Why Languages Prefer Prohibitives

This paper deals with prohibitive markers, i.e., negative markers that are more or less dedicated to the expression of a prohibition. It documents the variety in the formal make-up of these markers and it confirms the earlier claims that they are frequent everywhere, with at least one exception, viz., Western Europe. Four origins are discussed: prohibitive markers may derive from predicative constructions, they may appear as a side product of Jespersen’s cycle, they may derive from a univerbation of imperative and negative markers, and they may be borrowed. As explanation is offered as to why languages prefer to have prohibitive markers. It is argued that attempts to explain this preference in terms of morphosyntax are misguided. Instead a frequency-based semantic explanation is offered. The most frequent use of negatives are declarative, thereby inviting a static ‘it is not the case that’ paraphrase. It is important, however, to mark clearly that prohibitives are instances of a dynamic ‘let it be the case that’ appeal. The paper ends on a discussion of languages that do not employ prohibitive markers.

This paper deals with prohibitive markers, i.e., negative markers that are more or less dedicated to the expression of a prohibition. It documents the variety in the formal make-up of these markers and it confu＇ms the earlier claims that they are frequent everywhere, with at least one exception, viz., Western Europe. Four origins are discussed： prohibitive markers may derive from predicative constructions, they may appear as a side product of Jespersen＇s cycle, they may derive from a univerbation of imperative and negative markers, and they may be borrowed. As explanation is offered as to why languages prefer to have prohibitive markers. It is argued that attempts to explain this preference in terms of morphosyntax are misguided. Instead a frequency-based semantic explanation is offered. The most frequent use of negatives are declarative, thereby inviting a static ‘it is not the case that＇ paraphrase. It is important, however, to mark clearly that prohibitives are instances of a dynamic ‘let it be the case that＇ appeal. The paper ends on a discussion of languages that do not employ prohibitive markers.