We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 July 2017
It is clear from the preceding chapters that formal accounts of the Jespersen Cycle which assume a single form of ne such as Roberts and Roussou (2003), Zeijlstra (2004) do not accommodate the changes in the distribution of ne described in Chapters 2 and 3 and therefore fail to model the distribution of ne adequately across the Jespersen Cycle. Instead, we need a means to distinguish two forms of ne. One way to do this would be to invoke a semantic distinction between a negative marker with a semantic negative feature and a negative polarity item (NPI) without. However, it raises the issue of what properties the NPI ne has within a taxonomy of negative polarity items such as that proposed by Hoeksma (2012), and how it is licensed. Breitbarth (2009) proposes to treat ME ne as a non-veridical polarity item. Zeijlstra (2010) proposes that French ne is also a non-veridical NPI. However, this kind of analysis overgeneralises the distribution of ME ne. Instead, Middle English ne has the properties of an anti-veridical NPI, in that it must be licensed by negation. Furthermore, the licensing conditions on ME ne are subject to strict syntactic locality constraints.
Consequently, while it is plausible that an account could be sketched out in purely semantic terms to account for the changing distribution of ne, I instead model the changing distribution of ne within a Minimalist syntactic framework based on morphosyntactic features and feature agreement.
Syntactic Framework and Assumptions
The syntactic framework on which the analysis is based is a modified version of the Minimalist framework set out in Chomsky (1999, 2000), incorporating later proposals from Hiraiwa (2001), Pesetsky and Torrego (2007), Wurmbrand (2012) and Zeijlstra (2012). The approach is a modular one, in which the syntactic derivation assembles lexical items into larger structures which are interpreted or spelled out at two interfaces - PF (phonological form), where the morphological and phonological form of the syntactic unit is spelled out, and LF (logical form) where the syntactic unit is interpreted semantically. Semantic compositionality is fundamental, with the meaning of the structure read off its syntactic form.
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.
