Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Double negative
View on Wikipedia| Part of a series on |
| English grammar |
|---|
A double negative is a construction occurring when two forms of grammatical negation are used in the same sentence. This is typically used to convey a different shade of meaning from a strictly positive sentence ("You're not unattractive" vs "You're attractive"). Multiple negation is the more general term referring to the occurrence of more than one negative in a clause. In some languages, double negatives cancel one another and produce an affirmative; in other languages, doubled negatives intensify the negation. Languages where multiple negatives affirm each other are said to have negative concord or emphatic negation.[1] Lithuanian, Portuguese, Persian, French, Russian, Polish, Bulgarian, Greek, Spanish, Icelandic, Old English, Italian, Afrikaans, and Hebrew are examples of negative-concord languages. This is also true of many vernacular dialects of modern English.[2][3] Chinese,[4] Latin, German (with some exceptions in various High German dialects), Dutch, Japanese, Swedish and modern Standard English[5] are examples of languages that do not have negative concord. Typologically, negative concord occurs in a minority of languages.[6][7]
Languages without negative concord typically have negative polarity items that are used in place of additional negatives when another negating word already occurs. Examples are "ever", "anything" and "anyone" in the sentence "I haven't ever owed anything to anyone" (cf. "I haven't never owed nothing to no one" in negative-concord dialects of English, and "Nunca devi nada a ninguém" in Portuguese, lit. "Never have I owed nothing to no one", "Non ho mai dovuto nulla a nessuno" in Italian, or "Nigdy nikomu niczego nie zawdzięczałem" in Polish). Negative polarity can be triggered not only by direct negatives such as "not" or "never", but also by words such as "doubt" or "hardly" ("I doubt he has ever owed anything to anyone" or "He has hardly ever owed anything to anyone").
Because standard English does not have negative concord but many varieties and registers of English do, and because most English speakers can speak or comprehend across varieties and registers, double negatives as collocations are functionally auto-antonymic (contranymic) in English; for example, a collocation such as "ain't nothin" or "not nothing" can mean either "something" or "nothing", and its disambiguation is resolved via the contexts of register, variety, location, and content of ideas.
Stylistically, in English, double negatives can sometimes be used for affirmation (e.g. "I'm not feeling unwell"), an understatement of the positive ("I'm feeling well"). The rhetorical term for this is litotes.
English
[edit]Two negatives resolving to a positive
[edit]When two negatives are used in one independent clause, in standard English the negatives are understood to cancel one another and produce a weakened affirmative (see the Robert Lowth citation below): this is known as litotes. However, depending on how such a sentence is constructed, in some dialects if a verb or adverb is in between two negatives then the latter negative is assumed to be intensifying the former thus adding weight or feeling to the negative clause of the sentence. For this reason, it is difficult to portray double negatives in writing as the level of intonation to add weight in one's speech is lost. A double negative intensifier does not necessarily require the prescribed steps, and can easily be ascertained by the mood or intonation of the speaker. Compare
- There isn't no other way.
- = There's some other way. Negative: isn't (is not), no
versus
- There isn't no other way!
- = There's no other way!
These two sentences would be different in how they are communicated by speech. Any assumption would be correct, and the first sentence can be just as right or wrong in intensifying a negative as it is in cancelling it out; thereby rendering the sentence's meaning ambiguous. Since there is no adverb or verb to support the latter negative, the usage here is ambiguous and lies totally on the context behind the sentence. In light of punctuation, the second sentence can be viewed as the intensifier; and the former being a statement thus an admonishment.
In Standard English, two negatives are understood to resolve to a positive. This rule was observed as early as 1762, when Bishop Robert Lowth wrote A Short Introduction to English Grammar with Critical Notes.[8] For instance, "I don't disagree" could mean "I certainly agree", "I agree", "I sort of agree", "I don't understand your point of view (POV)", "I have no opinion", and so on; it is a form of "weasel words". Further statements are necessary to resolve which particular meaning was intended.
This is opposed to the single negative "I don't agree", which typically means "I disagree". However, the statement "I don't completely disagree" is a similar double negative to "I don't disagree" but needs little or no clarification.
With the meaning "I completely agree", Lowth would have been referring to litotes wherein two negatives simply cancel each other out. However, the usage of intensifying negatives and examples are presented in his work, which could also imply he wanted either usage of double negatives abolished. Because of this ambiguity, double negatives are frequently employed when making back-handed compliments. The phrase "Mr. Jones wasn't incompetent." will seldom mean "Mr. Jones was very competent" since the speaker would've found a more flattering way to say so. Instead, some kind of problem is implied, though Mr. Jones possesses basic competence at his tasks.
Two or more negatives resolving to a negative
[edit]
Discussing English grammar, the term "double negative" is often,[9] though not universally,[10][11] applied to the non-standard use of a second negative as an intensifier to a negation.
Double negatives are usually associated with regional and ethnical dialects such as Southern American English, African American Vernacular English, and various British regional dialects. Indeed, they were used in Middle English: for example, Chaucer made extensive use of double, triple, and even quadruple negatives in his Canterbury Tales. About the Friar, he writes "Ther nas no man no wher so vertuous" ("There never was no man nowhere so virtuous"). About the Knight, "He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde / In all his lyf unto no maner wight" ("He never yet no vileness didn't say / In all his life to no manner of man").
Following the battle of Marston Moor, Oliver Cromwell quoted his nephew's dying words in a letter to the boy's father Valentine Walton: "A little after, he said one thing lay upon his spirit. I asked him what it was. He told me it was that God had not suffered him to be no more the executioner of His enemies."[12][13] Although this particular letter has often been reprinted, it is frequently changed to read "not ... to be any more" instead.[citation needed]
Whereas some double negatives may resolve to a positive, in some dialects others resolve to intensify the negative clause within a sentence. For example:
- I didn't go nowhere today.
- I'm not hungry no more.
- You don't know nothing.
- There was never no more laziness at work than before.
In contrast, some double negatives become positives:
- I didn't not go to the park today.
- We can't not go to sleep!
- This is something you can't not watch.
The key to understanding the former examples and knowing whether a double negative is intensive or negative is finding a verb between the two negatives. If a verb is present between the two, the latter negative becomes an intensifier which does not negate the former. In the first example, the verb to go separates the two negatives; therefore the latter negative does not negate the already negated verb. Indeed, the word 'nowhere' is thus being used as an adverb and does not negate the argument of the sentence.
An exception is when the second negative is stressed, as in I'm not doing nothing; I'm thinking. A sentence can otherwise usually only become positive through consecutive uses of negatives, such as those prescribed in the later examples, where a clause is void of a verb and lacks an adverb to intensify it. Two of them also use emphasis to make the meaning clearer. The last example is a popular example of a double negative that resolves to a positive. This is because the verb 'to doubt' has no intensifier which effectively resolves a sentence to a positive. Had we added an adverb thus:
- I never had no doubt this sentence is false.
Then what happens is that the verb to doubt becomes intensified, which indeed deduces that the sentence is indeed false since nothing was resolved to a positive. The same applies to the third example, where the adverb 'more' merges with the prefix no- to become a negative word, which when combined with the sentence's former negative only acts as an intensifier to the verb hungry. Where people think that the sentence I'm not hungry no more resolves to a positive is where the latter negative no becomes an adjective which only describes its suffix counterpart more which effectively becomes a noun, instead of an adverb. This is a valid argument since adjectives do indeed describe the nature of a noun; yet some fail to take into account that the phrase no more is only an adverb and simply serves as an intensifier. Another argument used to support the position double negatives aren't acceptable is a mathematical analogy: negating a negative number results in a positive one; e.g., −(−2) = +2; therefore, it is argued, I did not go nowhere resolves to I went somewhere.
Other forms of double negatives, which are popular to this day and do strictly enhance the negative rather than destroying it, are described thus:
- I'm not entirely familiar with Nihilism nor Existentialism.
Philosophies aside, this form of double negative is still in use whereby the use of 'nor' enhances the negative clause by emphasizing what isn't to be. Opponents of double negatives would have preferred I'm not entirely familiar with Nihilism or Existentialism; however this renders the sentence somewhat empty of the negative clause being advanced in the sentence. This form of double negative along with others described are standard ways of intensifying as well as enhancing a negative. The use of 'nor' to emphasise the negative clause is still popular today, and has been popular in the past through the works of Shakespeare and Milton:
- Nor did they not perceive the evil plight
- In which they were ~ John Milton - Paradise Lost
- I never was, nor never will be ~ William Shakespeare - Richard III
The negatives herein do not cancel each other out but simply emphasize the negative clause.

Up to the 18th century, double negatives were used to emphasize negation.[15] "Prescriptive grammarians" recorded and codified a shift away from the double negative in the 1700s. Double negatives continue to be spoken by those of Vernacular English, such as those of Appalachian English and African American Vernacular English.[16] To such speakers, they view double negatives as emphasizing the negative rather than cancelling out the negatives. Researchers have studied African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and trace its origins back to colonial English.[17] This shows that double negatives were present in colonial English, and thus presumably English as a whole, and were acceptable at that time. English after the 18th century was changed to become more "logical" and double negatives became seen as canceling each other as in mathematics. The use of double negatives became associated with being uneducated and illogical.[18]
In his Essay towards a practical English Grammar of 1711, James Greenwood first recorded the rule: "Two Negatives, or two Adverbs of Denying do in English affirm".[19] Robert Lowth stated in his grammar textbook A Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762) that "two negatives in English destroy one another, or are equivalent to an affirmative".[19] Grammarians have assumed that Latin was the model for Lowth and other early grammarians in prescribing against negative concord, as Latin does not feature it. Data indicates, however, that negative concord had already fallen into disuse in Standard English by the time of Lowth's grammar, and no evidence exists that the loss was driven by prescriptivism, which was well established by the time it appeared.[20]
In film and TV
[edit]Double negatives have been employed in various films and television shows. In the film Mary Poppins (1964), the chimney sweep Bert employs a double negative when he says, "If you don't wanna go nowhere..." Another is used by the bandits in the "Stinking Badges" scene of John Huston's The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948): "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges!."
The Simpsons episode "Hello Gutter, Hello Fadder" (1999) features Bart writing "I won't not use no double negatives" as part of the opening sequence chalkboard gag.[21]
In the Harry Enfield sketch "Mr Cholmondley-Warner's Guide to the Working-Class", a stereotypical Cockney employs a septuple-negative: "Inside toilet? I ain't never not heard of one of them nor I ain't nor nothing."
In music, double negatives can be employed to similar effect (as in Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall", in which schoolchildren chant "We don't need no education / We don't need no thought control") or used to establish a frank and informal tone (as in The Rolling Stones' "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction"). Other examples include Ain't Nobody (Chaka Khan), Ain't No Sunshine (Bill Withers), and Ain't No Mountain High Enough (Marvin Gaye).
Other Germanic languages
[edit]Double negation is uncommon in other West Germanic languages. A notable exception is Afrikaans in which it is mandatory (for example, "He cannot speak Afrikaans" becomes Hy kan nie Afrikaans praat nie, "He cannot Afrikaans speak not"). Dialectal Dutch, French and San have been suggested as possible origins for this trait. Its proper use follows a set of fairly complex rules as in these examples provided by Bruce Donaldson:[22]
- Ek het nie geweet dat hy sou kom nie. ("I did not know that he would be coming.")
- Ek het geweet dat hy nie sou kom nie. ("I knew that he would not be coming.")
- Hy sal nie kom nie, want hy is siek. ("He will not be coming because he is sick.")
- Dit is nie so moeilik om Afrikaans te leer nie. ("It is not so difficult to learn Afrikaans.")
Another point of view is that the construction is not really an example of a "double negative" but simply a grammatical template for negation. The second nie cannot be understood as a noun or adverb (unlike pas in French, for example), and it cannot be substituted by any part of speech other than itself with the sentence remaining grammatical. The grammatical particle has no independent meaning and happens to be spelled and pronounced the same as the embedded nie, meaning "not", by a historical accident.
The second nie is used if and only if the sentence or phrase does not already end with either nie or another negating adverb.
- Ek sien jou nie. ("I don't see you")
- Ek sien jou nooit. ("I never see you")
Afrikaans shares with English the property that two negatives make a positive:[citation needed]
- Ek stem nie met jou saam nie. ("I don't agree with you." )
- Ek stem nie nié met jou saam nie. ("I don't not agree with you," i.e., I agree with you.)
Double negation is still found in the Low Franconian dialects of west Flanders (e.g., Ik ne willen da nie doen, "I do not want to do that") and in some villages in the central Netherlands such as Garderen, but it takes a different form than that found in Afrikaans. Belgian Dutch dialects, however, still have some widely-used expressions like nooit niet ("never not") for "never".
Like some dialects of English, Bavarian has both single and double negation, with the latter denoting special emphasis. Beyond that, triple and quadrouple negation is also present. For example, the Bavarian Des hob i no nia ned g'hört ("This have I yet never not heard") can be compared to the Standard German "Das habe ich noch nie gehört". The German emphatic "niemals!" (roughly "never ever") corresponds to Bavarian "(går) nia ned" or even "nie nicht" in the Standard German pronunciation. Hat kaaner kaa Messer net do? ("Has nobody no knife not here?") is an example of a triple negative, Bei mia hot nu niamois koana koan Hunga ned ham miassn a quadrouple negative.
Another exception is Yiddish for which Slavic influence causes the double (and sometimes even triple) negative to be quite common.
A few examples would be:
- איך האב קיינמאל נישט געזאגט ikh hob keynmol nisht gesogt ("I never didn't say")
- איך האב נישט קיין מורא פאר קיינעם ניט ikh hob nisht keyn more far keynem nit ("I have no fear of no one not")
- It is common to add נישט ("not") after the Yiddish word גארנישט ("nothing"), i.e. איך האב גארנישט נישט געזאגט ("I haven't said nothing")
Latin and Romance languages
[edit]In Latin a second negative word appearing along with non turns the meaning into a positive one: ullus means "any", nullus means "no", non...nullus (nonnullus) means "some". In the same way, umquam means "ever", numquam means "never", non...numquam (nonnumquam) means "sometimes". In many Romance languages a second term indicating a negative is required.
In French, the usual way to express simple negation is to employ two words, e.g. ne [verb] pas, ne [verb] plus, or ne [verb] jamais, as in the sentences Je ne sais pas, Il n'y a plus de batterie, and On ne sait jamais. The second term was originally an emphatic; pas, for example, derives from the Latin passus, meaning "step", so that French Je ne marche pas and Catalan No camino pas originally meant "I will not walk a single step." This initial usage spread so thoroughly that it became a necessary element of any negation in the modern French language[23] to such a degree that ne is generally dropped entirely, as in Je sais pas. In Northern Catalan, no may be omitted in colloquial language, and Occitan, which uses non only as a short answer to questions. In Venetian, the double negation no ... mìa can likewise lose the first particle and rely only on the second: magno mìa ("I eat not") and vegno mìa ("I come not"). These exemplify Jespersen's cycle.
Jamais, rien, personne and nulle part (never, nothing, no one, nowhere) can be mixed with each other, and/or with ne...plus (not anymore/not again) in French, e.g. to form sentences like Je n'ai rien dit à personne (I didn't say anything to anyone)[24] or even Il ne dit jamais plus rien à personne (He never says anything to anyone anymore).
The Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Romanian languages usually employ doubled negative correlatives. Portuguese Não vejo nada, Spanish No veo nada, Romanian Nu văd nimic and Italian Non vedo niente[25] (literally, "I do not see nothing") are used to express "I do not see anything". In Italian, a second following negative particle non turns the phrase into a positive one, but with a slightly different meaning. For instance, while both Voglio mangiare ("I want to eat") and Non voglio non mangiare ("I don't want not to eat") mean "I want to eat", the latter phrase more precisely means "I'd prefer to eat".
Other Romance languages employ double negatives less regularly. In Asturian, an extra negative particle is used with negative adverbs: Yo nunca nun lu viera ("I had not never seen him") means "I have never seen him" and A mi tampoco nun me presta ("I neither do not like it") means "I do not like it either". Standard Catalan and Galician also used to possess a tendency to double no with other negatives, so Jo tampoc no l'he vista or Eu tampouco non a vira, respectively meant "I have not seen her either". This practice is dying out.
