Negative auxiliaries and absent expletives in Texas vernacular English

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Drawing on thought from sociolinguistics and theoretical and historical pragmatics, this paper argues that Negative Inversion (NI) sentences such as Can't nobody beat them are the diachronic descendants of Modal Existential (ME) sentences such as There can't nobody beat them. The expletive subject of the ME has undergone a deletion process in the twentieth century, leaving behind what is now considered to be the NI. This diachronic understanding enables a clear account of the so-called “definiteness effects” (Milsark, 1974) associated with the present NI. The paper makes a significant contribution here to the empirical understanding of the construction as well. It has been universally maintained since Labov et al. (1968) that NIs prohibit definite subjects, much like Milsark's characterization of there-existential sentences. I show, however, that definite subjects are accepted, but that they are restricted by pragmatic constraints: the same ones, it turns out, that Ward and Birner (1995) have shown to constrain the appearance of definite subjects in there-existentials.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)51-66
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of Pragmatics
Volume130
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2018

Fingerprint

pragmatics
sociolinguistics
twentieth century
Inversion
Definites
Expletives
present
Diachrony
Existential Sentences
Thought
Definiteness
Descendant
Historical Pragmatics

Keywords

  • Definiteness effects
  • Expletive subjects
  • Negative inversion
  • There-existentials

Cite this

Negative auxiliaries and absent expletives in Texas vernacular English. / Salmon, William.

In: Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 130, 01.06.2018, p. 51-66.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{685011cfc7c14fd4af4adf7d1f23be8e,
title = "Negative auxiliaries and absent expletives in Texas vernacular English",
abstract = "Drawing on thought from sociolinguistics and theoretical and historical pragmatics, this paper argues that Negative Inversion (NI) sentences such as Can't nobody beat them are the diachronic descendants of Modal Existential (ME) sentences such as There can't nobody beat them. The expletive subject of the ME has undergone a deletion process in the twentieth century, leaving behind what is now considered to be the NI. This diachronic understanding enables a clear account of the so-called “definiteness effects” (Milsark, 1974) associated with the present NI. The paper makes a significant contribution here to the empirical understanding of the construction as well. It has been universally maintained since Labov et al. (1968) that NIs prohibit definite subjects, much like Milsark's characterization of there-existential sentences. I show, however, that definite subjects are accepted, but that they are restricted by pragmatic constraints: the same ones, it turns out, that Ward and Birner (1995) have shown to constrain the appearance of definite subjects in there-existentials.",
keywords = "Definiteness effects, Expletive subjects, Negative inversion, There-existentials",
author = "William Salmon",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.pragma.2018.04.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "130",
pages = "51--66",
journal = "Journal of Pragmatics",
issn = "0378-2166",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Negative auxiliaries and absent expletives in Texas vernacular English

AU - Salmon, William

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - Drawing on thought from sociolinguistics and theoretical and historical pragmatics, this paper argues that Negative Inversion (NI) sentences such as Can't nobody beat them are the diachronic descendants of Modal Existential (ME) sentences such as There can't nobody beat them. The expletive subject of the ME has undergone a deletion process in the twentieth century, leaving behind what is now considered to be the NI. This diachronic understanding enables a clear account of the so-called “definiteness effects” (Milsark, 1974) associated with the present NI. The paper makes a significant contribution here to the empirical understanding of the construction as well. It has been universally maintained since Labov et al. (1968) that NIs prohibit definite subjects, much like Milsark's characterization of there-existential sentences. I show, however, that definite subjects are accepted, but that they are restricted by pragmatic constraints: the same ones, it turns out, that Ward and Birner (1995) have shown to constrain the appearance of definite subjects in there-existentials.

AB - Drawing on thought from sociolinguistics and theoretical and historical pragmatics, this paper argues that Negative Inversion (NI) sentences such as Can't nobody beat them are the diachronic descendants of Modal Existential (ME) sentences such as There can't nobody beat them. The expletive subject of the ME has undergone a deletion process in the twentieth century, leaving behind what is now considered to be the NI. This diachronic understanding enables a clear account of the so-called “definiteness effects” (Milsark, 1974) associated with the present NI. The paper makes a significant contribution here to the empirical understanding of the construction as well. It has been universally maintained since Labov et al. (1968) that NIs prohibit definite subjects, much like Milsark's characterization of there-existential sentences. I show, however, that definite subjects are accepted, but that they are restricted by pragmatic constraints: the same ones, it turns out, that Ward and Birner (1995) have shown to constrain the appearance of definite subjects in there-existentials.

KW - Definiteness effects

KW - Expletive subjects

KW - Negative inversion

KW - There-existentials

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046094162&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85046094162&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.04.003

DO - 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.04.003

M3 - Article

VL - 130

SP - 51

EP - 66

JO - Journal of Pragmatics

JF - Journal of Pragmatics

SN - 0378-2166

ER -