Nicholas Sobin.
The lexical source of BIN and habitual be in \textlessspan style="font-variant:small-caps;"\textgreaterAfrican American English\textless/span\textgreater.
Syntax,synt.12269. February 2024.
Paper
doi
link
bibtex
abstract
@article{sobin_lexical_2024,
title = {The lexical source of \textit{{BIN}} and habitual \textit{be} in {\textless}span style="font-variant:small-caps;"{\textgreater}{African} {American} {English}{\textless}/span{\textgreater}},
issn = {1368-0005, 1467-9612},
shorttitle = {The lexical source of \textit{{BIN}} and habitual \textit{be} in {\textless}span style="font-variant},
url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/synt.12269},
doi = {10.1111/synt.12269},
abstract = {Abstract
Although various works on African American English (AAE) offer significant and insightful analyses of the semantic interpretation of its aspectual elements, including in particular stressed remote past
BIN
and habitual
be
(
be
hab
), the syntactic analysis of these elements is problematic.
BIN
and
be
hab
are claimed to be invariant lexical elements with fixed semantic values, and to not interact with INFL (Tense) as auxiliaries do, thus not displaying subject–verb agreement or undergoing any operations typical of finite auxiliaries. However, considerations including syntactic positioning, accompanying auxiliaries, patterns of verb affixation, and the formation of active and passive sentences point instead to
BIN
and
be
hab
being in most instances phonetic manifestations of any of the various ordinary auxiliary verbs
be
(progressive, passive, and copular), elements of the system of auxiliaries common to both AAE and Mainstream American English (MAE). The surface forms
BIN
and
be
are sufficient to trigger their special meanings in logical representation. Semantically dedicated lexical elements are unnecessary. The various interpretations of sentences containing these forms are due to constructional semantic interpretation of various combinations of surface elements. This analysis further reveals the existence of another AAE innovation, a fourth auxiliary verb
be
unique to AAE indicating simple past.},
language = {en},
urldate = {2024-07-19},
journal = {Syntax},
author = {Sobin, Nicholas},
month = feb,
year = {2024},
pages = {synt.12269},
}
Abstract Although various works on African American English (AAE) offer significant and insightful analyses of the semantic interpretation of its aspectual elements, including in particular stressed remote past BIN and habitual be ( be hab ), the syntactic analysis of these elements is problematic. BIN and be hab are claimed to be invariant lexical elements with fixed semantic values, and to not interact with INFL (Tense) as auxiliaries do, thus not displaying subject–verb agreement or undergoing any operations typical of finite auxiliaries. However, considerations including syntactic positioning, accompanying auxiliaries, patterns of verb affixation, and the formation of active and passive sentences point instead to BIN and be hab being in most instances phonetic manifestations of any of the various ordinary auxiliary verbs be (progressive, passive, and copular), elements of the system of auxiliaries common to both AAE and Mainstream American English (MAE). The surface forms BIN and be are sufficient to trigger their special meanings in logical representation. Semantically dedicated lexical elements are unnecessary. The various interpretations of sentences containing these forms are due to constructional semantic interpretation of various combinations of surface elements. This analysis further reveals the existence of another AAE innovation, a fourth auxiliary verb be unique to AAE indicating simple past.