Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-r6ggp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-20T05:38:59.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

*I amn't

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Richard Hudson
Richard Hudson*
Affiliation:
University College London
*
Department of Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, [dick@ling.ucl.ac.uk]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In most standard dialects of English, there is a gap in the paradigm of the verb be where we expect to find amn't. But how do we know that this gap exists, since learners have no positive evidence that amn't is ungrammatical? It is even more puzzling since there is no gap when the subject is inverted (aren't I...?). Familiar explanations for this gap fail; in particular, it cannot be the result of conservative acquisition strategies. The explanation offered here is based crucially on a combination of multiple-default inheritance and function-based morphology, as embodied in word grammar. The gap is due to a Nixon-diamond conflict between two competing values for the same morphological function required by the categories negative and first-person. The inverted form is supplied by stipulation because of the functional pressure to supply a ‘casual’ form. Various dialect alternatives to the Standard English pattern are also considered. The success of this explanation shows that language must use default inheritance, multiple nonorthogonal inheritance, and morphological functions.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 76 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 297 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, Stephen. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Avery. 1990. Unification and morphological blocking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 507–57.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Blocking. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, ed. by Asher, Ronald, 373–74. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2000a. Optimal syntax. Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax and acquisition, ed. by Dekkers, Joost, van, Frank Leeuw, der, and Jeroem van de, Weijer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2000b. Explaining morphosyntactic competition. Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. by Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris. Oxford: Blackwell, to appear.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew. 1994. Conflict in Russian genitive plural assignment: A solution represented in DATR. Journal of Slavonic Linguistics 2. 48–76.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville, and Fraser, Norman. 1993. Network morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29. 113–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creider, Chet, and Hudson, Richard. 1999. Inflectional morphology in word grammar. Lingua 107. 163–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 1987/1997. Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1999. Syntax. Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 4: 1776–1997, ed. by Romaine, Suzanne, 92–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert. 1982. Semantic neutralization for phonological reasons. Where have all the adjectives gone? And other essays in semantics and syntax, 235–38. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Evans, Roger, and Gazdar, Gerald. 1996. DATR: A language for lexical knowledge representation. Computational Linguistics 22. 167–216.Google Scholar
Fraser, Norman, and Corbett, Greville. 1995. Gender, animacy and declensional class assignment: A unified account for Russian. Yearbook of Morphology 1994. 123–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garman, Michael. 1990. Psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Pullum, Geoffrey; and Sag, Ivan. 1982. Auxiliaries and related phenomena in a restrictive theory of grammar. Language 58. 591–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey; and Sag, Ivan. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. The view from building 20. Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J., 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1993. The grammar of Irish English. Real English: The grammar of English dialects in the British Isles, ed. by Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley, 139–86. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Thomas. 1982. Lexical blocking. Journal of the Faculty of Humanities (Toyama University) 5. 239–50.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1977. The power of morphological rules. Lingua 42. 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1984. Word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1990. English word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1995. Word meaning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1997. The rise of auxiliary DO: Verb-non-raising or category strengthening? Transactions of the Philological Society 95. 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1998. English grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1999. Subject-verb agreement in English. English Language and Linguistics 3. 173–207.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald, and Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 173–281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne, and Israel, Michael. 1994. Variation and the usage-based model. Chicago Linguistic Society 30(2). 165–79.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Function and grammar in the history of English: Periphrastic DO. Language change and variation, ed. by Fasold, Ralph and Schiffrin, Deborah, 133–72. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45. 715–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1989. The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change 1. 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langendoen, Terence. 1970. Essentials of English grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Luger, George, and Stubblefield, William. 1993. Artificial Intelligence. Structures and strategies for complex problem solving. 2nd edn. Redwood City, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
Mac Whinney, Brian. 1989a. Competition and lexical categorization. Linguistic categorization, ed. by Corrigan, Roberta, Eckman, Fred, and Noonan, Michael, 195–241. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Whinney, Brian. 1989b. Competition and teachability. The teachability of language, ed. by Rice, Mabel and Schiefelbusch, Richard, 63–104. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
Miller, James. 1993. The grammar of Scottish English. Real English: The grammar of English dialects in the British Isles, ed. by Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley, 99–138. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition. The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1984/1996. Language learnability and language development. Rev. edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reisberg, Daniel. 1997. Cognition. Exploring the science of the mind. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1985. Lectures on contemporary syntactic theories. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1991. A paradigm-based theory of morphosemantic mismatches. Language 67. 675–725.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 1993. On rules of referral. Language 69. 449–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Touretzky, David. 1986. The mathematics of inheritance systems. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1990. The dialects of English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter., and Chambers, Jack. 1991. Dialects of English: Studies in grammatical variation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold, and Pullum, Geoffrey. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n't. Language 59. 502–13.Google Scholar