The subject of this contrastive study is fourfold: (a) it takes into account the inference of languages in contact in the diachronic development of English language; and it builds up a hypothesis on the origin of periphrastic DO; (b) this study lays its foundations on established facts from diachrony and etymology to claim that the grammaticalization of DO did not entail any process of desemantisation; (c) it also resorts to an invariant-meaning approach to show that the auxiliary DO – just like its lexical counterpart – is not meaningless in natural language; (d) it carries out a critical analysis of current trends on either a binary categorization or a ternary categorization for DO-forms (lexical verb (vs. proverb) vs. auxiliary). Then, this study shows that the proform DO SO can indeed substitute for purely stative predicates; and, as an operator of ‘thesis’, DO has an enunciative function which accounts for its occurrences as well as its non-occurrences in the linear structuring.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/71565 |
| Date | 03 1900 |
| Creators | Leoue, Jean Gilbert |
| Contributors | English Linguistics |
| Publisher | Université Paris III - Sorbonne Nouvelle |
| Source Sets | VTechWorks NDLTD ETDs |
| Language | French |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Dissertation |
| Format | image/jpeg, application/pdf, application/pdf, image/jpeg, application/pdf |
| Rights | In Copyright, http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ |
Page generated in 0.0018 seconds