Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English [Reprint 2016 ed.] 9783110882308, 9783110133103

Citation preview

Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English

Ans van Kemenade

SYNTACTIC CASE AND MORPHOLOGICAL CASE IN THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH

Ψ

1987 FORIS PUBLICATIONS Dordrecht - Holland/Providence RI - USA

Published by: Foris Publications Holland P.O. Box 509 3300 AM Dordrecht, The Netherlands Sole distributor for the U.S.A and Canada: Foris Publications USA, Inc. P.O. Box 5904 Providence RI 02903 U.S.A. CIP-DATA

ISBN 90 6765 342 X Quotation taken from: /Elfric's Grammar, J. Zupitza, ed. Berlin 1880, reprinted 1966 © 1987 By the author No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the copyright owner. Printed in the Netherlands by ICG Printing, Dordrecht.

for Jos, Iris and Floris

Preface

I wish to extend my gratitude to a number of people and institutions for their help during the preparation

of this study, my doctoral dissertation.

The research was funded by the Foundation for Linguistic Research, which is financed by the Netherlands Association for the Advancement of Pure Scientific Research (NWO), grant number 17-24-03, and carried out at the departments of English and Dutch of the University of Utrecht. I owe a lasting debt to Wim Zonneveld. Years ago, he showed me the fun of ä theoretical approach to historical language material, and has been a very helpful supervisor, standby and friend. The research project leading up to this study was instigated by David Lightfoot, who thus provided basic ideas and inspiration. During the writing of this study, Henk Verkuyl's cheerful guidance did much to improve this study and the spirits of its author. More generally, I wish to thank Andy Baxter and Piet Verhoeff. They were my first teachers in historical linguistics, and helped to create conditions under which I could get on with it. Thanks to the following people for discussions relating to particular aspects of this study: Andy Baxter, Peter Coopmans, Frank Drijkoningen, Martin Everaert, Arnold Evers, Frank van Gestel, Ger de Haan, Riny Huybregts, Frederike van der Leek, Alisdair MacDonald, Jan Odijk, Henk van Riemsdijk, Frits Stuurman, Fred Weerman. Thanks to Martina Noteboom for her careful proofreading of the manuscript, to Karin van der Zeeuw-Filemon for text-processing a sheaf of typewritten and semi-legible handwritten documents, and to Colin Ewen for his invaluable last-minute help with the printing and editing. Finally, a very special thanks goes to my husband, Jos Heuer, for his support; this book is dedicated to him and to our children Iris and Floris.

Table of Contents

Preface

Vll

Table of Contents

IX

CHAPTER 1. Introduction

1

1.1. Theoretical work on historical syntax

2

1.2. Language change

5

1.3. Organization

8

Footnote

11

Part I Old English

13

CHAPTER 2. Basic syntax

14

2.1. The SOV hypothesis

15

2.1.1. SOV criteria for Dutch

23

2.1.2. SOV criteria for Old English

29

2.2. Extraposition

39

2.3. Verb Second

42

2.3.1. Analysis of Verb Second

48

2.3.1.1. Properties of the landing-site for move V

48

2.3.1.2. INFL and COMP

52

2.3.1.3. The trigger for move V

54

2.3.1.4. Topicalization

55

2.4. Verb Raising

55

2.5. Conclusion

62

Footnotes

64

CHAPTER 3. Syntactic case and morphological case

66

3.1 Syntactic case

67

3.1.1. Oblique case

72

3.1.1.1. Case assignment by adjectives

73

3.1.1.2. Thematic correlations of oblique case

79

3.1.1.2.1. Dative

79

χ 3.1.1.2.2. Genitive

82

3.1.1.2.3. Oblique accusative

84

3.1.1.3. Some preliminary conclusions

85

3.1.1.4. Syntactic effects of oblique case

85

3.1.1.4.1. Passive constructions

86

3.1.2. Directionality constraints on 0-marking and case-marking

89

3.1.3. The acquisition of syntactic case

94

3.1.3.1. The acquisition of case-marking rules

95

3.1.3.2. Acquisition of directionality constraints

97

3.2. Morphological case

98

3.2.1. Morphological spell-out rules

101

3.3. Conclusions

105

Footnotes

107

CHAPTER 4. Clitics

108

4.1. Some data

108

4.1.1. Subject pronouns

109

4.1.2. Pronominal objects of V

112

4.1.3. Pronominal objects of Ρ

114

4.2. Excursus: Modern Dutch R-pronouns

119

4.3. Old English pronouns as clitics

126

4.3.1. Subject clitics

127

4.3.2. Clitic objects of V

129

4.3.3. Clitic objects of Ρ

132

4.3.4. Discussion

134

4.4. Further evidence

135

4.4.1. Clitic climbing in V-raising complements

135

4.4.2. Resumptive pronouns

136

4.5. Clitics on COMP and V2

138

4.6. The morphology of clitics

140

Footnotes

142

CHAPTER 5. Preposition-stranding 5.1. Data

.144 145

5.1.1. Preposition-stranding by personal pronouns

145

5.1.2. Preposition-stranding by R-pronouns

146

5.1.3. Relatives introduced by the relative complementizer Jje.

147

5.1.4. Se relatives

149

XI 5.1.5. Se be relatives

150

5.1.6. Infinitival relatives

151

5.1.7. Topicalization

152

5.1.8. Tough-movement constructions

152

5.1.9. Wh-questions

152

5.2. Review of the literature

153

5.2.1. Literature on P-stranding in OE relatives

153

5.2.2. Constraints on P-stranding

158

5.3. Preposition stranding as 0 clitic movement

163

5.4. Concluding remarks

170

Footnotes

172

Part II Middle English and diachronic aspects

173

CHAPTER 6. Syntactic changes and morphological changes

174

6.1. The base change from SOV to SVO and the loss of Verb Second

174

6.1.1. From SOV to SVO

175

6.1.2. The development of V2

180

6.2. Developments in clitics

188

6.2.1. Clitics in VP

189

6.2.2. Clitics on COMP

196

6.3. Reductions in morphology

202

6.3.1. Noun morphology

202

6.3.2. Verb morphology

203

6.3.3. The loss of clitics revisited

204

6.4. The loss of oblique case

205

6.4.1. Changes in P-stranding and passives

207

6.5. The loss of V2 and related changes

219

6.5.1. Changes related to the loss of V2

223

6.6. Conclusion

228

Appendix I

229

Appendix II

234

Abbreviations

236

References

238

1. Old and Middle English texts

238

2. Secondary source references

240

CHAPTER 1

Introduction The aim of this study is to contribute to the study of theoretical linguistics

by

investigating

the early

history

of some English constructions,

and,

conversely, to contribute to the study of early English by giving an explanation for a number of synchronic and diachronic facts. We focus primarily on constructions w i t h preposition stranding, clitics, passivization, transitive adjectives, and on w o r d order. Though this set may strike one as quite diverse and unrelated, the unifying feature is that they are all related to the case properties and

thematic

properties

of verbal

and prepositional

elements.

The nature of

these properties in Old English (OE) is related, we claim, to the rich inflectional system of OE. The changes in these constructions are then related to the loss of that inflectional system. We provide velopment

an analysis of these O E constructions and their diachronic de-

within

the

framework

of

the

government-binding

theory

of

Chomsky

(1981; 1982) and subsequent work. Current linguistic theory provides the analytic tools reeded to recover deeper relationships between superficially unrelated phenomena. To more immediate purpose, GB theory, through a theory of abstract case, provides a means of relating the loss of the morphological case system to syntactic changes taking place at roughly the same time. In this study we presuppose

familiarity with

the

government-binding

framework.

To my mind,

there

would not be much point in giving a brief survey of GB theory here. It would be quite inadequate for the uninitiated reader, and superfluous for those who are familiar with this theory. The research strategy followed in this study differs somewhat from the usual one in linguistic research on the history of English. In connection with OE it is often remarked, quite loosely, that OE, being a set of West Germanic (WGmc) languages/dialects,

resembles Modern Dutch and Modern German far more closely

than Modern English does, for instance Strang (1970). But so far, it seems, this observation has not led to serious comparative work. In this study we take the relatedness of OE and other WGmc languages seriously, and we begin by analysing a number of features of OE syntax on the basis of current literature about comparable phenomena in

Dutch and German. The results of such an approach cut both

ways. Because we know so much more about modern WGmc languages than we can pos-

2 sibly know about a dead language like OE, a comparison may tell us a good deal about syntactic problems in OE. Conversely, OE can form a testing ground for hypotheses about other WGmc languages. The OE constructions we discuss can be related in an interesting way by an elaborated version of case theory in the GB framework, interacting with other subtheories. We will see that the comparative approach sheds considerable light on a number of aspects of OE syntax that have so far gone unnoticed or have been poorly understood. This discussion of OE facts is the main concern of part I (chapters

2-5). From the discussion and analysis in Part I, it emerges that

there are two basic differences between OE as analysed here and Modern English (ModE) according to standard analyses. Accordingly, there must have been two changes in the development subsequent to OE. Part II traces the further history of the syntax and morphology discussed in Part I, and tries to identify and date these changes. Also, we give an analysis of these diachronic developments, with discussion of some further theoretical consequences.

1.1. Theoretical work on historical syntax

As pointed out above, this study works within the GB framework of Chomsky (1981). Doing work on historical syntax within such a framework involves a number of problems. We discuss these briefly here, and the ways in which we have tried to circumvent them. The main problem in doing theoretical work on historical syntax is the absence of information on the ungrammaticality

of sentences. Work on syntactic

theory aims to capture the internal grammar of native speakers. In order to do that, information about ungrammaticality is at least as important as information about grammaticality.

Such information is to be had only from grammaticality

judgements of native speakers, that reflect the competence rather than the performance of that speaker. Such native speaker judgements are lacking in work on historical material; we only have text-material at our disposal. Such material reflects, at best, no more than the performance of the scribe who wrote (or copied) the text, subject to orthographic conventions and other conditions that are at least partly beyond our reach. And there are other problems to be reckoned with; the OE corpus of written texts consists for a large part either of translations from Latin or of texts influenced considerably by that language. Furthermore, it is difficult to assess the extent of foreign influence on English by the Scandinavian and French invasions in the OE and early Middle English

3 (eME) period. And the possibility of discrepancies between the spoken and written language must be taken into account. Much relevant discussion of the latter problems can be found in Allen

(1977: introduction). Some of these problems,

however, are not insurmountable. The problem of the absence of negative evidence remains, of course, but there are ways of alleviating it, as Allen notes. Notice first of all that a lot of useful and interesting work can be done by interpreting and analyzing the positive evidence we have from the texts to the best of our ability. For instance, if one is interested in the diachronic development of a certain construction, say preposition stranding by passivization (cf. chapter 6), one will find that this did not occur in OE, that in the thirteenth century a few examples started to appear, and that it is found with increasing frequency in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. To my mind, one may conclude safely from this situation that the construction was ungrammatical in OE, became grammatical in early ME, and became more firmly rooted in later ME. The problem of the absence of negative evidence can be circumvented partly by doing comparative work. I illustrate this with an example. If, e.g., one looks at OE root clauses and tries to define the position of the finite verb, one cannot fail to notice that the finite verb is most often in second position, abstracting

from the position of pronouns. But not infrequently, more than one

constituent, say two adverbiale, precede the finite verb. This would constitute a problem for any

'verb second* analysis of OE. But if one compares OE with

Modern Dutch (Du) and Modern German (Gm), which are more strictly 'verb second', one is bound to conclude that presumably OE is V2, and that exceptions as noted may be due to, for instance, stylistic variation in the written language. This because it would be very surprising, from a theoretical point of view, if OE had verb preposing in root clauses that is very similar to that in Du and Gm, but with an entirely different landing-site. Such considerations may help the analyst in making sense of the surface patterns found in written texts. Given the research strategy followed and the theoretical framework adopted, we are interested here primarily in observed regularities. While there are no doubt counterexamples to most of the observations about language facts made in this study, we have not made it our business to catalogue these systematically. In a corpus of written texts in a dead language, it is often difficult to assign a status to counterexamples. Are they 'real'? Are they 'slips'? Are there stylistic considerations

involved

that may well be beyond our reach7 These are

interesting questions in their own right, but they go beyond theoretically oriented investigation.

the scope of a

4 Apart from any way of circumventing evidential problems, it is undoubtedly necessary to consider many data before one can draw firm conclusions on which to base an analysis. This is what we have done for this study. A number of texts have been gone through systematically, in search of data of particular constructions and to get some feeling for the language at various stages. We have examined the Parker text of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle (ed. Plummer), King Alfred's translation of the Orosius (ed. Bately) and a hundred pages of JElfric's catholic homilies (ed. Thorpe) for OE. The chronicle was chosen because it is the only substantial text that was originally written in Anglo-Saxon. Some scholars hold that therefore the chronicle is the only reliable source of data. I cannot subscribe to this. It is true that the chronicle is the only text in original Old English, but on the other hand its annal style can hardly be representative. The texts by Alfred and jElfric, though possibly more latinate, have been written with the aim of making them accessible to people who knew no Latin. Therefore they are bound to be reliable specimens of OE. These texts have been chosen as prose specimens of early and late OE. We have not investigated any poetry. It is well-known that OE poetry had a language of its own, going back to Old Germanic traditions. Word order in poetry is very different from that in prose. Therefore, poetry cannot be considered a reliable source of information on the standard of OE. For Middle English, we have examined the Peterborough chronicle (ed. Clark), whose continuations are about the only text source from the twelfth century that is not translated or copied from earlier material. From the thirteenth century we have studied short prose

'Sawles Warde*

(from Morris' Old English Homilies), a

treatise, and a portion of the

'Kentish Sermons*

(in Bennett S

Smithers' reader). From the fourteenth century we have studied the prose treatises of Richard Rolle (ed. Perry) and a portion of Wycliffe's 'Of Feigned Contemplative Life' (in Sisam's reader). To my delight I have been fortunate enough to have gained access to the extensive and excellent data corpus gathered by Cynthia Allen for her (1977) dissertation, based on no less than 70 Old and Middle texts.1

This has been of

particular use for the analysis of clitics and preposition stranding. Beside these data from primary sources I have found a lot of data through references to the texts in Wülfing

(1894; 1901) for particular constructions; through ref-

erences in the microfiche concordance of OE texts; and through references to the texts

in Visser

(1963-1973). Additional data for ME have been found through

Visser, and through the Tatlock and Kennedy concordance to the works of Chaucer. Data that are quoted from other scholars will be indicated where appropriate. As far as possible (i.e. where editions were available), I have checked the data

5

drawn from others against the text editions. This data corpus, I feel, was sufficiently extensive to allow conclusions to be drawn with some confidence.

1.2. Language Change

As pointed out above, this study works within the government-binding theory. Doing historical work within the framework of such a theory entails a specific view of language change. GB theory is a highly restrictive model of universal grammar (UG). UG is assumed to be part of our genetic endowment. The model consists of a limited number of highly articulate subtheories or modules, that interact to yield a wide proliferation of actual surface phenomena. On this view, UG makes available a limited number of options or parameters, the language-specific values of which are to be filled in by the language learner upon exposure to the language environment. Thus, the acquisition of one's native language consists for a large part of fixing the values for the parameters made available by UG. Working on historical

syntax within such a theory, one will therefore be particularly

interested in the kinds of language change that reflect a change in the fixing of such parameters, and the consequences thereof in other parts of the grammar. To give an example, in chapter 3 we will adopt the position that basic word order phenomena are determined by the direction in which thematic roles are assigned by lexical heads. Thus, the OV word order of OE is a consequence of the fact that verbs assign their thematic roles from right to left. The change in word order from OE OV to ME VO is a consequence of the refixing of the value for this parameter: in ME thematic roles are assigned from left to right. Given the modular character of the grammar, the refixing of a value for a single parameter can have farreaching consequences in other parts of the grammar, evident from different, possibly superficially unrelated changes. The methodology for such work on historical syntax was set out by David Lightfoot in his important (1979) Principles of Diachronlc Syntax. In this work he argues that there can be no such thing as a separate mechanism for language change. From the perspective of linguistic theory as outlined, each language learner constructs his own grammar afresh. The form this grammar can take is determined by the theory, since that theory defines what is a possible grammar. It is the theory therefore, that imposes upper limits as to what is a possible historical change. Lightfoot then comes to an impoverished theory of change that consists of the following four statements:

6 (1) a. communicability must be preserved between generations b. grammars practise therapy rather than prophylaxis c. less highly valued grammars are liable to reanalysis d. certain therapeutic changes are more likely than others An additional

principle

that forms an important

part

of this

theory

is

the

'Transparency Principle', a principle of grammar that requires derivations to be minimally

complex,

underlying

structures

to

be

'close'

to

their

respective

surface structures. In this theory of change a likely scenario for a change is that, due to incidental and often quite unrelated changes, a grammar acquires a number of marked

features, and the grammar becomes less highly valued.

Even-

tually the grammar reaches a degree of markedness that is intolerable, as defined loosely by the transparency principle, and a reanalysis is predicted. What form that reanalysis will take is limited by the theory of grammar. This scenario of change essentially follows that of Andersen (1974). In a series of papers, Andersen (1969; 1972; 1973; 1974) distinguishes various types of language change. The following table is from Andersen (1974): (2) I

Adaptive innovations A

1 Accommodative innovations 2 Remedial innovations

Β

Contact

A

Deductive innovations

Β

Abductive innovations

II

Evolutive innovations

It is the evolutive innovations that we are particularly interested in in the frame of this study, since these are innovations determined exclusively by the grammar of the native speaker. This is discussed also by Lightfoot (1979: 348 ff.). What is abductive change and deductive change? If one takes the three propositions of a syllogism 'all men are mortal* (the LAW), 'Socrates is a man' (the CASE) and 'Socrates is mortal' (the RESULT), one can distinguish three modes of inference: induction, deduction and abduction. The

latter

term is from Charles

Sanders Peirce. Induction infers a law

from

observed cases and results, deduction derives a result from a law and a case. Abduction applies a law to an observed result and infers a case. Under abduction one may observe that Socrates is mortal, invoke the general law that all men are mortal, and abduce that Socrates was a man. According to Andersen (1973) this is

7 a fallible means of reasoning because one may match the observed result with the wrong law and thereby draw a false conclusion; but Peirce gave it a prominent place in theories of scientific method because of the three modes of inference, it is the only one that is creative in that it can generate new ideas and explanations. Andersen points out that abductive inference plays an important role in language acquisition:

'a learner observes the verbal activity of his elders, construes it as a 'result' - as the output of a grammar - and guesses at what that grammar might be ... set of 'laws', which he shares with all members of his species, viz. the properties of his constitution that completely determine the nature of linguistic structure, and hence the relation between a grammar and its output. .. As he builds up his grammar, in his attempt to explain the utterances he has observed, the learner constantly tests its validity by use of both induction and deduction. He checks new utterances produced by his models against the relevant parts of his grammar, to see whether these new data ('results') can be reconciled with the linguistic structure he has formulated in conformity with the 'laws' of language; this is induction. If they cannot, there can be only one reason: his grammar is inadequate. He will then be prompted to make new abductions to make the grammar conform to the observed facts... he also speaks, testing his grammar by using it to produce utterances in conformity with the laws of language. This is deduction, the process by which an abductive inference is evaluated on the basis of the consequences it entails' (Andersen 1973: pp 776f). Lightfoot

(1979: 349) observes that Andersen's discussion is inadequate because

he omits to point out that Peirce's theory of abduction crucially involved a limitation on available hypotheses, in our case a restrictive theory of grammar. Lightfoot points out that by an abductive process a language learner hypothesizes a grammar on the basis of the language of his models and what he knows would count as a possible grammar (as defined by the theory). Abductive innovations are

thus changes in the grammar, and can only be indirectly

observed

through the consequences entailed. The major contribution of Lightfoot's book is that there is no such thing as an independent

theory of change, given the notion that each language learner

constructs his own grammar afresh. However, there has been a considerable amount of controversy concerning the 'transparency principle* as a principle of grammar, and to my mind rightly so. It is difficult to see how this principle, which after all does not do much more than capture in a fairly impressionistic way an intuition about how grammars ought to be set up, can be a principle of grammar. As such it would be quite different from the very precisely formulated subtheories that make up GB theory. And indeed, the transparency principle is quite superfluous, if one considers the above view of language acquisition carefully.

8 The changes we discuss in this study conform to the following scenario: due to incidental changes the surface patterns of the language become such that to the language

learner

they

lend themselves

equally well or better to a

different

parametric interpretation, subject to the limits imposed by the theory. If each language learner constructus his own grammar afresh, the results of the transparency model

principle

of UG,

the

follow if one makes the natural assumption that, given the language

learner

infers the simplest possible grammar

that

accounts for the material encountered in the language environment. Within this perspective, the changes we discuss in this study are examples of abductive and deductive

change.

Given the model

of grammar in which values

for

particular

parameters are filled in on the basis of exposure to the language environment, the refixing of a parameter (reanalysis in Lightfoot's terms) would be an abductive change. The consequences of this change are examples of deductive change. Let us emphasize that by adopting this approach to language change, we do not w i s h to deny that there are many other

factors that play a role in language

change. No doubt functional and sociolinguistic factors play an important part in the origin and diffusion of particular changes. We merely point out that such factors are not of primary interest from the point of view of our theoretical framework, therefore they do not constitute our focus of interest.

1.3. Organization This study is organized in two parts. The first and most substantial Part I is

concerned with a

synchronic

analysis

of the

basic

structure of OE and a

number of constructions that reveal some properties of syntactic case-marking in OE. We analyse the basic case-marking properties of verbs and prepositions, case assignment by adjectives, the special behaviour with respect to case of personal pronouns and locative pronouns, and the peculiarities of constructions involving prepositions. We also discuss

the relationship between syntactic

case-marking

and morphological case. The analysis in Part I is based partly on a comparison between OE and closely related modern WGmc languages, in particular Du and Gm. From the analysis in Part I it emerges that, beside the morphological case system,

there are two basic structural differences between OE on the one hand

and M o d E according to standard GB analyses, from which other differences follow. Accordingly, Part II traces the M E development of the facts analysed for OE. We give an analysis of these developments and attempt to identify the two changes that gave rise to the ModE structure.

9

Part lì Chapter 2 is a largely pretheoretical chapter in which we adduce evidence for the SOV character of OE and give independent explanations for facts that on the surface appear to argue against SOV order: extraposition, 'verb second' and 'verb-raising'. This chapter forms the basis for subsequent chapters. Chapter 3 discusses a number of properties of OE syntactic and morphological case in the light of case theory in 6B theory. Two kinds of syntactic case are distinguished:

structural case and oblique case. These types of case

have a number of essentially different properties. While structural case can be assigned by the INFL node and by verbs, oblique case can be assigned by verbs, transitive adjectives and prepositions. Structural case and oblique case are assigned at different levels in the grammar: structural case at S-structure; oblique case at D-structure. This distinction accounts for the facts concerning OE transitive adjectives, and for the specific types of passive constructions found in OE and the absence of others. We argue that the different types of case-marking are subject to directionality constraints. These account for a number of OE word order phenomena described in chapter 2. Finally, we discuss the morphological case system and its relationship to the syntactic case system. Chapter A gives an analysis of the behaviour of OE personal pronouns and locative pronouns with respect to case. These elements follow patterns of syntactic behaviour that differ from those of both 'full NP's' and other pronouns. We argue that they should be analyzed as clitics and identify them as belonging to a specific type of clitic. Clitics in general appear on positions attached to their case-marking heads. The properties of OE clitics, to be defined, are such that they can move to other clitic positions. We adduce independent evidence for this clitic analysis. It is argued that the phenomenon of cliticization in OE is related to certain aspects of the syntactic and morphological case systems. In These

Chapter

constructions

5 we

discuss

have

so

far

OE constructions with

preposition-stranding.

resisted

treatment

a principled

in

standard

generative theory. We show that, by extending the clitic analysis of chapter 4 to phonetically null pronouns, we can give an elegant and unified account of these constructions. Since this analysis is an extension of the clitic analysis in chapter

4, which is related to the case-system as argued for in chapter 3,

the phenomenon

of preposition-stranding

is related to the case-system in the

same way. Part II: From the analysis of OE in part I, it emerges that there are two basic structural

differences

between

OE

and ModE

according

to

standard

analyses.

First, OE has a verb-finai VP; ModE a verb-initial VP. Second, OE has INFL in pre-S position, whereas in ModE INFL is the head of S. Accordingly, there must

10 have been two changes in the development subsequent to 0E. We argue that this is indeed the

case,

and

that a number of M E developments

in the

constructions

discussed for OE, result from these two basic changes. In chapter 6 we first discuss and date the two basic changes that took place and give a preliminary analysis of them. The first change is that there was a reversal in the direction in which 0 role was assigned, resulting in the base change from SOV to SVO. This took place around 1200. The second one, taking place around 1400, is that the position of INFL changed; INFL became the head of S. Next we will see that the hypothesis that there were two changes is confirmed by the order in which clitics were lost. We will indicate why clitics were lost: because of the disappearance of morphological case. We will relate the loss of oblique case and morphological case to the change in basic order in the VP. The notion that oblique

case was

lost explains changes in passives,

preposition-

stranding constructions, and the loss of case-marking by adjectives. Finally, we will see that the shift in the position of INFL, resulting in the loss of V2, correlates in an interesting way with some other changes. We gradually refine the analysis of these changes and conclude with some overall discussion. Throughout this study, we have omitted the symbol that marks vowel length in OE and ME, because the length mark is not relevant to our purposes.

11 Footnote 1. This data corpus was very kindly made available to me by Professor Robert P. Stockwell.

Parti

Old English

CHAPTER 2

Basic syntax It is the aim of this chapter to argue for what we take to be the basic syntactic

structure

of OE.

The basic hypothesis

that we

test will be that the

underlying word order of OE is SOV. There are various reasons why it is necessary to establish this basic structure. The first is to provide a general background for the following chapters. Furthermore the analyses of case in chapter 3, of clitics in chapter 4 and of preposition stranding in chapter 5 hinge on the hypothesis that OE is an SOV language. This in turn provides a basis for the diachronic development discussed in chapters 6 and 7. Therefore it is important to argue for this structure in some detail. In section 1 of this chapter, we discuss evidence for and counterevidence to the SOV character of OE. We will see that, in spite of superficial counterevidence, a theoretical approach results unequivocally in SOV order. In the remaining

sections we

section

will

1 is open

see

that

the

superficial

counterevidence

to independent explanation. These

discussed

independent

in

explanations

make use of a fact that tends to be overlooked in the study of OE, viz. that what we call OE consists of a number of WGmc dialects, and that it may thus be a fruitful strategy to treat OE and other WGmc languages comparatively. Because we know so much more about modern WGmc languages than we can possibly know about a dead language like OE, a comparison may add to our knowledge of the latter. Actually, we go even further than this. On the basis of similarities between Du and Gm on the one hand and OE on the other, we use analyses of Du and Gm to direct our observations on OE. In doing so, our primary aim in this chapter is to

reveal

things

about OE, not to contribute

to the analysis

of Du and Gm.

Against this background, we will establish SOV order for OE according to criteria set up for Dutch and German by Köster (1975) in section 1; extraposition is discussed in section 2; the phenomenon of Verb Second in OE, which obliterates the underlying order in root clauses, is treated with the same phenomenon in Du and Gm in section 3; the phenomenon of V-raising, which obliterates the underlying order in both root and non-root clauses, will be compared with that in other WGmc languages in section 4. The result of this chapter will be that, from the point of view of the theory, there

is every

reason to consider OE an SOV language. Since

superficial

15 counterevidence is open to independent explanation, there is no large class of facte left that suggests a different underlying order.

2.1. The SOV hypothesis The underlying word order of OE has recently become a matter of considerable debate. Before the sixties, there was general agreement among scholars that OE was a language with free word order, and there was little doubt that this was because case endings adequately indicated grammatical functions (see e.g. Fries (1940); Mossé Shannon

(1945)). This traditional view was abandoned in studies such as

(1964);

Carlton

(1970); Gardner

(1971). These

studies recognize

that

word order in OE displays a fair amount of regularity and conformity in particular

types

interest

of

constructions.

in OE word

order,

More

recently,

no doubt

because

theoreticians linguistic

have theory

developed provides

analytic tools needed to recover the structure underlying a seemingly

an the

complex

array of surface patterns. With this development, the notion 'underlying word order' has become important. For OE, Malsh (1976) argues for SVO order; Lightfoot

(1976; 1977) and Canale

(1978) argue

that OE is SOV. Reddick

(1982) is

mainly a criticism of Malsh and Lightfoot; he concludes that the correct order is SVO. W. Koopman (1984) looks at such distributional facts in OE as have been used by Köster (1975) to argue that Du is SOV. His conclusion is that although the case for OE is not quite as clear as that for Du, SOV is the more plausible assumption. Another study to be mentioned in this context, although it makes no use of the concept 'underlying order', is Bean (1983). There it is concluded on the basis of surface patterns that OE is 'Verb Third'. The underlying order of OE also plays a role in diachronic studies. Canale (1978) and Lightfoot (1979) argue that OE is SOV and develops into SVO. The aim of this chapter is to argue once more and with new, detailed evidence, for the hypothesis that the underlying word order of OE is SOV. 1

That

is, a sentence S in OE rewrites as an NP and a VP, and in the latter the verb is base-generated in final position, as in (1).

16

Let me first give some examples of SOV order at the surface in (2). (2) a. J>œt

ic J>as

that I awende

boc

of

Ledenum gereorde to Engliscre sprsce

this book from Latin

language to English

tongue

(AHTh,I,pref,6)

translate 'that I translate this book from the Latin language to the English tongue' b. {jeh Jje

he hie mid miele forlore

{MSS folees begeate (Oros,72,11)

though that he them with great loss

of

people achieved

'though he achieved them with great loss of people' e. ...gif hie if

him lues rices

ufcon (Parker 755)

they him the kingdom granted

'if they would grant him the kingdom* d. ...se

t>e

wilnad

dst

mon

nanre ryhtwisnesse fore him

who that desires that people no

good

for

him

ne not

wandige (CP,144,16) hesitate 'who desires that no man hesitate to do well on his account' e. ...and heora

an

sona

his swurd ateah (ASL,XXXI,468)

and of them one immediately his sword drew 'and one of them instantly drew his sword' There are basically two reasons why SOV underlying order is controversial from a superficial point of view. In the first place, this is because in main clauses

17 the finite verb is in second constituent position. 2 Since the first constituent position is occupied by the subject quite frequently, this yields many SVO patterns in main clauses, as well as XVSO ones. This is exemplified in (3) and (4). (3) gives examples

of sentences with a single verb,

(4) of sentences with a

finite verb and a second, infinitival or participial verb form. (3) a. Se svicola Herodes cwad to dam tungel-witegum (AHTh,I,82,15) (subject first) the treacherous Herod spoke to the star-wise men 'the treacherous Herod spoke to the astrologers' b. Se scamfasta

hsfd genoh

the modest man has lareow

on den

to

his betrunge

dset

his

enough in that for his betterment that his

hiene... (CP,206,3)

(subject first)

teacher him... 'it is enough to reform the modest man if his teacher...' c. &

his lie

lit)

on Sea Marian ciricean on Angelcynnes scole (Parker 874) (subject first)

and his body lies in St

Mary's church

in the school of the

English d. Maran cydde

habbad englas to Gode fconne men (AHTh,I,10,3) (acc. object first)

more affinity have

angels to God

than men

'angels have more affinity to God than men' e. eall dis aredad

se reccere swide ryhte (CP,168,3) (acc. object first)

all this arranges the ruler

very

rightly

'the ruler arranges all this very rightly' f. Swelcum ingedonce such a

gerist fleet... (CP,60,10)

disposition suits

that...

'it is fitting for such a disposition that...'

(dat. object first)

18 g. On dees sacerdes hregle

«tes toeacan

golde &

iacincte &

on the priest's garment was in addition to gold and jacinth and purpuran, dyrodine twegra bleo (CP, 86,2) purple,

red

(dat. PP first)

of double dye

'there was double-dyed red on the priest's dress, in addition to gold, jacinth and purple' h. On {wre tide wss sum

oder

witega

on Iudea lande (AHTh,I,570) (adv. first)

on that time was some other prophet in Jews' land 'in these days there was another prophet in the land of Judah' i. J)y ilcan geare drehton £a

hergas on East englum &.... (Parker 895) (adv. first)

the same year

harried the armies in East Anglia and....

'in the same year the armies harried east Anglia and.... (4) a. £>es

dœg wœs on dsre ealdan e

gesett and gehalgod (AHTh,I,310) (subj. first)

this day was in the

old

law set

and hallowed

'this day was appointed an hallowed in the old law* b. we sculon swide smealice dissa sgder underdencean (CP,48,23) (subj. first) we must

very

narrowly these

both consider

'we must consider both of these very carefully' c. On twam Jjingum hsfde God Jwes mannes sawle gegodod (AHTh,I,20) (dat. PP first) in two things

had

God the man's

soul

endowed

'God had endowed man's soul with two things' d. done onwald mag wel the

power

reccean se J>e

may well wield

widwinnan (CP,112,21)

sgder ge hiene habban con ge

he that both

it

have

can and

(acc. object first)

resist 'he is well able to wield power who can both hold and resist it'

19 e. J>onne beod eowere eagan geopenede (AHTh,I,18) then

are

your

eyes

(adv. first)

opened

'then your eyes are opened' f. J>ser wear}) se there was

cyning Bagsecg ofslœgen (Parker 871)

the king

(adv. first)

Bagsecg murdered

'there king Bagsecg was murdered' Observe

that the data under

(2), (3) and (4) strongly suggest that the basic

position for the verb is VP-final. In the examples under (2), which are all embedded clauses or conjoined embedded clauses, there is only a single verb and this is in VP-final position. (3) gives examples of sentences, all main clauses with a single verb,

that have the finite verb in second position. This is a

systematic phenomenon. The fact that in the examples in (3) the first position preceding the finite verb can be any constituent - subject, various kinds of object or object PP, adverblals - suggests that this first position is not the systematic position for the subject. In V2 sentences that have two verb forms, such as in (4), the finite verb is in second position, the second verb form in final position. To these we may add examples of embedded clauses with more than one verb form, which usually have both the verb forms in VP-final position, as in (5).

(5) a. ]»t

Darius hie

mid gefeohte secan wolde (Oros,45,31)

that Darius them for battle

visit wanted

'that Darius wanted to seek them out in order to battle with them' b. ...{»et

hie

{wet to

that they it

his honda healdan sceoldon (Parker 887)

from his hand

hold

should

'that they ought to hold it from him as overlord' c. }»et

hi

micclum blissian mihton, ... (AHTh,I,384)

that they greatly rejoice

might

'that they might greatly rejoice' All these examples suggest that the basic position for the verb is VP-final, and that in V2 sentences for some reason the finite verb is preposed to second con-

20 etituent position. Presumably then, the underlying word order of OE would not be much of an issue if sentences like (2)-(5) exhausted the possibilities. The second reason why SOV underlying order is controversial is that there are a number of word order patterns that confuse the picture further. There are, for instance,

sentences

that

seem to indicate

that there

is

also

a Verb

Second

phenomenon in embedded clauses. This is exemplified in (6). (6) a. {Met

he mehte his feorh generian (Oros,48,18)

that he might his life

save

'so that he might save his life' b. {wet

hie

ne

mehton J)a gefarenan to eor¡>an bringan (Oros,49,23)

that they not could

the dead

to earth

bring

'so that they could not bury the dead* c. and smeade

hu

he mihte his

and ealles

and meditated how he might of him and of all

mancynnes eft mankind

again

gemiltsian (AHTh,I,18) be merciful 'and meditated how he might again be merciful to him and all mankind' d. and cwaed Jjset we sceoldon deade and said that we should

sweltan, gif... (AHTh,I,16)

death (dat) perish, if

•and said that we should perish by death if...' e. . ,.cwœ{) ¡Met

he wolde

his man

beon (ChronC, 1049)

said that he wanted his vassal be 'and said that he wanted to be his vassal' f. Her

was se

mona

swelce

he ware mid

as if

it was

blode begoten (Parker 734)

In this year was the moon

with blood suffused

'in this year the moon was as if it were suffused with blood' This phenomenon differs essentially, though, from that of V2 in main clauses: here,

the first constituent

preceding

the finite verb is always the

subject.

21 Also, the finite verb is not always in second position, as in V2 main clauses, but can be in third position. This is exemplified in (7). (7) a. J»t

he t>ss gewinnes mehte mare

that he the victory

gefremman (Oros,47,14)

could better achieve

'so that he could gain victory more easily' b. (net mon

slcne ceap

mehte be twiefealdan bet geceapian (Oros,130,23)

that people each commodity could by twofold

better buy

'that people could buy every commodity twice as cheap* This suggests that this phenomenon is different from V2 in main clauses. The SOV pattern in embedded clauses is also obliterated by the phenomenon that VP constituents can appear after the non-finite verb, as in (8). (8) a. to (ion

J»t

he sceolde fif

winter

winnan on Gallie (Oros 126,3)

because that he should

five winters fight

in Gallia

'because he would have to fight in Gallia for five winters' b. dst

he msge hwilum

that he may

ongietan micel of

sometimes perceive much

lytlum (CP,153,IS)

from little

'that he may sometimes infer much from little' c. l»t

hie

ofer

J»t

ne

dorston nohte

gretan J)a

halgan

that they after that not dared not at all attack the holy stowe (GD,4,43,4) place 'that after that, they did not dare at all attack the holy place'

22 d. ...sœde {«t

heo nolde

Jjees œrran bryd-guman

suelan truwan

said that she not wanted the first bridegroom's noble

troth

afre gewemman {>urh snig wedd. (ASL,VXI,7X) ever stain

by

any marriage

'said that she would not, by any marriage, ever stain the noble troth of the first bridegroom'

The constituents that appear in postverbal position are nearly always VP constituents. Occasionally a postverbal subject is found (sentence-final). This is always a heavy subject constituent, suggesting that we are dealing here with a stylistic phenomenon. It is exemplified in (9)t

(9) a. done onwald msg wel reccean se ]>e the

power

may well wield

sgder ge hiene habban con ge

he that both

it have

can and

widwinnan (CP,112,21) resist 'he can wield power well who can both have it and resist it'

b. sfter J)am fœstene him comon fœrlice

to twegen scinende englas (ASL,XXXI,449)

after the fast

him came

suddenly to two

shining angels

'after the fast, two shining angels suddenly came to him'

The above are a number of systematically occurring word order patterns that, on the surface, favour or disfavour the SOV hypothesis. Although some of them are highly suggestive - the examples (2)-(6) for instance, suggest that the position of the finite verb in V2 sentences is a derived one - none of them prove anything about underlying word order; they are merely illustrations of surface patterns. In the next section we will attempt to give more profound support to the SOV hypothesis. In the spirit of the comparative strategy alluded to in the introduction to this chapter, we will do this in the following way. In Köster

(1975) a detailed argument is given that Du is SOV underlyingly, with

verb-fronting in root clauses, following similar work on Gm by Bierwisch (1963). We will

see in the following section whether the distributional facts that

Köster discusses for Du are also found in OE, so that his argument can be extended to OE. This discussion is to some extent a duplication of W. Koopman (1984). It will become apparent that on empirical grounds the case for SOV in OE is not quite as clear as in Du. However, on the basis of these facts and the theore-

23 tical motivation behind them, we still have to conclude that OE is SOV underlyingly. Once this conclusion is established, we turn to an account of extraposition phenomena in 2.2; of Verb Second phenomena in 2.3; and Verb Raising phenomena in 2.4.

2.1.1. SOV criteria for Dutch In this section we apply the diagnostics of Köster (1975) to OE, in the expectation that this may tell us something about the most plausible analysis of OE word order. In applying Köster's diagnostics we must bear one thing in mind,; viz. that, after the fashion of the times, they are based to a large extent on the principle facts receives

of economy of description. However, Koster's discussion of the theoretical grounding from Emonds' theory of structure

preser-

vingness. Furthermore, I will show below that a number of these arguments can be recast in terms of language acquisition. That is, on the basis of the same facts we may reasonably

assume that the language

learner can deduce SOV underlying

order in Du on the basis of positive evidence in the language environment. Let us for instance consider Koster's first and basic argument, that involving Verb-particle constructions. Since the earliest transformational studies it has been assumed that Modern English

(ModE), an SVO language, has a rule of

particle movement. This rule has the effect of optionally moving the particle of a verb-particle combination over the first NP to the right of the verb. The rule relates the a. and b. sentences in (10). (10) a. he phoned up the girl b. he phoned the girl up Movement over more than one NP or PP is ungrammatical: (11) a. he gave back the money to his father b. he gave the money back to his father c.*he gave the money to his father back d.*he gave his father the money back In Du verb-particle constructions are as familiar as in ModE. Sentences and (12b), for instance, are equivalent.

(12a)

24 (12) A. he phoned the girl UJJ b. hij beide het melsje op

However, a Dutch version of Mods particle movement cannot be the same or even similar to the ModE one. First, the Du rule can never be optional, as shown in (13).

(13) *hij beide op het meisje he phoned up the girl

Second, Du particle movement only applies in main clauses and then obligatorily, and it never applies in subordinate clauses.

(14) a. hij beide he

op

called up

b.*hij opbelde

(15) a. hij zei dat hij opbelde he said that he upcalled ('called up') b.*hij zei dat hij beide op

Third, if the verb is followed by more than one NP, the particle must be moved over these NP's as well.

(16) a.*hij gaf zijn vader terug het geld he gave his father back the money b. hij gaf zijn vader het geld terug

Fourth, a particle can optionally be moved over an object PP in Dutch.

(17) a. hij gaf het geld terug aan zijn vader he gave the money back to his father

b. hij gaf het geld aan zijn vader terug he gave the money to his father back

Köster observes that, whereas particle movement is a simple rule in ModE, extra-

25

posing

the particle

over one NP,

the Dutch equivalent would

be vastly

more

complicated. But according to Köster: (18) all problems in formulating a rule of Particle Movement for Dutch arise from the assumption that Dutch is an SVO (or VSO) language, so that direct objects, indirect objects and prepositional objects follow the verb. We can simplify the grammar of Dutch considerably by making the following assumptions: a. Dutch is an SOV language b. Dutch has no rule of Particle Movement at all c. The obligatory root transformation of Verb Placement leaves the particle behind (in the original position of the V). (1975: 118) Moreover,

Köster

shows

that

'Verb

Placement'

must

be

a

root

transformation

because it cannot be a structure-preserving or local transformation. This forces us to regard the order of non-root clauses as the underlying order. Köster's argument may gain even more support if we can recast it in terms of language acquisition.

Suppo se that Du

is an SVO language

and has a rule of

particle

movement. Then the language learner must be able to deduce this rule of particle movement on the basis of evidence from the language environment. Observe first of all, on the basis of

(12), (13) and (14), that the language learner would

need to have access to the knowledge that (13) and (14b) are ungrammatical, in order to be able to deduce a rule with the correct output for main clauses. Since w e may reasonably assume that the language learner does not have access to this particular type of evidence, this casts doubt on an SVO hypothesis. Observe further

that the language learner, upon exposure to sentences like

(17a) and

(17b), would deduce that particle movement moves the particle over one or two constituents to the right. But this would be a wrong deduction, since (16) shows that if the two constituents are both NP's, movement to final position is obligatory. Again, the language learner would need to know that (16a) is ungrammatical, in order to falsify successfully the deduction based on (17). Again, this kind of evidence cannot be assumed to be available in the language environment. On an SOV hypothesis, all the language learner would need to learn is the root transformation of Verb Placement (in Koster's terms), and we can safely assume that there is enough positive evidence available to the language learner to be able to deduce that. But what would be the initial trigger for an SOV hypothesis for the language learner? We will come back to this below, after further discussion of the facts presented by Köster. According

to Köster,

the

full

set

of environments

for Dutch particles is

predicted by the hypothesis that Du is an SOV language, with a root transfor-

26 mation of Verb Placement, leaving the particle In the original position of the verb. This hypothesis Implies that the distribution of particles in V2 sentences must be similar to the distribution of verbs without particles in subordinate clauses. Köster discusses eight distributional facts in Du that bear this out. I summarize them briefly here. I number them Kl, K2 etc.

Kl. The final V in subordinate clauses cannot be followed by a non-heavy NP.

(19) a. omdat hij het boek kocht because he the book bought b. *omdat hij kocht het book

A particle in a root sentence cannot be followed by NP either.

(20) a. Hij gaf de jongen het boek terug he gave the boy

the book back

b.*Hij gaf de jongen terug het boek

K2. In subordinate clauses an S obligatorily follows the verb.

(21) a. omdat ze zegt

dat

ze droomt

because she says that she dreams b.*omdat ze dat ze droomt zegt

In a root sentence an S obligatorily follows a particle.

(22) a. Hij kondlgde aan dat he announced

ze

zou

vertrekken

that she would leave

b.*Hij kondigde dat ze zou vertrekken aan

K3. Dutch has a rule, PP over V, which optionally moves a PP over the final V in subordinate clauses.

(23) a. omdat hij het boek aan Norval geeft because he the book to Norval gives b. omdat hij het boek geeft aan Norval

In root clauses we find the same pattern with particles.

27

(24) a. Hij gaf het boek aan Norval· terug He gave the book to Norval back b. Hij gaf het boek terug aan Norval

K4. In Du there are inverted PP's where the prepositional object, always a locative pronoun ending in -r. precedes rather than follows the preposition. Such PP's cannot be moved over the final V.

(25) a. omdat hij eraan dacht because he thereof thought b.*omdat hij dacht eraan

In root sentences these PP's cannot be moved over a particle.

(26) a. Hij dacht eraan terug he thought thereof back ('his thoughts went back to it') b.*Hij dacht terug eraan

K5. Predicate adjectives and participles have to precede the final V in embedded clauses.

(27) a. omdat

hij de

wiinglazen gebroken ontving

because he the wine-glasses broken received b.*omdat hij de wijnglazen ontving gebroken

The same adjectives and participles precede the particle in root sentences.

(28) a. Jan leverde de wijnglazen gebroken af Jan delivered the wine-glasses broken prt b.*Jan leverde de wijnglazen af gebroken

K6. Most adverbs cannot follow the VP-final verb in subordinate clauses.

(29) a. omdat hij zijn werk Hverlg deed because he his work industriously did b.*omdat hij zijn werk deed iiverig

28 The8e adverbs cannot follow the particle In root sentences. (30) a. hlj maakte zijn werk iiverlg

af

he finished his work Industriously prt b.*hij maakte zijn werk af iiverig K7.

Some

adverbs

like

glsteren

'yesterday'

can follow the verb in

embedded

clauses, albeit with comma intonation. (31) a. omdat hij zijn werk glsteren deed because he his work yesterday did b. omdat hij zijn werk deed, glsteren The same adverbs can follow the particle in a root sentence. (32) a. hij maakte zijn werk glsteren

af

he finished his work yesterday prt b. hij maakte zijn werk af. glsteren K8. All kinds of adverbial PP's can follow the verb in subordinate clauses. (33) a. omdat hij zijn werk met llefde deed because he his work with love did b. omdat hij zijn werk deed met liefde In root sentences these adverbial PP's can precede or follow the particle. (34) a. Hij maakte zijn werk met llefde af he finished hie work with love prt b. Hij maakte zijn werk af met llefde Köster presents K1-K8 as eight arguments for the SOV hypothesis, but it must be noted that K3, PP over V, is already subsumed under the first argument, and that furthermore, there is some overlap between K3 and K8. The above facts show that there is complete distributional

equivalence be-

tween ordinary verbs (without particles) in subordinate clauses and particles in root sentences. This constitutes strong support for Köster's hypothesis that Du is an SOV language, with a root transformation of Verb Placement. All the pecu-

29 liarities of particle distribution are then reduced to verb distribution, because the particle in root sentences keeps the base position of the verb. Let us now return to the question of what constitutes the initial trigger for SOV order for the language

learner. Some recent theoretical work on language

acquisition holds to the strong restriction that all the core properties of a language should be learnable on the basis of main clauses only. This is a desirable restriction because presumably children acquiring their native language are exposed primarily to main clauses. Issues of this kind are addressed in unpublished work by Lightfoot (1984) and in H. Koopman (1983; 1984). With respect to SOV languages that have a rule of V2 placement, like Dutch, this raises the question how a language

learner can deduce a basic verb-final order when the

vast majority of main clauses are verb-second. On the basis of the distributional equivalence

in Du between V in subordinate clauses and particle in V2

clauses, I suggest that verb-particles

in root clauses may well constitute an

important part of the trigger for the language learner to indicate the basic position of the verb, especially because verb particles, like verbs in non-root clauses,

are always

stressed.

Once SOV underlying

order

is

established,

the

peculiarities of verb-particle constructions are reduced to learning the rule of 3 Verb Placement. What the nature of this rule of Verb placement is, in Du and in 0£, will be the subject matter of section 2. In the following section we will examine

to what extent the arguments presented in this section for Du, carry

over to OE.

2.1.2. SOV criteria for Old English Before embarking on a discussion of OE verb-particle constructions, with the aim of comparing them with the Dutch ones, a note of caution must be inserted. While our assumption so far is that the basic position for the verb is identical in Du and OE, the first question now must be whether the verb-particle combinations of Du and OE behave in a way that is similar enough to compare them. The answer to that seems to be negative at least in part. The discussion of verb particles that now follows is based entirely on Hiltunen (1983), an excellent study that shows considerable sensitivity to the problem of distinguishing verbparticle combinations, and makes a clear distinction between root and non-root clauses. From this work several points clearly emerge that demonstrate that Du and OE particles cannot be compared off hand. Recall the major properties of V-prt constructions in Du.

30 (35) a. Separation obligatory in V2 clauses. b. Separation ungrammatical in subordinate clauses. c. Verb in subordinate clauses and particle in V2 clauses are sentence-final, unless followed by PP or an adverbial after comma intonation, or an S. All three of these properties have exceptions in 0E. As to (35a), finite verb and particle are not necessarily separated in V2 clauses. Some examples of this are given in (36). (36) a. Stephanus up-astah Jmrh Stephen

up-rose

his blod

gewuldorbeagod (AHTh,I,56)

through his blood crowned with glory

'Stephen ascended, crowned with glory through his blood' b. Sof)lice ut eode truly

se

sawere hys ssed

out-went the sower

to sawenne (Mt 694)

his seed to sow

'indeed, the sower went out in order to sow his seed' This does not necessarily imply that a comparison between Du and 0E is invalid on this point. It might be the case that separation in V2 clauses is optional in 0E: the V-prt combinations in (36) also occur separated: (37) a. t>a astah

se

Helend up on

then rose the Lord

ane dune (AHTh,I,182)

up into a

mountain

'then the Lord went up into a mountain' b. f>a

eodon hie

ut (Parker 894)

then went they out 'then they went out' The position of the particle when it is separated from the verb could

still

indicate the basic position of the verb. However, we cannot take this as our starting-point because there is some evidence that the position of the particle is not the base-generated position for the verb. This becomes clear in V-prt in subordinate clauses. If V-prt constructions in 0E follow the same pattern as in Du, one would expect the particle in embedded clauses to precede the verb immediately. This pattern is well-attested, indeed by far the most frequent and is illustrated in (38):

31 (38) a. V»t

he done cwelmbsran

that he the

hlaf aweg btere (AHTh,II,162)

deadly

loaf away carry

•that he carry away the deadly loaf' b. ¡Met

hie

mid fc®11 (uet fole

ut

aloccoden (Oros, 117,6)

that they with that the people out enticed •so that by doing that, they would entice the people out' c. t>a

idlan word

the idle

t>e

he sr unrihtlice

ut

forlet (Blick 59)

words that he before wickedly out let

'the idle words to which he wickedly gave utterance before' d. swa {wet so

Jja

cristenan

bealdlice inn-eodon (AHTh ,1,564)

that the Christians boldly

in

went

•so that the Christians boldly went in' However, is it by no means unexceptional. Beside the pattern in (38), particles in embedded clauses may appear separated from the verb on the left, as in (39); to the immediate right of the verb, as in (40); or separated from the verb to the right, as in (41). (39) a. t»t

heo

woldan his ban

geneoman & up of er eorean adon (Bede.374,19)

that they wanted his bones take

& up over earth

remove

'that they wanted to dig up his bones and remove them above ground' b. deah

du

sie up ofer dine

med ahsfen (CP,467,3)

though you are up over your condition raised •although you are raised above your condition' (40) a. t»t that

se

deofol on anes blacan elides

the devil

be dam fnsde

in a

black

hiwe

teah ut done munuc

child's guise drew out the monk

his gyrelan (AHTh,11,160)

by the hem of his garment 'that the devil in the form of a black child drew out the monk by the hem of his garment'

32 b. {œt

se

wuldorcyning

on middangeard cwom f orf>

that the glorious king on earth t>sre

a

of

tœm innove

came forth from the womb

claman fœmnan (Blick 9)

of the ever clean

woman

'that the glorious king on earth came forth from the womb of the ever pure virgin' (41) a. se

scop was secgende ]»t

the poet was telling

Egypti

adrifen

Moyses ut

that the Egyptians drove Moses

mid hys

out with his

leodum (Oros,24,8) people b. J«t

he wearp ]?aet sweord onweg tuet

that he threw the sword

away

he on handa haefde (Bede,38,20)

that he in hands had

'that he threw away the sword that he had in his hands' Some further comments about (38) through (41) are in order. In embedded clauses the pattern as in (38) is by far the more common one. Hiltunen observes that this pattern typically goes together with SOV order (4 counterexamples against 95 examples of the pattern (38); in the four counterexamples the verb is immediately followed by the particle). The pattern (39), where it occurs, always has an adverbial PP intervening between the particle and the verb, never an object. Therefore we may have to consider the possibility that this particle is not in fact a particle, but rather a modifier of the adverbial PP. The patterns (40) and

(41) are not very frequent

(33 examples against 222 of (35)). Very

strikingly, in all these cases the only constituent intervening between V and Prt to the

right of V is an object NP. This is a potential problem for the

assumption that particles pattern like verbs. If we are to maintain this assumption, w e have to postulate some minor rule that optionally moves particles to the right of the verb. I will come back to this below. The conclusion from this must be that a comparison between the position of V in embedded

clauses and particle in root clauses can only be made with some

reserve, since the position of the particle very frequently, but certainly not always, coincides with that of the verb. With this limitation in mind, w e can approach the distributional facts of 0E similar to those of Koster's in Dutch. As noted above, this is to some extent a duplication of W. Koopman (1984).

33 Kl. The final V In subordinate clauses cannot be followed by NP. This feature of Du does not carry over to OE. All studies on OE word order emphasize that the most common pattern in embedded clauses is SOV, but that quite frequently an object follows (Gardner (1971: 52); Barrett (1953: 85); Canale (1978); Bean (1983)). A number of examples of SOV order were given in the previous section. Some examples of postverbal VP constituents are given in (42).

(42) a. {œt

hi

sceoldon oncnawan

that they might

b. same men

heora Scyppend (AHTh,I,96)

acknowledge their Creator

cwejjat> on Englisc ¡Met hit sie

feaxede steorra (Parker 892)

some people say

c. ...

wened

dœt

in English that it is a long-haired star

hit sie mildheortnes (CP,148,10)

(they) think that it

is

humanity

Particles in OE root sentences may also occur either in final position or followed by NP. This is exemplified in (43) and (44) respectively.

(43) a. t>a ahof Drihten hie up (Blick 157) then raised the Lord them up 'then the Lord raieed them up'

b. swelce we...weorpen as if

deet ceaf onweg (CP,369,9)

we...threw (subj) the chaff away

(44) a. & hy brudon sona upp heora ancras (ChronD,1052) and they raised immediately up their anchors 'and they immediately raised their anchors'

b. fia ahof then raised

Paulus up his heafod (Blick 187) Paul up his head

'then Paul lifted up his head'

It must be observed then, that while OE and Du differ in this respect, we can still say that in OE there is distributional equivalence between verbs in subordinate clauses and particles in main clauses.

34 K2. A n S obligatorily follows the verb. The distribution of S in OE is the same as in Dutch. (45) a. {ist

hie

him gefultumadon tuet

hie

wij> Jjone here' gefuhton (Parker 868)

that they him assisted

that they with the army fought

'that they would help him fight the army' b. dst

hi

willad dst

that they want

men

wenen

dset

hi

yfele bion (CP,21,20)

that people think that they evil are

'that they want people to think that they are evil' The following examples illustrate the position of S in main clauses. I have no examples with particles. (46) a. se

seeling bebead sumum his folce

the prince consulae

l»t

hie

gebrohten Romana

ordered some his people that they brought

Roman

(Oros,66,29)

consuls 'the prince ordered some of his people to lead away Roman consuls' b. he bed

hie

eac

]»t

hie

gemunden ¡jara ealdena treowa (Oros,47,23)

he bade them also that they remember the

old

covenants

'he also asked them to be mindful of the old covenants' K3. Dutch has optional PP over V. In OE, PP over V is optional as in Du, as (47a) vs. (47b) shows. (47) a. Jwet

fœt fole

Gregorium to papan gecoren hsfde (AHG,IX,104)

that the people Gregory

to Pope

elected had

'that the people had chosen Gregory as pope' b. fordam

de

he hine

œtbrœd

fram

flesclicum lustum (AHTh,I,58)

because that he himself withdrew from fleshly

lusts

'because he had withdrawn himself from fleshly lusts' The same holds for 'PP over particle' in main clauses, as in (48a) vs. (48b).

35 (48) a. Asiat

J>a

Jja

tunas

ealle ymb

destroyed then the villages all

]?a

burg onwœg (Bede,202,2)

around the city away

... 'and then destroyed all the villages around the city'

b. wurpaf) hit ut on Jjat water (Exod.1,22) cast

it out in the water

•cast it into the water'

K4. In Du there are inverted PP's where

the prepositional

object, always a

locative pronoun ending in ^r., precedes rather than follows the preposition. Such PP's cannot be moved over the final V. These PP's also occur in OE, e.g. baron 'thereon', barwib 'therewith'. As far as I am aware there are no examples in OE where such a PP follows V in embedded clauses. Given the high frequency of occurrence of such PP's, this strongly suggests that this pattern was ungrammatical. It cannot be checked whether the same holds in main clauses with particles, because there appear to be no attested examples with a combination of a verb particle and a PP, either preceding or following the particle.

K5. Predicate adjectives and participles have to precede the final V in embedded clauses. This observation does not carry over to OE. In OE such adjectives and participles can either precede or follow the verb, as evidenced by (49a) vs. (49b).

(49) a. J»t

he me ungederodne of

that he me unharmed

disum weallendum hwere

from this

boiling

wylle nu

cauldron wants now

ahreddan (ASL,XIV,111) deliver 'that he will deliver me now unhurt out of this boiling cauldron'

b. fordern de

hi

licettad hie

because that they pretend

unscyldge (CP,439,19)

themselves innocent

'because they pretend themselves innocent'

I have no examples of root clauses with a particle following an adjective or participle. There is one example that indicates that an adjective or participle can follow the particle. This is given in (50).

36 (50) ... he ahof

Jœt cild

up geedcucod and ansund (AHTh,II,28)

he lifted the child up quickened and healthy K6. Most adverbs cannot follow the final V in subordinate clauses. This does not carry over to OE; adverbs in OE can either precede or follow the verb, as (51a) vs. (51b) shows: (51) a. ... ac

swide scamleaslice gilpad disses

hwilendlican onwaldes (CP,144,9)

but very

shamelessly

boast

of this temporary

power

'but boast most shamelessly of this temporary authority' b. dst

hie

det unaliefede dod aliefedlice (CP,144,10)

that they the unlawful

do

lawfully

'that they do unlawful things as if they were lawful' It is impossible to check whether the same patterns occur in root sentences with verb particles, because there are no examples available. K7. Some adverbs like gisteren 'yesterday' and daar 'there' can follow the verb in subordinate clauses, after comma intonation. It seems that this observation carries over to OE; adverbs of this kind can precede the verb, or follow it. When the adverb follows, no comma is required. This is not very surprising, since all the previous examples show that many different types of constituents can follows the verb in OE. Some examples are given in (52).

(52) a. fa da he dœges

ne

dorste (ΑΗΡ,XII,65)

which he by day not dared 'which he didn't dare to do by day' b. for dan Jje

he ne

dorste dœges (ΑΗΡ,XII,50)

because that he not dared

by day

'because he didn't dare by day' I have found no examples of these adverbials in root clauses with verb particles .

37 K8. All kinds of adverbial PP's can follow the verb In subordinate clauses. This Is essentially the same pattern as under K3. The results of applying Köster's

tests for Du to OS are

summarized In table

(53). (53)

V In subordinate clauses

particle In root clauses

Dutch

OE

Dutch

K1.

+

-

+

K2.

+

+

+

K3.

+

+

+

+

K4.

+

+

+

?

K5.

+

-

+

K6.

+

-

+

7

K7.

+

+

+

?

K8.

+

+

+

+

OE +

We see from this table that in subordinate clauses, OE shows freer extraposition of object and adverbial material over the VP-final verbi beside S and NP as in Du, OE also extraposes NP, manner adverbs, and predicate adjectives and participles, as the negative values for Kl, K5 and K6 testify. However, to the extent that data are available, these values carry over to V-prt constructions in root clauses. Unfortunately,

the paucity

of data

permit us to draw any firmer conclusions

for

some

constructions

does

not

(cf. their question mark status). We

may conclude then, albeit with some reserve, that Köster's tests for the distributional equivalence between V in subordinate clauses and V-prt in root clauses, carry over to OE. But the theoretical motivation of Roster's argument need not be treated with reserve. Because verb placement has to be a root transformation, we have to regard the order of non-root clauses as basic. Hence we conclude that OE, like Du, is SOV, with a rule of verb placement in root clauses. Given the freedom of extraposition of all kinds of constituents over the verb in OE subordinate clauses, one may of course still wonder whether this conclusion is justified for OE. A closer look at V-prt constructions, however, will tell us that it is. Recall the distribution of particles in OE. In root clauses (V2

clauses),

the

particle

either

immediately

precedes

the

finite

verb,

or

remains somewhere in the VP. In subordinate clauses, we find the following four patterns.

38 (54) a. (X)

prt

adverbial

PP

-

V

prt

-

V

(X)

b. (Χ)

(X)

c. (Χ)

(X)

V

-

prt

(X)

(cf. 40)

d. (Χ)

(X)

V

-

NP

prt

(cf. 41)

(cf. 39a)

(X)

(cf. 38)

If one assumes that OE Is an SVO language, one would first of all never expect particles to precede the verb, either in root or embedded clauses. Since such a pattern is not infrequent in V2 clauses and absolutely predominant in embedded clauses, any assumption of SVO would run into serious problems here. Observe furthermore that in V2 clauses, many constituents may intervene between verb and particle, as example (55) shows. (55) {ja

sticode him mon

then stuck

t>a

eagan ut (Oros,90,14)

him someone the eyes out

'then his eyes were gouged out' If we assume SVO underlying order, and assume further that verb and particle are base-generated as a unit, we need a rule that moves the particle to the right of the verb in both root clauses (cf. (55)), and subordinate clauses (cf. (54c) and (54d)). Observe then, that this rule moves the particle in root clauses to some position indefinitely landing

far away,

for which it seems difficult

to formulate

a

site. In embedded clauses the particle moves either to the immediate

right of the verb, or to the right of one further object NP. This means that the particle

rule would have

to discriminate

between root and embedded

clauses,

which seems a very strange restriction. The problems noted in the previous paragraph are resolved if we assume that OE, like Du, is SOV, with a rule of verb movement in root clauses. Verb particles

are

base-generated as forming a unit with the verb, presumably with the

following structure: (56)

V

The rule of verb movement in root clauses leaves behind the particle in its base-generated position. How then do we deal with the patterns under (54), those in embedded clauses? Pattern

(54b) is accounted for by (56). With respect to

(54a), I assume that the particle is not really a particle, but a modifier of

39 the adverbial PP. For the cases (54c) and (54d) we have to assume a local rule of particle movement, that optionally moves the particle to the immediate right of the verb, or to the right of one further NP object. Note that this particle rule is strikingly similar to the particle rule of Modern English, which optionally permutes the particle with one object. This means that the particle rule of ModE, in an embryonic form, was already part of the grammar of OE speakers. Our final conclusion then is that there is a clear theoretical motivation for SOV order, which is

supported

sufficiently

by the

facts of OE. It would be

attractive to extend the learnability argument presented above for Du to OE, but in the absence of firm native speaker intuitions about OE this is best left. In order to explain the surface exceptions to SOV discussed above, the following sections will deal systematically with the phenomenon of object

extra-

position in OE; with the nature of the rule of V-movement in root clauses; and with the phenomenon of Verb Raising.

2.2. Extraposition Before proceeding to define the position for the verb in matrix and embedded clauses, it is important to say something about the process of extraposition of object material over the VP-final verb. On the assumption that OE is SOV, the basic structure for VP is as follows: (57)

VP

In OE, any of these object constituents could be postposed to the right of the verb, as in (58). (58) a. same men cwef>at> on Englisc J»t some men say

hit sie feaxede

in English that it

eteorra (Parker 892)

is long-haired star

'some people say in English that it is a long-haired star'

40 b. sefter disum gelamp after this

£®t

mlcel manncwealm becom ofer {»re

happened that great pestilence came over the

Romaniscan leode (AHTh,II,122,15) Roman people 'then it happened that a great plague came over the Roman people' In a. an NP (feaxede steorra) is extraposed to the right of the verb, in b. a PP (ofer bare Romanlsce leode). Examples of such extraposition are very numerous. Stockwell (1977) discusses the process of extraposition and the motivations for it in some detail. He notes that extraposition of very heavy constituents such as S' occurred in 0E from the earliest times. This ties in with the fact that even in very strict SOV languages such as Modern Dutch and Modern German, extraposition of sentential objects is obligatory. Kuno (1974) explains this in terms of perceptual strategies. According to Kuno, centre-embedding causes perceptual difficulties and languages will employ ways to circumvent such patterns. In SOV languages, one such strategy would be to extrapose a sentential object. For some further discussion of this, see Llghtfoot (1979: 144ff). According to Stockwell, the extraposition possibilities

in 0E were extended to other constituents

as

well, for various reasons. He mentions as an important possible reason for this that in simple verb second main clauses such as (59), which he states must have constituted

the overwhelming majority in main clauses, object material

always

follows the finite verb.

(59) pent

fole

andbidode dry

the people waited untrumra

dagas mid

{jam Hslende for helde heora

three days with the Saviour for healing of

(AHTh,II,396,20)

their sick 'the people waited with the Saviour for the healing of their sick for three days' Other

extraposition

phenomena,

such as

that of

sentential

objects,

relative

clauses, conjuncts, must have reinforced this tendency. Pintzuk S Kroch (1985) provide an argument that, at least in early OE, extraposition of NP, as we term it here, should be analysed as heavy NP shift rather than as extraposition. They argue that in languages where extraposition is wellstudied, extraposition only involves PP and S. A crucial

distinction

between

extraposition and heavy NP shift is that the latter is characteristically set off by an intonation break. They proceed to show on the basis of metrical evi-

41 dence from Beowulf that this is in fact the situation that obtains with respect to NP complements following the VP-final verb. Let me summarize their argument here. The Beowulf consists of 'four-stressed' alliterative lines, that can be divided

into two half-lines. These half-lines constitute independent metrical

units, consisting of two primary, alliterating stressed positions, alternating with a varying amount of unstressed positions. They show that in embedded clauses which are verb-final, the verb position always coincides with the end of a half-line. In other words, this metrical boundary serves to indicate a syntactic boundary as well. Furthermore they show that in such cases where an NP follows the verb in a subordinate clause, the verb appears at the end of a half-line, the NP introduces the following half-line. In other words, a metrical boundary, or intonation boundary sets off the NP from the rest of the sentence. This is a situation typical of heavy NP shift. Pintzuk & Kroch corroborate this argument further with a fair amount of quantitative evidence. Observe that their argument constitutes

strong

support

for

the SOV hypothesis,

since it

shows that the

position of the verb in embedded clauses marks off a clear syntactic boundary, even if that verb is often followed by additional material. Notice further that their argument Stockwell

ties in rather neatly with the hypotheses of Kuno

(1977), that

this

phenomenon

is

introduced

into

(1974) and

languages

as

the

extraposition of heavy constituents. Pintzuk & Kroch's examples indeed seem to involve NP constituents of some minimal weight, as the example in (60) shows.

(60) Sceotend Scyldinga to scypon feredon eal in-gesteald

eord-cyninges (Beowulf 1154-5)

warriors Scyldings to ship

brought all house-property land-kings

'the Scylding warriors brought to the ship all of the king's household goods'

It is quite possible then, that the phenomenon of extraposition started off in early OE as the postposing of heavy constituents such as S, PP and heavy NP's, and was extended later to include other constituents, light NP's, adverbials. For ease of exposition, we will continue to use the cover-term 'extraposition' for all these phenomena.

42 2. Verb Second As noted in the previous sections, the position of the finite verb differs between root and embedded clauses in OE. On the assumption that OE is SOV underlyingly, we need to explain why the finite verb is fronted in root clauses. This matter is taken up in this section. 4

H e will take as a starting point observa-

tions concerning V2 in other WGmc languages, notably Du. There are two reasons for this. A first look at OE word order suggests a strong parallellism between OE on the one hand and Du and Gm on the other. Because we know so much more about the phenomenon in the modern WGmc languages, this will help us in directing

our

observations

on OE, where details of evidence are necessarily

more

scarce. We also give an analysis for 'verb second' along the lines of standard analyses of the phenomenon in the modern WGmc languages, since this is relevant for the analysis of clitics in chapter 4. I will first make some core observations about verb fronting. 5 In main clauses the finite V is usually in second position, i.e. we find it immediately following the first constituent, whether that is the subject, object or an adverbial. This is exemplified in (61) for OE, (62) for Gm, (63) for Du. In the a. sentences the first constituent is the subject, in b. the accusative object, in c. an object PP, in d. an adverbial, in e. a wh-question word. (61) a. w e sculon swide smealice dissa egder underdencean (CP,48,23) w e must

very

narrowly these

both consider

'we must consider both of these very carefully· b. Ma ran cydde

habbad englas to Gode t>onne men (AHTh,I,10)

more affinity have

angels to God

than

men

'angels have more affinity to God than people' c. On twam bingum hsfde God Jjaes mannes sawle gegodod (AHTh,I,20) in two

things had

God the man's

soul

endowed

'with two things God had endowed man's soul' d. bonne beod eowere eagan geopenode (AHTh,I,18) then

are

your

eyes

opened

'then your eyes will be opened'

43 e. Hwl wolde God swa

lytles finges him forwyrnan (AHTh,I,14)

why would God such small

thing

him deny

'why would God deny him such a small thing'

(62) a. Han8 hat das Buch dem

Herrn

gestern

gegeben

Hans has the book to the gentleman yesterday given 'Hans gave the book to the gentleman yesterday'

b. Das Buch hat Hans dem Herrn gestern gegeben

c. Dem Herrn hat Has das Buch gestern gegeben

d. Gestern hat Hans das Buch dem Herrn gegeben

(63) a. Hans heeft gisteren het boek aan de man gegeven

b. Het boek heeft Hans gisteren aan de man gegeven

c. Aan de man heeft Hans gisteren het boek gegeven

d. Gisteren heeft Hans het boek aan de man gegeven

It must be noted that the first constituent is not obligatory. There are many examples in the spoken language in Du and Gm where the finite verb is in first position. A number of examples of this are given in (64) (examples are all from ANS6).

(64) a. Leest hij het boek niet, (dan moet hij het maar reads he

the book not

then must he

it

gauw terugbrengen)

better soon

return

'if he doesn't read the book, he had better return it soon'

b. Was de

reclame

groot, (toch bleef

was the publicity great,

het succès

maar klein)

yet remained the success only small

'in spite of a lot of publicity, it was not very succesful'

44 c. Laat hij nog zo hard werken, (hij haalt het nlet) let

he

yet so hard work

he

makes it

not

•however hard he works, he will not make it' d. Waren er

vroeger veel bossen, (nu zijn er beduidend

were there formerly many woods

minder)

now are it considerably fewer

'while there used to be many woods, now there are considerably fewer' e. Heeft-ie eindelijk een baan, (komt-ie niet opdagen) has

he at least

a.

job

comes he not show up

'now that he has finally got a job, he doesn't show up' f. Kom ik gisteren

in de

stad, (wie zie ik daar)

come I yesterday in the town Ί

who see I

there

got into town yesterday, and who did I see?'

Observe that in all these sentences, there is no question of so-called TOPICdrop in the sense that a preposed argument is absent. In all the examples, all the arguments of the sentence are present. Such sentences are characteristic of the spoken language, according to ANS. The question is whether this feature of Du carries over to OE; being characteristic of the spoken language, it is doubtful whether such sentences are found with any frequency in a corpus of written texts. However, it is script

well-known that there is one episode in the Parker manu-

of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,

the

entries of years 891-900, which is

famous for its lively narrative style. In fact it has been speculated that this episode

is very much

narrative

like

an eye-witness

style. Strikingly,

account

and comes

close

this episode contains many verb-first

to

spoken

sentences,

among them a number of the same kind as those in (64). Some examples are given in (65).

(65) a. was Hasten J>a

{»r

cumen mid his herge, ]?e

esr

set Middeltune set

was Hasten then there come with his host that before at Milton camped (Parker 894) 'Hssten had come there with his host, which had been encamped at Milton"

45

b. hafdon hi

hiora onfangen sr

Hœsten to Beamfleote come (Parker 894)

had

they them

received before Hasten to Benfleet

came

'they had stood sponsors for them before Hasten had come to Benfleet' c. foron

begen atgadere up

marched both

be Temese (Parker 894)

together up by Thames

'both march in company up along the Thames'

Thie shows that in OE, too, a first constituent in root clauses is not obligatory. Embedded

clauses

are

verb-final.

There

is no

optional

'first

constituent

slot' as in main clauses, and the finite V or V complex is found at the end of the

sentence, with

the

provisos made

in the previous

sections

for

OE.

Some

examples are given in (66); the a. sentence is Gm, b. Du, the rest OE. (66) a. daes Hans gestern

dem Herrn

das Buch gegeben hat

that Hans yesterday the gentleman the book given

has

'that Hans gave the book to the gentleman yesterday' b. dat Hans gisteren de man het boek gegeven heeft c. J»t

ic t>as

that I

boc

of

Ledenum gereorde to Engliscre sprace awende

this book from Latin

language to English

tongue translate (AHTh.I.pref,6)

'that I translate this book from the Latin language to the English tongue' d. J>eh fie he

hie mid miele

forlore ¡MES folces begeate (Oros,72,11)

though that he them with great loss of

people achieved

'though he achieved them with great loss of people' e. ...gif hie him ¡»es rices

uJ)on (Parker 755)

if they him the kingdom granted 'if they would grant him the kingdom' Although at first glance this looks like a straightforward matrix/subordinate asymmetry, it is not quite that. We will illustrate this on the basis of compar-

46

ative

evidence. As

first

observed by Paardekooper

(1955)

for Du and by

den

Besten (1977) for Du and 6m, there is an almost complete complementary distribution between the position of the finite V in V2 clauses and the position of the base-generated complementizer

in that sentences. This implies a structure like

(67). 7

(67) a. [g* Inekee heeft [g Inekee 1

st

consta

b. [g*

NP [yp

[np dertien volle flessen]

has VF

dat

thirteen full bottles e

j [g

gezien e]]] seen e

i

Inekee

j

dertien voile fleEsen gezien heeft]]

Observe that we assume that in (67a) both the first constituent position and the finite verb are in pre-S position. I will come back to this below. This complementary distribution is reinforced by the fact that there are some matrix clauses that have a base-generated complementizer and, significantly, these are verbfinal. These observations carry over to Gm. Also, there are embedded clauses without a complementizer, and they have the finite V in second position. Examples of this are given in (68) and (69). (68) Dat Hans

het in

that Hans it

zijn hoofd haaltl

into his

head

(exclamative)

gets

'How on earth did Hans get that into his head' (69) a. Hij zei hij ζou he

in de herfst het veld

said he would in the fall

ingaan

the field into go

'he said he would go and do fieldwork in fall' b.*Hij zei hij zal in de herfst het veld He said he will in the fall It might

be

objected

against

ingaan

the field into go

example

(69) that

the

embedded

clause

is

a

quoted sentence, and actually a quoted main clause. Observe, however, that in that case one would expect a future tense indication in the embedded clause, independent

of the tense

of the matrix clause, but this is ungrammatical,

as

(69b) shows. The tense indication of the embedded clause (past future) takes the past tense of the main clause as a reference point. This shows that the embedded clause is not an independent quoted sentence, and that Vf and dat are in compie-

47 mentary distribution. This is reinforced by the fact that parallel sentences in 6m are usually subjunctive, which shows again that this type of embedded clause is dependent on the matrix clause.

(70) a. Er sagte dass er ihn gesehen hat he said

that he him seen

has

'he said that he had seen him'

b. Er sagte er habe he said

ihn gesehen

he had (subj) him seen

'he said he had seen him'

We must conclude then, that the distinction is not to be made in terms of a matrix/subordinate asymmetry. Rather, if we look at this as verb fronting, presence of a base-generated complementizer prevents fronting of the verb. 8

The

above examples are illustrations from Du and Gm. It is not entirely clear whether the same case can be made for 0E. Basic examples like (66) seem to point in this direction. I have found no data like (68) in OE, but this is hardly surprising since exclamations of this kind are typical of the spoken rather than the written language. There are data like (69) and (70). As in Gm, these are usually subjunctive sentences, e.g. (71).

(71) Eala J>u min leofa man Oh

you my

ic Jje mid

lufe secge ic hebbe

dear husband X you with love say

I

Godes

have (subj) God's

encgel... (ASL,XXXIV,31) angel 'Oh my dear husband, I say to you with love I have God's angel...'

If there is a complementary distribution between the position of the finite V and

the

base-generated

complementizer,

the

position of the finite V is not

within S, but in COMP, cf. (67). If V-fronting is viewed as movement of the finite verb to COMP, this also implies that the first constituent in V2 sentences is in pre-S position. This seems to be quite straightforward for objects and adverbials, which can reasonably be assumed to be topicalized. Notice however, that it also implies that subject first constituents are not found in the structural subject position, but are topicalized like object-or adverbial first constituents. For more discussion and justification of this, see H. Koopman (1984: 196).

48 We see then, that it is plausible to view V-fronting as movement of the finite V to COMP, and that the appropriate structure for a V2 sentence is (72). (72) On twam Jjingum hsefde God }»s mannes sawle e [ s ' 1st const.J. Vfj

[s [vp [NP

][pp

gegodod e (61c) ei]

ej]]]

Recall, however, that there are examples where the first constituent is absent, so that a first constituent must be regarded as optional. Presumably this means that V-fronting and topicalization are separate phenomena, but for reasons of exposition we will continue to use the term V2 here.

2.3.1. Analysis of Verb Second

In this section we discuss some standard proposals for the analysis of V2 in Du, Gm and other languages, and assume that the essence of them carries over to OE. Let us point out beforehand that we do not wish to go deeply into the theoretical merits of the various proposals. We merely adopt a position on which there seems to be considerable consensus in current theoretical literature on V2. Quite possibly this position calls for a good deal of refinement. However, it will serve excellently as an observational framework for facts concerning V2. The analysis of V2 we adopt here for OE is based on the core facts presented in the previous section, and the similarity between these facts and those of Du and Gm. This means that in some respects we take it for granted that details of OE that we cannot be certain about, are the same as in these languages. For reasons given before, we consider this a justifiable research strategy.

2.3.1.1. Properties of the landing-site for move V

The theoretical discussion about matrix/subordinate asymmetries in general and V2 in particular started against the background of Emonds' work about root vs. structure-preserving transformations. Köster (1975) argues that V-movement in Du has to be a root transformation because it cannot be a structure-preserving or local transformation. A major contribution is den Besten (1977), who defines root transformations as transformations that adjoin an element to COMP. Since then there have been various more specific proposals. Some proposals for V2 presuppose a direct causal relation between topicalization and verb fronting:

49 Safir (1982); Travis (1984). A number of other proposals all take the COMP node to be the landing site for move V and they all take the complementary distribution of Vf and dat as a starting point: Evers

(1981; 1982); Cremers & Sassen

(1983); Platzack (1983); H. Koopman (1984); de Haan & Weerman (1985). 9 In most of these analyses the triggering factor for move V is that the INFL node is in COMP and there seems to be some consensus that move V is triggered because INFL in COMP has to be lexicalized, by the finite V or by the base-generated complementizer, as in the structure (73).

This has come to be termed in the literature the

'COMP/INFL parameter'. There

are considerable differences between these proposals as to what properties of INFL trigger move V. Evers (1981; 1982) holds that COMP contains a tense operator, and postulates a principle that requires that tense operators be lexical. Cremers & Sassen (1983); H. Koopman (1984) and Platzack (1983) derive the obligatory

lexicalization

of INFL

in terms

of

case

theory;

INFL must be

lexical

because nominative case is assigned only by a lexical head. De Haan & Weerman (1985) derive obligatory lexicalization of INFL in terms of ECP as modified by Kayne

features,

thus it

falls in the domain of X'-theory and must be realized as a lexical

(1981a): AGR under

INFL in

(73) contains

catégoriel

category

because there is no antecedent that can license it. This is a very brief outline of those proposals for V2 that take the complementary distribution between finite V and base-generated complementizer as their starting

point. As

pointed out, the conclusion - drawn from this

(with varying

degrees of firmness) is that INFL is in COMP as a trigger for move V. We adopt this conclusion here, although it must be noted that it deviates from the standard assumption in Chomsky

(1981) that INFL is the head of S. Before we come

back to this, let us first examine some more evidence for COMP as the landingsite for move V. The cliticization of 'weak' nominative pronouns in Du confirms the complementary distribution between finite V and dat. Consider the following sentences:

50 (74) a. Pat hl i gisteren

Jan

het boek heeft gegeven

that he yesterday John the book has

given

'that he gave John the book yesterday' b. Pat gisteren hi i Jan het boek heeft gegeven c. Pat-ie gisteren Jan het boek heeft gegeven d.*Pat gisteren ie. Jan het boek heeft gegeven (75) a. A a n Jan to

heeft hl i gisteren

John has

he

het boek gegeven

yesterday the book given

'to John he gave the book yesterday' b. Aan Jan heeft gisteren hi i het boek gegeven c. A a n Jan heeft-ie gisteren het boek gegeven d.*Aan Jan heeft gisteren ie het boek gegeven In (74c) the weak subject pronoun ie, is cliticized onto COMP. This is apparent from the fact that it cannot be separated syntactically from COMP, as in (74d), and is phonologically reduced and assimilated to COMP. The facts in (74) indicate that a non-clitic subject pronoun (hii 'he' in a) and b)) can be separated from COMP, whereas a clitic subject cannot (ie. in c) and d)). The judgements are the

same if we replace the complementizer by the finite verb (in these cases

preceded by a first constituent, as in (75). 1 0 These examples show that, with respect to cliticization of weak subject pronouns, finite V and dat occupy the same position. Observe that these examples also show something else, viz. that the position of verb and complementizer has properties What

that make

it eligible for cliticization of weak

subject

pronouns.

conclusion can we draw from this type of phenomenon? Recent theories of

clitics (Borer (1983); Aoun (1985)) argue that pronominal clitics are manifestations of case properties, in the sense that they absorb the relevant case feature of their governing head. If the cliticization of Pu subject clitics is of this kind, this would indicate that the position of dat/finite V in (74) and (75)

contains

nominative

case-marking

properties.

Since

nominative

assigned by AGR under INFL, this argues for the structure (73).

case

is

51 Further

evidence

for

properties

of

COMP

is found in

some

Southern

Dutch

dialects, where the lexical complementizer dat can be inflected for number, in agreement with

the

number

of

the

subject.

Consider

the

following

sentences

(drawn from den Besten as quoted by H. Koopman (1984)). (76) a. date

Jan en

Kees morgen

zullen komen

that pi Jan and Kees tomorrow will

come

b. dat (*e) Jan morgen zal komen (*pl) Similar facts are observed in West Flemish (data drawn from Haegeman (1983)). (77) a. 'k weten niet wanneer dan

Jan

en

Marie goan weggoan

pi I

know

not

when

that-pl John and Mary

go

go away

Ί

don't know when John and Mary are going to leave'

b. 'k weten niet wanneer da (*n) Jan goat weggoan (*pl) This would seem to indicate that there are agreement properties in COMP, since number agreement is manifested morphologically on the complementizer. Cliticization exemplified in

phenomena

on dat/Vf

are

not

restricted

to

Standard

Du,

as

(78). In West Flemish, also a V2 language, nominative clitics

appear on dat/Vf. Beside this, non-nominative clitics can also cliticize

onto

COMP, as illustrated by the following examples from Haegeman & Bennis (1984). (78) a. Ik peinzen danze-t-ze I think

zunder gezeid heen

that+pl it her they

said

3 ps. •I think that they said it to her' b. Gisteren

heet-t-ze

Jan

gegeven

Yesterday has-it-her John given 'Yesterday John gave it to her'

have

52

Again,

if

properties,

pronominal

cliticization

this might

indicate

of

that

this kind is a manifestation of the position

for Vf/dat

contains

case case-

marking properties, arguing for the structure (73). The same phenomenon of subject and object clitics appearing on the complementizer or the preposed verb is frequently observed in Middle Dutch

(Weerman

(1985)), and in dialects of German (Bayer (1985)). Cliticization on dat/Vf is also attested in OS. However, since this phenomenon is not

generally

accepted

as one of

cliticization,

and would

require

a

rather detailed argument that would take us beyond the scope of this chapter, we will defer discussion of it until chapter 4. The facts about cliticization on COMP and agreement on COMP from a variety of WGmc languages tell us something about COMP properties. They all form languagespecific instantiations

of agreement properties on COMP. Those

languages/dia-

lects that have pronominal clitics, presumably a case phenomenon, have cliticization on COMP - of subject clitics in Standard Du, of subject and object clitics in W. Flemish, Middle Du and German dialects. Southern Du dialects show a different phenomenon, that of number agreement on the complementizer. It seems reasonable

to

suppose

that

these are all language-specific

instantiations

of

properties associated with AGR. Since AGR is generated under INFL, the phenomena discussed in this

section support our conclusion above that the position for

dat/Vf in COMP is the position of INFL. In the following section we will review some consequences of this conclusion.

2.3.1.2. INFL and COMP From the evidence quoted in the previous section for the properties of the landing-site for move V in WGmc languages, two things emerge. It seems reasonable

to draw the conclusion that the landing-site

is COMP. All the

evidence

suggests that COMP contains agreement properties, on the assumption that cliticization phenomena and number agreement are connected with AGR. Since AGR is usually generated under INFL, we tentatively conclude that INFL, where it is relevant as a trigger for move V. is in COMP, as in the following structure:

53 (79)

The question is whether such a structure is a D-structure or a derived one. The evidence concerning cliticization and agreement on Vf I that suggests that (79) is a D-structure. Observe that any analysis of verb movement in terms of 'movement of

INFL/V

Travis

to

COMP

in

the absence

of

a base-generated

complementizer'

(e.g.

(1984)) cannot explain this parallellism between Vf and that, since on

such an analysis INFL would only be in COMP in V2 sentences and not in that sentences. This reinforces

the

suggestion made

in many V2 proposals

that the

trigger for V2 should be analysed in terms of properties of COMP. We therefore adopt the conclusion that INFL is generated in pre-S position in the phrasestructure component for the reasons indicated. It must be noted however, that in a

different

structure,

like

that

of Travis

(1984); Chomsky

(1985),

the

same

results can be achieved, as long as the trigger for move V is formulated in terms of properties of COMP, as Weerman (1986) d o e s . 1 1 Possibly, on this view, COMP is really a two-level projection with INFL as a head and COMP as the specifier of INFL'. We will come back to this in chapter 3. This leaves us with the issue what, in a structure like (79), the head of S is. A reasonable assumption seems to be that for the languages under discussion here, S is a projection of V: (80)

S* VP' (-S)

COMP I INFL

NP

VP

AGR This ties in with the proposals of Taraldsen (1983), who argues that UG contains a parameter that allows for cross-linguistic variation as to what the head of S is, V or INFL. According to Taraldsen, V must be the head of S in the Scandinavian languages, Dutch and German, and indeed in V2 languages in general, whereas

54 the head must be INFL in Modern English and in the Romance languages. On this view, S has a definition in terms of X-theory (projection with V as a head) as well as a definition in terms of predication theory (deriving the general obligatoriness of the subject position). We adopt this proposal here and assume that it extends to OE. H. Koopman (1984), like Taraldseft (1983), adopts (80) and derives the position of INFL in the structure (80) from independent principles. She argues that phrase structure is triggered by independent parameters, among others directionality constraints on θ-marking and case-marking; in specific languages case and 0-role

are assigned

in one direction by all the relevant categories in the

unmarked case. Thus, in the structure (80), the position of INFL is derived on the basis of the parameter for case directionality, which in the WGmc languages is set from left to right. For the time being, we adopt this proposal for OE. We discuss this in more detail in chapter 3, where we also review further consequences of this for the phrase structure of OE and discuss case and θ-marking in greater detail. We conclude then, that on the basis of the empirical evidence for the properties of the landing-site for move V in the WGmc V2 languages, the structure (80) is well-motivated and can be accommodated in the general theory. In the following section, we will see how move V is triggered.

2.3.1.3. The trigger for move V

In section 2.3.1.1 some analyses of V2 were briefly discussed. What unifies these analyses is that they take as a starting point that the INFL node is in COMP as a trigger for V-movement. V-movement is blocked when there is a basegenerated complementizer. Given the latter, the various analyses all derive Vmovement in terms of

some principle that requires lexicalization of INFL in

COMP. The requirement that INFL be lexical seems a reasonable one, given that it is the head of a projection, and a case-marker. We will not go into the precise nature of the principle requiring lexicalization here. We conclude that in the absence of a base-generated complentizer, the finite verb moves to INFL because INFL must be lexical, and that movement of V leaves a trace in VP.

55 2.1.4. Toplcallzatlon

We conclude with some brief discussion of the status of the first constituent in V2 sentences. It was shown above that, contrary

to some recent proposals

concerning V2, such as Safir (1982); Travis (1984), topicalization and V2 do not obligatorily go together. Fronting of the finite V is the process that is obligatory, as a function of the obligatory lexicalization of INFL in COMP, in the absence

of

a

base-generated

complementizer

in that position.

Topicalization

itself is optional and consists of movement of some S constituent to COMP. On such a view, topicalization becomes largely a pragmatic/stylistic affair, motivated by the desire on the part of the speaker to give focus-type prominence to some S constituent by moving it to first position in COMP. Such a configuration must, of course, satisfy the usual requirements imposed on A-binding.

2.4. Verb Raising

The analysis in the previous section of V2 in sentences without a base-generated complementizer commits us to the assumption that in sentences with a basegenerated complementizer under INFL, the finite verb is not adjoined to COMP, but remains in sentence-final position. This is consistent with data such as (2) above, repeated here as (81).

(81) t»t

ic ]?as

boc

of

Ledenum gereorde to Engliscre sprsce awende (AHTh.I.pref,6)

'that I translate

this book

from the Latin language

to the English

tongue'

There are two classes of apparent counterexamples to this. These, however, can be explained on independent grounds. In the first place, object material can be extraposed over the VP-final verb or verb cluster. This was discussed above in section 2.2. A

second

type

of

counterevidence

are

constructions where

an

infinitival

clause is embedded under a modal auxiliary or a causative or perception verb.·*·^ We assume that these infinitivals are embedded because the verbs that govern them are main verbs, not auxiliaries as in ModE. This is straightforward for causative and perception verbs, and Allen (1974) shows that OE modals, too, are main verbs. The behaviour of these constructions is very complicated. Beside

56 verb clustering at the end of the sentence, these constructions show a number of very complicated word order patterns, where the embedded infinitival sentence is discontinuous. Let us first consider some examples: (82) a. J>œt

hie

mid nanum binge ne mehton gesemede weorban (Oros 39,13) inf. object

that they with no thing

matrix V

inf. material

not could reconciled become

'that they could not be reconciled by anything' b. Jjœt he

bffis gewinnes mehte mare gefremman (Oros 47,14)

that he the victory

could better achieve

'so that he could win the victory all the better' c. ]»t

mon

glene ceap

mehte be twlefealdan bet

geceapian (Oros 130,23)

that people every purchase could by twofold

better buy

'that people could buy every commodity twice as cheap' d. and het

t»t

bider

sceolde to him cumen (Vesp. Horn,88-32)

and ordered that thither should

to him come

'and ordered that from there should come to him' In all of these examples (82), the material of the embedded infinitival clause spreads over two positions on the left and on the right of the matrix verb. We can explain these word order patterns if we analyse these 0E sentences as instances of V-raising, where V-raising incorporates complement material of the infinitival verb when that verb is adjoined to the matrix verb. In order to make this clear, we first discuss Evers' (1975) analysis of the mechanics of V-raising in languages like Dutch and German. Consider the sentences in (83a) and (83b) and the structure (83c): (83) a. Dat Jan

het boekje

wilde

hebben

that John the booklet wanted have b. Dass der Johann das Büchlein haben wollte That

John

the booklet

have

wanted

'that John wanted to have the booklet'

57

V

NP het boekje

V

V

wilde

hebben

haben

wollte

hebben haben

In the structure (83c) in Dutch, the embedded infinitival verb hebben 'have' is adjoined to the right of the matrix verb wilde 'wanted' by tihe process of Vraising, in German it is adjoined to the left. V-raising destroys the clausal status of the embedded S complement; the embedded clause is unified with the matrix clause, as evidenced by various transparency phenomena. Evers (1975) argues that a structure like (83c) to the left of the arrow underlies Verb-raising constructions. The main argument for this is of course one of subcategorization. There is also evidence that the S-structure of V-raising constructions is one with a verbal cluster, where the two clauses are unified into one. There are various types of evidence for this, the clearest being the arguments to do with negation, word order variation and clitic placement. I will briefly review them in turn, with illustrations from German. Arguments and examples are from Evers (1982). Negation. In simple object-verb sentences negation is placed before the verb. If one were to assume that the S-structure of a V-raising sentence is one as (83c) to the left of the arrow, i.e. with a clausal complement, one would expect a negation to appear on the left of the matrix verb. This prediction is not borne out; the negation appears on the left of the verbal cluster:

(84) a.*Dass der Johann das Büchlein haben nicht wollte b. Dass der Johann das Büchlein nicht haben wollte

This goes to show that the two verbs in (84) form one verbal cluster. Incidentally, this argument is not valid for OE, since there the negation particle

58

is cliticized onto the finite verb. Word order variations.

In German there are

some word order variations within

verbal clusters resulting from V-raising. These cannot be plausibly described on the assumption that at S-structure there are embedded S complements.

Consider

(85) w i t h optional preposing of hat to the initial position in the verb cluster. (85) weil

er die Kinder

- singen hören können hat ΐ I because he the children has sing hear can 'because he was able to hear the children sing'

In a structure where the sequence of verbs in (85) represents multiple embedding, one would have to assume that the verb form hat is lowered. On the assumption of a verbal cluster, however, it would represent a simple permutation of hat to the left of the verbal cluster. Clitic placement. The clitic es 'it', when the object of an infinitival verb, can appear to the left of the 'matrix' subject: (86) a. weil

die Leute

es. Cecilia ins Arabische Ubersetzen lehren

because the people it Cecilia to

Arabic

translate

teach

'because the people teach Cecilia to translate into Arabic' b. weil es. die Leute Cecilia ins Arabische Ubersetzen lehren If the infinitival of which the clitic is an object were embedded in an S-domain, it would be incomprehensible why the clitic can appear on the matrix COMP, since clitics never leave their S-domain. Therefore we must conclude that clause union has destroyed the clausal status of the S-domain. These are three types of evidence to show that V-raising involves a process of clause union. There are several variant forms of V-raising in West Germanic languages. Note first of all the difference between Dutch and German. As evident from (83), V-raising in Dutch adjoins infinitivale to the right of the matrix verb, and in German to the left of the matrix verb. Den Besten & Edmondson WGmc dialects.

They note

(1983) discuss variant

forms of V-raising in other

that in West Flemish and ZUritUUtsch, V-raising can

raise a projection of the infinitival verb. Thus, the Dutch sentence in (83) can take the following shape in West Flemish:

59 (87) a. Dat

Jan

wilde

het boekje

hebben

that John wanted the booklet have b.

VP V V

VP

wilde N1 het boekje

hebben

hebben

het boekje

They show that V-ralslng In Alemannic (a southern German dialect) may incorporate two constituents under V-raising. These various types of constructions are all found in OE and we propose that they are all V-raising constructions. Consider the following sentences. (88) a. J»t

hie

gemong him

that they among

mid sibbe sittan mosten (Oros,52,33)

themselves in

peace settle must

'that they must settle in peace among themselves* b. dœt

he Saul ne

dorste ofslean (CP,199,2)

that he Saul not dared

murder

'that he didn't dare to murder Saul' c. {Met

he mehte his feorh

generian (Oros,48,18)

that he could his property save 'so that he could save his property' d. Jjœt

hi

mihton swa bealdlice Godes geleafan bodian (AHTh,I,232)

that they could

so

boldly

God's faith

preach

'that they could preach God's faith so boldly' In (88a) the embedded infinitival is adjoined to the left of the matrix V, in (88b) to the right. In (88c) one constituent is raised along with the verb, in (88d) two constituents. Whereas the sentences in (88) might well be analysed as instances

of

S extraposition,

the

examples

in

(82)

above

show

that this

is

probably not the case. As noted, constructions like those in (82) and (88) are

60 well-attested In Modern West Germanic languages. In these languages

there are

various ways of showing that these are V-raising structures. For instance, Haegeman & van Riemsdijk (1986) show that in constructions of the type in

(88c) in W. Flemish and ZUritUtltsch, incorporation of

complement

material under V-raising results in systematic semantic differences. While this kind of evidence is particularly difficult to work out for a dead language like OE, there are various types of evidence to show that in constructions like (82) and (88), the S status of the embedded infinitival is lost at some stage in the derivation,

thus

unifying

the

embedded

clause

with

the matrix

clause.

This

clause union is apparent from the fact that infinitivale of this type are transparent for clitic movement'; a clitic object of the infinitival verb can attach to the matrix COMP, as in (89). Clitics will be discussed further in chapter 4. (89) a. >

wiste {wet hi ene mon wolde

mid

fœm ilcan wrence bebridian (Oros,155,2)

and knew that him

they wanted with the same

strategy overpower

'and knew that they wanted to overpower him with the same strategy* b. ... ofdrsdd t«t him afraid

Godes yrre

on becuman sceolde (ΑΗΡ,XXIII, 119)

that him God's anger on come

would

'afraid that God's anger would descend on him' Furthermore, complements of the embedded infinitive can be extraposed over the matrix V. Consider a sentence like (90): (90) t>st

hi

of er

Jjaet ne

dorston nohte

that they after that not dared

gretan J>a

not at all attack the

halgan stowe holy

place (GD,4,43,4)

'that they did not dare at all to attack the holy place after that' The object ba halgan stowe is extraposed. We cannot be sure from which position the extraposition took place. The fact that extraposition takes place in this way, however, provides evidence that this is a clause union construction. Suppose that the infinitival complement remains S throughout the derivation,

and

suppose further that extraposition is adjunction to VP. Then consider the following structure (91) for (90):

61 S

(91)

VP

NP hi S

V dorston

NP

VP

PRO PP

V't

ofer Jaet NP

V'2

nohte gretan

Jja halgan stowe

If the NP extraposes in this structure, it adjoins to the embedded VP. V'raising of V']_ or V'2 would not move along the NP, and we would have to assume that for some reason this NP extraposes again, and the matrix VP would not be an obvious landing site. If we assume that V-raising breaks up the S status of the embedded complement and unifies the two clauses, extraposition results straightforwardly in adjunction to the matrix VP. Further evidence for clause union comes from preposition stranding constructions. One type of relative clause in Old English, the ¿e. relative, allows preposition stranding. I will not discuss at this stage how this construction should be analysed; see e.g. Allen (1980); Vat (1978); and chapter S. I assume that Pstranding in these constructions is an instance of wh-movement, and is thus subject to Subjacency. On the latter point, there is agreement in the literature referred to above. Given these assumptions, it is quite striking that in Vraising constructions, stranding of a preposition in a PP that is the object of an embedded infinitival is possible, both in Vv and in vXV constructions s

(92) a. ... {)e

we J>a eardunge mid

geearnian sceolon (Ben,4,23)

that we the dwelling with earn

must

'that we must earn the dwelling with'

b

hwser hie

landes hœfden {Met hie

mehten an gewician (Oros,46,15)

where they land

had

that they could

on live

'where they had land that they might live on'

62 If the embedded complement had S-status throughout the derivation, wh-movement of an embedded object would violate subjacency; it would cross two S-nodes. If we assume clause union, the lower S-node is erased, and Subjacency is not violated. I conclude that a V-raising analysis of constructions such as those in (82), (88), (89), (90) and (92) is indicated. We have not gone into the question of what the theoretical motivation for V-raising is. Some proposals for this can be found in Evers (1982); Hoekstra (1984). We will not go further into this matter here. We have seen in this section that a V-raising analysis for modal + complement sheds new light on some complicated word order patterns in OE. This leads to an interesting observation. If V-raising in OE can involve the verb or a projection of the verb, to the exclusion of a higher projection, this suggests that the VP in OE is highly structured, in spite of its comparatively free word order. Though we do not wish to go further into this here, it will be interesting to see how these two observations can be reconciled. Finally, we note that a V-raising analysis is available only if we assume that the underlying word order is SOV; verbal material would hardly cluster in sentence-final position if the verb is not situated there. I conclude therefore, that the V-raising analysis lends further support to the SOV hypothesis.

2.5. Conclusions

In this chapter we have presented an argument for the basic structure of OE, based on analyses of similar facts in related WGmc languages. We have seen that the distribution of verbs and particles in root and non-root clauses provides a sufficient empirical basis for the hypothesis that OE is an SOV language with a rule of verb movement in root clauses. Because the rule of verb movement can only be a root transformation the order of non-root clauses must be regarded as basic and the verb-particle facts show that SOV is the more plausible hypothesis for OE. In sections 2, 3 and 4 we have seen that superficial counterevidence against SOV can be explained on independent grounds, so that the facts that we have do not argue against SOV order. This yields the following view of OE word order.

(93) a. The underlying word order is SOV b. There is a (comparatively free) process of extraposition

63 c. There is a rule of VZ in root clauses d. There Is a (comparatively free) process of V-raising As a result of the analysis of the basic structure of OE in this chapter, we consider that there are two basic differences between OE and ModE. O E is SOV, ModE SVO. This is a very well-known difference, and the change from OV to VO is well-documented in the literature. However, given the analysis of V2 in section 2, there is a further difference. Ve saw that in OE INFL is in COMP whereas, according to standard analyses, ModE has INFL in S: ModE:

(94) OE: COMP INFL

COMP (Ρ

INFL

VP

If this is correct, there must have, been another change beside the change from OV to VO. We will see in chapter 6 that this is indeed the case, and that this change was independent from the change from OV to VO. But first we will delve further into OE.

64 Footnotes 1. For the moment we abstract away from the position and status of the INFL node. 2. I use the term 'main clause' here as an expository convenience; the notion will be refined later. 3. This suggestion operates on the assumption that language-learning children already have a rule of verb placement in their earliest grammars. But this is not necessarily so. De Haan (1986) emphasizes that early grammars, though producing the same output, can be very different from mature grammars. He discusses some evidence that in fact in early Du grammars ahildren use one set of verbs (including, for instance, modals) in 'verb second' position and other verbs in final position, with complementary distribution between the two. Only in later grammars do they acquire distinctions in verb morphology and a rule of verb placement. If this proves to be correct, our suggestion may be oversimplistic. Notice that this does not, however, affect the argument that the peculiarities of verb and particle distribution reduce to the peculiarities of the rule of verb-placement. 4. The material in this section is an expanded version of material in van Kemenade (1984a). 5. It is observed in some studies that in earliest Old English, verb-fronting must have been optional, e.g. Pintzuk & Kroch (1985). It is not entirely clear to me what the status of this observation should be. Anyway, the earliest texts consist mainly of poetical documents in the typical old Gmc alliterative verse mode. That is, they are full of archaic, metrically influenced language. Word order in these texts cannot be straightforwardly compared with that in prose texts, from which we have drawn our data. 6. ANS stands for Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst, a recent reference grammar for Dutch. 7. For the moment I abstract away from the issue whether a sentence with a finite and an infinitival verb form is monoclausal or biclausal. This question is addressed in 2.4. 8. There is some superficial counterevidence to this, discussed by Koopman (1984). There are in Du relative clauses and embedded questions without a base-generated complementizer, which are nevertheless verb-final. i. de jongen die (*heeft) die misdaad begaan heeft the boy who that crime committed has 'the boy who committed that crime' ii. Ik weet niet wie (*heeft) dat gedaan heeft I know not who that done has Ί don't know who did that" Koopman assumes that such sentences contain a lexical complementizer underlyingly. I will take over this suggestion here. These phenomena also occur in OE. Consider, for instance the relatives in iii. and iv.

65 ili. ... mine stefne, mid {»re ic earm to Jje eleopie (Blick 89) my voice, with which I wretch to thee call •my voice, with which I, wrecht, call out to thee' iv. he wolde adrœfen anne œfceling, se wœs Cyneheard haten (Parker 755) he wanted drive out a prince, who was Cyneheard called 'he wanted to drive out a prince called Cyneheard' We assume that in verb-final j>e. relatives like iii. there is, in fact, an underlying complementizer, so that underlyingly these are se be relatives. This complementizer is deleted, iv. is a 'true' se. relative with no complementizer and thus verb-fronting. 9. This does not mean to say that other analyses do not regard COMP as the landing site for move V. Actually Taraldsen and Travis assume this too. 10. This type of evidence is not always taken seriously, because it always makes use of sentence adverbs like gisteren 'yesterday', and it seems that in Du such adverbs require stressed adverbs following them, Note however, the perfect grammaticality of a sentence like i. i. dat Jan gisteren 'm het boek gaf that Jan yesterday him the book gave where an unstressed clitic pronoun follows gisteren. 11. Weerman's proposal is that AGR Originates' in COMP and is the trigger for move V. for principled reasons, However, this leads to other complications, e.g. assuming that AGR is not generated under INFL. We leave this matter for further research. 12. The material in this section was published as van Kemenade (1985a).

CHAPTER 3

Syntactic case and morphological case

The aim of this chapter is to establish some core properties of case

and morphological

case

in OE, and

the

relationship

syntactic

between them.

Case

theory as it is embedded in GB theory enables us to cast light on the relationship between a number notably various adjectives,

of

superficially

unrelated

syntactic

phenomena

in OE,

types of passive constructions, constructions with transitive

and word order. This provides a further context for a number of

observations and analyses presented in chapter 2. Also it provides the necessary basis for the analyses of clitics and preposition stranding in chapters 4 and 5 and for an understanding of the diachronic development subsequent to OE and its theoretical implications, as discussed in chapter 6. Our treatment of those in Rouveret

syntactic

& Vergnaud

case follows proposals (1980); Chomsky

for case theory such as

(1981); Kayne

(1981);

Lightfoot

(1981). Case theory within GB theory has so far been almost exclusively

con-

cerned with syntactic case forms. Syntactic case forms are abstract properties that categories occupying argument positions receive from a case-marking head, and that play a role at abstract levels in the grammar. Section 3.1 will discuss syntactic case in more detail, making a crucial distinction between structural syntactic case and oblique syntactic case, and defining the properties of both types of case relevant to the various components of the grammar, and to the analysis of particular constructions. Given

such a theory

of abstract case, it is of interest

to see how

such

abstract case forms are related to morphological case forms as we know them in inflected languages such as OE. We will proceed on the assumption that there is such a relationship. We would consider it ideal from a theoretical point of view if it can be shown that in an inflected language like OE, case morphology is the morphological

reflex

of

the abstract case

system as defined here, and

that,

conversely, abstract case distinctions are recoverable on the basis of morphology, at least where they are not otherwise identifiable. With this in mind, we discuss case morphology in section 3.2. My conclusion at the end of this chapter will be that the syntactic system of OE

showed a

considerable

amount

of

opacity,

case-

and that this is

the

67

reason why it was reduced fairly drastically when morphological case was lost in the transition to ME.

3.1. Syntactic case In order to define syntactic case marking, we follow proposals made by Rouveret Sc Vergnaud (1980); Chomsky (1981); Kayne (1981); Lightfoot (1981). Assuming that abstract case is assigned under government, let us adopt here the definition of government of Aoun & Sportiche (1983): (1)

[ z ... y ... χ ... y ...], where i. χ - X o ii. χ governs y iff V ζ, ζ a maximal projection, ζ dominates x, « iff ζ dominates y.

On the basis of the proposals mentioned above, I assume the following general case-marking rules for case assigned by a head: 1 (2)

i. NP is nominative if governed by AGR ii. NP is objective if governed by V or Ρ iii. NP is marked oblique as determined by properties of its [-N] governor.

Observe that the rules ii. and iii. contain some redundancy because tive' and linguistic

'objec-

'oblique' are not further specified, and thus allow for some crossvariation.

Furthermore,

the

case-marking

categories

relevant

for

these two rules are identical; the feature value [-N] in iii. comprises V and Ρ (ii). this

is meant to capture the fact that there

is some

cross-linguistic

variation in the status of the case assigned by these heads, objective or oblique. For example, Kayne (1981) argues that, whereas Ρ in ModE is an objective case marker, it is an oblique case marker in French. I will come back to this below. The case assigned under (2i) and (2ii) is structural case, the case assigned under (2iii) oblique case.^

A first distinction between these two types of case

is that structural case is assigned blindly under (2i) and (2ii); it is a structural

property

of a formal

configuration and it is dissociated from θ-role.

Oblique case is presumably closely linked to θ-role (cf Chomsky (1981)).

68 To illustrate the blind operation of structural case and the dissociation of case and 0-role, I give a few examples from ModE, which presumably has only structural case forms as defined by (2i) and (2ii). (3) a.

Mary hit John

b.

John was hit (by Mary)

c.

You may expect yourself to be arrested

In (3a) the subject Mary receives nominative case under (2i) and has the 0-role 'agent'. In This makes

(3b) John receives nominative

case and has the θ-role

'patient'.

it clear that the nominative subject can have various θ-roles. The

same holds for objective case as assigned by V. In (3a) John has the θ-role 'patient*. In general an object of a verb receives both θ-role and case from that verb, but

(3c) shows that this is not necessarily so. I assume the following

structure for (3c): (4) you may expect [g yourself^ to be arrested t¿] The embedded

subject yourself, having

objective case, is in a ηοη-θ position

(subject of a passive sentence), and thus cannot receive a θ-role in its surface position. Therefore w e must assume that it has a θ-role through its original position [t¿], that of object of the passive participle arrested. But it receives objective case from the matrix V expect under (2ii). Thus, case and Θrole are clearly dissociated here. Let us now take a look at the various cases of OE. For nominative case we can maintain the case-marking rule (2i). As in ModE, nominative case is structural, and is dissociated from θ-role. Consider the sentences in (5). (5) a. . . . Jja

tugon

heo(nom)

then dragged they

hine nydinga of

J)am mynstre (Bede,208,22)

him by force from the monastery

'then they dragged him by force from the monastery' b.

Hit(nom) is awriten on Faules bocum dst ... (CP,214,22) it

is written in Paul's books that

Hwset Jja so

se

msssepreost (nom) {»s mannes ofhreow (ASL,XXVI,262)

then the priest

of the man pitied

•so then the priest felt pity for the man*

69 In

(Sa), a simple active sentence, the nominative subject heo has the θ-role

'agent'; In (5b), a passive sentence, the nominative subject hit has the θ-role of 'patient'; in (5c), an impersonal sentence, the nominative subject se massepreost has the Q-role of 'experiencer'. These examples do not exhaust the possibilities. Thus, the nominative subject does not have any one thematic correlate. We may

assume

that

the base

rules obligatorily

generate a subject

according to the Extended Projection Principle of Chomsky

position,

(1982). The

subject

position does not obligatorily have a 0-role; where it does not, it is basegenerated empty and an element that has some independent θ-role may move there and

receive

nominative

case

under

(2i). Nominative

case-marking

can

operate

independently because A6R is not a β-marker and thus does not affect the thematic specifications of whatever element happens to occupy the subject position. Nominative case-marking then operates as follows: we assume the structure for Smotivated in chapter 2, repeated here as (6):

(6)

In this structure, the subject NP, regardless of Q-role, will receive nominative case under (2i), because the subject NP is governed by AGR under INFL under definition (1) above. Now we turn to objective case in OS. It appears that the language-specific instantiation

of

objective

case

in OE

is

accusative

case.

The

dissociation

between θ-role and case is less clear for object case than it is for nominative case. The reason for this is clear: in most constructions with a verb and an object NP, V is subcategorized for the NP. Therefore, the configuration of V and NP will be such that V θ-marks and assigns case to NP. But like in ModE, there are environments in OE where there is a dissociation between objective case and θ-role. (7).

Consider,

for

instance,

the OE causative construction exemplified in

70

(7) Se ealdormon (nom) sceal lœtan the ruler (nom)

shall

let

hiene selfne (acc) [g himself (acc)

geliene his equal

his

hieremonnum (CP,106,8) subjects (dat)] 'the ruler must put himself on the same level with his subjects' This is an exceptional case-marking construction in which the NP anaphor hiene selfne is the subject of the embedded clause and thus receives a 0-role within its clause

from the embedded predicate.

It receives accusative case

however,

from the matrix verb latan. This makes it clear that accusative case in OE is structural, and is dissociated from θ-marking. However, this does not mean that nominative present,

case

always

and accusative

case are of exactly

assigns nominative case. V does not

the same kind. A6R, when always

assign

objective

case. This difference must be viewed in terms of subcategorlzation. AGR does not have a subcategorlzation frame, V does. V can only define a government domain if it is transitive, i.e. when it is subcategorized for one or more complements. When it is subcategorized for a complement, say an NP, it defines a government domain for that complement, as in (8), and 0-marks NP, and assigns case to NP:

(8)

VP NP t

government

V I

case θ-role Beside (8), structural objective case can be assigned in the structure (9): (9)

VP

NP

XP

In (9) the matrix V defines a government domain for S. Because S is not a maximal projection, the embedded subject is governed by the matrix V and receives objective case under (2ii). In OE, there is no basis for the assumption motiva-

71 ted by Stowell

(1981) for ModE that there is an adjacency requirement on case-

marking. The hypothesis that accusative case is structural in OE is further supported by

the

availability

of

accusative-marked

objects

for move

a.

cf.

Lightfoot

(1981). For instance, only objects that can be accusative in active sentences can be passivized. Oblique objects cannot. This is explained if we make the following assumptions. Structural objective case can only be assigned by V, i.e. a lexical head with the feature specification [+V, -N]. In a passive construction, the passive morphology on the verb stem alters the status of the head V. Formulated in terms of syntactic

features, the

[-N] specification is lost, thus

making the feature make-up of a passive participle non-distinct from that of A. Therefore, a passive participle cannot assign objective case to its direct object, and the object has to move in order to receive case. Because in passive constructions the subject does not receive a θ-role, and is thus base-generated empty, the object can move to that position and receive nominative case. Schematized in (10).

Fart

of

this

analysis

of passive

is the assumption that

structural

case is

assigned at S-structure, (cf. Chomsky (1981)). Thus, the effects of structural objective case can be neutralized in certain constructions. Perhaps, though not obviously, this is related to the phenomenon that in these constructions the subject does not receive a θ-role.^

Given the quite general fact that non-accu-

sative objects do not passivize, i.e. cannot become a nominative subject, such neutralization of oblique case is presumably impossible.

I will come back to

this in the following section, where I discuss oblique case in more detail.

72 3.1.1. Obllaue case In the previous section we discussed several properties of structural case: structural case is dissociated from O-role; the effects of structural case can be neutralized in certain constructions; structural case is assigned at S-structure. In this section we will discuss the crucial properties of oblique case as opposed to those of structural case: oblique case is determined by θ-role, and therefore it is assigned at D-structure, where θ-marking also takes place; because it is linked to Q-marking the effects of oblique case cannot be neutralized. This has various consequences, which will be discussed. By oblique case, we understand dative case, genitive case when it is assigned by a verb or an adjective, and oblique accusative case. 4

We will discuss how these cases can be

recognized as oblique. Within the framework adopted here, oblique case is not a particularly wellstudied phenomenon. Chomsky

(1981) observes that oblique case, which he calls

inherent case, is presumably closely related to θ-marking. We will corroborate this relationship in 3.1.1.2. This ties in with the arguments presented by Kayne (1981) and Lightfoot

(1981) that oblique case is assigned at D-structure. They

corroborate this with a number of syntactic effects of oblique case. We will see in section 3.1.1.3 how these effects occur in OE. Now we will first establish which heads may function as oblique case markers. Recall rule (2iii) above for oblique case-marking, which is based on Chomsky (1981). I repeat it here for convenience. (11) NP is marked oblique as determined by properties of its [-N] governor This rule is not appropriate for OE. It suggests that only V and Ρ can be oblique case markers. Now it is certainly true that V often assigns genitive and dative case, and Ρ assigns dative or accusative. Some examples of this are given in (12) (12) a. Hwi wolde God swa lvtles

binges (gen) him (dat) forwyrnan (AHTh,I,14)

why would God such a small thing

him

'why would God deprive him of such a small thing?'

deprive

73 b. Se

Themestocles gemyndgade lonas bare ealdan fahbe (gen) ... (Oros,47,20)

This Themestocles reminded

Ionians the old

vendetta

'This Themestocles reminded the Ionians of the old vendetta'

c. t>eh hie

him (dat) bas (gen) ge()afiende naren (Oros,50,17)

though they him

that

agreeing

not were

'though they were not in agreement with him on that'

d. {jset he wolde

mid

his freondum (dat) &

that he wanted with his friends gesprec & talk

mid

his wytum (dat)

and with his councillors

gefceaht habban (Bede,134,3)

and council have

'that he wanted to have talk and council with his friends and councillors'

e. {jeh

t>e egjjer Jiissa

though that each t>us

getacnod

burga

burh

Godes dleeelnessa (acc)

of these cities through God's mysteries

wurde (Oros,38,2)

thus marked out was 'though each of these cities was marked out by God's mysteries'

In (12a) the verb forwvrnan assigns dative to the object him and genitive to the object swa lytles binges. In (12b) the verb gemyndgian assigns genitive to the object bare ealdan fahbe: in (12c) the present participle gebafiende assigns dative to the object him and genitive to the object bas ; in (12d) the preposition burh assigns accusative to the object Godes dleeelnessa. V and Ρ however, do not exhaust the class of oblique case markers. Adjectives can also assign oblique case in OE. We will'see in the following section how this phenomenon can be reconciled with standard assumptions about case theory.

3.1.1.1. Case assignment by adjectives

In OE, there are numerous examples of assignment of dative or genitive case by an adjective. A few examples are given in (13):

74

(13) a. t>eah

hit J)am cynge

though it

ungewill

ware (PC 1097,23)

the king (dat) displeasing was

'though it was displeasing to the king* b. and bio he sices wites wyrde (charters) and be he every punishment (gen) deserving 'and may he deserve every punishment' In (13a) bam cynge receives dative from the adjective ungewill. in (13b) glees wites receives genitive from wvrde. We have to assume that the case is assigned by the adjective in such examples, because the choice of case is an idiosyncratic property of the adjective. The only alternative would be to assume that in such sentences as (13), case is assigned by the copula, but a typical property of copulas is that they do not assign objective or oblique case. Moreover, the same 'adjective with object' construction appears in the attributive

posi-

tion without a copula. Because of the close resemblance between the constructions exemplified in (13) and similar constructions in M o d e m German as analysed in van Riemsdijk (1983), we will briefly consider the Gm facts and their analysis first.

Note

first

the parallel

between the OE examples

in

(13) and the

German examples in (14):

(14) a. Dase der Hans seiner Freundin UberdrUssig ist that the Hans his girlfriend (gen) weary

is

'that Hans is weary of his girlfriend' b. Das Französische ist ihm ungeläufig the French

is

him unfamiliar

'French is unfamiliar to him' Van Riemsdijk illustrates a number of characteristics of these constructions in G m and emphasizes the parallel between the structure and properties of such AP's and those of VP. In the first place he notes that, parallel to verbs, the casemarking adjective usually follows its object, as is evident from the examples in (14). Also, within such a structure the object is not necessarily adjacent to the adjective; specifier or adverbial material may intervene, as shown in (15a) and (15b). Compare again (15a) and (15b) with the verbal structures exemplified in (15c) and (15d).

75

(15) a. Das Wort ist mir völlig that word is me

ungeläufig

completely unfamiliar

•that word is completely unfamiliar to me'

b. Er wird des Französischen niemals mächtig he will the French

werden

never in command become

'he will never gain command of French'

c. Weil dieses

Buch mir völlig

because this book me

gefällt

completely pleases

•because I like this book very much'

d. Ich werde mein Studium niemals hassen I

will

my

studies never

hate

'I will never hate my studies'

Extraposition of complement material over the VP-final verb is restricted in German to PP. NP does not extrapose. The same is the case in AP structures!

(16) a. Er ist auf Musik erpicht he is

on

music keen

b. Er ist erpicht auf Musik

(17) a. Er ist dieses Problems gewärtig He is of this problem aware

b.*Er ist gewärtig dieses Problems

Van Riemsdijk corroborates this parallel further, noting that the same 'adjective with object' construction, with the same VP-like characteristics as (15) above occurs in attributive position. Some examples are given in (18):

(18) a. Ein mir

völlig

a me (dat) completely

ungeläufiges Wort unfamiliar

'a word completely unknown to me*

word

76 b. Ein seines Studiums a

his

geradezu

Uberdrtlssiger Student

studies(gen) downright

weary

student

'a student downright weary of his studies'

Such attributive constructions do not occur sufficiently frequently in OE to warrant any conclusions. Van Riemsdijk analyses the facts about adjectives in terms of neutralization of syntactic features. According to him transitive adjectives, occurring as they are on typically verbal positions, are 'degenerate' [+V] constituents. The usual feature specification of adjective is [+V,+N]. However, for transitive adjectives such as those in German, the value [+N] is neutralized, so that only the specification [+V] remains. Thus the feature specification of such adjectives is non-distinct from [-N]. Van Riemsdijk consequently revises his rule for abstract case-marking as follows:

(19) Abstract case is assigned by structural heads that are non-distinct from [-N]

Note that this rule disregards a distinction between structural case and oblique case; rather, it defines the class of possible case markers and to that extent it is valid. From our point of view, however, we have to make a distinction between structural case markers and oblique case markers. Structural case markers were discussed in the previous section; this set, consisting of AGR and V, is more limited than that of oblique case markers. The latter have some property that enables them to assign oblique case concomitant with θ-marking. The relevant property seems to be the one isolated in the definition (19), i.e. being non-distinct from [-N]. The feature specification of an oblique case marker is relevant

then, but

the

case assigned

is essentially different

from that of

structural case. In order to identify the properties of OE transitive adjectives, we

tentatively

reformulate

case-marking

rule

(2iii) for oblique

case

assignment in the spirit of van Riemsdijk's findings.

(20) NP is marked for oblique case as determined by properties of its governor Χ, X non-distinct from [-N]

Of course, this may well be a language-specific instantiation of case-marking rule (2iii) above, but let us see first to what extent van Riemsdijk's analysis is valid for OE adjectives.

77 It

appears

that

the

hypothesis

that

transitive

adjectives

are

verb-like

elements is corroborated in OE. The evidence for this is of a more limited kind than in Modern German, mainly because there are limits on the kind of properties that can be checked in written texts, with no available negative evidence. We have to see then, if we can formulate some criteria based on the behaviour of verbs, which are applicable to transitive adjective constructions. In chapter 2 we have

established

some properties

of verbs with respect

to word

order. I

summarize these in (21).

(21)

i. Verbs are base-generated in VP-final position ii. PP, NP, S' can be extraposed over V

It seems quite justified to take these as diagnostics against which we can check transitive

adjectives.

Observe

that they are reasonably reliable criteria be-

cause VP is the only projection of a lexical head that is head-final. Let us see then, how transitive adjectives conform to the word order pattern of verbs. Re (21.i). There are a great number of examples where we find the adjective in AP-final position. Some of these are given in (22). (22) a. Jjeah

hit feam cynge

though it

ungewlll

ware (PC 1097,23)

the king (dat) displeasing was

'though it was displeasing to the king' b. wietad dat know

dst

eow

gemetlic sie (CP,94,1)

that that you (dat) fitting is

'know what is fitting for you' c. t>eh

hie

{»s

wyrj>e

nsron (Oros ,104,5)

though they that (gen) worthy not were 'though they were not worthy of that' d. ic eom {Mes I am

swa gefagen swa ic nafre nss nanee finges

that (gen) so

glad

as

I

never not was anything (gen)

swa gefagen (So,199,21) so glad Ί am happier about that than I ever was about anything'

78 Because it is unique to α VP-like structure to have the head on the right, it seems reasonable to conclude that the head-final position is the base-generated one. Note that on any other assumption this word order pattern would need a different explanation. Re (21.11). Complement material of the AP-final adjective can be extraposed over the adjective. As in the VP, both PP and NP can be extraposed. This is exemplified in (23): (23) a. monige sindon me (dat) swide onlice [on ungelœredneaae pp] (CP,24,7) many

are

me

very

similar in lack of learning

•many are very similar to me in lack of learning* b. dœt he bid diernegeligres(gen) scyldig [wid that he is adultery

guilty

God pp] (CP,142,2)

towards God

'that he is guilty of adultery towards God* c. se ealdormon sceal lstan hiene selfne gelicne the aldermon must

let

himself

equal

[his hieremonnum up](dat) (CP,106,8) his subjects 'the alderman must put himself at the same level with his subjects' d. Ac donne him

eft

gelimpd dst

hie smettige beod

but when them again happens that they devoid [dare scire N P K S the

en

)

are

(CP,126,23)

authority

'when they happen to be again without authority...' It seems then that, judging by such word order patterns as established for verbs in chapter 2, transitive adjectives are verb-like elements. Therefore it seems reasonable

to extend van Riemsdijk's

(1983) analysis

to OE, with the proviso

noted above. Recall that van Riemsdijk formulates a general rule for abstract case-marking. Here we will want to restrict this rule to oblique case-marking, as in (20), repeated here as (24).

(24) NP is marked for oblique case as determined by properties of its governor Χ, X non-distinct from [-N]

79 In the next section we will show that the properties of the governor referred to in (24) are θ-properties, and (24) will be reformulated accordingly.

3.1.1.2. Thematic correlations of oblique cases The aim of this section is to substantiate the claim that oblique case is closely linked to θ-role assignment. I will consider in turn the dative case, the genitive case when it is assigned by a verb or adjective, and the oblique accusative case.^

We will wind up with some discussion of how the relationship

between θ-role and oblique case is manifested in the grammar.

3.1.1.2.1. Dative In general we can say that the dative case is associated with the θ-role of 'goal'. This is a very rough characterization which consists of subcases that will be discussed in turn. The dative case can be assigned by a verb, preposition or an adjective. When assigned by a verb, the 0-roles associated with the dative case can be roughly ~ subdivided

into two groups: the goal of the action expressed by the

verb, or the experiencer. It is clear that the meanings associated with these Θroles are related, and the distinction is not always clear-cut, as we will see in a moment. The θ-role of

'goal' in the strict sense of the word is assigned by verbs

that express an action that is specifically directed at an object. The examples I am giving of such verbs are restricted to a few representative ones; it is hardly feasible to give àn exhaustive verbs in Wülfing

list here. 5

(1894: appendix); Visser

Such lists are given for

(1963-73: §315 ff); Mitchell

(1985:

455 ff). Verbs in this class are verbs that express verbal utterance such as and8warian 'answer'; asecgan 'say to"; cvban 'make known to'; gebodlan 'announce to', and many more less frequently occurring ones such as swerian 'swear to'; beswapen 'convince'; gewltglan 'witness to'. 6

The dative object of these verbs

is always the person addressed. Equally clearly associated with 'goal' are verbs that somehow express the action of showing something, where the dative is the person to whom

something

example for'; getacnlan the

is

shown, e.g. atvwan

'show to'; befeolan

'set an

'show to'. Another set of verbs is one that expresses

action of approaching

or its opposite in a locative

sense, e.g.

becuman

80

•come to'i blinnan 'leave'; genealacan 'approach'; onhweorfan

'turn one's back

on*. Then there are countless verbs which do not really belong to a set, but which all clearly express, by the dative they assign, the object, most often but not always a person, at which the action is directed. Some examples: abysegod beon 'be occupied with'; gemenged beon 'have intercourse with'; odhvdan 'to hide from'; togebeodan 'be faithful to'; gehiersumian 'obey*. The θ-role of experiencer is associated with the dative object of verbs that express some physical or mental action where the dative is the person that experiences the action. One could «ay that the θ-role

'experiencer' is the psychological

instantiation of

'goal'. Some representative examples: abelgan 'irritate'; aredan 'advise'; beorgan

'defend';

derlan

'harm',

efndrowlan

'take pity

on';

frefrlan

'comfort';

gehelpan 'help'; mildslan 'have mercy on'; wealdan 'rule over'; fvllglan low'; gedenlan

'serve'; onhvrlan

'envy'; cweman

'please';

(mis )liclan

'fol-

'(dis)-

please'; gelimpan 'happen to'; truwlan 'trust'; geliefan 'believe'; alyfan 'allow'; gebafian 'consent'. When

assigned

by an adjective, the

same 0-roles

'goal'

—«-J««"'—·

correspond with the dative case. Where adjectives assign the θ-role of

'goal',

the goal is less directly defined than when it is assigned by a verb. For instance,

when

that is

'near to* or 'far from'. Presumably this is because an adjective does

the

adjective

has locative connotations,

it expresses

something

not express direct action in the way that a verb does. Some examples are andweard. getenge. ne ah 'near to'; feor. fromweard 'far from'; anhende 'to hand'. A meaning related to this is the dative in comparisons, where something is compared to an object in the dative, e.g. efnmlhtlg 'equal to in goodness';

emnsarlg

'equal to in power';

'equal to in sadness';

(un)gellc

emngod

'(un)equal

to'. For the rest, when adjectives assign dative case, this case correlates with the θ-role of 'experiencer'. In all these cases the adjective somehow expresses a mental or emotional activity, where the dative undergoes that activity. Some examples are: andrvsne 'fearful'; blibe 'friendly'; deore 'dear'; gehvrsum 'obedient'; iebe 'mild'; wrad 'angry'; gewunelic 'customary'; gebyrde 'innate'. More or less exhaustive lists are given in Wülfing (1894: appendix); Visser (1963-73: §§333-348); and Mitchell (1985: 391 ff). Prepositions in OE assign dative case in the vast majority of cases. The Θrole(s)

associated with the dative case assigned by Ρ may still be viewed as

'goal', but, as with adjectives, the goals is less directly defined because the preposition does not express motion. Expressing motion is a privilege of prepositions that assign accusative case. Ρ that assigns dative refers in a locative sense to a point in place or time that is implied. Some examples:

81 (25) a. Hu

Sardanopolus

was se

sijjemesta cyning in Asiria (dat) (Oros,2,3)

how Sardanapallus was the last b. da ingedoncas ]?e

wealcad

king

in dss monne s mode (dat) (CP,154,22)

the thoughts that fluctuate in the human c. des tun

In Assyria

heart

wses forlsten in daera sfterfyligendra cyninga

tidum (dat) (Bede,518,11 )

the estate was deserted in the

following

kings' days

'the estate was deserted in the reigns of the succeeding kings' Furthermore, it seems to be the case that the dative assigned by Ρ in OE is not always

positively

correlated with a θ-role. It is quite possible that

other

cases assigned by P, such as accusative, were being levelled in OE to the dative case, presumably because the dative case in OE is the unmarked option in oblique contexts

(cf. van Riemsdijk

(1983)). 6

I will come back to this below in the

discussion of oblique accusative case. This is corroborated by the fact that accusative assigned by Ρ occurs much more frequently in earlier texts, such as poetic records and the works

of Alfred,

than they do in later works

such as

those in JElfric and the later part of the Chronicle. All prepositions that occur in OE can assign dative case. Some of the most frequently occurring ones are after 'after', œt 'at', be 'by, near', from 'from', mid 'with', of, on 'in, at', to. Apart

from

the

clear

correlations with

specific

θ-roles

listed here,

the

dative appears in other contexts. However, in these contexts, it is not quite clear that the dative is assigned by a head. For instance, there are cases where a dative object appears as an 'object' of a PP, as in (26) (26) him wss ealne weg , weste land on t»t steorbord (Oros, 14,22) him was all the way waste land on the starboard 'all the way there was waste land on starboard of him' Although this type of dative fits the picture we have sketched above, it is not clear whether it is assigned by a head, which in the case of (26) would have to be the PP. The same holds for some other contexts where dative occurs, as when it is used as an adverbial. Some examples of this are given in (27).

82

(27) a. his agnum willan he com his own

will

to rode gealgan (CP,32,20)

he came to cross

'he came to the cross out of his own will' b. ... hwelcum tldum him gecopust sie to sprecanne (CP,274,18) what

time

him most profitable is to speak

'at what time it is most profitable for him to speak' These are only a few examples of datives that do not appear to be assigned by a head.

Strikingly,

such contexts

genitive or the accusative. texts

exist

only

for

exist only for the dative case, not

for the

I assume with van Riemsdijk (1983) that such con-

the dative

because

the dative

is the unmarked case

in

oblique contexts. This has the effect that in an environment that is oblique, but unspecified for a specific oblique case, the dative is automatically chosen.

3.1.1.2.2. Genitive Generally we can say that the genitive object case is associated w i t h an object that, roughly, has the 0-role of 'content of action'. When a verb assigns genitive case to an object, that object helps to specify the action expressed by the verb; it further specifies what the action consists of. An example: (28) Nu

ic t>yse8 Alexandres(gen) her

now I

this

Alexander

gemyndgade, cwaed Orosius (Oros,61,1)

here remind

said

Orosius

'now, said Orosius, I remind (of) this Alexander' The genitive case indicates comprises

the object

that the act of remembering expressed by the verb

'this Alexander'. A genitive object in 0E can always be

paraphrased in ModE with the preposition 'of' as in (28), or with 'for'. Let me give some more examples of this. (29) a. Hwi wolde God swa lytles {linges (gen) him forwyrnan (AHTh,I,14) w h y would God such small thing

him deprive

'why would God deprive him of such a small thing?'

83 b. God girnd {were godnysse (gen) ¡jines godan modes (gen) (ΑΗΡ,XXX,48) God asks

the

goodness

your

good

spirit

'God asks for the goodness of your good spirit* c. {jonne ic his (gen) gejjencean when

I

him

think

sceal (Oros, 77,11) shall

'when I shall think of him' It may be noted that thematically speaking the genitive object resembles closely the direct

object of the verb. Indeed, many verbs that assign genitive

case

appear to have an alternative of assigning accusative. It turns out, however, that there is good reason to keep genitive case and 'direct object' case apart, because

verbs

afvllan

'fill, amyrran

such as gemvndgian in (28) and other verbs 'prevent', beladian

like acsian

'clean', bereafian

'ask',

'rob', etc. can

take two objects and assign genitive case to the one and accusative case to the other. A n example:

(30) dst

his lareow

hiene (acc) swide lythwon gemyndgige his undeawa (gen) (CP,206,4)

that his teacher him

very

gently

remind

his vices

'so that his teacher may very gently remind him of his vices' This justifies a separate thematic specification for the genitive object, as one that gives an additional specification of what the action expressed by the verb consists of. We will call the 0-role of the genitive object 'content'. With verbs such as earnlan 'aim for', g i m a n bvrstan

'thirst for', wilnlan

'desire', tilian

'long for', hoplan 'hope for', 'aim for', the genitive object

specifies what the action of the verb is concerned with. With verbs of uttering, such as atsacan 'deny', gemvndgian 'recall, remind', gllpan

'boast of', acsian

'ask for', weddlan 'commit', the genitive case indicates the content of what is said, not e.g. the person addressed. With verbs of mental action, the genitive is the object of the mental action, not the experiencer. Some examples of such verbs are forgitan 'forget', gedwalian 'be mistaken about', gesugian 'keep silent

about',

about',

dencean

(a)gyman

'think

of',

tweogan

'have doubts

of', wundrian

'care about', recan 'care about', wealdan

'wonder

'have power over'.

With verbs of mental experience, the genitive denotes what the mental experience is about, the cause of the experience. In this set of verbs, many impersonal verbs are found.Some examples: abreotan 'grow tired', fagnlan 'rejoice', hiofan

84 'complain', hreowslan 'rue', sceamlan 'shame', behofian 'need', benugan 'enjoy'. Finally, there is a set of verbs that denote a deprivation of some sort, where the genitive indicates what one is deprived of, e.g. bereafian 'rob of', fastan 'abstain from', bolian 'lose'. The same thematic specifications apply to the genitive when assigned by an adjective. Some examples of this are the following: «mettle 'empty of', full •full of', ciane

'clean, free of', nacod

'denuded of', slcor 'certain of',

scvldig 'guilty of', wvrde 'worthy of', gemvndig 'mindful of', ofergeotol 'forgetful of', craftlg

'capable of', gefagen

'glad of', geornful

'eager for',

glmeleas 'without care for'. The genitive assigned by prepositions is too exceedingly rare to warrant any conclusions about thematic specifications.

3.1.1.2.3. Oblique accusative case

There appear to be very few criteria by means of which we can distinguish oblique accusative case from structural accusative case. Both these cases use the same endings, so that they cannot be kept apart on morphological grounds. Accusative is never assigned by A. For accusative assigned by a verb, a possible syntactic criterion discussed in section 3.1. might be the possibility to passivize. However, this is not falsifiable on the grounds of our theory; if an object can passivize, we are bound to say that it is a structural object. This leaves one group of oblique accusative objects of which we can be reasonably certain, albeit on theory-internal grounds; on the assumption that Ρ always assigns oblique case, we must look at instances where Ρ assigns accusative case. This phenomenon is limited to a fixed set of prepositions: geond 'throughout, along', oJ) 'until', vmb

'around', burh 'through', in 'into', ofer 'over, a-

cross', on 'into', wid 'against;. Strikingly, these prepositions must be assumed to assign a O-role of 'goal', one that we have concluded above is associated with dative case. There is a clear difference, however, between dative and accusative case in this respect. Whereas the dative case assigned by Ρ is associated with 'goal' in a locative, static sense, accusative assigned by Ρ receives a dynamic, motional reading. It indicates movement towards something. Nevertheless, it seems that this is counterevidence for our hypothesis that dative case correlates with 'goal*. However, this is not necessarily so. Note first that among the oblique case markers, Ρ is the only head that has the feature specification [-V], alongside the [-N] specification. It seems quite

85 possible that therefore thematic correlations work out in a different way for such elements. Against that background it seems plausible to regard accusative case assigned by Ρ as a subcase of dative case, used to indicate motion. This assumption derives assign accusative

some support from the fact that all the prepositions case have

an alternative

that

of assigning dative, but not the

other way around. Moreover, already in OE, accusative case assigned by Ρ levels to dative case.

3.1.1.3. Some preliminary conclusions In this section we have

established how structural

syntactic

case differs

from oblique syntactic case in important respects. There are at least two major differences between the two that are pervasive throughout the syntax. Structural case is assigned at S-structure under government by AGR or V; oblique case is assigned at D-structure under government by an element that is non-distinct from [-N]. Ve have established that specific oblique cases correlate with specific 0roles, so that we can now reformulate our definition of oblique case assignment as follows.

(31) NP is marked for oblique case as determined by thematic properties of its governor Χ, X non-distinct from [-N]. Thematic properties: θ-role

'content*

9-role

'goal*

GEN -»

DAT

when assigned by [-V]

stative

-»

DAT

dynamic

->

ACC

3.1.1.4. Syntactic effects of oblique case In sections 3.1 and 3.1.1 we discussed some contrasting properties of structural case and oblique case. On the basis of standard treatments of case theory, which are mainly concerned with structural case, we argued that structural case in OE is assigned at S-structure by AGR under INFL or by V, and that it bears no significant relationship to 0-marking. Oblique case is assigned at D-structure by heads that are non-distinct from [-N], and is related to 0-marking.

86 The D-structure/S-structure distinction between oblique and structural case is a very important one in that it determines whether or not elements that so receive case are available for movement to other argument positions. As observed above, the effects of structural objective case can be neutralized, for instance by passive morphology, whereas

the effects of oblique case cannot be neutral-

ized. One might say that, because oblique case is so closely linked to grammatical function, it is

subject to the Projection Principle: it remains

throughout the derivation.

In the following

constant

section we discuss the impact of

oblique case as it emerges in passive constructions.

3.1.1.4.1. Passive constructions We assume here, following Chomsky (1981) and Lightfoot (1981), that all passive constructions are the result of movement of the object of a passive participle to subject position as an instance of the general movement transformation move a. The available facts for OE indicate that only potentially structurally casemarked

objects

can

be

passivized,

i.e.

only

objects

that are accusative

in

active sentences can be passivized. I give a few examples. (32) a. Passive. ... swa swa hit (nom) awriten is (ΑΗΡ,XV,107) as

it

written is

'as it is written* b. Active. }«t

he ongann to writenne J)a halgan Cristes boc (acc)... (ΑΗΡ,1,25)

that he began

to write

the holy

gospel

(33) a. Passive. Da weard se

god (nom) afliged

of

Jjœre fulan anlicnysse (ΑΗΡ,XXI, 593)

then was the god

expelled from the

foul

'then the god was expelled from the foul idol'

idol

87

b. Active. Gregorius hine (acc) afligde (ΑΗΡ,XXI,626) Gregory

him

put to flight

•Gregory put him to flight' There are no instances in OE of 'indirect passivization', i.e. passivization of an indirect object or otherwise oblique object. Visser (1963-1973) gives a number

of apparent examples of indirect passivization in OE;

some of these are

quoted by Lieber (1979) to support her claim that there were indirect passives in OE. However, Mitchell (1979) and Haring Russom (1982) have shown that these examples are really examples of 'direct passives' when placed in their appropriate context in the text. Like indirect passivization, passivization of prepositional objects is non-attested in OE. By passivization, we understand here the fronting position, where cases

such as

that object

receives nominative

case.

of an object to subject This

does

not

include

(34) where an oblique object is fronted, retaining its oblique

case-marking, the so-called impersonal passive. (34) And him (dat) was swa

forwyrnad

dss inganges (gen) (Hexameron St Basil (ed Norman) 24)

and him

was thus prohibited the

entry

Presumably the fronting of an oblique object in such sentences is due to topicalization

(him in

(34) is in first constituent position). Fronting is by no

means obligatory, as (35) shows. (35) Swa wyrd eac

gestiered dam gitsere (dat) dss reaflaces (gen) (CP,341,11)

So

is

also corrected the miser

the extortion

'Thus the miser is also corrected of extortion' In (35) both oblique objects follow the passive participle. In impersonal passives, no nominative case is assigned, and there is no verbal contrast; the verb always appears in the third person singular, as in impersonal

constructions. 8

Observe that this means that lexicalization of the subject position is not obligatory in OE. 9 In terms of Chomsky (1981), Lightfoot

(1981), and van Riemsdijk (1983), we

88 analyse the OE passives as follows: the D-structure of passives is determined by the following properties: (36)

i. In passive sentences the subject position receives no O-role. ii. A passive participle, V+en, has the feature specification [+V].

(36ii) is the result of the neutralization of [-N] in the matrix [+V,-N] characteristic of transitive verbs. Neutralization entails that a passive participle cannot assign structural case to its object, since structural case is assigned by elements that are [-N]. Thus in the structure (37): (37)

the

object

NP

receives

θ-role from V+en. If not

oblique,

it cannot

receive

structural case from V+en (because V+en is not [-N]). Therefore it moves to subject position where it can receive nominative case from AGR under INFL. Thus, the NP after movement is associated with one θ-role and one case yielding

a well-formed

structure. The object in

(nominative),

(37) can receive

case at D-

structure; recall that oblique case can be assigned by a head that is non-distinct from [-N]. If the NP receives oblique case and θ-role from V+en, the NP is associated with one θ-role and one case, yielding a well-formed structure. Thus, the NP need not move to subject position. This is so for impersonal passives. Also, the NP cannot move to subject position, because it would receive nominative

case

there.

Since

it is also associated with oblique

result

in case clash. The

tional

object.

Ρ

assigns

case,

this

would

same reasoning holds for passivization of preposioblique

case,

therefore

its

object

cannot move

to

subject position and receive nominative case there. Presumably this is not the only constraint that excludes P-stranding by passivization, otherwise one might

89 expect

to

find impersonal

passivization of prepositional

objects,

and to my

knowledge this is non-attested in OE. Thus,

the distinctions

between structural case and oblique case that were

argued for above make the correct predictions with respect to passivization in OE.

3.1.2. Directionality constraints on 8-marking and case-marking In chapter 2 we have gone to some length to defend the SOV hypothesis for OE, and to derive the surface positions for the verb. The position of INFL in COMP as a trigger for move V was derived from the hypothesis that nominative case is assigned to the right, following H. Koopman (1984). In this section w e discuss such directionality

constraints

in more detail, and we will see how they are

instantiated in OE. D-structure word order is determined in the phrase structure component. As discussed in chapter 1, we assume that phrase structures conform to some version of X*-theory, as first proposed by Chomsky

(1970) and developed along various

lines in Jackendoff (1977); Stowell (1981) and others. X-theory accounts for the fact that all phrases are endocentric. The head of a phrase projects to a maximal projection XP, where X ranges over the values Ν, V, A, P, INFL. In the unmarked case all lexical categories have the Chomsky

same complement

structure,

cf.

(1981). I assume that complements are generated at the X'-level, as in

(38).

(38)

X*

. . . X ...

This level is possibly recursive, cf. Stuurman (1985). Specifiers are generated at the X" level, which is optional. (39)

X"

-» spec Χ*

X'

We assume that COMP is the specifier of INFL'. If we combine this with our hypotheses o n V2, and INFL and COMP as argued for in chapter 2 for Du and OE, we arrive at the following structure:

90

(40)

S" (- INFL') COMP

INFL'

(-spec INFL') INFL

S (- VP') NP

On such a view,

VP

S is a defective category with respect to X'-theory because

beside a definition in terms of X'-theory (projection with V as head) it has a definition in terms of predication theory

(deriving the obligatoriness of the

subject position), cf. chapter 2.3 and Taraldsen (1983). Complements in (38) either precede or follow their heads. X'-theory

itself

does not account for this, but its interaction with other subsystems allows us to maintain the maximally simple X' schema in (38) and (39). The order of complements w i t h respect to their heads is triggered by directionality constraints on case-marking and θ-marking, cf. H. Koopman (1984); Travis (1984). Thus, if X in (37) assigns case and θ-role from right to left, complements will appear on the left of X. In the unmarked case, the direction of case and θ-marking is cross-categorial. H. Koopman (1984) hypothesizes that in the unmarked case such directionality constraints are cross-categorial. She argues that in Du, case- and 0-marking are subject to the following constraints: (41) a. Verbal elements assign θ-role to the left. b. Nominal elements assign β-role to the right. c. Case is assigned from left to right. Koopman make no distinction between objective and oblique case, so that (41c) is a constraint on all case marking. (41) is instantiated in Du as follows:

(41a)

entails that verbs and predicative adjectives of the kind discussed in 3.1.1.1. assign their 0-roles from right to left, so that in VP and AP complements are base-generated on the left

of the head. (41b) entails that Ν and Ρ assign their

0-roles from left to right, so that complements are base-generated on the right of the head.

(41c) entails

that all case is assigned from left to right, by

INFL, Ρ, V, and A. According to Koopman, the position of INFL is determined by the left-right directionality

of case, as discussed in chapter 2. Ρ assigns both θ-role and

91 case from left to right, so that complements of Ρ always appear on the right. For V and A the directions of Case- and 0-marking clash; O-marking is from right to left, case marking from left to right. This is a marked situation for which she quotes two types of evidence. First, Du NP complements of V and A appear before other VP or AP material. Consider (42): (42) a. ...dat Marie [yp dat

boek aan Jan

aangeraden

NP that Mary

that book to

heeft]

V John recommended has

'that Mary recommended that book to John' b. een mij nog niet zo

lang bekend boek

NP a

me

A yet not

very long known

book

'a book that I haven't known for very long' On the assumption that NP complements appear adjacent to their case-marker, this suggests that somehow there is a case-marking position in the left of VP/AP. Second, Du non-nominative

clitics

appear

in the left periphery of VP, as

Koopman argues. This is illustrated by (43): (43) a. omdat

Marie gisteren

because Mary

het boek aan Jan

yesterday the book to

gegeven heeft

John given

has

'because Mary gave the book to John yesterday' b. omdat Marie het boek gisteren aan Jan gegeven heeft c. omdat Marie _lt gisteren aan Jan gegeven heeft d.«omdat Marie gisteren 't aan Jan gegeven heeft. Recent theories of clitics (Borer (1983); Aoun (1985)) argue that clitics attach themselves

phonologically

and/or

syntactically

to

their

case-marking

head,

thereby absorbing their case feature. Against that background the Du facts would seem to indicate that there is a case marker in the left periphery of VP. According to Koopman the case marker in the left periphery of the V consists

92 of the case features of the verb, which have moved to the left periphery of VP as forced by the left-right directionality of case marking. (44) [yp case

V]

Given the striking similarities between the word order of Du and OE, we will see if (41) carries over to OE. Observe that (41) does not make the distinction we argued for above between structural case and oblique case. Because oblique case is so closely linked to θ-marking, we are committed to the assumption that they are subject to the same directionality constraints. Presumably then, (41c) is relevant only for structural case. This is clear for nominative case, as discussed in chapter 2, and below we will see that there is also evidence that it holds

for

objective

(accusative)

case. We assume then, that

(41a) and

(41b)

carry over to oblique case-marking, with one refinement. It was argued above that the case-marking properties of adjectives must be formulated in terms of non-distinctness of syntactic features. If we recast the specifications in (41) in such terms, we arrive at the following constraints.

(45) a.

i. Elements non-distinct from [-N] assign θ-role to the left. ii. [-V] elements assign θ-role to the right.

b.

i. Elements non-distinct from [-N] assign oblique case to the left, ii. [-V] elements assign oblique case to the right.

c. Structural case is assigned from left to right. The close link between θ-role and oblique case presumably makes (45b) redundant. What are the effects of (45) on the word order of OE? (45a.i) ensures that complements to verbs and predicative adjectives are base-generated on the left of their head because that is where they receive θ-role. This determines the OV character of OE, which was amply illustrated in chapter 2 and section 3.1.1.1. (44a.ii)

ensures that, where relevant

(subject to case-marking rules)

case is assigned in the appropriate base-generated environment.

oblique

(45c) ensures

that the position of INFL (nominative case marker) is to the left of the subject position, as we argued in chapter 2, and is illustrated by the structure The remaining question is in what direction accusative

(structural

(40).

objective)

case is assigned. According to (45c) it is assigned from left to right. Observe, however, that this contrasts with the direction of θ-marking and oblique casemarking in the VP, which is from right to left. There is some empirical evidence for this contrast. Note that the opposing directions of structural and oblique

93 case-marking and β-marking in the VP predict that in sentences with an accusative and an oblique object in the VP, the linear order will be as follows: (46) ACC

NP

-

OBL

NP

Careful scrutiny of some word order counts in OE texts verifies this prediction. Before embarking on a discussion of this material one comment must be made. General comments and statistics on the relative order of accusative and dative object

in OE do not reveal any preferred order, e.g. Fries

(1940).

However,

there is a good reason for this. It seems that there is a strong tendency in OE for pronominal (personal pronoun) objects of the verb to precede all other material in the VP. This will be discussed in greater detail in chapter 4, and will be shown to be significant. Therefore, when making word order counts, it is important to make a distinction between nominal and pronominal objects. A lot of word order counts, such as that of Fries (1940), do not make this distinction, and therefore

confuse the picture. Given the special behaviour of

pronominal

objects, we will be interested primarily in those sentences with an accusative and an oblique object where these objects are either both nominal or both pronominal. When we look at such data, a clear preference for the order (46) emerges. Brown (1970), a study of King Alfred's translation of the Cura Pastoralis, records that when the objects are either both nominal or pronominal, the accusative object precedes the oblique in about 80Z of the cases. Shores (1971), a study of the Peterborough Chronicle, records 752 for the order (46). Other word order studies of OE do not say anything about the relative positioning of accusative and oblique objects (Barrett (1953); Gardner (1971)), or do not make a distinction

between nominal

and

pronominal

objects

(Shannon

(1964);

Carlton

(1970)) and thus come up with rather different figures. We feel, however, that the counts of Brown (1970) and Shores (1971) yield clear enough figures to support the assumption that (46) is a strongly preferred order, and thus to support our hypothesis that oblique case is assigned from right to left in the VP, and structural case from left to right. Beside the relative positioning of accusative and oblique objects there is further evidence for the above directionality parameters in the positioning of clitic objects. Clitic objects in OE appear in the left periphery of VP, among other positions, this is illustrated in (47):

94 (47) a. t»t

he us. rume

wununge

on heofenan rice

forgife (AHTh,X,36)

that he us spacious dwelling in heaven's kingdom give 'lest he give us a spacious dwelling in the kingdom of heaven'

b. >

se

cyng him eac

wel

feoh

sealde (Parker 894)

and the king him also well property gave 'and in addition the king gave him much property'

In view of the above evidence, we adopt Koopman's argument for OE and conclude that the structural case marker in VP is in the left periphery of VP, according to the diagram (44). This supports our directionality distinction between structural case and oblique case. We see then, that there are a number of similarities between Du and OE word order. But as we saw, there are also some rather noticeable differences. Although in OE there seems to be a preferred word order (46), word order is by no means as fixed as it is in Du. We find VP constitutents both in preverbal and postverbal position and even in preverbal position the order (46) is not strictly adhered to. In chapter 2 we attributed the possible occurrence of VP constituents in postverbal position to the possibility of extraposition. The relative freedom in preverbal position is due, I suggest, to the notion that in languages with relatively rich inflection, NPs are not necessarily adjacent to their case marker. We conclude that the directionality constraints in (45) adequately account for the position of case-marked elements with respect to their case-marker.

3.1.3. The acquisition of syntactic case

In the previous sections we have motivated a syntactic case system that consists of the following elements:

95 (48) Case marking rules. The language-specific instantiations of these in OE are: +

a.

NP

NOM when governed by AGR under [infL

Tense].

b.

NP

ACC when governed by a transitive V.

c.

NP

OBL when governed by Χ, X non-distinct from [-N], accor-

ding to thematic properties of X. Thematic properties: θ-role 'content*

-» GEN

0-role 'goal'

DAT

when assigned by [-V] stative

-» DAT

dynamic

-» ACC

(49) Directionality constraints. a. Structural case is assigned from left to right. b. Oblique case: i. elements non-distinct from [-N] assign oblique case to the left ii. [-V] elements assign oblique case to the right In this section we discuss briefly how this language-specific case-system can be acquired on the basis of positive evidence in the language environment.

3.1.3.1. The acquisition of Case-marking rules We assume that the rule for nominative case-marking in OE is identical to the one given in UG and thus does not place any burden on language acquisition. An interesting question is how structural objective case is to be distinguished from oblique cases

on the basis of positive evidence in the language

environment. This question is all the more interesting because structural objects are very often arguments of the verb, like oblique objects. This presumably makes them less readily distinguishable as structurally marked NP's than nominative NP's. Recall the basic distinctions we made between structural case and oblique case. Structural case is dissociated from O-marking; oblique case correlates with O-marking and is therefore assigned at D-structure. The syntactic distinction between structural objects and oblique objects becomes manifest in such core

constructions

as passive,

as discussed in 3.1.1.4.

Therefore

it

seems

reasonable to hypothesize that passive constructions form part of the acquisi-

96 tion trigger for the distinction between objective case and oblique case. If this is so, the only possible way of acquiring the distinction between objective and oblique case on the basis of positive evidence in the language environment is having the oblique forms as 'basic', presumably given in UG. Then the structural status of objective case must be acquired on the basis of the language environment. Observe that this is a realistic

scenario. Suppose that the un-

marked status for all object cases in UG is oblique, that is, assigned at Dstructure dependent on 0-role.^·® Then the structural status of objective case could be triggered by exposure to simple passive constructions. Recall

that

oblique case is assigned at D-structure and is taken along with movement to the subject position; if nominative case is assigned there, the passivized object has oblique and nominative case and this is ungrammatical. Therefore, simple passive

constructions

will

'tell' the

language

learner

that

the

passivized

object is a structural object. On this scenario, the learner of OE will conclude that only accusative case assigned by the verb is a structural case, since it is only objects that correspond with accusative in active sentences that can be passivized. Observe that the converse assumption can never be feasible; if the structural status of objective case is given as the unmarked situation, a syntactic distinction between structural and oblique case can never be triggered by passive constructions. Notice that in this case the language learner would need to have

access

to

the

information that

sentences with a passivized

oblique

object are ungrammatical, and we cannot realistically assume that such negative information is part of the language environment. Since it is difficult to imagine any other way in which the properties of objective and oblique case that are crucial for the syntax, D-structure vs. S-structure-aesigned and Q-bound vs. ηοη-θ-bound, can be learnt, we must conclude that the unmarked status for object cases is oblique. This means that in UG, all those cases that are assigned under subcategorization are oblique (those assigned by Ρ, A, V according to 0-role). Only

nominative

case, which

cannot

be

assigned

under

subcategorization,

is

structural. The association of object case with subcategorization and Q-marking is disrupted

in those cases where there is positive evidence for

structural

status. This is a situation that obtains in OE with respect to passivization of accusative objects, and indeed in all languages that have syntactic passivization of direct objects. This is so in many languages. Observe that this is a situation that is marked with respect to UG, but that it is learnable on the basis of positive evidence in the language environment. From this point of view, Modern English is more marked than OE. ModE has passivization of direct objects,

97 indirect

objects,

prepositional

objects

and

of

infinitival

subjects

in

ECM

constructions. These are exemplified in (SOa-d) respectively. (50) a. John was hit b. John was given the book c. John was laughed at d. John was believed to have won Notice again, though, that such sentences form part of the language environment in ModE, so that such a marked situation can be learnt on the basis of positive evidence. For the acquisiton of the individual case-marking rules (48c), I assume that the association between oblique case and thematic properties in general is given in UG. The language-specific correlations between thematic roles and

specific

cases should be triggered simply by the use of cases in the language environment.

3.1.3.2. Acquisition of directionality constraints Let us now consider briefly how the directionality constraints on case-marking

(48) can be retrieved from surface word orders. As far as oblique case is

concerned, I assume that, given the link with 0-marking, the language learner will encounter sufficient evidence in the language enviroment to set the direction of oblique case. This is no doubt the case with Ρ; PP with a full NP object in OE always has the order P-NP and exceptions to this are well-defined. For V and A it is less clear. Recall the facts concerning extraposition of complements over VP-final V and AP-final A. However, as long as there is sufficient evidence to recognize 0V order, the directionality of oblique case will be clear, precisely because OV order is the result of left-directional θ-marking and oblique case-marking. Structural case is a different matter. We based our about

the

directionality

constraints

on

case-marking

on

H.

assumptions

Koopman

(1984).

Koopman argues for Du that all case-marking is from left to right. She does not make a distinction between structural and oblique case, so that in her view all case marking (by INFL, V, Ρ and A) is from left to right. She hypothesizes that, since in the unmarked case the direction of case assignment is cross-categorial, the evidence of one category should suffice to fix this parameter. In her view the prime candidate for that is P. Note that on the distinction between struc-

98 turai case and oblique case made above, there Is no such straightforward candidate;

the outcome

of

the above

discussion 1s

that structural

case in OE is

assigned by non-lexical categories only, i.e. INFL and a non-lexical

structural

case-marker in the left of VP, cf. (46). It is an interesting question then, how the language learner can have enough evidence to fix the parameter for directionality of case. I make the following tentative suggestion. Observe first of all that, if UG allows parametric variation as to what INFL is a head of

(cf. Taraldsen 1983), fixing the position of INFL is surely an

empirical matter. I suggest that the position of INFL is that of the finite V. Then in root clauses, which we have hypothesized before should contain all the necessary evidence for language acquisition, the position of INFL is trivially fixed as that of the finite V. Presumably, both verb-particle constructions and constructions

with more

than one verb, and non-root clauses as discussed

in

chapter 2, indicate that the position for the finite V is a derived one. Thus, on the assumption that there is a close association between INFL and the finite V, the position of INFL is derived and thus the direction in which it assigns case. This may also set the direction of the structural case-marker in the left of VP, but apart from this that position can be recognized on the basis of the relative order of the ACC and OBL object, and on the basis of clitic positions. Observe however, that the direction of both structural case and oblique case in VP

and also

θ-marking

discussed in chapter

is

2.2 as

obliterated by the process it increases

of

in frequency by

extraposition late OE. It

as

seems

reasonable to conclude that this must have put a severe burden on the learnability of directionality parameters.

3.2. Morphological case In the previous

sections we

have

established

the differing

properties

of

structural and oblique syntactic case. Structural case is assigned by AGR under a tensed INFL node, or by a transitive V, as a function of a structural configuration at S-structure, and is assigned from left to right. Oblique case is assigned by elements that are non-distinct from [-N] as a concomitant of θ-marking at D-structure, is dependent

on the kind of θ-role assigned, and is assigned

from right to left by elements non-distinct from [-N], from left to right by [-V] elements. Now we will see how these different kinds of cases are realized morphologically. As observed in the introduction to this chapter, we proceed on the assumption that a morphological case system is the morphological reflex of

99 abstract case distinctions, so that there is both a syntactic and a morphological basis

on which to make

morphological

realization

the appropriate

of

cases, we

take

distinctions. as a

starting

In looking

at

point the

the

system

proposed in van Riemsdijk (1983), mainly because it is the only attempt w e know of at formulating a system that links

syntactic to morphological case forms,

based on a language that is closely related to OE. The main characteristics of van Riemsdijk's The

system that are relevant to us, can be summarized as follows.

system consists

of four features, feature assignment rules, morphological

correspondence

conventions, and a case-filter. 1 1 The features are: [±S] ('sub-

ject'),

[±CA]

('closest argument'),

tive').

The choice of the latter two is fairly arbitrary. These features are

[±ACC]

('accusative'),

and [±GEN]

('geni-

assigned according to feature assignment rules. We do not repeat these in detail here;

in essence

the

features

are assigned under government to the

relative

positions, the features GEN and ACC are assigned according to lexical properties of the head. The feature assignment rules identify the following positions:

(51) a. [+S -CA]

subject

b. [-S +CA]

object of transitive V

c. [-S -CA]

case assigned inherently (oblique objects)

d. [+GEN]

oblique genitive

e. [+ACC]

oblique accusative

f. [-GEN -ACC]

oblique dative

The case filter then boils down to 'having an appropriate feature matrix' and can be formulated as (52). (52) Observe

Case filter: «defective feature matrix that dative is formulated as an elsewhere value. This is intended to

capture the fact that the dative case is the unmarked form in oblique contexts. The feature combinations resulting from the feature assignment rules form the input to morphological correspondence conventions, that mediate between feature matrices and actual cases that play a role in the morphology. They are as follows :

100 nominative case

(53) [+S] [-S +CA]

(direct object) accusative case

[-S -CA]

dative case

[+GEN]

genitive case

[+ACC]

(oblique) accusative case

This system must be viewed as one mediating between case as it plays a role in the

syntax

and morphological

case. Van Riemsdijk's

feature

assignment

rules

assign features to positions in structural configurations. Morphological correspondence conventions mediate between the feature matrices assigned on the basis of syntax and specific cases as they play a role in the morphology. Van Riemsdijk's system does not make a distinction between structural and oblique cases, as we have done in the previous sections. The actual morphology of case is determined by morphological spell-out rules, which

spell

out

cases according

to features for person, number, gender and

declension class. Van Riemsdijk takes the latter for granted and does not discuss them further. What we do in this section is the following: we take van Riemsdijk's system as a starting point, as one way of dealing with the relationship between syntactic and morphological case. But furthermore I wish to concentrate on the morphological angle. It seems to me that the cases that play a role in the morphology, which are defined by the morphological correspondence conventions, are the point of contact between syntax and morphology. After all, the input of the morphological correspondence conventions are the result of features assigned on a syntactic basis, i.e. through government; the output of the morphological

correspondence

conventions feeds into the morphological

component.

This point of contact between syntax and morphology should then be recognizable both on a syntactic and morphological basis. We saw in section 3.1.3 that there is some reason to doubt that the syntactic case system in later 0E was recognizable in all its aspects. Notably, the directionality of case and θ-role in the VP was to some extent opaque. In this section, we make an inventory, on the basis of morphological spellout rules that I formulate, of the morphological case system of OE, based on Campbell (1959). Although in late OE there was a certain amount of syncretism in the case system, it was probably still sufficiently distinctive. It was only when

some phonological

changes

took place in the transition to ME that the

system collapsed fairly dramatically. This collapse was reinforced by the partial opacity of the syntactic case system. This, however, is the subject matter of chapters 6 and 7.

101

3.2.1. Morphological spell-out rules I give here the morphological spell-out rules for the main declension classes In OE. By main declension classes I mean the general classes of endings; among the strong declension I group together: - a, ja, wa nouns - o, jo, wo nouns - i nouns - u nouns Then there is the weak nominal declension. For the adjectives I give the spellout rules for

strong and weak declensions; for the most important classes of

pronouns I give the full paradigms. It would be quite possible to go into rather more detail than I am doing below; it would be easy enough to give

separate

rules for, for instance, a, ja, and wa nouns; it would also be possible to give all the phonological variants of the declensions, which are due to sound changes operating

on the vowels

and consonants

of

the

stems under

the

influence of

endings. I am not doing all this, for various reasons. Among the a, ja, and wa nouns and o, jo and wo nouns, there are enough generalizations in the endings to warrant serves

one to

generalised

avoid

paradigm

overwhelming

the

detail. The phonological variants

for masculine,

neuter,

feminine,

reader with morphological

and

etc.

This

phonological

of all these paradigms are not our

concern

here. For the sake of the discussion, I assume that they are all due to sound changes

that are productive processes in OE that form part of the grammar of

native speakers. As such I assume that they do not affect the basic morphological

spell-out

rules.

For

discussion

of phonological

aspects

from

différents

points of view, see Baxter (197S); Dresher (1978). In formulating the spell-out rules, I assume a simplistic notion of 'stem'. I assume that the stem of a noun is the part that remains invariant in the declension unless there is a clear synchronic phonological motivation for the variation. The spell-out rules I formulate are all based on Campbell (1959). To give a first example of morphological spell-out rules we take a noun from the strong a-declension Stan 'stone'.

sg

pi

nom

stan

stanas

acc

Stan

stanas

gen

stanes

stana

dat

stane

stanum

102 We regard stan as the stem. The spell-out rules for masculine a. declension nouns (and also for masculine Ja, and wa nouns) are as follows (55) a., ja., wa nouns a.

masculine sg

b.

neuter sg

pi -as

pi

nom

0

0/-e

-u 19

acc

0

-as

0/-e

-u/0

gen

-es

-a

-es

-a

dat

-e

-um

-e

-um

io. wo nouns

ο,

feminine sg

pi

nom

- u 19

-a l-e

acc

-e

-a l-e

gen

-e

-a

dat

-e

-um

(57) i nouns a.

masculine sg

nom

0

acc

neuter

feminine sg

sg

pi

-e/as

0

-u/0

0

-a

-e/as

0

- u 19

0

-a

pi

pi

gen

-es

-a

-es

-a

-e

-a

dat

-e

-um

-e

-um

-i

-um

(58) u nouns a.

masculine sg

feminine pi

sg

pi

nom

- u 19

-a

- u 19

-a

acc

-u 19

-a

- u 19

-a

gen

-a

-a

-a

-a

dat

-a

-um

-a

-um

103 (59) weak declensions a.

masculine

b.

sg

neuter

c.

sg

pi

feminine sg

pi

pi

nom

-a

-an

-e

-an

-e

-an

acc

-an

-an

-e

-an

-an

-an

gen

-an

-ena

-an

-ena

-an

-ena

dat

-an

-um

-an

-um

-an

-um

Adjectives (60) strong declensions a.

masculine sg

b.

neuter

pi -e

c.

feminine

sg

pi

sg

0

0/u

0/u

-e

pi

nom

φ

acc

-ne

-e

0

0/u

-e

-e

gen

-es

-ra

-es

-ra

-re

-ra

dat

-um

-um

-um

-um

-re

-um

(61) weak declensions a.

masculine sg

nom

-a

b.

pi

neuter sg

-an

-e -e

c. pi

-an

feminine sg -e

pi -an

acc

-an

-an

-an

-an

-an

gen

-an

-ra/-ena

-an

-ra/-ena

-an

-ra/-ena

dat

-an

-um

-an

-um

-an

-um

1 sg

2 sg

3 sg mase

nom

ic

J)U

he

hit

heo

acc

me

J)e

hine

hit

hi

gen

min

J)in

his

his

hire

dat

me

t>e

him

him

hire

Pronouns (62) personal 3 sg neut

2 sg fem

104 1 pi

2 pi

3 pi

nom

we

ge

hi

acc

us

eow

hi

gen

ure

eower

hira

dat

us

eow

him

(63) demonstrative mase sg

neut sg

fem sg

pi

nom

se

{wet

seo

acc

t>one

{ist

I»·

t>a

gen

Jiœs

{íes

Jjsere

fcara

dat

1™

]3sm

J»re

{ïam

1.

t>a

From the point of view of distinctiveness, it is important, against the background of the previous sections, that case morphology distinguishes the individual cases in both the singular and the plural, where that aim is not achieved in any other way. Thus, it not very significant that in most instances nominative and accusative are not distinguishable on a morphological basis, because it is a well-known fact that in OE the nominative subject and accusative object are eminently distinguishable on the basis of word order (cf. Fries (1940)). We disregard here distinctions between grammatical genders and declension classes. Whatever their interest from a historical point of view, it seems quite possible to have a grammatically distinctive case system without having a gender system and various

series of declensions. We consider the transparency of the indi-

vidual cases as very important. Where that is lacking, we consider it as very important that there is at least a clear-cut distinction between structural and oblique cases, since that is not always clear on a syntactic basis, as we saw above. Observe

then, that from this point of view, the ¿-noun paradigm

(55) is

transparent in that it distinguishes between structural and oblique cases, and among

the latter, between genitive and dative in both the singular and the

plural. This is not so for the £-nouns (56). In the singular there is no distinction between objective and oblique cases, or between the oblique cases, in the plural the genitive has the same ending as the structural cases. Exactly the same problem holds in the feminine ¿-declension (57c), whereas the masculine and neuter ¿-declension (57a) and (57b) are distinctive. Among the u-noun paradigms (58) there

is

in the

singular a distinction between structural and

oblique

cases, but not between the two oblique cases. In the plural, we have again the

105 problem that the genitive is not distinct from the structural cases. In the weak noun declensions

(59) there is the problem that in the singular the objective

and oblique cases are not distinct, except for the neuter (59b), and the oblique cases are not distinct from each other. The strong adjective declensions

(60)

are transparent. The weak adjective declensions (61) are not distinctive in the singular oblique

in

that

objective

and

oblique

endings

are not

transparent

and

the

cases are not distinct from each other. The pronominal paradigms are

presumably sufficiently transparent except that in 1st and 2nd person singular personal pronouns the accusative and dative form are not distinct. Furthermore, in the feminine singular forms of (62) and (63) the oblique cases are not distinct from each other. The above are observations that hold when nouns are used in isolation, but observe

that w h e n any noun is used with a demonstrative

pronoun, or with a

strongly declined adjective there is no problem with respect to distinctness, e.g. ba glefe 'the gift', o-declension, fem. sg. acc, halge giefa 'holy gifts', fem. acc. pl., the only paradigms that are not completely distinct even under such modification are the feminine singular ones in the dative and genitive, cf. (56),

(57c),

(58b),

(60c),

(62) and

(63). It would also be a problem when a

noun, especially a weak noun, is declined with a weak adjective, but in such circumstances there is nearly always further modification by e.g. a demonstrative pronoun. From this inventory of the morphological case system we see that in late 0E it was probably sufficiently distinctive still. There are a number of paradigms in which the distinction between structural and oblique cases seems insufficient when used in isolation, but presumably the addition of modifiers and demonstratives disambiguated many

such cases. Fries

(1940) estimates that in late 0E

perhaps 10Z of the nouns used is not entirely distinctive. This makes it understandable that, where there is a fairly live morphological case system as in late 0E,

the distinctions

between structural

and oblique

cases can still be

made, even though there is a certain amount of ambiguity in some components of the syntactic case system.

3.3. Conclusions Let me conclude this chapter with a summary. We have seen that case theory in GB theory as formulated in Chomsky (1981) and elaborated by Kayne (1981), Lightfoot (1981), van Riemsdijk (1983), H. Koopman (1984), and in this chapter, pro-

106 vide us with insights into a number of syntactic properties of OE. We have pinpointed a weakness in the syntactic case-system; in VP it is difficult to distinguish the direction of case and 0-role. In late OE this weakness was probably counteracted by the morphological case system, which was still fairly distinctive, so that the appropriate syntactic distinctions could be made on that basis. The diachronic development to ME will be considered in chapter 6. In the next chapters we will consider some more properties that will be seen to be related

to the morphological case system, but have a number of interesting

syntactic consequences.

107 Footnotes 1. We disregard possessive genitive case here. 2. Chomsky calls this inherent case. We use the term 'oblique' here. 3. Burzio (1981) assumes a causal relationship between the lack of θ-role in the subject position and the lack of case assignment to the object position. This is known as Burzio's generalization. 4. This excludes possessive genitive, about which we have nothing to say here. 5. The translation given for the verbs and adjectives and F's are always according to the case they assign. 6. The term 'unmarked' here refers to terminology of van Riemsdijk (1983). 7. Contrary (1979).

to,

for instance, Wasow

'most neutral

value',

(1977) and, with respect

following to 0E,

the

Lieber

8. For discussion, see Fischer & v.d. Leek (1983). 9. It seems though, that empty subject positions are only allowed when there is another constituent in the first position preceding the finite V, so that we may assume that this constituent also in some sense binds the subject position. Except for imperatives, there are no subjectless VI sentences. 10. By 'unmarked' I mean here: the value given in UG. 11. The system also contains an agreement theory, but since this is primarily designed to deal with the distribution of case in possessive NP's, we leave it out of consideration here.

CHAPTER 4

Clitics

So far we have seen that OE is an SOV language with a rule of V2 in root clauses and we have shown how the case-system of OE operates. In this chapter, we discuss and analyse the peculiar behaviour of OE personal pronouns and locative pronouns ending in ^r with respect to word order and case. This

special

behaviour has often been superficially observed, and in that context they are sometimes loosely called clitics (e.g. Traugott (1972); Canale

(1978)). But to

my knowledge noone has ever attempted to define their status, and analyse their behaviour. We will show first that their peculiar behaviour can be analysed as a phenomenon of syntactic cliticization. Second, within in the larger context of this

thesis, we discuss how these clitic properties are related to the case-

system presented in chapter 3. The clitic analysis in this chapter is a preliminary to a better understanding of preposition-stranding constructions, which we analyse in chapter 5. Section 1 presents data that indicate how the syntactic behaviour of clitics differs

systematically

from that of 'full NP's'. Section 2 is an excursus to

Dutch. In Modern Dutch the behaviour of locative pronouns ending in

is very

similar to that of personal and ^r, pronouns in OE. Within our strategy of bringing evidence from other WGmc languages to bear on OE, section 2 will discuss the Du evidence and develop an analysis of that. Section 3 shows that this analysis can be extended to OE, and section 4 discusses some further evidence that supports a clitic analysis of OE personal pronouns. From sections 3 and 4 emerges a phenomenon of cliticization on COMP that interacts with Verb Second as discussed in chapter

2. This interaction is analysed in section 5. Finally,

section 6

discusses the relationship between clitics and the case-system.

4.1. Some data In this section we describe the peculiar behaviour of OE personal pronouns and locative pronouns ending in ^r.. The paradigm of personal pronouns was given under

(59) in the previous chapter. By locative pronouns ending in ¿S. w e

mean

109 primarily the form bar

'there'. Henceforth we will refer to the locative pro-

nouns as R-pronouns. In a number of ways, OE personal pronouns and R-pronouns behave in the same way as full NP's. However,

in quite a number of other ways, their

behaviour

differs systematically from that of full NP's. This goes for subject pronouns as well as various types of object pronouns. We will discuss these aspects in turn.

4.1.1. Subject pronouns Like

full NP

subjects,

subject pronouns

can occupy

the

first

constituent

position in V2 clauses. Also they can occupy the subject position to the right of the complementizer

in sentences with a base-generated complementizer.

Some

examples of this are given in (1): (1) a. ic gedwolede ewa swa bet sceap 11st I erred

like

b. He beseah J)a

forwearb (Blick, 87)

the sheep that perished

to heofonum (ASL, XXVIII,107)

he looked then to heaven 'then he looked to heaven' c. forjjon

be

he wolde

slcne tweon of

heora heortum adon (Blick 89)

because that he wanted every doubt from their hearts

do

'because he wanted to remove all doubts from their hearts' d. gif hie if

snigne feld

they any

secan wolden (Parker, 894)

field seek

wanted

'if they wanted to seek out open field' We regard instances of subject pronouns in first constituent position as cases of topicalization as discussed in chapter 2. These positions are characteristic for all subjects, so in this respect subject pronouns are not exceptional. It must be noted, however, that in embedded clauses, the position to the right of the complementizer ((lc) and (Id)) is the only one occupied by subject pronouns; they never appear separated from the complementizer. In a number of other ways, the behaviour of subject pronouns differs quite radically from that of full NP's. Recall from the discussion of V2 in chapter 2

110 that in sentences without a base-generated complementizer, the finite verb moves to INFL. When there is a first constituent preceding the finite verb, and when that constituent is not the subject, this results in so-called

'subject-verb

inversion', as in (2) (2) a. On

twam Bingum

with two

things

mannes 8awl e gegodod (AHTh,I,20)

hsfde God ptes had

God the man's

soul

endowed

'with two things God had endowed man's soul' b. (tonne beod eowere eagan geopenode (AHTh,I,18) then

are

your

eyes

opened

'then your eyes will be opened' In fact there is no question of 'subject-verb inversion' here. On the hypothesis that both the first constituent and the finite verb are in pre-S position, as argued in chapter 2, the subject simply remains in its base-generated position in (2). Now it is striking that when the subject is a personal pronoun or an R pronoun, 'subject-verb inversion' is usually lacking. Instead, the pronoun also precedes the finite verb. Some examples of this are given in (3). (3) a. after his gebede let const. after

he

ahof

nom.

Vf

his prayer

b. das bine.

we

1st const. these things

he

J»t cild

u£

(AHTh,II,28)

particle

lifted the child up habbad be

nom.

Vf

we

have

him eewritene (PC 1087,143) pappié

about him written

'these things we have written about him' c. Fordon 1st const.

we nom.

sceolan mid ealle mod & mœgene to Gode gecyrran Vf

inf. (Blick 97)

therefore

we

shall

with all

mind & power

to God

'therefore we must turn to God with all our mind and power'

turn

Ill d. Be deem

we

1st const. By that

magon

suide swutule

oncnawan dat (CP,181,16)

very

perceive that

Vf

nom. we

may

inf. clearly

'By that we can perceive very clearly that...' e. On dam da gum

bar

1st const.

Vf

In these days Sentences

waron twa cwena (Oros (Sweet) 46,36)

there were

two queens

(3a-d) make It clear that, although there is verb fronting, the sub-

ject pronoun precedes the finite verb. This position between fronted constituent position and finite verb is not restricted to subject pronouns, as we will see below. With respect to (3e) it must be observed that it is fairly difficult to find examples of this kind, since bar is used as a dummy subject only in existential sentences, and insertion of bar is by no means obligatory. Furthermore, it is often difficult to distinguish the various uses that ber can have. For more discussion of this, see Butler (1981). Together, the examples (3) show that when there is a non-subject first constituent, the pronominal subject precedes the finite verb. This is not always the case. When the first constituent is an interrogative 'not', w e

wh-constituent

always

find

or ]ja

'then/when*

'subject-verb

inversion',

or

the

negative

even when

the

particle subject

ne

is a

pronoun. Some examples of this are given in (4):

(4) a. Hwst sagest £ u what say

yrjilincg?

Hu begast ]ju weorc fein 7 (AColl,22)

you ploughman? how do

you work

your?

'What do you say ploughman? How do you go about your work?' b. for hwam noldest

£ u de sylfe

me gecydan

{set... (ASL,XXXIII,307)

for what not-wanted you yourself to me make known that... 'wherefore would you not want to make known to me yourself that...' Ne

sceal he noht

unalyfedes don (CP,60,15)

not shall he nothing unlawful

do

'he shall not do anything unlawful'

112 d. Ne

beo Jiu

not be

na leas-breda ο{φβ swicol (ASL,XII,129)

you no liar

or treacherous

'may you be neither a liar nor treacherous· e. fa

began he to modigenne (AHTh,I,10)

then began he to grow proud 'then he began to grow proud* f. Jja

foron

hie

mid

{irim

scipum ut (Parker 897)

then sailed they with three ships

out

'then they sailed out with three ships' g. t>a

weardœ {Mer

then was

ofslagen sum dsl

there slain

a

J>œs folces (ASL,XXV,236)

part the people (gen)

'then there was murdered part of the people' This peculiar difference between 'ordinary first constituents' and wh, j)a and ne will be discussed and analysed in section 5. Again, the positions for the subject pronoun in (4) are not restricted to subject pronouns. Object pronouns can appear there as well, as we will see below. In embedded clauses, subject pronouns appear to the immediate right of the complementizer, as in (lc) and (Id).

4.1.2. Pronominal objects of V Like pronominal subjects, pronominal objects of V occur in a small variety of fixed patterns. They can appear to the immediate left of the verb (in VP), or in the left periphery of VP. This is exemplified in (5) and (6) respectively. (5) a. Hwi wolde God swa

lytles finges him forwyrnan (AHTh,I,14)

why would God such small

thing him

deny

'why would God deny him such a small thing' b. ¡Met we that we

and on {»re

ures geleafan gafol

and in there our

mid

estfullum mode

belief's tribute with devout

mind

him agifan (AHTh,I,34) him give '...and there with devout mind pay him the tribute of our faith'

113 c. t»t

we us sylfe ciane and ungewemmede him gegearcian (AHTh,I,36)

that we us self

clean and undefiled

him prepare

'that we prepare ourselves for him clean and undefiled* (6) a. {Met

he us. rume

wununge

on heofenan rice

forgife (AHTh,I,36)

that he us spacious dwelling in heaven's kingdom give 'lest he give us a spacious dwelling in the kingdom of heaven' b. >

se

cyng him eac

wel

feoh

sealde (Parker 894)

and the king him also well property gave 'and in addition the king gave him much property' c. >

J)a J)e feohlease waron him bar scipu begeton (Parker 897)

and those that propertyless were themselves there ships got 'and those who had lost their property got ships for themselves there' Apart from their appearance property

in these two positions,

of personal pronouns

it seems to be a unique

that they can move out of VP. Very

strikingly,

when they do so, they appear on exactly those positions where subject pronouns can occur, i.e. to the immediate right of the complementizer in embedded clauses; immediately preceding the finite V in V2 clauses; when in V2 clauses the first constituent

is a wh-element,

negative

element or ¿a,

to the

immediate

right of the finite V. Examples of these are given in (7).

(7) a. >

he bar

wunade

obbat hiene an swan

and he there remained until him

a

ofstang at Pryfetes

swain stabbed at Privett's

flodan (Parker 755) stream 'and he remained there until a swain killed him near the stream at Privett* b. bat him

his fiend

waren afterfylgende

that him his enemies were

following

'that his enemies were chasing him'

(Oros,48,12)

114 c. God him worhte

fea

reaf

of fellum (AHTh,I,18)

Vf God them wrought then garments of skins 'then God made garments of skin for them' d. Fela spella

him sedon fea Beormas, sgfeer ge of hiera agnum lande, ... Vf

(Oros,14,27)

many stories him told

the Permiane both

of their own

country

'the Permians told him many stories, both about their own country' e.

fea

sticode him mon

then stuck

fea

eagan ut (Oros,90,14)

him someone the eyes

out

'then his eyes were gouged out' f. Ne geseah hlne nan man nates-hwon yrre (ASL,XXXI,306) not saw

him

no

man so little

angry

'noone ever saw him so little angry' g. gyf

bar

man

an ban

if there someone a

finded unforbœrned, ... (Oros,17,32)

bone finds

unburnt

'if anyone finds an unburnt bone there, ...

4.1.3. Pronominal objects of Ρ The usual order of preposition and its object in OE is P-NP. This is exemplified in (8): (8) a. Hi sungon, "Gebletsod is se de they sang b.

fear

blessed

com

on Godes naman*

(AHTh,I,214)

is he who came in God's name

is ahangen sum glœsen fat

mid svlfrenne racenteage. ... (AHTh,I,510)

there is hung

a

glass

vessel with a silver chain

115 c. Swse bid 8io costung

erest on deem mode. &

donne

Thus is the temptation first in the mind, and then utweardes to dare hvde. oddat hie utascied outward

to the

skin, until it

fsred spreads

on weorc (CP,70,6-7)

bursts out in actions

However, if the object of a preposition is a personal pronoun or an R-pronoun, the surface word order may be inverted and the pronoun may precede the preposition as in (9) (9) a. and hi

ne

dorston him

and they not dared b. J)a

wan

him

fore gebiddan (ΑΗΡ,XIX,226)

them for

on

pray

swide

amalech se cynincg (ASL.XIII ,4)

then warred them against mightily Amalech the king c. da

de

those that

him to comon dera him to came

Iudeiscra deoda (AHTh,I,352)

of the

Jewish

nations

d. and com ... to dam trewe, sohte wastm daron.

and nanne ne gemette (AHTh,II,408)

he came

to the tree,

sought fruit therein, and none

not met

'he came to the tree, sought fruit in it, and found none'

e. nu wylle we eow geopenian {«t andgit barto (ΑΗΡ,XIII,35) now want we you disclose

the meaning thereto

'now we want to disclose for you the meaning to that' f. Awyrtwala gredignysse of

dinre heortan, and aplanta baeron

{ia

sodan lufe (AHTh,II,410) uproot

greedyness

from your

heart,

and plant

therein the

true love Moreover, the pronominal object can be separated from the head P, and move up to precisely

those

positions where

other

object

pronouns

can appear,

subject and object pronouns may appear: in the left periphery of VP:

and where

116 (10) a. t>a wendon

hi

ine heora bœc

to (Boeth,II,8,12)

then turned they me their backs to 'then they turned their backs to me* b. fia sendon

hig hvm hyra leorningcnyhtas to mid

{jam herodianiscum (Mt.1276)

then sent they him their apprentices

to with Herod's men

•then they sent to him with Herod's men their apprentices* c. Be tœm

J>u meaht ongietan u

bar

nane myrhde on neefdest (Boeth VII,15,11)

by that you might perceive that you there no

joy in not had

'by that you could understand that you found no joy in that' d. Ne

J)in

lychamlican œagan bar

nawer

neah

cuman ne

magon (So.93,6)

Not your physical

eyes there nowhere near

come not may

'your physical eyes may come nowhere near there' Furthermore, they can appear to the immediate right of the complementizer, on the left of the finite V in V2 clauses, and on the right of the finite V if the first constituent is wh, ne., or Jja. This is exemplified in (11):

(11) a. ... Jiœt

him eal middangeard to beah (AHTh,I,32)

that him all world

to bowed

'that all the world bowed to him* b. and him com

{Met leoht to Jjurh

paules lare

syddan (ASL.XXIX.18)

and him came the light to through Paul's teachings afterwards 'and afterwards he was enlightened through Paul's teachings' ac

him com

fyr

to fœrlice

ehsynes (AHP,X,174)

but him came fire to suddenly visibly 'but suddenly a light came to him visibly'

117 d. J)a

genealffihte him an man to (Mt.1083)

then approached him a

man to

'then a man approached him' e. J)a

becom him Antigones mid

then came

fierde on (Oros,79,23)

him Antigones with host

against

'then Antigones rose against him with a host' f. J»t

dar

nan cinu

that there no g. t»t

ter

on nas gesewen (AHTh,II,154)

chink in not was seen

nane odre

that there no

on ne

saton (Boeth,XXVII,61,20)

others on not sat

•that no others sat on there' h. ac

dar

comon muñecas to on das mannes fordside (ΑΗΡ,XI,171)

but there came

monks

to at the man's

death

'but monks came there when the man died' i. he dar

weard from {»em burgwarum in abroden (Oros,73,10)

he there was

by

the citizens

in dragged

'and he was dragged in there by the citizens' Notice that in the examples in (10) and (11) when they are not V2 clauses, the stranded preposition immediately precedes the verb. This is the case in (10c) and (lOd), (Ila), (llf), (llg), ( H i ) . This is the more frequent situation, but exceptions to this are not infrequent.^preposed verb leaves a verbal

We assume that in V2 clauses, where the

trace, the situation parallels

that of

clauses

with a verb in its base-generated position: the preposition precedes the verbal trace. The case for personal pronouns seems clearer than for R-pronouns in the sense that more and more readily recognizable examples can be found. This is due to the various functions that bar can have; adverbial, locative, dummy subject etc. However,

I assume

for the

sake of

argument that the case for

personal

pronouns carries over to R-pronouns. Personal and locative pronouns can also appear in COMP as a result of topicalization, and R-pronouns also as a result of relativization. This is exemplified in (12):

118 (12) a. and me com

der-rihte to godes encgel mid

and me came directly

to God's angel

rode (ASL,VII,356)

with rood

(Allen 1977)

'God's angel with a cross came straight to me' b. ...on t)œre stowe bar on the

se

swer

stod (Blick 247)

(Allen 1980)

place where the column stood

'on the place where the column had stood' c. And se

stede afre syddan was amty,

dar

heo ar

(Angl. Horn. V.86) and the place ever after

was empty, where It

on stod (Allen 1980:292)

earlier on stood

'and the place where it had earlier stood was empty' It may be observed at this stage that the behaviour of pronouns, especially when they are the object of a preposition, closely resembles that of R-pronouns in (modern) Du when the object of a preposition. These, too, appear to the left of

the

preposition,

in the left periphery of VP, or can move

to COMP.

This

phenomenon is discussed in great detail in van Riemsdijk (1978). I give a few examples in (13):

(13) a. Gisteren

praatte Jan met

yesterday talked

Piet over

het boek

Jan with Piet about the book

'yesterday Jan talked with Piet about the book' b. Gisteren

praatte Jan met

yesterday talked c. Gisteren

Piet erover

Jan with Piet thereabout

praatte Jan er

yesterday talked d. Waar praatte Jan where talked Jan e. het boek waar

Jan

the book where Jan

met

Piet over

Jan there with Piet about gisteren

met

Piet over

yesterday with Piet about gisteren

met

Piet over

praatte

yesterday with Piet about talked

'the book that Jan discussed with Piet yesterday'

119 When we consider the positions for R-pronoune In Du and R-pronouns and personal pronouns I n OE, we observe that they are similar. There is one difference between Du and OE: OE has a position on COMP which Du lacks. We will come back to this in section 5. We see that the positioning of pronouns follows fixed patterns. Descriptively, these can be drawn as follows:

The question is why these patterns are the way they are and how this relates to the overall structure of sentences. Because of the similarity between these OE phenomena and the behaviour of R-pronoun objects of Ρ in Dutch as discussed in van Riemsdijk (1976), I will first review the Dutch evidence and van Riemsdijk's analysis. For reasons that will become clear below, we will not adopt his analysis but w e will take it as a starting point in developing our own clitic analysis.

4.2. Excursus: Modern Dutch R-pronouns Dutch R-pronouns, hier

'here', er 'there', daar

'there', waar

'where', but

not personal pronouns, exhibit the same phenomena as their OE counterparts. This behaviour is most conspicuous when the R-pronoun is the object of a preposition. When it is the object of a verb, we meet the same problem as in OE; it is difficult to distinguish object R from adverbial R, and quantified R from other types of R. Therefore w e restrict the discussion here to prepositional R-objects. Let us first consider the typical behaviour of R-objects of P. Where full NP objects appear o n the right of P, R-pronouns appear on the left. They can appear there in their unstressed, phonologically reduced form.

120 (15) a. Omdat

we gisteren

over

het boek gepraat hebben

because we yesterday about the book talked

b. Omdat

we gisteren

daarover/* over

daar

have

gepraat hebben

because we yesterday thereabout about there talked

c. Omdat

we gisteren

d'r over

have

gepraat hebben

because we yesterday thereabout talked have 'because we talked about it yesterday'

Furthermore R-objects can appear in a position between the subject and VP-material. Following Berendsen (1983) and H. Koopman (1984) I assume that this is the position typical for object clitics in the left periphery of VP.

(16) a. Dat

Jan [yp gisteren

that John

b. Dat

Jan [yp

that John

de

jongen het boek gaf]

yesterday the boy

't^ 'mj it

the book gave

gisteren tj t¿ gaf]

him yesterday

gave

'that John gave the boy/him the book/it yesterday'

(17) a. Omdat

we gisteren [yp daar/'r over

because we yesterday

b. Omdat

there

about talked

we [yp daar/'r gisteren

because we

there

gepraat hebben]

over

have

gepraat hebben

yesterday about talked

have

'because we talked about it yesterday

Beside these two positions, R-pronouns can move to COMP:

(18) a. [COMP w a a r i hebben [g jullie [yp gisteren [pp t¿ over] gesproken]]] where have

you

yesterday

about talked

'what did you talk about yesterday*

B

· [COMP Daarj. hebben [ s jullie [yp gisteren [pp t¿ over] gesproken]]] there have

you

yesterday

'you talked about that yesterday'

about talked

121 Before w e develop our clitic analysis we discuss the analysis of van Riemsdijk (1978). He analyses the situation as follows: first, he assumes the following underlying structure for PP: (19)

PP Spec Ρ'

P* Ρ

NP

R-pronoun objects are marked [+R]. A rule of [+R] movement moves the pronoun to other [+R] positions in the sentence, to the left of P, PP, or to the right of the subject and from there to COMP. 2 (20)

S*

[+R]

Spec Ρ'

[+R]

Ρ' P

optional

NP

obligatory

Crucial in this analysis is that [+R] movement does not yield a violation of the principle

of

subjacency, which says that movement of an element cannot cross

more than one bounding node, where NP, PP, and S are bounding nodes. 3

Thus the

(+R] position under S provides an intermediate position for movement to COMP, so that movement does not cross more than one bounding node at a time. The issue of subjacency is not, at this stage, relevant. We come back to this in chapter 5. The [+R] position in the left periphery of PP accounts for the alternation in Du between vlak ernaast 'right therebeside' and er vlak naast 'there right beside'. Because both [+R] marking and [+R] movement must apply obligatorily, van Riemsdijk assumes the following filter:

122 (21)

* (Ρ - (+PRO, +R))

Although In Itself it account for the facts, this analysis seems questionable on learnability grounds. First, language-specific filters like (21) are undesirable because

they place an extra burden on the acquisition of language.

Secondly,

this goes a fortiori for the filter (21) because negative evidence is needed to trigger this filter, as noted by Horst (1983). Horst (1983) gives an alternative account of these facts, which seems to me more promising because it dispense s with the filter (21). She assumes that the general structure of PP in Du is (22a), but R-pronouns, due to their [+R] marking, attach

to

the

left of the node Ρ in

(22b), thereby

leaving

intact the

subcategorization frame of P: (22)

a.

P"

b.

P*

P·

spec P' Ρ

This proposal has some striking characteristics of a clitic analysis. However, the behaviour of R-pronouns does not at first sight seem to be characteristic of clitics. Though following fixed patterns, R-pronouns can move around, which is not a standard property of clitics. We will show however, that this behaviour can be reconciled with recent theories of clitics, such as Borer (1983); Aoun (1985). We first outline Aoun's proposal. Aoun argues that a minimal property of clitics is that they absorb the case feature of their governing head. Consider the French sentences in (23): (23) a. Marie connaît mes amis Mary

knows

b. Marie les Mary

my connaît

them knows

•Mary knows them'

friends

123 c. *Marie les Mary

connaît mes amis

them knows

my

friends

(23a) is a sentence with a 'full' NP object. (23b) contains a clitic les. This clitic 'absorbs' the case feature of the object so that the object NP cannot be phonetically realized, as the ungrammaticality of (23c) shows. The position of a clitic is always a non-argument position, as Aoun argues on the basis of an idea of Huybregts. In

other

languages,

constructions

like

(23c)

are

possible.

Consider

for

instance, the Spanish sentences (24): (24) a. los

vimos a los chicos

(we) them saw the children 'we saw the children' b.*a quien la viste •who did you see?' We maintain the minimal

property of clitics, which is that they absorb case.

Thus, the clitic los in (24a) absorbs the case feature of the object los chicos. This object can still appear because Spanish has a dummy case-marker a. which can be inserted to assign case to the object. Thus, the presence of a dummy casemarker allows doubling of the clitic. Variations

in clitic constructions

are

further determined, still

following

Aoun, by an option that clitics have to absorb the θ-role of their head. Spanish clitics absorb the θ-role of their head. As a result, in (24a) the clitic los absorbs both the case feature and the θ-role. Consequently, the doubled object cannot be wh-moved, as the ungrammaticality of (24b) shows. This is because the trace of a wh-moved element must bear θ-role in order to be assigned a variable. Summarizing, Spanish clitics absorb case; the presence of a dummy case marker allows doubling; Spanish clitics absorb θ-role so that doubled objects cannot be wh-extracted. Another situation is found in Hebrew. Hebrew clitics absorb case. Hebrew has a dummy case-marker 8el. so that, like in Spanish, doubling is possible as in (25a). Hebrew clitics do not absorb θ-role. As a result the doubled object hamora in (25a) has θ-role and can be extracted, as (25b) shows.

124 (25) a. beit-a

Sel ha-mora

house-her of b. zo

mi-i se-

the teacher ra? iti 7et beit-a^

this who that-8aw- I

acc house-her

'this is the one whose house I saw'

Extraction

is possible because a variable with θ-role is left behind. W e see

then that the properties of clitics in various languages follow from the composition of characteristics in (26): (26)

French abs. case

Spanish

+

dummy case abs. 0-role Absorption

of

+

case is a minimal property

Hebrew

+

+

+

+

+ of all clitics.

The composition of

other characteristics determines the possibility of doubling and extraction from doubled constructions. Observe

that there is a gap in this typology: a language where clitics do

absorb case, which does not have a dummy case-marker, and where clitics do not absorb 0-role. I propose that Du represents these properties in the form of Rclitics: (27) a. R-clitic absorbs case b. Du has no dummy case-marker c. R-clitic does not absorb 0-role And we maintain the general property that clitics occupy non-argument positions. (27) d. Clitics occupy Ä positions If this is so, the following scenario accounts for Du R-pronouns in the structure (28):

125

The R-clitic absorbs the case feature of the head Ρ and moves to an Ä position on that head. Movement to the

Ä position follows from the general requirement

(27d), so that we can dispense with van Riemsdijk's filter (21). Clitic doubling is impossible because Du has no dummy case marker; thus there would be no way for a doubled element to have case. The R-clitic leaves behind θ-role in its base-generated NP position. Because clitic doubling is impossible, and θ-role is left behind in the subcategorized NP position, it is the clitic itself that can move. It can move the other Ä positions, i.e. other clitic positions

(in the

left periphery of VP) and COMP (wh-movement ). The dual behaviour of R-pronouns then follows

from these

characteristics:

their

clitic-like

behaviour

follows

from absorption of the case-feature of the head, the minimal property of clitics; but yet they have a certain amount of freedom in that they can move to other positions, which is because they do not absorb 0-role. In this analysis of Aoun, which we have argued extends to Du, clitics occupy Ä positions. This predicts that R-clitics cannot passivize, because passivization entails movement to the subject position, which is an A position. Movement from an Ä position to an A position violates the θ-criterion. There are, however, sentences in Du that at least suggest that passivization of R-pronouns is possible.

These are discussed in van Kemenade (1985a), where it is shown that

they are not necessarily cases of passivization.^ So far we have defined the status of the clitic position on P, and the landing site for wh-moved R-pronouns, i.e. COMP. This leaves us with the question what the status is of the possible intermediate positions for R-pronouns. One of these intermediate positions is the one in the left of PP as formulated by van Riemsdijk, intended to capture the alternation between vlak ernaast

126 'right therebeside' and er vlak naast 'there right beside*. This is not immediately accounted for in our analysis. It is not entirely clear to me whether this alternation is a productive one. If it is, w e would have to assume that the R element/clitic

can also

adjoin to PP.

Since adjoined positions are always

Ä

positions, this presents no problem for our analysis. The

second intermediate position is the one that we have argued in in the

left periphery of VP. From the above discussion it will be clear that this is an Ä position. In chapter 3 w e discussed the argument of H. Koopman (1984) that in Du the case marker in VP is in the left periphery of VP, as forced by the leftright directionality

of case-marking

in Du. I propose that there is a clitic

position on this case-marker, parallel to the clitic position on P. This is an S position, which is available for P-clitics to move to, from their position in PP. I come back to this below.

4.3. Old English pronouns as clitics Recall that in OE, the behaviour of personal pronouns and R-pronouns is very similar to that of R-pronouns in Du. Like Du R-pronouns, OE personal pronouns and R-pronoun objects of Ρ appear to the left of P, in the left periphery of VP, and in COMP. Beside these positions, the pronouns in OE appear in a position on COMP. Against the background of the above analysis of R-pronouns it seems at least suggestive that in OE it is the personal pronouns that behave in much the same way as R-pronouns. Therefore in this section I will examine the possibility of extending the analysis

of Du R-pronouns to OE personal pronouns and R-pro-

nouns. As an expository convenience I will use the term 'clitic pronouns' for R pronouns and personal pronouns taken together. Let me emphasize that what we are discussing

here

is

a syntactic

form of

cliticization

evident

from

syntactic

behaviour. With respect to Du R-pronouns, we have, beside the syntactic evidence, some phonological like

evidence in the form of phonologically reduced forms

for et_; d'r for daar. This phonological evidence is unfortunately lack-

ing in OE. I take this to be primarily a consequence of the strict orthographic conventions in OE. Observe however that lack of phonological evidence does not necessarily

affect

our

argument with respect

to

syntactic

cliticization.

recent research it is becoming increasingly clear that syntactic

In

cliticization

and phonological cliticization are not necessarily directly related, cf. Berendsen (1986). Within Aoun's

typology, we

see that there is no such thing as a

'typical* clitic: clitics can behave in widely different ways according to the

127 composition options,

of

and

Therefore w e

feature

Du

specifications

and OE

simply

for

represent

several one of

parametrically

these

feature

feel no need to worry particularly over absence of

determined

combinations. phonological

evidence for the clitichood of OE clitics in the form of reduced spellings etc. In section 6 I argue that one of the distinguishing properties for this type of clitic is its recognizability as a morphological class, rather than phonological evidence. Our argument with respect to cliticization in O E then rests primarily on syntactic

evidence. We will

see that this

provides

enough basis

for

our

conclusions. In the previous

section we argued that there is an intimate connection be-

tween clitics and case properties in the case of Du R-pronouns. As a general property of clitics, this extends to OE personal pronouns and R-pronouns. Recall in this respect the peculiar positioning of clitic pronouns. Subject pronouns appear on various positions on COMP; pronominal objects of V appear on the left of V, on VP, or on COMP; pronominal objects of Ρ appear on the left of P, on VP, or on COMP. In the following subsections we discuss these positions in turn, and their respective connections with case properties.

4.3.1. Subject clitics Recall that subject clitics appear on a small variety of positions on COMP; to the left of the finite V in V2 clauses when the first constituent is a TOPIC; to the right of the finite V in V2 clauses when the first constituent is £a, a wh-word or ne; to the right of the complementizer

in sentences with a base-

generated complementizer. Some examples are repeated in (29) (29) a. Fordon

we sceolan mid

ealle mod S

mœgene to Gode gecyrran (Blick 97)

therefore we must

with all

mind and power

to God

turn

'therefore we must turn to God with all our mind and power* b. On dam dagum bar waeron in the days

twa cwena (Oros (Sweet) 46,36)

there were two queens

'in these days there were two queens'

128 c. J)a

for on

hie

mid

Jjrim

scipum ut (Parker 897)

then sailed they with three ships

out

•then they sailed out with three ships' d. t>a

weard bar

then was

ofslagen sum del

there slain

a

Jjses folces

(ASL,XXV,236)

part the people

'then there was murdered part of the people' e. forJ)on

be

he wolde

alene tweon of

heora heortum adon (Blick 89)

because that he wanted every doubt from their hearts

do

'because he wanted to remove all doubts from their hearts' f. and hi

ealle ofslogon bat dar

and them all

slew

an

ne

belaf (ASL,XXV,637)

that there one not remained

'and slew them all so that there remained none' If there is a close connection between pronominal cliticization and case properties as we saw above, the positioning of clitic pronouns ties in with the analysis of V2 presented in chapter 2. We argued in the previous chapters that the nominative case marker, INFL, is in pre-S position, as in (30): (30)

INFL" COMP

INFL*

NP

VP

The position of INFL can be lexicalized either by the finite verb or by a basegenerated complementizer.

Then if clitic pronouns

occupy a position on

their

case-marker, cliticization of subject pronouns on complementizer/Vf is exactly what we expect, because that is the position for the nominative case-marker. We assume that OE clitics are base-generated in an A-position adjoined to its case-marker, and is coindexed with an appropriate A-position, the subject position in the case of subject clitics. This is schematized in (31):

129 (31)

INFL" COMP

INFL'

eli

XNFL

NP e

VP

i

The relation between clitic and coindexed empty category in (31) must satisfy requirements

on antecedent-trace

relations, notably that of c-command. On the

definition of c-command in Aoun & Sportiche

(1983), which forms the basis for

their definition of government that we adopted in chapter 3, this should not be a problem. According to this definition, a head c-commands other material within its maximal projection. Since the maximal projection of the head INFL in (31) is INFL", INFL c-commands both NP and VP. Any element adjoined to INFL shares this property. So far this leaves unexplained the variety of clitic positions on INFL for subject clitics. Since this does not apply only to subject clitics, but also to object clitics, we come back to this below, in section A.5.

4.3.2. Clitic objects of V Recall that clitic objects of V appear on a position to the immediate left of V, in the left periphery of VP, or on COMP with the same variety of positions as subject clitics. Furthermore

they can be wh-extracted.

Some examples

are

peated in (32):

(32) a. Jwet

we us sylfe

clsene and ungewemmede him gegearcian (AHTh,I,36)

that we ourselves clean and undefiled

him prepare

•that we prepare ourselves for him clean and undefiled' b. Ond se

cyng him eac

wel

feoh

sealde (Parker 894)

and the king him also well property gave 'and in addition the king gave him much property'

re-

130 c. ond ()a

¡)e

feohlease

vraeron him

bar

scipu begeton (Parker 897)

and those that propertyless were

themselves there ships got

•and those who had lost their property got ships for themselves there·

d. Pela spella

him sadon ba

many stories him told

Beoraas, ... (Oros,14,27)

the Permiane

'the Permiane told him many stories'

e. Jja

stlcode him mon

then stuck

J>a eagan ut (Oros,90,14)

him someone the eyes

out

'then his eyes were gouged out'

f. bet

him his fiend

wsren œfterfylgende (Oros,48,12)

that him his enemies were

following

'that his enemies were chasing him'

g. gif dar if

man

an ban

there someone a

finded unforberned (Oros,17,32)

bone finds

unburnt

if anyone finds an unburnt bone there'

In the vein of the above discussion and the discussion of case-marking in chapter 3 we propose the following. Clitic objects of V are base-generated on an Äposition on their case-marker V, and coindexed with an appropriate NP position. Ve argued in chapter 3 that in 0E, there is a bifurcation in case positions in VP because structural case is assigned to the right and oblique case to the left, resulting in a case position on the base-generated V and one in the left periphery of VP. As on other case-markers discussed so far, there is a clitic position on both these case markers. The position in the left periphery of VP is available for other VP clitics to move to, including oblique pronouns of V. Then that position necessarily c-commands the position on V. I suggest that the parameter for directionality of structural case forces adjunction of the relevant case feature to V', as in (33), so that it can assign case from left to right and act as a c-commanding head. A clitic position on this head then cconnnands other VP material, so that movement of clitic^ in (33) to the V·-adjoined position satisfies the c-command requirement on antecedent trace relations .

131 (33)

We

see then, that what we call clitic positions here are true positions; they

can be occupied by clitics other case-feature:

e.g.

than the one primarily associated with its

the position in the left periphery of VP can contain all

clitic objects of V as well as those of P. This goes also for the clitic position on INFL that we defined above as the one appropriate for subject pronouns. This means that, although the presence of a clitic position on a case marker is primarily determined by its being a case-marker, the clitic that occupies it is not necessarily the one primarily associated with its case feature. Like Du Rpronouns then, OE clitic objects of V can move to other clitic positions:

(34)

INFL" COMP

INFL'

cl

INFL

NP

V" case

V NP

V

Again we postpone discussion of the variety of positions on COMP, since this also involves clitic objects of P, which we discuss in the next section.

132 4.3.3. Clitic objects of Ρ Recall that clitic objects of Ρ appear on a position to the immediate left of P, in the left of periphery of VP, or on COMP, with on the latter the same variety of positions as for subject clitics and other object clitics. Furthermore

they can be wh-extracted and topicalized.

Some examples are repeated

in

(35): (35) a. and hi

ne

dorston him

and they not dared

fore gebiddan (ΑΗΡ,XIX,226)

them for

pray

'and they dared not pray for them* b. nu

wylle we eow geopenian J»t andgit beerto (ΑΗΡ,XIII,35)

now want

we you disclose

the meaning thereto

'now we want to disclose for you the meaning of that' c. ¡3a

wendon hi

me heora bsc

to (Boeth,II,8,12)

then turned they me their backs to 'then they turned their backs to me* d. dtet

{3u

bar nane myrhde

that you there no

joy

on

nefdest (Boeth,VII, 15,11)

in not had

'that ypu had no joy in that' e. and him com

Jaet leoht £o Jjurh

paules lare

syddan (ASL,XXIX,18)

and him came the light to through Paul's teachings after 'and afterwards he was enlightened by Paul's teachings' f. he dar

weard from {jsem burgwarum in abroden (Oros,73,10)

he there was

by

the citizens

in dragged

'and he was dragged in there by the citizens' g· Jja

genealehte him an man to (Mt.1083)

then approached him a

man to

'then a man approached him'

133 h. beet

him mon

brohte

{jone triumphan ongean (Oros, 126,11)

that him they brought the

victory

to

'that the victory be brought to him' i. bat

bar

nane odre

that there no

on ne

sœton (Boeth,XXVII,61,20)

others on not sat

'that no others would sit there' In the vein of the previous sections, a clitic object of Ρ is base-generated on an Ä position on the left of P, and from there can move to other Ä/clitic positions in the sentence as in (36): (36)

INFL" COMP

Possibly, a clitic object of Ρ can also move to the spec P' position, as is evident

in the

case

of Du R-pronoune, cf. van Riemsdijk

(1978), but in the

available OE examples, such movement is string-vacuous. Observe again in the structure commanding the source position.

(36) that clitics move only to positions c-

134 4.3.4. Discussion In the previous sections we developed an analysis of the behaviour of Du R pronouns on the basis of recent theories of clitics, and we considered to what extent the positioning of what we take to be OE clitic pronouns may fit into this

picture.

For the

sake

of

clarity, we

review here briefly

the

analysis

presented so far, and address some further issues. A general property of clitics is that they occupy Ä-positions. Furthermore, a minimal property of clitics is that they absorb the case-feature of their governing

head. W e

argued in section 4.2 that

the behaviour of Du R-pronouns is

determined by two parametrically determined properties of Du: that R-clitics do not absorb O-role; that Du has no dummy case-marker. These same characteristics, repeated in (37), determine the behaviour of OE clitics:

(37) a. clitics occupy Ä-positions b. clitic s absorb case c. clitics do not absorb O-role d. O E has no dummy case-marker As a result of this combination of properties clitics that are base-generated in a position on their governing head, can move to other c-commanding Ä positions, i.e. clitic positions and COMP. As a function of (37a), clitics are base-generated on an Ä-position on their case-marker, absorbing the case-feature of their governing

head.

They are

coindexed with an appropriate

NP position

subcate-

gorized by their head. That NP position retains β-role, since clitics do not absorb the O-role of their governing head. Because OE has no dummy case-marker, clitic doubling is impossible. Because clitic doubling is impossible and O-role is left behind in the subcategorized NP position, it is the clitic itself that can move to other A-positions in the sentence, i.e. other clitic positions (on V' and INFL) and COMP. Note once more that the clitic positions on case-markers are available regardless of whether they are coindexed with the NP position typically associated with their case feature. This is most evident with the clitic position on INFL. Indeed, the situation is not likely to occur at all frequently with the clitic position on V or P. However, occasionally an example

crops up such as

(38),

where a clitic object of a PP in a V-projection-raising construction appears on the clitic position on the matrix verb.

135 (38) {jeh

hie œt Jjœm srran gefeohte him ne mehten to cuma η (Oros,47,19)

though they at the former fight

him not could to come

'though at the former fight they couldn't get to him' Such examples are only likely to occur in clause union constructions, which are S domains that are broken up in the course of the derivation, cf. section 2.4. In S' complements to verbs one would not expect clitics or other elements to be able to occur outside their S'-domain, except by COMP to COMP movement, because S" is an absolute barrier to government, cf. Chomsky (1981). Clitic positions on case-markers, then, are associated with a subcategorized NP position when occupied by a clitic coindexed with this position. Failing

that, they are

still

available as a clitic position for other clitics, subject to the usual requirements on antecedent-trace relations such as c-command. The possibility of a clitic moving to COMP by wh-extraction is determined by property on

the

(37c). Because OE clitics do not absorb θ-role, θ-role is left behind subcategorized

NP

position,

ensuring

that wh-extraction

of

a

clitic

leaves behind a variable that has θ-role. In this respect, clitics simply behave like R-expressions, as predicted by property (37c). We conclude

then, that the behaviour of OE personal and R-pronouns can be

reasonably analysed as clitic behaviour within the present analysis.

4.4. Further evidence The clitic analysis of the previous sections is confirmed by various types of facts. These have to do with the behaviour of clitics in V-raising complements discussed in 4.4.1, and with resumptive pronouns discussed in 4.A.2.

A.A.I. Clitic climbing in V-ralsing complements OE has V-raising constructions of various kinds as discussed in chapter 2.4. V-raising complements occur systematically only as complements to modals, causatives and perception verbs. A crucial property of these constructions is that the embedded complement does not constitute an independent tense domain,

(cf.

chapter 2.4) and that therefore they are transparent for certain processes. One such process is that clitic objects of the embedded infinitive

(or PP in the

136 embedded infinitive) can move to clitic positions in the matrix clause. This is exemplified in (39): (39) a. ... ofdredd fwet afraid

him Godes yrre

on becuman sceolde (ΑΗΡ,XXIII, 119)

that him God's anger on come

would

'afraid that God's anger would descend on him' b. f>eh

hie

set {MOT srran gefeohte him ne mehten to cuman (Oros,47,19)

though they at the former fight

him not could

to come

'though at the former fight they could not get to him'

c. >

wiste {«et hiene mon wolde

mid

Jjsem ilcan wrence bebridian (Oros,155,2)

and knew that h i m

they wanted with the same

strategy overpower

'and knew that they wanted to overpower him with the same strategy' d. fordon

hi.

nan mon ne

because them no

dear

dreagean (CP,30,13)

man not dares admonish

'because no man dares to admonish them' (39a) and (39b) are examples with pronominal Ρ objects. In a) the clitic is on the matrix COMP, to the left of the matrix subject, in b) it is on the matrix V. c) and d) are examples of pronominal objects of the infinitival V, both on the matrix COMP. Typically, only clitic objects behave in this fashion; full NP's do not. Clitic

climbing

of this kind is possible by virtue of the fact that V-

raising constructions are clause union constructions, as predicted by our analysis

in chapter

2.4, so that there is no government barrier between

embedded

clause and matrix clause.

4.4.2. Resumptive pronouns The clitic analysis advanced here receives further support from facts concerning

resumptive

pronouns.

Resumptive

pronouns

are

found in various

types

of

constructions that involve Ä-binding. Given the fact that pronouns in COMP in relative clauses are always demonstrative

pronouns, one might expect resumptive

pronouns

to take the shape of

demonstrative pronouns. This expectation is not borne outj sometimes the resump-

137 tive pronoun is a demonstrative pronoun, as in

(40), but in other cases the

resumptive pronoun can take the shape of a clitic, as in (41): (40) forjion

t>e

Drihten cwaej> to him J»t swa hwvlcne swa he on eorJ>an

because that Lord

said to him that so which

so

he on earth

gebunde, J»t .se, were on heofonum gebunden (Blick 49,15) bound,

that he was

in heaven

bound

(Allen 1980:28)

'because the Lord said to him that whoever he bound on earth, he would be bound in heaven' (41) a. and swa hwas swa hie and so

what so

rlhtlice biddad for dinum naman &

they rightly

ask

for your

name and for

gearningum hig hvt onfod (3 0E,74,4) merit

for dinum your

(Allen 1980: 280)

they it receive

•and whatever they ask rightly for your name and your merit, they receive it' b. ...bid sánete Iorius is

St.

casere

seofon gear

emperor seven dreade

tid, dss

adelan weres, done Datlanus se

Iorius' day, of that noble

det

mid

man,

whom Datian

unasaecgendlicum witum

years with unspeakable

the

hine

punishments him

he Criste widsoce (0ET,178,39)

inflicted, that he Christ forsook 'is St. Iorius day, that noble man, whom the emperor Datian for seven years inflicted (him) with severe punishments, so that he would forsake Christ' It seems

then, that demonstrative and personal pronouns are in

distribution:

complementary

the personal, clitic form occurs on clitic positions,

otherwise

the demonstrative form appears. In COMP, we always find the demonstrative form. I conclude that the extra evidence from V-raising complements and resumptive pronouns emphasizes the special positions of OE personal pronouns and strengthens the hypothesis that they are clitics.

138 Α.5. Clitics on COMP and V2 In section 4.3 we have seen that there is a peculiar variety of clitic positions

on

INFL, that

still needs to be explained. We

turn to this here. The

relevant data were discussed quite extensively above. Therefore we do not repeat all of them here. For the sake of clarity, the data concerning subject clitics may suffice. Recall that in V2 clauses with a TOPIC first constituent, subject clitics appear on the immediate left of the finite verb. In V2 clauses with a first constituent that is either a wh-constituent, ]ja, or ne, clitics appear on the right of the finite verb. In clauses with a base-generated complementizer, clitics

appear

on the

right

of

the complementizer. Examples are repeated

(42):

(42) a. œfter his gebede he ahof

{wet cild

u £ (AHTh,II,28)

After his prayer he lifted the child up b. Hwffit stegest bu yrfclincg? Hu begast bu weorc J>inî (AColl.,22) 'what do you say, ploughman? How do you go about your work? c. for hwam noldest

bu de sylfe

me gecydan...

(ASL,XXXIII,307)

for what not wanted you yourself to me make known 'why would you not want to make yourself known to me?' d. ba weard he to deofle awend (AHTh,I,12) then was he to devil

changed

'then he was changed to a devil'

e. ba

nam

he micelne graman and andan to {>am

then took he great

anger

and envy

mannum (AHTh,I,16)

to those persons

'then he felt great anger and envy for those persons' f. Ne

worhte

he Jjeah nane wundra

not wrought he yet

no

openlice (AHTh,I,26)

miracles openly

'but he worked no miracles openly* g. We

meg he nane gesceafta gescyppan (AHTh,I,16)

not can he no

creatures create

'he can create no creatures'

in

139 h. gif hie œnigne feld if

they any

secan wolden (Parker 894)

field seek

wanted

'if they wanted to seek out open field' Why are these clitic positions the way they are? If we accept the argument of the previous

sections, cliticization is on INFL, the nominative case-marker.

Recall from chapter 2.3 that INFL is lexicalized either by the finite verb or by that. Then in V2 clauses with a TOPIC first constituent, the clitic position is on the left of INFL (Vf), in all the other cases it is on the right of INFL (Vf/that). This is schematized in (43): (A3) a. [XNFL" [COMP

b

c

· ClNFL" [COMP

cl - INFL V2

V2

wh/ne/J>a]

]

INFL - cl

infl

· ClNFL" ÍCOMP

that

-

cl

]

]]

I intend to explain this distribution in the following way. We have seen in the previous sections that with the case-markers V and P, cliticization is on the left of the case-marker. If we generalize this, we conclude that the clitic position on the left of INFL (43a) is the unmarked case. Apparently,

then,

cliticization on the left of INFL is blocked when INFL is lexicalized by that, or when there is a wh/neg constituent in COMP. We regard ]ja in V2 sentences as a wh element and thus as an operator. In these instances, INFL" appears to behave as one constituent within which cliticization is impossible. But how can the cases (43b-c) be distinguished from (43a). First of all, a reasonable distinction can be made

between TOPICS in COMP (43a) and wh/neg

constituents in COMP (43b). TOPICS are not necessarily operators; Kayne (1983) has argued that topicalization in French complex inversion constructions involves movement of an A phrase to COMP, to be distinguished crucially from operators in COMP. Let us accept a similar distinction for OE. We may then formulate the difference between (43a) and (43b) along the following lines: if an operator with an index (wh-elements, £a and ne) moves to COMP, the specifier of INFL', it transmits this index to the head INFL as in (44). (44) IlNFL" COMP Oi INFL] -> [INFL" COMP

INFLjJ

140 This mechanism is similar to that of spec-head agreement of Chomsky (1985). Its result must be compared with COMP contraction phenomena in Pesetsky (1982). With respect to cliticization, (44) has the following effect: COMP and INFL behave as one constituent, so that cliticization is on the INFL projection rather than on INFL. As a result the clitic position is on the right of the INFL projection rather than on the left of INFL. Index transmission is a privilege of operators in COMP, perhaps because lexicalized operators are COMP properties. 5

'proper' lexicalisations of

A topic in COMP (as in (43a)) does not transmit an index,

therefore cliticization is on INFL. Next, how do we explain (43c)? Note that a distinción can be made between V2 as a lexicalization of INFL and that as a lexicalization of INFL. As pointed out in chapter 2 that is the proper base-generated lexicalization of INFL, whereas V2 must be viewed as a default lexicalizer.

4.6. The morphology of clitics It was observed in the previous sections that cliticization in OE is a syntactic form of cliticization, for which we only have syntactic evidence in the form of specific positioning of clitics. Phonological evidence for clitic status of

personal

pronouns

and

R-pronouns

is

lacking.

It is unclear whether

such

evidence may have been available to the learner of OE. If so, the strict orthographic

conventions

of OE have left us no trace of that. In order to allay

possible misgivings against the analysis presented here on that specific basis I want to add some brief discussion on how OE clitics may have been recognizable as such in spite of the lack of phonological evidence. First of all, of course, we assume that their syntactic behaviour was recognizable as such from positive evidence in the language environment. But apart from this, clitics were presumably eminently recognizable on the basis of their morphological characteristics. Recall from section 2 that Du R-pronouns1 have a full form and a phonologically reduced form. But whether they occur in full or reduced form does not affect their positioning in the least. Clearly, it is the morphological characteristic 'ending in -R' that is relevant for Du R-pronouns, not whether they occur in full or reduced form. Presumably, this argument is relevant in exactly the same form for OE R-pronouns. But beside R-pronouns, OE personal pronouns display the same behaviour, and they do not have this unique property of 'ending in -R'. Notice first of all that pre-

141 sumably OE personal pronouns are recognizable as a morphological class, though they do not have a unique the

clitic analysis

of

ending. But apart from this, let us consider again

this

chapter.

Essentially,

clitics

represent

a

case-

feature of their governing head, which is adjoined to that head. As such clitics have exactly the same function as flectional morphology: relevant properties of a head are encoded morphologically on that head in the form of a case affix. On such a view, OE clitics are really part and parcel of the fairly rich system of inflectional morphology that was discussed in chapter 3, because it makes use of the same kind of case-affixing.

Thus, the form of cliticization discussed in

this chapter is related to the presence of a morphological case-system.

142 Footnotes 1. The preposition can be separated from the verb on the left and appear on the right of the verb. One example of this is given in (i) i. J>a wear J) him gebroht to sum witseoc man (ΑΗΡ, IV, 3) then was him brought to some witsick man 'then a spiritually afflicted man was brought to him' Allen (1977) concludes that there is no fixed position at all for the stranded preposition. I claim that this statement is far to strong. The position immediately preceding the verb is the more regular one. 2. V a n Riemsdijk's [+R] position is generated under S, not in the left periphery of VP as I have assumed above. 3. V a n Riemsdijk formulates this in terms of the 'Head constraint', which says in essence that from the domain of a certain head H, no material can be extracted. We come back to this in more detail in chapter 5. 4. Briefly this goes as follows. Consider the following sentences. i. a. er werd op gedanst b. dat daar gisteren over gesproken werd For the analysis of the sentences (i) I wish to make the following suggestions. In (i.a), a V2 sentence, er is not passivized but topicalized. In that case one might expect insertion of a dummy subject and this is not the case, as (ii) shows. ii.*Daar^ is er [yp

[pp

t¿ over t'^] gesproken]

In (ii) er. cannot be interpreted as the dummy subject. There is some evidence that eir insertion in the subject position in Du is not obligatory when the first constituent (TOPIC) is a locative constituent, and is obligatory when the first constituent is not locative; contrast (iii) with (iv). iii. a. er werd gedanst b.*daar werd er gedanst c. op de tafel werd gedanst d.*op de tafel werd er gedanst iv. a.*gisteren werd gedanst b. gisteren werd er gedanst This makes it plausible that in (i.a) er is a TOPIC and not a subject. However, this case cannot be made for (i.b). There is no convincing case to be made, however, that daar in (i.b) is a subject. Paar could be in the clitic position in VP; and er. insertion in the subject position is not obligatory, perhaps because it is adjacent to daar. This would tie in with the observation made in Bennis (1980) about this and other types of er in Dutch, all of which can have more than one function. I assume that whatever is the appropriate analysis for these phenomena will carry over to apparent cases of passivization of R-pronouns. There is also some evidence that er insertion in subject position is not obligatory, even when some other R-pronoun is non-adjacent, as (v) shows.

143 v. dat (*er) gisteren d'rover gesproken werd This suggests that for R-objects of Ρ a kind of 'passive in situ' is possible. This would suggest that R-clitics are case-bearing elements, which follows from our analysis. 5. The same mechanism may ensure proper government of the subject position in case of extraction from subject position. It is well-known that languages like Du and OE have a more liberal environment than ModE for proper government of the subject position from COMP (cf. Pesetsky (1982); H. Koopman (1984)). This is evidenced by the optional absence of that-t effects. It must be noted, though, that on the analysis of V2 here, which involves lexicalization of the nominative case-marker INFL, proper government of the subject position is presumably never a problem because the subject position is always governed by a lexical element.

CHAPTER 5

Preposition-stranding

Preposition-stranding in general has, in recent years, received considerable attention from a theoretical point of view, for various reasons. Prepositionstranding, though well-attested in various forms in the Gmc languages, appears generally to be a marked phenomenon. Therefore, it is particularly interesting to see what marked strategies specific languages adopt in order to circumvent whatever principle of UG generally prohibits P-stranding. Preposition-stranding

phenomena in OE only involve movement of a preposi-

tional object to an A-position. Beside being of interest for the study of properties of PP, OE P-stranding facts have received a fair amount of attention as a focus in the theoretical debate in the seventies on whether languages have one or two strategies to derive wh-movement-type constructions. In this chapter we first present the data from OE and discuss theoretical literature relevant to their analysis. We split this discussion into two parts. First, we discuss the literature on P-stranding in OE in relation to the theoretical issues involved. Then we discuss some more general literature on the nature of P-stranding, and their relevance to the OE facts. In the recent literature, four kinds of general constraints on P-stranding can be roughly distinguished. Van Riemsdijk

(1978) proposes that P-stranding is generally excluded

because PP is a bounding node for Subjacency, and formulates various ways in which this constraint is circumvented in Du and ModE. Bennis & Hoekstra (1984) analyse P-stranding in terms of a canonical government direction. Hornstein & Weinberg

(1981a, b), Kayne (1981b) and Lightfoot (1981) pursue an analysis in

which P-stranding is generally excluded in terms of case theory. Kayne (1981a) argues that extraction from PP is generally prohibited because Ρ is not a proper governor for ECP. We will show that the OE facts give us reason to suppose that the latter constraint is the more adequate one. On this basis, we will develop our own analysis of P-stranding in OE. We will show that the OE P-stranding facts can be accounted for in an elegant way if we assume that the clitic analysis of chapter 4 has a non-phonetically-realized counterpart. This approach allows a principled and unified analysis of OE Pstranding constructions. This process of 'zero'-cliticization is appropriately constrained and as we will see, fully learnable on the basis of properties of

145 overt cliticization. Thus, we see that like the process of overt cliticization, 'zero'-eliticization and therefore all OE P-stranding phenomena are related to the presence of a morphological case system. 1

5.1. Data In this

section we

present

an overview of the constructions

that

involve

preposition-stranding in OE. We contrast examples with extraction of a prepositional object

(P-stranding) with constructions involving extraction of a whole

PP (pied-piping). For the sake of completeness and because they play a role in the subsequent discussion, we also include those cases of P-stranding that were analysed in chapter 4 as movement of a clitic object of Ρ out of PP.

5.1.1. Preposition stranding by personal pronouns Recall from chapter 4 that, whereas the normal surface word order in PP in OE is P-NP, this order is optionally inverted when the object of the preposition is a personal pronoun, as in (1): (1) and hi

ne

dorston him

and they not dared

fore gebiddan (ΑΗΡ,XIX,226)

them for

pray

'and they dared not pray for them' Furthermore, the pronominal object can be separated from its head P, and occur in the left periphery of VP or on COMP. We will not go further into the variety of positions on COMP here. This was discussed in section 4.5. Some examples are given in (2) ¡ (2) a. da

wendon hi [yp

then turned they

me heora bœc

to] (Boeth,II,8,12)

me their backs to

'then they turned their backs to me' b. &

bad

bet

him mon

brohte

Jjone triumphan ongean (Oros, 126,1)

and ordered that him they brought the

victory

'and ordered them to bring victory to him'

to

146 Pronominal objects of prepositions can also move to COMP by topicalization, as (3) shows : (3) him com

{»et leoht to Jjurh

paules lare syddan (ASL,XXIX,18)

him came the light to through Paul's teachings afterwards 'to h i m enlightenment came afterwards through Paul's teachings'

5.1.2. Preposition stranding by R-pronouns Whereas the normal word order in PP is P-NP, this order is always inverted when the prepositional object is an R-pronoun. This is exemplified in (4).

(4) and com... to dam trewe, sohte he

came

to the tree,

wffistm daron. ... (AHTh,11,408)

sought fruit therein

'he got to the tree, sought fruit in it, ..." Also, like personal pronoun objects of P, the R-pronoun can move out of PP to a position in the left periphery of VP or on COMP. (5) a. ... dat }JU [γρ

bar

that you

there

nane myrhde on nafdesti no

joy

(Boeth,VII,15,ll)

in not-had

'that you have no joy in that' b. he dar

weard from ¡jam burgwarum in abroden (Oros,73,10)

he there was

by the

citizens

in dragged

'he was dragged in there by the citizens' Furthermore, R-pronoun objects of Ρ can move to COMP by topicalization or relativization. (6) od

Jjat

he gestod bufon {jam gesthuse, bar

l»t cild

on wunode (AHTh,I,78)

until that he stood

above the inn

where the child in stayed

'until it stood over the inn where the child was staying'

ΙΑ 7 5.1.3. Relatives introduced by the relative complementizer be The relative clause introduced by ¿e

'that' is a very common type. The large

majority of these relatives is restrictive, and the relative clause is nearly always adjacent to the antecedent. We find relativization of subjects and all kinds of objects. Some examples are found in (7): (7) a. ..., and se

weg Jje

1st

to heofenum (AHTh,I,52,14)

and the way that leads to heaven b. J»ra

diacona was se

forma Stephanus, £e

we on ]>isum dage

wurdiad (AHTh,I,44) of the deacons was the first Stephen,

that we on this

day

honour 'the foremost of the deacons was Stephen, whom we honour today' c. Jjes wynsuman brad,

Jje

du

wundrast Jjearle (ASL,IV,40)

this winsome fragrance, that you wonder

greatly

'this winsome fragrance, about which you wonder greatly' d. for J>aem ungemetlican feondscipe Jje

ure ehtende

on sindon (Oros,47,7)

for the

great

enmity

that our persecutors on are

If the relativized element is a prepositional object, P-stranding is obligatory, pied-piping unattested. Examples in (8): (8) a. &

het forbœrnan (ist gewrit £e

and ordered burn

the writ

hit on awriten was (Oros,141,22)

that it

in written was

'and ordered to burn the writ that it was written in' b. &

se ordonc

£e

we mid

aliesede sindon is Godes eadmodnes (CP,300,9)

and the scheme that we with redeemed are

is God's humility

Relativization out of tensed embedded clauses (apparent violations of Subjacency) occurs frequently and is exemplified in (9).

148 (9) a. donne hie lecgead da tlglan beforan then dcet

they put hie

the tiles

hie

j>e

him beboden

was

in front of them that them ordered was

sceoldon da ceastre Hierusalem on awritan (CP, 160,13)

that they should

the city

Jerusalem

on draw

'then they put in front of them the tiles that they were ordered to draw the city of Jerusalem on' b. f>is

is se

rihta

geleafa

agehwylcum men gebyred

this is the correct belief that every

J)at

he wel

man behoves that he well

gehealde & gelaste (Blick 111,12)

(Allen 1980: 267)

behold and perform 'this is the correct belief that it behooves every man to hold and perform well' This is the only

(apparent) violation of Subjacency that is found;

extraction

out of NP, wh- or other islands is non-attested. This must be regarded as significant in view of the amount and quality of documentation in 0E, and the very high

frequency

of

occurrence

of this

particular

type of relative,

cf.

Allen

(1980: 263ff ). Under this heading I also w i s h to class some bat relatives, more specifically those cases where bat 'that' is used as a relative complementizer. There are a number of clear cases of this, e.g. (10): (10) Fordan

dar

ne was

ode ru stow

on dam gisthuse,

dat

hio dat

because there not was other place in the guesthouse, that she the cild

meahte on asettan (Ver.V.26)

child could

in put

'because there was no other place in the guesthouse where she could put the child' The antecedent of the dat relative in (10) is stow, which is a feminine noun. This makes it clear that dat is a complementizer here, and not a relative pronoun, since as a relative pronoun dat is neuter and would relativize on neuter heads only, dat as a relative complementizer is not very frequent in OE; £e is the much more usual form.

149 5.1.4. Se relatives In relatives introduced by the relative pronoun se. the relative pronoun has the case inflection characteristic of its position in the lower clause. The majority of these relatives is appositive and can be separated from the antecedent. Ve find relativizatlon mainly of the subject and the accusative object, but a few cases of extraction of a genitive or dative object are found. Some examples in (11)! (11) a. atforan

fotum sumes

geonges cnihtes, J3£ was geciged Saulus (AHTh,I,48)

before the feet

of some young

man

b. and seo heofenlice sodfastnyss be and the heavenly

truth

eordlice arleasnyss huxlice earthly

who was called Saul

dam cydde gecydnysse, bone seo

about him gave testimony, teelde

whom the

(AHTh,I,48,22)

wickedness shamefully reviled

'and the divine truth gave testimony about him whom earthly wickedness had shamefully reviled' c. t>is syndon {MBS Nazareniscan Hslendes these are hie

the Nazarene

synd

Régnas,

bam

offiynced ¡Met

Saviour's disciples, whom repents that

Iudea folces (Blick 175)

they are of the Jewish race Relativization of a prepositional object obligatorily takes along the preposition to COMP. P-stranding is impossible. Example in (12): (12) Tirus

&

Sidon syndon twa burga, be

bam.

sprœc se Hœlend (ΑΗΡ,XVII,52)

Tyrus and Sidon are

two cities about which spoke the Lord

Relativization out of tensed embedded clauses occurs frequently and is

exem-

plified in (13): (13) a. Ic seolfa cude susine brodar, done ic wolde dat

ic nafre cude (Bede,442,9)

I

myself knew some brother, whom I

wanted that I

never knew

150 b. Syx dagas synd on dam

gebyrad dœt

man wyrce (St. Luke,880) (Allen 1980:270)

Six days

are

on which is fitting that one work

'There are six days on which it is fitting to work· As in the case of jie relatives, this is the only apparent violation of Subjacency found; extraction out of NP- or wh-islands appears to be impossible.

5.1.5. Se be relatives Se be relatives are introduced by the relative pronoun se. followed by the relative complementizer ]je. The majority of these relatives is appositive. We find relativization mainly of subjects and accusative objects, but a few examples of true genitives or datives in COMP are found, where 'true' means: not the result of case attraction. While the pronoun in COMP in se be relatives often has the case inflection characteristic of its base position in the lower clause, its case can optionally attract to that of the antecedent. Some examples of ¿e. be relatives are found in (14):

(14) a. Ure Drihten arœrde anes ealdormannes dohtor (acc), seo (nom) de Our Lord dead

raised an

alderman's

daughter,

(ΑΗΡ,VI,176)

who

lœg

that lay

(Allen 1980: 271)

dead 'Our Lord brought to life an alderman's daughter who lay dead' b. Ic wat wytodlice dœt I know truly

Ί

secad done heelend (acc) done (acc) de

that you seek

on rode ahangen was on cross hung

ge

(Mt.1766)

the

Lord

whom

that

(Allen 1980: 271)

was

know truly that you seek the Lord, who was hung on the cross'

(14a) is a run of the mill example without case attraction. In (14b) we would expect the relative pronoun to have nominative case, since it is extracted from subject position; instead it has accusative, in accordance with the case of the antecedent. Sometimes se be relatives are very similar to ¿e relatives with a demonstrative pronoun antecedent, leading to structural ambiguity. However, this struc-

151 turai ambiguity disappears entirely when a prepositional object is relativized; in these cases pied-piping is obligatory, as exemplified in (15). (15) a. Wa

t>am men {)urh

done de

byd mannes sunu belœwed (Mt.1561) (Allen 1980: 272)

Woe the man through whom that is

man's

son betrayed

'Woe to the man by whom man's son was betrayed'

b. on dœre readan ss in the

Red

on {»re

de

he besanc to gründe (ASL.XXV,348)

Sea in which that he sank

to the bottom

'in the Red Sea, in which he sank to the bottom'

5.1.6. Infinitival relatives Infinitival relative clauses in OE never involve a relative pronoun or a complementizer; the relative clause simply follows the antecedent, as in (16). (16) a. ic hebbe mete to etenne {ione ]je I

have

food to eat

b. ... cvraed daet

he nsfde

ge nyton (ΑΗΡ,V,72) (Allen 1980:275)

that you do not know {œt feoh

him to alanenne (AHTh.II, 178,2) (Allen 1980)

said that he not had the money him to lend 'and said that he didn't have the money to lend him' When a prepositional object is relativized we always find preposition stranding, as in (17). (17) a. Drihten, Jm Lord,

J>e

gecure \at

you yourself chose

fœt

on to eardienne (Blick 157)

that vessel in to live

'Lord, you chose for yourself that vessel to live in' b. Leof,

ne

{>u

liefst nan J)yng

Dear man, not you have

no

myd

to hladenne (John,IV, 11)

thing with to draw water

'Dear man, you have nothing to draw water with'

152 5.1.7. Topicalization When the topicalized element is a personal pronoun or an R-pronoun, the preposition

can be stranded, as exemplified above in 5.1.2. Topicalization of a NP

prepositional object always involves pied-piping in OE. See (18): (18) a. On disne enne god we sceolon geleafan (ASL,I,38) in this

one

God we must

b. For dss lichaman life, {je

believe lang s um beon ne

mœg, swincad menn swide (ΑΗΡ,VI,145)

for the body's

life, that long

be

not may, toil

men greatly

'for the life of the body, that may not last eternally, men toil greatly'

5.1.8. Tough movement constructions As in Modern English, OE tough movement constructions have a zero complementizer in OE. When a prepositional object is

'tough-moved', preposition stranding is

obligatory, as in (19): (19) fordon

de

heo is hwiltidum smylte and myrige

on to rowenne, ... (AHTh,1,182,31)

because that she is sometimes serene and pleasant on to live 'because it is sometimes serene and pleasant to live in'

5.1.9. Wh-questlons In OE wh-questions, questioning of a prepositional object always involves pied piping. This is exemplified in (20): (20) Mid

hwam mage we bicgan hlaf disum folce;

with what can

(AHTh,I,182,6)

we buy bread for this people;

The data concerning extraction of a prepositional object in OE wh-movement-type constructions can be summarized simply as follows: when there is an overt rela-

153 tive pronoun in COMP, we always find pied-piping, unless that overt element is a personal

pronoun or an R-pronoun. In the latter case the preposition can be

stranded. When there is no overt element in COMP, preposition stranding is obligatory. 5.2. Review of the literature In this section we divide the literature on P-stranding into two groups: the literature specifically concerned with issues surrounding the OE facts, and general literature on P-stranding, which addresses a wider scope of issues. On the basis of this discussion, we will develop our own proposal for the analysis of P-stranding in 5.3. In the previous section the data of OE P-stranding have been summed up from a descriptive point of view. These facts, especially those to do with relativization, have played an important role in one of the theoretical debates of the seventies; the question whether languages have one strategy to derive relatives and related constructions: that of wh-movement, or two strategies: wh-movement and unbounded deletion. Central in this discussion is the principle of Subjacency which will

be discussed

below.

The facts concerning P-stranding in OE

relatives without an overt element in COMP

- £e relatives, infinitival

rela-

tives, tough-movement constructions - are consistent with Subjacency. Therefore Chomsky & Lasnik

(1977) and Vat (1978) have analysed them as instances of wh-

movement. Proponents of the "two strategies' approach consider that, since there is no surface evidence of movement in these relatives in the form of a relative pronoun, they are the result of unbounded deletion. For this type of analysis, see Bresnan (1976) and Allen (1977; 1980). We review these analyses below. The facts

of

P-stranding by

personal

and R-pronouns have

played a role

in

this

debate, but since they will turn out to be of central relevance, they will be discussed along with analyses of relatives in 5.2.1. Recent literature focusing on P-stranding in OE has included analyses of Pstranding in terms of bounding theory and case theory. This literature will be discussed in the light of our OE facts in 5.2.2.

5.2.1. Literature on P-stranding in OE relatives Let us first summarize what configurations are and are not found in OE tensed relatives.^

154 (21) a

NP [ s . [ C 0 M p

t>e]

[θ] ....

b

NP [ s . [COMP P r o n

t>el

[β]

c

NP [ s . [comp

t>e]

[PP

d. *

NP [ s . [comp P r o n

t>el

[pp Ρ e]

e. *

NP [ S . [COMP

t>e]

[e]

f

NP [ S .

t>e]

[β] ....

g

NP [ s . [ C O M P pron

_]

[e]

h

NP [ S . [ C 0 M p

—]

[e] ....

p

[COMP [pp Ρ NP]

PP

p e

l

The terms 'unbounded deletion' and 'wh-movement' respectively refer to proposals put forth by Bresnan (1976) and subsequent work, and by Chomsky (1977) and subsequent work. The constructions crucial in this debate are those that have the following properties (from Chomsky (1977)).

(22) a. Movement leaves a gap. b. Where there is a bridge, there is an apparent violation of Subjacency, the Propositional Island Condition (tensed S condition), and the Specified Subject Condition. c. It observes the Complex NP Constraint. d. It observes the Wh-island constraints.

Chomsky (1977) argues that when a construction has the properties of (22), it is the result of wh-movement. The essence of Bresnan's proposal is that even when a construction has the properties of (22), but there is no surface evidence for movement (such as a moved relative pronoun), the construction is the result of unbounded deletion; unbounded because the deletion is under identity with an element that is outside the S-projection containing the deleted element. In the system proposed by Chomsky

(1977) there is nothing

that excludes unbounded

deletion, but in Chomsky & Lasnik (1977) there is. In their theory, the only deletion rules are quite restricted local ones that apply in the phonetic component of the grammar.

155 Allen (1977; 1980) as a proponent of Bresnan's approach gives in essence four different, though complementary, analyses of the stranding facts in 0E. For PP's with personal pronoun objects, she proposes transformational rules of PP inversion and PP split. For PP's with R objects she assumes rules of Locative inversion and Locative split. She assumes that the two inversion rules result in nonconstituents ; they provide tively

scrambling

an input for the

splitting rules which are effec-

rules. The argument for this is that

'there is no

regular

position for the pronoun or the preposition after inversion, nor is there any rule about what may intervene between the two' (Allen 1980:288). Both of these observations regularity

are

in

false. We have

these positions

shown in chapter

than Allen

4 that there

is much more

suggests, and that there are

clear

patterns to be discerned in the behaviour of these pronouns. Furthermore we have shown that it is reasonable to assume that the stranded preposition has a regular position: preceding the verb in non-VZ-clauses and therefore preceding the verbal trace in V2 clauses. Allen's analysis of relatives involves two strategies. Where there is surface evidence of movement (such as a relative pronoun in COMP, i.e. in ¿e and se be relatives), the relatives are the result of movement. In £e relatives, there is no such surface evidence, hence no movement. Instead, the relative particle ¿e, base-generated in the relevant position in S, is deleted under identity with be in COMP, however far away. Effectively, this means that movement out of PP is impossible in 0E. Chomsky & Lasnik (1977) observe that the 0E relative constructions are all consistent with

Subjacency

and

should therefore

be analysed as cases of wh-

movement. Relativization involves movement of a relative pronoun to COMP with subsequent optional deletion. Given the optionality of the deletion, they have to add a mechanism to exclude P-stranding by overt pronouns (21d) and deletion of the relative pronoun in pied-piping cases (21e). They proceed to cast doubt on the observation that OE Jje relatives observe the Complex-NP Constraint; one does not know this for certain because negative evidence is lacking. Yet, for the

sake

grammar

of

argument, C&L pursue

the possibility

of adding a filter

to the

of OE, in order to exclude the non-attested cases. Such a filter may

look like

(23), if an extra rule assigns a feature

preposition) to a wh-phrase in PP, as in (24):

(23) *

(

(24)

wh-NP

[wh - Ρ [P

] / Ρ

] ...]

[P—]

(meaning: follows a

156 As

for

choosing

between the

local filter

(23)

and Bresnan's

option of

free

deletion of a resumptive pronoun, C&L state that there is no basis for deciding between the two since both involve ad-hoc complications to the grammar. Furthermore they note that there is stranding in OE relatives, by b»r 'where', which is 'clearly a relative pronoun'. Vat

(1978) exploits

this latter observation. Recall that the personal

locative pronouns mentioned above can invert with their governing

and

preposition.

Vat assumes that movement out of PP is generally prohibited. But, following van Riemsdijk

(1978), Vat assumes that in OE and Modern Dutch there is an escape

hatch in PP in which we find the inverted pronominal object. This escape hatch is marked

[+R]. Due to a lexical marking [+R] pronominal R-objects can be ex-

tracted through the escape hatch. Stranding in bar relatives then follows from the ability of [+R] to move into the escape hatch position. Thus, given the fact that

[ +R] can strand its preposition and given a rule of free deletion of a

relative pronoun in COMP, Vat concludes that bar must be the relative pronoun underlying Jje relatives. Allen (1980) basically repeats her (1977) 'Bresnan type' analysis, this time based on a wider array of constructions. She dismisses the analyses by C&L and Vat, but in one respect her (1980) analysis is different! she fully acknowledges the fact that the OE relative constructions all observe Subjacency, but because a

'stranding

grammar

(C&L)

maintains

her

by movement' or

takes

analysis

recourse

deletion analysis.

either

to a

adds

ad-hoc

complications

largely unfounded analysis

She concludes

by

briefly

to

the

(Vat),

she

suggesting

that

a

deletion strategy in relatives might be subject to Subjacency, as proposed by Bresnan and Grimshaw (1978) (B&G). In this proposal, B&G formulate subjacency as a condition on syntactic binding, rather than on movement. Consider the sentence (25):

(25) [s* [COMP [NPi for [ N P i

what

]][s

DO

Y° U believe[ s . [QOMP

that

[s

she

i s

looking

e]]]]]

If what is moved to the COMP of the topmost sentence by wh-movement, successive cyclic movement leaves indices by virtue of which what binds [NPÌ β]·

pro-

pose that the same indexing can be created in a different way. If the topmost COMP is the antecedent and has the index i., it checks subjacent nodes to the right in order to find a coindexed node. The lowest node subjacent to the topmost

COMP

is the

embedded

COMP.

