Cover not available
Part of
Late Modern English: Novel encounters
Edited by Merja Kytö and Erik Smitterberg
[Studies in Language Companion Series 214] 2020
► pp. 91–116

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.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Changes in Modern English
    • 2.1Methods
    • 2.2The results of the corpus study
    • 2.3Discussion
  • 3.Equative relative clauses
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 March 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.214.04bac
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Renewal in the left periphery: Economy and the complementiser layer. Transactions of the Philological Society 107(2): 131–195. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd
1997 Adverbial Subordination: A Typology and History of Adverbial Subordinators Based on European Languages. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Bacskai-Atkari, Julia
2022. Discourse-driven asymmetries between embedded interrogatives and relative clauses in West Germanic. In Language Change at the Interfaces [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 275], ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo
Bacskai‐Atkari, Julia
2024. Subject‐Object Asymmetries and the Development of Relative Clauses between Late Middle English and Early Modern English. Transactions of the Philological Society DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 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.