@incollection{adger_explaining_2020,
	title = {Explaining {Variability} in {Negative} {Concord}: {A} {Socio}-{Syntactic} {Analysis}},
	isbn = {9780429282720},
	shorttitle = {Explaining {Variability} in {Negative} {Concord}},
	abstract = {Cheshire’s (1982) seminal study of Reading adolescents revealed robust use of negative concord, a ubiquitous ‘vernacular universal’ of English varieties worldwide. In this chapter we analyse one aspect of the grammar of negative concord in a variety spoken in Scotland: variability in the expression of a sentential negation marker in the presence of a negative noun phrase. We develop a syntactic analysis that accounts for the quantitative patterns in our corpus, which further extends to concrete, and correct, predictions about unobserved forms. Our analysis also has implications for understanding why negative concord is a vernacular universal and accounting for differences in individual speakers’ grammars and their use.},
	booktitle = {Advancing {Socio}-grammatical {Variation} and {Change}},
	publisher = {Routledge},
	author = {Adger, David and Smith, Jennifer},
	year = {2020},
}

Cheshire’s (1982) seminal study of Reading adolescents revealed robust use of negative concord, a ubiquitous ‘vernacular universal’ of English varieties worldwide. In this chapter we analyse one aspect of the grammar of negative concord in a variety spoken in Scotland: variability in the expression of a sentential negation marker in the presence of a negative noun phrase. We develop a syntactic analysis that accounts for the quantitative patterns in our corpus, which further extends to concrete, and correct, predictions about unobserved forms. Our analysis also has implications for understanding why negative concord is a vernacular universal and accounting for differences in individual speakers’ grammars and their use.

@inproceedings{ajisoko_double_2021,
	address = {Tarakan, Indonesia},
	title = {Double {Negation} and {Negative} {Concord} in {English} {Language}:},
	shorttitle = {Double {Negation} and {Negative} {Concord} in {English} {Language}},
	url = {https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125966811},
	doi = {10.2991/assehr.k.211219.027},
	urldate = {2024-07-19},
	author = {Ajisoko, Pangkuh and Firdausya, Arfha Rizky and Natalina, Sherly and Darwis, Khaerawaty},
	year = {2021},
}

@phdthesis{blanchette_english_2015,
	address = {New York},
	type = {{PhD} dissertation},
	title = {English negative concord, negative polarity, and double negation},
	school = {CUNY Graduate Center},
	author = {Blanchette, Frances},
	year = {2015},
	keywords = {Appalachian English, Negative concord},
}

@book{wolfram_appalachian_1976,
	address = {Washington, D.C.},
	title = {Appalachian speech},
	isbn = {978-0-87281-050-1},
	publisher = {Center for Applied Linguistics},
	author = {Wolfram, Walt and Christian, Donna},
	year = {1976},
	keywords = {A-prefixing, Appalachian Region, Southern, Dialects, Embedded inversion, English language, Expletive they, Multiple modals, Negative concord, Negative inversion, Personal datives, Positive anymore, Split subjects, United States},
}

@techreport{labov_study_1968,
	address = {New York},
	type = {{US} {Department} of {Health}, {Education} \& {Welfare}, {Office} of {Education}},
	title = {A study of the non-standard {English} of {Negro} and {Puerto} {Rican} speakers in {New} {York} {City}. {Vol}. 1: {Phonological} and grammatical analysis},
	number = {CRP-3288},
	institution = {Columbia University},
	author = {Labov, William and Cohen, Paul and Robins, Clarence and Lewis, John},
	year = {1968},
	keywords = {Done, Multiple modals, Negative concord, Negative inversion},
}

@article{maldonado_nobody_2021,
	title = {Nobody {Doesn}’t {Like} {Negative} {Concord}},
	volume = {50},
	issn = {1573-6555},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-021-09816-w},
	doi = {10.1007/s10936-021-09816-w},
	abstract = {Languages vary with respect to whether sentences with two negative elements give rise to double negation or negative concord meanings. We explore an influential hypothesis about what governs this variation: namely, that whether a language exhibits double negation or negative concord is partly determined by the phonological and syntactic nature of its negative marker (Zeijlstra 2004; Jespersen 1917). For example, one version of this hypothesis argues that languages with affixal negation must be negative concord (Zeijlstra 2008). We use an artificial language learning experiment to investigate whether English speakers are sensitive to the status of the negative marker when learning double negation and negative concord languages. Our findings fail to provide evidence supporting this hypothesised connection. Instead, our results suggest that learners find it easier to learn negative concord languages compared to double negation languages independently of whether the negative marker is an adverb or an affix. This is in line with evidence from natural language acquisition (Thornton et al. 2016).},
	language = {en},
	number = {6},
	urldate = {2024-07-19},
	journal = {Journal of Psycholinguistic Research},
	author = {Maldonado, Mora and Culbertson, Jennifer},
	month = dec,
	year = {2021},
	keywords = {Artificial language learning, Jespersen’s generalization, Negation, Negative dependencies},
	pages = {1401--1416},
}

Languages vary with respect to whether sentences with two negative elements give rise to double negation or negative concord meanings. We explore an influential hypothesis about what governs this variation: namely, that whether a language exhibits double negation or negative concord is partly determined by the phonological and syntactic nature of its negative marker (Zeijlstra 2004; Jespersen 1917). For example, one version of this hypothesis argues that languages with affixal negation must be negative concord (Zeijlstra 2008). We use an artificial language learning experiment to investigate whether English speakers are sensitive to the status of the negative marker when learning double negation and negative concord languages. Our findings fail to provide evidence supporting this hypothesised connection. Instead, our results suggest that learners find it easier to learn negative concord languages compared to double negation languages independently of whether the negative marker is an adverb or an affix. This is in line with evidence from natural language acquisition (Thornton et al. 2016).

@inproceedings{ajisoko_double_2021,
	address = {Tarakan, Indonesia},
	title = {Double {Negation} and {Negative} {Concord} in {English} {Language}:},
	shorttitle = {Double {Negation} and {Negative} {Concord} in {English} {Language}},
	url = {https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125966811},
	doi = {10.2991/assehr.k.211219.027},
	urldate = {2024-07-19},
	author = {Ajisoko, Pangkuh and Firdausya, Arfha Rizky and Natalina, Sherly and Darwis, Khaerawaty},
	year = {2021},
}

@article{tortora_subject_2010,
	title = {Subject agreement variation: {Support} for the configurational approach},
	volume = {120},
	issn = {0024-3841},
	shorttitle = {Formalising syntactic {variabilitySubject} agreement variation},
	url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384109001090},
	doi = {10.1016/j.lingua.2009.04.004},
	abstract = {In this paper we argue that variation in subject-verb agreement in Belfast English and Appalachian English bears on a number of issues that are relevant to current syntactic theory, including clause structure and subject positions, case, the syntax of negative polarity items and negative concord and the structure of the DP. We show that while the nature of the subject plays a role in determining subject-verb agreement in the two varieties (in different ways), subject position is the overt structural manifestation of the differing properties of the subject, independent of which properties are relevant in the variety in question. Our proposal on subject positions, which goes beyond what Henry (1995) proposed for Belfast English, is able to capture clusters of properties not discussed by Henry, and thus more fully accounts for the range of micro-parametric variation we find. This paper thus provides support for a configurational approach to subject-verb agreement.},
	number = {5},
	urldate = {2016-06-14},
	journal = {Lingua},
	author = {Tortora, Christina and Dikken, Marcel den},
	month = may,
	year = {2010},
	keywords = {Correlations, Negative concord, Negative inversion, Negative polarity item (NPI), Singular concord, Subject–verb agreement},
	pages = {1089--1108},
}

In this paper we argue that variation in subject-verb agreement in Belfast English and Appalachian English bears on a number of issues that are relevant to current syntactic theory, including clause structure and subject positions, case, the syntax of negative polarity items and negative concord and the structure of the DP. We show that while the nature of the subject plays a role in determining subject-verb agreement in the two varieties (in different ways), subject position is the overt structural manifestation of the differing properties of the subject, independent of which properties are relevant in the variety in question. Our proposal on subject positions, which goes beyond what Henry (1995) proposed for Belfast English, is able to capture clusters of properties not discussed by Henry, and thus more fully accounts for the range of micro-parametric variation we find. This paper thus provides support for a configurational approach to subject-verb agreement.

