Microvariation in the have yet to construction
The have yet to construction, exemplified by sentences such as John has yet to visit his grandmother, is widespread across dialects of English. However, recent studies have revealed that behind this apparent unity, there is significant variation in the syntactic properties of the have yet to construction. Speakers vary with respect to (i) the status of have as an auxiliary or main verb, (ii) the status of negation tests, and (iii) the status of a variety of related yet to constructions. The goal of this paper is to sort out the microsyntax of have yet to across speakers, in the face of contradictory empirical claims and mutually incompatible proposals in the existing literature. We develop an analysis based in part on two wide-scale surveys we have conducted. With respect to have, we show that speakers who can treat it as a main verb can also treat it as an auxiliary, but not necessarily vice-versa. We propose that the variation in this case has to do with where the perfect features are introduced in the clause. With respect to negation, we find that speakers do not treat all the negation tests the same, forcing us to contend with the question of how these tests work. We propose that for most speakers, only the embedded clause is syntactically negative. Negation tests split according to whether they must target the matrix clause, or whether they can target an embedded clause as well. In some cases, the tests reveal the same sentence to be both affirmative and negative, as we expect: the matrix clause is syntactically affirmative, but the embedded clause, which hosts the lexical content, is syntactically negative.
Keywords: auxiliary, ellipsis, microvariation, syntactic variation, have yet to, perfect aspect, negation, syntax
Published online: 04 July 2019
Aoun, Joseph & Dominique Sportiche
Bard, Ellen Gurman, Dan Robertson & Antonella Sorace
Beukema, Frits & Teun Hoekstra
Biberauer, Theresa & Hedde Zeijlstra
Bybel, Kali & Greg Johnson
2014 The syntax of ‘have yet to’. Paper presented at the 81st Southeastern Conference on Linguistics, March 27–29. Coastal Carolina University.
Clason, Dennis L. & Thomas J. Dormody
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka & Hadas Kotek
Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley
Gibson, Edward, Steve Piantadosi & Kristina Fedorenko
Haegeman, Liliane & Raffaella Zanuttini
Harves, Stephanie & Neil Myler
Horn, Laurence R.
Horn, Laurence R. & Barbara Abbott
Hughes, Arthur, Peter Trudgill & Dominic Watt
Koeneman, Olaf, Marika Lekakou & Sjef Barbiers
McCawley, James D.
Myler, Neil and Harves, Stephanie
(2014) “Movement and Silence in the English have yet to Construction,” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 20: Iss. 1, Article 27. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol20/iss1/27
Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego
Postal, Paul M.
Roberts, Ian G.
Ross, John R.
Schütze, Carson T. & Jon Sprouse
Townsend, James T. & F Gregory Ashby
forthcoming. Quantifying Acceptability Judgments in Regional American English Dialect Syntax. Linguistics.
Wood, Jim, Laurence R. Horn, Raffaella Zanuttini & Luke Lindemann
Wood, Jim & Einar Freyr Sigurðsson
Zanuttini, Raffaella, Jim Wood, Jason Zentz and Laurence R. Horn
Cited by 2 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 january 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.