1887
Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper, I sketch the CP layer in main and embedded clauses in the history of English. The Modern English main clause is not as easily expandable as the Old English one, but the reverse is true in the subordinate clause, where Modern English has a more flexible embedded CP than Old English. I focus on the developments of the embedded CP. It has been claimed that Old English lacks an embedded split CP and therefore lacks embedded V2 and a host of other embedded root phenomena. I show this to be true for complements to both assertive and non-assertive verbs. In contrast, the Modern English matrix verb has an effect on the strength of the C-position. Assertive verbs in Modern English allow main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses whereas non-assertives typically do not. The main point of the paper is to chronicle the changes that ‘stretch’ the embedded clause and the changing role of main verbs. It is descriptive rather than explanatory, e.g., in terms of changes in phase-head status.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.15019.gel
2019-09-24
2019-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allen, Cynthia
    1977Topics in Diachronic English Syntax. University of Massachusetts PhD.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bech, Kristin
    2001Word Order patterns in Old and Middle English. University of Bergen PhD.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Callaway, Morgan
    1913The Infinitive in Anglo-Saxon. Washington: Carnegie Institution.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Farkas, Donka
    1992 On the semantics of subjunctive complements. Romance Languages and Modern Linguistic Theory, Paul Hirschbühler & Konrad Koerner (eds), 69–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.91.07far
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.91.07far [Google Scholar]
  5. Fischer, Olga
    1998 On Negative raising in the history of English”. In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade , Gunnel Tottie , Wim van der Wurff (eds.), Negation in the history of English, 55–100. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Gelderen, Elly van
    1993The Rise of Functional Categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.9 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2004Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.71
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.71 [Google Scholar]
  8. Haeberli, Eric
    2002 Inflectional morphology and the loss of V2 in English. InSyntactic Effects of Morphological Change, David Lightfoot (ed.), 88–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  9. Haller, Beat & John Watters
    1984 Topic in Zulgo. Studies in African Linguistics15.1: 27–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hinterhölzl, Roland & Ans van Kemenade
    2012 The Interaction between syntax, information structure, and prosody in word order change. In Terttu Nevalainen and Elizabeth Closs Traugott , eds. 2012 The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hooper, Joan
    1975 On assertive predicates. In Kimball, J. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics. Vol.V. New York: Academic Press. 91–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hooper, Joan & Sandra Thompson
    1973 On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry4.4: 465–497.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Julien, Marit
    2007 Embedded V2 in Norwegian and Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 80: 103–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Jespersen, Otto
    1926Modern English Grammar III. London: Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kemenade, Ans van
    1987Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht Foris. 10.1515/9783110882308
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110882308 [Google Scholar]
  16. 1997 V2 and embedded topicalisation in Old and Middle English. In Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent (eds.) Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, 326–352. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kiparsky, Paul & Carol Kiparsky
    1970 Fact. Progress in Linguistics, Manfred Bierwisch & Karl Heidolph (eds), 143–73. Den Haag: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kroch, Anthony & Ann Taylor
    1997 Verb Movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect Variation and Language Contact. InParameters of Morphosyntactic Change, Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds), 297–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lightfoot, David
    1979Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 1999The Development of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. López Martínez, Sergio
    2015 Embedded topicalization in Old English: does it exist? SELIM XVII. www.academia.edu/15940498/Embedded_Topicalisation_in_Old_English_Does_it_exist
  22. Meinunger, André
    2004 Verb position, verbal mood and the anchoring (potential) of sentences. In Horst Lohnstein & Susanne Trissler (eds.), The syntax and semantics of the left periphery, 313–341. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110912111.313
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110912111.313 [Google Scholar]
  23. Pintzuk, Susan
    1991Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. University of Pennsylvania PhD.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Roberts, Ian
    1996 Remarks on the Old English C-system and the diachrony of V-2. Linguistische Berichte. Sonderheft, 154–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Salvesen, Christine [Google Scholar]
  26. Salvesen, Christine & George Walkden
    2014 Diagnosing embedded V2 in Old English and Old French.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Visser, F.
    1963; 1966; 1973An Historical Syntax of the English Language, pts. 1, 2, 3 2d half. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Warner, Anthony
    1982Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Zeitlin, Jacob
    1908 The ACI and some kindred constructions in English. Columbia PhD. 10.7312/zeit93048
    https://doi.org/10.7312/zeit93048 [Google Scholar]
  30. Zupitza, Julius
    1959Beowulf, facsimile. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Beadle, Richard
    (ed.) 1982The York Plays. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Benson, L.
    1987The Riverside Chaucer. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Brook, G. & R. Leslie
    (eds.) 1963Layamon: Brut. Oxford: Oxford University Press, EETS 250.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Davis, Norman
    1971Paston letters and papers of the fifteenth century. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kökeritz, Helge
    (ed.) 1954Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories & Tragedies: A Facsimile Edition. New haven: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Morris, Richard
    ed. 1833–1894Old English homilies and homiletic treatises. London: Trübner.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lv.15019.gel
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.15019.gel
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): assertive and non-assertives , complementizers , root phenomena and split CP
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error