On the derivation of three-verb clusters in Old English (original) (raw)
Related papers
Syntax and Information Structure: Verb Second variation in Middle English
Investigating the variation between verb-second (V2) and non-V2 word order in declaratives in Middle English, this chapter explores how syntax and information structure interact in the word order development during this period. It compares this interaction to similar variation in wh -questions in Present-Day Norwegian. The study makes a distinction between nominal and pronominal subjects across the four subperiods of Middle English, showing how word order is determined by syntax and information structure in different contexts. It discusses the diachronic development attested in light of findings from first language acquisition.
Since Canale (1978), "head-final" structures surfacing after the Early Middle English period have generally been ascribed to the operation of a "special" rather than a productive "head-final" grammar (cf. i.a. Kroch & Taylor 2000). Biberauer & Roberts/B&R (2005) propose a different analysis in terms of which all Middle English (ME) word-order patterns are the output of a single, optionality-permitting grammar, with attested word-order changes ultimately being the consequence of loss of this optionality. Specifically, B&R propose that ME "head-final" orders reflect the continuing availability of vP-raising, alongside DP-raising, as a means of satisfying T's EPP-requirements. This paper shows how vP-raising (= DP-raising + pied-piping) can account for the occurrence of various previously unrelated "special" structures in ME, including Stylistic Fronting and Verb (Projection) Raising, and also how the loss of these orders and the corresponding rise of expletives and obligatory subject-raising can be understood as related consequences of the loss of optional vP-raising.
Verbal Syntax in the Early Germanic Languages
This dissertation investigates the evidence for verb movement at the earliest stages of the Germanic languages. It is argued that already in the oldest documents of Germanic there are cases which must involve movement of the finite verb from the Verb Phrase to a functional head position higher up in the hierarchical structure. In a well-defined set of cases this is the Complementizer (C) position, but in other cases an IP-internal functional head position seems more likely as a landing-site for the verb. Moreover, it is argued that whereas in Gothic and Old English the verb does not move to C when complements are topicalized, in the other old Germanic languages, Old Norse, Old High German, and Old Saxon, V–to–C movement is obligatory in topicalizations. An examination of the runic inscriptions reveals that topicalized complements triggered movement of the verb to C already at the earliest stage in the northern part of the Germanic linguistic area.
The Distribution of the Perfect Auxiliaries be/have in Middle English Texts
Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies, 2018
Like many Germanic languages, English has developed specific periphrastic constructions to express perfective meaning. Before being fully grammaticalized in the 16th century, they were used occasionally in Old and Middle English as complex verb phrases with either habban ‘to have’ or beon/wesan ‘to be’ acting as auxiliary verbs. By the Modern English period, forms created with be disappeared from the language and were almost completely replaced by forms with have, a process which did not occur, for instance, in German. As the data on this development are quite scarce, a relatively simple model is assumed with a steady diachronic progress towards the system established in Modern English, a model which disregards synchronic variation. This paper attempts to investigate the distribution of the perfective constructions with be and have, especially in the 15th century texts and to identify the main factors accounting for diff erences in their usage. Instead of taking into account only th...