Analysing "Ain't got no use for no coal company"

I'm writing my thesis and I have a problem analysing this sentence:

"Ain't got no use for no coal company" (Grisham, 2014: 157).

I know there's no subject - is it therefore an ellipsis? I don't think so... What is the noun that is missing? If a context would help, here it is:

"Any idea what the land is worth?"

Mrs. Crump crunched her dentures and said, "A lot more than anybody knows. You see, the coal company came out last year and tried to buy the land, been trying for some time, but I ran 'em off again. Ain't selling to no coal company, no ma'am. They're blasting away not far from my land, taking down Cat Mountain, and it's a real shame. Ain't got no use for no coal company."

Carter and McCarthy (2006) provided me with terms such as multiple negation and ain't as a negative contraction

Solution 1:

• Ain't got no use for no coal company

This sentence has been done several things to.

The first thing is removing the subject "I" by Conversational Deletion.

The second thing is using idiomatic got to mean have.

The third thing is using ain't (instead of haven't) as a negative of got in this sense.
(actually, that's two things - ain't is dialectal, and be is the wrong auxiliary verb anyway)

The fourth thing is applying Negative Concord instead of Negative Polarity.
That means using extra, non-cancellable negatives to emphasize negation, instead of NPIs like any.

Many dialects of American English, including AAVE, use ain't with got, and use negative concord for emphasis. So it's grammatical, but it's not standard. It's local, and therefore more heartfelt.