Parameters for unexpected (and expected) meanings: Auxiliarydoin affirmative contexts

Abstract

The DO in “Subject DO Predicate” sentences is often associated with unexpected meaning, including contradictory uses in dialogue where DO functions as a sort of reassertive marker and in monologal contexts where a speaker short-circuits potential objections. Many instances of affirmative DO do not fit into this category, however. These involve quasi-exclamative use, non-polemical use in dialogue or gnomic confirmation. Often considered prototypical, contradictory DO represents only one possible configuration: other uses can be accounted for as paramétered variations of a single fundamental operation. Affirmative DO marks speaker endorsement. Values of affirmative DO — polemical, concessive, exclamative, etc. —are shown to result from the relation between various preconstructed subjective positions and the speaker’s own position.

Auxiliary DO in Asian Englishes

“…In the latter case, do may be stressed but does not necessarily imply contrast: it is used parallel to I really believe (Ranger, 2015, p. 117). Thus, while the use of auxiliary do in questions, negative and elliptic statements is obligatory in present‐day standardised English, its use in affirmative contexts cannot be wholly covered by the labels ‘emphasis’ or ‘contrast’, nor can its omission be considered ungrammatical.…”

“…From this perspective, do+ results from a grammatical operation and its omission is unacceptable in standardised English 1 . However, studies have shown that do+ is not always stressed and can, for example, be used to (re)introduce, end or elaborate a topic (Nevalainen & Rissanen, 1986) or to take explicit stance (Ranger, 2015):…”

“…88Ranger (2015, p. 117) claims that in these cases ‘the speaker's subjective endorsement is made explicit’ and that this subjective position stands ‘in contrast with other potentially opposing perspectives.’ He thus suggests that even cases of emotive emphasis are underlyingly contrastive, though he admits that further studies based on authentic oral corpora are needed.…”