Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative inversion: a diachronic study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

By capitalizing on insight gained from the syntax of early English, comparative inversion reveals itself as a simpler process than is standardly assumed, viz. simpler than moving the finite verbal element to the C(omp)-domain in conjunction with subject movement to Spec,TP. An archaic option in the grammar allows the subject to stay in a lower position than the canonically assumed specifier of the inflectional domain and no head movement to C is invoked. The proposal complements recent findings regarding the diachrony of V2 in English together with its distinct derivation from classical V2 in Germanic. Together with the core analysis of inversion in comparatives, the article illustrates further areas in which beneficial consequences for comparatives are derived from the structure proposed, such as the persistence of certain subjectless comparative structures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beck, S., Oda, T., & Sugisaki, K. 2004. Parametric variation in the semantics of comparison: Japanese vs. English. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 13, 289–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S., D. Fleischer, R. Gergel, S. Hofstetter, S. Krasikova, C. Savelsberg, J. Vanderelst, and E. Villalta. 2008. Cross-linguistic variation in comparison constructions. Ms. Universität Tübingen.

  • Bhatt, R., & Takahashi, S. 2007. Direct comparisons: Resurrecting the direct analysis of phrasal comparatives. Proceedings of SALT 17. Ithaca: CLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biberauer, T., A. Holmberg, G. Newton, M. Sheehan, and I. Roberts. 2008. On impossible changes and borrowings: the Final-Over-Final-Constraint. Paper presented at the workshop Continuity and Change in Grammar. University of Cambridge.

  • Bobaljik, J. 2002. A-chains at the PF-interface: copies and “covert” movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 197–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, J. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 275–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. 1977. On wh-movement. In P.Culicover, T. Wasco, & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71–132). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: a cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culicover, P.W., and S. Winkler. 2008. English focus inversion constructions. Ms. Ohio State University/Universität Tübingen.

  • Demirdache, H., & Uribe-Etxebarria, M. 2000. The primitives of temporal relations. In RMartin, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step. Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 157–185). Cambridge.: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Besten, H. 1977. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. (Later published in J.B. den Besten: 1989, Studies in West Germanic Syntax, Rodopi, Amsterdam.)

  • den Besten, H. 1978. On the presence and absence of wh-elements in Dutch comparatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 641–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emonds, J.E. 1970. Root and structure preserving transformations. Ph.D., MIT.

  • Emonds, J.E. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax: root, structure-preserving, and local transformations. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, O., van Kemenade, A., Koopman, W., & van der Wurff, W. 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D., and J. Nissenbaum. 1999. Extraposition and scope: a case for overt QR. In Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 132–144.

  • Gergel, R. 2005. Modality and ellipsis: Diachronic and synchronic evidence. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Tübingen.

  • Gergel, R., Gengel, K., & Winkler, S. 2007. Ellipsis and inversion: a feature-based focus account. In KSchwabe, & S. Winkler (Eds.), On information structure, meaning and form (pp. 301–322). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Göbbel, E. 2007. Extraposition as PF Movement. In Proceedings of WECOL 2006.

  • Goldsmith, J.A. 1981. Complementizers and root clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 541–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haeberli, E. 2000. Adjuncts and the syntax of subjects in Old and Middle English. In SPintzuk, G. Tsoulas, & A. Warner (Eds.), Diachronic syntax: models and mechanisms (pp. 109–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haeberli, E. 2002. Inflectional morphology and the loss of verb second in English. In DLightfoot (Ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change (pp. 88–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hankamer, J. 1973. Why there are two ‘than’s in English. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago, IL., 179–191.

  • Hegarty, M. 2005. Feature-based functional categories: the structure, acquisition and specific impairment of functional systems. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. 2006. Remarks on comparative clauses as generalized quantifiers. Ms., MIT.

  • Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 577–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroch, A. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language variation and change, 1, 199–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroch, A. 2001. Syntactic change. In MBaltin, & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 699–729). Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroch, A. 2007. Quantitative syntactic patterns in the Penn-Helsinki Corpora of Historical English, Paper presented at the J.W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a.M.

  • Kroch, A., & Taylor, A. 2000a. The Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Middle English. Philadelphia: Department of Linguistic, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroch, A., & Taylor, A. 2000b. Verb-complement order in Middle English. In SPintzuk, G. Tsoulas, & A. Warner (Eds.), Diachronic syntax: models and mechanisms (pp. 132–163). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroch, A., Taylor, A., & Ringe, D. 2000. The Middle English verb-second constraint: A case study in language contact and language change. In S. Herring, P. van Reenen, & L. Schoesler (Eds.), Textual parameters in old language (pp. 353–391). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroch, A., Santorini, B., & Delfs, L. 2004. The Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of early Modern English. Philadelphia: Department of Linguistic, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labov, W. 2001. Principles of linguistic change. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lechner, W. 2004. Ellipsis in comparatives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, J. 2003. Subject-auxiliary inversion in comparatives and PF output constraints. In KSchwabe, & S. Winkler (Eds.), The interfaces: deriving and interpreting omitted structures (pp. 55–77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, B. 1985. Old English syntax. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moro, A. 1997. The raising of predicates: predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niinuma, F., & Park, M. 2004. A case for head movement at PF: SAI in comparatives. In ABreitbarth, & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Triggers (pp. 431–450). Berlin Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintzuk, S. 1991. Phrase structures in competition: variation and change in old English word order. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Pintzuk, S., & Kroch, A. 1989. The rightward movement of complements and adjuncts in the Old English of Beowulf. Language Variation and Change, 1, 115–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts, C. 2002. The syntax and semantics of As-parentheticals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 623–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, I.G. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax. a comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, I.G. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, U. 2004. The interpretation of traces. Natural Language Semantics, 12, 63–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speyer, A. forth. The Trochaic Requirement. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.

  • Stassen, L. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A., Warner, A., Pintzuk, S., & Beths, F. 2003. The York-Toronto-Helsinki parsed corpus of Old English prose. York: Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomason, S. 2008. Can language contact cause dramatic rapid morphosyntactic change? Paper presented at Continuity and Change in Grammar. University of Cambridge.

  • van Kemenade, A. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Kemenade, A. 1997. V2 and embedded topicalisation in Old and Middle English. In A van Kemenade, & N. Vincent (Eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change (pp. 326–352). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Riemsdijk, H. 1998. Head movement and adjacency. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 633–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, A. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics, 3, 1–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, A. 1997. The structure of parametric change and V-movement in the history of English. In A van Kemendade, & N. Vincent (Eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change (pp. 380–393). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, A. 2006. Change in periphrastic do. In A van Kemenade, & B Los (Eds.), The handbook of the history of English (pp. 45–67). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W.P.Lehmann , & Y Malkiel (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics: a symposium (pp. 95–195). Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A. 2000. Null subjects in Middle English existentials. In S.Pintzuk , G. Tsoulas, & A. Warner (Eds.), Diachronic syntax: models and mechanisms (pp. 164–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, S. 2005. Ellipsis and focus in generative grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Tübingen, Englisches Seminar, Wilhelmstr. 50, 72074, Tübingen, Germany

    Remus Gergel

Authors
  1. Remus Gergel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Remus Gergel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gergel, R. Comparative inversion: a diachronic study. J Comp German Linguistics 11, 191–211 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-008-9022-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-008-9022-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation