Article published In:
Studies in Language: Online-First Articles

Asymmetry in temporal specification between affirmation and negation

Adverbials and tense-aspect neutralization

ORCID logo | University of Helsinki
ORCID logo | University of Helsinki
ORCID logo | University of Helsinki
One cross-linguistically recurrent asymmetry between affirmation and negation is the neutralization of tense-aspect distinctions in negatives. A functional explanation proposed for this is that in their typical discourse context negatives have less need for temporal specification than affirmatives and in some languages this discourse preference is reflected as fewer tense-aspect distinctions in grammar. To examine whether such a discourse preference exists, we compare the use of temporal adverbials in affirmatives and negatives in English, Finnish and Korean corpus data. The results provide qualified support for the hypothesized discourse preference: in English and Korean, affirmatives are likelier to have temporal adverbials than negatives, but Finnish shows no statistically significant difference. In English and Finnish, affirmatives are likelier than negatives to contain adjuncts indicating temporal position. Verb semantics is found to interact with temporal specifications. The study also uncovers further differences between affirmatives and negatives in the use of adverbials.
Keywords: negation, adverbial, temporal, typology, functional explanation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Negation
    • 2.2Adverbials
    • 2.3Hypothesis
  • 3.Material and method
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Adverbial types in affirmatives and negatives in the data
    • 4.2Temporal adjuncts in affirmatives and negatives
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 6 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23036.mie
References (62)
References
Data sources
ArkiSyn = ArkiSyn database of Finnish conversational discourse, Helsinki Korp version. 2017. University of Turku, Department of Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages. Retrieved from [URL]
BNC = Spoken British national corpus 2014. 2017. The ESRC Centre for Corpus Approaches to Social Science (CASS), Lancaster University & Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from [URL]
KCSC = Korean conversational speech corpus. 2021. Beijing Magic Data Technology Co., Ltd. Retrieved from [URL]
Literature
Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 10) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2002. Negation in non-standard British English: Gaps, regularizations and asymmetries. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan & Olga Krasnoukhova. 2020. The typology of negation. In Viviane Déprez & M. Teresa Espinal (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Negation, 91–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Chung, Inkie. 2007. Suppletive negation in Korean and distributed morphology. Lingua 117(1). 95–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornyn, William. 1944. Outline of Burmese grammar (Language Dissertation 38. Supplement to Language 20(4)). Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America. DOI logo
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1979. Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 171. 79–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2019. The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthews S. 2013a [2005]. Negative morphemes. In Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds.), World atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at: [URL]. First published by Oxford University Press, 2005.
2013b [2011]. Order of negative morpheme and verb. In Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds.), World atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at: [URL]. First published by Max Planck Digital Library, 2011.
Du Bois, John W. 1985. Competing motivations. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax (Typological Studies in Language 6), 343–365. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forest, Robert. 1993. Négations: Essai de syntaxe et de typologie linguistique (Collection Linguistique LXXVII). Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1978. Negation in language: Pragmatics, function, ontology. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. IX. Pragmatics, 69–112. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1979. On understanding grammar (Perspectives in Neurolinguistics and Psycholinguistics). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. Vol. I–II1. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies (Janua Linguarum, Series Minor LIX). The Hague: Mouton & Co.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli. 2016. The word ny(t) as an adverb and as a particle in Finnish. In Peter Auer & Yael Maschler (eds.), NU/NÅ: A family of discourse markers across the languages of Europe and beyond, 281–319. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. On some uses of the discourse particle ‘kyl(lä)’ in Finnish conversation. In Margret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (Studies in Discourse and Grammar 10), 171–198. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo. [URL]
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [Comprehensive grammar of Finnish]. Online version. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. [URL]
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hardie, Andrew. 2012. CQPweb – combining power, flexibility and usability in a corpus analysis tool. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 17(3). 380–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2011. Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance-final then in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14). 3603–3623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 421. 25–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form–frequency correspondences and predictability. Journal of Linguistics 57(3). 605–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselgård, Hilde. 2010. Adjunct adverbials in English (Studies in English language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2001. Emerging syntax for interaction: Noun phrases and clauses as a syntactic resource. In Margret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (Studies in Discourse and Grammar 10), 25–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honda, Isao. 1996. Negation: A cross-linguistic study. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo PhD dissertation.
Horn, Laurence R. 2001 [1989]. A natural history of negation. (The David Hume Series, Philosophy and Cognitive Science Reissues) Stanford: CSLI Publications. First published by University of Chicago Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Kang, Beom-mo. 2019. The alternative negative constructions in Korean: A logistic regression analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 15(2). 419–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiuru, Silva. 1977. Suomen kielen kieltohakuiset verbit: murreaineistoon perustuva syntaktis-semanttinen tutkimus [Verbs likely to be negative in Finnish: a syntactic-semantic study on dialectal material]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia & Steven Moran. 2021. Efficiency in human languages: Corpus evidence for universal principles. Linguistics Vanguard 7(s3). 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, Robbie, Claire Dembry, Andrew Hardie, Vaclav Brezina & Tony McEnery. 2017. The Spoken BNC2014: designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(3). 319–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2006. Frequency profiles of some basic grammatical systems: An interim report. In Geoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds.), System and corpus: Exploring connections, 103–142. London: Equinox. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, David, Achim Zeileis & Kurt Hornik. 2021. vcd: Visualizing Categorical Data. R package version 1.4–9.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2005. Standard negation: The negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 31). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Symmetric and asymmetric encoding of functional domains, with remarks on typological markedness. In Matti Miestamo & Bernhard Wälchli (eds.), New challenges in typology: Broadening the horizons and redefining the foundations (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 189), 293–314. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Polar interrogatives in Uralic languages: A typological perspective. Linguistica Uralica 47 (1). 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Negation. In Alexandra Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Cambridge handbook of linguistic typology, 405–439. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti, Ksenia Shagal & Olli O. Silvennoinen. 2022. Typology and usage: The case of negation. Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2(1). 121–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murane, Elizabeth. 1974. Daga grammar: From morpheme to discourse (Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields 43). Norman: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Payne, John. R. 1985. Negation. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. I: Clause structure, 197–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Ramstedt, Gustaf John. 1939. A Korean grammar (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 82). Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne.Google Scholar
Roberts, John R. 1987. Amele (Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Shore, Susanna. 2020. Lauseita ja vesinokkaeläimiä: Perinteisestä funktionaaliseen lauseoppiin [Sentences and platypuses: From traditional to functional syntax] (Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimitteita 1460). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Siegl, Florian. 2015. Negation in Forest Enets. In Matti Miestamo, Anne Tamm and Beáta Wagner-Nagy (eds.), Negation in Uralic Languages (Typological Studies in Language 108), 43–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Teptiuk, Denys. 2020. Manner deictics in quotative indexes of Finno-Ugric. In Åshild Næess, Anna Margetts & Yvonne Treis (eds.), Demonstratives in discourse (Topics at the Grammar-Discourse Interface 6), 273–304. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. 1991. Negation in speech and writing: A study in variation. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2012. Quotative go and be like: Grammar and grammaticalization. In Isabelle Buchstaller & Ingrid van Alphen (eds.), Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives (Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 15), 173–202. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varjo, Mikael. 2023. Nollalla jaettua: Korpustutkimus nollasubjektilauseista suomenkielisessä arkikeskustelussa [Divided by zero: A corpus study of zero-subject constructions in Finnish everyday conversation]. University of Turku doctoral dissertation. [URL]
Vilkuna, Maria. 2000. Suomen lauseopin perusteet [Basics of Finnish syntax]. 2nd rev. edn. (Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja 90). Helsinki: Edita.Google Scholar
. 2021. The Finnish exclusive-negative construction ei…ku(i)n in the network of exclusion expressions. Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri/Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 12(1). 457–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Negation in Finnish. In Matti Miestamo, Anne Tamm & Béata Wagner-Nagy (eds.), Negation in Uralic languages (Typological Studies in Language 108), 457–485. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar