SKRIPSI
Submitted to fulfill one of the requirements of Sarjana Sastra Degree
IMA 63707015
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF LETTERS
INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF COMPUTER BANDUNG
(A Study of Syntax and Semantics)
SKRIPSI
IMA NIM. 63707015
Bandung, May 2012
Approved as a skripsi by:
Acknowledged by: Head of English Department
Retno Purwani Sari, S.S., M.Hum. NIP: 4127.20.03.004
Advisor I
Retno Purwani Sari, S.S., M.Hum. NIP: 4127.20.03.004
Advisor II
vii ABSTRACT
This research, entitled “Negative Equivalent Constructions „no‟ and „not‟
in The Jakarta Post‟s October 13th 2011”, discusses about the using of „no‟ and
„not‟ in negative constructions that lead to different semantic entailments. The aims of this research are to describe the negative construction that have negative equivalent, to describe the syntactic features that may expose the existence of negative equivalent, to describe the different entailments, and also to describe the Case and State Roles involved in negative construction „no‟ and „not‟.
The Grand theory of negation used to analyze the data is taken from
Randolph Quirk in his book, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language. The method used in this research is descriptive analytic. The data of this research are analyzed and described descriptively. The data of this research
are the negative constructions „no‟ and „not‟ taken from The Jakarta Post‟s
October 13th 2011.
Based on the analysis in this research, it can be concluded that negative construction „no‟ and „not‟ may have another similar construction (negative equivalent) that leads to different semantic entailments. Semantic entailments themselves may be analyzed through examining the scope and focus of negation, and also by examining the Case and State Roles involved in the negative construction.
viii ABSTRAK
Penelitian yang berjudul “Negative Equivalent Construction „no‟ and „not‟
in The Jakarta Post‟s October 13th 2011” ini membahas tentang penggunaan „no‟
dan „not‟ dalam konstruksi negatif yang memunculkan perbedaan pertautan makna. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mendeskripsikan konstruksi negatif yang mempunyai ekivalen negatif, mendeskripsikan fitur sintaksis yang menunjukkan keberadaan ekivalen negatif dan juga untuk mendeskripsikan relasi kejadian dan keadaan yang terlibat dalam konstruksi negatif „no‟ dan „not‟.
Teori mengenai negasi yang digunakan untuk menganalisis data diambil dari Randolph Quirk dalam bukunya, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah deskriptif analitik.
Dalam penelitian ini, data dianalisis dan kemudian dijabarkan secara deskriptif. Data penelitian merupakan konstruksi negatif „no‟ dan „not‟ yang diambil dari Harian The Jakarta Post Edisi 13 Oktober 2011.
Berdasarkan hasil analisis, dapat disimpulkan bahwa konstruksi negatif „no‟ dan „not‟ dapat mempunyai konstruksi negatif yang setara (ekivalen negatif) yang dapat memunculkan pertatutan makna yang berbeda. Perbedaan pertautan makna itu sendiri dapat dianalis dengan menguji cakupan dan fokus negasi, dan juga dengan menguji relasi kejadian dan keadaan yang terdapat dalam konstruksi negatif tersebut.
PAGE OF DEDICATION
I wish to express my greatest appreciation for the finishing of this research
paper to the followings:
1. My Merciful Lord, Allah SWT, for giving me Your mercy that has never
stopped to come to my life. May praise and peace be upon to the prophet
Muhammad SAW.
2. My beloved parents, Mamah and Bapak, Mrs. Tri Hartani and Mr. Ruhiyat,
thank you very much for your love and care, attention, support, and spirit.
You become my biggest motivation to do the best in every way. Both of you
are the reason why I need to be succesful. No one could love you more than I
do, I could love you even better.
3. My sister beloved sister Indah and all my family for encouraging, helping,
and cheering me up. Thank you for being in my side when I need you all.
4. Ganjar Lesmana and Ananda Raya Gamarezky My beloved ones who always
take care of me, support me, motivate me to be a better one. Thanks a lot for
your patience, your sacrifice, and all you have done for me. It is really meant
to me.
5. My beloved friends, Devina, Yulie, Eka, Class of 2008 and 2009, Thanks a
lot for being my friends, and thanks alot for being a great partner, classmate,
and family for me. I am so sorry if there are some mistakes I have made to
6. Miss Ria, my inspiring one, my English teacher in AEC Soreang, you are like
the light in the dark. Thanks for being the one who inspires me to be similar
or even better than you. Thanks for teaching me English from A to Z. I‟ll not
be as good as now if I have not met you.
7. Last but not lest, for all people that cannot be mentioned one by one who
x TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT vii
ABSTRAK viii
ACKNOWLEGDMENTS ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS x
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS xiii
LIST OF TABLES xiv
LIST OF FIGURES xv
LIST OF APPENDICES xvi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background to the Study 1
1.2 Research Questions 4
1.3 Objectives 4
1.4 Significance to Knowledge 5
1.5 The Framework of the Theories 5
CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL REVIEW 9
2.1 Syntactic Features of Negative „no‟ and „not‟ 9
2.1.1. Categories and Functions of „No‟ and „Not‟ 10
2.1.1.1 Categories of „No‟ Based on Its Distributions in Phrase 10
2.1.1.2 Categories of „Not‟ Based on Its Distributions in Phrase 12
xi
2.2 Semantic Features of „no‟ and „not‟ 17
2.2.1. Scope and Focus of Negation 18
2.2.2. Lexical Relation 19
2.2.2.1. Antonyms 20
2.2.2.2. Hyponyms 21
2.2.3. Semantic Entailments 22
2.2.4. Case and State Roles 23
2.2.4.1. Case Roles 24
2.2.4.2. State Roles 25
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH OBJECT AND METHOD 26
3.1 Research Object 26
3.2 Research Method 26
3.2.1 Data Collection 27
3.2.2 Data Analysis 27
CHAPTER IV: FINDING AND DISCUSSION 31
4.1 Negation That Has Negative Equivalent 31
4.2 Negation That Has No Negative Equivalent 60
CHAPTER V : CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 73
5.1. Conclusions 73
xii
REFERENCES 78
APPENDICES 79
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents a general description of this research. It covers
background to the study, research questions, goals and objectives, significance to
knowledge, and the framework of theories.
1.1 Background to the study
The concept of negation is universal. Every language uses this concept to
deny, to reject, and to state disagreement of an idea. However, each language has
various ways to express the concept of negation. In some languages, for example,
negation is often marked by the existence of negative marker as the syntactic
features. For instances:
Bahasa : Dia tidak suka bermain gitar.
English : She does not like playing guitar.
In both languages, the existence of „tidak’and „not‟ stands as the negative marker
to express the concept of negation.
In English, specifically, the common negative markers are no, not, none,
never, and neither. However, a question arises, “Do they have the same
distribution in conducting negation?” Negative „no‟ and „not‟, especially, are
sometimes confusing in their usage. They seem like having the same distribution
For instance:
(i) That was not an accident
(ii) That was no accident.
In both constructions, „not‟ and „no‟ have the same distribution in stating
negation. However, further, „not‟ gives more distribution, in which it negates the
whole clause through verb negation. Meanwhile, „no‟ has less distribution since in
this case, it only negates a part of the clause, complement. This different
distribution also causes different entailment of each construction. Where (i) may
entail that it was something which has been planned, and (ii) may entail nothing
was happened. In other words, the negative „no‟ and „not‟ can conduct the similar
form of negation although it encodes different entailments. The similar
construction of negation as the example above is common known as negative
equivalent.
In the cases above, there are still other possibilities of the entailments that
may appear, depending on the scope and focus of negation. Additionally, by
examining the semantic entailments based on the scope and focus of the negation,
it can be used to analyze the case and state roles involved in the clause. That is
why, it is needed to be analyzed since it can help the readers to get the right
meaning of negative statement the writer wants to deliver, and also to avoid
misunderstanding caused by the negative „no‟ and „not‟.
To limit the topic under the study, this research will be focused on
syntactic features and constructions, scope and focus of negation, semantic
entailments, and case and state roles involved.
In relation to this research, there are two previous researches about
negation that have been conducted. The first research is entitled Struktur Kalimat
Negatif dalam Bahasa Inggris written by Ypsi Soeria Soemantri (2011) UNPAD.
The case examined in this research is about negative marker used in the sentence,
and it only focuses on the function of the negative markers, to which word class
the negative marker can attach, and the meanings caused by negative marker. The
second research is entitled „A Comparison between English and Indonesian
Negation Marker‟ written by Ria Rakhmania (2011) University of Gunadharma.
This research is focused on syntactical categories of negative marker and the
comparison between negation marker in English and Indonesian syntactically and
semantically.
However, both researchers did not analyze about negative equivalent
construction „no‟ and „not‟ including scope and focus of negation, semantic
entailments, and case and state roles involved in negative equivalent. Therefore,
this research, entitled „Negative Equivalent Constructions „no’ and „not’ in The
Jakarta Post’s October 13th2011’
, is conducted to complete the previous research
1.2 Research Questions
In relation to the explanation, this research is performed as an attempt to
analyze negative equivalent construction „no‟ and „not‟ found in The Jakarta
Post‟s October 13th 2011. The problems found in the data are as follows:
1. What are negative constructions of „no‟ and „not‟ that have negative
equivalent?
2. What syntactic features may expose the existence of negative equivalent?
3. What semantic entailments occur in negative equivalent?
4. What case and state roles involve in negative equivalent?
1.3 Objectives
Based on the problems formulated in the research questions, the aims of
this research are as follows:
1. To describe negative constructions of „no‟ and „not‟ that have negative
equivalent
2. To describe syntactic features which may expose the existence of negative
equivalent
3. To describe semantic entailments occur in negative equivalent
1.4 Significance to knowledge
This research explains about the using of negative constructions „no‟ and
„not‟. This research describes the syntactic features of the clause that are
productive to have negative equivalent or not. Thus, it will help the readers to
predict the possibilities of negative equivalent that can be formed. In addition, this
research shows how the construction of negative „no‟ and „not‟ may cause
different meaning. This research describes how the role of scope and focus of
negation may influence the semantic entailments that may occur in negative
equivalent construction. Further, this research also performs the importance of
relation between negative construction, scope and focus of negation, and semantic
entailment to examine the case and state roles involved.
By seeing the relation between construction (syntactic features) and
meaning (semantic features) as mentioned above, this research is expected to give
a contribution in the development of the similar studies in the future. Additionally,
this research is proposed to give lighter and clearer explanation about the study of
negative equivalent. Thus, hopefully, this research will be helpful for the readers,
especially for students of English Department in learning negative construction.
1.5 Framework of the Theory
In this research, the theories used to analyze negative construction „no‟
and „not‟ are mainly taken from the theories of syntax and semantics. Quirk
(1990: 778) defines „no‟ and „not‟ as the negative marker to negate the clause. He,
verb negation using „not‟, but also through negation of other element (non-verb
negation) using „no‟ or „not‟. However, the using of verbal and non-verbal
negation in negating a clause will arise some similar constructions with similar
meaning called as negative equivalent.
However, the similarity among negative equivalents is often considered as
that that is equal to the others. Vice versa, obviously each negative construction of
„no‟ and „not‟ leads to different entailment. Quirk (1990: 779) states negation with
„no‟ may have different implication than verb negation with „not‟. He, further,
explains that „no‟ usually converts non-gradable noun into a gradable noun to
characterize the person. The different implication, meaning or entailment that
each negative construction brought is caused by the different function and
distribution of negative marker „no‟ and „not‟ given to the clause. According to
Huddlestone (1985: 420), „no‟ and „not‟ has principal function in syntactic
distribution, in which „no‟ stands for determiner in NP structure and modifier in
comparative structures of AdjPs and AdvPs, and „not‟ can be modifier to such
determinatives as much, many, enough, one, rather than its main function as an
adverb.
In addition, the scope and focus of negation is also being concerned as the
point driving the negative construction into different meaning or entailments.
According to Quirk (1990: 789), the negative construction may have the contrast
of implicit meaning in the part, in which the stress of negation located. In other
words, the scope and focus of negation can be used to figure out the semantic
semantic entailment is a relationship that applies between two concepts, where the
truth of one implies the truth of other because of the meanings of the words
involved. Semantic entailment involves the meaning of the words, and each word
has the relation with other words in the construction. This word relation can be
examined to find semantic entailment since it analyzes the meaning of each word,
not in terms of its component features, but of its relation to other words, known as
lexical relation (Yule, 2006: 104).
Furthermore, how similar the negative equivalent to other construction can
be figured out by analyzing the systems of relation of concepts THING, EVENT,
and ATTRIBUTE defined as case and state roles (Larson, 1984: 199). These
concepts are described to compare which construction that is more similar or less
as negative equivalent.
The last but not least, there are some theories of linguists who support the
9
This chapter explains about the theoretical of negative construction „no‟
and „not‟. The theories used in this research are derived from the theories of
syntax and semantics. Thus, this chapter is proposed to describe and illustrate how
the theories of syntax and semantics are being applied to analyze the data.
2.1 Syntactic Features of Negative ‘no’ and ‘not’
Independently, the negative „no‟ and „not‟ stand as a grammatical unit that
has category, function, and distribution in a grammatical construction whether in
word, phrase, clause, or sentence. The differences of their syntactic features may
convey different entailments from the construction in which „no‟ and „not‟ exist.
The category and function cannot be separated since they are related each other in
which the category describes the function of the word.
However, the functions of the word can also be various depending on to
what constructions the word exist. This is called as the distribution. The
explanation below describes how the categories, functions and distributions relate
each other. In addition, the explanation about the syntactic features of „no‟ and
„not‟ will show the clear roles and rules of both negative markers, and it is
expected to enlighten how and when to use „no‟ or „not‟.
2.1.1. Categories and Functions of ‘No’ and ‘Not’
In identifying the category of a word, it cannot always be based on the
standard of parts of speech, but it is also determined by its distribution in a
construction. Also for „no‟ and „not‟, the categories and functions of them are
dependent not only on their definition in parts of speech but also on their
distributions in the construction they belong to.
The explanation below describes the categories of „no‟ and „not‟ based on
their distributions in constructions of phrase.
2.1.1.1 Categories of ‘No’ Based on Its Distributions in Phrase
Based on its distribution in phrase, „no‟ can stand as the categories of
determiner, modifier, and pronoun.
According to Huddlestone (1985: 420), negative „no‟ belongs to
determiner, in which it precedes N/NP. For example, „He had no choice, did he?‟
From the example, it can be seen that „no‟ functions to determine the NP „choice‟.
Quirk (1990: 254), further, argues „no‟ belongs to central determiners like
the articles and the words like this/that/ every/ and each. These words form a set
of a closed-class item in which there cannot be more than one central determiner
occurring before the NP. For example, * the no people, * an every place. They
cannot occur together since the central determiner presents one determiner instead
In addition, according to Quirk (1990: 255), as a central determiner, „no‟
has co-occurrence with the noun classes singular count (book, idea, etc), plural
count (books, ideas, etc), and non-count nouns (justice, sugar, etc). For instance:
SINGULAR COUNT PLURAL COUNT NONCOUNT
No book No books No sugar
Moreover, Huddlestone (1985: 420) states another function of „no‟ as
modifier in comparative structures of AdjPs and AdvPs. For instance: „She is no
betterthan the last we met‟.
Standing as modifier, „no‟ also can (negate) modify the quantifier „little‟.
For example, „They showed no little interest in their project‟ (Quirk, 1990: 792).
So far, „no‟ is considered as determiner in its distribution in NP and as modifier
(may be adjective) that precedes comparative structure of AdjPs and AdvPs.
Furthermore, Quirk (1990: 255) argues „no‟ has additional function of
pronoun while it joins in compounding form with – (one), - (body), or – (thing), in
which „no‟ stands as pronoun that can be separated with its pair in compounding
form.
no one nobody nothing
everyone everybody everything.
Based on those explanations above, it can be concluded that the categories
of „no‟ are dependent on its distributions in phrase. In other words, „no‟ can stand
count, plural count, and non-count noun. „No‟ can also stand as a modifier, in
which it functions to modify comparative structures of AdjPs and AdvPs. Further,
„no‟ may belong to pronoun while it joins in compounding form with –one, -body,
-thing, to form pronoun.
The contrast functions between „no‟ and „not‟ as the negative marker are
explained below. The differences will influence their distribution in conducting
negative statement syntactically.
2.1.1.2 Categories of ‘Not’ Based on Its Distributions in Phrase
As an adverb, „not‟ primarily functions to modify verb. For example, „I do
not have any money‟ („not‟ modifies verb „have‟). However, in other cases, „not‟
may function as a modifier of other classes depending on its distribution in
construction of phrase. According to Huddlestone (1985: 420), „not‟ stands as
modifier for such determinatives as much, many, enough, one or in the
construction with even. For instance:
Not many people came, did they?
Not even John could do it.
As can be seen above that „not‟ may precede many, much, any, and enough
other than the verb.
Additionally, according to Quirk (1990: 445), another syntactic function of
an adverb, related to negative „not‟, is considered as a modifier of the word
a. Modifier of adjective
She is a not attractive actress.
„Not‟ can pre-modify adjective as an intensifier that is as a scaling
device. Intensifier often has co-occurrence with a gradable adjective.
b. Modifier of Pronoun
Not everybody came to her party.
„Not‟, as an intensifying adverb, can pre-modify indefinite pronoun
as everybody, everyone, everything,
c. Modifier of NP
She left not a bottle behind.
The negative „not‟ is possible to precede a noun that has an article.
Thus, it functions as a modifier of NP.
She wants not to eat banana
The negative „not‟ negates „to eat‟ as the form of nominalization.
Thus, „not‟ may function to negate „to-infinitive‟ form.
d. Modifier of Adverbial
She visited me not very often.
I saw her not long ago.
The negative „not‟, in this case, modifies the adverbial degree „not
very often‟ and the adverbial expressions of extent in distance or time like
„not long ago‟, „not far from‟, „not many years after‟.
Further, Quirk (1990: 792) states „not‟ has another co-occurrence to negate
They have not a few aesthetic in their family.
They will pay you not less than ten dollars an hour.
The functions of negative „not‟ as modifier of word categories of
adjective, pronoun, noun and adverbial cause „not‟ has more co-occurrence with
more word categories than the negative „no‟ has. It causes „not‟ to occur more
frequent in negative statement rather than „no‟.
By highlighting the explanations above, it can be concluded that the
negative „not‟ has more distribution in construction of phrase than the negative
„no‟. However, their difference distributions in phrase also influence their
distributions in construction of clause. Further, their distributions in a clause are
described clearly in the next point.
2.1.2 Distributions of ‘no’ and ‘not’ in Clause
Even though the categories and functions of „no‟ and „not‟ are different, it
is often confusing to differ their usage in a clause or in a sentence. To choose
between „no‟ and „not‟ in conducting negative statement, it will be easier when
the distribution of both „no‟ and „not‟ have been comprehended.
Syntactically, the distributions of „no‟ and „not‟ correspond to the types of
negation in which they differ from what part of the clause being negated,
classified as clause negation, local negation, and predication negation.
nonverbal negation. The explanation below illustrates the distributions of „no and
„not‟ in negative constructions.
According to Quirk (1985: 775), there are three types of negation differing
from the part of the clause being negated.
1. Clause negation
In this negation, the negative marker causes the whole clause negated.
For instance: I did not go out last night
The clause negation is often marked by the existence of negative „not‟
between the operator and the predication or known as verbal negation. The
negative „not‟, an adverb, attached to verb, causes the whole clause syntactically
treated as negative.
However, the negative „not‟ does not always stand as an adverb to conduct
clause negation through verbal negation. „Not‟ may also occur before the NP in
the subject, object and complement. For instance: Not many people came. As long
as the negative „not‟ did not attach to the verb, it cannot be treated as clause
negation. In this case „not‟ only negates one constituent, the subject, which is
further in the next point called as local negation.
2. Local negation
In this negation, the negative only negates one constituent of the clause
whether to subject, object, complement or adverb but not to the verb.
For instance:
(i). She is a not independent woman
The negated constituent refers only to the complement (i) and to the
subject (ii). Beside „not‟, the negative „no‟ is more often used to conduct local
negation since „no‟ cannot negate the verb as „not‟ can. Further, the function of
„no‟ as determiner limits the word class that can go together with it.
3. Predication Negation
In this negation, the negative marker negates only the predication.
For instance: You may not go to swim
In this type of negation, the negative „not‟ does not refer to the modal, but
it refers to the predication. The defining of this negation is based on to what part
the negative goes. For this negation, „no‟ will never occur, in which it is
impossible for determiner to attach to verb.
Thus, „not‟, as adverb and modifier, gives more distributions in syntactical
construction. It also has correspondence with more categories to be put together
rather than determiner „no‟.
In term of meaning, however, „no‟ has double distributions in which it acts
not only to state the opposite of something but also to emphasize the negation
itself.
I have no money (more emphatic)
I do not have any money (less emphatic)
Further, the distribution of meaning of „no‟ and „not‟ will be explained in
2.2 Semantic Features of ‘no’ and ‘not’
Word, phrase, clause and sentence can be considered as grammatical unit
since they have fulfilled the syntactic and semantic rules. The construction cannot
stand only as syntactic unit, but it needs to have meaning as its semantic unit to
complete the construction as one grammatical unit. Talking about semantics of a
word, meaning consists of concepts or ideas that want to be delivered through that
word. As Goddard (1998: 7) argues a meaning of a word is a structured idea, or
concept, in the mind of the person using that expression. Thus, meaning of a word
has an important role to send the idea from the writer to the reader, from the
speaker to the hearer, from the addressee and the addressor through wordings.
Specifically, „no‟ and „not‟ have the same concept of meaning while they
stand independently as one word without joining with other words. Both „no‟ and
„not‟, as an individual word, mean the opposite or treated as negative. However,
while „no‟ or „not‟ joins to other words to construct another construction like
phrase, clause or sentence, each of them leads to different concept of meaning
resulting different entailments.
As Quirk (1990: 779) states negation with „no‟ may have different
implication than verb negation with „not‟. For instances, „She is not a teacher‟
denotes that her occupation is not teaching whereas „She is no teacher‟ indicates
that she lacks the skills needed for teaching. Further, Quirk (1990: 780) argues
characterizes the person. Quirk (1990: 780) shows contrast i.e. „I‟m not a
youngster‟ (I am not young) and „I‟m no youngster‟ (I am quite old). The two
examples above seem to imply similar entailment but they are not. Therefore,
‟no‟ and „not‟ need to be concerned since even though they have the similar
concept to negate a construction, they lead to different entailment.
In addition, the different entailments are not only caused by the concept of
meaning of „no‟ and „not‟, but also caused by the stressed spot where the negative
„no‟ or „not‟ wants to focus, called as focus of negation.
Focus of negation itself cannot be separated from the scope as the
limitation of the scale of distance in focus of negation. The scope and focus of
negation are described in the next point.
2.2.1 Scope and Focus of Negation
The goal of negation is to negate a definite word, phrase or clause as the
focus of negation. However, to limit the information that will be negated, there
should be a scope to determine the starting point and the ending point where the
negation focuses. The focus of negation must be included in scope of negation to
show the limitation of negation and to show emphasizes in which the negation
refers. Thus, it will be easier to figure out the semantic entailments since there is a
clear limitation of part that is being negated, and the semantic entailment will not
For instance, the different placement of focus of negation has different
entailments as follows:
The parts that are not within the scope are understood positively.
I did not take Mary to go to the zoo today - I forgot to do so
I did not take Mary to go to the zoo today - It was John
I did not take Mary to go to the zoo today - just to see it
I did not take Mary to go to the zoo today - I took her to the public park
I did not take Mary to go to the zoo today - It was last week
I did not take Mary to go to the zoo today - It was father-taking Mary
The different placements of focus of negation cause different entailment
occur in each construction. The entailments of different focus of negation can be
found out by seeing the relation between the negative and the word that becomes
the focus of negation. The relations involved between the words in a construction
are known as lexical relation. Further, the explanation of lexical relation is
described clearer in the next point.
2.2.2 Lexical Relation
In a grammatical construction, for example a clause, it consists of several
words put together in word order implying a meaning or an idea. The idea of the
clause is formed through the process of combining meanings of each word to
other words. However, combining word is not so easy while there is no clue about
containers of meaning or as fulfilling roles in event, they also have relationship
with each other. In this approach, the meaning of a word can be identified by
seeing the relationships with other words in the construction.
According to Yule (2006: 104), there are kinds of lexical relation as
follows:
The figure above illustrates at least ten lexical relations that can be used to
identify one word. However, specifically, there are only two lexical relations that
are considered as device to analyze the data in this research, especially to find the
semantic entailments of a negative construction. The two lexical relations are
antonyms and hyponyms, described as follows:
2.2.2.1Antonyms
Either negative construction „no‟ or „not‟, is used to state the denial, the
refusal and the disagreement of something. The existence „no‟ or „not‟ in a
construction, for example in a clause, is to negate either a part or the whole part of
the clause. While „no‟ or „not‟ negate one word, for example „not good‟, the word
which may replace the phrase „not good‟ is a word that has the opposite relation
LEXICAL RELATION
SYNONYMY ANTONYMY HYPONYMY
PROTOTYPES
HOMOPHONES HOMONYMS POLYSEMY
[image:30.595.117.525.247.382.2]WORD PLAY METONYMY COLLOCATION
with the word „good‟. It may be „bad‟ or it may be „quite good‟. Thus, the
opposite relation is concerned to find semantic entailments of negative
construction.
