Negation and Scope in English

강승만 ( Seung-man Kang ) 대한영어영문학회 2013 영어영문학연구 Vol.39 No.1

This paper delves into some interesting aspects of negation in terms of Negative Concord (NC), negation classification, and negative scope ambiguity in English. In this paper, I defend the view that English is an NC language and it thereby has the functional phrase NegP headed by Neg. The distinction, however, should be made between NC and DN (Double Negation), in which two negatives cancel each other out in order to yield one affirmative statement. As for the classification of negation, I argue that negation is virtually reduced to clausal versus phrasal negation. If the Neg head projects NegP selected by T, it is referred to as clausal negation. If a negator adjoins to any phrase, on the other hand, it is simply treated as a negative adverbial. Negation in English gives rise to scope ambiguity against negated elements, yielding a surface scope reading and an inverse scope reading. The inverse scope reading usually occurs when negated elements are focused via the stress or intonation. I propose that the focused elements and the Neg head share the focus (FOC) feature and they undergo feature checking by reconstruction at LF. (Chungbuk National University)

「冬のンナタ」에 나타난 부정접두사

이하자 한국일본어교육학회 2016 日本語敎育 Vol.0 No.78

As a result of a research study of the negative prefixes appearing in Winter Sonata ( 冬のソナタ ), the words to which Chinese negative prefixes are connected are classified into Chinese characters and pure Japanese words. They have a meaning of the addition of `negation` and sometimes, change the meaning of the original word that follows, as well. The order of frequency of examples appears as follows: `不`(22/66), `無`(14/45), `未`(2/5) `非`(2/3), and `否`(1/3). For negative prefixes of native words, the order of frequency of examples is as follows: `別`(3/3), `空`(3/2), `裏`(1/1), `殺`(1/1) and `反`(1/1). The examples of `不` and `無` are classified into `negation, change into another meaning and combination with pure Japanese,` but those of `非`, `未` and `否` are limited to negation. Unlike Korean, in Japanese, a Chinese negative prefix may be combined with a native word as in `不安げに.` In Korean, there is no change, either, in the meaning of the original word that follows before the combination of a negative prefix as in `不思議` and `無口.` In addition, it is noted that the words used are different between Japanese and Korean as in `不備な/未 備, 一心不亂/一絲不亂and `不思議/不可思議.` The meanings of negative prefixes are classified into `the negation of a concept`, `the negation of existence`, `the negation of an action`, `the negation of a status` and `the negation of a value.` In the classification of the meanings of negative prefixes, the meaning of `the negation of a concept` is 「 でない」(Japanese), `-이 아니다 ` (Korean), is not (English), and among the negative prefixes, only Prefix `非` appears as in `非常識な` and `非協力的な.` This is because the component of the construction of a sentence is a predicate, which scarcely represents a subject`s property. In `the negation of existence,` Prefix `無` appears mostly. This is a word with the form of the opposition between `無` and `有.` Prefix `無` is usually combined with a root or a meaning unit which usually has the property of a noun. In `the negation of an action,` there are no words that come under Chinese negative prefixes `不`, `非`, `未` and `無,` and examples such as `空元氣`(2 203) and `空笑い`(3 315) appear, which are formed by pure Japanese prefix `空(から/そら).` In `the negation of a status,` the words of which the most examples appear are those to which `不` is connected. The prefixes of the negation of a status negates a status or property, which have a function that modifies a noun by the use of an adjective.

영어와 한국어의 부정에 관한 유형적 비교

조경숙 ( Kyung Sook Cho ) 21세기영어영문학회 2004 영어영문학21 Vol.17 No.2

The Typological Comparison of Negation between English and Korean Cho, Kyung-Sook(Honam University) This paper aims to compare the phenomena of negation between English and Korean on the syntactic typological base, especially the phenomena of standard negation as well as quantifier negation and adverbial negation. In standard negation, these two languages show typological similarities of using a negative particle, and of accompanying a secondary modification of inserting an auxiliary verb. However, we can find important differences in two languages: First, in the contraction structures, English language uses the device of morphological negatives, while Korean language uses an auxiliary negative verb. Second, Korean has alternative negative particles, which show complementary distribution depending on the types of predicates and sentences. Moreover, Korean negative particles have much flexibility in their position of the sentences than English negative particle. More typological differences are found in the realms of quantifier negation and adverbial negation. English has four devices of expressing quantifier or adverbial negation; negated quantifiers, inherently negative quantifiers, negated adverbials, and inherently negative adverbials. However, Korean doesn't have any forms of inherently negative quantifiers and inherently negative adverbials. It only permits the devices of negated quantifiers and negated adverbials, in very limited cases, such as in the case of predicate derivation forms. Therefore, the semantic equivalents of quantifier negations and adverbial negations in Korean, are mostly the forms of indefinite expressions or adverbials combined with standard negation.

한중 잉여부정의 형태와 의미

김용군 중국인문학회 2016 中國人文科學 Vol.0 No.64

The purpose of this study is to examine the redundant negation expressed in various forms in Korean and Chinese, and to identify commonalities and differences in the use of redundant negation in Korean and Chinese according to the structural and semantic characteristics of redundant negation. Redundant negation is a sentence in which a negative sign is used to represent an equivalent meaning to the affirmative statement, without expressing any negative meaning. The negative marker of redundant negation, which is a semantic redundant expression, is not a necessary condition of sentence semantic expression in the surface structure, but it is a necessary component in terms of phonetics or cognition because it expresses the subjective attitude or intention of the speaker by using negative form in the deep structure. Although there have been many studies on redundant negation in each language, the comparative study of the redundant negation in Korean and Chinese is still insufficient and it is merely mentioned in some discussions. Since the redundant negation is greatly influenced by the use of phonetic factors in use, the implementation method of Korean and Chinese is often different even if the same semantic expression is used in the same situation. Therefore, in order to accurately grasp the redundant negation, it is necessary to examine how the redundant negation appears in different languages. This paper examines the forms of redundant negation in Korean and Chinese according to their structural and semantic characteristics and analyzes their common and differences, and summarizes the characteristics of the use of redundant negation in Korean and Chinese. The research on the redundant negation is not only a part of the study on the negation category of Korean and Chinese, but it also has a significance in that it can provide the theoretical basis for the accurate use and understanding of the redundant negation to Chinese and Korean learners.

Translating Korean Negation : Based on the Lexically Layered Model

Won, Hohyeuk,Kim, Hyoungyoub 한국중앙영어영문학회 2017 영어영문학연구 Vol.59 No.4

This study explores the hierarchy of negative prefixes in English and Korean. English prefixes could be divided into class Ⅰ affixes and class Ⅱ affixes. Korean short-form negation has five limitations of prefixes, and Korean short-form negation has broader productivity, precedes negative prefixes, works in post-lexical boundary, and has word boundary. However, Korean negative prefixes have few applications and cannot transgress short-form negation, work in lexical boundary, and has syllable boundary. We could consider Korean short-form negation as a class Ⅱ affixes and Korean negative prefixes as a class Ⅰ affix. We also could apply this hierarchy to Korean-English translation&interpretation. With regards to long-form negation working in sentence boundary as class Ⅲ negation, the model matches each language’s negation to other language’s negation. If there are no appropriate expressions in one category, we move to a higher boundary. However, in spoken text, we return to class Ⅱ affixes when translating English to Korean because short-form negations are used more commonly in spoken text than long-form negations.

러시아어에서 부정의 영향권 연구 : 부정어의 위치와 부정 영향권의 상관관계를 중심으로

길윤미 한국러시아문학회 2021 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.75 No.-

The correlation between the syntactic position of negative particle and the scope of negation in Russian is more complex than expected. This paper proposes rheme-negation and theme-negation as a classification of negation which can reveal this correlation more effectively. This classification is a method that considers the communicational structure of negative sentences, and is advantageous in grasping their actual meaning. This study examines the displaced negation as a representative case of the theme-negation. Displaced negation in Russian has unique prosodic characteristics as a theme-negation, and there is a rheme-negation that is semantically similar to this. We investigate in two aspects the reasons why displaced negation is used, despite the fact that rheme-negation exists. First, it is related to the universal linguistic phenomenon in many languages of the world and second, it is necessary to consider the unique discourse function that stands out in Russian displaced negation. Another case of theme-negation is the causative construction. We classify the two types of personal construction among the causative constructions and present the various differences of the two types systematically and analytically. The cases of theme-negation show that the correlation between syntactic position of negative particle and scope of negation in Russian is never simple, and furthermore, it confirms that scope of negation is a issue that should be considered integrally in terms of semantics, pragmatics, and discourse functions.

영어부정의 화용론적 접근

박영근 ( Park Yeong-keun ) 대한영어영문학회 2012 영어영문학연구 Vol.38 No.3

The purpose of this study is to investigate the meaning and function of negation in natural language. To reach the goal, we present that any studies on negation would be insufficient without the help of semantics and pragmatics because negation itself is connected with meaning. In addition, the ambiguity that negation takes cannot be regarded as a syntactic phenomenon. This study discusses pragmatic ambiguity, conversational implicature, and scalarity in terms of the metalinguistic negation. First, the fact that negation is pragmatically as well as semantically ambiguous is clarified. Second, an instance which conversational implicature and its relation to negation cancels the previous statements is found in conversational implicature and its relation to negation. Third, the relation between 'less than' and 'more than' understanding arising in scalar predicates is analyzed and can be unified as only one reading, 'less than'. I present that double negation, Neg-raising, external negation, tag question, and negative question take euphemistic characteristic, by observing some psychological motivation of negation in the phenomena of euphemism. As a consequence, the effect that negation enhances the communicative performance in the social interaction is shown. In conclusion, negation is difficult to understand by simple syntactic approach. Therefore, we should explore it on the basis of semantics and pragmatics to make a more comprehensive understanding of negation. (Keimyung University)

소설자료를 통해 본 20세기 한국어의 부정문 사용양상

남윤진 숙명여자대학교 한국어문화연구소 2011 한국어와 문화 Vol.9 No.-

1900년대부터 1990년대까지의 소설 텍스트에 나타난 부정문 사용의 양상에 대하여 (1) 형태 및 표기적 관점에서 본 부정서술어의 사용, (2)부정문의 유형과 텍스트의 성격을 양축으로 살펴본 부정문 사용(3)``못`` 부정문과 ``-ㄹ 수 없다`` 구문의 사용 빈도의 추이를 검토한 결과 다음과 같은 사실을 파악하였다. 1)부정 서술어의 표기는 ``아니하-, 아니-, 안하-, 않-``형으로 나눌 수 있는데, ``아니하-``와 ``않-``의 사용율이 1920년대에 급격한 역전을 보이는 것을 시작으로 ``아니하-``의 사용율이 감소되어 1970년대 이후에는 거의 사용되지 않게 된다. 19세기에 이루어진 것으로 밝혀진 ``않-``의 재구조화가 1920년대 이후 부정서술어로서 안정화되는 과정을 보여주고 있는 것이다. 2)``안`` 부정의 선행부정은 회화문에서 상대적으로 높은 사용율을 보이는데 1920년대 텍스트에서 증가 경향을 보이고 있다. 이는 ``안`` 부정서술어 사용과 더불어 1920년대가 이전시기와 이후의 부정문 사용 변화의 한 지표가 되는 시점임을 의미하는 것으로 해석할 수 있다. 3)``못`` 부정은 부정문 전체에서 후행부정이 선행부정보다 높은 빈도를 보이는 것과 달리 선행부정과 후행부정의 사용율이 연대에 따라 다른 양상을 보이고 있다. 4)``못`` 부정을 취하는 용언의 품사, 조어법상의 특성에 따른 선행부정의 제약은 형용사, 보조용언, 파생용언 및 합성용언에서 관찰되었다. 그러나 이러한 제약은 개별 어휘에 따라 다른 양상을 보인다. 5)``못`` 부정과 의미적으로 밀접한 관계에 있는 ``-ㄹ 수 없-``은 1920년대에 들어서 그 사용율이 높아져 ``못`` 후행부정을 상회하게 되었으며 이후 ``-ㄹ 수 없-`` 구문은 ``못`` 후행부정에 대한 우위를 유지하면서 시간의 흐름에 따른 사용율의 추이에 있어서는 ``못`` 후행부정과 같은 패턴을 보인다. This paper aims to describe the use of Korean negation, especially in fiction texts of between 1900``s and 1990``s. The issues are as follows: 1) The use of negative predicate``aniha-``especially from the viewpoint of spelling and word-form. 2)The use of negation types with regard to the text types 3)The relation between the frequency of mos-negation and that of``-l-su-eops-``expression, which is semantically very near to the other. The results may be summarized like these : 1) The negative predicate has four word forms of ``aniha-, ani-, anha-, anh-``. By contrast to the rapid increase of the ``anh-``, ``aniha-``started to decrease rapidly in the 1920``s. By the 1970``s, the word form``aniha-``had not been used any more. These all shows the procedure of the establishment of ``anh-``as a negative predicate. 2) The backward an negation shows a relatively high frequency in conversational contexts, starting from 1920``s. It could be told that 1920``s is a critical period of the change in the use of negation. 3) Some restrictions on backward mos negation is observed in adjectives, auxiliary verbs, derived verbs and compounded verbs. But there are also some lexical idiosyncrasies. 4)There seems to be some correlation between the frequency of mos-negation and ``-l-su-eops-``expression, which is semantically very near to the other. Since 1920``s, ``-l-su-eops-``surpassed mos forward negation in the usage rate.

英語 否定의 束縛範圍에 關한 硏究

丁讚浩 慶北專門大學 (영주경상전문대학) 1981 慶北專門大學 論文集 Vol.3 No.-

The apptoach adopted in this study on the scope of negation is based on the fundamental rules of Klima (1964) with respect to the occurrence of indefinites under negation. In Chapter I of this study related rules for explication of realtions between negatives and quantifiers are introductorily presented, Chapter II is concerned with phrase-scope and sentence-scope negation, with or without pre-verbs. Some-any alternations are crucial in determining the scope of negation from the fact that the scope may be roughly defined as the area in which "any" or "any"-compounds can appear. Klima's introduction of the deep structure morpheme Neg, as an optional constituent of S in sentence-initial position, permits a pair of sentences different in meaning which was modified by Stockwell and others(1973) by assingning the feature 〔+Specific〕 to the indetermates left unchanged by negation. The Neg conditions the change of indeterminates (e.g. "some") into indefinites (e.g. "any") Klima calls such alternations Indef-incorporation. The rule of Indef-incorporation also takes place in the sentence subordinate to [Affect] words such as "dislike" "doubt" "unhappy", "amaze", "before", but not in the same simple S with such words. A later rule of Klima's Neg-incorporation, may incorporate Neg into the indefinite obligatorily if any indefinite is in pre-Aux position, and optionally into the first in the series of "in construction with and "command" proposed respectively by Klima (1964) and Langacker (1969) to determine the scope of negation are introduced and studied in this chapter. The scope of negation in English normally extends from the negative itself to the end of the clause, or to the beginning of the final adjunct. The scope except in inherent negatives, also consists of everything which is "in construction with" or "commanded" by the negative morpheme and is placed to its right. By Klima's definition the only elements "in construction with" Neg in the trees are those dominated by the first branching node above Neg, whereas Langacker defines the relation "command", as follows: A node A "commands" another node B if (1) A does not dominate B; (2) B does not dominate A is in structure S_(i); and (4) node S_(i), dominates B. The difference in definitions stems essentially from the fact that in Klima's analysis, the scope is determined at a point in the derivation when sentence negation is the left-most daughter of S, whereas in Jackendoff's analysis (which follows Langacker's), the scope of negation is determined from the surface structure configuration. Chapter IV is devoted to focus, ambiguity and derivational constraints with relation to the scope of negation. The scope of negation can be indicated by where the information focus is placed, as scope and focus are interrelated such that the scope must include the focus. Jackendoff proposes a radically different approach to negation by means of semantic interpretation rules acting on derived structures, namely that the scope of negation is to be determined at the surface and that the left-to-right condition must be added to the surface structure. Some special problems of the rule for passivization be which the meaning of the sentence is changed so that the Extended Standard Theory contradicts Katz-Postal principle that transformations do not affect meaning and that only deep structures need be semantically interpreted. For the solution of the problem, Jackendoff argues that transformations do not necessarily preserve meaning and that the scope relation between negation and quantifiers in a sentence must be determined after the passive transformation has applied. And also Ross's constraints and some restrictions on negative sentences with quantifiers are presented and discussed in the chapter.

