Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:05:10.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Correlatives in earlier English: Change and continuity in the expression of interclausal dependencies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2017

Meta Links ,
Ans van Kemenade  and
Stefan Grondelaers
Meta Links
Affiliation:
Radboud University
Ans van Kemenade
Affiliation:
Radboud University
Stefan Grondelaers
Affiliation:
Radboud University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A construction very widely used in Old English and Old Germanic more broadly are correlatives introduced by an adverbial or conditional subclause, as in When you've done your homework, (then) you can come back (Old English: ‘…, then can you come back’). Correlatives originate from a paratactic clause structure, making use of resumptive adverbs such as then belonging to the Old Germanic series of demonstrative adverbs, whose syntactic niche was the clause-initial position, particularly in Verb Second main clauses. Paratactic structure in correlatives is diagnosed by the presence of a resumptive adverb. We show that the correlative use of resumptive adverbs is sensitive to both clause-internal and clause-external variables: mood, subclause-internal particles, negation, subject type, subclause weight, text type, translation. Correlatives decline from late Old English onward. Although it may seem tempting to attribute this to the loss of Verb Second in English, it resulted primarily from the loss of the original Germanic resumptive adverbs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , October 2017 , pp. 365 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Arnold, Jennifer E., Losongco, Anthony, Wasow, Thomas, & Ginstrom, Ryan. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76(1):28–55.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter, & Lindström, Jan. (2011). Verb-First conditionals in German and Swedish: Convergence in writing, divergence in speaking. In Auer, P. & Pfänder, S. (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 218–262.Google Scholar
Baker, Peter S. (2007). Adverbs, conjunctions and prepositions. In Baker, P. S. (ed.), Introduction to Old English. Malden: Blackwell. 96–111.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef, & Obenaurer, Hans-Georg. (2011). Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types. Linguistic Review 28:449–491.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh, & Pancheva, Roumyana. (2006). Conditionals. In Everaert, M. & Riemsdijk, H. v. (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax. Malden: Blackwell. 638–687.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, & van Kemenade, Ans. (2011). Subject positions and information-structural diversification in the history of English. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 10:17–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. (1996). “Mystery features” of Old and Middle English. In Brinton, L. J. (ed.), Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalisation and discourse function. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1–28.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. (2006). Pathways in the development of pragmatic markers in English. In Kemenade, A. v. & Los, B. (eds.), The handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Blackwell. 307–334.Google Scholar
Burns, Robert B., & Burns, Richard A. (2008). Logistic regression. In Business research methods and statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE. 568–588.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. (2011). German and Italian modal particles and clause structure. Linguistic Review 28:493–531.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco. (2011). Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln. Ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen. Studia grammatica 73 . Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Den Besten, Hans. (1983). On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In Abraham, W. (ed.), On the formal nature of the Westgermania. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 47–131.Google Scholar
Enkvist, Nils E. (1972). Old English adverbial þa – an action marker? Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 73:90–96.Google Scholar
Enkvist, Nils E. (1986). More about the textual functions of the Old English adverbial þa . In Kastovsky, D. & Szwedek, A. (eds.), Linguistics across historical and geographical bounderies: In honour of Jacek Fisiak on the occassion of his fiftieth birthday. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 301–309.Google Scholar
Field, Andy. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. (1992). Syntax. In Blake, N. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 2. 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 207–408.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
Giannakidou, Anastasia. (1997). The landscape of polarity items. Groningen: Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Geeraerts, Dirk, & Speelman, Dirk. (2007). A case for a cognitive corpus linguistics. In Gonzales-Marques, M., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S., & Spivey, M. J. (eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. (2002). Inflectional morphology and the loss of verb second in English. In Lightfoot, D. (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 88–106.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. (2003). Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind & Language 18:317–339.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. (2012). Adverbial clauses, main clause phenomena, and composition of the left periphery: The carthograph of syntactic structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Clark. (1960). A concise Anglo-Saxon dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, & Szmrecsányi, Benedikt. (2007). Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics 11(3):437–474.Google Scholar
Horst, Joop M. van der. (1981). Kleine Middelnederlandse syntaxis. Amsterdam: Huis aan de drie grachten.Google Scholar
Horst, Joop M. van der. (2008). Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2002). The clause: Adjuncts. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 663–784.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. (1987). Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. (1997). Topics in Old and Middle English negative sentences. In Hickey, R. & Puppel, S. (eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling: A festschrift for Jaced Fisiak on his 60th birthday. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 293–306.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. (2000). Jespersen's cycle revisited: formal properties of grammaticalization. In Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G., & Warner, A. (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 51–75.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. (2002). Word order in Old English prose and poetry: the position of finite verbs and adverbs. In Minkova, D. & Stockwell, R. (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language: A millennial perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 355–373.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. (2009). Discourse relations and word order change. In Hinterhölzl, R. & Petrova, S. (eds.), Information structure and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 91–120.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. (2012). Rethinking the loss of verb second. In Nevalainen, T. & Traugott, E. C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 822–834.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van, & Los, Bettelou. (2006). Discourse adverbs and clausal syntax in Old and Middle English. In Kemenade, A. v. & Los, B. (eds.), The handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 224–248.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van, & Milicev, Tanja. (2011). Syntax and discourse in Old and Middle English word order. In Jonas, D., Whitman, J., & Garrett, A. (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 239–254.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van, Milicev, Tanja, & Baayen, Harold. (2008). The balance between discourse and syntax in Old and Middle English. In Gotti, M., Dossena, M., & Dury, R. (eds.), English historical linguistics 2006. Vol. 1. Syntax and morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 3–22.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van, & Westergaard, Marit. (2012). Syntax and information structure: Verb-second variation in Middle English. In Meurman-Solin, A., López-Couso, M. J., & Los, B. (eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 87–118.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. (1995). Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In Battye, A. & Roberts, I. (eds.), Clause structure and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 140–169.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katelin E. (1995). Discourse configurational languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Komen, Erwin R. (2009). CorpusStudio. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Komen, Erwin R. (2011). Cesax: Coreference editor for syntactically annotated XML corpora. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Komen, Erwin R. (2012). Coreferenced corpora for information structure research. In Tyrkkö, J., Kilpiö, M., Nevalainen, T., & Rissanen, M. (eds.), Outposts of historical corpus linguistics: From the Helsinki corpus to a proliferation of resources, studies in variation, contacts and change in English. Vol. 10. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Available at: http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/10/komen/. Accessed October 29, 2012.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Santorini, Beatrice, & Delfs, Lauren. (2004). Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Early Modern English. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, & Taylor, Ann. (2000). Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Middle English. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lipták, Anikó. (2009). The landscape of correlatives: An empirical and analytical survey. In Lipták, A. (ed.), Correlatives cross-linguistically. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–46.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. (2009). The consequences of the loss of verb-second in English: Information structure and syntax in interaction. English Language and Linguistics 13(1):97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou. (2012). The loss of verb-second and the switch from bounded to unbounded systems. In Meurman-Solin, A., López-Couso, M. J., & Los, B. (eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 21–46.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou, & van Kemenade, Ans. (in press). Syntax and the morphology of deixis: The loss of demonstratives and paratactic clause linking. In Schlachter, E. & Veenstra, T. (eds.), Demonstratives (working title). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. (1985). Subordinate clauses. In Mitchell, B. (ed.), Old English syntax: Subordination, independent elements, and element order. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 289–414, 770–867.Google Scholar
Moessner, Lilo. (2006). The subjunctive in Early Modern English adverbial clauses. In Mair, C., Heuberger, R., & Wallmannsberger, J. (eds.), Corpora and the history of English. Papers dedicated to Manfred Markus on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday. Heidelberg: Winter. 249–263.Google Scholar
OED. (ND). Oxford English dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: http://www.oed.com. Accessed August 2014.Google Scholar
OED. (ND). “then, adv. (conj., adj., and n.)”. Oxford English dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200325?rskey=WbNGTn&result=1&isAdvanced=false. Accessed August 2014.Google Scholar
Postma, Gertjan J. (2002). Negative polarity and modality in Middle Dutch ghe-particle constructions. In Barbiers, S., Beukema, F., & van der Wurff, W. (eds.), Modality and its interaction with the verbal system. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 205–244.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. (1985). Syntactic and semantic functions of subordinate clauses. In Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (eds.), A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. 1088–1097.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. (1999). Syntax. In Lass, R. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 186–331.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. (2011). On the long history of English adverbial subordinators. In Meurman-Solin, A. & Lenker, U. (eds.), Connectives in synchrony and diachrony in European languages, Studies in variation, contacts and change in English, vol. 8. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Available at: http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/08/rissanen/. Accessed August 25, 2014.Google Scholar
Struckmeier, Volker. (2014). Ja doch wohl C? Modal particles in German as C-related elements. Studia Linguistica 68(1):16–48.Google Scholar
Szmrecsányi, Benedikt. (2004). Op operationalizing syntactic complexity. In Purnelle, G., Fairon, C., & Dister, A. (eds.), Le poids des mots. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain. 1032–1039.Google Scholar
Taylor, Ann, Warner, Anthony, Pintzuk, Susan, & Beths, Frank. (2003). The York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose . University of York: Department of Language and Linguistic Science.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. (1992). Syntax. In Hogg, R. M. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 1. The beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 168–289.Google Scholar
Van den Nest, Daan. (2010). Should conditionals be emergent … : Asyndetic subordination in German and English as a challenge to grammaticalisation research. In Van Linden, A., Verstraete, J.-C., & Davidse, K. (eds.), Formal evidence in grammaticalization research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 93–136.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. (2007). Parameters of variation between verb-subject and subject-verb order in late Middle English. English Language and Linguistics 11(1):81–111.Google Scholar
Wårvik, Brita. (2013). Participant continuity and narrative structure: Defining discourse marker functions in Old English. Folia Linguistica Historica 34:209–242.Google Scholar
Wouden, Ton van der. (1997). Negative contexts: Collocation, polarity and multiple negation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. (2011). Discourse particles. In Portner, P., Maienborn, C., & von Heusinger, K. (eds.), Semantics. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft HSK 33.2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 2011–2038.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. (2011). The syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar