{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017080745341614908, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017857142857142856, 'mean_word_length': 4.806306306306307, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
PERIPHRASTIC DOIN EARLY MODERN ENGLISH

Present-day English has grammaticalized do äs operator in negative and interrogative sentences, in code and in emphatic constructions. In this respect English differs from other Germanic languages, the Standard varieties of which have no corresponding auxiliary in such constructions. The origin and early use of periphrastic do has intrigued scholars for a considerable period of time, and numerous studies have been devoted to the topic; two early ones are Engblom 1938 and Ellegärd 1953. It is generally accepted that Early Modern English is a crucial period in the development of do äs periphrastic auxiliary. In recent years there has been renewed interest in do and its use in Early Modern English, and quite a few studies have approached the problem from the point of view of text linguistics and discourse analysis. The present paper is concerned with the use of periphrastic do in Early Modern English, which is here defmed äs the period from c. 1480 to c. 1730. Two types of clause will be investigated, viz. affirmative declarative clauses and clauses starting with an initial adverbial of negative form or meaning (cf. Quirk et al 1985: 778ff). It will be argued that pragmatic word order principles are crucial in explaining the use of