Þearf with negation

To all intents and purposes, it is negation that seems the proper locus for a discussion of the modality of þearf+infinitive. Table 13, which builds on Table 10, undisputedly demonstrates that the sense of necessity of þearf, be it internal or external, relies mainly on the negation of this necessity. This statement is only weakened when some other meanings than necessity come to the fore in þearf (cf. 3.2.6). Otherwise, the quantitative summary of the clause types points to steady and prevalent incidence of negation. This finding lends further support to my account of the role played by negative contexts in the PI necessity of þearf being extended to PE and deontic necessity, which I detailed in 3.2.4.2. It is crucial to note that the semantic change in þearf+infinitive leaves the preference for negative contexts unaffected or even strengthened.

This, in turn, suggests that negation might have a hand in this semantic change.

Also, in order to arrive at a thorough picture of negation with þearf, in Table 13 I include the lowest row which, by virtue of presenting the

distribution of þearf+NP with respect to the clause type, naturally belongs to section 3.2.1. Due to this inclusion, one can observe that the convergence of þearf and negation is a theme underlying all the various uses of þearf in Old English.

A word of caution seems proper in connection with Table 13, however. The division line between the affirmative and negative sentences is, predictably, the presence of the clitic ne in the same clause as þearf. Such an approach, even if necessary and helpful, might be felt to explain away some other facets of the negative contexts containing þearf, to which there is much more than just explicit negation. A closer inspection of the 37 instances of þearf+infinitive subsumed under the label AFFIRMATIVE in Table 13 reveals that as many as 21 appear in assertive contexts whereas the remaining examples can be divided into emphatic and non-assertive (see Table 14). As for the emphatic subgroup,

it comprises complex sentences in which the clause with þearf is itself positive, yet, at the same time, it is an embedded clause whose matrix clause is negative, as in (3.2.22): Table 13.Distribution of clause types with þearf

Context

Pre-modal Emphatic Other

non-assertive Assertive Total

þearf+infinitive 7 9 21 37

Table 14. Þearfin assertive and non-assertive contexts

(3.2.22) se wilniaþ ðætte nan ðing ne sie ðe he him ondrædan who desires that no thing not be that he him dread ðyrfe,

need

‘who wishes that there was not a thing that he need dread’

(CP 37.265.7) Importantly, besides a two clause paraphrase along the lines of ‘that there was no thing that he should/need dread,’ a single clause paraphrase of (3.2.22) also comes into play: ‘that he shouldn’t/needn’t dread anything.’ Note that both paraphrases cited are negative sentences. Overall, the structure of (3.2.22) brings to mind negative raising in that out of two juxtaposed clauses, main and embedded, it is the former that is negated. The notion of negative raising is elucidated by HORN (1989: 308) when he says it is “the availability of a lower clause reading or understanding for a higher-clause negation.” Earlier, PALMER

(1979: 95) acknowledges negative raising in his consideration of the PDE modals’ interaction with negation and offers an exemplification:

(3.2.23) “I don’t think we need worry about that any more now. [...]

[...] [(3.2.23) — J.N.] is a sentence with ‘negative raising,’

where it is THINK that is formally negated, although the negation clearly belongs semantically to the subordinate clause. I don’t think that... is to be interpreted as I think that... not...” (Palmer 1979: 95).

On the other hand, the parallels between (3.2.22) and negative raising are not far-reaching. Without the transposition of not to the main clause, (3.2.22) would yield a paraphrase incongruent with its original meaning, viz. ‘There is a thing he shouldn’t/needn’t fear.’ Another difference between example (3.2.22) and negative raising is that the former is validated on the grounds of emphasis, the resultant double clause structure of (3.2.22) being conditioned by the speaker’s desire to shift the focus to nan ðing, a procedure reminiscent of the motivation behind existential or cleft sentences in PDE (cf. QUIRK et al. 1985).

Interestingly, the effect achieved by negative raising is that of turning the focus away from the negation since, as HORN (1989: 316) puts it, “negative force weakens with the distance of the negative element from the constituent with which it is logically associated.” All in all, the seven negative-raising-like instances of þearf+infinitive, albeit seemingly positive, when interpreted in their double clause entirety, cannot be disentangled from the negation in the first clause. I therefore suggest that they be treated as no less negative than those which take overt syntactic negation.

Furthermore, there are nine cases of þearf+infinitive without any overt syntactic negation, yet occurring in what QUIRK et al. (195: 54) call non-assertive contexts and what HUDDLESTON and PULLUM (2002: 834) label non-affirmative contexts. MOLENCKI (2002) and LOUREIRO-PORTO (2005) pay attention to this inclination of the verb and, by way of illustration, it bears enumerating the types of the non-assertive contexts which employ þearf. In seven out of the nine times it is a comparative clause:

(3.2.24) ða ðe ma swugiað ðonne hie ðyrfen, those who more keep-silent than they need

‘those who stay silent more than they should’

(CP 38.273.24) I also find one instance of a present counterfactual with þearf+infinitive whose non-assertive nature consists in the fact that a certain imaginary situation is talked about (cf. MOLENCKI 1999):

(3.2.25) ac ic wolde swiðor sweltan gif ic þorfte for minum agenum but I would sooner die if I needed for my own earde,

native-land

‘but I would rather die if I needed for my native land’

(ÆLS (Edmund) 78) On a similar note, QUIRK et al. (1985: 747) stress the affinity between non-assertion and conditionals to the degree that “if clauses (especially those expressing open conditions) are like questions in that they imply uncertainty about the actual existence of the circumstances referred to. Therefore they tend to contain non-assertive forms.” Finally, there is a single instance of þearf+infinitive in an adverbial clause of purpose introduced by þy læs, a conjunction which is inherently negative, yet does not require any other marker of clausal negation (cf. MITCHELL and ROBINSON 1986: 94):

(3.2.26) Span þu hine georne þæt he þine lare læste, þy læs urge thou him earnestly that he thy bidding do, lest gyt lað gode, incrum waldende weorðan þyrfen.

you loath to-god, to-your lord become need

‘Urge him earnestly to do your bidding lest you should become loath to God, your lord’

(GenA,B 575)

7*

The theme of non-assertive contexts should not be passed without a few words about the four interrogative clauses with þearf+infinitive. Infrequent as they are, they subscribe to the verb’s overwhelming preference for non-assertive environments. In 3.2.4.1 I exemplify a fine line between a rhetorical question and its interpretation in terms of negation (cf. example (3.2.11) and the subsequent discussion), which finds further support in the fact that scholars, for example QUIRK et al. (1985) or HUDDLESTON and PULLUM (2002), assign a non-assertive function to interrogatives.