Eric Haeberli

Negation in the History of English

Its coming again, the new collection that this site has. To complete your curiosity, we offer the favorite negation in the history of english book as the choice today. This is a book that will show you even new to old thing. Forget it; it will be right for you. Well, when you are really dying of negation in the history of english, just pick it. You know, this book is always making the fans to be dizzy if not to find.

Structural variation in Old English root clauses

A 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 towards the beginning of the clause and we frequently find Verb Second (V2) order. In contrast, in subordinate clauses finite verbs generally occur towards the end of the clause, and these clauses are frequently verb-final. In this article 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.

Deriving syntactic effects of morphological case by eliminating abstract case

Abstract It has often been observed in the literature that the presence of a morphological case system tends to correlate with certain syntactic phenomena such as relatively free argument order or the occurrence of nominal complements of adjectives. This paper proposes a theoretical explanation of this traditional observation based on the Minimalist framework. Two main claims are made. First, it is argued that the UG concept of abstract Case, which has played a central role for the analysis of nominal constituents in the generative literature, can be eliminated from the gramar because the phenomena that have been related to abstract Case can be derived from the interaction of the categorial feature matrices of the elements contained within a clause. And secondly, as a consequence which is made possible by the elimination of the concept of abstract case, it is proposed that syntactically represented case features only occur in language with a rich morphological case system and that these case features are the source of the syntactic phenomena that have traditionally been related to morphological case. This paper thus provides support for recent proposals (cf. Bobaljik, 1995; Bobaljik and Thrainsson, 1998; Thrainsson, 1996) according to which morphological properties have an important influence on the syntactic representation and hence on the syntactic processes occurring within a clause.

Syntactic Effects of Morphological Case

As discussed in the previous chapter, the distributional properties of nominal arguments have to a large extent been related to the theoretical concept of abstract’ Case within the generative framework. However, the notion of case already played a central role in many traditional discussions of the distribution of nominal constituents. What was relevant in these discussions is the notion of morphological case. It has generally been observed that the presence of a morphological case system allows nominal constituents to occur in a relatively free order within the clause. One source for this observation is the fact that the loss of a morphological case system and the loss of free word order generally seem to be closely linked in diachronic developments. For example, Sapir (1921:168) talks about “the drift toward the abolition of most case distinctions and the correlative drift toward position as an all-important grammatical method” (italics mine). Similar points are made by Meillet (1921) and Jespersen (1922). Meillet (1921:9) observes:

Locality and the functional sequence in the left periphery

Cartographic studies have focused on the sequences of functional elements which characterize the fine structure of the different zones of clauses and phrases. Such functional sequences have well-defined properties, which have been the target of extensive study in recent year: properties of ordering, of dependencies and mutual incompatibilities between positions, of freezing induced by certain functional elements and the like. These discoveries have substantially enriched the empirical coverage of theoretical and comparative syntax. Why is it that we typically find certain properties of ordering and cooccurrence restrictions, rather than others? As pointed out in Cinque and Rizzi (2010) it is unlikely that the functional hierarchy may be an absolute syntactic primitive, unrelated to other requirements or constraints: why should natural language syntax have evolved to express such a complex and apparently unmotivated primitive? It is more plausible that the functional hierarchy and its properties (to the extent to which they are universal) may be rooted elsewhere. So, properties of the functional sequence should be amenable to “further explanations” in terms of deductive interactions involving basic ingredients and fundamental principles of linguistic computations. The search for such further explanations should be considered an integral part of the cartographic endeavor (Rizzi 2013). What could be possible sources of “further explanation” for the properties of functional sequences? Two broadly defined candidates come to mind: 1. Certain properties could derive from requirements of the interface systems. For instance, it could be that functional head B may necessarily occur under functional head A (thus giving the linear order AB in head initial languages and BA in head-final languages) because the opposite hierarchical order would yield a structure not properly interpretable. Ordering of aspect below tense may be a case in point, as well as other cases of the strict orders between functional elements in the IP spine systematically mapped in Cinque (1999)

When English Meets French: A Case Study in Comparative Diachronic Syntax

A well-known syntactic difference between English and French concerns the distribution of adverbs with respect to finite main verbs. Whereas adverbs productively occur between a subject and the main verb in English (SAdvV order), this word order is generally ruled out in French. In the literature, the contrast between English and French has been analyzed as a difference with respect to verb movement. The aim of this paper is to examine how this contrast developed diachronically by comparing the distribution of adverbs and finite main verbs in the early histories of the two languages. This is of interest not only from a comparative point of view, but also because the two languages were in contact in medieval England. The paper explores to what extent the contact situation may have contributed to changes affecting the syntax of adverbs in Middle English. The evidence to be considered comes from two sources: a close comparison of a French text and its Middle English translation, and an overview of the status of adverb placement in a range of early French texts. The overall picture that emerges is that there is no strong evidence for influence of French on adverb placement in the history of English. However, the comparative diachronic analysis of the two languages reveals an interesting parallelism in their early developments.

Oblique Case and Subjecthood or: Why Icelandic Is Different

In chapter 3, I outlined a theoretical approach to the traditional observation that there is a correlation between the presence of a morphological case system and the occurrence of relatively free argument order. In the second part of chapter 4, I proposed an analysis of the cross-linguistic variation found among the Germanic languages with respect to the occurrence of adjuncts in pre-subject position. Finally, a part of chapter 5 dealt with variation concerning the co-occurrence of expletives with definite subjects in the Germanic languages. What is common to all these analyses is that they identify one language in the Germanic language family whose behavior is unexpected, namely Icelandic.

Features, Categories and Checking

As discussed in chapter 1, the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) and the theory of abstract Case have played a central role for the analysis of the syntax of A-positions within the generative literature. However, both theoretical concepts are basically stipulations. Within the GB framework (cf. e.g. Chomsky 1981, 1986a), the EPP is a principle which states that every clause needs a subject and more precisely that [Spec, IP] has to be filled (S → NP INFL VP). Yet, it has never been entirely clear what the motivation for this requirement is. The main attempts to derive the EPP are based on the notion of predication (Williams 1980, Rothstein 1985). But to relate the EPP to predication is problematic. Given that predication is basically a semantic concept, it is unexpected that the EPP can be satisfied by semantically empty elements (expletives) which do not seem to be involved in a predication relationship. Rothstein (1985) therefore argues that the EPP is the result of a syntactic form of predication. Yet, such an extension of the semantic concept of predication is obviously again stipulative and the predication approach therefore is not able to derive the EPP in a satisfactory way.

Subjecthood and Agreement

A standard assumption that has been made in the generative literature is that subjecthood can be defined in structural terms. Within pre-X’-frameworks, subjects have been argued to occupy the structurally most prominent NP position, i.e. the NP position which is immediately dominated by S ([NP, S], cf. Chomsky 1965:68ff.). This basic assumption has been maintained to a large extent in later work except that the actual label for the subject position has been adapted to the developments in the analysis of the clause structure (cf. McCloskey 1997 for a survey1). Within a simple X’-system, the subject position has been identified as [Spec, IP]. Finally, within the more fine-grained clause structures proposed in more recent work (cf. Pollock 1989 and much subsequent work), the subject position has generally been identified as [Spec, AgrsP], but more generally the subject position could simply be defined as the highest specifier position in the inflectional layer (McCloskey 1997:216).