Matti Miestamo, University of Helsinki, <matti.miestamo@helsinki.

fi>

A Typology of Clausal Negation: Symmetric vs. Asymmetric

This paper presents the central results of a typological study of clausal negation (Miestamo 2003). The study
is based on a genealogically stratified sample of 297 languages. It focuses on standard negation defined as
the basic structural means languages have for negating declarative verbal main clauses. A typological
classification of standard negation structures is proposed. The frequencies and areal distributions of the
different types are discussed as well as some typological correlations. Functional motivations are proposed
for the typological findings and some diachronic issues are also treated. This paper concentrates on the
typological classification of negative structures illustrating it with numerous examples and also briefly
discusses the numerical data and the functional motivations.
The classification is based on the structural differences between affirmatives and negatives. The basic
distinction is between symmetric and asymmetric negation. In symmetric negation affirmatives and negatives
show no structural differences (except for the presence of the negative marker(s) of course), whereas in
asymmetric negation there are structural differences between affirmatives and negatives, i.e. asymmetries. A
distinction is made between constructional and paradigmatic asymmetry. Symmetric negative constructions
do not differ structurally from the corresponding affirmative constructions (ex. 1), but asymmetric ones do
(ex. 2,5). In symmetric paradigms all forms used in the affirmative have corresponding forms in the negative
and no distinctions are neutralized (e.g. in German or in Italian all verbal forms can be negated), whereas in
asymmetric paradigms the affirmative-negative correspondences are not one-to-one (ex. 3,4,5). Asymmetric
negation can be divided into subtypes according to which domains or categories are affected by the
asymmetry. In subtype A/Fin the finiteness of verbal elements changes — typically a finite element
(auxiliary) is added and the lexical verb loses its finiteness; in the A/Fin construction in the Nivkh examples
(2) the negative verb acts as the finite element of the clause and the lexical verb takes a dative suffix. In
subtype A/NonReal the negative is marked with a non-realized category such as irrealis; in Maung (3) the
construction is symmetric but the paradigm shows A/NonReal asymmetry since the irrealis form must be
used in the negative. In subtype A/Emph negatives contain marking that expresses emphasis in non-
negatives; in the Meithei examples (4) the construction is symmetric but the paradigm has A/Emph
asymmetry since the more emphatic assertive must be used in the negative. In subtype A/Cat the marking of
grammatical categories (e.g. TAM, or person-number) is affected in other ways; in the Kolokuma Ijo
examples (5) the negative marker replaces the TAM markers and there is both constructional and
paradigmatic A/Cat asymmetry. Both constructional and paradigmatic asymmetry can be found in all of these
subtypes, although paradigmatic asymmetry is marginal in A/Fin. Some of these subtypes can be divided into
further subtypes.
Symmetric negation is clearly the most common type found in the languages of the world. Clear
differences in frequency are found between the subtypes of asymmetric negation, A/Cat being the most
common and A/Emph the rarest. Symmetric negation is commonly found in all geographical areas, and there
are two areas where symmetric negation is found almost exclusively: Continental Europe and a part of
Southeast Asia. Asymmetric negation is most commonly found in Africa, where A/Cat asymmetries are very
common; A/Cat asymmetries are not rare elsewhere, either. A/NonReal is found to a significant extent only
in Australia. Most of the few languages showing A/Emph asymmetry are found in Southeast Asia and
Oceania. A/Fin is more evenly distributed. A slight correlation is found between symmetric negation,
preposed free negators and VO constituent order on the one hand, and between asymmetric negation,
postposed bound negators and OV order on the other.
The concept of analogy is central to the functional motivations proposed for the classification.
Symmetric negatives are language-internally analogous to the linguistic structure of the affirmative and thus
motivated by pressure for cohesion in the system. Asymmetric negation is language-externally analogous to
different asymmetries between affirmation and negation on the functional level — the stativity of negation,
the discourse context (backgroundedness) of negation, the semantic connection between negation and other
conceptualizations of the non-realized. The different subtypes of asymmetric negation have grammaticalized
different aspects of the functional asymmetry.
Data

(1) Shipibo-Konibo (Pilar Valenzuela, p.c.)

a. rono-ra kako-nko ka-ke
Rono.ABS -EVD Caco-ALL go-CMPL
‘Rono went to Caco.’
b. rono-ra kako-nko ka-yama-ke
Rono.ABS -EVD Caco-ALL go-NEG -CMPL
‘Rono did not go to Caco.’

(2) Nivkh (Ekaterina Gruzdeva, p.c.)

a. if p'ry-d' b. if p'ry-dokh k'au-d'
he come-IND he come-DAT not.be-IND
‘He comes / came.’ ‘He does not / did not come.’

(3) Maung (Capell & Hinch 1970: 67)

a. õi-udba b. ni-udba-ji c. marig ni-udba-ji
1SG .3-put 1SG .3-put-IRR.NONPST NEG 1SG .3-put-IRR.NONPST
‘I put.’ ‘I can put.’ ‘I do not put.’

(4) Meithei (Chelliah 1997: 133, 228)

a. tcwwí b. tcwwe c. cy fotostat tcwde
tcw-í tcw-e cy fotostat tcw-tc-e
do-NONHYP do-ASS I photostat do-NEG -ASS
‘(She) does.’ ‘(Yes, she) has.’ ‘I haven't made copies.’

(5) Kolokuma Ijo (Williamson 1965: 74)

a. a bó-mi b. a bó-yemi c. a bó-a
she come-PST she come-PRES she come-NEG
‘She came.’ ‘She is coming.’ ‘She did not come / is not coming.’

Abbreviations

1 - 1st person, 3 - 3rd person, ABS - absolutive, ALL - allative, ASS - assertive, CMPL - completive, DAT -
dative, EVD - evidential, IND - indicative, IRR - irrealis, NEG - negative, NONHYP - nonhypothetical, NONPST
- nonpast, PRES - present, PST - past, SG - singular

References

Capell, A., and H. E. Hinch. 1970. Maung Grammar. The Hague: Mouton.
Chelliah, Shobhana Lakshmi. 1997. A Grammar of Meithei. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Miestamo, Matti. 2003. Clausal Negation: A Typological Study. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Helsinki.
Williamson, Kay. 1965. A Grammar of the Kolokuma Dialect of Ijo. Cambridge: CUP.