Advertisement

The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 211–246 | Cite as

Illusions of transitive expletives in Middle English

  • Elizabeth CowperEmail author
  • Bronwyn Bjorkman
  • Daniel Currie Hall
  • Rebecca Tollan
  • Neil Banerjee
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper examines a type of existential there sentence found in Middle English that has been argued to have a structure similar to transitive expletive constructions (TECs) in other Germanic languages, or to follow from the presence of NegP below T during the relevant period. Based on an exhaustive analysis of the 74 examples of this construction found in the Penn Parsed Corpora of Historical English (out of a total of over six thousand sentences from 1125 to 1913 containing there coded as expletive), we observe that 67 contain both a modal verb and clausal negation licensing a negative associate, unlike TECs found in other Germanic languages, and that the construction is found only between 1390 and 1600. We argue that the availability of this construction was due to a transitory alignment of three syntactic properties in this stage of the language: (i) modals were still main verbs merged within vP, but took a reduced complement consisting of only an inner clausal phase, and did not take a thematic external argument; (ii) English still had negative concord; (iii) Voice and viewpoint Aspect shared a single syntactic projection. The confluence of these three factors provided a non-thematic specifier position, [Spec,vP], into which there could merge. Before the late 14th century, modals were full verbs taking a thematic external argument and full clausal complements, and after about 1600, they were merged directly in T, occurring in a monoclausal rather than a (reduced) biclausal structure. At no point did the English monoclausal spine have the structural room to accommodate a true Germanic TEC.

Keywords

Middle English There Modal existential construction Modals Negation Transitive expletives 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the members of the Syntax–Semantics Project at the University of Toronto, the participants at ICHL 22, particularly Richard Zimmermann and Hedde Zeijlstra, the participants at the Workshop on Parameters in Diachronic Syntax at SLE in Leiden, and three anonymous reviewers for their questions and comments. The contributions of Bronwyn Bjorkman were supported by the Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship program, administered by the Government of Canada.

