Paratactic negation revisited
The case of the Finnish verb epäillä
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.
- 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
Published online: 19 October 2018
Cruse, D. Alan
Cuypere, Ludovic de, Johan van der Auwera & Klaas Willems
Espinal, Maria Teresa
Hakulinen, Auli & Fred Karlsson
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja-Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho
Haiman, John & Sandra A. Thompson
Herlin, Ilona, Jyrki Kalliokoski & Laura Visapää
Horn, Laurence R.
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum
Kielitoimiston sanakirja. [The new dictionary of Modern Finnish.] Available online at http://www.kielitoimistonsanakirja.fi/.
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.
Laury, Ritva & Eeva-Leena Seppänen
Seppänen, Eeva-Leena & Ritva Laury
Schneider, Stefan, Julie Glikman & Mathieu Avanzi
Thompson, Sandra A.
2015 Conversation ‘fear + neg’ in LingTyp mailing list on 20 March 2015: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/2015-March/thread.html
Tovena, Lucia M.
Vries, Mark de
Wouden, Ton van der
Wurff, Wim van der
Cited by 1 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 09 april 2022. 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.