Synchronic and diachronic microvariation in English do
In this paper it is shown how an account of the English auxiliary system that has been independently proposed to deal with problems in standard analyses also provides a natural treatment of microvariation among varieties of English. The phenomenon is the use of nonemphatic periphrastic/dummy do in p...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Lingua 2004-04, Vol.114 (4), p.495-516 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | In this paper it is shown how an account of the English auxiliary system that has been independently proposed to deal with problems in standard analyses also provides a natural treatment of microvariation among varieties of English. The phenomenon is the use of nonemphatic periphrastic/dummy
do in positive declaratives (
Mary did visit her brother), here called “spurious
do,” as found most famously in the English of the 1500s, but attested also in some modern dialects and registers and in child English, and closely related to the use of
tun in colloquial German. The framework adopted dispenses with two standard but problematic claims about English INFL: the exceptional ability of
be and
have to raise to Tense, even across negation, and the existence of PF affix lowering. Instead it is claimed that English has overt verb raising and that finite
be/have are base-generated in INFL, above negation; independent support for the latter is provided from VP ellipsis. The analysis of
do is that it is an allomorph of the indicative value of the Mood head, whose other indicative allomorph is zero. Mood is above Tense and is where modals are base-generated. It is shown that this system cannot block the generation of spurious
do, because this would require transderivational comparison. Thus, the narrow syntax makes spurious
do freely available. Languages and dialects differ on the extent to which they make use of this option. All else equal, it should be dispreferred because it involves one more word than its counterpart without
do, but numerous advantages, including processing and rhetorical benefits, can outweigh this. The conclusion is that
do cannot be analyzed as a strictly last-resort device in the way proposed in Chomsky's classic analysis. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0024-3841 1872-6135 |
DOI: | 10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00070-6 |