Modal Questions in English

[PVER•PVERVM•AMAT]

As I am aware, to ask a question with a modal verb (or main verb, in the cases of 'be' and traditionally 'have') in English, it moves to the start with its subject in front of it and the modified verb after: 'Can you swim?' 'Must I go?' But what of negative questions? With pronouns, the pronoun is wedged between the modal verb and the 'not' of negation: 'Could it not be a shark?' 'May they not leave?' But with non-pronouns, the modal verb is traditionally linked with its 'not' safely behind its subject: 'Cannot sharks eat shrimp?' 'Would not the world be better if everyone were merry?' But in recent times, non-pronouns are beginning to link with pronouns (unless contracted): 'Could the lake not flow from here, not there?' 'Might the organization not be better if we employed more members?' I cannot find any discussion whatever of this, so I should like to start one here.

[CaesarVincens]

As I am aware, to ask a question with a modal verb (or main verb, in the cases of 'be' and traditionally 'have') in English, it moves to the start with its subject in front of it and the modified verb after: 'Can you swim?' 'Must I go?' But what of negative questions? With pronouns, the pronoun is wedged between the modal verb and the 'not' of negation: 'Could it not be a shark?' 'May they not leave?' But with non-pronouns, the modal verb is traditionally linked with its 'not' safely behind its subject: 'Cannot sharks eat shrimp?' 'Would not the world be better if everyone were merry?' But in recent times, non-pronouns are beginning to link with pronouns (unless contracted): 'Could the lake not flow from here, not there?' 'Might organization not be better if we employed more members?' I cannot find any discussion whatever of this, so I should like to start one here.

I'm not sure about more formal registers, but in my informal speech these are usually contracted. "Can't he go to the store?" "Won't Congress do something?" etc.

It sounds very strange to my ears to use the uncontracted form wherever the "not" lands. 'Overly formal' is how I would describe it.

[Salmoneus]

For me, pronouns or nouns, both before and after the subject is fine, but the negative (almost) always affixes to the modal if it's before the subject.
I'm not sure what the usage difference is. I think maybe there are two uses of the negative-second construction for me: an archaic use, with stress more on the modal and negative, and construction with stress on the subject that emphasises... well, example:
"If you jump in a river you'll be safe from tigers"
"Can tigers not swim?" - I am skeptical of this suggestion
vs
"If you jump in a river you'll be safe from tigers"
"Can't tigers swim?" - this is something I didn't know about tigers!

[CatDoom]

For me, pronouns or nouns, both before and after the subject is fine, but the negative (almost) always affixes to the modal if it's before the subject.
I'm not sure what the usage difference is. I think maybe there are two uses of the negative-second construction for me: an archaic use, with stress more on the modal and negative, and construction with stress on the subject that emphasises... well, example:
"If you jump in a river you'll be safe from tigers"
"Can tigers not swim?" - I am skeptical of this suggestion
vs
"If you jump in a river you'll be safe from tigers"
"Can't tigers swim?" - this is something I didn't know about tigers!

I basically see it the same way, though in the case of the first example I would usually say "tigers can't swim?" Rather than "can tigers not swim?"; in this case the phrase is marked as a question only by intonation.

[gmalivuk]

There's also the negative-second construction where what you're actually asking about is the negation:
Can you not do that? (Please stop doing that.)
Can't you do that? = You can do that, can't you? (I expect that you can and want to confirm.)