Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7f7b94f6bd-9g8ph Total loading time: 0.899 Render date: 2022-06-30T08:00:55.648Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Transatlantic perspectives on variation in negative expressions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 September 2018

CLAIRE CHILDS
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York, Heslington, YorkYO10 5DD, UK, claire.childs@york.ac.uk
CHRISTOPHER HARVEY
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Sidney Smith Hall, 4th Floor, 100 St George Street, Toronto, OntarioM5S 3G3, Canada, c.harvey@mail.utoronto.ca
KAREN P. CORRIGAN
Affiliation:
School of English Literature, Language and Linguistics, Percy Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK, k.p.corrigan@ncl.ac.uk
SALI A. TAGLIAMONTE
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Sidney Smith Hall, 4th Floor, 100 St George Street, Toronto, OntarioM5S 3G3, Canada, sali.tagliamonte@utoronto.ca

Abstract

Negation with indefinite items in English can be expressed in three ways: any-negation (I didn’t have any money), no-negation (I had no money) and negative concord (I didn’t have no money). These variants have persisted over time, with some studies suggesting that the newest variant, any-negation, is increasing at the expense of no-negation (Tottie 1991a, 1991b). Others suggest that although this variable was undergoing change in earlier centuries, it is stable in Modern English (Wallage 2017). This article examines the current state of the variability in four communities within two distinctive English-speaking regions: Toronto and Belleville in Ontario, Canada, and Tyneside and York in Northern England. Our comparative quantitative analysis of speech corpora from these communities shows that the rates of no-negation vary between Northern England and Ontario, but the variation is largely stable and primarily conditioned by verb type in a robust effect that holds cross-dialectally: functional verbs retain no-negation, while lexical verbs favour any. The social embedding of the variability varies between the communities, but they share a common variable grammar.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article is a thoroughly revised and redeveloped version of our earlier working paper published in the University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 21(2), 2015. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Economic and Social Research Council’s North East Doctoral Training Centre (for an award granted to the first author), the Arts and Humanities Research Council (for awards granted to the second author) and the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK and the Social Science and Humanities Council of Canada (for awards granted to the fourth author). We would also like to thank Jack Chambers, Elizabeth Cowper, Anders Holmberg, Heike Pichler, Jennifer Smith, Jennifer Thorburn, Joel Wallenberg and Hedde Zeijlstra for comments and discussion on this variable over the past few years, as well as audiences at NWAV43 (Chicago), ICLaVE8 (Leipzig) and ICAME36 (Trier). Many thanks also go to the DECTE project team for access to the Tyneside data.

