The Position of Subject Clauses in the History of English
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.200011003Keywords:
subject clause, extraposition, intraposition, informational load, end-weight principleAbstract
In English, subject clauses can occur either preverbally (in-subject initial position) or postverbally (in final position). In order to account for these structures, linguistic theory has presented two major hypotheses: extraposition and intraposition. All through the history of English, the criterion of frequency seems to support the hypothesis of intraposition, since preverbal subject clauses are not found in OE and are a very marginal type in both the ME and eModE periods. The aim of this paper is to account for the factors which favour the occurrence of preverbal subject clauses by examining the evidence attested in the earlier periods of the English language as well as presenting new data concerning the 18th century. The general tendency is for clauses of this type to convey low informational load, sometimes even acting as cohesive links between paragraphs. Other conditioning factors are the text-type and the principle of end-weight.
Downloads
References
BOLINGER, D. 1977. Meaning and Form. London: Longman.
CROFT, W. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.
DEKEYSER, X. 1984. “Diachronic Dimensions of Subject and Object Complement Clauses”. In Blake, N. F. and C. Jones. (eds.). English Historical Linguistics: Studies in Development (CECTAL Conference Papers, 3). Sheffield: The Centre for English Cultural Tradition and Language, University of Sheffield: 194-204.
ELLEGARD, A. 1978. The Syntactic Structure of English Texts: A Computer-based Study of Four Kinds of Text in the Brown University Corpus. Götheburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
ELSNESS, J. 1981. “On the Syntactic and Semantic Functions of that-clauses”. In Johansson, S. and B. Tysdahl. (eds.). Papers from the first Nordic Conference for English Studies. Oslo: University of Oslo: 281-303.
EMONDS, J. 1972. “A Reformulation of Certain Syntactic Transformations”. In Peters, S. (ed.). Goals of Linguistic Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall: 21-62.
--. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. Root, Structure-Preserving and Local Transformations. New York: Academic Press.
FANEGO, T. 1990. “Finite Complement Clauses in Shakespeare's English. Part I & II”. Studia Neophilologica 62: 3-21 and 129-149.
--. 1992. Infinitive Complements in Shakespeare's English: Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects. Santiago de Compostela: University, Servicio de Publicacións e Intercambio Científico.
GARCÍA LORENZO, J. C. 1993. “Aspects of the Syntax of Finite Complement Clauses as Subjects in John Lyly’s Euphues: The Anatomy of Wyt”. Atlantis XV: 135-152.
GIVÓN, T. 1983. “Topic Continuity in Discourse: An Introduction”. In Givón, T. (ed.). Topic Continuity in Discourse. A Quantitative Cross-language Study. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company: 5-41.
HAEGEMAN, L. (1991) 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
HUDDLESTON, R. 1971. The Sentence in Written English. A Syntactic Study Based on an Analysis of Scientific Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.
--. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.
JACKENDOFF, R. 1981. X-Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge Mass: The MIT Press.
JESPERSEN, O. 1909-1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, I-VII. London: Allen & Unwin.
KOSTER, J. 1978. “Why Subject Sentences Don't Exist”. In Keyser, S. J. (ed.). Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages. Cambridge Mass: The MIT Press: 53-64.
LIGHTFOOT, D. W. 1976. “Diachronic Syntax: Extraposition and Deep Structure Reanalysis”. Folia Linguistica IX, (1/ 4): 197-214.
LÓPEZ COUSO, M. J. 1994a. “Extraposition vs Intraposition: the Whys and the Wherefores”. In Ruíz, J. M. et al. (eds.). Actas del XVI Congreso de la Asociación Española de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos (A.E.D.E.A.N. 1992). Valladolid: Secretariado de Publicaciones: 227-233.
--. 1994b. Finite Complementation in the Works of John Dryden: A Corpus-based Study. [Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Santiago de Compostela].
MAIR, C. 1990. Infinitival Complement Clauses in English: A Study of Grammar in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.
MATTHEWS, P. H. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.
MÉNDEZ NAYA, B. 1997. “Subject Clauses in Old English: Do They Really Exist?” Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies 18: 213-230.
MITCHELL, B. 1985. Old English Syntax. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
NOONAN, M. 1985. “Complementation”. In Shopen, T. (ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge U, P.: 42-140.
PAINE, J. 1794-1796. The Age of Reason. In Library of the Future (CD-ROM). Windows. Ver. 4.2. World Library, Inc. 1991-1994.
PRINCE, E. F. 1981. “Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information”. In Cole, P. (ed.). 1981. Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press: 223-255.
QUIRK, R., S. GREENBAUM, G. LEECH and J. SVARTVIK. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London & New York: Longman.
RADFORD, A. 1997. Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English. A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.
ROSENBAUM, P. S. 1967. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge Mass: The MIT Press.
TRAUGOTT, E. C. 1972. The History of English Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
VISSER, F. T. 1963-1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Vols. I-III. Leiden: Brill.
WARNER, A. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax. London & Canberra: Croom Helm.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2000 Javier Rivas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
