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.
Dialects "haven’t got to" be the same: modal microvariation in English [link]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