Cover not available
Part of
Explorations in English Historical Syntax
Edited by Hubert Cuyckens, Hendrik De Smet, Liesbet Heyvaert and Charlotte Maekelberghe
[Studies in Language Companion Series 198] 2018
► pp. 203–234

Chapter 8
Complexity and genre distribution of left-dislocated strings after the fixation of SVO syntax

 | Universidade de Vigo
This paper investigates the diachronic development of strings that include both a left-dislocated constituent and a coreferring resumptive in the subsequent clause, thus resembling the reportedly speech-like and informal contemporary Left Dislocation construction. The data is analyzed according to a range of factors relating to the inner configuration of such strings and examined by means of the pertinent statistical tests. The purpose is to arrive at a clearer and broader picture of (i) the general decline of left-dislocated strings, (ii) the factors determining their structural complexity, and (iii) their role as prospective markers of orality in Modern English speech-related texts.
Keywords: Left Dislocation, complexity, orality, genre, Modern English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A brief historical survey of LD
  • 3.Goals and hypotheses
    • 3.1Factors that determine the complexity of the LDed constituent
    • 3.2The link between less complex LDed items and speech-related genres
  • 4.Data and methodology
    • 4.1Determining the length of the LDed constituent
      • 4.1.1Dependent variable: Length of the LDed constituent
      • 4.1.2Predictor variables
        • Intervening material
        • Augmentation
        • Punctuation
        • Form of the resumptive
        • Position of the resumptive
        • Genre cluster
        • Period
    • 4.2Exploring the link between speech-related genres and complexity of the LDed constituent
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1The diachrony of LD: An overview
    • 5.2Results from the linear model: Complexity of the LDed constituent
    • 5.3Results from univariate statistical tests: Orality and genre
  • 6.Discussion and concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.198.09tiz
References (77)
References
Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos. 1996. The Puzzle of Apposition: On So-called Appositive Structures in English. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (Servicio de Publicacións e Intercambio Científico).Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1997. Clitic left dislocation and contrastive left dislocation. In Anagnostopoulou, van Riemsdijk & Zwarts (eds), 151–192.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena, van Riemsdijk, Henk & Zwarts, Frans (eds). 1997. Materials on Left Dislocation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 14]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Avery D. 2007. Relative clauses. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 2: Complex Constructions, 2nd edn., Timothy Shopen (ed.), 206–236. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Wasow, Thomas, Losongco, Anthony & Ginstrom, Ryan. 2000. Heaviness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76(1): 28–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics using R. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty & Ward, Gregory. 2002. Information packaging. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey Pullum (eds), 1363–1447. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Kytö, Merja. 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics 43: 449–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part II: Complex and Derived Constructions, edited by Kees Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dons, Ute. 2004. Descriptive Adequacy of Early Modern English Grammars. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. 2: 1066–1476, Norman Blake (ed.), 207–408. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren & van de Pol, Nikki. 2016. Divide and conquer: The formation and functional dynamics of the Modern English ing-clause network. English Language and Linguistics 20(2): 185–219.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia, Fox, Barbara & Thompson, Sandra A. 2003. Social interaction and grammar. In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Vol. 2., Michael Tomasello (ed.), 119–143. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fox, John & Weisberg, Sanford. 2011. An R Companion to Applied Regression, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald. 1992. From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction: On Left Dislocation in English [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 1]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Syntactic, semantic and interactional prototypes: The case of left-dislocation. In Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language, Richard A. Geiger & Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds), 709–730. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68(1): 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Görlach, Manfred. 1999. English in Nineteenth-Century England: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Eighteenth-Century English. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.Google Scholar
Gregory, Michelle & Michaelis, Laura. 2001. Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1665–1706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2013. Statistics for Linguistics with R. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harrell, Frank E. 2015. Regression Modeling Strategies, 2nd edn. New York NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1992. Syntactic weight and information status in word order variation. Linguistische Berichte 4: 196–219.Google Scholar
2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo, Raquel. 2000. Establishing topic in conversation: A contrastive study of left dislocation in English and Spanish. In Talk and Text: Studies on Spoken and Written Discourse, Angela Downing Rothwell, Jesús Moya Guijarro & José I. Albentosa Hernández (eds), 137–158. Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Gries, Stefan T. 2009. Assessing frequency changes in multi-stage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing 24(4): 385–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmstedt, Robert & Jones, Andrew R. 2014. The pronoun in tripartite verbless clauses in Biblical Hebrew: Resumption for left-dislocation or pronominal copula? Journal of Semitic Studies 59(1): 53–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1991. Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English: Problems of Control and Interpretation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1995. Adverbial participial clauses in English. In Converbs in Cross-linguistic Perspective, Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds), 189–237. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lennard, John. 1995. Punctuation: And – ‘Pragmatics’. In Historical Pragmatics [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 35], Andreas Jucker (ed.), 65–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonarduzzi, Laetitia & Herry, Nadine. 2005. Les dislocations: Texts et contexts. In Actes, Congrès de la Société des Anglicistes de l’Enseignement Supérieur, Toulouse: France. <[URL]> (30 March 2008).
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do Linguistics with R. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou & Komen, Erwin. 2012. Clefts as resolution strategies after the loss of a multifunctional first position. In The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Traugott (eds), 884–898. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Manetta, Emily. 2007. Unexpected left dislocation: An English corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1029–1035. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, David, Zeileis, Achim & Hornik, Kurt. 2006. The strucplot framework: Visualizing multi-Way contingency tables with vcd. Journal of Statistical Software 17(3): 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. vcd: Visualizing categorical data. R package version 1.4–3.Google Scholar
Netz, Hadar & Kuzar, Ron. 2007. Three marked theme constructions in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 305–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Thompson, Sandra A. 1994. Unattached NPs in English conversation. Berkeley Linguistics Society 20: 402–419.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
PPCEME. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English, 1500–1710. Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st edn. <[URL]>
PPCMBE. The Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English, 1700–1914. Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st edn. <[URL]>
PPCME2. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, 1150–1500. Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 2nd edn. <[URL]>
PCEEC. The Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence, 1410–1695. Compiled by the CEEC Project Team. University of York and University of Helsinki. Distributed through the Oxford Text Archive.Google Scholar
Pérez-Guerra, Javier. 1999. Historical English Syntax: A Statistical Corpus Based Study on the Organisation of Early Modern English Sentences. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
. 2012. Discourse status and syntax in the history of English: Some explorations in topicalization, left-dislocation, and there-constructions. In Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English, Anneli Meurman-Solin, María José López-Couso & Bettelou Los (eds), 121–138. New York NY: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Guerra, Javier & Tizón-Couto, David. 2009. On left dislocation in the recent history of English: Theory and data hand in hand. In Dislocated Elements in Discourse: Syntactic, Semantic, and Pragmatic Perspectives, Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds), 31–48. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1997. On the functions of left-dislocation in English discourse. In Directions in Functional Linguistics [Studies in Language Companion 36], Akio Kamio (ed.), 117–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. On the limits of syntax, with reference to left-dislocation and topicalization. In The Limits of Syntax, Peter Culicover & Louise McNally (eds), 281–302. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. <[URL]>
Río-Rey, Carmen. 2002. Subject control and coreference in early modern English free adjuncts and absolutes. English Language and Linguistics 6(2): 309–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Ian. 1996. The Foundations of English Prose: The Art of Prose Writing from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1995. On the replacement of finite complement clauses by infinitives in English. English Studies 76(4): 367–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7: 147–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published as Ross, John R. 1986. Infinite Syntax! Norwood NJ: Ablex.]Google Scholar
Runge, Steven E. 2010. Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Peabody MA: Hendrickson.Google Scholar
Shaer, Benjamin, Cook, Philippa, Frey, Werner & Maienborn, Claudia. 2009. Introduction. Dislocation: Concepts, questions, goals. In Dislocated Elements in Discourse: Syntactic, Semantic, and Pragmatic Perspectives, Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds), 1–27. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Snider, Neal. 2005. A corpus study of left dislocation and topicalization. Stanford University, Linguistics Department, manuscript. <[URL]> (30 April 2008).
Tizón-Couto, David. 2012. Left dislocation in English: A functional-discoursal approach. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2016. Left-dislocated strings in modern English epistolary prose: A comparison with contemporary spoken left dislocation. In Outside the Clause: Form and Function of Extra-clausal Constituents [Studies in Language Companion Series 178] Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds), 203–239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1972. The History of English Syntax: A Transformational Approach to the History of English Sentence Structure. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
. 2007. Old English left-dislocations: Their structure and information status. Folia Linguistica 41(3–4): 405–441.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Hoorick, Bart. 1994. Pragmatic positions and the history of English word order. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 56. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans. 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht: Foris.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans & Los, Bettelou. 2013. Using historical texts. In Research Methods in Linguistics, Devyana Sharma & Rob Podesva (eds), 216–232. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1997. Left dislocation. In Anagnostopoulou, van Riemsdijk & Zwarts (eds), 1–10.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk & Zwarts, Frans. 1997. Left dislocation in Dutch and the status of copying rules. In Anagnostopoulou, van Riemsdijk & Zwarts (eds), 13–30.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1997. Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change 9(1): 81–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yaruss, J. Scott. 1999. Utterance length, syntactic complexity, and childhood stuttering. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 42(2): 329–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeileis, Achim, Meyer, David & Hornik, Kurt. 2007. Residual-based shadings for visualizing (conditional) independence. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 16(3): 507–525. DOI logoGoogle Scholar