DOUBLE NEGATION IN BRAZILIAN

PORTUGUESE: A STRATEGY OF TOPIC

MAINTENANCE

Luana Santos de Lima (UFRGS,

Brazil)
Advisor Marcos Goldnadel
(UFRGS)

BRAZILIAN PORTUGUESE STRATEGIES OF NEGATION

Currently, Brazilian Portuguese (BP) has three strategies for sentential negation:

NEG1

NEG2

NEG3

Original form

Eu no gosto.

Eu no gosto no.

Eu gosto no.

Literal Transl.

I not like.

I not like not

I like not

I dont like it.

I dont like it.

I dont like it.

Meaning

BRAZILIAN PORTUGUESE STRATEGIES OF NEGATION

Currently, Brazilian Portuguese (BP) has three strategies for sentential negation:

NEG1
Original form

NEG2

Eu no gosto de bolo de Eu no gosto de bolo de

chocolate.
chocolate no.

NEG3
Eu gosto de bolo de
chocolate no .

Literal Transl.

I not like chocolate

cake.

I not like chocolate cake

not.

I like chocolate cake

not.

Meaning

I dont like chocolate

cake.

I dont like chocolate

cake.

I dont like chocolate

cake.

Primary research question

Why does a language, having a regular
sentential form to express a denial, develop
other competing forms to perform the same
speech act?

Our question
What was the motivation for the rising of
double

negation

in

Portuguese,

more

specifically, in Brazilian Portuguese (BP)?

SOME GIVEN ANSWERS

Phonetic erosion (weakening of the original negative operator) Jespersen (2010 [1917]), Sousa
(2007)
Emphasis Awera (2009), Hoeksema (2009)
Presupposition Schwegler (1991)
Activation - Schwenter (2005, 2006), Lima (2010), Goldnadel et al (2013)

DATA FROM SOME STUDIES ABOUT BP

City

NEG1

NEG2

NEG3

70%

27%

3%

Belo Horizonte
(CAMARGOS 2001)
Helvcia (Bahia)
(SOUZA, 2004)

67%

33%

Natal
(CUNHA, 2001)

88,6%

10,8%

0,6%

SOUTH REGION OF BRAZIL: A CONSERVATIVE ONE

In the beginning of the 90s, sociolinguistic interviews carried out with speakers of the
South Region of Brazil showed an extremely low rate of NEG2 uses and no use of
NEG3. The data seems to point to a conservative area, an ideal environment to verify
the factors conditioning the use of the innovative forms of negation.

OUR DATA

City/n. of
interviews

NEG1

NEG2

NEG3

Porto Alegre RS (11)

99,4% (1402)

0,6% (8)

0%

97% (1371)

3% (37)

0%

95,4% (1046)

4,6% (47)

0%

Curitiba - PR (9)
Florianpolis - SC (9)

OUR HYPOTHESIS

In the first stage, double negative utterances in Brazilian Portuguese have the pragmatic
function of marking emphasis.
In the second stage, double negative utterances have the pragmatic function of marking
topic1 maintenance.
In the 90s, the South Region of Brazil was in the second stage.
1. The notion of topic adopted here is that one found in Kuppevelt (1995, 1996a, 1996b)

THE EMPHATIC STAGE (18TH, 19TH CENTURIES)

No he com as nossas pssoas que o fasem, no; he com o nosso dinheiro.

It is not with the people that they do that. It is with our money.
O marido confundido (Theatre play of the 1st half of 18th century)
Pois no respondo, no.
I will not answer.
Uma vspera de Reis (Theatre play of the 1st half of 1873)
(Seixas & Alkmin, 2013)

THE TOPIC MAINTENANCE STAGE (20TH CENTURY)

Ai! Coisa de fresco. Isso mesmo. Eu no tenho [vergonha]. Eu entro em qualquer lugar. Se for
preciso eu entrar falar com um doutor, eu entro e falo com o doutor. Se for preciso eu entrar
numa repartio, sabe? Cada repartio, cada coisa eu sei entrar, eu sei sair, sabe? Eu no
tenho esse negcio de vergonha comigo no. Se for preciso eu conversar com um
mendiguinho, eu converso com aquele mendiguinho do jeito dele, sabe? Converso com ele,
me ponho ali no lugar dele, fao tudo do jeitinho que ele gosta, assim de conversar. Se tiver
que conversar com uma pessoa mais ou menos, eu converso com aquela pessoa do tipo que
aquela pessoa eu sei que aquela pessoa vai me entender, entendeu?
VARSUL
interview

Project

THE TOPIC MAINTENANCE STAGE (20TH CENTURY)

Oh! That happens with a picky person. Yes, thats it. Im not shy. I can get in anywhere. If I
have to go and to talk to a doctor, I will go and talk to a doctor. If I have to go to a public
office, you know? Each public office, each place I know how to go in, I know how to go
out, can you understand me? Im not shy [not]. If I have to talk to a beggar, I can talk to
that beggar in his way, you know? I can speak to him, I put myself in his place, and I do
everything the way he likes, regarding the speech. If I have to talk to an average person,
I can talk to that person in his way, I know he is going to understand me, you know?
VARSUL Project
interview

TOPIC (VAN KUPPEVELT, 1995)

Every contextually induced implicit or explicit (sub)question Qp that is answered in discourse
constitutes a (sub)topic Tp. Tp is what is being questioned; a set of singular or plural (possibly
non-existent) discourse entities (or a set of ordered n-tuples of such entities in the case of a nfold question) from which one is selected as an answer to Qp. Comment Cp is provided by this
answer and names or specifies the entity asked for.

TOPIC (VAN KUPPEVELT, 1995)

(1) Today the workers of the Phillips computer division went on strike.

Forward

Directionality

<Q1> <Why?>
A1 They are very worried about the managers economy plans.
<Q2> <Why?>
A2 According to these plans, the managers would consider moving the
production section abroad.
<Q3> <Why are the workers so worried about this?>
A3 This would imply that 300 of all those employed in this division
would be dismissed.
<Q4> <Why are the workers so worried about this?>
A4 The imminent dismissal would concern the lowest-paid.

Backward

Directionality

TOPIC (VAN KUPPEVELT)

(2)

<Q1> <Which countries have bad records with respect to air safety?>
A1 China, india, Central Africa and the repuplics of the former Soviet
Union are the worlds most dangerous locales for air travel.
<Q2> <Why?>
A2 These countries are especially plagued by hazards such as
undertrained pilots, poor air-traffic-control systems, inadeuqately
maintained aircraft, lax airport security and political unrest.

TOPIC (VAN KUPPEVELT, 1995)

(3)

Questions about the effectiveness of therapy cloud decisions about

Bidirectionality

treating the illness.

<Q1> <What are the problems?>

A1 Older patiences, if left untreated for small tumors, may die of

other causes.
<Q2> <What else?>
A2 Many men young and old face impotence and incontinence as
the result of the therapy.

ANALYSIS
S: A nica coisa que faz a minha cabea mesmo a minha famlia. Essa a faz a minha cabea, n?
Meus filhos. A minha esposa, esses a, sim.
I: E sete.
S: . Esses a fazem, .
I: Vivia com um l na minha casa e j ficava louca!
S: J difcil, n? Minha filha mais velha agora est pra casar agora em setembro do ano que vem,
ela vai casar, n? Ento j planejaram, j marcaram tudo. A sempre diz: Olha, no mnimo um
casalzinho, n? Mais do que dois ns no aconselhamos a ter porque bah! No fcil no. Do jeito
que est o negcio, no. Carne e caf preto ento.
VARSUL Project interview

ANALYSIS
S: The only one thing that is on my mind is my family. My family is on my mind, you know? My
children. My wife. These ones are on my mind.
I: And seven [children]!
S: Yes. These ones are on mind.
I: I raised just one child and he drove me crazy.
S: Its difficult. My eldest daughter is going to marry in September, shes going to marry, you know?
So, they already planned, they already arranged everything. Then we always say: Look, have at
least 2 children. More than a couple we dont recommend, because it is bah (uau). Its not easy [not].
Not the way things are going. Meat and coffee [are very expensive].
VARSUL Project interview

S: The only one thing that is on my mind is my family. My family is on my mind, you know? My children. My wife. These ones are on my mind. (FEEDER introducing the
DISCOURSIVE TOPIC FAMILY)
I: Q1a And seven [children]! (QUESTION introducing the SENTENCE TOPIC Do so many children take a lot of work?)
S: Yes. These ones are on my mind. (FEEDER reinforcing the DISCOURSIVE TOPIC FAMILY)
I: Q1b I raised just one child and he drove me crazy! (QUESTION reinforcing the SENTENCE
TOPIC Do many children take a lot of work?)
S: A1 Its difficult. (ANSWER introducing the COMMENT yes)
My eldest daughter is going to marry in September, shes going to marry, you know?.
(SUBFEEDER introducing the DISCOURSIVE SUBTOPIC: Daughters marriage)
<Q2> <QUESTION introducing the SENTENCE TOPIC Is the marriage decided?>
A2 So, they already planned, they already arranged everything.
(ANSWER introducing the COMMENT yes)
<Q3> <QUESTION introducing the SENTENCE TOPIC What was the recommendation?>
A3 Then we always say: Look, have at least 2 children. More than a couple we dont recommend.
(ANSWER introducing the COMMENT Dont you have more than two children)
<Q4> <QUESTION introducing the SENTENCE TOPIC Why this recommendation?>
A4 beacause it is bah (uau)! (ANSWER introducing the COMMENT beacause it is uau! )
S: A1b Its not easy [not]. (ANSWER repeating the COMMENT yes to Q1b.)
<Q5> <QUESTION introducing the SENTENCE TOPIC Why isnt it easy?>
A5 Not the way things are going. (ANSWER introducing the COMMENT Things are difficult)
<Q6> <QUESTION introducing the SENTENCE TOPIC Why are things difficult?>
A6 Meat and coffee [are expensive] (ANSWER introducing the COMMENT Meat
and coffee are expensive.)

Q1

Tem problema de assalto?

A1a Ah, isso tem em tudo que lugar, n?
Aqui ... [marca discursiva sinalizando disposio de reelaborao do comentrio]
SUBFEEDER No sei, s vezes a minha filha que estuda de noite vem
SUBTPICO DISCURSIVO: A vinda da filha do colgio
<Q2> O que acontece?
A2 Sai vinte pras onze, ou dez e meia ela sai l do colgio.
<Q3> O que acontece?
A3 Sobe s vezes onze horas a.
<Q4> O que acontece?
A4 Que s vezes a Jane fica a minha esposa se perde pra encontrar ela
<Q5> Por que a esposa no encontra a filha na parada?
A5 e elas saem mais cedo do colgio, entendeu?
<Q6a> Por que a filha vem sozinha?
A6a Ento ela no gosta de ficar esperando na parada
<Q7> O que acontece?
A7 ela pega e vem sozinha, n?
<Q6b> Por que a filha vem sozinha
A6b No gosta de ficar parada.
A1b No sei, at agora no tem problema nenhum no.

Q1 Is there any problem with robery?

A1a Oh, this kind of thing happens anywhere, you know?)
Here, its....

I dont know, sometimes , my daughter that studies at night come back to

home.
SUBFEEDER introducing the DISCOURSIVE SUBTOPIC: The returning of the
daughter from school)
<Q2> What happens?
A2 She leaves [the school] 10:40, or 10:30 she leaves the school.
<Q3> What happens?
A3 Sometimes she arrives about 11:00.
<Q4> What happens?
A4 Sometimes Jane stays... my wife doesnt manage to meet her.
<Q5> Why Jane doesnt manage to meet the daughter in the bus stop?
A5 She leaves the school earlier, you know?
<Q6a> Why the daughter comes back alone?
A6a So she doesnt like to wait the mother in the bus stop.
<Q7> What happens?
A7 she just come alone
<Q6b> Why does she come alone?
A6b She doesnt like to wait [in the bus stop].
A1b I dont know, till now there was not a problem not.

PRELIMINAR CONCLUSION
The data analysed seems to give support to the hypothesis that, in a second stage, double
negative utterances in Brazilian Portuguese have the pragmatic function of marking topic
maintenance.
The proposed analysis would explain the feeling native speakers of BP have that Neg2 is a soft
way to deny some content.
The reason is that double negative utterances indicate a disposition to keep talking about some
topic or subtopic already presented in the previous discourse.

REFERENCES
AWERA, J. V. D. The Jespersen Cycles. In: GELDEREN, E V. Cyclical change. Amsterdan: John Benjamins, 2009, p. 35-71.
CAMARGOS, M. (2000). A negativa: uma anlise qualitativa. Disponvel em http://www.ufop.br/ichs/conifes/anais/LCA/clca03.htm. Acessado 12 de janeiro de 20012.
CAVALCANTE, R. A negao ps-verbal no portugus brasileiro: anlise descritiva e terica de dialetos rurais de afro-descendentes. 2007. 160 f. Dissertao (Mestrado em
Lingustica) Instituto de Letras, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, 2007.
FURTADO DA CUNHA, M. A. O modelo das motivaes competidoras no domnio funcional da negao. DELTA: Documentao de Estudos em Lingstica Terica e Aplicada,
So Paulo, v. 17, no 1, p. 1-30, 2001.
FURTADO DA CUNHA, M. A. Grammaticalization of the strategies of negation in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Pragmatics, Amsterdam, v. 39, p. 1638-53, 2007.
GOLDNADEL, Marcos.; LIMA, Luana Santos de. Aspectos Pragmticos da Negao Sentencial. Cadernos do Il. Instituto de Letras da UFRGS, Porto Alegre, 2011.
GOLDNADEL, M.; LIMA, L.; BREUNIG, G; ESQUIVEL, N. A.; LUZ, J. Estratgias de Negao Sentencial na Regio Sul do Brasil: Levantamento a Partir de Dados do
Projeto Varsul. ( in print)
HOEKSEMA, J. Jespersen recycled. In: GELDEREN, E V. Cyclical change. Amsterdan: John Benjamins, 2009, p. 15-34.
JESPERSEN, O. Negation in English and other languages. In: JESPERSEN, O. Selected writings of Otto Jespersen. New York: Routledge, 2010, p. 2-80.
RONCARATI, C. N. S.. A negao no portugus falado. IN: MACEDO, A. T.;
RONCARATI, C. N. S.; MOLLICA, M. C. M. (orgs.). Variao e Discurso. Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro, 1996, p. 97-112.
SCHWEGLER, A. Predicate negation in contemporary Brazilian Portuguese: a change in progress. Orbis, Leuven, v. 34, p. 187-214, 1991.
SCHWENTER, S. A. The pragmatics of negation in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua, Amsterdam, v. 115, p. 1427-56, 2005.
SCHWENTER, S. A. Fine-Tuning Jespersens Cycle. In: Birner, B.; Ward , G. Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in
Honor of Laurence R. Horn. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2006, p. 327-344.
SOARES, V. A negao no contato entre dialetos. 2009. 113f. Dissertao (Mestrado em Lingustica) Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 2009.
SOUSA, L. T. A gramaticalizao do no no portugus brasileiro e a etapa do processo. Domnios de Linguagem, Uberlndia, n o 2, p. 1-16, 2007.
SOUZA, A. S.. (2004). As estruturas de negao em uma comunidade rural afro-brasileira:Helvcia-BA. [online]. Disponvel em http://www.vertentes.ufba.br/souza.doc.
Acessado em Maio de 2009.
STALNAKER, Robert C. Pragmatic pressupositions. In: DAVIS, Stephen (Org.). Pragmatics: a reader. Oxford: Oxford University, 1991, p. 471-481.
VAN KUPPEVELT, J. 1995. Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. In: J. Linguistics 31, 109 - 147. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
VAN KUPPEVELT, J. 1996. Directionality in Discourse: Prominence Differences in Subordination Relations. In: J. Semantics 13, 363 395. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
VAN KUPPEVELT, J. 1995. Main Structure and Side Structure in Discourse. In: J. Linguistics 33, 809 833. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thank you very much for

your attention

FEEDER: S: A nica coisa que faz a minha cabea mesmo a minha famlia. Essa a faz a minha cabea, n? Meus
filhos. A minha esposa, esses a, sim.
DISCOURSIVE TOPIC: FAMILY
I: Q1a E sete. [Muitos filhos d muito trabalho?]
FEEDER REINFORCEMENT S: . Esses a fazem, .
DISCOURSIVE TOPIC: FAMILY
I: Q1b Vivia com um l na minha casa e j ficava louca! [Muitos filhos d muito trabalho?]
S: A1 J difcil, n? [Yes]
SUBFEEDER Minha filha mais velha agora est pra casar agora em setembro do ano que vem, ela vai casar, n?
DISCOURSIVE SUBTOPIC: Daughters marriage
<SQ1> J est decidido?
SA1 Ento j planejaram, j marcaram tudo.
<SQ2> Houve alguma recomendao?
SA2 A sempre diz: Olha, no mnimo um casalzinho, n? Mais do que dois ns no aconselhamos a ter
<SQ3> Por que essa recomendao?
SA3 porque bah!
S: A1b No fcil no.
<Q2> Por que no fcil?
A2

Do jeito que est o negcio, no.

<Q3> Por que o negcio est desse jeito?

A7

Carne e caf preto ento (riso geral)