From there

the search for a coindexed node

157 continues until tupi e ] is found. As B&G claim, this anticyclic binding which is subject

to

Subjacency,

has

the

same empirical

results as linking

indices by

means of wh-movement. From this review, it may be clear that so far the approach to the OE facts in the literature is to some extent a matter of conceptual taste; on the basis of the O E facts there does not seem to be a way of deciding whether Subjacency is a condition on movement or on syntactic binding. The analyses by Chomsky & Lasnik (1977) and Vat (1978), both the result of assuming one relativization strategy of movement subject to Subjacency, face some empirical problems: C&L's filter is an ad-hoc device, as they themselves observe, but even that runs into problems; if

allobjects

of Ρ are

P-marked by

(24), they have

to make another

special

proviso for ¿sr-relatives. Vat's analysis faces even more problems: there is no reason to assume that bar as a relative pronoun underlies ¿β,-relatives, because bar and £ e relativize on different kinds of antecedents: ber on inanimate antecedent and Jje mainly on animate antecedents. Moreover, in £e relatives we find stranding of many different prepositions, whereas the set of prepositions stranded by bar is limited (cf. Allen 1980: 316). Also, as we have seen in chapter 4, the behaviour of personal and R-pronouns with respect to PP-inversion is clearly distinct from that of demonstrative pronouns, which are also used as relative pronoun. We conclude that the analysis in Vat (1978) is not available. The analysis in Allen (1977; 1980) runs no such empirical risk, thus to my mind erring on the safe side. P-stranding by personal and locative pronouns is too similar to warrant different analyses. With respect to relatives, it is a pity that Allen

does not attempt to solidify the generalization of Subjacency

to 'deletion' cases proposed by Bresnan and Grimshaw (1978). In section 3 we will show that it is possible to give a unified account of the O E facts under Subjacency. 3 sense of Chomsky Lasnik

This account involves only wh-movement in the

(1977), but circumvents the empirical problems of Chomsky &

(1977) and Vat

(1978). We make crucial use of the clitic analysis of

personal and R-pronouns presented in chapter 4. By assuming that the process of cliticization identified in chapter 4 has a non-phonetically realized counterpart in the form of cliticization of empty pronouns, an attractive analysis of all O E P-stranding facts becomes possible. We will provide ample

justification

for

appropriately

such an analysis.

Cliticization of empty pronouns will

be

constrained as a phenomenon that is fully recoverable and learnable on the basis of the behaviour of overt clitics.

158 5.2.2. Constraints on Ρ-stranding In the previous section we discussed an important theoretical issue in which the O E P-stranding facts play a role. In this section we give a critical discussion of some additional literature on P-stranding and see how it fits OE facts, thus following the reverse strategy.^ In the literature on P-stranding it is assumed that in general P-stranding is a marked phenomenon so that in most languages it is excluded by general constraints. As to the nature of these constraints, four types of proposals can be distinguished.

Van

Riemsdijk

(1978)

proposes

that

P-stranding

is

generally

barred because PP is a binding category. Effectively this bars all extraction out of PP. Van Riemsdijk formulates this as the head constraint. (26) No rule may involve Xi/Xj and Y^/Yj in the structure .. .Xi... [ H n... [ H . .. .Y¿. . .H.. .Yj.. . ]¡¡»... ]¡¡n.. .Xj.. . (where Η is the phonologically specified (i.e. non-null) head and H n is the maximal projection of H) Languages that do allow P-stranding, like Du and ModE, adopt special mechanisms that allow them to circumvent the effects of the head constraint. With respect to Du we reiterate briefly van Riemsdijk's analysis discussed in chapter 4. In Du prepositions can only be stranded by R-pronouns. These R-pronouns can appear on the left of P, and the left of PP, to the right of the subject, and in COMP. These [+R] positions function as an 'escape hatch' for extraction out of PP, so that in the structure

(27), movement of a prepositional object to COMP can go

through intermediate stages, thereby circumventing the head constraint.

159 (27)

S' COMP

S

NP

[+R]

VP PP

Ρ

V

/ Χ

ΝΡ

As argued in chapter 4, Du R-pronouns do not move to subject position, so that movement of R-pronouns is only to non-argument positions. This is different [+R] spec Ρ· [+R] Ρ· from, for instance, ModE where we find P-stranding by passivization as well as by wh-movement. result,

For

this, van Riemsdijk

in van Riemsdijk's

analysis,

formulates

there

different

analyses.

As a

is one general prohibition on P-

stranding, but different languages adopt different ways of circumventing

this

prohibition. We come back to this in chapter 6. Bennis & Hoekstra (1984) pursue an analysis of P-stranding in terms of directional relations between V and P. Their starting point is that lexical elements have a 'canonical' government direction. Further, they argue for a 'gap condition' which is a reformulation of the connectedness condition of Kayne

(1984)

that states essentially that a trace of extraction is properly governed if it is canonically governed

(i.e. in the right direction) and if all its projections

are canonically governed. According to them, the peculiarity of Du prepositions is that they govern both to the right and to the left. If a complement appears on the left (e.g. an R-pronoun), extraction in the structure (28) is possible because Ρ canonically governs e, and V canonically governs PP (in an OV language like Du canonical government by V is from right to left).

(28) COMP Ri

VP V

PP NP e i

Ρ

160 It is their strict directionality constraint that is problematic with respect to the OK facts. As pointed out above, in OE stranded prepositions not infrequently appear on the right of the verb. If one assumes that, in Bennis & Hoekstra's terms, canonical government by the verb in OE is, like in Du, from right to left, their analysis cannot cover this fact of OE. Kayne (1981b) and Lightfoot (1981) view the general prohibition on P-stranding in terms of case theory. As discussed in chapter 3, they propose that in general prepositions assign oblique case. A prepositional object that so receives case takes along this base-assigned case with movement, whether to an Aposition or an Ä-position. Therefore, movement of an oblique object to subject position is impossible because it will receive nominative case there, resulting in case-clash. Movement to COMP by wh-extraction will leave behind a trace that is not case-marked, violating the usual constraints on operator-variable relationships, cf. Chomsky (1981). Kayne

(1981a) argues that in general, extraction out of PP is impossible

because Ρ is not a proper governor for the Empty Category Principle. This principle

(henceforward

ECP) formulates rather strict conditions on the recover-

ability of empty categories. In recent literature there is a proliferation of formulations of ECP. Without going into subtle details that may decide between various version I assume the following formulation which is adapted from Lasnik & Saito (1984) ¡ 5

(29) Proper government: α properly governs β if a governs β and a. α is coindexed with β b. α is a lexical category X°

Basically these conditions state that any trace of movement must be coindexed with a c-commanding antecedent, and must be governed by a lexical category. Extraction from PP in general is prohibited if we say, with Kayne (1981a), that Ρ is not a lexical head for b, so that the trace of extraction is not properly governed. These are four kinds of proposals that have been advanced with respect to Pstranding, and certainly do not exhaust the literature on P-stranding in general. P-stranding in OE only involves movement of a prepositional object to an imposition. P-stranding by passivization does not occur. As discussed in chapter 3, passivization in OE only involves structurally accusative objects. Van Riems-

161 dijk's head

constraint

(26) captures

these

facts. We will

come back to

this

below. Preposition

stranding by NP-movement

in O E is succesfully excluded on the

basis of case theory by Kayne (1981b) and Lightfoot (1981); passivization of an oblique

object, whether of V or P, is impossible because the oblique

object,

when NP-moved, takes along its base-assigned case to the subject position. There it receives

nominative

case

resulting

in case-clash.

However,

there

is

some

evidence in OE, albeit of a negative kind, that cannot be handled by the case theory

approach either. Given that the case theory approach is on the

track,

one might

expect P-stranding

to

occur in passives where

there

right is no

potential case-clash. Two types of constructions come to mind here. First, we frequently find impersonal passives in OE. A n example was given in chapter 3. and is repeated here as (30):

(30) and him

was swa

forwyrnad

dees inganges

and him (dat) was thus prohibited the entry In such passives the verb shows no verbal contrast and there is no nominative subject,

thus no potential case clash. Given the frequent appearance of

such

passives, one might expect fronting of a prepositional object to be possible. However, there are no examples of that, as far as I know.®

A second type of

passive one might expect to find with P-stranding is the infinitival passive. The

subject position of an infinitival passive does not have case or Q-role.

Therefore one might expect prepositional objects to be able to move there, but as far as I know this is non-attested. This constitutes a problem for the case theory approach. Van Riemsdijk's head constraint and the ECP approach of Kayne account for the non-occurrence Kayne's

(1981a)

ECP

of these constructions. It seems however

approach is preferable

on theoretical

grounds.

The

that head

constraint is a mere statement of fact. It seems entirely likely that Kayne's ECP approach accounts for why the head constraint exists at all : extraction in structures like

(26) is grammatical or ungrammatical according to whether the

head of the relevant projection is a proper governor or not. On the assumption that Ρ is not a proper governor the effects of the head constraint are derived. Now we consider prohibitions on wh-stranding. Van Riemdsijk's account and the ECP account are both empirically adequate here. The case theory approach clearly runs into problems. It predicts that oblique objects of V and Ρ pattern alike with respect to movement to COMP, but they do not. Consider the following wh-movement-type constructions:

162 (31) a. wolde

eac

pone cyning swilce mid

wanted also the

king

wuldrigan, btem {>e

so

Jjissum wilwendlicum aarum

with these

temporary

he das heofonlican rices

glorify,

w h o m that he the heavenly

openede

and cydde

distinctions

wuldor (mid....)

kingdom's glory....

(Bede,90,10)

disclosed and made known '(he) wanted also with these temporal distinctions to glorify the king, whom that he, .... disclosed and made known the glory of the kingdom of heaven' b. On idei swincd se de

gold hordad, and

nat

hwam

he hit

gegaderad (AHG,VII,87) in vain toils

he that gold hords, and not knows whom he it

gathers 'he toils in vain who hoards gold and doesn't know for whom he gathers it' c. Hwffis andbidige ge? (ASL.XXV.184) of what wait you 'what are you waiting for? ' d. Uncudum gode is fcis weofod halig. (ASL,XXIX,23) the unknown God is this altar holy 'to the unknown God this altar is holy' (31a) is an example

of a se be relative with dative in COMP, b. an indirect

question with dative in COMP, c. a question with genitive in COMP, d. a topicalization with dative in COMP. So, whereas wh-movement of an oblique object of V is possible, wh-movement

of a P-object is impossible.

Since on the basis

of

case-theory no distinction can be made between oblique objects of V and P, a general prohibition on P-stranding cannot be explained in terms of case theory. Ve must conclude then, that the only account that is empirically adequate is that in terms of ECP, which excludes Ρ from the class of proper governors. But given this hypothesis, w e must account for the possibility of clitic movement out of PP in OE. Recall a few facts concerning clitic movement out of PP. Only clitics in PP's that are subcategorized by the verb can move out of PP to other Ä positions. The stranded preposition often immediately precedes the verb, but V-P sequences are not infrequent and other elements may intervene. Thus, even a

163 preposition stranded by clitic movement has a certain amount of mobility, but it seems that that is restricted to VP. I.e. a stranded preposition has to remain within the government domain of the verb, but no adjacency or specific direction is absolutely required. It seems then, that the process of cliticization offers a way around the requirements imposed by ECP. I advance the following explanation for

this. Recall

that clitics are base-generated in a position on their

head, in this case P, as in (32):

It is a standard assumption that heads of projections are governed from outside the projection. Chomsky (1981) formalizes this as (33): (33)

The head of a projection is accessible

to an external governor

but

peripheral positions are not. This principle makes a subcategorized Ρ available for government by V. On the hypothesis that clitics appear on their case marking head the clitic position is also available for government by V, a lexical category. Thus the position of the clitic is properly governed according to (28b). This, in combination with other properties as argued for in chapter 4, allows clitics objects of Ρ to be extracted, because the process of cliticization creates a position that is accessible for government by V, thus satisfying conditions on proper government. We now turn to the analysis of P-stranding in 0 wh-constructions.

5.3. Preposition stranding as t clitic movement The basic facts about P-stranding vs. pied-piping in OE wh-movement constructions are as follows. In constructions with an overt element in COMP (wh-questions, Topicalization,

s.e and se be relatives)

pied-piping

is obligatory. In

constructions without an overt element in COMP (infinitival relatives, ¿ e rela-

164 tives

and

tough movement

constructions)

P-stranding

is

obligatory

(we

will

henceforth refer to the latter as 0 wh-constructions). It seems then, that whmovement of an overt element out of PP is impossible, unless that element is a clitic. This leads to a problem with the analysis of P-stranding in 0 wh-constructions; it appears that these constructions conform to Subjacency; they do not violate island constraints. Therefore the optimal assumption is that they are the result of wh-movement, but wh-movement out of PP appears to be impossible - unless the object is a clitic. Recall at this stage the analysis of these facts by Allen (1977; 1980). She concludes that movement out of PP is impossible and that those cases where Pstranding is found are the result of an unbounded deletion process, unbounded because it applies to positions where for some reason overt movement is excluded. Apart from P-stranding however, there is no evidence for the unboundedness of this strategy. If this strategy were truly unbounded, we would expect to find violations

of

island

constraints,

but,

P-stranding

apart,

all

the

relevant

constructions neatly conform to bounding theory. Therefore it seems that they should be derivable via wh-movement. Let us now develop

an

alternative

analysis

for

these

constructions,

that

makes crucial use of the clitic analysis of chapter 4, and follows up a suggestion of Cinque features

can

be

to the effect that pronominale may be empty as long as their appropriately

identified.

Chomsky

(1981)

makes

the

minimal

assumption that for any type of NP a phonetic matrix is optional. But when NP has no phonetic matrix, it has to be appropriately identified, traces by ECP, PRO by Control theory. An idea pursued by Cinque

(1983a; 1983b; 1984) is that

there is a fourth type of empty category, pro. This is a phonetically

empty,

non-anaphoric pronoun, and its existence follows from the minimal assumption of the optionality of a phonetic matrix for any NP. Pro has pronominal features for person, number, gender and case, the φ-features, as Cinque calls them. These φfeatures have to be identified. There are various ways of doing this. For instance, in a null-subject language like Italian, (morphologically rich) AGR can identify the features of a pro subject. I adopt Cinque's characterization of pro and suggest that in OE various kinds of pronominale can be base-generated empty as pro, with appropriate

φ-features.

Furthermore

I propose

that one

relevant

strategy for the identification of φ-features is that of moving pro to a position where its φ-features are identified by an appropriate antecedent. An appropriate antecedent is, for instance, the antecedent of a relative clause. Thus, in (33), pro movement would take place in order to have the φ-features of pro identified under identity with the antecedent.

165

(34) a. and gehwilce odre and any

lac, de

we Gode offclad (AHTh,I,54)

other gifts, that we God

offer

'and any other gifts that we offer to God'

b.

identification

NP

NP

Gode

pro

This raises the question how P-stranding by pro movement is possible. We claim that base-generated pro can have clitic properties. We saw in chapter A that under the resumptive pronoun strategy in OE, demonstrative pronouns and personal pronouns appear to be in a sense in complemenatry distribution; a demonstrative pronoun in COMP

(on a

possible

clitic position), otherwise by a demonstrative pronoun. The data are

can be resumed under

Subjacency

by a clitic

repeated

here in (35) and (36). (35) for{>on

{>e

Drihten cwœj) to him J)œt

because that Lord

swa hwvlcne swa he on eor{>an

said to him that so

which

so

gebunde, ¡œt se ware on heofonum gebunden (Blick 49) bound,

that he was

in heaven

he on earth (Allen 1980:281)

bound

'because the Lord said to him that whoever he bound on earth, he would be bound in heaven'

166 (36) a. ... bid Sánete Ioriue ... is casere

St.

Iorius' day, of that nobleman, whom Datlan

seofon gear

emperor seven dœt

tld, des sdelan weres, done Datianue se mid unasœcgendlicum witum

the

hine dreade

years with unspeakable punishments him inflicted,

he Criste widsoce (0ET,178,39)

that he Christ forsook 'is St. Iorius day that noble man, whom the emperor Datian for seven years inflicted (him) with severe punishments, so that he would forsake Christ' b. and swa hwes swa hie rihtlice biddad for dinum naman & and so what

so they rightly

gearningum hig merit

h^t

they it

onfod

ask

for your

for dinum

name and for

(3 0E.74.A)

your

(Allen 1980:280)

receive

'and whatever they ask rightly for your name and your merit, they receive it' In (35) the relative pronoun in COMP is resumed under Subjacency by a demonstrative pronoun, in (36) by a clitic. If we find this complementary

distribution

among pronouns that have a phonetic matrix, it is reasonable to assume that it is also found among phonetically empty pronouns. I claim then, that base-generated pro can cliticize just as its overt, personal pronoun counterpart can. In the light of the constraints on P-stranding formulated above, this means that with respect to P-stranding in wh-movement constructions, we propose the following analysis: (37) a. Ρ is not a proper governor b. OE personal pronouns are clitics that can move to a position on their case marker P. This position is accessible to government by V, therefore it is properly governed by V, therefore clitic objects of Ρ can move

to

other

clitic

and Â-positions

that

c-command their

source

position. c. the

process

of

cliticization

includes

phonetically

empty

personal

pronouns d. empty pronouns have φ-features that need to be appropriately identified e. identification of φ-features can be achieved by moving a pronoun to a COMP identified by the antecedent of a relative clause.

167 Effectively then, a 0 wh-construction with preposition stranding has the following derivation: (38) a. [»re scole the

J)e

he on leornode

(Oros 150,5)

school that he in learnt

'the school that he learnt in' b.

pro cliticizes onto the left of Ρ and thereby is in a clitic position, an Äposition. Subsequently it can move to COMP, leaving a trace properly governed by V. Thus, the φ-features of the clitic pro are identified in COMP by the antecedent bare scole. Note that the antecedent in (36) is locative, but recall that clitics in OE can be both personal pronouns or locative R-pronouns. Our

analysis

predicts

that

P-stranding

constructions

of

this

kind

(i.e.

involving pro movement) will occur only in environments where the φ-features of pro can be appropriately identified. This prediction is borne out. Beside in be relatives, stranding by wh-movement of pro occurs in infinitival relatives and tough movement constructions. For infinitival relatives the same identification strategy for pro in COMP is followed as that in £e relatives, i.e. under identity with the antecedent of the relative. Similarly, in tough movement constructions I follow Chomsky (1982> 31) in assuming that pro in COMP is identified by the matrix subject.

168 (39) a. heo is hwiltidum smylte and myrige

on to rowenne

(AHTh,I,182)

she is sometimes serene and pleasant on to live 'it is sometimes serene and pleasant to live in' b. heo is hwiltidum smylte and myrige fg-proj [PRO [vp[pp e i

on

]

to

rowenne]]] Observe that the analysis of P-stranding in terms of 0 clitic movement is entirely learnable. The possibility of base-generating pro follows from the optionality of a phonetic matrix for NP. The facts concerning cliticization of empty pro are learnable on the basis of cliticization of overt pronouns. Cliticization of pro has no single property that is different from overt cliticization of personal and locative pronouns. Simply, it occurs only in constructions where there is an appropriate antecedent to identify the features of pro, but this

follows

from

the

requirement

that

the features

of

pro be

recoverable.

Conversely, it is not surprising that in topicalization constructions and in whquestions, where there is no P-stranding, such a strategy of moving pro is not available. On the assumption that both these processes involve movement to COMP (in the

case of

topicalization the COMP of a matrix

clause, in the case of

movement of a wh-question word to lexicalize a wh-operator) there is no identity element available to identify an empty pronoun with. 7

Thus there is no conceiv-

able way of identifying the φ-features of pro. Therefore, P-stranding is impossible in such constructions unless the moved element is an overt clitic, as in some cases of topicalization. This analysis does not imply that the standard wh-movement analysis of relatives , in which a relative pronoun is moved to COMP and subsequently (cf. Chomsky

deleted

(1981)) is not available, merely that this analysis is not avai-

lable for OE P-stranding constructions. In fact, there are some instances where Chomsky's

standard analysis

is the only one available,

i.e. in

constructions

such as (40), where a PP is moved to COMP and deleted under identity with the antecedent

(40) a. ...donne he gesihd dset mod ...when he sees bid (CP,415,25) is (in)

the

on deem ilcan unryhtan willan de

mind in the same

evil

he

spirit that he (Allen 1980: 273)

169 b. ludas se

svicola swide hrade

Judas the traitor very de

he

œr

eode

to dam

quickly went to the

gesprœc

arleasum ehterum impious

(AHTh,II,246,7)

persecutors (Allen 1980:273)

that he earlier spoke (to) Because

PP

can hardly

be base-generated

as pro, we have

to assume

in these

sentences that PP has moved to COMP and is subsequently deleted. However, this seems to be a reasonable assumption; note that in (40) deletion of PP in COMP is recoverable because the antecedent is a PP. The analysis advanced here extends the range of possibilities under which pro can occur. When pro was first introduced (Chomsky (1982)) it was postulated as the empty category in subject position in null-subject languages such as Italian. The features of pro in such languages can be identified by rich verbal morphology. We have seen here that there can be quite a different strategy of identifying

the features of pro: by moving

it to a position adjacent to the

antecedent of a relative clause, where the antecedent identifies its features. This

is a

situation that is not necessarily

typical

of

languages with

rich

morphology, verbal or otherwise. OE happens to be an instance of such a language, but presumably

such a strategy is also relevant for that relatives in

ModE, which is not a richly inflected language. We see then, that an analysis of OE P-stranding constructions in terms of 0 clitic movement is empirically well-founded in the sense that empirical evidence for the properties of the processes involved is available in constructions with overt clitic movement. The properties of φ clitic movement are learnable on the basis of the process of overt clitic movement as discussed

in chapter 4. An

analysis in terms of 0 clitic movement makes exactly the right predictions as to the constructions in which P-stranding is possible and obligatory, and where it is prohibited. To see this we will review the constructions given in (21) above in the light of our analysis. (21) is repeated here as (41).

(41) a

NP [ S . [ C 0 M p

b

NP [ s . [QOMP P r o n

C

NP

d.*

NP [ s . [COMP P r o n

[

s

.

[COMP

t>e]

t>e]

[e]

]

[e]

]

[pp

Ρ

e]

]

[pp Ρ e]

]

170

(41a)

e.*.... NP [ s . [ C oMP Ρ

>e]

[e]

]

f

NP [ s .

t>e]

[e]

]

g

NP [ s . [comp P r o n

—]

[e]

]

h

NP [ s . [COMP

—I

[e]

]

[COMP [PP Ρ "Ρ]

PP

is a be-relatlve without P-stranding. Two readings are available

here.

Either a 0 clitic has moved to COMP and is identified by the antecedent. Alternately a relative pronoun has moved to COMP and is deleted under identity with the antecedent (41b) is a se be relative without stranding. A relative pronoun has moved reading

to COMP.

(41c)

is available. A

antecedent. stranding.

is a be-relative with

(41d) is ungrammatical, This

is

P-stranding.

Here,

only

one

0 clitic has moved to COMP and is identified by the

ungrammatical

since it would be se be relative with P-

because

relative

pronouns

are not

clitics,

hence the clitic position on Ρ is not available, leaving e. in PP a non-properly governed position. (41e) is ungrammatical, since it would contain a non-properly governed empty category. (41f) is an example of pied-piping in a se be relative: a PP has moved to COMP.

(41g) is a se_ relative without stranding. A relative

pronoun has moved to COMP. (41h) is a se relative with pied-piping. A PP has moved

to COMP. We

conclude

that the account of OE P-stranding

constructions

given here is both theoretically elegant and empirically adequate.

5.4. Concluding remarks The analysis of P-stranding by wh-movement in the previous section takes as a starting point that the general constraint on extraction out of PP is that Ρ is not

a proper governor

for ECP, which is circumvented

in OE by a process

of

cliticization of phonetically realized pronouns and phonetically null pronouns. Conditions on the identifiability of null clitics explain the distribution of Ρ stranding in 0 wh-movement constructions. A prohibition on movement out of PP in terms of ECP effectively excludes all other Ρ stranding. Presumably,

stranding

by passivization is also, redundantly, excluded by case theory, as discussed for oblique objects of V. This suggestion is reinforced by the nature of the changes that take place in P-stranding constructions in M E that are discussed in chapter

171 6. We will come back to this there and in the discussion of these changes in chapter 7. Recall

from chapter 4 that the presence

of a process of cliticization of

personal pronouns and R-pronouns in OE is due partly to the presence of the morphological case system, which sets apart this class of elements as a class of clitics on a morphological

basis, and because cliticization makes use of the

same kind of affixing as case and agreement morphology does. In this chapter we have argued that the process of 0-cliticization exists in OE by virtue of the fact that it is learnable on the basis of the properties of overt cliticization. The properties of P-stranding constructions in OE are explained on the basis of the process of φ cliticization. If our arguments in chapters 4 and 5 are valid, this means that the properties of OE P-stranding constructions are

indirectly

related to the presence of the morphological case-system as argued for in chapter 3.

172 Footnotes 1. Some of the material in this chapter was published in summary as van Kemenade (1984b). However, this was very substantially reworked and expanded. 2. The notation NP[g> ...] is an expository convenience. Possibly a structural distinction should be made between restrictive and non-restrictive relatives, but we do not do this here. 3. Recently Chomsky (1985) has given some reformulations of Subjacency. These reformulations do not seem to yield obvious improvements in the particular area of P-stranding phenomena. Therefore I will leave them out of consideration here, noting that results achieved within the framework of 'classical' subjacency presumably carry over straightforwardly to the framework presented in Chomsky (1985). 4. We assume that movement of a prepositional object is always a case of move Hi However, as an expository convenience we use here the terms NP movement and wh-movement to distinguish movement to A and Ä-positions respectively. 5. Lasnik & Saito formulate ECP as a disjunction; either a. or b. has to be satisfied. However, Wahl (1985), who handles a. under Aoun's (1985) theory of generalised binding applying at LF, and b. as a PF condition, argues that any trace has to satisfy both conditions. I do not wish to go into the theoretical choice between antecedent government in the sense of Lasnik & Saito and generalized binding in Wahl. 6. X have two examples where the preposed element is a personal pronoun, but as we saw, these can be moved out of PP anyway. It must be noted that I have no examples of impersonal passives for which it can be shown more or less conclusively that the preposed oblique element is in subject position. 7. That identification is impossible in topicalization would argue for an analysis of topicalization in which it is the topic itself that moves, contrary to Chomsky (1977) who argues that the topic is base-generated and coindexed with an S-element that moves to COMP and is deleted there.

Part II

Middle English and diachronic aspects Up to this point in this study we have given an analysis

of a number of

features of OE, based on comparisons with other WGmc languages. We saw that OE is an SOV language with a rule of Verb Second in root clauses; we have seen how the

case

system operates and how OE clitics are related to the

Finally we have given an analysis of OE preposition stranding From our analysis

case-system.

constructions.

of OE emerges a view of the basic structure of O E that is

different in two respects from ModE according to standard analyses. OE has the basic structure (la), ModE (lb): (1) a.

INFL" COMP

b. INFL'

INFL

INFL" COMP

S

INFL* NP

INFL

VP

V The differences are that in OE the VP has OV order as against ModE VO order; OE has INFL in pre-S position whereas in ModE INFL is the head of S. Given these differences, the changes that took place in the course of ME did not necessarily take place all at once. We will show in this part that indeed there were two changes

which were

clearly

separate

in dating,

resulting

in the basic

ModE

structure. These changes are related to changes in the syntactic and/or morphological case system, as we will see. We give a diachronic analysis of the changes that took place and their consequences, and argue how changes in the various constructions discussed for OE result from the changes in basic structure. Next to my own findings, the data presentation in this part leans to some extent on studies by other scholars: Jacobsson (1951); Visser (1963-1973); Allen (1977); Schmidt where relevant.

(1980); Hiltunen (1983). This will be appropriately

indicated

CHAPTER 6

Syntactic changes and morphological changes In this chapter we give a description and analysis of the changes that took place in ME in the basic structure and syntactic constructions discussed in Part I for OE. There are two changes in the basic structure, from which other changes result. We diagnose these changes initially by their most evident results: the change from SOV to SVO and the loss of Verb Second, which are clearly separate in dating: 1200 vs. 1400. This is done in section one, where we also give a preliminary analysis of the two changes. This picture of two changes is confirmed by a number of facts: discrepancies between the dates of the disappearance of clitics in VP and those on COMP (section 2); reductions in morphology (section 3); developments in constructions with transitive adjectives, preposition stranding and passives

(section A), which are related to the change from OV to

VO; and some less conspicuous changes that are related to the loss of V2 (section

5).

In

sections

2-4

we

sharpen and

elaborate

the preliminary

analysis

presented in section 1, and wind up with some overall discussion in section 7.

6.1. The base change from SOV to SVO and the loss of Verb Second The change in underlying word order from SOV to SVO is a particularly wellstudied one. It is almost taken for granted in studies that deal with the history of English syntax, e.g. Traugott (1972). It is argued for in considerable detail in Canale

(1978) on the basis of an analysis of word order patterns in

the various stages of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle. The development is illustrated rather neatly with verb-particle constructions by Hiltunen (1983). What is usually left undiscussed in such studies is the relationship between the base change from SOV to SVO and the loss of 'verb second'. That is, it is usually implicitly assumed that the change from SOV to SVO was itself a generalization of

'verb second', a development

towards canonical SVO order with the

verb in second position after the subject. Observe however, that the phenomenon of V2

in OE, as

it was presented and analysed in chapter 2, is neutral with

respect to basic word order in S. If V2 in OE is analysed as movement of the finite

verb

to COMP, it does not necessarily make a difference whether word

175 order in S is SOV or SVO. This is clear in the structures in (1) above: one can easily envisage the structure (la) with VO word order in VP. Indeed, there are, even within the Germanic group, languages that have SVO underlying order, with movement of the finite V to COMP in contexts similar to those in OE, Du and Gm. Platzack (1985) shows that modern Swedish is an example of this. And indeed, we will show in this section that the change from OV to VO and the loss of V2 are separate developments. The change from OV to VO is well-documented and must be assumed to have been completed by 1200. The loss of V2 must be dated rather later, around 1400. The developments are discussed separately in the next subsections .

6.1.1. From SOV to SVO In chapter 2 we argued in considerable detail for the hypothesis that OE is SOV. Notably verb-particle constructions show that SOV is a natural assumption, and the phenomena of V2, Verb Raising and Extraposition were explained on independent grounds. Canale (1978) concludes, on the basis of data from the Laud ms. of the AngloSaxon chronicle

(the Peterborough chronicle) that, as a result of the increase

of extraposition of objects and other VP constituents, the base change from OV to VO was completed by 1200. These results tally in a rather striking way with those

of Hiltunen

(1983) with respect to verb-particle

constructions.

I will

first present Hiltunen's results, after summarizing the OE situation. We saw in chapter 2.1 that verb-particle constructions in 0E provide support for the assumption that O E is SOV, with a rule of V-movement in root clauses. Recall the patterns of V and particle in subordinate clauses.

(1) a. (X)

prt

- adverbial PP

- V

b. (Χ)

(X)

prt - V

c. (Χ)

(X)

V

-

prt

- (X)

(X)

V

-

NP

- prt

d. (Χ)

(X)

In chapter 2 it was assumed that particle and V are base-generated as (2): (2)

V

176 and that

thus

(la) above

corresponds

to the base-generated position. It was

assumed also that in (lb) the particle is not really a particle, but a modifier of the adverbial PP. The positions for the particle in (lc) and (Id) are the result of local movement rules, similar to the ModE particle rule. Hiltunen (1983) describes the development of V-prt constructions from OE to eME in considerable detail, in connection with the development from SOV to SVO. I quote from Hiltunen (1983: 111) his diagram that summarizes the development of the V-prt order, where the continuous line stands for main clauses, including clauses introduced by ond 'and' and a ç 'but', henceforth referred to as ond/ac clauses, and the broken line for subordinate clauses.^ (3)

1009080-

70605040-

(44)

30-

(33)

20-

10-

(13)

Z period

eOE

10E

eME

IME

Hiltunen observes: 'The diagram is based on the percentages of the V(...)a totals in Tables 1416, with the ... . I n order to make the main clauses more comparable with the dependent ones, the ond/ac clauses are grouped together with other main clauses ... . The trend is clear enough. There is a steady growth of the pattern V(...)a in the 10E and eME periods, especially in the dependent clauses, which catch up with the main clauses in eME. Of course, it must be remembered that the two curves simplify the situation. As we saw above, there is a good deal of fluctuation between the texts as regards the date of the MS and the proportion of V(...)a examples. Nevertheless, by around 1200 the V(...)a pattern can be said to have established its supremacy.' (op.cit.: Ill)

177 To this we may add that OE ond/ac clauses for some obscure reason tend to behave more

like

embedded

clauses

than

like main clauses. If that distinction were

taken into consideration the distinction between the two types of clauses would be even sharper in OE, and that would make the development towards ME even more marked. Hiltunen (op. cit.: 115) further observes that there is a very tangible connection between OV order and prt-V order in OE and that the development to VO order and V-prt order go hand in hand. I conclude from the combined results of Canale and Hiltunen that the underlying SOV order changed to SVO. This change was completed around 1200. How do we

analyse

this change? We

argued in chapter

3 that the basic 0V

character of OE is derived from the right-left directionality of θ-marking by the verb. On the basis of that we analysed the surface word orders as follows: (4) a. structural case is assigned from left to right b. oblique case is assigned from right to left c. extraposition optionally moves VP

constituents

to the right of the

verb (4a) entails that in OE accusative case is assigned from left to right, hence there is a case position in the left periphery of VP, on which clitics appear. (4b) entails that dative and genitive are assigned from right to left. By virtue of

(4c) various

constituents

can be extraposed to the right of the verb. We

argued in chapter 3 that the conflicting directionalities of structural case on the one hand and oblique case and θ-marking on the other represent a marked situation,

which moreover

is

not

easily

retrievable

from

surface

patterns,

because of (4c). In other words, the parametric choices are themselves marked, and moreover patterns

is

the not

relationship transparent.

between

these

According

to

choices

the

and

scenario

the for

actual language

surface change

outlined in chapter 1, this is typically a situation in which one may expect a resetting of parameters. Indeed, this is precisely what seems to have happened. The change to basic VO word order represents a resetting of the parameter

for

the directionality of 0-marking: 0-roles came to be assigned from left to right. Given the relationship between θ-marking and oblique case, oblique case had to go along. With respect to oblique case, there is a further story to tell, but this one will serve for the moment. We come back to oblique case in section 3. As a result of the reorientation of θ-marking, all θ-marking and all case-marking came to take place from left to right, resolving the marked character of the OE situation.

178 It is impossible to illustrate the turning point of this change with data: the older word order did not, of course, become immediately ungrammatical, and anyway we do not have access in historical work to information as to ungrammatic a l l y . For a long time we continue to find OV structures, but the point is that these were not firm enough in the language environment to trigger the older, marked situation. As an illustration I give a number of examples of sentences with VO order, in (5) of root clauses, in (6) of non-root clauses. (5) a. Se

eorl &

ealle {ja heafedmenn

the duke and all flemden se oder drove

t>a muneces of {ja

mynstre

of the monastery

abbot Heanri ut of {>a mynstre (PC 1131,23)

the other abbot Henry out of the monastery

b. Seinte Pawel 3eved read saint c. £e

&

the leading m e n and the monks

Paul

to meidnes to beon as

gives advice to virgins to be

deore drihtin haued idiht

the dear

lord

ow

ba

fie

he wes (HM,10,9)

like he was blisfule crune of his

has arranged you both the blissful crown of his

icorene (Kath,1594) elected 'the dear lord has arranged for you both the blissful crown of his elected' d. He awende water to ulne (0EH.229) He turned water to wine (6) a. Jjet

he crape

in his mycele codde

in œlc

hyrne (PC 1131,27)

that he crept (subj) in his big bag of tricks in every corner 'that he creep into his big bag of tricks and explore every corner of it' b. J>at

godd ne

that God

mai bien wunÌ3ende on none saule t>at

not may be

living

in no

soul

'that God cannot be living in a soul that...'

(V&V 97,18)

that...

179 c. 3«f t>et if

tu

wilnest were J)e

that you desire

muche wlite

man that much

habbe (HM,20,8)

beauty have (subj)

'if you want a beautiful husband' d. . . .besech

ure Lorde t>et he do

ine tie

beseech our Lord that he put in These

sentences

illustrate

surface

towards

left-right

raising

in OE: recall the examples

his uertue (KS 137)

you his virtue

patterns with SVO order.

0-marking may have been helped along of

The

development

by the nature

'verb-projection-raising'

of V-

from chapter

2.4, some of which are repeated here as (7): (7) a. fœt

he mehte his feorh generian

that he might his life

(Oros,48,18)

save

'so that he might save his life' b. {Mît

hie mihton swa bealdlice Godes geleafan bodian (AHTh,I,232)

that they could so

boldly

God's faith

preach

'that they could preach God's faith so boldly* c. J>eet

hie

of er

]»t

ne

dorston nohte gretan fia

halgan stowe (GD,4,43,4)

that they after that not dared

not at all attack the holy

place

'that they did not dare at all attack the holy place after that' In chapter 2.4 it was argued that such sentences are instances of Verb Raising, where VR incorporates complement material. V-raising in sentences (7a) and (7b) would result in a structure like (8): VP

(8)

modal V

S

-»

V V

modal V (NP)

NP

V· NP

V

V

180 In (7c) the situation is further complicated by extraposition of an infinitival object, resulting in a structure like (9):

(9)

NP ta halgan stowe ofer {«et

^/^^χ^

ne dorston nohte gretan £>a halgan stowe

nohte gretan

Observe that both V-projection raising and extraposition result, as we see in (8) and (9) on the right of the arrow, in verb clusters and even verb phrases that are wholly or partly right-branching. This might constitute evidence for the language underlying

learner in favour of a right-branching VP, i.e. in favour of VO

order and consequently for left-right θ-marking. We conclude

then,

that in late OE/early ME, structures with V-raising and extraposition result in surface patterns that indicate to the language learner that VP is right-branching.

6.1.2. The development of V2 V2 as in OE became more limited in scope in the course of the late M E period. While V2 in late OE occurred with all kinds of first constituents

- subject,

object, PP, adverbial - and was accompanied by 'subject-verb inversion' when the first constituent was not the subject, in the course of ME V2 became limited to cases where the first constituent was a wh-element. Later on, negative constituents were again included in the class of elements triggering V2, giving rise to the Modern English situation illustrated in (10). (10) a. Why did you do such a thing? b. What did you give him? c. Never have I seen such a thing

181 d. Nothing did I give him

When V2 does occur as in (10), triggered by a wh or negative first constituent, it is still accompanied by 'subject-verb inversion*. I will come back to these data below. It was pointed out above that the base change from SOV to SVO is not necessarily directly related with the loss of V2. On the analysis of V2 in chapter 2, the phenomenon of V2 is independent of word order parameters. Indeed, it can be shown that the base change from 0V to VO in the transition from OE to ME did not affect the rule of V2 in any straightforward way. We saw in the previous section that that change from OV to VO was completed around 1200. But until around 1400, we continue to find verb fronting with all kinds of first constituents, and SVO order within S. This can be demonstrated most clearly with examples that have a finite as well as an infinitival verb form, or a finite verb and a particle. A number of these are given in (11).

(11) a. On Jjis gter wolde

J)e king Stephne tacen Rodbert.... (PC 1140,1)

in this year wanted the king Stephen seize Robert 'In this year king Stephen wanted to seize Robert,...'

b. f>a

ahof

Paulus U2 his heafod

then lifted Paul

(Blick 187)

up his head

'then Paul lifted up his head'

c. Alswa

seal

t>e lardeu

don f>e det...

Even so shall the teacher do

(0EH.9S)

who that

'likewise the teacher who ... will do'

d. Of t>ise welle hedde Davit) y-nome of this well

had

(Ayenbite,93,7)

David taken

'of this well David had taken'

e. Thus may thine instrument last perpetuel (EP.42) f. and now is my sonne eon to reste

(from Schmidt)

(Ch.TA,II,12,29)

(ibid.)

g. that first shal Phebus fallen fro his spere (Ch.Troi III, 1495) (from Visser) h. Ofte schal a womman have thing which... (GOWERCA.1,3206,123)

(ibid.)

182 Examples (a-c) are late OE and early ME ones, (d-h) are examples from the fourteenth century. The Ayenblte is an early C14 text; the rest are from Chaucer and Gower, that is, from the fourth quarter of the fourteenth century. This set of examples may be considered more or less representative for the fourteenth century. They are all examples with 'subject-verb inversion' of a nominal

subject.

When the subject is a personal pronoun, the picture is rather different. Recall that in chapter 4 personal pronouns in OE were analysed as clitics. The development of clitics, including clitic subjects, is discussed in 6.2. There are two texts that I have investigated that are exceptional in this respect,

though the

other

texts and work by other

scholars

shows

that

(11)

reflects the more general situation. In the works of Richard Rolle (Yorkshire c. 1340) there is no regular V2, as (12) shows: (12) a. bus

callls oure Lorde

thus calls

chosen saules in haly wrltt, ... (RR.46,35)

our lord (to) chosen souls

in holy writ

'thus our lord says to his chosen souls in the holy writ' b. Than es be

eghe of be

then is the eye

saule opyned ... (RR,17,10)

of the soul

opened

'then the eye of the soul is opened' c. Thare-fore Ihesu es noghte funden in reches (RR,5,8) therefore

Jesus is not

d. Sothely fie Truly

found

ryghtwyse sekys J)e

in riches Ioye and ... (RR,4,24)

the righteous seeks the joy

and ...

(12a) and (12b) are examples of a preposed constituent with verb fronting, (12c) and (12d) without verb fronting. All the sentences (12) have a nominal subject, but in this text pronominal subjects behave in the same way. This is discussed further below. In Wycliffe (Oxford, c. 1380), V2 is not regular either, as (13) shows (13) a. and herefore

ben many proude lorelis

founden (FCL.140)

and for this reason are many proud

good-for-nothings found

183 b. bi song J>e by

fend

lettili

men to

Studie (FCL.112)

song the devil prevents men from studying

(13a) has a preposed constituent with verb fronting, (13b) without verb fronting. We

take

examples

like

(11) to indicate that at this stage, V2 as it was

argued for in OE was still part of the grammar of native speakers, beside VO order in VP. In the early fifteenth century we see a sharp decrease in the frequency of inversion. Let me give an example of this, from Schmidt (1980). The adverbial than, as a first constituent in a V2 sentence, was the preposed constituent with which inversion was most regular in OE and earlier ME. In Chaucer's works, from the

fourth quarter of C14, Schmidt records 99Ζ inversion after

than. On the

other hand, in the Book of Margery Kempe (early C15) and Malory's Morte Darthur (mid CIS) preposed than is found with V2 in only 202 of the cases. In the Paston Letters

(mid CIS), the total of preposed sentences with preposed constituents

show inversion in only about 12Z of the cases. With no kind of first constituent is inversion regular, except with wh-question words. We consider

that this early CIS situation represents the decline of

'verb

second' as a general phenomenon that was fairly stable through the late OE and early M E period. We now briefly discuss the subsequent development

to ModE,

first summarizing the ModE situation. In ModE 'verb second' or, as the phenomenon is usually called,

'subject-aux-

inversion' typically occurs when the first constituent is a wh-constituent, or a constituent with typically negative connotation, as in the examples (14) versus (15). (14) a. Why did you do such a thing? b. What will you give him? c. Who would you speak to? d. Never have I seen such a thing e. Nothing will I give him f. Hardly a word could he utter (15) a.*Why you did such a thing? b.*What you gave him? c.*Who you spoke to? d.*Never I saw such a thing

184 e.*Nothing I gave him f.*?Hardly a word he spoke It must be noted that the finite verb is always an auxiliary. In the absence of a modal auxiliary, do-lnsertion is obligatory, unless the wh-word is itself the subject. Furthermore, the process shows characteristics typical of V2 phenomena, notably the root/non-root asymmetry discussed in chapter 2, as the data in (16) show: (16) a. I don't know why you did such a thing b.*I don't know why did you do such a thing In the sketch of the development from the C15 situation to the ModE situation I abstract away from two important developments. To give a clear picture of these changes is a major undertaking that far exceeds the scope of this thesis. What I am concerned with is a sketch of constructions with a particular first constituent that triggers preposing of the finite V. Whether the finite is an auxiliary or a verb of full meaning is not essential to that phenomenon. 1. In the late ME, early ModE period, the modal verbs changed from verbs of full meaning into modal auxiliaries. For some discussion,

see Lightfoot

(1979);

Roberts (1985). Though this change seems certainly to be related to the loss of V2, we do not go into it further here. 2. Through the earlier and later modern period 'do-support' became firmly rooted in sentences w i t h a wh- or negative first constituent. For some discussion, see Ellegard (1953); Visser (1963-1973); Denison (1985). wh-sentences : We saw in chapter 2 that in OE V2 with a w h first constituent was regular. I give two examples. (17) a. Hwa dorste sfre gewilnian {MES wynsuman

eardes, ...gif... (ΑΗΡ,XI,143)

who dared

ever desire

for the delightful earth,

if...

'who would presume to desire for the delightful earth if...' b. to hwi synd ge afyrhte? of whom are you afraid?

(ΑΗΡ,XVII,210)

185 This situation remained stable throughout the history of the language. I give a number of examples here from various stages. (18) a. Hwa mei penche

{je

weole,

£>e wunne ant te

blisse,... (HM,9,9) (C13)

who can imagine the happiness, the joy b. Whi fare

ye

thus, fader

and moder

and the bliss... both? (TNoah,415)

(C14)

why behave you thus, father and mother both? •why do you behave like that, father and mother?' c. How fares thy wife? (W2Shep, 235)

(C15)

how fares your wife? 'how is your wife?' d. Whom art thou like in thy greatness? (OED)

(C16)

e. Why dost thou sigh? (OED)

(C17)

f. For whom the world do you think that I was kept? (OED)

(C18)

g. To whom should I write if not... (OED)

(C19)

The behaviour of pronouns in questions will be dealt with in 6.1.2. Sentences with a negative first constituent: As in interrogative sentences, V2 in O E was regular when the first constituent was a negative one. I give two examples : (19) a. Ne

msg he nane gesceafta gescyppan

not may he no

(AHTh,I,16)

creatures create

•he cannot create creatures' b. Ne sende se

deofol da

not sent the devil

fyr

of

heofenum

(AHTh,I,6)

then fire from heaven

'the devil did not send fire from heaven then' The development of V2 sentences of this kind is complicated by the demise of ne in ME. I sketch this briefly here. Recall that in OE, V2 with the simple negation ne was regular. Ne + ne. i.e. a conjunctive ne with a verbal negator ne somewhere else in the sentence, had no V2 (cf. Jacobsson (1951)). There is no

186 straightforward explanation for the latter fact, but it may be viewed on a par with

the

equally

incomprehensible

fact

that

in general

conjunctions

rarely

triggered V2 in OE, as discussed in chapter 2. In the course of the M E period ne as a simple negator, which was very often fronted, gradually died out. Eventually, in the late C14 and early CIS, fronted ne came to be used strictly as a conjunction and lost most of its negative force. It was supplanted by nor (see Schmidt

(1980)).

The

simple

negation ne was

gradually

replaced

by

not/nat.

Not/nat was never fronted, presumably because it is a verbal particle, and thus we do not know whether it might have triggered inversion. Negative first constituents other than ne/not usually went together with V2. However, the examples of that in earlier M E are not in any way conclusive because at that stage a double, verbal negation was still common:

(20) a. neauer qd

he ear

nu

nes

ich ful

never said he before now not-was I

pinet (AW,206,17)

foully tortured

(C13)

'he said: never before now was I foully tortured' b. for t>ah

neauer

for though

nere

nan oder

pine (SW,253)

(C13)

never not was no other pain

'for though there was never any other pain' c. Never ne

hadde he mo

never not had

in al

his life (Ch, from Jacobsson)

(C14)

he more in all his life

'he had never in his life had more' d. neuer was there seen a more doolfuller bataylle in no cristen londe (Malory, 846 from Jacobsson) (C15) The examples are from Jacobsson (1951). With the general demise of V2 as described above, it appears at first that V2 with a negative first constituent disappears as well; in the fifteenth century there

is

considerable

variation

between

inversion and non-inversion

in

such

sentences, though inversion occurs more frequently than with other first constituents. But in the sixteenth century, inversion with a negative first constituent becomes firmly rooted again. As Jacobsson (op.cit.: 217) states:

'in

main clauses negative inversion is in a fair way to becoming the regular order, ...'. I conclude from this rough sketch that since this stage, the ModE system has been current.

187 We now give a preliminary that we

think was

responsible

sketch of the structural change in the

language

for the loss of V2. In chapter 2 we argued an

analysis for V2 that derives V2 in the following way:

(21) a. INFL is in pre-S position b. INFL must be lexicalized c. INFL is

lexicalized by a complementizer

or, failing

that,

by

the

finite verb. d. The constituent preceding Vf is a TOPIC Given the change from OV to VO which was completed around 1200, the structure of M E prior to the loss of V2 was (22): (22)

INFL" COMP

INFL'

TOPIC INFL

S

Around 1400 this changed into the structure (23): (23) COMP

That

is,

in

terms

of

INFL'

the parameter

formulated by

Taraldsen

(1983),

English

changed from a language with V-headed S to a language with INFL-headed S. One of the factors that may have motivated this change is the following: if a language is SVO with movement of the finite verb to COMP, and if in root clauses with

188 basic SVO order, the subject is preposed to first constituent position, we get the situation in (24): (24) [COMP TOPIC INFL [S NPi

Vfj

NP [VP

V

ei

ej

]]]

Notice that this is a combination of movement of the subject and the finite verb that is string-vacuous. Presumably this puts a certain amount of strain on the interpretation of such a surface pattern, since it is a surface SVO pattern that does not, however,

represent

the underlying

SVO order.

This

situation

never

arose in OE. There were many such surface SVO patterns in OE, but because OE underlying order was SOV, they represented a systematic derived pattern. Probably, root clauses

like

(24) represent a majority; Macleish

(1969) in his word

order counts of late East Midlands prose gives a percentage

of 85.8 for SVO

order in what he calls 'independent clauses'. This is bound to have put a severe burden on the interpretation of such patterns. The facts concerning clitics presented in the next section will provide us w i t h further motivation for this change. We will come back to it there.

6.2. Developments in clitics In chapter 4 we argued for the clitic status of OE personal pronouns and R pronouns. The properties of OE clitics are such that they cliticize onto their case-marking head; from there they can move to other A-positions, clitic positions and COMP. W e argued that the process of cliticization is related to the syntactic case-system and to the presence of morphological case. We defined clitic positions in the VP and on INFL. In the previous section it was shown that in the course of M E there were two structural changes: one in the direction of θ-marking in the VP, completed around 1200, and one in pre-S position, related to the position of INFL, around 1400. We will see in this section that the hypothesis that there were two developments is confirmed by the developments in clitics. The clitic patterns as analysed in chapter 4 disappeared in ME,

but

there is a considerable

time gap between the disappearance

of these

patterns in VP and those on COMP. In fact this dating correlates with that of the two changes discussed in the previous section and thus confirms the picture sketched there. If there is a correlation between the disappearance of clitics

189 and the structural changes of section 1, there must be a relationship between them. W e will attempt to define this relationship in the following sections.

