Negative Equivalent Constructions 'No' And 'Not' In The Jakarta Post's October 13th 2011 (A Study Of Syntax And Semantics)

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

Tatan Tawami, S.S., M.Hum. NIP: 4127.20.03.011

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 you all.

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 and conveying the similar meaning in negation.

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 13th_2011’

, 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 entailment that may occur in the negative construction. Goddard (1998: 17) states

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 analysis of this research such as Celce, Linda Thomas, and Kersty Borjars.

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 as a determiner of NP, which has co-occurrence with noun classes of singular

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 determiner „no‟ converts the usually non-gradable noun into a gradable noun that

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 be out of that limitation.

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 relations existed among the words. Yule (2006: 104) argues words not only as

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

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. However, flower is general terms that can include the other members of flower

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

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, clause and sentence whether the construction consists of any kinds of concepts.

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 entailments based on the scope and focus of negation, as well as the case and state

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 those involved in constructing the clause. The data are analyzed to see whether it

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 previous, where the construction changes into (det + NP) + V + (no + NP). Even

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 construction.

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 negative constructions can be examined.

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 the scope and focus of negation as follows:

(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 feeling happy was not felt by anyone (THING) at that time. However, the state

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 more proper negative equivalent of (i) „Robert is no mad scientist‟.

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 negation and their semantic entailments are described as follows:

(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 described in terms of Case Roles as follows:

(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 entailments of the construction are described as follow:

(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 the part of the Comment. Thus, each construction negates different part of the

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

the object can replace the object position. For example, „any real significant

progress‟, it can be said that (i) may entail „we are seeing real significant progress‟. Actually, the object that is compound adjective can be separated into smaller unit while it is examined by the focus of negation. Thus, the focus of

negation may refer to the adjective „real‟ and „significant‟ other than to the head

of the clause „peak‟ or the whole NP.

(i.c) We are not seeing any real significant peak

The focus of negation refers to the subject „we‟ (pronoun) causing the

other pronouns than „we‟ stands as the entailment. For example, „They‟, it can be

used to replace the subject since by the hyponymy relation „they‟ and „we‟ are

included in term of pronoun. Thus, by this construction of (i), it may entail „they are seeing any real significant peak.

In contrast to (i), the negative „no‟ of (ii) negates one constituent of the

clause (object). Thus, the focus of negation goes only to one spot NP „no real

(ii) We are seeing no real significant peak

Similar to (i.b), the negative „no‟ may focus to the word „real‟,

„significant‟ or „peak‟. As has already explained in the data 2, „no‟ is used to

represent emphasize more than „not‟. Thus, this construction (ii) may entail „we

are seeing different thing from any real significant peak‟. For example, „we are

seeing nice future‟, the negative „no‟ exposes that the entailment is something that

has no relation at all with „real‟, „significant‟, „peak‟.

Furthermore, the contrast emphasizes of both (i) and (ii) can be seen by the explanation of Case Roles below.

(i) We are not seeing any real significant peak

T EVENT THING Agent Action Experience

In this construction, the EVENT as central concept is negative. Therefore, in this case the agent does something that is implied and replaced by the word „seeing‟. In addition, it can be said that the negative „not‟ attaches to the verb to emphasize the action.

(ii) We are seeing no real significant peak

T EVENT THING Agent Action Experience

Different from (i), the action of (ii) is not treated as negative. It shows that

the „agent‟ is truly doing something to „the affected‟. The existence of „no‟ before

the NP „real significant peak‟ is used to emphasize the number of the NP. It is

4.1.6 Construction: Personal pro + (Linking Verb + not) + Adj Data 6

“It is not true. The President is in healthy condition, and has never

suffered from any heart disorder”.(TJP: 3) (i) It is not true

S V C

The verb negation „not‟ causes clausal negation by negating the verb „is‟.

This construction may have various entailments since each constituent may be negated depending on different scope and focus negation as follows:

(i.a) It is not true

(i.b) It is not true

- It is right

- That is true

The focus of negation refers to the complement (i.a) „true‟ that may entail

„it is right‟. The word „right‟ occurs as the entailment by seeing the lexical relation between „not‟ and „true‟ that involve in opposite relation (antonyms). In

addition, the focus goes to the subject (i.b) „it‟ causing the other pronouns than „it‟

may stand as the subject, for example „that‟. „That‟ may replace the existence of „it‟ since there is opposite and hyponymy relation between „not‟ and „it‟.

However, another negative construction using „no‟ may represent similar idea, as

„it is no true‟ (ii). The negative „no‟ (ii) negates the complement, and it causes the

focus of negation refers to one constituent „true‟. Thus, there is only one semantic

entailment for this construction.

Similar to the previous (i) construction, the entailment may be the opposite thing of „no true‟. Thus, it may entail „it is a fact‟.

Furthermore, the (i) and (ii) are quite different in terms of construction and concepts of Topic-Comment. Even though the word order of (ii) is acceptable, it leads to different meaning. There is a word-class shift of „true‟ where in (i) it stands as the adjective and changes into a noun (ii). However, the (ii) construction is less proper to be negative equivalent since it may cause another negative

equivalent that treat the word „true‟as a noun not as the adjective i.e. „It is not any

true‟ (iii).

To contrast the different concept between (i) and (ii), it can be seen by examining the state roles of the clause.

It is not true

THING ATTRIBUTIVE

Topic Relation Comment

As can be seen (i), the THING and ATTRIBUTE involves in relation of description, where the topic (THING) is described by the comment (ATTRIBUTIVE). However, the relation between THING and ATTRIBUTIVE is negative. Thus, the Topic is not described by the Comment and it may be replaced by other Comment.

(ii) It is no true

THING THING

Different from (i), (ii) exposes the relation between the THING and THING. The relation also stands in positive sense where the Topic (THING) is described by the comment (THING). This state relation describes that (i) and (ii) represent different concept of the word „true‟.

Moreover, the state roles of (ii) are more similar to (iii) since both (ii) and

(iii) has the same concept of the word „true‟ (as a noun). The relation of (iii) is in

negative sense, but they have the same concepts that consist of THING and THING.

(iii)It is not any true

THING THING

Topic Relation Comment

4.1.7 Construction: (not + A), Proper Noun + (aux (primary) + V past part) + NP (art + Adj + N)

Not long ago, Indonesia has made a great achievement. I Putu Ngurah Indiana, head of the Jakarta Industry and Energy Agency, said on Wednesday that Indonesia has already set up 10 solar power plants on four islands regency with a total capacity of around 43.000 watts. (TJP: 9)

Not long ago, Indonesia has made a great achievements.

Adv S V O

In this case, the negative goes to the initial adverb causing local negation.

Thus, the focus of negation refers to one constituent „not long ago‟. Therefore,

this construction may have only one entailment.

(i.a) Not long ago, Indonesia has made great achievements

As seen above the words other than the adverb is treated positively. It

means that „Indonesia has made a great achievement‟ in the opposite time of „not

long ago‟. The clause above is in form of past perfect, thus, adverb of time that can replace „not long ago‟ must be adverb of time that is commonly used in past perfect. For instances: „just now‟, this adverb of time indicates something

happened in the early time as the opposite of „not long ago‟. Thus, the (i)

construction may entail „Indonesia has made a great achievement just now‟.

However, there is another possibility to state the similar negative

statement, as (ii) „Long ago, Indonesia has not made any great achievement‟.

(ii) Long ago, Indonesia has not made any great achievement A S V O

In this construction (ii), the negative „not‟ attaches to the verb causing clausal negation. Thus, each part of the clause becomes the focus of negation.

The focus of negation in this case goes to the verb „made‟ (ii.a) causing opposite relation between „not‟ and „made‟. Thus, (ii.a) may entail that Indonesia

has done something to great achievement through the action other than „made‟.

For instances, „lost‟, in the relation of antonyms (opposite) between „not‟ and

„made‟, „lost‟ as non-gradable antonyms may replace „not made‟. Thus, (ii. a) could entail „Long ago, Indonesia has lost great achievement‟.

(ii.b) Long ago, Indonesia has not made any great achievement

The focus of negation refers to the object (NP) causing the opposite of „any great achievement‟ as the entailment. Because the object consists of two words „great and achievement‟, the focus can refer to one or both of them. For

example, „bad‟, in this case, the focus of „not‟ refers to „great‟ resulting opposite

relation between „not‟ and „great‟. However, the focus refers to either „achievement‟ or even „great achievement‟ causing opposite relation between

those words and „not‟ become the entailment.

(ii.c) Long ago, Indonesia has not made any great achievement

The focus of negation refers to the subject and it may entail the subject of

the construction may be other countries other than „Indonesia‟. For example,

„Singapore‟, thus, (ii.c) may entail „Long ago, Singapore has made great achievement‟.

Similar to (i), the focus of (ii.d) goes to the adverb „long ago‟. Therefore,

the entailment of this construction is the same as (i) „Indonesia has made a great

achievement just now‟. In this case, the entailment of (i) is included in (ii.d) In addition, the occurrence of non-assertive „any‟ is used to modify the object (follows negative construction) where (i) the object is modified by the article „a‟ (follows positive construction).

The entailments of (i) and (ii) are quite different whereas the entailment of (i) has been already included in (ii) because of the same focus of negation (i and ii.d). On the other hand, the entailments of (ii) do not include in (i) since (ii) has more entailments than (i).

Moreover, while (i) and (ii) are compared in term of Case Roles, the contrast concept between them are obviously seen as follows:

(i) Not long ago, Indonesia has made a great achievements.

ATTRIBUTIVE THING EVENT THING

Time Agent Action Resultant

As can be seen, the event proposition above states that the agent does the action causing „the resultant‟. However, the information of time is treated negative.

(ii) Long ago, Indonesia has not made any great achievement ATT THING EVENT THING

Time Agent Action Resultant

Different from (i), (ii) the agent does not do the action and the information of time is treated positively. The resultant of (ii) does not stand as the definite

74

possessive determiner is impossible to have negative equivalent. Finally yet importantly, the negative construction in which the subject is negative indefinite compound pronoun such as „nothing‟, „none‟, „no body‟, will have no negative equivalent.

3. The semantic entailments occurring from both negative „no‟ and „not‟ constructions are the opposite (gradable or non-gradable antonym) of the word which is being the focus of negation, or other words that involves in hyponymy relation with the word where focus of negation refers to. However, „no‟ is used to emphasize the word that it modifies rather than „not‟, and to refer to the characteristic of the person.

4. In negative equivalent construction, the Case and State Roles that are involved are different depending on the form of the negative construction; (1) in negative construction with verbal negation „not‟ the EVENT (in the Case Roles) and the Relation between Topic-Comment (in the State Roles) are treated as negative, (2) in the negative construction with non-verbal negation, the Concepts other than the EVENT (in Case Roles) and the Relation between Topic-Comment (in State Roles) are treated as negative. In other words, the concepts that are negative in non-verbal negation are THING, ATTRIBUTE (in Case Roles) and Topic-Comment (in State Roles).

75

5.2 Suggestions

This research only examines negative equivalent construction „no‟ and „not‟ syntactically and semantically by analyzing its syntactic features, scope and focus of negation, entailments, and case and state roles. Thus, there will be another opportunity for the next researchers who want to do further research of this topic by using other theories. For example, negative „no‟ and „not‟ can be analyzed to examine the implication of both „no‟ and „not‟ in study of pragmatics. For instance, A: “would you come to the concert tonight?” and B: “I have no money.”. The implication of the no-construction is that B wants to emphasize that B could not come because B has no money at all (emphasizing). In addition, in study of syntax and semantics, negative „no‟ and „not‟ can also be analyzed in form of double negation construction to examine their different intention. For instances, „If I had no eyes, I would not ask for life‟, this construction shows deeper intention rather than to say „ If I had two eyes, I would ask for life‟. Finally, in order to give clear information about negative „no‟ and „not‟ in the sentence, the next researchers can analyze the distribution of „no‟ and „not‟ in other construction such as in the sentence whether it is simple, compound, or compound complex.

