DO-SUPPORT

1. (Syntax) Refers to the verb do (which also includes did and does) as an auxiliary verb to produce negation, interrogation as well as ellipsis and emphasis (cf. Culicover 2008). The main verb in a sentence carries meaning and therefore is semantically relevant. But the auxiliary does not do so, therefore it is called a dummy (cf. Frank 1985, Quirk 1985). However, it adds a grammatical meaning in the sense that it is syntactically required for a proper English sentence (cf. Radford 2004). In this case, an "auxiliary is an obligatory component which must always comprise the feature tense [...] and may comprise a modal [can, will etc.]" (Frank 1985). Moreover, a verb itself does not permit inversion and therefore do-support is required in such cases in which verbs cannot invert (cf. Radford 2004).
    Additionally, "auxiliaries can generally be directly negated by a following 'not' " (Radford 2004), as shown in the following example (1), whereas verbs cannot be directly negated, shown in (2).
   1. 'They do not / don't like me.'
   2. * 'They like not / liken't me.'
    This clearly shows that in present-day English do-support is required in negative declaratives for lexical verbs (cf. Han 2013). | Janina Madlener, 2014
2. (Syntax) English do-support has been an important topic of research since Chomsky 1957. The perhaps dominant view of English do holds that it is inserted by an operation of DO-SUPPORT, a last-resort mechanism that applies to save a stranded tense/agreement affix (Chomsky 1957; for recent discussion see Lasnik 1995, Freidin 2004). This insertion takes place in a number of contexts—with negation, in subject-auxiliary inversion, in emphatic (or verum focus) contexts, and when the main verb is missing because of ellipsis or displacement of the VP.
   1. a. This theory dominates generative grammar. (simple declarative; no do)
      b. Does this theory dominate generative grammar? (subject-auxiliary inversion)
      c. This theory does not dominate generative grammar. (negation)
      d. This theory does (so/too) dominate generative grammar! (emphasis)
      e. That theory dominates generative grammar, and this one does too. (ellipsis)
      f. Dominate generative grammar though it does, this theory makes a number of wrong predictions. (VP displacement)
    | Benjamin Bruening, 2010
3. (Syntax) There exists a do-support analogue in certain Lombard dialects in Northern Italy, as shown particularly by data collected in the village of Monno.
   1. a.
       

      fa-l
      does-he

      majà?
      eat?

        'Does he eat?'
      b.
       

      ke
      what

      fa-l
      does-he

      majà?
      eat?

        'What does he eat?'
      c.
       

      * maja-l?
      * eats-he?
      d.
       

      * ke
      * what

      maia-l?
      eats-he?
      e.
       

      a-l
      has-he

      majà?
      eaten?

        'Has he eaten?
      f.
       

      ke
      what

      a-l
      has-he

      majà?
      eaten?

        'What has he eaten?'
      g.
       

      * ke
      * what

      a-l
      does-he

      aver
      have

      majà?
      eaten?
      h.
       

      fa-l
      does-it

      plöer?
      rain?

        'Is it raining?'
      i.
       

      a-l
      has-it

      plöt?
      rained?

        'Did it rain?'
      j.
       

      * plöe-l?
      * rains-it?
    | Paola Benincà and Cecilia Poletto, 2004
4. (Syntax) Japanese is an SOV, agglutinative language where functional suffixes are ordered in a fixed way, which is, for the most part, in agreement with Baker's (1985) Mirror Principle. For example, observe the sentence in (1). The past tense suffix -ta is attached to the main verb hane- '(to) jump.'
   1. Watasi-wa
      I-TOP

      hane-ta.
      jump-PST

      'I jumped.'
    A "dummy" do is inserted under certain conditions. For instance, consider the sentences in (2), where the focus particle -wa is attached to the verb hane-. (5)
   2. a.
       

      * Watasi-wa
      I-TOP

      [hane-wa]-ta.
      jump-FOC-PST

        '[Jump], I did (intended).'
      b.
       

      Watasi-wa
      I-TOP

      [hane-wa]
      jump-FOC

      si-ta.
      do-PST

        '[Jump], I did.'
    As is shown in (2a), the past tense marker cannot be directly preceded by this focus particle. Instead, the semantically vacuous material si- 'do' must be placed right in front of the past tense marker, as in (2b). Since the bare form of si- is sur-, I call it sur-support. A comparable phenomenon is, of course, observed in English do-support, in which when a verb phrase is focalized, do is "inserted" into the tense suffix, as in (3).
   3. a. * [Jump], I -ed.
      b. [Jump], I did.
    | Akitaka Yamada, 2020

DOMAIN
(General) The range or extent of forms to which some rule, etc. applies. E.g. in many languages the word is the domain of vowel harmony: i.e. the application of the rule does not extend beyond words. A class of verbs like sing, sink, or drink might also be described as the domain of a rule by which i in the present tense is changed to a in the past. | Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, 2003

DOUBLE DEFINITENESS
(Syntax) Or, double definition. A phenomenon that occurs in some North Germanic languages. In certain structural situations, definiteness is represented by both a preposed definite article, a separate word appearing at the beginning of the nominal, and a definite suffix on the head noun. This is exemplified in the following examples from Swedish and Faroese:

1. Swedish
   den
   the

   röda
   red

   bilen
   car-DEF

   'the red car'
2. Faroese
   tann
   the

   reyða
   red

   bilurin
   car-DEF

   'the red car'

3. Swedish
   a.
    

   * den
    the

   gamla
   old

   häst
   horse

     Intended: 'the old horse'
   b.
    

   den
   the

   gamla
   old

   hästen
   horse-DEF

      'the old horse'
4. Danish
   a.
    

   den
   the

   gamle
   old

   hest
   horse

      'the old horse'
   b.
    

   * den
   the

   gamle
   old

   hesten
   horse-DEF

      Intended: 'the old horse'

DOUBLE DISLOCATION FOCUS CONSTRUCTION
(Syntax) Though the DDFC resembles the Dislocation Focus Construction, the former involves two remnant-parts occurring after the SP (Lau 2021). Note that the order of these two remnants (α and β) becomes reversed in DDFC, which makes it not only distinctive from DFC, but also interesting theoretically. I argue that the pre-SP part (γ) is the only component to receive focus interpretation. Thus the derivation of DDFC involves the processes of focalization and defocalization.

1. [Jat
   One

   bou
   CL

   dinsigei]
   TV

   lo,
   SP

   keoi
   s/he

   soeng
   want

   maai
   buy

   ___.
   

    DFC (Cheung 2005)

   'S/he wants to buy a TV.'
2. Hou2
   Very

   faai3
   fast

   sau1lei5jyun4
   repair.finish

   gwaa,
   SP

   bou6
   CL

   din6lou5____,
   computer

   ngo5
   I

   gu2___.
   think

    DDFC

   'I think the computer will be repaired soon.'

Underlying Structure: SP α β γ → Surface Structure: γ SP β α

DOUBLE ELLIPSIS

1. (Syntax) Examples:
   1. Not so much whether to teach the Bible in public schools, but how [e]? And by whom [e]? (Corpus of Contemporary American English)
   2. GE Capital and Xerox in Stamford responded to inquiries about their use of extended-stay hotels by saying that they use them from time to time, but they were not sure how much [e] or by whom [e] . (New York Times, Aug 9, 1998)
    | Richard Stockwell, 2023
2. (Syntax) Ellipsis parallelism and extended L-triviality really come apart in relation to the sentence in (1) with ellipsis in both clauses of the conditional at once:
   1. If he₁ is < >, he₁ is < >.
    Though it need not, (1) can have a trivial interpretation where both ellipses are resolved via the same antecedent, as in the exchange in (2):
   2. A: Is John₁ wrong? B: If he₁ is wrong, he₁ is wrong.
    There is more to say about the status of double ellipsis in (1) as opposed to single ellipsis in (3b).
   3. a. If John is wrong, then he is wrong.
      b. * If John is wrong, then he is wrong.
    While (1) needs to be provided with an antecedent before it can be interpreted, as in (2), it can also be judged acceptable in isolation. The acceptability of (1) out of the blue suggests a willingness to assume that a discourse could readily be provided to resolve the ellipses. But we do not seem to be willing to make the same allowances for (3b). (3b) is judged unacceptable in isolation, despite the fact that there are discourses where it is good. It seems that the presence of a potential but unlicensed antecedent in the if-clause in (3b) precludes the deference to discourse tolerated in (1) when no potential antecedent is available. | Richard Stockwell, 2018
3. (Example) The English Unitarian Thomas Belsham (1750–1829), in A Calm Inquiry Into the Scripture Doctrine Concerning the Person of Christ (1817), considered, among other arguments, that of double ellipsis.
    The argument runs, more or less, like this. If, instead of interpreting γενέσθαι as absolute ('to be [born]'), we suppose that γενέσθαι means 'to become' (in an elliptical sense to be determined), the key phrase at John 8:58 becomes:
   1. [Lit. Eng.] before Abraham become [ellipsis], I am [ellipsis]
    Neither become nor I am are, reasonably, used in an absolute sense. So, there may be an ellipsis associated with each verb. Unpacking the double ellipsis, we may have:
   2. Before Abraham become [father of a multitude] I am [the Messiah]
    | Miguel de Servet, 2016

DOUBLE MODAL
(Grammar) The double modal construction (DM) is used by about 20 million speakers of American English, concentrated in the Southeastern United States but extending into the west and north as well. A growing body of research exists on double modal verbs from a variety of descriptive methodologies and analytic frameworks. The double modal combinations discussed by Boertien (1986) are listed in (l) below and those treated by Di Paolo (1989) in (2). The DMs are displayed here according to the first element.

1a.	might could	2a.	might could
	might should		might should
	might would		might would
	might can		might can
	might ought		might oughta
	———		might better
	———		might had better
	might should ought		———
	might had ought		———
b.	must can	b.	must coulda
	must would		———
	must ought		———
c.	may can	c.	may can
	may could		may could
	———		may will
	———		may should
	———		may supposed to
d.	should ought	d.	should ought
	———	e.	used to could
	———	f.	may used to
	———		may need to
	———	g.	might supposed to
	———		might've used to
	———		mighta woulda had oughta
	———	h.	better can
	———		would better
	———	i.	could might
	———		can might

1. Could you might possibly use a teller machine?
2. You might could do that, couldn't you?
3. John might, I think, could do that.
4. I might just couldn't see it.
5. I've seen ones that might possibly could be flowers but I haven't seen any yet [that are flowers].
6. You might still could keep the cuff [the way it is] and have French cuffs [on the blouse].
7. They might not could have gone over the state line to get her.
8. I was afraid you might couldn't find this address.
9. I expect that we might could get you one by Friday.
10. Might could you buy that at Bruno's?

DOWNDRIFT
(Prosody) The pattern in which each successive pitch peak in a phrase is lower than the previous one. Statements in Chichewa display a strong downdrift effect, but this tendency is much less strong in questions. There is significantly less of a downward trend in questions than in statements in a wide variety of languages: English, Swedish, Rausa, Danish, Mandarin, and Zulu. | Scott Myers, 1996

DOWNSTEP
(Phonology) A term used in the phonology of tone languages, referring to a lowering process which applies to the second of two high-tone syllables. A downstepped high tone would be slightly lower than the preceding high tone, but not so low as to be equivalent to a low tone. The process has been widely observed in African languages.
 Less commonly, the opposite effect, upstep, has been noted, where successive high tones become progressively higher.
 Downstep is phonologically contrastive, and is usually distinguished from downdrift, a sequential process whereby high tones after low tones become progressively less high throughout an intonational unit.
 These effects have been described more generally as register lowering or key lowering. Declination is often used as an equivalent for downdrift, but this term also has a more general phonetic use (F0 declination), referring to a gradual descent of pitch level and narrowing of pitch range throughout an utterance, partly as a result of reduction in subglottal air pressure, as speakers use up the breath in their lungs. Such effects, of course, are not restricted to tone languages. | David Crystal, 2008

Page Created By Split July 6, 2024

 

B a c k   T o   I n d e x