Bookmarking.

Negative concord is quite acceptable and frequent in many English dialects. It's discouraged in Standard English (whatever that amounts to) and could be interpreted to mean its contradictory, I don't doubt. However, within their respective dialects, the semantic content is equivalent: I ain't got none = I have none. They have the same sentence/speaker meaning, though I don't think Hacknslash doubts this. He seems to be arguing that sentences such as 'I aint got none' have that sort of semantic meaning using what he understands to be the rules of Standard English. In other words: If we understand Standard English as prohibiting negative concord, then, using his understandings of the strict conventions of SE and paying little attention to speaker meaning, then it will appear as if the speaker is saying he has some rather than none.

I should point out that Standard English has formal and informal uses. Suppose we say stuff like this:

You're picking up your wet dog from the vet? Not in my car you won't!

This is standard. It's not as if we're using some other dialect here. However, it is informal rather than formal. We wouldn't use this sort of style if we were writing an essay for a professional audience, although I utter sentences similar to the abovementioned sentence frequently. It's quite acceptable.

I should also point out that even within formal Stand English, there are instances which use two instances of negatives. For instance:

I neither saw Patrick nor Sam steal the gold.

Here 'neither' and 'nor' express negatives. We could have just said:

I didn't see either Patrick or Sam steal the gold.



It seems as though Hacknslash can't get no satisifaction from this thread.

Mick wrote:I should point out that Standard English has formal and informal uses. Suppose we say stuff like this:

You're picking up your wet dog from the vet? Not in my car you won't!

This is standard. It's not as if we're using some other dialect here. However, it is informal rather than formal. We wouldn't use this sort of style if we were writing an essay for a professional audience, although I utter sentences similar to the abovementioned sentence frequently. It's quite acceptable.

I should also point out that even within formal Stand English, there are instances which use two instances of negatives. For instance:

I neither saw Patrick nor Sam steal the gold.

I think that should be "I saw neither Patrick nor Sam steal the gold."

who cares.

Mick wrote:who cares.

* Who cares? *

On my way into work this morning I was reading 'A cognitive Approach to Language Learning' Peter Skehan (1998: Oxford University Press)
I found a couple of quotes that may pertain to some of the general issues in thread.

'It is MEANING that takes priority for older learners, and the form of language has secondary importance. [ ...] the resources to extract meaning that human possess increase in effectiveness as we get older. We become more adept at using strategies of communication, at exploiting schematic knowledge so that we say less but mean more' (p:3)

'Most listeners, in their native language, prefer to make a best-guess and keep up, rather than be accused of being slow witted but accurate pedants (although we can all bring to mind some members of this species).(p:14)
(Parentheses in original)

@ don't get me started, is the book about native or second language acquisition (or both)? I'm wondering about the "older learners" in the first paragraph.

In any case, it sounds like an interesting read.

Any interest in the evolutionary history of the double negation in French ? Because when it all started it was all but a double negation, it was an intensive. The story is a bit longish and might be a bit off-topic, that's why I am asking before typing.

palindnilap wrote:Any interest in the evolutionary history of the double negation in French ? Because when it all started it was all but a double negation, it was an intensive. The story is a bit longish and might be a bit off-topic, that's why I am asking before typing.

Great minds, palindnilap, great minds. I've been thinking about covering this Go ahead, I think it's a very interesting story, not least because nowadays spoken French is largely back to simple negation, but different than in Old French. J'sais pas, même si les autres ça les intéresse pas, moi j'veux bien en chatter ...

katja z wrote:...what about Swiss German dialects?

Unfortunately I can't tell you: the Swiss dialects (as opposed to normal German spoken with a Swiss accent) I find impossible to understand, so I have no idea what they do about their negatives!

Mick wrote:who cares.

Indeed, who?

Evolving wrote:

katja z wrote:...what about Swiss German dialects?

Unfortunately I can't tell you: the Swiss dialects (as opposed to normal German spoken with a Swiss accent) I find impossible to understand, so I have no idea what they do about their negatives!

Same here, Katja. No experience of Schwyzerdütsch whatsoever.

Mick wrote:I should point out that Standard English has formal and informal uses. Suppose we say stuff like this:

You're picking up your wet dog from the vet? Not in my car you won't!

This is standard. It's not as if we're using some other dialect here. However, it is informal rather than formal. We wouldn't use this sort of style if we were writing an essay for a professional audience, although I utter sentences similar to the abovementioned sentence frequently. It's quite acceptable.

I should also point out that even within formal Stand English, there are instances which use two instances of negatives. For instance:

I neither saw Patrick nor Sam steal the gold.

Here 'neither' and 'nor' express negatives. We could have just said:

I didn't see either Patrick or Sam steal the gold.



It seems as though Hacknslash can't get no satisifaction from this thread.

Very nice example, your 'not .... you won't'. Generally, you find in linguistics, that as soon as you think you have formulated a reasonable generalization about a certain structure, up pops an exception and then another one, and so on. This one seems to depend on that emphatic placing of the 'not' at the beginning - thus 'you won't do that not in my car' doesn't work.

I ain't not never forgetting to read no more of this thread.

nunnington wrote:
Very nice example, your 'not .... you won't'.

Seconded

Generally, you find in linguistics, that as soon as you think you have formulated a reasonable generalization about a certain structure, up pops an exception and then another one, and so on. This one seems to depend on that emphatic placing of the 'not' at the beginning - thus 'you won't do that not in my car' doesn't work.

But it does work with a suitable intonation pattern (or a comma in writing): "You won't do that, not in my car."

katja z wrote:

nunnington wrote:
Very nice example, your 'not .... you won't'.

Seconded

Generally, you find in linguistics, that as soon as you think you have formulated a reasonable generalization about a certain structure, up pops an exception and then another one, and so on. This one seems to depend on that emphatic placing of the 'not' at the beginning - thus 'you won't do that not in my car' doesn't work.

But it does work with a suitable intonation pattern (or a comma in writing): "You won't do that, not in my car."

But you could regard this example as two separate sentences. "You won't do that. Not in my car. The second one being elliptic.

katja z wrote:

nunnington wrote:
Very nice example, your 'not .... you won't'.

Seconded

Generally, you find in linguistics, that as soon as you think you have formulated a reasonable generalization about a certain structure, up pops an exception and then another one, and so on. This one seems to depend on that emphatic placing of the 'not' at the beginning - thus 'you won't do that not in my car' doesn't work.

But it does work with a suitable intonation pattern (or a comma in writing): "You won't do that, not in my car."

Brilliant! It does work. Now you have to decide if 'not in my car' is a separate clause, or an emphatic tag, or some such designation. Its as if it has to be separated off from the main clause?

It looks as if the 'not' has some special emphatic constructions, but possibly there are others as well. How about 'you're not marrying that girl, never!'?

nunnington wrote:

katja z wrote:
But it does work with a suitable intonation pattern (or a comma in writing): "You won't do that, not in my car."

Brilliant! It does work. Now you have to decide if 'not in my car' is a separate clause, or an emphatic tag, or some such designation. Its as if it has to be separated off from the main clause?

Regina wrote:
But you could regard this example as two separate sentences. "You won't do that. Not in my car. The second one being elliptic.

Now things are getting interesting! I'd go for a tag, but it can also be analysed as a separate clause, as Regina said. We seem to have a case where descriptive categories get blurry around the edges and start merging into each other.

It looks as if the 'not' has some special emphatic constructions, but possibly there are others as well. How about 'you're not marrying that girl, never!'?

I think this example is actually very similar to the first one.
"You're not marrying that girl, never."
"You're not marrying that girl, not now nor later."

But this only seems to work with adverbial elements, which are easy to dislocate and move around anywway. "You're not marrying, no one" would hardly be justifiable in the context of Standard English. Or maybe the constraint is that there has to be something between the negated verb and the negative "tag". Compare "You're not marrying, never" and "You're not marrying that girl, never."

Mick wrote:who cares.

I care. It physically hurt.