Hostname: page-component-669899f699-chc8l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T15:53:52.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The syntactic status of V-final conjunct clauses in Old English: the role of priming

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2023

ANNA CICHOSZ Open the ORCID record for ANNA CICHOSZ [Opens in a new window]
ANNA CICHOSZ*
Affiliation:
Department of Corpus and Computational Linguistics Institute of English Studies University of Łódź ul. Pomorska 171/173 90–236 Łódź Poland [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study is a corpus-based investigation of the use of the V-final (VF) order in Old English conjunct (or coordinate) clauses. The aim of the analysis is to determine which of the two hypotheses formulated in earlier studies of the subject finds more convincing data support in the available corpora of Old English. According to one interpretation, conjunct clauses are a subtype of main clauses, and the VF order is used in both groups to signal continuation in discourse, especially with punctual, dynamic and relatively heavy verbs. Under the other view, VF conjunct clauses are syntactically subordinate, with the coordinating conjunction blocking verb movement like a complementiser. The present study shows that while both hypotheses are descriptively adequate, the main mechanism responsible for the use of the VF order in conjunct clauses is syntactic priming, with the VF order activated by a trigger clause (usually subordinate) and spreading to the following conjunct clause(s), which often results in long chains of subsequent VF clauses.

Keywords

Old Englishconjunct clauseverb-finalsyntactic primingcorpus study
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , June 2024 , pp. 247 - 274
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

I would like to thank Ans van Kemenade for her methodological support and invaluable comments on an early version of the article, as well as Tara Struik and Erwin Komen for their help with Corpus Studio queries and Artur Bartnik and Maciej Grabski for their feedback.

References

Asher, Nicolas & Lascarides, Alex. 2003. Logics of conversation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicolas & Vieu, Laure. 2005. Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations. Lingua 115, 591–610.10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bech, Kristin. 2001. Word order patterns in Old and Middle English: A syntactic and pragmatic study. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Bech, Kristin. 2012. Word order, information structure, and discourse relations: A study of Old and Middle English verb-final clauses. In Meurman-Solin et al. (eds.), 66–86.Google Scholar
Bech, Kristin. 2017. Old truths, new corpora: Revisiting the word order of conjunct clauses in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 21(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cichosz, Anna. 2018. The constituent order of hwæt-clauses in Old English prose. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 30(1), 1–42.10.1017/S1470542717000046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cichosz, Anna. 2021. Verb-final conjunct clauses in Old English prose: The role of Latin in translated texts. NOWELE 74(2), 172–98.10.1075/nowele.00056.cicCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cichosz, Anna, Pęzik, Piotr, Grabski, Maciej, Karasińska, Sylwia, Adamczyk, Michał, Rybińska, Paulina & Ostrowska, Aneta. 2022. A frequency dictionary of Old English prose. Lodz: University of Lodz Press.Google Scholar
Cichosz, Anna, Gaszewski, Jerzy & Pęzik, Piotr. 2016. Element order in Old English and Old High German translations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus. 2009. Compiled by Antonette diPaolo Healey with John Price Wilkin and Xin Xiang. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, van Kemenade, Ans, Koopman, Willem & van der Wurff, Wim. 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fuß, Eric & Trips, Carola. 2002. Variation and change in Old and Middle English: On the validity of the Double Base Hypothesis. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4, 171–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2022. Coll.analysis 4.0. A script for R to compute perform collostructional analyses. https://stgries.info/teaching/groningen/index.html (accessed 15 January 2023).Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspectives on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1), 97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, Eric & Ihsane, Tabea. 2016. Revisiting the loss of verb movement in the history of English. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(2), 497–542.10.1007/s11049-015-9312-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, Eric & Pintzuk, Susan. 2012. Revisiting verb (projection) raising in Old English. In Jonas, Dianne, Whitman, John & Garrett, Andrew (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes, 219–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2019. Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9781474433624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110882308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van & Westergaard, Marit. 2012. Syntax and information structure: Verb-second variation in Middle English. In Meurman-Solin et al. (eds.), 87–118.Google Scholar
Komen, Erwin. 2009. Corpus Studio Manual. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen. (Available online at http://erwinkomen.ruhosting.nl/software/CorpusStudio/CrpStu_Manual.pdf)Google Scholar
Komen, Erwin. 2011. Cesax: Coreference editor for syntactically annotated XML corpora. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen. (Available online at http://erwinkomen.ruhosting.nl/software/Cesax/Cesax_Manual.pdf)Google Scholar
Anneli, Meurman-Solin, López-Couso, María José & Los, Bettelou (eds.). 2012. Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198119357.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1996. Old English verb-complement word order and the change from OV to VO. York Papers in Linguistics 17, 241–64.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1999. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 2005. Arguments against a universal base: Evidence from Old English. English Language and Linguistics 9(1), 115–38.10.1017/S1360674305001565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan & Haeberli, Eric. 2008. Structural variation in Old English root clauses. Language Variation and Change 20(3), 367–407.10.1017/S095439450800015XCrossRefGoogle 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.10.1002/9780470757048.ch11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reitter, David, Keller, Frank & Moore, Johanna D.. 2011. A computational cognitive model of syntactic priming. Cognitive Science 35(4), 587–637.10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01165.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ringe, Don & Taylor, Ann. 2015. The development of Old English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan Th.. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2), 209–43.10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03steCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Ann & Pintzuk, Susan. 2012. Rethinking the OV/VO alternation in Old English: The effect of complexity, grammatical weight, and information status. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 835–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Ann, Warner, Anthony, Pintzuk, Susan & Beths, Frank. 2003. The York–Toronto–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (YCOE). Department of Linguistics, University of York. Oxford Text Archive. www-users.york.ac.uk/~lang22/YcoeHome1.htmGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1992. Syntax. In Hogg, Richard M. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 1: The beginnings to 1066, 168–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walkden, George. 2013. The status of hwæt in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 17, 465–88.10.1017/S1360674313000129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Richard. 2017. Formal and quantitative approaches to the study of syntactic change: Three case studies from the history of English. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar