Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T06:37:39.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the underlying order of Early West Saxon1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Robert J. Reddick
Robert J. Reddick
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Arlington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent work by Lightfoot (1976a, 1977) and Malsch (1976) has led to conflicting hypotheses about the underlying order of old English. Lightfoot hypothesizes that OE is an SOV language, while Malsch hypothesizes that it is a VO language. Although Malsch's argument is far more rigorous than Lightfoot's, both arguments are unconvincing because both suffer from a conspicuous lack of attention to the data available in surviving OE texts:Lightfoot asserts the nonexistence of constructions which do in fact exist (1977: 211), while Malsch cites only constructions drawn or elaborated from secondary sources (39, note 1). Furthermore, the two arguments are not directly opposed to each other. Lightfoot argues for a verb-final underlying order and an NP Postposing rule, while Malsch argues for a verb-initial underlying order and a Verb Postposing rule. Neither argues against the postposing rule of the other. At the same time, their only common assumptions seem to be that underlying representations of sentences have linear ordering and that surface auxiliaries in OE are derived from higher verbs.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 1982 , pp. 37 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bacquet, P. (1962). La structure de la phrase verbale à l'époque Alfredienne. Paris: Société d'Editions les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P. (eds), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Jack, G. B. (1978). Rome's destruction and the history of English. JL 14. 311–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, W. P. (1972). Proto-Germanic syntax. In Van Coessem, F. & Kufner, H. L. (eds). Toward a grammar of Prow-Germanic. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1976a). Diachronic syntax: extraposition and deep structure re-analyses. Folia Ling.9 197–214.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1976b). The theoretical implications of subject raising. Fl 14. 257–285.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1977). Syntactic change and the autonomy thesis. JL 13. 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1979). Review of Li, Mechanisms of syntactic change. Lg 55. 381–395.Google Scholar
Malsch, D. L. (1976). Clauses and quasi-clauses: VO order in Old English. Glossa 10. 28–43.Google Scholar
Plummer, C. & Earle, J. (eds). (1952). Two of the Saxon chronicles parallel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1974). On raising. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. P. (1977). Motivations for exbraciation in Old English. In Li, C. N. (ed), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Sweet, H. (1871–1972). King Alfred's West-Saxon version of Gregory's Pastoral care. London.Google Scholar
Sweet, H. (1883). King Alfred's Orosius. London.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1972). A history of English syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Vat, J. (1978). On footnote2: evidence for the pronominal Status of par in Old English relatives. Lln 9. 965–716Google Scholar