CC BY
2
UDK 801.12
Toshhonov L. T. teacher
institute of Andijan agriculture and agrotechnologies
Uzbekistan, Andijan
USING "NOT, NOT ONLY AND BUT ALSO" IN THE SENTENCE
Annotation: This article is about the negation that is expressed "not, not only and but also " in the sentence. They negate the fact of ideas. They change the affirmative sentence into negative form.
Key words: Negation, affirmative, deny, form, determiner, distribution, hypothesis
Negation, as maintained by the likes of Merriam Webster refers to "the action or logical operation of negating or making negative".
In simpler terms, negation defines the polar opposition of affirmative, denies the existence or vaguely - a refutation. This is also known as "Not". Classical logic resembles negation with truth function which takes truth to falsity and is perfectly capable of running the opposite operation. It denies the truth of a sentence. It's just the conversion of the affirmative sentence which converts the simple affirmative sentence into negative. Example
o I like to sing = I do not like to sing.
When it is necessary to state that a fact is not true, it can be done by using any negative words, phrases or clauses. Negation refers to these negative words, phrases or clauses.
o Rick is not here. o Peter has no books. o Sam has never been there. o John did nothing for this project. o Neither I nor you attended the program. o None of us liked the movie. o Pam has rarely cooked any food. o Richard is buying unnecessary things. o Rock is not sure about it. o Patrick has no knowledge about it. o I have nothing to say. o Why are you so careless? o Nobody was in the classroom. o I found the book o Alice rarely sings a song. o Bob roughly has any idea about it. o Jim is not
o
o
o
Harry is not
Nobody liked the picture.
Neither Jack nor Robin was in the party.
First of all, when do we use not only, but also? Well, we use it when we have two things and we want to give a little extra emphasis to the second thing because it's even better, or even worse, or more surprising, or more impressive, or more shocking than the first thing.
There are two ways to use not only, but also. We can use it in the middle and end of the sentence, or we can actually use it to start a sentence with not only. There are some grammatical considerations we have to keep in mind.
So using not only., but also in the middle and end of a sentence We can say, "We've taught English not only in the U.S., but also in other countries." Or you could say, let's say you're talking about someone who is a model. You could say, "She's not only beautiful, but also very smart."
The not phrases are ungrammatical except in initial position, even though the structural description for the hypothesized obligatory lexicalization transformation is presumably never met.34
The negative word not can be used with almost any word or word group in a clause to achieve Special negation, with a view to being more forceful, careful, polite or hesitant. For example, it can be put to use with nouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositional phrase and quantifiers.35
As we can see in both of these examples, the second part, the part that comes after "but also" is just a little more interesting or better than the first part, so we just want to give a little extra emphasis. Because, of course, we could simply say, "She's beautiful and smart." That's just neutral. But if you say, "She's not only beautiful, but also smart," it kind of gives a little bit of extra emphasis to that second part; being smart.
Now, the key if we use not only, but also like this, is that the two parts of the sentence have to be parallel. If we use an adjective after not only, we need to use an adjective after but also. So, beautiful and smart, those are both adjectives. "She's not only beautiful, but also very smart."
It would sound strange if we said, "She's not only beautiful, but also a singer," because beautiful is an adjective, and a singer is a noun, and it's not parallel. We could have two nouns. We could say, "She's not only a model, but also a singer." That would be all right. That sounds natural, because we have a noun and a noun.
Another example of a sentence that sounds strange is, don't say this: "He ate not only the pizza, but also the soda." That doesn't make sense because you eat pizza, but you don't eat soda. You drink soda. So we can fix this sentence by using two different verbs after not only and but also. So We can say, "He not only ate the pizza, but also drank the soda." We hope we can see that when we use not only and
34 Toshhonov Lochinbek Tursunboyevich "Expression of the syntax of not", Journal of "Экономика и социум" №11(78) 2020
35 Toshhonov Lochinbek Tursunboyevich " In Uzbek and English prose statistical analysis of used negative prefixes", Journal of "Экономика и социум" №11(78) 2020
but also like this the two parts of the sentence need to be parallel so that it makes sense and it sounds natural.
How about using not only to start a sentence? An example of this would be, "Not only does he play guitar, but he also writes his own songs." Now, notice in the first part of the sentence we don't say, "Not only he plays." We actually have an auxiliary verb: does. We say, "Not only does he play guitar." This is just a special thing that we do with not only, but also sentences. Normally, we would say, "He plays guitar." But when you start it with not only, you say, "Not only does he play guitar, he also writes his own songs." In sentences like this that start with not only, the but is optional. Some people eliminate it and just say, "He also writes his own songs."
That's an example in the present tense. If we're talking about the past, we can also use this construction, but now we need to use the auxiliary verb, did in the past. So, "Not only did she fail the course, but she also dropped out of college." That means she completely left the program of studies. "Not only did she fail." Don't say, "Not only she failed." "Not only did she fail the course, but she also dropped out of college." Okay? The second part of the sentence is normal. After but also, just use the simple past. We don't need to use an auxiliary verb there.
In the determiner theory (DT) using "Not" with the noun phrase and adverbs were explained with some examples. In the Determiner Theory (DT), is generated optionally in the determiner of Noun Phrases and certain types of Adverbial Phrases, The presence of not in the determiner of a NP, for example, would be contingent upon other aspects of the form of the determiner. The 1st would be a possible deep structure under either option, but the 2nd would be excluded by subcategorization,
1. (not) many people
2. not people
The determiner of a count noun could include 3, then.
