Comparative inversion: a diachronic study

Original Paper
  • 113 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Comparative clauses In-situ subjects Middle English Old English Subject-auxiliary inversion V2 

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Bhatt, R., & Takahashi, S. 2007. Direct comparisons: Resurrecting the direct analysis of phrasal comparatives. Proceedings of SALT 17. Ithaca: CLC.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Bobaljik, J. 2002. A-chains at the PF-interface: copies and “covert” movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 197–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bresnan, J. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 275–343.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. 1977. On wh-movement. In P.Culicover, T. Wasco, & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71–132). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  8. Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: a cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Culicover, P.W., and S. Winkler. 2008. English focus inversion constructions. Ms. Ohio State University/Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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.)Google Scholar
  12. den Besten, H. 1978. On the presence and absence of wh-elements in Dutch comparatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 641–671.Google Scholar
  13. Emonds, J.E. 1970. Root and structure preserving transformations. Ph.D., MIT.Google Scholar
  14. Emonds, J.E. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax: root, structure-preserving, and local transformations. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  15. Fischer, O., van Kemenade, A., Koopman, W., & van der Wurff, W. 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Gergel, R. 2005. Modality and ellipsis: Diachronic and synchronic evidence. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Göbbel, E. 2007. Extraposition as PF Movement. In Proceedings of WECOL 2006.Google Scholar
  20. Goldsmith, J.A. 1981. Complementizers and root clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 541–574.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Hegarty, M. 2005. Feature-based functional categories: the structure, acquisition and specific impairment of functional systems. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. Heim, I. 2006. Remarks on comparative clauses as generalized quantifiers. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  26. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, K. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 577–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kroch, A. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language variation and change, 1, 199–244.Google Scholar
  29. Kroch, A. 2001. Syntactic change. In MBaltin, & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 699–729). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Kroch, A., & Taylor, A. 2000a. The Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Middle English. Philadelphia: Department of Linguistic, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Labov, W. 2001. Principles of linguistic change. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Lechner, W. 2004. Ellipsis in comparatives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Mitchell, B. 1985. Old English syntax. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  39. Moro, A. 1997. The raising of predicates: predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Pintzuk, S. 1991. Phrase structures in competition: variation and change in old English word order. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
  44. Potts, C. 2002. The syntax and semantics of As-parentheticals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 623–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  46. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  47. Roberts, I.G. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax. a comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  48. Roberts, I.G. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Sauerland, U. 2004. The interpretation of traces. Natural Language Semantics, 12, 63–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Speyer, A. forth. The Trochaic Requirement. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  51. Stassen, L. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Thomason, S. 2008. Can language contact cause dramatic rapid morphosyntactic change? Paper presented at Continuity and Change in Grammar. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  54. van Kemenade, A. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  55. 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
  56. van Riemsdijk, H. 1998. Head movement and adjacency. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 633–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. von Stechow, A. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics, 3, 1–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. Winkler, S. 2005. Ellipsis and focus in generative grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität Tübingen, Englisches SeminarTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations