No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Postverbal negation and the lexical split of not
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 July 2019
Abstract
In Early Modern English, verbal negation was commonly expressed by the addition of not directly after a lexical verb, a construction which subsequently underwent a pronounced decline in frequency as part of broader changes in verbal syntax. Even after the rise of the auxiliary do, however, constructions with the same surface form as the earlier pattern have continued to be used as a stylistically marked alternative. Data from the Hansard Corpus are presented here to show an increase in the frequency of these constructions since the mid twentieth century. The syntactic environments in which contemporary postverbal negation occurs are compared to the patterns existing in Early Modern English, and evaluated in the light of trends within constituent negation. The interpretation proposed is that a lexical split has occurred to produce two separate lexemes of the form not, with different syntactic properties. Postverbal negation would thus occur in Present-day English when speakers choose to make use of the new lexeme.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019
Footnotes
My interest in the phenomenon of postverbal negation goes back some time, to my presentation entitled ‘Archaisms and their implications’, involving a different and much smaller dataset, from the Philological Society's Symposium on Linguistics and Philology in March 2010. I would like to express my thanks to everyone who commented on that earlier work. I am also very grateful to the anonymous reviewers of the present article for their comments and suggestions.
References
Alexander, Marc & Davies, Mark (eds.). 2015. Hansard Corpus 1803–2005. www.hansard-corpus.org (last accessed 28 April 2019).Google Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2002. Negation in non-standard British English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Richards, Marc. 2006. True optionality: When the grammar doesn't mind. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), Minimalist essays, 35–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Roberts, Ian. 2010. Subjects, tense and verb-movement. In Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders, Roberts, Ian & Sheehan, Michelle (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, 263–302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
BNC Consortium. 2007. The British National Corpus, version 3. BNC XML edition. DVD-ROM. Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services.Google Scholar
Breitbarth, Anne. 2009. A hybrid approach to Jespersen's cycle in West Germanic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12(2), 81–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 1998. Syntax. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 4: 1776–1997, 92–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In Blake, Norman (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 2: 1066–1476, 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, Eric & Ihsane, Tabea. 2016. Revisiting the loss of verb movement in the history of English. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(2), 497–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Chung-hye & Kroch, Anthony. 2000. The rise of do-support in English: Implications for clause structure. North-East Linguistic Society 30, 311–25.Google Scholar
Henry, Alison. 1998. Dialect variation, optionality, and the learnability guarantee. Linguistica Atlantica 20, 51–71.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1(3), 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. Chicago Linguistic Society 30(2), 180–201.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 2006. How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, Fujio. 2005. A history of the negative interrogative do in seventeenth- to nineteenth-century diaries and correspondence. In Iyeiri, Yoko (ed.), Aspects of English negation, 93–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nurmi, Arja. 1999. A social history of periphrastic do. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In Lass, Roger (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 3: 1476–1776, 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rydén, Mats. 1979. An introduction to the study of English historical syntax. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. 1991. Negation in English speech and writing: A study in variation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Varga, Eszter. 2005. Lexical V-to-I raising in Late Modern English. Generative Grammar in Geneva 4, 261–81.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 1997. The structure of parametric change and V-movement in the history of English. In Kemenade, Ans van & Vincent, Nigel (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 380–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 2006. Variation and the interpretation of change in periphrastic do. In van Kemenade, Ans & Los, Bettelou (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 45–67. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar