A hybrid approach to Jespersen’s cycle in West Germanic

  • Anne BreitbarthEmail author
Original Paper


The goal of this paper is to propose an alternative interpretation of the diachronic development of the expression of negation known as Jespersen’s cycle as it is found in the West Germanic languages. Research to date has focussed mainly on the conditions behind the rise of the secondary negator. Much less attention has been paid to the fate of the original marker. The present paper focuses on the development of the original negation particle in the West Germanic languages English, Dutch, and High and Low German and argues that at least in these languages, its weakening and reinforcement are related in a more complex way than is usually assumed and that functional redundancy due to the presence of two negation elements is not likely to be the reason for its loss. Rather, a shift in the licensing conditions of n-indefinites created a potential ambiguity of the original marker which fed into its reanalysis as a polarity marker at exactly the point when a new marker became available, by reanalysis of a previously and independently grammaticalised reinforcer. It is argued that the two reanalyses have to occur simultaneously, resulting in a hybrid approach to Jespersen’s cycle in West Germanic, as opposed to previous approaches under which one of the changes conditions the other.


Middle Dutch Middle English Middle High German Middle Low German Negation Syntactic change 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abraham, W. 1999. “Jespersen’s cycle”: The evidence from Germanic. In Interdigitations: Essays for Irmengard Rauch, ed. G.F. Carr, W. Harbert, and L. Zhang, 63–70. New York etc.: Lang.Google Scholar
  2. Abraham, W. 2003. Autonomous and non-autonomous components of ‘grammatic(al) ization’: Economy criteria in the emergence of German negation. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 56: 325–365.Google Scholar
  3. Barbiers, S., J. van der Auwera, H. Bennis, E. Boef, G. De Vogelaer, and M. van der Ham. 2008. Syntactic atlas of the Dutch dialects, vol. II. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bartsch, R. and T. Vennemann. 1972. Semantic structures. A study in the relation between semantics and syntax. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
  5. Bernini, G. and P. Ramat. 1990. Negative sentences in the languages of Europe. A typological approach. Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  6. Biberauer, T. 2007. A closer look at negative concord in Afrikaans. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 35: 1–51.Google Scholar
  7. Biberauer, T. 2008. Doubling and omission: Insights from Afrikaans negation. In Microvariations in syntactic doubling, ed. S. Barbiers, M. van der Ham, O. Koeneman, and M. Lekakou, 103–140. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  8. Breitbarth, A. 2005. Live fast, die young—the short life of Early Modern German auxiliary ellipsis. PhD Diss., Tilburg University.Google Scholar
  9. Breitbarth, A. 2008a. The role of dialect contact in slowing down Jespersen’s cycle in Middle Low German. Paper presented at the Conference on Transmission and Diffusion, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, 17–19 January 2008.Google Scholar
  10. Breitbarth, A. 2008b. The development of negation in Middle Low German. Ms. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. Breitbarth, A., and L. Haegeman. 2008. Not continuity, but change: Stable stage II in Jespersen’s cycle. Paper presented at the Conference on Continuity and Change in Grammar, University of Cambridge, 18–20 March 2008.Google Scholar
  12. Burridge, K. 1993. Syntactic change in Germanic: Aspects of language change in Germanic, with particular reference to Middle Dutch. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  13. Carlson, G.N. 1981. Distribution of Free-Choice Any. In Papers from the 17th Regional Meeting of the CLS, ed. R.A. Hendrick, C.S. Masek, and M.S. Miller, 8–23. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  14. Catalani, L. 2001. Die Negation im Mittelfranzösischen. Frankfurt/M. etc: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  15. Chierchia, G. 2006. Broaden your views. Implicatures of domain widening and the ‘‘logicality’’ of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37(4): 535–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clarke, C.C. 1904. The actual force of the French ne. Modern Philology 2: 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cristofaro, S. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dahl, Ö. 1979. Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 17: 79–106.Google Scholar
  19. de Pauw, G. 1973. Syntaktische kenmerken van het dialect van Buggenhout-Opstal. Licentieverhandeling Universiteit Gent.Google Scholar
  20. Detges, U. and R. Waltereit. 2002. Grammaticalization vs. Reanalysis : a semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21(2): 151–195.Google Scholar
  21. Donhauser, K. 1996. Negationssyntax in der deutschen Sprachgeschichte: Grammatikalisierung oder Degrammatikalisierung? In Deutsch—Typologisch, ed. E. Lang, 201–217. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  22. Dryer, M. 1988. Universals of negation position. In Studies in syntactic typology, ed. E. Moravcsik, et al., 93–124. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  23. Eisenbeiß, S. 2002. Merkmalsgesteuerter Grammatikerwerb. Eine Untersuchung zum Erwerb der Struktur und Flexion von Nominalphrasen. PhD Diss., Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
  24. Emonds, J. 1987. The invisible category principle. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 613–632.Google Scholar
  25. Emonds, J. 2000. Lexicon and grammar: The English syntacticon. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Frisch, S. 1997. The change in negation in Middle English: A NEGP licensing account. Lingua 101: 21–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Giannakidou, A. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non) veridical dependency. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  28. Haegeman, L. 1990. Subject pronouns and subject clitics in West-Flemish. The Linguistic Review 7: 333–363.Google Scholar
  29. Haegeman, L. 1995. The syntax of negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Haegeman, L. 2000. Remnant movement and OV order. In The derivation of OV and VO, ed. P. Svenonius, 69–96. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  31. Haegeman, L. 2001. Antisymmetry and verb-final order in West Flemish. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3: 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haegeman, L. 2002. West Flemish negation and the derivation of SOV order in West Germanic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 25(2): 154–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Herburger, E., and S. Mauck. 2007. A new look at Ladusaw’s puzzle. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Negation and Polarity, eds. H. Zeijlstra and J.-P. Soehn, 64–70. Collaborative Research Centre 441, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen.
  34. Hoeksema, J. 1983. Negative polarity and the comparative. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 403–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holmberg, A. 2003. Yes/no questions and the relation between tense and polarity in English and Finnish. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 3: 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Holmberg, A. 2007. Null subjects and polarity focus. Studia Linguistica 61(3): 212–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Horn, L.R. 2001. Flaubert triggers, squatitive negation and other quirks of grammar. In Perspectives on negation and polarity items, ed. J. Hoeksema, H. Rullman, V. Sánchez-Valencia, and T. van der Wouden, 173–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  38. Ingham, R. 2003. Negative concord and the loss of the negative particle ne in Late Middle English. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 145–166.Google Scholar
  39. Iyeiri, Y. 2001. Negative constructions in Middle English. Fukuoka: Kyushu University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Jack, G.B. 1978a. Negation in Later Middle English prose. Archivum Linguisticum 9: 58–72.Google Scholar
  41. Jack, G.B. 1978b. Negative adverbs in Early Middle English. English Studies 59: 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jäger, A. 2008. History of German negation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  43. Jäger, A. 2007. On the diachrony of polarity types of indefinites. Ms. Universität Frankfurt/M.Google Scholar
  44. Jespersen, O. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Kopenhagen: A.F. Høst. Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser I.5.Google Scholar
  45. Kadmon, N. and F. Landman. 1993. Any. Linguistics & Philosophy 16: 353–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Klima, E. 1964. Negation in English. In The structure of language, ed. J. Fodor and J. Katz, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  47. Krifka, M. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–257.Google Scholar
  48. Ladusaw, W.A. 1980. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  49. Ladusaw, W.A. 1993. Negation, indefinites, and the Jespersen Cycle. BLS 19: 437–446.Google Scholar
  50. Laka, I. 1990. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. MIT: PhD Diss.Google Scholar
  51. Laka, I. 1994. On the syntax of negation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  52. Leemans, E. 1966. Syntactische kenmerken van het Gents dialect. Licentieproefschrift: Universiteit Gent.Google Scholar
  53. Lehmann, W. 1978. Changes in the negative sentence patterns in German. In Sprache in Gegenwart und Geschichte. Festschr. f. Heinrich Matthias Heinrichs, ed. D. Hartmann, H. Linke, and O. Ludwig, 94–109. Köln/Wien: Böhlau.Google Scholar
  54. Ludlow, P. 2002. LF and natural logic. In Logical form and language, ed. G. Preyer and G. Peter, 132–168. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Lühr, R. 1985. Zur Syntax des Nebensatzes bei Luther. Sprachwissenschaft 10: 26–50.Google Scholar
  56. Martineau, F. and R. Mougeon. 2003. A sociolinguistic study of the origins of ne deletion in European and Quebec French. Language 79: 118–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Martins, A.M. 2006. Emphatic affirmation and polarity: Contrasting European Portuguese with Brazilian Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan and Galician. In Romance languages and linguistic theory 2004. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’, Leiden, 9–11 December 2004, ed. J. Doetjes and P. González, 197–223. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  58. Martins, A.M. 2007. Double realization of verbal copies in European Portuguese emphatic affirmation. In The copy theory of movement on the PF side, ed. N. Corver and J. Nunes, 77–118. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  59. Mourek, V.E. 1904. Zur negation im altgermanischen. Sitzungsberichte der Böhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft, Klasse für Philosophie, Geschichte und Philologie. Jahrgang 1903. Prague: Verlag der königl. böhm. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. H.l. VII, o. 45/3.Google Scholar
  60. Parry, M. 1997. Preverbal negation and clitic ordering, with particular reference to a group of North-West Italian dialects. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 113: 243–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Penka, D. 2006. A cross-linguistic perspective on n-words. To appear in Proceedings of BIDE05, International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology.Google Scholar
  62. Penka, D. 2007a. Uninterpretable negative features on negative indefinites. In Proceedings of the 16th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. M. Aloni, P. Dekker, and F. Roelofsen, 19–22. Amsterdam: ILLC/Department of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  63. Penka, D. 2007a. Negative indefinites. PhD Diss., Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  64. Posner, R. 1985. Post-verbal negation in non-standard French: A historical and comparative view. Romance Philology 39: 170–197.Google Scholar
  65. Postma, G.J. 2002. De enkelvoudige clitische negatie in het Middelnederlands en de Jespersen cyclus. Nederlandse Taalkunde 7: 44–82.Google Scholar
  66. Progovac, L. 1994. Negative and positive polarity: A binding approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, ed. L. Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  68. Roberts, I. and A. Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Rowlett, P. 1998. Sentential negation in French. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Schwegler, A. 1988. Word-order changes in predicate negation strategies in Romance languages. Diachronica 5: 21–58.Google Scholar
  71. Schwenter, S.A. 2006. Fine-tuning Jespersen’s cycle. In Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn, ed. B.J. Birner and G. Ward, 327–344. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [].Google Scholar
  72. Seuren, P.A.M. 1973. The comparative. In Generative grammar in Europe, ed. F. Kiefer and N. Ruwet, 528–564. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  73. Sundquist, J.D. 2005. Variable use of negation in Middle Low German. In Historical linguistics 2005, ed. J. Salmons and S. Dubenion Smith, 149–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  74. Tavernier, C. 1959. Over negatie en expletief en in het Gents dialect. Taal en Tongval 11: 245–252.Google Scholar
  75. van der Auwera, J. 2008. Generalizing Jespersen’s cycle: Notes from typology and dialectology. NORMS seminar on Typology and Nordic Dialect Variation, University of Helsinki, 6 June 2008.Google Scholar
  76. van der Wal, S. 1996. Negative polarity items and negation: Tandem acquisition. PhD Diss., University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  77. van der Wouden, T. 1996. Three modal verbs. Ms. University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  78. van der Wouden, T. 1997. Negative contexts: Collocation, polarity and multiple negation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. van der Wurff, W. 1999. On expletive negation with adversative predicates in the history of English. In Negation in the history of English, ed. I. van Ostade Tieken-Boon, G. Tottie, and W. van der Wurff, 295–327. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  80. van Kemenade, A. 2000. Jespersen’s cycle revisited: Formal properties of grammaticalisation. In Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms, ed. S. Pintzuk, G. Tsoulas, and A. Warner, 51–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  81. van Rooij, R. 2003. Negative polarity items in question: Strength as relevance. Journal of Semantics 20: 239–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Vennemann, T. 1974. Topics, subjects and word order. From SXV to SVX via TVX. In Historical linguistics, Vol. 1, ed. J.M. Anderson and C. Jones, 339–376. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  83. von Stechow, A. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3: 1–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wallage, P. 2005. Negation in Early English: Parametric variation and grammatical competition. PhD Diss., University of York.Google Scholar
  85. Wallage, P. 2008. Jespersen’s cycle in Middle English: Parametric variation and grammatical competition. Lingua 118(5): 643–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Weiß, H. 2002. A quantifier approach to negation in natural languages. Or why negative concord is necessary. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 25(2): 125–153.Google Scholar
  87. Willis, D. in press. A minimalist approach to Jespersen’s Cycle in Welsh. To appear in Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Proceedings of DiGS VIII, ed. D. Jonas, J. Whitman, and A. Garrett. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Zeijlstra, H. 2004. Sentential negation and negative concord. PhD Diss., University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  89. Zwarts, F. 1995. Non-veridical contexts. Linguistic Analysis 25: 286–312.Google Scholar
  90. Zwicky, A.M. and G.K. Pullum. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language 59(3): 502–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Modern & Medieval LanguagesUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations