Курсовая работа: Multiple negation

(1) For I dere say there is no knight in this contrey that is nat in Arthures court that dare do batayle wyth sir Blamour de Ganys (220.3–4)

(2) Had nat ye bene, we had nat loste sir Trystram (282.17–18)

(3)… they founde nother man, nother woman that he ne was dede by the vengeaunce of Oure Lorde (493.37)

It goes without saying that the two types of construction do not happily coexist, particularly in a written text. After all, they each require a completely different interpretation, the one with a positive the otherwith a negative result. In the spoken language, no such problems exist As Labov (l972a:146) remarks: «When anunderlying double negative [i.e. with a positive meaning] is intended, speakers of nonstandard dialects use the same device as speakers of standard English: heavy stress on both negatives», Naturally, such a disambiguating device is not available in the written language. While the second type of multiple negation has been found since the Old English period, the rareness in the Morte Darthur of the first type of construction suggests that the logical type of multiple negation is a later development in the system of English negation.

To begin with, this definition lacks precision in that it covert a number of negative constructions which are not strictly speaking instances of multiple negation. To illustrate this point the following examples may be cited from the Morte Darthur

(4) for there was nother kynge, cayser, nother knyght that day (C 216.21:22)

(5) and ye shall have no shame nor velony (C 140.22)

(6) and woldyst never be made neyssh nother by watir nother by fyre (C 446.25–26)

Strictly speaking, all three instances would be covered by Barber’s definition – «two or more negative words are used to negate the sentence; these negatives do not cancel each other out». Even so, in a modernised form (4) would be fully acceptable in formal standard English today. It might be paraphrased as «for there was neither king, emperor nor knight that day…» (cf. Quirk et al. 1985:763 and 938).

Example (5) would likewise be acceptable in present-day standard English, though instead of no, neither would normally be used: «and you will have neither shame nor villainy» (cf. Quirk et al. 1985:938). According to Seright (1966:125), the construction would have to be rephrased as ^« and you will not have either shame or villainy» in order to be fully acceptable.

Example (6) is belonging to the category of resumptive negation. The negative effect in sentences like this is heightened, and the function of the tag seems to that of an afterthought which simultaneously emphasises the negation.

(7) that by no meany I can nat put her fro me (C 525.37–38)

(8) that he sholde never do none inchauntemente uppon hir (C 93.18)

(9) and horse ne harneyse gettvst thou none of myne (C 164.24–25)

(10) but in no wyse he wolde nat juste no more (C 303.17–18)

(11) yette woll I nat wyghte my lady to be in no joupardye (C 94.35–36)

(12) they had no joye to receyve no yeftes of a berdles boy (C 40. 10–11)

These examples were found in direct speech as well as in narrative passages of the Mort Darthur . This fact, combined with the frequency with which multiple negation is attested in the text, suggests that at the time it must still have been regarded as a perfectly acceptable device which could be employed in most contexts and registers. In his own prose, mostly prologues and epilogues to the books he printed and therefore written in a highly formal style, Caxton lokiwise used multiple negation. In this respect, usage has clearly undergone aconsiderable change in the course of time. Multiple negation occurs much less frequently in the Morte Darthur than during the Old English period, and in the text itself the disappearing process is very much in evidence.

The definition does not cover negative sentence with correlative pairs or triplets, such as neither … nor or neither… nor … nor , asthese negatives do not function independently but only in conjunction with each other, offering alternatives within the sentence. Sentence with a negative such as not , never or no followed be the negative conjunction nor are similarly excluded. Such sentences are to be interpreted as containing elliptical phrases or clauses, which offer alternatives to the negative statement made in the preceding clause. Thus, (5) may be expanded as follows: and you will have no shame, nor will you have any villainy . Sentence like (9), in which nor (or any of its Middle English equivalents) precedes any negative words in the sentences covered bythe definition. The reason for this is the following. As inEnglish a negative is generally found as early in the sentence as possible (Jespersen 1940:426), a sentence which only has the negative conjunction nor or even a correlative construction like neither… nor as part of one of its opening constituents would already from its very beginning be interpreted as negative, irrespective of whether or not the negative is part ofan elliptical construction with nor or with neither …nor. Any additional negatives further on in the sentence would therefore turn the sentence into an instance of multiple negation. Another example is the following sentence:

(13) for nother sir Bleoberys nother yett sir Palomydes woll not fyght with me on foote (C 244,4–5).

This sentence and all others like it will therefore be treated as instances of double negation, even though the actual number of negatives is more than two: (nother…nother)… not .

Most instances in the Morte Darthur with more than one negative are fairly straightforward cases either of multiple negation or of simple negation but with more than one negative (neither… nor , or sentences with nor such as example (5)).

Nevertheless there are a number of problematical cases, each of which will have to be analysed in detail in order to decide whether or not they are to be included in the corpus and if so, how. One example is the following sentence:

(14) I charge yow to saye to them that I commaunde them vpon payne of theyre hedes neuer to demaunde trybute ne taxe of me ne of my londes (C 131.7–9)

This sentence contains two instances of the negative coordinator ne; the first introduces an elliptical clause which may be expanded as «nor to demand any taxes». The second ne isa different matter, as a modem English paraphrase of the sentence bears out most dearly: «I command them… never to demand any tribute nor to demand any taxes, either of me or ofmy subjects». In this paraphrase the second negative has to be rendered by or as part of the coordinate phrase either …or . If neither… nor had been used, the sentence would have been an example of double negation, viz. of resumptive negation. In other words, never holds only the second ne within its scope, the first ne introducing by means of coordination an elliptical alternative (5).

In the language of the Morte Darthur as well as in many forms of English spoken today multiple negation usually serves a strengthening, rather than emphatic function.

Conclusion

A double negative occurs when two forms of negation are used in the same clause. In some languages (or varieties of a language), negative forms are consistently used throughout the sentence to express a single negation. In other languages, a double negative is used to negate a negation, and therefore, it resolves to a positive. In the former case, triple and quadruple negation can also be seen, which leads to the terms multiple negation or negative concord .

Double negatives are generally not used in written varieties of Standard English. Consider the phrase «I do not want nothing!» the intended meaning would be expressed as «I do not want anything!» in Standard English, according to prescriptive rules. However, if there is very heavy stress on «do not» or a specific plaintive stress on «nothing,» Standard English can utilize the form «I do not want nothing» as a way of emphasizing that the speaker would rather have «something» than «nothing» at all.