@incollection{feagin_negation_1979,
	address = {Washington, DC},
	title = {Negation},
	isbn = {978-0-87840-210-6},
	booktitle = {Variation and change in {Alabama} {English}: {A} sociolinguistic study of the {White} community},
	publisher = {Georgetown University Press},
	author = {Feagin, Crawford},
	year = {1979},
	keywords = {Alabama Anniston, Anniston (Ala.), Dialects, Done, English language, Negative concord, Negative inversion, Social aspects, Social conditions, Variation},
	pages = {209--242},
}

@book{feagin_variation_1979,
	address = {Washington, DC},
	title = {Variation and change in {Alabama} {English}: {A} sociolinguistic study of the {White} community},
	isbn = {978-0-87840-210-6},
	shorttitle = {Variation and change in {Alabama} {English}},
	publisher = {Georgetown University Press},
	author = {Feagin, Crawford},
	year = {1979},
	keywords = {A-prefixing, Alabama Anniston, Anniston (Ala.), Dialects, English language, Liketa, Multiple modals, Negative concord, Negative inversion, Social aspects, Social conditions, Split subjects, Variation},
}

@incollection{henry_acquisition_1997,
	address = {Somerville, MA},
	title = {The acquisition of negative concord in non-standard {English}},
	volume = {1},
	isbn = {978-1-57473-022-7 978-1-57473-020-3},
	language = {English},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 21st {Annual} {Boston} {University} {Conference} on {Language} {Development} ({BUCLD})},
	publisher = {Cascadilla Press},
	author = {Henry, Alison and Maclaren, Rose and Wilson, John and Finlay, Cathy},
	editor = {Hughes, Elizabeth and Hughes, Mary and Greenhill, Annabel},
	year = {1997},
	keywords = {Negative concord},
	pages = {269--280},
}

@inproceedings{ajisoko_double_2021,
	address = {Tarakan, Indonesia},
	title = {Double {Negation} and {Negative} {Concord} in {English} {Language}:},
	shorttitle = {Double {Negation} and {Negative} {Concord} in {English} {Language}},
	url = {https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125966811},
	doi = {10.2991/assehr.k.211219.027},
	urldate = {2024-07-19},
	author = {Ajisoko, Pangkuh and Firdausya, Arfha Rizky and Natalina, Sherly and Darwis, Khaerawaty},
	year = {2021},
}

@article{foreman_syntax_1999,
	title = {Syntax of negative inversion in non-standard {English}},
	volume = {17},
	issn = {1042-1068},
	abstract = {Although negative inversion sentences of the type of West Texas English Ain't no black Santa Claus, which form the tag is there?, are derived from existential sentences by omission of the expletive subject pronoun, the negative inversion seen in Ain't nobody doin' nothin' wrong, are they? requires a different analysis, as the tag formation shows that the underlying subject must be in the surface subject position. Contrary to a proposal by William Labov et al (1968), movement of the auxiliary into the complementizer head as found in Standard English questions \& negative inversion is unavailable for sentences of the second type, as the auxiliary cannot raise over a definite subject in West Texas English negative inversion. It is proposed that in these constructions negative auxiliaries raise above the subject agreement projection to a second negative phrase NegP2 that also hosts pre-subject not in Standard English sentences of the type Not many people went. 9 References. J. Hitchcock},
	language = {English},
	journal = {West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL)},
	author = {Foreman, John},
	editor = {Shahin, Kimary and Blake, Susan and Kim, Eun-Sook},
	year = {1999},
	keywords = {American English, Done, Movement (Grammatical), Negation, Negative concord, Negative inversion, Regional Dialects, Word order, bookitem},
	pages = {205--219},
}

Although negative inversion sentences of the type of West Texas English Ain't no black Santa Claus, which form the tag is there?, are derived from existential sentences by omission of the expletive subject pronoun, the negative inversion seen in Ain't nobody doin' nothin' wrong, are they? requires a different analysis, as the tag formation shows that the underlying subject must be in the surface subject position. Contrary to a proposal by William Labov et al (1968), movement of the auxiliary into the complementizer head as found in Standard English questions & negative inversion is unavailable for sentences of the second type, as the auxiliary cannot raise over a definite subject in West Texas English negative inversion. It is proposed that in these constructions negative auxiliaries raise above the subject agreement projection to a second negative phrase NegP2 that also hosts pre-subject not in Standard English sentences of the type Not many people went. 9 References. J. Hitchcock

@book{green_african_2002,
	address = {Cambridge},
	title = {African {American} {English}: {A} linguistic introduction},
	isbn = {978-0-521-81449-2 978-0-521-89138-7},
	shorttitle = {African {American} {English}},
	abstract = {"This authoritative introduction to African American English (AAE) is the first textbook to look at the grammar as a whole. Clearly organized, it describes patterns in the sentence structure, sound system, word formation and word use in AAE. The book uses linguistic description and data from conversation to explain that AAE is not a compilation of random deviations from mainstream English but that it is a rule-governed system. The textbook examines topics such as education, speech events in the secular and religious world, and the use of language in literature and the media to create black images. This much-needed book includes exercises to accompany each chapter and will be essential reading for students in linguistics, education, anthropology, African American studies and literature."--BOOK JACKET},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	author = {Green, Lisa J.},
	year = {2002},
	keywords = {African Americans, Bare got, Black English, Dialects, English language, Finna, Languages, Negative concord, Negative inversion, Split subjects, Stressed BIN, United States, Variation},
}

"This authoritative introduction to African American English (AAE) is the first textbook to look at the grammar as a whole. Clearly organized, it describes patterns in the sentence structure, sound system, word formation and word use in AAE. The book uses linguistic description and data from conversation to explain that AAE is not a compilation of random deviations from mainstream English but that it is a rule-governed system. The textbook examines topics such as education, speech events in the secular and religious world, and the use of language in literature and the media to create black images. This much-needed book includes exercises to accompany each chapter and will be essential reading for students in linguistics, education, anthropology, African American studies and literature."–BOOK JACKET

@incollection{henry_acquisition_1997,
	address = {Somerville, MA},
	title = {The acquisition of negative concord in non-standard {English}},
	volume = {1},
	isbn = {978-1-57473-022-7 978-1-57473-020-3},
	language = {English},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 21st {Annual} {Boston} {University} {Conference} on {Language} {Development} ({BUCLD})},
	publisher = {Cascadilla Press},
	author = {Henry, Alison and Maclaren, Rose and Wilson, John and Finlay, Cathy},
	editor = {Hughes, Elizabeth and Hughes, Mary and Greenhill, Annabel},
	year = {1997},
	keywords = {Negative concord},
	pages = {269--280},
}

@article{labov_negative_1972,
	title = {Negative attraction and negative concord in {English} grammar},
	volume = {48},
	issn = {0097-8507},
	doi = {10.2307/411989},
	abstract = {The attraction of the negative to subject any is an invariant rule for all dialects of English, and appears to respond to the distributive and hypothetical features of this indeterminate. Negative concord, on the other hand, is a variable rule which distributes the negative rightward in response to affective factors. It is progressively extended from one dialect to another in an implicational series which initiates negation in new positions as the rule approaches obligatory status in the original environments.},
	number = {4},
	journal = {Language},
	author = {Labov, William},
	year = {1972},
	keywords = {Negative concord, Negative inversion, So don't I},
	pages = {773--818},
}

The attraction of the negative to subject any is an invariant rule for all dialects of English, and appears to respond to the distributive and hypothetical features of this indeterminate. Negative concord, on the other hand, is a variable rule which distributes the negative rightward in response to affective factors. It is progressively extended from one dialect to another in an implicational series which initiates negation in new positions as the rule approaches obligatory status in the original environments.

@techreport{labov_study_1968,
	address = {New York},
	type = {{US} {Department} of {Health}, {Education} \& {Welfare}, {Office} of {Education}},
	title = {A study of the non-standard {English} of {Negro} and {Puerto} {Rican} speakers in {New} {York} {City}. {Vol}. 1: {Phonological} and grammatical analysis},
	number = {CRP-3288},
	institution = {Columbia University},
	author = {Labov, William and Cohen, Paul and Robins, Clarence and Lewis, John},
	year = {1968},
	keywords = {Done, Multiple modals, Negative concord, Negative inversion},
}

@techreport{labov_study_1968,
	address = {New York},
	type = {{US} {Department} of {Health}, {Education} \& {Welfare}, {Office} of {Education}},
	title = {A study of the non-standard {English} of {Negro} and {Puerto} {Rican} speakers in {New} {York} {City}. {Vol}. 1: {Phonological} and grammatical analysis},
	number = {CRP-3288},
	institution = {Columbia University},
	author = {Labov, William and Cohen, Paul and Robins, Clarence and Lewis, John},
	year = {1968},
	keywords = {Done, Multiple modals, Negative concord, Negative inversion},
}

@article{rotter_register_2024,
	title = {A register approach to negative concord versus negative polarity items in {English}},
	volume = {0},
	copyright = {http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0},
	issn = {0024-3949, 1613-396X},
	url = {https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ling-2023-0016/html},
	doi = {10.1515/ling-2023-0016},
	abstract = {Abstract 
            Negative concord (NC) is used in many English varieties but usually considered ungrammatical in ‘standard’ contemporary English, where negative polarity items (NPIs) are used. In this paper, we take a novel experimental approach to the use of NC versus NPI constructions, in relation to register, sets of speech repertoires linked to specific situational and functional parameters. We report on two rating experiments with American and British English participants using interlocutor relations as a formality manipulation. Results show that (i) across both samples, NC constructions were rated as less appropriate than NPI associates, and (ii) there was a register effect in the American English data in that NC was rated less appropriate in formal than informal contexts. Our study is the first to provide experimental evidence for the register-sensitivity of NC constructions in American English.},
	language = {en},
	number = {0},
	urldate = {2024-07-19},
	journal = {Linguistics},
	author = {Rotter, Stephanie and Liu, Mingya},
	month = jul,
	year = {2024},
}

Abstract Negative concord (NC) is used in many English varieties but usually considered ungrammatical in ‘standard’ contemporary English, where negative polarity items (NPIs) are used. In this paper, we take a novel experimental approach to the use of NC versus NPI constructions, in relation to register, sets of speech repertoires linked to specific situational and functional parameters. We report on two rating experiments with American and British English participants using interlocutor relations as a formality manipulation. Results show that (i) across both samples, NC constructions were rated as less appropriate than NPI associates, and (ii) there was a register effect in the American English data in that NC was rated less appropriate in formal than informal contexts. Our study is the first to provide experimental evidence for the register-sensitivity of NC constructions in American English.

@incollection{henry_acquisition_1997,
	address = {Somerville, MA},
	title = {The acquisition of negative concord in non-standard {English}},
	volume = {1},
	isbn = {978-1-57473-022-7 978-1-57473-020-3},
	language = {English},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 21st {Annual} {Boston} {University} {Conference} on {Language} {Development} ({BUCLD})},
	publisher = {Cascadilla Press},
	author = {Henry, Alison and Maclaren, Rose and Wilson, John and Finlay, Cathy},
	editor = {Hughes, Elizabeth and Hughes, Mary and Greenhill, Annabel},
	year = {1997},
	keywords = {Negative concord},
	pages = {269--280},
}

@article{maldonado_nobody_2021,
	title = {Nobody {Doesn}’t {Like} {Negative} {Concord}},
	volume = {50},
	issn = {1573-6555},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-021-09816-w},
	doi = {10.1007/s10936-021-09816-w},
	abstract = {Languages vary with respect to whether sentences with two negative elements give rise to double negation or negative concord meanings. We explore an influential hypothesis about what governs this variation: namely, that whether a language exhibits double negation or negative concord is partly determined by the phonological and syntactic nature of its negative marker (Zeijlstra 2004; Jespersen 1917). For example, one version of this hypothesis argues that languages with affixal negation must be negative concord (Zeijlstra 2008). We use an artificial language learning experiment to investigate whether English speakers are sensitive to the status of the negative marker when learning double negation and negative concord languages. Our findings fail to provide evidence supporting this hypothesised connection. Instead, our results suggest that learners find it easier to learn negative concord languages compared to double negation languages independently of whether the negative marker is an adverb or an affix. This is in line with evidence from natural language acquisition (Thornton et al. 2016).},
	language = {en},
	number = {6},
	urldate = {2024-07-19},
	journal = {Journal of Psycholinguistic Research},
	author = {Maldonado, Mora and Culbertson, Jennifer},
	month = dec,
	year = {2021},
	keywords = {Artificial language learning, Jespersen’s generalization, Negation, Negative dependencies},
	pages = {1401--1416},
}

Languages vary with respect to whether sentences with two negative elements give rise to double negation or negative concord meanings. We explore an influential hypothesis about what governs this variation: namely, that whether a language exhibits double negation or negative concord is partly determined by the phonological and syntactic nature of its negative marker (Zeijlstra 2004; Jespersen 1917). For example, one version of this hypothesis argues that languages with affixal negation must be negative concord (Zeijlstra 2008). We use an artificial language learning experiment to investigate whether English speakers are sensitive to the status of the negative marker when learning double negation and negative concord languages. Our findings fail to provide evidence supporting this hypothesised connection. Instead, our results suggest that learners find it easier to learn negative concord languages compared to double negation languages independently of whether the negative marker is an adverb or an affix. This is in line with evidence from natural language acquisition (Thornton et al. 2016).

@inproceedings{ajisoko_double_2021,
	address = {Tarakan, Indonesia},
	title = {Double {Negation} and {Negative} {Concord} in {English} {Language}:},
	shorttitle = {Double {Negation} and {Negative} {Concord} in {English} {Language}},
	url = {https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125966811},
	doi = {10.2991/assehr.k.211219.027},
	urldate = {2024-07-19},
	author = {Ajisoko, Pangkuh and Firdausya, Arfha Rizky and Natalina, Sherly and Darwis, Khaerawaty},
	year = {2021},
}

@techreport{labov_study_1968,
	address = {New York},
	type = {{US} {Department} of {Health}, {Education} \& {Welfare}, {Office} of {Education}},
	title = {A study of the non-standard {English} of {Negro} and {Puerto} {Rican} speakers in {New} {York} {City}. {Vol}. 1: {Phonological} and grammatical analysis},
	number = {CRP-3288},
	institution = {Columbia University},
	author = {Labov, William and Cohen, Paul and Robins, Clarence and Lewis, John},
	year = {1968},
	keywords = {Done, Multiple modals, Negative concord, Negative inversion},
}

@article{rotter_register_2024,
	title = {A register approach to negative concord versus negative polarity items in {English}},
	volume = {0},
	copyright = {http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0},
	issn = {0024-3949, 1613-396X},
	url = {https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ling-2023-0016/html},
	doi = {10.1515/ling-2023-0016},
	abstract = {Abstract 
            Negative concord (NC) is used in many English varieties but usually considered ungrammatical in ‘standard’ contemporary English, where negative polarity items (NPIs) are used. In this paper, we take a novel experimental approach to the use of NC versus NPI constructions, in relation to register, sets of speech repertoires linked to specific situational and functional parameters. We report on two rating experiments with American and British English participants using interlocutor relations as a formality manipulation. Results show that (i) across both samples, NC constructions were rated as less appropriate than NPI associates, and (ii) there was a register effect in the American English data in that NC was rated less appropriate in formal than informal contexts. Our study is the first to provide experimental evidence for the register-sensitivity of NC constructions in American English.},
	language = {en},
	number = {0},
	urldate = {2024-07-19},
	journal = {Linguistics},
	author = {Rotter, Stephanie and Liu, Mingya},
	month = jul,
	year = {2024},
}

Abstract Negative concord (NC) is used in many English varieties but usually considered ungrammatical in ‘standard’ contemporary English, where negative polarity items (NPIs) are used. In this paper, we take a novel experimental approach to the use of NC versus NPI constructions, in relation to register, sets of speech repertoires linked to specific situational and functional parameters. We report on two rating experiments with American and British English participants using interlocutor relations as a formality manipulation. Results show that (i) across both samples, NC constructions were rated as less appropriate than NPI associates, and (ii) there was a register effect in the American English data in that NC was rated less appropriate in formal than informal contexts. Our study is the first to provide experimental evidence for the register-sensitivity of NC constructions in American English.

@book{schneider_american_1989,
	address = {Tuscaloosa, AL},
	title = {American earlier {Black} {English}: {Morphological} and syntactic variables},
	isbn = {978-0-8173-0436-2},
	shorttitle = {American earlier {Black} {English}},
	language = {engger},
	publisher = {University of Alabama Press},
	author = {Schneider, Edgar W.},
	year = {1989},
	keywords = {Black English, English language, Negative concord, Syntax, United States, morphology},
}

@article{semenenko_involution_2022,
	title = {{INVOLUTION} {OF} {NEGATIVE} {CONCORD} {IN} {EARLY} {MODERN} {ENGLISH}: {A} {SOCIOLINGUISTIC} {ASPECT}},
	issn = {2523-4242, 2414-4797},
	shorttitle = {{INVOLUTION} {OF} {NEGATIVE} {CONCORD} {IN} {EARLY} {MODERN} {ENGLISH}},
	url = {https://sjnpu.com.ua/index.php/journal/article/view/318},
	doi = {10.31392/NPU-nc.series9.2022.24.06},
	abstract = {The paper studies the history of multiple negation in English. The historical development of negation markers follows Jespersen’s Cycle and includes five completed stages that cover the transfer from the [+NC] model in Old English via [-NC]/[+NC] in Middle English and Early Modern English to [+NC] in Present-Day English. The loss of negative concord in the Early Modern English period was due to a change in the deep structure of the propositional negation. Northern dialects, where contacts with the Scandinavian languages were the most intensive, are a possible source of accelerating the emergence of the rule for non-use of multiple negation in English. However, in the Early Modern English period there is a shift in the leaders of language change, the proponents of the rule being men occupied in professional activities at the royal court in London, especially those who tried to improve their social status, so the involution of multiple negation is a language change ‘from above’. The process was completed in the newly created English standard before the end of the 17th century, although in some non-standard variants, multiple negation continues to be the norm even at present. Prescriptive grammars of the 18th century, therefore, required the use of forms that had already become the usual means for negation marking for the speakers of “standard” English in the previous two centuries.},
	number = {24},
	urldate = {2024-07-19},
	journal = {Scientific Journal of National Pedagogical Dragomanov University. Series 9. Current Trends in Language Development},
	author = {Semenenko, Halyna M.},
	month = dec,
	year = {2022},
}

The paper studies the history of multiple negation in English. The historical development of negation markers follows Jespersen’s Cycle and includes five completed stages that cover the transfer from the [+NC] model in Old English via [-NC]/[+NC] in Middle English and Early Modern English to [+NC] in Present-Day English. The loss of negative concord in the Early Modern English period was due to a change in the deep structure of the propositional negation. Northern dialects, where contacts with the Scandinavian languages were the most intensive, are a possible source of accelerating the emergence of the rule for non-use of multiple negation in English. However, in the Early Modern English period there is a shift in the leaders of language change, the proponents of the rule being men occupied in professional activities at the royal court in London, especially those who tried to improve their social status, so the involution of multiple negation is a language change ‘from above’. The process was completed in the newly created English standard before the end of the 17th century, although in some non-standard variants, multiple negation continues to be the norm even at present. Prescriptive grammars of the 18th century, therefore, required the use of forms that had already become the usual means for negation marking for the speakers of “standard” English in the previous two centuries.

@incollection{adger_explaining_2020,
	title = {Explaining {Variability} in {Negative} {Concord}: {A} {Socio}-{Syntactic} {Analysis}},
	isbn = {9780429282720},
	shorttitle = {Explaining {Variability} in {Negative} {Concord}},
	abstract = {Cheshire’s (1982) seminal study of Reading adolescents revealed robust use of negative concord, a ubiquitous ‘vernacular universal’ of English varieties worldwide. In this chapter we analyse one aspect of the grammar of negative concord in a variety spoken in Scotland: variability in the expression of a sentential negation marker in the presence of a negative noun phrase. We develop a syntactic analysis that accounts for the quantitative patterns in our corpus, which further extends to concrete, and correct, predictions about unobserved forms. Our analysis also has implications for understanding why negative concord is a vernacular universal and accounting for differences in individual speakers’ grammars and their use.},
	booktitle = {Advancing {Socio}-grammatical {Variation} and {Change}},
	publisher = {Routledge},
	author = {Adger, David and Smith, Jennifer},
	year = {2020},
}

Cheshire’s (1982) seminal study of Reading adolescents revealed robust use of negative concord, a ubiquitous ‘vernacular universal’ of English varieties worldwide. In this chapter we analyse one aspect of the grammar of negative concord in a variety spoken in Scotland: variability in the expression of a sentential negation marker in the presence of a negative noun phrase. We develop a syntactic analysis that accounts for the quantitative patterns in our corpus, which further extends to concrete, and correct, predictions about unobserved forms. Our analysis also has implications for understanding why negative concord is a vernacular universal and accounting for differences in individual speakers’ grammars and their use.

@article{smith_negative_2001,
	title = {Negative concord in the {Old} and {New} {World}: {Evidence} from {Scotland}},
	volume = {13},
	issn = {1469-8021},
	shorttitle = {Negative concord in the {Old} and {New} {World}},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0954394501132011},
	doi = {10.1017/S0954394501132011},
	abstract = {In this article, I conduct a quantitative analysis of negative concord in Buckie, a relic dialect from the northeast of Scotland, and compare these findings with transported varieties of English in North America. Two major results arise from the analysis. First, Buckie has high rates of use of negative concord to indeterminates within the same clause, as do all the dialects included in the study. Second, negative concord in other environments is found in certain varieties in the New World that have no counterparts in the Old World. I suggest that the quantitative similarities can be explained in terms of the primitive status of negative concord in vernacular varieties of English, in combination with a shared linguistic heritage during the colonial period. The qualitative differences demonstrate that contexts of linguistic heterogeneity in North America during the early colonization period led to an extension and restructuring of the original rules.},
	number = {02},
	urldate = {2016-06-13},
	journal = {Language Variation and Change},
	author = {Smith, Jennifer},
	month = jul,
	year = {2001},
	keywords = {Negative concord},
	pages = {109--134},
}

In this article, I conduct a quantitative analysis of negative concord in Buckie, a relic dialect from the northeast of Scotland, and compare these findings with transported varieties of English in North America. Two major results arise from the analysis. First, Buckie has high rates of use of negative concord to indeterminates within the same clause, as do all the dialects included in the study. Second, negative concord in other environments is found in certain varieties in the New World that have no counterparts in the Old World. I suggest that the quantitative similarities can be explained in terms of the primitive status of negative concord in vernacular varieties of English, in combination with a shared linguistic heritage during the colonial period. The qualitative differences demonstrate that contexts of linguistic heterogeneity in North America during the early colonization period led to an extension and restructuring of the original rules.

