Towards a typology of negation in non-verbal and existential ...

The 80th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America
January 5-8, 2006
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Towards a typology of negation
in non-verbal and existential
sentences
Ljuba Veselinova
Eastern Michigan Univesity
ljuba@linguistlist.org

Why is this interesting
• Negation is said to be a feature truly
specific to human language. It is not
found in other communication systems
• Negation is one of the few
characteristics which are more or less
universal in that all known languages
have a way to express it

Previous studies on negation
(a very brief excursion)
• Abundant philosophical literature on
• Negation
• Existence
• Cross-linguistic studies on negation tend to concentrate
on sentences with an overt verb predicate e.g.
Mary does not sing
Negation of copula clauses is excluded
from [X] because it may differ from
standard negation
Some examples: Dahl 1979, Payne 1985, Kahrel 1996,
Miestamo 2003
• Abundant cross-linguistic studies on copula and
existential sentences but almost complete absence of
studies on their negation (except for Croft 1991, Pål P
Eriksen 2005, p.c.)

Focus of this paper
• Non-verbal sentences
i. This is not Mary
ii.
Mary is not a nurse
• Existential sentences
i. Green lions do not exist
ii.
There are no green lions

Sources
• Grammars
• Elicitation from language experts (native
speakers, grammar authors or field
workers)

The classification is tentative
because of:
• Insufficient material for some languages
• Restrictions on the collected data

Restrictions on the data (1)
• Have not looked at the interaction of negation and tense
Hebrew (Afro-Asiatic, Asiatic, Semitic)
Dan
eyno
rəcini
Dan
not.be
rəcini
‘Dan is not serious’
Dan
lo
haya
Dan
neg
be.pst
‘Dan wasn’t t serious’
rəcini
serious
My data are restricted, the extent possible, to statements
where the tense-aspect category is the least marked one
in language X.

Restrictions on the data (2)
• Have not looked at the interaction of negation
and focus
Mandarin (Sino-Tibetan, Chinese)
1.Fèlyòng
bú hěn gāo
Expenses
not.be
very
high
’The expenses are not very high’
2.Fèlyòng
bù hěn gāo
Expenses
not
very
’The expenses are not very high’
high

Terminology
• Mary does not sing
• This is not Aragog
standard/verbal negation (S)
nominal negation (N)
• There are no dark wizards existential negation (E)

General overview of the data
• Six general strategies are observed for the
languages in the sample, tentatively called types
named A through F
• The identified types are presented as follows
• First, a familiar case from Indo-European languages
(Type A)
• I will then proceed with the others (starting with F,
then those in between A and F)

Type A:
No distinction between standard,
nominal and existential negation
• Swedish (Indo-European, North Germanic)
1. Maria
Maria
sjunger
sings
’Maria doesn’t t sing’
2. Maria är inte
Maria
is
NEG
’Maria is not a teacher’
3. Gröna
lejon
green
lions
’Green lions do not exist’
inte
NEG
lärare
teacher
finns
exist
inte
NEG

Type F:
Three way distinction
• Turkish (Altaic, Turkic)
1a. Gel-ecek
ecek
come-FUT
’(she) will come’
2a. Hasta yim
sick
I.am
’I I am sick’
3a. Su
var-di
exist-PAST
water exist
’There is water’
1b. Gel-me
me-yecek
3b. Su
come-NEG
NEG-FUT
’(she) will not come’
2b. Hasta degil-yim
sick
NEG-I.am
’I I am not sick’
yok-ti
water exist.not-PAST
’There is no water’

Verbal negation
Verbal negation
Nominal negation
Existential negation
Nominal negation
Existential negation
A B C D E
F

Type B:
Standard and Nominal
vs. Existential Negation
• Bagirmi (Nilo-Saharan, Central Sudanic) (Stevenson 1969: 83,
91, 130)
1a. Ma
m-’de
1.SG 1.SG-come
’I I came’
2a. Ma
Ahmed
I Ahmed
’I I am Ahmed’
1b. Ma
m-’de
1.SG
1.SG-come
’I I didn’t t come’
2a. Ma
Ahmed
I Ahmed
’I I am not Ahmed’
li
NEG
eli
NEG
3a. Ma m-ɜt lol(o)
I 1.SG-be.present
here
’I I am here’
3b. Ne
gwoto
He
be.absent
’He is not here’
lol(o)
here

Type C:
Standard and Existential vs.
Nominal Negation
• Usan (Trans-New Guinea, Madang-Adelbert Range), (Miestamo 2003:
361, Reesnik 1987: 141, 143)
1. Se
itumut
ye
me
now
in.the.morning I NEG
’This morning, I did not go down’
2. ʔomon
eŋ e me
custom
the
here
not
’That custom does not exist here’
3. Munon eŋ yonou
bain
Man
the
my
older.brother
’The man is not my older brother’
igo
be.3.SG.PRES
is-au
go.down-NMLZ
ue
NEG

Type D:
Standard vs.
Nominal and Existential Negation
• Sentani (Trans-New Guinea, Main Section, Sentani),
(Miestamo 2003: 344, Hartzler 1994: 52-3, 57, 60)
1. O-boro-i
NEG-hear
hear-NON.TEMPORAL
’I I didn’t/do not/will not hear’
2. E-me-i
NEG-come
come-NON.TEMPORAL
’I I didn’t/do not/will not come’
3. A hele
ban
word
true
NEG
’It’s s not true’
4. Weyæ
fa
bele
Fa
ban
You
child
with
child
not.existent.animate
’Do you have any children
’No, I don’t’

Frequency of the identified types of
negation strategies
Type: E
6 langs
8%
Type: D
6 langs
8%
Type: F
14 langs
18%
Type: C
11 langs
14%
Type: A
20 langs
26%
Type: B
20 langs
26%
Type A: S = N = E
Type B: S and N vs. E
Type C: S and E vs. N
Type D: S vs. N and E
Type E: S vs. E, N
unclear
Type F: S vs. N vs. E

Structural properties of Standard,
Nominal and Existential negators
S N E
Bound morpheme 31 (38%) 11 (17%) 14 (18%)
Lexical item 2 (3%) 12 (18%) 33 (40%)
Preverbal particle 24 (30%) 15 (23%) 14 (18%)
Pre-auxiliary particle _ 1 (2%) _
Discontinous particles 4 (5%) 5 (8%) 6 (8%)
Particle before verbal group 4 (5%) 2 (3%) 2 (3%)
Postverbal particle 6 (8%) 8 (12%) 4 (5%)
Post-auxiliary particle 2 (3%) 2 (3%) 1 (1%)
Sentence initial particle 4 (5%) 6 (9%) 3 (4%)
Sentence final particle 2 (3%) 3 (5%) 3 (4%)

Use of copula in affirmative nominal
sentences and choice of negation strategy
(1)
• Languages where the nominal negator is the
same as the standard negator
• Type A: : 20 languages
• 8 don’t t have a copula
• 12 must use a copula
• Type B: : 20 languages
• 11 don’t t have a copula
• 9 must use a copula

Use of copula in affirmative nominal
sentences and choice of negation strategy (2)
• Languages where the nominal negator differs from the standard
negator
• Type C: : 11 languages
• 6 do not use a copula
• 4 may use a copula
• 1 must use a copula
Correlation:
• The available data seem to point to a
correlation between absence of copula in
nominal sentences and a nominal negator
that differs from the standard negator
• Type D: 6 languages
• 4 do not use a copula
• 2 languages must use a copula; it is replaced by the non-standard
negator
• Type E: : 6 languages: nominal sentences are unclear in the reference
material
• Type F: : 14 languages
• 8 do not use a copula
• 2 use a copula optionally
• 4 must use a copula in id sentences. In 2 of them it is replaced by
the nominal negator

Use of copula in affirmative existential
sentences and choice of negation strategy
(1)
• Languages where the standard negator is the
same as the existential negator
• Type A: : 20 languages
• 3 do not use a copula
• 1 may use a copula
• 12 must use a copula
• Type C: : 11 languages
• 1 does not use a copula
• 1 may use a copula
• 9 must use a copula

Use of copula in affirmative existential
sentences and choice of negation strategy (2)
• Languages where the standard negator differs from the existential l negator
• Type B: : 20 languages
• 2 do not use a copula
• 1 may use a copula
• 17 must use a copula. It is replaced by the special negator in 121
2 of them.
• Type D: 6 languages
• 2 do not use a copula
• 2 may use a copula
• 2 languages must use a copula; it is replaced by the non-standard negator
• Type E: : 6 languages
• 1 may use a copula
• 5 must use a copula; it is replaced by the non-standard negator
• Type F: : 14 languages
• 2 do not use a copula
• 1 may use a copula
• 12 must use a copula in id sentences. In 8 of them it is replaced d by the
existential negator

Conclusions
• The observation that negation of copulas may differ from standard d negation can be
specified in the following ways
• Negation of existential verbs tends to be set apart from standard d negation
• Negation of nominal clauses tends to differ from standard negation if the
language does not employ any copula in affirmative nominal clauses. However,
more data are necessary for this to be confirmed.
• As regards the expression of verbal, nominal and existential negation, the
languages in this sample can be shown on a continuum, using from one,
two or three different strategies for these domains.
• More than half of the languages in the sample use two negation strategiess
• The most common common case is to make a distinction between standard
and existential negation. In those cases, nominal negation is expressed by
the standard negator
• The least common case seems to be a two-way way distinction between standard
negation and non-standard (non-verbal) negation
• Expression of negation
• Clear preferences for
• bound morphemes or preverbal particles for verbal negation
• lexicalization when negating existence
• No preferred expression for nominal negation has been identified in this sample

Questions