Dialects "haven’t got to" be the same: modal microvariation in English. Stockwell, R. & Schütze, C. T. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 4(1):31–1–15, March, 2019. Paper doi abstract bibtex 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 somewhat degraded when the have has unambiguously raised, and especially so when it is negated, as shown in a preliminary acceptability judgement survey of American English 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 analysis 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.
@article{stockwell_dialects_2019,
title = {Dialects "haven’t got to" be the same: modal microvariation in {English}},
volume = {4},
copyright = {Copyright (c) 2019 Richard Stockwell, Carson T. Schütze},
issn = {2473-8689},
shorttitle = {Dialects "haven’t got to" be the same},
url = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/PLSA/article/view/4538},
doi = {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 somewhat degraded when the have has unambiguously raised, and especially so when it is negated, as shown in a preliminary acceptability judgement survey of American English 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 analysis 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.},
language = {en},
number = {1},
urldate = {2020-05-22},
journal = {Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America},
author = {Stockwell, Richard and Schütze, Carson T.},
month = mar,
year = {2019},
keywords = {"have got to", English dialect syntax, ellipsis, modality, negation, polarity sensitivity},
pages = {31--1--15},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"PXG6Hz7jd7dEYvKZT","bibbaseid":"stockwell-schtze-dialectshaventgottobethesamemodalmicrovariationinenglish-2019","author_short":["Stockwell, R.","Schütze, C. T."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Dialects \"haven’t got to\" be the same: modal microvariation in English","volume":"4","copyright":"Copyright (c) 2019 Richard Stockwell, Carson T. Schütze","issn":"2473-8689","shorttitle":"Dialects \"haven’t got to\" be the same","url":"https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/PLSA/article/view/4538","doi":"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 somewhat degraded when the have has unambiguously raised, and especially so when it is negated, as shown in a preliminary acceptability judgement survey of American English 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 analysis 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.","language":"en","number":"1","urldate":"2020-05-22","journal":"Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Stockwell"],"firstnames":["Richard"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Schütze"],"firstnames":["Carson","T."],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"March","year":"2019","keywords":"\"have got to\", English dialect syntax, ellipsis, modality, negation, polarity sensitivity","pages":"31–1–15","bibtex":"@article{stockwell_dialects_2019,\n\ttitle = {Dialects \"haven’t got to\" be the same: modal microvariation in {English}},\n\tvolume = {4},\n\tcopyright = {Copyright (c) 2019 Richard Stockwell, Carson T. Schütze},\n\tissn = {2473-8689},\n\tshorttitle = {Dialects \"haven’t got to\" be the same},\n\turl = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/PLSA/article/view/4538},\n\tdoi = {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 somewhat degraded when the have has unambiguously raised, and especially so when it is negated, as shown in a preliminary acceptability judgement survey of American English 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 analysis 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\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2020-05-22},\n\tjournal = {Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America},\n\tauthor = {Stockwell, Richard and Schütze, Carson T.},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tkeywords = {\"have got to\", English dialect syntax, ellipsis, modality, negation, polarity sensitivity},\n\tpages = {31--1--15},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Stockwell, R.","Schütze, C. T."],"key":"stockwell_dialects_2019","id":"stockwell_dialects_2019","bibbaseid":"stockwell-schtze-dialectshaventgottobethesamemodalmicrovariationinenglish-2019","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/PLSA/article/view/4538"},"keyword":["\"have got to\"","English dialect syntax","ellipsis","modality","negation","polarity sensitivity"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://api.zotero.org/users/4976940/collections/NPB8CWDQ/items?key=HB5ooAZGCiqh7e2wvqkMNOn0&format=bibtex&limit=100","dataSources":["GmBkQQkmnReauzBwK"],"keywords":["\"have got to\"","english dialect syntax","ellipsis","modality","negation","polarity sensitivity"],"search_terms":["dialects","haven","same","modal","microvariation","english","stockwell","schütze"],"title":"Dialects \"haven’t got to\" be the same: modal microvariation in English","year":2019}