The History of Low German Negation OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/8/2014, Spi
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/8/2014, SPi The History of Low German Negation OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/8/2014, SPi OXFORD STUDIES IN DIACHRONIC AND HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS general editors Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge advisory editors Cynthia Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge;CharlotteGalves, University of Campinas;GeoffHorrocks,University of Cambridge;PaulKiparsky, Stanford University;AnthonyKroch,University of Pennsylvania;DavidLightfoot, Georgetown University;GiuseppeLongobardi,University of York; David Willis, University of Cambridge recently published in the series 7 Word Order in Old Italian Cecilia Poletto 8 Diachrony and Dialects Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy Edited by Paola Benincà, Adam Ledgeway, and Nigel Vincent 9 Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages Edited by Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli 10 VowelLengthfromLatintoRomance Michele Loporcaro 11 The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax Edited by Katalin É. Kiss 12 Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic George Walkden 13 The History of Low German Negation Anne Breitbarth OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/8/2014, SPi The History of Low German Negation ANNE BREITBARTH 1 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/8/2014, SPi 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries ©AnneBreitbarth2014 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2014 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2014930997 ISBN 978–0–19–968728–2 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, cr0 4yy Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work. OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/8/2014, SPi Contents Series preface vii Preface viii List of tables ix List of figures xii Introduction . Aimandscopeofthisbook . A brief history of Low German . The corpus . Overview The expression of standard negation .Old Low German .. The preverbal clitic negation particle .. Negation strengtheners .. Summary . Middle Low German ..The preverbal clitic particle .. The bipartite expression of negation and the verb-independent negation particle .. Factors influencing the use of ne/en with nicht in Middle Low German .. Summary . Conclusion Indefinites in the scope of negation .Common developments and interactions .. Indefinite systems .. Negative concord . Old Low German ..The indefinite system of Old Low German .. Patterns of interaction .. Factors influencing the choice between n-free and n-marked indefinite .. Summary OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/8/2014, SPi vi Contents . Middle Low German ..The indefinite system of Middle Low German .. Patterns of interaction .. Factors influencing the occurrence of en with negative indefinites .. Summary . Conclusion Theoretical background .Syntactic theory . Language change . The syntactic representation of negation .. NegP-approaches to the syntax of negation .. Earlier NegP-free approaches . Jespersen’s Cycle ..NegP-accounts of Jespersen’s Cycle .. A NegP-free account of Jespersen’s Cycle . Negative concord . Summary The development of negation in Low German .The interaction of indefinites and negation in historical Low German .. Negative concord in Old Low German .. Negative concord in Middle Low German . Incipient Jespersen’s Cycle in Old Low German ..Preverbal ni/ne .. The grammaticalization of nicht . Jespersen’s Cycle in Middle Low German ..The transition from stage II to stage III .. The fate of the original preverbal particle .. Grammar competition? . Conclusion Conclusion References Index OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/8/2014, SPi Series preface Modern diachronic linguistics has important contacts with other subdisciplines, notably first-language acquisition, learnability theory, computational linguistics, sociolinguistics, and the traditional philological study of texts. It is now recognized in the wider field that diachronic linguistics can make a novel contribution to linguistic theory,tohistoricallinguistics,andarguablytocognitivesciencemorewidely. This series provides a forum for work in both diachronic and historical linguistics, including work on change in grammar, sound, and meaning within and across languages; synchronic studies of languages in the past; and descriptive histories of one or more languages. It is intended to reflect and encourage the links between these subjects and fields such as those mentioned above. The goal of the series is to publish high-quality monographs and collections of papers in diachronic linguistics generally, i.e. studies focussing on change in linguistic structure, and/or change in grammars, which are also intended to make a contribution to linguistic theory, by developing and adopting a current theoretical model, by raising wider questions concerning the nature of language change or by developing theoretical connections with other areas of linguistics and cognitive science as listed above. There is no bias towards a particular language or language family, or towards a particular theoretical framework; work in all theoretical frameworks, and work based on the descriptive tradition of language typology, as well as quantitatively based work using theoretical ideas, also feature in the series. Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts University of Cambridge OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/8/2014, SPi Preface ThisbooksummarizesresearchIcarriedoutaspartofmyworkfortheprojects TheDevelopmentofNegationintheLanguagesofEuropeat Cambridge University between 2006 and 2009 and Layers of Structure at Ghent University between 2010 and 2012. This research would not have been possible without the funding those projects received, from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (grant AR119272) and the Flemish Funds for Scientific Research (Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, grant G091409), respectively, which is herewith gratefully acknowledged. Likewise, I wish to thank the principal investigators for both projects, David Willis and Liliane Haegeman, respectively, for allowing me the space within these projects to carry out this research. Iwouldfurthermoreliketothankthosecolleaguesandfriendswhosehelp,input, and criticism have greatly improved the analysis and arguments presented here. First and foremost I have to thank David Willis and Christopher Lucas, the Cambridge project team, who have greatly shaped my ideas about the development of negation through our frequent discussions. Agnes Jäger has always been an inspiration for me, linguistically and personally, and this book is no exception—I hope it is able to provide a Low German ‘answer’ to her work on the development of negation in High German. Iherewithgratefullyacknowledgeherinputanddiscussionsovertheyears.Iam furthermore indebted to Johan van der Auwera, Theresa Biberauer, Karen De Clerq, Luc De Grauwe, Elly van Gelderen, Cecilia Poletto, George Walkden, Sheila Watts, Helmut Weiß, and Hedde Zeijlstra for discussing specific aspects of this work with me and thereby helping to improve it. Special thanks are due to Liliane Haegeman and the GIST-team (Lobke Aelbrecht, Karen De Clerq, William Harwood, Rachel Nye, Amélie Rocquet, and Reiko Vermeulen) for always being willing to listen to work in progress andgivingmefeedbackonitandmakingmeseethingsfromanewperspective.Iam grateful to Ian Roberts and Adam Ledgeway for including this volume in the series ‘Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics’, as well as to the linguistics editors John Davies and Julia Steer for their assistance during the preparation of the final manuscript. Finally, but no less importantly, I wish to thank the two reviewers for OUP, whose detailed comments have helped to considerably improve the analysis presented here. I might have finished this work much earlier if I hadn’t had Tiago and Maira while writing it, and I might never have finished it at all if it weren’t for Jorge’s, and in particular my parents’, support in dealing with them and everything else. I dedicate this work to them. OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/8/2014, SPi List of tables 1.1 Jespersen’s Cycle in a number of European languages 2 1.2 Sample database entry, Old Low German 11 1.3 The scribal dialects of Middle Low German 12 1.4