it doesn't behoove you

[Laurence Horn]

At 12:11 PM +0100 9/3/10, Lynne Murphy wrote:
>I don't really see why the Ciudad Juarez example is remarkable.  Seems like
>an application of the sense 'be advantageous'.  It would not be an
>advantage to you to go to CJ. And an easily accessible implicature from
>that statement is: 'it would be a disadvantage to you to go'.
>
>Lynne

Right, but I agree that it's a bit odd given the environments in
which "neg-raising", i.e. the association of a higher (main clause)
negation with a lower (embedded clause) meaning, tends to occur.*
The classic instances of this phenomenon involve verbs like "want" or
"think/believe" (or both, as in "I don't think she wants to leave"
meaning "I think she wants to stay").  But we do get these readings
with modals of weak obligation like "ought to", "should", "better",
or "supposed to", so "you're not supposed to go" will usually be
interpreted as "you're supposed to stay".  The thing is that
"behoove" might be expected to pattern with stronger obligation verbs
like "have to", which doesn't license such interpretations (in
English), so "you don't have to go" isn't read with the meaning "you
have to stay", nor is "it's not necessary/obligatory for you to go"
read as "it's necessary/obligatory for you not to go".  (Compare
French, where "il ne faut pas que tu ailles" does mean "il faut que
tu n'ailles pas".)  What's remarkable here, if anything is, is that
"behoove" is used in the CJ example as a "neg-raiser", even though
its meaning is more like "be obligatory/required to" or (an
impersonal version of) "have to".  So you'd think that all "it
doesn't behoove you to" should mean is that you're under no
behooving-type obligation, as with "it's not incumbent on you to go".
Instead it's more like "it doesn't suit you to..." or other verbs
whose meaning is a bit weaker than than of "behoove".  On the other
hand, the fact that (as noted upthread) we don't really use "behoove"
a hell of a lot (compared with our Dutch cousins, who are quite fond
of their "hoeven"), and even less when it's negated (compared with,
say, "have to" or "be supposed to"), may have resulted in the meaning
of "it doesn't behoove" being up for grabs.

LH

*Whether this association is an instance of "easily accessible
implicature(s)", semantics, or grammar has long been up for grabs,
but it's clear that the verb matters, so there's a difference
between, say, "I didn't think the Red Sox would collapse" (= I
thought they wouldn't) and "I didn't claim the Red Sox would
collapse" (=/= I claimed they wouldn't).  Or "I don't want to see
you" vs. "I don't hope to see you".  And (ObADS) there's the role of
dialect as well; compare "I don't guess the Rays will finish ahead of
the Yankees" (= 'I guess they won't') as uttered in Alabama vs. New
Jersey.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org