Negation in Palenquero

Abstract

This study offers an up-to-date (synchronic) overview of Palenquero predicate negation, and seeks to explain how and why it has recently begun to undergo change, especially among the younger generations. Earlier descriptions (e.g., Dieck 2000, 2002, Schwegler 1991a, 1996a) revealed that Palenquero features a complex variable system in which the negative marker nu ‘not’ can be placed either before or after the verb, or both (embracing negation), as in: (1) nu + VERB, (2) nu + VERB + nu, and (3) VERB + nu. Scholars have been in general agreement that all three strategies express the same propositional content, but there has been dispute as to underlying causes for the variable selection between these strategies. Sections 1 and 2 of this article provide a fresh look at the issue, and defend the hypothesis (pace Schwegler 1991a but contra Dieck 2000, 2002) that subtle contextually-derived conditions rather than morphosyntactic considerations best explain the selection and felicity of a given negation strategy. This discussion in turn will help explain certain aspects of negative concord, including the behavior of Spanish-derived negative polarity items like Pal. nunka ‘never’, tampoko ‘(n)either’, and so forth.

Can NEG placement have negative consequences (for efficient processing)? A bilingual test case

“…Despite the scarcity of preverbal NEG in spontaneously produced Palenquero, Schwegler (1991, 2016, forthcoming) argues that interference from Spanish is not involved, but rather that preverbal and clause-final NEG (as well as double NEG) are all legitimate components of Palenquero, effectively in complementary distribution. The position of NEG is determined by the pragmatic frame: “postverbal negation rejects the set of propositions (knowledge, old information) which the speaker assumes the hearer believes true at the time of utterance and which are relevant in the context of the current discourse.…”

“…The position of NEG is determined by the pragmatic frame: “postverbal negation rejects the set of propositions (knowledge, old information) which the speaker assumes the hearer believes true at the time of utterance and which are relevant in the context of the current discourse. By selecting postverbal nu over strictly preverbal no , speakers assign the focus of their utterance not to the ‘negative’ assertion of their statement but rather to the rejection of the pragmatic presupposition” (Schwegler, 1991, p. 180; cf. Kiparsky & Condoravdi, 2004).…”

“…Kiparsky & Condoravdi, 2004). Preverbal negation “merely conveys information in a matter-of-fact way, and presuppositions about the truth value of the proposition simply remain outside the scope of negation” (Schwegler, 1991, p. 182). Schwegler (1991, p. 184) speculates that as the majority of negative utterances contradict or reject the truth value of the corresponding affirmative utterance, the prevalence of postverbal NEG in Palenquero may be causing speakers to lose the original pragmatic differences between pre- and postverbal negation in favor of the latter.…”

“…Preverbal negation “merely conveys information in a matter-of-fact way, and presuppositions about the truth value of the proposition simply remain outside the scope of negation” (Schwegler, 1991, p. 182). Schwegler (1991, p. 184) speculates that as the majority of negative utterances contradict or reject the truth value of the corresponding affirmative utterance, the prevalence of postverbal NEG in Palenquero may be causing speakers to lose the original pragmatic differences between pre- and postverbal negation in favor of the latter. Schwegler’s consultants frequently regarded preverbal negation as “incorrect” even though they themselves produced such utterances (Schwegler, 1991, p. 182), and experiments conducted by Lipski (2013, 2015b, 2016a, 2016b) also reveal that Palenquero speakers implicitly regard preverbal no as a mixed intrusion, although such combinations often go unnoticed in everyday life.…”

“…Schwegler (1991, p. 184) speculates that as the majority of negative utterances contradict or reject the truth value of the corresponding affirmative utterance, the prevalence of postverbal NEG in Palenquero may be causing speakers to lose the original pragmatic differences between pre- and postverbal negation in favor of the latter. Schwegler’s consultants frequently regarded preverbal negation as “incorrect” even though they themselves produced such utterances (Schwegler, 1991, p. 182), and experiments conducted by Lipski (2013, 2015b, 2016a, 2016b) also reveal that Palenquero speakers implicitly regard preverbal no as a mixed intrusion, although such combinations often go unnoticed in everyday life. As an additional factor accounting for the overwhelming preference for clause-final negation in contemporary Palenquero, Schwegler (2016, p. 237, forthcoming) implicates the language revitalization process: “[…] in the linguistic consciousness of young and middle-aged Palenqueros, post-verbal nu now inherently has a more authentic flavor than its strictly pre-verbal counterpart, and to them this pattern seems best suited to symbolically convey local ethnolinguistic pride and Afro-Colombian identity” (Schwegler, 2016, p. 258).…”