Abstract
This paper builds on Langacker’s (in press. How to build an English clause. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics 2(2)) analysis of subject-auxiliary inversion (SAI) as involving “existential negotiation”. Langacker’s account is completed by relating it to full verb inversion (FVI). In FVI, non-core elements are fronted, resulting in inversion without an auxiliary, as in Into the room walked Mary; however, non-core elements are also frontable in SAI, as in Bitterly did we regret our decision. Do is treated as denoting full actualization and SAI is accounted for by focus on an exceptionally intense mode of actualization, whence the use of do to explicitly express what is focused on. The role of into the room in the FVI example is to define a locus into which an entity is introduced. Since this does not involve focus on the fact or manner of the verbal event’s actualization, do is not used. This leads to a different division of inverted structures than that of Chen (2013. Subject auxiliary inversion and linguistic generalization: Evidence for functional/cognitive motivation in language. Cognitive Linguistics 24. 1–32), who distinguishes those that merely reverse subject and auxiliary (argued to denote non-indicative mood) from those where the inverted auxiliary-subject order is accompanied by fronting of a non-subject element (treated as involving focus on the fronted item). It is argued here that fronting do-auxiliary marks focus on the actualization of the verbal event itself.
References
Birner, Betty. 1994. Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language 70(2). 233–259.10.2307/415828Search in Google Scholar
Birner, Betty. 1996. The discourse function of inversion in English. New York: Garland.Search in Google Scholar
British National Corpus. 1994. Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services.Search in Google Scholar
Brown University Corpus of American English. 1964. Providence, RI: Department of Linguistics, Brown University.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Rong. 2013. Subject auxiliary inversion and linguistic generalization: Evidence for functional/cognitive motivation in language. Cognitive Linguistics 24. 1–32.10.1515/cog-2013-0001Search in Google Scholar
Coppleston, Frederick. 1962. A history of philosophy, vol. 1, Part 2. Garden City, NY: Image Books.Search in Google Scholar
Dorgeloh, Heidrun. 1997. Inversion in modern English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.6Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Goodier, Alban. 1951. The passion and death of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Boston: Daughters of St Paul.Search in Google Scholar
Granath, Solveig. 2007. Size matters – or thus can meaningful structures be revealed in large corpora. In Roberta Facchinetti (ed.), Corpus linguistics 25 years on, 169–188. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789401204347_011Search in Google Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1980. Some wherefores of English inversions. Language 56. 582–601.10.2307/414451Search in Google Scholar
Hartvigson, Hans H. & Leif Kvistgaard Jakobsen. 1974. Inversion in present-day English. Odense: Odense University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hirtle, Walter H. 1988. Events, time and the simple form. Revue québécoise de linguistique 17. 85–106.10.7202/602615arSearch in Google Scholar
Hirtle, Walter. 1997. DO auxiliary – a meaningful support and operator. Lingua 100. 111–149.10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00040-XSearch in Google Scholar
Hirtle, Walter. 2007. Lessons on the English verb. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.10.1515/9780773560277Search in Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Paul. 1983. A history of the modern world. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110214369Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. in press. How to build an English clause. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics 2(2).10.14706/JFLTAL15121Search in Google Scholar
McCrum, Robert, William Cran & Robert MacNeil. 1987. The story of English. London: Faber and Faber.Search in Google Scholar
Penhallurick, John M. 1987. The semantics of auxiliary inversion in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 7. 97–128.10.1080/07268608708599375Search in Google Scholar
Sheen, Frank J. 1949. Peace of soul. New York: Whittlesey House.Search in Google Scholar
Spada, Nina, Patsy Lightbown & Joanna White. 2005. The importance of form/meaning mappings in explicit form-focused instruction. In Alex Housen & Michel Pierrard (eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition, 199–234. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197372.2.199Search in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton
