and didn’t arise ='X didn't start be'; X - not required = ‘not necessary, so that X is’; Ha didn't come across, didn't meet= 'X didn't start be in sight'.

The components “non-existence” and “absence from view” are related to each other by the relation of semantic derivation, cf. alternation of these two components (and their positive analogues) in the semantics of verbs appear, disappear, appear, appear and others (Paducheva 2004: 150). So, verb to appear has, in different contexts, now one or another component: the required drug did not appear= ‘the drug has not started exist’; no houses appeared on the horizon= ‘we haven’t started at home be in the perception zone’. An example of semantic derivation from non-perception to absence and, further, to non-existence from Demianova 2006; in (14a) did not see expresses absence, and in (14b) even non-existence:

(14) a. So that I have you here more did not see? ‘so that you are no longer here’;

b. So I did not see your tears? ‘so that your tears have no place’.

It should be emphasized that the perceptual component creates a prerequisite for assigning a verb to the genitive class, but does not guarantee genitivity. So, verb smell presupposes an observer, but is not genitive due to other features of its semantic structure, see Paducheva 2008. Moreover, belonging to the class of genitive means only the possibility, but not the necessity of the verb to enter into a genitive construction. For contextual factors that prohibit a genitive verb from having a genitive subject, see Paducheva 1997.

In Borshchev, Parti 2002, the concepts of perspective and center of perspective are used to explain the genitive of negation. In a situation described by a sentence with two participants, Thing and Place, the center of perspective can be both. The following rules are justified.

Rule 1. If the center of perspective is the Thing, then we have an ordinary (non-existential) sentence - with a nominative subject.

Rule 2. If the center of perspective is Place, then the sentence is formalized by a genitive construction.

(15) a. Newspapers did not arrive at the kiosk;

b. Newspapers did not arrive at the kiosk.

In (15a), the center of perspective is the Thing; a “surveillance camera” monitors newspapers and their movements; accordingly, the subject is in the nominative. In (15b) the center of perspective is kiosk, Place; hence, according to Rule 2, a genitive construction arises. The choice of case is determined by different conceptualizations of the same, in a sense, situation, namely, the choice of the center of perspective. The concept of perspective allows you to select the case of the subject without resorting to the referentiality of the subject IG.

According to a widely accepted hypothesis, the genitive expresses the fact that the participant Thing (subject) comes within the scope of the negation. Partee and Borshev 2002 show that this condition, on the one hand, is not necessary for the use of the genitive, and on the other hand, does not exclude the nominative. The first part of the statement is proven by example (16) – noun phrase not a single student is included in the SD of negation, but is not marked by the genitive; second part – example (17): IG anything marked by the genitive, although not included in the scope of the negation.

(16) Not a single student I wasn’t at the concert [=‘it is not true that at least one student was at the concert’];

(17) Maybe he has anything no [= ‘maybe there is something he doesn’t have’].

The genitive of negation must be distinguished from the genitive of the partitive. Thus, the opposition of the genitive in (18a) to the nominative in (18b) has partitive semantics, since the semantics of non-existence, characteristic of the genitive of negation, is also present in the sentence (18b) with a nominative subject:

(18) a. In our forest moose not found;

b. In our forest moose not found.

The meaning of partitivity is more clear in the genitive of an object, where partitivity can be expressed (or not expressed) not only in a negative context, but also in an affirmative one:

(19) a. Don't put it salt(cf. Put salt);

b. Don't put it salt(cf. Put salt).

We will return to the genitive partitivity later.

6.1.2. Object genitive

The semantics of verbs that allow the genitive of the object when negated is quite diverse - these can be verbs of creation, perception, knowledge, possession, movement (for the influence of vocabulary on the choice of object case, see Mustajoki, Heino 1991):

(1) He didn't write this letter[creation verb];

(3) I don't know this woman; He didn't remember my own mother[verb of knowledge];

(4) I didn't receive this letter; Grandma never found it your glasses[verb of possession];

(5) He didn't bring us of his article[verb to move; this means moving towards the Observer].

However, in a negative context, all these verbs have the same semantic components that gave rise to the construction with the genitive of the subject:

‘X does not exist’ / ‘X did not begin to exist’ in (1);

‘X is missing’ / ‘X is not in sight’ in (2);

‘X is absent from consciousness’ / ‘X has not entered consciousness’ in (3);

‘X is absent’ / ‘X has not entered the speaker’s personal sphere’ in (4), (5).

So, X not foundY-a inZ-e means ‘Y is not in Z-e, and X saw/realized it’. As it is easy to see, semantically, a verb that admits an object genitive has much in common with verbs of a genitive subject: the genitive of an object, like a subject, arises in the context of either non-existence or observed/conscious absence or contact. The difference is that in a construction with a genitive subject, the creator/observer/possessor, etc. behind the scenes, and with the genitive of the object it can be expressed by the subject (see Paducheva 2006).

So, the genitive of the object in a negative sentence, like the genitive of the subject, encodes one of two things: 1) the non-existence of the Thing in the world or 2) the absence of the Thing in the field of vision, the sphere of consciousness or the personal sphere of the Observer.

Components 1) and 2) arise in the meaning of a sentence as a result of the interaction of the lexical meaning of the verb and the referential status of the noun phrase.

As for the referential status of IGs, there is the following hierarchy of thematic classes of names, arranging them in descending order of referentiality (cf. Timberlake 1975) - class (a) maximally referential, class (e) maximally non-referential:

(a) proper names of people ( Masha).

(b) names of people by function and other relational names ( saleswoman);

(c) individuals, inanimate ( painting);

(d) names of functional objects ( key, glasses) are more prone to the genitive; yeah, okay I didn't take it keys, glasses and strange I didn't take the paintings;

(e) abstract and event names ( justice, trouble);

(e) names of the masses and multiple names (ham, cars);

If we leave aside quantified IGs, then the only source of information about the reference IGs is the thematic class: names of masses and abstract names are non-referential (therefore I didn't eat porridge better than I haven't eaten an apple); proper names are always referential. Individual names of groups (c) – (e), if they are definite, approach proper names.

As for the lexical meaning of the verb, there are several classes of transitive genitive verbs - in the semantics of verbs of these classes, in the context of negation, one of two components can arise, non-existence or observed absence, motivating the genitive of the object.

G1: verbs of creation

A creation verb predicts the referential status of its object as nonreferential—just as a being verb predicts the nonreferential status of its subject:

(6) not wrote this letter.

A verb of another class may be genitive if it is used in the meaning of creation - for example, feel(example from Demianov 2008):

(7) feel no remorse = ‘feel no remorse’; those. remorse<моего>does not exist.

G2: verbs of perception

Class G2 (the same is true for G3 – G5) is genitive due to the component “absence from sight/personal sphere”; yes, in context didn't give, didn't buy, didn't show the semantic configuration “absence in the personal sphere” arises:

(8) did not show photos.

Stative verbs of perception see, hear, smell, know can in a negative context simply mean a lack of contact (as in Her pampered fingers knew no needles= ‘had no contact with needles’). And in this context, the genitive is practically obligatory for the object; example from Demianov 2008:

(9) The guys came from Georges Banks, four months didn't sniff the shores, but they are not allowed into the port. [G.Vladimov. Three Minutes of Silence (1969)]

AT 9) didn't smell expresses “absence in the personal sphere.” Indeed, in (10), where to sniff– verb of activity, genitive is impossible:

(10) a. True, I don’t sit all day in a chair with my feet on a carpet bench, and I don’t smell scented salt.[A. Mariengof. This is for you, descendants! (1956–1960)]

Similar weathering allows the verb find. In its original meaning find has a presumption 'to seek'. In weathered usages this presumption disappears, and can not found is as close as possible to ‘not to be seen’. About the verb see it is known that in a negative context it carries the implication of absence ( I don't see zeal E ‘most likely there is no zeal’). The same is true for find, see Belyaeva 2008:

Having learned about the death of their beloved shepherd, the Ephesian Christians rushed to dig up his grave - and Not found there body. [Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 2004.05.24] [= ‘they saw that the body was missing’]

In other words, can not found in the weathered sense 'not to see' has the same meaning as be observed absence, with the difference that the subject of the verb acts as an observer find.

The question arises: if it is true that the genitive expresses an observed absence, then how can we explain that an object in a situation of observed absence can also be marked by an accusative? For example:

didn't find it your car.

The answer for the genitive of negation is the same as for the genitive of the partitive: marking the partitive with the genitive in Russian is possible, but not necessary, see example (19) from section 6.1.1 - in the same situation you can say Put some salt And put salt. Likewise, non-existence and observed absence may be encoded by the genitive, but may remain unexpressed. The current norm is that, given the semantic configuration “observed absence,” the genitive of the object is preferred. However, an accusative is, in principle, almost always possible.

G3: verbs of knowledge

There are practically no intransitive verbs with the “knowledge” component. Meanwhile, the genitive of the object with verbs of knowledge is widespread (see above about ignorance as a lack of contact):

Don't know this student; Didn't understand explanations.

Pronoun this can express anaphora and does not contradict the possible non-entry of the object into the personal sphere of the speaker. Contrast in certainty (familiarity), expressed by name/gen. case of the object, is associated with the idea of ​​knowledge.

G4: verbs of motion(towards the observer)

My love brought no one happiness[M. Yu. Lermontov. Hero of Our Time (1839-1841)]

I wrote to you, Fidel; that's right, Polkan didn't bring it letters mine! [N. V. Gogol. Notes of a Madman (1835)]

G5: verbs of possession

The verb belongs to this class have, which has absolute genitivity; Wed Also get, get, deliver, buy. In Desyatova 2008, verbs are classified as possessive contain, save– keep, keep. Verb contain in a stative possessive meaning almost unambiguously identifies the status of the object as non-referential - and thereby licenses the genitive:

Over the past five years, he has not seen a single study not containing errors.

Accusative number in example (11), from the NCRY, - evidence of accusative aggression; a more natural genitive would be:

(11) Resolution does not contain number of the decision of the head of the tax inspectorate, on the basis of which it was made...

On the other hand, there are several classes of accusative transitive verbs - in the context of such a verb, the genitive of an object during negation is possible only under the condition of a shift in the lexical meaning.

A1: Verbs of physical influence

In the class of verbs of physical influence ( open, paint, break) it is necessary to distinguish between the actual impact and destruction - the causation of non-existence. For the verb of influence, the presumption of the existence of an object and, as a consequence, accusativeness, are obvious. And verbs of destruction pose a problem. The original affirmative sentence with the verb annihilation means the cessation of existence. Thus, a negative sentence with the verb destruction, especially in Sov. form, turns out to be in some sense tautological - it asserts what constitutes its presumption:

I didn't break the cup.

Sov. the appearance of a verb in a sentence with such a verb almost necessarily gives rise to one or another implicature– for example, ‘it is known that it was going to’, or ‘it was expected’, etc.:

Terrorists didn't blow up gas pipeline E ‘was expected to be blown up’.

Therefore, the verb of destruction in the context of negation often takes the form of nes. kind, as in (12), and in this case the genitive means that not only the action of the subject is denied, but also the existence of the object of the action or its presence in the field of view/personal sphere of the alleged actor or speaker:

(12) Better admit, mischievous people, that my blue cup was broken in the closet! And I'm cups didn't break it. And Svetlana says that didn't break it. (A. Gaidar)

The work of Letuchy 2008 provides an example of the genitive of negation in the context of the verb of destruction and the object designated by IG with an indisputable presumption of existence and uniqueness:

(13) 52-year-old Philip Shute claims that he did not kill mothers.

The genitive in (13) does not cancel the presumption of the existence and uniqueness of the mother. The point, however, is that the specific reference that an IG usually has is of the form X's mother, is not reducible to this presumption: there is also the moment ‘the speaker means this object’ (see Paducheva 1985: 96-97); or otherwise – ‘The thing is present in the field of vision or personal sphere of the speaker’. It is this component that is missing in the semantics of noun phrases, which are assigned attributive status in Donnellan 1979. The semantic effect of the genitive in (13) is that it emphasizes the attributive rather than the concrete referential status of the IG mother. So didn't kill his mother And didn't kill his mother– this is a semantic opposition, and not just a stylistic variation. (For aspectual opposition in negative sentences, see section 6.2.)

As a rule, however, the genitive concrete-referential IG in the context of the verb of influence is perceived as a remnant of the old norm. So, in (14), (15) you can replace the genitive with the accusative without changing the meaning:

(14) So that this nightmare does not crushed Judas, the artist immediately resolves it with the charm of immediate life, although thought mysteriously transforms it into the future: [I.Annensky. Second Book of Reflections (1909)]

(15) The unexpected news about Elena’s wedding almost killed Anna Vasilievna. [I.S. Turgenev. The Eve (1859)]

In the case of abstract IG, the norm requires the genitive; Wed the interpretation of abstractions as names of mass in Jespersen 1924/1958 and the shade of partitivity in (16):

(16) Years in prison did not kill his charm(example from Letuchy 2008).

A2: verbs of emotion

Accusativeness of verbs like scare, delight, anger is predicted by the fact that their object is a face, and the face occupies the highest point on the scale of specific reference:

This message didn't scare me Maria (*Maria).

If the object is a non-referential IG, then the genitive is possible:

I do not like loud music.

A3: verbs of speech

This means verbs like call, praise. They predict the thematic class of their complement as person and, again, the status of the object IG as concrete-referential. Thus, the genitive is impossible in the context of a person’s own name, but is possible in the context of a mass name:

(a) *Why weren’t you invited? Masha?

(b) Why weren’t you invited? youth?

In a context where the object is a speech production, the verb of speech is the verb of creation, which gives a semantically motivated genitive:

Maybe Dostoevsky imagined himself a murderer, otherwise he I wouldn't write novel, but this is not a real act for which he bears legal and moral responsibility. [M. M. Bakhtin. On the polyphony of Dostoevsky's novels (1971)]

Verbs of speech with a direct object expressing content ( speak<чепуху>, tell <анекдоты>) have two uses - in the meaning of creating a new text and in the meaning of reproducing an existing one. In the first meaning, they have an object in the genitive - according to the general rule about creation verbs, in which the existence component has an assertive status, see (17); with a value of 2, opposition by definiteness (familiarity) comes into force and, accordingly, both the accusative and the genitive are possible, see (18):

(17) At least he didn't say nonsense;

(18) a. He didn't tell this story;

b. He didn't tell these jokes.

If the verb of speech conceptualizes the situation as placing an object in the field of view, then the genitive is acceptable:

He didn't mention your girlfriend.

So, the semantics of the genitive subject and object in a negative sentence reveals significant commonality. The components of non-existence and absence in the field of vision, which are generated by the contextually determined semantics of the verb and the referential potential of the name, are of decisive importance.

Verbs that admit a genitive subject constitute a semantically much more definite class than verbs that admit a genitive object. Let's take, for example, gla-gols arise And disappear. They are antonyms and behave differently in relation to the genitive of negation: arise- the verb is existential and, therefore, genitive, and disappear not existential (on the contrary, it carries the presumption of the existence of a subject who then disappeared) and not genitive; at arise the subject is in the genitive, and when disappear– in the nominative:

(A) Doubts did not arise; (b) Doubts haven't disappeared .

Meanwhile, in the sphere of the objective genitive, a verb and its antonym often have the same “genitivity.” It turns out that in the original verb, as in the examples of group (a), the genitive is semantically motivated, and in the antonym, group (b), it is a consequence of a kind of analogical alignment:

(19) a. not built bridges; b. didn't destroy bridges;

A. not assigned meetings; b. not canceled meetings;

A. I don’t remember your phrase; b. did not forget your phrase. />/>

In the class of verbs of destruction, the genitive of the subject is impossible, and this is semantically justified, since only what existed can be destroyed; Meanwhile, the genitive of the object of the same verb in the active voice is acceptable:

*doubts did not dissipate - did not dissipate doubts;

*meetings not canceled - not canceled meetings;

*agreement not violated - not violated agreement. />/>

It is important, however, that genitive vs. the nominative of the subject can express distinct semantic oppositions, see examples (8), (13) from section 6.1.1, while the use of the accusative of the object in negation almost nowhere (with the exception of a few stable combinations) will not be an error.

6.2. Correlation of negation with nonsense. type of verb

Nes also requires special consideration in the context of negation. type of verb. Within the so-called the transformation of negation provided for the possibility of replacing SV with NSV in the context of negation (Paducheva 1974/2009: 149): Ivan signed this letter - Ivan did not / did not sign this letter. However, such replacement is sometimes mandatory, sometimes optional, and sometimes impossible. So the general rules for the interaction of negation with the aspect of the verb should be described directly.

The Ness. types in the Russian language there are two different meanings - actual-continuous (progressive), basic, and general factual, secondary, in many ways similar to the meaning of SV. Additional aspectual differences may be due to the lexical semantics of the verb. In addition, multiple values ​​of nesses form a separate area. species, in particular, usual, see view; private species values.

The difference between the actual-continuous meaning, as in (1a), and the general factual, as in (1b), is that the actual-continuous one assumes a synchronous position of the observer, and the general factual one - a retrospective one (Paducheva 1986); accordingly, (1a) describes a situation that has not reached its natural limit (result), and in (1b) the achievement of a result is not excluded or even implied:

(1) a. When you called I read your article;

b. I read your article.

Until now, due attention has not been paid (see, however, Glowinska 1982: 141) to the fact that in a negative context the imperfective most often appears not in the main, synchronous, but in a retrospective meaning, see (2a). Synchronic meaning, as in (2b), is possible only in the context of opposition and requires special prosody; and (2c), with a genitive object, it is completely impossible:

(2) a. I haven't read your article/your article.

b. When you called, I had not read your article;

V. *When you called, I had not read your article.

Synchronous understanding of nonsense. form in a negative sentence easily arises with non-finite (i.e. unpaired) NSV verbs or with verbs in which the NSV has a usual or stative meaning in the corresponding affirmative sentence:

(3) a. When you called he slept/did not sleep[infinite verb];

b. He brought / didn't bring it they have milk on Fridays [NSV usual];

V. We are on time / running late by train [NSV static].

As for paired verbs, their synchronous interpretation of the negative imperfective is possible only as a consequence of the non-compositional interaction of the verb type with the negation. Namely, the combination “NSV verb + negation” can describe the state of non-occurrence of an event. Thus, in (4), the combination of an event verb with a negation denotes a continuing state:

(4) a. I walked up and stopped two steps away. They didn't notice me, busy talking. (A. Kuprin) (an example is given, with a different interpretation, in Rasudova 1982: 67);

b.<…>he was silent, she didn't ask, but I saw through his brown eyes how he was tormented by his guilt, looking at her [A. Slapovsky. Death of a guitarist (1994-1995)]

The state of non-occurrence of an event can be characterized in terms of duration. Thus, in the examples from (5), the negative imperfective falls within the scope of the adverbial tense, which expresses the duration of the state of non-occurrence of the events “sat down at the table” and “let go”:

(5) a. I'm three weeks didn't sit down at the table;

b.<…>three days she<…>poor Masha from myself didn't let go not a single step. [L. Ulitskaya. Medea and her children (1996)]

It is important, however, that the sentences from (5) are not generally negative: they are not negations of the strange sat down for three weeks and even stranger let me go for three days.

Let us now turn to generally negative sentences and to the main meaning of the negative imperfective - retrospective. The meaning of the retrospective imperfective in a positive context is known (Paducheva 1996: 53–65) - the imperfective is closer in meaning to the perfective: in some contexts NSV and SV are quasi-synonymous (this is the so-called competition of species), in others some differences remain.

It turns out that the retrospective imperfective in a negative context is semantically correlated with the perfective in almost the same way as in a positive one. In other words, the retrospective meaning of the imperfective in a positive and negative context is almost the same; the choice of species form in a negative context is determined by similar factors. What are these factors?

We are talking only about paired verbs, since only for them there is a problem of choosing the type. Paired verbs are divided into two classes - marginal and instantaneous.

6.2.1. Limit verbs

Let's limit ourselves to action verbs, like open: non-agentive verbs, like open up, require reservations that must be made separately.

The semantics of the ultimate verb of action includes two main components – “activity” and “result” – connected by a causal connection. Roughly speaking, the interpretation of the verb SV open is this:

X opened Y = ‘X acted in a certain way; as a result, Y, which was closed, became open.

The terminal verb SV, by definition, has a form NSV with an actual-continuous meaning: the activity of X can be called by the same verb in the form NSV. The difference between the types is that the perfective (for example, Ivan opened the window) the focus of attention is on the “result” component, and the corresponding imperfective (<In this moment>Ivan opened the window) the focus is “activity”; the result is present as a potentially achievable goal.

In the class of terminal verbs there are two varieties - ordinary terminal verbs and conatives, i.e. verbs of attempt. Conatives are actions in which activity is a presumption, and assertion is the achievement of a result, see [Apresyan 1980: 64] about verbs decide,catch up and in [Glovinskaya 1982: 89] about species pairs of the type ‘to act with a goal’ – ‘to achieve a goal’.

The presumptive status of the “activity” component in conatives makes itself felt in the context of negation - in conatives there is a clear difference between the negative perfective and the negative imperfective:

(6) a. haven't decided= ‘tried to solve it and didn’t solve it’;

b. didn't decide= ‘didn’t try to solve’.

Same difference in pairs didn’t explain - didn’t explain, didn’t persuade - didn’t persuade, didn’t catch up - didn’t catch up and many others. Thus, the general negative correlate for sentence (7a) can only be (7b) - for the stronger negative sense (7c) ‘didn’t even decide’, the semantics of sentence (7a) does not give grounds, since the component “activity” is decide presumption:

(7) a. Vania decided task;

b. Vania haven't decided task;

V. Vania didn't decide task.

So, in the class of conatives, the negation of a verb in the form of SV in no way requires the replacement of SV with NSV; “transformation of negation” is fundamentally NOT accompanied by the replacement of the original SV with the NSV: is the SV retrospective? NE.

It’s a different matter with ordinary limiting verbs with a gradual accumulation of effect, such as open, read, see Glowinska 1982: 76-86. For them, both components can be negated at once - not only the result, but also the activity itself; Moreover, if the activity is denied, then the result is also denied. Therefore, sentence (8a) can have an understanding in which it is quasi-synonymous with (8b):

(8) a. I still didn't read it your article; b. I still do not read your article.

In fact, the “activity” component of the ultimate actions of non-conatives does not constitute a presumption and easily falls within the scope of negation. And since the negation of activity entails the negation of the result, the negation of NSV turns out to be quasi-synonymous with the negation of SV:

(9) These people didn't pay money for a ticket, but stayed here from the previous match. ["Izvestia", 2001.10.24] [ Notpaid » didn't pay]

Quasi-synonymy between the general factual NSV and the SV (i.e., the effective meaning of the general factual NSV) sometimes arises in a positive context: paid can mean 'paid'. However, in a negative context, the imperfect in the effective general factual meaning is used much more widely than in the affirmative. Thus, in (10a), the imperfective of negation is quasi-synonymous with the perfective, and the imperfective without negation, see (10b), unlike the perfective, does not have the meaning of a single action that has reached the limit:

(10) a. Kolya didn't come back" Kolya didn't come back;

b. Kolya was returning? Kolya back.

The fact is that the quasi-synonymy of general factual NSV and SV in a positive context and in a negative context arises in different ways. In a positive context, because retrospection removes the idea of ​​incomplete action (i.e., failure to achieve a result), unambiguously expressed by a synchronous perspective: with retrospection, achieving a result becomes compatible with the semantics of the NSV. In a negative context, on the contrary, the convergence of the values ​​of SV and NSV in terms of performance is achieved due to the fact that negation removes the idea of ​​achieving a result from the semantics of SV.

However, the imperfective differs from the perfective not only in the parameter of effectiveness, see about the peripheral components of the semantics of SV in Paducheva 1996: 54. So, by default, in the meaning of SV there is perfect component: ‘the achieved result is saved at the time of observation’. So NSV can be used in negation instead of SV in order to get rid of the component ‘at the moment of observation it is significant that the result has not been achieved’. Wed. difference in meaning between Have not received And Didn't receive in response to the question “Have you received it?”: SV expresses great interest in receiving it.

In addition, the opposition SV/NSV under negation may consist in the fact that SV denies only the presence of a result, and NSV emphasizes the absence of intention to perform an action:

(11) a. I did not buy fruits;

b. I didn't buy fruits.

The lack of intention is demonstrated by example (12); didn't wait ? didn't wait:

(12) Three days after this scene, the hostess brought me coffee in the morning, as she did every day; but this time she's already didn't wait while I take the cup from her hands; she put everything on the table in front of me and, without saying a word, sat down thoughtfully by the window. [N.A. Durova. Cavalry Maiden (1835)]

Another peripheral component in the semantics of SV is expectation. It is characteristic of owls. in a positive context, and even more so in a negative one:

(13) Have you watched this film [was expected to watch]?

(14) I didn’t watch this film [I was expected to watch it].

Negative for He died May be He didn't die at all, didn't even intend to, since owls view He didn't die would express the expectation that something bad was going to happen to him. Wed:

(15) I say was, because I don’t honor him alive, although physically he didn't die. [F.F. Wigel. Notes (1850-1860)]

So, there is no need to talk about the fact that negation is accompanied by the replacement of SV with NSV: each type has its own semantics.

6.2.2. Momentary verbs

In momentary verbs, the NSV form does not have an actual-continuous meaning, i.e. does not denote an activity that gradually leads to a result.

Among the momentary verbs there are stative ones - those in which NSV denotes a state that occurs as a result of an event, i.e. perfect state. These are verbs that are included in perfect pairs, i.e. pairs, where NSV is a stative expressing the state achieved by the previous action; For example, understand – understand, obscure - obscure, see – see(Glovinskaya 1982: 91-104, Bulygina, Shmelev 1989, Paducheva 1996: 152–160].

The stative imperfective cannot have a generally factual effective meaning in a positive context: Who understood? does not imply Who understood?(in the sense in which Who bought it? implies Who bought it?), this was noted back in Boguslawski 1981. Accordingly, there is no quasi-synonymy of NSV past. » SV past: these imperfectives do not have dynamics aimed at transitioning to a new state. (Another thing is that the event Understood implies a state understands, present time, see perfect meaning of owl. kind, So Didn't understand E ‘doesn’t understand’.)

In non-stative momentary action verbs such as come,find,notice,address their imperfective, although it does not denote a state, is also incompatible with the progressive: these verbs have a fixed emphasis on the result and do not allow a focus on activity. You can't tell

*Now he comes,finds,notices, comes in to a friend, appeals to the teacher.

But in retrospect, the imperfective of a non-stative instantaneous verb (in an affirmative context) easily acquires an effective meaning:

Anyone found my glasses? [» found]

I have your pen took. [» took]

Accordingly, when negated in such verbs, SV can be replaced by NSV:

- You took keys? - No, didn't take it/No, I didn't take it.

At the momentary verb begin the negative perfective and the imperfective are practically synonymous: didn't start » didn't start.

Again, the negative imperfective of a momentary verb can be understood in a singular resultative meaning in a wider class of contexts than the same imperfective outside of negation. So, (16a)? (16b), since NSV, unlike SV, implies a possible loss of the achieved state, and in the context of negation, SV and NSV are synonymous, see (16a) and (16b):

(16) a. °Kolya found your key; b. Kolya found his key;

(16) a. Kolya didn't find it your key; b. Kolya Have not found your key.

So, in terms of effectiveness, SV and retrospective non-stative NSV of momentary verbs are almost equal. If a difference is felt between them, then, as with terminal verbs, it concerns the peripheral components of the meaning of SV: nes. a species may be preferred because it lacks peripheral components.

Nonactional verbs require special consideration. For example, haven't lost in no way inclined to alternate with didn't lose.

6.2.3. Nesov.type of infinitive in the context of negative modality

So, when negated, the perfect form of a finite verb can change to imperfect - such a replacement is semantically motivated, but, as a rule, optional. There is, however, a context where replacing SV with NSV in case of negation is mandatory. This is the context of negated modality, see Rasudova 1982: 120-127.

Negation in the context of the modality of necessity, general and deontic, requires the infinitive of the verb in nes. form:

Necessary open window - no need open window (*no need open);

You owe (i.e. owe) her help– You don’t owe (i.e. don’t owe) her to help (*help)

Whatever means are used to express the meaning of the unnecessaryness of an action, the infinitive must be in ness. form (see Rasudova 1982: 122):

Do you really need it? address to this person? I was not recommended plant what are these trees for? mind? You're welcome thank, He didn't order emphasize, and etc.

The perfect form of the infinitive means that the necessity is not general or deontic, but epistemic:

I think Spartak shouldn't meet great resistance. [Football-4 (forum) (2005)]

As for the modality of possibility, it is not. the species is obligatory only when the deontic possibility is denied, see (17); the denial of ability, see (18), and epistemic possibility, (19), does not affect the form of the verb:

(17) It’s not allowed here go over street [= ‘forbidden’, deontic impossibility; can't cross= ‘impossible’];

(18) He can't swim across Volga;

(19) Ivan could not make a mistake[= ‘I do not admit such a possibility’].

As in the finite case, the imperfective of modality is semantically motivated: in order to prohibit an action, it is enough to prohibit the activity leading to it. For more on the interaction of negation with modality, see Modality.

7. Negation and lexical semantics

7.1. Negation and the assertive component in the meaning of the word

The place of negation in a sentence can be determined by the lexical semantics of the word, namely, the division of its meaning into presumption and assertion. This was brilliantly demonstrated in Fillmore 1971 using the English verbs 'condemn' and 'accuse'. In simplified form, the idea was as follows. Both verbs contain in their semantics the propositions ‘P is bad’ and ‘P is the case’; but condemn‘P is the case’ is a presumption, and ‘P is bad’ is an assertion, and blame- vice versa. Let's see how Russian verbs behave when negated condemn And blame.

(not me I condemn\ John for conformism)

(b) NOT (I I blame John's conformity \).

At the verb condemn, example (a), the proposition ‘John ​​behaves conformistly’ constitutes a presumption and is expressed in the syntactically subordinate component of the sentence, and the assertion ‘conformity is bad’ is expressed in the main clause: condemn= ‘consider it bad’. Therefore, the general negation of (a) is a sentence with a perfect predicate negation. And the verb blame, see (b), the proposition ‘John ​​behaves conformistically’, being, in accordance with the lexical semantics of the verb, the main assertion, expressed in the sentence in its syntactically subordinate component. So the natural negation for (b) is a sentence with a non-verbal negation (c). In fact, in (b) the phrasal stress is not on the verb, but on the contrasting rheme - there it remains in the negative sentence:

Not me I condemn\John for conformity) = I do not blame \John for conformity;

Not me I blame Jonah in conformity \) =

(c) I do not accuse John of conformism.<а в чем-то другом>

The predicate negation, which does not appear with the word bearing the main phrasal stress, is shifted for a sentence with structure (b):

I don't blame John for conformism.

Previously, the difference in the assertive status of components was noted when comparing verbs afraid And hope in Wierzbicka 1969; see also Zaliznyak 1983.

7.2. Negation and actant structure of words

The addition of a negation can change the meaning of a word to such an extent that it has a new semantic actant. This remarkable phenomenon was demonstrated in Apresyan 2006: 133-134 using the example of verbs with the prefix before- in its basic meaning of bringing an action ‘to the end or some limit’ (such as run, finish reading, finish listening). Thus, in phrase (2), in a negative context, the participant Lack appears (expressing the measure of distance from the final point), which does not and cannot exist in a positive context, in phrase (1):

(1) He reached the village;

(2) He didn't get there two kilometers to the village.

How to explain this phenomenon? To begin with, we will proceed (like all existing descriptions) from the fact that verbs with the prefix before- have the same meaning: prefix before- transforms the verb NSV, denoting an activity, possibly infinite, into a verb SV, meaning ‘by performing some activity, to reach a certain point in its development’. Participant formalized by pretext before, denotes this point (for example: I finished reading your manuscript halfway through.), and if the Endpoint is not expressed syntactically, it is implied, 'to the natural end' (for example: I finished reading your manuscript).

However, the Endpoint participant, if expressed by the preposition before, denotes the result of an activity, but not necessarily a result that would coincide with the Agent’s Ultimate Goal. In fact, a person could walk<только>to Kherson, meaning to come to Odessa, but could have an even more vague goal:

(3) He wandered for a long time until he reached some village. ["USA Bulletin", 2003.12.10].

So the End Point and the Final Goal (Natural End) are different entities. Therefore, it is necessary to discard the assumption of a single meaning and distinguish between two situations of using verbs with the prefix before-:

(i) I finished reading your manuscript [from some page near the end to the end]

(ii) I finished reading your manuscript to the middle [from beginning to middle].

Now it is clear that a sentence in which a verb with a prefix before- has interpretation (ii), does not have a good negation at all - as always happens with verbs with a quantitative limit, see Paducheva 1996: 187.

Negation of a verb with a prefix before- possible when it is used in situation (i), i.e. when an activity has an Ultimate Goal, no matter whether it is intended by the Agent or, so to speak, objective:

He reached the village - He did not reach the village;

I finished reading your manuscript - I didn’t finish reading your manuscript.

Participant Shortage occurs provided that the activity involves a scale (spatial, temporal or some other) that allows for the measurement of the distance between the point at which it (the activity) ceased and its intended Ultimate Goal:

I didn't finish reading two pages <до конца вашей рукописи>;

Alexei a little did not reach the camp, and we were already close, but, alas, my heart stopped. ["Top Secret", 2003.05.05]

Participant The shortage is not the only change in the management model before-verb in a negative context. The second change is that the participant formalized by the preposition before, in a negative sentence, denotes not just the End Point of an activity, as it may be in an affirmative sentence, for example, in (3), but its Final Goal.

The verb NSV, to which a prefix is ​​added before-, can denote not only an activity, as in the examples above, but also a process:

Before the translations of One Day, Pope John XXIII didn't make it several weeks [Alexander Arkhangelsky. 1962. Epistle to Timothy (2006)];

Participant Lack also occurs when the verb is negated that's enough in the meaning of ‘to be sufficient’ (cf. Rakhilina 2010: 318). Let's compare sentences (4) and (5):

(4) I had enough two minutes to express everything I think about him;

(5) I didn't have enough two minutes/ to express everything I think about him \ .

Proposition (5) is not a negation of (4). Indeed, (4) means ‘I had two minutes at my disposal [presumption], and that was enough to tell him everything I thought about him’ [assertion]. His denial must have the meaning 'I had two minutes [presumption], and that was not enough to tell him what I thought about him' [assertion], which can be expressed as (6):

(6) I didn't have enough \ two minutes to tell him everything I think about him.

Meanwhile, (5) means something completely different: ‘to tell him everything I thought about him, I needed two minutes more than I had’. But the point is that in (5) two minutes expresses the participant Lack - which is not present either in the affirmative sentence (4) or in the corresponding generally negative (6). It appears in (5) as a result of a special interaction of negation with the lexical meaning of the verb - similar to that which occurs in verbs in before-.

As for the interaction of negation with the actant structure of the verb, the inverse relationship is better known: a verb with a negative component in its meaning often lacks the valence that the corresponding non-negative has, see the well-known example * miss the hare, at normal hit the hare, from Melchuk, Kholodovich 1970 and on verbs of result elimination in Apresyan 1974: 290-292.

7.3. Negative polarization

Negation provides context for a wide class of words and expressions that have a negative polarization (Haspelmath 2000, Boguslavsky 2001). These are words that in themselves may not have a negative meaning, but are used preferably in the context of a semantically higher negation. Words with negative polarization are any and other pronouns in the series - or(see Pereltsvaig 2000, Rozhnova 2009). Series pronouns also have negative polarization whatever it is(Paducheva 2010). Other examples of words and combinations that are only appropriate in a negative context: though (I don't think he won a single game), combination that's how it is (I can't say that I like him that much), so, very, so, so, hurt meaning ‘especially’ ( it doesn't hurt).

Pronouns on -or are used in the context of co-predicate negation, where they can be interchangeable with pronouns in neither-, example (1), but more often - in the context of negation (explicit and implicit) in subordinating predication, examples (2), (3), and comparative expression, example (4), where negative pronouns are impossible:

(1) This is not related with any /with no specific tasks;

(2) He had no reason anything (*Nothing) change;

(3) It is not known whether this story was ever (*never) is finished.

(4) He was more attentive than ever (*never) before.

In all these contexts, pronouns in whatever it is. An example of the use of a pronoun in whatever it is in the context of a word with implicit negation:

After leaving the hospital he was deprived whatever livelihood.

Negative pronouns do not respond to implicit and non-copredicate negation, i.e. occur strictly in the context of explicit copredicate negation.

Conditional negation (in a semantically generally negative sentence) also licenses words with negative polarization (Rozhnova 2009):

Not many have achieved any success (cf. *Many have achieved any success).

He didn't visit often any parties(cf. *He often visited any parties).

The laws of interaction of words operating in the area under consideration are basically semantic: the possibility of using a pronoun is influenced by the negative meaning, and not by superficial negation. So, in examples (5), (6) in (a) there is the necessary negative semantic component, and in (b) the double negation gives a positive meaning; hence the impossibility of pronouns on -or And whatever it is:

(5) a. He lies what I read anything / whatever it is;

b. He he's not lying what I read * anything /*whatever it is.

(6) a. This person's ability to whatever activities not obvious;

b. This person's ability to * whatever / *any activities no doubt.

Examples (7) and (8) reveal an implicit negative component in the composition of words few And end– replacing with an antonym makes whicheverwhatever it was inappropriate:

(7) a. Few who had whateverwhatever it was idea about the subject;

b. * Many had whatever idea of ​​the subject.

(8) a. This end whatever free economy;

b. *This Start whatever free economy.

It is known that the semantic decomposition of a word only reveals the negation component in it. AND only licenses the series whatever it is:

Only Ivan expressed whatever helpfulness.

Haspelmath 1997 includes the construct too much …, to. This context allows whatever it is, which makes us think that the interpretation of this construction also includes negation:

Adam too much tired to do whatever homework.

It is known about units with negative polarization in a variety of languages ​​that they are acceptable not only in the context of negation, but also in some others. This is also true for -or And whatever. There are several non-negative contexts that allow whatever.

· Conditional sentence and equivalent gerund:

If penetrated into the human body whateverneither was [any, any] microbe, the body puts up its entire immune system for protection;

Deciding whatever particular task, we need to think about the language as a whole [ any, any].

· Unions before, before:

Before as put down on paper your memories of whoever it is, Repin told several people about them [ about someone]

· Separate turnover:

irreligious maximalism, in whatever form, leads to the degradation of society [* any].

· Higher general quantifier:

I all cosmetics with whatever removed the aroma [ with any].

Comparative turnover:

He did more harm than whatever terrorist [* any].

· Target turnover:

To demand from people strict adherence whatever rules, it is necessary to create conditions for their implementation and impose strict sanctions for their violation [ any].

· Negation of disjunction:

There are no difficulties or whatever interesting tasks [any].

· Question:

Did he ask you whatever tricky questions [ any]?

Contexts that allow negatively polarized units have some commonality in very different languages. Hence numerous attempts to find a semantic explanation for this commonality of contexts. Thus, a semantic approach to describing contexts of negative polarization was developed within the framework of formal semantics (Ladusaw 1980). However, negatively polarizing contexts do not completely coincide in different languages. It is noted (in Veyrenc 1964) that there is a divergence of contexts of negative polarization between Russian and French; large discrepancies between Russian and Spanish were found in Rozhnova 2009. Obviously, the semantic motivation here is not complete.

7.4. Scope of intraword negation

As we have seen, the ability to create a negative polarization context for a particle Not and intraword negation are largely similar. But overall the particle Not has a wider scope than intraword negation. Examples from Boguslavsky 1985, p. 57 and 80.

Example 1. In the context Not particles can be of particular importance almost And practically: If R means a repeating situation, then almost no-P means ‘almost always non-P’, i.e. ‘usually not-P’:

In such games he almost/almost never loses.

At the same time, however, doesn't lose in the context almost /practically cannot be replaced with a synonym wins. The point is that this meaning arises from almost /practically in the context Not-particles, but not in the context of implicit negation. So in almost context almost wins can only be understood as ‘not far from winning’, but not as ‘usually doesn’t lose’.

Example 2. Combination do not violate (rule, tradition) is synonymous with the combination observe(rule, tradition). However, replacement with a synonym may not be possible. So, (a) means ‘as a result of marriage with a foreigner, there is no violation of family tradition’, and (b) – ‘<только>Marriage to a foreigner consists of observing family tradition’:

(a) She does not break family tradition by marrying a foreigner;

(b) She is following family tradition by marrying a foreigner.

7.5. Idiomatic negation

In combination with some class of adjectives and adverbs particle Not has an idiomatic meaning - not pure negation, but “opposite with a touch of moderation” (Apresyan 1974:292-294, Boguslavsky 1985: 25):

(1) small, considerable, not bad, a little, often, not close, not weak, not too much.

This also includes not thirsty, not delighted meaning ‘I don’t particularly want’, ‘I don’t like it too much’ (Apresyan 2006: 139) and clichéd understatements: not pleased» I'm upset, I don't envy you» Sorry; A No doubt And sure almost synonyms.

Negation can affect the meaning of a verb in unusual ways. So, Not with the verb want in combination with verbs know, think, believe can attach to a verb want(and especially, want) intensifying meaning of rejection (Apresyan 2006: 138):

I don’t want to know who brought him here and why.

(e) I’m not used to talking in this tone.” I’m not used to talking in this tone.

Negation in contexts like (2) was treated as idiomatic (Jespersen 1958, Apresyan 1974). Indeed, instead of the intended meaning of (3), sentence (2) has the meaning of (4):

(2) Bag doesn't weigh 50 kg;

(3) NOT (The bag weighs 50 kg);

(4) The bag weighs less than 50 kg.

Why 'less' and not 'less or more', which would be the standard negation for 'the weight of the bag is 50 kg'? However, in Boguslavsky 1985: 27 idiomaticity is rejected. The fact is that sentence (2) is a negation not of sentence (5), with a normal phrasal emphasis on the final IG, but of sentence (6), with an emphasis on the verb:

(5) The bag weighs 50 kg\;

(6) The bag weighs \50 kg.

Sentence (6) means ‘the bag weighs 50 kg or more'; hence, according to common sense, its negation means ‘the bag weighs less 50 kg’. So the interpretation (4) of sentence (2) is completely compositional - it is generated by regular rules that take phrasal emphasis into account. The question remains, however, why the shift in phrasal emphasis from adverbial to verb is accompanied by such a change in the meaning of the affirmative sentence; but it concerns the semantics of communicative structure, not negation.

7.6. Negation of a performative verb

Lyons 1977: 771 raises the question of special significance negations in context performative verb. According to Lyons, the statement I promise to return, with a performative verb, when negated gives I don't promise to come back, which he interprets as a new speech act - abstention from a promise, non-commitment. This speech act is absent from the modern repertoire. And the formula I don't promise... it is natural to rather interpret as expressing a speech act statements that the speaker refuses to perform a given speech act. One might think that verbs in performative use do not allow negation - similar to how verbs in introductory use do not allow negation, see Apresyan 1995.

On this path, it is possible to interpret negation as part of an imperative - which expresses a certain speech act: a request, demand, etc. Sentence (a) means ‘I ask/demand/… that you open the door’; and (b) does not mean ‘I don’t ask/demand/… that you open the door’, but ‘I ask/demand/… that you do not open the door’:

(a) Open the door; (b) Don't open the door.

Those. it is the action that is negated, not the speech act that incites it.

An example from Apresyan 2006: 139 can be associated with the negation of performatives. The verb complain in the 1st person, negation can extend not only to the internal state, a bad one, but also remove the component of speaking; That's why Not complaining in response to How are you? means ‘everything is normal’.

7.7. Denial and duality

Dual words are words that replace one another during certain transformations of a sentence. In this case we are talking about duality in relation to a) the transition from a proposal to its general negation; and b) in relation to a change in the scope of negation, in particular with the rise of negation.

Several pairs of adverbials that are ambivalent to transformations involving negation: already And more; again And this time; again And more <не>; Same And Unlike; at least And even.

Let us consider the duality relation using the example of particles already And more. When moving from an affirmative sentence to the corresponding generally negative one, the particle is replaced by a dual one:

(1) not (bridges already removed) = Bridges more not removed.

How to explain this phenomenon? Slightly coarsening the picture, we can say that the particles more And already, in one usage, describe a state of waiting:

(a) Child already sleeps » [baby sleeps]Ass & [baby should sleep]Presup;

(b) Child more sleeps » [baby sleeps]Ass & [baby must stay awake]Presup.

The behavior of these particles under negation is determined by the following two circumstances. Firstly, the meaning of these particles constitutes a presumption in the semantic representation of the sentence, and the negation in a generally negative sentence is attached to the word that expresses assertion. So these particles cannot attach negation. (Unlike, for example, a particle only, which itself is assertive, attaches a negation and makes the predicative remainder of the sentence a presumption, see Paducheva 1977.) Secondly, a presumption expressing the meaning of particles more And already, is a semantic operator that has as its argument an assertion of a sentence, usually with a verb vertex. So if you attach a negation to a verb, then the presumption, which is built on the basis of assertion, will also change to the opposite.

Therefore, since the pragmatically normal negation of a given sentence will be a sentence that denies its assertion and preserves the presumption, then in this case, by attaching a negation to the verb, it is necessary to replace one particle with another - after all, they are, so to speak, antonymous:

not (child already sleeps) = ‘the child is not sleeping & the child should have been sleeping’ = Child more not sleeping;

not (child more sleeps) = ‘the child is not sleeping &<ожидалось, что>must stay awake’ = Child already not sleeping.

Example (2) shows that replacing a particle already the dual is also needed during the ascent (and, accordingly, “descent”) of negation.

(2) I don't think that bridges already removed » I think that the bridges more not removed.

Indeed, already carries a presumption of obligation (expectation); That's why:

I don't think that bridges already removed = ‘I think that the bridges have not been removed & should be removed’ = I think that the bridges more not removed.

At the particle even no duality; therefore has no negation of the sentence with even do not have a common negation, see section 5.1.

One might think that duality regarding negation is a type of antonymy - not taken into account in Apresyan 1974: 285-316.

7.8. "The Denial of the Denial"

The logical rule that the negation of a negation is equivalent to an affirmation is partially valid in natural language: when two negations are combined into one proposition (if it is not a cumulative negation), the meaning turns out to be affirmative. However, as a rule, two negatives do not exactly cancel each other out. For example, one negation can be contradictory, and another can be contradictory. In sentence (1a) the first negation is contradictory, the second is contradictory, and it is, of course, not equal to (1b);

(1) a. Alfred doesn't dislike modern music;

b. Alfred likes modern music (example from Lyons 1977: 772).

Likewise, I'm not unhappy ? I'm happy. However, in (2) both negatives are contradictory:

(2) And there, at the bottom of the soul, no one not "didn't know", what’s going on,” no one was “mistaken.” [A. Naiman. The Glorious End of Inglorious Generations (1994)]

7.9. Pleonastic denial

This is a kind of negative agreement; "extra" Not occurs with verbs like deny, forbid, doubt, hold back, fear, wait; at the union Bye(see Barentsen 1980):

I could hardly resist don't hit;

I'll wait until he will not come;

I'm afraid he was not offended.

8. Constructions with implicit negation

There are various linguistic means of expressing the idea that a given statement should be understood in a meaning opposite to that conveyed by the literal meaning of the words - ironically, so to speak. Examples (from Shmelev 1958):

There is something to be upset about!

I found something to talk about (who to invite)!

It was worth destroying God's bird because of him! (Chekhov)

He wanted to get married!

I really need to keep an eye on him!

I need your money!

You understand a lot!

Only this was missing! You were just missing here!

Good friend! Great importance!

I'll feed the dog! (Turgenev) I would try if I knew!

He will be silent!

Use in a negative sense is assigned to words that express a clearly positive attribute: words such as There is, it was worth it Very need to, hunting, a lot of, good, great, most easily acquire the opposite meaning “not at all”, “not worth it at all”, “not necessary at all”, etc. Words I will, will, expressing a firm intention, when expressed (NB subject-predicate inversion) mean ‘does not intend at all’.

Bud form tense for conative verbs wait catch, catch up, expressing possibility, in a conventional ironic statement means complete impossibility:

You'll get it! You'll catch them!

You'll catch up! = ‘I can’t catch up with you’ = ‘I can’t catch up with you’.

Implicit negation is expressed by the construction “ So ... And»:

That's what he told you (he will tell you)!

So I believed him (I will)!

So they gave (will give) you this bonus!

So I went (I will go)!

So I was afraid of you (I'm afraid)!

Words and expressions such as How same, How would Not So, trait With two, hold pocket <wider>, nothing say, wait, wait show that the previous statement should be understood in the opposite sense:

She went (will go) with you, wait!

One way to express a negative judgment is a rhetorical question; it is approximately equivalent to the statement of the sentence that will be obtained if the interrogative pronoun is replaced with a negative one (and, of course, add obligatory in Russian Not to the predicate):

Who can embrace the immensity? (K. Prutkov) » ‘No one can embrace the immensity’;

And what Russian doesn’t like driving fast! ("Dead Souls") » ‘everyone loves’.

A number of conventional ways of expressing emphatic rejection of an interlocutor’s statement are based on the interrogative sentence model:

(a) Who needs it?

Well, what will he do?

Who despises him!

Utterances of this type express a negative reaction to a previous utterance, and in this way they differ from rhetorical questions, which do not require a dialogic context. Particle only in sentence (b) shows that sentence (b), unlike the sentences in (a), cannot be understood as an ordinary question:

(b) Why do they keep such a slob in the service? [Darya Dontsova. King Pea Dollars (2004)]

A phrase is built on the basis of an interrogative sentence How do I know?, which serves to express ignorance as a response. In (c) the modality of impossibility arises:

(c) Where will I get that kind of money?

Design with Which, which serves to express an objection; examples from Shmelev 1958, Shvedova 1960, Paducheva 1996: 304-307:

What a scientist he is! What friends we are! What an outsider I am! What irony! What kind of vacation is there when there is so much to do? What kind of cabbage soup is there if we cook crayfish!

The meaning of unattainability is expressed by the construction “ Where+ dative":

Where do you go, I'm tired, take on such a thing! [YU. K. Olesha. At the Circus (1928)]

Where should he go? pull people, he can barely pull himself. [V. Grossman. Life and Fate (1960)]

- Well, I wanted to plant cabbage<…>, Yes where should I go, the seam hurts, my head is spinning, and just like that, I’ll stick my head into a furrow. [Victor Astafiev. Passing Goose (2000)]

Constructions from (d) express condemnation or regret:

(d) You wanted to get married!

I should have been late!

The devil dared me to object to him!

The devil was pulling my tongue!

Denial can be expressed in unreal modality:

So that I can contact him again!

Our calf and wolf must be caught!

Implicit negation is part of the meaning of numerous phrases:

What do I care?? = ‘I don’t care about this’;

What does he care?\ = ‘nothing bad will happen to him’.

Negation is introduced into the subordinate predication by the phrase you might think(Apresyan 2006: 140):

You might think you're happy with it = 'I think you're actually unhappy with it.'

The given list of constructions with implicit negation is quite representative, although, of course, it is not exhaustive.

9. Contrastive negation

Opposite negation is expressed by the construction “not ..., but.” Particle behavior Not as part of this construction was studied in Boguslavsky 1985. It differs significantly from the behavior of ordinary counter-narrative denial. A few examples.

Impact on the presumption . In the context of the construction “not ..., but” the presumption loses its non-negation status:

appeared before me not a bachelor, and a young girl [in the semantics of the word bachelor‘man’ – presumption].

Impact on other non-assertive components :

Ivan didn't arrive for my daughter’s wedding, but arrived by train [usually didn't arrive E ‘expected to arrive by plane’]

Destruction of idiomatic combinations :

I No doubt, but I just want to have full information[usually No doubt" 'sure']

Cancellation of morphological restrictions on compatibility . Nesov verb. species in the context of negation is usually interpreted not in an actual-long term, but in a general factual meaning, see section 6.2. Meanwhile, as part of the construction “not ..., but” this restriction is removed, cf. (a) and (b):

(a) *When you came in, I didn't have lunch;

(b) When you came in, I didn't have lunch and was reading the newspaper.

Understanding a verb with negation in an actual-continuous meaning is also difficult in the context of certain circumstances (Boguslavsky 1985: 68). As part of the construction “not ..., but” this limitation is removed:

(c) °He is now doesn't sleep on the sofa [only the usual meaning of nonsense. type: ‘usually sleeps’];

(d) He is now doesn't sleep on the sofa and sitting at the computer.

Mandatory genitive of an object when negated by a verb have(and a number of others) is canceled if the negation is opposite:

(e) *This is a combination doesn't make sense;

(f) This combination doesn't make sense, but acquires it in a certain context.

On contrastive negation, see Boguslavsky 1985 for more details.

Literature

• Apresyan 1974 – Apresyan Yu. D. Lexical semantics: Synonymous means of language. M.: Nauka, 1974.
• Apresyan 1985 – Apresyan Yu. D. Syntactic features of lexemes //Russian Linguistics. Vol. 9.No. 2–3. 1985. pp. 289–317.
• Apresyan 1986 – Apresyan Yu. D. Deixis in vocabulary and grammar and the naive model of the world // Semiotics and computer science. Vol. 28. M., 1986. P. 5–33.
• Apresyan 2006 – Yu.D.Apresyan. Rules for the interaction of values ​​// Responsible editor. Yu.D.Apresyan. Linguistic picture of the world and systemic lexicography. M.: Languages ​​of Slavic cultures, 2006, 110-145.
• Apresyan Yu.D., Iomdin L.L. Type designs nowhere to sleep: syntax, semantics, lexicography // Semiotics and computer science. Vol. 29. M., 1989, 34-92.
• Arutyunova 1976 - Arutyunova N.D. The sentence and its meaning. M.: Nauka, 1976.
• Arutyunova, Shiryaev 1983 – Arutyunova N.D., Shiryaev E.N.. Russian offer. Being type. M.: Russian language, 1983.
• Barentsen 1980 – Barentsen A. On the peculiarities of using the conjunction while with verbs of expectation //Studies in Slavic and general linguistics, v.1, Rodopi 1980, 17-68.
• Boguslavsky 1985 – Boguslavsky I. M. Research on syntactic semantics. M.: Nauka, 1985.
• Boguslavsky 2001 – Boguslavsky I.M.. Modality, comparativeness and negation. // Russian language in scientific coverage, No. 1, 2001.
• Borshchev, Party 2002 – Borshchev V.B., Party B.H. On the semantics of existential sentences // Semiotics and Informatics, vol. 37, M.: VINITI, 2002.
• Bulygina, Shmelev 1989 – Bulygina T.V., Shmelev A.D. Mental predicates in the aspect of aspectology // Logical analysis of language: Problems of intensional and pragmatic contexts. M.: Nauka, 1989. pp. 31–54.
• Glowinska 1982 – Glovinskaya M. Ya. Semantic types of aspectual oppositions of the Russian verb. M.: Nauka, 1982.
• Jespersen 1958 – Jespersen O. Philosophy of grammar. M.: Foreign publishing house. lit., 1958. English. orig.: Jespersen O. The Philosophy of Grammar. London, 1924.
• Jordan 1985 – Iordanskaya L.N.. Semantic-syntactic features of particle combinations Not with illocutionary-communicative verbs in Russian. Russian linguistics, v.9, No. 2-3, 241-255.
• Itskovich 1982 – Itskovich V.A. Essays on syntactic norms. M.: Nauka, 1982.
• Paducheva 1977 – Paducheva E.V. The concept of presumption and its linguistic applications // Semiotics and Informatics, issue 8, 1977, M.: VINITI, 1977.
• Paducheva 1992 – Paducheva E.V.. On the semantic approach to syntax and the genitive subject of the verb TO BE //Russian linguistics, v. 16, 53-63.
• Paducheva 1996 – Paducheva E.V. Semantic studies: Semantics of time and aspect in the Russian language. Semantics of narrative. M.: Russian languages. culture, 1996.
• Paducheva 1997 – Paducheva E.V.. Genitive subject in a negative sentence: syntax or semantics? // Issues of linguistics, 1997, N2, 101–116.
• Paducheva 2004 – Paducheva E.V.. Dynamic models in the semantics of vocabulary. M.: Languages ​​of Slavic culture, 2004.
• Paducheva 2006 – Paducheva E.V.. Genitive object in a negative sentence. VYa N 6, 21–44.
• Paducheva 2008 – Paducheva E.V.. Genitive of negation and observer in verbs like ring And smell. //Language as a matter of meaning. To the 90th anniversary of academician. N.Yu.Shvedova. M.: Azbukovnik, 2008.
• Paducheva 2011 – Paducheva E.V.. « You never know who"and other marginal predicative constructions. Conference Russian language: constructional and lexical-semantic approaches. St. Petersburg, March 24-26, 2011.
• Pekelis 2008 – Pekelis O.E.. Semantics of causality and communicative structure: because And because the// Questions of linguistics. 2008. No. 1. pp. 66-84.
• Peshkovsky 1956/2001 – Peshkovsky A. M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. 7th ed. M., 1956; 8th ed. M., 2001.
• Plungyan 2011 – Plungyan V.A. An Introduction to Grammatical Semantics: Grammatical Meanings and Grammatical Systems of the World's Languages. M., Russian State University for the Humanities, 2011.
• Rakhilina 2010 – Rakhilina E.V.. Linguistics of constructions. M.: Azbukovnik, 2010.
• Rozhnova 2009 – Rozhnova M. A. Syntactic properties of negative pronouns in Spanish and Russian languages. Graduate work. RSUH, 2009.
• Shvedova 1960 - Shvedova N. Yu. Essays on Russian syntax colloquial speech. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Nauka, 1960.
• Shmelev 1958 – Shmelev D.N.. Expressive-ironic expression of denial in modern Russian language. VYa, 1958, No. 6, 63-75.
• Babby 1980 – Babby L.H. Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian. Ann Arbor: Caroma Publishers, 1980.
• Boguslawski 1981 - Boguslawski A. On describing accomplished facts with imperfective verbs. - In: The Slavic verb. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1981, p. 34-40.
• Donnellan 1979 – Donnellan K.S.. Speaker reference, descriptions and anaphora. //Contemporary perspectives in the philosophy of language, ed. by P.A. French, Th. E. Uehling, jr., and H. K. Wettstein. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1979, p. p. 28-44.
• Haspelmath 1997 – Haspelmath M. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon press, 1977.
• Horn 1989 – Horn L.R.. A natural history of negation. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago press, 1989.
• Jackendoff 1972 – Jackendoff R.S. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MIT press, 1972.
• Jakobson 1955 – Jacobson R. On linguistic aspects of translation. //R.A.Brower. On translation. Cambridge, Mass., 1955.
• Jespersen 1924/1958 – Jespersen O. The Philosophy of Grammar. London, 1924. - Russian. Transl.: Jespersen O. Philosophy of Grammar. M., 1958.
• Klenin 1978 – Klenin E. Quantification, partitivity and the Genitive of negation in Russian. // Comrie, Bernard (ed.) Classification of Grammatical Categories. Urbana: Linguistics Research. 1978, 163-182.
• Klima E. 1964 – Klima E. Negation in English // The Structure of Language, ed. J. Fodor and J. Katz, 246-323. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1964.
• Ladusaw 1980 – Ladusaw W. On the notion ‘affective’ in the analysis of negative polarity items // Journal of linguistic research, 1(2): 1-16.
• Lyons 1968/1978 – LyonsJ. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge, 1968. Rus. translation: Lyons J. Introduction to theoretical linguistics M.: Progress, 1978.
• Lyons 1977 – LyonsJ. Semantics. Vol. 1–2. L. etc.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1977.
• Miestamo 2005 – Miestamo M. Standrard Negation. The Negation of the declarative verbal main clauses in a typoogical perspective. Empirical approaches to language typology 31. Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin - New York: 2005.
• Mustajoki, Heino 1991 – Mustajoki A., Heino H. Case selection for the direct object in Russian negative clauses. – Slavica Helsingiensia 9, Helsinki 1991.
• Partee, Borschev 2002 – Partee B.H., Borschev V.B. Genitive of Negation and Scope of Negation in Russian Existential Sentences. Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: the Second Ann Arbor Meeting 2001 (FASL 10), ed. Jindrich Toman, 181-200. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 2002.
• Pereltsvaig A. 2000. Monotonicity-based vs. veridicality-based approaches to negative polarity: evidence from Russian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Philadelphia Meeting 1999, eds. Tracy Holloway King and Irina A. Sekerina, 328-346. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
• Restan 1960 – Restan P.A. The objective case in negative clauses in Russian: the Genitive or the Accusative? – Scando-Slavica 6, 1960, 92-111.
• Timberlake 1975 – Timberlake A. Hierarchies in the Genitive of Negation. Slavic and East European Journal v. 19, 123-138.
• Veyrenc J. Whosomeday et Who-or forms concurrentes? //Revue des etudes slaves, v. 40, 1964, 224-233.
• Wierzbicka 1996 – Wierzbicka A. Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford; N. Y: Oxford UP, 1996.

As stated in Levin & Rappaport Hovav 2005: 16, there is now growing evidence that “it is the elements of meaning that define verb classes that are most important, and the verb classes themselves are epiphenomenal<…>– even if they might be useful in statements of certain generalizations.”

Other “genitive” components are not excluded. Yes, y to be expected (Masha is not expected in Moscow) genitivity comes from expect– an intensional verb that can control the genitive in a non-negative context ( wait for the outcome).

/>

Expressing negation syntactically

The syntactic way of expressing negation is possible because dialectically interrelated grammatical categories affirmations and negations constitute a binary one-dimensional, therefore neutralizable, opposition. The common semantic feature of the members of this opposition is the establishment of a semantic connection in a sentence between concepts expressing an actor or action, an object and a sign of an object. The differential feature of this opposition is the nature of this semantic connection: if the connection between the concepts of agent and action is qualified as positive, the sentence implements a grammatical statement (you won my bet): if the semantic connection between them is regarded as absent, the negative sentence is actualized (you did not win my bet).

It is generally accepted that the main content of linguistic negation is formal-logical negative meanings - the meaning of non-inherence, non-belonging to an object of any attribute, non-existence, non-existence, absence of an object. The relationship between logical and linguistic negation can be characterized as a relationship of semantic identity, since the logical category of negation, constituting the main content of the linguistic category of negation, “does not fill it entirely.” The linguistic category of affirmation and negation also performs other functions, has relative independence and has its own volume of meanings that is inadequate to the logical category.

The categorical meaning of linguistic negation is the expression of the absence of an object or its attribute. The latter include properties, qualities, connections, relationships, actions, states. Analysis of the relationship between linguistic negation reveals the appropriateness of the following consideration of this relationship: negation and modality in the narrow sense, existing in two varieties - objective and subjective, are independent categories that can function in parallel; negation and modality in a broad sense are correlated through the concept of predicativity.

Comparative analysis the functioning of negation at two hierarchical levels of language allowed us to conclude that there are two particular denotative meanings of negation - meanings corresponding to logical ones, and meanings different from them, although genetically related to logical ones.

Variability negative syntactic construction in terms of content, it is associated with the strengthening and weakening of the meaning of negation. Strengthening and weakening of negation manifests itself in the form of intensification - deintensification of negative values. Intensification - deintensification of negation is interpreted as the interaction of negation with the category of intensity, reflecting all differences reduced to the categories of quantity, magnitude, value, strength. The intensity of the manifestation of the action of a state or quality is usually expressed by intensifying particles or combinations with them: too much, too, too far, too altogether.

He was altogether too excited too sleep (Wells).

Old Jayden was too much of a Forsyte to praise anything freely (Galsworthy).

He had drawn too far to draw back (Cronin).

My child, you are too young to think of falling in love (Wild).

Abbreviated negation

In circumstances where it is quite acceptable to abbreviate the subject of short forms, a similar method is usually used. As a rule, this is a colloquial form:

He isn't coming - he's not coming

We aren't ready - we're not ready

They haven"t caught him - they"ve caught him

She won't miss us - she'll not miss us

For example, the form I "m not coming does not have an alternative in the left column. It is logical to assume that in sentences and questions there should be a construction like am I not correct? But this form is used only in some formal cases. It was replaced in colloquial speech by aren't I correct? Over time, aren't gradually began to transform into a lighter and more universal aint. Now aint has gained universal recognition: aint, as a universally replacing form, is used instead of haven't, isn't, aren't, etc.

· Negation in impersonal sentences and phrases

Sometimes the word not is attached not to the verbal part of the sentence, but to another element of the sentence - the nominal part, and is placed in front of the word or phrase that it negates. When the negated nominal part is the subject, no inversion occurs:

Not all the passengers escaped unhurt. (Leech)

Not a single word did he utter. (Leech)

No nation can afford to offend its allies - not even the USA. (Leech)

To negate an impersonal sentence, we place a negative unit before the verb phrase:

Not having read the book I can"t tell you whether it is worth buying. (Leech)

I asked her not to interfere. (Leech)

Transferred negation

After some verbs, such as believe, suppose, think, the particle not, which belongs to the subordinate clause with the conjunction that, is transferred to the main clause:

I don"t believe that you two have met, haven"t you? (Leech)

= (I believe you two haven"t met)

I don"t suppose that anyone will object to my sentence. (Leech)

= (I suppose anyone (no one) won"t object to my sentence)

I don't think you need to worry. (Leech)

= (I think you needn"t worry)

· Grammatical behavior of negative particles.

In grammatical terms, the overall effect of all negative units is to create a sentence that has a connotation of negation. This means that certain characteristics of negative sentences are formed not only with the help of the particle not, but also with other units of negation:

1. After negation, any is used instead of some:

No one has any doubts about his ability. (Leech)

I rarely get any sleep after the baby wakes up. (Leech)

I"ve spoken to hardly anyone who disagrees with me on this point. (Leech)

2. A negative unit at the beginning of a sentence introduces subject inversion. This construction sounds somewhat elevated and rhetorical:

Only after a long argument did he agree to our plan. (Leech)

2. Negative words are followed by positive tag-questions rather than negative ones:

|She never/scarcely seems to care| does she?

|You won't forget the shopping| will you?

Compare:

|You"ll remember the shopping| won"t you?

Negation and means of its expression in English

Introduction.

As you know, language is a historically developed system of sound, vocabulary and grammatical means that objectifies the work of thinking and is a tool of communication, exchange of thoughts and mutual understanding of people in society.

Each language, including English, is a dynamic system that has a characteristic grammatical structure, the components of which are two interconnected sections: morphology and syntax. This work is aimed at studying one of the phenomena of such a grammatical section as syntax, which considers the words in a sentence, the sentence itself, its structure, features and types. Considerable attention is also paid to the morphological and lexical components.

The relevance of this topic lies in the fact that negation in the English language is a multifaceted phenomenon that requires constant understanding, changing along with the development of the language, the difficulty of which to study and understand mainly lies in the discrepancy with the Russian language. Despite the many works and studies carried out by scientific linguists, the problem of denial remains poorly understood.

Thanks to the huge number of ways to negate an English sentence and its members, the following problem has arisen: in what cases will the means of negation used be the most accurate and appropriate.

The object of study of this work is negative sentences, which are understood as sentences in which the connection between the subject and the predicate or between various members of the sentence is denied.

The subject of the study is linguistic methods and means of expressing negation.

The purpose of this work is to review the most common ways of expressing negation in modern English.

Job objectives:

consider ways and means of negation in the structure of a sentence;

determine the main means of expressing negation in English;

1.1. Negation in philosophy

The term “negation” was introduced into philosophy by Hegel, but he put an idealistic meaning into it. From his point of view, the basis of negation is the development of ideas, thoughts. Marx and Engels, retaining the term “negation”, interpreted it materialistically. They showed that negation is an integral moment in the development of material reality itself. Denial is also inherent in the development of knowledge and science. Each new, more perfect scientific theory overcomes the old, less perfect one. Negation is not something introduced into an object or phenomenon from the outside, it is the result of its own, internal development. Objects and phenomena, as we already know, are contradictory and, developing on the basis of internal opposites, they themselves create the conditions for their own destruction, for the transition to a new, higher quality. Denial is the overcoming of the old on the basis of internal contradictions, the result of self-development, self-movement of objects and phenomena (Gubsky 1999:180).

In contrast to the metaphysically interpreted “denial,” which emphasizes the gap and opposition between the features of the previous and subsequent stages of change, dialectical “denial” presupposes a connection, a transition from one stage to another. The dialectical understanding of negation proceeds from the fact that the new does not completely destroy the old, but preserves all the best that was in it. And not only preserves, but also processes, raises to a new, higher level. (Gubsky 1999:183)

As can be seen from the above theses, negation does not completely destroy the old, but takes it to a new level, which can be correlated with both logic and language. Next, let’s draw a parallel between this concept and logic and language itself.

1.2. Negation in logic and linguistics

Negation has always been the object of both linguistics and formal logic. From the point of view of formal logic, negation is “... a logical operation that contrasts a true judgment with an untrue one, a false judgment with a non-false judgment, indicating the inconsistency of the predicate with the subject or forming an addition to a given class...” (Kondakov 1971:56). It is noted that what leads to a negative judgment is not the simple non-detection of an expected other specific object, since the non-existence of one consists in the existence of the other. In other words, negation is not a direct reflection of reality and its connections, but a way of our considering them, based on contrast with the original positive facts.

In linguistics, the essence of linguistic negation has been defined in different ways. Proponents of the psychological concept interpret negation as a purely subjective manifestation of the human psyche (Grinneken 1907; Jespersen 1958; Potebnya 1958, etc.). Denial is interpreted as the generation of various mental (sensory) reactions of the speaker, as an expression of a feeling of resistance or prohibition (Grinneken 1907); as an explication of what is felt as a contradiction between the expected (or generally possible) and the actual, as a reflection of a feeling of disappointment, contrast (Delbrück 1887), a feeling of disgust (Jespersen 1918), etc. Thus, according to this concept, denial does not act as a reflection of reality, but as a manifestation of the human psyche, his psychological and emotional feelings.

Negation is a communicative operation that rejects or corrects the addressee’s opinion, that is, negation is a speech act whose purpose is not the message new information, but to refute the addressee’s opinion.

In theoretical terms, negation is an assertion of non-existence. In a negative judgment, the negation can be directed either at its entire content or at the connection between the subject and the predicate; In language, negation is expressed by the word “no.” We can recognize any judgment as correct or incorrect, but it would be unreasonable to do this at the same time (the law of contradiction and the law of negation of the third). Not a single positive statement is associated with negation. The statement “this flower is not fragrant” has meaning even when the flower has no smell at all. Under any conditions, the correct meaning when negating a predicate is, first of all, a formal negative (contradictory) meaning, and any other, narrower, more definite meaning must still prove its validity. Being a universal category of language with complex and multidimensional semantics and a diverse arsenal of means of expression, negation receives a separate interpretation in the light of each new direction of linguistics.

Negation is one of the original, semantically indecomposable semantic categories characteristic of all languages ​​of the world, which cannot be defined through simpler semantic elements. Negation is an element of the meaning of a sentence that indicates that the connection established between the components of the sentence, in the opinion of the speaker, does not really exist or that the corresponding affirmative sentence is rejected by the speaker as false. Most often, a negative statement is made in a situation where the corresponding affirmative one was made earlier or is part of the general presumption of speakers.

Denial - English - negation - expression using lexical, phraseological, syntactic and other means of language that the connection established between the elements of the statement does not really exist. Negation can be absolute (absolute negation) or related to the statement and is then called syntactic (syntaxique) or connective (conjunctive). A conjunctive negation can refer to a concept (lexical negation) or a sentence (phrasal negation). Simple negation, regardless of its form, is one in which there is nothing but the idea of ​​negation; A complex negation or negative word is a negation with which the concept of time (never), person (nobody) or object (nothing) is associated. Semi-negation is a word that serves to weaken a statement, such as hardly - barely.

In order to reveal the fullness of the concept of negation, to most broadly define the ways and means of its expression, we need to analyze cases of its use in speech. For this purpose, it is necessary to trace cases of use of negation in the syntactic structure of a sentence and highlight individual morphological and lexical means. Let's look at this in more detail below.

Chapter II. MEANS OF EXPRESSING DENIAL

IN ENGLISH

2.1. Negation in English sentence structure

According to the nature of the attitude towards reality expressed in the sentence, they are divided into affirmative and negative. Denial is often accompanied by affirmation, both potential and expressed. Sentences that include grammatically formulated negation and affirmation are called negative-affirmative. Such sentences can be either simple or complex. With a non-union connection between parts of a complex sentence, the combination of affirmation/negation can be one of the means of communication that also serves to express the meaning of comparison.

Two negative particles sometimes form an affirmative sentence (a sentence with a double negative), since it involves the negation of a negation. In English, negation in a sentence can be expressed:

a) in the subject:

A woman become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does.

That's his tragedy (Wild 1979:35).

All women become like their mothers. This is their tragedy. No man does this. This is his tragedy.

Nothing will induce me to part with Bunarry (Wild 1979:21).

Nothing will make me leave Banery.

What I suffer in that way no tongue can tell (Jerome 1994:16).

What I experienced in this way, no one can say.

b) in the predicate:

I haven't asked you to dine with me anywhere to-night (Wild 1979:20).

I didn't invite you to have dinner with me anywhere tonight.

I haven't the smallest intention of doing anything of the kind (Wild 1979:20).

I don't have the slightest intention of doing anything like that.

That is not very pleasant. Indeed, it is not even decent (Wild 1979:21).

It's not very pleasant. In fact, it's even indecent.

In the last example in the English sentence, negation is expressed

with the help of the negative particle not, and when translated into Russian, the negation is also conveyed by the negative particle not.

c) in addition:

I know nothing, Lady Blacknell (Wild 1979:30).

I don't know anything, Lady Blacknell.

took no interest in people apart from their social position (Graham 1976:9).

He showed a lack of interest in people, regardless of their social status.

d) in the circumstances of the time:

I never saw a woman so altered; she looks quite twenty years younger (Wild 1979:23).

I have never seen a woman so changed: she looks twenty years younger.

In fact, I am never wrong (Wild 1979:26).

Indeed, I am never wrong.

My own one, I have never loved anyone in the world but you (Wild 1979:28).

My dear, I have never loved anyone in the world except you.

By the way, in the last example, the negative pronoun never in the Russian sentence corresponds to the negative pronouns never and no one, as well as the verb in the negative form, whereas in the English sentence the verb is presented in the affirmative form. This is because in English, negation is grammatically expressed once.

e) with the entire sentence as a whole (using a negative conjunction):

There were no cucumbers in the market this morning, sir (Wild 1979:27).

There were no cucumbers at the market this morning, sir.

Unlike the Russian language, negation in an English sentence can be expressed only in one of the above ways.

I"ve never been so sure of anything in my life (Graham 1976:25).

I have never been so sure of anything in my life.

It should be borne in mind that what has been said applies only to the expression of negation in the same sentence. If there is not one, but two or more sentences, even if they are part of one complex sentence, then negation can be expressed in each of them:

She did not feel angry, she did not feel inclined to laugh, she did not

know what she felt (Graham 1976:75).

She didn't feel angry, she wasn't inclined to laugh, she didn't know what she was feeling.

He"d laugh and say that of course if he hadn"t been such a kid he"d never

have had cheek to ask her (Graham 1976:73).

He would have laughed and said that, of course, if he had not been such a child, he would never have dared to ask her.

His ear was perfect, and though he could not produce the right intonation himself he would never let a false one pass in anyone else (Graham 1976:21).

His hearing was excellent, and although he could not produce the correct intonation himself, he never allowed anyone else to go out of tune.

In addition, in one sentence a combination of negation in the main part of the sentence and negation in the verb phrase is possible. In infinitive, gerundial and participial constructions, negation can be expressed:

a) with the leading component - non-predicative form:

His father, not liking the idea of ​​his going on the stage, had insisted on this (Graham 1976:28)

His father, who didn't like the idea of ​​him going on stage, insisted on it.

“I"m awfully sorry,” I said, not knowing what else to say (Graham 1976:35).

“I’m really sorry,” I said, not knowing what else to say.”

b) with any subordinate component:

Long after the lorry had gone... Lanny stood there, staring at nothing, thinking of nothing, feeling nothing (P. Abrahams).

I believe him to have done nothing but harm... (Bentley).

Sometimes he would sit silent and abstracted, taking no notice of anyone (S. Maugham).

In infinitive, gerundial and participial constructions, as in a whole sentence, in English, unlike Russian, there can be only one negation:

Not having any friends \ having no friends

“Not having any friends.”

However, it is quite possible to have two negations: in the main part of the sentence and in a construction with a non-predicative form, for example:

Would it not be better not to tell your father? (J.London).

There's no danger of not winning your mother to our marriage (J. London).

Having no new companions, nothing remained for him but to read (J. London).

Speaking about ways to express negation in English, you should

Note that there are different approaches to data classification. For example, linguists such as L.S. Barkhudarov and Stehling D.A. There are three ways of expression (Bardukharov 1973:289-291):

negative pronouns:

Nobody wanted to talk about it after that (Richard1984:44).

After that, no one wanted to talk about it.

But nothing happens here - inside (Richard1984:39). - But nothing happens

here - inside.

None of us has heard it, that we could remember (Richard1984:116). - None of us heard it, we could remember it.

Never thought that he was a spy. (George B. Mair).

negative conjunctions: neither... nor, not... nor,

But neither of you knew him as I did (Richard1984:46).

But none of you knew him like I did.

Bondarenko V.N. in his monograph “Negation as a Logical-Grammatical Category” he identifies the following six ways of expression: negative affixes; negative particles; negative pronouns and adverbs; negative conjunctions; negative prepositions are postpositions in some languages; as well as an implicit way of expressing negation.

In the next chapter we will look at the most common means of expressing negation in English in their linguistic categories.

2.2. Morphological means of expressing negation

Morphological ways of expressing negation include affixation, represented by prefixation and suffixation. They occupy a special position in word formation processes occurring in the English language. First of all, they, as a rule, do not form new parts of speech; the same prefix can and does form new words from different parts of speech. Newly formed words remain the same part of speech from which they were formed, for example:

common (ordinary) - uncommon (unusual)

grateful (grateful) - ungrateful (ungrateful)

satisfactory (satisfactory) - unsatisfactory (unsatisfactory)

trained (trained) - untrained (untrained)

ability (ability) - disability (inability)

approval - disapproval (disapproval)

trust (trust) - distrust (distrust)

responsible (responsible) - irresponsible (irresponsible)

The most extensive group of prefixes in the English language are negative prefixes. Let's consider them in more detail.

The prefix un- occurs in different forms in many Indo-European languages. In modern English it is preserved in the form in which it was used in Old English. This is a very productive prefix and easily forms new words from different parts of speech:

ungrateful (ungrateful)

unwritten (unwritten)

unemployment (unemployment)

unhumanly (inhumanly)

Most often this prefix is ​​found in adjectives and adverbs, for example:

The only thing that makes me unhappy is that I"m making you unhappy

(Graham 1976:49).

The only thing that makes me unhappy is that I make you unhappy.

Oh, Freda, that was unforgivable (Richard1984:26).

Oh Freda, that was unforgivable.

I think that"s unfair and also rather stupid and affected (Richard1984:25).

I think this is unfair and also quite stupid and unnatural.

Just as with the negative particle not-, words with the prefix un- express not just negation, but a new quality, a new attribute:

wise - means “wise; wise”, and unwise has a different meaning (unwise) and approaches the meaning of foolish (stupid; foolish; reckless). The word unhappy rather means miserable (miserable, poor). Usually, antonyms from adjectives with un- are formed not with the help of un-, but with the suffix less-, for example:

careful - careless (uncareful)

hopeful - hopeless (unhopeful)

thoughtful - thoughtless (unthoughtful)

Frankie listened breathlessly. His hand looked lifeless and pale. (Graham 1976:26).

Frankie listened with bated breath. His hand looked lifeless and pale.

The prefix in- is of Latin origin, akin to the Germanic prefix un-, and appears in loanwords from French:

The prefix in- has variants il-, im-, ir-; il- in words starting with l-, im- in words starting with p-, b-, m-, and ir- in words starting with r-, for example:

Some words undergo semantic shifts, for example “infamous” - “shameful”.

She had met innumerable people of all kinds and I think she summed them up shrewdly enough according to the standards of the small Virginian town where she was born and bred (Graham 1976:78).

She met countless different people, and I think she assessed them quite soberly according to the standards of the small town in Virginia where she was born and raised.

He"d have invented the most extravagant and incredible sins to confess to

(Richard1984:32).

He could invent the most extravagant and implausible sins in order to repent of them.

Must you talk in that awful dry inhuman way? (Richard1984:38).

Must you speak in such a terribly dry and inhuman way?

Was not indefatigable (Graham 1976:8).

He was tireless.

The prefix mis- is of common Germanic origin. It most often forms derivatives from verb stems, for example:

Some words have words of negativity, while others have “incorrect” expressions of action:

miscalculate - to make a mistake in calculation (“incorrectness”)

mistrust - not to trust (“negativity”).

I have never begun a novel with more misgivings (Graham 1976:3).

I've never started a novel with more mistrust.

The barometer is useless: it is as misleading as the newspaper forecast (Richard1984:70).

The barometer is useless: it is as misleading as the forecast in the newspaper.

The prefix dis- is of Latin origin and appeared in English in the Middle English period as part of borrowed French words:

Like most word-forming elements of non-original English origin, the prefix dis- as a means of education English words began to be used with both French-origin stems and English stems. This prefix forms derivatives from the stems of nouns, verbs, adjectives:

I do not want the reader to think I am making a mystery of whatever it was that happened to Larry during the war that so profoundly affected him, a mystery that I shall disclose at a convenient moment (Graham 1976:52).

I do not want the reader to think that I am making a secret of anything that happened to Larry during the war that shook him so deeply, a secret that I will reveal at the appropriate moment.

When critics disagree the artist is in accord with himself (Wild 1979:19).

When critics don't get along, the artist is at peace with himself.

As a matter of fact, to be absolutely candid, I rather disliked him (Richard1984:23).

In fact, to be completely honest, I don't like him.

Didn't try to amuse himself with them, but he really distrusted them, disliked them (PJ, p.27).

He tried to pass the time with them, but he didn't really trust them, he didn't like them.

She is distressed now and trifle incoherent (Richard1984:41).

She is worried now and slightly inconsistent.

Francesca disarranged the bed (Richard1984:40).

Francesca left the bed in disarray.

The meaning of this prefix, or rather the meaning obtained by a derivative word with this prefix, is the negation of the quality, attribute or action expressed by the base of the derivative word.

The prefix anti- is of Greek origin; it is larger than the listed prefixes and retains its lexical meaning – ‘against’. This prefix appeared only in the New English period, its use is limited to the literary and bookish style of speech. Most often it is found in words expressing socio-political and scientific concepts: antifascist, anticyclone, anticlimax, antithesis. Some independence of the meaning of this prefix is ​​reflected in graphic design derivative word, many such derivatives are written with a hyphen: anti-social, anti-aircraft, anti-Jacobin etc.

The prefix counter- is of Latin origin, as well as anti-, retains its lexical meaning, which is why some researchers call it a prepositional prefix. It appeared in the Middle English period as part of French loanwords. Its meaning is approximately the same as that of anti- i.e. against. The use of this prefix is ​​limited to the literary-book style of speech. Most common in socio-political literature, its independence is supported by writing with a hyphen: counter-act, counter-balance, counter-poise, counter-move.

So, we can draw the following conclusions: in the presence of negative suffixes and prefixes, a significant majority of negative affixes are prefixes. Many researchers note that the compatibility of negative affixes with the stems of various parts of speech varies both from language to language and within the same language.

For adjectives and (less often) nouns, the prefixes most often used are un- (a homonym to the verb un-), non-, in- (im-, il-, ir-, dis-, mis-. The closest in meaning are the prefixes un- , pop-, in-, as evidenced by the existence of doublet words that differ little from each other in their meanings:

nonprofessional - unprofessional

inacceptable - unacceptable unacceptable.

Thus, negative affixes in English are attached only to nominal stems. Verbal stems are not combined with negative affixes, because verbal negation is conveyed in this language by the analytical form of the verb with the particle not.

Above we looked at the means of expressing negative meaning at the morphological level. As it turns out, the meaning of negation can be conveyed using prefixes. Below we will dwell on lexical means that convey negative meanings: these are negative verbs, nouns, adverbs, pronouns.

2.3. Lexical means of expressing negation

The actual lexical way of expressing negation is the way of expression using verbs with a negative meaning, such verbs include:

To deny (not to do, not to decide)

He denied breaking into the shop (Murthy).

To doubt (doubt)

I doubt whether he was really able to do that (Christie).

To fail (to fail, not to cope)

I waved to Katherine, but failed to attract her attention (Christie).

This method of negation also applies to some nouns:

Failure (failure, collapse)

Bobby had a sort of failure (Christie).

Lack (lack, lack)

He used to have a lack of money (Wells).

Negative adverbs:

hardly (hardly)

We could hardly understand him (Christie)

scarcely (barely)

She scarcely seems to care, does she? (Murthy)

This way of expressing negation by parts of speech is actually a lexical way of expressing negation. The very words used in speech carry negative semantics. This is a fairly common method. Negation can move freely from one part of speech to another. So, for example, the verb - to fail (to fail) with the help of the suffix -lure forms the noun failure (failure), or -to doubt (to doubt) with the help of the suffix -ful - doubtful (doubtful).

Negative pronouns indicate the absence of an object or attribute. They are correlative, on the one hand, with indefinite pronouns, on the other hand, with generalizing ones, denying the existence of the concept that the mentioned pronouns express.

The pronoun no is combined with all classes of nouns with which the affirmative indefinite pronoun some and the interrogative indefinite pronoun any appear. With objective nouns, no serves as a definition and is used only in the function of definition:

No cab came buy, but the street boys did… (Jerome)

That's no reason why I should have it. (B. Shaw)

There's no better reason. (G Elliot)

The negative pronoun no expresses the absence of something and is used as an adjective pronoun:

That's no reason why I should have it (Shaw, p.35)

There is no better reason (Elliot p.75)

Complex negative pronouns are used as the objective member of a sentence. The genitive form of the pronoun nobody (no one), acting as a determiner, can simultaneously serve as a determiner of a noun, for example:

It’s nobody’s fault, but your own.

Compound negative pronouns delimit person from ‘non-person’. Nobody, no one - personal, nothing - objective. Both structures are similar to complex indefinite and generalizing pronouns:

He cared for nobody and for nothing - except dominion and the wonders of his brain. (Benn)

The pronoun none can be personal and objective, have a singular or plural meaning; it appears in the sentence as an objective member:

None, not even Mary, dared cross-examine Ralph… (Benn)

None of us can hold on forever (Galsworthy).

None of us has heard it, that we could remember (Richard1984:116).

The none utility function is to replace the phrase ‘definition + definable’:

There was no apparent slope downward, and distinctly none upward, so for as a casual observer might have seen. (Dreis) (none = no slope)

Since the pronoun none is the equivalent of a substantivized phrase, it is combined with a verb in both singular and plural form, depending on the meaning of the phrase:

None of them is going to get anything of me. (S. Lindsay)

None of them were conscious of the date’s dose (S. Heym)

None can replace combinations with nouns denoting both people and objects (personal and impersonal):

- “Have you got any spare pencil?” - “Nor, I have none...”

The group of negative pronouns includes the pronoun neither, which indicates that neither of the two persons mentioned performs the action and is not the subject of the state. In a sentence, the pronoun neither is used as an objective member of the sentence or definition:

Neither spoke, but the conversation that one could imagine was clearly as follows (Jerome).

In the definition function, neither serves as a definition of an objective noun: neither book, nor friend.

Expressing negation using the particle not

Particles in English are function words that are used to strengthen, clarify, limit or deny other words or phrases in a sentence. These are unchangeable words that clarify the meaning of other words, giving modal or expressive shades to other words or groups of words. They serve to form a semantic connection or grammatical form of a word and belong to the auxiliary parts of speech. The particle not most often refers to the predicate and through it to the entire content of the entire sentence, for example:

This did not prevent Julia from falling madly in love with him (Graham 1976:22).

This didn't stop Julia from falling madly in love with him.

She did not feel hurt or upset (Auth.) - She did not feel upset or offended.

The particle not is the main means of forming a negative sentence, but it can give a negative meaning to a word in cases where it appears with a singular noun with an indefinite article, and emphasizes the complete absence of the object denoted by the noun, for example:

Not a head turned to see us (Kutuzov L.).

Not a single head turned in our direction = No one turned their head in our direction.

Not a car has been sold (Kutuzov L.)

Not a single car (of those offered for sale) was sold.

The negative particle not is found in the following syntactic constructions, depending on the speaker’s goals to create a negative connotation of one or another part of the construction:

Giving a negative meaning to a verb predicate:

“Six weeks isn’t really long” she said… (Galsworthy)

“I don’t know” said Paul. (Lawrence)

I didn't hear you. (Lock)

Making part of a sentence negative:

Not one little sound of beast or bird or tree; not one bee humming! (Galsworthy)

He said not a word more. (Wells)

I was angry with Dalton for not telling me about it (Galsworthy).

He begged her not to go. (Dickens)

The answer to a question in combination with an adverb or modal word:

“Then there’s no danger?” - “Certainly not!” (Bennett)

“You certainly shall not go till you have told me all!” I said - “I would rather not, just now” (Bronte)

To negate a statement (with a negative pronoun):

“Are you going to tell him all about it?” - “Not I”. “Will he come and tell us?” - “Not he.” “I take a degree!” - cried Steerforth - “Not I” (Dickens)

To negate a predicate (after words expressing opinion, such as: to hope, to think, to believe, etc.):

“A man or your caliber is not likely to be ignorant of it” - “I hope not.”

“It’s possible to repair the ornament, Madam?” - “I'm afraid not” (Maurier)

After the conjunctions or, whether (if)...or, the particle not adjoins the verbs:

When I opened the door, …believe me or not, madam, …that man was gone! (Mansfield)

I don’t know whether they come or not. (Mansfield)

Thus, we were able to reveal that lexical means of expressing negation are those means whose very semantics is negation. In this case, the negative characteristic of a word from one part of speech freely passes into another part of speech in the process of word formation. Along with other means, lexical means provide the speaker with a rich choice of shades of negation, allow him to operate with linguistic means as accurately as possible, form a particular linguistic situation, and achieve his goals in his speech. Vocabulary is the most accurate, expressive means of any state; it is through vocabulary that a person’s thoughts are voiced.

2.3 Expressing negation syntactically

The syntactic way of expressing negation is possible because the dialectically interconnected grammatical categories of affirmation and negation constitute a binary one-dimensional, therefore neutralizable, opposition. The common semantic feature of the members of this opposition is the establishment of a semantic connection in a sentence between concepts expressing an actor or action, an object and a sign of an object. The differential feature of this opposition is the nature of this semantic connection: if the connection between the concepts of agent and action is qualified as positive, the sentence implements a grammatical statement (you won my bet): if the semantic connection between them is regarded as absent, the negative sentence is actualized (you did not win my bet).

It is generally accepted that the main content of linguistic negation is formal-logical negative meanings - the meaning of non-inherence, non-belonging to an object of any attribute, non-existence, non-existence, absence of an object. The relationship between logical and linguistic negation can be characterized as a relationship of semantic identity, since the logical category of negation, constituting the main content of the linguistic category of negation, “does not fill it entirely.” The linguistic category of affirmation and negation also performs other functions, has relative independence and has its own volume of meanings that is inadequate to the logical category.

The categorical meaning of linguistic negation is the expression of the absence of an object or its attribute. The latter include properties, qualities, connections, relationships, actions, states. Analysis of the relationship between linguistic negation reveals the appropriateness of the following consideration of this relationship: negation and modality in the narrow sense, existing in two varieties - objective and subjective, are independent categories that can function in parallel; negation and modality in a broad sense are correlated through the concept of predicativity.

A comparative analysis of the functioning of negation at two hierarchical levels of language allowed us to conclude that there are two particular denotative meanings of negation - meanings corresponding to logical ones, and meanings different from them, although genetically related to logical ones.

The variability of a negative syntactic structure in terms of content is associated with the strengthening and weakening of the meaning of negation. Strengthening and weakening of negation manifests itself in the form of intensification - deintensification of negative values. Intensification - deintensification of negation is interpreted as the interaction of negation with the category of intensity, reflecting all differences reduced to the categories of quantity, magnitude, value, strength. The intensity of the manifestation of the action of a state or quality is usually expressed by intensifying particles or combinations with them: too much, too, too far, too altogether.

He was altogether too excited too sleep (Wells).

Old Jayden was too much of a Forsyte to praise anything freely (Galsworthy).

He had drawn too far to draw back (Cronin).

My child, you are too young to think of falling in love (Wild).

Abbreviated negation

In circumstances where it is quite acceptable to abbreviate the subject of short forms, a similar method is usually used. As a rule, this is a colloquial form:

He isn’t coming - he’s not coming

We aren’t ready - we’re not ready

They haven’t caught him - they’ve caught him

She won’t miss us - she’ll not miss us

For example, the form I’m not coming does not have an alternative in the left column. It is logical to assume that sentences and questions should contain a construction like am I not correct? But this form is used only in some formal cases. It was replaced in colloquial speech by the appearance of aren’t I correct? Over time, aren’t gradually began to transform into a lighter and more versatile aint. Now aint has gained universal recognition: aint as a universally replacing form is used instead of haven’t, isn’t, aren’t, etc.

Negation in impersonal sentences and phrases

Sometimes the word not is attached not to the verbal part of the sentence, but to another element of the sentence - the nominal part, and is placed in front of the word or phrase that it negates. When the negated nominal part is the subject, no inversion occurs:

Not all the passengers escaped unhurt. (Leech)

Not a single word did he utter. (Leech)

No nation can afford to offend its allies - not even the USA. (Leech)

To negate an impersonal sentence, we place a negative unit before the verb phrase:

Not having read the book I can’t tell you whether it is worth buying. (Leech)

I asked her not to interfere. (Leech)

Transferred negation

After some verbs, such as believe, suppose, think, the particle not, which belongs to the subordinate clause with the conjunction that, is transferred to the main clause:

I don’t believe that you two have met, haven’t you? (Leech)

= (I believe you two haven’t met)

I don’t suppose that anyone will object to my sentence. (Leech)

= (I suppose anyone (no one) won’t object to my sentence)

I don't think you need to worry. (Leech)

= (I think you needn’t worry)

Grammatical behavior of negative particles.

In grammatical terms, the overall effect of all negative units is to create a sentence that has a connotation of negation. This means that certain characteristics of negative sentences are formed not only with the help of the particle not, but also with other units of negation:

After negation, any is used instead of some:

No one has any doubts about his ability. (Leech)

I rarely get any sleep after the baby wakes up. (Leech)

I’ve spoken to hardly anyone who disagrees with me on this point. (Leech)

2. A negative unit at the beginning of a sentence introduces subject inversion. This construction sounds somewhat elevated and rhetorical:

Only after a long argument did he agree to our plan. (Leech)

Negative words are followed by positive tag-questions rather than negative ones:

|She never/scarcely seems to care| does she?

|You won’t forget the shopping| will you?

Compare:

|You’ll remember the shopping| won't you?

CONCLUSION

In the course of the work, the most common means of expressing negation in the English language were investigated and analyzed. Examples from works of fiction by foreign authors were studied, which made it possible to most reliably and clearly determine the range of means used in literature to express the category of negation at different levels of language; Examples and excerpts from textbooks on dialogical speech were also used, which also turned out to be useful in identifying current methods of negation in a speech situation.

So, we can draw the following conclusions:

The main morphological means of negation are prefixation and affixation, with negative affixes being more common.

At the level of negative particles, not is the main means of forming a negative sentence, but it can give a negative connotation to individual parts of the sentence (for example, a predicate);

Lexical means of expressing negation are the most independent, due to the fact that the negative semantics of these universals is contained within them, and negation freely moves from one part of speech to another, derivative from it.

At the syntax level, the variability of a negative syntactic structure in terms of content is associated with the strengthening and weakening of the meaning of negation. For this purpose, particles that enhance negation are used: too, too much, too far.

Thus, we have identified the main means of negation in the English language, thereby fulfilling the methodological task set at the beginning of the study.

Bibliography

1.Afanasyev P.A. Teaching dialogical speech when expressing confirmation and negation in modern English [Text]: Textbook / P.A. Afanasiev. - Rostov N/D: RGPI, 1979. - 97 p.

2.Barkhudarov L.S. English Grammar [Text] / L.S. Barkhudarov, D.A. Stelling. - 4th ed. Spanish - M.: Higher. school, 1973. - 423 p.

3.Berman I.M. English Grammar [Text] /I.M. Berman. - M.: Higher. school, 1994. - 288 p.

4. English Grammar: Morphology [Text]: Textbook. allowance /

N.A. Kobrina, E.A. Karieva, M.I., Osovskaya, K.A. Guzeeva. - M.: Education, 1996. - 288 p.

5. Gubsky E.F., Korableva G.V., Lutchenko V.A. Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary [Text] / Gubsky E.F., Korableva G.V., Lutchenko V.A. - M.: INFRA-M, 1999. - 354

6. Kondakov N.I. Linguistic dictionary [Text] / Kondakov N.I. - M.: Nauka, 1971. - 367 p.

7. Monk B. English language [Text] /B. Monk. - M.: Bustard, 2000. - 381 p.

8. Leech, G. A Communicative Grammar of English / Leech, G; Svartvik, J. - M.: 1983.- 224p.

9. Murphy R. English grammar in Use /R. Murphy. - Cambridge.: Cambridge University Press, 1985. - 328p.

10.Graham, Kenneth. The Wind in the Willows. - M.: Progress, 1976. - 360p.

11.Jerome, K Jerome. Three men in a Boat. - M.: Higher school. - 288p.

12. Richard, Katharine Susannah. Coonardoo. - M.: Progress, 1973. - 275p.

13.Wilde, Oscar. Selections. - M.: Progress, 1979. - 444p. - Vol. 2.

14. Wells, Herbert. The war of the worlds / - St. Petersburg: Chimera-Classic, 2001. - 261p.

Indicate the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Affirmative and negative sentences

The division of sentences into affirmative and negative is related with the content of the reality relations expressed in them.

The affirmative or negative nature of sentences is a reflection of the relationships between the phenomena of reality.

Thus, the sentences are called affirmative, if they transmit presence of connection between objects and their signs in reality, and negative, if they have this connection denied. Contrast on the principle of affirmativeness - negativity purely semantic. It is not a reflection of the opposition on the principle of real and unreal modality, but is only superimposed on the meaning of objective modality expressed in the sentence. Both affirmative and negative sentences can have both real and unreal modality.

Category of negation related to the structure of the sentence, it can be structurally significant. ABOUT the structural role of denial The opposition of certain types of sentences is evidenced by: when translating an affirmative sentence into a negative one, its structural type may change. In other cases, the category of negation does not affect the structure of the sentence.

Grammatically, negation is usually expressed by the particle Not, and the statement is its absence.

Denial can be full and partial.Complete negation is achieved by stating particlesNot before the predicate, such a sentence is called generally negative.

ParticleNot before other members of the proposal expresses partial denial. Such proposals are called partial negative, since as a whole they conclude the statement.

The negation that stands does not deprive the sentence of its general affirmative meaning. before the subject, For example: It is not I who will see your mighty late age... (P.).

Thus, the category of negation is directly related to the category of predicability:“It is only the negation that stands with the predicate that makes the entire statement negative, while the negation that stands with any other member does not shake the general affirmative meaning of the statement.”.

However, the particle Not even with a predicate it does not always serve as a sign of a negative sentence.

Offer loses its negative meaning,

Firstly, when repeating a particleNot ; For example;

Secondly, when a particle acquires other shades of meaning:

assumptions-You've scoured the world, do you want to get married? (Gr.);

generalizations-Who hasn't cursed the stationmasters? (P.);

concerns-No matter what happens! (Ch.);

approval-Why not work!;

necessity-How can I not cry!

Can act as a negative particle particleneither , contributing additionally intensifying connotation:Not a soul in the living room (Ch.).

Particle neither when repeated serves as a union:He himself is neither rich, nor noble, nor smart (T.). Word neither here corresponds to the combination and not(conjunctive conjunction and negation).

Increasing denial is also achieved with the help negative pronouns and adverbs:Nothing foreshadowed bad weather (Ars.); The boy was never sick and never caught a cold (Inb.).

Particle neither does not always express a negative meaning: it can only act as an intensifying particle when conveying an affirmative meaning. This is typical for parts of a complex sentence that have concessive shade values: But no matter how girls all over the world talk, everything becomes sweet in their mouths (Fad.).

Grammatical feature a negative sentence can serve as a special negative wordNo , performing the function predicate in an impersonal sentence:There is no stronger beast than a cat (Kr.); There is no equal river in the world (G.).

Finally, negation can be expressed without the participation of special lexical means - using intonation,word order,some emotional particles. Such constructions are characteristic of the conversational style and are accompanied by subjective modal meanings. They are always expressive. For example: So I will be waiting for you! I also found a commander!

Position of A.M. Peshkovsky on the connection between the category of negation and predication and his division of sentences accordingly into general negative and particular negative applicable specifically to the sentence as a unit of language, since it is the predicate that is the bearer of the basic grammatical meanings of the sentence - modality and syntactic tense. However the same category of negation at the level of utterance, i.e. units of speech, manifests itself somewhat differently.

When a sentence (statement) is considered from the point of view of communicative needs (i.e. in speech), its center can become any component, and not just the predicate-predicate, since the statement is divided according to a different principle: into something given and new, communicated about this given.

For example: sentence Students went to practice from the point of view of communicative significance, it can contain three messages:

Students (and not anyone else) let's go to practice;

Studentsgo (rather than going, say, on foot) to practice;

The students wentfor practice (not rest).

The component of the statement emphasized in each case carries something new, i.e. purpose of the message. If we construct negative constructions in accordance with this division, then the particle does not need to be placed in front of these components:

Not students let's go to practice;

Studentsdidn't go for practice;

The students wentnot for practice .

Logical stress in such cases accompanies the word form in which there is a negation. This component contains the center of the message, i.e. that for the sake of which the utterance is made. In this case, the question of private and general negation is removed.

NEGATION
HOW REQUIRED ELEMENT
OFFERS

Actually negative sentences of this type in past forms. and will. vv. enter into relations with sentences like Eat Where go, Eat With by whom consult(see § ), which do not accept negation in the original form, but in other forms take an optional negation: Was (Not was) Where go; Will (Not will) With by whom consult. Compared to actual negative sentences, these forms are less common: Maybe, By this or more By Which reason V him started grow annoyance, even anger, Although get angry like And Not was on whom(Bull.;/ get angry was Not on whom); Ghibli from hunger And from frost, from Togo, What Not was Where get warm, translate spirit(M. Alexandrov;/ nowhere was get warm); Remained those, at whom Not was on how drive(I. Shamyakin; / at whom Not on how was drive).

§ . Particle neither is included in the structure of actually negative sentences: Neither souls; Neither one person; Neither single clouds; Neither the slightest hope(see § ). These sentences often include nouns with diminutive suffixes that have the meaning of singularity ( Neither light; Neither clouds; Neither stars), and with suf. - Inca(A), denoting a small particle: Neither gray hairs; Neither blood; Neither specks of dust; Neither specks. Here the presence of even one of the elements of this or that set or even the smallest part of something whole is denied. At the same time, the presence of not a specific single object, but similar objects in general is denied: in sentences On sky neither stars, Today neither clouds absence is reported (in this moment) stars or clouds; similar: Neither kopecks(about a complete lack of money); Neither minutes(about a complete lack of time); Neither gray hairs(about the complete absence of gray hair); Neither the slightest hope(about the complete lack of hope).

Such sentences come into relationship with actually negative sentences with No: Neither minutes - No neither minutes; Neither clouds - No neither clouds; Neither the slightest hope - No neither the slightest hope. The semantic structures of such sentences are the same.

§ . Pronouns nobody, nothing and pronominal adjective no in the form of birth п. are included in the elementary grammatical basis of such strictly negative sentences as Nothing new; Relatives - no one; None problems(see § ); pronouns here carry the meaning of complete negation.

These sentences, like sentences with the particle neither, come into relationship with proper negative sentences with the word No: Nothing interesting - No Nothing interesting; None problems - No no problems.

WORD No
HOW EQUIVALENT OFFERS

§ 2650. Negative word No as an equivalent of a sentence or its main member, it functions in dialogue or as part of an adversative construction.

In dialogical speech No used in response remarks; the question may either contain a negation or not contain it. If the question does not contain a negation, then the word No in the answer is negative: - Do you have whether You With by whom from their correspondence? - No(Sholokh.). The answer often repeats the corresponding part of the question as a negation: Knew whether Philip Petrovich, What threat death already looming above him? No, He Not knew And Not could know this(Fad.); - You scientist historian? - No, - said... his companion, - No, I Not scientist historian(Quiet); Isn't it Irochka suffered that's why, What lived V for a long time Not painted, Not Very light room? No, Not suffered(Weather.). The answer may also include something that is opposed to what is being denied: - You yesterday - was V theater? - No, V circus; - Married You? No, single; Should whether print box With books? No, his necessary send directly V Rome(A. Vinogradov); [Panova:] Scary under shells? [Love :] No, funny(Train.).

If the first replica contains a negation, then two types of answers are possible with No. a) Word No serves to confirm a denying (negative) answer: - You Not read this book? - No, Not read; - Commanding Not gave away orders O failure to surrender trophy weapons? - No, - said Klimovich(Simon.); - Lyubushka, You me Not fell out of love behind these three months? - No(Kettle.). It is also possible to repeat the relevant part of the question here:- A in possession estates Not entered? - asked Baburin. - No, Not entered, - answered I(Turg.); - What, you Not it's a pity What whether, What I I'm going? - No, Not it's a pity(Simon.). b) Word No serves to deny a negative response; to express disagreement, objection: - You Not read this book? - No, read. In this case, following No The following statement must be made: - So How or, You more And Not seen grandfather? - asked Anna Andreevna. - No, When mother became recover, Then I met again grandfather(Adv.); You can answer, What dead You're jealous myself You fate, What dead shamefully Not they have, - No, they have, I'll tell you I you(Simon.); - Natasha, You Not understand... - No, I All Understand, All! (Tendr.).

§ . As part of an adversative construction the word No concentrates in itself the entire content of negation opposed to affirmation: On street noise, A Here No; You funny, A to me No; Father Houses, A mother No; To many All at all epitaphs seem funny, But to me No, especially When I'll remember O volume, What under them rests(Lerm.); I Human free, wanderer from cities Tifliz, speaks Ashik-Kerib; Want I'll go, Want No(Lerm.); You do you think Vronsky aristocrat, But I No(L. Thick.); - What or, Mitya, girls you love? - Which love, A which And No(Sholokh.); On work with everyone I'm keeping up, A Houses - No(Kettle.).

In constructions with a dividing conjunction, the word No can act as an equivalent to the second part of the structure: Alive whether, No whether, God her knows(Fluff.); Right or No I I'm reasoning, Nastasya Efimovna? (Yu. Laptev).

OPTIONAL NEGATION

§ . Most sentences can be used with or without negation. Yes, in a sentence Brother Not works V Sunday negation is included in the sentence, but its comparison with the sentence Brother works V Sunday shows that their minimal structural basis is the same and that negation is not an element of this basis; similar: Father teacher - Father Not teacher; Here Cold - Here Not Cold; Brother Houses - Brother Not Houses. The optional negation function is performed by the particle Not, acting in preposition to those members of the sentence that are negated.

In two-part sentences negation is possible with any of the main terms. However, it is usually used before the predicate, and in non-subject-predicate sentences - before the verb or predicate. Unlike actual negative sentences, only the predicative attribute is negated: Father already Not works; Her Brother Not doctor; His the best painting more Not written; Letter Not from Moscow; Director Not at myself; Main - Not make a mistake; Lie - This Not new; Call - Not problem; Teach capable children Not difficult; Not necessary sadden; Not I want to talk; Time Not enough; Seriousness Not increased.

Negation is also possible before an infinitive or before a nominal component (which is often a rheme in a sentence): Hello, tribe Mladoe, unfamiliar! Not I I'll see is yours mighty late age(Fluff.); One day It happened to me whole month Not take pistol(Fluff.); However, I With you speak Not will: V this stage Not You The main thing current face(Turg.); Us, Zhenya, necessary Not lose Friend friend from mind(Sholokh.); But drive there better With nights, during the day Can And Not pass(Simon.); Need to Not convert attention on her girlish craftiness(Ant.); What And speak, behind table examination audience sat Not angel(gas.).

Among one-component sentences freely accept the negation of sentences of the conjugated verb and adverbial classes: Litvinov took on behind book, But to him Not read(Turg.); Pigasov V life Not lucky(Turg.); Their Not pursued. By him Not shot following(Sholokh.); Maybe be, We we'll die, to me Not scary. Yes, to me at all Not scary(Fad.); To him Not slept. Not lived. Not read(Simon.); A He walked And cried. AND to him was Not ashamed(Shuksh.).

In infinitive sentences, negation can bring the meaning of prohibition: Not included!; Not talk!; Tired trot runs through Officer, shouts: - Not fall behind! (Tendr.); Before graduation blizzard With towers nowhere Not go out, You you answer behind of people(gas.).

In sentences of the nominal class, negation is associated with the expression of fear, undesirability (see § ): Only would Not telegram!; Only would Not He!; Though would Not flu!; I remember O war: If b Not war! (Yashin); Here If would only Not this second guard(Yu. Slepukhin).

Determination is characteristic of nominal sentences with negation: I live Want, And drink, And There is, Want heat And Sveta, AND affairs There is not to me, What Here at you winter, Not summer(Tward.); - On war He would under tribunal went - Here Where, said Tsaplin. - Now Not war, - answered Fedya(I. Zverev); - Set aside, Voronikhin, Here Not library, - angrily said Pastukhov(Chuck.); AND Not run So. To me already Not twenty years(Chuck.). Without determiners, the use of such sentences is usually determined by the context: A You Not you're kidding. Tell jokes Not time. Not first May(Ant.); What she dressed up So? Not holiday!; Why You without coat you're coming? Not summer!; Well, What she crying? Will serve two one year old And will come back. Not war(colloquial speech).

§ . In a common sentence, an optional negation can be found with any extending member (which often serves as a rheme): He read Not newspaper; They went Not V theater; They are engaged V library Not our district; Not from-behind them noise; Not at her flu; Not often meet such People; Hope Not catch his Houses appealed V dust(Czech.); Resentment only strengthened Sintsova V decision Not come back V editors without good combat material(Simon.); I'm starting read Not textbooks(School); Much depends Not from me(A. Vinogradov); But Michelangelo wrote Not books(G. Boyadzhiev); I Not entirely them believed(N. Mikhailov); Not one day residents farms Southern evicted V rear(Sheep); Not Always guilt behind bad projects lies on alone only designers(gas.).

A negation before a group of word forms can refer to this entire group as a whole. This relationship is indicated by context or contrast: I watched she on us boldly, V emphasis, as if We were Not new For her People, A animals zoological garden(Czech.); Near sofa stood girl With braids And joyful eyes watched on Potapova, But Not on his face, A on gold stripes on sleeve(Paust.); We Not remember V this minute everyone books, which We read, everyone truths, which us they said, We remember Not all land, A only scrap land, Not everyone of people, A woman on station(Simon.). In these sentences, negation refers to the entire group of word forms: Not - new For her People, Not - on his face, Not - all land, Not - everyone of people.

The attribution of negation to one separate word form is indicated by the opposition to this particular word form: Boss Borisovsky garrison, By rumors, was Where-That on Minsk highway, But Not By this side Borisova, A By that(Simon.); Judging By everything, war was walking Today on Russian, A Not on German earth(Chuck.); IN Italy Not one political the consignment And Not two, A near ten(gas.).

In order to emphasize that negation applies only to a specific word form (or group of word forms), the particle Not is placed between the preposition and the form that follows it. Yes, in a sentence Let's, Kostya, let's have a drink. Behind our youth. AND more behind Not our youth(D. Pavlova) contrasts word forms with and without negation: behind our youth And behind Not our youth. There may not be a contrast in such a sentence, but the placement of a negation between the preposition and the name attached to it already indicates that the negation is related only to the word or words that define this name: Through years And mountains are coming People To Not Always apparently future(School); Words O Not delayed V battalions battalion commanders Not spoiled to him mood(Simon.); But Not So-That easily wave away from Not giving peace thoughts(N. Pochivalin).

§ . A negation at the beginning of a sentence can refer either only to the word form that immediately follows it, or to the sentence as a whole. Yes, a proposal Not train buzzing could mean like Not train - buzzing, so Not - train buzzing. In the first case, it is not the action that is denied, but the fact that this action is performed by the train ((it is not the train that is buzzing, but something else)); similar: Not telephone calls, A alarm. In these cases, the position of the negative particle in any word order is always before the negated word form: Not train buzzing; Buzzing Not train; Not telephone calls; Calling Not telephone. In the second case ( Not - train buzzing) negation refers to the entire sentence, which can be opposed by another sentence: Not train buzzing, A thunder thunders; Not wind raging above boron, Not With mountains let's run streams, Freezing-voivode patrol Bypasses possessions their(Necr.); Not Port-Arthur Not needed, A all war this to the people our Not needed(Sart.). The position of the negation relating to the entire sentence, in any word order, is always at the absolute beginning of the sentence: Not train buzzing, A...; Not Port-Arthur Not needed, A...

Negation in a sentence as a whole is characterized by special constructions of negative comparison with an indicative word That, widely used in poetry and folklore. In these constructions, the situations being compared are contrasted and, through the negation of one, the other is strengthened and emphasized: That Not wind branch tends, Not oak forest makes noise - That my heart moans, How autumn sheet trembling(F. Stromilov); That Not martin chirping, Not frisky orca thin strong beak to myself V hard rock nest hollowed out... That With stranger cruel family You little by little got used to it Yes got used to it, my patient smart girl! (Turg.). Position That may not be busy: Not ice crackles, Not mosquito beeps, That godfather before godfathers Pike-perch drags(folk song); Not winds blow violent, Not mother-Earth sways - Noisy, sings, swears, swinging, lying around, Fights And kisses at holiday people(Necr.); Not wind buzzing By feather grass, Not wedding train thunders, - Native By Procles howled, By Procles family screams(Necr.); That Not dawn V jets lakes mine woven pattern, Is yours handkerchief, sewing decorated, flashed behind slope(Yesen.).

NEGATION GENERAL AND PRIVATE

§ . Comparison of such sentences as: 1)  Brother Not walked yesterday V library, 2) Not Brother walked yesterday V library, 3) Brother walked Not yesterday V library and 4) Brother walked yesterday Not V library shows that denial has a different character. The first sentence denies the predicative feature, and through it the entire situation that is being reported. Negation with a predicate or main member expressing a predicative feature gives a negative meaning to the entire sentence. Such a negation is called general, and sentences with such a negation are called generally negative. In the second sentence, the negation refers to the bearer of the attribute, but the action itself is not negated ((not the brother, but someone else went to the library)); in the third and fourth sentences, the time or place of action is denied, respectively, but the action itself is not denied ((the brother went to the library not yesterday, but at some other time) and (the brother went not to the library yesterday, but somewhere else)) . The negation in the second, third and fourth sentences does not refer to the situation as a whole, but only to some part of it, i.e. is of a private nature. Such proposals are called partial negatives. Partial negation is associated with the actual division of the sentence: a member of a sentence with partial negation is, as a rule, a rheme.

Negation can also have a private character with a predicate: He Not walked V library, A traveled. It is not the entire situation that is denied here, but only the nature of the action that took place. Verb predicate in this case it performs the function of a rheme: Not is reading He, A writes; Not walked He, A was flying.

Different possibilities of opposition are associated with the general and particular nature of negation.

In partial negative sentences, the negated member can always be opposed to some other - affirmed one: Not Brother walked V library, A father; Brother walked Not yesterday V library, A Today in the morning; Brother walked yesterday Not V library, A V movie. In the text, private negation is often accompanied by the following opposition: Take action, But only neither V whom case Not close Gremyachego And Not V farm, A Where-someday V steppes(Sholokh.); From second trips on Arbatskaya arrow We With Nikolaev arrived back V Simferopol Not at night 23 September, How This said V diary, A V night on 23 September(Simon.); We Not forgot about dangers, But lived thoughts Not O war, A O world(N. Mikhailov); Golubov was dressed So, as if was driving Not on work, A V movie(Ant.); But on this once exam handed over Not musician, A tool - first violin, manufactured V Mongolia(gas.).

In general negative sentences there is no need for opposition: Brother Not walked V library; I Not asked at you this book; He for a long time Not was getting letters. Here only the following sentences can be contrasted: I Not asked at you this book, A You themselves to me her brought.

Note: Only contrasting sentences is possible in cases where actual negative and non-negative sentences of different grammatical structures are contrasted: Mermaids Not exists - Mermaids exist; Yesterday Not received letters - Yesterday received letters; U him No time - U him There is time; Them Not O how tell - Them There is O how tell; Nowhere go - Eat Where go; His Not understand - His Can understand; There Not pass - There Can pass.

§ . All actually negative sentences are generally negative. Sentences with a conjugated form of the verb and an optional negation are generally negative when the particle Not stands before the predicate verb or before the main member, and partial negatives when the particle Not stands with the subject or with the extending member of the sentence. In sentences with the main member - the conjugated form of the verb and members dependent on it, as well as in sentences without the conjugated form of the verb, the general or particular nature of the negation is determined by the position of the particle Not.

1) In sentences with the conjugated form of the verb and word forms (or word forms) depending on it, negation is general if the particle Not stands immediately before the conjugated form, and partial if the particle comes before the verb-dependent word form: He Not thinks drive on south - He thinks Not drive on south; He Not Maybe rest - He Maybe Not rest; This message Not Maybe turn out to be true - This message Maybe Not turn out to be true; He Not is listed V frontline workers - He is listed Not V frontline workers; To him Not managed fall asleep - To him managed Not fall asleep.

2) In sentences without a conjugated form of the verb, the general or particular nature of the negation can be determined only by non-original forms, i.e. where there is a special indicator of syntactic tense or mood. Yes, suggestions Father Not teacher, Brother Not Houses can be understood both as general negatives and as particular negatives: Father Not teacher- (is not a teacher) or (is not a teacher) (but an inspector); Brother Not Houses- (not at home) or (not at home). In present form. the private nature of negation in such sentences can be indicated by opposition in the immediate context: Kirovsk Not stone, A chopped(N. Mikhailov); I Not doctor, A paramedic royal time(Lipatov); So, Maybe Not V reform case, A V person(gas.). In non-original forms, the general or particular nature of the negation is indicated by the position of the particle Not: Brother Not was Houses - Brother was Not Houses(and somewhere else); Father Not was teacher - Father was Not teacher(and an inspector).

Negation before a service verb is of a general nature: Appearance his Not was deceptive(Fluff.); Lavretsky Not was young person(Turg.); On this once she Not was dressed V red (Czech.); A architect Not was Italian(Mandelsht.); From Total crew only one driver Not was injured(Fad.); No, He Not was V oblivion(Simon.); He Not was healthy almost all my life(Lyg.).

The negation before a name in such cases is private: Dress on him was Not new And narrowly, as if He from him increased(Turg.); She Not let's go mainly That's why, What dress, on which she counted, was Not ready(L. Thick.); Purity was Here Not V fashion(Gilyar.); He was Not coward, How it is seen(Simon.); After will do talk, Certainly, talk will Not easy(Bull.).

The private nature of negation in such sentences is also evidenced by the possibility of opposition: He was Not businessman, A political activist(Erenb.); No, This was Not Rodion, A another, unfamiliar, Volodya Ankudinov, liaison partisan squad(Leon.); She kissed lips To his temple, But temple was Not hot, A wet, V droplets sweat(Simon.).

The private nature of negation in these sentences is also confirmed by the peculiarities of the use of pronominal words with pref. neither, particles neither and union neither... neither. In general negative sentences, these words can occupy any position: Nobody Not was V school; Never Brother Not was V this school; Brother Not was neither V that, neither V this school; Neither yesterday, neither Today Brother Not was V school; Never He Not was engineer. In partial negative sentences, words with pref. neither- and word forms with particles neither and union neither... neither can only occupy the position of word forms that directly extend that member of the sentence that has a negation: He was no Not engineer(colloquial speech); He was more not at all Not old(gas.); This were Just confused People, none Not criminals(Simon.) (see § ). Therefore it is impossible to say * Nobody was Not V school; *Never He was Not engineer; *Neither yesterday, neither Today Brother was Not V school.

A special case is represented by adverbial sentences, in which the opposition between general and particular negation is weakened. In such sentences it is possible to place the particle Not both before the auxiliary verb and before the predicative, and both forms tend to express a general negation: Them Not was destined meet - Them not destined was meet; No, us Not was sad, us Not was it's a pity(Block); AND, to to him V himself in fact Not was ashamed, hurried lie, What to her Same I want to sleep(Simon.); Aniskin... knew how determine By to the stars time And weather, So What to him Not boring was alone With like this spaciousness And such majesty, from which was spinning head(Lipatov); To the feuilletonist feelings humor Same Not occupy, But to him Not was funny, When He listened this history(gas.). The general nature of negation in such sentences is confirmed by the possibility of using pronominal words with pref. neither-, not directly dependent on the word form with negation: Nowhere them Not was boring - Nowhere them Not boring was; Never them Not was destined meet - Never them Not destined was meet; They built plans, which never Not was given come true - They built plans, which never Not given was come true. The general nature of negation in sentences where the particle Not placed immediately before the predicate, supported by the postposition of the verb form be.

Note: With the preposition of the verb form, the private nature of the negation is preserved: A He walked And cried. AND to him was Not ashamed(Shuksh.). Wrong: * Never to him was Not ashamed; *Nowhere them was Not boring. The private nature of negation in the preposition of the verb in such sentences is confirmed by the tendency to merge negation with the predicate: Them was is not boring.

Negation is also of a general nature in sentences with predicates. necessary, need to, where in non-original forms the position of the particle is normal Not before the predicate in postposition of the verb be: To her Not necessary was worry; To him Not need to will more study this business; Them Not need to will neither O how take care; Nobody Not necessary was ask; Neither O how, absolutely neither O how Not necessary was think, except How O story, which I wrote(Paust.).

SOME NEGATIVES
IN ONE OFFER

§ . Several negatives can be used simultaneously in a sentence. This is due to the possibility of using both general and particular negations, as well as several particular negations, in one sentence.

In general negative sentences, it is possible to use one or more negatives, the effect of which is not related to the general negation and is of a particular nature. Such a negation can appear with any member of the sentence, except for the one that already carries the meaning of a general negation: On this once Not wanted she Not contain given words(Fluff.); Already Not one night Not sleeping I(Gonch.); Although I again acquired family, But This not at all Not interferes to me Not forget old comrades(Gilyar.); Already dead you Not will offend IN letter for a long time Not necessary in a word(Simon.); Not should at all neither in What Not believe(Hermann); Myself read arshin letters on pink wall Passionate monastery: "Not worker Yes Not eating"(N. Mikhailov); Not from-behind remorse conscience Glukharev Not answered on offensive reproach(Tendr.); Not my squadron Not went V attack(I. Shamyakin); Lazarus Baukin to me Not relatives, And no promises Not run away He no one Not gave(Nilin); He Not came in at all Not from-behind time(V. Orlov).

Note: In actual negative sentences, along with the obligatory one, it is possible to use an optional negation, which in this case has a private character: Not fall in love his Not was possibilities(Turg.); A if So, So And meddle Not necessary was; nothing Not behind yours case undertake(Adv.); Now V body was already so many "civilian", What Not was reasons Not take more(N. Chuk.); Her need to send, need to For affairs, need to For her most, No no reasons Not send(Simon.); His Not behind What Not be in love(Lyg.).

It is also possible to use several negatives in sentences with isolated phrases: one - with a predicate, the other - as part of a separate phrase with a participle or gerund. Negations in these cases are independent: they do not depend on each other: Young women... no one Not will let you in, Not hooked Yes Not laughing(Lesk.); Bakhirev Not could understand this softness, Not characteristic Volgan(Nikol.); Basil Not understood of people, Not loving demonstration(D. Pavlova); Reports, Not visited V his hands, Not can be considered reliable(A. Vinogradov).

§ . In one private negative sentence there can be several negatives that are of a private nature. So, if there are homogeneous members in a sentence, negation is possible before each of them: I came here Not cry And Not complain(Turg.); On any happening given mutual oath Not run, Not roar at form most horned dangers(Leon.); Around center... wide ring settled down Not central, Not front door, Not industrial And non-trading Ensk(Panova); Klimovich said Not O drama, Not O divorce And Not about treason, A O of death (Simon.); Them Not less enemy Not V Moscow And Not V Leningrad(Chuck.).

Note: It is also possible to place one negation before the entire series of word forms: I first saw this night Not above Neva And palaces Leningrad, A among northern wooded spaces And lakes(Paust.); Us made friends fraternal power Not compote And pies - Our passions And addictions, our eternal enemies(Bold.); Case was Not V courage one or cowardice another(Simon.).

Negations of a private nature can also be used with several different spreading terms; Each negation acts independently: Not from desires obey, A Just from excess amazement Sanin Not immediately followed behind girl(Turg.); He thought Baranova Not deprived capabilities careerist, interested Not benefit army, A only own promotion By service(Simon.); They Not All And Not Always were driving V one And that or side(School).

§ . In some cases, it is possible to state two negatives with the same member of a sentence. At the same time, the already negated is denied: This do Not impossible; He, Maybe be, will be late, But Not Not will come. The negation of the negation is created by placing a particle Not before a negative pronominal word or adverb, before a negative predicate it is forbidden, impossible or before a word form that already has a negative particle Not. In such cases, one negation refers to the word form that it immediately precedes, and the second - to the word form that already has a negation: New familiar to him Not - Not liked it. This Not - impossible. The negation of the negation is closely related to the context and is usually used to express objections and opposition: General, How it is seen, Not Not liked it such attack(Gogol); To me more nothing do. - Nothing do, nothing do... - spoke she with tears on eyes. - No, Not nothing do! (L. Thick.); U lilac Not Not enough what-That on face, A, vice versa, quicker was superfluous - hanging cheeks And running eyes(Bulg.); Write, Not seeing written, difficult, But Not impossible(N. Ostr.); - I on front asked, A You me V cleaners. - Not want to? - I Not Not Want, But funny: war, A I cleaning woman! (V. Kozhevnikov); But Bye initiative at champion, tiger jumping He commit Not loves. Not Not Maybe, A Not loves(gas.).

§ . Two negations can be present as part of the predicate or with both main members of a generally negative sentence. As a result, the negation is lifted and a categorical statement appears with shades of obligation, inevitability, necessity, and obligation. This phenomenon called double negative. The cases of double negative formation are as follows.

1) In sentences with negative predicates it is forbidden, impossible and negation before the infinitive: It is forbidden Not say- (must, must be said) Impossible Not do- (must be done) . Understand impossible her, But Not be in love impossible(Lerm.); Young person, to a lover, impossible Not spill the beans(Turg.); I Think, What it is forbidden will Not drive(L. Thick.); It is forbidden Not be in love such person(Czech.); After all They say or, What be V Rome And Not see cathedral Petra impossible(Adv.); Admired them rarely, But Not respect his was impossible(Simon.).

2) When using negation before the conjugated form of the verb be able and before the infinitive adjacent to this verb: AND heart again lit And loves that's why, What Not be in love it Not Maybe(Fluff.); He Not could Not miss V village(Turg.); They Not could Not explain yourself(Fad.); He, you know, everywhere, Always will write, By that simple reason, What Not write He Not Maybe(Hermann); Not think about this Zvyagintsev Not could. (Chuck.); He worked hard And Not could Not work, How Not could Not There is, Not breathe, Not drink, Not sleep(Alex.); Not every pilot Maybe become astronaut, But astronaut Not Maybe Not fly(gas.).

3) With combinations Not It has rights, Not It has grounds, Not V forces(cannot), occupying the position of the conjugated form, and the following infinitive: He Not had rights Not say((should have said)). Nobody Not It has rights Not know life(Gonch.); I Not I have rights Not contain given words(Turg.); Malinin Not had reasons to him Not believe(Simon.); Touched Nikolay Grigorievich promised stay - He Not V forces Not stay(A. Altaev); We must win And Not we have rights Not win(V. Kozhevnikov).