Cover not available

In:Late Modern English: Novel encounters
Edited by Merja Kytö and Erik Smitterberg
[Studies in Language Companion Series 214] 2020
► pp. 117–142

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Diffusion of do

The acquisition of do negation by have (to)

 | University of British Columbia
Published online: 18 March 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.214.05hir
Abstract
This paper gives a diachronic perspective on do-support of the semi-modal have to under negation. Corpus evidence demonstrates that do negation was regulated with have to around the 1870s in American English and around the 1930s in British English. To elucidate the development of have to towards do negation, Krug (2000) invokes two usage-based factors (analogical leveling and chunking); this paper argues, however, that they do not adequately account for the present findings. The current study instead provides the constructionist approach in which language users are hypothesized to have a form-driven abstraction over have to and the main verb have, and proposes that the abstraction played a key role in the change in question.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1The development of have to
    • 2.2Do negation of have (to)
  • 3.Data and methodology
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Method
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Do negation of have to
    • 4.2Krug’s factors revisited: Analogical leveling and bondedness
    • 4.3Do negation of the main verb have
    • 4.4Towards an integrated account: Do negation of have (to)
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (63)
References
Alexander, Marc. 2018. The Hansard Corpus through a telescope. Plenary talk given at ICAME 39: Corpus Linguistics and Changing Society, in Tampere, Finland, 3 June.
Alexander, Marc & Davies, Mark. 2015–. Hansard Corpus 1803–2005. <[URL]>
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2002. Negation in Non-Standard British English. Gaps, Regularizations and Asymmetries. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anthony, Laurence. 2014. AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Macintosh OS X]. Tokyo: Waseda University. <[URL]>
Baker, Paul. 2009. The BE06 Corpus of British English and recent language change. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 312–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1991. The origin and development of quasimodal have to in English. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam, 16 August 1991. <[URL]>
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Close, Joanne & Aarts, Bas. 2010. Current change in the modal system of English: A case study of must, have to and have got to. In English Historical Linguistics 2008: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 15), Munich, 24–30 August 2008, Vol. I: The History of English Verbal and Nominal Constructions [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 314], Ursula Lenker, Judith Huber & Robert Mailhammer (eds), 165–181. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 2009. Modals and Quasi-Modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curme, George O. 1935. A Grammar of the English Language, Vol. I: Parts of Speech. Boston MA: D.C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2015. At the crossroads of change: Possession, periphrasis, and prescriptivism in Victoria English. In Grammatical Change in English World-Wide [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 67], Peter Collins (ed.), 43–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2010–. The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. <[URL]>
De Smet, Hendrik. 2005. A Corpus of Late Modern English texts. ICAME Journal 29: 69–82.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Diller, Hans-Jürgen & Tyrkkö, Jukka. 2011. The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (Version 3.0.).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denis, Derek & D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2019. Deriving homogeneity in a settler colonial variety of English. American Speech 94(2): 223–258. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax. Verbal Constructions. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2008. New-Dialect Formation in Canada: Evidence from the English Modal Auxiliaries [Studies in Language Companion Series 97]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The Auxiliary Do. The Establishment and Regulation of its Use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enríquez García, Ildara & D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2017. Diachronic insights to colliding changes. Paper presented at American Dialect Society Annual Meeting 2017 in Austin, Texas, 5 January.
Fischer, Olga. 1994. The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in word order. Neophilologus 78: 137–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. The influence of the grammatical system and analogy in processes of language change: The case of the auxiliation of HAVE-TO once again. In Studies in Linguistic Variation and Change. From Old to Middle English, Fabienne Toupin & Brian Lowrey (eds), 120–150. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Francis, W. Nelson & Kučera, Henry. 1964. Manual of Information to Accompany a Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, for Use with Digital Computers. Providence RI: Department of Linguistics, Brown University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries. Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Theoretical and Methodological Issues [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2015. Do-support in early New Zealand and Australian English. In Grammatical Change in English World-Wide [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 67], Peter Collins (ed.), 65–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Mair, Christian. 1999. “Agile” and “uptight” genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4(2): 221–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Sand, Andrea & Siemund, Rainer. 1998. Manual of Information to Accompany the Freiburg-LOB Corpus of British English (‘FLOB’). Freiburg: Englisches Seminar, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Sand, Andrea & Skandera, Paul. 1999. Manual of Information to Accompany the Freiburg-Brown Corpus of American English (‘Frown’). Freiburg: Englisches Seminar, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iyeiri, Yoko. 2004. The use of the auxiliary do in negation in Tom Jones and some other literary works of the contemporary period. In New Trends in English Historical Linguistics. An Atlantic View, Isabel Moskowich-Spiegel Fandiño & Begoña Crespo García (eds), 223–240. Coruña: Universidade da Coruña.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobsson, Bengt. 1979. Modality and the modals of necessity must and have to. English Studies 60(3): 296–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget L. 2005. ‘We’ve got our own little ways of doing things here’: Cross-variety variation, change and divergence in the English stative possessive (PhD Generals Papers I), University of Toronto. <[URL]>
Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey & Goodluck, Helen. 1978. Manual of Information to Accompany the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English, for Use with Digital Computers. Oslo: Department of English, University of Oslo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 1998. String frequency: A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing, and linguistic change. Journal of English Linguistics 26(4): 286–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Emerging English Modals. A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Łęcki, Andrzej M. 2010. Grammaticalisation Paths of Have in English. Bern: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in Contemporary English. A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Smith, Nicholas. 2005. Extending the possibilities of corpus-based research on English in the twentieth century: A prequel to LOB and FLOB. ICAME Journal 29: 83–98.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2005. The Rise of the To-Infinitive. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2012. From opportunistic to systematic use of the web as corpus: Do-support with got (to) in contemporary American English. In The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth C. Traugott (eds), 245–255. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Do we got a difference? Divergent developments of semi-auxiliary (have) got (to) in British and American English. In Late Modern English Syntax, Marianne Hundt (ed.), 56–76. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nurmi, Arja. 1999. A Social History of Periphrastic Do. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
OED. Oxford English Dictionary. <[URL]>
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schulz, Monika E. 2011. Possession and obligation. In A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects. Modals, Pronouns and Complement Clauses, Nuria Hernández, Daniela Kolbe & Monika E. Schulz (eds), 19–51. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seggewiß, Friederike. 2012. Current Changes in the English Modals: A Corpus-Based Analysis of Present-Day Spoken English. PhD dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1898. A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical, Part II: Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2004. Have to, gotta, must: Grammaticalization, variation and specialization in English deontic modality. In Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 13], Hans Lindquist & Christian Mair (eds), 33–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2007. The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide 28(1): 47–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Takizawa, Naohiro. 2005. A corpus-based study of the haven’t NP pattern in American English. In Aspects of English Negation, Yoko Iyeiri (ed), 159–171. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; Tokyo: Yushodo Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 1987. The Auxiliary Do in Eighteenth-century English. A Sociohistorical-Linguistic Approach. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter, Nevalainen, Terttu & Wischer, Ilse. 2002. Dynamic have in North American and British Isles English. English Language and Linguistics 6(1): 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ukaji, Masatomo. 2005. The making of the semi-auxiliary have to. In Recent Trends in Medieval English Language and Literature in Honour of Young-Bae Park, Vol. 1, Jacek Fisiak & Hye-Kyung Kang (eds), 57–73. Seoul: Thaehaksa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van der Gaaf, W. 1931. Beon and habban connected with an inflected infinitive. English Studies 13: 176–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Varela Pérez, José Ramón. 2007. Negation of main verb have: Evidence of a change in progress in spoken and written British English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 108(1): 223–246.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus T. 1969. An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Part Three, First Half: Syntactical Units with Two and with More Verbs. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yadomi, Hiroshi. 2015. The regulation of the auxiliary do: Do-less negative declarative sentences in American English from 1800 to the present day. Zephyr 27: 44–70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue