Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics) 9780198832584, 0198832583

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

OXFORD STUDIES IN DIACHRONIC AND HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS General editors Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge Advisory editors Cynthia L. Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; George Walkden, University of Konstanz; David Willis, University of Oxford      35 Referential Null Subjects in Early English Kristian A. Rusten 36 Word Order and Parameter Change in Romanian A Comparative Romance Perspective Alexandru Nicolae 37 Cycles in Language Change Edited by Miriam Bouzouita, Anne Breitbarth, Lieven Danckaert, and Elisabeth Witzenhausen 38 Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives André Zampaulo 39 Dative External Possessors in Early English Cynthia L. Allen 40 The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume II: Patterns and Processes Anne Breitbarth, Christopher Lucas, and David Willis 41 Variation and Change in Gallo-Romance Grammar Edited by Sam Wolfe and Martin Maiden 42 Phonetic Causes of Sound Change The Palatalization and Assibilation of Obstruents Daniel Recasens 43 Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change Edited by Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson For a complete list of titles published and in preparation for the series, see pp. 410–14

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change Edited by JÓHANNES GÍSLI JÓNSSON AND THÓRHALLUR EYTHÓRSSON

1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © editorial matter and organization Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson 2021 © the chapters their several authors 2021 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2021 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2021931819 ISBN 978–0–19–883258–4 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198832584.001.0001 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

Contents Series Preface List of abbreviations The contributors

vii ix xv

1. Introduction: Syntactic features and the limits of syntactic change Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson

1

PART I: THE LEFT PERIPHERY 2. Degree semantics, polarity, and the grammaticalization of comparative operators into complementizers Julia Bacskai-Atkari 3. Cyclic changes in Hungarian relative clauses Julia Bacskai-Atkari and Éva Dékány

15 40

4. Diachronic change and feature instability: The cycles of Fin in Romanian obligatory control Gabriela Alboiu and Virginia Hill

64

5. Null subjects in Middle Low German: Diachronic stability and change Melissa Farasyn and Anne Breitbarth

84

PART II: THE T-DOMAIN 6. Feature reanalysis and the Latin origin of Romance Negative Concord Chiara Gianollo 7. Degrammaticalization of pronominal clitics in Slavic Hakyung Jung and Krzysztof Migdalski

113 139

8. (In)vulnerable inflected infinitives as complements to modals: Evidence from Galician and Romeyka Ioanna Sitaridou

161

9. Assessing phonological correlates of syntactic change: The case of Late Latin weak  Lieven Danckaert

178

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

vi



10. Investigating the past of the futurate present Elizabeth Cowper, Daniel Currie Hall, Bronwyn M. Bjorkman, Rebecca Tollan, and Neil Banerjee

210

PART III: CASE MARKING 11. From lexical to dependent: The case of the Greek dative Elena Anagnostopoulou and Christina Sevdali 12. The nature and origin of syntactic ergativity in Austronesian languages Edith Aldridge 13. Featural dynamics in morphosyntactic change Iris Edda Nowenstein and Anton Karl Ingason

241

265 301

PART IV: SYNTACTIC RECONSTRUCTION 14. Syntactic reconstruction based on linguistic fossils: Object marking in Uralic Katalin É. Kiss

323

15. Regular syntactic change and syntactic reconstruction Mark Hale and Madelyn Kissock

348

References Index of Languages Index of Subjects

367 403 405

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

Series Preface Modern diachronic linguistics has important contacts with other subdisciplines, notably first-language acquisition, learnability theory, computational linguistics, sociolinguistics, and the traditional philological study of texts. It is now recognized in the wider field that diachronic linguistics can make a novel contribution to linguistic theory, to historical linguistics, and arguably to cognitive science more widely. This series provides a forum for work in both diachronic and historical linguistics, including work on change in grammar, sound, and meaning within and across languages; synchronic studies of languages in the past; and descriptive histories of one or more languages. It is intended to reflect and encourage the links between these subjects and fields such as those mentioned above. The goal of the series is to publish high-quality monographs and collections of papers in diachronic linguistics generally, i.e. studies focusing on change in linguistic structure, and/or change in grammars, which are also intended to make a contribution to linguistic theory, by developing and adopting a current theoretical model, by raising wider questions concerning the nature of language change, or by developing theoretical connections with other areas of linguistics and cognitive science as listed above. There is no bias towards a particular language or language family or towards a particular theoretical framework; work in all theoretical frameworks and work based on the descriptive tradition of language typology, as well as quantitatively based work using theoretical ideas, also feature in the series. Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts University of Cambridge

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

List of abbreviations 1 2 3         ASG  Att. Aug.  BBL BCC Boeth. BP C Caes. Ar. c. Faust.  CG C–I Cic.  CLn CN  Col BP  compr  ConjP Cons.

first person second person third person ablative absolutive accusative active (Voice) adverb Agreement aorist applicative Anglo-Saxon Gospels aspect Epistulae ad Atticum Augustine Auxiliary Birchbark Letters Borer–Chomsky Conjecture Boethius Brazilian Portuguese complementizer Caesarius of Arles contra Faustum Manichaeum causative Classical Greek Conceptual–Intentional Cicero classifier / clitic (Ch. 11) C/Edge-linker common noun connegative Colloquial Brazilian Portuguese complementizer phrase / comparative degree (Ch. 9) comparative conditional conjunction phrase Philosophiae Consolatio

In the abbreviations, small caps indicate terms used in glosses but ordinary capital letters are used for abbreviations in the main text and the footnotes.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

x

  

CP  DEF  .   DM DN DO  Dor. DP DS  E EA EC ECDR ECSS   ENHG EP EPP   F F(P) Fin Foc Foc(P) FOFC   GCC   I IA IE iF   

Complementizer Phrase dative definite article definite definite object agreement on verb demonstrative diminutive Distributed Morphology Double Negation Direct object differential object marker Doric Determiner Phrase Dative Substitution dual Eastern external argument Exhaustive Control Elsewhere Condition Death Rattle Elsewhere Condition Serial Search elative case emphatic Early New High German European Portuguese Extended Projection Principle ergative feminine functional (Chs 3, 9) / feminine (Ch. 5) / feature (Chs 6, 10) / foot (Ch. 9) (generic) functional projection finite focus feature Focus (Phrase) Final-Over-Final Constraint frequency future Gesta Conlationis Carthaginiensis genitive gerundive intonational phrase internal argument Indo-European interpretable feature illative case imperative imperfect(ive)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

       INEQ  INFL Infl    IO Iord. IP   KJV KP L1  LCA LF LI Liv.   M  m-case ME MG MLG MNw  Mod MTC Mur.  N NAct NAn NCI  Neg NEG NegP

inclusive indicative indefinite inessive case inequality infinitive inflection inflected verb instructive instrumental intransitive Indirect object Jordanes inflectional phrase Infinitivus Pro Participio irrealis King James Version Kase phrase first-language Latin / lative Linear Correspondence Axiom Logical Form lexical items Livy linker locative masculine masculine morphological case Middle English Modern Greek Middle Low German Middle Norwegian modal modal (verb) movement theory of control Pro Murena neuter Northern Non-active Voice (morphology) Nuclear Austronesian Negative Concord Item negation negation feature Negation/negative Negation Phrase

xi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

xii

  

NG NI NM  NOC   NP NPI NS NSL O OBJ  OC OCS OE OHG ONw Op. OR OS OT P PaPa PAn   PC PDE PEAn Perf  PF Phi-features PIE      PP Ppl  

Northern Greek negative indefinite negative marker nominalization non-obligatory control nominative non-future noun phrase Negative Polarity Item Narrow Syntax null subject language object object agreement (suffix) oblique obligatory control Old Church Slavonic Old English Old High German Old Norwegian operator Old Russian Old Saxon Optimality Theory preposition past participle Proto-Austronesian particle passive Partial Control Present-Day English Proto-Ergative Austronesian perfect perfect(ive) Phonetic Form / Phonological Form (Chs 8, 13) person / number features Proto-Indo-European plural pluperfect personal name possessive possibility suffix prepositional phrase participle present preterite

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

   pro    PSR   QM QP     RNS ROf Rom. RSüR S  SHA SM SMG Spec SR SSWL Std BP SU   Subj(P)  TLG  Top T(P)  U uD uF UG UR V V1 V2

xiii

covert subject pronoun present particle indicative simple past Person-Specific Retention past tense participle quotative marker quantifier phrase realis reduplication reflexive relative referential null subject(s) Romeyka of Of (Ophis) Romana Romeyka of Sürmene subject singular Scriptores Historiae Augustae Sensory-motor Standard Modern Greek specifier surface representation Syntactic Structures of the World’s Languages, http://test.terraling.com/ groups/7 Standard Brazilian Portuguese subject (Phrase) sublative case subjunctive Subject (Phrase) superessive case (Ch. 3) / supine (Ch. 4) Thesaurus Linguae Graecae topic topic Tense (Phrase) transitive Utterance uninterpretable D-feature uninterpretable feature Universal Grammar underlying representation (lexical) verb verb first verb second

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

xiv VL VOC v(P) VP VT Vulg. WP X⁰ XP θ σ φ ω

   verb-late vocative (little/light) verb (Phrase) Verb Phrase Vetus Testamentum Vulgate weak pronoun syntactic head syntactic phrase thematic syllable phonological phrase phonological word

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

The contributors Gabriela Alboiu is Associate Professor at York University, Toronto. She focuses primarily on clause structure, verb movement, left peripheries, structural Case, and obligatory control in Romanian. Her publications include book chapters (e.g. John Benjamins, De Gruyter Mouton, Springer, Elsevier, Oxford University Press) and journal articles (e.g. Syntax, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, The Linguistic Review, Journal of Historical Syntax, Isogloss, Revue roumaine de linguistique, Canadian Journal of Linguistics). She is the author of The Features of Movement in Romanian (Bucharest University Press, 2002), and the co-author (with Virginia Hill) of Verb Movement and Clause Structure in Old Romanian (Oxford University Press, 2016). Edith Aldridge is Associate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Washington and Associate Researcher at Academia Sinica. Her research focuses on comparative and diachronic syntax, with language concentrations in Austronesian languages, Chinese, and Japanese. Her recent publications in historical linguistics include. ‘Two types of alignment change in nominalizations’ (with Yuko Yanagida, Diachronica, forthcoming), ‘Subject/nonsubject movement asymmetries in Late Archaic Chinese’ (Glossa, 2019), ‘C-T Inheritance and the Left Periphery in Old Japanese’ (Glossa, 2018), ‘Intransitivity and the development of ergative alignment’ (The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Oxford University Press, 2017), ‘ECM and control in Archaic Chinese’ (New Aspects of Classical Chinese Grammar, Harrassowitz, 2016), ‘Ergativity from subjunctive in Austronesian languages’ (Language and Linguistics, 2016), and ‘Pronominal Object Shift in Archaic Chinese’ (Syntax over Time: Lexical, Morphological and Information-Structural Interactions, Oxford University Press, 2015). Elena Anagnostopoulou obtained her PhD in Linguistics from the University of Salzburg in 1994. After a post-doc at MIT (1997–8), where she returned in 2007 as a Visiting Associate Professor, she took a position at the University of Crete in 1998, where she is currently Professor of Theoretical Linguistics. Her research interests lie in theoretical and comparative syntax, formal linguistic typology, morphology, and historical morphosyntax. In 2013 she received a Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel Research Award from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Germany. She is the author of The Syntax of Ditransitives. Evidence from Clitics (Mouton de Gruyter, 2003), co-author of External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations. A Layering Approach (Oxford University Press, 2015), has co-edited a number of volumes and conference proceedings, and has published extensively in journals and edited volumes. She is co-editor in the series Open Generative Syntax (Language Science Press) and member of the editorial boards of the Journal of Greek Linguistics, Linguistic Inquiry, and Syntax. Julia Bacskai-Atkari is Visiting Professor for English linguistics at the University of Konstanz. She received her doctoral degree in 2014 from the University of Potsdam,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

xvi

 

Germany, where she later carried out a research project ‘The syntax of functional left peripheries and its relation to information structure’. While her research focuses on Germanic languages, she has written extensively on other European languages as well. One of her major research areas is the syntax of comparative constructions, about which she published her latest book (devoted to deletion phenomena in English comparatives from a cross-linguistic perspective; Language Science Press, 2018). Neil Banerjee is a graduate student at MIT and an alumnus of the University of Toronto. He works on the syntax and semantics of tense and modality, as well as verbal morphosyntax in Kinyarwanda and Bengali. He won the 2016 Canadian Linguistic Association student paper award for his paper ‘Of monsters and modals’. Bronwyn M. Bjorkman has been at Queen’s University as an Assistant Professor since 2015. Her primary research interests concern the interfaces between morphology and other components of the grammar, and the ways grammatical information is encoded and manipulated by syntax in terms of formal features. Anne Breitbarth is Associate Professor of Historical German Linguistics at Ghent University. She has published on issues in historical syntax and language change in High and Low German, as well as Dutch and English, and has led projects building parsed corpora for historical Low German and Southern Dutch dialects. She is the author of The History of Low German Negation (Oxford University Press, 2014), co-author (with Christopher Lucas and David Willis) of The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean. Vol. II: Patterns and Processes (Oxford University Press, 2020), and the editor of several volumes on language change in the domains of negation and polarity, as well as diachronic change and stability in grammar. Elizabeth Cowper has been at the University of Toronto since 1976, where she is now Professor Emeritus. Her recent research deals with the grammatical features of nominals (definiteness, person, number, and gender), and clauses (finiteness, tense, mood, and aspect) in a wide variety of languages, and what they reveal about the human language faculty. Lieven Danckaert works as a CNRS researcher at the University of Lille. He obtained his PhD at Ghent University in 2011. His expertise is in generative grammar and Latin syntax, with special emphasis on the study of word order and the use of corpus-based methods. He is the author of the monographs Latin Embedded Clauses: The Left Periphery (John Benjamins, 2012) and The Development of Latin Clause Structure (Oxford University Press, 2017). He is also a co-editor of the volume Bridging the Gap between Late Latin and Early Old French, to be published by De Gruyter (forthcoming, 2022). Éva Dékány is a senior researcher at the Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. She received her PhD in Theoretical Linguistics from the University of Tromsø in 2012 and has published on the structure of nominal and adpositional phrases as well as the history of Hungarian. She is currently working on finite and non-finite subordination in various Finno-Ugric languages.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

 

xvii

Katalin É. Kiss is professor of the Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. She is a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and of Academia Europaea. Her research areas include generative syntax, especially the syntax of Hungarian and other Uralic languages, information structure, and the syntax–semantics interface. She has published six books and 250 articles. Thórhallur Eythórsson is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Iceland. His main research interests lie in word order, cliticization, and verbal syntax in Germanic from a diachronic perspective; case, argument structure, and voice in Icelandic and other old and modern Germanic languages; the development of overt and covert pronominals, reflexives, and expletives in Icelandic; and prefixation in Germanic from a historical and comparative perspective. Melissa Farasyn is a postdoctoral researcher at Ghent University, within the ΔiaLing research group, funded by the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO). Her research focuses on syntactic variation and change in Germanic dialects and on building and using parsed corpora. She obtained her PhD, in which she studied agreement phenomena, in 2018 as a member of the project team of the Corpus of Historical Low German. Currently, she works on a project on V>2 in the moribund French Flemish dialects, which includes the creation of a parsed and tagged corpus of French Flemish spoken data from 91 different locations. Chiara Gianollo is Associate Professor of General Linguistics at the University of Bologna. She obtained her MA and PhD from the University of Pisa and has held appointments as lecturer and researcher at the Universities of Trieste, Konstanz, Stuttgart, and Cologne. Her main research areas are diachronic syntax and semantics, with specific focus on the use of formal theoretical linguistics to investigate the history of Greek, Latin, and Old Romance. She is the author of Indefinites between Latin and Romance (Oxford University Press, 2018). Mark Hale is a Professor of Linguistics in the Department of Classics, Modern Languages, and Linguistics at Concordia University in Montreal. He has written books, book chapters, and articles on diachronic methodology, phonological theory, and Indo-European historical syntax, as well as articles treating various aspects of Indo-European and Oceanic historical grammar. Daniel Currie Hall (PhD 2007, University of Toronto) is an Associate Professor and Coordinator of the Program in Linguistics at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He has previously taught at the University of Toronto and at Queen’s University, and has worked as a researcher at the Meertens Instituut of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. His research focuses primarily on contrastive features and representations in phonology and morphosyntax, and has appeared in journals such as Phonology, Glossa, Nordlyd, Linguistic Variation, and Lingue e linguaggio. He is a co-editor of Phonology Virginia Hill is Professor of Linguistics at the University of New Brunswick–Saint John. Her research interests concern the syntax–pragmatics interface (the syntax of particles of direct address and vocatives), and comparative and diachronic syntax, with a focus on

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

xviii

 

Romanian, Romance, and Balkan languages. She has published numerous papers in international journals and authored/edited ten books, among which Vocatives: How Syntax Meets with Pragmatics (Brill, 2014) and, together with Gabriela Alboiu, Verb Movement and Clause Structure in Old Romanian (Oxford University Press, 2016). Anton Karl Ingason is an Assistant Professor (lektor) of Icelandic linguistics and language technology at the University of Iceland. He completed his PhD in linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania in 2016 and he has worked extensively on theoretical syntax, the syntax–semantics interface, and language variation and change, especially with the framework of Distributed Morphology, as well as the application of language technology in the digital humanities. He is one of the authors of IcePaHC, the Icelandic Parsed Historical Corpus. Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson is Professor of Icelandic Linguistics at the University of Iceland. His work focuses on theoretical and diachronic syntax, and particularly on case marking, passives, Object Shift, and the left periphery in Icelandic and Faroese. He is currently the principal investigator, along with Cherlon Ussery, on a research project exploring ditransitives in Insular Scandinavian. Hakyung Jung is Associate Professor of Russian Linguistics in the Department of Russian Language and Literature at Seoul National University. Hakyung Jung received her PhD in Slavic Linguistics at Harvard University. Her academic interest lies in formal syntax and historical linguistics with a focus on the morphosyntactic realization of argument structure in Russian. She has published substantial works on Slavic syntax, including ‘Null subjects and person in Old North Russian’ (2018), ‘On the clitic analysis of the be-auxiliary in Old North Russian’ (2017), and The Syntax of the Be-Possessive: Parametric Variation and Surface Diversities (Linguistik Aktuell 172, 2011). Madelyn Kissock is Associate Professor of Linguistics and Chair of the Department of Classics, Modern Languages, and Linguistics at Concordia University in Montreal. Her research focusses primarily on the phonology and syntax of Dravidian languages, particularly Telugu, as well as on phonological acquisition. Recent work includes articles on finiteness in Telugu and on linguistic theory and the perception–production link. Krzysztof Migdalski is an Associate Professor at the Institute of English Studies, University of Wrocław, Poland. He studied linguistics at the University of Tromsø; he then worked as a research assistant at Tilburg University, where he defended his doctoral dissertation ‘The Syntax of Compound Tenses in Slavic’ in 2006. From 2006 until 2008 he was a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Connecticut. In 2016 he published a habilitation thesis ‘Second Position Effects in the Syntax of Germanic and Slavic Languages’. He is interested in a comparative syntax of Balkan and Slavic languages and historical linguistics. Iris Edda Nowenstein is a PhD candidate at the University of Iceland. She completed her MA in general linguistics from the University of Iceland in 2014 and her MS in speech pathology from the same university in 2016. Her work focuses on acquisition and attrition in the context of (morpho)syntactic variation and change. Within these topics, she has worked on first and second language acquisition, North-American heritage Icelandic, and ageing effects in attrition. Her work puts the diverse case system patterns of Insular

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

 

xix

Scandinavian forward as a test case for theories on language acquisition and the dynamics of variation. Christina Sevdali is a Senior Lecturer in linguistics at Ulster University specializing in diachronic generative syntax and multilingualism. She studied at the University of Crete and at the University of Cambridge. She joined Ulster University in 2009, and in 2017 she secured an Early Career Arts and Humanities Research Council grant with Elena Anagnostopoulou on ‘Investigating Variation and Change: Case in Diachrony’. She has published in a number of journals such as Language, Syntax, Lingua, Journal of Historical Syntax, Lingue e Linguaggio, and Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics. She has coedited Syntax and Its Limits (Oxford University Press, 2013) and is on the advisory board of the Journal of Historical Syntax. Ioanna Sitaridou is Reader in Spanish and Historical Linguistics at the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages and Linguistics, University of Cambridge, where she is currently Director of the Spanish and Portuguese Section. She is also Fellow and Director of Studies in Linguistics and Modern and Medieval Languages at Queens’ College, Cambridge. Her main areas of research are comparative and diachronic syntax of the Romance languages and dialectal Greek, especially Romeyka. She is particularly interested in the relationship between syntactic change and acquisition, language contact, micro-variation, and phylogenies, especially what she calls ‘cue-based reconstruction in a sociolinguistically informed manner’ Rebecca Tollan completed her PhD in Linguistics at the University of Toronto in 2019, and is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Linguistics and Cognitive Science at the University of Delaware. Her primary research interests are in syntax and sentence processing. Her most recent work focused on effects of case marking and argument structure in the processing of wh-questions in Niuean (Polynesian), and she is currently investigating differing cross-linguistic patterns in agreement as compared with movement.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

1 Introduction Syntactic features and the limits of syntactic change Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson

1.1 Generative syntax: theory and diachrony This volume contains fifteen chapters on various phenomena in diachronic syntax, all of which are couched within a generative framework in a broad sense. As the title indicates, the volume is specifically concerned with syntactic features and their role in restricting syntactic change. Thus, it is necessary at the outset to outline the basic ideas of the generative approach, including the central role of syntactic features in a rich structural architecture and how this relates to diachronic syntax. A central task within generative syntax is to define possible grammars across languages by explicit formulations of the principles and operations of Universal Grammar (UG). Thus, generative syntax makes a crucial distinction between possible and impossible grammars. This is in clear contrast to functionalist approaches to syntax, which often reject this distinction and focus instead on the communicative function of language and its role in shaping the grammar and the frequency of various syntactic phenomena. Importantly, UG restricts not only individual languages and dialects but also different diachronic stages of the same language or dialect. This means that UG imposes severe limits on possible syntactic change, as the outcome must be a possible grammar. The same is also true of any intermediate stage that a syntactic change may involve, as every stage must instantiate a possible grammar. The generative paradigm emphasizes the fundamental unity of all human languages. Still, diversity is an important fact about language, and the ways in which languages may differ from one another must be accounted for in some way. In the Principles and Parameters framework, which came to the fore in the wake of Chomsky (1981), differences between languages were derived by postulating various parameters as part of UG. These parameters were associated with general properties of grammars, for example the level of application for wh-movement (Huang 1982) or the choice of bounding nodes for Subjacency (Rizzi 1982). Some of these parameters were in effect ‘macro-parameters’ connecting a number of

Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson, Introduction: Syntactic features and the limits of syntactic change In: Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change. Edited by: Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson, Oxford University Press (2021). © Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198832584.003.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

2

́   ́  ́   ́   ́  

syntactic phenomena within the same language. Probably, the most celebrated example of this is the Null Subject Parameter (Rizzi 1982), which links pro-drop in languages like Italian and Spanish with the lack of expletive subjects, free subject inversion, and the absence of that-trace effects. In the last two decades, the classical parametric model has been contested on empirical as well as theoretical grounds (see, e.g., Newmeyer 2005 and Boeckx 2011) and has gradually been replaced by a more fine-grained approach, the so-called Borer–Chomsky Conjecture. This conjecture is formulated as follows by Baker (2008: 353): The Borer–Chomsky Conjecture (BCC) All parameters of variation are attributable to differences in the features of particular items (e.g. the functional heads) in the lexicon.

The original intuition behind the BCC is due to Borer (1984), but Chomsky (1995) suggested that variation be restricted to formal features of functional heads (see also Fukui 1988). The term conjecture is appropriate and reflects the current state of knowledge, as the BCC is still an uncorroborated hypothesis despite all the advances that have been made in comparative syntax within the last forty years or so. In the words of Chomsky (1995: 6), discussing possible parameters of varation, ‘too little is understood to venture any strong hypotheses, as far as I can see’. Biberauer (2008: 28) expresses a similar view by claiming ‘that the BCC is a hypothesis which requires more critical examination’. Nevertheless, the BCC is widely assumed in current work within the generative paradigm, although it is not uncontroversial, as we will discuss further below. As formulated by Baker (2008), the BCC refers to parameters of variation. Indeed, the term parameter continues to be used as a general term for points of contrast between languages in view of the conceptual similarities between early and more recent approaches to possible syntactic variation discussed by Rizzi (2017). However, it should be noted that parameter is often prefixed with micro- or macroto differentiate between small-scale parameters versus large-scale parameters that affect a significant part of the grammar. To avoid confusion, we will use these terms to distinguish parameters that adhere to the BCC (micro-parameters) from parameters that do not (macro-parameters), although different micro-parametric choices may yield markedly different grammars. A good example of this is Holmberg’s (2010b) analysis of various syntactic contrasts between Insular and Mainland Scandinavian, which he attributes to the feature composition of T. Features of functional items constitute a crucial part of the BCC. According to Roberts (2016), these features fall into at least three classes: (a) structural case and phi-features (person, number, and gender), (b) categorial features, and (c) attraction features (e.g. EPP features and edge features). The last type is intended to capture differences between languages with respect to the presence or absence of various movement operations such as V-to-T movement or wh-movement.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

       

3

However, since linearization is not obviously part of narrow syntax, it may not be a property that is specified on functional heads in the lexicon (see Biberauer 2008 and references cited there for much relevant discussion). On the other hand, the last two decades have seen a proliferation of functional heads and functional features through the cartographic approach initiated by Rizzi (1997) and Cinque (1999). This raises the question of how restrictive the BCC really is, as the number of possible grammars within such a rich functional architecture is probably far beyond the number of attested grammars in the languages of the world. This may not be a problem, though, as Rizzi (2017) claims that the format of parameters only determines structure building, movement, and Spell-Out. All of these phenomena are highly local in that they can only apply to the immediate environment of the relevant functional head. Rizzi’s conclusion is that the format of parameters yields a highly restrictive system of syntax so that no learnability problems arise for the language learner even if the total number of the parametric options is very high (on this issue, see also Kayne 2005). The BCC excludes variation with respect to the principles of UG and the basic operations of the computational system, such as Merge or Agree. Since the locus of variation is strictly confined to the functional lexicon, the BCC is incompatible with the view advocated by Baker (2008) that macro-parameters exist alongside micro-parameters. Baker (2008) claims to have found support for a macroparametric view of head directionality and polysynthesis and he also suggests two macro-parameters relating to agreement in which Indo-European languages systematically contrast with the Niger-Congo languages. The arguments for a polysynthesis parameter are discussed in detail in Baker (1996) and they involve a clustering of properties in polysynthetic languages that appears to be nonaccidental, including syntactic noun incorporation, object agreement, free prodrop, and relatively free word order. For the head directionality parameter, Baker (2008) adduces evidence from typology showing a strong bias across languages for harmonic orders of verbs and adpositions with respect to their complements, orders that are consistently head-initial or head-final. Mixed orders (VO and NP—P or OV and P—NP) occur but they are far less common. In a similar vein, Reintges and Cyrin (2016) argue that macro-parameters play a role in diachronic syntax, as shown by changes in the verbal tense-aspect systems of Brazilian Portuguese and Coptic Egyptian. On the other hand, while Roberts and Holmberg (2010) and Roberts (2012, 2016) recognize the need for macroparameters, they try to reconcile Baker’s (2008) views with the BCC by arguing that macro-parameters are possible, but only as aggregates of micro-parameters affecting formal features of functional categories. On this approach, macroparameters arise through a learning strategy which leads language learners to choose the most general option consistent with the available input data. The BCC has been highly influential in comparative syntax, especially in studies comparing closely related languages in the spirit of Kayne (2005). The impact on

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

4

́   ́  ́   ́   ́  

diachronic generative syntax has also been substantial. Biberauer and Walkden (2015) observe that the BCC has triggered a shift from ‘macro-diachronic’ syntax to ‘micro-diachronic’ syntax. So rather than focusing on large-scale changes, diachronic syntacticians have increasingly turned their attention to properties of smaller units, in particular the feature specifications of various functional heads. This can be seen in virtually every chapter of this volume, especially those that deal with changes affecting a small class of lexical items or even just one item. There has also been a shift in the way particular changes are analysed. For instance, Costa (2011) argues that certain differences between Brazilian and European Portuguese stem from micro-diachronic changes in the former language rather than a whole sale change to topic-prominence, as some previous authors had claimed. Moreover, the BCC has opened the way for formalist treatments of grammaticalization in terms of syntactic features, an important development, since this phenomenon used to be outside the grasp of generative syntax (Roberts and Roussou 2003). Although the BCC itself does not distinguish between different kinds of functional features, such a distinction has been argued to be important for the understanding of the trigger of syntactic change. This can be seen in cases where one part of a particular syntactic domain remains stable over a long period of time while another part undergoes change. Thus, basing his analysis on the diachronic development of nominal phrases in the long history of Greek, Panagiotidis (2008) claims that uninterpretable features are more vulnerable to change than LF-interpretable features. Panagiotidis (2008: 454) states the relevant pattern as follows: ‘Diachronic processes eliminate uninterpretable features (responsible, inter alia, for agreement and movement) more easily than they eliminate interpretable features on functional elements or than they rearrange them across novel functional categories’. More recently, Walkden and Breitbarth (2019) make a weaker claim by arguing that the L2-difficulty of uninterpretable features can lead to the diachronic loss of such features in situations of language contact. Since Panagiotidis (2008) is not particularly concerned with such a scenario, it is easier to think of potential problems with his approach, for example the strong preservation of the uninterpretable feature(s) triggering V2 in all the Germanic languages except English. In any case, proposals linking uninterpretable features with diachronic instability are likely to inspire a lot of interesting research in the future.

1.2 Individual chapters The syntactic topics addressed in this volume can be divided into four types: (i) the left periphery (the expanded CP-system), (ii) the T-domain (or more exactly, the area between TP and vP), (iii) case marking of arguments, and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

       

5

(iv) the reconstruction of earlier syntactic systems. The phenomena discussed in parts (i) to (iii) reflect different domains of the clause, that is, the C-domain, the T-domain, and the vP/VP-domain, but the chapters on syntactic reconstruction in part (iv) are more concerned with establishing methodology in diachronic syntax and modelling linguistic correspondences rather than a particular syntactic change. The contributions mainly focussing on the left periphery comprise those by Bacskai-Atkari, Bacskai-Atkari and Dékány, Alboiu and Hill, and Farasyn and Breitbarth. The T-domain is discussed in Gianollo, Jung and Migdalski, Sitaridou, Danckaert, and Cowper et al., while case marking is the topic of the chapters by Anagnostopoulou and Sevdali, Aldridge, and Nowenstein and Ingason. Finally, syntactic reconstruction is treated by É. Kiss, and Hale and Kissock. Discussing the individual chapters, we begin with analyses involving the left periphery of the clause. Julia Bacskai-Atkari (Degree semantics, polarity, and the grammaticalization of comparative operators into complementizers) presents a cross-linguistic study, mostly on the basis of Hungarian and German, of the diachronic development of comparatives, providing a formal account of why comparative operators generally grammaticalize into complementizers in -clauses more readily than in -clauses. She claims that this is because -clauses encode degree inequality which includes a negation feature which must be lexicalized in the left periphery of the clause. This feature must be acquired by the original operator during grammaticalization, while the operator in -clauses has all the features necessary for grammaticalization and must only lose any additional features incompatible with a complementizer. Bacskai-Atkari argues that the extension of an -complementizer into a general comparative complementizer is possible only if the relevant functional head undergoes feature change, in line with the BCC. In essence, this view hypothesizes that syntactic change exists only as a reflex of changes in other components of language (see Biberauer and Walkden 2015). In their joint chapter (Cyclic changes in Hungarian relative clauses) Julia Bacskai-Atkari and Éva Dékány propose that in Hungarian, contrary to English, the reanalysis of wh-operators into relative operators preceded the reanalysis of the matrix demonstrative pronoun. Moreover, since wh-based relative operators did not grammaticalize into complementizers, the only way for the demonstrative to be reanalysed into Spec,CP was via cliticization onto the wh-based relative pronoun. In this way Hungarian developed morphologically complex relative pronouns. The authors argue that this had two important prerequisites, both related to features. First, the original wh-based relative operator did not lose its lexical features and was not grammaticalized into a functional head. Second, the matrix demonstrative lost its original definiteness feature, [+def], and became unspecified for this feature. In accordance with the BCC, it is this feature change that ultimately brought about the emergence of a new morphosyntactic paradigm.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

6

́   ́  ́   ́   ́  

Gabriela Alboiu and Virginia Hill (Diachronic change and feature instability: The cycles of Fin in Romanian obligatory control) focus on the diachronic change of obligatory control (OC) constructions in the history of Romanian. The main observation is that the setting for the OC parameter has remained unchanged since the earliest stage of written Old Romanian, so there has been no diachronic change in C size, whereas the parametric settings concerning the values of the features associated with the C/T/Agr system in OC constructions show systematic change and overlapping. These findings support the BCC that sees variation as being restricted to formal features of functional heads (Baker 2008). Alboiu and Hill conclude that the OC parameter is constant, and therefore there is no change in the size of the CP layer, whereas the feature specifications in the C/T/ Agr feature system are in constant flux. In their contribution (Null subjects in Middle Low German: Diachronic stability and change) Melissa Farasyn and Anne Breitbarth present a formal analysis of novel data on null referential subjects in Middle Low German (MLG), still a little-known variety in terms of syntax. Using an extensive data set, Farasyn and Breitbarth show that null referential subjects can be found throughout the whole MLG attested period; they quantitatively analyse the factors influencing the variation in their occurrence, which is both diachronic and diatopic. Farasyn and Breitbarth claim that most MLG null referential subjects pattern with strong overt pronouns and thus can be analysed as full DPs, which are phonetically null due to a [uD]-feature they carry. A smaller class of null referential subjects occurs in the second (Wackernagel) position, following C/Fin and patterning with overt clitic pronouns. This split in the null pronouns in MLG is taken to point to a syntactic change, showing an incipient transition from the Old Northwest Germanic situation preserving the null subject property to a topicdrop language of the modern V2-Germanic type. Next, we turn to the five chapters dealing with diachronic changes in the T-domain. In the first of these chapters (Feature reanalysis and the Latin origin of Romance Negative Concord) Chiara Gianollo presents a penetrating analysis of changes in the negation system of Latin and its varied development in Romance. As Gianollo discusses, Classical Latin has Double Negation, whereas the earliest Romance varieties show a Negative Concord grammar. She accounts for the apparently paradoxical development by positing the prerequisites for Negative Concord already in Late Latin. At this stage, she argues, the negative marker underwent feature reanalysis, activating a projection in the clause where sentential negation had to be identified. This, in turn, triggered the grammaticalization of new negative indefinites which established a syntactic relation with the functional projections Focus Phrase and Negation Phrase, resulting in Negative Concord. The development from Double Negation to Negative Concord would seem to be a perfect example of a macro-change common to the whole branch of Romance, on the one hand, and a host of independent micro-changes manifested

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

       

7

by separate lexicalizations of new narrow-scope indefinites in the individual languages, on the other hand. Importantly, for our purposes, this study adds further support to a lexico-centric view of parametric variation, as stated in the BCC, highlighting the importance of generative research on syntactic features in a diachronic perspective. Hakyung Jung and Krzysztof Migdalski (Degrammaticalization of pronominal clitics in Slavic) propose that three instances of morphologically reduced pronominal forms in Slavic languages (specifically, Old Polish, Macedonian, and Old Russian) constitute a cline of degrammaticalization: verb-adjacent clitics (X⁰) develop into second position (2P) clitics, which in turn develop into weak pronouns (XP). Jung and Migdalski argue that different feature specifications in a functional head, responsible for parametric variation across languages, such as the (non-)availability of tense morphology, produce diachronic stages that correspond to synchronic variants. In particular, they argue that the degrammaticalization cline involves an X⁰-to-XP shift, the reverse of the better-known XP-to-X⁰ shift ascribed to grammaticalization. They attribute the process to the loss of TP, indicated by loss of tense morphology on the verb. The shift of a pronominal clitic to a weak pronoun is taken to be a case of parametric change, on the assumption that a change in the features of a functional head (the loss of a D-feature in T) is responsible for the shift. Examining the diachronic development of inflected infinitives in Galician (Ibero-Romance) and Romeyka (Pontic Greek), Ioanna Sitaridou shows that these verb formations appear as non-attitude complements, that is, as complements of modal and volitional predicates inducing obligatory semantic control ((In)vulnerable inflected infinitives as complements to modals: Evidence from Galician and Romeyka). On the basis of the premise that [+Agr] is irrelevant for non-attitude complements, it is argued that the phi-features on the inflected infinitives in non-attitude complements are redundant. This means that affixes expressing these features are dissociated morphemes, inserted at PF and not interpreted at LF. Since the complement has no external argument, these morphemes express a copy of a relevant subject Agr on the modal that is valued in the syntax. Sitaridou concludes that non-finite forms inflected for phi-features in obligatory control are vulnerable to change. Lieven Danckaert’s chapter (Assessing phonological correlates of syntactic change: The case of Late Latin weak ) starts from the observation that in Late Latin (c. 200–600 ) affirmative clauses with a -periphrasis show a strong preference for head-final order, whereas other types of clauses predominantly feature a head-initial order. To account for these word order preferences in Late Latin, Danckaert proposes that the observed variation reduces to the properties of a strong and a weak variant of the -auxiliary. The lexical entry of the weak variant specifies that it is phonologically deficient, failing to project a prosodic word, in which case it has to occur in an extrametrical position at the right edge of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

8

́   ́  ́   ́   ́  

a phonological phrase. Thus, Danckaert shows that in addition to the syntactic and semantic feature specification of individual lexical items, idiosyncratic phonological requirements associated with a given element can be a source of syntactic variation. In their chapter (Investigating the past of the futurate present) Elizabeth Cowper, Daniel Currie Hall, Bronwyn M. Bjorkman, Rebecca Tollan, and Neil Banerjee ask to what extent different languages, or different diachronic stages of the same language, can use different sets of formal features. By examining the consequences of changes in the inflectional system of English, specifically the rise of a grammatically distinct class of modal auxiliaries, the authors argue that this involved the introduction of the distinctive formal feature Modality. They further argue that the absence of such a feature prior to the development of the modals predicts that the simple present should have occurred in contexts that later came to require future-referring modals such as will or shall, a prediction they claim is borne out. The more general claim is that this analysis offers evidence in favour of the ‘neo-parametric’ approach that UG does not provide a universal set of features that all languages employ. Instead, either different languages use different subsets from a universal superset or there is no superset of features, only the mechanism by which they are acquired from the input. The next three chapters examine changes in the case system, Elena Anagnostopoulou and Christina Sevdali (From lexical to dependent: The case of the Greek dative) discuss the change in the nature of dative and genitive case from Classical to Modern Greek. Arguing that dative and genitive in Classical Greek are lexical/inherent, they propose (i) that these cases are associated with specific semantic roles and (ii) are assigned by overt or covert prepositions. The change in Greek is claimed to involve a reanalysis from PPs assigning lexical/ inherent case into DPs receiving dependent case; this would then have resulted in the replacement of the dative by either the genitive or accusative case in different syntactic environments (ditransitives vs transitives). The empirical evidence in support of this analysis is based on the incorporation of prefixes into the relevant verbs. Diachronically, the changes proceed from a system of two non-accusative objective cases (genitive/dative) in Classical Greek to a system with only one nonaccusative objective case (genitive) in Standard Modern Greek, which is not sensitive to thematic and idiosyncratic information. More generally, syntactic change is here understood as the loss of particular features from syntactic heads. Anagnostopoulou and Sevdali’s proposal on the diachrony of the relevant case changes is compatible with the BCC insofar as these are argued to have involved loss of case features from P heads (see also Roberts 2016). Syntactically ergative languages are generally subject to a constraint whereby a DP undergoing movement—specifically an external argument—must have absolutive (nominative) status in the clause. Thus, for example, only the nominal with absolutive case can undergo extraction operations such as relative clause

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

       

9

formation. Drawing evidence from Austronesian languages, Edith Aldridge (The nature and origin of syntactic ergativity in Austronesian languages) presents an analysis of this restriction in terms of a single feature on C driving movement. She proposes that ergative languages lack features such as topic or wh-features which distinguish A0 -movement from A-movement; as a result, the licensing feature [uɸ] is the only one driving movement to the edge of a phase. An immediate consequence of this analysis is that only the nominative DP will be able to undergo movement, and a VP-internal argument will only be attracted when the external argument is licensed with inherent case, which is independent of C/T. Iris Edda Nowenstein and Anton Karl Ingason (Featural dynamics in morphosyntactic change) examine Dative Substitution (DS), a much-discussed morphosyntactic change in progress in Icelandic, basing their study on naturally occurring data and a language acquisition experiment. They argue that two of the diachronic side effects of DS, referred to as Person-Specific Retention and an Elsewhere Condition Death Rattle, can be accounted for by the way in which formal features constrain the trajectory of morphosyntactic change. Accordingly, DS does not necessarily involve a shift in the syntax, but should rather be viewed as a change in the interpretation of syntactic information at the interface with morphology, resulting in a variable PF realization of grammatical features. Thus, for Nowenstein and Ingason, the type of variation in case marking involved in DS falls outside the scope of the BCC. Of course, this is not to say that morphosyntactic changes are unconstrained, but these findings suggest that such changes may differ in important ways from other types of syntactic change. During the last few decades the possibility of reconstructing earlier syntactic systems on the basis of correspondences between different languages, or different stages of a single language, has been a hotly debated issue in diachronic linguistics (see, for example, the scepticism in Lightfoot 2002a, 2002b as against the more optimistic views outlined by Campbell and Harris 2002, Walkden 2014, and Barðdal and Eythórsson 2020). Thus, it is only fitting that the two concluding chapters in the volume address syntactic reconstruction, both taking a positive outlook on the viability of such an enterprise. Katalin É. Kiss presents a case study reconstructing object–verb agreement in Proto-Ugric and, more tentatively, in Proto-Uralic, starting from an analysis of Modern Hungarian (Syntactic reconstruction based on linguistic fossils: Object marking in Uralic). In line with the BCC, she argues that changes affecting abstract features of abstract entities can be reconstructed by means of a version of the Comparative Method in historical linguistics, in which the required correspondence set consists of the feature specifications of the same functional head across related languages. Specifically, it is claimed that at a prehistoric stage there was differential object–verb agreement licensed by a TP-external Obj head with a [+topic] feature, which was variously reanalysed in individual languages. É. Kiss shows that Uralic differential object marking has specific properties that have not been reported from other

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

10

́   ́  ́   ́   ́  

languages, indicating that it is indeed a shared heritage from Proto-Uralic rather than just the appearance of a typologically common phenomenon. Thus, the study fulfills a theoretical goal beyond its empirical goal of reconstructing object marking, demonstrating the validity of the Comparative Method for syntax, in a procedure similar to that employed in phonological reconstruction. Mark Hale and Madelyn Kissock cast their net wider, arguing that current syntactic theory, with its focus on functional features of lexical items as the sources of linguistic variation and change, as per the BCC, necessitates a rethinking of traditional issues of diachronic differences. Their chapter (Regular syntactic change and syntactic reconstruction) discusses different strategies required to account for ‘regular’ syntactic change, given widely held theoretical assumptions. Like É. Kiss, they also claim that syntactic change has more in common with phonological change than is often acknowledged and that this is highly relevant to recent debates on the viability of syntactic reconstruction (for some references, see above). Concentrating on the question of which elements are to be included in the correspondence sets that are the basis for reconstruction, Hale and Kissock argue that the main difference between phonological and syntactic reconstruction is that, whereas the former requires reconstructing both the phonological features of lexical items and the relevant rules (or constraint ranking), the latter requires only the reconstruction of formal, syntactic features of lexical items. Given the tenets of Minimalism, the results are that syntactic correspondence can be reduced to a relationship between the syntactic feature bundles of ‘corresponding’ lexical items, parallel to the phonological featural representations for ‘corresponding’ phonological forms.

1.3 Summary Despite differences in detail, the general theoretical perspective of the chapters in this volume reveals considerable unity. All the contributions develop accounts of syntactic change broadly consistent with the generative framework, giving prominence to rich hierarchical structures and formal features of various kinds, and most of them propose analyses in accordance with the BCC. The majority of the authors focus on different domains in the clausal architecture, the left periphery and the T-domain, the center of gravity where much of the action of syntactic change happens. Others deal with the perennial issue of changes in case marking, and still others with the problem of reconstructing earlier syntactic systems and the significance of such an enterprise for our understanding of syntactic change. The meticulous theoretical work exemplified in this volume, combined with a broad and well-informed empircal groundwork, is bound to shed further light on diachronic syntax and be a significant contribution to more general issues in the research into language change. In an even wider context, we hope that this volume

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

       

11

is further testimony to the validity of the observation made by Ledgeway and Roberts (2017: 2) that diachronic investigation of structured variation is a scientific tool of inquiry in its own right, whose possibilities go beyond the limits of the study of synchronic syntax.

Acknowledgements This volume has its origins in the 17th Diachronic Generative Syntax Workshop (DiGS17), held in Reykjavík, Iceland, 29–31 May 2015. The editors would like to thank the co-organizers at the University of Iceland, Höskuldur Thráinsson, Sigríður Sigurjónsdóttir, Matthew Whelpton, and—last but not least—Margrét Guðmundsdóttir. Special thanks go to Anton Karl Ingason and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson for their help with the conference organization, and to Heimir Freyr Viðarsson for his editorial assistance. We also thank the anonymous reviewers of the papers in this volume for their invaluable work. Finally, we thank Vicki Sunter and her colleagues at OUP for their helpful advice and patience during the preparation of this volume.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

PART I

T H E LE F T PE R I P H E R Y

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

2 Degree semantics, polarity, and the grammaticalization of comparative operators into complementizers Julia Bacskai-Atkari

2.1 Introduction There are two kinds of comparative degree clauses: degree equatives (-clauses), expressing equality, and comparatives proper (-clauses), expressing inequality. The two types are illustrated for English in (1) below: (1)

a. Ralph is as tall [as Peter (is)]. b. Ralph is taller [than Peter (is)].

As can be seen, the two types of subclauses differ clearly in their complementizer. However, this is not necessarily the case, and in this way there is no rigid split between degree equatives and comparatives regarding the complementizer itself. In Modern German, for instance, there is a partial overlap in the complementizer in various non-standard dialects. In the standard variety, degree equatives are introduced by wie ‘how, as’ and comparatives are introduced by als ‘as, than’.¹ Consider: (2)

a. Ralf ist so groß wie Ralph is so tall as ‘Ralph is as tall as Peter.’ b. Ralf ist größer als Ralph is taller than ‘Ralph is taller than Peter.’

Peter. Peter Peter. Peter

By contrast, regional dialects show the availability of als, wie, and the combination als wie in both constructions, as shown by Jäger (2016); see also Weise (1918), ¹ For the sake of consistency, I am going to gloss als as ‘than’ and wie as ‘as’, except when the latter is clearly an operator corresponding to ‘how’. Julia Bacskai-Atkari, Degree semantics, polarity, and the grammaticalization of comparative operators into complementizers In: Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change. Edited by: Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson, Oxford University Press (2021). © Julia Bacskai-Atkari. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198832584.003.0002

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

16

 -

Lipold (1983), Eggs (2006). The examples in (3) show the dialectal options for degree equatives:² (3)

a. buten so still as binnen (Low German) outside so silent as inside ‘outside as silent as inside’ (Jäger 2016: 260, ex. 540a, citing Weise 1918: 170) b. Dei Schweinsbraan schmeggd genau a so fad ais (Bavarian) your roast.pork tastes exactly  so stale than wia dei Schbinad as your spinach ‘Your roast pork tastes just as stale as your spinach.’ (Jäger 2016: 260, ex. 541a, citing Merkle 1975: 171) c. A Flugzeig is genauso deia wiar a Loggomodiv. (Bavarian) an aeroplane is just.as expensive as a locomotive ‘An aeroplane is just as expensive as a locomotive.’ (Jäger 2016: 260, ex. 539a, citing Merkle 1975: 171)

The examples in (4) show the dialectal options for comparatives:³ (4)

a. De Buu duur länger, as de Meister (Low German) the construction lasts longer than the master seggt harr. said. has ‘The construction lasts longer than the master said.’ (Jäger 2016: 230, ex. 502b, citing Lindow et al. 1998: 300) b. Ich bin gresser als wie du (Upper Saxon) I am taller than as you ‘I am taller than you.’ (Jäger 2016: 230, ex. 502b, citing Weise 1918: 174) c. Da kommt de Brihe teirer wie’s Flääsch (Thuringian) there comes the broth more.expensive as.the meat ‘The broth is more expensive than the meat’, fig. ‘it is not worth the effort’. (Jäger 2016: 230, ex. 503; Rudolstadt, ThWB 973)

² The pattern in (3a) has largely disappeared across dialects and it is attested only in traditional North German (Low German) dialects. The pattern given in (3b) is attested in dialects to the south of the Berlin–Braunschweig line, including southern dialect areas like Bavarian, Alemannic, and Hessian, as well as mid-central varieties like Upper Saxon and Thuringian. The pattern in (3c) is attested in the same areas as (3b), as well as in northern varieties (essentially in all regional dialects), and it corresponds to the standard pattern. See Jäger (2016) for a detailed description. ³ The pattern in (4a) is identical to the standard pattern; it is the only pattern attested in the dialect areas north of the Berlin–Braunschweig line, but it also occurs in the rest of the regional dialects. The patterns given in (4b) and (4c) are both attested in dialects to the south of the Berlin–Braunschweig line, including southern dialect areas like Bavarian, Alemannic, and Hessian, as well as mid-central varieties like Upper Saxon and Thuringian. See Jäger (2016) for a detailed description.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

 , ,  

17

The complementizers als and wie represent two options that differ diachronically too: als is the older form and wie is more innovative (cf. Jäger 2010, 2016). Naturally, there are considerable overlaps (see Jäger 2016: 228–79); yet it seems clear that Southern dialects are more innovative in allowing wie in both constructions, while Northern dialects are more conservative and some of them still preserve the older equative pattern with als. On the other hand, degree equatives are more innovative than comparatives, given that the newer pattern (with wie) is well established in most dialects and counts as the standard, while wie in comparatives is non-standard and does not appear in all dialects. This raises the question why degree equatives are more innovative than comparatives in German and, if applicable, in other languages too. In order to gain some cross-linguistic insights in this respect, I am going to examine an unrelated language, Hungarian, as well. Hungarian is especially interesting, because in Modern Hungarian there is a full overlap in the complementizer between degree equatives and comparatives; yet the two constructions show differences in the overtness of the same complementizer.⁴ The complementizer itself is mint ‘as, than’ (to be glossed consistently as ‘as’). In addition to the complementizer, various overt operators are allowed, many of which can appear together with a lexical XP too (see Kenesei 1992; Bacskai-Atkari 2014b).⁵ Consider the pattern for degree equatives: (5)

a. Mari olyan magas, mint Mary so tall as ‘Mary is as tall as Peter.’

amilyen how.

b. Mari olyan magas, mint Mary so tall as ‘Mary is as tall as Peter.’

Péter. Peter

c. Mari olyan magas, amilyen Mary so tall how. ‘Mary is as tall as Peter.’

(magas) tall

(magas) tall

Péter. Peter

Péter. Peter

As can be seen, it is possible for the complementizer and the operator to co-occur; at the same time, either of them is sufficient on its own.

⁴ At first glance, the situation seems to be similar to South German dialects using wie in both equatives and comparatives (see Jäger 2010, 2016, 2017). However, these dialects show variation in the complementizer, as the option with als is allowed in comparatives (just as in the standard language). Further, the complementizer cannot be left out in either case. ⁵ Overt operators are possible in various languages, also in combination with an overt complementizer, including non-standard varieties of English and Dutch (see Bacskai-Atkari 2018b: 90–100). Note that the overtness of the operator is a prerequisite for the appearance of an overt adjective crosslinguistically, referred to as the ‘Overtness Requirement’ by Bacskai-Atkari (2018b: 100–2).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

 -

18

By contrast, the following pattern can be observed in comparatives: (6)

a. Mari magasabb, mint Mary taller as ‘Mary is taller than Peter.’

amilyen how.

b. Mari magasabb, mint Mary taller as ‘Mary is taller than Peter.’

Péter. Peter

c. *Mari magasabb, amilyen Mary taller how. ‘Mary is taller than Peter.’

(magas) tall

(magas) tall

Péter. Peter

Péter. Peter

While the doubling configuration is again possible and the complementizer is sufficient on its own, the operator cannot occur without the complementizer, as indicated by the ungrammaticality of (6c). Hungarian hence demonstrates a clear contrast between degree equatives and comparatives in that an overt operator is sufficient in the former but not in the latter clause type, and this difference cannot be attributed to the different morphophonological properties of either the complementizer or the operator in questions, since they are identical. In fact, Hungarian is not unique in this respect: similar patterns can be observed crosslinguistically (see Bacskai-Atkari 2016b). This raises the question what makes the presence of the overt complementizer necessary in comparatives. In this chapter, I am going to argue that the differences regarding the complementizers between degree equatives and comparatives follow from the fact that comparatives are always negative polarity environments, whereas degree equatives are not necessarily negative polarity environments (for instance, they are negative polarity environments in English but not in German; see also Hohaus and Zimmermann 2014). This ultimately follows from degree semantics, and no true negation is involved in the left periphery. A negative-like property (see Section 2.4) has to be lexicalized overtly by a functional head in the clause; a true negative operator is, of course, ruled out, there being no proper negation either. It follows that an operator can replace the complementizer with respect to the overt marking of clause type in degree equatives more easily, since in this case the absence of the overt complementizer does not involve a loss in marking the negative-like property. Consequently, equatives are more innovative diachronically. On the other hand, operators may ultimately appear as grammaticalized complementizers in comparatives too:⁶ in the two case studies presented in this

⁶ This reanalysis process is a well-known mechanism also underlying the ‘relative cycle’ of Van Gelderen (2004, 2009). Arguments in favour of such a reanalysis are discussed by Jäger (2010) and especially by Bacskai-Atkari (2014a). The point of the present chapter is not to illustrate this process but rather to investigate under what circumstances it takes place and under what circumstances other processes took place instead, as evidenced by German.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

 , ,  

19

chapter, this largely follows from analogy⁷ with equative clauses. This will be shown to have been the case in the history of German. In addition, there are languages where complementizer doubling was also essential in bringing about the change, as will be argued for Hungarian.

2.2 Comparative and equative complementizers in German Regarding the complementizer in standard present-day West Germanic languages, German seems to be exceptional in terms of both degree equatives and comparatives. Consider the following examples for degree equatives from English, Dutch, and German, respectively: (7)

a. Ralph is as tall as Peter. b. Sophie is zo groot als Sophie is so tall as ‘Sophie is as tall as Lieke.’ c. Ralf ist so groß wie Ralph is so tall as ‘Ralph is as tall as Peter.’

Lieke. Lieke Peter. Peter.

As can be seen, the subordinate clause is introduced by as in English and als in Dutch. The two are cognates and both derive from the element so. English as derives from eallswa (all + so); the forms swelce (swilce, such) and so (swa) are also possible equivalents historically in as-constructions (see Kortmann 1997: 315–17; see also López-Couso and Méndez-Naya 2014: 312–14 and references there). Essentially, Dutch als can also be derived from also (al + so). In fact, German als has an identical etymology: it derives from Old High German also (all + so), whereby various forms of so are possible historically in as-constructions (see Jäger 2010). Three examples are given, from Old High German in (8a), from Old Saxon in (8b),⁸ and from Middle High German in (8c). (8)

a. inti gibit imo // só and give him. so ‘and give him as much as he needs’

manag much

her bitharf. he needs (Tatian 72, 28–9) (Jäger 2016: 49, ex. 71) so so

⁷ In such cases, the new element X in construction A is taken over from a construction B, based on the similarity between the two constructions. In this way, new elements can appear in a given clause type, rather than merely reusing already possible material, as would be the case in reanalysis. ⁸ The Old Saxon data—so far not discussed much in this context—are taken from the DDD Referenzkorpus Altdeutsch.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

20

 - b. sô hôho afhuoƀi, so duot so high elevate so does ‘raise as high up as heaven does’

himilrîki heaven (Heliand 32.2626)

c. waer er sô milt als lanc, er hete tugende be..3 he so generous as tall he have..3 virtues vil besezzen many possess. ‘If he were as generous as he is tall, he would have had many virtues.’ (Walther von der Vogelweide, Werke, Vol. 1, 118f; Eggs 2006: 22, ex. 12) As can be seen, Old High German, Old Saxon, and Middle High German conform to the regular West Germanic pattern in that degree equatives are introduced by elements related to as (see above); Modern German is innovative in that the complementizer is wie. The element wie at first appeared in [Spec,CP], in addition to the original complementizer so. Consider the following example: (9)

er bi unsih tod thulti, so wio so er selbo wolti he by us death suffered as how as he self wanted ‘he suffered death by us, as he himself wished’ (Otfrid V, 1, 7; Jäger 2010: 488, quoting Schrodt 2004)

Similar patterns were attested in Old High German free relatives with other wh-elements as well; in all these cases, so is in the C head and the operator is in the specifier of the same projection (Bacskai-Atkari 2018c: 25; Jäger 2010: 488; cf. Behaghel 1928 and Paul 1920), resulting in a classical ‘Doubly Filled COMP’ pattern.⁹ Consider the examples for comparatives in English, Dutch, and German, respectively: (10)

a. Ralph is taller than Peter. b. Maria is groter dan Mary is taller than ‘Mary is taller than John.’ c. Ralf ist größer als Ralph is taller than ‘Ralph is taller than Peter.’

Jan. John Peter. Peter

⁹ Such patterns are common in (West) Germanic languages in interrogatives and, to a lesser extent, in relative clauses. See Bacskai-Atkari (2018c) for a comparative analysis of the three clause types in West Germanic, particularly in South German dialects.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

 , ,  

21

Again, the complementizers than and dan are etymologically identical (note also that English then and than, as well as German denn and dann are also etymologically identical; see Rutten 2012 for West Germanic and Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm’s Deutsches Wörterbuch),¹⁰ and they constitute the regular West Germanic pattern, whereas Modern German als is exceptional and innovative. However, just as with degree equatives, comparatives show the regular West Germanic configuration in earlier periods of German. The example in (11a) shows the relevant pattern for Old High German, and the one in (11b) for Old Saxon: (11)

a. Eno ni birut ir furirun thanne sie sín? well not are.2 you. greater than they are.3 ‘Are you not much better than they are?’ (Tatian 70, 17) (Jäger 2016: 30, ex. 40) b. that he sî betara that he is. better ‘that he is better than we are’

than than

uui we (Heliand 3.212)

Again, both Old High German and Old Saxon conform to the regular West Germanic pattern described above. Modern German is innovative in showing the original equative complementizer in comparatives. In addition to denn/dann, a negative-like version wan is attested historically (as shown by Jäger 2016: 74–95, this element was quite common in Middle High German and it almost exclusively occurs in negative polarity contexts, such as when there was a negative element in the matrix clause), which survives in a few dialects in Swiss German (see Friedli 2005 on wan and weder). As described by Jäger (2010: 471–5), Middle High German was mostly like Old High German, and the changes affecting the complementizers can be observed from Early New High German onwards, especially from the second half of the sixteenth century. In degree equatives, wie came to replace als: in this process, the incentive factor is the availability of wie as a degree operator in another context (interrogatives) anyway.¹¹ In comparatives, als came to replace denn: in this process, analogy plays a crucial role, as als was introduced into comparatives by way of analogical extension from degree equatives.

¹⁰ These elements most probably do not derive from original comparative operators but they are instead related to the negation-like property (see Stolz 2013 and Bacskai-Atkari 2016b on the typological distinction). It should be kept in mind that the grammaticalization process from operator to head is not the only way comparative (or equative) complementizers may emerge; see also the discussion in Section 2.4. ¹¹ Overt comparative operators tend to be surface-identical to their interrogative degree operator counterparts cross-linguistically; see Bacskai-Atkari (2018b: 90–100).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

22

 -

Regarding the relationship between als, wie, and als wie in both degree equatives and comparatives, the traditional view (also reflected in Jäger 2010) was that als changed via an intermediate step als wie to wie. However, as shown by Jäger (2016: 291–8), this is actually not valid: the combination als wie appears in both degree equatives and comparatives after the appearance and/or establishment of wie as the complementizer. Hence, the changes can be schematically represented as follows for degree equatives and comparatives, respectively:¹² (12)

a. als(/so) ! wie (! als wie) b. dann/denn ! als ! wie (! als wie)

The change can first be detected in non-degree equatives (similatives) followed by degree equatives (the degree equatives discussed here) in the ninteenth century (affecting the standard language and most dialects); the two essentially undergo the same changes, though (see Jäger 2016: 294). In comparatives proper, the change starts from the original complementizer dann/denn: the change to als took place mainly in the seventeenth to eighteenth centuries, thus at a time when degree equatives were predominantly introduced by wie; subsequently, the change to wie in various dialects took place in the twentieth century, when the same dialects already had wie in degree equatives. While the doubling pattern with als wie is not a middle stage historically, it still provides important information concerning the structure of the left periphery. Contemporary examples were given in Section 2.1 above; since als wie appeared after the emergence of wie as a complementizer in degree equatives, there are historical examples for als wie in degree equatives too: (13)

Da steh ich nun, ich armer Tor! Und bin so there stand.1 I now I poor. fool and am so klug als wie zuvor. wise than as formerly ‘Here now I stand, poor fool, and I’m just as wise as formerly.’ (Goethe, Faust I.4)

I follow Bacskai-Atkari (2014a, 2014b) in assuming that in these doubling cases there are two CPs (cf. Jäger 2010, 2016, who assumes a combination of a ConjP and a CP).¹³ This is illustrated in (14) below:

¹² See Jäger (2016: 294) for a comprehensive table showing the individual stages. Note that Jäger (2016: 294), contrary to Jäger (2010: 476), does not include als wie, as it is no longer taken to be a middle stage in the developments on the left periphery but rather a further change involving the matrix degree element. The schematic representations in (12) also follow the more recent analysis. ¹³ While neither of the CPs is a designated projection in a cartographic sense (see the arguments against a cartographic analysis provided by Bacskai-Atkari 2018c), the combinations that can be

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

 , ,  

23

CP

(14)

Cʹ C

CP

als Op. C C TP wie As can be seen, both als and wie are complementizers. There are arguments in favour of the status of wie as a complementizer and not as an operator, as opposed to the interrogative degree operator wie (see Bacskai-Atkari 2014a, 2014b). In particular, wie in subclauses cannot take a lexical AP (even though the lexical AP can be phonologically realized), which is an option always available with degree operators, even if they allow the AP to be stranded.¹⁴ This is illustrated in (15) below: (15)

a. Der Tisch ist so lang wie das the. table is so long as the. ‘The table is as long as the office is wide.’ b. *Der Tisch ist so lang wie breit the. table is so long as wide ‘The table is as long as the office is wide.’

Büro office das the.

breit wide Büro office

ist. is ist. is

observed here are severely restricted by degree semantics. Some lower complementizers are like German wie in that they are specific for comparatives, whereas other lower complementizers are either essentially relative complementizers (e.g. English what; see Bacskai-Atkari 2018b: 91) or declarative ones (e.g. German dass). This topic cannot be explored in the present chapter; for further discussion, see Bacskai-Atkari (2016b). ¹⁴ This is a reliable test cross-linguistically, especially in the case of operators that derive from their interrogative operator counterparts; see Bacskai-Atkari (2018b: 82–100). Such examples, however, are rare in corpora and can be obtained instead via elicitation. I have not found such examples in the historical German corpora, and Jäger (2016) mentions none either. Evidence for the earlier operator status of wie comes from other constructions, such as (9), which show the relative status of wie with respect to a complementizer. In addition, Jäger (2010: 486–7) notes that the complementizer status of wie in present-day German is also evidenced by its co-occurrence with lower complementizers in hypothetical comparatives (see Bacskai-Atkari 2018a for a more detailed analysis of the development of these constructions). This was evidently not possible in previous stages.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

24

 - c. %Der Tisch ist länger als wie das the. table is longer than as the. ‘The table is longer than the office is wide.’ d. *Der Tisch ist länger als wie breit the. table is longer than as wide ‘The table is longer than the office is wide.’

Büro office das the.

breit wide Büro office

ist. is ist. is

The role of wie in (14) is primarily marking the comparative property, even though the higher complementizer is specified for [compr], too. Before turning to the analysis of why degree equatives and comparatives show differences, let us first consider similar doubling effects in a different language.

2.3 Diachronic developments in Hungarian The diachronic changes attested in Hungarian comparatives mostly took place in Old Hungarian (ninth to sixteenth centuries) and partly continued into Middle Hungarian (sixteenth to eighteenth centuries). The original comparative complementizer in both degree equatives and comparatives was hogy ‘how, that’ (cf. Haader 2003): in comparatives, this element was followed by the negative Pol head nem ‘not’ (or by sem ‘neither’), the sequence of hogy nem possibly fusing into honnem (see Bacskai-Atkari 2014a, 2014b). The element mint ‘how, as’ appeared already in Old Hungarian as an operator (cf. Haader 2003), and it came to be the eventual comparative complementizer in both degree equatives and comparatives; yet its appearance and distribution show asymmetries between the two clause types. Let us first consider the pattern in equatives. The operator use of the element hogy and mint (in the sense of ‘how’) is attested in the earliest texts; consider the following examples, taken from the same text:¹⁵ (16)

a. furiſcte muſia!jj etetý ýmletí. ug hug ana ſciluttet. bathes washes feeds breastfeeds so how mother child.. ‘she bathes, washes, feeds and breastfeeds him as a mother does her child’ (Königsberg Fragment and Its Ribbons, beginning of the thirteenth century)

¹⁵ The historical Hungarian examples, unless otherwise specified, are taken from the ‘Old Hungarian Concordance’ corpus described in Simon and Sass (2012).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

 , ,   b. Ez oz ýſten myntevt this the God how.he. ‘this is God as we know him’

25

eſmeríuc! know.1 (Königsberg Fragment and Its Ribbons, beginning of the thirteenth century)

The element mint is also attested in degree equatives on its own: (17)

Mondom byzonnyal tynektek, merth Salamon es mynden say.1 surely you. that Solomon also all hew dyczǫ́ſegheben nem volth ollyan rwhazatos mynt his glory. not was so arrayed how ezekkezzǫ́l egyk among.these one ‘And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.’ (Jordánszky Codex 371, Matthew 6:29, 1516–19)

As of 7 August 2019, the normalized part of the ‘Old Hungarian Concordance’ corpus contains no examples for single hogy in degree equatives proper. It is, however, attested in combination with mint:¹⁶ (18)

mínd anne bǫsegǫs kǫńhullatasoc mene a vízeknec all so.much plenty crying. as.much the waters. sokassaghí sem volnanac en elǫttem multitude.. neither be..3 I before.1 kellemetǫsek/ Auaǵ foganatosoc hoǵ mint akki zǫnetlen pleasant. or effective. than how who incessantly a kereztfanac ǫ keserúseget v́ testeben víselí the rood. he bitterness.. he body.. bears ‘not even as much crying as the multitude of waters would be as pleasant and touching to me as the one who incessantly bears the bitterness of the rood in his body’ (Nagyszombat Codex 40–1, 1512/1513)

The findings indicate that while the operator use of hogy is still attested in Old Hungarian, in degree equatives it has already given way to the new element mint. This differs considerably from the pattern in comparatives proper (see Section 2.4 and Bacskai-Atkari 2014a). The changes in degree equatives can be schematized as follows:

¹⁶ The combination hogy mint is glossed as ‘that how’ to indicate that the higher element is actually already a complementizer marking finiteness only in such combinations; see the discussion Section 2.4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

26 (19)

 - hogy ! hogy mint ! mint

It seems plausible that in the middle stage neither element was initially obligatory, that is, while either hogy or mint had to be overt to mark [compr], one of them was sufficient.¹⁷ This is reminiscent of the pattern attested in Modern Hungarian with mint and comparative operators; see Section 2.1. The structure of the doubling pattern (now taking mint as a complementizer and no longer as an operator) is shown in (20) below:

CP

(20)

Cʹ C

CP

hogy Op. C C … mint However, it seems that this doubling pattern was reanalysed quite early as one involving a finiteness marker and a comparative element, leading to the loss of [compr] on hogy, making it impossible for this element to introduce degree equatives on its own. This is in line with the general spread of hogy as a finite subordinator in this period (Bacskai-Atkari 2016a). The structure is similar to the German doubling pattern given in (14), even though, as will be argued in Section 2.4, the pattern emerged differently in the two languages. Let us now turn to the pattern in comparatives. The earliest pattern involves the complementizer hogy and the negative polarity marker nem (see Bacskai-Atkari 2014a):¹⁸

¹⁷ Typologically, the pattern involving an overt matrix degree element and a comparative clause as its complement is very much a European phenomenon (see, for instance, Stolz 2013). While some European languages have zero (ordinary) relative clauses, the same kind of pattern is not attested in comparative clauses (either degree equative or comparative proper). Note, however, that zero relatives are also subject to various restrictions in languages like English, and hence the lack of zero comparatives is not surprising by itself. The reasons behind this, however, should be explored in future work. ¹⁸ Note that the spelling in the Old Hungarian example differs from modern standard spelling, just as is the case with the German examples. In Old Hungarian spelling, the macron on a vowel indicates a

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

 , ,   (21)

27

Zǫ¯nėkm¯g te meltatlākodatod mv̇ èllènǫ¯c mẻt cease..3. you indignance..2 we against.1 because iob hog èlèuènėn zolgallonc Nabuhodonozor nag kiralnac better that alive serve..1 Nebuchadnezzar great king. & alazkoggonc te nèkėd hog nē meghaluāc mv̇ and cringe..1 you you. that not .dying.1 we vèzèdelmǫ¯cbèn mv̇nmagonc mv̇ zolgalatōknac peril..1. ourselves we service..1. karat zènuèggu̇c damage.. suffer..1 ‘cease to be indignant towards us because it is better for us to serve the great king Nebuchadnezzar alive and to cringe before you than to suffer the damages of our service dying’ (Vienna Codex 14, after 1416)

A later configuration involves the combination of the C head hogy, the polarity marker nem, and mint, which was either an operator or a complementizer at this stage: (22)

Te igyekevzeted az isteny zolgalatban jnkab léǵen you diligence..2 the divine service. rather be..3 arra hog az zent irasnak igy ebevl lelky that. that the sacred writing. thus this. spiritual ertelmet vegy es aytatossagnak keuansagat hog sense. take..2 and prayer. desire.. that nem mynt vduarlokeppen eneklesnek mogyat tegyed not as courting singing. mode.. do..2 ‘your diligence in serving God should be directed at gaining a spiritual understanding of the Scripture and a desire for prayer, rather than at taking the opportunity to sing for courting’ (Horvát Codex 138v–139r, 1522)

Note that the negative element could be left out occasionally when the C heads hogy and mint were combined with each other:

following nasal consonant. While the example in (21) contains a tensed clausal comparative complement, it is also possible to have a clause reduced to a single remnant. Consider: (i) mert iob ènnèkem halal hog because better I. death that ‘because death is better for me than life’ (Vienna Codex 244, after 1416)

nē not

ėlèt life

The same applies to the other constructions presented in this chapter. This provides evidence that the relevant patterns are not tied to the presence of an overt lexical verb (which differs from comparatives containing dass in German or what in English). Nevertheless, as also demonstrated by the nominative case marking in (i), there is a clause in the underlying structure, unlike in true phrasal comparatives. See Bacskai-Atkari (2017) for a discussion of the difference between reduced clausal comparatives and phrasal comparatives (and references there).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

28 (23)

 - edesseget erze nagyoban hogymint annak elǫtte sweetness. felt.3 greater that.as that. before.3 ‘(s)he felt sweetness even more than before’ (Lázár Codex 71r, after 1525)

Finally, single mint is attested in Old Hungarian comparatives as well: (24)

Es parāčola hog a kèmencè hètzer inkab and commanded.3 that the furnace seven.times rather gerièztètnec mēt zokotvala gerièztètni heat...3 as use.be. heat.. ‘and he commanded that they should heat the furnace seven times more than it was usually heated’ (Vienna Codex 127, after 1416)

Again, the patterns show considerable overlaps in time (see Bacskai-Atkari 2014a); yet the changes in comparatives can be schematized as follows: (25)

hogy nem ! hogy nem mint ! hogy (nem) mint ! mint

While the third stage shows some optionality in the realization of the polarity marker, the presence of the polarity marker is contingent on the availability of a higher C that must also be lexicalized (see Bacskai-Atkari 2014a). Conversely, the polarity marker nem can be absent only if mint is realized overtly. The structure of hogy mint is analogous to (20), while the structure of hogy nem mint is given in (26) below (see Bacskai-Atkari 2014a, 2014b; Bacskai-Atkari and Dékány 2014):

CP

(26)

Cʹ C

PolP

hogy Polʹ Pol

CP

nem Op. Cʹ C … mint

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

 , ,  

29

Since the PolP is not a clause-typing projection on its own, it must be selected by a C head above it. Obviously, mint could be the operator itself in earlier stages, just as in (20), patterning with ordinary relative operators. While degree equatives and comparatives show a largely parallel development (see Bacskai-Atkari 2014a), some asymmetry can be observed. On the one hand, doubling constructions (and triple combinations) in comparatives, shown in (26), can be observed even in Middle Hungarian, while single mint is sporadic in Old Hungarian. By contrast, single mint is available in degree equatives early on. The asymmetry is reminiscent of the changes attested in German (see Section 2.2) in that degree equatives are more innovative than comparatives; however, the two changes show greater overlaps.¹⁹

2.4 Degree semantics, negative polarity, and feature changes Based on the data presented in the previous sections, the question arises why degree equatives are more innovative than comparatives (in German and in Hungarian) and why German demonstrates a clear drag chain from degree equatives to comparatives (see Jäger 2016), whereas the two clause types show almost parallel development in Hungarian. In this section, I am going to argue that the differences can primarily be traced back to comparative semantics and the way syntactic changes were driven by feature changes. This is in line with what Baker (2008) dubbed the Borer-Chomsky Conjecture (going back to Borer 1984 and Chomsky 1995), according to which syntactic change is the result of changes in the lexicon. In essence, this view hypothesizes that syntactic change exists only as a reflex of changes in other components of language (see the discussion in Biberauer and Walkden 2015). As shown by Seuren (1973), comparative clauses are negative polarity environments. This is attributed to the fact that comparative clauses are downwardentailing environments (see Ladusaw 1979 on the relation between downward entailment and negative polarity contexts, and the later analyses of von Stechow 1984 and Heim 1985; 2000, and for a newer analysis, Hohaus and Zimmermann 2014). Downward-entailing environment is due to the maximality operator; as

¹⁹ A further difference is related to regional variation and standardization. As mentioned in Section 2.1, some developments in German can be detected in certain regional varieties only. Throughout the history of German varieties, comparative and equative complementizers show regional variation. Accordingly, the standard variety is also unaffected by certain changes that apply to regional varieties. The situation is different in Hungarian, where no regional differences can be detected in this respect.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

30

 -

argued by Hohaus and Zimmermann (2014), comparative constructions involve a maximality operator and, in its scope, a comparative operator in the semantics, whereby neither is tied to a particular syntactic projection and to the notion of degree (that is, they are present in non-degree equatives too). Recall the examples in (1), repeated here as (27): (27)

a. Ralph is as tall as Peter (is). b. Ralph is taller than Peter (is).

In both kinds of degree comparison constructions, two degrees are compared to each other: d (in the matrix clause) and d0 (in the subordinate clause). In degree equatives, d is the same or higher than d0 : in (27a), the degree to which Ralph is tall is the same as or higher than the degree to which Peter is tall. In comparatives, d is higher than d0 : in (27b), the degree to which Ralph is tall is higher than the degree to which Peter is tall. The degree d associated with the matrix degree element in degree equatives (so/as in German/English) is thus the maximum for the value of d0 . Given this relation, the matrix degree element can also lexicalize the maximality operator;²⁰ alternatively, the maximality operator is lexicalized lower, that is, by the equative complementizer. Naturally, there can be only a single maximality operator in a single construction, and it depends on the specific language how this property is set. By contrast, the matrix degree element in comparatives (-er in German/English) expresses merely a higher degree than d0 but it does not set the maximal value of d0 . This property has to be expressed by a lower syntactic projection, which is the comparative complementizer. Importantly, the maximum value of d0 is itself not equal to d, and this property is reflected by the relevant element in the subclause. I suggest that the difference between degree equatives and comparatives can be traced back to the properties described above. The maximality operator can be expressed by the matrix element in degree equatives but not in comparatives. As a consequence, the CP in the degree equative clause is associated with equality by default, while in comparative clauses it is associated with inequality (see Jäger 2016). The property of equality/inequality is inherited from the matrix degree element. Complementizers differ in terms of their feature specification: some of them are specified as marking either equality, [EQ], or inequality, [INEQ], while others are unspecified. This property of inequality is similar to negation and expletive negation in that it has to be lexicalized by a phonologically visible element (see Dryer 2013 on the

²⁰ Note also that, according to standard (comparative) semantics, degree equatives and comparatives involve the same maximality operator (see, for instance, Beck 2011).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

 , ,  

31

necessity of lexicalizing negation cross-linguistically). As there is no negative operator in the comparative subclause (there being no true negation involved when the inequality of the two degrees is expressed), this is carried out by the comparative complementizer. This kind of inequality marking (referred to as ‘degree negation’ descriptively by Bacskai-Atkari 2016b) encoded by the complementizer is reflected in the fact that many languages contain a negative-like element in the complementizer (see Bacskai-Atkari 2016b). Complementizers that inherently contain a negative-like element are specific for comparative clauses; however, it is also possible to have complementizers in the topmost C head that are lexically specified as comparative, [compr], but do not express inequality; these complementizers can be shared between degree equatives and comparatives, as is the case in the history of German als and wie, and this applies to Hungarian mint as well. The case of Hungarian hogy is special inasmuch as it was apparently licensed in comparatives expressing inequality only with an overt PolP as a complement, which encoded inequality phonologically. Note that the polarity marker in Old (and Middle) Hungarian is very high up in the clause, as it can indeed appear between two CP layers and cannot be considered as an instance of negation or expletive negation (contrasting also with Romance expletive negation in comparatives; see the Romance data of Seuren 1973). The differences in the properties to be encoded have consequences for the structure of the CP-periphery in the subclause. In degree equatives, there is no degree inequality to be expressed, and as the matrix equative element can take up the function of lexicalizing the maximality operator, it is possible to have a single CP in the subordinate clause. At the same time, a double CP is possible if the maximality operator is lexicalized by a complementizer above the CP containing the comparative operator. In comparatives, degree inequality has to be lexicalized and the matrix degree element cannot take up the function of lexicalizing the maximality operator, meaning that a double CP is necessary in the subclause, whereby the higher CP is responsible for encoding inequality and the lower CP hosts the comparative operator (overt or covert); the head of this CP is either a comparative complementizer or a more general relative complementizer (see Bacskai-Atkari 2016b). Let us now turn to the analysis of the historical constructions and the feature changes inducing syntactic reanalysis. I will adopt the features [compr] for comparative and [d-neg] for (degree) inequality used by Bacskai-Atkari (2016b) for the sake of simplicity, and I assume that both have to be lexicalized overtly in the subordinate clause by some element in order to type the clause properly. Starting with German, the earliest patterns can be described as follows. In degree equatives, the following structure is assumed:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

32

 -

CP

(28)

C C[compr]

CP

(al)so/als(o)[compr],[EQ] Op. C C[compr] TP ∅ Syntactically, there is only one feature, [compr], to be encoded here. The operator is covert and is in the scope of the higher complementizer.²¹ The structure of the CP in comparative clauses is essentially similar: (29)

CP Cʹ C[compr],[d-neg]

CP

denn/dann[compr],[INEQ] Op. Cʹ C[compr] TP ∅ The difference between (28) and (29) lies in the lexical features of the complementizers: denn/dann encodes inequality (given here as INEQ), while so/als encodes equality (given here as EQ). Either complementizer is incompatible with the non-matching clause type at this stage.

²¹ As mentioned before, there is no reason to suppose that the element denn/dann derives from a comparative operator; regarding this element, (29) is taken to be the starting point.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

 , ,  

33

As discussed in Section 2.2, the first step of reanalysis affecting German comparatives is the extension of als to comparatives. This change was enabled by the grammaticalization of als into a comparative complementizer specified as [compr] but no longer equipped with a lexical feature encoding equality. This was enabled by two factors. First, the change started in non-degree equatives (see Jäger 2016), where the complementizer expresses similarity rather than equality; second, in degree equatives the matrix equative element already encodes equation and can take over this function from the complementizer, which ultimately becomes unspecified for equality/inequality and is hence compatible with both kinds of matrix elements (see above). Given this, the element als was no longer incompatible with constructions such as (29) and was analogically extended, resulting in (30): (30)

CP Cʹ C[compr],[d-neg] CP als[compr] Op. Cʹ C[compr] TP ∅

Note that als does not have to be lexically specified as a negative-like element; degree inequality, [d-neg], has to be lexicalized by inserting an overt element into C, but the particular element does not have to match this feature, though it should not be incompatible with it either. At this stage, degree equatives have exactly the same structure, the difference from (28) being only that als is no longer specified as equative. In line with Jäger (2016), I assume that this change is motivated by economy; once the lexical feature of equality is lost on the element, the same complementizer is available in both types of comparatives. However, once als came to be a mere [compr] marker (unspecified for [EQ]/ [INEQ]), in equatives, this induced a further change, starting again from nondegree equatives; this was the introduction of the overt comparative operator and later complementizer wie, already present in non-degree equatives in Old High German (see Jäger 2010). This was able to lexicalize the comparative property in the lowest CP, given that it started as an operator in the specifier thereof (that is,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

34

 -

where the comparative operator is regularly located; see Bacskai-Atkari 2014a). In such cases, however, the [compr] feature to be encoded in the subclause is already checked off and marked overtly, and hence there is no need to generate a further CP layer; in degree equatives, the matrix equative element can also lexicalize the maximality operator (see the discussion above). Hence, the left periphery of the degree equative clause is as follows:²² (31)

CP Op. Cʹ C[compr] TP wie[compr],[EQ]

In this case, wie is specified as inherently equative. This reflects the Standard German pattern: wie is [EQ] and als, which used to be unspecified, has disappeared from equatives and is therefore associated only with [INEQ].²³ Again, as several southern dialects of German show, wie can lose this lexical feature and become a more grammaticalized element, and as such it can be analogically extended to comparatives, just as was described for als. In these dialects, it is underspecified for [EQ]/[INEQ]. The recurrent changes attested with comparative particles are referred to as the comparative cycle by Jäger (2010, 2016), and it essentially shows a canonical example of grammaticalization in that the loss of lexical features induces reanalysis in the syntax, whereby the new syntactic configuration can lead to the appearance of previously covert elements. Naturally, the processes described here raise the question how the doubling pattern als wie can be handled. Jäger (2016) shows that the appearance of als in wie-equatives is not the residue of the earlier als-pattern in degree equative clauses but the reanalysis of the matrix equative element, again starting from non-degree equatives. This is compatible with the analysis presented here and involves a change in labelling. Adopting the analysis of Lechner (2004) in terms of the comparative subclause being a complement of the matrix degree head, I assume

²² Naturally, as long as wie was still an operator, it was located in [Spec,CP]; in this case, the head would be empty. ²³ Essentially, there is thus no complementizer change from equative to comparative, but rather a change from equative to unspecified to comparative. This is in line with the general assumption that linguistic change is gradient.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

 , ,  

35

that the matrix equative element takes the CP as its complement; given that in non-degree equatives there is no degree involved, I indicate this XP as EquatP in the following representation instead of DegP, but it could be thought of as a more general functional projection as well: (32)

EquatP Equatʹ Equat[compr]

CP

als(o)[compr],[EQ] Op. Cʹ C[compr] TP wie[compr] The sequence of two comparative functional heads can be reanalysed as the sequence of two CPs as well, without any changes in the relevant features [compr] and the lexical feature of the higher functional head:

CP

(33)

Cʹ C[compr]

CP

als(o)[compr],[EQ] Op. Cʹ C[compr] TP wie[compr]

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

36

 -

Again, the same construction can be extended to comparatives too. The double CP construction is transparent, since the wie-CP corresponds to a proper comparative CP containing the operator.²⁴ In comparative clauses, the two CPs are necessarily present due to the semantics anyway (the higher projection hosting the maximality operator and the lower projection hosting the comparative operator; see above), and hence the doubling construction exhibits a one-to-one correspondence with the underlying structure in this respect. The asymmetry between degree equatives and comparatives can hence be attributed to degree semantics and has to do with the fact that the loss of lexical features can more readily occur in degree equatives, from which certain changes may also analogically spread. Let us now turn to the question why Hungarian is slightly different. As was described in Section 2.3, the change from hogy (nem) to mint took place via an intermediate step where a double CP was overtly realized. Regarding degree equatives, the availability of clauses introduced by a single mint as a comparative operator (see (16b) above) is in line with the assumption that degree equatives do not have to have a double CP layer: the CP containing the comparative operator may suffice, just as in the history of German or as in Modern Hungarian (see Section 2.1). The question is rather why the change involved the availability of a doubling step, contrary to German, where als was replaced by wie. On the one hand, doubling in Hungarian involved a surface distinction between degree equatives introduced by hogy (mint) and comparatives introduced by hogy nem (mint); the presence or the absence of PolP was indicative of whether the clause was equative or comparative, but PolP was licensed only if there was an overt C above it (that is, it was not a clause-type marker itself but an element determined by the clause-typing element).²⁵ On the other hand, there was a particular feature loss involved with hogy; as described by Bacskai-Atkari (2016a), hogy came to be a general subordinator during Old and part of Middle Hungarian. This involved the loss of its [compr] feature, and the comparative operator started to be lexicalized presumably during the weakening of this lexical feature as a way of marking [compr] overtly. Hence, the sequence hogy mint could ultimately consist of two overt elements with two distinct functions, one marking finite subordination and the other marking the comparative property:²⁶

²⁴ Transparency is one of the leading principles of syntactic change; see, for instance, Lightfoot (1979). ²⁵ This kind of dependency can be observed in expletive negation more generally; the negative-like element is not a proper negator but an element that is contingent upon the presence of another element. Negative polarity items are likewise dependent on a certain licensing condition. ²⁶ Recall that mint is not specified lexically as either [EQ] or [INEQ]. Note also that, just as in the case of German wie, as long as mint was still an operator, it was located in [Spec,CP]; in this case, the lower C head would be empty. See Bacskai-Atkari (2014a).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

 , ,   (34)

37

CP Cʹ C[compr]

CP

hogy[sub] Op. Cʹ C[compr] … mint[compr] Ultimately, these constructions completely disappeared from the language; the reason was most probably the fact that the highest complementizer became optional, as it came to be reinterpreted as a mere finite subordinator, and finite embedding was later encoded by the original lower complementizer. With the establishment of mint as the comparative complementizer and with the appearance of new comparative operators (Bacskai-Atkari 2014a), doubling of the type given in Section 2.1 is possible. The situation in comparative clauses is different inasmuch as the PolP is also present: (35)

CP Cʹ C[compr],[d-neg] PolP Polʹ

hogy[sub] Pol

CP

nem Op. Cʹ C … mint[compr]

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

38

 -

While inequality is lexicalized by hogy in the higher C head, it is not lexically specified as a polarity marker, which is why a PolP is generated right below it.²⁷ In this configuration, mint can take over the function of marking the clause type only after it has been established as a comparative complementizer, but it cannot appear on its own as an operator. The overt presence of a PolP indicates for the language learner that mint cannot be the element lexicalizing [d-neg], which is presumably a conserving effect for the particular configuration. The same cannot be said about degree equatives where no separate polarity marker is present, and by the feature loss on hogy the marker of [compr] can be ultimately assigned to mint. Nevertheless, since the feature loss on hogy affected both clause types in the same period, the feature loss being a more general process, it is expected that the change from hogy to mint in comparatives should show considerable overlap between the two clause types; as opposed to German, the role of analogy is minor.

2.5 Conclusion This chapter has presented a cross-linguistic study of the diachronic development of comparatives, providing a formal account for why comparative operators generally grammaticalize into complementizers in degree equatives more readily than in comparatives. I have argued that this is so because degree equatives do not necessarily have a double CP layer and because comparatives have to encode (degree) inequality, which has to be lexicalized by a functional head. This is a preserving factor for original complementizers in comparative clauses; in degree equative clauses, the features of the comparative operator essentially match those of the C head, and it is also possible not to lexicalize the C head itself. I have demonstrated that the loss of features is a key factor in changes at the CP-periphery in comparatives, in line with the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture. In German, the loss of lexical features on the complementizer in degree equatives resulted in a general comparative complementizer that could be analogically extended to comparatives. In Hungarian, the loss of the [compr] feature on the original comparative complementizer facilitated the reanalysis of the comparative operator into a complementizer as it came to be the ultimate marker of the relevant property. In either case, an asymmetry between degree equatives and comparatives is attested in a way that can be expected on the basis of degree

²⁷ Note that this is a language-specific setting: overt polarity markers–either in a PolP or lower in the clause–are attested in some languages but not in others, independently of the fact whether the comparative complementizer is identical to the one introducing degree equatives. German, for instance, does not have such a marker either synchronically or historically, even though the use of a unified complementizer is attested in both present-day and historical dialects. See Bacskai-Atkari (2016b) on cross-linguistic aspects.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

 , ,  

39

semantics, and as such the described changes follow from more general principles of universal grammar.

Acknowledgements This research was funded by the German Research Fund (DFG), via my research project ‘The syntax of functional left peripheries and its relation to information structure’ (BA 5201/1-1) carried out at the University of Potsdam. I owe many thanks to the audience of DiGS 17 for their helpful questions and suggestions, in particular to George Walkden. I would also like to thank Agnes Jäger, Malte Zimmermann, and Ellen Brandner for discussions on various aspects of this research.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

3 Cyclic changes in Hungarian relative clauses Julia Bacskai-Atkari and Éva Dékány

3.1 Introduction As described by Van Gelderen (2004, 2009) and Roberts and Roussou (2003), relative pronouns may stem either from interrogative pronouns or from demonstrative pronouns cross-linguistically. The two patterns are demonstrated by English and German below, respectively: (1)

a. The woman who lives next door has just left the supermarket. b. Die Frau, die nebenan wohnt, hat the.. woman who.. next.door lives has gerade den Supermarkt verlassen. just the.. supermarkt left. ‘The woman who lives next door has just left the supermarket.’

As can be seen, the English example in (1a) includes the relative pronoun who, which is morphophonologically identical to its interrogative counterpart. This type of relative pronoun will be referred to as a wh-REL in this chapter. By contrast, in the German example in (1b), the relative pronoun, die is morphologically identical to a demonstrative pronoun, from which it derives etymologically (Wiltschko 1998), and is likewise inflected for gender and case; this is, in fact, a standard option in Germanic (see Brandner and Bräuning 2013). In this chapter, we will refer to this kind of relative pronoun as a dem-REL. Hungarian is particularly interesting for the cross-linguistic status of relative pronouns, as it demonstrates a peculiar historical change affecting the morphology of relative operators. The Old Hungarian¹ pattern is essentially similar to the English paradigm; consider:

¹ The Old Hungarian period refers to the stage between the early ninth century and the sixteenth century. The first complete text from this period (and in the history of the Hungarian language) is the Funeral Sermon and Prayer from 1192–5, and the first codex is the Jókai Codex from after 1370 Julia Bacskai-Atkari and Éva Dékány, Cyclic changes in Hungarian relative clauses In: Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change. Edited by: Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson, Oxford University Press (2021). © Julia Bacskai-Atkari and Éva Dékány. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198832584.003.0003

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

      (2)

41

a. de [qui legen neký atia oʒut nem tudiuc] but who be..3 he. father. . not know...1 ‘but we do not know who his father is’ (Königsberg Fragment; middle of the fourteenth century) b. ʃcuʒ leannac [qui vleben tart chudalatuʃ fiot] virgin girl. who. lap.. hold.3 wonderful son. ‘to a virgin girl, who is holding a wonderful son in her lap’ (Königsberg Fragment; middle of the fourteenth century)

At this stage, relative operators are formally identical to their interrogative operator counterparts, as demonstrated for qui ‘who’ in (2). In Modern Hungarian, interrogative operators are essentially unchanged (differences in the spelling may occur), while relative operators always have an a- prefix: (3)

a. de nem tudjuk, ki lehet az atyja but not know...1 who be..3 the father. ‘but we do not know who his father is’ b. szűz leánynak, aki csodálatos fiút tart az ölében virgin girl. .who wonderful son. holds the lap.. ‘to a virgin girl, who is holding a wonderful son in her lap’

The Modern Hungarian pattern is peculiar inasmuch as the relative form consists of the prefix a-, which stems from an original demonstrative element, and of the original operator element (e.g. ki ‘who’). In this way, Modern Hungarian relative clauses demonstrate a third type of relative pronoun in addition to wh-REL elements, such as the English pattern in (1a), and demREL elements, such as the German pattern in (1b): Modern Hungarian relative operators contain both markers, and will hence be referred to as dem-whREL. This pattern is actually not entirely unique cross-linguistically: it is one of the standard relative strategies in Modern Greek as well (Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 2000: 47; Alexopoulou 2006: 67). The question arises how the change from simple wh-REL elements in Old Hungarian to complex dem-wh-REL elements in Modern Hungarian can be described.² Regarding reanalysis processes affecting relativizing elements in (surviving copy from 1448). For the research reported here we used the Old Hungarian Corpus described in Simon and Sass (2012). ² Note that diachronically, wh-REL pronouns must have themselves emerged via reanalysis from interrogative pronouns. This is because Proto-Uralic is widely assumed to have had very little finite embedding, if any (cf. Hajdú 1966: 82 and Bereczki 1996: 94, among others). The original relative clauses were most likely prenominal and participial, employing the gap strategy (Nikolaeva

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

42

 -  ́   ́  ́  

general, the following can be established. As mentioned earlier, relative pronouns emerge from interrogative pronouns and from demonstrative pronouns crosslinguistically. In either case, reanalysis can be described by the notion of the relative cycle (see Van Gelderen 2004, 2009), which can be summarized as follows. First, a demonstrative/interrogative pronoun is reanalysed as a relative pronoun. Second, the relative pronoun can be reanalysed into a C head. Third, once an original operator has been reanalysed as a complementizer, new relative pronouns can appear in the CP-domain. Naturally, not all interrogative/demonstrative pronouns enter the relative cycle; on the other hand, even if they do, they are not necessarily reanalysed into complementizers, in which case the relative cycle is incomplete. In order to illustrate the phenomenon, let us consider the changes affecting English relative operators. As described by Van Gelderen (2004, 2009), there are two relative cycles in the history of English: the reanalysis of that in Old English and the reanalysis of wh-pronouns in Middle English. The reanalysis of that shows a complete cycle: that was reanalysed from a demonstrative into a relative pronoun, and subsequently the relative pronoun was reanalysed into a complementizer. The reanalysis of wh-pronouns, however, demonstrates an incomplete cycle: the interrogative operators were reanalysed as relative operators, but no further reanalysis can be detected into complementizers. Essentially, the full completion of the first cycle (the reanalysis of that into a relative complementizer) provided an environment for the start of the second cycle. The relevant structures are given in (4) below: (4)

a.

CP

b. CP Cʹ

se/þat C þe

TP

c.

CP

∅ Cʹ

wh Cʹ

C

C

that

TP

TP

that

As can be seen, that started as a relative operator in [Spec, CP] alongside other relative operators that likewise derived from demonstratives. Later, when the original þe complementizer was lost, that was reanalysed as a complementizer, forthcoming). Thus finite relatives in Hungarian (and so the appearance of relative pronouns) must be a relatively late development. In this chapter we do not discuss the reanalysis of interrogative pronouns into relative pronouns in detail because this change took place in the period of the language before written records: we find wh-REL pronouns already in the first language record (the Funeral Speech and Prayer from the late twelfth century). The change from wh-REL to dem-wh-REL, however, can be tracked in the Old Hungarian short texts and codices. Our main concern here is this change.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

43

base-generated in C; this involved the loss of an overt dem-REL operator in [Spec, CP]. The disappearance of overt dem-REL operators (that being reanalysed and other dem-REL elements becoming obsolete), the [Spec, CP] became available for new relative pronouns, which appeared in Middle English in the form of wh-REL operators. These operators served to lexicalize the relative operator in the clause; if they co-occur with that, this leads to a Doubly Filled COMP pattern. It should be clear that English historically has both dem-REL and wh-REL elements in relative clauses, whereas dem-REL patterns are actually standard in Germanic relatives (see Brandner and Bräuning 2013), and wh-REL elements can be considered an innovation. Nevertheless, it is unarguable that English does not show complex relative pronouns (dem-wh-REL) of the Hungarian type. The present chapter argues that the mechanisms underlying the reanalysis of relative operators in Hungarian are essentially similar to those attested in English. Crucially, however, the reanalysis of wh-operators into relative operators preceded the reanalysis of the matrix demonstrative pronoun, and wh-based relative operators did not grammaticalize into complementizers either. In other words, Hungarian demonstrates an incomplete cycle with respect to wh-REL pronouns, similar to what can be observed in English. However, in English the dem-REL pronoun that was reanalysed as a complementizer earlier and thus demonstrated a complete cycle, which was not an option in Hungarian. Still, the matrix demonstrative element was reanalysed into [Spec, CP], but this was possible only via cliticization onto the wh-REL pronoun (and not via replacing it), resulting in morphologically complex relative pronouns (dem-wh-REL). We will argue that these changes had two important prerequisites, both related to features. First, the original wh-based relative operator did not lose its lexical features and was not grammaticalized into a functional head. Second, the matrix demonstrative lost its original definiteness feature, [+def ], and became unspecified for this feature. Ultimately, this feature change brought about the emergence of a new morphosyntactic paradigm. This is in line with what Baker (2008) dubbed the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture (going back to Borer 1984 and Chomsky 1995), according to which syntactic change is the result of changes in the lexicon. In essence, this view hypothesizes that syntactic change exists only as a reflex of changes in other components of language (see the discussion in Biberauer and Walkden 2015). This chapter is built up as follows. Section 3.2 presents the historical data from Hungarian, providing an overview of the major changes affecting relative clauses. Section 3.3 provides the actual analysis underlying these processes, focusing on the two major points to be discussed here: (i) the lack of feature loss with respect to lexical features, which prevented wh-based relative operators from reanalysis into complementizers, and (ii) the loss of the definiteness feature in the case of the matrix demonstrative element, which enabled its cliticization onto the original wh-REL element.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

44

 -  ́   ́  ́  

3.2 Changes in Hungarian relative clauses: The data 3.2.1 Stage 1: The starting point Relative clauses appear in the first complete Hungarian texts: they are introduced by relative operators, and these operators are morphophonologically identical to interrogative operators. An example is given in (5) below: (5)

es ana tartia uleb en [qui sciult dychev segut] and mother hold...3 lap.. who bore glory. ‘and the mother, who has given birth to glory, is holding him in her lap’ (Königsberg Fragment and Its Ribbons; middle of the fourteenth century)

The elements in question are undoubtedly operators and not complementizers. On the one hand, they can take plural marking and case marking: the operator ki ‘who’ is marked for the accusative case in (6a), and it bears both plural marking and dative case in (6b). Complementizers could not be inflected for number or case at any stage of Hungarian. On the other hand, the relative elements in question can also be modified by postpositions, as in (6c), which is again impossible for Hungarian complementizers. (6)

a. eggedum illen maraggun uro dum only.one..1 live..3 stay..3 lord...1 [ky-th wylag felleyn] who- world fear..3 ‘let my only one live and stay, so that the world shall fear him’ (Old Hungarian Lamentations of Mary; end of the thirteenth century) b. egÿebeknek zerzamaual [ky-k-nek myatt-a ysten others. tool.. who-- because.of-3 God mÿuelkedyk eznek byzon gyewmelczet] cultivate.3 this. sure fruit.. ‘with other tools, with which God cultivates its assured fruit’ (Jókai Codex 113; ca. 1440) c. ez levn vy ignec chudaia [qui mia vrduguc this became.3 new case. miracle. who because.of devils scurnevlenec] wondered.3 ‘this was the miracle of the new event, due to which the devils were surprised’ (Königsberg Fragment; middle of the fourteenth century)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

45

In certain cases the head of the relative clause was a demonstrative pronoun, and so the demonstrative in the main clause was immediately followed by the relative clause headed by the wh-REL operator. This demonstrative element is essentially a correlate that can also co-occur with a that-clause (see, for instance, É. Kiss 2002). The scenario presented here is thus very similar to the historical developments affecting German dass-clauses, where correlates are also attested (Axel 2009: 28–9). An example is given in (7). (7)

Nag´ great

bolondsag foolishness

embernek human.

zeretnye love..3

az-t, -

[ki-nek who-

miatt-a ...] because.of-3 ‘it is very foolish for humans to love the one because of whom . . . ’ (Bod Codex 2v; first half of the sixteenth century) It is clear that the demonstrative belongs to the main clause, as it gets accusative case from the matrix predicate zeret ‘love’. The wh-REL, on the other hand, is part of the embedded clause and gets case from the possessive head marked by the agreement suffix on the P: miatt-a (because.of-3) ‘because of ’. The reanalysis of the demonstrative into the relative clause could start in a subset of the above cases, specifically, in cases where the (distal) demonstrative az ‘that’ was morphologically unmarked (i.e. morphologically singular with nominative case), as in (8).³ The examples in (8) contain identificational matrix clauses (with a dropped copula); Ez az ‘this is it/him’ and o aʒ ‘he is it/him’ are wellformed self-standing clauses with Ez ‘this’ or o ‘he’ as the subject and az/aʒ ‘that’ as the predicate. (8)

a.

Ez az [ky cristust kerestfan tarsolkodtatt] Ez az [ky this  who Christ. cross. conversed.3 this  who cristusual coporsoba el reÿtetÿk] Christ. coffin. off is.hidden ‘this is the one who talked to Christ on the Cross; this is the one who is put into the coffin with Christ’ (Jókai Codex 133; ca. 1440)

³ That the modern Hungarian a- prefix of relative pronouns stems from an uninflected matrix demonstrative which was reanalysed into the embedded clause has been observed in the descriptive diachronic literature such as Galambos (1907), Klemm (1928), Dömötör (1991, 1995, 2014, 2018), Juhász (1992), G. Varga (1992), D. Mátai (1992), and Haader (1995). These works, however, do not have any theoretical aspiration: they do not discuss the structure underlying the clauses before and after re-analysis and do not put the Hungarian facts into a cross-linguistic perspective either. That the mainclause demonstrative was not simply adjacent to the relative operator but actually functioned as the head of the relative clause is a novel observation that we develop in Bacskai-Atkari and Dékány (forthcoming) in detail.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

46

 -  ́   ́  ́   b. o aʒ [ki èn vtannam iouēdo] he  who I after.me is.to.come ‘he is the one who comes after me’ (Munich Codex 85va; 1446)

The structure of (8b) is shown in (9). For simplicity of exposition, we treat the relative clause as an adjunct to the demonstrative, but nothing crucial hinges on this. (See É. Kiss 2002 for a complement analysis of Hungarian relative clauses.)⁴

DP

(9)

DP aʒ dem

CP ki who

Cʹ C ∅

IP èn vtannam iouēdo comes after me

3.2.2 Stage 2: Syntactic change As the first step towards the emergence of dem-wh-REL operators, the demonstrative was reanalysed as part of the relative clause (resulting in a pattern similar to that of Modern Greek; see Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 2000: 47; Alexopoulou 2006: 67). This involves the rebracketing of the clausal boundary, which is, in fact, a common process cross-linguistically (for instance, it can be detected in the reanalysis of the German complementizer dass ‘that’; see Axel 2009).⁵ The reanalysis is reflected in the morphological marking of the demonstrative: when it is already part of the relative clause, it does not bear the case

⁴ The difference between the complement analysis and the adjunct analysis is ultimately related to what status is assigned to the matrix demonstrative, that is, whether it is treated as an expletive placeholder or as the element receiving a theta role (see Axel 2009: 29). ⁵ Axel (2009) argues that the element das/dass was initially a demonstrative element in the matrix clause, which came to be reanalysed as a relative pronoun introducing a correlative clause. Subsequently, such adjunct clauses were reanalysed as complement clauses, making the subclause the sister of the matrix lexical verb (Axel 2009: 23). The scenario presented here for Hungarian thus has parallels in Germanic, with the important difference that no complex relative elements emerged in Germanic.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

47

assigned by the matrix predicate any more. In (10a) the matrix verb ‘take’ assigns accusative case to its object. Similarly, in (10b) the verb ‘burn’ takes an accusative object. In neither case does the demonstrative bear accusative, showing that it does not function as the matrix object (and so the head of the relative clause) any more. (10)

a. veged take....2 ‘take what is yours’

[az 

thyed] yours

mi what

(published in Régi magyar glosszárium; 1456) b. es laang meg egethe [az ky-k bÿnesek valanak] and flame  burned...3  who- guilty. were.3 ‘and (a/the) flame burned those who were guilty’ (Kulcsár Codex 261; 1539) In these cases the relative clause has no overt head (a demonstrative in the object position would have the accusative form az-t ‘that-’, which does not appear in (10a) and (10b)). Such sentences are formally ambiguous between headless (free) relatives (which are introduced by the same set of relative pronouns as relatives headed by a lexical noun or a pronoun⁶) and relatives whose pronominal head has undergone pro-drop. (Subject and object pro-drop are both in place at the time dem-wh-REL arises.) This is shown for (10a) in (11), where ∅ stands for the lack of any external head. (11)

a. veged take-...2. ‘take what is yours’

pro

[az 

mi what

thyed] yours dropped pronominal head

⁶ Cf. the following minimal quartet from Modern Hungarian: (i)

a. a

fiú,

aki

szeret

futni

the boy .who like.3 ‘the boy who likes running’ b. az, that

run. lexically headed relative

aki

szeret

futni

.who

like.3

run.

‘that [person] who likes running’ c. Aki .who

szeret

futni,

like.3

run.

pronominally headed relative (az) that

egészséges. healthy

‘[He] who likes running is healthy.’ d. Meghívtam, invite..1

aki-t .who-

‘I invited whom you suggested.’

headless relative in a correlative

javasoltál. suggest..2 free relative

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

48

 -  ́   ́  ́   b. veged take-...2 ‘take what is yours’

∅

[az 

mi what

thyed] yours free relative

Another indicator that the demonstrative has been analysed into the relative clause is that the demonstrative can be renewed in the main clause. In other words, object pro (in the structure in (11a)) can alternate with an overt object demonstrative pronoun. In these cases we have two string-adjacent demonstratives. The first is part of the main clause; it serves as the head of the relative clause, and gets case from the main clause. The second demonstrative is part of the embedded clause. Schematically: dem [CP dem wh-REL . . . ]. As a result, the case of the matrix demonstrative and the case of the relative operator are independent of each other. In (12a), for instance, the matrix demonstrative bears nominative case, and the embedded relative operator has accusative case. In (12b) we have the opposite situation: the renewed matrix demonstrative shows accusative, while the relative operator is assigned the morphologically zero nominative case. (12)

a. kellemetes nekem Ferencz Francis az [a-mi-t mondaz] pleasant for.me Francis  -what- say.2 ‘it is pleasant for me, Francis, what you are saying’ (Virginia Codex 84; 1515) b. myre zereʃʃem en az-t [az-ky keʃerew what. love....1 I - -who bitter vegezetewt yger] end. promise.3 ‘why should I love him/her who promises a bitter end?’ (Book of Proverbs 74; 1510)

Let us now turn to the question of where the reanalysed demonstrative pronoun is within the relative clause. In nominal positions, Old Hungarian demonstratives bear the appropriate number and case marking. In (13), for instance, the demonstrative serves as the object of the clause, and it is inflected for plural marking and bears the accusative case assigned by the verb ‘give’. (13)

az-ok-ot agÿad -- give....2 ‘give those to the poor’

zegeneknek poor.. (Jókai Codex 98; ca. 1440)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

49

In adnominal position, however, demonstratives are bare, that is, they do not show concord for the case and number features of the head noun. Observe (14), where the head noun kener ‘(loaf of ) bread’ is inflected for plural number and superessive case, but its demonstrative modifier is not. (14)

mend az kener-ek-en all  bread-- ‘on all those loaves of bread’

(Jókai Codex 76; c. 1440)

Demonstratives reanalysed into the relative clause are bare. In (15), for instance, while the wh-REL operator is inflected for plural marking, the demonstrative remains morphologically singular. (15)

es laang meg egethe [az ky-k bÿnesek valanak] and flame  burned...3  who- guilty. were.3 ‘and those who were guilty were burned by flame’ (Kulcsár Codex 261; 1539)

From this, we conclude that the reanalysed demonstrative stands in an adnominal position; specifically, it forms a constituent with the wh-REL operator. The structure of (15) is schematized in (16); the analysis of (12b) is shown in (17). In these trees we have labelled [Spec, CP] containing the demonstrative and the wh-REL element as FP. We shall return to the internal structure of the FP in Section 3.3

DP

(16)

DP pro

CP FP

az ki-k dem who-pl

Cʹ C ∅

IP bÿnesek valanak were guilty

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

50

 -  ́   ́  ́  

(17)

DP DP az-t dem-acc

CP Cʹ

FP az-ky dem-who

C ∅

IP keserew vegezetewt yger promises a bitter end

Given that demonstratives reanalysed into the embedded clause are in an adnominal position, and adnominal demonstratives must be uninflected, a demonstrative that appeared at the end of the main clause but had overt morphological marking (e.g. a possessive suffix, a plural suffix, accusative or oblique case marking, or was embedded in a PP) was not a possible input to the reanalysis rule. (18) provides some examples in which the rebracketing of the clausal boundary was prevented by overt suffixation of the demonstrative. (18)

a. Es yme egy az-ok kezel [ky-k Jeʃuʃʃal valanak] and behold one - among who- Jesus. were.3 ‘and one of those who were with Jesus’ (Jordánszky Codex 442; 1516–91) b. ada [ . . . ] az-ok-nak [ky-k hyznek give..3 -- who- believe.3 hw̋ neweeben] he name..3. ‘[the Lord] gave . . . to those who believe in his name’ (Jordánszky Codex 623; 1516–91)

The questions arise why the demonstrative was reanalysed into the subordinate clause and how this change can be modelled. This will be discussed in detail in Section 3.3.2; before turning to the analysis, let us discuss further changes affecting the left periphery of relative clauses.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

51

3.2.3 Stage 3: Morphophonological change Once part of the [Spec, CP] of the relative clause, the demonstrative az ‘that’ was affected by further changes: it underwent morphological cliticization onto the wh-REL operator. In the first step, the z of the demonstrative could undergo assimilation to the consonant of the wh-REL operator (these wh-REL operators start in a CV sequence; thus, we can also describe this process as intervocalic gemination), as in (19). (19)

[ah hol en vagyok], ty  where I am you ‘you cannot come to where I am’

oda nē yehetek there not come..2 (Jordánszky Codex 650; 1516–19)

The assimilation could be complemented by the loss of the space between the demonstrative and the wh-REL in orthography (20), showing an even greater degree of integration of the demonstrative into the wh-REL (though orthography is not standardized in this period, and it shows a great degree of diversity). (20)

am-menere az zeretetekbe -much the love..3. ‘as much as love is in their liking’

az zerelmnec volta vag´on the love. being is (Nagyszombat Codex 5; 1512–13)

In the final step the intervocalic consonant underwent degemination, leading to the present-day Hungarian pattern with relative pronouns having the a- prefix on the wh-REL element. (21)

a. ahol én .where I ‘where I am’

vagyok am

(Modern Hungarian)

b. amennyire lehetséges .much possible ‘as far as it is possible’

(Modern Hungarian)

The pattern in (21) could also arise in a different way. Some data show loss of the consonant from the demonstrative with the orthographic space between the demonstrative and the wh-REL retained. (22)

aǯ-t [a mel’ -  which ‘that which is more pitiful’

alab lower

valo] being (Munich Codex 86rb; 1466)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

52

 -  ́   ́  ́  

The loss of z from az then could also be combined with the loss of space in orthography, again leading to the present-day Hungarian pattern, with the paradigm of relative pronouns marked by the a- prefix. (23)

Mert [aki ezic], vrnac ezic, Es [aki because .who eat.3 Lord. eat.3 and .who nem ezic], vrnac nem ezic not eat.3 Lord. not eat.3 ‘because those who eat eat for the Lord, and those who do not eat do not eat for the Lord’ (Vitkovics Codex 54; 1525)

The strategies shown in (19) to (23) coexisted for a long time.⁷ In Modern Hungarian only the pattern in (21) and (23) survives, however. The assimilation of z in (19) and its loss in (22), we suggest, are different morphophonological manifestations of the same phenomenon: the syntactic reanalysis of the phrasal demonstrative into a functional head within the functional hierarchy projected by the wh-REL pronoun. We turn to the details of this analysis in Section 3.3.

3.3 Feature changes on wh-REL and the demonstrative 3.3.1 No loss of lexical features on wh-REL As described in Section 3.1, an important change potentially affecting the left periphery of relative clauses is the reanalysis of the relative operator into a complementizer. In order for this to happen, the relative pronoun has to lose any lexical feature that is not compatible with the status of a complementizer in the given language. The reanalysis of English that involved the loss of person and number features; consequently, that as a relative complementizer does not show number agreement, unlike the demonstrative pronoun that: (24)

a. Mary picked all of the flowers that/*those were growing in the garden. b. Those/*that are nice.

Similarly, reanalysis is attested with original pronouns that do not show agreement, including English dialectal where (see Comrie 1999: 88) and German wo ‘where’ in various southern dialects (Bayer and Brandner 2008).

⁷ The fact that such a phonological alternation arises indicates that these elements no longer count as demonstratives. Note that Hungarian also has demonstrative-based definite articles (showing a typologically very common pattern); these definite articles are subject to phonologically conditioned allomorphy and, unlike demonstratives, they are always unstressed.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

53

However, as pointed out in Section 3.2, wh-based relative pronouns in Old Hungarian show number marking, in addition to being inflected for case, as shown by (6b), repeated here as (25a). The same is true throughout the history of Hungarian, as illustrated by the Modern Hungarian example in (25b). (25)

a. egÿebeknek zerzamaual [ky-k-nek myatt-a ysten others. tool.. who-- because.of-3 God mÿuelkedyk eznek byzon gyewmelczet] cultivates this. sure fruit.. ‘with other tools, with which God cultivates its assured fruit’ (Jókai Codex 113; ca. 1440) b. a szomszédok, aki-k miatt nem (Modern Hungarian) the neighbours .who- because.of not tudsz aludni can.2 sleep. ‘the neighbours because of whom you cannot sleep’

Since the relevant lexical features were not lost, Hungarian relative pronouns were not reanalysed as complementizers, and hence they continued to occupy the [Spec, CP] position instead of C (see also Bacskai-Atkari 2014a).⁸

3.3.2 The loss of the [+def ] feature on the demonstrative Having established that there was no lexical feature loss in the case of ordinary relative operators in Hungarian, let us now turn to feature changes that can be held responsible for the changes outlined in Section 3.2. We will argue that the changes in the syntactic positions were accompanied by changes in functional features, specifically by the loss of the [+dem] feature on the demonstrative element. This feature change was ultimately responsible for bringing about a new morphosyntactic paradigm. The analysis conforms to the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture as syntactic change is the result of feature changes on functional heads. As described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, Hungarian relative pronouns at the initial stage do not differ from interrogative pronouns in their morphological shape; hence, a form such as ki, similar to English who, corresponds both to an interrogative and to a relative pronoun. However, this does not mean that they are one ⁸ Consequently, while Germanic languages often demonstrate relative complementizers synchronically and/or historically, Hungarian has no relative complementizers throughout its history. Note that this does not exclude the availability of subordinating complementizers in relative clauses (see BacskaiAtkari 2014a and Bacskai-Atkari and Dékány 2015), but in these cases the complementizer merely marks finite subordination and does not check off the [rel] feature of the C head.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

54

 -  ́   ́  ́  

and the same element: they importantly differ in terms of their functional features—[+wh] versus [+rel]—which match the relevant clause type. Building on Den Dikken and Dékány (2018), we propose that Old Hungarian interrogative and relative operators have two distinct layers. Ki ‘who’, mi ‘what’, etc. are operators which directly correspond to the lower layer, QP. This QP is embedded under a functional layer, FP, which specifies the [+wh] or [+rel] feature. That is, clause-typing features are encoded in the extended projection of the operator. (26)

FP Fʹ F [+wh]/[+rel]

QP ki who

That ki ‘who’, mi ‘what’, mely ‘which’, hol ‘here’, etc. are general operator not inherently associated with the [+wh] or [+rel] feature is also shown by the fact that they appear in several different types of quantifiers. (27)

a. universal quantifier minden-ki (lit. every-who) ‘everybody’, minden-hol ‘every-where’ b. existential quantifier vala-ki (lit. some-who) ‘somebody’, vala-hol ‘some-where’ c. negative existential quantifier sen-ki (lit. no-who) ‘nobody’, se-hol ‘no-where’ d. free choice item akár-ki/bár-ki (both: lit. any-who) ‘anybody’, akár-hol/bár-hol both: ‘anywhere’

In these morphologically complex quantifiers the operator ki ‘who’, mi ‘what’, mely ‘which’, hol ‘here’, etc. is in QP (exactly as in (26)), while the universal, existential, or free-choice morpheme is in a functional projection above QP. For expository purposes, we represent them in the F head, leaving open the possibility that some (or all) of these morphemes may be in [Spec, FP] instead.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

      (28) a. ‘everybody’ FP

b. ‘somebody’ FP

Fʹ F QP mindenevery ki who

c.

‘nobody’

55

d. ‘anybody’ FP

FP Fʹ

Fʹ

F QP valasome ki who

F QP senno ki who

F F QP akár/bárany ki who

These morphologically complex units provide additional motivation for the FP layer, as the FP projection can be filled overtly, not just covertly. Similar bipartite structures have been proposed for Japanese and Old English wh-based quantifiers and relative pronouns in Watanabe (1992, 2004) and Watanabe (2009), respectively.⁹ The structure of the interrogative pronoun is illustrated in (29) below: (29)

FP Fʹ F QP [+wh] ki who

As can be seen, the feature [+wh] is encoded in the F head, while the QP itself is underspecified. The structure given in (29) is valid for interrogative pronouns in both Old Hungarian and subsequent periods. The structure of the initial relative operators in Old Hungarian is illustrated in (30):

⁹ Note that these constructions apply to wh-based relative pronouns. As Bacskai-Atkari (2019), examining West Germanic relative clauses, suggests, demonstrative-based relative pronouns and whbased relative pronouns differ in terms of their internal structure, resulting in differences in their behaviour. The same applies to zero relative pronouns co-occurring with complementizers. The reason why the FP is projected in the wh-based relatives under scrutiny is that the quantifier is not specified as a relative element in itself. It follows that the proposed structure is not intended as a universal schema for all relative pronouns but rather as a configuration that is backed up by various languages on independent grounds.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

56 (30)

 -  ́   ́  ́  

FP Fʹ F QP [+rel] ki who

Again, the clause-typing feature, in this case [+rel], is located in the F head.¹⁰ The representation holds for Old Hungarian relative pronouns but obviously not for present-day Hungarian ones, which contain an a- prefix. Comparing (26) with (30), it should be obvious that the QP is the same in both constructions, while the clause-typing feature is carried by the F head. Naturally, this also accounts for why quantifiers can readily act as both interrogative pronouns and relative pronouns in many languages: the same underspecified QP can be taken as a complement by both of the relevant F heads. At the stage represented by (30), the demonstrative element is still in the matrix clause. The first step of reanalysis is when the demonstrative was reanalysed as part of the relative clause. As the demonstrative corresponds to a phrase-sized projection, its reanalysis into the relative clause targeted the [Spec, FP] position of the relative marker, which is a phrase position. Consider: (31)

FP az Fʹ F

QP

[+rel] ki who In this case, the F head is still empty, but the specifier contains an overt demonstrative element. We are going to return to the question of why and how the ¹⁰ Relative and interrogative pronouns also differ in their structural position: interrogatives are in the structural focus position, while relative pronouns are higher, linearly preceding the focus (cf. Horvath 1986; Kenesei 1994; É. Kiss 2002: ch. 10; Kántor 2008; Lipták 2015; Bacskai-Atkari 2018b). As a reviewer suggests, it is possible that the general operator (ki ‘who’, mi ‘what’, etc.) is merged with a [+wh] or a [+rel] head in different positions in the clause.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

57

demonstrative was reanalysed into the FP; for the time being, let us concentrate on the further consequences of this reanalysis step. The demonstrative was reanalysed from a phrase in [Spec, FP] into a functional head located in F. This change was accompanied by phonological changes, that is, the assimilation or the loss of word-final -z.¹¹ The representation is given in (32): (32)

FP Fʹ F QP [+rel] a(z)

ki who

The change from specifier to head is a well-known syntactic change and is summarized by the Head Preference Principle of Van Gelderen (2004: 11, 17), reformulated as a principle of feature economy by Van Gelderen (2009: 157): it is preferable for an element to be a head rather than to be a phrase. Essentially, the change described here is guided by transparency in terms of language acquisition; given that there is only one overt element in the FP, language learners can either assume a sequence of an overt specifier and a zero functional head or assume that there is, in fact, only a functional head lexicalized by the overt element itself. Naturally, the lack of loss in terms of lexical features on the wh-REL element (the QP), as described in Section 3.3.1, is essential: the entire FP would have been absent from the construction if the relative operator had been reanalysed as a

¹¹ It is interesting to note here that the distal demonstrative az ‘that’ underwent a similar change in the DP as well. Proto-Uralic had no definite article, and many Uralic languages still do not have one. Early Old Hungarian already had a definite article, but it was used only in a limited range of contexts. The use of the article spread into more and more contexts throughout the Old and Middle Hungarian periods (Egedi 2014). What is important for our purposes is that the definite article, a(z) ‘the’, also grammaticalized from the distal demonstrative az ‘that’, when the demonstrative was reanalysed from a [Spec, DP] element to a D head. For details, see Egedi (2014). Like the reanalysis from a [Spec, FP] element to an F head, this syntactic change was also accompanied by a phonological change; while the distal demonstrative retained an invariable form, az, the definite article developed two allomorphs over time: az is used when the next word begins with a vowel, and a appears when the next word starts with a consonant. (As we saw in Section 3.2, the relative prefix that stems from the demonstrative started out as az, and for a while its consonant could undergo assimilation to the word-initial consonant of the wh-REL; finally the z was completely lost, leading to an invariant a- relative prefix in Modern Hungarian.) The two grammaticalization processes are slightly different regarding their outcome in the sense that, within the DP, az retained its original use as a demonstrative in addition to the newer article function, but within the FP, az cannot appear in [Spec, FP] any longer.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

58

 -  ́   ́  ́  

C head. The FP provided not only an empty specifier position but also an empty head, as the FP layer responsible for encoding the [+rel] feature contained no phonologically visible material. With the change from (30) to (31) and ultimately to (32), the ambiguity resulting from the surface identity of the strings produced by both (26) and (30) disappeared, rendering unambiguous syntactic paradigms. This again favours transparency, since a one-to-one relationship between the surface string and the underlying structure is possible. Let us now return to the question of why and how the demonstrative was reanalysed into the relative clause. As mentioned above, the demonstrative is a phrase-sized projection; specifically, it corresponds to a DP and has the following features: [+N], [+dem], [+def ]. In a nominal position, as in (33), this DP occupies an argument position by itself; see the representation in (34). (33)

m¯gvig´aʒta consoled...3 ‘(he) consoled those’

aʒ-ok-at -- (Munich Codex 26vb; c. 1466)

VP

(34)

V m ¯ gvig´aʒta consoled

DP aʒokat those

By contrast, in a determiner function in adnominal position, as in (35), it occupies the [Spec, DP] position of the head noun; see the representation in (36). (35)

Es lezen az napon and will.be  day. ‘and [the following] will happen on that day’ (Vienna Codex 235, the middle of the fifteenth century)

DP

(36)

DP

D

az D NP that napon day.on

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

59

The change from a regular demonstrative element in the matrix clause to the F head involved changes in the syntactic position and changes in terms of features. Initially, the demonstrative was equipped with both a [+dem] and a [+def ] feature, in accordance with its status as an ordinary demonstrative. We can see this from the fact that, as a matrix object, the demonstrative triggers definite agreement on the verb; see, for example, (33). The [+dem] feature makes the demonstrative deictic in its function. As described by Rooryck (2003) in his study on Dutch demonstratives, proximal and distal demonstratives differ in their feature specification: while proximal demonstratives are equipped with the feature [location: proximate], distal demonstratives are underspecified in having merely a feature [location: ].¹² He argues that the underspecified nature of distal demonstratives makes them suitable for their reanalysis into relative pronouns too. For our purposes here, it is important to note that the matrix demonstrative in relative constructions points to the relative clause, which crucially differs from a genuine demonstrative use where the demonstrative points to a non-linguistic antecedent, and the abstraction of the demonstrative use in this respect ultimately led to the weakening and eventual loss of the [+dem] feature. This process was facilitated by the fact that the demonstrative appeared in an uninflected form. With the loss of this feature, however, the demonstrative was no longer interpreted as an anaphor for the relative clause or the relative pronoun but rather part of it. Specifically, it was interpreted as a modifier of the original relative pronoun (QP), resulting in a construction structurally similar to the cases where an uninflected demonstrative served as a modifier to a lexical noun (see the relevant data in Section 3.2). This step was probably accompanied by some phonological weakening, which continued even after the demonstrative was already in [Spec, FP], leading to the phonological reduction of the demonstrative manifested by assimilation and subsequent degemination, as well as the loss of the original -z ending. A further change affects the loss of the [+def ] feature. This feature is interpretable on a demonstrative element and does not need to be checked off against a functional head. The F head itself was not specified for this feature (relative pronouns being indefinite) and hence the [+def ] feature of the element in the specifier could easily be lost. The loss of the [+def] feature is shown by the fact that if the relative pronoun is the object of the relative clause, it does not trigger definite agreement on the verb. Compare the relative pronoun object and the indefinite

¹² The [+dem] feature merely specifies that the element is demonstrative; it differs from the definiteness feature, as also demonstrated by the fact that a definite article is [+def] but [–dem]. In the analysis of Rooryck (2003), the location feature can be present on non-demonstrative elements as well, including interrogative elements, e.g. Dutch wat ‘what’, which is underspecified—[location: ]— just like the distal demonstrative dat ‘that’, both contrasting with the proximal demonstrative dit ‘this’, specified as [location: proximate]. The relation between the locative feature and the demonstrative feature is not immediately relevant to the purposes of this chapter and will not be addressed further.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

60

 -  ́   ́  ́  

agreement in (37) with the genuine demonstrative object and the definite form of the same verb in (38).¹³ (37)

teg´ed a-mi-t te-het-z do..2 -what- do--2 ‘do what you can do’ (Bod Codex 8r, the first half of the sixteenth century)

(38)

De ha az-t but if - ‘but if you do that’

tez-ed do-..2 (Jordánszky Codex XIII/b, 1516–19)

Once this feature loss happened, the original demonstrative could be reanalysed as the F head itself, in line with the Head Preference Principle outlined above. At this stage, speakers reinterpreted the original demonstrative as the marker of [+rel]. The change from D to F is clearly an instance of grammaticalization, as it was triggered by feature loss and involved a change into a more functional category. Note that the reanalysis from a D head to an F head was fostered by the fact that the D head appeared without an overt NP complement. That is, while a string such as a-ki ‘-who’ corresponded to an underlying sequence of a D head (a(z)) + a null NP + a null F head + a QP (ki), as in (40), language learners ultimately reinterpreted this sequence as that of an overt F head (a-) + a QP (ki), as in (41). (39)

adnominal 

DP Dʹ

DP

D NP D NP az [+def] ∅

∅

napon

¹³ One exception to the generalization that relative pronouns are indefinite is amelyik ‘which’. The definite interpretation of amelyik ‘which’ is not due to the a- prefix, however; the interrogative melyik ‘which’, which ultimately forms the basis of this complex pronoun, is itself exceptionally definite. This is because it bears the -ik partitive suffix (É. Kiss 2018); it presupposes the existence of a set and picks a subset of this set.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

      (40)

61

first step of reanalysis

FP Fʹ

DP

D NP F QP az [+rel] ∅

(41)

∅

ki

final step, relative prefix

FP Fʹ F QP [+rel] a(z)

ki

Hence, the change in the category of the demonstrative element (from D to F) was accompanied by a matching change regarding its complement (from NP to QP), which was possible because the NP was not phonologically visible. Naturally, the changes described here ultimately led to the emergence of a new morphosyntactic paradigm; relative operators regularly differ from their interrogative counterparts in that the former but not the latter contain the a- prefix, which historically derives from the original matrix demonstrative element. As mentioned before, this resulted in a more transparent paradigm regarding the QPs in question, since the distinction between interrogative and relative pronouns is morphophonologically marked and neither of the surface strings is surfaceambiguous.

3.4 Conclusion This chapter has examined the historical development of Hungarian relative operators, showing how the loss of certain features resulted in a distinctive morphosyntactic paradigm of relative operators, in line with the Borer– Chomsky Conjecture. Hungarian is particularly interesting in this respect because

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

62

 -  ́   ́  ́  

it has morphologically complex relative pronouns consisting of an original demonstrative element and an operator phonologically identical to its interrogative operator counterpart. The Hungarian pattern is thus crucially different from, for example, Germanic languages, where the relative pronoun or complementizer derives either from a demonstrative or from an interrogative pronoun but not from both at the same time. We argued that the emergence of this pattern was possible in the first place because in Hungarian, contrary to English, the reanalysis of wh-operators into relative operators preceded the reanalysis of the matrix demonstrative pronoun, and since wh-based relative operators did not grammaticalize into complementizers, the only way for the demonstrative to be reanalysed into the [Spec,CP] position was via cliticization onto the wh-based relative pronoun. Apart from the fact that the original wh-based relative operator did not lose its lexical features and was not grammaticalized into a functional head, an important prerequisite concerned feature loss regarding the original matrix demonstrative pronoun. We proposed that the demonstrative lost its original demonstrative and definiteness features, [+dem] and [+def], and became unspecified for these features. The relevant changes took place during the Old Hungarian period (c. ninth–sixteenth centuries) and the various stages of feature loss are reflected by morphophonological changes too, providing ample empirical evidence for the syntactic changes proposed in this chapter. Hence, our proposal provides an analysis of a typologically peculiar pattern based on generally established principles of syntactic changes, particularly regarding the role of feature changes in grammaticalization.

Acknowledgements Julia Bacskai-Atkari was funded by the German Research Fund (DFG), via her research project ‘The syntax of functional left peripheries and its relation to information structure’ (BA 5201/1-1) carried out at the University of Potsdam. Éva Dékány was funded by the Premium Postdoctoral Programme of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (PPD-011/2017) and grant NKFIH KKP 129921 of the National Research, Development, and Innovation Office.

Primary sources Bod Codex Beginning of the sixteenth century. István Pusztai (ed.), Bod-kódex. Facsimile, transcription of the original record, with introduction and notes. Budapest: Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság, 1987.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

63

Book of Proverbs 1510. András Bognár and Ferenc Levárdy (eds.), Példák könyve. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1960. Jókai Codex After 1372/c. 1448. János P. Balázs (ed.), Jókai-kódex. Transcription of the original record, the corresponding Latin text, with introduction and notes. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1981. Jordánszky Codex 1516–19. Ferenc Toldy and György Volf (eds.), A Jordánszky-kódex bibliafordítása. Buda, 1888.

Königsberg Fragment Beginning of the thirteenth century/c. 1350. In: Benkő, Loránd: Az Árpád-kor magyar nyelvű szövegemlékei. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1980. 49–52. Kulcsár Codex 1539. Lea Haader and Zsuzsanna Papp (eds.), Kulcsár-kódex. Facsimile, transcription of the original record, with introduction and notes. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet, 1999. Munich Codex 1466. Antal Nyíri (ed.), Müncheni kódex. Critical edition with the corresponding Latin text. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1971. Nagyszombat Codex 1512–13. Csilla T. Szabó (ed.), Nagyszombati kódex. Facsimile, transcription of the original record, with introduction and notes. Budapest: Argumentum Kiadó– Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság, 2000. Old Hungarian Lamentations of Mary Middle of the thirteenth century. In: Benkő, Loránd: Az Árpád-kor Magyar nyelvű szövegemlékei. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1980. 52–3. A more recent reading: Abaffy, Erzsébet: Korai kis szövegemlékeink újabb olvasata. Magyar Nyelv 86 (1990) 124–7. Régi magyar glosszárium Jolán Berrár and Sándor Károly (eds.), Régi magyar glosszárium: szótárak, szójegyzékek és glosszák egyesített szótára. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1984. Vienna Codex After 1416/c. 1450. Gedeon Mészöly (ed.), Bécsi kódex. Budapest: MTA, 1916. Vitkovics Codex 1525. Zsuzsanna Papp, István Pusztai, and Zsuzsa Kovács (eds.), Vitkovics-kódex. Facsimile, transcription of the original record, with introduction and notes. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet, 1991.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

4 Diachronic change and feature instability The cycles of Fin in Romanian obligatory control Gabriela Alboiu and Virginia Hill

4.1 Introduction Generative grammar studies on constructions with obligatory control (henceforth, OC) have long signalled a typological contrast in derivational patterns in Balkan versus Romance languages (see the overview in Rivero and Ralli 2001). Generally, these analyses try to explain how, in OC contexts, the Balkan subjunctive, which displays finite (i.e. [+Agr]) verb forms, conforms to the same underlying configuration as the Romance infinitive, which displays a non-finite (i.e. [
Agr]) verb form (e.g. Terzi 1992; Krapova 1999). This chapter revisits the issue from the perspective of Old Romanian data and diachronic changes in Romanian.¹ First, we suggest that the parametric divide between Romance and Balkan OC is deeper than previously proposed. Landau (2013) argues that OC is forced in complement clauses when either semantic tense is missing (i.e. [
T]/anaphoric) or when morphological agreement is absent (i.e. [Agr]). While Romance and Balkan languages both involve anaphoric tense with OC, they have other opposing properties (Kempchinsky 2009; Hill and Alboiu 2016). In particular, Romance OC involves a fully fledged/phasal clause (i.e. ForceP of Rizzi 1997), with [
T,
Agr] and PRO subjects, while Balkan OC involves a truncated/non-phasal subjunctive complement (i.e. FinP), with [
T,+Agr] and no PRO. We show that this property has remained unchanged in the history of Romanian. We also show that, instead of PRO, there is evidence for DP raising in Old Romanian, as proposed for Modern Romanian in Alboiu (2007), following Hornstein (1999).

¹ Old Romanian—sometimes also referred to as ‘Early Modern Romanian’ to match the timeline of other Romance languages—is the language of the earliest Romanian manuscripts (sixteenth to eighteenth centuries). For more information on the text chronology in Old Romanian, see Hill and Alboiu (2016) and Timotin (2016). Gabriela Alboiu and Virginia Hill, Diachronic change and feature instability: The cycles of Fin in Romanian obligatory control In: Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change. Edited by: Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson, Oxford University Press (2021). © Gabriela Alboiu and Virginia Hill. DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198832584.003.0004

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

    

65

Second, we argue that Old Romanian is forced to adopt certain syntactic innovations in order to accommodate the tension between the underlying Balkan OC structure and the syntactic properties of the Romance morphology that feeds it. In particular, the intrinsic [Force] formal properties of Romance complementizers are at odds with the [Fin] cartography we argue for in Old Romanian OC (i.e. the Balkan pattern of derivation) and this leads to synchronic variations and diachronic changes that reflect repeated reanalyses of complementizers and [Agr] feature values. In this respect, we identify the emergence of a systematic cycle of change by which a C head is split when a new Spell-Out is introduced, only to be remerged once the new Spell-Out stabilizes its morphosyntactic properties. The chapter is organized as follows: Section 4.2 presents the data and related questions. The investigation is couched in the framework of the Minimalist Program, which is expanded with cartographic tests to help diagnose the size of complement clauses, as outlined in Section 4.3. Section 4.4 starts with the typological contrast for OC in Balkan versus Romance languages and continues with an overview of OC in Old Romanian. Section 4.5 shows that, in Old Romanian OC constructions, the parametric setting for the Balkan pattern of syntactic derivation conflicts with the syntactic properties of its morphological inventory, which is of Romance origin. This typological mix results in a continuous cycle of syncretic to split to remerged C, affecting Fin, the selected C head in OC constructions. Section 4.6 concludes that the parametric setting for Balkan OC remains unchanged in Romanian at the price of changes in the micro-parameters for the mapping of C features and the Spell-Out of embedded T.

4.2 Data and questions Old Romanian displays four types of complementation in OC contexts, as in (1).² In (1a–1d), the matrix verb is constant and has the same reading (i.e. ability versus inferential). This indicates free alternation of these constructions, a fact further reinforced by the possibility of conjoining two different inflectional types, as in (1e–1f ), with coordination between the indicative and subjunctive, and subjunctive and infinitive, respectively. (1) a numai iscălitura învăţasă [de o făcea] de-indicative only signature. learned..3  her= made..3 ‘he only learned to sign his name’ (Neculce {93})

² The data come from our manual search of a digitized corpus of Old Romanian texts made available to us by the ‘Iorgu Iordan—Alexandru Rosetti’ Institute of Linguistics in Bucharest.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

66

     b au început a învăţa [cărţi has= began.  learn. letters ‘he began learning to write letters’

a 

scrie] write.

a-infinitive (CM II {278})

[să să grijască] să-subjunctive c de oaste au învăţatu of army has= learned.   take.care..3 ‘he learned to take care of the army’ (Ureche {73}) [toate de covârşit] d le-au învăţat them=has= learned. all..  improved. ‘for she learned to improve everything’

de-supine (Filerot {213})

e că lasă oile lor de le mănâncă lupii for allow.3 sheep.the their  them= eat..3 wolves şi să junghe şi să piarză. and  slaughter..3 and  lose..3 ‘for they allow their sheep to be eaten by wolves, and to be slaughtered, and to be lost’ (Antim {135}) f când va cineva să ştie tocmi şi when wants someone  know. .3 negotiate and a chema oamenii cătră credinţă  call. men.the towards faith ‘when someone wants to be able to negotiate and summon people to their faith’ (Coresi EV {426}) In contexts involving verbs with optional control (henceforth, NOC),³ only deindicatives and să-subjunctives display free alternation, as in (2), with să-subjunctives being the preferred option. De-supines are absent from NOC contexts, because they cannot license subjects (Giurgea and Soare 2010, among others). A-infinitives are also absent from NOC contexts in the corpus, but this is due to chance, as these clauses can license (lexical or null) subjects in both Old and Modern Romanian (see note 11 and Nedelcu 2016, among others). We attribute the low occurrence of de-indicatives and lack of a-infinitives in NOC in our corpus to an aggressive replacement process by the să-subjunctives in these configurations, a process which was arguably in its final stages at the time of the attested texts (Frâncu 1969).

³ We use the label NOC to refer to constructions where verbs with optional control appear in their non-control version. This is different from Landau’s (2013) NOC, which covers contexts with nonanaphoric clausal complements to a variety of verbs (e.g. desideratives). In this chapter, we do not discuss subject clauses, where a-infinitives can license subjects in Nominative Case in Romanian.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

    

67

(2) a păn’ au vrut Dumnedzău de s-au until has= wanted. God  =have.3= tocmit aşea negotiated. thus ‘until God willed it that they thus come to terms’ (Ureche 101) b de veri vrea Mihaiu voievod să fac pre fiiu-tău if will.3 want Mihai king  make.1  son.=your craiu în Ardeal prince in Ardeal ‘if King Michael wants me to make your son prince in Ardeal’ (DÎ 9, Trans. XXXII, 1600) In the presence of the complementizers a and să, (N)OC data as in (1) and (2) also allow for double complementizers. Specifically, infinitive a may be preceded by de, while subjunctive să may be preceded by either de or ca, the latter complementizer being specialized for subjunctives. This is shown in (3). (3) a Văzu Lia cum au stătut de a mai naşte OC saw..3 Lia that has= stopped.   more= deliver. ‘he saw that Lia stopped giving birth’ (BB {21}) b e acesta face-i de să se pocăiască OC and this.one makes=them   = repent..3 ‘and he makes them repent’ (Coresi EV {56}) c nu vrea de să-l ştie cineva not wants  =him know..3 anybody ‘he does not want anybody to know him’ d Ai pohtit ca să mergi have.2= desired.   go. .2 tătâni-tău father=your ‘you wished to go to your father’s house’

NOC (Coresi EV {77}) la to

casa house.

OC

(BB {23})

e Văzându Craiul atâta cuvinte rele la dânsul şi de NOC seeing prince. many words bad at him and from oastea sa, să temu ca să nu-l părăsască army. his  feared..3   not=him abandon..3 ’the princej, hearing such bad language from himk and hisk army, feared that hek might abandon himj’ (Ureche {35}) Most double complementizers, as in (3), occur in OC versus NOC contexts. For example, in the first hundred pages of Biblia ‘The Bible’ (1668), we found eighteen

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

68

    

ca să-subjunctives in OC and none in NOC. However, single să-subjunctives appear beyond the (N)OC contexts, as complements to non-thematic verbs or as subjects to copula ‘be’-predicates.⁴ Thus, although ca să is compatible with NOC (see (3e)) and other selected clauses, such occurrences are very rare, the strong preference being for OC contexts. This observation also holds for de să and de a. The Old Romanian texts indicate that the less productive de a infinitives show up exclusively in OC contexts; in fact, some OC verbs, such as lăsa ‘quit’/’stop’ have a strong preference for de a infinitives. Selected de să subjunctives are found in the sixteenth-century texts, but these disappear by the seventeenth century, and a comparison between de să versus single să-subjunctives shows that only the latter are productive. For example, in Coresi’s Gospel (EV), there are 24 de să subjunctive complements and over 200 să-subjunctive complements. Crucially, 23 out of the 24 de să subjunctive complements occur in OC contexts, whereas selected să subjunctives are well represented in various configurations: (N)OC, subject clauses, constructions with raising verbs, among others.⁵ In light of these data, we raise two questions: (i) What allows both NOC and OC complements to share the same mood and complementizer type? This forces a new take on the typological difference between Balkan and Romance OC. (ii) Why are double complementizers present and highly correlated with OC contexts? This brings up the replacement cycles occurring at the level of C and T heads in Old Romanian OC. Before answering these questions, Section 4.3 introduces the cartographic approach to clause structure.

4.3 Cartography and Minimalism In Rizzi’s (1997, 2004) system, the CP field is split over several heads, flanked by two complementizer heads: Force, the upper C head, is associated with the clausetyping feature, and Fin, the lower C head, is associated with finiteness (phi/ agreement and temporality) and mood/modality. These are the heads that qualify as goals for c-selection by a matrix head. Between Force and Fin, discourse features may also be mapped to Top(ic) and Foc(us), but these are irrelevant to c-selection. The clause hierarchy is given in (4). (4) [ForceP [TopP [FocP [FinP [NegP [TP V [vP . . . tV . . . ]]]]]]] The mapping in (4) serves as an assessment tool for linearization and the location of (N)OC complementizers, while also showing that (Old) Romanian has verb ⁴ In the same text, we found 61 single să-subjunctives in (N)OC. ⁵ Coresi’s Gospel has over 7,400 sentences.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

    

69

raising. NegP signals the border between CP and TP, following tests in Zanuttini (1997), which groups Romanian together with Romance languages like Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese. For the constructions investigated here, the clausal negation nu ‘not’ is considered a free morpheme.⁶ D’Alessandro and Ledgeway (2010) further refine this system by showing that Fin encodes only semantic modality, while the grammatical mood is associated with T (versus Fin), since it belongs to the inflectional properties of the verb. We adopt this distinction between mood and modality and take the Fin feature [modal] to express properties such as (ir)realis, deontic, and epistemic readings, and take the T feature [mood] to reflect infinitive, indicative, subjunctive, etc. However, since Fin selects T, the features of Fin may restrict the type of grammatical mood in T. Following Chomsky (2007, 2008, etc.), A-related properties (i.e. Case and phifeatures) are assumed to be a property of the phase. So, empirically, independent lexical subjects, which require Case, need a phasal C/Force; however, phi-features (instantiated as agreement) are irrelevant to syntactic Case (Alboiu 2006, 2009).⁷ In particular, despite the invariable form of the verb, many languages (including Old and Modern Romanian) allow for the licensing of lexical subjects on condition that a Force/phasal C is present (e.g. infinitive or gerund clauses; e.g. Alboiu 2006; Ledgeway 1998; Sitaridou 2002). Nonetheless, Case-less domains, such as those involved in obligatory control and raising, involve phi-features yielding agreement in a variety of unrelated languages, including the Balkan Sprachbund and Zulu (Zeller 2006). Since the presence or absence of inflectional morphology on the verb stem is not a reliable criterion for independent lexical subjects (i.e. obviation), phi-features cannot be assumed to be Force/phase-related. In fact, under a split C, phi-features are a property of Fin, which is not a phase head. However, these are transferred to T (see also Alboiu and Hill 2019), giving the apparent impression that they are T properties (as assumed in earlier generative accounts). Their presence yields moods with inflectional agreement in T, while their absence yields uninflected T, as follows: [+Agr] in indicatives and subjunctives, [
Agr] in supines, infinitives, and gerunds. Thus, while we use Fin as the head where finiteness and modality are syncretically mapped, we take ‘finiteness’ to stand for temporality (i.e. either the deictic

⁶ Dobrovie Sorin (1994) and Giurgea (2011) consider nu ‘not’ as a clitic, on grounds of it being obligatorily adjacent to the clitic cluster on the verb in T. However, Isac and Jakab (2004) and Hill and Alboiu (2016), among others, argue that nu ‘not’ is a free morpheme, as it can stand by itself in answer to a question, it supports TP ellipsis, and it blocks verb movement; for the latter authors, the obligatory adjacency is independently derived (i.e. from the non-projection of Spec,TP in VSO languages, following Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 1998). ⁷ Here, we follow the general assumption that, cross-linguistically, root, subject, and adjunct clauses, all of which are strong islands for movement (Cinque 1990), instantiate fully fledged/phasal CP domains. These, together with complement CP phases, are the domains that ensure Case.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

70

    

or the anaphoric typing of T), but to be independent of the presence versus absence of phi-features/agreement in Romanian. Crucially, the agreement specification of T is a reflection of modality in Fin, given the matching requirement imposed by the c-selectional relationship between Fin and T. We argue that it is this very property that creates tension in Fin and forces it to split and accommodate dual complementizers in Old Romanian.

4.4 OC in Romanian and beyond This section shows that Romance and Balkan languages employ different structures in OC contexts: the former project a fully fledged CP, whereas the latter involve truncated CPs in these configurations on a par with raising contexts. Despite the availability of Romance verb inflection, Romanian follows the Balkan truncated clause derivation and does not make a distinction in clause size between subject OC and subject-raising contexts. As a corollary, we show that with Balkan OC a subject-raising analysis is better for explanatory adequacy than a PRO analysis.

4.4.1 OC theory Classical assumptions in generative grammar assume that both OC and raising constructions involve non-finite complementation, but that the size of the clause differs: control involves CPs, whereas raising verbs select IPs (Rizzi 1982; Borer 1989), labelled TPs in Minimalism (Bošković 1997, 2002) and FinP/truncated CPs in cartography (Roussou 2001).⁸ With OC, an argument from the matrix clause obligatorily controls/co-refers with the subject of the embedded clause, the standard assumption being that the embedded subject is PRO (Chomsky 1982); see (5b) representing (5a). (5) a She wants to go. b [CPmatrix [TP DP-shej Vfinite [CPselected [TP PROj Vnon-finite]]]] Landau (2013) argues that OC occurs in complement clauses when either semantic tense is missing (i.e. [
T]/anaphoric tense) or when morphological agreement

⁸ While nowadays the non-finiteness complementation requirement has relaxed, it is still widely accepted that clauses involved in OC are structurally more ample than those involved in raising (Landau 2013).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

    

71

is absent (i.e. [
Agr]). In both English and Romance, this prediction is implemented through CP non-finites with anaphoric tense and PRO, so [
T,
Agr]. In NOC, however, Romance languages depart from English, as obviation requires [+Agr] in the former but not the latter (Ledgeway 1998). Balkan languages challenge this analysis, since the embedded verb has [+Agr] specifications in both types of control (Krapova 1999, 2001; Dobrovie-Sorin 2001; Roussou 2001). For example, Bulgarian does not change the subjunctive grammatical mood on the verb when it changes from OC (6a) to NOC (6b), unlike French, which switches from infinitive to subjunctive in equivalent contexts, as in (7). (6) a Iskam da dojda. want.1  come.1 ‘I want to come.’ b Iskam da dojde. want.1  come.3 ‘I want him/her to come.’

(adapted from Krapova 1999: 239)

(7) a. Je veux partir. I want go. ‘I want to go.’ b. Je veux qu’il parte. I want that=he leave. ‘I want him to leave.’ Importantly, as further shown in (8) for Bulgarian, constructions with raising verbs in Balkan languages also involve subjunctive clauses. (8) a Sluchi se, che studentite doidokha happens  that students.the came ‘It happens that the students came in time.’ b Studentite se sluchikha da students.the  happened.3  ‘The students happened to come in time.’

navreme. in.time

doidat come.3

navreme. in.time

Several studies on Balkan languages have provided evidence that the clausal complement in (6a) and (8b) is truncated in size as compared with the NOC or the non-raising alternatives, respectively (e.g. Bošković 1997; Roussou 2001). Crucially, in (8b), the agreement inflection of the subjunctive (i.e. [+Agr]) is ineffective in blocking subject raising to the matrix clause (see also Terzi 1992; Motapanyane 1994). As mentioned, Alboiu (2006) points out that the [+/
Agr] asymmetry is irrelevant to subject licensing, and further shows that wherever

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

72

    

subject raising applies, C is absent and embedded tense is anaphoric on tense in the matrix.⁹ Thus, the subjunctive mood form is compatible with both NOC (which involves a fully fledged CP with potentially distinct T from that of the matrix, but with tense dependency due to its irrealis status; see Alboiu 2006) and OC and raising verbs (which select a truncated CP with anaphoric tense) (e.g. Terzi 1992; Roussou 2001). Accordingly, a generalization can be drawn, whereby in Balkan languages (Romanian included), subject OC verbs and subject raising verbs trigger selection of a truncated CP, with anaphoric tense and subject raising, as shown in Alboiu (2006, 2007) for Modern Romanian. In particular, ‘subject raising’ in this context is to be understood as equivalent to cross-clausal A-chain formation: with subject OC, this A-relationship involves the highest matrix theta position (i.e. Hornstein’s 1999 Movement Theory of Control, henceforth ‘MTC’), while with raising it does not, the A-relationship established by the embedded subject DP being strictly with matrix T. In sum, with OC constructions, there is a typological contrast between Balkan and Romance languages that concerns the size of the complement clause (truncated versus fully fledged CP) and the grammatical mood/phi-features of the embedded verb (subjunctive versus infinitive). In cartographic terms, Romance OC involves an infinitive ForceP with [
Agr] and PRO subjects, whereas Balkan OC involves a subjunctive FinP (see Roussou 2001), with [+Agr] and raising lexical subjects.¹⁰

4.4.2 Old Romanian Hill (2013) and Hill and Alboiu (2016) show that Old Romanian displays the Balkan parametric settings for VSO and that, in selected CPs, the inflectional verb form is unaffected by CP size as ForceP or FinP. This is seen in (9)–(11), where the licensing of subjects (underlined) in NOC indicates a fully fledged CP, while OC denotes a truncated FinP. (9) a Când voiaşte omul [[gândului] de-i dă loc] OC when wants man.the thought.the. =to.it gives room ‘When man wants to make room for his thoughts . . . ’ (CV 201 in Sava 2012: 130)

⁹ In principle, the subjunctive allows for the embedded T to be either [+/
tense], depending on the properties of the selecting verb (see also Landau 2013). The correlation between the values of T and the (N)OC configuration of a subjunctive has been discussed for Greek in Varlokosta and Hornstein (1993), for Bulgarian in Krapova (2001), and for Romanian in Alboiu (2007). ¹⁰ Morphologically, the formula for the Balkan subjunctive involves an indicative verb form embedded under an invariable particle that functions as a subjunctive marker (e.g. Bulgarian da +indicative, Greek na+indicative); see Terzi (1992) for an overview.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

    

73

b păn’ au vrut Dumnedzău de s-au tocmit until has=wanted God  =have.3=negotiated aşea NOC thus ‘until God willed it that they thus come to terms’ (Ureche 101) (10) a iar cealaltă tabără s-au făcut a fugi OC but the.other group -has pretended  run. ‘but the other group pretended to run’ (CM I {215}) b Şi fură război foarte tare până seara, şi făcură încă and was war very strong until evening and turned still a-i învinge Batâr Andreiaş cu NOC =them prevail.  Bator Andrew with ungurii, dar apoi Mihai-vodă cu muntenii. Hungarians.the but then Mihai-king with Wallachs.the ‘And the war went strongly until the evening, and it looked like Andrew Bator and his Hungarians were prevailing, but then King Michael and his Wallachians did so.’ (CM I {134}) (11) a n-au vrut Domnul să not=has wanted God.the  ‘God did not want to ruin you’

surpe ruin..3

pre voi OC  you (BB {LegeaIICapX})

b n-au vrut Sion, Împăratul Esevonului, să NOC not=has wanted Seyon emperor.the Ethiopia.  treacem noi prentr-însul pass..1 we through-it ‘Seyon, the king of Ethiopia, did not want us to cross through his land’ (BB {126}) Note that in (9b), the compositional meaning of the sentence indicates that the matrix subject is Dumnedzău ‘God’, while the embedded subject is a 3. pro. In (10b) and (11b), the distinct matrix and embedded subjects are underlined. The Balkan OC parametric setting is preserved in Modern Romanian: the size of any selected CP (indicative, infinitive, subjunctive) depends on the (N)OC environments (i.e. it is equivalent to the Balkan subjunctive). Lexicalization of an independent embedded subject (i.e. obviation) requires a phasal CP/ForceP.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

74

    

4.4.3 Balkan OC: the derivational mechanism Here we argue that OC in Old Romanian involves subject raising rather than PRO.¹¹ Alboiu (2007) argues for a raising analysis of OC in Modern Romanian based on the fact that the shared DP argument can occur either in the matrix or in the embedded clause, depending on the options for the packaging of information structure (i.e. movement is incumbent on semantico-pragmatic factors and not on A-related requirements).¹² Below we show that the same results obtain for Old Romanian. In the OC constructions in (9)–(11a), the DP subject that carries the shared theta role appears in the matrix; in (12), we show that this DP may also surface post-verbally in the embedded clause.¹³ (12) a au apucat poarta de au închis siimenii have.3= managed gate.the  have.3= closed soldiers.the ’the soldiers managed to close the gate’ (Neculce {78}) b începură a ţiparea Creştinii de nevoia Turcilor started.3  cry. Cristians.the from pressure.the Turks.the. ’the Christians started shouting at the Turks’ oppression’ (CM I {120}) c pohtiia atunce să desfacă el desired.3 then  open..3 he ‘and he wanted to open the granary then’

jitniţa granary.the (CEV {449})

There are some interpretive differences arising from the variation in the high or low Spell-Out of the relevant DP. We are not concerned here with the particulars of the interpretive effects, but with the fact that the optional Spell-Out of the subject in the matrix or in the embedded clause is also a property of constructions with raising verbs, as shown in (13). We illustrate this with Modern Romanian, as Old Romanian has homophony between singular and plural agreement for 3rd person, so the raising cannot be captured through morphological contrast.

¹¹ Dobrovie-Sorin (2001) also argues against PRO in Romanian OC, and for a typological contrast between OC in Balkan versus OC in Germanic and other Romance languages. However, she treats this contrast in terms of binding relations: the embedded subject is a contextual anaphor in Balkan languages, due to [+Agr] in subjunctives, but an intrinsic anaphor in Germanic/other Romance languages, due to [
Agr] in infinitives (in Borer 1989 the status of anaphor is assigned to a certain type of Agr). This is not a viable approach in light of our data—see (1)—since Romanian also displays [
Agr] in infinitive (Old/Modern) and supine (Old) complements. ¹² See also Cotfas (2012). ¹³ Availability of the shared subject to lexicalize in the embedded clause rules out a standard analysis of control and forces adoption of Hornstein’s MTC. Note that, at least in (12a–b), unless we assume a unique DP that establishes cross-clausal A-relations, we would be faced with a Condition C violation. For further elaboration, see Alboiu (2007).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

     (13) a Se pare că studenţii au ajuns  seems that students.the have.3= arrived ‘It seems that the students have arrived on time.’ b (Studenţii/ei) par să fi students.the/they seem.3  be..3 (studenţii/ei) la timp. students.the/they at time ‘The students seem to have arrived on time.’

la at

75

timp. time

ajuns arrived

The bare personal pronoun in (11c) and (12b) indicates that the subjects in (12) and (13) are Nominative (i.e. the Accusative requires the differential object marker pe). Alboiu (2007) demonstrates evidence for a single Case-licensing mechanism for the shared argument in OC (i.e. the matrix C–T domain). The same is shown to hold for raising predicates, in contrast to the situation in NOC, where it is argued that the matrix and embedded CPs license independent Nominative Case. Since the Spell-Out location of the shared DP is linked to information structure, one might surmise that lexicalization in the embedded clause denotes a nonargumental position. However, following Cinque (1990), the shared bare quantifier DP subject in (14a) rules out a displaced discourse related position, supporting instead the canonical VSO configuration (see also Alboiu 2007: 206, (38b)). Moreover, Wurmbrand’s (2004) lexical restructuring analysis is also ruled out, as clitic climbing is impossible with OC (Alboiu 2007: 191, (10b)); see also (14b) below. (14) a N-a apucat [a cumpăra nimeni not=has managed  buy. nobody ‘Nobody managed to buy any book.’

nici not

o one

carte.] book

b Nu (*i-)a apucat [a(-i) cumpăra nimeni cartea.] not to.him=has managed =to.him buy. nobody book.the ‘Nobody managed to buy him the book.’ To conclude, Old Romanian subject OC and subject-raising constructions derive non-phasal/truncated, FinP, complements which allow for cross-clausal A-chains and exclude PRO. This truncation is also responsible for the fact that matrix clause negation can license NPIs in these embedded complements (Progovac 1994); see example (14) above. Typologically, this singles Romanian out, since Romance OC systematically embeds CP infinitives, so non-truncated [
Agr] complements. In sum, while the syntax of Romanian OC follows the Balkan paradigm (i.e. a FinP), the morphology shows a typological mix; specifically [
T,
Agr] with infinitives and supines, following the Romance featural specification, and [
T, +Agr] with

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

76

    

indicatives and subjunctives, as in Balkan languages. This has interesting diachronic consequences, as discussed in Section 4.5.

4.5 Variation and change in the mapping and spelling of Fin features This section argues that the parametric setting for the Balkan pattern of derivation (i.e. FinP for OC versus ForceP for NOC) is at odds with the Romance origin of the complementizer inventory. This results in repeated complementizer renewal and cyclic reanalysis of the Fin head as either split or merged.

4.5.1 Historical overview: Free alternation of clause types The free alternation for OC complementation in (1) is not equally productive synchronically (see Frâncu 2009; Todi 2001, and other philological studies). The inference is that a complementizer replacement cycle applies in Old Romanian. The emergence of de-supines is well attested in the seventeenth century. This construction is the most recent, replacing a-infinitives and să-subjunctives for certain classes of matrix verbs (especially deontic modals; Dragomirescu 2013). Equally well documented is the replacement of a-infinitives by să-subjunctives, which becomes aggressive around the seventeenth century. The periodization of de-indicatives and a-infinitives is more problematic, since both constructions appear in the first preserved texts, so must be assumed older. However, the sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury texts show a preference for a-infinitives over de-indicatives, indicating that infinitives are relatively more recent. Thus, Hill and Alboiu (2016: 306, Table 10.2) argue for the replacement stages shown in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Replacement cycle in Old Romanian clausal complements Timeline

Exclusively truncated Competing construction

Sixteenth century

de-indicative

Eighteenth century

a-infinitive

Productivity

fully fledged/truncated ainfinitive fully fledged/truncated săsubjunctive

high

fully fledged/truncated săsubjunctive truncated de-supine

high

low

low

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

    

77

Table 4.1 shows that whenever a clause type is restricted to FinP (i.e. truncated) and so cannot also be used in NOC contexts (i.e. it cannot derive a fully fledged CP), it is replaced with another clause type that can project up to ForceP. The former truncated construction is temporarily preserved in OC contexts but gradually becomes less productive. The crucial factor in the degradation of a clause type is the complementizer, which must ensure the checking and valuation of both Fin and Force features to suit the Balkan (N)OC paradigm; when a complementizer can only check the features in Fin, it signals semantic bleaching and eventually triggers replacement by a new complementizer that can satisfy all features of C. Since each complementizer selects a certain mood, empirically, we see the fluctuation among (un)inflected verb forms in (15b) matching the chronological order of (15a). (15) a de-indicatives > a-infinitives > să-subjunctives > de-supines b [+Agr](indicative) > [
Agr](infinitive) > [+Agr](subjunctive) > [
Agr](supine) In sum, OC contexts last after the morphology for the C/T system of NOC contexts has been degraded, so synchronically attest to diachronic changes. This explains why OC contexts preserve all four clause options as well as why they display double complementizers. We elaborate on this in the following subsections.

4.5.2 Split and remerged/syncretic Fin Here we argue that each complementizer renewal involves a split Fin, resulting in double Fin complementation, as shown in (3). Split Fin is eventually remerged, with unified Spell-Out of its features as a single complementizer, as seen in (1). This ‘pull-and-push’ operation entails the cyclical [+/
Agr] change highlighted in (15b). The Old Romanian corpus attests to a stage where remerged Fin was practically generalized and where the traces of the initially split Fin only occur in OC configurations. Splitting C heads is cross-linguistically unexceptional provided a head is associated with multiple features (Haegeman 2004).¹⁴ Consequently, the double complementizers in (3) indicate a separate mapping/Spell-Out of the [finite] and [modal] features of Fin. This account is supported by the linearization properties listed below.

¹⁴ Cognilio and Zegrean (2012) argue for a split Force in clauses that map speech act features in Modern Romanian; Hill and Alboiu (2016) show that Force could routinely split in embedded clauses in Old Romanian.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

78

    

First, both single and double complementizers precede negation, so must be C items; see (16) for a and să, and (17) for de a, de să, and ca să ).¹⁵ (16) a începură a nu-l băgarea în seamă began.3  not=him take. in attention ’they started not to pay attention to him at all’

nicicât at.all (CM I {161})

priceştuiască b va ţinea câtăva vreame să nu să will.3= hold for.some time  not  confess..3 ‘he will resist not confessing for a while’ (Antim {237}) (17) a Fraţii cei săraci să fie siliţi de a mărita pe brothers the poor  be..3 forced   marry.  surorile lor după puterea lor, . . . adecă de a nu sisters.the their after ability.the their namely   not le mărita după obraze proaste them= marry. after cheeks unworthy ‘Brothers without means must be forced to marry their sisters according to their best abilities, namely, to not marry them to unworthy thugs’ (PCond {94}) b nu spunea de să nu fie scoşi den besearecă not said.3   not be..3 chased from church ‘he did not say that they should not be chased from the church’ (Coresi Tetr 2 {214v}) c Iară neavuţii şi mişeii învaţă ca să nu cază den but poor.the and bad.the teaches   not fall..3 from meserătate în năpastea ceaia nespusă poverty in calamity.the the.one unfathomable ‘But he teaches the poor and the wretched to not fall from poverty into that unfathomable calamity’ (Coresi EV {403}) Secondly, both single and double complementizers follow Topic and Focus constituents. See (9a) and (18) for single complementizers and (19) for double complementizers. ¹⁵ These are not Mood heads, as proposed for Modern Romanian (e.g. Motapanyane 1995; Cornilescu 2000; Alboiu 2002) and Balkan languages (Rivero 1994). Mood is an inflectional/T head, whereas Fin caters to C features. A Fin but not a Mood analysis makes the right empirical predictions; for example, the treatment of a and să as Mood heads predicts their obligatory presence with the verbs they embed, and obligatory adjacency in constituency tests, which contradicts the evidence from the texts. Furthermore, a/să block verb restructuring and clitic climbing, which is not expected of inflectional heads (especially if one takes them to be clitics, as in Dobrovie-Sorin 1994). A Fin/C analysis also explains why the clausal complement in OC can be fronted, an operation that is ruled out with Mood/TPs.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

    

79

(18) a în acea vreame începură [[numele Domnului] a propovedui] in that time began.3 name.the God.the.  preach. ‘in those times they started to preach God’s name’ (PO {24}) b evangheliştii vrură [[înşelăciunea drăcească şi prilăstitura evangelists.the wanted.3 deceit.the devilish and pretence.the lor] [den rădăcină] să o rupă] their from root  it= pull.out..3 ‘the evangelists wanted to eliminate their devilish deceit and pretence straight from the core’ (Coresi EV {421}) (19) a Iar and

turcii, Turks.the

cum as

au have.3=

vădzut seen

poarta gate.the

cetăţii fort.the.

deschisă, au lăsat [pre moscali]k de-a-ik opened have.3 stopped  Russians -=them mai gonire, ş-au început a intra în cetate. more= chase. and=have.3 started  enter. in fort ‘And the Turks stopped chasing the Russians and entered the fort, once they saw the opened gate.’ (Neculce 380) b să fie volnic [[cu cartea domnii meale] de să-şi  be..3 able with letter.the lordship. my  = ţie a lui parte] keep..3 of his part ‘he should be able to keep his function due to my lordship’s letter’ (BB, 45, 50 in Frâncu 1969: 80/12) c nu suferi, ce gândi [strîmbătatea sa] ca să o not accepted.3 but thought.3 injustice.the his   it răscumpere mai cu asupră repay..3 more with above ‘he could not accept it, but thought to repay his injustice with added measure’ (Ureche {59}) The above facts are unsurprising, since these examples involve Balkan OC, so are FinP domains (i.e. Force cannot project). We conclude that Fin hosts all complementizer occurrences in OC, with both single and double complementation (see also Hill 2013). In this case, the features of Fin are mapped to two separate Fin heads, ‘Fin1’ spelling out finiteness as [
finite], via de or ca, ‘Fin2’ spelling out [modal] via V-inflection (indicatives, supines), or a (infinitives), or să (subjunctives), as in (20). (20) ([TopP ([FocP [Fin1P de/ca [Fin2P a/să [NegP nu [TP V . . . ]]]]])])

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

80

    

The structure in (20) entails that neither de nor ca can check the [modal] feature in Old Romanian. This is further evidenced by the fact that, unlike in Romance, there is no de-infinitive in either Old or Modern Romanian, and a is obligatorily present for [modal] checking; equally, the absence of ca-subjunctives without să attests to the fact that să must check and value [modal].

4.5.3 Motivating the Fin split Free variation of (un)split Fin begs the question of economy. Why would a grammar allow for a more complex structure when a simpler structure would suffice? This section argues that splitting Fin was necessary due to the intrinsic operator properties of Romance complementizers adapted to accommodate the Romanian OC derivation. Philological studies indicate that the Fin complementizers in (1) were inherited from Latin as Force operators/clause typers in non-selected clauses.¹⁶ The texts attest that before their use for spelling a selected Fin, de, a, and să were analysed as complementizers in collapsed Force/Fin heads of adjunct clauses or conditional clauses. In these configurations, the complementizers are orthogonal to finiteness, since adjunct clauses are phasal. They gradually lost their inherent operator/ clause-typing feature, so they could spread to selected clauses where they were reanalysed as markers of modality. For instance, să lost its conditional operator feature, gradually disconnected from Force, and specialized as a marker of irrealis, spreading to imperatives and, eventually, selected clauses.¹⁷ Crucially, while this specialization allowed for the merge of să in selected Fin heads, this item was initially unable to check the [finite] feature. Therefore, items like de or ca initially provided that checking operation in Fin1. There is evidence that să has been reanalysed further, since in Modern Romanian, it has lost its exclusive irrealis value, pushing ca from Fin1 to Force. As shown in (21), să can occur in realis contexts (21a), and constituents in TopP and FocusP can separate it from ca (21b). (21) a S-a apucat să =has= started  ‘S/he started to write.’

scrie. write..3

¹⁶ The Latin etymology of these items is irrelevant to the syntactic change in the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries, which is the reason why we do not discuss it here. Learners were unaware of etymologies and proceeded to the feature (re)analysis of these items only according to the syntactic information available in the primary linguistic data. ¹⁷ Note that să-subjunctives only appear in irrealis contexts in sixteenth- to seventeenth-century texts (Frâncu 1969, 2009) when statistical data show that in (N)OC contexts, să appears under ‘want’ and verbs of ‘command’, with a-infinitive preferred for realis contexts (e.g. selected by ‘start’ and ‘finish’ in the past tense).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

    

81

b A vrut ca [mâine] [MARIA] să plece, nu Radu. has wanted  tomorrow Maria  leave..3 not Radu ‘It was Maria that s/he wanted to leave tomorrow, not Radu.’ Once să loses its specialization for [modal], it can also check [finite]. This upward reanalysis (in terms of Roberts and Roussou 2003) allows (and eventually requires) Fin1 and Fin2 to remerge as unsplit Fin.

4.5.4 Motivating complementizer renewal It is well known that Balkan languages lack infinitive complements. In Romanian, a-infinitives were largely replaced by să-subjunctives in complement clauses (e.g. Sandfeld 1930). According to our analysis, this replacement would have involved a split Fin replacing a remerged Fin-a in (N)OC contexts. What would trigger this replacement, considering that a-infinitives could already satisfy the FinP requirement for Balkan OC derivations (see Hill and Alboiu 2016; Table 4.1)? And what would motivate a repeated renewal pattern, given that a-infinitives had in turn replaced de-indicatives (Table 4.1)? Any account should also address the evidence that, in Modern Romanian, de-supines are replacing să-subjunctives in OC, especially in northern varieties. We argue that the tension between the formal features of Romance complementizers and the Balkan paradigm for (N)OC is what forces this renewal pattern, in two stages.¹⁸ First, the Romance complementizer of unselected clauses becomes compatible with selected CPs under pressure to accommodate the Balkan (N)OC derivation; it crucially merges in Fin (instead of Force) to allow for the truncated Balkan OC clause and, in NOC contexts, checks Force via long-distance Agree. Initially, these reanalysed complementizers cannot check both finiteness and modality, so Fin is forced to split, as discussed for (20). Second, the complementizer undergoes further reanalysis, being now capable of checking both Fin1 and Fin2 and forcing a syncretic/remerged Fin. However, with upward reanalysis/ grammaticalization comes further bleaching and eventually the complementizer loses its ability to check Force in NOC. This creates a gap in the (N)OC Balkan paradigm, so the complementizer in Fin is renewed and the cycle repeats itself. This complementizer reanalysis in Romanian (N)OC contexts is summarized in Table 4.2.

¹⁸ A reviewer was concerned about morphology feeding syntax, at least apparently. That is not what we are arguing here. Rather, the issue is that these Romance complementizers with intrinsic [Force] features are mapped onto a Balkan cartography that stops at Fin; hence the tension and subsequent reanalysis triggering the cycles of change under discussion.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

82

    

Table 4.2 The reanalysis of complementizers in (N)OC contexts Direction of change

Complementizer

Split Fin >

Remerged Fin >

MR ForceP

MR productivity

# # # #

de (indicative) a (infinitive) să (subjunctive) de (supine)

√ √ √ √

* √ √ √ (regional)

* * √ *

Very low Low Very high High

Table 4.2 shows that only să-subjunctives can productively project to ForceP in Modern Romanian. The supine clause, which emerged around the seventeenth century and is the most recent reanalysis, is still at the stage of split Fin in standard Modern Romanian, cannot cater to features of Force, and is not used in NOC. However, in Bessarabian Romanian, de-supines have deontic modality and so point towards a resemantization of de and the ability to check both features of Fin under a syncretic head.¹⁹ An important ingredient of the reanalysis is the mood form of the verb. As mentioned, each complementizer triggers a specific grammatical mood in T, which is intrinsically associated with an Agr value. Thus, the replacement cycle in Table 4.2 entails a cycle of change in the values of Agr, as indicated in (15b). All variants in (15b) are untensed, with a non-finite specification for [Fin]. However, there is evidence that the Agr values are relevant for how the complementizer fares upon reanalysis. For example, Table 4.2 shows that de fails to induce a remerged Fin with indicatives (i.e. [+Agr]) but such reanalysis arises with supines (i.e. [
Agr]). In both cases, de checks/spells out [
finite] Fin1, the [modal] Fin2 feature being checked by the verb. While textual evidence shows that de-indicatives initially occur with both (ir)realis contexts (Hill and Alboiu 2016: 180), they are not very productive in non-actualized situations and, by the eighteenth century, force exclusively realis values for [modal]. The [
Agr] supine form checks [modal] without valuing it, so the distribution of the supine clause remains more flexible, permitting a remerged Fin. Crucially, Old Romanian also displays points of tension between the [modal] feature of Fin and the features of T in clausal complements. In this respect, [
Agr] yields better results than [+Agr] in configurations where it is involved in the checking of Fin [modal]; elsewhere (i.e. where Fin [modal] is checked by a complementizer), the [+/
Agr] value of the verbal inflection is orthogonal to the derivational process. Thus, untensed Fin domains are never stable in Romanian.

¹⁹ There is also some evidence (Gabinschi 2010) that the remerged de-supine begins to project to ForceP (stage two of the reanalysis).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/2/2021, SPi

    

83

4.6 Conclusions In this chapter we have shown that, diachronically, (Old) Romanian maintains the Balkan parametric setting for OC (i.e. cross-clausal A-dependencies akin to ‘raising’) at the price of variation in micro-parameters for the mapping of Fin features and the Spell-Out of selected T as [+/
Agr]. With respect to the former property, both subject OC and subject raising systematically involve a truncated FinP structure (i.e. the absence of Force/phase-head). However, while in the Balkan Sprachbund this property correlates with exclusively [+Agr] features in T, in Romanian, there is constant fluctuation between [+/
Agr] in these configurations. We have argued that this is due to typological ambiguity (i.e. Romance complementizers with [Force] features attempt mapping in Fin, the highest available head in OC contexts in the Balkan Sprachbund). This tension creates pressure which affects Fin, which fluctuates from syncretic (i.e. one complementizer), to split, with two complementizers. Crucially, since the embedded domain in OC lacks temporal deixis (i.e. is [
T]), Landau’s (2013) requirement for OC is met regardless of the phi-feature status of the complement clause. In addition, we have seen that the insensitivity to [+/
Agr] is equally maintained with NOC configurations in Romanian. In sum, while Romance shifts from [
Agr] to [+Agr] when shifting from OC to NOC, Romanian simply changes clause size: from Fin (which fails to license a subject independently of an A-relationship with the matrix) to Force (which, as a complete domain, licenses its own subject and blocks this from being A-Probed from the matrix domain). The OC parameter is constant (i.e. truncated/FinP clause), so no diachronic change in C size, whereas the feature specifications involved in the C/T/Agr feature system are in constant flux. These findings support the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture (BCC) that sees variation as being restricted to formal features of functional heads (Baker 2008), while also aligning with Biberauer and Walkden’s (2015) observation that diachronic syntax has shifted from the ‘macro’ to the ‘micro’ level.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

5 Null subjects in Middle Low German Diachronic stability and change Melissa Farasyn and Anne Breitbarth

5.1 Introduction Farasyn and Breitbarth (2016) have shown for the first time that Middle Low German (MLG) had referential null subjects (RNS) and expletive null subjects in a form that is no longer available in Modern Germanic languages (see the overview in Rosenkvist 2009). In the current chapter, we present more and newer data from an extended corpus, and interpret our findings in light of the research question connecting the contributions to the current volume, namely in what sense syntactic features determine the limits of syntactic change.

5.1.1 Background Having referential null subjects, MLG is similar to other older Germanic languages. For Old High German (OHG) and Old Saxon (OS), for instance, Axel (2005) and Walkden (2014) have respectively argued that they are partial null subject languages, though unambiguous referential null subjects are rarer in the OS Heliand than they are in the early OHG texts considered by Axel (cf. also Schlachter 2012). The fact that there is referential pro-drop in clauses with fronted topics precludes an analysis as topic drop. In OS example (1) for instance, the verb, which has moved to the left periphery of the clause precedes the object pronoun ina and the fronted genitive object (cf. Walkden 2014). (1) lîbes uueldi ina bilôsien, of he mahti gilêstien sô life. would him take if he could achieve so ‘hei would take hisj life if hei could’1 (Heliand 1442; Walkden 2014: 192) There may also be null objects, both in OS and in OHG, as in (2). ¹ An alternative translation to Walkden’s would be ‘he would rob him of life if he could’, in which the reason for the use of the genitive object lîbes and the accusative pronoun ina is clearer. Melissa Farasyn and Anne Breitbarth, Null subjects in Middle Low German: Diachronic stability and change In: Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change. Edited by: Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson, Oxford University Press (2021). © Melissa Farasyn and Anne Breitbarth. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198832584.003.0005

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

85

(2) a. huuand rotat hîr an roste, ende because it rusts here to rust and regintheobos farstelad, uurmi auuardiad . . . thieves steal worms spoil ‘because it rusts away, thieves steal [it], worms spoil [it] . . . ’ (Heliand 1644–5; Walkden 2014: 195) b. denne varant engilâ upper dio marhâ, wechant then travel.3 angels over the lands wake.3 deotâ, wîssant ze dinge people lead.3 to judgment ‘Then angels fly over the lands, wake the people, lead [them] to judgment.’ (Muspilli 79–80; Lockwood 1968: 215, quoted from Walkden 2014: 188) In both OS and OHG, there is a significant tendency for 3rd person (singular or plural) and for main clauses to favour referential pro-drop (Axel 2005; Walkden 2014). Volodina (2009, 2011) and Volodina and Weiß (2016) argue for the systematic presence of RNS in Early New High German (ENHG) (1350–1650), which is partially contemporary with MLG (1200–1600). They find referential pro-drop particularly in contexts where there is verbal agreement morphology in C, that is, either where V-to-C movement has taken place, such as in main clauses (3) and V2-dependent clauses (4), or where, in verb-final clauses (5), one would dialectally expect complementizer agreement (Volodina and Weiß 2016). Volodina’s (2009) data show that there is a significant preference for RNS to be in 2nd and 3rd person. (3) als ich Nacher trieß kam erqwickete [pro] mich when I later there.out came refreshed [] myself widerumb again ‘When I came out of it later, [I] refreshed myself again.’ (Güntzer; Volodina 2009: 61) (4) Ø

begerdten an mich [pro] solte mit Machen asked of me [] should with make ‘They asked of me that I should participate.’ (Güntzer; Volodina 2009: 61)

(5) Siei risen die they tore the Kirchoff alle churchyard all

Heuser und andere Beuw umb den houses and other buildings around the siej die umh, uff dass [pro]j nicht, wan down up that [ ]  when they the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

86

     Bayerischenj in die Stadt kämen und siei sich uff Bavarians into the town came and they  on dem Kirchoff wehreten, nicht solten uff die the churchyeard defended  should onto the komen und Feuer unter siek geben. Bäuwk buildings come and fire among them give ‘They tore down the houses and other buildings around the churchyard such that the Bavarians, when they came to town and they would have to defend themselves in the churchyard, they (the Bavarians) would not be able to get onto the buildings and set fire to them.’ (Caspar Preiß; Volodina 2009: 61)

According to Kinn (2015), Middle Norwegian (MNw; 1370–1550), equally partially contemporary with MLG, and in several places in contact with it through the Hanseatic trade network (see, e.g., Jahr 1999; Braunmüller 2004), also has RNS of a kind that is no longer possible in the modern language. Referential null subjects are found in subordinate (6) as well as main clauses (7), where they are unlikely to be topic drop, as they can occur in V2-clauses with a different constituent fronted (8). (6) och thette will Gwdmwnd fford swerie ner and this will Gudmund aformementioned swear when som [pro] hanum werder fføre lagt compl [it] him becomes before laid ‘And the aforementioned Gudmund will swear this when the statement is shown to him.’ (DN II 946, 1488; Kinn 2015: ch. 9.2, (9.6a)) (7) [pro] helde handom [they] held hands ‘[They] shook hands . . . ’

sammen . . . together . . . (DN XI 650, 1538; Kinn 2015, ch. 9.2, (9.6d))

(8) til sannynda her vm settom [pro] okkor insigli firir to testimony here about put [we] our seal for þetta bref . . . this letter . . . ‘To testify this [we] put our seal on this letter . . . ’ (DN V 313, 1379; Kinn 2015, ch. 9.2, (9.9b)) Unlike in Old Norwegian (ONw), where RNS are almost exclusively restricted to 3rd person (Kinn 2014a, 2014b), Kinn finds this person constraint to be relaxed in MNw, as the difference between 1st and 3rd person null subjects is not statistically significant in her data (p = 0.4219). She argues that this apparent

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

87

relaxation of the person constraint on referential null subjects is an indication that the language is in transition towards a language with discourse ellipsis, and that there is no person restriction on topic or discourse drop, while genuine pro-drop, where it persisted, continued to be restricted to 3rd person. As Farasyn and Breitbarth (2016) have shown, MLG is comparable to ENHG and MNw in that it has RNS in particular in 2nd and 3rd person, and in that a distinction needs to be made between more topical RNS in SpecCP and more ‘genuine pro’-like RNS in the Wackernagel position. In this chapter, we build on these findings, but reassess them based on a much larger corpus, and interpret them from the point of view of syntactic change being the result of changes in the features of lexical (functional) items.

5.1.2 Overview After introducing the corpus in Section 5.2, we discuss the findings of our corpus study in Section 5.3, which clearly shows that null subjects of various types are fairly common in MLG, but that they are also influenced by various linguistic factors. This corpus comprises more texts than the earlier study on a smaller corpus by Farasyn and Breitbarth (2016), and reaches surprisingly different results. In Section 5.4 we propose a formal analysis of referential pro-drop in MLG. Section 5.5 summarizes the findings of this study, comparing them to ENHG and MNw, and trying to situate MLG in a diachronic perspective.

5.2 Methods and background assumptions 5.2.1 The corpus The present study is based on a corpus of c. 95,000 words from twenty MLG texts or text collections, from the Westphalian, Eastphalian, North Low Saxon, and Lübeck scribal dialects, that is, it is more than double the size of the corpus used by Farasyn and Breitbarth (2016). The corpus comprises seven religious texts of varying length, four law texts, four literary prose texts, collections of charters from two cities, one collection of letters, and one chronicle. The date of composition of the texts falls in the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries. All 10,230 finite clauses in the corpus were entered into a database and coded for the type of clause (main/subordinate), person, number, and kind (full NP/pronoun) of subject, as well as whether the clause is a second conjunct or not, and whether and what kind of null subject it contained (coordination ellipsis, unexpressed subject in relative or imperative clauses, null expletive, or RNS). The clauses were coded for the following extralinguistic properties: period (1251–1300, 1301–50, 1351–1400,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

88

    

1401–50, 1451–1500, 1501–51, and 1551–1600), scribal dialect, and genre. The effects of these linguistic and extralinguistic variables on the occurrence of RNS were analysed in this chapter using Rbrul (Johnson 2009).

5.2.2 MLG syntax Building on the emerging literature on MLG syntax, we depart from the assumption that MLG was an asymmetric verb-second language with underlying OV base order (cf. Petrova 2012, 2013). The finite verb appears in a later and, over time, increasingly sentence-final position in syndetic subordinate clauses (Mähl 2014), and moves leftwards in declarative, interrogative, conditional, and imperative main clauses, as well as a number of asyndetic subordinate clause types (e.g. asyndetic conditional clauses = V1, exceptive clauses = V2). In declarative main clauses, the verb typically occupies the position right after the first constituent (V2), though left dislocation is not infrequent (Petrova 2012, 2013). We follow the standard assumptions that finite clauses are CPs, and that the verb moves to C in V1 and V2 clauses. In syndetic subordinate clauses, C is occupied by a complementizer, preventing verb movement (e.g. den Besten 1989). In relative clauses, it may either be filled by a relative particle or be left empty in the presence of a relative pronoun in SpecCP. This basic and uncontroversial system provides two positions which subjects in MLG can occupy: SpecCP or a position following C, which we assume to be SpecTP.²

5.3 Referential null subjects in MLG 5.3.1 Factors influencing the occurrence of RNS 5.3.1.1 Clause type Referential null subjects (RNS) occur in about 2.2 per cent of all cases of pronominal subjects in the corpus analysed (see Table 5.1). However, they occur nearly three times as often in main clauses as they occur in subordinate clauses. With p = 3.235*10
13 in Fisher’s Exact Test, this difference between main and

² If the subject following C is a weak pronoun, the position immediately following C is traditionally also referred to as the Wackernagel position (Weiß, 1998, 2015). This position is named after Wackernagel (1892: 343), who argues that pronouns in Indo-Germanic languages have a tendency to appear in the second linear position in the clause, or as close to it as possible. The position is a descriptive position from traditional dialectology, but there is no consensus about whether it should be seen as a separate projection, as a head adjunction on C, or as a phonological phenomenon. We will, therefore, only use the Wackernagel position as a descriptive term for the position in which clitics appear.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

89

Table 5.1 Referential pronominal subjects in a MLG corpus, by clause type

Main clauses Subordinate Total

Overt

Null

Total

2998 (96.7%) 2678 (99.1%) 5801 (97.8%)

101 (3.3%) 24 (0.9%) 125 (2.2%)

3099 2702 5801

subordinate clauses is statistically significant, and it confirms the historical preference for main clauses as the context for RNS observed for OS by Walkden (2014). The distributional analysis in Rbrul of the influence of clause type on the expression of a referential pronominal subject as null, which can be seen in Table 5.2, confirms the relevance of this factor.³ Table 5.2 Influence of the factor clause type on the expression of a referential pronominal subject as null Clause type

Log odds

Odds

Factor weight

N

% RNS

main sub

0.662
0.662

0.033 0.009

0.66 0.34

3099 2702

3.3 0.9

5.3.1.2 Person Unlike in other older Northwest Germanic languages including OS (Walkden 2014), MLG does not have a strong preference for RNS to occur in the 3rd person (see Table 5.3). Rather, 2nd person pronouns (singular and plural together) are Table 5.3 Referential pronominal subjects in a MLG corpus, by person and number Person

Number

Overt

Null

Total

1

     

755 (97.80%) 287 (99.31%) 438 (97.33%) 126 (97.67%) 3349 (98.01%) 721 (97.04%) 5676 (97.85%)

17 (2.20%) 2 (0.69%) 12 (2.67%) 3 (2.33%) 69 (2.01%) 22 (2.96%) 125 (2.15%)

772 289 450 129 3418 743 5801

2 3 Total

³ The ‘log odds’ measures the strength of the relationship between the factor (in this case clause type) and the occurrence of RNS. A negative correlation is indicated by a negative value, whereas a positive value means that there is a positive correlation. The higher the value, the stronger the correlation. The factor weight shows the same, but centered within a range between 0 and 1, which means that a correlation close to 0.50 is almost neutral, i.e. that the factor has no significant influence on the expression of the dependent variable.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

90

    

(slightly) more frequently left unexpressed (2.59%) than 3rd person pronouns (2.19%). (9) First person: Unde he sprack myt groter begerte tho er du byst and he spoke with great desire to her you are alleine myn wiff vude [pro] hebbe nye nene ander gehad [ . . . ] alone my wife and [ ] have never no other had ‘and he spoke to her with great desire, you alone are my wife, and [I] have never had another one [ . . . ]’ (Hamburg, Griseldis, 1502) (10) Second person: v(m)me vns to verlose(n) heuest [pro] willen for us to relieve have [] want. anneme(n) vnse kranch(ei)t on-take our disease ‘In order to relieve us, [you] have wanted to take on our disease.’ (Münster, Dat myrren bundeken, 1480) As the incidence of 3rd person RNS is close to the average for all persons (2.15%), while 2nd person is more frequent, it comes as no surprise that the distributional analysis in Rbrul shows a slight favouring effect for 2nd person, while the centered factor weight of 3rd person is close to 0.5, that is, 3rd person has close to no effect on the expression of a pronominal subject as null (see Table 5.4). 1st person slightly disfavours expression as null. Table 5.4 Influence of the factor person on the expression of a referential pronominal subject as null Person

Log odds

Odds

Factor weight

N

% RNS

1 2 3


0.194 0.184 0.010

0.018 0.026 0.022

0.452 0.546 0.503

1061 579 4161

1.79 2.59 2.19

This is highly interesting for the comparison of MLG referential null subjects with those found in its contemporary sister and contact languages ENHG and MNw, which also seem to show a relaxation of the restriction to 3rd person. It furthermore supports the formal analysis developed below.

5.3.1.3 Extralinguistic factors Table 5.5 shows that a strong influence on the expression of referential pronominal subjects as null appears to come from extralinguistic factors. We can observe a

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

91

Table 5.5 Influence of the factor period on the expression of a referential pronominal subject as null Period

Log odds

Odds

Factor weight

N

% RNS

1251–1300 1301–50 1351–1400 1401–50 1451–1500 1501–50 1551–1600


1.587
0.847 0.451 0.264 0.692 0.692 0.335

0.003 0.006 0.022 0.019 0.028 0.028 0.020

0.170 0.300 0.611 0.566 0.666 0.666 0.583

672 643 714 268 2401 953 150

0.30 0.62 2.24 1.87 2.83 2.83 2.00

Table 5.6 Influence of the factor scribal language on the expression of a referential pronominal subject as null Scribal language

Log odds

Odds

Factor weight

N

% RNS

Eastphalian Westphalian North Low Saxon Lübeck

3.554 3.460 3.321
10.335

0.025 0.023 0.020 0.000

0.972 0.970 0.965 < 0.001

1663 1644 2394 100

1.29 1.39 1.14 0.0

clear diachronic variation; with the highest likelihood of RNS occurring in the period between 1450 and 1550, within a larger favouring period starting 100 years previously. RNS are significantly less likely to occur in the early MLG sub-periods between 1250 and 1350. As can be seen in Table 5.6, scribal language too is a very strong predictor. Basically, we see a division between the scribal languages of the Old Saxon homeland (Altland), which strongly favour RNS, and the newly emerging urban scribal language of Lübeck, where RNS are strongly disfavoured. Finally, in MLG, many texts of many different genres were produced. Our data set, therefore, contains multiple text genres such as chronicles, letters, religious texts, literary texts, and legal texts and charters. An analysis is, however, not very useful here, as the data set sometimes consists of only one text per genre. We refer the reader to Farasyn et al. (2018), in which we present a profound analysis of the influence of genre, which shows that text genre is a strong predictor of RNS as well.

5.3.2 Syntactic distribution of RNS in MLG 5.3.2.1 The position of the RNS Given the distribution of overt subjects (see Section 5.2.2), one has to postulate two possible positions for RNS too. In subject-initial V2-clauses, the gap would be

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

92

     Table 5.7 Position of the RNS V2 V2 V1 VL

(vnde) [pro] Vfin . . . (vnde) topic Vfin [pro] (vnde) __ Vfin [pro] . . . (vnde) __ Comp [pro] . . . Totals

84 23 4 14 125

in SpecCP. In clauses with subject-verb inversion (V1 or non-subject-initial V2) as well as in syndetic subordinate clauses, the RNS would follow C. Table 5.7 gives an overview of the number of RNS in each different position. (11) is an example of an RNS in a V1-clause, in this case an asyndetic conditional. (11) V1 (conditional) heuet [pro] ene ane bůrghe ghelaten so has [] him without bailsman left so mach hey dat selue doyn may he that himself do ‘If [he/one] left himi without a bailsman, hei may do that himself.’ (Soest, Soester Schrae, 1367) (12) shows V2 main clauses in which the topic position is filled by a constituent other than the subject. In (12a) this constituent is a pronominal adverb; in (12b) (= (10)) it is an adverbially used infinitive. (12) V2 + Topic a. Hyr vor is [pro] iv in ryme(n) vntbunde(n) here for is [] you. in rhymes unbound ‘For this purpose, [it (the book)] is not bound in rhymes for you.’ (Münster, Dat myrren bundeken, 1480) b. v(m)me vns to verlose(n) heuest [pro] willen for us to relieve have [] want. anneme(n) vnse kranch(ei)t [ . . . ] on-take our disease ‘In order to relieve us, [you] have wanted to take on our disease.’ (Münster, Dat myrren bundeken, 1480) (13), finally, is an example of a syndetic verb-late subordinate clause, where, again, the RNS is not in SpecCP, but follows C. (13) C + VL Doch bidde yet ask

yk I

di you

eynes one.

dinges, thing.

effte if

yd it

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

93

scheen mach, dat [pro] de tzarten ledemate happen may that [ ] the tender limbs des edelen kyndes wult bewaren vor de the. precious child. will keep from the wilden deerte vnde vogele wild animals and birds ‘Yet I ask one thing from you, if it may happen, that [you] shall protect the tender limbs of the precious child from the wild animals and birds.’ (Hamburg, Griseldis, 1502) Given the sizeable proportion of cases of RNS following C, an analysis in terms of topic drop from SpecCP is not sufficient for MLG. In keeping with the observations made in Table 5.1 regarding the preference for main clauses, therefore, verb movement seems to strongly correlate with the occurrence of RNS in the corpus, as 88 per cent of all RNS occur in sentences with V-to-C-movement (111/125). If only the position of the RNS is taken into account, 67.2 per cent of the RNS (84/125) occur in SpecCP, while 32.8 per cent (41/125) occur in the position following C.

5.3.2.2 Person and number according to syntactic position of the RNS Furthermore, we note a certain asymmetry in our corpus in that the person and number of an RNS seem to correlate with the syntactic position of the RNS. RNS in the position following C are overwhelmingly singular pronouns, of which 2nd person singulars are most likely to appear in this position (75% of 2nd person singular RNS), even though the absolute numbers are very small. 1st and 3rd person singular pronouns are quite common in this position as well, although they predominantly appear in SpecCP. The position following C hosts only two RNS of 2nd person plural; 1st person plural RNS are not attested in the position following C at all. In the SpecCP position, on the other hand, 2nd person plural RNS are not found at all, and only three occurences of 2nd person singular are attested. The two single occurences of 1st person plural RNS are both found in this position. Apart from 2nd person singular, all other RNS appear more often in SpecCP than in the position following C. (14) a. v(m)me vns to verlose(n) hetest [pro] in.order us to deliver have.2 [ ] willen anneme(n) vnse kranch(ei)t vn(de) lidelich(ei)t. wanted accept our disease and suffering V2 ‘In order to deliver us, [you] have agreed to accept our disease and suffering.’ (Münster, Dat myrren bundeken, 1480)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

94

     b. Men als [pro] my myne gaue hetest myt my but if [] me my gift order.2 with me nemen take VL ‘but if [you] order me to take my gift with me’ (Hamburg, Griseldis, 1502) c. Vnde willen [pro] dit boeck to godes eeren and want.2 [ ] this book to God’s honour be(-)ghinne(n) . . . begin V1 ‘And may [you] begin (to read) this book in the honour of God.’ (Münster, Spieghel der leyen, 1444)

Table 5.8 summarizes our findings. Table 5.8 Referential null pronominal subjects in an MLG corpus by structural position and person/number

  Total

1 2 3 1 2 3

SpecCP

Following C

Total

12 3 48 2 0 19 84

5 9 21 0 3 3 41

17 12 69 2 3 22 125

5.3.2.3 Additional observations regarding the positions of MLG null pronominal subjects With the observation in mind that RNS in MLG may occur in one of two positions, and that there are clear tendencies for 1st and 3rd person RNS to occupy SpecCP, but 2nd person RNS to follow C, we would like to make two additional observations. First, MLG had resumptive pronouns in non-restrictive subject relative clauses with a 1st or 2nd person pronoun as the head of the relative clause, as in (15a). They appear in particular in religious prose texts, where God or saints are addressed directly (for more details, see Farasyn 2017). In these cases, the verb inside the relative clause agrees in person and number with the resumptive, not the relative pronoun (which is invariant in MLG and could, therefore, be expected to trigger 3rd person agreement). In some cases, however, these resumptive pronouns seem to be null, as in (15b), but like their overt counterparts, they establish agreement with the head of the relative clause, not the relative pronoun (Farasyn 2017, 2019).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

95

(15) a. O here de du my geschapen hefst O lord who you me created have.2 ‘O lord who has created me.’ (Münster, Prayer in supplement of Dat myrren bundeken, 1480) b. dat=tu mijn vader woldest wesen de [] that=you my father would be who [ ] mijn schepper bist. my creator are.2 ‘that thou wouldst be my father, who [thou] art my creator’ (Münster, Dat myrren bundeken, 1480) First person is very rare, but 2nd person null resumptives occur regularly in MLG religious prose texts (in 8–13% of 2nd person non-restrictive relative clauses; Farasyn 2017: 76). That is, 2nd person null resumptives mediate agreement inside relative clauses in exactly those positions in which 2nd person RNS are most frequent in MLG. Second, MLG not only had referential null subjects, but also had null expletives. A total of 105 of the 107 null expletives in our corpus are found in the Wackernagel position, as in (16a), while they are very rare in SpecCP, as in (16b). (16) a. Vortmer were [ ] dat the Stath eder der Furthermore were [ ] that the city or the borghere Jenig, vnse manne besculteghede citizen Jenig our man accused ‘Furthermore, should [it] be (the case) that the city or citizen Jenig accused our man.’ (Oldenburgisches Urkundenbuch, Bl.1345a) b. vn(de) [ ] beteke(n)t dat vns got bewijsen and [ ] means that us God prove wolde syne pure menscheit vn(de) gotheit . wanted his pure humanity and divinity ‘and [it] means that God wanted to prove to us his pure humanity and divinity’ (Münster, Spieghel der leyen, 1444) These additional observations on null resumptives and null expletives lead us to conclude that we are probably dealing with two different kinds of null subjects in MLG, one type occurring in SpecCP and another type in a position following C, that is, in what we may call the Wackernagel position. The former type, therefore, appears in a position typically occupied by topics; the latter type, patterning together with null resumptives and null expletives, shows properties that are expected from RNS in partial null subject languages (where we would, for instance, expect null expletives).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

96

    

5.3.2.4 RNS and their antecedents 5.3.2.4.1 Structurally non-parallel antecedent A sizeable proportion of referential null subjects in our corpus (73 occurrences) occur in clauses introduced by vnde ‘and’. Of these, seventy are main clauses, and three are subordinate clauses. While some of them are second conjuncts, the parallelism requirement⁴ for conjunction reduction found in the modern languages does not appear to hold. In (17), for example, the unexpressed subject in the second conjunct is not coreferent with sin vader ‘his father’, the subject of the first conjunct, but rather with den man ‘the. man’, which is the direct object of the first conjunct. (17) Den ma(n)i hedde emk sin vaderj gheervet un(de) the. man had him his father bequeathed and [proi] were sink wulschuldighe eghene man [] was his fully.indebted own man ‘[Reportedly,] his father had bequeathed the man to him, and [he] was his fully indebted own man (=bondslave).’ (Herford, Herforder Rechtsbuch, 1375) That is, conjunction reduction alone cannot account for all subject gaps. Furthermore, there are fifty-two clauses with RNS that are not introduced by vnde, suggesting that this factor at best partially contributes to the occurrence of RNS in MLG. 5.3.2.4.2 RNS in main clause, antecedent in preceding adjunct clause In a further group of cases, the antecedent to a subject gap in a main clause appears to be inside an adverbial clause dependent on the main clause, that is, these subject gaps are like a null version of donkey anaphora.⁵ In (18), for instance, there are two conjoined desiderative clauses, but the subject of the first, God, is not coreferential with the (null) subject of the second conjunct. Rather, the antecedent for the RNS seems to be the object pronoun iu ‘you’ in the first conjunct, which appears in accusative case. The referent does appear in the nominative, also preceding the gap, but inside an adverbial (purpose) clause and therefore not c-commanding the subject gap. (18) God God

gheue give.

ivi you..

also therefore

to to

soeken search

vn(de) and

to to

⁴ One of the properties of the Germanic languages, including MLG, is conjunction reduction. If the conjuncts are parallel, i.e. if the supposed subject in the second conjunct is identical with the one in the first conjunct, the subject in the second (or any subsequent) conjunct stays covert. ⁵ In sentences with donkey anaphora, the pronoun in the matrix clause seems to be bound by an antecedent inside an adjunct clause or a relative clause (cf. Heim 1990).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

97

lesen [dat ghii daer by verbetert weerden.] read that you.. there at improved be Vnde willen [pro]i dit boeck to godes eeren beghinne(n). and will [] this book to God’s honour begin ‘May God inspire you to search and to read, in order for you to be improved by it. And may [you] begin (to read) this book to honour God.’ (Münster, Spieghel der leyen, 1444) Similarly, in (19), there are two conjoined main clauses, the second of which has a subject gap, but this gap does not share the subject of the first conjunct, as the verb in the clause with the subject gap is in the plural (hebben), while the verb in the first conjunct is in the singular (is). Also in terms of interpretation, the subject of the first conjunct, de memorie, is unlikely as an antecedent, as ‘the memory’ cannot ‘forget’ anything. Rather, the antecedent of the gap seems to be manich sympel leye ‘many a simple layman’ in the preceding adverbial (concessive) clause. Though it is singular in form (and verbal agreement), it is referentially identical and may be construed as semantically plural (constructio ad sensum). Clearly, if indeed manich sympel leye licenses the subject gap, it cannot do so by binding, as it is embedded inside an adverbial clause, like ghi ‘you’ in (18) above, and does not c-command the position of the gap. (19) Want al hoert manich sympel leye some for even.though hears many.a simple layman some tijt yn der kerken wat gudes seggen time in the church something good being.said vn(de) de hillighe scrift exponeeren of and the Holy Scripture being.exposed or duden. so is leider de being.interpreted so is unfortunately the memorie v(er)gheetende als een mester in der memory forgetting as a master in the nature(n) bescrijft. vn(de) [pro] hebben=t kort vergheeten. nature writes and [] have.3=it shortly forgotten ‘For even though many a simple layman occasionally hears in church something good being said and the Holy Scripture being explained or interpreted, the memory is unfortunately forgetful, as a master of the sciences writes, and [they] forget it immediately.’ (Münster, Spieghel der leyen, 1444) In all of these cases, given the lack of parallelism between the conjuncts and the indirect relationship between referential antecedent and gap, we have analysed the gap as referential pro.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

98

    

5.3.2.4.3 Discourse antecedent more generally Finally, the following cases are robustly attested in the corpus. In (20), [Ø] indicates the subject gap in a regular conjunction reduction, while [pro], as before, indicates referential null subjects that cannot be accounted for in terms of licensing by a c-commanding or structurally parallel antecedent. (20) Vnd in der ersten stunde des dages mackede goti and in the first hour of-the day made god der erde na synem likenisse vnd [Øi] Adamej van Adam from the earth to his image and gaff ome gewalt over fee ouer voggel gave him power over mammals over birds ouer fissche vnd [Øi] sande onej in dat Paradis over fishes and sent him in the paradise dar mackede he Eua van Adames ribbe in der there made he Eve from Adams rib in the dridden stunde des dages die wile dat hej third hour of the day the while that he sleyp vnd [Øi] gaff eua adamej to wiue vnd slept and gave Eve Adam to wife and [proj] scholde ewich leuen vnde [proi] vorbot [he] should forever live and [he] forbade one frucht an eynem bome to eten. him fruit from one tree to eat ‘And in the first hour of the day, God created Adam from earth in his image, gave him power over mammals, birds, and fishes and sent him to paradise. There, he made Eve from Adam’s rib in the third hour of the day, while he was asleep, and gave her to Adam as his wife. [He] was meant to live forever and [he] forbade him to eat fruit from a certain tree.’ (Cronecken der Sassen, 1492) In (21) (= (9)) too, the RNS has no directly expressed antecedent setting the topic. Rather, the referent is implicitly introduced by the use of the possessive pronoun in the first clause of the direct speech of ‘he’, du byst alleine myn wiff ‘you alone are my wife’. (21) Unde he sprack myt groter begerte tho er du and he spoke with great desire to her you byst alleine myni wiff vude [proi] hebbe nye [nene are alone my wife and [I] have never no

ander]j other

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

99

gehad noch [proi] [Øj] hyr na hebben wil had nor [I] [another] here after have will ‘and he spoke to her with great desire, you alone are my wife, and I have never had another one, nor will I ever have [another one].’ (Hamburg, Griseldis, 1502) Such cases look similar to the kind of pro-drop found in languages such as Italian or Spanish, where 3rd person RNS are null aboutness topics accessible in discourse. Note that an analysis of the null object in terms of conjunction reduction as [Øj] in (21) is not possible in case of (22): (22) Hinrick wijse hefft mit syner husfrouwe(n) Gheeske(n) to Hinrick Wijse has with his wife Gheeske as brutschatte gename(n) sodane [Doertich m(a)r(k) dowry taken such thirty marks Jarl(iker) w(ickboldes) R(ente)]i, [alsei desulue Gheeske annual. purlieus. pension as the.same Gheeske [proi] plach to hebbe(n)de vnde [proi] hadde Jm(e) husze [] used to have and [ ] had in.the house Alberd van Ghandersze(m) Jn der koppersleger Albert van Ghandersson in the. coppersmith. dwerstrate(n) bij Marte(n) kalemeter belege(n)] sidestreet near Marten Kalemeter situated ‘Hinrik Wijse has taken 30 marks of annual pension from the purlieus as dowry from his wife Gheeske, the way/which the same Gheeske used to have [it] and has [it] in the house of Albert van Ghandersson, situated in the coppersmith sidestreet near Marten Kalemeter.’ (Lübeck, 1499k, 31 March 1499)

5.3.3 Summary We have observed the following properties of referential null arguments in MLG: • MLG RNS preferably occur in main clauses. Their position is not restricted to the clause-initial topic position in V2 clauses; they can also occur after the finite verb, in V2 clauses with the topic position filled by another element, and in V1 clauses. However, RNS also occur in the position following C in syndetic subordinate clauses (in 10.3% of all cases). • Person and number seem to correlate with the syntactic position of the RNS: it is very common to find 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person singular RNS following C. 2nd person singular is even located in this position more often than in the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

100

    

other position. All other pronouns prefer to be located in SpecCP, except for 2nd person plural, for which there are no occurrences in the latter position. • While often, clauses containing RNS are coordinated and hence introduced by vnde ‘and’, these are not cases of conjunction reduction, as the gap is not structurally parallel to its antecedent. In some cases, the referent of the RNS is introduced by an antecedent with a different grammatical function from the gap, for example an object or a possessive pronoun. In other cases, it is not structurally accessible, as it does not c-command the gap, for instance because the antecedent occurs inside a subordinate clause preceding the gap. • Referential null objects are attested, and they do not need to be cases of conjunction reduction. Following Farasyn and Breitbarth (2016), we may add the following observations regarding the nature of RNS in MLG. First of all, MLG RNS, while robustly attested, are nevertheless quite infrequent. Furthermore, MLG verbal agreement is not rich enough for it to be a consistent null subject language (verbs, for instance, have one syncretic form for all persons in the plural). As MLG retains the old asymmetry between main and subordinate clauses, with RNS being much more likely to occur in main clauses, the obviation requirement typical of consistent pro-drop languages does not hold either, that is, overt pronouns in subordinate clauses in MLG can be perfectly co-referent with overt subjects in the matrix clause; they do not need to be covert for that (and often are not). As antecedents of RNS are often not syntactically accessible, not c-commanding the position of the RNS, the licensing conditions in MLG are evidently not identical to those holding in the modern V2-Germanic topic-drop languages (cf., e.g., Ross 1982 or Sigurðsson 1989: 150–60), even though many of the RNS in MLG do occur in SpecCP. Besides, RNS in MLG may occur following C in the Wackernagel position in case SpecCP is otherwise filled, or in subordinate clauses. These observations speak against a general analysis of MLG RNS in terms of topic drop. In Section 5.4, we sketch an analysis of MLG in terms of partial pro-drop, with developing discourse drop, following Farasyn and Breitbarth (2016).

5.4 Analysis 5.4.1 Partial pro-drop: Walkden (2014) Partial pro-drop languages have specific restrictions on the type of pronouns that may be null, which may vary from language to language. In formal/written Finnish, for instance, 1st and 2nd person pronominal subjects may be null in finite contexts, and 3rd person ones also if bound by a higher argument

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

101

(Holmberg 2005); in Hebrew, an additional restriction is the tense of the verb. Building on Holmberg (2010a), Walkden (2014) proposes an analysis under which ‘the early Germanic languages were in a sense the mirror image of languages such as modern formal Finnish’ (Walkden 2014: 209). OS, the precursor of MLG, was such a partial null subject language, according to Walkden. Given that an analysis of MLG RNS in terms of topic drop is not generally available, MLG displays at first sight a remarkable diachronic stability concerning the availability of null subjects.⁶ Under Walkden’s analysis, which builds on Holmberg (2010a), RNS in the early North West Germanic languages are DPs with a full set of φ-features, but an uninterpretable D-feature [uD]. They agree for φ-features with T, and have their D-feature valued (and hence, receive their referential index) by an Aboutness topic operator in ShiftP (cf. Frascarelli and Hinterhölzl’s 2007 model of the left periphery), which probes by means of a [uAnaphor] feature. (23)

[ShiftP OP[Ø,iD,uAn] [Shift′ Shifto [CP Co [TP DP[uD,iAn] [T′… ]]]]]

Agree By contrast, Walkden analyses V2-Germanic topic drop as licensed by a topic operator either in ShiftP or ΛAP/ ΛPP (linking to the logophoric agent/patient⁷), which probes by means of a [uφ] feature, as in (24). While the uAnaphor] feature of the topic operator in early North West Germanic can only probe for pronominal material, only [iφ] DPs in SpecFinP can be null in V2-Germanic topic-drop languages, as the finite verb in Fin acts as a defective intervener for a [uφ] operator in ShiftP/ΛAP/ ΛPP. (24) [ShiftP/ΛAP/ΛPP OP[Ø,iD,uφ] [Shift0 / ΛA0 /ΛP0 Shift°/ΛA°/ΛP° [FinP DP[uD,iφ] [Fin° [TP . . . ]]]]] Walkden’s analysis of early North West Germanic RNS predicts that early North West Germanic RNS are: ⁶ A certain problem with analysing MLG as a partial null subject language may be the fact that MLG prefers to overtly express generic subjects, which should be unexpected given the discussion in Holmberg (2010a), for example. However, null generic subjects are not a priori excluded in MLG, as (i) illustrates. (i)

Anders ne darf [pro] nicht wroghen. otherwise  may [ ] not charge ‘Otherwise, [one / the person in question] may not bring in charges.’ (Oldenburg, Oldenburger Sachsenspiegel, 1336)

Furthermore, the availability of null generic subjects has apparently never been a strict or even preferred property even in the early West Germanic languages, as discussed by Walkden (2014: 214) and the literature he refers to. ⁷ Walkden (2014), unlike Sigurðsson (2014), assumes that ΛAP/ ΛPP are separate projections, while such edge linkers are not independently projected for Sigurðsson, as they are below the level of lexicalization, i.e. they are no inherent part of overt or abstract items (cf. Sigurðsson 2014).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

102

    

(i) aboutness topics; (ii) mostly 3rd person; (iii) more common in main clauses than in subordinate clauses. These predictions appear to be largely borne out in our MLG data. RNS do prefer to occur in main clauses and, where they are 3rd person, they are mostly found in the topic position in SpecCP. MLG, furthermore, seems to allow null objects, besides null subjects, which is examplified in (19) and (20). This is not a unique MLG property, as null objects are also found in other partial null subject languages such as Old Norse (cf, e.g., Sigurðsson 1993; Sigurðsson and Maling 2006). Under Walkden’s analysis, this is accommodated by assuming that the [uAn]-feature of the operator in ShiftP probes for the nearest anaphoric element, which may be an object. However, Walkden’s analysis predicts that at most one empty argument should be licensed per clause. While this prediction largely seems to be borne out, we have seen a case in which there appear to be both a null subject and a null object in the same clause, i.e. (21). However, as we have seen in Sections 5.3.2.1 and 5.3.2.2, MLG RNS are asymmetrically distributed in our corpus, with different person/number combinations strongly preferring or even exclusively occurring in different syntactic positions, the topic position and the Wackernagel position. Most strikingly, 2nd person turned out to be the strongest predictor of RNS in our data. We, therefore, take a fresh look at the distribution of null arguments in MLG and propose an alternative analysis in Section 5.4.2.

5.4.2 Partial pro-drop in MLG: Only partially As discussed in Section 5.3.2.1, a good two-thirds of the RNS in our corpus (67.2%) are found in SpecCP. If we redistribute the data to reflect the syntactic position and the clause type, the statistical effect of clause type becomes evident once more, as can be seen in Table 5.9. More precisely, most of the RNS in the ‘topic position’ SpecCP, the most frequent type overall, are found in main clauses (74.5%), whereas RNS in the position following C are more common in embedded clauses (73.7%). Table 5.9 Referential pronominal subjects in an MLG corpus by clause type and structural position

Main clauses Subordinate clauses Total

SpecCP

WP

Total

79 (74.5%) 5 (26.3%) 84

27 (25.5%) 14 (73.7%) 41

106 19 125

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

103

If we were to apply Walkden’s (2014) analysis unchanged to the MLG RNS, we would have to assume that they are licensed by the null Aboutness topic operator both in SpecCP (25a) and in the position following C, perhaps SpecTP, as in (25b). (25) a. [ShiftP OP[Ø,iD,uAn] [Shift0 Shift° [CP C° [TP DP[uD,iAn] [T0 . . . ]]]]] b. [ShiftP OP[Ø,iD,uAn] [Shift0 Shift° [CP DP[uD,iAn] [C’ C° [TP ti [T0 . . . ]]]]]] However, as the discussion in Section 5.3.2.2 has indicated, these two positions seem to correlate with different person restrictions, which Walkden’s analysis cannot account for. The most frequent person (in relative terms), the 2nd, strongly tended to occur in the position following C. A similar distinction between two positions for RNS, whereby the ones in the Wackernagel position in particular show properties typical of partial null subject languages, has been made for RNS in MHG and ENHG by Volodina and Weiß (2016), but has not been given a formal analysis. We propose such an analysis for our MLG data in what follows. We propose to analyse the two distinct types of RNS in MLG as being distinguished by their internal structure. The first kind, which alternates with overt pronominal subjects in SpecCP/SpecFinP, is a full DP with an uninterpretable D-feature [uD], as in Walkden’s (2014) proposal, and is licensed by a null topic operator. This will in most cases be an Aboutness topic operator in SpecShiftP, as in Walkden’s analysis. This captures the observation that 3rd person RNS are significantly more likely to occur in SpecCP than in the Wackernagel position. Less frequently, it will be topic operator in SpecΛAP identifying the referent of the null subject as the logophoric agent. The latter accounts for data such as (26) (cf. (21)). (26) Unde he sprack myt groter begerte tho er du byst alleine and he spoke with great desire to her you are alone myni wiff vude [proi] hebbe nye [nene ander]j gehad . . . my wife and [ ] have never no other had . . . ‘and he spoke to her with great desire, you alone are my wife, and [I] have never had another one . . . ’ (Hamburg, Griseldis, 1502) The probing feature may be [uAn], as proposed by Walkden for partial null subject languages such as OS, or [uφ], as he proposes it for the modern V2-Germanic topic-drop languages (Walkden 2014: 115f). As proposed by Sigurðsson (1993), the difference may lie in the mechanism for identifying the referent in the clauseexternal context, not in the clause-internal linking mechanism. The second kind of RNS, on the other hand, requires a different analysis. Overt pronouns in MLG can have the three different sizes observed for other languages by Cardinaletti and Starke (1999) and, depending on their size/strength, they display different positional preferences. The strong forms of the 3rd person

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

104

     Table 5.10 Three types of subject pronouns in MLG (based on Dietl 2002: 22) Strong 



1 2 3m 3f 3n 1 2 3

ik, ek dû dê, di(e) dê, die, düe dat wê, wie gie, je, ie dê, di(e)

Weak

Clitic -tu

hê, hie sê, si(e), süe (h)it, (h)et, (h)öt

-et

sê, sie

coincide with the form of the definite article. The weak form is the full form of the personal pronoun (see Table 5.10, based on Dietl 2002: 22). Weak and clitic pronouns in V2-Germanic languages (e.g. Weiß 1998), and also in MLG, occur in the Wackernagel position, directly following the complementizer or the finite verb in clauses with verb movement. (27) and (28) from our corpus illustrate this for the overt clitics -tu (2nd person singular) and -et (3rd person singular). (27) a. . . . ofte he dencket datt=et eme ghener hande . . . or he thinks that=it him no hand noet en do. need  do. ‘ . . . or he thinks that it is not necessary for him in any way.’ b. Were=t och dat der stede heren [ . . . ] were=it also that the. city lords [ . . . ] mit vns twidrachtich worden ... with us discording become ‘Should it furthermore be that the city’s lords came to disagree with us ...’ (Münster, Spieghel der leyen, 1444) (28) a. . . . dat=tu den menschen wunderlike heuest gheschapen. . . . that=you the man wondrously have.2 created ‘ . . . that you have wondrously created man’ (Münster, Dat myrren bundeken, 1480) b. van nymande en werdes=tu weerdelike ghelouet by no.one  are=you worthily praised dan van dy solue(n) than by you self ‘By no one are you praised as worthily as by yourself.’ (Münster, Dat myrren bundeken, 1480)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

105

On the basis of the distribution of narrow syntax (NS) in SpecTP, which is analogous to that of overt weak and clitic pronouns illustrated in Table 5.10 and examples (27) and (28), we propose to take RNS in the position following C to be a deficient pronoun. This is what Cardinaletti and Starke (1999) propose for ‘genuine’ pro too, which they analyse as a deficient pronoun and not as a full argument. More specifically, we argue that RNS following C are phonetically null clitics analogous to 2nd and 3rd person singular pronouns with overt clitic forms in MLG, of which a null version would in all probability be a clitic too. Déchaine and Wiltschko (2002), who analyse the internal structure of different types of personal pronoun as in (29), consider ‘pro-φP to be a cover term for any intermediate functional projection that intervenes between N and D and encodes φ-features (where φ-features include number and gender, and in some cases person)’ (Déchaine and Wiltschko 2002: 410). (29) a. [DP D [φP φ [NP N ]]] b. [φP φ [NP N ]] c. [NP N ] Following Giorgi and Pianesi’s (1997) Feature Scattering Principle, according to which each feature may head its own projection, we argue for splitting up the φP-layer in MLG (3rd person) pronouns, resulting in (30) as the proposed internal structure. Only d-pronouns can be used in positions where strong pronouns are found in other languages, for instance in SpecCP. Wackernagel subject clitics would be φgenderPs in MLG under our analysis. (30)

DP φPERS/NUMP

D d

φPERS/NUM s/h

φGENDERP

φGENDER m/f: ee/ie n: (V)t8

NP ∅

⁸ ‘V’ stands for vowel here. Depending on the size of the pronoun, this will be a different vowel (dat/ het/-et).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

106

    

Given our observations concerning the distribution of RNS, we propose that clitic pro is φgenderP too. The fact that RNS in the Wackernagel position are most likely to be 2nd person may raise eyebrows, given that in traditional grammars, 1st and 2nd person pronouns are considered genderless (‘ungeschlechtig’, e.g. Braune and Reiffenstein 2004: 241) due to their invariant form. However, this is incompatible with a feature-based account such as the one assumed in this chapter. There are empirical arguments in favour of 1st and 2nd person pronouns bearing gender features, if possibly initially underspecified or unvalued ones. In German, for instance, relative pronouns in non-restrictive relative clauses like (31) agree for gender with the head of the relative clause, which depends on the referent in the particular context. The same type of gender agreement is found in Icelandic as well (Wood and Sigurðsson 2014). (31) ich/du, die(F)/der(M) immer aufräumen muss ‘I/you who(M/F) have to tidy up all the time’ Following Cardinaletti and Starke (1999), the null φgenderP encliticizes to C to recover the layers of internal structure it lacks compared to a full DP. That is, its φpers/num-layer is recovered by the finiteness features in C. Its referential information, normally encoded in the D-layer, is provided by ‘free coindexing with an NP antecedent’ which in MLG can have any grammatical function or structural position in the preceding discourse context (cf. Sigurðsson 1993 for Old Icelandic). With Sigurðsson (2011, 2014), we would say that the referential information is recovered using the context-linking mechanism he proposes. That is, the referent is established via a C/Edge-linker CLn (‘speaker’/‘hearer’/ ‘X-topic’) in the left periphery (ΛAP, ΛPP, different TopPs) by scanning the discourse context for any preceding nominal referent, as in (32). (32) a. C/Edge-Linking Generalization Any definite argument, overt or silent, positively matches at least one CLn in its local C-domain, CLn {ΛA, ΛP, Top, . . . }. (Sigurðsson 2011: 282)

b. (context)

[ΛAP/ΛPP/TopP {CLni} … [CP (X) … Co-φPERS/NUM =Øi [TP… ]]]

context scanning

C/edge-linking

This mechanism is particularly appealing given our observation that c-command does not seem to play a role in identifying the referent of the null pronoun (see Section 5.3.2.4). The difference between the RNS in the Wackernagel position and the null topics in SpecCP is that in case of the latter, the φ-features cannot be

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

107

identified through the linking Topic-operator. C/edge-linking of the null clitic in the Wackernagel position is possible across a potentially filled SpecCP because of the clitic nature of the RNS, which we take to be similar to pronominal Agr/T in consistent pro-drop languages like Italian. Our claim is, then, that MLG referential null pronouns of the more frequent type in SpecCP are pronouns with a full DP-structure, while the less frequent referential null pronouns in the Wackernagel position, on the other hand, are φgenderPs, almost exclusively in those persons and numbers in which we also find overt clitic pronouns (2nd and 3rd singular). As we have seen, these null Wackernagel clitics are overwhelmingly 2nd and 3rd person singular (besides null expletives and null resumptives) in our corpus. This pattern is striking: null clitic pronouns in the Wackernagel position occur in the same person-number combinations for which there are also overt clitic forms attested, i.e. 2nd and 3rd singular. We take this as corroborating our analysis. The fact that there are two different types of referential null pronouns in MLG with different licensing conditions restricting them to different syntactic positions predicts, unlike Walkden’s analysis, that two null arguments should be possible in one clause, as we have indeed found attested in the corpus; cf. (21). The proposed analysis furthermore allows us to capture the agreement patterns in 1st/2nd person non-restrictive subject relative clauses (cf. (15)) as null resumptives in the Wackernagel position.

5.4.3 Diachronic development and the role of the syntactic features Our claim that MLG distinguished two types of RNS, (i) null DPs in SpecCP (licensed by a [uAn, iD] or [uφ, iD] operator in ShiftP or ΛA/PP) and (ii) null φPs encliticizing to C (licensed by an [uAn] operator), raises the question of how such a system arose diachronically. Essentially, our analysis entails that [uD] DPs become restricted to SpecCP, while originally [uD] DPs in SpecTP (Walkden 2014) lose the D-layer (and [uD]-feature) entirely, and become clitics on C. It therefore appears that we are dealing with two innovations in MLG, both involving changes in syntactic features: a change from [uAn] to [uφ] as the probing feature on the operator in Shift/ΛAP/ΛPP in case of [uD] null DPs in SpecCP, and the loss of the D-layer and [uD]-feature in the rise of null Wackernagel clitics. Our analysis also raises the question of how this development compares with the other older Germanic languages. In comparison with OS, we note a certain relaxation of the person constraint on RNS, as, in addition to 3rd person, 2nd person can also be null. We have argued that this is the consequence of the RNS in the Wackernagel position becoming null clitics on C: they align their distribution to overt clitic pronouns in the same

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

108

    

position. 2nd person RNS are significantly less frequent in SpecCP, and restricted to the singular; see Table 5.10. Kinn (2015) shows a similar relaxation of the old person restriction in comparison with ONw, and concludes that MNw is in transition to a discourse-drop language. She argues that genuine pro-drop, where it persisted in MNw, continued to be restricted to 3rd person. This situation cannot be directly compared to the situation in MLG. Certainly, the fact that more than two-thirds of RNS are found in SpecCP points to MLG being in such a transition to a discourse-drop language too. The fact that the SpecCP-type of RNS is more frequent than the clitic type (unlike in Old Icelandic; see Sigurðsson 1993) is further evidence of the degree to which MLG is already in the transition to a topic-drop language, even though the distribution of the RNS in SpecCP is still not the same as in the modern V2-Germanic languages. The clitic RNS on C, however, which may be taken to be the continuation of ‘genuine’ pro (cf. Sigurðsson 1993; Kinn 2014a), continuing an older stage of the language, are not restricted to 3rd person in MLG; in fact, 2nd person is more frequent in relative terms. In this respect, MLG aligns more with ENHG, where according to Volodina (2009), RNS are most frequent in 2nd and 3rd person. It is, furthermore, similar to modern German dialects still exhibiting partial prodrop. In Bavarian or Alemannic dialects, RNS are restricted to the Wackernagel position and prefer 2nd person, which according to Axel and Weiß (2010) and Volodina and Weiß (2016) is a consequence of their being dependent on pronominal agreement morphology on C (cf. also Axel 2005; Weiß 2005; Volodina 2009, 2011), which on verbs arose through a reanalysis of a clitic pronoun in the Wackernagel position (Fuß 2005 and literature cited there). This cannot be the whole story for MLG, though, as 3rd person RNS are still relatively frequent, also in the Wackernagel position. One possibility might be that the ‘inherited’ 3rd person RNS have assimilated their distribution to the new null Wackernagel clitics, and that at the same time, null discourse topics in SpecCP emerged.

5.5 Conclusion This chapter has reported new results on the distribution of null referential arguments in a corpus of MLG. On the one hand, MLG displays a certain continuity with OS in that RNS are significantly more frequent in main clauses than in subordinate clauses and in 3rd person. On the other hand, MLG shows a number of innovative developments. First, RNS are particularly frequent in what appear to be V2 second conjuncts (vnde [pro] Vfin . . . ) where an analysis in terms of conjunction reduction is not available, either because the gap is not structurally parallel to its antecedent or because the antecedent is structurally not accessible, as

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

109

it does not c-command the gap. A general discourse-topicality seems to be sufficient to establish the reference of the RNS. A closer look has revealed that MLG RNS are distributed in a peculiar fashion: about two-thirds are found in SpecCP, and thus pattern with strong overt pronouns. We therefore analysed them as full DPs, which are phonetically null due to a [uD]-feature they bear. They have this feature licensed by a null Topic operator in SpecShiftP (Walkden 2014) or ΛAP. We argued that there is likely to be an ongoing change in the features of these RNS from [uAn] to [uφ] in MLG, given the increasing frequency of this SpecCP-type of RNS. A smaller fraction of RNS is found in the position following C, the so-called Wackernagel position. These RNS come to align with overt clitic pronouns in MLG, also concerning their person and number restrictions, as they are particularly likely to be 2nd person, though 3rd person is still frequent too. We therefore argued that this second kind was be null clitic φgenderPs, arising through a loss of the D-layer, which created the need to encliticize to C to recover their missing functional layers (cf. Cardinaletti and Starke 1999). The fact that there is this observable split in the null pronouns in MLG and the increasing prominence of the SpecCP-type point to MLG being in transition to a topic-drop language of the modern type.

Sources Archiv der Hansestadt Lübeck, Niederstadtbuch 1500. Bordesholmer Marienklage, Bordesholm 1475/76. Cronecken der sassen, Druck: Mainz, Peter Schoeffer, 1492. Dat myrren bundeken, Thomas a Kempis, Fraterhaus Münster 1480. Dre kortwilige Historien, Druck: Hamburg, Joachim Loew, 1560. Gandersheimer Reimchronik des Priesters Eberhard, before 1484. Goslarer Kramerrecht, oldest edition, 1281 (oldest version of ASnA, edited by Robert Peters) (Stadtarchiv Goslar). Griseldis [nebst] Sigismunda und Guiscardus. Drucker des Jegher, Hamburg 1502. Herforder Rechtsbuch, Herford 1375. Historie van veer Koepluden vnde eyner thuchtigen vramen Vrouwen, Druck: Hamburg, Hans Borchard, 1510. Letters of Agneta Willeken, Agneta Willeken, Hamburg: first half of the sixteenth century. LübUb = Lübecker Urkundenbuch (fifty digitalized charters from ASnA, edited by Robert Peters). Oldenburger Sachsenspiegel. Bilderhandschrift des Sachsenspiegels, Kloster Rastede 1336.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

110

    

Oldenburgisches Urkundenbuch. Im Auftrage des Staates hrsg. vom Oldenburger Verein für Altertumskunde und Landesgeschichte. 8 Bde., Bd. 1: Urkundenbuch der Stadt Oldenburg. Bearbeitet v. Dietrich Kohl, Oldenburg 1914; Bd. 4: Urkundenbuch der Grafschaft Oldenburg. Klöster und Kollegiatkirchen. Bearbeitet v. Gustav Rüthning, Oldenburg 1928. Ostfälische Psalmen (fifteenth century): Latin-Middle Low German psalter with comments, Cod. Guelf. 81.10 Aug. 2°, edited by Ursula Kundert, HAB Wolfenbüttel 2015. Prayer 1: Ene oeffenynge in der gheboerte vnsesleuen heren ihesu cristi, prayer in the addendum to Dat myrren bundeken, Fraterhaus Münster 1480. Prayer 2: Ey(n) Jnnige clage to gode, prayer in the addendum to Dat myrren bundeken, Fraterhaus Münster 1480. Qvatuor Evangeliorum versio Saxonica, second half of the fifteenth century. Soester Schrae. Schrae im Statutenbuch, Soest 1367. Spieghel der leyen, Münster 1444. Westfälische Psalmen (fourteenth century): transcription from Cod. Guelf. 58.4 Aug. 8°. (HAB Wolfenbüttel) by Andreas Kolbe und Kirsten Menke-Schnellbächer, project Niederdeutsch in Westfalen: Historisches Digitales Textarchiv, 2011.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

PART II

THE T-DOMAIN

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

6 Feature reanalysis and the Latin origin of Romance Negative Concord Chiara Gianollo

6.1 Introduction At first sight the negation systems of Latin and the Romance languages, even at their earliest documented stages, seem to differ profoundly: Latin is a Double Negation language, whereas Old Romance varieties productively display Negative Concord. Moreover, most of the indefinite pronouns and adverbs belonging to the negation system (i.e. taking narrow scope with respect to negation and being licensed by it) have undergone lexical substitution from Latin to Romance, and their etymological sources often differ substantially from language to language. We see, therefore, on the one hand a seemingly parallel macro-change (from Double Negation to Negative Concord), which is common to the whole branch, and, on the other hand, many independent micro-changes, leading to separate lexicalizations of new narrow-scope indefinites in the various languages. My main concern in this chapter is to reconcile this complex picture with a persisting insight in generative treatments of syntactic change, namely that syntactic change is categorical and rooted in language acquisition. The conclusions reached in the present study support a lexico-centric view of parametric variation, in line with the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture (as formulated by Baker 2008: 353): ‘All parameters of variation are attributable to differences in the features of particular items (e.g. the functional heads) in the lexicon.’ The source of variation and change in negation systems is located in the feature inventory of individual elements of the lexicon. Nonetheless, universal constraints on the format of features and on the way they are learnt enable us to capture systemic resetting operations, which have extensive effects on the grammatical system beyond the individual lexical item. Negation systems lend themselves particularly well to test the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture and its potential consequences for an improved understanding of syntactic change, since they have been shown to display complex patterns of interdependencies, restricting the number of possible ‘types’ and, consequently, of possible ‘changes’ (Haegeman 1995; Zanuttini 1997; Zeijlstra 2004; and much Chiara Gianollo, Feature reanalysis and the Latin origin of Romance Negative Concord In: Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change. Edited by: Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson, Oxford University Press (2021). © Chiara Gianollo. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198832584.003.0006

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

114

 

following work). Specifically, elements of negation systems may be characterized by three types of features: semantic features [F], interpretable formal features [iF], and uninterpretable formal features [uF]. A principle of Feature Economy drives their acquisition and may result in diachronic reanalysis, in case of ambiguity in the primary data. The empirical core of my study is represented by the investigation of two processes of feature reanalysis in the system of negation, both happening in Late Latin. These changes, affecting individual lexical items, are interconnected and lead to profound systemic consequences, representing the prerequisite for the development of Negative Concord in the daughter languages. According to my proposal, the seemingly parallel development of Romance Negative Concord turns out to be a case of shared inheritance from Late Latin, allowing, thus, for a parsimonious reconstruction of the diachronic path from Latin to Romance (assuming as few change events as possible). My proposal, thus, rests on an acknowledgement of the existence of profound structural differences between the Classical and the Late Latin stage; once these differences are taken into account, the development of negation systems in the daughter languages appears much less paradoxical.¹ The first reanalysis with which I will deal concerns the Latin negative marker nōn: in this case I will argue that its phrase-structural reanalysis (from XP to X⁰), in turn connected to the general shift from an Infl-final to an Infl-initial language, leads to its featural reanalysis (from an exponent of semantic negation [Neg] to a carrier of a formal interpretable [iNeg] feature). The second, ensuing reanalysis concerns the grammaticalization of new narrow-scope indefinites, which have the distribution of Negative Concord items (NCIs or n-words) starting already with the first attestations in Romance. I trace their morphological components in Latin and I show that nec, the negative morpheme contained in some of them (e.g. Old French nesun, It. nessuno, Sp. ningún), had focus-sensitive uses, which led to a systematic pattern of redundancy even in a Double Negation language like Classical Latin. I connect this redundancy to the syntax of focus in Latin and argue that the [uNeg] feature of Romance n-words finds its origin in the [uFoc] feature that the particle nec earned in Latin: a formal relation with a Focus operator becomes reanalysed as a formal dependency between the n-words containing nec and a (hierarchically superior) bearer of a [iNeg] feature.

¹ I will use the following labels to refer to the various stages of the language: Early Latin: third– second century ; Classical Latin: first century ; Post-Classical Latin: first–second century ; Late Latin: third century–sixth century . Occasionally I will keep using ‘Latin’ with no further specification when the phenomenon I am referring to remains stable across stages. For the methodological and empirical issues faced by a scientific attempt at the periodization of Latin, see Adamik (2015).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

     

115

The discussion will proceed as follows: in Section 6.2 I will present my main assumptions concerning features and negation. Section 6.3 deals with the featural and structural reanalysis affecting the negative marker from Latin to Romance. Section 6.4 is dedicated to the ensuing developments affecting indefinite pronouns and determiners in the scope of negation. In Section 6.5 I summarize my conclusions.

6.2 Semantic and formal features in negation systems 6.2.1 A restrictive featural typology for negation systems As mentioned in the previous section, despite the seemingly wide variation observed cross-linguistically in the domain of negation, formal research was able to identify a limited number of negation systems. The resulting restrictive typology has been accounted for by means of a simple, yet powerful inventory of feature combinations in the lexical entry of elements constituting negation systems. Negation systems comprise the functional elements used in a language to encode the presence of a negative operator in the logical representation, that is, minimally the negative marker(s) (NM) and the negative indefinites (NIs) or the n-words. Negative markers, as well as indefinite determiners, pronouns, and adverbs belonging to the negation system are characterized in terms of features. The nature of such features determines the way these elements relate to the logical negative operator, that is, negative features are instructions for the interface between semantics and syntax in this module of grammar. I follow Zeijlstra (2004, 2008, 2014) in assuming that features related to negation belong to two classes: the class of semantic features and the class of formal syntactic features. A semantic feature [F] carried by a given lexical item inserted in the derivation represents an interpretational instruction for the semantic component. In the case of negation, an element carrying the semantic feature [Neg] will introduce a logical operator of negation in the structure. Formal features, on the other hand, come in pairs, constituted by a formal uninterpretable feature [uF] and a formal interpretable feature [iF]. They represent an instruction for the syntax to create a dependency between the locus where the need for the insertion of an operator is signalled ([uF]) and the locus where the operator is actually inserted (iF).² Formal features, thus, unlike semantic features, drive processes of syntactic computation beyond Merge (besides signalling the presence of a logical operator, like semantic features). Both semantic and formal features eventually lead to the ² See Zeijlstra (2014) for different ways to conceptualize the relation between [F] and [iF] in the literature.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

116

 

same result at the interpretive level, that is the insertion of a negative operator, but they do so in syntactically different ways. In the case of negation, the presence of a [iNeg] – [uNeg] feature pair in the grammar yields Negative Concord phenomena, that is, systems where there is no one-to-one correspondence between (negative) form and meaning, because one single negative operator may receive multiple morphosyntactic expressions in a given structure: see (1), which receives a single-negation reading despite there being two negatively marked elements (the NM non ‘not’ and the n-word nessun(o) ‘no’). (1) Gianni non ha superato nessun esame ‘Gianni did not pass any exam’ In Zeijlstra’s model, the dependency between the uninterpretable formal feature and its interpretable counterpart is instantiated by (Upward) Agree: a hierarchically superior [iF], which is introduced in the locus of interpretation of F, licenses (multiple instances of) the [uF] feature in its c-command domain. Three macro-types of negation systems, which can be described by means of these features, emerge cross-linguistically (Giannakidou 2000; Zeijlstra 2004 and subsequent work, Penka 2011; Biberauer and Zeijlstra 2012). Their feature specification is summarized in the table in (2):³ (2)

Negation systems Type

Negative marker

Indefinites

Double Negation Non-Strict Negative Concord Strict Negative Concord

[Neg] [iNeg] [uNeg]

[Neg] (NI) [uNeg] (n-word) [uNeg] (n-word)

As the table in (2) indicates, two basic types of Negative Concord systems, strict and non-strict have been identified in the literature (cf. Giannakidou 2000). Descriptively, the difference consists in the fact that strict systems (e.g. Russian, Modern Greek, Romanian) always require the co-occurrence of NM and featurally negative indefinites, as in (3a): in Zeijlstra’s model, this is explained by assuming that all overt elements are [uNeg] and that the [iNeg] element licensing the [uNeg] feature is always covert in these languages (and is inserted in the CP-TP phase on top of the highest [uNeg] element in the structure).

³ The systems in (2) do not exhaust the cross-linguistic variation observed in the world’s languages: there are also languages that do not have featurally negative indefinites. In these languages the NM cooccurs with plain multifunctional indefinites or with negative polarity items not exclusively restricted to negative contexts. See van der Auwera and Van Alsenoy (2016) for the cross-linguistic frequency of these types.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

     

117

The (much rarer) non-strict systems (e.g. Italian, Spanish), on the other hand, show an asymmetry between the portion of the clause preceding the finite verb and the portion following it (the pre- and post-Infl field, where Infl indicates the landing site of the finite verb). Only post-Infl n-words co-occur with the NM (which carries a formal interpretable feature [iNeg]) in a single negation reading, as in (3b), while in the pre-Infl field each featurally negative element contributes a negative meaning, as in (3c, d). That is, in the pre-Infl field in a single negation reading the n-word cannot co-occur with the NM, as in (3d). (3) Strict vs non-strict Negative Concord a. Romanian, strict Negative Concord Nimeni nu a cumpărat cartea ‘Nobody bought the book’

(Iordăchioaia 2010)

b. Italian, non-strict Negative Concord Non ha comprato il libro nessuno ‘Nobody bought the book’ c. Italian, non-strict Negative Concord Nessuno ha comprato il libro ‘Nobody bought the book’ d. Italian, non-strict Negative Concord Nessuno non ha comprato il libro ‘Nobody did not buy the book’ = everybody bought the book The syntactic analysis of negation systems introduced above has provided the model for a more general Minimalist feature typology (see, besides Zeijlstra’s works cited above, also Biberauer and Zeijlstra 2012; Biberauer and Roberts 2013; Biberauer et al. 2014c). In the proposed model, for each grammatical category, Universal Grammar provides only two options for acquisition, summarized in (4): (4) either [F] or ([iF] + [uF]) Acquisition, thus, requires only one deciding procedure for a given feature F. However, under the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture, in principle this decision step has to be taken for each element of the functional lexicon, since feature specifications reside in the individual lexical items. Economy in the acquisition procedure is salvaged through the assumption of feature hierarchies (Biberauer and Roberts 2013, 2015a; Biberauer et al. 2014c) or feature schemata (Longobardi 2005; Gianollo et al. 2008). Feature hierarchies encode logical relations between features, which cause interdependencies between (clusters of) feature values. Feature hierarchies are also meant to represent learning algorithms, that is,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

118

 

parameter-setting procedures (where a parameter takes the form seen in (4)). Feature hierarchies are organized according to the level of pervasiveness that a certain decision procedure has with respect to the elements belonging to a given category (Biberauer and Roberts 2015a).⁴ The more pervasive a choice is, the more macroscopic its effects are on the grammar (hence, the difference between macroparameters, mesoparameters, microparameters, and nanoparameters proposed by Biberauer and Roberts 2015a). Let us exemplify how a parameter hierarchy of this kind works in the domain of negation (where F = Neg). The schematic procedure is proposed in (5), which is inspired by similar proposals in the literature (Zeijlstra 2004; Biberauer and Zeijlstra 2012; Biberauer and Roberts 2013): (5) A feature hierarchy for negation a. Are all elements of the negation system [Neg]? YES: the language is a Double Negation system NO: next step: question (b) b. Is the negative marker [iNeg]? YES: the language is a non-strict Negative Concord system NO: the language is a strict Negative Concord system The hierarchy in (5) is based on a number of assumptions. First, it rests on the hypothesis that there are only two types of featurally negative indefinites (cf. (2)): [Neg] indefinites (NIs) and [uNeg] indefinites (n-words).⁵ Counterevidence for this assumption has been claimed to be provided by the existence of [iNeg] indefinites in a variety of Afrikaans (Biberauer and Zeijlstra 2012) and by Old Low German (Breitbarth 2014): [iNeg] indefinites occur in Negative Concord systems, but they can co-occur only with the NM, and not with another [iNeg] indefinite, in the single-negation reading. I label this system ‘partial Concord’. In order to account for the existence of [iNeg] indefinites, the feature hierarchy in (5) will have to be expanded by adding a further decision step. This is shown in (6). (6) A feature hierarchy for negation a. Are all elements of the negation system [Neg]? YES: the language is a Double Negation system NO: next step: question (b)

⁴ Biberauer and Roberts (2015a) propose that feature hierarchies are organized according to a universal ‘no > all > some’ pattern. The starting question for acquisition is thus: ‘Is [F] present in the system?’ Since negation is universal, this question receives a default answer for negation, and I did not include it in the feature hierarchy in (5). ⁵ Negative polarity items are not relevant here, since they are not featurally negative, but see Section 6.4 on how they interact with the syntax of negation.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

     

119

b. Is the negative marker [iNeg]? YES: the language is a non-strict Negative Concord system NO: next step: question (c) c. Are indefinites in the negation system [iNeg]? YES: the language is a partial Concord system NO: the language is a strict Negative Concord system Second, the hierarchy (in both its versions (5) and (6)) assumes that all indefinites belonging to the negation system behave alike, that is, that there is no nanoparametric setting (relative to the individual lexical item). This assumption probably needs to be relaxed, since we know that class membership is fluid and that cyclical historical processes target items belonging to the negation system, so it is expected that certain elements will behave differently at some stage (cf. the studies in Willis et al. 2013 for rich exemplification). However, we know of no language where, say, the negative item for ‘nobody’ substantially differs in its featural endowment from the negative item for ‘nothing’.⁶ Thus, it seems legitimate to assume that learning strategies skew the distribution of parameter values towards a less costly system, where the same value extends to a functionally similar class of items. This is the underlying criterion motivating the existence of a ‘series’ of pronouns and determiners in natural languages, such as those analysed by Haspelmath (1997) (a series being characterized as a sort of paradigm comprising elements for a number of ontological categories, such as person ‘nobody’, place ‘nowhere’, time ‘never’). The adopted system complies with the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture in attributing the source of variation to the elements of the functional lexicon. At the same time, however, variation is constrained by the possible combinations of such functional elements in a system of interactions. That is, there is a tendency for some more ‘homogeneous’ types to be more frequent (e.g. all elements in the system are [Neg]; all elements in the system are [uNeg]). Parametric hierarchies, such as the one proposed above, try to account for this, by positing an aquisition algorithm that favours universal choices, that is, a homogeneous setting for all items belonging to a given grammatical module. This results in parametric choices with a broader impact on the grammatical system of a language than the attribution of features to an individual element of the lexicon.

⁶ This is not to say that these elements will not differ at all in their syntactic behaviour: for instance, in Standard French the word for ‘nothing’, rien, behaves differently from the word for ‘nobody’, personne, since rien may move to a higher clausal position (Kayne 1975). However, this is plausibly not a consequence of the item’s specification in terms of negative features.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

120

 

6.2.2 Diachronic consequences The model of variation outlined above has far-reaching consequences for our understanding of language change: it allows for micro-variation, and hence for micro-changes naturally occurring in language use and affecting individual lexical items, while at the same time incorporating a potential mechanism of systemic change, that is, analogical learning. A question that emerges at this point is what kind of evidence cues the answers to the questions posed in the feature hierarchy during language acquisition. An answer to this question is obviously relevant for our understanding of change, since it points to those aspects of the primary data that are prone to reanalysis if their surface distribution varies at some point. It has been argued that redundancy plays a crucial role in the choice between a [Neg] and a [iNeg]–[uNeg] system. According to Zeijlstra’s (2004, 2008, 2014) analysis, it is the lack of one-to-one correspondence between morphosyntactic expression and semantic interpretation that guides the learner towards assuming that formal features for a given category must be present in the system. Morphosyntactic redundancy phenomena, such as those observed in Negative Concord languages, lead to the assumption that they arise because of a syntactic Agree operation establishing a relation between a [iF] and one or more [uF].⁷ The hypothesis that morphosyntactic redundancy leads to the assumption of formal features can be framed within a more general emergentist approach to syntactic features (cf., e.g., Biberauer et al. 2014b, 2014c), according to which formal features are not predetermined, but are posited in language acquisition on the basis of specific types of positive evidence. If the learner sees no redundancy in the expression of negation, she will assume semantic features [Neg] for the elements of the system, that is, a direct mapping between the phonological component and the logical form with respect to the presence of a negation operator (not necessarily with respect to its scope, since the operator may scope higher than its surface position; cf. Zeijlstra 2004). Formal features are the Agree-inducing counterpart of semantic features, emerging in the case of morphosyntactic redundancy. A principle of Feature Economy drives their acquisition and may result in diachronic reanalysis, in case of ambiguity in the primary data: (7) Feature Economy (as formulated in van Gelderen 2015: 52): a. Utilize semantic features: use them as functional categories, i.e. as formal features. b. If a specific feature appears more than once, one of these is interpretable and the others are uninterpretable. ⁷ The exact mechanism is a matter of debate: Zeijlstra (2004, 2008) assumes simultaneous Multiple Agree; Haegeman and Lohndal (2010) propose, instead, multiple applications of binary Agree.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

     

121

The principle in (7) captures the idea seen above that concord phenomena (form/meaning mismatches) are crucial cues for assuming (pairs of ) formal features during language acquisition (Zeijlstra 2014). Besides morphosyntactic redundancy, other phenomena can represent a cue for assuming a syntactic dependency, and thus, a [iF]–[uF] pair, during acquisition. Biberauer (2016) lists, among others expletives, empty categories, multifunctionality, movement. I will argue, on the basis of my analysis of Latin negation, that positional evidence (comprising movement) also acts as an acquisition trigger for negative functional features. Positional evidence comprises the cases where a given operation at the syntax– semantics interface must be consistently signalled in a precise area of the clause. In the case of negation, this happens when, in order to have a sentential negation interpretation, the formally negative material must be found in a fixed syntactic phase. This is the case in Negative Concord systems, but not in Double Negation systems. Hence, the pair of [iF]–[uF] formal features is assumed for the former, but not for the latter. In the case of Romance Negative Concord, this amounts to the requirement that the negative operator be overtly realized in the CP–TP phase (i.e. in the preInfl area). In Double Negation systems, such as German or Classical Latin, on the other hand, there is no such positional constraint: the presence of a [Neg] element in any area of the clause (that is, also in the ν/VP phase) is sufficient to insert a negative operator, which will obtain sentential scope at LF. The hypothesis that Negative Concord is connected to a more fixed position for operations at the syntax–semantics interface is directly connected with the assumption that the presence of formal features in the system results in the projection of functional categories (Zeijlstra 2004 and subsequent work). Languages with a [iF]– [uF] pair (that is, languages with strict or non-strict Negative Concord systems) activate a functional projection NegP, where the NM is inserted. In the case of Romance Negative Concord, the negative operator must be overtly realized in the CP–TP phase in all structures expressing sentential negation; this operation is carried out either by means of the NM inserted in the NegP projection or by means of an n-word in the CP–TP phase. A NM (the [iNeg] NM of non-strict Negative Concord systems or the [uNeg] NM of strict ones) triggers the insertion of a negative operator in NegP. The presence of an n-word ([uNeg] indefinite) above NegP triggers the insertion of a negative operator (through an abstract [iNeg] licenser) in a higher position c-commanding the n-word.⁸ An n-word in the ν/VP area (i.e. in the area of the

⁸ If the NM carries [iNeg], it cannot co-occur with a hierarchically superior n-word in the CP–TP phase in a single-negation reading: this would amount to the insertion of two [iNeg] elements in the CP–TP phase, and hence to the presence of two negative operators in the semantic component. This derives the difference between strict and non-strict Negative Concord systems according to the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

122

 

clause below the inflected verb) is not sufficient to identify the NegP projection and needs to establish a syntactic dependency with an overt element in the CP–TP phase (the NM or an n-word). This is exemplified by the Italian structures in (8): (8) Italian, non-strict Negative Concord a. Gianni non ha comprato nessun libro [CP Gianni [NegP noniNeg [TP ha [VP comprato [DP nessunuNeg libro]]]]] ‘Gianni did not buy any book’ b. *Gianni ha comprato nessun libro To summarize, the proposal is that in Double Negation systems, where all elements are [Neg], there is no special position in the syntax where the negative operator obligatorily has to be realized, as there is no active NegP projection (and scope is set at LF). The NM is an adverb that has a fixed locus of Merge in the proximity of a verbal projection, and NIs are found in argumental, quantificational, or adverbial positions that are in principle independent of their negative function.⁹ In Negative Concord systems, due to the [iNeg]–[uNeg] pair, there is a special syntactic location for the negative operator, that is, the CP–TP phase; every featurally negative element in the clause has to enter an Agree relation with an [iNeg] item in the CP–TP phase, with or without movement, and the negative operator has to be overtly realized in the CP–TP phase. Morphosyntactic redundancy in Negative Concord systems is the manifestation of a (clause-bound, but nonetheless longer-distance) dependency with a NegP projection or with a higher [iNeg] licenser. This dependency creates not only morphosyntactic evidence (in the form of doubling phenomena), but also positional evidence, since if a NegP is grammaticalized, the negative operator has to be realized in a precise area of the clause. In Section 6.3, we will see that positional evidence points to the grammaticalization of a NegP already at the Late Latin stage, despite the lack of morphosyntactic redundancy. I will argue that this change represents the prerequisite for the Negative Concord grammars of the Romance languages.

typology in (2): in strict systems the NM carries [uNeg] and, therefore, co-occurs with hierarchically superior n-words; all the elements of the [uNeg] chain are licensed by a covert [iNeg] item. ⁹ This is not to say that they cannot be subject to scope-related displacement at all: cf. the literature cited in note 21, and the observations on negative medial adjunct PPs in English by De Clercq et al. (2012). As for the position of the NM, replying to a comment of one anonymous reviewer, one could argue that the cartographic sentence structure designates a Merge position for the NM, but this position is inactive for further syntactic computation related to negation.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

     

123

6.3 Feature reanalysis from Classical to Late Latin 6.3.1 The Double Negation system of Classical Latin In Section 6.2, where I laid out the theoretical foundations of my analysis, my starting point has been Zeijlstra’s (2004, 2011, 2014) influential model of the syntax–semantics interface in the domain of negation. This synchronic model has proved very fruitful for historical research as well, because it allows for some important generalizations concerning form, directionality, and cyclicity of diachronic phenomena affecting negation, as already shown by Zeijlstra (2004) himself for the history of Dutch. In this section I build on the synchronic analysis of the syntax of Latin negation in Gianollo (2016, 2018) and I argue that this analysis enables a parsimonious account of the diachronic path leading to the Early Romance system(s), according to the predictions emerging from Zeijlstra’s typology of negation systems. The Classical Latin negation system has been thoroughly analysed from a semantic and pragmatic point of view (Orlandini 2001; Devine and Stephens 2013), much less so in a syntactic perspective. The aspect that distinguishes it most from the Romance languages is its Double Negation nature: in Latin, each negatively marked element corresponds to an intepreted negation, and negatively marked pronouns (e.g. nemo ‘nobody’, nullus ‘no’; see (9a)) and adverbs (e.g. numquam ‘never’; see (9b)) can negate a clause by themselves, independently of their position. In particular, (9c) shows that a post-verbal negative indefinite is not accompanied by a (preverbal) NM, unlike what happens in the Romance Negative Concord systems:¹⁰ (9) a. Verbum nullum word: no: ‘He said no words’ b. uxorem numquam wife: never ‘I never had a wife’

fecit make:3 (Plaut. Bacch. 982) habui have:1 (Ter. Ad. 42)

c. Heu me miseram! habeo neminem, solae sumus oh me: miserable: have:1 nobody: alone: be:1 ‘Oh dear! I don’t have anybody, we are alone’ (Ter. Ad. 290–1)

¹⁰ Examples are cited according to the editions used in the Brepols Library of Latin Texts (LLT-A, http://apps.brepolis.net/BrepolisPortal/default.aspx), on which I carried out my corpus study. Translations are adapted from the Loeb Classical Library (https://www.loebclassics.com).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

124

 

I take the Latin inflected finite verb to be in TP, which is head-final in Classical Latin (Polo 2004; Devine and Stephens 2006: 183; Danckaert 2012, 2017a; compare Ledgeway 2012: 255–8 and Danckaert 2017a for discussion of variation in Classical Latin). The predominantly Infl-final nature of Latin is responsible for the fact that most adverbial and argumental phrases end up preceding the verb, as in (9a, b). In the Classical Latin system, VO orders (as in (9c)) may structurally arise in a number of ways (see Danckaert 2017a: ch. 3 for thorough discussion), but what is important for my argument is their linearization: N(egative) I(ndefinites) may be linearized in a post-Infl position without causing doubling phenomena. When multiple negatively marked expressions co-occur, the two negations cancel each other out (=Double Negation). These constructions are typically motivated by special rhetorical effects.¹¹ (10) Non mentiar, si dixero neminem non amare beneficia sua not lie:1 if say:1 nobody: not love: benefit: his: ‘I shall not be guilty of misstatement if I say that everyone takes delight in the benefits he does’ (lit. ‘no one does not love’) (Sen. Ben. 4.15.2) The Latin NM and the negatively marked indefinites are, thus, semantically negative: according to the featural typology in (2), all elements in the negation system carry a [Neg] feature, and negatively marked indefinites are N(egative) I(ndefinites). Accordingly, given what we said in Section 6.2, no NegP is projected in Classical Latin. I adopt Zeijlstra’s (2011) analysis for NIs, according to which the lexical entry of NIs is syntactically complex and can be decomposed into two elements: a negative operator Op¬ and an indefinite ∃, spelled out as a single unit but able to take scope independently at LF. Latin NIs are still etymologically transparent enough to show their morphosyntactically complex nature: (11) Internal structure of Latin NIs a. nemo ‘nobody’: [Op¬ ne- [∃ homo ] ] (homo = ‘man’) b. nullus ‘no’: [Op¬ ne- [∃ ullus ] ] (ullus = ‘any’, from unulus, diminutive of ‘one’) As for the NM nōn, its position in the clause is very clearly determined: it always precedes the finite verb, as in (12a), and analytical forms (most clearly the perfective forms of passive and deponent verbs, which use the auxiliary ‘be’; see (12b)) confirm

¹¹ A different order of the two negative elements yields double negation, but with different effects (cf. Ernout and Thomas 1953: 153): the order N(egative) I(ndefinite) > NM seen in (10) yields an emphatic positive statement; the order NM > NI yields, on the other hand, a mitigated assertion, which may result in a lexicalized litotes, as in the case of nonnullus ‘some’, lit. ‘not-no’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

     

125

that the relevant projection in the extended verbal structure to which negation attaches is a position of the TP field, above the position of the auxiliary (Devine and Stephens 2006: 183; Danckaert 2012: 23). (12) a. fugientes non sequitur incendium flee:. not follow:3 fire: ‘A fire does not pursue the ones who flee from it’

(Sen. QNat. 6.1.6)

b. Romanus equitatus ipsum quidem regem Elatiae Roman: cavalry: himself: then king: Elatea: adsecutus non est reached: not be:3 ‘but the Roman cavalry did not overtake the king of Elatea himself ’ (Liv. 36.19.10) I analyse nōn as a phrasal adverb sitting in a specifier adjoined to a projection in the TP-area, above the landing site for the inflected verb. I follow Danckaert’s (2012: 310–13, 2017a) analysis for the TP-final surface order of Latin, based on the typology of EPP satisfaction in Biberauer and Roberts (2005): Classical Latin satisfies the EPP requirement of TP by moving the (remnant) ν/VP to the specifier of a projection FP in the split-TP area. FP has to be higher than the Merge position for negation (which I label as Op¬P in (13)). This yields TP-final word orders, assuming independent V-to-T movement in synthetic forms, and derives the position of the NM between the lexical verb and the auxiliary in analytic forms. (13) [FP[EPP] [VP S O V] [F0 [TP Op¬P [T0 tVP ] ] ] ] The example in (12b) is analysed accordingly in (14): (14)

Structure for example (12b)

CP FP [S O V]V P i TP equitatus regem adsecutus Op¬P non T0 est

T′ VP ti

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

126

 

According to this analysis, we see a continuity between the position of nōn and the position of the Romance NMs derived from nōn:¹² in both Latin and the standard Romance languages, the NM immediately precedes the position where the inflected verb lands and may be separated from it only by pronominal clitics (Zanuttini 1997; Parry 2013; Longobardi 2014; Poletto 2016).¹³ In the unmarked orders, the NM immediately precedes the finite verb. But the NM enjoys a certain syntactic independence from the verbal projections, and it can occur in a higher detached position in emphatic constructions; in these cases, nōn is typically clause-initial and separated from the verb by one or more constituents, as in (15).¹⁴ In the example, the co-occurrence of the minimizer buccam panis ‘a mouthful of bread’ confirms the emphatic nature of the construction. The position where the NM lands is arguably a Focus projection in the CP area (on which, see Section 6.4). (15) Non mehercules hodie buccam panis inuenire potui not by.Hercules today mouthful: bread: find: can:1 ‘I swear I could not get hold of a mouthful of bread today’ (Petron. Sat. 44.1) This behaviour shows the ability of nōn to move independently of the verbal projection, and is one piece of evidence for its XP status. The syntactic autonomy of nōn is also evidenced by the fact that it counts as a ‘full word’ for secondposition phenomena and can itself host prosodically weak elements, such as forms of esse ‘to be’ (Adams 1994; Spevak 2010: 16). Further evidence comes from elliptical constructions.¹⁵ The first relevant cases are represented by ‘why not?’ constructions, taken by Merchant (2006) as diagnostics of the XP-status of the NM in a language; only XP negators can adjoin to XP adverbials like ‘why’; hence, languages whose NM is a head, like Italian, will resort to another adverbial; consider Italian perché no? / *perché non? (where no is a holophrastic answer particle) vs French pourquoi pas? with XP pas. The language of Latin comedy (third–second centuries ) shows that nōn could

¹² Overall, standard Romance languages show a remarkable pertinacity in the form and position of the plain (i.e. not informationally marked) NM, which continues Latin nōn (cf. Poletto 2016: 834). ¹³ A is well known, besides these conservative aspects of the standard Romance languages, a lot of innovative variation is to be observed in the Romance linguistic space with respect to the form and the position of the NM; cf. Zanuttini (1997) and Poletto (2016). My point here is simply to show that some aspects of the syntax of the Romance continuations of nōn may be argued as preserving more directly the Latin situation. ¹⁴ This generalization covers the uses of nōn as a sentential negation. But nōn is also employed as a constituent negation and appears in a number of pragmatically marked constructions; these focussensitive uses of the particle are not relevant for the present discussion. ¹⁵ Cf. Gianollo (2018: 183–8) for a more thorough discussion. The classical test relating to verb movement, whereby if the NM were a head, it would block V-to-C movement, cannot safely be applied to Latin because a different NM nē, with the distribution of a complementizer, is used in prohibitions, i.e. the clearest potential case of V-to-C.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

     

127

occur in the ‘why not’ configuration, as in (16a), as well as in similar elliptical structures where, for example, Italian would require the alternative phrasal realization no, as in (16b). (16) a. A: tibi ego credam? B: quor non? A: quia . . . A: you: I: believe:1 B: why not? A: because A: ‘Should I believe you?’ B: why not? A: because . . . ’ (Plaut. Pseud. 318) b. Vel adest uel non. either be.present:3 or not ‘Either he is present or he is not’

(Plaut. Mil. 1019)

As discussed in Gianollo (2018), the fact that nōn is also the source for Romance XP forms like Italian no and French non indirectly attests to its XP status during a historically attested stage of Latin. At all stages of Latin, nōn can be used as a negative short answer to a question (cf. (17)), another context where Romance languages require the XP version.¹⁶ (17) A: ‘venitne homo ad te?’ B: ‘Non!’ A: ‘Has the man come to you?’ B: ‘No!’

(Plaut. Pseud. 1066–7)

From a historical point of view, assuming an XP status for nōn is coherent with its recent grammaticalization status, archaic texts still witness the original form noenum, deriving from the univerbation of *ne—inherited from Indo-European and visible also in the form of the NIs; see (11)— and a (possibly adverbial) form of the cardinal numeral unus, with the function of scalar minimum (compare the etymological origin of German nein; Fruyt 2011: 708–23 is a recent exhaustive description of Latin noenum). In Section 6.3.2 we will see that the phrasal status of nōn plays a crucial role in the proposed reconstruction of the historical process taking place from Classical Latin Double Negation to Romance Negative Concord. To summarize this section, I have proposed that in Classical Latin the NM nōn is an adverbial XP in a specifier attached to a projection in the TP-area, above the landing site for the inflected verb. Negative Indefinites always result in the insertion of a negative operator, independently of position. All the elements belonging to the negation system show a one-to-one match between morphosyntactic expression and semantic insertion of an operator; this means that no formal

¹⁶ The preferred answer structure, however, involves repetition of the predicate, according to a well known typological parameter (Holmberg 2001). See Brown et al. (2009) for a description of the Latin question–answer system.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

128

 

features for negation are present in the system and, consequently, no NegP is activated.

6.3.2 Feature reanalysis in Late Latin As introduced at the end of Section 6.3.1, the origin of the NM nōn as a reinforced form of negation is still observable in early texts. This evidence clarifies the status of nōn in the context of Jespersen’s Cycle. More specifically, Classical Latin nōn represents the final stage of the cycle involving the original Indo-European particle *ne. In Classical Latin, nōn has lost its original emphatic nature and functions as a plain marker of negation (although, as seen in (15), it can still access positions reserved for emphatic negation).¹⁷ My proposal is that in Late Latin (starting from the third to the fourth centuries ) a new round of Jespersen’s Cycle is triggered: the plain NM nōn undergoes a structural reduction from XP to X⁰; this complies with a well-known preference for structural reduction in language acquisition (Spec-to-Head). The phrasestructural reduction is connected, in turn, with a featural reanalysis: the NM acquires formal negation features (since it projects its own functional projection); more specifically it becomes featurally specified as [iNeg] (as in Romance nonstrict Negative Concord systems). This is a manifestation of the tendency, seen in (7), to reanalyse semantic features as functional categories, that is, as formal features. The preverbal NM with X⁰ status is transmitted to Romance (where preverbal continuations of nōn are consistently heads). This new round of Jespersen’s Cycle is continued by the various Romance languages that grammaticalize post-verbal negation reinforcers (the most obvious example being Standard French, but see Zanuttini 1997; Parry 2013; and Poletto 2016 for the frequency of the phenomenon in non-standard varieties). The proposal is motivated by a central generalization concerning the syntactic status of the NM (observed by Jespersen 1917 and explicitly formulated by Rowlett 1998 and Zeijlstra 2004) that emerges from comparative work on negation systems; there exists a clear connection between the phrasal status of the NM (i.e. its being an X⁰ or an XP) and its syntactic behaviour (Jacobs 1991: 573–4). An NM with head status is part of the inflectional complex of the verb and projects its own functional category; in the model we are following this means that the presence of an X⁰ NM necessarily coincides with the presence of an activated NegP, and that the NM is endowed with formal negative features ([iNeg], or [uNeg], in the case where the licenser is an empty category). A phrasal NM, on the

¹⁷ In Classical Latin, means of negation strengthening are represented, for example, by adverbs like minime ‘not at all’, omnino ‘wholly’, numquam ‘never’, adverbial nihil ‘not at all’, by the use of NPIs in argument function, and by employing focus-sensitive negation particles, on which, see Section 6.4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

     

129

other hand, may either be endowed with formal features and occupy the specifier of NegP or be a semantically negative element with adverbial distribution and attach to a verbal projection. Accordingly, the following prediction arises: NMs with an X⁰ status are necessarily connected with a Negative Concord grammar, that is, with the activation of a NegP projection (Zeijlstra 2011: 136). In my reconstruction, the beginning of a new Jespersen’s Cycle involving the structural and featural reanalysis of nōn is connected to the more general reorganization of the clause witnessed by Late Latin and convincingly analysed by Danckaert (2014, 2017a) as due to a change in the mechanism of EPP-satisfaction. The ν/VP movement seen in Classical Latin (due to EPP-satisfaction by the highest DP accompanied by pied-piping of the remnant ν/VP) is substituted by verb-based EPP-satisfaction in later Latin (starting in the post-Classical Latin of the first centuries ). As a consequence, the arguments start to move separately; the νP remains in situ, resulting in the decline of OV orders (and of Infl-final orders).¹⁸ According to Danckaert (2017a: 242–52), this is connected to a reanalysis of the NM as a proclitic, triggering T-to-Neg head movement of the verb.¹⁹ Empirically, my proposal that in Late Latin the NM becomes an X⁰ and is reanalysed as the [iNeg] head of a NegP mainly rests on positional evidence, of the kind discussed in Section 6.2.2. This positional evidence correlates in interesting ways with the shift from OV to VO happening from Latin to Romance. Since at the Late Latin stage no systematic morphosyntactic redundancy evidence is observable (but see Section 6.4 for discussion), the cue for the presence of an activated NegP must come from the positional requirement that the projection be overtly identified in a specific area of the clause in every configuration involving sentential negation. This can be done either by inserting the NM as the head of the projection NegP or by moving the NIs there. I believe that this is the reason why NIs in Late Latin consistently display an OV syntax, despite the VO grammar gaining ground (see recently Spevak 2010; Ledgeway 2012: 225–35). In a late text belonging to Christian literature like the Itinerarium Egeriae (fourth century ), the VO pattern is found in 72.8 per cent of the main active declarative clauses (data collected according to the SSWL criteria by Giovanni Pairotti). In this and in stylistically similar texts of around the same time, NIs are almost without exception placed before the inflected verb, even more consistently so than in Early and Classical Latin, where they could be found post-verbally.

¹⁸ Importantly, Danckaert (2017a) shows at length that the decline of OV is not obviously connected to a decrease in frequency, which, in the type of texts and configurations considered by Danckaert, is not observable. I refer the reader to Danckaert’s book for the precise arguments. Note that my corpus contains Biblical Latin and other Christian writings, where VO orders are indeed more frequent. ¹⁹ Consider, however, that for Danckaert (2012, 2017a) nōn is a (non-clitic) head already during the Classical Latin stage.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

130

 

The table in (18) shows the distribution of the relevant object forms of NIs in various periods (compare Gianollo 2018: 193 for the finer-grained data divided by author and lexical item):²⁰ (18)

Position of negative indefinite pronouns in direct object function P T./R.  OV VO O Early Latin Classical Latin Post-Classical Latin Late Latin

36/20 80/42 251/111 250/173

8 26 104 165

11 (55%) 13 (31%) 1 (0.9%) 6 (3,5%)

1 3 6 2

The general changes in the syntax of the clause, starting in the post-Classical age, lead to the loss of systematic object movement and to the reanalysis of residual movement operations: object NIs continue to move systematically because their movement is reanalysed as motivated by constraints relating to the expression of sentential negation.²¹ Note that, as shown by Gianollo (2018: 195), this distribution does not generalize to all quantificational elements alike: quantificational determiners like omnis ‘all’ or quisquam ‘any’ do not show a similar tendency towards preverbal positioning. In Gianollo (2018) I motivate the movement of NIs to the CP-TP area in Late Latin in terms of interpretational requirements, that is, in order to provide a reading where the negation operator conveyed by the NI takes sentential scope. The underlying assumption is that in a system where a NegP is activated (i.e. where a [iNeg] element exists), all elements conveying a negative operator with sentential scope must be visible in that position. Since the morphosyntactic doubling strategy is not (yet) available in Late Latin, the elements will have to move for semantic reasons. This way, the prerequisites for Negative Concord emerge: under the proposed analysis, Late Latin is a ‘concealed’ non-strict Negative Concord language. In the pre-Infl area the surface behaviour of non-strict Negative Concord systems and Double Negation languages overlaps, despite the different featural composition of the indefinite items: the elements belonging to the negation system are in the

²⁰ The corpus is composed of prose texts and partially metrical comedy and has been subdivided as follows: Early Latin: Plautus, Terence; Classical Latin: Cicero, Varro; Post-Classical Latin: Livy, Curtius Rufus, Vitruvius, Celsus, Petronius; Late Latin: Passio Perpetuae ac Felicitatis; Itinerarium Egeriae, Vulgata, Augustine, Orosius, Gregory of Tours. In the table the total number of accusative forms (T.) is followed by the relevant forms (Relev.), i.e. those featuring a finite verb and appearing in nonelliptical structures where their position with respect to the verb can be safely assessed. The column ‘other’ comprises accusative NIs in PPs. ²¹ The persistence of OV orders with negative objects during the shift from OV to VO is well known from the history of Germanic (Jónsson 1996; Svenonius 2000; Pintzuk and Taylor 2006) and Romance (cf. Poletto 2014).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

     

131

CP-TP area, and indefinites preceding the finite verb may not co-occur with the NM in a single-negation reading. Positional restrictions in the use of the ‘old’ negative indefinites in Late Latin ultimately lead to their obsolescence: Late Latin NIs are not reanalysed in their feature composition; being incompatible with a post-Infl position, nemo and nihil become exceptional in the new VO grammar. In the development towards Romance, they are ousted by new, more flexible products of grammaticalization (n-words and NPIs), as shown by the extensive lexical replacement in the domain of indefinites under negation taking place in Romance. This last point takes us to Section 6.4, where I investigate one of the diachronic processes leading to the grammaticalization of new indefinites belonging to the Romance negation systems.

6.4 The nec-words: grammaticalization and feature reanalysis 6.4.1 Morphosyntactic redundancy and Latin negation According to the reconstruction proposed in Section 6.3, the prerequisite for the change from a Double Negation to a Negative Concord system already obtains in Late Latin. It has been identified with the structural reduction undergone by the NM, which becomes a head, endowed with the [iNeg] feature, and projects NegP in the CP-TP area. In Late Latin, however, Negative Concord remains latent, in the sense that its main manifestation, morphosyntactic redundancy, is absent. The new Concord grammar is cued by positional evidence alone (the obligatory positioning of NIs in the CP-TP area), and the only element endowed with formal features is the [iNeg] NM. Non-interpretable counterparts, that is [uNeg] n-words yielding doubling phenomena due to the establishment of long-distance dependencies with NegP, are absent; as seen, as a rule NIs are never doubled, and only NPIs (e.g. quisquam, ullus ‘any’) may co-occur with the NM in a single-negation reading. However, there are phenomena taking place in Late Latin that also point to a systemic restructuring in this respect (Gianollo 2018: ch. 5). In this section, I will discuss how new [uNeg] indefinites are recruited into the negation system through the creation of new lexical items, which I will label nec-words for reasons that will become apparent below. The process I will describe is first completed in Early Romance, and yields results that are still observable in all Romance languages. In my account, its pan-Romance nature is accounted for by tracing its roots back to Late Latin. I will identify these roots with the focus-sensitivity of the negative particle nec and with the syntactic relation that it establishes with a Focus projection in the clausal left periphery. I will suggest that this focus-related dependency is reanalysed as a negation-related dependency (that is, as Negative Concord) in Early Romance.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

132

 

The proposed analysis also has consequences for our understanding of some well-known data concerning morphosyntactic redundancy with Latin negation, which in my opinion have not yet received a satisfactory analysis. The relevant data occur in emphatic constructions found in colloquial varieties, which sporadically show emphatic single-negation readings of two co-occurring negative elements. Such cases can already be found in Early Latin in the language of comedy (mimicking a spoken register); they almost disappear from Classical use to reappear again in later texts, especially those plausibly influenced by Greek (a Negative Concord language); see Ernout and Thomas (1953: 154–5) and Molinelli (1988). (19) a. Iura te non nociturum esse homini de swear:2 you: not hurt: be: man: because hac re nemini this matter no one: ‘swear that you won’t be obnoxious to anyone because of this matter’ (Plaut. Mil. 1411) b. debebat Epicrates nummum owe:3 Epicrates: coin: ‘Epicrates owed no one a penny’

nullum no:

nemini nobody: (Cic. Verr. 2.2.60)

Because of these data, the Double Negation nature of Classical Latin is often regarded with scepticism by historical linguists and treated as an artificial feature of the literary language, which would stop reflecting the actual linguistic behaviour of Latin speakers at a very early age (see Danckaert 2017a: 58–60; Hansen 2018). This interpretation downplays the macro-change leading from the negation system of Classical Latin to the Romance systems, since it basically proposes that ‘real’ Latin was already a Negative Concord system, like Romance. However, examples like those in (19) are very rare in our written record until a quite late period (eighth to ninth centuries ), when one can suspect that they originate as transfers from the Romance vernacular. Consider, moreover, that similar phenomena are attested for Double Negation systems of contemporary languages, such as, and are not necessarily signs of an evolving grammar. An analysis for Latin like that proposed in Section 6.3, which tries to account for the shift from Double Negation to Negative Concord in a parsimonious way, taking into consideration the actual textual data, seems to me a methodologically more sound option to account for the observed development. I do not want to say that morphosyntactic redundancy did not exist in Latin and did not play a role in the developments towards Romance. I argue, however, that the relevant set of data in this respect is not (19), which has clearly been overstated in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

     

133

previous research, but (20), which shows us the regular syntax of focus-inducing negation. (20) a. non enim praetereundum est ne id quidem not indeed overlook: be:3  this:  ‘and the following occurrence should not go unnoticed’ (Cic. Verr. 2.60) b. consilium mihi non deesset nec ad severitatem decision: me: not lack:3 and.not to strictness: nec ad diligentiam and.not to diligence: ‘I would not be in doubt, failing neither in strictness nor in pains’ (Cic. Att. 10.4.6) Focus-inducing negative markers like ne . . . quidem ‘also / even not’ (20a) and correlative neque . . . neque, nec . . . nec (20b) ‘neither . . . nor’ (as well as reiterated non, although more rarely) are characterized by the fact, acknowledged by traditional grammars (Ernout and Thomas 1953: 154–5), that they do not ‘disrupt’ negation (i.e. do not yield a double negation effect), but rather ‘continue’ and repeat it. More precisely, this happens when they are postponed to an NM or an NI in postverbal position. Ernout and Thomas (1953) see a relation between this phenomenon and the cases in (19). However, while cases like (19) do not belong to the standard grammar and are found rarely and only in specific registers, redundancy with postponed focus-inducing negation is systematic and happens across registers, that is, it is a rule of standard grammar. It is not by chance, I believe, that exactly one of these elements, the particle nec, is the negative morpheme appearing in all those new Romance n-words that are negatively marked. As is well known, in Romance n-words may have a positive origin (e.g. French personne, rien, Spanish nada); however, if they are morphologically negative, the negative marking originates from Latin nec: compare Old Italian niuno/neuno weak pron > clitic pron WAS [+stress] was [-stress] go się

It should be noted that Cetnarowska’s classification of się as a clitic is based on its ability to become a host for the auxiliary clitics. Otherwise, się displays the same distribution as go (see (5)). In Slavic, the distribution of clitics is more restricted: they must either be adjacent to a verb or occupy the second position of a clause. Weak pronouns are free from these restrictions. The scalar approach to distinct degrees of deficiency in (3), however, is essentially not contradictory of the bifurcating tripartite system in (2). That is, (3) can also be

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

142

    

elaborated into an asymmetric, bifurcate hierarchy with different distinctive features at each level, as represented in (4) from Jung (2017: 7): (4)

Pronouns [+stress] [-stress] Deficient 0 More Deficient strong pronoun [+morphology] [-morphology] Deficient 1 [+free distribution]

More Deficient [-free distribution]

Deficient 2

More Deficient = Deficient 3

weak pronoun

clitic

The deficiency hierarchy in (4) bears a diachronic implication since it corresponds to the grammaticalization cline in (1). Cardinaletti and Starke (1999: 37) identify strong and weak pronouns as XPs and clitics as X⁰s. In other words, the grammaticalization of strong pronouns to weak pronouns and then to clitics is a diachronic shift of XP to X⁰. The hierarchy in (4) provides an even finer description of the grammaticalization path by establishing more intermediate stages, which contribute to explaining synchronic variations of Slavic pronouns from a diachronic perspective in the rest of this chapter.

7.2.2.2 Syntactic properties of weak pronouns In general, weak pronouns present an intermediate stage between clitics and strong pronouns. Their characteristics are detailed in Cardinaletti and Starke (1999); here we focus on a few of their properties that differentiate them from pronominal clitics, using Polish data.² In comparison to pronominal clitics in South Slavic, weak pronouns are more mobile and typically display characteristics of XP-nominals. For instance, they exhibit more robust scrambling possibilities. As shown in (5a), weak pronouns in Polish may occupy virtually any position in the structure as long as they are not clause-initial. They also avoid the clause-final position, unless a sentence consists of just one other constituent and the final position is the only one available (see (5b)). (5)

a. (*Go) często (go) spotykam him often him meet.1 ‘I often meet him on the street.’

(go) him

na on

ulicy street

b. Spotykam go. ‘I meet him (regularly).’ (Spencer 1991: 367–8) ² See Rappaport (1988), Witkoś (1998), Franks and King (2000), and Cetnarowska (2003) for a more in-depth analysis.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

143

Unlike pronominal clitics in South Slavic, where the dative clitic must precede the accusative clitic, weak pronouns permit both - and - orders (see (6)), though the former may be more common. Cetnarowska (2003) suggests that the choice of a particular order depends on information structure requirements. (6)

Jan w końcu go jej /jej Jan in end it her her ‘Jan eventually returned it to her.’

go/ it

oddał. lend..

Furthermore, they do not need to be adjacent either to an element of a specific category (such as a verb) or to other pronominal forms (see (7)). (7)

Jan mu wczoraj chciał go wypożyczyć Jan him yesterday want.. it lend nie sprzedać. not sell ‘Jan wanted to lend it to him rather than sell it yesterday.’

a and

A weak pronoun, that is, Deficient 2, shares with Deficient 1 relative syntactic freedom, which distinguishes it from Deficient 3 (clitics). In Section 7.3, we will show diachronic trends of morphologically reduced pronominal forms to gain syntactic freedom in Slavic, which indicates a shift of clitics (Deficient 3) to weak pronouns (Deficient 2). We will also demonstrate that unstressed full pronouns (Deficient 1) are degrammaticalized into stressed full pronouns (Deficient 0) in Old Russian. Both changes will be shown to instantiate a head-to-phrase shift (degrammaticalization).

7.2.3 Tense and clitic typology The typology of pronominal forms attested in Slavic strictly correlates with the typology of tense distinctions. As will be shown in subsequent sections, the Slavic languages with independent morphological exponents of tense are the only ones with verb-adjacent clitics. In the other languages, clitics target second position (2P), which, as we argue, may be an intermediate stage in their reanalysis as weak pronouns.

7.2.3.1 Tense typology As is well known, Slavic languages explicitly mark verb forms for aspect. The marking affects both finite and non-finite verbs and usually occurs via prefixation. As a result, virtually all verbs form aspectual pairs, with one member of the pair specified for perfective and the other for imperfective aspect, as exemplified in (8) for Polish.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

144

    

(8)

pisać write.

/

napisać write.

In contrast to the aspect system, the tense system of most Slavic languages is less robust. Designated tense morphology exists only in Bulgarian and Macedonian. Both languages have past tenses, aorist and imperfect, which additionally specify aspectual information, with aorist characterizing completed events and imperfect describing background or incomplete actions. In Bulgarian, aorist and imperfect can be combined with both perfective and imperfective aspect forms. They are exemplified in the table in (9) for the verb četa ‘read’, following Rivero and Slavkov (2014: 235). (9)

Tense and aspect forms in Bulgarian /





3 

čete

pročete

3 

četeše/pročitaše

pročeteše

3  

e čel/e četjal/e pročital e pročel

As the table in (9) shows, Bulgarian permits combinations of apparently contradictory tense and aspect values, such as the perfective imperfect and the imperfective aorist. These combinations produce special meanings, which are approximated in the English translations in (10). (10)

a. Včera četox knigata yesterday read.1. book-the ‘I was reading the book yesterday.’ (aorist, imperfective aspect) b. Vseki dan, pročetjax edna kniga every day read.1. one book ‘I used to read a whole book every day.’ (imperfect tense, perfective aspect)

Macedonian also uses aorist and imperfect but its tense system is less complex. Aorist is restricted to verbs marked for perfective aspect, whereas imperfect is the usual past tense for imperfective verbs. A fact that will be important for the analysis of the degrammaticalization of pronouns in this chapter is that the simplification of the tense system in Macedonian is a recent innovation. Friedman (2002: 267) shows that until the middle of the twentieth century, aorist verbs could be marked for imperfective aspect. We assume that the fact that such combinations are not possible indicates that tense and aspect are no longer completely independent systems in Macedonian.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

145

Apart from the simple tenses, aorist and imperfect, Bulgarian and Macedonian use a complex present perfect tense formed with the clitic form of the auxiliary ‘be’ and the l-participle as the main verb. (11)

Marlon e pročel Marlon is read.. ‘Marlon has read the book.’

(Bg)

knigata book-the

The remaining Slavic languages have virtually lost aorist and imperfect, and the structures corresponding to the one in (11), exemplified in (12) for SerboCroatian, are used as the default past tense. čitao (12) Marlon je Marlon is read.. ‘Marlon has read the book.’

knjigu book

By means of comparison with Bulgarian, the table in (13) lists tense forms found in Serbo-Croatian for the imperfective verb praviti ‘to make’ and its perfective variant napraviti (see Todorović 2015). Although the table contains aorist and imperfect variants, they are not used to describe past events on a par with the corresponding forms in Bulgarian and Macedonian; moreover, unlike in Bulgarian, only perfective variants of aorist and imperfective variants of imperfect are possible. As will be shown below, the usage of the past forms is highly restricted, and their meanings are not necessarily related to past temporality. (13)

Tense and aspect forms in Serbo-Croatian /





3 

pravi ‘he/she makes’

(on) napravi ‘he/she makes’

3 

—

napravi ‘he/she made it’

3 

pravljaše ‘he/she was making’

—

3  II

bude pravio ‘he will make’

bude napravio ‘he will have made’

3 

pravio je ‘he has done’

napravio je ‘he has made it’

3 

bio je napravljao bio je napravio he had been making’ ‘he had made it’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

146

    

Thus, although the table in (13) features aorist and imperfect variants of verbs, their usage is highly restricted and not necessarily related to past events. For instance, Todorović (2015) points out that aorist forms are used to describe habitual ((14a)) or even future actions ((14b)). (14)

a. Ne diraj mi kompjuter – ti pokvari sve not touch me computer you break.2 all što dotakneš that touch.2 ‘Don’t touch my computer—you break everything you handle!’ b. Nema nam spasa, pomrijesmo od gladi! not+has us salvation die.1 from hunger ‘We can’t be saved—we will starve to death.’(Riđanović 2012: 316–17)

Furthermore, Todorović (2015) observes that aorist highlights aspectual properties rather than temporal ones, such as the completeness of an event or its punctuality. In view of this, she concludes that aorist is a type of aspect, rather than tense in Serbo-Croatian. In the other Slavic languages, the simple past tenses are completely extinct. East Slavic languages even lost the auxiliary verb byti ‘to be’ and express the past tense only by l-participle forms.

7.2.3.2 Clitic typology The typological division of Slavic languages into those with and without designated tense morphology ties in with their cliticization systems. Thus, on the one hand, the two Slavic languages with overt tense exponents, Bulgarian and Macedonian, have verb-adjacent clitics, which may not be separated from the verb by any intervening material (see (15a)), but do not need to target 2P (see (15b)). (15)

a. Vera mi go (*včera) Vera me it yesterday ‘Vera gave it to me yesterday.’

dade gave

b. Včera Vera mi go dade.

(Bg, Franks 2010)

On the other hand, tense-less languages such as Czech, Serbo-Croatian, Slovak, and Slovenian have 2P clitics, which obligatorily occur after the clause-initial element, virtually irrespective of its category.³ This type of clitic distribution is illustrated in (16) for auxiliary and pronominal clitics in Serbo-Croatian. (16)

a. Mi smo mu je predstavili we are him her introduce.. ‘We introduced her to him yesterday.’

juče yesterday

³ Old East Slavic (Old Russian) had a well-established pronominal clitic system but it was lost in Modern East Slavic languages. We address the Old Russian clitic system in Section 7.3.2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

147

b. Juče smo mu je predstavili yesterday are him her introduce.. ‘Yesterday we introduced her to him.’ (S-C, Bošković 2001: 8–9) The Slavic languages that display these two cliticization patterns differ in a number of ways. For instance, only 2P clitics may be separated from each other. This is what Bošković (2001: 50) shows for clause-mate clitics in Serbo-Croatian, such as the auxiliary si, the dative clitic me, and the accusative clitic ih, which may be split from each other by a parenthetical (see (17a)). Bošković (2001: 189) further observes that, conversely, the splitting is excluded in Bulgarian (see (17b)). (17)

a. Ti si me, kao što sam već rekla, you are me as am already say lišio ih juče deprive them yesterday ‘You, as I already said, deprived me of them.’ (S-C, Bošković 2001: 60) b. *Te sa, kakto ti kazah, predstavili they are, as you told introduced gi na Petŭr them to Peter ‘They have, as I told you, introduced them to Peter.’ (Bg, Bošković 2001: 189)

Another type of environment in which clitics can be separated from each other in Serbo-Croatian involves VP-fronting, as noted by Ćavar (1999) and presented in (18a). Here the clause-mate pronominal clitic ga can be split from the auxiliary clitic su located outside the fronted VP. By contrast, Bošković (2001: 189) shows that a corresponding clitic separation is never possible in Bulgarian, as indicated in (18b). (18)

a. [Dali ga Mariji] su give.. it Marija are ‘Give it to Marija, Ivan and Stipe did.’ b. *[Celunala go] Maria kissed him Maria ‘Kissed him, Maria has.’

Ivan i Stipe Ivan and Stipe (S-C, Bošković 2001: 88)

e is (Bg, Bošković 2001: 189)

Bošković (2001) argues that these facts demonstrate that, unlike verb-adjacent clitics, 2P clitics do not form a cluster and that they do not target a single syntactic projection. Further evidence for this argumentation provided by other types of data is given in Migdalski (2016).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

148

    

In his recent work, Bošković (2016) deduces the contrast by postulating a generalization which says that 2P clitic systems are available only in languages without articles. However, this generalization does not capture the diachronic development from a verb-adjacent to a 2P clitic system that occurred in Slavic in languages such as Serbo-Croatian. This development did not coincide with a modification of the DP/NP layers but rather, as will be shown below, with the decline of morphological tense marking. Furthermore, both Old Church Slavonic and Old Serbian exhibit Left Branch Extraction, which is typical of DP-less languages.

7.3 Clitics and tense in Slavic diachronically Migdalski (2013, 2016) and Jung and Migdalski (2015) establish a diachronic correlation between the type of cliticization and the availability of tense morphology. Their detailed empirical observations are to be found in their respective work; here we provide the general observations.

7.3.1 South and West Slavic 7.3.1.1 The Old South and West Slavic clitic system Diachronically, in the oldest Slavic relics the verb-adjacent placement of pronominal clitics predates 2P cliticization. It has been reported by Radanović-Kocić (1988) and Pancheva (2005) for Old Church Slavonic (OCS) that pronominal clitics are predominantly verb-adjacent, as shown for the dative clitic mi in (19a) and for the accusative clitic tę in (19b). (19)

a. Ěže sõtъ o[tь]ca moego vь tĕxъ dostoitъ mi byti which are father my in these be-proper me be ‘I had to be in my Father’s house?’ (Luke 2:49, Pancheva et al. 2007) b. Ašte desnaĕ tvoĕ rõka sъblažnĕetъ tę if right your hand sin.3 you ‘If your right hand causes you to sin . . . ’ (Matthew 5:30, Radanović-Kocić 1988: 154)

Although pronominal clitics are attested in 2P in OCS, especially when the clauseinitial element is a verb (and the clitics are as a consequence also verb-adjacent), Radanović-Kocić (1988) observes that only three clitics occur in 2P without exception: the question/focus particle li, the complementizer clitic bo, and the focus particle že, all of them encoding illocutionary force.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

      (20)

149

a. Približi bo sę crstvie nbskoe approach.3 because  kingdom heaven ‘For the kingdom of heaven is at hand . . . ’ (Matthew 3:2, Radanović-Kocić 1988: 152) b. Ašte li že ni i novõjõ razderetъ if Q  not also new tear ‘Or he will tear the new one . . . ’ (Luke 5: 36, Pancheva et al. 2007)

Radanović-Kocić (1988) notes for Old Serbian that although in the earliest relics the pronominal clitics are verb-adjacent, as in OCS, in later texts they gravitate towards 2P. This change is not uniform and is subject to dialectal variation. Migdalski (2016, 2018) observes that verb-adjacent pronominal cliticization is preserved the longest in those dialects that also retained tense morphology for the longest period of time, such as Montenegrin, which still uses aorist and which still featured verb-adjacent clitics in the eighteenth/nineteenth centuries. (21)

a. Ako iguman sakrivi mi . . . if prior does-wrong me ‘If the prior does me wrong . . . ’ (Mont, eighteenth/nineteenth century, Radanović-Kocić 1988: 166) b. Drugo ništa ne predstavljaju else nothing  represent ‘They are nothing else to me.’

mi me

c. Kći nebesna usliša mi molbu daughter heaven hear.3 me prayer ‘The daughter of the heavens heard my prayer.’ (Mont, nineteenth century, Migdalski 2018: 200) In the other dialects which lost tense morphology earlier, the timing of the change was different. Second-position clitics are already attested in sixteenth-century examples from a Croatian dialect of the Adriatic coast area (see (22a)) and in Bosnian texts from the seventeenth century (see (22b)).⁴

⁴ An anonymous reviewer points out that second-position pronominal clitics are already attested in the Charter of Kulin Ban, the oldest dated document from the Serbo-Croatian-Bosnian area, as in (i). (i) Tako mi B(ože) pomagai i help and thus me God ‘’So help me God and this holy gospel.’

sie this

s(ve)to holy

evanьđelie gospel (Bosnia, 1189)

According to the reviewer, examples such as (i) render doubtful the conclusion that second-position clitics are an innovation in the Serbo-Croatian area. However, example (i) contains an ethical dative, which uniformly occurs in second position in Slavic. Furthermore, the reviewer’s statement is challenged by the Old Serbian data analysed by Radanović-Kocić (1988: ch. 3), in which there are no accusative clitics located in second position unless they are also verb-adjacent.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

150 (22)

     a. Verom ti se mojom obetuju. swear.1 faith you REFL my ‘I swear to you by my faith.’ (Adriatic Coast, sixteenth century, Radanović-Kocić 1988: 165) b. Bog nam na pomoći budi. God us on help are.2 ‘May God help us.’ (Bosnia, seventeenth century, Radanović-Kocić 1988: 164)

Conversely, in Old Slovenian pronominal clitics shifted to 2P very early, as they are attested in the oldest Slovenian relic from the tenth to the eleventh centuries, The Freising Manuscripts. (23)

a. I0 vueruiú da mi ie na ʒem zuete běvši . . . and believe1 that me is on this world was.. ‘And I believe that, having been in this world . . . ’ b. paki se uztati na zodni den. Imeti mi ie sivuot. again REFL rise on judgment day have me is life ‘And to rise again on the day of judgement. I am to have life.’ (Migdalski 2016: 266)

The occurrence of the 2P clitics correlates with Vaillant’s (1966: 60) observation that the simple past tenses were lost early in Old Slovenian and in the earliest texts aorist was limited to certain verb forms. Migdalski (2013, 2016) and Jung and Migdalski (2015) capture the correlation between the presence of tense morphology and the availability of verb-adjacent pronominal cliticization by assuming (as in Osawa 1999 and Bošković 2012) that TP is not projected in all languages. T⁰ is the crucial projection for verb-adjacent cliticization, since it is the target of cliticization, as argued for by Kayne (1991). A potential derivation of verb-adjacent cliticization is given for Bulgarian in (24), with the pronominal clitics raising and adjoining to T⁰. (24)

a. Az im ja preporŭčvam. I them her recommend1 ‘I am recommending her to them.’ b. [TP Az [T i + < ja >j + T] . . . [VP V ti tj]]

This type of derivation is possible only in languages with overt tense morphology, which on our assumptions are the only ones projecting TP. Once T⁰ is lost, there is no suitable head for pronominal clitics to adjoin to and they raise to separate maximal projections. This property manifests in many syntactic contrasts between 2P and verb-adjacent cliticization mentioned in Section 7.2.3.2, which leads to the conclusion that whereas verb-adjacent clitics adjoin to a single head together with

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

151

the verb, 2P clitics do not form a single syntactic constituent and each of them targets a separate specifier above VP as an XP-element. The correlation between the presence/absence of T⁰ and the attraction of elements containing the D-feature to T⁰ is widely observed in languages. The V-to-T movement is the most important phenomenon in this respect (Todorović 2015), and we assume T⁰-attraction of verb-adjacent clitics to be another phenomenon motivated by the strong D-feature in T⁰. It is notable that verb-adjacent clitics, the V-to-T movement, and the utilization of synthetic past tense morphology co-vary in Slavic. For instance, Bulgarian maintains all of these properties, and West and East Slavic languages lack all of them. Serbo-Croatian appears in a transitional process: as mentioned in Section 7.2.3.1, Serbo-Croatian has aorist and imperfect in its grammar but the use of these tenses is fairly limited. Furthermore, Serbo-Croatian lacks verb-adjacent clitics and V-to-T movement.

7.3.1.2 Degrammaticalization of pronominal clitics into weak pronouns in South and West Slavic The empirical facts presented in Section 7.3.1.2 indicate that tense morphology conditions the occurrence of verb-adjacent pronominal clitics. With the decline of tense morphology, understood here as the loss of T⁰, the clitics shift to 2P. However, this shift is not the only potential result of the loss of T⁰ observed in Slavic. The subsequent parts of this chapter show that it may also lead to the reinterpretation of pronominal clitics as weak pronouns, which we interpret as the process of degrammaticalization. The process was completed in Old Russian and Old Polish, and we argue that it is currently taking place in Macedonian. 7.3.1.2.1 Old Polish This subsection investigates the modification of the system of pronominal elements in three Old Polish texts. We begin the examination with Holy Cross Sermons (Kazania Świętokrzyskie), the oldest Polish prose text from the late thirteenth/ early fourteenth century. The sermons were aimed at the educated public, so their style is very formal and their grammar is rather archaic, as it contains aorist and imperfect forms of verbs (emboldened in (25)), which are virtually not attested in later texts. Regardless, these simple tense variants are less common than the compound tense structures, which eventually replaced the simple forms altogether. (25)

a. jemuż biesze imię Symeon, him+FOC be.3 name Simon ‘His name was Simon, holy, true.’

Święty, holy

prawdziwy true (Sermon III)

b. pośpieszychą się do kościoła na modlitwę przed hurry.3 REFL to church to prayer because Boga wszemogącego i poczęchą się modlić God Almighty and start.3 REFL pray ‘They hurried to church for a prayer to God Almighty, and they started to pray.’ (Sermon VI)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

152

    

In this text, pronominal clitics tend to appear in 2P or are verb-adjacent (see (26)). However, the fact that they may be introduced by a preposition (emboldened in (27)) suggests that they are becoming reanalysed as strong elements (see Section 7.3.2 on Old Russian).⁵ In Modern Slavic, clitics may not occur as complements of a preposition, and strong forms are required. We take this fact to indicate that although their phonological make-up was that of a clitic, they were already morphosyntactically interpreted as non-clitic elements. (26)

a. a togodla ji we złe chustki and therefore him in bad cloth ‘And therefore she wrapped him in bad cloth.’ b. Naleźli ji, prawi, pieluszkami find.. him say.3 nappies ‘They found him wrapped in nappies.’

(27)

Sam, prawi, przez mię przysiągł He say.3 without me swear.. ‘He said that he has sworn without me . . . ’

ogarnęła wrap.. (Sermon III) ogarnienego wrapped (Sermon III) jeśm be1 (Sermon III)

The slightly more recent texts we have consulted, such as Queen Sophia’s Bible (QSB, Biblia Królowej Zofii) from 1433–55 and Gniezno Sermons (Kazania Gnieźnieńskie) from the early fifteenth century, display very few simple past tense forms and instead they employ compound tense structures. Pronominal elements are found there more frequently than in Holy Cross Sermons. In fact, strong forms of pronouns are increasingly more common (emboldened in (28)) and they often co-occur with weak/clitic forms within the same pragmatic or semantic contexts. (28)

Tegdy wziął Pan Bog człowieka i postawił ji then took God man and put him w raju rozkoszy, aby działał a ostrzegał in paradise bliss so-that worked and protected jego. I przykazał jemu . . . it and commanded him ‘The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded him . . . ’ (QSB, Genesis, 2,15–16)

⁵ An anonymous reviewer suggests that the accusative pronoun mię in (27) is quite possibly not a clitic, as the accusative form mę was not a clitic in early Slavic, and it joined the ranks of clitics after Common Slavic times. We take the reviewer’s suggestion to indicate that mię here is thus a clitic, in fact. Moreover, mię is considered a clitic by Topolińska (1961: 32) and Decaux (1955: 65–7). Decaux (1955) further also observes that mię can be preceded by a preposition.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

153

The placement of the pronominal forms in (28) suggests that clitics receive the same morphosyntactic interpretation as strong pronouns, as both of them occur post-verbally. Correspondingly, the clitics in (29) show a remarkable freedom of distribution, given that they do not need to be in 2P or verb-adjacent. (29)

a. I przywiodł je przed Adama, aby and brought them before Adam so-that je opatrzył a jimiona jim dał them saw and names them give.. ‘God brought them to Adam so that he could see them and give them names.’ (QSB, Genesis, 2, 19) b. i na wiarę krześcijańską jest ji on and on faith Christian is him he był nawrocił be.. convert.. ‘And he had converted him to the Christian faith.’ (GS, 6, 172) c. a do brata tego jistego krola są go and to brother this real king are him oni byli przywiedli they be bring.. ‘And they had brought him to the brother of the real king.’ (GS, 6, 172)

A conspicuous characteristic of some of the Gniezno Sermons is a frequent use of ethical datives (ci in 30), which regularly target 2P. In this way they share the distribution of ethical datives in other Slavic languages (see Bošković 2001: 60–1 for Serbo-Croatian). By contrast, argumental pronouns (such as je in (29b)) do not appear in a specific position in the clause structure. (30)

a. tenci się jest był w łonie u swe this+ REFL is be in womb at his miły matuchny panny Maryje kind mother virgin Mary ‘Who had been in the womb of his kind mother Virgin Mary.’ b. cożci jest je przezeń był nasz that+ is them through-him be.. our miły Kryst czynił drzewie kind Christ made earlier ‘which through him our kind Christ had made earlier’

To summarize, the survey of the three Old Polish texts presented in this section indicates that the decline of tense morphology in Old Polish is accompanied by the strengthening of pronominal forms, which become syntactically more

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

154

    

mobile and start to occur in virtually the same syntactic contexts as strong pronouns. Following the generalizations concerning pronoun typology described in Section 7.2.2, we observe that the pronominal forms decrease in their deficiency (Deficient 3 to Deficient 2), which in our view instantiates a case of degrammaticalization. 7.3.1.2.2 Contemporary Macedonian In Section 7.2.3.1, we observe that although both Bulgarian and Macedonian have retained the past tenses, only Bulgarian allows aorist and imperfect to be combined with both perfective and imperfective aspect. In Macedonian the tense system is more constrained: aorist is the default past tense for perfective verbs, whereas imperfect is the default past tense for imperfective verbs. As we noted earlier, this is a recent restriction that arose around the mid-twentieth century. We assume the reduction of the tense system in Macedonian to be a significant fact, as it coincides with the modification of its cliticization pattern. Thus, although Macedonian has verb-adjacent clitics, when they occur in non-verbal predicates (APs, NPs, and passive participles), they tend to appear in 2P (see (31a)). However, Tomić (2000) observes that recently some speakers of Macedonian started to permit clitics clause-initially in the contexts of adjectival predicates and passive participles (see (32b) and (33a)). Furthermore, some speakers also allow clitics below 2P (see (32c) and (33b)) in these contexts. We propose that this means that the clitics in non-verbal predicates are being reinterpreted as weak pronouns. Significantly, this process is accompanied by a recent impoverishment of tense distinctions in Macedonian. In line with the assumptions made in this chapter, this fact leads us to suggest that the modification of the Macedonian cliticization pattern is due to a (gradual) loss of T⁰, which precludes head-adjunction of clitics. In consequence, they become reinterpreted as weak pronouns. (31)

(32)

a. *Petko tatko mi Petko father me b. *Mi e tatko c. Petko mi e tatko. ‘Petko is my father.’

e. is

a. Mil si mu. dear. be2 him ‘He likes you.’ b. %Si mu mil. c. Petko sekogaš mi e Petko always me is ‘Petko is always dear to me.’

(Tomić 2000: 295)

mil. dear. (Franks and King 2000: 86)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

      (33)

a. %Mu e rečeno da bide točen him is tell to be punctual ‘He was told to be punctual more than once.’

poveќe more

155

pati. times

b. Na Petreta (mu e) od strana na komisijata to Peter him is from side of commission-the (mu e) poveќe pati (mu e) rečeno da bide točen him is more times him is tell to be punctual. ‘Peter was more than once told by the commission to be punctual.’ (Tomić 2000: 296–9) The data presented in (31)–(33) have not received sufficient attention in the literature and have been treated as somewhat exceptional. For instance, Bošković (2001: 254–64) states that Macedonian may represent an intermediate stage between languages with verb-adjacent and 2P clitics. However, we find this statement problematic. First, in some examples (see (32c) and (33b)) the clitics are neither verb-adjacent nor do they target 2P. Second, in the Bulgarian counterpart of (33b) in (34) below, the clitics may only be adjacent to the passive participle. In Macedonian, the sequence of auxiliary and pronominal forms may be scattered across the clause in this context, which resembles the distribution of weak pronouns in Polish. Therefore, we postulate that the modification is related to the reinterpretation of clitics as XP-elements, thus, their strengthening, which gives rise to more robust scrambling possibilities. We identify this change as a degrammaticalization process (Deficient 3 as X⁰ to Deficient 2 as XP). (34)

Na Petŭr mu e kazvano mnogo pŭti ot strana to Peter him is tell. many times from side na komisijata da bŭde točen of commission-the to be.3 punctual ‘Peter was told by the commission to be punctual many times.’

7.3.2 East Slavic (Old Russian) 7.3.2.1 The Old Russian clitic system The clitic system of Old Russian during the eleventh to fifteenth centuries is characterized by 2P placement. In the earliest Old Russian manuscripts (the eleventh to twelfth centuries), pronominal clitics are distributed in the second position of an intonational phrase as a cluster in the order DAT-ACC, as exemplified in (35). (35)

ože mi sę jeste jali pomogati . . . as me REFL are.2 take. help ‘Since you undertook to help me . . . ’ (Hypatian Chronicle 1149, 140, Zaliznjak 2008: 35)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

156

    

However, distributions as weak pronouns are also observed from the earliest time. First, an accusative clitic appears as the object of a preposition (see (36)). golovy svoi sъkladyvaèmь (36) za tę for you head. own. lay down1 ‘We lay down our heads for you.’ (Hypatian Chronicle 1177, Zaliznjak 2008: 36) Zaliznjak (2008: 36), following Vaillant (1964), contends that pronominal clitics combined with prepositions are residues from the older stage with prosodic independence. However, a hypothesis that a string like za tęACC represents an intermediate stage of the change from clitic to pronoun is just equally possible, as illustrated in (37). We claim that the P+clitic unit can be the first signal of the loss of pronominal clitics’ clitichood.⁶ (37)

P + weak pronoun

za tęACC

P + clitic

Janin and Zaliznjak (1993: 289) observe that in Old Russian a combination of a proclitic and an enclitic constitutes a prosodically independent unit. When a prosodically independent unit contains no orthotonic word but includes enclitics, the first of the enclitics carries a phonological stress (ex. ne bò, Zaliznjak 2008: 11). Prepositions are proclitics. Thus, in a prepositional phrase, such as za tę, a stress falls on the prepositional object enclitic (tę), which must have been an ideal condition for the reanalysis of this enclitic form as an orthotonic word despite its lack of stress elsewhere. This reanalysis of P+clitic structures, as in (36), could have enabled the occurrence of the P+clitic unit in non-second positions (see (40)). Another piece of evidence for the weak pronoun status of pronominal clitic forms is that they sometimes appear in non-second positions. In (38) the accusative reflexive clitic sę occupies the sentence-initial position as the conjunction a cannot function as a host. (38)

a sę ego zapritь and REFL it shut3 ‘And . . . refuses it.’ (Gramoty Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova, No. 28, 1190–)

⁶ One of the reviewers points out that reduced pronominal forms in the accusative case, such as mȩ, tȩ, and sȩ, shifted to the clitic counterparts of the corresponding full forms later than the dative pronominal clitics. While we agree that reduced pronominal forms did not shift into clitics at an identical rate, this is actually what we consider motivated the degrammaticalization of pronominal clitics into weak pronouns. Reduced pronominal forms at an intermediate stage may be subject to reanalysis in either direction (as weak pronouns or as clitics).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

157

Third, the cluster-ordering rule is violated. In Old Russian, the relative order of pronominal clitics and the auxiliary is DAT-ACC-AUX1/2P, which sharply contrasts Old Russian with modern South Slavic languages, the latter showing the order AUX1/2/3PL-DAT-ACC-AUX3SG. In example (39) the accusative reflexive clitic appears to the right of AUX. This shows that the ordering rule began to be violated in thirteenth-century Old Russian.⁷ (39)

sę jemu po ruku i jęla jesmo and take.. am.1 REFL him for hand ‘I promised him . . . ’ (Birchbark Letters No. 731, early thirteenth century, Zaliznjak 2004: 392)

The concrete diachronic process of the loss of pronominal clitics can be formulated based on the data from Birchbark Letters (BBL) in Old North Russian from the eleventh to fifteenth centuries in (40)–(42). During this period, the 2P pattern was coexistent with deviating patterns, as in (38)–(39), and declined towards the fifteenth century. (40)

Twelfth to early thirteenth century: pronominal clitics after prepositions postrьčьtь užь na mę i na moe deti. provoke3 already against me and against my children ‘(He) then provokes me and against my children.’ (BBL No. 831, mid-twelfth century, Zaliznjak 2004: 302)

(41)

Late thirteenth to fifteenth centuries: clitics in non-second position a. a na koni prišili mi v grivni serebra. and for horses send me two grivna silver ‘And for horses send me 2 grivnas of silver.’ (BBL No. 775, late thirteenth century, Zaliznjak 2004: 502) b. tako prišli mi colověkъ thus send me man ‘Thus, send me a man.’ (BBL No. 43, late fourteenth century, 651)

(42)

Late fourteenth century: clitics mixed with full forms a jęzo tobě sę klanęju. and I you REFL bow1 ‘And I bow to you.’ (BBL No. 186, late fourteenth century, Zaliznjak 2004: 618)

⁷ Zaliznjak (2004: 393) assumes that this example shows a micro-dialectal tendency to shift the clitic ordering DAT-ACC-AUX to AUX-DAT-ACC, which modern South Slavic languages have.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

158

    

The sentence in (42) is formulated on the basis of the template jęzo ti2DAT sęREFL. ACC klanęju, from which the clitic ti is replaced by the full form tobě (Zaliznjak 2004: 618). Here, the accusative clitic sę is not in 2P. It is unclear whether the non2P distribution of sę in (42) should be analysed as a symptom of the rise of the verbadjacent clitic system, although sę apparently precedes the verb. This example indicates that the distribution rules of pronominal clitics are no longer functional and that the use of pronominal clitics became no more than conventional. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the clitic placement lost coherence. From the diachronic process of losing 2P cliticization, as reflected in (40)–(42), we can conclude that a 2P clitic system coexisted with and gave way to a weak pronoun system. When the reduced accusative pronoun after a preposition was reanalysed as a weak pronoun, the string must also have been reanalysed as . The loss of prosodic dependence of reduced pronoun forms and the shift from pronominal clitics to weak pronouns help us to understand why pronominal clitics, unlike operator clitics (e.g. li, že), disappeared from Old Russian. As a result of the change of pronominal clitics to weak pronouns, the dual system of full and clitic forms became unmotivated, and full forms were generalized in every position.

7.3.2.2 The loss of TP in Old Russian We assume that this Old Russian clitic system change was, as in Macedonian and Old Polish, triggered by the loss of TP. In spoken Old Russian, imperfect and aorist had fallen out of use by the twelfth century at the latest (Issatschenko 1983: 355–6). This indicates that TP was lost before the twelfth century. In Old Russian manuscripts from the eleventh century on, the stage preceding the 2P clitic system is not attested, while OCS features verb-adjacent clitics. If we assume that Slavic dialects maintained a high degree of homogeneity in the period of the OCS cannon (the ninth century), we can posit a verb-adjacent clitic system for the prehistoric period of East Slavic. Due to the early loss of TP in Old Russian, pronominal clitics could not raise and adjoin to T⁰ as heads but remained as phrases in argument positions, either resulting in 2P clitics or turning themselves into weak pronouns (Deficient 3 > Deficient 2). The 2P system in Old Russian became increasingly unstable and clitics gradually disappeared from written materials by the fifteenth century. 7.3.2.3 The l-perfect auxiliary as a subject pronoun In addition to pronominal clitics, the present tense forms of the l-perfect auxiliary byti ‘to be’, such as jesmь and jesi, also show the status change from a head to phrase in Old Russian. Inflected auxiliaries may be analysed as pronominal because they purely represent agreement features, being referential. According to Zaliznjak’s observations (2004, 2008), the auxiliary forms were excluded from sentence-initial positions in Old Russian, which indicates their prosodic dependence despite their full morphology. These properties distinguish Old Russian

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

159

auxiliaries from Modern South Slavic clitic auxiliaries (OR. jesi vs S-C. si). With the atonic nature and full morphology, the Old Russian auxiliary is construed as Deficient 1. The Old Russian auxiliary forms originally merged as a verbal head, but were reanalysed as pronoun subjects located in Spec,AGRSP, and came to trigger agreement on finite verbs, as exemplified in (43). In (43a), jesmi, the first person singular form of the auxiliary, triggers phi-agreement on the finite verb znaju, which is a typical behaviour of nominative subjects. The same is observed in (43b), where jesi, the second person singular form, controls agreement on the finite verb budeš. In these examples, the first and second person auxiliary forms behave like nominative subject pronouns. (43)

a. a togo žь jesmi ne znaju, u kogo kupilъ. and that FOC be1 NEG know1 from whom buy.. ‘And I don’t know from whom I bought.’ (Pskov Judicial Charter, fourteenth to fifteenth centuries, Zaliznjak 2004: 179) b. a ženy ne vidělъ jesi budešь vъ sně. and woman NEG see.. be2 be.2 in dream ‘And you will not have seen a woman in a dream.’ (Kirik’s Queries, mid-twelfth century, Zaliznjak 2004: 179)

This status change of the auxiliary constitutes an X⁰-to-XP degrammaticalization process. In Old Russian, the stage in (44b) in which the pronominal auxiliary merges in AUXP as a head shifted to the structure in (44a). In (44a), the pronominal auxiliary occupies Spec,AGRSP as a subject DP, replacing a null subject. (44)

a.

AGRSP

DP(AUX) AGRS

b.

AUXP

AGRS

AUX’

VP

AUX

VP

In light of the hierarchy in (4), the shift of the auxiliary from a verbal head to a phrase in the subject position in (44) is evaluated as a shift from Deficient 1 to Deficient 0.

7.4 Conclusions Thus far, we have shown that the Old Polish, Macedonian, and Old Russian data provide empirical evidence against the idea of the irreversibility of grammaticalization, the historical directionality of the pronoun weakening cycle (pronoun >

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

160

    

clitic > verbal affix), and universal directionality of language change. The process of the given phenomenon reflects the reverse of pronoun hierarchy in which multiple subtypes of pronouns show different degrees of deficiency. Verb-adjacent clitics first shifted to 2P clitics and then were subject to the weakening of their clitichood, becoming weak pronouns. In Old Russian, in addition to pronominal clitics’ degrammaticalization, the shift of the pronominal auxiliary from a verbal head to a subject pronoun is observed. The change of clitics in question is analysed as a head to phrase shift, which is preconditioned by the dual categorial status of clitics (X⁰/XP) and triggered by the loss of TP, which is indicated by the loss of inflected tenses. The shift of a pronominal clitic to weak pronoun is evaluated as a case of parametric change, since a change in the features of a functional head (the loss of the D-feature in T⁰) is responsible for the shift.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

8 (In)vulnerable inflected infinitives as complements to modals Evidence from Galician and Romeyka Ioanna Sitaridou

8.1 Introduction As is well known in the generative literature, at least since Raposo (1987), an inflected infinitive is used in European Portuguese (EP) in the contexts shown in (1): (1)

a. b. c. d.

subject clauses; complement subcategorized by epistemics/declaratives; complement subcategorized by factives/causatives/perception verbs; adjunct clauses introduced by a preposition/complementizer.

From the list in (1) the classes of predicates that are missing are modals and volitionals. While it is true that inflected infinitives as complements to modals and volitionals are ungrammatical in prescriptive contemporary EP, it nevertheless remains an open issue whether they are used in some varieties of EP. In fact, as shown by Fiéis and Madeira (2014a) and Pires et al. (2011), inflected infinitives can appear as complements to modals (2) and volitionals (3) in certain varieties of Portuguese (e.g. spoken European Portuguese or Mozambican Portuguese): (2)

Então podem levar um panito caseiro (nonstandard EP)1 then can.3 take. a bread. home-made do forno, e levarem coentros. of.the oven and take..3 corianders ‘They could then take a home-made small bread from the oven and take corianders.’ (Fiéis and Madeira 2014a: 261)

¹ The authors do not provide any further information as to what sort of variety of Portuguese allows (2). Ioanna Sitaridou, (In)vulnerable inflected infinitives as complements to modals: Evidence from Galician and Romeyka In: Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change. Edited by: Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson, Oxford University Press (2021). © Ioanna Sitaridou. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198832584.003.0008

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

162

 

(3)

se não querem serem apoiantes (CETEMPúblico,2 EP) if  want.3 be..3 supporters de um grupo governo corrupto . . . of a group governmental corrupt ‘if they do not want to be the supporters of a corrupt government group . . . ’ (Fiéis and Madeira 2017: 287)

Contra the empirical generalizations in Raposo (1987) and Sitaridou (2002), among others, inflected infinitives with modals and volitionals do exist in Luso-Romance. The great deal of disagreement over the data has been due to the fact that: (i) inflected infinitives as complements to modals and volitionals seem to be quite unstable in the grammar—in other words they rise and fall out of use in relatively short periods of time and thus often go unnoticed; given that not all speakers have them it is hard to confirm grammaticality judgements; (ii) the two major Luso-Romance languages have long been standardized so that grammaticality judgements are influenced by prescriptivism; moreover, so great is the linguistic bias generated by prescriptivism that even when data from diasporic languages emerge (and for which no standardization conditions apply) as grammatical for certain speakers/linguistic communities, speakers of prescriptive Portuguese deny them and claim them to be ungrammatical for the majority of speakers—but what constitutes a majority of speakers especially in a diasporic context? (iii) there are generative (mis)beliefs regarding (a) what a nonfinite form is and (b) how much structure certain verbs like modals can project and therefore whether agreement on the infinitive can be tolerated given that there is no CP projected, as is taken to be the case with modals (see Wurmbrand 2001). In light of the discussion so far, in this chapter, we shall discuss data from Galician and Romeyka (for the latter, see Sitaridou 2014a, 2014b), which both allow for inflected infinitives with modals and volitionals—and we focus mostly on the former. We claim that these types of inflected infinitives, which have been dubbed ‘pseudo-inflected infinitives’ in Gonçalves et al. (2014), actually have nothing ‘pseudo-’ about them. In fact, on the basis of Landau (2015), [+Agr] is irrelevant in non-attitude complements—the latter can therefore ‘grow’ on the infinitive, often analogically to the agreement carried by the modal. As such it is ‘ornamental’ (in the sense of Embick 1997), that is, generated by a DM-operation whereby it allows us to ‘introduce syntactico-semantically unmotivated structure ² https://www.linguateca.pt/CETEMPublico/.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

()    

163

and features which “ornament” the syntactic representation’ (Embick and Noyer 2007: 305); and therefore as such agreement in this case does not impact on syntax; from this also follows a great deal of synchronic variation and diachronic volatility. The chapter is organized as follows: in Section 8.2, we present the main data we shall be discussing in this chapter and the puzzle they pose. In Section 8.3, we argue that the agreement morpheme on the infinitive, when subcategorized by a modal, is ‘ornamental’; while in Section 8.4, we present the proposal made for the rise of the Romeyka of Sürmene inflected infinitives. In Section 8.5, we discuss the diachronic mechanism which makes such inflected infinitives subject to variation and thus fall in and out of the grammar (and thus off the grammarians’ radar too). We conclude in Section 8.6.

8.2 The puzzle with the Graeco-Romance inflected infinitives as modal and volitional complements In the literature, inflected infinitives with volitionals are mostly discussed in the context of the Nuorese varieties of Sardinian, but only on the non-obligatory control ((N)OC) reading ((4))—note also the presence of the complementizer a (see Jones 1993): (4)

Non keljo a bi  want.1   ‘I don’t want you to come.’

venneres come..2

tue /*te. (Sardinian) you./* (Jones 1993: 279)

However, the Nuorese varieties of Sardinian are not the only ones that allow for such complements. During the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, Portuguese inflected infinitives also appeared as complements to querer ‘want’, with OC, however (Fiéis and Madeira 2014a, 2014b)—see (5) in contrast to (4): (5)

porque muitas vezes se aconteceo já (Classical Portuguese) because many times  happened.3 already quererem alguns vingar-se de escandalos particulares want..3 some avenge.= of scandals private e satisfazerem seu apetite and satisfy..3 their appetite ‘It happened many times that some wanted to avenge private scandals, and to satisfy their appetite.’ (Couto (b. 1542) in Fiéis and Madeira 2014a: 260)

The context in (5) (with long-distance agreement) also seems to be possible in certain contemporary varieties of Brazilian Portuguese (BP) (see Modesto 2014), as shown in (6):

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

164

 

(6)

Eles querem estudar, continuarem em seus ofícios (BP) they wanted.3 study. continue..3 in their roles ou então partirem para um negócio diferente, or then leave..3 for a business different ‘They wanted to study, continue on their roles or then leave for a different business . . . (http://www.usp.br/aun/imprimir.php?id=658)

Importantly, aside from Italo- and Luso-Romance, this type of inflected infinitive does not seem to be a typological hapax. Evidence comes from Romeyka of Sürmene (RSür)³ (Sitaridou 2014a, 2014b), which also shows inflected infinitives as complements to volitionals to be possible, as shown in (7): (7)

c=eθeleses episines=ä. (RSür) =wanted.2 make...2=it. ‘You didn’t want to make it.’ (Dawkins 1914: 127 in Sitaridou 2014b: 54)

In fact, in RSür, inflected infinitives are even found with modals, as shown in (8), an example, which comes from the historical record, more than 100 years ago: (8)

c= eporeses oɣraepsines. (Old RSür)  could.2 write..2 ‘You couldn’t write.’ (Dawkins 1914: 127 in Sitaridou 2014b: 54)

In the literature, inflected infinitives with modals are never mentioned or, when they are, it is only for the purpose of highlighting the ban on them or, at best, as some sort of empirical anomaly or ‘Enlightened Self-Interest’: see, for instance, Vincent (1996: 397), who considers Old Neapolitan inflected infinitives with modals possible for metric reasons only, but otherwise not productive. Nevertheless, despite a great deal of controversy with regard to which variety of Portuguese would allow for a similar distribution (see (2) and (3)), there does exist a Luso-Romance variety which, thanks to its complex sociolinguistic situation, seems to have sufficiently escaped the prescriptivism that speakers more readily

³ Romeyka is the last surviving variety of Greek spoken in north-eastern Turkey, in the area traditionally known as Pontus (see Sitaridou 2013, 2014a, 2014b, 2016 and references therein). The dialectal data examined in this chapter derive from fieldwork on Romeyka as spoken in the Sürmene region of Pontus in Turkey (henceforth RSür) by the author in 2015. The informant is a 70-year-old female originally from Okşoho in Sürmene and the recordings were made during two visits in July 2015 to her son’s house in Trabzon.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

()    

165

accept linguistic judgements involving inflected infinitives with modals: this is the case for Galician,⁴ as shown in (9): (9)

a. Poden levaren un pan do forno. (Galician, Ourense) can.3 take..3 a bread of.the bakery ‘They can take a (loaf of) bread from the bakery.’ b. Podemos levarnos un pan do forno. (Galician, Ourense) can.1 take..1 a bread of.the bakery ‘We can take a (loaf of) bread from the bakery.’ c. Os nenos deven acabaren o trabalho. (Galician, Ourense) the kids must.3 finish..3 the homework ‘The kids must finish the homework.’

Indeed, Galician seems to be the best typological match to Romeyka in this respect: not only does it allow inflected infinitives with modals and volitionals but, like Romeyka and unlike Sardinian, there is no complementizer involved; see (10) and cf. (4). (10)

Eu e miña irmá queremos I and my sister want.1 ‘My sister and I want to leave.’

saírmos. (Galician, Ourense) leave..1

Furthermore, long-distance agreement is also possible in Romeyka, as shown in (11) and as reported to be the case in those varieties of Portuguese which allow for such infinitives; but it is uncertain whether it is possible in Galician.⁵ (11)

Kamniz, c= eporesame psisiname to psomin so (RSür) smoke.3 = could.1 bake..1 the bread in.the parakami ce ferininame ton papon. fireplace and bring..1 the. grandfather. ‘The chimney has been smoking; we couldn’t bake the loaf in the fireplace and take it to the grandfather.’

⁴ Some of the Galician data stem from Wild’s (2016) undergraduate Year Abroad dissertation supervised by Dr Ioanna Sitaridou. Wild has interviewed nine speakers, of different ages (from 18 to 66) and from different areas of Galicia, mostly online and by the author exclusively online. It is particularly important to mention this because actual fieldwork rather than online collection could reveal or conceal unknown dimensions of variation and the role of prescriptivism; also we mention this because the Romeyka and Galician data under scrutiny in this chapter were not collected with the same methodology—the former were exclusively collected through ethnographically conducted fieldwork. ⁵ It was not possible to confirm that long-distance agreement is impossible. In (i) below there is a case of what looks like long-distance agreement, but what is, however, a case of partial control: (i) Debe ir á panadería e pagarle ao carniceiro must.3 go. to.the bakery and pay.. to.the butcher acordaren os duos un prezo. agree..3 the two one price ‘He must go to the bakery and pay the butcher and they both agree a price.’

e and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

166

 

Example (11) differs from examples (5)–(6) in that in RSür both infinitives are inflected in (11), whereas in (5)–(6) it is only the infinitive in the last conjunct that bears phi-features. Now, the reason why this is so in diachronic (e.g. Classical) or diatopic Portuguese goes beyond the scope of the chapter, but at least, regarding (11), we should mention that RSür no longer has plain infinitives.⁶ This may well be the reason why Romeyka and Galician do not pattern alike vis-à-vis longdistance agreement.

8.3 Inflected infinitives with modals: Ornamental morphology and monoclausality The analysis to be pursued for the data presented in Section 8.2 is along the lines of Landau (2015), according to whom [+Agr] blocks control in attitude complements but not in non-attitude complements; thus, the crucial issue is whether the complement is an attitude or non-attitude context. This is precisely what is at stake here; for predicates that induce obligatory semantic control such as modals the [+Agr] features of the lexical verb seem to play no role whatsoever. In fact, cross-linguistically [+Agr] is irrelevant for non-attitude complements. The bestknown case would, of course, be Standard Modern Greek (SMG) na-clauses, which never show non-obligatory control (NOC) with modals despite the fact that the lexical verb carries its own phi-features (12): (12)

a. boro can.1

na .

fao. eat..1

b. *boro na can.1 . ‘I can eat.’

fas.7 eat..2

(SMG)

Needless to say, neither RSür nor Galician inflected infinitives as modal complements allow for NOC—a property relating to the fact that modals obligatorily induce semantic control (see Grano 2012; Meira 2013). Interestingly, the lack of

⁶ According to Sitaridou (2014b), Sürmene used to have a plain infinitive, which was, however, reanalysed as an inflected infinitive at least a hundred years ago, as evidenced by the data collected by Dawkins in 1914. Crucially, in none of the available data from the turn of the last century or any contemporary Sürmene is there empirical evidence for the stage of the plain infinitive prior to the reanalysis. However, in geographically adjacent varieties of Sürmene, as in Çaykara (referred to hereafter as Romeyka of Of (ROf)), we do indeed see the preservation of a plain infinitive as well as a personal one; but, crucially, there is no inflected infinitive in Çaykara, although there is a personal one (Sitaridou 2014b: 50). ⁷ Clearly in cases of epistemic modality a mismatch would be possible, namely bori na fas ‘you may eat (but you may not)’, whereby bori bears 3 agreement, but the phi-features are nevertheless invariable; thus, it is not of any interest for us here.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

()    

167

NOC is also found with inflected infinitives subcategorized by volitionals in both languages (13): (13)

a. *c= eθelesamen mairepsinate. = wanted.1 cook..2 ‘We didn’t want you to cook.’ b. *Eu e miña irmá queremos I and my sister want.1 ‘My sister and I want them to leave.’

(RSür)

saíren. (Galician, Ourense) leave..3

It having been shown that [+Agr] is irrelevant for non-attitude complements, the way to account for this ‘redundant’ morphology on the lexical verb (infinitive) is Embick’s (1997) idea that such inserted morphemes are, in fact, dissociated. In other words, the information that their marking/signalization conveys is partly separated from the original locus of that information in the phrase marker. Typical dissociated morphemes include case and agreement morphemes and are attested in at least some languages (see, e.g., Marantz 1992). Dissociated morphemes are not interpreted at LF, since they are inserted only at Spell-Out. On this explanation, it follows that if the infinitival phi-features are dissociated morphemes (Embick 1997; Embick and Noyer 2001), introduced at PF, then they reflect certain syntactic properties, but they do not in any sense contribute these properties to syntax. In fact, Costa and Figueiredo Silva (2002) assume that referential number agreement on the whole in Portuguese is a dissociated morpheme which adjoins to each potential root. This proposal is also in line with Sitaridou’s (2002, 2006) claim that phiincompleteness should be dissociated from T-defectiveness. She provides comparative evidence from raising constructions involving na-clauses in Greek and inflected infinitives in Portuguese, and shows that Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou’s (1998) idea that agreement is a reflex of Case in EP but of EPP in SMG does hold. Second, semantic Tense can license nominative subjects, as shown by Spanish personal infinitives. Third, infinitival Tense is equated to matrix Tense with regard to the ability to license nominative Case but not vis-à-vis independent sentencehood. Matrix Tense differs in that it is either (i) unselected (as in the case of root clauses) or (ii) selected by (an operator in) C (as in the case of imperatives). She concludes that there is the possibility of having a verb which is T-defective, yet phi-complete. The cases we are dealing with here (at least for the inflected infinitives as complements to volitionals, since for modals there are also semantic reasons) further confirm this dissociation between T and phi-completeness: infinitives, albeit phi-complete, cannot license their own subjects. Importantly, for the analysis proposed here, the notion of monoclausality is also crucial. At least since Rizzi (1982) and Zubizarreta (1982), modal verbs with

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

 

168

infinitives are considered monoclausal domains deriving from erasing a CP boundary through the process of restructuring—the result being one complex head unit. If we take restructuring to be a manifestation of monoclausality, it is predicted that restructuring effects will be found with modal predicates, but not with other predicates admitting an inflected infinitive. Data from RSür (and the same would hold for Galician) show that this ornamental morphology is sensitive to structure; to put it differently, there needs to be strict adjacency between the modal and the lexical verb, thus disallowing for any other ‘sandwiched’ material such as (i) explicit coreferential nominative subjects with volitionals ((14)), (ii) interpolated objects with modals⁸ ((15)), (iii) adverbs with modals ((16)), and (iv) negation with modals ((17)):⁹ (14)

a. *c= eθelesamen emis = wanted.1 we. ‘We didn’t want to cook.’ b. *queremos nós want.1 we. ‘We want to leave.’

(15)

mairepsiname. cook..1

saírmos. leave..1

(RSür)

(Galician, Ourense)

a. *c= eporesamen to psomin = could.1 the. bread. ‘We couldn’t bake the bread yesterday.’

psisinamen. bake..1

(RSür)

b. c= eporesamen psisinamen  could.1 bake..1 ‘We couldn’t bake the bread.’

psomin. bread.

(RSür)

to the.

c. *Poden un pan levaren. can.3 a bread take..3 ‘They can take a loaf of bread.’

(Galician, Ourense)

d. Poden levaren un pan. can.3 take..3 a bread ‘They can take a loaf of bread.’ ⁸ Note that in RSür OV is extremely common and therefore (15a) should in principle have been fine, as with other predicates; however, when a complex head is involved, the only grammatical option would be VO, as in (15b) with an extra-clausal object . ⁹ We are not using a clitic climbing diagnostic for two reasons: (a) both languages allow for enclisis—strict enclisis in the case of Romeyka and enclisis as default with some proclitic triggers in Galician—thus rendering clitic climbing unavailable in Romeyka; in Galician the clitic can be affixed to the inflected verb on which the lexical verb depends; however, it seems that this option is not the preferred one in Galician—see (i) below but with partial control for lack of a better example; and (b) clitic climbing is not a foolproof test for monoclausality. (i)

Maria quería reunirem-se Maria wanted.3 meet..3 ‘Mary wanted that they meet earlier.’

mais more

cedo. early

(Galician, Ourense)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

()     (16)

a. *c= eporesamen opses = could.1 yesterday ‘We couldn’t bake yesterday.’

psisinamen. bake..1

b. opses c=eporesamen psisinamen yesterday =could.1 bake..1 ‘We couldn’t bake the bread yesterday.’

to the.

169

(RSür)

psomin. (RSür) bread.

c. *Puideron onte levaren un pan. (Galician, Ourense) could.3 yesterday take..3 a bread ‘They could have taken a loaf of bread yesterday.’ (17)

a. *eporesamen ci could.1  ‘We couldn’t bake.’

psisinamen. bake..1

(RSür)

b. c=eporesamen psisinamen. =could.1 bake..1 ‘We couldn’t bake.’ c. ??Puideron non levaren un pan. (Galician, Ourense) could.3  take..3 a bread ‘They could have taken a loaf of bread yesterday.’ Indeed such a prediction is borne out, since other predicates which select for an inflected infinitive under OC, namely volitionals ((18a)) and causatives ((18b)), do not seem to have such (or such strict) restrictions on interpolation. (18)

a. ta patsiðæ c=eθelesan jeralmasiæ (RSür) the. girls. =wanted.3 potatoes. skapsinan, polːa aɣanaχtemenes endon. dig..3 very tired. be..3 ‘The girls didn’t want to dig for potatoes; they were very tired.’ b. efíkanen sas i zandarmaðes skapsinete ta left.3 you. the. policemen. dig..2 the. χorafæ suna?10 fields. your ‘Did the police allow you to dig your farmland?’

The conclusion to draw is that although it is clear that the infinitival phi-features of a modal complement are ornamental, the status of the infinitival phi-features of ¹⁰ Please note that this example originally featured in Deffner (1878: 212). However, when I tested it for grammaticality judgements with native speakers I replaced ‘the Turks’ with ‘the policemen’, as this was deemed culturally appropriate.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

170

 

a volitional complement may not be. It seems that phi-features on the latter interact more with the syntactic structure, since interpolation is allowed. Thus, one could say that it is less ornamental. Admittedly, it is hard to capture this property in terms of morphological gradience; instead, it may be better captured as the result of the interaction between morphology, semantics, and syntax. Overall, our conclusion echoes Fuβ’s (2005: 109–11) analysis, whereby ‘a dissociated morpheme which expresses agreement with an argument (subject) is a copy of a relevant Agr-morpheme that has been valued in the syntax’. It follows that as such it would be parasitic on the presence of an Agr morpheme, which has already been valued in the syntax.

8.4. Analogical emergence of the Romeyka (Sürmene) inflected infinitives In Sitaridou (2014b) the source for the emergence of inflected infinitives in RSür was argued to be the one in (19), namely a counterfactual, one of the two monoclausal contexts which allow for an inflected infinitive and which continue the Medieval Greek combination of iχa ‘had’ + infinitive:¹¹ (19)

had.AGR + infinitive

The pathway for the rise of the inflected infinitive is then argued to be as follows: in medieval times the counterfactual, iχa ‘I had’ + infinitive emerges (stage a). The infinitive, surfacing in strict adjacency to iχa—essentially forming a monoclausal domain—analogically developed agreement endings (stage b). Such analysis is supported by the perfect match of the inflected infinitive endings with the aorist endings of iχa (see Sitaridou 2014b: 51–3). Sitaridou, following Oikonomidis (1958: 273), argued that the catalyst for analogical development of the inflected infinitive was phonetic similarity of the plain infinitival ending to the third singular aorist ending.¹² Additional evidence comes from (20), in which the presence of aorist augment e- on the infinitive (which is normally absent; see note 8) strengthens this hypothesis about the analogical development of agreement endings ‘growing’ on the infinitive. Importantly, this diachronic analysis is consistent with the synchronic one put forward in Section 8.3, since it postulates analogical extension of existing agreement morphology, which results in a dissociated morpheme (see Fuβ 2005: 283 on how analogical extension involved the insertion of a dissociated morpheme in cases of multiple agreement). ¹¹ This construction has yielded a past perfect in Modern Greek, but not in RSür, in which it continues to function as in Medieval Greek, namely as a counterfactual. ¹² Consider έλυσϵ /ˈelise/ (.3)
λύσαι /ˈlise/ (.)
λύσϵιν /ˈlisin/ (.); see also Sitaridou (2014b).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

()    

171

From this point onwards one can hypothesize that the inflected infinitive then extended to another auxiliary-like context, that is, monoclausal domains such as the complement to a modal. Coupled with the absence of complementizers in Romeyka (Sitaridou 2014b), this inflected infinitive then spread to other contexts, for instance as a complement to volitionals ((7)), and then generalized even further to causatives ((21)) and perception verbs ((22))—the last two with no co-reference restrictions. One reviewer points out that another way of looking at this is to say that the augment shows us that the verb form has been reanalysed as a finite form—and thus in need of person and number morphology. I believe this is indeed plausible, especially for the system of RSür, for which no plain infinitive is available, and so it cannot be used as a base for building up the inflected form. Thus, it could be argued that it is an inflected infinitive diachronically but a finite form contemporaneously. (20)

na iχa episina. . have..1 make...1 ‘If I had made.’ (Dawkins 1914: 156)

(RSür)

(21)

efíkane sas i zandarmaðes skapsinete (RSür) allowed.3 you. the. policemen. dig...2 ta χorafæ suna? the. fields. your ‘Did the police allow you to dig your farmland?’

(22)

a. i Aiše uc iðen the. Ayşe.  saw.3 klapsinan. cry...3 ‘Ayşe didn’t see her friends crying.’

t=arhandasenas (RSür) the.=friends..

b. ekusa tus tsopanus doksinan heard.1 the. shepherds. kill...3 t=artšus. the.=bears. ‘I heard the shepherds killing the bears.’ Although there is no independent evidence that this is indeed the path of diffusion for this innovation, it is tacit in our analysis that the directionality of the spread presupposes some form of clausal cline. This would suggest that the more monoclausal domains, namely restructuring verbs, such as modals (see Wurmbrand 2001) which lack a CP-boundary, are the best candidates for where dissociated morphemes will emerge first; subsequently, they can spread to more biclausal domains.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

172

 

8.5 Diachronic volatility: The rise and fall of inflected infinitives with modals Although the source for the Romeyka inflected infinitive is arguably different from the Galician-Portuguese one—the latter has emerged from the Latin imperfect subjunctive (Martins 2001; Pires 2002)—there may be a more principled explanation for the rise and fall of inflected infinitives as complements to modals: in both cases, it is argued, analogy has played a crucial role in their emergence and fall. In Section 8.4, we have shown how analogical extension could account for the rise of phi-features on the RSür infinitive. Turning our attention to Galician, we cannot help noticing a similar match between the agreement endings of the modals (most of which belong to the 2nd conjugation) and the agreement endings of the infinitive (which stay the same regardless of the conjugation class to which the lexical verb belongs), as in (23). (23)

1

2 3

1

2

3

deb-o ‘I must’ /pod-o ‘I can’

-es

-∅

-mos -des

-en

falar-∅ ‘to speak’

-es

-∅

-mos -des

-en

Moreover, both Galician and RSür inflected infinitives as complements to modals have in common the fact that they have always been in competition with plain infinitives and/or na-clauses—the latter in the case of RSü—at least for the best part of the available documentation of these constructions in the historical record. This variation is also attested at present; see (24) and (25) for Romeyka and Galician, respectively: (24)

a. uc 

eporeses could.2

mairepsines. cook...2

b. uc 

eporeses could.2

n=emaireves. (RSür/ROf ) =cook..2

c. uc eporeses mairepsini.  could.2 cook.. ‘You couldn’t cook.’ (25)

(RSür)

(ROf )13

[inflected infinitive] [na-clause] [plain infinitive]

a. Poden levaren un pan do forno. (Galician, Ourense) can.3 take..3 a bread of.the bakery

¹³ In the variety of Romeyka as spoken in Of (Çaykara) there is no inflected infinitive, but instead the plain infinitive has survived (see Sitaridou 2014a, 2014b).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

()    

173

b. Poden levar un pan do forno. (all varieties of Galician) can.3 take. a bread of.the bakery ‘They can take a loaf of bread from the bakery.’ So, for the case of Galician there can be two explanations: (a) the Latin imperfect subjunctive is reanalysed as an inflected infinitive¹⁴ and then it spreads to modal complements, possibly aided by the morphological resemblance of the agreement morphology between the modal and the inflected infinitive endings; (b) there are two sources of emergence: the Latin imperfect subjunctive and the plain one along the lines of the diachronic scenario provided for RSür.¹⁵ However, one question that remains open is what the underlying trigger for the analogical extension might be. Although this is genuinely a difficult question to address, in our case, it is important that we ask it because we are dealing with a rare opportunity to shed some light, thanks to the micro-/nano-variation between RSür and ROf on the mechanism of analogy (not to mention the nature of micro-/nano-variation); only the former but not the latter has developed inflected infinitives. As mentioned several times already, RSür does not have plain infinitives any more, and the diachronic scenario indicates that the only source available could have been the plain infinitive (see Sitaridou 2014b). Therefore, it seems that there was some competition between the inflected infinitive and the plain one, and, in the case of RSür, the winner was the inflected infinitive, which consequently raises the questions of why and how. I would like to suggest that phonological weakening of the infinitival endings is a possible trigger for the emergence of ornamental phi-agreement as an analogical extension of the agreement on the modal. Indeed, we have indications that infinitival weakening has occurred in another Romeyka variety, namely Tonya: porpati (Tonya); cf. porpatesini (Of) ‘to walk’ (see Sitaridou 2014b: 34, n. 10). Interestingly, in this variety there has been no surge of an inflected infinitive, which is curious. Although we do not know a lot about this variety, the reason why this has happened may have to do with competition from na-clauses. Evidence comes from ROf, and the attrited generation of 20-year-olds, in particular, which shows reduced infinitival endings and more frequent use of the na-clauses, thus indicating that na-clauses are taking over. So, it seems that when phonological weakening of the infinitival ending takes place, there are two possible compensatory mechanisms in these varieties: either replacement by the subjunctive (as in Tonya and Çaykara) or the copy of some morpheme—in this case, the phi-features of the modal. Which one happens may be entirely accidental or there may be other reasons which we cannot capture as

¹⁴ Here we note Joseph’s (2015) discussion of why we still call a form which is finite (in at least certain ways) and has emerged from a finite form as well an infinitive. ¹⁵ Having more than one source for what looks like the same construction is not uncommon. Consider Sitaridou (2002, 2009) for such a proposal for the Spanish personal infinitive.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

174

 

yet. Importantly, when phonological reduction is remedied through morphological reinforcement of lost features—albeit, understandably not the same kind—this can only happen provided that the syntax can afford it. In other words, when phonological reduction is ‘too’ much¹⁶/advanced and/or morphological, remedying impacts on syntax, such an option will not be preferred. It follows that if analogical extension of phi-features on the infinitive was interfering or clashing with control, such an analogy would not obtain. This may, in turn, also explain why inflected infinitives in which control properties are induced (NOC or partial) are more stable diachronically. On the contrary, when [+Agr] does not induce NOC, it can become much more volatile. For all these reasons (phonological and morphological with no impact on syntax) inflected infinitives as complements to modals can spontaneously rise and fall—the latter also subject to important sociolinguistic conditions whereby normative pressures are either non-existent (as is the case in Romeyka) or more relaxed (as is the case in Galician). This is particularly obvious when compared to the European Portuguese situation, where normative pressures are significant. Therefore, in prescriptive Portuguese only uninflected infinitives were deemed possible with modals, whereas inflected infinitives were always viewed as substandard. These sort of pressures are not found in spoken/colloquial Brazilian Portuguese—hence why such data are reported as grammatical without them, however, being grammatical for all speakers of Brazilian Portuguese. Interestingly, the opposite phenomenon to gaining of phi-features is discussed by Barbosa and Freire (2014), and it involves the loss of phi-features. Consider (26), where the omission of phi-features takes place in contexts which otherwise require an inflected infinitive in EP. Crucially, the impoverishment of infinitival phi-features takes place in an adjunct for which, as Sitaridou (2002, 2009) has shown, disjoint reference is possible without phi-features on the infinitive (as is the case in Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese). This is because an adjunct is a biclausal domain which can license its own subject without recourse to [+Agr]. (26)

a. Se é para nós comermos, eu venho. (Standard EP) if be.3 for we. eat..1 I come.1 ‘If it is for us to eat, I’ll come.’ b. se é para nós comer, eu venho. (North of Portugal) if be.3 for we. eat. I come.1 (Barbosa and Freire 2014: 188)

¹⁶ The question of a threshold is notoriously difficult to define both in terms of acquisition and in terms of language change. In other words, we cannot deterministically define ‘how much of X’ is needed for a property/parameter to be configured and, likewise, ‘how little of X’ is enough to trigger loss/ language change.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

()    

175

Therefore, the conclusion is that when syntax is not impacted, phi-features can rise and fall, as we have seen to be the case in adjuncts and complex modal heads, because the former can license their subjects, even in the absence of agreement, and the latter cannot have their OC properties altered because of semantic control. Interestingly, the rise and fall of phi-features on the complex head (modal+ infinitive) need not always concern the infinitive. Indeed, such a prediction is borne out: there are cases where the target for the loss of phi-features is the modal verb/auxiliary itself (see Sitaridou 2014b: 54–5) rather than the infinitive. In today’s RSür, in the counterfactual ixa+infinitive construction we have already discussed in Section 8.4, we observe the rise of a new invariant marker, namely ixen ‘had’— consider (27): (27)

a. iχen have..3 ‘If I had said.’

ipina. say...1

(RSür)

b. iχen ipines. have..3 say...2 ‘If you had said.’ c. iχen ipinen. have..3 say...3 ‘If s/he had said.’ (28)¹⁷ demonstrates the emergence of a new invariant modality marker, iχen, from a former auxiliary, thus suggesting the full cycle of analogical development of agreement, including elimination of duplicate morphology on the auxiliary. Following Barbosa and Freire (2014), the rule of impoverishment is at work. Impoverishment, which seems to be the mirror image of ornate morphology, is also an application rule obtaining post-syntactically. Importantly, Barbosa and Freire (2014) postulate that it is a variable rule applying probabilistically and one of the mechanisms of inter- and intra-individual variation in morphosyntax. The same could also be said of dissociated morphemes. (28)

a. iχen ipine stage 1 (no ornate morpheme) had.3 say. b. iχen ipinen stage 2 (ornate morpheme) had.3 say..3 c. iχen ipina/-es/-e/ . . . stage 3 (impoverishment) had.1 say..1/2/3 ‘If I had said.’ d. AUX.+Infinitive!AUX.+Infinitive. ! AUX + Infinitive.

¹⁷ For a similar development, see also -based future in Joseph (1983) and Joseph and Pappas (2002).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

176

 

Such grammaticalization of the modal/auxiliary head leading to a particle-like form is fairly well attested in Greek and Romance, as shown, for instance, in Southern Italian Greek—see (29): (29)

a. Steo stand.1

ce and

troo eat.1

(Southern Italian Greek)

b. Ste ce troo stand and eat.1 ‘I am eating/I start to eat.’

(Rohlfs 1977: 202)

It follows from the above discussion that the possibility of duplication of phifeatures in a monoclausal domain would encourage some ‘affix hopping’, that is, at some diachronic stages the affix would appear on the matrix verb, while during others it will appear on the infinitive (cf., e.g., ixa.1 ipin. to ixe.3 ipina. .1), as we have seen to be the case in (27) and (29). In turn, this explains why they are diachronically unstable and often competing with other structures (plain infinitives, subjunctives, etc.).

8.5.1 Another case where morphology does not impact on syntax: The loss of subjunctive in Brazilian Portuguese Against this background, we can observe a similar case whereby loss of morphology does not impact on syntax: this is the case of Colloquial Brazilian Portuguese, which is in the process of losing subjunctives with volitionals; these now select indicatives, as shown in (30). (30)

a. Joãoi João

quer wants

que that

proj pro

compra buy.

a the

casa. house

b. Joãoi João

quer wants

que that

proj pro

compre buy.

a the

casa. house

c. Joãoi João

quer wants

que that

elej he

compra buy.

a the

casa. house

d. Joãoi João

quer wants

que that

elej he

compre buy.

a the

casa. house

(Brazilian Portuguese)

Although a proper discussion lies outside the scope of this chapter, what is interesting for our purposes is that the loss of subjunctive has no consequences for the disjoint reference requirement, since this is now taken over by the use of an overt downstairs subject (for a full discussion, see Sitaridou and Meira 2017).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

()    

177

8.6 Conclusion In this chapter, it has been shown that previously rejected data of inflected infinitives with modals being ungrammatical, exotic, or ‘pseudo’, are nothing but real, at least for the speakers of both Galician and Romeyka who produce them. Although it looks prima facie odd that these two languages share this property, it is less so following the principle of dialectological interpretation set down by Matteo Bartoli (1925): ‘Solitamente nelle aree laterali si conserva una fase più antica respetto a quella presente nelle aree intermedie’ (‘Usually in lateral areas is preserved an earlier phase relative to that found in intermediate areas’). Moreover, the syntax allows them as well: the phi-features on the infinitive are treated as a dissociated morpheme arising post-syntax, and therefore its ornamental nature does not affect it either. The enabling factors, namely phonology and monoclausality, are also the factors which predict their demise too. Coupled with sociolinguistic conditions—either a complete lack of pressure or too much of it—the ‘sudden’ fall and rise of modals with inflected infinitives can be precipitated or delayed. Crucially, in both lateral areas of the Romance- and Greekspeaking world, respectively, sociolinguistic conditions are such that speakers managed to use them without any or not so much normative bias. This last point forms the core of our diachronic prediction, which we confirmed in this chapter, namely that non-finite forms inflected for phi-features in obligatory control will be more vulnerable to change, often affording us full grammaticalization cycles of the complex head (as was shown to be the case in RSür) especially in socio-historical contexts with little or zero normative pressures.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

9 Assessing phonological correlates of syntactic change The case of Late Latin weak  Lieven Danckaert

9.1 Introduction The starting point of this chapter is the observation that, throughout the history of Latin, functional verbs of various kinds (‘auxiliaries’) and their non-finite complements can be linearized in either order. For instance, in (1) we see that a auxiliary in a periphrastic passive can either precede or follow a past participle (PaPa) like factus ‘become’. Similarly, in (2) we see the word orders ‘modal– infinitive’ and ‘infinitive–modal’ appear side by side in the same sentence (the relevant modal verb being possum ‘, be able’): (1) Ann-is XIIII ante quam praetor fact-us years- fourteen before than praetor. become-.. est legat-us esse pot-uisse-t? nisi be..3 legate- be.. how be.able-.-3 unless admodum sero praetor est fact-us, greatly late. praetor. be..3 become-.. qu-od non arbitr-or. which-.. not think-.1 ‘How could he have been a legate fourteen years before he became praetor? Unless he became a praetor very late, which I don’t think is the case.’ (Cic. Att. 13.32.3) (2) Si L. Catilin-a [ . . . ] hac de if Lucius. Catilina- this. about pos-se-t iudica-re, condemna-re-t be.able-.-3 judge-. condemn-.-3

re matter. L. Lucius.

Lieven Danckaert, Assessing phonological correlates of syntactic change: The case of Late Latin weak BE In: Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change. Edited by: Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson, Oxford University Press (2021). © Lieven Danckaert. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198832584.003.0009

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

179

Muren-am, si interfic-ere pos-se-t, occid-ere-t. Murena- if murder-. be.able-.-3 kill-.-3 ‘If Lucius Catilina could be the judge in this case, he would condemn Lucius Murena; if he were given the opportunity to murder him, he would indeed kill him.’ (Cic. Mur. 83) As is well known, in present day Romance varieties the only acceptable head-initial orders are ‘functional verb–lexical verb’. Importantly, as has been pointed out in Danckaert (2016, 2017a, 2017b), the transition from a mixed head-initial/head-final system to a strictly head-initial one is not always purely ‘linear’: in particular, in Late Latin (informally defined as the language used in Latin texts dating from c. 200 to 600 ) -periphrases of the type illustrated in (1) unexpectedly exhibit a very strong preference for the head-final order ‘past participle–’. The aim of this chapter is to revisit the relevant data, and to analyse them by referring to both the syntactic structure of the Late Latin clause and the phonological properties of -auxiliaries. At a more general level, I hope to show that, at the very least in some cases, prosodic factors must be taken into account to correctly understand word order change. Crucially, in the wake of, among others, Taylor (2005), Speyer (2010), and Hinterhölzl and van Kemenade (2012), I do not want to say that word order change is to be explained in purely phonological terms; rather, it is important to pay attention to both syntax (phrase structure, constituency) and (prosodic) phonology. The chapter is organized as follows. I will start by summarizing the main empirical facts as they emerge from my own corpus work (Section 9.2). In Section 9.3, I will present two pieces of evidence which suggest that word order in Late Latin -periphrases is not purely a syntactic matter, but that it is also sensitive to phonological factors. In Section 9.4 I will spell out my assumptions about Late Latin clause structure, and I will provide some background about how syntactic structures can be mapped onto prosodic representations. The actual analysis will be developed in Sections 9.5 and 9.6. Section 9.7 is a brief conclusion.

9.2 Word order in the Latin clause: Some basic generalizations All corpus data to be presented in this chapter are based on an analysis of 39 Latin text samples from a period of 800 years, starting with Plautus at around 200 , and ending with Gregory of Tours, who was active in the late sixth century . Apart from the comedies by Plautus and Terence, the corpus consists of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

180

 

only prose texts. A full description of the corpus can be found in Danckaert (2017a: 84–5).¹,²

9.2.1 The very basic picture Let us, then, take a look at the VPAux/AuxVP-alternation in the history of Latin. In a nutshell, what emerges from the corpus is that combinations of a modal verb and an infinitive show the expected rise of head-initiality. In contrast, -periphrases behave very differently, in that they display a remarkably strong predilection for the order ‘PaPa–’ in Late Latin. However, this last observation does not hold in every single syntactic environment. The data for the modal possum ‘, be able’ are shown in Figure 9.1, where the values on the Y-axis correspond to the average frequencies of the head-initial 100

Frequency of the order possum–infinitive (in %)

34

80 29 9

22 32

25

60 2

14

8

1

13 12

40 4 3

20

6 7 11

21

17

18 16 19 15

27

23

24

31 30 28

33 35

26

36

37

20

10

5

0 –200

0

200 Time

400

600

Figure 9.1 Incidence of the order possum–infinitive, c. 200 –600  Key: 1= Plautus, 2= Terence, 3= Cato, 4= Cicero, 5= Caesar, 6= Varro, 7= Sallust, 8= Hyginus, 9= Vitruvius, 10= Livy, 11= Celsus, 12= Seneca, 13= Columella, 14= Petronius, 15= Frontinus, 16= Quintilian, 17= Pliny, 18= Tacitus, 19= Suetonius, 20= Gaius, 21= Tertullian, 22= Gargilius, 23= Cyprian, 24= SHA, 25= Palladius, 26= Egeria, 27= Jerome, 28= Augustine, 29= Vulgate, 30= GCC, 31= Vegetius, 32= Cassius Felix, 33= Victor of Vita, 34= Pompeius, 35= Caesarius, 36= Jordanes, 37= Gregory.

¹ For evidence that this corpus can reliably inform us about language variation and change, see Danckaert (2017a: 102–6, 282–5). ² The complete data set and the R-code used to produce the graphs and statistical tests for this chapter can be found at https://doi.org/10.18710/ONWW4A; the accompanying README-file contains all the necessary details on the contents of the main data set.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

181

order ‘modal–infinitive’ (in percentages).³ As can be seen, despite there being a fair amount of synchronic variation throughout the entire period covered, both the straight and the smoothed regression lines reveal an unmistakable diachronic trend towards higher frequencies of the order ‘modal–infinitive’, with a rise from c. 25 per cent to well over 60 per cent. A similar picture is obtained with another modal verb, namely debeo ‘, have to’, although it has to be said that here the diachronic trend towards more head-initiality is a bit weaker; witness the fact that the slope of the straight regression line in Figure 9.2 is slightly less steep than that in Figure 9.1.

Frequency of the order debeo–infinitive (in %)

100

80 9 26 20

60

3

19 4

40

12

2

20

11

7

1

5

25

21 23

27

28

16 18 14

8

13 6

22 24

17 15

10

0 0

200

400

600

Time

Figure 9.2 Incidence of the order debeo–infinitive, c. 60 –600  Key: 1= Cicero, 2= Caesar, 3= Varro, 4= Vitruvius, 5= Livy, 6= Celsus, 7= Seneca, 8= Columella, 9= Petronius, 10= Frontinus, 11= Quintilian, 12= Pliny, 13= Tacitus, 14= Suetonius, 15= Gaius, 16= Tertullian, 17= Cyprian, 18= SHA, 19= Palladius, 20= Jerome, 21= Augustine, 22= Vulgate, 23= GCC, 24= Vegetius, 25= Victor of Vita, 26= Pompeius, 28= Caesarius, 28= Gregory.

³ As can be seen, only thirty-seven samples were taken up in the data set plotted in Figure 9.1, namely those authors/texts for which I counted more than ten combinations of possum and an infinitive. In this case, no data are represented for the texts of Anthimus (c. 535 ) and Antoninus of Piacenza (c. 570 ), which do not reach this threshold level. In the following graphs too, small subsamples are not represented.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

182

 

As mentioned, the corresponding data for combinations of esse ‘be’ and a past participle are very different.⁴,⁵ Before we inspect the actual data, it is important to point out that one has to distinguish two types of periphrastic -constructions, both of which can involve a deponent or a passive past participle. The two types are illustrated in (3) (cf. the parts in bold): (3) Et tumultu-s quidem Gallic-us et Ligustin-us, and unrest- indeed Gallic- and Ligurian- qu-i principi-o eius ann-i exort-us which-.. beginning- that. year- arisen-.. fu-era-t, haud magn-o conatu breu-i be--3 not great- attempt. short- oppress-us era-t. suppressed-.. be.-3 ‘And indeed the Gallic and Ligurian revolt, which had started at the beginning of that year, was quickly suppressed with minimal effort.’ (Liv. 41.19.3) The -periphrasis in the main clause, oppressus erat ‘was (lit. had been) suppressed’ is the older pattern, which I will call an ‘E-periphrasis’. This type of formation is characterized by what we could call a ‘tense mismatch’: although the entire complex expression is a pluperfect, the -auxiliary in isolation is imperfective (as indicated by the gloss). In contrast, in the (deponent) expression exortus fuerat ‘had arisen’ (an ‘F-periphrasis’) both the complex unit and the bare auxiliary are pluperfects. As mentioned in Danckaert (2017a: 273–6), it is not

⁴ The relevant facts have received only scant attention in the philological literature, and many aspects of word order variability in Late Latin -periphrases, most notably the effect of negation, were only first discussed in Danckaert (2016). Väänänen (1987: 107) notes that factum est is much more frequent in Egeria’s Itinerarium than est factum, and he ascribes this to the influence of the language of the Latin Bible, where the same skewed distribution can be observed. However, it should be clear that this explanation does little more than ‘kick the can down the road’, as it begs the question as to why the word order facts from the Latin Bible are the way the are. The same author’s claim about word order in -periphrases in the works of Lucifer of Cagliari is not backed up with any evidence, and my own corpus data (as summarized in Figure 9.3) contain robust counterevidence against Väänänen’s assertion that l’ordre interverti devient usuel (‘he inverted order [i.e. ‘–PaPa’] becomes productive’) during the first centuries ; rather, exactly the opposite is true, as in certain environments this order becomes rarer over time. Salvi (2004: 93, n. 28) speculates that the preponderance of the order ‘PaPa–’ is restricted to the ‘most vulgar’ Late Latin texts (which is incorrect), and that in those texts the lexical verb and the -auxiliary were reanalysed as a single (‘synthetic’) morphosyntactic unit. As pointed out in Danckaert (2017b: 231–3), this last hypothesis cannot be correct in the general case, as it makes incorrect predictions for word order in Late Latin negated -periphrases; there is, however, some reason to assume that it may be the correct analysis for some -periphrases in the Vulgate (Danckaert 2017c: 145–8). ⁵ Throughout this chapter, I will not make a distinction between passive and deponent -periphrases: as argued at length in Danckaert (2016: 142–5; 2017b: 226–9), there are no (empirirical) reasons to treat the two separately, neither when it comes to analysing word order variability nor when modelling the alternation between ‘E-periphrases’ and ‘F-periphrases’ (on which, see below).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

183

clear whether apart from being morphologically different, the E- and the F-patterns also differ semantically. If we then look at the development of word order in E-periphrases, we observe that in strong contrast to modal verbs and their infinitival complements, the headfinal pattern is strongly preferred by every single Late Latin author (Figure 9.3).

Frequency of the order be–past participle (in %)

100

80 9 8

60 6

40

20

5 4 1

2

13

12 11

7

–200

0

17

24

14

10 3

0

36

16

21 15

19 18

20

200 Time

23 22

25 27

30 31 28 29 26

39

32 34 35 37 38

33

400

600

Figure 9.3 Incidence of the order –past participle in E-periphrases, c. 200 –600  Key: 1= Plautus, 2= Terence, 3= Cato, 4= Cicero, 5= Caesar, 6= Varro, 7= Sallust, 8= Hyginus, 9= Vitruvius, 10= Livy, 11= Celsus, 12= Seneca, 13= Columella, 14= Petronius, 15= Frontinus, 16= Quintilian, 17= Pliny, 18= Tacitus, 19= Suetonius, 20= Gaius, 21= Tertullian, 22= Gargilius, 23= Cyprian, 24= SHA, 25= Palladius, 26= Egeria, 27= Jerome, 28= Augustine, 29= Vulgate, 30= GCC, 31= Vegetius, 32= Cassius Felix, 33= Victor, 34= Pompeius, 35= Caesarius, 36= Anthimus, 37= Jordanes, 38= Antoninus, 39= Gregory.

Interestingly, there is a strong contrast between E- and F-periphrases: as shown in Figure 9.4, in Late Latin the latter do not uniformly prefer the head-final order. Instead, we see that there is a lot of variation between individual authors, with average frequencies after 200  ranging from 0 per cent (Anthimus at 535 ) to 83.13 per cent (Cassius Felix at 447 ). Regardless of the correct interpretation of the variation observed in Figure 9.4, it should be clear that, on the whole, Late Latin E- and F-periphrases have very different word order preferences.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

184

 

Frequency of the order be–past participle (in %)

100

24

80

29 22 4

60

14

9

40

20

5

3

23

10

7

11 12

27 26

15

1

17 16 8

25

19

13

2

20 21 18

6

0 –200

0

30

28

200 Time

400

600

Figure 9.4 Incidence of the order –past participle in F-periphrases, c. 200 –600  Key: 1= Plautus, 2= Terence, 3= Cicero, 4= Hyginus, 5= Vitruvius, 6= Livy, 7= Celsus, 8= Seneca, 9= Columella, 10= Quintilian, 11= Pliny, 12= Suetonius, 13= Gaius, 14= Tertullian, 15= Cyprian, 16= SHA, 17= Palladius, 18= Egeria, 19= Jerome, 20= Augustine, 21= Vulgate, 22= GCC, 23= Vegetius, 24= Cassius Felix, 25= Victor, 26= Pompeius, 27= Caesarius, 28= Anthimus, 29= Jordanes, 30= Gregory.

9.2.2 The effect of negation One very important additional observation concerns the influence of negation on word order in E-periphrases. As shown in Figure 9.5, only those E-periphrases which occur in an affirmative clause prefer to be head-final. In negated contexts the opposite tendency is observed, with all authors after 400  strongly preferring the head-initial order (with only authors/texts with more than eight negated E-periphrases taken into account). It is worth pointing out that there is no comparable effect of negation on word order in clauses with a modal verb and an infinitive; the relevant data are shown in Figure 9.6 (where I am averaging over clauses with possum ‘, be able’ and debeo ‘, have to’). As can be seen, this variable seems to have the opposite effect to the one it has in E-periphrases, the head-final order ‘infinitive–modal’ being slightly more frequent in negated clauses than in affirmative ones in Late

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

185

Frequency of the order be–past participle (in %)

100 Neg Aff 80

60

40

20

0 –200

0

200

400

600

Time

Figure 9.5 Incidence of the order –past participle in E-periphrases, c. 200 –600 : affirmative and negated clauses compared

Frequency of the order modal–infinitive (in %)

100

Neg Aff

80

60

40

20

0 -200

0

200

400

600

Time

Figure 9.6 Incidence of the order modal–infinitive, c. 200 –600 : affirmative and negated clauses compared

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

186

 

Latin (but note that it remains to be tested whether this effect is indeed statistically significant).⁶ The two main explananda of this chapter can then be summarized as follows. First of all, why do Late Latin E-periphrases prefer the order ‘PaPa–’ (Figure 9.3), a state of affairs which is all the more puzzling given that no trace of this word order pattern is left in modern Romance? Second, why is this preference reversed in negated clauses (Figure 9.5)? The analysis that I will develop makes crucial reference to both syntactic and prosodic factors. In Section 9.3, I will first provide evidence that phonology plays a role in bringing about word order in -periphrases, and that it is indeed possible to assess the role of prosodic factors on the basis of data from a written corpus.

9.3 The role of prosodic factors 9.3.1 Syllable count My first argument in support of the claim that word order in Late Latin E-periphrases is sensitive to prosodic factors is the observation that the variable ‘number of syllables of the auxiliary’ is a good (and statistically significant; cf. Danckaert 2016: 160) predictor for word order. Specifically, it is only E-periphrases with a monosyllabic auxiliary that in Late Latin display the observed strong tendency to follow the participle they are associated with.⁷ The data for the monosyllabic auxiliaries are shown in Figure 9.7. Note in passing that the overall resemblance between this graph and the one in Figure 9.3 is to be ascribed to the fact that the eight monosyllabic forms of Latin esse (namely the present indicatives sum, es, est, and sunt, and the present subjunctives sim, sis, sit, and sint) happen to have a very high (combined) token frequency: with 20,092 occurrences in the entire corpus, monosyllabic -auxiliaries clearly outnumber their polysyllabic counterparts (5,153 tokens).

⁶ The effect of negation on word order in F-periphrases is not easy to evaluate, due to the fact that negated F-periphrases are overall quite rare. For the sake of completeness, here are some data. In the period from 200 to 600 , I counted 1,382 F-periphrases unaccompanied by non; 487 of those are head-initial (i.e. 35.24%). Out of 69 F-periphrases negated by non, 31 are head-initial (44.93%). This difference in absolute terms is not statistically significant (Fisher’s exact test, p = .1218). ⁷ Note that this observation does not entail that the abovementioned contrast between word order in (Late Latin) E- and F-periphrases (cf. Figures 9.3 and 9.4) can be reduced to the fact that there are no monosyllabic auxiliaries of the F-type: see Danckaert (2016: 158–61) for statistical evidence corroborating this point.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

187

Frequency of the order be–past participle (in%)

100

80 8

9

60 6

40

20

2 4

1

3

-200

32

13 10

5

0

36

16

11

7

0

39 17

24 21

14

12 15 19 18

20

200 Time

23 22

25 27

30 28 31 29 26

400

34 35 37 33

38

600

Figure 9.7 Incidence of the order monosyllabic -auxiliary–past participle, c. 200 –600  Key: see Figure 9.3

In contrast, as can be seen in Figure 9.8, with the exception of one data point after 200 , E-periphrases with a polysyllabic (and typically bisyllabic) auxiliary quite frequently appear in the head-initial order (on average around 35% of the cases; only authors/texts with more than eight polysyllabic E-auxiliaries are taken into account). The almost entirely flat trajectory of the straight regression line suggests that word order variation in this data set is diachronically stable, but given the considerable amount of synchronic variation throughout the entire period covered, it should be clear that it is very difficult to interpret what exactly is going on here. In any event, the contrast with the monosyllabic auxiliaries is unmistakable. Assuming that the syntactic component of the grammar cannot count syllables, but that in contrast phonological rules or constraints can, in fact, be sensitive to the number of syllables of a given lexical item, we can conclude that we have a first piece of evidence in support of the claim that word order in Late Latin E-periphrases is at least partly a matter of phonology.

9.3.2 Evidence from prose rhythm A second argument that goes in the same direction comes from the philological literature on prose rhythm, and in particular a phenomenon that was recently

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

188

 

Frequency of the order be–past participle (in%)

100

80

5

60

40

1

2

4

9

30

8

29 6

24

14

16 17

11

20

23

21

12 13

22

34 26 28 27

35

31 32 33

15 3

10

7

0 –200

0

19 18

20

200

25

400

600

Time

Figure 9.8 Incidence of the order polysyllabic -auxiliary–past participle (E-periphrases only), c. 200 –600  Key: 1= Plautus, 2= Terence, 3= Cato, 4= Cicero, 5= Caesar, 6= Varro, 7= Sallust, 8= Hyginus, 9= Vitruvius, 10= Livy, 11= Celsus, 12= Seneca, 13= Columella, 14= Petronius, 15= Frontinus, 16= Quintilian, 17= Pliny, 18= Tacitus, 19= Suetonius, 20= Gaius, 21= Tertullian, 22= Cyprian, 23= SHA, 24= Palladius, 25= Egeria, 26= Jerome, 27= Augustine, 28= Vulgate, 29= GCC, 30= Vegetius, 31= Victor, 32= Pompeius, 33= Caesarius, 34= Jordanes, 35= Gregory.

revisited in Holmes (2017). As is well known, many Latin prose authors adhered to a number of conventions of ‘clausula formation’, which we can define as the preference to map the end of a sentence and—less systematically—of longer sentence-internal phrases onto certain rhythmical patterns (i.e. sequences of heavy and light syllables), and to avoid certain such sequences in the same positions.⁸ Rhythmical preferences (for the purpose of clausula formation, that is) did not remain stable over time.⁹ For the Late Latin period, Holmes (2015) provides an ⁸ For a general overview of the literature on Latin prose rhythm, see Oberhelman (2003). As pointed out by this author, other aspects of the rhythmical organization of literary prose can be subsumed under the remit of ‘prose rhythm’ too, most notably the segmentation of long stretches of text into smaller prosodic units, the so-called ‘prose cola’ studied by, among others, Fraenkel (1932–3) and Habinek (1985). Note, however, that the data discussed in this strand of the literature have never been revisited in the light of the modern literature on prosodic phonology to be discussed in Section 9.4.2 below. ⁹ In addition, during the transition towards Late Latin, the earlier quantity-based vowel system collapses, which leads to a series of changes that also affect clausula formation, with, e.g., an increasingly important role for word accents (see, again, Oberhelman 2003, and the many references cited

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

189

overview of preferred and dispreferred clausulae: three patterns characterized as ‘extremely common’ and ‘very common’ are listed in Table 9.1, where the symbol ‘―’ denotes a heavy syllable, ‘∪’ a light syllable, ‘.’ a word division, ‘x’ a syllable whose weight is ‘indifferent’ (i.e. for metrical/rhythmical purposes), ‘´ ’ an accented syllable, and ‘∥’ the right edge of a clausula. Table 9.1 (Some) preferred clausulae in Late Latin rhythmical prose Rhythmical pattern

Frequency

― ∪ . ― ― x // ― ∪ . ― ∪ ∪ x // ´ x // x //. ― ∪ ― x //

extremely common very common very common

Two examples instantiating the first type of clausula mentioned in Table 9.1 are given in (4), both from Boethius’ Philosophiae Consolatio (c. 524 ): (4) a.

b.

― ∪ ―― x∥ ad super-ius element-um es-se-t ascensu-s to high-. character- be-.-3 way.up- ‘there would be a way up to the higher character’ (Boeth. Cons. 1.1) ― ∪ interi-us autem recept-a interior-  received-.. ‘but once ingested they become sweet’

―― x∥ dulcesc-a-nt sweeten-.-3 (Boeth. Cons. 3.1)

One very important observation concerns the behaviour of forms of non-copular esse ‘be’ in Late Latin rhythmic prose. As was noted at least as early as Havet (1892), clause-final monosyllabic forms of esse can appear after the end of a clausula, apparently not being taken into account for metrical (rhythmical) purposes (Havet 1892: 66–74; Di Capua 1914: 295, 1937: 21 n. 5; Hagendahl 1937: 96–9; Holmes 2017).¹⁰ Thus, Havet (1892: 66–7):

there). Important though these developments are in their own right, they are not crucial for present purposes. ¹⁰ But, as pointed out in Hagendahl (1937: 96) (in his discussion of prose rhythm in Arnobius the Elder (c. 310 )), instances of est and es (i.e. the 2nd and 3rd person singular forms of the present indicative) inside a clausula have to be retained in full in order to obtain a good clausula. Anticipating the upcoming discussion, we can assume that in such cases we are dealing with what I will refer to below as ‘strong ’ (i.e. an instance of copular , or a remnant of the auxiliary used in earlier E-periphrases).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

190

 

Ordinairement, le monosyllabe est, sunt, etc., semble être censé nul, c’est à dire que d’une part la nature de la finale placée en contact avec lui paraît être indifférente (non seulement il est indifférent qu’elle soit longue ou brève [footnote omitted mais encore, quand elle se termine par une voyelle ou une m, il est indifférent que le monosyllabe commence par une voyelle ou une consonne), et que d’autre part le mot pénultième agit, sur le précédent, comme il agirait s’il était final.¹¹

A similar remark is made in Di Capua (1914: 295): Le voci monosillabe del verbo sum, poste in fine di clausola, non contano; e ciò sia che incomincino per vocale, sia per consonante.¹²

Di Capua (1914: 295) gives the following examples from Boethius’ Consolatio (with, again the same type of clausula as in (4)): (5) a.

b.

―∪ ――x∥ poll-u-isse mentit-i sunt soil-- lied-.. be..3 ’they lied that [I] violated [my conscience]’

(Boeth. Cons. 1.4)

―∪ ――x ∥ felicitat-is oblit-us es happiness- forgotten-.. be..2 ‘you have forgotten [your] happiness’

(Boeth. Cons. 2.3)

Importantly, practices in earlier authors seem to have been different, although it has to be added that the matter is not entirely straightforward to evaluate, mainly because many sequences ending with a monosyllabic form of esse constitute an acceptable clausula regardless of whether the final monosyllable is taken into account or not. Nevertheless, on the basis of a small corpus study of Cicero, Bornecque (1907: 226–8, emphasis in original omitted) concludes that it is at the very least not the rule to disregard final forms of esse:

¹¹ ‘Normally the monosyllables est, sunt, and the like seem to be considered null. On the one hand, the nature of the final syllable in contact with such a form seems not to matter: it is not only immaterial whether this final syllable is long or short [footnote omitted], but also, when it ends with a vowel or an m, it does not matter whether the [following] monosyllable starts with a vowel or with a consonant. On the other hand, the penultimate word behaves with respect to the preceding one as if it were in final position.’ ¹² ‘The monosyllabic forms of the verb sum do not count when placed at the end of a clausula, regardless of whether they start with a vowel or with a consonant.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

191

Dans 67 cas, la forme monosyllabique peut être comptée ou non . . . Dans 37 cas, la forme monosyllabique doit être comptée pour une syllabe . . . En résumé, il y a tendance à compter ces formes monosyllabiques.¹³

This second piece of evidence confirms that especially monosyllabic forms of Late Latin esse display some idiosyncratic behaviour which is difficult to account for if we were to assume that word order in E-periphrases is only a matter of syntax (say, variable headedness of the T-node).

9.4 Some background assumptions In this section I will lay the foundations for the upcoming analysis: I will start by spelling out my assumptions about Late Latin clause structure, and then I will elaborate on how a prosodic representation can be derived from a syntactic tree. In Section 9.5 I will then put this system to use to explain the patterns described in Section 9.2. The analysis of Late Latin clause structure that I will assume here is entirely based on the discussion offered in Danckaert (2017a: ch. 5). In this work, it is argued that, at some point during the first century , a new grammar (called ‘Grammar B’ for simplicity) becomes productive. This grammar gradually takes over from the older ‘Grammar A’, which was mainly productive in what is traditionally referred to as the Archaic and Classical periods (say 200 –100 ). Although Grammar A obviously did not disappear overnight, I will here make the simplifying assumption that the grammar we see at work in Latin texts from c. 200 to 600  is indeed Grammar B.

9.4.1 Late Latin clause structure I will take it that a clause generated by Grammar B minimally consists of the series of functional heads given in (6) (where I am abstracting away from left peripheral heads dominating SubjP): (6)

. . . Subj° > F°[EPP] > Neg° > T° > Voice° > v° > √°

Let me briefly comment upon this fragment of the functional sequence. The lowest three heads constitute a three-tiered verb phrase, with an acategorial root ¹³ ‘In 67 cases the monosyllabic form can be counted or not . . . In 37 cases, the monosyllabic form has to be counted as a syllable . . . In sum, there is a tendency to take these monosyllabic forms into account.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

192

 

at the bottom, a verbalizing head v right above it, and a Voice-head on top of that. In this articulated thematic domain, an internal argument (if present) is merged in the complement position of √°; external arguments are first merged in SpecVoiceP. Moving, then, to the articulated inflectional layer, we first encounter T, which I take to be the base position of -auxiliaries, in both passive and deponent contexts. Right above T sits Neg; importantly for present purposes, whenever this head is lexicalized by non, in Grammar B it always forms a complex head with T (Danckaert 2017a: 249–54). In particular, the T head moves to Neg and right-adjoins to it, and, as a result, negation surfaces as a proclitic to the hierarchically highest verb in the clause. This state of affairs is preserved in all present-day Romance languages in which some descendant of Latin non is still used as the canonical marker of sentential negation. Finally, there are two functional heads which in a broad sense can be said to be associated with ‘subjecthood’. The first is F; as indicated, I take this head to be endowed with an EPP-feature, which entails that F(P) needs to be lexicalized overtly by some φ-feature-bearing category. In the wake of, among others, Anagnostopoulou and Alexiadou (1998) and Biberauer (2003), I adopt the idea that the languages of the world differ in the way in which this lexicalization process comes about: in a nutshell, some languages employ head movement to F°, whereas other languages merge a phrasal category in SpecFP. In Grammar B the former option is selected, yielding movement of the finite verb of a given clause to F, with or without a proclitic negator. Finally, subject arguments can optionally evacuate the thematic layer and move to the specifier of a dedicated subject position SubjP. Under this analysis, EPP satisfaction and presence or absence of A-movement are logically distinct (on this last point, see in particular Danckaert 2017c). All this is brought together in the tree in (7b) (overt terminals emboldened), which details the structure of a Late Latin clause like (7a), featuring a negated (and in this case head-final) -periphrasis (and the overall word order ‘C-SOV-Neg-Aux’).¹⁴ (7) a. cum Christ-us [Thoma-m apostol-um dubita-nt-em although Christ- Thomas- apostle- doubt-.- de se] aspernat-us non si-t about . scorned-.. not be..-3 ‘although Christ did not reject the apostle Thomas, who had doubts about him’ (Aug. c. Faust. 16.8, c. 400 )

¹⁴ The abbreviations ‘EA’ and ‘IA’ used in the tree in (7b) stand for ‘external argument’ and ‘internal argument’ respectively.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

b.

193

CP SubjP

C°

Subj’

DPEA Subj°

FP F°[+EPP]

NegP tNeg°

TP tT°

VoiceP tDPEA

Neg°

F° T°

Voice’ vP

Voice° v°

P DPIA

Neg°

t√° √°

v°

Let me conclude this section with a note on word or, more precisely, the linearization of syntactic structures. As indicated in the tree in (7b), I take it that complement-head sequences do not have to be derived through movement (along the lines of Kayne 1994), but rather that they can be base-generated as such. Although this way of representing things may well be a simplification,¹⁵ one major advantage of assuming variable headedness in the base is that it allows one to derive prosodic representations from syntactic trees in a much more straightforward fashion than if one were to assume antisymmetry. In any event, it should be noted that head-final OVAux orders are not the only ones that are compatible with Grammar B. Rather, all nodes lower than and including F can be head-initial, as long as the ‘Final-Over-Final Constraint’ (FOFC) from Biberauer et al (2014a) is respected. Simply put, FOFC says that within one and the same extended projection, a head-final projection can only dominate other head-final projections. As documented in Danckaert (2017a: ch. 4),

¹⁵ For an antisymmetric approach to Latin word order, see, again, Danckaert (2017a). As mentioned there, one advantage of deriving complement-head sequences through syntactic movement is that it allows one to account for the decline of the VOAux order along the lines of Biberauer et al. (2014a).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

194

 

evidence for the claim that FOFC is at work in the hypothesized Grammar B comes from the observation that the word order ‘VOAux’ (i.e. a head-initial verb phrase dominated by a head-final TP (or FP)) is only very rarely attested in Late Latin texts.

9.4.2 From syntax to prosody Let us consider how a syntactic structure like (7b) can be mapped onto a prosodic representation.¹⁶ In the wake of pioneering work by Selkirk (1980, 1981, 1986) and Nespor and Vogel (2007 [1986]),¹⁷ I will assume that (phrasal) syntactic constituents of various sizes are mapped onto prosodic constituents of various sizes. Conversely, as a rule, strings of words which do not form a syntactic constituent do not correspond to a prosodic constituent either (that is, unless some sort of ‘restructuring’ process applies; cf. Nespor and Vogel 2007 [1986]). The inventory of possible prosodic constituents is standardly summarized in what is known as the ‘prosodic hierarchy’. The largest constituent in this hierarchy is the utterance (U), which consists of one or more intonational phrases (I). These in turn are made up of phonological phrases (p-phrases, φ), which contain prosodic words (p-words, ω).¹⁸ Lower down we find metrical feet (F), and finally syllables (σ).¹⁹ By default, (non-deficient) morphological words are mapped onto prosodic words, syntactic phrases (simplex ones such as DPs or PPs, or more complex ones like VPs (or higher nodes in the extended projection of a lexical verb)) surface as phonological phrases (see especially Truckenbrodt 1999), and clauses are mapped onto intonational phrases (see, e.g., Selkirk 2011: 439 for a statement along these lines). Importantly, these rules are certainly not inviolable; rather, the exact prosodic shape of a given syntactic unit is governed by a number of factors, such as the length and/or internal complexity of a given XP, but also, for example, the speech rate in actual production. As we will see in Section 9.5, the representations that can be built with these prosodic categories resemble syntactic trees in that they are (rigidly) hierarchically organized, but they differ from them (i) in that they allow for non-binary

¹⁶ For additional discussion of prosodic constituency in Latin (albeit from a different perspective from the one adopted here), see Agbayani and Golston (2016). ¹⁷ For more recent overviews of the state of the art in the field of prosodic phonology, see Truckenbrodt (2007), Elordieta (2008), and Selkirk (2011). ¹⁸ Note that I am omitting the so-called ‘clitic group’ from this list of prosodic categories, which in Nespor and Vogel (2007 [1986]) is situated between the phonological phrase and the prosodic word. The status of this intermediate level is debated. ¹⁹ Below the level of the syllable one can furthermore distinguish morae (μ) and segments (S), which I will not take into account further here.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

195

branching nodes (which in syntax is not standardly allowed under current assumptions), and (ii) in that a given prosodic category can only dominate categories that occur lower in the prosodic hierarchy (i.e. unlike in syntax, in phonology there is no such thing as recursive embedding). As originally proposed in Selkirk (1981), this last point can be said to follow from a stronger constraint known as ‘strict layering’. In the words of Selkirk (2011: 437): (8) The strict layer hypothesis A constituent of category-level n in the prosodic hierarchy immediately dominates only a (sequence of) constituents at category-level n 1 in the hierarchy. In other words, intonational phrases immediately dominate only phonological phrases, which dominate only immediately prosodic words, and so on. As we will see immediately, the consequences of the strict layer hypothesis will play an important role in the upcoming analysis.

9.5 A lexical split: Strong and weak  We can now return to the empirical data at issue, namely variable word order in Late Latin -periphrases. The core proposal is that at a certain point in the history of the language (presumably at the beginning of the common era, although the actual point of actuation is, of course, difficult to pin down), a lexical split took place, giving rise to the creation of two lexical items esse, which I will refer to as ‘weak ’ and ‘strong ’. Weak  is found in E-periphrases, and probably also in combination with a gerundive, as well as in expressions like opus esse ‘need, have want’ and necesse esse ‘be necessary’.²⁰ Despite being the innovative variant, weak  is used in environments which do not survive in Romance, and it also does not itself live on in the Romance languages.²¹ In contrast, strong  (which is a continuation of ‘old ’) is found in various types of copular clauses, and in F-periphrases; it is also the

²⁰ As pointed out in Danckaert (2017a: 287–8), there are reasons to assume that the Late Latin lexical entry ‘weak ’ hypothesized here is unrelated to the phenomenon of prodelision (or aphaeresis) with  (Boldrini 1999: 54–5; Pezzini 2015). Specifically, this phenomenon exclusively affects forms of esse with a vocalic onset, whereas the word order behaviour of Late Latin weak  is only to a small extent sensitive to the nature of the first segment (vocalic or consonantal) of a given form of esse. Note also that the Late Latin word order data discussed here have nothing to do with the putative cases of second-position cliticization of esse discussed in Adams (1994) (on which, see Danckaert 2017a: 288–9). ²¹ For a series of arguments that Latin E-periphrases are not the historical source of Romance analytic present tense passives of the type sono amato ‘I am (being) loved’, see Danckaert (2016, 2017b).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

196

 

ancestor of all Romance -verbs that derive from Latin esse (auxiliaries and copulae alike).²² As mentioned, I take it that the difference between strong and weak  is specified in the lexicon. The core difference between the two variants concerns their respective phonological shape: weak but not strong  is phonologically deficient. More precisely, as a first approximation to be refined below, we can say that weak  constitutes a foot (F) that cannot project a prosodic word (ω) of its own, unless it is sufficiently heavy, that is, at least bisyllabic. For the time being, I will concentrate on monosyllabic forms of esse, and I will return to polysyllabic forms in Section 9.6.4. Importantly, if we want to adhere to the ‘strict layer hypothesis’ spelled out in (8), the question now arises as to how a ‘stray foot’ can be incorporated in a larger prosodic representation containing, among other things, phonological and intonational phrases, which by assumption cannot directly dominate anything other than prosodic words and phonological phrases respectively. In order to avoid this potential problem, we can assume that weak  is subject to the constraint in (9):²³,²⁴ (9) PF-constraint on placement of weak  Weak  can only survive as a single metrical foot at the level of the prosodic word if it appears at the right edge of a phonological phrase, where it counts as ‘extrametrical’. To make this more concrete, we can say that a prosodic representation involving a ‘bare foot’ instance of weak  can only be well formed if it looks like (10c) (where extrametricality is indicated by the angle brackets): in (10c) no violation of

²² This proposal predicts that copular esse should not display the type of (word order) behaviour reviewed in Sections 9.2 and 9.3; for example, we predict the word order pattern ‘subject–esse– predicate’ to be fully productive in Late Latin. In future work I hope to test whether this prediction is borne out. ²³ On foot extrametricality, see also Buckley (1994) and Hayes (1995: 56–60, 105–8). Compare Hyde (2011: 1027) on extrametricality more generally (emphasis mine): The result of extrametricality is essentially invisibility to the application of subsequent rules. When a constituent is designated as extrametrical, it is excluded from the domain of rules that might incorporate it into higher levels of prosodic structure. An extrametrical segment cannot be associated with a mora; for example, an extrametrical syllable cannot be footed, and an extrametrical foot cannot be included in a prosodic word. ²⁴ One interesting question is why the constraint in (9) makes explicit reference to the right edge of phonological phrases, or to put it differently, why weak  cannot be extrametrical when it sits at the left edge of a p-phrase. As pointed out in Hyde (2011), cross-linguistically there is a general—but no absolute—tendency for extrametricality to obtain at the right edge of phonological domains, for reasons that are at this point not well understood. I would like to leave this question open.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

197

strict layering obtains, because the extrametrical foot is invisible for the phonological component at the point where p-phrases are construed. (10) a. *

b. *

φ F

ω

ω

c.

φ ω

F

ω

φ ω

ω

With all this in place, let us now look at a number of sample derivations to see how the proposed machinery can account for the patterns introduced in Section 9.2.

9.6. Weak  at the syntax–prosody interface 9.6.1 ✓PaPa–weak  (- XP) I will start with the derivation of examples in which a monosyllabic -auxiliary in an E-periphrasis appears at the very end of a clause. Let us assume that the ‘VPAux’-example in (11) (from Jordanes, active around 550 ) was generated by Grammar B, and that the clause-initial subject does not sit in its thematic base position but rather in SpecSubjP. (11) Consul Belesari-us Roman-am urb-em ingress-us consul. Belesarius- Roman- city- entered-.. est. be..3 ‘The consul Belesarius entered the city of Rome.’ (Iord. Rom. 373) Full syntactic and prosodic structures of this example are provided in (12), where footed syllables are represented as ‘(σ)’, and extrametrical ones as ‘’.²⁵

²⁵ Note that I am assuming that Latin trochaic feet can be uneven (cf. Jacobs 2000; Marotta 2000; pace Mester 1994); nothing crucially hinges on this. On foot formation (and stress assigment) in bisyllabic words with a light first syllable and an extrametrical final syllable, such as sui ‘her ()’ and probably also patris ‘father ()’ in (13)–(14), see Hayes (1995: 111 (‘incorporation of extrametrical material’)). Note also that the upcoming representations could be further enriched with information about vowel elisions in prevocalic extrametrical syllables, a complication which is orthogonal to the point at issue.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

198

 

(12)

SubjP DPEA

Subj’ FP

Subj°

F°[+EPP]

TP tT°

VoiceP tDPEA

Voice° v°

P t

v°

S Consul Belesarius

O Romanam urbem

(σ) σ

(σ)(σ ) σ

(σ σ)(σσ) σ

F

F

F

F°

Voice’ vP

DPIA

T°

(σ) σ

F F F < σ>

V ingressus (σ)(σ) σ F F

Aux est. x (σ) F

i

i U

Let me briefly comment upon this structure. First of all, it should go without saying that the prosodic representation offered is to some extent hypothetical (but probably not too far off the mark). In any event, whenever weak  appears at the end of a clause, there is obviously no way it can end up at the left edge (cf. (10a)) or in the middle of a phonological phrase (as in (10b)). Rather, it will automatically appear at the right edge of a phonological phrase, which in (12) is one that corresponds to the syntactic node FP. A side question that arises at this point is whether preverbal subjects are to be mapped onto an independent intonational phrase or not. As pointed out in Elordieta, Frota, and Vigário (2005), modern Romance varieties differ in this

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

199

respect. For example, in European Portuguese a preverbal subject by default constitutes a phonological phrase (and nothing more), whereas in Castilian Spanish it typically appears as a larger unit, namely an intonational phrase. As can be seen in (12), I (tentatively) assume that preverbal subjects in Grammar B are mapped onto an independent intonational phrase, at least when occurring in SpecSubjP (in which case they could be said to be associated with an ‘aboutness’ reading). I will return to this particular point shortly. Importantly, it certainly is not the case that the string ‘PaPa–weak ’ has to occur clause-finally. Although I cannot at this point provide exact quantitative data, it is clear that examples such as (13), in which a head-final E-periphrasis is followed by additional phrasal material (in this case a direct object), are not hard to come by: (13) Rachel furat-a est idol-a patr-is su-i Rachel. stolen-.. be..3 idols- father- her- ‘Rachel stole her father’s idols.’ (Vulg. (VT), Isaias 59.3) It seems reasonable to assume that a post-INFL phrase such as the extraposed object in (13) corresponds to an independent phonological phrase. The full structure of this type of example would look as in (14) (where I assume XP extraposition to involve a process of rightward movement and adjunction to the top node of the phrase marker, with obvious simplifications):

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

200

 

(14)

SubjP

SubjP

DPIA

DPEA

Subj’ FP

Subj°

F°[+EPP]

TP VoiceP tDPEA

tT°

Voice’ Voice°

vP P tDPIA

F°

T°

v° t

v°

S Rachel

V furata

Aux est

(σ) σ

(σ)(σ)σ

(σ)

O idola patris sui x (σ)(σ)σ (σ)σ (σ)σ

F

F F

F

F F F F

ω

ω

φ

ω

φ

i

ω

ω

φ i

U

This type of structure is correctly predicted to be compatible with a head-final -periphrasis featuring an instance of weak ; in order for weak  to end up at the end of the p-phrase derived from the syntactic node FP, it actually suffices for the extraposed constituent to be mapped onto a category which is at least as big a phonological phrase. Given the assumption that it is—at least as a default rule— syntactic constituents (rather than non-constituents) that are mapped onto prosodic constituents, we must assume that an alternative prosodic representation in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

201

which weak  leans rightwards to be incorporated at the left edge of the constituent projected by the extraposed direct object would be ill-formed.

9.6.2 * Weak –PaPa Next, let us consider why head-initial E-periphrases with a monosyllabic -auxiliary are so rare in Late Latin or, in other words, why affirmative ‘S–monosyllabic–OV’ orders are only very infrequently attested in Late Latin texts (compare the constructed example (15), which only differs from its attested counterpart in (11) in that it features the order AuxVP rather than VPAux). (15) ?? [consul Belesarius] est [Romanam urbem] ingressus Given the way Grammar B was characterized in Section 9.4.1, (15) is predicted to be syntactically grammatical, and given what we know about variable word order in Late Latin (generally more AuxVP than VPAux, and generally more OV than VO; cf. Danckaert 2017a), we actually predict this word order pattern to be one of the more frequently attested ones. If we assume that the structure of a hypothesized example like (15) only differs from the one in (11)–(12) in the headedness of Voice, T, and F (i.e. all the projections above vP which in (12) are head-final), we obtain a tree like (16):

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

202

 

(16)

SubjP

Subj’

DPEA

Subj°

FP

F°[+EPP] T°

F°

TP

tT°

VoiceP

Voice’

tDPEA

Voice°

vP P

t S Consul

(σ) σ ( σ σ) (σσ)σ F < σ> F F< σ >

ω

DPIA

Aux Belesarius

ω

=>

v v

O

V

est

Romanam urbem ingressus

(σ) F

(σ) (σ)σ (σ) σ (σ) (σ) σ F F< σ> F< σ> F F< σ>

x

ω

F

ω

ω

φ

φ

i

i

U

As can be seen, this structure is not compliant with the constraint in (9), as weak  does not appear at the right edge of a phonological phrase; as indicated by the dashed lines, the relevant foot cannot be incorporated in either of the neighbouring phonological phrases. First, if syntactic and prosodic constituency were to coincide, weak  would end up at the left edge of the p-phrase projected by FP. The result is a violation of the strict layer hypothesis (i.e. a ‘stray F’ at a level where there should only be ωs), given that foot extrametricality can only obtain at the right edge of a p-phrase. We can now also be a bit more precise as to how exactly unacceptability comes about in cases like (15). Concretely, (9) should be taken to work as a post-syntactic filter (along the lines of, e.g., Bošković 2001). There is nothing wrong with the syntactic tree in (16), which is fully compatible with Grammar B, and we have no reason to assume that the syntactic component has access to the phonological features

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

     

203

associated with the lexical items it manipulates. However, the corresponding phonological representation is ill-formed, with unacceptability as a result. Alternatively, in (16) weak  could lean to the left and end up at the right edge of the phonological phrase projected by the subject. The problem with this scenario is that the nodes SpecSubjP and F° (with or without some additional maximal projection(s) in the main spine of the clause) do not together form a syntactic constituent, and as a result they are not mapped onto an independent prosodic unit, at least not by default. Corpus data provide empirical evidence in favour of this last point. If we split up the set of E-periphrases into two subsets, namely those that occur in clauses featuring a preverbal (pre-INFL) subject and those that do not, and if we look at word order preferences in both subsets, we obtain the distribution shown in Figure 9.9 (only samples with more than eight preverbal subjects (external or internal arguments) are taken into account).

Frequency of the order be–Past Participle (in %)

100

PreV Subj No PreV Subj

80

60

40

20

0 –200

0

200

400

600

Time

Figure 9.9 Incidence of the order –past participle (E-periphrases only), c. 200 – 600 : clauses with and without an overt preverbal subject compared

As we can see, in Late Latin the presence of a preverbal subject seems to favour the order ‘–PaPa’, but the effect is clearly only very small, and it is not entirely obvious to assess whether it is statistically significant. If we build a logistic regression to model the variable distribution of ‘PaPa–’ and ‘–PaPa’ orders

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

204

 

in E-periphrases, with the factor ‘[ preverbal subject]’ as one of the independent covariates, alongside ‘Date’ (200 –590 ), ‘Negation’ (affirmative vs negated), ‘SyllAux’ (polysyllabic vs monosyllabic -auxiliary), ‘Clause type’ (embedded vs main clauses), ‘Voice’ (deponent vs passive -periphrases), as well as a number of interaction terms, we obtain the results summarized in Table 9.2 (between brackets in the first column, the level of categorical predictors for which the estimated log odds are given). Table 9.2 Results of a logistic regression modelling the incidence of the order ‘– PaPa’ in Latin E-periphrases (c. 200 –600 ) Predictor (Intercept) Date Negation (negated) SyllAux (monosyllabic) Clause type (main) PreVSubj (present) Voice (passive) Date:Negation Date:SyllAux Date:PreVSubj Negation:SyllAux Date:Negation:SyllAux

Estimate 0.7820513 0.0010144 0.1558348 0.6755053 0.1866203 0.0507338 0.2568799 0.0027817 0.0016884 0.0011452 0.9301830 0.0027917

Std Error

p-value

0.0461583 0.0001592 0.1656251 0.0421043 0.0369689 0.0400040 0.0394483 0.0008338 0.0001783 0.0001686 0.2106361 0.0009584

must, agan > ought, and durran > dare), in addition to carrying modal meaning, were distinguished from other verbs in Old English by the morphological peculiarity of being preterite-presents, and therefore lacking the usual -eþ ending in the third-person singular. The Old English verb willan > will, while not a preterite-present verb, also happened to lack this ending. There were some non-modal preterite-present verbs as well, but all of these were lost before the end of the fifteenth century (Lightfoot 1979: 102). By the end of the Middle English period, then, there was a morphologically distinct set of verbs all of which had modal meaning. If Cowper and Hall (2014) are correct in their claim that a formal feature can arise when speakers establish a correlation between two properties, it is reasonable to suppose that speakers may have assigned a feature such as  to the preterite-present premodal verbs during the Middle English period, systematically distinguishing this class of verbs from other verbs in the language. A second important factor was the scarcity of non-finite uses of the premodals. As Warner (1993: 144–8) observes, non-finite modals were already infrequent in Old English, and they became more so throughout the OE and ME periods. Meanwhile, finite forms of the premodals were increasingly used as a periphrastic alternative to the subjunctive mood (Cowper and Hall 2017: 75), as the morphological distinction between the subjunctive and the indicative was eroding. By Early Modern English, then, the modals were almost exclusively finite, so that for

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

230

 ,   ,  .

some speakers the rarity of their non-finite forms was construed as a categorical gap (perhaps by the learning mechanism described by Gorman and Yang 2019). Since finite verbs moved out of the verb phrase at this stage, this meant that the modals virtually always surfaced in T, or even higher in questions and counterfactual conditions. From a Distributed Morphology perspective, the modals could thus be interpreted as consistently spelling out a finite T head. We propose that, at this point, speakers were led to posit  as an inherent feature of the premodals. This made it possible for modals to be merged directly in T, rather than moving to T after having merged as the head of a verb phrase lower in the structure. Following Roberts and Roussou (2003: 30), we assume that, given the choice between merging the premodals directly in T, on the one hand, and merging them in V but invariably moving them to T, on the other, the learner will choose the more economical option of merging them directly in T. So far,  has not played a contrastive role in the system, but rather has simply been a feature of the class of premodals. But once the premodals become members of the category T, the stage is set for a new grammatical contrast. Since  characterizes all and only the premodals, and since the premodals merge in T, all clauses containing premodals have a feature in T that all other clauses lack. We hypothesize that this led to a change in the status of that feature. Originally a feature of a lexical class, expressing the correlation between modal meaning and a morphological peculiarity,  was reanalysed as a systematic, contrastive feature of T, whose meaning operates on the semantics of the feature , as described in Section 10.3.2 above. Once that happened, clauses without a modal in T were contrastively non-modal, and, in particular, presenttense clauses without modals could no longer express future meanings. This scenario correctly predicts that there should have been an intermediate stage where modals were merged in T and expressed various kinds of modality, including temporal modality, but were not obligatory in clauses with future time reference. However, as more and more speakers acquired  as a contrastive feature of the T system, the modals will and shall became obligatory in such clauses. From the data we have, it seems that this happened sometime in the 1500s, after the Purvey/Wycliffe Bible was created but before the King James Version. Given the connection that we have established between the addition of contrastive  to the English T system and the restrictions on future-referring uses of the present tense, another change around the same time warrants some attention. Fischer (1992) notes that prior to late Middle English, there was no historical or narrative use of the present. It seems plausible that the narrowing of the semantic range of the present from simply ‘non-past’ to ‘contrastively nonmodal non-past’ might somehow make it possible for the present to refer to a narrative past time, but the actual connection remains to be explored. Interestingly, a preliminary search has turned up no languages that both have a historical use of the present and lack any overt morphosyntax for the future.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

      

231

In Section 10.4 we turn to another change in the modal system of English: changes in the expression of futurity between the time of the King James Version and the present day.

10.4 A new transitional stage? Present-Day English We have already seen examples showing that the modals will and shall occurred in a wider set of contexts in the seventeenth century than they do today. The clearest cases of this are future-referring adjunct clauses headed by when and if: in Early Modern English modals were required in all such clauses, as in (18), whereas in PDE they are impossible. (18)

a. For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. (KJV, Mark 12:25) b. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do [it]. (KJV, John 14:14)

The use of modals in such clauses declined during the eighteenth century, as noted by Visser (1963–73: §1519): In the course of the eighteenth century the number of instances with shall perceptibly decreases; subsequently the use of shall + infinitive in conditional clauses practically passes into desuetude.

It thus seems that modals reached the peak of their distribution in Early Modern English, and have since declined. The question is whether this was a relatively minor change, affecting only adjunct clauses and resulting in a state of equilibrium for the feature  in the PDE inflectional system, or whether it is a single stage in a broader change taking place over a much longer time period, possibly continuing into the present day. In fact, recent variationist work has demonstrated that true modals are in decline across different contemporary varieties of English. Tagliamonte and D’Arcy (2007), for example, show that in present-day Canadian English, modals like must, will, and can are losing ground to the so-called semi-modals, such as have to, be going to, and be able to, and Bybee et al. (1994), Krug (2000), Jankowski (2004), and Collins (2005) have reported similar developments in other contemporary varieties.¹⁴

¹⁴ See also Biberauer and Roberts (2015b), who argue that the decline of the modals in contemporary English is an example of nanoparametric change, taking place on an item-by-item basis.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

232

 ,   ,  .

In terms of the organization of the English inflectional system, what we need to ask is whether these semi-modals are simply innovative realizations of the same syntactic feature  or whether that feature itself is in decline. The semimodals are all periphrastic expressions that allow semantic modality to be expressed in the same clause as the full range of tense forms, as illustrated in (19)–(21). (19)

a. The students are able to perform this calculation. b. The students can perform this calculation.

(20)

a.

(21)

a. We expect the students to be able to perform this calculation. b. * We expect the students to can perform this calculation.

The students have been able to perform this calculation for several years now. b. * The students have could perform this calculation for several years now.

Each of the true modals has a corresponding periphrastic form; for example, must = have to, can = be able to, will/shall = be going to, may = be allowed to, should = be supposed to, etc. Fischer (2003) suggests that such constructions arose to compensate for the grammaticalization of the true modals (i.e. the restriction of the true modals to finite forms, and, for us, the addition of the feature  to the English Infl system). The semi-modals as a class are syntactically distinct from the true modals in that semi-modals do not merge in the Infl head, instead occurring lower in the clause. The majority of semi-modals take the form of  + adjective/participle + non-finite IP (e.g. be able to, be supposed to, be allowed to, be going to).¹⁵ We treat  as a copular verb; like other uses of , it allows inversion in questions (e.g. Is she able to swim?; Are they supposed to leave?, etc.) without need for -support.¹⁶ But the modal meaning is expressed by the lower adjective or participle, which is clearly below Infl. The behaviour of the semi-modal have to is interesting in this regard; while auxiliary have normally precedes VP-initial adverbs and clausal negation, and inverts in questions, many speakers do not apply these patterns to the have of have to, as illustrated in (22). (In general, the speakers who accept (22) seem to be ones who also allow such constructions when have is a main verb taking a nominal complement.) ¹⁵ While able and allowed are fairly clearly adjectives, and going is fairly clearly a participle, the category of supposed is less clear—it differs in both pronunciation and interpretation from the deverbal adjective supposed (in the sense of ‘assumed’). We have also set aside habitual used to, which syntactically resembles the semi-modals but expresses aspectual rather than modal meaning. ¹⁶ We assume, following Cowper (2010) and Bjorkman (2011), that both copular and auxiliary  occur in order to realize stranded inflectional features, either in Infl or in a lower inflectional head.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

       (22)

a. b. c.

233

%

We have usually to ring the doorbell twice to get his attention. She hadn’t to leave until Tuesday. % Have they to write another paper this term? %

For speakers who reject (22), not only does semi-modal have not merge in Infl, but it cannot even move to Infl in the course of the derivation. At the very least, therefore, we would have to say that if the PDE semi-modals reflect the syntactic presence of a feature , the feature occupies a lower syntactic position than it does in sentences containing true modals. However, the oldest of the semimodals, have to and be going to, date back to late Middle English or Early Modern English (Leech et al. 2009: 91) and thus predate not only the advent of  as a contrastive feature, but even the establishment of the premodals as a welldefined lexical class. This makes it very unlikely that the rise of the semi-modals is due to the addition of  to the English Infl. Can we distinguish this possibility—that is, that  is simply coming to be morphologically realized by semi-modals rather than true modals—from the alternative possibility that the status of  in English is undergoing a broader change? If  is losing ground as a contrastive feature of Infl, then we would predict, on the basis of our claims about the change from Old English to Modern English, that the present tense would again be expanding its range of use. If, on the other hand, the feature is still contrastive, but now being spelled out by the semi-modals, then there is no reason to expect such an expansion. In this context, we note an expansion in the range of the future-referring simple present that to our knowledge has not previously been reported.¹⁷ As noted in Section 10.1, the simple present in twentieth-century English is usually described as being able to refer only to planned or scheduled future events; it is reported to be infelicitous with unplanned predictions for future events (Lakoff 1971; Vetter 1973; Huddleston and Pullum 2002). For some speakers, however, we find future-referring presents in a broader range of contexts, exemplified in (23). As with futurate presents in the historical corpora, these are virtually impossible to search for in corpora of PDE. However, we have collected a few dozen naturally occurring examples from broadcast media and a handful from print media. These examples are ungrammatical for some (plausibly more conservative) speakers, but fully grammatical for others.¹⁸

¹⁷ Partee (2015) gives an example that may be of the same kind, but assumes that it is a property of headlinese. ¹⁸ We have not conducted any formal study or survey, but two of the authors of this chapter reject the examples in (23), while the other three authors find them fully grammatical. The examples were collected by one of the authors for whom they stand out as ungrammatical.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

234

 ,   ,  .

(23)

New contexts for futurate present in PDE a. In the consequent of a future-oriented conditional:19 If I don’t tell Patty about Katie, the clients lose the case. (Damages, season 1, ep. 1) b. In a matrix or embedded question referring to a future situation: i. But he gets confirmed, right? (referring to a possible future nomination; The West Wing, season 7, ep. 19) ii. If the press finds out next month or next year, then I don’t know what happens to you or your presidency. (The West Wing, season 7, ep. 14) c. In a clause modified by an adverb like maybe or hopefully: Maybe he’s up doin’ the polka five minutes from now. (The West Wing, season 6, ep. 9) d. Embedded under a clause with a modal, a verb with modal meaning, or a negated verb: We’re deadlocked at $300 million. CBC’s pushing for more after-school care. I don’t think we get that out of committee. (The West Wing, season 7, ep. 2) e. Clefts: That’s why the other guy wins. (said months before the election; The West Wing, season 7, ep. 8)

These apparently novel uses of the futurate present do not cover as broad a range as futurate presents did in Old English. Examples appear to fit into five general categories: (a) the consequent of a future-oriented conditional, (b) matrix or embedded questions referring to a future situation, (c) clauses modified by adverbs like maybe or hopefully, (d) clauses embedded under a higher clause containing a modal, negation, or a verb with modal meaning, and (e) a small number of cases involving cleft-like constructions. In general terms, it appears that this use of the simple present is licensed by certain higher operators, specifically question or modal operators. These operators can occupy heads, or can be adjoined to the relevant clause (as in the case of licensing adverbs hopefully or maybe). These generalizations based on attested examples are confirmed by judgements from speakers who accept this use of the simple present; for such speakers there is a contrast between sentences like (24a), with no licensing expression of modality, and (24b), with the adverb hopefully:

¹⁹ We have happened upon one startlingly early example of this type, in a letter from J. S. McCuaig to Sir John A. Macdonald, dated 12 October 1883, quoted in Ward (1950: 78): ‘Unless you again contest the constituency, we lose it.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

       (24)

235

a. #It rains later this month.20 b. %Hopefully it rains later this month.

We suggest that this change can be viewed as a further development in the reduction of the range of use of the modals that began in the eighteenth century (Visser 1963–73). First, modals were lost from conditional and temporal adjunct clauses, and from the complements of verbs like hope, contexts where will and shall appear to have been required in Early Modern English.²¹ Descriptively, we can say that the contexts in (23) represent a broadening of the set of elements that license a future-referring use of the simple present. Focusing on modals as the realization of a feature , we can say that the presence of certain operators above a given instance of Infl, whether in an adjoined position or as a higher c-commanding head, either make the overt realization of  optional or make the presence of that feature itself optional. This might indicate that the status of  is once again changing—or is continuing to change—in the inflectional system of English. It might be that  is becoming (or reverting to) an optional modifier feature, losing its status as a contrastive feature. Alternatively, it could be that  is becoming a contrastive feature in, or licensed by, Comp, or of some other position in the left periphery above Infl, where it is associated with clause-level operators and adjuncts, and can be directly selected by certain higher verbs.²² This would be consistent with the frequent observation that change in grammatically significant elements often involves their association with higher and higher syntactic positions over time (as in, for example, Roberts and Roussou 2003). The course of this recent change in modals, then, is as follows. In Early Modern English, as represented by the King James Bible, modals such as will and shall appear to have been obligatory in all future-referring clauses, including temporal and conditional adjuncts. The feature  was at that point fully contrastive in Infl; clauses without overt modals were contrastively non-modal in meaning, restricting future interpretations of the simple present tense to currently held plans and schedules. During the eighteenth century, a change occurred so that future-referring adjunct clauses headed by elements like if, when, and until could

²⁰ Infelicitous because long-range weather is not subject to planning or scheduling, except in fictional contexts. ²¹ For many people, hope can optionally take complement clauses with will, but there seems to be a subtle difference in meaning between sentences with and without the modal. ²² As noted by an anonymous reviewer, something that might lead speakers to reanalyse  as a feature in the left periphery is the mandative subjunctive, found in embedded clauses below verbs like demand or require (e.g. I demand that someone be held responsible.). Like other uses of the subjunctive, the mandative subjunctive is somewhat vestigial for many contemporary speakers, but for those who use it productively it could be attributed to a left-peripheral covert modal element selected by the relevant class of verbs; this modal would in turn select a bare form of the verb just as the modal auxiliaries do, the PDE mandative subjunctive being identical to the bare infinitive.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

236

 ,   ,  .

no longer contain modals expressing futurity. Now, as illustrated in the examples above, modals are becoming optional in a broader range of constructions, but still in the scope of certain operators arguably related to modality.²³ It is unclear whether this change in the use of the simple present in English can be directly related to the rise of the semi-modals. The fact that we have not observed simple declarative present-tense clauses expressing predicted future events suggests that  is still contrastive in English, but its status is clearly changing. More work is required in order to determine exactly what is going on, and whether  is on its way to vanishing entirely, in which case we would expect the present tense to regain the semantic range it had in the tenth century.

10.5 Conclusions In this chapter we have linked changes in the inflectional system of English— specifically the rise of a grammatically distinct class of modal auxiliaries—to the development of a contrastive feature . We have argued that the absence of such a feature prior to the development of the modals predicts that the simple present should have occurred in contexts that later came to require futurereferring modals such as will or shall. This prediction is borne out: in Old English, predictive statements about the future were largely expressed using the simple present—a fact we explain by saying that at this stage there was no contrastive modal feature in the Infl system. In Middle English, a feature  arose first as a property of the premodals, and subsequently as a feature of Infl. By Early Modern English,  was fully contrastive within the Infl system, so that all future-referring clauses required a modal. This illustrates that formal properties of a language’s inflectional system, and in particular the range of contrastive dimensions of meaning it encodes, have implications for the set of meanings available to other inflectional forms. We have also suggested a mechanism by which new contrastive features can be added to the grammar. Finally, we have discussed a further change that appears to be attested for some speakers of PDE: beyond a general retraction in the distribution of modals from its peak in Early Modern English (in temporal and conditional adjuncts), for these speakers modals are becoming optional below a wider range of operators. This suggests further changes in the distribution of the formal feature ,

²³ We take no position on whether question operators can be understood as modal or whether the licensing of this use of the simple present in questions instead involves something more.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

      

237

possibly indicating its decline as a contrastive feature, or a shift in its syntactic position into the left-peripheral domain of the clause.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to audiences at the 2015 meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association and at DiGS 17 for helpful questions, discussion, and pointers to additional sources, and to the two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. The contributions of B. Bjorkman were supported by the Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship programme, administered by the Government of Canada.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

PART III

CASE MARKING

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

11 From lexical to dependent The case of the Greek dative Elena Anagnostopoulou and Christina Sevdali

11.1 Introduction In this chapter we compare the properties of dative and genitive objects in two different periods of Greek: Classical Greek (CG), which had morphological dative and morphological genitive case marking direct objects (DOs) of monadic transitive verbs and indirect objects (IOs) in ditransitives, and Standard Modern Greek (SMG), which has lost the dative case and has retained morphological genitive, canonically marking all IOs in ditransitives. The distribution of these cases in CG was subject to idiosyncratic information in transitives (unlike accusative case, which was more productive and regular) and thematic information in ditransitives, where dative was used for goals and genitive for sources and possessors. In contrast, in SMG monadic transitive verbs rarely assign genitive. The majority of verbs that selected for dative and genitive objects in CG now take accusative objects. On the standard view of dative and genitive as inherent or lexical cases (e.g. Chomsky 1981, 1986; Woolford 2006), there is no principled way of characterizing either the differences between the two stages of Greek or the transition from one system to the other. On the other hand, under the theory of dative advocated by Baker and Vinokurova (2010) and Baker (2015), the change from CG to SMG can be seen as a development from a grammatical system where dative and genitive were lexical/inherent cases to a system where genitive is a dependent case in the sense of Marantz (1991). In this chapter we follow this approach, proposed in Anagnostopoulou and Sevdali (2016, 2020) and we further postulate that the change in Greek involves a reanalysis from PPs with lexical/ inherent case into DPs receiving dependent case, which led to the replacement of the dative by either genitive or accusative case in different syntactic environments (ditransitives vs transitives). If this picture is indeed correct, there are some important diachronic questions that need to be answered: how does this change interact with other changes in the history of Greek, e.g. those regarding the loss of morphological dative (Humbert 1930; Stolk 2015) as well as changes in the prepositional system of the language (cf. Bortone 2010 and Luraghi 2004); and, to put it more generally, what is the Elena Anagnostopoulou and Christina Sevdali, From lexical to dependent: The case of the Greek dative In: Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change. Edited by: Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson, Oxford University Press (2021). © Elena Anagnostopoulou and Christina Sevdali. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198832584.003.0011

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

242

    

relationship between morphological change and syntactic change. In this chapter we argue that there is a direct correlation between the diachrony of the Greek prepositions, and in particular their case-assigning properties, and the replacement of Greek DOs and IOs from PPs to DPs. This will also bring us to the general question of this volume, which has to do with the features that are relevant in syntactic change. This chapter is organized as follows: in Section 11.2 we summarize some facts about CG datives and genitives. In Section 11.3 we outline the properties of SMG datives and genitives. In Section 11.4 we summarize some key facts of Anagnostopoulou and Sevdali’s (2016, 2020) proposal, whereby the CG and SMG datives and genitives provide evidence for two different instantiations of dative case assignment: lexical/inherent vs dependent case. In Section 11.5 we outline the diachrony of Greek datives, prepositions, and prefixes. Moreover, we discuss the diachronic development of Greek datives, on the one hand, and prepositions, on the other, and we propose that the crucial step of change that took place has to do with the case-assigning features of heads of PPs. In Section 11.6 we summarize our chapter, discuss some consequences of syntactic change and outline some questions for further research.

11.2 Classical Greek datives and genitives Classical Greek (CG) is the dialect of Greek spoken in Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries . CG nouns inflect in five morphological cases: nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, and dative, as illustrated in Table 11.1. Table 11.1 Morphological paradigm of a masculine noun of the second declension in CG

Nominative Vocative Accusative Genitive Dative

Singular

Plural

polem -os ‘war’ polem -e polem -on polem -ou polem -ōi

polem -oi polem -oi polem -ous polem -ōn polem -ois

The case system of CG is the result of a reduction from the original Indo-European (IE) system (Luraghi 2003, among many others), something that has led to CG cases being syncretic: the genitive had resulted from merging the IE genitive and ablative, and the dative was the result of merging the IE dative, locative, and instrumental. Synchronically, nominative case is reserved for subjects of finite clauses. Accusative is the most common case for objects (Delaunois 1988), and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

   :      

243

therefore the verbs selecting it are not listed in grammars. Even though there seem to be some semantic generalizations behind the choice of dative or genitive case (Luraghi 2010: 64–7; Anagnostopoulou and Sevdali 2015: 451–2), these are nevertheless idiosyncratically determined by particular verbs.¹ (1) and (2) provide the lists of the verbs selecting for dative and genitive objects, respectively: (1) Verb classes selecting for dative DP objects a. Verbs denoting appropriateness (harmozō ‘is appropriate’, etc.). b. Equality/agreement (homoiazō ‘resemble’, isoumai ‘be equal to’, etc.). c. Friendly or adversarial feeling or action (epikourō ‘assist’, timōrō ‘punish’, phthonō ‘be jealous of ’, etc.). d. Persuasion, submission, meeting (peithomai ‘trust, obey’, hepomai ‘follow’, meignumai ‘join’, etc.). e. Complex verbs with the prepositions en- ‘in’, sun- ‘with’, epi- ‘on’, para‘next to’, hupo- ‘under’, and the adverb homou ‘similarly’ (homo-noō ‘agree’, sun-eimi ‘coexist’, sun-oikō ‘cohabit’, sum-prattō ‘assist’, emmenō ‘inhabit’, em-piptō ‘attack’, epi-kheirō ‘attempt’, par-istamai ‘present’, hupo-keimai ‘be placed below’, etc.). (2) Verb classes selecting for genitive DP objects a. Memory (mimnēiskomai ‘remember’, epilanthanomai ‘forget’, etc.). b. Beginning/ending (arkhō with the meaning ‘begin’, pauomai ‘finish’). c. Taking care of (epimelomai ‘take care of ’, amelō ‘neglect’, kataphronō ‘look down upon’, etc.). d. Wanting, enjoyment, being part of (epithumō ‘want, desire’, erō ‘love’, koinōnō ‘have a share of, take part in’, etc.). e. Losing, needing (steromai ‘lose’, aporō ‘wonder’, deō/deomai ‘need’). f. Feeling/perception (haptomai ‘touch’, akouō ‘listen’, etc.). g. Attempt, success/failure (peirō/peiromai ‘try’, apotugkhanō ‘fail’, etc.). h. Ruling (arkhō with the meaning ‘rule, govern’, turannō ‘be a monarch’). i. Comparison (pleonektō ‘exceed’, prōteuō ‘come first’ , meionektō ‘be worse than’, etc.).

¹ Stolk (2015) provides a slightly alternative insight: while she also supports a view whereby the choice of the morphological case of verbal complements has semantic correlates, she does not claim that there are 1:1 correlations between verb semantics and case realization of internal arguments. She does so on the basis of verbs of similar semantics selecting arguments with different case morphology (e.g. parakaleō ‘ask’ taking an accusative addressee, while entellō ‘command’ has a dative addressee. Stolk’s proposal is that what matters is the different ‘construal of events’ among different predicates, following Riaño Rufilanchas (2006). We return to this issue in the beginning of Section 11.4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

244

    

As we can see in (1) and (2), the choice of dative and genitive objects is determined by specific lexical items, verbs (Vs) or prepositions (Ps).² See in particular (1e) for the latter. A similar observation applies to verbs selecting for two objects, which display four case arrays summarized in (3) and instantiated by the verb classes in (4)–(7): (3) Case arrays in Ancient Greek ditransitives a. Accusative IO – Accusative DO b. Dative IO – Accusative DO c. Genitive IO – Accusative DO d. Dative IO – Genitive DO (Anagnostopoulou and Sevdali 2015: 456) (4) Accusative IO – Accusative DO (for example, erōtō tina ti ‘ask someone (acc) about something (acc)’) a. Asking, demanding, deprivation, dressing/undressing (erōtō ‘ask’, apaiteō ‘order’, enduō ‘dress’, ekduō ‘undress’, etc.). b. Teaching, reminding (didaskō ‘teach’, hupomimnēiskō ‘remind’, etc.). c. Action, reporting, benefit (ōphelō ‘benefit’, legō ‘say’, etc.). (5) Dative IO – Accusative DO (for example legō tini ti ‘say to someone (dat) something (acc)’) a. Saying, ordering, showing, giving (legō ‘say’, dēlō ‘report’, hupiskhnoumai ‘promise’, didōmi ‘give’, komizō ‘bring’, epistellō ‘send’, etc.). b. Equating, mixing (isō/exisō ‘equate’, eikazō ‘gather, presume’, meignumi ‘mix’, etc.). c. Complex verbs with the prepositions epi- ‘on’, en- ‘in’, sun- ‘with’ (epitassō ‘assign/enjoin’, epitrepō ‘entrust/transfer’, energazomai ‘create, produce’, sugkhōrō ‘give up something for someone’, etc.). (6) Genitive IO – Accusative DO (for example, aposterō tinos ti ‘deprive someone (gen) of something (acc)’) a. Feeding, filling, emptying (estiō ‘feed’, plērō ‘fill’, kenō ‘empty’, etc.). b. Prevent, permit, seizing, depriving (kōluō ‘prevent’, pauō ‘stop’, apotemnō ‘cut off ’, etc.). c. Receiving, driving, attraction (lambanō ‘receive’, etc.).

² Most prepositions are homophonous with prefixes in CG (Bortone 2010). The generalizations above indicate that these items retain the same case-licensing properties in both of these roles: when they head prepositional phrases and when they attach to verbs. This is not always the case, especially in the case of ditransitive predicates, but we will come back to this point in Section 11.5.2. We come back to the diachrony of case-licensing properties of prepositions in Section 11.5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

   :      

245

d. Listening, learning, informing (akouō ‘listen’, manthanō ‘learn’, punthanomai ‘be informed’, etc.). (7) Dative IO – Genitive DO (for example, phthonō tini tinos ‘envy someone (dat) for something (gen)’) a. Taking part, transmission (metekhō/koinōnō ‘take part in’, metadidōmi transmit’). b. Concession (parakhōrō ‘concede’, etc.). c. The verb phthonō ‘envy’. Dative and genitive in the different arrays are subject to thematic and morphosyntactic generalizations (Anagnostopoulou and Sevdali 2015: 457); for example, goals tend to be dative, sources and possessors tend to be genitive, and verbs prefixed by dative or genitive assigning prepositions must assign dative or genitive to the goal. However, this is the picture that emerges from traditional grammars followed by Anagnostopoulou and Sevdali (2015). On the basis of a more detailed investigation based on corpora (mainly TLG), Anagnostopoulou, Mertyris, and Sevdali (2018, 2019) have arrived at a more refined picture of the case arrays in (3), which consist of several subclasses, more in terms of semantic verb classes based on those of Levin (1993) for English. We will not be discussing this classification here for reasons of space.

11.3 Standard Modern Greek genitives SMG nouns inflect in four morphological cases: nominative, vocative, accusative, and genitive, as illustrated in Table 11.2. Table 11.2 Morphological paradigm of a masculine noun of the second declension in SMG

Nominative Vocative Accusative Genitive

Singular

Plural

polem -os ‘war’ polem -e polem -o polem -u

polem -i polem -i polem -us polem -on

One of the most salient characteristics distinguishing all dialects of SMG from CG is the loss of morphological dative (see, e.g., Humbert 1930; Horrocks 2007; Luraghi 2003; and Stolk 2015 on the diachrony of the morphological dative) and its replacement by either genitive or accusative depending on the syntactic environment (ditransitives vs transitives) and the dialect (Southern Greek vs

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

246

    

Northern Greek) (Michelioudakis and Sitaridou 2013). Accusative surfaces on almost all objects of transitive verbs in all dialects of Modern Greek. The vast majority of the verbs that selected for dative and genitive objects in CG now take accusative objects. This is illustrated in (8) and (9) with sentence pairs from CG and SMG including exactly the same verbs: (8) a. Classical Greek Ho Odusse-us ephthon-ēse Palamēd-ei dia the Ulysses- envy-3.. because wisdom ‘Ulysses was jealous of Palamedes because of his wisdom.’

sophia-n.

b. Modern Greek O Odiseas fthonese ton Palamidi gia tin the Ulysses- envy-3.. the Palamedes- because the sofia tu wisdom his ‘Ulysses was jealous of Palamedes because of his wisdom.’ (9) a. Classical Greek Katapsēphēz-ō condemn-1.. ‘I condemn someone.’

tin-os. someone-

b. Modern Greek Katapsifizo Condemn/vote against-1.. ‘I vote against someone.’

kapion. someone-

As far as ditransitives are concerned, MG has a dialect split on the case realization of the IO. Northern Greek (NG), that is, the dialects spoken in Thessaloniki and the northern parts of Greece, has ditransitives where both objects bear accusative morphology (Dimitriadis 1999, among others for discussion and references): (10) a. Edhosa ton Petro Gave-1.. the Petros- ‘I gave Petros an ice cream.’ b. Tha se ftiakso  you.. make-1. ‘I will make you an ice cream.’

ena an

ena an

paghoto ice cream-

(NG)

paghoto ice cream-

On the other hand, in Central and Southern Greek (e.g. the dialects spoken in Athens, Peloponnese, and many of the islands), as well as in Standard Modern

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

   :      

247

Greek (SMG; based on Southern dialects; see Mackridge 1985, 2009), the IO bears genitive and the DO accusative, resulting in the pattern in (11) (e.g. Anagnostopoulou 2003; Michelioudakis 2012; Georgala 2012): (11) a. Edhosa tu Petru Gave-1.. the Petros- ‘I gave Petros an ice cream.’ b. Tha su ftiakso  you.. make-1. ‘I will make you an ice cream.’

ena an

ena an

paghoto ice cream-

(SMG)

paghoto ice cream-

IOs are not allowed to alternate with nominative in MG; (12a) is ungrammatical in all dialects.³ Thus, even though NG ditransitives contain two accusative objects, they cannot be assimilated to English double object constructions which freely permit passivization of the IO; compare (12a) with (12b): (12) a. *O Petros dothike ena pagoto (All dialects of Greek) The Petros- gave.- an ice cream. ‘Petros was given an ice cream.’ b. Peter was given an ice cream

(English)

The SMG genitive differs from CG datives and genitives in two respects: The first difference concerns the fact that genitive is rarely found on single objects of monadic transitive verbs in SMG, unlike CG, as has already been seen on the basis of examples (8) and (9) above. Very few verbs felt by native speakers to be parts of their productive everyday vocabulary of the so called Demotiki register (reflecting the spoken, informal language) assign genitive in SMG. Two such verbs are tilefonao ‘call’ and milao ‘talk’ in (13):⁴ (13) Tilefonisa/milisa tu Petru Called/talked.1. the Petros- ‘I called Petros/talked to Petros’ ³ An anonymous reviewer asks what exactly the ungrammaticality of (12a) actually shows, and specifically whether it tells us something about case (as we claim in this chapter) or something about the (im)possibility of arguments originating as indirect objects moving to subject position. We take data like this to be indicative of SMG not allowing IOs to passivize, although we suspect that a more refined picture could emerge if we looked into every verb separately. ⁴ An anonymous reviewer wants us to discuss more fully cases of SMG monotransitive verbs that take genitive complements, as these can in principle be a problem for the analysis that assumes that SMG genitive is a dependent case. One way to deal with data like these is to claim that these genitives are indeed lexical in SMG, or alternatively that verbs like tilefonao ‘call’ and milao ‘talk’ are hidden ditransitives and their full structure also involves an accusative cognate (direct) object I called Mary (a call).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

248

    

Genitive is also assigned by verbs prefixed by archaic genitive assigning prepositions, like the prefixal preposition iper- (‘over’-) in (14). These verbs belong to the formal/ Katharevusa register, which was introduced in an attempt to revive CG as the official language of the Modern Greek state.⁵ (14) a. To koritsi iper-isxise tu The girl- prevailed the ‘The girl prevailed over the boy.’

agoriu boy-

b. O proedros iper-aminthike The president- defended ‘The president defended his choice.’

tis the

epilogis choice

tu his-

Even though the verbs in (14) are recognized today as active parts of the SMG vocabulary, they belong to a closed system, like Latinate vocabulary in English. For example, as shown in (15) vs (16), while genitives are freely allowed to undergo cliticization and clitic doubling in SMG (e.g. Anagnostopoulou 2003; Michelioudakis 2012), the genitive assigned by archaic prepositions is not allowed to undergo these processes:⁶ (15) Tu tilefonisa/milisa Him.. called/talked.1. ‘I called Petros/talked to Petros’

(tu Petru) the Petros-

(16) a. *To koritsi tu iper-isxise The girl- him.. prevailed ‘The girl prevailed over the boy.’

(tu agoriu) the boy-

b. *O proedros tis iper-aminthike tis epilogis tu The president- her.. defended the choice his- ‘The president defended his choice.’ The second difference concerns sensitivity to thematic information in ditransitives. As already mentioned, the choice of dative vs genitive was related to the

⁵ This movement started in the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries and was completely abandoned right after the Greek dictatorship in 1974; see Mackridge (1985, 2009) for discussion. Relics of the archaic language still survive but are not used productively by ‘naïve’ native speakers. ⁶ An anonymous reviewer pointed us to the work of Daskalaki and Mavrogiorgos (2016), who discuss in detail the genitive complements of these archaic predicates and the fact that they cannot cliticize. They propose that (i) these structures do not involve P incorporation; (ii) the genitive complement is a DP, despite the fact that it is assigned lexical case; and (iii) the genitive DP complement is inserted and assigned lexical case by an applicative-like morpheme (the prefix), which lacks phi-features (which is why cliticization is blocked). This proposal is compatible with our analysis and offers independent support to it. We thank the reviewer for bringing it to our attention.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

   :      

249

theta roles of IOs in CG, for example goals had dative, while sources and possessors had genitive case. Since there is no longer a dative–genitive distinction, the genitive has been generalized to all IOs in SMG, regardless of whether they are goals (with ‘give’), sources (with ‘steal’), or beneficiaries (with ‘buy’), as is shown in (17a)–(19a). By contrast, the choice of P in the corresponding prepositional ditransitives is thematically determined, se ‘to/in’ introduces goals, apo ‘from’ sources, and gia ‘for’ benefactives, as seen in (17b)–(19b). (17) a. Edhosa tis Marias Gave-1 the Mary- ‘I gave Mary the book.’ b. Edhosa to vivlio Gave-1 the book- ‘I gave the book to Mary.’ (18) a. Eklepsa Stole-1

tis Marias the Mary-

to vivlio the book-

Goal

s-tin Maria to-the Mary

to vivlio the book-

Source

b. Eklepsa to vivlio apo tin Maria Stole-1 the book- from the Mary ‘I stole the book from Mary.’ (19) a. Eftiaksa tis Marias Made-1 the Mary- ‘I made Mary ice cream.’

pagoto ice cream-

Beneficiary

b. Eftiaksa pagoto gia tin Maria Made-1 ice cream- for the Mary ‘I made ice-cream for Mary.’

11.4 PPs vs DPs In the literature drawing on Chomsky (1981, 1986) non-accusative objective cases, prototypically dative, but also genitive, ablative, instrumental, etc. are standardly assumed to be non-structural cases. They have been called ‘oblique,’ ‘lexical,’ or ‘inherent’ in the literature, and are accordingly taken to be prepositional, or idiosyncratically assigned by particular verbs or tied to specific theta roles (see Pesetsky and Torrego 2011 for a recent overview). Woolford (2006) has recently argued that dative is actually either lexical or inherent case: lexical dative is idiosyncratic, lexically selected by certain verbs or prepositions, whereas inherent dative is more regular, associated with specific θ-positions. On the basis of Woolford’s criteria, genitive and dative in CG transitives in (1) and (2) qualify as lexical cases, since they are assigned

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

250

    

by particular verbs and prepositions,⁷ while genitive and dative in CG ditransitives in (5)–(7) are inherent cases, as they are systematically associated with specific thematic roles, such as ‘goal,’ ‘source,’ or ‘possessor.’ A commonplace assumption is that when a DP does not enter into case alternations in passives, this is because its case is lexically or thematically licensed and must therefore be retained throughout the derivation. By this criterion, the SMG genitive is lexical/inherent case, since it is not allowed to alternate with nominative in passives, as was shown by the ungrammaticality of (12a).⁸ In terms of Woolford’s classification, SMG mostly lacks lexical genitives, with the few exceptions of the genitive-selecting transitive verbs mentioned above (examples (13) and (14)), while it productively has inherent genitive Case associated with the θ-roles goal, beneficiary, source, possessor. On the basis of the criterion that they do not alternate with nominative in passives, Anagnostopoulou (2003, 2005), Michelioudakis (2012), and Georgala (2012) all analyse SMG IOs as bearing inherent/quirky case assigned by an applicative head in a structure like (20), in agreement with Woolford (2006). However, if both CG and SMG have inherent dative/genitive case, then the differences that we saw above are accidental. The invariable use of genitive in all SMG ditransitives can be linked to the syncretism of dative with genitive case which took place in the course of the transition from CG to SMG, but this does not explain why genitive was generalized as the regular case for IOs and accusative was generalized as the regular case for DOs. In other work (Anagnostopoulou and Sevdali 2016, 2020) it has been argued that this key asymmetry in SMG can receive a principled explanation if genitive and accusative are analysed as dependent cases which can only be assigned in opposition to a lower and a higher argument, respectively. No such asymmetry was present in CG because datives and genitives were uniformly lexical/prepositional cases. More specifically, Anagnostopoulou ⁷ But see also Stolk’s point earlier (note 1), whereby CG cases could also be more associated with specific θ-roles and hence more inherent-like. ⁸ Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou, and Sevdali (2014) and Anagnostopoulou and Sevdali (2015, 2016, 2020) provide extensive evidence that CG datives and genitive participate productively in DAT–NOM and GEN–NOM alternations in passives. Obviously, this is prima facie evidence against a view of CG datives and genitives as lexical/inherent cases. However, we follow Anagnostopoulou and Sevdali (2016, 2020) in assuming that lexical case is indeed compatible with passivization iff the language also has available a mechanism of preposition incorporation that renders the genitive/dative transparent to operations from the outside (Rezac 2008). We will not include the details of this mechanism here, but we direct the reader to their work for full details of and arguments for their proposal. However, an anonymous reviewer asks whether this strategy also applies to unprefixed verbs that allow DAT–NOM alternation. This is an excellent question, whose answer would merit at least a separate chapter. What we can say here is that the restrictions on dative/genitive passivization in CG are quite fine-grained and complex and are at the heart of a longstanding research project that the authors are leading. A first attempt to address the complexity of the problem is to create a detailed and updated classification of all three-place predicates that take datives and genitives in CG and try to understand why this phenomenon is found with some verbs and not others, as it clearly does not fall sharply across the prefixed vs unprefixed verbs divide. Some first results of this work are presented in Anagnostopoulou, Mertyris, and Sevdali (2018, 2019). As a result, we must leave the answer to this question for further research.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

   :      

251

and Sevdali (2016, 2020) follow Baker (2015) in arguing that the crucial property of SMG genitive/dative is that it is assigned in opposition to a lower argument in the vP domain, unlike accusative which is assigned in opposition to a higher argument (the external argument, EA) in the IP/CP domain. In other words, there are three rules that predict the distribution of SMG genitive/dative: (20) Dependent dative case rule in SMG If XP c-commands ZP in VP, then assign U (dative) to XP. (21) Dependent accusative case rule in SMG: If DP1 c-commands DP2 in TP, then assign U (accusative) to DP2. (22) Condition on case marking a. If there are two distinct NPs in the same domain such that NP1 c-commands NP2, then value the case feature of NP2 as accusative unless NP1 has already been marked for case. b. If there are two distinct NPs in the same domain such that NP1 commands NP2, then value the case feature of NP1 as dative unless NP2 has already been marked for case. The distribution of the SMG genitive is correctly predicted by the General Dependent Case rule: genitive will be realized on the higher object in ditransitives but not in transitives containing a single object in the vP, capturing the ditransitive–transitive asymmetry observed in (8)–(10) above. Importantly, dependent genitive case assignment is not affected by the transitivity of Voice. Therefore, dependent genitive must be retained in SMG passives, as was seen by the ungrammaticality of (12). This proposal adopts and adapts the notion of dependent case from a family of approaches called morphological case approaches (m-case approaches; Zaenen, Maling, and Thráinsson 1985; Yip, Maling, and Jackendoff 1987; Marantz 1991; Harley 1995; McFadden 2004; see Bobaljik 2008: 297–302 for an overview) which dissociate the abstract syntactic licensing of DPs from m-case realization. M-case approaches take case morphology to be determined by an algorithm like the one in (23) proposed by Marantz (1991), according to which more specific cases take precedence over less specific ones placed lower in the hierarchy and where the concept of dependent case in (23b) plays a key role for the understanding of case distribution and alternations.⁹

⁹ We abstract away here from differences between different versions of m-case approaches proposed in the literature concerning where exactly the case realization rules apply, whether this is PF, Syntax, or Spell-Out.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

252

    

(23) Case realization disjunctive hierarchy (Marantz 1991: 24) a. Lexically governed case (determined by lexical properties of particular items, Vs or Ps). b. Dependent case (accusative and ergative). c. Unmarked/environment-sensitive case (nominative or absolutive in the clause; genitive in the noun phrase). d. Default case (assigned to NPs not otherwise marked for case). Lexically governed/quirky case (dative, genitive, instrumental, partitive, etc.) is the most specific one, as it is determined by particular lexical items, thus being associated with idiosyncratic or thematic information. Dependent case comes next in the hierarchy, as it is more general, determined by the syntactic configuration. Marantz proposes that dependent ergative and accusative case is realized in the clausal domain in opposition to another argument (lower and higher, respectively) not bearing lexical case. Unmarked case comes next, as it only looks at the syntactic environment of nominals, that is, whether they occur in clauses or DPs. The unmarked case in clauses is taken to be nominative in nominative-accusative languages and absolutive in ergative languages, while the unmarked case in DPs is proposed to be genitive. Finally, default case is realized in environments where no other rule can apply (see Schütze 1997, 2001 for default case). In this proposal, the crucial difference between lexically governed case and dependent case is that the former is sensitive to the theta roles of nominals, as these are specified by certain verbs and prepositions, while the latter depends on whether there is a higher or lower nominal in a particular domain. Given that dependent cases are sensitive to the presence of another nominal, they are blocked in certain contexts; for example, dependent accusative cannot be assigned to the single theme argument in passives and unaccusatives, and dependent ergative cannot be assigned to the single agent argument of unergative predicates. In these contexts, the arguments in question bear the next case lower down in the hierarchy, environment-sensitive nominative and absolutive, respectively. Arguments bearing lexically governed case do not enter comparable case alternations. Keeping this proposal in mind, in Section 11.5 we turn to the diachrony of morphological dative and prepositions and we look into the main contributing factor to the change from DOs and IOs that are PPs with lexical case to DOs and IOs that are DPs that receive dependent case.

11.5 On the history of Greek cases and prepositions On the whole, there are two parallel developments in Greek that affected the phenomenon in question, that is, the underlying structure of argumental datives and genitives (DOs and IOs): on the one hand, we have changes in the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

   :      

253

morphological instantiation of such elements, with the overall loss of morphological dative from the history of Greek; on the other hand, we have changes in the prepositional system in terms of the case-assigning properties of such elements. In this section, we will provide an overview of the changes in morphological case and in the syntactic properties of prepositions, and we will argue that changes in the prepositional system, in particular relating to the case-assigning properties of these elements, triggered the change in the underlying representation of DOs and IOs from PPs with lexical case to DPs with dependent case.

11.5.1 Loss of dative case The loss of the morphological dative case has been one of the most prominent changes in the history of Greek, and it has been discussed at length in Humbert (1930) and more recently in Michelioudakis (2012) and Stolk (2015). An important point that needs to be made from the outset is that according to Humbert (1930) and many following him, the three main uses of the dative—locative, instrumental, and argumental—have three very separate diachronic paths. In particular, again according to Humbert (1930), the locative dative started being replaced as early as the first century , the instrumental dative started being replaced (by prepositions) from the third century , and the argumental dative was considered ‘more solid’ with the crucial timeline of its loss being from the third century  to the ninth or tenth centuries.¹⁰ Leaving the locative and instrumental uses aside, the diachrony of argumental datives is also not homogeneous. In particular, again according to Humbert (1930), there is a hierarchical ‘ordering’ of elements with respect to timings of the loss of dative morphology, whereby proper names lose dative inflection first (a lot of them sound archaic to koine speakers and essentially function as uninflected), then dative was lost on personal pronouns, and finally in the last environments we see dative morphology is on full DPs.¹¹ Within that last category, there is variation among verb classes: complements of verbs like mēnuō ‘inform/disclose’, dēloō ‘reveal’ appear in the accusative instead of the dative much earlier than complements of didōmi ‘give’ and legō ‘say’, which retain dative morphology on their complements longest. Lendari and Manolessou (2003) corroborate Humbert’s claim ¹⁰ Luraghi (2003) proposes a slightly different timeline of dative loss, spanning the fourth to the eighth centuries . ¹¹ Again, there a slight disagreement in the literature, with Browning (1983) arguing that it was pronouns that were first amenable to dative replacement, then proper names, and finally full DPs. Stolk (2015) also challenges Humbert’s hierarchy where replacement of the dative started on pronouns and was then extended to full DPs, as this goes against diachronic trends discussed in Blake (1994) whereby cross-linguistically we observe that even languages that lose case morphology from their system retain it in pronouns (cf. English, of course). Stolk, however, agrees with Humbert that this is the right order of events in argumental datives, which is the kind that concerns us most here.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

254

    

that pronouns (in particular clitic pronouns) exhibit a different diachronic path from that of full DPs, a fact that they attribute to higher chances of copiers’ mistakes for pronouns but not for nouns. Dative was gradually replaced by accusative, genitive, and PPs depending on grammatical function, as summarized in (24) below:¹² (24) Replacement of (morphological) dative in Modern Greek (a) Accusatives (as objects of transitive verbs, as IOs of ditransitive verbs in Northern Greek). (b) Genitives as IOs in SMG. (c) PPs (for locative, instrumental and other adverbial uses of CG datives). The gradual loss of morphological dative case has been linked in the literature to phonetic developments (Humbert 1930). Horrocks (1997: 121), for example, notes that unstressed final [o] raised to [u] in popular speech, so that second declension endings (written in and , respectively) could be confused. Most sources on the replacement of morphological dative for arguments by genitive and accusative (Humbert 1930; Horrocks 2007; Browning 1983) agree on the following timeline. From the third until the eighth centuries , all around the Greek-speaking world, the dative was variably replaced by the genitive and the accusative case. Sometimes, genitive and accusative were employed simultaneously in the same documents, as is the case of examples (25) and (26) found in the same papyrus (see Horrocks, 2007: 207–9 on the discussion of the fourth-century  Oxyrynchus Papyrus, which includes these examples). (25) Accusative for Dative: a. ipez me say-2. me- ‘You said to me.’ b. se ðiðo you-. give-1. ‘I give to you.’

[instead of moi-dat]

[instead of soi-dat]

(26) Genitive for Dative: a. ipandika su [instead of soi-dat] meet-1. you-. ‘I met you.’ (lit. ‘I met to you.’)

¹² What we see in (24) is the different environments of dative use and how each of them has changed; it does not indicate chronological replacement. We want to thank an anonymous reviewer for asking us to clarify this.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

   :       b. irika su say-1. you-. ‘I said to you.’

255

[instead of soi-dat]

Dative case was still used, but genitives and datives were no longer properly distinguished, as evidenced by examples like the following from Browning (1983: 42–3), where datives and genitives are found coordinated as complements of the same verb. The following example is from an inscription dating from the Hellenistic times: (27) anestēsa emautōi kai Eias tēs set.up-.1 myself- and Eia- the- ‘I set this up for myself and for my wife, Eia.’

sumbiou wife-

Stolk (2015) refers to the above as the so-called ‘mixed construction’,¹³ that is, when we see fluctuation between case endings expressing the same function in the same sentence (Brixhe 2010). A further example is seen below (Stolk 2015: 1): (28) tōi theosevastatu patri apa Dōrotheu the- god.fearing- father- apa Dorotheos- ‘To the most pious father apa Dorotheos.’ P. Oslo inv. 1555, 1 (letter, unpublished fifth–sixth centuries) Goodwin (1894) also reports the same author of Hellenistic Greek using datives and PPs with P + acc as complements of the same morphologically simplex unprefixed verb: cf. lalō ‘speak’ + dat vs lalō + eis ‘to’ + acc, a fact providing evidence that this dative complement still had a PP-status being introduced by a hidden preposition.

¹³ An anonymous reviewer questions how much these examples can be taken as evidence that datives and genitives are not properly distinguished in Hellenistic Greek. Apparently, such cases of coordination of dative nominals with genitives is found in Icelandic (and Faroese) in a construction termed ‘Genitive Avoidance’ (Jónsson 2017). The similarity of Greek to these languages is interesting, but we think the Greek examples are indeed an indication of speakers not knowing how to distinguish datives from genitives. First, as we understand it, Genitive Avoidance in Icelandic is systematic, productive, and sometimes frequent and is found in a number of environments such as subjects and objects of certain predicates, objects of adjectives, and an umbrella of constructions called ‘Dative matching Genitive’ in the literature of Icelandic, which includes reduced relatives, DPs in apposition, predicative phrases introduced with ‘as’, and, crucially for us, coordinated DPs. Hellenistic Greek does not show this systematicity as far as we can tell. In retrospect, knowing that morphological dative was indeed lost from the history of Greek, we take these cases as instances of change in progress, indicating that speakers could no longer adequately distinguish and ultimately acquire dative case. Incidentally, genitive also seems to be diachronically unstable in Icelandic, and it has been argued that it is disappearing, as the case for objects, from the history of Icelandic (Jónsson and Eythórsson 2011).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

256

    

(29) Tēn archēn hoti kai lalō humin The beginning- that and say-1. you-. ‘Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning.’ (NT, John 8:25) (30) tauta lalō eis ton kosmon these- say-1. to the world- ‘these I say to the world’ (NT, John 8:26) The last step in dative loss happened around the ninth to the tenth century  according to Humbert (1930: 197). However, this does not mean that the replacement choice had crystalized by then. According to Lendari and Manolessou (2003), there was a long period of variability that was resolved in around the fifteenth century with the dialectal split that we observe today. This split between SMG/Southern dialects and Northern dialects is already present in works of the tenth-century papyri, where works from Istanbul use accusative to replace the dative, while works from Southern Italy replace it with genitive. Their work also points to the fact that the period of ‘instability’ was in fact a classic case of ‘grammars in competition’ (e.g. Kroch 1989b; Pintzuk and Kroch 1999; Santorini 1992; Taylor 1990), where literary and non-literary texts differ significantly in the morphological exponence of IOs. In particular Lendari and Manolessou (2003) argue that replacement choice has stabilized by the fifteenth century, as evidenced in non-literary texts. Literary texts, on the other hand, do display variability even after that, something that is attributed to copiers’ errors due to a lengthy copying tradition. In ditransitive structures specifically the two different diachronic paths observed today (GEN/IO for SMG and ACC/IO for NG) can be traced back to two analogic extensions: (a) where accusative replaces the dative, this was due to a generalization of the ACC-ACC frame according to Horrocks (2007); (b) where genitive replaces the dative, Gianollo (2010), Cooper and Georgala (2012), and Stolk (2015) have argued that this is due to the influence of possessor-raising constructions where a genitive possessor pronoun undergoes raising outside the DP. The relevance of possessor-raising constructions for the diachrony of Greek can be illustrated as follows: there is a high position reserved for DP-external possessors throughout the diachrony of Greek, but increasingly, pronouns in this DP-external position are found in both the genitive and the dative cases (Gianollo 2010). Although we are agnostic about what the exact position of these elements is, it seems that the semantic and syntactic similarities between possessor-raising constructions and applicative constructions led to a reanalysis of pronominal clitic possessors as applicative arguments, which was consequently generalized to DPs.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

   :      

257

We now move on to discuss the changes in the prepositional system of Greek, a crucial piece in the history of change in IOs and DOs from PPs to DPs.

11.5.2 Changes in the prepositional system Prepositions in CG have sustained a privileged position in CG scholarship. Indicatively, both Luraghi (2003) and Bortone (2010) deal with the relationship between prepositions and cases, as well as their diachronic development. Their status in Homer either as independent adverbs, adpositions, or even particles is highly debated. Horrocks (1981) argues that the nominal is indeed the head of the phrase, while the Homeric ‘preposition’ is a modifying adverb. He argues that this is the case on the basis of evidence where oblique cases reflect prepositional meaning in the absence of prepositions in Homer, as well as cases of tmesis, the phenomenon whereby prepositional elements do not appear adjacent to their nominal ‘complements’ (Haug 2012).¹⁴ Crucially, for us prepositional elements seem to be more independent in Homeric Greek than in CG, as evidenced by cases where they can appear farther away from their DP ‘complement.’ Prepositions in CG function as the head of PPs, but also as prefixes. At the risk of oversimplification, a key difference in the properties of CG and SMG prepositions¹⁵ is that the former could assign all three oblique cases of CG¹⁶ (accusative, dative, and genitive), whereas prepositions in SMG have lost their case-assigning capacities, assigning only accusative (apart from some very archaic, nonproductive exceptions—compare also the discussion around example (16). This is exemplified below with CG data from Bortone (2010): (31) eis + accusative ‘into a place/towards a time’ (32) sun + dative ‘with, with the help of ’ ¹⁴ Luraghi (2003) argues explicitly against this view and proposes that Homeric Greek indeed had PPs headed by these polysemous prepositional elements. ¹⁵ In addition to changes in the case-assigning properties of prepositions between CG and SMG, there are also significant changes in the number and the actual inventory of prepositional elements, with the loss of a lot of CG prepositional elements and the rise of newer, complex prepositions. For studies on SMG prepositions, see, e.g., Fykias (1997), Theophanopoulou-Kontou (1997), Terzi (2008, 2010a, 2010b). ¹⁶ As a matter of fact, some prepositions could assign all three oblique cases of CG with concomitant differences in meaning: see, e.g., hupo, which can be translated as ‘near the time of ’ when accompanied by an accusative DP, ‘by’ in denoting the agent in a passive construction when accompanied by the genitive, and also ‘through the power of ’ when accompanied by the dative (Bortone 2010). There is a debate in the literature as to which prepositions exactly can assign productively all three cases, but no one claims that this is not possible. Luraghi (2003: 80) argues that when a preposition assigns only one case value, its role is to ‘reinforce or disambiguate a meaning that plain case could . . . express by itself’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

258

    

(33) pro + genitive ‘in front of/before a time’ (34) SMG P + accusative Milisa s-ton Spoke-1.. to.the- ‘I spoke to Petros.’

Petro Petros-

(35) SMG P + genitive (rare/archaic) Palevume uper patridos Fight-1.. for country- ‘We are fighting for our country.’ Prefixes have case-assigning properties as well and, like prepositions, they assign all three oblique cases of CG, as illustrated below with genitives and datives: (36) Apo prefix + genitive Sardiōn me apo-sterēse Sardis- me- deprive-.3 ‘He robbed me of Sardis.’

(Herodotus 5.106.1)

(37) Sun prefix + dative Sum-bouleuometha soi [ti khrē poiein ] Consult-.1 you- what must-3 to do- ‘we will consult with you about what we need to do’ (Xenophon, Anabasis 2.1.6) In Homeric, Classical, and even Hellenistic Greek, arguments of prefixed verbs depended on the prefixes themselves and as such were not strictly speaking arguments of the verbal predicate (Alexiadou 2019). This has been shown extensively by Asyllogistou (2018), particularly with motion verbs. Therefore, CG prefixes are indeed separate lexemes, resembling, to some extent, applicatives whose addition to the verbal root can add an extra argument, realized with case morphology that is directly related to the prefix itself. This is illustrated clearly in the following example from Asyllogistou (2018) with the minimal pair of krouō vs ekkrouō ((38) is her example (405), on page 145). Recall that ek ‘out’ assigns genitive case to its complement when it appears as a free-standing preposition (Bortone 2010: 295). (38) Ek-kekroukas me elpidos out.shake-2. me- hope- ‘you have shaken me out of hope’

(Plato, Phaedrus, 228e)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

   :      

259

(39) Epeidē goun ekrousamen tēn thuran Because then strike-.1 the door- ‘Because then we knocked (at) the door.’ (Plato, Protagoras, 341d) In (38), the prefixed verb ek-krouō takes two arguments: an accusative and a genitive one. In (39), the unprefixed version krouō takes only one argument in the accusative case. It is reasonable to interpret these minimal pairs, then, as showing both the existence and the case of an additional argument depending on the prefix, not the verbal root. Another instantiation of the case-assigning properties of CG prefixes comes from pairs like diakazō ‘judge’ vs katadikazō ‘condemn’. Consider the three examples below: (40) Heterōi Another-

de then

dikazōn judge-.

‘but when he sits in judgment upon another’

(Isocrates Antidosis, 23; 3)

(41) Nun men dikazeis ek poleōs phugēn emoi Now then doom-2. from city- exile- me- ‘It’s now that you doom me to exile from the land.’ (Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1412) (42) Epeidē seōutou kata-dikazeis Since yourself- sentence-2. ‘since you sentence yourself to death’

thanaton death- (Herodotus 1.45.2)

In example (40) we see the monotransitive version of dikazō, with a dativeaffected argument as the object. In (41), we have the ditransitive version of this verb with the meaning ‘condemn someone to exile’ with a dative-affected argument and an accusative denoting the sentence. In (42), which is the most relevant for us here, the prefixed verb with same root diakazō and the prefix kata now selects an affected argument in the genitive, clearly as a result of the genitiveassigning prefix. Note that (41) and (42) have similar meanings and theta grids, and the only thing that differentiates them is the case morphology of the affected argument. In the diachrony of Greek, there are three obviously interrelated changes in the prepositional system that concern us here: (a) Prepositions are first used to ‘reinforce’ (Bortone 2010) / double the semantic role of Greek cases, leading ultimately to the replacement of oblique cases by prepositions.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

260

     (b) The prepositions themselves lose their case-assigning abilities and are only able to assign accusative case (Hatzidakis 1892; Bortone 2010). (c) Prefixes lose their case-assigning abilities and are reanalysed from freestanding elements to form a complex unit together with the verb (Ralli 2003, 2004; Asyllogistou 2018; Alexiadou 2019).

The first of these changes, the replacement of CG adverbial datives through PPs in SMG is discussed in detail in Michelioudakis (2012), who identifies two stages in this development positively correlating with the stages in the historical evolution of argumental datives described in Section 11.5.1. (i) In Hellenistic Greek (Koine), i.e. the period when argumental datives started being replaced by genitives and accusatives, as described above, locative, instrumental, and other adverbial uses of the dative were replaced by PPs, a fact suggesting that the overall PP-status of datives was weakened. (ii) In Medieval Greek, i.e. the period when the new system of argumental genitives and accusatives emerged, the loss of adverbial datives had resulted in the loss of inanimate/non-human arguments bearing dative case. As a result, animate IOs had genitive case and inanimate ones were PPs. This led to an alternation between a PP and a genitive DP in SMG ditransitives. Regarding the second change, prepositions are starting to lose their capacity for assigning dative and genitive from koine (Lavidas 2010), and this change concludes during the early Medieval Greek period (Horrocks 2007) or the tenth century (Browning 1983: 42–3), that is, Ps had lost their idiosyncratic caseassigning capacity. This change is especially interesting if viewed alongside Pesetsky’s (2013) proposal about the nature of prepositions: according to Pesetsky, assigning an oblique case is indeed a defining characteristic of prepositions. In other words, an element qualifies as a preposition iff it assigns oblique case to its complement. Finally, regarding the final change in terms of the case-assigning properties of prefixes, we follow Asyllogistou (2018) and Alexiadou (2019), who argue that in SMG prefixes are no longer free-standing elements with their own case-assigning properties, but they form a complex unit together with the verb. This reanalysis of prefixed verbs is obviously related to the diachrony of prepositions, but it also relates to a number of other changes in Greek, most notably the possibility of prefixes heading the Result phrase of the lower v spine and moving to a higher position incorporated with the verb. The exact chronological placement of the diachronic changes associated with prefixes is less clear, as it is also not homogeneous across all prefixed verbs. For example, verbs like katadikazō ‘sentence’, as

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

   :      

261

seen in (42) above, start taking animate arguments in the accusative rather than the genitive in Hellenistic Greek. Whereas with a verb like epiballō ‘lay on’, which takes a dative argument (linked to the prefix epi-) and an accusative argument, we observe a later replacement of the dative by accusative (in the Northern varieties) and genitive (in Standard Greek) that is much later in the tenth century and is more in line with the loss of the morphological dative.¹⁷ The issue of the diachronic development of the case-assigning properties of prefixes and the exact timings of these changes is a complex one that has to be investigated in future work. With this in mind, we propose that the change with prepositions in Greek has the following steps: (43) Diachrony of Greek prepositions, DOs & IOs (i) Classical Greek Prepositions assign oblique ! learners acquire them as prepositions; Dative/genitive IOs and DOs involve a covert preposition ! learners can acquire them as PPs exactly because they bear overt oblique case morphology. (Prediction: every oblique phrase in CG is indeed a PP with a null preposition). (ii) Hellenistic Greek /Koine: Prepositions start losing their case-assigning capacity ! learners cannot straightforwardly acquire them as such. (Grammars in competition). (iii) Medieval Greek: Prepositions have lost their case assigning capacity ! speakers cannot acquire silent prepositions any more; ! learners reanalyse DOs and IOs as DPs; ! these DPs cannot be licensed by anything phrase-internal any more; they look outside for a licensor; ! Greek IOs and DOs get reanalysed as DPs receiving dependent case, configurationally from inside the VP. (Consequence: SMG does not have covert prepositions any more, at least with respect to internal arguments). If this is on the right track, then the system in Greek looks like a classic case of synthetic morphology being replaced by an analytic one: prepositional elements in CG were both overt and null with identical case-assigning properties, semantic features, etc. In the diachrony of Greek it is overt prepositions that survive. The ¹⁷ We want to thank Dionysios Mertyris (p.c.) for discussion on these changes.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

262

    

overtness of prepositions is a general trend that started with the ‘reinforcement’/ doubling of Ps in the instrumental and locative datives in the first and third century  respectively (Humbert 1930). The fact that only overt prepositions survived in Greek is facilitated by the loss of morphological dative case, but not necessarily driven by it. The weakening of morphological dative, possibly a morpho phonological phenomenon and the change in the properties of overt and null prepositions are clearly interrelated, but by and large parallel changes in Greek. We argue that, together, they both led to the reanalysis of Greek IOs and DOs from PPs to DPs. In that sense we are in line with Michelioudakis (2012), who argues as well that the reanalysis of datives in Greek was not triggered but simply facilitated by the morphological loss. Before we conclude, we want to point out two consequences of the current proposal that need to be further investigated. The first relates to the postulation of covert prepositions for CG, and was pointed out to us by two anonymous reviewers: an open issue is whether there is independent evidence that CG obliques indeed involve a null P and are not being assigned by v/Voice and/or Appl in addition to the exact structure and location of this PP and whether they would be better analysed as KPs. Ideally, we need independent evidence for this that does not relate to the data in question. Arguing for the PP nature of CG datives and genitives is at the heart of ongoing work with Dionysis Mertyris and Morgan Macleod where we look into the dative and genitive arguments of CG three-place predicates as well as possessor raising constructions. Therefore, we need to leave this issue open for further research. The second consequence of this proposal relates to SMG prepositions viewed in relation to Pesetsky’s (2013) system. According to Pesetsky, a preposition cannot assign accusative, and when we see PPs with accusative complements, he argues that there is a verbal element that assigns this accusative. Given that all prepositions in SMG appear with accusative complements, there remains a question whether these are indeed prepositions or whether Greek does not have this category at all. This is an open question that needs to be properly tested but has to be left for future research.

11.6 Summary and outlook In this chapter we have argued that CG dative/genitives that function as DOs and IOs are inherent/lexical cases, with a prepositional structure, that is, they are PPs, while, on the other hand, SMG genitives are DPs that receive dependent case configurationally within the vP. A major consequence of this proposal is that there is a category change in the structural make-up of Greek DOs and IOs, from PPs to DPs. We provided an overview of both the loss of morphological dative case in Greek and of the diachrony of the prepositional system, and we argued that it is

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

   :      

263

changes in the latter that led to the observed change, and in particular changes in the case-assigning properties of Greek prepositions. This led to an additional change in the system of Greek, the overall loss of null prepositions and the generalization of the dependent case rule for all internal arguments. The overarching issue addressed in this volume has to do with the limits of syntactic change and the exact features that are involved in it. Diachronic generative syntax has adopted the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture as the locus of syntactic change: (44) The Borer–Chomsky Conjecture (BCC) All parameters of variation are attributable to differences in the features of particular items (e.g. the functional heads) in the lexicon. (From Baker 2008: 253) In particular, syntactic change is seen as the loss of particular features from syntactic heads (Roberts 2007). This view is compatible with our proposal on the diachrony of DOs and IOs, which involved loss of case features from P heads, a view that is also compatible with Roberts (2016): CG had both overt and null prepositions that had a number of case features to assign to their complements, while SMG only has overt prepositions without any case-assigning properties.¹⁸ The natural question is why did these features get lost in the first place. The tentative answer that we offer here is that this happened as prepositions first started to accompany argumental and adverbial datives in order to ‘reinforce’ their semantic role. Bortone (2010) discusses the change in the meaning of the Greek case system in relation to that of prepositions, and he notes that cases started with a polysemy of functions and that prepositions were often added to reinforce or disambiguate these functions. Luraghi (2003) states this slightly differently: she claims that, being reinforced by prepositions, the three oblique cases mostly have non-spatial meanings when used without prepositions, essentially encoding grammatical relations. This led to both cases losing some of these functions and to prepositions losing their case-assigning properties. The exact correlation between the two, especially in relation to argumental datives like the ones discussed in this chapter, definitely merits further research.

11.7 Acknowledgements We want to thank the audiences at GLOW 2016, DiGS 17 (17th Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference, University of Iceland), the International ¹⁸ See, however, the discussion at the end of Section 11.5.2 regarding the possibility of Greek not having any true prepositional elements in the sense of Pesetsky (2013).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

264

    

Conference of Greek Linguistics (ICGL 13 at the University of Westminster, London and ICGL 14 at the University of Patras), and the Linguistics Seminar Series at Ulster University, where earlier versions of this work have been presented, for very useful comments. We want to acknowledge the support of the Arts and Humanities Research Council in funding the project ‘Investigating variation and change: Case in Diachrony’ (award number AH/P006612/1). We also want to thank Morgan Macleod and especially Dionysios Mertyris for their contribution to the project. Finally, we want to thank the editors of this volume, as well as two anonymous reviewers whose comments significantly improved this chapter. All errors, of course, remain our own.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

12 The nature and origin of syntactic ergativity in Austronesian languages Edith Aldridge

12.1 Introduction In many languages with ergative alignment, it is only the DP with absolutive (nominative) case which can undergo syntactic movement. This restriction is commonly found in Austronesian languages like Tagalog. Example (1) illustrates the ergative¹ alignment in Tagalog. The subject of the intransitive verb in (1a) has the same nominative case as the object in the transitive example in (1b). The intransitive verb in (1a) is inflected with the intransitive perfective infix , while the transitive verb in (1b) takes the transitive perfective infix . (1) a. Dating ang arrive  ‘The woman arrived.’

babae. woman

b. Bili ng babae buy  woman ‘The woman bought the fish.’

ang 

isda. fish

Example (2a) shows that a relative clause can be formed on the internal argument in this clause type. In contrast, the external argument with genitive case cannot be extracted, as shown in (2b).

¹ It is not universally acknowledged that Tagalog is an ergative language. Most commonly, it is referred to as a language with a ‘symmetrical voice’ system in which different arguments are assigned nominative case without demotion of the other arguments (cf. Himmelmann 2005 and references therein). The locus of the controversy is the semantically transitive construction often referred to as the ‘actor voice’, in which the external argument has nominative case and the theme direct object has genitive case. Aldridge (2012) argues that this is an antipassive construction in which the theme DP is demoted in the ways expected of a theme in an antipassive construction in uncontroversially ergative languages. Establishing that the semantically transitive ‘actor voice’ construction is an antipassive allows Tagalog to be analysed as a language with ergative alignment. I follow this position here. The Tagalog antipassive is discussed briefly in (3). Edith Aldridge, The nature and origin of syntactic ergativity in Austronesian languages In: Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change. Edited by: Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson, Oxford University Press (2021). © Edith Aldridge. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198832584.003.0012

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

266

 

(2) a.

isda-ng2 bili ng fish- buy  ‘fish that the woman bought’

babae woman

b. *babae-ng bili ang woman- buy  ‘woman who bought the fish’

isda fish

An external argument can only be extracted in an intransitive clause like an antipassive. In the antipassive in (3a), intransitive morphology appears on the verb, the external argument has absolutive case, and the object now is assigned inherent genitive case. Example (3b) shows that the external argument can undergo movement. But now the genitive object is ineligible for extraction, as shown in (3c). (3) a.

Bili ang babae buy  woman ‘The woman bought a fish.’

ng 

b. babae-ng bili ng woman- buy  ‘woman who bought a/the fish’ c. *isda-ng bili ang fish- buy  ‘fish that the woman bought’

isda. fish

isda fish

babae woman

This extraction restriction is widely considered to be a key characteristic of syntactic ergativity (Dixon 1994; Bittner 1994; Manning 1996; Campana 1992; Aldridge 2004, 2008), found not only in Austronesian languages but also in Inuit and Mayan languages, as well as some others, like the Australian language Dyirbal. However, such a correlation between A0 -movement and nominative casevaluation seems surprising in light of the general lack of interaction between A and A0 dependencies. In English, strict locality between DPs is found in A-movement to subject position. (4) a. [TP Mary [vP tMary saw Bill]]. b. *[TP Bill [vP Mary [VP saw tBill ]]].

² In Tagalog orthography, the linker and genitive case particle appear to have the same form, both being written as ‘ng’. However, they have different pronunciations, as well as different functions. The genitive case particle is fully syllabic, pronounced [naŋ], while the linker is pronounced just as the velar nasal.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

      

267

But an object is perfectly free to move over the subject to an A0 -position, as in (5a). Locality restrictions resurface, however, if both the subject and object are whphrases. (5) a. [CP Who did [TP Mary see twho ]]? b. ??What did who see? Campana (1992) approaches the ergative challenge to Rizzi’s (1990) principle of Relativized Minimality by proposing that subject position in syntactically ergative languages is an A0 -position. Absolutive DPs move to this position in order to check nominative case, while ergative case is checked in a lower position.³ Relativized Minimality then allows only the absolutive to undergo further movement to [Spec, CP], since movement of the ergative DP would require crossing the higher A0 -position occupied by the absolutive. An obvious theoretical shortcoming of this proposal, however, is the stipulation of which positions are A-positions and which are A0 -positions. It also relies on the assumption that movement takes place from the derived subject position to [Spec, CP], which in more recent Minimalist Theory is banned as a violation of Antilocality (Grohmann 2003⁴) or Criterial Freezing (Rizzi 2006). In this chapter, I develop the insight in Campana (1992) but dispense with his stipulation regarding A and A0 positions. Instead, I propose that not all languages have the A/A0 partition to begin with. Specifically, C–T Inheritance (in the sense of Chomsky 2008) does not take place, so the position for valuing nominative case is the same [Spec, CP] position which is the target for movements traditionally considered to have A0 properties. Owing to the lack of separate A and A0 positions, there is also no distinction between these types of movements, with the result that strict locality is observed between DPs for all types of movement. And since the DP movement landing site is the position where nominative case is valued, only the nominative DP can access this position. In Section 12.2, I summarize the theoretical framework assumed in this chapter and show how the lack of an A/A0 partition accounts for the extraction restriction in Tagalog. Section 12.3 presents evidence for the proposal in Austronesian languages, particularly the more conservative languages spoken in Taiwan, the homeland of Proto-Austronesian. In Section 12.4, I propose that the extraction restriction be reconstructed to Proto-Austronesian (PAn) and show additionally how the manifestation of this restriction in high-order subgroups suggests that it originated in a language with accusative alignment which required object relative

³ Campana (1992) uses the framework proposed by Murasugi (1992) to account for ergative alignment. Absolutives check their case in [Spec, AgrSP] subject position, while ergatives move to [Spec, AgrOP] to check their case. ⁴ See Grohmann (2011) for additional references.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

268

 

clauses to be nominalized so that the subject was assigned inherent genitive case and consequently was not dependent on nominative case from C. Section 12.5 briefly considers other approaches to syntactic ergativity and suggests how the present proposal can provide a uniform analysis of this phenomenon across languages.

12.2 C–T Inheritance The theoretical context for this chapter is the framework of C–T Inheritance (Chomsky 2008). In this framework, the features responsible for licensing nominative arguments are not inherent to T but rather are inherited by T from C. For example, the [uɸ] feature which licenses the subject in a language like English enters the derivation on the phase head C but is immediately passed to T. At this point, the [uɸ] feature probes its c-command domain and undergoes Agree with the first matching [ɸ] feature it encounters, which is on the subject DP. As a result of this Agree relation, [uɸ] on T is valued, the subject receives nominative case, and then the subject moves to the [Spec, TP] subject position. If C has a featurelicensing A0 -movement like [Q], this is retained by C, allowing movement over the subject in [Spec, TP] if the clause contains an XP with a matching [uQ] feature, as in cases of object wh-movement. (6) a. What did you buy?

b.

CP DP[WH,uQ,ACC] C′ | what TP C[Q] did T′ DP[NOM] | T[uϕ] you

vP v′

VP

v V buy

Ouali (2008), Legate (2014), Gallego (2014), Martinović (2015), Erlewine (2018), Aldridge (2017b), and others have proposed that C–T Inheritance (in the sense of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

      

269

Chomsky 2008) does not take place universally but can be obviated under certain circumstances. I propose with Richards (2007, 2012) that the presence of an unvalued feature, which is also uninterpretable, is what forces C–T Inheritance to take place. The reason is to ensure that newly valued features are appropriately deleted or retained when transferred to the interfaces. These features must not be present in the C–I (Conceptual–Intentional) Interface. But if they have an overt reflex, then they need to be retained and spelled out in the SM (Sensorymotor) Interface. Consequently, newly valued features must be transferred immediately upon valuation so they can be deleted on their way to the C–I Interface but retained for access in the SM Interface. If they are deleted before Transfer, they will not be available in the SM Interface, and if they are retained after valuation, then they will become indistinguishable from valued and interpretable features and consequently will be incorrectly transferred to the C–I Interface. For this reason, unvalued features, for example [uɸ] in a language like English, must be passed to a head in the domain⁵ of C so that they are spelled out as soon as they are valued. This is summarized by the following condition, which I state generally for all uninterpretable features.⁶ (7) Condition on feature inheritance Uninterpretable features on a phase head must be inherited. The simultaneity of feature valuation and Transfer also ensures that all syntactic operations within a given phase take place at the same time, in parallel. Chomsky proposes that the features on both T and C begin probing as soon as Inheritance takes place. As a result, the subject and the wh-phrase in a derivation like (6) undergo movement to their respective landing sites at the same time. If these operations were not simultaneous, then subject movement and Spell-Out of TP would take place before the object wh-word is able to undergo movement. The fact that the wh-word moves to [Spec, CP] rather than a lower position is because the [Q] feature on C is interpretable and so it does not need to be inherited by a lower head.

⁵ The domain is the constituent which is sister to the phase head. According to the theory of phases and Multiple Spell-Out (Chomsky 2000 and subsequent work), a derivation proceeds phase by phase, with phases defined minimally as vP and CP. After all features merged on a phase head have been valued and/or checked, the domain of that phase is transferred to the Interfaces, after which time it is no longer accessible to the syntactic computation. ⁶ Aldridge (2018a) divides uninterpretable features into two classes, those which seek a value and those which do not. She further shows that the two types occur in a fixed order. Those seeking a value (like [uɸ]) must be inherited in the domain of the phase head, while those which merely need to be deleted for convergence, e.g. focus features, surface in a higher position, but below interpretable features like [Q]. The reader is referred to Aldridge (2018a) for details on how this ordering is obtained. For the purposes of the present chapter, I assume the simple view that all uninterpretable features are treated equally and are never retained on the phase head.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

270

 

Given that the motivation for C–T Inheritance is the presence of an uninterpretable feature on C, C–T Inheritance should not be expected to take place if C does not enter the derivation with an uninterpretable feature. Specifically, I propose with Saito (2016) that subject licensing and DP movement are not driven by unvalued ɸ-features in languages which lack subject/verb agreement. For such languages, Saito (2016) proposes that licensing of DPs involves only the valuing of a case feature on the DP itself,⁷ but there are no unvalued ɸ-features on the licensing head. According to my proposal in (7), then, the case feature on C need not be inherited by a lower head (because it does not seek a value), so if DP movement takes place, this argument moves directly to the CP layer. The main consequence of this proposal for syntactic ergativity is that there is only one landing site for DP movement, and this is the position for valuing nominative case. So a DP which moves to this position will value nominative case. In the remainder of this section, I illustrate how this proposal accounts for the Tagalog extraction facts observed in Section 12.1. I begin with object extraction in a transitive clause. With Woolford (1997, 2006), Mahajan (1989), Legate (2002, 2008), and others, I assume that ergative is an inherent case assigned by transitive v to its specifier. I also follow Bok-Bennema (1991), Bittner and Hale (1996a, 1996b), Woolford (1997), Ura (2000), Alexiadou (2001), and others in assuming that accusative case is unavailable in ergative clauses so the object is dependent on C to value nominative case. An additional proposal I make is that nominative case can be valued either under Agree, resulting in a declarative clause, or in a spec/ head relation as the result of movement. It is clear that Tagalog absolutives do not need to undergo movement for licensing in declarative clauses, given that basic word order is VSO, and arguments typically surface in post-verbal position, as in (8a). So I propose that nominative case in declarative clauses is valued under c-command in an Agree relation with C.⁸ I further assume with Aldridge (2004) that the verb achieves its position by undergoing head movement to an aspectual projection above vP. When extraction takes place, as in (8b), the object moves to [Spec, CP], because this is the only position available for DP movement, and its case is valued in the landing site. (8) a. Bili ng babae buy  woman ‘The woman bought the fish.’

ang 

isda. fish

⁷ This portion of Saito’s proposal is adapted from Bošković (2007). ⁸ This introduces a question as to how C can enter into Agree with a DP inside the vP phase, given that the VP domain of this phase head has already been spelled out at the time C is merged into the derivation. This question can be addressed by assuming with Rackowski (2002), Aldridge (2004, 2008), and Rackowski and Richards (2005) that absolutive objects in Tagalog undergo covert movement to [Spec, vP], where they receive a presuppositional interpretation, as per Diesing’s (1992) Mapping Hypothesis. Note that Tagalog absolutives are always specific and typically definite.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

       b. isda-ng bili ng fish- buy  ‘fish that the woman bought’

c.

271

babae woman

CP DP[NOM]

C′

C[NOM]

AspP

V+v+Asp

vP

v′

DP[GEN]

v′ VP



The proposal that nominative case can be valued either under c-command or in [Spec, CP] accounts for another fact in the language, that is, the distribution of the morphological nominative case marker on the absolutive DP. When this argument is spelled out in the clause, it surfaces with its case marker, but when it moves to [Spec, CP], the case marker does not appear. This alternation is straightforwardly accounted for as a consequence of the timing of Spell-Out. As summarized above, Spell-Out must take place simultaneously with feature valuation in order to ensure that the newly valued features are deleted before Transfer to the C–I Interface but retained for access in the SM Interface. Consequently, a case feature which has been valued by C under c-command and spelled out in the domain of C will have an overt reflex, because the feature is spelled out as soon as it is valued. But if the DP in question moves to [Spec, CP], in the edge of the phase, then the case feature will not have an overt reflex. This is because the edge of the phase will not be spelled out until the next instance of Transfer, so the case feature is simply deleted as soon as it is valued.⁹ ⁹ This proposal is inspired by Saito’s (2016) analysis of the role of morphological case in Labelling, though the technical implementation differs in significant ways. Saito proposes that overt case marking makes an argument invisible to the Labelling Algorithm (Chomsky 2013, 2015), which in turn allows the argument to surface in a position where it does not check features with its sister. Among other things, this accounts for the possibility of scrambling in languages with morphological case. Descriptively, this generalization also applies to Tagalog. When nominative case is valued under c-command, the DP does not check any features with its sister VP or vP, so the case marker must appear. In contrast, the case feature does not surface when the DP occupies [Spec, CP], where it shares its nominative case feature with its sister. It is not necessary in the current chapter to adopt Saito’s

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

272

 

One final point needing clarification is the motivation for movement of the absolutive. Since this DP can value case in situ or in [Spec, CP], it is not clear why it should ever need to undergo movement. In Section 12.3, I show that DP movement in Tagalog is found primarily in relativization. I follow Aldridge (2017b) in proposing that this type of movement is motivated not by morphosyntactic feature-checking but rather by the interpretation. If the DP is in a position where it can be modified by the rest of the clause, then the construction is interpreted as a relative clause.¹⁰ DP movement is also found in topicalization, which I discuss in Section 12.3.7. To return to the analysis of extraction, in contrast to absolutive DPs, ergative DPs are not eligible for extraction in a transitive clause. Since its case feature has already been valued, it cannot enter into an Agree relation with C. Even if we were to assume with Bejar and Massam (1999), Yoon (2004), Jónsson (2009), and others that a DP can value multiple cases, then giving the nominative case to the ergative DP would prevent the absolutive object from being licensed. (9) *babae-ng bili ang woman- buy  ‘woman who bought the fish’

isda fish

An external argument can only be extracted in an intransitive clause like an antipassive. In contrast to transitive v, intransitive v does not assign inherent case to its specifier. Consequently, the external argument must value structural case, so it can move to [Spec, CP]. (10) a. Bili ang babae buy  woman ‘The woman bought a fish.’

ng 

isda. fish

technical analysis, since my approach to feature valuation and Transfer accounts for the same facts in Tagalog without the additional mechanisms involved in Labelling. ¹⁰ Aldridge’s (2017a) account of the extraction restriction differs from mine in its details but is nonetheless parallel to it. Aldridge (2017a) proposes that the head of a relative clause is a reduced and non-referential nominal category. Consequently, it does not need to value case. Her account of the locality restriction, then, is to claim that relativizing C does not have a case feature, so only the nominal phrase not needing to value case can move to [Spec, CP]. All other arguments in the clause are referential DPs and therefore need to value case. This sounds very different from my analysis but is actually completely parallel. On my analysis, it is precisely the nominal which needs case that can raise to [Spec, CP], since this is the position for valuing structural nominative case. All other DPs have had their case valued by other syntactic heads by the time C is merged. So these two analyses are actually mirror images of each other and account for the same range of facts in Tagalog. I choose the current view because it has broader typological application and does not rely on positing a separate nonreferential category that can be merged as an argument in relative clauses.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

       b. babae-ng bili ng woman- buy  ‘woman who bought a/the fish’

c.

273

isda fish

CP DP[NOM]

C′

C[NOM]

AspP

V+v+Asp

vP

v′ VP

Object movement is not possible in an antipassive, when the external argument needs to value structural case. If the object were to move to [Spec, CP], then the subject would fail to be licensed and the derivation would crash. I assume that inherent genitive case is assigned by the lexical verb to the object in an antipassive. Alternatively, we could assume that the object values structural case with v in an antipassive. In either case, the object’s case feature is valued within vP, so it would not be able to enter into an Agree relation with C. (11) a. *isda-ng bili ang fish- buy  ‘fish that the woman bought’ b. CP

DP[NOM]

babae woman

C′

C[NOM]

AspP

V+v+Asp

vP

DP[GEN]

v′

v′ VP



OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

274

 

To summarize the proposal, the Austronesian DP extraction restriction results from the lack of C–T Inheritance. Nominative case is valued by C rather than by a lower head. Consequently, there is only one landing site for DP movement, with the result that only a DP valuing nominative case can undergo dislocation. In Section 12.3, I provide support for this proposal from other Austronesian languages. Most of this section focuses on DP movement. I discuss non-DP movement in Section 12.3.7 and show how it does not pose a problem for my analysis of DP movement.

12.3 Synchronic support In Section 12.2, I proposed that strict locality is observed in Austronesian DP movement, because the only available landing site is the nominative case-checking position, since nominative case is checked in [Spec, CP]. In this section, I provide evidence that DP movement is not motivated by other features like [WH] or [Q]. Since a second goal of this chapter is to identify the diachronic origin of the extraction restriction, I focus the discussion here on the conservative Austronesian languages spoken in Taiwan, commonly referred to as ‘Formosan languages’.

12.3.1 Extraction restriction It is widely accepted that Taiwan is the homeland of Proto-Austronesian, and members of its first-order subgroups are still spoken there (e.g. Tsuchida 1976, 1982; Blust 1977, 1999, 2009/2013; Starosta 1995; Ross 1995, 2009, 2012). In recent work, Ross (2009, 2012) has proposed that there are four primary subgroups of Austronesian. Aside from Rukai, Tsou, and Puyuma, all other Austronesian languages, including the remaining Formosan languages and all of Malayo-Polynesian, are contained in the fourth subgroup, what Ross dubs ‘Nuclear Austronesian’ (NAn).

Austronesian

(12)

Rukai

Tsou

Atayalic

Puyuma Nuclear-Austronesian

Bunun

Paiwan

East Formosan Malayo-Polynesian (Ross 2009, 2012)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

      

275

The extraction restriction is found in all Formosan and Philippine languages. Tagalog, discussed in Sections 12.1 and 12.2, is a Malayo-Polynesian language spoken in the Philippines. I take up Paiwan and Rukai in Section 12.4.1. For the discussion here, I illustrate the restriction with examples from Tsou. First, observe that Tsou has ergative alignment, as discussed at length by Chang (2011). Note also that transitivity is morphologically marked on verbs and auxiliaries. Of particular relevance here is the intransitive prefix m- in (13a), the transitive suffix -a in (13b), and the dative/locative applicative -i in (13c). The intransitive prefix m- is cognate with Tagalog . I discuss the importance of the transitive affixes in the development of ergative alignment in Section 12.4.2. (13)

Tsou a. mi-ta m-ongsi .3 -cry ‘Pasuya is crying.’

’e 

pasuya 

b. i-ta teaph-a to kexpx ta pasuya ’e cxyx -3 put.into-  backpack    lunch.box ‘Pasuya put the lunch box into his backpack.’ c. i-ta teaph-i to cxyx ta pasuya ’e kexpx -3 put.into-  backpack    lunch.box ‘Pasuya put a lunch box into his backpack.’ (Chang 2011: 281–2) Tsou also has the extraction restriction. The object can be relativized in a transitive clause, as in (14a), but not the external argument, as shown in (14b). (14) a.

Tsou cuma na i-he papas-a what  -3 cut- Lit. ‘What are the things they are cutting?’ ‘What are they cutting?’

b. *sia na i-he papas-a ’e evi who  -3 cut-  tree Intended for ‘Who are cutting the wood?’ (Chang 2011: 301–2) Examples like (14), where the interrogative constituent surfaces in clause-initial position, are cleft constructions. The interrogative constituent is in matrix predicate position, while the presupposition constitutes a headless relative clause functioning as the subject. Note the nominative case marker selecting the clause. It is also possible for a copula zou to precede the matrix predicate. As I discuss in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

276

 

Section 12.3.2, Tsou is a wh-in-situ language. I follow Cheng (1991) in understanding wh-clefts as a type of wh-in-situ, that is, that the clause-initial wh-phrase is not moved from inside the clause to [Spec, CP] but rather is base-generated in its surface position as the matrix predicate. See also Georgopoulos (1991), Paul (2000), Pearson (2001), Massam (2003), Aldridge (2004, 2013), Potsdam (2006, 2007, 2009), and others for other analyses of wh-questions in Austronesian languages as clefts and not derived through wh-movement. (15)

Tsou a. (zou) sia ’e [[m-i-ta e  who  -3. ‘Who is the one that hit Mo’o?’

eobak-o ta mo’o] OP]? hit-  Mo’o

b. (zou) sia ’e [[i-si eobak-a e  who  -3. hit- ‘Who is the one that Pasuya hit?’

to pasuya] OP]?  Pasuya (Chang 2000: 2)

The extraction restriction in Tsou can be accounted for in the same way as in Tagalog. But the connection with nominative case is even more obvious in Tsou, since the absolutive DP has a fixed position in declarative clauses. Basic word order in Tsou is VOS, and the absolutive DP must occupy clause-final position in declarative clauses, as can be seen in (13).¹¹ Consequently, operator movement in the headless relatives in cleft constructions can also be analysed simply as movement of the absolutive to the nominative checking position in [Spec, CP], as shown in the bracketing in (15).

12.3.2 Lack of wh-movement As discussed in Section 12.2, wh-movement in a language like English is motivated by checking a [Q] feature on C. One of the consequences of the partition between A and A0 positions in languages like English is that it provides separate landing sites for the subject and a non-subject which can check the [Q] on C. The availability of these separate features and their concomitant landing sites is what enables a non-subject argument to undergo movement to a position above the subject, unlike in Austronesian languages with the extraction restriction. Interestingly, Puyuma, Tsou, and Rukai are essentially wh-in-situ languages.

¹¹ It may be wondered why the absolutive case marker is not deleted when the argument surfaces in [Spec, CP]. This is because these markers spell out interpretable features like visibility, i.e. whether the speaker has seen the referent of the argument, which are inherent to the DP. Since these features are interpretable, they will not be deleted at spell-out and are passed to both interfaces.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

       (16)

277

Puyuma a. mi-walak i manay? have-child . who ‘Who gave birth to a child?’ b. ta=pu-ngalrad-anay kan 1.=put-name- . ‘What name should we give him?’

manay? what

c ulaya=yu isuwa? exist=2. where ‘Where are you?’ (Teng 2008: 224–5) Wh-in-situ is also found in Tsou. The interrogative constituent can only surface in clause-initial position in a cleft, as discussed in Section 12.3.1, but non-nominative wh-phrases remain in situ in the clause. (17)

Tsou a. i-si eobaka-a no sia -3 hit-  who Lit: ‘Mo’o was hit by whom?’

‘e 

b. te-ta mo-si ta pangka -3 -put  table ‘What will Pasuya put on the table?’

mo’o? Mo’o no 

cuma what

‘e 

pasuya? Pasuya

(Chang 1998: 102) Chang (1998) demonstrates the lack of movement by showing that interrogative pronouns can surface in situ inside syntactic islands, like the wh-island shown in example (18). (18) Tsou os-ko uci-a cohiv-i [CP mo m-hin-o no cuma -2 want- know-  -buy-  what na sia]?  who ‘Who is it that you wonder what they bought?’ (Chang 1998: 170) The lack of wh-movement in the preceding examples is accounted for on my analysis because the only available landing site is [Spec, CP], but the absolutive argument must value case with the head of this projection, so this position cannot be occupied by another constituent.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

278

 

12.3.3 Lack of wh-features My claim that [Spec, CP] is the position for valuing nominative case also strongly suggests that there is no other feature, such as [Q] or [WH], driving movement to this position. This is because case valuation alone suffices to license a DP in this position, so additional features would be superfluous. Indeed, the Austronesian languages that I am aware of do not provide morphological evidence for a wh-feature like that in English (who, what, where, when, why) that identifies the class of interrogative pronouns. Interestingly, interrogative pronouns in Austronesian languages do seem to divide into morphological classes, but this is based on lexical category and not on their status as indefinite or interrogative. For example, nominal interrogative words have an incorporated determiner or case marker (Blust 2015; Kaufman 2017). In Tagalog, these are si for nominative personal names, a for nominative common nouns, and ni for genitive personal names. (19)

Tagalog a. sino ‘who.NOM.PN’ b. ano ‘what.NOM.CN’ c nino ‘who.GEN.PN’

si Maria ‘NOM.PN Maria’ a-ng guro ‘NOM.CN-LK teacher’ ni Maria ‘GEN.PN Maria’

It might be countered that the shared syllable no is a wh-feature, but this component is not shared by non-nominal interrogative pronouns like locative/ dative interrogative words.¹² These interestingly appear to begin with a prepositional element, ka(y) marking dative personal names, or sa occurring with other goals or locatives. (20)

Tagalog a. saan ‘where’ b. kanino ‘to whom’

sa Maynila ‘in/to Manila’ kay Maria ‘to Maria’

When adverbial interrogative words are considered, no ‘wh’ morpheme seems to be shared among them or with any other interrogative word in the language. (21)

Tagalog a. kailan ‘when’

¹² An anonymous reviewer points out that kanino ‘to whom’ contains an instance of no, but this morpheme is part of the nominal complement nino ‘whom’ of the preposition ka(y) and not part of the PP per se.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

      

279

b. bakit ‘why’ c. ilan ‘how many’ Paiwan, a Nuclear Austronesian Formosan language, mirrors this paradigm. The nominal interrogative forms contain an incorporated case marker and the locative form an incorporated preposition. The nominal forms in (22a)–(22c) all contain the string -ma, but this is not found in the locative form. (22) a. b. c. d.

Southern Paiwan tima ‘who.NOM.PN’ anema ‘what.NOM.CN’ nima ‘who.GEN.PN’ inu ‘where’

ti Kivi ‘NOM.PN Kivi’ a itong ‘NOM.CN clothing’ ni Kivi ‘GEN.PN Kivi’ i gade ‘in the mountains’

The other adjunct forms contain neither of these affixes. It is interesting that temporal adverbials agree with the tense of the clause, but since the other interrogative pronouns lack this feature, it does not constitute evidence for the presence of a wh-feature in the language. (23)

Southern Paiwan a. nu-ngida ‘when.FUT’ b. ta-ngida ‘when.PAST’

In sum, there is no evidence for an affix or other morphological flag identifying interrogative pronouns as a class. Though full discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of the current chapter, I suggest that morphological realization of features triggering movement is related to Labelling (in the sense of Chomsky 2013, 2015). Aldridge (2019b) proposes that features shared by phrasal constituents for the purposes of Labelling must have an overt morphological expression. Even case features are not exceptional in this regard. Even though morphological nominative case does not appear in Tagalog when the absolutive DP occupies the [Spec, CP] position where its case is valued, as I proposed in Section 12.2, the fact that this DP occupies a specific position in the clause structure does serve to identify its grammatical function. So the lack of morphological wh-marking suggests very strongly that movement in such a language is not driven by a [Q] or [WH] features. However, morphological incorporation of a case marker in the nominal interrogative pronouns in (19) and (22) is quite suggestive of the connection I am proposing here between movement and case valuation. In other words, it is the case feature itself which licenses the movement. Finally, it may be wondered how my analysis can derive the interrogative interpretation of questions if there are no [Q] or [WH] features on interrogative

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

280

 

pronouns. I close this subsection by pointing out that this is not problematic for my analysis, since it does not preclude the presence of an interpretable [Q] feature on interrogative C. It is this feature, in combination with the inherent semantic properties of interrogative pronouns, which derives the interpretations of socalled wh-questions in languages like Tagalog and Paiwan. The proposal in this chapter is concerned with the syntactic feature which a moving DP checks in [Spec, CP], which is nominative case and not the [Q] feature. Secondly, as I pointed out in Section 12.3.1, wh-questions which appear superficially to be derived through wh-movement in Austronesian languages are actually clefts. So the movement takes place inside a relative clause, which is not interrogative to begin with. I mention the structural properties of clefts again briefly in Section 12.3.4.

12.3.4 Lack of superiority effects Another argument against movement being driven by a [WH] or [Q] feature is the lack of superiority effects. As is well known, without contextual support, English does not allow movement of an object wh-phrase over another wh-phrase in subject position. This is accounted for by locality, the [Q] on C attracting the closest matching [uQ], which is found on the subject. (24) a. Who bought what? b. ??What did who buy? In Tagalog, either the subject or the object can be extracted in multiple wh-questions. Unsurprisingly, given my proposal, what determines which can be extracted is the valuation of nominative case. When the object moves over the subject, as in (25b), the subject must be genitive. (25) a. Sino ang [CP OP who  ‘Who bought what?’ b. Ano ang [CP OP what  ‘What did who buy?’

b ergative) Tsou

Puyuma

Nuclear An (Nominalization > ergative) (Subgrouping by Aldridge 2015, 2016)

Aldridge (2015, 2016) proposes that ergative alignment first emerged in irrealis clauses. Evidence for a derivational relationship between realis and irrealis verb morphology can be found in Puyuma. Recall first the realis paradigm of Puyuma verbal affixes: ‘intransitive’, -aw ‘transitive’, and -ay ‘applicative’. (49)

Puyuma realis a. takesi=ku -study=1. ‘I am studying.’ b. tu=trakaw-aw na 3.=steal- . ‘Isaw stole the money.’

paisu money

(Teng 2008: 135) kan .

c. tu=trakaw-ay=ku dra 3.=steal-=1. . ‘Isaw stole money from me.’

isaw Isaw (Teng 2008: 147)

paisu money

kan isaw . Isaw (Teng 2008: 147)

¹⁸ This proposal is in agreement with Starosta’s (1995, 2009) claims that Rukai is a primary subgroup of PAn, though there are significant differences between his and my positions.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

294

 

Next, examine the following irealis clause type. The sentences in (50) are imperative constructions. The basic transitive suffix is -u and the applicative is -i. (50)

Puyuma imperatives a. pilang-u i temuu take-. . your.grandmother m-uka i drena-drenan -go  -mountain ‘Take your grandmother to the mountains.’ b. puka-i dra put-. . ‘Put some wasps (in).’

tidrul wasp

dra .

samaya some (Teng 2008: 216)

Aldridge proposes that the -aw and -ay affixes of the realis paradigm were derived diachronically from a subjunctive base ending in *-a by adding the imperative suffix *-u and the applicative *-i. Evidence for the subjunctive function of *-a comes from its use marking embedded verbs in Puyuma purpose clauses, as in (51a). Evidence for the applicative function of -i comes from its synchronic use as a locative or dative preposition in many Austronesian languages, such as Paiwan in (51b). (51) a. drua-drua me-na’u-a a trau (Puyuma) -come -see-A . person ‘Many people came to see.’ b. talem ti ina ta qarizang i gade (Southern Paiwan) plant . mother  bean  mountain ‘Mom plants beans in the mountains.’ (Teng 2008: 113) In a revised version of this proposal, Aldridge (2018b, 2019a) follows Starosta (1995) suggesting that -u and -i both originated as nominal markers, a definite determiner and preposition, respectively. According to Starosta, these were incorporated to the verb, resulting in their reanalysis as verbal affixes. As for the ergative alignment, Aldridge (2018b, 2019a) proposes that incorporation of the determiner and preposition resulted in the loss of the case licenser for the object, forcing the object to exceptionally enter into an Agree relation with C in order to value structural (nominative) case. In this way, the language came to have nominative objects in transitive clauses. As for ergative subjects, this was due to the morphological properties of pronominal clitics, the vast majority of which lack a distinction between nominative and non-nominative cases in Puyuma and Tsou.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

      

295

Assuming that PAn also lacked this case distinction in the clitic pronouns, when the object valued nominative case with C, the subject pronoun was reanalysed as a non-nominative argument, resulting in a full ergative-nominative case pattern in transitive clauses. These changes, which Aldridge (2015, 2016, 2018b, 2019a) posits to have occurred in PEAn, resulted in an ergative case-marking pattern only in irrealis mood. As evidence for this proposal, she shows that the affixes marking transitive (ergative) verbs in Puyuma and Tsou are cognate with affixes found only in irrealis clauses in NAn languages. For example, the subjunctive suffix -o in Seediq derives historically from -aw, which is the basic transitive suffix in Puyuma. The suffix -i appears in Seediq imperative and negated clauses, and is cognate with the Tsou applicative -i. (52) Seediq Qtay-i hari! Da-o=su see-. a bit pass-.=2 ‘Careful! You might fall!’

takun! fall (Holmer 1996: 45)

Aldridge also adopts Ross’s (2009, 2012) NAn hypthesis, which entails a second innovation producing ergative alignment in realis clause types through the reanalysis of nominalizations as finite root clauses, as discussed above. Consequently, PNAn employed two sets of transitive verbal affixes, one for realis and one for irrealis. Most Formosan NAn languages retain this dichotomy. In Seediq, the basic transitive affix in negated clauses is -i, while it is an erstwhile nominalizer -un in realis mood. (53)

Seediq negation and realis a. Ini=mu burig-i =1. buy-. ‘I didn’t buy all of them.’ b. Wada=mu burig-un =1. buy-. ‘I bought the book.’

kanna. all ka 

patis-ni. book-

But in Puyuma, the embedded nominalizations did not undergo reanalysis as finite root clauses. Instead, Aldridge proposes that the embedded subjunctive clause type was reanalysed as a finite root clause when the auxiliary introducing this clause type was lost. Evidence for an erstwhile auxiliary comes from the placement of clitic pronouns in Puyuma. Weak pronominal subjects in intransitive clauses in Puyuma are enclitics, while they procliticize to the verb in transitive clauses. Note the lack of an auxiliary verb, the main verb occupying clause-initial position.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

296

 

(54)

Puyuma a. bəray=ku ɖa give=1. . ‘I gave a fish to a cat.’ b. tu=trakaw-aw na 3.=steal- . ‘Isaw stole the money.’

kuraw fish

ɖa .

ŋiaw cat (Tan 1997: 11)

paisu money

kan .

isaw Isaw (Teng 2008: 147)

Aldridge follows Starosta et al. (1982) and Ross (2002, 2006) in proposing that clitics in PAn were all enclitics and that proclitics in the languages that have them are the result of the loss of a clause-initial auxiliary verb. Note that the auxiliaries have been retained in Tsou; all finite clauses in Tsou are introduced by an auxiliary. In this way, Puyuma and Tsou realis affixes on ergative verbs originate from an embedded subjunctive clause type, while realis affixes on NAn ergative verbs are erstwhile nominalizers. In contrast to this, Rukai retains the accusative alignment of PAn. An anonymous reviewer points out that the NAn subgroup proposed by Ross (2009, 2012) and the EAn subgroup first proposed by Aldridge (2015) are established solely on the basis of syntactic innovations and are not substantiated by phonological evidence. However, this does not weaken the proposals in any way. The new subgroups for the most part do not contradict earlier subgrouping hypotheses based entirely on phonological and morphological evidence. Aldridge (2015) is merely a regrouping of Ross’s (2009) proposal, positing a closer relationship between Tsou, Puyuma, and NAn than in Ross’s view. But the internal boundaries separating these languages and subgroups are not altered. Ross (2009), in turn, bases his subgrouping on the seminal work by Blust (1999), who posits ten primary subgroups of PAn on the basis of phonological and morphological evidence. (55) Austronesian Puyuma Rukai Tsouic: Tsou, Kanakanavu, Saaroa Northwest Formosan: Saisiyat, Kulon-Pazih Atayalic: Atayal, Seediq Western Plains: Thao, Taokas, Favorlang-Babuza, Papora, Hoanya Bunun Paiwan East Formosan: Basay-Trobiawan, Kavalan, Amis, Siraya Malayo-Polynesian: all extra-Formosan languages (Blust 1999: 45)19

¹⁹ The order of subgroups listed by Blust (1999: 45) is different from that given here. I have made this change in order to make the list more directly comparable with Ross’s (2009) subgrouping.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

      

297

In other words, Ross’s NAn subgroup is almost completely just a larger grouping of smaller subgroups (shown in bold in (55)) already established on the basis of phonological and morphological evidence. The sole exception is Blust’s assumption of the Tsouic subgroup. Blust follows Tsuchida (1976, 1982) in grouping Kanakanavu and Sa’aroa together with Tsou as the Tsouic subgroup, while Ross classifies Kanakanavu and Sa’aroa as NAn languages. Ross (2012) also presents phonological arguments against Tsuchida’s proposed Tsouic subgroup. If Ross’s (2012) arguments against Tsuchida are credible, then none of the subgrouping boundaries proposed by Ross or Aldridge contradicts any of the subgrouping hypotheses which have been established by more traditional historical linguistic methodology. The morphosyntactic innovations proposed by Ross and Aldridge merely provide evidence for more fine-grained groupings within these otherwise well-established subgroups. In this section, I have proposed that the extraction restriction be reconstructed to PAn. But PAn was a language with accusative alignment. The consequence of the extraction restriction was to force object relative clauses to be nominalized so that the subject had inherent case and made [Spec, CP] available for an object to move to. In Section 12.5, I show how my analysis of the extraction restriction can be extended to other syntactically ergative languages. I also point out that morphosyntactic characteristics of many of these languages suggest that their transitive clauses also have a diachronic connection to nominalization.

12.5 Extensions and conclusion In this chapter, I have proposed that the constraint whereby only absolutive (or nominative) DPs can undergo extraction in syntactically ergative languages is due to a restriction that movement to a phase edge is motivated only by structural case licensing. I have provided evidence for this proposal from Austronesian languages. For reasons of space, I am unable to explore this hypothesis in detail for other ergative languages. But existing proposals for these languages do suggest that my approach may be on the right track. First, the idea of deriving the privileged status of absolutive arguments from their need to value nominative case is not new, as discussed in Section 12.1. Keenan and Comrie’s (1977) relativization hierarchy makes essentially the same point if ‘subject’ is understood as the DP which values nominative case. According to their findings, there are a significant number of languages in which only the nominative argument is allowed to undergo movement in relative clause formation. (56) Accessibility Hierarchy for Relativization SU > DO > IO > OBL > GEN > OCOMP (Keenan and Comrie 1977) Many of the languages in their survey exhibiting this constraint are plausibly analysed as ergative, such as Malagasy, but some others are not, such as Indonesian/Malay. On

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

298

 

the other hand, as we observed in the case of Rukai, the extraction restriction does not correlate with alignment per se, but rather is found in languages in which nominative case is the sole feature motivating DP dislocation. A more recent proposal correlating extraction with the need to value nominative case is Coon et al. (2014). An interesting empirical fact suggesting this correlation is the correlation between the surface position of absolutive clitics in Mayan languages and the source of absolutive case. In Q’anjob’al the clitic attaches to the auxiliary preceding the main verb. (57)

Q’anjob’al a. Max-ach y-il-a’. -2. 3.-see- ‘She saw you.’ b. Max-ach oq’-i. -2. cry- ‘You cried.’ (Coon et al. 2014: 190)

Coon et al. (2014) propose that the object moves to the edge of vP in order to value its case with Infl, where it attaches to the auxiliary. Since vP is a strong phase, Infl cannot probe the clitic in its base position. In the edge of the vP phase, the clitic blocks extraction of lower constituents.²⁰ (58)

InflP max[ABS]

vP

-ach[ABS]

v′

v[EPP, ERG]

VoiceP

DP[ERG]

Voice’ VP

Voice V

(Coon et al. 2014: 211)

As expected, Q’anjob’al exhibits the extraction asymmetry. The absolutive object can be extracted in (59b) but not the ergative subject in (59c). ²⁰ This analysis is highly reminiscent of Aldridge’s (2004, 2008) account of the extraction restriction in some Austronesian languages like Seediq.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

       (59)

Q’anjob’al a. Max y-il[-a’] naq winaq  3.-see-  man ‘The man saw the woman.’ b. Maktxeli max y-il[-a’] who  3.-see- ‘Who did the man see?’

naq 

ix 

ix. woman

winaq man

__i?

299

(Transitive clause)

(ABS extraction)

c. *Maktxeli max y-il[-a’] __i xi xi? (*ERG extraction) who  3.-see-  woman ‘Who saw the woman?’ (Coon et al. 2014: 192–3) The analysis I propose in this chapter can also be extended to this type of Mayan language, while at the same time dispensing with the Coon et al. stipulation of phasebased locality. All that need be said is that movement of absolutives is motivated to value case, and that the case position itself is in the edge of the relevant phase. A related proposal is made by Deal (2016). In this analysis, probes on C are sensitive to the type of case valued on a DP, with ‘unmarked case’ (in the sense of Marantz 1991; Bobaljik 2008) being the most accessible. Consequently, languages in which nominative case is morphologically unmarked are most likely to exhibit the extraction restriction. This turns out to be true for Mayan and Inuit languages but not for Austronesian, since nominative is typically marked in many of these languages, as can be seen in Tagalog example below. (60) Dating ang arrive  ‘The woman arrived.’

babae. woman

Before concluding, I briefly mention the account of syntactic ergativity proposed by Polinsky (2016). Rather than correlating extraction with any property of the absolutive, Polinsky attributes the relative mobility of absolutives to the inability of ergative DPs to undergo movement. Specifically, she claims that the type of inherent case assigned to this DP in syntactically ergative languages freezes it in place and prevents it from extracting. Polinsky gives a host of convincing arguments that ergative DPs are not structurally case-marked, and I agree that inherent case marking on external arguments plays a significant role in accounting for the extraction restriction. As I proposed in Section 12.2, it is inherent case assignment to the external argument which allows the case feature on C to probe past it and undergo Agree with an absolutive object. However, as evidenced by the fact that the extraction restriction is not confined to languages with ergative alignment, as evidenced in this chapter by Rukai, it cannot be attributed to a property specific to ergative syntax.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

300

 

In this chapter, I made a second proposal that the extraction restriction in Austronesian languages traces its diachronic origin to a proto-language with accusative alignment in which object extraction is only permitted in nominalizations, since this is the environment in which an external argument can be licensed with inherent case and allow an internal argument to be visible to the case probe on the phase head. These nominalized clauses were later reanalysed as transitive ergative clauses in NAn languages. This diachronic connection is very suggestive when considering other ergative languages with the extraction restriction. One additional fact which I believe to be highly significant is that the extraction restriction tends to be found in languages in which ergative clauses bear some resemblance to nominalizations. This is highly suggested by the syncretism between ergative and genitive case. The same case is used to mark transitive subjects and possessors in both Mayan and Inuit languages. I illustrate this in (61) with Inuktitut. As pointed out in Section 12.4, genitive is used to mark ergative subjects in Nuclear Austronesian languages as well. (61)

Inuktitut a. Jaani-up taku-ja-a-nga John- see-.-3/1 ‘John saw me.’ b. Jaani-up nasa-a John- hat-3 ‘John’s hat’ (Johns 1992: 68)

Interestingly, Johns (1992) argues that ergative clauses in Inuktitut are synchronically derived from nominalizations.²¹ To my knowledge, no such proposal— synchronic or diachronic—has been made for Mayan languages, so I leave the possibility as a suggestion for future investigation.

Acknowledgements I am indebted to Richard Atienza, Raphael Mercado, and Christopher Sundita for native judgements on the Tagalog data. Unless otherwise cited, the Formosan language data are taken from my fieldnotes. Fieldwork on Paiwan and Rukai was supported by grants from the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange (JS015-A-12), the University of Washington Nostrand Endowment, and the University of Washington Department of Linguistics. I am also indebted to the native speakers who supplied the data themselves. ²¹ See also Kaufman (2009) for a similar approach to Tagalog.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

13 Featural dynamics in morphosyntactic change Iris Edda Nowenstein and Anton Karl Ingason

13.1 Introduction It is commonly observed that morphosyntactic change can involve overgeneralization of productive patterns in language acquisition (e.g. Lightfoot 1999). The resulting development is consequently treated as a systematic simplification through the erosion of marked or infrequent variants. In this chapter, we investigate how a superficially simple levelling process can have complex diachronic side effects which are conditioned by grammatical factors. The side effects we present are the consequence of variation in subject case, one of the most researched topics of morphosyntactic change in Insular Scandinavian (e.g. Jónsson and Eythórsson 2005; Ingason 2010a; Thráinsson 2013; Jónsson 2013; Þráinsson et al. 2015). We specifically examine a well-known phenomenon of this type in Icelandic: Dative Substitution (DS), a widespread but stigmatized process. The DS change is first attested at the end of the nineteenth century but still seems far from replacing the older case-marking system completely. DS affects verbs with experiencer subjects, with dative thematic case (2) replacing the accusative case that was formerly used with certain verbs like langa ‘want, long for’ (1): (1)

Mig langar í me. longs in ‘I want strawberries.’

jarðarber strawberries

(2)

Mér langar í me. longs in ‘I want strawberries’

jarðarber strawberries

As will be discussed in more detail in Section 13.2, extensive syntactic surveys have been conducted to document the change. The results indicate that intra-speaker variation is common. Recent reserach (e.g. Nowenstein 2017) shows results where

Iris Edda Nowenstein and Anton Karl Ingason, Featural dynamics in morphosyntactic change In: Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change. Edited by: Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson, Oxford University Press (2021). © Iris Edda Nowenstein and Anton Karl Ingason. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198832584.003.0013

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

302

      

most participants accept and produce both accusatives and datives with the same verb, as in (3): (3)

Mig langar í jarðarber en þeim langar í bláber me. longs in strawberries but they. long in blueberries ‘I want strawberries but they want blueberries.’

Moreover, the distribution of the different cases within individual speakers does not seem to be unstructured, but rather conditioned by grammatical factors. This brings us to the first side effect at the centre of this chapter, the PersonSpecific Retention (PSR; see also Section 13.1): The historical accusative is more likely to be retained with 1st and 2nd person singular subjects than with 3rd person subjects. This has been attested in naturally occurring adult data (Nowenstein 2014) and large-scale surveys (Svavarsdóttir 2013; Þráinsson et al. 2015), as well as in language acquisition experiments and heritage NorthAmerican Icelandic (Nowenstein 2017). The experimental acquisition data show that the PSR also applies to the second side effect of DS we discuss, a much rarer but attested phenomenon: the Elsewhere Condition Death Rattle (ECDR; see also Section 13.3.2). For at least some speakers, the disappearing accusative is variably extended to verbs which historically take a dative subject. Thematic case, therefore, replaces lexical case. We argue that these phenomena can be accounted for formally within a model of language acquisition assuming weighted grammatical rules (Yang 2002) and the Tolerance Principle (Yang 2016), where the probabilistic nature of the acquired rules explains the observed intra-speaker variation. Furthermore, we maintain that the variation is constrained by the way in which children target specific features in language acquisition. We argue that DS is an example of how the feature inventory of natural languages conditions language change and can force a specialization based on differential aspects of phi-features (cf. Harley and Ritter 2002; Wiltschko 2008a). We incorporate these constraints of person and number features into our model in the form of probabilistic rules which explain the PSR and ECDR phenomena. The resulting interplay between formal features, the dynamics of variation within indivuduals, and the mechanics of specialization contributes to recent theories of the nature of language variation and change, providing data in which different types of conditioning result in complex specialization patterns within intra-speaker variation. Examining the way in which formal features play a role at this level of variation additionally provides an understudied context for the application of theoretical work to a diverse set of data. The present work contributes to recent theories of the feature hierarchies of person and number (Harbour 2016; Cowper and Hall 2019), where the data seem to align with approaches based on the [
participant] distinction. Dative Substitution is also an example of how grammatical features

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

    

303

shape PF phenomena, since we assume, following Wood et al. (2020), that DS is the result of the same syntactic structure being realized in different ways at PF. This analysis is motivated by the fact that DS does not correlate with a systematic meaning difference (Jónsson and Eythórsson 2005; Sigurðsson 2012), and it also fits well with the view that morphological case in general is a realizational PF-process that interprets syntactic structure but does not, for example, constrain DP-licensing (Marantz 2000). Our approach draws on the theoretical foundations of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993) and this chapter illustrates the way in which a realizational theory of morphology, in our view, shapes the appropriate understanding of the Borer–Chomksy Conjecture. For us, this particular type of variation in case marking falls outside the scope of the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture, without impeding an analysis in which the organization of the feature inventory of natural languages is significant. We elaborate on the formal analysis of DS and its interaction with grammatical features in Section 13.2.2, but we begin the chapter by providing a short overview of previous results in Dative Substitution research in Section 13.2.1. The data on Person-Specific Retention and the Elsewhere Condition Death Rattle are presented in Section 13.3, in which we also present our model of the interaction between probabilistic rules and featural constraints. In Section 13.4, we discuss the implications for theories of variation and change, addressing the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture (Baker 2008), the different types of conditioning in intra-speaker variation (Tamminga et al. 2016), and the role of specialization in linguistic change (Fruehwald and Wallenberg 2013).

13.2 Dative Substitution Before exploring the side effects of DS, we turn to some basic facts (Section 13.2.1) as well as the formal representation that we assume (Section 13.2.2).

13.2.1 Empirical overview The first known reports of Dative Substitution are found within prescriptivist literature from the beginning of the twentieth century (Jónsson 1900), where it is already stigmatized. Although variation in the subject case of experiencers can be found in Old Icelandic (Viðarsson 2009) and throughout the history of Icelandic, the variation is generally considered to have spread at the end of the nineteenth century (e.g. Jónsson and Eythórsson 2005; Barðdal 2011). Similar phenomena have been observed in other Germanic languages (e.g. Smith 1994 for German and Old English and Jónsson and Eythórsson 2005, as well as Eythórsson and Thráinsson 2017 for Faroese) and although different accounts of the nature and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

304

      

actuation of the change can be found in the literature (e.g. Smith 1994; Jónsson and Eythórsson 2005; Barðdal 2011; Þráinsson et al. 2015; Yang 2016; Nowenstein 2017), the dominant approach is grounded in overgeneralizations and incomplete learning in language acquisition. This is compatible with descriptive data from language acquisition (Sigurðardóttir 2002), where children first acquire nominative subjects and overgeneralize them before acquiring dative subjects for experiencer verbs and overgeneralizing them. Accusative experiencer subjects are (partially) acquired last. Such a developmental trajectory is also compatible with studies on case marking in the acquisition of other languages, where children are found to acquire structural case first and overgeneralize it before learning more specific rules (e.g. Schütze 1997 for English, German, Dutch, Russian, and French children as well as Clahsen et al. 1994 for German and Finnish children). The acquisition order supports an analysis in which dative becomes productive as subject case for experiencer subjects, aligning in a hierarchy of forms (Woolford 2006) in which nominative is the default structural case for subjects, dative is the default inherent case for experiencers, and accusative appears as the most marked lexical case for experiencer subjects. This hierarchy is also present in the distribution of oblique experiencer predicates in Icelandic (estimates in Eythórsson 2002 and Yang 2016), where dative predicates (type frequency) appear in much higher numbers than originally accusative-taking predicates, in addition to having an overall higher token frequency. If we bear those facts in mind and set aside the actuation problem (but see Barðdal 2011; Yang 2016), the emergence of Dative Substitution and the nature of this variation might seem fairly straightforward. The first efforts to document this change in real time mainly consisted in evaluating the rate of DS with different verbs and within different age groups of speakers, establishing basic facts and correlations with social factors. Three major surveys were carried out in 1982, 2003 (published in English in 2005), and 2006–07 (published in 2013); the comparative findings can be found in Figure 13.1. As can be seen, the rate of DS varies between verbs, with higher-frequency verbs like langa (‘want, long for’) and vanta (‘need’) appearing more often with a dative subject. Frequency is not the only factor at play here, since nominative is also selected (much less frequently) with dreyma (‘dream’) and minna (‘recall’). This might be due to different semantic conditions as well as a polysemy effect for minna, which traditionally takes a nominative subject with the meaning ‘remind’. Figure 13.1 also shows that in the first two studies, conducted in 1982 and 2003 with 11–12-years-old participants, DS is on the rise. Jónsson and Eythórsson (2005) report a significant rise of 5.9 per cent, but the data from 2006–7, with a much broader age group, indicates that the distribution is probably affected by agegrading (Sankoff and Blondeau 2007) and/or an adolescent peak (Tagliamonte and D’Arcy 2009). This does not come as much of a surprise considering the negative sociolinguistic value of DS and the conditioning factors it entails.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

    

305

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

langa

vanta ÁS

dreyma JGJ & ÞE

minna

VarSyn

Figure 13.1 Dative subject case with the 3rd person singular feminine pronoun—four different DS verbs in three different surveys: Svavarsdóttir (1982)—200 participants aged 11–12, Jónsson and Eythórsson (2005)—900 participants aged 11–12 and the Variation in Syntax project (Þráinsson et al. 2015)—800 participants aged 14–70.

Another aspect of the distribution of DS which became apparent in the abovementioned surveys, crucial to this chapter, is widespread intra-speaker variation, as shown in (3). Although the surveys were not designed to target it specifically, reports as early as Svavarsdóttir’s (1982) study still mention it. Svavarsdóttir’s (2013) analysis of the results from the more recent nationwide project ‘Variation in Syntax’ (Þráinsson et al. 2015) also indicates widespread intra-speaker variation within the surveys. This intra-speaker variation can even be found at the clausal level, with accusative subjects licensing dative case on agreeing modifiers in what has been called mixed case marking (Jónsson 2013). An online survey conducted in 2012 (Nowenstein 2014) showed this quite clearly. Participants were asked to choose between cases for a 1st person singular subject and then to choose a case for the modifier sjálfur ‘self ’ that traditionally shows agreement with the subject (4): (4)

Mig/mér me./

+ +

verb verb

+ +

sjálfan/sjálfa self../

or or

sjálfum/sjálfri self../

The results show a much higher rate of DS for the ‘self ’ modifier than the 1st person pronoun, as can be seen in Figure 13.2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

306

       100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

96%

57% 43%

4% 1p.sg. pronoun

agreeing modifier acc

dat

Figure 13.2 Results for langa, forced choice task. N = 280.

All speakers who chose a dative subject also chose to have the modifying element in dative. As the speakers chose accusative massively for the subject, which means that more than half of the participants show variation between the case of the subject and the case of the modifier. What happens when language learners encounter this intra-speaker variation in their input, with mixed messages on the case marking of certain verbs? As is shown in Section 13.3, the variation caused by a simple case of levelling can entail more complex side effects, and children seem to acquire a variational paradigm conditioned by grammatical factors. Before turning to these phenomena in Section 13.3, DS is examined within a more formal context.

13.2.2 Variable PF realization of grammatical features We will now turn to the formal difference that gives rise to the variable realization of accusative and dative subjects that was described in Section 13.2.1. The focus will be on determining the formal locus of the variability, because the derivational point at which the two variants diverge has consequences for how the relevant properties of the grammar relate to theories of linguistic variation and change. Assuming that morphological case realizes grammatical case features, it is important for our purpose whether the feature distinction between accusative and dative in DS is made in the narrow syntax or at the PF branch of the derivation. According to the Borer– Chomsky Conjecture (Borer 1984; Chomsky 1995), a properly syntactic parametric difference should be expected to reflect a feature distinction at the level of the syntax, and then we would expect it to correlate with systematic cross-linguistic empirical phenomena; the description of the conjecture in (5) is from Baker (2008). (5)

The Borer-Chomsky Conjecture All parameters of variation are attributable to differences in the features of particular items (e.g. the functional heads) in the lexicon.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

    

307

Note that the notion of a parametric difference in our use of the term can be understood as any minimal and binary syntactic difference between languages made available by Universal Grammar. For further discussion of the nuances of the term, which we will not address here, see, for example, Baker (2008) and his references. The crucial connection to the present work is that realizational distinctions made at PF are outside the scope of the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture. Even if such distinctions operate on features of functional heads, the split between derivational paths is post-syntactic and involves language-specific phonological details. It should be emphasized that this is our proposal for how the Borer– Chomsky Conjecture should be interpreted in a framework like Distributed Morphology in which there is no unified lexicon and where morphology interprets and realizes syntax at PF. Our interpretation of the Borer-Chomsky Conjecture makes a useful theoretical cut between abstract syntactic variation and more shallow surface variation, and these have indeed been argued to be empirically different, for example with respect to the social evaluation of variation: Abstract linguistic structure has little or no social impact on members of the community. The interface of language and society is narrow, and primarily on the surface: the words and sounds of the language. (Labov and Harris 1986: 21)

Following a range of current proposals in the literature, some of which are summarized by Wood et al. (2016: 76–81; see also Wood et al. 2020), we attribute DS to different ways in which the same syntactic structure can be realized at PF. Thus, in our analysis, examples (1) and (2) are two realizations of the same syntactic structure. Following Wood (2015), we assume that the accusative experiencer of a verb like langa ‘want’ is introduced by an Appl(icative) head and that the Appl head is the source of the case marking on the experiencer. In the system of Sigurðsson (2012), the default behaviour of an Appl head is to assign dative case to its specifier (Appl* in Sigurðsson’s analysis), but the Appl head can be contextually enriched at PF with a feature that results in accusative case marking (Appl(*+) in Sigurðsson’s analysis). It should be noted that analysing Icelandic dative experiencers in terms of Appl heads is a commonly adopted approach in recent work (Wood 2015), even for experiencers that are arguments of nouns (Ingason 2016). In terms of attributing the accusative/dative distinction to the phonology, this is similar to the system of McFadden (2004, 2006) in the sense that his analysis determines the values of case features at PF. For McFadden, dative case realizes the feature bundle [+oblique, +inferior], whereas accusative is non-oblique, that is, its formal representation is [+inferior]. By default, then, the specifier of Appl is a dative. In the case of accusative assignment on the other hand, a PF impoverishment rule, shown in (6), variably deletes the oblique feature associated with Appl in the context of certain verbs like langa ‘want’ and this results in accusative morphology. A failure to apply this rule yields DS.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

308

      

(6)

[+, +, +] ! [+, +] / _ {langa, . . . ,}

Dative Substitution does not seem to correlate with deep syntactic or semantic differences that are associated with accusative vs dative case with verbs like langa. Given that case is sometimes believed to play an important role in the syntactic licensing of noun phrases, case is at least potentially a deep syntactic phenomenon for some purposes and therefore the apparently superficial nature of DS can raise questions about its relation to the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture. Dative Substitution raises the question whether it is possible to have case variation in the absence of real syntactic differences. This problem is alleviated if we assume that the distinction between the two cases is made post-syntactically in realizational phonology. Then, it does not matter whether case plays a role in the abstract licensing of noun phrases or not, because if it does, DS is the result of a decision that is made later in the derivation. We assume that DS as a PF phenomenon does not make grammatical features irrelevant in its analysis. On the contrary, although the PF processes that realize case can be superficial and language-specific, they are defined over features that are output from the syntax and thus the feature inventory of natural languages, allowing its organization to constrain the ways in which case can be realized and how case realization can change over time. Section 13.3 focuses on the interplay of formal features and language variation and change in the context of Icelandic Dative Substitution.

13.3 Formal features and the side effects of linguistic change In this section, we present data on two types of side effects entailed by the levelling described in Section 13.2.1, assuming that the resulting variation is rooted in postsyntactic realization, as described in Section 13.2.2. Our data show that the distribution of the intra-speaker variation is not random but mapped to grammatical features: the case distribution depends on the person and number of the subject. The interplay of this conditioning and a variational model of language acquisition (Yang 2002, 2016) predicts the phenomena we describe in Section 13.3.1.

13.3.1 Person-Specific Retention As mentioned in Section 13.2, the distribution of the widespread intra-speaker variation is not completely random. Indeed, a person and number effect has been clear for quite some time (first mentioned in Svavarsdóttir 1982). We call this phenomenon the Person-Specific Retention, since it consists in the historical accusative being more likely to be retained with 1st and 2nd person singular

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

    

309

pronouns than with the 3rd person, as schematized in (7). The 1st and 2nd person plural cannot be tested due to accusative-dative syncretism in the inflectional paradigms of the pronouns. (7)

Rate of DS in different pronouns 1./2.PERS.SG < 3.PERS.SG < 3.PERS.PL

Although the PSR has also been shown to appear in Heritage (North-American) Icelandic (Nowenstein 2017), it has only been thoroughly documented in Icelandic. This has been done in data from adults and children in experimental settings (Nowenstein 2015), large-scale surveys (Svavarsdóttir 2013 and Thráinsson 2013), and corpora of naturally occurring speech (Nowenstein 2014).¹ All these data will not be reviewed here, but representative examples provided. Figure 13.3 shows the examples found in a corpus composed of data from blogs, forums, and social media (Nowenstein 2014). These are examples in which the same person uses langa, the most common DS verb, with two different subjects: the 1st person singular and the 3rd person plural. The emerging pattern shows that the norm is clearly intraspeaker variation, using accusative with the 1st person singular and dative with the 3rd person plural. This is more common than consistency. No examples were found of the reverse intra-speaker variation pattern, where the 1st person singular is in the dative but any gender of the 3rd person plural is in the accusative. On the basis of the negative sociolinguistic connotation of DS, it might be tempting to explain the PSR away as a normative phenomenon, where selfcorrection is most successful with more frequent subject types. The fact that the PSR appears within the same social context (and even within the same clause) might not be enough to rule out this interpretation, but child language data seem to confirm that the PSR is indeed acquired as the appropriate case-marking paradigm for DS verbs. The results from a forced-choice experiment that eighty

mig.ACC - þeim.DAT (89 ex.)

mér.DAT - þeim.DAT (25 ex.)

mig.ACC - þá/þær/þau.ACC (47 ex.)

mér.DAT - þá/þær/þau.ACC (0 ex.)

Figure 13.3 Results for the 1sg–3pl paradigm in the langa corpus (2014). Mig/mér are the 1st person singular subjects and þá/þau/þær/þeim (gender syncretism in the dative) are the 3rd person plural subjects.

¹ As a reviewer points out, person effects also appear on pronoun choice in English (e.g. Quinn 2005 and Parrott 2007). Although the English and Icelandic patterns might be different in nature, both involve change in a case system accompanied by variation between conservative and innovative case choices which is conditioned by person features.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

310

      

6–7 year-olds participated in can be found in Figure 13.4 (Nowenstein 2017). To focus on the effect of the PSR, the results which are presented here are those from subjects without any syncretism in their inflectional paradigm. These are the personal pronouns ég (1sg), þú (2sg), hún (3sg.f), and þeir (3pl.m). Recall that Icelandic children first acquire structural subject case, nominative, and overgeneralize it before learning more specific rules for thematic and lexical case. As can be seen in Figure 13.4, these overgeneralizations are present in the results. They do not seem to pattern according to the Person-Specific Retention, but the dativeaccusative alternations do, indicating that they represent the acquisition of intraspeaker variation patterns. This can be assumed because the rate of nominative overgeneralizations is consistent throughout the different pronouns: 10–13 per cent of the pronouns chosen—regardless of person and number—were nominative. But when we look at the oblique cases, the distribution between pronouns is much less stable. The highest rate of accusative appeared with the 1st person singular (41.3 per cent), then the 2nd person singular (30 per cent); this is followed by the 3rd person singular (16.4 per cent) and is lowest when the pronoun is in the 3rd person plural (only 5 per cent). The result that probably has the most importance is the difference between the overgeneralization of nominative and the substitution of dative, which does not seem to be a classic example of overgeneralization. What children acquire as the subject case marking of verbs such as langa is actually a pattern of variation between accusative and dative. The use of a nominative subject with the verb will probably mostly disappear with age, but the oblique alternations seem to be part of the target adult grammar, as we have seen. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

1.p.sg.

2.p.sg. nom.

3.p.sg.fem. acc.

3.p.pl.masc.

dat.

Figure 13.4 Results for pronouns with no syncretism, langa. N = 80.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

    

311

In this context of overspecified input, where information about the case marking of specific verbs is contradictory rather than sparse, children acquire an intrinsically variable system and make use of the proportional distribution of case found in their primary linguistic data. We believe that the resulting PSR is not a coincidence, but representative of the way in which children target certain features when looking for a context of specialization. Before elaborating on this, we move on to a much quirkier side effect which is also observed in child language data.

13.3.2 Elsewhere Condition Death Rattle In addition to Person-Specific Retention, another exceptional pattern is attested in the Icelandic data. This involves the apparent overirregularization of the dying accusative subject pattern to contexts that historically only involve dative subjects. We refer to this effect as an Elsewhere Condition Death Rattle (ECDR), because we analyse it as a loss of a minority context within an Elsewhere Condition hierarchy. In a nutshell, a child who does not acquire a context for accusative experiencer subjects, but nevertheless receives at least some input that includes accusative experiencers, will interpret the accusative tokens as evidence for a low probability rule that realizes experiencer subjects in general as accusatives. Before developing our formal analysis in Section 13.3.3, let us review the data that are most important for understanding the ECDR effect. As a reminder, in the usual case, variability between accusative and dative subjects in Icelandic involves a historical change from type (1) to type (2), repeated as (8) and (9), respectively. (8)

Mig langar í me. longs in ‘I want strawberries.’

jarðarber strawberries

(9)

Mér langar í me. longs in ‘I want strawberries.’

jarðarber strawberries

In such examples, an experiencer verb like langa ‘want’ that historically takes an accusative subject has adopted an innovative pattern with a dative subject, and use of the dative is rapidly gaining ground in this kind of environment in the speech community. Naturally occurring examples of the type shown in (10) are, therefore, puzzling at first sight. In those, historical dative subject verbs such as sýnast ‘appear’, finnast ‘find’, leiðast ‘be bored’, and líka ‘like’ all appear with an accusative subject. Note that all these examples, and in fact reported examples of the ECDR in general, involve the 1st person singular. The examples are from blogs studied by Ingason (2010b).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

312

      

(10)

a. Mig sýnist það líka. me. appears it also ‘To me, it also appears to be like that.’ b. En mig finnst tóbakið ógeðslega but me. find the.tobacco horribly ‘But I think the tobacco is very good.’ c. Gaavuuuuuð, mig leiðist Gooood me. is bored ‘God, I am infinitely bored!’

gott. good

óendanlega infinitely

mikið. much

d. Mig líkar litirnir. me. likes the.colours ‘I like the colours.’ We must emphasize that this extension of the accusative to a dative subject context is produced at a very low rate. For all of those verbs, the dative accounts for an overwhelming majority of tokens. However, the accusative pattern is too widespread to be ruled out as irrelevant, especially because it seems to be possible to find a number of examples with more or less every commonly used dative experiencer subject verb in Icelandic. The existence of this low-probability accusative pattern is further confirmed by the findings of experimental language acquisition studies. In the same study that was mentioned in Section 13.3.1, the accusative was extended to dative subjects with finnast (‘find’), with the PSR also present. This can be seen in Figure 13.5.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

1.p.sg.

3.p.pl.masc. nom.

acc.

Figure 13.5 Results for finnast (‘find’). N = 80.

dat.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

    

313

From the point of view of a language acquisition model that does not allow for probabilistic usage of competing variants, the ECDR effect is quite mysterious. The accusative subject pattern is indeed a dying minority pattern in the speech community and therefore it is noteworthy to see it extend to new territories. One might be tempted to attribute this kind of overirregularization to some kind of a sociolinguistic hypercorrection (Labov 1972), perhaps associated with prescriptive efforts to keep the accusative alive. However, the fact that our evidence comes from very casual speech found in blogs as well as from young children in a language acquisition experiment makes us doubt that a hypercorrection analysis would be the right analytical path. Rather, as Section 13.3.3 will make clear, we believe that the ECDR and PSR are related phenomena, and that the organization of formal grammatical features and the way in which formal features are targeted in language acquisition are the most important ingredients of the appropriate explanation.

13.3.3 A model of featural constraints Considering the data presented in Section 13.2, an analysis of DS should (a) account for the pervasive intra-speaker variation found with DS and (b) additionally explain the PSR as well as the rare cases of productive accusative subject, the ECDR. The same model should account for the general phenomenon and its side effects. We argue that this can be done by incorporating featural constraints to a model which assumes weighted grammatical rules that can apply with a probability Higher probability of ACC rule [+experiencer, +sg] –> Lower probability of ACC rule [+experiencer] –> Even lower probability of ACC rule

As can be seen, we assume a probability-driven Elsewhere Condition approach to the case assignment rules, where a more specific rule is more likely to be retained

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

    

317

in a richer featural context. Additionally, the PSR could be thought of as a test case for different featural approaches to grammatical person, where the grouping of 1st and 2nd person into a specific active rule seems to favour features such as [+participant] (e.g. Harbour 2016; Cowper and Hall 2017) under economy, as well as providing a novel context for its empirical relevance within variation and change. As noted by a reviewer, if having additional features increases the probability of the accusative rule applying, we would expect differences between 1st and 2nd person under certain proposals about person, for example a tripartition of person using the feature [+author] feature (Harbour 2016; Cowper and Hall 2017). As the results in Figure 13.4 suggest, this might very well be the case for Icelandic, since children chose the original accusative subject case of langa more frequently with the 1st rather than the 2nd person singular. The role of grammatical features as opposed to other constraining factors in conditioning variation and change is the subject of Section 13.4.

13.4 Implications for theories of variation and change We have now seen that formal features can presumably have a categorical, conditioning role in morphosyntactic variation. In Section 13.4.1, we explore the implications this has for general theories of variation and change. Starting with the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture, we discuss the necessity of assuming morphological case to be a realizational PF process. We then move on to a broader context of conditioning and specialization and discuss the different predictions available based on the nature of conditioning factors.

13.4.1 Realizational morphology and the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture Because case is sometimes implicated in deep abstract syntactic licensing mechanisms, it is reasonable to be concerned with an example of case variation that seems to be superficial and tied to idiosyncratic properties of one language, as seems to be the case with the conditioning of DS in Icelandic. Whatever the theoretical implementation details, it is not in the spirit of the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture if a case of syntactic variation does not correlate with systematic cross-linguistic differences in syntax and its interpretation. For us, it is crucial that we assume morphological case to be a realizational PF process where certain feature distinctions can be introduced or neutralized at the PF branch. While some theories, such as McFadden (2004), aim to eliminate case from the syntax altogether, such a radical move is not necessary to account for DS as long as the PF operations that refer to syntactic features can apply with a probability lower than 1.0.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

318

      

The view that PF can modify certain aspects of the structure received from the syntax in limited ways is widely assumed, especially in the framework of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993). If we adopt the McFadden (2004, 2006) impoverishment analysis of Icelandic accusative subjects, shown above in (6), the variation is formally accounted if we assume it entails variable deletion of oblique features associated with Appl in the context of certain verbs like langa. Similarly, analyses which assume that the accusative is derived by enriching the Appl head at PF (Sigurðsson 2012) also point to PF as the derivational locus of the variation in question.

13.4.2 Conditioning and specialization The cases we have presented here are furthermore relevant for work on variation conditioning in individuals, as well as the effect conditioning factors have on specialization and therefore the directionality of language change. Tamminga et al.’s (2016) recent framework for the dynamics of variation in individuals recognizes three types of factors conditioning variation: sociostylistic (s-) (both static and dynamic), internal linguistic (i-), and psychophysiological (p-). P-conditioning can only entail variable alternations as it is extragrammatical, universal, and automatic. It applies to effects which are constant or at least predictably-distributed across the population. I-conditioning, on the other hand, can entail both variable and categorical alternations, as it is grammar-internal and language- or variety-specific, arbitrary, and therefore learned. We argue that this framework fits the DS data. Although we have focused on the effects of person and number, a few other conditioning factors have been mentioned. We have briefly discussed the social stigma surrounding DS (Svavarsdóttir 1982), but previous research also indicates possible syncretism effects (Nowenstein 2014) as well as variable prosodic preferences (Ingason 2015). Another potential source of individual differences in dative subject productivity could be vocabulary size, drawing from the importance of type frequency within the Tolerance Principle (Yang 2016). Differences in individual vocabulary compositions could determine whether dative is productive for a speaker or not. We therefore find the three types of conditioning in Tamminga et al.’s (2016) framework. This includes the obvious s-conditioning of a non-standard variant, arguably p-conditioning (prosody, saliency through syncretism, and vocabulary size), and finally i-conditioning in the PSR. We have argued for a categorical distinction arising from the PSR, which is compatible with the distinctions made within the framework. This type of distinction is important if we want to make predictions about the directionality of change based on the type of conditioning factors. In other words, if the possible variants are specializing in one way or another, the nature of the dimension on which this specialization occurs appears to be relevant in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

    

319

determining whether replacement, complete specialization, or stable variation will follow. Fruehwald and Wallenberg (2013) provide evidence for this through a few diachronic case studies which form the basis for their Minimalist Theory of Variation. This approach assumes that if categorical variants specialize along a categorical dimension, complete specialization should eventually result. On the other hand, if categorical variants specialize along a continuous or ordinal dimension, then complete specialization can never result. Instead, we should expect stable variation/optionality. This attractively simple model seems to run into problems when applied to cases like Icelandic Dative Substitution, where the variants appear to be specializing along a categorical dimension (person and number through PSR) as well as continuous ones (style through social stigma). In this case, we could imagine that categorical specialization can be blocked by optionality on a continuous dimension.

13.5 Conclusion The side effects of DS presented in this chapter demonstrate how systematic linguistic simplification can have complex consequences. Although levelling can be traced to overgeneralization mechanisms in language acquisition, the subsequent variation in the primary linguistic input is also interpreted and analysed by the child learner. This creates a scenario where a pattern of intra-speaker variation is acquired in a probabilistic fashion. Still, the distribution of case variation we have reviewed here is not random: The person and number effects of the PSR show otherwise. By accounting for these effects with a model assuming weighted rules which can be productive, we are able to account for both common and rare side effects of predictable morphosyntactic change. We believe that it is no coincidence that the rules which seem to be created depend on formal features described in natural languages. Instead, this shows us how children target these features when establishing a context for morphosyntactic variation. This is consistent with recent models of variation which assume that internal linguistic factors conditioning variation can be the basis for categorical alternations, as opposed to psychophysiological conditioning, which also seems to be present in DS in addition to the third type of conditioning, sociostylistic conditioning. This interaction between different types of conditioning leads us to the directionality of change. Although predictions can be made based on the nature of specialization, more complicated situations need to be assumed as well. In the case of Icelandic DS, categorical conditioning based on grammatical features seems to be potentially blocked by the sociostylistic dimension of DS. In general, teasing apart and studying the different components of linguistic variation are important, but a comprehensive account of the phenomena as a whole seems crucial for an appropriate analysis.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

PART IV

SYNTACTIC RECONSTRUCTION

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

14 Syntactic reconstruction based on linguistic fossils Object marking in Uralic Katalin É. Kiss

14.1 Introduction According to the Borer–Chomsky Conjecture (Borer 1984), the parametric values of grammars are expressed in the functional lexicon. Under this assumption, syntactic changes involve changes in the feature specifications of functional heads. It is an open question whether changes of this type, affecting features of morphologically real or abstract syntactic heads, can be traced back to undocumented stages of languages (cf. the debate of Harris and Campbell 2002; Lightfoot 2002a; Ferraresi and Goldbach 2008). This chapter argues that the reconstruction of the featural content of functional projections is possible, and the method to be employed is a version of the comparative method, where the correspondence set consists of the features licensed by the same functional head across related languages. (The cognateness, i.e. the material identity, of the morphological realizations of the features compared is not required.) Linguistic fossils bearing imprints of agreement relations in earlier periods of the given language are also potential sources of reconstruction. This is illustrated by a case study reconstructing object marking in Proto-Ugric, and somewhat more tentatively, in Proto-Uralic. Present-day Uralic languages display various versions of differential object marking. They differ in whether they mark the grammatical relation ‘object’ by an agreement suffix on the verb or by a case suffix on the object nominal or by both, and they also differ in the conditions, that is, the licensing features, of object marking. In double-marking languages, the head licensing object–verb agreement may be different from that licensing accusative marking. In order to reconstruct the object–verb relation in ProtoUralic, correspondence sets will be formed of the heads licensing object–verb agreement and of those licensing accusative marking in the daughter languages.

Katalin É. Kiss, Syntactic reconstruction based on linguistic fossils: Object marking in Uralic In: Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change. Edited by: Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson, Oxford University Press (2021). © Katalin É. Kiss. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198832584.003.0014

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

324

 ˊ. 

It will be argued that the syntactic correspondence sets should include not only productive constructions but also linguistic fossils cognate with them. The languages to be compared are languages of the Ugric, Permic, and Samoyedic branches of the Uralic family. In the generally accepted family tree of the Uralic languages, these subgroups form distinct branches; hence their shared properties are likely to have been inherited from the Uralic parent language. The chapter is organized as follows: Section 14.2 identifies the feature specification of the functional head responsible for object–verb agreement in various Uralic languages. Section 14.3 searches for evidence of the Inverse Agreement Constraint, a concomitant of object–verb agreement licensed by a [+topic] feature. Section 14.4 examines the feature specification of the functional heads involved in accusative marking in the languages in question. Section 14.5 points out traces of an Inverse Accusative-Marking Constraint, a symptom of accusative licensing by a [+topic] functional head. Section 14.6 sets up the correspondence sets and reconstructs object marking in Proto-Uralic. Section 14.7 is a conclusion.

14.2 Object–verb agreement The languages of the Ugric and the Samoyedic branches of the Uralic language family all display differential object–verb agreement. The object agreement suffix (OBJ) appears sandwiched between the tense suffix and the subject agreement suffix—see the Hungarian and Khanty examples in (1a,b), unless the object and subject agreement suffixes are represented by a portmanteau morpheme crossreferencing both the subject and the object, as in (2a,b). (1)

a. lát-t-á-tok (Hungarian) see---2 ‘(you) saw (it)’

b. we:l-s-e:-m (N Khanty) kill---1 ‘(I) killed (it)’

(2)

a. lát-om (Hungarian) see-.1 ‘(I) see (it)’

b. tu-s-t (N Khanty) take--.3 ‘(s/he) took (it)’

Hungarian and Khanty are pro-drop languages, and the covert pronominal subjects and objects can be identified by the agreement suffixes on the verb. The morphosyntactic structure of the Hungarian verbal projection proposed by Bartos (2001), cited under (3), correctly predicts the order of the morphemes in the finite verb for all the Uralic languages examined in this chapter; the V+T +AgrO+AgrS order is the result of verb movement through T and AgrO to AgrS.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

      (3)

325

AgrSP AgrOP TP vP

In the current version of Minimalism, agreement morphemes are assumed not to project a phrase but to be present in the feature matrix of independently motivated functional heads. Subject agreement is associated with T, and object agreement is associated with v. In the case of the Uralic languages in question, the labelling of the functional heads hosting the subject and object agreement morphemes is less obvious. In some of the languages to be discussed, these heads also have clear discourse functions. In other languages, diachronic changes may have slightly modified them, extending their original content.

14.2.1 Object–verb agreement in Hungarian In Hungarian linguistics, there is a consensus that verbal agreement is elicited by definite objects; however, it is debated whether the relevant notion of definiteness is a syntactic feature (Bartos 2001) or a lexical property (Coppock and Wechsler 2012). In Bartos’s approach, the AgrO head has a [+definite] feature. Bartos assumes the noun phrase theory of Zamparelli (2005), according to which predicative noun phrases only project a NP, indefinite noun phrases project a NumP, and definite noun phrases project a DP. Bartos claims that the Hungarian verb agrees with its object if and only if the object is of the category DP, as in (4a–c). (4)

a. Lát-já-tok a lányok-at/Mari-t /őt (Hungarian) see--2 the girls-/Mary- /her /egy kollégá-m lány-á-t?1 /a colleague-1 daughter-3- ‘Do you see the girls/Mary/her/the daughter of a colleague of mine?’ b. Lát-já-tok mindegyik /valamelyik see--2 each /some ‘Do you see each/some of the girls?’

lány-t? girl-

¹ As shown by Szabolcsi (1994), a possessive construction can also be indefinite if the possessor is extracted from it. In the case of an external possessor, the projection of a DP is not obligatory—at least for some speakers. A remnant possessive construction of the category NumP does not elicit verbal agreement.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

326

 ˊ.  c. (Az-t) lát-já-tok, hogy that- see--2 that ‘Do you see that it is raining?’

esik falls

az the

eső? rain

In (4a), the DP category of the objects (a noun phrase with a definite article, a proper name, a personal pronoun, and a possessive construction) is uncontroversial. The definiteness of the determiners mindegyik ‘each’ and valamelyik ‘some’ in (4b) is a historical relic; their ‐ik suffix, a partitivity marker, was originally a 3PL possessive agreement suffix cross-referencing a 3PL pro possessor. That is, the ‐ikdeterminers were originally possessive constructions, meaning ‘every one of them’, ‘some of them’, and they have preserved the [+definite] feature of possessive constructions after they have been reanalysed as partitive determiners (É. Kiss 2018). Object clauses, for example that in (4c), are assumed to be complements to a pronominal head, which is subject to pro-drop. Objects of the category NumP or NP elicit no object agreement: (5)

Lát-tok lányok-at/egy lány-t /néhány lány-t /valaki-t? (Hungarian) see-2 girls-/a girl- /some girl- /somebody- ‘Do you see any girls/a girl/a few girls/somebody?’

Whereas the verb agreeing with a definite object moves up to the functional head hosting the object agreement suffix (and subsequently to the functional head hosting the subject agreement suffix), there is no evidence of the object and the subject moving to the specifier positions of these heads. Both the subject and the object can move to any of the topic, quantifier, and focus slots of the left periphery, or they can remain in post-verbal position, where their relative order is free (owing to free linearization in PF, or to scrambling in syntax). That is, they agree with their respective functional heads at a distance. As shown by (4a), the object agreement suffix does not encode the number of the object, that is, it has no number feature. However, it is sensitive to the person of the object: whereas a 3rd person object elicits an allomorph of the suffix ‐(j)A, a 2nd person object elicits the object agreement suffix ‐l-, as illustrated in (6). 1st person objects never elicit agreement, a fact to be explained in Section 14.3. (6)

(Én) lát-l-ak I see-2-1 ‘I see you.’

téged /titek-et. you./you.-

(Hungarian)

In view of the facts illustrated in (4)–(6), we can conclude that, in Modern Hungarian, the functional head hosting the object agreement suffix shares the [+definite] and the [person] features of the object, which are weak features not eliciting any movement.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

327

In Old and Middle Hungarian, however, we can still find examples which suggest that the original licensing condition of object–verb agreement was other than the definiteness of the object. As Marcantonio (1985) pointed out, there are cases like (7a), where an indefinite object in topic position elicits agreement, and also cases like (7b), where a definite object conveying new information fails to elicit agreement: (7)

a. Kit Amasias kiral auag pap gakorta (Old Hungarian) whom Amasias king or priest often getre-tt-e torture--.3 ‘whom king or priest Amasias often tortured’ (Vienna Codex: 214) b. Es ottan ve-n ysteny malazt-nak latas-a-tt and there take-.3 divine grace- sight-- ‘and there he took the sight of God’s grace’ (Jókai Codex: 131)

These examples suggest that in Proto-Hungarian, the licensing condition of object– verb agreement may have been the topic role of the object. That is, the functional head agreeing with the object originally had a [+topic] feature, which came to be reanalysed as a [+definite] feature not long before the thirteenth century, the beginning of the documented period of the language. The basis of the reanalysis could be that topicality and definiteness largely overlap—except that definiteness also involves identifiability, which specific indefinite topics do not share.

14.2.2 Object–verb agreement in Ob-Ugric Traditional descriptions of the Ob-Ugric sister languages of Hungarian, Khanty (also known as Ostyak) and Mansi (also known as Vogul), claim on the basis of minimal pairs like (8a,b) that object–verb agreement is triggered by definite objects; more precisely, objects eliciting verbal agreement are interpreted as definite (see Steinitz 1950: 74–5; Gulya 1970). (8)

a. ku rit tu-s man boat take-.3 ‘The man took a boat.’

b. ku rit tu-s-t (N Khanty) man boat take--.3 ‘The man took the boat.’ (Gulya 1970)

These descriptions also noticed that a definite object does not always elicit verbal agreement, as shown by minimal pairs like (9a,b): (9)

a. ma naŋ-e:n I you- ‘I saw you.’

wa:n-s-əm see--1

(N Khanty)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

328

 ˊ.  b. ma naŋ-e:n I you- ‘I saw you.’

wa:n-s-e:-m see---1 (Nikolaeva 1999: 65)

Steinitz (1950), Gulya (1970), and Honti (1984) concluded that the Ob-Ugric languages have optional definite-object–verb agreement. However, the optionality of agreement would be at variance with assumptions of generative syntactic theory. Another problem with this generalization is that the agreeing object is sometimes clearly indefinite, for example in (10): (10)

luw a:mola kalaŋ ńu:xəl-s-əlli he what reindeer follow--.3 an we:l-s-əlli not kill--.3 ‘He followed some reindeer but did not kill it.’

pa and

(N Khanty)

(Nikolaeva 1999: 65)

The true licensing condition of Ob-Ugric object–verb agreement was identified by Nikolaeva (1999, 2001). She showed that an object elicits agreement on the verb if and only if it is contextually activated, that is, if it is topical. Thus, (9a), with the non-agreeing object, could answer the questions ‘What happened?’ or ‘Who did you see?’ whereas (9b) with the agreeing object would be an appropriate answer to the question ‘Did you see me?’ Example (10) could occur in a discourse in which a herd of reindeer (the superset of the one referred to in the sentence) has already been mentioned. An object also counts as activated if it has a possessor referentially bound by the preceding subject: (11)

a:śii proi pox-əli father his son-3 ‘The fatheri saw hisi son.’

wa:n-s-əlli2 see--.3

(N Khanty) (Nikolaeva 1999: 66)

Skribnik (2001), Sipőcz (2013), and Virtanen (2014, 2015) made similar observations about Mansi. In the Eastern Mansi example in (12a), the arrow introduces a new referent, so it does not elicit verbal agreement, whereas, in (12b), it refers to a previously mentioned weapon, so object–verb agreement takes place: (12)

a. kom jowt-nyõõl wø-s man bow-arrow take-.3 ‘The man took a bow and an arrow.’

(E Mansi) (Virtanen 2014: (17))

² In Northern Khanty, lexical objects are caseless; only pronominal objects can bear an overt accusative morpheme.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

      b. täw toonøtäätøl nyõõ-mø he then arrow- ‘He then tore the arrow out.’

k°än out

329

mänømt-øs-øt tear--.3 (Virtanen 2015: 25)

These data indicate that the feature licensing object–verb agreement in Khanty and Mansi is the topic feature; hence the functional head agreeing with the object in the Khanty and Mansi sentence structure must be specified as [+topic]. Whereas, in Hungarian, object–verb agreement does not involve any object movement, in Khanty and in Mansi, it does. In the SOV Ob-Ugric sentence, a non-agreeing object is left-adjacent to the verb; however, an agreeing object also precedes the oblique, and it can precede adjuncts as well—obviously because it has been extracted from the vP. Compare: (13)

(14)

a. (ma) Juwan-a a:n ma-s-әm I Ivan- cup give--3 ‘I gave a cup to Ivan.’ b. (ma) a:n Juwan-a ma-s-e:-m I cup Ivan- give---3 ‘I gave the cup to Ivan.’ a. Äm noun tolmox I you- thief ‘I brought you a thief.’ b. Äm nenän-mi ti I you- this ‘I give you this job.’

(N Khanty)

(Nikolaeva 2001: (40))

tåt-ås-әm bring--1 eš-әl job-

(Mansi)

möú-länәm give-.1 (Sipőcz 2015: 238)

In (13a) and (14a), the non-agreeing, non-topical object immediately precedes the verb; it is presumably in its base-generated position. In (13b) and (14b), it also precedes the oblique argument. In these sentences, not only the subject but also the object appears to be an external argument, which explains its topic interpretation. Example (14b) illustrates a dative-shift-like pattern of Khanty and Mansi, the so-called secundative construction, where the recipient argument of a ditransitive verb is promoted to object, and the theme bears instructive/instrumental case. This pattern is used mostly (Nikolaeva 2014: 203; Sosa 2017: 95) or exclusively (Nikolaeva 2001: 32) to assign topic role to the recipient or goal argument. Recipients tend to be human, that is, they tend to be higher on the animacy/ topicality scale than themes; no wonder a recipient promoted to object is mostly or always formulated as an external argument eliciting agreement.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

330

 ˊ. 

Nikolaeva argues that a Khanty object agreeing with the verb is a secondary topic—given that the primary topic is the subject. The subject of the Khanty sentence also functions as a topic. If the agent is inherently non-topical, as in (15), or if it is new information to be focused, as in (16), the sentence must be passivized. (15)

a. *Xoj Juwan an who Ivan not ‘Nobody hit Ivan.’

re:sk-əs hit-.3

b. Juwan xoj-na an re:sk-əs-a Ivan who- not hit--.3 ‘Ivan was not hit by anybody.’ (16)

pro täpәt-jŏŋ ńot-nә pet-aj he seventy arrow- pierce-.3 ʻHe was pierced by seventy arrows.’

(N Khanty)

(Nikolaeva 1999: 58–9) (S Khanty) (Kulonen 1989: 87)

The functions of primary and secondary topics do not seem to be completely identical. The primary subject topic is an aboutness topic, also encoding the subject-of-predication function of the grammatical subject in all-new sentences answering the question ‘What happened?’ whereas the secondary object topic is a familiarity topic encoding the contextual givenness (D-linking) of the object. The fusion of the functions subject and aboutness topic in a position external to TP has been observed in several languages (see Rizzi and Shlonsky 2006), and the functional head bearing the features [subject] and [aboutness topic], attracting subject-topics to its specifier, has been identified as Subj. On the analogy of SubjP, the projection hosting object-topics will be assumed to have a head with the features [object] and [familiarity topic] and will be labelled as ObjP. The Khanty sentence displaying object agreement is assigned the following structure:

SubjP

(17)

Spec Subject

Subj′ ObjP

Spec Object

Subj V+T+AgrO+AgrS Obj′

TP Spec

Obj (V+T+AgrO) T′

vP

T (V+T)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

331

The Khanty and Mansi object agreement suffixes are not sensitive to the person of the object; however, they encode its singular, dual, or plural number: (18)

a. ma tam kalaŋ we:l-s-e:-m I this reindeer kill---1 ‘I killed this reindeer.’ b. ma tam kalaŋ we:l-sә-ŋil-am I this reindeer kill---1 ‘I killed these two reindeer.’ c. ma tam kalaŋ we:l-sә-l-am I this reindeer kill---1 ‘I killed these reindeer.’

(N Khanty)

(Nikolaeva 1999: 64)

In sum, the functional head that the object agrees with in the Ob-Ugric languages has a strong familiarity topic feature, eliciting object movement to its specifier position. This functional head also shares the number feature of the object.

14.2.3 Object–verb agreement in Tundra Nenets The Samoyedic language with the most thoroughly described syntax is Tundra Nenets (see Nikolaeva 2014). The licensing condition of object agreement is the contextual givenness/topicality of the object. Thus, (19a), with no object–verb agreement, answers the question ‘Who did Wanya hit?’ or ‘What happened?’ whereas (19b) answers the question ‘What did Wanya do to Wera?’ (19)

a. Wanya Wera-m Wanya Wera- ‘Wanya hit Wera.’

ladə°. hit.3

b. Wanya Wera-m Wanya Wera- ‘Wanya hit Wera.’

ladə°-da. hit-.3

(Tundra Nenets)

(Nikolaeva 2014: 206)

Inherently non-topical objects, among them wh-expressions, indefinite and negative pronouns, and objects modified by them, as well as objects supplied with the limitative suffix meaning ‘only’, never elicit agreement: (20)

pro ŋəmke-m taxabta°/*taxabta°-da? he what- break-3/break-.3 ‘What did he break?’

(Nikolaeva 2014: 204)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

332

 ˊ. 

These facts suggest that the functional head hosting object agreement has a topic feature in Tundra Nenets as well; it appears to be the same Obj head that we identified in the Khanty sentence. The object tends to be attracted to the specifier of this TP-external functional head in visible syntax. As Nikolaeva (2014: 213) puts it, ‘object agreement tends to be present when the object is not adjacent to the verb, and a verb-adjacent object typically does not trigger agreement’. However, this is not always so and is attributed to the influence of flexible Russian word order. In Tundra Nenets, the object agreement morpheme on the verb encodes the number of the object (but not the person). Compare with (19b): (21)

Wanya wen’ako-x°h Wanya dog-. ‘Wanya hit two dogs.’

lad°ŋa-x°yu-da. hit--3 (Nikolaeva 2014: 202–6)

In sum, the functional head involved in object agreement in Tundra Nenets has a strong familiarity topic feature, and it shares the number feature of the object.

14.3 The Inverse Agreement Constraint A phenomenon often attested in languages displaying object–verb agreement is the Inverse Agreement Constraint (Comrie 1980): (22)

Inverse Agreement Constraint An object agreeing with a verb must be lower in the person hierarchy than the subject agreeing with the same verb.

The person hierarchy (called ‘animacy hierarchy’ by Comrie), cited in (23), has been identified as a topicality or topicworthiness hierarchy by Moravcsik (1974), Givón (1976), Kiparsky (2008), and others: (23)

Topicality Hierarchy 1SG > 1PL > 2SG > 2PL > 3SG > 3PL

É. Kiss (2013, 2017) argues on the basis of cross-linguistic evidence that the Inverse Agreement Constraint is an interface filter which serves to harmonize the structural hierarchy of constituents in the topic domain with the ranking of their referents in the topicality hierarchy. It must have originated in languages like Khanty, where the discourse functions and grammatical functions are fused, with the subject functioning as primary topic and the object functioning as secondary topic or focus. When both the subject and the object are topicalized, the Inverse Agreement Constraint does not allow the object to be more topical than the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

333

structurally more prominent subject. If the object is of a higher person than the subject, it can only be construed as a focus. Thus, the Inverse Agreement Constraint is, in fact, an Inverse Topicality Constraint, and its presence in a language is a concomitant—or a relic—of a sentence structure where the object and the subject each agree with a funtional head having a topic feature.

14.3.1 The Inverse Agreement Constraint in Hungarian It was claimed in Section 14.2.1 that in Hungarian, all definite objects elicit object– verb agreement. In fact, there are some exceptions to this generalization. Unlike 3rd person pronominal objects, 1st and 2nd person pronominal objects do not trigger agreement. Compare: (24)

a. János John

vár-ja-Ø expect--3

őt/őket. him/them

b. János John

vár-Ø expect-3

engem/minket. me/us

c. János John

vár-Ø expect-3

téged/titeket. yousg/youpl

(Hungarian)

Bartos (2001) accounted for this fact by claiming that 1st and 2nd person pronouns are not DPs. Since their referents are always present in the discourse, their existential presupposition need not be expressed in syntax. According to Coppock and Wechsler (2012), the trigger of agreement is a formal [+DEF] feature, which 3rd person pronouns do have, whereas 1st and 2nd person pronouns do not. In the theory of Bárány (2015a, 2015b, 2017), the object and the subject enter into an Agree relation with the same functional head. Since the feature complexes of 1st and 2nd person object pronouns ([+speaker, +participant, +person] and [+participant, +person], respectively) subsume the [+person] feature of a 3rd person subject pronoun, they leave no feature for a 3rd person subject to value, which therefore remains unlicensed. Certain facts of Hungarian, however, undermine these assumptions. 2nd person object pronouns actually do elicit agreement if the subject is 1st person—see (24b). (25)

a. Ő vár-Ø téged/titeket. he expect-3 you. /you. ‘He expects you.’ b. (Én) vár-l-ak I expect-2-1 ‘I expect you.’

téged/titeket. you./ you.

(Hungarian)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

334

 ˊ. 

A 1st person object never elicits agreement, whether the subject is 2nd or 3rd person: (26)

a. Ő vár he expect.3 ‘He expects me.’

engem. me

b. Te vár-sz you expect-2 ‘You expect me.’

engem. me

Cases where the subject and the object agree in person but differ in number involve further complications. If the subject is 1SG and the object is 1PL, or, if the subject is 2SG and the object is 2PL, the verb agrees with the object (27a,b); however, if the subject is 1PL and the object is 1SG or if the subject is 2PL and the object is 2SG, there is no object–verb agreement (28a,b). (27)

a. Én minket javasl-om /*javasl-ok. I us propose-.1/propose-1 ‘I propose us.’ b. Te ti-tek-et javasl-od you you-2- propose-.2 ‘Do you propose you guys?

(28)

a. Mi engem jelöl-ünk we me nominate-1 ‘We nominate me.’

(Hungarian)

/*javasol-sz? /recommend-2

/*jelöl-jü-k. /elect--1

b. Ti téged jelöl-tök /*jelöl-i-tek? you you nominate-2 /nominate--2 ‘Do you guys nominate you?’ The theories of Bartos (2001) and Coppock and Wexler (2012) cannot predict these facts in a principled manner, and (27) and (28) present a problem for Bárány (2015a, 2015b) too . É. Kiss (2013, 2017) argues that these data are manifestations of the Inverse Agreement Constraint. The Inverse Agreement Constraint states that the relative structural prominence of two topics cannot be the opposite of their relative prominence in the Topicality Hierarchy. In fact, as shown by Comrie (1980), languages use various comprised two-level or three-level versions of the hierarchy in (23); they collapse some adjacent stages. Hungarian segments the hierarchy, as shown in (29), which distingushes three types of discourse referents: the speaker, the non-active participant(s), and those not present:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

      (29)

335

Topicality Hierarchy for Hungarian

1SG >

1PL 2SG > 2PL

>3

speaker > participant > non-participant The Inverse Agreement Constraint combined with the Topicality Hierarchy in (29) correctly predicts the agreement facts illustrated in (24)–(28). A 1SG object is always lower in the Topicality Hierarchy than the subject; hence it never elicits agreement. For a 2nd person object, agreement is only blocked if the subject is 3rd person or if the object is 2SG and the subject is 2PL. Although the Inverse Agreement Constraint is clearly active in Hungarian, it seems to have lost its original function. Hungarian is not a strict SOV language any more; the subject and the object can be topicalized in any order; therefore, their relative structural prominence could be harmonized with their relative topicworthiness via movement. What is more, object agreement does not encode the topic function of the object (although it did in Proto-Hungarian—see the discussion of (7a,b), and, for more details, É. Kiss 2014). In Modern Hungarian, the Inverse Agreement Constraint appears to be a linguistic fossil.

14.3.2 The Inverse Agreement Constraint in the Ob-Ugric languages The Inverse Agreement Constraint is also attested in Eastern Khanty (the Surgut dialect), but not in Northern Khanty (the Obdorsk dialect studied by Nikolaeva 1999). In Eastern Khanty, the verb does not agree with 1st and 2nd person objects. The examples in (30a,b) contain the same type of contextually given object. In (30a), both the subject and the object are 3rd person, and the object elicits verbal agreement. In (30b), the subject is 3rd person and the object is 1st or 2nd person, and agreement is not triggered. Example (30c) shows that agreement with a 2nd person object is also impossible when the subject is 1st person—which follows if Khanty uses a two-level Topicality Hierarchy with the 1st and 2nd persons collapsed, that is, ‘1st/2nd > 3rd’. (30)

a. Vera ʌüw-at ŏjaɣtə-ʌ-təɣ. Vera she- find--.3 ‘Vera finds her.’ b. Vera mān-t/nüŋ-at ŏjaγtə-ʌ. Vera I- /you- find-.3 ‘Vera finds me/you.’

(Eastern Khanty)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

336

 ˊ.  c. mā nüŋ-at I you- ‘I find you.’

ŏjaγtə -ʌ-əm. find--1 (Sosa 2017: 106)

Eastern Khanty is the only Ob-Ugric language in which the Inverse Agreement Constraint is in effect.

14.3.3 The Inverse Agreement Constraint in Tundra Nenets The Inverse Agreement Constraint is also active in Samoyedic. The Samoyedic languages appear to employ the same two-level person hierarchy as Eastern Khanty does (1st/2nd > 3rd), as a consequence of which a 2nd person object never elicits agreement, whatever the person of the subject (Nikolaeva 2014: 202). Observe a Nenets and a Selkup minimal pair: (31)

a. Wanya syita ladə°-da. (Tundra Nenets) John he. hit-.3 ‘John hit him.’ b. Wanya syiqm°/syit° ladə° /*ladə°-da John I./you. hit.3/hit-.3 ‘John hit me/you.’ (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011: 130)3

(32)

a. Təp kanap qontyrtɛnta /qontyrtɛntyƞyty he dog. see..3/see...3 ’He will see a/the dog.’ b. Təp šįnty he you. ’He will see you.’

qontyrtɛnta /*qontyrtɛntyƞyty see..3/see ..3 (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011: 199–201)

In sum, the Inverse Agreement Constraint arises in languages where the discourse functions are fused with grammatical functions in a fixed structural hierarchy. The constraint harmonizes the structural ranking of [+topic] constituents with the ranking of their referents in the Topicality Hierarchy; it blocks the topicmarking of an object that ranks higher in the Topicality Hierarchy than the subject. Of the Uralic languages surveyed, the constraint is active in Hungarian, Eastern Khanty, and the Samoyedic Tundra Nenets and Selkup. The Topicality

³ According to Nikolaeva (2014: 203), this minimal pair only represents the western dialect of Tundra Nenets. None of the personal pronoun objects elicits agreement in the other dialects. This may indicate that object marking is beginning to lose its original function and is getting grammaticized/ fossilized in Tundra Nenets.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

337

Hierarchy assumed in Hungarian is a three-level hierarchy, distinguishing the speaker, the participants in the discourse, and the non-participants. The hierarchy in Eastern Khanty and Samoyedic only distinguishes participants and nonparticipants (1st and 2nd persons vs 3rd person). In Hungarian, the Inverse Agreement Constraint has lost its funtion; it survives as a linguistic fossil.

14.4 Accusative marking In many Uralic languages, the object is the target of differential case marking. Languages of the Balto-Finnic branch, that is, Finnish, Estonian, Votic, Karelian, Ingrian, and Veps treat total and partial objects differently. (This distinction is likely to be historically related to the topic object–focus object distinction; however, this issue is beyond the scope of the present chapter.) Eastern Mansi and the Samoyedic languages, as well as the Permic Komi and Udmurt, case-mark topical or definite objects and leave focused or indefinite objects unmarked.

14.4.1 Accusative marking in Hungarian In Modern Hungarian, there is general object marking; both definite and indefinite, total and partial objects are marked by a ‐t accusative suffix—see the examples in (4)–(5). However, Old Hungarian texts still display relics of differential accusative marking. We find a considerable number of unmarked objects, all of which occur in non-finite subordinate clauses (É. Kiss 2014). For example: (33)

a. [ợ è gondoluan] yme vrnac angala ièlenec nèki (Old Hungarian) he this thinking lo Lord’s angel appeared him ‘While he was thinking this, lo, the Lord’s angel appeared to him.’ (Munich Codex: 8 verso) b. ne fordol’-l’-on mˉg [ǫ kǫntos-ǫ feluén-n] not turn--3 back he gown-3 put.on- ‘he should not turn back to put on his gown’ (Munich Codex: 30 recto)

The fact that in Old Hungarian, unmarked objects were restricted to non-finite clauses suggests that, in Proto-Hungarian, accusative marking was associated with finiteness; it could be licensed by the same functional head that hosted object agreement. Unmarked objects practically disappeared from Hungarian by the sixteenth century, whereas differential object–verb agreement has survived up till now. This split indicates that object–verb agreement and accusative marking

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

338

 ˊ. 

are not two sides of the same relation any more; they involve different functional heads. I assume that accusative marking came to be generalized to all objects when accusative licensing was taken over from a TP-external functional head by v.⁴ Further facts indicating that Proto-Hungarian displayed differential accusative marking subject to an Inverse Accusative-Marking Constraint will be discussed in Section 14.5.

14.4.2 Accusative marking in Ob-Ugric In Eastern Mansi, the object is case-marked iff it is topical, in other words, if it is contextually given (Virtanen 2015; Sipőcz 2015). Compare the objects in the two clauses of (34): the object is contextually given, hence case-marked, only in the second clause. (34)

jänii lyüüly wöär-s-øm, wisy kom-mø (Eastern Mansi) big mistake make--1 young man- jåt tåt-øs-løm. with bring--.1 ‘I made a big mistake when I took the boy with me.’ (Virtanen 2015: 36)

Though the literature on Mansi often relates accusative assignment to definiteness (cf. Havas 2008), in fact, definite objects, among them pronouns and possessive constructions, can also be caseless if they introduce a new referent into the discourse. For example: (35)

soolyøsy-toågl-äät k°ås køsm-øs stoat-costume-3 although start.searching-.3 ‘Even though he starts searching for his stoat leather costume.’ (Virtanen 2014: 14)

In the great majority of cases, an accusative-marked object elicits verbal agreement, and an object eliciting verbal agreement is marked accusative. The sporadic mismatches may not be real counter examples. For example, in (36) the object eliciting verbal agreement may be a covert pro; the unmarked object following the verb can be an afterthought.

⁴ In the theory of Bárány (2015b), actually the same head, v, is responsible for both agreement and accusative assignment in Hungarian; differential object agreement results from conditions on which objects the verb can agree with.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

      (36)

339

wisy-kom kontø-s-tø jäg-ø taro-tääm (Eastern Mansi) young-man find--.3 father-3 send- neepøx letter ‘The young man found the letter sent by his father.’ (Virtanen 2010: 24)

I conclude that, in Eastern Mansi, the functional head licensing accusative case is the same head that hosts the object agreement morpheme, presumably a TP-external Obj bearing the features [object] and [familiarity topic], and the objects assigned accusative case are those attracted to Spec,ObjP, participating in object–verb agreement. That is, the object–AgrO relation involves both the valuation of the [+topic] feature of Obj and the licensing of the accusative feature of the object nominal. In Khanty and in Northern Mansi, only pronominal objects are marked by a case morpheme; the accusative morpheme of lexical nouns is phonologically null. This situation does not provide sufficient evidence to identify the functional head licensing accusative case. It could be v; but the obligatory case marking of pronominal objects may also be a consequence of the grammaticization of the frequent [+topic] feature of pronouns in a structure where object–verb agreement and accusative assignment are manifestations of the same specifier–head relation in an ObjP headed by a [+topic] Obj.

14.4.3 Accusative marking in Udmurt Two of the Permic languages of the Uralic family, Udmurt and Komi, show no object–verb agreement, and, consequently, they do not have the Inverse Agreement Constraint either.⁵ However, they do display differential accusative marking (see Rédei 2000; Csúcs 2003; and Tánczos 2016 on Udmurt, and Klumpp 2008 on Komi). Udmurt marks specific objects, including definite objects (among them personal pronouns, demonstratives, and proper names) and specific indefinites—irrespective of whether they are topics or foci (see Tánczos 2016; É. Kiss and Tánczos 2018). Compare the minimal pair in (37). The definite objects in (37a) bear an accusative suffix, whereas the indefinite object in (37b) is unmarked.

⁵ A third Permic language, Mordvin, has object–verb agreement which is more complex than the patterns attested in other Uralic languages. It encodes both the person and number of the object, i.e. Mordvin has paradigms referring to 1st person, 2nd person, and 3rd person direct objects. Keresztes (1999) argues that the morpheme clusters of the Mordvin object–verb agreement paradigms are recent developments; nevertheless, object–verb agreement itself can be a Proto-Uralic heritage.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

340 (37)

 ˊ.  a. Mon ta kńiga-jez /ta kńiga-os-yz I this book-/this book-- ‘I read this book/these books.’

lydʒ’-i. (Udmurt) read-.1

b. Mon kńiga lydʒ’-i. I book read-.1 ‘I read a book.’ The case-marked plural in (38a) is understood to be generic, whereas the caseless plural in (38b) is interpreted as existential: (38)

a. Ug jaratky ďeťekťivnoj ..1 like.. detective ‘I don’t like detective novels.’

roman-jos-yz. novel--

b. D’eťekťivnoj roman-jos śeďti biblioťekayś. detective novel- find..1 library. ’I found detective novels in the library.’ (É. Kiss and Tánczos 2018: (50)–(51)) An object represented by an inherently definite noun phrase always receives accusative case: (39)

a. Mon *ton/ton-e I you/you- ‘I saw you in the shop.’

magazinyś shop.

b. Mon *Saša/Saša-jez magazinyś I Sasha/Sasha. shop. ‘I saw Sasha in the shop.’

adʒ’i. see..3 (Tánczos 2016: 45) adʒ’i. see..3

A case-marked indefinite object, for example that of (40), is understood to be specific: (40)

Mon odig puny-jez utćaśko. I one dog- search..1 ‘I am searching for a (specific) dog.’

(Tánczos 2016: 47)

These data indicate that the functional head licensing accusative case in Udmurt has the feature [+specific]. The most likely candidate for such a feature specification is a TP-external Obj head. This Obj head is phonologically null in Udmurt; there is no O–V agreement morpheme on the verb. The [+specific] feature of Obj is strong in the grammar of conservative speakers (although this is changing in the Russified flexible-word-order language of the younger generations).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

341

14.4.4 Accusative marking in Tundra Nenets In Tundra Nenets, all objects are accusative-marked according to Nikolaeva (2014: 61).⁶ Observe again the examples of Section 14.2.3, for example the minimal pair in (19), rewritten here as (41): (41)

a. Wanya Wera-m Wanya Wera- ‘Wanya hit Wera.’

ladə°. hit.3

b. Wanya Wera-m Wanya Wera- ‘Wanya hit Wera.’

ladə°-da. hit-.3

(Tundra Nenets)

(Nikolaeva 2014: 206)

The object bears accusative case in both (41b), where the verb agrees with the object, and (41a), where the verb shows no object agreement. That is, object marking is divorced from object–verb agreement, which is licensed by a [+topic] feature shared by the object nominal and a TP-external Obj head. The situation is similar to that attested in Hungarian; the functional head responsible for accusative assignment must be v. To summarize Section 14.4, the Uralic languages examined display various versions of differential accusative marking. In Eastern Mansi, accusative marking and object–verb agreement are manifestations of the same specifier–head relation in the projection of an Obj head bearing a [+topic] feature. In Udmurt, the Obj head licensing accusative case has the feature [+specific] instead. In Hungarian and Tundra Nenets, accusative marking targets all objects; hence the functional head licensing accusative case cannot be an AgrO or Obj head, which enters into Agree only with objects bearing a [+topic] or a [+definite] feature, respectively; it must be v.

14.5 The Inverse Accusative-Marking Constraint (Person–Case Constraint) 14.5.1 The Inverse Accusative-Marking Constraint in Eastern Mansi In Eastern Mansi, differential object–verb agreement and differential accusative marking go together; they are licensed by the same Obj head bearing a [+topic] ⁶ In Tundra Nenets imperatives, nominative objects are also allowed (Nikolaeva 2014: 60)—which may be a morphological idiosyncrasy or a relic of a former stage of grammar.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

342

 ˊ. 

feature. Nevertheless, the Inverse Agreement Constraint is invalid in the language, but its counterpart, the Inverse Accusative-Marking Constraint, is active; it prevents the accusative marking of an object that is of a higher person than the subject. Indeed, in Eastern Mansi, 1st and 2nd person objects cannot receive an accusative morpheme, for example: (42)

a. Näg nän pøl öän-øm tow keet-øs-løn? 2 why  -1 there send--.2 ‘Why did you send me there?’ b. Om nää-n jorøl tảt-øs-løm tøg. I you-2 on.purpose bring--.1 here ‘I brought you here on purpose.’ (Virtanen 2014: (16), (42))

The object pronouns in (42a,b) bear possessive endings. Possessive suffixes in Uralic can have non-possessive roles (Nikolaeva 2003; É. Kiss and Tánczos 2018); their presence or absence is independent of the object function and of accusative assignment. Interestingly, not only 1st and 2nd person objects but also objects anchored to a 1st or 2nd person possessor are caseless: (43)

a. Öäsy-øn ääj-øx wot-ääløn! (Eastern Mansi) grandfather-2 drink- invite--.2 ‘Call your grandfather for a drink!’ b. Püw-syøsyk-øm öät tø pümønt-øs-løm son-dear-1   command--.1 ‘I have not commanded my dear son enough.’ (Virtanen 2015: 139)

The reason must be that the possessum is in most cases a part or a belonging of the possessor; hence a possessum with a 1st or 2nd person possessor is identified with a discourse participant and is, therefore, subject to the Topicality Hierarchy and the Inverse Accusative-Marking Constraint. Restrictions similar to the Inverse Accusative-Marking Constraint of Eastern Mansi have been reported from several unrelated languages under the name Person–Case Constraint. É. Kiss (2017) argues that the Person–Case Constraint, the Inverse Accusative-Marking Constraint, and the Inverse Agreement Constraint are manifestations of the same Inverse Topicality Constraint: (44)

Inverse Topicality Constraint The hierarchy of topicalized constituents in the same—external or internal—structural domain should not contradict their ranking in the Topicality Hierachy of discourse participants.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

343

14.5.2 The Inverse Accusative-Marking Constraint in Hungarian In Hungarian, accusative marking by a ‐t suffix has been generalized to all objects—as was discussed in Section 14.4.1, so we would not expect the Inverse Accusative-Marking Constraint to be in effect. Nevertheless, it is present in the language in a fossilized form: 1SG and 2SG objects bear no case suffix. (The 1st and 2nd person objects in both the singular and the plural bear a possessive suffix—like the Mansi pronominal objects in (42), that is, they mean literally ‘my I’, ‘your you’, ‘our we’. These suffixes are manifestations of the non-possessive use of possessive agreement attested in many Uralic languages.) Compare the paradigm of pronominal objects: (45)

SG1: eng-em I-1 SG2: tég-ed you-2 SG3: ő-t (s)he-

vs.

PL1: mi-nk-et we-1- PL2: ti-tek-et you-2- PL3: ő-k-et (s)he--

(Hungarian)

Not only do the 1SG and 2SG objects receive no case suffix, but lexical objects with a 1st or 2nd person possessor can also be caseless: (46)

a. Olvas-om a cikk-em(-et) /cikk-ed(-et). read-1 the paper-1(-)/paper-2(-) ‘I am reading my paper/yourSG paper.’

(Hungarian)

b. Olvas-om a cikk-ünk(-et) /cikke-tek(-et). read-1 the paper-1(-)/paper-2(-) ‘I am reading our paper/yourPL paper.’ In every other case, the omission of the accusative suffix makes the sentence sharply ungrammatical, in fact, incomprehensible. Compare with (46): (47)

**Olvas-om a cikk-e /cikk-ük. read-1 the paper-3 /paper-3 ‘I am reading her paper/their paper.’

The lack of accusative marking on objects related to 1st and 2nd person discourse referents cannot be accidental; it must be a consequence of the Inverse AccusativeMarking Constraint, like the Mansi examples in (43). That is, although Hungarian has no differential accusative marking, it has preserved the Inverse AccusativeMarking Constraint as the relic of a former stage of the language where accusative marking still encoded the topic function of the object.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

344

 ˊ. 

14.6 The correspondence sets The question that has motivated the survey of the data of modern Uralic languages in Sections 14.2–14.5 is how Proto-Uralic marked objects—whether it used headmarking (i.e. object–verb agreement) or dependent marking (i.e. accusative assignment) or both; whether object marking was general or differential; and if it was differential object marking, what were its licensing conditions. In structural terms, which functional head was responsible for object marking in the ProtoUralic sentence, and what was its feature specification like? In order to answer these questions, we set up correspondence sets from the relevant data of presentday Uralic languages. We assume that the functional head licensing object–verb agreement is Obj; however, the Obj heads of the languages in question may differ in whether they enter into an agreement relation with [+topic] or [+definite] objects, that is, whether they bear the feature [+topic] or [+definite]. (They also differ in which phi-features of the object they encode; these differences, however, do not seem significant in the present context; they reflect the impoverishment of one phi-feature or another.) As argued in Section 14.3.1, the presence of the Inverse Agreement Constraint is regarded as evidence (or a fossilized relic) of an Obj head bearing a [+topic] feature. If a language licenses object–verb agreement and accusative marking under the same conditions, the null hypothesis is that object agreement and accusative case are manifestations of the same relation, involving the same Obj head. If the licensing conditions of accusative marking are different from those of object– verb agreement, the functional head licensing accusative marking must be other than Obj. The likely candidate in the theoretical framework assumed in this chapter is v. The presence of the Inverse Accusative-Marking Constraint in a language is indirect evidence (or a fossilized relic) of accusative marking by an Obj head bearing the feature [topic]. The data surveyed in Sections 14.2–14.5 can be arranged into the correspondence sets shown in Table 14.1. In Eastern Mansi, the Khanty dialects, and Tundra Nenets, the Obj head entering into agreement with the object has the feature [+topic]. In Hungarian, the Inverse Agreement Constraint provides evidence that the Obj head originally also bore the feature [+topic]. By the documented period of the language, the [+topic] feature of Obj changed into [+definite], but traces of the original condition can still be pointed out (recall the discussion of (7a,b)). The reanalysis of the topicality condition of object–verb agreement into a definiteness condition has been attested in other languages as well—see, for example, Givón (1976). Of the languages examined, only Eastern Mansi provides direct evidence of accusative licensing by a [+topic] Obj; however, we have reason to assume that accusative case was licensed by a [+topic] Obj in Hungarian too. First, in the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

345

Table 14.1 Syntactic correspondence sets for object marking in Uralic Licenser of object–V agreement

Licenser of accusative marking

Basis of Direct evidence reconstruction

Inverse Agr. Constraint

Direct evidence Inverse Acc.Marking Const.

Hungarian Eastern Mansi Eastern Khanty Northern Khanty Udmurt Tundra Nenets Proto-Uralic

[+topic] Obj

v [+topic] Obj ?Obj/?v

[+definite] Obj [+topic] Obj [+topic] Obj

[+topic] Obj

[+topic] Obj

?Obj/?v

[+specific] Obj [+topic] Obj [+topic] Obj

[+specific] Obj v [+topic] Obj

[+topic] Obj

[+topic] Obj [+topic] Obj

earliest Old Hungarian documents, there are still many examples of non-finite clauses with a caseless object, which indicates that Proto-Hungarian was a differential accusative marking language. Furthermore, Hungarian displays a fossilized Inverse Accusative-Marking Constraint, which is a concomitant of accusative licensing by an Obj with a [+topic] feature. In Modern Hungarian and in Tundra Nenets, the licenser of accusative case is v. The comparison of Old and Modern Hungarian data indicates that v represents the innovative version, that is, the direction of change was from accusative licensing by an Obj head with a [+topic] feature to generalized accusative licensing by v. In Udmurt, the [+specific] feature of the Obj head licensing accusative marking could be a natural extension of a former [+topic] feature; in Udmurt, not only contextually given elements count as topical, that is, familiar, but so also do those present in the domain of the discourse or in the universe of the discourse participants. The correspondence sets contain data from three different branches of the Uralic family; hence it is a plausible conclusion that their shared system of object marking represents a fragment of the grammar of the Proto-Uralic parent language. If the reconstruction is correct, then the Uralic parent language had differential object–verb agreement licensed by a TP-external Obj head with a [+topic] feature. It is likely that accusative assignment was licensed under the same conditions; it was another manifestation of the agreement relation between the object and the Obj head, that is, the Proto-Ugric Obj had the features [+topic] and [+accusative]. These features are still strong in the conservative Uralic languages with a strict SOV word order. In some of the Uralic languages, we find the gradual loosening of word order, which has led to the emergence of the possibility of long-distance agreement.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

346

 ˊ. 

The [+topic] feature of Obj has been reanalysed as [+specific] in Udmurt and as [+definite] in Hungarian—via a natural extension of the content of the notion of topicality. In languages with generalized accusative assignment, that is, in Hungarian and Tundra Nenets, the [+topic] and [+accusative] features have been divorced; accusative has come to be associated with v. The [+topic] feature has remained associated with a functional head external to the vP for semantic reasons; it must be external to the predicate phrase. Comrie (1980) reported differential object–verb agreement subject to an inverse agreement constraint from three non-Uralic languages of East-Siberia, Chukchee, Koryak, and Kamchadal, which might suggest that differential object marking in Samoyedic and Ugric is the manifestation of a Siberian Sprachbund. If it is indeed an areal feature, it must have penetrated Proto-Ugric before the splitoff of Hungarian. However, differential object marking can be reconstructed for at least some languages of the Permic branch of the Uralic family as well; hence either the Sprachbund extended as far as the Permic languages, west of the Ural Mountains, or differential object marking licensed by a [+topic] object is indeed Proto-Uralic heritage, as reconstructed above. This issue can only be decided conclusively if we know more about the evolution of differential object marking in the Baltic Finnic languages and Sámi, based on the partitive–accusative distinction. Pending deeper analysis, the similarity of the licensing conditions of the partitive–accusative distribution in Baltic Finnic and those of differential object marking in Eastern Uralic seems to point to a common origin.

14.7 Conclusion Our study of differential object marking in various Uralic languages has had a theoretical goal beyond its empirical goal of reconstructing object marking in Proto-Ugric and Proto-Uralic; it has aimed to demonstrate that the comparative method of historical linguistics can be applied to syntactic structures. The procedure has been similar to that employed in phonological reconstruction. First, we assembled potential cognate lists. In syntax, these lists consist of abstract structures instead of words or morphemes (in the present case, object–verb relations in an ObjP projection, and constraints on object–verb relations). Then, we arranged the cognate structures into correspondence sets. Eventually, we decided on the basis of the frequency of the alternatives and on the basis of theoretical considerations which version represents the original construction from which the present-day versions derive. The reconstructed forms have to be evaluated typologically. The type of differential object marking we have reconstructed for Proto-Uralic is widespread across language families. Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011) pointed out differential object–verb agreement encoding the topicality of the object in dozens of languages

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2021, SPi

     

347

from several language families. Differential accusative marking has also been associated with the topicality, specificity, or animacy of the object in various languages, including Spanish, Catalan, the Indo-Aryan Sinhala, Turkish, Hebrew, Bantu, and Hindi—cf., e.g., Givón (1976); Enç (1991); Mohanan (1994); Aissen (2003); de Hoop and Narasimhan (2005); Danon (2006); Manzini and Franco (2016). At the same time, Uralic differential object marking also has specific properties that have not been reported from other languages, for example, the sensitivity of the inverse topicality constraint to the person of the object’s possessor. This indicates that differential object marking in the Uralic languages is more than the appearance of a typologically common phenomenon; it is the persistence of a shared heritage. The reconstructed Proto-Uralic structure and its variants in the daugher languages are in line with Dalrymple and Nikolaeva’s (2011) diachronic generalization: ‘Marked objects are associated with the information-structure role of topic. Where the direct connection between marked objects and topicality has been lost through grammaticalization, marked objects in some languages become associated with semantic features typical of topics (animacy, definiteness, specificity)’ (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011: 2). The typological confirmation of the hypothesized Proto-Uralic structure provides evidence of the success of the reconstruction; it shows that the comparative method can be employed in the reconstruction of syntactic structures and can lead to plausible hypotheses.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

15 Regular syntactic change and syntactic reconstruction Mark Hale and Madelyn Kissock

15.1 Introduction The advent of Minimalism, with its premise that the syntactic computational system is invariant across individuals and output variation is entirely a function of lexical (functional) feature input, saw the loss of parameter-setting as an explanatory mechanism.¹ Earlier parameters were tied to varying synchronic behaviours such as WH movement vs in situ WH, pro-drop, headedness, and others. These parameters targeted sets of Lexical Items (LIs) that shared some specific feature(s) (e.g. +WH) and ‘set’ particular types of syntactic behaviour such as movement for that set of LIs. Without parameters, an alternative explanation, based solely on syntactic features, is necessary. For diachronic purposes, it is exactly in cases such as these (i.e. the above-referenced syntactic behaviours) that we see a ‘regularity’ of change parallel to that in the phonological domain. In the phonology, regular sound change affects all and only lexical items that share a segment with a specific bundle of phonological features—a [p], for example, in some particular context. Similarly, where we see a diachronic difference in WH behaviour (say from fronted WH to in situ, as in some Indic Indo-European languages), this diachronic difference is manifested in a broad range of WH words (all LIs that share some particular interrogative feature, say) seemingly simultaneously. We know of no documented cases which indicate that, for example, ‘what’ and ‘when’ go from in situ to fronted but ‘who’ and ‘how’ remain in situ.² At first glance, the sound change and syntactic change cases appear to be very parallel—both are based on

¹ We note that there is, in fact, considerable division on this topic, with a number of people arguing for the retention of parameters in some form (e.g. Roberts 2012; Holmberg and Roberts 2014) as well as those against any ‘reintroduction’ of parameters in any form (Newmeyer 2004, Boeckx 2014). ² To the extent we may find differences in the behaviour of distinct WH-elements, ‘why’ vs ‘who’, for example (see Ko 2006), the obvious Minimalist lesson would be that a feature such as +WH is inadequate to capture the behaviour of the relevant morphosyntactic objects and thus needs to be replaced by a more fine-grained set of features. ‘Change’ would still be predicted to be regular for lexemes which bear one of these new features. As we will have occasion to mention later, the features on the interrogative C-head are just as critical to the diachrony of wh-elements as the features on the elements themselves are. Mark Hale and Madelyn Kissock, Regular syntactic change and syntactic reconstruction In: Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change. Edited by: Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson, Oxford University Press (2021). © Mark Hale and Madelyn Kissock. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198832584.003.0015

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

     

349

changes targeting specific features of LIs and both are regular (i.e. all LIs with that feature(s) behave in the same way). However, parameters have never been appealed to in order to explain segmental sound change, in spite of the fact that they have been critical in capturing ‘group’ behaviours both synchronically and diachronically in syntax.³ In a framework where parameter-setting is possible, consistent shared diachronic behaviour of a set of LIs is accounted for by a change event that sets a parameter to a different value than the source grammar’s value. In a framework like our current Minimalist one, whose sole mechanism is the acquisition of feature sets for individual LIs, capturing similar behaviours across multiple LIs must be accomplished in some other way.⁴ For current purposes, we will limit our discussion to ways in which ‘regularities’ might arise in the initial acquisition of an L1, assuming that this is a primary locus of change in the domains of both phonology and syntax. The chapter is organized as follows: Section 15.2 presents our general theoretical and working assumptions. Section 15.3 discusses the similarities and differences between syntactic and phonological systems and whether they have an immediate bearing on change in either case. Section 15.4 presents three aspects of the lexicon that interact crucially to produce the observed patterns of acquisition/change. Section 15.5 discusses the implications of our proposal for methods of syntactic reconstruction vis-à-vis other proposals for that process in the literature. Section 15.6 addresses the issue of syntactic correspondence in reconstruction. Section 15.7 offers some conclusions.

15.2 Background assumptions Our analysis and proposal are made following a specific set of assumptions which are outlined in this section. We also give, as explicitly as possible, both the definition and scope of the ‘regular’ change that we will be examining: • All features in the set of UG features (phonological, morphosyntactic, and semantic) are available to be assigned to LIs by the acquirer at birth.⁵ ³ We focus narrowly on the changes themselves here rather than the diffusion of such changes throughout the population, the latter obviously driven by a different set of causal factors. ⁴ We believe that taking this very strict position—that variation and change are solely the result of differing feature sets on LIs, not parameters—as the starting point is in keeping with both Minimalist assumptions and scientific principles. Note that if syntactic change can be accounted for solely with features (and without parameters), then synchronic variation falls out from that with no further machinery necessary. ⁵ Note that, if we allow features to ‘come online’ during the course of maturation, then ‘relearning’ will need to be initiated as these late features come online (since lexical items would have been stored without the use of such features). This ‘relearning’ stage would demand the reinitialization of lexical learning (since the acquirer cannot know which of the lexical items s/he has posited to that date are

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

350

    

• The initial featural representations that the acquirer assigns to LIs are based solely upon deduced syntactic or phonological (UG available) features of the input item without regard for aggregate lexical data, typological distributions, ‘inventory’ symmetry, or other ‘meta-analysis’ devices being employed by the acquirer.⁶ • The regularity of sound change, in the Neogrammarian sense, often represents observed, shared behaviour in some population that differs from the observed shared behaviour (of the relevant item) in an earlier generation of that population. A variety of mechanisms can come together to create the observed effect, only some of which have their origin in the acquisition process. Nothing in this population-based regularity entails that, for example, in the origin of some common sound change such as [θ] to [f], one or more acquirers set up the features of [f] for every instance of [θ] that they got as input. That is, the ‘Neogrammarian hypothesis’ is concerned with regularity in populations of grammars, rather than at the level of individual grammars.⁷ • A more formal, acquisition-based notion of regular change relates only to an individual’s grammar/lexicon. Specifically, this notion of regularity refers to an observation that differences between the acquirer’s grammar (from the data source’s grammar) can manifest themselves in what is usually taken to be classes of lexical items and not simply individual LIs. This is the type of regularity that parameters addressed, as noted above, and the primary focus of this chapter.⁸

‘missing’ critical features or which features of previously stored material can be preserved and which replaced without a wholesale re-evaluation of the lexeme’s featural content. Only featural properties established after this reassessment will be relevant to subsequent knowledge states, and thus, in essence, the last ‘relearning’ stage would represent the true onset of acquisition (earlier learning having been discarded). Thus, even if our assumption that all features are available at birth were to turn out to be incorrect, it is conceptually necessary that all features be available at the onset of adult-state relevant acquisition. ⁶ Such ‘meta-analysis’ devices would yield useless results if applied continuously, since, over small lexical inventories, they would trigger a wealth of false generalizations, which would have to be discarded later in the learning process. ⁷ This in spite of the Neogrammarians’ own assertion that ‘die sprache kein ding ist, das ausser und über den menschen steht und ein leben für sich führt, sondern nur in individuum ihre wahre existenz hat, and dass somit alle veränderungen im sprachleben nur von den sprechenden individuen ausgehen können’ [‘language is not an object which exists outside of and above humans and leads a life for its own purposes, but rather only has its true existence in an individual, and that, therefore, all changes in the life of a language can only arise from speaking individuals,’] (Osthoff and Brugman 1878: xii–xiii). ⁸ There is no clear evidence that this type of regularity exists, by the way. We base this notion too on observed synchronic grammars without direct knowledge of the state of the input grammar/lexicon. For example, cross-linguistic data suggest that there is considerable variation in at least some of the phenomena for which parameter-setting was adduced, such as pro-drop, since there are languages where pro-drop is limited to certain pronouns to the exclusion of others. We return to this point later on.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

     

351

• Lexicon Optimization (the process of establishing optimal long-term storage representations for sets of learned forms) is economizing. • Lexicon Optimization, in the requisite sense, targets all features of LIs— phonological and syntactic.⁹ • Lexicon Optimization is a multistep process, each optimization product serving as the input for the next optimization step.¹⁰ • Finally, our expectation is that the differences in feature representations that an acquirer sets up for an LI vis-à-vis the features of the corresponding LI in the lexicon of a data provider will be minimal. This follows from the overall ‘success’ of acquisition in replicating the data. Moreover, evidence from syntactic change supports the assumption that change is minimal (discussed at greater length in Section 15.4.4). Most of these assumptions are familiar, and many are shared by some subset of researchers in syntax and phonology.

15.3 Syntax vs phonology As noted earlier, change in both syntax and phonology is assumed to be a change in featural representation, where the acquirer posits some different (syntactic or phonological) feature for an LI from the source lexicon’s representation of that LI. However, since different properties are often attributed to each of these modules, theoretically or empirically, it is worth examining these differences at least briefly for potential effects on or sources of (regular) change.¹¹

15.3.1 Features Our present conception of syntactic features is significantly different from that of phonological features. Phonological features all have the same ‘status’ with respect to the phonological computational system, however we wish to describe that ⁹ As well as, presumably, semantic—given the observed resolution of over/undergeneralization in content features during acquisition. ¹⁰ For computationally relevant features of syntax and phonology, this process of Lexicon Optimization must have an end point, by virtual conceptual necessity. If it does not, then difference between adult grammars and those of an 18-month-old child acquirer would represent ‘change’ in the historical linguistic sense and would need to obey constraints on change. No one, to our knowledge, believes that they do represent ‘change’ in the relevant sense. Since, at some point the difference between the adult source and the acquirer’s constructed grammar does represent ‘change’, we can identify that point as the ‘end point’ of grammatical acquisition. (Of course, lexical items may be acquired beyond that point. More on this in Section 15.4.1.) ¹¹ This is not intended to be any kind of complete, detailed comparison, for which space is lacking here.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

352

    

status. There are, for example, no phonological features which are present solely for the purpose of the computation but are uninterpretable/irrelevant to the interface (phonetic representation), at least in most current conceptions of phonology with which we are familiar. Syntactic features, on the other hand, come in two varieties, both of which serve a function in the computation. Interpretable features are preserved through the computation and are present in its output to the interface systems. Uninterpretable features, on the other hand, are present on an LI solely to facilitate computation, with no effect on (the interpretation of) that LI (e.g. Case, selectional features, and the strong/weak distinction, all of which we assume must be featurally represented). Note that both types of features still need to be part of the lexical specification and therefore both can be ‘changed’ during acquisition.

15.3.2 Computational system properties Another potential difference is the representational vs derivational nature of phonological vs syntactic computation.¹² This is a significant difference (if real) in theoretical apparatus, but that does not necessarily entail that it will have a significant effect on what is essentially a data-(i.e. feature-)driven process. The more critical aspect of both computational systems, for our purposes, is that under OT-type assumptions for phonology both it and the syntactic computational systems are typically assumed to be invariant across individuals. (Data-driven input results in reranking of constraints in an Optimality Theory (OT) phonology, but the constraints themselves are universally present and their content unchanged.)

15.3.3 Lexicon and computation The ‘local’ nature of phonological processes has often been contrasted with the ‘long-distance’ nature of syntactic relationships and operations. It is not clear to us that the notion of ‘distance’ (of LIs) in phonology is, in its essence, different from that of syntax mutatis mutandis regarding the notion ‘locality’. In both syntax and phonology, features of distinct LIs may interact with one another in the course of a computation (compare at morpheme boundaries, in sandhi environments, in syntactic agreement). It is the surface result of such interactions which is of particular interest in acquisition and change. Determining which features (from the UG set) to assign to an LI is a function of observation of properties of the

¹² This varies in OT-based theories, with some versions such as Stratal OT or Harmonic Serialism approaching a derivational framework at least to some extent. Similarly, opinions on this are not uniform in syntactic theory, some models being representation-driven, others process-driven.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

     

353

surface string (the only data available to an acquirer). Using the sentence-initial position of a WH word as evidence that a WH feature on a specific C is strong is no different from using (by ‘undoing’) the coarticulation effects between two segments as evidence for the featural properties of each segment—that is, syntactic displacement is a virtual ‘syntactic coarticulatory’ effect. Both cases represent surface outcomes which arise from the interaction of two distinct elements, such that the acquirer must determine in which of the two elements one should posit the various relevant features. Thus, some of the apparent properties of these surface products themselves are, in some sense, an epiphenomenal product of the interface levels’ processing. As far as we can see, none of the above-described differences between phonology and syntax, in and of itself, is likely to have a direct effect on the presence or absence of regular change, nor necessarily on the mechanisms underlying such change. This leaves properties particular to the lexicon and its development to examine more closely. In Section 15.4, we look in some detail at three domains within the lexicon that seem most likely to be involved in change.

15.4 Three aspects of the lexicon We turn now to three aspects of the lexicon that interact crucially in acquisition and which we therefore believe are instrumental in acquisition-based syntactic and phonological change. Each of these is independently necessary and has been posited elsewhere for specific reasons unrelated to their role in change events.

15.4.1 Lexicon optimization The process of lexicon optimization has been appealed to to motivate a variety of synchronic phonological phenomena (e.g. constraint ranking in OT). We outline here the specifics of what lexicon optimization must entail in order to account for both synchronic states, as well as for the possibility of non-convergent acquisition (change). Optimization, in our model, is a complex process containing multiple ordered subprocesses. The initial lexicon upon which optimization operates is the set of stored forms (LIs) with full feature representations (phonological, syntactic, semantic) drawn from the entire UG available set of such features. Crucially, this initial lexicon will show an ‘overgeneration’ of LIs due to slight variations in features (phonological, syntactic, semantic) for what is, in the adult input grammar, only a single LI. (This seems inescapable, given diachronic differences in grammars where the acquirer must have set up at least some representations of a given LI that are close to, but different from, the representation of the data source.)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

354

    

The (mis)assignment in some specific individual instance(s), because of some acoustic irregularity, of an [a] for an [ə] or vice versa, of a WH feature for a Relative Pronoun feature or vice versa (because of any number of obscuring factors in the input string), or any of a multitude of cases that will cause a ‘match’ between an input and a stored LI to fail will result in the storage of a new, but almost identical LI. A necessary subsequent step, then, and the first subprocess of lexicon optimization, is to optimize across the set of stored LIs, to recognize and then reduce what is essentially duplicates. For phonological representations, this might entail considering a set of stored forms that would ultimately be reduced to a single form ‘pet’, all of which had slightly different semantic features assigned to them (pet dog; pet cat; pet bird) perhaps corresponding to slightly different phonetic realizations (aspiration on [p] or lack thereof due to some sandhi environment; released vs unreleased [t], and so on). If the widespread current belief in the existence of a stored form /pɛt/ with a meaning ‘pet’ is on the right track, the optimization process must reduce these to a single stored form, arguably with aspirated p and unreleased t. Aspects of this process remain quite opaque, but the necessity of its existence does not. The parallel for (morpho)syntax would be multiple stored instances of a first person pronoun: one stored as ‘inclusive’, another as ‘exclusive’, another as ‘plural’, and another as ‘dual,’ possibly with corresponding slight differences in phonological features and reduced to a single LI (e.g. exclusive plural). We refer to this initial subprocess as ‘single-item optimization’ because it reduces multiple LIs to a single LI. Subsequently, a subprocess that we refer to as ‘cross-cutting optimization’ scans across LIs for shared particular properties, for example feature bundles for /ph/ /p/ /p˺/, all LIs with a [+WH] feature, all V-category LIs, and so on. This subprocess results in positing LIs and a constraint reranking which gives rise to allophony and allomorphy, among other things, and correspondingly results in differences between underlying representations and phonetic output representations. Note that without regularizing single-item lexical items in the earlier subprocess, the cross-cutting process would not produce the correct (attested) results. A final subprocess identifies lexical exceptions and stores them appropriately. Stages in lexicon building and optimization 1. Assign features to LIs and store them (underlying representations (URs) identical to surface representations (SRs)). 2. Single-item optimization for LIs that show identical features in at least one dimension and ‘too close for chance’ similarity on other dimensions (homophones survive this step). This step gives a single result for the initial segment of ‘thanks’, either [θ] or [f]—both present in at least one stored version of ‘thanks’—and a single result for the vowel, either [ɛ] or [æ]—both occurring in some stored forms.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

     

355

3. Cross-cutting optimization. Optimization across all LIs: all LIs with /p/ in their rep; all pronouns with phi features of 2sg in their rep (and presumably all LIs with ‘dog’ features in their rep). This step produces URs that are distinct from computed SRs (allophony, morphological alternations, etc.). Identification of LIs that need to be marked with exceptional irregular features (postposed ‘galore’ in English, for example) is done as a final step here. The data for Step (3) is, of course, the output of Step (2). Change may result at either step when there is a shift in data distribution such that the optimization algorithms (which we assume are invariant) produce a different outcome for the acquirer from that for the adult source. However, while the data distribution that feeds Step (2) is dependent upon a wide variety of (external) factors, the data for Step (3) is dependent only on the output of Step (2). We take Step (2)—a first optimization procedure—to be the point at which most diachronic differences arise in both syntax and phonology. Crucially, though, this step targets only those sets of stored LIs that are too similar to one another to be explained by chance and can therefore be collapsed into a single LI. However, this scenario only illustrates how a featural difference in an individual LI might come about between one grammar and the next (by an acquirer setting up an LI that differed in some featural way from the adult stored form). Nothing in this step is predicted to target LIs that are significantly different from one another featurally (where reduction to a single LI is not possible), such as all WH words (for WH-movement) or all pronouns (for ‘pro-drop’). However, logic dictates that, if an acquirer’s data is distributed in such a way that the outcome of Step (2) for a single LI is different from that of the source grammar, then it is highly likely that a significant number of LIs with the relevant properties will also share that difference (the source of data being, broadly speaking, the same for all LIs). On this basis, the output of Step (2) will already be a preponderance of ‘changed’ forms, such as LIs with [f] in place of source [θ], for example, or null subject pronominals for several persons (earlier subject pronominals having been reanalysed as agreement morphology). Step (3) of the process is the point at which the same general algorithm is extended across the entire lexicon, reviewing sets of LIs with shared properties on a variety of dimensions. This step will reveal predictable distributions in phonological form, for example, resulting in a smaller inventory of feature bundles present in UR representations than is present in surface forms. Similarly, productive morphemes will be adduced as separate LIs, with the effect of increasing the number of lexical entries. Morphological alternations (e.g. a/an in English) will be recognized, collapsing what was earlier separate entries. Finally, to complete the lexical building process and approximate an adult lexicon, the acquirer must identify irregular forms as exceptional. It is not clear

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

356

    

that this last process will apply to phonology as it does to morphology and (potentially) syntax—i.e. it is not obvious that there are phonologically exceptional forms (which are morphosyntactically regular).

15.4.2 Linearity in the lexicon The traditional idea that linear order needs to be captured in the syntax has been replaced with theories that separate linearity from structure—that linearity is not a matter for the Narrow Syntax (NS) (Chomsky 1995) and that linearity should be accounted for by independent algorithms (e.g. the Linear Correspondence Axiom, LCA of Kayne 1994). At the same time, since the advent of Minimalism, it has been proposed that all variation is the result of differences in lexicons (the Borer– Chomsky Conjecture, Baker 2008), the syntactic computational system itself being invariant across individuals. If the lexicon is the locus of surface variation that we observe in syntactic output, and linear order is part of that variation, then it follows that lexicon should be the first place to look as a source of variation in linear order. Strong support for this comes from the fact that indicators of adjacency and precedence (presumably via specific features) already are a necessary part of lexical representations. Phonological feature bundles in an LI are necessarily ordered, at least as intrinsic properties of the LI /tin/≠/nit/, and phonological operations make reference to those orders. Lexical marking of linear order for larger components than phonological feature bundles is also already firmly instantiated in the storage of affixes and other bound morphemes. Furthermore, the parallels between what is necessary to mark such affixal morphology and what is necessary for linear syntactic order are striking. For example, the suffix -ly not only needs to be stored as left-edge deficient, but with specific features on that edge to accept only a merger with an Adj category (edge), and crucially not an N category edge. Like morphological concatenation, syntactic concatenation is both sensitive to specific edges (head-final or head-initial) and specific categories—*N merge with Adv. We do not claim here that the linearityrelated features needed for morphology are necessarily identical to those needed for syntax (although that would be ideal), but the parallels are striking. A complete exploration of how these features are to be instantiated in the lexicon is beyond the scope of this chapter.

15.4.3 Feature deactivation We appeal here to the now well-known phenomenon described in the experiments of Werker et al. (1981), Werker and Tees (1984), and many subsequent similar experiments by these and other researchers. The phenomenon in question

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

     

357

is the apparent loss of the ability to discriminate certain non-native sound contrasts at an early age (10–12 months). To summarize, at the earliest ages (4–6 months) children performed equally well in perception experiments whether the (sound) contrasts tested were present in the environment language or not (suggesting that all UG features were initially available). However, their performance declined dramatically with age, specifically on those contrasts not available in their language environment (typical loss age, 10–12 months). Hale and Kissock (1997) discussed these and similar results along with the question of bilingual second language acquisition (which seemed precluded by the Werker and Tees findings). For our purposes here, the basic experimental results, and our reinterpretation of these in terms of phonological features, are the relevant issue. To explain from a theoretical standpoint what was at the root of the experimental results, we proposed that phonological features that were not ‘active’ (used in a feature bundle for an LI) by an acquirer within a certain time frame (most probably based on lexicon optmization) were actually ‘deactivated’ for the grammar that was under construction (crucially, not removed from the innate set of features, simply from that particular instantiation of a grammar acquisition algorithm). We propose, in what follows, that a similar deactivation, for similar reasons, occurs with syntactic features.

15.4.4 Sources of observed regular syntactic change Before turning to the details of how these aspects of the lexicon interact to produce change (and variation), it is important, first, to set aside cases of only ‘apparent’ regularity, where the change in the behaviour of a group of LIs is not actually due to a change in any features of those LIs. We find such apparent regularity specifically where the strength of a single feature on a head determines whether or not there is overt movement. For example, movement (or lack thereof) of LIs with an inherent WH feature is, we assume, determined by the strength of a feature on a single LI (a specific interrogative C, in this case). While superficially it appears that there is a ‘group behaviour’ phenomenon here (and parametersetting treated it as such), in fact this is not the case. The diachronic difference, should one arise, will have been a difference solely in the strength of the feature on C between the acquirer-posited C-element lexeme and that of the earlier generation. Since many of the diachronic syntactic differences that we see involve movement and ordering, we believe that some amount of ‘group behaviour’ can be explained by a change in a syntactic feature on a single (possibly null) head, as in the WH case. Crucially, in cases such as these, there was no change in the WH LIs themselves—they simply continue to have a +WH feature. Since cases such as these are simply changes to a feature on a single LI, they do not count as ‘regular change’ in the sense we are interested in here. A considerable number of so-called ‘regular’ syntactic changes are actually of this type.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

358

    

There are several types of syntactic change that do appear to at least affect more than one LI in a particular category, unlike the case above. An example of one such type is pro-drop (for recent discussions—drawn from an extensive scholarly literature—the reader is referred to Biberauer et al. 2010). The traditional prodrop parameter focused on null subjects of the type seen in Spanish or Italian, where all pronominal, non-emphatic subjects were null. More complete crosslinguistic investigation revealed, however, that there was considerable variation in where null pronominals occurred. They could be in different syntactic positions (objects as well as subjects), they could alternate with overt pronominals for a variety of different featural reasons (discourse antecedents inter alia), their occurrence was not determined by the presence or absence of overt (verbal) agreement, and, most critically, some languages limited null pronominals to certain persons (3rd, for example), so that within a specific grammar there was no uniformity across pronouns. The point here is that there is little evidence that null pronominals should be treated as a coherent group with respect to syntactic change. The cost-free analysis of such pronominal behaviour is that null pronominals are acquired in exactly the same way all other null LIs are acquired (consider the many other LIs with heavy functional load which are often null—C’s, T’s, etc.). For all null LIs, the acquirer must get indirect evidence for the features of the LI and assign those features—if the presence of those features in the representation does not correspond to any overt phonological material, the appropriate phonological entry will be empty. The varying behaviour of null pronominals within and across languages can be attributed to the varying features assigned to each LI and the possible contexts in which such features can occur. Another type of observed regular change is a change of headedness for some particular syntactic category, such as V. Within a single grammar, values for headedness are observably not necessarily uniform across categories. The general theoretical assumptions have been that for any one category in an individual’s grammar, headedness is set as either initial or final. It should be noted, however, that observed surface strings in many languages do not correspond well with this assumption, showing considerable surface variation for any particular category and its complement (e.g. Sanskrit has both prepositions and postpositions—the category ‘P’ is thus not head-uniform). It is, of course, exactly in such variable cases that we predict and find changes in headedness features. Not surprisingly, very strictly verb-final languages such as Telugu do not seem subject to misanalysis by the acquirer insofar as V-headedness goes. For the following reasons, it is somewhat unclear whether the Telugu-type stability is system-driven or epiphenomenal. If every piece of evidence for every V is obviously head-final, we cannot distinguish between an acquirer giving each V a head-final feature on a V by V basis or whether the acquirer had some system which assigned headfinality to all Vs. This will turn out to be a distinction without a difference.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

     

359

We support this view with evidence that (1) featural changes are minimal and (2) their effects are often difficult to detect in the surface string. We expect an LI that has ‘changed’ (been assigned a different feature by the acquirer) to behave in most ways like its ‘original’ source counterpart because most of its features will have stayed the same. Expletive negation in English, for example, illustrates this— all the features of NEG (e.g. those responsible for its phonological reduction and its syntactic relationship to ‘do-support’) remain after the change event except the actual negation semantics. Syntactically and phonologically, expletive NEG behaves like ‘negative NEG’, as shown below. (1)

And so didn’t John (go and) walk down those stairs anyway!

From an interpretational standpoint, there is no negation in the above string (nor is it interrogative, as it happens). It is infelicitous to answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, and the correct interpretation is affirmative—John walked down the stairs. The structure and phonological form of the expletive negation, however, is surface-identical to negation. We note that, under the empirically supported assumption that featural changes are minimal, Lightfoot’s (1979) ‘radical reanalysis’ problem appears to be no impediment to working on syntactic change (and reconstruction). Difficulty in determining the effects of a change—critical, since the acquirer has only the surface string, apart from properties of UG, on which to base their featural assignment—is illustrated by the emergence of a quotative marker (QM) in Telugu. The marker, ani is homophonous with the absolutive participle form of the verb ‘to say’ (anu) and was apparently a reanalysis of that form (which is still perfectly productive as an absolutive). Like the English expletive negation case, QM ani appears in the surface string in the same position as an absolutive form of anu would. However, absolutive ani is productively formed from a root and suffix, whereas QM ani is almost certainly stored as an unanalysed whole.¹³ We point out the underlying difference in morphological structure here not so much as a confound for an acquirer (though it certainly is not helpful) but as one of many confounds that occur when we observe data.

15.4.5 Lexicon building and change We return now to headedness as the strongest example of uniform change of LIs within a single category (all Vs, all Ns, and so on). Our proposal for this and similar types of ‘global’ change is straightforward. One way to model linearity features in the lexicon is to associate them with categories (just as affix edges must ¹³ There are, of course, more significant syntactic differences between these two forms—the QM lacks any argument structure or predication ability, among a number of other differences.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

360

    

be associated with categories, as noted in Section 15.4.2). In this way, UG would provide two distinct N category features to the acquirer, one left and one right, just simplistically. The result of feature assignment (based on interpretation of the data) and lexicon optimization will be that unless there is evidence in the data for both types of N (both left and right) or the result of lexicon optimization produces LIs with both types of N (via the first subprocess), the grammar will not maintain both as active. Once a UG feature is deactivated in this way, the acquirer no longer has it available as a choice in setting up a new LI. We assume that this is a very early process in lexicon building.¹⁴ The result of such a process for surface linearity facts is that, assuming most categories have only one active categorydirection feature available, the acquirer must look to other mechanisms (other features on LIs) to produce surface orders that run counter to their only active headedness choice for that category. One can imagine that this type of cascade could produce the implicational results noted in Rizzi (1982) for ‘that-trace’ effects and null pronominals.

15.5 Reconstructing syntactic features We next turn to a consideration of some implications for this conception of syntactic change for the widely discussed matter of the possibility of, and appropriate methodology for, syntactic reconstruction. We focus on the so-called Correspondence Problem—that is, what elements are to be included in the correspondence sets that are the basis for reconstruction (e.g. Campbell and Harris 2002; Lightfoot 2002a, 2002b; Walkden 2014). The stumbling block for creating syntactic correspondence sets for many scholars seems to be a notion that the proper cognates would be ‘sentences’. Two problematic issues arise for this conception. First, for many scholars it seems to be problematic that sentences, which are built, rather than stored, can form a sound foundation for establishing ‘correspondences’ from which reconstruction can be undertaken. Secondly, no coherent concept of ‘cognate sentence’ has been proposed. Under the assumptions above, syntactic correspondence can be reduced to a relationship between the syntactic feature bundles of ‘corresponding’ lexical items, parallel to the phonological featural representations for ‘corresponding’ phonological forms. In short, lexical items are sets of feature bundles: morphosyntactic and phonological.¹⁵ In tracing the history of a lexical item—something we have

¹⁴ Moreover, such a process is likely to be at the root of decision-making on the part of the acquirer as to whether they need to start the construction of a new grammar vs incorporating LIs into their existing grammar (a distinction necessary to account for bilingual second language acquisition). ¹⁵ We will not further consider ‘semantic’ features in what follows.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

     

361

been successfully doing for some centuries now—we are placing the relevant feature bundles into correspondence. Finally, with this focus on the features of individual LIs, we address the question whether there is any role for the ‘sentence’ in diachronic syntax, beyond whatever evidence it can provide for the features of LIs. We argue that ‘sentences’ may still play an indirect role, specifically one of explaining change, as context is likely to be a critical factor in such cases (as it is in phonological diachrony). These will be cases where syntactic cognates in a correspondence set do not all show the same set of features as each other, but as cognates are assumed to descend from one proto-form. In such cases, we must seek an explanation for the difference (and decide which cognates are actually deviating, of course). Since the acquirer is exposed to the input forms in their sentential context, the first place to look for cues as to why the acquirer posited a different featural analysis will be here. Although we expect much of this to be a language-internal matter, we see no real block to comparing syntactic output forms/sentences across languages. A brief example is presented below. Debates about the viability of syntactic reconstruction¹⁶ have revolved around whether or not one can employ directionality predictions, whether the nature of acquisition and change allow for a historical ‘connection’ (the Radical Reanalysis Problem of Lightfoot 1979), and what elements are to be included in the correspondence sets that are the basis for reconstruction. We concentrate here on the correspondence/cognate issue, as that seems foundational in a way the other topics are not. As Walkden (2014) notes, historical phonologists do not compare just any [p]s when determining what should go into correspondence sets. They examine sounds in cognates (already established as daughters of a common etymological ancestor), and linearity (i.e. syntagmatic relationships into which a given [p] enters) is crucial. We note two things here: (1) that cognates do not, in fact, always have corresponding sounds—different and/or missing/additional sounds are extremely common and are the basis for hypothesizing historical changes; and (2) that correspondent sets are made up of phonetic forms, that is non-stored output forms (see Hale 2007 for an explicit discussion). As Walkden (2014) states, cognates in syntax (under contemporary assumptions) can be reduced to lexical items with similar syntactic feature bundles (still related etymologically), parallel to the featural representations for phonetic/phonological forms. What he fails to recognize is that the choice of phonetic forms for phonological reconstruction, with their very important contextual information, is driven by a need to reconstruct not only the URs of the proto-language but also the rules/ rankings for phonological computation. Crucially, this same requirement is not there for the proto-language syntax, given that the syntactic computational component is ¹⁶ See especially the exchange between David Lightfoot and Harris and Campbell in the Journal of Linguistics in 2002.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

362

    

assumed to be identical across individuals—we are not obliged to reconstruct syntactic rules/processes. But in phonology, we cannot simply compare purely UR/phonemic forms of the cognates in a correspondence set without missing aspects of the phonological computational system that derive variation in outputs from identical inputs. This is what makes the environment (‘context’ in Walkden’s terms, to include sentential context) so important in phonological reconstruction and, essentially, much less relevant in syntactic reconstruction, where the LIs with their syntactic features suffice. Note that this is not a difference in the methodology of reconstruction for phonology vs syntax—it is not about how but about how much. Let us be clear about what we think a ‘sentence’ is. We will assume that the syntax has no access to ‘encyclopedic’ content of lexical items (e.g. whatever makes ‘duck’ different from ‘jacket’ or ‘chair’) nor, of course, to their phonological content. Thus, assuming identity of all syntactically relevant features (grammatical gender, grammatical animacy, etc.), ‘the cats ate this bread’ is the same sentence as ‘those maruts drank the soma’. The two utterances generated from these sentences differ in their phonology (because of the phonological features of their lexical content, not visible to the syntax, and thus not part of the syntactic computation or output) and in some aspects of their interpretation (because of the encyclopedic semantics of the lexical items fed into the conceptual interpretive system), but not in their syntax (nor in their syntactic representation).¹⁷ Some such conception of what syntax is is required in any event if we are to understand why there are processes such as the movement of relative pronouns (wh-movement) and auxiliaries (as in I>C movement for question formation), but no such thing as ‘duck movement’ or ‘trisyllable fronting’ in human languages. The easiest explanation for this cross-linguistic fact is that the syntax can identify wh-elements and auxiliaries (and thus can manipulate them), but cannot identify ‘ducks’ or ‘trisyllables’ (and thus cannot manipulate them). We conclude that, if our goal is to reconstruct the grammar and the lexicon of some proto-language, i.e. only information that is stored (rather than generated), then the reconstruction methodology for phonology is perfectly suitable for syntax, mutatis mutandis. The most salient difference between syntax and phonology in this realm (of reconstruction) is that, on the basis of the assumptions above, phonological reconstruction requires reconstructing both the phonological features of LIs and the rules (or rankings of constraints), whereas syntactic reconstruction requires only the reconstruction of formal syntactic features of LIs, the computational system being invariant across individuals. Finally, we warn against confusing our current (lack of) understanding of the (synchronic) features ¹⁷ The ‘direct object’ status of ‘the bread’ and ‘the soma’ is represented in the syntax, and thus, to the extent it feeds the interpretation, that aspect of the interpretation of the sentence is ‘syntactic’. But the breadiness and soma-properties of these objects are not visible to the syntax.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

     

363

of syntax with a (successful) methodology that uses such features as its foundation.

15.6 ‘Syntactic’ correspondence The question that arises next is whether there is a limit to the kinds of linguistic object that can be brought into correspondence (in the relevant sense). We note here that in this sense it is not correct to say something like ‘Samoan laumei “turtle” is cognate with Hawai’ian honu “turtle” (which comes, via regular sound change, from Proto-Polynesian *fonu).’ Cognacy, in the relevant sense, is intended to cover cases of phonological relationship between semantically related lexemes and is an important mechanism for establishing genetic relatedness—and laumei is not the phonological correspondent of *fonu, but the lexical replacement thereof. ‘Lexical replacement’ is a diachronic change—changes, therefore, can be inferred not only from cognacy, but also from correspondence in this ‘replacement’ sense. This is the ‘relevant’ sense referred to above. The syntactic question,¹⁸ therefore, is not necessarily about cognate sentences, whatever exactly that might refer to, because that is not the notion of ‘correspondence’ we necessarily need to develop a meaningful diachronic hypothesis for, contra for example Lightfoot (2002a, 2002b). It is quite normal in work on the syntactic history of languages during their attested stages to bring elements from distinct grammars into ‘correspondence’ in the relevant sense—indeed, it is impossible to do that kind of diachronic syntax without this notion (just as it is in morphology). So, if we wanted to talk about the diachronic syntax (into later stages of ‘English’) of an element such as Old English sceal ‘shall’, we would need to draw structures from our two (or more) stages of ‘English’ which stand in a meaningful correspondence relationship. One can only imagine that this would include looking at structures which show the descendant of the object under study (shall-sentences, for example) as well as sentences which express meanings earlier expressed by sceal sentences, but now no longer involving the descendant of that morpheme (i.e. cases of lexical replacement, which are changes we must account for as well). To the degree the sentences culled by this procedure show the same syntax and a reflex of sceal, the syntax of sceal has not changed. To the extent they show the same syntax but no reflex of sceal, there has been some lexical change event. To the extent they show different syntax and a reflex of sceal, the syntax of sceal has changed, and we need to explain the change event(s) involved (of course, this may well involve changes in the functional heads with which sceal interacts, rather than in the properties of sceal). To the extent they show a different ¹⁸ For recent discussion on syntactic cognacy specifically, see Barðdal and Eythórsson (2012) and Walkden (2013).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

364

    

syntax and no reflex of sceal, you probably were confused in calling them ‘correspondent’. This seems to be the working procedure of everyone who does this kind of thing, so we apologize for spending so much time on it. The question we now face is this: does it make sense to call forms in sister languages (i.e. in grammars which descend from a common unattested ancestor) ‘corresponding’, as we have done for grammars which we assume to stand in a descent relationship with one another? Here we are at a loss as to why we would not. To do the work on the history of sceal within English we needed a procedure which licensed treating distinct structures drawn from distinct grammars as being ‘in correspondence’. We face no challenge identifying other, say, West Germanic cognates of sceal. It is, as far as we can see, inconceivable that Proto-West Germanic had some protoform of sceal (let us call it *skal-) that had no syntax at all: therefore, descendant grammar uses of the daughter reflexes of that Proto-West Germanic form represent developments of that proto-syntax. The syntax of these daughter forms must show a diachronic dependence on the syntax of the relevant item in Proto-West Germanic (or they are not daughter forms); therefore, we find *skalcorrespondences within such sentences. Our reconstruction of the Proto-West Germanic syntax of *skal- will be that reconstruction which provides the most plausible and simplest account of the historical syntax of the West Germanic daughter languages. Again, there is nothing unfamiliar in this requirement: our account of the history of the ‘modals’ in English takes a sampling of data from grammars at a variety of points in time and posits the most plausible and simplest account for the historical developments which link the data points. If we have no capacity for determining what is the ‘most plausible and simplest’ account for diachronic syntactic data, we cannot do diachronic syntax at all. If we do have such a capacity, it can be applied just as coherently to competing theories of the trajectory from Proto-West Germanic to its daughters as it can to competing theories of Old English to its daughters. One hypothesizes a starting point (this is called ‘reconstruction’ in one case, ‘syntactic analysis’ of the anterior state in the other) and deduces a history from that starting point and the attested data point(s). Now the question reduces to this: can we recover the morphosyntactic properties of lexical items? To the extent we can, and to the extent those features determine the properties of the syntactic output generated by the (invariant) syntactic computational device, we will have reconstructed a system that generates proto-language sentences. That some morphosyntactic features are recoverable (i.e. can be reconstructed) is quite clear: that a given reconstructed object is an N-, or a D-, C-, P-, A-, or V-element is part of any reconstruction. Indo-Europeanists reconstruct grammatical gender, person, and number, as well as case (structural and lexical) on nominals, tense, mood, and subject agreement on verbs (including some peculiar aspects of that agreement, such as the failure of neuter plural nouns to trigger plural agreement), participial marking, and the like. Each of these

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

     

365

elements was reconstructed from the belief that the structural configurations in which these morphological elements appeared in the various daughter languages stood in the type of correspondence relationship that made them appropriate comparanda. Without controlling for such correspondences, how are we to know that the thing we call an ablative in one language is to be compared with the thing we call an ablative in another for reconstruction purposes? Support for the idea that morphosyntactic features can be reconstructed comes from the simple fact that existing reconstructions include, almost universally to our knowledge, detailed reconstruction of such properties. For example, examine the PIE reconstructions in Table 15.1. Table 15.1 Proto-Indo-European (morpho)phonological rules Vedic Sanskrit

Greek (Dor.)

PIE ‘phonetic’

PIE ‘phonemic’

dyāw+s dyā+m

zew+s zē+n

[*dyēws] [*dyēm]

/*dyēw/ + /s/ /*dyew/+ /m/

’sky’ (nom.sg.m.) ’sky’ (acc.sg.m.)

gāw+s gā+m

bow+s bō+n

[*gwōws] [*gwōm]

/*gwōw/ + /s/ /*gwow/ + /m/

‘cow’ (nom.sg.f.) ‘cow’ (acc.sg.f.)

Proto-Indo-European (morpho)phonological rules: Consonant-stem root nouns have long root-vowel nominatives, short root-vowel accusative /w/ deletes with compensatory lengthening before word-final /m/.

The outcome of the reconstruction sketched in Table 15.1, in PIE, is a set of morphemes. These morphemes have phonological properties and morphological properties, and via their reconstruction we have been able to recover some morphophonological and simple phonological processes of the proto-language. But they also have morphosyntactic features, directly relevant to the generation of syntactic output representations of strings into which they entered. To say that *dyēws was the nominative singular of ‘sky’ is to say that it entered into syntactic computation in such a way that it could be inserted into a tree where nominatives are inserted (not accusatives or datives or finite verbs), and that it could only be placed in a structure which was going to show, at the end of the relevant computation, singular subject agreement. To say that *dyēm, by contrast, was the accusative singular of the word for ‘sky’ is to claim that it could enter into an output tree only in such a way that it surfaces in a position and with an interpretation appropriate for accusatives (and singulars). Thus, the latter form, but not the former, could be inserted into the direct object position of a sentence built around a transitive verb (e.g. *speḱyeti ‘he, she, it sees’) and that the result would be a VP which meant ‘sees the sky’. Crucially, the reconstruction sketched above is not the reconstruction of the accusative singular of the word for ‘sky’: it is the reconstruction of a grammar and a lexicon which can generate the accusative singular of the word for ‘sky’. The lexicon must contain the relevant morphemes (not output ‘words’)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

366

    

(e.g. *dyew- ‘sky’, *-m accusative singular, *-s nominative singular), and a phonological computation system with the relevant rules or constraints so as to generate the appropriate surface outputs. The reconstruction of these lexical features was undertaken by bringing the relevant elements into correspondence. In precisely the same way, the morphosyntactic features posited for the reconstructed lexical items above require that we bring the relevant syntactic structures of the daughter languages into correspondence. The various reflexes of what we reconstruct as an accusative singular morpheme must find an explanation of their syntactic distribution from a proto-language function which was expressed by this morpheme—for example, the direct object of a transitive verb or, in the case of PIE, the goal of motion. But if any Indo-Europeanist doubts that the accusative singular of the word for ‘sky’ could function as the direct object of a transitive verb, they have kept that view a secret from the field. As far as we know, an (often implicit) theory of the syntactic history of each and every closed-class morpheme posited by IndoEuropeanists (the nominative dual, the optative, the subjunctive, the 1st singular middle, the ablative plural, etc., etc., etc.) was a prerequisite for the reconstruction of these items: without a theory of appropriate syntactic correspondence, one could not know what should be compared between languages to allow for a reconstruction. What this reveals is that the idea that one of the problems confronting syntactic reconstruction is that sentences are not stored (and thus cannot be brought into correspondence) is mistaken: ‘words’ are not stored either, and yet historical linguists have been bringing these grammatically generated objects into correspondence for over 150 years.

15.7 Conclusion The view that syntax operates over a UG-provided well-defined set of morphosyntactic features, and that the operations performed over these features are universal and invariant, has direct implications for our understanding of the mechanisms of syntactic change and, therefore, of syntactic reconstruction. In particular, we have argued that the most salient traditionally cited challenges to syntactic reconstruction—the ‘radical reanalysis’ problem and the ‘correspondence’ problem—appear to dissolve under an acquisition-based theory of change built around such a conception of syntax.

Acknowledgements The authors would very much like to thank the editors, as well as two anonymous reviewers, for a number of helpful indications as to how the argument we have offered could be strengthened and clarified. Obviously, we bear sole responsibility for our attempts to make use of their generous assistance.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

References Adamik, Béla (2015). ‘The periodization of Latin. An old question revisited’, in Gerd Haverling (ed.), Latin Linguistics in the Early 21st Century. Acts of the 16th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 640–52. Adams, James N. (1994). Wackernagel’s Law and the Placement of the Copula esse in Classical Latin. Cambridge: Philological Society. Agbayani, Brian and Chris Golston (2016). ‘Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin’, Phonology 33: 1–42. Aissen, Judith (2003). ‘Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. Economy’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–48. Alboiu, Gabriela (2002). The Features of Movement in Romanian. Bucharest: EUB. Alboiu, Gabriela (2006). ‘Are we in Agreement?’, in Cedric Boeckx (ed.), Agreement Systems. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 13–39. Alboiu, Gabriela (2007). ‘Moving Forward with Romanian Backward Control and Raising’, in William D. Davies and Stanley Dubinsky (eds), New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising. Dordrecht: Springer, 187–211. Alboiu, Gabriela (2009). ‘Null expletives and Case: The view from Romance’, in Pascual J. Masullo, Erin O’Rourke, and Chia-Hui Huang (eds), Romance Linguistics 2007. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–19. Alboiu, Gabriela and Virginia Hill (2019). ‘Narrative Infinitives, Narrative Gerunds, and the Features of the C-T System’, Journal of Historical Syntax 3(3): 1–36. doi: https://doi. org/10.18148/hs/2019.v3i3.16. Aldridge, Edith (2004). ‘Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages’. PhD dissertation, Cornell University. Aldridge, Edith (2008). ‘Generative approaches to ergativity’, Language and Linguistics Compass: Syntax and Morphology 2(5): 966–95. Aldridge, Edith (2012). ‘Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog’, Lingua 122: 192–203. Aldridge, Edith (2013). ‘Wh-clefts and verb-initial word order in Austronesian languages’, in Katharina Hartmann and Tonjes Veenstra (eds), Cleft Structures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 71–96. Aldridge, Edith (2015). ‘A Minimalist approach to the emergence of ergativity in Austronesian languages’, Linguistics Vanguard 1(1): 313–26. Aldridge, Edith (2016). ‘Ergativity from subjunctive in Austronesian languages’, Language and Linguistics 17(1): 27–62. Aldridge, Edith (2017a). ‘Internally and externally headed relative clauses in Tagalog’, Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 1–33. Aldridge, Edith (2017b). ‘ϕ-feature competition: A unified approach to the Austronesian extraction restriction’, in Jessica Kantarovich, Tran Truong, and Orest Xherija (eds), Proceedings of the 52nd meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 52, 1–20. Aldridge, Edith (2018a). ‘C-T Inheritance and the left periphery in Old Japanese’, Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 1–22. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.254. Aldridge, Edith (2018b). ‘Reconstructing Proto-Austronesian alignment’, paper presented at the 20th Diachronic Generative Syntax conference (DIGS 20), York University.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

368



Aldridge, Edith (2019a). ‘Syntactic conditions on alignment change in Austronesian languages’, paper presented at the 24th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL 24), Australian National University. Aldridge, Edith (2019b). ‘Subject/non-subject movement asymmetries in Late Archaic Chinese’, Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 115. Alexiadou, Artemis (2001). Functional Structure in Nominals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, Artemis (2019). The Complexity of Greek Verbal Morphology: The Case of Prefixed Verbs. MS. Humboldt Universität zu Berlin & ZAS, Berlin. Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou (1998). ‘Parametrizing AGR: Word Order, Movement and EPP-Checking’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539. Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou (2000). ‘Asymmetries in the distribution of clitics: The case of Greek restrictive relatives’, in Frits Beukema and Marcel den Dikken (eds), Clitic Phenomena in European Languages (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 30). John Benjamins, 47–70. doi:10.1075/la.30.04ale. Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Christina Sevdali (2014). ‘Opaque and transparent datives, and how they behave in passives’, The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17(1): 1–34. Alexopoulou, Theodora (2006). ‘Resumption in relative clauses’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(1): 57–111. doi:10.1007/s11049-005-0898-2. Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2003). The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2005). ‘Cross-linguistic and cross-categorial distribution of datives’, in Melita Stavrou and Arhonto Terzi (eds), Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 61–126. Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Dionysios Mertyris, and Christina Sevdali (2018). ‘A classification of Ancient Greek three-place predicates and the structure of datives and genitives’, paper presented at PlaCiG (On the place of case in Grammar), University of Crete, Rethymnon, 18–20 October 2018. Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Dionysios Mertyris, and Christina Sevdali (2019). ‘Ancient Greek three-place predicates: A novel classification and its implications for the structure of genitives and datives’, paper presented at ICGL 14 (International Conference of Greek Linguistics 14), University of Patras, 5–8 September 2019. Anagnostopoulou, Elena and Christina Sevdali (2015). ‘Case alterations in Ancient Greek passives and the typology of Case’, Language 91(2): 442–81. Anagnostopoulou, Elena and Christina Sevdali (2016). ‘Two Modes of Dative Case Assignment: Evidence from the History of Greek’, paper presented at Generative Linguistics of the Old World (GLOW 39), University of Göttingen, 5–7 April. Anagnostopoulou, Elena and Christina Sevdali (2020). ‘Two modes of genitive and dative case assignment: Evidence from two stages of Greek’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 38: 987–1051. doi: 10.1007/s11049-020-09465-z. Asyllogistou, Athanasia (2018). ‘Result in the Diachrony of Greek’. PhD dissertation, Ulster University. Auwera, Johan van der and Lauren Van Alsenoy (2016). ‘On the typology of negative concord’, Studies in Language 40(3): 473–512. Axel, Katrin (2005). ‘Null subjects and verb placement in Old High German’, in Stephan Kepser and Marga Reis (eds), Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 27–48. Axel, Katrin (2009). ‘Die Entstehung des dass-Satzes: Ein neues Szenario’, in Veronika Ehrich, Christian Fortmann, Ingo Reich, and Marga Reis (eds), Koordination und Subordination im Deutschen. (Linguistische Berichte 16). Hamburg: Buske, 21–42.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi



369

Axel, Katrin and Helmut Weiß (2010). ‘What changed where? A plea for the re-evaluation of dialectal evidence’, in Anne Breitbarth, Christopher Lucas, Sheila Watts, and David Willis (eds), Continuity and Change in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 13–34. Bacskai-Atkari, Julia (2014a). ‘Cyclical change in Hungarian comparatives’, Diachronica 31(4): 465–505. doi:10.1075/dia.31.4.01bac. Bacskai-Atkari, Julia (2014b). The Syntax of Comparative Constructions: Operators, Ellipsis Phenomena and Functional Left Peripheries. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. Bacskai-Atkari, Julia (2016a). ‘On the diachronic development of a Hungarian declarative complementiser’, Transactions of the Philological Society 114(1): 95–116. Bacskai-Atkari, Julia (2016b). ‘Towards a cross-linguistic typology of marking polarity in embedded degree clauses’, Acta Linguistica Hungarica 63(4): 389–409. Bacskai-Atkari, Julia (2017). ‘Structural ambiguity and case assignment in Hungarian clausal and phrasal comparatives’, in Harry van der Hulst and Anikó Lipták (eds), Approaches to Hungarian 15: Papers from the 2015 Leiden Conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 35–63. doi:10.1075/atoh.15.02bac. Bacskai-Atkari, Julia (2018a). ‘Complementizers and negative polarity in German hypothetical comparatives’, in Christine Dimroth and Stefan Sudhoff (eds), The Grammatical Realization of Polarity: Theoretical and Experimental Approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 89–108. Bacskai-Atkari, Julia (2018b). Deletion Phenomena in Comparative Constructions: English Comparatives in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Language Science Press. Bacskai-Atkari, Julia (2018c). ‘Deutsche Dialekte und ein anti-kartografischer Ansatz zur CP-Domäne’, in Augustin Speyer and Philipp Rauth (eds), Syntax aus Saarbrücker Sicht 2: Beiträge der SaRDiS-Tagung zur Dialektsyntax. Stuttgart: Steiner, 9–29. Bacskai-Atkari, Julia (2019). ‘Doubling in Germanic relative clauses’. Talk delivered at Generative Grammatik des Südens 2019 (GGS 45), Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, 19–21 July 2019. Bacskai-Atkari, Julia and Éva Dékány (2014). ‘From non-finite to finite subordination: The history of embedded clauses’, in Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 148–223. Bacskai-Atkari, Julia and Éva Dékány (2015). ‘A vonatkozó névmások története az ómagyarban’, Általános nyelvészeti tanulmányok 27: 47–69. Bacskai-Atkari, Julia and Éva Dékány (forthcoming). ‘The relative cycle in Hungarian’. Baker, Mark C. (1996). The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Baker, Mark C. (2008). ‘The macroparameter in a microparametric world’, in Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 351–74. Baker, Mark C. (2015). Case: Its Principles and Its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, Mark C. and Nadya Vinokurova (2010). ‘Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28(3): 593–642. Bárány, András (2015a). ‘Inverse agreement and Hungarian verb paradigms’, in Katalin É. Kiss, Balázs Surányi, Éva Dékány (eds), Approaches to Hungarian 14, Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba Conference. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 37–64. Bárány, András (2015b). ‘Differential object marking in Hungarian and the morphosyntax of case and agreement’. PhD dissertation, Cambridge University. Bárány, András (2017). Person, Case and Agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barbosa, Pilar and Telma Freire (2014). ‘A case of variable impoverishment in European Portuguese’, Revista da Abralin 13(2): 185‒223.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

370



Barðdal, Jóhanna (2011). ‘The Rise of Dative Substitution in the History of Icelandic’, Lingua 121: 60–79 [Special volume on Case Variation, Klaus von Heusinger and Helen de Hoop (eds)]. Barðdal, Jóhanna and Thórhallur Eythórsson (2012). ‘Reconstructing syntax: Construction grammar and the comparative method’, in Hans C. Boas and Ivan A. Sag (eds), SignBased Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 257–308. Barðdal, Jóhanna and Thórhallur Eythórsson (2020). ‘How to identify cognates in syntax? Taking Watkins’ legacy one step further’, in Jóhanna Barðdal, Eugenio Lujan, and Spike Gildea (eds), Reconstructing Syntax, 197–238. Leiden: Brill. Bartoli, Mateo (1925). Introduzione alla neolinguistica (principi, scopi, metodi). (Biblioteca dell’ ‘Archivum Romanicum’. Serie II: Linguistica, vol. 12). Geneva: L. S. Olschki. Bartos, Huba (2001). ‘Object agreement in Hungarian’, in Galina M. Alexandrova and Olga Arnaudova (eds), The Minimalist Parameter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 311–24. Bayer, Josef and Ellen Brandner (2008). ‘On wh-head-movement and the Doubly-Filled Comp Filter’, in Charles B. Chang and Hannah J. Haynie (eds), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 87–95. Beck, Sigrid (2011). ‘Comparison constructions’, in Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn, and Paul Portner (eds), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1341–89. Behaghel, Otto (1928). Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, Band III. Heidelberg: Winter. Behaghel, Otto and Burkhard Taeger (1996). Heliand und Genesis. 10th edn. Halle: Max Niemeyer. Bejar, Susana and Diane Massam (1999). ‘Multiple case checking’, Syntax 2: 65–79. Bereczki, Gábor (1996). A magyar nyelv finnugor alapjai [The Finno-Ugric basis of the Hungarian language]. Budapest: Universitas Kiadó. Besten, Hans den (1989). Studies in West Germanic Syntax. Proefschrift, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, 22 December 1989. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Bianchi, Valentina and Roberto Zamparelli (2004). ‘Edge coordinations: Focus and conjunction reduction’, in David Adger, Cecile de Cat, and George Tsoulas (eds), Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects. Berlin: Springer, 313–27. Biberauer, Theresa (2003). ‘Verb second (V2) in Afrikaans: A Minimalist Investigation of Word Order Variation’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge. Biberauer, Theresa (2008). ‘Introduction’, in Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 1–72. Biberauer, Theresa (2016). ‘Going beyond the input (and UG): An emergentist generative perspective on syntactic variation, stability, and change’. Handout of presentation at the Colloquium on Language Variation in Action, Amsterdam. Biberauer, Theresa, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan (2010). Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biberauer, Theresa, Anders Holmberg, and Ian Roberts (2014a). ‘A Syntactic Universal and its Consequences’, Linguistic Inquiry 45: 169–225. Biberauer, Theresa, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan (2014b). ‘Complexity in comparative syntax: The view from modern parametric theory’, in Frederick J. Newmeyer and Laurel B. Preston (eds), Measuring Grammatical Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 103–27. Biberauer, Theresa, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan (2014c). ‘No-choice parameters and the limits of syntactic variation’, in Robert Santana-LaBarge (ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL 31. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 46–55.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi



371

Biberauer, Theresa and Ian Roberts (2005). ‘Changing EPP parameters in the history of English: Accounting for variation and change’, English Language and Linguistics 9(1): 5–46. Biberauer, Theresa and Ian Roberts (2013). ‘Emergent parameters: hierarchies and phylogenies’. Handout of presentation given at the Workshop ‘Advances in Phylogenetic Linguistics’, Ragusa Ibla, Sicily, July 15–17, 2013. Biberauer, Theresa and Ian Roberts (2015a). ‘Rethinking formal hierarchies: A proposed unification’, Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7: 1–31. Biberauer, Theresa and Ian Roberts (2015b). ‘The significance of what hasn’t happened’. Presented at the Workshop on Language Variation and Change and Cultural Evolution, University of York, February 12, 2015. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/lan guageandlinguistics/documents/conferences/wlvcce2015/Biberauer_Roberts_handout. pdf, accessed 3 May 2017. Biberauer, Theresa and George Walkden (2015). ‘Introduction: Changing views of syntactic change’, in Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden (eds), Syntax over Time: Lexical, Morphological and Information-Structural Interactions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–13. Biberauer, Theresa and Hedde Zeijlstra (2012). ‘Negative Concord in Afrikaans: Filling the typological gap’, Journal of Semantics 29(3): 345–71. Bittner, Maria (1994). Case, Scope, and Binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bittner, Maria and Ken Hale (1996a). ‘The structural determination of case and agreement’, Linguistic Inquiry 27: 1–68. Bittner, Maria and Ken Hale (1996b). ‘Ergativity: Toward a theory of a heterogeneous class’, Linguistic Inquiry 27: 531–604. Bjorkman, Bronwyn (2011). ‘BE-ing default: The morphosyntax of auxiliaries’. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Blake, Barry J. (1994). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blust, Robert A. (1977). ‘The Proto-Austronesian pronouns and Austronesian subgrouping: A preliminary report’, University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 9(2): 1–15. Blust, Robert A. (1999). ‘Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: Some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics’, in Elizabeth Zeitoun and Paul Jen-kuei Li (eds), Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (Symposium Series of the Institute of Linguistics). Taipei: Academia Sinica Institute of Linguistics, 31–94. Blust, Robert A. (2009/2013). The Austronesian Languages (Pacific Linguistics 602; 2nd edn, Asia-Pacific Linguistics 8). Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies (2nd edn, Collage of Asia and the Pacific), Australian National University. Blust, Robert A. (2015). ‘The case-markers of Proto-Austronesian’, Oceanic Linguistics 54 (2): 436–91. Bobaljik, Jonathan David (2008). ‘Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation’, in Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar (eds), Phi-Theory: Phi Features across Interfaces and Modules. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 295–328. Bobaljik, Jonathan David and Höskuldur Thráinsson (1998). ‘Two heads aren’t always better than one’, Syntax 1(1): 37–71. Boeckx, Cedric (2011). ‘Approaching parameters from below’, in Anna Maria Di Sciullo and Cedric Boeckx (eds), The Biolinguistic Enterprise. New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 205–21. Boeckx, Cedric (2014). ‘What Principles and Parameters got wrong’, in M. Carme Picallo (ed.), Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 155–78.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

372



Bok-Bennema, Reineke (1991). Case and Agreement in Inuit. Berlin: Foris Publications. Boldrini, Sandro (1999). Prosodie und Metrik der Römer (aus dem Italienischen übertragen von Bruno W. Häuptli). Leibzig: Teubner. Borer, Hagit (1984). Parametric Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Borer, Hagit (1989). ‘Anaphoric Agr’, in Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth J. Safir (eds), The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 69–109. Bornecque, Henri (1907). Les Clausules métriques latines. Lille: Université de Lille. Bortone, Pietro (2010). Greek Prepositions: From Antiquity to Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bošković, Željko (1997). The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bošković, Željko (2001). On the Nature of the Syntax–Phonology Interface: Cliticization and Related Phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Bošković, Željko (2002). ‘A-movement and the EPP’, Syntax 5: 167–218. Bošković, Željko (2007). ‘On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 38(4): 589–644. Bošković, Željko (2012). ‘On NPs and Clauses’, in Günther Grewendorf and Thomas Ede Zimmermann (eds), Discourse and Grammar: From Sentence Types to Lexical Categories. Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton, 179–242. Bošković, Željko (2016). ‘On Second Position Clitics Crosslinguistically’, in Franc Lanko Marušič and Rok Žaucer (eds), Formal Studies in Slovenian Syntax: In Honor of Janez Orešnik. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 23–53. Bosworth, Joseph and George Waring, eds (1874). The Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in Parallel Column with the Versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale. London: John Russell Smith, 2nd edn, http://www.archive.org/details/gothicanglosaxon00ulfi, accessed 20 December 2020. Brandner, Ellen and Iris Bräuning (2013). ‘Relative wo in Alemannic: Only a complementizer?’ Linguistische Berichte 234: 131–69. Braune, Wilhelm and Ingo Reiffenstein (2004). Althochdeutsche Grammatik. Band 1: Lautund Formenlehre. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Braunmüller, Kurt (2004). ‘Niederdeutsch und Hochdeutsch im Kontakt mit den skandinavischen Sprachen. Eine Übersicht’, in Horst Haider Munske (ed.), Deutsch im Kontakt mit germanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1–30. Breitbarth, Anne (2014). The History of Low German Negation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Breitbarth, Anne and Liliane Haegeman (2014). ‘The distribution of preverbal en in (West) Flemish: Syntactic and interpretive properties’, Lingua 147: 69–86. Brixhe, Claude (2010). ‘Linguistic diversity in Asia Minor during the Empire: Koine and Non-Greek Languages’, in Egbert J. Bakker (ed.), A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 228–52. Brown, Paul, Brian Joseph, and Rex Wallace (2009). ‘Questions and answers’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 489–530. Browning, Robert (1983). Medieval and Modern Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buckley, Eugene (1994). ‘Persistent and cumulative extrametricality in Kashaya’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 423–64. Burton, Ernest De Witt (1898). Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi



373

Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, and William Pagliuca (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Campana, Mark (1992). ‘A Movement Theory of Ergativity’. PhD dissertation, McGill University. Campbell, Lyle (1991). ‘Some grammaticalization changes in Estonian and their implications’, in Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization I. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 285–99. Campbell, Lyle and Alice C. Harris (2002). ‘Syntactic reconstruction and demythologizing “Myths and the prehistory of grammars” ’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 599–618. Cardinaletti, Anna and Michal Starke (1999). ‘The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns’, in Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 145–234. Ćavar, Damir (1999). ‘Aspects of the Syntax–Phonology Interface’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Potsdam. Cetnarowska, Bożena (2003). ‘On Pronominal Clusters in Polish’, in Peter Kosta, Joanna Błaszczak, Jens Frasek, Ljudmila Geist, and Marzena Zygis (eds), Investigations into Formal Slavic Linguistics: Contributions of the Fourth European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages—FDSL IV held at Potsdam University, November 28–30, 2001. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 13–30. Cetnarowska, Bożena (2004). ‘The scale of pronominal strength in Polish: An OT analysis of unstressed and weak pronouns’, Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 39: 39–57. Chang, Henry Y. (2011). ‘Transitivity, ergativity, and the status of O in Tsou’, in Jung-hsing Chang (ed.), Language and Cognition: Festschrift in Honor of James H-Y. Tai on His 70th Birthday. Taipei: Crane Publishing, 277–308. Chang, Melody Ya-Yin (1998). ‘WH-Constructions and the Problem of WH-Movement in Tsou’. MA thesis, National Tsinghua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. Chang, Melody Ya-Yin (2000). ‘On Tsou wh-questions: Movement or in situ?’, Language and Linguistics 1(2): 1–18. Chen, Cheng-Fu (2008). ‘Aspect and Tense in Rukai: Interpretation and interaction’. University of Texas, Austin, Doctoral dissertation. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen (1991). ‘On the Typology of Wh-questions’. PhD dissertation, MIT. Chierchia, Gennaro (2013). Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger. Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (2000). ‘Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework’, in Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka (eds), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89–155. Chomsky, Noam (2001). ‘Derivation by phase’, in Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52. Chomsky, Noam (2007). ‘Approaching UG from below’, in Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–29.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

374



Chomsky, Noam (2008). ‘On phases’, in Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Ortero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 133–66. Chomsky, Noam (2013). ‘Problems of projection’, Lingua 130: 33–49. Chomsky, Noam (2015). ‘Problems of projection: Extensions’, in Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona Matteini (eds), Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3–16. Cinque, Guglielmo (1990). Types of Ā Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo and Luigi Rizzi (2010). ‘The cartography of syntactic structures’, in Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 51–65. Clahsen, Harold, Sonja Eisenbeiß, and Anne Vainikka (1994). ‘The seeds of structure’, in Teun Hoekstra and Bonnie Schwartz (eds), Studies in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 85–118. Closs, Elizabeth (1965). ‘Diachronic syntax and generative grammar’, Language 41(3): 402–15. Cogliano, Dan (ed.) (2004). The King James Version of the Holy Bible. DaVince, http://www. davince.com/. Cognilio, Marco and Iulia Zegrean (2012). ‘Splitting up Force: Evidence from discourse particles’, in Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman, and Rachel Nye (eds), Main Clause Phenomena. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 229–56. Collins, Peter C. (2005). ‘The modals and quasi-modals of obligation and necessity in Australian English and other Englishes’, English World-Wide 26: 249–73. Comrie, Bernard (1980). ‘Inverse verb forms in Siberia: Evidence from Chukchee, Koryak and Kamchadal’, Folia Linguistica 1: 61–74. Comrie, Bernard (1999). ‘Relative clauses: Structure and typology on the periphery of Standard English’, in Peter Collins and David A. Lee (eds), The Clause in English: In Honor of Rodney Huddleston. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 81–91. Coon, Jessica, Pedro Mateo Pedro, and Omer Preminger (2014). ‘The role of case in A-barextraction asymmetries: Evidence from Mayan’, Linguistic Variation 14(2): 179–242. Cooper, Adam and Effi Georgala (2012). ‘Dative loss and its replacement in the history of Greek’, in Historical Linguistics 2009: Selected Papers from the 19th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Nijmegen, 10–14 August 2009 (vol. 320), 275–292. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.320.14coo, accessed 20 December 2020. https://benjamins.com/catalog/cilt.320.14coo. Coppock, Elisabeth and Stephen Wechsler (2012). ‘The objective conjugation in Hungarian: Agreement without phi features’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 699–740. Cornilescu, Alexandra (2000). ‘The double subject construction in Romanian’, in V. Motapanyane (ed), Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax. Oxford: Elsevier, 83–134. Costa, João (2011). ‘Topic prominence is not a factor of variation between Brazilian and European Portuguese’, in Janine Berns, Haike Jacobs, and Tobias Scheer (eds), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2009. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 71–88. Costa, João and Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva (2002). ‘Nominal and verbal agreement in Portuguese: An argument for Distributed Morphology’. MS. Universidade Nova de Lisboa.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi



375

Cotfas, Maura (2012). ‘On the Syntax of the Romanian Subjunctive’. PhD dissertation, University of Bucharest. Cowper, Elizabeth (2005). ‘The geometry of interpretable features’, Language 81(1): 10–46. Cowper, Elizabeth (2010). ‘Where auxiliary verbs come from’, in Melinda Heijl (ed.), Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Toronto: Canadian Linguistic Association, http://cla-acl.ca/actes-2010-proceedings/, accessed 3 May 2017. Cowper, Elizabeth and Daniel Currie Hall (2003). ‘The role of register in the syntax– morphology interface’, in Sophie Burelle and Stanca Somesfalean (eds), Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Montréal: Cahiers Linguistiques de l’UQAM, 40–9. Cowper, Elizabeth and Daniel Currie Hall (2013). ‘English modals: Evidence for a neoparametric theory of phrase structure’, in Shan Luo (ed.), Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Toronto: Canadian Linguistic Association, http://cla-acl.ca/actes-2013-proceedings/, accessed 3 May 2017. Cowper, Elizabeth and Daniel Currie Hall (2014). ‘Reductiō ad discrīmen: Where features come from’, Nordlyd 41(2): 145–64. Cowper, Elizabeth and Daniel Currie Hall (2017). ‘A neoparametric approach to variation and change in English modals’, Linguistic Variation 17(1): 67–96. Cowper, Elizabeth and Daniel Currie Hall (2019). ‘Scope variation in contrastive hierarchies of morphosyntactic features’, in David W. Lightfoot and Jonathan Havenhill (eds), Variable Properties in Language: Their Nature and Acquisition. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 27–42. Csúcs, Sándor (2003). ‘A votják tárgyról [On the Votjak object]’, Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 100: 126–36. D. Mátai, Mária (1992). ‘A határozószók [Adverbs]’, in Loránd Benkő and Erzsébet E. Abaffy (eds), A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana. II/1. kötet. Morfematika [A historical grammar of Hungarian. volume II/1. Morphotactics]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 570–661. D’Alessandro, Roberta and Adam Ledgeway (2010). ‘At the C-T boundary: Investigating Abruzzese complementation’, Lingua 120: 2040–60. Dalrymple, Mary and Irina Nikolaeva (2011). Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Danckaert, Lieven (2012). Latin Embedded Clauses: The Left Periphery. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Danckaert, Lieven (2014). ‘The derivation of Classical Latin Aux-final clauses: Implications for the internal structure of the verb phrase’, in Karen Lahousse and Stefania Marzo (eds), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2012: Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’ Leuven 2012. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 141–60. Danckaert, Lieven (2016). ‘Variation and change in Latin -periphrases: Empirical and methodological considerations’, in James Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 132–62. Danckaert, Lieven (2017a). The Development of Latin Clause Structure: A Study of the Extended Verb Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Danckaert, Lieven (2017b). ‘The origins of the Romance analytic passive: Evidence from word order’, in Eric Mathieu and Robert Truswell (eds), Micro-Change and MacroChange in Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 216–35.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

376



Danckaert, Lieven (2017c). ‘Subject positions in the history of Latin’, Catalan Journal of Linguistics 16: 125–61. Danon, Gabi (2006). ‘Caseless nominals and the projection of DP’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 977–1008. Daskalaki, Evangelia and Marios Mavrogiorgos (2016). ‘Two ways of encoding location in Greek: Locative applicatives and prepositions’, Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1): 1–33. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.74. Davies, William and Eri Kurniawan (2013). ‘Movement and locality in Sundanese whquestions’, Syntax 16(2): 111–47. Dawkins, Richard MacGillivray (1914). Σούρμενα. 31.VII.14–8.VIΙI.14. Dawkins Archive at the Taylor Bodleian Slavonic and Modern Greek Library (47 Wellington St.) of the University of Oxford. Filed as Arch.Z.DAWK.7(5). Deal, Amy Rose (2016). ‘Syntactic ergativity: Analysis and identification’, Annual Review of Linguisics 2016(2): 165–85. Decaux, Étienne (1955). Morphologie des enclitiques polonais. (Travaux de l’Institut d’Études Slaves, 23). Paris: L’Institut d’Études Slaves. Déchaine, Rose-Marie and Martina Wiltschko (2002). ‘Decomposing Pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–42. De Clercq, Karen, Liliane Haegeman, and Terje Lohndal (2012). ‘Medial adjunct PPs in English: Implications for the syntax of sentential negation’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35(1): 5–26. Deffner, Michael (1878). ‘Die Infinitive in den pontischen Dialekten und die zusammengesetzten Zeiten im Neugriechischen’, Monatsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Berlin: Buchdruckerei der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 191–230. Delaunois, Marcel (1988). Essai de syntaxe grecque classique: Réflexions et recherches. Brussels: Facultés universitaires Saint-Louis. Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens (2006). Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens (2013). Semantics for Latin. An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Di Capua, Francesco (1914). ‘Il Cursus nel de consolatione philosophiae e nei trattati teologici di Severino Boezio’, Didaskaleion 3: 269–303. Di Capua, Francesco (1937). Il ritmo prosaico nelle lettere dei papi e nei documenti della cancelleria romana dal IV al XIV secolo, vol. I. Rome: Facultas theologica pontificii athenaei seminarii romani. Diesing, Molly (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dietl, Cora (2002). Mittelniederdeutsche Minimalgrammatik. Göppingen: Kümmerle Verlag. Dikken, Marcel den and Éva Dékány (2018). ‘A restriction on recursion’. Syntax 21(1): 37–41. doi:10.1111/synt.12149. Dimitriadis, Alexis (1999). ‘On clitics, prepositions and case licensing in Standard and Macedonian Greek’, in Studies in Greek Syntax. Dordrecht: Springer, 95–112. Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (1994). The Syntax of Romanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (2001). ‘Head-to-Head merge in Balkan subjunctives and Locality’, in Maria-Luisa Rivero and Angela Ralli (eds), Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages. New York: Oxford University Press, 44–73.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi



377

Dömötör, Adrienne (1991). ‘Az alárendelő mondatok: A jelzői mellékmondatok [Embedded clauses: noun-modifying clauses]’, in Loránd Benkő, Erzsébet E. Abaffy, and Endre Rácz (eds), A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana. i. kötet. a korai ómagyar kor és elözményei [A Historical Grammar of Hungarian. Volume i. The Early Old Hungarian Period and Its Predecessors]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 742–5. Dömötör, Adrienne (1995). ‘A jelzői mellékmondatok a kései ómagyar korban [Noun modifying clauses in Late Old Hungarian]’, in Loránd Benkő, Erzsébet E. Abaffy, and Endre Rácz (eds), A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana II/2. a kései ómagyar kor. mondattan, szöveggrammatika [A Historical Grammar of Hungarian II/2. Late Old Hungarian Syntax]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 666–94. Dömötör, Adrienne (2014). ‘A hogyki és társai: egy sajátos kötőszófajta az ómagyar korból’, in Katalin É. Kiss and Attila Hegedűs (eds), Nyelvelmélet és diakrónia 2. Piliscsaba: Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem, 42–62. Dömötör, Adrienne (2018). ‘Hagyomány és újítás a Két könyv . . . és a Vizsolyi biblia nyelvében: vonatkozó névmási váltakozás [Tradition and innovation in Two books . . . and the Bible of Vizsoly: Alternation in the form of relative pronouns]’, in Katalin É. Kiss, Attila Hegedűs, and Lilla Pintér (eds), Nyelvelmélet és dialektológia 4 [Language Theory and Dialectology 4]. Budapest and Piliscsaba: Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem, 37–56. Dragomirescu, Adina (2013). Particularități sintactice ale limbii române în context romanic. Supinul. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Național al Literaturii Române. Dresher, B. Elan (2009). The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dryer, Matthew S. (2013). ‘Negative morphemes’, in Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, http://wals.info/chapter/112, 14 May 2015. É. Kiss, Katalin (2002). The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511755088. É. Kiss, Katalin (2013). ‘The inverse agreement constraint in Uralic languages’, Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 2: 2–21. É. Kiss, Katalin (2014). ‘The evolution of functional left peripheries in the Hungarian sentence’, in Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 9–55. É. Kiss, Katalin (2017). ‘The person-case constraint and the inverse agreement constraint are manifestations of the same inverse topicality constraint’, The Linguistic Review 34: 365–96. É. Kiss, Katalin (2018). ‘Possessive agreement turned into a derivational suffix’, in Huba Bartos, Marcel den Dikken, Zoltán Bánréti and Tamás Váradi (eds), Boundaries Crossed: Studies at the Crossroads of Morphosyntax, Phonology, Pragmatics, and Semantics. Dordrecht: Springer, 87–105. É. Kiss, Katalin and Orsolya Tánczos (2018). ‘From possessor agreement to object marking: The functional evolution of the Udmurt -jez suffix’, Language 94: 733–57. Egedi, Barbara (2014). ‘The DP-cycle in Hungarian and the functional extension of the noun phrase’, in Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax. (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 56–82. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709855.003.0003. Eggs, Frederike (2006). Die Grammatik von als und wie. Tübingen: Narr.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

378



Elordieta, Gorka (2008). ‘An Overview of Theories of the Syntax-Phonology Interface’, Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 42: 209–86. Elordieta, Gorka, Sónia Frota, and Marina Vigário (2005). ‘Subjects, Objects and Intonational Phrasing in Spanish and Portuguese’, Studia Linguistica 59: 110–43. Embick, David (1997). ‘Voice and the interfaces of syntax’. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Embick, David and Rolf Noyer (2001). ‘Movement Operations after Syntax’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–95. Embick, David and Rolf Noyer (2007). ‘Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface’, in Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 289–324. Enç, Mürvet (1991). ‘The semantics of specificity’, Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka (2016). ‘Multiple extraction and voice in Toba Batak’, in Hiroki Nomoto, Takuya Miyauchi, and Asako Shiohara (eds), The Proceedings of the 23rd Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics, 81–95. Ernout, Alfred and François Thomas (1953). Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck. Eythórsson, Thórhallur (2002). ‘Changes in subject case marking in Icelandic’, in David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 196–212. Eythórsson, Thórhallur and Höskuldur Thráinsson (2017). ‘Variation in oblique subject constructions in Insular Scandinavian’, in Höskuldur Thráinsson, Caroline Heycock, Hjalmar P. Petersen, and Zakaris Svabo Hansen (eds), Syntactic Variation in Insular Scandinavian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 54–90. Farasyn, Melissa (2017). ‘Kongruenzmuster in mittelniederdeutschen Relativsätzen: Eine Pilotstudie’, in Line-Marie Hohenstein, Kathrin Weber, Heike Wermer, Meike Glawe, and Stephanie Sauermilch (eds), Aktuelle Tendenzen in der Variationslinguistik (Kleine und regionale Sprachen). Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 67–90. Farasyn, Melissa (2019). ‘Apparent competing agreement patterns in Middle Low German non-restrictive relative clauses with a first or second person head’, in Anne Breitbarth, Miriam Bouzouita, Melissa Farasyn, and Lieven Danckaert (eds), The Determinants of Diachronic Stability. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–68. Farasyn, Melissa and Anne Breitbarth (2016). ‘Nullsubjekte im Mittelniederdeutschen’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 138(4): 524–59. Farasyn, Melissa, George Walkden, Sheila Watts, and Anne Breitbarth (2018). ‘The interplay between genre and syntax in a historical Low German Corpus’, in Richard J. Whitt (ed.), Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 85: 281–300. Fauconnier, Gilles (1975). ‘Pragmatic scales and logical structure’, Linguistic Inquiry 6(3): 353–75. Ferraresi, Gisella and Maria Goldbach (eds) (2008). Principles of Syntactic Reconstruction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fiéis, Alexandra and Ana Maria Madeira (2014a). ‘O infinitivo flexionado na diacronia do português’, Texts Selecionados, XXIX Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística. Porto: APL, 255–64. Fiéis, Alexandra and Ana Maria Madeira (2014b). ‘Towards an analysis of the Portuguese inflected infinitive(s): Change and variation’. Talk at the First Seminar on Control and Finiteness at Universidade de São Paulo, 30 July–1 August 2014.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi



379

Fiéis, Alexandra and Ana Maria Madeira (2017). ‘The Portuguese inflected infinitive across varieties’, in Pilar Barbosa, Maria da Conceição de Paiva, and Celeste Rodrigues (eds), Studies on Variation in Portuguese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 279–300. Fischer, Olga (1992). ‘Syntax’, in Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume II: 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 207–408. Fischer, Olga (2003). ‘The development of the modals in English: Radical versus gradual changes’, in David Hart (ed.), English Modality in Context. Bern: Peter Lang, 17–32. Fraenkel, Eduard (1932–33). ‘Kolon und Satz: Beobachtungen zur Gliederung des antiken Satzes I–II’, Nachrichten der Göttinger Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. Philosophischhistorische Klasse 1932, 197–213; 1933, 319–54. Franco, Irene, Olga Kellert, Guido Mensching, and Cecilia Poletto (2015). ‘A diachronic study of negative additives’. Presentation at the Gottingen Spirit Summer School on Negation. Frâncu, Constantin (1969). ‘Cu privire la uniunea lingvistică balcanică: Înlocuirea infinitivului prin construcții personale în limba română veche’, Anuar de lingvistică şi istorie literară 20: 69–116. Frâncu, Constantin (2009). Gramatica limbii române vechi (1521–1780). Iaşi: Demiurg. Franks, Steven (2010). ‘Clitics in Slavic’, Glossos 10: Contemporary Issues in Slavic Linguistics: 1–57. Franks, Steven and Tracy Holloway King (2000). A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. New York: Oxford University Press. Frascarelli, Mara and Roland Hinterhölzl (2007). ‘Types of topics in German and Italian’, in Susanne Winkler and Kerstin Schwabe (eds), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 87–116. Friedli, Matthias (2005). ‘Si isch grösser weder ig! Zum Komparativanschluss im Schweizerdeutschen’. Linguistik Online 24: 79–113. Friedman, Victor (2002). ‘Macedonian’, in Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett (eds), The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge, 249–305. Fruehwald, Josef, and Joel Wallenberg (2013). ‘Optionality is stable variation is competing grammars’. A talk presented at the 25th Conference on Scandinavian Linguistics, University of Iceland, 13–15 May. Fruyt, Michele (2011). ‘Grammaticalization in Latin’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Vol. 4. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 661–864. Fukui, Naoki (1988). ‘Deriving the differences between English and Japanese: A case study in parametric syntax’, English Linguistics 5: 249–270. Fuβ, Eric (2005). The Rise of Agreement: A formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal inflection (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fykias, Ioannis (1997). ‘The Case System in Modern Greek: Evidence from PPs’, in Gabriel Drachman, Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, John Fykias and Sila Klidi (eds), Greek Linguistics ’95. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Salzburg 22–24 September 1995, vol. 2. Graz: W. Neugebauer, 439–48. G. Varga, Györgyi (1992). ‘A névmások’, in Loránd Benkő and Erzsébet E. Abaffy (eds), A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana. II/1. kötet. Morfematika. [A historical grammar of Hungarian. Volume II/1. Morphotactics]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 455–569. Gabinschi, Marcu (2010). Formele verbale nepredicative nonconjunctivale ale limbii române. Chişinău: Institutul de filologie al AŞM.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

380



Galambos, Dezső (1907). Tanulmányok a magyar relatívum mondattanáról [Investigations of the syntax of Hungarian relative clauses]. (Nyelvészeti Füzetek 43). Budapest: Athaeneum. Gallego, Angel J. (2014). ‘Deriving featuring inheritance from the copy theory of movement’, The Linguistic Review 31(1): 41–71. Gelderen, Elly van (2004). Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Gelderen, Elly van (2008). ‘Where Did Late Merge Go? Grammaticalization as Feature Economy’, Studia Linguistica 62(3): 287–300. Gelderen, Elly van (2009). ‘Renewal in the left periphery: Economy and the complementiser layer’, Transactions of the Philological Society 107(2): 131–95. Gelderen, Elly van (2015). ‘Semantic and formal features: Feature economy in language change’, in Chiara Gianollo, Agnes Jäger, and Doris Penka (eds), Language Change at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 33–56. Georgala, Effi (2012). ‘Applicatives in their structural and thematic function: A minimalist account of multitransitivity’. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University. Georgopoulos, Carol (1991). Syntactic Variables. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Giannakidou, Anastasia (2000). ‘Negative . . . concord?’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 457–523. Gianollo, Chiara (2010). ‘External possession in New Testament Greek’, in Gualtiero Calboli and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), Papers on Grammar XI. Rome: Herder Editrice, 101–29 [Reprint in Journal of Latin Linguistics (2010) 11(1): 101–30]. Gianollo, Chiara (2013). ‘Latin aliquis as an epistemic indefinite’, in Sofiana Chiriacescu (ed.), Proceedings of the VI Nereus International Workshop ‘Theoretical Implications at the Syntax/Semantics Interface in Romance’. Universität Konstanz: Arbeitspapier 127, 55–81. Gianollo, Chiara (2016). ‘The Latin system of negation at the Syntax-Semantics interface’, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 38: 115–35. Gianollo, Chiara (2017). ‘Focus-sensitive negation in Latin’, Catalan Journal of Linguistics 16 (Special issue ‘Generative approaches to Latin syntax’): 51–77. Gianollo, Chiara (2018). Indefinites between Latin and Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gianollo, Chiara, Cristina Guardiano, and Giuseppe Longobardi (2008). ‘Three fundamental issues in parametric linguistics’, in Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 109–42. Gildea, Spike (1998). On Reconstructing Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. Giorgi, Alessandra and Fabio Pianesi (1997). Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giurgea, Ion (2011). ‘The Romanian verbal cluster and the theory of head movement’, in Julia Herschensohn (ed.), Romance Linguistics 2010. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 271–86. Giurgea, Ion and Elena Soare (2010). ‘Predication and the nature of non-finite relatives in Romance’, in Ana-Maria Di Sciullo and Virginia Hill (eds), Edges, Heads and Projections: Interface Properties. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 191–214. Givón, Talmy (1976). ‘Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement’, in Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 149–88. Gonçalves, Anabela, Ana Lúcia Santos, and Inês Duarte (2014). ‘(Pseudo-)Inflected infinitives and control as Agree’, in Karen Lahousse and Stefania Marzo (eds), Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’ Leuven 2012. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 161–80. Goodwin, William W. (1894). Greek Grammar. London: Bristol Classics.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi



381

Gorman, Kyle and Charles Yang (2019). ‘When nobody wins’, in Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Wolfgang U. Dressler, and Hans Christian Luschützky (eds), Competition in Inflection and Word-Formation (Studies in Morphology 5). Dordrecht: Springer, 169–93. Grano, Thomas A. (2012). ‘Control and Restructuring at the Syntax-Semantics Interface’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. Grimm, Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm (1965–2018). Deutsches Wörterbuch, https://www. dwds.de/d/wb-2dwb, accessed 3 January 2021. Grohmann, Kleanthes (2003). Prolific domains: On the antilocality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grohmann, Kleanthes (2011). ‘Antilocality: Too close relations in grammar’, in Cedric Boeckx (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 260–90. Guðmundsdóttir, Dagbjört, Iris Edda Nowenstein, and Sigríður Sigurjónsdóttir (2019). ‘Changing Variation: Diffuse Directionality in Icelandic Subject Case Substitution’, in U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 25(1): 13, https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/ vol25/iss1/13/, accessed 6 January 2021. Gulya, János (1970). ‘Aktiv, Ergativ und Passiv im Vach-Ostjakischen’, in Wolfgang Schlachter (ed.), Symposium über Syntax der uralischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Van den Hoock and Ruprecht, 80–3. Haader, Lea (1995). ‘Az alárendelő mondatok: alanyi, állítmányi, tárgyi és határozói mellékmondatok’, in Loránd Benkő and Endre Rácz (eds), A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana II/2. a kései ómagyar kor. mondattan, szöveggrammatika. [A historical grammar of Hungarian II/2. Late Old Hungarian. Syntax]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 506–665. Haader, Lea (2003). ‘Az ómagyar kor: Mondattörténet: Az összetett mondat’, in Jenő Kiss and Ferenc Pusztai (eds), Magyar nyelvtörténet. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 500–60. Habinek, Thomas (1985). The Colometry of Latin Prose. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Haegeman, Liliane (1995). The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haegeman, Liliane (2004). ‘Topicalization, CLLD and the Left Periphery’, in Benjamin Shaer, Werner Frey, and Claudia Maienborn (eds), Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop. Berlin: ZAS, 157–92. Haegeman, Liliane and Terje Lohndal (2010). ‘Negative Concord and (Multiple) Agree: A case study of West Flemish’, Linguistic Inquiry 41(2): 181–211. Hagendahl, Harald (1937). La Prose métrique d’Arnobe: Contributions à la connaissance de la prose littéraire de l’empire (= Göteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift 42, 1936: 1). Gothenburg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag. Hajdú, Péter (1966). Bevezetés az uráli nyelvtudományba. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. Hale, Mark (2007). Historical Linguistics: Theory and Method, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Hale, Mark and Madelyn Kissock (1997). ‘Nonphonological triggers for renewed access to phonetic perception’, in Richard Shillcock, Antonella Sorace, and Caroline Heycock (eds), GALA ’97, Language Acquisition: Knowledge Representation and Processing. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 229–34. Hall, Daniel Currie (2007). ‘The role and representation of contrast in phonological theory’. PhD thesis, University of Toronto. Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz (1993). ‘Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection’, in Ken Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (ed.), The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111–76.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

382



Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard (2018). ‘The expression of clause negation: From Latin to early French’, in Anne Carlier and Celine Guillot-Barbance (eds), Latin tardif / français ancien: continuités et ruptures. Berlin: De Gruyter, 269–98. Harbour, Daniel (2016). Impossible Persons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harley, Heidi (1995). ‘Subjects, Events and Licensing’. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Harley, Heidi and Elizabeth Ritter (2002). ‘Structuring the bundle: A universal morphosyntactic feature geometry’, in Horst Simon and Heike Weise (eds), Pronouns, Features and Representation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 23–39. Harris, Alice C. and Lyle Campbell (2002). ‘Syntactic reconstruction and demythologizing “Myths and the prehistory of grammars” ’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 619–26. Haspelmath, Martin (1997). Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haspelmath, Martin (1999). ‘Why is grammaticalization irreversible?’ Linguistics 37(6): 1043–68. Hatzidakis, Georgios N. (1892). Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel. Haug, Dag T. (2012) ‘Tmesis in the Epic tradition’, in Dag T. T. Haug, and Øivind Andersen (eds), Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Havas, Ferenc (2008). ‘Unmarked object in the Uralic languages: A diachronic typological approach’, Linguistica Uralica 43: 1–33. doi:10.3176/lu.2008.1.01. Havet, Louis (1892). La Prose métrique de Symmaque et les origines métriques du Cursus. Paris: Bouillon. Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Heaton, W. J. (1913). Our Own English Bible: Its Translators and Their Work. London: Francis Griffiths. Heim, Irene (1985). ‘Notes on comparatives and related matters’. MS. University of Texas, Austin, http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zc0ZjY0M/Comparatives%2085.pdf/, accessed 30 March 2017. Heim, Irene (1990). ‘E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2): 137–77. Heim, Irene (2000). ‘Degree operators and scope’, in Brendan Jackson and Tanya Matthews (eds), SALT X. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 214–39. Heine, Bernd and Mechthild Reh (1984). Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Buske. Hetzenauer, P. Michael, ed. (1914). Biblia Sacra Vulgatæ Editionis Sixti V Pont. Max. Iussu Recognita et Clementis VIII Auctoritate Edita. Sacredbible.org, http://www.sacredbible. org/vulgate1914/version.htm. Hill, Virginia (2013). ‘The emergence of the Romanian subjunctive’, The Linguistic Review 30(4): 1–37. Hill, Virginia and Gabriela Alboiu (2016). Verb Movement and Clause Structure in Old Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (2005). ‘The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics’, in Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds), The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. New York: Routledge, 110–81. Hinterhölzl, Roland and Ans van Kemenade (2012). ‘The Interaction between Syntax, Information Structure, and Prosody in Word Order Change’, in Terttu Nevalainen and Elisabeth Closs Traugott (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 803–21.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi



383

Hohaus, Vera and Malte Zimmermann (2014). ‘Equatives outside the domain of degree constructions’. Talk delivered at Linguistic Evidence 2014, University Tübingen, 13–15 February 2014. Holmberg, Anders (2001). ‘The syntax of yes and no in Finnish’, Studia Linguistica 55: 141–74. Holmberg, Anders (2005). ‘Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish’, Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 533–64. Holmberg, Anders (2010a). ‘Null Subject Parameters’, in Theresa Biberauer, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan (eds), Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 88–124. Holmberg, Anders (2010b). ‘Parameters in minimalist theory: The case of Scandinavian‘, Theoretical Linguistics 36(1): 1–48. Holmberg, Anders and Ian Roberts (2014). ‘Parameters and the three factors of language design’, in M. Picallo (ed.), Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 61–81. Holmer, Arthur (1996). A Parametric Grammar of Seediq. Lund: Lund University Press. Holmes, Nigel (2015). ‘esse and -que in Late Latin prose rhythm’. Paper presented at ICLL 18, Université de Toulouse—Jean Jaurès, 10 June 2015. Holmes, Nigel (2017). ‘Esse and -que in Late Latin Prose Rhythm’, Pallas 103: 251–9. Honti, László (1984). Chrestomathia Ostiacica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. Hoop, Helen de and Bhuvana Narasimhan (2005). ‘Differential case-marking in Hindi’, in Mengistu Amberber and Helen de Hoop (eds), Competition and Variation in Natural Languages. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 321–45. Hopper, Paul and Elizabeth Traugott (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hornstein, Norbert (1999). ‘Movement and Control’, Linguistic Inquiry 30(1): 69–96. Horrocks, Geoffrey C. (1981). Space and Time in Homer: Prepositional and Adverbial Particles in the Greek Epic. New York: Ayer. Horrocks, Geoffrey (1997/2007). Greek: A history of the language and its speakers/Ελληνικά: Ιστορία της γλώσσας και των ομιλιτών της. London/Athens: Estia. Horvath, Julia (1986). FOCUS in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian (Studies in generative grammar 24). Dordrecht: Foris. Huang, Cheng-Teh James (1982). ‘Move wh in a language without wh movement’, The Linguistic Review 1: 369–416. Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Humbert, Jean (1930). La Disparition du datif en grec du Ier au Xème siècle. Paris: Champion. Hyde, Brett (2011). ‘Extrametricality and Non-Finality’, in Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren Rice (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1027–51. Ingason, Anton Karl (2010a). ‘Productivity of non-default case’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 85: 65–117. Ingason, Anton Karl (2010b). ‘Explaining case variation: A death rattle hypothesis for minority rules’. Presented at the ScanDiaSyn/N’CLAV Grand Meeting in Tromsö, June 8. Ingason, Anton Karl (2015). ‘Rhythmic preferences in morphosyntactic variation and the theory of loser candidates’, in Ralf Vogel and Ruben van de Vijver (eds), Rhythm in Cognition and Grammar: A Germanic Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter, 235–54.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

384



Ingason, Anton Karl (2016). ‘Realizing morphemes in the Icelandic noun phrase’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Iordăchioaia, Gianina (2010). ‘Negative concord with negative quantifiers: A polyadic quantifier approach to Romanian negative concord’. PhD dissertation, University of Tübingen, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:21-opus-48224, accessed 19 December 2020. Isac, Dana and Edith Jakab (2004). ‘Mood and force features in the languages of the Balkans’, in Olga Mišeska Tomić (ed.), Balkan Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 315–38. Issatschenko, Alexander V. (1983). Geschichte der russischen Sprache vol. 2. Henrik Birnbaum, L̕ubomír Ďurovič, and Eva Salnikow-Ritter (eds). Heidelberg: Winter. Jacobs, Haike (2000). ‘The Revenge of the Uneven Trochee: Latin main stress, metrical constituency, stress-related phenomena and OT’, in Aditi Lahiri (ed.), Analogy, Levelling, Markedness: Principles of Change in Phonology and Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 333–52. Jacobs, Joachim (1991). ‘Negation’, in Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich (eds), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 560–96. Jäger, Agnes (2010). ‘Der Komparativzyklus und die Position der Vergleichspartikeln’. Linguistische Berichte 224: 467–93. Jäger, Agnes (2016). ‘Vergleichskonstruktionen im Deutschen: Diachroner Wandel und synchrone Variation’, University of Cologne habilitation thesis. Jäger, Agnes (2017). ‘ “mit eynre ander manier dan nu”: Historische Variation bei Vergleichskonstruktionen’, in Marek Konopka and Angelika Wöllstein (eds), Grammatische Variation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 65–84. Jahr, Ernst H. (1999). ‘Sociolinguistics in historical language contact: The Scandinavian languages and Low German during the Hanseatic Period’, in Ernst H. Jahr (ed.), Language Change. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 119–40. Janin, Valentin L. and Andrej A. Zaliznjak (1993). Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste: Iz raskopok 1984–1989 gg. Moscow: Nauka. Jankowski, Bridget L. (2004). ‘A transatlantic perspective of variation and change in English deontic modality’, Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 23: 85–114. Jespersen, Otto (1917). Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Høst. Johns, Alana (1992). ‘Deriving ergativity’, Linguistic Inquiry 23: 57–88. Johnson, Daniel E. (2009). ‘Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed effects variable rule analysis’, Language and Linguistics Compass 3: 359–83. Jókai-kódex. 1370/1448. ed. János P. Balázs (1981). Codices Hungarici 8. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Jones, Michael Allan (1993). Sardinian Syntax. London: Routledge. Jónsson, Björn (1900). Íslenzk stafsetningarorðabók. Reykjavik: Ísafoldarprentsmiðja. Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli (1996). ‘Clausal Architecture and Case in Icelandic’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli (2003). ‘Not so quirky: On subject case in Icelandic’, in Ellen Brandner and Heike Zinsmeister (eds), New Perspectives on Case Theory. Stanford, CA: CLSI Publications, 127–63. Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli (2009). ‘Covert nominative and dative subjects in Faroese’, in Peter Svenonius, Kristine Bentzen, Caroline Heycock, Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen, Janne Bondi Johannessen, Jeffrey K. Parrott, Tania E. Strahan, and Øystein Alexander Vangsnes (eds), Nordlyd 36.2: NORMS Papers on Faroese. Tromsø: CASTL, 142–64, http://www. ub.uit.no/munin/nordlyd

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi



385

Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli (2013). ‘Two types of case variation’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36(1): 5–25. Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli (2017). ‘Avoiding genitive in Icelandic’, in Höskuldur Thráinsson, Caroline Heycock, Hjalmar P. Petersen, and Zakaris Svabo Hansen (eds), Syntactic Variation in Insular Scandinavian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 142–63. Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli and Thórhallur Eythórsson (2005). ‘Variation in subject case marking in Insular Scandinavian’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28: 223–45. Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli and Thórhallur Eythórsson (2011). ‘Structured exceptions and case selection in Insular Scandinavian’, in Horst Simon and Heike Wiese (eds), Expecting the Unexpected: Exceptions in the Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 213–42. Joseph, Brian (1983). ‘The Balkan infinitive loss: Some methodological problems’, in Howard I. Aronson and Bill J. Darden (eds), Studies in Balkan Linguistics to Honor Eric P. Hamp on His Sixtieth Birthday (Folia Slavica 4(2–3)). Bloomington, In: Slavica, 300–8. Joseph, Brian (2015). ‘The pre-history and latter history of the infinitive in Greek and some relevant issues in grammatical analysis’, InVerbis: Lingue Letterature Culture 6(1): 63–81. Joseph, Brian D. and Panayiotis A. Pappas (2002). ‘On some recent views concerning the development of the Greek future system’. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 26: 247–73. Juhász, Dezső (1992). ‘A kötőszók’, in Loránd Benkő and Erzsébet E. Abaffy (eds), A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana. II/1. kötet. Morfematika [A Historical Grammar of Hungarian. Volume Ii/1. Morphotactics]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 772–814. Jung, Hakyung (2017). ‘On the Categorial Status of Old Russian Reduced Pronouns’, Journal of Russian Studies, 1–28 [written in Korean]. Jung, Hakyung and Krzysztof Migdalski (2015). ‘On the degrammaticalization of pronominal clitics in Slavic,’ in Małgorzata Szajbel-Keck, Roslyn Burns, and Darya Kavitskaya (eds), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The First Berkeley Meeting 2014. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, 143–62. Kántor, Gergely (2008). ‘On Hungarian relative operators’, The Even Yearbook 8: 1–12. Kaufman, Daniel (2009). ‘Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study’, Theoretical Linguistics 35(1): 1–49. Kaufman, Daniel (2017). ‘Lexical category and alignment in Austronesian’, in Lisa Travis, Jessica Coon, and Diane Massam (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kayne, Richard S. (1975). French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard S. (1991). ‘Romance Clitics, Verb Movement and PRO’, Linguistic Inquiry 22: 647–86. Kayne, Richard S. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard S. (2005). ‘Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French’, in Guglielmo Cinque and Richard S. Kayne (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 3–69. Keenan, Edward and Bernard Comrie (1977). ‘Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99. Kemenade, Ans van (1992). ‘Structural factors in the history of English modals’, in Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen, and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 287–309.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

386



Kempchinsky, Paula (2009). ‘What can the subjunctive disjoint reference effect tell us about the subjunctive?’, Lingua 119: 1788–810. Kenesei, István (1992). ‘On Hungarian complementisers’, in István Kenesei and Csaba Pléh (eds), Approaches to Hungarian 4. Szeged: JATE, 37–50. Kenesei, István (1994). ‘Subordinate clauses’, in Ferenc Kiefer and Katalin É. Kiss (eds), The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian (Syntax and Semantics 27). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 275–354. Keresztes, László (1999). Development of Mordvin Definite Conjugation. (SuomalaisUgrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 233). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Kinn, Kari (2014a). ‘The cognitive status of null referents in Old Norse and their Modern Norwegian counterparts’, in Kristin Bech and Kristine Gunn Eide (eds), Information Structure and Syntactic Change in Germanic and Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 173–99. Kinn, Kari (2014b). ‘Conditions on null arguments in Old Norwegian’. Workshop Understanding pro-drop, Trento, June 19–21, 2014. Kinn, Kari (2015). ‘Null Subjects in the History of Norwegian’. PhD dissertation, University of Oslo. Kiparsky, Paul (2008). ‘Universals constrain change, change results in typological generalizations’, in Jeff Good (ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 23–53. Klemm, Antal (1928). Magyar történeti mondattan [A Diachronic Grammar of Hungarian]. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia. Klumpp, Gerson (2008). ‘Differentielle Objektmarkierung und Informationsstruktur in Dialekten des Komi’. Habilitation thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Ko, Heejeong (2006). ‘On the structural height of reason, Wh-adverbials: Acquisition and consequences’, in Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver (eds), WH-Movement: Moving On. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 319–49. Kortmann, Bernd (1997). Adverbial Subordination: A Typology and History of Adverbial Subordinators Based on European Languages. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Krapova, Iliyana (1999). ‘Subjunctive complements, null subjects and case checking in Bulgarian’, in István Kenesei (ed.), Crossing Boundaries: Advances in the Theory of Central and Eastern European Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 239–62. Krapova, Iliyana (2001). ‘Subjunctives in Bulgarian and Modern Greek’, in Maria Luisa Rivero and Angela Ralli (eds), Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages. New York: Oxford University Press, 105–26. Kroch, Anthony S. (1989a). ‘Function and grammar in the history of English: Periphrastic do’, in Ralph W. Fasold and Deborah Schiffrin (eds), Language Change and Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 133–72. Kroch, Anthony S. (1989b). ‘Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change’, Language Variation and Change 1(03): 199–244. Krug, Manfred (2000). Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kulonen, Ulla-Maija (1989). The passive in Ob-Ugrian. (Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 203). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy (1965). ‘The Evolution of Grammatical Categories’, Diogenes 13(51): 55–71. Labov, William (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns, vol. 4. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, William and Wendell A. Harris (1986). ‘De facto segregation of black and white vernaculars’, Diversity and Diachrony 53: 33–44.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi



387

Ladusaw, William (1979). ‘Negative polarity as inherent scope’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Lahiri, Utpal (1998). ‘Focus and negative polarity in Hindi’, Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123. Lakoff, George (1971). ‘Presupposition and relative well-formedness’, in Danny D. Steinberg and Leon A. Jakobovits (eds), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 329–40. Landau, Idan (2013). Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Landau, Idan (2015). A Two-Tiered Theory of Control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lass, Roger (1999). ‘Phonology and morphology’, in Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume III: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56–186. Lavidas, Nikolaos (2010). Transitivity Alternations in Diachrony: Changes in Argument Structure and Voice Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Lechner, Winfried (2004). Ellipsis in Comparatives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ledgeway, Adam (1998). ‘Variation in the Romance infinitive: The case of the Southern Calabrian inflected infinitive’, Transactions of the Philological Society 96: 1–61. Ledgeway, Adam (2012). From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ledgeway, Adam and Ian Roberts (2017). ‘Introduction’, in Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–4. Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair, and Nicholas Smith (2009). Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Legate, Julie (2002). ‘Warlpiri: Theoretical Implications’. PhD dissertation, MIT. Legate, Julie (2008). ‘Morphological and abstract case’, Linguistic Inquiry 39: 55–101. Legate, Julie (2014). Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lendari, Tina and Io Manolessou (2003). ‘Η εκφορά του έμμεσου αντικειμένου στα μεσαιωνικά ελληνικά
Γλωσσολογικά και εκδοτικά προβλήματα’, In Studies in Greek Linguistics. Proceedings of the 23nd [sic] Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics, 17–19 May 2002, 394–405. Levin, Beth (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Li, Paul Jen-kuei (1973). Rukai Structure. Taipei: Academia Sinica Institute of History and Philology. Lightfoot, David (1979). Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lightfoot, David (1999). The Development of Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Lightfoot, David (2002a). ‘Myths and the prehistory of grammars’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 113–36. Lightfoot, David (2002b). ‘More myths’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 619–26. Lindow, Wolfgang, Dieter Möhn, Hermann Niebaum, Dieter Stellmacher, Hans Taubken, and Jan Wirrer (1998). Niederdeutsche Grammatik. Leer: Schuster. Lipold, Günter (1983). ‘Möglichkeiten der Komparation in den deutschen Dialekten’, in Werner Besch, Ulrich Knoop, Wolfgang Putschke and Herbert E. Wiegand (eds), Dialektologie: Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1232–41.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

388



Lipták, Anikó (2015). ‘Relative pronouns as sluicing remnants’, in Katalin É. Kiss, Balázs Surányi, and Éva Dékány (eds), Approaches to Hungarian 14: Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba Conference, 187–207. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/atoh.14.08lip. Longobardi, Giuseppe (2005). ‘A minimalist program for parametric linguistics?’ in Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz, and Jan Koster (eds), Organizing Grammar. Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: de Gruyter, 407–14. Longobardi, Giuseppe (2014). ‘Theory and experiment in parametric minimalism: The case of Romance negation’, in Rob Pensalfini, Myfany Turpin, and Diana Guillemin (eds), Language Description Informed by Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 217–62. López-Couso, María José and Belén Méndez-Naya (2014). ‘On comparative complementizers in English: Evidence from historical corpora’, in Nila MéndezNaya Vazques (ed.), Creation and Use of Historical English Corpora in Spain. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 311–33. Luraghi, Silvia (2003) On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek, vol. 67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Luraghi, Silvia (2004). ‘The evolution of the Greek nominal paradigms from Mycenean to Modern Greek’, Classica et mediaevalia 55: 361–79. Luraghi, Silvia (2010). ‘The extension of the transitive construction in Ancient Greek’, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42(1): 60–74. McFadden, Thomas (2004). ‘The position of morphological case in the derivation’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. McFadden, Thomas (2006). ‘German inherent datives and argument structure’, in Daniel Hole, André Meinunger, and Werner Abraham (eds), Datives and Other Cases: Between Argument Structure and Event Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 49–77. Mackridge, Peter (1985). The Modern Greek Language: A Descriptive Analysis of Standard Modern Greek. New York: Oxford University Press. Mackridge, Peter (2009). Language and National Identity in Greece, 1766–1976. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mahajan, Anoop (1989). ‘Agreement and agreement projections’, in Itziar Laka and Anoop Mahajan (eds), Functional Heads and Clause Structure (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 217–52. Mähl, Stefan (2014). Mehrgliedrige Verbalkomplexe im Mittelniederdeutschen. Ein Beitrag zu einer historischen Syntax des Mittelniederdeutschen. Cologne: Böhlau. Manning, Christopher (1996). Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Manzini, M. Rita and Ludovico Franco (2016). ‘Goal and DOM datives’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34: 197–240. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-0159303-y. Marantz, Alec (1991). ‘Case and Licensing’, in Germán F. Westphal, Benjamin Ao and HeeRahk Chac (eds), Proceedings of ESCOL ’91. Ohio State University: Cornell Linguistics Circle, 234–53. Marantz, Alec (1992). ‘How morphemes are realized phonologically’, paper presented at the DIMACS Workshop on Human Language, Princeton University, March 20–22, 1992. Marantz, Alec (1997). ‘No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon’, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2): 201–25.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi



389

Marantz, Alec (2000). ‘Case and licensing’, in Eric J. Reuland (ed.), Arguments and Case: Explaining Burzio’s Generalization (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 34). Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 11–30. Marcantonio, Angela (1985). ‘On the definite vs. indefinite conjugation in Hungarian: A typological and diachronic analysis’, Acta Linguistica Hungarica 35: 267–98. Marotta, Giovanna (2000). ‘Sulla massimalità dei piedi trocaici: Il caso del latino’, Lingua e Stile 35: 387–416. Martinović, Martina (2015). ‘Feature Geometry and Head-splitting: Evidence from the morphosyntax of the Wolof clausal periphery’. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. Martins, Ana Maria (2000). ‘Polarity Items in Romance: Underspecification and Lexical Change’, in Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas, and Anthony Warner (eds), Diachronic Syntax. Models and Mechanisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 191–219. Martins, Ana Maria (2001). ‘On the origin of the Portuguese inflected infinitive: A new perspective on an enduring debate’, in Laurel J. Brinton (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1999: Selected Papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 207–22. Massam, Diane (2003). ‘Questions and the left periphery in Niuean’, in Anastasia Riehl and Thess Savella (eds), Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA 9) (Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 19). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications, 94–106. Meillet, Antoine (1912). ‘L’Évolution des formes grammaticales’, Scientia 12(26): 384–400. [Reprinted in Meillet, Antoine (1975). Linguistique Historique et Linguistique Générale, I. Paris: Edouard Champion, 130–48.] Meira de Oliveira, Vívian (2013). ‘A obviação/referência disjunta em complementação setencial: Uma proposta sintático-semântica’. PhD thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Mensching, Guido (2016). ‘Yes/no interrogatives and focus in Sardinian’, in Ernestina Carrilho, Alexandra Fiéis, Maria Lobo, and Sandra Pereira (eds), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10. Selected Papers from Going Romance 28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 139–69. Merchant, Jason (2006). ‘Why No(t)?’ Style 40(1–2): 20–3. Merkle, Ludwig (1975). Bairische Grammatik. Munich: Heimeran. Mester, Armin (1994). ‘The Quantitative Trochee in Latin’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 1–61. Michelioudakis, Dimitris (2012). ‘Dative arguments and abstract Case in Greek’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge. Michelioudakis, Dimitris and Ioanna Sitaridou (2013). ‘Syntactic Microvariation: Dative Constructions in Greek’, in Beatriz Fernandez and Ricardo Etxepare (eds), Variation in Datives: A Microcomparative Perspective. Oxford: University Press, 212–55. Migdalski, Krzysztof (2013). ‘Diachronic source of two cliticization patterns in Slavic’, in Christine Meklenborg Salvesen and Hans-Petter Helland (eds), Challenging Clitics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 135–58. Migdalski, Krzysztof (2016). Second Position Effects in the Syntax of Germanic and Slavic Languages. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Migdalski, Krzysztof (2018). ‘On two sources of second position effects (Part 2)’, Studies in Polish Linguistics 13(4): 187–208. Modesto, Marcelo (2014). ‘Inflected Infinitives and Restructuring in Brazilian Portuguese’. MS. Universidade de São Paulo. Mohanan, Tara (1994). Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

390



Molinelli, Piera (1988). Fenomeni della negazione dal latino all’italiano. Florence: La Nuova Italia. Moravcsik, Edith (1974). ‘Object–verb agreement’, Working Papers on Language Universals 15: 25–140. Stanford, CA: Committee on Linguistics. Motapanyane, Virginia (1994). ‘An A-position for Romanian subjects’, Linguistic Inquiry 25: 729–34. Motapanyane, Virginia (1995). Theoretical Implications of Complementation in Romanian. Padua: Unipress. Munich Codex. 1416/1466. Antal Nyíri (ed.) (1971). Codices Hungarici 7. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Murasugi, Kumiko G. (1992). ‘Crossing and Nested Paths: NP Movement in Accusative and Ergative Languages’. PhD dissertation, MIT. Nedelcu, Isabela, Adina Dragomirescu and Dana Niculescu (2016). ‘Non-finite verb forms and non-finite constructions’, in Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.), The Syntax of Old Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 232–87. Nespor, Marina and Irene Vogel (2007 [1986]). Prosodic Phonology (with a New Foreword). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Newmeyer, Frederick (2004). ‘Against a parameter-setting approach to language variation’, Language Variation Yearbook 4: 181–234. Newmeyer, Frederick (2005). Possible and Probable Languages. A Generative Perspective on Linguistic Typology. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Nikolaeva, Irina (1999) Ostyak. (Languages of the World/Materials 305). Munich: LINCOM Europa. Nikolaeva, Irina (2001). ‘Secondary topic as a relation in information structure’, Linguistics 39: 1–49. Nikolaeva, Irina (2003). ‘Possessive affixes in the pragmatic structuring of the utterance: Evidence from Uralic’, in Pirkko Marjatta Suihkonen, Bernard Comrie and Sergej Anatol’evič Maksimov (eds), International Symposium on Deictic Systems and Quantification in Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia. Collection of Papers. Izhevsk: Udmurt State University, 130–45. Nikolaeva, Irina (2014). A Grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nikolaeva, Irina (forthcoming). ‘Relative clauses in Uralic: An overview’, in Anne Tamm and Anne Vainikka (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Uralic Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norde, Muriel (2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nowenstein, Iris (2014). ‘Intra-speaker variation in subject case: Icelandic’. University of Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 20(1): 28, https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol20/ iss1/28, accessed 6 January 2021. Nowenstein, Iris (2015). ‘Acquiring intra-speaker variation: The case of Icelandic Dative Substitution’. Poster presented at DiGS 17, University of Iceland, 29–31 June. Nowenstein, Iris (2017). ‘Determining the nature of intra-speaker subject case variation’, in Höskuldur, Thráinsson, Caroline Heycock Hjalmar P. Petersen, and Zakaris Svabo Hansen (eds), Syntactic Variation in Insular Scandinavian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 91–112. Noyer, Rolf (1992). ‘Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure’. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Oberhelman, Steven (2003). Prose Rhythm in Latin Literature of the Roman Empire: First Century B.C. to Fourth Century A.D. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen. Oikonomidis, Demosthenes Η. (1958). Γραμματική της ελληνικής διαλέκτου του Πόντου. Athens: Ακαδημία Αθηνών.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi



391

Orlandini, Anna (2001). Négation et argumentation en latin. Grammaire fondamentale du latin, Tome VIII. Louvain: Peeters. Osawa, Fuyo (1999). ‘The relation between tense and aspect: The emergence of the T system’, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 521–44. Osthoff, Hermann and Karl Brugman (1878). Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Hirzel. Ouali, Hamid (2008). ‘On C-to-T ɸ-transfer: The nature of agreement and antiagreement in Berber’, in Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson (eds), Agreement Restrictions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 159–80. Panagiotidis, E. Phoevos (2008). ‘Diachronic stability and feature interpretability’, in Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 441–56. Pancheva, Roumyana (2005.) ‘The rise and fall of second-position clitics’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 103–67. Pancheva, Roumyana, Agnieszka Łazorczyk, Jelena Krivokapić, and Yulia Minkova (2007). Codex Marianus, in USC Parsed Corpus of Old South Slavic. Parrott, Jeffrey K. (2007). ‘Distributed morphological mechanisms of Labovian variation in morphosyntax’. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. Parry, Mair (2013). ‘Negation in the history of Italo-Romance’, in David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth (eds), The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, vol. 1: Case Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 77–118. Partee, Barbara (2015). ‘Future in headlinese’, http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p= 22463, accessed 3 May 2017. Paul, Hermann (1920). Deutsche Grammatik, Band 3: Syntax. Halle: Niemeyer. Paul, Ileana (2000). ‘Malagasy Clause Structure’. PhD dissertation, McGill University. Pearson, Matthew (2001). ‘The Clause Structure of Malagasy: A Minimalist Approach’. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Penka, Doris (2011). Negative Indefinites. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pesetsky, David (2013). Russian Case Morphology and the Syntactic Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego (2011). ‘Case’, in Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 52–72. Petrova, Svetlana (2012). ‘Typologie und Funktionen der Herausstellung nach links im Mittelniederdeutschen’, in Robert Langhanke, Kristian Berg, Michael Elmentaler, and Jörg Peters (eds), Niederdeutsche Syntax. Hildesheim: Olms, 15–31. Petrova, Svetlana (2013). ‘The Syntax of Middle Low German’. Habilitation thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Pezzini, Giuseppe (2015). Terence and the Verb ‘to be’ in Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pintzuk, Susan and Antony Kroch (1999). Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English Clause Structure. New York: Garland. Pintzuk, Susan and Ann Taylor (2006). ‘The loss of OV order in the history of English’, in Ans van Kemenade and Bettelou Los (eds), The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell, 249–78. Pires, Acrisio (2002). ‘Cue-based change: Inflection and subjects in the history of Portuguese infinitives’, in David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 142–59.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

392



Pires, Acrisio, Jason Rothman, and Ana Santos (2011). ‘L1 acquisition across Portuguese dialects: Modular and interdisciplinary interfaces as sources of explanation’, Lingua 121(4) (Special issue: ‘Acquisition at the Linguistic Interfaces’): 605–22. Poletto, Cecilia (2014). Word Order in Old Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Poletto, Cecilia (2016). ‘Negation’, in Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 833–46. Polinsky, Maria (2016). Deconstructing Ergativity: Two Types of Ergative Languages and Their Features. New York: Oxford University Press. Polo, Chiara (2004). Word Order between Morphology and Syntax. Padua: Unipress. Potsdam, Eric (2006). ‘More concealed pseudoclefts in Malagasy and the Clausal Typing Hypothesis’, Lingua 116: 2154–82. Potsdam, Eric (2007). ‘Malagasy sluicing and its consequences for the identity requirement on ellipsis’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 577–613. Potsdam, Eric (2009). ‘Austronesian verb-initial languages and wh-question strategies’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27: 737–71. Progovac, Ljiljana (1994). Negative and Positive Polarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Purvey, John (n.d.). John Wycliffe’s Translation: Later Version by John Purvey. Nampa, ID: The Wesley Center Online, http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/biblical_stud ies/wycliffe/. Quinn, Heidi (2005). The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English, vol. 82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rackowski, Andrea (2002). ‘The Structure of Tagalog: Specificity, Voice, and the Distribution of Arguments’. PhD dissertation, MIT. Rackowski, Andrea and Norvin Richards (2005). ‘Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study’, Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 565–99. Radanović-Kocić, Vesna (1988). ‘The Grammar of Serbo-Croatian Clitics: A Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Ralli, Angela (2003). ‘Preverbs in Greek: The case of ksana, kse-, para-‘, in Anna Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), Asymmetry in Grammar: Morphology, Phonology and Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 37–65. Ralli, Angela (2004). ‘Stem-based versus word-based morphological configurations: The case of Modern Greek preverbs’, Lingue e Linguaggio 2004(2): 241–75. Ramat, Paolo (1992). ‘Thoughts on Degrammaticalization’, Linguistics 30: 549–60. Raposo, Eduardo (1987). ‘Case Theory and Infl-to-Comp: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese’, Linguistic Inquiry 18: 85–109. Rappaport, Gilbert (1988). ‘On the relationship between prosodic and syntactic properties of pronouns in the Slavic languages,’ in Alexander M. Schenker (ed.), American Contributions to the Tenth International Congress of Slavists. Bloomington, IN: Slavica, 301–27. Rédei, Károly (2000). ‘Még egyszer a permi accusativusról [Once more about Permic accusative]’, Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 101: 125–9. Reintges, Chris H. and Sonia Cyrino (2016). ‘Rethinking parameter theory diachronically: A macrocomparative approach to the analyticization of the verbal tense-aspect systems of Brazilian Portuguese and Coptic Egyptian’, in Luis Eguren, Olga Fernandez-Soriano, and Amaya Mendikoetxea (eds), Rethinking Parameters. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 329–85. Rezac, Milan (2008). ‘Phi-agree and theta-related case’, in Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar (eds), Phi theory: Phi-features across Modules and Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 83–129.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi



393

Riaño Rufilanchas, Daniel (2006). El complemento directo en griego antiguo: Un estudio sobre los argumentos verbales de objeto en la prosa del griego antiguo. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Richards, Marc (2007). ‘On feature inheritance: An argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 563–72. Richards, Marc (2012). ‘On feature inheritance, defective phases, and the movement morphology connection’, in Angel Gallego (ed.), Phases: Developing the Framework. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 195–232. Riđanović, Midhat (2012). Bosnian for Foreigners: With a Comprehensive Grammar. Sarajevo: Rabic. Rissanen, Matti (1999). ‘Syntax’, in Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume III: 1476–1776, . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 187–331. Rivero, Maria-Luisa (1994). ‘Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 63–120. Rivero, Maria-Luisa and Angela Ralli (2001). ‘Introduction’, in Maria-Luisa Rivero and Angela Ralli (eds), Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages. New York: Oxford University Press. 3–16. Rivero, María-Luisa, and Nikolay Slavkov (2014). ‘Imperfect(ive) Variation: The Case of Bulgarian’, Lingua 150: 232–77. Rizzi, Luigi (1982). Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Rizzi, Luigi (1990). Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rizzi, Luigi (1997). ‘The fine structure of the left periphery’, in Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 281–339. Rizzi, Luigi (2004). ‘Locality and left periphery’, in Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press, 223–51. Rizzi, Luigi (2006). ‘On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects’, in Lisa Cheng and Norbert Corver (eds), Wh-Movement: Moving On. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 97–133. Rizzi, Luigi (2017). ‘On the format and locus of parameters: The role of morphosyntactic features’, Linguistic Analysis 41(3–4): 159–90. Rizzi, Luigi and Ur Shlonsky (2006). ‘Satisfying the subject criterion by a non subject: English locative inversion and heavy NP shift’, in Mara Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of Interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 341–61. Roberts, Ian (1985). ‘Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4(1): 21–58. Roberts, Ian (2007). Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, Ian (2012). ‘Macroparameters and Minimalism: A programme for comparative research’, in Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo, and Juanito Avelar (eds), Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 320–35. Roberts, Ian (2016). ‘Some remarks on parameter hierarchies’, in Luis Eguren, Olga Fernandez-Soriano, and Amaya Mendikoetxea (eds), Rethinking Parameters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 170–99. Roberts, Ian and Anders Holmberg (2010). ‘Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory’, in Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan (eds), Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–57. Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou (2003). Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

394



Rohlfs, Gerhard (1977). Grammatica storica dei dialetti italogreci. Munich: C. H. Becksche. Rooryck, Johan (2003). ‘The morphosyntactic structure of articles and pronouns in Dutch’, in Jan Koster and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), Germania et alia: A linguistic webschrift for Hans den Besten. Groningen: University of Groningen, 1–12. Rosenkvist, Henrik (2009). ‘Referential null subjects in Germanic languages—an overview’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 84: 151–80. Ross, John R. (1982). ‘Pronoun deleting processes in German’. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego, California. Ross, Malcolm (1995). ‘Reconstructing Proto-Austronesian verbal morphology: Evidence from Taiwan’, in Paul J.-K. Li, Cheng-hwa Tsang, Ying-kuei Huang, Dah-an Ho, and Chiu-yu Tseng (eds), Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan. Taipei: Academia Sinica, 727–91. Ross, Malcolm (2002). ‘The history and transitivity of Western Austronesian voice and voice-marking’, in Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross (eds), The History and Typology and Western Austronesian Voice Systems. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 17–62. Ross, Malcolm (2006). ‘Reconstructing the case-marking and personal pronoun systems of Proto Austronesian’, in Henry Y. Chang, Lillian M. Huang, and Dah-an Ho (eds), Streams Converging into an Ocean: Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Jen-Kuei Li on his 70th Birthday. Taipei: Language and Linguistics, 521–63. Ross, Malcolm (2009). ‘Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: A reappraisal’, in Alexander Adelaar and Andrew Pawley (eds), Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: A Festschrift for Robert Blust. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 295–326. Ross, Malcolm (2012). ‘In defense of Nuclear Austronesian (and against Tsouic)’, Language and Linguistics 13(6): 1253–300. Roussou, Anna (2001). ‘Control and Raising in and out of subjunctive complements’, in Maria-Luisa Rivero and Angela Ralli (eds), Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages. New York: Oxford University Press. 74–104. Rowlett, Paul (1998). Sentential Negation in French. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rutten, Gijsbert (2012). ‘From adverb to conjunction and back: The (de)grammaticalisation of Dutch dan’, Diachronica 29(3): 301–25. Saito, Mamoru (2016). ‘(A) case for labeling: Labeling in languages without ϕ-feature agreement’, The Linguistic Review 33(1): 129–75. Salvi, Giampaolo (1997). ‘From Latin weak pronouns to Romance clitics’, Estudos Lingúısticos e Literarioś 19: 85–104. Salvi, Giampaolo (2004). La formazione della struttura di frase romanza: Ordine delle parole e clitici dal latino alle lingue romanze antiche. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Sandfeld, Kristian. 1930/1968. Linguistique balcanique: Problèmes et résultats. Paris: Klincksiek. Sankoff, Gillian and Hélèn Blondeau (2007). ‘Language change across the lifespan: /r/in Montreal French’, Language 83: 560–88. Santorini, Beatrice (1992). ‘Variation and change in Yiddish subordinate clause word order’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10(4): 595–640. Sauerland, Uli (2003). ‘A new semantics for number’, in Robert B. Young and Yuping Zhou (eds), Proceedings of SALT XIII. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, 258–75. Sava, Cristinel Silviu (2012). ‘Complementizatorii în limba română veche’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bucharest. Schlachter, Eva (2012). Syntax und Informationsstruktur im Althochdeutschen. Untersuchungen am Beispiel der Isidor-Gruppe. Heidelberg: Winter. Schrodt, Richard (2004). Althochdeutsche Grammatik II: Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi



395

Schütze, Carson T. (1997). ‘INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, case and licensing’. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Schütze, Carson T. (2001). ‘On the nature of default case’, Syntax 4, 205–38. Selkirk, Elisabeth (1980). ‘Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited’, in Mark Aronoff and Mary-Louise Kean (eds), Juncture: A Collection of Original Papers. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri, 107–29. Selkirk, Elisabeth (1981). ‘The Nature of Phonological Representation’, in Terry Myers, John Laver, and John Anderson (eds), The Cognitive Representation of Speech. Dordrecht: North Holland, 379–88. Selkirk, Elisabeth (1986). ‘On Derived Domains in Sentence Phonology’, Phonology Yearbook 3: 371–405. Selkirk, Elisabeth (1996). ‘The Prosodic Structure of Function Words’, in James Morgan and Katherine Demuth (eds), Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Syntax to Grammar in Early Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 187–213. Selkirk, Elisabeth (2011). ‘The Syntax-Phonology Interface’, in John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan Yu (eds), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 435–84. Seuren, Pieter (1973). ‘The comparative’, in Ferenc Kiefer and Nicolas Ruwet (eds), Generative Grammar in Europe. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 528–64. Sigurðardóttir, Herdís (2002). ‘Fall í íslensku. Hvernig læra íslensk börn að nota föll? [Case in Icelandic. How do Icelandic children acquire case?]’. MA thesis, University of Iceland. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann (1989). ‘Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic’. PhD. thesis, University of Lund. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann (1993). ‘Argument-drop in Old Icelandic’, Lingua 89: 247–80. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann (2011). ‘Conditions on argument drop’, Linguistic Inquiry 42(2): 267–304. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann (2012). ‘Case variation: Viruses and star wars’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35: 313–42. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann (2014). ‘About pronouns’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 92: 65–98. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann, and Joan Maling (2006). ‘Argument drop and the empty left edge condition (ELEC)’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 81: 1–27. Silverstein, Michael (1976). Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity. London: Humanities Press. Simon, Eszter and Bálint Sass (2012). ‘Nyelvtechnológia és kulturális örökség, avagy korpuszépítés ómagyar kódexekből [Language technology and cultural heritage: Building corpora from Old Hungarian codices]’, Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok 24: 243–64. Sipőcz, Katalin (2013). ‘Ditranzitív igék a manysiban’, Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 109: 123–37. Sipőcz, Katalin (2015). ‘Tárgyjelölés a manysi ditranzitív szerkezetekben [Object marking in Mansi ditransitive constructions]’, in Katalin É. Kiss, Attila Hegedűs, and Lilla Pintér (eds), Nyelvelmélet és dialektológia 3. Budapest: Szent István Társulat. 234–45. Sitaridou, Ioanna (2002). ‘The synchrony and diachrony of Romance infinitives with nominative subjects’. PhD thesis, University of Manchester. Sitaridou, Ioanna (2006). ‘The (dis)association of Tense, phi-features EPP and nominative Case: Case studies from Romance and Greek’, in João Costa and Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva (eds), Studies on Agreement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 243–60. Sitaridou, Ioanna (2009). ‘On the emergence of personal infinitives in the history of Spanish’, Diachronica 26(1): 36–64.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

396



Sitaridou, Ioanna (2013). ‘Greek-speaking enclaves in Pontus today: The documentation and revitalization of Romeyka’, in Mari Jones and Sarah Ogilvie (eds), Keeping Languages Alive: Language Endangerment: Documentation, Pedagogy and Revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 98–112. Sitaridou, Ioanna (2014a). ‘Modality, antiveridicality, and complementation: The Romeyka infinitive as a negative polarity item’, Lingua 148: 118–46. Sitaridou, Ioanna (2014b). ‘The Romeyka infinitive: Continuity, contact and change in the Hellenic varieties of Pontus’, Diachronica. 31(1): 23–73. Sitaridou, Ioanna (2016). ‘Reframing the phylogeny of Asia Minor Greek: The view from Pontic Greek’, CHS Research Bulletin 4(1): 1–17. Sitaridou, Ioanna and Vívian Meira (2017). ‘The loss of subjunctives in Brazilian Portuguese’. MS. University of Cambridge and Universidade de Bahia. Skribnik, Elena (2001). ‘Pragmatic structuring in Northern Mansi’, in Tönu Seidenthal (ed.), Congressus Nonus Internationalis Fenno-ugristarum. Pars IV. Dissertationes sectionum: Linguistica III. Tartu: Tartu University. Smith, Henry (1994). ‘ “Dative Sickness” in Germanic’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 675–736. Sosa, Sachiko (2017). ‘Functions of Morphosyntactic Alternations, and Information Flow in Surgut Khanty Discourse’. PhD dissertation. University of Helsinki. Spencer, Andrew (1991). Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Spevak, Olga (2010). Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Speyer, Augustin (2010). Topicalization and Stress Clash Avoidance in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Starosta, Stanley (1995). ‘A grammatical subgrouping of Formosan languages’, in Paul J.-K. Li, Cheng-hwa Tsang, Ying-kuei Huang, Dah-an Ho, and Chiu-yu Tseng (eds), Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan. Taipei: Academia Sinica, 683–726. Starosta, Stanley (2009). ‘Reduplication and the subgrouping of Formosan languages’, in Elizabeth Zeitoun (ed.), Formosan Linguistics: Stanley Starosta’s Contributions, vol. 2 (Language and Linguistics Monograph Series C6-2). Taipei: Academia Sinica Institute of Linguistics, 801–34. Starosta, Stanley, Andrew K. Pawley, and Lawrence A. Reid (1982). ‘The evolution of focus in Austronesian’, in Amram Halim, Lois Carrington, and S. A. Wurm (eds), Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (Pacific Linguistics, C-75). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 145–70. Steinitz, Wolfgang (1950). Ostjakische Grammatik und Chrestomatie mit Wörterverzeichnis. Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz. Stolk, Joanne Vera (2015). ‘Case Variation in Greek Papyri’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oslo. Stolz, Thomas (2013). Competing Comparative Constructions in Europe. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Svavarsdóttir, Ásta (1982). ‘Þágufallssýki [Dative sickness]’, Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 4: 19–62. Svavarsdóttir, Ásta (2013). ‘Þágufallshneigð í sjón og raun: Niðurstöður spurningakannana í samanburði við málnotkun [Dative substitution, apparent and real. The results from questionnaires compared to language use]’, in Höskuldur Thráinsson, Ásgrímur Angantýsson, and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson (eds), Tilbrigði í íslenskri setningagerð I. Reykjavik: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands, 83–110.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi



397

Svenonius, Peter (2000). ‘Quantifier Movement in Icelandic’, in Peter Svenonius (ed.), The Derivation of VO and OV. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 255–92. Szabolcsi, Anna (1994). ‘The noun phrase’, in Ferenc Kiefer and Katalin É. Kiss (eds), The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian. Syntax and Semantics 27. New York: Academic Press, 179–275. Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Alexandra D’Arcy (2007). ‘The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective’, English World-Wide 28(1): 47–87. Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Alexandra D’Arcy (2009). ‘Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation, and language change’, Language 85: 58–108. Tamminga, Meredith, Laurel MacKenzie, and David Embick (2016). ‘The dynamics of variation in individuals’, Linguistic Variation 16: 300–36. Tan, Cindy Ro-lan (1997). ‘A Study of Puyuma Simple Sentences’. MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University. Tánczos, Orsolya (2016). ‘Causative constructions and their syntactic analysis’. PhD dissertation, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest. Taylor, Ann (1990). ‘Clitics and configurationality in Ancient Greek’. Doctoral dissertation: University of Pennsylvania. Taylor, Ann (2005). ‘Prosodic Evidence for Incipient VO Order in Old English’, English Language and Linguistics 9: 139–56. Teng, Stacy Fang-ching (2008). A Reference Grammar of Puyuma. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Terzi, Arhonto (1992). ‘Licensing of PRO and the languages of the Balkans’. PhD dissertation, City University of New York. Terzi, Arhonto (2008). ‘Locative prepositions as modifiers of an unpronounced noun’, Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 471–9. Terzi, Arhonto (2010a). ‘On Null Spatial Ps and Their Arguments’, Catalan Journal of Linguistics 9: 171–91. Terzi, Arhonto (2010b). ‘Locative prepositions and place’, in Guglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzi (eds), Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 196–224. Theophanopoulou-Kontou, Dimitra (1997). ‘Locative Prepositions and Case Marking in Modern Greek’, in Gabriel Drachman, Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, John Fykias and Sila Klidi (eds), Greek Linguistics ’95. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Salzburg 22–24 September 1995, vol. 2. Graz: W. Neugebauer, 619–30. Thráinsson, Höskuldur (2013). ‘Ideal speakers and other speakers. The case of dative and other cases’, in Beatriz Fenández and Ricardo Etxepare (eds), Variation in Datives: A Micro-Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 161–88. Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Ásta Svavarsdóttir, and Thórunn Blöndal (2015). ‘Fallmörkun [Case marking]’, in Höskuldur Thráinsson, Ásgrímur Angantýsson, and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson (eds.), Tilbrigði í íslenskri setningagerð II. Reykjavik: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands, 33–76. Timotin, Emanuela (2016). ‘Introduction’, in Gabriela Pană Dindelegan (ed.), The Syntax of Old Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–11. Todi, Aida (2001). Elemente de sintaxă românească veche. Iaşi: Editura Paralela 45. Todorović, Neda (2015). ‘A different aspect of tenses and temporal interpretation in Serbian’, paper presented at Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL–11), University of Potsdam, 2–4 December 2015.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

398



Tomić, Olga (2000). ‘On Clitic Sites’, in Frits Beukema and Marcel den Dikken (eds), Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 293–316. Topolińska, Zuzanna (1961). Z historii akcentu polskiego od wieku XVI do dziś. Wrocław: Ossolineum. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1992). ‘Syntax’, in Richard M. Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume I: The Beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 168–289. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2001). ‘Legitimate counterexamples to unidirectionality’, paper presented at Freiburg University, 17 October 2001. Truckenbrodt, Hubert (1999). ‘On the Relation between Syntactic Phrases and Phonological Phrases’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 219-55. Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2007). ‘The syntax–phonology interface’, in Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 435–56. Tsai, W.-T. Dylan (1994). ‘On Economizing the Theory of A-bar Dependencies’. PhD dissertation, MIT. Tsuchida, Shigeru (1976). Reconstruction of Proto-Tsouic phonology. (Monograph Series, No. 5.) Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. Tsuchida, Shigeru (1982). A Comparative Vocabulary of Austronesian Languages of Sinicized Ethic Groups in Taiwan, Part 1: West Taiwan. (Memoirs of the Faculty of Letters, No. 7.) Tokyo: University of Tokyo. Ura, Hiroyuki (2000). Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. Väänänen, Veikko (1987). Le Journal-êpitre d’Égérie (Itinerarium Egeriae): Étude linguistique. Helsinki: Academia Fennica. Vaillant, André (1964). Manuel du vieux slave: Tome I: Grammaire. Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves. Vaillant, André (1966). Grammaire comparée des langues slaves: Tome III: Le verbe. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck. Varlokosta, Spyridoula and Norbert Hornstein (1993). ‘Control complements in Modern Greek’, Proceedings of NELS 23: 507–21. Vetter, David C. (1973). ‘Someone solves this problem tomorrow’, Linguistic Inquiry 4(1): 104–8. Viðarsson, Heimir Freyr (2009). ‘Tilbrigði í fallmörkun aukafallsfrumlaga: Þágufallshneigð í forníslensku?’, Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 31: 15–66. Vienna Codex. 1416/1450. Gedeon Mészöly (ed.), 1916. Bécsi kódex. Budapest: MTA. Vincent, Nigel (1996). ‘Appunti sulla sintassi dell’infinito coniugato in un testo napoletano del Trecento’, in Paola Benincà, Guglielmo Cinque, Tulio De Mauro, and Nigel Vincent (eds), Italiano e dialetti nel tempo: Saggi di grammatica per Giulio C. Lepschy. Rome: Bulzoni, 387–406. Virtanen, Susanna (2010). ‘Pragmatic marking of direct objects in Eastern Mansi’, paper presented at Leipzig University. Virtanen, Susanna (2014). ‘Pragmatic direct object marking in Eastern Mansi’, Linguistics 52: 391–413. Virtanen, Susanna (2015). ‘Transitivity in Eastern Mansi’. PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki. Visser, Fredericus Theodorus (1963–73). An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: Brill. Volodina, Anna (2009). ‘Pro-drop im frühen Neuhochdeutschen’, in Gisela Brandt and Rainer Hünecke (eds), Historische Soziolinguistik des Deutschen IX. Stuttgart: Heinz, 51–66.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi



399

Volodina, Anna (2011). ‘Null ist nicht gleich Null: Zur diachronen Entwicklung von Nullsubjekten im Deutschen’, in Jörg Riecke (ed.), Historische Semantik (Jahrbuch für Germanistische Sprachgeschichte 2). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 269–83. Volodina, Anna and Helmut Weiß (2016). ‘Diachronic Development of null subjects in German’, in Sam Featherston and Yannick Versley (eds), Firm Foundations: Quantitative Approaches to Grammar and Grammatical Change (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 187–205. von Stechow, Arnim (1984). ‘Comparing semantic theories of comparison’, Journal of Semantics 3: 1–77. Wackernagel, J. (1892). Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333. Walkden, George (2013). ‘The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction’, Diachronica 30(1): 95–122. Walkden, George (2014). Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 12). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Walkden, George, and Anne Breitbarth (2019). ‘Complexity as L2-difficulty: Implications for syntactic change’, Theoretical Linguistics 45(3–4): 183–209. Wallace, Daniel B. (1996). Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Ward, Norman (1950). The Canadian House of Commons: Representation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Warner, Anthony (1993). English Auxiliaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watanabe, Akira (1992). ‘Wh-in-situ, subjacency, and chain formation’. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 2. Cambridge, MA. Watanabe, Akira (2004). ‘Parametrization of quantificational determiners and headinternal relatives’, Language and Linguistics 5(1): 59–97. Watanabe, Akira (2009). ‘A parametric shift in the D-system in Early Middle English: Relativization, articles, adjectival inflection, and indeterminates’, in Paola Crisma and Giuseppe Longobardi (eds), Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 358–74. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199560547.003.0021. Weise, Oskar (1918). ‘Die vergleichenden Konjunktionen in den deutschen Mundarten’, Zeitschrift für deutsche Mundarten 13: 169–81. Weiß, Helmut (1998). Syntax des Bairischen: Studien zur Grammatik einer natürlichen Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Weiß, Helmut (2005). ‘Inflected Complementizers in Continental West Germanic Dialects’, Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 72(2): 148–66. Weiß, Helmut (2015). ‘When the subject follows the object: On a curiosity in the syntax of personal pronouns in some German dialects’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18: 65–92. Werker, Janet F., John H. V. Gilbert, Keith Humphrey, and Richard C. Tees (1981). ‘Developmental aspects of cross-language speech perception’, Child Development 52: 349–55. Werker, Janet F. and Richard C. Tees (1984). ‘Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life’, Infant Behavior and Development 7: 49–63. Westcott, Brooke Foss and Fenton John Anthony Hort (eds) ([1881] n.d.) The New Testament in the Original Greek. qBible.com, http://www.qbible.com/greek-newtestament/.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

400



Wild, Rochelle (2016). ‘The inflected infinitive in Galician.’ Year Abroad Project, supervised by Dr. Ioanna Sitaridou, University of Cambridge. Willis, David, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth (eds) (2013). The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean. Vol. 1: Case Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wiltschko, Martina (1998). ‘On the syntax and semantics of (relative) pronouns and determiners’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2(2): 143–81. doi: 10.1023/ A:1009719229992. Wiltschko, Martina (2008a). ‘Person hierarchy effects without a person hierarchy’, in Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson (eds), Agreement Restrictions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 281–314. Wiltschko, Martina (2008b). ‘The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26(3): 639–94. Wischer, Ilse (2010). ‘On the use of beon and wesan in Old English’, in Ursula Lenker, Judith Huber, and Robert Mailhammer (eds), English Historical Linguistics 2008: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, vol. 1. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Witkoś, Jacek (1998). The Syntax of Clitics: Steps towards a Minimalist Account. Poznań: Motivex. Wood, Jim (2015). Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. Cham: Springer. Wood, Jim, Matthew Barros, and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson (2016). ‘Clausal ellipsis and case (mis)matching in Icelandic’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 96: 49–90. Wood, Jim, Matthew Barros, and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson (2020). ‘Case mismatching in Icelandic clausal ellipsis’, Journal of Linguistics 56(2): 399–439. Wood, Jim and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson (2014). ‘Icelandic verbal agreement and pronounantecedent relations’, in Chris Collins (ed.), Cross-Linguistic Studies of Imposters and Pronominal Agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 196–237. Woolford, Ellen (1997). ‘Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective, and accusative’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 679–728. Woolford, Ellen (2006). ‘Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 111–30. Wu, Chun-Ming (2013). ‘The Syntax of Linking Constructions in Atayal and Paiwan’. Ph.D dissertation, National Tsinghua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. Wurmbrand, Susi (2001). Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Wurmbrand, Susi (2004). ‘Two types of restructuring: Lexical vs. functional’, Lingua 114(8): 991–1014. Yang, Charles (2002). Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yang, Charles (2016). The Price of Linguistic Productivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Yip, Moira, Joan Maling, and Ray Jackendoff (1987). ‘Case in tiers’, Language 63(2): 217–50. Yoon, James (2004). ‘Non-nominative (major) subjects and case stacking in Korean’, in Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), Non-Nominative Subjects, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 265–314. Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling, and Höskuldur Thráinsson (1985). ‘Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3(4): 441–83. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. (2004). Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi



401

Zaliznjak, Andrej A. (2008). Drevnerusskie ènklitiki. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury. Zamparelli, Roberto (2005). ‘The structure of (in)definiteness: Issues in the form and interpretation of noun phrases’, Lingua 115: 915–36. Zanuttini, Raffaella (1997). Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. New York: Oxford University Press. Zanuttini, Raffaella (2010). ‘La negazione’, in Giampaolo Salvi and Lorenzo Renzi (eds), Grammatica dell’italiano antico, vol. 1. Bologna: Il Mulino, 569–82. Zec, Draga (2005). ‘Prosodic Differences among Function Words’, Phonology 22: 77–112. Zeijlstra, Hedde (2004). ‘Sentential negation and Negative Concord’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Zeijlstra, Hedde (2008). Negative Concord is syntactic agreement. MS. University of Amsterdam, http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000645. Zeijlstra, Hedde (2011). ‘On the syntactically complex status of negative indefinites’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 14: 111–38. Zeijlstra, Hedde (2014). ‘On the uninterpretability of interpretable features’, in Peter Kosta, Steven L. Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork, and Lilia Schürcks (eds), Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 109–28. Zeller, Jochen (2006). ‘Raising out of finite CP in Nguni: The case of fanele’, Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 24(3): 255–75. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (1982). ‘On the Relationship of the Lexicon to Syntax’. PhD dissertation, MIT. Zweig, Eytan (2009). ‘Number-neutral bare plurals and the multiplicity implicature’, Linguistics and Philosophy 34(4): 353–407.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

Index of Languages Alemannic 16 Balkan 64–5, 68–79, 81, 83 Bavarian 16 Bulgarian 71–2, 144–7, 150–1, 154–5 Chukchee 346 Coptic Egyptian 3

Medieval Greek 170, 260–1 Northern Greek 246, 254 Of 166, 172–3 Pontic Greek, see Romeyka Romeyka 162–73, 175–7 Southern Italian Greek 176 Standard Modern Greek 8, 166–7, 241, 245 Sürmene 164–73, 175, 177 Tonya 173

Dutch 17, 19–20, 59, 123, 304 English 4–5, 8, 15, 17–21, 23, 26–7, 30, 40–3, 52–3, 62, 71, 122, 144, 206, 210–15, 219, 221, 225–6, 231–3, 236, 245, 247–8, 253, 266, 276, 278, 280, 304, 309, 355, 359, 364 Early Modern English 212–13, 216, 217, 219, 221–3, 226, 228–9, 231, 233, 235–6 Middle English 42–3, 213, 215, 218, 222, 223, 226–30, 233, 236 Old English 42, 55, 62, 213, 215, 217–9, 222–4, 226, 228–9, 233–4, 236, 363 Faroese 255, 303, 315 Finnish 100–1, 337 French 71, 119, 126–8, 133 Old French 114

Hawai’ian 363 Hebrew 101, 347 Hessian 16 Hungarian 5, 17–19, 24–9, 31–6, 38, 40–62, 324–7, 333–5, 337–8, 343, 345–6 Proto-Hungarian 327, 335, 337–8, 345 Icelandic 9, 106, 255, 282, 301–19 Old Icelandic 106, 108 Indo-European 3, 88, 127–8, 242, 348 Indo-Germanic, see Indo-European Insular Scandinavian 2, 301 Inuktitut 300 Italian 2, 69, 99, 107, 117, 122, 126–7, 133, 358 Italo-Romance 164 Japanese 55, 283

Galician 161–2, 165–9, 172–4, 177 German 5, 15–24, 26–7, 29–31, 33–6, 38, 40–1, 45–6, 52, 106, 108, 121, 127, 132, 214, 303 Early New High German 21, 85, 87, 90, 103, 108 Low German 16 Middle High German 19–21 Middle Low German 6, 84–96, 99–109 Old High German 19–21, 33, 84–5 Old Low German 118 Swiss German 21 Germanic 4, 6, 40, 43, 46, 53, 55, 62, 74, 84, 96, 100–1, 103–4, 107–8, 130, 303 North West Germanic 101 Proto-West Germanic 364 West Germanic 19–21, 364 Greek 4, 7–8, 41, 46, 72, 161, 166–7, 176–7, 213–16, 220–1, 225, 227, 365 Classical Greek 8, 241–2, 246, 261

Kamchadal 346 Khanty 324, 327–32, 335–7, 339, 344–5 Komi 337, 339 Korean 282–3 Koryak 346 Latin (Classical) 113–15, 121–38, 172–3, 178–209 Early Latin 132 Late Latin 6–7, 114, 128–31, 134, 137–8, 178–80, 182–3, 186–9, 191–2, 194–6, 201, 203–4, 206–9 Latin Vulgate 213–16, 220, 224–7 Luso-Romance 162, 164 Macedonian 7, 139, 144–6, 151, 154–5, 158–9 Mainland Scandinavian 2 Mansi 327–9, 331, 337–45

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

404

  

Mordvin 339 Neapolitan Old Neapolitan 164 Niger-Congo languages 3 Norwegian Middle Norwegian 86, 87, 90, 108 Old Norwegian 86, 108 Old Church Slavonic 148–9 Old Saxon 19–21, 84, 89, 91, 101, 103, 107–8 Old Serbian 149–50 Old Slovenian 150 Ostyak, see Khanty

Romance 6, 31, 64–5, 68–72, 74, 76, 80–1, 83, 113–15, 121–3, 126–35, 137 Ibero-Romance 7 Romanian 6, 64–6, 69–70, 72–5, 77–8, 80–3, 116–17, 121, 126, 133 Old Romanian 64–5, 68, 70, 72, 74–7, 80, 82–3 Rukai 274–6, 287, 289–93, 296, 298–99 Russian 116, 304, 332 Old Russian 7, 139, 143, 146, 151–2, 155–60 Samoan 363 Sanskrit 358 Vedic Sanskrit 365 Sardinian 133, 136, 163, 165 Nuorese 163 Seediq 282, 284, 290, 295–6, 298 Selkup 336 Serbo-Croatian 145–9, 151, 153 Spanish 2, 69, 99, 117, 133, 167, 173–4, 199, 211, 347, 358

Paiwan 274–5, 279–81, 283, 290, 294, 296, 300 Polish 141–3, 155 Old Polish 7, 139, 151–3, 158–9 Polynesian 363 Malayo-Polynesian 274–5, 290, 296, 363 Niuean 282 Proto-Polynesian 363 Portuguese 161–7, 172, 174, 176 Brazilian Portuguese 3–4, 163–4, 174, 176 Classical Portuguese 163, 166 European Portuguese 4, 161–2, 167, 174, 199 Mozambican Portuguese 161 Proto-Austronesian 267, 274, 287, 290–3, 295–7 Proto-Indo-European 365 Proto-Ugric 323, 345–6 Proto-Uralic 9–10, 41, 57, 323–4, 339, 344–7 Puyuma 274, 276–7, 287–96

Udmurt 337, 339–41, 345–6 Upper Saxon 16

Q’anjob’al 298–9

Vogul, see Mansi

Tagalog 265–7, 270–2, 275–6, 278–81, 283, 285–6, 289, 291, 299 Telugu 358–9 Thuringian 16 Tsou 274–7, 280, 287, 289–90, 292–7 Tundra Nenets 331–2, 336, 341, 344–6

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

Index of Subjects A/A´ partition 267, 276, 281–2 ablative 242, 249, 365–6 absolutive 8, 252, 265, 266–7, 270–2, 276–7, 279, 282–4, 297–9, 359 accusative 8, 44–5, 47–8, 50, 75, 84, 96, 130, 143, 147–9, 152, 156–8, 241–7, 249–54, 256–62, 267, 270, 283, 287, 289–90, 292–3, 296–7, 300–2, 304–18, 323–4, 328, 337–47, 365–6 acquisition 9, 57, 113, 114, 117–18, 120–1, 128, 174, 301–2, 304, 308, 310–13, 316, 319, 349, 350–3, 357, 360–1, 366 adjunct 46, 69, 80, 88, 96, 122, 154, 161, 174–5, 199, 212, 215, 225, 228, 231, 235–6, 279, 329 adposition 3, 257 postposition 44, 358 preposition 8, 152, 156–8, 161, 241–5, 248–50, 252–3, 255, 257–63, 278–9, 294, 358 affix hopping 176 Agr 6–7, 64–5, 69–72, 74–5, 77, 82–3, 107, 162, 166–7, 170, 174, 345 Agree 3, 81, 101, 116, 120, 122, 135–6, 140, 268, 270, 272–3, 284, 294, 299, 333, 341 agreement 3–4, 9, 45, 52, 59–60, 64, 68–71, 74, 85, 94–5, 97, 100, 106–8, 135, 140, 158–9, 162–3, 165–7, 170, 172–3, 175, 210, 218, 243, 270, 305, 323–46, 352, 355, 358, 364–5 alignment 265, 267, 275, 287–8, 290, 292–300 analogy/analogical 19, 21, 33–4, 36, 38, 120, 162, 170, 172–5, 256, 330 anaphor/anaphoric 59, 64, 66, 70–2, 74, 96, 101, 102 anaphoric tense 64, 70–2 animacy 329, 332, 347, 362 animacy hierarchy 332 aorist 144–6, 149, 150–1, 154, 158, 170, 214, 216, 220–1 applicative 248, 250, 256, 258, 275, 288–9, 291, 293–5 aspect/aspectual 3, 143–6, 154, 232, 270, 288–9 auxiliary 7, 124–5, 141, 145–7, 155, 157–9, 160, 171, 175–6, 178, 182, 186–9, 197, 201, 204, 206–9, 212, 232, 295–6, 298

binding 74, 97 Borer–Chomsky Conjecture (BCC) 2–10, 29, 38, 43, 53, 61, 83, 113, 117, 119, 138, 263, 303, 306–8, 317, 323, 356 cartography 65, 68, 70, 81 case inherent case 8–9, 241–2, 249–50, 262, 266, 268, 270, 272–3, 284, 287, 292, 297, 299–300, 304, 314 lexical case 241–2, 248–50, 252–3, 262, 302, 304, 310, 314 quirky case 250, 252 structural case 2, 249, 272–3, 281, 297, 304, 313 causative 161, 169, 171 C/D/Edge-linking 101, 103, 106–7, 330 chain 29, 72, 75, 122, 139 clause typing 29, 54, 56, 68, 80 cleft 234, 275–7, 280, 282, 284–5, 290–1 clitic 6–7, 69, 75, 78, 88, 104–9, 126, 129, 135, 139–43, 145–60, 168, 192, 194, 205, 248, 254, 256, 294–6, 298 cliticization 5, 43, 50, 62, 146–50, 154, 158, 195, 206, 248 comparative clause 5, 15–38 comparative operator 5, 15, 17–18, 20–1, 23–7, 29–34, 36–8 complementizer 5, 15, 17–27, 29–34, 37–8, 42–4, 46, 52–3, 55, 62, 65, 67–8, 70, 76–83, 85, 88, 104, 126, 148, 161, 163, 165, 171 conditional 80, 88, 92, 211–12, 215, 226, 231, 234–6 conjunction reduction 96, 98–100, 108 control 6–7, 64–83, 159, 163, 165–9, 174–5, 177, 283 Movement Theory of Control (MTC) 72, 74 non-obligatory control (NOC) 66–8, 71–3, 75, 76–7, 81–3, 163, 166–7, 174 obligatory control (OC) 6–7, 64–83, 163, 166, 169, 175, 177 partial control 165, 168, 174 copula 45, 68, 189, 195–6, 232, 275 copy 7, 170, 173 Correspondence Problem 360

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

406

  

CP (Complementizer Phrase) 4–6, 20, 22–3, 26, 28, 30–8, 42–3, 46, 48–50, 53, 62, 68–73, 75, 77, 81, 87–8, 92–5, 100–3, 105–9, 116, 121–2, 125–6, 130–1, 135–7, 162, 168, 171, 193, 251, 267–74, 276–88, 292, 297 C-T Inheritance 267–70, 274, 286 cycle 18, 34, 42–3, 64–5, 68, 76, 81–2, 128, 135, 138, 160, 175, 177 dative 5, 44, 143, 147–9, 156, 241–6, 248–62, 275, 278, 294, 301–14, 318 Dative Substitution 9, 301–9, 313–19 defective intervention 101 deficiency hierarchy 141–2 definiteness 5, 43, 59, 62, 211, 325–7, 338, 344, 347 definite object 325–8, 333, 337–40, 344 degree equative clause 15–22, 24–6, 29–31, 33–4, 36, 38 demonstrative 5, 40–53, 55–62, 339 Dependent Case 8, 241–2, 247, 250–3, 261–3 Determiner Phrase (DP) 6, 8–9, 46, 49–50, 57–8, 60–1, 64, 70, 72, 74–5, 101, 103, 105–7, 109, 122, 129, 135–7, 148, 159, 193–4, 198, 200, 202, 205, 241–3, 248–57, 260–1, 265–8, 270–4, 276, 278–86, 288, 290, 292, 297–9, 303, 325–6, 333 differential object marking 9, 323, 344, 346–7 differential object-verb agreement 9, 324, 337–8, 341, 345–6 diminutive 124 discourse drop 87, 100, 108 dissociated 7, 167, 170–1, 175, 177 Distributed Morphology 162, 230, 303, 307, 318 ditransitives 8, 241, 244–51, 254, 256, 259–60, 329 D-linking 330 do-support 359 double negation 6, 113–14, 116, 118, 121–4, 127, 130–3, 136 doubling 18–19, 22–4, 26, 29, 34, 36–7, 122, 124, 130–1, 138, 248, 262 Doubly Filled Comp Filter 20, 43 downward entailment 29 drag-chain 29 dual 70, 141, 158, 160, 211–12, 219, 331, 354, 366 economy 33, 57, 80, 114, 117, 120, 140, 317 ellipsis 69, 87 Elsewhere Condition 9, 302–3, 311, 313, 316 emphatic 124, 126, 128, 132, 134, 138, 206, 290, 358 ergative 8–9, 252, 265, 267, 270, 272, 275, 282, 284, 287–300

expletive 2, 30–1, 36, 46, 84, 87, 95, 107, 121, 136, 359 Extended Projection Principle (EPP) 2, 125, 129, 140, 167, 191–3, 198, 200, 202, 205, 284, 298 external argument 7–9, 192–3, 198, 200, 202, 205, 251, 265–6, 272–3, 275, 281–2, 299–300, 329 extrametrical/extrametricality 7, 196–7, 202, 206 extraposition 199–201 feature feature economy 57, 114, 120 feature hierarchy 17–20, 302 feature reanalysis 6, 114, 123, 128–9, 131, 137 Feature Scattering Principle 105 interpretable feature 114–17, 120–1, 210 phi-feature (Φ-feature) 2, 7, 69–70, 72, 83, 101, 103, 105–7, 109, 166–7, 169–70, 172–5, 177, 192, 218, 302, 316, 344 uninterpretable feature 4, 101, 103, 114–17, 120–1, 140, 269–70, 286, 352 Fin 6, 64–5, 68–70, 72, 75–83, 101 Final-Over-Final Constraint (FOFC) 193–4 finite 7, 26, 36–7, 41–2, 53, 64, 70, 77, 79–82, 87–8, 99–101, 104, 117, 124, 126, 130–1, 143, 159, 171, 173, 177–8, 192, 211, 217–18, 221–2, 228–30, 232, 242, 287–90, 292–3, 295–6, 324, 337, 345, 365 finiteness 25–6, 68–70, 79–81, 106, 337 fronting 147, 285–6, 290, 362 focus 56, 114, 128, 131, 133–8, 148, 269, 284–6, 290, 326, 332–3, 337 Focus 6, 78, 80, 126, 131, 135–8 Force 64–5, 68–9, 72–3, 76–7, 79–83 free coindexing 106 future 8, 146, 175, 210–28, 230–1, 233–6, 289 gap 41, 81, 91, 96–8, 100, 108–9, 230, 281 genitive case 8, 241, 243, 249, 250–1, 258, 260, 265–6, 268, 273, 282, 287, 292, 300 gradience 170 grammar competition 76, 172–3, 256, 261, 313 grammaticalization 4–7, 21, 33–4, 57, 60, 62, 81, 114, 122, 127, 131, 134, 139–42, 160, 176–7, 232, 347 degrammaticalization 7, 139–41, 143–4, 151, 154–6, 159–60 head directionality parameter 3 headedness (head-initial vs head-final) 179–84, 186, 191, 193, 201, 348, 358–60; see also word order head movement 129, 192, 206, 270

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

   Head Preference Principle 57, 60, 140 hypercorrection 313 imperative 80, 87–8, 167, 294–5, 341 imperfective 143–5, 154, 182 incorporation 3, 8, 197, 248, 250, 279, 294 indefinites 6–7, 113–16, 119, 124, 127, 131, 134–5, 137–8, 339 indicative 65, 69, 72–3, 76–7, 82, 189, 214–21, 223–7, 229, 247 indirect objects 241–2, 244–7, 249, 250, 252–4, 256–7, 260–3, 297 infinitive 7, 64–9, 71–7, 79–82, 92, 161–78, 180–1, 184–5, 231, 235 inflection 8, 65, 69–72, 78–9, 82, 128, 140, 192, 211, 219, 222–4, 229, 231–2, 235–6, 253, 309–10 Inflectional Phrase (IP) 46, 49–50, 232, 251 information structure 74–5, 143, 347 innovation 43, 65, 107, 144, 149, 171, 290–1, 295–7 instructive 329 instrumental 242, 249, 252–4, 260, 262, 329 interface 9, 115, 121, 123, 136, 197, 269, 271, 276, 307, 332, 352–3 interrogative pronoun 40–2, 44, 53–6, 59–62, 88, 275, 277–82, 284, 348, 357, 359 intonational phrase 155, 194–6, 198–200 intransitive 265–6, 272, 275, 288–9, 292–3, 295 Inverse Accusative-Marking Constraint 338, 341–5 Inverse Agreement Constraint 324, 332–7, 339, 342, 344, 346 Inverse Topicality Constraint 333, 342, 347 irrealis 72, 80, 217, 293, 295 island 69, 246, 277 Jespersen’s Cycle 128–9, 135, 138 Kase Phrase (KP) 262 language acquisition 9, 57, 113, 114, 117–18, 120–1, 128, 174, 301–2, 304, 308, 310, 312–13, 316, 319, 349–53, 357, 360–1, 366 language/linguistic variation 10, 116, 302, 306, 308, 319 left periphery 4–5, 10, 18, 22, 34, 50, 52, 84, 101, 106, 131, 135, 235, 285, 326 lexicon 2–3, 29, 43, 113, 117, 119, 196, 206, 209, 263, 306–7, 323, 349–57, 359–60, 362, 365 Lexicon Optimization 351, 353–4, 360 Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) 356 linearization 3, 68, 77, 124, 193, 326 linker 101, 106, 266

407

locality restrictions 267, 272 locative 59, 242, 253–4, 260, 262, 275, 278–9, 291, 294 Logical Form (LF) 4, 7, 120–2, 124, 167 long-distance 81, 131, 140, 163, 165–6, 281–3, 345, 352 Mapping Hypothesis 270 matrix degree element 22, 26, 30–1, 33–5 maximality operator 29–31, 34, 36 Merge 3, 80, 115, 122, 125, 136, 140, 192, 232–3, 320, 356 Minimalism 10, 68, 70, 325, 348, 356 Minimality 267 modals 8, 76, 161–9, 171–8, 180–1, 183–4, 207, 210–13, 216–17, 219–20, 222, 224–5, 227–33, 235–6, 364 monoclausality 166–8, 170–1, 176–7, 291 morpheme 167, 170–1, 173, 175, 177, 215, 248, 278, 289, 324–5, 328, 332, 339–40, 342, 346, 352, 355–6, 363, 365–6 morphological (m-)case approaches 251 morphosyntactic change 9, 301, 316, 319 morphosyntactic features 72, 364–6 morphosyntactic redundancy 120–2, 129, 131–3, 136, 138 Move 119, 126, 129–30, 140, 192, 233, 267, 272–3, 282–4, 286, 292, 297 Movement 1–4, 8–9, 69, 74, 85, 88, 93, 104, 121–2, 125–6, 129–30, 135–6, 140, 151, 192–3, 199, 206, 248, 265–70, 272, 274, 276–87, 292, 297, 299, 324, 326, 329, 331, 335, 348, 355, 357, 362 focus movement 136, 285–6 head movement 129, 192, 206, 270 NP/DP-movement 8, 267, 270, 272, 274, 281, 283, 285–6 rightward movement 199 scrambling 142, 155, 271, 283, 326 Subject-Verb inversion (Subject–AUX inversion) 92 verb movement 69, 88, 93, 104, 126, 129, 324 V-to-C movement 85, 93, 126 V-to-T movement 2, 125, 151 wh-movement 1–2, 268–9, 276–7, 280, 348, 355, 362 narrow syntax 3, 105, 306, 356 negation 5–6, 18, 21, 30–1, 36, 69, 75, 78, 113–38, 168, 182, 184–6, 191–2, 204–8, 232, 234, 295, 359 Negation Phrase (NegP) 6, 68–9, 79, 121–2, 124, 128–31, 137, 193, 205

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

408

  

Negative Concord 6, 113–14, 116–23, 127–32, 134, 137–8 negative marker (NM) 6, 114–19, 121–9, 131, 133, 136–8 negative polarity 18, 21, 26–9, 31, 36 negative polarity item (NPI) 36, 75, 116, 118, 128, 131, 134, 138 Neogrammarian hypothesis 350 nominalization 268, 287–93, 295–7, 300 nominative 8–9, 27, 45, 48, 66, 75, 96, 159, 167–8, 242, 245, 247, 250, 252, 265–8, 270–2, 274–6, 278–89, 291–5, 297–9, 304, 310, 313, 341, 365–6 non-degree equatives 22, 30, 33–5 non-finite 7, 64, 70–1, 82, 143, 177–8, 218, 229–30, 232, 337, 345 past participle 178–9, 182–5, 187–8, 203 non-future 217 Noun Phrase (NP) 3, 58, 60–1, 87, 105–6, 148, 252, 308, 325–6, 340 null subject 2, 6, 84, 87, 95–6, 100–3, 159, 355; see also pro-drop Null Subject Parameter 2 n-words (NCIs) 114–15, 117–18, 122, 131, 133–5, 137–8 object agreement 3, 324–6, 330–2, 335, 337–9, 341, 344 oblique 50, 249, 257–61, 263, 283–4, 297, 304, 307, 310, 313–14, 318, 329 operator 5, 15, 17–18, 20–1, 23–38, 41–5, 48–9, 51–2, 54, 56–7, 62, 80, 101–3, 107, 109, 114–16, 120–2, 124–5, 127, 130, 135–8, 158, 167, 276, 280, 282, 284, 288 Optimality Theory (OT) 352–3 ornamental morphology 162–3, 166, 168–70, 173, 177 parameter 1–3, 6, 65, 83, 113, 118–19, 127, 174, 263, 306, 348–50, 357–8 macro-parameter 1–3, 118 micro-parameter 2–3, 65, 83, 118 particle 34, 72, 88, 114, 126, 128, 131, 133–6, 148, 176, 257, 266 passive 73, 116, 124, 154–5, 178, 182, 192, 195, 204, 220, 250–2, 257, 265–6, 272–3, 282, 295 past 8–9, 80, 144–6, 150–2, 154, 170, 178–9, 182–5, 187–8, 203, 210, 216–18, 221–2, 224, 227, 230, 279, 299 past participle 178–9, 182–5, 187–8 perfective 124, 143–5, 154, 265, 288 Person-Case Constraint 341–2 Person-Specific Retention 302–3, 308–13, 315–19

Phase (Theory) 268–71, 282–3, 285–6, 298–300 phase/phasal 9, 64, 69, 73, 75, 80, 83 phi-features 2, 7, 69–70, 72, 166–7, 169–70, 172–5, 177 phonological change 10, 57, 353 Phonological/Phonetic Form (PF) 7, 9, 167, 196, 206, 251, 303, 306–8, 317–18, 326, 355 phonological phrase 8, 194–200, 202–3 pied-piping 129 plain infinitives 166, 171–3, 176 possessive 45, 50, 98, 100, 325–6, 338, 342–3 prefixed verbs 250, 258, 260 prescriptivism 161–2, 164–5, 174, 177, 309 Principles and Parameters 1 probabilistic rules 2–3, 13, 16, 19, 302–3, 316 pro-drop 47, 84–5, 87, 99, 100, 102, 107–8, 324, 326, 348, 350, 355, 358 pronominal clitic 7, 146–7, 156, 160, 256 pronoun hierarchy 141–2, 160 prose rhythm 187–9 prosodic deficiency 141–2, 154, 160, 195–6, 206 prosodic hierarchy 194–5 prosodic word 7, 194–6, 206–9 pseudo-inflected 162 quantifier 54–7, 59–61, 75, 211, 326 quantifier phrase (QP) 54–7, 59–61 quotative 359 raising 64, 68–72, 74–5, 83, 150, 167, 256, 262, 283 realis 69, 80, 82, 288, 293–6 reanalysis 5–6, 8, 18–19, 26, 31, 33–5, 38, 41–3, 45, 46, 48–50, 52–3, 56–62, 65, 76, 80–2, 108, 113–15, 120, 123, 128–31, 135–7, 140–1, 143, 152, 156, 158–9, 166, 171, 173, 182, 212, 228, 230, 235, 241, 256, 260–2, 290–2, 294–5, 300, 326–7, 344, 346, 355, 359, 361, 366 rebracketing 46, 50 reconstruction 5, 9–10, 114, 127, 129, 131, 287, 290–3, 321–3, 345–9, 359–62, 364–6 referential null subjects (RNS) 84–96, 98–103, 105–9 reflexive 156–7 relative clause 8, 20, 26, 40–62, 88, 94–6, 106–7, 215, 221, 225, 265, 272, 275, 280, 282, 284, 287–92, 297 relative cycle 18, 42, 43 relative pronoun 5, 40–3, 45–7, 51–3, 55–6, 59–62, 88, 94, 106, 354, 362 Relativized Minimality 267 relic 148–50, 248, 326, 333, 337, 341, 343–4 restructuring 75, 78, 131, 168, 171, 194

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/2/2021, SPi

   second position clitic 7, 146–7, 149, 150–1, 155, 158, 160, 195 semantic bleaching 77 specialization 80–1, 302–3, 311, 315–19 specifier 20, 33, 56–9, 125, 127, 129, 151, 192, 270, 272, 283, 307, 326, 330–2, 339, 341 Spell-Out 3, 65, 74–5, 77, 83, 167, 206, 251, 269, 271, 276, 282 split-CP hypothesis 136 strict layer hypothesis 195–7, 202 strong pronoun 105, 141–2, 153–4 Subjacency 1 Subject Phrase (SubjP) 191–3, 197–200, 202–3, 205, 330 subject raising 70–2, 74–5, 83 subjunctive 64–9, 71–4, 76–7, 79–82, 172–3, 176, 186, 214–18, 220–1, 223–4, 227, 229, 235, 294–6, 366 superessive case 49 Superiority effect 280–1 supine 66, 69, 74–7, 79, 81–2 surface representation 36, 58, 61, 120, 125, 130, 194, 206, 229, 276, 298, 307, 352–3, 355–60, 366 syntactic reconstruction 5, 9–10, 323–4, 348–9, 360–2, 364, 366 tense 3, 7, 27, 64, 70–2, 80, 82, 101, 139, 141, 143–6, 148–54, 158, 160, 167, 182, 195, 210–13, 215–18, 220–2, 224–30, 232–3, 235–6, 279, 289, 324, 364 Tense Phrase (TP) 4, 7, 9, 23, 32–5, 42, 68–70, 78–9, 88, 101, 103, 105–7, 116, 121–2, 124–5, 127, 130–1, 136–7, 150, 158, 160, 193–4, 198, 200–2, 205, 251, 266–9, 286, 325, 330, 332, 338–41, 345

409

loss of TP 150–1, 158, 160 that-trace effect 2, 360 Tolerance Principle 302, 314, 316, 318 topicality hierarchy 332, 334–6, 342 topic(alization) 272, 284–5, 332, 335, 342 topic drop 84, 86, 93, 100–1, 103, 108–9 transitive 8, 241, 245–7, 249–1, 254, 259, 265, 270, 272, 275, 282, 288–9, 291–5, 297, 299–300, 365–6 transparency 36, 57–8, 61, 124, 250 unaccusative 252 underlying representation 253, 354–5, 362 underspecification 34, 55–6, 59, 106 uninterpretable features 4, 101, 103, 114–16, 140, 269–70, 286, 352 Universal Grammar (UG) 1–3, 8, 39, 117, 307, 349–50, 352–3, 357, 359–60, 366 verb-adjacent clitic 7, 143, 146–52, 154–5, 158 vocative case 242, 245 V-to-C movement 85, 93, 126 Wackernagel position 6, 87–8, 95, 100, 102–9 Wackernagel’s Law 6, 87–8, 95, 100, 102–9 weak pronoun 7, 88, 139, 141–3, 151, 154–6, 158–60 wh-feature 9, 278–81, 281, 286 word order 3, 7, 125, 178–87, 182–4, 186–7, 191–209, 270, 276, 290, 332, 345 OV 88, 129–30, 168, 201 SOV 192, 329, 335, 345 Verb second (V2) 4, 6, 85–6, 88, 91–3, 99–101, 103–4, 108 VO 124, 129–31, 168, 201, 204

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

OXFORD STUDIES IN DIACHRONIC AND HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS General editors Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge Advisory editors Cynthia L. Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; George Walkden, University of Konstanz; David Willis, University of Oxford  1 From Latin to Romance Morphosyntactic Typology and Change Adam Ledgeway 2 Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change Edited by Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo, and Juanito Avelar 3 Case in Semitic Roles, Relations, and Reconstruction Rebecca Hasselbach 4 The Boundaries of Pure Morphology Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives Edited by Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden, and John Charles Smith 5 The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume I: Case Studies Edited by David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth 6 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Graeme Trousdale 7 Word Order in Old Italian Cecilia Poletto 8 Diachrony and Dialects Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy Edited by Paola Benincà, Adam Ledgeway, and Nigel Vincent

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

9 Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages Edited by Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli 10 Vowel Length from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro 11 The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax Edited by Katalin É. Kiss 12 Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic George Walkden 13 The History of Low German Negation Anne Breitbarth 14 Arabic Indefinites, Interrogatives, and Negators A Linguistic History of Western Dialects David Wilmsen 15 Syntax over Time Lexical, Morphological, and Information-Structural Interactions Edited by Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden 16 Syllable and Segment in Latin Ranjan Sen 17 Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit The Syntax and Semantics of Adjectival Verb Forms John J. Lowe 18 Verb Movement and Clause Structure in Old Romanian Virginia Hill and Gabriela Alboiu 19 The Syntax of Old Romanian Edited by Gabriela Pană Dindelegan 20 Grammaticalization and the Rise of Configurationality in Indo-Aryan Uta Reinöhl 21 The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic Cycles of Alignment Change Eleanor Coghill 22 Portuguese Relative Clauses in Synchrony and Diachrony Adriana Cardoso

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

23 Micro-change and Macro-change in Diachronic Syntax Edited by Eric Mathieu and Robert Truswell 24 The Development of Latin Clause Structure A Study of the Extended Verb Phrase Lieven Danckaert 25 Transitive Nouns and Adjectives Evidence from Early Indo-Aryan John. J. Lowe 26 Quantitative Historical Linguistics A Corpus Framework Gard B. Jenset and Barbara McGillivray 27 Gender from Latin to Romance History, Geography, Typology Michele Loporcaro 28 Clause Structure and Word Order in the History of German Edited by Agnes Jäger, Gisella Ferraresi, and Helmut Weiß 29 Word Order Change Edited by Ana Maria Martins and Adriana Cardoso 30 Arabic Historical Dialectology Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Approaches Edited by Clive Holes 31 Grammaticalization from a Typological Perspective Edited by Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine 32 Negation and Nonveridicality in the History of Greek Katerina Chatzopoulou 33 Indefinites between Latin and Romance Chiara Gianollo 34 Verb Second in Medieval Romance Sam Wolfe 35 Referential Null Subjects in Early English Kristian A. Rusten

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

36 Word Order and Parameter Change in Romanian A Comparative Romance Perspective Alexandru Nicolae 37 Cycles in Language Change Edited by Miriam Bouzouita, Anne Breitbarth, Lieven Danckaert, and Elisabeth Witzenhausen 38 Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives André Zampaulo 39 Dative External Possessors in Early English Cynthia L. Allen 40 The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume II: Patterns and Processes Anne Breitbarth, Christopher Lucas, and David Willis 41 Variation and Change in Gallo-Romance Grammar Edited by Sam Wolfe and Martin Maiden 42 Phonetic Causes of Sound Change The Palatalization and Assibilation of Obstruents Daniel Recasens 43 Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change Edited by Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson   Noun-Based Constructions in the History of Portuguese and Spanish Patrícia Amaral and Manuel Delicado Cantero Redevelopment of Case Systems in Indo-Aryan Miriam Butt Classical Portuguese Grammar and History Charlotte Galves, Aroldo de Andrade, Christiane Namiuti, and Maria Clara Paixão de Sousa Morphological Borrowing Francesco Gardani Nominal Expressions and Language Change From Early Latin to Modern Romance Giuliana Giusti

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 6/2/2021, SPi

A Study in Grammatical Change The Modern Greek Weak Subject Pronoun τος and its Implications for Language Change and Structure Brian D. Joseph Reconstructing Pre-Islamic Arabic Dialects Alexander Magidow Iranian Syntax in Classical Armenian Robin Meyer