0
  1. I don't think they can win.
  2. I know they can't win.

In the " that-clause", why does the first example use the affirmative, yet the second one use the negative? I guess the verb "can" or "can't" is bound by the subject and the main verb in the main clause, but I'm not sure.

user421993
  • 399
  • The first example uses the affirmative to state what you don't think! If that's what you mean by ''bound by the subject and the main verb', you guess correctly. – Kate Bunting May 06 '21 at 07:45
  • @KateBunting Well, that’s what it says literally, but it’s nearly always used to mean “I think they can’t win”. – Araucaria - Him May 06 '21 at 07:51
  • 1
    @Araucaria-Nothereanymore. Well, I know that, of course! The OP asked why the verb was in the affirmative. – Kate Bunting May 06 '21 at 07:56
  • 2
    It's interesting that you've wisely changed the cognitive-domain verb in your example pair. 'I think [that] they can't win' sounds at best unusual. But it still introduces a complication: we're not comparing like with like. While (2) is hyperbole (think Foinavon, Leicester City), it probably means estimating that one is 95+% certain of the outcome. (1) is far less confidently stated. // Using informal reckon as the cognitive-domain verb, which (unusually) works in both variants, I'd say the modal (confidence indication) levels are identical. – Edwin Ashworth May 06 '21 at 11:50
  • EdwinAshworth has demonstrated the question semantically. I also need answers to explain them grammatically. Just as Kate Bunting said, the negation of (1) apparently moves from that-clause to main clause grammatically. What grammar rules cause this movement ? In what conditions does the movement happen? (2) is commonly used, given here just for comparison with (1) to indicate the difference. For example, " I don't know he came" and " I know he didn't come" are both grammatical; they are just literally or semantically different. – user421993 May 06 '21 at 14:02
  • @ Edwin Ashworth, As I have no idea of the exact name for this movement in linguistics. I checked many grammar books and only found that the movement in a that-clause seemed bound by at least two conditions about the main clause : (a) the main verb should be specific cognitive-domain verbs like " think, believe, suppose, expect, reckon, etc"; (b) the subject should be the first personal pronoun. I need someone's help to verify the rules or provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation of this "movement". – user421993 May 06 '21 at 14:30
  • I’m voting to close this question because *thinking* and *knowing* aren't the same thing, so it's almost meaningless to compare positive and negated constructions if the verbs are changed at the same time – FumbleFingers May 06 '21 at 14:40
  • 2
    Syntactically, there's nothing wrong with saying "I think they can't win". Nor is it "unacceptable" phrasing. It's just idiomatically less likely than "I don't think they can win". – FumbleFingers May 06 '21 at 14:58
  • @FumbleFingers, Are you sure? If yes, I will throw all my grammar books into the trash can. As I am a non-native speaker of English language, I only need correct grammar. – user421993 May 06 '21 at 15:11
  • 1
    Yes, I'm quite sure that syntactically there's nothing wrong with I think they can't win. But you can just compare I claim [that] this question is not useful and I don't claim [that] this question is useful to prove to yourself that it usually makes a significant difference to the meaning whether you negate the clause before "that" or after it. – FumbleFingers May 06 '21 at 15:20
  • 2
    This phenomenon of negating the matrix (main) clause to imply the negation of the subordinate clause only applies to verbs relating to intention, epistemic stance or opinion (thought or belief), or those which can be used performatively for advice. It is sometimes called subordinate negation implication. Your selected answer (which is goodish) deals with only one of these. However, more importantly, it doesn't describe the most important factor in the feasibility of such negations: The verbs concerned must be "medium strength" verbs. This terminology is from CGEL. (continued ...) – Araucaria - Him May 06 '21 at 23:56
  • 1
    To illustrate: The verbs suspect, think and know all relate to degrees of belief. Suspect indicating a weak degree of belief and know indicating a maximum degree of belief. Because these verbs relate to more extreme ends of the belief spectrum, they cannot be used in this way I don't suspect Bob lied is not used to indicate I suspect Bob didn't lie and the two won't be considered equivalent in normal circumstances. Similarly with I don't know that Bob lied and I know that Bob didn't lie However, native speakers who wish to intimate I think Bob didn't lie, are very likely ... – Araucaria - Him May 07 '21 at 00:10
  • ... to say I don't think Bob lied when trying to convey the same information. In fact they are *far* more likely to use the latter rather than the former. The following post might be interesting: "Yeti's" – Araucaria - Him May 07 '21 at 00:20

1 Answers1

2

There is a syntactic rule called Negative-Raising that operates on a subset of English verbs having to do with perception, thought, and belief. This rule, with these verbs only, allows equivalence between a negative in a complement clause and a negative in the main clause. Since think is one of these verbs, the following two sentences are equivalent in meaning:

  • Bill thinks that the Orioles won't win the Series.
  • Bill doesn't think that the Orioles will win the Series.

The effect of the rule is that the negation from the that-clause seems to rise up to the main clause, where in fact it doesn't apply -- Bill is thinking, but that they'll win is not what he's thinking. The literal interpretation some try to push -- that Bill has no opinions -- is not fluent English; nobody talks or writes that way, because that's not what think normally means.

However, claim is not one of these verbs, and thus the following two sentences do not mean the same thing:

  • Bill doesn't claim the Orioles will win the Series.
  • Bill claims the Orioles won't win the Series.

These do have separate senses -- in the first, Bill's belief is unknown, but his claim is denied. In the second, Bill's claim is asserted. But then claim is a different verb from think -- a claim is public and can be witnessed, but a thought is private and can be denied or imagined. That's what allows Neg-Raising in the first place. Every verb has a different grammar.

John Lawler
  • 107,887
  • It's quite complicated but understandable and that's what I'm expecting. Can you possibly list out some specific verbs applied to "a subset of English verbs having to do with perception, thought, and belief "? Let me guess some; are they " think, guess, believe, suppose, expect, reckon, fancy, consider "? – user421993 May 06 '21 at 18:51
  • 1
    It's easy enough to search google for neg-raising verbs: https://www.google.com/search?q=neg+raising+verbs – John Lawler May 06 '21 at 19:35
  • 2
    @ John Lawler, At present, we aren't able to reach GOOGLE due to strict censorship in PRC. They shield it. Thanks all the same. – user421993 May 06 '21 at 19:54
  • 1
    Sorry about that. Yes, the ones you suggest -- think, guess, believe, suppose, expect, reckon, fancy, consider -- all allow neg-raising. As do seem and appear, but there it's the subject complement that contains the negative; seem and appear are one-place predicates that take clausal subjects, and require either extraposition or subject-raising to move the heavy subject to the end. Any verb that refers to the same things will work the same way; but verbs of speech like claim don't. – John Lawler May 06 '21 at 20:12
  • Noted. I just looked up "extraposition" in Collins; it seems very interesting. – user421993 May 06 '21 at 20:28
  • 2
    It's a very common rule; I've discussed it here quite a lot. There are other phenomena one can search for, as well as some pre-set searches like the one above. – John Lawler May 06 '21 at 20:51