Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T18:22:01.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why DO dove: Evidence for register variation in Early Modern English negatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2005

Anthony Warner
Anthony Warner
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The development of “supportive” (or “periphrastic”) DO in English suffered a curious and sharp reversal late in the 16th century in negative declaratives and questions according to Ellegård's (1953) database, with a recovery late in the following century. This article examines the variation between DO and the full verb in negative declaratives in this database, from 1500 to 1710. It is shown that both register variation and age-grading are relevant, and that the periods 1500–1575 and 1600–1710 have radically distinct properties. The second period shows substantial age-grading, and is interpreted as having introduced a fresh evaluative principle governing register variation. Negative questions supply data that suggest that the development of clitic negation may have been implicated in the development of the new evaluation. This change in evaluation accounts for the apparent reversal in the development of DO, and we can abandon the view that it was a consequence of grammatical restructuring.I want very sincerely to thank Tony Kroch for giving me an electronic version of the database used by Ellegård (1953), in an act of straightforward generosity; also Ann Taylor for her work in compiling it, and Celeste Tereszczuk who completed this task. I am also grateful to the British Academy who funded a period of research leave which gave me time to investigate this, and to audiences at ICEHL 12 (held at the University of Santiago), at the Linguistics Research Seminar at the University of York, and at NWAVE 32 for their comments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , October 2005 , pp. 257 - 280
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Biber, Douglas. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brainerd, Barron. (1989). The contractions of not: A historical note. Journal of English Linguistics 22:176–196.Google Scholar
Cleveland, W. S. (1979). Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74:829–836.Google Scholar
Denison, David. (1993). English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London: Longman.
Ellegård, Alvar. (1953). The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Eckert, Penelope, & Rickford, John R. (eds.). (2001). Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Han, Chung-hye. (2001). The evolution of do-support in English imperatives. In S. Pintzuk, G. Tsoulas, & A. Warner (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms. New York: Oxford University Press. 275–295.
Han, Chung-hye, & Kroch, Anthony. (2000). The rise of do-support in English: Implications for clause structure. Proceedings of the 30th North East Linguistics Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 311–325.
Huddleston, Rodney, & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kroch, Anthony. (1989). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Journal of Language Variation and Change 1:199–244.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. (1909–1949). A modern English grammar on historical principles. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Labov, William. (1994). Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lightfoot, David. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nurmi, Arja. (1999). A social history of periphrastic DO. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki LVI. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
Otway, Thomas (1812). The works of Thomas Otway. London: F. C. and J. Rivington; T. Payne; Wilkie and Robinson; Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown; Cadell and Davies; J. Murray; J. Mawman; and R. Baldwin.
Rissanen, Matti. (1994). The position of not in Early Modern English questions. In D. Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 339–348.
Rissanen, Matti. (1999a). Syntax. In R. Lass (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol III: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 187–331.
Rissanen, Matti. (1999b). Isn't it? or is it not? On the order of postverbal subject and negative particle in the history of English. In I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, G. Tottie, & W. van der Wurff (eds.), Negation in the history of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 189–205.
Roberts, Ian G. (1993). Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Slade, Benjamin. (2003). How to rank constraints: Constraint conflict, grammatical competition, and the rise of periphrastic ‘do’. In D. E. Holt (ed.), Optimality theory and language change. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 337–385.
Velleman, Paul. (1995). DataDesk (Software for Macintosh). Ithaca: Data Description.
Warner, Anthony. (2004). What drove DO? In C. J. Kay, S. Horobin, & J. Smith (eds.), New perspectives on English historical linguistics, Vol 1. Syntax and morphology. CILT (vol. 251). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 229–242.