Negative inversion in standard english

  1. Muñoz Martín, Lucía 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Burgos
    info

    Universidad de Burgos

    Burgos, España

    ROR https://ror.org/049da5t36

Revue:
Odisea: Revista de estudios ingleses

ISSN: 1578-3820

Année de publication: 2020

Número: 21

Pages: 125-140

Type: Article

DOI: 10.25115/ODISEA.V0I20.3632 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccès ouvert editor

D'autres publications dans: Odisea: Revista de estudios ingleses

Résumé

This paper takes a descriptive approach to several  properties of Negative Inversion (NI) in Standard English found controversial in prescriptive writings, comparing what has been previously written in the literature with real native English speakers’ grammaticality judgements gathered via a questionnaire. These topics include the disagreement on the optionality of subject-auxiliary (subj-aux) inversion, the different approaches to an accurate syntax analysis, whether NI behaves as a Root Phenomenon (RT) or not,  and the inaccurate classification of Only Inversion as a subtype of NI.

Références bibliographiques

  • Authier, M. 1992. Iterated CPs and Embedded Topicalization. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 23, No. 2, 329-336. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178771
  • BBC World Service. 2018. “Learning English”. BBC World Service. Accessed May 17, 2018.
  • Branigan, P. 2005. The Phase Theoretic Basis for Subject-Aux Inversion. Canada: Memorial University.
  • Büring, D. 2004. Negative Inversion. Pre-final draft. NELS.
  • Business English. “Inversion”. https://www.businessenglish.com/grammar/inversion.html?lang=eng. Accessed May 17, 2018.
  • Collins, C. & Postal, P.. 2014. Classical NEG Raising An Essay on the Syntax of Negation. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England.
  • Cormack, A. & Smith, N.. 2000. Fronting: The Syntax and Pragmatics of ‘Focus’ and ‘Topic’. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 12. 387-416.
  • Culicover, P. W. 2013. Explaining Syntax: Representations, Structures and Computation. Oxford Linguistics.
  • De Clercq, K. 2010. NEG-shift in English: Evidence from PP-adjuncts. Ghent University/ GIST/ FWO-Odysseus Project.
  • Emonds, J. E. 1964. Root and Structure-Preserving Transformations. M.A., University of Kansas.
  • Francis, N. 2017. Modal Scope in Negative Inversion Constructions. Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed.Aaron Kaplan et al., 214-221. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  • Haegeman, L. 2000. Negative Prepposing, Negative Inversion, and the Split CP. In Negation and polarity: syntactic and semantic perspectives, eds. L. Horn and Y. Kato, 21-61. Oxford: Oxford. University Press.
  • Haegeman, L. & Guerón, J.. 1999. English Grammar: A Generative Perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Hooper, J. B. & Thomson, S A. 1973. On the Applicability of Root Transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol 4, No. 4. 465-497. The MIT Press.
  • Horn, L R. (1996) Exclusive Company: Only and the Dynamics of Vertical Inference. Journal of Semantics, 13. DOI: 10.1093/jos/13.1.1
  • Jacobsson, B. 1986. Another Look at Negatively Conditioned Subject-Operator Inversion in English. Studia Linguistica, 402.
  • Jiménez-Fernández, Á. L. 2018. Negative Preposing: Intervention and Parametric Variation in Complement Clauses. Atlantis.
  • Maekawa, T. 2007. Preposed Negative Expressions. The English Left Periphery in Linearisation-based HPSG. (pp. 155-197). University of Essex.
  • Pool, J. 2004. Embedded Negative Inversion as Encapsulation. University of Washington.
  • Radford, A. 2009. Analysing English Sentences, A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge University Press.
  • Rizzi, L. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane. (ed.) Elements of Grammar. Kluwer International Handbooks of Linguistics. Springer, Dordrecht.
  • Sobin, N. 2003. Negative inversion as nonmovement. Syntax, 6, 183-212.
  • Williams, P. 2018. “How to start a sentence with ‘only after / when / if’”. Accessed May, 17 2018
La source de données: Dialnet