The loss of negative concord in Standard English: Internal factors

This study readdresses the loss of Negative Concord (NC) in Standard English. A detailed study of negation in Late Middle English and Early Modern English reveals that the loss of NC was a case of a natural change triggered by some internal factors. A close study of n-words in negative contexts and their ultimate replacement with negative polarity items (NPIs) in a number of grammatical environments shows that the decline of NC follows the same pattern across contexts in a form of parallel curvature, which indicates that the loss of NC is a natural change. However, this study reveals that the decline is not constant across time (see Contra Kroch’s Constant Rate Hypothesis [CRH], 1989). Context behavior suggests an alternative principle of linguistic change, the context constancy principle. A context constancy effect is obtained across all contexts, indicating that the loss of NC is triggered by a change in a single underlying parameter setting. Accordingly, a theory-internal explanation is suggested. Although Modern Standard English (1800–1920) is not characterized by the operation of negative concord (NC), in some dialects of English and in certain older forms of the language the operation of negative concord is much stronger. Modern Standard English exhibits a uniform [ NC] system, whereas earlier forms of English are characterized by the phenomenon of NC. References to this effect may be found in most general studies of Middle English (1100–1500), as well as in those of Early Modern English (1500–1800) (Barber, 1997:283; Burnley, 1983:61). These periods exhibited variable use of [ NC] and [ NC] systems. The following two examples illustrate the ( NC) and ( NC) systems, respectively: (1) He didn’t hurt anybody (2) John didn’t hurt nobody It has been largely assumed that the loss of NC was the outcome of prescriptive views on language use (cf. Cheshire 1982:63), and of taking Latin, a [ NC] language, as a model for English grammar. Because of these assumptions, the issue of why NC was lost in Modern Standard English was not given enough I would like to thank the reviewer of this article for his0her comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper and for pointing to some crucial theoretical misconceptions in the previous literature. His0her comments are very much appreciated. Language Variation and Change, 19 (2007), 27–49. Printed in the U.S.A. © 2007 Cambridge University Press 0954-3945007 $9.50 DOI: 10.10170S0954394507070019