Further aspects of negation in French

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131 www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua

Further aspects of negation in French Nathalie Schapansky Department of French, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive West, Burnaby, British Columbia, 4V5 1S6, Canada Received 22 March 2005; received in revised form 6 May 2009; accepted 6 May 2009 Available online 4 July 2009

Abstract In A natural history of negation Horn (1989) claims that there are two types of negation, internal and external to the predication. While internal negation is strong, categorical, contrary, non-metalinguistic and unmarked, external negation is weak, noncategorical, contradictory and marked. This is expressed by two different negative markers in French, bare ne and ne pas, in registers where ne is maintained. Though bare ne expresses external negation, it is contrary. Though ne pas expresses internal negation, it is contradictory. Bare ne, however, cannot serve as a metalinguistic negation operator, unlike ne pas. The difference between bare ne and ne pas can be accounted for by a difference in their semantic make-up, which affects their binding strategy. Unlike ne pas, bare ne is non-quantified, hence cannot introduce an existential quantifier able to bind an event (or a tense) variable. Bare ne must bind a discourse variable introduced by the linguistic context. # 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Negation; External; Internal; Quantification; Discourse

1. Introduction Schapansky (2002) argues that, in French in registers where ne is maintained, negation is an association between negation and quantification. When negation is quantifying, ne needs an associate (e.g., pas, point, personne, jamais). When negation is non-quantifying, no associate is needed and ne can occur by itself (cf. Muller, 1984, 1995). Ne pas and bare ne are associated with two types of negation, contradictory and contrary. Contradictory negation is expressed by ne pas and contrary negation is expressed by bare ne. The contrary reading of bare ne cannot be accounted for under the standard assumption that pas is the sole operator of sentence negation (Rowlett, 1998; Ziejlstra, 2004). Two types of negation, however, have been recognised in the generative literature. Ramchand (2001) claims that the two Bengali negative markers na and ni bind respectively an event and a tense variable. The difference in the binding strategy of na and ni results in subtle semantic differences. Weiss (2002) makes a similar claim for negation in Bavarian. The issue is whether the difference between French bare ne and ne pas can be attributed to a difference in their binding strategy. The difference of behavior between bare ne and ne pas is discussed in section 2 with respect to the two negations proposed by Horn (1989): internal and external negation, which display different properties. While internal negation is strong, categorical, contrary, non-metalinguistic, and unmarked, external negation is weak, non-categorical, E-mail address: [email protected]. 0024-3841/$ – see front matter # 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.002

104

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

contradictory and marked. Whether external negation can be used metalinguistically remains to be determined. It will be shown that, though French ne pas is associated with internal negation, hence strong, categorical, and unmarked, it has acquired a contradictory reading and can be used as a metalinguistic negation operator. In contrast, though bare ne is associated with external negation, hence weak, non-categorical, and marked, it has acquired a contrary reading and cannot be used as a metalinguistic negation operator. A further study of the contexts in which bare ne occurs is carried out in section 3. This use of bare ne is supported by a similar use of not in English as found in the works of Jane Austen. The contexts in which bare ne occurs include root clauses (declaratives and imperatives), modal and achievement verbs in main and non-finite complement clauses, and subordinate clauses in the indicative mood. This study reveals that bare ne is consistently used non-categorically and implies a contrary reading for negation. The French data presented in sections 2 and 3 will be further discussed and analysed in section 4 where an account of the difference between bare ne and ne pas in terms of binding strategies is provided. It will be shown that while ne pas binds an event variable, bare ne binds a discourse variable. The difference in the binding strategy of bare ne and ne pas explains a number of puzzling facts about negation in French. 2. NE, PAS and the two negations Since Aristotle, two types of negation have been recognised: (predicate) term negation, which negates only one term in a proposition (1a), and predicate denial, which denies the subject/predicate relation (1b) (Horn, 1989:15). 1.

a. Socrates is not-ill. b. Socrates is not ill.

To these two types of negation correspond two distinct truth values: (1a) is false if Socrates does not exist and (1b) is true under the same condition. Similarly, Russell (1905) argues that sentence (2) is ambiguous between the two readings given in (2a) and (2b) (Horn, 1989:106–107). 2.

The King of France is not bald. a. The king of France exists and he is not-bald b. The king of France does not exist–he isn’t bald

Here as well, while (2a) is false if the king of France does not exist, (2b) is true under the same condition (cf. Moeschler, 1995 for French). Internal (predicate term) negation in (3a) presupposes the existence of the subject, a couple, hence the falsity of the proposition if the subject does not exist. Internal negation is contrary. This is an unhappy couple and this is a not unhappy couple are both false if the couple does not exist. External (predicate denial) negation in (3b) does not presuppose the existence of its subject. Under external negation the proposition remains true though the subject does not exist. (3b) can refer to a couple that is not unhappy, to some other property of the couple, or to some other object, hence the metalinguistic interpretation attached to external negation. External negation is contradictory. The couple cannot be unhappy and not unhappy at the same time. 3.

a. This is a not unhappy couple. b. This is not an unhappy couple.

According to Horn (1989), contrary negation is considered to be strong, as a contrary unilaterally entails its contradictory: this is a not unhappy couple therefore this is not an unhappy couple. Contradictory negation is considered to be weak, as a contradictory does not imply its contrary. As shown in section 2.3, however, contrary negation can be weak and contradictory negation can be strong. It is strong negation that unilaterally entails weak negation, this regardless of the contrary/contradictory distinction. The distinction between internal and external negation can be marked formally by the positioning of the negative marker, as in (3a) and (3b) above for English. We obtain a similar distinction in French, as in (4).

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

4.

a.

105

C’est (*ce n’est) un livre pas/non inte´ressant. this (ne) is a book not interesting ‘This is a not interesting book’

b. C’est/ce n’est pas/*non un livre inte´ressant. this (ne) is not a book interesting ‘This is not an interesting book’ In (4a), pas, like non, marks internal negation and is placed immediately before the term to be negated, the adjective inte´ressant which follows the noun livre. (4a) implies that there exists a book and this book is not interesting. In registers where ne is maintained, ne cannot be used in this context, hence showing that we do not have sentential negation. In (4b), ne pas marks external negation and pas is placed between the copula and the noun phrase. (4b) can refer to a book that is not interesting, to some other property of the book (e.g., boring, fascinating), or to some other object. In this context, ne is allowed while non is not, hence showing that we have sentential negation. (4a) unilaterally entails (4b). In registers where ne is lost, the distinction internal/external negation is neutralised after modal and related verbs (e.g., pouvoir ‘can, be able’, savoir ‘know’, oser ‘dare’, vouloir ‘want’, cesser ‘cease’ (Gaatone, 1971; Larrive´e, 1995; Rowlett, 1998; Schapansky, 2002), for which both a stage-level and an individual-level predicate reading is made available by a non-finite complement clause, as seen in (5) for pouvoir. 5.

Je peux pas danser. ‘I cannot dance’

Individual-level predicates (ILPs) denote inherent or permanent properties of the entity such as intelligent in the child is intelligent. Stage-level predicates (SLPs) describe episodic or temporary attributes, such as sick in the child is sick (Carlson, 1977; Kratzer, 1989; Diesing, 1992). When pouvoir has an ILP reading, (5) means that I am not capable of dancing, I am not a dancer, and negation is internal. When pouvoir has an SLP reading, (5) means that, though I can dance, I am temporarily incapacitated. In this case, negation is external. Pas, whether marking internal or external negation, is placed between the modal verb and the following verb in the infinitive. In registers where ne is maintained, ne can occur alone in a number of contexts including that of modal verbs (Larrive´e, 1995; Rowlett, 1998; Schapansky, 2002), and can be opposed to ne pas, as in (6) (cf. Table 1).

Table 1 French ne. Verbs

ne pas

ne

bouger ‘move’ re´pondre ‘answer’ se battre ‘fight one another’ connaıˆtre ‘know’ eat ‘manger ternir ‘fade’ se repre´senter ‘come back’ trouver ‘find’ trouver a` ‘find to V’ cesser ‘cease’ arreˆter ‘stop’ en finir ‘come to an end’ commencer ‘begin’ savoir ‘know’ pouvoir ‘be capable of’ vouloir ‘want’ daigner ‘judge worthy of’ laisser ‘let’

not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not

remain immobile remain mute keep one’s peace be unacquainted be deprived remain/keep unspoiled unlikely to come back miss remain un-V-ed keep V-ing keep V-ing keep coming remain uninitiated be uncertain be unable to be unwilling judge worthless keep detaining

move answer fight one another know eat fade come back find find to V cease stop come to an end begin know be capable of want judge worthy let

106

6.

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

a.

Je peux danser. ‘I can dance (I am capable of dancing/I am able to dance)’

b. Je ne peux pas danser. ‘I cannot dance (I am not capable of dancing/I am unable to dance)’ c.

Je ne peux danser. ‘I cannot dance (I am unable to dance)’

The sentence (6a) Je peux danser is ambiguous between two interpretations. It can either mean I am capable of dancing, I have the skills to do it, or it can mean I am able to dance, I do not have any impediment. This ambiguity remains under ne pas in (6b). Je ne peux pas danser can either mean I am not capable of dancing, I have no skills, or I am unable to dance at the moment, something is preventing me. However, when bare ne is used in (6c), only one interpretation remains: I am unable to dance at the moment, something is preventing me. When ne pas is opposed to bare ne, internal negation is expressed by ne pas and external negation is realised by bare ne. (6b) unilaterally entails (6c). I am not capable of dancing, therefore I am unable to dance. The reverse, however, does not hold. I am unable to dance does not entail that I am not capable of dancing. Whereas (6b) can assert of me that I am not capable of dancing and corresponds to an ILP reading of the modal verb, (6c) describes a situation in which my ability to dance is suspended for whatever reason (Larrive´e, 1995; Schapansky, 2002), and corresponds to an SLP reading of the verb. This is further illustrated in (7). 7.

a.

Je ne sais pas ou` aller ‘I don’t know where to go’ (I have no knowledge of where to go)

b. Je ne sais ou` aller ‘I don’t know where to go’ (I am uncertain as to where to go) While (7a) can assert of me that I have no knowledge as to where to go, thus associated with an ILP interpretation of savoir ‘know’ negated by ne pas, (7b) does not make this assertion. It simply says that I am for the moment undecided, hence associated with the SLP interpretation of savoir ‘be certain’ negated by bare ne. When the SLP interpretation of savoir is not available, bare ne cannot be used (Larrive´e, 1995), hence the ungrammaticality of (8b). 8.

a.

Je ne sais pas danser (je n’ai jamais appris). ‘I don’t know how to dance (I never learned it)’

b. *Je ne sais danser (6¼ je ne suis pas certaine de danser). ‘I don’t know how to dance (6¼ I am not certain as to how to dance)’ What the data show is that, while ne pas can be associated with both an ILP or an SLP reading of the predicates, bare ne tends to be associated with the SLP reading of the same predicates. When the SLP reading is not available, bare ne cannot be used. While bare ne is allowed in some contexts (e.g., je ne peux danser, je ne sais ou` aller), it is disallowed in others (e.g., *je ne sais danser). The difference between pouvoir danser et savoir danser is that pouvoir danser allows quantification (e.g., je peux danser une fois, deux fois. . .’I can dance once, twice. . .’) while savoir danser disallows it (e.g., *je sais danser une fois, deux fois. . . ‘I know how to dance once, twice. . .’). According to Schapansky (2006:258), a verb like pouvoir plus its non-finite complement clause brings a Q(uantification) feature that allows bare ne and pseudo-partitive objects, hence the difference between *je n’ache`te de livres ‘I don’t buy books’ and je ne peux acheter de livres ‘I can’t buy books’ (see (31) section 2.5 and (52) section 4.1). The ‘‘Negative Association’’ or association between negation and quantification is thus satisfied. With respect to our enquiry, bare ne is found in contexts where a Q feature is provided in the discourse by the interaction of verbs like pouvoir, for which an ILP and an SLP reading are available, and their non-finite complement clause, which may or may not target the SLP reading. When the SLP reading is targeted, bare ne is used. When the SLP reading is not targeted, ne pas is used. Schapansky’s claim (2002) that, when negation is non-quantifying, no associate is needed and bare ne can occur by itself, is inaccurate in that ne must be linked to a Q feature, whether provided by an associate such as pas, or by the discourse

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

107

(e.g., je ne peux danser ‘I am unable to dance’). In the absence of a Q feature, bare ne cannot be used (e.g., *je ne danse ‘I don’t dance’, *je ne sais danser ‘‘I don’t know how to dance’). The most likely context in which this Q feature is available is a context involving a modal or achievement verb taking a non-finite complement clause (see section 4.2 for an account). Since internal and external negation can be distinguished by different uses of the negative markers in French, we will review the properties of both internal and external negation with special attention being paid to French bare ne and ne pas. Not only do internal and external negation differ in their truth value, they also differ in their other properties. 2.1. Strong and weak According to Horn (1989:138), internal negation is strong while external negation is weak. As seen earlier, the distinction strong/weak negation is based on the fact that contrary negation unilaterally entails its contradictory. This distinction can be expressed in French by two negators, ne pas and bare ne, as seen in (9) repeated from (7). 9.

a.

Je ne sais pas ou` aller. ‘I don’t know where to go’

b.

Je ne sais ou` aller. ‘I don’t know where to go’

In (9a), ne pas has a strong reading associated with internal negation. It is said of me that I don’t know where to go. In (9b), bare ne has a weak reading associated with external negation. The sentence simply describes a situation in which I am unable to decide where to go (Larrive´e, 1995; Schapansky, 2002). (9a) unilaterally entails (9b). I have no knowledge of where to go, therefore I am unable to decide where to go. The reverse does not hold. It is not because I am unable to decide where to go that I have no knowledge of where to go. The distinction strong/weak is carried over in generative treatments of French negation. Ne, being weak, has no inherent negative meaning and must receive a negative feature from a negation operator (e.g., pas) (Rowlett, 1998) (see also (57) section 4.1). The strong and weak reading of negation can be expressed by the position of n-words in Romance languages. 10.

a.

Nadie ha venido/No ha venido nadie. (Spanish) nobody has come/not has come nobody

b. Nessuno e` venuto/Non e` venuto nessuno.(Italian) nobody is come/not is come nobody c.

Ningue´m veio/Na˜o veio ningue´m. (Portuguese) nobody came/not came nobody

d. Personne n’est venu/Il n’est venu personne. (French) nobody not is come/there not is come nobody ‘No one came/there came no one’ According to native speakers’ judgements, the preverbal n-word in (10a–c) brings a strong reading to the sentence and refers to a set of entities whose existence is presupposed in the discourse, hence D(iscourse)-linked in the sense of Pesetsky (1987), as in I invited ten people and none of them came. The preverbal n-word thus has a presuppositional reading in Spanish (10a), Italian (10b) and Portuguese (10c), which is associated with strong internal negation. According to the same native speakers’ judgements, the postverbal n-word brings a weak reading to the sentence, associated with neutral descriptions, where the existence of no entity is presupposed in the discourse, hence non-D-linked (Pesetsky, 1987), as in Ten people came yesterday. Today there came no one. The postverbal n-word thus has a non-presuppositional reading which is associated with weak external negation. In these languages, the D-linked n-word must be preverbal while the non-D-linked n-word can stay in postverbal position. In French, however, the preverbal n-word in (10d) may or may not refer to entities whose existence is presupposed in the discourse context. As in English, it can be ambiguous between a presuppositional and a non-presuppositional reading. In impersonal constructions the postverbal n-word can only have a non-presuppositional reading.

108

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

In French, the strong/weak distinction can be expressed by the interaction of the type of negative markers with negative indefinites, such as qui que ce soit ‘anyone’ (lit. who ever it may), which must in principle occur inside the scope of negation, whether internal or external, as seen in (11). 11.

a.

Je n’ai pas vu qui que ce soit/*qui que ce soit ne m’a pas vue. ‘I didn’t see anyone/*anyone didn’t see me’

b. Je n’ai vu qui que ce soit/qui que ce soit ne m’a vue. ‘I didn’t see anyone/*anyone did not see me’ In this context, it is pas that is optional since the association between negation and quantification is satisfied, the indefinite qui que ce soit bearing a quantifying feature (Schapansky, 2002). When qui que ce soit ‘anyone’ is constructed with pas in (11a), the indefinite cannot precede but must follow pas. In (11b) however, qui que ce soit can either precede or follow ne. When qui que ce soit precedes ne, it is contextually marked. For example, it can be used as a report to one’s activity: I had to do something unknown to, or unseen by, anyone and I did succeed, hence the report qui que ce soit ne m’a vue. The difference between (11a) and (11b) can be explained by the distinction strong/weak, internal/external negation. Since strong internal negation presupposes the existence of its subject, qui que ce soit, which is non-presuppositional, cannot occur as subject, being outside the scope of internal negation, hence the ungrammaticality in (11a). Since weak external negation is non-presuppositional, nonpresuppositional qui que ce soit can occur as subject being inside the scope of external negation, hence the grammaticality in (11b) (see section 4.2). 2.2. Categorical and non-categorical While internal negation is categorical, external negation is non-categorical. The distinction between categorical and non-categorical negation relates to the two modes of judgement, categorical and thetic, developed by Brentano and Marty in the late nineteenth century and discussed in Kuroda (1972) (Horn, 1989:43). A categorical, or double, judgement involves two separate acts: ‘‘the recognition of a subject and the affirmation or denial of the predicate with respect to that subject’’. A categorical judgement involves pairing predicates with objects. It takes a presupposed (=given, thematic) object, the book, and relates this object to a predicate, (the book) is on the table, or denies this relationship, (the book) is not on the table. ‘‘The negation of a categorical (subject–predicate) judgement, of either singular or general form, denies the association of the subject and the predicate’’ (Horn, 1989:477). The thetic, or simple, judgement involves only one act: ‘‘the recognition or rejection of the material of a judgement’’ (Horn, 1989:510). No object is singled out whose existence is presupposed, hence no pairing between subject and predicate occurs. A thetic judgement simply presents an object, which can be an entity or an eventuality, and thus asserts or denies the existence of that object (Ladusaw, 2000:236): there is a book on the table, or there isn’t a book on the table. Existential and impersonal constructions are the hallmark of thetic sentences. Although existential and impersonal constructions are all thetic, not all thetic sentences are existentials or impersonals (see Kuroda, 1972, 1992; Lambrecht, 1994; Sasse, 1987; Schapansky, 2004b). The categorical/thetic distinction can be expressed in negative sentences by case marking, as in (12) for Russian (Horn, 1989:512).1 12.

1

a.

Dokumenty ne obnaruzilis’. document.NOM.P NEG were-found.P ‘The documents were not found’

b.

Dokumentov ne obnaruzilos’. document.GEN.P NEG were-found.N.S ‘Documents were not found = there were found no documents’

The abbreviations used in this paper are: ABL = ablative postposition; FORM = formative affix; GEN = genitive case; IND = indicative mood; = neuter gender; NEG = negation; NOM = nominative case; NONIND = non-indicative mood; P = plural, PERF = perfective aspect; S = singular; 3 = third person. N

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

109

When the subject is presupposed, as in (12a), it takes the nominative case and the past participle agrees in number with it, thus showing the relation between the subject and the predicate. When the subject is not presupposed, as in (12b), it takes the genitive case and the past participle remains in an unmarked form, singular neuter, thus showing the lack of relation between the subject and the predicate. While (12a) has a categorical, (12b) has a thetic reading. The categorical/thetic distinction can also be expressed by word order, as in (13) for the French counterparts of Russian. 13.

a.

Les documents n’ont pas e´te´ trouve´s. ‘The documents were not found’

b. *Des documents n’ont pas e´te´ trouve´s. ‘Documents were not found’ c.

Il n’a pas e´te´ trouve´ de documents. ‘Documents were not found = there were found no documents’

When the existence of the subject is presupposed, as in (13a), it is usually definite and occurs sentence initially with the participle agreeing in number and gender with it. It is said of the documents that they were not found. Hence (13a) has a categorical reading. When the existence of the subject is not presupposed, as in (13b), the subject is indefinite and cannot occur sentence initially. It must occur after the negated verb, as in (13c). The participle no longer agrees in number and gender with the subject. It takes an unmarked form. The postverbal nominal takes the partitive de and the discourse operator il is inserted (see section 4.2, p. 56). The sentence is thus impersonal, therefore thetic. Following Gazdar (1979), Horn points out that ‘‘no natural language seems to employ two distinct negative operators which correspond to internal and external negation’’ (p. 366), as seen above for Russian and French which may use case and word order respectively to achieve the same effect. The above statement may be qualified in the light of the Nade¨b data discussed below. Nade¨b, a Brazilian indigenous language of the Maku´-Puina´ve family, shows two strategies for negating a clause, predicate term negation in (14b) and sentential negation in (14c) (Weir, 1994:295–296). 14.

a.

Kalape´e´ a-o´o´t. child FORM-cry.IND ‘The child is crying’

b. Na-o´d kalape´e´. NEG-cry.NONIND child ‘The child isn’t crying (Lit., ‘the child is a non-crier’)’ c.

Dooh kalape´e´ a-o´d (bu´). child FORM-cry.NONIND ABL ‘The child isn’t crying (Lit., ‘the child crying is something non-existent’)’ NEG

Predicate term negation in (14b) is expressed by a negative morpheme na- prefixed to the verb and has scope over the predicate only, as indicated by the literal translation the child is a non-crier. Sentential negation in (14c) is expressed by the predicative NP dooh ‘something non-existent’ and has scope over the entire clause the child crying. In this case the whole structure is nominalised as indicated by bu, the ablative postposition. While na- in (14b) says of the child that he is a non-crier and thus marks internal negation and presupposes the existence of its subject, like categorical judgements, dooh in (14c) describes a negative eventuality in which the child crying is inexistent. It likely marks external negation and is neutral with respect to the presupposition of its subject, like thetic judgements. Whether na- has all the properties of internal negation and dooh all the properties of external negation remains to be determined at this point. 2.3. Contradictory and contrary The notion of contrariety and contradiction applies at both the morphological and the syntactic level. A sentence like he is human can have two meanings, he is a human being or he behaves like a human being. This ambiguity

110

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

remains under sentence negation. He is not human can mean either he is not a human being or he does not behave like one. With respect to morphological negation, this ambiguity remains with the negative prefix non-. He is non-human can mean either he is not a human being or he does not behave like one. This ambiguity disappears, however, with the negative prefix in-. He is inhuman can have only one meaning, he does not behave like a human being. In this context, while in- presupposes the existence of a human subject, non- does not make such a presupposition. The sentence he is inhuman is false if the human subject does not exist while the sentence he is non-human is true under the same condition. According to Horn (1989:281), when we have two competing negative affixes, such as iN- and non-, ‘‘the iN- form is understood pejoratively and is in contrary opposition with the corresponding positive stem, while the non-derivative is a simple evaluatively neutral contradictory’’. This can be attributed to the productivity of these forms. While non- is productive, iN- is less so. Quoting Zimmer (1964:87), Horn (1989:286) states that ‘‘ungenerated (lexically listed) forms tend to have a contrary interpretation, and generated forms (those resulting from a productive rule) contradictory’’. I assume that the same principle applies to negative affixes such as non- and iN-, as well as to negative particles, such as bare ne and (ne) pas. In registers where bare ne can be opposed to ne pas, bare ne has a low productivity and tends to be interpreted as contrary, whereas ne pas has a high productivity and tends to be interpreted as contradictory. This correlates to a difference in meaning for the predicate. Whereas je ne peux pas danser ‘I cannot dance’ means ‘I am not capable of dancing’ and is associated with an ILP reading, je ne peux dancer ‘I cannot dance’ means ‘I am unable to dance’ and is associated with an SLP reading. As above for he is non-human, it is the contradictory that entails the contrary and not the other way around: he is not capable of dancing, therefore he is unable to dance. It is not because he is unable to dance that he is not capable of dancing. This suggests that the distinction contrary/contradictory is not directly responsible for the direction of the entailment. When the same negative marker serves to express both contrary and contradictory negation and the meaning of the predicate remains unchanged, it is the contrary that entails the contradictory. When contrary and contradictory negation are expressed by two separate negative markers associated each with a different meaning of the same predicate, it is the contradictory that entails the contrary. Contrariety and contradiction are solely defined in terms of truth value. Contraries can be false simultaneously while contradictories divide the truth and falsity between them (Horn, 1989:8–9). By themselves contrariety and contradiction do not provide the scalar environment needed for the direction of the entailment. A sentence like this is an unhappy couple has only one meaning. No entailment can be inferred from a single meaning. A sentence like je peux danser ‘I can dance’ can have two meanings, a strong reading associated with ILPs: I am capable of dancing, and a weak reading associated with SLPs: I am able to dance. These two meanings provide the scalar environment needed for the entailment, from weak to strong, or upward entailing (Ladusaw, 1980). I am able to dance, therefore I am capable of dancing. The reverse does not hold. It is not because I am capable of dancing that I am able to dance. In negative sentences, however, the entailment is reversed from strong to weak, or downward entailing (Ladusaw, 1980). I am not capable of dancing, therefore I am unable to dance. The weak reading no longer entails the strong one. It is not because I am unable to dance that I am not capable of dancing. It is the distinction strong/weak, which provides the scalar environment needed for the entailment, from weak to strong in affirmative sentences and from strong to weak in negative sentences. When a sentence like this is an unhappy couple is negated, it is the availability of both a contrary and contradictory reading for negation that provides the context for the strong/weak distinction. It is the strong reading this is a not unhappy couple that entails the weak one: this is not an unhappy couple. When a strong reading can be opposed to a weak reading of negation, it is the strong reading, which entails the weak reading regardless of the distinction contrary/contradictory. When ne pas is opposed to bare ne in French, ne pas is associated with internal negation, which is strong, while bare ne is associated with external negation, which is weak. 2.4. Descriptive and metalinguistic According to Horn: ‘‘Two distinct uses of sentential negation must indeed be admitted, the marked, non-descriptive variety is not a truth functional or semantic operator on propositions, but rather an instance of the phenomenon of metalinguistic negation–a device for objecting to a previous utterance on any ground whatever, including the conventional and conversational implicata it potentially induces, its morphology, its style or register, or its phonetic realization’’. (p. 363)

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

111

Horn (op. cit.) sees metalinguistic negation as an extension of the use of the ordinary descriptive (object-language) negation operator and is dependent on the speaker’s unwillingness to assert, or accept another’s assertion, of a given proposition in a given way. According to Horn, metalinguistic negation focuses, not on the truth or falsity of a proposition, but on the assertability of an utterance. Whether external (weak, non-categorical) negation can be used metalinguistically remains to be determined. For example, in the French sentence in (17), am I denying a previous utterance il y a du pain sur la table ‘there is bread on the table’ or am I just observing the lack of bread on the table? 17.

Il n’y a pas de pain sur la table. ‘There is no bread on the table’

Without context, (17) likely has the latter interpretation, and therefore suggests that metalinguistic negation can only be a subtype of external negation. What then is external negation if it does not serve to deny a subject/predicate relation? In the sentence Sally is not happy, negation can be interpreted as internal and descriptive, denying the subject/ predicate relation. Negation can also be interpreted as external and metalinguistic: Sally is not happy, she is ecstatic. The question is: are all instances of external negation metalinguistic? The answer is no, as evidenced in French. As seen above French displays two negators ne pas and bare ne. Ne pas tends to be associated with internal negation and the ILP reading of predicates, is contradictory and categorical. In contrast, bare ne tends to be associated with external negation and the SLP reading of predicates, is contrary and non-categorical. If external negation is always metalinguistic, we can predict that bare ne is associated with metalinguistic negation. As shown below, this prediction is not borne out. Horn (1989) proposes three tests to distinguish descriptive from metalinguistic negation: negation incorporation, negative polarity and the two buts. If we apply these tests to French ne, bare ne fails two of the three tests. The first test involves the failure of metalinguistic negation to incorporate. 18.

a. She is not happy, she is ecstatic. b. She is unhappy,*she is ecstatic.

When not happy has a metalinguistic reading, as in (18a), it cannot be replaced by unhappy, as in (18b): the not cannot incorporate as un- and keep its metalinguistic reading. A similar phenomenon is observed in French. 19.

a.

Je ne suis pas capable de manger, je suis capable de de´vorer. ‘I am not able to eat, I am able to devour’

b. Je suis incapable de manger, *je suis capable de de´vorer. ‘I am unable to eat, *I am able to devour’ Pas capable in (19a) has a metalinguistic interpretation: my ability to eat is such that I am able to devour, not simply eat. Incapable in (19b) incorporating negation, cannot be interpreted metalinguistically. It signals an incapacity: I cannot eat, therefore I cannot devour. A similar contrast obtains in (20) between ne pas and bare ne. 20.

a.

Je ne peux pas manger, je peux de´vorer. ‘I cannot eat, I can devour’

b. Je ne peux manger, *je peux de´vorer. ‘I cannot eat, I can devour’ Bare ne in (20b) behaves like incorporated negation in (19b) in disallowing metalinguistic negation. Ne peux indicates that, for some reason or other my ability to eat is suspended. I cannot eat, therefore I cannot devour. Although negation expressed by bare ne and incorporated negation both disallow metalinguistic negation, they must be kept separate since the former cannot be replaced by the latter, as in (21b).

112

21.

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

a.

Allons ailleurs si ce n’est pas possible/si c’est impossible de manger ici. ‘Let’s go somewhere else if it is not possible/if it is impossible to eat here’

b. Allons ailleurs si ce n’est possible/*si c’est impossible de manger ici. ‘Let’s go somewhere else if it is not possible/*if it is impossible to eat here’ In (21a), pas possible signals that there is no possibility at all to eat here as, for example, the restaurant might be closed or out of business; hence pas possible can be replaced by impossible. In (21b), however, ne. . .possible indicates that the possibility of eating here is momentarily suspended. For example, though the restaurant might be open, getting a table would take too long; ne. . .possible cannot be equated with impossible. The second test involves the failure of metalinguistic negation to license NPIs, as seen in (22). 22.

a. He didn’t read some book, he read the Minimalist Program. b. He didn’t read any book (at all), *he read the Minimalist Program. c. He didn’t read ANY book, he read the Minimalist Program.

As a positive polarity item, some with a non-specific reading can occur under the scope of metalinguistic negation in (22a). When any has a negative polarity reading, it is not allowed under the scope of metalinguistic negation, as in (22b), unlike free choice any in (22c). Since negation expressed by bare ne cannot be interpreted metalinguistically in (20b), like incorporated negation in (19b), the second test, the failure of metalinguistic negation to license NPIs can only apply to ne pas. 23.

a.

Il ne veut pas lire un livre quelconque, il veut lire le Programme Minimaliste. ‘He doesn’t want to read some book, he wants to read the Program Minimalist’

b. Il ne veut pas lire quelque livre que ce soit, *il veut lire le Programme Minimaliste. ‘He doesn’t want to read any book, *he wants to read the Program Minimalist’ c.

*Il ne veut lire un livre quelconque, il veut lire le Programme Minimaliste. ‘He doesn’t want to read some book, he wants to read the Program Minimalist’

While the positive polarity item (PPI), un X quelconque with a non-specific reading is allowed under the scope of metalinguistic negation in (23a), the NPI quelque X que ce soit is not, as in (23b). While (23a) means that he does not want to read just any book but a specific one, (23b) means that he does not want to read at all. In (23c), bare ne indicates that he is unwilling to read, hence unwilling to read anything. The use of the PPI is thus unfelicitous in this context and the sentence is ungrammatical. The last test involves the distinction between the descriptive and metalinguistic reading of but. 24.

a. I do not have three children but four. b. I do not have three children but two.

While but in (24a) has a metalinguistic reading, but in (24b) has a concessive reading associated with descriptive negation. In French, ne pas can occur with metalinguistic mais in (25a), while bare ne cannot in (25b) (adapted from Larrive´e, 1995:35). 25.

a.

Max ne peut pas y aller demain, mais apre`s demain. ‘Max cannot go there tomorrow but the day after’

b. Max ne peut y aller demain, *mais apre`s demain. ‘Max cannot go there tomorrow but the day after’ The failure of bare ne to act as a metalinguistic negation operator is further evidenced in the pair of sentences given below.

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

26.

a.

113

Il n’a pas cesse´ de pleuvoir. ‘It didn’t stop raining’

b. Il n’a cesse´ de pleuvoir. ‘It didn’t stop raining’ Whereas (26a) is ambiguous between a metalinguistic and non-metalinguistic interpretation given in (27a–b) respectively, (26b) can only have a non-metalinguistic interpretation given in (28). 27.

a.

Il n’a pas cesse´ de pleuvoir, puisqu’il n’a pas commence´. ‘It didn’t stop raining since it didn’t start raining’

b. Il n’a pas cesse´ de pleuvoir une seule fois. ‘It didn’t stop raining once’ Il n’a cesse´ de pleuvoir. ‘It kept raining’

28.

The difference between (27b) and (28) relates to the scope of negation. While pas in (27b) has scope only over the predicate il n’a pas-cesse´ de pleuvoir, hence is associated with internal negation, bare ne has scope over the entire sentence ne (il a cesse´ de pleuvoir), associated with external negation (see section 4.2). The combination of wide scope negation and the verb cesser yields a positive interpretation for the sentence: it kept raining. What we can conclude from this is that bare ne cannot function as a metalinguistic negation operator, only ne pas can. This suggests that only the descriptive negation operator, which has narrow scope, can function as a metalinguistic operator, and that metalinguistic negation is only one type of external negation. Furthermore, the failure of bare ne to incorporate in (21b) suggests that the failure of negation incorporation in (18b) and (19b) may not be a property of metalinguistic negation but a property of external negation in general. The behavior of French bare ne discussed in the above data suggests that there is a third type of negation, which is neither descriptive in Horn’s sense nor metalinguistic. 2.5. Unmarked and marked While internal negation is considered to be unmarked, external negation is considered to be marked. If external negation is marked, in what ways is it marked? If external negation is marked we should expect restrictions. These restrictions can best be studied with respect to French bare ne and ne pas. As seen above, bare ne and ne pas behave differently. While ne pas is strong, categorical, contradictory and can serve as a metalinguistic negation operator, bare ne is weak, non-categorical, contrary and cannot serve as a metalinguistic negation operator. The distinction between bare ne and ne pas does not stop here. Bare ne, marking external negation, is subject to a number of restrictions, which are expected of marked external negation. It is well known that French ne is restricted to certain registers: the standard language and the formal spoken and written language. Elsewhere, ne tends to disappear. It is also well known that bare ne is restricted to certain syntactic contexts. Bare ne cannot serve to negate a simple sentence, as seen in (29a), or a simple imperative, as in (29b). 29.

a.

Je ne bouge *(pas). ‘I am not moving’

b. N’e´crivez *(pas)! ‘Don’t write!’ Bare ne can be associated with modal verbs, as seen earlier, or in subordinating contexts with or without the subjunctive mood, as in (30) (see Schapansky, 2002 for a detailed analysis of these contexts). 30.

a.

Je crains qu’il ne vienne. ‘I fear that he will come’

b.

Max est plus grand qu’on ne pense. ‘Max is taller than it is thought’

114

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

Partitive objects, lacking a quantification (Q) feature, cannot be licensed in non-quantifying contexts, hence the difference between (31a) and (31b). As argued by Schapansky (2002), pas, like beaucoup, is associated with a Q feature and allows partitive objects, while ne is not, and bare ne, in principle, disallows partitive objects (cf. Muller, 1995), hence the difference between (31c) and (31d). Je n’ache`te pas des livres is possible under a metalinguistic interpretation: je n’ache`te pas des livres mais des magazines. When bare ne co-occurs with a modal verb, however, partitive objects are allowed in the non-finite complement clause, as in (31e). As argued by Schapansky (2006:258), the modal verb pouvoir provides the Q feature necessary to license partitive objects. Pouvoir acheter des livres implies that it is possible to buy books more than once. 31.

a.

J’ache`te des/*de livres. ‘I buy/am buying books’

b. J’ache`te beaucoup *des/de livres. ‘I buy/am buying many books’ c.

Je n’ache`te pas *des/de livres. ‘I don’t buy/am not buying books’

d. *Je n’ache`te des/de livres. ‘I don’t buy/am not buying books’ e.

Je ne peux acheter *des/de livres. I cannot buy books’

This can be opposed to n-words. Ne pas does not allow n-words since the negative association between negation and quantification is already satisfied, hence the ungrammaticality of (32a), unless we have double negation. In the absence of pas, the negative association can be satisfied by other quantifiers, as in (32b). 32.

a.

*Je ne vois pas personne. ‘I don’t see anyone’

b. Je ne vois personne. ‘I don’t see anyone’ Schapansky further argues that ne is associated with the feature [+Affect], which is responsible for the behavior of bare ne which must be construed to get interpreted as negative. The feature [+Affect] is adapted from the affective feature of Haegeman (1995) associated with operators triggering movement or licensing negative polarity. In Schapansky (2002:813–815), it is used, for example, to account for the incorporation of negation into non-inherently negative predicates in negation raising contexts. In (30a), craindre que ne ‘fear that not’ is semantically derived from espe´rer que ne pas ‘hope that not’ which yields ne pas espe´rer que ‘not hope that’ after negation raising. When ne pas espe´rer que is marked by the feature [+Affect], we obtain craindre que ne (Schapansky, 2002:815). A number of predicates (e.g., craindre ‘fear’, empeˆcher ‘prevent’, nier ‘deny’, e´viter ‘avoid’, douter ‘doubt’) can be inherently negative or can have their negative meaning derived from the incorporation of negation in negation raising contexts. The inherent negative meaning of the predicate can be distinguished from its non-inherent negative counterpart in embedding. While the inherent negative meaning of the predicate requires the indicative mood in the finite complement clause (33a), the non-inherent negative meaning requires the subjunctive mood in its finite complement clause (33b) (Schapansky, 2002:814). 33.

a.

Il nie qu’il est venu. ‘He denies that he came’

b.

Il nie qu’il soit venu. ‘He denies that he came’

While (33a) implies that he came, (33b) does not have this implication. Whether he came or did not come is not known. While nier in (33a) is inherently negative and means not admit, nier in (33b) is not inherently negative

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

115

and means disclaim. It is in this latter context that bare ne can be used in the complement clause, as in (30b) (cf. Muller, 1978). Listing all the contexts in which ne can appear as opposed to ne pas will add weight to the difference between bare ne and ne pas, but will not advance our study of the fundamental difference between bare ne and ne pas. These contexts are listed in Larrive´e (1995) with some form of analysis provided. Some of these contexts are also discussed in Rowlett (1998) within the generative framework. Schapansky (2002) offers a detailed analysis of the distinction between ne and ne pas in terms of contrariety and contradiction, providing an alternative approach. We need not repeat this analysis here. What we can assume at this point is that bare ne, expressing external negation is restricted to certain registers and certain contexts which may or may not exclude pas, while ne pas itself is not subject to such restrictions. In registers where ne is lost, negation can be ambiguous between an internal and external reading. The external reading, however, can be made explicit by various devices, such as the insertion of trop ‘quite’ in Je sais pas trop ou` aller ‘I don’t quite know where to go’ or the replacement of the sequence ne + verb, e.g., ne cesser ‘not cease’, by a verb with similar meaning, e.g., continuer ‘keep’. What we can conclude from our study of ne, pas and the two negations is that internal and external negation have different properties, and external negation need not be metalinguistic. While bare ne is associated with external negation, ne pas is associated with internal negation. Only the operator associated with internal negation can serve as a metalinguistic negation operator. In the next section, we will further examine bare ne as marking non-categorical external negation. We will analyse the non-standard uses of bare ne as evidenced in the literature (for the standard uses of ne, see Rowlett, 1998). The data discussed is drawn from Larrive´e (1995). 3. NE and thetic negation 3.1. The categorical/thetic distinction revisited In French the sentence L’enfant ne pleure pas ‘the child isn’t crying’ can have an ILP or SLP reading. When we have an ILP reading the sentence means L’enfant n’est pas un pleureur ‘the child is not a crier’. When we have an SLP reading, the sentence means L’enfant n’est pas en train de pleurer ‘the child is not crying’. According to Ladusaw (2000), a sentence like l’enfant ne pleure pas ‘the child is not crying’ is ambiguous between a categorical and thetic reading. When we have a categorical reading, the sentence means il est dit de l’enfant qu’il ne pleure pas (it is said of the child that he does not cry). When we have a thetic reading, we have a description of a negative eventuality expressing the absence of crying activity on the child’s part (see also Kuroda, 1972, 1992; Sasse, 1987; Horn, 1989). In French, the categorical can be distinguished from the thetic reading by impersonal constructions, as seen in (34). 34.

a.

Une lettre est arrive´e. ‘A letter arrived’

b.

Il est arrive´ une lettre. ‘There arrived a letter’

While (34a) is ambiguous between a categorical and thetic reading, (34b) can only have a thetic reading. Impersonal constructions cannot, in principle, be constructed out of unergative predicates, as in (35) (see also Legendre, 1989; Achard, 2004; Schapansky, 2004a). 35.

a.

Un enfant pleure. ‘A child is crying’

b.

*Il pleure un enfant. ‘There is a child crying’

This suggests that the thetic reading of unergative predicates cannot be expressed by ordinary syntactic means. It is nevertheless possible to express this reading, as in (36). 36.

Il y a un enfant qui pleure. ‘There is a child who is crying’

116

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

Sasse (1987:538) calls this construction a split (thetic) structure, which consists of an existential assertion il y a un enfant ‘there is a child’ and a statement made about the assertion in the form of a relative clause qui pleure ‘who is crying’. The negative counterpart of (36) is given in (37). 37.

a.

Il n’y a pas un enfant qui pleure. ‘There isn’t a child who is crying’

b. Il y a un enfant qui ne pleure pas. ‘There is a child who is not crying’ While (37a) can only mean ‘there isn’t a single child that is crying’, (37b) implies the existence of other children who are crying. This implication is not found in (36). The data suggest that the thetic reading of unergative predicates cannot be expressed in negative sentences. The issue is then: can the thetic reading of negated unergative predicates be expressed at all? The answer is yes, as demonstrated below. 3.2. Ne The negation in a sentence like L’enfant ne pleure pas can be seen as an absence or inexistence of activity on the subject’s part: the child is not crying, which is associated with an SLP reading of the predicate. To this absence of activity corresponds a state. Not cry can be seen as ‘keep quiet’. To many negated unergative predicates corresponds a state: not speak/remain mute, not eat/remain unfed, not sleep/keep awake, not work/remain idle/unemployed, not want/remain unwilling, not move/remain immobile, etc. The state reading of these predicates is opaque to the neutral reading of negation and needs a special context in order to be brought to light. Languages, which do not distinguish internal from external negation, have little chance of expressing the state reading of negated unergative predicates. In French however, bare ne is associated with external negation. We can thus expect bare ne to mark the thetic reading of unergative predicates. The corpus presented below is not exhaustive. Data involving negative polarity or the subjunctive mood have been excluded from this study. They are found in Schapansky (2002) and elsewhere and need not concern our inquiry. The data that form the object of our study are drawn from the literature, as presented by Larrive´e (1995), where the source for the data can be found. The data are briefly discussed in Larrive´e from a non-formal point of view rather than from a theoretical perspective. A systematic analysis of the data has not yet been carried out. The reason for this state of affairs is that ne is very often considered as a token of the formal language with no semantic import, hence ignored. When bare ne is found in non-standard contexts, ne is usually ignored as the data containing ne may be difficult to explain. The data is divided into three categories: root (simple) clauses including declaratives and imperatives, modal/ achievement verbs in main and non-finite complement clauses, and subordinate clauses in the indicative mood. 3.2.1. Root clauses Root clauses, in principle, do not allow external negation. According to Horn (1989:471), the categorical (subject/ predicate) nature of root sentences disallows all one-place, truth functional operators, including the external negation connective. This can explain why, in French, simple declarative and imperative sentences do not allow bare ne. 38.

a.

*Tu ne bouges. ‘You don’t move’

b. *Ne bouge! ‘Don’t move!’ Nevertheless, given the appropriate contexts, bare ne can appear in both declarative and imperative sentences, as seen in (39) for declaratives and (40) for imperatives (Larrive´e, 1995). 39.

a.

C’est une beˆte e´gare´e, ou morte, car elle ne bouge. (p. 32) ‘This is a beast stunned, or dead, since she does not move’

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

40.

b.

Mais Belzebuth ne re´pond. Son regard est dilate´ par la re´ve´lation des forces secre`tes de l’homme. (p. 32) ‘But Belzebuth does not answer. His eyes are dilated by the revelation of the secret forces of man’

c.

Aux Pyre´ne´es se rejoignirent, tous!. . .Fritz et Franc¸ais!. . .ne se battirent, burent. . .(p. 32) ‘To the Pyrene´es came together, all!. . .Germans and French! . . . did not fight, drank. . .’

a.

Ne me defiez! (p. 28) ‘Do not defy me!’

b.

Ne manquez le ‘‘Nouveliste’’ de mardi prochain. (p. 28) ‘Do not miss the ‘Novelist’ of next Tuesday.’

c.

Le bien d’autrui, tu ne prendras (p. 34) The goods of another, take not’

d.

Manquer l’e´cole, ne ferez (p. 34) ‘Skip school, do not’

117

The question is how to interpret the data. The first observation we can make is that the use of bare ne is a discourse device designed to attract the hearer’s attention. The intended effect would be neutralised by the co-occurrence of pas. In addition to the discourse effect, ne brings a different meaning to the sentence. Whereas ne pas would signal a simple absence of activity, movement in (39a), answer in (39b) or fight in (39c), bare ne targets the state associated with this lack of activity. Elle ne bouge in (39a) doesn’t mean ‘she doesn’t move’ but ‘she remains immobile, with no sign of life’. Belzebuth ne re´pond in (39b) doesn’t mean ‘Belzebuth doesn’t answer’ but ‘Belzebuth remains mute, stunned by the revelation’. Fritz et Franc¸ais ne se battirent in (39c) doesn’t mean ‘Germans and French didn’t fight’ but ‘Germans and French kept their peace, ignoring the enmity between their countries’. A similar effect can also be observed in English in certain uses of not in the works of Jane Austen, as in (41). 41.

a. b. c. d. e.

But her eyes were closed, she breathed not, her face was like death. (P 86) But she liked it not. (P 6) Her mind was quite determined and varied not. (MP 202) But now she feared it not. (E 360) Her eyes were towards Donwell as she walked but she saw him not. (E 378)

By the early modern English period, phonologically weak ne was lost, replaced by postverbal not, as in But I thought not ye had marked it so plaine or O, fear me not (Mazzon, 2004:66, 78). Not, which like French pas was used to reinforce negation, became the sole marker of sentence negation. Eventually, not shifted from the position after, to a position before the verb. This positional shift resulted in a weakening of not. Soon preverbal not required the support of do in the absence of an auxiliary. While preverbal not became the unmarked form of negation, postverbal not became marked and could be used to convey certain meanings. According to Mazzon (2004:78–80), postverbal not is associated with a restricted set of verbs (e.g., say, doubt, care, know, fear, etc. (Engblom, 1938:26–27)) and constitutes in Jane Austen’s work a stylistically marked variant of preverbal not (Curie, 1992). However, in the examples (41a–c), the verbs, in particular the verb breathe, are not likely to belong to the above mentioned set of verbs. These sentences are stylistically marked. Nevertheless, a careful examination of the contexts in which these sentences occur reveals that postverbal not, like French bare ne, brings a different meaning from what would be expected of preverbal not. These different shades of meanings have not been studied, as far as I know. In the above contexts, postverbal not likely targets a contrary interpretation. In (41a), she breathed not can be interpreted as ‘she remained breathless (lifeless after a bad fall)’. In the context of (41b), she liked it not can be interpreted as ‘she took a dislike to it (the peerage book showing her as still unmarried after so many years)’. In the context of (41c), her mind varied not can be interpreted as ‘her mind remained unchanged (she took a decision and stuck to it)’. In the context of (41d), she feared it not can be interpreted as ‘she was tranquilised

118

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

(the source of her fear no longer existing)’. In the context of (41e), she saw him not can be interpreted as ‘she failed to see him (she was looking to see if he was coming from Donwell but he did not appear)’. Similar examples are found in Dickens’ Dombey and Son; for example ‘but when he plodded in his way, and saw her not, the tears were in her eyes as she stood watching him’ (1968:474). In both French and English, negation realised by bare ne and postverbal not has a contrary reading, which is unexpected from the form of the sentence, hence their strong effect on the reader. This is carefully prepared by the writer by the description of a scene in (39a) and (41a), or by the use of mais or but as discourse connectives. If the ground is prepared for the use of bare ne in declaratives, it is not necessarily so in the imperatives. Bare ne occurs right at the beginning of the imperative in (40a, b). In (40c, d) it is preceded, however, by a complement. The complements found in the imperatives do not refer to any object in particular but have a general reference. Le Nouveliste in (40b) does not refer to an individual number of the journal but to the next edition of it. Le bien d’autrui in (40c) does not refer to the specific good of someone in particular, but in general to what does not belong to the addressee who is undetermined, tu ‘you (s), whoever you are’. Manquer l’e´cole in (40d) does not refer to the act of skipping school on a particular occasion but to the concept of it. Here as well the addressee, realised as the inflection – ez, does not refer to any addressee in particular but is undetermined ‘you (p), whoever you are’, as in (40a, b). Imperatives with undetermined addressees are not personal but impersonal. They cannot be interpreted categorically, only non-categorically. This is marked by the use of bare ne. That impersonal imperatives are not categorical is evidenced by the fact that they can be replaced by a periphrastic impersonal construction, as in (42), unlike personal imperatives as in (43). 42.

a.

Qu’on ne me de´fie pas! ‘Let me not be defied!’

b. Qu’on ne manque pas le ‘‘Nouveliste’’ de mardi prochain! ‘May the Novelist of next Tuesday not be missed!’ c.

Le bien d’autrui, qu’on ne le prenne pas! ‘The goods of another, let them not take it!’

d. Manquez l’e´cole, qu’on ne le fasse pas! ‘Skip school, let them not do it!’ 43.

a.

Ne venez pas ici! (6¼ Qu’on ne vienne pas ici!) ‘Don’t come here! (6¼ Let them not come here!)’

b. Ne ferme pas la porte! (6¼ Qu’on ne ferme pas la porte!) ‘Don’t close the door! (6¼ Let the door not be closed!)’ In impersonal imperatives, the prohibition issued is neither personal nor specific, hence the use of the impersonal pronoun on ‘one’ and the use of the subjunctive mood in conjunction with que ‘that’ in (42), the counterpart of (40). The prohibition is addressed to a general audience, which is considered as a collection of, or as individual entities. The action to be prohibited is not limited by time, unless specified in the prohibition, as in (42b), nor is it restricted to a set of entities. In personal imperatives however, the prohibition is targeted at specific individuals and is valid only at the time the prohibition is issued. Hence personal imperatives cannot be replaced by an impersonal perisphrastic construction in (43) without changing the restriction on time and/or individuals. Ne venez pas ici is not the equivalent of qu’on ne vienne pas ici. The only example of a negated imperative found in the English corpus is given in (44). 44.

Tell me not that I am too late. (P 188)

Postverbal not alone remains emphatic in English. The imperative here is personal unlike the imperatives in (40). Not, however, does not have scope over the entire sentence ‘do not tell me that I am too late’, but rather only over the subordinate clause ‘tell me that I am not too late’. The raising of not from the subordinate to the main clause brings a contrary reading to negation (see Horn, 1989; Schapansky, 2002). Hence not in (44) is non-categorical.

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

119

3.2.2. Modal/achievement verbs The most common occurrence of bare ne is with modal or achievement verbs in main clauses which are followed most of the time by a non-finite complement clause, as seen in (45). Here as well, bare ne signals contrary negation. 45.

a.

Ceux qui venaient ne daignaient s’asseoir. (Larrive´e, 1995:32) ‘Those who came did not deign sit down = judged it worthless to sit down’

b. Je ne parvenais a` pencher d’un coˆte´ ou de l’autre. (p. 32) ‘I could not incline one way or another = I remained undecided’ c.

Il connait tous les me´tiers et a pratique´ toutes les sciences, mais il ne trouve a` gagner son pain. (p. 32) ‘He knows all the professions and has tried all the sciences, but he did not find it possible to earn his bread = he remains unemployed’

d. et tu ne me laisses aller. (p. 32) ‘and you let not me go = you keep detaining me’ e.

Encore tu n’avais commence´ a` naıˆtre. (p. 33) ‘Yet you had not begun being born = you were still uninitiated’

f.

C’est toujours des choses de calcul. . .c¸a n’en finit. (p. 33) ‘These are always things of conniving . . .there is no end to them = they keep coming’

g. Depuis ce temps, il n’arreˆte de tousser. (p. 33) ‘Since that time, he did not stop coughing = he keeps coughing’ As seen in the previous section, when bare ne occurs with a modal verb, it signals contrary negation associated with the SLP reading of these verbs: pouvoir = be able to, vouloir = be willing to, etc. When bare ne occurs with a non-modal verb, it occurs with achievement verbs marking a transition between two states, A and B. The availability of two states makes contrary negation possible. While regular contradictory negation bears on the transition point, as in il n’arreˆte pas de pleuvoir ‘it doesn’t stop raining’, contrary negation bears on the state preceding the transition point, as in il n’arreˆte de pleuvoir ‘it keeps raining’. Hence bare ne can be used with achievement verbs marking the beginning (commencer) or the end point (arreˆter) of a state. Similar data can be found in English, as seen below. 46.

a. She knew not that a visitor had arrived. (NA 231). b. Mrs Bennet deigned not to make any reply; but unable to contain herself, began scolding one of her daughters. (PP 6) c. I doubt not that you are an adept in the science yourself. (PP 25) d. And Miss Lucas. . .cared not how soon that establishment was gained. (PP 122)

In these contexts as well, negation can be interpreted as contrary. In (46a) she knew not means she was unaware (of the arrival of the visitor, being somewhere else). In (46b), Mrs Bennet deigned not means Mrs Bennet judged it worthless to reply (she could not find any good reply to make). In (46c), I doubt not means I am certain (that you can dance, I saw you); In (46d) Miss Lucas cared not means Miss Lucas was uninterested (she had gained her point, the rest did not matter). In the English corpus under consideration, the most common use of not in main clauses is after the verb know. This is not surprising since know has various SLP readings that can be brought easily to light in context, as further evidenced in (47). 47.

He knew not that he had a pre-engaged heart to attack. Of that, he had no suspicion. (MP 326)

120

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

In some contexts, bare ne can occur in non-finite complement clauses. 48.

a.

Je suis presque heureux de ne pouvoir reflechir. (Larrive´e, 1995:31) ‘I am almost happy to not be able to think = to be unable to think’

b. Et Ce´line s’obstinait a` ne vouloir. (p. 31) ‘And Celine persisted to not want = to be unwilling’ c.

Le voyant de´c¸u de ne trouver parmi elles, la compagne. . .(p. 28) ‘Seeing him disappointed not to find among them, the companion. . . = disapppointed to miss his companion’

Here as well, bare ne co-occurs with modal verbs such as pouvoir et vouloir and achievement verbs such as trouver. However, the presence of a modal/achievement verb is necessary but not sufficient to guarantee the occurrence of ne. 49.

a.

*J’espe`re ne pouvoir refle´chir. ‘I hope to not be able to think’

b. *Il pense ne trouver parmi elle, la compagne. . . ‘He thinks to not find among them, the companion. . .’ It is the presence of the preposition de in eˆtre heureux de, eˆtre de´c¸u de and the preposition a` in s’obstiner a`, which allows the co-occurrence of bare ne and modal/achievement verbs in non-finite complement clauses (see section 4.1, pp. 47–48 for an account). 3.2.3. Subordinate clauses When bare ne is found in subordinate clauses, it is usually associated with negative polarity (see Schapansky, 2002). Bare ne is, in principle, not allowed in ordinary subordinate clauses. Nevertheless it is not totally excluded from them, as seen below. 50.

a.

Elle jette son de´volu sur un homme qui ne la connait du tout (Larrive´e, 1995:31) ‘She throws herself on a man that does not know her at all’

b. Cet ami de Daniel qui lui preˆtait sa chambre quand ils n’avaient ou` cacher leur amour. (p. 30) ‘This friend of Daniel who lent him his bedroom whenever they had not anywhere to hide their love affair’ c.

Les feuilles que l’hiver ne ternit quand il passe. (p. 31). ‘The leaves that the winter does not fade when it passes’

d. On s’asseoit pour manger. Aussitoˆt l’envie de vomir revient. Le pain est celui qu’il n’a mange´, celui dont le manque l’a fait mourir. (p. 31) ‘We sit down to eat. Right away the want to throw up comes back. The bread is the bread that he did not eat, the bread the want of which made him die’ e.

Une occasion qui ne se repre´sentera d’ici longtemps. (p. 33) ‘An opportunity which will not present itself again for a long time’

In this context, negation has a contrary reading. Un homme qui ne la connait du tout in (50a) does not mean a man unknown to, but a man totally unacquainted with her. Quand ils n’avaient ou` cacher leurs amours in (50b) means when the place where they normally hide their love affair was not available. Les feuilles que l’hiver ne ternit in (50c) means the leaves that remain unspoiled through the winter. Le pain qu’il n’a mange´ in (50d) means the bread he was deprived of. Une occasion qui ne se repre´sentera in (50e) means an opportunity, which is unlikely to appear again. Adding pas to these contexts would neutralise the discourse effect brought by bare ne and would alter the meaning of the sentences (un homme qui ne la connait pas du tout = a total stranger; quand ils n’avaient pas ou` cacher leur amour = when they find no place where to hide their love affair; les feuilles que l’hiver ne ternit pas = the leaves that the winter cannot spoil; le pain est celui qu’il n’a pas mange´ = the bread he didn’t eat; une occasion qui ne se

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

121

Table 2 English not. Verbs

Do not V

V not

Breathe Like Vary See Tell that Know Deign Doubt Care Have Gain Mistake (be mistaken) Fear Have

Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not

Remain breathless Take a dislike Remain unchanged Fail to see Tell that not Be unaware/unsuspicious Judge it worthless Be certain Be uninterested Be without Lose Be unsure Be tranquilised Be deprived of

breathe like vary see tell that know judge it worthy doubt care have gain be mistaken fear have

repre´sentera pas d’ici longtemps = an opportunity that will not occur again for a long time). For example, the difference between le pain est celui qu’il n’a mange´ and le pain est celui qu’il n’a pas mange´ is that the former does not presupposes the existence of the bread (le pain est celui qu’il n’a mange´, *prends le (take it)) while the latter does (le pain est celui qu’il n’a pas mange´, prends le), therefore pas is inappropriate in the context. Similar data can be found in English, as seen in (51). 51.

a. But Ms Smith has not these eye-brows and eye-lashes. It is the fault of her face that she has them not. (E 48) b. And if Maria gained him not, she was now cool enough to dispense with any other revenge. (MP 194) c. If I mistake not, that was danced at Weymouth. (E 242)

In English as well, negation can be interpreted as contrary. She has them not in (51a) can mean she was deprived of them (nature decided otherwise). If Maria gained him not in (51b) can mean if Maria did without him. If I mistake not in (51c) can mark the lack of commitment on the speaker’s part: I am not quite sure, as si je ne me trompe does in French (Schapansky, 2002:820). The results of this analysis are summarised in Table 1 for French, and Table 2 for English. Although bare ne tends to occur with the present tense and the imperfect, the tense/aspect best suited for descriptions, there is no tense restriction as the simple past or the future can occur as well with bare ne. The emphatic reading of bare ne and postverbal not is due to the context in which these negative markers occur, linguistic context for bare ne, syntactic position for not. The French data discussed here show that the occurrence of bare ne is systematic and needs to be taken into account in any formal analysis of negation in French, such as the one provided in the next section. 4. French negation revisited 4.1. Quantifying negation Following Muller (1984, 1995), Schapansky (2002) argues that, in standard French, negation is not expressed by a single operator but rather is realised as a network of negative associations between ne and a quantifier: pas, personne, rien, jamais, gue`re. . .. This negative association is an association between [NEG]ation and [Q]uantification. While ne is [+NEG, Q], pas is [+NEG, +Q]. This explains the following data. 52.

a.

*Je ne vois. ‘I don’t see’

b. Je ne vois pas. ‘I don’t see’

122

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

c.

*Je ne vois de chiens dans la rue. ‘I don’t see any dogs in the street’

d. Je ne vois pas de chiens dans la rue. ‘I don’t see any dogs in the street’ e.

Je ne vois de chiens nulle part. ‘I don’t see any dogs anywhere’

Since ne in (52a) is not associated with a quantifier, the sentence fails as an expression of Q(uantifying)-negation, as opposed to (52b) which contains pas. The Q feature of pas is observed in ne pas in (52d). Since ne cannot get its Q feature from partitive objects being also [Q] in (52c), the sentence fails as an expression of Q-negation, as opposed to (52d) which contains pas. In (52e), however, pas is not expressed. Nevertheless, since nulle part is [+Q], a partitive object is allowed, the sentence satisfying the requirement on Negative Association. Generative accounts of negation in French fail to capture the essence of negation in this language. Within the Principles-and-Parameters framework, Rowlett (1998) argues that French ne is not inherently negative and must receive a [NEG] feature from the negative operator pas (or Op when pas is not expressed) in a specifier-head configuration under Dynamic Agreement, as schematised in (53).

53.

While pas originates as an adjunct to VP: [VP pas [VP]]], it moves to Spec,NegP and from there passes down a [NEG] feature to the clause in order for ne to be interpreted as negative. This account fails to capture the different shades of meaning which bare ne and ne pas bring to a negative sentence, contrary and contradictory negation, as seen in the last section (for more details see Schapansky, 2002). Within the Minimalist Program, Ziejlstra (2004) argues that while pas carries a [NEG] feature that is interpretable at LF (Logical form): [iNEG], ne carries a [NEG] feature that is uninterpretable at LF: [uNEG]. Pas moves to Spec,NegP to check the [uNEG] feature of ne, as all uninterpretable features must be checked. This is schematised in (54) (p. 172). 54. Here as well, pas originates as an adjunct to vP, [vP [vP]]. The Neg0 position is phonologically empty in the absence of ne but contains the [uNEG] feature. Ziejlstra furthermore stipulates the Neg0 [uNEG] is optionally spelled out in French. If this analysis can account for the optional use of ne, it cannot account for the data discussed in the preceding sections. Nevertheless, Ziejlstra’s analysis can be salvaged if we make the further stipulation that negation in French must be quantified. When it is quantified we have Q-negation. The feature that is checked is not [NEG] but [Q]. Keeping in line with Ziejlstra, we can stipulate that pas has a [Q] feature that is interpretable [iQ], whereas ne has a [Q] feature that is uninterpretable [uQ] and pas moves to Spec,QNegP to check the [uQ] feature of ne, as schematised in (55). 55. This analysis preserves the essence of the Negative Association between negation and quantification. This analysis also reflects the historical evolution of negation in French (see Schapansky, 2002:807). This development demonstrates how negation became internalised by the acquisition of a [Q] feature, which is still transparent in French. Negation in French has been internalised by the obligatory linkage of ne to indefinite quantifiers (also called minimisers) and which occurred within the vP domain.

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

56.

a.

123

Je ne marche pas. ‘Lit. I don’t walk a step’

b. Je ne dis mot. ‘Lit. I don’t say a word’ c.

Je ne bois goutte. ‘Lit. I don’t drink a drop’

We can consider the association between negation and quantification as negation binding a Q operator. This operator must be expressed for the sentences to be interpretable. 57.

a.

Je ne mange *(pas) de pain. ‘I don’t eat bread’

b. Je n’ache`te *(rien) de neuf. ‘I don’t buy anything new’ c.

Je n’ai vu *(personne) de malade. ‘I didn’t see anyone sick’

d. Je ne mange *(jamais) de beurre. ‘I never eat any butter’ e.

Je ne bois *(plus) de vin. ‘I don’t drink anymore wine’

f.

Je ne fais *(point) de grimaces. ‘I don’t make funny faces’

These sentences are ungrammatical without the negative quantifier. Each of these quantifiers brings a meaning. Pas is the general undetermined indefinite, while point is a stronger form of pas. Pas or point must be used in the absence of other indefinites. Rien is [human] while personne is [+human]. Jamais adds a temporal dimension and plus marks the end of a previous state of affairs. The development of negation in French sheds new light on Jespersen’s cycle (1924). When negation is reinforced, it is reinforced through quantification. The minimisers used in this reinforcement (e.g., pas ‘step’, rien ‘thing’, personne ‘person’) acquired a zero value in contact with negation. The negated event could then be interpreted as an event having a zero quantification (see Muller, 1995; Schapansky, 2002). This zero quantification is absent in sentences negated by bare ne. 58.

a.

Je ne sais pas ou` aller (tout est re´serve´). ‘I don’t know where to go (everything is booked out)’

b. Je ne sais ou` aller (je ne suis pas de´cide´). ‘I don’t know where to go (I am undecided)’ Whereas (58a) has a zero quantification and implies that there is no option, (58b) does not have such a quantification value and implies that there are several options to choose from, but that no decision has been made yet (for more details see Schapansky, 2002). It is the acquisition of quantification that allowed negation to be interpreted categorically, yielding a contradictory reading. This is one of the reasons why only Q-negation can be used metalinguistically in French. The non-internalised use of negation expressed by bare ne is incompatible with the narrow scope of negation associated with constituent negation. 59.

a.

Je ne peux pas partir demain, mais apre`s demain. ‘I cannot leave tomorrow but the day after tomorrow’

b. Je ne peux partir demain, *mais apre`s demain. ‘I cannot leave tomorrow but the day after tomorrow’

124

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

In (59a), pas having scope of demain ‘tomorrow’ only, serves to object to the day of departure previously mentioned, tomorrow, which is corrected to the day after tomorrow. In (59b), bare ne can only have scope over the entire sentence, hence cannot serve to mark constituent negation, hence cannot be used metalinguistically. Why other languages use contrary negation metalinguistically may relate to the absence of a second negative marker to distinguish between contradictory and contrary negation. This may also relate to the binding strategy associated with the negative markers in languages having two functionally distinct negative markers. That bare ne cannot serve to mark constituent negation is further evidenced in (60). 60.

a.

Je peux (ne) pas partir demain. ‘I can not leave tomorrow (it is possible for me not to leave tomorrow)’

b. *Je peux ne partir demain. ‘I can not leave tomorrow’ Whereas ne in conjunction with pas can negate the constituent partir demain in (60a), bare ne in (60b) cannot. Furthermore partir, being a non-modal non-achievement verb, cannot have a contrary reading. Nevertheless, in some contexts, bare ne can negate a constituent, as seen in (61) repeated from (48). 61.

a.

Je suis presque heureux de ne pouvoir reflechir. ‘I am almost happy to not be able to think = to be unable to think’

b. Ce´line s’obstinait a` ne vouloir. ‘Ce´line persisted to not want (= to be unwilling)’ c.

Le voyant de´c¸u de ne trouver parmi elles, la compagne. . . ‘Seeing him disappointed to not find (to miss) among them, the companion. . .’

In (61a) and in (61b), pouvoir and vouloir are modal verbs, which, together with bare ne, yield a contrary reading ‘be unable’ and ‘be unwilling’ respectively. In (61c), trouver is an achievement verb, which, together with bare ne, yields a contrary reading: ‘miss’. However, the constituent negated in (61a–c) is not a vP but a TP with the preposition de in (61a) and (61c) and the preposition a` in (61a) marking the upper bound of the non-finite complement clause. In French, de in eˆtre heureux de ‘be happy to’, eˆtre de´c¸u de ‘be disappointed in’ and a` in s’obstiner a` ‘to persist in’, are not complementizers but prepositions. Complementizers, in principle, do not change the type of predicate from individual to stage-level. Etre heureux ‘be (a) happy (person)’, eˆtre de´c¸u ‘be (a) disappointed (person)’, s’obstiner ‘be (an) obstinate (person)’ are all individual-level predicates, as opposed to eˆtre heureux de, eˆtre de´c¸u de, s’obstiner a` which are all stage-level predicates. Furthermore, complementizers, in principle, are devoid of semantic content like that and for for English and que for French. In the above data, de and a` keep their prepositional meaning. While de marks the source of some psychological state (e.g., happiness or deception), a` marks the location of some cognitive process (e.g. obstinacy). This is best illustrated in the sentence je pense a` partir ce soir ‘I am thinking of leaving tonight’ where partir ce soir is what my thoughts are resting on, which is marked by the preposition a` in French. The data discussed above suggests that bare ne appears, in a generative structure, above the TP (tense phrase) domain but below the complementizer position C0, the location of NegP in French (see also Rowlett, 1998; Ziejlstra, 2004). So far, we have seen that negation in French has acquired a Q value through the reinforcement of negation by minimisers. This added dimension to negation permitted the distinction between Q(uantified)-negation, having a builtin quantification, expressed by ne. . .pas/personne/rien etc. and non-quantified negation, lacking this built-in quantification, expressed by bare ne. Q-negation became associated with categorical judgements and contradiction, and became the unmarked form of negation in standard French and could be used metalinguistically. Non-quantified negation became restricted to contexts associated with a thetic judgement and contrariety, as shown in section 3. The question is how to analyse non-quantified negation as found in French. 4.2. Quantifying negation and discourse Non-categorical, non-quantified negation depends on the discourse context for its quantification. The most likely discourse context in which quantification is available is through contrary negation. Contrary negation may result from

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

125

Neg Raising (Horn, 1989), or as Schapansky (2002) puts it, Neg Transfer. Contrary negation can also result from the association of negation and a modal verb such as pouvoir ‘be capable, can’ or savoir ‘to know’ for which an SLP reading is available (see section 2). Contrary negation can also result from the association of negation with an achievement verb such as cesser ‘cease’ or trouver ‘find’ which can mark a state rather than the transition between two states (see section 3.2.2). Contrary negation can also be directly construed in the context with declaratives, hence the difference between (62a) and (62b). 62.

a.

*Elle ne bouge. ‘It (she) doesn’t move’

b. La beˆte est e´gare´e, ou morte, car elle ne bouge. ‘The beast is stunned, or dead, since it doesn’t move’ In (62a), negation cannot be interpreted as quantifying since a negative quantifier is missing and no other source for quantification is available. Negation cannot be interpreted as contrary in the absence of one of the contexts discussed above. In (62b) however, the context sets the frame for interpreting negation non-categorically. Elle ne bouge can be interpreted as le fait qu’elle bouge est inexistant ‘her moving does not exist’, hence implying a contrary reading for negation elle est immobile ‘it is motionless’ as well as providing a source for quantification. In principle, subject pronouns tend to have a categorical reading as they represent the theme of the discourse. In non pro-drop languages, however, pronouns, which are obligatory, may or may not have a categorical reading depending on the context. Since elle ne bouge is not allowed by itself in (62a) but permitted under the scope of car in (62b), elle, which must be used as no other option is available, cannot be singled out to make a double or categorical judgement. In all declarative root clauses in which bare ne occurs, the context provides a frame to interpret negation noncategorically. Bare ne is associated with external negation, which is neutral with respect to the presupposition of the subject. In contexts where bare ne occurs, the presupposition of the existence of the subject is suspended; hence root clauses containing bare ne can be interpreted non-categorically. In Mais Belzebuth ne re´pond. Son regard est dilate´. . . ‘But Belzebuth does not answer. His eyes are dilated. . .’, mais ‘but’ warns the reader that something unexpected is happening and son regard est dilate´ tells you why. Negation can only be interpreted non-categorically: la re´ponse de Belzebut est inexistante ‘Belzebuth’s answer is inexistent’, thus implying a contrary reading for negation: Belzebuth reste muet ‘Belzebuth remains mute’. In Aux Pyre´ne´es se rejoignirent, tous!. . .Fritz et Franc¸ais!. . .ne se battirent. . . ‘To the Pyre´ne´es came together, all!. . .Germans and French!. . .didn’t fight. . .’, the meeting of Germans and French is unbelievable, as they are enemies and bare ne in conjunction with the simple or definite past adds a strong contrary-to-expectation effect. Ne se battirent then can only be interpreted non-categorically: their fighting was inexistent, thus implying a contrary reading for negation: they kept their peace. Since the subject of bouger ‘move’, re´pondre ‘answer’ and se battre ‘fight one another’ is agentive, either animate or human, an impersonal construction cannot be used to convey the non-categorical reading of these sentences. 63.

a.

*Il ne bouge pas la beˆte. ‘Lit., There doesn’t move the beast’

b.

*Mais il ne re´pond pas Belzebuth. ‘Lit., But there does not answer Belzebuth’

c.

*Il ne se bat pas Fritz et Franc¸ais! ‘Lit., There do not fight Germans and French’

Although pas in the above sentences adds quantification to negation, the sentences nevertheless remain ungrammatical. What we can claim is that bare ne is used non-categorically in contexts where an impersonal interpretation is not available, and implies a contrary reading for negation. This is further supported by the data discussed in section 3.2. It is impossible to form impersonal constructions out of root imperatives (64a), achievement verbs (64b), modal verbs (64c) and subordinate clauses (64d).

126

64.

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

a.

*Qu’il ne me de´fie pas vous! ‘Lit., let there you not defy me!’

b. *Il ne me parvenait pas a` pencher d’un coˆte´ ou de l’autre. ‘Lit., There could not me decide one way or another’ c.

*Il ne me veut pas partir. ‘Lit., There doesn’t want me to leave’

d. *Les feuilles qu’il ne ternit pas l’hiver. ‘Lit., The leaves that there doesn’t spoil the winter’ Following Acquaviva (1997) and Giannakidou (1999), Ziejlstra (2004:179) assumes that standard sentential negation binds an event variable e by existential closure that is introduced by the negative operator. Hence negation occupies a structural position immediately dominating vP, the domain of existential closure. Furthermore, Ziejlstra claims that negation, being the negative operator introduces an existential quantifier 9 that binds all free variables that have remained unbound during derivation. 65. The fact that negation introduces an (existential) quantifier is directly observable in French: ne. . .pas with pas the existential quantifier. In French however, it is pas that immediately dominates the vP, not the negative operator ne. 66.

a.

L’enfant n’a pas vu qui que ce soit. ‘The child has not/never seen anyone’

b. *Qui que ce soit n’a pas vu l’enfant. ‘Nobody saw the child (Lit., ‘anyone has not/never seen the child’)’ Since ne co-occurs pas in (66a), negative polarity items (NPIs) such as qui que ce soit ‘anyone’ cannot occur to the left of ne in (66b). When ne occurs alone, NPIs are allowed to its left. 67.

a.

Je n’en ai parle´ a` qui que ce soit. ‘I didn’t speak about it to anyone’

b. Qui que ce soit ne m’en a parle´. ‘Nobody talked to me about it (Lit., ‘anyone didn’t speak to me about it’)’ The NPI qui que ce soit appearing to the left of ne is problematic. Following Ramchand (2001), Ziejlstra further assumes that languages may vary with respect to the binding strategy for sentential negation. In languages such as Bengali (Ramchand, 2001) negation may bind either an event or a tense variable depending on the context.2 Negation can bind a tense variable under the assumption that T0 introduces a time variable and the existential quantifier introduced by the negative operator binds this temporal variable (Zielstra, 2004:180). 2

Ramchand (2001) analyses the two Bengali negative markers ni and na as quantifiers binding respectively a tense and an event variable as in (i) i. a. kalke gaRi ‘start’ hoi ni. yesterday car start become.3S PERF/PAST/NEG ‘Yesterday the car didn’t start at all.’ b. kalke gaRi ‘start’ hol-o na. yesterday car start become.PAST.3S NEG ‘Yesterday the car didn’t start. (but the neighbour came and fixed it)’ That ni binds a tense variable is observed in (ia) by the absence of tense/aspect marker on the verb become but which is implied by the negative marker ni. Since na binds an event variable, tense/aspect must be expressed on the verb become in (ib). The corresponding French data is given in (ii). ii. a. La voiture n’a pas pu de´marrer hier (il n’y avait absolument rien a` faire). ‘The car couldn’t start yesterday (there was absolutely nothing to do)’ b. La voiture n’a pu de´marrer hier (il n’y avait plus d’essence) ‘The car couldn’t start yesterday (the gas tank was empty)’ While Bengali ni behaves like French ne pas, Bengali na behaves like French ne.

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

127

The assumption that it is the existential quantifier introduced by the negative operator that binds a tense variable cannot account for French ne in contexts in which ne occurs alone. As argued above, bare ne is non-quantified, therefore, cannot introduced an existential quantifier, hence does not allow partitive objects. 68.

*Je n’ache`te de pain. ‘I don’t buy any bread’

If bare ne does not introduce an existential quantifier, it cannot bind a tense variable through the existential quantifier. Hence bare ne cannot negate an event. If bare ne cannot negate an event, what does bare ne negate? Since bare ne is discourse dependent, we can thus assume that bare ne binds a discourse variable d. This discourse variable bears an [iQ] feature or quantifying feature interpretable at LF, and bare ne must bind the discourse variable in order to check its [uQ] feature. This discourse variable can be introduced by modal verbs such as pouvoir ‘can’, achievement verbs such as cesser ‘cease’, main clauses followed by a subordinate clause in the indicative mood, by the linguistic context in root declaratives, or by the undetermined addressee in root imperatives. The discourse variable can compete with an event variable, hence the ambiguous interpretation of a sentence like (69) in French. 69.

Je peux danser. ‘I can dance’

This sentence can mean ‘I am capable of dancing (I learned it)’ or ‘I am able to dance (nothing prevents me from doing it)’. While ‘I am capable of dancing’ has an ILP, ‘I am able to dance’ has an SLP interpretation. According to Kratzer (1989), Diesing (1992) Fernald (2000), the difference between ILPs and SLPs is that SLPs bind an event variable while ILPs do not. The event variable is introduced by existential closure. Since sentential negation introduces an existential quantifier binding an event variable, the distinction between ILPs and SLPs should be neutralised in negative sentences unless the language displays two negative markers with two distinct binding strategies such as French bare ne and ne pas. Given that ne pas binds an event variable and bare ne a discourse variable, we should expect that ne pas will be associated with the SLP and bare ne with the ILP reading of (69). This expectation however, is not borne out. 70.

a.

Je ne peux pas danser. ‘I cannot dance’ (I am not capable)

b.

Je ne peux danser. ‘I cannot dance’ (I am unable to dance for some reason or other)

While ne pas binding an event variable is associated with the ILP reading in (70a), bare ne binding a discourse variable bearing an [iQ] feature is associated with the SLP reading in (70b). This is further supported by the fact that, when the [iQ] feature is not available, the SLP reading for the predicate savoir is not available, bare ne cannot be used, as seen in (71b) (Larrive´e, 1995). This can be opposed to (71c) where savoir ‘know’ means pouvoir ‘be able, can’, hence having an SLP interpretation and bare ne is allowed. 71.

a.

Je ne sais pas danser. ‘I don’t know how to dance (= I have no knowledge of dancing)’

b.

*Je ne sais danser. ‘I don’t know how to dance (6¼ I am uncertain as to how to dance)

c.

Je ne savais danser. I didn’t know how to dance (= I couldn’t dance)

The data suggests that SLPs in French do not bind an event but rather a discourse variable. The idea that French SLPs bind a discourse rather than an event variable can explain a number of phenomena that have been hitherto left unexplained. According to Milsark (1974), cited in Fernald (2000), existential sentences are grammatical only when the coda contains an SLP. ILPs are ungrammatical in codas. This claim is further supported by Ladusaw (2000:237), who assumes that ILPs cannot serve as the basis for a thetic judgement. In French, however, the coda of an existential construction can contain an ILP, hence ILPs can serve as the basis for thetic judgements.

128

72.

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

a.

Il y a un enfant d’intelligent dans la famille. ‘Lit., There is a child intelligent in the family’

b. Il y a un joueur de grand dans l’e´quipe. ‘Lit., There is a player tall in the team’ The grammaticality of (72) cannot be explained under the current assumption that, in existential constructions, existential closure introduces an existential quantifier, which binds an event variable and the domain of existential closure is vP. In French, the domain of existential closure may not be vP but TP, hence a split structure a` la Diesing is not available, hence existential constructions bind a discourse instead of an event variable. Since existential constructions bind a discourse variable, ILPs can appear in codas. This is further supported by the fact that unergative predicates are not totally excluded from impersonals, as seen in (73) (Pollock, 1978; Postal, 1982; Legendre, 1989; Achard, 2004; Schapansky, 2004a, 2004b). 73.

Il de´jeune beaucoup de linguistes dans ce restaurant. ‘Lit.,There lunch many linguists in this restaurant’

While the quantifier beaucoup brings a habitual reading to the sentence, not quantifying over entities but over events, the entity linguistes denotes the kind but does not refer to individuals. The prepositional phrase dans ce restaurant anchors the sentence in the universe of discourse, the whole being bound by a discourse operator Op D expressed as il, which is basegenerated in Spec,CP and binds a discourse variable in C0 (for an alternative analysis, see Achard, 2004). The discourse variable itself is introduced by the context. The sentence in (73) can be interpreted existentially il y a beaucoup de linguistes qui de´jeunent dans ce restaurant ‘there are many linguistes who lunch in this restaurant’ and has a thetic rather than a categorical reading. The hypothesis that the domain of existential closure in French is TP and not vP and the hypothesis that SLPs bind a discourse rather than an event variable offers an explanation for the ability of ILPs and unergative predicates to occur in non-categorical contexts, a phenomenon also known as coercion (Fernald, 2000). According to Ziejlstra (2004:181), whenever the negative operator is base-generated in Neg0, true negative imperatives are not allowed. 74.

a.

*Ne lisez! ‘Don’t read!’

b.

Ne lisez pas! ‘Don’t read!’

c.

Ne me de´fiez! ‘Don’t defy me!’

In imperatives as well, negation usually binds an event variable, hence the contrast between (74a) and (74b). Nevertheless, when the addressee is undetermined, negation no longer binds an event variable. It rather binds a discourse variable, hence the possibility of (74c). This possibility is not excluded from Ziejlstra’s analysis. According to Ziejlstra (2004:182), negative markers such as French ne can incorporate into an (empty) head. Hence there is no apriori reason why true imperatives cannot fuse with ne and move to C0 together, C0 being the landing site of imperatives. 75.

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

129

To explain the impossibility of (75), Ziejlstra claims that ne has an uninterpretable tense [uT] feature, hence cannot be used as a marker of constituent negation (p. 184). Following Kayne’s (1992) and Zanuttini’s (1994) proposal that true imperative forms lack a T0 head, Ziejlstra further assumes that ne cannot incorporate into T0, hence its [uT] feature remains unchecked and the derivation crashes (p. 184). This solution does not predict the grammaticality of (74c) and the ungrammaticality of (62a) Elle ne bouge. The possibility of (74c) however, suggests that something else is happening. It is proposed that C0 hosts a discourse variable in imperatives and elsewhere and ne is adjoined to C0 to bind this discourse variable in the absence of the discourse operator il. When the discourse variable is already bound by the discourse operator, ne cannot bind the discourse variable and must co-occur with pas, hence the difference between (76a) and (76b). 76.

a.

*Il ne de´jeune beaucoup de linguistes dans ce restaurant. ‘Not many linguists lunch in this restaurant (Lit., ‘There does not lunch many linguists in this restaurant’)’

b. Il ne de´jeune pas beaucoup de linguistes dans ce restaurant. ‘Not many linguists lunch in this restaurant (Lit., ‘There does not lunch many linguists in this restaurant’)’ If bare ne does not bind a discourse variable, it must co-occur with pas which binds an event variable. This would explain the difference between (77a) and (77b). 77.

a.

Il peut ne pas manger. ‘He may not eat’

b.

*Il peut ne manger. ‘He may not eat’

Since the verb manger itself, being a non-modal, non-achievement verb, does not introduce a discourse variable, bare ne cannot occur with a non-finite complement clause, as in (77b). When the non-finite complement clause involves a modal or an achievement verb, which introduces a discourse variable, bare ne can appear. 78.

a.

Et Ce´line s’obstinait a` ne vouloir. And Celine persisted to not want [= to be unwilling]’

b. Le voyant de´c¸u de ne trouver parmi elles, la compagne. . . ‘Seeing him disappointed to not find [= to miss] among them, the companion. . .’ The prepositions a` and de are base-generated in Spec,CP while the C0 position hosting the discourse variable remains empty. Bare ne is adjoined to C0 to bind the discourse variable (see Ziejlstra, 2004 for a similar analysis of the French preposition pour). The analysis of bare ne as expressing non-quantified negation, and hence binding a discourse rather than an event variable, provides a principled explanation for the distribution of bare ne with respect to ne pas. Since bare ne expresses non-quantified negation, it is weak. Since bare ne binds a discourse rather that an event variable, it is marked, expresses non-categorical judgements and yields a contrary reading to negation. Since bare ne binds a discourse variable in C0, it expresses external rather than internal negation and cannot be used metalinguistically. 5. Conclusion The systematic differences between French bare ne and ne pas show that the two-negation system is more deeply rooted in the language than one might expect, as part of a more global system reflecting the two modes of judgement, categorical and thetic. Thetic judgements, asserting the existence or inexistence of events, are linked to the discourse and usually expressed as impersonals in French. However, when impersonal constructions are not available, bare ne can be used to indicate the non-existence of these events. Hence, bare ne is associated with external negation, which is non-categorical and yields a contrary reading for negation, which relates to SLPs or the SLP reading of predicates.

130

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

The properties of bare ne are reflected in the syntax. When ne is used alone, it must bind a discourse variable bearing a [iQ] feature, which is introduced by the linguistic context in root declarative clauses, undetermined addressees in imperatives, modal or achievement verbs in main and non-finite complement clauses, and subordinate clauses in the indicative mood. Bare ne itself is not quantified, hence cannot introduce an existential quantifier, hence cannot bind an event or a tense variable. Since bare ne is used when an impersonal construction is not available and binds a discourse variable in C0, the domain of existential closure in French is not vP but TP, hence the ability of ILPs to occur in codas of existentials and serve as the basis for thetic judgements. When bare ne cannot bind a discourse variable, ne must cooccur with pas or other indefinites. Ne pas expresses internal negation, which is categorical and yields a contradictory reading for negation, hence its association with ILPs or the ILP reading of predicates. Ne pas is quantifying and binds an event variable. Since ne pas expresses internal negation it has a narrow scope, which allows it to serve as a metalinguistic negation operator, unlike bare ne. This paper shows that we must distinguish between inherent and contextual properties of internal and external negation. While internal negation is inherently strong, categorical and unmarked, external negation is inherently weak, thetic and marked. The distinction contrary/contradictory is contextually determined by the availability of both an ILP and an SLP reading for the predicate, and by the availability of two competing negative markers differing in productivity. The negative marker with a low productivity tends to be associated with external negation, the SLP reading of the predicate and tends to be interpreted as contrary. The productive negative marker tends to be associated with internal negation and the ILP reading of the predicate and tends to be interpreted as contradictory. When only one negative marker and only one meaning for the predicate is available, internal negation is contrary and external negation is contradictory. In all cases, it is strong negation that unilaterally entails weak negation, regardless of the distinction contrary/contradictory. This study also reveals that, in languages with two negative markers such as French bare ne and ne pas, it is the productive negative marker that serves as a metalinguistic operator. Jane Austen’s works P = Persuasion, 1965. Boston: Houghton Miflin Company. PP = Pride and Prejudice, 1986. Oxford: Oxford University Press. NA = Northanger Abbey, 1992. New York: Every Man’s Library. MP = Mansfield Park, 1987. Oxford: Oxford University Press. E = Emma, 1988. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dickens, C., 1968. Dombey and son. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Acknowledgements I am very grateful to the anonymous reviewer for comments, criticism ans suggestions on earlier versions of this paper. I am also endebted to Maria Madeira and Vianey Varela for their help with the Romance data, and to Rani Lill Anjun for making a copy of Ramchand’s manuscript available to me. References Achard, M., 2004. A local account of the distribution of intransitives in French. Paper presented at the 7th CSDL Conference, Edmonton. Acquaviva, P., 1997. The Logical Form of Negation. Garland, New York. Carlson, G.N., 1977. Reference to kinds in English. University of Massachusetts dissertation, Amherst. Curie, M.J., 1992. The do variant field in questions and negatives: Jane Austen’s ‘Complete Letters’ and ‘Mansfield Park’. In: Rissanen, M., et al. (Eds.), History of Englishes. New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics. Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 705–719. Diesing, M., 1992. Indefinites. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Engblom, V., 1938. On the Origin and Early Development of Auxiliary DO. Gleerup, London and Copenhagen. Fernald, T.B., 2000. Predicates and Temporal Arguments. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Gaatone, E., 1971. E´tude descriptive du syste`me de la ne´gation en franc¸ais contemporain. Droz, Geneva. Gazdar, G., 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. Academic Press, New York. Giannakidou, A., 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 367–421. Haegeman, L., 1995. The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Horn, L., 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago University Press, Chicago.

N. Schapansky / Lingua 120 (2010) 103–131

131

Jespersen, O., 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. Allen and Unwin, London. Kayne, R., 1992. Italian negative imperatives and clitic-climbing. In: Tasnowski-De Ryck, L., Zribi-Hertz, A. (Eds.), Hommage a` Nicolas Ruwet. Commnuication and Cognition, Gent, pp. 300–312. Kratzer, A., 1989. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. Ms, University of Massachussetts (see also The Generic Book, University of Chicago Press, Chicago). Kuroda, S.-Y., 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language 9, 153–185. Kuroda, S.-Y., 1992. Japanese Syntax and Semantics. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Ladusaw, W., 1980. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. Garland, New York. Ladusaw, W., 2000. Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In: Horn, L., Kato, Y. (Eds.), Negation and Polarity. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 232–242. Lambrecht, K., 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Larrive´e, P., 1995. Ne, ne´gation de propositions virtuelles. Revue Romane 30 (1), 27–40. Legendre, G., 1989. Unaccusativity in French. Lingua 79, 95–164. Mazzon, G., 2004. A History of English negation. Pearson Longman, London. Milsark, G.L., 1974. Existential sentences in English. MIT, Ph.D. dissertation. Moeschler, J., 1995. La ne´gation comme expression proce´durale. In: Forget, D., Hirschbu¨hler, P., Martineau, F., Rivero, M.-L. (Eds.), Negation and Polarity: Syntax and Semantics. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 231–245. Muller, C., 1978. La ne´gation exple´tive dans les phrases comple´tives. Langue Franc¸aise 39, 76–103. Muller, C., 1984. L’association ne´gative. Langue Franc¸aise 62, 59–94. Muller, C., 1995. De partitive et la ne´gation. In: Forget, D., Hirschbu¨hler, P., Martineau, F., Rivero, M.-L. (Eds.), Negation and Polarity: Syntax and Semantics. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 251–270. Pesetsky, D., 1987. Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding. In: Reuland, E.J., ter Meulen, A.G.B. (Eds.), The Prepresentation of (in)definiteness. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 98–129. Pollock, J.-Y., 1978. Trace theory and French syntax. In: Jacobson, P., Pullum, G. (Eds.), Transformational Studies in European Languages. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 65–112. Postal, P., 1982. Arc pair grammar descriptions. In: Jacobson, P., Pullum, G. (Eds.), The Nature of Syntactic Representation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 341–425. Ramchand, G.C., 2001. Two types of negation in Bengali. University of Oxford, unpublished manuscript. Rowlett, P., 1998. Sentential Negation in French. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Russell, B., 1905. On denoting. Mind 14, 479–493. Sasse, H.-J., 1987. The categorical/thetic distinction revisited. Linguistics 25, 511–580. Schapansky, N., 2002. The syntax of negation in French: contrariety versus contradiction. Lingua 112 (10), 793–826. Schapansky, N., 2004a. Impersonals. Paper presented at the 7th CSDL Conference, Edmonton. Schapansky, N., 2004b. Categorical/thetic, thematic/non-thematic and the position of NPs in Breton. Paper presented at the conference on the Syntax of the World Languages 1, Leipzig. Schapansky, N., 2006. Ne´gation, quantification et inde´finis. In: Corblin, F., Ferrando, S., Kupferman, L. (Eds.), Inde´fini et pre´dication. Presse de l’Universite´ Paris-Sorbonne, Paris, pp. 251–262. Weir, H.E.M., 1994. Nade¨b. In: Karhel, P., van den Berg, R. (Eds.), Typological Studies in Negation. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 291–323. Weiss, H., 2002. Three types of negation: a case study in Bavarian. In: Barbiers, S., Cornips, L., van der Kleij, S. (Eds.), Syntactic Microvariation. Meersten Institute, Amsterdam, pp. 307–322. Zanuttini, R., 1994. Speculations on negative imperatives. Rivista di Linguistica 6, 119–142. Ziejlstra, H., 2004. Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. LOT, Utrecht. Zimmer, K. 1964. Affixal negation in English and other languages. Supplement to Word, Monograph 5.