The V-2 rule in Old English conjunct clauses
-
Anna Cichosz
Abstract
This study shows that Old English conjunct clauses, i.e. main declarative clauses introduced by the coordinating conjunctions and and ac, resemble non-conjunct main clauses as far as the V-2 rule is concerned. Most importantly, this study reveals that the mechanism of SV inversion observed in OE conjunct clauses works according to all the principles defined for non-conjunct main clauses. The only difference, driven by the main discourse function of conjunct clauses, is that the clause-initial element in these clauses is usually the subject. However, if the subject is preceded by some other fronted constituent (e.g. an object, a complement, an adverb or a prepositional phrase), SV inversion is typical with nominal subjects, while personal pronoun subjects are only inverted if the clause-initial constituent belongs to a limited set of adverbs, i.e. þa and þonne (‘then’). In this way, this study reveals that the difference between Old English conjunct and non-conjunct main clauses is not as clear-cut as has traditionally been suggested.
Appendix
Query 1 – used to filter out clauses with negated verbs fromBech’s (2017)XSV
| node: | IP-MAT* |
| query: | (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 4 NEG+VBPI|NEG+VBP|NEG+VBDI|NEG+VBD|NEG+AXP|NEG+AXPI|NEG+AXD|NEG+AXDI|NEG+HVP|NEG+HVPI|NEG+HVD|NEG+HVDI|NEG+MDP|NEG+MDPI|NEG+MDD|NEG+MDDI|NEG+BEP|NEG+BEPI|NEG+BED|NEG+BEDI) |
Query 2 – used to filter out clauses with negated verbs fromBech’s (2017)XVS
| node: | IP-MAT* |
| query: | (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 3NEG+VBPI|NEG+VBP|NEG+VBDI|NEG+VBD|NEG+AXP|NEG+AXPI|NEG+AXD|NEG+AXDI|NEG+HVP|NEG+HVPI|NEG+HVD|NEG+HVDI|NEG+MDP|NEG+MDPI|NEG+MDD|NEG+MDDI|NEG+BEP|NEG+BEPI|NEG+BED|NEG+BEDI) |
Query 3 – used to extract XSV conjunct clauses with ne+ V
| node: | IP-MAT* |
| query: | (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 1 CONJ) |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 5 Bech_nonneg_finiteverb [23]) | |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 4 NEG) | |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 3 NP-NOM|NP-NOM-RSP|NP-NOM-1) | |
| AND (NP-NOM|NP-NOM-RSP|NP-NOM-1 iDoms N^N|PRO^N|NR^N|MAN^N|D^N|Q^N) | |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 2 ADV*|ADJ*|PP*|NP-ACC*|NP-GEN*|NP-DAT*|NP-NOM-PRD*) |
Query 4 – used to extract XVS conjunct clauses with ne+V
| node: | IP-MAT* |
| query: | (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 1 CONJ) |
| AND (NEG iPrecedes Bech_nonneg_finiteverb) | |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 4 Bech_nonneg_finiteverb) | |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDoms NP-NOM|NP-NOM-1) | |
| AND (NP-NOM|NP-NOM-1 iDoms N^N|PRO^N|NR^N|MAN^N|D^N|Q^N) | |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 2 ADV*|ADJ*|PP*|NP-ACC*|NP-GEN*|NP-DAT*|NP-NOM-PRD*) |
Query 5 – used to extract all non-conjunct main clauses with an overt S
| node: | IP-MAT* |
| query: | (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 1 ! CONJ) |
| AND(IP-MAT* iDoms NP-NOM|NP-NOM-RSP|NP-NOM-1) | |
| AND (NP-NOM|NP-NOM-RSP|NP-NOM-1 iDoms N^N|PRO^N|NR^N|MAN^N|D^N|Q^N) | |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDoms Bech_nonneg_finiteverb) |
Qu5ery 6 – used to extract XVS non-conjunct main clauses
| node: | IP-MAT* |
| query: | (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 2 Bech_nonneg_finiteverb) |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDoms NP-NOM|NP-NOM-1) | |
| AND (NP-NOM|NP-NOM-1 iDoms N^N|PRO^N|NR^N|MAN^N|D^N|Q^N) | |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 1 ADV*|ADJ*|PP*|NP-ACC*|NP-GEN*|NP-DAT*|NP-NOM-PRD*) |
Query 7 – used to extract XSV non-conjunct main clauses
| node: | IP-MAT* |
| query: | (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 3 Bech_nonneg_finiteverb) |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 2 NP-NOM|NP-NOM-RSP|NP-NOM-1) | |
| AND (NP-NOM|NP-NOM-RSP|NP-NOM-1 iDoms N^N|PRO^N|NR^N|MAN^N|D^N|Q^N) | |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 1 ADV*|ADJ*|PP*|NP-ACC*|NP-GEN*|NP-DAT*|NP-NOM-PRD*) |
Query 8 – used to extract SV non-conjunct main clauses
| node: | IP-MAT* |
| query: | (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 2 Bech_nonneg_finiteverb) |
| AND(IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 1 NP-NOM|NP-NOM-1) | |
| AND (NP-NOM|NP-NOM-1 iDoms N^N|PRO^N|NR^N|MAN^N|D^N|Q^N) |
Query 9 – used to extract conjunct clauses with null subjects
| node: | IP-MAT* |
| query: | (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 1 CONJ) |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDoms Bech_nonneg_finiteverb) | |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDoms NP-NOM) | |
| AND (NP-NOM iDoms *con*) |
Query 10 – used to extract S-initial conjunct clauses
| node: | IP-MAT* |
| query: | (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 1 CONJ) |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDoms Bech_nonneg_finiteverb) | |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 2 NP-NOM|NP-NOM-RSP|NP-NOM-1) | |
| AND (NP-NOM|NP-NOM-RSP|NP-NOM-1 iDoms N^N|PRO^N|NR^N|MAN^N|D^N|Q^N) |
Query 11 – used to extract S-initial non-conjunct clauses
| node: | IP-MAT* |
| query: | (IP-MAT* iDoms Bech_nonneg_finiteverb) |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 1 NP-NOM|NP-NOM-RSP|NP-NOM-1) | |
| AND (NP-NOM|NP-NOM-RSP|NP-NOM-1 iDoms N^N|PRO^N|NR^N|MAN^N|D^N|Q^N) |
Query 12 – used to extract subordinate þa-clauses preceded by a coordinating conjunction
| add_to_ignore: | \** |
| node: | IP-MAT* |
| query: | ((IP-MAT* iDoms CP-ADV*) |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDoms CONJ) | |
| AND (CP-ADV* iDoms P) | |
| AND (P iDoms+ta|+Ta|+da|+Da) | |
| AND (CONJ iPrecedes CP-ADV*)) |
Query 13 – used to extract subordinate þonne-clauses preceded by a coordinating conjunction
| add_to_ignore: | \** |
| node: | IP-MAT* |
| query: | ((IP-MAT* iDoms CP-ADV*) |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDoms CONJ) | |
| AND (CP-ADV* iDoms P) | |
| AND (P iDoms+tonne|+Tonne|+donne|+Donne) | |
| AND (CONJ iPrecedes CP-ADV*)) |
Query 14 – used to extract all main þa clauses introduced by a coordinating conjunction
| add_to_ignore: | \** |
| node: | IP-MAT* |
| query: | (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 1 CONJ) |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 2 ADV*) | |
| AND (ADV* Doms+ta|+Ta|+da|+Da) |
Query 15 – used to extract all main þonne clauses introduced by a coordinating conjunction
| add_to_ignore: | \** |
| node: | IP-MAT* |
| query: | (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 1 CONJ) |
| AND (IP-MAT* iDomsNumber 2 ADV*) | |
| AND (ADV* Doms+tonne|+Tonne|+donne|+Donne) |
References
Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198240969.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Bech, Kristin. 2001. Word order patterns in Old and Middle English: A syntactic and pragmatic study. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bergen.Suche in Google Scholar
Bech, Kristin. 2017. Old truths, new corpora: Revisiting the word order of conjunct clauses in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 21(1). 1–25.10.1017/S1360674315000465Suche in Google Scholar
Bergen, Linda van. 2003. Pronouns and word order in Old English. With particular reference to the indefinite pronoun man. New York & London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Cichosz, Anna. 2017. Inversion after clause-initial adverbs in Old English: The special status of þa, þonne, nu and swa. Journal of English Linguistics 45(4). 308–337.10.1177/0075424217733026Suche in Google Scholar
Cichosz, Anna, Jerzy Gaszewski & Piotr Pęzik. 2016. Element order in Old English and Old High German translations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/nss.28Suche in Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman & van der Wurff Wim. 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511612312Suche in Google Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2002. Observations on the loss of verb second in the history of English. In C. Jan-Wouter Zwart & Werner Abraham (eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, 245–272. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.53.15haeSuche in Google Scholar
Harbert, Wayne. 2007. The Germanic languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511755071Suche in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1975. The syntax of the simple sentence in Proto-Germanic. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.10.1515/9783110879087Suche in Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110882308Suche in Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 1997. Negative-initial sentences in Old and Middle English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia XXXI. 91–104.Suche in Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 1999. Functional categories, morphosyntactic change, grammaticalization. Linguistics 37. 997–1010.10.1515/ling.37.6.997Suche in Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van & Bettelou Los. 2009. Discourse Adverbs and Clausal Syntax in Old and Middle English. In Ans van Kemenade and Bettelou Los (eds.), The Handbook of the History of English, 224–48. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 2012. Rethinking the loss of V2. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Terttu Nevalainen (eds.), The oxford handbook of the history of English, 822–834. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0067Suche in Google Scholar
Koopman, Willem. 1998. Inversion after single and multiple topic in Old English. In Jacek Fisiak & Marcin Krygier (eds.), Advances in English historical linguistics, 135–149. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110804072.135Suche in Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Ann Taylor & Donald Ringe. 2000. The Middle English verb-second constraint: A case study in language contact and language change. In Susan C Herring, Pieter van Reenen & Lene Schoesler (eds.), Textual parameters in older languages, 353–392. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.195.17kroSuche in Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1994. Old English: A historical linguistic companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621000Suche in Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2009. The consequences of the loss of verb-second in English: Information structure and syntax in interaction. English Language and Linguistics 13(1). 97–125.10.1017/S1360674308002876Suche in Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198119357.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1999. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.Suche in Google Scholar
Randall, Beth, Antony Kroch & Ann Taylor. 2005–2013. CorpusSearch 2. (Available online at http://corpussearch.sourceforge.net/CS.html).Suche in Google Scholar
Ringe, Don & Ann Taylor. 2014. The development of Old English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207848.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Taylor, Ann, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk & Frank Beths. 2003. The York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (YCOE). Department of Linguistics, University of York. Oxford Text Archive. (Available online at http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~lang22/YcoeHome1.htm)Suche in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. 1992. Syntax. In Richard M Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 1: The Beginnings to 1066, 168–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.005Suche in Google Scholar
Walkden, George. 2013. The status of hwæt in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 17. 465–488.10.1017/S1360674313000129Suche in Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 2007. Parameters of variation between verb-subject and subject-verb order in late Middle English. English Language and Linguistics 11. 81–111.10.1017/S1360674306002127Suche in Google Scholar
Wårvik, Brita. 2011. Connective or “disconnective” discourse marker? Old English þa, multifunctionality and narrative structuring. In Anneli Meurman-Solin & Ursula Lenker (eds.), Studies in variation, contacts and change in English 8: Connectives in synchrony and diachrony in European languages, Helsinki: VARIENG. Available online at http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/08/warvik/.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- The V-2 rule in Old English conjunct clauses
- The diachronic semantics of the Dissociative Past Completive construction in the Kikongo Language Cluster (Bantu)
- Some (critical) questions for diachronic construction grammar
- The evolution of Choctaw grammatical words hosh and ho: Evidence from the Pitchlynn manuscript
- Style-shifting and accommodative competence in Late Middle English written correspondence: Putting Audience Design to the test of time
- Evolution of the subjunctive in New Persian (10th–20th): From disappearance to reappearance
- Semantic bleaching of nu in Old Saxon
- This is not the same: the ambiguity of a Gothic adjective
- Book Reviews
- Eleanor Coghill: The rise and fall of ergativity in Aramaic. Cycles of Alignment Change
- Book Review
- Review
- IE4.com. Forays into Text Mining
- Book Review
- Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela: The syntax of Old Romanian
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- The V-2 rule in Old English conjunct clauses
- The diachronic semantics of the Dissociative Past Completive construction in the Kikongo Language Cluster (Bantu)
- Some (critical) questions for diachronic construction grammar
- The evolution of Choctaw grammatical words hosh and ho: Evidence from the Pitchlynn manuscript
- Style-shifting and accommodative competence in Late Middle English written correspondence: Putting Audience Design to the test of time
- Evolution of the subjunctive in New Persian (10th–20th): From disappearance to reappearance
- Semantic bleaching of nu in Old Saxon
- This is not the same: the ambiguity of a Gothic adjective
- Book Reviews
- Eleanor Coghill: The rise and fall of ergativity in Aramaic. Cycles of Alignment Change
- Book Review
- Review
- IE4.com. Forays into Text Mining
- Book Review
- Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela: The syntax of Old Romanian
