POSTED BY MARTIN KICH

On July 18, the headline of the Los Angeles Times daily newsletter was “Trump’s Double-Negative Defense.”

Trump’s explanation that the uproar over his press conference with Putin is much to do about nothing because he simply meant to say “wouldn’t” instead of “would” seems an attempt to reduce much broader issues of policy, intention, tone, and optics to a single and very narrow semantical issue.

But as “The Story of the Double Negative,” provided on the Learning English site maintained by Voice of America, explains, it’s possible that Trump’s use of the double negative was not a correction of but, instead, a doubling-down on his original comments:

A double negative is when you use two negative words in the same clause of a sentence. . . .

There are two types of double negatives.

The first kind of double negative is when two negative words form a positive statement. When President Obama said about the Iran nuclear issue: “America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time and space to do so. But that time is not unlimited,” the negative “not” and the negative prefix “un” cancel each other out. What Mr. Obama meant is that time is limited for Iran. Politicians, lawyers and diplomats sometimes use this type of double negative in sensitive situations.

The second type of double negative is when two negatives form a stronger negative. For example, “I don’t know nothing.” When you place a verb between two negative words, the result is usually a stronger negative. But, if you told an English teacher, “I don’t know nothing,” the teacher would probably correct you with, “I don’t know anything.” This kind of double negative is taboo in professional and academic situations. Some people see it as a sign of being poorly educated.

But English speakers have been using double negatives for centuries. The first English translation of the Bible by King James used double negatives. William Shakespeare even used a triple negative in his play Richard III. Shakespeare wrote, “I never was nor never will be.”

Was Shakespeare wrong?

It was Robert Lowth who decided the double negative had no place in English grammar. Robert Lowth was a leader in the Church of England. In 1762, he wrote a book called A Short Introduction to English Grammar. Mr. Lowth proposed many restrictions on English grammar, many of them inspired by Latin. Over the years, his rules became the standard for teaching grammar all over the English-speaking world.

But the double negative is alive and well, especially in informal speech. In fact, some of the richness of the English language comes from ignoring the rules. Listen for the double negative in the song “Satisfaction” by the Rolling Stones.

“I can’t get no satisfaction I can’t get no satisfaction ‘Cause I try and I try…”

Would the song have the same effect if Rolling Stones singer Mick Jagger had said, “I cannot get any satisfaction?”

And surely Robert Lowth would not approve of pop star Rihanna’s use of the double negative in her song called “Numb.”

“I don’t care, can’t tell me nothing …”

The double negative is just one example of the difference between how English is taught in school and how it is sometimes spoken.

Arguably, Trump’s speech—his manner of speaking from that podium and just about any podium—was closer to the level of the song lyrics than to the more formal speech or writing that we have historically expected of our political leaders. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that there is a very real possibility that in appearing to correct his earlier phrasing, he was actually doubling down on it.

Although I don’t believe that Trump himself is especially sensitive to or knowledgeable about the “rules” of grammar and style, it does seem more possible that an aide may have pitched this “correction” to him with the rationale that in quieting his critics he would actually be fooling them. It is certainly very odd that this very narrow “correction” is all that he ultimately decided to present.

If that possibility seems very far-fetched—even elaborately so—I’ll counter that in the context of everything that has been occurring over this past week, “far-fetched” is a word that is starting to seem very quaint, if not anachronistic.

 

“The Story of the Double Negative” is available at: https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/everyday-grammar-double-negatives/2743416.html.