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
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

Cited by 1 other publications

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 20 may 2023. 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.