Welsh
[edit]In spoken Welsh, the word ddim (not) often occurs with a prefixed or mutated verb form that is negative in meaning: Dydy hi ddim yma (word-for-word, "Not-is she not here") expresses "She is not here" and Chaiff Aled ddim mynd (word-for-word, "Not-will-get Aled not go") expresses "Aled is not allowed to go".
Negative correlatives can also occur with already negative verb forms. In literary Welsh, the mutated verb form is caused by an initial negative particle, ni or nid. The particle is usually omitted in speech but the mutation remains: [Ni] wyddai neb (word-for-word, "[Not] not-knew nobody") means "Nobody knew" and [Ni] chaiff Aled fawr o bres (word-for-word, "[Not] not-will-get Aled lots of money") means "Aled will not get much money". This is not usually regarded as three negative markers, however, because the negative mutation is really just an effect of the initial particle on the following word.[26]
Greek
[edit]Ancient Greek
[edit]Doubled negatives are perfectly correct in Ancient Greek. With few exceptions, a simple negative (οὐ or μή) following another negative (for example, οὐδείς, no one) results in an affirmation: οὐδείς οὐκ ἔπασχέ τι ("No one was not suffering") means more simply "Everyone was suffering". Meanwhile, a compound negative following a negative strengthens the negation: μὴ θορυβήσῃ μηδείς ("Do not permit no one to raise an uproar") means "Let not a single one among them raise an uproar".
Those constructions apply only when the negatives all refer to the same word or expression. Otherwise, the negatives simply work independently of one another: οὐ διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀκοντίζειν οὐκ ἔβαλον αὐτόν means "It was not on account of their not throwing that they did not hit him", and one should not blame them for not trying.
Modern Greek
[edit]In Modern Greek, a double negative can express either an affirmation or a negation, depending on the word combination. When expressing negation, it usually carries an emphasis with it. Native speakers can usually understand the sentence meaning from the voice tone and the context.
Examples
A combination of χωρίς/δίχως and δε/δεν has an affirmative meaning: "Χωρίς/δίχως αυτό να σημαίνει ότι δε μπορούμε να το βρούμε." translates "Without that meaning that we can't find it." i.e. We can find it.
A combination of δε/δεν and δε/δεν also has an affirmative meaning: "Δε(ν) σημαίνει ότι δε(ν) μπορούμε να το βρούμε." translates "Doesn't mean that we can't find it." i.e. We can find it.
A combination of δε/δεν and κανείς/κανένας/καμία/κανένα has a negative meaning: "Δε(ν) θα πάρεις κανένα βιβλίο." translates "You won't get any book."
Slavic languages
[edit]In Slavic languages, multiple negatives affirm each other. Indeed, if a sentence contains a negated verb, any indefinite pronouns or adverbs must be used in their negative forms. For example, in the Serbo-Croatian, ni(t)ko nikad(a) nigd(j)e ništa nije uradio ("Nobody never did not do nothing nowhere") means "Nobody has ever done anything, anywhere", and nikad nisam tamo išao/išla ("Never I did not go there") means "I have never been there". In Czech, it is nikdy jsem nikde nikoho neviděl ("I have not seen never no-one nowhere"). In Bulgarian, it is: никога не съм виждал никого никъде [nikoga ne sam vishdal nikogo nikade], lit. "I have not seen never no-one nowhere", or не знам нищо ('ne znam nishto'), lit. "I don't know nothing". In Russian, "I know nothing" is я ничего не знаю [ya nichevo nye znayu], lit. "I don't know nothing".
Negating the verb without negating the pronoun (or vice versa), while syntactically correct, may result in a very unusual meaning or make no sense at all. Saying "I saw nobody" in Polish (widziałem nikogo) instead of the more usual "I did not see nobody" (Nikogo nie widziałem) might mean "I saw an instance of nobody" or "I saw Mr Nobody" but it would not have its plain English meaning. Likewise, in Slovenian, saying "I do not know anyone" (ne poznam kogarkoli) in place of "I do not know no one" (ne poznam nikogar) has the connotation "I do not know just anyone: I know someone important or special."
In Czech, like in many other languages, a standard double negative is used in sentences with a negative pronoun or negative conjunction, where the verb is also negated (nikdo nepřišel "nobody came", literally "nobody didn't come"). However, this doubleness is also transferred to forms where the verbal copula is released and the negation is joined to the nominal form, and such a phrase can be ambiguous: nikdo nezraněn ("nobody unscathed") can mean both "nobody healthy" and "all healthy". Similarly, nepřítomen nikdo ("nobody absent") or plánovány byly tři úkoly, nesplněn žádný ("three tasks were planned, none uncompleted").[27] The sentence, všichni tam nebyli ("all don't were there") means not "all absented" but "there were not all" (= "at least one of them absenteed"). If all absented, it should be said nikdo tam nebyl ("nobody weren't there").[28] However, in many cases, a double, triple quadruple negative can really work in such a way that each negative cancels out the next negative, and such a sentence may be a catch and may be incomprehensible to a less attentive or less intelligent addressee. E.g. the sentence, nemohu se nikdy neoddávat nečinnosti ("I can't never not indulge in inaction") contains 4 negations and it is very confusing which of them create a "double negative" and which of them eliminated from each other. Such confusing sentences can then diplomatically soften or blur rejection or unpleasant information or even agreement, but at the expense of intelligibility: nelze nevidět ("it can't be not seen"), nejsem nespokojen ("I'm not dissatisfied"), není nezajímavý ("it/he is not uninteresting"), nemohu nesouhlasit ("I can't disagree").[29]
Baltic languages
[edit]As with most synthetic satem languages double negative is mandatory[citation needed] in Latvian and Lithuanian. Furthermore, all verbs and indefinite pronouns in a given statement must be negated, so it could be said that multiple negative is mandatory in Latvian.
For instance, a statement "I have not ever owed anything to anyone" would be rendered as es nekad nevienam neko neesmu bijis parādā. The only alternative would be using a negating subordinate clause and subjunctive in the main clause, which could be approximated in English as "there has not ever been an instance that I would have owed anything to anyone" (nav bijis tā, ka es kādreiz būtu kādam bijis kaut ko parādā), where negative pronouns (nekad, neviens, nekas) are replaced by indefinite pronouns (kādreiz, kāds, kaut kas) more in line with the English "ever, any" indefinite pronoun structures.
Uralic languages
[edit]Double or multiple negatives are grammatically required in Hungarian with negative pronouns: Nincs semmim (word for word: "[doesn't-exists] [nothing-of-mine]", and translates literally as "I do not have nothing") means "I do not have anything". Negative pronouns are constructed by means of adding the prefixes se-, sem-, and sen- to interrogative pronouns.
Something superficially resembling double negation is required also in Finnish, which uses the auxiliary verb ei to express negation. Negative pronouns are constructed by adding one of the suffixes -an, -än, -kaan, or -kään to interrogative pronouns: Kukaan ei soittanut minulle means "No one called me". These suffixes are, however, never used alone, but always in connection with ei. This phenomenon is commonplace in Finnish, where many words have alternatives that are required in negative expressions, for example edes for jopa ("even"), as in jopa niin paljon meaning "even so much", and ei edes niin paljoa meaning "not even so much".
Turkish
[edit]Negative verb forms are grammatically required in Turkish phrases with negative pronouns or adverbs that impart a negative meaning on the whole phrase. For example, Hiçbir şeyim yok (literally, word for word, "Not-one thing-of-mine exists-not") means "I don't have anything". Likewise, Asla memnun değilim (literally, "Never satisfied not-I-am") means "I'm never satisfied".
Japanese
[edit]Japanese employs litotes to phrase ideas in a more indirect and polite manner. Thus, one can indicate necessity by emphasizing that not doing something would not be proper. For instance, しなければならない (shinakereba naranai, "must", more literally "if not done, [can] not be") means "not doing [it] wouldn't be proper". しなければいけない (shinakereba ikenai, also "must", "if not done, can not go') similarly means "not doing [it] can't go forward".
Of course, indirectness can also be employed to put an edge on one's rudeness as well. Whilst "He has studied Japanese, so he should be able to write kanji" can be phrased 彼は日本語を勉強したから漢字で書けないわけがない (kare wa nihongo o benkyō shita kara kanji de kakenai wake ga nai), there is a harsher idea in it: "Because he studied Japanese, there is no reason he can't write Kanji".
Chinese
[edit]Mandarin Chinese and most Chinese languages also employ litotes in a likewise manner. One common construction is "不得不" (Pinyin: bù dé bù, "mustn't not" or "shalln't not"), which is used to express (or feign) a necessity more regretful and convenable than that expressed by "必须" (bìxū, "must"). Compared with "我必须走" (Wǒ bìxū zǒu, "I must go"), "我不得不走" (Wǒ bù dé bù zǒu, "I mustn't not go") emphasizes that the situation is out of the speaker's hands and that the speaker has no choice in the matter: "Unfortunately, I have got to go". Similarly, "没有人不知道" (méiyǒu rén bù zhīdào, "No one doesn't know") or idiomatically "无人不知" (wú rén bù zhī, "There is no one who does not know") is a more emphatic way to express "Every single one knows".
A double negative almost always resolves to a positive meaning and even more so in colloquial speech where the speaker particularly stresses the first negative word. Meanwhile, a triple negative resolves to a negative meaning, which bears a stronger negativity than a single negative. For example, "我不覺得没有人不知道" (Wǒ bù juédé méiyǒu rén bù zhīdào, "I do not think there is no one who does not know") ambiguously means either "I don't think everyone knows" or "I think someone does not know". A quadruple negative further resolves to a positive meaning embedded with stronger affirmation than a double negative; for example, "我不是不知道没人不喜欢他" (Wǒ bú shì bù zhīdào méi rén bù xǐhuan tā, "It is not the case that I do not know that no one doesn't like him") means "I do know that everyone likes him". However, more than triple negatives are frequently perceived as obscure and rarely encountered.
Historical development
[edit]
Many languages, including all living Germanic languages, French, Welsh and some Berber and Arabic dialects, have gone through a process known as Jespersen's cycle, where an original negative particle is replaced by another, passing through an intermediate stage employing two particles (e.g. Old French jeo ne dis → Modern Standard French je ne dis pas → Modern Colloquial French je dis pas "I don't say").
In many cases, the original sense of the new negative particle is not negative per se (thus in French pas "step", originally "not a step" = "not a bit"). However, in Germanic languages such as English and German, the intermediate stage was a case of double negation, as the current negatives not and nicht in these languages originally meant "nothing": e.g. Old English ic ne seah "I didn't see" >> Middle English I ne saugh nawiht, lit. "I didn't see nothing" >> Early Modern English I saw not.[30][31]
A similar development to a circumfix from double negation can be seen in non-Indo-European languages, too: for example, in Maltese, kiel "he ate" is negated as ma kielx "he did not eat", where the verb is preceded by a negative particle ma- "not" and followed by the particle -x, which was originally a shortened form of xejn "nothing" - thus, "he didn't eat nothing".[32]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Wouden, Ton van der (November 2002). Negative Contexts: Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation. Routledge. p. 243. ISBN 9781134773336.
- ^ Examples of Double Negatives: From Sentences to Lyrics
- ^ Grammarly blog (June, 2021), "Double Negatives: 3 Rules You Must Know"
- ^ "The use of double negative in Chinese". Decode Mandarin Chinese. 4 December 2016.
- ^ "Double Negatives". NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY.
- ^ van der Auwera, Johan; Van Alsenoy, Lauren (2016-10-14). "On the typology of negative concord". Studies in Language. 40 (3): 473–512. doi:10.1075/sl.40.3.01van. hdl:10067/1361340151162165141. ISSN 0378-4177.
- ^ "More Ado about Nothing: On the Typology of Negative Indefinites", Pragmatics, Truth and Underspecification, BRILL, pp. 107–146, 2018-06-06, doi:10.1163/9789004365445_005, ISBN 9789004341999, S2CID 201437288, retrieved 2022-06-02
- ^ Fromkin, Victoria; Rodman, Robert; Hyams, Nina (2002). An Introduction to Language, Seventh Edition. Heinle. p. 15. ISBN 0-15-508481-X.
- ^ "double negative". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Merriam-Webster.
- ^ "double negative". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed.). HarperCollins.
- ^ "double negative". Memidex/WordNet Dictionary. Retrieved 2012-06-11.
- ^ Fraser, Antonia (1973). Cromwell : the Lord Protector. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 129. ISBN 978-0-917657-90-0. OCLC 728428.
- ^ Forster, John (1840). The Statesmen of the Commonwealth of England: With a Treatise on the Popular Progress in English History. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans. pp. 139–140.
- ^ Horn, LR (2010). "Multiple negation in English and other languages". In Horn, LR (ed.). The expression of negation. The expression of cognitive categories. Vol. 4. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter-Mouton. p. 112. ISBN 978-3-110-21929-6. OCLC 884495145.
- ^ Kirby, Philippa (n.d.). Double and Multiple Negatives (PDF). American University. p. 2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-08-03. Retrieved 2010-08-03.
- ^ Kirby n.d., p. 4.
- ^ Kirby n.d., p. 5.
- ^ "Grammar myths #3: Don't know nothing about double negatives? Read on..." Oxford Dictionaries Blog. Archived from the original on 2012-02-15. Retrieved 2012-02-15.
- ^ a b Kallel, Amel (2011). The Loss of Negative Concord in Standard English: A Case of Lexical Reanalysis. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4438-2815-4.
- ^ Kallel 2011, pp. 130–131.
- ^ Bates, James W.; Gimple, Scott M.; McCann, Jesse L.; Richmond, Ray; Seghers, Christine, eds. (2010). Simpsons World The Ultimate Episode Guide: Seasons 1–20 (1st ed.). Harper Collins Publishers. pp. 532–533. ISBN 978-0-00-738815-8.
- ^ Donaldson, Bruce C. (1993). A Grammar of Afrikaans, Bruce C. Donaldson, Walter de Gruyter, 1993, p. 404. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 9783110134261. Retrieved 2013-08-10.
- ^ There are literary cases in which "ne" can be used without "pas"; many of these are traditional phrases stemming from a time before the emphatic became an essential part of negation.
- ^ Drouard, Aurélie. "Using double and multiple negatives (negation)".
- ^ In Italian a simple negative phrase, Non vedo alcunché ("I don't see anything"), is also possible.
- ^ Borsley, Robert; Tallerman, M; Willis, D (2007). "7. Syntax and mutation". The Syntax of Welsh. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83630-2.
- ^ "nikdo nezraněn". Institute of the Czech Language (in Czech). 1997-01-01.
- ^ Jiří Haller, V. Š.: O českém záporu. I, Naše řeč, ročník 32 (1948), číslo 2–3, s. 21–36
- ^ Tereza Filinová: Klady záporu, Český rozhlas (Czech Broadcasting), 2011 April 9
- ^ Kastovsky, Dieter. 1991. Historical English syntax. p. 452
- ^ Van Gelderen, Elly. 2006. A history of the English language. p. 130
- ^ "Grazio Falzon. Basic Maltese Grammar". Aboutmalta.com. Retrieved 2013-08-10.
Double negative
View on GrokipediaDefinition and Semantics
Logical and Semantic Interpretations
In formal logic, particularly classical propositional logic, a double negation applied to a proposition , expressed as , is equivalent to itself, meaning two negations cancel to affirm the original statement. This equivalence, termed double negation elimination, is validated through truth tables: when is true, is false, and returns to true; conversely, when is false, is false.[6][7] The principle underpins inference rules in systems like natural deduction, where can replace without altering validity, though it does not hold in intuitionistic logics that reject it absent direct proof of .[8] Semantically, in linguistic analysis of natural language, double negatives do not uniformly adhere to formal logical cancellation. In double negation constructions, typical of standard varieties, each negation contributes independent semantic force, resulting in an affirmative interpretation akin to logic, as in "It is not untrue" equating to "It is true."[9] By contrast, negative concord systems—observed in dialects like African American Vernacular English or languages such as Spanish—treat multiple negatives as reinforcing a single semantic negation, so "I no see nothing" conveys "I see nothing" rather than the logical positive.[3][2] This divergence arises from syntactic scoping and pragmatic inference, where empirical processing studies show double negatives can evoke either strict cancellation or scalar implicatures strengthening negation based on context and listener expectations.[10][11] The tension between logical and semantic views stems from natural language's non-compositional elements, including historical diachronic shifts and dialectal variation, which formal logic abstracts away; thus, prescriptive grammars favoring logical equivalence often clash with descriptive accounts of usage.[9][3]Negative Concord vs. Double Negation
Negative concord denotes the syntactic and semantic process in certain languages and dialects where multiple negative elements co-occur within a clause but are interpreted as expressing a single instance of negation, rather than mutually canceling to yield an affirmative meaning.[1] [12] This phenomenon, observed in varieties such as African American English and Appalachian English, features constructions like "I ain't never been there," which conveys the absence of prior visits rather than the opposite.[1] In theoretical terms, negative concord arises from syntactic agreement: negative indefinites (n-words) bear an interpretable negative feature [iNEG] that licenses a clause-level uninterpretable negative operator [uNEG], resulting in one semantic negation despite multiple morphological negatives.[13] In contrast, double negation operates under the logical principle of double negation elimination, prevalent in classical formal logic and standard varieties of English, where two successive negations affirm the original proposition, as in "¬¬P ≡ P."[14] For instance, "She is not unhappy" semantically equates to "She is happy," with the negatives canceling to produce a positive assertion.[14] This aligns with compositional semantics in languages lacking negative concord, where each negation inverts truth values independently, adhering to Aristotelian opposition rather than reinforcing denial.[15] The distinction hinges on parametric variation: negative concord languages treat multiple negatives as concordant for emphasis or grammaticality, yielding reinforced singularity (e.g., Italian "Nessuno non ha visto niente" is infelicitous without concord adjustment, but standard NC forms like "Nessuno ha visto niente" negate existentially).[16] [13] Double negation languages, conversely, permit or require cancellation, often pragmatically softening assertions (e.g., "not uncommon" implies commonality without full equivalence).[14] Empirical evidence from dialectal surveys confirms negative concord's prevalence in non-standard English, where it functions as a default interpretive strategy, diverging from prescriptive norms that enforce logical cancellation.[1] Some systems exhibit hybrid behavior, allowing double negation readings in specific contexts like metalinguistic negation, underscoring that natural language negation prioritizes syntactic licensing over strict logical equivalence.[3]English Language Usage
Standard English Conventions
In standard English, a double negative occurs when two or more negative elements, such as "not," "no," "none," or "never," appear in the same clause, resulting in a construction that logically affirms rather than denies the proposition.[17][4] This prescriptive rule holds that such structures are grammatically incorrect and should be avoided in formal writing and speech, as they obscure meaning by implying the opposite of the intended negation.[18] For instance, the sentence "I don't have no money" is deemed erroneous and interpreted as "I have money," whereas the standard form is "I don't have any money" or "I have no money."[17][4] The convention against double negatives stems from 18th-century prescriptive grammarians who analogized negation to mathematical operations, asserting that two negatives cancel each other out to yield a positive.[19][20] This principle was codified in works like Bishop Robert Lowth's A Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762), which influenced subsequent style guides and educational standards, establishing the avoidance of multiple negations as a hallmark of polished prose.[19] Prior to this shift, Middle and Early Modern English commonly employed multiple negatives for emphatic denial—a practice known as negative concord—without implying affirmation, as seen in Chaucer's "He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde" (meaning he never said any villainy).[20][19] Contemporary standard English, as reflected in major style manuals like The Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed., 2017) and grammar resources from institutions such as Purdue OWL, reinforces this rule to promote clarity and precision, particularly in academic, professional, and legal contexts where ambiguity can have significant consequences.[17][4] Exceptions are rare and typically stylistic, such as in rhetorical understatement (e.g., "not uncommon"), but even these are scrutinized for potential misinterpretation and often rephrased in formal registers.[18] Empirical analysis of corpora like the British National Corpus shows that double negatives comprise less than 1% of negations in edited texts, underscoring their marginal status in standardized usage.[17] Violations persist in informal speech but are corrected in prescriptive education, with surveys indicating that 85-90% of U.S. and U.K. educators view them as errors.[4]Non-Standard Dialects and Varieties
In non-standard varieties of English, such as African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and Appalachian English, double negatives function as negative concord, where multiple negative elements co-occur to express a single negation rather than an affirmative.[1] This contrasts with standard English, where two negatives logically cancel each other, but in these dialects, constructions like "I ain't got no money" reinforce the absence of money.[1] Linguistic analyses confirm this as a systematic grammatical feature, not random error, with negative concord observed in over 80% of relevant utterances in sampled AAVE speakers.[21] AAVE exhibits robust negative concord, often involving preverbal "ain't" alongside indefinite negatives like "nobody" or "nothing," interpreted collectively as negation.[1] Studies of child and adult speakers demonstrate acquisition patterns mirroring standard English negation rules but extended to concord, with indefinite negatives requiring licensing by a sentential negator.[22] In Appalachian and Southern White Vernacular English, similar patterns prevail, including "double negatives" with adverbs like "hardly" or "scarcely," as in "There wasn't hardly any left," emphasizing scarcity.[23] A 2023 NSF-funded analysis across these dialects quantified higher concord rates in AAVE (mean 0.85 per clause) versus Appalachian English (0.62), both exceeding mainstream usage near zero.[21] These features trace to substrate influences or retention from earlier English stages, but persist as rule-governed in contemporary speech, unaffected by formal education levels within dialect communities.[24] Negative concord enables emphatic negation without altering semantic polarity, aligning with cross-linguistic patterns in non-strict concord languages.[25] Empirical data from corpus studies, including urban and rural samples, show consistent application across generations, underscoring dialect-internal logic over prescriptive standards.[1]Historical Evolution in English
In Old English, negation typically involved the adverbial particle ne prefixed to finite verbs, with additional negative words such as næfre (never) or nān (none) serving to reinforce rather than cancel the negation, a system known as negative concord. This multiple negation for emphasis appears in texts like Beowulf, composed around the early 8th to 11th century, where constructions accumulate negatives to heighten rhetorical force.[26][27] Middle English maintained this concordant negation, with Geoffrey Chaucer frequently employing double, triple, or even quadruple negatives in The Canterbury Tales (late 14th century) to intensify denial, as in "He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde," meaning he never said any villainy. Such usage aligned with spoken vernacular, where multiple negatives amplified negation without logical cancellation, reflecting continuity from Old English amid syntactic shifts like the loss of ne in some contexts.[27][28] Early Modern English continued multiple negation in literature and translation, evident in William Shakespeare's plays and the King James Bible (1611), which includes double negatives like those in Psalm 9:18 for emphatic effect. However, by the 17th century, seeds of change emerged as exposure to Latin—influenced grammars began viewing double negatives as affirmatives, though widespread use persisted in non-standard speech.[28][19] The 18th-century standardization of English grammar, drawing on classical models, codified the rejection of double negatives in formal usage. Bishop Robert Lowth's A Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762) asserted that "Two Negatives in English destroy one another, or are equivalent to an Affirmative," analogizing grammar to mathematics and prioritizing Latin logic over historical vernacular practice. This prescriptivist stance, echoed in subsequent grammars, marginalized negative concord in standard English, confining it to dialects despite its empirical prevalence in earlier corpora.[28][29] Otto Jespersen's cycle elucidates this evolution as part of a recurring pattern in Indo-European languages: English negation progressed from preverbal ne (Stage I), to reinforced ne...wit(t) or ne...not (Stage II), with not bleaching and supplanting ne (Stage III), amid instability favoring emphatic multiples before simplification. This framework, outlined in Jespersen's 1917 Negation in English and Other Languages, accounts for the historical layering without implying double negatives ever inherently "canceled" in native semantics.[30][31]Cultural and Media Representations
