The Everlasting "No"; the Everlasting "Yea"

THE EVERLASTING "NO"; THE EVERLASTING "YEA MACDONALD CRITCHLEY, M.D.* To walk in my own way and be alone. . . . To cock my hat where I choose—at a word, a "yes," a "no." Cyrano de Bergerac Two of the most intriguing words in any language are those which stand for "yes" and "no." I hasten to emphasize that I am referring to the spoken language ofa country, for "yes" and "no" are essentially fragments ofconversational speech. They play a lesser role in written language, save in that very special branch ofliterature which records or aspires to record spoken speech: namely, plays and conversations in novels. In all tongues "yes" and "no" are fascinating subjects for study by dint of their phonetic structure, their etymology, their functions as items in speech, and, lastly, their frequent and almost superstitious avoidance by recourse to synonyms, circumlocutions, contrary statements, or even gesture. I have already emphasized that "yes" and "no" belong more to the spoken speech than to the written or literary forms of a language. The considerable liberties which are taken testify clearly to the fact that a spoken language is essentially a growing thing, while written language tends to remain far more stable. Consequently there is always a gap or discrepancy between the written and the spoken forms of any living language, including English, ofcourse; and this gap is one which will perhaps tend to widen in the course oftime rather than to shrink. Particularly is this so with the pervading influence of the telephone, radio and television, and tape-recorders. Generations hence it may even be the exceptionrather than the rule to find individuals who can read and write. But "yes" and "no" or their equivalents will always be with us. * The National Hospital, Queen Square, London, W.C. i, England. Thanks are due to the publishers Jonathan Cape, Ltd., for permission to use quotations from their books. ??? Let us now examine the role played in speech by these terms "yes" and "no." What exactly do they mean? Or to avoid that ambiguous term "meaning," what do they indicate? What is their function? In the first place, and most obviously, ofcourse, they act as affirmations or denials, often in direct response to a direct question, one which requires a direct reply—a confirmation or a refutation. "Yes" or "no" then supply a monosyllabic completion of the subject at issue. "Are you hungry?" "Yes." "Have you finished your work?" "No." In the Englishlanguage a special problem is set up by the negative form of inquiry. A question containing the adverb "not" ordinarily, though quite illogically, leads to the reply "no" instead of "yes." Hence the amusement which used to attend the phrase, "Yes, we have no bananas!" And yet this wording is more apposite than the conventional "No, etc." One suspects that cross-examining attorneys sometimes resort to a confusing series ofquick-fire negative questions with the deliberate intention ofshaking a witness's confidence. It is not altogether surprising to find that primitive communities speaking pidgin English rather than the accepted form ofthe tongue use the negative reply to the negative question in order to indicate concurrence. Even in Japanese that practice obtains. To the question, "Won't he come?" (kimasen ka) the reply would be, "Yes, he won't come" (hai kimasen), whereas we would say, "No." But questions are in themselves even more complicated things. Not all questions are bald requests for information. Some are purely rhetorical. Others are not so much in the nature ofan inquiry as an invitation, even a subtle seduction. This being so, there is entailed something more than an inescapable "yes" or "no." There is a place for a term more subtle and less compromising. There should be a word to express a qualified "yes" and a qualified "no." As a conversational gambit we could also usefully employ an ambiguous phrase, aforse che si,forse che non—preferably expressed in a monosyllable, ifthat were possible. There is a need for the expression of individual personality traits, for we can identify "yes-men" and also "no-men"—and more significant, perhaps, their feminine counterparts. Lady Lewisham wrote in her autobiography: My mother always divided human beings...