Chapter: DO
DO comes from “Don” in old English. This latter was used to mean “to place”, or to “set” or
to “lay”, etc. Thus, DO is used to form interrogative, negative, emphatic, etc. sentences in
English language. However, the `periphrastic' (semantically empty) DO appeared first in the
13th century, but at that time it had no special connections with negation or inversion; nor,
indeed, were these restricted by rule to auxiliary verbs. The link between auxiliary-hood and
these sentence-types appeared first in the 15th century, and had almost reached its modern
solidity (with some differences of detail) by the end of the 16th.
The fact that this language presents this marker in operations is very important. It shows that
this operator is a sign which bears the predication and more exactly the predication link. It
indicates that the speaker talks about “validation”. So, his/her point of view is fundamentally
grammatical. The action through which it refers is the settlement or the validation of the
predicative relationship. Furthermore, DO is an auxiliary. However, it cannot be used with
modal auxiliaries in so far as, in English language, it is impossible to use two auxiliaries side
by side since they have the same nature.
DO in negative wordings
DO is an operator which can be used in negative sentences. In this case, the enunciator is the
only one who can decide on the non- existence of the operation; and they can only do it in a
meta operational way, as Adamczewski states it. Furthermore, the enunciator invalidates the
predicative relationship (meaning the relationship between the grammatical subject and the
predicate) at the moment of speaking. In addition, they can deny this predicative relationship.
Thus, as for negation, Denison (1993:467) reports a small but significant statistical link
between auxiliary verbs and not even in the late fifteenth century, before Kroch's major
change started; specifically, at that time auxiliary verbs were more likely than full verbs to be
accompanied by not.
In so doing, two main elements are to be taken into consideration: the operator DO and the
negative marker not. The presence of DO allows the finite verb to be in first position while
still allowing the negative marker to precede the verb it goes with. At the time when DO was
simply optional, and made no difference to the meaning, it provided the perfect solution to
this problem. The problem may not have arisen very often, but even occasional examples
would be enough to establish at least a statistical linkage between DO and inversion.
The negative marker not is predicated to take scope over DO as the content value of not takes
the content of DO of the input as its argument. But if DO is a semantically empty verb, the
futility of the discussion on whether or not the negator not outscopes DO will impair the
motivation of adding the condition (unstressed) to the output of the lexical rule, considering
that the very motivation of the rule is to define the scope relation between the head verb DO
and its added complement not.
I do not understand what you mean.
They do not lock the door
In these examples, it can be said that, due to the operator DO, the negation marked by not
does not bears only on the verbs (understand and lock) but on the whole predicative relation.
So, in negative statements, DO permits to have a global rejection or refusal on the validation
of all the predicative relation. However, it is important to mention that it is not DO which
rejects the relation. That is, DO does not bring the negation; but it is not. DO, which is the
target of the operation of negation, is only used to highlight the magnitude and the stake of the
rejection or refusal of the predicative relation validation.
DO in interrogative wordings
In modern English grammar, DO is used in interrogative sentences where there is no other
auxiliary. Some scholars even state that the operator DO is often called `periphrastic' DO
because it has no meaning independent of the meaning of the construction concerned; the only
reason for using DO auxiliary in Modern English grammar is because the syntax requires an
auxiliary and no other auxiliary is needed by the sentence's meaning. DO fills the gaps where
non-auxiliary verbs are not allowed and where other auxiliaries are not needed.
DO in interrogative sentences changes the structure of the sentence and is placed at its
beginning. In other words, DO is always placed before the subject of the verb. When an
enunciator asks a question (with DO), it is presupposed that they miss an element whose
answer might come from the co-enunciator. DO, in this case, plays the role of an element of
the second phase. Being the first element of the wording, it (DO) shows what is being
questioned. It is used to show that the relationship between the subject, the verb and the object
is in question. With the WH question, the relation is about a missing element. In other words,
the relationship between the subject, the verb and the object is presupposed not to be
understood by the enunciator. However, what shows the missing element in this kind of
wording is not the operator DO, but the WH concept.
Do you like coffee?
Do you understand me?
Where did you spend your holidays?
When does he say this?
The interrogation with DO targets the whole predicative relation and not the only verb of the
predicate. With the WH questions, it shows a stand taking on the validation of the relationship
between the subject and the predicate.
DO in emphatic wordings
The emphasis is a constituent which can be added to declarative, interrogative, negative, etc.
sentences. It takes the form of a stress placed on the first auxiliary of the verbal phrase or on
the negation. Semantically speaking, the emphasis constitutes a form of highlighting. Thus,
the auxiliary DO is used in emphatic sentences. In this context, it expresses two operations.
On the one hand, it (DO) shows the “resumption” character of the proposition on which it
bears. On the other hand, it affirms the “true” character of this proposition; and in speaking,
the fact of stressing it highlights this affirmation.
“Since you don’t like milk I won’t give you any”, But I do like milk
He did post the letter.
It is essential, as Lapaire says, to understand that the emphasis with DO is always a stand
taking on the reality of the predicative relation (meaning the relation between the subject and
the predicate). The emphatic comment of this operator frequently fits with the desire to defend
this reality. The enunciator opts for validating the relation; which allows them to state the
veracity of what they are saying against the incredibility of others or the situational logic.
Thus, the enunciator confirms the relationship between the subject, DO and the predicate.
I hope you do not think me a snob. You may have discerned in me a certain prejudice
against the lower orders. It is quite true. I do feel deeply on the subject.
I do not think I was a conceited sort of chap, but I felt as good as anyone else, and I
didn’t care what people thought as long as I had my fun. And I did have fun, too, and
what’s more, I enjoyed it. (Lapaire, 2002: 530)
In these examples, the enunciator resorts to the auxiliary DO to confirm the veracity of their
feeling. In other words, they confirm what the co- enunciator has thought of them.
The operator DO is a formal tool of work in progress on the validation of the predicative
relation. This work can be about commenting, evaluating, judging, confirming, etc. the
relation between the subject and the predicate. However, apart from the negative,
interrogative and emphatic wordings, the auxiliary DO can be used in tag questions or as a
verbal substitute. It can also be used in other contexts or as a lexical verb.