3.
many
((not) avery )
a lot of
The determiner of a mass noun, similarly, could include 4.
4. much ((not) All )
A lot of
Determiners generated by the base rule underlying 3 appear in sentences 5.
5. a. Not many people arrived
b. Not every student passed the test
c. Not all of the analyses were acceptable
d. Not a lot of demonstrators were arrested The determiners in 3appear in sentences 6.
6. a. Not much foliage survived the frost
b. Not all of the crops were destroyed
c. Not a lot of thought went into your explanation
The first problem facing DT is illustrated by examples 1-4 above. In particular, a phrase generated by 3 or 4 can be the subject of a passivized sentence, but not the object of en active sentence. And such a phrase can be the subject of an active sentence but not the by-phrase of a passive one. This distribution of facts can be accounted for within DT by a transformation ordered after passive, and whose operation is obligatory, which would shift a not occurring in the determiner of a NP to the right of the Aux into the Aux. The 7th is an approximate statement of this transformation which we will call Not Shift.
7. Not Shift
NP - [Tense-etc.]Aux-[Verb - [not-etc.]Np]vp - etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ?
1-5+2-3-4-6-7
By the operation of 7 a determiner not becomes the first element of the Aux. This formulation is consistent with the theory developed by Emonds (1970) which is usually called the structure preserving hypothesis. This is so because not moves into a position that is a possible deep structure position for it, as in above. If the rule which moves not into second position in the Aux (which I will call Aux Adjustment) is ordered after Not Shift, the final form of the Aux will be the same whether not is generated in the Aux or transformationally relocated there. We will illustrate Not Shift and Aux Adjustment with some sample derivations. For a discussion of Do Support and Contraction see Klima (1963).
Deep structure Jim not past leave
Aux adjustment * past not leave
Do support * did not leave
Cunstruction * didn't leave
D.S Jim past solve not many problems
Not Shift * not past solve many problems
A.A * past not * * *
Do Support * did not * * *
Construction * didn't * *
If passive is elected on D.S. 9, then Not Shift, Aux Adjust, and Do Support will all be inapplicable. The output in this case will be 10.
10. Not many of the problems were solved by Jim
Now consider a deep structure with not in the determiner of the subject.
11. Not many of the students will solve this problem
If passive is not elected, none of the above transformations apply, and in all relevant respects, the surface structure is the same as the deep structure. If passive is elected, its output will meet the structural description of Not Shift.
12. This problem will be solved by not many of the students 12 will ultimately produce 13.
13. This problem won't be solved by many of the students Structures with not generated in both the Aux and the determiner of the
object NP create an apparent difficulty for the DT analysis. 14, for example, produces the acceptable sentence 15 if passivized.
14. The police didn't arrest not many of the demonstrators
15. Not many of the demonstrators weren't arrested...
But if 14 is not passivized, there is no possible grammatical output.
16. The police not didn't arrest many of the demonstrators
17. The police didn't not arrest many of the demonstrators
We claim that the lack of a grammatical output for 14 is not a real difficulty but follows naturally from the structure preserving hypothesis. We have stated that Not Shift is obligatory. Since there is only one Aux position for not, the derivation that would produce 16 or 17 blocks, since the target of the movement is already filled.
The distribution of adverbs with not can be handled by the same devices. For the purposes of this discussion, I will assume that the relevant adverbs are generated sentence- finally and are transformationally fronted, but the structure of the argument will be unaffected if the reverse turns out to be the case.
Just as not is generated in the determiner of NP's, under the DT analysis, it is generated in the specifier of certain Adverbial Phrases. Thus, the initial AP«s in the following sentences represent deep structure constituents.
18. Not often do I cut astronomy class.
19. Not because he loves her does George beat his rife.
20. Not in order to become rich did John become a linguist? However, such adverbials can occur sentence-finally only when not is absent.
21. I cut astronomy class (not) often
22. George beats his wife (not) because he loves her
23. John became a linguist (not) in order to become rich
If Not Shift is extended to apply to Adv P's, as well as NP's, and is ordered after Adverb Fronting, the starred forms of 21-23 will never be generated, but instead will obligatorily be transformed into 24-26.
24. I don't cut astronomy class often
25. George doesn't beat his wife because he loves' her
26. John didn't become a linguist in order to become rich
One further set of relevant syntactic phenomena is illustrated by sentences -20 above. The generalization covering those sentences is that when the particular set of adverbs under discussion have not in their determiner, the fronting of the adverbial phrase fulfills the environment for Subject Auxiliary Inversion (SAI), One consequence of this observation, which I note in passing, is that Adverb Fronting must precede SAI.
References:
1. Toshhonov Lochinbek Tursunboyevich "Expression of the syntax of not", Journal of "Экономика и социум" №11(78) 2020
2. Toshhonov Lochinbek Tursunboyevich " In Uzbek and English prose statistical analysis of used negative prefixes", Journal of "Экономика и социум" №11(78) 2020
3. Klima, E, (1964), "Negation in English"
4. 8. Lakoff, G. (1965), Irregularity in Syntax. Holt, Rinehart, Winston, New York.
5. 9. Nurmonov A. The expression assertion and negation by linguistic elements// Uzbek language and literature. -Tashkent. Science. 1979. №1. -p.31-34.
6. https://www.learngrammar.net/a/examples-of-negation