Antonyms are defined as opposite meaning between two words. For
example, small is opposite from big. Thus, small is in antonyms relation with big.
Antonyms are usually divided into two main types, „gradable‟ (opposites along
scale), and „non-gradable‟ (direct opposites).
Gradable antonyms, mostly occurs as the pair small/big, black/white. In
addition, it often can be seen in comparative construction, as I am smarter than
you are. In gradable antonyms, the negative of one word does not necessarily
imply the other word that stands as its pair in gradable antonyms. For example, my
cat is not small, does not always mean my cat is big.
In contrast, non-gradable antonyms normally do not use comparative
construction. Moreover, the negative of a non-gradable word mostly implies the
other word as its pair. For instance; my grandparents are not alive does indeed
mean My grandparents are dead.
2.2.2.2Hyponyms
Finding the opposite of a word is important to find the semantic
entailments of negative construction. However, it becomes hard when the opposite
relation belongs to non-gradable. For instance, „she doesn‟t like Flower‟. It is
obviously seen that the opposite of the flower will be treated as the entailment.
belongs to it. For example, Rose is kind of flower. Therefore, it can be said that
„she doesn‟t like flower‟ may entail „she doesn‟t like Rose‟. This kind of
relationship that involves the concept of inclusion is described as hyponyms. For
instance, animal/dog, dog/poodle, vegetable/carrot, flower/rose.
Yule (2006: 105) describes hyponymy relation in the hierarchy diagram as
follows:
2.2.3 Semantic Entailments
The goal of the analysis in this research is to find different semantic
entailments of the negative construction „no‟ and „not‟. This goal can be fulfilled
by relating the scope and focus of negation, also the lexical relations as devices to
find semantic entailments. However, what is entailment itself? According to
Goddard (1998: 17) entailments is a relationship that applies between two
sentences, where the truth of one implies the truth of the other because of the
meanings of the words involved. In other words, entailment may be defined as
other possibilities of meaning out of the explicit meaning that is exposed straight LIVING THING
CREATURE
Cockroach
PLANT
VEGETABLE
ANIMALS INSECT TREE
Dog
FLOWER
Ant Horse Snake
Pine banyan
[image:32.595.96.516.278.435.2]Rose Carrot
from a construction. The entailment that may appear also depends on the relation
between the meanings of words involved in that construction. Mostly, entailment
comes because of the relation of words, in this case, only the antonyms and
hyponymy. For instance, „she has a lot of dogs‟, the hyponymy relation of „dogs‟
can be Poodle, Bulldog, and Rottweiler because all of them belong to kinds of
dogs (hyponymy relation), and the entailment may be „she has a poodle‟. For
other cases, related to focus of negation, the sentence „I am not a woman‟. The
relation between „not‟ and „a woman‟, in which the focus of „not‟ goes to woman,
causes the opposite relation (antonyms). The opposite of woman refers to „man‟
(non-gradable). Thus, „I am not woman‟ entails to „I am a man‟.
Furthermore, semantic entailments in negative equivalent constructions are
analysed through scope and focus of negation and the lexical relation. It is
conducted to prove that of „no‟ and „not‟ indeed cause different entailments.
2.2.4 Case and State Roles
In a grammatical construction, functionally, each unit S, V O, C or adverb
brought a concept implied in its syntactic unit. Thus, in a clause, for example, it
owns a proposition that is defined as group of concepts. In order to have a
proposition, a clause needs to merge one concept with other concepts involved in
a clause to form a group of concepts. The concepts include THING, EVENT, and
ATTRIBUTE. However, the group of concepts is not formed in an arbitrary ways, but it is formed because there are relations among the concepts.
According to Larson (1984: 199), the relations of concepts are divided into
two that are Case Roles and State Roles.
2.2.4.1 Case Roles
The relation between the concepts THING, EVENT, and ATTRIBUTE, in
which the EVENT becomes a central concept called as Case Roles (forming
EVENT proposition). For instance, case roles:
The development of the city was planned (by someone) well.
EVENT THING EVENT ATTRIBUTE
The affected Implied causer
In this sentence, the central concept is an EVENT encoding the action and
referring to the verb of the sentence. The relation among them includes „cause and
effect‟ where there is an agent „someone‟ who does the action „planned‟ to the
„city‟ causing the affected to shift from its existing condition to a better one,
namely „development of the city‟. From this explanation, the THING „the city‟
undergoes the EVENT „developed‟. In contrast to the Event proposition, the
2.2.4.2 State Roles
State Roles define any relations between THING and THING or THING and
ATTRIBUTE without any EVENT as its central concept. The car is in the garage
THING THING Topic Relation Comment
As can be seen above, State proposition does not have an EVENT as its
central concept. The relations in the construction are between THING and THING
or THING and ATTRIBUTE in which one concept describes another. Furthermore,
the State roles consist of two main parts „Topic‟ and „Comment‟ and it may be
indicated by the verb be and have in a construction. The Topic is considered as
THING that is being further specified by Comment; consists of THING or ATTRIBUTE used to describe the topic and the relation.
Both case and state roles can be used to identify a construction of phrase,
26 CHAPTER III
RESEARCH OBJECT AND METHOD
This chapter is concerned with the object of this research and the method
applied in conducting this research.
3.1 Research Object
The object of this research is negative construction „no‟ and „not‟ taken
from The Jakarta Post‟s October 13th 2011. The Jakarta Post is chosen as the data
source since there are various data of negative constructions „no‟ and „not‟ related
to negative equivalent found in this newspaper. After that, each negative
construction is analyzed based on scope and focus of negation to find different
entailments.
3.2 Research Method
The method used in this research is analytic descriptive. According to
Djadjasudarma (1993: 15), the method of analytic descriptive is conducted
through the process of describing and analyzing the facts of the research data. The
research object is examined syntactically and semantically. The negative
construction „no‟ and „not‟ are analyzed syntactically by examining the changing
construction based on the features to which word categories „no‟ and „not‟ can
attach. Similarly, it will be analyzed semantically by examining the semantic
roles involved in the construction. In complementary to that, the descriptive
method is used to describe the process and the result of analysis that have been
conducted. Thus, analytic descriptive is used as the proper method for this
research.