In Film, Television, and Popular Media
In film and television, double negatives often appear in dialogue to depict non-standard English varieties, particularly those exhibiting negative concord, where multiple negatives reinforce rather than cancel negation. This usage reflects authentic linguistic features of dialects like African American Vernacular English (AAVE), Southern white vernacular, and regional working-class speech, employed by screenwriters to signal character background, education level, or social class. Linguists note that such portrayals draw from real-world grammar rather than error, though prescriptive critics historically viewed them as substandard.[29][32] A notable example occurs in the 1996 film Sling Blade, directed by Billy Bob Thornton, where the protagonist Karl Childers, portrayed as intellectually impaired and from rural Arkansas, repeatedly uses constructions like "He wouldn't steal nothing" and "I ain't never used no hatchet that I remember." These lines underscore his dialect and isolation, aligning with Southern U.S. patterns where negative concord is prevalent for emphasis.[33] Similar representations appear in urban settings, as in HBO's The Wire (2002–2008), where Baltimore characters in AAVE employ forms like "ain't got no" to convey street-level authenticity, mirroring documented features of the local dialect.[21] In British media, double negatives feature in portrayals of Cockney or regional speech, as in the 1964 musical film My Fair Lady, where Eliza Doolittle's lines include "Ain't no use to you, he ain't" and other negative concord forms to highlight her lower-class origins before phonetic transformation. Crime dramas like Dragged Across Concrete (2018) incorporate them for gritty realism, with characters using emphatic multiples such as "don't never" to evoke tough, unpolished personas, prompting in-film commentary on grammatical "errors."[29] Beyond scripted dialogue, double negatives surface in popular music integrated into film soundtracks or as cultural references. The Rolling Stones' 1965 song "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction," featured in numerous media including films like The Departed (2006), uses "I can't get no satisfaction" as an intentional double negative for intensified negation and rhythmic appeal, influencing subsequent rock and hip-hop lyrics where negative concord dominates for stylistic reinforcement.[34] In hip-hop films such as 8 Mile (2002), Eminem's character raps lines echoing AAVE patterns like "ain't nowhere to go," blending autobiography with dialectal grammar prevalent in the genre.[35] Such depictions occasionally spark meta-commentary on language attitudes; for instance, comedies like Shrek the Third (2007) employ convoluted multiples for humor, as when characters tangle in "not" accumulations to confuse foes, parodying logical double negation while nodding to colloquial reinforcement.[36] Overall, media usage prioritizes verisimilitude over prescriptive standards, though it risks reinforcing stereotypes if not contextualized by diverse character arcs.In Literature, Rhetoric, and Everyday Discourse
In Middle English literature, double negatives served to intensify negation rather than cancel it, a convention inherited from Old English. Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales (c. 1387–1400) exemplifies this through frequent multiple negations, such as in the Friar's Tale: "Ther nas no man no wher so vertuous," meaning no man anywhere was so virtuous.[37] Chaucer's usage, including triple and quadruple negatives, marked pragmatic emphasis in narrative discourse.[38] William Shakespeare's Early Modern English works similarly employed double negatives for rhetorical strengthening. In As You Like It (c. 1599), Celia states, "I cannot go no further," reinforcing exhaustion without logical cancellation.[39] Such constructions persisted into the 17th century before prescriptive grammars, influenced by Latin logic, deemed them erroneous by the 18th century.[27] In rhetoric, double negatives underpin litotes, an understatement affirming a positive via negation, as in "not unacquainted with sorrow" to mean familiar with it.[40] This device, traceable to Old English and classical sources, heightens subtlety in persuasive speech, though overuse risks ambiguity.[41] Rhetoricians advise sparing application to avoid confusion, contrasting with emphatic negation in non-standard registers.[42] Everyday discourse in non-standard English varieties, such as African American Vernacular English, features negative concord where multiple negatives convey singular negation, e.g., "I don't have no money" meaning none at all.[21] This mirrors historical literary patterns but faces stigma in standard English, where grammarians since the 1700s enforce single negation per clause to align with formal logic.[1] Empirical studies confirm its prevalence in informal speech for emphasis, not error, across dialects.[28] Popular media echoes this, as in the Rolling Stones' 1965 lyric "I can't get no satisfaction," blending rhetorical flair with vernacular negation.Comparative Usage in Other Languages
Germanic Languages (Excluding English)
In standard German, sentential negation employs the adverb nicht, while negative indefinites like nichts ("nothing") or niemand ("nobody") independently convey negation without requiring additional markers; combining them yields a double negation reading equivalent to affirmation, as in Ich habe nicht nichts gegessen ("I ate something").[43] Standard Dutch follows a similar non-negative concord pattern, using niet for adverbial negation and forms like niets or niemand, where multiple negatives cancel semantically, though child speech corpora reveal transient negative concord errors at rates below 1% in production.[43] Dialects of both languages diverge, with West Flemish and other Flemish varieties exhibiting negative concord, permitting constructions like multiple n-words or niet plus indefinites to reinforce single negation rather than cancel it.[44] Bavarian German dialects also display variable negative concord patterns, contrasting with the standard's strict double negation logic.[43] Afrikaans, derived from 17th-century Dutch dialects spoken in South Africa, mandates a discontinuous sentential negation via nie₁ ... nie₂, as in Jy het nie die kar gesien nie ("You did not see the car"), where the second nie reinforces the first without altering the negative polarity.[45] Negative indefinites such as niks ("nothing") or nooit ("never") integrate into this frame, co-occurring with nie₂ to express unified negation—e.g., Hy wil niks eet nie ("He wants to eat nothing")—marking obligatory multiple negation distinct from the single-negator systems of Dutch and German.[45] This structure applies symmetrically across declarative, interrogative, and embedded clauses, with nie₁ often replaceable by an indefinite but nie₂ persisting for reinforcement.[45] Standard North Germanic languages—Swedish (inte), Danish and Norwegian (ikke)—employ preverbal or adverbial single negation without concord, treating additional negatives as compositional cancellation.[46] Dialects, however, frequently feature negative concord: in Swedish varieties, multiple negatives like an adverb plus indefinite yield single negation semantics, as documented in sociolinguistic surveys of regional speech.[47] Similar patterns appear in Danish, Norwegian, and Faroese dialects, where emphatic or colloquial usage allows n-word doubling for reinforced negation, diverging from prescriptive standards that prohibit it.[48] Icelandic maintains strict non-concord, aligning with mainland standards through its conservative adverb ekki.[46] Across these languages, dialectal negative concord reflects substrate influences or historical retention from pre-Jespersen stages, where multiple particles amplified negation before simplification in standards.[46]Romance and Latin Languages
In Classical Latin, sentential negation was expressed primarily through the preverbal adverb non, with constructions involving multiple negatives adhering to double negation logic, such that non nemo ("not no one") affirmed the existence of at least one person.[49] This system contrasted with the negative concord prevalent in most descendant Romance languages, where co-occurring negatives reinforce a single negation rather than canceling it.[50] The transition from Latin's double negation to Romance negative concord occurred via Jespersen's Cycle, a diachronic process documented in Late Latin texts: an initial preverbal marker (non) was reinforced by postverbal elements (e.g., nihil "nothing," nullus "none"), initially as emphatic double negation; over time, the postverbal reinforcer gained prominence, the preverbal weakened or persisted optionally, and indefinites grammaticalized into negative polarity items requiring concord for negation.[51] This shift, evident by the 8th-9th centuries in Vulgar Latin reflexes, affected nearly all Romance branches, though with variations in marker retention and indefinite behavior.[52] In French, standard negation employs the bipartite ne...pas frame (ne preverbal, pas postverbal adverbial origin), a negative concord system where ne is frequently omitted in colloquial speech (e.g., Je parle pas français "I do not speak French" since the 17th century).[53] Negative indefinites like personne ("no one") or rien ("nothing") co-occur concordantly without semantic reversal: Je ne vois personne ("I see no one"). To express logical double negation (affirmation via canceling negatives), French relies on periphrases such as il n'est pas vrai que...non or affirmatives with contrastives.[52] Spanish uses a single preverbal no for basic sentential negation, but negative concord emerges with postverbal or adverbial negatives and polarity-sensitive indefinites: No como nada ("I eat nothing"), where nada reinforces without canceling.[52] This pattern, inherited from Vulgar Latin non...nihilum, requires the preverbal no to license negative indefinites like nadie ("no one"); omission leads to ungrammaticality in standard varieties. Dialectal Spanish (e.g., in the Caribbean) sometimes shows multiple preverbal negatives for emphasis, maintaining concord. Logical double negation is avoided, expressed instead via no es que no or positives. Italian mirrors this with preverbal non and concordant indefinites: Non mangio niente ("I eat nothing"), niente deriving from Latin ne...ente ("not a thing").[51] Northern dialects retain optional preverbal doubling (e.g., *mi *no so non niente), echoing earlier reinforcers, while standard Italian enforces single non licensing postverbal negatives. Portuguese follows suit: Não como nada ("I eat nothing"), with não from Latin non and nada from rem...nada ("not any thing").[52] Romanian diverges, retaining a single preverbal nu (from non) without obligatory postverbal markers or widespread concord in standard usage: Nu mănânc nimic ("I eat nothing"), though nimic requires the preverbal licenser.[53] Some eastern dialects exhibit partial concord influences from Slavic contact. Across Romance, negative concord predominates, reflecting a typological shift from Latin's logic-based system, with empirical variation tied to syntactic licensing of polarity items rather than arithmetic negation.Slavic, Baltic, and Greek Languages
In Slavic languages, negative concord is a grammatical norm whereby multiple negative elements within a clause reinforce a single negation rather than neutralizing it, a feature inherited from Proto-Slavic and preserved across East, West, and South Slavic branches. For example, in Russian, the sentence "Никто ничего не видел" (literally "nobody nothing not saw") conveys that no one saw anything, with the preverbal negation particle "не" (ne), indefinite pronouns like "никто" (nikto, "nobody"), and adverbs like "ничего" (nichego, "nothing") all bearing negative morphology.[55] This system requires negative indefinites and adverbs to agree in negation with the finite verb, distinguishing it from analytic negation in languages like English; similar constructions appear in Polish ("Nikt niczego nie widział") and Bulgarian ("Никой не видя нищо"), where omission of any negative element would render the sentence ungrammatical or alter its scope.[56] Empirical analyses of Slavic corpora confirm this as a robust syntactic constraint, with negative polarity items licensed strictly under sentential negation, reflecting diachronic stability rather than pragmatic emphasis alone.[55] Baltic languages, particularly Lithuanian and Latvian as the surviving East Baltic tongues, mandate multiple negation in declarative sentences involving indefinite pronouns, adverbs, or quantifiers, aligning closely with Slavic patterns due to shared Balto-Slavic origins around 1500–1000 BCE. In Lithuanian, constructions like "Vaikas nieko neskaito" (literally "child nothing not-reads") express that the child reads nothing, where the prefix "ne-" on the verb combines obligatorily with negative indefinites such as "nieko" (nothing); failure to include both yields incomplete negation.[57] Latvian exhibits parallel requirements, as in "Nevienam nekas nav" (literally "to-nobody nothing not-is"), meaning nobody has anything, with the negation particle "ne-" prefixed to verbs and adjectives while indefinite elements carry inherent negativity.[58] This synthetic negation system, typical of satem-branch Indo-European languages, enforces agreement across the clause, as evidenced in historical grammars and modern corpora; unlike optional emphasis in some languages, it is syntactically compulsory for expressing universal negation over indefinites.[57] In Greek, both Ancient and Modern varieties employ double or multiple negation primarily for intensification within a negative concord framework, where co-occurring negatives amplify rather than cancel the prohibitive force. Modern Greek uses the particle "δεν" (den) preverbally alongside negative indefinites, as in "Δεν έχω τίποτα" (literally "not have-I nothing"), equating to "I have nothing," a construction standard in everyday speech and obligatory for negated existentials or possessives.[59] Ancient Greek, from Homeric epics onward, features similar reinforcement, such as "οὐδὲν οὐκ ἔχω" (ouden ouk echō, "nothing not I-have"), intensifying absolute negation; while rare instances of double negation could yield affirmation in subjunctive or conditional contexts, the predominant function across Attic, Ionic, and Koine dialects is emphatic denial, as cataloged in grammars analyzing over 5,000 negated clauses from classical texts.[60] This persistence reflects Indo-European retention, with Modern Greek diverging minimally from Ancient patterns except in clitic positioning, per typological surveys contrasting it with double-negation languages like English.[61]Usage in Non-Indo-European Languages
Uralic, Turkic, and Altaic Languages
In Uralic languages, negation typically relies on a specialized, often defective auxiliary verb that inflects for person and number but lacks full conjugation paradigms, combining with negative indefinites or adverbs to produce negative concord rather than logical cancellation. For example, in Finnish, the negation auxiliary ei pairs with the negative pronoun mitään in constructions like en näe mitään ("I see nothing"), where both elements reinforce a single sentential negation without affirmative effect.[62] Similarly, Hungarian mandates multiple negatives in existential phrases with pronouns, such as nincs semmim ("I have nothing"), employing the negative existential nincs alongside semmi ("nothing") to intensify rather than neutralize negation, a pattern consistent across Finnic and Ugric branches.[63] This system contrasts with Indo-European verbal negation, prioritizing auxiliary-based strategies that accommodate concord for emphatic or scoped negation.[64] Turkic languages exhibit suffixal negation on verbs, which grammatically requires co-occurrence with negative pronouns or adverbs, yielding obligatory negative concord in standard declarative sentences. In Turkish, verbal negation via the suffix -me/-ma combines with indefinites like hiçbir şey ("nothing") in phrases such as hiçbir şey bilmiyorum ("I know nothing"), where the dual negatives express unified negation without double negation readings that affirm.[65][66] Corpus studies confirm that such multiple negation constructions in Turkish often involve an inner verbal negative followed by outer elements for emphasis or idiomatic expression, appearing in approximately 15-20% of negated utterances involving indefinites in spoken data.[66] Uyghur, another Turkic language, distinguishes negative concord (single negation via multiples) from true double negation in embedded or emphatic contexts, where two negatives may yield affirmative interpretations under specific syntactic conditions, though concord dominates affirmative-avoiding discourse.[67] Altaic languages, encompassing Mongolic and Tungusic branches under the controversial macrofamily hypothesis, employ particle- or suffix-based negation that frequently incorporates multiple elements for concord, particularly with interrogatives or existentials. In Mongolian, standard negation uses suffixes like -gej or auxiliaries such as biš ("not be"), which pair with negative particles or pronouns (e.g., juu č "nothing") to form concordant structures like juu č gej ügeej baina ("there is nothing said"), reinforcing negation without cancellation, a trait shared in prohibitive forms across Mongolic varieties.[68] Tungusic languages similarly suffix negatives (e.g., Evenki -či) and allow concord with indefinites, though double negation equivalents are rarer and contextually emphatic rather than standard.[69] Comparative analyses of negative forms across Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic reveal shared agglutinative patterns favoring concord over isolated negation, supporting typological alignments despite debates on genetic relatedness.[70]East Asian Languages (Japanese and Chinese)
In Japanese, double negation constructions, such as the pairing of two instances of the negative suffix ~ない (~nai), typically resolve to an affirmative meaning rather than reinforcing negation, aligning with classical logical principles where negation of a negation yields a positive. A common example is 嫌いじゃない (kirai ja nai), which literally translates to "not dislike" but idiomatically conveys "I like it" with a softened or understated tone, often used for politeness or to avoid direct assertion.[71] Corpus-based analyses, including data from the Balanced Corpus of Contemporary Written Japanese (BCCWJ) and Aozora Bunko, trace the constructionalization of these forms, showing their emergence as fixed patterns that affirm while carrying pragmatic nuances like hesitation or emphasis.[72] Unlike negative concord systems in some languages, Japanese double negatives do not license multiple negatives for singular negation; instead, they affirm, though overuse or awkward phrasing can lead to perceived redundancy in formal registers.[73] In Mandarin Chinese, double negation similarly cancels to produce an affirmative interpretation, as evidenced by experimental studies on child language acquisition where children aged 5–6 consistently parsed structures like 不...不 (bù...bù) as positive equivalents by the time of school entry.[74] For instance, constructions involving modal verbs, such as 我不会不来 (wǒ bù huì bù lái; "I won't not come"), affirm intention ("I will come"), often emphasizing certainty or reassurance in future-oriented contexts.[75] This pattern contrasts with single negation markers like 不 (bù) for general denial or 没 (méi) for existential absence, and developmental research indicates delayed mastery compared to simpler negations, with full comprehension of scope resolution emerging later due to processing complexity.[76] Double negatives in Chinese lack negative concord effects seen in languages like Spanish; they affirm without reinforcement, though rhetorical or emphatic uses may amplify positivity in literary or spoken discourse.[77]Historical and Theoretical Development
Jespersen's Cycle and Negation Shifts
Jespersen's Cycle refers to a diachronic pattern in the expression of sentential negation, first systematically described by Danish linguist Otto Jespersen in his 1917 monograph Negation in English and Other Languages.[78] The cycle accounts for the recurrent renewal of negation markers, where an initial single preverbal negator weakens phonetically and semantically, prompting reinforcement via an additional postverbal element—often an emphatic adverb or indefinite—yielding a temporary stage of double (or multiple) negation before the original marker erodes entirely.[79] This process underscores negation shifts as languages transition from preverbal to postverbal dominance, with double negation serving as a bridge rather than an endpoint in standard historical trajectories.[31] The cycle comprises three primary stages: In Stage I, negation is marked solely by a preverbal particle, such as Latin ne or Old English ne.[80] Stage II arises as this marker attenuates (e.g., via phonetic erosion), reinforced by a postverbal reinforcer for emphasis, like French pas (originally "step," from expressions denying minimal quantity) or English not (from nought), resulting in constructions such as ne...pas or ne...not.[31] In Stage III, the preverbal element is lost through analogy or reanalysis, leaving the postverbal form as the new unary negator, as seen in modern standard French (spoken pas alone) and English (not).[81] This endpoint feeds potential iteration, as the fresh marker may itself weaken, restarting the cycle—evident in Ancient Greek's four successive rounds over millennia.[81] These shifts illuminate double negation's role as a pragmatic reinforcer amid semantic bleaching, not inherent illogicality, though prescriptive grammars later stigmatized it in emerging standards.[82] Empirical corpus studies confirm the cycle's cross-linguistic prevalence, particularly in Indo-European languages: Middle English texts (ca. 1100–1500 CE) abound with double negations like Chaucer's "He nevere yit no vileynye ne sayde" for emphatic denial, predating not's hegemony by the 16th century.[31] In Welsh, ongoing Stage II features preverbal nid paired with postverbal dim, mirroring the pattern without full cycle completion to date.[80] While not universal—absent in stable single-marker systems like Mandarin bù—the cycle's iterations, tracked via historical texts and comparative reconstruction, reveal negation's vulnerability to erosion and renewal, driven by communicative pressures for clarity over redundancy.[81]Linguistic Theories and Cross-Linguistic Patterns
In linguistic theory, double negation and negative concord represent contrasting interpretive mechanisms for multiple negative elements within a clause. Negative concord (NC) systems interpret such elements as collectively yielding a single semantic negation, as in Spanish No vi a nadie ("I didn't see anyone"), where both negatives reinforce denial rather than canceling. Double negation (DN) systems, prevalent in standard English, treat each negative as semantically independent, such that two yield affirmation (e.g., "I don't have no money" parsed logically as possession in formal semantics).[1] [9] Formal semantic accounts, notably Hedde Zeijlstra's agreement-based theory, posit that NC arises from feature checking in the syntax: a clausal operator bears an interpretable negative feature [uNEG], while n-words (negative indefinites like "nobody") carry uninterpretable features [iNEG] that must agree and delete, licensing only one truth-conditional negation.[12] [83] This contrasts with DN, where all negatives bear interpretable features, composing multiple truth-value inversions. Empirical support comes from cross-linguistic asymmetries, such as NC languages permitting DN only in embedded or focused contexts, reflecting unchecked interpretable features. Alternative functional theories emphasize pragmatic reinforcement or grammaticalization from polarity items, but semantic agreement models better predict typological restrictions, like the rarity of adverbial NC without a preverbal head.[84] [85] Cross-linguistic patterns reveal a typology of strict NC (multiple negatives obligatory for single denial, e.g., most Slavic languages), non-strict NC (DN possible alongside concord, e.g., Catalan), and DN-dominant systems (e.g., Germanic standards). Contrary to early claims of NC universality, typological samples of 200-300 languages show NC in roughly 40-60% of cases, with higher prevalence in Europe (Romance, Slavic) and Africa, often via historical shifts from postverbal particles. DN correlates with analytic negation strategies, while NC frequently involves synthetic marking or indefinites grammaticalized as concord elements. Processing studies confirm higher cognitive load for DN compositions versus NC, aligning with empirical variation in acquisition and dialectal use.[86] [87] [88]Controversies and Debates
Prescriptivism vs. Descriptivism
Prescriptivists maintain that double negatives in English are grammatically incorrect, asserting that multiple negative elements cancel each other out to produce an affirmative meaning, analogous to mathematical negation. This position, formalized in 18th-century grammars such as Robert Lowth's A Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762), prohibits constructions like "I don't have no money" in favor of single negation for logical clarity and formal propriety.[89] Prescriptivist rules prioritize standardization to facilitate precise communication, particularly in written and institutional contexts, where ambiguity from emphatic negation could undermine comprehension.[20] Historically, however, multiple negation was normative in English through the Early Modern period, including in Shakespeare's works, where phrases like "I cannot go no further" intensified denial rather than inverting it.[90] The prescriptive ban emerged amid efforts to align English grammar with Latin models and Aristotelian logic, despite lacking empirical basis in native usage; prior to the 1700s, such constructions reinforced negation without controversy.[20] This shift reflects not inherent illogicality but prescriptive imposition by grammarians seeking to elevate English as a "polished" tongue, often at the expense of vernacular patterns.[91] Descriptivists, drawing on sociolinguistic observation, counter that double negatives—termed negative concord—constitute a systematic feature in non-standard varieties like African American Vernacular English (AAVE), where they semantically reinforce single negation rather than negate it. Studies document this as rule-governed, with over 90% consistency in AAVE speakers' usage across contexts, as in "Nobody didn't see nothing," interpreted as universal negation.[92] Cross-dialectal surveys, including NSF-funded research on American English variation, reveal negative concord in 20-30% of informal speech nationwide, persisting due to social indexing rather than deficit.[21] Descriptivism emphasizes empirical data over imposed norms, arguing that stigmatizing such forms ignores their functionality and historical precedence while overlooking that standard English itself evolved from dialects.[1] The debate intersects education and policy, with prescriptivists advocating drills to instill standard forms for socioeconomic mobility—evidenced by correlations between standard mastery and higher earnings in labor markets—while descriptivists warn against dialect erasure, citing programs like the 1979 Ann Arbor decision affirming AAVE's legitimacy in schools.[93] Empirical outcomes favor bidirectional approaches: students acquiring bidialectalism outperform monolingual dialect speakers in standardized tests without losing cultural competence.[94] Critically, descriptivist dominance in academia may stem from ideological preferences for relativism, potentially undervaluing prescriptivism's role in enabling cross-group intelligibility amid linguistic diversity; yet data affirm negative concord's non-arbitrary logic in its ecosystems, challenging blanket prescriptivist prohibitions as ahistorical.[95]Social, Educational, and Empirical Perspectives
In English-speaking societies, double negatives—constructions employing multiple negative elements to reinforce negation—are often socially stigmatized as markers of uneducated or informal speech, despite their systematic use in non-standard dialects such as African American Vernacular English (AAVE). This stigma arises from prescriptive norms equating double negatives with logical fallacy, associating them with lower socioeconomic status or minority groups, even though speakers of these varieties employ them grammatically for emphatic negation rather than affirmation.[29][96] Educational curricula in standard English instruction consistently treat double negatives as errors to be eradicated, prioritizing prescriptive grammar that aligns with formal writing conventions. Teachers employ direct methods, such as sentence identification exercises and rewriting drills, to instill the rule that multiple negatives cancel to a positive, drawing from 18th-century grammarians like Bishop Lowth who deemed them equivalent to affirmatives. This approach persists in resources aimed at student writing improvement, reinforcing avoidance to meet standardized testing and professional communication standards, though it overlooks dialectal validity.[97][21][92] Empirically, studies document double negatives as rule-governed phenomena in dialects exhibiting negative concord, where multiple negatives yield a single negative interpretation. A 2023 NSF-funded investigation by linguist Frances Blanchette analyzed usage across American English varieties, revealing persistent patterns uncorrelated with comprehension deficits but suppressed by social pressures. In AAVE, experimental comprehension tasks with children demonstrate robust grasp of double negatives as reinforcing negation, with accuracy rates exceeding 80% in interpreting sentences like "I ain't got no money" as denying possession, indicating innate grammatical competence rather than error. Psycholinguistic processing research further shows adults in concord varieties handle multiple negations efficiently, challenging claims of inherent illogicality.[21][22][1]References
- https://www.[researchgate](/page/ResearchGate).net/publication/360110953_Negation_and_Polarity_in_the_Romance_Languages