El texto narrativo, el cuento y la novela

Negative ne behaves much like non-subject proclitics (§4.4.1). Negative ne is: (a) restricted to verbal contexts; (b) always preverbal, even in apparent subject–verb inversion contexts (§5.7):

(105) a. Il ne le fait pas. b. Ne le fait-il pas?

he NEG it does not NEG it does-he not

‘He isn’t doing it.’ ‘Isn’t he doing it?’

Negative ne intervenes between a subject clitic and the (non-subject-clitic-plus-) verb:

(106) Nous ne te le donnons pas.

we NEG you it give not

‘We’re not giving it to you.’

W ith ‘true’ imperatives, where non-subject proclitics aren’t found, negative ne isn’t found, either (§§2.2.1.4, 4.4.1):

(107) *Ne fais-le pas!

NEG do-it not

Finally, like non-subject proclitics, ne has a non-clitic counterpart, namely, non (§1.3).

In order to capture the parallel between non-subject proclitics and negative ne, it’s standardly assumed that ne is a clitic which heads its own IP*-internal FP, NegP (Pollock 1989), and is endowed with features from an XP which raises to SpecNegP (Rowlett 1993). And in view of the analysis of ‘true’ and ‘surrogate’ imperatives in

§4.4.1, NegE must merge above CliticE, as in (108):⁶⁵

IP* NegP CliticP VP*

(108) [ . . . [ . . . NegE . . . [ . . . CliticE . . . [ . . . ]]]]

Rowlett (2002) discusses a number of apparently non-clausal contexts in which ne can appear. If these contexts really are non-clausal, they pose a problem for an⁶⁶ analysis of ne as NegE. The first relates to the complex conjunction pour que (lit.

‘for that’) ‘in order that’, which selects a positive or negative S U B J dependent clause (§5.1), as in (109):

(109) a. Elle le fait pour que je tombe. b. Elle le fait pour que je (ne) tombe pas.

she it does for that I fall she it does for that I NEG fall not

‘She does it so that I fall.’ ‘She does it lest I fall.’

Example (110a) is condemned by prescriptive grammarians. For references to

socio-67

linguistic comment see Rowlett (1998a: 21–2). Blanche-Benveniste et al. (1991: 101 fn. 61) claim that (ia, b) aren’t equivalent:

(i) a. Il l’a fait pour pas que . . . b. Il l’a fait pour que . . . ne . . . pas.

he it-has done for not that he it-has done for that NEG not a, b: ‘He did it so that . . . not . . . ’

However, they give no indication as to whether the non-equivalence is semantic, pragmatic or merely stylistic. Google searches on 29 March 2004 found approximately 11,400 web-page occurrences of pour ne pas que, 507 of pour ne plus que and 25 of pour ne jamais que.

However, a cross-linguistically odd alternative to (109b) is available, namely, (110a), in which the negative markers ne pas precede the complementiser que.

Examples (110b, c) show that other negative adverbials like plus and jamais can also occur here.⁶⁷

(110) a. Elle le fait pour (ne) pas que je tombe.

she it does for NEG not that I fall

= (109b)

b. Je veux t’offrir ma chaleur . . . pour (ne) jamais que tu pleures.

I want you offer my warmth for NEG never that you cry

‘I want to give you my warmth so that you never cry.’

c. . . . les rend invisibles pour (ne) plus que vous soyez conscient de . . . them makes invisible for NEG no.more that you be aware of

‘ . . . makes them invisible so that you’re no longer aware of . . . ’

The construction is problematic since there’s no apparent IP* domain between the preposition pour and the complementiser que which might host ne: [PP* pour ? [CP* que]]. Hirschbühler and Labelle (1992/93: 34–7, §1.1) discuss the construction and entertain the possibility either that ne and pas are generated directly between pour and que, or that they merge within the subordinate clause and raise. Rizzi (1997) proposes a CP*-internal Neg projection which might host ne here. However, the problem remains of what ne might cliticise onto in such a configuration.

