Verb‐final main clauses in old English prose∗

Koopman, Willem

doi:10.1080/00393279508588156

Cited by 38 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are, however, three differences which stand in the way of a unified analysis. First, OE main clauses do not always involve verb movement to the left periphery; 'verb-late' main clauses in OE are a low-frequency but robust and nonnegligible phenomenon (see Koopman 1995;Pintzuk and Haeberli 2008). The conditions under which verb-late is found are not well understood, and no existing Language contact and V3 in Germanic varieties new and old 71 analysis can satisfactorily account for these clauses; mine is no exception.…”

Section: V2 and V3 In Old Englishmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language contact and V3 in Germanic varieties new and old

Walkden

2017

J Comp German Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Certain recently-attested varieties of Germanic V2 languages are known to deviate from the strict V2 requirement characteristic of the standard. This is the case, for example, for Kiezdeutsch, a new German dialect, as well as urban vernacular varieties of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish: descriptively speaking, in these varieties, subject-verb inversion may be absent under certain well-defined conditions. In this article I outline those conditions and the type of syntactic analysis required to account for them, claiming that an articulated left periphery is needed to account for the findings. The similarity of the V3 patterns found in these new varieties, which are geographically isolated from each other but which share a characterization in terms of the demographics of their speaker groups, invites a diachronic account in terms of language contact. I argue that transfer cannot account for V3, but that a scenario of sequential simplification and complexification is able to do so. Finally, turning to Old English, which exhibits similar (though not identical) V2/V3 alternations, I argue that a similar synchronic analysis can be upheld and that its diachronic origins may well also have been similar-a case of using the present to inform our approach to the past.

show abstract

Section: V2 and V3 In Old Englishmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language contact and V3 in Germanic varieties new and old

Walkden

2017

J Comp German Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One obvious question to ask is why the high frequency of head-final structure in OE root clauses has not been noticed before. Why, for example, do Fischer et al (2000), Koopman (1995), andPintzuk (1993) claim that the frequency of headfinal structure is very low? We believe this is due to the fact that many instances of V2 constituent order in OE are derived from head-final structure by other processes, such as V-to-C movement, as in (5a), (5b), repeated as (40a), (40b); verb (projection) raising, as in (41a), (41b); and postposition, as in (7b), repeated as (42).…”

Section: S U S a N P I N T Z U K A N D E R I C H A E B E R L Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural variation in Old English root clauses

Pintzuk

Haeberli

2008

Lang Var Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TA standard observation concerning basic constituent order in Old English (OE) is that the position of finite verbs varies by clause type. In root clauses, the finite verb tends to occur toward the beginning of the clause, and we frequently find Verb Second (V2) order. In contrast, in subordinate clauses, finite verbs generally occur toward the end of the clause, and these clauses are frequently verb-final. We challenge the traditional assumption that verb-final orders and, hence, the occurrence of the finite verb in a head-final structural position are rare in OE root clauses. We present new data demonstrating that the frequency of head-final structure in OE root clauses is much higher than previously acknowledged. We then explore some of the implications of this finding for the general structural analysis of OE.A standard observation concerning basic constituent order in Old English (henceforth OE) is that the position of finite verbs varies by clause type (cf., e.g., Mitchell, 1985;Traugott, 1992;van Kemenade, 1987). In root clauses, the finite verb tends to occur toward the beginning of the clause, and we frequently find Verb Second (V2) order. In contrast, in subordinate clauses, finite verbs generally occur toward the end of the clause, and these clauses are frequently verb-final.In line with these traditional observations, it is generally assumed that verb-final order can occasionally be found in OE root clauses but that it is a marginal phenomenon. For example, Bean (1983) includes the word order patterns SXV (verb in absolute final position) and SXVX (verb separated from the subject but additional material after the verb) in her analysis of the Anglo-Saxon ChronicleWe would like to thank an anonymous Language Variation and Change reviewer and audiences at the

show abstract

“…and hwaet may influence word order, but does not elaborate on this. More recently, within a generative framework, Koopman (1995), in his discussion of verb-final root clauses in Old English prose, observes that 'influence of style is . .…”

Section: Problems With the Interjection Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The vast majority of root clauses are verb-first (V1) or verbsecond. In quantitative studies, Koopman (1995) found that between 0.5 and 6.1% of Old English root clauses had later (V3+) finite verbs, depending on the text, and Pintzuk (1993: 22, fn. 22) found that 16 of 252 root clauses (6.3%) had later finite verbs (though see Pintzuk & Haeberli 2008 for the claim that the pattern underlying this order may have been more common than previously thought).…”

Section: Constituent Order In Clauses Following Hwaetmentioning

confidence: 99%

The status ofhwætin Old English

Walkden¹

2013

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is commonly held that Old English hwæt, well known within Anglo-Saxon studies as the first word of the epic poem Beowulf, can be ‘used as an adv[erb]. or interj[ection]. Why, what! ah!’ (Bosworth & Toller 1898, s.v. hwæt, 1) as well as the neuter singular of the interrogative pronoun hwā ‘what’. In this article I challenge the view that hwæt can have the status of an interjection (i.e. be outside the clause that it precedes). I present evidence from Old English and Old Saxon constituent order which suggests that hwæt is unlikely to be extra-clausal. Data is drawn from the Old English Bede, Ælfric's Lives of Saints and the Old Saxon Heliand. In all three texts the verb appears later in clauses preceded by hwæt than is normal in root clauses (Fisher's exact test, p < 0.0001 in both cases). If hwæt affects the constituent order of the clause it precedes, then it cannot be truly clause-external. I argue that it is hwæt combined with the clause that follows it that delivers the interpretive effect of exclamation, not hwæt alone. The structure of hwæt-clauses is sketched following Rett's (2008) analysis of exclamatives. I conclude that Old English hwæt (as well as its Old Saxon cognate) was not an interjection but an underspecified wh-pronoun introducing an exclamative clause.

show abstract

Verb‐final main clauses in old English prose∗

Cited by 38 publications

References 7 publications

Language contact and V3 in Germanic varieties new and old

Language contact and V3 in Germanic varieties new and old

Structural variation in Old English root clauses

The status ofhwætin Old English

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About