# EN: don't <verb> no X [sic] - double negation



## Athrun

Hello,

I wanted to know if there was any difference between :

"We don't need birth control"
"We don't need no birth control"


Thanks by advance 

*Moderator note:* Multiple threads merged to create this one.


----------



## toban

The former could be translated as "Nous n'avons pas besoin de..."

The latter could be translated as "On n'a pas besoin d'aucun..."

Although most grammarians would deem the double negative incorrect, it is used informally by some people to strengthen the meaning. So, despite the logical conclusion that the two negatives make a positive, people who use this construct usually mean the latter to be an emphatic version of the former. Tone of voice and syllable stress make the meaning clear when it's spoken, but it could cause confusion when written.


----------



## ultravioleta

They are conflicting judgments:

Nous n'avons pas besoin de contrôle des naissances.

Nous n'avons pas besoin d'arrêter le contrôle des naissances


----------



## Athrun

Thanks tobian and ultravioleta for answering me.

Thanks toban this really helped me.

However ultravioleta, I'm not sure your translation for the latter is proper ..

What you wrote means in English "we don't need to stop birth control" and not "we don't need no birth control".

"we don't need no birth control" precisely means that we can stop the use of birth control because we don't need it anymore.


Thanks anyway


----------



## ultravioleta

Oh, right! I am sorry for the confusion. And thank you for correcting my mistake.


----------



## Lacuzon

We don't need no thought control 

I guess We do not need no means Nous n'avons besoin d'aucun, nous n'avons aucun besoin de no ?


----------



## jann

Let's be very clear to prevent misunderstandings, here.

This double negation is (very) colloquial, and is condemned across the board in proper written English... by "grammarians" and by the grammatically uninitiated alike.  Although it is not uncommon in some regional speech patterns, and although it can be used as a deliberate stylistic choice on occasion, it is widely considered a sign of uneducated speech.  A non-native who is learning English should avoid the double negative.   If you wish to emphasize your negation (such as described by Toban in post #2 above), add the word "any."

_Nous n'avons pas besoin d'X. 
--> _We don't need X. 

_ Nous n'avons aucun besoin, vraiment pas besoin d'X ; Nous n'avons besoin d'aucun X._ 
--> We don't need no X.  We don't need *any* X. 

_Nous n'avons pas besoin de ne pas avoir X. (donc, nous avons besoin d'X)_ 
--> We don't need no X (seulement à l'orale, accent tonique très marqué sur le mot "no" pour différencier de la double négation fautive, où l'accent serait sur le mot "X"... et souvent suivi d'une déclaration de la quantité d'X dont on a besoin).


----------



## gquixote

I tend to disagree with Toban actually. Rather than strengthening or emphasising the negation, adding the word "no" before birth control simply renders the tone more slangy and the grammar incorrect. 

I agree with jann. One might use the words "_any_ birth control _whatsoever,_" for further emphasis.


----------



## Machlii5

Maybe it helps to think of the song “We Don't Need No Education“ by Pink Floyd - the second stanza goes “we don't need no thought control“.
The double negation clearly indicates lack of education.


----------



## jann

Machlii5 said:


> The double negation clearly indicates lack of education.


Or irony.  

As I mentioned above, using the non-standard double negation can be a deliberate stylistic choice...


----------



## toban

I'm surprised how hard it is to find previous threads on the use of a double negative! In terms of language register, I would put "don't need no" at about the same level as "ain't." It is informal, and if you use it regularly, you will likely be perceived as uneducated. That's not to say that there aren't educated individuals who use the double negative for effect.

I agree that "don't need no" is inappropriate for formal academic writing. It can be appropriate in written forms that mirror informal spoken English, like in novels or Internet chat. And, although gquixote does not see the extra "no" as adding emphasis, I believe it to be the case in informal situations, at least in American English.

Jann recommended that people learning English avoid "don't need no." Indeed, most language learners need to develop a good understanding of the formal register before using informal language. A language learner may be misunderstood if they use informal language inappropriately. Before using informal language, it's important to understand both how it works grammatically and the appropriate social context for using it.

In addition, syllable stress is key when using this type of construct. "We don't need no x" will likely be understood as an informal version of "we don't need any x," whereas "we don't need no x" sounds like it should be followed by "we need more of it!"


----------



## Twoflower

jann, you need to re-read Machlii5's post, since your reply just explains Machlii5's own point back to him!

The phrase "We don't need no birth control" is without doubt a simple pun on Pink Floyd's famous lyrics. It is not an example of how to use English, nor would you ever see that formulation in written English, if not for the cultural reference.

A learner of English should never use a double negative; indeed the writer of this sentence probably never uses them either, except when quoting iconic 70s music lyrics.


----------



## jann

Twoflower said:


> jann, you need to re-read Machlii5's post, since your reply just explains Machlii5's own point back to him!
> 
> The phrase "We don't need no birth control" is without doubt a simple pun on Pink Floyd's famous lyrics. It is not an example of how to use English, nor would you ever see that formulation in written English, if not for the cultural reference.


 Please don't accuse me of failing to read Machlii5's post carefully.  She cited Pink Floyd and said that the double negation in question clearly indicates lack of education.  I respectfully disagree.  I feel that Pink Floyd's usage is _not _uneducated.  Instead it is _deliberately ironic_, as is any reference to those lyrics.  This is what I tried to clarify.  I don't understand why you feel I am explaining her own comment back to her. 