장형 부정문의 생성과 ‘못’ 부정문의 분화

임동훈 ( Lim Dong-hoon ) 국어학회 2020 국어학 Vol.0 No.93

본고는 부정문에 관한 세 가지 연구 질문에서 출발한다. 첫째, 한국어는 부정첨사가 동사 앞에 오는 형식의 단형 부정문이 있는데도 왜 비대칭 형식의 장형부정문이 존재하는가? 장형 부정문이 생성된 동기는 무엇이고 그 구조는 무엇인가? 둘째, 한국어는 평서문, 의문문 안에서도 부정 표지가 ‘안’과 ‘못’으로 분화되어 있는데 이 둘이 분화된 기준은 무엇이고 분화 기준은 어떤 문법 범주와 관련되어 있는가? 셋째, ‘못’ 단형 부정문은 부정 표시 외에 열등 의미를 표시하는 중의성을 지니고 ‘못’ 장형 부정문에는 이러한 중의성이 없다. 왜 이러한 차이가 존재하는가? 이에 대한 본고의 주장은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 장형 부정 구문은 부정소의 양화 초점이 동사구임을 유표적으로 표시하는 장치이다. 둘째, 장형 부정문은 복문이 아니라 단문이다. 셋째, ‘안’ 부정은 사태부정을 표시하고 ‘못’ 부정은 실현 부정을 표시한다. 부정소 ‘안’과 ‘못’은 상에 따라 분화되어 있다. 넷째, 실현부정은 열등 의미에서 발달하였다. 단형 부정에는 여전히 열등 의미가 잔존하여 있지만, 장형 부정은 부정의 양화 초점을 유표적으로 표시하는 장치이므로 열등의 잔존 의미를 지니지 않는다. 다섯째, 실현부정은 상황 유형에 따른 의미 변이를 보인다. This paper starts from three research questions. First, why does Korean have asymmetric long-form negation in addition to symmetric short-form negation? What is the syntactic structure of long-form negative sentences. Second, what is the dividing factor into two negative morphemes ‘an’, ‘mos’ in Korean declarative and interrogative sentences? Third, while short-form ‘mos’ negation holds inferior meaning, long-form ‘mos’ negation does not have it. What makes this difference? As to three questions, this paper tries to answer as follows. First, long-form negative sentence is a marked device to indicate quantificational focus of negative morphemes. Second, long-form negative sentences are not complex, but simple sentences. Third, ‘mos’ negation represents event negation while ‘an’ negation represents propositional negation. Fourth, event negation developed from inferior meaning. Short-form negation holds persistent inferior meaning. But long-form negation does not have inferior meaning because its genesis is related with the need of indicating quantificational focus. Fifth, event negation has semantic shifts according to situation types which it attaches to.