78
SYNTAX ANALYSIS OF TERMS WITH NEGATIVE AFFIXES
Kosimova Dilobar Tursunalievna,
Xodjayeva Naima Sharafitdinova
Academic Lyceum of Tashkent State
University of Economics, teachers of
English
E-mail:
Abstract
. Paraphrasing or “reading” of an affixal negation derivative may help in
indicating the group into which the derivative can be accommodated, as shown by the two
readings of the French verb déconseiller. The distribution of the subtypes of these two groups
needs to be explored further, which might give insights as to the role of various affixes in the
distribution of their derivatives. The observations of Sapir (cited by Cysouw 2006) regarding the
imbalance of affixation seem to be challenged in the domain of negation. They have observed
that in the domain of affixation, the number of suffixes is higher than the number of prefixes,
which amounts to the imbalance in affixation. In the case of negative affixes, however, prefixes
seem to outnumber suffixes. This phenomenon could be examined further to see whether it is
linked to the distribution of affixal negation into the groups “direct” and “indirect”.
Key words:
negativity in linguistics, negative affixes, prefix, suffix, inflection, derivation,
types of negative affixes, metallurgical terms,syntaxeme analysis.
1. Introduction
Much
literature on negation (Jespersen 1917, Horn 2001, Zeijlstra 2007,
Hintikka 2002, Geurts 1998) primarily deals with sentential negation and pays
comparatively lesser attention to lexical negation in general, and to affixal negation
in particular. Antonymy, which is a part of lexical negation
negation” is used to indicate the negation of…, is treated in the domain of
lexicology and to some extent in semantics (Lehrer 1985, Ljung 1974), but affixal
negation receives lesser attention even in the domain of morphology.
After examining the affixal derivatives, it can be observed that affixal
negation is not a homogenous set in its own. The various subtypes of negation (as
expressed through the meanings of the derivatives) – diminution, lack, absence,
inferiority (physical, hierarchical), falsehood, reversal (of action, of direction),
deprivation, removal, etc., to cite a few – can be included in this set.
In this article, an attempt is made to group these various types of affixal
negation
into
two
main
groups
–
direct
and
indirect.
The
example
infamous
(English,
henceforth
“en”)
when
put
in
contrast
with
unhappy
(en) helps us in distinguishing between these two types of negation.
An
unhappy
person is a person who is
not happy
, which is in direct opposition
79
with
happy
. An
infamous
person, on the other hand, is not someone who is not
famous, but it is someone who is famous for the wrong reasons. The
word
infamous
is thus not in direct opposition with
famous
, but still maintains a
negative connotation. The first type of negation (
happy
/
unhappy
) is that of direct
negation, whereas the latter example (
famous
/
infamous
) is that of indirect
negation.
These types of affixal negation (direct negation and indirect negation) are
examined with examples in English, French (henceforth “fr”), Sanskrit (henceforth
“sk”) and Marathi (henceforth “mr”). Although all these languages belong to the
Indo-European family, they come from different sub-families – French has Latin
origins, English belongs to the Germanic sub-family, Sanskrit is a classical
language, as Latin and Greek. Marathi, which is an Indo-European language
spoken by about 70 million people, mainly in the region of Maharashtra in India,
has its roots in Sanskrit and some other languages. All these languages exhibit a
rich morphology, especially with regard to affixation.
Negative affixes, as is the case with any other affix, may exhibit multiple
shades of meaning (which is evident in the meaning of the respective derivative).
This polysemy renders these affixes flexible in terms of the positioning of their
derivatives in the two types of negation described above. The prefix
mis
- (en)
produces some indirect negations (
mislead
,
misplace
,
misconstrue
), as well as
some direct negations (
misfire
(= to not go off, in case of a gun),
misfit
(= not to fit,
in case of clothes)). Similar is the case of the prefix
a
- (sk, mr) (= not) with some
direct negations (
ayogya
(= what is not correct),
abalā
(= who does not have
strength)) and some indirect negations, like
adoha:
(= inappropriate time for
milking a cow),
adwāram
(= wrong way).
2. Affixal negation
The term “affixal negation”, simply put, means “negation carried out by or
with the help of an affix”
It must be specified that the term “affix” is used
here to…. It results from a process of affixation that creates a new form through
derivation (and negation thereby) and creates a new word form (which is called
derivative), making such an affixation part of derivational affixation.
Affixal negation provides an efficient way of formulating semantically
negative notions, while still allowing the construction of “affirmative” sentences.
The
sentence
“He
is
not
happy
”
can
be
rewritten
as
“He
is
unhappy
80
2.1. Why affixal negation?
There is a possibility to negate almost all the elements with a sentential
negative, as shown by the examples below.
I gave you a pen.
- I did not give you a pen. / It’s not I that gave you a pen. / John gave you a
pen. (= I didn’t)
- I did not give you a pen. / It’s not you that I gave a pen to. / I gave him a pen.
(= not you)
- I did not give you a pen. / I lent you a pen. (= not given)
- I did not give you a pen, I gave you the pen. (= not any pen, but a particular
pen)
- I did not give you a pen, I gave you a pencil. (= not a pen)
Such focus is indicated by various means, like using the negation of the
verb, restructuring the phrase, varying the stress, using altogether different
lexemes, etc. The phenomenon is examined in detail by Horn 1985.
No such flexibility extends to affixal negation. It can only negate certain
elements. The elements belonging to the grammatical categories “pronoun”,
“proper nouns” (even some of the nouns), “prepositions” (or “postpositions” in the
case of languages like Marathi and Sanskrit) and “conjunctions” cannot be negated
using affixation. One can negate, using affixation, some of the nouns, adjectives,
adverbs and some of the verbs.
This is illustrated by the very frequent English affixes
non
- and
un
-. They
seem to possess the ability of negating almost any element belonging to most of
the grammatical categories (except for the prepositions and the conjunctions). This
is probably due to the fact that these affixes negate the very nature or character
(denotative or connotative) of the referent of a word. As Horn (2001)
2001, 280. mentions, the affix
non
- negates the “observable” (or denotative)
meaning and the affix
un
- negates the “underlying” (or connotative) meaning of a
word. Pronouns, prepositions and conjunctions are excluded, probably because the
nature of the meaning they carry is “instructional” and not “referential” or
“descriptive”.
81
2.2. Advantages of affixal negation
There are, however, some distinct advantages of affixal negation.
2.2.1. Construction of “affirmative” sentences
A “negative” sentence typically uses verbal negation. The sentence “Christ
is not mortal” is termed as a “negative” sentence. The reformulation of this
sentence “Christ is immortal”, however, is more often than not termed as
“affirmative” and not “negative”. Psychologically, the speaker is assured that he /
she is not making a “negative” statement
2.2.2. Economy
Affixal negation allows one to achieve economy in terms of the number of
“words” used. Saying that something is “non-white” is much easier than specifying
that it is “not white, but not black nor red either”.
2.2.3. Approximation
Providing the information of something being just “non-white” and not
specifying its true colour may appear as “approximation”. But this power of
approximation or generalization helps in facilitating conversations at times, if the
exact details are not the need at that moment.
2.2.4. Shades of negation
Affixal negation helps in capturing the various “grey” shades of negation
like diminution, badness, inferiority, reversal of action, etc., as opposed to the
black and white nature of the NOT type of negation, usually found with sentential
or verbal negation. In this NOT type of negation in sentential negation, the finer
adjustments of information might be lost.
3. Affixal negation – direct and indirect
The laws of negation as defined in the Aristotelian approach (as cited by
Horn 2001) are based on two criteria: Law of Contrarity (LC) and Law of
Excluded Middle (LEM).
The type of negation that obeys both of these laws is termed as
“contradictory” (for example,
alive
/
dead
) and the one that obeys only the LC but
not the LEM, is termed as “contrary” (for example,
hot
/
cold
).
In the realm of affixal negation, we do find examples for both these types of
negation.
Obéir
/
désobéir
(fr),
bhadra
(= good)
/
abhadra
(= bad)
(sk),
mortal
/
immortal
(en)
are
examples
of
contradictory
negation,
whereas
happy
/
unhappy
(en),
utsuk
(= eager) /
anutsuk
(= not eager) (mr) are
examples of contrary negation. The grouping of affixal negation into “direct” and
82
“indirect”
negation”… encompasses these two types of negation.
3.1. Direct negation
Direct negation is characterized by the NOT element in the derivative with
respect to its base. An
unhappy
person is a person who is “NOT happy”. Similarly
a
non-white
box is a box that is “NOT white” (whether the box is black or red or
even colourless is inconsequential here). Direct negation thus encompasses both
types of negation as described above – contrary as well as contradictory negation.
Similar is the case of indirect negation. To
mislead
someone is not to “NOT lead”
someone, but “to lead someone in a direction that is not desired”.
An
infamous
person is not someone who is “NOT famous”, but it is someone who
is “famous for undesired reasons”.
The groups direct and indirect, however, may not be mutually exclusive
from the point of view of some affixes. One may find derivatives formed by the
same affix belonging to both groups, although the affinities (in terms of the
number of derivatives and productivity) of that particular affix towards either of
the groups may vary.
A large portion of negations carried out by the prefix
mis-
(en) are indirect in
nature (
mislead
,
misplace
,
misconstrue
), but some examples of direct negation
with
mis-
(
misfire
(= to not go off, in the case of a gun)
misfit
(= not to fit, in the case of clothes)) can still be found. On
the other hand, while a lot of negations carried out by the prefix
a-
(sk, mr) (= not)
in Sanskrit are direct in nature (
ayogya
(= what is not correct),
abala
(= he, who
does not have strength)), some examples of indirect negation can also be found,
like
adoha:
(= inappropriate time for milking a cow),
adwāram
(= wrong way).
As seen above, direct negation is of the type “NOT X”, i.e., it negates the
base logically, by negating its existence. The negations like
unhappy
(en) (as
opposed to
happy
),
incontournable
(fr) (as opposed to
contournable
),
non-
Christian
(en) (as opposed to
Christian
),
apragat
(sk, mr) (= not advanced /
backward) (as opposed to
pragat
(= advanced)),
niswārthi
(mr) (= one who thinks
of gains for others) (as opposed to
swārthi
(= one who thinks of gains only for
himself)), etc., fall under this category. This direct negation is brought about by the
negative affix acting upon the subject, the object or the predicator of the base.
In
pragat
/
apragat
(sk, mr), we have the negation of the subject (= what is not
advanced) using the affix
a-
. In
contournable
/
incontournable
(fr), we have the
83
negation of the object using
in-
. In
like
/
dislike
(en), we have the negation of the
predicator using
dis-
. Some more subtypes can be added to this category of direct
negation, like the negations of the type “privative” (
couronner
/
découronner
(fr)),
“reversal of action” (
motiver
/
démotiver
(fr)), etc.
Amongst the types of negation described by Horn 2001 and Lieber 2004,
“contrary negation” (
happy
/
unhappy
(en)), as well as “contradictory negation”
(
finite
/
infinite
(en)) can be said to belong to this category of direct negation.
3.2. Indirect negation
Indirect negation on the other hand is a bit more peculiar than this. Indirect
negation is that type of negation which may not look like a logical negation (P –
~P) but is still a negation in terms of its connotation.
Negations of the following types can be said to belong to the category of
indirect negation:
Reversal of direction:
purogāmi
(= who / which moves forward)
/
pratigāmi
(sk, mr) (= who / which moves backwards). Here negation is carried
out without negating the concept of movement indicated by the base
gāmi
.
Reversal of action:
tie
/
untie
(en), negation by indicating an action
performed to reverse another previous action.
Inferiority:
tension
/
hypotension
(fr),
negation
without
negating
the
existence of tension.
Insufficiency:
normal
/
subnormal
(en), only giving a precision about the
level, taken as negative in some contexts (as discussed elsewhere in this article).
Badness / wrong:
conduite
/
méconduite
(fr), negation in the form of only
giving a precise description of someone’s behaviour (in a negative way).
Over-abundance:
active
/
hyperactive
(en), negation in the form of existence
in excessive and undesired quantity of activity, typically in the case of a child
(medically taken to be a disorder).
Pejorative:
drunk
/
drunkard
(en), negation by pejorative indication of
excessive drinking.
Opposition:
matter
/
antimatter
(en),
terrorist
/
anti-terrorist
(en), negation
by indication of opposition in notion, action, ideology, etc.
Removal:
bug
/
debug
(en), negation indicating the removal of something.
Some more interesting cases of indirect negation are discussed below in
section 3.3.
3.3. Some interesting cases of indirect negation
84
In French, the word
déconseiller
is a good example of indirect negation. The
negative affix
dé
- is used for direct negation as we have seen in some examples,
like
découronner
, where it negates the action of crowning somediv.
In
déconseiller
, however, one does not negate the action indicated by the
base
conseiller
, i.e., the action of giving advice. The negation instead acts on the
nature of advice. When one does the action of
déconseiller
on somediv, one is
still giving an advice but that of not doing something. (for example, “
les frites sont
déconseillées pendant le régime
” = one is advised not to eat fries when on a diet).
Similar is the case of
infamous
in English. The affix
in
- does not negate the
state of being famous; it negates, instead, the reason for this fame. An infamous
person is still famous, but for the wrong reasons.
In Marathi and Sanskrit, the prefix
a
- usually carries out direct negation. In
some contexts, however, this prefix carries meanings other than the direct NOT.
In
akāli
(= mr) (= inappropriate time;
kāl
= time), it carries the meaning
“inappropriate”. Similar is the case of
adoha:
in Sanskrit. The word comes from
the verbal root
duh
which means “to milk a cow”;
adoha:
means “inappropriate for
milking”, which is usually used for indicating time. Hence,
adoha:
means
“inappropriate time for milking a cow”, and the prefix
a
- carries the meaning of
“inappropriate”. Another example of the prefix
a
- carrying out indirect negation
is
adwāram
(sk) which means “wrong way”, with
a
- taking up the meaning
“wrong”.
Some more examples of indirect negation are
déparler
(fr) (= to talk
inconsiderately),
décrier
(fr) (= to bad-mouth someone),
déraisonner
(fr) (= to
make wrong judgments),
infâme
(fr) (same as
infamous
in English),
non-
événement
(fr) (= an event that is given undue or undeserved importance esp. by
the media),
non-issue
(en) (= an issue that is given undue or undeserved
importance),
anti-hero
(en) (= a central character or a protagonist in a film or a
work of fiction, who lacks the characteristics of a conventional hero),
misuse
(en)
(= use but not in the desired way),
ageless
(en) (= whose age cannot be estimated
or who does not get old),
kugrām
(mr) (= a very small, almost remote and
inaccessible, village;
grām
= village).
4. Negation by non-negative affixes
Some affixes by themselves are not considered as “negative affixes”. Out of
context, they indicate just a different state of things from what is usually
considered as “normal”. A
subspecies
is a hierarchically inferior species to some
85
other more “general” species in a particular classification system – but it is still a
species of some kind. A
hypermart
or
hypermarket
is a store bigger in size than
a
supermarket
, which in turn is bigger than a
market
, which in this case is taken as
the normal term for a shop or a place where commodities are sold. In other words,
the words
market
or
species
can be considered as unmarked whereas the
words
supermarket
,
hypermarket
,
subspecies
are marked words.
Consider the following examples:
This child is hyperactive.
The athlete put in a subnormal performance.
If these utterances are put in context, they convey different meanings of the
affixes
hyper
- and
sub
- from the ones indicated above. In the case of a child being
examined medically / psychologically, the state of being
hyperactive
is considered
a “negative” attribute. For an athlete, who has set high expectations of himself, not
performing as well as he usually would is not desirable. Thus the
adjective
subnormal
in this case would be a negative attribute of his performance.
This does not imply that all the derivatives of these affixes are negative, but one
should note that such negation by non-negative affixes may occur.