The reference to Pink Floyd seems obvious to those of us who know the famous song (Lacuzon also pointed it out in post #6)... and this is why I mentioned the possibility of a deliberate stylistic choice back in post #7.  However, we have absolutely *no context* from the author of this thread, and therefore we cannot possibly know whether or not "we don't need no birth control" is phrased that way in reference to Pink Floyd, or because it is dialogue and shows how some character speaks, or because of some doubt or confusion in Athrun's mind as he tries to learn English as a foreign language.


----------



## Machlii5

jann said:


> She cited Pink Floyd and said that the double negation in question clearly indicates lack of education.  I respectfully disagree.  I feel that Pink Floyd's usage is _not _uneducated.


Hi, maybe I should have written “is there to indicate...“ in order not to be misunderstood. Of course the “we“ in the song doesn't refer to Pink Floyd themselves but to those youngsters who feel restricted by the expectations of society. 
If I hadn't been in a hurry while posting I might also have mentioned the anecdote of the salesman trying to peddle dictionaries and grammar books in rural America in the 1930s - when he was told “We don't need no grammar book“ he answered “Sir, you most certainly do!"


----------



## RobinL

jann said:


> This double negation is (very) colloquial, and is condemned across the board in proper written English... by "grammarians" and by the grammatically uninitiated alike.  Although it is not uncommon in some regional speech patterns, and although it can be used as a deliberate stylistic choice on occasion, it is widely considered a sign of uneducated speech.  A non-native who is learning English should avoid the double negative.   If you wish to emphasize your negation (such as described by Toban in post #2 above), add the word "any."



This is exactly right.   Where I grew up the double negative was probably used by 50-75% of speakers (rural Somerset in South-West of England) - it was extremely common.

I now work in London as a civil servant and I can't remember the last time I heard it being used in serious conversation!

So although you shouldn't use it, don't be surprised if you come across it.  In some regions it is used very widely.  But as pointed out, it is perceived by many to be an indicator or poor education.


----------



## dotdotdot1

Despite appearances, the construction "We don't need no birth control" is colloquial and isn't a double negative. "No" is synonymous with "any" here, and is not a negation. Having said that, this construction is considered low-class and improper, so you probably shouldn't try and use it yourself.

The double negative "version" of the sentence is "We don't _not_ need birth control." Standard English speakers occasionally say this kind of thing but under normal circumstances the sentence should be traded for its less complicated equivalent, "We need birth control," to ease comprehension.

Good luck.


----------



## sound shift

There's also the fact that "We don't need *any* birth control" would upset the rhythm of the song.


----------



## brascooo

Hi again,

I was skeptical of the sentences' rightness using double negative but while watching tv series I bumped into them several times.
The latest one was "We *don't* want *no* cat". Is that correct ? What would be different with "We don't want a cat " ?

Thank in advance for helping!


----------



## RuK

" We don't want no cat " is 
slang
dialect
regional speech 
or any other politically correct description for "non-standard, non-grammatical, incorrect". People definitely do speak this way. And other people understand them. But it's not educated English. We don't want a cat, we don't want any cats.


----------



## PetitPainFrais

*I don't want no scrub*

coucou.
J'ai cette chanson dans ma tête et je me demande pourquoi l'on rajoute le "*no*" avant scrub ? Sachant qu'il y a déjà *do + not*.
Ou alors cela pourrait être un raccourci pour *"no more*" ?

merci


----------



## Maître Capello

C'est seulement une façon *très relâchée* de parler, parfois relativement fréquente dans certaines régions anglophones, mais cela reste une *faute*.


----------



## Donaldos

PetitPainFrais said:


> *I don't want no scrub*
> ou alors cela pourrait être un raccourci pour *"no more*" ?



_no more_ ne serait pas davantage acceptable en anglais "standard".

Certains locuteurs emploient en revanche communément plusieurs négations dans une même phrase, le sens de celle-ci restant clairement positif.

Les paroles de chansons en fournissent de multiples illustrations :

♪ _We don't need no education_ (Pink Floyd)

_I don't need no bitch_ (Snoop Dogg)

_Ain't no sunshine when she's gone_ ♬ (Bill Withers)

♬ _Ain't no mountain high enough _(Diana Ross)

_I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more._ ♪ (Bob Dylan)​
etc.


----------



## ReactionD

RuK said:


> " We don't want no cat " is
> slang
> dialect
> regional speech
> or any other politically correct description for "non-standard, non-grammatical, incorrect". People definitely do speak this way. And other people understand them. But it's not educated English. We don't want a cat, we don't want any cats.


Okay. Could you tell me why they still speak like this, given the fact that it is non-standard?


----------



## SwissPete

Read what RuK said, especially the "not educated" part.


----------



## ReactionD

Exactly. I saw that before, but I thought that wasn't entirely true because I had just read the lyrics of a certain Clean Bandit song with some double negatives on it. Long story short, her answer makes sense now. Thank you!


----------



## SwissPete

Lyrics are notorious for using non-standard language.
I expect this to be true of English and other languages.


----------



## ReactionD

Well, I have noticed this but didn't know it was deliberate. Thanks for letting me know. I now have to start looking for musicians who sing only with proper English.


----------

