@book{bailey_emergence_1991,
	address = {Amsterdam ; Philadelphia},
	series = {Creole language library},
	title = {The {Emergence} of {Black} {English}: text and commentary},
	isbn = {978-1-55619-161-9 978-90-272-5228-9},
	shorttitle = {The {Emergence} of {Black} {English}},
	number = {v. 8},
	publisher = {J. Benjamins Pub. Co},
	author = {Bailey, Guy and Maynor, Natalie and Cukor-Avila, Patricia},
	year = {1991},
	keywords = {African Americans, Americanisms, Black English, Creole dialects, English, English language, History, Language, Languages, Negative inversion, Slaves, Texts, United States},
}

@book{chesnutt_stories_2002,
	address = {New York},
	series = {Library of {America} series},
	title = {Stories, novels \& essays},
	isbn = {978-1-931082-06-8},
	number = {131},
	publisher = {Library of America},
	author = {Chesnutt, Charles W.},
	year = {2002},
	keywords = {African Americans, Fiction, Negative inversion},
}

@book{wolfram_appalachian_1976,
	address = {Arlington, VA},
	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},
}

@book{bailey_emergence_1991,
	address = {Amsterdam ; Philadelphia},
	series = {Creole language library},
	title = {The {Emergence} of {Black} {English}: text and commentary},
	isbn = {978-1-55619-161-9 978-90-272-5228-9},
	shorttitle = {The {Emergence} of {Black} {English}},
	number = {v. 8},
	publisher = {J. Benjamins Pub. Co},
	author = {Bailey, Guy and Maynor, Natalie and Cukor-Avila, Patricia},
	year = {1991},
	keywords = {African Americans, Americanisms, Black English, Creole dialects, English, English language, History, Language, Languages, Negative inversion, Slaves, Texts, United States},
}

@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},
}

@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

@incollection{green_force_2014,
	address = {Oxford},
	series = {Oxford {Studies} in {Comparative} {Syntax}},
	title = {Force, focus, and negation in {African} {American} {English}},
	booktitle = {Micro-syntactic variation in {North} {American} {English}},
	publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	author = {Green, Lisa},
	editor = {Zanuttini, Raffaella and Horn, Laurence R.},
	year = {2014},
	keywords = {English language, Negative inversion, Syntax, Variation},
	pages = {115--142},
}

@unpublished{green_negative_2010,
	address = {Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts},
	title = {Negative {Inversion} in {African} {American} {English}: {Evidence} from child language},
	author = {Green, Lisa},
	month = mar,
	year = {2010},
	note = {Handout of a talk presented at the Department of Linguistics, UNC Chapel Hill, March 26.},
	keywords = {Negative inversion},
}

@book{green_language_2011,
	address = {Cambridge},
	title = {Language and the {African} {American} child},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	author = {Green, Lisa J.},
	year = {2011},
	keywords = {Negative inversion, Split subjects},
}

@unpublished{green_negative_2008,
	address = {Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts},
	title = {Negative {Inversion} and negative focus},
	author = {Green, Lisa},
	month = apr,
	year = {2008},
	note = {Handout of a talk presented at the Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University, April 10.},
	keywords = {Negative inversion},
}

@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{montgomery_grammar_2004,
	address = {Knoxville},
	title = {Grammar and syntax of {Smoky} {Mountain} {English}},
	isbn = {978-1-57233-222-5},
	booktitle = {Dictionary of {Smoky} {Mountain} {English}},
	publisher = {University of Tennessee Press},
	author = {Montgomery, Michael and Hall, Joseph S.},
	year = {2004},
	keywords = {2016 Seminar, Americanisms, Dative presentatives, Dialects Glossaries, vocabularies, etc, English language, Great Smoky Mountains (N.C. and Tenn.), Negative inversion, Split subjects, Subject–verb agreement},
	pages = {xxxv--lxv},
}

@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},
}

@phdthesis{martin_topics_1992,
	address = {College Park, MD},
	type = {{PhD} dissertation},
	title = {Topics in the syntax of nonstandard {English}},
	school = {University of Maryland},
	author = {Martin, Stefan Edmund},
	year = {1992},
	keywords = {Done, Negative inversion},
}

@article{martin_negative_1993,
	title = {"{Negative} inversion" sentences in {Southern} {White} {English} {Vernacular} and {Black} {English} {Vernacular}},
	volume = {1},
	journal = {University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics},
	author = {Martin, Stefan},
	year = {1993},
	keywords = {Done, Negative inversion},
	pages = {49--56},
}

@incollection{martin_sentence_1998,
	address = {London},
	title = {The sentence in {African}-{American} {Vernacular} {English}},
	isbn = {978-0-415-11732-6 978-0-415-11733-3},
	booktitle = {African-{American} {English}: {Structure}, history and use},
	publisher = {Routledge},
	author = {Martin, Stefan and Wolfram, Walt},
	editor = {Mufwene, Salikoko S. and Rickford, John R. and Bailey, Guy and Baugh, John},
	year = {1998},
	keywords = {African Americans, Americanisms, Black English, Done, English language, Language, Negative inversion, Social aspects, United States},
	pages = {11--36},
}

@book{bailey_emergence_1991,
	address = {Amsterdam ; Philadelphia},
	series = {Creole language library},
	title = {The {Emergence} of {Black} {English}: text and commentary},
	isbn = {978-1-55619-161-9 978-90-272-5228-9},
	shorttitle = {The {Emergence} of {Black} {English}},
	number = {v. 8},
	publisher = {J. Benjamins Pub. Co},
	author = {Bailey, Guy and Maynor, Natalie and Cukor-Avila, Patricia},
	year = {1991},
	keywords = {African Americans, Americanisms, Black English, Creole dialects, English, English language, History, Language, Languages, Negative inversion, Slaves, Texts, United States},
}

@incollection{montgomery_grammar_2004,
	address = {Knoxville},
	title = {Grammar and syntax of {Smoky} {Mountain} {English}},
	isbn = {978-1-57233-222-5},
	booktitle = {Dictionary of {Smoky} {Mountain} {English}},
	publisher = {University of Tennessee Press},
	author = {Montgomery, Michael and Hall, Joseph S.},
	year = {2004},
	keywords = {2016 Seminar, Americanisms, Dative presentatives, Dialects Glossaries, vocabularies, etc, English language, Great Smoky Mountains (N.C. and Tenn.), Negative inversion, Split subjects, Subject–verb agreement},
	pages = {xxxv--lxv},
}

@incollection{parrott_negative_2000,
	address = {Fresno},
	title = {Negative inversion in {African} {American} {Vernacular} {English}: {A} case of optional movement?},
	volume = {11},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the twenty-eighth {Western} {Conference} on {Linguistics} ({WECOL} 99)},
	publisher = {Department of Linguistics, California State University},
	author = {Parrott, Jeffrey},
	editor = {Antrim, Nancy Mae and Goodall, Grant and Schulte-Nafeh, Martha and Samiian, Vida},
	year = {2000},
	keywords = {Done, Negative inversion},
	pages = {414--427},
}

@article{sells_optimality_1996,
	title = {An {Optimality} {Theoretic} approach to variation in negative inversion in {AAVE}},
	volume = {14},
	issn = {0167-806X},
	abstract = {Examples like 'Can't nobody beat 'em.' ('Nobody can beat them.') in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) have the inverted form of questions but the falling intonation and sentence meaning of (emphatic) declaratives. Labov et al. (1968) concluded that this phenomenon of 'negative inversion' (NI) requires two overlapping but distinct syntactic analyses. Recasting them in current terms, these proposals are Aux-to-Comp movement, as in subject-auxiliary inversion in interrogatives, and a non-movement structure containing a null expletive subject. Two explanatory problems arise with the view that Labov et al. present: (i) why the single phenomenon of NI should find its expression in two distinct structures and (ii) why this inversion phenomenon is restricted to negative sentences. Using ideas from Optimality Theory, we develop a syntactic account of the NI data that also directly addresses problems (i) and (ii). We show that the relevant aspects of the syntax of AAVE and Standard English (SE) can be accounted for in terms of the different rankings of three relevant constraints. The account is driven in part by consideration of an apparent change since the 1960's in the acceptability of NI examples in embedded clauses. Some problems which our research raises, but does not fully resolve, include a complete analysis of the function of NI structures, the explanation for the quantitative favoring of inverted over non-inverted structures, and the extent to which negative inversion in AAVE has changed since the 1960's, in particular whether it has become closer to similar structures found in SE.},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2016-06-23},
	journal = {Natural Language \& Linguistic Theory},
	author = {Sells, Peter and Rickford, John and Wasow, Thomas},
	year = {1996},
	keywords = {Done, Negative inversion},
	pages = {591--627},
}

Examples like 'Can't nobody beat 'em.' ('Nobody can beat them.') in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) have the inverted form of questions but the falling intonation and sentence meaning of (emphatic) declaratives. Labov et al. (1968) concluded that this phenomenon of 'negative inversion' (NI) requires two overlapping but distinct syntactic analyses. Recasting them in current terms, these proposals are Aux-to-Comp movement, as in subject-auxiliary inversion in interrogatives, and a non-movement structure containing a null expletive subject. Two explanatory problems arise with the view that Labov et al. present: (i) why the single phenomenon of NI should find its expression in two distinct structures and (ii) why this inversion phenomenon is restricted to negative sentences. Using ideas from Optimality Theory, we develop a syntactic account of the NI data that also directly addresses problems (i) and (ii). We show that the relevant aspects of the syntax of AAVE and Standard English (SE) can be accounted for in terms of the different rankings of three relevant constraints. The account is driven in part by consideration of an apparent change since the 1960's in the acceptability of NI examples in embedded clauses. Some problems which our research raises, but does not fully resolve, include a complete analysis of the function of NI structures, the explanation for the quantitative favoring of inverted over non-inverted structures, and the extent to which negative inversion in AAVE has changed since the 1960's, in particular whether it has become closer to similar structures found in SE.

@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},
}

@unpublished{salmon_negative_2017,
	title = {Negative {Auxiliaries} and {Absent} {Expletives} in {Vernacular} {Texas} {English}},
	author = {Salmon, William},
	month = feb,
	year = {2017},
	keywords = {Negative inversion},
}

@article{sells_optimality_1996,
	title = {An {Optimality} {Theoretic} approach to variation in negative inversion in {AAVE}},
	volume = {14},
	issn = {0167-806X},
	abstract = {Examples like 'Can't nobody beat 'em.' ('Nobody can beat them.') in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) have the inverted form of questions but the falling intonation and sentence meaning of (emphatic) declaratives. Labov et al. (1968) concluded that this phenomenon of 'negative inversion' (NI) requires two overlapping but distinct syntactic analyses. Recasting them in current terms, these proposals are Aux-to-Comp movement, as in subject-auxiliary inversion in interrogatives, and a non-movement structure containing a null expletive subject. Two explanatory problems arise with the view that Labov et al. present: (i) why the single phenomenon of NI should find its expression in two distinct structures and (ii) why this inversion phenomenon is restricted to negative sentences. Using ideas from Optimality Theory, we develop a syntactic account of the NI data that also directly addresses problems (i) and (ii). We show that the relevant aspects of the syntax of AAVE and Standard English (SE) can be accounted for in terms of the different rankings of three relevant constraints. The account is driven in part by consideration of an apparent change since the 1960's in the acceptability of NI examples in embedded clauses. Some problems which our research raises, but does not fully resolve, include a complete analysis of the function of NI structures, the explanation for the quantitative favoring of inverted over non-inverted structures, and the extent to which negative inversion in AAVE has changed since the 1960's, in particular whether it has become closer to similar structures found in SE.},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2016-06-23},
	journal = {Natural Language \& Linguistic Theory},
	author = {Sells, Peter and Rickford, John and Wasow, Thomas},
	year = {1996},
	keywords = {Done, Negative inversion},
	pages = {591--627},
}

Examples like 'Can't nobody beat 'em.' ('Nobody can beat them.') in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) have the inverted form of questions but the falling intonation and sentence meaning of (emphatic) declaratives. Labov et al. (1968) concluded that this phenomenon of 'negative inversion' (NI) requires two overlapping but distinct syntactic analyses. Recasting them in current terms, these proposals are Aux-to-Comp movement, as in subject-auxiliary inversion in interrogatives, and a non-movement structure containing a null expletive subject. Two explanatory problems arise with the view that Labov et al. present: (i) why the single phenomenon of NI should find its expression in two distinct structures and (ii) why this inversion phenomenon is restricted to negative sentences. Using ideas from Optimality Theory, we develop a syntactic account of the NI data that also directly addresses problems (i) and (ii). We show that the relevant aspects of the syntax of AAVE and Standard English (SE) can be accounted for in terms of the different rankings of three relevant constraints. The account is driven in part by consideration of an apparent change since the 1960's in the acceptability of NI examples in embedded clauses. Some problems which our research raises, but does not fully resolve, include a complete analysis of the function of NI structures, the explanation for the quantitative favoring of inverted over non-inverted structures, and the extent to which negative inversion in AAVE has changed since the 1960's, in particular whether it has become closer to similar structures found in SE.

@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{sells_optimality_1996,
	title = {An {Optimality} {Theoretic} approach to variation in negative inversion in {AAVE}},
	volume = {14},
	issn = {0167-806X},
	abstract = {Examples like 'Can't nobody beat 'em.' ('Nobody can beat them.') in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) have the inverted form of questions but the falling intonation and sentence meaning of (emphatic) declaratives. Labov et al. (1968) concluded that this phenomenon of 'negative inversion' (NI) requires two overlapping but distinct syntactic analyses. Recasting them in current terms, these proposals are Aux-to-Comp movement, as in subject-auxiliary inversion in interrogatives, and a non-movement structure containing a null expletive subject. Two explanatory problems arise with the view that Labov et al. present: (i) why the single phenomenon of NI should find its expression in two distinct structures and (ii) why this inversion phenomenon is restricted to negative sentences. Using ideas from Optimality Theory, we develop a syntactic account of the NI data that also directly addresses problems (i) and (ii). We show that the relevant aspects of the syntax of AAVE and Standard English (SE) can be accounted for in terms of the different rankings of three relevant constraints. The account is driven in part by consideration of an apparent change since the 1960's in the acceptability of NI examples in embedded clauses. Some problems which our research raises, but does not fully resolve, include a complete analysis of the function of NI structures, the explanation for the quantitative favoring of inverted over non-inverted structures, and the extent to which negative inversion in AAVE has changed since the 1960's, in particular whether it has become closer to similar structures found in SE.},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2016-06-23},
	journal = {Natural Language \& Linguistic Theory},
	author = {Sells, Peter and Rickford, John and Wasow, Thomas},
	year = {1996},
	keywords = {Done, Negative inversion},
	pages = {591--627},
}

Examples like 'Can't nobody beat 'em.' ('Nobody can beat them.') in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) have the inverted form of questions but the falling intonation and sentence meaning of (emphatic) declaratives. Labov et al. (1968) concluded that this phenomenon of 'negative inversion' (NI) requires two overlapping but distinct syntactic analyses. Recasting them in current terms, these proposals are Aux-to-Comp movement, as in subject-auxiliary inversion in interrogatives, and a non-movement structure containing a null expletive subject. Two explanatory problems arise with the view that Labov et al. present: (i) why the single phenomenon of NI should find its expression in two distinct structures and (ii) why this inversion phenomenon is restricted to negative sentences. Using ideas from Optimality Theory, we develop a syntactic account of the NI data that also directly addresses problems (i) and (ii). We show that the relevant aspects of the syntax of AAVE and Standard English (SE) can be accounted for in terms of the different rankings of three relevant constraints. The account is driven in part by consideration of an apparent change since the 1960's in the acceptability of NI examples in embedded clauses. Some problems which our research raises, but does not fully resolve, include a complete analysis of the function of NI structures, the explanation for the quantitative favoring of inverted over non-inverted structures, and the extent to which negative inversion in AAVE has changed since the 1960's, in particular whether it has become closer to similar structures found in SE.

@unpublished{weldon_hpsg_1994,
	address = {Ohio State University},
	title = {An {HPSG} account of negative inversion in {African}-{American} {Vernacular} {English}},
	author = {Weldon, Tracy},
	year = {1994},
	keywords = {Negative inversion},
}

@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{martin_sentence_1998,
	address = {London},
	title = {The sentence in {African}-{American} {Vernacular} {English}},
	isbn = {978-0-415-11732-6 978-0-415-11733-3},
	booktitle = {African-{American} {English}: {Structure}, history and use},
	publisher = {Routledge},
	author = {Martin, Stefan and Wolfram, Walt},
	editor = {Mufwene, Salikoko S. and Rickford, John R. and Bailey, Guy and Baugh, John},
	year = {1998},
	keywords = {African Americans, Americanisms, Black English, Done, English language, Language, Negative inversion, Social aspects, United States},
	pages = {11--36},
}

@book{wolfram_appalachian_1976,
	address = {Arlington, VA},
	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},
}