References

  1. Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Florian Schäfer. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Phases of interpretation, ed. Mara Frascarelli, 187–211. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  2. Allan, W.Scott. 1987. Lightfoot noch einmal. Diachronica 4 (1/2): 123–157.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, Catherine N. 1991. The historical development of the it-cleft. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  5. Banerjee, Neil. 2015. Here, there, and everywhere: Notional subject positions in historical English expletive constructions. Ms., University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  6. Bjorkman, Bronwyn, and Elizabeth Cowper. 2015. Where there is, and why. In Proceedings of the 2015 annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. Santa Vīnerte. Toronto: Canadian Linguistic Association. Available at http://cla-acl.ca/actes-2015-proceedings/.
  7. Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Dianne Jonas. 1996. Subject positions and the roles of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27 (2): 195–236.Google Scholar
  8. Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1998. Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax 1 (1): 37–71.Google Scholar
  9. Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Breivik, Leiv Egil. 1989. On the causes of syntactic change in English. In Language change: Contributions to the study of its causes, ed. Leiv Egil Breivik and Ernst Håkon Jahr, 29–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Breivik, Leiv Egil. 1983. Existential there: A synchronic and diachronic study. Bergen: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49.Google Scholar
  15. Christensen, Kirsti Koch. 1991. AGR, adjunction, and the structure of Scandinavian existential sentences. Lingua 84 (2–3): 137–158.Google Scholar
  16. Cowper, Elizabeth, and Daniel Currie Hall. 2013. Syntactic change and the cartography of syntactic structures. In NELS 42: Proceedings of the forty-second annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. Stefan Keine and Shayne Sloggett, 129–140. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  17. Cowper, Elizabeth, Bronwyn Bjorkman, Daniel Currie Hall, Rebecca Tollan, and Neil Banerjee. to appear. Investigating the past of the futurate present. In Syntactic features and the limits of syntactic change, ed. Thórhallur Eythórsson and Jóhannes Gisli Jónsson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cowper, Elizabeth, and Daniel Currie Hall. 2017. The rise of contrastive modality in English: A neoparametric account. Linguistic Variation 17 (1): 68–97.Google Scholar
  19. Deal, Amy Rose. 2009. The origin and content of expletives. Syntax 12 (4): 285–323.Google Scholar
  20. Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  21. Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. II: 1066–1476, ed. Norman Blake, 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fischer, Olga. 1998. On negative raising in the history of English. In Negation in the history of English, ed. Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Gunnel Tottie, and Wim van der Wurff, 55–100. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman, and Wim van der Wurff. 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Frisch, Stefan. 1997. The change in negation in Middle English: A NegP licensing account. Lingua 101: 21–64.Google Scholar
  25. Górász, Judit. 2006. ‘Always’ and ‘never’ in late-Middle-English sentences. The Even Yearbook 7: 1–11.Google Scholar
  26. Haeberli, Eric, and Richard Ingham. 2007. The position of negation and adverbs in Early Middle English. Lingua 117 (1): 1–25.Google Scholar
  27. Haegeman, Liliane, and Terje Lohndal. 2010. Negative concord and (multiple) agree: A case study of West Flemish. Linguistic Inquiry 41 (2): 181–211.Google Scholar
  28. Haegeman, Liliane, and Raffaella Zanuttini. 1992. Negative heads and the Neg criterion. The Linguistic Review 8: 233–251.Google Scholar
  29. Harwood, Will. 2012. There are several positions available: English intermediate subject positions. In Proceedings of CONSOLE XIX, ed. Enrico Boone, Kathrin Linke, and Maartje Schulpen, 215–239. Leiden: Student Organisation of Linguistics in Europe.Google Scholar
  30. Harwood, William. 2013. Being progressive is just a phase: Dividing the functional hierarchy. Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Gent.Google Scholar
  31. Holmberg, Anders. 2002. Expletives and agreement in Scandinavian passives. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4 (2): 85–128.Google Scholar
  32. Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn. 2004. Oblique subjects and stylistic fronting in the history of Scandinavian and English: The role of IP-spec. Doctoral dissertation, Aarhus Universitet.Google Scholar
  33. Hulk, Aafke, and Ans van Kemenade. 1997. Negation as a reflex of clause structure. In Negation and polarity: Syntax and semantics, ed. Danielle Forget, Paul Hirschbühler, and France Martineau, 183–207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. Ingham, Richard. 2000. Negation and OV order in Late Middle English. Journal of Linguistics 36 (1): 13–38.Google Scholar
  35. Ingham, Richard. 2003. The development of Middle English expletive negative sentences. Transactions of the Philological Society 101 (3): 411–452.Google Scholar
  36. Ingham, Richard. 2006. On two negative concord dialects in early English. Language Variation and Change 18: 241–266.Google Scholar
  37. Ingham, Richard. 2007. NegP and negated constituent movement in the history of English. Transactions of the Philological Society 105 (3): 365–397.Google Scholar
  38. Jacobsson, Bengt. 1951. Inversion in English: With special reference to the early Modern English period. Uppsala: Ahnqvist & Wiksells.Google Scholar
  39. Jayaseelan, K.A. 2001. IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica 55 (1): 39–75.Google Scholar
  40. Jonas, Dianne. 1995. Clause structure and verb syntax in Scandinavian and English. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  41. Kallel, Amel. 2007. The loss of negative concord in Standard English: Internal factors. Language Variation and Change 19 (1): 27–49.Google Scholar
  42. Kiss, É., and Katalin. 1996. Two subject positions in English. The Linguistic Review 13 (2): 119–142.Google Scholar
  43. Ko, Seongyeon. 2009. Two types of anticausatives in Acehnese. In The proceedings of AFLA 16, ed. Sandra Chung, Daniel Finer, Ileana Paul, and Eric Potsdam, 93–107. London, ON: Western University.Google Scholar
  44. Kroch, Anthony, and Ann Taylor. 2000. The Penn–Helsinki parsed corpus of Middle English. Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, 2nd ed. CD-ROM.Google Scholar
  45. Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1 (3): 199–244.Google Scholar
  46. Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini, and Lauren Delfs. 2004. The Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Early Modern English. Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM.Google Scholar
  47. Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini, and Ariel Diertani. 2010. The Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Modern British English. Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM.Google Scholar
  48. Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 2006. Unergatives that ‘become’ unaccusatives in English locative inversion structures: A lexical-syntactic approach. In Points de vue sur l’inversion, ed. Christine Copy and Lucie Gournay, Cahiers de recherche, vol. 9, 133–155. Paris: Editions Ophrys.Google Scholar
  51. Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  52. Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Napier, Arthur, ed. 1883 [1967]. Wulfstan: Sammlung der ihm zugeschriebenen Homilien. Berlin: Wiedmann.Google Scholar
  54. Ramchand, Gillian. 2017. The event domain. In The verbal domain, ed. Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco, and Ángel J. Gallego, 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Rezac, Milan. 2002. NP-movement in Icelandic and multiple specifier constructions. Ms., University of Toronto. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5792/d8d89cb4aa6189fa336c0a78bfbd38e5e864.pdf.
  56. Roberts, Ian. 1985. Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4 (1): 21–58.Google Scholar
  57. Roberts, Ian. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  58. Roberts, Ian, and Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change: A Minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Rochemont, Michael S., and Peter W. Culicover. 1990. English focus constructions and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Santorini, Beatrice. 1992. Variation and change in Yiddish subordinate clause word order. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10 (4): 595–640.Google Scholar
  61. Sheehan, Michelle L. 2013. Some implications of a copy theory of labeling. Syntax 16 (4): 362–396.Google Scholar
  62. Tanaka, Tomoyuki. 2000. On the development of transitive expletive constructions in the history of English. Lingua 110: 473–495.Google Scholar
  63. Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1996. On the (non-) universality of functional categories. In Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework, ed. Werner Abraham, Samuel David Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson, and Jan-Wouter Zwart, 253–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  64. Toda, Tatsuhiko. 1982. A note on verbal there sentences in Chaucer. In Studies in linguistic change in honour of Kazuo Araki, ed. Hirozo Nakano, Keji Kondo, and Hidetoshi Iida, 251–260. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Google Scholar
  65. van Kemenade, Ans. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  66. van Kemenade, Ans. 1992. Structural factors in the history of English modals. In History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics, ed. Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen, and Irma Taavitsainen, 287–309. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  67. van Kemenade, Ans. 1997a. Negative-initial sentences in Old and Middle English. Sutia Anglica Posnaniensia 31: 91–104.Google Scholar
  68. van Kemenade, Ans. 1997b. V2 and embedded topicalization in Old and Middle English. In Parameters of morphosyntactic change, ed. Ans van Kemenade, and Nigel Vincent, 326–352. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. van Kemenade, Ans. 1999. Sentential negation and clause structure in Old English. In Negation in the history of English, ed. Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Gunnel Tottie, and Wim van der Wurff, 147–165. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  70. van Kemenade, Ans. 2000. Jespersen’s cycle revisited: Formal properties of grammaticalization. In Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms, ed. Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas, and Anthony Warner, 51–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Visser, Fredericus Theodorus. 1963–73. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
  72. von Fintel, Kai. 1992. The modal-existential construction. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  73. Warner, Anthony R. 1990. Reworking the history of English auxiliaries. In Papers from the 5th international conference on English historical linguistics, ed. Sylvia M. Adamson, Vivien A. Law, Nigel Vincent, and Susan Wright, 537–557. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  74. Warner, Anthony. 1993. English auxiliaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2004. Two types of restructuring—lexical vs. functional. Lingua 114 (8): 991–1014.Google Scholar
  76. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2013. QR and selection: Covert evidence for phasehood. In NELS 42: Proceedings of the forty-second annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. Stefan Keine and Shayne Sloggett, 619–634. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  77. Wyatt, Alfred John. 1889. The lay of Havelok the Dane. Done into modern English by A. J. Wyatt. London: W. B. Clive & Co.Google Scholar
  78. Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2008. Negative concord is syntactic agreement. Ms., University of Amsterdam. Available online at http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000645.
  79. Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2012. There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review 29 (3): 491–539.Google Scholar
  80. Zimmermann, Richard. 2015. The parsed corpus of Middle English poetry. Published online at http://www.pcmep.net/.
  81. Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1992. Dutch expletives and small clause predicate raising. In NELS 22: Proceedings of the twenty-second annual meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, ed. Kimberley Broderick, 477–491. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Cowper
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bronwyn Bjorkman
    • 2
  • Daniel Currie Hall
    • 3
  • Rebecca Tollan
    • 4
  • Neil Banerjee
    • 5
  1. 1.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Queen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  3. 3.Saint Mary’s UniversityHalifaxCanada
  4. 4.University of DelawareNewarkUSA
  5. 5.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations