대한언어학회 전자저널

Shin, Sungkyun. (2023). The use of periphrastic do with reference to the Book of Common Prayer. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 31(4), 181-195. Chomskys Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995 to 2019a,b,c) claims that language change can be explained as resulting from the resetting of parameters, where the parameters are seen as operating in the lexicon as feature parameters. Likewise, the origin of and changes in English periphrastic do or the do-support can be accounted for by parameter-resetting modulated by markedness. The dates of the two principal editions of the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), 1552 and 1662, roughly coincide with the periods of the rise and fall of the affirmative declarative do, respectively. It is claimed that, based on the data of BCP and others, the English parameter-resetting concerning the periphrastic do began, in the mid-16th century, from strong V feature Tense to weak V feature Tense.

# the Book of Common Prayer # the minimalist program # parameter-resetting # markedness # periphrastic-do

• Bacquet, P. (1962). La structure de la prase vrbale a lepoque Alfrediene. Paris: L'Universite de Strasbourg.
• Bosworth, J. (1907). The gospels: Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, Wycliffe and Tyndale Versions. London: Gibbings and Company.
• Barber, C. (1976). Early Modern English. London: Andre Deutsch Limited.
• Cho, N. H. (2003). The origin of auxiliary DO. English Language and Linguistics, 16,161-188.
• Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A life in language, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Adriana Belletti, ed., Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, 3, 104-131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1-22.
• Chomsky, N. (2007). Approaching UG from below. In Uli Sauerland and Hans-Gǟrtner, eds., Interfaces + recursion = language?, 1-29, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In Robert Fredin, Carlos Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, eds., Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 291-321, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2013). Porblems of Projection. Lingua 130, 33-49.
• Chomsky, N. (2015) Problems of projection: Extension. In: Structures, strategies and beyond. ed. Elisa Di Domenico et al, 3-16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Chomsky, N. (2019a). Some puzzling foundational issues: The Reading program. Catalan Journal of Linguistics Special Issue, 263-285.
• Chomsky, N. (2019b). Fundamental issues in linguistics, MIT lectures, April 10th and 12th.
• Chomsky, N. (2019c). UCLA lectures, April 29th, 30th, May 1st, 2nd https://linguistics. ucla.edu/noam-chomsky/.
• Chomsky, N, Gallego, Á. J., & Ott, D. (2019). Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. CJL. lingbuzz/003507.
• Denison, D. (1993). English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London and New York: Longman.
• Ellegård, A. (1953). The auxiliary 'do': the establishment and regulation of its growth in English. (Gothenburg Studies in English,). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
• Gelderen, E. van. (2011). Grammaticalization and generative grammar: A difficult liasion. In Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 43-55. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Gelderen, E. van. (2017). Cyclicity. In A. Ledgeway and I. Roberts (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of historical syntax. Published online by Cambridge University Press.
• Gelderen, E. van. (2018). Analyzing syntax Through texts: Old, Middle, and Early Modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Gelderen, E. van. (2021). Verb-second and expletives and current Minimalist Program. ICEHL, 12.
• Gelderen, E. van. (2021). Changes in little v and Voice. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. 17-18 June 2021. http://www.public.asu.edu/~gelderen/Voice2021.pptx
• Gelderen, E. van. (2021). The linguistic cycle: An introduction and change of my focus. 28. July 2021. http://www.public.asu.edu/gelderen/ Naxos2021.ppt.
• Gelderen, E. van. (2022). Third factors in variation and change. Recent theoretical advances in Historical Syntax. 21 January 2022. http://www.public.asu.edu/gelderen/.
• Got, N., & T. Ishii. (2018). Some consequences of merge and determinacy. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004108.
• Jespersen, O. (1909-1949). A Modern English grammar on historical principles I-VII. London/Copenhagen: Allen and Unwin.
• Kim, H. (2011). Old English: history, grammar, and texts. Seoul: Hankookmunhwasa.
• Lee, P.-H. (1999). The origins of the dummy auxiliary do. Linguistics 7(2), 15-34.
• Lee, P.-H. (2009). The history and linguistic change of English. Seoul: Hankookmunhwasa.
• Lightfoot, D. (1991). How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Lightfoot, D. (1999). The development of language. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Lightfoot, D. (2002). Grammatical approaches to syntactic change. In R. Janda & B. Joseph (Eds), Handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Lightfoot, D. (2002). Syntactic effects of morphological change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Los, B. (2015). A historical syntax of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Nevalainen, T. (1987). THE rhythm hypothesis of adverb placement: A case study of 'Only'. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 88(4) (pp. 365-377).
• Nevalainen, T. (1991). Motivated archaism: The use of affirmative periphrastic do in Early Modern English liturgical prose. In D. Kastovsky(Ed.), Historical English syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Nevalainen, T. (2020). Early mass communication as a standarizing influence? The Case of the Book of Common Prayer. In L. Wrigh(ed.), The multilingual origins of standard English. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.
• Nevalainen, T., & Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1989). A corpus of early modern standard English in a socio-historical perspective. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 90(1) (pp. 67-110).
• Nevalainen, T., & Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1994). Sociolinguistics and language history: The Helsinki corpus of Early English correspondence. Hermes-Journal of Language, 13.
• Pérez, J. R. V. (1997). The use of periphrastic "do" in Early Modern English negative declaratives: evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. Sederi VIII.
• Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge, University Press.
• Radford, A. (2009). Analysing english sentences: A minimalist approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Radford, A. (2016). Analysing English sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Roberts, I. (1993). Verbs and diachronic syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Roberts, I. (2007). Diachronic syntax. Oxofrd and New York: Oxford University Press.
• Shin, S. (1992). Parameter-resetting in the diachronic syntax of English. Ph. D dissertation, Seoul National University.
• Shin, S. (2001). A minimalist approach to English impersonal constructions. Humanities and Sciences Research, 9, 133-145.
• Shin, S. (2006). A minimalist approach to the diachronic study of English modal. English Language and Llinguistics, 21, 221-238.
• Shin, S. (2010). The origin of Do-support and parameter-resetting. The Jungang Journal of English Language and Literature, 52(2), 185-201.
• Shin, S. (2017). A minimalist approach to the diachronic study of English word order. Humanities and Sciences Research, 53, 133-145.
• Shin, S. (2019). Parameter-resetting and diachronic changes of English negation. Studies in Linguistics, 51, 89-107.
• Shin, S. (2019). A diachronic study of English reflexives and prounouns with feature respecification. The Jungang Journal of English Language and Literature, 61(1), 199-225.
• Shin, S. (2021a). The degrammaticalization of the English to-Infinitive and parameter-resetting. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 46(1), 165-188.
• Shin, S. (2021b). The grammaticalization of English modals and parameter- resetting. The Jungang Journal of English Language and Literature, 63(4), 293-324.
• Shin, S. (2022). A diachronic syntactic study on the parable of the Prodigal Son. The Jungang Journal of English Language and Literature 64(4), 213-235.
• Tieken, -B. (1988). The origin and development of Periphrastic Auxiliary Do: a Case of Destigmatisation. Dutch Working Papers in English Language and Linguistics, 3, 283-284.
• Traugott, E. C. (1972). The history of English syntax: A transformational approach to the history of English sentence structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Visser, T. H. (1963-73). An historical syntax of the English language, 4 Volumes. Leiden: E. J. Brill.