Functional differentiation and grammatical competition in the English Jespersen Cycle

Wallage argues for a model of the Middle English Jespersen Cycle in which each of its diachronic stages are functionally equivalent competitors in the sense proposed by Kroch. However, recent work on the Jespersen Cycle in various Romance languages by Schwenter, Hansen and Hansen & Visconti has argued that the forms in competition during the Jespersen Cycle are not simply diachronic stages, but perform diUerent pragmatic or discourse functions. Hansen and Hansen & Visconti suggest that functional change may therefore underpin the Jespersen Cycle in these languages. Hence this paper explores the interface between pragmatic or functional change, and change in the syntax of sentential negation. Analysis of data from the PPPCME? (Kroch & Taylor) show that ne (stage one) and ne. . . not(stage two) are similarly functionally diUerentiated during the ME Jespersen Cycle: ne. . . not is favoured in propositions that are discourse-old (given, or recoverable from the preceding discourse), whereas ne is favoured in propositions that are discourse-new. Frequency data appear to show the loss of these constraints over time. However, I argue that these frequency data are not conclusive evidence for a shift in the functions of ne or ne. . . not. Indeed, the results of a regression analysis indicate that these discourse constraints remain constant throughout Middle English, in spite of the overall spread of ne. . . not as the Jespersen Cycle progresses. Therefore, I conclude the spread of ne. . . not is independent of these particular discourse constraints on its use, rather than the result of changes in, or loss of, these constraints

Negative inversion, negative concord and sentential negation in the history of English

It is claimed in van Kemenade (2000: 62) that clauses with initial negative constituents are a context in which subject–verb inversion occurs throughout the history of English. However, different patterns of negative inversion are seen at different periods of English. I argue that changes in the availability of negative inversion reflect changes in the way sentential scope for negation is marked in negative concord constructions. Thus, negative concord involving Middle and Early Modern English not does not co-occur with negative inversion, but negative concord involving Middle English ne does. Changes to negative inversion can be seen to parallel changes in the way sentential scope negation is expressed at successive stages of the Middle English Jespersen Cycle. I propose that the changes to negative inversion and Jespersen's Cycle should both be analysed as changes in the ability of negative items to mark sentential scope for negation. This observation can be formalised within a Minimalist framework as variation in the LF-interpretability of negative features, following the account of Jespersen's Cycle proposed by Wallage (2008)

'Pragmatics and discourse analysis' [Review]

Review of work in 201

Negation in Early English: Grammatical and Functional Change

Informed by detailed analysis of data from large-scale diachronic corpora, this book is a comprehensive account of changes to the expression of negation in English. Its methodological approach brings together up-to-date techniques from corpus linguistics and minimalist syntactic analysis to identify and characterise a series of interrelated changes affecting negation during the period 800–1700. Phillip Wallage uses cutting-edge statistical techniques and large-scale corpora to model changes in English negation over a period of nine hundred years. These models provide crucial empirical evidence which reveals the specific processes of syntactic and functional change affecting early English negation, and identifies diachronic relationships between these processes