Negation Thesis

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter I- Negation in English
1. Sentential negation…………………………………………………………………………………...2
1.1.The negative marker NOT-General aspects…………………………………………........................3
1.1.1 Negative contraction…………………………………………………………………………..4
1.2 Other negative words-Incomplete negators………………………………………………………...5
1.3 Negative PolarityItems…………………………………………………………………………….7
1.3.1 Scope and the C-command Restriction on Triggering………………………………………..10
1.4 Emphatic negatives………………………………………………………………………………...14
2VP Constituent Negation……………………………………………………………………………..15

CHAPTER I
NEGATION IN ENGLISH
1.Sentential Negation
Ever since Klima 1964, it is known the fact that there is a syntactic distinction between constituent negation and sentential negation, also called ‘finite’ or ‘clausal’ negation.
In order toexpress negation, an anti-veridical operator is introduced, and the difference between the two types of negation is made by the scope of the negative operator. If the whole proposition occurs under the scope of the negative operator, the negation generates sentential negations.If the negation refers only to a specific constituent, then it is called constituent negation.
The difference betweensentential negation and constituent negation depends on the way in which sentential negation is defined (either in a syntactic or a semantic way). From Klima’s point of view, sentential negation can be considered a syntactic phenomenon, while Jackendoff (1969) defines sentential negation as being a semantic notion.

1.1 The negative marker not -general aspects
Sentential negation refersto the combination of an auxiliary or a modal with the negative marker not.
(1)Dominique could not open the door.
Some grammarians suggested that sentential negation should be analyzed as a combination of a finite verb with not.
(2) They will obiouvsly not have time to change.
(3) You are usually not thinking about the right problem.
(4) They are obiouvsly not good citizens.
In theseexamples, the adverbs ( eg: obiouvsly and not) can outscope the preceding auxiliary and they cannot be VP-modifiers.
The tag question is formed with a positive auxiliary.
(5) They will obiouvsly not have time to change, will they?/ won’t they ?
In the example above, the occurrences of not can be seen as instances of finite negation.
We cannot treat will obiouvsly not as being a single word. If notformed a single unit with the auxiliary that precedes it, than it could be possible that not appears in inverted structures along with the verb as in the following examples :

(6)He [would not] leave the city.

(7)*[Would not] he leave the city ?

(8)*He [need not] leave the city.

(9)*[Need not] he leave the city ?

Despite the fact that they are historically attested and acceptable insome British dialects, these inversions are unacceptable in all American varieties. According to Ivan A. Sag (2005:9), the only possible renditions of examples like those illustrated before are :

(10) Wouldn’t he leave the city?
(11) Didn’t he need to leave the city?
It has been argued the fact that the negative adverb in sentential negation is selected by the verb as being a complement.The argument made for this analysis includes: (a) evidence for a ‘flat’ structure where not is the sister of the finite verb it cooccurs with; (b) the uniform ording of finite negation in complement position; (c) the impossibility of iterating the negative adverb in finite constructions; (d) the lexically idiosyncratic nature of the scope of finite negation; (e) the possibility of stranding notonly in finite instances of VP Ellipsis; and (f) the requirements of a systematic account of ‘polarized’ finite auxiliaries. All these phenomena are naturally accounted for if finite verbs in English are allowed to select a negative adverb as a complement. ( cf. Sag 2005:10).
It has been agreed the scope of finite negation varies in terms...