3.2.1 Data Collection
In collecting the data, some ways have been conducted. First, to get the
valid data The Jakarta Post‟s October 13th
2011 is chosen as the data source of this
research. Second, the data source needs to be read to observe and to find the
existences of negative construction „no‟ and„not‟. Third, the data are collected by
highlighting and marking the negative constructions „no‟ and „not‟ that indicate
negative equivalent. If the negative construction belongs to compound or complex
sentence that consists of several clause, then it will be separated in which the data
taken will be a clause where the „no‟ and „not‟ belongs to. Fourth, the data are
identified by seeing the word categories forming the construction whether it is
possible to have negative equivalent or not. After that, the data are classified
based on the possibility of whether or not to have negative equivalent. Eventually,
the data are selected and analyzed syntactically and semantically.
3.2.2 Data Analysis
After collecting the data, the data are analyzed by applying several ways.
First, the negative constructions are examined based on the word categories of
consists of features indicating the negative construction with negative equivalent
or not. Second, the data are analyzed based on the scope and the focus of negation
to examine the semantics of the construction. Third, the lexical relation of words
related to scope and focus of negation are analyzed to find the different semantic
entailments. In the end, the case and state roles involved are analyzed to show
how similar the negative equivalent of each negative construction. Those ways
above are conducted purposefully to prove that the data of negative equivalent
construction may indicate different semantic entailments.
The example of the analyzed data below will give a prior mapping of the
analysis of the research.
Data
“In the season transition, the wind doesn’t disperse the clouds, but helps
create towering clouds”. He said, as quoted by tempointeraktif.com. (TJP, p.9)
Analysis
Construction: (det+NP) + (aux+not) + V + (det + NP)
The wind doesn’t disperse the clouds
S V O
The negative construction above may have another construction to state
that the clouds are not dispersed by the wind, called as negative equivalent as
follows:
The wind disperses no clouds
S V O
The construction of negative equivalent is quite different from the
though the negative equivalent represents the similar meaning, in which the
clouds are not treated at all by the winds. However, these two similar
constructions may have different semantic entailments that can be found by
examining the scope and focus of negation as follows:
(i). The wind doesn’t disperse the clouds
(ii). The wind disperses no clouds
In (i) construction, the focus of negation „not‟ goes to the verb denoting
the action „disperse‟, thus the entailment appear is something other than
„disperse‟. In respect to opposite relation between „not‟ and „disperse‟, the (i)
construction may entail „the wind blows the clouds’. On the other hand, the focus
of negation „no‟ goes only to „the clouds‟ in (ii) construction, it may entail that the
object dispersed by the wind is not „clouds‟. In opposite relation, the entailments
appear may be „the wind disperses raindrop’ or „the wind disperses snow’.
The difference of two similar negative constructions also can be seen in
terms of case and state role. In the constructions above, since they have an EVENT
as the central concept they belong to case roles as follows:
Case Role I :
(i). The winds doesn’t disperse the clouds
THING EVENT THING
In case roles, it shows that the EVENT as the central concept is negated, and it does not cause the clouds as the affected as it supposed to be in positive
Case Role II:
(ii). the winds disperse no clouds
THING EVENT THING
In (ii) construction, the case roles involved is where the EVENT as the
central concept does the action of causing the affected even though the affected is
implied--„no clouds‟-- in which the truly affected is not „no clouds‟ but others.
Thus, by using the case roles involved, the differences between the two similar
31
This chapter gives deeper analysis of the data. The collected data of this
research is 40 data. The data are divided into two main classifications that are
negative constructions that have negative equivalent and those that have no
negative equivalent.
4.1 Negation That Has Negative Equivalent
Ten data in this classification have negative equivalent. Each construction
below is examined to find the differences of semantic entailment based on the
scope and focus of negation as well as to find case and state roles involved in both
negative construction and its equivalent.
4.1.1. Construction: (not + Indefinite Compound Pro) + Linking Verb + Adj Data I
But not everyone was happy, some Israelis fearing that the deal will encourage most hostage-taking in future, and flood Palestinian territories with hardened militants, who might in the future take up arms once more Israel. (TJP: 11)
Not everyone was happy
S V C
In this case, the negative „not‟ only negates one constituent „everyone‟
(local negation). In addition, the semantic entailment can be seen by examining
(i). Not everyone was happy
The focus of negation from the data above refers to the subject „not
everyone‟. Thus, the other parts of the clause can be treated positively. The
existence of „not‟ shows the opposite relation between „not‟ and „everyone‟
(non-gradable antonyms). „Everyone‟, referring to „all people‟, puts emphasizes on
number of people, so the negative „not‟ contrasts „not all people‟ as a part of
people or some (non-gradable antonyms). Thus, the data above may entail „some
people were happy‟ and „some people were not‟.
However, the construction „not everyone was happy‟ may have negative
equivalent; (ii) „everyone was not happy‟ and (iii) „everyone was no happy‟.
These negative equivalents can be conducted by seeing the syntactic features
whether the construction consists of word class, in which „no‟ and „not‟ can attach
or not.
Both constructions (ii) and (iii) represent similar idea as (i) with different
entailment based on different scope and focus of negation as follows:
(ii) everyone was not happy
(ii.a) everyone was not happy
In the data above, the whole clause is negated. Thus, the focus of negation
may refer to each constituent involved in the clause. The focus of negation of (ii)
refers to „happy‟ causing opposite relation between „not‟ and „happy‟ (
non-gradable). Thus, (ii) may entail „everyone was sad‟ (non-gradable) or „everyone
was calm‟ (non-gradable). For another case (ii.a), the focus of negation goes to the
word where the focus of negation located. „Everyone‟, referring to human being
(in hyponymy relation), is opposite to other than human being. Thus, it may entail
„animal or other creature was happy‟.
(iii) Everyone was no happy
THING THING
Topic Relation Comment
The construction (iii) is similar to (ii). However, it encodes grammatical
shift where „happy‟ that stands as an adjective (i and ii) changes into a noun.
