Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 291–332 | Cite as

Relatives with a Leftward Island in Early Modern English

  • Robert Truswell


I describe a type of relative clause found in 16th–19th century English. This construction, the Relative with a Leftward Island or RLI, is characterised by a cluster of unusual properties. The relative pronoun is a definite, anaphoric pronoun, apparently semantically identical to that found in regular English appositive relatives, but the syntactic structure containing that pronoun is quite distinct from that of regular relative clauses. RLIs are biclausal structures, syntactically independent of the antecedent of the relative pronoun, with the first clause left-adjoined to the second. The relative pronoun occurs at the left edge of the subordinate, left-adjoined clause. I provide a synchronic analysis of this construction, and a sketch of the diachrony of relative clauses around this time, a period in which many constructions emerged, spread to some extent, and then disappeared within a century or so, without ever becoming fully widespread. The analysis offered here touches on many areas of syntactic theory, including island pied-piping, null subjects in non-pro-drop languages, resumption, the distribution of adjoined positions, and properties of movement and binding.


Early Modern English Relative clauses A′-binding E-type pronouns Locality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ackema, Peter, and Ad Neeleman. 2007. Restricted pro drop in Early Modern Dutch. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10: 81–107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, Cynthia. 1980. Topics in diachronic English syntax. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  3. Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  4. Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of antisymmetry: headed relative clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  5. Bresnan, Joan, and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1990. A note on Icelandic coordination. In Syntax and semantics 24: modern Icelandic syntax, eds. Joan Maling and Annie Zaenen, 355–365. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, eds. Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  9. Cole, Peter. 1982. Imbabura Quechua. Amsterdam: North Holland. Google Scholar
  10. Culicover, Peter, and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. del Gobbo, Francesca. 2003. Appositives at the interface. PhD thesis, University of California, Irvine. Google Scholar
  12. Demirdache, Hamida. 1991. Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives and dislocation structures. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  13. den Dikken, Marcel. 2005. Comparative correlatives comparatively. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 497–532. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Denison, David. 1998. Syntax. In The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol. IV: 1776–1997, ed. Suzanne Romaine, 92–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  15. Emonds, Joseph. 1979. Appositive relatives have no properties. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 211–243. Google Scholar
  16. Fabb, Nigel. 1990. The difference between English restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses. Journal of Linguistics 26: 57–77. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Felix, Sascha. 1985. Parasitic gaps in German. In Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen, ed. Werner Abraham, 173–200. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Hankamer, Jorge, and Ivan Sag. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 391–426. Google Scholar
  20. Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  21. Heycock, Caroline, and Anthony Kroch. 1994. Verb movement and coordination in a dynamic theory of licensing. The Linguistic Review 11: 257–283. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hohle, Tilman. 1990. Assumptions about asymmetric coordination in German. In Grammar in progress: GLOW essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, eds. Joan Mascaró and Marina Nespor, 221–235. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  23. Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  24. Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. \(\bar{X}\) syntax: a study of phrase structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  25. Jespersen, Otto. 1927. A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part III: syntax, second volume. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung. Google Scholar
  26. Kathol, Andreas. 1992. On coordination and constituency in German. In Proceedings of the 28th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 267–281. Google Scholar
  27. Keenan, Edward, and Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99. Google Scholar
  28. Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1975. A partial history of the relative clause in English. In Papers in the history and structure of English: University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics Vol. 1, ed. Jane Grimshaw, 1–33. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Google Scholar
  29. Kroch, Anthony, and Ann Taylor. 2000. Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Middle English (2nd edn.). Available at
  30. Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini, and Lauren Delfs. 2004. Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Early Modern English. Available at
  31. Kytö, Merja. 1996. Manual to the diachronic part of the Helsinki corpus of English texts: coding conventions and lists of source texts. Available at
  32. Kytö, Merja, and Matti Rissanen. 1993. “By and by enters [this] my artificiall foole… who, when Jack beheld, sodainely he flew at him”: Searching for syntactic constructions in the Helsinki Corpus. In Early English in the computer age: explorations through the Helsinki Corpus, eds. Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö, and Minna Palander-Collin, 253–266. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  33. Madvig, Johan. 1870. A Latin grammar for the use of schools. Boston: Ginn Bros. Google Scholar
  34. McCawley, James. 1982. Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 91–106. Google Scholar
  35. Moens, Marc, and Mark Steedman. 1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14: 15–28. Google Scholar
  36. Moessner, Lilo. 1992. Relative constructions and functional amalgamation in Early Modern English. In History of Englishes: new methods and interpretations in historical linguistics, eds. Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen, and Irma Taavitsainen, 336–351. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  37. Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1990. Quantification in the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  38. Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1989. Parameters in the grammar of Basque: a GB approach to Basque syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  39. Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1990. Operator feature percolation and clausal pied-piping. In Papers on wh-movement: MIT working papers in linguistics 13, eds. Lisa Cheng and Hamida Demirdash, 193–208. Google Scholar
  40. Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding. In The representation of (in)definiteness, eds. Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen, 98–129. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  41. Richards, Norvin. 2000. An island effect in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9: 187–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rissanen, Matti. 1984. The choice of relative pronouns in 17th century American English. In Historical Syntax, ed. Jacek Fisiak, 417–435. Berlin: Mouton. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol. III: 1476–1776, ed. Roger Lass, 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  44. Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1982. We need (some kind of) a rule of conjunction reduction. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 557–561. Google Scholar
  45. Romaine, Suzanne. 1982. Socio-historical linguistics: its status and methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  47. Safir, Ken. 1986. Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 663–689. Google Scholar
  48. Sells, Peter. 1986. Coreference and bound anaphora: a restatement of the facts. In NELS 16: proceedings of the North-East Linguistics Society, eds. Stephen Berman, Jae-Wong Choe, and Joyce McDonogh, pp. 434–446. Google Scholar
  49. Srivastav, Veneeta. 1991. The syntax and semantics of correlatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9: 637–686. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Strawson, Peter. 1985. Causation and explanation. In Essays on Davidson: actions and events, eds. Bruce Vermazen and Merrill Hintikka, 115–135. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Google Scholar
  51. van der Wurff, Wim. 1988. A remarkable gap in the history of English syntax. Folia Linguistica Historica 9: 117–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van Kemenade, Ans. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  53. van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: the binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  54. Visser, Fredericus. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language. Berlin: Leiden. Google Scholar
  55. von Stechow, Arnim. 1996. Against LF pied-piping. Natural Language Semantics 4: 57–110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linguistics and English Language, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language SciencesThe University of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations