Advertisement

Identifying the Role of Pragmatic Activation in Changes to the Expression of English Negation

  • Phillip WallageEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Language, Cognition, and Mind book series (LCAM, volume 1)

Abstract

This paper builds on Wallage (2013) to demonstrate that pragmatic activation plays a role in two processes of grammaticalisation in early English—not only in the grammaticalisation of the negative marker not during Middle English (c. 1100–1500AD), but also in the grammaticalisation of do as a tense marker in Early Modern English negative clauses (c. 1500–1700AD). While competing variants are semantically equivalent, different variants are used to mark different pragmatic functions. Innovative forms tend to appear in pragmatically activated (discourse-given) propositions and older forms in inactivated (discourse-new) propositions. Logistic regression analyses of diachronic data provide a way to identify pragmatic changes in progress, and hence to ascertain what role the loss of functional constraints on a form plays in its grammaticalisation. van der Auwera (2009), Hansen (2009) and Hansen and Visconti (2009) argue that pragmatic change precedes the grammaticalisation of the French negative marker pas. They argue this accounts for its increased use over time. However, the overall frequencies of not and do increase despite pragmatic constraints on their use remaining consistent over time. Instead, pragmatic constraints on not and do are lost at the point when the forms are grammaticalised—that is, when the competitors to not and do are lost.

Keywords

Jespersen cycle Grammaticalisation Middle English negation Early modern English negation Pragmatic activation Do-support Grammar competition Functional change 

References

  1. Batllori, M. (2016, this volume). The significance of formal features in language change theory and the evolution of minimizers. In P. Larrivée & C. Lee (Eds.), Negation and polarity: Experimental perspectives (pp. 347–377). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Detges, U., & Waltereit, R. (2002). Grammaticalisation vs. reanalysis: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 21, 151–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dryer, M. S. (1996). Focus, pragmatic presupposition, and activated propositions. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 475–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ellegård, A. (1953). The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
  5. Frisch, S. (1997). The change in negation in Middle English: a NegP licensing account. Lingua, 101, 21–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Han, C.-h. (2001). The evolution of do-support in English imperatives. In S. Pintzuk, G. Tsoulas, & A. Warner (Eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms (pp. 275–295). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hansen, M.-B. M. (2009). The grammaticalisation of negative reinforcers in Old and Middle French. In M.-B. M. Hansen & J. Visconti (Eds.), Current Trends in Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics (pp. 227–252). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  8. Hansen, M.-B. M., & Visconti, J. (2009). On the diachrony of “reinforced” negation in French and Italian. In C. Rossari, C. Ricci, & A. Spiridon (Eds.), Grammaticalisation and pragmatics: Facts, approaches, theoretical issues (pp. 137–171). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  9. Hoeksma, J. (2014). The Middle Dutch negative clitic: Status, position and disappearance. Lingua, 147, 50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Israel, M. (2001). Minimisers, maximisers and the rhetoric of scalar reasoning. Journal of Semantics, 18, 297–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jespersen, O. (1917). Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: A. F. Hølst.Google Scholar
  12. Jespersen, O. (1909–1949). A modern English grammar on historical principles. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  13. Kroch, A. S. (1989a). Function and grammar in the history of English: Periphrastic do. In R. Fasold & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), Language change and variation (pp. 133–172). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  14. Kroch, A. S. (1989b). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change, 1, 199–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kroch, A. S., & Taylor, A. (2000). The penn-helsinki parsed corpus of middle English (2nd edition). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCME2-RELEASE-3/index.html.
  16. Kroch, A. S., Santorini, B., & Diertani, A. (2004). Penn-helsinki parsed corpus of early modern English. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania http://www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCEME-RELEASE-2/index.html.
  17. Larrivée, P. (2016, this volume). The markedness of double negation. In P. Larrivée & C. Lee (Eds.), Negation and polarity: Experimental perspectives (pp. 177–198). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Nevalainen, T. (1991). Motivated archaism: The use of affirmative periphrastic do in Early Modern English liturgical prose. In D. Kastovsky (Ed.), Historical English syntax (pp. 303–320). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Nevalainen, T. (1996). Social mobility and the decline of multiple negation in Early Modern English. In J. Fisiak & M. Krygier (Eds.), Advances in English historical linguistics (pp. 263–291). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Rissanen, M. (1994). The position of not in Early Modern English questions. In D. Kastovsky (Ed.), Studies in Early Modern English (pp. 339–348). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  21. Rydén, M. (1979). An Introduction to the historical study of English syntax. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
  22. Sankoff, D., Tagliamonte, S., & Smith, E. (2012). Goldvarb LION: A variable rule application for Macintosh. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto. http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/goldvarb.htm.
  23. Schwenter, S. (2006). Fine tuning Jespersen’s cycle. In B. J. Birner & G. L. Ward (Eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (pp. 327–344). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  24. Stein, D. (1990). The semantics of syntactic change: Aspects of the evolution of do in English. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. Taylor, A., Warner, A., Pintzuk, S. & Beths, F. (2002). The York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose. York: Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York. Distributed through the Oxford Text Archive.Google Scholar
  26. Tottie, G. (1991). Negation in English speech and writing: A study in variation. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. van der Auwera, J. (2009). The Jespersen cycles. In E. van Gelderen (Ed.), Cyclical change (pp. 35–72). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  28. van der Auwera, J., & Genee, I. (2002). English do: On the convergence of languages and linguists. English Language and Linguistics, 6, 283–307.Google Scholar
  29. Wallage, P. W. (2008). Jespersen’s Cycle in Middle English: Parametric variation and grammatical competition. Lingua, 118, 643–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wallage, P. W. (2013). Functional differentiation and grammatical competition in the English Jespersen Cycle. Journal of Historical Syntax, 2, 1–25.Google Scholar
  31. Wallage, P. W. (in preparation). A history of English negation: grammatical and functional change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Warner, A. (2005). Why do dove: Evidence for register variation in in Early Modern English negatives. Language Variation and Change, 17, 257–280.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HumanitiesNorthumbria UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations