Never again: the multiple grammaticalization ofneveras a marker of negation in English

Abstract

In both standard and nonstandard varieties of English there are several contexts in which the word never functions as a sentential negator rather than as a negative temporal adverb. This article investigates the pragmatic and distributional differences between the various non-temporal uses of never and examines their synchronic and historical relationship to the ordinary temporal quantifier use, drawing on corpora of Early Modern and present-day British English. Primary focus is on (i) a straightforward negator use that in prescriptively approved varieties of English has an aspectual restriction to non-chance, completive achievement predicates in the preterite, but no such restriction in nonstandard English; and (ii) a distinct categorical-denial use that quantifies over possible perspectives on a situation. Against Cheshire (1998), it is argued that neither of these uses represents continuity with non-temporal uses of never in Middle English, but both are instead relatively recent innovations resulting from semantic reanalysis and the semanticization of implicatures.

The grammaticalisation ofneverin British English dialects: Quantifying syntactic and functional change

“…Drawing upon Lucas & Willis (2012), this section delineates the linguistic properties which distinguish the Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 uses of never, and how these differ from some more marginal functions. Although the dependent variable in the present study is non-quantificational never vs. didn't in Type 2 and Type 3 contexts, the linguistic characteristics of each type of never are outlined here because all are said to originally stem from Type 1 through grammaticalisation (Lucas & Willis 2012: 473).…”

“…Although Lucas & Willis (2012: 470) note the potential for never to be used in place of verbs other than didn't in Type 3 contexts (including tenses besides the preterite), possible examples they find are ambiguous between Type 1 and Type 3 uses (see Section 2.3, example (8)). Indeed, the consensus is that non-quantificational never and didn't are equivalent negators (Cheshire 1982: 67-68;Edwards 1993: 227;Hughes et al 2013: 29;Lucas & Willis 2012). This unites the Type 2 and Type 3 uses of never in meaning and differentiates them from all others (see Section 2).…”

“…(1) Type 1: Never with universal quantification over time (a) I've never slept-walked [SM/135,Tyneside] (b) I've not ever / I haven't ever slept-walked However, never can also function as a non-quantificational negator equivalent to didn't (Cheshire 1982: 67-68;Edwards 1993: 227;Hughes et al 2013: 29;Lucas & Willis 2012). Lucas & Willis (2012) distinguish two non-quantificational uses, henceforth 'Type 2' and 'Type 3'. Type 2 never, illustrated in (2), is found in Standard English and is associated with a specific 'window of opportunity' in which an event could have occurred but did not (Lucas & Willis 2012).…”

“…Lucas & Willis (2012) distinguish two non-quantificational uses, henceforth 'Type 2' and 'Type 3'. Type 2 never, illustrated in (2), is found in Standard English and is associated with a specific 'window of opportunity' in which an event could have occurred but did not (Lucas & Willis 2012). Type 3 never, sometimes called 'punctual never' (Palacios Martínez 2011: 21), is similarly non-quantificational but is always nonstandard (Lucas & Willis 2012: 460).…”

“…(3) Type 3: Non-quantificational never as a generic negator (a) Actually, I never had that coat when I was eleven [RM/512,Tyneside] (b) Actually, I didn't have that coat when I was eleven Lucas & Willis (2012) find evidence that Type 1 was the original function of never and this eventually developed Type 2 and, subsequently, Type 3 uses. They document the different types of never and examine the history of the form using a predominantly qualitative approach, considering examples taken from corpora including the Helsinki Corpus (1500-1710), the Corpus of Early English Correspondence Sampler (1418-1680) and the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) for their historical analyses, and the BNC, Linguistic Innovators Corpus (LIC) and their own acceptability judgements for insights into modern English.…”