Cover not available
Part of
Keys to the History of English: Diachronic linguistic change, morpho-syntax and lexicography
Edited by Thijs Porck, Moragh S. Gordon and Luisella Caon
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 363] 2024
► pp. 10–33

Parataxis and hypotaxis in the history of English

 | University of Konstanz
The claim that parataxis precedes hypotaxis in the history of English is an idea with a long pedigree; however, the empirical evidence for it is limited. In this chapter, I revisit the question of parataxis and hypotaxis diachronically, focusing on two different claims. The first is the idea that finite clausal complementation emerged from clausal juxtaposition. Following Axel-Tober (2012, 2017), I argue that this scenario is implausible. The second is the idea that the proportion of subordinate clauses increases gradually over time. This quantitative claim can be assessed using parsed historical corpora. No gradual increase can be observed; rather, we see substantial genre-conditioned variation. I conclude that the idea of parataxis preceding hypotaxis might be ready for retirement.
Keywords: parataxis, hypotaxis, clause structure, reanalysis, complementation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Does finite clausal complementation emerge from juxtaposition?
    • 2.1That-complementation in English and clause fusion
    • 2.2That-complementation in English: Problems with the standard scenario
    • 2.3That-complementation in English: An alternative scenario
  • 3.Do subordinate clauses become more frequent over the history of English?
    • 3.1Frequency of clause types: Sources and methods
    • 3.2Frequency of clause types: Hypotaxis level results
    • 3.3Frequency of clause types: More fine-grained distinctions
  • 4.Summary and conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.363.01wal
References (62)
References
Andrew, S. O. 1940. Syntax and style in Old English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Axel-Tober, K. 2009. Die Entstehung des dass-Satzes–ein neues Szenario. In V. Ehrich, C. Fortmann, I. Reich, & M. Reis (Eds.), Koordination und Subordination im Deutschen, 21–41. Buske.Google Scholar
2012. (Nicht-)kanonische Nebensätze im Deutschen: Synchrone und diachrone Aspekte. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. The development of the declarative complementizer in German. Language (Historical Syntax) 93. e29–e65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartoń, K. 2009. MuMIn: multi-model inference. [URL]Google Scholar
Bates, D., M. Mächler, B. Bolker & S. Walker. 2015. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67. 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baugh, A. C. & T. Cable. 2013. A history of the English language, 6th edn. Routledge.Google Scholar
Bech, K. 2001. Word order patterns in Old and Middle English: A syntactic and pragmatic study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Behaghel, O. 1877. Über die Entstehung der abhängigen Rede und die Ausbildung der Zeitfolge im Altdeutschen. Schöningh.Google Scholar
1928. Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Volume 3: Die Satzgebilde. Winter.Google Scholar
Berg, T. 2009. Structure in language: A dynamic perspective. Routledge.Google Scholar
Biber, D. 1995. Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. & B. Gray. 2016. Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, 35–53. Ablex.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. 2015. Language in the mind and in the community. In J. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, D. Speelman, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change of paradigms – new paradoxes: recontextualizing language and linguistics, 221–236. de Gruyter.Google Scholar
De Smet, H. 2009. Analysing reanalysis. Lingua 119. 1728–1755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, T. 1995. Verbal syntax in the early Germanic languages [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Cornell University.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. & C. Greco. 2018. West Flemish V3 and the interaction of syntax and discourse. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21. 1–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, K. 1976. The adjoined relative clause in Australia. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 78–105. AIAS and Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C. & L. Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. & T. Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. & E. C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1967 [1905]. Growth and structure of the English language, 9th edn. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F. 2009. Origin and maintenance of clausal embedding complexity. In G. Sampson, D. Gil & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 192–202. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1995. Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In A. Battye & I. G. Roberts (Eds.), Clause structure and language change, 140–169. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koopman, W. 1995. Verb-final main clauses in Old English prose. Studia Neophilologica 67. 129–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. & A. Taylor. 2000. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, 2nd edn. (PPCME2).Google Scholar
Kroch, A., B. Santorini & L. Delfs. 2004. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME).Google Scholar
Kroch, A., B. Santorini & A. Diertani. 2016. The Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English, 2nd edn. (PPCMBE2).Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. 2017. lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software 82. 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Los, B. 2005. The rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackie, S. A. 2008. The revival of the parataxis hypothesis in North American linguistics of the nineteen seventies [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
2012. Gaps, transitions, adjoining, embedding: Kenneth Hale on the reanalysis and grammaticalization of the relative clause. Language and History 55. 102–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, B. 1985. Old English syntax, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakagawa, S., P. C. D. Johnson & H. Schielzeth. 2017. The coefficient of determination R2 and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects models revisited and expanded. J R Soc Interface 14, 20170213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, N. 1998. The story of pu: The grammaticalization in space and time of a Modern Greek complementizer [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
O’Neil, W. 1977. Clause adjunction in Old English. General Linguistics 17. 199–211.Google Scholar
Paul, H. 1920. Deutsche Grammatik, vol. 5, part 4: Wortbildungslehre. Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Petré, P. 2019. How constructions are born: The role of patterns in the constructionalization of be going to INF. In B. Busse & R. Möhlig-Falke (Eds.), Patterns in language and linguistics, 157–192. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, S. 1999. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. Garland.Google Scholar
Rissanen, M. 1989. Three problems connected with the use of diachronic corpora. ICAME Journal 13. 16–19.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. G. & A. Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, G. 2006. The role of functional constraints in the evolution of the English complementation system. In C. Dalton-Puffer, D. Kastovsky, N. Ritt & H. Schendl (Eds.), Syntax, style and grammatical norms: English from 1500–2000, 143–166. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Small, G. W. 1924. The comparison of inequality. Baltimore University Press.Google Scholar
Speyer, A. 2011. Zur Integriertheit kausaler (Neben-)Sätze im Frühneuhochdeutschen. Sprachwissenschaft 36. 53–84.Google Scholar
Szmrecsányi, B. 2012. Analyticity and syntheticity in the history of English. In T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 654–665. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. An analytic-synthetic spiral in the history of English. In E. van Gelderen (Ed.), Cyclical change continued, 93–112. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A., A. Warner, S. Pintzuk & F. Beths. 2003. The York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose.Google Scholar
Thorgeirsson, H. 2012. Late placement of the finite verb in Old Norse fornyrðislag meter. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 24. 233–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1992. Syntax. In R. M. Hogg (Ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Volume 1: The beginnings to 1066, 168–289. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Gelderen, E. 2004. Economy, innovation, and prescriptivism: From spec to head and head to head. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7. 59–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021. Third factors in language variation and change. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Kemenade, A. & M. Westergaard. 2012. Syntax and information structure: Verb-second variation in Middle English. In A. Meurman-Solin, M. J. López-Couso & B. Los (Eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English, 87–118. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walkden, G. 2014. Syntactic reconstruction and Proto-Germanic. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021. Against mechanisms: Towards a minimal theory of change. In U. Detges, R. Waltereit, E. Winter-Froemel & A. C. Wolfsgruber (Eds.), Whither reanalysis?, special issue of Journal of Historical Syntax 5 (33). 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walkden, G. & H. Booth. 2020. Reassessing the historical evidence for embedded V2. In R. Woods & S. Wolfe (Eds.), Rethinking verb-second, 536–554. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wallenberg, J. C. 2016. Extraposition is disappearing. Language (Historical Syntax) 92. e237–e256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021. Reanalysis involving rebracketing and relabeling: a special type. In U. Detges, R. Waltereit, E. Winter-Froemel & A. C. Wolfsgruber (Eds.), Whither reanalysis?, special issue of Journal of Historical Syntax 5 (39). 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitman, J. 2012. Misparsing and syntactic reanalysis. In A. van Kemenade & N. de Haas (Eds.), Historical Linguistics 2009: Selected papers from the 19th international conference on historical linguistics, 69–87. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H. 2016. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar