# We don't need no education



## shosuro91

Hello everybody,

Could anybody give me an explanation about the grammatical features of the following sentences?

"We don't need no education,
We don't need no thought control"

Are they grammatically correct?

They are taken from _We don't need no education_, a song by Pink Floyd.

Thank you in advance.


----------



## kayokid

Hello. In my opinion and from an AmE point of view this can be labeled either slang or dialectical depending on how you want to describe it. Some may describe it as an example of Ebonics, as well.

The double negative does not exist in standard English.


----------



## shosuro91

This is more related to semantics but may I ask you what does it mean? I would really appreciate it.


----------



## Adolfo Afogutu

I remember another example, it's also part of a lyric, a song sung by Bob Marley, but I can't remember its name now: "don't shed no tears"


----------



## Peterdg

shosuro91 said:


> This is more related to semantics but may I ask you what does it mean? I would really appreciate it.


No necesitamos (ninguna) educación.
No necesitamos (ningún) control sobre nuestros pensamientos.


----------



## stickyfloor

The phrases are not grammatically correct. A correct equivalent would be:
We don't need any/an education
We don't need thought control

The use of the double negative makes the phrases sound like slang, and I would say it serves a rhythmic purpose in the context of the song.

On another note, the name of the Pink Floyd song is actually "Another Brick in the Wall part 2" according to the album but is commonly referred to by the incorrect name.


----------



## donbill

shosuro91 said:


> Hello everybody,
> 
> Could anybody give me an explanation about the grammatical features of the following sentences?
> 
> "We don't need no education,
> We don't need no thought control"
> 
> Are they grammatically correct?
> 
> They are taken from _We don't need no education_, a song by Pink Floyd.
> 
> Thank you in advance.



Actually the song is "Another brick in the wall" by Pink Floyd. The lyrics cited are clearly incorrect by prescriptive standards.

I must, however, take issue with my compatriot, KayoKid. I would not classify this as Ebonics at all. As I understand the term, Ebonics refers to a form of English--a dialect, if you wish to use the term--spoken by African Americans in the US. In my opinion, there's nothing racial or ethnic about the examples from the lyrics. They're simply examples of usage that is frowned upon by most careful speakers of English. I doubt that Pink Floyd was trying to imitate African American dialect in the song.


----------



## Trailbosstom

In English song lyrics double negatives are quite common because they provide the correct rhythm in a sentence. The same is true of otherwise incorrect constructions like "she don't," "It don't," and nonstandard forms like ain't.

They all provide fewer syllables.  ain't has one syllable and takes the place of two-syllable words like isn't, haven't and hasn't.
Double negatives let you use "no" instead of "any"

Not rhythmic: It doesn't mean a thing if it hasn't got that swing. 
The real lyrics:  It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.

Not rhythmic: My love doesn't give me presents.
The real lyrics.  My love don't give me presents.

Not rhythmic: Doesn't it make my brown eyes blue?
The real lyrics.  Don't it make my brown eyes blue?

DOUBLE NEGATIVE EXAMPLES:

Not rhythmic:  I haven't got anybody.
The real lyrics: I ain't got nobody.

Not rhythmic: I'm not anybody's sugar daddy now.
The real lyrics:  I ain't nobody's sugar daddy now.


----------



## Gabriel

@ Trailbosstom:
However, the "no" of the double negation could be swiftly replaced by a grammatically correct "an" with the same rhythm and almost the same pronunciation within a song:

_We don't need an education_


----------



## Gabriel

stickyfloor said:


> The phrases are not grammatically correct. A correct equivalent would be:
> We don't need any/an education
> We don't need thought control



And also "We need no education"


----------



## duvija

If you want, read whatever Ilan Stavans writes about Spanglish. 
In this case, it's not a 'mistake', nor an African American way of speaking. Now it became independent. It's just that some formations bring an emotion that the simple 'grammatical' term does not.


----------



## fernandodanielbruno

Is 'We don't need no education' a double negative, doesn't it? I guess the author uses intentionally a grammar mistake when he sings that he doesn't need education, but who knows...


----------



## Trailbosstom

Yes, it is. It sounds like a joke.


----------



## Bondstreet

As said above, song lyrics in English often "bend" the language for effect, and double negatives are quite common to give emphasis to a statement. "I _ain't_ got _no_ satisfaction" by the Rolling Stones comes to mind - this has much more rhythm than the correct "I haven't got any satisfaction" or "I do not have any satisfaction". But double negatives in song lyrics shouldn't be taken as examples of "correct" English by anyone learning English as a foreign language.
.


----------



## Fat33

The use of double negatives such as that are common in common speech, that is, speech between less educated people. I think the artists use this technique in solidarity with the class that they have sympathy with or perhaps come from.

This is quite palpable in the Pink Floyd lyrics:

"We don't need no education,
We don't need no thought control"

The reference to "thought control" elicits the counterculture's worldview of the 1960s and 70s that the people controlling the country had too much power and not enough heart.


----------



## Trailbosstom

The use of these forms ALWAYS omits syllables that are rhythmically out of place and ruin the beat. I personally think that the bad grammar is in the songs specifically because of this. 

The fact that they impart a feeling of street language usage or rebellion of some sort is just by chance. 

A lyricist MUST adhere to the strict rules of tempo and rhythmic structure. He or she can do it grammatically or ungrammatically, but the "he don't," "ain't got no," "She don't need no" forms often solve the rhythm problem quickly and easily. They are almost always used for no other reason in my opinion.

I think the flavor they add is only incidental, serendipitous. You simply cannot sing: "It doesn't mean a thing if it hasn't got that swing" because the PROSODY is bad. "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing," however works. 

The composer and singer are not admired for their uneducated use of language or for being linguistic iconoclasts; they are, on the contrary, forgiven for their very dumb-sounding grammar because their rhythm works. 

Just my opinion.

I wrote other examples above.


----------



## duvija

Trailbosstom said:


> The use of these forms ALWAYS omits syllables that are rhythmically out of place and ruin the beat. I personally think that the bad grammar is in the songs specifically because of this.
> 
> The fact that they impart a feeling of street language usage or rebellion of some sort is just by chance.
> 
> A lyricist MUST adhere to the strict rules of tempo and rhythmic structure. He or she can do it grammatically or ungrammatically, but the "he don't," "ain't got no," "She don't need no" forms often solve the rhythm problem quickly and easily. They are almost always used for no other reason in my opinion.
> 
> I think the flavor they add is only incidental, serendipitous. You simply cannot sing: "It doesn't mean a thing if it hasn't got that swing" because the PROSODY is bad. "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing," however works.
> 
> The composer and singer are not admired for their uneducated use of language or for being linguistic iconoclasts; they are, on the contrary, forgiven for their very dumb-sounding grammar because their rhythm works.
> 
> Just my opinion.
> 
> I wrote other examples above.



I totally disagree.


----------



## Forero

shosuro91 said:


> Hello everybody,
> 
> Could anybody give me an explanation about the grammatical features of the following sentences?
> 
> "We don't need no education,
> We don't need no thought control"
> 
> Are they grammatically correct?
> 
> They are taken from _We don't need no education_, a song by Pink Floyd.
> 
> Thank you in advance.


They are examples of _enallage_, a figure of speech used to draw attention. I think the idea here is that freedom is more valuable than education or proper grammar.


----------



## S.V.

Though it is true English does love monosyllables. For example, this book claims 71.5% of all words are monosyllabic, per frequency distribution. There should be a "natural" preference for /doʊnt/ over /ˈdʌzˌənt/ and /eɪnt/ over /ɪzɨnt/. If languages in general like to simplify, English more so than most.

If there is only_ do, did, done, doing_, "does" might be expendable. In the same rural zones,_ did ~ done ~ have done_ was also confused (colloquial today, "_You done fucked up now!_"). And of course, the emotional charge comes after. If _don't_ and _ain't_ are normal at home, change will give off an artificial flavor.

Though I_'_m sure blues and country music had something to do with it, elsewhere.


----------



## Fat33

Forero, thanks! 

Interesting word "enallage". Thought it French, but turns out to be from Greek --*Pronunciation: *eh-NALL-uh-gee; The Rhetorical Figure of Exchange: Enallage. And No Name, thanks for the story. Kids are often right.


----------



## SevenDays

shosuro91 said:


> Hello everybody,
> 
> Could anybody give me an explanation about the grammatical features of the following sentences?
> 
> "We don't need no education,
> We don't need no thought control"
> 
> Are they grammatically correct?
> 
> They are taken from _We don't need no education_, a song by Pink Floyd.
> 
> Thank you in advance.



It's not really a matter of _correctness._

This "We don't need no education" is what linguists call _negative concord_, i.e. the presence of two or more negative elements in the same sentence (_don't, no_) which reinforce each other for _emphasis _without creating a positive result (in mathematics, two negatives make a positive, but that's not the case in linguistics). 

_Negative concord_ isn't part of standard English syntax (as it is, for example, in Spanish syntax). For emphasis, standard English syntax uses a different system, known as _negative polarity_. What "negative polarity" means is that a negative context gives certain words, which are not intrinsically "negative," a negative meaning (words such as "any" and "at all"). Put another way, "any" and "at all" are _attracted_ to negative environments (thus the idea of "polarity"), thereby becoming negative in _contextual meaning_. This negative polarity is so strong, that words such as "any" and "at all" do not easily appear in_ positive_ environments (_I have any books_ ??? _I like you at all_ ???).

But the fact that _negative concord_ isn't a part of English syntax doesn't mean that the English language rejects negative concord. In actuality, negative concord is quite common in certain environments and in certain dialects. A case in point is "We do*n't* need *no* education."  Music, particularly rock/pop/rap music, is an environment where negative concord commonly appears ("I ca*n't* get *no* satisfaction"). Why is this? Well, it could be a matter of rhythm/sound (try singing "We don't need any education;" it just doesn't work), or it could be that negative concord has an _expressiveness, punch_ that's absent in the standard form ("We don't need any education" comes across as rather weak and bland). 

Then again, negative concord is also common in working-class British English, the kind of English found in Pink Floyd's lyrics.

So, _negative concord_ is "correct" is a music context, and in the context of certain English dialects, but it will be rejected by your English teacher.


----------



## FromPA

fernandodanielbruno said:


> Is 'We don't need no education' a double negative, doesn't it? I guess the author uses intentionally a grammar mistake when he sings that he doesn't need education, but who knows...


It seems pretty clear to me that that was the intention. Based on the way the lyric was sung, you might even conclude that the grammatical error was intentional as an expression of defiance against education.


----------



## Forero

SevenDays said:


> _Negative concord_ isn't part of standard English syntax (as it is, for example, in Spanish syntax). For emphasis, standard English syntax uses a different system, known as _negative polarity_. What "negative polarity" means is that a negative context gives certain words, which are not intrinsically "negative," a negative meaning (words such as "any" and "at all"). Put another way, "any" and "at all" are _attracted_ to negative environments (thus the idea of "polarity"), thereby becoming negative in _contextual meaning_. This negative polarity is so strong, that words such as "any" and "at all" do not easily appear in_ positive_ environments (_I have any books_ ??? _I like you at all_ ???).


I have to disagree with this. "Any" is never negative in meaning. The problem with "I can't get no education" is that "no" is being used as a synonym for "any", even though "no" is normally negative.

In "I don't have any books", "any" is a positive qualifier/determiner indicating unrestricted choice, just as it is in "Any apple that has grown red in color must be ripe" or "I have any books you might need."

"At all" is not negative either. It is an intensifier used only for negatives just as the adverbs "much" and "far" are intensifiers used only for comparatives.


----------



## SevenDays

Forero said:


> I have to disagree with this. "Any" is never negative in meaning. The problem with "I can't get no education" is that "no" is being used as a synonym for "any", even though "no" is normally negative.
> 
> In "I don't have any books", "any" is a positive qualifier/determiner indicating unrestricted choice, just as it is in "Any apple that has grown red in color must be ripe" or "I have any books you might need."
> 
> "At all" is not negative either. It is an intensifier used only for negatives just as the adverbs "much" and "far" are intensifiers used only for comparatives.



It is the _negative context_ that gives a word like "any" negative meaning. In other words, there must be a negative word for "any" to mean "no/zero/etc." _I do*n't* need *any* education; I do*n't* have *any* books._ That's what "negative polarity" means in linguistic talk. Surely you wouldn't say that "I don't have any books" means that I have at least _one_ book, or_ some_ books, because "any" is put in the category of positive quantifier. When there's no negative context (i.e. there's no negative word),"any" conveys its intrinsic meaning of "one or some indiscriminately of any kind:" _Any apple that has grown red in color must be ripe; Do you have any questions? Any child would know the answer._


----------



## Forero

SevenDays said:


> It is the _negative context_ that gives a word like "any" negative meaning. In other words, there must be a negative word for "any" to mean "no/zero/etc." _I do*n't* need *any* education; I do*n't* have *any* books._ That's what "negative polarity" means in linguistic talk. Surely you wouldn't say that "I don't have any books" means that I have at least _one_ book, or_ some_ books, because "any" is put in the category of positive quantifier. When there's no negative context (i.e. there's no negative word),"any" conveys its intrinsic meaning of "one or some indiscriminately of any kind:" _Any apple that has grown red in color must be ripe; Do you have any questions? Any child would know the answer._


"Any" never means "no" or "zero".

"I don't need an education" is the opposite of "I do need an education". "An" means the same thing in both sentences.

"I don't need any education" means approximately the same thing as "I don't need an education." Replacing "an" with "any" does not make the sentence mean "I do need an education" because "any" is no more negative than "an".

What replacing "an" with "any" does is to say "pick one education or some education of any kind, indiscriminately, and this will remain true". In other words, "I don't need any education" means that "I don't need an education" is true for any education whatever.

"I need any education" is not ungrammatical, but it seems like a less natural sentence than, for example, "I need any education you can provide", in which "any" keeps the sentence from suggesting that you can necessarily provide education.

And "Any education at all is education I need" is fine. It does not mean "No education is education I need" (= "Any education at all is education I don't need").

"I don't need any education at all" does mean "Any education at all is education I don't need", approximately the same meaning as "I don't need education" or "I don't need an education", not the opposite.

"Any", in other words, does not make a positive into a negative, or a negative into a positive. It indicates inclusiveness, not negation.


----------



## Peterdg

Forero said:


> "Any" never means "no" or "zero".


Yes it does: I don't have any money = I have no money. As Seven says, it is the negative context that gives that value to "any".


----------



## Forero

Peterdg said:


> Yes it does: I don't have any money = I have no money. As Seven says, it is the negative context that gives that value to "any".


I don't buy that. Suppose I take money whenever I see it lying around, I can say:

A. _I take money I see lying around._
B. _I take any money I see lying around._
C. _Any money I see lying around, I take it._

Sentences B and C contain "any" and A does not, but they are all true in the same given context. There is nothing negative in A, B, or C.

If I add a "don't" or a "no", however, I become a liar because "don't" and "no" are negative:

D. _I don't take money I see lying around._
E. _I take no money I see lying around._
F. _I don't take any money I see lying around._
G. _Any money I see lying around, I don't take it._

Sentences F and G contain "any", and D and E do not, but they are all false in the same context. Each contains just one word with negative value.

The word _any_, as you can see, does not make a positive sentence negative or a negative sentence positive. It just says that it is not important to what is predicated whether "money I see lying around" exists or not, and if it does exist, it is not important to what is predicated which money I see lying around.

In other words, "any" keeps its same value in either context, and it does not negate.

In contrast, I would not be lying if I said, in the same context:

H. _I can't just not take it._
I. _I can't take none._
J. _I can't just take no money._

This is because something with negative value inside a negative construction does not mean the same as something without negative value. Because _any_ is not negative in value, it cannot be used in place of _none_ in I or _no_ in J without a significant change in the meaning.

In sentence H, we can replace _it_ with _any_ and the sentence remains just as true (if _any_ had negative value, it would not), but remove _not_ and it becomes false.


----------



## ayuda?

Another Brick in the Wall - Wikipedia

“Another Brick in the Wall”

Pink Floyd's 1979 rock opera, The Wall
Plot:
After being insulted by the teacher, Pink dreams that the kids in his school begin to protest against their abusive teachers. The song talks about how he had a personal wall around him from the rest of the world, and the teachers were just another brick in the wall.

*Double negative:* never “grammatically” correct. If you don’t think so, try it in your next English exam while you prepare for summer school.

This whole song and the album were screaming counter-culture.

The double negative was just for creative effect. How better to show contempt for the system (an English teacher) than in-your-face bad grammar!

It can be used that way, just as _ain’t_ can. And it does get the desired effect.


----------



## fernandodanielbruno

Maybe it's just because I'm used to it, but I can't immagine any other form to say that Roger Water says in his song. I'd hate to have to listen to 'We don't need more education' or 'We don't need your education' or any other variant.

Do english native speakers usually use a double negative as our exemple? I mean, could I listen to a local from the East End of London saying things like 'I don't need no more extra hours', 'We don't need no promises', etc?

xx


----------



## SevenDays

Forero said:


> I don't buy that. Suppose I take money whenever I see it lying around, I can say:
> 
> A. _I take money I see lying around._
> B. _I take any money I see lying around._
> C. _Any money I see lying around, I take it._
> 
> Sentences B and C contain "any" and A does not, but they are all true in the same given context. There is nothing negative in A, B, or C.
> 
> If I add a "don't" or a "no", however, I become a liar because "don't" and "no" are negative:
> 
> D. _I don't take money I see lying around._
> E. _I take no money I see lying around._
> F. _I don't take any money I see lying around._
> G. _Any money I see lying around, I don't take it._
> 
> Sentences F and G contain "any", and D and E do not, but they are all false in the same context. Each contains just one word with negative value.
> 
> The word _any_, as you can see, does not make a positive sentence negative or a negative sentence positive. It just says that it is not important to what is predicated whether "money I see lying around" exists or not, and if it does exist, it is not important to what is predicated which money I see lying around.
> 
> In other words, "any" keeps its same value in either context, and it does not negate.
> 
> In contrast, I would not be lying if I said, in the same context:
> 
> H. _I can't just not take it._
> I. _I can't take none._
> J. _I can't just take no money._
> 
> This is because something with negative value inside a negative construction does not mean the same as something without negative value. Because _any_ is not negative in value, it cannot be used in place of _none_ in I or _no_ in J without a significant change in the meaning.
> 
> In sentence H, we can replace _it_ with _any_ and the sentence remains just as true (if _any_ had negative value, it would not), but remove _not_ and it becomes false.



_Negative polarity _is not about “negating” or “double negatives” (the two things that are going on in your post). Negative polarity is about _negative reinforcement_. To reinforce/emphasize a negative, Spanish uses another negative word: *No*_ tengo *nada*_. That’s not how it works in standard English syntax; we don't say _I do*n't* have *nothing*_ (except in certain dialects and specialized contexts, such as lyrics). English uses _negative polarity_.

Simply put, what negative polarity means is that a negative word attracts for reinforcement a word or expression that isn't itself negative. The effect of this is that the word/expression becomes ungrammatical if used in the opposite positive context. We call the word/expression a “negative polarity item” (NPI). Lots of things function this way (the negative word is underlined; the negative reinforcement is in bold):

_President Trump isn't *all that* smart
That doesn't bother me *at all*
He might not *arrive* until midnight
He hasn't been here *in ages*_

In the opposite positive use, the words in bold become ungrammatical:
_
President Trump is all that smart _???
_That bothers me at all _???
_He might arrive until midnight _???
_He has been here in ages _???

_Any_ is a negative polarity item in
_
I don't have *any* books
That wasn't *any* problem for me_

_NPI any _assumes the negative contextual meaning, so that these are equivalents:

_I don't have *any* books = I have *no *books
That wasn't *any* problem for me = That was *no* problem for me_

More importantly, _NPI any_ becomes ungrammatical in the opposite positive construction:

_I have any books _???
_That was any problem for me _???

But the syntax of "any" is complicated. In addition to "NPI any," there's another _any_, known to some as "free choice any," and this_ any_ is not restricted to negative environments. This is the _any_ that is also defined as "one or some, no matter which."

"Free choice any" has peculiarities. For example, it appears in explicit and implicit questions (_Do we need *any* education? I wonder if we need *any *
education_). In addition, "free choice any" is usually restricted by a relative clause; that's what happens in your examples B-C and G, where each case contains a relative clause.

Remove negation from the Pink Floyd song, and "NPI any" becomes "free choice any" (_We need any education_), where a relative clause is absent but implied, and therefore could be added (i.e. _We need any education that the state can provide_). Now, obviously, "free choice any" doesn't work in a song that's meant to be anti-establishment.


----------



## Forero

@SevenDays: I see problems with this theory of "negative reinforcement" in English. In some cases, you are talking about intensifiers used with negatives, just as "far" and "much" as adverbs are intensifiers used with comparatives. In other cases, you take a grammatical but illogical or useless sentence and call it ungrammatical. "He is all that smart" is valid. "Arrive" has nothing to do with negativity. "He might arrive; he might not arrive" is fine, but "until midnight" in your sentence sets a limit on the time interval for his not arriving and has to modify something else if the negative is removed.

"I have any books" and "That was any problem for me" are valid sentences but need more context to be understood.

For this thread, we are talking about the function of _any_ in standard English and its replacement with _no_ in certain sentences in nonstandard English.

I find it interesting you can see that _any_ in explicit and implicit questions is "free choice any", but deny that function of _any_ in a negative construction. As far as I can tell, _any_ means exactly the same thing in a question that it does in a negative. (If it is negative reinforcer, it must also be an interrogative reinforcer.)

I maintain that _any_ is always "free choice any", and "We don't need no education" only "works" if "no" is a "free choice _no_" instead of the negator it always is in standard English.

I think we should also mention that "no" in "I don't need no education" is unstressed, and reverts to its negative meaning if we stress it.

In contrast, "any" in "We don't need any education" can be either stressed or unstressed without changing its essential meaning. Try the following with and without stressing _any_:

A. _We don't need any education._
B. _I am not sure we need any education._
C. _I wonder if we need any education._
D. _If we need any education, we ought to know it._
E. _I hardly think we need any education._
F. _We need housing before we need any education._
G. _I would sooner need stitches than to need any education._
H. _He lacks any education._
I. _He lacks education in any real sense of the word._

The emphasis changes, but not the essential meaning.

Replacing _any_ with _no_ in sentence A requires keeping it unstressed, but I don't think replacing _any_ with _no_ in sentences C through I works at all, stressed or not. Sentence B seems to be a borderline case. With unstressed _no_, it almost works, but not quite. Right?





SevenDays said:


> Remove negation from the Pink Floyd song, and "NPI any" becomes "free choice any" (_We need any education_), where a relative clause is absent but implied, and therefore could be added (i.e. _We need any education that the state can provide_). Now, obviously, "free choice any" doesn't work in a song that's meant to be anti-establishment.


Actually, I think free choice is what the sentence is about. Adding "don't" to your last sentence with a relative clause negates the whole thing and has no effect on single elements, including on _any_. And sentence A implies a relative clause as much as the one without _don't_. Doesn't it?


----------

