Cover not available
Part of
Word Order Change in Acquisition and Language Contact: Essays in honour of Ans van Kemenade
Edited by Bettelou Los and Pieter de Haan
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 243] 2017
► pp. 155–183

Chapter 8
Split coordination in Early English

| University of York
| University of York
Split coordination (e.g., the king came and his company ) occurs at a low but robust rate in early English. While similar in some ways to the Present-Day-English (PDE) construction called Bare Argument Ellipsis (BAE), in which the second conjunct (C2) is restricted to clause-final position, in early English C2 frequently occurs clause-internally. As BAE cannot derive such cases, we consider a movement analysis and present empirical evidence for both leftward movement of the first conjunct (C1) and rightward movement of C2. Split coordination is part of a larger pattern of splitting constituents in early English, which is lost by about 1700. BAE continues to be available until the present, however, giving rise to a false appearance of continuity over time.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1What is split coordination?
    • 1.2Split coordination over time
  • 2.Coordination phrases
    • 2.1The structure of coordination phrases
    • 2.2 Split coordination
  • 3.The structure of early English clauses
    • 3.1Subject positions in early English
    • 3.2 Object positions in early English
  • 4.Arguments for leftward movement of C1
    • 4.1 Argument 1: Subject C2s in the middle field
    • 4.2Argument 2: Distribution of subject C2s by verb type (transitive vs. passive)
    • 4.3Argument 3: Number agreement
  • 5.Arguments for rightward movement of C2
    • 5.1Argument 1: Clauses with split COs, C2 in the final field
    • 5.2Argument 2: AuxV transitive clauses with split CSs, C2 in the final field
    • 5.3Argument 3: Clauses with finite main verbs, split COs and C2 in the final field
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Corpora
  • References
Published online: 14 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.243.08tay
References (33)
Corpora
CallHome: Weischedel, Ralph, Martha Palmer, Mitchell Marcus, Eduard Hovy, Sameer Pradhan, Lance Ramshaw, Nianwen Xue, Ann Taylor, Jeff Kaufman, Michelle Franchini, Mohammed El-Bachouti, Robert Belvin & Ann Houston. 2013. OntoNotes Release 5.0 LDC2013T19. Web Download. Philadelphia PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Brown Corpus, Switchboard, Wall Street Journal: Marcus, Mitchell, Beatrice Santorini, Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz & Ann Taylor. 1999. Treebank-3 LDC99T42. Web Download. Philadelphia PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
YCOE: Taylor, Ann, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk & Frank Beths. 2003. York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose <[URL]>
PPCME: Kroch, Anthony & Ann Taylor. 2000. Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, 2nd edn. <[URL]>
PPCEME: Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Ariel Diertani. 2004. Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English. <[URL]>
PPCMBEKroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Ariel Diertani. 2010. Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English. <[URL]>
References
Biberauer, Theresa & Roberts, Ian. 2005. Changing EPP Parameters in the history of English: Accounting for variation and change. English Language and Linguistics 9: 5–46.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & van Kemenade, Ans. 2011. Subject positions and information-structural diversification in the history of English. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 10: 17–69.Google Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2001. Speculations on the syntax of subordinate clauses in Old English. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 201–229.Google Scholar
Findreng, Adne. 1976. Zur Kongruenz in Person und Numerus zwischen Subjekt und finitem Verb im modernen Deutsch. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2005. Clause type asymmetries in Old English and the syntax of verb movement. In Grammaticalization and Parametric Variation, Montserrat Batllori, Maria-Lluïsa Hernanz, Carme Picallo, & Francesc Roca (eds), 267–283. Oxford: OUP.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge & Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 391–426.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1976. Reduction, gapping and right-node raising. Language 52: 535–562.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johannessen, Janne B. 1996. Partial agreement and coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 661–676.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 2006. Gapping. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 407–435. Oxford: Blackwell.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans. 1999. Sentential negation and clause structure in Old English. In Negation in the History of English, Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Gunnel Tottie & Wim van der Wurff (eds), 147–166. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans & Milićev, Tanja. 2012. Syntax and discourse in Old English and Middle English word order. In Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes: Proceedings of DIGS VIII, Dianne Jonas & Stephen Anderson (eds), 237–255. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2003. Stripping. Ms, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Milićev, Tanja & Milićević, Nataša. 2012. Leftward movement with discontinuous appositive constructions. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59: 205–220.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1992. A null operator analysis of ATB gaps. The Linguistic Review 9: 1–26.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
. 1999. First conjunct agreement: Against a clausal analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 643–668.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez Lorido, Rodrigo. 2009. Reconsidering the role of syntactic ‘heaviness’ in Old English split coordination. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 45: 31–56.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1999. Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English Word Order. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
. 2005. Arguments against a universal base: Evidence from Old English. English Language and Linguistics 9: 115–138.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan & Taylor, Ann. 2006. The loss of OV order in the history of English. In The Handbook of the History of English, Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds), 249–278. Oxford: Blackwell.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998. Structure for coordination. Glot International 3: 3–9.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1991. Elliptic conjunctions – non-quantificational LF. In The Chomskyan Turn, Asa Kasher (ed.), 360–384. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Taylor, Ann & Pintzuk, Susan. To appear. The development and use of electronic corpora. In The Oxford Handbook of Diachronic and Historical Linguistics, Paola Crisma & Giuseppe Longobardi (eds). Oxford: OUP.
Vicente, Luis. 2010. On the syntax of adversative coordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 381–415.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Niina. 2010. Coordination in Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Taylor, Ann
2020. Treebanks in Historical Syntax. Annual Review of Linguistics 6:1 ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
Taylor, Ann & Susan Pintzuk
2018. Split coordination in English. Diachronica 35:3 ► pp. 310 ff. DOI logo
Taylor, Ann & Susan Pintzuk
2020. Split coordination in English. In Diachronic Treebanks for Historical Linguistics [Benjamins Current Topics, 113], ► pp. 16 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.