@article{tortora_subject_2010,
	title = {Subject agreement variation: {Support} for the configurational approach},
	volume = {120},
	issn = {0024-3841},
	shorttitle = {Formalising syntactic {variabilitySubject} agreement variation},
	url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384109001090},
	doi = {10.1016/j.lingua.2009.04.004},
	abstract = {In this paper we argue that variation in subject-verb agreement in Belfast English and Appalachian English bears on a number of issues that are relevant to current syntactic theory, including clause structure and subject positions, case, the syntax of negative polarity items and negative concord and the structure of the DP. We show that while the nature of the subject plays a role in determining subject-verb agreement in the two varieties (in different ways), subject position is the overt structural manifestation of the differing properties of the subject, independent of which properties are relevant in the variety in question. Our proposal on subject positions, which goes beyond what Henry (1995) proposed for Belfast English, is able to capture clusters of properties not discussed by Henry, and thus more fully accounts for the range of micro-parametric variation we find. This paper thus provides support for a configurational approach to subject-verb agreement.},
	number = {5},
	urldate = {2016-06-14},
	journal = {Lingua},
	author = {Tortora, Christina and Dikken, Marcel den},
	month = may,
	year = {2010},
	keywords = {Correlations, Negative concord, Negative inversion, Negative polarity item (NPI), Singular concord, Subject–verb agreement},
	pages = {1089--1108},
}

In this paper we argue that variation in subject-verb agreement in Belfast English and Appalachian English bears on a number of issues that are relevant to current syntactic theory, including clause structure and subject positions, case, the syntax of negative polarity items and negative concord and the structure of the DP. We show that while the nature of the subject plays a role in determining subject-verb agreement in the two varieties (in different ways), subject position is the overt structural manifestation of the differing properties of the subject, independent of which properties are relevant in the variety in question. Our proposal on subject positions, which goes beyond what Henry (1995) proposed for Belfast English, is able to capture clusters of properties not discussed by Henry, and thus more fully accounts for the range of micro-parametric variation we find. This paper thus provides support for a configurational approach to subject-verb 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},
}

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.

@incollection{henry_acquisition_1997,
	address = {Somerville, MA},
	title = {The acquisition of negative concord in non-standard {English}},
	volume = {1},
	isbn = {978-1-57473-022-7 978-1-57473-020-3},
	language = {English},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 21st {Annual} {Boston} {University} {Conference} on {Language} {Development} ({BUCLD})},
	publisher = {Cascadilla Press},
	author = {Henry, Alison and Maclaren, Rose and Wilson, John and Finlay, Cathy},
	editor = {Hughes, Elizabeth and Hughes, Mary and Greenhill, Annabel},
	year = {1997},
	keywords = {Negative concord},
	pages = {269--280},
}

@book{wolfram_appalachian_1976,
	address = {Washington, D.C.},
	title = {Appalachian speech},
	isbn = {978-0-87281-050-1},
	publisher = {Center for Applied Linguistics},
	author = {Wolfram, Walt and Christian, Donna},
	year = {1976},
	keywords = {A-prefixing, Appalachian Region, Southern, Dialects, Embedded inversion, English language, Expletive they, Multiple modals, Negative concord, Negative inversion, Personal datives, Positive anymore, Split subjects, United States},
}

@article{zanuttini_our_2014,
	title = {Our language prejudices don’t make no sense},
	url = {http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/language-prejudices-dont-make-sense-negative-aks-ask-racist-92881},
	abstract = {We should embrace the fact that there’s no single recipe for English. Making fun of people for replacing “ask” with “aks,” or for frequently using double negatives just makes you look like the unsophisticated one.},
	urldate = {2015-04-15},
	journal = {Pacific Standard},
	author = {Zanuttini, Raffaella},
	month = oct,
	year = {2014},
	keywords = {Negative concord},
}

We should embrace the fact that there’s no single recipe for English. Making fun of people for replacing “ask” with “aks,” or for frequently using double negatives just makes you look like the unsophisticated one.