Negation

The negator not in English is very like a multi-functional adverb in some respects, while different in others. We can first examine its main functions.

Sentential and manner-type negation

The only negator found in all languages is that with scope over a whole sentence. Although English has many other negator functions, the sentential one is the most common. This is similar to a sentential adverb save that it must appear in a modified A position, never in I or F.

The positioning in a main clause of sentential not—which is typically reduced to enclitic /=nt/ or even just /=n/ is:

. after the first word of the auxiliary if there is one, whether or not there is a copula, as in (70a–b);

. if there is no auxiliary and the verb is the copula be, after the copula, as in (70c);

. if there is no auxiliary and the verb is not a copula, then a dummy element do (a surrogate auxiliary) must be included, and not follows this, as in (70d).

(70a) John mightn’t have been in love

(70b) John mightn’t have laughed

(70c) John wasn’t in love

(70d) John didn’t laugh

Comparing these with (11a–d), the difference is that when there is no auxiliary, a sentential adverb simply precedes a non-copula verb (for example, He now hopes to stand for Parliament) whereas the negator requires do (for example, He doesn’t hope to stand for Parliament). Tense goes onto do, as it goes onto the first word of an auxiliary.

The possessive verb have behaves in an interesting way; it can be followed by not, like the copula be, or it can be preceded by do plus not, like a non-copula verb. Thus, corresponding to She has courage/a new car/a sore foot, we can have—with no significant difference in meaning—either of:

(71a) She doesn’t have courage/a new car/a sore foot

(71b) She hasn’t courage/a new car/a sore foot

A negative imperative always requires do, even if there is a copula or auxiliary; for example, Don’t be silly! and Don’t have drunk all the water before the main course arrives!

There is a historical reason for the do-requirement on the negator. In Middle English, not would generally follow a non-copula verb, as in I say not. The Elizabethans used do a good deal, for all sorts of purposes, and the negator naturally followed it, as in I did not say. Gradually, do became restricted to marking emphasis (I did say that) and to use in polar questions (Did he say that?). It was also retained in sentential negation with a non-copula verb when there was no auxiliary (see Jespersen 1917/1933: 9–10).

The negator not can also be used in a manner-type function, modifying verb, plus object (if there is one) and sometimes other following constituents. The negator must be in position V, immediately preceding the verb (never in position O). Furthermore, if there is no auxiliary or copula then a preceding do must be included, just as with sentential negation.

The contrast between sentential negation (modified A position) and manner-type negation (V position) can be seen in (72a–b).

(72a) The honest cricket captain might not (A) have won this time (but he always tries to win)

(72b) The crooked cricket captain might have [not (V) won] this time (on purpose, since the bookmakers paid him to lose)

When in sentential function, not can almost always reduce to n’t, an enclitic to the preceding auxiliary or copula or have or do; this is shown in (70a–d) and (71a–b). And in (72a) might not may be reduced to mightn’t. In contrast, a manner-type not will not normally be reduced after an auxiliary. For example, have not in (72b) may not be reduced to haven’t; contrast this with have not alternating with haven’t in I have not seen him/I haven’t seen him.

As mentioned, if n’t is cliticised to the preceding item, it is fronted with it in a question, as in Hasn’t he come?, Didn’t he come? However, when the full form not is used, this is retained after the subject, so that one says Has he not come?, Did he not come? (rather than *Has not he come?, *Did not he come?).

When there is a single-word auxiliary or no auxiliary at all, A and V functions coincide, as in:

(73a) The honest cricket captain did not (A) win yesterday

(73b) The crooked cricket captain did [not (V) win] yesterday

The sequence did (A) not in (73a) may be freely reduced to didn’t. In (73b) the manner-type function of not may be made clear by pronouncing not win as if it were a compound with a single stress: The crooked captain did ’notwin yesterday. In this circumstance, did and not will not be reduced to didn’t. If, however, there is some other clue to the manner-type function of not—for example, if on purpose were added—then did not in (73b) could well be reduced to didn’t.

A further pair of examples contrasting the two functions of not is:

(74a) John could not (A) have written the review (he doesn’t have the competence to have done so)

(74b) John could have [not (V) written the review] (if he didn’t wish to risk offending a friend, John had the option of declining the offer to review the friend’s book)

The existence of these two distinct functions of not is confirmed by their co-occurrence in a single clause, such as:

(75) I didn’t (A) dare not (V) buy the diamond ring

With respect to (75), my wife might have told me to buy a diamond ring for her. I didn’t want to since I know we can’t really afford it, but I’m so scared of my wife that I had not the courage to disobey her.

Note that if two not’s are included, one in sentential and one in manner type function—as in (75)—only the first not requires a preceding auxiliary or do.

The positioning of the negator with respect to an adverb can also indicate its function. Compare the placements of not and of sentential adverb also in:

(76a) John had not (A) also (A) resigned

(76b) John had also (A) [not (V) resigned]

Sentence (76a) implies that many people had resigned but that John didn’t; he was unusual in not having resigned. In contrast, (76b) implies that quite a few people didn’t resign, and John joined this group.

Another illustration involves correctly, which can have manner or sentential function:

(77a) He didn’t (A) [correctly (V) position it] (he should have positioned it properly and didn’t)

(77b) He correctly (A) [didn’t (V) position it] (what he had been told to do was not position it, and he obeyed this instruction)

An alternative to (77a) is He didn’t (A) [position it correctly (O)].

Often, the sentential and manner-type functions of not have different tense-aspect expectations. Compare:

(78a) John did not (A) accept the job (he declined it)

(78b) John has [not (V) accepted the job] (he’s still thinking about it)

That is, past tense in (78a) refers to something which has definitely happened, whereas the have form in (78b) refers to a decision which is still pending. In (78b) not might be augmented by yet, creating the complex negator not yet— John has not yet accepted the job or John has not accepted the job yet.

When the negator and an adverb occur together, in the same functional slot, they may potentially occur in either order; not has scope over all that follows. Compare—with easily and not both in A position—He could not easily have done it (it would have been too difficult for him) and He could easily not have done it (he had the option to neglect doing it).