@article{stockwell_richard_dialects_nodate,
	title = {Dialects haven’t got to be the same: {Modal} microvariation in {English}},
	volume = {4},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v4i1.4538},
	abstract = {This paper concerns itself with dialectal differences between British Eng-lish (BrE) and American English (AmE) regarding modal have-got and its scope with respect to sentential negation. Modal haven’t-got is perfectly acceptable in BrE, meaning ‘not obligated to’ in the standard variety. In AmE, modal have-got is some-what degraded when the have has unambiguously raised, and especially so when it is negated, as shown in a preliminary acceptability judgement survey of American Eng-lish speakers. An analysis in terms of polarity sensitivity is inadequate, and Iatridou \& Zeijlstra’s (2013) syntax for modals is overly restrictive in the face of scopally ambiguous have not (got) to in non-standard varieties of BrE. We propose an analy-sis in terms of the locus of modality: whereas have and got are separate in BrE, in AmE have-got is a scopally indivisible whole. Finally, we evaluate how well this analysis extends to an additional dialectal difference in verb phrase ellipsis (LeSourd 1976), where the have of have-got survives ellipsis in BrE but not AmE.},
	number = {31},
	journal = {Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America},
	author = {Stockwell, Richard, Carson, Schütze},
	keywords = {have got, haven't got},
	pages = {1--15}
}

{"_id":"f9zDnSvJQYFvN4DqK","bibbaseid":"stockwell-carson-dialectshaventgottobethesamemodalmicrovariationinenglish","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Stockwell, R.","Carson, S."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Dialects haven’t got to be the same: Modal microvariation in English","volume":"4","doi":"https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v4i1.4538","abstract":"This paper concerns itself with dialectal differences between British Eng-lish (BrE) and American English (AmE) regarding modal have-got and its scope with respect to sentential negation. Modal haven’t-got is perfectly acceptable in BrE, meaning ‘not obligated to’ in the standard variety. In AmE, modal have-got is some-what degraded when the have has unambiguously raised, and especially so when it is negated, as shown in a preliminary acceptability judgement survey of American Eng-lish speakers. An analysis in terms of polarity sensitivity is inadequate, and Iatridou & Zeijlstra’s (2013) syntax for modals is overly restrictive in the face of scopally ambiguous have not (got) to in non-standard varieties of BrE. We propose an analy-sis in terms of the locus of modality: whereas have and got are separate in BrE, in AmE have-got is a scopally indivisible whole. Finally, we evaluate how well this analysis extends to an additional dialectal difference in verb phrase ellipsis (LeSourd 1976), where the have of have-got survives ellipsis in BrE but not AmE.","number":"31","journal":"Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Stockwell"],"firstnames":["Richard"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Carson"],"firstnames":["Schütze"],"suffixes":[]}],"keywords":"have got, haven't got","pages":"1–15","bibtex":"@article{stockwell_richard_dialects_nodate,\n\ttitle = {Dialects haven’t got to be the same: {Modal} microvariation in {English}},\n\tvolume = {4},\n\tdoi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v4i1.4538},\n\tabstract = {This paper concerns itself with dialectal differences between British Eng-lish (BrE) and American English (AmE) regarding modal have-got and its scope with respect to sentential negation. Modal haven’t-got is perfectly acceptable in BrE, meaning ‘not obligated to’ in the standard variety. In AmE, modal have-got is some-what degraded when the have has unambiguously raised, and especially so when it is negated, as shown in a preliminary acceptability judgement survey of American Eng-lish speakers. An analysis in terms of polarity sensitivity is inadequate, and Iatridou \\& Zeijlstra’s (2013) syntax for modals is overly restrictive in the face of scopally ambiguous have not (got) to in non-standard varieties of BrE. We propose an analy-sis in terms of the locus of modality: whereas have and got are separate in BrE, in AmE have-got is a scopally indivisible whole. Finally, we evaluate how well this analysis extends to an additional dialectal difference in verb phrase ellipsis (LeSourd 1976), where the have of have-got survives ellipsis in BrE but not AmE.},\n\tnumber = {31},\n\tjournal = {Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America},\n\tauthor = {Stockwell, Richard, Carson, Schütze},\n\tkeywords = {have got, haven't got},\n\tpages = {1--15}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Stockwell, R.","Carson, S."],"key":"stockwell_richard_dialects_nodate","id":"stockwell_richard_dialects_nodate","bibbaseid":"stockwell-carson-dialectshaventgottobethesamemodalmicrovariationinenglish","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["have got","haven't got"],"downloads":0,"html":""},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero-group/yalegramdiv/546641/","creationDate":"2020-06-08T20:03:05.364Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["have got","haven't got"],"search_terms":["dialects","haven","same","modal","microvariation","english","stockwell","carson"],"title":"Dialects haven’t got to be the same: Modal microvariation in English","year":null,"dataSources":["x7zGDjuNExiZSaoSQ"]}