6.2.1. Clitics in VP In OE, clitics in VP appeared either on the left of their governing head V or P, or in the left periphery of VP, as in (25)s (25)

V"

cl-P This pattern faded rapidly in ME. The development in as early a text as the Peterborough Chronicle is illustrative. The text of the PC can be divided into two parts. The entries up to AD 1122 were written in one block and were copied from an older ms. The entries AO 1122 - 1154 (the first and final continuations) were written more or less contemporaneously. Personal pronouns in the entries up to 1122 follow the patterns described for OE, albeit with an increasing number of exceptions. Between AD 1070 and AD 1127 we find, for instance, a pronominal object of Ρ either on the left or on the right of P, as illustrated in (26):

(26) a. Sc t>a betstan läge to healdene J>e and the best laws to hold

on sniges cynges dsge toforan him

that in any

king's day

before him

stodan (PC 1100,35) stood 'and to maintain the best laws which had stood in the time of any of his predecessors'

190 b. be J»re rade

fee

by the councillors

him abutan

wseran (PC 1100,38)

that him about were

•following the council of his advisers' c.

comen fuss eorles there came

sandermen

of Angeow to him (PC 1123,3)

the count's messengers of Anjou

to him

'and messengers from the count of Anjou visited him there' d. &

helden here

and held

castles him togeanes (PC 1123,82)

their castles him against

'and held their castles against him' Also w e find occasional examples with the pronominal object separated from the preposition. (27) a. he h i m sende scipon after he him sent

ships

&

Hugo, eorl of Ceastre (PC 1094,38)

after and Hugh, earl of Chester

'he sent ships after him and Hugh, earl of Chester' b. &

Him com

togenes Willelm eorl of Albamar (PC 1138,2)

and him came against

William earl of Aumale

'and he was met by William, earl of Aumale' However, the last example of a pronoun on the left of Ρ is found in 1127. The last example of a pronouns separated from Ρ is (27b) from 1138. The positioning

of the object pronoun of V shows a considerable amount of

vacillation. Pronouns still occur on the positions as described for OE; on the left of V as in (28): (28)

&

se

kyng ... & - micele gersumes him geaf on gold &

on silure (PC 1128,19)

and the king ... and great treasures him gave in gold and in silver 'the king ... and gave him great treasures of gold and silver' This is the only clear example I found of a pronoun on V. There are many examples where

a pronoun is the only VP constituent beside the verb,

contrast within VP can be shown. (29) is such an example.

so that no

191 (29)

&

nam

swilce gerihta

and accepted such

swa se

cyng him geude (PC 1074,4)

privileges as the king him granted

'and accepted such privileges as the king granted him'

Pronouns still frequently occur on VP, as in (30):

(30) a. δ

he hi

ahtlice

ut

laedde (PC 1071,11)

and he them courageously out led 'and he led them out courageously'

b. he arerde mere mynster & muñecas {iter gesstte & hit wall eegodade (PC 1087,68)

he built

great abbey and monks there settled and it well endowed

'he built a great abbey and settled monks there and endowed it richly'

c. ... swa he

sr his fader

dyde &

bet

mid ade

gefestnode (PC 1091,38)

as

he before his father did and that with oath confirmed

'as he had done before to his father, and confirmed with oath'

d. he hlne swa hrade gewliman ne mihte (PC 1102,7) he it

so

quickly take

not could

'he could not take it quickly'

e. For t>e

king him sithen nam

in Hamtun ... (PC 1140,38)

for the king him then arrested in Northampton 'for the king subsequently arrested him in Northampton'

Beside these, however, we find a remarkable number of personal pronouns in postverbal position, i.e. to the right of the base-generated position for the verb. This is a position where they rarely occurred in OE, and that indicates a step towards the loss of clitic status.

192 (31) a. &

beadon hine {>et

he sceolde healdan hi rihtlice &

luflan hi (PC 1083,5)

and asked

him

that he would

rule them

justly

and love

them

'and asked him to rule them justly and love them' b. J>a

bed

se

kyng heom {»t

hi

scoldon cesen

then asked the king them that they should tercebiecop to Cantwrabyrig archbishop

hem

choose themselves

(PC 1123,18)

for Canterbury

'then the king asked them to choose for themselves an archbishop of Canterbury' c. &

se

king hine underfeng mid micel wurdscipe, beteahte hine (PC 1125,15)

and the king him

received with great ceremony,

commended him...

'and the king received him with great ceremony and commended him...' d. ... t>et

he scolde cumen to him &

that he should come

be tec en him (PC, 1131,16)

to him and commend him

'that he would come to him and commend him ...' Cliticization of R-pronouns remains more stable than that of personal pronouns. In 0E prepositional R-objects appeared on the left of Ρ obligatorily. This situation is continued in the PC, and is illustrated in (32): (32) a. and eall J>et his fœder

berbegeondan hœfde (PC 1091,10)

and all that his father there beyond had 'and all (land) that his father owned beyond there' b. wende

to bigeeton Normandi barburh (PC 1140,55)

thought to get

Normandy there through

'thought to acquire Normandy by doing that' There are not many examples in the PC where the R-pronoun has moved out of PP, but (28) shows that it was possible.

193 (33) a. ... bone Castel bar {»s cynges

men of Engleland inne waeron (PC 1090,15)

the castle where the king's men of England

in

were

'the castle in which the men of the king of England were' b. ... Ou, beer

se

cyng Willelm inné wœs (PC 1094,32)

Eu, where the king William in

was

'Eu, where king William was' I only give examples of objects of P, because these are most clearly recognizable. I now

turn to

a discussion of the behaviour

of pronouns

in VP in Sawles

Warde, an early thirteenth century text in the dialect of the W. Midlands. The situation here follows the line of development of the Peterborough Chronicle. We find only non-inverted PP's with a personal pronoun, and pronominal objects of V both in preverbal and postverbal position, as the following examples illustrate.

(34) a. {je

feont

the fiend b. for ne

J>e

meistred ham alle a^eines him (SW 247)

that heads

them all against him

mahte in eorde na cwic

{Jinge hit bollen (SW 251)

for not could on earth no living thing it

endure

'for no living thing on earth could endure it' c. and hwet he ber

seche (SW 249)

and what he there seeks 'and what he is looking for there' d. godd mei mid rihte fordemen us (SW 257) god may with right judge

us

'God may rightly judge us' As noted above there are no inverted PP's with a personal pronoun object. Also there are no instances of pronominal objects separated from P. That these two are

related

is expected

noted, however,

on the analysis

that other

texts

closely

presented

in chapter 4. It must be

related to the fairly

short

Sawles

Warde in date and provenance do have examples of this, though few and far between.

194 (35) a. 3β£ swete luue if

& sahtnesse is eauer ow bitweonen (AW,128,22)

sweet love and softness Is ever

you between

'If there Is always sweet love and tenderness between you' b. we hit habbed weilawei iherd of inohe (AW,34,2) we it

have

alas

heard of enough

•we have, alas, heard enough of it' c. &

moni

t>ing

ham

failed to (AW, 179,4)

and many things them happen to 'and many things happen to them' R-pronoun objects

of Ρ always precede the preposition in Sawles Warde,

with reduced spelling. Thus we find brinne

'therein'

(SW 247); brof

often

'thereof'

(SW 247). But also ber towart 'thereof' (SW 249). We also find the occasional example with ber separated from P, as in (36): (36)

for ber

is inne fie tresur

for there is in

fiat

godd sef him seolf fore (SW 247)

the treasure that God gave himself

for

'for the treasure that God gave himself for, is in there' We see then, that in the early thirteenth century the system described for OE and the Peterborough Chronicle has declined further. The scarcity of examples of inverted PP's with a pronominal object, and of clitic movement and of such PP's, as compared to their frequency in OE, seems to point to their being rather remains

than

the

a more

result

of

productive

a productive

process.

process for a

longer

Cliticization of

residues

R-pronouns

time. R-pronouns, as

in OE,

appear on the left of Ρ obligatorily in ME. This phenomenon extends in M E to the wh-pronoun hwer. which in the course of M E comes to be used as a relative pronoun (cf. Allen 1977). This is illustrated in (37):

(37) he bringed up some uuel word oder sum ofjer he brings

up some evil word or

nohtunge hwer bur h

some other trifle

wherethrough

ha to hurten eider frommard oder (AW,219,17) they

fly

one from

other

'he brings up some evil word or other trifle at which they fly apart'

195 In the course of the thirteenth century R-pronouns cease to be separated from P, although inverted PP's with R-pronouns persist. In the fourteenth century we find some

isolated instances

of separation in relatives

of ber or hwer.

but

since we find P-stranding generally in movement rules in the fourteenth century, we cannot ascribe that to cliticization. The examples above show that the positioning of pronominal objects of V is variable

in

Sawles Warde.

Although

cliticization

of

personal

pronouns

on Ρ

disappears entirely in the course of the thirteenth century, we continue to find personal pronouns on the left of V for a longer time. Given the fact that the language is SVO at this time, this is significant, since we would then expect to find all

complements

on the right of V. It is not clear however,

that

this

constitutes a consistent process of cliticization. Consider the following examples : (38) a. {jet

se J)et

sucurede hem ine ])a peril, {>et

us sucurl ine ure

that he that secured them in the peril, that us secures in our niedes (KS 158)

(late C13)

needs 'that he who helped them in their peril, help us in our needs' b. {JO

{>e

guode man yze^ bet,

when the good

man saw

he fcoßte ... (Ayenbite 56)

that, he thought ...

c. ... J>et he him ^eaue uyftene pond

(c.1340)

of gold (Ayenbite 21)

that he him gave fifteen pounds in gold 'that would give him fifteen pounds in gold' These examples show that personal pronouns can occur in preverbal or postverbal position in the same text. If they do occur in preverbal position, they conform to patterns described for OE and early ME. This suggests that the older system of pronominal cliticization is still present as an optional one for pronominal objects

of V,

and gradually

dies

out, by

the middle of C14. Some

dialectal

variation can be observed; the examples in (33) show a certain amount of variation in the clitic status of pronominals, but in the texts from which they are quoted, cliticization is still quite frequently met with. Both texts are from the

South

of

England, which

is apparently

the most

persistent

in

retaining

clitics and in maintaining case morphology. This can be compared with the works of Richard Rolle, which are more or less contemporaneous with the Ayenbite, but

196 are

in the dialect

either

of Yorkshire. In these works there is hardly a trace of

cliticization

or

case morphology.

These

correlations

tie

in with

the

suggestion advanced in chapter 4 that cliticization is linked with the presence of a morphological case system. They also tie in with the observation often made that the OE case system first collapsed in the North. Presumably this is significant but we have to be careful in drawing firm conclusions from it. We have seen in this section that there is some discrepancy between the loss of cliticization on V and that on P. On the analysis presented in chapter 4, this is unexpected. We will suggest an explanation for it in chapter 7. I now turn to a discussion of clitics on COMP.

6.2.2. Clitics on COMP In chapter 4, it was argued that in OE there is a clitic position on INFL in COMP. First, I will , summarize the patterning of clitics on COMP as they were discussed in chapter 4. In V2 clauses with a TOPIC first constituent, clitics precede the finite verb, as in (39)¡ (39) jEfter his gebede he ahof after

Jxet cild

u ^ (AHTh.11,28)

his prayer he lifted the child up

If in a V2 clause, the first constituent is a wh-element or negative

element,

the clitic follows the finite verb. In clauses with a base-generated complementizer, the clitic follows the complementizer. (40) gives examples of this: (40) a. for hwam noldest

J>u de sylfe

for what not-wanted you yourself

me gecydan (ASL,XXXIII,307) me make known

'why would you not want to make yourself known to me?' b. Ne mœg he nane gesceafta gescyppan (AHTh,I,16) not may he no

creatures create

'he can create no creatures' gif hie snigne feld secan wolden (Parker 894) if they any

field seek

wanted

'if they wanted to seek out open field'

197 The examples (39) and (40) repeated from chapter 4 Illustrate the behaviour of subject clitics, but recall

that clitic objects can occur on these positions

too. The patterns for clitic subjects on COMP described for OE remain stable up to about the third quarter of the fourteenth century. That is, while positions for clitic objects in VP changed in the twelfth century, the patterns of clitics on COMP continued for another 150 years. I give a number of examples of this, starting with clitic subjects. In (41) I give a number of dated examples of pronominal

subjects

constituent.

(42)

constituent,

and

preceding

contains of

the finite V in V2 clauses with a topic first

some

clauses

examples

with

a

of V2

clauses with a wh/neg

base-generated

complementizer.

In

first these

examples the pronominal subject follows Vf/COMP.

(39) a. das

bine

we habbad be

these things we have

him gewritene (PC 1087,143)

about him written

•we have written these things about him' b. bis

he dvde eal for t>es biscopes

this he did

luuen (PC 1123, 73)

all for this bishop's love

'and this he did all for love of this bishop' c. Efter him ich iseh on heh After him I his moder

saw

ouer alle heouenliche {>e

on high above all heavenly

eadi meiden

the holy maiden

marie i-nempnet sitten in a trone (SW 259)

his mother Mary

called

sit

on a throne

'behind him on high, above all the heavenly (creatures), I saw his mother, the holy virgin called Mary, sit on a throne' d. berefore we sollen habbe ure peni (KS,237) therefore we shall have

(early C13) (late C13)

our penny

'therefore we are entitled to our penny' e. An haste he yarn to Jie gerniere (Ayenbite,43) in haste he ran to the storehouse

(early C14)

198 f. Certis

bei ben opyn foolis, and don pleynly ajenst

Certainly they are open fools,

Cristis

and act plainly against Christ's

Gospel (FCL.42)

(late C14)

gospel (42) a. ¿a

comen hi

J>urh fyre in et Bolhide

then came they by

geate (PC 1070,24)

fire in at Bolhithe gate

'then they forced an entrance by fire at Bolhithe gate'

b.

η amen hi fca men J)e

hi

wenden

dat (PC 1137,17)

then took they the men that they thought that... ' then they took the men whom they thought... ' c. nie ber

na steuene bituhhe be fordernde bute wumme (SW 253)

not is there no voice

between the damned

but

woe me

'there is no voice between the damned but "woe me"' d. Hweonene cumest tu? (SW 249) whence

come

you

•from where do you come' e. Wat belongeth hit to me o{)er to {>e, What concerns it

to me or

wyman? (KS,94)

to you, woman

'what concern is it to me or to you, woman?' f. JJO

dede he somoni alle {so wise clerekes ... (KS,16)

then did he summon all the wise scholars 'then he had all the wise scholars summoned' g. bet

he his ssolde yeue to be poure (Ayenbite,7)

that he his should give to the poor 'that he should give his to the poor' It is the pattern in (41) that changes radically in the second half of C14. That is, in V2 sentences with a preposed constituent that is not the subject, pronominal

subjects begin to behave like nominal subjects. This is subject to some

dialectal variation. We see it first in the works of Richard Rolle (Yorkshire c.

199 1340). We have seen before that in these works innovations figure fairly prominently. I give a few examples (references from Schmidt (1980)): (43) a. Verrayly es he my salvacioun (RR,16,4) Truly

is he my salvation

b. Swa sulde we do (RR,8,20) So should we do c. so lvehtlv sal

bou

come (RR,65,129)

so lightly shall thou come In the works of Rolle, pronominal subjects behave in exactly the same way as nominal

subjects;

inversion is optional. Inversion of pronouns

Chaucer's prose and in Mandeville's

travels

(later C14), as

is regular in

(44)

illustrates

(examples and references again from Schmidt (1980)): (44) a. And by thys conclusioun maist thou take ensample and by this conclusion

may

you

b. And in this manere malst thou worche and in this manner may c. So dwelleth ther but 1 So dwells there

you

(Ch,TA,I,21,68)

take example (Ch,TA,II,40,72)

make

devisioun (EP 87)

but one division

d. This cercle wole I clepe the Lymbe of my equatorie (EP 25) this circle will I call e. &

bere

the limb

of my equator

was he made dronken of his doughtres (MT 67,35)

and there was he made drunk

by his daughters

f. For at such houre schal he despoyle the world (MT 77,4) for at such hour shall

he despoil

the world

Here again, we seem to find some dialectal variation. Where inversion of subject pronouns

is regular in Chaucer's E. Midlands prose, this is not general. For

instance, in Wycliffe's late C14 W. Midlands prose, there is hardly a trace of

200

object cliticization. Pronominal subjects appear on the left of the finite V in root clauses with a preposed constituent, as evidenced by (45)ι

(45) a. Certis

bel ben

opyn foolis, and

Certainly they are open fools,

b. and so bei

(FCL 42)

and

menen bat .... (FCL 74)

and so they think that

c. Sob

it is Jjat ... (FCL 58)

true it is that

It must be noted though, that V2 with inversion of nominal subjects is irregular in Wycliffe, so that nominal subjects behave in much the same way as pronouns. But apart from Wycliffe, by the end of the fourteenth century 'inversion' of subject pronouns seems to be general. In OE object pronouns could also occur on the positions for subject pronouns. What we see in ME is that as far as cliticization of object pronouns was still encountered, object clitics could appear on COMP. That is, in the Peterborough Chronicle, object cliticization was still possible, and object clitics could appear on COMP. In Sawles Warde, we find cliticization of verbal objects and not of prepositional objects and thus we occasionally find pronominal objects of V on COMP. Similarly in the Kentish Sermons and the Ayenbite. By the mid-fourteenth century cliticization of verbal objects is extinct in prose. As an illustration I give a number of examples of object clitics on COMP.

(46) a. bet

heom man

to cuman ne mihte (PC 1095,44)

that them people to come not could 'that people could not get to them'

b. bet hit nan mann ateallan ne mihte (PC 1095,17) that it no

one tell

not could

•that none could tell about it'

201 c. be

him seo cyng Heanrig be foreweard œlce geare gifan sceolde (PC 1103,10)

that him the king Henry

by forward

each year

give should

'that king Henry would give him every year in advance'

d. l>at fur

ham forbearned al to colen calde (SW 251)

the fire them burns

all to coals cold

'the fire consumes them all to cold coals'

e. we hit habbed wellawel iherd of inohe (AW,34,2) we it

have

alas

heard of enough

'alas, we have heard enough of it'

f. ferof

us veft ensample {>o {>rie Kinges of het>enesse (KS 38)

thereof us give example the three kings of heathendom 'of that, the three heathen kings set us an example'

g. zuo bet him na3t

ne

biefte (Ayenbite,18)

so that him nothing not remained 'so that nothing remained for him'

These facts suggest that, to the extent that cliticization of objects was still a live process in ME, the positions for subject clitics were available for such clitics to move to. We see then, that the dating of the two changes defined in section 1 correlates with the dating of the loss of corresponding clitics. This confirms the hypothesis of section 1 that the English language underwent two basic changes in the ME period. The correspondence in dating between these changes and the loss of clitics suggests a relationship. We will now consider what this relationship is. In chapter 4 we defined the relationship between clitics and the case-system as follows: clitics are related to inflectional morphology, because in a sense they are a case affix to a case-marking head. This provides us with a rationale for analyzing the loss of clitics: inflectional morphology was lost in ME. Some basic case distinctions (relevant for case in the VP) were lost in the eleventh and twelfth centuries; some basic distinctions in verb morphology (relevant for morphology on COMP) were lost during the fourteenth century. We claim that the

202 loss of clitics is related to these changes. Before we can substantiate this, we discuss the morphological changes in the following section.

6.3. Reductions in morpholoey

It is well-known that the comparatively rich inflectional system of 0E was reduced drastically in the ME period. Here too, however, we can make a distinction correlating

roughly in dating with the two structural changes we have

defined above. The reductions in noun-morphology took place mainly during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Reductions in verb morphology took place largely during the fourteenth century. Ve discuss them in turn.

6.3.1. Noun Morphology

In chapter 3 we defined morphological correspondence conventions for the OE case endings. Here we discuss the development subsequent to OE. In order to avoid overwhelming the reader with details concerning the ME development, in the main text of this study, we give this material systematically in Appendix 1. From this material it is clear that the whole system of noun morphology was reduced drastically at a fairly early stage. This was due initially to a phonological change: so-called vowel reduction in unstressed syllables. As a result of this change the distinctive vowels of the OE case endings, mainly a. and u. were reduced to [a]:

(47)

u ν ./

-stress

This resulted in a number of reductions in major paradigms. Apart from this, a great deal of levelling took place between paradigms. The details can be found in appendix I. With respect to the distinctiveness of the case-system, the effect of the morphological changes was to eliminate a number of basic distinctions. For instance, in a text as early as the Peterborough Chronicle, noun morphology is already far advanced towards ModE. In the PC an -(e)s ending for the nominative and accusative plural (from the OE -as ending in masculine a. nouns) has extended to nearly all classes of nouns. The inflectional ending of

203

the dative case has been reduced to

or 0 in the singular, to -en or φ in the

plural. As a result of this, the dative is more or less abandoned as a case: the indirect object in the PC is frequently expressed by an accusative or an uninflected form. C. Clark in the introduction to her (1970) edition of the PC notes that after prepositions inflected dative forms appear more frequently, but they make the impression of being set phrases, whereas in OE the case was clearly determined by the preposition. In the personal pronoun paradigm the distinction between dative and accusative is eliminated entirely by the final continuation (starting AD 1122). What these changes amount to is that by the completion of the PC (C.1150) in this dialect at least (E. Midlands) there is no morphological basis left for a distinction between objective

(accusative, structural) and

oblique case. The changes were presumably subject to some dialectal variation: it is well known that the loss of case morphology started in the Northern dialects and gradually spread to the South. However, there is no continuity in text material in all dialects. Therefore such observations must be treated with some caution. Anyway, my material in Appendix I shows that it is fair to conclude that a number of basic distinctions in case morphology were lost by 1200.

6.3.2. Verb Morphology

As case morphology is relevant primarily for distinguishing between various types of object case, so verb morphology is relevant to the system of nominative case-marking (cf. chapter 4.6). Nominative case in OE and eME is assigned by AGR under INFL in COMP. Presumably then, verb morphology (person and number distinctions on the finite verb) reflects the morphological characteristics of AGR under INFL. The system of verbal morphology is quite elaborate in OE. In the indicative mood in OE there are separate morphological specifications for all the persons in the singular, and there is a well-marked distinction between singular and plural, and present and preterite; Beside this, there is an elaborate ablaut system in the strong verbs. Appendix 2 contains a survey of OE verb morphology. Although the system of verb morphology is affected to some extent by the same changes that affect noun morphology in the transition from OE to ME, it is not the case that at that stage a number of crucial morphological specifications are lost. Presumably this is because in many cases verb morphology adds a consonantal suffix to the verb stem, so that the phonological change of vowel reduction in unstressed syllables, discussed in chapter 6.2, did not have the same sweeping effect on verb morphology that it had on noun morphology. Although

204 there was a good deal of levelling In the verb paradigms, the indicative singular retains the person distinctions, and except in the North the distinction between singular and plural is retained. The following diagram gives a clear idea of the distinctions in the indicative (from Wright & Wright (1923) and Fisiak (1968)).

South

W. Midlands

North

-e

-e

-e

-e

2

-(e)st

-est

-es(t)

-es

3

-(e)l>

-ef>

-es(t)

-es

-el>

-en

-en (es)

-es

-(e)d-e

-(e)d-e

-(e)d-e

"(e)d

-(e)d-est

-(e)d-est

-(e)d-est

-(e)d-es

-eden

-eden

-eden

-eden

pres. eg. 1

pi. prêt. sg. 1&3 2 pi.

IS .Midlands

Further reductions take place largely in the course of the ME period. They consist mainly of dropping ^e, and ^n in final position, and in the second person sg. prêt, the -est ending is lost. These reductions start in the North and are more or less completed by the end of the fourteenth century. As a result the person and number distinctions are lost entirely in the prêt, indicative, and the endings for the first person present singular and present plural are lost. These developments are discussed in a nutshell in Fisiak (1968) and in more detail in Wright & Wright

(1923). Important for our purposes is that these

changes are completed in the course of the fourteenth century, i.e. that this development, relevant to morphological properties of INFL, was separate in time from the loss of basic case distinctions relevant primarily to properties of VP.

6.3.3. The loss of clitics revisited

In chapter 4 we argued that OS clitics are related to the case system in the following ways because there is a morphological case system OE has case affixes. Clitics are in a sense case affixes and thus are dependent on the presence of inflectional morphology. Accordingly, when inflectional morphology was lost, case affixing was lost. Consequently clitics were lost. This happened first in the VP; the loss of morphological case in the VP was completed around 1200. Thus VP clitics disappeared at that stage. In the course of the fourteenth century, the morphology of AGR underwent reductions, evident from reductions in verb

205 morphology. As a result, cliticization on AGR under INFL In COMP was lost. In section 6 we will see that the loss of cliticization on COMP, subject to dialectal variation, may have been one of the motivations behind the loss of V2.

6.4. The loss of oblique case In this

section we

show that oblique

case as argued for OE in chapter 3

disappeared early in the M E period. The presence of oblique case in OE had the following consequences: (49) a. Adjectives assign oblique case b. Prepositional passives did not occur c. Indirect passives did not occur In these constructions there were rather noticeable changes in the eME period: (50) a. Case-marking by adjectives was lost b. Prepositional passives begin to appear c. Indirect passives begin to appear These changes first appear at the outset of the thirteenth century. Lightfoot (1981) argues that the latter two are related in terms of the loss of oblique case. To this he adds another change in P-stranding constructions: he argues that all P-stranding constructions - by passivization (50b) as well as by movement to COMP - arise in the thirteenth century, and that this is due to the loss of oblique case. We discussed in chapter 3 why this so: elements bearing oblique case cannot passivize. Accordingly, as oblique case is lost, such constructions begin to make their appearance.

Let us adopt the argument of Lightfoot

that

oblique case was lost, and ask ourselves why this happened? On the basis of the analysis for the change in underlying order from OV to V0 in 6.1 and our discussion of the loss of morphology in 6.3 we propose the following explanation: in later OE, the verb assigns 0-role and oblique case from right to left. Structural case is assigned from left to right. This in itself represents a marked situation. Let us assume though, that the language environment is such that this situation can be deduced by the language learner. However, as extraposition as defined

in

chapter

2.2

increases

in

frequency,

both

structural

and

oblique

objects come to appear on the right of the VP-final verb. As long as there is a

206 live

system

of morphological

case,

the appropriate distinctions

between

the

various object cases can still be made. But in the late tenth century the decline of the morphological case system sets in, as the result of a phonological process of vowel reduction in unstressed syllables. This leads to an intolerably marked situation. To make sense of word order in VP, the language learner abduces a reorientation in the direction of 0-marking. 0-role comes to be assigned from left to right, in the same direction as structural case-marking, and in the same direction as 0-marking by Ν and P. This results in basic V0 order in VP. Because there is no longer a directionality distinction between structural case and

oblique

case,

and

because

the morphological

case

system

is

in

decline,

especially in its distinctions between objective and oblique cases, oblique case is lost. We hypothesize then, that the loss of oblique case is the result of a combination of the reorientation in direction of 0-marking, making oblique case identical in directionality to structural case-marking, and the weakening of the morphological

case

system. All

θ-marking

and all

case-marking

comes

to

take

place from left to right and becomes entirely structural. As a result a number of case relatione that used to be expressed by oblique case come to be expressed by means of prepositions. This is notably the case in complements of adjectives. Adjectives can only assign oblique case in OE (dative or genitive). As oblique case is lost there is no way for adjectives to assign case, and complements to adjectives comparing

can only receive the OE sentences

case

from a preposition.

We

see this

simply

by

in (51), repeated from chapter 3, with their ModE

translations.

(51) a. {)eah

hit l>am cynge

though it

ungewill

ware (PC 1097,23)

the king (dat) displeasing was

'though it was displeasing to the king' b. J>eh

hie

J»s

wyrfee

nœron (Oros, 104,5)

though they that (gen) worthy not were •though they were not worthy of that' Case marking by adjectives was lost in the course of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Visser states (p. 327): 'The most remarkable features of this idiom are

its enormously great frequency

in Old English, its rapid decay

Middle English, and its total disappearance before the Pres. D. period

in '

Where the relevant adjectives take an oblique NP in OE, they take a PP in ME, and

the

object

receives

case

from the

preposition.

The

construction with a

207 preposition begins to occur frequently in the thirteenth century, and its frequency increases in the course of the further M E period. (52) a. He is to freonde god (Juliana 102, Visser §334) he is to friends good 'he is good to friends' b. t>e

is to alle iliche

imeane (HM.11,18, Visser §342)

that is to all the same common 'that is common to all' c. He is to tie

swijje grim (Havelok,2398, Visser §335)

he is to you very

grim

'he is very grim to you' Visser lists a number of examples of first occurrences of particular adjectives with prepositions, among which the following occur, beside the ones in 1338 brvm to me

(46):

'angry with me'; 1340 unllch to ^oure llf 'different from your

life'; 1374 derworbe to be; 1380 to m e dere 'dear to me'; 1400 undankeful to be Holl Goost 'ungrateful to the holy ghost'. In connection with the loss of this construction, it is also striking that, as far as I know, no French loan adjectives took part in the old construction with oblique objects, although French must have

had this construction at least with clitics. This is an

important

indication that, while the construction had not completely died out in ME, it was no longer the result of a productive process, because then we would expect to

find

the constructions with French loan adjectives

as well.

The

loss of

oblique case accounts straightforwardly for the lose of case-marking by adjectives . The three changes discussed above, reorientation of Q-marking resulting in VO order, loss of case morphology, and the resulting loss of oblique case, interact to lead to further changes. These we discuss in the following subsection.

6.4.1. Changes in P-stranding and passives Before discussing the developments that took place in P-stranding in ME, I summarize

the 0E situation. Recall

that in OE prepositions could be

stranded

only by a clitic. Thus, a preposition could be stranded by a personal pronoun or

208 a R-pronoun, if such an element moved to a an Ä position. We find instances of such stranding in relative clauses with the relative pronoun bar, and in topicalization constructions, beside movement to other clitic positions. I repeat a few examples here.

(53) a. and nie com

daerrihte to godes encgel mid

rode (ASL.VII.356)

and me came directly to God's angel with cross 'and God's angel came directly to me with a cross'

b. ...to his rice

gebringan daar

to his kingdom bring

we to, gesceapene wœron (AHTh,II,6)

where we to created

were

'bring to his kingdom, which we were created for*

Preposition-stranding in relative constructions without a relative pronoun was analysed in chapter 5 as movement of a phonetically empty clitic. I repeat a few examples of such constructions:

(54) a. Ac

he sylf asmeade da up-ahefednys6e de.

he burh

ahreas (AHTh,1,192)

but he self thought up the presumption that he through fell 'but he himself thought up the presumption that he fell through'

b. Gif deer donne sie gierd mid to dreageanne, sie dsr if there then stsf

mid

be

rod

with to beat,

eac

be there also

to wredianne (CP 126,1)

staff with to support 'if there is then a rod to beat with, let there also be a staff to support with'

All these constructions involve movement of a prepositional object to an Aposition. Movement of a prepositional object to an A-position (passivization) is impossible in OE. In the course of ME, preposition-stranding becomes a more general phenomenon. The data of ME are all from Allen (1977). We begin to find examples of P-strandlng in wh-relatives and wh-questions at the outset of the thirteenth century. By the middle of the thirteenth century we find more examples but stranding is still comparatively rare. I give a few examples :

209 (55) a. Nuste

nan kempe

whs

he sculde sien

on (L Brut,27487)

not-knew no soldier whom he should strike on 'no soldier knew whom he should strike at' b. And getenisse men ben in ebron,

(early C13)

guile men mai get wundren on (GE & EX 3715)

and giant

men are in Hebron, which men may yet wonder at

c. wiste no man of werlde do knew no

(mid C13)

Quat kinde he was kumen fro (GE & EX 901)

man of world then what kind

he was come

from

'noone in the world then knew what kind he had come from' Also in the first half of the thirteenth century, some rare examples are found of preposition stranding in topicalization and passive constructions: (56) a. A h

de

gode ich ga aa

but the good I

bisiliche abuten (St Marg. 30,35)

go ever busily

about

'but I always diligently pursue the good' b. Hosen wldute hose

yampez U g g e in hwa se liked (AW,214,13)

without feet

sleep in whose

pleases

'whoever cares to may sleep in hose without feet' c. heo schal beo greattre ibollen, leafdiluker leoten she shall be

greater honoured, lady-liker

of {jen

a

thought of than a

leafdi of hames (AW,58,7) lady

of homes

'she shall be more greatly honoured, thought of as more ladylike than a housewife' (56c)

is

passive

the

only

thirteenth-century

construction.

more common.

example

of

preposition-stranding

In the fourteenth-century, preposition-stranding

The first texts where P-stranding is encountered frequently

again, the prose of Richard Rolle.

in a

becomes is,

210 (57) a. and make {>e free fra charge of be syne s whilke f>ou ert bounden to (RR XI, 32,5) and make you free from care

of business which

you are bound to

b. and ¡>at es {>e lossyng of thy ryght-wysnes whilke clou was mad

in

(RR 44,4) and that is the losing of thy righteousness which thou was made in

c. childire... -unarayede, unkepide, and noghte tente children

unarrayed, unkept

and not

aughte for to be (RR 29,22) ought

to

as f>am

attended to as them (from Visser)

for to be

'children, undressed, badly kept and not looked after as they ought to be*

Visser finds passives with 24 new verb-preposition combinations in the fourteenth century, and 57 more in the fifteenth. From the mid-fourteenth century onward, the frequency of Ρ stranding is on the increase in all movement rules. And it is quite possible that stranding was more regular in the spoken language than the available texts suggest, because the texts are quite heavily influenced by French, where P-stranding is prohibited. This may be a second reason why the works of Richard Rolle show preposition-stranding fairly early; as a Northerner he may have been less influenced by French than other, late fourteenth-century, and early fifteenth century writers. But by the late fifteenth century P-stranding is firmly rooted. As an illustration I give a number of examples from the late fourteenth and fifteenth century (references from Visser).

(58) a. now have I told what peril he is inné (Ch. Troi.book III, 911)

b. But to kyng Alia, which I spak of yoore (Ch BM Lavre 984)

c. Now swlch a wvf I pray God kepe me fro (Ch. E. March 2419)

d. £ei ben sent fore (MT, 162,8) they are sent for

e. ... his part of this fruyt which I of telle (Lyd. R & S, 4416)

211 f. That mervayle we off (Malory VIII, p. 447, 6) that we marvel of g. alle that whlche he was demanded of (Caxton, XIII 48) all

that which

he was asked

of

We see then that while in OE P-stranding was only possible by virtue of a process of cliticization, which only involved movement to an A-position, it became general in movement rules in the course of the M E period. In M E a preposition can be stranded by movement to A as well as A positions. In chapter 3 and S we argued, following Lightfoot (1981), that one prohibition on P-stranding by passivization in OE should be analysed in terms of case theory,

parallel

to a prohibition

on passivization of oblique

objects.

Both

involve movement of an element that has D-structure case to the subject position where it then receives nominative case, resulting in case-clash. On that analysis we would expect that, as passivization of a prepositional object becomes possible in ME, passivization of an oblique object is found at the same time. This is borne out. As prepositional passives appear in ME, so indirect passives begin to appear. I give a few examples here from Visser. (59) a. The duke MyIon was geven hys lyff

b. If we clenli

(Richard Coer de Lyon (ed. Kölping), 1307)

(c.l300)

be

(c.1300)

knoun ur

plight

(Cursor Mundi 29232)

if we cleanly are known our duty 'if we are clearly made known our duty' c. this man was tau3te the wei of the lord

(c.1380)

this man was taught the way of the lord d. Victorie in arms may you nat be denyed

(c.1440) (Lydgate, Fall Princes 3, 2355)

'May you not be denied victory in arms' Such passivization indicates that oblique case was lost (cf. Lightfoot (1981)). W e now give an analysis of the developments in P-stranding and passive constructions, following up the analysis presented in previous sections.

212 We saw in chapters 4 and 5 that there are two reasons in OE why P-stranding is severely limited. P-stranding by movement of an element to COMP is ruled out by ECP. Ρ is not a proper governor for ECP, therefore P-stranding is generally excluded. Clitics have a way of circumventing ECP because they appear in a position on their head Ρ which is accessible for proper government by V. Therefore they can move further to other A' positions, clitic positions and COMP. The preposition stranded by movement is usually, though not always, on the immediate left of V. This reflects one restriction on stranding; only prepositions in PP's that are arguments of the verb can be stranded. That is, only PP's in government domain of V can have a stranded P. These restrictions make sense in terms of conditions on movement. Clitics can only move to positions that c-command their source position. Thus, the clitic position in the left of VP is only available for clitic objects of VP PP's, i.e. for prepositional objects c-commanded by the position on VP. The empty category left behind by cliticization is locally bound by the clitic. In early ME two changes occur that are relevant for preposition stranding. Because of the change from OV to VO, PP in VP comes to be base-generated on the right of V, as in (60):

Observe that this leads to string adjacency of V and Ρ and that V and Ρ now assign case and 0-role in the same direction; from left to right. Furthermore, oblique case is lost, so that both V and Ρ come to assign exclusively structural case. These two changes have various consequences, as the developments in ME show. Early in the thirteenth century, that is, right after the change from 0V to VO is completed and oblique case is lost, we begin to find examples of movement of non-clitic prepositional objects to A positions as well as Ä positions. This, I wish to suggest, is due to these two changes. The fact that V and Ρ are adjacent, and assign θ-role in the same direction, and that this case is exclusively structural, paves the way for a rule of V-P reanalysis along the lines of Hornstein

and Weinberg

(1981a). Generally, we have assumed, P-stranding is

barred because prepositions are not proper governors for the empty category principle. Old English circumvents this prohibition with a process of cliticiza-

213 tion of a rather specific kind. Changed parameters in M E allow a wider scope of ways of circumventing this prohibition. Consider again the structure (60). The minimal domain for NP in (60) is PP. But PP is a dependent of V in a fairly strict sense. It is governed by V; receives a 8-role from V; and V and Ρ are adjacent. Hornstein & Weinberg (1981a) present an analysis of P-stranding in ModE that capitalizes on these relationships between V and P. They claim that Ρ generally assigns oblique case. They assume a filter that declares an oblique trace ungrammatical, so that extraction from PP is generally impossible. Further, they propose a rule of V-P reanalysis (61), following van Riemsdijk (1978). (61) [ ν ρ V [pp Ρ NP]]

->

[VpVP[NP]]

This rule circumvents the effects of the first two claims. When Ρ is reanalyzed into the complex V, the trace left by extraction of NP receives structural case from the complex V, so that extraction is well-formed. Such reanalysis is possible only when V governs PP, and V and Ρ are adjacent. We w i s h to preserve the effects of this proposal, but in a different way. We saw in chapter 3 that there is good reason to suppose that Ρ in ModE assigns structural case, contrary to Hornstein & Weinberg's claim. Furthermore, the claim that an oblique trace is ungrammatical

seems to be too strong. We

showed in chapter 5 that in O E all

kinds of oblique elements can be questioned and relativized, leaving a trace that is at least associated with oblique case. This casts doubt on Hornstein & Weinberg's

assumptions

about

the general prohibition on P-stranding. But the

results of their reanalysis rule can be preserved in a different way. In chapter 5 we

argued,

following

Kayne

(1981b),

that

extraction from PP is

generally

excluded because Ρ is not a proper governor for ECP. The reanalysis rule (61) may then serve as a way of circumventing this constraint. When Ρ is reanalyzed into the complex V, the complex V acts as a proper governor for the trace left by extraction, making P-stranding grammatical in ModE. The M E facts concerning P-stranding lend plausibility to an analysis of Pstranding in terms of reanalysis. P-stranding by passivization and by movement to COMP begin to appear simultaneously in M E texts, which might suggest that they are subject to the same constraints. Yet there is more to be said about this. Observe that in ModE, P-stranding by movement to COMP is very much freeer than stranding by passivization, as the sentences (62) show, cf. also van Riemsdijk (1978).

214 (62) a. I travelled with Joe's mother b. Who β e mother^ did you travel with e¿? c.*Jos's mother^ was travelled with e¿ (63) a. I put the mouse on the table b. Which table¿ did you put the mouse on e¿? c.*The table¿ was put the mouse on (64) a. John talked to Harry about Fred b. WhOj_ did John talk to Harry about e^7 c.*Fred¿ was talked to Harry about e¿ The b. examples in (62-64) are examples of stranding by movement to COMP;

in

(62) the stranded Ρ is adjacent to V, in (63) a direct object intervenes between V and P, in (64) a PP. In all three cases the passive variant c. is ungrammatical, as in many comparable cases. In fact, stranding by passivization seems to be subject to severer lexical restrictions than stranding by movement to COMP, as pointed out by van Riemsdijk (1978). This is not very surprising, if we consider that in the former case, V affects Ρ in a more drastic way than in the latter case. Recall the standard analysis of passive discussed in chapter 3. A passive participle

cannot assign structural

case to the object position. The

subject

position receives no 0-role. Therefore the object moves to subject position and receives nominative case there. Now consider the structure for a prepositional passive in ModE.

(65) a. John was looked at

No θ-role is assigned to the subject position, no case to the object position. The object John moves to subject position and receives nominative case there.

215 However, for this situation to obtain, we have to assume that the passive morphology on the verb not only neutralizes the case feature of V, but also the ability of Ρ to assign case. If F did assign case movement to subject position would leave behind a case-marked trace, resulting in case-clash because NP also receives nominative case. So the case-marking properties of Ρ have to be neutralized. Therefore, the reanalysis rule we adopted above is a precondition for P-stranding by passivization. If Ρ is reanalyzed into the complex passive participle, the case-marking properties of Ρ are neutralized by the passive morphology. This is only possible when Ρ is a structural case-marker. We saw in chapter 3 that there is good reason to assume that oblique case cannot be neutralized.

Therefore,

expect

to

find

in languages where Ρ is an oblique case-marker, we do not

stranding

by

passivization,

other

conditions

on

P-stranding

apart. We come back to this below. As noted above, stranding by passivization is subject to severe restrictions of a lexical nature. We take this to reflect that properties of the reanalysis rule are specified lexically. Verbs have idiosyncratic properties with respect to what material they incorporate under reanalysis. Consider, for instance (66a) vs. (66b).

(66) a. John was taken advantage of b.*The table was put the mouse on In (66a) advantage is incorporated into the complex passive participle, but in (66b) the mouse is not. It appears then, that the reanalysis possibilities must be specified lexically for each passive participle. This makes sense from the point

of view

of

language

acquisition.

Such information is learnable on the

basis of exposure to such sentences in the language environment. We see then, that reanalysis as a marked rule of grammar in ModE is a precondition for stranding by passivization. Now we come back to stranding by movement to COMP, which we saw above is rather freeer. I wish to argue that there is no need to assume reanalysis here, indeed that there is no evidence for reanalysis.

Reanalyzed

constituents are 'frozen' in the sense that elements incorporated under reanalysis cannot be extracted. For instance, in (66a) advantage is incorporated under reanalysis and cannot itself be extracted, as (67) shows:

(67) *What was John taken of? This shows that taken advantage of is a reanalyzed constituent. But this case

216 cannot be made for stranding by movement to COMP. Consider again the sentence (63b) above repeated here as (68): (68) Which table did you put the mouse on? If one assumes

the

same rule of reanalysis as for

(67), we get a

reanalyzed

constituent put the mouse on. This predicts that the mouse cannot be extracted. But such extraction gives a perfectly grammatical sentence: (69) Which table was the mouse put on? Observe that on in (69) cannot be reanalyzed because it has to assign case to the trace left by movement of which table. This shows that a general reanalysis rule

does not make

the right predictions

for

stranding by movement to COMP.

Instead, it seems that such stranding is possible with other VP material intervening between V and P, as in (68). It seems though, that not all VP material can intervene between V and Ρ in these cases. An object can intervene, and also a subcategorized PP as in (64b) above, but not, for instance an adverb of time, as (70) shows. (70) a. Who^ did John talk to Harry about e¿ yesterday? b.*Who¿ did John talk to Harry yesterday about e¿? But how, given our assumption that Ρ is not a proper governor, is then possible at all? I propose that under fairly

extraction

strict conditions,

Ρ in a

subcategorized PP can become a proper governor. Recall the structure (60) above, repeated here as (71) (71)

VP

Ρ

NP

In ME, V and Ρ come to assign 0-role in the same direction. This, I propose, is the

condition under which Ρ

can become

a proper governor.

PP is a

thematic

dependent of V, and it is governed by V. Furthermore, V and Ρ assign O-role in the same direction. Under such fairly strict conditions, Ρ can become 'visible'

217 as a proper governor, because it is strictly dependent on V. We might formalize this as a kind of index transmission (cf. Hornstein & Weinberg 1981b). Strict adjacency is not needed. Another thematic dependent of V, NP or PP may intervene, needed

but not for

non-subcategorized

stranding

material

such as

adverbials.

by passivization requires an even stricter

Reanalysis

as

relationship

between V and P, viz. that both are structural case-markers. The distinction we make between stranding by passivization and stranding by movement to COMP makes predictions with respect to the distribution of P-stranding in general. It predicts for instance that languages that are VO (i.e. have a VP-structure like (71)) and have prepositions that assign oblique case, can have stranding by movement to COMP, but not by passivization. This is exactly what seems to be the case in Modern Icelandic. Modern Icelandic is an SVO language, i.e. is has the relevant VP structure (71). But unlike Modern English, Icelandic prepositions assign oblique case. In Icelandic, VP prepositions can be stranded by movement to COMP, as (72) exemplifies (data are from Maling & Zaenen (1982)): (72) Hann spurdi hvern He

asked

eg hefdi talad vid

whom (acc) I

had talked

with

Passivization of such prepositional objects is impossible. Icelandic has impersonal prepositional passives, where the fronted object retains its oblique casemarking and the verb form has no agreement, but the prepositional object cannot become a nominative subject, as in Modern English. This is illustrated in (73): (73) a. flessa konu that

b. Rennen ref that

er oftast

talad

vel

um

woman (acc) is usually spoken well of hefur aldrei veri skotid á

fox (acc) has

never

been shot

at

Given the distinction made above, we capture the Icelandic facts by saying that in Icelandic Ρ can become a proper governor in the same way as in ModE; because it is a thematic dependent of V, is governed by V and assigns O-role in the same direction, the verb can make Ρ visible as a proper governor, so that extraction of a prepositional object is well-formed. But because Ρ assigns oblique case in Modern Icelandic, reanalysis, neutralizing the case of the preposition is impossible, so that prepositional passives with a nominative subject are excluded.

218 We see then, that there is good reason to make a distinction between stranding by movement to COMP, and stranding by passivization. The empirical effects of this in Modern English are not immediately evident, because we find stranding in both constructions. However, we saw above that a distinction is empirically motivated, even for ModE. When we take Modern Icelandic facts into account, we see that this distinction is independently supported. We conclude by summarizing the development from OE to ME. In OE, PP is basegenerated on the left of V. It is a thematic dependent of V and is governed by V but does not assign θ-role in the same direction: Ρ is not a proper governor, and because it does not assign θ-role in the same direction, it cannot receive a transmitted index. Therefore, extraction is generally prohibited in OE. A particular process of cliticization allows clitic objects to move out of PP, via a position that is properly governed by V. In ME PP comes to be base-generated on the right of V. VP PP's are governed by V, are thematically dependent on V, and V and Ρ assign 0-role in the same direction. This creates conditions under which Ρ can become a proper governor, allowing stranding by movement to COMP. Because oblique case is lost, V and Ρ come to assign exclusively structural case. This, in addition to the changed VP order, paves the way for a rule of reanalysis, which makes stranding by passivization possible. Although all these changes occur at the same time, a distinction between them is well-motivated, as we saw above. We now turn to indirect passives. In Old English, passivization of an indirect object is impossible. In ME, we begin to find indirect passives in the early thirteenth century and we continue to find them. For OE, it was argued in chapter 3 that such passivization is impossible because indirect objects have oblique case. Recall the standard analysis of passives:

(74)

S

V-ed

NP

The subject position does not receive a thematic role; the object position does not receive case. It is assumed that the passive morphology on the verb neutralizes the verb's ability to assign case. Therefore the NP object can move to subject position where it receives nominative case. Such neutralization is only possible

for

structural

case. Oblique case cannot be neutralized,

presumably

219 because it is linked to 0-role assignment. If an object receives oblique case at D-structure, it cannot move to the subject position and receive nominative case there, since this results in case clash. Because OE has oblique case, passivization of indirect objects is impossible, since indirect objects are oblique. The advent of indirect passives in ME is then to be attributed to the loss of oblique

case as argued

for in the previous sections. All case-marking becomes

structural, therefore indirect objects

too, receive

structural

case. Because

such case can be neutralized, indirect objects can be passivized. This concludes our discussion of VP changes.

6.5. The loss of V2 and related changes

In this section I come back to the analysis of the developments concerning V2 and cliticization on COMP as described in sections 1 and 2. This analysis is somewhat more tentative than that in the previous two sections, for two reasons. In the first place, the change we propose is a late ME one. There is a problem here with regard to data from prose texts. In the early C15 there is hardly any prose material so that the paucity of data makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusions. In the second place, some of the data that are crucial for the analysis to be more or less conclusive, are rather subtle ones as we will see, and such data do not come frequently in written texts. We will indicate this where appropriate. In chapter 2 we showed that OE is an SOV language with movement of the finite verb to INFL in COMP in the absence of a base-generated complementizer, as in (75):

< 75 >

[COMP

topic

INF

L

ts

NP

[VP ···

Î dat ft

In section 1, we saw that basic word order in VP changed from OV to VO. This change was completed by 1200. Movement of the finite verb to COMP, triggered by obligatory

lexicalization of INFL in COMP, is independent

of the parameters

determining word order in VP¡ and is stable up to about 1400, with some earlier cases

(Richard Rolle

and John Wycliffe). Cliticization on INFL in COMP, as

discussed in chapter 4.5, remains stable up to about the mid-fourteenth century and then disappears, subject to some dialectal variation. Recall

some facts

220 concerning V2 and cliticization on COMP discussed in section 2. In the proseworks of Richard Rolle (Yorkshire, c.1340), we saw that with respect to V2 and cliticization on INFL, as with other constructions, he is a very progressive innovator. If we take 'subject-verb inversion' in sentences with a non-subject preposed constituent as a diagnostic for V2, we see that V2 is irregular both with nominal and pronominal subjects, but where it does occur, it occurs with both. We must conclude from this that pronominal subjects do not show clitic behaviour and that V2 is in decline. On the other hand, in Chaucer's Treatise on the Astrolabe (E. Midlands/London c.1390), V2 is entirely regular, both with nominal and with pronominal subjects. Some examples are given in (76):

(76) a. And by thys conclusioun maist thou take ensample (Ch.TA,I,21,68) and by this conclusion

b. And now is

can

my sonne gon

and now has my sun

you

take example

to reste (Ch.TA,II,12,29)

gone to rest

More or less in between the situations in Rolle and Chaucer, we find Wycliffe (SW Midlands, c.1380), where we find no inversion of subject pronouns, and nonregular inversion of nominal objects, as exemplified in (77):

(77) a. Certis

t>ei ben opyn foolis (FCL 42)

certainly they are open fools

b. and in J>is manere schal eche prest and in this way

must

be an aungel of God (FCL 22)

each priest be an angel

c. But in {lis world {>e beste lif but in this world the best

of God

for prestís is holy lif (FCL 69)

life for priests is holy life

Before we consider dialectal variation, notice first of all that even in the absence of such variation, there is a certain amount of overlap in surface patterns. If a language is SVO, with movement of the finite verb to COMP, and if in root clauses with SVO order, the subject is preposed to first constituent position, we get the following situation:

(78) [COMP TOPIC INFL [ S NPi

Vfj

NP [ V p V ....]]] ei

ej

221 We

already

pointed

out above

that

this

is a combination of movement

of the

subject and the finite verb that is string-vacuous, and that this is bound to put a certain amount of strain on the interpretation of such a pattern. With this basic observation in mind we now look at some dialects. It is difficult to interpret the situation in the works of Rolle, since there is no text-material from roughly the same area preceding Rolle in the ME period. But

the

situation in Wycliffe's

text as illustrated

above

in

(75) offers

a

starting-point, I feel, for the interpretation of the loss of V2. Recall that cliticization is related to the presence of morphological specifications.

In the case of VP clitics, the presence

of morphological

case is

important. Subject clitics should then be related to morphological properties of AGR

under

INFL,

the

under

INFL are

tense

specifications

quite

elaborate

nominative

reflected

on the

in OE,

case-marker. Morphological

primarily

but

properties

in verbal morphology,

finite verb. a number

person,

of A6R

number and

The system of verbal morphology

of basic distinctions were lost

is

in the

fourteenth century as discussed in section 3. This lends further plausibility to our hypothesized link between clitics and morphological properties,

since the

loss of cliticization seems to go hand in hand with the loss of verbal morphology, as the loss of VP clitics goes hand in hand with the loss of noun morphology. This link seems to be fairly plausible for the Northern dialect of Rollethere

cliticization and verbal morphology

are lost earliest - but as pointed

out, no development can be traced there because of the lack of continuity in text material. Now we come back to the situation we find in Wycliffe's

text.

Recall that there we find no inversion of subject pronouns, and irregular inversion of nominal subjects. This, I suggest, offers a way of interpreting the loss of

cliticization and V2

dialect, due interpreted

in this

particular

dialect.

to the loss of verbal morphology, as clitics, while

retaining

I suggest

that in

subject pronouns cease

their positioning

this to be

on the left of the

finite verb in root clauses, so that one gets a pattern (79):

(79) TOPIC

subject NP

Vf

Vinf

As a result of interpreting the subject pronoun as NP rather than 'clitic' the basis for the distinction between these types of NP is lost and nominal subjects start to behave according to the existing patterns for pronouns. As a result, surface patterns in root clauses cease to be interpreted as V2, i.e. as resulting from movement of the finite verb to COMP. Instead, a pattern like (79) might be

interpreted

according

to

the

standard

analysis

for

Modern

English,

with

222 preposing of a TOPIC to COMP, with the subject remaining in its base-generated position in S:

(80)

S'

V

NP ei

In terns of the analysis of V2 we adopted in chapter 2, with INFL in COMP as a trigger for V2, this reinterpretation would entail a change in the position of INFL. Instead of being base-generated in COMP, it comes to be base-generated in S, adjacent to the verb. This change would be triggered by a reinterpretation of surface patterns already existing in the language. However, there is more to be said about this. The situation in Wycliffe's dialect may be as sketched, but the same story can never hold for Chaucer's dialect. Recall that in Chaucer's prose we find regular V2, with inversion of both nominal and pronominal NP's, so that the behaviour of pronominal subjects cannot have provided a basis for a reinterpretation. Instead, it seems to be the case here that pronominal subjects ceased to be interpreted as clitics, and therefore came to behave like nominal subjects, which is the reverse of the situation we suggested for Wycliffe's dialect. We would need to have access to prose from Chaucer's dialect of a little while later to see what happens, but this is unfortunately lacking, as far as I know. As far as we can see then, the general situation sketched above may have obtained here: a predominance of SVO patterns in root clauses (Macleish (1969) records 83.2Z for the Treatise on the Astrolabe) made a V2 interpretation according to (78) above opaque for such sentences, and the 'V2 reading' was lost. As a result SVO patterns cease to be interpreted as

'movement to COMP'. Since such patterns constituted a large

majority, this may have triggered a reinterpretation of the structure for S: INFL comes to be base-generated adjacent to the verb, according to the structure in (80). As a result general V2 is lost. Then the change that we propose is responsible for the loss of V2, is a change in the underlying structure for S and S'. Taraldsen (1983) provides a perspective for this change. He proposes that UG allows parametric variation as to what the head of S is, INFL or V. In

223 such terms English changed from a language with a V-headed S to a language with INFL-headed S. We are left with a problem though. In chapter 2 we adopted H. Koopman's

(1984) proposal that the position of INFL is triggered by the para-

meter for directionality of (structural) case, which states that in the unmarked situation, case is assigned in the same direction by all the relevant categories. But at the stage of M E where this change is taking place, structural casemarking

(that is, all case-marking, since oblique case was lost earlier) takes

place from left to right by V, Ρ and also by INFL previous to our postulated change. This would mean that the change in position of INFL would lead to an increase in markedness in that INFL comes to assign case from right to left, contrary to the unmarked option. I have no real solution to this problem. It may be noted nevertheless, that the pressure of surface patterns as defined above, in combination with INFL-V adjacency as discussed in chapter 3, may have provided a sufficient basis for the language learner to acquire the marked position for INFL. The change in the structure of S and S' correlates in an interesting way with another change that took place at roughly the same time. We discuss this in the following subsection.

6.5.1. Changes related to the loss of V2 If our suggestions for the late ME change in the previous section is along the right lines, English changed from a V-headed S with INFL in COMP to and INFL-headed S. One might expect such a change in the underlying structure to be reflected by other changes beside the loss of V2. This expectation seems to be borne out. Notably at this time some changes can be observed in properties of COMP. First of all this is the introduction of the so-called 'doubly-filled COMP filter' (Chomsky (1981: 243)). The analysis of V2 adopted in chapter 2 entails that there can be two lexicalized positions

in COMP, a position for the first constituent, and one for

Vf/that. A large number of examples of this in root clauses was given in chapter 2, and the same effect can be observed in non-root clauses as is illustrated in (81) with an example of an OE se be relative.

224 (81)

Ure Drihten arœrde anee ealdormannes dohtor,

seo de

lsg dead (ΑΗΡ,VI.176)

our lord

raised an

alderman's

daughter, who that lay dead

'our lord brought to life an alderman's daughter who lay dead' In OE, such doubly-filled COMPs did not occur very frequently In non-root clauses. Beside se be relatives in OE there are instances of sii relatives that must be assumed to have a Jje. complementizer underlyingly, as we saw in chapter 2. This means that in OE there already was a rule of complementizer deletion, which could delete

when there was another element in COMP. There are also non-root

constructions in OE in which doubly-filled COMP is non-attested, such as indirect questions like (82): (82)

t>a

befran se

halgan wer, on hwœs

gesthuse hi

metes

onbirigdon?

(AHTh,II,168) then asked

the holy

man

in whose hostel

they meat

tasted

'then the holy man asked in whose hostel they had tasted meat' In (82) there is no complementizer in the embedded COMP, but only the wh-moved PP on hwss gesthuse. We must assume, however, that there is a

complementizer

underlyingly, since the embedded clause is verb-final, cf. chapter 2. The fact that we find no indirect questions with a doubly-filled COMP would then seem to indicate that in such constructions the complementizer is deleted obligatorily. It must be pointed out that a that complementizer did not occur at all frequently in OE. ]je is the much more usual form. In early Middle English the be complementizer was replaced by that (dat. bet, etc.) and that comes to be used in doubly-filled COMP in all kinds of embedded clauses, as Allen (1977) observes. She gives a fairly detailed account of the spread of that (1977: 239 ff), and

during

the

fourteenth

and

early

fifteenth

centuries

doubly-filled

COMP

appears especially frequently in all kinds of non-root clauses. But there is a rapid demise of the wh-that construction in the early fifteenth century, simultaneous with the rapid demise of V2 as discussed above. How do we

interpret

these facts? In chapter 2 we argued that V2 is the result of obligatory lexicalization of INFL in COMP, and that Vf and that are in complementary distribution. On such a view one would not expect the complementizer to be deletable except under fairly strict conditions, for instance when there is another element in COMP that may 'count' as a lexicalization of INFL, as in (82). But as w e proposed above, the

225

position of INFL was reanalysed in the early fifteenth century; INFL came to be generated in S. As a result V2 was lost and the base-generated complementizer was no longer a lexicalization of INFL. Consequently the conditions under which the complementizer could be deleted were relaxed considerably. By the end of the fifteenth

century

the wh-that

construction was quite rare, as Allen

(1977)

observes. In Modern English wh-that sequences are ungrammatical, as (83) illustrates :

(83) a. This is the man who left b. *This is the man who that left

This effect is known as the 'doubly-filled COMP filter", which Chomsky (1981) formulates as follows :

(84) *

[coMP

«

Ρ]

Presumably then, this filter was introduced around the end of the fifteenth century, as a result of the fact that COMP no longer contained two lexicalizable positions. Thus we see that there is a close parallel between the loss of V2 and the loss of the ME wh-that construction. The analysis of V2 in chapter 2 and the change we proposed above explains this correlation. A remaining question may be why the wh-that construction was far more frequent in the fourteenth and early fifteenth century. We leave this matter for further research. There are various other changes for which it may be attractive and plausible to relate them to the loss of V2 as analysed here. The first of these changes is the rise of the so-called 'that-t filter'. In Modern English wh-extraction of a subject over a that complementizer is ungrammatical, as (85) shows.

(85) *

Who¿

do you think [$>ti that [ s

t^

left]]

The ungraamaticality of (85) is usually attributed to ECP, which requires that trace is properly governed by a lexical head, cf. chapter 5. Given the structure (80) above for S in ModE, t¿ in (85) is governed by INFL which is non-lexical. Modern Dutch sentences parallel to (85) are grammatical, at least in many dialects .

226 (86) a. Wie¿ denk je [g· t¿ dat [ s t¿ wegging]] who think you

that

left

•who do you think left?" b. Wie¿ denk je [g· t¿ dat [g t¿ gekomen was]] who think you

that

come

was

'who do you think came 7' If one assumes that Du is a V2 language with INFL in COMP which is lexicalized obligatorily, the grammatically of (86) follows. INFL in COMP is always lexical and thus acts as a lexical head, satisfying the requirements of ECP. OE is similar to Du in that sentences like (86) occur, as (87) shows.

(87) a. Hwa wenstu

dst -

who think you that

sie to deem getreow ... (CP 459,10) is

so

faithful

•who do you think is that faithful?' b. Mine gebrodra, ne my

lufige ge

brethren, not love

dst - lange wunian ne that

long

disne middangeard de

you this

world

ge

geseod

that you see

meg (AHTh,I,p.614)

remain not can

'My brethren, do not love this world that you see cannot last long' If the relation between V2 and the possibility of that-t sentences represents a valid generalization, one might expect the ModE prohibition on that-t to go hand in hand with the loss of V2. It is rather difficult, though, to verify such a prediction. Long wh-extraction is not the kind of construction one finds very frequently

in written texts and it is therefore rather difficult

development.

If

one

comes

across

the occasional

that-t

example

to trace a in the

late

fifteenth and/or sixteenth century, is one to regard this as a historical residue or as a counterexample? For the moment, we quote an example that shows that the construction was still found in the fourteenth century.

227 (88) ..., yet wol

we us avyse

Whom that we wole that shal

been oure

yet want we us advise whom that we want that shall be

our

justlse (Ch,B,ML 665) judge •yet we seek advice as to whom we want to speak justice for us'

Another change that I wish to suggest is possibly related to the loss of V2 is the introduction of 'S'-deletion'. This term denotes accusative and infinitive constructions with verbs like believe, expect and a number of others.

(89) a. I believe John to be guilty b. I expect Mary to win the match

Accusative

and

infinitive constructions with causative and perceptual verbs

existed in English from the oldest times. The class of verbs was extended in late ME to verbs like the above. Lightfoot (1981) discusses this change and relates it to the loss of oblique case. This is presumably correct to the extent that the loss of oblique case was a precondition for such constructions to be possible. Oblique case was lost around 1200, however, as we saw above, and S'deletion was introduced considerably later. It is probable, therefore, that more factors were involved in this change than Lightfoot admits. What is involved in 'S'-deletion' constructions is literally the deletion of the S' level, i.e. COMP, cf. Chomsky (1981), so that the matrix verb becomes a governor for the embedded subject:

(90) I believe [5 John to be guilty]

The projection level intervening between believe and John cannot be S' because S' is an absolute barrier for government. Verbs like believe have a (lexically specified) property of being able to delete the S' level, so that the matrix" verb governs and assigns case to the embedded subject. Note that, like above, this involves deletion of a complementizer, which we saw became freeer as V2 was lost. The date of this change falls in more or less with the loss of V2, but a couple of factors are unclear. It is not immediately evident in the texte to what extent the rise of these constructions in the written texts was influenced by Acl constructions in Latin, so that we cannot be certain whether at this stage it was a native English construction or due to Latin influence on the written language. However, Warner (1983) adduces some interesting evidence that

228

the

rise

of

S' deletion constructions was

a change in progress

in late ME.

Nevertheless, the possibility of complementizer deletion can only have been one of

a number

of

factors

involved in the

rise of this construction. We note,

however, that the possibility of complementizer deletion may well have been an important factor involved in the rise of 'S' deletion' constructions.

6.6. Conclusion We have seen in this chapter that there were two basic changes in the structure of the English language between OE and late ME. The first of these can be diagnosed primarily by the basic change from OV to VO. This change was due to a reorientation in the directionality of θ-marking by the verb, and was completed by 1200. This change, in combination with the loss of case morphology in the VP, was

responsible

for

the

loss

of

oblique

case.

The loss of oblique case was

responsible for changes in constructions with passives, preposition stranding, and the loss of case-marking by adjectives. Clitics were lost concomitant with case morphology. The second change took place around 1400: English changed from a language with a V-headed S to one with INFL-headed S. As a result general V2 was

lost

and

there were

some

less conspicuous

changes revolving around COMP

properties: the introduction of the 'doubly-filled COMP-filter'; the loss of the 'that-t effect'; and perhaps the introduction of 'S'-deletion. W e have given an analysis of these changes. In some respects this analysis was somewhat tentative. Notice, however, that even if further research were to show that the analysis of this chapter is not quite satisfactory, the main line of argument still stands: there were two clusters of changes in the course of the M E period; one revolving around VP-properties, taking place around 1200; one revolving around COMP-properties, taking place around 1400. The analysis of O E that we have given in part I provides a vehicle for pinpointing differences between OE and ModE, and thus for identifying the changes that took place in ME. The developments in ME, and the fact that we can date them in clusters with reasonable accuracy, accord entirely with the results of part I. This confirms our analyses of OE, and illustrates the validity of the research strategy w i t h which we arrived at them. It is my hope that this will provide a stimulating basis for further research.

Appendices

Appendix I Reductions in noun morphology This appendix gives an overview of the reductions in noun morphology in early Middle English. This overview is not quite as detailed as one might wish, mainly because of gaps in the language-material studied. It might have been preferable to take the case-endings as given in chapter 3.2 as a starting point, and fill in the corresponding endings in the early ME texts studied. However, of a number of OE declension classes there are no corresponding ME examples in the particular texts we have

studied, certainly not of all the individual

cases. As a

result the emerging lists would be so incomplete as to do an injustice to the overall picture. Therefore, what we do here is give a discussion with a number of examples of each of the early M E texts studied, against the background of a more general picture that can be found in standard grammars such as Wright & Wright (1923). The general picture is that, as a result of a phonological process of vowel reduction in unstressed syllables, the distinctive OE case endings were reduced. These reductions well-known

fact

take place earlier in the North than in the South. It is a that

reduction

in

case-endings

is

first

found

in the

tenth

century Northumbrian Lindlsfarne gospels. This dialectal spread is confirmed by my material,

as

far

(North-East Midlands, than in Sawles Warde

as it goes. In the Peterborough Chronicle

continuations

first half of C12) reduction is slightly more

advanced

(West Midlands, early C13), and far more advanced than in

the Kentish Sermons (South, middle of C13). And certainly, the works of Richard Rolle (Yorkshire c. 1340) are near-modern English as far as noun morphology is concerned. This seems to correspond roughly to a North-South dialectal

spread.

However, a note of caution is in order here. While it seems attractive to speculate about dialectal spread, since reduction started apparently in Northumbria in the tenth century and was completed in the North by the first half of the fourteenth century, it must be kept in mind that we are talking about a time gap of over three centuries, in which there is virtually no textmaterial from the North.

This makes

it very

difficult

to

substantiate

claims

about

dialectal

spread. And it is risky to take poetical texts as auxiliary sources, because in

230 many cases

one cannot be certain whether unaccented syllables appear for the

sake of metre or not. As a result the dating of the loss of morphology in early M E is a tricky matter, though there appears to be some dialectal spread.

The Peterborough Chronicle (East Midlands, first half of C12) In the PC noun morphology is already far advanced towards Modern English, as pointed out by Clark (1970: introduction). In the

strong declensions

(a, ja, wa nouns; o, jo, wo nouns; i-nouns; u-

nouns), the nom. and acc. singular were endingless in most declensions in OE. Where they were not (sone neuter a-nouns, some fern, o-nouns and some masc. and fem. u-nouns), we find some vestiges of an -e ending; aie 'awe'; tunscipe 'township'; abbotrice 'abbacy' (OE -e); sune 'son' (OE -u). The gen. sg. (OE -es; -e; -a) is found as -es/-s. the dat. sg. ending OE -e, (-i, -a) is abandoned, except sometimes after some prepositions, e.g. prior 'prior', abuton hals

'around the

neck' but in tune 'in town'. The nom. and acc. plural (ending -as, 0, -u/-a, -e in OE) appears in nearly all declensions as an -es/-s ending which is generalized from the reduced OE -as ending, thus dais 'days', stanes 'stones' (OE -as) landes

'lands', weorkes

'works' (OE 0) treothes

'faiths' (OE -u). The genitive

plural (OE -a) is reduced to -e or 0. The dative plural (OE -um) is replaced by -es/-s which is extended from the reduced -as ending for the nom/acc pi. Thus, munekes 'monks', mid deoules 'with devils'. In the weak declensions, the nom. and acc. sg. appear as -e (OE -e/-a), e.g. nefe

'nephew' (OE -a), er the 'earth' (OE -e). Of the gen. sg. I have no examp-

les. The dat. sg. (OE -an) has disappeared or is -e after some prepositions: on circe

'in church'. The nom. and acc. pi. (OE -an) appear as -es

(generalized

from the reduced OE -as) ending), sometimes -en: nadres 'adders' (OE -an) halechen 'saints'. Of the genitive plural I have no examples. The dative pi. appears as -es/s: bi bumbes 'by the thumbs' (OE -um). The whole range of adjective

declensions of OE is found here as 0 or -e,

without clear selection. In

the

personal pronoun paradigm, the most

third person Thus, OE

striking

3rd person masc. sg. acc. hine >

PC

him

>

PC

it

dat. him OE

thing is that in the

sing, and plur. the distinction between acc. and dat. is

3rd person neut. sg. acc. hit dat. him

lost.

231 OE

3rd pereon fem.

eg. acc. hie >

PC

hire

>

PC

heom

dat. hire OE

3rd person pi.

acc. hie dat. him

Since in the other persons, there was already in OE no distinction between acc. and dat., this distinction is now entirely lost. The whole range of OE demonstrative pronouns is reduced to one form be • with some variant spellings ba/bc. The most striking features about the morphology of the Peterborough Chronicle then are: -

the levelling of the nom/acc -es ending to all plurals, of all declensions, and including the dative. the complete loss of the dative case, except after some prepositions, but these appear to be "set phrases' (cf. Clark (1970: introduction)).

Sawle8 Warde (W. Midlands, early C13) The reductions in noun morphology in Sawles Warde are slightly less far advanced that in the PC. In the strong declensions, the nom. and acc. sg. were endingless

in most

declensions in OE, so in SW. Where they were not (some neuter a-nouns and fem. o-nouns, and some masc. and fem. i-nouns) we find either a 0 ending, but also -e: helle 'hell' (OE -e) 3une 'son' (OE -u). The gen. sg. (OE -es, -e, -a) is found as -es, but where it was -e in OE as -e: deades O f death' (OE -es (helle 'of hell' (OE -e). The dat. sg. (OE -e, (-i, -a)) is found as 0, but also as -e, usually after prepositions: mid his dead ' with his death', 1 forrotet flesch 'in rotted flesh' (OE -e), but also from hame 'from home'. In the nom/acc pi. (OE -as/0, -u/-a/-e), we find the same general -es as in PC: beawes ^virtues (OE -as) wordes 'words' (OE 0). Of the gen. pl. I have no examples. The dative pi. (OE -um) is found as -es: wld his wernches 'with his tricks' (OE -um). In the weak declensions, the nom. and acc. sg. appear as -e (OE -el-a): eorde 'earth*. Of the gen. sg. I have no examples, nor of the dat. sg. The nom. and acc. pi. (-an in OE) appear most frequently as -en, but also as -es (generalised from the reduced -as ending): ehnen 'eyes' froggen 'frogs', but eauroskes 'waterfrogs'. I have no examples of the gen. pi. The dat. pi.

(OE -um) appears

(once) as -en: itellede draken 'tailed dragons'. The whole range of adjective declensions is reduced to 0 or -e.

232 The personal pronouns: we find the same pattern as in the PCi one form for the OE acc. and dative form: OE

3rd person sg.

acc.

mase. OE

> SW

him

> SW

hit

> SW

hire

> SW

ham

dat.

3rd person sg. neut.

acc. dat.

OE

3rd person sg. fem.

acc. dat.

OE

3rd person pi.

acc. dat.

In the range of demonstrative pronouns, a good deal of reduction is found. By far the most frequent form is be Ite

for all numbers and genders, but there are

some vestiges of the OE demonstrative pronouns with reduced vowels, e.g. bet fur •the fire' (OE bat). We see then, that the reductions in morphology in SW are not as far advanced as in the PC, but the trends are substantially the same, notably that of the loss of the dative case. Kentish Sermons (South, first half of C13) In the Kentish Sermons, the OE case system is retained to a fuller

extent

than in the PC and SW. In the

strong declensions,

the nom. and acc.

sg. were endingless

in most

declensions in OE, so in KS. Where they were not (some neuter a-nouns, some fem. o-nouns, some masc. and fem. u-nouns), the ending is -e, eg. sune 'son* (OE -u). The gen. sg. (OE -es/-e/-a) is found as -es/s: lordes 'lord's'. The dat. sg. (OE -e,

(-i, -a)) is found as -e or 0: godespelle

e). The nom. and acc. pi.

'gospel', manken 'mankind' (0E-

(ending -as/0/-u/-a/-e in OE) is found as -es: eg.

werkes 'works' (OE 0). Of the gen. pl. I have no examples. The dat. pl. (-um) is found as -es

(from the generalized reduced -as ending) 1ondes

'kings', nledes

'lands' klnees

'needs'.

In the weak declensions, the nom. and acc. sg. (OE -e/-a/an) appear as -e: sterre

'star' (OE -an). Of the gen. sg. I have no examples. The dat. sg.

an) appears as -e or 0 in erbe 'on earth*

(0E-

(OE -an). Of the plurals I have no

examples. The range of OE adjective inflections is reduced to 0/-e. Personal pronouns: In the third person forms in the pronouns, the distinction

233 between dat. and acc. is retained to some extent, though there is some levelling: 3rd person sg. mase. acc. 3rd person sg. fem.

dat.

him

dat.

hire

3rd person eg. neut. 3rd person pi.

hyne, him

no examples acc.

hi, his, -es. hem

dat.

hem

From this it appears that, though there is some levelling, the dative case is not abandoned altogether. Demonstrative pronouns: case and gender distinctions are preserved to

some

extent. mase sg.

neut sg.

fem.

plural

si

(>et

si

J>°

acc.

£e/Jjane

fie/to

Jjo

JJO

gen.

t>es

dat.

JJO

]?o

{>o

F)0

nom.

It is clear then, that the individual endings are retained to a fuller extent in KS than in the other texts investigated. Notably, the dative is retained as a case.

234 Appendix II Old English verb morphology In this

appendix we

give

the main features

of OE verb

conjugation:

number, tense and mood distinctions; distinctions between weak verbs terized by a dental ending in the past tenses) and strong verbs

Weak verbs

class I

class II

infinitive

fremman (to perform)

lufian (to love)

Present Indicative 1 sg

ic

fremme

lufie

2 sg

t>u

fremest

lufast

3 sg

he/heo/hit

fremed

lufad

we/ge/hi

fremmad

lufiad

1-3 sg

ic/J>u/etc.

fremme

lufie

1-3 pi

we/ge/hi

fremmen

lufien

sg

freme

lufa

pi

fremmad

lufiad

fremmende

lufiende

ic/he etc.

fremede

lufode

t>u

fremedest

lufodest

we/ge/hi

fremedon

lufodon

1-3 sg

ic/Jju/he

fremede

lufode

1-3 pi

we/ge/hi

Subjunctive

Imperative

Participle Past Indicative 1&3 sg 2 sg 1-3 pi

(charac-

(characterized

by ablaut in the past tenses) and the main subclasses of these:

1-3 pi

person,

Subjunctive fremeden

lufoden

Participle

gefremed

gelufod

Inflected infinitve

to fremmenne

to lufienne

235 Ablaut classes of the strong verbs: Infinitive

3rd ps.sg.Indie

past sg.

past pi.

past pple

rad

ridon

geriden

(with umlaut) Class I

ridan

ritt

•ride' Class II

ceosan

Class III

bindan

Class IV

beran

gecoren

cyst

'choose' bint

band

bundan

gebunden

bird

baer

ber on

geboren

spricd

s prase

sprscon

gesprecen

fard

for

for on

gefaren

fyld

feoll

feollon

•bint" 'bear' Class V

sprecan

Class VI

faran

Class VII

feallan

'speak'

•go•fall'

gefeallen

Abbreviations

What

follows

is a list of abbreviations used. Those

abbreviations

that

refer to texts, give the title of the text, the editor of the edition used, and the way in which the text is referred to, volume, text number, page and/or line. AColl

Aelfric's Colloquy, ed. Garmonsway, line reference

AHG

Aelfric's Homilies, ed. Godden, section and line number.

ΑΗΡ

Aelfric's Homilies, ed. Pope, homily and line number.

AHTh

The Homilies

ASL

Aelfric's Lives of Saints, ed. Skeat. Homily and line number.

AW

Ancrene Wisse, ed. Tolkien. Page and line.

of the Anglo-Saxon Church, ed. Thorpe, volume

and page number.

Ayenbite of Inwyt. fragment studied from Sisam's reader. Line Ayenbite

number.

Bede

and line.

OE version of Bede's Ecclesiastical History, ed. Miller, page Benedictine Rule, ed. Kock. Page and line. Ben. Blick

B ü c k l i n g Homilies, ed. Morris. Page. King Alfred's

Boeth.

ed.

Sedgefield.

Section,

page

and

line. The works

Ch.

Boethius.

of Chaucer. Abbreviations

are those used in the

Tatlock and Kennedy concordance, ed. Robinson. C and D manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. Plum-

ChronC/ChronD

mer, year reference. King Alfred's Translation of Pope Gregory's Cura Pastoralis.

CP

ed. Sweet. Page and line.

EP

Bquatorie of the Planets, ed. Wright. Line.

FCL

Wycliffe's

'Of

Feigned

Contemplative

Life',

fragment

in

Sisam. Line reference. GD

King Alfreds

translation of Gregory's

Dialogues.

reference

from microfiche concordance. GE St EX

Story of Genesis and Exodus, ed. Morris. Line number.

GOWERCA

John Gower's Confesslo Amantis. ed. Macauley.

237 HM

-

HaXi Meldhad. ed. Millett. Page and line.

Kath

-

The Life of Saint Katherine, ed. Einenkel. Line reference.

KS

«

Kentish Sermons, fragment studied in Bennett & Smithers. Line

L.Brut

-

Layamon's Brut, ed. Madden. Line reference.

Malory

-

The Works of Sir Thomas Malory, vol. I, ed. Vinaver. Section,

Mt

»

reference.

page and line. The Gospel

according

to Matthew, ed. GrUnberg. Line

refer-

ence . MT

-

Mandeville's Travels

OEH

-

Old English Homilies, ed. Morris. Page reference.

OET

-

The Oldest English Texts. ed. Sweet. Page and line.

Oros

-

The Old English English Orosius. ed. Bately. Page and line.

Parker

»

The

PC

-

Parker ms. of

the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,

ed.

Plummer.

Year entry. The Peterborough Chronicle, ed. Clark. Year entry and line.

RR

=

The works of Richard Rolle, ed. Perry. Page and line.

So

-

King Alfred's translation of St. Augustine's Soliloquies, ed. Carnicelli.

St.Marg.

-

SW

-

The Life of St. Margaret. Sawles Warde, in OE Homilies, ed. Morris. Page reference.

TNoah

-

The Townely play of Noah, in Sisam. Line reference

V&V

-

Vices and Virtues, ed. Holthausen. Page and line.

W2Shep

-

The Wakefield Second Shepherds play, ed. Cawley. Line reference

References

1. Old and Middle English Texts

Bately, J. (ed.)

The Old English Oroslus. EETS SS6, 1980.

Bennett, J. & G.V. Smithers (eds) Early Middle English Verse and Prose. Oxford University Press, 1968. Carnicelli, T.A. (ed.)

King Alfred's Version of St. Augustine's 'Soliloquies'. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1969.

Clark, C. (ed.)

The

Peterborough

Chronicle.

2nd

edition.

Clarendon

Press, Oxford, 1970. Einenkel, E. (ed.)

The Life of St. Katherine. EETS 80. London, 1884.

Garmonsway, G.N. (ed.)

iElfrlc's Colloquy. Methuen & Co. London, 1939.

Godden, M. (ed.)

iElfric's

Catholic

Homilies,

series

II,

EETS

S.S. 5.

London 1979. GrUnberg, M. (ed.)

The West-Saxon Gospels. Scheltema & Holkema, Amsterdam, 1967.

Holthausen, F. (ed.) Kock, E. (ed.)

Vices and Virtues. EETS vols. 89 and 159. London, 1888. Three Middle English Versions of the Rule of St. Benet. EETS 120. London, 1902.

Macauley, G. (ed.)

John Gower's English Works. Vol. 1. EETS E.S. 81, 1900. Reprint 0UP 1957.

Madden, Sir F. (ed.)

Lavamon's 'Brut' or Chronicle of Britain. Reprint Otto

Miller, Th. (ed.)

The Old English Version of Bede's Ecclesiastical His-

Zeller, Osnabrück 1967.

tory of the English People. EETS, vols. 95, 96, 110, and 111. London, 1890-1898. Millett, B. (ed.)

Hall Meldhad• EETS 284. 0UP 1982.

Morris, R. (ed.)

The Bllckling Homilies of the Tenth Century. EETS vols. 58, 63, and 73. Oxford, 1874-1880

Morris, R. (ed.)

Old

English Homilies

and Homlletlc

Treatises of the

Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. EETS, vols. 29, 34. Reprint Greenwood, New York 1969.

239

Morris, R. (ed.)

The Story of Genesis and Exodus. EETS, vol. 7. London 186S.

Perry, G. (ed.)

English Prose Treatises of Richard Rolle de Hampole. EETS vol. 20. London 1866, 1921.

Plummer, C. (ed.)

Two

of

the Saxon Chronicles

Parallel; Based

on an

Edition by John Earle. 2 vols. 1899. Reprint Oxford 1952. Pope, J. (ed.)

Homilies of Jlfric: A Supplementary Collection. EETS vols 259 and 260. OUP 1967.

Robinson, F. (ed.)

The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. 2nd ed. OUP 1957.

Sedgefield, W. (ed.)

King

Alfred's

Con8olatlone

Old

English

Version

of

Boethius

'De

Phllosophiae'• Reprint Wissenschaftliche

Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1968. Sisam, K. (ed.)

Fourteenth Century Verse and Prose. OUP 1921.

Skeat, W. (ed.)

iElfrlc's Lives of Saints. EETS, vols. 76, 82, 94 and 114. Reprint OUP 1965.

Sweet, H. (ed.)

King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care. EETS vols 45 and 50. London 1871-72.

Sweet, H. (ed.) Thorpe, Β. (ed.)

The Oldest English Texts. EETS, vol 83. London 1885. The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church. 2 vols. The .filfric Society, London 1846.

Tolkien, J. (ed.) Vinaver, E. (ed.)

Ancrene Wisse. EETS, vol. 249. OUP 1962. The Works

of

Sir

Thomas Malory. Vol. I, Clarendon

Press, Oxford 1947. Wright, T. (ed. )

Popular Treatises on Science Written During the Middle Ages.. London 1841.

240 2. Secondary source references Abraham, W. (ed.) (1983) On the Formal Syntax of the West Germania. Benjamine, Amsterdam. Allen, C.L. (1974)

•Old English Models'.

In UMaas

Occasional

Papers

in

Linguistics 1, pp. 99-106. Allen, C.L (1977)

Topics

in Diachronic

English Syntax,

unpublished

PhD

disseration, UMass, Amherst. Allen, C.L. (1980)

'Movement and deletion in Old English'. In Linguistic Inquiry 11, pp. 261-325.

Andersen, H. (1969)

Ά

Study in diachronic morphophonemics: the Ukrainian

prefixes'. In Language 45, pp. 553-74. Andersen, H. (1972)

'Diphthongization'. In Language 48. pp. 11-50.

Andersen, H. (1973)

•Abductive and deductive change*. In Language 49, pp. 765-93. 'Toward a typology of change: bifurcating changes and

Andersen, H. (1974)

binary relations'. In Anderson & Jones (1974). Anderson, J.M. & C. Jones

(eds)

(1974) Historical Linguistics. North Holland,

Amsterdam. Aoun, J. (1985)

The Logical Nature of Anaphoric Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Aoun, J. & D. Sportiche (1983), O n the Formal Theory of Government'. In The Linguistic Review 2, pp. 211-237. Baker, C. & J. McCarthy (eds.) (1981) The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Barrett, C.R. (1953)

Studies in the Word Order of jElfric's 'Catholic Homilies' and 'Lives of the Saints'. C.U.P.

Baxter, A.R.W. (1975)

Aspects

of

Naturalness

in

Phonology.

Unpublished

B.

Litt, thesis, Oxford. Bayer, J. (1985)

'COMP in Bavarian Syntax'. In The Linguistic Review 3, pp. 209-275.

Bean, M. (1983)

The Development of Word Order Patterns In Old English. Croom Helm, London.

Bennis, H. (1980)

'Er-Deletion in a Modular Grammar*. In Daalder & Gerritsen (1980).

Bennis, H. (1986)

Gaps and Dummies. Foris, Dordrecht.

Bennis, Η. & T. Hoekstra

(1984)

'Gaps and parasitic gaps'. In The

Review 4, pp. 29-89.

Linguistic

241 Bennls, H. & W.O.S. van Lessen Kloeke (eds) (1983) Linguistics In the Netherlands 1983. Foris, Dordrecht. Bennls, H. & W.Ü.S. van Lessen Kloeke (eds) (1984) Linguistics In the Netherlands 1984. Foris, Dordrecht. Berendsen, E. (1983)

O b j e c t clitica in het Nederlands'. In De Nieuwe Taalelds 76. pp. 209-225.

Berendsen, E. (1986) Besten, H. den (1977)

The Phonology of Cliticization. Foris, Dordrecht. *0n the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules'. In W. Abraham (ed.), pp. 47-138.

Besten, H. den & J. Edmondson (1983) 'The Verbal Complex in Continental West-Germanic'.

In Groninger Arbeiten zur

Germanisti-

schen Linguistik 19. pp. 155-216. Bierwisch, M. (1963)

Grammatik

des

Deutschen

Verbs.

Studia

Grammatica

2,

Berlin. Borer, H. (1983)

Parametric Syntax. Foris, Dordrecht.

Bresnan, J. (1976)

'Evidence

for a Theory of Unbounded

Transformations'.

In Linguistic Analysis 2, pp. 253-393. Bresnan, J. & J. Grimshaw (1978) 'The Syntax of Free Relatives in English'. In Linguistic Inquiry 9, pp. 331-391. Brown, W.H. (1970)

A Descriptive Syntax of King Alfred's

'Pastoral Care'.

Mouton, The Hague. Burzio, L. (1985)

Intransitive

Verbs

Butler, M.C. (1981)

Grammatically

and

Italian

Auxiliaries.

Reidel,

Dordrecht. Motivated

Subjects

in

Early

English.

Unpublished PhD dissertation, UT Austin. Campbell, A. (1959)

Old English Grammar. Oxford University Press.

Canale, W. (1978)

Word Order Change Generative

in Old English. Base Reanalysis in

Grammar.

Unpublished

PhD

dissertation,

McGill University. Carlton, C.R. (1970)

Descriptive

Syntax

of

the

OE

Charters.

Mouton,

The

Hague. Chomsky, N. (1970)

'Remarks

on Nominalization".

In R.A. Jacobs and P.S.

Rosenbaum (1970). Chomsky, N. (1977)

'On Wh-Movement'. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (1977), pp. 71-132.

Chomsky, N. (1981)

Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.

Chomsky, N. (1982)

Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

242 Chomsky, Ν. (1985)

'Barriers'. Unpublished ms. MIT.

Chomsky, Ν. & H. Laenik (1977) 'Filters and Control'. In Linguistic Inquiry 8. pp. 425-504. Cinque, G. (1983a)

'Constructions with Left-Peripheral Phrases, 'Connectedness', Move α and ECP'. Unpublished ms, University of Venice.

Cinque, G. (1983b)

'Island

Effects,

Subjacency,

ECP/Connectedness

and

Reconstruction*. Unpublished ms. University of Venice. Cinque, G. (1984)

•Ä-bound Pro vs. Variable'. Unpublished ms. University of Venice.

Cremers, C. & A. Sassen (1983) 'On VI, GB and INFL'. In H. Bennis & W.U.S. van Lessen Kloeke (1983), pp. 41-53. Culicover, P., T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (eds.) (1977) Formal Syntax. Academic Press, New York. Daalder, S. & M. Gerritsen (eds.) (1986) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1980. Denison, D. (1985)

'The Origins of Periphrastic Do: Elleg&rd and Visser Reconsidered'. In R. Eaton et. al. (1985), pp. 45-61.

Dresher, B.E. (1978)

Old English and the Theory of Phonology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. UMass, Amherst.

Eaton, R. et al. (eds) (1985) Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Benjamins, Amsterdam. Ellegârd, A. (1953)

The Auxiliary 'DO': The Establishment and Regulation of

Evers, A. (1975)

The Transformational Cycle in Dutch and German. IULC.

its Use in English. Almquist & Wiksell, Stockholm.

Evers, A. (1981)

'Verb-Second Movement Rules'. In Wiener Linguistische Gazette 26, pp. 15-34.

Evers, A. (1982)

'Twee Functionele Principes voor de Regel

'Verschuif

het Werkwoord". In Glot 1, pp. 11-30. Fischer, 0. & F. van der Leek (1983) 'The Demise of the Old English Impersonal Construction'. In Journal of Linguistics 19, pp. 337368. Fisiak, J. (1968)

A Short Grammar of Middle English. Oxford University Press.

Fries, C. (1940)

O n the Development of the Structural Use of Word Order in Modern English'. In Language 16, pp. 199-208.

Gardner, F. (1971)

An

Analysis

of

Syntactic

Mouton, The Hague.

Patterns

of

Old

English.

243 Geest, W. de & Y. Putseys (eds.) (1984) Sentential Complementation. Foris, Dordrecht. Haan, G.J. de (1986)

'De Rol van Morfologie en Syntaxis in de Ontwikkeling van het Werkwoord', GLOT. pp. 28-41.

Haan, G. de, M. Trommelen & W. Zonneveld (eds.) (1984) Van Periferie naar Kern. Foris, Dordrecht. Haan, G. de & F. Weerman (1985) 'Finiteness and Verb-Fronting in Frisian'. In H. Haider & M. Prinzhorn (1985), pp. 77-110. Haegeman, L. (1983)

'Die en Dat in West-Flemish Relative Clauses'. In H. Bennis & W.U.S. van Lessen Kloeke (1983), pp. 83-93.

Haegeman, L. & H. Bennis (1984) 'On the Status of Agreement and Relative clauses in W. Flemish' . In W. de Geest & Y. Putseys (1984), pp. 33-55. Haegeman, L. & H. van Riemsdijk (1986) 'Verb Projection Raising, Scope and the Typology

of

Rules

Affecting

Verbs'.

In

Linguistic

Inquiry 17, pp. 417-467. Haring Russom, J. (1982) 'An Examination of the Evidence for Old English Indirect Passives'. In Linguistic Inquiry 13, pp. 677681.

Haider, H. & M. Prinzhorn (eds) (1985) Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Foris, Dordrecht. Heny, F. & T. Richards (1983) Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles. Reidel, Dordrecht. Hiltunen, R. (1983)

The Decline of the Prefixes and the Beginnings of the English Phrasal Verb. Turun Yliopisto, Turku.

Hoekstra, Τ.A. (1984)

Transitivity. Foris, Dordrecht.

Hornstein, Ν. & A. Weinberg (1981a) 'Case Theory and Preposition Stranding'. In Linguistic Inquiry 12, pp. 55-93. Hornstein, Ν. & A. Weinberg (1981b) 'Extraction, Government and Parameters of Grammar'. Unpublished ms. Horst, J. (1983)

Preposition

Stranding

in

Government-Binding

Theory.

Unpublished MA Thesis, Utrecht. Jackendoff, R.S. (1977)

X-bar Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Jacobs, R.A. & P.S. Rosenbaum (eds.) (1970) Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Ginn & Co, Waltham, Massachusetts. Jacobsson, B. (1951)

Inversion in English. Almquist & Wiksell, Uppsala.

Kayne, R. (1981a)

'ECP Extensions'. In Linguistic Inquiry 12, pp. 93-135.

244 Kayne, R. (1981b)

'On Certain Differences between English and French'. In Linguistic Inquiry 12, pp. 349-373.

Kayne, R. (1983)

'Chains, Categories

External to S and French Complex

Inversion*. In Natural Language and Linguistic

Theory

1, pp. 107-140. Kayne, R. (1984)

Connectedness and Binary Branching. Foris, Dordrecht.

Kemenade, A. van (1984a) 'V2 and Clitics in Old English'. In H. Bennis & W.U.S. van Lessen Kloeke (1984), pp. 101-110. Kemenade, A. van (1984b) 'Preposition Stranding in Old English*. In G. de Haan, M. Trommelen & W. ΖormeveId (1984), pp. 129-141. Kemenade, A. van (1985a) 'Old English Infinitival Complements and WestGermanic V-Raising*. In R. Eaton et al. (1985), pp. 73-85. Kemenade, A. van (1985b) 'R-clitica*. In Spektator 14-5. pp. 332-336. Koopman, H. (1983)

'ECP Effects

in Main Clauses'.

In Linguistic

Koopman, H. (1984)

The Syntax of Verbs. Foris, Dordrecht.

Inquiry

14, pp. 346-351. Koopman, W. (1984)

'Some thoughts on Old English Word Order'. In Papers read at the Fifth Philological Symposium. Utrecht.

Koster, J. (1975)

'Dutch as an SOV language'. In Linguistic Analysis 1, pp. 111-136.

Kuno, S. (1974)

'The Position of Relative Clauses and Conjunctions'. In Linguistic Inquiry 5, pp. 117-136.

Lasnik, H. i M. Saito (1984), 'On the Nature of Proper Government'. In Linguistic Inquiry 15, pp. 235-291. Li, Ch. (ed.) (1977) Lieber, R. (1979)

Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin, Texas. 'The English Passive: an Argument for Historical Rule Stability". In Linguistic Inquiry 10. pp. 668-688.

Lightfoot, D. (1976)

'Diachronic

Syntax:

Extraposition

and

Deep

Structure

Re-Analyses'. In Folia Linguistica 9, pp. 197-214. Lightfoot, D. (1977)

'Syntactic Change and the Autonomy Thesis'. In Journal of Linguistics 13, pp. 191-216.

Lightfoot, D. (1979)

Principles of Diachronic

Syntax. Cambridge

University

Press. Lightfoot, D. (1981)

'The History of NP Movement'. In C. Baker & J. McCarthy

Macleish, A. (1969)

The Middle English

(1981). Subiect-Verb

Cluster. Mouton,

Hague. Maling, J. & A. Zaenen (1982), 'Preposition Stranding and Oblique Case'.

The

245 Unpublished ms. Malsh, D.L. (1976)

'Clauses and Quasi-Clauses : VO order In Old English'. In Glossa 10, pp. 28-43

Mitchell, B. (1979)

'F.Th.

Visser,

Language ;

An

Some

Historical

Caveats

syntax

Concerning

of

Old

the

English

English'.

In

English Studies 60, pp. 537-542. Mitchell, B. (1985)

Old English Syntax. Clarendon, Oxford.

Mossé, F. (1945)

Manuel de l'Anglais du Moyen Age des Origines au XIVième Siècle: I. Vieil Anglais. Paris.

Paardekooper, P.C. (1955) 'Persoonsvorm en Voegwoord'. In De Nleuwe Taalgids 54, pp. 296-301. Pesetsky, D. (1982)

'Complementizer-Trace

Phenomena

and

the

Nominative

Island Condition*. In The Linguistic Review 1, pp. 297345. Pintzuk, S. & A. Kroch (1985), 'Reconciling an Exceptional Feature of Old English Clause Structure'. Unpublished ms,. University of Pennsylvania. Platzack, C. (1983)

'Germanic Word Order and the COMP/INFL Parameter*. In Working Papers In Scandinavian Syntax 2.

Platzack, C. (1985)

•The

Position of the Finite Verb in Swedish'.

In H.

Haider & M. Prinzhorn (1985), pp. 77-111. Reddick, R.J. (1982)

'On

the

Underlying

Order

of

Early

West-Saxon'.

In

Journal of Linguistics 18, pp. 37-56. Riemsdijk, H. van (1978) A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases. Foris, Dordrecht. Riemsdijk, H. van (1983) 'The Case of German Adjectives'. In F. Heny & T. Richards (1983). Roberts, I. (1985)

'Agreement

Parameters

and the Development

of

English

Modal Auxiliaries'. In Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, pp. 21-58. Rouveret, A. & J.R. Vergnaud (1980) 'Specifying Reference to the Subject'. In Linguistic Inquiry 11, pp. 97-203. Safir, K. (1981)

'Inflection-Government and Inversion'. In The Linguistic Review 1, pp. 417-467.

Schmidt, D.A. (1980)

A

History

of

Shannon, A. (1964)

A Descriptive

Inversion

in

English.

Unpublished

PhD

disseration, Ohio State University. Syntax of the Parker Manuscript of the

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Mouton, The Hague.

246 Shores, D.L. (1971)

A Descriptive Syntax of the Peterborough Chronicle from

Smith, J. (1971)

Word Order in the Older Germanic Dialects. Unpublished

1122-1154. Mouton, The Hague. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois. Stockwell, R.P. (1977)

"Motivations for Exbraciation in Old English'. In Li, C. (1977), pp. 394-421.

Stowell, T. (1981)

Origins

of Phrase

Structure. Unpublished

PhD

disser-

tation, MIT. Strang, Β. (1970)

A History of English. Methuen, London.

Stuurinan, F. (1985)

Phrase

Structure Theory in Generative Grammar.

Poris,

Dordrecht. Taraldsen, T. (1983)

Parametric Variation in Phrase Structure.

Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of TromsO. Traugott, E. (1972)

A History of English Syntax. Holt, Rinehart and Win-

Travis, L. (1984)

Parameters and Effects of Word Order, unpublished PhD

ston, New York. dissertation, MIT. Vat, J. (pseudonym) (1978) 'On Footnote 2s Evidence for the Pronominal Status of deer in Old English Relatives'. In Linguistic Inquiry 9, pp. 695-716. Visser, F.Th. (1963-1973) An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 4 vols. Brill, Leiden. Wahl, Andy (pseudonym) (1985) 'Two Types of Locality'. Unpublished ms., U of Maryland. Warner, A. (1982)

Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax. Croom Helm, London.

Wasow, T. (1977)

'Transformations and the Lexicon'. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (1977), pp. 252-280.

Weerman, F. (1985)

'Over

Enkele

Verschillen

tussen

MiddelNederlands

en

Nederlands'. In Spektator 14. pp. 374-380. Weerman, F. (1986)

'The

Different

Faces

of

Verb

Second'.

Unpublished

paper, Utrecht. Wright,

J.

& E. Wright

(1923) An Elementary Middle

English Grammar.

University Press. Wtllfing, E. (1894, 1901) Die Syntax in den Werken Alfreds des Grossen. P. Hanstein's Verlag, Bonn.

Oxford