Further, the opposite relation between „no‟ and „happy‟ entails that „everyone has
no happiness at all‟ since „no‟ in this case stands to put emphasize and causes
gradable noun. In addition, it is less proper to be negative equivalent since the
state roles involved is different from (i) and (ii) as follows:
(i)Not everyone was happy
THING ATTRIBUTIVE
Topic Relation Comment
(ii) Everyone was not happy
THING ATTRIBUTIVE
Topic Relation Comment
In (i), (ii) and (iii), the relation of the Topic-Comment is the relation of
description. The ATTRIBUTE of (i) and (ii) describes the concept of THING. The
ATTRIBUTE (i) describes that concept of feeling happy was not acceptable for
the whole people (THING) and the ATTRIBUTE (ii) describes that the concept of
roles involved in third construction (iii) is different from (i) and (ii), although the
relation between the Topic and Comment is the same. In (iii) construction, the
THING (Comment) describes the THING (Topic) whereas the THING
(Comment) describes the concept of happy person, not the concept of feeling
happy. Thus, the (iii) construction is possible to be an equivalent but its
entailment will be quite different from (i) and (iii) as described above.
4.1.2. Construction: Proper Noun + Linking Verb + (no (det) + NP (Adj + N)
Data 2
Robert is no mad scientist; his primary, defining personality trait is his quiet drive. (TJP: 23)
Robert is no mad scientist
S V C
The negative „no‟ negates only the complement. The subject and verb of
the clause are still considered in positive sense both in structure and in meaning. It
encodes the scope and focus of negation refers specifically to NP „no mad
scientist‟ as follows:
(i). Robert is no mad scientist
The determiner „no‟ does not limit the NP in terms of number or amount,
as „I have no book‟ (emphasizing of amount or number). For this case, „no‟ stands
to characterize that the adjective of mad scientist does not belong to Robert. As in
„I‟m no one‟ that means „nothing I have to be classified as a person‟, „Robert is no
mad scientist‟ also encodes nothing of mad scientist properties he has. However,
Thus, it may have two entailments derived from lexical relation between „no‟, and
„mad‟ and „scientist‟ as follows:
(i.a)Robert is no mad scientist Robert has character of genius
scientist
(i.b) Robert is no mad scientist Robert has mad character of
scientist
As mentioned above, the focus of negation goes to one spot causing
another part of the clause is treated positively. The word „scientist‟ (i.a) and „mad‟
(i.b) are not replaced with another word because they do not belong to the focus of
negation. Thus, this construction may have two possible entailments where the
word either „mad‟ or „scientist‟ is being maintained.
To conduct another negative statement from the previous one, verb
negation using „not‟ can be used. The negative equivalent can be (ii) „Robert is
not a mad scientist‟, and (iii) „Robert is not any mad scientist‟. The two
constructions seem similar (S V C) except the existence of „a‟ and „any‟ before
the NP.
ii. Robert is not a mad scientist
Determiner indefinite Article
iii. Robert is not any mad scientist
Determiner Quantifier
Both „a‟ and „any‟ actually do not function as determiner of NP. Indefinite
article (ii) does not encode indefinite reference but it shows the specific entity of
„no‟, functions as quantifier to encode no characters of mad scientist that belongs
to Robert. Different from „no‟ that is more emphatic to state negation, „not any‟
has less emphatic and more indefinite in referring the reference.
Further, these two constructions are examined through scope and focus of
negation, but they show similar entailments except the concept of specific entity
to classify the occupation (ii) and the concept of character (iii)
ii. Robert is not a mad scientist - he could be a normal scientist
ii.a. Robert is not a mad scientist - he could be a mad singer
ii.b. Robert is not a mad scientist - it was Mary
iii. Robert is not any mad scientist - he could be quite normal scientist
iii.a Robert is not any mad scientist - he could be little mad singer
iii.b Robert is not any mad scientist - it was Mary
There is no contrast entailment between (i) and (iii). The difference is only
because of the existence of article „a‟ showing the occupation, and the
characteristic derived from the quantifier „any‟. Even the state roles of both
constructions cannot perform another different point other than occupation or
characteristic.
i. Robert is no mad scientist
THING ATTRIBUTE
Topic Relation Comment
ii. Robert is not a mad scientist
THING ATTRIBUTE
iii. Robert is not any mad scientist
THING ATTRIBUTE
Topic Relation Comment
The state roles of (i), (ii) and (iii), are constructed from the same concepts,
THING and ATTRIBUTE. The relation among them is about relation of
description. However, (i) construction indicates the positive description where (ii)
and (iii) shows the relation of opposite (negative). In this case, (ii) and (iii) are
equal in terms of state roles even though the meaning of (iii) leads to closer
entailment that represents the characteristic of Robert. The distinction between (i)
and (iii) is about the emphasizes where „no‟ implies more emphatic than „not any‟.
Even though (ii) involves the same concept in state roles, it has a contrast
meaning. The article „a‟ refers to specific entity classifying an occupation,
whereas „not any‟ refers to characteristic of person. Thus, it can be concluded that
(iii) has more similar idea implied in construction and (iii) can be taken as the
4.1.3 Construction: Personal Pro + Mod aux + (no + Comp Adj) + V+ PP (prep + art + N)
Data 3
“On july17, 2011, around 6 p.m. I received an SMS from the principal of SDN Jatimakmur VI, Suparmi, saying that I could no
longer teach at the school”. (TJP: 9)
(i)I could no longer teach at the school
S Adv V Adv
The negative „no‟ in the data above negates the adverb „no longer‟ (local
negation). Thus, the focus of negation goes to the adverb of time that may entail
the subject „I‟ could only teach for a little time at the school.
(i) I could no longer teach at the school
From the construction above, it may have another similar construction
through verb negation using „not‟, (ii) „Icould not teach at the school any longer‟.
However, this construction (ii) causes different entailments because of different
scope and focus of negation and the existence of non-assertive „any‟.
(ii) I could not teach at the school any longer’ S V Adv
In contrast to the previous one, the negative „not‟ negates the whole clause
(clausal negation). Since the clause is negated, the scope and focus of negation
may refer to each part of the clause. Some possibilities of the scope and focus of
(ii.a) I could not teach at the school any longer
The focus of negation goes to the verb „teach‟ that may entail he/she could
do anything other than „teach‟. For instances: it may entail „I could stay at the
school but not to teach‟
(ii.b) I could not teach at the school any longer
The focus goes to the PP indicating location that may entail that he/she
could teach wherever other than at the school. For example, it may entail „I could
teach at home‟ (not at the school).
(ii.c) I could not teach at the school any longer
The focus goes to adverb „any longer‟ that indicates information of time.
Therefore, the entailment can be „I could teach at the school not for longer time‟
or it may entail „I could teach at the school, but soon I could not do‟.
(ii.d) I could not teach at the school any longer
The focus of „not‟ refers to the subject „I‟ that may entail the subject of the
clause is someone other than „I‟. For instances: „He /She could teach at the school
for longer‟.
In addition, the non-assertive „any‟ modifies „longer‟, where in (i) „longer‟
is modified by „no‟. The non-assertive „any‟ in NPs or AdjPs/AdvPs always
follows the verb negation „not‟.Thus, in (ii) construction „any‟ appears to follow
verb negation „could not‟.
Further, to see the contrast meaning between (i) and (ii), it can be
(i)I could no longer teach at the school
Agent Time Action Location
THING ATT EVENT THING (ii) I could not teach at the school any longer
Agent Action Location time
THING EVENT THING ATT
As can be seen, the contrast concept of the two constructions is located in
different place. The negative sense of (i) goes to the concept of time
(ATTRIBUTIVE). Thus, the meaning of the whole clause is actually positive. In contrast, the negative sense of (ii) goes to the central concept (EVENT) causing
the meaning of the whole clause is treated negative.
4.1.4. N + (Linking Verb + not) + Adj + To-infinitive Data 4
“Clearly, alcohol is not good to consume and the city administration is certainly not playing a role in educating people
by supporting a brewery”, Cholil told The Jakarta Post on Wednesday. (TJP: 2)
(i) Alcohol is not good to consume
S V C
The negative „not‟ goes to the verb „is‟ causing clausal negation.
Therefore, focus of negation may attach to each part of the construction. The
(i) alcohol is not good to consume
Without taking any focus of negation, the data above means alcohol is a
thing that has no goodness to consume. However, it would have various
entailments based on its different focus of negation.
(i.a) alcohol is not good to consume
While the focus goes to „to consume‟, the construction can be separated
into „alcohol is good‟, but „it is not to consume‟. The word „to consume‟ has
hyponymy relation with „to eat‟or „to eat‟. Therefore, „alcohol‟ refers to the thing
that is not to eat or to drink. Thus, it can be concluded that „alcohol‟ is good but
only for any action except to drink. In other words, the construction „alcohol is not
good to consume‟ entails „alcohol‟ is good (may) to cure or other acts except than
to drink.
(i.b) alcohol is not good to consume
While the negative goes to „good‟, it will be easy to analyze the
entailments. „Good‟ that is modified by „not‟ encodes the opposite relation
between them (antonym). „Not good‟ can be said as „bad‟ (non-gradable
antonym). In addition, „bad‟ and „danger‟ belong to hyponymy relation in which
the meaning of „danger‟ has alreadyincluded in „bad‟. Therefore, „alcohol is not
good‟ entails „alcohol is bad or dangerous‟.
(i.c) alcohol is not good to consume
The focus goes to subject „alcohol‟ that entails the thing other than
„alcohol‟ may replace the subject. The subject which is the thing except „alcohol‟
hyponym of healthy food. In the same hyponymy relation, „Vegetable‟ is one of
healthy food. Therefore, while the focus of negation attaches to „alcohol‟, the
clause „alcohol is not good to consume‟ may entail „vegetable is good to
consume‟.
However, to state the negative clause with „alcohol‟ as the topic, another
negative construction can be formed as „no alcohol is good to consume‟ or
„alcohol is good not to consume‟.
(i) No alcohol is good to consume
S V C
(ii) Alcohol is good not to consume
S V C
In this construction (ii), „no‟ negates the subject „alcohol‟, not the whole
clause (local negation). On the other hand, (iii) negative „not‟ refers to the
to-infinitive causing local negation. Both negations only negate a part of the clause.
Thus, the focus of negation refers only to one constituent where the negative
attaches as follows:
(ii) No alcohol is good to consume
The focus of negation „no‟ refers to the existence of „alcohol‟. It means
there is not any kind of alcohol that is good to consume. It can be examined that
„no alcohol is good‟ and „no alcohol is to consume‟. In other words, the
construction (ii) may entail that „alcohol is not good‟ and „alcohol is not to
consume‟ as they have already included in the construction (i.a) and (i.b) (without
(iii) Alcohol is good not to consume
Similar to the (ii) construction, the negative „not‟ in this case goes to the
to-infinitive verb. The entailments has also already included in (i.a). Thus, the
entailments of (ii) and (iii) have already implied in the (i) construction. It can be
concluded that negative construction through verb negation has various scope and
focus of negation that may create other negative constructions.
To examine the inclusive concept between the State Roles of one and
another can be described as follows:
(i) Alcohol is not good to consume
Topic Comment
THING Relation ATTRIBUTIVE
(ii) No alcohol is good to consume
Topic Comment
THING Relation ATTRIBUTIVE
(iii) Alcohol is good not to consume
Topic Comment
THING Relation ATTRIBUTIVE
Both (ii) and (iii) state positive relation of Topic-Comment, however, (i)
states the opposite relation. As seen above, the negative „not‟ (i) negates the
relation of Topic-Comment. On the other hand, (ii) „no‟ negates the topic
„alcohol‟ that is described by the positive idea of alcohol (comment). In addition,
(iii) negative „not‟ does not negate either the topic or the relation, but it negates
clause, in which (i) causes clausal negation by negating the relation of
Topic-Comment, (ii) causes local negation by negating the topic, and (iii) causes
predication negation by negating the Comment.
By seeing these differences, it can be concluded that the construction of
Noun (common) + (Linking Verb + not) + adj + To-infinitive may have negative
equivalents of three types of negation (clausal, local, predication).
4.1.5 Construction: Personal Pro + (aux (primary) + not) + V (present part) + NP (non assertive + Adj + N)
Data 5
“We are not seeing any real significant peak”, said Steve Bran scum, group vice president for consumer product marketing at BNSF Railway, referring to the company’s import business. (TJP: II)
(i) We are not seeing any real significant peak S V O
From the data above, negative „not‟ negates the verb causing clausal
negation. However, to state negative statement as (i), negation using „no‟ can be
used as „We are seeing no real significant peak’. Both constructions represent
negative statement with the same subject „we‟. However, they have different
semantic entailments depending on different focus of negation.
Negative „not‟ negates the whole construction of S V O. Therefore, the
(i.a) We are not seeing any real significant peak
The focus refers to the verb „seeing‟ (present participle) causing another
action other than „seeing‟ (present participle) becomes the entailment. For
example, „thinking‟, it can replace the position of „not seeing‟ in relation of
opposite (non-gradable antonym). Thus, (i.a) may entail „we are thinking real
significant peak‟
(i.b) We are not seeing any real significant peak
The focus of negation goes to the object (i.b) entailing different thing of
