No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
On the use of data in historical linguistics: word order in early English subordinate clauses
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2014
Abstract
This article critically assesses Lightfoot's (1991, 2006) ‘degree-0 theory’ of language change, specifically the use that Lightfoot makes of empirical data from Old English (OE) and Middle English (ME). This is followed by the presentation of a recent analysis of word order in a variety of OE and ME sources. It is argued that data from these periods do not support the ‘degree-0 theory’. Rather, the data demonstrate that verb-final and object–verb order were less dominant in OE subordinate clauses than previously assumed, and that the shift to SV order was fairly gradual. There is also little in the data to suggest that subordinate clauses and main clauses developed in radically different manners or at radically different speeds. The article highlights the importance of careful data usage, both with respect to type and scope of material, and the interpretation of data collected and categorised by others.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014
References
Aitchison, Jean. 1980. Review of: David Lightfoot, Principles of diachronic syntax. Linguistics 18, 137–46.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 2000. Obsolescence and sudden death in syntax: The decline of verb-final order in early Middle English. In Bermudez-Otero, Ricardo, Denison, David, Hogg, Richard & McCully, C. B. (eds.), Generative theory and corpus studies: A dialogue from 10 ICEHL, 3–25. Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. 1989. Some observations on degree of learnability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12 (2), 334–5.Google Scholar
Barrett, Charles Robin. 1952. Studies in the word-order of Ælfric's Catholic Homilies and Lives of the Saints. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons.Google Scholar
Bean, Marian C. 1983. The development of word order patterns in Old English. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Bech, Kristin. 2001. Word order patterns in Old and Middle English: A syntactic and pragmatic study. PhD dissertation, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2010. Language in cognition: Uncovering mental structures and the rules behind them. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Canale, Michael. 1978. Word order change in Old English: Base reanalysis in generative grammar. PhD dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Davis, Graeme & Bernhardt, Karl. 2002. Syntax of West Germanic: The syntax of Old English and Old High German. Göppingen: Kümmerle Verlag.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In Blake, N. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol 2: 1066–1476, 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2004. Grammar change versus language change: Is there a difference? In Christian, Kay, Horobin, Simon & Smith, Jeremy J. (eds.), New perspectives on English historical linguistics: Selected papers from 12 ICEHL, Glasgow, 21–26 August 2002, vol. I: Syntax and morphology, 31–63. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, van Kemenade, Ans, Koopman, Willem & van der Wurff, Wim. 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foster, Tony & van der Wurff, Wim. 1995. The survival of object–verb order in Middle English: Some data. Neophilologus 79, 309–27.Google Scholar
Gerritsen, Marinel. 1984. Divergent word order development in Germanic languages: A description and a tentative explanation. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Historical syntax, 107–37. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, Joel (ed.), Universals of language, 58–90. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2000. Adjuncts and the syntax of subjects in Old and Middle English. In Pintzuk, Susan, Tsoulas, George & Warner, Anthony R. (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms, 109–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark. 2007. Historical linguistics: Theory and method. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haukenes, Ella. 1998. Inversion in English: A diachronic study. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Heggelund, Øystein Imerslund. 2010. Word order in Old English and Middle English subordinate clauses. PhD dissertation, University of Bergen. Available at https://bora.uib.no/handle/1956/4002.Google Scholar
Hiltunen, Risto. 1983. The decline of prefixes and the beginnings of the English phrasal verb. Turku: Turun yliopisto.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van, Milicev, Tanja & Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. The balance between syntax and discourse in Old English. In Gotti, Maurizio, Dossena, Marina & Dury, Richard (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2006, vol. I: Syntax and morphology, 3–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van & Westergaard, Marit. 2012. Syntax and information structure: verb-second variation in Middle English. In Anneli Meurman-Solin, María José López-Couso & Bettelou Los (eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English, 87–118. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kohonen, Viljo. 1978. On the development of English word order in religious prose around 1000 and 1200 AD: A quantitative study of word order in context. Åbo: Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation.Google Scholar
Koopman, Willem. 2005. Transitional syntax: Postverbal particles and pronouns in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 9, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1, 299–344.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony & Taylor, Ann. 2000. Verb–object order in Early Middle English. In Pintzuk, Susan, Tsoulas, George & Warner, Anthony R. (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms, 132–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 2006. How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney. 2004. A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 31, 883–914.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1964. Syntax and word order in The Peterborough Chronicle. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 65, 113–44.Google Scholar
Moerenhout, Mike & van der Wurff, Wim. 2000. Remnants of the old order: OV in the Paston letters. English Studies 81, 513–30.Google Scholar
Moerenhout, Mike & van der Wurff, Wim. 2005. Object–verb order in early sixteenth-century English prose: An exploratory study. English Language and Linguistics 9, 83–114.Google Scholar
Pearl, Lisa. 2005. Addressing acquisition from language change: A modeling perspective. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 11.1.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1995. Variation and change in Old English clause structure. Language Variation and Change 7, 229–60.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1999. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan & Taylor, Ann. 2006. The loss of OV order in the history of English. In van Kemenade, Ans & Los, Bettelou (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 249–78. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pires, Acrisio. 2006. The minimalist syntax of defective domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph & Wrenn, C. L.. 1957. An Old English grammar, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1983. Review of: Anthony Warner, Complementation in Middle English syntax and the methodology of historical syntax. Journal of Linguistics 19, 478–80.Google Scholar
Smith, C[harles] Alphonso. 1893. The order of words in Anglo-Saxon prose. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 8, 210–44.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. & Minkova, Donka. 1991. Subordination and word order change in the history of English. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Historical English syntax, 367–408. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Swieczkowski, Walerian. 1962. Word order patterning in Middle English: A quantitative study based on Piers Plowman and Middle English sermons. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1992. Syntax. In Hogg, Richard (ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language, vol. I, 168–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1974. Topics, subjects and word order: From SXV to SVX via TVX. In Jones, C. M. & Anderson, J. M. (eds.), Historical linguistics, vol. 1, 339–76. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1984. Verb-second, verb-late, and the brace construction in Germanic: A discussion. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Historical syntax, 627–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the methodology of historical syntax: A study of the Wyclifite sermons. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Willis, David. 2011. Reconstructing last week's weather: Syntactic reconstruction and Brythonic free relatives. Journal of Linguistics 47, 407–46.Google Scholar