Reconsidering the syntax of non-canonical negative inversion. White-Sustaita, J. English Language and Linguistics, 14(03):429–455, November, 2010. ![Reconsidering the syntax of non-canonical negative inversion [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex 12 downloads Two main hypotheses have been proposed to account for the word order of negative inversion (NI) in varieties of non-canonical English (e.g. Don't nobody else care). An auxiliary inversion analysis argues that the word order is derived via movement of the auxiliary to the left periphery, whereas an existential analysis argues that the word order is an artifact of deletion of the expletive subject, paralleling there-insertion existential constructions. After reviewing these hypotheses, I provide empirical evidence that neither of these theories adequately explains the peculiarities of NI. I advance a third hypothesis, namely that NI is the result of negative movement to the specifier of NegP, and that this movement is pragmatically motivated by an existential meaning in NI constructions. Syntactically, NI is made possible through the Neg-Criterion (Haegeman & Zanuttini 1991, 1996). This analysis explains problems encountered by prior analyses, and offers a unified analysis for variation in NI across dialects. Finally, I explain cross-dialectal differences in NI by considering the relationship between subject requirements and agreement.
@article{white-sustaita_reconsidering_2010,
title = {Reconsidering the syntax of non-canonical negative inversion},
volume = {14},
issn = {1469-4379},
url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S1360674310000146},
doi = {10.1017/S1360674310000146},
abstract = {Two main hypotheses have been proposed to account for the word order of negative inversion (NI) in varieties of non-canonical English (e.g. Don't nobody else care). An auxiliary inversion analysis argues that the word order is derived via movement of the auxiliary to the left periphery, whereas an existential analysis argues that the word order is an artifact of deletion of the expletive subject, paralleling there-insertion existential constructions. After reviewing these hypotheses, I provide empirical evidence that neither of these theories adequately explains the peculiarities of NI. I advance a third hypothesis, namely that NI is the result of negative movement to the specifier of NegP, and that this movement is pragmatically motivated by an existential meaning in NI constructions. Syntactically, NI is made possible through the Neg-Criterion (Haegeman \& Zanuttini 1991, 1996). This analysis explains problems encountered by prior analyses, and offers a unified analysis for variation in NI across dialects. Finally, I explain cross-dialectal differences in NI by considering the relationship between subject requirements and agreement.},
number = {03},
urldate = {2016-06-13},
journal = {English Language and Linguistics},
author = {White-Sustaita, Jessica},
month = nov,
year = {2010},
keywords = {Done, Negative concord, Negative inversion, Split subjects},
pages = {429--455},
}
Downloads: 12
{"_id":"wGneZahF47MgAk2in","bibbaseid":"whitesustaita-reconsideringthesyntaxofnoncanonicalnegativeinversion-2010","downloads":12,"creationDate":"2018-06-20T19:38:07.664Z","title":"Reconsidering the syntax of non-canonical negative inversion","author_short":["White-Sustaita, J."],"year":2010,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://api.zotero.org/users/4976940/collections/7YISCTF7/items?key=HB5ooAZGCiqh7e2wvqkMNOn0&format=bibtex&limit=100","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Reconsidering the syntax of non-canonical negative inversion","volume":"14","issn":"1469-4379","url":"http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S1360674310000146","doi":"10.1017/S1360674310000146","abstract":"Two main hypotheses have been proposed to account for the word order of negative inversion (NI) in varieties of non-canonical English (e.g. Don't nobody else care). An auxiliary inversion analysis argues that the word order is derived via movement of the auxiliary to the left periphery, whereas an existential analysis argues that the word order is an artifact of deletion of the expletive subject, paralleling there-insertion existential constructions. After reviewing these hypotheses, I provide empirical evidence that neither of these theories adequately explains the peculiarities of NI. I advance a third hypothesis, namely that NI is the result of negative movement to the specifier of NegP, and that this movement is pragmatically motivated by an existential meaning in NI constructions. Syntactically, NI is made possible through the Neg-Criterion (Haegeman & Zanuttini 1991, 1996). This analysis explains problems encountered by prior analyses, and offers a unified analysis for variation in NI across dialects. Finally, I explain cross-dialectal differences in NI by considering the relationship between subject requirements and agreement.","number":"03","urldate":"2016-06-13","journal":"English Language and Linguistics","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["White-Sustaita"],"firstnames":["Jessica"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"November","year":"2010","keywords":"Done, Negative concord, Negative inversion, Split subjects","pages":"429–455","bibtex":"@article{white-sustaita_reconsidering_2010,\n\ttitle = {Reconsidering the syntax of non-canonical negative inversion},\n\tvolume = {14},\n\tissn = {1469-4379},\n\turl = {http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S1360674310000146},\n\tdoi = {10.1017/S1360674310000146},\n\tabstract = {Two main hypotheses have been proposed to account for the word order of negative inversion (NI) in varieties of non-canonical English (e.g. Don't nobody else care). An auxiliary inversion analysis argues that the word order is derived via movement of the auxiliary to the left periphery, whereas an existential analysis argues that the word order is an artifact of deletion of the expletive subject, paralleling there-insertion existential constructions. After reviewing these hypotheses, I provide empirical evidence that neither of these theories adequately explains the peculiarities of NI. I advance a third hypothesis, namely that NI is the result of negative movement to the specifier of NegP, and that this movement is pragmatically motivated by an existential meaning in NI constructions. Syntactically, NI is made possible through the Neg-Criterion (Haegeman \\& Zanuttini 1991, 1996). This analysis explains problems encountered by prior analyses, and offers a unified analysis for variation in NI across dialects. Finally, I explain cross-dialectal differences in NI by considering the relationship between subject requirements and agreement.},\n\tnumber = {03},\n\turldate = {2016-06-13},\n\tjournal = {English Language and Linguistics},\n\tauthor = {White-Sustaita, Jessica},\n\tmonth = nov,\n\tyear = {2010},\n\tkeywords = {Done, Negative concord, Negative inversion, Split subjects},\n\tpages = {429--455},\n}\n\n","author_short":["White-Sustaita, J."],"key":"white-sustaita_reconsidering_2010","id":"white-sustaita_reconsidering_2010","bibbaseid":"whitesustaita-reconsideringthesyntaxofnoncanonicalnegativeinversion-2010","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S1360674310000146"},"keyword":["Done","Negative concord","Negative inversion","Split subjects"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":12},"search_terms":["reconsidering","syntax","non","canonical","negative","inversion","white-sustaita"],"keywords":["done","negative concord","negative inversion","split subjects"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["rxsQZqT5DDfXq78Df","j28NQpPTmx2gYPpMc","6k8JaHNP8ufwmQB6G","CKvE8tQHqohQDNhM7","JKgawCsFpMjcjF9Zc"]}