As illustrated by Lehrer (1985), Ljung (1974), Givón (1970), it is usually the
marked member of a pair of adjectives that carries the “negative” value. The
elements
hyperactive
and
subnormal
in the examples are thus the “negative”
elements of the pairs
active
/
hyperactive
and
normal
/
subnormal
. As far as
grouping these adjectives – in terms of the type of negation that they carry – is
concerned, they can be grouped as being part of indirect negation.
One can observe similar phenomena in the case of some other non-negative
affixes too, like
hypo
-,
micro
-,
mini
-,
semi
-, etc.
5. Role of “reading” or paraphrasing
Paraphrasing plays an important role in determining whether a particular
derivative could be considered as negative or not. Additionally, it could also help
in grouping a negative derivative as being of the direct or indirect type.
As seen above, an affix can negate a base by acting upon the subject, the
object or the predicator of the “reading”. The Sanskrit and Marathi
derivatives
apragat
(of
pragat
) shows the negation of the subject using the
affixe
a
-, the French derivative
incontournable
(which cannot be surpassed /
86
bypassed)
shows
the
negation
of
the
object
and
the
English
derivative
dislike
shows the negation of the predicator using
dis
-.
We identify the affixal negation of the type “direct” as the one that is
brought about by a logical negation of the base (P - ~P). We identify “indirect”
negation as the one where the derivative is not in logical opposition with the base,
but still maintains a negative connotation.
The French word
déconseiller
presents an important and interesting
example. Dictionaries like
Le Larousse de poche
(2003),
TLFi
, Littré en ligne
define this word as “
conseiller de ne pas faire
” (= to advise not to do something).
One may also come across it being paraphrased as “
ne pas conseiller de faire
”
(= not to advise to do something). The former deconstruction of the derivative
would classify it as being indirect as discussed above in 3.2. The latter way of
paraphrasing, however, would make it fall into the category of direct negation,
since in this case it appears as if the existence of the base (i.e.,
conseiller
or to
advise) itself is negated.
The difference made by paraphrasing can be illustrated with an interesting
case in English (and it is possible to find some more in English as well as in other
languages) – it is the case of
invaluable
.
There appears to be a negation at the formal level, brought about by the
attachment of a normally or predominantly negative prefix
in
- to the adjectival
base
valuable
. A deeper examination beyond the surface level is what makes it
problematic. A possible paraphrasing of
invaluable
is “the value of which cannot
be estimated, or what is above valuation”. This in turn has a very much positive
connotation and usage. Still, there is a negation taking place (of a value, in that it
cannot be estimated). So the question here is, are such cases to be considered to be
of negation or not? On the surface level, there is definitely a negation, which can
be categorized as direct negation. Does the paraphrasing still keep it in the domain
of negation or does its connotation take it out of negation?
6. Polysemy of negative affixes
It is the polysemy of the affixes (as discussed by Corbin 2001, Lieber 2004,
Lehrer 2000 and others cited by them) that gives rise to derivatives of diverse types
from the same or different bases. This polysemy is in turn responsible for the
placement of the derivatives in different subsets of the set of derivatives in general.
Further, the polysemy of negative affixation gives rise to the various shades of
negation. These negative derivatives can be then classified as belonging to the
87
direct negation or indirect negation type.
Take the case of the prefix
in
- in French. It forms derivatives
like
inanimé
(NOT
X),
indécision
(lack),
indépendance
(absence),
inconduite
(badness). In addition to
the predominant NOT meaning, it conveys various other meanings like lack,
absence, badness. As discussed earlier, an examination of the nature of negation in
these derivatives would be helpful in classifying them as belonging to the direct or
indirect type of negation. In the case of the derivatives
inanimé
(NOT
X),
indécision
(lack) and
indépendance
(absence), it can be observed that the
derivative contains a logical negation of the base.
inanimé
= NOT
animé
indécision
= NO
décision
indépendance
= NO
dépendance
As for
inconduite
, however, the nature of negation is different from the
previous cases. The derivative
inconduite
does not mean “NO behaviour”, but
“BAD behaviour”. So in this case, the existence of the base (
conduite
) is not
negated, but a negative connotation is attached to it.
Hence, the first three derivatives (
inanimé
,
indécision
and
indépendance
)
would be classified as belonging to the direct negation type, whereas the
derivative
inconduite
would be classified as a case of indirect negation.
It is thus not possible to predict
a priori
the distribution of the derivatives of
a particular affix under the categories of direct and indirect negation.
At times, ZERO meaning is also one of the meanings acquired by an affix as
a result of its polysemy. In Marathi, for example, the base
čapaḷ
(= stealthy,
speedy) in combination with the prefix
a
- forms
ačapaḷ
, which has the same
meaning as
čapaḷ
. In this case, the otherwise negative affix
a
- possesses a ZERO
meaning. A similar phenomenon is observed in French in the case of the negative
prefix
dé
- (
doublement
/
dédoublement
) where it acquires a ZERO meaning. Such
ZERO meanings would not be included in the negative meanings of the affix.
7. Synonymy of negative affixes
In Marathi, one finds the derivatives
aniččhā
as well as
niriččhā
– the first
one is formed with the prefix
an
- attached to the nominal base
iččhā
and the
second one is formed through the combination of the prefix
ni(r)
- and the same
base
iččhā
. This is a case where there are multiple affixes being attached to the
same base. Both the affixes bring about negation, so at a macro level they are
88
synonymous. At a micro level, however, their meanings are not exactly identical.
Not only are the meanings of the affixes different, but the meaning of the base is
the same in both cases. So this rules out the possibility of the polysemy or the
homonymy of the base creating two negative derivatives with two different affixes.
How then could these two derivatives be classified? The nominal base
iččhā
means
“a desire” or “a wish”. The prefix
an
- occurs in utterances like “
tyāne he kām
kahishyā aniččhene kele
” (= he did this job without really wanting to do it).
So
aniččhā
indicates the state of “not having a desire” or “not wanting”. One finds
the derivative
niriččha
in utterances like “
tyāne niriččhapane he kām kele
” (= he
did this job without any desire). Even if on the surface both of these derivatives
appear to indicate the lack of desire, there is still a subtle difference. When one
performs a task with
aniččha
, it means that the person does not want to perform
that particular task but probably wants to do something else. On the other hand,
doing something with
niriččha
means carrying out the job with no expectations of
any gains out of it and with no particular desire of doing anything else either.
A similar behaviour of these two prefixes is also observed in the case of
other derivatives like
ni:pakṣ
(= not taking any sides (e.g. in a dispute))
and
apakṣ
(= who does not belong to any party (esp. political), an independent
candidate),
nirapekṣ
(= without
having
any
expectations
of
returns)
and
anapekṣit
(= unexpected).
One can observe, thus, that the prefix
a(n)
- is more of a simple negation
(NOT), whereas the prefix
ni:(ṣ/r)
- indicates a voluntary rejection. But this
meaning of the prefix
ni:(ṣ/r)
- is observed only when it competes with
a(n)
-.
Normally it indicates a simple negation or a lack, for example
niṣkrīy
(= doing no
action),
nirvikār
(= lacking emotions),
nirbuddh
(= lacking intelligence), etc. The
point to note here is that both these types belong to the group of direct negation.
Similar competition of synonymy between negative affixes can also be
observed in English. The negative affixes
a
-,
iN
- and
non
- compete with each other
over the formation of derivatives with the base
moral
. All the derivatives,
viz.
amoral
,
immoral
and
non-moral
indicate the state of “not being in
conformance with established moral values”
of Current English 1990.. But it is revealed on a more detailed examination
that
amoral
indicates a non-relatedness with morality,
immoral
indicates a direct
opposition to morality and
non-moral
carries a relatively neutral meaning, while
still indicating an opposition to moral values. Another example of such a
89
competition of synonyms is that of the derivative pair
illogical
and
non-logical
,
where
illogical
indicates a direct negation of the notion of being logical and
non-
logical
carries a more neutral meaning
The prefixes
dis
- and
mis
- produce the derivatives
displace
and
misplace
in
combination with the base
(to) place
. In both these derivatives, the underlying
meaning is “to not have something in its intended place”, the difference, however,
being that of voluntary control over the action.
It is interesting to compare such competition of synonymy between negative
affixes with a similar competition observed between the affixes
non
- and
un
- in
English.
These
affixes
produce
derivatives
like
unclear
and
nonclear
(although
nonclear
is not attested by the British National
Corpus, its occurrences can be observed on the Internet by simply googling it).
One may have an
unclear
idea but not a
nonclear
one. On the other hand, the
bodily fluids that are not clear in appearance are described as
nonclear
, but not
as
unclear
. This is in line with Horn (2001)
Horn 2001, 280. – the
affix
non
- negates the “observable” (or denotative) meaning and the affix
un
-
negates the “underlying” (or connotative) meaning of a word. Hence, a fluid
cannot be
unclear
and an idea cannot be
nonclear
. The same can be observed in
the case of the pairs
non-American
/
un-American
or
non-Christian
/
unchristian
,
etc.
Although these two competitions between affixes appear similar on the
surface, and both of these can be grouped under the direct type of negation,
examining them together brings out some interesting differences. In the first case,
that of
ni:(ṣ/r)
- vs.
a(n)
-, the meaning of the base remains the same in both the
derivatives, thereby leaving it to the affixes to sort out the distribution with the
help of the context. In the second case (
un
- vs.
non
-), however, the polysemy of the
base lends a hand by giving out a denotative meaning in one derivative and a
connotative meaning in another. This helps in resolving the conflict between the
affixes and ensures their distribution.
8. Conclusion
The groups “direct” and “indirect” of affixal negation encompass the
traditional categories of negation, i.e., contrary negation and contradictory
negation.
One can observe that the groups “direct negation” and “indirect negation”
are not mutually exclusive. An affix that forms a derivative of one type may also
90
form a derivative of the other (e.g. the derivatives of the English prefix
mis
-: “
to
misfire
” is the direct negation of “
to fire
” (a gun), whereas “
to misunderstand
” is a
case of indirect negation of “
to understand
”). Hence it may not be possible to
predict
a priori
the distribution of the derivatives of a particular affix into the
groups of direct or indirect negation.
Paraphrasing or “reading” of an affixal negation derivative may help in
indicating the group into which the derivative can be accommodated, as shown by
the two readings of the French verb
déconseiller
.
The distribution of the subtypes of these two groups needs to be explored
further, which might give insights as to the role of various affixes in the
distribution of their derivatives.
The observations of Sapir (cited by Cysouw 2006) regarding the imbalance
of affixation seem to be challenged in the domain of negation. They have observed
that in the domain of affixation, the number of suffixes is higher than the number
of prefixes, which amounts to the imbalance in affixation. In the case of negative
affixes, however, prefixes seem to outnumber suffixes. This phenomenon could be
examined further to see whether it is linked to the distribution of affixal negation
into the groups “direct” and “indirect”.
List of references
1.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude towards Remi Jolivet, Pierre
Larrivée and Jayant Gadgil for discussions, reviews and insightful suggestions
on draft versions of this article, which also benefited from the observations of
the participants at the conference
A Contrario
(March 25, 2010), organized by
Université de Caen Basse-Normandie.
2.
The term “lexical negation” is used to indicate the negation of or at the level of a
word. This includes antonymy as well as affixal negation. This does not include
the negation of a verb with the help of
not
in English,
ne … pas
in
French,
nicht
in German, etc., which forms a part of “sentential negation”, i.e.,
negation at the level of a sentence.
3.
It must be specified that the term “affix” is used here to indicate “derivational
affix” (as opposed to “inflectional affix”). There seem to be varied opinions as
to the use of the term “affix” (for example, whether it should be used to indicate
the elements used for derivation as well as inflection or whether it should be
reserved for the elements helping in derivation and not for those participating in
inflection). That debate is out of scope of the current article.
91
4.
One can find allusions to this term “indirect negation” elsewhere in literature.
Jespersen (1917) uses this very term, but in the context of sentential negation
and not for affixal negation. Horn (2001, 274-276) briefly discusses a similar
idea of “emotive / evaluative negation”, which he calls “E-Neg”.
5.
Example given in Haïk 1998, 35-36.
6.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English
1990.