References

Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2002. Negation in non-standard British English: Gaps, regularizations and asymmetries. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2005. Negative concord in British English dialects. In Iyeiri (ed.), 113–37.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayley, Robert, Greer, Kirsten & Holland, Cory. 2013. Lexical frequency and syntactic variation: A test of a linguistic hypothesis. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 19, 2130.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C., Burbano-Elizondo, Lourdes & Llamas, Carmen. 2012. Urban North-Eastern English: Tyneside to Teesside. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Berdan, Robert. 1980. Have/Got in the speech of Anglo and Black children. In Joey L. Dillard (ed.), Perspectives on American English, 377392. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Boberg, Charles. 2010. The English language in Canada: Status, history and comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle & Corrigan, Karen P. 2015. Morphosyntactic features of Northern English. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Researching Northern English, 7198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, Heather, Koopman, Hilda & Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2018. Structural explanations in syntactic variation: The evolution of English negative and polarity indefinites. Language Variation and Change 30, 83107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul. 2001. Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 1991. Canada. In Jenny Cheshire (ed.), English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives, 89107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 1982. Variation in an English dialect: A sociolinguistic study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, Claire. 2016. Variation and change in English negation: A cross-dialectal perspective. PhD dissertation, Newcastle University.Google Scholar
Childs, Claire. 2017. Integrating syntactic theory and variationist analysis: The structure of negative indefinites in regional dialects of British English. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1), article 106. 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrigan, Karen P., Buchstaller, Isabelle, Mearns, Adam J. & Moisl, Hermann L.. 2010–12. A linguistic ‘time-capsule’ for the Google generation: The Diachronic Electronic Corpus of Tyneside English. http://research.ncl.ac.uk/decte/ (accessed 2 May 2017).Google Scholar
Cowan, Helen I. 1961. British emigration to British North America: The first hundred years, revised and enlarged edn. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra & Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2010. Prestige, accommodation, and the legacy of relative who. Language in Society 39, 383410.Google Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2006. Oh Canada! Towards the Corpus of Early Ontario English. In Antoinette Renouf & Andrew Kehoe (eds.), The changing face of corpus linguistics, 726. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 1989. Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic variation as social practice. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Elliott, Bruce S. 2004. Regional patterns of English immigration and settlement in Upper Canada. In Barbara J. Messamore (ed.), Canadian migration patterns from Britain and North America, 5190. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Erker, Daniel & Guy, Gregory R.. 2012. The role of lexical frequency in syntactic variability: Variable subject personal pronoun expression in Spanish. Language 88, 526557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filppula., Markku. 1999. The grammar of Irish English: Language in Hibernian style. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Filppula, Markku. 2008. Irish English: Morphology and syntax. In Bernd Kortmann & Clive Upton (eds.), Varieties of English: The British Isles, 328359. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Francis, Winthrop N. & Kučera, Henry. 1982. Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Grieve-Smith, Angus B. 2009. The spread of change in French negation. PhD dissertation, University of New Mexico.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1984. Syntactic variation and dialect divergence. Journal of Linguistics 20, 303327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, Chris. 2013. ‘Any’ and ‘no’ negation in Southern Ontario English. Oral presentation at New Ways of Analyzing Variation 42 (NWAV42), Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Howe, Darin. 2005. Negation in African American Vernacular English. In Iyeiri (ed.), 173–203.Google Scholar
Huby, Meg, Bradshaw, Jonathan & Corden, Anne (eds.). 1999. A study of town life: Living standards in the city of York 100 years after Rowntree. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Ingham, Richard. 2013. Negation in the history of English. In Willis, Lucas & Breitbarth (eds.), 119–50.Google Scholar
Iyeiri, Yoko. 2001. Negative constructions in Middle English. Fukuoka: Kyushu University Press.Google Scholar
Iyeiri, Yoko (ed.). 2005. Aspects of English negation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jack, George B. 1978. Negative concord in Early Middle English. Studia Neophilologica 50, 2939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Daniel E. 2009. Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3, 359383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1998. Overt vs covert movement. Syntax 1, 128191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972a. Negative attraction and negative concord in English grammar. Language 48, 773818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972b. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Erez, Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Jackson, Joe, Tang, Tina & Nowak, Martin A.. 2007. Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language. Nature 449, 713716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzon, Gabriella. 2004. A history of English negation. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2001. The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1998. Social mobility and the decline of multiple negation in Early Modern English. In Jacek Fisiak & Marcin Krygier (eds.), Advances in historical linguistics, 263291. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2006. Historical sociolinguistics and language change. In Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 558588. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2006. Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2003. Between epistemic modality and degree: The case of really. In Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank R. Palmer (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 191220. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Peters, Pam. 2008. Patterns of negation: The relationship between no and not in regional varieties of English. In Terttu Nevalainen, Irma Taavitsainen, Päivi Pahta & Minna Korhonen (eds.), The dynamics of linguistic variation: Corpus evidence on English past and present, 147162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, Pam & Funk, Yasmin. 2009. No in the lexicogrammar of English. In Pam Peters, Peter Collins & Adam Smith (eds.), Comparative studies in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and beyond, 225241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pichler, Heike. 2013. The structure of discourse-pragmatic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365424.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Isn’t it? or is it not? On the order of postverbal subject and negative particle in the history of English. In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Gunnel Tottie & Wim van der Wurff (eds.), Negation in the history of English, 189205. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 2000. Standardisation and the language of early statutes. In Laura Wright (ed.), The development of Standard English, 1300-1800: Theories, descriptions, conflicts, 117130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Fred. 2002. The North East: A journey through time. City 6, 317333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne. 2000. I dunno: A usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don’t in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 105124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Jennifer. 2000. ‘You ø na hear o’ that kind o’ things’: Negative do in Buckie Scots. English World-Wide 21, 231259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Jennifer. 2001. Negative concord in the Old and New World: Evidence from Scotland. Language Variation and Change 13, 109134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2002. Strains of negation in Norwegian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 69, 121146.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 1996–1998. Roots of identity: Variation and grammaticization in contemporary British English. Research Grant. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) of Great Britain. Reference #000221842. http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 1998. Was/were variation across the generations: View from the city of York. Language Variation and Change 10, 153191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2003. ‘Every place has a different toll’: Determinants of grammatical variation in cross-variety perspective. In Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 531554. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2003–6. Linguistic changes in Canada entering the 21st century. Research Grant. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). Reference #410-2003-0005. http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2013. Roots of English: Exploring the history of dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Denis, Derek. 2014. Expanding the transmission/diffusion dichotomy: Evidence from Canada. Language 90, 90136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 1997. Negation in Sarah Fielding’s letters. In Udo Fries, Viviane Müller & Peter Schneider (eds.), From Ælfric to the New York Times: Studies in English corpus linguistics, 183195. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. 1991a. Lexical diffusion in syntactic change: Frequency as a determinant of linguistic conservatism in the development of negation in English. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Historical English syntax, 439468. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. 1991b. Negation in English speech and writing: A study in variation. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2012. English dialects in the north of England. In Bernd Kortmann & Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds.), The Mouton world atlas of variation in English, 70–7. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tubau, Susagna. 2016. Lexical variation and negative concord in traditional dialects of British English. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 19, 143177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Herk, Gerard. 2012. What is sociolinguistics? Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans. 2000. Jespersen’s cycle revisited. In Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas & Anthony Warner (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms, 5174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wallage, Phillip. 2012. Quantitative evidence for a feature-based account of grammaticalisation in English: Jespersen’s cycle. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth C. Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 721734. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wallage, Phillip. 2015. Identifying the role of pragmatic activation in changes to the expression of English negation. In Pierre Larrivée & Chungmin Lee (eds.), Negation and polarity: Experimental perspectives, 199227. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Wallage, Phillip. 2017. Negation in early English: Grammatical and functional change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Randall. 1996. Ontario 1610–1985: A political and economic history. Toronto: Dundurn Press.Google Scholar
Willis, David, Lucas, Christopher & Breitbarth, Anne. 2013. Comparing diachronies of negation. In Willis, Lucas & Breitbarth (eds.), 1–50.Google Scholar
Willis, David, Lucas, Christopher & Breitbarth, Anne (eds.). 2013. The history of negation in the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2004. Sentential negation and negative concord. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2011. On the syntactically complex status of negative indefinites. Journal of Comparative German Linguistics 14, 111138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Transatlantic perspectives on variation in negative expressions
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Transatlantic perspectives on variation in negative expressions
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Transatlantic perspectives on variation in negative expressions
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *