Chapter published in:
Late Modern English: Novel encounters
Edited by Merja Kytö and Erik Smitterberg
[Studies in Language Companion Series 214] 2020
► pp. 92–115

Changes affecting relative clauses in Late Modern English

| University of Konstanz
This paper presents the results of a corpus study comparing relative markers (relative complementisers and relative pronouns) in the King James Bible and its modernised version, focusing on subject and object relative clauses involving a human referent. The attested differences indicate changes affecting Standard (British) English during Late Modern English. The paper discusses three important aspects: in Early Modern English, (i) which was available for human subjects, (ii) that-relatives had a higher proportion, and (iii) the equative element as could introduce relative clauses as a complementiser. The paper argues that the disappearance or reduction of alternative forms to who/whom was driven both by internal and by external factors, and that significant differences can be observed between the standard variety and regional dialects.
Published online: 18 March 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.214.04bac
References

References

Austin, Frances O.
1985 Relative which in late 18th-century usage: The Clift family correspondence. In Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics: Amsterdam, 10–13 April 1985 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 41], Roger Eaton, Olga Fischer, Willem F. Koopman & Frederike van der Leek (eds), 15–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bacskai-Atkari, Julia
2014 The Syntax of Comparative Constructions: Operators, Ellipsis Phenomena and Functional Left Peripheries. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
2018 Deletion Phenomena in Comparative Constructions: English Comparatives in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Ball, Catherine N.
1996 A diachronic study of relative markers in spoken and written English. Language Variation and Change 8(2): 227–258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brandner, Ellen & Bräuning, Iris
2013 The particle wo in Alemannic: Only a complementizer? Linguistische Berichte 234: 131–169.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
1973 The syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4(3): 275–343.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert Ferdinand Marie
1997  Much-support as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 28(1): 119–164.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, Xavier
1984 Relativizers in Early Modern English: A dynamic quantitative study. In Historical Syntax, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 61–88. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fleischer, Jürg
2004 Zur Typologie der Relativsätze in den Dialekten des Deutschen. In Morphologie und Syntax deutscher Dialekte und historische Dialektologie des Deutschen, Franz Patocka & Peter Wiesinger (eds), 60–83. Vienna: Edition Praesens.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly
2004 Grammaticalization as Economy [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Renewal in the left periphery: Economy and the complementiser layer. Transactions of the Philological Society 107(2): 131–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, Tanja
2002 Relative Clauses in Dialects of English: A Typological Approach. PhD dissertation, University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
2005 Relative clauses in English dialects of the British Isles. In A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects: Agreement, Gender, Relative Clauses, Bernd Kortmann (ed.), 21–124. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard
1977 Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99.Google Scholar
Kjellmer, Göran
2008  Alls, a relative pronoun? Nordic Journal of English Studies 7(2): 69–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd
1997 Adverbial Subordination: A Typology and History of Adverbial Subordinators Based on European Languages. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd & Wagner, Susanne
2007 A fresh look at Late Modern English dialect syntax. In “Of varying language and opposing creed”: New Insights into Late Modern English, Javier Pérez-Guerra (ed.), 279–300. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Johansson, Christine
2012 Relativization. In English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook, Vol. I, Alexander Bergs & Laurel J. Brinton (eds), 776–790. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lechner, Winfried
1999 Comparatives and DP-structures. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
2004 Ellipsis in Comparatives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lezcano, Emma
1996 The choice of relativizers in Early Modern English: Evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. SEDERI 7: 57–66.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José & Méndez-Naya, Belén
2014 On comparative complementizers in English: Evidence from historical corpora. In Creation and Use of Historical English Corpora in Spain, Nila Méndez-Naya Vazques (ed.), 311–333. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie
1998 Verallgemeinernde Relativsätze im Althochdeutschen. In Deutsche Grammatik – Thema in Variationen. Festschrift für Hans-Werner Eroms zum 60. Geburtstag, Karin Donhauser & Ludwig Eichinger (eds), 263–281. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Miller, Jim
1993 The grammar of Scottish English. In Real English, James Milroy & Lesley Milroy (eds), 99–138. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Michael & Bailey, Guy
1991  In which: A new form in written English. American Speech 66: 147–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mossé, Fernand
1991 A Handbook of Middle English. Baltimore MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena
2002 The rise of the relative who in Early Modern English. In Relativisation on the North Sea Littoral, Patricia Poussa (ed.), 109–121. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann
1920 Deutsche Grammatik, Band 3: Syntax. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti
1984 The choice of relative pronouns in 17th century American English. In Historical Syntax, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 417–436. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991 On the history of that/zero as object clause in links in English. In English Corpus Linguistics, Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds), 272–289. New York NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne
1982 Socio-Historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, Smith, Jennifer & Lawrence, Helen
2005 No taming the vernacular! Insights from the relatives in northern Britain. Language Variation and Change 17: 75–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme
2010 Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect? In Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization, [Typological Studies in Language 90], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 19–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar