Chapter 6 - The Jespersen Cycle of Negation

Summary

Syntactic variation and change in Jordanian Arabic negation

This chapter explores the dynamic interaction between syntax and phonology behind the complex variation in negation strategies in Jordanian Arabic (JA) discussed in this book as well as an unexpected change-in-progress in their distribution counter to the direction of the Jespersen Cycle (JC). This chapter discusses the free variation and mutual exclusivity of the negation strategies from a diachronic perspective within the JC of negation. The primary focus is on the limited distribution of enclitic negation (stage III negation in JC) and the ongoing spread of single negation (stage I negation in JC) in pragmatically marked contexts. This analysis sheds light on the interplay between the Internal Language (I-Language) and External Language (E-Language) of a speaker with respect to the locus of negation as either below TP or above TP.

Recall that JA has all three stages of the JC. The following are illustrative examples for each stage.

In stage I, negation is expressed by one element.

(1) maa b-aʕrif (JA)

NEG ASP-know.1SG.IPFV

‘I don't know.’

In stage II this element weakens and a new element is introduced to reinforce the first element.

(2) ma-b-aʕrif-iš (JA)

NEG-ASP-know.1SG.IPFV-NEG

‘I don't know.’

In stage III the first element is dropped and the new element becomes the only marker of negation.

(3) b-aʕrif-iš (JA)

ASP-know.1SG.IPFV-NEG

‘I don't know.’

The synchronic analysis of negation as able to occupy a position below TP or above TP provides two important findings in support of Lucas's (2009, 2010) JC reconstruction of -š as an NPI adverb šayʔ/ʔiši ‘at all.’ The three major categories of negation (single, bipartite, and enclitic) can represent the three stages of the cycle (I, II, and III, respectively). They co-exist synchronically but in different syntactic and pragmatic contexts.

Second, the incompatibility between single negation and -š reveals the inner workings of the cycle. Being syntactically adjacent to the verb, the lower marker ma weakens morphologically, hence the need for ʔiši/-š as a reinforcer. However, since maa is higher and not adjacent to the verb, we do not expect it to weaken or give rise to the need for -š, resulting in incompatibility between single negation and -š.