The second apparently non-clausal context where ne is found is illustrated in (111):

(111) a. Je t’ordonne de ne plus jamais ne rien faire.

I you order to ne plus jamais ne rien do

‘I order you never again not to do anything.’

(= ‘I order you always to do something in future.’)

b. On faisait souvent un peu plus pour ne jamais ne pas savoir quoi faire.

we did often a bit more for ne jamais ne pas know what do

‘We often did a bit extra in order never not to know what to do.’

c. Ne jamais ne pas avoir d’argent sur soi, mais très peu, 40 francs max.

ne jamais ne pas have money on one, but very little, 40 francs max

‘Never have no money on one’s person, but only very little, 40 francs max.’

It has been claimed (e.g., Prince 1976) that ne deletion is impossible where the negative

68

XP is in subject position. This is incorrect; in the case of personne ‘nobody’ and rien

‘nothing’ judgements may have been influenced by phonological issues, namely, word-final [n] and liaison.

Interestingly, the order of pas, plus and jamais here corresponds to their order of merger

69

in Rizzi’s (1999) exploded IP* in (3) on page 103.

See also Armstrong (2001).

70

d. Une résolution est prise: ne plus jamais ne pas se sentir maître de sa vie.

a resolution is taken: ne plus jamais ne pas feel master of ones’ life

‘A decision has been made: never again not to feel in control of one’s life.’

W hat appears to be a single infinitival IP* contains more than one instance of ne.

The examples are problematic if an IP* contains a single NegP, since a single NegP provides a home for a single ne. T he double-negation interpretation of the examples in (111) suggests that the examples in fact contain two NegPs, each with full negative force, one cancelling out the other. Hirschbühler and Labelle (1992/93: 40, example (18)) suggest an analysis in terms of IP*-internal NegP recursion. W hile such an approach could in principle deal with the grammaticality (and interpreta-tion) of the examples in (111), there are issues. First, given that multiple ne isn’t permitted within a finite clause, why is NegP recursion available in infinitival contexts? Second, given that pas isn’t usually able to co-occur with another negative XP (§4.5.2), why is such co-occurrence possible in (111)?

An alternative to Hirschbühler and Labelle’s IP*-internal NegP-recursion analysis assumes full IP* recursion, in other words, that the infinitives in (111) are

IP* IP*

in fact themselves biclausal: [ ne (plus) jamais . . . [ ne pas/rien . . .] . . .], whereby each IP* contains its own NegP. The attraction of this proposal is that the availability of double ne is expected, as is the double-negation interpretation. The questions it raises, though, relate to the nature of the verbal content of the higher of the two infinitival IP*s and to the nature of the host of ne in the higher clause.

In ConF negative ne is dropped, as in (112):⁶⁸

(112) a. Je i viens pas. b. Je i veux rien. c. Aucun étudiant i est venu.

I come not I want nothing no student is come

= (114a) = (114b) = (114c)

There’s an extensive literature on the sociolinguistics of ne drop. A number of factors seem to be relevant, both linguistic and extralinguistic. In a recent study Armstrong and Smith (2002) suggest: (a) that ne deletion is spreading to increas-ingly formal registers; (b) that ne is retained more with a DP* than with a pronominal subject; (c) that the presence/absence of non-subject clitics doesn’t affect ne deletion rates; (d) that the choice of negative XP affects levels of ne drop:

pas, plus, rien, jamais are associated with increasing levels of ne retention; and,⁶⁹ finally, (e) that ne is retained more frequently with subjectless verb forms, that is, infinitives, present participles and imperatives. Gadet (1997: §11) suggests further⁷⁰ that ne drop is favoured when: (a) there are no reinforcing adverbials like du tout

See also Ashby (1976).

71

Interestingly, in francophone West Africa, it’s ne retention rather than ne drop that’s

72

favoured (Queffélec 2000b: 828). Similarly, in Belgian French, ne is retained more often.

‘at all’; (b) the IP* is matrix rather than subordinate; (c) the verb is IN D rather than

S U B J; (d) the verb is (semi-)auxiliary rather than lexical. Ne drop is also particularly common in fossilised expressions like c’est pas ‘it isn’t’ and (il) faut pas ‘you mustn’t’. A number of these factors are linked with stylistic factors and, therefore, the M odF–ConF distinction. For example, complex sentences and S U B J verbs (where ne is more likely to be retained) are, mutatis mutandis, indicative of a higher register than simplex sentences and IN D verbs. Furthermore, ne retention is favoured when: (a) the discourse is more formal (use of vous rather than tu); (b) the delivery is slower; (c) the discourse is a monologue rather than a dialogue; (d) the speaker belongs to a higher socio-economic category; and (e) the speaker is older. Finally, ne retention is favoured in written rather than spoken discourse.

There are various reasons to believe that, with time, ne will be lost altogether as an overt marker of sentential negation. First, this is exactly what has happened in other languages, for example, English and German, which previously had preverbal negative markers equivalent to French ne. Second, there are some varieties of French, namely, in Quebec, where the loss of ne is apparently already complete (Sankoff and Vincent 1977), although not in written language (Goosse 2000: 118).

Third, some of the specific factors which seem to favour ne drop are the very ones associated with the linguistically innovative ConF, namely, main clauses, female speakers, young speakers and unguarded or informal spoken discourse. Fourth, Ashby (1981) (using a 1976 sample) notes that ne drop is age dependent, and therefore either a change in progress or age graded. Repeating his study some two⁷¹ decades later, Ashby (2001) (using a sample from 1995) finds that ne is dropped more and concludes that the phenomenon is a change in progress, as expected given Jespersen’s negative cycle.⁷²

In most contexts ne alone (that is, without a negative XP) is incapable of marking sentential negation, as shown in (113):

(113) Je ne viens *(pas).

I NEG come not

Typically, ne co-occurs with a negative XP, thereby making sentential negation bipartite, as in (114):

(114) a. Je ne viens pas. b. Je ne veux rien. c. [Aucun étudiant] n’est venu.

I NEG come not I NEG want nothing no student NEG-is come

‘I’m not coming.’ ‘I don’t want anything.’ ‘No student came.’

However, with a small subset of verbs which have been termed pseudo-modals, ne has retained the ability to mark sentential negation on its own (see Schapansky 2002):

As a characteristic of ModF rather than ConF, ‘pleonastic’ ne might be expected to be

73

losing ground. However, according to Goosse (2000: 127–8), it’s still used in spontaneous speech. It even appears in some hypercorrection contexts, such as after sans que ‘without’, suggesting that it’s a sociolinguistic variable to which speakers are sensitive.

Leeman-Bouix (1994: 22) gives the non-standard examples in (i) of negative concord with

74

pas:

(i) a. %Il ne veut pas voir personne.

he NEG wants not see nobody

‘He doesn’t want to see anyone.’

b. %J’espère qu’ils se rappelleront pas de rien.

I-hope that-they self will.recall not of nothing

‘I hope they won’t remember anything.’

The unavailability of negative concord with pas is a relatively recent development. As late as the seventeenth century, pas could co-occur with other negative XPs without leading to double negation.

(115) a. Je ne peux venir. b. Il ne cesse d’appeler.

I NEG can come he NEG ceases of-call

‘I can’t come.’ ‘He doesn’t stop calling.’

W here ne is the only negative marker, it can’t be deleted. Semantically, Schapansky suggests that, when expressed by ne alone, negation is contrary rather than contradictory.

Finally, in M odF (but not ConF) negative ne appears in a number of non-negative contexts:⁷³

(116) a. J’ai peur qu’il ne soit en retard. b. Elle est plus laide que je n’imaginais.

I-have fear that-he NEG be in late she is more ugly that I NEG-imagined

‘I fear he might be late.’ ‘She’s uglier than I imagined.’

In document Voces y relaciones dialógicas en la narrativa de Ángeles Mastretta (página 44-48)