78

REFERENCES

Borjars, Kersti and Kate Burridge. 1986. Introducing English Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Celce, Marianne and Murcia Diane Larsen. 1999. The Grammar Book. Second Edition. USA: Thomson Publishing, Inc.

Djadjasudarma, T. Fatimah. 1993. Metode Linguistik. Bandung: Eresco.

Goddard, Cliff. 1998. Semantic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. Introduction to The Grammar of English. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Larson, Mildred L. 1984. Meaning Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language Equivalent. USA: University Press of America.

Quirk, Randolph, et al. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of The English Language. Fifth impression. London: Longman Group Limited.

--- 1999. Longman Grammar of English and Written English. Edinburg: Pearson Education Limited.

Rakhmania, Ria. 2011. A Comparison Between English and Indonesian Negation Marker. Bandung: Universitas Gunadharma.

Soeria, Soemantri Ypsi. 2011. Struktur Kalimat Negatif dalam Bahasa Inggris. Bandung: Universitas Padjajaran.

Thomas, Linda. 1991. Beginning Syntax. Cambridge: Blackwell Publisher

Yule, George 2006. The Study of Language. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

86

CURRICULUM VITAE

1. Personal Identity

a. Name : Ima

b. Place and Date of Birth : Jakarta, February 1989

c. Home Address : Jl. Raya Cipatik km 3, Soreang- Bandung 40951

d. Phone : 083820452005

e. Sex : Female

f. Citizenship : Indonesian

g. Religion : Moslem

h. E-mail :wayangmiripaku@yahoo.com

2. Educational Background

2.1Formal Education

No Year Institution

1 1993- 1994 TK Gajah Jakarta 2 1994 - 2000 SDN KOPO I

3 2000 – 2003 SLTP Negeri 2 Soreang 4 2003 - 2006 SMU Negeri 1 Soreang

5 2007 - 2012

English Department

87

2.2Informal Education

No Year Institution

1 2006 - 2010 Armidale English College Bandung (Certified) 2 2010 English Literary Internal Training (Certified) 3 2010 Copywriting Seminar (Certified)

4 2010 Cyberneurship Seminar (Certified) 5 2011 Copywriting Seminar (Certified) 6 2011 Semiotics Seminar (Certified) 7 2011 Public Speaking Seminar (Certified) 8 2012 Facilitator Seminar (Certified)

9 2012 Writing Seminar with Raditya Dika (Certified)

3. Competency

Some competencies the writer has are as follows: a. English Correspondence

b. Good at English both oral and written

c. Operating Computer ( Ms.Office, Adobe Photoshop, Macromedia, and Internet)

4. Organization and Work Experiences

No Year Organization

1 2000-2003 Member of PRAMUKA SLTPN 2 Soreang 2 2001-2002 Head of OSIS SLTPN 2 Soreang

88

3 2001-2004 Member of OSIS SMUN 1 Soreang 4 2006-2007 Sales Promotion Girl

5 2007-2008 Member of HIMA Sastra UNIKOM 6 2007-2008 Private Teacher

7 2009

English Teacher in New Concept Education Centre

8 2007-2011 Freelancer Event

5. Competition

No Year Competition

1 2008 Participant of Speech Contest ALSA UNPAD (Certified) 2 2008 Participant of Speech Contest AEC UPI (Certified) 3 2008 3rd Place of Unikom Debate Competition (Certified) 4 2009 Participant of Story Telling Contest (Certified)

5 2009

Adjudicator in National English Competition University of Indonesia (Certified )

6 2012 1st Place of Unikom Debate Competition (Certified)

7 2012

Participant of National University English Debate Competition Kopertis IV (Certified)