John:

I think the relevant distinction here is between open-class lexical
categories and closed-class lexical categories. The former includes
most nouns and verbs. The latter includes more "functional" parts of
speech--articles, negation, auxiliaries, conjunctions, etc. A key
difference is that speakers can freely coin new open-class items, but
it is just about impossible to coin new closed-class items.
Closed-class items are almost always one or two syllables, while
open-class items can be much longer.

Generally speaking, the usage of most closed-class items tends to be
learned very early in the language acquisition process of native
speakers, whereas it the open-class items take a lot longer, in part
because there are so many of them. I don't know a ton about language
acquisition, and it goes beyond my expertise to say why this is so.
Some people have suggested it's because closed-class items just appear
so frequently in speech. Other people have suggested that there's
something more cognitively "basic" about closed class items.

--Dan Roth
Contra Costa College


On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 1:39 PM, John Dews-Alexander
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I agree with Dan that this is a feature of English that seems to be acquired
> by all native speakers without explicit instruction. With lots of high
> school students, generalities are OK if they are honest; in this case, I
> might just talk about the construction being an aspect of the language
> buried pretty deeply - not subject to much fluctuation or change at this
> time, not feeling pressure from natural language change, not prone to
> variety across dialects, etc. This is unlike some structures, which are
> "closer to the surface" and more prone to flux.
>
> Of course this is highly colored with metaphor and not a very scientific
> explanation; it touches on issues of fixed structures and language change
> though, which might be more beneficial and convincing than skimming over it.
> For the budding language nerds in the class though (I remember being one!),
> it may not satisfy. They might be more delighted with an introduction to a
> "real" English grammar (I don't mean to be disparaging, but I think we can
> mostly agree that there is a big difference between textbook grammars and
> professional reference grammars).
>
> Some of members of this list are very familiar with English syntax. I'm sure
> they will be able to give you the linguistic science behind the structure's
> rigidity. Often these things make more sense when viewed in their larger
> context of language, not specifically English. I'd be interested in how
> common this bond between negative particle (not) and the conjugated verb is
> in world languages.
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Dan Roth <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Anthony:
>>
>> You are dealing with the issue of subject-auxiliary inversion. From a
>> purely empirical perspective, it is grammatical to invert the subject
>> and the leftmost auxiliary verb to form certain types of question
>> constructions, but I believe it is ungrammatical to invert the subject
>> with anything else. This explains why you cannot invert the subject
>> with the string "do not" (your second example)--it is more than just
>> an auxiliary verb. If you treat an the contraction of auxiliary plus
>> negation as a sub-type of auxiliary, then that predicts that you
>> should be able to do inversion, which is the right prediction.
>>
>> The above describes the empirical facts, but it doesn't give a deeper
>> rationale for "why". I'm not in a position to give a good reason why,
>> beyond observing that it's just how English is. A lot of how the
>> language functions is idiosyncratic. Why does the earth rotate one
>> direction and not the other? That's just how it is, and it could
>> easily have been otherwise.
>>
>> I'm not sure how much of what I've said will help your student. I
>> think it might just overwhelm them--but I hope it at least helps you.
>>
>> I'm not sure how much you even need to explain though. I doubt it's
>> common that any students make the error of inverting "do not" with a
>> subject. I suspect that the principle that you can only invert a
>> subject with a single auxiliary is principle of the English that is
>> mastered very early by children.
>>
>> --Dan Roth
>> Contra Costa College
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Anthony DeFazio <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > Can someone explain, please, why we can say "Why don't you like her?"
>> > but
>> > not "Why do not you like her?" A student asked and I was at a loss for
>> > an
>> > explanation. Thank you, Tony DeFazio, LIU
>> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> > interface
>> > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
>> > leave
>> > the list"
>> >
>> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
>> at:
>>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave
> the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/