Cover not available
Article published In:
A micro-perspective on Verb Second in Romance and Germanic
Edited by Christine Meklenborg Salvesen
[Linguistic Variation 19:1] 2019
► pp. 118–140

Main and embedded clausal asymmetry in the history of English

Changes in assertive and non-assertive complements

| Arizona State University
In this paper, I sketch the CP layer in main and embedded clauses in the history of English. The Modern English main clause is not as easily expandable as the Old English one, but the reverse is true in the subordinate clause, where Modern English has a more flexible embedded CP than Old English. I focus on the developments of the embedded CP. It has been claimed that Old English lacks an embedded split CP and therefore lacks embedded V2 and a host of other embedded root phenomena. I show this to be true for complements to both assertive and non-assertive verbs. In contrast, the Modern English matrix verb has an effect on the strength of the C-position. Assertive verbs in Modern English allow main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses whereas non-assertives typically do not. The main point of the paper is to chronicle the changes that ‘stretch’ the embedded clause and the changing role of main verbs. It is descriptive rather than explanatory, e.g., in terms of changes in phase-head status.
Keywords: assertive and non-assertives, complementizers, root phenomena, split CP
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Evidence of split CP in Old English main clauses
  • 3.Subordinate clauses in Modern and Old English
    • 3.1Modern English
    • 3.2Old English subordinates
      • 3.2.1Subjunctives and indicatives
      • 3.2.2Other complement types
  • 4.V2, complementizer doubling, and topics
    • 4.1Embedded V2
    • 4.2The status of C
    • 4.3Topics
      • 4.3.1High for in Middle English
      • 4.3.2High that in Middle English
  • 5.Conclusion and questions about the change
  • Acknowledgements
  • Abbreviations
  • References
  • References to text editions
Published online: 24 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.15019.gel
References (36)
References
Allen, Cynthia. 1977. Topics in Diachronic English Syntax. University of Massachusetts PhD.Google Scholar
Bech, Kristin. 2001. Word Order patterns in Old and Middle English. University of Bergen PhD.Google Scholar
Callaway, Morgan. 1913. The Infinitive in Anglo-Saxon. Washington: Carnegie Institution. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1992. On the semantics of subjunctive complements. Romance Languages and Modern Linguistic Theory, Paul Hirschbühler & Konrad Koerner (eds), 69–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1998. On Negative raising in the history of English”. In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Gunnel Tottie, Wim van der Wurff (eds.), Negation in the history of English, 55–100. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 1993. The Rise of Functional Categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2002. Inflectional morphology and the loss of V2 in English. In Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, David Lightfoot (ed.), 88–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haller, Beat & John Watters. 1984. Topic in Zulgo. Studies in African Linguistics 15.1: 27–46.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, Roland & Ans van Kemenade. 2012. The Interaction between syntax, information structure, and prosody in word order change. In Terttu Nevalainen and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, eds. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan. 1975. On assertive predicates. In Kimball, J. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics. Vol. V1. New York: Academic Press. 91–124.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan & Sandra Thompson. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4.4: 465–497.Google Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2007. Embedded V2 in Norwegian and Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 801: 103–161.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1926. Modern English Grammar III. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. V2 and embedded topicalisation in Old and Middle English. In Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent (eds.) Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, 326–352. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul & Carol Kiparsky. 1970. Fact. Progress in Linguistics, Manfred Bierwisch & Karl Heidolph (eds), 143–73. Den Haag: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony & Ann Taylor. 1997. Verb Movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect Variation and Language Contact. In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds), 297–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. The Development of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
López Martínez, Sergio. 2015. Embedded topicalization in Old English: does it exist? SELIM XVII. [URL]
Meinunger, André. 2004. Verb position, verbal mood and the anchoring (potential) of sentences. In Horst Lohnstein & Susanne Trissler (eds.), The syntax and semantics of the left periphery, 313–341. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1991. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. University of Pennsylvania PhD.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1996. Remarks on the Old English C-system and the diachrony of V-2. Linguistische Berichte. Sonderheft, 154–68.Google Scholar
Salvesen, Christine. 2014. Traces of History. ms. [URL]
Salvesen, Christine & George Walkden. 2014. Diagnosing embedded V2 in Old English and Old French. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, F. 1963; 1966; 1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language, pts. 1, 2, 3 2d half. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Zeitlin, Jacob. 1908. The ACI and some kindred constructions in English. Columbia PhD. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zupitza, Julius. 1959. Beowulf, facsimile. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
References to text editions
All of my Old English examples can be found in the Dictionary of Old English http://​tapor​.library​.utoronto​.ca​.ezproxy1​.lib​.asu​.edu​/doecorpus/ and, in the interest of space, I have therefore not listed them here. The Middle and Early Modern English ones are as follows.
Beadle, Richard (ed.) 1982. The York Plays. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Benson, L. 1987. The Riverside Chaucer. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Brook, G. & R. Leslie (eds.) 1963. Layamon: Brut. Oxford: Oxford University Press, EETS 250.Google Scholar
Davis, Norman. 1971. Paston letters and papers of the fifteenth century. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kökeritz, Helge (ed.) 1954. Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories & Tragedies: A Facsimile Edition. New haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, Richard, ed. 1833–1894. Old English homilies and homiletic treatises. London: Trübner.Google Scholar