Cover not available
Article published In:
Functions of Language
Vol. 25:2 (2018) ► pp.259–288

Paratactic negation revisited

The case of the Finnish verb epäillä

| University of Helsinki | Universität Greifswald
This paper examines the phenomenon of paratactic negation (PN) by analyzing the usage of the Finnish verb epäillä (‘doubt’, ‘suspect’, ‘suppose’), which is associated with both inherent negation and negative evaluation. Paratactic negation refers to an overt negation in a complement clause of an inherently negative verb that results in a single negative reading. This analysis draws on previous research going back to Jespersen (1917), in observing that the PN complement clause verbalizes the content of the activity that is expressed by the matrix verb. In this case, the verb of inherent negation does not have scope over the complement despite its negative semantics. This paper addresses the question of where and why content complements actually occur. The answer to this question is given by accounting for the differences of the content complements from more clearly subordinate target complements. It is shown that this distinction is related to verb semantics and conventionalized syntagmatic patterns. This is demonstrated by accounting for the differences of the content complements from more clearly subordinate target complements. On the basis of these results, the paper offers a refined definition of paratactic negation. This definition has two major implications: First, it suggests that a semantically non-vacuous PN may be a conventionalized pattern. Second, it leads us to reconsider the limits of PN and the definition of inherent negation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Data and methods
    • 1.2Aim and organization of this paper
  • 2.Paratactic negation in previous literature: Terms and definitions
  • 3.Paratactic negation as a content reading of the complement
    • 3.1Two functional roles of the complement: Target and content
    • 3.2Support for the present analysis of PN
      • 3.2.1Clausal complements “in between” direct quotes and nominal objects
      • 3.2.2Paratactic negation with other verbs in Finnish
  • 4.Paratactic negation with epäillä
    • 4.1The polar polysemy of epäillä in a nutshell
    • 4.2Paratactic versus compositional analysis of epäillä että ei ‘doubt/suspect that neg’
    • 4.3Paratactic negation with the negated matrix verb
  • 5.Evaluative negation: Difference with paratactic negation
    • 5.1Negation proper and negative evaluation in the interpretation of epäillä
    • 5.2Evaluative negation reflects underlying wishes
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Glossary
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.15030.sal
References (55)
References
Allwood, Jens, Lars-Gunnar Andersson & Östen Dahl. 1977. Logic in linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York, NY: Henry Holt & Company.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1988. Linking intonation units in spoken English. In John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 1–27. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change. An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 1977. Antonyms and gradable complementaries. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Perspektiven der lexikalischen Semantik. Beiträge zum Wuppertaler Semantikkolloquium vom 2–3 Dezember 1977, 14–25. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
Cuypere, Ludovic de, Johan van der Auwera & Klaas Willems. 2007. Double negation and iconicity. In Elżbieta Tabakowsa, Christina Ljungberg & Olga Fisher (eds.), Insistent Images, 301–320. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 1999. Syntax. In Suzanne Romaine (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language IV 1776–1997, 92–329. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Espinal, Maria Teresa. 2000. Expletive negation, negative concord and feature checking. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 81. 47–69.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1978. Negation in language: Pragmatics, function, ontology. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 9: Pragmatics, 69–112. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. Vol. 21. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli & Fred Karlsson. 1979. Nykysuomen lauseoppia. [Syntax of Modern Finnish.] Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja-Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [A comprehensive Finnish grammar]. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Haiman, John & Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. Introduction. In John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (Typological Studies in Language 18), ix–xiii. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herlin, Ilona, Jyrki Kalliokoski & Laura Visapää. 2014. Introduction. In Laura Visapää, Jyrki Kalliokoski & Helena Sorva (eds.), Contexts of subordination, 1–16. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1978. Some aspects of negation. In Joseph Greenberg, Charles Ferguson & Edith Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language, 127–210. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
2010a. Multiple negation in English and other languages. In Laurence R. Horn (ed.), The expression of negation, 111–148. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010b. Introduction. In Laurence R. Horn (ed.), The expression of negation, 1–7. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iyeiri, Yoko. 2009. The historical development of the verb doubt and its various patterns of complementation. In Ute Römer & Rainer Schultze (eds.), Exploring the lexis-grammar interface, 153–169. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Historisk-filologiske meddelelser / Det Kongelige Danske videnskaberners selskab; 1, 51. København: Andr. Fred. Høst & søn.Google Scholar
. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
KS = Kielitoimiston sanakirja. [The new dictionary of Modern Finnish.] Available online at [URL].
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larjavaara, Matti. 1992. Etteikö kelpaa? [As if it won’t (etteikö) do?] Virittäjä 961. 119–122.Google Scholar
. 2007. Pragmasemantiikka. [Pragma-sematics.] Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva. 2006. On subordination, Finnish-Style: Questioning the category of finite clausal complements in spoken Finnish. In Mickael Suominen, Antti Arppe, Anu Airola, Orvokki Heinämäki, Matti Miestamo, Urho Määttä, Jussi Niemi, Kari K. Pitkänen & Kaius Sinnemäki (eds.), A man of measure: Festschrift in honour of Fred Karlsson on his 60th birthday. SKY Journal of Linguistics. Special Supplement 191. 310–321.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Eeva-Leena Seppänen. 2008. Clause combining, interaction, evidentiality, participation structure, and the conjunction-particle continuum. The Finnish että . In Ritva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies in clause combining. The multifunctionality of conjunctions, 153–178. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leino, Jaakko. 1999. Selvää on se, että [‘It is clear that’]. Kielikello 31/1999. 20–25.Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 1990. Sentence mood, lexical category filling, and non-propositional nicht in German. Linguistische Berichte 1301. 441–463.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2005. Standard negation: The negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological perspective. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 2011. A typological perspective on negation in Finnish dialects. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 34(2). 83–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pajunen, Anneli. 2001. Argumenttirakenne. Asiaintilojen luokitus ja verbien käyttäytyminen suomen kielessä. [Argument structure. The classification of state of affairs, and the behavior of verbs in Finnish.] Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Salminen, Jutta. 2015. From doubt to supposition: The construction-specific meaning change of the Finnish verb epäillä . In Juhani Rudanko, Jukka Havu, Mikko Höglund & Paul Rickman (eds.), Perspectives on complementation. Structure, variation, and boundaries, 157–176. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Saury, Jean-Michel. 2004. The phenomenology of negation and its expression in natural language. Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics 27. Department of Linguistics. Göteborg University.Google Scholar
. 2008. The phenomenology of negation. Phenom Cogn Sci (2009) 81. 245–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, Eeva-Leena & Ritva Laury. 2007. Complement clauses as turn continuations: The Finnish et(tä)-clause. Pragmatics 17:4. 553–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smyth, Herbert Weir. 1956 [1920]. Greek grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Stefan, Julie Glikman & Mathieu Avanzi. 2015. Introduction. In Stefan Schneider, Julie Glikman & Mathieu Avanzi (eds.), Parenthetical verbs, 1–12. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
SSA = Suomen sanojen alkuperä: etymologinen sanakirja 1: A–K. [The origin of Finnish words: etymological dictionary]. 1992. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 261. 125–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tommola, Hannu. 2015. Conversation ‘fear + neg’ in LingTyp mailing list on 20 March 2015: [URL]
Tottie, Gunnel. 1991. Negation in English speech and writing: A study in variation. (Quantitative analyses of linguistic structure 4). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tovena, Lucia M. 1996. An expletive negation which is not so redundant. In Karen Zagona (ed.), Grammatical theory and Romance languages: Selected papers from the 25th linguistic symposium on Romance languages (LSRL XXV), 263–274. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuppurainen, Hanna. 1991. Kieltojen merkitys ja käyttö keskustelussa. [The meaning and use of negations in conversation.] Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 2015. Negation in Finnish. In Matti Miestamo, Anne Tamm & Beata Wagner-Nagy (eds.), Negation in Uralic languages (Typological Studies in Language 108), 457–486. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vries, Mark de. 2007. Invisible constituents? Parentheticals as B-merged adverbial phrases. In Nicole Dehé & Yordanka Kavalova (eds.), Parentheticals, 203–234. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wouden, Ton van der. 1997. Negative contexts: Collocation, polarity and multiple negation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wurff, Wim van der. 1998. On expletive negation with adversative predicates in the history of English. In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Gunnel Tottie & Wim van der Wurff (eds.), Negation in the history of English, 295–328. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Yoon, Suwon. 2011. ‘Not’ in the mood: The syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of evaluative negation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago PhD thesis.Google Scholar
. 2013. Parametric variation in subordinate evaluative negation: Korean/Japanese versus others. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 221. 133–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Fortuin, Egbert
2023. The function of extra negation. Functions of Language 30:2 ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo
Dobrushina, Nina
2021. Negation in complement clauses of fear-verbs. Functions of Language 28:2 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.