Constituent negation

Examples (37)–(38) illustrate the two ways in which an adverb may modify an NP which follows the verb. It can either immediately precede the NP (as in Children may play [only soccer] on the back lawn) or occur in position A, with the appropriate NP bearing stress (as in Children may only play ’soccer on the back lawn).

Potentially the same possibilities are available for the negation of an NP. However the ‘sentential not plus stress on the NP’ alternative is preferred. Thus:

(83a) Children may not (A) play ’soccer on the back lawn (but they may play cricket there)

(83b) Children may not (A) play soccer on the ’back lawn (but they may play it on the front lawn)

In fact, one cannot say *Children may play [not soccer] on the back lawn or *Children may play soccer [not on the back lawn]

It was pointed out that an adverb in position A may modify a following NP but not a preceding one; that is, not one in subject position. Similar remarks apply for the negator. As a consequence, we can get a subject NP modified by not, as in:

(84) [Not a guest] arrived before nine o’clock (although they were all invited for eight-thirty)

The language must allow not to directly modify the subject NP in (84), since if not is included in position A and the subject NP is stressed, we get a sentence with an entirely different meaning:

(85) [’A guest] didn’t (A) arrive before nine o’clock

Sentence (84) implies that all the guests arrived after nine o’clock whereas (85) states that only one did.

Although a post-verbal NP may not be simply modified by not, it can involve two components, one of which is modified by not. For example:

(86a) Children may play [not soccer but cricket] on the back lawn

(86b) Children may play soccer [not on the back lawn but on the front lawn]

It is possible to have a complex NP in which both parts are negated, as in:

(87a) Children may play [neither soccer nor cricket] on the back lawn

In this instance there is an alternative, with the same meaning, where the negator is in position A:

(87b) Children may not (A) play [either soccer or cricket] on the back lawn

We have [neither NP nor NP] in (87a) and not (A) [either NP or NP] in (87b), and similarly Children may play soccer [neither on the back lawn nor on the front lawn] or Children may not (A) play soccer [either on the back lawn or on the front lawn].

An adjective or a manner adverb may also be negated, and similar remarks apply as for NP negation in (83)–(87). To negate a manner adverb, not may be placed in position A with the adverb (in position O) being stressed, as in:

(88) He didn’t (A) write the report ’carefully

It is not acceptable to say *He wrote the report not carefully. However, one can say:

(89) He wrote the report [not carefully but sloppily]

And one can say either He wrote the report [neither carefully nor cleverly] (with the negator on both parts of the complex adverb) or He didn’t write the report [either carefully or cleverly] (with the negator in position A).

Similar remarks apply for adjectives in copula complement function. Alongside He might not (A) have been ’generous, one cannot normally say *He might have been [not generous], although it is possible to say either He might have been [not generous to some people but generous to others]. And He is [neither generous nor kind] is an alternative to He is not (A) [either generous or kind].

It will be seen that neither and nor are blends of not plus either and not plus or. It is when such a blend exists that we may negate an NP (or an adverb or adjective) either by sentential not in position A—with the appropriate constituent often being stressed—or by negating the constituent itself. This also applies for forms like nobody and nowhere. Compare these positive sentences, labelled (p), with their two possible negations, labelled (n).

(90p) It is somewhere to be found

(90n) It isn’t anywhere to be found or It is nowhere to be found

(91p) I saw somebody

(91n) I didn’t see anybody or I saw nobody

There is an interesting alternation between some in positive and any in the corresponding negative clauses, as illustrated in (90)–(91). However, it should be noted that there are two items some, with rather different meanings:

. some1 is a qualifier (like all) and refers to a selection of several items from a group, as in some1 (of the) boys; this belongs in slot (b) of NP structure.

. some2 has an adjective-like function (like numbers), referring to an unspecified but definite individual, as in some2 boy or some2 boys; this belongs in slot (d) of NP structure.

Consider a positive sentence in which some1 occurs in a post-verbal NP:

(92p) He might have seen some1of the boys (that is, just a few of them)

There are two ways of negating this:

(92n-s) He might not (A) have seen any of the boys (he saw not a single one of them)

(92n-m) He might have [not (V) seen some1 of the boys] (he saw almost all of them but may have missed a few)

In (92n-s) not is used as a sentential negator and some1 is here replaced by any. In (92n-m), not is in manner-type function and here some1 is retained, rather than being replaced by any. The contrasting functions of not in these two sentences can be seen from their placements—position A, after the Wrst word of the auxiliary, in (92n-s), and position V, immediately before the verb, in (92n-m). Note that if there were no auxiliary, the sentences would reduce to He didn’t see any of the boys and He didn’t see some1 of the boys respectively, now being distinguished only by any and some1. However, when a multi-word auxiliary is included, the position of not indicates its distinct functions in the two sentences.

Now consider a positive sentence with some2:

(93p) He might have seen some2 boys

There is only one way of negating this, with not in sentential function and position A:

(93n-s) He might not have seen any boys

Note that *He might have [not seen some2 boys], with not in manner-type function and V position, is not acceptable.

We have seen that any is here the automatic alternant of some (of some1 or of some2) under sentential negation, but never under manner-type negation. It is, however, possible to include any in a positive sentence. There are, in fact, two distinct forms any:

. any1, indicates an open possibility of choice from a group, as in I can climb (absolutely) any tree in the garden; this belongs in slot (b) of NP structure.

. any2, the automatic alternant of some under sentential negation; this belongs in slot (d) of NP structure.

Suppose people are being asked about their color recognition. It has been observed that Mary is pretty good at this task. She is asked:

(94) Can you distinguish (absolutely) any1 colors?

Mary might reply with a negative sentence:

(95) No, I can’t distinguish (absolutely) any1 colors (only the great majority of them)

Suppose that John is known to have great difficulty in color discrimination. The investigators wonder whether he might be completely color blind and enquire:

(96) Can you distinguish some2 colors?

The reply might be in the negative:

(97) No, I can’t distinguish any2 colors (at all)

Both (95) and (97) can be just No, I can’t distinguish any colors, which is ambiguous between the any1 and any2 readings. The difference can be brought out by additions to the basic sentence. Absolutely is virtually always possible with any1—as in (94)–(95)—but not with any2. And at all may generally be added after an NP with any2—as in (97) and also (90n), (91n), (92n-s) and (93n-s)—but not after an NP with any1.

The composite form anything has special properties. To appreciate this it is useful first to examine positive and negative sentences with some/any2 and with any1, where the head of object NP is task or tasks.

(98p) He does some1tasks (but not all)

(98n-s) He doesn’t (A) do any2 tasks (at all)

(99p) He does (absolutely) any1task (whatever he is asked to do)

(99n-s) He does not (A) do (absolutely) any1task (he’s selective about which ones he does)

We can substitute thing for task, and then get:

(100p) He does some1 things (but not all)

(100n-s) He doesn’t (A) do any2thing (at all)

(101p) He does (absolutely) any1thing (whatever he is asked to do)

(101n-s) He does not (A) do (absolutely) any1thing (he’s selective about which things he does)

When the bits in parentheses are omitted, (98n-s) and (99n-s) are distinguished by any2 tasks in the first and any1 task in the second. But when the bits in parentheses are omitted from (100n-s) and (101n-s), the sentences are identical. For (100n-s) we would expect He doesn’t do any2 things (at all). However, this sounds distinctly odd; speakers naturally use anything (rather than any things) here. As a result, He doesn’t do anything is ambiguous between the any2 sense (he does nothing at all) and the any1 sense (he is selective in what he does). However, in speech it can be disambiguated by stress, which is likely to be placed on any1thing for the any1 reading but on do for the any2 reading.