Studies on Old High German Syntax: Left sentence periphery, verb placement and verb-second (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Studies on Old High German Syntax Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA)...

Author: Katrin Axel

263 downloads 1211 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Studies on Old High German Syntax

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.

General Editors Werner Abraham

University of Vienna / Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Elly van Gelderen

Arizona State University

Advisory Editorial Board Cedric Boeckx

Christer Platzack

Guglielmo Cinque

Ian Roberts

Günther Grewendorf

Lisa deMena Travis

Liliane Haegeman

Sten Vikner

Hubert Haider

C. Jan-Wouter Zwart

Harvard University University of Venice

J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt University of Lille, France University of Salzburg

University of Lund

Cambridge University McGill University

University of Aarhus University of Groningen

Volume 112 Studies on Old High German Syntax. Left sentence periphery, verb placement and verb-second Katrin Axel

Studies on Old High German Syntax Left sentence periphery, verb placement and verb-second

Katrin Axel Saarland University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Axel, Katrin. Studies on Old High German syntax : left sentence periphery, verb placement and verbsecond / Katrin Axel. p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 0166-0829 ; v. 112) English version of the author's thesis (doctoral)--University of Tübingen, 2005. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. German language--Old High German, 750-1050--Syntax. 2. German language--Old High German, 750-1050--Sentences. 3. German language--Old High German, 750-1050--Verb. 4. German language--Old High German, 750-1050--Word order. I. Title. PF3925.A94

2007

437'.01--dc22

2007035307

isbn 978 90 272 3376 9 (hb : alk. paper) © 2007 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

IX

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

XI

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1

1.1

Aims

1

1.2

On Old High German

1.3

A short overview of Old High German sentence grammar

1.4

Special features of Old High German sentence grammar

1.5

Outline of the investigation

1.6

The corpus

1.7

Data acquisition and citation modes

2 4 10

14

16 22

CHAPTER 2: VERB MOVEMENT

2.1

Introduction

2.2

Indo-European origins of verb fronting 27

2.3

Verb movement in the earliest Germanic languages

2.3.1

2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4

2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4

27

27

29

Particles and verb movement in Gothic 35

Verb movement in Old High German: Independent clauses

40

Verb movement in sentences with sentence particles 40 Verb movement in interrogatives, imperatives and negated sentences 52 Verb movement in declarative clauses 62 Conclusion 66

Independent declaratives without verb movement?

68

‘Layout-driven’ verb-end placement 71 Verb-end and the problem of word-order ambiguity 72 Verb-end order in non-initial conjuncts? 77 Summary 79

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.6 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3

2.7

Verb movement in Old High German: Dependent clauses The right sentence periphery in Old High German Verb movement to a medial I-position? 95 Short verb movement? 108

Summary

79

80

109

CHAPTER 3: VERB-FIRST DECLARATIVES

113

3.1

Introduction

3.2

Ways of filling the prefield

3.3

Verb-first order in the precursors of the es-verb-second clauses

3.4

Verb-first order and unaccusativity

3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3

3.5 3.5.1

113 116

124

Predicate classes 124 Subject extraposition 131 Expletive pro? 135

Verb-first order in subjectless constructions Quasi-argument and correlative pro?

142

143

3.6

Verb-first order in the context of verbs of saying and negation

3.7

Verb-first order due to topic drop?

3.7.1 3.7.2

3.8 3.8.1 3.8.2 3.8.3 3.8.4

3.9

120

150

153

The topic-drop hypothesis 153 Extensions at the left sentence periphery of OHG verb-first declaratives 157

Pragmatic aspects of verb-first declaratives

161

Old High German verb-first declaratives and theme-rheme structure 162 Verb-first declaratives and narrativity 164 Verb-first order in sentences with particles 167 On the diachronic development of verb-first declaratives 170

Conclusion 171

CHAPTER 4: LEFT SENTENCE PERIPHERY AND XP-MOVEMENT

4.1

Introduction

4.2

Indo-European origins of topicalization and wh-movement

4.3

The structure of the left periphery in Germanic

4.3.1 4.3.2

4.4 4.4.1

173

173 173

178

The structure of the left periphery in Proto-Germanic 178 Left-peripheral particles and the fine-structure of the C-domain in Gothic 183

XP-fronting in Old High German Operator movement 192

189

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.4.2 4.4.3

4.5 4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.3 4.5.4 4.5.5 4.5.6

4.6

Stylistic Fronting 196 Conclusion 200

Verb-third constructions in Old High German

200

Verb-third order after dislocated topics 203 Verb-third order after two prefinite phrases that ‘form a unit’ Verb-third order with sentence adverbs 217 Verb-third order with pronouns and short adverbs 222 Summary 227 Verb-third order with adverbial clauses 227

Summary

211

233

CHAPTER 5: PRONOUN PLACEMENT AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE

5.1

Introduction

5.2

Personal pronouns at the left sentence periphery

5.2.1 5.2.2

5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.3.5

237 239

Syntactic distribution 239 Analysis 249

Are there clitic pronouns in Old High German?

254

Full and reduced forms 255 Strong personal pronouns 262 Sentence-initial personal pronouns 264 Pronouns at the left periphery of the middle field 268 Pronouns in the order XP–pron–Vfin 272

5.4

XP–pron–Vfin due to verb-end placement?

5.5

Pronoun distribution due to asymmetric verb movement?

5.5.1 5.5.2

5.6

237

277 279

Kiparsky (1995, 1996) 279 Kroch & Taylor (1997), Haeberli (1999a, 2000, 2001, 2002a) and Eythórsson (1995) 285

Summary

290

CHAPTER 6: NULL SUBJECTS AND VERB PLACEMENT

293

6.1

Introduction

6.2

Overview of Old High German null-subject constructions

6.3

Non-canonical properties of OHG null subjects

6.4

Alternatives to the pro-drop analysis?

6.4.1

Topic drop?

293

304

304

299

294

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6.4.2

Loan syntax?

305

6.5

Syntactic distribution of Old High German null subjects

6.6

Morphological distribution of OHG null subjects

6.7

The loan-syntax hypothesis revisited

6.8

The loss of null subjects in Old High German

6.9

Summary

307

314

319 321

326

SUMMARY

327

REFERENCES

335

INDEX

359

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book is based upon my doctoral dissertation, completed at the University of Tübingen in May 2005, which was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft as part of the Collaborative Research Centre Linguistic Data Structures. First and foremost I would like to express my profound intellectual and personal gratitude to Marga Reis. Little bits of her occur throughout these pages: her knowledge, for instance of the intricacies of German grammar; her interests, for example for historical syntax; but also her approach to research, above all, the insight that linguistic theorizing should build on a sound descriptive basis. I deeply appreciate her generous support, her encouragement to develop my own ideas, her human warmth and kindness. I owe her much. I would also like to express my warm thanks to Veronika Ehrich, who has accompanied me throughout my linguistic training with her kind advice and active support. She contributed immensely to the academically stimulating environment in which the work in this book took place. I am grateful too to the other two members of my dissertation committee, Ulrike Demske and Wolfgang Sternefeld, for their interest in my work and their valuable comments. Thanks also for Ulrike’s support since I have been at Saarland University. The exciting research atmosphere at the Collaborative Research Centre Linguistic Data Structures in Tübingen was a social and intellectual pleasure and a spur to activity. I would like to thank my colleagues Sam Featherston, Nele Hartung-Schaidhammer, Daniel Holl, Reimar Müller, Dirk Wiebel and, in particular, Serge Doitchinov, who were always ready to join in enthralling discussions on both linguistic and non-linguistic topics. Tanja Kiziak and Helmut Weiß deserve special thanks for their many helpful remarks on this book and for our fruitful exchanges. I am indebted to the editors of this series, Werner Abraham and Elly van Gelderen, and to the managing editor Kees Vaes for their help in preparing the manuscript for publication. Special thanks are extended to Kirsten Brock for her thorough proof-reading. I wish to thank my parents and family for their loving care over the years and last, but not least, Carsten for his patience, encouragement and love.

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

AC ACC ADJ ADHORT

Adj ADV/adv

AdvP AgrP arb/ARB ASP

C Comp CONJ DAT DEM

DP DUAL FEM/fem.

Fin Foc Force GEN

IP IMP

ind. INSTR INTERJ LOC MASC/masc. NEG NOM NTR/ntr.

obj OHG OV P PARTCL PL/pl.

adverbial clause accusative case adjective adhortative Adjective Phrase adverb Adverb Phrase Agreement Phrase arbitrary interpretation aspect complementizer complementizer conjunctive dative case demonstrative Determiner Phrase dual feminine Finite, part of the CP focus illocutionary force genitive Inflection Phrase imperative indicative instrumental interjection locative masculine negation nominative neuter object Old High German object verb Phrase particle plural

PP PREFIX

pres. PRET PREVERB

pro PRON

quasi-arg. (R) REFL REL SG/sg.

SOV Spec SU subj t Top TP V Vfin Vinfin VO vP VP / \ {}

* # &

Prepositional Phrase prefix present preterite preverb small pro (= null subject) pronoun quasi-argument (al) translation taken from Robinson (1997) reflexive relative (clause, pronoun, particle) singular subject object verb specifier non-pronominal subject subject trace topic Tense Phrase verb finite verb infinite verb verb object small vP Verb Phrase line break half-verse division material enclosed has been reconstructed (cf. Chapter 1) ungrammatical unattested example ‘et’

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Aims This book is a historical investigation into various aspects of the syntax of the left sentence periphery in German. Its major aim is to investigate the origins of the verb-second property. Accordingly, it centres on the following three phenomena: the generalization of verb movement, the development of obligatory XP-fronting, and the establishment of the ‘linear’ verb-second restriction in the strict sense. The language period which will be investigated is the oldest attested stage of the German language, i.e. the Old High German (OHG) period. As Otto Behaghel (1932:11) already claimed in his historical syntax of German, some essential aspects of the verb-second phenomenon were present in the earliest Germanic times. As a matter of fact, I will argue extensively in the present study that some crucial steps toward a verb-second grammar, such as the generalization of verb movement in root clauses, had already been taken in OHG. Nevertheless, at least the earlier OHG texts display a number of syntactic phenomena which are not compatible with the standard notion of a verb-second grammar. For example, verb-third effects appear to be less restricted than in the modern Germanic verb-second languages. The same is true for verb-first placement in independent declarative clauses. Moreover, features such as the null-subject property and the residues of a system of sentence-typing leftperipheral sentence particles are not easily accommodated within current assumptions on verb-second. In the present investigation, I will systematically describe and analyse these special features of OHG syntax, which are all directly related to the problem of verb placement and to the structure of the left sentence periphery. My main objective is to gain a comprehensive picture of the OHG pre-verb-second syntax which takes into account a great number and a variety of parameters – including those that have been neglected or entirely ignored in the previous literature. A further important aim of the present work is a more comparative one: to find out to what extent the situation in OHG is compatible with current diachronic models of the origins of verb movement and of XP-fronting in Germanic which have been developed based on investigations of other Old Germanic languages such as Gothic and Old English.1 1 Since the seminal investigation by Lenerz (1984) and the studies by Tomaselli (1995), Don-

hauser (1996) and Abraham (1997), there has hardly been any research on the syntax of OHG by theoretically oriented linguists. Besides the present study, this topic has also been taken up

2

OLD HIGH GERMAN SYNTAX

1.2 On Old High German OHG is the oldest attested period of the German language. More precisely, the term ‘OHG’ is used to refer to a group of dialects of the West Germanic branch of the Germanic family. The continuous written documentation of OHG sets off in the second half of the eighth century. The end of the OHG period is generally dated to the second half of the eleventh century. The linguistic criteria for this periodization are phonological (and not syntactic) ones: The main phonological difference between OHG and the West Germanic dialects from which it developed is that OHG was subject to the High German consonant shift or Second Sound Shift. This phonological change had its beginning before the period of the oldest High German monuments. It is generally held to have taken place very approximately between the sixth and seventh centuries. By the mid eleventh century a further sound change was practically completed: In unstressed syllables the various different vowels had mostly been reduced to schwa, a process that also affected the morphological system of inflectional endings.2 At this earliest attested stage of the German language, a standard or supraregional variety had not yet evolved: Each text was written in a particular dialect or in a mixture of dialects. The OHG dialects are sometimes referred to as monastery dialects because their written documentation consists mainly of manuscripts from a few major ecclesiastical centres (bishoprics and monasteries). The major dialectal division in the OHG period was between Upper German and Middle German. Upper German mainly consisted of the Alemannic dialects (main monasteries: St. Gallen, Reichenau and Murbach) and the Bavarian dialects (Mondsee, Freising, Regensburg, Wessobrunn and many more). In OHG times, Middle German only comprised the Franconian

only recently in the project by Karin Donhauser and Roland Hinterhölzl on “The role of information structure for the development of word order regularities in Germanic” (staff: Svetlana Petrova and Michael Solf), which is part of the Collaborative Research Centre on Information Structure (SFB 632 University of Potsdam/Humboldt University in Berlin). I should also like to mention the dissertation by Agnes Jäger on the “History of German Negation” (Jäger 2006) as well as the diploma thesis by Oliver Schallert on OV/VO-order in OHG and other Old Germanic languages (Schallert 2006). Jürg Fleischer has worked on OHG pronoun syntax (Fleischer 2005) and Helmut Weiß on the right sentence periphery in OHG (Weiß to appear). Most of the results of these research activities were published after the completion of my dissertation (Axel 2005a), on which this book is based. This is why I have not always been able to add a full discussion of these recent publications, some are only mentioned in footnotes. Due to this newly arising interest, we will probably soon have a more complete picture of OHG sentence grammar integrating results not only on the left, but also on the right sentence periphery and on the middle field. 2 See Sonderegger (2003:31f.) for a more detailed account of the relevant phonological changes.

INTRODUCTION

3

dialects.3 The written attestation of OHG comprises more than 150 texts. Apart from inscriptions and glosses, one can roughly distinguish between translational and autochthonous texts (cf. Sonderegger 2003:66-78). The vast majority of texts, however, belong to the first group, which is, of course, a big drawback for linguistic research. Even more problematic – especially for syntactic investigations – is that there are only very few prose texts available. Among the prose texts, the word-by-word translations of the so-called ‘interlinear versions’ (e.g. the Benedictine Rule) are not appropriate for syntactic studies. According to Sonderegger, there are furthermore translations with partial interlinear traits. Besides the numerous smaller texts of religious practice (e.g. various creeds, Pater Nosters and confessions), the OHG Tatian (ca. 850, East Franconian), which is one of the major OHG documents, has been argued to belong to this group. A relatively free translation from early OHG is the Isidor. This text is a translation of the tract De fide catholica ex veteri et novo testamento contra Iudeos, written by the bishop Isidore of Sevilla (ca. 560636). The South-Rhine-Franconian translation, which is extant in the so-called Paris Codex, was produced around 800 (Sonderegger 2003:129). The ‘Isidorgroup’ in a wider sense also comprises the so-called Mon(d)see-Vienna Fragments (early ninth century). This collection of fragmentary manuscripts contains a Bavarian version of the Isidor tract in addition to Bavarian translations of the Gospel of St. Matthew, the anonymous tract De vocatione gentium, a sermon by St. Augustine on Matthew 14, and the last part of an anonymous sermon. In late OHG, the monk Notker Labeo, ca. 950-1022, who is generally regarded as one of the founders of German vernacular literature, produced a large OHG corpus (in Alemannic) containing very free translations, paraphrases and commentaries of numerous important works of classical Greek and Latin literature, e.g. Boethius’ Consolations of Philosophy, Capella’s Marriage of Mercury and Philology, Pope Gregory I’s Morals, and Aristotle’s Categories. Finally, roughly 60 years later, in the second half of the eleventh century, Williram, the abbot of the famous Benedictine Abbey of Ebersberg in Bavaria, composed a German translation and paraphrase of the Song of Songs. Autochthonous prose texts, on the other hand, are very rare. Apart from some proverbs and the Straßbourg Oaths, hardly any such texts have been handed down to us. This is why some linguistic studies – even on syntactic topics – have investigated lyrical texts, in particular the monumental Gospel Harmony by Otfrid of Weißenburg (ca. 863 to 871, South Rhine Franconian) and the Hildebrandslied (ca. 820/830)4, the sole surviving record of Old High German heroic poetry, whose language is a mixture between Old High German 3 Franconian can be further divided into (i) East Franconian (e.g. Würzburg and Fulda), (ii)

Rhine Franconian (e.g. Mainz, Frankfurt, Lorsch and Worms) and (iii) Middle Franconian (Trier, Echternach, Cologne etc.). 4 See Lühr (1982), Greule (1987) and Suchsland (2000) on the syntax of the Hildebrandslied.

4


and Old Saxon. The texts which were part of the corpus used in the present study will be described in more detail in section 1.6. Some methodological and terminological issues will be addressed in section 1.7. 1.3 A short overview of Old High German sentence grammar All modern Germanic languages – with the exception of English – are subject to the so-called ‘verb-second constraint’.5 In purely descriptive terms this means that the finite verb is always exactly the second constituent in (minimal) declarative root clauses. As has been observed in the descriptive literature as well as in the few generative studies available so far (e.g. Lenerz 1984, 1985b; Weerman 1988; Tomaselli 1995), the verb-second constraint seems to have also been operative in OHG already. Indeed it seems to be the case that already the grammars of the eighth and ninth century prose texts (i.e. the Monsee Fragments (MF), Isidor (I), Tatian (T)) display the essential features of a verb-second language: First, the clause-initial position in front of the finite verb is not always occupied by the subject (lexical or pronominal) as in (1)-a and (1)-b, but also by non-subject XPs of any syntactic category or with any syntactic function. For example, one can find the following XPs in this position: topicalized object DPs, as in (1)-c and (1)-d; different types of adverbials in the form of PPs or AdvPs, as in (1)-e to (1)-g; predicative adjectives as in (1)-h; and infinite parts of the verb, as in (1)-i to (1)-k.6 (1)

a. [Druhtin] suuor dauite in uuaarnissu Lord swore David-DAT in truth “the Lord swore to David in truth” (R) Iurauit dominus dauid in ueritate

(I 610)

b. /[ih] gáb íu bilidi/ (T 553,9) I gave you image “I gave you an example” /exemplum enim dedi uobis/

5 Outside the Germanic language family, verb-second characteristics can be found for example

in Kashmiri (cf. Bhatt 1999), in Breton (cf. Borsley & Kathol 2000; Bury 2003:142ff.), and in Rhaeto-Romance (cf. Poletto 2000:88-107). See Chapters 1 and 4 on the verb-second properties of further early Germanic languages. As for the medieval stages of non-Germanic languages, verb-second phenomena have been observed, for instance, for Old and Middle French (e.g. Adams 1987; Roberts 1993, Vance 1997) as well as for some medieval Northern Italian Dialects (e.g. Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà 1985) and for Middle Welsh (cf. Willis 1998). 6 Cf. section 1.7 on citation modes as well as on grammalogues and abbreviations.

5

INTRODUCTION

c. Enti [miin ur teili] chundit deotom declare-3.SG nations-DAT and my judgement-ACC “and he shall declare my judgement to the nations” (MF V,8; Mt 12:18) et iudicium gentibus nuntiabit d. [Dhinera uuomba uuaxsmin] setzu ih ubar miin hohsetli (I 611) your womb’s fruit put I upon my throne “I will place the fruit of your womb upon my throne” (R) De fructu uentris tui ponam super sedem meam e. [In dhemu nemin cyres] ist christ chiuuisso chiforabodot in the name Cyres is Christ certainly presaged “by the use of the name ‘Cyres’ Christ is certainly presaged” (I 162) In persona enim cyri christus est prophetatus f. [Chiuuisso] chioffanodom uuir nu hear dhazs ... certainly revealed we now here that “certainly we have now revealed here that ...” (R) Probauimus dominum nostrum ...

(I 484)

g. Endi [after dhes chifehtes ende] uuirdhit dhar chisetzit idalnissa and after the fighting’s end becomes there instituted desolation “and after the end of the fighting desolation will be instituted there” (R) et post finem belli statuta desolatio (I 473) h. /[toot] ist her./ (T 313,14) dead is he “he is dead” /quia mortuus est/ i. [chimanacfaldit] uuirdhit siin chibot multiplied becomes his rule “his authority will be multiplied” (R) multiplicabitur imperium eius

(I 389)

j. Enti [{uuntr}entiu] uur tun elliu dhiu folc ... (MF V,16; Mt 12:23) and astonished became all the people-PL “and all the people were astonished ...” Et stupebant omnes turbae ... k. [Zi uuizsanne] ist nu uns chiuuisso, dhazs fater einemu ist to know is now us certainly that father alone is dhurahchunt ... (I 120) well-known “we should certainly know now that only the father really knows ...” Scire autem manifestum est solum patrem ...

When the prefield is occupied by a non-subject XP, the subject – if overtly expressed – generally occurs after the finite verb as in (1)-d to (1)-f and (1)-h to (1)-j. This type of ‘inversion’ is not only a typical property of the modern Germanic verb-second languages, but can also be found in further Old Germanic and Old Romance languages; cf. (2) and (3):

6

(2)


a. [On twam þingum] hæfde God þæs in two things had God the “with two things God had endowed man’s soul” (ÆHTh.I,20,1; from van Kemenade 1997:333)

mannes sawle gegodod man’s soul endowed

b. [Hlióðs] bið ek allar / helgar kindir ask I all holy beings-ACC.PL silence-GEN “I ask all holy beings for silence” (Edda, Vsp 1; from Eythórsson 2002:192) (3)

Old English

Old Norse

clerigo mezclar en el caliz a. [Uino & agua] deue el wine & water must the priest mix in the chalice “the priest must mix wine and water in the chalice” (Leyes.13v; from Fontana 1993:95) Old Spanish b. [Par ces trois] sera la Queste achevee by these three will-be the Quest accomplished “the Quest will be accomplished by these three” (Queste del Saint Graal 73,14; from Vance 1997:8)

Old French

In OHG, the finite verb is usually fronted to the left sentence periphery in independent clauses. It is either found in second position (directly after the initial XP) as in (1), or in first position as in (7) below. One of the major aims of the present investigation is to find out whether verb movement is already obligatory in the grammar that is witnessed by the older prose documents. As in present-day German, verb placement in OHG seems to be ‘asymmetric’: In independent clauses (without complementizers) the finite verb occurs at the left periphery, whereas in subordinate clauses introduced by a complementizer it remains in its base position at the end of the clause. This asymmetry can be clearly seen in the sentence pair in (4)-a and (4)-b. Note that OHG thō “then, at that time; when” was both an adverb and an adverbial subordinator. In the independent clause in (4)-a, the finite verb follows the initial adverb thō and thus occurs in second position, the object pronoun in and the subject being relegated to postfinite positions. By contrast, in the subordinate clause in (4)-b, the finite verb is in final position and is preceded by the subject pronoun and the object. (4)

a. /tho antuurtita in der heilant/ then answered them the Saviour “the Saviour answered to them then” /Ihesus autem respondit eis;/ b. /tho her thisiu quad/ when he these said “when he had said these things” /Et cum haec dicer&/

(T 287,16)

(T 343,28)

7

INTRODUCTION

It has often been claimed that (syntactic) subordination did not really exist or was still very incomplete in OHG (e.g. Fleischmann 1973; Ebert 1978:20; Abraham 1993:117). But this claim runs into problems when one takes into consideration that (i) even the early documents contain a large inventory of subordinators – cf. (5) for an (incomplete) overview – and that (ii) sentences which are introduced by these subordinators generally show verb-final order as has been illustrated above. (5)

a. complementizers: thaz/dhaz(s) “that”, ibu (oba, ob(e) etc.) “if”, (h)wedar “whether” b. relatives: particles: thē̆/đe/d(e)/do//thie etc.; (thaz) d-pronoun (+ particle): ther + (the) (therde) … w-pronouns + sō: sōwer(sō) “who, whoever”, sōuuelīh(sō) “which, whichever” c. adverbial subordinators: morphologically simple: sō̆ (temporal/conditional: “when”/“if”), t(h)ō (temporal: “when”), thā̌r (local: “where”), ēr (temporal precedence: “before”), sār (temporal: “as soon as”), sīd (temporal/causal: “since”/“because”), than(n)e (temporal/conditional: “when”/“if”), unz (temporal: “until”), tho(h) (concessive: “even though, although”) etc. morphologically complex: sō̆ + adverb/w-word (sō̆) sō̆ ofto sō̆ “as often as, whensoever”, sō̆ sliumo (sō̆) “as soon as” etc.

Interestingly, the correspondence between verb position and clause type already seems to be fairly similar to the present-day German situation in the major OHG prose texts: In the core clause types, the predominant productive word orders are: verb-second in declaratives, cf. (1) above, as well as in interrogatives with a fronted wh-phrase, cf. (6), and verb-first in yes/no-interrogatives, cf. (7)-a, and in imperatives, cf. (7)-b.7 (6)

/uuvo gisahi thu abrahaman?/ how saw you Abraham “how can you have seen Abraham?” /& abraham uidisti/

(T 451,7)

(7)

a. /quidis zi uns thesa parabola/ oda zi allen/ this parable or to all tell-2.SG to us “are you telling this parable only to us, or to everybody?” /ad nos dicis hanc parabolam/ an & ad omnes/

(T 529,2)

7 In examples (6) and (7) and in most of the examples in (1) the position of the finite verb in

the OHG text does not correspond to the verb position in the Latin source. This suggests that the relevant word orders are native orders. See section 1.6 on the relationship between the OHG and the Latin word orders in the individual texts.

8


b. /tuot riuua .../ do-2.PL.IMP repentance “repent!” /pænitentiam agite .../

(T 103,1)

Summing up, it can be noted that two features of a verb-second grammar are already present in OHG: XP-fronting and verb movement to the left sentence periphery. Moreover, there are similar correlations between verb position and clause type as in the modern language. As to the word order at the VP-level, it should be noted that OHG largely exhibits the characteristics of an (S)OV-language. Nominal complements usually show up left of the verb in base position; cf. (8)-a. The same holds for the infinite parts of the verb, cf. (8)-b to (8)-d, and for the particles of particle verbs; cf. (8)-e to (8)-g. (8)

a. dhazs ih dhinan uuillun duoe that I your will do “that I do your will” ut faciam uoluntatem tuam

(I 295)

b. HUUEO CHRISTUS FONA DAUID FRAMCHUMFTI CHIBORAN UUARDH how Christ from David lineage born became “how Christ was born from the lineage of David” (R) QUIA CHRISTUS DE STIRPE DAUID NATUS EST (I 604) c. fona huueliihhemu ædhile christ chiboran from which noble-lineage Christ born scoldi (I 606) should “from which noble lineage Christ was to be born” (R) ex qua tribu nasciturus esset christus d. /... thaz sie ... / ... managa diuuala/ úz that they many devils out “that they ... cast out many devils” /ut / .../ ... demonia multa eiciebant.‘/ e. /... thiu mán íuuih furisezze./ that-REL.PRON one you before-set “what is set before you” /... quȩ apponuntur uobis/ f. /unzír úz far&., .../ until-you-PL forth go “until you depart” /donec exeatis., .../

uuvrphin ... / cast

uuerdhan become

(T 177,9)

(T 167,30)

(T 167,29)

As can be seen in the examples in (8), in subordinate clauses the finite verb most of the time shows up in absolute clause-final position due to the underly-

9

INTRODUCTION

ing OV-order. There are, however, exceptions to the prevailing verb-final pattern: First, as is suggested by examples as in (9) and (10), the finite verb may occur in a surface position further to the left. Such phenomena are also quite common in modern Germanic dialects, where they are generally attributed to so-called verb raising or verb projection raising (see Chapter 2 for details). Both these constructions are still very common in modern Germanic languages in particular on the dialectal level. Second, XPs can be quite freely extraposed behind the verbal complex in OHG; cf. (10). (9)

a. dher dhar scoldii chiboran who PARTCL should born “who was supposed to be born” (no corresponding Latin sentence)

uuerdan become

(I 422)

b. dher fona uuerodheoda druhtine uuard chisendit who from Hosts’ Lord became sent “who was sent by the Lord of Hosts” (R) qui a domino exercituum mittitur

(I 216)

(10) a. dhazs ir selbo gotes sunu uuard in liihhe chiboran (I 381) that he same God’s Son became in body born “that that same Son of God was born in the body” (R) eundem filium dei natum in carne b. /... Inti thiethár uuolle mit thír uuehslon/ with you exchange and who+REL.PARTCL want “and those who would want to exchange with you” /... & uolenti mutuare a té.‘/

(T 145,12)

(11) a. /... Inti thie thár hab&un diuual/ (T 133,1) and who PARTCL had-PL devil “and those who were possessed with the devil” /... & qui demonia habebant./ b. /thaz in mir habet sibba/ (T 591,8) that in me have peace “that in me you might have peace” /ut In me pacem habeatis/

The fact that in subordinate clauses, the finite verb sometimes appears nonfinally in OHG and other Old Germanic languages, in particular in Old English, has also been regarded as evidence that it may move into a sentencemedial functional head. One of the questions that will be discussed in the following chapter is how well motivated this assumption is for the OHG data. As this short overview of OHG clausal syntax has shown, there are some striking similarities to the modern verb-second grammar: In root clauses two syntactic operations are already attested in the earlier documents, i.e. verb

10


movement and XP-fronting. In subordinate clauses, by contrast, the finite verb is generally found at the end. On the other hand, it should be noted that there are also a number of phenomena attested which are unexpected from the perspective of the modern verb-second languages. A detailed investigation and analysis of these phenomena, which will be briefly introduced in the next section, is one of the primary goals of the present study. 1.4 Special features of Old High German sentence grammar As sketched in the last section, two essential properties of a verb-second grammar are already attested in the early prose documents: verb movement and XP-fronting. However, the traditional definition of verb-second, as it has been developed on the basis of the situation in the modern Germanic languages, additionally includes the following generalizations (cf. also Vance 1997:10; Poletto 2002): (12) a. The cooccurrence of two XPs in front of the fronted finite verb is heavily restricted. (= linear restriction) b. In declarative clauses, verb-first placement is rare and subject to some special, clearly identifiable semantic/pragmatic restrictions (concerning information structure, illocutionary force and/or discourse environments).

The evidence in the prose literature from the eighth and ninth centuries (e.g. the Monsee Fragments, the Isidor and Tatian) suggests that these generalizations did not hold in earlier OHG. In other words, earlier OHG did not behave like a prototypical verb-second language. There are quite a few constructions attested which are not compatible with the generalizations in (12). In the older OHG prose texts there are independent declarative clauses attested in which the finite verb does not occur in second, but in a later position. For instance, we can find examples where a preposed XP is followed by a local or temporal adjunct in front of the verb; cf. (13). There are also examples in which a prefinite XP is followed by a prefinite sentence adverb; cf. (14). Most frequently, however, the finite verb is relegated to later than second position by a pronominal argument occurring to the right of the fronted XP; cf. (15). (13) [Dher selbo forasago] [auh in andreru stedi] chundida, dhazs ... the same prophet also in other place proclaimed that “the same prophet also elsewhere proclaimed that ...” (I 348) testatur idem propheta ... sunes (14) [Dhiu] [chiuuisso] ist bighin gotes that certainly is origin of-God’s son “that certainly is the origin of the Son of God” (R) origo scilicet filii dei

(I 116)

11

INTRODUCTION

(15) a. [Erino portun] [ih] iron portals I “I destroy iron portals” Portas aereas conteram

firchnussu destroy

b. [Auuar] · [iu] sagem *** again you-DAT.PL say-1.SG “again I say to you: ...” {Iterum dico uobis ...} .

(I 157)

(MF XI,18; Mt 18:19)

Furthermore, we can find left dislocated phrases at the left sentence periphery which are linked to clause-internal resumptive pronouns in various OHG texts. At first sight, this construction looks similar to the so-called ‘hanging topic construction’ which we know from the modern verb-second languages. Its OHG ‘counterpart’ has not yet been studied. (16) a. /... Inti iri uuarliho [nu habet iri gitruobnessi] ./ and you verily now have you sorrow “and you also, you have sorrow now” /... & uos igitur nunc quidem tristitiam habebitis./ b. Goti [so iri erist mannan chifrumida] ... God when he first Man made “God, when he first made Man ...” (R) Deus cum hominem fecisset ...

(T 587,26)

(I 488)

Apart from these verb-third cases the older prose texts also contain a substantial number of verb-first constructions. Thus it seems as if in older OHG the verb-second property in (12)-b had not yet fully evolved. In contrast to presentday German, verb-first placement in declaratives seems to not have only been characterized by pragmatic properties such as rhematicity or narrativity. Instead, syntactic and lexical factors also appear to play an important role: For example, the extraposition of the subject as in (17)-a, or the fact that the prefield expletive iʒ “it” or the quasi-argument iʒ had not yet evolved or were not very common at the time; cf. (17)-b and (17)-c. (17) a. /uuard tho giheilit ther kneht in thero ziti./ (T 183,7) became PARTCL healed the servant in this hour “his servant was healed at that very hour” /& sanatus est puer in illa hora;/ b. /uuas thar ouh sum uuitua In thero burgi .../ (T 415,2) was there also some widow in that city “there was a widow in that city” /vidua autem quædam erat In ciuitate illa .../

12


c. /... uuas tho zit / nah sehsta. .../ PARTCL hour after sixth was “it was about the sixth hour” /... hora erat/ quasi sexta; .../

(T 275,29)

Moreover, it is still an open issue whether sentences with the negation particle ni or with the coordinating conjunction int(i) (inte, enti, unti etc.) in front of the finite verb should also be analysed as verb-first sentences. In the literature it has been proposed that in examples such as (18)-a, ni is an adverb occupying the prefield. Similarly, it has been argued that enti can be used as an adverb (and not only as a conjunction); cf. (18)-b. As will be argued in Chapter 3, however, these proposals are not really very convincing. (18) a. /ni

quad ih fon íu allen/ spoke I of you all “I haven’t spoken of all of you” /Non de omnibus uobis dico/

(T 553,21)

NEG

b. enti uuarth ar fullit des brut hlaufte(s) ka stuoli and became filled the wedding’s hall “and the wedding banquet was filled with guests” (MF XV,23; Mt 22:10) {et impletae sunt nuptiae discumbentium}

To sum up: Even though there was already XP-fronting and verb movement in OHG, there are also quite a few constructions attested that are not normally found in verb-second languages: There is a substantial amount of verb-third in the older texts so that one can conclude that the ‘linear restriction’ was not as strict as expected. Furthermore, declarative clauses with verb-first order were quite frequent and had different properties than in the modern language. A further difference to the modern verb-second languages is that the OHG grammar licensed referential null subjects. It has been claimed in the literature that due to principles of universal grammar the null-subject property is incompatible with the specifics of a verb-second grammar (e.g. Jaeggli & Safir 1989; Rohrbacher 1999). Intuitively, these two phenomena indeed appear to be irreconcilable. This can be illustrated by means of the data in (19). In examples such as (19)-a, the verb-second restriction would only be observed if the null subject occurred postfinitely. If it occupied a prefinite position, the null subject would induce a verb-third effect. By contrast, in examples such as (19)-b, with surface verb-first, only the prefinite occurrence of the null subject would lead to a regular verb-second construction. (19) a. In dhemu druhtines nemin (pro) archennemes (pro) ... fater (I 279) in the Lord’s name recognize father “in the name of the Lord we recognize the Father” (R) In persona enim domini patrem accipimus

13

INTRODUCTION

b. /(pro) steig tho (pro) in PARTCL into went-up “he got into a boat” /Et ascendens in nauicula .../

skifilin .../ boat

(T 193,1)

A further phenomenon that is rather unusual for verb-second languages is the occurrence of sentence-particles. Such particles are typically found in verb-first languages.8 In the older OHG texts, the interrogative particle inu (eno) often occurs in yes/no-interrogatives and in wh-interrogatives, (20)-a, sometimes even in combination with the affirmative particle jā̌ , cf. the sequence eno ia/inu ga in (20)-b. (20) a. /eno nibirut ir furiron thanne ENO NEG-be you more than “are you not much better than they?” /Nonne uos magis plures estis illis./

sie sín?/ (T 155,17) they are

b. Inu

ga ih andre gaborane k{atuoe, selbo ni gabe}re (I 71) JA I others bear make self NEG bear “should not I, who makes others give birth, also give birth myself?” {Numquid qui alios parere facio,} ipse non {pariam?} INU

huu{e}nan meinit · ir · who-ACC think you-PL “who do you think that I am?” {Uos autem quem} me esse dicitis

c. Inu INU

daz that

ih sii · I am

(MF XXXVIII,1; St Augustini sermo)

Some further peculiarities of OHG syntax which will be discussed in this investigation do not pertain to main clauses, but to subordinate clauses. Several phenomena have led some scholars to believe that the syntax of subordination was still underdeveloped. For example, preposed adverbial clauses were placed at the leftmost edge of their matrix clause in OHG: They occupied the position to the left of the fronted XP in independent declarative matrix clauses, thereby inducing a verb-third effect in the matrix clause; cf. (21)-a. Similarly, when the matrix clause itself was a dependent clause, adverbial clauses were regularly found to the left of the matrix complementizer; cf. (21)-b. (21) a. [Dhuo ir himilo garauui frumida], when he heavens’ equipment made “when he fashioned the heavens, I was there” Quando praeparabat cęlos, aderam

dhar uuas ih there was I (R)

(I 91)

8 See, e.g., Hendrick (2000), Roberts (2005), Bury (2003) on some (modern) Celtic languages

and Willis (1998) on historical Welsh.

14


b. ... neíst tés nîomannen vuúnder . [sô der uuínt uuáhet] . NEG-is this-GEN nobody-ACC wonder when the wind blows táz tiu uuélla án den stád sláhet (N BCon IV 211,2) that the wave at the shore crashes “nobody is surprised that the wave crashes at the shore when the wind is blowing” Nemo miratur flamina chori. túndere litus frementi fluctv (l. 1)

Constructions such as (21)-a have been taken as evidence that clause combining was still very paratactic in OHG (e.g. Erdmann 1886; Fleischmann 1973). Some scholars have claimed (e.g. Fleischmann 1973; Abraham 1993:117) that the category of the subordinating conjunction or of the complementizer as well as the main/subordinate asymmetry in verb placement had not yet emerged or were still very incomplete. In particular, it has been denied that lexemes such as dhuo in (21)-a and sō in (21)-b (see also (4)-b above) were true adverbial subordinators. Instead, they have been regarded as simple adverbs which could be placed at the left edge of a syntactically independent clause with verb-final order which was only paratactically combined with the following clause. In several diachronic studies on Germanic (e.g. Kiparsky 1995; Roberts & Roussou 2003) scenarios have been proposed according to which the innovation of the category of the complementizers or true subordinators led to the introduction of the CP-structure, a development which in turn triggered the emergence of V-to-C movement in independent clauses. This is why the question as to whether OHG lexemes such as thō were subordinating conjunctions or not has implications for the development of German sentence grammar, in particular for the verb-second phenomenon. To sum up: Already in the OHG prose texts from the eighth and ninth centuries, there is evidence for verb movement and XP-fronting to the left sentence periphery. On the other hand, these texts show a number of phenomena that are not consistent with the notion of verb-second as it prevails in studies on the modern Germanic languages. For example, verb-third constructions appear to be far less restricted in OHG than in modern German or in other modern Germanic verb-second languages. The same holds for verb-first constructions in declarative clauses. Moreover, features such as the null-subject property and the occurrence of sentence-typing particles are rather untypical for a verbsecond language. Finally, there are some open issues concerning the syntax of subordination. 1.5 Outline of the investigation In the last section I sketched a number of peculiarities of OHG sentence grammar. The primary aim of this investigation is to study and analyse these phenomena. This way I hope to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the left sentence periphery in OHG which takes into account as many factors as possible. This objective is reflected in the conception of this investigation, which

INTRODUCTION

15

consists of a sequence of studies, each of which focuses on one of these factors. Each study is presented in a separate chapter and each chapter is more or less readable on its own. Accordingly, the investigation is structured as follows: The following chapter (Chapter 2) focuses on verb movement. Starting from relatively recent research on verb fronting in Indo-European and in further Old Germanic languages, I will discuss how strongly generalized verb fronting was in various sentence ‘types’ in the older OHG prose texts. I will first consider those sentence ‘types’ which have been identified as the Old German core contexts for verb movement, namely interrogatives, imperatives and negated sentences. In a second step, I will deal with verb movement in declaratives. Furthermore, I will discuss the question of whether deviations from OV-order in subordinate clauses should be regarded as evidence for verb movement into a sentence-medial functional projection. Chapter 3 deals with the question to what extent XP-movement to the left periphery was generalized in OHG. The discussion focuses on different classes of examples where XP-movement has failed to occur, i.e. on different types of verb-first declaratives. My main concern here is to find out which grammatical factors are responsible for the absence of XP-movement in these cases. This will also shed some new light on the question of whether there is a historical continuity between the verb-first declaratives in OHG and those in present-day German. I will furthermore discuss two classes of examples where it is unclear if we are dealing with verb-second or with verb-first declaratives. These are cases with sentence-initial elements whose status as XP-elements is questionable, namely declarative clauses with the left-peripheral negation particle ni (= ni-Vfin–...) and declarative clauses in which the conjunction inti/enti/unde “and” is followed directly by the fronted finite verb (= inti–Vfin–...). Chapter 4 is devoted to various aspects of XP-movement to the left periphery. First, some recent research on the diachronic origins of different types of XP-preposing (topicalization, left-dislocation constructions, wh-movement) in the old Indo-European and the early Germanic languages will be discussed. On the basis of these results, I will then try to find out how the situation in OHG fits into the different ‘scenarios’ that have been proposed. Furthermore, I will study examples with more than one XP in front of the preposed verb. Note that in OHG, such ‘verb-third’ constructions can be divided into two broad classes. First, there are verb-third constructions where it is undoubtedly the case that both prefinite elements are true XP-elements (= XP–XP–Vfin). Here, we have to find out which cases must be considered as true reflexes of the native OHG grammar and which ones are probably due to a too narrow translation process. Second, there is a class of examples where pronominal elements occur between the initial XP and the fronted finite verb. This phenomenon will be dealt with in the following chapter (Chapter 5). Chapter 5 examines the distribution of personal pronouns in earlier OHG

16


texts. I will argue that their prefinite occurrence in declarative clauses behind a preposed XP (XP–pron–Vfin) cannot be traced back to their potential status as X0-clitics as has been proposed for their Old English counterparts. My primary interest is to find out which implications pronoun distribution has for the analysis of the early OHG sentence structure. Note that the distribution of pronouns and their putative status as clitics in early Germanic has played a central role in various scenarios for the diachrony of verb-second. In particular, the leftperipheral occurrence of pronouns has been regarded as evidence for (different forms of) a CP–IP-sentence structure with asymmetric verb movement. In this chapter, I will therefore discuss in great detail whether the situation in OHG is compatible with different proposals. Chapter 6 deals with the null-subject property of earlier OHG, a phenomenon that has been entirely ignored in previous word-order studies. This is all the more surprising since the syntactic distribution of null subjects has implications for the determination of verb position and thus for the syntax of the left sentence periphery. I will therefore mainly try to find out in which syntactic configurations (referential) null subjects occur. In a second step, I will furthermore consider some morphological factors that play a role in null-subject licensing. These results will then allow me to critically evaluate the widespread claim that the null-subject occurrences in OHG are the result of Latin loan syntax. My main findings are summarized in Chapter 7. This chapter is followed by a bibliography containing the lists of primary sources and of secondary sources. 1.6 The corpus As was already discussed in section 1.2, not many prose texts from the OHG period have been handed down to us. This is a major problem for word-order studies and it is aggravated by the fact that the few sources available are translational texts of differing qualities. The corpus used in the present study contains both the major prose texts from the earlier OHG period (i.e. from the eighth and ninth centuries), i.e. the Isidor, the Monsee Fragments and Tatian, and from the late OHG period (i.e. eleventh century), i.e. Notker’s Consolatio and Williram’s paraphrase of the Song of Songs. As was already mentioned above (1.2), the so-called OHG Isidor is a translation of the Latin tract De fide catholica ex veteri et novo testamento contra Iudeos by the bishop Isidore of Sevilla (ca. 560-636).9 The tract is concerned with several topics, such as the defence of the claim that Jesus Christ fulfilled the messianic prophecies from the Old Testament and the dogma of the Trinity. 9 See Krotz (2002) for a recent philological investigation of the manuscripts of the Isidor

group.

INTRODUCTION

17

It has been argued that the OHG translation should be viewed in the context of the polemic against the Adoptionist heresy (e.g. Ostberg 1979:7). The secondary literature has unanimously praised the high quality of the translation. Lippert (1974:188) emphasizes its striving for independence from the Latin. As evidence for this, he discusses ample material which shows that verb-second placement in declarative clauses is the norm and that syntactic phenomena that are typical for the Latin language (such as participle constructions and the ablative absolute) are systematically abandoned and rendered by native German constructions. Wehrli (1984:189) even glorifies the Isidor translation as a marvellous piece of early German prose. Betten (1987a:15) stresses that the linguistic standard of this oldest contiguously written prose text was not paralleled in a long time. Note, however, that Matzel (1970:357) has found out that there is a difference between the commentary passages and Bible quotations: In the former, the translation technique is often very free, whereas in the latter it remains very close to the Latin. For my investigation, I used the edition by Eggers (1964), which is based on the Paris Codex as the Leithandschrift (Cod. Par. 2326). A fragmentary Bavarian adaptation of the Isidor is also extant in the Monsee Fragments. The Monsee Fragments (Cod. Vind. 3093*) furthermore contain remnants of the Latin text. In Eggers’s Isidor edition the Latin of the opening chapters is from the Vienna Codex since this part is not extant in the Paris Codex. However, it is doubtful whether the Latin text of the Paris Codex was the basis of the OHG translation. As Matzel (1970) argues, the OHG parts in the Paris (and in the Vienna Codex) ultimately go back to a third nonextant Latin original. According to Ostberg (1979:5), the Latin version of the Paris Codex may be considered as very close to the original. For the syntactic phenomena which are investigated in the present study we can neglect the differences in the different extant Latin versions. Furthermore, Eggers’s edition contains those small pieces of the OHG Isidor from the Vienna Codex which do not cover the same ground as the Paris Codex.10 These pieces have also been included in the corpus of the present study.11 Apart from the Isidor pieces, the Monsee Fragments also contain OHG translations of the gospel of St. Matthew, of two sermons (De vocatione gentium and a shorter one) and of a sermon by St. Augustine on Matthew 14. The quality of these translations has also been judged as very good (e.g. Matzel 1970:365; Kartoschke 2000:90f.). The corpus of the present study contains all the texts of the Monsee Fragments. They are cited from the edition by Hench (1890). The Isidor pieces have not been included (those initial sections of the 10 The relevant OHG variants which are part of the sections jointly covered by the Paris and

Vienna fragments are given in footnotes in Eggers’ edition.

11 It is not necessary for our purposes to take into account the Vienna variants. As Lippert

(1974:48) points out there are only very few syntactically relevant divergences between the OHG versions of the Paris and the Vienna Codexes and those divergences do not pertain to phenomena such as verb placement and the like.

18


Isidor that have only survived in the Vienna Codex are cited from the edition by Eggers 1964). The OHG Tatian goes back to the Diatessaron, a synthesis of the four Gospels into a continuous narrative of the life of Jesus, which the Syrian writer Tatian produced around 175 A.D. The original Syriac or Greek composition has been lost. One Latin adaptation survived in the monastic library at Fulda, where it served as the source text for the OHG version, which was written in East Franconian dialect. The names of the translators are unknown. The complete German text has only survived in one manuscript (Codex Sangallensis 56), which after its completion was removed from Fulda to the famous library of St. Gallen in the second half of the ninth century. For a long time, the OHG Tatian has been neglected as a source for syntactic studies on OHG. One reason for this is that it has been assumed that the OHG word order was heavily influenced by the Latin.12 Sonderegger (1974, 2003:128), however, advocates a more differentiated view on this topic. He does concede that there are passages where the OHG is very close to the Latin, but nevertheless he argues that the OHG translation cannot be regarded as a mere mechanical rendering of the Latin since there are many places where native German constructions have been chosen. Even in the prologue, which very closely follows the Latin, one can find many additions and reorderings of words and constituents. There are also quite a few passages where the schematic technique of the so-called interlinear versions has largely been abandoned. On the whole, Sonderegger classifies the OHG Tatian translation as intermediate between an interlinear and a free translation. More recently, the extensive investigation by Dittmer & Dittmer (1998) has contributed to the rehabilitation of the OHG Tatian as a source for syntactic studies. As the authors show, the Latin word order was not slavishly preserved, but we can find many systematic deviations from the Latin – most notably in the form of reorderings and additions. More precisely, they prove that virtually any systematic modification of the OHG as compared to the Latin resulted in word-order patterns which are consistent with the topological regularities that are operative in modern German. We may thus conclude that the OHG Tatian can serve as an important source of evidence for the syntactic patterns of OHG, especially if one only considers syntactic properties which systematically diverge from the Latin. As Lippert (1974:49f.) points, we can be confident to have detected a native grammatical property provided that the relevant examples conform to regularities which are determined by the OHG target language and not by the Latin and provided that they occur with high frequency. A similar point has already been made by Gering (1876:1ff.), who even regards Tatian as more appropriate for 12 See Dittmer & Dittmer (1998:16-20, 260-262) for an overview of research positions con-

cerning the quality of the German translation.

INTRODUCTION

19

linguistic studies than the Isidor translation since the latter text is such a free translation that it is often impossible to decide whether a particular deviation from the source should be attributed to the grammar of the OHG target or to merely stylistic factors. In the 1960s some scholars (e.g. Baumstark 1964; Wissmann 1960) put forward the claim that the Latin source for the OHG Tatian translation was not the Latin version included in the Codex Sangallensis (nor that of the Fulda Cod. Bonifatianus 1), but an unknown Latin adaptation which was closer to the OHG text. However, Lippert (1974:50) argues that the Latin of the Codex Sangallensis can still be safely used for syntactic investigations since the evidence which was presented by proponents of an unknown Latin source (Wissmann 1960, Baumstark 1964; Ganz 1969) hardly pertains to issues of word order, and in particular not to the problem of verb placement. More recently, Masser (1994:30) has come to the conclusion that the traditional assumption is more convincing, namely that the Latin text of the Codex Sangallensis was obtained directly from the Codex Fuldensis. Greule (2000) raises the question of whether the editions are reliable sources for the study of OHG syntax or whether we have to go back to the manuscripts. In the case of Tatian, the appearance of Masser’s edition in 1994 marked an important step towards the improvement of the textual basis of word-order studies based on editions. A very important advantage of this edition over the standard edition by E. Sievers ([1892] 1961) is that it reproduces the essential features of the ‘design’ and ‘layout’ of the Codex Sangallensis. Crucially, the bilingual text is presented in two separate columns – Latin on the left and OHG on the right – as is the case in the original manuscript (Masser 1994:13). The line breaks in the edition correspond to those in the manuscript. It should also be noted that the translation itself was produced by more than one person. How many translators were involved is not known. Masser (1997:126) argues that they probably belonged to the same ‘school’ (even in the literal sense), which was probably the monastic school of Fulda. The text was written down by six different scribes, one of whom (scribe ζ) carried out a final revision of the whole text. There are clear indications that the scribes first filled in one line of Latin in the left-hand column and then directly added the German translation on the corresponding line in the right-hand column. As Masser (1997) argues, this practice sometimes led scribes to erase OHG constituents so that the text portions fitted in their respective lines. The relation between translators and scribes is unclear. It should be noted, however, that there was probably a draft which the translators wrote down themselves. Thus they attempted to achieve a translation such that the OHG text could be arranged as loyally to the line breaks in the Latin as possible. As the syntactic investigations by Masser (1997) and Dittmer & Dittmer (1998:23) show, this strategy has clearly had an impact on the German word order. However, this translational technique was not adhered to slavishly, but seems to have also obeyed further principles.

20


Dittmer & Dittmer show that the OHG translation is characterized by some interesting tendencies. To give just one example: There are more frequent deviations from the Latin in the context of ‘function’ words (e.g. auxiliary verbs and pronouns) than in the context of content words (ibid.:25). The language of Notker’s late OHG translations has often been characterized as ‘mixed’ since the German text is interspersed with Latin words or sequences of words. The reason lies in the text type: Notker was a teacher at the monastic school at St. Gallen and he produced his texts for didactic purposes. The German renderings were issued for a better understanding of the Latin sources. This was a rather revolutionary endeavour as the vernacular was of course not yet established as an academic or ecclesiastic language at that time. Notker has been praised as the best OHG translator by far (Manthey 1903:5). Kartoschke (2000:197) considers Notker’s work as exceptional in the earlier history of German literature. As far as syntax is concerned, Wehrli (1980:112) states that Notker’s work in general is relatively exempt from foreign syntax. As Näf’s (1979) detailed investigation of Notker’s translation of the famous De consolatione Philosophiae by Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (ca. 480-524) shows, matters of verb placement and the like are hardly affected by the Latin. Note that the manuscript (Codex Sangallensis 825) contains both the German translation and the Latin text. Differently than in Tatian (Codex Sangallensis 56), the Latin and the corresponding OHG translation are not presented in two separate columns, but are arranged successively. The Latin passage – which may be of varying length (a few words or phrases up to several sentences) – comes first and is followed by the OHG translation (cf. Näf 1979:58ff.). Often, the OHG translation is in turn followed by a commentary or sometimes even a longer excursus. The Latin text of Codex Sangallensis 825 is not simply a copy of one of the versions of De consolatione Philosophiae (henceforth: Consolatio) of which the library of the Abbey at St. Gallen kept manuscripts, but an adaptation which Notker himself had produced for his specific purposes. Notker modified the Latin source by reordering words, phrases and parts of sentences (cf. Näf 1979: 58-61). Verb placement was also affected by this. In the secondary literature, different opinions have been forwarded as to why Notker might have undertaken this endeavour. Sonderegger (1974:66, 2003:136) claims that the reorderings were influenced by the word order of the succeeding OHG translation. He considers the Latin of Codex Sangallensis 825 to be a simplification and a rearrangement in the direction of the target grammar. Näf (1979:69), however, argues that there are many examples where this hypothesis fails. In the area of verb placement in particular, there are numerous cases where the Latin of Codex Sangallensis 825 deviates from the OHG target sentence even though the original Latin source was in line with the OHG in this respect. For example, Näf mentions that there are many relative clauses where the finite verb occurs in final position both in the original Latin source and in the OHG

INTRODUCTION

21

translation, but occurs further to the left in Notker’s modified adaptation. Näf (1979:66ff.) therefore proposes that the modifications in the Latin had the following purposes: First, difficult constructions of the Latin originals were untangled by putting those parts that belong together into a linear sequence (Näf 1979:66). Furthermore, Näf argues that the modifications served to achieve what he refers to as ‘konstruktionelle Normalstellung’ (construction with normalized word order), which was intended to facilitate the reader’s grammatical analysis. Näf’s concept of ‘normalized’ word order refers to a ‘centrifugal’ arrangement of words or parts of speech in the sense of a Tesnièrian-style dependency grammar where the governing elements precede the dependent elements. In the area of verb placement, this means that the finite verb should precede its complements. This is the reason why there are many cases where Notker has moved a sentence-final finite verb leftwards into a position before its complements in his Latin adaptation. In subordinate clauses, this reordering frequently results in a word order that is not in line with the OHG target. Yet in main clauses, this leftward movement often leads to a greater correspondence between the (adapted) Latin and the OHG text, as in OHG main clauses there was already systematic verb fronting. In Näf’s eyes, this greater correspondence between the Latin and German was only a by-product of Notker’s intention to achieve a centrifugal order. Further modifications of the Latin which Notker carried out can be regarded as attempts to make complex sentences more transparent or as clarifications through additions of words (cf. Näf 1979:76f.). It should be noted, however, that we do not know which version of the Consolatio Notker consulted for his work. At the Abbey of St. Gallen, there were probably three copies of this text available at the time (Näf 1979:56f.). Fortunately, the three versions hardly show any differences in the area of word order. This is why Näf (p. 58) concludes that for word-order studies, it is not really important to resolve the problem as to which codex/codices Notker consulted and thus he regards it as legitimate to use the ‘normalized’ text of the edition by Bieler (1957). The language of Expositio in Cantica Canticorum, which Williram wrote at the famous Benedictine Abbey of Ebersberg in the second half of the eleventh century, has also been characterized as a mixture between German and Latin. The syntax is, however, hardly affected by the copying of Latin features as this phenomenon is largely restricted to the lexical level. The text is generally attributed to the late OHG or to the Early Middle High period. There are some similarities to Notker’s writing. For example, Williram follows Notker’s rules of accentuation. The OHG paraphrase and translation of the Song of Songs is part of the tradition of the so-called ‘opus geminatum’, where the same material is presented more than once with varying aesthetic means. In both the oldest main manuscripts from the second half of the eleventh century, which were edited under Williram’s supervision, i.e. manuscript C from Ebersberg (Cgm. 10) and the Breslau manuscript B, the text is presented in three columns: The

22


first one contains a Latin paraphrase in Leonine hexameters, the second one the Vulgate text of the Song of Songs and the third gives a translation and commentary in German prose. The Latin paraphrase has been argued to have drawn on the commentary by Haimo of Auxerre and others. The present study is based on the edition by Schützeichel & Meineke (2001), whose Leithandschrift is the Ebersberg manuscript (Cgm. 10). One of the aims of the present investigation is also to discover diachronic developments in syntax. This will be done by comparing the late OHG texts (Notker and Williram) with the documents from the eighth and ninth centuries. This procedure is, of course, highly problematic since the texts were written in different dialects and differ in many further features such as text type, quality of the translation, register etc. Instead of the common tripartite distinction between Frühalthochdeutsch ‘early OHG’, Normalalthochdeutsch ‘normal OHG’ and Spätalthochdeutsch ‘late OHG’, I will simply use the terms ‘older’ or ‘earlier’ OHG when referring to the language of texts from the late eighth and ninth centuries, and the term ‘late’ OHG when referring to the language of the texts from the eleventh century. Strictly speaking, it is, of course, very sloppy to speak of the OHG language or the late OHG language because there is no homogeneous language state to which we can refer. Nevertheless, I will show that there is great consistency in particular in the area of syntax among the earlier texts on the one hand and the later ones on the other. This can often be confirmed when further texts such as the smaller extant sources are checked additionally. I will do this at certain points in the argumentation. I also give examples from Otfrid’s Gospel Harmony, which is the most important piece of OHG metrical poetry that has been handed down to us. This text is also of major importance since it is the first literary work in German where end rhyme is used. 1.7 Data acquisition and citation modes The results presented in the present study primarily go back to an investigation of the texts that have been described in the last section. Furthermore, I will sometimes quote examples from additional sources. The editions used are cited in the bibliography at the end, which also contains an index of text abbreviations. With the exception of the Isidor translations, which have largely been adapted from Robinson (1997), the English translations of the examples are my own, unless indicated otherwise. The present work is the first comprehensive study of OHG which is based on a first-hand investigation of the primary texts. This is an important innovation as compared to Lenerz (1984), which has so far been the only longer generative study on the diachrony of verb placement and on other issues of sentence grammar. The quantitative findings have been obtained by my own counts. At various points, however, I also refer to the quantitative results given in the secondary literature, i.e. both in the word-order studies that have been published in the last decades and in the older word-order studies from the end of the nineteenth

INTRODUCTION

23

century. This could not be handled otherwise since I studied a large range of different syntactic phenomena. To date, a syntactically annotated corpus of OHG texts has not been developed so that all the examples had to be collected ‘manually’. There is, of course, the problem that in the older word-order studies the data have sometimes been counted according to criteria which are not consistent with modern grammatical concepts even though these studies are primarily descriptive in nature. This means that older word-order studies are only useful provided that the authors have clearly defined the criteria on which their analyses and classifications have been based. To give an example: At the end of the nineteenth century, a number of word-order studies were published which were based on the theory of ‘covered verb-first order’ (= gedeckte Anfangsstellung), which had been proposed by Braune (1894) (see also Chapter 5). According to this theory, main declarative clauses with initial pronouns or weak adverbs are not verb-second, but verb-first clauses. Consequently, in the respective word-order studies, this class of examples was listed under the header ‘verb-first order’. In the present study, by contrast, I have classified such examples as verb-second clauses. Furthermore, manual searches are prone to error, of course. As has already been pointed out by Maurer (1924:147), however, it would be too time-consuming to carry out new searches in each case since it is to be expected that the newly gained results would not be significantly different. It should be noted, however, that in contrast to the seminal study by Lenerz (1984), the only previous book-length study of historical German grammar in a theoretical framework, I have resorted to the secondary literature to supplement my findings with quantitative data at various points. All the syntactic phenomena addressed have been studied by a first-hand consultation of the primary texts. The material has been cited directly from the editions and not from grammar books or from other secondary sources, which also made it possible to take into account the relationship between the OHG and the Latin word order in the translations. Since the authors of the traditional word-order studies have mostly included exhaustive lists of example references, it was often possible to check the examples and to verify that they have been classified correctly even if modern descriptive and theoretical standards are applied. The examples from our corpus of texts, which were described in the last section, are cited as follows: The OHG Isidor (I) is cited according to the line numbers in the edition by Eggers (1964). I will only indicate in which line the OHG example begins. The corresponding Latin example, which is printed on the opposite left-hand and often has the identical line number, will be given in a separate line without indicating the line number. In many cases, I have adapted the modern English examples from Robinson (1997). I have indicated this by adding the letter ‘R’ in brackets after the translation. Note that it is possible to look up the line numbers of Eggers’s 1964 edition in the index in Robinson (1997:156-157): The

24


index gives the number of the page where Robinson has translated and discussed the relevant example. Examples from the Monsee Fragments (MF) are cited according to the edition by Hench (1890) by giving the folio number and the number of the line where the example begins. The corresponding Latin text will be given in a separate line without folio or line numbers. Letters and words that have been reconstructed by Hench and are given in italics in his edition will be enclosed in curly braces (‘{}’) in the present study. The examples from Tatian (T) are cited by page and line number according to the edition by Masser (1994) (the page numbers refer to the pagination of the edition and not of the manuscript.) Again the page and line numbers of the Latin sentence are not given. The line number is identical to the OHG one and the page number is always one lower than that of the OHG translation. The line breaks are indicated by slashes (‘/’). Masser’s edition also reproduces graphical features such as bold face, smaller and bigger font size etc. I have not copied these features in the quotations. As was already mentioned above, Codex Sangallensis 56 was written down by different scribes. I have not added this information. It is open to future research whether there are systematic syntactic differences in the different scribal sections. Notker’s Consolatio (N BCon) is cited according to the new edition edited by Petrus W. Tax by giving the book number (I to V), the page number and the line number. If present, the corresponding Latin passage or, more precisely, Notker’s modified version of Boethius, which usually occurs immediately before his OHG translation and commentary and is given in italics in the edition, is also cited in a separate line after the modern English translation by indicating the line number. Williram’s OHG paraphrase of the Song of Songs (W) is cited according to the edition by Schützeichel & Meineke (2001) by indicating the page number in that edition and the line number. In the edition by Schützeichel & Meineke, the Vulgate verses are given in a separate column between the Latin paraphrase and the German paraphrase as is the case in Ebersberg Codex. Where the OHG sentence renders a sentence from the Bible, this sentence is also cited in a separate line. The corresponding part in the Latin paraphrase is not cited. In the quotations from Williram, graphical features such as line breaks, majuscules etc. are not reproduced. The punctuation marks have been given as they can be found in the editions. With the exception of the examples from Tatian, all punctuation marks that occur at the end of the citations have been omitted. Only question and exclamation marks have been handled differently: They have not been omitted. Likewise, in the Isidor examples, the quotation marks which surround the passages that are Bible quotations have not been given. In the facsimile of the Monsee Fragments (Hench 1890) and in the edition of Tatian (Masser 1994), there occur many punctuation marks which are no longer used today. In Tatian, the

INTRODUCTION

25

abbreviation ‘&’ is used for the sequence of letters ‘et’ both in the Latin and in the OHG translation. In the Vienna manuscript, and accordingly also in Hench’s facsimile edition, there are often spaces within words between the syllables. In compound words, the component words are sometimes separated by a raised stop (·). Words or parts of words which were unreadable in the manuscript and could not be reconstructed by Hench are indicated by asterisks (‘***’). Examples from Otfrid’s Gospel Harmony (O) are cited from the edition by Erdmann/Wolff (1973). Note that Kleiber’s (2004) edition, which would have been more appropriate for linguistic research, was published only after the empirical work for this study was finished. The smaller OHG documents (e.g. Christus und die Samariterin, Hildebrandslied, Muspilli) are cited from Die kleineren althochdeutschen Sprachdenkmäler (“The Lesser Old High German Documents” edited by Steinmeyer (1919) (SD) by giving the document and line number. Examples from other Old Germanic or Old Indo-European languages as well as from Middle High German and from Early Modern High German are cited from the secondary literature; the references are given to the right of or below the example. If they were not present in the secondary literature, I have added word-by-word glosses and/or translations without indication. This was mainly the case in those examples that were cited in German grammar books, journal articles or research monographs. In the English secondary literature, glosses and translations are fairly standard. In those cases where glosses were present in the literature, I have adapted them so that they contain the abbreviations and labels which are used in the present study. The examples from the Gothic Bible have been handled differently: I have checked the Gothic examples discussed in the secondary literature in the edition by Streitberg (1919) and cited the examples from there including the corresponding Greek sentence. Note that it is unknown which Greek source text Wulfila used for his translation. Streitberg’s reconstruction of the Greek source has been subject to a lot of criticism. This is why in some studies on Gothic syntax (e.g. Ferraresi 2005), Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece is also cited in those cases where the two versions deviate. Since I have not done any original research on Gothic syntax myself and have only summarized the results of the secondary literature, I have confined myself to giving the Greek of Streitberg’s edition. In the examples I have sometimes added square brackets (‘[]’) or traces (‘t’) or indices to sketch the intended syntactic analysis. Moreover, I have usually underlined the finite verb and/or sometimes highlighted constituents under discussion by boldface. In the word-by-word glosses, morphological features such as verbal mood, case, person/number etc. are only given where this is relevant for the argumentation and/or useful in determining the structure of the sentence.

CHAPTER 2

VERB MOVEMENT

2.1 Introduction This chapter deals with the development of verb movement. Starting from an overview of recent research on verb fronting in Indo-European and in the Old Germanic languages, I will investigate to what extent the fronting of the finite verb was already generalized over different sentence types (interrogatives with and without particles, imperatives and declaratives). A major characteristic of present-day German as a verb-second language is that the finite verb obligatorily moves to the left sentence periphery in independent clauses without complementizers. In dependent clauses introduced by complementizers (or by relative/interrogative phrases), however, the finite verb stays in its base position at the end of the clause. In the literature, different theories have been put forward as to the historical origins of verb movement in the Germanic languages. According to the standard scenario proposed in older studies, the starting point was a stylistic preposing of the verb which served to emphatically highlight the semantic content of the verb. More recent research, however, has suggested that verb movement goes back to rather different phenomena. In Gothic, for example, it has been shown to be triggered by enclitic particles which were associated with the left sentence periphery. This is why Ferraresi (1997) and Roberts (1996), drawing on ideas developed in Longobardi (1994), have put forward the hypothesis that this old strategy of marking the beginning of the sentence with particles, which has Indo-European roots, was later replaced by verb movement in the Old Germanic languages. In this chapter, I am going to discuss these alternative scenarios of the diachronic roots of verb movement. In a further step, I will present my own results on verb movement in OHG. On the basis of these results I will then discuss how OHG fits into the scenarios proposed in the literature. 2.2 Indo-European origins of verb fronting Already Delbrück (1878, 1911), a renowned scholar of the Neogrammarian school, concluded from his comparative studies on various syntactic phenomena in the Indo-European languages that the basic order must have been verbfinal in Indo-European.1 This can still be regarded as the leading opinion today. 1 Later, Delbrück (1911:6) conceded that there was a further verb-placement pattern: the en-

clitic/verb-second pattern, which had already been postulated by Wackernagel (1892). This order, however, was subject to special conditions.

28


Note also that in the second half of the twentieth century Lehmann (1974) came to the same conclusion in his reconstruction of Proto-European syntax on the basis of Greenberg’s (1966) universals. According to Delbrück (1900:63), the verb occupied the sentence-final position in a ‘neutral’ (i.e. unmarked) sentence. It could only be relegated to a position further to the left if it was followed by ‘heavy’ elements (ibid.:80-83). However, there was an exception which Delbrück (ibid.) referred to as okkasionelle Stellung (‘occasional word order’): The verb could occur in a position at the left sentence periphery when it was emphasized. It was then found either in absolute verb-first position or after a sentence-initial particle, a variant of verb-first which Delbrück referred to as gedeckte Anfangsstellung (‘covered verb-first placement’). In declarative clauses verb-first placement signalled that the sentence was part of an active narrative sequence. Furthermore, Delbrück argued that a specialized use of verb-first was attested in imperative clauses.2 The strongest hypothesis regarding verb fronting goes back to Jacob Wackernagel, who assumed that there was already a systematic opposition in verb placement between main and subordinate clauses. In a very famous article, Wackernagel (1892) argued by means of evidence from Sanskrit that in IndoEuropean the finite verb was accented in subordinate clauses and occupied the sentence-final position. In main clauses, in contrast, it was usually unaccented and therefore cliticized to the sentence-initial constituent provided that it did not consist of more than two syllables. As a result of this enclitic placement the finite verb was found in second position in main clauses. In more recent times, Dressler (1969) argued that the stylistic preposing of the finite verb was a productive ‘text syntactic’ rule of Indo-European word order. This hypothesis was then drawn on by Lenerz (1984, 1985b). This study was the first investigation into the diachronic syntax of German from a generative perspective. Lenerz proposed that the development of verb-second in Germanic eventually went back to a reanalysis of the verb-first pattern, which had already existed as a stylistic word-order option in Indo-European times. Note also that Watkins (1963, 1964) reconstructed a number of word-order patterns, including one with verb-first placement, thereby referring to the results of Dillon (1947) and others on the Anatolian languages, which had not yet been discovered during Delbrück’s and Wackernagel’s lifetimes. Interestingly, more recent research by Garrett (1994) on Lycian points in the same direction. Lycian is an interesting case because it had generalized verb movement to the left sentence periphery, a feature that was absent from all the other Anatolian languages. Garrett, who refers to Lenerz (1984, 1985b), explicitly draws a parallel to the development in the Germanic languages inasmuch as he argues just like Lenerz for Germanic that in Lycian the innovation of verb movement was 2 Note that yes/no-questions were arguably not characterized by special word order, but by

interrogative particles or by prosodic means in Proto-Indo-European (cf. Lehmann 1974:121).

VERB MOVEMENT

29

due to the broadening of a stylistic ‘fronting’ operation by means of which the verb or a nominal constituent (e.g. an NP or PP) was preposed to the left sentence periphery. By and by the fronting of the verb lost its special semantic/pragmatic effect and was no longer felt to be an instance of the same type of construction as NP- or PP-fronting. This development in turn made it possible for the position of the preposed verb to be reanalysed as a structural Compposition. Further evidence for a very old verb fronting operation comes from the Celtic languages. Watkins (1963) discusses evidence for a VSO word-order option in Old Irish. According to a more recent study by Carnie, Harley & Pyatt (2000), there was a lexicalization requirement on the head of the Cprojection in Old Irish (‘filled C0 requirement’). This requirement could be satisfied through V-to-C movement, through base-generation of a ‘conjunct particle’ (negation, interrogative particles, complementizers) or through movement of a preverbal particle (a so-called preverb). Interestingly, a similar situation seems to be traceable for Gothic as well. This will be discussed in the next section. 2.3 Verb movement in the earliest Germanic languages The question as to how generalized verb movement evolved in the Germanic language family has been addressed by many scholars from the nineteenth century onwards. In the present study, I will focus on a detailed discussion of the more recent generative literature on the development of verb movement and I will only quickly summarize the major results and hypotheses of the older literature.3 Fourquet (1938) assumed that the finite verb originally was found after the nominal constituents in Germanic main clauses. According to Fourquet this oldest attested stage of Germanic is still extant in the Gothic Bible and – to some extent – in the Runic inscriptions. He described the sequence ‘noun– verb’ (e.g. Gothic dwala gatawida “foolish made-3.SG” (1 Cor 1:20)) as the unmarked word-order pattern. Pronominal constituents, by contrast, occurred after the verb when there were no nominal constituents present (Gothic galeikaida uns ei ... “pleased-3.SG us that” (1 Thes 3:1)). In sentences with both nominal and pronominal constituents the pronouns figured between the nominal constituent and the finite verb (Gothic jah airþai þuk gaïbnjand “and earthDAT you lay-3.PL” (Lk 19:44)). Fourquet advocated the view that the inverted order ‘verb–noun’, i.e. verb-first order, has also been systematically possible – even though it was far less frequently realized – from the earliest attested stage of Germanic onwards. He traces this grammatical option back to a marked word-order pattern in Indo-European which was used to signal that each ele-

3 More extensive reviews of the older secondary literature can be found in Fleischmann (1973),

Ebert (1978), Scaglione (1981), Schrodt (1983:111-132) and Lenerz (1984:129ff.).

30


ment or each part of speech required attention on its own. According to Fourquet this was the case when an imperative verb form was present, when the verb was negated or when a single nominal element should be stressed (être mis en relief). To sum up, Fourquet proposed that the fronting of the verb in Germanic was largely restricted to some special sentence ‘types’ (i.e. imperatives and negated sentences). Tomanetz (1879:100ff.), Erdmann (1886:193), and Diels (1906:202ff.) held the view that the finite verb was predominantly found in second position in the earliest Germanic languages not only in main, but also in subordinate clauses. In their scenarios it was the verb-end placement that had to be gradually innovated. A further opinion was advocated by Behaghel (1932:11), who also dated back verb-second placement to a very old stage and claimed that the verb occurred in second position in the vast majority of main clauses already in ProtoIndo-European. Unlike Tomanetz and Erdmann, Behaghel (1892, 1900), however, claimed that there was already a systematic opposition between sentences with sentence-medial and sentences with sentence-late verbs in Indo-European and in Germanic. The latter order was typical for subordinate clauses and the former one for main clauses. The terms Späterstellung (‘verb-late placement’) or Nachzweitstellung (‘later-than-second-placement’) were introduced by Behaghel to account for the fact that the finite verb was often not in absolute final position in subordinate clauses, but was followed by nominal constituents (notably by constituents not required by the verb, such as adjuncts) or by heavy constituents. According to Behaghel, strict verb-end placement only developed during the Early New High German period under the influence of Humanist Latin. An extreme opinion was put forward by Braune (1894:50), who claimed that verb placement in Proto-Germanic was free and that the verb was positioned at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of the sentence in an arbitrary fashion. To sum up: The positions asserted in the older literature differ greatly. As we will see in the following sections, the insights by Fourquet (1938) have been largely confirmed by more recent studies including the present one. Also, Behaghel’s hypothesis that there was an asymmetry with respect to verb placement between main and subordinate clauses is confirmed by our OHG data, as we will see in the following chapters. In contrast, the hypotheses that Germanic and/or Indo-European were originally basically verb-second or that the word order was entirely free have not been advocated in recent research. In the last decades, a number of theoretical approaches have been published. According to Kiparsky (1995:159) these can be divided into different groups: First, there are investigations in which the development of the Germanic verbsecond phenomenon is regarded as the continuation of a grammatical process that was inherited from Indo-European. The most prominent examples in this group are two proposals that have already been sketched above, namely the

VERB MOVEMENT

31

cliticization model by Wackernagel (1892) (cf. also Hock 1982; Anderson 1993) and the theory that verb-second originated from an extension of stylistic verb fronting (cf. Lenerz 1984). The second type of approach suggests that the verb-second phenomenon originated within Germanic as a consequence of special morpho-syntactic developments which took place within that family. A representative proposal would be Vennemann’s (1975) hypothesis that the innovation of verb-second was functionally triggered by the impoverishment of the case system which caused a drift to SVO-order so that grammatical relations would remain identifiable. A compromise between the two types of theories would be proposals in which verb-second is argued to have roots in IndoEuropean, which were then “elaborated within Germanic in ways internally motivated within that family” (Kiparsky 1995:159). It is indeed a widely held assumption in the generative literature that systematic verb movement in declarative clauses was a relatively late innovation which arose within the Germanic family. According to this view, the finite verb predominantly stayed in its base position in earliest Germanic. Provided that the basic order in the verb phrase was OV, declarative clauses would then be expected to largely exhibit verb-end order in earliest Germanic. As evidence the situation in the Runic inscriptions has usually been referred to. For instance, the following engraving from the horn of Gallehus is cited in many studies: (1)

ek hlewagastir holtijar horna tawido I Hlewagst of-Holt horn made “I, Hlewagst of Holt, made the horn” (Gallehus horn; from Faarlund 1994:66)

A number of studies concerned with the historical roots of verb-second have been concerned with the whole Germanic family and consequently they have investigated the situation in not only one, but in several older Germanic languages which they considered as indicative for the whole of Germanic (e.g. Vennemann 1975; Weerman 1988; Kiparsky 1995; Eythórsson 1995). In addition, several detailed investigations of individual Germanic languages have also been published (e.g. Lenerz 1984; 1985b on historical German; van Kemenade 1987; Pintzuk 1991, 1999; Roberts 1996; Kroch & Taylor 1997 etc. on Old and Middle English; Ferraresi 1997, 2005 on Gothic).4 These investigations too may also – implicitly or explicitly – have implications for the analysis of verb placement in the other old Germanic languages and for the origin of the Germanic verb-second phenomenon in general. According to Kiparsky (1995), a paper that had already been circulating 4 Of course, this list is not complete. Since the present study focuses on the development of

verb movement in OHG, only those investigations of further Germanic languages will be considered whose results also have implications for the history of German.

32


since 1989, verb movement is a late and language-specific innovation which began to spread in the Germanic family only shortly before the historical period. In earliest Germanic (i.e. in Gothic and in the earliest Scandinavian as witnessed by the Runic inscriptions) the verb was still unmoved. Kiparsky argues that one precondition for the development of V-to-C movement was that Germanic developed the category of the ‘pure’ complementizer. The new C0slot was devoid of nominal function and could therefore host verbal elements. Each of the Germanic languages created one or a set of indeclinable complementizers which were of diverse provenience but had a very similar syntax (Gothic ei, Scandinavian es/er, sem/som, OHG the, Old English þe, þæt). This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. Further studies on Gothic and on earliest North Germanic (Eythórsson 1995, 1996, 2001; Ferraresi 1997, 2005) have shown that Kiparsky’s conclusions are not fully correct. Already Delbrück (1911:13) had discovered that the patterns with verb-end order and with verb fronting are attested side by side in the Runic inscriptions. More recently, Eythórsson (1995, 1996) argues that the development of verb movement in Germanic is older than was assumed by Kiparsky (1995). He gives evidence that already at the earliest attested stages of Germanic, namely in the earliest Runic inscriptions (ca. 150-550 A.D.) and in the Gothic Bible (fourth century A.D.), the verb sometimes moved out of the verb phrase into a higher functional projection. As Eythórsson shows, the Runic inscriptions not only contain verb-end clauses as in the widely quoted Gallehus inscription, see (1) above, but also clauses with a non-final verb. There is at least one case, cf. (2), where the verb is in initial position. Interestingly, the verb probably carries optative mood in this case, an observation which has prompted Eythórsson to suggest a parallel to the other Old Germanic languages (including Gothic), in which verb fronting already systematically occurred in imperative clauses. Furthermore, Eythórsson (1996:132) gives an example in which the enclitic subject pronoun eka (ika) appears postverbally, which is an indisputable sign that the verb has moved to the left (cf. section 2.5). (2)

wate hali hino horna whet stone this horn “let the horn whet this stone!” (Strøm whetstone; from Eythórsson 1996:132)

In the Gothic Bible translation the (S)OV5-pattern can be clearly identified as the native base order triggered by the grammar of the target language. Note that the secondary literature has generally been very sceptical (e.g. Hopper 5 Subject pronouns are not always overtly realized in the Gothic Bible translation.

VERB MOVEMENT

33

1975:50, Braunmüller 1982:123) as to whether one can investigate the wordorder properties of Gothic at all, since Wulfila’s translation of the Bible is a very close rendering of the Greek source. As has been shown in more recent studies (e.g. Eythórsson 1995, 1996; Ferraresi 1997, 2005), however, there are many word-order patterns, in particular in the area of verb placement, which occur contrary to or independently of the Greek source. In particular, the OVpattern is often realized contrary to the Greek source or where there is no directly corresponding Greek sentence. For example, it has been observed (cf. Fourquet 1938:234-281; Eythórsson 1996:109) that in those cases where a Greek intransitive verb is rendered by a complex expression with a verb and a (non-pronominal) complement in Gothic, the verb usually follows the complement; cf. (3)-a. As Eythórsson (ibid.) furthermore argues, a similar line of argumentation can be established for sentences where a Greek noun phrase is rendered by a Gothic relative clause construction. Here as well, the Gothic verb normally occurs to the right of its complement; cf. (3)-b.6 (3)

a. dwala gatawida (1 Cor 1:20) foolish made-3.SG “made foolish” ἐµώρανεν b. þo þoei leikis those which body-GEN “the things of the flesh” τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς

sind (Rom 8:5) are

However, there are a number of systematic exceptions to the prevailing OVpattern: In imperatives and in negated clauses the Gothic verb usually precedes its complements (cf. Eythórsson 1995:22-28; 1996). In these syntactic environments, the preposing of the finite verb is also found contrary to the Greek source or it is realized without a direct Greek source sentence. Again examples can be found where a Greek intransitive verb is translated by a combination of a verb and a (non-pronominal) complement as in (4). (4)

a. wairþ hrains become-IMP clean “be clean” καθαρίσθητι

(Mt 8:3)

6 All the examples from the Gothic Bible discussed in this and in the following chapter are

cited in the secondary sources which are mentioned in the main text. They have not been collected by me. However, I cite them from the edition by Streitberg (1919) and not from the secondary sources in order to be able to present them in a consistent way with a word-by-word gloss, a modern English translation and the corresponding Greek sentence.

34


b. ni

wairþam usgrudjans (2 Cor 4:1A) become-1.PL discouraged “we do not become discouraged” οὐκ ἐγκακοῦµεν NEG

Moreover, in wh-interrogatives there is a tendency for the finite verb to be placed directly after the wh-phrase at the left periphery (Eythórsson 1995:25, 1996); cf. (5). However, there are also examples attested where the finite verb does not follow the wh-phrase directly.7 (5)

hva skuli þata barn wairþan? what shall that child become “what is this child going to be?” τί ἄρα τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο ἔσται;

(Lk 1:66)

Eythórsson (1995:26) comes to the conclusion that in Gothic the finite verb is systematically fronted in those cases where one can hypothesize an operator element in SpecC (i.e. in interrogatives, imperatives and negated sentences).8 Interestingly, these are the environments which still trigger verb-second in modern English, a phenomenon that Rizzi (1990) has called ‘residual verbsecond’. A further point that Eythórsson (1995, 1996) makes is that in East Germanic (represented by the Gothic Bible) and in West Germanic (represented by a number of Old English sources) there is a difference between the operator environments discussed above and topicalizations. The finite verb is not fronted in the latter case.9 This marks a crucial contrast to the situation in Old Norse, Old Saxon and Old High German, where he has found evidence for systematic verb movement in topic-initial clauses. This is why Eythórsson (1995:336) regards the innovation of generalized V-to-C movement, which not only affects operator-initial but also topic-initial clauses, as a Northwest Germanic phenomenon “that started in the northern part of the Germanic linguistic area after the separation of the Goths and did not reach West Germanic until after the departure of the speakers of the variety of this dialect that became Old English.”

7 Fuß (2003) argues that in the Gothic Bible the non-verb-second placement of the verb in wh-

clauses should be attributed to the influence of the Greek word order. 8 According to Eythórsson (1995:68ff., 1996), V-to-C movement also occurs in one non-

operator context: When a (definite) subject is topicalized, the finite verb is preposed so that its trace is lexically governed by the finite verb. 9 This does not mean that there was no verb movement at all. Eythórsson (1995:311-323) discusses different types of evidence which show that in Old English at least, the verb could move to a sentence-medial functional head (see Chapter 5 for details).

VERB MOVEMENT

35

2.3.1 Particles and verb movement in Gothic A further view that has been advocated in the generative literature is that the development of verb movement was related to the old system of enclitic particles. Ferraresi (1997) and Roberts (1996) argue that this is suggested by the situation in Bible Gothic. The topic of verb movement in Gothic has been primarily addressed in the context of discussions on the particles -u or -u(h). The enclitic -u is a question particle which usually occurs to the right of the finite verb when it is placed in sentence-initial position; cf. (6)-a (cf. Delbrück 1900:265; Fourquet 1938:255; Hopper 1975:50; Eythórsson 1995:105f., 1996; 124-126; Ferraresi 1997:148-150, 2005). Interestingly, this configuration is not only found in main interrogative clauses, but also in subordinate interrogative clauses; cf. (6)-b. Note that in the subordinate interrogative clause in (6)-b, the positioning of the verb in Gothic does not correspond to the Greek source. (6)

a. magutsu driggkan stikl þanei ik driggka? (Mk 10:38) cup that I drink can-2.DUAL-U drink “can you drink of the cup that I drink of?” δύνασθε πιεῖν τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ πίνω b. jah witaidedun imma hailidediu sabbato daga (Mk 3:2) and watched him healed-U sabbath day “and they watched him whether he would heal on the sabbath day” καὶ παρετήροῦτο αὐτόν, εἰ τοῖς σάββασιν θεραπεύσει αὐτόν

As Ferraresi (1997:140) observes, in Gothic there is no evidence for yes/nointerrogatives of the modern Germanic type where the verb is preposed without there being a particle present. Therefore she argues (ibid:139) that the verb moves to the C-domain to lexicalize -u for interrogative in both main and subordinate interrogative clauses.10 A similar line of argumentation is established by Roberts (1996:161f.). This also explains why V-to-C movement fails to take place when -u cliticizes to the head of a topicalized PP, as in (7)-a, or to an adjective, as in (7)-b. 11 Again this not only holds for main, but also for subordinate interrogative clauses; cf. (8)-a. Subordinate interrogative clauses can also be introduced by the subordinating conjunction jau (ja-u) “if, whether” (which incorporates the interrogative particle -u). In this case as well there is no verb 10 Eythórsson (1995:105) considers the particle -u to be a lexicalized interrogative morpheme

which is base-generated in C0. In contrast to Ferraresi and Roberts, he argues, however, that Vto-C movement is triggered by a phonologically empty operator and thus draws a parallel to verb movement in imperatives, negated sentences and wh-interrogatives. 11 Cf. also Grimm (1967a [1890]:729f.). Eythórsson (1995:111ff.) also discusses cases where the interrogative particle -u does not cliticize to a sentence-initial verb, but to a preposed adverb, an adjective, the head of a prepositional phrase or a pronoun. He considers this to be loan syntax. It has to be noted, however, that the suffix -u itself does not have a counterpart in the Greek text.

36


movement to the left periphery, as can be seen in (8)-b. Already Grimm (1967a [1890]:738) observed that in his collection of examples containing Gothic -u there is no corresponding element in the Greek acting as an interrogative marker. This is why he concludes that the use of the particle must have been required by the Gothic language. (7)

a. uzu waurstwam witodis ahman nemuþ (Gal 3:2) law-GEN spirit took from-U works “did you receive the spirit by the works of law ...?” ἐξ ἔργων νόµου τὸ πνεῦµα ἐλάβετε b. þau or ni

ainzu ik jah Barnabas ni habos waldufni du alone-U I and Barnabas NEG have-1.DUAL power to waurkjan? (1 Cor 9:6) NEG work “or do I only and Barnabas do not have the power not to work?” ἢ µόνος ἐγὼ καὶ Βαρνάβας οὐκ ἔχοµεν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ µὴ ἐργάζεσθαι

(8)

a. ufkunnaiþ bi þo laisein framuh12 guda sijai, þau know-3.SG with this doctrine from-U-UH God is or (Jn 7:17) ik-u fram mis silbin rodja I-U from me self speak “he shall know of this doctrine whether it be from God, or whether I speak from my own authority” γνώσεται περὶ τῆς διδαχῆς πότερον ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν ἢ ἐγὼ ἀπ' ἐµαυτοῦ λαλῶ b. witaidedunuh þan þai bokarjos ..., jau in sabbato daga watched-UH ÞAN the scribes whether in sabbath day (Lk 6:7) leikinodedi healed “and the scribes … watched him whether he would heal on the sabbath day” παρετήρουν δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ γραµµατεῖς..., εἰ ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ θεραπεύσει

Note that Ferraresi also observes (1997:112, 2005:149) that there is no corresponding particle in the Greek in any of the examples where -u occurs. Similar observations can be made for verb movement in sentences with the enclitic particle -uh. The grammatical function and meaning of this particle is still not fully understood. Traditionally, it has been termed a coordinating particle. -Uh is restricted to independent clauses and – in contrast to the coordinating conjunction jah – it only coordinates sentences and not non-sentential categories. The observation that -uh is in complementary distribution to comple-

12 This is a combination of the interrogative particle -u and the coordinating particle -(u)h.

37

VERB MOVEMENT

mentizers strongly suggests that it is associated with the C-projection.13 In contrast to -u, which very often occurs as an enclitic to the finite verb and only rarely cliticizes to the head of a fronted XP, -uh not only frequently cliticizes to the finite verb, but also to the heads of phrases of different categories; cf. (9)-d for an example with an NP/DP (see Chapter 4 for more details). The interaction between the particle -uh and the fronting of the finite verb is not easy to analyse. Two contexts in which -uh cliticizes to the finite verb have received special attention in the literature: (i) Sentences which are coordinated without a conjunction. In this case the second conjunct always begins with the sequence ‘finite verb + -uh’ and the second conjunct always has an empty subject pronoun; cf. (9)-b. Eythórsson (1996:124) mentions that here we are not dealing merely with two coordinated VPs since the presence of the particle -uh in the second conjunct shows that V-to-C movement has occurred. (ii) Sentences of the type ‘iþ–subject–V-uh’. In this case, the subject, which is always definite, has been topicalized; cf. (9)-c (see also Chapter 4). Eythórsson (1995:68ff., 1996) suggests that in case (ii) the finite verb must probably be fronted to license the trace of the topicalized subject so that an ECP-violation is prevented. As for case (i), it is still unclear which role verb movement plays in the licensing of the null subject (see the discussion in Ferraresi 1997:131, fn. 7 and Eythórsson 1996:124). (9)

a. queþunuh du þamma faurþis blindin to the formerly blind said-UH “and they said to the formerly blind man” λέγουσιν τῷ τυφλῷ πάλιν

(Jn 9:17)

b. Aftra du im Iesus rodida qaþuh ... (Jn 8:12) again to them Jesus spoke said-UH “once again Jesus spoke to them and said ...” ∏άλιν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐλάλησεν λέγων ... c. iþ Iesus iddjuh miþ im (Lk 7:6) IÞ Jesus went-UH with them “but Jesus went with them” ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐπορεύετο σὺν αὐτοῖς d. þuhtuþ-þan quiþa conscience-ACC-UH-ÞAN say “I speak of conscience” συνείδησιν δὲ λέγω

(1 Cor 10:29)

A further particle whose syntax has been argued to be related to verb movement is þau (cf. Ferraresi 1997:125f., 134), which occurs in the apodosis of conditionals with optative/conjunctive verbs. When this particle appears in its 13 According to Eythórsson (1995, 1996), who does not presuppose a complex C-domain in his

investigation, the particle appears in the C0-position.

38


simple non-reinforced form (as þau), it triggers the fronting of the finite verb. The particle can then even be incorporated into the verb as can be seen in (10)a, where þau is found directly after the so-called ‘preverb’ (the aspectual marker ga-), and not after the verb stem. However, when the particle occurs in the reinforced form (aiþþau), the finite verb is not fronted; cf. (10)-b: (10) a. jabai allis Mose galaubidedeiþ, (Jn 5:46) if all Moses believed-OPTATIVE ga-þau-laubidedeiþ mis PREFIX-ÞAU-believed-OPTATIVE me “if you had all believed Moses, you would have believed me” εἰ γὰρ ἐπιστεύετε Μωσεῖ, ἐπιστεύετε ἂν ἐµοί b. jabai þis fairhvaus weseiþ, aiþþau so manaseds if of-the world were AÞÞAU the world (Jn 15:19) frijodedi loved-OPTATIVE “if you were of the world, the world would love his own” εἰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσµου ἦτε, ὁ κόσµος ἂν τὸ ἴδιον ἐφίλει

swesans his-own

Proceeding from the observation that there is an interaction between certain particles and verb movement in Gothic, Roberts (1996) and Ferraresi (1997:125), drawing on work by Longobardi (1994), put forward the hypothesis that the generalization of verb movement in main clauses was a consequence of the breakdown of the particle system. Roberts (1996:162) also speaks of a ‘loss of suffixal triggers’ for verb movement. The loss of the interrogative particle -u, for example, may have led to a syntactic context in which verb movement was no longer triggered by an ‘affix’. Note that such contexts, as Roberts argues, already existed, namely in negated clauses and in imperatives. This means that the morphological loss of the enclitic particles (called ‘suffixes’ in Roberts’s terminology) resulted in the spread of the type of verb movement without suffixal triggers. Roberts assumes that languages differ cross-linguistically with regard to the question of whether they make their functional heads visible through lexical material or not. If yes, then this lexical material can either be in the form of an affix or of a free morpheme. In the case of an affix the functional head in which the affix is merged attracts the head of its complement. For example, when in Gothic the interrogative particle was merged in a functional head of the C-domain, verb movement to this head was triggered. In the case of a free morpheme, however, head movement was not triggered. Note that Roberts argues that movement in general is a last-resort phenomenon. In Gothic this can be seen in the context of the particle ei, which introduced declarative complement clauses (cf. also Ferraresi’s 1997 results on the particle (aiþ)þau). As Roberts furthermore argues, there are also languages which do not have morphological material to make their functional heads visible. In this case, an-

39

VERB MOVEMENT

other head is attracted which bears phonological material. This is, for example, the case in verb-second languages: Here the (non-selected) C-head is an element which requires phonological realization, but which does not have any intrinsic lexical content. As a consequence, generalized verb movement takes place. Gothic represents a transitional stage towards a grammar with generalized verb movement: It has both types of verb movement, namely the one that is triggered by an affix (e.g. by -u and þau), and the one not triggered by an affix (i.e. in imperatives, negated sentences and in wh-interrogatives). Roberts hypothesizes that the loss of verb movement caused the latter type of verb movement to gain ground. This was then a crucial step towards generalized verb movement and towards the emergence of the verb-second phenomenon. Roberts’s (1996) line of argumentation is really more complex as it contains a further argument. He regards examples as in (11)-a as a further syntactic environment in addition to imperatives and negated sentences where verb movement is not triggered by an enclitic particle (‘suffix’). In (11)-a, the particle -u occurs as an enclitic to a so-called ‘preverb’, namely the aspect marker ga-: (11) a. ga-u-laubjats (Mt 9:28) ASP-U believe-2.DUAL “do you two believe ...?” πιστεύετε b. ... [Foc Aspi+u] ... [Fin Vj] ... [Asp ti ] ... [V tj] ...

(from Roberts 1996:165)

Roberts argues that given the assumption that the preverbs are functional elements occuring in the ‘extended projection’ of the verb (e.g. in Asp0), then examples such as (11)-a show that the preverb can move to the left periphery into a C-position (= Foc0, cf. Rizzi 1997), where it can then be combined with the particle -u, which is base-generated in this position, cf. (11)-b.14 In other words, examples such as (11)-a provide evidence that there is verb movement, even though this movement cannot have been triggered by -u. A further factor that contributed to the development of generalized verb movement in Roberts’s eyes was the emergence of ‘that-type complementizers’. In Gothic, declarative complement clauses were introduced by ei, which Grimm ([1890] 1967a:13) characterized as an ‘independent particle’, i.e. as a non-clitic particle; cf. (12). However, declarative complement clauses could also be introduced by the complex conjunction þatei, which consisted of the neuter demonstrative pronoun þat “that” and the particle ei; cf. (13) (Longobardi 1994, Ferraresi 2005:8). 14 Roberts assumes that the verb moves to the lowest C-projection (= Fin0, cf. Rizzi 1997). In his view, the data thus suggest that when the higher C-head (= Foc0) bears an affix with a criterial feature (such as Q, focus etc.), it selects a C-head (= Fin0) which has to be made visible (PF-realized). (And in those cases where the verb stem carries -u as in (6) above, V-to-Fin-toFoc-movement takes place, and the verb cliticizes to a silent Fin.)

40


(12) batizo ist izwis [ei ik galeiþau] better is you that I go “... it is better for you that I go” ... συµφέρει ὑµῖν ἵνα ἐγὼ ἀπέλθω

(Jn 16:7)

(13) ... witands [þatei garaihtamma nist witoþ satiþ] knowing DEM-EI righteous NEG-is law made “... knowing that the law is not for a righteous man” εἰδὼς τοῦτο, ὅτι δικαίῳ νόµος οὐ κεῖται

(1 Tm 1:9A)

Roberts (1996) hypothesizes that the loss of the particle ei was compensated by the spreading of the þatei-complementizer. The C0-projection maintained its visibility requirement (= PF-realization requirement), which it had acquired very early, even after the loss of the particle ei. In dependent clauses this was made up for by a broadening of the use of ‘that-complementizers’. In the case of Germanic main clauses, however, the loss of the old particles was not counterbalanced in the same way (i.e. by means of the development of new particles), but by means of the generalization of verb movement. In summary: As recent studies on Gothic have shown, there seems to be a suggestive relation between particles and verb movement. Even though it is not fully clear how this is related to the development of generalized verb movement in the Old Germanic verb-second languages, such observations have given rise to new scenarios which provide alternatives to the traditional and widespread claim that verb movement developed out of a stylistic option of fronting constituents. The question of to what extent verb movement was generalized in OHG will be discussed in the rest of this Chapter. 2.4 Verb movement in Old High German: Independent clauses 2.4.1 Verb movement in sentences with sentence particles One undisputed feature of the Indo-European proto-language is that it possessed a complex inventory of ‘particles’ associated with the left sentence periphery. These elements served not only as connectives, but some also as sentence typers etc. Such a system of particles was presumably also still present in Proto-Germanic (Hopper 1975:26ff.; cf. also Hirt 1934:166-168, 192-200). Hopper (1975:26) points out that there seem to be only few cases of a complete correspondence – in functional, phonological and syntactic respects – between a Proto-Indo-European particle and its Germanic reflex. On the whole, he considers the treatment of this topic in the literature to be insufficient. In Streitberg’s (1963) Urgermanische Grammatik, for example, it is totally ignored, as Hopper criticizes. In the last section I gave a short overview of the interactions between sentence particles and verb movement in Gothic that have been discussed in the

VERB MOVEMENT

41

literature. Note that Gothic is actually the only Germanic language in which there is more than only residual evidence of a system of particles. The Gothic particles have therefore been amply discussed in the literature (e.g. in Grimm 1967a:729f.; Klein & Condon 1993; Klein 1994; Eythórsson 1995, 1996; Roberts 1996; Ferraresi 1997, 2005). In the Germanic daughter languages, the so-called ‘Wackernagel’ elements have received much attention. However, the literature has primarily considered personal pronouns, thereby largely ignoring the possible presence of sentence particles. This is probably due to the fact that there is only residual evidence of an inventory of particles in most Germanic languages even in their oldest extant sources. In the OHG sources, for example, there are no traces of the type of enclitic particle which played such a prominent role in Gothic. In OHG texts we only find some residual uses of phrasal sentence particles. Remember that in Gothic there also were particles which were not clitics (or affixes in the theory of Roberts 1996), but phrasal elements. An example would be the abovementioned conditional particle aiþþau, a reinforced form of the enclitic þau, or the interrogative particle an. These elements did not trigger verb movement in Gothic. When we now ask the question as to which role verb movement played in OHG, sentences which were introduced by such non-clitic particles are of great interest: It could be hypothesized that in contexts of these particles, a syntactic environment was residually maintained which was not affected by the generalization of verb movement – a kind of aftermath of the old system still traceable in Gothic, where there was a complementary distribution between non-clitic particles and verb movement. However, it could also be the case that in OHG verb movement was already fully independent of the presence of sentence particles. This would then suggest that verb movement was already very strongly generalized just like in the modern Germanic verb-second languages. 2.4.1.1 Inu-sentences. In OHG, the most prominent sentence particle is the interrogative particle inu (or innū, inū, ëno; cf. Grimm 1967a [1890]:733), which sometimes occurs in a trisyllabic form as inūnū, inuni, ënonū or ënoni.15 Inu is attested in a number of shorter texts as well as in the major OHG prose documents which are part of the corpus of the present study (i.e. Isidor, the Monsee Fragments, and Tatian). Sporadically, it can still be found in the late OHG texts by Notker; in Williram’s Song of Songs there are, however, no such examples.16 In Middle High German inu/ina is no longer used as a question particle; there are only some very sporadic non-interrogative attestations of the particle (Grimm ibid.). 15 In the OHG dictionary by Schützeichel (1995), the ‘unsuffixed’ form in is also given

(ibid.:174). Note that Grimm (1967a:733), however, had denied the existence of such a form, which would have been confused with the preposition in in his view. 16 Note, however, that there are only two yes/no-interrogatives attested in Williram’s paraphrase of the Song of Songs (cf. Brodführer 1906:31).

42


The etymology of the particle is unclear. Grimm (1967a:733) considers the in- in inu as related to Gothic an. Gothic an, in turn, he regards as parallel to Latin an. Here he sees a connection to the OHG particle na, which is attested in Notker’s texts.17 As to the the ‘suffix’ -nu, Grimm suggests that it may have developed from a further particle, namely from nū. This development, he argues, is reflected in the forms innu, inno, which occur in Notker’s texts and in the Monsee glosses. Thus, Grimm proposes that OHG innu corresponds to Gothic annu and is a combination of two particles. Regarding the second particle, nū, Grimm (ibid.:734) rejects the hypothesis of an interrogative meaning (and a potential relation to the Gothic interrogative particle -u). Instead he supposes that nū was suffixed to other interrogative or exclamative particles in order to reinforce them.18 Gering (1876) argues against a relation to Gothic an. He regards inu as a demonstrative element and derives the first syllable from the pronominal stem i- (in a similar way the particle/interjection sē can be traced back to the demonstrative stem sa). Gering proposes that the second syllable consists of the ‘temporal adverb’ nū; here he is in accordance with Grimm. Even though Grimm’s hypothesis that Gothic an and OHG inu are etymologically related is problematic, it should be noted that there is a structural parallel between the two particles. In the Gothic Bible the interrogative particle an is attested six times (cf. Ferraresi 1997:105, 2005:146). With one exception it always appears in constituent questions and occupies the position to the left of the preposed wh-phrase; cf. (14). A parallel use is also attested in OHG: In Isidor and in one of the sermons from the Monsee Fragments, inu occurs in front of a wh-phrase; cf. (15).19

17 Na is also an interrogative particle, but in contrast to inu it occurred at the right sentence

periphery. Grimm (1967a:734) suggests that the left-peripheral an and Notker’s rightperipheral na might have originally been the same particle. 18 Valentin (1987:1160), who discusses neither Grimm’s nor Gering’s results, independently puts forward the hypothesis that there could be an etymological relation to nū. Furthermore, Valentin (p. 1159) points out that it is unclear how eno has developed from inu since OHG has preserved the contrast /i/:/e/ in unstressed syllables. Valentin does not trace back the form ínno attested in Notker’s work to a putative bipartite origin (as in (an) or i-+nū), but sees in it the late Alemmanic reflex of the combination of inu with nū, which he suspects to have been quite common in earlier OHG as it is attested in the Benedictine Rule and in Tatian (as eno nu). 19 Gering (1876:35f.) and Valentin (1987:1153, 1155, fn.15) object that in Isidor inu sometimes seems to translate Latin nam, which speaks against the hypothesis that it is an interrogative particle. Note, however, that in the examples (15)-a and (15)-b inu occurs at the beginning of what are undisputed constituent interrogative clauses (in (15)-b even the Latin source contains an interrogative). Note also that in Tatian, eno is restricted to interrogatives in all its occurrences. More problematic are two examples (= I 299 and I 640) in which inu seems to correspond to nam, but occurs in declarative clauses. The only feasible explanation I can give is that such sentence-typing particles were already archaic at that time and that the Isidor translator was unsure how to use them.

43

VERB MOVEMENT

(14) an

hvas ist mis nehvundja? (Lk 10:29) who is me neighbour “who is my neighbour?” καὶ τίς ἐστίν µου πλησίον; AN

huueo ist in salomone zi firstandanne ...? how is in Solomon to understand “how is that to be understood in Solomon ...?” (R) Nam qualiter in salomone intellegendum est ...

(15) a. Inu

(I 633)

INU

b. Inu

huuazs andres zeihnit dhar dhea dhri sanctus chiquhedan ...? else means there the three “holys” spoken the three spoken “holys” mean?” (I 364) Nam quid ter sanctus indicat ...? INU what “What else do

c. Inu

huu{e}nan meinit · ir · who-ACC think you-PL “who do you think that I am?” {Uos autem quem} me esse dicitis

INU

daz ih sii that I am (MF XXXVIII,1; St. Augustini sermo)

Most frequently, however, inu appears in yes/no-interrogatives. In the OHG Tatian it is even the case that the large majority of yes/no-interrogatives are introduced by eno (or by a particle cluster containing eno); cf. (16) for some examples. According to my count there are 46 yes/no-interrogatives with eno as opposed to only 11 examples without the particle. In Isidor and in the Monsee Fragments as well the particle is attested in this type of interrogative clause; cf. (17). In Notker’s texts, however, there are only some rare traces of this use, but see (18) for an example from the Psalter. (16) a. /eno habet ir uuaz muoses./ ENO have you anything food-GEN “have you anything to eat?” /numquid pulmentarium hab&is/

(T 685,9)

b. /eno bin ih iudeus/ (T 623,10) ENO am I Jew “am I a Jew?” /numquid ego iudeus sum/ c. /eno nibirut ir furiron thanne ENO NEG-are you more than “are you not much better than they?” /Nonne uos magis plures estis illis./

sie sín/ they are

(T 155,17)

d. /eno niforstuotun zi uuáre/ thie heroston/ ... (T 351,17) ENO NEG-know to truth the rulers “do the rulers not know indeed, ...” /numquid uere cognouerunt/ principes./ ...

44


e. /... eno

ia uurdun zéheni gihéilte/ (T 379,10) were ten healed “were the ten healed?” /... nonne decem mundati sunt/ ENO

(17) a. Inu

IA

angil nist anaebanchiliih gote? (I 184) angel NEG-is identical God-DAT “is an angel not identical to God?”20 Num angelus ęqualem cum deo habet imaginem? INU

b. Inu

ni

NEG

larut ir · huuaz dauid teta read-PRET you-PL what David did “have you not read what David did?” (MF IV,6; Mt 12:3) {Non legistis quid fecerit dauid} INU

c. Inu

ni

NEG

ga horis huueo manac sam *** hear-2.SG how many “do you not hear how many (things they witness against you)?” No{n a}udis quanta aduersum te dicant t{esti}monia? (MF XXIV,21; Mt 27:13)

INU

(18) íno

ni

NEG

uuellint ouh ir sîne iungerin want also you his disciples “do you want to become his disciples?” NVNQVID ET VOS VVLTIS DISCIPVLI EIVS FIERI? INO

uuerden? become?

(N Ps 108, 413,8)

(l. 8)

It is hard to determine which meaning inu/eno contributes besides the interrogative marking itself. In Tatian, the particle translates Latin numquid most of the time; cf. (16)-a and (16)-b. However, numquid is also rendered in combination with negation (as eno ni, enoni), cf. (16)-d, or in combination with the particle nū. Whereas numquid is translated by eno alone or by eno + ni (and never by eno + ia), Latin nōnne is always rendered by a combination of particles,21 either by eno in combination with the ‘affirmative’ particle ia, cf. (16)-e, or by eno plus ni. It is unclear why both eno ia and eno ni could be used to translate the same Latin particle (nōnne). One could speculate that the OHG translators were unsure how to translate the Latin nōnne-sentences, which usually served as rhetorical questions in the relevant sources. As Valentin (1987:1158) has found out, the Latin nōnne-sentences in the OHG documents can mostly be considered rhetorical questions, while numquid occurs in a number of sentences which clearly do not express rhethorical questions, since it is clear from the context that a positive or negative answer is expected (ibid.:1156). Thus it can be hypothesized that the translators decided to underline the markedness of this type of question by the use of two particles instead of one. It could be ob20 See Valentin (1987:1154) for a modern German translation. 21 In the OHG Tatian, there is just one exception: T 349,18. This example, however, has a very

peculiar word order, which is completely parallel to the Latin source sentence.

VERB MOVEMENT

45

jected that the apparent inconsistency in the translations is due to the fact that the particles were already archaic at the time when the extant OHG manuscripts were written and that they were only preserved in the translational works because they provided apt translations for Latin particles such as numquid, nōnne or num. Note, however, that the OHG particle inu/eno also occurs where there is no corresponding particle in the Latin source (e.g. in T 415,15). In addition, it should be noted that OHG inu sometimes corresponds to noninterrogative particles in the Latin, e.g. nam, item or ergo (cf. Gering 1876:3542; Valentin 1987). What can be observed about verb placement in inu/eno-interrogatives? Behaghel (1932:43, note to §1455) summarizes his impression as follows: “Die ahd. Fragepartikel inu [...] hat keinen Einfluss auf die Stellung im anschließenden Fragesatz” [The OHG question particle inu [...] has no impact on the position [of the verb, K.A.] in the following interrogative clause]. Dittmer & Dittmer (1998:108) explicitly disagree with Behaghel on this point. They emphasize that in Tatian eno triggers a leftward relocation of the finite verb in those cases where we are not faced with a slavish rendering of the Latin source. It is very likely that Behaghel really wanted to express something different, namely that the preposing of the finite verb occurred independently of the presence of a sentence-typing particle. Thus he really is in accordance with Dittmer & Dittmer. Note that also Gering (1876:37, fn. 1) had already made a similar point: “In direkten Fragen steht nach germanischer regel das verbum immer am anfang: wenn also inu vor dieselben trat, so war die inversion bereits vorhanden und nicht erst durch die partikel veranlasst” [In direct questions the verb is always in initial position in accordance with the general rule in Germanic: When inu occurred in front of these direct questions, the inversion was already present and was not caused by the particle”]. Ruhfus (1897:74) also argues in this direction pointing out that the verb generally ‘introduces’ the sentence in yes/no- or constituent questions and that verb placement is not affected by elements such as eno, eno nu, which render the interrogative ‘adverbs’ numquid and nōnne. Among the 47 eno-interrogatives in Tatian, there are 36 cases where the finite verb comes directly after eno (or after a particle cluster with eno). In these examples, the fronting of the verb is realized contrary to the Latin source in no fewer than 29 cases. In the remaining seven cases, the corresponding Latin sentence also begins with a sequence of the particles numquid/nōnne or aut and the finite verb. In three of these cases an overt subject pronoun is inserted contrary to the Latin and placed in postfinite position. In the Monsee Fragments, in two (out of a total of three) examples the finite verb appears at the left periphery immediately after the interrogative particle. But what can be observed about the inu-sentences in which the finite verb does not come directly after the particle at the left periphery of the clause? Two types of such examples are attested (besides the above-mentioned case where

46


there is a wh-phrase between inu and the finite verb):22 In the first type of example, inu is followed by a topicalized constituent and there is clear evidence that the succeeding finite verb has still been fronted; cf. the example from Isidor in (17)-a (such cases will be discussed in Chapter 4). The second type of example is actually not main clauses, but subordinate clauses where inu appears in the position to the left of the complementizer/subordinator and where the finite verb remains in its base position at the end of the clause, as is the rule in clauses introduced by complementizers. Thus we can conclude that in OHG the preposing of the finite verb also systematically took place in interrogatives which were introduced by special sentence-typing particles. This does not fit well with the view suggested by Hirt (1934:167) and Hopper (1975:50) that sentence typing through particles and through verb placement were two alternative strategies. Note that Hirt (1934:166f.) distinguishes between Fragesätze mit Fragepartikeln “question clauses with question particles” and the Frage durch Wortstellung “question through word order” and claims that the latter type only began to spread in the West Germanic branch. Hopper (1975:50), in contrast, thinks that both types of yes/no-questions were already present in Proto-Germanic, the one with an initial finite verb and the one with an initial interrogative particle. As the recent research on Gothic discussed above suggests, this view may have to be revised: In Gothic the verb is not fronted because the sentence type ‘interrogative’ has to be marked by verb-first surface order, but because the enclitic particle -u needs a host to which it can cliticize. The interrogative marking itself is contributed by the meaning of the particle and is not directly related to the verbfirst word-order pattern. There is no evidence that in yes/no-interrogatives the fronting of the finite verb could take place as an alternative way of sentence typing without there being a clitic particle present. Our investigation of the OHG interrogative clauses has shown that verb movement systematically occurred even when there was a particle present. The situation in OHG therefore does not confirm the hypothesis that there was a complementary distribution between verb fronting and marking by (non-clitic) particles. It should be noted, however, that according to Roberts there was already some evidence in Gothic that verb movement partly occurred independently of the particles in interrogative clauses even though particles played a much more important role in this language than in OHG. 2.4.1.2 Jā-sentences. Similar observations on verb movement can be made for declaratives clauses with particles. In earlier OHG there existed a particle which occurred at the left periphery of declarative clauses, namely the particle 22 Only example I 71, which occurs in that part of the OHG Isidor translation that has only

been handed down in the Vienna Codex, is an exception. However, the positioning of the OHG verb follows the Latin original in this example. Cf. also the discussion in Rannow (1888:44) and Tomanetz (1879:40).

47

VERB MOVEMENT

jā/ja. This particle has survived until the present day as an answer particle and as a so-called ‘modal’ or discourse particle. The etymology of OHG jā/ja (jār, ga, geu), (Gothic jái, ja, Old English gëa, Old Frisian jē, Old Norse jā) is unclear (cf. Grimm 1967a:739). Its use not only as an answer, but also as an ‘affirmative’ particle in declarative clauses was already described by nineteenth century scholars (e.g. by Gering 1876:36; Delbrück 1911:277; Erdmann 1874:69, 86). Erdmann puts its semanto-pragmatic contribution as follows: jâ [...] zeigt eine besondere Richtung der Aufmerksamkeit auf die Tatsächlichkeit des gesammten Ereignisses an, welche dem Sprechenden als gewiss und sicher erscheint. [...] Im selbständigen n i c h t fragenden Satze [...] drückt jâ eine Beteuerung aus: führwahr, gewiß; (Erdmann 1874:69) [jâ ... indicates a special focus of attention on the factivity of the whole event, which the speaker regards as certain. … In independent and non-questioning clauses … jâ is used to express an affirmation: führwahr ‘truely’, gewiß ‘certainly’;]

Delbrück (1912) argues that the OHG sentences with initial jā are the precursors of the New High German verb-first declarative clauses with doch “surely, as you know, still” in the middle field (e.g. dacht’ ich es doch “I though so” (ibid.:273)). The affirmative particle jā is attested in various OHG documents, most notably in Tatian and in Otfrid, cf. (19), but also in some smaller documents, cf. (20). (19) a. /... . ia

ist sín muoter/ ginemnit maria .../ is his mother called Mary “his mother is called Mary, right?” /... nonne mater eius/ dicitur maria. .../

(T 243,6)

IA

b. /Ia

ist thaz ferah furira thanne tház muos/ is the life more than the food “life is more important than food, right?” /Nonne anima plus est quam esca.‘/

(T 155,9)

IA

c. ja wúrtun tóte man ouh, lés! \ quéke sines wórtes JA became dead men also INTERJ alive his-GEN word-GEN “after all, dead people were reawakened through his word” (O IV 26,18) d. Ja gispáratos avur thú \ then guaton wín unz in nú! JA saved however you the good wine until in now “but you, after all, saved the good wine until now!”23 (O II 8,51)

23 Translation based on the German translation in Delbrück (1911:274).

48


e. Ia gichuri du mih, trohtin (SD XXII,3; Psalm 138) IA recognized you me, Lord “after all, you have recognized me, Lord”24 (20) ia neniezant … \ thie Iudon unsera uuist.’ IA NEG-consume … the Jews our food “after all, the Jews do not accept any food from us!”25 (SD XVII,18; Christus und die Samariterin)

As already observed by Oskar Erdmann (1874:86), the finite verb is regularly preposed to the left periphery in jā-sentences. In Tatian this preposing of the verb often takes place contrary to or independent of the Latin source as in sentences (19)-a and (19)-b above, where the word order in the corresponding Latin sentence is not verb-initial. Regarding verb placement in Otfrid and Tatian – these are the only longer OHG documents which witness a more than sporadic use of jā – I have obtained the following quantitative results: In Otfrid there are 24 attestations of jā. In only three of these cases the verb has not been fronted. In Tatian there are 10 examples altogether where ia appears on its own, i.e. not in combination with eno or ni, and is not used as an answer particle either. In only one of this 10 examples (T 231,30) has verb movement not taken place. Thus the case of jā-clauses corroborates the tentative conclusion reached above that particle marking and verb movement are not in complementary distribution in OHG. Note also that jā, in contrast to, for instance, the Gothic interrogative particle -u, is not a clitic element. Viewed from this perspective, Erdmann’s (1874:86) statement that jā ‘attracts’ the finite verb is somewhat misleading. What speaks against a putative clitic status of jā is that it can be used on its own at least as an answer particle, cf. (21)-a, and that it occurs to the left of the weak pronoun iz (which arguably cannot host clitic elements) in one of the few examples without verb movement, cf. (21)-b.26 (21) a. /quadun sie imo. ia. …/ said they him yes “they said to him: ‘Yes’” /dicunt ei. &iam. …/

(T 241,25)

24 Translation based on the German translation in Schlosser (1998:114). 25 Translation based on the German translation in Schlosser (1998:129). 26 Gering (1876:37) assumes that OHG jā is an adverb. This is, however, not convincing: First,

jā is not attested in sentence-medial position (except for some sporadic examples where it is used as a so-called Gliederungspartikel “structuring particle” and is related to following nonsentential XP). Second, jā is attested in combination with eno at the left periphery of interrogatives. Note also that the particle has only been continuously attested from Early New High German times onwards, and not as an adverb, but as a modal/discourse particle. As a modal particle it has since then been restricted to sentence-internal placement and no longer occurs at the left periphery or in the prefield.

VERB MOVEMENT

49

b. ja iz hérza min ni rúarit ...! (O IV 12,20) JA it heart my NEG moves “after all, it does not move my heart ...”

As some scholars (e.g. Kelle 1869:419; Grimm 1967a:736) have claimed, jā is not only used as an affirmative, but also as an interrogative particle in OHG. This is suggested by some sentences from Tatian and Otfrid which render passages from the Vulgate containing the Latin particles nōnne or numquid, cf. (22); see also (19)-a and (19)-b above. Example (22)-a, for example, ends with a question mark in the edition by Kelle (1856), whereas there is a comma in the edition by Erdmann quoted here. Regarding verb movement there is no difference between those examples where jā occurs in an undisputed declarative clause and those examples where it seemingly renders Latin interrogative clauses: In both cases the finite verb is placed directly after the particle at the left sentence periphery. (22) a. „Ja sínt”, quad er, „bi nóti \ zuelif dágo ziti, JA are said he with necessity twelve day hours “ ‘after all, there are necessarily twelve hours in a day’, he said” nonne XII horae sunt diei? (marginal note = Jn 11:9) (O III 23,33) giscrip. .../ (T 437,23) quidit says Scripture “after all, the Scripture says ...” /nonne dicit scriptura. .../

b. /Ia IA

Delbrück (1911) argues against a potential interrogative meaning of OHG jā. He objects that the translations of the Latin nōnne-sentences differ considerably from text to text. His main argument is, however, that all the putative interrogative clauses in which jā occurs can still be given a declarative interpretation without distorting the sense of the respective passage. Since in the majority of examples with jā there is no doubt that these are declarative clauses, the simplest interpretation of the facts would be a single, affirmative meaning of the particle:27 Wie man sieht, liegt in diesen ja-sätzen, einer von mehreren versuchen vor, die sätze

27 Gering (1876:36f., fn.2) too argues against a putative interrogative meaning of jā. He con-

cedes that in Otfrid, many of the sentences introduced by jā could also be interpreted as questions. What still makes him regard them as declarative clauses is the following line of reasoning: If the German translator had wanted to literally render the sense of the original, he would have had to use not jā, but inu ni, the latter being the most frequent translation of nōnne. Since there has been a modification in any case, it is more probable that he did not intend to construct a question in the first place than that he merely used an ‘assertive’ question instead of a negative one.

50


mit nonne wiederzugeben, denen im germanischen kein fester typus entspricht, und ich sehe unter diesen umständen nicht ein, warum man diese ja-sätze nicht ebenso auffassen soll, wie die übrigen ja-sätze, nämlich als beteuerungssätze. (Delbrück 1911:276f.) [As can be seen, these ja-clauses represent just one of several attempts to render the clauses with nonne, which do not correspond to a fixed type in Germanic. I do not see why under these circumstances such ja-clauses should not be considered as the same phenomenon as the other ja-clauses, namely as affirmative clauses.]

In a similar vein, Wauchope (1991:121) objects that “ia cannot sometimes mark a sentence as a question but at other times mark a structurally identical sentence as a statement.” Note that jā would be redundant as an interrogative marker in interrogative clauses where it occurs in combination with the undoubtedly interrogative particle eno, as, for instance, in example (16)-e above, repeated here as (23): (23) /... eno

ia uurdun zéheni gihéilte/ were ten healed “were the ten healed?” /... nonne decem mundati sunt/ ENO

= (16)-e

IA

Wauchope (1991:129) proposes that in questions, jā is used in combination with eno as in (23), when the hearer’s agreement is presupposed (cf. also Hentschel 1986:118). So a more appropriate translation of (23) would probably be “Were not the ten healed?”. She argues that in statements, the particle indicates information which (i) is unknown to the hearer, but is relevant for the cotext and must therefore be repeated, and which (ii) is expected not to be questioned by the hearer. As was discussed above, the finite verb is systematically fronted in jāsentences. Behaghel (1928:57), for example, states: “ja [...] verlangt die Stellung des Subjekts nach dem Verbum [...] mit seltenen Ausnahmen” [ja requires the positioning of the subject after the verb … with rare exceptions]. Since the primary aim of this section is to find out to what extent verb movement was already generalized in sentences with particles, I will briefly address the exceptions which Behaghel refers to. In Tatian and Otfrid, there are only four examples altogether in which the finite verb is not found directly after the particle at the left periphery.28 The word order in each example suggests that the finite 28 Delbrück (1911:277) mentions that in the versions of (24)-c and in (24)-d that occur in

Tatian and the Monsee Fragments, we find the particle eno (inu) in the translations of the same biblical passages. More precisely, he points out that in Tatian eno ni occurs in the relevant cases. This is, however, not correct, as the examples really are worded as follows: eno bin ih iz trohtin (T 557,15) and eno bin ih iz meistar (T 559,31). Delbrück interprets the Otfrid examples as a kind of biased assertive questions in which the speaker finally turns to the addressee in an enquiring and doubtful manner such as in the New High German example ich bin es doch nicht? “Am I not the one …?’.”

VERB MOVEMENT

51

verb has remained in its base position at the end of the clause. This makes these exceptional examples very different from the ones with inu/eno where the finite verb does not immediately follow the particle. Note that in the latter examples there is still evidence for verb movement, the verb being relegated to a later position by a topicalized XP as in (17)-a above, here repeated as (25). (24) a. /truhtin ía thú guotan samon satos / ... (T 231,30) IA you good seed planted Lord “Lord, you planted good seed ..., didn’t you?” /domine. nonne bonum semen seminasti/ ... b. ja iz hérza min ni rúarit \ noh súlih balo fúarit! JA it heart my NEG moves nor such mischief carries “after all, it does not move my heart, nor does it mean such mischief...” (O IV 12,20) c. Tho sprachun sie álle fon ín:\ „ja, íh iz, drúhtin, ni bín? I it Lord NEG am then spoke they all of them IA “and every one of them said: “surely it is not I, Lord?” (O IV 12,19) numquid ego sum, domine? (marginal note = Mt 26:22) d. er sprah mit únwirdin: \ „meistar, ja íh iz ni bin?” I it NEG am he spoke with dishonour master JA “then he, the traitor, spoke: ‘surely it is not I, master?’” (O IV 12,24) numquid ego sum, rabbi? (marginal note = Mt 26:25) (25) Inu

angil nisti anaebanchiliih ti gote? = (17)-a angel NEG-is identical God-DAT “is an angel not identical to God?” Num angelus ęqualem cum deo habet imaginem?

INU

ni

NEG

As there are only three examples in Otfrid and only one in Tatian where the finite verb is not in a position at the left periphery following the particle jā, it is doubtful whether we are dealing with a native construction at all. Note that the Tatian example (24)-a is actually a word-by-word rendering of the Latin source sentence. In the Otfrid examples in (24), the final placement of the verb may have been conditioned by the end rhyme (rúarit/fúarit; fon ín/ni bín; únwirdin/ni bin). In examples (24)-c and (24)-d it furthermore may be possible that the metre has affected the late positioning of the verb. In (24)-c jā, being an unstressed element, forms the anacrusis. There has to follow stressable material for the first beat in the first tact. The subject pronoun must carry a focus accent in this context (this is suggested by the use of ego in the Vulgate). Therefore the subject pronoun is an ideal candidate for the first beat, whereas the following iz is unstressable and is therefore a candidate for the thesis. Had Otfrid placed the negated finite verb directly after the particle (i.e. ja ni bin ih iz ...), there would have arisen the metrical problem that the negation particle ni is not stressable. A similar line of argumentation can be established for (24)-d.

52


The hypothesis that the exceptional word order in (24)-c and (24)-d has been triggered by metrical requirements is also supported by the fact that in the prose (i.e. in Tatian), the corresponding text passages are constructed differently: Here the finite verb appears at the left periphery following the particle (which here is eno instead of jā; cf. T 557,15 and 559,31). On the whole, we cannot really decide whether the sporadic verb-end placement in jā-clauses is a residue of an archaic but native grammatical construction or whether this word order is merely triggered by extragrammatical influences such as rhyme/metre or a word-by-word translation. The large majority of jā-sentences in OHG, however, are subject to verb movement. To sum up: In OHG the generalization of verb movement appears to be fairly advanced since it also occurs in sentences which are sentence-typed by means of non-clitic particles. 2.4.2 Verb movement in interrogatives, imperatives and negated sentences As was mentioned in the introductory section, there is evidence that the historical core contexts for verb movement in Old Germanic are imperatives, negated sentences and possibly also interrogative clauses. With interrogative clauses the situation is not so clear. As I showed in section 2.3.1, in Gothic yes/nointerrogatives verb movement could be triggered by an enclitic interrogative particle. Hirt (1934:166f.) considers sentence typing by means of verb-first word order instead of an interrogative particle as a peculiarity which developed in different West Germanic languages, but was absent from Indo-European. In the following section I will discuss how well established this innovation already was in OHG. 2.4.2.1 Interrogative clauses. In the major documents from earlier OHG, yes/no-interrogatives without particles are less frequent than those with particles. In Tatian only 11 out of 57 yes/no-interrogatives do not contain a particle, and in Isidor one out of four. That the type of yes/no-interrogative without a particle is relatively infrequent may also be due to the fact that in the translational literature, the use of the particle was prompted by the Latin, where particles such as numquid, nōnne etc. were almost always present in this particular syntactic context. Nevertheless there is no doubt that the sentence type of the particle-less yes/no-interrogatives belonged to the grammatical repertoire of OHG: We find sufficient evidence in non-translational texts from the ninth and tenth centuries, e.g. in the Alemmanic paraphrase of Psalm 138 or in the Taufgelöbnisse and in Otfrid. Note that the Otfrid text is a very free rendering of biblical material and is not loyal to the Latin wording.

53

VERB MOVEMENT

(26) a. Uuellet ir gehoren ... (SD XXII,1; Psalm 138) want you hear “do you want to hear ...?” b. Forsahhistu unholdun? abjure-you devil-DAT do you abjure the devil?’

(SD IV,1; Fränkisches Taufgelöbnis)

c. sprichis súlih thu fon thír (O IV 21,7) speak such you of you “do you say so of yourself ...?” a temetipso hoc dicis (marginal note = Jn 18:34)

In the earlier translational literature, the verb has always been relocated to the left in those yes/no-interrogatives in which the OHG word order deviates from the Latin:29 (27) a. Odho mahti angil so sama so got mannan chifrumman? or could angel so same as God Man-ACC make “or could an angel make Man the same as God does?” (R) Aut numquid angelus cum deo potuit facere hominem? b. Muoz man · in uirra ta gum heilan may one on sabbath days heal “is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days?” {Si licet sabbatis curare?} c. /bist thu uuîzago. .../ are you prophet “are you the Prophet?” /proph&a es tú. .../

(I 187)

(MF IV,21; Mt 12:10)

(T 109,14)

In the late OHG prose documents, interrogative particles have almost completely disappeared.30 In Williram there are only two yes/no-interrogatives attested; in neither case is there a particle present; cf. (28)-a. Since the Consolatio is a dialogue between Philosophy and Boethius, this source contains many interrogative clauses: In the first two volumes Näf (1979:161) counts no fewer 29 According to Ruhfus (1897:35), there are twelve cases in Tatian where this is the case.

Ruhfus mentions that there are furthermore four yes/no-interrogatives in which a simple verb form at the beginning of the Latin sentence is rendered by a complex verb form whose finite part occurs at the beginning of the corresponding OHG sentence (e.g. ist arloubit zins zi gebanne themo keisore. [lic& censum dari cæsari.] T 427,10). As was already mentioned, the OHG Isidor only contains one yes/no-interrogative without a particle, namely the one quoted in (27)-a, which is actually a very free translation. There is a futher putative example (... sculi ih uuesa{n unberandi}? “should I be infertile” (I 73) whose status is unclear since it is part of a complex sentence which is in turn coordinated with an inu ga-interrogative. 30 In Notker’s Consolatio, the particle ínno occurs five times in the translation of a Latin question. As is suggested by punctuation, however, late OHG ínno seems to be a kind of interjection (cf. Valentin 1987:1159)

54


than 200 (independent) interrogatives. All the yes/no-interrogatives (87 cases) are characterized by verb-first order. (28) a. Síhes du . uuîe dér da óbe stêt ... see you how that-one there above stands “do you see how he is standing above there ...?” b. Uuíle du uuízen uuîo? want you know how “do you want to know how?” Modum desideras?

(W 75,12)

(N BCon I 24,5)

(l. 5)

As to (independent) wh-interrogatives, this sentence type is also characterized by systematic verb movement to the left periphery in OHG. Two examples from the Isidor and from Tatian are given in (29). In the older translational literature the finite verb generally appears in second position directly after the wh-phrases provided that the verb placement has been changed compared to the Latin (cf. Ruhfus 1897:36, Dittmer & Dittmer 1998:105).31 In some cases there is intervening material between the wh-phrase and the finite verb. How-

31 In the OHG Isidor, I have found 25 matrix wh-interrogatives that contain a verb and are thus

not elliptical. In 22 cases, the finite verb occurs in second position. In three cases the wh-phrase is followed by one (or two) pronominal arguments (see Chapter 5 for details), but also in these cases the finite verb occurs further to the left than in the corresponding Latin sentence. In the Monsee Fragments, I have found 14 instances of wh-interrogatives which are not too fragmentary for a proper investigation of word-order properties. They all occur in the Gospel of Matthew. All 14 examples have verb-second order. Quantitative remarks on verb placement in interrogative sentences in Tatian can be found in Dittmer & Dittmer (1998:105f.) and Bernhardt & Davis (1997), but only the old study by Ruhfus (1897) contains an exhaustive list at least of those examples where the OHG verb placement deviates from that of the Latin original or where a Latin infinitival construction has been rendered by a finite sentence (however, Ruhfus does not take into account those examples where an overt subject pronoun has been inserted in postfinite position contrary to the Latin, even though such cases can also be regarded as instances of non-source-driven verb placement). Ruhfus (ibid:§ 31-33) counts 89 whinterrogatives which deviate from the Latin with respect to at least one of the three points just mentioned (or with respect to the position of the wh-phrase). Except in two cases, all these examples contain the sequence wh-phrase–Vfin. Unfortunately, it is not possible to tell from Ruhfus’ data how many wh-interrogatives deviate from verb-second because the word order has been kept parallel to the Latin. As Ruhfus furthermore observes, in approximately a dozen examples, a simple verb form has been rendered by a complex verb. In six cases the finite part of the complex verb form has been moved leftward into a sentence-initial position in the OHG translation (i.e. uuaz ist íu gisehan? [quid uobis uid&ur] T 417,14). In a section of Tatian, Dittmer & Dittmer (1998) have found the following results: In four chapters (Chapters 106-109 in the edition by Sievers, pp. 355,22-373,19 in the edition by Masser), the authors count 11 whinterrogatives, 10 of which have verb-second order; in six cases this order is parallel to the source, in four cases the position of the verb has been changed. In one example there is more than one constituent in front of the finite verb in the OHG translation in accordance with the Latin.

55

VERB MOVEMENT

ever, even in these cases there is evidence that the verb has moved; as will be shown in Chapter 5. (29) a. [bihuuiu] uuard christ in liihhi chiboran? why became Christ in flesh born “why was Christ born in the flesh?” (R) cur in carne uenit? b. /meistar [uuanne] quami thú master when came you “Master, when did you come here?” /Rabbi. quando huc uenisti./

héra/ here

(I 487)

(T 257,12)

In the late OHG prose texts, (independent) wh-interrogatives always exhibit verb-second order.32 The only exception are examples with parenthetical inserts. In Notker’s texts, one also finds wh-interrogatives where parenthetical inserts with verbs of saying, thinking or believing appear between the whphrase and the finite verb (cf. Näf 1979:164). An example from Notker is given in (30).33 Similar examples are attested in Otfrid. (30) uuéderêr déro uuânest tu gemág mêr (N BCon IV 189,18) which those-GEN believe you is-capable more “which one of those, do you believe, is capable of more?” quemnam horum ualentiorem esse decernis? (l. 14)

As was mentioned above, in Gothic wh-interrogatives were also a syntactic environment where verb fronting frequently occurred, though not as regularly as in OHG. In the West Germanic branch, however, verb fronting was the rule not only in OHG, but also in Old English (cf. Kiparsky 1995, van Kemenade 1987).

32 In Notker’s Consolatio numerous wh-interrogatives occur; Näf (1979:161) counts no fewer

than 113 examples in the first two volumes. He points out (ibid.:162) that in all the examples, the finite verb appears in second position. All apparent exceptions involve interjections, parenthetical sentences or the like (cf. ibid.:163, 164). Regarding the putative influence of the Latin source on verb placement in OHG texts, Näf (1979:164ff.) has found out that almost one-third of the examples do not have a direct Latin counterpart at all; in the remaining examples, the verb-first order (in yes/no-interrogatives) and the verb-second order (in wh-interrogatives) is realized both parallel and contrary to the Latin source. In Williram’s paraphrase of the Song of Songs there are eight wh-interrogative clauses attested, all of which exhibit verb-second order. In only two cases is this word order parallel to the Latin (cf. also Brodführer 1906). 33 In the generative literature the corresponding modern German examples are generally analysed as wh-extractions from embedded verb-second clauses. Note that the extraction analysis is actually not very well motivated for the OHG examples as there is no undisputed evidence that verb-second complement clauses without overt complementizers had already evolved (cf. Axel & Kiziak, to appear).

56


2.4.2.2 Imperative clauses. In imperative clauses, verb movement is commonly assumed to have a very long history. In the literature, it has been claimed that verb movement was already present in Proto-Germanic (e.g. Hopper 1975:48), and even in Proto-Indo-European (Delbrück 1900:63). The results by Eythórsson (1995, 1996) sketched above (section 2.3) provide further support for the hypothesis that in Germanic verb movement in imperatives is very old. This is why it is not surprising that also the OHG imperative clauses are systematically subject to verb movement. Already in the older translational literature it can be observed that the imperative verb is fronted into first position in those cases where the word order is not entirely parallel to the Latin.34 Notably in Tatian, there are many cases with deviating verb-first order; see (31)-a for an example. Apart from that, we can also find many examples where verb-first order in OHG is parallel to the Latin. In Isidor this is the rule; cf. (32). Note that subject pronouns35 which are overtly realized in contrast to the Latin are always inserted in postverbal position; cf. (31)-c. This also speaks for the nativeness and productivity of verb-first order. (31) a. /tuot riuua .../ (T 103,1) do-2.PL.IMP repentance “repent!” /pænitentiam agite .../ b. /quid ekkorodo speak-2. SG.IMP only “speak the word only!” /sed tantum díc uerbo/

mít uuortu/ (T 181,18) with word-INSTR

34 If one counts the sentences with an imperative verb form (excluding adhortatives (first per-

son plural) and optative sentences), one gets the following results: In Isidor there are 11 (uncoordinated) imperative clauses attested. In the Latin source sentences the verb is always found at the beginning of the sentence; in the OHG translations the verb appears in first position in 10 cases (preverbal vocatives do not count, of course). In two of these examples (I 256, I 371), the subject pronoun has been inserted contrary to the source into the postverbal domain. In one case (I 147), a sentence adverb has been placed in front of the imperative verb (contrary to the Latin). The Monsee Fragments contain about 36 imperative verbs. In three cases, a subject pronoun has been inserted postverbally contrary to the Latin source, and in one case it occurs preverbally in accordance with the Latin. The remaining 32 examples exhibit verb-first order, both in the OHG and in the Latin sentences. In Tatian there are many imperatives with verbfirst order in OHG parallel to the Latin. Where the verb placement has been changed compared to the Latin, we usually find verb-first order in the OHG translation (10 cases). Exceptions do occur sporadically. In two cases, for example, the predicative adjective in the expression heil uuesan occurs in the preverbal position (heil uuis thu gebono follu. [haue gratia plena] T 71,10); heile uúeset. [hau&e.] T 667,27). 35 In some parts of the literature, it has been argued that the nominative DP which sometimes occurs in imperatives does not have the properties of a real subject (e.g. Platzack & Rosengren 1998). See also Donhauser (1986:86-112) for a discussion of the properties of nominative noun phrases in imperative clauses in modern German. In the present study, I will nevertheless refer to these nominative DPs as ‘subjects’ or ‘subject pronouns’.

VERB MOVEMENT

c. Chihori dhu, israhel ... listen-2.SG.IMP you Israel “listen, Israel, ...” Audi, israel ...

57

(I 371)

(32) a. Duo dhina hant undar miin dheoh endi suueri bi himilischin gote put your hand under my thigh and swear by heavenly God “put your hand under my thigh and swear by Heavenly God!” (R) Pone manum sub femore meo et iura per deum cęli (I 558) b. Ar stant nim · {dii}n betti · enti ganc up-get-2.SG.IMP take-2.SG.IMP your bed and go-2.SG.IMP zadinemo hūs (MF I,19; Mt 9:6) to-your house “Get up, take your bed and go home!” {surge, tolle lectum tuum, et uade in domum tuam}

In late OHG texts as well, verb-first is the prevailing order in imperatives.36 In both the early and the late texts there are exceptions to the verb-first pattern: We sometimes find material such as topicalized XPs or adverbs in preverbal position. Nevertheless, there is clear evidence for verb movement in these cases as well. As Hopper (1975:48f.), Mitchell (1985:§1871) and Kiparsky (1995:148) point out, in Old English, Old Saxon and in further Old Germanic languages, the imperative verb remained in final position in the second conjunct of coordinated imperative clauses; cf. (33) for an Old Saxon and an Old English example. In OHG, this phenomenon is not attested, at least not in the sources investigated in the present study.37 In the OHG imperatives in (32), for example, verb movement has occurred both in the first and in the second/third conjuncts.

36 In the imperative clauses in the Consolatio, verb-first is the prevailing pattern. In the first

two volumes, Näf (1979:167-169) counts 43 imperative clauses (this figure does not include those cases where the imperative clause is preceded by a left-peripheral subordinate clause). Verb-first order is found in 30 cases. The remaining imperatives have one constituent in front of the imperative verb (13 cases). Many of the OHG imperatives do not have a corresponding Latin imperative sentence. Both the verb-first order and, more rarely, the verb-second order in OHG imperatives are also realized contrary to the source. In Williram’s Song of Songs, I have counted 83 imperatives. Absolute verb-first order is most frequent (cf. also Brodführer 1906:34). The only elements which are attested before the imperative verb are the particle nū and, more sporadically, the particle sō. 37 Hopper (1975:49) cites one such example from the OHG Otfrid (O I 5,17), but this sentence is introduced by the conjunction noh, which often occurs with verb-end order. Moreover, the final placement of the verb may have been influenced by the end rhyme (wenti/ensti) in this case.

58


(33) a. than nim thu ina sundar te thi, ... endi imu then take-2.SG.IMP you him secretly to you and him rad saga advice give-2.SG.IMP “then take him aside and secretly give him this advice” (Heliand 3225; from Hopper 1975:49) b. Lufian we hine ny & his noman praise we him now and his name “let us now praise him and magnify his name” (BlHom 13,6; from Kiparsky 1995:148)

is it

myclian magnify

In the case of the imperative clauses, the imperative verb form plays an important role for sentence typing, of course. Note, however, that in OHG the imperative form is only distinctly marked in the singular. The inflectional morphology of the second person singular indicative is distinct both from that of the second person singular imperative and from that of the second person singular conjunctive. In the plural, however, the second person of the imperative is identical with the present indicative.38 This is also still the case in presentday German, but here imperative clauses are distinguishable from other sentence types at the surface because they usually do not have a visible subject. As cross-linguistic studies have shown, an overt subject expressing the addressee is not obligatory in imperative clauses (cf. Platzack & Rosengren 1998:178). In present-day German this property of imperatives makes them grammatically distinguishable from the other sentence types. Yet in earlier OHG the problem arises that overt subjects are also often absent from indicative clauses since German was still a (partial) null-subject language at that stage (cf. Chapter 6). The situation is even more complicated as there are attestations of OHG imperatives where the subject pronoun has been overtly realized. This phenomenon seems to be more common than in the modern language. Held (1903:9) points out that quite a large number of imperatives have overt subject pronouns in OHG (and arguably also in Old Saxon, ibid.:10, fn.1) and that this phenomenon only very rarely has a parallel in the Latin. In the translational literature there are quite a few cases where the subject pronoun is inserted contrary to the Latin, most notably in negated imperatives (cf. Held 1903:11):

38 Besides the imperative singular and plural there is also the adhortative, which has the ending

-mēs (e.g. Duoemes mannan uns anachiliihhan ... “Let us make Man like us…!” (I 178)). Furthermore, sentences in the conjunctive mood are sometimes attested in a kind of directive use. As Robinson (1997:22) points out, the two examples occurring in Isidor (I 167, I 400) are realized with verb-first order just the same, albeit with the parallel order in the Latin source sentences. As Ruhfus (1897:33) proposes for Tatian, in ‘optative sentences’ verb-first may also often be due to the fact that the verb is negated (see also Chapter 3, section 3.6 on verb-first order in negated clauses).

59

VERB MOVEMENT

(34) a. /ni

forhti thu thir zacharias/ fear-2.SG.IMP you you-DAT Zechariah “do not be afraid, Zechariah!” /N&imeas zacharia/

(T 67,23)

NEG

b. /Nicur&39 ir forhten luzzil euúit/ NEG-choose-2.PL.IMP you fear little flock “do not be afraid, little flock!” /Nolite timere pusillus grex/

(T 153,4)

At the left periphery of OHG imperatives, we frequently encounter the particle nū̆. This particle is attested both in preverbal and – notably in late OHG – in postverbal position. Often there is no corresponding particle in the Latin source. In the older OHG literature this particle most frequently occurs in Tatian and Otfrid; cf. (35)-a and (35)-b.40 In late OHG texts there are also many such examples; cf. (36). In Old English, this particle is also attested in imperative clauses; cf. (37) for an example from Beowulf. (35) a. /láz nu. só gilimphit uns/ zigifullenne al reht/ (T 111,26) let-2.SG.IMP NU so behoves us-DAT to-fulfil all righteousness “let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfil all righteousness” /sine modo. sic enim dec& nós/ Implere omnem Iustitiam/ b. „Nim nu wórt minaz \ in herza, in heart take-2.SG.IMP NU word mine “save my word in your heart, maid”

mágad, thinaz maid yours (O I 15,27)

c. Uuizo uns · nu xp̄s huuer ist {de}r dih sluoc:ʾ prophesy-2.SG.IMP us NU Christ who is that you-ACC hit “prophesy to us, Christ. Who is it that hit you?” {Prophetiza nobis, christe, quis est qui te percussit?} (MF XXIII,3; Mt 26:68) (36) a. nú

ságe say-2.SG.IMP “tell us ...!”

NU

b. Ságe no ... say-2.SG.IMP NO “tell me now...” Sed dic mihi . ...

úns ... us

(W 177,33)

(N BCon I 37,13)

(l. 11)

39 Braune (1987:§ 322, note 2) argues that the form curet, which only occurs in Tatian, is a

grammaticalized imperative form. 40 Cf. Erdmann (1874:84, 86) on the use of nū as an ‘imperative particle’ in Otfrid.

60


(37) Geþenc nu, se mæra maga NU you great offspring think “remember now, great son of Healfdene” (Beowulf 1474; from Hopper 1975:48)

Healfdenes Healfdene-GEN

The sentence-typing function of the particle nū is not fully clear. Note that nū – similar to New High German nun – was also used as a ‘normal’ temporal adverb, for example translating Latin nunc, and as a discourse particle in declaratives, translating Latin igitur, ergo, et etc. It is possible that the use of nū in OHG imperatives goes back to the Old Germanic emphatic nū, which also survived in exclamative, interjection-like expressions such as OHG wola-nu, wolaganu; sē-nū, sē-no-nū, sino, Old English heo-nu, Old Saxon si-nu, and Old Norse hana nū (cf. Grimm [1890] 1967a:238; Hopper 1975:30).41 For Gothic, Ferraresi (1997:119, 2005:167-169) shows that there was a non-adverbial nū which behaved as a typical enclitic particle in that it always came in second position after a phrasal constituent of any category (e.g. a DP, PP, finite verb, complementizer), after the first word within a phrase, or after the preverb and the verb stem; cf. (38). (38) us-nu-gibiþ þo kaisaris kaisara PREVERB-NU-give-2.PL.IMP the Caesar’s Caesar-DAT “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” ἀπόδοτε τοίνυ τὰ καίσαρος καίσαρι

(Lk 20:25)

Even though the particle nū is attested in various sentence types, imperatives, especially negated ones, were clearly one of its most prominent environments. In Gothic the particle could occur both post- and preverbally just as in OHG, yet in the latter case it had to appear in its non-clitic, reduplicating form as nunu (Ferraresi 1997:121): (39) nunu nu

faginoþ rejoice-2.PL.IMP “rejoice in the Lord always” χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε

NUNU NU

in fraujin in Lord

sinteino always

(Phil 4:4A+B)

41 It has been argued that in some environments nū has an affinity to interrogative contexts. As

was already mentioned above, some scholars have speculated that nū might have been a morphological part of inu. As Hirt (1934:167) argues, the precursors of nū (Old Icelandic nū̆, Greek νῦν, Latin num) frequently occurred in interrogative sentences already in Indo-European times. Accordingly, Gothic nū occurs in sentences such as in John 18:39: wileidu nu want-you NU, “do you want …”. Note, however, that here it is the particle -u that serves as an interrogative marker, while the function of nū is not clear. The same seems to be true for the use of nū in OHG interrogatives: Wauchope (1991:63) shows that in interrogative sentences nū only occurs in combination with the interrogative particle eno: “there is no evidence that nu alone can mark a sentence as an interrogative” (ibid.).

61

VERB MOVEMENT

To sum up: In OHG imperatives verb movement was obligatory. In contrast to other Old Germanic languages, this was also true for the second conjunct in coordinated imperatives. This suggests that verb fronting in OHG was more strongly generalized than it was in the other West Germanic languages. As far as sentence typing is concerned, missing subjects did not make imperatives distinguishable from other sentence types since OHG was a partial null-subject language. There were, however, residual uses of the particle nū that presumably played a role in sentence typing. 2.4.2.3 Negated clauses. Negated clauses were a further Old Germanic core context for verb movement (cf. Hopper 1975:51; Eythórsson 1995, 1996). Negated clauses (notably those in the Gothic Bible) were actually the syntactic environment which made Eythórsson (1995, 1996; 2002, cf. already Meillet 1908/1909) revise the hypothesis by Kiparsky (1995) and Weerman (1988), among others, that the finite verb remained at the end of the clause in early Germanic and that V-to-C movement was a relatively late innovation. Already Behaghel (1932:12, § 1428) had put forward the rule that in Germanic ‘negation + verb’ occurred at the beginning of the clause. Thus it does not come as a surprise that the OHG data clearly display evidence for verb movement in negated main declarative clauses. As already observed by Ruhfus (1897:4), in Tatian the negation particle ni seems to always ‘attract’ the verb in the OHG text, whereas in the Latin there may occur material between the left-peripheral negation particle and the verb, as in (40)-a and (40)-c: (40) a. /nigibit Imo zi mezze got geist/ NEG-give him to measure God spirit-ACC “God does not give the Spirit by measure” /Non enim ad mensuram dat deus spiritum./ b. /trohtin. nihaben man/ NEG-have-1.SG man Lord “Lord, I have no man” /Domine. hominem non habeo./

(T 129,27)

(T 285,14)

got sínan sun/ (T 407,30) c. /nisanta NEG-sent God his son “God did not send his Son” /non enim misit deus filium suum/

In Isidor and in the Monsee Fragments, the verb is always found at the left periphery in negated clauses. Most of the time the corresponding Latin verb also occurs in a left-peripheral position directly following the negation element as in (41)-b, but there are also OHG examples attested which are rather free renderings of the Latin, cf. (41)-a, or in which the OHG verb has been preposed as compared to the Latin, as in (40)-c.

62


(41) a. ni

liugu ih dauid lie I David “I will not lie to David” si dauid mentiar

(I 612)

NEG

b. ni

uuez ih iu · uuih know I you-ACC “I do not know you” {nescio uos}

(MF XX,20; Mt 25:12)

NEG

In most cases the negation particle ni, which is a proclitic attaching to the finite verb (cf. Chapter 3), is found at the beginning of the sentence without there being a topicalized constituent present; cf. (40), (41). Sometimes the verbsecond configuration with a preposed XP (i.e. XP–ni-Vfin–sequences) is also attested, cf. (42), but in Isidor and the Monsee Fragments, this is not the prevailing pattern. The question as to why XP-fronting is not obligatory in negated clauses in OHG will be discussed in Chapter 3. (42) enti [mano] · ni gi bit · siin leoht and moon NEG gives its light “and the moon will not give its light” {et luna non dabit lumen suum}

(MF XIX,3; Mt 24:29)

In the last sections I have shown that in OHG, verb movement was the rule in those environments that have been identified as the Germanic core contexts for verb movement, namely imperatives, negated clauses, and interrogatives. The same is true for OHG interrogative clauses, both for yes/no interrogatives and constituent questions. Verb movement also occurred when there were sentencetyping particles present, which suggests that particle marking and verb movement were not complementary strategies of clause typing in OHG. The question as to what extent verb movement was already generalized in the unmarked case, i.e. in ‘normal’ declarative clauses, will be discussed in the next section. 2.4.3 Verb movement in declarative clauses It has been claimed in the literature that the finite verb is sometimes attested in a verb-end or a verb-late position in OHG main declarative clauses, at least in the earlier documents from the eighth and ninth centuries. As I will argue, these cases are more restricted and less frequent than previously assumed, so that we can still conclude that verb movement is already generalized to a high degree in OHG, presumably to a much higher degree than in other Old Germanic languages such as Old English, for example. A further issue that has to be addressed is whether the finite verb targets different landing sites depending on whether there is an operator or a non-operator XP at the left periphery. This question will be discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.

VERB MOVEMENT

63

In the major OHG documents, the finite verb appears in second position after a fronted XP in the majority of cases. It has been known for a long time that the verb-second property is already well established in OHG. For example, Reis (1901) concludes from his investigation of the word order in the OHG prose texts that in main clauses, verb-second order was definitely the prevailing pattern (ibid.:340) and that there is a clear contrast between main and subordinate clauses in word order (ibid.:215). That the OHG grammar requires verb movement to the left periphery in declarative clauses without complementizers can also be clearly seen in the translational literature when we compare the OHG word order with that of the Latin source texts. For the Isidor translation, Lippert (1974) has found out that verb-second order is the most frequent pattern, and is realized in about three quarters of (unintroduced) main declarative clauses (= in 280 out of a total of 380 cases).42 In the majority of examples, verb-second order is realized independently of or contrary to the Latin; cf. (43). In only one-fifth of the cases is the verb in second position in the Latin as well. (43) [Chindh] uuirdit uns chiboran child becomes us born “a child will be born to us” (R) Paruolus … natus est nobis

(I 385)

The deviations from verb-second in the direction of verb-late/verb-end order can be classified into a relatively small number of easily distinguishable and clearly describable types (Lippert 1974:85). As will be argued below, most of these types are only verb-late at the surface and there is still evidence for verb fronting. A further systematic deviation from the verb-second pattern in declaratives is instantiated by verb-first order, a phenomenon which occurs in about two dozen examples in Isidor (cf. Chapter 3). As far as the Monsee Fragments are concerned, the literature has only discussed the word order in the main document, i.e. in the Gospel of St. Matthew. In this text a similar picture emerges as in Isidor. Again, verb-second is identified by Lippert (1974:84) as the ‘normal’ pattern for declarative main clauses. As Lippert (ibid.:82) also observes the translation method in the Gospel of St. Matthew is equally consistent in reducing the verb-late pattern. For instance, verb-third order, which is very prominent in the Vulgate source, is abandoned in 21 cases, cf. (44), and retained in only 5 cases.

42 The numbers for verb placement in independent declarative clauses have been taken from

Lippert (1974:83, table II). The figures are given here in order to allow for a rough estimation of the situation. As Robinson (1997:7) points out, it is not always clear according to which criteria Lippert has counted the examples (e.g. there are no remarks on the status of elements such as auur, auh, chiuuisso and ziuuare at the left periphery; cf. also Chapter 4).

64


(44) Enti [miin ur teili] chundit deotom (MF V,8; Mt 12:18) 3 1 2 and my justice proclaims Gentiles-DAT “and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles” et iudicium gentibus nuntiabit 1 2 3

The word order in Tatian is more loyal to the Latin, but there is still a clear tendency for the verb to be reordered to the left in the OHG target sentences. Where there is more than one constituent in front of the finite verb in the Latin source, the number has often been reduced to exactly one constituent in the OHG translation; cf. (45)-a.43 When the Latin has verb-first order, the OHG translators have often relocated a constituent to prefinite position or inserted a new constituent. In (45)-b, for example, the subject pronoun is overtly realized in contrast to the Latin and inserted in front of the finite verb. In those cases where the Latin has only one constituent in front of the verb, the OHG translation has almost always retained this word order; cf. (45)-c. In the entire OHG

43 Quantitative results on Tatian can be found in Dittmer & Dittmer (1998) for (i) a text sample

consisting of four chapters (Chapters 106-109 in the edition by Sievers, pp. 355,22-373,19 in the edition by Masser), and (ii) for a further text passage consisting of 10 chapters (Chapters 140-150 in the edition by Sievers, pp. 493,31-539,4 in the edition by Masser): (i) In the four chapters of the first text sample, Dittmer & Dittmer (1998:91-99) have found 97 independent declaratives in the OHG part altogether (= their ‘group 1’, pp. 91-95, and ‘group 2’, pp. 95-99). 69 of these sentences have exactly one constituent in front of the finite verb, which is more than 70 per cent. In 47 of these cases, the verb-second placement is parallel to the word order in the Latin; cf. (45)-c above. In 20 cases, the word order has been altered so that there is only one prefinite constituent in the OHG sentence. In the latter type of examples, there are eight cases where the Latin exhibits more than one prefinite constituent and where one or more constituents have moved into the postfinite domain in the OHG translation, cf. (45)-a; in twelve cases a constituent that is not present in the Latin (e.g. a personal pronoun or the adverb thō “then”) has been inserted into the prefinite position; cf. (45)-b. In two cases a finite verb has been added contrary to the Latin and inserted after the first constituent. Apart from that, the authors have found 11 OHG declarative clauses (= 11 per cent) which contain more than one constituent in prefinite position. In 9 cases the number of prefinite constituents is the same as in the Latin. In the remaining two examples, there are fewer prefinite constituents in the OHG sentence than in the Latin, but their number is still higher than one. Crucially, there is no case where the prefinite domain has been expanded in the OHG translation so that it hosts more than one constituent. Moreover, Dittmer & Dittmer (1998) have found 17 declaratives with verb-first order (= 18 per cent) among 97 root declaratives in the text sample (see Chapter 3 on this topic). (ii) Among the 207 independent declarative clauses of the second, longer text sample (Chapters 140-150) studied by Dittmer & Dittmer (1998:99f.) there are 154 which have exactly one constituent in the prefinite domain (ibid.:99). In approximately two-thirds of these cases the OHG word order is parallel to the source; in ca. one-third the constituent order has been changed or a finite verb has been added. In 27 cases, more than one constituent has been retained in the prefinite position in accordance with the Latin (= ca. 13 per cent). Furthermore, 26 of the 207 independent declaratives (= ca. 13 per cent) exhibit verb-first order in accordance with the Latin.

65

VERB MOVEMENT

Tatian there are only very few examples attested in which the prefinite area is increased as compared to the Latin. (45) a. /... [fon ginuhtsami/ thes hérzen] sprihhit ther mund/ from abundance of-the heart speaks the mouth “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” /... Ex abundantia enim/ cordis. ós loquitur.,/ b. /[ih] bitiu thih fater/ I beg you father “I beg you father” /rogo ergo te pater/ c. /[alliu thisu] gihielt all these kept “all these I have kept” /omnia hæc custodiui/

(T 213,8)

(T 365,5)

ih/ I

(T 357,10)

All these observations strongly suggest that verb-second must be considered the productive and native order in main declaratives in the OHG Tatian: “Genuines Deutsch scheint in Deklarativsätzen Besetzung des präfiniten Bereichs durch ein Glied zu sein” (Dittmer & Dittmer 1998:93) [Genuine German in declarative sentences appears to be the positioning of one part of speech in prefinite position]. The OHG Tatian furthermore provides evidence that verb-first was a native pattern in declarative clauses in OHG (cf. Chapter 3). Thus even in Tatian, a text whose syntax has been argued to be strongly influenced by extragrammatical factors such as loyalty to the line breaks and a tendency for word-to-word correspondences, it can be clearly identified that the target grammar requires the fronting of the finite verb in main declaratives. In Notker’s late OHG Consolatio, main declarative clauses almost exclusively exhibit verb-second (or, very sporadically, verb-first) order.44 According to Näf (1979:153), in the first two volumes almost half of the OHG verbsecond declaratives do not have a corresponding Latin source sentence. This figure is so high because Notker has very often supplemented his OHG transla-

44 Näf (1979:114) has found that the first two volumes of the Consolatio contain 789 inde-

pendent declarative clauses with verb-second and only two with non-verb-second order. (These figures do not include verb-third effects in the matrix clauses after preposed subordinate clauses. Note also that Näf (ibid.:169-171) classifies root clauses with conjunctive mood not as declaratives, but as Begehrenssätze (conjunctive I) and as optatives (conjunctive II), but these types of clauses usually have verb-second order as well.) In the four volumes ot the Consolatio there are only 21 main declaratives with non-verb-second order (Näf ibid.:139ff.). Nineteen of these examples display verb-first order (cf. Chapter 3) (some of them are elliptical verb-first sentences), and only two examples are real instances of verb-late order (ibid.:134ff.).

66


tion with longer commentary remarks. Approximately 40045 OHG main declaratives are direct translations of a Latin sentence. In more than two-thirds of these sentences, the preposing of the finite verb has been realized counter to the word order in the Latin; cf. (46)-a. In some cases Notker has already relegated the verb to second position in his modified Latin version present in the manuscript; cf. (46)-b.46 (46) a. Tíz íst mîn chráft (N BCon I 50,20) this is my power “this is my power” (modified version by Notker; N BCon 50,19) Hȩc nostra uis est Haec nostra uis est (original Latin version; from Bieler 1957, p. 20, l. 25) b. Frûot-héit pedénchet állero díngo énde (N BCon I 46,3) discretion considers all-GEN things-GEN end “discretion considers the end of everything” Prudentia metitur exitus rerum (modified version by Notker; N BCon 46,3) rerum exitus prudentia metitur (original Latin version; from Bieler 1957, p. 18, l. 41)

In Williram, finally, there is also a clear predominance of verb-second order. Already Brodführer (1906:31) points out that the vast majority of main declaratives display this order. Verb-third order is only attested once (W 85,25), and verb-late or verb-end order is not attested in main declaratives. 2.4.4 Conclusion Thus we can conclude that even the translational tests provide ample evidence that the OHG target grammar requires the fronting of the finite verb in main declaratives. The question of to what extent there are exceptions to this rule will be discussed in the following section. Since the analysis by den Besten (1983), an article which was already ciculating in 1977, and similar proposals by Koster (1975) and Thiersch (1978), the verb-second phenomenon has been analysed as the result of two obligatory 45 The 400 declarative clauses, whose word order Näf (1979) has compared to the Latin, do not include examples which cannot be directly compared to the Latin either because the OHG finite verb does not have a counterpart in the Latin or because the OHG translation is very free (ibid.:Näf 1979:154). 46 Note that Näf (1979) has compared the OHG verb placement to the two different Latin versions (i.e. both the original Consolatio and to Notker’s own modified version of it (see Chapter 1, section 1.6)). If one classifies the material accordingly, one gets the following results (cf. Näf 1979:153-161): In one-third of the examples the verb-second placement has been realized contrary to both Latin versions, these being identical with respect to verb placement (= verbend in most of these cases). In a further third of the examples, Notker has already placed the verb in second position in his modified Latin version. The remaining third consists of cases where the verb has been fronted in the modified version, but still occurs later than second, or where the verb is second in both Latin versions (ibid.:157).

67

VERB MOVEMENT

movement operations, namely verb movement and XP-movement (topicalization). The finite verb has traditionally been taken to move to the Comp (= complementizer) position. In a ‘modernized’ model by Chomsky (1986), which distinguishes between specifier and head positions in the case of functional projections as well, the two cooccurring movements are analysed as verb fronting to the empty C0-position of complementizerless main clauses and as movement (or base-generation) of a phrasal category in(to) SpecC. This standard analysis for verb-second was originally developed for modern German and Dutch, both OV-languages, but it has been transferred to further Germanic languages. Thus, the right-peripheral position of the finite verb in dependent clauses is the base position in modern German, whereas the left-peripheral position in verb-second or verb-first clauses is a derived position, as illustrated in (47)-a versus (47)-b. For OHG this is sketched accordingly in (48). (47) a. [CP dass der Wolf das Rotkäppchen gefressen that the wolf the Little-Red-Riding-Hood devoured “that the wolf has devoured Little Red Riding Hood”

hat] has

b. [CP [das Rotkäppchen]i [C' [C hat j] [der Wolf ti gefressen tj]]] the-ACC L.R.R.H. has the-NOM wulf devoured “the wolf has devoured Little Red Riding Hood” (48) a. [CP dhazs ih dhinan uuillun that I your will “that I do your will” ut faciam uoluntatem tuam b. [CP Chindhi [C' [C uuirditj] child becomes “a child will be born to us” Paruolus … natus est nobis

duoe ] do

(I 295)

[uns ti chiboran tj]]] us born

= (43)

Thus the CP-analysis hierarchically captures a crucial insight of the topological model (e.g. Höhle 1986; cf. also already Erdmann 1886, Drach 1963), namely that the complementizer in verb-end clauses and the finite verb in verbsecond/verb-first clauses occupy the same place in the structure. In the standard analysis the linear restriction (i.e. the fact that the finite verb is not found later than in second position) follows from the fact that there is only one Specposition in the C-projection and from the additional assumption that there is no adjunction to CP.47

47 In the literature the question has also been addressed as to how the (surface) verb-first order

in yes/no-interrogatives and imperatives can be accounted for within traditional CP-analysis. This issue will not be dealt with in the present study. I will only discuss whether there is an empty element in the SpecC-position of OHG declarative clauses with verb-first order (cf. Chapter 3).

68


2.5 Independent declaratives without verb movement? Descriptively speaking, in modern German the finite verb is always fronted to the left periphery when there is no complementizer/subordinator present. Does such a strong generalization hold for OHG as well? In the previous sections, I have shown that verb movement was already well established in eighth and ninth century texts. In contrast to Gothic, for example, it not only took place in imperatives, negated sentences and in interrogatives with and without particles, but also in declaratives. Nevertheless it has been often stressed in the literature that there is still a considerable number of main declaratives with verb-end order in the older OHG documents. Such examples have often been regarded as syntactic residues of the original verb-end order that was characteristic for Indo-European and presumably also for Proto-Germanic (e.g. Lenerz 1984, 1985b; Dal 1966:175; Lockwood 1968:260; Ebert 1978:35). As evidence, it has been pointed out that we find independent verb-end order in the Runic inscriptions; cf section 2.3. In a similar vein, Kiparsky (1995) proposes that Old English independent verb-end clauses were a reflex of an early Germanic sentence structure without V-to-C movement. Note, however, that more recent studies have revealed that the frequency of verb-final root clauses in Old English is relatively low: For instance Pintzuk (1993:22, fn. 22) mentions that in the data collected by her only approximately six per cent of (non-conjoined) main clauses have this word order and Koopman (1995:142) comes to the conclusion that the “percentage of verb-final main clauses was low throughout the OE period.” In the texts studied by Koopman the frequencies range from .6% to 6.1% (cf. ibid.:139, Table 4). The question of to what extent OHG still witnesses independent verb-end clauses has become all the more important to answer since Eythórsson has claimed that verb movement is older than previously assumed. Eythórsson’s (1995, 1996) observation that not only Old English, but also Gothic, Old Norse, and Old Saxon showed systematic verb movement in some specific sentence types sheds doubt on the chronology proposed by Weerman (1988), Lenerz (1984, 1985b) and Kiparsky (1995, 1996), among others. In all these studies, it is assumed that verb movement in general (i.e. across the different sentence types) is a relatively late, language-specific innovation and that it is absent from earliest Germanic. Note also that Eythórsson (1995, 1996, 2001) was able to show that already in the oldest Germanic attestations, the older Runic inscriptions (ca. 150-550), there is evidence for verb movement. He argues convincingly that some of the earliest Runic inscriptions have not been analysed correctly, which means that the total number of verb-end clauses in Runic is smaller than previously assumed. Incontestable evidence of verb movement in Runic is provided by sentences in which the subject pronoun occurs postverbally, as in the inscription in (49), where the finite verb comes after a preposed XP.

69

VERB MOVEMENT

(49) hariuha hait-ika farawisa Hariuha am-called-I knowing-danger “I am called Hariuha, the one who knows danger” (Sjælland bracteate 2; from Eythórsson 1996:132)

So the situation in Old Germanic as interpreted by Eythórsson (1995, 1996) may lead us to conclude that verb movement (also in declaratives) is older than generally assumed (e.g. by Lenerz 1984, 1985b; Weerman 1988; Kiparsky 1995). With this controversial state of research in mind, it becomes all the more important to find out to what extent there is evidence of verb-end placement in OHG main clauses: If one found some residual cases (or even indications of a productive use), this would suggest that verb movement was a relatively recent phenomenon. If not, this could be taken to indicate that verb movement has a longer history. The first generative model of the diachrony of German sentence structure was proposed by Lenerz (1984, 1985b). In this model the verb-end phenomenon plays an important role. Lenerz (1985b) argues – similarly to Kiparsky (1995) for Old English – that the Comp-position is optional at earlier stages of the language. OHG and MHG main declarative clauses with verb-end placement (‘independent V-final sentences’) are mere S-projections lacking an additional Comp-projection which can host the fronted finite verb. Lenerz considers this Comp-less structure to be a relic from earliest Germanic sentence structure, where a C-projection was never present. He formalizes the relevant diachronic development as follows. (50) a. S → S (no COMP in early Germanic; basic SOV-order) b. S → (COMP) S (optional COMP in early Old High German) c. S → COMP S (obligatory COMP in New High German]) (adapted from Lenerz 1985b:117)

Even when there is no Comp-projection present, it is possible to front a constituent in early OHG. Lenerz proposes that this constituent is then Chomskyadjoined to S, as is illustrated in (51): (51) S Ximax

S ti

Vfin (Lenerz 1985b:116)

Lenerz (1985b) argues that adjunction of a constituent at the left periphery of S has taken place in those cases of independent verb-end order which exhibit a topic-like XP at the left periphery. Lenerz (1985b:106,108) assumes that verb-

70


end placement was “quite common” both in Old English and in OHG.48 More precisely, he argues that in earlier OHG this word order, i.e. the Comp-less structure, was also found in “ordinary prose” (ibid.:124), whereas in later periods of the language, Comp-less clauses were “only acceptable under specific non-normal conditions, i.e. only in poetic styles” (ibid.:125). Lenerz gives some examples from Middle and even from New High German texts to illustrate that verb-end order was attested in poetical works even after the end of the OHG period; cf. (52). (52) a. [Sîfride] [mít dem gruoze] [si] [von den ándéren] sciet divided Sigfrid-ACC with the greeting she from the others “she set Sigfrid apart from the others by her way of greeting him” (Nibelungenlied 511,4; from Lenerz 1985b:122) b. [Der Dichter] [auch der Töne Lockung] lauscht the poet also the-GEN sounds enticement listens “the poet also listens to the enticement of the sounds” (George, Hymnen, p. 15; from Lenerz 1985b:107)

In my view, Lenerz’s assumption that there is a historical continuity between the regular early Germanic verb-end order, the alleged examples with verb-end order in the early OHG prose texts and the examples in Middle and New High German poems is not really convincing. It is highly implausible that many centuries later, as late as in Goethe’s times, for example, there are still residues of the proposed early Germanic sentence structure without a C-projection. Rather it seems to be the case that in the poetry, word order is often heavily influenced by extragrammatical factors pertaining to rhyme and metre. Not surprisingly, Otfrid is the OHG text which contains the largest number of later-than-second order in main clauses. In section 2.4.1.2. I have pointed out the potential impact of rhyme and metre on jā-clauses with later-than-second/verb-end order, but there are also many particle-less main declarative clauses with this order attested (cf. also Schrodt 2004:203). In (53), for example, it can be argued that the finite biréin occurs at the end due to the end rhyme (nihein/biréin) (cf. Schrodt ibid.). (53) mih io gómman nihein \ in min múat ni biréin (O I 5,38) me ever man any in my heart NEG touched “never before has a man touched my heart”

Furthermore, Lenerz’s claim that there is evidence for a productive and native verb-end placement option in the earlier OHG prose is not backed up with sufficient empirical evidence. Note, however, that Lenerz only discusses a single 48 Note, however, that already Reis (1901:224) had pointed out that there was a sharp contrast

between Anglo-Saxon and Old High German with respect to verb-end placement.

VERB MOVEMENT

71

OHG example with this word order (all the other examples are from Old English or from later periods of German) and this example is in fact a verb-third construction with a prefinite pronoun (Erino portun ih firchnussu “iron portals I destroy”, (I 157); cf. (59)-a).49 For this type of example, however, an analysis without verb movement cannot be upheld, as will be argued in Chapter 5.50 Lenerz’s hypothesis that the XP–pron–Vfin...-sequences in OHG texts are reflexes of the verb-end order that has been inherited from Early Germanic is also accepted in Weerman (1988) and Cardinaletti & Roberts (1991). As we have seen in the previous sections, in the OHG prose, there seem to be much fewer indisputable examples of verb-end order than has been previously assumed, even in texts from the eighth and ninth centuries. Furthermore, many of the examples with putative verb-end order can be given alternative analyses and interpretations: In many examples, the word order is in fact ambiguous with respect to the presence of verb movement (cf. section 2.5.2). Furthermore, there are classes of examples with verb-end order attested where the secondary literature has often failed to consider an analysis as subordinate clauses, e.g. as relative clauses with internal heads or as adverbial clauses (cf. section 2.5.2). In Tatian there is also the problem that the later-than-second placement of the finite verb can often have been triggered by the position of the line breaks (cf. section 2.5.1). 2.5.1 ‘Layout-driven’ verb-end placement When we talk about cases of verb-end in OHG, it turns out to be problematic that the literature often refers to examples for which we cannot be sure about the nativeness of the construction. For instance, Lenerz (1985b) and Schrodt (2004:203) give the example (54)-a from Tatian, which was already quoted by Behaghel (1932:14). In the example, the word/constituent order is not entirely identical to the source (the order of the finite relative to the infinite verb has been changed), but the preposing of the verb into second position was presumably blocked by the fact that the position of the line break had to be preserved (see Chapter 1, section 1.6).51 The same can be argued to hold for the examples in (54)-b and (54)-c. In the case of the OHG Tatian, the potential im49 Note, however, that Lenerz (1985b:120-125) discusses the possibility that in XP–pron-V – fin

XP-examples with postfinite material the verb has moved. He thereby refers to examples from the Anglo-Saxon Cronicle and from Notker (cf. Lenerz 1985b:120, ex. 41-a-c). Given this assumption, the verb may have moved in examples with XP–pron–Vfin-orders without postfinite material just the same, of course. In other words, they could be argued to be verb-final only at the surface. However, Lenerz does not take into account this possibility for the examples with XP–pron–Vfin. 50 See also Kiparsky (1995:163, fn. 8), who objects that Lenerz (1985b:106) has based his discussion of verb-end order in historical German on examples where it is possible that verbend only obtains at the surface. 51 According to Behaghel (1932:15), this particular example and others in Tatian are not the survivors of a Germanic word-order option, but should be attributed to Latin influence.

72


pact of ‘layout’ considerations on word order requires special caution, especially in examples with verb-late order (see also Krisch 2004:124). Dittmer & Dittmer (1998:91-99), who have examined four chapters, which taken together contained approximately 100 independent declarative clauses, have found approximately 11 examples with more than one constituent in front of the verb; in nine of these the Latin source also has more than one constituent in front of the verb. A further spot check of 10 chapters had similar results: In all of the 27 OHG examples with more than one constituent in front of the finite verb, the corresponding Latin sentences display this constituent order as well (cf. Dittmer & Dittmer 1998:99). (54) a. /[In mitteru naht] [ruoft] / uuard gitan./ in mid night cry became made “at midnight there was a cry” /media autem nocte clamor/ factus est./

(T 531,14)

b. /[sliumo] [after arbeiti / thero tago]./ [sunna] uuirdit bifinstrit/ immediately after tribulation of-these days sun becomes darkened “immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened” /Statim autem post tribulationem/ dierum illorum./ sol obscurabitur/ (T 519,22) c. /... [min tohter]/ [ubilo] [fon themo tiuuale] [giuuegit] ist/ my daughter severely by the devil shaken is “my daughter is severely possessed by a demon” (T 273,10) /... filia mea / male a demonio uexatur./

2.5.2 Verb-end and the problem of word-order ambiguity A further problem when trying to estimate the amount of verb-end order is that many surface word orders are structurally ambiguous in OHG with respect to the presence of verb movement. In sentences without verb movement, grammatical operations such as extraposition of XPs, cf. (55)-a, and verb (projection) raising, cf. (55)-b, may have the effect that the finite verb does not occur in absolute verb-end position (see also section 2.6.2.1): (55) a. /... thaz in mir ti habet [sibba]i/ that in me have peace “that in me you may have peace” /ut In me pacem habebitis/

(T 591,8)

b. ... chichundemes ..., dhazs ir selbo gotes sunu ti uuard demonstrate that he same God’s son became [in liihhe chiboran]i (I 380) in body born “... we will demonstrate that that same Son of God was born in the body” (R) ... eundem filium dei natum in carne monstremus

VERB MOVEMENT

73

What makes it even harder to decide whether verb movement has occurred or not is that OHG was more prone to verb-third phenomena than the modern language. According to standard assumptions, the verb could also occur in laterthan-second position in sentences where the finite verb has undoubtedly been fronted. Such cases of verb-third/verb-fourth order must therefore be considered as variations on verb-second; they will be discussed in Chapter 4. Anticipating the discussion there, let me just mention here that there are verb-third phenomena with intervening sentence and local or temporal adjuncts as in the following examples: (56) /[helias] [giuuesso] quimit/ Elijah surely comes “indeed, Elijah is coming” /helias quidem uenturus est/

(T 307,26)

(57) [In haubide dhes libelles] [azs erist] ist chiscriban umbi mih ... (I 294) in head of-the book at first is written about me “in the beginning of the book it is first written about me ...” In capite libri scriptum est de me ...

XP–XP–Vfin-sequences are particularly ambiguous when the finite verb is not followed by any material. In the case of succeeding constituents, in turn, the decision for an analysis with or without verb movement critically hinges on how likely it is that the postverbal material has been extraposed, which in turn depends on which categories the affected XPs are and arguably also on how many XPs occur in the postverbal domain. What makes sentences with more than one prefinite XP even harder to analyse is the fact that evidence from the order of the infinite and finite parts of the verb is often not available due to the fact that analytical verb forms are not very frequent in OHG. Note that even sentences with analytical verbs are often ambiguous due to the possibility of verb (projection) raising.52 Accordingly, there are three different potential analyses for the example in (58). First, it could be an independent sentence with verb movement and extraposition of the constituents in uuvostinna and fon themo geiste which exhibits 52 Lippert (1974) gives the references for all cases of non-verb-second word order in Isidor, the

Monsee Fragments and in Tatian. Examples with analytical verbs are only attested twice; he analyses both sentences as cases of the relativer Satzanschluss type of relative clause which is loosely connected to the preceding sentence. Already Reis (1901) had not found any more such examples in these texts. In Behaghel’s (1932:13-19) collection of ‘non-verb-second order and verb-end order’ clauses only the example in (54)-c has an analytical verb form. Behaghel (1932:15) gives a further example from Notker’s Psalter (= N Ps 32, p. 101, l. 24 in the new edition by Tax)), which has XP–XP–XP–Vfin–(XP...)–Vfin–Vinfin-order. Note, however, that this example has been incorrectly quoted, since it is really a subordinate adverbial clause introduced by the conjunction/subordinator vuanda, which has been omitted by Behaghel. Vuanda is attested both with verb-second and with verb-end order (see also Näf 1979:145, fn. 171).

74


verb-third order (potentially triggered by the Latin source). Second, it could be a verb-end clause (i.e. without verb movement) which has been subject to verb raising and, again, extraposition. In this case, it could either be argued that the OHG sentence in (58) is really a subordinate clause introduced by the adverbial subordinator thô, or that it is indeed an instance of true (unintroduced) verbend order in a main clause. (58) /thô ther heilant uuas gileitet / In uuvostinna fon then the Saviour was led in desert by “then the Saviour was led up by the Spirit into the desert” /Tunc ihesus ductus est/ In deserto a spiritu/

themo geiste/ the Spirit (T 113,21)

The most frequent deviations from the verb-second pattern are found in the context of pronominal constituents. Most of the examples which in the literature have been repeatedly regarded as residual manifestations of the proposed Old Germanic sentence structure without verb movement (cf. Lenerz 1984, 1985b; Kiparsky 1995; Eythórsson 1995, 1996) contain an XP followed by a personal pronoun in prefinite position; cf. (59).53 (59) a. Erino portun ih firchnussu iron portals I destroy “I will destroy iron portals” Portas aereas conteram

(I 157)

b. Dhes martyrunga endi dodh uuir findemes (I 516) his martyrdom and death we prove mit urchundin dhes heilegin chiscribes with testimony of-the Holy Scripture “we prove his martyrdom and death with the testimony of the Holy Scripture” (R) Cuius passionem et mortem in suo loco scripturarum testimoniis adprobabimus

Examples such as the ones in (59) are indeed attested quite frequently in the older prose documents. As I will argue later in Chapter 5, there are clear indications for the presence of verb movement in such cases. This is why it seems as if the traditional approach in the older literature (e.g. Reis 1901; Behaghel 1932:13f.), where such examples have been treated as variants of the verbsecond and not as instances of verb-end order, turns out to be correct. Note also that in Old English personal pronouns regularly occurred between a preposed

53 Among Lippert’s (1974:83) 35 Isidor examples with more than one prefinite constituent, 23

belong this class. This figure, however, not only includes XP–pron–Vfin-sequences, but also sequences with short adverbs such as sō and dhār (i.e. XP–sō/dhār–Vfin); see Chapter 5.

VERB MOVEMENT

75

XP and the finite verb, and here too there is clear evidence that the finite verb occupied a derived position.54 Furthermore, there are classes of examples where it is unclear whether we are dealing with independent clauses at all. For example, clauses with an anaphoric noun phrase at the left periphery can often be analysed as cases of relative clauses with an internal head, as is convincingly argued by Lippert (1974). This phenomenon is very prominent in the Isidor translation,55 and some examples are also attested in Notker’s texts.56 This special type of relative clause is not restricted to the OHG period, but is also attested in Early New High German and in New High German texts, predominantly found in scholarly texts and in translational works (cf. Maurer 1926:186). (60) a. (›Endi so sama so fona dhemu berandin hreue so arspringit dher dau dhinera iugundhi‹. (I 411) “And as from the bearing womb springs the dew of your mouth” [R] ) Dhesa infleiscnissa auh dhes gotes sunes heilac gheist this/which incarnation also of-the God’s son’s Holy Spirit ir quhad ... (I 413) in psalmon sus chundida, dhar in psalms so foretold where he said ... “which incarnation of the Son of God the Holy Spirit also thus foretold where he said: ...” Hanc incorporationem filii dei et spiritus sanctus in psalmis ita praenuntiauit dicens ...

54 In many syntactic studies (e.g. Pintzuk 1991, 1999, Eythórsson 1995, 1996, Kroch & Taylor

1997) it is argued, however, that the finite verb did not move to C0, but into a sentence-medial functional head; cf. the extensive discussion in Chapter 5 (section 5.5.1). 55 In Isidor there occurs a whole range of constructions which are taken to be instances of relativer Satzanschluss (‘relative clause-combining’) by Lippert (1974:76-80). In some cases the OHG translator has used such a construction where the Latin does not have a relative clause (i.e. a relative pronoun). What is problematic is that there are also a few OHG examples attested which have verb-end order and which are similar to the typical cases of relativer Satzanschluss in interpretation, but which are not introduced by a noun or prepositional phrase containing a d-element that could be argued to act as the relative head. Lippert (ibid.:79) suggests that these could be real instances of qualitative loan syntax. A crucial prerequisite for this syntactic loan is, however, that there existed a native construction (the interner Satzanschluss with an internal head) which could be extended on. See also Lippert (1974:76-80), Reis (1901:222) and Robinson (1997:29-31) for a detailed discussion of putative relative clauses with verb-end order in Isidor. Maurer (1926:185ff.) and Behaghel (1932:17-19) discuss corresponding examples from later language stages. 56 Behaghel (1932:14ff.) cites an example from the Consolatio (= N BCon III 134,13) as an instance of verb late. Twaddell (1932), who has written an entire article on this particular sentence, argues too that it is an independent clause with verb-end order. As has already been objected by Näf (1979:144), this sentence is probably an internally headed relative clause.

76


b. Mit dheseru urchundin dhiu eina gotnissa endi with this/which testimony the one Godhood and undarscheit dhero zuueiio heido ... ist araugit ... distinction of-the two persons is demonstrated “with which testimony the one Godhood and the distinction of the two persons ... is demonstrated ...” (I 202) Quo testimonio et deitas et distinctio personarum ... demonstratur

This construction is similar to the relative clauses with internal heads that occur in the modern Germanic languages. In modern English this special type of appositive relative clause is even possible with a nominal antecedent (cf. also de Vries 2004 on Dutch): (61) John belongs to the International Terrorist Fraternity, which organization has been accused of plotting mass murder (from Holler 2005:33)

In German relative clauses with internal heads are nowadays restricted to predicative antecedents (cf. Holler 2005:83f.). In contrast to OHG and other historical stages of German, the relative determiner is always a wh-element in the modern Germanic languages.57 The observation that relative clause constructions with internal heads are also attested in modern Germanic makes it plausible that similar constructions were part of the native grammatical repertoire in former times. The fact that such cases are more frequent in translational works does not prove that they are instances of ‘loan syntax’ in the strict sense. It is also possible that the Latin sources only had a quantitative impact. Likewise, sentences which exhibit adverbial elements such as sō as in (62) (or thō, cf. (58)) can often be analysed as subordinate clauses. The verb-end pattern (i.e. the absence of verb movement) can then be regularly traced back to the presence of a subordinator. I will leave open at this point the question as to how the left sentence periphery of sentences with such phrasal subordinators is to be analysed. As I will discuss in Chapter 4 (section 4.5.6), adverbial subordinators such as thō are sometimes accompanied by the particle the, so that it can be suspected that in the cases without the there may have been a null particle/complementizer present in C0. (62) So after dhes psalmscoffes quhide ist chiquhedan : … (I 720) so/as after the-GEN psalmist-GEN saying is said “as it is said according to the saying of the psalmist: …” secundum psalmi sententiam: … 57 Cf. also Behaghel (1932:18). The gradual substitution of d-elements through w-elements in

these and other constructions is described in Fleischmann (1973:114-156).

VERB MOVEMENT

77

The majority of examples with surface verb-late or verb-end order which are attested in the OHG prose documents of our corpus can be argued to be instances of those phenomena that were discussed in the last sections: In most of the examples from Tatian non-verb-second word order can be traced back to extragrammatical factors such as a tendency to retain the position of the line break. In most of the examples from Isidor, deviations from verb-second are attested in the context of prefinite personal pronouns or they occur in sentences which can also be analysed as subordinate clauses. In other words, there are hardly any unambiguous examples which could be regarded as compelling evidence for the continuation of a verb-end option in main clauses even in earlier OHG. There are far fewer incontestable examples than has been explicitly or implicitly assumed in the literature. Therefore one should really agree with Reis (1901:219), who came to the conclusion: “[Im] ahd. hauptsatz findet sich die endstellung selten” [In OHG main clauses, verb-end order is rarely found]. What may also be revealing is to investigate whether there are classes of examples that are systematically absent from OHG text, even though their occurrence would be expected if there was still the grammatical option with verbend order. This will be done in the following section. 2.5.3 Verb-end order in non-initial conjuncts? The second construction which has been considered a reflex of the PanGermanic verb-end property is the final placement of the finite verb in the noninitial conjunct of sentence coordinations where the first conjunct is a main clause with verb-second or verb-first order. Kiparsky (1995) considers as one indication for the productivity of the verb-end pattern in independent declaratives in Old English the fact that non-initial conjuncts are frequently verb-end in Old English, as can be seen in example (63) (cf. also Mitchell 1985:§ 17191731, 1869, 3934). The same phenomenon is also attested in Old Swedish, as is discussed in de Boor (1922:8f.). (63) þa was domne Leo papa, on Rome: ond he hine to cyninge then was Lord Leo pope in Rome and he him to king gehalgode, ond hiene him to biscepsuna nam took consecrated and he-ACC him-DAT to godson “then was Lord Leo pope in Rome, and he consecrated him king, and adopted him as his godson” (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 853 A.D.; from Kiparsky 1995:148)

In the literature on historical German, the phenomenon of verb-end placement in non-initial conjuncts has also been discussed. As the list of examples in Behaghel (1932:25-26) suggests (cf. also Faßbender 1908:34; Maurer 1926:189), this phenomenon is attested at least until the eighteenth century; cf. (64) for a late example.

78


(64) so wird der Stockfisch alle gefangen, und große Scheunen so becomes the dried-cod all caught and large barns voll sind full are “thus all the dried cod will be caught and the large barns are full” (Diez 168; from Behaghel 1932:26)

As far as the OHG period is concerned, however, such examples are hardly ever found, at least not in the prose documents studied here.58 Two of these very rare examples, one from Tatian and one from Notker’s Psalter (in the Consolatio there is no such example) are cited in (65). They contain the coordinating conjunctions oh “but” and unde “and” respectively. An exceptional case is noh “nor”, this conjunction is quite frequently found with verb-end order in OHG; cf. (66). (65) a. /Inti fon mir selbomo niquam/ óh her uuár ist ther mih and from me self NEG-came but he true is who me santa/ (T 351,29) sent “I have not come here of my own accord, but he who sent me is true” /& a me ipso non ueni/ sed est uerus qui misit me/ b. Vnde getâten sie mih pógên ... unde íro uuérch iêo ze and made they me bow and their works always to erdo sâhen earth looked “and they made me bow and their works kept looking down” (N Ps 56, 195,6) (66) /. ... noh ih selbo/ íu quidu In uuelihhero giuuelti/ ... nor I self you say in what authority “neither do I tell you by what authority ...” /... nec ego/ dico uobis In qua potestate /...

(T 417,12)

Already Kiparsky (1995) has pointed out that verb-end placement in non-initial conjuncts seems to be absent from OHG and he argues that this shows that the C-projection was obligatory in OHG in contrast to Old English. As was already mentioned in section 2.4.2.2, in OHG texts there is furthermore no evidence for verb-end placement in coordinated imperative clauses. 58 In poetical texts the situation is different. As Krisch (2004:118) observes, in Otfrid verb-end

order occurs in clauses conjoined by the conjunction joh “and”. Otfrid is the only OHG text where verb-end order occurs frequently, not only in non-initial conjuncts, but also in nonconjoined clauses. It should be noted, however, that verb-end placement can often be attributed to the impact of end-rhyme (see Chapter 2, section 2.4.1.2).

VERB MOVEMENT

79

Neither are there any cases attested where the verb remains in its final base position in the non-initial conjuncts of coordinated yes/no-interrogatives, as can be seen in the following Old English example from Ælfric’s Homilies: (67) Eart þu se ðe toweard is, oþþe we oðres are you the-one REL.PARTCL toward is or we other andbidian sceolon await shall “are you the one who is to come, or shall we wait for another?” (ÆCHom i.480,6; from Kiparsky 1995:148)

Behaghel (1932:13) proposes that the verb-end placement of the finite verb in non-initial conjuncts has Pan-Germanic roots. The history of this phenomenon in German, however, suggests that it is not a reflex of the Pan-Germanic verbend pattern, as it is only attested very late in the history of the language. We may therefore suspect that it is rather a quite specialized construction pertaining to the history of the syntax of coordination. 2.5.4 Summary In OHG, the generalization of verb movement in independent clauses (without complementizers) is more advanced than has been assumed by some scholars. The present investigation has not only revealed that the evidence for nonambiguous (and non-source-driven) verb-end order is fairly little, but also that the types of constructions with putative verb-end order are more restricted than one would expect if one assumed that the C0-position may remain empty or that the projection of a CP is optional (cf. Lenerz 1984, 1985b). 2.6 Verb movement in Old High German: Dependent clauses In the previous sections, I implicitly assumed that the finite verb is always found in C0 when it occupies a derived position. In dependent clauses, which normally contain a (overt or phonetically empty) complementizer, verb movement does not take place. It has been proposed for various modern and Old Germanic languages, however, that there is overt verb movement into the head of a medial functional projection (e.g. I0, T0 or AgrS0) and that this movement occurs not only in independent, but also in dependent clauses. There are at least two reasons why a discussion of the putative role of verb movement to a medial projection59 between CP and VP is indispensable for OHG: First, in dependent clauses the finite verb appears in non-final position 59 In the present study, the possibility of a right-headed I-projection, as proposed for modern

German by e.g. Grewendorf (1988) and Sabel (2000), is not taken into account. There are not only conceptual counterarguments to this assumption, e.g. the problem that verb movement to a final I0 would always be string-vacuous, but also empirical counterevidence of various types See Sternefeld (2006:507-538) for a critical evaluation of the arguments that have been raised against verb movement to a right-headed I-projection.

80


more often than in Standard present-day German. Second, in independent clauses a fair number of verb-third effects are attested. This latter phenomenon is very relevant in this context as it has been argued for Old and Middle English that the finite verb is found in a functional head below C0 (e.g. in I0) in similar cases, which means that the prefinite domain hosts one more specifier position (SpecI) besides SpecC. Since there is this additional prefinite specifier and the possibility to adjoin certain elements to IP according to standard assumptions, it is then possible to derive deviations from the verb-second pattern. Whether the verb-third phenomena in OHG can be traced back to the presence of a sentence-medial landing site for the finite verb will be discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. This assumption would be particularly plausible if the finite verb was attested in this position in dependent clauses as well.60 In section 2.6.2, I will therefore discuss whether the OHG sources contain any evidence for verb movement in dependent clauses introduced by complementizers or other subordinators. This question can only be answered once we have gained an overview of all the different syntactic phenomena which may lead to deviations from the strict surface verb-end order. This is why in the following I will first address the question of the underlying word order within the VP and discuss phenomena pertaining to the right periphery, such as extraposition and verb (projection) raising. 2.6.1 The right sentence periphery in Old High German 2.6.1.1 Extraposition. The question as to the underlying order in the OHG VP (OV or VO) may have implications for the analysis of the left sentence periphery, in particular regarding the putative presence of V-to-I-movement. In the previous sections, I simply assumed that the base order was OV just as in the modern language. Consequently, I have traced most deviations from this pattern back to the phenomenon of extraposition, as illustrated in (68) (cf. also Lenerz 1984:169-172, 1985b:104). (68) ... endi ih uuillu, dhazs dhu ti firstandes [heilac and I wish that you understand holy “... and I wish that you understand the holy secret” (R) ... et archana secretorum, ut scias

chiruni]i secret (I 159)

The most frequent cases of (putative) extraposition (of non-sentential material) involve adjunct PPs as in the example in (69). However, there are also many examples with objects (e.g. with prepositional objects, accusative and dative objects), cf. (70), as well as with subjects (see below). Moreover, nominal and 60 For Old English, for example, the assumption that verb-third effects in non-operator con-

texts have to be traced back to the fact that there was no V-to-C-, but only V-to-I-movement has been supported by evidence from subordinate clauses which shows that in this syntactic environment as well (overt) V-to-I-movement could take place (see Chapter 5).

81

VERB MOVEMENT

adjectival predicates are attested in extraposition constructions in earlier OHG; cf. (71). The placement of an XP at the right periphery often does not have a parallel in the Latin source. This can be clearly seen in the examples (69), (70)-c, (71)-a, (71)-b and (71)-e. In (71)-c, the subject thin ouga has been placed in front of the verb uuirdit, whereas the predicative adjectival phrase luttar has been left in clause-final position. Note also that in many further examples cited below, the word order does not slavishly copy the Latin. (69) Dher selbo infenc haerduom dhes israhelischin folches, (I 529) that same received dominion of-the Israeli people dhuo ir dhes leididh uuardh [after moysises ablide] ... when he their leader became after Moses’ death “that same one received dominion over the people of Israel, when he became their leader after Moses’ death ...” (R) Hic enim post obitum moysi dux effectus principatum obtenuit ... [fona manno augom] (70) a. dhiu chiholan ist which hidden is from men’s eyes “which is hidden from the eyes of men” (R) latet enim ab oculis hominum

(I 111)

[diubilo drugidha] (I 507) b. Endi dhazs mittingart firleizssi and that earth up-gave devils’ false-idol-ACC “and that the earth might give up false idols of devils” (R) Omissisque mundus dęmonum simulacris c. dhazs ir chihoric uuari [gote] (I 491) that he obedient was God-DAT “that he was obedient to God” ut esset deo subiectus (71) a. dhazs iesus ist [druhtin] that Jesus is Lord “that Jesus is the Lord” (R) dominum esse iesum

(I 549)

[galileus]/ b. /frageta oba ther man uuari asked if the man was Galilean “he asked whether the man was a Galilean” /interrogauit si homo galileus ess&/ c. /oba thin ouga uuirdit [luttar]/ if your eye becomes light “if your eye is good” /si fuerit oculus tuus simplex./

(T 153,22)

d. /salige sint thiethar sint blessed are that+REL.PARTCL are “blessed are the merciful” /Beati misericordes/

[miltherze]/ merciful

(T 625,10)

(T 135,12)

82


e. dhazs ir gote uuas [ebenchiliih] was equal that he God-DAT “that he was equal to God” (R) ... esse se ęqualem deo ...

(I 406)

In Old English as well, extraposition was fairly liberal with respect to the grammatical function and the category of the material involved (Pintzuk 1999: 101-104, 237 (fn. 9); cf. also van Kemenade 1987). For example, Pintzuk provides evidence for extraposition of subjects and predicative adjectives; cf. (72). The situation in OHG was thus not really exceptional. (72) a. hwær gesette beon sceoldon [þa lichaman haligra fæmnena] where buried be should the bodies of-holy virgins “where the bodies of holy virgins should be buried” (Bede 18 16-17; from Pintzuk 1999:103) b. þætte Cristes þeowdom sceolde beon [wilsumlic] that Christ’s service should be voluntary “that Christ’s service should be voluntary” (Bede 62,22; from Pintzuk 1999:237, fn. 9)

In present-day German, extraposition primarily affects adjunct PPs and ‘heavy’ XPs apart from sentential constituents. If the OHG cases of surface VO-order are really the result of an extraposition operation, we must conclude that in OHG this operation is fairly liberal with respect to the type of categories involved. Moreover, extraposition is also quite often found in dependent clauses, and it generally occurs more frequently than in the modern language (see also Lenerz 1984:169-172; Demske-Neumann 1994:44f. on the last point). This is especially true for the early OHG prose sources, but even in late OHG texts (e.g. in Notker’s work) the phenomenon of extraposition is quantitatively different from in present-day German and may also affect categories that are no longer extraposed today (cf. Maurer 1926:14; Bolli 1975:72; Borter 1982:176199). However, as Borter (1982:198) and Robinson (1997:148f.) observe for Notker’s Psalter and for Isidor, respectively, the relative proportions of the affected categories/syntactic functions are similar to in Standard German (e.g. PPs more often than object DPs, object DPs more often than subject DPs). Furthermore it should be noted that even today, in the dialects extraposition seems to be more frequent and subject to fewer restrictions than in the standard language (cf. Weiß 1998:57). In addition, there is comparative evidence from Old English and from different stages of Yiddish (Santorini 1993a:263) which suggests that OHG is not an isolated case among the Germanic languages in having a more liberal option for extraposition. Alternatively, one could hypothesize that the VO-orders in OHG are basegenerated orders. For Old and Middle English and older Yiddish, it has been proposed that there is a grammatical competition between a right- and left-

83

VERB MOVEMENT

headed VP (Pintzuk 1991, 1993:11, 1999; Kroch & Taylor 1997, 2000; Santorini 1992:616, 1993a). This prominence of VO-orders in Yiddish and the Old Germanic languages have led Haider (2005) to speculate that the headcomplement parameter in the VP was underspecified in these languages. In the following sections I will argue, however, that OHG had the typical properties of an OV-language and that the base-generated VO-option is not sufficiently motivated. 2.6.1.2 Word order in the verbal complex. An excellent descriptive overview of verbal complexes in subordinate clauses in Isidor can be found in Robinson (1997:62-153). As far as the word order in the verbal complex is concerned, OHG behaves like a typical OV-language: The superordinate verb may follow the subordinate verb (V3 ← V2 ← V1 etc.). This order is very frequently found in bipartite verbal complexes not only in Isidor, but also in the other OHG prose texts, cf. (73). It is often realized contrary to or independently of the Latin original; cf. (73)-d, (73)-f, and (73)-g. (73) a. HUUEO CHRISTUS FONA DAUID FRAMCHUMFTI CHIBORAN2 UUARDH1 how Christ from David lineage born became “how Christ was born from the lineage of David” (R) QUIA CHRISTUS DE STIRPE DAUID NATUS EST (I 604) b. endi dhazs dhiu burc hierusalem aruuostit2 uuardh1 and that the city Jerusalem devestated became “and that the city of Jerusalem was devestated” et ciuitatem hierusalem in exterminatione fuisse

(I 468)

c. dhiu sie eomaer furi dhazs in iro samnunghe dhar which-PL they ever after that in their assembly there ni mahtun1 (I 478) haldan2 NEG could celebrate “which they forever after that could not celebrate in their assembly” (R) que ultra illuc celebrare non potuerunt d. /... thaz thaz kind bisnitan2 that the child circumcized “that the child was circumcized” /... ut circumcider&ur puer/

uuvvrdi1/ became

(T 89,7)

e. dhaz · ga qu{et}an2 uuart1 durah fora sagun esaiam ... that spoken became through prophet Isahia “which was spoken through the prophet Isahia ...” (MF V,4; Mt 12:17) quod dictum est per esaiam prophetam ... f. /Inti mit diu er gitan2 and with that he done “and when he is become so” /& cum fuerit factus/

uuirdit1/ becomes

(T 499,14)

84


g. /thaz íh íu thaz tuon2 mugi1 .,/ that I you this do can “that I am able to do this for you” /quia possum hoc facere uobis./

(T 209,13)

Tripartite verbal complexes are not very frequent in the OHG prose documents, but some of the rare examples also display the serialization ‘subordinate > superordinate verb’ (i.e. V3 ← V2 ← V1); cf. also Robinson (1997:150 on Isidor): (74) fona huueliihhemu ædhile christ chiboran3 from which noble-lineage Christ born scoldi1 (I 606) should “from which noble lineage Christ was to be born” (R) ex qua tribu nasciturus esset christus

uuerdhan2 become

OHG thus behaves like a typical OV-language with respect to the serialization of verbs in the verbal complex.61 There are, however, also many examples attested which do not stick to this pattern, namely sentences where the maximally superordinate verb does not occur in absolute final position (cf. Robinson 1997:150 on Isidor). In contrast to modern Standard German, this phenomenon even occurs in bipartite verbal complexes in OHG. In the Latin sources the most prominent order in analytical constructions is infinite verb > finite verb, but in the OHG sources the finite verb is often relocated to the left (= V1 ← V2); cf. (75)-a. We also find examples where the OHG translation shows this order not counter to, but independently of the Latin: In (75)-b, for example, the Latin source sentence contains a synthetic verb form. (75) a. Daz auuar i{n stein}ac uuarth1 · gha · {sait}2 ... what however in stony became sown “but what was sown on stony places ...” (MF IX,11; Mt 13:20) Qui autem super petrosa s{eminatus2 est1,} ...

61 In the theoretical literature it has been proposed that phrases are universally left-headed.

Kayne (1994) argues that this follows from his ‘Linear Correspondence Axiom’ (LCA), on the basis of which Zwart (1997) has analysed the syntax of modern Dutch and Hróarsdóttir (2003) the syntax of different historical stages of Icelandic. Provided that the constituent order within VP is universally OV, then the sequences of nominal complements and governing verbs must be the result of leftward movement of the complement ([XPi [V ei]]). The analysis of multipart verbal complexes would be much more complicated, however. In this case not only all nominal complements would have to be subject to movement, but there would have to be additional movements which have the effect that the order of verbs is inverted (e.g. V1 V2 → V2 V1). Haider (2000, 2005) discusses several conceptual and empirical problems of the LCAapproach which arise for the analysis of verb serializations in the traditional OV-languages. In the present study, I will assume that there is no ban on right-headed structures.

VERB MOVEMENT

85

b. /... só thaz thaz skef/ uuard1 bithekit2 mit then undon/ so that the boat became covered with the waves “so that the boat was covered with the waves” (T 187,14) /... ita ut nauicula/ operir&ur2 fluctibus1.,/

Note, however, that this is not totally unexpected as we know of certain modern Germanic languages/dialects with basic OV-order where such surface reorderings are also frequently found as the result of so-called verb raising (e.g. Haegeman & van Riemsdijk 1986, Speyer 2007:123-125). The traditional literature has amply discussed the impact of rhythmical factors on the order of the finite and infinite parts of the verb. According to Behaghel (1932:87), the finite verb mainly occurs left of the infinite verb in those cases where the material in the verbal complex is preceded by a fully accented syllable. A similar account has been put forward by Diels (1906:152): Geht der zusammengesetzten Verbalgruppe ein vollbetontes Wort voraus, so tritt der verbale Bestandteil voran, andernfalls der nominale, dem dann eben die Rolle eines vollbetonten Wortes zufällt. Diesen Zustand vertreten Isidor und die Monseer Fragmente. [If the complex verbal group is preceded by a fully stressed word, the verbal part comes first. Otherwise, the nominal part comes first, and in this case it is this part of the verb which acts as the fully stressed word. This situation is represented by Isidor and the Monsee Fragments].

More recently, Dittmer & Dittmer (1998:188) have been able to confirm this finding in their investigation of Tatian.62 However, as Behaghel (1932:87) rightly points out, these are only rhythmical preferences. Note that already Fourquet (1938:145-148) found quite a number of exceptions to this generalization in Isidor. Prosodic factors have also been shown to influence the word order of (tripartite) verbal complexes in the modern German dialects (cf. Schmid & Vogel 2003). A further factor that may play a role is the differentiation between main and subordinate clauses. This factor is discussed by Fourquet (1938:151) and Reis (1901:347). The preposing of the finite verb is dispreferred in those cases where the finite verb would appear directly to the right of a relative or adverbial subordinator as in (76)-a and (76)-b vs. (77)-a and (77)-b. As the invented alternatives (76)-a' and (76)-b' show, the preposing of the finite part of the verb would result in constructions which are ambiguous between an analysis as relative or adverbial clauses with verb-end order and verb raising or an analysis as independent verb-second clauses with a demonstrative pronoun or an adverb in

62 In certain clauses with conjunctive mood and in consecutive clauses the sequence infinite

verb > finite verb is the prevailing order, in particular with wesan “be” (cf. Dittmer & Dittmer 1998:233). See also Diels (1906:157), who makes the same observation for the OHG Isidor translation.

86


the prefinite position,63 which could be translated as follows “that one shall be of your sons”, “such was written through ...”. As Robinson (1997:151-153) objects, Fourquet’s principles also do not fully account for the situation in Isidor. (76) a. dher uuesan2 scal1 fona dhinem sunim which be shall from your sons “which will be of your sons” (R) quod erit de filiis tuis a'. instead of: # dher scal1 uuesan2 fona dhinem sunim

(I 623)

b. so {ga} scriban2 uuarth1 · durah *** as written became through “as it was written through …” (MF XXXI,24; De vocatione gentium) sicut per psal mistam domino dicente b'. instead of: # so uuarth1 gascriban2 ... (77) a. Dher dhurah nathanan uuardh1 chiheizssan2 fona dauides samin who through Nathan became promised from David’s seed “who was promised by Nathan from the seed of David” (R) Qui per nathan ex semine dauid promittitur (I 655) b. so ęr bifora uuardh1 chichundit2 dhurah dhen forasagun as it before became prophesied through the prophet “as it was prophesied earlier by the prophet” (R) quod fuerat ante a propheta predictum

(I 480)

In tripartite verbal complexes, a phenomenon which is attested only very rarely, the infinite parts of the verb always display the order ‘superordinate verb > subordinate verb’ (V3 ← V2), cf. Robinson (1997:197). The finite verb may appear in any position within the verbal complex, i.e. before (cf. (78)-a, (78)-b and (78)-d), between (cf. (78)-c) and after the infinite parts of the verb (cf. (74) above). (78) a. dher dhar scoldii1 chiboran3 uuerdan2 who there should born become “who was supposed to be born there” (R) (no corresponding Latin sentence)

(I 421)

63 The relative pronouns are homonymous with the demonstrative pronouns (at least in those

cases where a relative particle is not present) and some of the adverbial subordinators are homonymous with adverbs (cf. Chapter 4, section 4.5.6).

87

VERB MOVEMENT

b. ... dhazs so selp so ir dhurah uueraldi aloosnin uuardh1 chiboran3 that as soon as he through world’s salvation became born chisaghet2, so sama auh uuard chiquhedan dhazs ir bi mittingardes said as same also became said that he at world’s nara chirista1 chimartirot3 uuerdhan2 (I 513) redemption needed martyred become “that just as he was said to be born for the world’s salvation, in the same way it was said that he had to be martyred for the world’s redemption” ... quia sicut propter redemptionem mundi illum dicit nasci ita et pati oportuit c. ... endi quham dher chisendit3 scolda1 uuerdhan2 and came who sent should become “... and he came who was to be sent” (R) ... aduenit ille, qui mittendus erat d. /Inti thaz ist1 gisehan3 haben2/ and what is seen have “and what he has seen” /& quod uid&ur habere/ ...

(I 587)

(T 537,14)

As Vikner (2001:84) shows, in all of the nine modern Germanic OVlanguages/dialects in his corpus with the exception of Frisian, it is possible to have certain reorderings in tripartite verbal complexes. In the group of the VOlanguages, on the other hand, there is no variation regarding the relative order of the finite and infinite parts of the verb. For Standard German, Bech (1955/57:§60) has found that the so-called Oberfeld (“upper field”) usually precedes the Unterfeld (“lower field”), which means that the order V3 ← V1 ← V2, which is attested in OHG, is not (or hardly) possible in Standard German. Note, however, that this phenomenon is not restricted to OHG, but also occurs in the dialects of modern (cf. Vikner 2001) and historical German (cf. Härd 1981 for a diachronic overview). 2.6.1.3 Particle verbs. Further evidence for the OV-character of OHG comes from the behaviour of particle verbs (cf. also Demske-Neumann 1994:47f.). The separable particles of particle verbs are always found to the left of the verb ‘stem’ in those cases where the verb is not in a derived position: (79) a. /... thiu mán íuuih furisezze./ that-REL.PRON one you-ACC before-set “that are set before you” /... quȩ apponuntur uobis/ b. /unzír úz far&., .../ until-you out go “until you leave” /donec exeatis., .../

(T 167,29)

(T 167,30)

88


c. So auh daer · unrheino gheist uz argen git fona manne ... as also the unclean spirit out goes from man “as an unclean spirit goes out of a man ...” (MF VII,11; Mt 12:43) Cum autem inmundus spiritus exierit ab homine ...

The particle only occurs to the right of its verb when the verb is finite and has moved to C0 as is generally the case in independent clauses without complementizers: (80) a. /zihiu giengut ír úz gisehan uúizagon/ to-what went you out see prophet-ACC “what did you go out to see? A prophet?” /quid existis uidere proph&am./

(T 215,31)

b. /thar uuas garto In then/ gieng her there was garden into this went he “there was a garden into which he entered” /ubi erat hortus In quem/ Introiuit ipse .../

(T 597,23)

c. /... Inti then/ therthar quimit zimir and the-one who+PARTCL comes to-me “whoever comes to me I will never cast out” /... & eum/ qui uenit ad me. non eiciam foras;/

in .../ in

niaruuirphu ih úz/ NEG-cast I out (T 259,17)

There is some variation in OHG with respect to the question of whether a certain particle moves together with the verb or not (i.e. whether it is separable or not) (cf. Demske-Neumann 1994:47), but this does not weaken the important generalization that the particle only occurs postverbally in contexts of verb movement. In VO-languages such as modern Danish (cf. Vikner 2001:35), particles which do not incorporate and therefore do not move along with the verb always show up in postverbal position, both in verb-end and in verb-second contexts. 2.6.1.4 Subject extraposition. If one wants to defend the claim that the base order in OHG was OV, one has to trace back the attested VO-orders to extraposition. This type of rightward movement, which has been considered as conceptually unattractive by some authors, may often be dispensed with if one assumes that OHG allows for base-generated VO-order (cf. Hinterhölzl 2004 on OHG). However, even given the assumption of a base-generated VO-option, we cannot get rid of an extrapositon operation in all types of examples. A further language where there has been a lot of debate as to the underlying headcomplement parameter in the VP is Yiddish. For Yiddish, Santorini (1993b:231, 243, fn. 3) (cf. also Vikner 2001:23f.) argues that data such as in (81) can only be derived via the assumption of an extrapositon operation irrespective of the question of whether the language is underlyingly VO (e.g. Diesing 1997:388) or OV (e.g. Vikner 2001). In (81)-a and (81)-b, for exam-

VERB MOVEMENT

89

ple, one would expect the subject to occur in front of the infinite verb to the right of hot within both the OV- and the VO-analysis. For (81)-c, the OVanalysis would predict that the object fish should show up before derlangt, and according to the VO-analysis it should appear to the right of derlangt, but to the left of the PP oyfn tish. So we cannot do without the assumption of an extraposition operation in either case. (81) a. Geveyntlekh hot ongehoybn esn [der balebos] normally has begun eat the host “normally, the host would be the one who took the first bite” (from Santorini 1993b:231) b. Durkh a kleyn shtetl hot gedarft durkhforn [der keyser] through a small town has must through-drive the emperor “the emperor had to drive through a small town” (from Santorini 1993b:231) c. Hot men derlangt [oyfn has one served on-the “fish was put on the table” (from Santorini 1993b:231)

tish] [fish] table fish

Data as in (81) show that extraposition is less restricted in Yiddish than, for example, in Standard German: In Yiddish it may also affect subjects that are relatively ‘weak’. In OHG too, ‘light’ subjects are attested to the right of the verbal complex. This is illustrated in (82) by means of a verb-second clause. The same phenomenon also occurs in verb-end clauses; cf. (83). As Schrodt (2004:219) mentions, roughly eight per cent of extraposed constituents in verbend clauses are subjects.64 Note that in (82) and (83) the material in the verbal complex is underlined and the extraposed constituents are given in square brackets. (82) /giloubi kind thanne uuerdent thir furlazano/ [thino sunta]. .../ believe child then become you forgiven your sins-NOM “be of good courage, child, then your sins are forgiven” (T 193,13) /confide fili.‘ remittuntur tibi/ peccata tua. .../ (83) a. Duo uu{art} imo fram brun gan [der tiubil hapta] then became him forth brought who demon had “then a demon-possessed man was brought to him” Tunc oblatus est ei daemonium habens (MF V,14; Mt 12:22)

64 However, Schrodt (2004:219) does not explicitly mention for which texts this figure obtains.

It seems as if the quantitative results mainly refer to Notker’s texts.

90


b. /... ér thanne/ arsterbe [mín sún] .../ before then dies my son-NOM “before my son dies” /... priusquam/ moriatur filius meus.,/

(T 195,21)

c. /ér thanne quimit [ther mannes sún]/ (T 171,18) before then comes the man’s son-NOM “before the Son of Man comes” /donec ueniat filius hominis./ d. ... /thaz arstárp [ther betalari]/ that died the beggar-NOM “that the beggar died” /ut morer&ur mendicus/ e. /soso arlesene sint [thie beresboton]/ as gathered are the weeds-NOM “as the weeds are gathered up” /Sicut ergo colliguntur zizania/

(T 363,8)

(T 239,23)

f. HUUEO AUH FONA ABRAHAMES SAMIN UUARDH QUHOMAN how also from Abraham’s seed became come CHRISTUS] (I 554) [DRUHTIN IESUS Lord-NOM Jesus Christ “also how the Lord Jesus Christ came from the seed of Abraham” (R) QUOD AUTEM EX SEMINE ABRAHAM FUTURUS ESSET DOMINUS IESUS CHRISTUS

Thus, the data in (82) and (83) suggest that just as in Yiddish, extraposition is also possible with relatively ‘light’ subjects in OHG. Note that in Old English as well, extraposition is not only attested with heavy subjects as in (72)-a above, but also with relatively light subjects as in the following example: (84) forðam þe him burston ut [butu his because him burst out both his “... because both his eyes burst out ...” (ÆLS 19.120; from Pintzuk 1999:59)

eagan] eyes

It is striking that the vast majority of OHG examples with subject extraposition contain ‘passivized’65 or ergative predicates, i.e. constructions that can be regarded as unaccusative in a wider sense. It could therefore be objected that these data are not clear cases of subject extraposition since the subject is basegenerated in object position in unaccusative contexts according to standard assumptions. Thus, it could be suspected that the subjects in (82) and (83) are 65 The problem of which status the OHG passive periphrasis has (cf. Behaghel 1923:199; Rupp

1956 and Schrodt 2004:9f.) will be briefly addressed in Chapter 3. The question as to whether it should rather be considered a predicative construction (cf. Demske-Neumann 1994:113f.) does not play any role for the present argumentation.

91

VERB MOVEMENT

underlying objects, which means that their postverbal position could still be derived within an analysis with VO-base order. However, there is one type of example with postverbal subjects to which such a line of argumentation cannot be applied, namely examples with Vinfin–Vfin–subject-sequences at the right periphery: (85) a. dhazs chiendot2 uuerdhe1 [dhiu aboha that ended becomes the false “that the false transgression be ended” (R) ut consummetur praeuaricatio b. ... dhar chiquhedan2 uuard1 [got where mentioned became God-NOM “where the anointed God was mentioned” cum deus unctus insinuatur

ubarhlaupnissi] (I 448) transgression-NOM

chisalbot] anointed

(I 145)

c. So auh fona des baumes obaze · arcennit2 · uuir (dit)1 as also from the tree’s fruit recognized becomes [daer · baum] (MF VI,16; Mt 12: 33) the tree-NOM “as also a tree is recognized by its fruit” Siquidem ex fructu arbor cogno{sci}tur d. /uzoh thaz gifullit2 uuerde1 [tház giscrib]/ (T 553,23) but that fulfilled become the scripture-NOM “but that the scripture may be fulfilled” /sed impleatur scriptura./

According to standard assumptions, the order Vinfin–Vfin shows that the VP is right-headed.66 Examples such as (85) thus show that subject extraposition is also attested in indisputable OV-contexts. In Isidor and in the Monsee Fragments, extraposed subjects almost exclusively occur with unaccusative predicates in a wider sense. That this is really a native word-order pattern is suggested by examples where the placement of the subject behind the verbal complex is realized contrary to the Latin source; cf. (85)-b and (85)-c, for example. In the earlier OHG texts, examples with transitive predicates that are parallel to the Yiddish examples in (81)-c only appear in Tatian, where the word order is quite loyal to the Latin. For this text, Dittmer & Dittmer (1998) have found that in verb-end clauses, 93 out of a total of approximately 411 non-sentential, non-pronominal subjects in verb-end clauses occur in the final field, but only in two cases have they been relegated to this position contrary to the Latin (ibid.:172, table on top of the page). Where the subject occurs behind the predicate in the Latin, its OHG counterpart has been moved into the middle field in 66 out of a total of 157 OHG 66 Provided that one does not assume a universal constraint on left-branching structures as has

been proposed by Kayne (1994) in his LCA-approach.

92


verb-end clauses with (non-sentential, non-pronominal) subjects.67 Among the 91 subjects that have stayed in the final field some are actually arguments of unaccusative predicates (i.e. of movement predicates and of passivized predicates), but many also occur with regular transitive predicates. In all the Tatian examples, however, the word order is parallel to the Latin as can be seen in (86). This is also true for the examples with unaccusative predicates such as (85)-d. (86) a. /thendar minnota [ther heilant]/ whom+REL.PARTCL loved the Saviour-NOM “whom the Saviour loved” /quem amabat ihesus/

(T 661,23)

b. /nalles thaz then fater gisah [einiger]/ not that the-ACC father saw anyone-NOM “not that anyone has seen the father” /Non quia patrem uidit quisquam./

(T 261,17)

c. /soso mih santa [lebanti fater]/ (T 263,16) so-as me sent living father-NOM “as the living father sent me” /Sicut misit me uiuens pater./

Note that Dittmer & Dittmer (1998:172ff.) already take the factor ‘line break’ into account: In sentence (87), for example, the subject thaz giscrib has presumably not been reordered to the middle field since it would then have appeared in a different line than the corresponding Latin phrase scriptura. Such examples have not been included in the figures just mentioned. (87) /thaz thuruhfremit uurdi/ [thaz giscrib]/ (T 645,20) that fulfilled became the scripture-NOM “that the scripture might be fulfilled” /ut consummar&ur/scriptura/ [thiz giscrib]/ (T 123,5) (88) /tház hiutu gifullit ist that today fulfilled is this scripture-NOM “that today this scripture has been fulfilled” /Quod hodie impl&a est hæc scriptura/

Very sporadically, a personal pronoun has been inserted into the middle field contrary to the source which is coreferent with the clause-final subject. This could be a sign that subject extraposition is subject to certain restrictions and 67 Dittmer & Dittmer (1998:173) also consider examples where the Latin has a synthetic verb

form followed by the subject and the OHG has an analytic verb form followed by the subject to be instances of parallel word order (regarding subject placement) between the source and the translation.

93

VERB MOVEMENT

that pronominal subjects such as alliu in (89) cannot move rightward. It is possible that the translators chose an alternative construction where a pronoun in argument position is coindexed with the subject, which is base-generated at the right periphery, in order to be able to imitate the word order of the source without resorting to a word order that is ungrammatical in the native grammar. (89) /thaz siu gifullit uuerden alliu/ thiudar giscribaniu sint/ are that they fulfilled become all that+REL.PARTCL written “that all things which are written may be fulfilled” (T 515,29) /ut impleantur omnia/ quæ scripta sunt/

Even though in Tatian there are 91 cases where it cannot be argued that it was due to the position of the line break that the extraposed subjects have not been repositioned to the middle field, there are only two examples of dependent clauses attested in which the subject is moved to the final field contrary to the source. We do find many cases where a Latin construction with a synthetic word form and a succeeding subject is rendered by an analytical verb form with the subject following both verbs in the OHG translation. In these cases it can be argued, however, that the translators intended to preserve the relative order of the main verb and the subject and thus did not put the subject into the middle field: (90) /thaz gibrieuit uuvrdi [al these umbiuuerft],/ that registered became all this world-NOM “that all the world should be registered” /ut describer&ur uniuersus orbis,/

(T 85,9)

Dittmer & Dittmer (1998:72) have found that also in clauses with verb movement (i.e. in verb-second and verb-first clauses) there are more than two dozen examples where the subject has not been relocated to the middle field even though the principle of preserving the position of the line break would not be violated.68 These examples, however, only contain passivized constructions, verbs of movement and copular verbs: (91) a. /uuard Imo ginennit [namo heilant].‘/ became him called name Saviour “he became named Saviour” /uocatum est nomen eius ihesus.‘/

(T 89,8)

68 T 183,7; T 89,9; T 463,23; T 77,3; T 209,5; T 101,26; T 179,27; T 233,14; T 247,21; T

247,27; T 397,11; T 421,28; T 425,16; T 425,20; T 475,11; T 517,28-519,1 (3 times); T 537,26; T 555,5; T 565,25; T 573,11; T 607,7; T 631,19 (cf. Dittmer & Dittmer 1998:72).

94


b. /... . gieng thô In THÔ in went “the king entered” /... . Intrauit autem rex/

[ther cuning]/ the king

(T 425,20)

In the case of independent clauses, we also do find examples where the subject is moved to sentence-final position counter to the source in Tatian: (92) /giengun thô zuo [gotes THÔ to God’s went “God’s angels came” /Et ecce angeli accesserunt/

engila]/ angels

(T 115,30)

As this short review has shown, in Tatian the position of the subject in OHG mostly corresponds to that in the source. However, the fact that such a high number of subjects have been retained in postverbal position suggests that this construction was also licensed by the OHG target grammar. It is still hard to draw any inferences on putative restrictions on subject extraposition in OHG on the basis of the Tatian data. The other prose documents with a freer translation technique are more revealing in this point. There we find subject extraposition only in unaccusative environments, both parallel and contrary to the source. As was argued above, in these texts, subject extraposition also appears in syntactic environments where the order of the infinite and finite verbs shows that we are dealing with an OV-environment. 2.6.1.5 Summary. We can thus conclude that there are only two possible analyses: One can either argue that OHG is a pure OV-language with a relatively liberal extraposition option, or, alternatively, one can hypothesize that both a base-generated OV- and VO-order are possible. The latter hypothesis would mean that an extraposition analysis is needed in a smaller number of examples, but we would still have to assume that the extraposition option exists and that it is less restricted than in the modern standard language. We do encounter data where relatively light subjects occur to the right of verbal complexes with the ‘OV’-order Vinfin–Vfin. What is also very problematic is that the assumption of a base-generated VO-option leads to overgeneralization. For example, the separable particles of particle verbs do not appear to the right of their verb in dependent clauses; such Vfin–particle-orders are almost completely absent from our corpus.69 In Old English there are even examples attested with a particle to the right of an infi69 Weiß (to appear) and Schallert (2006:120), however, quote one example from Notker:

(i) táz er béiz ímo sélbemo ába that he bit him self off “that he bit himself off the tongue”

die the

zúngûn tongue

(N BCon II 91,3)

VERB MOVEMENT

95

nite verb. This is a clear sign of a base-generated VO-option since it is impossible to argue that the verb has moved to the left in this case. We can thus conclude that the assumption of a base-generated VO-option in OHG does not lead to a true simplification since we still would have to resort to a relatively liberal extraposition option. In addition, there is the disadvantage of overgeneralization. Note that these problems would arise irrespective of the question of whether a putative VO-option could be traced back to the fact that the VO-parameter was underdetermined/underspecified (cf. Haider 2005) or that the speakers had two competing grammars (one with VO- and one with OV-order).70 In the following I will therefore assume that OV was the only possible base order in OHG. 2.6.2 Verb movement to a medial I-position? In some cases, VO-orders in OHG dependent clauses could theoretically be traced back to the fact that the finite verb has moved leftward. In this section I am going to investigate whether there is any evidence for such a movement into the head of a sentence-medial functional projection. For OHG such an analysis has been proposed by Tomaselli (1995), Schlachter (2004) and Weiß (to appear) (see also Eythórsson 1995:327, fn.29 for a short note in this direction). In present-day German, as in modern Dutch and Swedish, verb movement only occurs in root clauses without complementizers.71 In some verb-second languages such as for example Icelandic the finite verb may also move in clauses which are introduced by complementizers. According to standard assumptions, this movement targets the head of some functional projection (e.g. I0). Such a V-to-I0 movement analysis has also been proposed for Old English (Pintzuk 1991, 1999) and Kroch & Taylor (1997). 2.6.2.1 Tomaselli (1995) and Weiß (to appear). In the OHG texts we not only find examples where the order of the infinite and finite verb is inverted in subordinate clauses (i.e. “verb raising”), but also cases with Comp–(...)–Vfin–XP– Vinfin-order, where an XP intervenes between the finite and infinite verb. There are clear indications that this Comp–(...)–Vfin–XP–Vinfin-order is licensed by the native grammar of OHG: Not only is it attested in relatively free translations such as in Notker’s texts, cf. (94), and in Williram’s Song of Songs, but it

70 Pintzuk (1991, 1993:11, 1999) and Kroch & Taylor (1997, 2000) (see also Santorini

1992:616, 1993a for historical Yiddish) propose that in Old and Middle English, there was a competition between two grammars, one with a right- and one with a left-headed VP (= Double Base Hypothesis). 71 Some modern Germanic languages have embedded verb-second in clauses introduced by complementizers. This will be discussed below.

96


is also realized counter to or independently of the in for instance Tatian; cf. (93)-b.72 (93) a. /oba her mugi1 [mit zehen thusuntin]/ [themo] ingegin faran2 .../ if he can with ten thousand the-one towards go “whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him ... ?” (T 225,5) /si possit cum decem milibus/ occurrere ei .../ b. /Inti thiethár uuolle1 [mit thír] uuehslon2 / (T 145,12) with you exchange and who+REL.PARTCL wants “and that who would want to exchange with you” /& uolenti mutuare a té.‘/ c. huueo dher sunu mahti1 [fona fater] chiboran3 how the Son could from Father born “how the Son could be born from the Father?” quomodo potuit a patre filius generari (94) sô die hostes uuúrten1 [ze_ flúhte] bechêret2 as the enemies became to flight turned “as the enemies were put to flight”

uuerdhan2 (I 108) become

(N BCon II 64,23)

Tomaselli (1995) puts forward the hypothesis that OHG examples with Comp– XPsubj–Vfin–NPobj–V-order should be analysed as involving V-to-I-movement into the head of a sentence-medial I-projection whose specifier functions as the structural subject position. Though she does not give a tree for the structure of subordinate clauses with complementizers, her analysis proposed in the text (ibid.: 358, 359) can be sketched as follows: (95) CP Spec

Comp–NPsubj–Vfin–NPobj–Vinfin

C′ C0

IP NPsubj

I′ I0

VP NPObj

V0

72 See also the observation by Dittmer & Dittmer (1998:220) that there are also Tatian exam-

ples where constituents are inserted between the finite verb and the non finite verb(s) contrary the Latin source. This is why they conclude that the order Comp–(…)–Vfin–XP–Vinfin must be licensed by the native OHG grammar.

97

VERB MOVEMENT

Unfortunately, Tomaselli (1995) does not cite any OHG examples of the type Comp–NPsubj–Vfin–NPobj/XP–V.73 This type of example is attested in Isidor; cf. for instance (96) and the examples in (93) and (94) above. However, we can also find instances of Comp–XP≠subj–Vfin–NPsubj-order; cf. (97).74 It has to be noted that Tomaselli assumes that SpecI is a designated subject position, which means that the finite verb cannot be in I0 in examples such as (97).75 Some more examples can be found in Schlachter (2004:183). (96) a. dhazs [ir selbo gotes sunu] uuard in liihhe chiboran (I 381) that he same God’s son became in body born “that that same Son of God was born in the body” (R) eundem filium dei natum in carne b. HUUEO [GOT] UUARD MAN CHIUUORDAN CHRIST how God became man become Christ “how God became man, Christ son of God” (R) QUIA CHRISTUS FILIUS DEI DEUS HOMO FACTUS EST

(97) a. ... ziuuare firnim dhanne, dhazs [dhar] ist truly understand then that there is “truly understand then that Christ is depicted there” ... intellege christum.

GOTES

SUNU

God’s

son (I 375)

christ chizeihnit Christ depicted (I 147)

b. Neo nist zi chilaubanne dhazs [fona dhemu salomone] never NEG-is to believe that from that Solomon sii dhiz chiforabodot (I 638) is this prophesied “It can never be believed that this was prophesied about Solomon” (R) Numquid de illo salomone creditur prophetatum? minime

Weiß (to appear) also argues that there is evidence for a leftward movement of the verb into the head of a sentence-medial functional projection (= T0). SpecT, however, is an A-bar position and not an A-position as in Tomaselli’s analysis (see also Schlachter 2004:185). More precisely, he puts forward the analysis in (98), which he applies to an example with Comp–XP–Vfin–XPsubj-order from the Hildebrandslied; cf. (99). (Additionally Weiß assumes that the VP is se73 Tomaselli (1995) only refers to the Isidor example in (97)-a, but this example has Comp–

adverb–Vfin–NPnom-order. Apparently, Tomaselli assumes that dhar is an expletive subject just as English there, but this is arguably not correct. 74 In her comments to a table which summarizes different word-order patterns (ibid.:353) Tomaselli mentions that she has found this pattern in Isidor, Williram and in two shorter OHG sources. In the table itself only the more general Comp–NP–Vfin...Vinfin-pattern is listed. This is why it remains unclear whether the figures in the table only refer to examples where the finite verb follows unto the subject directly or whether cases where the finite verb appears to the right of a non-subject constituent are also included. 75 Tomaselli (1995) would have to argue that the subject can also remain in a VP-internal position and that adverbs can be adjoined to IP.

98


lected by the head of a “light verb phrase” (νP) and that there can be V-to-ν0to-T0-movement; cf. section 2.6.3 for details.) (98) TP Spec

T' T0+ν+V

νP

Comp–XPsubj–V–XP Comp–XP–V–XPsubj Comp–V–XPsubj

ν'

subj ν0+V

VP subj

V' DO

(dat) H.

hætti min fater

t

t

V0

t

(adapted from Weiß to appear) (99) dat [Hiltibrant] hætti min fater (SD I,17; Hildebrandslied) that Hildebrand was-called my father “that my father was called Hildebrand”

However, the arguments for verb movement in dependent clauses in OHG are not fully convincing. This is especially true for Tomaselli’s approach. Weiß, whose analysis has a wider empirical basis, has found some interesting examples, but even those data do not provide unambiguous evidence for verb movement in dependent clauses. First, it should be noted that there are types of examples attested which cannot simply be the result of V-to-I- or V-to-T-movement, but which require a different analysis in both Tomaselli’s and Weiß’s proposal. In examples with Comp–XP–XP–(...)–Vfin–XP–Vinfin-order such as (100) from the Isidor, both authors have to argue that there also existed the phenomenon of verb projection raising in OHG. In verb projection raising constructions there is an inversion between a modal/auxiliary verb and a phrasal projection of its infinite complement. This phenomenon has been described not only for the Dutch dialects (e.g. Haegeman & van Riemsdijk 1986; Haegeman 1998) and for the Swiss dialects (e.g. Lötscher 1978; Schöneberger & Penner 1995), but also for historical Yiddish (Santorini 1989, 1992, 1993a) and for Old English (Stockwell 1977; van Kemenade 1987). According to the standard analysis (cf. Haegeman & Riemsdijk 1986), this construction involves rightward movement of the verb

VERB MOVEMENT

99

projection as is illustrated in (100)-a for the Isidor example in (100)-b.76 (100) a. odho uuir noh ti sculim [VP siin quhemandes biidan]i b. Suohhemes auur uuir nu ziidh dhera christes chiburdi, seek-1.PL.ADHORT yet we now time of-the Christ’s birth huuedhar ir iu quhami odho uuir noh sculim siin whether he already came or we still should his quhemandes biidan (I 434) coming await “let us then seek now the time of the Christ’s birth, whether he has already come or we should still await his coming” (R) Quęramus ergo tempus natiuitatis christi, utrum iam aduenerit an uenturus adhuc exspectetur

In Tomaselli’s (1995) approach there are two types of examples which cannot be traced back to movement of the finite verb to I0, but must be due to verb projection raising. These are (i) examples where besides the subject a further XP occurs in front of the finite verb (= Comp–XPsubj–XP–Vfin...Vinfin or Comp– XP–XPsubj–Vfin...Vinfin) as in the Isidor example in (100)-b and in (101)77 and (ii) examples with Comp–XP≠subj–Vfin...Vinfin-order; cf. (97) above. Since Weiß (to appear) (cf. also Schlachter 2004) assumes that the specifier position of the projection into which the verb moves (= SpecT) is a topic position, he may analyse data such as (97) as being the result of V-to-T-movement, but he still has to propose an additional analysis for examples such as (101) where there is more than one XP in front of the finite verb. (101) a. ... ist ... archennit, ... dhazs ... [christ] [iu] ist langhe quhoman is recognized that Christ already is long come “... it is recognized that the Lord Saviour has already long come” (R) ... christus olim uenisse cognoscitur (I 455) b. táz [tu] [dánne] múgîst taz uuâra lîeht keséhen that you then may the real light see “that you may then see the real light” (N B ConI 40,11) uere̹ lucis splendorem possis agnoscere (l. 10)

76 According to the traditional analysis, verb projection raising is analysed as rightward

movement of the verbal projection. However, a number of objections have been raised against this rightward movement analysis, (see the discussion in Haegeman & van Riemsdijk 1986, Stechow & Sternefeld 1988, Schöneberger & Penner 1995). Sternefeld (2006:644-664) in a different theoretical framework (i.e. in a feature-based grammar which allows for the projection of theta roles and the fusion of theta grids) proposes that such surface orders are merely the result of an inversion of branches in the syntactic tree. 77 This is especially true for examples such as (101)-a and (101)-c, where the subject is a full DP. When the subject is a pronoun as in (100)-b and (101)-b Tomaselli could argue that it does not occupy SpecI, but occurs in the Wackernagel position further to the left.

100


c. dáz [diuitie̹] [den mán] nemúgen sâlîgen getûon. that diuitae the man NEG-can happy make (N BCon II 88,22) “that riches cannot make man happy”

Besides the traditional analysis of verb projection raising as rightward movement of the verb projection, Weiß considers the possibility that the finite verb has moved to a low functional projection as has been suggested by Fuß & Trips (2002) for Old English (cf. 2.6.3). It could be argued that Weiß’s (to appear) proposal is supported by some sporadic attestations of Comp–XP–Vfin–XPsubj–Vinfin-order as in the following example: (102) Dhea iudea ... quhedhant ... dhazs noh ni sii the Jews say that yet NEG is [dhazs ziidh] arfullit (I 589) the time fulfilled “the Jews ... say ... that the time is not yet fulfilled” (R) Iudei ... dicunt nondum esse hoc tempus expletum

Note, however, that these data as well can be analysed as a variant of verb projection raising.78 As Sternefeld (2006:674) shows with reference to an observation by Meurers (2000), in modern Standard German it is also possible for subjects to be part of the raised verb projection:79 (103) Dass ihn gestern hätte [jemand] besiegen können, that him yesterday had somebody defeat could ist unwahrscheinlich. is unlikely “it is unlikely that someone would have been able to defeat him yesterday” (from Sternefeld 2006:649)

So both Tomaselli and Weiß are forced to resort to mechanisms such as rightward movement of the verb projection or to ‘short verb movement’ in addition to putative verb movement to I0 or T0. In Tomaselli’s approach the question arises as to why she does not derive the ‘Comp–subject–Vfin...Vinfin’-orders by verb projection raising just the same. It is not convincing that she analyses this particular order as involving V-to-Imovement. Note that she has to assume anyway that verb projection raising exists in order to be able to analyse the examples with Comp–XP–XPsubj– Vfin...Vinfin-, Comp–XPsubj–XP–Vfin...Vinfin- and with Comp–XP≠subj–Vfin...Vinfin78 A further alternative would be to analyse such examples as instances of CP-recursion (cf.

2.6.2.2). 79 Note, however, that in the modern German examples in (103) the subject is indefinite in

contrast to the OHG example in (102).

101

VERB MOVEMENT

orders.80 Weiß (to appear) argues that in thaz-‘verb-second’ clauses – in particular of the type Comp–XP≠subj–Vfin–XPsubj– as in (104) – the finite verb has been raised to T0. In his corpus, which comprises the Isidor and 38 texts from the ‘Lesser Old High German Documents’ edited by Steinmeyer ([1916] 1963), Weiß (to appear) has found that 8 out of 247 thaz-clauses (he has not studied other types of subordinate clauses) exhibit Comp–XP–V–XPsubj-order, this is roughly three per cent. (104) a. thaz [mir] uolgon \ Alle godes that me follow all God’s “that all followers of God follow me”

holdon followers (SD XVI, 36; Ludwigslied)

b. daz · [after · zueim · tagum ] · uu{erdant} oostrun81 that after two days become Easter “that after two days Easter is coming” (MF XXI,16; Mt 26:2) {... quia post biduum pascha fiet} c. dat [Hiltibrant] hætti min fater that Hildebrand was-called my father “that my father was called Hildebrand”

= (99)

The ‘verb-first-order’ Comp–V–XPsubj only occurs in the three examples in (105). Weiß concludes that verb-end is the word order that is clearly preferred in OHG subordinate clauses and that the option of V-to-T-movement is realized only occasionally. (105) a. Lesen uuir, thaz fuori \ ther heilant fartmuodi read we that went the Saviour travel-weary “we are reading that the Saviour travelled on, travel-weary” (SD XVII,1; Christus und die Samariterin) b. daz sculi der antichristo \ mit Eliase pagan that should the Antichrist with Elijah fight “that the Antichrist must fight with Elijah” (SD XIV,38; Muspilli)

80 Tomaselli (1995:365, fn.5) has even conceded herself that all surface orders which would be

the result of V-to-I-movement in her proposal could also be just the result of verb projection raising. 81 Weiß (to appear) assumes that oostrun is the subject in this example. This is supported by the fact that the verb form uuerdant is in the plural. Alternatively, one could analyse oostrun as a predicative NP. The construction would then have no (overt) subject; one could assume that there was an empty quasi-argument present (see Chapter 6). This analysis would fit better with other OHG examples with date expressions (see Bishop 1977 for more data), but then we would expect a singular verb. Note, however, that we cannot be really sure whether the verb is in the plural since only the two first letters (= uu) are readable in the manuscript; the remaining letters have been reconstructed by Hench (1890).

102


c. dhazs ni bilibun ano herrun iudæoliudi fona iudases chunne Jews from Judah’s race that NEG remain without lord “that the Jews did not lack a lord from the race of Judah” (I 581) non defuisse principes iudeorum populi ex genere iuda

Note, however, that the low numbers for Comp–XP–V–XPsubj and Comp–V– XPsubj orders would not be surprising given the assumption that these orders are merely the result of extraposition, as illustrated in (106). As was discussed above, the evidence strongly suggests that subject extaposition is a native construction, at least in the context of unaccusative predicates. So an analysis with subject extraposition has to be taken into account, in particular for the examples (104)-a and (104)-b as well as for (105)-a. In (105)-c one would have to argue that more than one constituent has been extraposed. Note also that the OHG word order is quite close to the Latin in this particular example as all constituents follow the (infinite) verb. (106) a. thaz mir ti uolgon [alle godes holdon]i b. thaz ti fuori ... [ther heilant fartmuodi]i

Even if we accepted Weiß’s approach, there are still some classes of examples where one would be forced to resort to a subject extraposition analysis. It is true that the Comp–V–XPsubj–...-order as in (105)-a and (105)-b can be derived within an analysis with V-to-T-movement. However, for examples with Comp–Vinfin–Vfin–XPsubj-order as in (107)-a, with Comp–XP–XP(...)–Vfin– XPsubj-order as in (107)-b or with Comp–XP–Vinfin–Vfin–XPsubj-order such an analysis would be much less plausible.82 (107) a. ... dhazs chiendot2 uuerdhe1 [dhiu aboha that ended become the false “that the false transgression be ended” (R) ut consummetur praeuaricatio

ubarhlaupnissi] = (85)-a transgression

b. So daz [sih] [es] [drato] uuntrota · [der ***] so that REFL it-GEN greatly marvelled the “so that (the governor) was greatly amazed about that” It{a ut} miraretur praeses uehementer (MF XXIV,23; Mt 27:24)

Moreover, it can be objected that some of the examples given by Weiß are attested in poetical texts. Weiß himself concedes that the word orders could have been influenced by restrictions imposed by the rhyme and the metre. So the 82 In (107)-a Weiß would have to argue that SpecT was empty or that the participle chiendot has been topicalized into this position. Examples with more than one XP in front of the finite verb as in (107)-b are also not unproblematic since SpecT is the only specifier which is prefinite when the verb has moved to T. In (107)-b Weiß would have to argue that the pronouns sih and es have been fronted into the Wackernagel position right of the complementizer.

VERB MOVEMENT

103

postposing of the subjects both in (104)-a and in (105)-a may well be due to the fact that they have been placed in a rhyming position. In (104)-c metrical considerations could have played a role. The same is true for the Muspilli example with ‘verb-first’ order cited above, cf. (105)-b, which is in fact the only example given by Weiß that cannot be derived via an alternative analysis with subject extraposition as the subject occurs before the infinite verb. Furthermore, Weiß (to appear) discusses examples with Comp–XPsubj–V– XP-order as evidence for V-to-T-movement which contain postfinite material of such a kind that an analysis with extraposition is unlikely. In (108) from the Hildebrandslied, for example, one would have to argue that both the object herron goten and heme, which is a relatively light adverb, have been extraposed. The same example has also been analysed by Suchsland (2000), who proposes an alternative analysis with CP-recursion, however (cf. the following section).83 (108) ... dat du habes [heme] \ [herron goten] that you have at-home master good “that you have a good master at home” (SD I,47; Hildebrandslied)

Such cases are predominantly attested in the poetry. In prose texts, such examples are hardly attested in environments where the word order deviates from the Latin. To sum up: In many modern and historical Germanic dialects Comp–...Vfin– XP–Vfin-orders are possible. This phenomenon has been referred to as ‘verb projection raising’. Regardless of the question of whether the traditional analysis, according to which this surface order is the result of rightward movement of the verb projection, is correct, I do not see any reason why the OHG examples where there happens to be only a subject-XP between the complementizer and the finite verb are not merely an instance of the same phenomenon, but should be regarded as evidence for V-to-I-movement as proposed by Tomaselli (1995). Furthermore, I have argued that even the data with Comp–XPobj–Vfin– XPsubj-order discussed in Weiß (to appear), which Weiß refers to as (embedded) ‘verb-second’ sentences (see also Schlachter 2004:183ff.), do not provide unambiguous evidence for verb movement to a sentence-medial function head whose specifier is an A-bar position. Rather, I have pointed out that such examples could also be analysed as instances of subject extraposition. The same is true for the rare examples with surface ‘verb-first’ order (i.e. Comp–Vfin– 83 Weiß (see also Schlachter 2004:184) cites an example from the Isidor, cf. (i), where the sen-

tence adverb chiuuisso occurs postverbally. However, this example could also be an instance of CP-recursion (see below). (i) ... eu izs archundemes, dhazs ir selbo christ ist [chiuuisso] [got ioh druhtin] you it demonstrate that he same Christ is certainly God and Lord “... we demonstrate it to you that that same Christ certainly is God and Lord” (R) ... quia idem deus et dominus est ... demonstremus (I 135)

104


XPsubj). An analysis with subject extraposition is very well motivated, in particular for sentences with unaccusative predicates: I have shown that there are also examples with postverbal subjects attested which cannot be derived via verb movement, namely examples where the finite verb occurs to the right of the infinite verb (Comp–(...)–Vinfin–Vfin–XPsubj; cf. (88) above). There are only very few dhazs-clauses which exhibit postfinite material of such a kind that an extraposition analysis is unlikely. Moreover, the possibility that OHG allowed for CP-recursion should also be taken into account (see Suchsland 2000 on the Hildebrandslied). 2.6.2.2 OHG compared to Old English and Yiddish. If one compares OHG to languages such as Old English and Yiddish, for which it has been proposed that there is overt verb movement into the head of a sentence-medial functional projection, two important differences must be noted. One difference concerns particle verbs, more precisely the positioning of particles relative to their respective verbs. As Pintzuk (1991:76-94, 1999:51ff.) and Santorini (1993a) argue for Old English and historical Yiddish, the occurrence of particles to the right of their respective verbs in subordinate clauses is indisputable evidence that the verb has moved leftward into a functional head below C: (109) a. gif Crist scute ða adun if Christ casts then down “if Christ then casts himself down” (ÆCHom i.170.21-22; from Pintzuk 1999:58) b. forþon ne cymð naht ungelic trymnes because NEG comes in-no-way different confirmation “because a different confirmation in no way comes up” (GD(C) 8,1-2; from Pintzuk 1999:59)

upp up

(110) a. dz der mensh git erst oyf in di hikh that the human goes first up in the height “that people first grow in height” (preface to Shir ha-shirim 6, 1579; from Santorini 1993a:265) b. ven mn hibt shme isral an when one lifts Shma Israel on “when one begins to recite Shma Israel [= the Jewish creed]” (Ashkenaz un polak 141, ca. 1675; from Santorini 1993a:265)

As was already argued above in section on particle verbs (2.6.1.3), examples with the order ‘Comp–XP–Vfin(...)–particle’ are almost completely absent from our corpus. Sporadic examples such as the one in (111) are no counterexamples as the putative particle can also be analysed as a normal adverb. So in (111) the adverb uz could be argued to modify the following PP.

105

VERB MOVEMENT

(111) {da}z er aufuori · uz fona iro marchom that he away-went out from their borders “that he might depart from their borders” {ut transiret a finibus eorum}

(MF I,4; Mt 8:34)

A further phenomenon which occurs in Yiddish and in Old English, but not in OHG, is the surface order Comp–XP–Vfin–pron–V: (112) az ihudim habin mir gizagt that Jews have me told “that people told me” (Court testimony 150 (EY), 1625–1640; from Santorini 1992:612) (113) þæt heo wolde hine læran that she would him teach “... that she would teach him” (ÆLS 25.173; from Pintzuk 1999:73)

This class of examples can be considered a clear indication of leftward movement since an alternative analysis with verb projection raising is not possible in such cases. In the current Germanic dialects with verb projection raising (e.g. Swiss German, West Flemish) the raised verb projection cannot contain an (unaccented) pronoun. This is illustrated in Santorini (1992:613) by means of the Swiss German examples in (114). (114) a. ?* das er ti törf [VP en is Huus bringe]i that he may him into-the house bring “that he is allowed to bring him into the house” b. das er enj ti törf [VP tj is Huus bringe]i that he him may into-the house bring “that he is allowed to bring him into the house” (from Santorini 1992:613)

In the OHG prose texts, the corresponding examples with Comp–XP–Vfin– pron–V-order do not occur, at least not with personal pronouns. Examples with other types of pronouns are attested sporadically. (115) a. Neo nist zi chilaubanne dhazs fona dhemu salomone never NEG-is to believe that from that Solomon dhiz chiforabodot = (97)-b sii is this prophesied “It can never be believed that this was prophesied about Solomon” Numquid de illo salomone creditur prophetatum? minime

106


b. Dhanne ist nu chichundit, dhazs fona dhemu almahtigin fater then is now announced that from the almighty father dhurah inan ist al uuordan, dhazs chiscaffanes ist (I 98) through him is all become that created is “then it is now made known that everything that was created came to be from the Almighty Father through him” (R) ... quando a patre per illum cuncta creata esse noscuntur

As Pintzuk (1991:94-99, 1999:59-63) furthermore argues for Old English, in subordinate clauses with postverbal pronouns or monosyllabic adverbs (= Comp–...–Vfin–pron/adv) the verb must have moved leftward as it is very unlikely that such light elements have been subject to extraposition (see also Fuß & Trips 2002:177ff.): (116) a. ... swa þ hy asettan him upp on ænne sið so that they transported them inland in one journey “... so that they transported themselves inland in one journey” (ChronA 132.19 (1001); from Pintzuk 1999:50) þa into þære byrig b. þæt martinus come that Martin came then into the town “that Martin then came into the town” (ÆLS 31.490-491; from Pintzuk 1993:17)

As has already been mentioned above, such examples are very rare in the OHG prose (cf. Fuß & Trips 2002:177f., fn. 1) , and in those rare examples the word orders very much resemble the Latin; cf. (117)-a and (117)-b. The only exception is example (117)-c from Tatian, where a reflexive pronoun has been moved to postfinite position counter the Latin. (117) a. dhazs uuerodheoda druhtin sendida [mih] zi dhir (I 236) that Hosts’ Lord sent me to you “that the Lord of Hosts sent me to you” (R) quia dominus exercituum misit me ad te b. dhazs ih fora sinemo anthluttę hneige [imu] dheodun that I before his countenance subdue him nations “that I might subdue nations for him under his sight” (I 153) ut subiciam ante faciem eius gentes c. /Inti therdar giotmotigot [sih]/ himself and who+REL.PARTCL humbles “and who humbles himself” /& qui se humiliat/

(T 403,19)

To sum up: In Old English and Yiddish there is compelling evidence that not all examples where the finite verb occurs in medial position in subordinate

107

VERB MOVEMENT

clauses can be derived by rightward movement of XPs across the verb in its base position. In the OHG prose texts, by contrast, hardly any examples of this kind are attested. This is why the hypothesis of V-to-I- or V-to-T-movement is not very well supported for OHG. Even if one assumes that the few examples with postposed pronouns are really a reflex of the native OHG grammar, there is still a feasible alternative analysis. It could be argued that CP-recursion is possible in OHG, a phenomenon which has been argued to occur in modern Danish and in Faroese (cf. Vikner 1995:65-67, 80-87; cf. also Hulk & van Kemenade 1995:237 on Old French).84 An analysis with CP-recursion has been suggested by Suchsland (2000) for the following two examples from the Hildebrandslied, which Weiß (to appear) has analysed as involving V-to-T-movement:85 (118) a. [CP dat [CP Hiltibranti [C' hættij [Vmax min fater ti tj ]]]] b. [CP dat [CP dui [C' habesj [Vmax heme ti herron goten tj ]]]] (from Suchsland 2000:361)

cf. (99) cf. (108)

Of course, a CP-recursion analysis can only be taken into account for examples which are (i) complement clauses introduced by dhazs and (ii) which exhibit no more that one constituent in front of the finite verb. So it would be possible to apply this analysis to the sentences in (117)-a, cf. (119), but not to (117)-b and (117)-c. (119) [CP dhazs [CP uuerodheoda druhtin [C' sendida [VP mih zi dhir ]]]] cf. (117)-a

What is also problematic about the V-to-I/T-movement analysis is that one would have to assume that the putative overt verb movement is optional86 and 84 Embedded verb-second after (overt) complementizers also occurs in Frisian, Swedish, Nor-

wegian (cf. the overview in Vikner 1995:65ff.). 85 In one case, cf. (118)-a, I have argued that the surface order can also be the result of subject

extraposition. 86 While it is true that there is probably variation in the position of the finite verb (sentence-

medial vs. sentence-final) in Yiddish and Old and Middle English, Santorini (1989, 1992, 1993a) and Pintzuk (1991, 1993, 1999) argue that this variation is the result of a grammatical competition between two grammars (one with a medial and one with a final Infl-projection). For German one would have to argue, however, that the medial I-position was lost as a target for overt movement in subordinate clauses at some time. As pointed out by Suchsland (2000:362), who refers to a remark by Josef Bayer (p.c.), the change from IVOI to OVI has not been described for any other language. Note also that according to Vikner (2001), the majority of the modern verb-second languages with OV-order do not have overt V-to-I-movement, neither to a medial nor to a final I-projection. Vikner argues that for the sample of West Germanic OV-languages or dialects that are part of his comparative investigation (i.e. Dutch, Afrikaans, West Flemish, Frisian, German, Swabian, three Swiss German varieties from St. Gallen, Zurich and Bern as well as Yiddish), “an account [..] without V0-to-I0-movement seems much more promising than an account in which some or all of them have V0-to-I0-movement” (ibid.:124). The only language with overt verb movement to a (left-headed) I-projection is Yiddish as Vikner argues.

108


that it is realized only relatively rarely. With the CP-recursion analysis, however, it would not be surprising that the relevant examples are only rarely attested as we know from the modern Germanic languages that allow for CPrecursion that CP-recursion is optional and that it is restricted to a specific group of matrix predicates, namely the so-called bridge predicates.87 2.6.3 Short verb movement? For Old English subordinate clauses, it has been proposed that the finite verb may undergo short movement into the head of a relatively low functional projection, i.e. a light verb phrase. Fuß & Trips (2002) discuss this analysis, cf. (121), for data with Comp–XP–Vfin–XP–Vinfin-order as in (120), which are considered as resulting from verb projection raising (i.e. rightward movement of the verb projection) in previous work by van Kemenade (1987). (120) þæt Libertinus mihte ðis gedon that Libertinus might this do “that Libertinus might do this” (GD (C) 19,7-8; from Pintzuk 1999:75) (121) CP Spec

C' C

T' νP

T

Comp–XP–Vfin–XP–Vinfin ν'

sub. ν + Vfin

VP1 VP2

obj

tv fin V2 [ – fin]

(adapted from Fuß & Trips 2002:200)

Weiß (to appear) suggests that an analysis with short verb movement may also be taken into account for the OHG examples with Comp–XP–Vfin–XP–Vinfinorder. However, this analysis would be faced with the same objection that I 87 Schlachter (2004:184f.) observes that in the first three chapters of the OHG Isidor transla-

tion the majority of instances of Comp–XP–Vfin–XP–(...)-order are selected by verbs of saying. She draws a parallel to the fact that in modern German these verbs may select complementizerless verb-second clauses instead of dass “that”-clauses with verb-end order. However, verbs of saying are also typical bridge predicates in those Germanic dialects where CP-recursion is possible. Since the Isidor examples are all introduced by the complementizer dhazs, these examples resemble more the CP-recursion cases than the dependent verb-second clauses in modern German.

VERB MOVEMENT

109

have raised against an analysis with long verb movement to I0 or T0, namely that in contrast to Old English, in OHG there are hardly any cases with postverbal particles attested in subordinate clauses with particle verbs. Moreover, German has to be classified as an OV-language and this property is diachronically stable. Fuß & Trips (2002) relate their analysis of Old English to a proposal by Haider (1993, 2000), who argues that there is a correlation between the head parameter of V (left or right) and the presence of a separate shell in the form of a ν-projection which is universally left-headed. Haider assumes that a shell structure is only projected in VO-languages. According to Fuß & Trips, the proposed sentence structure where a ν selects a right-headed VP has to be considered the starting-point for the diachronic change from OV- to VO-order, which took place in Middle and Early Modern English. They argue that the introduction of a νP into a language with an OV-grammar resulted from contact with the Scandinavian OV-languages. In German such a change of the head parameter within VP did not take place. If anything, the OV-character of German has been subject to diachronic consolidation at least at the surface. If all these assumptions concerning the correlation between the presence of νP and the headedness of VP are correct, the assumption of a separate νP or of overt V-to-ν-movement can hardly be justified for OHG, neither from a synchronic nor from a diachronic viewpoint. The same is true for the assumption of long verb movement (i.e. of V-to-I/T-movement) as I argued in the last section. 2.7 Summary Starting from a comparative review of the literature on the early origins of verb movement in Gothic and other Old Germanic languages, this chapter has dealt with the question of how well established this phenomenon was in OHG. As the studies by Eythórsson (1995, 1996) show, the innovation of verb movement in Germanic is probably older than was previously assumed and it did not spread equally in the different sentence types. The Old Germanic core contexts for verb movement were imperatives, negated sentences and presumably also interrogatives. Furthermore Roberts (1996) and Ferraresi (1997) argue with evidence from Gothic that there was a type of verb movement in Old Germanic that was triggered by enclitic particles (‘affixes’). This provides us with an interesting alternative to the standard scenario, according to which verb movement originated in a stylistic preposing of the verb. According to Roberts, in Gothic there were probably two types of verb movement, verb movement triggered by enclitic particles and verb movement not triggered by particles. We may thus hypothesize that the spread of the latter type of verb movement in early Germanic, which was an important step towards the development of generalized verb movement and thus towards the emergence of the verb-second phenomenon, was related to the lexical loss of particles. As expected, in OHG yes/no- and wh-interrogatives, imperatives and in negated sentences the finite verb is always found in a derived position at the left

110


sentence periphery. This is true even for the earlier prose texts from the eighth and ninth centuries. In contrast to Gothic, where non-clitic particles and verb movement are in complementary distribution in some contexts, in OHG, verb movement also occurs in sentences with the interrogative particle inu/eno or with the affirmative particle jā. So in OHG there is no interaction between the residual particle system and verb movement. In declarative clauses the finite verb is also systematically preposed even in older OHG. Even though the major OHG prose texts are all translations, it is evident that the target grammar of OHG required the fronting of the finite verb in independent declarative clauses (without complementizers). The number of compelling examples without verb movement is considerably lower than has previously been assumed provided that one only takes into account those cases where the placement of the verb has not been influenced by the Latin or by layout-specific parameters such as loyalty to the line breaks in Tatian. In the poetry, most notably in Otfrid, there are a considerable number of declaratives with verb-end order, but here this word order can often be argued to have been induced by rhyme or metre. Moreover, it has to be noted that some classes of examples are not attested that would be expected to occur under the assumption that verb movement to C0 was not yet obligatory, or under the assumption that the projection of the CP was optional (cf. Lenerz 1984, 1985b). In the OHG prose documents there is no compelling evidence for overt verb movement into the head of a sentence-medial functional projection. Surface Comp–…–VO/VS-orders do occur in subordinate clauses, but these orders are probably the result of extraposition, a phenomenon which is generally less restricted in OHG than in the modern standard language. Comp–...–Vfin–XP– Vinfin-order can be traced back to verb projection raising, a phenomenon that still occurs in current German dialects. Furthermore, the possibility of CPrecursion has to be taken into account. Our result that there is no verb movement into a medial functional head in subordinate clauses is one first piece of evidence that there exists only one derived position for the finite verb in OHG. Some additional evidence for this assumption will be discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. The fact that complementizers and verb movement are in complementary distribution in OHG can be easily accounted for if one maintains the traditional assumption that the target position of verb movement is C0, cf. (122), i.e. the same position where complementizers are merged in subordinate clauses. In the following, I will thus assume that the OHG sentence consists of a minimal CP–VP-structure as has also been proposed in a similar way by Haider (1993, 1997), Sternefeld (2006:322343) for modern German: (122) [CP XPj [C' [C Vi]

[VP tj ti]]]

In later chapters I will discuss some data which suggest that the C-domain consisted of more than one projection in OHG. It will then be argued that the de-

VERB MOVEMENT

111

rived position of the finite verb is the head of the finiteness projection (= FinP), which constitutes the lowest projection in Rizzi’s (1997) model of a finely structured C-domain.

CHAPTER 3

VERB-FIRST DECLARATIVES

3.1 Introduction In the previous chapter it was argued that verb movement was already very much generalized in OHG main clauses. By contrast, XP-fronting, which is the second essential component of the verb-second phenomenon, was not as strongly generalized. In the OHG sources there is a substantial number of declarative clauses attested in which no XP has been fronted. It has long been known in the literature that verb-first placement in declarative clauses was quite common in OHG. Maurer (1924:151), for example, notes that this phenomenon occurs in a relatively large number of examples.1 Some typical examples are given in (1). (1)

a. /gieng thô zuo ther costari/ went THÔ to the tempter “the tempter came to him” /& accedens temptator/

(T 113,28)

b. /... . sint Iru forlazano/ manago sunta. .../ are her forgiven many sins “her many sins are forgiven” /... remittentur ei/ peccata multa .../

(T 489,11)

c. /uuarun thô hirta In thero lantskeffi.‘/ uuahhante .../ (T 85,29) THÔ shepherds in that country abiding were “and there were shepherds in that country abiding …” /Et pastores erant In regione eadem. ‘/ uigilantes .../‘

1 Maurer’s observation on verb-first has been confirmed by a number of studies on the major

OHG prose works: cf. Bernhardt & Davis (1997) and Dittmer & Dittmer (1998) on Tatian; cf. Robinson (1994, 1997) on Isidor; cf. Näf (1979:139ff.) on Notker’s Consolatio and Valentin (1994) on Notker’s works in general. See also the results on verb-first declaratives in the following older word-order studies (cited in Önnerfors 1997:244 and supplemented by me): in Starker (1883); Rannow (1888:114); Ruhfus (1897:72); Reis (1901:225ff.); Diels (1906); Maurer (1924:149) on Tatian; in Reis (1901:224f.); Klemm (1912); Maurer (1924:149ff.); Mueller (1930:71); Fourquet (1938:130f.); Lippert (1974) on Isidor; in Reis (1901:227f.); Manthey (1903:53); Feigl (1904:43) on Notker’s Boethius. In Ohly (1888); Reis (1901:229); Wunder (1965:14) on Otfrid; in Brodführer (1906:27f.) on Williram’s paraphrase of the Song of Songs; and in Diels (1906:130ff.); Krauel (1989) on the lesser OHG documents. See also Paul ([1919] 1968:71); Biener (1926:254); Fourquet (1938:131); Lockwood (1968:256); Smith (l97l:82ff.); Fleischmann (1973:220) and Behaghel (1932:27ff.) for general remarks on verbfirst declaratives in OHG.

114


d. {See qui}mit der bruti gomo · gaat · uz ingegin · imo behold comes the bridegroom go out toward him “see, the bridegroom is coming! Go out to meet him!” {Ecce sponsus uenit, exite obuiam ei} (MF XX,8; Mt 25:6)

As is already suggested by the data in (1), verb-first order in declaratives seems to have been a quite heterogeneous phenomenon: In OHG, there existed different constructions in which XP-fronting sometimes failed to occur. One major aim of this chapter is to find out what different classes of verb-first order have to be distinguished and what could be the reasons for the lack of XP-movement in each case. The previous literature has largely agreed that verb-first order in OHG declaratives is not an instance of loan syntax. Lippert (1974:53), for example, comes to the conclusion: “Die Erststellung des Verbs im aussagenden Hauptsatz ist originär; wo sie in den ahd. Übersetzungsdenkmälern auftritt, wäre höchstens quantitative Lehnsyntax anzunehmen.” [The sentence-initial placement of the verb in a declarative main clause is original. Where it is attested in the OHG translations, this could be quantitative loan syntax at the most]. Outside the translational literature, many verb-first declarative clauses can be found in Otfrid’s Gospel Harmony2, not only in sentences which can be argued to directly correspond to Bible verses, such as the often cited example in (2),3 but also in sentences which neither go back to Bible versus nor to any of the Latin gospel commentaries that Otfrid made use of; cf. (3). (2)

Fúar tho sancta Mária ... zi ther iru máginnu went THO Saint Mary to the her relative “Mary went ... to her relative” (cf. Luke 1:39: exurgens autem Maria in diebus illis ...)

(3)

a. Floug er súnnun pad, \ stérrono stráza (O I 5,5) flew he sun-GEN path, stars-GEN route “he (= the angel Gabriel) flew the path of the sun, on the route of the stars” (= sentence added by Otfrid to the Bible passage Lk 1:26: missus est angelus ...) b. Wás tho thar ingégini \ hárto mihil ménigi was THO there opposite very big crowd “opposite from there was a very big crowd” (addition to John 11: The Resurrection of Lazarus)

(O I 6,1f.)

(O III 24,67)

2 Otfrid’s Gospel Harmony is the OHG text which contains the largest number of verb-first

declaratives. McKnight (1897) counted no fewer than 492 examples (this number does not include examples with negated verbs). 3 Brugmann (1917:37), for example, cites this particular example.

115


One further indication for the nativeness of this construction is that it is also attested in the autochthonous literature, not only in the poetry, cf. (4), but also in the prose; cf. (5). (4)

a. uerit denne stuatago in lant comes then doomsday in country “doomsday will be coming into the country” b. Uuas erbolgan Krist was angered Christ “Christ was angered”

(5)

(SD XIV, 55; Muspilli)

(SD XV1,20; Ludwigslied)

Quam Krist endi sancte Stephan zi ther burg zi Saloniun came-3.SG Christ and Saint Stephan to the city to Salonia “Christ and Saint Stephan came to the city Salonia” (SD LXIII,1; Trierer Spruch)

As we will see below at various points, in the translational literature certain translation strategies can be identified which signal that verb-first order in declarative clauses is a native phenomenon. Moreover, it should be noted that verb-first declaratives are not only attested in OHG, but also in many other Old Germanic languages (cf. Önnerfors 1997:209-244). This also speaks for the nativeness of this phenomenon. Verb-first declaratives are still a productive sentence type in present-day German. As is argued in the extensive study by Önnerfors (1997), the core type today is the ‘narrative’ verb-first declarative. Two (shortened) examples from Önnerfors’s corpus are cited in (6). (6)

a. Treffen sich zwei nach den Faschingstagen. REFL two after the carnival-days meet “two guys are meeting after carnival” (from Önnerfors 1997:1) b. Hab ich ihr ganz frech noch en Kuß gegeben, nicht. have I her totally bold another a kiss given not “then I just went ahead and kissed her, didn’t I” (from Önnerfors 1997:1)

A further question that will be addressed in this chapter is whether there is a diachronic connection between the phenomenon of verb-first in OHG and that in present-day German. The comparison between verb-first order in OHG and in present-day German may enable us to find out why there was a diachronic gap in its written documentation: verb-first declaratives are hardly attested in late OHG and Middle High German texts. They only begin to arise in the second half of the fifteenth century (Maurer 1924:183).

116


I will use the term verb-first declarative in a purely descriptive sense for all kinds of declarative clauses in which the finite verb occurs in sentence-initial position at the surface. This is not to say that all these sentences have the same structure or constitute the same sentence type. This chapter is structured as follows: In the following section I will give a short introduction to XP-movement in OHG and draw a comparison to modern German. Sections 3.3 to 3.5 deal with different types of verb-first declaratives in OHG, i.e. with the precursors of our modern es-verb-second clauses, with verb-first order in the context of unaccusative predicates and with verb-first order in subjectless constructions. One major question that will be addressed is whether these sentences were structurally verb-second clauses with an empty category in prefinite position. In section 3.6, I will shortly consider two further types of verb-first declaratives, namely verb-first declaratives with verbs of saying and with negated predicates. In section 3.7, I will discuss whether the OHG verb-first declaratives should be regarded as an elliptical structure, as instances of so-called ‘topic-drop’. I will furthermore investigate which extensions at the left periphery are attested in the verb-first declaratives. Finally, section 3.8 deals with some pragmatic aspects of OHG verb-first declaratives, in particular with the question of whether they were the precursors of our narrative verb-first declaratives in modern German. 3.2 Ways of filling the prefield It could be hypothesized that the frequent occurrence of verb-first order in OHG is due to the fact that XP-movement to the left periphery was not generalized to the same extent as in present-day German. As will be argued below, there is indeed some evidence that the filling of the first position is somewhat different from in modern German. Recently, Fanselow (2002, 2003a, 2003b) and Frey (2004a) have put forward syntactic accounts couched in the minimalist framework which distinguish between three ways of filling the prefield in modern German: (7)

a. Operator movement b. Stylistic Fronting/Formal Movement c. Merge of expletive es

A more detailed discussion of these approaches will follow in Chapter 4. Regarding A-bar or operator movement, it may suffice to say at this point that it is taken to always have a semantic-pragmatic effect (see also Rizzi 1997, 2004:7). More precisely, the assumption is that real A-bar or operator movement is triggered by a feature with a specific semantic content such as [+wh] or [+top], [+foc] in Fanselow’s account or [+Kontrast] in Frey’s account. There is no doubt that this type of XP-movement is well established in OHG: For in-


117

stance, there are many examples with preposed wh-phrases or with fronted focused constituents in the OHG texts (cf. Chapter 4). The type of XP-movement in (7)-b is a typical feature of verb-second languages. The verb-second constraint requires that the SpecC-position be filled even when there is no semantic-pragmatic trigger. Fanselow calls this movement ‘Stylistic Fronting’ and Frey ‘Formal Movement’. Both Fanselow and Frey have argued that this movement is triggered by an EPP-feature which requires that the SpecC-position be filled by fronting the highest (frontable)4 constituent in the middle field. More precisely, Frey puts forward the following rule: [CP XP [C Vfin ][IP ... ] [sic] can be derived from [C [IP XP .... Vfin ]] (by moving the finite verb to C and) by moving XP as the highest element of IP to SpecCP (Minimal Link) just in order to fulfil the EPP requirement associated with C, i.e. without any additional intonational, semantic or pragmatic effects. (Frey 2004a:9)

In the majority of cases the highest XP in the middle field is the subject; cf. (8)-b. It is clear that subject-initial sentences as in example (8)-a follow different conditions of use from non-subject initial sentences. They can be thetic, uttered in out of-the-blue contexts or serve as answers to a question such as “what has happened” (e.g. Fanselow 2003b:30; Frey 2004a:4). (8)

a. [Peter]i hat ti einen Unfall gehabt Peter has an accident had “Peter has had an accident” b. dass [Peter] einen Unfall gehabt that Peter an accident had “that Peter has had an accident”

hat has

However, it has been known for quite some time that there are other elements that can show up in clause-initial position without special pragmatic force. For example, temporal adverbs5 and sentence level adverbs are like subjects (see Fanselow 2003b:30; 2004). They can be clause-initial without being a topic or focus. So the sentences in (9)-a and (10)-a would also be perfect answers to the question “what has happened”.

4 Fanselow (2003a) argues that elements which cannot bear stress (e.g. the modal particle ja or

indefinite wer “somebody”) cannot be preposed for phonological reasons. 5 As Frey (2004a:4,7) demonstrates, this is not only true for temporal adverbs, but for any type

of frame adverbs.

118

(9)


a. [gestern]i hat ti ein Bär einen yesterday has a-NOM bear a-ACC “yesterday a bear attacked a man” b. dass [gestern] ein Bär einen that yesterday a-NOM bear a-ACC “that yesterday a bear attacked a man”

Mann attackiert man attacked Mann attackiert man attacked

hat has

(10) a. [Glücklicherweise]i hat ti Peter angerufen fortunately has Peter called “fortunately Peter has called” b. dass [glücklicherweise] Peter angerufen that fortunately Peter called “that fortunately Peter has called”

hat has

In the context of certain unaccusative predicates, the dative precedes the nominative argument in a verb-end sentence with neutral information structure; cf. (11)-b. Accordingly, in the corresponding verb-second sentence (again with neutral information structure) the dative and not the nominative argument appears in prefinite position; cf. (11)-a. (11) a. [Einem Studenten]i war ti ein was a-NOM a-DAT student “a student noticed a mistake” b. dass [einem Studenten] ein that a-DAT student a-NOM “that a student noticed a mistake”

Fehler aufgefallen mistake struck

Fehler aufgefallen war mistake struck was

When three-place predicates with NOM>DAT>ACC-order as in (12)-a are passivized, the unmarked order in the middle field is DAT>NOM as in (12)-b. Accordingly, it is the dative argument which is fronted to the prefield in a pragmatically unmarked verb-second sentence as is illustrated in (12)-c (Lenerz 1977; den Besten 1985). (12) a. dass Karl [dem Dieb] den Raub vergeben that Karl-NOM the-DAT thief the-ACC robbery forgiven “that Karl has forgiven the thief for the burglary” b. dass [dem Dieb] der Raub vergeben that the-DAT thief the-NOM robbery forgiven “that the thief was forgiven for the burglary” c. [Dem Dieb] wurde ti der Raub vergeben the-NOM robbery forgiven the-DAT thief became “the thief was forgiven for the burglary”

wurde became

hat has


119

With predicates whose highest argument is non-nominative, it is even possible for non-nominative pronouns to appear in the prefield of an unmarked sentence: (13) a. [Ihn]i hat ti sein Irrtum him-ACC has his error “he was annoyed about his error”

geärgert annoyed

b. [Dir]i werden ti deine Sünden vergeben are your sins forgiven you-DAT “your sins are forgiven you”

Since Stylistic Fronting does not have a semantic or pragmatic trigger, the prefield of unmarked sentences may even be occupied by XPs which cannot be topics. It is a typical property of verb-second languages that material can appear in the prefield which by its very nature cannot be a semantic topic, such as (weak) indefinites, sentence adverbs or correlative es (cf. Frey 2004a:5,9,11): (14) a. [Niemand]/ [Ein Kind] hat nobody/ a child has “nobody/a child was crying”

geschrieen cried

b. [Leider] hat ein Kind geschrieen unfortunately has a child cried “unfortunately, a child was crying” c. [Es] ist sehr unwahrscheinlich, dass Peter kommt it is very unlikely that Peter comes “it is very unlikely that Peter is coming”

Thus, in verb-second languages there is generalized XP-movement, by which is meant the phenomenon that XPs are moved to SpecC even when there is no special semantic-pragmatic trigger. As we have seen in the introduction to this chapter there are different types of verb-first declaratives attested in earlier OHG and verb-first declaratives seem to be more frequent than in present-day German. It could thus be hypothesized that the frequent occurrence of verb-first order in OHG is due to the fact that Stylistic Fronting (or Formal Movement) had not yet been innovated. Yet this hypothesis can be easily refuted. The different types of XP-movement to first position in OHG will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. At this point it may suffice to point out that indefinite XPs functioning as subjects or adverbials as well as sentence adverbs are attested in first position already in the earlier OHG sources:

120


(15) a. [Neoman]i · niuuirdit · ti fona · gote · festi ... NEG-becomes by God strengthened nobody “nobody will become strengthened by God ...” Nemo erit a deo nisi firmus ... (MF XL,19; St. Augustini sermo) b. [Neo]i nist ti zi chilaubanne dhazs ... sii dhiz chiforabodot NEG-is to believe that is this prophesied never “it can never be believed that this was prophesied ...” (R) Numquid ... creditur prophetatum? minime (I 638) c. endi [chiuuisso]i ist ti christus in dheru selbun and certainly is Christ in that same “and certainly Christ is meant in that same salve” (R) et utique christus ipsa unctione monstratur

salbidhu chimeinit salve meant (I 144)

All this suggests that there already exists a type of XP-movement to the left periphery in earlier OHG that is semantically/pragmatically vacuous. Thus a further essential component of the verb-second grammar has already evolved. This makes OHG different from Gothic, where XPs only move to the Cdomain when they are focused or when they are a special type of topic (cf. Chapter 4). However, there are some exceptions to Stylistic Fronting in OHG: In some specific environments XP-fronting still often fails to apply. Which environments these are will be discussed in the following sections. The third way of filling the prefield in modern German is the base generation of expletive es. In existential constructions, for example, the subject remains in the middle field and the prefield is occupied by expletive es; cf. (16). Descriptively speaking, the modern ‘Vorfeld-es’ has to fill the SpecC-position when no XP-movement to SpecC takes place. (16) Es waren noch drei Ostereier im Garten it were still three Easter-eggs in-the garden “there were still three Easter eggs in the garden”

As we will see in the following section, the prefield expletive iʒ is not attested in the OHG texts. The historical precursors of our es-verb-second clauses are thus one major class of verb-first declaratives in OHG. 3.3 Verb-first order in the precursors of the es-verb-second clauses A SpecC-expletive iʒ had not yet developed in OHG times. Thus existential constructions as in (17), which would be realized with a ‘Vorfeld-es’ in present-day German, are a further typical context for verb-first order: (17) a. /uuarun thô hirta In thero lantskeffi.’/ uuahhante .../ = (1)-c were THÔ shepherds in that country abiding “there were shepherds in that country abiding …” /Et pastores erant In regione eadem.’./ uigilantes .../’

121


b. /uuas thar súm rihtari thes sun/ uuas sioh in capharnaum/ was there some official whose son was sick in Capernaum “there was a certain royal official whose son was sick at Capernaum” /& erat quidam regulus cuius filius/infirmabatur capharnaum.,/ (T 195,10) c. /uuas thar ouh sum uuitua/ In thero burgi .../ was there also some widow in that city “there was a widow in that city...” /vidua autem quædam erat/ In ciuitate illa .../

(T 415,2)

In the Tatian examples (17)-a and (17)-c, the verb-first order has clearly been realized contrary to the Latin. In (17)-b the lexeme et (&) occurs in initial position in the corresponding Latin sentence followed by a verb form (see also (18)-c, (18)-d, (19) below). As will be discussed in the following section, there are many different translations attested for such et-sentences. This is why it cannot simply be argued that the verb-first order has been copied from the Latin in such cases. Furthermore, verb-first order is found in presentational constructions as in (18). Some of these are preceded by an interjection such as see “see, behold, lo”, as in (18)-a from the Monsee St. Matthew. Again the verb-first order has been realized contrary to the Latin original. In Tatian the ‘presentational’ expression et factum est (and variants thereof) is very often rendered by a verbfirst clause with the verb form uuard “became” + past participle and the postfinite particle thō as in (18)-c and (18)-d. (18) a. {See qui}mit der bruti gomo . gaat . uz ingegin . imo = (1)-d behold comes the bridegroom go out toward him “see, the bridegroom is coming! Go out to meet him!” {Ecce sponsus uenit, exite obuiam ei} b. /giengun thô zuo gotes THÔ to God’s went “God’s angels came” /Et ecce angeli accesserunt/

engila/ angels

(T 115,30)

c. /uuard thô forhta ubar alle Iro nahiston/ (T 77,2) became THÔ fear over all their neighbours “and fear came on all their neighbours” /& factus est timor super omnes uicinos eorum/ d. /... uuard tho gitan/ mihhil stilnessi.,/ THO made great calm became “and there was a great calm” /... & facta est/ tranquillitas magna.,/

(T 187,24)

The insertion of an overt expletive into SpecC does not belong to the grammatical repertoire of OHG. Existential constructions, in which the subject is

122


not fronted but remains VP-internal or is extraposed, are thus realized as verbfirst sentences. Note that in EPP-languages such as English and Swedish (cf. Rosengren 2000, 2002), existential constructions are subject to the so-called definiteness effect. In these languages an overt expletive (there, det) is present that is coindexed with the subject-DP, which is always indefinite. The OHG existential constructions with verb-first order, on the other hand, are also attested with definite subjects as can be seen in (18)-a above and in the examples in (19): (19) a. /uuas thô thâr anna uuizzaga/ dohter fanueles ...,/ (T 91,22) was THO there Anna prophetess daughter Phanuel’s “and there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel ...” /& erat anna proph&issa/ filia fanuel de tribu aser,/ b. /arougta sih tho in/ moises inti helias REFL THO them Moses and Elijah appeared “Moses appeared to them along with Elijah” /et ecce apparuit illis/ moises & helias cum eo/

mit imo/ with him (T 305,21)

Note also that in some present-day German dialects, the use of the prefield-es is much more restricted than in the standard language. In Bavarian, for example, it is usually not used in impersonal passives (Weiß 1998:102). Instead, the non-finite verb can be fronted without giving rise to a special semantic/pragmatic effect; cf. (20)-b and (21)-b. The fronting of the non-finite verb may also take place in the corresponding active sentence with an arbitrary subject pronoun; cf. (21)-c. (20) a. [Es] wurde getanzt it became danced “there was dancing” b. [tanzt] is worn danced is become “there was dancing” (from Weiß 1998:102)

Standard German

Bavarian

(21) a. [Es] wurde gegessen und it became eaten and “there was eating and drinking”

getrunken drunk

b. [geesn und drunga] is worn eaten and drunk is become “there was eating and drinking”

Standard German

Bavarian

123


c. [geesn und drunga] ham’s. eaten and drunk have-they-ARB “they were eating and drinking”

Bavarian

(from Weiß 1998:102)

The unmarked fronting of the non-finite verb in order to fill the prefield position in modern Bavarian is reminiscent of Stylistic Fronting in Icelandic (e.g Maling 1990:24; Holmberg 2000:447, 2006). In Icelandic, participles (and other categories) can be fronted to fill the subject position in sentences with subject gaps provided that they are the closest accessible material which can check the postulated EPP-feature in I; cf. (22)-b. According to Holmberg (2000), this EPP-feature in I calls for a phonological feature matrix in SpecI. Alternatively, the expletive það can be base-generated in SpecI; cf. (22)-c. (22) a. *Ég veit að __ er ekið vinstra megin í Australíu I know that is driven left side in Australia “I know that people still drive on the left in Australia” (from Maling 1990:84) að [ekið] er vinstra megin í Australíu b. Ég veit I know that driven is left side in Australia “I know that people still drive on the left in Australia” (from Holmberg 2006:541) c. Ég veit að [það] er ekið vinstra megin I know that there is driven left side “I know that people still drive on the left side in Australia” (from Maling 1990:84)

í Australíu in Australia

The situation in the OHG prose texts does not suggest that it is possible to front the past participle in sentences with neutral information structure, even when it is the highest constituent in the middle field. There are examples attested with preposed participles, cf. (23), but the word order in these examples is very close to the Latin original. Thus we may suspect that the fronting of the participle is not ungrammatical, but is not necessarily unmarked.6 (23) a. /[giscriban]i ist ti / ih slahu then hirti/ written is I strike the shepherd “it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd’” /Scriptum est enim/ percutiam pastorem/

(T 565,1)

6 Brugmann (1917:34f.) discusses an element which, in contrast to modern German, could

occupy the prefield in historical German: the reflexive pronoun sich with inherently reflexive verbs as in (i). However, he gives only examples from Middle High German texts. (i) [sich] huob ein sturm (Nibelungenlied 319,4, from Brugmann 1917:35) REFL arose a storm “there arose a thunderstorm”

124


b. [Araugit]i ist ... ti, dhazs fater endi sunu ... got sii revealed is that Father and Son God is “it is revealed … that the Father and Son ... is God” (R) Pateat ...patrem et filium ... esse deum

(I 252)

Besides existential and presentational constructions, there are also many other verb-first declaratives attested in OHG texts which are clearly not the precursors of our modern German es-verb-second sentences. For example, this is true of sentences with pronoun subjects as in (24). As is already observed by Brugmann (1917:35), the prefield expletive es has never been attested in sentences with pronoun subjects throughout the history of German. Similarly, Erdmann (1886:187) argues that the occurrence of a pronoun subject in verb-first declaratives in Old High German shows that this word order cannot simply be the result of an omission of expletive iʒ in prefinite position. (24) a. /... árstuont siu arose she “she arose” /... & surrexit/

tho THO

úf/ up

(T 183,14)

b. /quamun sie thó inti gifultun/ beidu thiu skef .../ both the ships came they THO and filled “and they came, and filled both the ships” /& uenerunt & impleuerunt/ ambas nauiculas ...;/

(T 125,27)

To conclude, the precursors of our modern es-verb-second clauses are one major class of verb-first declaratives in OHG. However, there are also clear indications that there exist further constructions with verb-first order which are not the precursors of the es-verb-second sentences. 3.4 Verb-first order and unaccusativity 3.4.1 Predicate classes In OHG, verb-first order in declarative sentences is mostly attested with the predicate classes in (25). Further predicate classes that occur relatively frequently in verb-first declaratives are verbs of saying and negated verbs. This will be discussed in section 3.6. (25) a. mutative verbs (in particular verbs of movement) b. passivized predicates

Some types of mutative verbs (e.g. verbs of appearance and disappearance) typically occur in thetic sentences. In modern German, thetic sentences may be realized as es-verb-second clauses; cf. (26). So a subgroup of verb-first declaratives with mutative verbs could be regarded as the precursors of our mod-

125


ern es-verb-second sentences. Such sentences were discussed in the last section. (26) Es erschienen nur etwa dreißig Zuschauer it appeared only about thirty spectators “there appeared only about thirty spectators”

(DUDEN 2005:832)

However, the phenomenon of verb-first placement with mutative verbs seems to be of a more general nature: There are also many examples attested which would presumably not be rendered by an es-verb-second clause in modern German. This is arguably true for the examples in (27) and (28) as well as many verb-first examples containing verbs of movement. (27) a. /arstarp ouh ther otago/ Inti uuard bigraban .../ died also the rich and became buried “the rich man also died and was buried” /mortuus est autem & diues & sepultus est .../ b. /... arquamun thó/ alle mihhilero forthu/ THO all great fear frightened “and they were overcome with great fear” /... & obstipuerunt/ omnes stupore maximo/ c. Erchám síh tô dér dríu hóubet was-startled REFL TÔ the three heads “the three-headed doorkeeper was startled ...” Stupet ter-geminus ianitor (l. 14) (28) a. Uuarti im gnadic ti · became them merciful “Jesus had mercy on them” Misert{us autem eorum iesus} b. Uuarthi · gnadic ti *** became merciful “the master had mercy” {Misertus autem dominus}

iħs Jesus

(T 363,11)

(T 207,32)

hábento túro-uuárt ... having doorkeeper (N BCon III 180,15)

(MF XIV,26; Mt 26:34)

(MF XII,2; Mt 18:27)

The verbs of movement occurring in verb-first clauses are mostly perfective verbs (i.e. directional verbs of movement); cf. (29). These are clearly the largest subgroup of mutative predicates attested with verb-first order in OHG texts.7

7 Again some of the examples could be argued to be the precursors of our modern German es-

verb-second sentences, in particular those that contain only rhematic material such as the example in (29)-c.

126


(29) a. Argengun dhuo uz [pharisara] ... (MF IV,30; Mt 12:14) DHUO out Pharisees went “the Pharisees went out ...” {Exeuntes autem pharisaei ...} b. /gieng thô zuo [ther costari]/ THÔ to the tempter went “and the tempter came to him” /& accedens temptator/

(T 113,28)

c. /... gieng tho zuo/ [ein buochari] inti went THO to a scribe and “and a scribe came up and said to him...” /... Et accedens/ unus scriba. ait illi;/... d. /giengun thô ûz [sine scalca]/ In THÔ out his servants into went “his servants went out into the streets” /& egressi sunt serui eius/ In uias .../

quad imo/ ... said him (T 185,21)

uuega .../ streets

(T 425,16)

e. /... erstuont / [ther herosto thero heithaftono] in mittamen/ arose the highest of-the priesthood in midst “the high priest stood up in the midst” (T 615,27) /... & surgens/ princeps sacerdotum In medium/

A striking characteristic of verb-first declaratives with verbs of movement is that the subject (in square brackets) is often extraposed. In the examples (29)-a to (29)-d the verbal complex is occupied by overt material in the form of verbal particles (zuo, ūz). The case is similar in the two verb-first declaratives in (28) above from the Monsee St. Matthew: the subject occurs after the predicative adjective (note that in example (28)-b the subject is not legible in the manuscript). Furthermore, passive (or passive-like) constructions as in (30) have sometimes been realized with verb-first order. Note that the historical precursors of our modern passive construction still have somewhat different grammatical properties in earlier OHG as the past participle often appears in its inflected form; cf. (30)-b. For these and other reasons, Demske-Neumann (1994:113f.) argues that it is a predicative construction.8 It is not essential for the following argumentation how this construction should be correctly analysed. For simplicity’s sake, I will simply use the terms ‘passive’ or ‘passive constructions’.9 8 In contrast to Demske-Neumann (1994:113f.), Schröder (1995) argues that there already ex-

ists a real passive diathesis in OHG. A further difference to present-day German is the relation between the werdan- and the sīn/wesan-passive; cf. Schrodt (2004:10f.). See also Eichinger (1987) on passive constructions in the OHG Isidor. 9 In (30)-b and (30)-c, the Latin original also has verb-first order. Note, however, that the OHG translation renders the synthetic verb form by an analytical verb form in both cases. As Dittmer & Dittmer (1998:21) have found, in Tatian there is a tendency for the corresponding content

127


(30) a. /uuard tho giheilit [ther kneht] in thero ziti./ became THO healed the servant in that hour “the servant was healed at that very hour” /& sanatus est puer in illa hora;/ b. /... . sint Iru forlazano/ [manago many are her-DAT forgiven “her many sins have been forgiven” /... remittentur ei/ peccata multa .../ c. /sint thir furlazano [sunta]/ forgiven sins-NOM are you-DAT “your sins have been forgiven you” /dimittuntur tibi peccata/

sunta]. .../ sins-NOM

(T 183,7)

= (1)-b

(T 193,24)

Lenerz (1985a:104) argues that examples such as (31)10 below are impersonal passives and that in this case the verb-first order is due to the fact that the prefield expletive iʒ was not yet in use. However, both his examples are not impersonal passives but passives of transitive verbs with an extraposed nominative. The same is true for the examples in (30). Real impersonal passives (i.e. passives of intransitive verbs) are hardly attested in the OHG sources. The only examples that Bishop (1977:108) has found in his extensive OHG corpus are from late OHG texts. Already Behaghel (1924:211) notes that impersonal passives with one-place verbs are not attested until Notker’s times. (31) a. /Inti uuard gitruobit [ther cuning]/ and became aggrieved the king “and the king was very sorry” /& contristatus est rex./

(T 247,21)

b. /Inti uuerdent zispreitit/ [thiu scáf thes euuites]./ (T 565,3) and become scattered the-PL sheep of-the flock “and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered” /& dispergentur/ oues gregis/

What we do find already in the earlier OHG documents are impersonal passives of two-place verbs selecting a nominative and a dative or genitive argument; cf. (32).11 Main declarative sentences with such predicates are usually words to occur in the same position as in the Latin. If this principle had been observed here, the OHG translation would show verb-second order with a fronted participle as in the examples in (23) above, i.e. # forlazano sint Iru sunta and # furlazano sint thir sunta, respectively. 10 In both examples in (31) the conjunction inti “and” occurs in front of the finite verb. Such examples will be discussed in section 3.7.2. 11 Note also that impersonal passives do not occur in genuine pro-drop languages such as Spanish or Italian (e.g. Sigurðsson 1989, Haider 1994). Instead, these languages use null subjects with arbitrary reference as part of the so-called arbitrary plural construction or the arbi-

128


realized as verb-second clauses in which the oblique argument has been fronted to SpecC. (33) is a rare exception.12 (32) ... daz imo am {bahtit uurti} (MF XIV,4; Mt 22:28) became that him-DAT served “... so that he will be served” {... ministrari} (33) /… . Inti ist thir gilonot./ and is you-DAT repaid “and you will be repaid” /... . & fiat tibi r&ributio./

(T 377,8)

The translation strategies suggest that in the context of the predicates just discussed, the verb-first order is a native phenomenon. In Tatian, many of the Latin source sentences are introduced by the sequence et (abbreviation &) + finite verb. Note that there is a variation regarding the question as to how sentences introduced by a verb are translated: Sentences containing verbs of movement, passive constructions etc. are often rendered by a verb-first construction. The other sentences (e.g. with canonical transitive verbs) are usually translated by verb-second clauses. In many cases et is rendered by an adverb such as thō in prefinite position, cf. (34)-a, or the subject has been inserted into (or relocated to) the prefinite domain contrary to the Latin, as in (34)-b. (34) a. /thô gihortun Inan thie Iungiron/ sprechantan …/ THÔ heard him the disciples speaking “then the disciples heard him speaking” /& audierunt eum discipuli/ loquentem. .../ b. /Inti sie fultun siu únzan enti;/ and they filled them up-to brim “and they filled them up to the brim” /& implerunt eas usque ad summum;/

(T 117,5)

(T 177,32)

In the Isidor translation the situation is somewhat different. Most of the verbfirst declaratives attested render Latin verb-first declaratives. Furthermore, Robinson (1994) observes that in this text, verb-first declaratives primarily occur in Bible quotations. According to his counts, 18 verb-first declaratives octrary si-construction (cf. Chapter 6). Thus it is unexpected that OHG should have licensed both referential as well as arbitrary null subjects (cf. Chapter 6) and impersonal passives. 12 Moreover, there are impersonal passives with sentential theme arguments attested. (i) In haubide dhes libelles ... ist chiscriban ..., dhazs ih dhinan uuillun duoe (I 294) in head of-the book is written that I your will do “at the beginning of the book ... it is written about me that I do your will” In capite libri scriptum est ..., ut faciam uoluntatem tuam


129

cur in Bible quotations and only 7 in the commentary passages. In 15 of the 18 cases in the Bible quotations and in 4 out of the 7 cases in the commentary, the Latin original also has verb-first order.13 Robinson (p. 304) thus argues that “in Biblical quotations Latin verb-first is regularly reflected as German verb-first, thus going counter to the tendency in the non-Biblical sections, where the native verb-second pattern asserts itself” (Robinson has therefore come to the conclusion that in Isidor verb-first declaratives should be regarded as loan syntax and that they serve as “marker[s] for the Biblical portions of the text” (ibid.: 372). This is an interesting hypothesis as the proposed translation strategy accounts for the fact that there is a higher number of verb-first declaratives in the biblical quotations than in the commentary sections. However, Robinson’s (1994, 1997:25) conclusion that in Isidor the phenomenon of verb-first in general should be regarded as a “distinctly foreign pattern” (1997:25) might be too strong. I agree that it is possible that the Latin might have influenced how frequently verb-first declaratives were realized in the translation (= quantitative loan syntax Lippert’s 1974:53). However, 11 out of the 15 examples that Robinson (1994:362-364) lists as instances of verb-first declaratives occurring in Bible quotations which have verb-first order parallel to the Latin original contain predicates which in the other prose texts also quite frequently occur in declaratives where verb-first order is realized contrary to or independently of the Latin, notably unaccusative verbs as in I 286 (rinnan “flow, run”), I 315 (quheman “come”), I 387 (uuerdan “become”), I 600 (sitzen “sit”), I 657 (upharleodan “grow/spring up” and I 667 (arfullan “fill, fulfil”), impersonal constructions as in I 331 (chiliihhēn “like, be pleased by”) and I 550 (liihhēn “like, be pleased by”) and verbs of saying as in I 206 (quhedan) and I 265 (quhedan “say” (2 times)). Since these predicates are typical for verb-first declaratives in Tatian and in the Monsee St. Matthew, it is doubtful whether these cases are mere instances of loan syntax. Rather it could now be argued that they are reflexes of a native pattern. Note also that two of the three cases occurring in biblical quotations where the verb-first order is realized contrary to the Latin (i.e. I 218, I 618, I 653) contain an unaccusative predicate (uuerdan “become” and siin “be”): (35) a. Endi uuardh uuordan druhtines uuort zi nathane quhedendi: ... and became become Lord’s word to Nathan saying (I 618) “and the Lord’s word to Nathan was fulfilled, saying:” (R) Et factum est uerbum domini ad nathan dicens: ...

13 Robinson (1994) has also included declarative clauses which are introduced by the sequence

endi + finite verb. Note that it has been proposed that OHG endi and Middle High German unde might have been XP-elements, some kind of adverbs. As I will argue below in section 3.7.2, this claim is not very plausible for OHG. I therefore agree with Robinson that the examples with endi + finite verb are instances of verb-first order.

130


b. Endi ist siin namo, so sie inan nemnant: ... and is his name as they him call “and his name is as they call him: ...” (R) et hoc est nomen, quod uocabunt eum: ...

(I 653)

Outside the prose translations, verb-first order also has a strong tendency to occur with a restricted set of predicates. In Otfrid, for example, verbs of movement (e.g. O II 14,1; O IV 4,13; O III 24,3; O III 24,63; O III 4,31), passive constructions (e.g. O H 117) and mutative verbs (e.g. O II 12,21) often occur in verb-first declaratives just the same. Our descriptive observations concerning the predicate classes involved confirm the results in the previous literature on OHG and further West Germanic languages (see also Önnerfors 1997:20-24 for an overview). Schrodt (2004:199), for example, mentions that in OHG verb-first order – besides its uses with verbs of saying – typically occurs with the verbs wesan “be”, werdan ‘become’, queman “come”, biginnan “begin”, geban “give”, stantan “stand”, stīgan “ascend, climb”, furlazzen “leave, abandon, quit”, faran “go, travel” and gān/gangan “go”. With the exception of geban and biginnan, his list is consistent with our observation that verb-first order is frequently found with motion verbs and with auxiliary verbs in earlier OHG.14 The older literature has often emphasized the role of auxiliary verbs, both of copular verbs and of auxiliary verbs in periphrastic constructions.15 As our results have shown, in OHG not all types of constructions with copular verbs frequently exhibit verb-first order, but primarily those which are existential and impersonal. Similarly, verb-first is not common with auxiliary verbs in general, but in the context of passivized predicates. 14 Schrodt (2004:198f.) mentions further verbs which occur in verb-first declaratives. This is

not surprising since his material also contains classes of examples that have not been included in our study. For instance, he cites examples with surface verb-first order in second conjuncts where the subject, which is identical to the one in the first conjunct, has been omitted: (man gieng after wege,) zoh sin ros in handon (Segensformeln Lb 31/7.2, cited in ibid.:199); literally: “A man went down the trail, guided his horse by hand”. Of course, this kind of ellipsis is still possible today (cf. Ein Manni [C' gingj ti die Straße entlang tj] und [C' zogk ti einen Karren hinter sich her tk]; “A man went along the street and pulled a cart behind him”). Schrodt furthermore gives an elliptical example from Notker, for which Behaghel has already suggested an analysis along the lines of the ‘topic-drop’ analysis today: Túnchet íu daz félt skône? [...]) Íst éin scône téil dero scônun uuérlte (N BCon II 78,21); literally: “Do you think the field is beautiful? Is a beautiful part of the beautiful world”. Furthermore, Schrodt refers to an example from Otfrid which is a verb-first conditional clause: spríchu ih avur álleswio,/ bin ih thanne in lúginon (O III 18,45); literally: “speak I however something else, am I then in a lie (= lying)”. 15 See Reis (1901:229) and Diels (1906:130) on the OHG prose texts. Ries (1907) mentions that in the Old English Beowulf, auxiliary and modal verbs frequently occur in verb-first declaratives (cf. Todt 1894:238ff.; Reis 1901:229; Biener 1922b:134; Barrett 1953:46). See also Delbrück (1911:17) on Gothic, and Fourquet (1938:210) and Heusler (1962:174) on Old Icelandic.


131

Furthermore, it has been stressed in the older literature that verb-first order is often found with verbs of movement.16 As has been argued above, this is also true for OHG. Diels (1906:132) observes that the verbs which are frequent in verb-first declaratives are almost identical to the so-called medial verbs with an (unstressed) reflexive pronoun in Old Saxon, Anglo-Saxon and Middle High German. These ‘medial’ verbs in turn correspond roughly to the class of ‘mutative’ verbs mentioned above. By and large, the descriptive results which I have reached for OHG seem to be similar to those which have been discussed for further Old Germanic languages, notably regarding the predominant predicate classes in verb-first declaratives. This is why it could be the case that some of the conclusions in the following sections may be generalized to other languages as well. Such comparative aspects, however, are beyond the scope of this study. In the next sections I will discuss how the OHG verb-first declaratives should be analysed. In particular I will deal with the question as to whether the surface verb-first order is due to the presence of an empty category in prefinite position. The verb-first examples with mutative verbs and passive constructions have one thing in common: They are unaccusative constructions. It can thus be hypothesized that the verb-first order has to do with the fact that the nominative argument is an underlying object in these cases. This might also be the reason why it is often extraposed. 3.4.2 Subject extraposition Many OHG verb-first declaratives have an extraposed subject. In present-day German, subject extraposition is restricted to ‘heavy’ subjects such as coordinated DPs and the like: (36) Es sind schon ti angekommen [der Kanzler, seine Gattin it are already arrived the chancellor his wife und der Außenminister]i and the foreign minister “the chancellor, his wife and the foreign minister have already arrived”

In OHG, subject extraposition may also affect ‘light’ or non-complex DPs. We know from independent contexts (e.g. from verb-end sentences and from verbsecond sentences with a fronted non-subject XP) that the extraposition of the subject behind the verbal complex predominantly occurs in unaccusative envi16 See also Ohly (1888) on Otfrid and Maurer (1924:151) on further OHG documents. In

Mueller’s (1930:42, note 33) OHG and Old English corpora, the verbs of movement constitute the second largest group of verbs occurring in verb-first declaratives. See also Todt (1894:238ff.), Fourquet (1938:67) and Ries (1907:143) on the prominence of verbs of movement in Old English verb-first declaratives.

132


ronments; cf. Chapter 3 (section 3.4). Some examples with verbs of movement, the ergative verb sterban and passivized predicates are given in (37). The extraposed subject is marked by square brackets, and the material in the verbal complex is underlined. In sentences with reflexive verbs, the subject is also sometimes found in extraposed position; cf. (37)-f. Even though there are many cases where the Latin word order might have triggered the placement of the subject, subject extraposition in unaccusative contexts is clearly a native phenomenon (cf. Chapter 3). (37) a. HUUEO AUH FONA ABRAHAMES SAMIN UUARDH QUHOMAN how also from Abraham’s seed became come [DRUHTIN IHESUS CHRISTUS] (I 554) Christ Lord-NOM Jesus “also how the Lord Jesus Christ came from the seed of Abraham” (R) QUOD AUTEM EX SEMINE ABRAHAM FUTURUS ERAT DOMINUS IESUS CHRISTUS

b. /... ér thanne/ arsterbe [mín sún] .../ before then dies my son-NOM “before my son dies” /... priusquam/ moriatur filius meus.,/

(T 195,21)

c. /thaz uuerden gioffonotu [sínu uuerc]/ (T 409,16) that become exposed his works-NOM “that his deeds will be exposed” /ut manifestentur opera eius/ d. /uzouh thaz uuvvrdi arougit [gotes uuerc] In imo.,/ but that became displayed God’s work-NOM in him “but that God’s work might be displayed in him” (T 451,20) /sed ut manifest&ur opus dei In illo./ e. /tho arbolgan uuard when angry became “when his master got angry” /& iratus dominus eius/

[sin his

herro]/ master-NOM

(T 333,29)

f. So daz sih es drato uuntrota · [der ***] so that REFL it-GEN greatly marvelled the-NOM “so that the (governor) was greatly amazed about that’’ It{a ut} miraretur praeses uehementer (MF XXIV,23; Mt 27:14) (38) ér thanne ti arsterbe [mín sún]i

cf. (37)-b

According to standard assumptions, the nominative argument is base-generated as the sister of V0 in unaccusative constructions. This may be the reason why these are much more frequently extraposed than the subjects of canonical tran-

133


sitive predicates. In the analysis sketched in (38), the postverbal placement of the subject is assumed to result from rightward movement.17 The fact that the nominative arguments in unaccusative constructions are often extraposed may also be the reason why in main clauses they are not as ‘accessible’ to fronting as canonical subjects. When there are no temporal or sentence adverbs present which can be moved to prefinite position in sentences with neutral information structure, we get verb-first order. Consider the contrasts in the Tatian examples given in (39) to (41), which contain the verbs zuogangan/gân, passivized predicates and the verb arsterban. (39) a. /giengun thô zuo gotes went THÔ to God’s “God’s angels came” /Et ecce angeli accesserunt/

engila/ angels

= (18)-b

b. /[In themo tage] giengun zi Imo/ sadducȩi ... / in that day went to him Sadducees “the same day came to him the Sadducees” /In illo die accesserunt ad eum/ sadducæi .../

(T 427,25)

c. /[In themo eristen tage thero ostruno]/ giengun in the first day the-GEN Easter-GEN.PL went [thie iungiron]/ … (T 555,5) the disciples “on the first day of Easter the disciples came …” /Prima autem die azimorum/ accesserunt discipuli/ (40) a. /sint thir furlazano sunta/ forgiven sins-NOM are you-DAT “your sins have been forgiven you” /dimittuntur tibi peccata/ b. /… [thanne] uuerdent thir furlazano/ then become you-DAT forgiven “then your sins are forgiven” /.‘ … remittuntur tibi/ peccata tua., .../

zuo forth

= (30)-c

thino sunta. .../ your sins-NOM

c. /... Inti [sliumo]/ uuard tho giheilit and immediately became THO healed “and immediately his leprosy was cleansed” /... & confestim/ mundata est lepra eius.,/

[sin his

(T 193,13)

rúf]/ (T 179,27) leprosy

17 A further possibility could be that we are dealing with a base-generated VS-order here. Such

an analysis, however, is not compelling for OHG as has been argued in the previous chapter.

134


(41) a. /arstarp ouh ther otago/ Inti uuard died also the rich-man and became “the rich man also died and was buried” /mortuus est autem & diues/ & sepultus est .../ b. /[thanne] arsterb& Ir then die you-PL “then you shall die in your sin” /moriemini In peccato uestro/

In íuuaro in your

suntu/ sin

bigraban .../ buried (T 363,11)

(T 443,17)

The fact that sentences with unaccusative predicates are a typical context for verb-first order might thus be related to the fact that the subjects of these predicates are often extraposed, even when they are not particularly ‘heavy’. Coming back to verb-first declaratives, it is indeed true that there are many examples in which the subject follows the verbal complex. The middle field often only contains the particle thō. This suggests that the phenomenon of verb-first placement is due to the ‘unaccessibility of a frontable’ XP. In (39)-a and in (40)-a, the surface word order often unambiguously shows that the nominative DP has been extraposed. This is the case when there is overt material in the verbal complex: In sentences with passivized predicates as in (40), the past participle occurs in the verbal complex. The verbs of movement often have separable particles which overtly indicate the position of the verbal complex, cf. (39)-a. In many cases, however, there is no overt material in the verbal complex. Such examples are ambiguous between an analysis with and without subject extraposition: (42) a. /uuvrbun thô thie hirta THÔ the shepherds turned “the shepherds returned” /& reuersi sunt pastores.‘/

heimuuartes.‘/ homeward’

b. /... . arstuonthó/ ther heilant folg&a imo/ the Saviour followed him arose-THO “the Saviour rose and followed him” /& surgens/ ihesus sequebatur eum./

(T 89,2)

(T 203,30)

Yet the hypothesis that the nominative argument of unaccusative predicates is not as accessible to XP-fronting as that of the canonical transitive predicates is faced with counterevidence: The early OHG prose documents contain many sentences where the nominative arguments of verbs of movement have been fronted, not only parallel to, but also contrary to the Latin word order; cf. (43)b. Notably pronominal nominative arguments are frequently inserted in prefinite position contrary to the Latin; cf. (43)-c.

135


(43) a. /senu tho [sume fon then uuarton]/ quamun In thia burg/ from the guards came in the city behold THO some “some of the guards went into the city” (T 667,1) /Ecce quidam de custodibus/ uenerunt in ciuitatem/ b. /uuanta [manage diuuala] giengun/ in inan .../ for many demons went in him “for many demons had entered into him” /quia intrauerunt demonia multa/ in eum & .../ c. /[her] uuas In therro he was in the “he was in the world” /In hoc mundo erat.‘/

uueralti‘/ world

(T 189,31)

(T 103,24)

There are also many verb-first declaratives attested whose subject clearly occurs in the middle field as in (44) (note that in the case of pronominal subjects the word order would not be ambiguous even if there were no overt material in the verbal complex, as pronouns are usually not extraposed.) (44) a. /... árstuont [siu] tho úf/ arose she THO up “she arose” /... & surrexit/

= (24)-a

b. /gieng [her] tho predigonti in stat zehenburgo/ THO preaching in city Decapolis went he “he went away and began to proclaim in Decapolis” /& abiit praedicans in decapolim/

(T 191,30)

This suggests that subject extraposition is not a necessary precondition for verb-first placement. Nevertheless it should be noted that the phenomena ‘verb-first’ and ‘subject extraposition’ very often go hand in hand. 3.4.3 Expletive pro? As will be argued extensively in Chapter 6, earlier OHG is a partial pro-drop language. This raises the question as to whether pro-subjects are also involved in OHG verb-first declaratives. Note that we have observed that verb-first order is primarily found in the context of unaccusative predicates and in the precursors of the present-day es-verb-second sentences. Thus, it could be hypothesized that these verb-first declaratives involve an expletive pro. There is some similarity to modern English, where, apart from be, only a special set of intransitive verbs may show up in the there-construction (e.g. arrive, appear, vanish,

136


arise).18 In the there-construction the expletive is always realized overtly and is coindexed with the subject DP: (45) Therei were applesi in the basket

We could thus speculate that some subtypes of OHG verb-first declaratives are parallel to the there-construction in modern English, with the difference that the expletive is not realized overtly in OHG. A further difference would be that there is no definiteness effect in OHG. In the undisputed modern Germanic EPP-languages such as English (e.g. Safir 1985a), Swedish (Rosengren 2000:5, 2002) and Icelandic (e.g. Sigurðsson 1989; Vikner 1995), the associate of the expletive must be an indefinite. This does not hold for the OHG examples, neither for the putative precursors of our modern es-verb-second sentences nor for the examples with verbs of movement etc. that were discussed in the last section:19 (46) a. /uuas thô thâr anna uuizzaga/ dohter fanueles ...,/ was THO there Anna prophetess daughter Phanuel’s “and there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel” /& erat anna proph&issa/ filia fanuel de tribu aser,/ b. /arougta sih tho in/ moises inti helias appeared REFL THO them Moses and Elijah “Moses appeared to them along with Elijah,” /et ecce apparuit illis/ moises & helias cum eo/

= (19)-a

mit imo/ with him

c. {See qui}mit der bruti gomo gaat uz ingegin . imo behold comes the bridegroom go out toward him “see, the bridegroom is coming! Go out to meet him!” {Ecce sponsus uenit, exite obuiam ei} thô thie hirta (47) a. /uuvrbun turned THÔ the shepherds “the shepherds returned” /& reuersi sunt pastores.‘/

heimuuartes.‘/ homeward

= (19)-b

= (1) -d

= (42)-a

18 Note that the det-construction in Swedish is less restricted: It is also possible with plain

intransitive verbs (Rosengren 2000:7). 19 Note that the adverbial element thâr in (46)-a (cf. also (17)-b, (17)-c above) is not an exple-

tive even though it is a cognate of English there. This is suggested by the fact that the subject can also occur in front of thar (e.g. T 389,4: /… thaz heilant .../ thar furifuori./ “… that the Saviour THAR by-passed”). In some passages in Tatian, thâr – in addition to its uses as a relative particle and normal adverb – is used instead of the adverb/particle thō. The example in (46)-a is the only case where both thô and thâr occur within one sentence.

137


b. /... . arstuonthó/ ther heilant folg&a imo/ the Saviour followed him rose-THO “the Saviour rose and followed him” /& surgens/ ihesus sequebatur eum./

= (42)-b

We have furthermore observed that subject extraposition occurs quite frequently in OHG verb-first declaratives with unaccusative predicates. As Vikner (1995:200) shows, in modern Icelandic expletive constructions (which are also possible with transitive verbs), heavy subjects can be extraposed out of the VP: (48) ... að það hefur ti borðað þetta epli that there has eaten this apple [einhver strákur frá Danmörku]i some boy from Denmark “that some boy from Denmark has eaten this apple” (from Vikner 1995:200)

If the phenomenon verb-first was due to the presence of prefinite pro-subjects in OHG verb-first declaratives, we would expect verb-first order to occur also in subordinate clauses in OHG just as in Icelandic; cf. (49).20 (49) Ég vissi ekki að færu svona mörg skip til Grænlands I knew not that went so many ships to Greenland “I did not know that so many ships went to Greenland” (from Sigurðsson 1990:52)

It should be noted, however, that in OHG, the occurrence of dependent verbfirst declaratives is ruled out on independent grounds since there is no verb movement in dependent clauses introduced by complementizers in OHG (cf. Chapter 2, section 2.6). As was mentioned above, in OHG, ‘subject’ extraposition not only occurs in main clauses, but also in subordinate clauses with unaccusative predicates. The frequent occurrence of ‘subject’ extraposition in unaccusative environments could be related to the fact that the subject is the underlying object in such cases and that the canonical subject position is occupied by an expletive pro which is coindexed with the nominative DP. This expletive pro would have a nominative case feature. In contrast to the putative empty quasi-argument in truly subjectless constructions (cf. section 3.5.1), we would have to argue that this expletive pro can also bear a plural feature. In Chapter 1, I argued that there is no evidence for a sentence-medial functional projection in OHG and put forward a minimal model of OHG sentence structure consisting of a CP and a VP along the lines of the proposals by Haider (1997) and Sternefeld 20 The English there-construction (at least the locative type) can also occur in embedded

clauses; cf. he said [that therei were applesi in the basket].

138


(2006:Chapter 4) for modern German. Given this analysis the silent proelement would occur in SpecV. We could then argue that the expletive pro can move to SpecC, thereby giving rise to a verb-first effect at the surface: 21 (50) a. /giengun thô zuo THÔ to went

gotes God’s

engila/ angels

= (18)-b

b. proi giengun thô ti zuo gotes engila

At first glance, the assumption of an expletive pro seems to be better motivated for the OHG data than for present-day German since OHG also has referential pro-drop (cf. Chapter 6). One would have to argue, however, that expletive pro has a different distribution than referential pro in Old High German since the latter is only licensed in postfinite position. However, such an analysis would face a serious diachronic problem: If expletive pro can move to SpecC in OHG, why is this no longer possible today? For modern German Sternefeld (2006:536) argues that in a sentence in which a nominative DP is merged in the direct-object position there must be an expletive pro in SpecV c-commanding the finite verb so that the required checking configuration for subject-verb agreement and for the nominative case feature can be established; cf. (51)-a. (51) a. ... dass sichj [VP proi [V’ [VP Wunderi tj ereignet] REFL miracles-NOM.PL happened that “miracles have happened”

haben]] have-PL

sich Wunder ereignet b. [Es] haben REFL miracles-NOM.PL happened it have-PL “miracles have happened” c. *Haben have-PL

sich ein a

REFL

Wunder miracle-NOM.SG

ereignet happened

In contrast to OHG, in modern German the corresponding main clauses cannot be realized with verb-first order as is illustrated in (51)-c. The same is true for impersonal passives. For present-day German, it has been repeatedly proposed in the literature (e.g. Sternefeld 1985; Safir 1985b; Jaeggli & Safir 1989; Grewendorf 1989) that there is an expletive pro in impersonal passives, as is illus-

21 Instead of postulating the presence of an expletive pro, it has also been argued that the pre-

finite specifier position is empty in the Old Germanic verb-first declaratives. Kiparsky (1996:165) puts forward such an analysis for Old English verb-first declaratives: “Insofar as they [verb-first clauses; K.A.] involve unaccusative and impersonal (subjectless) verbs ..., they can be considered IPs in which Spec-IP remains vacant, and the subject (when there is one) remains in its original Spec-VP position.”


139

trated in (52)-a and (53)-a.22 Again it should be noted that in modern German, impersonal passives cannot be realized as verb-first sentences, cf. (52)-b and (53)-b. (52) a. dass proexpl getanzt wurde that danced became “that there was dancing” b. *proexpl wurde getanzt became danced “there was dancing” (53) a. dass proexpl dir vergeben that you-DAT forgiven “that you will be forgiven” b. *proexpl wird dir vergeben will you-DAT forgiven “you will be forgiven”

werden wird become will werden become

Sternefeld (2006:592) therefore concludes that there must be a general ban on moving invisible material to SpecC.23 Given the assumption of a sentence structure with asymmetric verb movement and a functional subject position as has been proposed by Travis (1984, 1991) or Zwart (1997), a surface verb-first effect would obtain even without moving pro. According to the Travis-Zwart hypothesis, the Germanic verbsecond languages have an asymmetric sentence structure: Subject-initial sentences are bare IPs, and topic-initial sentences are CPs. Given such an analysis, pro would occur in SpecI (or SpecAgrS, SpecT) and the associate subject-DP would either appear in its VP-internal base position or would be extraposed. When there is no A-bar movement to SpecC, the finite verb thus turns up in first position at the surface; cf. (54) und (55). (54) [IP proi [I Vj]

[VP SUi ... tj ]]

(55) a. proi uuarunj thô hirtai In thero lantskeffi tj uuahhante cf. (1)-c b. proi uuasj thar [sum rihtari]i tj cf. (17)-b

An analysis along the lines of (54) is also considered by Sigurðsson (1990:49) for certain verb-first declaratives in modern Icelandic:24

22 The assumption of a silent expletive in modern German impersonal passives is not uncon-

troversial. See Haider (1993:140 ff., 1994) and Cabredo-Hofherr (1999) for critical remarks. In OHG, however, passives of truly intransitive verbs are hardly attested. 23 See Cardinaletti (1990a) on some arguments as to why expletive pro is not licensed in SpecC in present-day German.

140


(56) a. Voru oft langar umræður á fundunum were often long discussions at the-meetings “there were often long discussions at the meetings” (from Sigurðsson 1990:49) b. [IP proi

voru oft [langar umræður]i á fundunum]

Some counterarguments to an adoption of the Travis-Zwart hypothesis for an analysis of OHG sentence structure will be discussed in Chapter 5. Even if we assumed that OHG had an asymmetric sentence structure, the problem would remain that we do not have an explanation of why sentences with silent expletives can no longer be realized with verb-first order in modern German just as in the Icelandic example in (56)-a. It is hard to imagine what kind of syntactic change could result in the structure in (54) becoming ungrammatical. A different approach has been put forward by Abraham (1993). Abraham proposes that OHG has an IP-verb-second grammar and argues that the rise of the prefield-es “indicates an important structural reanalysis from OHG to MHG [Middle High German; K.A.]: the rise of a structural topic position [Spec,CP]” (ibid.:135). This scenario involves a “radical change in the categorical status of the clause” (ibid.:117). Abraham’s main empirical argument for the structural distinction between the OHG and Middle High German grammar is that “hypotaxis was but poorly developed in OHG.” This assumption is not correct: OHG had an even larger inventory of complementizers than modern (Standard) German (e.g. the complementizer thaz, various relative particles, a zero complementizer etc.; cf. Chapter 4, section 4.5.6). Note also that there is indisputable evidence that argument-realizing thaz-clauses were already syntactically embedded: We find phenomena such as wh-extraction out of thaz-clauses already in eighth century texts (Axel 2004). So the evidence from OHG is in line with Kiparsky’s (1995) hypothesis that the introduction of the CP was probably Pan-Germanic (cf. Chapter 4 for details). This means that the rise of the CP must have antedated the rise of prefield-es by centuries. Even though Abraham’s hypothesis seems to be attractive at first sight, it is also faced with conceptual problems: For his analysis to work, Abraham has to claim that originally SpecIP was both an argument and an operator/topic position in OHG, changing to a mere argument position in Middle High German. Thus, the proposed scenario not only involves a radical reanalysis of the clausal category, but also a change in the status of clausal specifiers. The assumption of a silent expletive pro also plays an important role in the generalized pro-analysis that Haeberli (1999b, 2000, 2001, 2002a) proposes for 24 Note that Sigurðsson (1990:49) considers the analysis sketched in (56)-b (= “bare IPs, with

a preverbal subject position”), but he nevertheless opts for an analysis according to which all independent Icelandic verb-first sentences are CPs.

141


Old English and for further West Germanic languages. He argues that there were two functional subject positions in Old English, namely SpecAgr and the lower SpecT-position: (57) [CP ZP V [AgrSP SU1 V [TP SU2 ... ]]] (SU = non-pronominal subject)

(Haeberli 2000:130)

In the sentence structure proposed by Haeberli for Old English (cf. Chapter 5) all sentences are CPs and in subject-initial sentences the subject occupies SpecC. In topic- and subject-initial sentences the verb only moves to T, V-to-C movement being restricted to operator contexts such as interrogatives, imperatives and negated sentences. Non-pronominal subjects (= SU) can only occupy SpecT when the numeration contains a phonetically empty expletive that is inserted into AgrS.25 This is indeed very often the case and the occurrence of the expletive is not restricted to special types of verbs or predicates. Moreover, the subject (i.e. the associate) is also not subject to a definiteness effect. So in Haeberli’s approach, an expletive pro occurs in the prefinite domain (= XP– proexpl–Vfin–SU ...) in all sentences with the surface order ‘topic–Vfin–SU ...’; cf. (58). This is, of course, the predominant order; it is the classic inversion configuration which has prompted van Kemenade (1987) to analyse Old English as a verb-second language. (58) [CP [XP] C

[AgrP [pro] Agr [TP [SU] T ... ]]] (adapted from Haeberli 2001:205)

Haeberli (2002b:272) assumes that (58) is the typical structure for ‘inversion contexts’, and also occurs in further West Germanic semi-pro-drop languages such as modern Dutch, Frisian or German. In (59) this is illustrated for German. In English, the weakening of inflectional morphology led to the loss of the empty expletive, which in turn had the effect that the (surface) verb-second property was lost. (59) a. Wahrscheinlich wird (später) der Hans dieselbe Uhr probably will later the John the-same watch “probably John will buy the same watch later” b. [CP ... [AgrSP pro [FP später [NomP der Hans ... ]]]]

kaufen buy

(Haeberli 2002b:272)

25 This sentence structure with two subject positions is also motivated by the fact that in Old

English the subject can occur prefinitely in topic-initial sentences thereby giving rise to a verbthird configuration (XP–subject–Vfin); cf. Chapter 4. There is, however, an important difference to OHG: in Old English, full subjects also occur in this configuration, whereas in OHG only pronominal subjects (and pronominal objects) do so (cf. Chapter 5). This suggests that the assumption of two structural subject positions is not very well motivated for OHG in any case.

142


If we have to take into account the occurrence of an expletive pro in some old and modern West Germanic languages, we can derive the verb-first order from the fact that expletive pro could move to SpecC: (60) [CP [pro]i C

[AgrP [t]i Agr

[TP [SU]i T ... ]]]

This in turn would result in an overgeneration of verb-first order: In Haeberli’s model, expletive pro may occur with any type of verb (i.e. not only with intransitive, but also with transitive verbs). Thus, it would be expected that verbfirst order in declaratives would likewise occur with all types of verbs. This is neither the case in Old English nor in Old High German. This is why Haeberli (2001:211, fn. 4) excludes the configuration in (60) by the stipulation that there is a general ban on moving expletive elements to SpecC. The same ban has also been claimed by Sternefeld (2006:592) and Cardinaletti (1990a) for modern German. As a result, the hypothesis is not convincing that the OHG verb-first order in declaratives is only a surface phenomenon and that there is a silent expletive in prefinite position. We would have to assume that the OHG expletive pro has a wider syntactic and semantic distribution than the overt subject expletives in most modern Germanic languages as it does not give rise to a definiteness effect. Furthermore, the distribution of the OHG expletive pro would be different than that of the referential pro since we would have to assume that this expletive pro may also appear in SpecC. While the former assumption may be unproblematic, the latter one would be highly implausible from a diachronic point of view because the problem would arise as to how it came about that the expletive pro has been banned from the prefinite position. 3.5 Verb-first order in subjectless constructions A further typical context for verb-first order in OHG declarative sentences is ‘subjectless’ (= impersonal) constructions as in (61). (61) a. /... . uuas tho zit nah sehsta. .../ was THO hour after sixth “it was about the sixth hour” /... . hora erat quasi sexta; .../ b. lustida sie christinheidi chilaupnissa belief desired them-ACC Christianity “they wanted to hear the belief of Christianity” (R) christi fidem delectantur audire

(T 275,29)

chihoran (I 694) hear

Note also that in modern Icelandic, declarative sentences with meteorological verbs can be realized with verb-first order:


143

(62) Rignir því sennilega mikið á morgun rains thus probably much tomorrow “thus, it will probably rain much tomorrow” (from Sigurðsson 1990:49)

In the OHG impersonal sentences with time expressions as in (61)-a or with meteorological/seasonal predicates it could be speculated that an empty quasiargument occurs in prefinite position: (63) proquasi Vi ... ti

Similarly, the verb-first order in examples with an extraposed infinitival clause as in (61)-b could be related to the fact that there is an empty correlative present. Diels (1906:98) claims that originally verb-first was the dominant pattern in the context of impersonal constructions in Germanic. As it turns out, however, the situation in OHG is quite complex. This will be demonstrated in the following section. 3.5.1 Quasi-argument and correlative pro? In contrast to modern Icelandic, meteorological verbs are hardly attested with verb-first order in OHG declaratives. The example in (64) from the glosses, which is cited in Behaghel (1924:127), is a rare exception. (64) plecchazit lightens “there is lightning” rutilat (OHG glosses 2,333,64; from Behaghel 1924:127)

In both the extensive studies by Hennig (1957) and Bishop (1977) there are no further examples for prima facie verb-first order with meteorological verbs. Note also that with verbal impersonal predicates, overt iʒ is very common in OHG (cf. Haiman 1974:103). The only exceptions are impersonal constructions with nominal, adjectival or adverbial predicates and copula verbs. Here iʒ is often not present in OHG (see Held 1903:28; Haiman 1974:103; Lenerz 1985a). Such predicates are attested in sentences with surface verb-first order: (65) /... . uuas tho zit nah sehsta. .../ THO hour after sixth was “it was about the sixth hour” /... . hora erat quasi sexta; .../

= (61)-a

144


(66) a. Íst álso chád si is so said she “so it is, she said” Ita est inquit illa b. Íst álso chád íh is so said I “so it is, I said” °Ita est inquam

(N BCon IV 205,10) (l. 10) (N BCon IV 211,9)

(l. 9)

In the examples in (65) and (66), the Latin source sentences are not verb-first constructions as the finite verb is preceded by the subject or the predicate respectively. In present-day German, the translations would require the quasiargument es. In pragmatically unmarked sentences this quasi-argument would occur in the prefield, as illustrated in (67)-b and (68)-b. (67) a. ... dass es ungefähr zwölf Uhr war that it around twelve o’clock was “that it was about twelve o’clock” b. Es war ungefähr zwölf Uhr it was around twelve o’clock “it was about twelve o’clock” (68) a. ... dass es so ist that it so is “that it is like that” b. Es ist so it is so “so it is”

Moreover, in sentences with impersonal predicates that subcategorize for a propositional argument in the form of a ‘subject’ clause, verb-first order is quite frequent both in the earlier texts, cf. the Tatian example in (69), and in the late OHG texts by Notker, cf. (70). (69) /uuard thô [thaz arfuoron fon In/ thie engila In himil];/ became THÔ that departed from them the angels in heaven “it came to pass that the angels departed from them into heaven” (T 87,17) /& factum ut discesserunt ab eis/ angeli in caelum/ (70) a. Íst áleuuâr [dáz man chît …] is true that one says “it is a true sentence that …” Nam uera sententia est ...

(N BCon V 234,4)

(l. 3)

145


b. Keskíhet óuh ófto . [dáz kûotên geuuált ze_hánden chóme] ... comes happens also often that good-ACC power to-hands “it happens often also that good men are given the chief command” Fit autem sepe . uti bonis summa rervm regenda deferatur ... (l. 9) (N BCon IV 220,10)

Sentences with ‘transitive’ impersonal predicates predominantly exhibit verbsecond order in OHG. It is usually the (highest ranked) oblique argument, which normally refers to the logical subject (= experiencer), that is fronted as can be seen in the examples in (71): (71) a. /[mih] hungrita Inti ir gabut/ mir ézzan. [mih] thursta/ Inti me eat me thirsted and me-ACC hungered and you gave ir gabut mir trincan./ (T 543,26) you gave me drink “I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink” /esuriui enim & dedistis mihi/ manducare. sitiui/ & dedistis mihi bibere./ b. [Míh] túnchet áber ... (N BCon I 13,14) me-ACC thinks however “it seems to me, however ...” Sed ut uideo ... (l. 13) c. [Míh] nelústet nîeuuetes me-ACC NEG-desires nothing-GEN “I do not desire anyting”

(W 159,32)

Already Behaghel (1932:70) observes that as in modern German, the oblique argument (most often a personal pronoun) is generally fronted in order to fulfil the verb-second requirement in those cases, where the quasi-argument iʒ is not present. However, the verb-first pattern is attested with “transitive” impersonal predicates that subcategorize both for an accusative experiencer argument and for a sentential argument in the form of an infinitival or a finite clause. Note that subject clauses, in particular finite subject clauses, are generally extraposed in OHG just like in modern German. This can be seen in (72)-b, where the clause occurs after the predicate vuúnder. (72) a. lustida sie [christinheidi chilaupnissa desired them-ACC Christianity’s belief “they wanted to hear the belief of Christianity” (R) christi fidem delectantur audire b. Íst sie vuúnder [uuáz iz méine] wonder what it means is she-ACC “she wonders what it means”

chihoran] hear

= (61)-b

(N BCon IV 210,29)

146


c. Mág ín óuh uuv́nder sîn . [ zíu ... ] why may him-ACC also wonder be “he may wonder why ...”

(N BCon IV 210,18)

In this case, we also find examples with verb-second order where the accusative argument has been fronted contrary to the Latin source; cf. (73). As was shown above, this was also the case with impersonals without sentential complements. (73) a. /[íu] gilimphit [abur giboran uuerdan]/ again born become you-DAT behoves “you must be born again” /oport& uos nasci denuo/

(T 405,26)

b. [Míh] lústet ... [ze_gechêrenne] . (N BCon II 50,23) me-ACC desires ... to turn “I take a pleasure to turn …” ... mutare gaudemus (l. 22) c. [Míh] íst uuúnder . [úbe …] whether me-ACC is wonder “I am wondering whether ...” Quero enim .. (l. 25)

(N BCon V 232,25)

Verb-first order is almost exclusively attested in sentences where the oblique arguments occur in the form of third person pronouns, in particular in the form of accusative pronouns. There are still some residues of this contrast between first/second and third person in Notker, namely in the context of the construction wunder sīn; cf. (73)-c vs. (72)-b and (72)-c. The only feasible explanation for this variation is that some pronoun forms are avoided in the prefinite position for phonological or morphological reasons. In contrast to the accusative of the first and second person (mih, dih), the accusative of the third person masculine (inan, in) has a vocalic onset and there are sometimes graphical indications of a phonological cliticization (cf. Chapter 5). Our OHG data thus show that the XP-fronting in OHG declarative clauses has been generalized to such an extent that it also affects the oblique subjects of transitive verbs except for some special cases. If we assume that impersonal constructions involve an empty quasiargument or correlative pro, it would be possible that in sentences as in (69) to (72), this pro has moved to SpecC. This is illustrated in (74) for the sentence (65). Then the verb-first order would be only a surface phenomenon and the underlying order would be the regular verb-second order. (74) [CP proj [[C uuasi ] [tho tj zit nah sehsta ti ]]]

147


This analysis, however, faces one serious problem: In modern German, there exist certain date and seasonal expressions with nominal or adjectival predicates where the use of the overt quasi-argument es is optional. However, es can only be omitted in the middle field, and not in the prefield (= SpecC) in such cases: (75) a. weil (es) Weihnachten because it Christmas “because it is Christmas”

ist is

b. *(Es) ist Weihnachten it is Christmas “it is Christmas”

Similarly, the es is not obligatory with many impersonal psych-predicates. In the middle field it can be dropped as is illustrated in (76) for grauen “to be terrified”. However, it is not possible to leave out the es in the prefield; cf. (76)-b. (76) a. Dem Jungen graut (es) the-DAT boy is-terrified it “the boy is terrified of the exam”

vor of

der the

Prüfung exam

b. *(Es) graut dem Jungen vor of it is-terrified the-DAT boy “the boy is terrified of the exam”

der the

Prüfung exam

Moreover, many impersonal predicates with sentential complements may be realized either with or without the correlative es; cf. (77)-a. Again it is only possible to drop the correlative es in the middle field and not in SpecC, as can be seen in (77)-b. (77) a. .., weil (esi) mich wundert, [ dass Peter raucht ]i that Peter smokes because it me-ACC surprises “because I am surprised that Peter smokes” b. *(Esi) wundert mich, [ dass Peter raucht ]i it surprises me-ACC that Peter smokes “I am surprised that Peter smokes”

One could argue that a nominative argument is always present in ‘transitive’ and ‘intransitive’ impersonal constructions as in (75) and (76) and that there is variation as to whether it is realized overtly (as es) or whether it is realized as an empty quasi-argumental pro (Safir 1985b; Cardinaletti 1990a; Sternefeld 2006:560). Similarly in the special case of impersonals with sentential complements one could argue that the correlative es, which is coindexed with the extraposed clause, can be left out due to pro-drop (cf. Hentschel 2003). The ungrammaticality of verb-first declaratives as in the b-examples in (75) to (77)

148


shows that in contrast to the overt subject pronoun es, pro cannot move to SpecC to fulfil the verb-second requirement. The SpecC position has to be filled by overt material. If we analysed the OHG verb-first declaratives as verb-second clauses with a prefinite empty quasi-argument or correlative, we would again be faced with the problem that we have already discussed in the section on expletive pro: If those empty categories are banned from moving to Spec today, why was this movement possible in OHG? And what kind of syntactic change could have had the effect that the syntactic distribution of the different pro-elements was narrowed down to postfinite environments? To conclude: In the previous sections we have provided counterarguments to the hypothesis that there was an empty category (expletive pro or quasiargumental pro) in the prefinite position of OHG declarative clauses. This is why we conclude that the verb-first order not only pertained at the surface, but also in structural respects. The question as to which position the putative empty pro-argument occurred in is not really relevant for the issue at hand. We may simply assume that it appeared in SpecV as has been argued e.g. by Sternefeld (2006:535) for modern German. So the spread of overt quasi-arguments and correlatives that could be fronted to SpecC can be hypothesized to have been one factor that led to the consolidation of verb-second. There is yet a further reason why impersonal predicates are relevant for the discussion of verb-first vs. verb-second in OHG declarative clauses. As we have argued above, the development of prefield-es plays an important role in the consolidation of the verb-second property. Lenerz (1985a) puts forward the hypothesis that the prefield-es (= ‘topic-es’ in his terminology) is very old and that its occurrence can be considered as an early reflex of the consolidation of the verb-second grammar. His proposal is illustrated in (78) by means of some invented modern German examples. Originally, an iʒ was base-generated in the highest sentential specifier position (= prefield) in order to prevent a violation of the verb-second constraint and to ensure that the sentence could receive a declarative interpretation (ibid.:124); cf. (78)-b (versus (78)-a). As Lenerz argues, the es subcategorized by meteorological verbs and impersonal psychpredicates (= ‘subject-es’) arose only later: it evolved through a reanalysis of the ‘topic-es’. In these impersonal constructions, the ‘topic-es’ was reanalysed as a ‘subject-es’ and could therefore also occur in the middle field; cf. (78)-c. The reanalysis was part of a general change in the strict subcategorization of the relevant predicates, as a result of which they have come to increasingly require a syntactic subject.

149


(78)

a.

ob if

b. blitzt > lightens blitzt > lightens

estopic-es it ob if

blitzt lightens blitzt lightens

c. > >

ob if

essubject-es it es subject-es it

blitzt lightens blitzt lightens

However, there is empirical counterevidence to Lenerz’s (1985a) hypothesis. It has long been known that it was still within the OHG period that the quasiargument iʒ had become very common with verbal impersonal predicates such as meteorological verbs (Dal 1966:167, Haiman 1974:103, Hennig 1957, Bishop 1977). In Lenerz’s scenario, the development of the ‘topic-es’ must have preceded the development of the ‘subject-es’. However, this is not borne out by the empirical facts. It is the prefield-es which developed later: This element only arose during the Middle High German period. As the extensive study by Hennig (1957) furthermore shows, in sentences with impersonal verbs, non-referential iʒ/es first occurs in the middle field and not in the prefield in the early OHG sources. This is why Lenerz’s hypothesis that expletive es developed out of a reanalysis of ‘topic-es’ cannot be right. What makes Lenerz’s hypothesis furthermore questionable is the observation that there are modern dialects (cf. Weiß 1998:102 on Bavarian) in which the use of the ‘topic-es’ is very restricted, but which nevertheless use ‘subject-es’. Lenerz would have to argue that the ‘topic-es’ once existed in these dialects, but was driven out of use at some point after the emergence of ‘subject-es’. However, it would be more plausible to assume that the ‘topic-es’ has never fully developed in these dialects and that the emergence of ‘subject-es’ is an independent phenomenon. Upon closer inspection, it turns out that with ‘transitive’ impersonal predicates, there is a clear tendency for oblique subjects to be preposed in OHG. Exceptions are relatively rare and may sometimes be due to extrasyntactic factors. However, there is a considerable amount of verb-first order attested both in examples with null-place expressions, notably with those containing not verbal, but nominal, adjectival or adverbial predicates, and in examples with impersonal predicates selecting (finite or infinitival) ‘subject’ clauses. Again we have argued that the phenomenon of verb-first in subjectless constructions cannot be explained away by a putative phonetically empty quasi-argument or correlative in prefinite position since we would then expect that we would still get verb-first order in modern German in the context of predicates where es is not obligatory. Furthermore, we have argued that the different types of nonreferential es in German (i.e. prefield-es and quasi-argument es) cannot be brought into a diachronic connection as postulated in the reanalysis scenario in Lenerz (1985a).

150


3.6 Verb-first order in the context of verbs of saying and negation Verb-first order is furthermore attested with verbs of saying (= verba dicendi) (cf. Maurer 1924) as is witnessed by the following examples from Tatian and the Monsee Fragments. (79) a. /quad tho maria zi themo said THO Maria to the “Mary said to the angel” /Dixit autem maria ad angelum./ b. Quuad · im · iħs ... said them Jesus “Jesus said to them ...” {Ait illis (iesus) ...}

engile./ angel

(T 71, 24)

(MF X,25; Mt 13:52)

In (79) and in many other examples, the corresponding Latin verb also occurs sentence-initially. Note, however, that there is striking variation in how Latin sentences with initial verbs of saying are translated. In Tatian, for example, such examples are also often rendered by verb-second clauses with the particle thō in prefinite position: (80) /… thô

quad maria./ said Mary “then said Mary” /… Dixit autem maria./

(T 73,4)

THÔ

As Reis (1901:226f.) observes, in Tatian the expression dixit autem Maria is rendered by tho quad Maria in 51 examples and by quad tho Maria in 45 examples. So in this special case, the verb-first order is realized in almost half of the examples even though there is an alternative translation available with verb-second order which is also very close to the Latin original (note that the subject Maria occurs postverbally in both versions). This suggests that the verb-first order with verbs of saying is a native pattern.26 A further type of verb-first order with verbs of saying occurs in parenthetical constructions (so-called inquit formulae). This phenomenon is still attested in Notker’s Consolatio, where other types of verb-first are not very frequent: (81) a. Íst álso [chád si]. is so said she “so it is, she said” Ita es inquit illa.

= (66)-a

26 Reis (1901:227) has also found that the verb-first variant (quad tho Maria) is more frequent

in the first two parts of the OHG Tatian than in the later ones. He suggests that this might be due to the fact that the style of the narration is more vivid in the earlier passages as they deal with the birth and youth of Jesus. See also section 3.8 on the stylistic effects of verb-first order.

151


b. Uuér [chád íh] mág tés kelóugenen? who said I may this-GEN deny “Who can deny that, I said” Quis id inquam neget? (l. 13)

(N BCon III 121,14)

Some of the OHG examples with verb-first order in the context of verbs of saying seem to be similar to other types of verb-first declaratives. It is possible that the examples in (79) are instances of so-called narrative verb-first declaratives, which will be discussed in section 3.8.2 However, verb-first order with verbs of saying also differs from the other classes in a number of respects. In many examples the syntactic realization of the propositional argument is special. Often this argument is not ‘realized’ by a complement clause but by a direct speech sequence. It is also suggested by comparative evidence that we are dealing with a different phenomenon here: In English, which has become a non-verb-second language, we still get the phenomenon of so-called ‘quotative inversion’ (e.g. Quirk et al. 1985:1024; Collins & Branigan 1997). In Old Icelandic texts, in contrast, where many verb-first declaratives are attested, verb-first order hardly occurs in sentences with verbs of saying (see Önnerfors 1997:21, fn. 37). Moreover, in German, the diachronic development of verb-first order with verbs of saying is different from that of the other types of verb-first: As Maurer (1924:183) argues there is a gap in the written documentation of verb-first declaratives which lasted from the late OHG period to the middle of the fifteenth century. After its revival, the phenomenon was first restricted to verbs of saying and other verbs of communication. Maurer argues that this might be due to the fact that parenthetical formulae such as sagte der Mann “said the man”, which never ceased to be in use, widened their syntactic distribution and started to appear not only in medial or final position, but also in front of their respective hosts. Since verb-first order with verbs of saying seems to be special in a number of respects, we will neglect this issue in the following discussion. There is yet a further class of verb-first: In earlier OHG, negated sentences are often realized with verb-first order. Such examples have often been ignored in discussions of the verb-first phenomenon. As the evidence in the eighth and ninth century texts suggests, XP-fronting is optional in sentences with negated verbs: Even though examples with preposed XPs do occur, cf. (83), there are also many cases attested where XP-fronting has failed to take place. When subject pronouns have been realized contrary to the source, they are generally inserted in postfinite position in the earlier OHG prose, in particular in Isidor and in the Monsee Fragments; cf. (82)-a and (82)-b. It is also sometimes the case that an XP is moved into postfinite position in negated sentences as in the Tatian examples in (82)-c and (82)-d. In the late OHG texts (i.e. in Notker’s works and in Williram), however, negated sentences almost always exhibit a prefinite XP.

152


(82) a. ni

liugu ih dauid (I 612) lie I David-DAT “I will not lie to David” si dauid mentiar NEG

b. ni

uuez ih · iu · uuih know I you-ACC “I do not know you” {nescio uos}

(MF XX,20; Mt 25:12)

NEG

c. /nigibit Imo [zi mezze] got geist/ NEG-gives him to measure God spirit “God gives the Spirit without measure” /Non enim [ad mensuram] dat deus spiritum./

(T 129,27)

d. /trohtin. nihaben [man]/ NEG-have-1.SG man Lord “Lord, I have no man” /Domine. [hominem] non habeo./

(T 285,14)

(83) a. enti [mano] · ni gi bit · siin leoht NEG give its light and moon “and the moon will not give its light” {et luna non dabit lumen suum}

(MF XIX,3; Mt 24:29)

b. endi ih antluuhhu duri fora imu, endi [dor] ni uuerdant and I unlock doors before him and doors NEG become bilohhan (I 155) closed “and I unlock the doors before him and the doors will not be closed” et aperiam ante eum ianuas, et portę non claudentur

In the literature, examples with ni-Vfin-order as in (82) have been regarded as verb-second clauses. Many scholars have argued that ni is an adverb. More precisely, the contrast between prima facie verb-first placement (i.e. ni-Vfin– sequences) and prima facie verb-second placement (i.e. XP–ni-Vfin-sequences) has been argued to be due to the fact that ni is polyfunctional: In sentences with ni-Vfin-order as in (82), ni has been taken to be a ‘full’ adverb, while in sentences with XP–ni-Vfin-order as in (83), it has been analysed as merely some kind of particle.27 27 See Dittmer & Dittmer (1998:102) on verb placement in negated sentences in Tatian: “ni

kann als Satzglied betrachtet werden, so daß Kernsatz vorliegt, oder es kann als proklitisches Element bestimmt werden, so daß Stirnsatz vorliegt.” [ni can be regarded as a separate part of speech so that there would be a verb-second sentence, or it can be analysed as a proclitic element so that there would be a verb-first sentence]. Bernhardt & Davis’s (1997) treatment of ni is inconsistent. First, they regard sentence-initial ni as a full phrase and treat it in the same way as phrasal adjuncts such as in thero ziti etc. (see the examples on ibid.:52). In later sections (ibid.:54,57), however, ni is not analysed as a separate phrase. In the section on interrogative


153

There is, however, no evidence that ni is a phrasal element; it behaves as an (X0-) proclitic in every respect: ni always occurs immediately to the left of the verb (cf. Donhauser 1996:202), both when the verb occurs in its clause-final base position and when it has moved to the left periphery. This is why we have to assume that the negation particle is a head which builds a complex head of the category V0 [Neg0+V0] (cf. also Jäger 2005).28 To sum up, negated sentences are a further context where XP-movement was not obligatory in earlier OHG. 3.7 Verb-first order due to topic drop? 3.7.1 The topic-drop hypothesis A further hypothesis that suggests itself is that a sentence-initial constituent has been omitted due to topic-drop in verb-first declaratives.29 Topic-drop is possible in all Germanic verb-second languages. Two examples from modern German are given in (84). (84) a. (Q:

b. (Q:

Was ist mit dem Putzen? ) A: Hab’ ich schon erledigt. what is with the cleaning have I already finished “what about the cleaning?” “I have already finished it” Was ist mit Peter? what is with Peter? “what about Peter?”

) A: Kann erst später kommen. can only later come “he can’t come till later”

A null-topic analysis has also been put forward by Sigurðsson (1993) for verbfirst declaratives in Old Icelandic; cf. (85)-a. According to the traditional analysis proposed by Huang (1984), the two empty categories involved in the topic-drop construction are part of an operator-variable configuration.30 This is clauses, for example, the authors put forward the claim: “Negation has no impact whatsoever on the order of words in these clauses” (ibid.:61). Schrodt (2004:199) argues that those cases where the negation particle is contracted with the finite verb evoke the impression of verb-first placement. However, he also notes that the negation particle is not always contracted to the verb. His remarks suggest that he regards the negation particle as a phrasal element. 28 When the finite verb has a vocalic onset, the negation particle can be phonologically reduced to n through a deletion of the i. In all the earlier texts this phenomenon is common with the word form nist ‘NEG-ist’ (cf. Braune 1987:§70, note 3). Furthermore, the reduced form frequently occurs in Otfrid, most notably in front of the prefixes with vocalic onsets (ir-, -int etc.). 29 A topic-drop analysis has been proposed by Falk (1993a:299-303, 1993b) for verb-first declaratives in modern Swedish. It has also been suggested that in modern German verb-first declaratives the sentence-initial element has been omitted via a so-called prefield ellipsis (e.g. Altmann 1987, Oppenrieder 1987). See Önnerfors (1997:13-20, 49-60) for an extensive discussion of the ellipsis hypothesis. 30 Huang (1984) develops this analysis for Chinese with recourse to a paper by Ross (1982) – but see also Cardinaletti (1990b), who argues that only object-drop involves an operatorvariable configuration (albeit a different variant thereof than it is proposed in Huang 1984).

154


also the analysis which Sigurðsson (1993:257) proposes for Old Icelandic; cf. (85)-b. (85) a. ok greiðiz vel þeirrai ferð og komu ei við and goes well their journey and come to “and their journey goes well and [they] come to Greece” (Finn 39:2; from Thráinsson & Hjartardóttir 1986:155) b. [CP Oi V/Agr

[IP ... ei ...]]

Grikkland Greece

(adapted from Sigurðsson 1993:257)

In the OHG sources there are indeed instances of verb-first order in declarative clauses which are very similar to the present-day German cases of topic-drop. Example (86) from Otfrid’s Gospel Harmony contains a question-answer sequence in direct speech. In the answer the subject, which has already been referred to in the question, is omitted. (86) „... Gilóubist thu ... \ thiu minu wórt ellu?“ (O III 24,33) believe you the mine words all hérzen brusti; ...“ „sint, drúhtin“ quad si, \ „fésti in mines are Lord said she fast in my heart’s breast “do you believe all my words? they are all secure in my heart’s breast”

In most OHG declarative clauses with an initial finite verb no arguments have been omitted. This makes them different from sporadic examples such as the ones in (86) and from Old Icelandic verb-first declaratives as in (85)-a. We do find verb-first declaratives without overt subject pronouns in the OHG texts (cf. Chapter 6), but this is not surprising since OHG allowed for referential pro-drop. At first glance, such examples seem to be very similar to the Old Icelandic ones just mentioned. In contrast to Old Icelandic, however, OHG subject pronouns can also be omitted in ‘topic’-initial sentences (XP–Vfin–pro), for which a topic-drop analysis is not feasible, of course. (87) a. /steig tho in skifilin .../ stepped THO into boat “he got into a boat” /Et ascendens in nauicula .../

(T 193,1)

b. steig tho pro in skifilin

An alternative hypothesis would be that an adverbial element has been deleted in the OHG verb-first declaratives. Brugmann (1917:37), for example, argues:

Cardinaletti argues that subject-drop involves the null pronoun pro, which has moved to SpecC. For the following argumentation it is not relevant which analysis is right: As will be argued below, for most OHG verb-first declaratives, a topic-drop analysis can be rejected solely on descriptive grounds.

155


Doch hat sich unser es vielfach auch da eingestellt, wo man im Ahd. thō, im Mhd. dō (nhd. da) bei Anfangsstellung der Verbalform verwendete, z.B.: Otfr. I, 7, 1 thō sprah sancta Maria, thaʒ ... gegenüber I, 6, 1: fuor thō sancta Maria ... zi ther iru māginnu, Nib. 4, 1 dō wuohs in Niderlanden eins edelen küniges kint; das hat die Benennung des syntaktischen es als Adverbium oder Partikel veranlaßt. [However, our es has often appeared where in OHG thō, in Middle High German dō (NHG da) was used with sentence-initial placement of the verb, e.g. Otfr. I, 7, 1 thō sprah sancta Maria, thaʒ … as opposed to I, 6, 1: fuor thō sancta Maria ... zi ther iru māginnu, Nib. 4, 1 dō wuohs in Niderlanden eines edelen küniges kint; this has prompted people to call the syntactic es an adverb or particle.]

Likewise, it has been proposed that the adverb da has been omitted in modern German verb-first declaratives (cf. Önnerfors 1997:16-20 for an overview of the literature). Note that also adjuncts can be deleted via topic-drop in modern German in very special contexts (cf. Brandner 2004:121): (88) (context: Mother asks for several possibilities where the child could have lost her pencils): Q: Und in der Schule? and at the school? A: Ø hab ich sie auch nicht gefunden have I them also not found (adapted from Brandner 2004:121)

In Tatian, there is indeed an alternation between verb-second declaratives with initial thō and verb-first declaratives as the examples in (89) to (91) illustrate: (89) a. /thô uuas thiu zehenta zît thes tages./ THÔ was the tenth hour the-GEN day “it was then the tenth hour of the day” /hora autem erat quasi decima./ b. /... uuas tho zit nah sehsta. .../ was THO hour after sixth “it was about the sixth hour” /... hora erat quasi sexta; .../

(T 117,15)

= (61)-a

(90) a. /tho

eroucta sih engil fon himile/ appeared REFL angel from heaven “then there appeared to him an angel from heaven” /aparuit autem angelus de cælo/

(T 601,7)

THO

b. /arougta sih tho in/ moises inti helias appeared REFL THO them Moses and Elijah “Moses appeared to them along with Elijah” /et ecce apparuit illis/ moises & helias cum eo/

mit imo/ = (19)-b with him

156


(91) a. /thó giengun scalca zuo/ thes híuuiskes THO came servants to the house’s “so the servants of the householder came ...” /accedentes autem serui/patris familias ...,/ b. /giengun thô ûz [sine scalca]/ In THÔ out his servants into went “the servants went out into the streets” /& egressi sunt serui eius/ In uias .../

fater .../ father

uuega .../ streets

(T 231,28)

= (29)-d

Interestingly, in modern Bavarian, a dialect where the use of prefield-es is very restricted (cf. Weiß 1998:102), do is often used instead: (92) Do is a Ungligg bassierd there is an accident happened “an accident has happened” (from Weiß 1998:102)

It could be hypothesized that OHG resorts to an adverbial expletive just like the present-day dialects in which the use of the prefield-es is not common. Accordingly, it can be argued that the adverbial expletive has been elided in verbfirst declaratives; cf. (93). (93) [CP thō/ø [C Vi]

[ ... ti ]]

And indeed OHG thō, besides its use as a normal temporal adverb, seems to have a very weak semantics in some constructions. For example, it is sometimes attested with an additional temporal adverbial expression in the same sentence; cf. (94)-a. The same is true with locative adverbials; cf. (94)-b. (94) a. /... inti uuas tho giheilit/ ira tohter fon dero ziti/ (T 273,31) and was THO healed her daughter from that hour “and her daughter was healed from that hour” /... & sanata est/ filia illius ex illa hora./ b. /senonu tho

uuas man In hierusalem.‘/ thes namo uuas was man in Jerusalem the-one’s name was gihezzan simeon,/ (T 89,23) called Simeon “and lo, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon” /& ecce homo erat In hierusalem.‘/ cui nomen simeon,/ INTERJ

THO

In OHG, thō did not have a systematic local meaning yet. Due to phonological changes, the former locative adverb thār became homonymous with dō in Middle High German and as a consequence dō acquired both a temporal and a local meaning (cf. Behaghel 1928:90). One indication for the weak semantics

157


of OHG thō is also that it in the translations it is often inserted contrary to the Latin or merely renders Latin et (cf. Ruhfus 1897:12 passim; Diels 1906:39ff.; Lawson 1980; Betten 1987b on Tatian). Even though the hypothesis of a dropped thō seems initially to be very plausible, there is the problem that in many OHG verb-first declaratives thō (dhuo) is overtly present, albeit not in pre-, but in postfinite position. This is not only true for the example in (94)-a, but for many other examples cited in this chapter as well: (1)-a, (1)-c, (2), (3)-b, (17)-a, (18)-b, (18)-d, (19)-a, (19)-b, (24)-a, (24)-b, (27)-b, (27)-c, (29)-a, (29)-b, (29)-c, (29)-d, (30)-a, (42)-a, (42)-b, (44)a, (44)-b, (61)-a, (94)-a, (96)-a,. In general, thō only occurs in sentences with preterite verb forms so that the assumption of an elided thō in verb-first declaratives with present-tense verbs would be questionable anyway. As a result, the phenomenon of verb-first in OHG declarative clauses should not be reduced to the phenomenon of topic-drop. Before discussing a further hypothesis, namely that the OHG verb-first declaratives are the precursors of the present-day narrative verb-first sentences, which have special pragmatic properties, we will take a closer look at the left periphery, and ask the question as to which extensions are attested there. 3.7.2 Extensions at the left sentence periphery of OHG verb-first declaratives Regarding putative ‘extensions’ at the left periphery, it should be noted that the different types of verb-first declaratives in OHG behave in a similar way as the verb-second declaratives. For example, they may be introduced by a coordinating conjunction: (95) a. enti uuarth ar fullit des brut hlaufte(s) ka stuoli hall and became filled the-GEN wedding’s “and the wedding hall was filled with guests” (MF XV,23; Mt 22:10) {et impletae sunt nuptiae discumbentium} b. enti uuarth · bitaan · diu · porta and became shut the door “and the door was shut” {et clausa est ianua} c. ... endi uuirdit siin namo chinemnit and becomes his name called “... and his name will be called admirable” et uocabitur nomen eius admirabilis d. /... inti uuerdent beidu gihaltan/ and become both preserved “... and both are preserved” /... & utraque conseruantur;/

(MF XX,17; Mt 25:10)

uundarliih admirable ... (R) (T 199,17)

(I 387)

158


e. Endi uuardh uuordan druhtines uuort ... (I 618) and became become Lord’s word “and the Lord’s ... word was fulfilled ...” (R) Et factum est uerbum domini ... (96) a. /Inti giengun tho zi Imo sine iungiron/ THO to him his disciples and went “and his disciples came to him” /Et accesserunt ad eum discipuli eius/ b. ... endi quham dher chisendit scolda and came who sent should “and he came who was to be sent” (R) ... aduenit ille, qui mittendus erat (97) /... Inti íntátun sih iro óugun/ and opened REFL their eyes “and their eyes were opened” /& aperti sunt oculi illorum./

uuerdhan become

(T 133,31)

(I 587)

(T 209,17)

The occurrence of such examples also speaks against a topic-drop analysis. In modern German, topic-drop is only possible in sentences which are not introduced by conjunctions. In the literature, such examples have often been cited under the heading ‘inversion after und’ (e.g. in Behaghel 1932:31f.). This term refers to the phenomenon that the finite verb directly follows the coordinating conjunction und ‘and’ thereby relegating the subject and further material to postfinite position. This is illustrated in (98) by means of a Middle High German, an Early Modern High German31 and a New High German example.32 (98) a. Unde hât ez iedoch got geschaffen and has it however God created “and God has created it, however” (Berth. I,59,12ff.; from Lenerz 1984:157) b. dasz musz dasz geblüt thun, undt seindt wir einander that must the blood do and are we each-other ja nahe genug PARTCL close enough “the blood must do that and we are close enough to each other anyway” (Liselotte von der Pfalz: Letters (1676-1706; from Behaghel 1932:33)

31 Cf. also Ebert et al. (1993:§S 239, note 4) for more examples. 32 The ‘inversion after und’ was discussed in various descriptive studies at the beginning of the

last century. See Behaghel (1932:34) for an overview of the literature.


159

c. wir wollen fort! und soll die Hasenjagd angehn we want away and shall the rabbit hunt begin “we want to depart! And the rabbit hunt shall start now” (Goethe: Götz VIII 97,9; from Behaghel 1932:33)

In the language of business and administration, this phenomenon is still attested in twentieth century documents (e.g. Behaghel 1932:35). Lenerz (1984:157) argues that und was a polyfunctional element which could be used not only as a conjunction, but also as a sentence adverb. As a sentence adverb it could occupy the prefield just as any other adverb. This idea originally goes back to Behaghel (1932:32), who assumes that und was an adverb with an adversative meaning in sentences with ‘inversion’, similar to the modern adverb demgegenüber “on the other hand, in contrast”. Regarding the situation in OHG, there are no convincing arguments for the claim that inti (endi) should receive an additional lexical entry as a sentence adverb. This is not necessary since OHG declarative clauses with initial inti– Vfin-sequences show a great similarity to verb-first declaratives not introduced by a conjunction: The majority of examples contain such verbs or constructions as are also typically found in verb-first declaratives without inti, notably passivized predicates and verbs of movement, as in (95) and (96). This suggests that we are dealing with coordinated verb-first declaratives. Furthermore, in many cases it seems to be inappropriate to postulate that inti has an adversative meaning.33 This hypothesis is also supported by the fact that besides inti, further conjunctions are attested at the left periphery of verb-first declaratives in the older OHG texts, e.g. the conjunction ouh “also, but”, cf. (99), as well as the

33 In contrast to ‘simple’ verb-first declaratives, verb-first declaratives introduced by endi, inti,

unde are also still attested in late OHG texts; cf. Behaghel (1932:37). This has also been observed by Diels (1906:97), who claims that inti (or unde) has the effect of ‘preserving’ the phenomenon of verb-first order in declarative clauses. This might have ultimately been the reason why unde was reanalysed as an adverbial element later. It could be hypothesized that after the general decline of verb-first order in declaratives, some residual instances in the context of the conjunction unde were reanalysed as verb-second sentences, cf. (i), and that unde was recategorized as a sentence adverb. Then we would indeed have two lexical entries for unde, but in contrast to the proposal by Lenerz (1984), this did not happen until the late OHG period. Nevertheless it remains to be seen whether the ‘adverb hypothesis’ is really convincing. (i) [unde [CP [Vfin] ...]] → [CP unde [C Vfin] ...] After the OHG period, the phenomena ‘inversion after und’ and verb-first in the absence of a coordinating conjunction were subject to entirely different developments. While the latter phenomenon only began to arise from the late fifteenth century onward (cf. 3.8.4), the former is continuously attested up to the seventeenth century and can still be found in later texts (see the material in Behaghel 1932:31-36). Furthermore, after their ‘revival’ in the fifteenth century, verb-first clauses without unde were first largely restricted to verba dicendi, whereas the examples with unde were not subject to such a restriction.

160


conjunction want(a) (hwanta, wande etc.) “because, for”,34 cf. (100). In the prose documents such examples are only attested very sporadically (but see (100)-a from Tatian). In Otfrid, however, there are quite a few such examples, cf. (100)-b, most of which show the same types of predicates or constructions which also typically occur in verb-first declaratives not introduced by a conjunction. Erdmann (1874:87) cites some further examples where wanta is directly followed by the finite verb and remarks that such cases are not particularly rare. This marks a sharp contrast to present-day German, where the conjunction denn “for, since, because” can introduce a verb-second, but not a verbfirst sentence. (99) /... ouh quimit/ zit inti nu ist. danna but comes time and now is when “but the hour is coming, and is now here, when ...” /... sed uenit/ hora & nunc est quando ..../ (100) a. /uuanta ázist35 arnzít.,/ for there-is harvest “for the harvest has come” /quoniam adest messis./

.../

(T 279,20)

(T 239,6)

b. Wanta químit noh thiu zít \ thaz .... for comes yet the time that “for the time is yet to come that ...”

(O IV 26,35)

Furthermore, we can find examples in the OHG sources where adverbial clauses are adjoined to verb-first declaratives; cf. (101). As will be argued in Chapter 4 (section 4.5.6), adverbial clauses do not occur in clause-internal positions in OHG, but are adjoined to the root node. (101) /[Thô herod arstarb]/ arougta sih truhtines engil/ In troume .../ when Herod died appeared REFL Lord’s angel in dream “when Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream” (T 97,20) /Defuncto autem herode/ ecce apparuit angelus domini /... In somnis

In present-day German, verb-first order is still productive in so-called ‘narrative’ declarative clauses (Önnerfors 1997). In this sentence type, extensions of the left periphery as we have just discussed do not seem to be possible (see section 3.8.2). This suggests that the OHG verb-first declaratives were a different phenomenon. In the previous sections, we have identified three different classes of declarative sentences with verb-first order in OHG: the precursors of the existen34 OHG wanta introduces causal adverbial clauses with verb-end or verb-second order and is

thus both a subordinating and a ‘parordinating’ (in the sense of Höhle 1986) conjunction. 35 Note that az- is a prefix.


161

tial/presentational constructions, verb-first order in the context of unaccusative predicates and certain subjectless constructions. We have also provided arguments that the verb-first order in these syntactic environments is licensed by the native OHG grammar. What furthermore speaks for the nativeness and productivity of this phenomenon is the fact that such verb-first declaratives seem to behave like normal verb-second declaratives with respect to possible extensions at the left periphery: for example, they can be introduced by coordinating conjunctions and by the conjunction uuanta. Moreover, adverbial clauses can be base-generated at the left periphery of verb-first declaratives. 3.8 Pragmatic aspects of verb-first declaratives As was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the evidence from the earlier OHG prose texts suggests that XP-fronting was already generalized in sentences with neutral information structure: In such sentences, the highest middle field constituent (mainly the subject) was usually fronted (= Stylistic Fronting). We have ample evidence that the phenomenon of Stylistic Fronting had developed as we can easily find XPs in SpecC which cannot be operators/topics. If we adopt the accounts of Fanselow (2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2004) and Frey (2004a) also for OHG, we have to argue that the C-position (or one of several C-positions in the C-domain) already carried an EPP-feature. This raises the question of why the fronting of an XP still failed to occur under certain conditions. First, it should be noted that the phenomenon of verb-first in OHG should also be looked at from a diachronic point of view. It seems as if, in contrast to verb movement (cf. Chapter 2), the development of obligatory XP-movement has not yet been completed in all environments.36 Negated sentences, for example, are one environment where XP-fronting has not been fully generalized in OHG. A further aspect that we have to take into account is that in many Germanic verb-second languages, verb-first declaratives are used as a marked declarative option. So it could be the case that the OHG verb-first declaratives were the historical counterparts of this marked type of verb-first declarative. If the OHG verb-first declaratives constituted such a special form-function type, it would not be surprising that they were unaffected by generalization of XP-movement. This hypothesis will be explored in the following two sections.

36 In research on diachronic syntax, many cases have been discussed where at a given time a

syntactic innovation is more widespread in a context A than in a context B. Kroch (1989), for example, shows for the spread of do-support in British English between 1400 and 1700 that do is realized with totally different frequencies in negated interrogatives, in non-negated interrogatives and in negated declaratives. Thus there are favourable and non-favourable syntactic contexts for the use of do. From a diachronic point of view, however, it turns out that the change spreads with the same frequency in all the different contexts (= ‘Constant Rate Effect’).

162


3.8.1 Old High German verb-first declaratives and theme-rheme structure Lenerz (1984:131f., 152f.; 1985b) proposes that the OHG verb-first declaratives were the precursors of our modern narrative verb-first declaratives, which preferably occur at the beginning of certain types of narrations such as jokes (see also Maurer 1924; Önnerfors 1997:53ff. for many more examples): (102) Kommt da ein Kerl herein comes then a guy in “a guy comes in and asks me …” (from Lenerz 1985b:104)

und and

fragt mich, … asks me

Lenerz claims that the verb-first order indicates that the sentence does not contain a thematic element; the whole proposition is rhematic. This also explains, he argues, why this word order often occurs at the beginning of a text or a passage, in emphatic narration or where a change of the discourse topic occurs. Which connection there is between the OHG and modern German verb-first declaratives is also a very interesting question since it has been claimed in the literature that in the Germanic languages declarative sentences with verb-first order have a special information-structural and stylistic property which has ultimately been the reason for the general innovation of verb movement in Germanic. Thus, verb-first declaratives would be late witnesses of a phenomenon that was ultimately the trigger for the development of verb movement. This hypothesis has also been put forward by Lenerz (1984:151ff., 1985b). In reference to an observation by Dressler (1969), Lenerz argues that already in Indo-European, verb fronting existed as a ‘stylistic rule’ which had the effect of highlighting the whole content of the sentence (cf. Lenerz 1985b:119). This ‘occasional’ type of verb placement still survived in Germanic. In pre-OHG times, verb fronting was then reanalysed as a ‘habitual’ word order which was no longer associated with special information-structural or stylistic properties. As a result, main declarative clauses were characterized by generalized verb movement. Nevertheless the stylistically marked verb-first sentence has survived until the present day. It has the special property of being fully rhematic (Lenerz 1984:152f, 1985b): So stellt die Anfangsstellung des Verbs [...] z.T. noch im Ahd. eine Möglichkeit dar, die gesamte folgende Proposition insgesamt als rhematisch hervorzuheben. Entsprechend wird Anfangsstellung in der Prosa in einleitenden Sätzen, in emphatischer Erzählung oder bei Wechsel des Gegenstands [...] verwendet; Reste dieses Gebrauchs sind bis ins Nhd. nachzuweisen, wo Anfangsstellung bei bestimmten Erzählstilen vorkommt [...]. (Lenerz 1984:152-153) [In OHG, the initial placement of the verb can be used to highlight the entire proposition that follows as rhematic. Accordingly, in prose texts, verb-first order is used in introductory sentences, in emphatic narration or where a change of the discourse topic occurs. Residues of this use can still be found in New High German, where verb-first order occurs in certain narrative styles.]

163


While it is true that there are many OHG verb-first declaratives attested which only contain rhematic material, we also find a considerable number of examples where this in not the case. The verb-first declarative in (103)-a from Tatian occurs in the middle of a Bible story (The Parable of the Wedding Banquet [Mt 22:1-14]). Its subject, since scalca “his servants”, clearly refers to thematic material since the servants have been mentioned several times in the preceding discourse. The verb-first declaratives in (103)-b and (103)-c occur at the ends of Bible stories (The Shepherds and the Angels [Lk 2:8-20] from the Christmas Story and The Faith of the Centurion [Mt 8:5-13]). Here as well, the respective subjects thie hirta “the shepherds” and ther kneht “the servant” refer to thematic material. Note also that the verb-first declaratives in (103) could not be rendered by verb-first declaratives in modern German. It would not be possible to close the Bible story The Faith of the Centurion with the sentence Wurde sein Knecht in jener Stunde gesund. (103) a. /giengun thô ûz sine scalca/ In went THÔ out his servants into “his servants went out into the streets” /& egressi sunt serui eius/ In uias .../ b. /uuvrbun thô thie hirta THÔ the shepherds turned “the shepherds returned” /& reuersi sunt pastores.‘/

uuega .../ streets

heimuuartes.‘/ homeward

= (29)-d

= (42)-a

c. /uuard tho giheilit ther kneht in thero ziti./ = (30)-a became THO healed the servant in that hour “the servant was healed at that very hour” /& sanatus est puer in illa hora ;/

A similar line of argumentation can be established for the examples in (104). Note that they have pronoun subjects that are anaphorically linked to a preceding discourse referent.37

37 In a paper that was published after the completion of this chapter, Petrova (2006) also ob-

serves that there are verb-first declaratives attested in Tatian that contain thematic material. She has studied the relationship between word order and discourse relations and has found that verb-first order generally occurs in sentences belonging to the main story line of the narrative, which means that they are coordinated in text structure. Verb-second clauses, on the other hand, can be argued to be subordinated in text structure as they appear in contexts providing additional information, for example explanatory or descriptive information on a contextually given entity. Further observations on the information-structural and discourse-pragmatic properties of verb-first declaratives in Tatian can be found in Hinterhölzl, Petrova & Solf (2005).

164


(104) a. /... árstuont [siu] tho úf/ arose she THO up “she arose” /... & surrexit/

= (24)-a

b. /gieng [her] tho predigonti in stat zehenburgo/ THO preaching in city Decapolis went he “he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis” /& abiit praedicans in decapolim/

= (44)

3.8.2 Verb-first declaratives and narrativity Similarly to Lenerz, Önnerfors (1997) observes for verb-first declaratives in modern German, cf. (105), that using them instead of verb-second ones makes the account more vivid, dynamic and expressive. However, he (ibid.: 71-76) argues against the view that verb-first declaratives in modern German only contain rhematic material. In his approach the lack of a preverbal position results in a clause which is unpartitioned at the level of topic-comment structure. In other words, he claims that the syntactic property of verb-first order is correlated with the information-structural property of being ‘all comment’. In the syntactic structure of verb-first declaratives there is no specifier position in the highest sentential projection. In verb-second clauses, this specifier position (= SpecI in Önnerfors’s model of German sentence structure) functions as the designated topic position. The lack of a preverbal position results in a clause which is unpartitioned at the level of topic-comment structure, which in turn is a necessary prerequisite for narrativity. Önnerfors also argues that other levels of information structure, namely theme-rheme structure and focus-background structure, are irrelevant for the explanation of this sentence type in modern German. Önnerfors furthermore proposes that verb-first may serve as a formal correlate of narrativity since the verb, which is the crucial indicator of the event described, is made prominent by this word order: The event is presented as a kind of extralinguistic ‘topic’ and the content of the verb-first declarative constitutes the comment. (105) a. Treffen sich zwei nach den Faschingstagen. REFL two after the carnival-days meet “two guys are meeting after carnival”

= (6)-a

b. Ja, dachte ich, das machste. Hab ich ihr ganz frech yes, thought I that make-you. Have I her totally bold noch en Kuß gegeben, nicht. cf. (6)-b another a kiss given not “yes, I thought, I’ll do that. then I just went ahead and kissed her, didn’t I”

Reis (2000a, 2000b:97) furthermore argues that there is a systematic illocutionary difference between declarative clauses with verb-first and verb-second order in present-day German: Verb-second declaratives strictly assert that a

165


proposition is true, whereas verb-first declaratives just express/recount a proposition that is true. As Reis illustrates, one consequence of this is that verb-first declaratives cannot serve as natural answers to fact-oriented questions, they cannot be used in contradictions (*Doch, steht da ein Mann vor der Tür; literally: “but yes, stands there a man in front of the door”) and after causal denn (*Ich hab Angst, denn steht da ein Mann vor der Tür; literally: “I have fear, for stands there a man in front of the door”) and they do not allow an explicitly performative use (*Kündige ich hiermit; literally: “resign I hereby”). Coming back to the OHG verb-first declaratives, it should be noted that some of them are attested in environments from which the modern ones would be excluded due to their special illocutionary property. For example, OHG verb-first declaratives are attested after the causal conjunction wanta “because, for”; cf. (106). They are also not only found in narrative contexts. In the examples (106)-b and (107), for instance, a verb-first declarative occurs in a direct speech sequence as part of a prophesy.38 (106) a. Wanta químit noh thiu zít \ thaz .... because comes still the time that “for the time is yet to come that ...”

= (100)-b

b. /... . uuib giloubi/ mir . uuanta quimit zit danne ... / (T 279,15) woman believe me because comes time when “woman, believe me, for the time is coming when …” /... . mulier crede/ mihi. quia uenit hora quando/ ... sih (107) /tuot riuuva inti giloub&/ themo euangelio. nahit do repentance and believe the gospel approaches REFL nú/ himilo ríhhi.,/ (T 123,10) now heavens-GEN.PL kingdom “repent and believe in the gospel. The kingdom of God is near” /poenitentiam agite & credite/ in euangelio. Adpropinquauit enim/ regnum caelorum.,/

Thus, we may conclude that many OHG verb-first declaratives are different from their modern German counterparts. It is clear that not all of them encode a special subtype of assertive so there is not the same form-function relationship between verb-first order and the illocutionary property of being a special subtype of assertive. Note, however, that we have argued that we have to distinguish between different types of verb-first declaratives in OHG. So it could still be the case that the narrative type of verb-first declarative existed in addition to the precursors of the present-day es-verb-second sentences (the examples in (106) and (107) could be argued to be precursors of es-verb-second sentences), subjectless constructions and negated sentences with verb-first order. 38 Note, however, that the Latin source also exhibits verb-first order in these examples.

166


In order to be able to find out whether this hypothesis could be correct, we will have to take a closer look at the pragmatic properties of the OHG verb-first declaratives which could qualify as the historical counterparts of our narrative declaratives today. As Önnerfors (1997:100-120) argues for modern German, narrative verbfirst declaratives almost always contain dynamic predicates, i.e. predicates allowing a stage level interpretation. This is due to the fact that the narrative effect hinges on a compatible propositional content. Individual level predicates are incompatible with the narrative function. As we observed above, in OHG verb-first order primarily occurred with mutative predicates, in particular with verbs of movement. These predicates are, of course, only one subgroup of dynamic predicates. However, it could be merely a coincidence that other types of dynamic predicates are not very frequently attested. Note also that Önnerfors (1997:112f.) has found that verbs of movement and verbs of communication are the largest subgroups of verbs in his corpora of modern German verb-first declaratives. So verbs of movement seem to play a special role both in the modern German and in the OHG verb-first declaratives. This would support the hypothesis that there is a diachronic connection between the two, i.e. that there already existed a type of narrative verb-first declaratives in OHG. Furthermore, it should be noted that there are major differences among the OHG texts regarding the number of verb-first declaratives they contain. Tatian and Otfrid are the OHG texts in which verb-first declaratives are particularly frequent. In Isidor, by contrast, this phenomenon seems to be less frequent (see Robinson 1994) and in the late OHG Consolatio, verb-first declaratives are quite rare. These differences could be a reflex of differences in text type. Both Tatian and Otfrid primarily consist of narrative passages, i.e. of Bible stories, whereas the largest proportions of Isidor and the Consolatio are not narrative, but argumentative. It would not be surprising that the putative narrative type of verb-first declarative is largely absent from such scholarly texts. On the other hand, it is easy to find verb-first declaratives in the OHG texts which cannot be rendered by narrative verb-first declaratives in modern German. For example, it would be impossible to close the Christmas Story with the sentence Kehrten die Hirten wieder um (literallly: “returned the shepherds”) in modern German; cf. (103)-b above. Given our observations that there existed other types of verb-first declaratives, the question furthermore arises as to whether verb-first order really had the same degree of markedness. This is, in effect, an essential characteristic of this sentence type in present-day German: here the markedness of verb-first correlates with the fact that this sentence type has a semantic interpretation which goes beyond that of a normal declarative clause (Reis 2002b:97). Moreover, it also seems as if there are syntactic differences between the OHG verb-first declaratives and the modern ones. For example, there are many examples attested in OHG which exhibit extensions of the left periphery in the form of coordinating and ‘parordinating’ conjunctions


167

or preposed adverbial clauses. By contrast, in the many authentic modern German examples discussed by Önnerfors (1997) such extensions do not occur. Note also that in Önnerfors’s account the linear prominence of the verb is argued to be one crucial syntactic correlate of the narrative function. Given the observation that in OHG verb-first declaratives the verb does not always occur in linear first position but may be preceded by conjunctions or adverbial clauses, the linear position of the verb cannot be the crucial formal prerequisite for the narrative function in OHG. So it is doubtful whether there is the same correlation between form and function as in present-day German. This raises the question of how the putative narrative function is triggered in OHG. What other grammatical properties could be responsible for this? Interestingly, many OHG verb-first declarative clauses contain a very characteristic lexical feature: the particle thō in postfinite position. The putative role of this particle will be discussed in the next section. 3.8.3 Verb-first order in sentences with particles In OHG texts, most notably in Tatian and in Otfrid, the particle thō/dhuo often occurs in declarative clauses. As was argued above, it seems to have a very weak semantics in some constructions. This particle, which is homonymous with the adverb thō, is primarily found in narrative passages. It is only attested in sentences with preterite verbs. In Tatian it is even the case that the translators have changed the tense from present tense (in the Latin) to preterite tense in the context of this particle (cf. Lawson 1980). The major difference to the adverb thō is that the particle does not have a fully-fledged temporal meaning. When thō is used in this nontemporal meaning as a translation of et, autem or, somewhat more rarely, of ergo, enim etc. it is often inserted postfinitely (cf. Ruhfus 1897:12 passim; Diels 1906:39ff.; Lawson 1980:99; Betten 1987b on Tatian). Most (preterite) OHG verb-first declaratives contain this particle (see section 3.7.1). So we could hypothesize that the narrative effect is not evoked by a word-order property, but by the use of a lexical element in the form of a special particle. As was already discussed in Chapter 2, there are residues of a system of sentence particles in the early OHG texts. It may have been the case that thō – besides its use as a normal temporal adverbial – belonged to this system as well and served as a kind of narrative-emphatic marker. Sentence particles encoding sentence type, mood or aspects of information-structure, however, are not really a typical feature of verb-second languages. In verb-second languages sentence types are primarily signalled by word order (verb-first vs. verbsecond). Note also that the observation that XP-fronting in ni-sentences seems to be optional and that there are still further classes of examples attested where XP movement fails to occur raises the question of whether the distinction between different types of verb-placement (verb-first, verb-second) plays the same role

168


in sentence typing as in modern German. In earlier OHG there seem to be residues of a system in which sentence typing was carried out by lexical means. In OHG – as in Gothic39 – sentence-typing particles occur in the marked sentence types interrogative and imperative (cf. Chapter 2). In interrogative sentences, we find the particle inu/eno and in imperatives the particle nū: (108) a. /eno habet ir uuaz muoses./ ENO have you anything food-GEN “have you anything to eat?” /numquid pulmentarium hab&is/

(T 685,9)

b. Inu

huu{e}nan meinit · ir · daz ih sii who-ACC think you-PL that I am “who do you think that I am?“ (MF XXXVIII,1; St. Augustini sermo) {Uos autem quem} me esse dicitis INU

(109) a. /láz nu. só gilimphit uns/ zigifullenne al reht/ (T 111,26) NU so behoves us-DAT to-fulfil all righteousness let “let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfil all righteousness” /sine modo. sic enim dec& nós/ Implere omnem Iustitiam/ b. „Nim nu wórt minaz \ in herza, mágad, thinaz put NU word mine in heart maid yours “take my word in your heart, maid”

(O I 15,27)

If we try to envisage the OHG situation from a diachronic point of view – taking also into account the recent results on Gothic and other Old Germanic languages sketched above – we can propose the following speculative scenario: Diachronically speaking, the innovation of generalized verb movement in the Germanic languages preceded that of generalized XP-movement. This means that originally the finite verb occurred at the left periphery in all sentence types (i.e. in interrogatives, imperatives and in declaratives) so that there was verbfirst order (provided that left-peripheral particles are not counted). Verb-second placement only occurred in wh-interrogatives (i.e. after the preposed whphrase) and in sentences with true A-bar movement (i.e. topicalization or fronting of a focused constituent). At the surface, the distinction between sentence types was thus not signalled by different word orders. This was done by sentence-typing particles instead. The old system in which sentence types were not marked by means of wordorder differences, but by means of particles (and verbal mood in imperatives) was later replaced by a system where the distinction between sentence types was primarily signalled by word-order differences (verb-first vs. verb-second). Declarative clauses are usually not marked by a sentence typing particle in 39 There are also particles in declarative clauses in Gothic, but these are not sentence-typing

particles in the strict sense; cf. also Chapter 4.

169


OHG. This is not surprising as Roberts (2005:135) puts forward the crosslinguistic generalization that not all languages which have interrogative particles have declarative particles, but all languages with declarative particles also have interrogative particles. Thus, there are languages where only the marked sentence types are marked by lexical means and where the ‘default’ is marked by the absence of a particle, so to speak. However, in OHG declaratives, we sometimes find the affirmative particle jā; cf. (110). Jā is not merely a sentence-typing particle, but it contributes to the interpretation of the sentence. It signals that the speaker presupposes the agreement of the hearer (cf. Wauchope 1991:128) and is thus also compatible with interrogative contexts.40 (110) /Ia

ist thaz ferah furira thanne tház muos/ is the life more than the food “life is more important than food, right?” /Nonne anima plus est quam esca.‘/

(T 155,9)

IA

In contrast to ni, there are a number of reasons why jā should be regarded as a phrasal element (cf. Chapter 2). Nevertheless it is questionable whether the jāsentences should be regarded as ‘normal’ verb-second sentences since jā cannot simply be analysed as an adverb as is argued for by Behaghel (1928:49) and Gering (1876:37) and as is indicated in the Old High German dictionaries (e.g. Schützeichel 1995:177). The particle never occurs in sentence-internal (i.e. in postfinite) position, but is restricted to the left sentence periphery just as the interrogative particle eno/inu. Note that in present-day German, the only element that is restricted to the prefield and cannot occur sentence-internally is the expletive es; particles such as eno/inu and jā which are exclusively associated with the left sentence periphery no longer exist.41 Viewed from this perspective, it would not be surprising that there was no Stylistic Fronting in sentences with postfinite thō. If thō was a narrativedeclarative marker, it was not necessary to front an XP via Stylistic Fronting.42 We may thus hypothesize that it was the loss of sentence particles that contributed to the generalization of XP-fronting, i.e. the development of Stylistic 40 According to Wauchope (1991:129), in yes/no-interrogatives “ia presupposes confirmation

of an implied or understood answer.” 41 A possible further exception is the particle so in its use as a resumptive element in the apo-

dosis of conditionals. 42 Note that the particle thō is often present in other types of verb-first declaratives as well (i.e. those which are the putative precursors of the present-day es-verb-second clauses and those with subjectless constructions). In these cases the development of verb-second was delayed simply because there often was no XP present which could be fronted to or merged in SpecC: The quasi-argument/correlative iʒ was not yet very widespread, and the prefield expletive had yet to be ‘innovated’. We could thus hypothesize that thō was retained in these environments where the preconditions for the alternative strategy (i.e. XP-fronting, Merge of expletive es) were not yet satisfied.

170


Fronting. The OHG verb-first declaratives with thō would thus be vestiges of this older system. 3.8.4 On the diachronic development of verb-first declaratives The diachronic development of verb-first declaratives is marked by a long gap in its written attestation. In the literature, it has been repeatedly stressed that verb-first declaratives have not been continuously attested. In texts from the late OHG period they are infrequent. Apparently, they are almost entirely absent from late OHG and from Middle High German texts43 and they only occur in texts from the middle of the fifteenth century onwards (Maurer 1924:184). After their revival, it seems that verb-first declaratives have been attested with quite some frequency up to the present day. In the literature, different proposals have been made as to how the gap in the diachronic development of verb-first declaratives can be explained and whether the Early New High German verb-first declaratives can be paralleled to the Old Germanic ones. Brugmann (1917) and Wunderlich & Reis (1924:99-104) claim that there is a diachronic continuity and regard the rise of the verb-first declarative in late Middle High German/Early New High German as a revival of the old type. Önnerfors (1997:229, 232) holds a similar view, arguing that the hypothesis of a diachronic connection between the OHG verb-first declarative and the later ones is not falsified by the fact that there is a gap in Middle High German since this gap could also be due to sociological reasons (i.e. the unpopularity of certain constructions in the medieval court language). As I have argued in the previous sections, there is no simple answer to the question of whether there is a diachronic connection between the phenomenon of verb-first declaratives in OHG and in modern German since we have seen that there are different types of verb-first declaratives attested in OHG. Some of them are clearly not the historical counterparts of the modern verbfirst declaratives. In existential or presentational constructions, verb-first order has died out due to the rise of the prefield expletive es. The same might be true for verb-first order in sentences with passivized predicates. In sentences with subjectless constructions, verb-first order is no longer possible either. One important factor that probably has contributed to the consolidation of verb-second in this particular environment is the spread of the overt quasi-argument es.44 On the other hand, there are also verb-first declaratives attested in OHG 43 See e.g. Biener (1922a), Maurer (1924:183, 1926:182), Behaghel (1932:37) and Ebert

(1978:38) on late OHG and Erdmann (1886:187), Maurer (1924:152), Behaghel (1932:37) and Lenerz (1984:130) on Middle High German. 44 That verb-first declaratives have been subject to a discontinuous diachronic development has also been claimed by Maurer (1924, 1926), Behaghel (1932:37), Schulze (1892:1) and Hammarström (1923). They argue that there is no connection between the OHG verb-first declaratives and the ones which arose in the Early New High German period. Paul ([1919] 1968:71) regards it as doubtful whether there is a connection.


171

which could be argued to be the precursors of our modern narrative verb-first declaratives. However, even these examples are not completely parallel. We have argued that apparently there was not the same form-function relation and that it was arguably not merely the verb-first order which gave rise to the narrative function, but the occurrence of the particle thō. Regardless of the problem what formal properties the narrative type of verb-first declarative has at different stages of the language, the question remains as to why there is this breach in its written documentation. We have to agree with Önnerfors (1997:231) that its temporary absence may have been due to extralinguistic factors and does not necessarily mean that it was ungrammatical. It might be possible that in OHG, the attested number of putative precursors would have been higher if more narrative texts had been produced and handed down. In particular, this may be the problem in the case of the late OHG period since both the works by Notker and by Williram are non-narrative texts. We may thus conclude that there is no complete continuity: The historical core as it is attested in the OHG texts was largely restricted to this early period and has different syntactic properties than the modern verb-first declarative. The relatively high frequency of verb-first declarative compared to modern German is simply due to the fact that there existed these other types of verbfirst constructions (e.g. the precursors of the modern es-verb-second sentences) in addition to the narrative type. 3.9 Conclusion In this chapter, I have studied different types of verb-first declaratives in OHG. The starting point was the observation that the OHG SpecC-position was already targeted by different types of XP-movement. For example, there are uncontroversial cases of operator movement attested in the form of fronted whphrases and fronted focused XPs. Furthermore, the SpecC-position often hosted topicalized constituents. Moreover, I have discussed evidence that the phenomenon of Stylistic Fronting had already developed as I can easily find XPs in SpecC which cannot be operators/topics. Nevertheless verb-first order in declarative clauses was quite frequent. I have argued that there existed different types of verb-first declaratives in OHG. For example, in sentences with impersonal constructions, there was often no overt quasi-argument (or correlative) present that could be fronted. Furthermore, there was often no XP-fronting in sentences that contained the particle thō. I have suggested that these were residues of an older system in which sentence type was not signalled by word order but by the use of lexical elements in the form of sentence particles. Finally, the third strategy to fill SpecC – merge of expletive es – was totally absent from OHG. Consequently, existential or presentational constructions usually exhibited verb-first order. I have furthermore provided arguments that the verb-first order was not a

172


surface phenomenon in all these different constructions: The hypotheses of an empty category (expletive pro, quasi-argument pro) or of topic-drop are not compelling. I may thus conclude that it was a conspiracy of factors that shaped the prefield as we know it today. The rise of overt quasi-arguments and the development of a SpecC-expletive were factors that contributed to the further consolidation of verb-second. However, one older and much more decisive step towards the development of verb-second was the general innovation of Stylistic Fronting. I hypothesize that the lexical decline of certain particles may have eventually been responsible for this innovation. Finally, I have also discussed the diachronic development of verb-first declaratives in German. I have argued that it is not really surprising that there is a diachronic breach between late OHG and the middle of the fifteenth century since the ‘non-narrative’ types of verb-first declaratives (e.g. the precursors of the modern es-verb-second sentences, subjectless constructions) have been replaced by verb-second clauses due to independent developments.

CHAPTER 4

LEFT SENTENCE PERIPHERY AND XP-MOVEMENT

4.1 Introduction This chapter deals with XP-movement to the left sentence periphery. I will first discuss some recent results on the diachronic origins of various types of XPfronting (topicalization, wh-movement etc.) in the Indo-European and Old Germanic languages. This is intended to serve as a background for the investigation of XP-movement in OHG. In the previous chapter on verb-first order, i.e. on the phenomenon of missing XP-movement, I already addressed some aspects of XP-movement in OHG. I argued that XP-movement was already quite generalized in OHG. By ‘generalized’ XP-movement I referred to the phenomenon that an XP was not only moved to the left periphery provided it was a wh-phrase or a focused constituent, for example, but also in declarative sentences with neutral information structure. I discussed some evidence that in sentences with unmarked word order, the highest middle field constituent was fronted (= Stylistic Fronting). Thus, an essential component of a verb-second grammar had already developed in OHG. As will be shown in the following sections, this component was not Pan-Germanic. In Gothic, for example, only wh-phrases, (real) topics and focused XPs were moved to the left periphery. However, there are also differences between the left periphery in Old High German and in modern German: In earlier OHG at least, more than one constituent could precede the finite verb. Two major classes of ‘verb-third’ can be distinguished: First, we find examples where there is no doubt that the prefinite elements are XPs (= XP–XP–Vfin). In addition, there are also examples attested where personal pronouns intervene between an initial XP and the finite verb. The latter phenomenon will be discussed more extensively in Chapter 5. The occurrence of more than one XP in front of the finite verb will be regarded as evidence that in earlier OHG, the C-domain was more complex than today. 4.2 Indo-European origins of topicalization and wh-movement Already in the archaic Indo-European languages such as Vedic Sanskrit, Hittite and Lycian, constituents could move to the left periphery. In some older generative studies on Indo-European syntax, models of sentence structure were developed that contain more than one A-bar position at the left periphery similar to the recent proposal by Rizzi (1997) for modern Italian. Already Delbrück (1888:24) observed that in Vedic Sanskrit, question words tended to be placed at the left periphery of the sentence. Moreover, ele-

174


ments (XPs or the finite verb (cf. Chapter 2)) could move there due to information-structural considerations: “Je wichtiger ein Wort dem Redenden erscheint, um so entscheidender strebt es dem Anfang des Satzes zu” (Delbrück 1888:16) [The more important a word [he means also phrases; K.A.] seems to the speaker, the more decisively it heads towards the beginning of the sentence]. Kiparsky (1995) puts forward the following analysis of the left sentence periphery in Proto-Indo-European: (1) S" S'

TOPIC FOCUS

XP

XP

S ... t (pro) ... V ... (Kiparsky 1995:153)

Kiparsky (ibid.:153) proposes that in Proto-Indo-European there existed two left-peripheral operator positions. The inner one was the target for interrogative and relative wh-phrases as well as for some special focused elements. The outer position hosted topics. Kiparsky argues that the outer topic position was adjoined to the maximal projection and that it bound a (possibly null) resumptive pronoun (= pro) in the clause-internal argument position.1 Of course, generalized verb movement to the left periphery had not yet developed at that stage (cf. Chapter 2). To justify his assumption of the left-peripheral topic position in Proto-IndoEuropean, Kiparsky discusses some results by Hale (1987a) on Vedic interrogative and Hittite relative clauses. The analysis as a kind of left-dislocation construction goes back to the investigation by Garrett (1990, 1992) on Hittite and Lycian. For Vedic Sanskrit and Hittite, Hale (1987a, 1987b) has identified two types of XP-fronting, namely a kind of ‘weak’ topicalization, which signals that the XP is used emphatically, and wh-movement. These two types of XP-movement target different positions at the left periphery; cf. (1). In contrast to Kiparsky (1995), Hale assumes that the topic construction involves movement. 1 In the structure in (1) it seems as if the topic position (= TOPIC) is the specifier of the sentence projection. As Kiparsky (1995) explicitly mentions, however, the topic-XP (Top) is supposed to be adjoined to the maximal sentence projection. Note that the structure in (1) corresponds to the structure that Hale proposes for Vedic Sanskrit, cf. (2) with the only difference being that Kiparsky has relabelled Hale’s COMP-position as FOCUS. Note, however, that Hale proposes that the left-peripheral topic position is a landing site for XP-movement, while Kiparsky (1995:153) considers it to be part of a left-dislocation construction, thereby referring to work by Garrett (1992) on Lycian (see below for further details).


(2)

175

S2 S1

TOP

S

COMP

... ká-

X (Hale 1987a:41)

[+ WH]

The evidence for the distinction of two operator positions comes from the relative order of topicalized constituents, wh-phrases and relative pronouns and from the distribution of clitics. As Kiparsky (1995) reports, Hale’s first important observation is that exactly one constituent may occur to the left of a preposed wh-element. This is not only true for independent interrogative clauses as in (3)-a, but also for relative clauses as in (3)-b. (3)

a. ráthaṃ kó nír avartayat chariot-ACC who down rolled “who rolled out the chariot?” (RV 10.135.5; from Kiparsky 1995:154; cf. also Hale 1987b:11) b. sahásraśṛn̄go thousand-horned

téna

vṛṣabhó yáh

samudrā́d

ud ā́carat,

bull

sea-ABL

outrose

sahasyèna

which

vayáṃ

ní jánān

svāpavāmasi

that-INSTR mighty-INSTR we in people put to sleep “the thousand-horned bull that rose from the sea, with that mighty one we put the people to sleep” (RV 7.55.7; from Kiparsky 1995:154)

Further evidence for the fine-structure of the left periphery in Vedic Sanskrit can be derived from the distribution of clitics. Vedic Sanskrit had different types of enclitics: pronominal clitics, clitic conjunctions such as vā “or” or ca “and” and emphatic clitics. According to traditional assumptions, these different types of clitics are all subject to Wackernagel’s Law: they all occupy the second position in a sentence. Yet Hale (1987a) shows that they differ in their syntactic distribution, thereby falling into two groups. In the first group, which comprises pronominal clitics, the clitic can only be argued to occur in second position when a possible topic-XP occurring at the left periphery is not counted. If there is a wh-element, by contrast, the clitic always occurs directly after it. Hale (1987a:42) thus concludes: “It is clear [...] that the WL [= Wackernagel; K.A.] clitics take second position defined before the topicalization [...], but after WH-movement places ká- [the wh-word; K.A.] in COMP.” (Note that Hale’s COMP-position corresponds to the FOCUS-position

176


in Kiparsky’s proposal.) So in (4) the fronted wh-element (kím) is preceded by a topicalized phrase (índraḥ). Linearly speaking, the enclitic pronoun asya occurs in third position after the topic and the wh-element: (4)

índraḥ

kím asya sakhyé

cakāra

friendship-LOC Indra-TOP what did do “what did Indra do in his friendship?” (RV 6. 27. 1b, from Hale 1987a:42)

In the second group, to which the sentential disjoiners or conjoiners (e.g. vā “or”, ca “and”) as well as the ‘emphatic’ clitics belong, the clitics can only be argued to appear in second position provided that all dislocated phrases (topics, wh-phrases) are counted. The contrast between pronominal clitics and the sentential disjoiners/conjoiners can easily be demonstrated by the relative clause in (5). Here the disjoiner vā occurs to the left of the relative pronoun which occupies the COMP-position in Hale’s account. By contrast, the pronominal clitic no occurs to the right of the relative pronoun in COMP. As Hale (1987a:45) points out, the pronominal clitic no occupies the second position defined before topicalization, whereas the disjoiner vā takes second position defined after topicalization. (5)

utá

vā

yó

no

marcáyād

ánāgasaḥ

also or who us would harm innocent “or also who would harm innocent us” (RV 2.23.7a; from Hale 1987a:45)

A similar structure to that put forward by Hale (1987a, 1987b) for Vedic has been proposed by Garrett (1990, 1992, 1994) for the left periphery in Hittite. In Hittite, and thus presumably also in Proto-Anatolian, two major constructions have to be distinguished: In the unmarked case, the verb occurs at the end of the sentence. The verb or another constituent (notably an NP or a PP) can be preposed by a ‘Fronting’-operation which has a special semantic-pragmatic effect (Garrett 1994:37 speaks of “contrastive focus” or “some other special semantic or pragmatic emphasis”). The ‘Fronting’ construction seems to correspond to ‘weak topicalization’ in Hale’s proposal for Vedic inasmuch as both constructions involve syntactic movement. Garrett furthermore argues that a constituent can be base-generated at the left periphery as part of a kind of leftdislocation construction. When it is definite, it has to bind a resumptive pronoun in the clause-internal argument position (Garrett 1992:208f., 1994:36). The semantic, pragmatic or information-structural difference between fronting and left-dislocation is not entirely clear. The evidence that a left-dislocated topic and a fronted element occupy different left-peripheral positions is provided by the fact that they occur in different positions relative to certain classes


177

of adverbs, conjunctions and preverbs. The linear order of these positions is given in (6). (6) (left-dislocated) topic2 > S-adverbs > Front-X3/XP > Comp (adapted from Garrett 1994:33)

It should be noted, however, that the topicalization construction which Hale (1987a, 1987b) studies is different from the one that Garrett (1992, 1994) discusses as an example for left dislocation. Both Hale and Garrett claim that constituents can be preposed into a position (‘TOP’ according to Hale, cf. (2), ‘FRONT’ according to Garrett, cf. (6)) which is left of the landing site for whelements. However, constituents in this position do not necessarily constitute the left-most edge as they can be preceded by sentence particles such as Hittite nu or the so-called ‘S-adverbs’. Kiparsky (1995:153-155) cites data from Vedic and Hittite discussed in Hale (1987a, 1987b) as evidence for his topic construction of the dislocated type, where the topic is a base-generated adjunct binding a resumptive element (= TOPICi ... proi in (1) above). Note, however, that Hale has analysed these data as involving movement. In order to justify the dislocation analysis, Kiparsky refers to Garrett’s (1992) work on Lycian. However, as Garrett (1994) later argues, in Hittite and Lycian, and thus possibly also in Proto-Anatolian, there also exists topicalization by movement (= his ‘Fronting’) in addition to the option of a left-dislocation construction. As a further essential characteristic of Indo-European sentence structure (besides the presence of two operator positions), Kiparsky (1995) proposes that subordinate clauses are not syntactically embedded. He claims that this is due to the fact that the category of the complementizer has not yet evolved. He argues – with reference to Taraldsen (1986) and others – that the development of CPs is a necessary precondition for syntactic embedding. Thus, finite subordinate clauses, including relative clauses and complement clauses, are basegenerated as adjuncts at the left or right sentence periphery and do not occupy sentence-internal argument or modifier positions.4

2 The representation in (6) wrongly suggests that topicalization (i.e. left dislocation) and

‘Fronting’ may cooccur. As Garrett (1994:33) points out, these two constructions are actually in complementary distribution. 3 When subjects or objects are subject to Fronting, this often only affects the head noun and not the entire NP (Garrett 1994:34). 4 Kiparsky refers to work on Sanskrit, Hittite and Old Latin (cf. Haudry 1973, Lehmann 1980, Hettrich 1988) to justify his assumptions on the syntax of subordination in Indo-European. Cf. also section 4.5.6.

178

4.3


The structure of the left periphery in Germanic

4.3.1 The structure of the left periphery in Proto-Germanic Kiparsky (1995) proposes the following diachronic scenario for the development of the Proto-Germanic sentence structure out of the Indo-European one in (1) above: The crucial step is the innovation of syntactic embedding, which is in turn the result of the development of the complementizer as a new category. The complex structure with two operator positions at the left periphery is maintained. The only difference is that sentences have become projections of the new C-category, i.e. CPs: (7) CP CP

TOPIC

C'

SPEC COMP

XP

XP

V

S ... t ... (pro) ... t ... (Kiparsky 1995:140)

The spread of the Comp-slot with its set of indeclinable complementizers (e.g. Gothic ei, Old Scandinavian es/er, Old English þe, þæt) is a Pan-Germanic, most likely even a Proto-Germanic development according to Kiparsky. The specifier of CP is originally a pure ‘focus’ position which primarily hosts whphrases, negation and certain types of demonstratives. Left of this position, there is a topic position for “topicalized/left-dislocated” (ibid.:140) elements. Kiparsky argues that the topic is generated as an adjunct in its left-peripheral position. When it is an NP, it has to bind a resumptive pronoun in the clauseinternal argument position. Additionally there is the possibility of topicalizing a constituent by adjoining it to S. Kiparsky argues that evidence for the early Germanic sentence structure in (7) is provided by Germanic relative clauses which are introduced by relative pronouns which consist of the above mentioned indeclinable complementizers preceded by a demonstrative pronoun. In this type of relative clause, the correlative demonstrative pronoun moves from its sentence-internal position to the position in front of the complementizer (i.e. Goth. sa+ei, Old English se+þe). This type of relative clause is different from an older one that is introduced by the bare complementizer. It has been shown with data from Old English and Old Icelandic that phenomena such as subjaceny violations, that-trace-effects and preposition stranding etc. only occur in relative clauses with bare complementizers and not in the type with relative pronouns (Allen 1980, Maling


179

1976). This suggests that only the pronoun relative clause involves whmovement. Kiparsky hypothesizes that the pronoun relative is probably of younger origin; in some Old Germanic languages it is not attested. This special type of relative clause syntax, however, is based on the Germanic sentence structure in (95) with its distinction of the C0-position for complementizers and the SpecC-position as a target for wh-movement (Kiparsky 1995:158). Just like in Gothic and Old English, this type of relative clause can also be found in some OHG dialects. In OHG, it is introduced by a demonstrative pronoun and the complementizer the. In the Upper German texts there are no such cases attested, but in the Tatian there are quite a few examples; cf. (8) (see also section 4.5.6). (8)

a. /nemet fon imo thia mnam/ Inti gebet themo/ (T 541,22) take from him the mina and give to-him therde zehen mnas habet/ DEM.PRON+REL.PARTCL ten minas has “take the mina away from him and give it to the one who has the ten minas” /auferte ab illo mnam/ & date illi qui hab& X. mnas./ b. [CP theri

[C' [C0

de]

[VP

ti

zehen mnas habet]]]

Kiparsky (1995:142-143) argues that further properties of the sentence structure in (7) can be derived from Old English data. He claims that Old English is the most conservative Germanic language inasmuch as it retained the syntax of earliest Germanic for the longest time. Besides the distinction of two operator positions and the existence of the pronoun relative, further archaic characteristics of Old English sentence structure are main declarative clauses without verb movement, the phenomenon of so-called ‘residual verb-second’ (cf. below) and a special syntax for clitic pronouns (cf. Chapter 5). Kiparsky furthermore shows that Old English interrogative clauses still provide evidence for an XP-position to the left of SpecC: There are examples attested where constituents occur to the left of the wh-phrase in SpecC. For example, the adverbial clause in (9), which would be taken to occupy the topic position in structure in (7), precedes the wh-phrase hu. (9) [Gif hwa nu bið mid hwelcum welum geweorþod & if anyone now is with such riches endowed and mid hwelcum deorwyrþum æhtum gegyrewod], hu ne with such valuable possessions adorned, how NEG belimpþ se weorðscipe þonne to þam þe hine geweorðað belongs the glory then to him REL.PARTCL him adorns “now if anyone is endowed with all riches and adorned with all valuable possessions, does not the glory then belong to him who adorned him?” (Boethius, ConsPhil 96.12; from Kiparsky 1995:144)

180


What cannot be seen in the structure in (7) above is that Kiparsky assumes that in earliest Germanic, there is a variation among main declarative clauses regarding the question of whether they have a C-projection or whether they are bare S-structures (= IPs or conflated VIPs in Kiparsky 1996). He assumes that verb movement only takes place when a CP is present. A CP is only projected, however, when its presence is required by elements that have to occupy SpecC, i.e. by wh-phrases, by negation and by certain demonstrative adverbs, or by a complementizer. A topic can be adjoined both to S and to CP. The variation between sentences with and without a CP still exists in Old English. This phenomenon lies behind the apparent optionality of verb-second, Kiparsky argues. In sentences with an initial wh-phrase, the negation particle ni or a demonstrative adverb such as þa, þonne or nu, the finite verb always occurs in second position as in (10). In sentences without such ‘focus’ elements, it remains in its sentence-final base position; cf. (11).5 When a ‘focus’ element or a complementizer is not present, a CP is not projected and the sentence is thus a bare Sstructure. In this case, the verb remains in its VP-internal base position. At the surface, it either appears at the end of the sentence or in a medial position due to processes such as verb (projection) raising or heavy NP shift. (10) a. Hu begæst þu weolc þin? how go you work yours “how do you go about your work?” (ÆColl,23; from Kiparsky 1995:146) mid wordum asecgan ealle mæge we awritan ne can we write nor with words express all þa wundra those wonders “we can neither write nor express with words all those wonders.” (ÆLS 21,242; from Kiparsky 1995:147)

b. Ne

NEG

c. þa ondwyrdon hie him tweolice then answered they him doubtingly “then they answered him doubtingly” (Orosius 156,2-3; from Kiparsky 1995:147) (11) He þa his here on tu todælde he then his army in two divided “he then divided his army in two” (Orosius 116,16; from Kiparsky 1995:143)

5 Moreover, Kiparsky argues that the structural difference between sentences with and without

‘focus’ elements affects the distribution of clitic pronouns. This will be discussed in Chapter 5 (section 5.5.1).


181

Interestingly, the English language has retained this archaic property that a verb-second effect only occurs in some restricted environments: In present-day English, the subject is only inverted after wh-phrases, negation or ‘negative’ constituents and certain locative expressions. According to Kiparsky, this phenomenon, which has been referred to as ‘residual verb-second’ by Rizzi (1990), still reflects the historical core of the verb-second property. As was argued in Chapter 2, in OHG, we have evidence for generalized verb movement, even in the older texts. Crucially, the verb not only moves in the context of wh-phrases, negation etc., but in any kind of main clause. In Kiparsky’s (1995) eyes, this shows that a C-projection is obligatory. I have come to the same conclusion and have argued that already in OHG, the verb has to move to C in clauses without complementizers. As Kiparsky furthermore argues, the fact that the verb-second effect is not restricted to ‘focus’ constructions in German shows that these two XP-positions have been conflated and that topics now occupy the same position as wh-phrases: [...] the inherited distinction between the Topic and wh landing sites is not only preserved in Old English but ultimately lies behind the Modern English “residual verb second” system as well. The contrast between Where will Max put the book? and On the table Max will put a book has Indo-European roots. The other Germanic verb-second languages have innovated by effectively collapsing the two positions (Wohin wird Max ein Buch legen?, Auf den Tisch wird Max ein Buch legen.) In this respect at least, English is syntactically the most conservative of all the modern Germanic languages. (Kiparsky 1995:162)

As to the development of German, our data suggest that this collapsing of the two positions has proceeded in more than one step. A first precondition is, of course, that a form of topicalization must have evolved that involves movement. As Kiparsky (1995:143f.) remarks, originally, a topic does not show up at the left periphery as a result of leftward movement into an existing specifier, but is adjoined to the maximal sentence projection in a kind of left-dislocation construction; cf. (7).6 Kiparsky is not very explicit in this point, but his remarks suggest that the topic is basegenerated in this left-peripheral topic position. The question as to how it has happened that the adjunct position in this left-dislocation construction (= TOPICi ... proi)7 has been conflated with the target position of wh-phrases and the like is not discussed by Kiparsky. In my view, a necessary precondition is that the original left-dislocation construction has been reanalysed as a movement con6 As van Gelderen (2004:112) argues, the fact that topics often do not trigger verb-second in

Old English “may be a sign that they are not incorporated into the sentence structure, unlike the wh-element.” 7 As was mentioned above, both Hale (1987a, 1987b) and Garrett (1990, 1992, 1994) argue for the existence of a topic construction involving XP-movement in some archaic Indo-European languages. An alternative hypothesis would thus be that topicalization by movement was an inherited construction.

182


struction. In OHG there are still some interesting data which could be hypothesized to provide some late evidence of how such a reanalysis may have taken place. As will be discussed in section 4.5.1 in more detail, there are arguably still some residues of a left-dislocation construction with a silent resumptive in OHG. In the earlier documents, we can find interrogative clauses introduced by particles which contain a topic-XP at the left periphery. In some examples, there is an overt resumptive pronoun in the middle field. Since earlier OHG is a partial pro-drop-language (cf. Chapter 6), we can hypothesize that there is an empty pro in examples such as (12)-a, which do not contain an overt resumptive as is illustrated in (12)-b. Such constructions then give rise to the speculation that the topicalization through movement may have evolved from a reanalysis of the left-dislocation construction. In principle, the example in (12)-a can receive two analyses: Either the initial XP (= got) has been base-generated in its peripheral position and is resumed by a silent pronoun in the clauseinternal A-position, cf. (13)-a, or the XP has moved to the left periphery thereby leaving a trace in the clause-internal A-position, cf. (13)-b. The putative reanalysis involved is sketched in (13)-c. (12) a. /eno got nituot giriht / sinero gicoronero .../ ENO God NEG-does justice his elect-GEN “and will not God give justice to his elect ...?” /deus autem non faci& uindictam/ electorum suorum .../

(T 415,15)

b. (eno) goti nituot proi giriht sinero gicoronero (13) a. goti nituot b. goti nituot c. goti nituot

[VP proi [VP ti [VP proi

giriht ... ] giriht ... ] giriht ... ] → goti ni tuoat

[VP ti giriht ...

]

As Kiparsky (1995) demonstrates, left-dislocation constructions such as the one in (13)-a can be traced back even to Indo-European times. The proposed reanalysis, however, presupposes the existence of empty resumptive pronouns. It has been claimed that both Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Germanic were null-subject languages. Object-pro (cf. Chapter 5), however, has hardly been discussed in the literature. Apart from the question of how it may have happened that the leftdislocation construction was reanalysed as a topicalization construction with movement, there is the problem of which specifier position in the formerly complex C-domain the landing site for generalized XP-movement has evolved from. Kiparsky (1995:144) suspects that the inner XP-position in (7), i.e. the former ‘focus’ position has been generalized: „In the modern Germanic verbsecond languages, such as German and Swedish, the Spec-C position itself has become capable of hosting topicalized as well as focused constituents”. This position is the specifier position of the projection into whose head the finite


183

verb moves in the sentence structure proposed by Kiparsky (1995). One of the major topics of this chapter and the following chapter is to find out which types of verb-third constructions are attested in OHG texts. In Kiparsky’s (1995) account these data verb-third data can only be analysed as verb-final clauses (without verb movement). In the structure in (7), the only type of verb-third effect that could occur in sentences with verb movement would be triggered by base-generated topics that are adjoined to CP. Such cases of left-dislocation are attested in OHG texts: (14) a. /... Inti [ir uuarliho]/ nu habet ir gitruobnessi./ (T 587,26) and you indeed now have you sorrow “and you will indeed now have sorrow” /... & uos igitur/ nunc quidem tristitiam habebitis./ b. [CP [ir uuarliho]i [CP nuk [C' [C habetj ] [S iri tk gitruobnessi tj ]]]]

However, as will be discussed in this and the following chapter, the earlier OHG sources contain data which show that constituents may occur between the fronted XP and the finite verb: (15) a. Seegi [got] [dhar] sprah behold God there spoke “behold, God spoke there” (R) Ecce deus, qui loquitur

(I 311)

b. Erino portun [ih] firchnussu iron portals I-NOM destroy “I will destroy iron portals” Portas aereas conteram

(I 157)

The observation that constituents may intervene between the XP in SpecC and the finite verb suggests that the specifier position which is the target of XPmovement does not belong to the projection whose head is the target of verb movement, but to a higher projection. If it is correct that there was more than one XP-position in the C-domain in earlier OHG, then we can speculate that the structure of the left periphery which Kiparsky (1995) has reconstructed for Proto-Germanic may still be too simple. Indeed, some recent research on Gothic suggests that the Proto-Germanic C-domain could have been quite complex. This research will be discussed in the following section. 4.3.2 Left-peripheral particles and the fine-structure of the C-domain in Gothic As was already discussed in Chapter 2, left-peripheral particles might have played an important role in the development of the left sentence periphery in Germanic (Hopper 1975:26ff.; cf. also Hirt 1934:166-168, 194). This is an Indo-European inheritance whose potential syntactic impact Kiparsky (1995)

184


has not taken into consideration. In OHG as well, there are some residues of a particle system. Gothic is the old Germanic language with the most elaborate particle system. As cross-linguistic research has shown, there are languages where left- and right-peripheral particles play a vital role in the encoding of, for example, sentence type, mood or information-structural properties (e.g. Hendrick 2000 and Roberts 2005 on Celtic, Willis 1998 on historical Welsh, Bhatt & Yoon 1993 and Bhatt 1999 on Kashmiri, Korean and Japanese; cf. also Cheng 1991 and Brandner 2004). In these languages the particles – at least partly – bear information that in verb-second languages is encoded by the interaction of verb movement and XP-fronting. This makes Gothic a very interesting case in point. Gothic is not a verb-second language, but it already has systematic verb movement in some specific syntactic environments and it has a differentiated system of left-peripheral particles which partly interact with XPfronting (topicalization, focusation) (Ferraresi 1997; Eythórsson 1995, 1996). Even though Gothic is not a direct precursor of OHG, it may arguably have preserved some reflexes of Proto-Germanic properties that may have been the common preconditions for the development of verb-second grammars in the West and North Germanic languages. In the following, I will therefore discuss some recent research on the left sentence periphery in Gothic. This time my primary concern will be the evidence for a multi-partite C-domain as well as for the interaction between the particle system and different types of XPfronting (wh-movement, topicalization, focusation). The role of verb movement was already discussed in Chapter 2. Kiparsky (1995) argues by means of evidence from Old English that whphrases (or focused elements) and topics occupy different left-peripheral positions in Proto-Germanic. Ferraresi (1997, 2005) has been able to confirm this result by means of data from Gothic which show that in this language, there must have been an XP-position for topics to the left of the position for whphrases. She cites examples from the Gothic Bible in which the wh-phrase is preceded by an XP that can be interpreted as a topic; cf. (16)-a and (16)-b. Ferraresi (1997:29f., 2005:134-136), who bases her syntactic analysis of the Cdomain on the structure proposed in Rizzi (1997), assumes that wh-phrases move to the specifier of the focus phrase (= SpecFocP), whereas the topic occupies the specifier of a separate topic phrase that occurs further to the left; cf. (16)-c.8

8 Again, the examples from the Gothic Bible discussed in this chapter are cited in the secon-

dary sources which are mentioned in the main text and have not been collected by me. I have checked them in the edition by Streitberg (1919) in order to be able to present them in a consistent way with word-by-word glosses and a modern English translation.


185

(16) a. jah [arms fraujins] [hvamma] andhuliþs warþ? (Jn 12:38) revealed became and arm-NOM Lord’s whom “and to whom has the power of the Lord been revealed?” καὶ ὁ βραχίων κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη; b. [þata] [hva] sijai þatei quiþiþ: leitil that-NOM what is that says little “what is this ‘little while’ that he is speaking of?” τοῦτο τί ἐστιν ὃ λέγει τὸ µικρόν;

(Jn 16:18)

c. Top > FocP

That Gothic has a complex C-domain is also suggested by the fact that there are dependent clauses attested in which a focused constituent9 occurs to the left of the complementizer ei “that” (Ferraresi 1997:31, 2005:136), which Ferraresi (1997:31) takes to have been merged in Fin (cf. also Roberts 1996):10 (17) a. … þatei qeþi imma Iesus: bugei þizei þaurbeima du dulþai, that said him Jesus buy that-what need for feast aiþþau [þaim unledam] ei hva gibau (Jn 13:29) or the poor-DAT.PL that something should-be-given “… that Jesus was saying to him, ‘Buy what we need for the feast,’ or that he should give something to the poor” ὅτι λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀγόρασον ὧν χρείαν ἔχοµεν εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν, ἢ τοῖς πτωχοῖς ἵνα τι δῷ. b. FocP > FinP

Further evidence for the existence of more than one C-projection in Gothic is provided by the rich particle system. The Gothic language not only has interrogative particles such as an or -u, but also particles which have an effect on the information structure or which are used to put emphasis on a constituent. Furthermore, Gothic has ‘mood’ particles and so-called ‘connective’ particles (cf. Klein 1994; Klein & Condon 1993; Eythórsson 1995, 1996; Ferraresi 1997:100). As Klein & Condon (1993) and Ferraresi (1997:107ff.) show, the use and distribution of the particles are an original Gothic phenomenon. Even 9 As Ferraresi (1997:23) points out, it is not always clear how topicalized and focused constitu-

ents can be distinguished in written documents, in particular in historical texts. As will be shown below, some evidence is provided by the particle system. It is not really important for the following argumentation to find out whether Ferraresi’s classifications of constituents as topics, foci etc. are always convincing. The main point here is to show that the C-domain is complex. 10 In the published version of her thesis, Ferraresi (2005:136-141) discusses further evidence for a complex C-domain in Gothic, in particular the phenomenon of ‘recomplementation’, where an adverbial clause or another single constituent appears between two complementizers of the same kind. Ferraresi argues that the upper complementizer is probably merged in Force and the lower in Fin.

186


though Old Greek – like the other early Indo-European languages – has similar particles to Gothic, this phenomenon is not very persistent in New Testament Greek: In contrast to Classical Greek, the coordinating clitic τε, for example, does not play an important role. Ferraresi (1997, 2005:143) argues that the Gothic particles fall into two groups: first-position particles and second-position particles. First-position particles are, for example, connectives such as jah and ak. Furthermore, interrogative particles such as an and the enclitic -u belong to this group.11 Particles in second position “have the function of organizing the discourse by emphasizing a particular element and contrasting it with other elements in the context or signalling change of topic” (2005:150). Some typical examples are the particles iþ, -uh, nu, auk and þan.12 They can be preceded by an XP, by the verb or any other head, or by another particle. These particles occupy either the specifier or the head position of various projections in the C-domain as sketched in (18). (18) C1 an

C2 iþ

C1 = C2 = C3 = C4/C5/C6 =

C3 -u

C4 -uh

C5 þan

C6 nu/auk

(adapted from Ferraresi 2005:173)

realized as a complementizer or clause-type marker Top “probably” Foc “Mod realization to be further defined”13

The particles iþ and -uh are the particles that are strongly related to XPmovement. Ferraresi (2005) proposes that iþ has the function of signalling a change of topic. More precisely, she argues (ibid.:161) that iþ is only present if Topic/Focus is realized.14 The particle iþ, which usually translates Greek δὲ and is commonly rendered by aber in modern German, often gives rise to a contrastive interpretation of the following XP. This can be seen in example (19) from the Gospel of Luke, which is cited in Klein & Condon (1993:43f.). This particular Bible passage renders the words by Jesus, who, after he has been taken care of and caressed by the sinful woman from Bethany, contrasts her behaviour with that of 11 Ferraresi (2005:143-146) furthermore discusses the particle ibai, which only occurs in the

Epistles in the function of an interrogative clause-typer (in the Gothic Bible itself it only occurs as a complementizer). 12 Nu, auk and þan are not only attested as second-position particles, but also as normal adverbs in XP-positions. 13 Ferraresi (2005:161) suggests that C4 is Fin. 14 In the traditional literature iþ has often been regarded as a coordinating adversative conjunction and it has been compared with modern German aber. Note, however, that iþ occurs only at the left periphery of sentences; it does not ‘coordinate’ non-sentential constituents. This is why the term sentence particle may be more appropriate.


187

Simon. (19) wato mis ana fotuns meinans ni gaft; (Lk 7:44) NEG gave-2.SG water me at feet my iþ si tagram seinaim ganatida meinans fotuns IÞ she tears-DAT her moistened my feet “you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears” ὕδωρ µοι ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας µου οὐκ ἔδωκας · αὕτη δὲ τοῖς δάκρυσιν ἔβρεξέν µου τοὺς πόδας

Ferraresi (2005:173) argues that iþ has a slightly adversative value and therefore introduces a kind of contrastive topic. According to Ferraresi the enclitic particle -uh occupies the head of a lower C-projection.15 Any XPs that occur to the left of it must have moved to the left periphery. In the sequence iþ–NP–V-uh, the subject is always definite (proper noun or pronoun) since indefinite subjects cannot be topicalized (Eythórsson 1995; Ferraresi 1997, 2005:160f.). In some cases the sequence ‘finite verb + the enclitic -uh’ follows immediately onto a topicalized constituent (Ferraresi 1997:127f. and 131, 2005:150-155):16 (20) a. iþ Iesus andawaurdi ni gaf imma (Jn 19:9) IÞ Jesus answer NEG gave him “but Jesus gave him no answer” ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀπόκρισιν οὐκ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ b. iþ Iesus iddjuh miþ im IÞ Jesus went-UH with them “but Jesus went with them” ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐπορεύετο σὺν αὐτοῖς (21) CP iþ

CP CP DPSubj-def V-uh

(Lk 7:6)

(adapted from Ferraresi 2005:162)

Ferraresi (2005:156, 159) argues that the particle -uh, which only occurs in independent sentences, is a discourse organizational particle which serves to introduce a new element into the discourse (often independently of the Greek) and to carry on the narration (= discourse-continuative function according to Klein 1994). The new element can be nominal or verbal. In the philological 15 Cf. also Eythórsson (1995, 1996) for a number of arguments as to why -uh is an enclitic in

C0. 16 Ferraresi (1997; 2005) analyses the DP in the iþ–DP Subj-def–V-uh-construction as a contrastive topic, whereas Eythórsson (1995, 1996) – whose analysis is based on an unsplit CP – argues that the DP is focused in this construction and should thus be analysed as an operator triggering V-to-C movement. In Ferraresi’s account V-to-Fin-movement is triggered because uh has to be lexicalized.

188


literature it has been described as a coordinating clitic which is synonymic with the tonic conjunction jah “and”. Ferraresi, however, argues that jah and -uh are different both in meaning and in their syntactic distribution. The particle -uh can also occur together with the particle þan as in (22) (Ferraresi 1997:120,138, 2005:165; Klein 1994:262ff.). Ferraresi (2005:165) argues that the constituent to which -uh þan is attached has already been mentioned in the previous discourse and is thus presupposed. (22) þatuþ-þan qaþ, ni þeei ina þize þarbane kara wesi ... that-UH ÞAN said NEG because him of-the needy care was “he said this, not because he cared about the poor ...” εἶπεν δὲ τοῦτο, οὐχ ὅτι περὶ τῶν πτωχῶν ἔμελεν αὐτῷ ... (Jn 12:6)

While Ferraresi (2005:156) stresses that the main function of -uh is to introduce a new element into the discourse, thereby carrying on the narration, Klein & Condon (1993:8ff.) observe that there are numerous indications that the XP hosting (-u)h is characterized by strong (coreferential or iterative) anaphoricity. They also claim that the construction has the function of carrying on the discourse. Accordingly, they call -uh a ‘discourse resumptive particle’. It could thus be hypothesized that the element to which -uh attaches should not merely be regarded as a category of pragmatic ‘aboutness’ (e.g. Reinhart 1995; Molnár 1998), but that it is also characterized by ‘familiarity’ (Reinhart 1981, 1995) or anaphoricity. Since the particle -uh is enclitic, it requires material to its left to which it can attach.17 As Ferraresi (1997:138) points out, in presentative constructions as in (23), it is the verb wisan “be” which has moved to the C-domain and to which -uh has attached. The complex V+uh in first position is followed by the emphatic particle þan: (23) Wasuh þan sums siuks, Lazarus af Beþanias (Jn 11:1) was-UH ÞAN certain sick Lazarus of Bethany “now then there was a certain sick man, Lazarus of Bethany” Ἦν δέ τις ἀσθενῶν, Λάζαρος ἀπὸ Βηθανίας

The particle can attach to any type of head, for example to the finite verb, a preposition, an adverb etc. The head can also be split from the rest of the constituent by -uh (metathesis) (Ferraresi 2005:158): 17 As Ferraresi (1997:107f.) demonstrates with reference to results by Klein & Condon (1993), there are 79 examples in the Gothic Bible where the particle -uh occurs on its own (i.e. without additional particles such as þan). In 50 cases, -uh does not have a counterpart in the Greek original. In 18 cases, -uh renders a second-position particle, namely δέ, and in 11 cases it translates καὶ “and”, which is the most important coordinating conjunction in New Testament Greek.


189

(24) [inuh þis] bileiþai manna attin seinamma jah aiþein seinai IN-UH this leaveman father his and mother his “on account of this, a man shall leave his father and mother” (Mk 10:7) ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν µητέρα

Summing up, the evidence from Gothic has confirmed the hypothesis by Kiparsky (1995) that there existed different positions for topics and focused elements or operators (in particular wh-phrases) in Proto-Germanic. The relevant data are, for example, instances of the sequence ‘topic + wh-phrase’ at the left periphery of interrogative clauses.18 As Ferraresi (1997, 2005) furthermore argues, the distribution of particles provides further information about the finestructure of the Gothic C-domain. Notably the particles iþ and -uh can be shown to be two lexical elements that interact with XP and head-movement: iþ signals the activation of the (Topic-)Focus-field. The meaning or function of -uh is still a controversial issue. In contrast to Klein & Condon (1993), who stress that the particle is used to indicate anaphoricity, Ferraresi (2005) argues that the particle -uh serves to introduce a new element into the discourse: Only in combination with þan (= as -uh þan) does it attach to elements that are presupposed. Thus, the Gothic data may be argued to provide evidence that originally the structure of the left periphery may have been even more complex than has been proposed by Kiparsky. Ferraresi concludes that “Gothic data also suggest that certain elements which are traditionally positioned in the CP are not all in the same position. That is, we should assume a structure in the Vorfeld that is more complex than has been recognized so far” (2005:23). The remaining part of this chapter is devoted to the syntax of the Vorfeld in OHG. More precisely, I will investigate different types of XP-fronting and of left-dislocation constructions. 4.4 XP-fronting in Old High German A typical property of verb-second languages is that an XP can move to the SpecC-position regardless of its syntactic category or syntactic function. This can already be shown to hold for eighth and ninth century OHG. As can be seen in the examples in (25), the clause-initial XP-position is not always occupied by the subject-DP as in (25)-a or (25)-b, but may also host an object pronoun, (25)-c, a temporal adjunct, (25)-d, an adjectival predicate, (25)-e, or an infinite part of the verb such as the past participle in (25)-f. 18 Note that Ferraresi (1997:30) argues against analysing the XP in XP–wh–V -orders as a fin

left-dislocated topic. In Kiparsky’s (1995) proposal on Proto-Germanic sentence structure, cf. (7), only a base-generated topic binding a clause-internal resumptive may occur to the left of the wh-phrase.

190


(25) a. [Druhtin] suuor dauite in uuaarnissu Lord-NOM swore David-DAT in truth “the Lore swore to David in truth” (R) Iurauit dominus dauid in ueritate b. /[sihuúer] biruorta mih./ someone-NOM touched me “some one has touched me” /t&igit me aliquis./

(T 205,22)

c. /[ín] bihieltun thó thie watched PARTCL the him-ACC “the scribes watched him” /obseruabant autem scribȩ/ d. /[hier] ist ein kneht…/ here is a boy “there is a little boy here …” /est puer unus hic … / her./ e. /[toot] ist dead is he “he is dead” /quia mortuus est/

(I 610)

scribara/ scribes

(T 227,10)

(T 251,7)

(T 313,14)

f. [Araugit] ist in dhes aldin uuizssodes boohhum dhazs … revealed is in the-GEN old-GEN testament-GEN books that “It is revealed in the books of the Old Testament that …” (R) Pateat ueteris testamenti apicibus (I 252)

In the examples (25)-a to (25)-d, the constituents filling the first position clearly differ from those in the corresponding Latin sentences, which suggests that these word orders were licensed by the native OHG grammar. In the Latin sentence in (25)-e, the participle mortuus, which is rendered by the adjective toot in OHG, precedes the finite verb just as in the OHG, but the clause has been converted from a subordinate clause into a main clause and the subject pronoun her has been inserted in postfinite position in the OHG translation. In (25)-f it can be argued that the word orders are parallel in both languages since the participle araugit is the translation of the sentence-initial finite verb in the Latin source (pateat). Note, however, that the example is from the OHG Isidor translation, which is generally considered to be of outstanding quality (e.g. Lippert 1974:188; Wehrli 1984:189). So already in the earlier prose texts practically any maximal category is attested in the OHG prefield. The same could, of course, easily be demonstrated with material from late OHG texts (see Näf 1979:302-313). However, some prefield fillers occur much more frequently than others. A subject-DP or an adjunct occurs more often in SpecC than, for example, a direct-object-DP or an


191

infinite verb in sentences which deviate from the Latin.19 For modern German, it can easily be shown that even though virtually any constituent can move to the prefield, these different fillings of the prefield have an effect on the information structure of the sentence. Recently, Fanselow (2002, 2003a, 2003b 2004) and Frey (2004a) have put forward syntactic accounts couched in the minimalist framework which distinguish between three ways of filling the prefield: (i) operator movement, (ii) Stylistic Fronting/Formal Movement, and (iii) Merge of expletive es. Operator (or A-bar) movement is taken to always have a semanticpragmatic effect (Rizzi 1997, 2004:7). The authors argue that it is triggered by a feature with a specific semantic content such as [+wh] or [+top] [+foc] in Fanselow’s account or [+Kontrast] in Frey’s account, whereas ‘Stylistic Fronting’ or ‘Formal Movement’ checks an EPP-feature.20 Note, however, that Fanselow’s and Frey’s accounts also differ in two respects: First, the syntax of topicalization is analysed differently. Second, in contrast to Fanselow, Frey proposes that there are different C-projections (FinP, KontrP and CP from right to left) which bear specific types of EPP-features.21 Such theoretical details, however, are not essential for the following argumentation, which is primarily aimed at giving a more descriptive overview of the grammar of the OHG prefield. I have chosen to use Fanselow’s proposal as a theoretical background since it is somewhat simpler. Regardless of the question as to how the different ways of filling the prefield are to be implemented in a feature-based grammar, it can be noted that their diachronic developments are not uniform: In the last chapter it was argued that there is already evidence 19 Bernhardt & Davis (1997:55) observe that in Tatian, the prefield is most often occupied by

the subject or an initial adverbial. Näf (1979:323) has found out that in Notker’s Consolatio, the subject occurs in the prefield in ca. 58% of verb-second clauses. 20 Note that the so-called ‘Extended Projection Principle’ originally only referred to subjects. More precisely, it expressed the requirement that every sentence must have a subject. This also means that originally it was equated with a determiner feature: Only DPs were argued to be able to fill the subject position (e.g. SpecI in English). In recent minimalist studies, movement to SpecC in verb-second languages has also been argued to be triggered by an EPP-feature. This EPP-feature can thus no longer be a determiner feature, of course, since it may affect phrases of any category. The EPP-feature now only expresses the requirement that certain positions have to be filled and it does not have any additional semantic content (cf. also Fanselow 2002). Note also that Holmberg (2000) analyses so-called ‘Stylistic Fronting’ in Icelandic as being triggered by a phonological EPP-feature. 21 In contrast to Fanselow, Frey (2004a) assumes that one has to distinguish different Cprojections (FinP, KontrP and CP). Frey (2004a:29) argues that the EPP-feature in Fin is a ‘bare’ EPP-feature, and the one in Kontr is associated with the feature [+KONTRAST]. In C there may be an EPP-feature which encodes reference to the discourse structure and is checked by base-generated ‘discourse adverbs’ such as kein Wunder “no wonder”. The verb-second effect results from the constraint that there can only be one EPP-feature present in the C-domain. In the following discussion, I will use the term ‘EPP-feature’ in Fanselow’s sense. This would correspond to the ‘bare’ EPP-feature in the terminology by Frey (2004a).

192


for Stylistic Fronting/Formal Movement in the earlier OHG documents. What had not yet evolved, however, was an expletive element to be merged in SpecC. Operator movement will be discussed in the following sections. 4.4.1 Operator movement Operator movement is the type of XP-fronting which arguably has the longest history: As was shown at the beginning of this Chapter, it can even be traced back to the archaic Indo-European languages. Kiparsky (1995) furthermore claims that in Proto-Germanic, other types of ‘focused’ elements such as certain demonstrative adverbs could move to the left sentence periphery. Ferraresi (1997) argues that in the Gothic iþ–XP-construction, the XP is focused and occupies a position in the C-domain. Note also that sentences with initial operators (wh, negation, demonstrative adverbs etc.) have been proposed to have played a central role in the development of V-to-C movement in the early Germanic languages (see Kiparsky 1995 on Old English and Eythórsson 1995; Roberts 1996; Ferraresi 1997, 2005 on Gothic). Not surprisingly, already in the eighth and ninth century OHG prose texts, wh-phrases are positioned at the left sentence periphery in front of the preposed finite verb, cf. (26)-a. We even find evidence for long wh-extraction from subordinate thaz-clauses in these early texts; cf. (26)-b.22 (26) a. /… [uuanne]i quami thú when came you “when did you come here?” /… quando huc uenisti./

ti héra/ here

(T 257,12)

b. / [ uuár]i uuili [CP t'i thaz uuir ti garauuemes] …/ that we prepare ...? where will-2.SG “where do (you) want us to prepare ...?” /ubi uis paremus … /

(T 555, 8)

Furthermore, there is evidence that focused constituents can move to SpecC in OHG. Already Behaghel (1932:51, 255ff.) points out that there are marked word orders in OHG declarative clauses where the initial position is occupied by constituents that usually occur postfinitely. He calls this “affektisch bedingte Wortstellung” (‘affectively conditioned word order’) (ibid.:51). Furthermore, he suggests that the preposed XP can be contrastively focused: “ein besonderer Fall der affektischen Betonung ergibt sich durch den Gegensatz” (ibid:52) [A special type of affective emphasis results from contrast]. To illus-

22 Note that in Latin, wh-phrases also usually occur at the left periphery. This is why there are

hardly any OHG examples attested where the wh-phrase is fronted contrary to the Latin in the earlier texts. Näf (1979:164) mentions, however, that in the late OHG Consolatio, in almost one-third of the examples with fronted wh-phrases do not have a parallel counterpart.


193

trate this, he cites the following late OHG examples from Notker’s Martianus Capella and from Boethius: (27) a. Uuánda éiniu gâhota uuîlon . [uuîlon] gestúlta sî . for one hurried sometimes, sometimes abided she sî (N MC I 24,21) [uuîlon] eruuánt sometimes digressed she “for one sometimes hurried ahead, sometimes it abided, sometimes it digressed” Nam alter nimia celeritate festinus ac plerumque consistens relabensque ferebatur b. Vuánda [an_hímele] chúmet tágeliches tiu súnna níuuiu . for to-the sky comes daily the sun new góld-fáreuua áber [demo uuálde] gíbet íro skímo but the forest-DAT gives her gleam gold-colour “for the new sun comes daily to the sky, but its gleam gives the forest a golden colour” (N MC I 21,14) c. [Êr] uuâren sie gûollichi mînero iúgende . [nû] before were they delightfulness of-my youth now trôstent sie míh álten . mînero mísseskíhte comfort they me old of-my misery “in former times they were the delight of my youth, now that I am old they comfort me in my misery” (N BCon I 6,24) Gloria felicis olim uiridisque iuuente̹ . solantur nunc mea fata . mesti senis (l. 23)

If we investigate written corpus data, in particular historical corpus data, it is, of course, difficult to analyse the information-structural or semantic-pragmatic status of the preposed XPs. We do not have direct access to prosodic information and we cannot ask informants which interpretation a particular construction has. However, the so-called ‘question test’ is one relatively straightforward way to identify a focused element that can also be applied to corpus data. It is illustrated in (28) by means of a modern German example from Fanselow (2004:4f.). According to Fanselow, the fronting of the accusative object ein Buch is triggered by a focus feature in C; cf. (28)-b. (28) a. (– Was hat er gelesen? “what has he read”) – [Ein BUCH] hat er gelesen a book has he read “he has read a book” b. [CP Ein BUCH [[C hat] [IP er gelesen ]]] → [+foc]-feature in C

modern German

(cf. Fanselow 2004:5)

In the OHG prose texts, we can also find examples with such question-answer sequences. The Tatian sentences in (29), for example, constitute a question-

194


answer sequence and we may therefore assume that the pronoun ein in SpecC is focused. Note that ein here is a cataphoric pronoun which denotes the propositional content of the following complex sentence (= /obathu uuolles thuruhthigan uuésan./ fár forcoufi thiu thu habes./ “if you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have” [T 357, 16f]).23 (29) a. (/uuaz ist mir nohnu uuan./ thir uuan./ /[ein] ist one-NOM is you-DAT lack “one thing you lack” /unum tibi deest./ b. [CP

ein

[[C ist ] [ thir

“what do I sill lack?”) [T 357,12]) (T 357,15)

uuan ]]]

We also find cases where the context suggests a contrastive interpretation. In the second sentence in example (30)-a, from Tatian, the dative object (i.e. the pronoun anderemo) has been fronted to SpecC and is contrasted with the dative object (thesemo) in the first sentence.24 Similarly, in the late OHG example in (30)-b from the Consolatio, the fronted dative object (i.e. the DP herbeste) is contrasted with temo lenzen “the spring” in the following sentence and we can therefore suspect that it is contrastively focused. In some cases, the contrastive interpretation is also suggested by the use of lexical elements such as the adversative particle auur in (31). (30) a. /Inti ih quidu zi thesemo far/… [anderemo] quidu quim/ and I say to this-one go other-DAT say come “and I say to this one, ‘Go’ … and to another, ‘Come’” /& dico huic uade . / ... & alio ueni /

(T 181,22)

b. [Herbeste] gab kôt tîe êrâ . náls temo lenzen autumn-DAT gave God the honour not the spring-DAT “God has given this award to the autumn, not to the spring” (N BCon I 36,3) (31) [Sunu auur] uuard uns sun-NOM however became us “but a son was given to us” (R) filius autem datus est nobis

chigebhan given

(I 394)

23 Thanks to Svetlana Petrova for pointing this out to me. 24 It could be objected that the placement of the dative object is parallel to the Latin as here the

object (alio) also appears sentence-initially. Note, however, that the translator has inserted the finite verb (quidu) contrary to the Latin in this case. Instead of putting the verb in front of the dative object (i.e. # quidu anderemo) parallel to the first sentence, the translator has chosen to place anderemo in front of the verb.


195

Furthermore, in verb-second languages the prefield/SpecC-position can host topicalized XPs, of course. This is illustrated in (32), again with a modern German example adapted from Fanselow (2004:5). (32) a. ( – Soll ich was über Ede erzählen?/ “do you want me to tell something about Ede?”) – Diesen Verbrecher hat man endlich verhaftet has one finally arrested this-ACC criminal “this criminal has finally been arrested” b. [CP Diesen Verbrecher [[C hat] [ man endlich verhaftet ]]] → [+top]-feature in C (cf. Fanselow 2004:5)

Many linguists subscribe to the so-called ‘aboutness concept’ of topics, which was originally proposed by Reinhart (1981). A controversial issue is whether an aboutness topic has to be given already in the preceding context as in example (32) or whether it can denote a new referent (see Frey 2000:138 for an overview of the relevant literature). Here, it may suffice to say that in the OHG texts, we find many examples of the uncontroversial case where the fronted XPs denote a given referent. So in the Tatian example in (33) the object pronoun in, which has an anaphoric antecedent (the DP man) in the preceding sentence, has been fronted to SpecC. In the Isidor example in (34), the prepositional phrase umbi dhiz refers back to the content of the dhazs-clause in the preceding sentence. (33) (/… Inti uuas thár man/ thes zesua hant thurri uuas/ “and there was a man whose right hand was withered” [T 227,8]) /[ín] bihieltun thó thie scribara/ = (25)-c PARTCL the scribes him-ACC watched “the scribes watched him” /obseruabant autem scribe/̧ (34) (… dhazs dher aerloso man … christ, got endi druhtin uurdi chinemnit “that the impious man … was named Christ, God and Lord” [R] [I 168]) [Umbi dhiz] nist auh so chiscriban in dhero sibunzo tradungum ... about this NEG-is also so written in the Septuagint (I 171) “about this is not written thus in the Septuagint ...” Unde et in translationeLXX non habet ...

Fanselow (2003b:31) proposes that the fronting of a topic in German is an instance of operator (A-bar) movement just as the fronting of a focused constituent. Frey (2004a) argues that operator movement, i.e. real A-bar movement, always results in a contrastive interpretation. In his approach, (non-contrastive) topics as in the modern German example in (32) move to the prefield via Amovement, more precisely via ‘Formal Movement’, which always affects the highest constituent in the middle field, just as ‘Stylistic Fronting’ in Fanselow’s

196


account (see section 4.4.2). This is possible because he assumes that there is a topic position at the left edge of the middle field into which topics can be scrambled via A-movement. As it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find out which analysis is more convincing for OHG solely on the basis of written corpus data, I will not try to answer this question. I shall merely draw the descriptive conclusion that constituents functioning as topics are frequently attested in the OHG prefield. Moreover, there already exist different types of constructions with dislocated topics. This will be discussed in section 4.5.1. To sum up, already in the earlier OHG prose texts we find different types of operators in the SpecC-position: wh-phrases and focused XPs. Furthermore, the SpecC-position can host topicalized constituents. 4.4.2 Stylistic Fronting As has already been suggested by the remarks on the Indo-European and Germanic origins of XP-movement at the beginning of this chapter, the different ways of filling the SpecC-position (or positions) did not develop at the same time. If one compares the situation in OHG with that in Gothic, it can be noted that here we find material in the first position in OHG which does not occur in the Gothic C-domain. This is not to say that I am presupposing that the structure of the Gothic left periphery is identical to the C-domain out of which the OHG grammar evolved. I shall hypothesize that some major properties of Gothic, such as the properties of having a complex C-domain and an inventory of sentence particles or clitics, were also present in Proto-Germanic. That some of these properties may have persisted until pre-OHG times and even longer may be justified by the observation that in the earlier OHG documents there are still residues of the old system (sentence particles, more than one XP-position in the C-domain), as will be shown in the rest of this chapter. The fronting of the highest middle field constituent in a pragmatically unmarked sentence (= Stylistic Fronting) is a development that only took place in the West and North Germanic dialects. It is absent from Gothic.25 That Stylistic Fronting does not exist in Gothic is suggested by the restrictions on subject fronting: In Gothic, only definite subjects can move to the left periphery; cf. (35)-a. Indefinite subjects can only move to the left periphery into a position to the left of the particle -uh provided they are specific indefinites as in the example in (35)-b (e.g. Eythórsson 1995:79-83, 1996:122f.; Fer-

25 A further major difference between Gothic and OHG concerns verb movement. As was ar-

gued extensively in Chapter 2, there is generalized verb movement in independent clauses without complementizers already in earlier OHG. In Gothic, however, systematic verb movement is restricted to specific syntactic environments (i.e. to imperatives, negated sentences, and partly to interrogatives). This already shows, of course, that Gothic is not a verb-second language.

197


raresi 1997:132, 2005:161).26 The absence of ‘non-strong’ indefinites27 from the C-domain is expected if only real topics (or focused constituents) can move there. Note that in the Gothic examples in (35), (37) and (40) the particle -uh signals that the elements to its left have been moved to the C-domain, while in the OHG examples in (36), (38) and (39) this is signalled by the finite verb. (35) a. iþ [Iesus] iddjuh miþ im = (20)-b IÞ Jesus went-UH with them “but Jesus went with them” ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐπορεύετο σὺν αὐτοῖς. b. [anþaruh þan siponje is] qaþ du another-UH ÞAN of-disciples his said to “another of his disciples said to him” ἕτερος δὲ τῶν µαθητῶν αὐτοῦ εἶπεν αὐτῷ

imma him

(Mt 8:21)

In OHG, on the other hand, we often find constituents in the prefinite domain which are not topics in semantic-pragmatic respects, as the following examples with fronted indefinite subjects from earlier and late OHG texts show (cf. also Chapter 3):28 (36) a. [Neoman] · niuuirdit · fona · gote · festi ... nobody NEG-becomes by God strengthened “nobody is strengthened by God ...” (MF XL,19; St. Augustini sermo) Nemo erit a deo nisi firmus ... b. [Néhein ding] neíst êolos (N BCon I 31,30) NEG-is lawless no thing “nothing is independent of the law” Nihil solutum antiqua lege (l. 29) c. [Mán] zíhet míh ... one accuses me “one accuses me” ... criminamur (l. 6) d. únte [nîeman] ist and nobody is “and nobody is right”

(N BCon I 24,7)

réht ... righteous

(W 47,33)

A further case in point is adjuncts. The evidence from the Gothic Bible suggests that adjuncts can only occur in the C-domain if they function as real top26 See also Klein & Condon (1993:21ff.) for a discussion of Gothic sentences with the sa/þa-

pronoun “that one” in first position followed by the particle -uh. 27 The relationship between topichood and a ‘strong’ interpretation of topics is discussed in

e.g. Erteschik-Shir (1997). 28 See Diels (1906:22-26) for further examples with prefinite indefinites, quantifiers etc.

198


ics. For example, prepositional phrases functioning as adjuncts are attested in the C-domain, but they almost always contain an anaphoric element in the form of the demonstrative sa/þa-pronoun (see Klein & Condon 1993:9). Likewise, the demonstrative temporal adverb þan is attested at the left periphery in front of -uh (Klein 1994:260).29 The preposed adjuncts are of such kinds (mostly temporal and scene-setting adverbs) that they can indeed be used as topics according to standard assumptions (cf. Molnár 1998; Frey 2000). (37) a. [inuh þis] bileiþai manna attin seinamma jah aiþein seinai In-UH this leave man father his and mother his “on account of this, a man shall leave his father and mother” = (24) ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν µητέρα b. [inuh þizai hveilai] swegnida ahmin Iesus that hour rejoiced spirit-DAT Jesus in-UH “in that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit” ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἠγαλλιάσατο τῷ πνεύµατι ὁ Ἰησοῦς c. [þanuh] attaitok augam ize quiþands theirs saying then-UH touched eyes “then he touched their eyes saying” τότε ἥψατο τῶν ὀφθαλµῶν αὐτῶν λέγων

(Lk 10:21)

(Mt 9:29)

Of course, adverbs can only be used as topics when they are referential. This means, one would not expect that in Gothic adverbial expressions such as ni aiw’ “never” can move to the left periphery. Yet there is no doubt that this is possible in OHG (cf. also Chapter 3): In the earlier OHG prose texts from the eighth and ninth centuries as well as in Notker’s texts, it is easy to find nonreferential adverbial expressions in prefinite position, for example in the form of indefinite temporal adverbs (ofto “often”, neo “never”) or sentence adverbs (chiuuisso “certainly”, ze uuāre “truly, indeed”, ōdouuān “perhaps”): (38) a. [Neo] nist zi chilaubanne dhazs ... sii dhiz chiforabodot never NEG-is to believe that is this prophesied “it can never be believed that this was prophesied” (I 638) Numquid ... creditur prophetatum? minime b. endi [chiuuisso] ist christus in dheru selbun salbidhu chimeinit and certainly is Christ in that same salve meant “and certainly Christ is meant in that same salve” (I 144) et utique christus ipsa unctione monstratur 29 Ferraresi (1997:135) considers the expression þan-uh as an (non-compositional) expletive.

This analysis may be true for the locative expression þaruh, but it cannot be applied to all instances of þan-uh. Klein (1994:259) argues that þanuh is an anaphoric demonstrative adverb in examples such as (37)-c. In this case, it can be synchronically analysed as þan “then” + uh and the particle (u)h functions to highlight the anaphoric relation to the temporal modification in the preceding sentence.


199

c. /[odouuan] giloubtit mir/ (T 295,8) perhaps believed-CONJ me “perhaps you would have believed me” /creer&is forsitan & mihi/ die fórderen (39) a. [Ófto] sínt zuô often are additionally the preceding “also, the preceding are often true” b. [Ze_uuâre] síhet kót tíu gágenuuertíu indeed sees God the present “God indeed sees the present” contuetur deus presentia (l. 12)

geuuâre ... true (N BCon IV 202,19) (N BCon II 268,12)

Furthermore, the fronting of an XP in main declaratives is not obligatory in Gothic. As Eythórsson (1995:88) points out, there are many verb-first declarative clauses attested in the Gothic Bible, i.e. examples where there is no XP in front of the preposed finite verb; cf. (40).30 (40) munaidedunuþ-þan auk þai ÞAN AUK the decided-UH “the chief priests decided” ἐβουλεύσαντο δὲ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς

auhumistans chief

gudjans ... (Jn 12:10) priests

In the last chapter, I showed that even though verb-first declaratives are also attested in earlier OHG (albeit with a lower frequency than in Gothic) we do have evidence for Stylistic Fronting. In late OHG texts, verb-first order in declaratives is very rare.31 In Gothic, sentence typing – notably the distinction between declarative and interrogative clauses – is not signalled by different word orders (verb-second vs. verb-first), but by the particle system. In earlier OHG, interrogatives are still often introduced by the particle inu/eno. In this respect as well there is thus a notable difference to the modern verb-second languages, where there is a correlation between verb placement and sentence type. To sum up, in OHG a heterogeneous set of elements is attested in the prefinite position, including such elements for which it can be excluded that the fronting has taken place to check a specific semantic-pragmatic feature such as a topic or a focus feature. There is thus a clear parallel to the way in which the

30 That the finite verb has moved to the C-domain is suggested by the fact that it carries the

enclitic particle -uh. 31 In the Consolatio, Näf (1979:114) has found only 19 cases of verb-first among almost 800

declarative sentences. In Williram’s paraphrase of the Song of Songs there is only one such example according to Brodführer (1906:31) (see also Chapter 3).

200


prefield is filled in modern German.32 In Gothic, however, the types of XPs that can be found in the C-domain seem to be more restricted so that one can hypothesize that XP-fronting always has a semantic-pragmatic trigger (= topicalization in the narrow sense, focusation).33 4.4.3 Conclusion This admittedly sketchy comparison between the syntax of the left periphery in Gothic and in OHG has also revealed that the development of the verb-second grammar must have involved several steps. One step is the innovation of Stylistic Fronting. This must be due to the fact that a head in the C-domain has become endowed with an EPP-feature which triggers XP-fronting even in the absence of a semantic-pragmatic trigger. Even though Stylistic Fronting was not fully generalized in OHG and there was still a substantial number of verb-first declaratives, as has been shown in Chapter 3, we find examples even in eighth and ninth century texts where an XP occurs in prefinite position whose fronting cannot have been triggered by a topic or focus feature. As was also argued in Chapter 3, the spread of the prefield expletive, which did not occur until Middle High German times, was a further factor that contributed to the consolidation of verb-second. A further step is that the complexity of the C-domain must have been reduced. This development must have taken place within the OHG period. As will be argued in the following sections in more detail, in the earlier texts there is at least residual evidence for more than one XP-position in the C-domain. By contrast, late OHG grammar seems to be as restrictive towards verb-third orders as the modern German grammar. There are hardly any verb-third constructions attested in Notker’s text. What we do find in late OHG are verb-third effects in the form of extensions to the left: For example, a dislocated topic can occur in front of the prefield just as in modern German (section 4.5.1). 4.5 Verb-third constructions in Old High German Present-day German is a strict verb-second language inasmuch as the occurrence of more than one constituent in front of the finite verb is very restricted. The evidence from Notker (and Williram) suggests that this is also true for late OHG. In the five volumes of the late OHG Consolatio, Näf (1979:143ff.) has only found two cases of verb-third.34 In Williram’s paraphrase of the Song of Songs there is only one example (cf. Brodführer 1906:31). The marginality 32 See also Näf (1979:115): “Grundsätzlich kann bei Notker, gleich wie in der Gegenwarts-

sprache, jede Satzkonstituente die erste Position einnehmen” [In principle, any constituent can occupy the first position in Notker just as in present-day German]. 33 With the exception of personal pronouns which are regularly placed at the left periphery just as in the other Germanic languages; cf. Ferraresi (1997:Chapter 2). 34 Näf has not counted in verb-third effects induced left-peripheral adverbial clauses (cf. 4.5.6).


201

of verb-third can be regarded as evidence that XP-fronting and verb movement target the specifier and head of the same projection. Crucially, in OHG we hardly find any examples anymore where an XP or a pronoun intervenes between the fronted XP (cf. Chapter 5). I consider this as evidence that in late OHG, the fronted finite verb and the preposed XP occur in the same projection (= FinP): (41) [FinP XPj [[Fin Vi]

[VP ... tj.. ti]]]

As was already shown in Chapter 3, Fanselow (2002, 2003a) claims that in modern German the movement to first position is triggered by an EPP-feature in Fin. If we assume that there also exists such an EPP-feature in OHG, we can then explain why elements such as nehein, indefinite man or ofto, which are neither topics nor focused elements may be fronted. Moreover, Fanselow argues that Fin may optionally bear an operator feature (e.g. [+foc] [+wh]) in present-day German. If we also make this assumption for OHG, we can derive the movement of wh-phrases to the left periphery as well as the fronting of focused XPs.35 In the prose texts from the eighth and ninth centuries (i.e. in Isidor, the Monsee Fragments and in Tatian), however, there are quite few main clauses attested in which there is more than one constituent in front of the finite verb so that the verb occurs in third (or even in a later) position. As far as earlier OHG is concerned, I will present some evidence below that the landing site of XPmovement is not SpecFin, as I am assuming for late OHG, but a higher position: 36 35 In contrast to Fanselow, Frey (2004a) argues that there are different projections in the C-

domain (FinP, KontrastP, and CP). If present, the ‘bare EPP-feature’ occupies Fin. The other functional projections are endowed with EPP-features with a specific semantic-pragmatic content. For example, the EPP-feature which is associated with the feature [KONTRAST] occurs in Kontr. The verb-second effect derives from the fact that only one EPP-feature can be present in the C-domain. The other functional projections are not activated in this case. The finite verb is always fronted into the head of the projection which bears the EPP-feature. Thus, also in Frey’s account, the finite verb and the preposed XP occur in the head and specifier of one and the same functional projection, which means that even though there are several functional projections which can be activated, verb-third effects of the type ‘XP–XP/pron–Vfin...’, which we do find in earlier OHG, but not in late OHG and in modern German, are ruled out in his account just the same. 36 Similar structures, i.e. structures in which the landing sites for XP-and for verb movement are not in the same C-projection, have been proposed by Platzack (1998) for the modern continental Scandinavian languages, by Fanselow (2003a) for Russian and Kashmiri, and by Roberts (1996) for Old English and OHG. Platzack assumes that a version of the so-called ‘doubly filled Comp filter’ rules out the possibility that there are both features in the head and in the specifier in a single projection within the C-domain. Fanselow (2002) proposes an analysis for verb-third effects in Russian clauses where wh-phrases or phrases involving contrastive focus are preposed, according to which the finite verb moves to Fin0 and the wh-phrase or the phrase with contrastive focus to the specifier of a higher projection. Fanselow furthermore argues that

202

(42) [CP XPi C [FinP Fin verb movement to Fin


[VP .... ti ]]]

As we will see in the following sections, we also find evidence in the earlier texts that, at least residually, additional projections further to the left (e.g. ForceP) can be activated. So besides the development of the EPP-feature as the trigger for obligatory XP-movement, a further change must have taken place: namely the reduction of XP-positions in the C-domain. This change has not been fully completed in earlier OHG. It has to be noted, however, that there are many different verb-third constructions attested, which cannot receive a uniform analysis.37 As it turns out, we have to distinguish at least the following six classes (cf. also Reis 1901; Behaghel 1932:20ff.; Lippert 1974:68-81; Robinson 1997; Schrodt 2004:201206): (43) a. verb-third order after dislocated topics b. verb-third order after two adverbial expressions (i.e. mainly PPs and AdvPs) that seem to ‘form a unit’ (cf. Reis 1901:221; Behaghel 1932:22; Lippert 1974:69-70) (= [XP [XP] [XP]]–Vfin...) c. verb-third order induced by intervening sentence adverbs ̄ LĪHHO–Vfin...) (= XP–GIWISSO/WAR d. verb-third order induced by intervening personal pronouns (= XP–pron–Vfin...) → cf. Chapter 5 e. verb-third order induced by intervening short adverbs (= XP–adv–Vfin...) f. verb-third after preposed adverbial clauses (= ACs) (= AC–XP–Vfin...)

The diachrony of these different classes of verb-third order differs extensively. Some of them still exist in present-day German and can thus not be regarded as evidence for a greater tolerance towards verb-third in OHG. In the following in Kashmiri, there are verb-third effects of the type topic–wh-phrase(s)–verb which suggest that there is a higher functional head that does not attract the verb. 37 Examples for which an alternative analysis without verb movement is possible will not be considered as evidence for verb-third in the present study, even if the verb occurs in third position at the surface: for example, the sō-sentence in (i), where it can be argued that sō is not an adverb, but a subordinating conjunction which introduces a subordinate verb-end clause. See section 2.5.2 for further classes of (structural) verb-end sentences which have sometimes been mistaken for main clauses. (i) So hear after dher selbo forasago quhad (I 285) as here after the same prophet said “as after this the same prophet said” Sic in consequentibus idem propheta ait

203


we will thus also compare the verb-third classes in OHG to those in modern German. Tatian is the OHG prose text which contains the largest number of main clauses with verb-third order. However, in this text we have to take into account that in many cases, the occurrence of more than one XP in front of the finite verb may be due to the fact that the line break had to be preserved in the same position as in the Latin. This is also arguably the case in the sentence in (44)-a, which Behaghel (1932:14) cites as an example for later-than second order. Further examples where the position of the finite verb may have been influenced by the line break are given in (44)-b and (44)-c. (44) a. / [In mitteru naht] [ruoft] / uuard gitan./ in mid night call became made “and at midnight there was made a cry” / [media autem nocte] [clamor] / factus est/ b. /…, [alliu] [thuruh thaz] / uuvrdun gitán.‘ .../ all through that became made “all things were made by it” /... [ omnia] [per Ipsum] / facta sunt.‘ .../

(T 531,14)

(T 65, 20)

c. / [girado] [truhtines engil] [In troume] / araugta sih Imo ... / just Lord’s angel in dream appeared REFL him “behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream” / [ecce] [angelus domini] [In somnis] / apparuit ei ... / (T 83,16)

Thus, in Tatian, violations of verb-second are a word-order phenomenon which can often be argued to be due to the special layout. Such cases will be ignored in the following discussion. 4.5.1 Verb-third order after dislocated topics In present-day German, deviations from the strict verb-second ‘linearization’ may be triggered by a special type of left dislocation (= ‘German Left Dislocation’, cf. Frey 2004b) as well as by the Hanging Topic Left Dislocation construction or freies Thema (“free theme”), a subcase of which is the so-called ‘Hanging Nominative’ (nominativus pendens).38 These are extensions of the left periphery which are motivated by information-structural considerations and go hand-in-hand with special semantic-pragmatic and prosodic properties (cf. Altmann 1981). Related phenomena also occur in non-verb-second languages, see, for example, the so-called Clitic Left Dislocation and the Hanging Topic Left Dislocation constructions in the Romance languages (cf. Cinque 1997). 38 As the recent corpus-based studies by Müller (2003), (2005) have furthermore shown, even

in present-day German the possibilities for the so-called mehrfache Vorfeldbesetzung (“multiple fillings of the prefield”) are more manifold than has previously been assumed; cf. also section 4.5.2.

204


The related constructions in German are subject to specific restrictions which are partly conditioned by the verb-second syntax (see also the summary in Frey 2004b:204ff. of Altmann’s 1981 results): For example, in German Left Dislocation, the left-dislocated XP is always followed by a weak d-pronoun that occupies the prefield. If the dislocated XP is a DP,39 there is case, number and gender agreement. In the Hanging Topic construction, however, the resumptive element (a personal pronoun, a (not necessarily weak) d-pronoun or an epithet) may also occur in the middle field. When the hanging topic is a DP, it mostly appears in the nominative case (= ‘nominativus pendens’) independent of the case of the resumptive element. However, it can also appear in the same case as the resumptive element. In this construction as well the finite verb occurs exactly in third position. In the earlier OHG sources, there is no unambiguous evidence that the German Left Dislocation construction had already evolved. Examples such as (45)a, where the dislocated DP carries nominative case and is resumed by a nominative d-pronoun in prefinite position, allow for both analyses (Hanging Topic and German Left Dislocation).40 In examples such as (45)-b, the absence of gender agreement shows that we are not dealing with German Left Dislocation. Furthermore, there are dislocated elements where the position and/or type of resumptive element rule out the possibility of an analysis with German Left Dislocation: in (45)-c and (45)-d the resumptive elements are personal pronouns (not d-pronouns) and in (45)-c this personal pronoun even occurs in postfinite and not in prefinite position. (45) a. /[thie morganlihho tág] / [ther] bisuorg& sih selbo/ REFL self the tomorrow-ADJ day-NOM that-NOM worries “for tomorrow will worry about itself” (T 157,14) /crastinus enim dies.‘/ sollicitus erit sibi ipse./

39 In recent studies, it has been argued that the d-pronoun may also occur in the middle field (cf. Grewendorf 2002; Frey 2004b). As Frey (2004b) has been able to show, however, it always occurs in a designated position for topics in the middle field (cf. Frey 2000) in this case. 40 In present-day German, the two constructions are distinguished by their prosodic properties (cf. Altmann 1981). The hanging topic is typically associated with a falling or interrogative intonation and is set off by a pause from the remaining clause. In the left-dislocation construction, there is a progredient intonation on the left-dislocated constituent and no pause. In the case of non-contrastive left-dislocation the d-pronoun is unaccented, whereas there is a secondary accent on the left-dislocated constituent. Moreover, there are differences with respect to binding properties, reconstruction effects etc. (see Grewendorf 2002, Frey 2004b), i.e. criteria which cannot be applied to data from written corpora.

205


b. [Dhesiu gardea fona dheru iesses uurzun] Jesse’s root this shoot-FEM.NOM from the dhiu unmeina magad maria [dhazs] ist that- NTR.NOM is the pure maiden Mary “this shoot from the root of Jesse, that is the pure maiden Mary” Hęc uirga de radice iesse uirgo est maria

(I 661)

(R)

c. /... Inti [ir uuarliho]/ [nu] habet ir gitruobnessi./ = (14)-a now have you sorrow and you-NOM indeed “and you will indeed now have sorrow” /... & uos igitur/ nunc quidem tristitiam habebitis./ d. /seno nu [elisab&h [thin magin]]/ (T 71,31) behold now Elisabeth-NOM your relative (= apposition) [siu] Inphieng sun In Ira alttuome/ she received son in her old-age “and behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son” /& ecce elisab&h cognata tua/ & ipsa concepit filium In senectute sua./

In the late OHG Boethius and in Williram, in most examples with dislocations, the dislocated constituent and the resumptive pronoun carry nominative case: (46) a. Únde [dér fóre dúrste erchéleto tantalus] . (N BCon III 180,26) and the by thirst tortured Tantalus-NOM dô des uuázeres [tér] nerûohta the-NOM NEG-longed then the-GEN water-GEN “and Tantalus, who was being tortured by thirst, did not long for water” Et tantalus longa siti perditus . spernit flumina (l. 26) b. [Dîn háls]. [dér] your neck-NOM that-NOM “your neck is like jewellery” collum tuum sicut monilia

íst sámo smîdezîereda is same jewellery

(W 57,15)

However, in Nokter’s texts there are also some sporadic examples attested with a dislocated non-nominative constituent that is followed by a d-pronoun in the corresponding case (cf. also Näf 1979:130). This might be taken as a vague indication that the German Left Dislocation construction had already evolved by the time.41 Note, however, that Altmann (1981) shows that also in the Hanging Topic Left Dislocation construction, the dislocated DP may have nonnominative case as long as it agrees with the resumptive element.

41 Case agreement between the left-peripheral XP and the resumptive d-pronoun is also at-

tested in the case of preposed relative clauses. Note, however, that this phenomenon is arguably not an instance of left-dislocation, but of a special way of clause combining (cf. also section 4.5.6 on the correlative construction with adverbial relative clauses.

206


(47) [Témo léuuen . dér grece nemues hîez .] ... ‘Nemues’ was-called the lion-DAT the in-Greek [démo] nám er dia hût ... (N BCon IV 228,17) that-DAT took he the skin “he took the hide of the lion who was called ‘Nemues’ in Greek” Abstulit seuo spolium leoni (l. 17)

Since we have no direct access to prosodic information, it cannot as yet really be decided whether the German Left Dislocation construction had already evolved in OHG.42 In any case, we can conclude that there was (at least) one position for dislocated topics to the left of the target position for generalized XP-movement (i.e. to the left of SpecCP). It is unclear, however, how many constructions with dislocated topics existed. In the following, I will therefore only use the relatively vague term ‘left dislocation’ or ‘dislocated topic’. We also find evidence for dislocated topics in interrogative sentences. In example (48)-a from the Isidor, such a dislocated topic-XP appears between the interrogative particle inu(ni) and the finite verb.43 Since both the predicative adjective as well as its object, which has arguably been extraposed, follow onto the finite verb, we may assume that verb movement has occurred as is the rule in inu/eno-sentences (cf. Chapter 2, section 2.4.1). Example (48)-b from Tatian shows a similar preposing of the subject in an interrogative clause introduced by a particle: (48) a. Inu

[angil] nist anaebanchiliih gote? angel-NOM NEG-is identical God-DAT “is an angel not identical to God?”44 Num angelus ęqualem cum deo habet imaginem? INU

ni

(I 184)

NEG

b. /eno [got] nituot giriht / sinero gicoronero .../ = (12) ENO God-NOM NEG-does justice his elect-GEN “and will not God give justice to his elect ...?” /deus autem non faci& uindictam/ electorum suorum .../

There is the possibility that the preposed XPs angil and got have undergone movement to the left periphery. Alternatively, it could be the case that these XPs have been base-generated at the left periphery (cf. section 4.3.1). In the 42 Schrodt (2004:216, § 201), by contrast, claims that so-called ‘prolepsis’ existed in OHG.

However, he only cites examples from late OHG (Notker) and he subsumes very different types of left-dislocations under the header ‘prolepsis’, including correlative constructions with subordinate clauses. 43 The Isidor example in (48) has been discussed by a number of scholars (e.g. by Gering 1876:40; Rannow 1888:23; Grimm 1967a:733; Behaghel 1928:431; Valentin 1987:1154; Robinson 1997:22). Note also that the fact that the translation is relatively free suggests that we are dealing with a native construction. 44 See Valentin (1987:1154) for a modern German translation.


207

latter case, we would have to assume that there is a silent resumptive in clauseinternal position: (49) a. Inu ni angilj nisti b. Eno gotj ni-tuoti

proj tk anaebanchiliih ti gotek proj giriht ... ti

The hypothesis of a silent resumptive is unproblematic, since subject-pro-drop was possible in the postfinite domain in earlier OHG (cf. Chapter 6). Note also that in Tatian, a similar construction is attested in eno-sentences with overt resumptive pronouns:45 46 (50) a. /eno [unser herza]i/ niuuasizi ENO our heart-NOM NEG-was-it-NOM “did not our hearts burn within us” /nonne cor nostrum/ ardens erat In nobis/

brinnenti In uns/ (T 675,16) burning in us

b. /... eno/

[unsar euua]i tuomit siui man/ ... (T 439,13) our law-FEM.NOM judge it-FEM.NOM man “does our law judge a man …?” /... numquid/ lex nostra iudicat hominem/ … ENO

c. /eno thui bistui ENO you-NOM are-you-NOM “are you greater ... ?” /numquid tu maior es/

mera/ ... greater

(T 277,18)

Moreover, a dislocated topic can be placed at the left periphery of a yes/nointerrogative in modern German. As in declarative clauses, a resumptive element in the form of a pronoun or epithet occurs in the middle field in such cases: (51) Und [Peter]i, kommt eri auch? and Peter comes he also “and Peter, is he coming, too?”

The eno/inu-cases with XP-preposing show that the target position for verb movement is not the head of the projection in whose specifier the particle is generated, but that of a lower projection. This is independent of the question of whether the construction should be analysed as ‘normal’ topicalization (by

45 Note also that the resumptive pronoun has been inserted contrary to the Latin; cf. also Ditt-

mer & Dittmer (1998:107). 46 In contrast to the Tatian examples in (50), the dislocated XP in the Isidor example in (48)-a

is an indefinite pronoun with a generic interpretation. As is suggested by cross-linguistic evidence, in contrast to weak indefinites, this type of strong indefinite can be a topic.

208


movement) or as a construction with a dislocated topic:47 It is possible for a topic constituent to follow the interrogative particle.48 If we do not want to argue that inu is somehow adjoined to the CP, there must then be more than one projection position in the C-domain. In the analysis of the C-domain proposed in Rizzi (1997), we could argue that inu occurs in the Force projection, which is responsible for sentence typing.49 At this point, it may again be worthwhile to take into account some Gothic data. As Eythórsson (1995:112) shows, in Gothic it is apparently also possible to topicalize a constituent in a yes/no-interrogative. In this case the interrogative particle -u cliticizes to the topicalized constituent and there is no verb movement. For example, in (7), a PP has been topicalized. Note that this is a relatively close rendering of the Greek original as the corresponding Greek phrase also occurs at the beginning of the sentence. (52) [uzu waurstwam witodis] ahman nemuþ out-U works-DAT law-GEN spirit received “did you receive the Spirit by works of the law?” ἐξ ἔργων νόµου τὸ πνεῦµα ἐλάβετε

(Gal 3:2)

In OHG, topicalization constructions can also be found in wh-interrogatives. Here as well, there is a variation in earlier OHG with respect to the question of whether a resumptive personal pronoun is present or not; cf. (53) versus (54). In the Isidor examples in (53), the resumptive pronouns have been inserted into a position after the wh-phrase and before the finite verb. This positioning of the pronoun is not unexpected since in earlier OHG, pronouns are attested both pre- and postfinitely also after fronted non-wh-XPs (= XP–pron–Vfin... or XP– Vfin–pron…) (see section 4.5.4 and Chapter 5).50

47 If we apply the criteria that Altmann (1981) and Frey (2004b) have developed for present-

day German, this construction would be an instance of Hanging Topic Left Dislocation (as opposed to German Left Dislocation). 48 In present-day German, a sentence with a topicalized constituent in SpecC may be realized as a so-called ‘assertive question’, but only when it is uttered with a question intonation, i.e. with a rising pattern: (i) Peter KOMMT doch? (/) (cf. Brandt et al. 1992:78) PARTCL Peter comes “Peter is coming, isn’t he?” The semantic-pragmatic properties of assertive ‘questions’ are different from those of yes/nointerrogatives. The inu-sentences with topicalization do not seem to be assertive questions. 49 According to Ferraresi (1997:126ff.), the Gothic interrogative particle an occupies SpecForce. 50 In the examples in (53), the Latin word order may have triggered the use of a dislocated topic in the OHG translation. In the Latin as well, a constituent appears in front of the whphrase (the subject or object). Nevertheless the resumptive pronoun has been inserted contrary to the Latin in both cases (see also Rannow 1888:29).

209


(53) a. [Dhiu uurza dhera spaida]i huuemu siui uuard the root-FEM.NOM of-the wisdom whom it-FEM.NOM became antdhechidiu? (I 115) revealed “the root of wisdom, to whom has it been revealed?” Radix sapientię cui reuelata est b. [christes chiburt]i huuer siai chirahhoda? it-FEM.ACC recounted of-Christ birth-FEM.NOM who “who recounted the birth of Christ?” (R) Generationem eius quis enarrauit? (54) a. ... [ir uuarlicho]/ uuen mih quedet who me-ACC say you-NOM in-fact “but you in fact, who do you say that I am?” /... uos autem/ quem me esse dicitis/

uuesen/ be

(I 106)

(T 299,32)

b. [Uuexsal dhes nemin] huuazs bauhnida? (I 532) changing-NOM of-the name what meant “the changing of the name what did it mean?” (R) Mutatio nominis quid significabat?

In the examples in (53), the topic-XP occurs to the left of the wh-phrase, but in the eno/inu-examples it appears to the right of the particle. Both in Isidor and in the Monsee Fragments, there are wh-interrogatives attested that show that the position of eno/inu is higher than that of the wh-phrase: (55) a. Inu

huueo ist in salomone zi firstandanne dhazs sus how is in Solomon to understand that thus chiquhedan uuardh: ...? (I 633) spoken became “how is that to be understood in Solomon, which was spoken thus ...?” (R) Nam qualiter in salomone intellegendum est quod dictum est: ... INU

b. Inu

huu{e}nan meinit · ir · daz ih sii who-ACC think you-PL that I am “who do you think that I am?” {Uos autem quem} me esse dicitis (MF XXXVIII,1; St. Augustini sermo) INU

The kind of material that is attested to the left of eno seems to be very restricted: Only vocatives and adverbial clauses are attested in this position; cf. (56). Note that vocatives are not normally considered as a phenomenon of sentence grammar. Regarding adverbial clauses, I will demonstrate in section 4.5.6 that they always occur at the outermost left edge of the clause and I will argue that they are adjoined to the root node. The observation that only vocatives and adverbial clauses occur to the left of eno/inu confirms the hypothesis that the particle occurs in the highest projection within the C-domain (= Force ).

210


(56) a. /inti thú capharnaum eno nú/ niarheuistú thih unzan ENO now NEG-exhalt-you REFL unto and you Capernaum himil/ (T 219,20) heaven “and you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven?” /& tu capharnaum numquid/ usque in cælum exaltaberis./ b. /[thanne ih iuuuih santa/ uzzan seckil...] / ... / eno uuas when I you sent without bag ENO was íu iouuiht thes uuan (T 575,1) you anything of-that need “when I sent you without a bag .., did you lack anything?” /quando misi uos/ sine saccolo.../ ... / numquid aliquid defuit uobis/

Summing up, we may conclude that in interrogative and declarative clauses in earlier OHG, the various left-peripheral elements just described occur in the following order:51 (57) a. adverb. cl. > inu/eno > b. adverb. cl. >

disloc. topic > wh-XP disloc. topic > XP

> (pron)52 > Vfin > (pron) interrogatives > (pron) > Vfin > (pron) declaratives

As will be argued in the following chapter, unlike in Old English, the distribution of personal pronouns in OHG does not suggest that wh-phrases and nonwh-phrases target different left-peripheral XP-positions. Besides the particle eno/inu, further particles may appear at the left sentence periphery. First, eno is attested in combination with the negation particle ni. As was demonstrated in Chapter 3, this particle is proclitic to the finite verb so that we may assume that it appears in Fin together with the finite verb in examples such as (58)-a. This is illustrated in (58)-b. (58) a. /eno nibirut ir furiron thanne ENO NEG-be you more than “are you not much better than they?” /Nonne uos magis plures estis illis./

sie sín/ they are

(T 155,17)

b. eno [FinP [Fin' [Fin ni-biruti] [VP ... ti ]]]

51 Note, however, that there are no examples attested where all the left-peripheral elements

mentioned in (57) (an adverbial clause + a dislocated topic + ...) occur in a single sentence. Their relative order has been established by comparing several sentences with verb-third/fourth order. 52 As will be demonstrated in Chapter 5, pronouns do not always show up prefinitely in earlier OHG (pron > Vfin); more often they occur in postfinite position (Vfin > pron). They have been put into brackets to indicate that there are two alternative positions.


211

In Tatian, eno also occurs in combination with ia as a translation for the Latin nōnne (eno+ni, by contrast, renders both nōnne and numquid): (59) a. /... eno

ia uurdun zéheni gihéilte/ became ten healed “were the ten healed?” /... nonne decem mundati sunt/ ENO

(T 379,10)

IA

b. /eno Ia queden uuir uuola ... / ENO IA say we well “do we rightly say ...?” /nonne benedicimus nos .../

(T 449,6)

It seems as if ia occupies SpecFin; cf. (60): Not only does ia follow onto the particle eno, but it also occurs immediately in front of the finite verb.53 (60) eno [FinP ia [Fin' [Fin uurduni] [VP... ti]]]

The affirmative particle ia is also sporadically attested in negated sentences as can be seen in the following example from Christus und die Samariterin: (61) a. ia

... \ thie Iudon unsera uuist … the Jews our food “after all, the Jews do not accept any food from us”54 (SD XVII,8; Christus und die Samariterin) IA

neniezant

NEG-consume

b. [FinP ia [Fin' [Fin ne-niezanti] [VP ... ti]]]

As we have seen, the distribution of preposed XPs and of sentence particles provides residual evidence for the relatively complex structure of left periphery in earlier OHG. 4.5.2 Verb-third order after two prefinite phrases that ‘form a unit’ This section deals with further classes of verb-third constructions, namely with verb-third effects triggered by certain types of adjuncts that have been argued to ‘form a unit’ in the literature (e.g. Behaghel 1932:22; Reis 1901:221; Lippert 1974:69-70) (= class (43)-b in the classification above). In contrast to the phenomena discussed in the last section, these verb-third effects are arguably not induced by constituents occurring to the left of the preposed XP (i.e. by extensions to the left, so to say), but by constituents intervening between the preposed XP and the fronted finite verb. I will compare the OHG examples to data from present-day German with two temporal or local adjunct XPs which have

53 We only find material between ia and the finite verb in the very sporadic examples where no

verb movement has taken place (cf. 2.3.1.2). 54 Translation according to the German translation by Schlosser (1998:129).

212


been argued to form one constituent. I will furthermore argue that such an analysis should only be adopted for a subclass of the OHG examples that have been argued to involve two phrases ‘forming a unit’ in the literature, while for some types of examples a parenthetical analysis seems to be more appropriate. In the OHG examples in (62), the fronted finite verb is preceded by two adjuncts. In example (62)-a from the OHG Isidor, these are both locative adjuncts in the form of a PP. Note that such examples not only occur in the older texts, but also in late OHG texts. In sentence (62)-b, which is from Williram, we find one temporal and one locative adjunct in the prefinite domain which are of different categories (DP and PP). (62) a. [PP In haubide dhes libelles] [PP azs erist] ist chiscriban umbi in head of-the book at first is written about mih, dhazs (I 294) me that ... “in the beginning of the book it is written about me that …” In capite libri scriptum est de me, ut ... b. [DP Dés náhtes] [PP an mînemo bétte] . uórderota at my bed demanded the-GEN night-GEN uuíne beloved “at night in my bed, I demanded my beloved” in lectulo meo per noctes quesiui quem diligit anima mea

íh mînen I my (W 87,15)

Under certain conditions, it is still possible for two PPs to occur in front of the finite verb in modern German just as in the OHG example in (62)-a (see also Müller 2003, 2005 for an overview). Wunderlich (1984:79) discusses examples such as the ones in (63) and suggests an analysis according to which both phrases build one complex PP in which the second one modifies the first: (63) a. [PP [PP Zu ihren Eltern] [PP nach Stuttgart]] ist sie to her parents to Stuttgart is she ‘she has gone to Stuttgart to her parents’

gefahren gone

b. [PP [PP Von München] [PP nach Hamburg]] sind es 900 from Munich to Hamburg are it 900 “from Munich to Hamburg it is 900 kilometres”

km kilometres

c. [PP [PP Durch den Park] [PP zum Bahnhof]] through the park to-the station “we have gone through the park to the station”

gefahren driven

sind wir are we

(from Wunderlich 1984:79)

As Haider (1982:14) furthermore proposes, locative and temporal adjuncts can form one constituent even when they are of different categories:

213


(64) [[AdvP Gestern] [PP am Strand]] hat yesterday at-the beach has “she met him at the beach yesterday” (from Haider 1982:14)

sie she

sich mit ihm with him

REFL

getroffen met

Such an analysis could also be applied to the OHG example in (62)-b.55 56 Similar examples are attested throughout the history of German (see Maurer 1926 for examples from Middle and Early New High German and van de Velde 1979 for present-day German examples). In the OHG sources, it is even sometimes the case that three temporal adjuncts, which are often very similar in meaning, have been placed in front of the finite verb: (65) /[AdvP thô] [AdvP sâr] [AdvP sliumo] then at-once suddenly “immediately the tree withered” /& arefacta est continuo/ ficulnea. .../

arthorr&a/ ther figboum. .../ withered the fig tree (T 411,31)

Independent of the question as to what might be the correct analysis for such examples, it should be noted that they cannot be regarded as evidence that the OHG grammar has a greater tolerance towards deviations from verb-second order than the modern German one. Behaghel (1932:22) discusses some New High German examples where both an argument (= DP) and an adjunct (= AdvP or PP) occur prefinitely; cf. (66)-a. He proposes that the DP forms some kind of unit with the adjunct in such cases. A more unproblematic analysis would be to treat these examples as parenthetical constructions as Altmann (1981:64) and Müller (2003) propose for examples with intervening PPs or adverbial clauses as in (66)-b. (66) a. [DP Aristoteles] [PP in seiner Dichtkunst] gedenkt eines Aristotle in his poetical-art commemorates a Kresphontes ... Kresphontes “in his poetical art Aristotle commemorates Kresphontes ...” (Lessing (Pet) V, 165,25; from Behaghel 1932:22)

55 If – as in Wunderlich’s (1984) proposal – only prepositional phrases may take part in the

formation of a complex prefield constituent, one would have to argue that the absolute genitive dés náhtes is a prepositional phrase with an empty head. 56 Note also that in the case of example (62)-b from Williram, both phrases have been retained in the prefield in the modern German translation by Schützeichel & Meineke (2001:272): Nachts in meinem Bett verlangte ich nach meinem Geliebten.

214


b. Und [DP dieser], [CP nachdem and this-one after sicherte mir zu, daß guaranteed me V. PARTCL that

er meine Arbeiten studiert hatte], he my works studied had ich in seine Klasse eintreten I in his class join

dürfe could “and that one, after he had studied my works, guaranteed that I could join his class” (from Altmann 1981:64)

Likewise, the PPs dhurah iro grimmin and mit dhemu unscama habendin andine in (67) from Isidor could possibly be analysed as parenthetical insertions. If one rendered the sentence in present-day German, one would have to add commas before and after the parentheticals to indicate that they are surrounded by pauses and are not prosodically integrated into the host sentence when read aloud: Die Juden aber, aufgrund ihrer Boshaftigkeit und mit großer Unverschämtheit, sagen lügend, dass ... . (67) [DP Dhea iudea auur]57 [PP dhurah iro grimmin] [PP mit dhemu the Jews however through their fury with the unscama habendin andine] quhedhant leogando, dhazs ... (I 589) impudence having forehead say lyingly that “the Jews, however, because of their fury, with shameless impudence say lying that …” (R) Iudei autem peruicacia impudice frontis dicunt ... mentientes

We also sporadically find adverbial clauses between a sentence-initial XP and the finite verb. As can be seen in (68), the positioning of the adverbial clause usually resembles the Latin order. If we still consider this word order as a native phenomenon, it can be considered as a parenthetical construction. This analysis is also in line with observations in section 4.5.6, where we will argue that OHG adverbial clauses do not occur in sentence-internal modifier positions as they are not syntactically embedded. Again, it is also possible for adverbial clauses to occur in this position in present-day German provided that they are used parenthetically as in (66)-b. (68) /... thie man/ [tho sie gisahun thaz er t&a zeihhan]/ quadun .../ the people when they saw that he did miracle said “then those people, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said …,” / ... Illi ergo homines/ cum uidissent quod fecerat signum/ dicebant .../ (T 253,3)

57 See the following section on XP–auur-sequences.

215


Now the question arises as to whether the reverse case to the example in (66)-a is also attested in OHG, i.e. examples where a PP or AdvP precedes a DP. Even though such examples are attested in historical texts from later periods, cf. (69), I have not been able to find such data in the OHG prose texts (apart from cases where the word order is parallel to the Latin), and nor have they been discussed in the literature. (69) a. [PP bi der selben statt] [DP das mer] heiszet das at the same place the sea is-called the Adriacum Adriacum “at the same place the sea is called Adriatic sea” (Stretl. Chron. 2,2; from Behaghel 1932:22)

mer sea

b. [AdvP ringsum] [DP die Waldberge] standen in leuchtendem all-around the forest-mountains stood in glowing Rot red “all around, the mountain forests stood in bright red” (Bock, Am alten romantischen Ufer 18; from Behaghel 1932:22)

Examples as in (69) can often be analysed as DP-internal preposing of the PP or AdvP. This analysis is suggested by Fortmann (1996:68) for present-day German examples such as that in (70) (see also Müller 2003). (70) [PP Mit der Bahn] [PP eine Reise] with the railway a trip “a trip with the railway is not planned” (from Fortmann 1996:68)

ist is

nicht geplant. not planned

Even if one takes into account the possibility of pseudo-verb-third effects induced by parenthetical constructions and the possibility of complex PPs and AdvPs etc., there are still examples attested in the earlier OHG prose texts, notably in Isidor,58 for which we cannot resort to such explanations (see also Robinson 1997:26-32 for further examples and for critical remarks that in some cases of verb-third order in Isidor the prefinite phrases cannot be argued to form a unit). In the examples in (71), the object-DP has been fronted and is followed by a local adjunct-PP.59 58 In Tatian, there is also a substantial number of examples with types of verb-third construc-

tions that would no longer be possible in present-day German. As was mentioned above, in most cases the word order corresponds to the Latin, and the special layout with its strong tendency to line-to-line correspondences might have triggered the later-than-second placement of the finite verb. 59 Theoretically, it would be possible to analyse these examples as instances of a special type of continuative relative clause construction with an internal head (= relativer Satzanschluss), a phenomenon which is quite persistent in Isidor (see section 2.5.2 and the discussion in Lippert

216


(71) a. [DP Dhea uuehhun auur]60 [PP in heilegim quhidim] (I 457) 61 however in sacred language the week-ACC iaar arfullant sibun fulfil seven years-NOM “one week, however, is made up by seven years in sacred language” Ebdomada namque in sacris eloquiis septem annis terminatur b. [DP Dher selbo forasago] [PP auch in andreru stedi] chundida, dhazs ... the same prophet also in other place proclaimed that “The same prophet also elsewhere made known that …” (R) ... testatur idem propheta (I 348)

In the examples in (72), adverbial expressions occur in front of the finite verb, which clearly cannot be argued to build one constituent as in the cases with local and temporal adverbials discussed above: In example (72)-a, it could be argued that the two temporal adjuncts dhuo and azs iungist build one complex constituent even though they belong to different syntactic categories (AdvP and PP). Yet even then the problem remains unsolved as to what to do with the causal adverbial expression bidhiu. In (72)-b, the finite verb is preceded by a directional and a local adjunct-PP. Here again, it would be very implausible to argue that these two PPs form one constituent. (Additionally there are two personal pronouns in prefinite position. This phenomenon will be discussed in Chapter 5.) (72) a. [AdvP Dhuo] [PP azs iungist] [PP bidhiu] quham gotes sunu ... then at last therefore came God’s son “then finally that’s why the son of God came ...” (R) Uenit tandem filius dei ... (I 504)

1974:76-80) as in both cases the left-peripheral phrases are noun phrases with d-elements (Dhea uuehhun and Dher selbo forasago). As is expected in subordinate clauses, there would be no verb movement and the examples would not be instances of verb-third order, but of verbend order. For (71)-a, in particular, such an analysis is not very plausible: Not only would one have to make the additional assumption that the subject has been extraposed, but there would also be the problem that the noun phrase Dhea uuehhun has no antecendent in the preceding sentence. As to example (71)-b, the noun phrase Dher selbo forasago does have an antecedent, but even here there is the problem that this antecedent does not occur in the immediately preceding sentence, but even one sentence further up (cf. I 342: dher heilego forasago “the holy prophet”). 60 Cf. the next section on XP–auur-sequences. 61 See Lippert (1974:69, fn. 62) for a convincing argument that Dhea uuehhun in (71)-a is an accusative singular and not a nominative plural as suggested by Eggers (1960:116 under terminare) and Robinson (1997:26).

217


b. [PP Fona hreue] [PP aer lucifere] ih dhih chibar from womb before Lucifer I you bore “I bore you out of the womb before Lucifer” (R) Ex utero ante luciferum genui te

(I 409)

Examples such as (71) and (72) would suggest that in earlier OHG, it was possible to have more than one constituent in the prefinite domain in declarative main clauses. It is, however, very hard to judge which status these examples have: In most cases, the word order is very close to the Latin. (72)-b is a Bible quotation. On the other hand, the Isidor translation is of outstanding quality, which raises the question of whether it would really be legitimate to simply dismiss these word orders as non-native phenomena. And if we do accept them as native orders, it is hard to formulate any generalizations as to which types of verb-third constructions were possible in earlier OHG since the data are so scarce. 4.5.3 Verb-third order with sentence adverbs In the earlier OHG prose documents, there are quite a few main clauses attested in which sentence adverbs such as giwisso “certainly, surely, really, indeed”, wārlīh(h)o “truly, in truth, really, indeed” occur in front of the finite verb after a preposed subject-, object- or adjunct-XP (= class (43)-c in the classification above): (73) a. [Dhiu] [chiuuisso] ist bighin gotes sunes is origin God’s Son that-FEM.NOM certainly “that certainly is the origin of the Son of God” (R) origo scilicet filii dei b. /[inan] [giuuesso] nifunden./ him-ACC certainly NEG-found “but indeed they did not see him” ipsum uero non Inuenerunt

(I 116)

(T 673,16)

c. /... [nu] [giuuesso]/ nist min rihhi hinan./ NEG-is my kingdom hereof now really “really, my kingdom is not of this world” /... nunc autem/ regnum meum non est hinc./ d. /[iu] [giuuesso] nisint zuuei/ ouh ein NEG-are two but one already indeed “so they are indeed no longer two, but one flesh” /Itaque iam non sunt duo/ sed una caro./

(T 623,19)

fleisg./ flesh

(T 335,26)

Again it should be noted that there are similar examples in present-day German in which some sentence adverbs have an additional use as a kind of discourse connective and may then occur between a preposed constituent and the finite verb: e.g. freilich “sure enough, to wit”, schließlich “finally, eventually, after

218


all”, übrigens “by the way, incidentally”, immerhin “anyhow, after all”, hingegen “however, on the other hand, in contrast”, indessen “however, on the other hand”, jedoch “however, yet, but”, allerdings “however, admittedly” (aber “but, yet”)62 (cf. Thim-Mabrey 1988; Dürscheid 1989; Zifonun, Hofmann & Strecker 1997:1578 and 1637; Reis 2003; Frey 2004a:20). The examples in (74) illustrate this phenomenon. Note that most of these adverbs can also occur in the prefield by themselves without a preceding XP. (74) a. MaRIa schließlich/ übrigens/ aber konnte Maria finally/ by the way/ yet could “Mary ADV was also not able to help”

auch nicht weiterhelfen also not further-help

b. DAmit freilich hatte er nicht gerechnet that-with sure enough had he not counted “that, sure enough, had not been anticipated by him” c. BÜgeln jedoch macht ihr keinen (to)iron however makes her no “ironing, however, is no fun for her” (from Frey 2004a:20)

Spaß fun

d. FUSSball hingegen/immerhin/indessen/allerdings/aber football in contrast/anyhow/on the other hand/however/however macht Maria keinen Spaß makes Maria no fun “football ADV is no fun for Mary”

Now we have to ask the question as to whether the OHG instances of verbthird with giwisso and wārlīh(h)o63 can be compared to the present-day verb third effects triggered by these types of adverbs. Interestingly, Grimm (1967a [1890]:115]) notes: “giwisso bedeutete certe, profecto und hernach nam, vero” [giwisso first meant ‘certe, profecto’ and after that ‘nam, vero’]. This suggests that giwisso was not only used in its original meaning as an epistemic modal adverb, but also in a derived meaning as a kind of discourse connective. Indeed, in Tatian, giwisso and wārlīh(h)o mostly render Latin expressions such as autem “however, by contrast, namely”, vero “indeed, surely”, scilicet “ (lit.) it is permitted to know, that is to say, namely”, enim “of course, surely, certainly”, ergo “consequently, thus, therefore”, utique “at any rate, absolutely, necessarily”, quippe “sure enough, of course, admittedly” itaque “consequently, therefore, thus”. Notably, this is often the case in the verb-third con62 The particle aber, which is also used as a coordinating conjunction, differs from the other

lexemes listed inasmuch as it cannot be used as a normal adverb. It cannot occupy the prefield without a preceding XP. 63 Giwisso is attested in Tatian, in Isidor and in the Monsee Fragments, whereas wārlīh(h)o only occurs in Tatian. In all three texts, we also find the expression zi wāre “(lit.) to truth” (or in wāre “(lit.) in truth”), which, however, is not attested in the verb-third configuration.

219


figuration (XP–giwisso/wārlīh(h)o–Vfin).64 For wārlīh(h)o, this is illustrated by the examples in (75). Similarly, chiuuisso (gauuisso) may render Latin enim, scilicet, quippe, autem, vero when it occurs in the verb-third construction; cf. (73) above. (75) a. /... her uuarlihho uúesta iro githanca. .../ ADV knew their thoughts he “but he knew their thoughts” /... Ipse uero sciebat/ cogitationes eorum. .../

(T 227,13)

b. /... thio uuisun uuarlihho/ Intfiengun oli In iro faz/ ADV took oil in their vessels the wise “but the wise took oil in their vessels” (T 531,9) /... prudentes uero/ acceperunt oleum In uasis suis/ c. /ther heilant uuarlihho uuesta allu/ the saviour ADV knew all “the Saviour, therefore, knowing all things” /Jhesus itaque sciens omnia/ d. /iudei uúarlicho suohton inan/ ADV sought him Jews “the Jews, therefore, were seeking him” /Iudȩi ergo querebant eum/

(T 603,26)

(T 347,16)

e. /Elisab&h uuârlihho uuard gifullit/ zît ziberanne .../ became fulfilled time to-give-birth Elisabeth ADV “now the time had come for Elizabeth to give birth” /Elisab&h autem Impl&um est/ tempus pariendi .../

(T 75,16)

In the Gospels, the Vulgate often shows the sequence subject–autem at the beginning of Bible verses where a change of the discourse topic occurs. This expression is rendered by the construction XP–wārlīhho–Vfin in the OHG Tatian several times:

64 Not surprisingly, both translations are given in the OHG dictionary by Schützeichel

(1995:327): For the epistemic meaning of giwisso, we find the modern German translations gewiss “indeed”, sicher “surely”, bestimmt “certainly”, unzweifelhaft “undoubtedly”. For the discourse-connective uses, we find the translations nämlich “namely”, aber “yet”, auch “also”, ja “indeed’’. Likewise, Schützeichel (1995:310) also gives some translations for the discourseconnective use for wārlīh(h)o (e.g. nämlich “namely”, also “also”) besides the translations for the original epistemic meaning.

220


(76) (/... uuard tho .../ thaz hér selbo gieng in suma burgilun/ inti sum uúib martha ginemnit/ inphieng inan in ira hús/ thero uuas suester namen maria/ thiu zisperi sáz nah truhtines fuozun/ gihorta sín uuort./) (T 213, 18-24) “and it came to pass … that he entered into a certain village; and a certain woman, Martha by name, received him into her house. She had a sister called Mary, who also, having sat down at the feet of Jesus, was listening to his word.” umbi thaz oftiga ambaht/ /martha uuarlihho aualota was-busy about that manifold serving Martha ADV “but Martha was distracted with much serving” (T 213,25) /martha autem satagebat/ circa frequens ministerium./

In the case of the modern German examples where sentence adverbs in a kind of discourse-connective use intervene between a preposed XP and the finite verb, there is a controversy over to whether there is one or two constituents in the prefinite domain.65 Note, however, that the sequence XP–ADV may occur not only in the prefield, but also in a left-dislocation construction as in (77), which suggests that we are dealing with one (merged) constituent.66 The same argument can be made for the OHG data: The sentence in (77)-b from Tatian, for example, contains a left-dislocation construction in which we find both the pronoun ir and uuarliho to the left of the adverb nū in SpecC. (77) a. MEYer indessen/allerdings/schließlich/nämlich, Meyer-NOM on the other hand/however/finally/namely Peter ... Peter “Meyer ADV, he said to Peter”

der sagte zu that-NOM said to

nu habet iri gitruobnessi./ = (14)-a b. /... Inti [ir uuarliho]i / and you indeed now have you sorrow “and you will indeed now have sorrow” /... & uos igitur/ nunc quidem tristitiam habebitis./

It is, however, not always the case that giwisso and wārlīh(h)o render Latin lexemes such as enim, autem etc. They are also attested in their original epistemic meanings. For example, they sometimes translate Latin adverbs such as profecto or Latin expressions containing the adverb vere; cf. (78)-a and (78)-b. Note also that in Isidor, chiuuisso is inserted contrary to the Latin in sentences where the context suggests that it has an epistemic meaning (in the sentence in (78)-c the author wants to convince the reader that it is certain that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament).

65 Zifonun, Hofmann & Strecker (1997:1639) argue that there is only one constituent in the

prefield in such cases. Dürscheid (1989:26), however, advocates an analysis with two constituents in the prefield. 66 Thanks to Marga Reis for pointing this out to me.

221


(78) a. 67/... giuuesso quimit in íuuih/ gotes rihhi .../ certainly comes in you God’s kingdom “no doubt, the kingdom of God is coming upon you” /profecto peruenit in uos/ regnum dei. .../

(T 211,14)

b. /quadun thaz theser ist uúarlihho/ uuizago thiethar (T 253,5) said that this-one is truly prophet that+REL.PARTCL zuouuert ist/ in mittilgart. .../ prospective is in world “they said this is truly the prophet who is to come into the world ...” /dicebant. quia hic est uere/ proph&a qui uenturus est/ in mundum . .../ c. Chiuuisso chioffanaodom uuir nu hear dhazs ... certainly revealed we now here that “certainly, we have now revealed here that ...” (R) Probauimus ...

(I 484)

The example in (79) suggests that wārlīhho may not only be used in its original epistemic meaning when it occurs in the middle field, but also when it appears in the verb-third configuration: (79) /min fleisg uuarlicho ist muos/ inti min bluot uuarlicho ist trang/ my flesh truly is food and my blood truly is drink “my flesh is truly food and my blood is truly drink” (T 263,11) /Caro enim mea. uere est cibus./ & sanguis meus uere est potus;/

The same holds for chiuuisso: Here as well, the epistemic use does not seem to be restricted to those cases where chiuuisso is the only constituent in front of the finite verb, as in (78)-c, or occurs in the middle field. There are also some verb-third cases attested where chiuuisso arguably has an epistemic reading:68 (80) a. endi bidhiu iu chiuuisso quham christ and for-this-reason already certainly came Christ “and that’s why Christ has certainly already come” (R) Ideoque iam aduenit christus b. /helias giuuesso quimit/ Elijah indeed comes “to be sure, Elijah comes” /helias quidem uenturus est/

(I 464)

(T 307,26)

At least in those cases where giwisso and wārlīhho are used in their original epistemic senses, it is very likely that they constitute a separate constituent. 67 In the example, a conditional clause appears to the left of giuuesso. In section 4.5.6, it will

be argued that adverbial clauses were adjoined to the root node in OHG. 68 In the example in (80), chiuuisso is even preceded by more than one constituent (bidhiu and

iu).

222


Note that in modern German, the verb-third construction (XP–ADV–Vfin) is restricted to the discourse-connective meanings, which suggests that the OHG data in (79) and (80) are real verb-third constructions and that in earlier OHG, it was possible for more than one constituent to occur before the finite verb in earlier OHG. It should be noted, however, that this type of example is very rare. The vast majority of cases are examples such as in (75), which are very similar to the present-day German construction in which discourse-connective adverbs such as immerhin, freilich, hingegen occur between a preposed XP and the finite verb; for this construction, a one-constituent analysis has been proposed in the literature. Even though it would be beyond the scope of this study to go into details, we have to take into account that a one-constituent analysis could also be applied the corresponding OHG examples. This is also true for the numerous examples where the particles afur (auur) “but, however” or ouh “also, yet” occur to the right of an XP in the prefinite domain:69 (81) a. [Sunu auur] uuard uns son however became us “but a son was given to us” (R) filius autem datus est nobis

chigebhan given

b. [Iħs auh] {uui}ssa · iro ga dancha ... Jesus however knew their thoughts “but Jesus knew their thoughts ...” Iesus autem sciens cogitationes eorum ...

(I 394)

(MF V,22; Mt 12:25)

To sum up: Upon closer inspection, it turns out that the majority of examples with verb-third effects triggered by putative sentence adverbs can be argued to receive an alternative (= one-constituent) analysis as the adverb seems to function as a kind of discourse connective. The earlier OHG prose texts, notably Isidor and Tatian, contain some sporadic examples where sentence adverbs even occur in their original epistemic use after a preposed XP. This observation would suggest that there is more than one XP-position in front of the preposed finite verb. However, this latter type of data is very rare. 4.5.4 Verb-third order with pronouns and short adverbs One further major class of examples with putative verb-third order involves personal pronouns (= XP–pron–Vfin...; cf. (43)-d in the classification above). In the earlier texts personal pronouns are sometimes attested between a preposed XP and the finite verb:

69 See Reis & Rosengren (1997) and Reis (2005) on postposed focus particles such as auch

“too” and nur “only”.

223


(82) a. [Erino portun] [ih] firchnussu iron portals I destroy “I destroy iron portals” Portas aereas conteram b. [Auuar] · [iu] sagem *** again you-DAT.PL say-1.SG “again I say to you: ...” {Iterum dico uobis ...}

(I 157)

(MF XI,18; Mt 18:19)

This class of examples will be discussed more extensively in Chapter 5. The intervening pronouns have often been regarded as enclitic elements in the literature (cf. Reis 1901; Behaghel 1932:12 and 14; Lippert 1974:54). In the seminal study by Fourquet (1938), they are called ‘éléments légers’. In the older literature it was, of course, not specified whether the pronouns were taken to be syntactic clitics, i.e. non-phrasal elements, or whether they were merely regarded as phonological clitics. Provided the first view is correct, then examples such as (82) are not real instances of verb-third. As will be argued in the following chapter, the clitic analysis is very problematic. In the literature, it has often been assumed that there also exists a separate class of ‘weak’ adverbs in earlier OHG whose syntactic distribution is similar to that of the personal pronouns (cf. Reis 1901; Fourquet 1938, Behaghel 1932:12 and 14; Lippert 1974:54). In some cases where temporal adverbs such as thō, iu occur in the verb-third configuration ‘XP–adv–Vfin’, there is a further temporal adverb present in the prefinite domain, cf. (83), so that we might draw a parallel to the examples with multiple adjuncts in the prefield for which we have considered an analysis in which they form one constituent (section 4.5.3). (83) a. / ... nu iu cumit/ thaz ir uuerdet zispreite/ now already comes that you become scattered “it has now already come that you will be scattered” /... & iam uenit/ ut dispergamini uuazzar in labal/ b. /thanan tho santa after-that then poured water in basin “then he poured water into the basin” /deinde mittit aquam in peluem/

(T 591,1)

(T 549,27)

In many cases, the ‘short’ adverbs are preceded by subject- or object-DPs, which means that such an explanation is not possible. As one can see in the examples (84)-a and (84)-b, not only lexical argument-DPs or further adjuncts are attested to the left of the adverbs, but also pronouns. The adverbs have been called ‘clitic adverbs’ just as the prefinite personal pronouns (e.g. Behaghel 1932:12; Lippert 1974:54). As is noted by Robinson (1997:17ff.), the literature is very inconsistent as to the question of which lexemes are classified as

224


‘weakly stressed’ or as enclitic. Lippert (1974:81) only considers sō̆ “so, thus, thusly” and thā̆r “there” as clitic adverbs, whereas Fourquet (1938:127) also includes nū̌ “now” and sus “such” as well as the sentence particle ouh (auh) in this group.70 Behaghel (1932:14) furthermore cites examples with thō (dhuo), iu and the bisyllabic thanne (dhanne) “then”. In most examples with verb-third order triggered by a short adverb the adverb is not used in its original meaning, but functions as some kind of discourse connective.71 The most prominent case is the adverb thō,tho (dhuo). In Tatian, thō, tho is the most frequent adverb/particle. It is inserted contrary to the Latin in numerous examples. In main clauses, it occurs in postfinite position, most notably in declarative clauses with verb-first order (= Vfin–THŌ; cf. Chapter 3), but also in clauses with verb-second order (=XP–Vfin–THŌ). In these positions, it often does not have its fully-fledged temporal meaning, but rather seems to be a discourse particle. The same is true for cases where it has been inserted into the prefinite domain and occurs to the right of the preposed XP (= XP–THŌ–Vfin): (84) a. /her tho antuurtita inti quad in/ he THO answered and said them “but he answered and said to them” qui respondens ait eis; b. / ... siu tho giuuanta sih/ THO turned herself she “she then turned around” / ... conuersa illa/ c. /abur tho lougnita suerento/ again THO denied swearing “then again he denied, swearing” /& iterum negavit cum iuramento/

(T 335,18)

(T 665,19)

(T 613,16)

70 Cf. section 4.5.3 on XP–ouh–V -examples. fin 71 In Isidor, there are also two examples attested (I 313, cf. (i), I 263) where the intervening

adverb is sus which is used as a cataphoric pronoun pointing to the content of a following direct speech sequence (cf. also Lippert 1974:81). (i) Umbi dhen dhrittun heit, dher fona suni ist, sus quhad dher selbo about the third person which from son is such spoke the same forasago: › ... ‹ (I 313) prophet “about the third person, which is of the Son, the same prophet spoke thus: ...” (R) post hec de tertia persona, id est de filio, ita subiecit: › ... ‹ Lippert (ibid.:81) suggests that this is a formulaic pattern directly copying the Latin order (like OHG sus, ita also occurs in front of the finite verb in these examples). However, there is also an example attested which slightly deviates from this ‘formula’: In I 126 sus is a correlative pro-adverb referring to the following subordinate clause (susi ... [so selp so ....]i).


225

Thō seems to put some kind of emphasis on the XP to its left in this position (Betten 1987b). In fact, in Tatian the sequence subject-XP–THO–Vfin seems to have the same function as the sequence XP–wārlīhho–Vfin, the latter being restricted to a few passages: Thō seems to signal a change in the discourse topic. In Luther’s translation of the Bible, we often find the contrastive particle aber “but, however” where the XP–THO–Vfin-construction occurs in the OHG Tatian. Since in the XP–THŌ–Vfin-configuration thō has this secondary use as a discourse connective/particle, we can draw a parallel to the cases discussed above where we argued that a one-constituent analysis may be feasible for sequences of XPs followed by ‘sentence adverbs’ in their derived, non-epistemic meanings or by the particles ouh and afur. A similar use is attested with the adverb dhanne. In the following example from the Monsee St. Matthew, dhanne renders Latin autem. Here again, Luther’s translation contains the adversative particle aber: Aber fuͤnff unter jnen waren toͤricht (Mt 25:2; LutherBibel 1546). (85) Fimfi dero dhanne uuarun unuuiso five those-GEN DHANNE were foolish “five of them, however, were foolish” {Quinque autem ex eis erant fatuae}

(MF XX,2; Mt 25:2)

Besides these major groups, there are also some verb-third examples attested where short adverbs are used in their canonical local or temporal meanings. Note, however, that these examples are much rarer than the ones where the adverbs are used in their discourse-connective uses. (86) a. Seegi got dhar sprah spoke behold God DHAR “behold, God spoke there” (R) Ecce deus, qui loquitur

(I 311)

b. Hinan frammert nu chichundemes mit hęrduome dhes from further NU demonstrate with authority of-the heilegin chiscribes, dhazs ... (I 379) Holy Scripture that “from here on we will demonstrate with the authority of the Holy Scripture that ...” (R) Dehinc scripturę auctoritate eundem ... monstremus

The strategy of some scholars of drawing a parallel between the preverbal occurrences of personal pronouns and short adverbs and of classifying both categories as enclitics is not really convincing. There are Germanic languages or dialects which have been argued to possess pronoun clitics – e.g. modern Dutch, West Flemish or the German dialects (cf. Chapter 5) – but there is no such comparative evidence for clitic adverbs, an objection which has already

226


been raised by Haeberli (1999a:346) in his discussion of putatively clitic adverbs in Old English (the majority of which are cognates of the OHG adverbs in (83)-(86)). The main argument that has been put forward for the clitic status of the adverbs is that they are unstressed (e.g. Behaghel 1932:14 on early OHG and Old English). While it may be correct that the monosyllabic adverbs are unstressed, there is no orthographic evidence for a phonological cliticization, neither in OHG nor in Old English (cf. Pintzuk 1996). There are sporadic indications of reduced forms (e.g. the form no instead of the full form nū; cf. Chapter 5), but not in the construction with XP–adv–Vfin-order. Moreover, the bisyllabic adverb dhanne is also attested in this construction, in which case it is implausible that we are dealing with a phonological clitic.72 Probably the main reason why adverbs have been regarded as clitics is that the hypothesis of a strict verb-second rule remains unchallenged under this assumption. In theoretical terms, the clitic status means that they are not phrasal, but X0-elements. Given this assumption, it could be argued that only X0elements can intervene between the preposed XP and the fronted finite verb and that we are still dealing with a verb-second structure even though there is a verb-third effect at the surface. However, as was shown in the previous sections, there are also examples attested where undoubtedly phrasal constituents such as the adverbs giwisso or wārlīhho occur between the preposed XP and the finite verb.73

72 The analysis of the short adverbs as clitics has often been motivated by the allegedly parallel

distribution between adverbs and the putative clitic pronouns. In Behaghel’s (1932:14) opinion, the observation that both personal pronouns and adverbs may appear between a preposed XP and the finite verb is enough evidence that both should be regarded as enclitic elements. Pintzuk’s (1991:234-284, 1996, 1999:172-203) argument of a parallel distribution between both categories in Old English is more far reaching, as she also extends it to postverbal placements. The distributional differences between pronouns and adverbs in Old English are traced back to the fact that the adverbs are only syntactic, and not phonological clitics, whereas the pronouns are also phonological clitics. Pintzuk argues that this explains why the adverbs occur more often at the beginning of the clause than, for example, object pronouns, which can only show up in this position when they have been topicalized (i.e. when they are not clitics). The difference between phonological and syntactic cliticization, however, is not based on any orthographic/phonological or other type of independent evidence, but is only stipulated to derive the different distributions. Pintzuk’s line of argumentation has met with serious criticism: Koopman (1996, 1997), Haeberli (1999a) and van Bergen (2003:132-143) point out that there are some major distributional differences between pronouns and adverbs which are not accounted for in the model by Pintzuk (1991, 1996, 1999). 73 Sentence adverbs such as witodlice “truly” also occur in this position in the Old English prose. For this reason, Pintzuk (1996) puts forward a very stipulative analysis according to which such elements are also X0-categories. As van Bergen (2003:138) objects, such an analysis is circular as the special distribution of adverbs is derived solely from their status as clitics without giving any independent evidence and irrespective of the question of how ‘heavy’ they are.


227

4.5.5 Summary Having discussed different classes of verb-third in OHG, we may now present an intermediate summary and ask the question as to which restrictions there are. On the one hand, we have discussed examples with ‘short’ (thō, nū etc.) and ‘long’ adverbs (giwisso, wārlīhho) which can be argued to function as discourse connectives. For these examples a one-constituent analysis might be considered as has been proposed for modern German, where verb-‘third’ effects still occur with adverbs such as freilich “sure enough, to wit”, schließlich “finally, eventually, after all”, and übrigens “by the way, incidentally”. On the other hand, sometimes the long and short adverbs occur in the verbthird configuration even in their original epistemic, local/temporal meanings. Since the data are so scarce and we do not have access to ‘negative evidence’, it can only be speculated how this phenomenon should be analysed. Still it can be noted that even in earlier OHG, the verb-third effects are restricted to intervening adjuncts. There are practically no examples where deviations from verb-second are triggered by two (non-pronominal) arguments occurring in prefinite position independent of or contrary to the Latin. This marks a clear contrast to Old English, where XP–full-subject–Vfin-sequences occur quite frequently (see Chapter 5). One hypothesis could be that, with the exception of pronouns, only base-generated material may intervene between the preposed XP and the finite verb in Fin: As cross-linguistic studies have shown, framesetting adverbs typically occupy a high position within a sentence (Rizzi 2004). This seems to also be true for epistemic sentence adverbs (cf. Cinque 1999). However, it is hard to tell from our scarce data whether such restrictions really hold and whether in all verb-third constructions with a (non-connective) adverb, the adverb is either a frame-setter or a sentence adverb. A question that also has to be left unanswered is which position these adverb phrases occupy: they can either be argued to be base-generated in a separate projection between the projection whose specifier is the landing site for XP-movement and the projection whose head is the target for verb movement (= SpecC and Fin according to the analysis proposed here), or to be adjoined to FinP. 4.5.6 Verb-third order with adverbial clauses A further major class of verb-third effects is induced by sentential adverbials (= (43)-f in the classification above). In the OHG texts it can be observed that when adverbial clauses modify declarative main clauses, they do not occur directly in front of the preposed finite verb, but further to the left. There is usually a further constituent between the adverbial clause and the preposed finite

228


verb so that a verb-third effect is triggered in the main clause (= AC–XP–Vfinorder).74 This is illustrated in (87) with an example from Isidor. (87) [Dhuo ir himilo garauui frumida], when he heavens’ equipment created “when he fashioned the heavens, I was there” Quando praeparabat cęlos, aderam

[dhar] there (R)

uuas ih was I

(I 91)

The left-peripheral placement of adverbial clauses is a native word-order pattern. For instance, in the Isidor example, the locative adverb dhar occurs in the prefinite position and the subject pronoun ih has been inserted in the postfinite domain. Moreover, examples with AC–XP–Vfin-order are also frequently attested in late OHG sources, notably in Notker’s works (see Axel 2004:33f. for some examples). In modern German, this left-peripheral placement is not possible with the core types of adverbial clauses such as temporal, causal, and (indicative) conditional clauses. The core adverbial clauses have to be placed directly to the left of the finite verb, i.e. they constitute the prefield just as non-sentential adverbs. It can be assumed that the left-peripheral adverbial clauses are adjoined to the root node of their matrix clause as is illustrated in (88) for the Isidor example in (87). This is also the analysis which Kiparsky (1995:157f., 1996:166f.) suggests for the corresponding data in Old English. (88) [CP [CP Dhuo ir himilo garauui frumida] [CP dhar uuas ih]]

There are three constructions attested from which we can gain more precise evidence for the position of adverbial clauses and which confirm Kiparsky’s hypothesis of an extrasentential adjunction. First, in Tatian preposed adverbial clauses occur to the left of the interrogative particle eno in yes/no-interrogatives; cf. (89) and (56)-b above:

74 The left-peripheral placement of preposed adverbial clauses in OHG and later periods has

been subject to much debate in the literature: not only has it been discussed in primarily descriptive studies (e.g. Starker 1883; Kracke 1911; Behaghel 1929; Horacek 1957, 1964; Müller & Frings 1959; Schieb 1970; Fleischmann 1973; Lötscher 1998), but also in theoretical investigations both in the grammaticalization (e.g. König & van der Auwera 1988) and in the generative paradigm (Knaus 1995; Axel 2004; cf. also Kiparsky 1995 on Old Germanic in general). The same phenomenon has been described for further medieval stages of various Germanic and Romance languages with verb-second properties such as Old English (cf. Stockwell & Minkova 1991; Kiparsky 1995:157), Middle Dutch (van der Horst 1981), Old French (Vance 1997:65; Kaiser 2002:69f.), and Old Spanish (Fontana 1993:167).

229


(89) /Inti [oba ir heilez& ekkorodo íuuara bruoder]/ (T 147,11) and if you greet only your brothers eno nituont thaz heidane man/ ENO NEG-do this pagan men “and if you greet your brothers only, do not (even) pagans do that?” /Et si salutaueritis fratres uestros tantum./ nonne & ethnici hoc faciunt./

Provided that sentence-typing particles appear in the Force-projection, which is the highest projection in the C-domain according to Rizzi (1997), we may conclude that the adverbial clause in (89) is base-generated to the left of ForceP and that it is adjoined to the root node as illustrated in (90).75 (90) [ForceP [CP oba ir heilez& ekkorodo íuuara bruoder ...] [ForceP eno ni tuont thaz heidane man]]

That adverbial clauses are positioned in such a left-peripheral position at the outmost left edge of their respective matrix clauses is also supported by some surprising data from early OHG sources, in which adverbial clauses occur to the left of coordinating conjunctions (cf. Starker 1883:2; Rannow 1888:16): (91) Enti [ibu daz {hus sii} uuir dich] · enti iuuuer fridu · and if that house be worthy and your peace ubar daz hūs (MF II,2; Mt 10:13) upon the house “and if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it” {et si quidem fuerit domus digna, ueniat pax uestra super eam}

quuimit comes

Further evidence for the left-peripheral positioning of OHG adverbial clauses is provided by the observation that in OHG, adverbial clauses which modify a further subordinate clause are usually positioned to the left of the complementizer of their matrix clause (= AC–Comp). In the complex sentence in (92) from Notker’s Consolatio, the adverbial clause modifies the taz (= “that”)clause.76

75 Originally, phrasal adjunction has been excluded in Rizzi’s account. Given this ban on

phrasal adjunction, we would have to argue that the adverbial clauses occupy the specifier of a separate functional projection at the outermost left edge of the C-domain. Note, however, that Rizzi (1997) does not discuss the syntax of clause combining. In a more recent account, Rizzi (2004:5) refers to an analysis by Chomsky (2004) where the possibility of base-generated adjunction is taken into consideration for certain types of relative clauses. 76 In the poetry, there are many such examples attested (e.g. Ludwigslied (SD XVI,34), O III 24,85). Cf. also Müller & Frings (1959) and Kracke (1911) for further OHG and for some Middle High German examples. Kiparsky (1995:158) cites a corresponding example from Old English.

230


(92) ... neíst tés nîomannen vuúnder . [CP [ sô der uuínt nobody-ACC wonder when the wind ...NEG-is that-GEN uuáhet]. [táz tiu uuélla án den stád sláhet]] (N BCon IV 211,2) blows that the wave at the shore crashes “nobody is surprised that the wave crashes at the shore when the wind is blowing” Nemo miratur flamina chori . túndere litus frementi fluctv (l. 1)

Crucially, adverbial clauses are the only type of material that occurs in the position to the left of the complementizer. Unlike in Gothic (cf. section 4.3.2), non-sentential adjuncts or even complements are not attested in this position. In present-day German, adverbial clauses can hardly occupy this position anymore. Note that the AC–Comp-construction violates the principle that only non-arguments can adjoin to maximal projections (Chomsky 1986:6).77 Having discussed some evidence that adverbial clauses can occupy a leftperipheral position in their matrix clauses, the question arises as to whether they can also be integrated into their matrix clauses. In present-day German, adverbial clauses generally occupy SpecC when they are preposed. That adverbial clauses may be placed in the prefield shows that they are syntactically embedded just like complement clauses (cf. Reis 1997).78 As to the OHG data, it is therefore important to find out whether preposed adverbial clauses are only attested in the unintegrated left-peripheral position (= AC–XP–Vfin) or whether they also occur in the position immediately before the finite verb (= AC–Vfin). As a matter of fact, we do find AC–Vfin-orders in the earlier OHG texts even in examples whose word order differs from the Latin in the relevant respect. In the Tatian example (93)-a, for instance, the finite verb uuard has been reordered further to the left compared to the Latin. In (93)-b both the predicate and its object have been placed after the finite verb. (93) a. /[mitthiu her tho ingieng hierusalem]./ uuard giruort al thiu with-that he then entered Jerusalem became stirred all the burg/ (T 397,10) city/ “and when he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred” /Et cum Introiss& hierosolimam/ commota est universa ciuitas/ 77 Similar data have been discussed by McCloskey (2004:9) for modern English. McCloskey

argues that Chomsky’s (1986:6) adjunction prohibition is only intended for adjunctions involving movement, and not for base-generated adjunctions. The OHG AC–Comp-construction would then fit into the picture since we have independent reasons to assume that these adverbial clauses were not moved to the left (or right) periphery, but base-generated in these peripheral positions. 78 In present-day German, adverbial clauses also sometimes occur in the middle field. However, it is often not clear whether we are dealing with a parenthetical construction in this case.


231

b. ... [innan dhiu ir uuas in gotes faruuu], ni uuas imu dhuo NEG was him then in that he was in God’s form einighan fal ardeilendi (I 404) any case judging “... while he was in the form of God, it did not seem to him robbery” ... dum in forma dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est

However, there are reasons to assume that when adverbial clauses occur in the AC–Vfin-order as in (93), they are adjoined to verb-first declaratives, thereby occupying the same sentence-external position as in the AC–XP–Vfinconstruction (cf. Axel 2002, 2004). In those cases where the OHG word order goes against the Latin or is independent of the Latin, the AC–Vfin-construction is almost exclusively attested in such examples where the matrix clause has at least one of the typical properties of OHG verb-first declaratives (see Chapter 3). In (93)-a, for example, the matrix clause predicate is passivized. In (93)-b, the matrix clause is negated and the preposed verb carries the pro-clitic negation particle ni and it furthermore contains an impersonal construction.79 In the late OHG texts, adverbial clauses are attested in the AC–Vfinconstruction very sporadically. The five volumes of Notker’s Consolatio contain more than 400 complex sentences where adverbial clauses occur in front of their (independent) matrix clauses and only three of them are attested in the AC–Vfin-construction. In Williram’s paraphrase of the Song of Songs, not a single example can be found. If it is correct that the matrix clauses in the OHG AC–Vfin-construction are verb-first declaratives, this is actually not surprising as verb-first declaratives are rare in late OHG texts (cf. Chapter 3). The AC– Vfin-pattern occurring in earlier OHG should thus not be regarded as evidence that adverbial clauses were licensed in sentence-internal positions at that

79 Schrodt (2004:211, note 1) raises an objection to the hypothesis proposed in Axel (2002)

that the AC–Vfin-order in OHG should be analysed as a base-generated adjunction of the adverbial clause to the root node of a verb-first declarative. He argues that not all examples contain verbs which are typical for verb-first declaratives. The example with an ‘untypical’ verb which he gives (ibid.:212) is from Tatian (T 283,12 (= 87,9 in the edition by Sievers 1961); cf. (i)). Note, however, that its word order is identical to the Latin in the relevant respect, i.e. in the Latin the finite verb is sentence-initial just the same. See also (96)-b below for a further example. (i) /... [tho sie zi imo quamun/ the samaritani] batun inan/ thaz her .../ when they to him came the Samaritans asked him that he “when the Samaritans came to him they asked him to ...” (T 283,12) /... [Cum uenissent ergo ad illum/ samaritani] . rogauerunt eum .../ ut ... Tatian is the only OHG source in which AC–Vfin–orders are attested relatively frequently. However, the word order is almost always identical to the source in the relevant respect. If one only takes into account cases with non-identical word order, it can be observed that the vast majority of matrix clauses have at least one characteristic of typical verb-first declaratives. Most frequently, they are passive constructions where the relative order of the auxiliary verb and the past participle have been reversed compared to the Latin (see also Ruhfus 1897:13).

232


time.80 In OHG, the matrix clauses of the adverbial clauses often contain a resumptive element which occurs in prefinite, cf. (94), or in postfinite position (cf. (93)-b above). (94) /[So hér tho bilan zi sprehhanne]/ tho quad her when he then left to speak then said he “when he had finished speaking, he said to Simon” /vt cessauit autem loqui.‛/ dixit ad simonem.,/

zí simone/ to Simon (T 125,13)

It could be hypothesized that in those cases which do not exhibit an overt resumptive element, there is a silent resumptive present (in the form of an adverbial pro-form). This hypothesis is sketched in (95).81 (95) [CP [CP Dhuo ir himilo garauui frumida]i , [ dharj uuask ih proi tj tk]] cf. (87)

Note that this type of correlative clause combining construction, which is also known as the ‘correlative diptych’, even has Indo-European roots (e.g. Haudry 1973); it is one of the archaic constructions that OHG has retained. Kiparsky (1995:155ff.) also stresses this relation between the early Germanic and the archaic Indo-European languages and argues that in early Germanic “there is still residual evidence for the adjoined structures in these languages” (ibid.:157). Kiparsky also draws a parallel between the early Germanic adverbial clauses and relative clauses.82 In the case of OHG, such a parallel is indeed justified as it can be demonstrated that sentential adverbial modification is accomplished by adverbial relative clauses. As was already mentioned in section 4.3.1, in early Germanic different types of relative clauses are attested: Besides an older type which is introduced solely by the relative particle, some languages/dialects developed the pronominal type, which still exists in modern Standard German. In Old English and in certain Old High German dialects, we find relative clauses which exhibit a relative particle in addition to the relative pronoun. The same phenomenon also occurs in ‘adverbial’ clauses. In some

80 In the OHG sources, adverbial clauses sporadically occur between the preposed XP and the

finite verb (= XP–AC–Vfin...). It is very likely that this is actually a parenthetical construction (cf. 4.5.2). The same is true for the very sporadic cases where adverbial clauses appear in the middle field of their matrix clauses (cf. Kracke 1911). 81 In contrast to the overt resumptive, the silent resumptive must be banned from moving to SpecC. Otherwise we would expect that AC–Vfin-orders, which would then have to be analysed as AC–proi–Vfin–...ti...-orders, would be much more frequent. Moreover, the matrix clauses, which would be verb-second clauses (with pro–Vfin-orders) underlyingly, would not be expected to exhibit the characteristic features of verb-first declaratives. 82 See also Haudry (1973), Fischer (1992:295) and Bianchi (1999:98ff.) on adverbial relative clauses in Old Germanic.


233

cases, there is an overt pro-adverb present in the matrix clause, while in other cases this pro-adverb has not been overtly realized: (96) a. /[thothe erstigun sine bruoder]/ tho ersteig her úf./ his brothers then up-went he up then+REL.PARTCL up-went “when his brothers had gone up, then he also went up” (T 347,11) /ut autem ascenderunt fratres eius/ tunc & ipse ascendit/ b. /[thode intfieng/ ther heilant then ezzih]/ quad/ ... then+REL.PARTCL received the Saviour the vinegar said (T 645,32) “when the Saviour had received the vinegar, he said, ...” /Cum ergo accepiss&/ ihesus ac&um/ dixit/ ...

The relative particle the is not attested in the upper German sources. It is quite frequent in Tatian, but in most of the ‘adverbial’ and ‘non-adverbial’ relative clauses, it is not realized overtly. Nevertheless, we may assume that it is present as a silent element in such cases. As far as the further development of adverbial clauses is concerned, there is evidence that they do not become syntactically embedded until the Early New High German period (cf. Axel 2004:40-42). Thus, the diachrony of the verbthird effect triggered by adverbial clauses differs from that of the other verbthird phenomena that were discussed in the previous sections. Crucially, adverbial clauses are still found in a left-peripheral position in late OHG, in Middle High German, and even in Early New High German, both in the case of independent matrix clauses (= AC–XP–Vfin) and in the case of dependent matrix clauses (= AC–Comp–Vfin). To sum up, the verb-third effect induced by adverbial clauses can be traced back to the fact that this type of adverbial clause has not developed the status of a syntactically embedded clause in OHG. Instead, these clauses are adverbial relative clauses which are adjoined to the root node of their respective matrix clause and which are resumed by an ±overt pro-adverb form in the clauseinternal modifier position. This very old way of clause-combining has IndoEuropean roots. 4.6 Summary In this chapter, I have dealt with different aspects of XP-fronting and with verb-third effects in Old High German. As a starting point, I discussed some recent research on the diachronic origins of different types of XP-preposing (wh-movement, topicalization, and left-dislocation constructions). Kiparsky (1995) reconstructs two XP-positions at the left sentence periphery in Proto-Germanic, a topic position and a focus position. The focus position was the target site for wh-movement; it hosted interrogative and relative whphrases and certain demonstrative adverbs. Further to the left there was a topic position. Topics were coindexed with an overt or silent resumptive in sentenceinternal position in a kind of left-dislocation construction. Kiparsky argues that

234


the structure of the left periphery with two operator positions had IndoEuropean roots. In Germanic, there furthermore existed the possibility to adjoin a topic-XP to S (= IP in Kiparsky 1996). Kiparsky argues that the English language retained these features of ProtoGermanic sentence structure for the longest time. In Old English, V-to-C movement only took place in sentences with wh-phrases or the negation ni, not in sentences with simple topicalization. The projection of a CP was only obligatory in sentences with intrinsic focus elements in SpecC. Consequently, verb movement, which targeted the head of CP, only took place in these restricted environments. Kiparsky also suspects that in OHG, all sentences must have been CPs already. This would then explain why movement was more generalized than in Old English. This hypothesis has been confirmed by our results discussed in Chapter 2: Already in earlier OHG, verb movement was obligatory in sentences without complementizers. Kiparsky furthermore claims that besides the ±obligatoriness of V-to-C movement, the developmental status of Old English differed from that of the Germanic verb-second languages in that the abovementioned XP-positions for topics and wh-phrases were not conflated. In German, this step had arguably been completed before the beginning of written documentation: In the OHG sources there is no evidence that topics and wh-phrases occupied different positions. As will be demonstrated in the following chapter, in contrast to Old English, the distribution of pronouns did not differ systematically in these two syntactic environments. Kiparsky hypothesizes that it was the old focus position which was generalized into the prefield in the Germanic verb-second languages. This was also the specifier (SpecC) of the projection whose head (C0) was the target for generalized verb movement. At this point, the OHG data do not fully fit into the picture. At least in the older OHG sources there are still verb-third phenomena attested which cannot be accommodated within such an account. There is some evidence, albeit scarce, that it was possible for epistemic sentence adverbs and for temporal and local adjuncts to intervene between the XP and the finite verb, which might suggest an analysis in which the preposed finite verb and the fronted XP did not occupy the head and specifier of the same functional projection. This would also account for the fact that the elements which triggered verb-third in OHG (certain types of adverbs and pronouns) occurred between the finite verb and the XP, which would constitute the prefield from today’s perspective. Verb-third effects by adjunction to the root nodes, however, were very restricted. Besides constructions with dislocated topics, there existed only one systematic exception: Adverbial subordinate clauses were adjoined to the root node of their respective matrix clauses and they were resumed by overt or silent adverbial pro-forms in the clause-internal modifier positions. In other words, adverbial clauses were syntactically subordinated, but they were not syntactically embedded. Kiparsky (1995, 1996) regards this type of clause combining as a typical characteristic of the archaic Indo-European languages,


235

which was retained as a syntactic residue in early Germanic. In the last decade, research on Gothic has opened some new perspectives on the origin of the verb-second phenomenon in Germanic. As the investigation by Ferraresi (1997, 2005) has shown, Gothic presumably had a finely structured C-domain which contained a larger number of specifier positions than is postulated by Kiparsky for earliest Germanic. Provided that Gothic had retained the essential properties of the Proto-Germanic C-domain, this would mean that the reduction of the C-domain, which was one important step towards the development of a verb-second grammar, was more extensive than previously assumed. The development from a quasi-verb-second grammar in earlier OHG to a strict verb-second grammar in late OHG might have been a reflex of the conflation of an originally more complex C-domain. It is unclear how this process was triggered. It can be hypothesized that the lexical loss of left-peripheral particles which were associated with different C-positions might have played a role for the conflation in the formerly complex C-domain. The comparison of the syntax of the left sentence peripheries in Gothic and OHG has furthermore revealed that a further essential step was the innovation of Stylistic Fronting as a result of which XP-movement was no longer solely triggered by information-structural requirements. As a consequence, the distinction of sentence types was primarily signalled by means of word-order properties (verb-first, verb-second), instead of by sentence-typing particles.

CHAPTER 5

PRONOUN PLACEMENT AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE

5.1 Introduction The syntactic distribution of pronouns has received much attention in generative studies: It has been regarded as a major diagnostic for early Germanic sentence structure. The discussion has centred on the phenomenon that personal pronouns are attested between the fronted XP and the finite verb (= XP–pron– Vfin) in main declaratives in several early Germanic languages. The Old English and Old High German examples in (1) illustrate this placement of personal pronouns. What is interesting about such examples is the question of whether they can be reconciled with the assumption that the verb-second constraint was already operative at that early stage. Note that in the modern Germanic verbsecond languages, the pronouns would have to occur postfinitely as illustrated in (2) for modern German. (1)

a. [hiora untrymnesse] he sceal ðrowian on in their weakness he-NOM shall atone “he shall atone in his heart for their weakness” (Cura Pastoralis 60,17, from Pintzuk 1999:136) b. [Erino portun] ih firchnussu Iron portals I-NOM destroy “I will destroy iron portals” Portas aereas conteram

(2)

his his

heortan heart

(I 157)

[Eiserne Portale] zerschmettere ich iron portals destroy I “I destroy iron portals”

The phenomenon of XP–pron–Vfin-placement in OHG is also of great importance for those aspects of OHG sentence structure that have been studied in the present investigation. In the previous chapters, I argued that two essential properties of a verb-second grammar had already been largely established in OHG times, namely obligatory verb movement and XP-fronting. The occurrence of pronouns in front of the finite verb in earlier OHG suggests that in OHG the structure of the prefinite domain was different than in the modern Germanic verb-second languages. The line of argumentation in this chapter is structured as follows: In the following section, I will describe the distribution of personal pronouns in the earlier OHG prose texts and put forward an analysis. In section 5.3, I will discuss

238


some evidence for an analysis of OHG personal pronouns as XP-elements. More precisely, I am going to present some counterevidence to the claim that the pronouns in the XP–pron–Vfin-construction had the status of X0-elements (i.e. of syntactic clitics). In the last two sections (sections 5.4 and 5.5), I will review a number of syntactic accounts in which the distribution of pronouns in early Germanic has been regarded as evidence for a sentence structure with asymmetric verb movement. Both in traditional studies and in more recent generative accounts, various proposals have been made to derive the distribution of pronouns. These proposals often have more general implications for the analysis of early Germanic sentence structure. In this chapter, I will take up these proposals at various points and compare them to the analysis advocated in the present study. As far as the traditional literature is concerned, I would first like to mention the seminal study by Wackernagel (1892), where the so-called Wackernagel’s Law is proposed, which states that in many Indo-European languages unstressed (or weakly stressed) words had a strong tendency to occur in the second position of their host clause. In Fourquet’s (1938) diachronic investigation of the development of word-order properties in early Germanic, personal pronouns, which are taken to belong to a group of special light elements, are considered as major exponents of the diachronic changes that took place between the ‘état commun I’ represented by the linguistic situation in the Old English Beowulf (ibid.:316) and the ‘état commun II’ represented by the linguistic situation in Isidor, in the Edda (Old Norse) and in the second part of the AngloSaxon Chronicle (891-925) (ibid.:127f.): In a transitional stage (‘état mixte’), which is found in the Old Saxon Heliand and in the first part of the AngloSaxon Chronicle (before 891), verb-second has become the predominant order in main clauses, but there is still the exception that personal pronouns regularly interfere between the preposed constituent and the fronted verb (= XP–pron– Vfin) (ibid.:316). Moreover, the phonological and syntactic properties of pronouns in historical German led Wilhelm Braune (1894) to propose his theory of the ‘pure’ vs. ‘covered’ verb-first placement (= reine vs. gedeckte Anfangsstellung). Finally, Otto Behaghel (1909) argues that the distribution of personal pronouns provides evidence for his Gesetz der wachsenden Glieder (“law of increasing constituent length”), according to which there is a universal tendency for lighter constituents to be placed in front of heavier ones. In generative studies, the syntactic distribution of personal pronouns has also received a great deal of attention. The XP–pron–Vfin-phenomenon is attested in various historical Germanic dialects with verb-second properties. Most extensively, it has been discussed for Old English (e.g. by van Kemenade 1987; Cardinaletti & Roberts 1991; Pintzuk 1991, 1996, 1999; Kiparsky 1995, 1996; Eythórsson 1995; Roberts 1996; Kroch & Taylor 1997; van Bergen 2003). Special approaches for OHG have been proposed by Lenerz (1984, 1985b) and by Tomaselli (1995). Note that Eythórsson (1995, 1996) and Rob-

239


erts (1996) draw a parallel between the Old English and OHG data and assume that their analysis of Old English also carries over to Old High German. Since van Kemenade’s (1987) seminal study of Old English syntax, a number of analyses of sentence structure and pronoun placement have been worked out which not only have implications for the development of Old and Middle English, but also for the other Germanic languages. For example, Kiparsky (1995, 1996) and many other scholars thereafter have argued that the historical origins of verb-second in Germanic were not declarative clauses with topicalized XPs, but operator-initial sentences (interrogatives, negated clauses and sentences with certain clause-initial demonstrative adverbs). Moreover, the left-peripheral occurrences of personal pronouns have been analysed within a complex C-domain; cf. Roberts (1996) on Old English and OHG and Ferraresi (1997, 2005) on Gothic. Finally, Tomaselli (1995) has argued that the development of pronoun placement in OHG (i.e. the change from XP–pron–Vfin to XP–Vfin–pron) is a reflex of an underlying change affecting the head parameter of the Infl-projection (left vs. right). 5.2 Personal pronouns at the left sentence periphery 5.2.1 Syntactic distribution In the earlier OHG prose texts (e.g. in Isidor and in the Monsee Fragments), pronouns are attested in two different positions at the left sentence periphery of main clauses: They either occur prefinitely after a topicalized constituent, cf. (3) and (1)-b above,1 or postfinitely, cf. (4). This variation between pre- and postfinite placement is found within the individual texts. (3)

[{for} · laz an] · i{mo} uuir{dit}; forgiven him-DAT becomes “he will be forgiven” remittetur ei

(4)

a. ioh [fona allem himilfleugendem] ist and from all sky-flying is “and it is hidden from all the angels” (R) et a uolucribus caeli absconsa est

(MF VI,9; Mt 12:32)

siu chiborgan she-NOM hidden

(I 112)

b. [Untazs hear nu] aughidom uuir dhazs gheistliihhe chiruni ... mystery until here now revealed we-NOM the spiritual “up to here we have now revealed the spiritual mystery ...” (I 377) Hucusque misterium ... ostendimus c. [Ih] scal imo uuesan I shall him-DAT be “I will be a father to him” Ego ero ei in patrem

in fater stedi in father’s place

(I 626)

1 See also Behaghel (1932: §1431), Friedrichs (1891:10), Fourquet (1938), Reis (1901:219ff.),

Lippert (1974:57ff.), Tomaselli (1995) and Robinson (1997:16f.) for further examples.

240


d. [For geban] ist · mir alles kauualt inhimile · enti · in ærdu authority in-heaven and in earth given is me-DAT all “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” {Data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in terra} (MF XXV,13; Mt 28:13)

In the late OHG texts, by contrast, the pronouns almost always occur postfinitely; cf. (5). The prefinite placement is only attested very sporadically; cf. (6). (5)

a. Únde [démo gelîh] tâte dû iz and that-DAT similar did you-NOM it “and you made it similar to that” Similique imagine formans

(N BCon III 149,17)

(l. 16)

b. uuánta [dúrch míh] quám ér uóne hímele for through me came he-NOM from sky “for he has come from the sky because of me” (6)

a. [dú] míh hêizzest ûfstên you me-ACC order up-get “you order me to get up”

(W 73,8)

(W 85,25)

b. Vnde [dô] íu hâbeta si lêid in-fángen in íro she sorrow received in her and then you-DAT.PL had hérzen heart “and then her heart was filled with sorrow for you” (N Ps VII 23,26) (cf. also Lenerz 1985b:121)

In earlier OHG, the prefinite pronouns can apparently be preceded by any kind of maximal category, i.e. by DPs, PPs, CPs, AdjPs, AdvPs etc. There are examples attested with a preceding object-DP as in (7)-a and (7)-b, with a preceding predicative adjectival phrase as in (7)-c, and with a preceding argument clause as in (7)-d. In some cases an oblique pronoun follows a pronominal subject; cf. (8) (see also Robinson 1997:17). We furthermore find examples with prefinite pronouns after fronted adverb phrases, cf. (9),2 and after fronted infi-

2 In those examples where the pronouns follow a sentence-initial adverb phrase, cf. (9), it

could be objected that the adverb phrase has been adjoined to CP, i.e. that it occurs ‘outside the sentence’ so to say. Such an analysis has also been proposed for certain sentence adverbs in modern German (e.g. freilich “sure enough, surely” or sicherlich “certainly, surely”) which may be placed left of the prefield, thereby giving rise to a verb-third effect. However, this analysis would not be convincing for the OHG examples with object pronouns as in (9)-a: It would imply that the object pronoun occupies SpecC while the adverb phrase is adjoined to CP. This would be very implausible since object pronouns appear in SpecC only in special environments (e.g. when they are contrastively focused; see section 5.3.3).

241


nite parts3 of the verb, cf. (10). In some very sporadic examples, more than one pronoun occurs after the sentence-initial XP; cf. (11).4 (7) a.

[Erino portun] ih firchnussu iron portals I-NOM destroy “I will destroy iron portals” Portas aereas conteram

= (1)-b

b. endi [dhiu chiborgonun hort] dhir ghibu and the hidden treasures you-DAT give “and I will give you the hidden treasures” et dabo tibi thesauros absconditos c. [Salic] · du b{ist} *** blessed you-NOM are “you are blessed” Beatus es ...

(I 158)

(MF XXXVIII,4; St. Augustini sermo)

d. Huuanda chiuuisso, [dhazs ir man uuardh uuordan], for certainly that he man became become (I 393) hilpit helps “for certainly, that he has become a man helps us” (R) Quod enim homo factus est, nobis profecit

(8)

a. Endi [ih] inan chistiftu in minemu dome and I him-ACC install in my house “and I will install him in my house” Et statuam eum in domo mea

unsih us-ACC

(I 629)

b. Quhad got, see miin chnecht, [ih] inan infahu (I 330) said God behold my child I him-ACC receive “God said, behold my child, I will receive him” Ecce, inquit, puer meus, suscipiam eum (9)

a. [Auuar] · iu sagem *** again you-DAT.PL say-1.SG “again I say to you: ...” {Iterum dico uobis ...}

(MF XI, 18; Mt 18:19)5

b. See [bidhiu] ih hepfu mina hant ubar my hand above behold therefore I-NOM raise “behold, this is why I will raise my hand over them” quia ecce leuabo manum meam super eos

sie (I 220) them

3 It is an unsettled debate whether OHG ‘passives’ as in (10) were already real instances of a

passive diathesis or whether they were still predicative constructions. 4 In (11), the personal pronouns are not only preceded by one, but by two XPs; cf. also Chapter

4 for verb-third effects triggered by adjuncts. 5 See also MF XVIII,24; XIX,16; XX,20 and XXI,9 for further examples with exactly this

word order.

242


c. /[ziuuare] thu bist fon then/ surely you-NOM are from them “surely you are one of them” /uere & tu ex illis es/ (10) [forlaaz · {se}nu] dhir uuer dant forgiven you-DAT become “your sins are forgiven” {remittuntur tibi peccata tua}

dino your

(11) [Fona hreue] [aer lucifere] ih from womb before Lucifer I-NOM “I bore you out of the womb before Lucifer” Ex utero ante luciferum genui te

(T 613,12)

suntea sins

(MF I,9; Mt 9:2)

dhih chibar you-ACC bore (R)

(I 409)

In most cases, the placement of pronouns has not been affected by the Latin source. Note that (unstressed) subject pronouns usually do not have overt counterparts in the Latin since Latin was a pro-drop language.6 In some OHG examples, the subject pronouns have been realized overtly contrary to the Latin and have been inserted in prefinite position; cf. (7)-a, (7)-c, (9)-b, (11). Object pronouns have often been moved to the left periphery contrary to the Latin; cf. (7)-b, (8)-a, (8)-b, (9)-a. So there is no doubt that the positioning of personal pronouns between an initial XP and the finite verb is a native phenomenon and not merely a syntactic loan. The quantitative relation between the pre- and postfinite placement of pronouns seems to be roughly 50 per cent each. Eythórsson (1995:327) has come to the following result: In Isidor and the Monsee Fragments he has counted 26 examples with XP–pron/adv–Vfin-order as opposed to roughly thirty sentences with postfinite pronouns or adverbs (XP–Vfin–pron/adv). I have counted 27 (non-negated) matrix declaratives with XP–pron–Vfin in both texts apart from cases with prefinite adverbs. Additionally, I have found a few examples with prefinite pronouns in wh-interrogatives and one in a negated declarative (see below). In Tatian, the order XP–pron–Vfin is much less frequent. Most examples that are attested are cited in this section. However, as will be discussed below, in Tatian, we find quite a few examples with prefinite small adverbs such as nū, etc. As was mentioned above, in OHG, XP–pron–Vfin orders are not only attested with subject but also with object pronouns. In some generative studies (e.g. Tomaselli 1995:349,362; Cardinaletti & Roberts 1991; Roberts 1996) it has been wrongly assumed that this word-order pattern is restricted to subject 6 In the Latin sentence in (9)-c, there is an overt subject pronoun present which presumably

receives special emphasis by the preceding & (= et). The Latin subject pronoun follows the first constituent as in the OHG translation. Note, however, that the OHG word order is still not a slavish imitation of the Latin since the finite verb has been moved leftward into the position after the subject pronoun.


243

pronouns in OHG. However, as Reis (1901:220) already observed, in Isidor oblique pronouns are more often attested in this word-order pattern than nominative pronouns. This quantitative difference is probably due to the fact that in contrast to object pronouns, subject pronouns can figure in three different constructions in OHG: Not only do they appear prefinitely in the ‘verb-third’ configuration (= XP–pronsubj–Vfin) or postfinitely in the construction XP–Vfin– pronsubj, but they can also be totally omitted via pro-drop (= XP–(pronobj)–Vfin– pro) when a non-subject XP has been fronted. This can be seen in (12); see also (7)-b and (9)-a above.7 (12) [Sume] hahet in cruci some-ACC hang-2.PL to cross “some of them you will crucify” et ex illis ... crucifigetis

(MF XVIII,17; Mt 23:34)

A further type of pronoun which has been claimed to be absent from the XP– pron–Vfin-construction in OHG is reflexive pronouns. Behaghel (1932:14) puts forward the following generalization: Unter den Fällen, wo das unbetonte Wörtchen sich in Zweitstellung, das Verb in Drittstellung befindet, findet sich keiner, wo als unbetontes Wort das Reflexiv in Betracht kommt. Es würde nicht heißen: Christus sih araugita, sondern Christus araugita sih, trotz des Gesetzes der wachsenden Glieder ... [Among the cases where the unstressed small word appears in second position and the verb in third position, we do not find any example where the unstressed word is a reflexive. We would not find the word order Christus sih araugita, but only the order Christus araugita sih despite the law of increasing constituent length].

This claim can also not be fully correct as reflexive pronouns do occur in the verb-third configuration, as the examples in (13) suggest.8 (13) a. enti [diu himilo megin] sih · hruorent and the heavens’ powers REFL agitate “and the powers of the heavens will be shaken” {et uirtutes caelorum commouebuntur}

(MF XIX,4; Mt 24:29)

7 Cf. Chapter 6 for a detailed discussion of null subjects in OHG. 8 The sentences in (13)-a and (13)-c are the second conjuncts in sentence coordinations intro-

duced by the conjunction endi. It could be objected that this is an exceptional syntactic environment and that there was no verb movement in these cases. (This would also imply that the PP in desem · uz serom · ot mah lum in (13)-c was extraposed.) It is a well-known fact that in Old English non-initial conjuncts were regular contexts for verb-end order (cf. Kiparsky 1995:147) and the references given there). Note, however, that in OHG verb movement was already well established also in non-initial conjuncts even in the earlier texts (cf. section 2.4.3).

244


b. Oh [ir] sih selbun9 aridalida ... REFL self lowered but he “but he lowered himself ...” (R) Sed semetipsum exinaniuit ...

(I 406)

c. enti [bidiu] sih · {ni} ar · heuit · in desem · uz serom · in these external and therefore REFL NEG exalt ot mah lum (MF XXIX,24; De vocatione gentium) riches “and therefore she does not exalt herself with these external riches” {de bonis se exterioribus non exaltat}

There is yet a further alleged constraint which cannot be upheld: It has been claimed (e.g. Tomaselli 1995:348; Abraham 1993) that the OHG pronouns cannot be preceded by wh-phrases (= wh-phrase–pron–Vfin). As the examples in (14) illustrate, however, personal pronouns do appear after wh-phrases both in sentences where the word order is parallel to the Latin10 in the relevant respect as in (14)-e, (14)-f, (16)-a, and where the translation deviates from the Latin as in (14)-c and (14)-d, where a corresponding pronoun is not present in the Latin.11 Note that for Old English it has been claimed that the pronouns are restricted to the postfinite domain in the context of wh-phrases and other operators (e.g. van Kemenade 1987:196; Pintzuk 1991, 1999; Tomaselli 1995:348; Kiparsky 1995:146f., 1996; Eythórsson 1995:289-332; Kroch & Taylor 1997; Haeberli 2000:110). (14) a. /... . [uuanan] uns/ sint in uuostinnu so manigu brot/ so many breads whence us-DAT are in desert “where are we to get so many loaves of bread in the wilderness?” (T 295,23) /... . unde ergo nobis/ in deserto panes tantos?/ b. [christes chiburt]i [huuer] siai chirahhoda? Christ’s birth-FEM.NOM who it-FEM.ACC reported “the birth of Christ, who made it fully known?” (R) Generationem eius quis enarrauit?

(I 106)

9 In (13)-b the pronoun sih is strengthened by the pronoun selbun; see also section 5.3.2 on the

modification of personal pronouns. 10 In (14)-a the pronoun uns “us” may have been placed prefinitely to keep the line break in

the same position as in the Latin source sentence. 11 In (14)-b and (14)-c, the personal pronouns are actually resumptive pronouns which are each

coindexed with a left-peripheral XP to the left of the wh-phrase (a dislocated topic); see also Chapter 4 (section 4.5.1) on left-dislocation constructions.

245


c. [Dhiu uurza dhera spaida]i huuemu siui uuard the root-FEM.NOM of-the wisdom whom it-FEM.NOM became antdhechidiu? (I 115) revealed “the root of wisdom, to whom has it been revealed?” Radix sapientię cui reuelata est d. [huuer] sih dhes12 biheizssit sia zi archennenne, REFL that-GEN insists she to recognize who “who claims to know her, namely how …” quis confitebitur nosse, quomodo ...? (I 108) e. /[uuaz] mih frages fon guote?/ of good what me-ACC ask “why do you ask me about what is good?” /quid me Interrogas de bono/

huueo ... how

(T 355,29)

f. /[uuer] mih sazta zi duomen/ oder teilari ubar íúuúih./ who me-ACC installed to judge or divider over you “who made me a judge or a divider over you?” (T 353,22) /quis mé constituit iudicem/ aut diuisorem iudicem/

Unfortunately, there are not many wh-interrogatives attested in the earlier prose texts (see Chapter 2, fn. 31 for some statistics) so it is hard to formulate any generalizations on the distribution of pronouns in this particular syntactic environment. In the OHG Isidor,13 for example, I have found 25 matrix whinterrogatives that contain a verb and are thus not elliptical. Only four of them have at least one pronominal argument. In three cases the pronoun occurs prefinitely (wh-phrase–pron–Vfin); cf. (14)-b to (14)-d. The following example is the only one in Isidor where a pronominal argument occurs postfinitely (whphrase–Vfin–pron): (15) 14... [huuer manno] mac izs which man may it-ACC “what man can then explain it” (R) quis hominum potest narrare?

dhanne chirahhon? then explain

(I 118)

We may thus draw the tentative conclusion that in the Isidor translation there is a variation between pre- and postfinite placement of pronouns in whinterrogatives just as in declaratives. It could be objected that two of the three verb-third interrogatives with prefinite pronouns (cf. (14)-b and (14)-c) are Bi12 Here, also the demonstrative pronoun dhes, which is a correlative to the clause sia zi ar-

chennenne, occurs in prefinite position in addition to the reflexive pronoun sih. 13 Including the initial section from the Monsee Codex, which Eggers has included in his

edition. 14 The matrix wh-interrogative is preceded by a clausal adverbial clause introduced by (bidhiu)

huuanda. See Chapter 4 (section 4.5.6) on left-peripheral adverbial clauses in OHG.

246


ble quotations. As Matzel (1970:357) argues, in the Bible quotations the word order is often much closer to the Latin original. Note, however, that in both examples at hand the verb-third order cannot be attributed to ‘loan syntax’ since the intervening pronouns (sia and siu) have been inserted contrary to the Latin in both cases. Apart from Isidor, the Monsee Fragments contain quite a few examples with XP–pron–Vfin-order. So the question arises of whether we also find this order when the initial XP is a wh-phrase. This prediction is not borne out, however. In the Monsee Fragments, there are altogether 14 cases of main wh-interrogatives (all in the Gospel of Matthew), six of which have pronominal arguments. In each case the pronominal argument is a subject pronoun which has been inserted contrary to the Latin and has been placed postfinitely (wh-phrase–Vfin–pron). The OHG Tatian only contains very few examples with XP–pron–Vfinorders even though this text is much longer than Isidor and the Monsee Fragments. However, interestingly, there are four cases of prefinite pronouns in whinterrogatives. Apart from the three examples cited above, this order occurs in the examples given in (16). In this case, the prefinite order, cf. (16)-a, and the postfinite order, cf. (16)-b, occur within a few lines of each other (both in the section of scribe δ) even though in the Latin the pronoun occurs prefinitely in both cases. Note that the reordering of the pronoun to postfinite position would not have affected the location of the line break in these two cases: In both examples, the line break would have fallen in front of zi arslahanne.15 (16) a. /[zihiu] mih suoch&./ zi arslahanne/ why me-ACC seek to kill “why are you seeking to kill me?” /quid me quȩritis/ Interficere/

(T 349,20)

15 Note that it is not clear what the exact syntactic analysis of these examples would be. In

both cases, the pronoun objects mih and thih are arguments of the infinitival verb. In both examples, there is no overt material in the right sentence bracket and the sentences could therefore receive two analyses: The phrases consisting of zi + gerund either occur in the middle field of their respective matrix clauses or they have been extraposed. In the latter case, the position of thih would be ambiguous: It could either occupy a position in the matrix clause (uuer suochiti thih tj ti [zi arslahanne]j) or it could be part of the extraposed zi-phrase (uuer suochiti tj ti [thih zi arslahanne]j). In (16)-a, by contrast, the pronoun occurs in prefinite position, i.e. in a position which unambiguously belongs to the matrix clause. Viewed from the perspective of modern German, this construction looks like a coherent construction, which would mean that the zi-phrase has not been extraposed. It is also possible, however, that we are dealing with a precursor of the so-called ‘Third Construction’ as in modern German sentences such as weil dir Peter ti begann [auf die Nerven zu gehen]i (“because you-DAT Peter began on the nerves to get”). In this construction, the infinitival phrase (auf die Nerven zu gehen) has been extraposed, but a subconstituent (dir) appears in the matrix.

247


b. /[uuer] suochit thih/ zi arslahanne/ who seeks you-ACC to kill “who is seeking to kill you?” /quis té quȩrit/ Interficere .../

(T 349,24)

The prefinite placement of the pronoun is also attested once in a sentence in the Monsee St. Matthew where the finite verb carries the proclitic negation particle ni. As was already discussed in Chapter 3, in OHG it is possible to front an XP also in negated clauses even though XP-fronting was not yet obligatory in this syntactic environment. In the example in (17) the pronoun occurs between the fronted XP and the sequence ni-Vfin. Note that Tomaselli (1995) and Abraham (1993) have ruled out that this word order, which was not licensed by the Old English grammar according to standard assumptions, was possible in OHG. It must be conceded that this is the only example that I have found in Isidor and in the Monsee Fragments. Note, however, that XP-fronting was not yet obligatory in negated clauses. Notably, in Isidor and in the Monsee Fragments negated clauses were a typical verb-first environment. Thus, we do not have enough data to really formulate any reliable generalizations on the placement of pronouns in negated sentences with fronted XPs. (17) 16... [neo uuiht] im ni ant uurta nothing-ACC them-DAT NEG answered “he did not answer anything” nihil respondit

(MF XXIV,20; Mt 27:12)

There is yet another class of examples attested whose occurrence would be excluded in many of the previous approaches that will be discussed in the following sections. These are examples where one pronoun occurs pre- and one postfinitely (= XP–pron–Vfin–pron...), as is the case in the following late OHG example from Notker’s Psalter. (18) Vnde [dô] íu hâbeta si lêid in-fángen she sorrow received and then you-DAT.PL had “and then her heart was filled with sorrow for you”

in íro hérzen in her heart = (6)-b

Again, I have to concede that such examples are actually extremely rare. On the other hand, it should be noted that there are also not many examples attested where two pronouns occur prefinitely (= XP–pron–pron–Vfin...), cf. (11), or postfinitely (= XP–Vfin–pron–pron). Since subject pronouns are often not overtly realized in early OHG main clauses with a fronted XP, it is not surpris16 In this example, the main clause neo uuiht im ni ant uurta is preceded by a subordinate

clause (as a translation of the Vulgate cum-clause Et cum accussaretur a principibus {sacer}dotum et senioribus), which is only extant in fragments and could not be fully reconstructed by Hench (1890:37).

248


ing that we do not find many examples with more than one personal pronoun. What we do find more often, however, are XP–adv–Vfin–pron-orders: (19) a. /... [siu] tho giuuanta she then turned “she then turned herself” /... conuersa illa/

sih/

(T 665,19)

REFL.PRON

b. /[Iu] tho gieintotun sih thie REFL.PRON the already then agreed “the Jews had agreed already” /Iam enim conspirauerant iduaej./

iudaej/ Jews

c. /[noh] nu niarsteig ih/ zi minemo fater/ yet now NEG-ascended I to my father “I am not yet ascended to my Father” /nondum enim ascendi/ ad patrem meum/

(T 455,19)

(T 665,24)

In the literature it has been claimed that short adverbs such as nū, thō etc. have the same distribution as personal pronouns and that they should be analysed as clitic elements. In the previous chapter I have discussed some objections to the clitic analysis for adverbs. Be that as it may, it is clear that data such as in (18) und (19) are problematic for proposals in which the pronouns and alleged clitic adverbs occupy a fixed position to the left of a sentence-medial functional head and in which their pre- or postfinite occurrence is traced back to the presence of two different positions for the fronted finite verb, i.e. I or T and a higher one, i.e. C. This will be discussed in more detail in section 5.5. As was shown above, the prefinite placement of pronouns is attested in a relatively large range of syntactic constructions (e.g. after XPs of different categories and in the context of different types of XP-fronting). This makes it unlikely that this word-order pattern is merely an archaism in OHG. An archaism would be expected to survive predominantly in idiomatic expressions or in some restricted constructions. If we take further texts into account (i.e. texts which are not part of our corpus), our conclusion is confirmed that XP–pron–Vfin-sequences were a native and at least partially productive pattern in earlier OHG. Even in the glosses, a text type which is characterized by a very slavish translation technique, personal pronouns are sometimes inserted counter to the source and placed between an initial XP and the finite verb; see (20)-a. In (20)-b even the indefinite pronoun man “one” occurs in this position.17

17 As van Bergen (2003) shows, in Old English man had a similar distribution to the personal

pronouns.


(20) a. [in ente] ir faruueraffat in end you-PL reject “forever you will reject” Calce abicitis

249

(G I 409,21)

b. inti [uuincartono kelt] man kitechamota and vineyards’ money-ACC one-NOM tithed “and one tithed the earnings from the vineyards” Et uinearum reditos addecimabat

(G I 409,61)

In Otfrid, there is also quite a high number of XP–pron–Vfin-orders attested: (21) a. [in ira bárm] si sazta \ barno in her lap she put child “she put her most beloved child into her lap”

bézista best

(O I 13,10)

b. Er was góteforahtal, \ joh [rehto] er lébeta ubar al he was God-fearing and rightly he lived everywhere “he was God-fearing and lived correctly in every respect” (O I 15,3)

Of course, in this poetical text, it is possible that the metre or end rhyme have affected pronoun placement.18 Already Biener (1922a:176) has stressed that verb-third effects triggered by pronominal subjects19 predominantly occur in the poetry, where rhythmical influences are stronger. Even though we have seen in the data presented above that it is not correct that the prefinite placement of pronouns (= XP–pron–Vfin-orders) is mainly attested in metrical texts – we have seen that there is a substantial number of examples in Isidor and in the Monsee Fragments – it is indeed very likely that the placement of pronouns has been influenced by metrical factors in the poetry: The normally unstressed pronouns provide apt material to fill unstressed positions. As was already mentioned, attestations of XP–pron–Vfin-orders occur almost exclusively in the earlier OHG documents. In Notker’s texts and in Williram’s Song of Songs, there are only some very sporadic examples attested. The same is apparently true for MHG texts, where we find only some rare ‘echoes’ of the situation in OHG according to Behaghel (1932:15). 5.2.2 Analysis The fact that certain pronouns could intervene between a fronted XP and the finite verb in OHG main clauses shows that the syntax of the C-domain was somewhat different from that of modern German. The data on the placement of pronouns show once more that only a precursor of the verb-second grammar had evolved in OHG. In the previous chapter, I discussed verb-third effects triggered by non-pronominal XPs. I reached the tentative conclusion that there 18 Cf. Friedrichs (1891) for further examples from Otfrid. 19 Biener (1922a:176) wrongly assumes that this phenomenon is restricted to subject pronouns.

250


is no compelling evidence that more than one XP can move to the left periphery in OHG. Most of the relevant examples with verb-third order involve material that can be argued to be base-generated in the left periphery, in particular high adverbs, such as scene setting adverbs and sentence adverbs, and discourse connectives. In this chapter, we have seen that pronouns are an exception to this generalization: Apparently, personal pronouns and reflexive pronouns are the only material that can move into the C-domain in a position between the preposed XP and the fronted finite verb.20 Roberts (1996:159) assumes that in Old English personal pronouns are some sort of clitical XP-elements (= Cl) that occupy SpecFin in XP–pron–Vfin-orders as in (1)-a above. (22) [CP XP ... [FinP Cl [Fin V]]

[IP ...

(Roberts 1996:159)

Similarly, Ferraresi (1997:62) proposes that in Gothic weak pronouns occupy the SpecFin position:21 (23) a. ik þus anabiuda I you-DAT command “I command you” ἐγὼ σοι ἐπιτάσσω b. [TopP ik [FinP þus anabiuda

(Mk 9:25)

(Ferraresi 1997:62)

I will also assume that OHG personal and reflexive pronouns have been moved via XP-movement to the lowest C-projection (FinP) when they occur in the verb-third construction XP–pron–Vfin. I will leave it open whether they move to SpecFin, cf. (24)-a, or whether they adjoin to FinP, cf. (24)-b:22 (24) a. [CP XP b. [CP XP

[FinP pron [Fin V ]] [FinP pron [FinP [FinV ]]]

[VP ... [VP ...

I will furthermore assume that (unstressed) personal and reflexive pronouns have to move out of the VP and they either adjoin to VP or move higher up to

20 And, possibly, the indefinite pronoun man can also move there. 21 Ferraresi (1997:62) argues that in (23), the pronoun ik has been topicalized. Such cases with pron–pron-orders are also attested in OHG: e.g. I 330: ih inan infahu (“I him receive”). 22 In either case we have to account for the fact that more than one pronoun may show up before the finite verb; cf. (11) above. Given the assumption that the pronouns occupy SpecFin, we will have to argue that multiple specifiers are possible. Note that the adjunction analysis would not be compatible with the assumptions made in Rizzi (1997), where it is argued that phrasal adjunction is not possible. As Rizzi (2004:5) concedes – acknowledging material presented in Chomsky (2004) – there could be exceptions to this rule, but these only pertain to cases of base-generated adjunction.


251

FinP. The latter option (adjunction to FinP or movement to SpecFin) is only possible provided that FinP is not the root node.23 In the last chapter, I discussed different types of XP-preposing in OHG. I argued that there is already evidence for Stylistic Fronting in OHG, which means that the highest constituent – most often the subject – moves to SpecC in a pragmatically unmarked sentence. Furthermore, we find many instances of topicalization as well as of preposed focused XPs and wh-phrases. This raises the question of whether the pronoun distribution systematically differs in these syntactic contexts. For example, for Old English it has been observed that the pronouns always occur postfinitely in sentences where certain types of operators, in particular wh-phrases and the negation ni, or certain demonstrative adverbs have been fronted, whereas they occur prefinitely in sentences where other types of elements have been fronted (e.g. van Kemenade 1987; Kiparsky 1995, 1996; Haeberli 1999a). This is why Roberts (1996) argues that these operators and the topics occupy different positions in the C-domain (SpecFoc vs. SpecTop). Unfortunately, the database for OHG is much smaller than that for Old English. In the prose, verb-third effects with pronouns mainly occur in the late eighth/early ninth century texts, i.e. in Isidor and in the Monsee Fragments. However, in these texts, the number of examples with wh-interrogatives is relatively low (see Chapter 2, fn. 31) and, of course, only some of these contain pronominal arguments. However, what scarce data we have does not suggest that there was a systematic difference between wh-interrogatives on the one hand, and other types of declaratives where a ‘normal’ XP has been fronted on the other. At least in Isidor and in Tatian, the pronouns occur in prefinite position or in postfinite position in both syntactic environments. If we now take a closer look at the second case, i.e. at declaratives where an initial non-wh-XP occurs in prefinite position and which are unnegated, we can also observe that there is no systematic difference between sentences with Stylistic Fronting and topic-initial sentences. In modern German, the most common case of Stylisitc Fronting is, of course, sentences with (unstressed) initial subjects (pronouns or non-pronominal DPs) since the subject is usually the highest argument in the middle field, at least in sentences with canonical predicates. In OHG, the XP– pron–Vfin-orders are also attested in sentences with initial (pronominal or nonpronominal) subjects (i.e. full subject/pronsubj–pronobj–Vfin); cf. (6)-a, (8)-a, (8)-b. At the same time, we also find subject-initial sentences with postfinite oblique pronouns; cf. (4)-d. The same variation between pre- and postfinite placement also occurs in sentences where a non-subject-XP has been fronted. As has been mentioned above, the verb-third order (XP–pron–Vfin) is attested with XPs functioning as objects; cf. (7)-a and (7)-b. In both these examples it can be argued that the preposed phrase is a topic. Furthermore, we find fronted 23 The restriction that pronouns can only move to the prefinite domain when there is still some

material further to the left is probably due to the fact that they are phonological clitics (see section 5.3.1).

252


predicative adjectival phrases, (7)-c, or even fronted infinite parts of the verb as in (10). In such cases it may be the case that the XP is focused. Note, however, that it is often impossible to analyse the information structure in the relevant sentences. It may suffice to say that both the order XP–pron–Vfin and the order XP–Vfin–pron are attested in sentences with marked word orders. We may thus conclude that the distribution of pronouns does not provide any evidence that the different types of XP-fronting (e.g. wh-movement, topicalization, fronting of focused constituents, Stylistic Fronting) target the specifiers of different functional projections. I will thus assume that the landing site for all types of fronted XPs is SpecC. In the middle field, i.e. in the postfinite domain, OHG subject pronouns occur in a position further left than the non-pronominal counterparts, just as their corresponding froms in modern German (cf. section 5.3.4). Object pronouns also have a clear tendency to occur further left than full constituents, but there are also examples attested where they appear to the right of ‘full’ XPs. It may be the case that there is a special projection for pronouns in the OHG middle field as has been argued by Haider (1993:176) for modern German. Haider proposes that the modern German pronouns normally move to WP (= Wackernagel projection), a projection which is situated to the left of the scrambling position for non-pronominal constituents; cf. (25). The question of whether such a projection should also be postulated for OHG is beyond the scope of the present study. This has to be shown by further research. (25) [WP [VP ... XPi ... [P24 [VP ... ei ... V]]]]

(adapted from Haider 1993:176)

As we have seen, there is a variation between pre- or postfinite placement of pronouns in main clauses with XP-fronting in earlier OHG. Apparently, the postfinite placement is dispreferred when the pronoun would be the only material after the finite verb. Thus, Behaghel (1932:14) observes: Daß das Verb diese Stellung [= die Drittstellung nach dem Pronomen; K.A.] fast immer dann und wesentlich nur dann einnimmt, wenn die Drittstellung zugleich Abschlußstellung ist, ergibt sich aus dem Gesetz der wachsenden Glieder: erino portun firchnussu ih wäre ein unerträglicher Abschluss, weil das längere Glied vor dem kürzeren stünde. [The fact that the verb appears in this position [= the third position after the pronoun; K.A.] almost always and crucially only in those cases where the verb-third order is at the same time verb-end order is due to the law of increasing constituent length: erino portun firchnussu ich would be an intolerable closure since the longer constituent would precede the shorter one.]

Viewed from the perspective of the analysis sketched above, this would mean that the pronouns are not normally adjoined to a VP which does not contain any overt material, and only the traces of the finite verb and of the fronted XPs. 24 P is the position in which Modalpartikeln (‘modal particles’) occur.

253


Instead, they are usually moved to the C-domain in this case.25 However, Behaghel’s observation is not fully correct: It is not the case that the pronouns only appear in prefinite position when there is no further material in the postfinite domain as in (26)-a. In (26)-b from the Monsee St. Matthew, for example, the pronoun is found prefinitely even though the subject-DP dino suntea occurs in the postfinite domain. Note, however, that it is possible that dhino suntea has been extraposed. In Chapter 3 I proposed that full subjects presumably occurred VP-internally. However, subject extraposition was quite common, notably with unaccusative predicates and in passive constructions as in (26)-b. (26) a. [Auuar] · iu sagem *** again you-DAT.PL say-1.SG “again I say to you: ...” {Iterum dico uobis ...} b. [forlaaz · {se}nu] dhir uuer dant forgiven you-DAT become “your sins are forgiven” {remittuntur tibi peccata tua}

= (9)-a

dino your

suntea sins

= (10)

As was already mentioned, XP–pron–Vfin-orders are practically absent in late OHG texts. This would then suggest that in late OHG, a strict verb-second grammar has evolved which is similar to that of modern German. In terms of structure, this could be interpreted as an indication that the formerly more complex C-domain has collapsed and that the finite verb and the preposed verb now occupy the specifier and head of the same functional projection (FinP). The only constituents that can move to FinP in earlier OHG are pronominal elements. The fact that pronouns differ from ‘full’ DPs with respect to their syntactic distribution and their tendency to undergo movement has also been observed for the modern Germanic languages. In present-day German there is also a difference in distribution between pronouns and ‘full’ DPs although the special case of XP–pron–Vfin-placement at the left periphery of main clauses is no longer possible, of course. Some scholars have argued that the movement of unstressed pronouns to the left edge of the middle field should simply be analysed as an instance of scrambling (cf. Lenerz 1993; Gärtner & Steinbach 2003a). What speaks against this proposal is that scrambling of nonpronominal object-DPs has an effect on the information structure, in particular on the projection of focus. The leftward movement of pronouns, by contrast, 25 The fronting of the pronoun in those cases where there is no further overt material in the

middle field has the effect that the middle field is fully ‘emptied’ at the surface. Note, however, that in modern German V-topicalization constructions, the topicalization of the VP is ungrammatical in those cases where there is no material left in the middle field (Haider 1993:152f.). Thanks to Helmut Weiß for pointing this out to me.

254


usually does not affect the focus-background structure. Moreover, scrambling of non-pronominal DPs is often optional, whereas the movement of pronouns out of the VP is almost obligatory (see also the discussion in Weiß 1998:153ff.). It is beyond the scope of this study to discuss the question of how the movement of pronouns in OHG and in modern German can be accounted for. What I am going to argue, however, is that the OHG pronouns are XPelements. Thus, pronoun movement in OHG must be a type of XP-movement. In the older literature (e.g. Reis 1901; Behaghel 1932) and in some recent generative studies (e.g. Tomaselli 1995) it has been claimed that the OHG XP– pron–Vfin-orders are not instances of a real verb-third construction and that the pronouns should be analysed as clitic elements. In structural terms, this would mean that they are not phrases, but heads, i.e. X0-clitics (cf. Tomaselli 1995). This assumption is very problematic since the movement of the pronouns across the fronted finite verb would lead to a violation of the ‘Head Movement Constraint’ (Travis 1984) (see section 5.3.5 for details). In the following sections, I will provide some evidence that the OHG personal pronouns are maximal projections. 5.3 Are there clitic pronouns in Old High German? It has been proposed that the special distribution of personal pronouns in Old/Middle English and in OHG is due to the fact that they are X0-clitics (cf. van Kemenade 1987; Cardinaletti & Roberts 1991 on Old English and Cardinaletti & Roberts 1991 and Tomaselli 1995 on OHG; see also Braune 189426 for an early approach). In the case of Old and Middle English this claim has been defended even though there is hardly any evidence for reduced forms in the texts. Some of the propagated analyses are very similar to those that have been developed to account for the syntactic behaviour of clitics in the Romance languages and the Old English pronouns have not been compared to those in the modern Germanic languages or dialects. In the literature on OHG, three contexts for cliticization have been discussed: pronouns in initial position (= pron–Vfin-orders), in postfinite position at the left edge of the middle field (Comp/Vfin–pron-orders) and in the ‘verbthird’ configuration XP–pron–Vfin. I will argue in the following sections that the OHG pronouns are comparable neither to the X0-clitics which occur in recent dialects of German and in other Germanic languages nor to the X0-clitics in the Romance languages.

26 Braune (1894) does not use concepts from X-bar-theory, of course, yet his model of OHG

word order (cf. section 5.3.3) can be interpreted in terms of modern theories. Thus his notion of gedeckte Anfangsstellung ‘covered verb-first’ can be argued to imply an analysis where the prefinite pronoun is not a maximal category.


255

5.3.1 Full and reduced forms The full forms of OHG personal pronouns are given in Table 1 and Table 2, which have been adapted from Braune (1987:237-242); cf. also Howe 1996:241-245).

SG

PL

1.

2.

3./REFL

NOM

ih

dū, du

—

GEN

mīn

dīn

sīn, (ira)27

DAT

mir

dir

(imu, iru)

ACC

mih

dih

sih

NOM

wir

ir

—

GEN

unsēr

iuwēr

(iro)

DAT

uns

iu

(im)

ACC

unsih

iuwih

sih

Table 1: OHG paradigm of gender-neutral personal pronouns (Braune 1987:238)

MASC SG

PL

NEUT

FEM

NOM

ër

iʒ

siu; sī, si

GEN

[sīn]

ës, (is)

ira, (iru, -o)

DAT

imu, imo

imu, imo

iru, (-o)

ACC

inan, in

iʒ

sia, (sie)

NOM

sie

siu

sio

iro

GEN

im, in

DAT ACC

sie

siu

sio

Table 2: OHG paradigm of personal pronouns specified for gender (Braune 1987:239)

In contrast to the modern German dialects or to other West Germanic languages/dialects such as West Flemish or Dutch there is a separate inventory of weak or clitic pronominal forms. Hopper (1975) argues that this was not the case in the early dialects:28

27 The OHG reflexive pronoun has only two forms, the genitive singular sīn (only masculine and neuter) and the accusative sih (singular and plural). The remaining slots in the paradigm are represented by the third person forms of personal pronouns. These forms are given in italics in Table 1. 28 However, Hopper (1975:35, fn. 24) also mentions that Meillet (1908/1909) has an entirely different opinion: Meillet assumes that there were two inventories of pronouns in Germanic, one with enclitic forms and one with non-enclitic forms.

256


Enclisis of pronouns to a verb is common in all the early Germanic dialects. But there is no evidence that special enclitic pronouns were inherited from Proto-Indo-European; where the shape of an enclitic pronoun in Germanic differs from that of a non-enclitic pronoun, the difference may always be attributed to weak stress and the close proximity to the final phoneme of the verb. (Hopper 1975:35)

Regarding the situation in Old English, Pintzuk (1991:242 fn. 88, 1996:375, 1999:189, fn. 17) argues that the missing orthographic evidence should not be taken too seriously as phonological cliticizations could have been masked by orthographic conventions.29 Thus, she considers it likely that clitic forms did exist but that they did not find their way into the written language. Van Kemenade (1987:126) also mentions that there is no graphic evidence for clitic forms in Old English. In OHG texts, there is no evidence for a systematic opposition between reduced/clitic forms and full forms even though there are some indications for a phonological cliticization in those cases where the pronoun occurs at the left edge of the middle field, i.e. in the position immediately after the finite verb or complementizer. In the following I will summarize the observations that can be found in the secondary literature. It would be beyond the scope of the present investigation to carry out a study on clitic forms in OHG. In order to do this properly, it will probably also be neccessary in many cases to go back to the manuscripts as was done in the study by Nübling (1992), who has investigated several OHG manuscripts. The OHG translators and scribes faced the problem of developing a spelling ‘system’ based on the Latin alphabet for a language that has hardly had any written documentation up to that point. According to Nübling (1992:336), OHG orthography is ‘extremely flat’, i.e. it is more committed to the phonographic principle than the modern (Standard) German orthography.30 In most flat orthographies, combinations of a word and a clitic are often written in one word, in extreme cases even including the allomorphic variations (ibid.:354). Regarding the practice of writing putative clitic combinations in one word, Nübling (1992:339f.) points to the problem that in many manuscripts, notably in the autochthonous literature where it was not possible to stick to the Latin word boundaries as in the translations, word boundaries have not been marked consistently: Sometimes the spaces fall in-between individual morphemes and sometimes they fall after more than one word. Nevertheless she comes to the conclusion that it is the combination of a finite verb and a following subject 29 See also Koopman (1997:90), who comes to the conclusion that in Old English, the virtual

absence of reduced forms makes it difficult to use the term ‘clitic’. 30 The OHG texts differ a great deal with respect to the question of how close they are to the

spoken language. Strong reflexes of the oral language are, for example, found in fixed formulaic expressions and in spells and blessings. According to Nübling (1992:339), in these short texts such words are often written together which also form clitic combinations in present-day Alemannic. She considers this as evidence that there are already clitic forms in OHG.


257

pronoun which is written together by far most often (e.g. willuh < willu ih “want-I”, horter/hortih < horta er/ih “heard-he/-I”; cf. ibid.:339). Moreover, there are also many examples where the object pronoun is written together with a preceding verb.31 Nübling (1992:340) cites some examples from the Fränkische Taufgelöbnis (forgipmir “forgive-me-DAT”; kipuns “give-us-DAT” etc.), from the Georgslied (prakinen32 “broke-him-ACC”) and from other texts. In the Tatian manuscript (Codex Sangallensis 56), subject and object pronouns are also often attached to the preceding word (usually the finite verb or a complementizer) without a dividing space (cf. Masser 1994:15): e.g. trinkih “drink-I”; quidih “speak-I”; quidihíu “tell-I-you-DAT.PL”; quidistu “speak-you-NOM.SG”; niuuizuuuir “NEG-know-we”; obiz “if-it”; wantir “because-you-NOM.PL”. Apart from such configurations, the practice of writing together separate words is not very prevalent in the prose translations. Instead, there is a clear tendency to stick to the Latin word boundaries (Nübling 1992:338). Furthermore, there are graphic indications of phonological reductions, of deletions of segments, and of assimilations. These phenomena are also primarily attested in the autochthonous literature and in the poetry. The manuscripts of the prose translations only contain some minor traces thereof. In ‘enclitic’ positions, the forms of the personal pronouns with an initial s, e.g. sia (acc. sg. fem.), sie (nom./acc. pl. masc.), sio (nom./acc. pl. fem.), are sometimes monophthongized to sa, se and so respectively (Braune 1987:241f., § 283, note 2). This phenomenon, however, is apparently only quite frequent in the nominative plural masculine, where the form se is often attested in the position behind the finite verb. Braune (ibid.) cites the expressions garutun se “readied they” from the Hildebrandslied and irthionōtun se “deserved they” from Otfrid. Such examples can also be found in Tatian (e.g. sose inan gisahun “when-they him saw” T 615,17). The second person singular dū sometimes loses its length in ‘enclitic’ position (Braune 1987:238, § 282, note 2); it sometimes even appears as do (e.g. themo do “whom you” (Christus und die

31 Braune (1987) notes that when subject and object pronouns with an initial vowel (e.g. ër, iu,

imo, uns, in, iʒ) are written together with a preceding verb form ending in a vowel, it is often the case that the final vowel of the verb form is dropped. This may happen to the -u in the first person present indicative (cf. the forms wān-ër “believes-he”, zell-iu “tell-you-DAT.PL”, zelluns “tell-us-DAT” in Otfrid) (ibid.:257, § 305, note 1), to the -i in the first and third person preterite conjunctive as in wurt’iz “became-it” (O II 6,44) (ibid.:269, § 322, note 1), or to the -e in the first and third person singular present conjunctive as in irbiat ër “offer-he”, hōr ër “hearhe”, lëb-ër “live-he” in Otfrid (ibid.:263, § 311, note 2). 32 In the case of prakinen, there is not only a missing space, but also a reduced vowel (inan > inen); see Nübling (1992:339ff.) for further examples.

258


Samariterin). In extreme cases the u is even fully deleted in Otfrid (ibid.).33 The adverb nū, which has been regarded as a syntactic clitic by some scholars (see Chapter 4), occurs in its reduced form with a short u only in ‘enclitic’ positions (Braune 1987:42); sporadically it even appears as no or ne. Similarly, the adverb sō, which has also sometimes been classified as a syntactic clitic, may have a short vowel in ‘proclitic’ or ‘enclitic’ position, and we also find the forms sa and se in these cases (ibid.:47). Evidence for vowel deletions typically occur in such environments where a personal pronoun with an initial vowel follows onto a verb form or a complementizer with a final vowel. This is often the case with the monosyllabic pronouns of the first and third person. Forms such as hiluh (= hilu ih “conceal I”), zelluh (= zellu ih “tell I”) are particularly frequent in Otfrid (Braune 1987:238, § 282, note 2). In Tatian, the form tuoz < tuo iz “(I) do it” is attested (Masser 1994:15). As Nübling (1992:339) remarks with respect to subject pronouns, vowel reductions are a strong indication of clitic status as they are a sign missing stress. In the bisyllabic pronoun forms, an unstressed vowel in word-initial position is sometimes deleted after a preceding vowel or consonant so that we encounter the forms nan, mo, ro for inan, imo, iro in some manuscripts. These forms occur in particular in Otfrid, but they also show up in Tatian, in the Glosses and, sporadically, in the shorter documents (Braune 1987:241, § 281, note 2).34 This phenomenon is primarily attested in three environments: in constructions where (a) the pronoun comes directly after the finite verb, (b) the personal pronoun follows onto a subordinating conjunction or a relative phrase (e.g. der-mo selpo “who-him self” Glosses 2, 275,34), and (c) there is a cluster of pronouns (e.g. tranc ër-nan “drank he-him-ACC” Christus und die Samariterin). In the third person acc. masc., the short form in is attested in ‘enclitic’ position in addition to the disyllabic form inan in Otfrid, Tatian and in other texts. From the eleventh century on, the short form was then used everywhere (Braune 1987:240, § 283, note e). Nübling (1992:343) also refers to a study by de Boor (1928) on Otfrid. De 33 According to standard assumptions, this case plays an important role in the emergence of the

verbal ending in the second person singular. As Braune (1987:258; § 306, note 5) summarizes, the ending of the second person singular (= -st), which originally was only -s, originated from cases where the verb was sometimes followed by the pronoun thu, du so that the dental plosive (th, d) followed onto s. In these combinations, the word boundary was then reanalysed in such a way that the dental plosive became part of the verbal ending. Note that already in Tatian expressions such as gisihist tu “see you-2.SG” are attested. In Christus und die Samariterin, we find both forms such as kërōst thu “choose/desire you” and forms such as thu wissīs “you-2.SG know”. 34 See also Braune (1987:24l, § 283, note 2), who observes that the third person pronoun often loses its own primary stress and is enclitically attached to the preceding word. The monosyllabic words are then fully unstressed, while the bisyllabic forms still have a secondary stress on the second syllable even when the stem syllable is unstressed: inàn, imò, irò. Such destressing phenomena often result in reduced word forms.


259

Boor has found that there is a difference in the graphic representation of reductions. When two vowels occur in hiatus, there are two contexts which differ systematically with respect to how the vowel reduction is indicated: sequences of (mostly disyllabic) verbs or conjunctions followed by a personal pronoun (as well as combinations of a preposition and a personal pronoun) and sequences of verbs or subordinating conjunctions followed by other categories. In the former case, Otfrid normally indicates the vowel reduction by the use of a shortened form (e.g. horter instead of horta er “heard he”), in which one of the vowels in hiatus has been deleted. In the latter case, Otfrid either puts a small dot below the final vowel of the first word, which is a sign for the reader not to pronounce it (e.g. hortạ io), or he simply uses the full form (e.g. horta io). The shortened form (e.g. hortio) is used only very rarely in the latter case even when the following word is phonologically similar to a pronoun, as for example with the short adverb io “ever”. Nübling (1992:3) argues that the systematic use of shortened forms with pronouns suggests that Otfrid used these forms to render elements which are real phonological clitics in spoken OHG, whereas the dot is merely a graphic device indicating where it is necessary to delete a segment for metrical reasons. Apart from vowel reductions and deletions, there is also evidence for assimilation processes. For example, in upper German texts, the second person singular often appears as tū or tu after final obstruents which are voiceless in OHG: e.g. lisistu “read-you”, suachistu “search-you”, thenkistu “think-you” in Otfrid (Braune 1987:238, § 282, note 2). Moreover, pronoun forms containing the vowel i often trigger umlaut in the base vowel of the preceding verb: e.g. segih < sage ih “say I”, gebimo < gab imo “(I/he) gave him”, nemiz < nam iz “(he/I) took it” in Otfrid (Nübling 1992:16). Extreme cases are the so-called ‘contracted’ forms, which are very frequent in Otfrid, but which also occur in other texts. For example, contracted forms are attested with the complementizer thaz followed by a personal pronoun (e.g. theiz < thaz iz “that it”, theih < thaz ih “that I”) and with a relative or interrogative pronoun followed by a personal pronoun (e.g. theiz < thër iz “who it”; theih < then ih “whom I”, weih < waz ih “what I” ); see Braune (1987:245, § 287, note 2). Since we do not have direct access to the spoken language and since the ‘orthographic’ practices in the OHG documents are very inconsistent, it is hard to judge whether we can regard all these indications of reduced forms as evidence for a phonological cliticization or whether they only represent allegro forms which have entered the written language. What speaks against the hypothesis that they are merely allegro forms is that the graphic indications for reduced forms are attested much more frequently with pronouns than with other unstressed words (Nübling 1992:344) and that in Otfrid there is a clear contrast between pronouns and other categories regarding the question as to how vowel reductions are graphically represented, as the study by de Boor (1928) has re-

260


vealed. To sum up: In OHG texts, we do not find evidence that there existed a fullyfledged paradigm of weak or clitic forms. However, it is very likely that under certain conditions, there was phonological cliticization. The syntactic environment for this cliticization appears to have been largely restricted to the ‘Wackernagel’ position (Comp/Vfin–pron ...). Apart from a few exceptions, the clitic pronouns were enclitics and not proclitics. Having discussed the phonological aspects, we should now turn to the syntax of OHG pronouns. Since Klavans (1985) and Anderson (1992; 1993), it has been generally acknowledged that the syntax and phonology of clitics are independent. In many studies, it has been argued that there was syntactic cliticization in Old English even though we do not have any compelling evidence for clitic forms (e.g. van Kemenade 1987; Cardinaletti & Roberts 1991; Kiparsky 1995; Pintzuk 1991, 1996, 1999). Already Hopper (1975) has suggested that in the early Germanic dialects there was syntactic cliticization despite the lack of a separate inventory of clitic forms: Proto-Germanic did not, however, inherit a special set of enclitic pronouns distinct from non-enclitic ones, but rather it inherited the pattern of enclisis. The difference between enclitic and non-enclitic pronouns in the Germanic dialects is therefore a syntactic rather than a morphological or phonological one. (Hopper 1975:31)

Syntactic and phonological cliticization do not always accompany each other. In Old French, for example, there were subject clitics which were subject to a special syntactic distribution, but which were homophonous with the subject pronouns which occurred in the normal XP-positions for non-clitic material (Adams 1987:288f.; see also Vance 1997:327, fn. 8). Conversely, there can be phonological cliticization in the absence of syntactic cliticization. As Kayne (1983) argues, the preverbal subject pronouns in modern French behave like full subjects in syntactic respects, even though they phonologically cliticize to the finite verb. Likewise, Weiß (1998:103) and Haag-Merz (1996:105f.) argue for modern Bavarian and for Swabian, respectively, that when the clitic s (full form: es) occurs in the prefield, it is a phonological, but not a syntactic clitic. In Zwicky’s (1977) seminal generative study, two types of clitics are distinguished: simple clitics and special clitics. The difference is that simple clitics “serve as reduced forms occurring in the same positions as corresponding full forms,” whereas special clitics are “clitics not partaking of the distribution of corresponding full forms” (Zwicky 1985:295). As far as modern Standard German is concerned, the prevailing opinion in the literature is that there exist only simple clitics (cf. 5.3.4). In the dialects, however, the situation is different. In most studies it is argued that the reduced pronouns have the status of special clitics (e.g. Nübling 1992:251-300 on Bern German; Abraham & Wiegel 1993


261

on Montafone German; Weiß 1998:85ff. on Bavarian).35 For those dialects whose pronoun syntax has been studied (cf. Haag-Merz 1996 on Swabian; Merkle 1975 and Weiß 1998:85ff. on Bavarian; Nübling 1992:251-300 on Bern German; Abraham & Wiegel 1993 on Montafone German), a number of differences to Standard German have been observed. One major difference is the following: (27) The full forms of pronouns are only used when the clitic form cannot be used for independent reasons (vs. standard language: full form as ‘default’, reduced forms dependent on style or register)

In contrast to many present-day German dialects, the full forms of the OHG personal pronouns also appear in contexts where they have anaphoric reference and are therefore probably unstressed, as in the following example from the Monsee Fragments: (28) ... alle dhea burgera fuorun · {i}ngegin · iħusei · enti ... · batun · pleaded all the citizens went towards Jesus-DAT and aufuori · uz fona iro marchom : {En}ti genc eri · {da}z eri that he out-went out from their borders and went he insceffilin · ubar ferita · dhen · {g}eozun ... in-boat over rode the sea “all the citizens went out towards Jesus and pleaded with him that he might depart from their borders. And he went up into a boat, crossed over the sea” {et ecce tota ciuitas exiit obuiam iesu: et ... rogabant, ut transiret a finibus eorum. Et ascendens in nauiculam transfretauit ...} (MF I,2; Mt 8:34-Mt 9:1)

In the present-day German clitic dialects, the use of the clitic is obligatory provided it is not excluded for independent reasons (for example, clitics cannot occur in the prefield; see section 5.3.2). For Swabian, this is illustrated in (29)-a and in (29)-b. Alternatively, in some modern dialects, demonstrative pronouns are usually used to establish anaphoric reference; cf. (29)-c again for a Swabian example. For the same reason, Nübling (1992:266) proposes for Bern German that demonstrative forms are part of the paradigm of personal pronouns.

35 By contrast, Haag-Merz (1996:128) comes to the conclusion that the reduced pronouns in

Swabian are not special clitics even though the full and clitic forms differ in their syntactic distribution and also in other respects.

262

(29)


Dr the

a. *Vor before

Fritz isch verreist. Fritz is out-of-town Oschtre kommt Easter comes

Swabian (from Haag-Merz 1996:92)

er PERS.PRON

net not

b. Vor before

Oschtre kommt-r net Easter comes-CLITIC not

zrück back

c. Vor before

Oschtre kommt Easter comes

net not

der DEM.PRON

zrück back

zrück back

“Fritz is out of town. He is not coming back before Easter”

In the OHG prose translations, the demonstrative pronoun is usually only used when there is a demonstrative in the Latin sentence as well, i.e. primarily in deictic contexts.36 In anaphoric contexts, the Latin source often does not have an overt subject pronoun due to the pro-drop property. In those cases where a Latin null subject is rendered by an overt pronoun in the OHG translation, this is usually a personal pronoun (c.f. Chapter 6). There are only a few examples where the translators have decided to use a demonstrative in this case: (30) /Cristes cunni uuas sô,/ mit thiu uuas gimahalit thes Christ’s descent was such with that was betrothed the-GEN heilantes muoter/ maria iosebe. êr thiu Saviour’s mother Maria Joseph-DAT before DEM.PRON-3.PL zisamane quamin/ uuas siu fundan só scaffaniu/ ... together came was she found so made “the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When the Saviour’s mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child …” /Christi autem generatio sic erat,/ cum ess& desponsata mater ihesu/ maria ioseph. antequam conuenirent/ Inuenta est In utero habens/ ... (T 83,7)

In the following sections, it will be shown that there are further differences between the current dialects and OHG. 5.3.2 Strong personal pronouns The OHG personal pronoun forms in Tables 1 and 2 occur in syntactic environments which are reserved for maximal projections according to standard assumptions. For example, they are attested in coordinations (either as first or second conjuncts). The can either be coordinated with a further pronoun or with a full XP:

36 This is especially true for demonstrative pronouns in the middle field. In the prefield, de-

monstratives with anaphoric reference are attested somewhat more often.

263


(31) a. Niodo nist · [uns] · ioh · [iu] · hear · kanoga *** NEG-or NEG-is us-DAT and you-DAT.PL here enough “lest there be not enough for us and for you” (MF XX,13; Mt 25:9) {Ne forte non sufficiat nobis et uobis ...} b. / [ih] inti [ther fater] I and the father “I and the Father are one” /ego et pater unum sumus/

ein one

birumes./ are

(T 465,16)

Moreover, the OHG personal pronouns can be modified by particles such as wārlīhho or by relative clauses: (32) a. /... . Inti [ir uuarliho]/ nu habet ir gitruobnessi./ (T 587,26) now have you sorrow and you-NOM indeed “and you will indeed now have sorrow” /... . & uos igitur/ nunc quidem tristitiam habebitis./ b. thoh bín ih [then ir súachet] yet am I-NOM whom you seek “yet it is me who you are looking for”

(O IV 16,40)

c. /uzouh iu [thiedar gihoret] quidu ih/ but you-DAT who+REL.PARTCL hear say I “but I say to you who hear” /sed uobis dico qui auditis/

(T 137,11)

In the present-day German dialects which have a set of clitic pronouns, only the full pronouns can be coordinated and modified (see Weiß 1998:96; HaagMerz 1996:103f. etc.). Moreover, the non-reduced forms of OHG personal pronouns are attested in sentences where it is very likely that they were focused, as in the following examples from Tatian where two pronouns are contrasted with each other: (33) a. /soso mih min fater uueiz so Intcnaih/ just-as me-ACC my father knows so know-I “just as the Father knows me, I know the Father” /Sicut nouit me pater. et ego agnosco/ patrem/

minan fater/ my father (T 461,29)

b. /so ther mannessun niquam./ thaz man imo ambahteti/ as the Man’s sun NEG-came that one him-DAT ministered ouh her ambahteti/ (T 383,6) but he-NOM ministered “as the Son of Man did not come to be ministered to, but to minister” /Sicut filius hominis non uenit/ ut ministrar&ur ei/ sed ut ministrar&/

Coordination, modification and focusation are the most important crosslinguistic diagnostics for the XP-status of pronouns (e.g. Kayne 1975; Cardi-

264


naletti & Starke 1999). In other words, when the forms of the OHG personal pronouns that were given in Table 1 and 2 above occur in these syntactic environments, there is no doubt that we are dealing with XP-elements. We have illustrated this only for some forms of the paradigm. Similar examples can easily be found for most of the other pronoun forms as well. In the literature, however, three environments have been discussed in which the pronouns have been argued to behave like syntactic clitics, i.e. X0-elements: pronouns in the prefield, pronouns to the right of the fronted finite verb or complementizer and pronouns in the XP–pron–Vfin-pattern. These will be investigated in the next sections. 5.3.3 Sentence-initial personal pronouns In OHG texts, personal pronouns are often attested as the single constituent before the preposed finite verb in main declarative clauses; cf. (34). So far, we have assumed without further discussion that these clauses are canonical verbsecond clauses, i.e. that the initial pronoun is an XP-element just as the ‘full’ DPs that often occur in this position. (34) a. Dhu chiminnerodes inan ... you degraded him “you have made him lower ...” Minuisti eum ... b. Ir sendit siin uuort he sends his word “he sends out his word” Mittit uerbum suum

(I 403)

(I 285)

At the end of the nineteenth century, Braune (1894:36-39) developed a model of word order which was quite influential for a short period of time and which was used as the theoretical background in several word-order studies. Braune argued that declarative clauses which have an unstressed personal pronoun or an unstressed monosyllabic adverb in their initial position (e.g. thō “then”, nū “now”) should be regarded as verb-first clauses. More precisely, Braune used the term gedeckte Anfangsstellung ‘covered verb-first order’ for such cases as opposed to the so-called reine Anfangsstellung ‘pure verb-first order’ for sentences without initial pronouns or adverbs. Likewise, Diels (1906:4) argued that the preposing of the ‘proclitic’ words had the effect of ‘cloaking’ the verbfirst order. Note that the hypothesis that sentences with allegedly proclitic elements in initial position were verb-first sentences also implies that the standard correlations between verb placement and sentence type are weakened: Verbfirst order is no longer primarily a characteristic of yes/no-interrogatives and imperatives, but also of declarative clauses. Braune’s (1894) distinction between ‘pure’ and ‘covered’ verb-first placement, verb-mid [= verb-second]


265

placement and verb-end placement served as a theoretical background for the study by Diels (1906) on verb placement in the OHG prose and for Ruhfus’s (1897) investigation of verb placement in Tatian. Behaghel (1932:30) was surprised that the notion of covered verb-first had found so many supporters. He objected that there is no difference between sentences with unstressed or stressed pronouns in initial position. Both cases are instances of verb-middle (= verb-second) placement in his view. That pronouns and certain adverbs could be proclitic on the finite verb in early Germanic has also been proposed in some generative studies. For example, Tomaselli (1995) considers such an analysis for the OHG XP–pronsubj– Vfin-sequences in OHG (see section 5.3.5). Furthermore, Braune’s (1894) notion of ‘covered verb-first’ has similarities to an analysis that Zwart (1997) (see also Zwart 1991) proposes for the verb-second grammar in modern Dutch. Zwart analyses the Durch personal pronouns as X0-clitics which are adjoined to the heads of certain functional projections (i.e. to left-headed agreement projections). In a declarative clause with an initial subject pronoun, the finite verb moves to AgrS0 and the subject clitic adjoins to AgrS037 (see Zwart 1997:271ff. for details). So in this analysis as well, declarative clauses with initial subject pronouns can be argued to instantiate a variant of verb-first order.38 In OHG texts, there is practically no evidence for a phonological cliticization of pronouns in prefinite position. As was pointed out in the last section, the secondary literature has found out that reduced forms are largely restricted to the position to the right of the left-sentence bracket (Comp/Vfin–pron–…). This is not surprising if one takes into consideration the situation in the present-day German dialects: Here clitic forms do not occur in the prefield apart from some very few exceptions. If one wanted to maintain the hypothesis that the prefinite pronouns (pro–Vfin) were syntactic clitics, one would either have to argue that they were only syntactic clitics and not phonological clitics or that there was no reflex of the phonological cliticization in the OHG manuscripts. What speaks against the latter assumption is that we do find reduced forms in the manuscripts, but mainly as ‘enclitic’ (not ‘proclitic’) forms in the Comp/Vfin–pron– …-configuration. There are a number of objections that can be raised against both Braune’s theory of ‘covered verb-first’ and an adoption of Zwart’s analysis of Dutch for OHG. Zwart’s analysis of cliticization in Dutch is based on a model of Germanic verb-second syntax that goes back to a proposal by Travis (1984). I will henceforth refer to this model as the ‘Travis-Zwart hypothesis’. The distribution of 37 More precisely, in the ‘X0-specifier’ of AgrS0; see Zwart (1997:268) for details. 38 See also Cardinaletti & Roberts (1991) (cf. section 5.3.5) for an analysis according to which

the Old Germanic pronouns are base-generated as X0-clitics in sentence-medial functional projections. The authors do not explicitly discuss their analysis for declarative pronouns with initial subject pronouns.

266


personal pronouns has been one crucial piece of evidence for this hypothesis. The assumption is that the finite verb moves up to the C0-position only in nonsubject-initial sentences. In subject-initial sentences, by contrast, it only moves to I0/AgrS0 (cf. Travis 1984, 1991 and Cardinaletti & Starke 1996 on modern German; Zwart 1991, 1997 on modern Dutch). Note that this notion of a verbsecond grammar is not entirely new: It has a historical precursor in the ‘inversion theory’, which was advocated by some nineteenth century scholars (e.g. by Ries 1880). In this theory as well main clauses with initial subjects and those with postfinite subjects (= inverted subjects) are considered to be entirely different in nature. It is furthermore assumed that weak subject pronouns occupy positions in the I-domain. Travis and Cardinaletti & Starke argue that they are maximal categories which occupy SpecI or SpecAgr, respectively, while Zwart (1997:271) proposes that the reduced subject pronouns in Dutch, which have been referred to as ‘weak pronouns’ by most linguists, are clitics, i.e. X0elements, which adjoin to AgrS0. The object pronouns are claimed to appear in deeper functional projections. If one now assumes that weak/clitic pronouns cannot move to SpecC,39 it follows that subject pronouns (or subject clitics according to Zwart) are the only unstressed pronouns which can occur left of the fronted finite verb in subject-initial sentences as in (35), where the finite verb only moves to the I-domain and not higher. (35) ʼ k Heb Marie gekust I have Mary kissed “I kissed Mary” (from Zwart 1997:33)

Dutch

More recently, Eythórsson (1995:189-288) has proposed an analysis of Old Norse sentence structure which is based on the ‘Travis-Zwart hypothesis’. However, as has been demonstrated by Lenerz (1993) and Gärtner & Steinbach (2003b) for modern German, this hypothesis does not make the right predictions. The interesting question is now whether it can be applied to OHG.40 First, it has to be noted that object pronouns are not excluded from the prefinite position in OHG main clauses. This was already observed by Diels (1906) at the beginning of the last century:

39 Travis (1984, 1991) and Cardinaletti & Starke (1996) assume that weak pronouns only occur

in A-positions. SpecC is a pure A-bar-position according to the Travis-Zwart hypothesis. In Zwart’s (1997) account, by contrast, movement of weak pronouns to SpecC is not possible, since these are regarded as X0-elements (clitics). 40 A further argument against an adoption of the Travis-Zwart hypothesis for OHG can be found in fn. 60.

267


Die Casus obliqui des persönlichen Pronomens sind als Einleitung des Satzes zwar keineswegs häufig, aber doch auch nicht ganz selten. Neben einigen Fällen, die vielleicht durch Emphase zu erklären sind, bleibt eine Reihe derer, die ihrem Inhalt nach durchaus als unbetont gelten müssen. (Diels 1906:95) [The oblique cases of the personal pronouns are not very frequent in the clause-initial position, but they are also not extremely rare. Apart from some cases which may be attributed to emphasis, there are also several cases attested where it is clear from their content that the pronouns are unstressed.]

As in modern German (see Lenerz 1993:120), non-nominative pronouns do occur in sentence-initial positions and even in contexts where they were presumably unstressed. Apart from impersonal constructions, in which the oblique pronouns function as the logical subjects of impersonal or passivized predicates, cf. (36), we also find constructions in which they function as canonical object pronouns, as in (37). Note that this word order is attested not only parallel to, but also independent of (or even counter to) the Latin as can be seen in (36) and (37).41 (36) a. /Inti uns ist ginuog./ enough and us-DAT.PL is “and it is enough for us” /& sufficit nobis./ b. /íu gilimphit abur you-DAT.PL behoves again “you must be born again” /oport& uos nasci denuo/

(T 567,21)

giboran uuerdan/ born become

(T 405,26)

c. /íu ist thanne gigeban in thero ziti/ uuaz ir sprehh& .../ given in this hour what you speak you-DAT.PL is then “it will be given you in that hour what you are to say” /Dabitur enim uobis in illa hora.‘/ quid loquamini. .../ (T 171,2) (37) a. /ín bihieltun thó thie watched then the him-ACC “the scribes were watching him” /obseruabant autem scribȩ/ b. /bit& Inti íu gibit mán/ ask and you-DAT gives one “ask, and it shall be given to you” /p&ite.‘ & dabitur uobis.,/

scribara/ scribes

(T 227,10)

(T 159,31)

c. Tíh ánauuânont sie sólchero scúlde (N BCon I 29,18) they such-GEN crime-GEN you-ACC suspect “they suspect you of such a crime” Illi uero capiunt de te fidem tanti criminis (l. 17) 41 Cf. Diels (1906:96f.) for further examples.

268


Even examples with accusative iʒ “it” in the prefield are sporadically attested; cf. (38). It has been argued by Travis (1984, 1991) that this pronoun form is banned from this position in modern German (but see Lenerz 1993 for counterexamples). (38) a. Íz nemáhti nîoman ánderro getûon it-ACC NEG-could nobody other-DAT do “nobody could have done this to anybody else” Nam id quidem de te numquam cuiquam fas fuisset

(N BCon I 33,15)

(l. 14)

b. oder iz ezzant die uogile or it-ACC eat the birds “or the birds will eat it” (SD XXXII, paragraph 3, l. 3 Predigtsammlung B)

So the distribution of personal pronouns in OHG does not support a sentence structure with asymmetric verb movement along the lines of the Travis-Zwart hypothesis. Moreover, there are no compelling arguments for the assumption that clause-initial pronouns in main declaratives (= pron–Vfin) are X0-elements and that their host clauses are therefore verb-first instead of verb-second clauses. 5.3.4 Pronouns at the left periphery of the middle field It has long been known that personal pronouns have a tendency to appear at the left edge of the middle field in many Germanic languages. Many scholars have therefore claimed that in the West Germanic verb-second languages, the personal pronouns are enclitic elements which attach to the element in the Cposition (i.e. to the complementizer or finite verb).42 This position to the right of C is also called the Wackernagel position. For modern Standard German at least, the opinion has slightly prevailed that the pronouns in this position are not X0-clitics, but maximal projections even when they occur in their phonologically reduced forms (e.g. Lenerz 1993; Cardinaletti 1999; Cardinaletti & Starke 1996; Gärtner & Steinbach 2003a, 2003b).43 As was already mentioned, many present-day German dialects have a more or less complete inventory of reduced forms which are subject to different syntactic requirements than the full forms and should therefore be analysed as X0clitics (cf. Abraham & Wiegel 1993 on the Montafone dialect; Weiß 1998 on

42 In modern Standard German, the subject pronoun has to be adjacent to the complementizer

or finite verb, while object pronouns can also follow a full subject. 43 The opposite view that there are X0-clitics in Standard German has been advocated by

Schmidt (1995), Abraham (1996) and Grohmann (2000).


269

Bavarian;44 Cardinaletti & Starke 1999 on Tirolean). Instead of the traditional bipartite distinction of strong and weak (= clitic) pronouns, Cardinaletti & Starke (1996, 1999) claim that three classes of pronouns occur in natural languages: In addition to the so-called strong pronouns, there are two classes of ‘deficient’ pronouns, namely both weak pronouns (= XP-elements) and real clitics (X0-elements). These three classes are not actualized in every single language and they are not always morphologically distinguished. For example, the authors claim that in Standard German there are two classes of third person pronouns, namely weak and strong pronouns. The weak pronouns appear as unstressed full forms (or as reduced forms). Weak pronouns are universally ‘deficient’, i.e. they have a DP-structure with fewer syntactic heads. As a consequence, they cannot make case agreement visible and therefore have to undergo leftward movement into Agr-projections. Strong pronouns have more or less the same distribution as non-pronominal DPs: They can be coordinated and modified and they can be the only word in a statement. As for Standard German, Cardinaletti & Starke’s hypothesis that weak pronouns move to agreement projections has been challenged by many scholars (e.g. Haag-Merz 1996; Gärtner & Steinbach 2003a, 2003b). Cardinaletti & Starke (1996) furthermore argue that the German dialect Olang Tirolese and other dialects have real clitics. These are also regarded as syntactically deficient (their DP is argued to contain even fewer functional projections than that of the weak pronouns). As Bayer (1999) objects, Cardinaletti & Starke’s analysis of the German dialects is not convincing since in these dialects, the object pronouns clearly cliticize to Comp and not to agreement projections in the I-domain; it is totally ad hoc to assume that they get their case features in Comp. Surprisingly, the distributions of personal pronouns in OHG and in the current dialects do not seem to be very similar. For those present-day dialects that have been studied extensively, a number of differences to Standard German have been noted. Two of them are given in (39): (39) In the middle field a. object clitics can precede the full forms of subject pronouns. (vs. Standard German: subject-first constraint) b. object clitics may (or even must in some dialects) be placed in the order DAT > ACC (vs. Standard German: DAT > ACC-order strongly dispreferred, even in reduced forms)

It would have been beyond the scope of the present work to carry out an extensive study on pronoun distribution in the OHG middle field. The following re44 More precisely, Weiß (1998) assumes that the Bavarian clitics are subject to a combination

of XP- and head movement.

270


sults are only of a very preliminary nature. The syntax of pronoun placement and the question of whether there already existed a Wackernagle position in OHG is probably a fruitful topic for future research. In the OHG documents, the subject pronoun usually occurs directly after the left-sentence bracket (= Comp) and precedes all other pronouns. For Isidor and the Monsee Fragments this is true without exception. In the OHG Tatian, there are examples where the subject pronoun is not adjacent to Comp even in cases where it has been inserted counter to the Latin (see also Dittmer & Dittmer 1998:185), but these cases involve the pronoun iʒ, which has a special distribution even in modern Standard German (e.g. Haag-Merz 1996:105-107). (40) /noba imo íz gigeban uuerde fon himile;/ NEG-if him it given becomes from heaven “unless it has been given him from heaven” /nisi ei fuerit datum de caelo.,/

(T 129,7)

In the current German dialects, there is no subject-first constraint. When the object pronoun is realized in its clitic form and the subject pronoun is a full form, the object clitic may precede the subject pronoun, as is illustrated in the Swabian example in (41) (cf. Haag-Merz 1996 on Swabian; Nübling 1992:280 on Bern German; Weiß 1998:86 on Bavarian). It is only when both arguments are realized as clitics that the subject clitic has to precede the object clitic. (41) Daß-m du die that him-CLITIC.DAT you-NOM.SG the “that you believe this story after all!” (from Haag-Merz 1996:102)

Gschicht au no glaubsch! story also even believe Swabian

Regarding the orderings of object pronouns in the current dialects, it has to be noted that in Bavarian and Swabian, for example, the pronouns may occur in the order DAT > ACC; see (42). In Bavarian, the reverse order (ACC > DAT) is even excluded; it can only by realized when the dative argument is a full pronoun, cf. (43). (42) a. I hob’ da’ n I have you-CLITIC.DAT.SG him-CLITIC.ACC “I have shown it (lit.: him) to you” (from Weiß 1998:86)

zoigt shown

Bavarian

b. i tät-drse gern dalasse I would-you-CLITIC.DAT.SG they/she-CLITIC.ACC willingly there-leave “I would be happy to leave them/it (lit.: her) here for you” Swabian (from Haag-Merz 1996:100)


(43) das’ a’ n that he-CLITIC.NOM him-CLITIC.ACC “that he has given it (lit.: him) to her” (from Weiß 1998:89)

271

iar geem hod her-FULL.PRON.-DAT given has Bavarian

Coming back to OHG: When there are two pronominal objects in the middle field, the accusative pronoun usually precedes the dative one in the OHG prose texts (just as in Standard German). Often this word order is realized independent of the Latin. We have to concede that the earlier OHG prose texts only contain a handful of examples where an accusative and a dative pronoun occur in the middle field: Isidor and the Monsee Fragments only contain one example each, and the Tatian contains eighteen examples. What is even more problematic is that the vast majority of examples involve the accusative pronoun in the singular neuter form iӡ; cf. (44). Even in modern German this form has a distribution which differs from those of other accusative forms both in the Standard language and in the dialects. In Bavarian, for example, it can not only be placed in the aforementioned DAT > ACC-order for clitics, but also in the ACC > DAT-order (Weiß 1998:102f.). (44) a. /ob ih iz if I-NOM it-ACC “if I tell you it” /si uobis dixero .../

íu quidu .../ you-DAT.PL tell

b. /... oba ir Iz if you-NOM.PL it-ACC “if you tell me it” /... si dixeritis mihi/

mir gesag&/ me-DAT say

(T 617,9)

(T 415,32)

After the present study was finished, an article by Fleischer (2005:45) appeared which deals with the order of accusative and dative personal pronouns in various OHG and Old Low German texts. Fleischer comes to the same conclusion, namely that it is the order ACC > DAT which is attested most frequently in the Old High German texts he studied. The only exception is the third person singular accusative neuter (= iӡ). In the OHG texts (except for Tatian) the reverse order (DAT > ACC) is much more frequent in this case. In Low German, however, this case patterns with the rest of the paradigm in that only the order ACC > DAT is attested. Tatian is between the Low and the High German texts: In this text both orders occur, but the ‘Low German’ order ACC > DAT is more frequent. To sum up: The earlier OHG prose texts do not contain many sentences with more than one pronominal argument in the middle field. However, the data we have suggest that the distribution of OHG personal pronouns in the middle field was not very similar to that in the current dialects which have X0-clitics. Nor does the OHG pronoun system and syntax seem to be comparable to fur-

272


ther current West Germanic languages that have been argued to have X0-clitics (cf. Zwart 1997 on Dutch; Haegeman 1998 on West Flemish).45 Regarding their syntactic distribution in the middle field, the OHG pronouns appear to be comparable to their counterparts in Standard German, which are XP-elements according to the prevailing opinion. As I mentioned above in section 5.2.2, I will assume that the OHG postfinite pronouns adjoin to VP as has been proposed by Haider (1993:176) for their modern German counterparts46, but nothing hinges on this analysis in the following argumentation. There is also evidence for phonological cliticization to the finite verb or to the complementizer in this position (see section 5.3.1 above).47 5.3.5 Pronouns in the order XP–pron–Vfin As was discussed at the beginning of this chapter, personal pronouns (as well as reflexive pronouns) sometimes occur between a fronted XP and the preposed finite verb in OHG main clauses: (45) [Salic] · du b{ist} *** blessed you are “you are blessed” Beatus es ...

(MF XXXVIII,4; St. Augustini sermo)

In the literature is has also been claimed that when pronouns occur in the XP– pron–Vfin-order, they are X0-clitics48 which occur in a functional head position together with the finite verb as part of a [clitic-V]-complex (cf. Cardinaletti & Roberts 1991; Tomaselli 1995). This analysis is in line with the intuition expressed in some older studies that the intervening pronouns are ‘light elements’ that do not count when determining the position of the finite verb (cf. Reis 45 In both languages there is a separate inventory of weak forms and cliticization is restricted

to the weak forms, which also have a different syntactic distribution: for example, they occur obligatorily in the order ACC > DAT. 46 Of course, this is not meant to suggest that there is a historical continuity between OHG and modern Standard German. Rather, it seems to be the case that the weakening of personal pronouns from XP- to X0-elements in the dialects happened after the OHG period. How the process of standardization affected the pronoun system and why there are no X0-clitics in the Standard language (according to the prevailing opinion) is an entirely different question. 47 I argued in section 5.2.2 that in sentences with XP–pron–V -order, the pronoun occurs in fin FinP (either in the specifier of FinP or adjoined to FinP). That *pron–thaz-orders are not attested is probably due to the fact that the enclitic pronoun needs material to its left for phonological cliticization. In clauses introduced by complementizers, the pronouns therefore do not move to the left periphery. The situation would be different, of course, if one assumed that complementizers were only base-generated in Fin0 and then moved into a higher position within the C-domain (e.g. Force0 as in Rizzi 1997). Whether this is a feasible analysis has to be shown by future research on the structure of the middle field in OHG. 48 See also van Kemenade (1987) for an analysis of the Old English personal pronouns as X0clitics.


273

1901; Fourquet 1938). As was demonstrated above, there is no compelling evidence that the OHG personal pronouns are X0-elements when they occur sentence-initially or to the right of the finite verb or the complementizer. Still the possibility can, of course, not be excluded from the outset that they are X0elements in the XP–pron–Vfin-construction. Nevertheless, I will argue that the clitic analyses propagated in the previous literature are problematic in a number of respects. Tomaselli (1995) draws a parallel between the personal pronouns in OHG and the clitics in Romance languages, which are (almost) always adjacent to the verb. Accordingly, Tomaselli (ibid.:358ff.) derives the OHG German XP– pron–Vfin-orders as follows (see (46)): The personal pronouns are analysed as X0-clitics which are base-generated in a sentence-medial I-projection. They are taken to always be subject clitics. The proposed sentence structure is a CPstructure with a left-headed I-projection selected by C and with a head-final verb phrase (= SIOV). In sentences without complementizers, V-to-I-to-C movement takes place. Subject pronouns cliticize to the left of I0.49 In sentences with verb movement, they incorporate into V0 in I0 and move to C0 alongside with the verb. This way they show up between the XP in SpecC and the finite verb (= XP–pron–Vfin). (46) CP Spec

C′ C0

IP NP [e]i

I′ I0 cli

VP I0 NP

V0 (Tomaselli 1995:358)

Tomaselli (1995) also tries to explain why the XP–pron–Vfin-orders have died out. She argues that this is due to the fact that it was no longer possible for pronouns to cliticize to I0 at some point. The cliticization to I0 was lost because the head parameter within IP changed in such a way that the original SIOVstructure (with a left-headed I0) developed into a SOVI-structure (with a rightheaded I0). Tomaselli then goes on to argue that cliticization to a final I is excluded on universal grounds. 49 Alternatively the subject pronoun may cliticize to the right of C0 (Tomaselli 1995:358). Cli-

ticization to the left of the complementizer is excluded (ibid.:359).

274


Note that we have argued in Chapter 2 (section 2.6) that there is no compelling evidence for overt verb movement into a medial I-head in clauses introduced by complementizers in OHG and that Comp–XP–Vfin–XP–Vinfin-orders are just a variant of Comp–XP–XP–(XP...)–Vfin–XP–Vinfin-orders that can be derived by the assumption of verb projection raising. As Tomaselli (ibid.:361) herself concedes, if we assume that there is V-to-I movement, there is the problem that this movement must have been optional and restricted to modal and auxiliary verbs in OHG. Even if one nevertheless wants to maintain the hypothesis of a medial I-projection,50 there are still a number of other problems with this proposal. In Tomaselli’s analysis, the pronouns would also be predicted to move along with the verb in sentence types without XP-fronting (i.e. with verb-first order). However, in yes/no-interrogatives (with or without the interrogative particle), the expected pron–Vfin-order is not attested. Tomaselli does not explicitly discuss yes/no-interrogatives. Yet she argues (ibid.:361-363) that in whinterrogatives, subject clitics cannot cliticize to the verb (= [I0 clitic [I0 Vfin]) since the resulting complex head (consisting of the clitic and the finite verb) would violate Principle B of the so-called wh-criterion (Rizzi 1990:378), which requires that “[E]ach wh-phrase must be in a Specifier-Head relation with a [+wh] X0.” If Tomaselli assumed that there was an empty operator in SpecC in yes/no-interrogatives, she might be able to exclude the clitcization with the same argument.51 However, the assertion that wh–pron–Vfin-orders are not attested in OHG texts is questionable anyway. We do occasionally find such examples: (47) (Dhiu uurza dhera spaida) huuemu siu uuard antdhechidiu? the root of-the wisdom whom she-NOM became revealed “the root of wisdom, to whom has it been revealed?” = (14)-c Radix sapientię cui reuelata est 50 Note also that the diachronic scenario proposed by Tomaselli (1995) only works if German

had developed a sentence structure with a head-final I-projection at some point. However, in the literature many counterarguments have been raised against the hypothesis of a final I in present-day German (cf. Sternefeld 2006:507-538 for a summary and a critical evaluation of these counterarguments). 51 Tomaselli (1995:362-363) discusses evidence from French for her claim that only subject cliticization affects the verbal head in such a way that the specifier-head-relation, which is required by Principle B of the wh-criterion, is no longer fulfilled: In French wh-interrogatives, inversion of the clitic only occurs with subject clitics, whereas object clitics remain preverbally: (i) Que manges-tu? what eat-you “what did you eat?” (ii) Qui l’a mangé who it-has eaten “Who ate it?”


275

Faced with such data, Tomaselli would have to argue that in OHG, the cliticization did not induce a violation of the wh-criterion, i.e. that the clitic did not ‘disturb’ the specifier-head-relation between the wh-phrase and the finite verb. But then the problem would not be resolved as to why the pronsubj–Vfin-orders do not occur in yes/no-interrogatives. A further problem is that sentences with left-peripheral pronsubj–Vfin-orders would be ambiguous in Tomaselli’s account between an analysis as a verb-first sentence with a clitic pronoun in C0 and as a verb-second sentence with a topicalized full pronoun in SpecC. These problems even become more serious if one wants to account for the fact that object pronouns are also attested in the XP–pron–Vfin-configuration. Tomaselli (1995:347, 363) incorrectly assumes that this phenomenon is restricted to subject pronouns. Since we have found many examples where object pronouns occur in this configuration, we would expect that they also appear at the left periphery in yes/no-interrogatives, in imperatives and in declaratives without a fronted XP (i.e. in ‘verb-first’ declaratives).52 To sum up, an analysis which treats the pronouns as verb-adjacent clitics just as the Romance clitics makes many wrong predictions for OHG. An alternative analysis for XP–pron–Vfin-orders in various Old Germanic languages is proposed in Cardinaletti & Roberts (1991). The authors put forward a uniform analysis of second-position effects concerning both verb placement and pronoun placement. More precisely, their approach aims at deriving both the so-called Wackernagel effects and the ‘Tobler-Mussafiaeffects’ (ibid.:fn. 52), which have been described for both the Germanic verbsecond languages and for the medieval Romance languages. The analysis is based on the ‘Split-Infl’-model (Pollock 1989), but it involves the assumption of a further agreement phrase (Agr1P) in addition to the standard functional projections which is situated ‘between’ the C-domain and the Infl-domain proper. There are parameterized differences: In some languages subjects occur in SpecAgr2, where they are assigned nominative case under government by Agr10. In other languages, nominative case can only be assigned via spec-head agreement and therefore subjects can only occur in SpecAgr1. There are also 52 Some of the problems which an analysis with verb-adjacent clitics poses would not arise if

one claimed that there is a ban on clitic-first orders as was proposed in the so-called ‘ToblerMussafia-Law’ (cf. Tobler 1889, Mussafia 1886) for many medieval Romance languages. According to this law, an unstressed pronoun that would show up sentence-initially has to be positioned ‘in enclisis’ behind the finite verb. However, in languages where the ‘Tobler-MussafiaLaw’ operated (e.g. in Old French, Old Italian and Old Spanish), only object pronouns were clitics and thus subject to this law. In OHG, in contrast, we would have to argue that also (unstressed) subject pronouns are clitics since they also occur in the XP–pron–Vfin-configuration. However, unstressed subject pronouns also very often show up sentence-initially (pron–Vfin) in canonical verb-second sentences in OHG (cf. section 5.3.3). This would not be possible if they were subject to the ‘Tobler-Mussafia-Law’.

276


languages where both ways of case assignment are possible and subjects may therefore either occur in SpecAgr1 or in SpecAgr2. They argue that this was the case in Old English and in Old High German. Furthermore, they assume that the C-projection was not activated in matrix declaratives in these languages. V-to-C movement only took place in interrogatives, imperatives, negated sentences, declarative verb-first constructions and sentences with certain initial adverbs. Similarly to Zwart’s (1991, 1997) proposal for Dutch pronouns, Cardinaletti & Roberts (1991) analyse the weak pronouns in Germanic as X0elements which are adjoined to the heads of agreement phrases. The clitic pronouns in Germanic are assumed to be in Agr10. While Agr20 is the position in which the verb combines with the agreement affix, Agr10 is the clitic position. Thus, in the OHG and Old English XP–pron–Vfin-orders, the finite verb occurs in Agr10 together with the clitic and the initial XP occupies SpecAgr1: (48)

[Agr1P TOP [[Agr10 Cl + V ] [Agr2P subj. [Agr20 t ] ...

Cardinaletti & Robert’s (1991) analysis faces a similar problem to Tomaselli’s (1995): There are certain verb-first environments (e.g. yes/no-interrogatives, imperatives) where V-to-C movement took place. Note, however, that alleged clitic pronouns always occured postfinitely in such contexts both in Old English and in OHG, even though clitic-first orders would be expected to occur in those cases where the finite verb moved to C0 as a [clitic-V]-complex after having landed in Agr10, where the clitic normally incorporated. In order to be able to maintain their analysis, the authors propose that there existed a lastresort mechanism. After having considered the possibility that the verb excorporated from Agr10 to C0 and left the clitic behind, they assume that it was possible for the finite verb to skip Agr10 so that the clitic was left behind in Agr10. The skipping of Agr10 was only allowed when the regular movement of the verb through Agr10 and the forming of the [clitic-V]-complex would result in clitic-first constructions in C0 and in sentences where a wh-phrase, a ‘negative’ element or a certain type of adverb occured in the first position.53 These explanations are hardly convincing: they seem to be entirely ad-hoc and they imply a systematic violation of the ‘Head-Movement Constraint’ (Travis 1984:131).54 Our discussions of the proposals by Tomaselli (1995) and Cardinaletti & Roberts (1991) have revealed a number of difficulties which arise in analyses in which the OHG pronouns are treated as X0-proclitics attaching to the finite verb. Note that the problems mentioned are of a general kind; they would also persist in alternative models of OHG sentence structure. This is due to the fact 53 Recall that in Old English there was a clear contrast between root clauses with initial wh-

phrases, ‘negative’ elements and certain adverbs on the one hand, and root clauses with initial ‘normal’ XPs on the other hand. In the latter case, the pronouns always occurred after the fronted finite verb. 54 See also Fontana (1997:237) for this criticism.


277

that in OHG, the affinity of personal pronouns to the verb was not as strong as in the case of the Romance clitics. This means that one would have to appeal to ad-hoc mechanisms such as excorporation, the violation of the head-movement constraint or to the stipulation that the intervening clitic disturbed the spechead relation required by Rizzi’s (1990) wh-criterion in those environments where there was no interaction between verb movement and pronoun placement. Alternatively, one could of course stipulate that the OHG pronouns were not proclitic, but enclitic in certain environments. Van Kemenade (1987) puts forward such a proposal for Old English, but this proposal has also been criticized as an ad-hoc explanation by Pintzuk (1996, 1999:147ff.) and van Bergen (2003:180). Since the analyses where the OHG pronouns are taken to have been proclitic X0-elements face so many serious problems, it seems to be more plausible to analyse the OHG personal pronouns as XP-elements. In section 5.2.2, I proposed that they occurred in FinP in the XP–pron–Vfin-construction (I left it open whether they occupied SpecFin or were adjoined to FinP). It could be argued that the analysis proposed here is faced with the same problems as the proposals by Tomaselli (1995) and Cardinaletti & Roberts (1991), inasmuch as the occurrence of preverbal pronouns in verb-first contexts (yes/nointerrogatives, imperatives) can only be circumvented by an additional assumption. Note, however, that the additional assumptions which Cardinaletti & Roberts make (excorporation, violation of the ‘Head Movement Constraint’) are faced with very profound theoretical objections (cf. also Fontana 1997:237f.). In the analysis advocated here, I have simply argued that the pronouns could not occur sentence-initially in interrogatives, imperatives etc. because they were phonological clitics and needed material to their left to which they could cliticize. Recall that I have argued that the movement of the pronouns into the C-domain was not obligatory: The pronouns could also adjoin to VP. Which position was preferred probably depended on additional factors such as whether there were any further constituents in the postfinite domain or whether there was a phonological host present to the left. So far I have only considered analyses in which it is assumed that the verb had moved to the C-domain in sentences with XP–pron–Vfin-order. In the previous literature, it has sometimes been denied that V-to-C movement had taken place in declarative clauses with left-peripheral XP–pron–Vfin-orders. This hypothesis will be discussed in the following section. 5.4 XP–pron–Vfin due to verb-end placement? Lenerz (1984) claims that in main clauses with initial XP–pron–Vfin-orders, the finite verb occurs in its base position at the end. This analysis is reminiscent of the practice in some older studies in which such examples are listed under the heading ‘verb-end order’ (e.g. Friedrichs 1891; Diels 1906:136ff.). Lenerz’s analysis is couched in the REST-framework. He argues (ibid.:127-181) that XP–

278


pron–Vfin-orders are relics of an early Germanic stage when sentences were only bare S-structures (cf. Chapter 2, section 2.5). A C(omp)-projection did not exist and there was no other functional head to which the finite verb could move. As the base order in the VP was OV, structures without Comp showed verb-end order. Even though there was no Comp-projection it was still possible to front an XP. This phrase was then Chomsky-adjoined to S as illustrated in (50). This explains why there was a topic-like constituent at the beginning of the alleged verb-end clause (= [erino portun] in (49)). The pronouns occur in the Wackernagel position (= W.-position in (50)) at the left edge of S.55 (49) [Erino portun] ih firchnussu iron portals I destroy “I will destroy iron portals” Portas aereas conteram

(50)

= (1)-b

X S S X"

W-Pos. tj

erino portuni

ihj

ti

Vfin firchnussu (from Lenerz 1984:168)

What speaks against the verb-end analysis at first glance is that the finite verb did not always occur in absolute final position, but was sometimes followed by one or more constituents, as in example (51) (cf. also (8)-a, (9)-b, (9)-c above). As Lenerz (1984) argues, however, the postfinite phrases might also have been extraposed from a verb-final clause. (51) [forlaaz · {se}nu] dhir uuer dant forgiven you-DAT become “your sins are forgiven” {remittuntur tibi peccata tua}

dino your

suntea sins

= (10)

However, when the postfinite domain contains further pronouns, as in (52), a verb-end analysis is not possible.

55 Lenerz (1985b) puts forward a somewhat revised analysis. See Tomaselli (1995) for some

counterarguments to this analysis.

279


(52) Vnde [dô] íu hâbeta si lêid in-fángen she sorrow received and then you-DAT.PL had hérzen . = (6)-b heart “and then her heart was filled with sorrow for you”

in íro in her

There is yet a further piece of evidence which strongly suggests that there was verb movement in the declaratives with XP–pron–Vfin-orders: We can easily find examples such as the one in (53) in which the pronoun between the XP and the finite verb is an object pronoun and an overt subject pronoun is not present. (53) Auuar · iu sagem *** again you-DAT.PL say-1.SG “again I say to you: ...” {Iterum dico uobis ...}

= (9)-a

Since in OHG null subjects are only attested in postfinite position (cf. Chapter 6), verb movement must have taken place at least in ‘subjectless’ declaratives with XP–pronobj–Vfin-order. According to Occham’s razor we may therefore assume that this is also the case in sentences with XP–pron–Vfin-order which have overt subjects. We can thus conclude that a verb-end analysis is not possible in certain types of examples with XP–pron–Vfin–XP–V-order and should thus be abandoned. 5.5 Pronoun distribution due to asymmetric verb movement? In the literature on Old and Middle English, it has been argued that in sentences with XP–pron–Vfin-order, the pronoun shows up in front of the finite verb since the finite verb has only moved into a lower functional head in the Idomain and not to C0. In Chapter 2 (section 2.6), I have argued that there is no compelling evidence for overt V-to-I movement in subordinate clauses in OHG. As I will argue now in the two following sections, the OHG XP–pron– Vfin-construction cannot be derived by the assumption that in certain types of main clauses there is V-to-I movement, and no V-to-C movement.56 5.5.1 Kiparsky (1995, 1996) In Kiparsky’s (1995) account of the historical origins of the Germanic verbsecond syntax, the development of verb movement plays a crucial role. He ar-

56 The assumption of asymmetric verb placement is also made by Cardinaletti & Roberts

(1991) as was discussed above. In contrast to the proposals that will be presented in the following sections, Cardinaletti & Roberts analyse the pronouns as X0-clitics. This is why their approach was discussed together with that of Tomaselli (1995) in section 5.3.5.

280


gues that the distribution of personal pronouns in Old English and Old High German is an important diagnostic for the position of the finite verb. In contrast to Lenerz (1984), Kiparsky (1995) claims that there is already a C-projection present in earliest Germanic. Unlike in the modern CP-verb-second languages, the specifier of this early CP is originally a focus position which only hosts whelements, negation and some demonstrative adverbs. Topic constituents, by contrast, are either adjoined to CP (as part of a kind of left-dislocation construction with a ±overt clause-internal resumptive pronoun) or to S (cf. also Chapter 4): (54) CP CP

TOPIC

C'

SPEC COMP

XP

XP

V

S ... t ... (pro) ... t ... (Kiparsky 1995:140)

Kiparsky argues that verb movement to C0 is obligatory when a CP is projected. In Old English, however, a CP is only projected when this is required either by the presence of a complementizer or by the presence of a wh-phrase, of negation or of a demonstrative adverb in first position. If this is not the case, only a bare S-structure is projected. This explains why there are complementizerless main clauses with verb-end order in Old English. In OHG, however, the C-projection is obligatory and this is why complementizerless main clauses with verb-end order cannot be generated. The distribution of the Old English and OHG pronouns is explained as follows: Kiparsky (1995:145-147) assumes that the personal pronouns are (syntactic and phonological) clitics. In the syntax they are placed at the left edge of S. They are furthermore subject to a phonological condition which requires that they cliticize to a phonological phrase to their left: If their syntactic placement at the left edge of S has the effect that they would show up sentence-initially, they are moved into the position after the first phonological phrase at PF (= ‘prosodic inversion’; cf. Halpern 1992). This explains, Kiparsky argues, why the pronouns follow onto a topic adjoined to S in declarative clauses as in the Old English example in (55): Since there is no material to the left of S (recall that a CP is not projected in such cases), the pronoun has to prosodically invert with the first phonological phrase of S (= the topic) as is indicated by the arrow in (55)-b.

281


(55) a. [hiora untrymnesse] he sceal ðrowian on their weakness he shall atone in “he shall atone in his heart for their weakness” b. S[

XP clitic ...]

his his

heortan = (1)-a heart

(adapted from Kiparsky 1995:146)

In sentences where there is material in the C-projection (e.g. in whinterrogatives and in negated sentences), the clitics remain at the left edge of S because they can cliticize to the verb in C0: (56) a. Hu begæst þu weolc þin? how go-about you work your? “how do you go about your work?” (ÆColl,23; from Kiparsky 1995) b. Ne

mæge we awritan ne mid wordun asecgan ealle þa can we write nor with words express all those wundra wonders “we can neither write nor express with words all those wonders” (ÆLS 21,242, from Kiparsky 1995:147) NEG

c. CP[XP C'[ C [V] S[clitic ... ]]] (from Kiparsky 1995:146) XP = wh-phrase, negation, adverbs such as þa, þonne etc.

Kiparsky also refers to Old High German a couple of times, but these remarks are not fully convincing. Since Kiparsky proposes that the projection of a CP is obligatory in OHG (ibid.:149), V-to-C movement would have to take place without exceptions: The pronouns would always have something to cliticize to as they would always be preceded by the finite verb or a complementizer. However, when Kiparsky (1995:146) develops his prosodic-inversion analysis for the topic–pron–Vfin-construction, he not only refers to Old English data, but also to the corresponding OHG examples (he quotes the Isidor-example given in (1)-b above: Erino portun ih firchnussu). At the same time he claims that bare S-structures are no longer possible in OHG. This is contradictory. Even if the assumption of an obligatory C-projection in OHG is abandoned and if one concedes that there are still residues of bare S-structures, a number of problems remain unresolved. As there is no landing site for the finite verb within S, the topic–pron–Vfin-sequences are verb-end sentences in Kiparsky’s proposal. As I have argued in the last section, there are a number of counter-

282


arguments to the verb-end analysis.57 As examples such as (57) (cf. also (14), (16)) suggest, it is furthermore not true that in OHG texts the pronouns would always occur postfinitely when a wh-phrase or negation is present. Recall that Kiparsky argues that the latter elements trigger V-to-C movement: They have to be placed in SpecC and therefore require the projection of a CP. (57) a. /... . uuanan uns/ sint in uuostinnu so manigu brot/ = (14)-a so many breads whence us-DAT are in desert “where are we to get so many loaves of bread in the wilderness?” /... . unde ergo nobis/ in deserto panes tantos?/ b. neo uuiht im ni ant uurta nothing-ACC them-DAT NEG answered “he did not answer anything” nihil respondit

= (17)

Moreover, there are of course many OHG examples attested where a single pronoun occurs in front of the preposed finite verb in negated sentences; cf. (58). The negation particle ni occupies SpecC in Kiparsky’s account and the verb thus moves to C0 in negated clauses. If we adopted Kiparsky’s proposals for Old English also for OHG, we would be forced to argue that the pronoun is adjoined to CP as a kind of left-dislocated topic with an empty resumptive in the clause-internal argument position. In the case of pronominal ‘topics’, however, such a left-dislocation analysis is very unlikely. The same is true for sentences with indefinites occurring in front of a negated verb; cf. (59). The problem could also not be resolved if we assumed that the negation does not occupy SpecC, but is a head which procliticizes to the finite verb. Even then the pronoun could not be argued to occupy SpecC since originally SpecC is not a topic position, but a focus position reserved for wh-phrases, demonstrative adverbs etc., as Kiparsky argues. The occurrence of unstressed subject pronouns and indefinites in front of the negated verb shows that SpecC had already been generalized and could host any type of fronted XP in OHG. (58) a. /sie nihabent thurftí they-NOM NEG-have need “they have no need to go away” /non habent necesse ire./

zifaranne/ to-go

(T 249,30)

57 A verb-end analysis is also not convincing for the corresponding Old English data. As van

Bergen (2003:189) demonstrates, there are numerous examples with topic–pron–Vfin-order which contain postfinite material (i.e. topic–pron–Vfin–XP.../topic–pron–Vfin–XP–...Vinfin). Given the verb-end analysis, one would have to resort to excessive extraposition and verb (projection) raising in such cases.

283


b. /bithiu uuanta In niuuas ander because them-DAT NEG-was other “because there was no other place for them” /quia non erat eis locus/ c. ir · ni uuisotut you-NOM NEG-visited “you did not visit me” {et non uisitatis me}

miin me-GEN

stat/ place

(T 85,27)

(MF XXI,5; Mt 25:43 )

fona · gote · festi ... (59) Neoman · niuuirdit · NEG-becomes from God strengthened nobody “nobody is strengthened by God” (MF XL,19; St. Augustini sermo) Nemo erit a deo nisi firmus ...

As far as the word order in negated sentences is concerned, there is an important difference to Old English. In the OHG texts, we can easily find examples where a pronominal58 or non-pronominal constituent has been preposed into the slot before the fronted finite verb (XP/pron–ni-Vfin). Both in the Monsee Fragments and in Isidor, this phenomenon is attested, albeit not very frequently. In Tatian, most negated declarative clauses are realized as regular verb-second clauses with XP-fronting (cf. Chapter 2, section 2.4.2). In late OHG texts, finally, XP-fronting in negated declaratives is the rule. In Old English, on the other hand, there are hardly any examples with fronted XPs in negated clauses.59 Since previous research has focused on Old English, it is not surprising that models for early Germanic sentence structure have been developed where the topic position is taken to occur in a functional projection below C0 (for example as an adjunct position to S in Kiparsky 1995, or as a specifierposition within the I-domain as in Cardinaletti & Roberts 1991; cf. section 5.3.5), while at the same time it is claimed that negated sentences are a core context for V-to-C movement.60 In a more recent article, Kiparsky (1996) has modified his original proposal 58 See also Dittmer & Dittmer (1998:101f.), who show that in Tatian, pronominal subjects

have frequently been placed in front of the finite verb in negated declarative clauses. Since this has often taken place contrary to the Latin, they conclude that this word order reflects ‘genuine’ OHG (ibid.:102). 59 See also van Kemenade (2000:66): „root clauses with the negated finite verb in C [...] seem to resist topicalization”. Exceptions to this rule are very rare in Old English. 60 That a subject can occur in front of the finite verb in negated declarative clauses (= subject– ni-Vfin) would also be problematic if one analysed OHG according to the Travis-Zwart hypothesis. Given the assumption that negated sentences are one of the core contexts for V-to-C movement in early Germanic, one would have to argue that the subjects have been topicalized to SpecC in such cases. If one is forced to resort to this argumentation in many cases (and crucially also in examples where this alleged topicalization does not seem to correlate with information-structural properties), the hypothesis of a structural difference between topic-initial sentences on the one hand and subject-initial ones on the other becomes highly implausible.

284


in that he postulates an IP instead of S in (54), which means there is now a landing site for the finite verb below C0. An additional modification concerns the SpecC-position: This is no longer only targeted by wh-elements, by the negation ne (an adverb according to Kiparsky) or by adverbs such as þa, but also by focused NPs, PPs or by other types of adverbs. Crucially, Kiparsky has not given up the assumption that C0 has to be filled when a CP is projected. By contrast, verb movement to I0 is optional. This makes the new proposal conceptually less attractive than the original one. Note that originally the central idea was that verb movement is not optional in Old English, but depends on the presence of a CP. Furthermore, the new model is faced with many empirical problems (see also van Bergen 2003:190f.). This is in particular true for the distribution of personal pronouns. Kiparsky is now forced to claim that there are two syntactic positions for the pronouns: As clitics, they are either placed at the left edge of IP if a CP is not projected or they appear at the left edge of CP. ‘Focused’ elements in SpecC are argued to form a phonological constituent together with the finite verb in C0. Kiparsky has to stipulate that this process takes place irrespective of phonological weight. This is why the pronouns always occur postfinitely in this environment. Topics, by contrast, are adjoined to the clause and do not form a phonological constituent with the verb (ibid.:163). In this case the clitic pronouns follow directly onto the topic (= topic–clitic–Vfin). In Kiparsky’s revised proposal, there is thus also a structural difference between sentences with fronted wh-elements, negation etc. on the one hand and sentences with fronted topics on the other. This assumption is unproblematic for Old English as here the distribution of personal pronouns is indeed systematically different in these two syntactic environments. As was demonstrated above, this seems not to be the case in OHG, however. Moreover, Kiparsky’s analysis predicts that personal pronouns cannot show up prefinitely in sentences which contain elements such as focused NPs, or adverbs, as these elements have to be placed in SpecC as well. This prediction, however, is not borne out, neither in Old English (cf. also van Bergen 2003:191) – as is suggested by Kiparsky’s own examples (ibid.:165, ex. 23-a to 23-c) for focused XPs in SpecC – nor in OHG. For example, Kiparsky claims that sentence adverbs are a type of focused elements and thus have to occupy SpecC. In this case, personal pronouns would be expected to show up postfinitely. This is, however, not the case in Old English as can be seen in Kiparsky’s own example:61

61 A further problematic aspect in Kiparsky’s analysis is that it overgeneralizes in some points.

For example, it predicts that the order topic–object-clitic–full-subject–Vfin should be attested in Old English (recall that topics can be adjoined to IP and SpecIP is normally occupied by the subject). However, this is neither the case in Old English nor in OHG.

285


(60) Soplice unc gecyþeþ ure Drihten Hæland Crist surely us-two will-manifest our Lord Saviour Christ mægen power (BH 189.3; from Kiparsky 1996:164) “surely our Lord Jesus Christ will manifest to us his power”

his his

To sum up: Kiparsky’s (1995, 1996) idea that the asymmetric distribution of pronouns can be regarded as a reflex of asymmetric verb movement (see also Pintzuk 1991, 199962) has inspired many further studies on Old and Middle English and other early Germanic languages, some of which will be discussed in the following sections. However, some parts of his analysis are not fully convincing. 5.5.2 Kroch & Taylor (1997), Haeberli (1999a, 2000, 2001, 2002a) and Eythórsson (1995) Similar to Kiparsky (1996), Kroch & Taylor (1997), Haeberli (1999a, 2000, 2001, 2002a) and Eythórsson (1995:305-331, 1996) claim that in sentences with prefinite pronouns the verb has only moved to the I-domain in the earlier West Germanic languages. In all three approaches, the pronouns are argued to occur in a fixed position at the left edge of the I-domain. The variation between pre- and postfinite placement is not derived from the presence of more than one position for pronouns,63 but from the fact that there are two landing sites for the finite verb (C0 vs. I0 / Agr0 etc.). Kroch & Taylor (1997) propose that a CP is always present in Old English. SpecC is targeted by topicalized phrases. A topic (which can also be simply the subject) has to move through SpecI, which is also a topic (i.e. an A-bar) position,64 cf. (61)-a. Like Kroch & Taylor, Haeberli (1999a, 2000, 2001, 2002a) assumes that all Old English sentences are CPs. He furthermore claims that there are two structural subject positions which he takes to be SpecAgr and SpecT in Haeberli (2001); cf. (61)-b. Pronominal subjects always move to SpecAgr, non-pronominal subjects may optionally move there. More frequently, they remain in SpecT. In the latter case the numeration contains a phonetically empty expletive which is inserted in SpecAgr (= SU1). In both approaches there is thus no asymmetry between subject-initial and topic-initial sentences: In subject-initial sentences, the subject occupies SpecC just as non62 Pintzuk’s proposal (1991, 1996, 1999) for Old English is not discussed here since Pintzuk

never draws a parallel to other early West Germanic languages. 63 Strictly speaking, this is not fully correct: Eythórsson (1995, 1996) claims that there is more

than one position for object pronouns. This will be discussed below. 64 According to Kroch & Taylor (1997:306ff.), the reason for this is that verb-second lan-

guages are subject to a special requirement that topics must occur in a specifier-head-relation with the finite verb.

286


subject XPs. (61) ‘topic-initial’ sentences in Kroch & Taylor (1997), Haeberli (2001) a. [CP XPi C [IP ti I [VP ti ]]] Kroch & Taylor → verb movement to I0 → clitic personal pronouns at ‘CP-IP-boundary’ b. [CP [XP] C [AgrP SU1 Agr [TP SU2 ... ]]] Haeberli → verb movement to Agr0 → pronominal subject65 in SU1; non-pronominal subject in SU2 + expletive pro in SU1, non-pronominal subject sometimes in SU1

In both accounts, topicalized XPs do not ‘trigger’ V/I-to-C movement in contrast to operator elements such as wh-phrases, negation, adverbs such as þa, þonne etc., (62), even though they occur in SpecC just the same. (62) ‘operator-initial’ sentences in Kroch & Taylor (1997), Haeberli (2001) Kroch & Taylor a. [CP [wh-XP/ne/ þa, þonne] C [IP ... ]] → verb movement to C0 → clitic personal pronouns at ‘CP-IP-boundary’ Haeberli b. [CP [wh-XP/ne/ þa, þonne] C [AgrP SU1 Agr [TP SU2 ...]]] → verb movement to C0 → pronominal subject always in SU1; non-pronominal subject in SU2 + expletive pro in SU1, non-pronominal subject sometimes in SU1

In both proposals it is furthermore assumed that the personal pronouns are clitics and appear in special positions. Kroch & Taylor propose that they are positioned at the CP-IP-boundary. Haeberli argues that subject pronouns (which he takes to be either ‘weak pronouns’ or clitics) occupy SpecAgr. Thus, in both approaches the pronouns show up prefinitely when the finite verb has only moved to I0 (= topic–pron–Vfin-orders). If one asks the question of whether one of these two accounts could also be adopted for OHG,66 the same problem arises that I pointed out in the discussion of Kiparsky’s proposal in the last section, namely that in our data from the earlier OHG prose texts, even though examples with initial operators and pronominal arguments are relatively scarce, there is no systematic difference between topic and operator contexts with respect to pronoun placement: Prefinite pronouns are also attested in wh-clauses (= wh–pron–Vfin; cf. (14)) and in negated clauses (= XP–pron–ni-Vfin; cf. (17)). These two environments are taken 65 Haeberli (2000, 2001, 2002a) does not really discuss in which positions object pronouns

occur in Old English, even though they are frequently attested in the verb-third configuration XP–pron–Vfin as the data collected by van Bergen (2003) shows. 66 In contrast to Eythórsson (1995), Kroch & Taylor (1997) do not mention the Old High German data and restrict their analysis to Old and Middle English.


287

to belong to the core contexts for V-to-C movement in both accounts. Moreover, there is the problem that in OHG there is no evidence for V-to-I movement in independent contexts: In contrast to Old English, the finite verb arguably does not move to I0 in subordinate clauses in OHG (cf. Chapter 2). Furthermore, the status of the SpecI-position in Kroch & Taylor’s (1997) analysis would be problematic for OHG. Recall that they assume that SpecI is a topic position, and not a subject position.67 In OHG, there does not seem to be any evidence that XPs can be topicalized in subordinate clauses. A further difference between Old English and Old High German concerns the ±inversion of full subjects. In Old English, the order XP–non-pronominal– subject–finite verb is attested and we even find this both in sentences where the fronted XP is an adverbial and where it is a fronted argument (e.g. Haeberli 2002a:90). Such verb-third effects with non-pronominal subjects are not attested in OHG even in those texts where verb-third effects with pronominal subjects do occur (Chapter 4). Note that Haeberli (2002a:90) has carried out a quantitative analysis of ten text samples from the Brooklyn–Geneva– Amsterdam Corpus of Old English: Out of 654 clauses with non-pronominal subjects and a fronted non-operator, non-inversion (V3) occurs in 188 clauses (28.7%) and subject-verb inversion in 466 clauses (71.3%). The occurrence of verb-third effects with non-pronominal subjects is expected in Haeberli’s account (as well as in Eythórsson’s account; see below), since SpecAgr functions as the structural subject position. The contrast between Old English and Old High German with respect to the ‘inversion’ of non-pronominal subjects makes it doubtful whether the XP–pron–Vfin-pattern, which looks like a ‘cognate’ pattern at first sight, is a reflex of the same grammatical phenomenon in both languages. Similarly to Haeberli (1999a, 2000, 2001, 2002a), Eythórsson (1995:289332) suggests that there is a structural subject position in the I-domain in Old English into which the subject may move from its VP-internal base position. However, this movement is not obligatory. Eythórsson also claims that V-to-C movement is restricted to operator contexts: It occurs in wh-interrogatives, sentences with the fronted negation ne and with adverbs such as þā as well as in yes/no-interrogatives, imperatives, and in sentences with narrative inversion. Crucially, it does not take place in topic-initial sentences. The target for both topicalization and wh-/operator movement is SpecC. Verb-third effects are due to the fact that topics occur in SpecC, but the verb only moves to an IP-internal

67 Kroch & Taylor (1997) propose that in independent and in dependent clauses without ‘sub-

ject-topicalization’, the (non-pronominal) subject remains in its VP-internal base position and does not move to SpecI. In this case, subject-verb agreement is checked as follows: The VPinternal subject builds a chain with the agreement morpheme of the verb, with which it is coindexed (Kroch & Taylor 1997:307f.). The index on the agreement morpheme is the result of the incorporation of a phonetically empty expletive in the feature complex of I0.

288


head (I2) and not to C in topic-initial sentences.68 At the surface, a verb-third effect arises when the subject moves to the canonical subject position (= the highest Spec-position in the I-domain, henceforth: SpecI2).69 This is illustrated in (63). (63) a. [þy ilcan geare] [Centwine] gefliemde Bretwalas oþ sæ ... the same year Centwine put-to-flight Britons to sea “the same year Centwine put the Britons to flight to the sea” (Anglo-Saxon-Chronicle; from Eythórsson 1995:318) b. verb-third with full subjects according to Eythórsson (1995): → topic-XP in SpecC, subject in SpecI1, finite verb in I2 (or in base position)

Moreover, verb-third effects are triggered by personal pronouns which are analysed as (X0-)clitics that normally cliticize to C0 (Eythórsson 1995:314-317). Object clitics and clitic adverbs may also occur in a deeper functional projection. Given the assumption that in Old English, and residually also in Old Saxon and earlier OHG, the finite verb may only raise to I2 in topic-initial sentences, subject and object pronouns may appear in front of the finite verb directly following the initial topic-XP; cf. (64). Alternatively, it may also happen that the verb does not move to I2 in topic-initial sentences, but stays in its VPinternal base position; cf. (64). (64) verb-third with clitics in Eythórsson (1995; cf. also 1996) → topic-XP in SpecC → non-pronominal subject in SpecI or in SpecV/ subject clitic in C0 → object clitics and clitic adverbs in C0 or in a lower projection → finite verb in I2 (or in VP-internal base position)

Eythórsson (1995:324-332) also compares the situation in Old English to Old High German. He argues that in contrast to Old English, in the Old High German Isidor, V-to-C movement is present also in topicalizations and not only in 68 Eythórsson (1995:289-332, 1996) does not specify which position (AgrS0, T0 etc.) and this point is not really important for the argumentation. I will simply refer to it as ‘I20’. Eythórsson also does not explicitly discuss whether the verb may also move up to the projection whose specifier is the canonical subject position (henceforth: SpecI1). He sums up his assumptions as follows: “The fact that in topicalizations the verb frequently occurs between the topic and the nominal subject suggests that there is an IP-internal functional head position to which the subject [sic; he means: verb; K.A.] may move, irrespective of the presence of the topic, in these cases the subject remains in a position structurally lower than the canonical subject position” (Eythórsson 1995:323). 69 Eythórsson (1995) is forced to argue that subject movement to SpecI is optional since there are also examples attested with inverted full subjects (XP–Vfin–SU). It is not clear under which conditions a non-pronominal subject can remain in its VP-internal base position. Haeberli is more explicit in this case: The full subject only appears in SpecT (i.e. postfinitely) when the numeration contains an empty expletive which then occupies SpecAgr.


289

operator contexts. However, the fact that in topic-initial sentences not only the verb-second, but also the later-than-second pattern is attested (notably with pronouns and certain adverbs: XP–pron/adv–Vfin) he regards as evidence that the introduction of V-to-C movement also in topicalizations may have been a relatively recent phenomenon in Old High German, at least in the dialect of Old High German into which Isidor and similar texts were translated. Therefore he comes to the conclusion (ibid.:332) that “Continental West German was a residual verb-second language like Old English and Gothic, in the sense that verb movement to C only took place in environments such as wh-questions and with fronted negations, and did not take place in topicalizations.” Again it should be noted that while Eythórsson’s account offers an interesting perspective for the analysis of Old English, our Old High German data do not show such a sharp contrast between topic- and operator-inital contexts as is the case in Old English. Eythórsson (1995:331) states that “there is no comparable evidence that V-to-C did not take place in wh-questions and with fronted negations.” Yet we have found sentences with verb-third effects triggered by pronouns also in such operator contexts. Even though there are only a handful of examples, it should also be noted that the XP–pron–Vfin-pattern with initial ‘topics’ is not very frequent to begin with. So if we base the argumentation on the scarce evidence we still find in the earlier OHG texts, we must also take seriously the occurrence of verb-third effects in wh-interrogatives and in negated clauses. Eythórsson (1995:324-332) does not explicitly mention in which position he takes the verb to be in the OHG XP–pron–Vfin-sentences. His argumentation seems to suggest that he takes them to be verb-end sentences, i.e. sentences where the verb has not moved at all, as has also been proposed by Lenerz (1984). Note, however, that we raised several objections to this hypothesis (section 5.4). Also, if one assumes (as Eythórsson does) that there are still residues of a sentence structure without verb movement in topic-initial environments, then one would expect there to occur not only XP–pron/SU–Vfin-orders, but also verb-fourth, verb-fifth etc. orders, which is not borne out for Old High German (cf. Chapter 2). Eythórsson could of course argue that in Old High German there was an optional landing site for the finite verb in the I-domain in topic-initial sentences, as he has proposed for Old English. However, in the case of OHG such a claim would be problematic since we would then also expect verb movement to take place in subordinate clauses introduced by complementizers. As Eythórsson (1995:312-313) argues, in Old English the particles of particle verbs are sometimes preceded by the verb, which is a strong indication of verb movement.70 Note, however, that in the OHG texts, comparable evidence cannot be found (see Chapter 2, section 2.6.2). 70 As for Old English, Eythórsson’s hypothesis of a relatively deep landing site for verb

movement in subordinate clauses has been independently confirmed by a more recent investigation by Fuß & Trips (2002).

290


To sum up, the CP-IP models with asymmetric verb movement would partly make wrong predictions about the distribution of personal pronouns in OHG.71 A further problem is that in OHG the assumption of a sentence-medial I- or Agr-projection as a target for verb movement has not been confirmed in independent contexts (i.e. in subordinate clauses), as was argued in Chapter 2. 5.6 Summary In this chapter we have seen that in OHG, personal pronouns have a partly different syntactic distribution than their modern counterparts. In particular, they are attested in a position between the preposed XP and the finite verb in main declarative clauses. This suggests that the C-domain in earlier OHG was somewhat more complex than is commonly assumed for the modern Germanic verb-second languages. Thus, we can conclude that the earlier OHG grammar was only a precursor of the modern verb-second grammar. I have argued that pronouns which intervened between a sentence-initial XP and the fronted finite verb were placed in FinP (either in its specifier or adjoined to FinP). This also means that the topicalized constituent and the preposed finite verb were probably not adjacent, but occupied the specifier and head of different functional projections within the C-domain. The analysis which I have advocated is based on two assumptions, namely on the assumption that the OHG personal pronouns were XP-elements and on the assumption that verb movement always targeted the C-domain in OHG. I have defended these assumptions both by an analysis of the morphosyntactic distribution of the OHG pronouns and by a critical consideration of alternative accounts of early West Germanic sentence structure. Regarding the X-bar status of personal pronouns, I first argued that there was no great similarity between the OHG pronoun system and that of the present-day German dialects which have real clitic pronouns (i.e. X0-elements). However, there is some evidence for phonologically reduced forms in OHG texts. This is why I concluded that the OHG pronouns could cliticize phonologically in certain syntactic environments (i.e. when they occurred at the left edge of the middle field to the right of the finite verb or the complementizer). After I furthermore showed that the OHG personal pronouns are attested in syntactic environments reserved for strong pronouns, I studied their X-bar status in three different environments at the left periphery: First, I argued that clause-initial pronouns in front of the finite verb in main clauses were XPs. In a further step I showed that pronouns at the left edge of the middle field behaved differently from their counterparts in the modern German clitic dialects. I argued that, at least indirectly, this also speaks against the X0-analysis. Finally, I 71 A further counterargument is that in OHG sentences with two pronominal arguments, one

pronoun may occur in pre- and one in postfinite position (cf. section 5.2.1). Such examples, even though they are rare, shed doubt on the hypothesis of a fixed position for pronouns.


291

discussed some difficulties that arise if one analyses the pronoun in the XP– pron–Vfin-construction as an X0-element base-generated in a functional projection in the I-domain also targeted by verb movement, as has been proposed by Tomaselli (1995) and Cardinaletti & Roberts (1991). In both these accounts it is a major problem how to prevent the clitic pronoun from getting into the prefinite position in those environments where it always occurs postfinitely, for instance in verb-first contexts such as yes/no-interrogatives and imperatives. Regarding the position of the finite verb in West Germanic XP–pron–Vfinconstructions, I have discussed several studies in which it has been proposed that the verb appeared in a functional head below C. The extreme claim by Lenerz (1984) and Kiparsky (1995) that there was no verb movement at all in such cases cannot be maintained for OHG since I argued that the relevant configuration (= XP–pron–Vfin) is also attested in sentences with pro-subjects (= XP–pronobj–Vfin–pro) whose licensing was parasitic on verb movement (cf. Chapter 6). A further counterargument is provided by the observation that there are cases attested which exhibit postfinite material of such a kind that it cannot have been extraposed. In the approaches by Kiparsky (1996), Kroch & Taylor (1997), Haeberli (1999a, 2000, 2001, 2002a) Eythórsson (1995, 1996) on Old English, verb movement in main clauses was asymmetric: In ‘topic contexts’ (as opposed to ‘operator contexts’) the finite verb moved to a functional head only in the Idomain. For OHG, this assumption is not very plausible from the outset since there is also no compelling evidence for verb movement in subordinate clauses. Moreover, the distribution of pronouns was not characterized by a systematic asymmetry between ‘operator-‘ and ‘topic-initial’ sentences. Even though there are only a few instances of later-than-second order in wh-interrogatives and negated clauses attested in Old High German, it should also be noted that the XP–pron–Vfin-pattern also with non-operator XPs is not very frequent to begin with. If we base the argumentation on this scarce evidence, we must also take seriously the occurrence of verb-third effects in wh-interrogatives and in negated clauses. For all these reasons, I have proposed that the pronoun in the XP–pron–Vfinconstruction occurred in the specifier of FinP or was adjoined to FinP. An advantage of the suggested analysis is that the variation between X– pron–Vfin- and XP–Vfin–pron-placement in the earlier OHG texts is now due to the fact that there were two positions for pronouns available. Thus, the XP– pron–Vfin-cases were not residues of an earlier grammar with X0-clitics and/or asymmetric verb movement, but were generated by the same grammar as in the XP–Vfin–pron-cases. Which position (adjunction to VP or placement in FinP) was preferred seemed to depend on additional factors such as whether there were any further (overt) constituents in the middle field or whether there was any phonological material to the left of the pronoun to which it could encliticize. Given this analysis, the diachronic loss of XP–pron–Vfin-placement must

292


have been a reflex of a reduction of the C-domain, as a result of which there was only one C-projection anymore and pronouns could no longer be placed in FinP. It could be objected that the proposed analysis for the OHG C-domain is in effect merely a more leftward oriented version of those approaches which distinguish between a C-projection and a (sometimes complex) I-domain inasmuch as in my account the complexity (i.e. the distinction of more than one functional projection) is simply relegated to the C-domain. This is not the case, however. The essential difference is that in the analysis proposed here, there is exactly one derived position for the finite verb. From a synchronic point of view, this has the following advantage: If a further landing site below C0 had existed, the question would have arisen as to why the verb did not also move there in subordinate clauses. Also from a diachronic point of view, it seems to be an attractive hypothesis that there existed only one derived position for the verb which has remained diachronically constant. If one assumes that the Cposition, i.e. the position where complementizers were base-generated, was the only landing site for verb movement, then the asymmetry between main and subordinate clauses regarding verb movement can be explained in the traditional way, i.e. by the hypothesis that complementizers and the finite verb ‘competed’ for the same position. This also accounts for the fact that the asymmetry in verb placement between main and subordinate clauses has been one of the most robust syntactic properties in the history of German, which, as I showed in Chapter 2, can be argued to have been present already in the eighth and ninth century prose translations.

CHAPTER 6

NULL SUBJECTS AND VERB PLACEMENT

6.1 Introduction1 This chapter deals with null-subject constructions in OHG. In the earlier OHG documents, we find many sentences which do not contain an overt subject pronoun, as can be seen in the following examples from the Monsee Fragments, Isidor and Tatian: (1)

a. Sume hahet in cruci some-ACC hang-2.PL to cross “some of them you will crucify” et ex illis ... crucifigetis

(MF XVIII,17; Mt 23:34)

b. In dhemu druhtines nemin archennemes ... fater in the Lord’s name recognize-1.PL father “in the name of the Lord we recognize ... the Father” (R) In persona enim domini patrem accipimus c. /steig tho in skifilin .../ stepped-3.SG PARTCL into boat “he then stepped into the boat” /Et ascendens in nauicula .../

(I 279)

(T 193,1)

The topic of null subjects has hardly received any attention in the previous literature on OHG syntax. Null subjects have often been simply dismissed as a phenomenon of loan syntax even though it is evident that properties of the OHG target grammar play an important role in the licensing of null subjects. Moreover, it is easy to prove that morphological factors have an impact on the use of null subjects in OHG. This special morphosyntactic distribution suggests that the null-subject property belongs to the ‘native’ grammar of OHG. The null-subject property is of great relevance for the analysis of verb placement and thus also for the syntax of the left sentence periphery. In order to be able to determine whether sentences as in (1) have verb-second order or not, one needs a theory which accounts for the question as to which position the putative pro-subject was licensed in. This is illustrated in (2) for the examples in (1)-b and (1)-c. If we assumed that the empty pro-subject occurred in prefinite position, the sentence in (1)-b would have verb-third order and the sentence in (1)-c verb-second order. If it occurred postfinitely, by contrast, sen-

1 A short version of this chapter was published as Axel (2005b).

294


tence (1)-c would have verb-first and sentence (1)-b verb-second order.2 (2)

a. In dhemu druhtines nemin (pro) archennemes (pro) ... fater b. (pro) steig tho (pro) in skifilin...

cf. (1)-b cf. (1)-c

In the previous literature on verb placement in OHG, this question has been entirely ignored. How important it is becomes all the more evident if one takes into account how frequent subjectless sentences are in the older documents. In Tatian, for example, ca. 969 out of a total of 2394 main clauses do not have overt referential subject pronouns; that is ca. 40 per cent. Likewise, in Isidor, this is the case in ca. 44 per cent of main clauses, and in the Monsee Fragments in almost two-thirds of main clauses (63 per cent).3 The relation between verb placement and null subjects in OHG may also have implications for syntactic theorizing in general. The situation in the modern Germanic verb-second languages has prompted various syntacticians concerned with the pro-drop parameter (e.g. Jaeggli & Safir 1989; Rohrbacher 1999) to claim that there is a universal incompatibility between the verbsecond phenomenon and the null-subject property. Viewed from this perspective, OHG is an interesting case in point: It has inherited the archaic nullsubject property and nevertheless it has already acquired two essential components of verb-second, i.e. obligatory verb movement and generalized XPpreposing. This chapter focuses on the interaction between verb placement and nullsubject use in earlier OHG. In section 6.2, I will first demonstrate what different types of null subjects occur in OHG texts. In section 6.3, I will then compare the null-subject properties of earlier OHG to those of the canonical nullsubject languages. In section 6.4, I will shortly discuss whether the null-subject phenomenon in OHG can be reduced to more pragmatically motivated types of subject omission or to loan-syntactic influences. The following sections (sections 6.5 and 6.6) focus on the syntactic and morphological distribution of null subjects. On the basis of these results, I will then reconsider the loan-syntax hypothesis in more detail in section 6.7. Finally, in section 6.8 I will discuss the question of how we can account for the loss of null subjects in the history of German. 6.2 Overview of Old High German null-subject constructions The major OHG prose texts from the eighth and ninth centuries witness a wide range of null-subject constructions. First, we can find non-referential null sub2 Both the verb-second and the verb-third analysis could theoretically be motivated since we

know from independent contexts (i.e. from the corresponding sentences with overt subject pronouns) that both the order ‘XP–Vfin–pronsubj...’ and the order ‘XP–pronsubj–Vfin...’ are attested (cf. Chapter 5). 3 These figures have been calculated on the basis of Eggenberger (1961). See fn. 15 for details.


295

jects, such as null quasi-arguments in the context of time and weather expressions as well as null pronouns with arbitrary reference. As to the history of quasi-arguments, Hopper (1975:80) claims that in Proto-Germanic (as in ProtoIndo-European), an overt subject pronoun was not used. The development of an overt pseudo-subject belongs to the history of the individual Germanic and Romance dialects. As to the situation in OHG, Bishop (1977:98) concludes from his study of a large number of OHG texts that the use of iʒ “it” is not yet obligatory with meteorological and time expressions.4 The examples in (3) illustrate this result.5 (3)

a. daz danne · nah · ist sumere6 that then close is to-summer “that it is then close to summer” {quia prope est aestas.} b. {D}uo mor gan uuarth ... when morning became “when it had become morning” {Mane autem facto ...}

(MF XIX,14; Mt 24:32)

(MF XXIII,21; Mt 27:1)

As far as null subjects with arbitrary reference are concerned, Hopper (1975:81) considers this type of null subject to have been restricted to the North Germanic dialects in historical times.7 As the OHG examples in (4) show, this is not fully correct:8 The examples contain a verb form in the third person plural and an overt subject is not present. The context suggests an indefinite interpretation for the unexpressed subject. The corresponding Latin sentences contain an impersonal passive or an arbitrary plural construction just the same.9 Accordingly, Luther has rendered the Bible passages in the exam4 See Dal (1966:167), however, for a different view. Note that in OHG, there is a difference

between verbal impersonal predicates (weather verbs etc.) and non-verbal impersonal predicates: With verbal predicates, the null pronoun is much more frequent than in copular constructions with nominal predicates as in (3) or with adjectival or prepositional predicates (Haiman 1974:103). 5 See also Behaghel (1928:444), Lenerz (1985a) and Abraham (1993:123) on empty subjects in meteorological constructions and the like. 6 Note that the phrase sumere is in the dative, which shows that it is the object of the preposition nah and not the subject of the sentence. See also Bishop (1977: 33, 92) for the valences and theta roles of time expressions in OHG . 7 Hopper (1975:81) also claims that constructions with ‘unspecified’ subjects did not have overt subject pronouns in Proto-Germanic. 8 See also Eggenberger (1961:102-104) and Held (1903:27-31) on ‘impersonal’ (= arbitrary) null subjects in OHG. 9 Detailed remarks on the semantics and syntax of arbitrary constructions can be found in Suñer (1983) and Jaeggli (1986), among others. See also Cinque (1988) on different types of arbitrary readings (quasi-existential vs. generic/quasi-universal etc.).

296


ples (4)-a, (4)-b, (4)-c and (4)-e by means of the indefinite pronoun man or by an impersonal passive in his translation of the Bible, which is given in the last line in the examples (cf. also Eggenberger 1961:103). (4)

a. /noh intprennent lioht/ Inti sezzent íz untar mutti/ (T 137,21) nor light-3.PL lamp and put-3.PL it under bushel “nor do people light a lamp and put it under a bushel” /neque accendunt lucernam/ & ponunt eam sub modio/ “Man zuͤndet auch nicht ein Liecht an, vnd setzt es vnter einen Scheffel” (Mt 5:15, Luther-Bibel 1546) b. /guot méz .../ .../ gebent In íuueran buosum/ (T 157,24) good measure give-3.PL in your bosom “good measure … will be put into your bosom” /mensuram bonam confertam .../ .../ dabunt in sinum uestrum.,/ “Ein vol ... Mas, wird man in ewern schos geben” (Lk 6:38, Luther-Bibel 1546) c. /tho brahtun imo luzile/ (T 337,27) then brought-3.PL him little /Tunc oblati sunt ei paruuli/ “Da wurden Kindlin zu jm gebracht” (Mt 19:13, Luther-Bibel 1546) d. Dhazs suohhant auuur nu ithniuuues, huueo ... again now anew how that ask-3.PL “they ask that again anew how ...” (R) Illud denuo queritur, quomodo ...

(I 100)

e. /In therra naht thina sela/ suochent fon thír./ (T 355,17) in this night your soul ask-3.PL from you “this night your soul is required of you” /hac nocte animam tuam/ rep&unt a té./ “diese nacht wird man deine Seele von dir foddern” (Lk 12:20; Luther-Bibel 1546) f. So sama auh nu dhesses chiboranin sunes suohhant as same also now of-the born sun ask “just as they now seek a cause for the born son” (R) Siquidem et gignendi filii queritur ratio

redha cause (I 122)

At this point, the impersonal use of verba dicendi (i.e. quedan “say, speak”, sagēn “say, speak” in the third person singular should also be mentioned (cf. Held 1903:28; Eggenberger 1961:145ff.). In Isidor, for example, the (preterite) verb form quhad is repeatedly used to render the Latin (present) passive verb form (dicitur) (cf. also Harbert 1999:266, fn. 6):

297


(5)

Umbi dhazs selba quhad auh in iobes boohhum about that same said-3.SG also in Job’s book “also in the book of Job it was said about the same thing” Hinc et illud in libro iob

(I 110)

Note, however, that this ‘impersonal’ use of quhad also occurs in chapter headings which do not translate a Latin sentence in Isidor (I 130, 250, 375, 524, 604). The so-called ‘impersonal use’ of verba dicendi in the third person singular is even attested in Notker’s texts (cf. Held ibid.).10 In Tatian, it also occurs with other verbs: (6)

/gebet&.‘ thanne gibit íu/ (T 157,23) give then give-3.SG you-DAT.PL “give, and it will be given to you” /date.‘ et dabitur uobis.,/

It has been proposed that present-day German should be classified as a semipro-drop language since it has an impersonal passive construction without an overt expletive, cf. (7). As, for example, Sternefeld (1985; 2006:170), Safir (1985b) and Grewendorf (1989) argue, there is an expletive pro present in this construction.11 (7)

weil getanzt wurde because danced became “because it was danced”

Impersonal passives are also attested in OHG times, but almost exclusively with two-place verbs taking oblique arguments: (8)

... daz imo am {bahtit uurti} ... that him-DAT served became “that he be served” {ministrari ...}

(MF XIV,4; Mt 20:28)

That there are more types of non-referential null subjects in OHG than in present-day German is not really exceptional. Note that Modern Icelandic, which has also been classified as a semi-pro-drop language, has a similar inventory of non-referential null subjects as OHG: It has both phonetically empty quasi-

10 The meaning could be rendered by means of an impersonal passive. Harbert (1999:fn. 6)

proposes that such examples involve a null subject with arbitrary reference, whose meaning is similar to that of arbitrary they in English. 11 However, the hypothesis of an empty expletive in impersonal passives has met with strong criticism (cf. Haider 1993:140ff., 1994 and Cabredo-Hofherr 1999).

298


arguments in, for example, meteorological constructions and arbitrary null subjects (cf. Sigurðsson 1989:161ff.). While there has been a large consensus in the literature that the use of nonreferential null subjects is grammatical in OHG,12 the occurrences of referential null subjects as in (9) (cf. also (1) above) have not been regarded as real reflexes of the native grammar of OHG. (9)

a. ... enti diz · quidu ... and this-ACC say-1.SG “and this, I am saying ...” ... et hoc dico ...

(MF XL,23; St. Augustini sermo)

b. /uuanne gisahumes thih/ when saw-1.PL you-ACC “when did we see you?” /quando te uidimus/

(T 545,11)

Grimm ([1898] 1967b:235) and Paul ([1919] 1968:22) claim that referential null subjects had largely died out before the earliest attested stages of OHG, even though both authors suspect them to have been present in Proto-Germanic and in Proto-Indo-European.13 Hopper (1975:31), following Meillet (1908/ 1909:89), claims that the use of overt subject pronouns is the rule already in early Germanic. This widespread reluctance to consider the use of referential null subjects as a reflex of the native OHG grammar may also be partly due to the fact that the null-subject properties of OHG differ from those of canonical null-subject languages in many important respects (cf. section 6.3). Referential null subjects are almost exclusively attested in eighth and ninth century texts. They not only occur in the texts of our corpus (i.e. in the Monsee Fragments, Isidor and in Tatian), but also in many shorter prose texts and in the poetry. In late OHG, i.e. in Notker’s work and in Williram, they are no longer attested apart from some very rare exceptions. Likewise, in the MHG sources, referential subject drop occurs only very sporadically. In some recent Southern German dialects, it is possible to drop subject pronouns in the second person singular. In subordinate clauses pro-drop is only possible with an inflected complementizer (cf. Bayer 1984; Weiß 1998, 2005a etc.):

12 This is at least true for quasi-arguments. The history of arbitrary pronouns has hardly been

addressed in the literature. 13 Behaghel (1928:443) notes that first and second person subject pronouns have partly been

omitted in Isidor, Tatian, and in Otfrid. He considers these cases as exceptional and is not sure whether they should be regarded as relicts of an archaic stage or as a more recent development.


(10) wenn-st kumm-st when-2.SG come-2.SG “when you come” (from Bayer 1984:249)

299

modern Bavarian

The phenomenon of inflected complementizers is not attested in OHG texts. As will be argued below, OHG null subjects occurred in main clauses and not in subordinate clauses. At first sight, this would suggest that there is no diachronic continuity in the null-subject property even on a dialectal level. To sum up: In the earlier OHG sources different types of null-subject constructions are attested. The occurrence of null referential subjects clearly shows that earlier (= eighth and ninth century) OHG (or, more precisely, the dialects as they are documented in the earlier texts) cannot be classified as a semi-prodrop language like Modern German or Modern Icelandic. Moreover, as will become clearer later on, the morphosyntactic distribution of referential pro also differs from that in the modern dialects with restricted pro-drop. It is very doubtful whether the prevailing position can be upheld that the archaic nullsubject property that was still present in Proto-Germanic had already disappeared in pre-OHG. Before we address this issue in more detail, it may be useful to compare the null-subject properties of OHG to those of the canonical null-subject languages. This will be done in the next section. 6.3 Non-canonical properties of OHG null subjects If one applies the null-subject diagnostics that have been established on the basis of the canonical (full) null-subject languages to OHG, it becomes evident that the situation in the older OHG texts does not pattern with these languages. Unlike in canonical null-subject languages, where the non-expression of the subject pronoun is the norm, in the early OHG texts, null subjects and overt subject pronouns appear to systematically cooccur and both variants are frequently attested. In the Monsee Fragments, ca. 45 per cent of the sentences with subject pronouns have null subjects while ca. 55 per cent have overt subjects, cf. Table 1. In Isidor and in Tatian, almost one third have null subjects, and a bit more than two thirds have overt subject pronouns. These figures are not surprising given that in earlier OHG, atonic overt subject pronouns and null subjects seem to exhibit parallel referential properties in those syntactic environments where null subjects are licensed (see 6.8).14 This contrasts sharply with the situation in Notker’s Consolatio in late OHG, where virtually all sentences contain overt subjects.

14 Note that the ‘Avoid Pronoun Principle’ (Chomsky 1981:65) predicts that the overt realiza-

tion of a subject pronoun should be ruled out in cases where the more economical null-subject variant is licensed.

300


Isidor pronoun subjects overt null

Monsee Fragments pronoun subjects overt null

Tatian pronoun subjects overt null

146

56

121

97

2614

1055

(72%)

(28%)

(55%)

(45%)

(71%)

(29%)

Table 1: Frequencies of overt vs. phonetically empty subject pronouns (main + subord. clauses)15

The cooccurrence of overt and empty subject pronouns in OHG is due to the fact that in contrast to the canonical null-subject languages, both types of pronouns have the same referential properties. The overt realization of the subject pronoun does not seem to have a special semantic-pragmatic effect. This can be illustrated by means of the example in (11). Here er “he” refers to Jesus, who has already been mentioned in the previous discourse and who is the protagonist of the Bible story, which means that he is repeatedly referred to in the narrative sequence. A putative ‘emphatic’ or ‘contrastive’ interpretation is clearly ruled out in this context. Note also that there is no overt pronoun in the Latin source, which would be expected in case of an intended emphatic interpretation. (11) ... alle dhea burgera fuorun · {i}ngegin · iħusei · enti ... batun · pleaded all the citizens went towards Jesus-DAT and {da}z eri aufuori · uz fona iro marchom : {En}ti genc eri · that he out-went out from their borders and went he insceffilin ·... (MF I,2; Mt 8:34-Mt 9:1) in-boat “all the citizens went out towards Jesus and pleaded with him that he might depart from their borders. And he went up into a boat ...” {et ecce tota ciuitas exiit obuiam iesu: et ... rogabant, ut transiret a finibus eorum ... Et ascendens in nauiculam ...}

An alternation between the overt and the null variant in OHG can also be observed with non-referential subject pronouns.16 In Tatian and in Isidor, for ex15 The numbers, which include only referential subject pronouns/null subjects and arbitrary

pronouns, have been calculated on the basis of Eggenberger (1961:128f. 124-126, 84-86). Eggenberger gives extra figures for quasi-argument iʒ and correlative iʒ (= overt or dropped ‘indefinite’ iʒ in Eggenberger’s terminology) and on subject pronoun use in imperatives and adhortatives. These figures have not been counted in the figures in Table 1 and in the following tables. Eggenberger, however, is not fully consistent in how he classifies the quasi-argument and correlative cases (see below, section 6.5). Note that Eggenberger (1961:131-132) is aware of the fact that elliptical subjects in coordinations are a different phenomenon. He has not included these cases.

301


ample, overt subject pronouns with arbitrary reference (e.g. sie “they”, man “one”, as in the a-examples in (12) to (14)) are attested alongside null pronouns with arbitrary reference, cf. the b-examples, sometimes even in close proximity. (12) a. /bit& Inti íu gibit mán/ beg and you-DAT.PL give one “ask and it will be given to you” /p&ite.‘ & dabitur uobis.,/

(T 159,31)

b. /gebet&.‘ thanne gibit íu/ = (6) give then give-3.SG you-DAT.PL “give, and it will be given to you” /date.‘ et dabitur uobis.,/ (13) a. /noh sie nilesent fon thornun uuínberu/ nor they NEG-pick from thorns grapes “nor do people pick grapes from thorns” /Numquid colligunt de spinis uuas?/ b. /tho brahtun imo luzile/ then brought-3.PL him little “then little children were brought to him” /Tunc oblati sunt ei paruuli/

(T 161,31)

= (4)-c

(14) a. Umbi dhiz nist auh so chiscriban (I 170) about this NEG-is also such written in dhero sibunzo tradungum: ›...‹ oh sie scribun: ›...‹ in the Septuagint but they write “about this is not written thus in the Septuagint ›...‹, but it is written …” Unde et in translatione LXX non habet ›...‹, sed habet: ›...‹ b. Umbi dhazs selba quhad auh in iobes boohhum about that same said-3.SG also in Job’s book “about that same it was said in Job’s book” Hinc et illud in libro iob

= (5)

As is argued by Jaeggli (1986:66), in the canonical null-subject languages, overt pronouns cannot have an arbitrary interpretation. The cooccurrence of referential pro-drop and overt non-referential subject pronouns is striking from a theoretical point of view since according to all the classic licensing-andidentification approaches in the Government and Binding framework (e.g. Rizzi 1986), any language which can license empty referential subjects will be capable of licensing empty non-referential subjects. If one looks at the situation 16 The examples in (12) are also cited in Eggenberger (1961:102f., 148f.) under the heading

unpersönlicher Ausdruck ‘impersonal expression’. According to Eggenberger (ibid.:149), (14)-a is an impersonal ‘statement’ because it is unclear to whom sie refers.

302


in Tatian, the question arises of whether indeed all of the abovementioned uses of overt arbitrary subject pronouns (i.e. man “one” and sie “they”) on the one hand and of arbitrary null subjects (in the singular and plural) on the other hand are really native constructions or whether they are not merely Latinized translational patterns. As to the singular uses, such an explanation seems to be inappropriate for examples as in (12)-b, where the translator has chosen to use an active verb form where the Latin has a passive construction. As to the overt variant man, cf. (12)-a, it should be noted that this lexeme is clearly already used as an indefinite pronoun in various OHG texts. What is more difficult to assess are the arbitrary uses of sie as in (13)-a and (14)-a and of ‘subjectless’ verb forms in the third person plural as in (13)-b. As Eggenberger (1961:104) has already observed, the latter phenomenon can also be found in Otfrid, which speaks for the nativeness of the construction (e.g. O I 20,20; III 20,105). In the following example, Otfrid uses both the construction with the indefinite pronoun man and a null-subject construction with a plural verb form (third person): (15) Zi núzze grébit man ouh thár \ ér inti kúphar, ... (O I 1,69) to benefit digs one also there iron and copper joh lésent thar in lánte \ góld in iro sante (O I 1,72) and pick-up there in land gold in their sand “for useful benefit one gathers iron and copper there … . Also they gain gold out of the sand in that land”

According to Jaeggli (1986:66), overt pronouns may never have an arbitrary interpretation in the canonical null-subject languages.17 In modern Spanish, for example, the third person plural subject pronoun (ellos) does not have an arbitrary reading. Such a reading is only possible when a null subject is used as part of the so-called ‘arbitrary plural construction’. The Spanish example in (16)-a is ambiguous: pro may either have an indefinite/unspecified reading or the specific referent reading. In sentence (16)-b, which has an overt subject pronoun, the arbitrary reading is excluded. By contrast, in modern English, which is not a null-subject language, the overt pronoun they may have an arbitrary interpretation in a sentence such as (17). (16) a. pro

llaman a la puerta are-calling at the door “Arb is knocking at the door” (from Jaeggli 1986:45)

modern Spanish

17 More precisely, Jaeggli’s (1986:66) condition for the arbitrary reading is as follows:

Condition on Arbitrary Pronominals Overt pronouns may not be arbitrary in reference iff the overt/empty alternation obtains.


b. Ellos llaman a la puerta they call-3.PL at the door “they are calling at the door” (from Jaeggli 1986:46)

303

modern Spanish

(17) They always come to collect the garbage too late. (from Jaeggli 1986:60)

A similar argument can be made for the OHG quasi-arguments: Even in the earlier texts, they are also realized overtly, notably with verbal impersonal predicates as the use of iz “it” in the example in (18) illustrates. Canonical nullsubject languages, by contrast, do not exhibit the use of lexicalized quasiarguments. (18) /uuanta iz abandet./ (T 675,3) because it evening-becomes “because it is becoming evening” /quoniam aduesperascit/

A further striking characteristic of earlier OHG is that the use of an overt subject pronoun appears to be obligatory in certain syntactic configurations: As will be argued below in section 6.5, null subjects seem to be banned from subordinate clauses. To sum up, OHG exhibits an unusual combination of properties: The early prose texts show referential null subjects alongside overt non-referential pronoun subjects. This is striking since in all the classic Government and Binding licensing-and-identification approaches (e.g. Rizzi 1986; Jaeggli & Safir 1989), any language which can license empty referential subjects will be capable of licensing empty non-referential subjects. Moreover, the use of null subjects appears to be optional, at least in certain morphosyntactic configurations. Both these observations are unexpected given that the so-called ‘Avoid Pronoun Principle’ (Chomsky 1981:65) obtains, which rules out the possibility of overtly realizing a subject pronoun in cases where the more economical nullsubject variant is licensed. To conclude, the null-subject characteristics of the earlier OHG prose texts differ considerably from those of the canonical null-subject languages. At first glance, this would suggest that the omission of subject pronouns in earlier OHG is not due to genuine pro-drop, but should receive an alternative explanation. Two approaches that might be envisaged will be discussed in the next section.

304


6.4 Alternatives to the pro-drop analysis? 6.4.1 Topic drop? It could be hypothesized that the null-subject property of earlier OHG is due to a more pragmatically conditioned type of subject omission such as so-called topic drop. This phenomenon is illustrated in (19) by means of a present-day German example: (19) A: Was ist mit dem Putzen? what is with the cleaning B: [Das] habe ich schon erledigt. that have I already done “A: What about the cleaning? B: I have done it already.”

It could be speculated that the translators made excessive use of this primarily pragmatically motivated type of argument omission since this construction allows for a very close rendering of the Latin pro-drop construction. We do indeed find examples in the OHG documents which seem to be very similar to the present-day German cases of topic drop (see also Chapter 3, section 3.7.1). Example (20), for instance, from Otfrid’s Gospel Harmony, is a question-answer sequence in direct speech. In the answer, the subject, which has been mentioned in the preceding question, has been omitted. (20) „ ... Gilóubist thu ... \ thiu minu wórt ellu?“ (O III 24,33) believe you the mine words all “do you believe all my words?” „fésti \ in mines hérzen brusti ...“ „sint, drúhtin“, quad si, are Lord said she fast in my heart’s breast “they are all secure in my heart’s breast”

Note, however, that topic drop is cross-linguistically restricted to the highest specifier in a root sentence (Rizzi 1994). So a topic-drop analysis cannot account for OHG cases where a non-subject XP has been topicalized: In (21)-a, for example, the object sume has been moved to the prefinite position and in (21)-b, a wh-phrase occurs in this position. A topic-drop analysis is furthermore not feasible for omitted subjects in yes/no-interrogatives as in (21)-c. (21) a. Sume hahet in cruci some hang-2.PL to cross “some of them you will crucify” et ex illis ... crucifigetis, b. /... zi hiu giengut/ úz/ to what went-2.PL out “why did you go out to see?” /... quid existis/ uidere .../

= (1)-a

sehan .../ see

(T 215,27)


305

c. /... eno

ía uorlazit/ niun inti niunzog in bergon/ (T 321,14) leaves-3.SG nine and ninety in mountains “does he leave the ninety-nine on the mountains?” /... nonne relinquit/ nonaginta nouem in montibus/ ENO

IA

What would also be unexpected under the hypothesis of an excessive use of topic drop would be that the cases of argument omission are almost exclusively attested with subject pronouns. As can be seen in the present-day German example in (19), topic drop may also affect objects. Moreover, it can be observed that the omission of the subject pronoun is also partly conditioned by morphological factors in OHG. For example, in the first person plural, the subject is only left unexpressed in the context of the long ending -mēs and never in the context of the short ending -m, -n (see section 6.6). Such morphological factors should not play a role if we are indeed dealing with a topic-drop construction. We may thus conclude that the hypothesis of an excessive use of topic drop must be refuted. 6.4.2 Loan syntax? In the traditional literature, the standard approach towards the omission of referential subject pronouns in earlier OHG is to trace it back to a special type of ‘loan syntax’ (see Eggenberger 1961; Hopper 1975:80f.). The central idea is that the subject omissions have been ‘imposed’ on the OHG texts through the process of producing narrow – or even ‘slavish’ – translations from the Latin originals and should not be considered a native part of the OHG grammar. The differences in the frequency of subject omission between OHG texts are thus not considered as a reflex of the diachronic development of a native feature but are claimed to be dependent on text type. Accordingly, Eggenberger (1961: XIV, 167f.) argues that it is not the oldest OHG texts which contain the highest numbers of subject omissions, but rather the most Latinized ones. In a similar vein, proponents of the loan-syntax approach have pointed to the fact that the OHG subject omissions are much more frequent in the prose works than in poetical texts since the former are more ‘Latinized’ than the latter (Hopper 1975:81). Most longer OHG prose works that have been handed down are translations of and commentaries on Latin theological or philosophical texts, whereas poetical texts are either (free) vernacular versions of Latin poems (e.g. the Georgslied, Christus und die Samariterin, and the Galluslied), Biblical paraphrases (e.g. Otfrid’s Gospel Harmony), or consist of autochthonous material (e.g. the Hildebrandslied). An alternative hypothesis would be that the high frequency of overt subject pronoun use in poetical texts is due to independent factors such as the metrical requirement to insert unstressed material.18 18 Note, however, that Eggenberger (1961:XIV) has himself conceded that his statistics do not

support the hypothesis that there is a clear-cut dividing line between prose and poetry.

306


While the loan-syntax approach may well be able to explain why there is more subject omission in Latinized texts than in the ‘original’ works, it cannot convincingly account for why there should be any instances of unexpressed subjects at all both in the autochthonous literature and in texts which are not distinctly loyal to their Latin sources. In the Hildebrandslied, a poetical, autochthonous text, there are five instances of subject omission as opposed to 29 cases with overt pronoun subjects; this is almost 15 per cent. Likewise, in Otfrid’s Gospel Harmony there is a substantial number of null subjects, yet this text can definitely not be considered a slavish copy of its Biblical sources. More precisely, Eggenberger (1961:34f.) has counted 597 sentences with subject omission (see (22) for an illustrative example) versus 4753 cases with overt pronoun subjects. (22) „Ni

thárft es ... lóugnen need it-GEN deny “you do not need to deny it”

(O IV 18, 27)

NEG

Supporters of the loan-syntax hypothesis would have to argue that such cases are due to a more general impact of a writing tradition that had been primarily shaped by the practice of producing slavish translations. Thus, Eggenberger (1961:42) argues that in Otfrid, there is an influence of the interlinear practice, which sometimes results in the use of ‘analogically subjectless verb forms’ which should not be regarded as authentic. This argumentation hardly seems to be plausible, however, if one takes into account what a serious effect the omission of subject pronouns would have in a non-pro-drop language: The texts would probably be very difficult for the reader/hearer to understand. Particularly in the case of Otfrid, who made a great effort to develop a vernacular written mode of expression in order to establish the written vernacular alongside the holy languages, it is very unlikely that he would have systematically resorted to a distinct loan-syntactic pattern in such an important area of grammar. Note also that Otfrid has included some explicit discussions of other translational difficulties such as the problem of double negation in the letter addressed to Archbishop Liutbert (cf. O Ad Liutbertum, l. 93-96). This makes it all the more implausible that Otfrid would have borrowed the practice of prodrop from Latin without mention. Coming back to the translational works, it must be noted that even there, the loan-syntax hypothesis falls short of explaining the empirical facts. It is true that almost all subject omissions correspond to pro-drop in the Latin, but this is not really surprising if one takes into account that in Latin the non-realization of the subject pronoun is the rule. So the chances of detecting a pattern of subject omission in the OHG translations which is independent of the Latin are very low from the start. This is all the more true since the translators had received an excellent education in Latin and must have known that the overt re-

307


alization of the subject pronoun has a special semantic-pragmatic effect in this language. While it is true that almost all cases of omitted subject pronouns in OHG correspond to pro-drop in the Latin, there are also many cases where subject pronouns have been inserted contrary to the Latin. What is even more striking is that the practice of subject pronoun insertion follows a detectable pattern. As will be argued below, the distribution of null subjects in OHG does not simply mimic the Latin situation. In fact, it appears to be governed by independent morphosyntactic factors. In other words, the narrow version of the loan-syntax hypothesis cannot be upheld. Coming back to the question I posed above: Is early OHG a pro-drop language or not?, I conclude that the only alternative explanations that might be envisaged for the null-subject phenomenon, i.e. topic drop or loan syntax, are untenable. This is why it is legitimate to claim that the omissions of subject pronouns in the early OHG corpus reflect genuine syntactic pro-drop. 6.5 Syntactic distribution of Old High German null subjects The syntactic distribution of null subjects in the earlier OHG prose texts is characterized by an asymmetry between main and subordinate clauses. Referential null subjects are almost exclusively attested in root sentences, more precisely in sentences with verb movement. The examples in (23) to (25) illustrate this for independent declarative sentences with verb-second order (XP–Vfin...), for wh-interrogatives and for yes/no-interrogatives. (23) a. Druhtin ist auh (I 426) Lord is also “he is also the Lord” (R) Dominus, b. /... tház bibot/ Intfieng fon minemo fater/ that command received from my Father “this command I received from my Father” /... hoc mandatum/ accepi a patre meo./ c. /thaz tuon .../ that do “this is what I will do” /. ... hoc faciam .../

(T 463,13)

(T 355,7)

d. /nu uuizumes thaz thu allu uueist/ know now know-1.PL that you all “now we know that you know all things” /nunc scimus quia scis omnia/

(T 589,25)

e. In sines mundes gheiste instandemes chiuuisso heilegan gheist in his mouth’s spirit understand-1.PL certainly Holy Spirit “in the spirit of his mouth we certainly understand the Holy Spirit” (I 282) in spiritu oris eius spiritum sanctum intellegimus

308


f. uuordan uuardh chihoric untazs zi dode become became obedient until to death “he became obedient until death” effectus est oboediens usque ad mortem (24) /... uuanne gisahumes thih/ you-ACC when saw-1.PL “when did we see you?” /... quando te uidimus/

(I 230)

= (9)-b

(25) a. /quidis zi uns thesa parabola/ to us this parable say-2.SG “are you telling this parable to us?” /ad nos dicis hanc parabolam/

(T 529,2)

b. /... eno

ía uorlazit/ niun inti niunzog in bergon/ = (21)-c leaves-3.SG nine and ninety in mountains “does he leave the ninety-nine on the mountains?” /... nonne relinquit/ nonaginta nouem in montibus/ ENO

IA

As can be seen in these examples, the OHG null subject generally corresponds to an empty subject pronoun in the Latin source. Proponents of the loan-syntax hypothesis have argued that there are virtually no cases in the OHG translations where an OHG null subject does not correspond to a Latin empty subject in the first place (cf. Meillet 1908/1909:89; Hopper 1975:81). As we have argued above, however, this contention is not really strong. Since Latin is a full prodrop language, the overt realization of the subject pronoun is an exception and usually leads to an emphatic or contrastive interpretation. This is also why the translators tended to render a Latin overt subject pronoun by a demonstrative pronoun or by expressions such as ther selbo (lit. “the same”) and the like. This is why it is more interesting to ask whether there are any cases where Latin null subjects are systematically translated by overt subject pronouns. The answer is ‘yes’. This is exactly what we find in verb-end clauses. In this syntactic context, overt subject pronouns have been regularly inserted contrary to the Latin. In the complex sentences in (26), for example, subject pronouns have been inserted into the middle field of the verb-end subordinate clauses (in square brackets), whereas they have been left out in the respective main clauses. In each case, neither the subordinate clause nor the main clause in the Latin source contain an overt subject pronoun. (26) a. /wanta [thaz uuir uuizzumes]/ thaz sprehhemes/ because what we know-1.PL that speak-1.PL “we speak of what we know” /quia quod scimus/ loquimur./

(T 407,7)

309


b. [Dhar ir auh quhad ›...‹,] dhar meinida leohtsamo where he also said there meant easily archennenne dhen heilegan geist (I 274) recognize the Holy Spirit “where he also said ›...‹, he clearly meant the Holy Spirit” Item dicendo ›...‹ sanctum spiritum euidenter aperuit

zi to

c. Enti [so aer · danan fuor ] · quuam in iro · dhinchūs ... and when he thence went came to their synagogue “when he had departed from there, he went into their synagogue ...” {Et cum inde transisset, uenit in synagogam eorum ...} (MF IV,19; Mt 12:9) d. /... zuuene man stúontun/ nah In. In scínentemo giuúate./ two men stood-3.PL to them in shining garment [mittiu sio tho forohtun/ Inti helditun iro annuzi as they then feared-3.PL and bowed-3.PL their faces In erda]/ quadun ziín./ ... (T 659,23) to-them to earth said-3.PL “two men stood by them in shining garments. As they (= the women) were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they (= the men) said unto them” /... duo uiri st&erunt/ secus illas In ueste fulgenti/ Cum timerent autem/ & declinarent uultum In terram/ dixerunt ad illas./ e. /niquam zi thiu [thaz ih giladoti/ rehte/ NEG-came-1.SG to that that I called righteous /ouh suntige zi riuuu.,]/ (T 197,24) but sinners to repentance “for I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” /Non enim ueni uocare iustos/ sed peccatores in poenitentiam;/

As can be seen in (26)-d, the (overt) subject pronoun of the embedded clause and the null subject of the main clause are not always coreferential. Nor is it the case that the main clause containing the null subject always follows the subordinate clause with the overt subject pronoun in complex sentences: In (26)-e, for example, it is the subordinate clause which is postposed. The main/subordinate asymmetry in the distribution of null subjects and overt subject pronouns also emerges if one looks at the data from a quantitative perspective. Table 2 gives the rates of subject omission in main and subordinate clauses in Isidor, the Monsee Fragments, and in Tatian. In Isidor and in Tatian, approximately 40 per cent of main clauses with pronominal subjects contain null subjects, and in the Monsee Fragments even almost two-thirds of cases do so. This contrasts sharply with the rate of subject omission in subordinate clauses, which is relatively low in all three texts.

310


Isidor

Monsee Fragments

Tatian

pronoun subject

pronoun subject

pronoun subject

overt

null

overt

null

overt

null

main

61 (56%)

48 (44%)

48 (36%)

84 (64%)

1434 (60%)

960 (40%)

subordinate

85 (91%)

8 (9%)

73 (85%)

13 (15%)

1180 (92%)

95 (8%)

clause type

Table 2: Overt/null-subject pronoun use in main vs. subordinate clauses19

It could be objected that this postfiniteness restriction is not absolute. In all three texts there is some amount of subject omission in subordinate clauses, around 8 to 15 per cent if one adds up the figures in Eggenberger (1961). Note, however, that Eggenberger’s figures for subordinate clauses also include dependent clauses with verb-second order and examples which are ambiguous between verb-second and verb-end order. Adverbial clauses introduced by the causal conjunction wanta “because, since” may either have verb-second order or verb-end order in OHG (see Gering 1876; Robinson 1997:112f.) just as their modern German counterparts with the causal conjunction weil. So the following example from Tatian, which is cited as an instance of subject drop in subordinate clauses in Eggenberger (1961:85), is ambiguous with respect to the position of the finite verb (verb-end or verb-second). If the verb has moved to second position in this case, the postfinite restriction is not violated (= uuanta sehente nigisehenti pro ti). (27) /uuanta sehente nigisehent/ because seeing NEG-see-3.PL “because seeing they do not see” /quia uidentes non uident/

(T 235,15)

There is furthermore the problem that Eggenberger is sometimes inconsistent in how he classifies quasi-arguments. He lists cases of (undropped or dropped) ‘indefinite iʒ’ separately, and the examples in this separate list are not included in the figures in Table 2. Nevertheless, he has sometimes failed to classify examples of a dropped quasi-argument iʒ in this separate list. For example, the example (3)-a from the Monsee Fragments with an empty quasi-argument (daz danne nah ist sumere “that it is then close to summer” does not figure among the cases of indefinite iʒ, but is in the list of the ‘normal’ subject pronouns (ibid.:126). Note, however, that it may well be the case that only referential subject pronouns were subject to the postfiniteness restriction. Whether this is correct has to be shown by future research. It would not be surprising, how19 The figures have been calculated on the basis of Eggenberger (1961); cf. fn. 15 for details.

311


ever, if the omission of non-referential null subjects were possible in syntactic environments where the omission of referential subject pronouns were disallowed. Rizzi (1986:543), for example, proposes different conditions for the identification of referential null pronouns, quasi-argumental null pronouns and expletive null pronouns. Notably in Tatian and in the Monsee Fragments, some really problematic cases (i.e. referential null subjects in the context of real and unambiguous verbend/late order) remain. Thus, it seems as if the Latin may have had a minor impact on the OHG translation in these texts. Nevertheless, null-subject usage in general is not an instance of systematic ‘loan syntax’ since there is a clear overall tendency for overt subject pronouns to be inserted in verb-end/late environments. The question to ask next is how this main/subordinate asymmetry can be accounted for. How can we derive in structural terms why null subjects are (largely) restricted to root clauses? As was argued in Chapter 2, in OHG, main and subordinate clauses are distinguished structurally by the position of the finite verb. Thus, the skewed distribution of OHG null subjects could be derived without further assumptions if null subjects were somehow dependent on verb fronting. Since null subjects are frequently attested in verb-first and verbsecond wh-clauses, for example, it is clear that they must be licensed in postfinite root position. The interesting question is whether they are also licensed in the prefinite position, i.e. in the SpecC-position of root clauses. At first glance, the most plausible analysis for subjectless declarative sentences with ‘surface’ verb-first order as in (28)-a would place the null subject in prefinite position as indicated in (28)-b. If the null subject were analysed as constituting the prefield, sentences like in (28) would be regular verb-second clauses in structural terms. (28) a. /steig tho in skifilin .../ stepped-3.SG PARTCL into boat “he then stepped into the boat” /Et ascendens in nauicula .../

= (1)-c

b. pro steig tho in skifilin

However, the analysis sketched in (28)-b, though attractive, is untenable. It does not account for the fact that subjectless (declarative) verb-first order is relatively infrequent. In all three texts (Monsee Fragments, Isidor, Tatian) taken together there are only about 30 cases of subjectless declarative clauses which exhibit surface verb-first order independent of or counter to the Latin source. If these sentences were ‘hidden’ verb-second clauses, there is no reason why they should be so marginal compared to subjectless verb-second clauses. Interestingly, almost all the subjectless declaratives with surface verb-first order show characteristics of true verb-first declaratives (cf. Chapter 3): They

312


contain either a passive construction, a verb of movement, a reflexive verb or a negated verb. Many of them exhibit the particle thō/tho (dhuo) in postfinite position. This is illustrated in the a- versus b-cases in the examples in (29) to (32), where some typical instances of verb-first declaratives without overt subjects are contrasted with similar sentences with overt subjects.20 (29) a. /uuard tho giuuentit became-3.SG THO turned “he was made in agony” /& factus est In agonia/

in guota in great

b. /Inti uuard gitruobit ther cuning/ and became grieved the king “and the king was grieved” /& contristatus est rex./

ernust/ agony

(T 601,9)

(T 247,21)

In thaz goteshûs,/ (30) a. /quam thô In geiste came THÔ in Spirit in the God’s-house “he came in the Spirit into the temple” /& uenit In spiritu In templum,/

(T 89,31)

b. /quamun sie thó inti gifultun/ beidu thiu skef .../ both the ships came they THO and filled “they came, and filled both the boats” /& uenerunt & impleuerunt/ ambas nauiculas ...;/

(T 125,27)

(31) a. hrau · sih · duo enti arboot d{ea driz}uc · pen di go · coins repented REFL DHUO and returned the thirty silabres ... (MF XXIII,28; Mt 27.3) of-silver “he repented, and returned the thirty pieces of silver ...” {paenitentia ductus retulit triginta argenteos} b. Erchám síh tô dér dríu hóubet hábento túro-uuárt ... having doorkeeper startled-was REFL TÔ the three heads “the three-headed doorkeeper was startled ...” Stupet ter-geminus ianitor ... (l. 14 ) (N BCon III 180,15)

20 Further examples of ‘subjectless’ declaratives with verb-first order in the contexts of verbs

of movement can be found in T 193,1; T 205,8; T 207,17, T 89,31; T 663,7. A further example of a ‘subjectless’ verb-first declarative with a passive construction as in (29) can, for example, be found in T 601,9. Further examples of ‘subjectless’ negated sentences occur, for example, in T 285,14 and T 663,7. Even in Notker’s Consolatio there are some residues of referential null subjects in negated clauses (e.g. N BCon III 147,28, N BCon IV 200,22).


man/ (32) a. /trohtin. nihaben NEG-have-1.SG man sir “Sir, I have no man” /Domine. hominem non habeo./ b. ni

uuez ih · iu · uuih · know I you “I do not know you” {nescio uos}

313

(T 285,14)

(MF XX,20; Mt 25:12)

NEG

To conclude: Subjectless declaratives with linear verb-first order should be analysed as ‘real’ verb-first declaratives and do not provide any evidence for putative occurrences of null subjects in prefinite position. Above, I argued that in subjectless declaratives with topicalized non-subject XPs and in wh-interrogatives with fronted wh-phrases, the null subject must be in postfinite position. It could be objected that there is an alternative analysis possible which puts the putative pro-subject in prefinite position. This analysis would be motivated since it was demonstrated in the last chapter that OHG pronouns sometimes occur between a preposed XP and the finite verb in earlier OHG (= XP–pron–Vfin); cf. (33). It could thus be argued that the null subjects may appear in this prefinite position just the same (= XP–pro–Vfin). This is illustrated in (34)-b. (33) Erino portun ih firchnussu iron portals I destroy “I will destroy iron portals” Portas aereas conteram (34) a. thaz tuon that do

(I 157)

cf. (23)-c

b. thaz pro tuon

I have to concede that subjectless XP–Vfin-orders are ambiguous with respect to the positioning of null subjects. Note, however, that yes/no-interrogatives as in (25) above provide unambiguous evidence that null subjects can occur postfinitely since in this sentence type overt subject pronouns never appear prefinitely (cf. Chapters 2 and 5). On the whole, the situation can be characterized as follows: On the one hand, there is unambiguous evidence that null subjects are allowed in postfinite position while on the other hand, all the evidence for a prefinite position is ambiguous. Note, however, that the main/subordinate asymmetry could be derived without further assumptions if we assumed that the OHG null subjects are only licensed in postfinite position. According to Ockham’s razor, we may thus assume that the OHG null subjects are only licensed postfinitely. It is highly plausible that OHG null subjects are only licensed in a configuration where they are c-commanded by a leftward moved

314


finite verb. In OHG, the only way to obtain the configuration in (35) is via verb movement to C0. (35) [V+AGRi]k

[... proi ... tk]

Barbosa (1995:180) proposes that there is a general connection between XP– V–S-order and the possibility of subject drop. She presents cross-linguistic evidence from modern Italian and from the historical stages of various Romance and Germanic languages, where null subjects only occur in postfinite environments. Barbosa argues that this restriction is a reflex of the universal condition that empty subjects are only licensed if c-commanded by a sufficiently rich agreement morphology. Furthermore, she argues that this ccommand-by-agreement condition has to be subsumed under a more general theory of cliticization as it can be demonstrated that a clitic has to c-command the empty category it is associated with: (36) [V+AGRi]k [eci ... tk ... ]

(adapted from Barbosa 1995:181)

Such a parallel between null subjects and clitics would also be expected, she argues, if one assumed that the agreement morphology in null-subject languages is clitic-like. Whether this is also the case in OHG will not be investigated here. It may suffice to say that Barbosa’s theory suggests that the syntactic condition for null-subject licensing in OHG may be a reflex of a more general phenomenon even though it seems to be exceptional at first glance.21 6.6 Morphological distribution of OHG null subjects The distribution of OHG null subjects was not only syntactically restricted, but was also influenced by morphological factors. In the older OHG prose texts a person split can clearly be observed (see Eggenberger 1961; van Gelderen 2000:136). Referential null subjects are attested in all persons and numbers. However, as is illustrated in Table 3, it is only in the third person singular and plural that the null variant is used more frequently than the overt one.

21 Proto-Indo-European, however, would contradict Barbosa’s theory since this language is

generally taken to have been both a null-subject language and to have had SOV-order. Thanks to Veronika Ehrich for pointing this out to me.

315


Isidor

Mons. Fragments

Tatian

num.

pers.

pron. subj. overt/null


SG

1

36/2 (5%)

10/5 (33%)

415/103 (20 %)

2

3/2 (40%)

5/3 (38%)

131/84 (39 %)

3

15/29 (66%)

12/52 (81%)

394/460 (54%)

PL

TOTAL


1

2/3 (60%)

2/1 (33%)

62/27 (30%)

2

1/0 (0%)

16/10 (38%)

262/42 (14 %)

3

4/12 (75%)

3/13 (81%)

170/244 (59%)

61/48 (= 44%)

48/84 (= 64%)

1434/960 (= 40 %)

Table 3: Frequencies of overt and null subjects – with rate of null in ( ) – in main clauses, differentiated by person/number22

The OHG person split is all the more striking if we draw a comparison to the situation in the modern Germanic complementizer-agreement dialects. In these dialects, pro-drop also has a skewed morphological distribution, but it is generally the second person that is most prominent in null-subject constructions. Note also that the presence of third person null subjects has been considered a strong diagnostic feature for identifying true pro-drop languages (e.g. Vainikka & Levy 1999). As cross-linguistic research has shown, there is an implicational relation regarding the availability of third person null subjects as opposed to first and second person null subjects: If a language has third person subjects, it generally also has second and first person null subjects.23 The morphological distribution of OHG null subjects cannot be related to variations in feature strength. Table 4 (from Klein 1987:162) illustrates verbal inflection in Old High German as manifested in the ninth century texts Tatian and Otfrid. The only syncretism that can be found is between the third and first person singular, which have identical endings in the past indicative and in the present

22 The figures have been calculated on the basis of Eggenberger (1961); cf. fn. 15 for details. 23 Besides that, the prominence of third person null subjects in OHG also shows that we are

not dealing with special kinds of pragmatically licensed subject omissions such as ‘Diary Drop’, which occurs in Modern English in some styles for persons implicit in the discourse situation.

316


and past conjunctive with both strong and weak verbs of all classes.24 present

past

tense marking

ablaut

-Ø-

ablaut

-t-

verb classes

strong

weak

strong

weak

I-VII

I-III

-Ø-

-a

I-VII 1 SG

indicative

I

II

-u

III -n

3

-it*

2

-is(t)*

1

-ēn, -jēn

3

-ent

2

-et

-ut

-ē-, -jē-

-īt*-

-i*

-ōs(t) -un

PL

conjunctive suffix 1 SG

3

-Ø

2

-s(t)

1 -n

3 PL

2 SG

imperative PL

-t

2

-Ø

1

-ēn, -jēn

2

-et

Table 4: Verbal inflection in Old High German (adapted from Klein 1987:162)25 24 In the weak classes II and III, there is some further syncretism: The endings of the third person singular and second person plural are identical in the indicative present (e.g. salbōt “(he) salves, (you-PL) salve”; habēt “(he) has, (you-PL) have”). 25 The table only contains the inflectional morphemes and does not give any information on the ablaut system of strong verbs and on the formation of the past tense stems of weak verbs. The verbal inflectional morphemes combine with different stem forms. Also, the table has to be supplemented by morphological rules: for example, the rule that if a stem ends in an unstressed long vowel, the inflectional morpheme must be vowelless (e.g. 3. sg. pres. ind. mahhō+it, → mahhōt “makes”); if the stem does not end in an unstressed long vowel, it has to contain a vowel (Klein 1987:149); or the unlaut rule (the symbol * indicates that the respective inflectional umlaut triggers umlaut in the stem vowel). All this will not be discussed here (see Klein 1987:161f. for details).

317


However, there is one interesting piece of evidence which corroborates the widely held claim that there is a connection between rich inflection and prodrop. Table 4 also suggests that the verb forms of the first and third person plural are identical both in the present and past conjunctive and in the past indicative. What is not indicated in the table is that the first person plural has two alternative endings: a short ending -n (originally: -m) and a long ending (-mēs). Pronouns occurring with the short ending are virtually always overt. With the long ending, the subject pronoun is often omitted, but only if it occurs in postfinite position.26 The pairs of examples in (37) and (38) illustrate this. Note that the long and the short endings are attested within individual texts (e.g. in Tatian or Isidor), sometimes even within a few lines of each other. In the case of the Tatian sentence in (37)-b, there occur several instances of the long ending in the preceding and following discourse in the section of scribe ζ (e.g. uuizumes T 457,9; birumes T 457,8; uuizumes T 457,15). (37) a. /óh thesan uuizzumes/ uuanan hér ist.,/ is but this-ACC know-1.PL whence he “but as to this man we know where he is from” /sed hunc scimus/ unde sit./

(T 351,20)

b. /thesan niuuizuuuir uuanan her ist./ (T 457,10) this-ACC NEG-know-we whence he is “but as to this man we do not know where he is from” /hunc autem nescimus unde sit./ (38) a. Endi dhes selben christes, dhes uuir iu sinera and of-that same Christ of-that we already his-GEN manniscnissa chiburt after dhera gotnissa guotliihhin after the-GEN divinity-GEN glory-DAT humanity-GEN birth chichundidom, chichundemes auh nu dhes ędhili endi odhil demonstrated demonstrate-1.PL also now of-that lineage and home “We now demonstrate the lineage and homeland of that same Christ, of whom we have already made known his human birth according to the glory of the divinity” (R) (I 520) et cuius demonstrata est post gloriam deitatis humana natiuitas, demonstretur et genus et patria

26 Harbert (1999:263) speculates that what makes the long ending sufficiently strong to license

pro-drop in contrast to the shorter one is the fact that it separately encodes person and number. According to a proposal by Shields (1996), -mēs consists of both a number-neutral first person marker -m and a plural desinence -ēs from the standpoint of its Indo-European etymology. However, if the separate encoding of person and number was really a necessary condition for the licensing of pro-drop in OHG, then we would expect it to be ruled out in most other persons/numbers, which is not the case.

318


b. Chiuuisso chioffanodom uuir nu hear dhazs ... surely revealed-1.PL we now here that “surely we have now revealed here that ...” (R) Probauimus ...

(I 484)

Even with the long ending, however, the condition holds that the null variant is only possible when the subject pronoun occurs postfinitely. In complex sentences, the subject pronoun is thus realized overtly in the subordinate clause, but it may be unexpressed in the main clause: (39) /wanta [thaz uuir uuizzumes]/ thaz sprehhemes/ because what we know-1.PL that speak-1.PL “we speak of what we know” /quia quod scimus/ loquimur./

= (26)-a

While the existence of a non-pro-drop licensing verb form in the first person plural may explain why pro-drop is not so frequent in the first person plural as in the third person singular and plural, this does not account for the general tendency of first and second person to figure less frequently in pro-drop constructions. It is at present still unclear how the skewed morphological distribution of OHG null subjects can be explained. Interestingly, the same phenomenon has been observed for Old English (van Gelderen 2000:194). Similarly to the present study on OHG, van Gelderen argues, contrary to common assumptions, for the existence of referential pro-drop in Old English. Just as in OHG, in Old English pro-drop is more common with third person subject pronouns. Van Gelderen offers an account in terms of the feature specification of pronouns: The Old English third person pronouns are more specified in virtue of being deictic elements and this is why they can be dropped more easily. It is at present unclear whether such an analysis would carry over to OHG. A further hypothesis that suggests itself would be to relate the freer omission of third person subject pronouns to the fact that they can be used anaphorically. Sigurðsson (1993) shows that in Old Icelandic, subject and object pro are licensed under free coindexing with a DP in the preceding discourse. Note, however, that the distribution of subject omission in Old Icelandic is entirely different from that in OHG. As Sigurðsson’s material shows, in Old Icelandic the condition of free coindexing is often satisfied in postposed subordinate clauses as the subject pronoun can often be coindexed with a DP in the matrix clause in this case. In OHG, by contrast, null subjects are largely absent from subordinate clauses as was demonstrated above. Moreover, in the OHG texts, null subjects do not always have an antecedent. For example, they are also witnessed discourse initially and they do not necessarily require narrative discourse topicality, even though there seems to be a tendency to use an overt subject pronoun when a change of subject reference occurs (see Lippert 1974:35).


319

Even though we have to leave it open how the special morphological distribution of the OHG null subjects can be explained, it should be noted that this distribution is a further indication of the independence of the OHG grammar from the Latin sources. The differences between persons would be entirely unexpected under the loan-syntax hypothesis since Latin is consistently pro-drop throughout the paradigm. 6.7 The loan-syntax hypothesis revisited The results reached so far provide further arguments against the widely accepted loan-syntax hypothesis for OHG null-subject constructions. One serious problem of the loan-syntax approach is that even though it may be possible to envisage a situation where a feature of a foreign-language source is consistently ‘copied’ into the target language, it is hard to explain why this copying process should be banned from specific morphosyntactic environments defined by the target language. More concretely, in the case of OHG null subjects, it remains a puzzle under the loan syntax hypothesis that null subjects were banned from prefinite environments and from contexts with the first person plural verbs ending in -n (-m). Moreover, the loan-syntax hypothesis cannot account for the fact that translators were more reluctant to preserve the nullsubject variant with first and second person than with third person. What is also not convincing is that the proponents of the loan-syntax hypothesis generally treat referential and non-referential null subjects differently: Only the former are considered a native phenomenon even though non-referential null subjects also occur more often in the Latinized texts than in the ‘original’ texts. The most extensive and influential study promoting the loan-syntax hypothesis is Eggenberger (1961). Apart from the general points mentioned above, there are some serious objections that can be raised against Eggenberger’s line of reasoning. Eggenberger argues that subject omission is most frequent and distinctly parallel to the Latin sources in ‘congruent’ texts (i.e. texts with properties of the interlinear glosses), relatively infrequent in the ‘original sources’, and subject to intratextual frequency shifts in works with a mixed character (i.e. which combine properties of the original and congruent texts). However, his tripartition of text types (‘congruent’-‘mixed’-‘original’) is not based on independent criteria, but again determined by the frequency and pattern of subject omission itself. This makes the whole argumentation circular. Even though Eggenberger (1961:XIII) does claim that the three types of texts differ not only in the practice of subject omission, but also in other respects, he does not give any examples. At one point he even concedes that his classification of texts is the result of an interpretation which looks at the null-subject properties from one specific angle. This objection may also be raised against Eggenberger’s line of reasoning concerning the situation within the so-called ‘mixed types’. In Tatian, he has identified (ibid.:88-91) passages which have predominantly been shaped by

320


the interlinear practice and he contrasts them with passages that he argues to pattern like the original sources. On the basis of this distinction, he then goes on to argue that the loan-syntax hypothesis is also supported by the fact that subject omission is more frequent in the ‘interlinear’ passages than in the ‘original’ ones. Since the passages have been classified solely by means of the criterion of how frequent subject omission is, the whole argumentation is circular. Even less convincing is Eggenberger’s hypothesis that complex sentences in which the ±realization of subject pronouns varies in the component clauses should be regarded as instances of ‘mixed forms within individual sentences’. As for the OHG Isidor, Matzel (1970:357) has found out that in the commentary passages, the translation technique is often very free, whereas the Bible quotations remain very close to the Latin. If null-subject usage was a loansyntax phenomenon, it would be expected that it would primarily occur in the Bible quotations. This prediction is not borne out, however: The commentary sections also contain a substantial number of null subjects (note that the Bible quotations make up only a very small part of the text in the first place). As to the smaller texts, Eggenberger (ibid.:32) observes, for example, that the Altbayrische and Fuldaer Beichte do not contain a single instance of subject omission, whereas the Würzburger Beichte contains a substantial number of empty subjects (7 out of 33 sentences with pronoun subjects) (ibid.:127). Eggenberger (1961:126) mentions that other scholars have independently come to the conclusion that the Würzburger Beichte shows strong Latin influence, but again the only Latinism Eggenberger explicitly mentions is the phenomenon of subject omission. This makes the argumentation circular. Note that the Altbayrische and Fuldaer Beichte contain a much smaller number of sentences with pronoun subjects in the first place (only 8 and 16 cases, respectively), and, what is more important, they have hardly any main clauses with pronoun subjects (only 1 and 2 cases, respectively). So the absence of subject omission may perfectly well again be due to the main/subordinate asymmetry and need not be a reflex of the absence of Latin influence. Furthermore, Eggenberger’s conclusion that the age of texts does not have an impact on subject omission is too strong. If one looks at the prose works, for example, the older texts (i.e. the Monsee Fragments, Tatian, Isidor) all happen to be relatively loyal translations of Bible stories or of theological texts, whereas the younger ones from the eleventh century (i.e. Notker’s works, Williram’s Song of Songs) are more original commentaries and paraphrases of philosophical, theological or Biblical texts. It is thus an unchangeable sociocultural fact that linguistic research has to live with that the factors age and loyalty to foreign-language sources are combined in this unidirectional fashion. This is why, at first glance, it is impossible to decide whether the older texts show more subject omission because they are more Latinized or just because of their age. To solve this problem, it is necessary to apply more fine-grained criteria. This is what I hope to have demonstrated in this chapter.


321

Note, however, that I am not suggesting that Latin influence played no role at all. What may well be the case is that the null-subject property actually belonged to an older language stage in the spoken language and that this feature was preserved in the OHG texts due to their archaic style and possibly also due to their close relationship to the Latin. However, the conditions governing the specific morphosyntactic distribution of null subjects in early OHG must still have been somehow part of the competence of the translators and scribes of these texts. As I already mentioned above, the use of the null-subject variant seems to have been optional in OHG: Even in those cases where the morphosyntactic requirements for the null variant would have been satisfied, the overt variant is also attested. So one can speculate that the Latin source had an impact on the frequency of null subjects in the OHG translation, but this impact was restricted to exactly those environments where the use of the overt subject pronoun was optional. Therefore, the translators’ loyalty to the Latin, a strict pro-drop language, may have motivated them to use null subjects in the translations more excessively than they would have in entirely native productions without foreign influences. So if we wanted to use the term loan syntax in this context at all, it would only be appropriate in a quantitative sense. 6.8 The loss of null subjects in Old High German Modern Standard German no longer allows referential pro-drop. In some dialects, referential pro-drop is still possible in very restricted morphosyntactic environments (cf. Bayer 1984 and Weiß 1998:116ff. on Bavarian; Haag-Merz 1996:153ff. on Swabian; Cooper 1999 on Zurich German). However, in these modern dialects null subjects also occur in subordinate clauses in the context of complementizer inflection. In contrast to OHG, only second person subjects (singular and plural) can be dropped in present-day Bavarian (Bayer 1984; Weiß 2005a). In Lower Bavarian, pro-drop is furthermore possible in the first person plural (Weiß 2005a). Thus, there is no complete continuity in the transmission of null subjects even on a dialectal level.27 However, there is a parallel between the partial pro-drop in the West Germanic dialects with complementizer inflection and OHG: In both cases pro has to be c-commanded by agreement in C0. Given the assumption that pro is only licensed if c-commanded by Agr in C0, the absence of pro-drop in subordinate sentences in OHG may ultimately be due to the absence of complementizer inflection in OHG. It is therefore legitimate to ask when the null-subject property as it was witnessed in earlier OHG, was driven out of the language. Judged from the sparse textual basis that has been handed down to us, the critical period is late OHG, but presumably before the turn of the eleventh century. In Notker Labeo’s writings ( ≈ 1000 A.D.) and Williram’s paraphrase of the Song of Songs (eleventh

27 See Weiß (2005b) for convincing arguments that studies of language change should concen-

trate on the dialects in order to circumvent the disturbing influence of standardization.

322


century), referential null subjects are hardly attested anymore.28 In Middle High German texts referential null subjects are only systematically attested in some very special cases (Held 1903:52-57). The introduction of overt subject pronouns in early OHG has traditionally been linked to the weakening of verbal endings due to a phonological weakening process, which in turn has been argued to have been a consequence of the introduction of word-initial accent (see Kögel 1882:127; Held 1903:XIII.; Behaghel 1928:442). As is objected by Grimm ([1898] 1967b:235) and Eggenberger (1961), these phonological and morphological changes did not lead to a substantial levelling of inflectional distinctions during the OHG period. The only really interesting case is the first person plural: Here the long ending has been lost in favour of short -m and this short ending has been replaced by -n, a development which has created some syncretism between the first and third person plural in the present and past conjunctive and in the past indicative of both strong and weak verbs. Since Taraldsen (1978), it has been argued in the generative literature that there is a connection between the ‘richness’ of a morphological paradigm and pro-drop. It has long been known, on the other hand, that there are many counterexamples and empirical exceptions, and that the underlying mechanism must therefore be more complex. Notably the case of German is problematic since modern German is a language which has a rich verbal inflectional morphology, but does not license referential null subjects. Jaeggli & Safir (1989) discuss the role of inflectional paradigms for the licensing of null subjects, thereby also referring to the situation in modern Standard German. According to Jaeggli & Safir, the identification of pro is only fulfilled in inflectional paradigms which are characterized by ‘morphological uniformity’. Such paradigms contain either only non-derived or only derived forms for one category. The authors argue that this condition is satisfied in present-day German provided that one assumes that there is a zero inflection in some cases. As to the verbal paradigms in earlier and late OHG, they too would be ‘morphologically uniform’ according to this definition if one assumed that in the paradigm of strong verbs there was a zero ending in some forms (indicated by -Ø in Table 4) . According to the prevailing opinion, the cross-linguistic situation suggests that the inflectional system of present-day German should still be sufficiently ‘strong’ or ‘morphologically uniform’ for (referential) pro-drop to be possible. The absence of referential pro-drop in Standard German has thus been traced back to the fact that in verb-second languages, a syntactic precondition is not fulfilled (e.g. Jaggli & Safir 1989; Rohrbacher 1999). Jaeggli and Safir (1989), for example, argue that in verb-second languages the separation between the 28 However, see section 6.7 on the problem that the situation in the written language may be

delayed compared to the spoken language.


323

loci of Case assignment (in Comp) and agreement features (in Infl) prohibits the identification of referential null-subject pronouns. Summing up, referential null subjects were largely lost in the OHG period even though there was no substantial weakening of inflectional endings. Given that the licensing of OHG null subjects was dependent on verb movement, another potential cause for the loss of the null-subject property in late OHG could have been syntactic developments. This has been claimed for Medieval French, for example. The syntactic distribution of pro in Old French was similar to that in OHG. The loss of null subjects in the history of French has been related to the decline or loss of inversion contexts, i.e. to profound changes that affected the original verb-second grammar (Adams 1987; Vance 1997). However, such an explanation does not carry over to OHG. If at all, the verb-second grammar was consolidated and not weakened during late OHG. There are also no other major syntactic developments identifiable that could have affected the null-subject property.29 An alternative perspective is offered by the account of Sprouse & Vance (1999). Sprouse & Vance argue that the replacement of null pronouns by overt pronouns in several Germanic and Romance languages must often be viewed as a result of a grammatical competition between null subjects and overt atonic forms. For null and overt subject pronouns to be in a real competition (in the sense of Kroch 1989), they must have the same referential properties. This is generally not the case in a canonical null-subject language. As Vance (1997:199) and Sprouse & Vance show with recourse to an observation by Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà (1985), in Modern Italian, for example, an overt subject pronoun cannot be bound by the higher subject in complex sentences unless it is used emphatically or contrastively; see (40). An empty subject must be used in this case. This shows that pro-subjects and overt subject pronouns do not have the same referential properties in Modern Italian. (40) Il professorei ha parlato dopo che *luii/ proi è arrivato the professor has spoken after that he/pro is arrived “the professor spoke after he arrived.” (adapted from Vanelli, Renzi & Benincà 1985:164, cited in Vance 1997:199)

In the case of OHG, this test cannot be applied because null subjects are banned from embedded clauses on independent grounds. This is why in an

29 Harbert (1999) discusses the possibility that the loss of referential pro-drop could be related

to the loss of V-to-I movement. In the earlier OHG texts, there are some instances of XP–pron– Vfin-word order, which could be argued to represent residual instances of V-to-I movement (instead of V-to-C movement) in the context of topicalization. As Harbert argues, however, OHG null subjects also occur in the core contexts for V-to-C movement (interrogatives, sentential negation), which shows that pro-drop cannot have been related to the absence of V-to-C movement.

324


equivalent sentence to the Italian example above, the bound subject pronoun must be overt: (41) Fateri meinida dhar sinan sun, dhuo iri chiminnan chnecht nemnida father meant there his son when he beloved young-man named “The Father meant there his son, when he named the beloved young man” (R) Pater filium dilectum puerum uocat (I 332)

However, there are some indications in the OHG texts that in contrast to Modern Italian, null subjects and overt subject pronouns had the same referential properties in postfinite environments. This is suggested by sentence pairs as in (42): The two sentences differ in the use of an overt versus null subject pronoun, yet both sentences are very similar in wording and interpretation. Notably, the overt realization of the subject pronoun does not trigger an emphatic or contrastive reading. (42) a. Dhar ir quhad ›...‹, chiuuisso meinida ir dhar sunu endi fater where he said certainly meant he there son and father “where he said ›...‹, he certainly meant there the Son and the Father” (R) Dicendo enim ›...‹ et filium et patrem ostendit (I 273) b. Dhar ir auh quhad ›...‹, dhar meinida leohtsamo zi archennenne where he also said there meant easily to recognize dhen heilegan gheist (I 274) the holy spirit “where he said ›...‹, he clearly meant there the Holy Spirit” Itemd dicendo›...‹ sanctum spiritum euidenter aperuit A second piece of evidence is provided by the observation that also in the case

of non-referential subject pronouns, the overt variant is attested alongside the null variant (cf. section 6.3). In this case, it is trivial that both variants had the same referential properties (viz., no referential properties) and therefore they can be argued to have been in competition in the sense of Kroch (1989).30 As Sprouse & Vance (1999) demonstrate, differences in parsing success, be they even very slight, may account for a diachronically unstable situation where null pronouns are replaced by overt pronouns over time. If one makes the not implausible assumption that utterances with null pronouns are more difficult to parse than those with overt pronouns, it will be expected that a drift towards a high frequency of overt pronoun use occurs. Once a language has two competing forms, speakers attempt, subdoxastically, to match the relative frequencies as they perceive them in the surrounding linguistic data. If utterances with null subjects are more difficult to process and hearers fail to parse a certain amount of them correctly, these utterances are ‘lost’ for the calculation 30 See also Sprouse & Vance (1999), who use this argument for their Middle French data.


325

of frequency matching. This leads to an increase in the relative frequencies of overt variants in the production of these hearers when they function as speakers themselves. Over time the relative rates continue to shift in a constant direction – that is, in favour of the form involving higher parsing success. Figure 1 illustrates such a progression for a constant failure rate of 10%. This drift is, of course, not encoded in the grammar itself but is fuelled by the interplay of frequency monitoring in perception and frequency matching in production. In a competition model of language change (inspired by Kroch 1989), such quantitative changes in the linguistic environment can be argued to ultimately lead to a true reorganization of grammar.

0.

1.

2.

speaker 90:10 (90%/10%)

hearer 81:10 (89%/11%)

89:11 (89%/11%)

80:11 (88%/12%)

89[sic]:12 (88%/12%)

79:12 (87%/13%)

Figure 1: The Differential Parsing Model of Change through Competition (Sprouse & Vance 1999:260)31

Thus, Sprouse & Vance demonstrate that the replacement of null subjects by overt pronouns need not be related to any grammar-internal changes. However, it is important to stress that their model only predicts that null-subject use would drop to very low frequencies in the long run. The complete loss must nevertheless have been the result of a grammatical reanalysis once null-subject use had fallen below a critical threshold. Sprouse & Vance’s account makes it possible to view the OHG developments within the wider typological context of Germanic and other Indo-European languages which manifest a strong tendency to replace null arguments by overt atonic pronouns even though their syntax and morphology differ considerably, both in synchronic and in diachronic respects. 31 The diagram is loosely based on earlier diagrams designed to model the discontinuity of

language transmission (see Klima 1965, Andersen 1973, and others). Sprouse & Vance (1999:260) stress that in contrast to Andersen’s model, their model, which goes back to Kroch’s (1989) theory of grammar competition, is not concerned with grammatical reanalysis, but with different frequency outputs of the same grammar. And rather than dealing with grammar shifts between generations, it refers to an ongoing dynamic process which is fuelled by the interplay of frequency monitoring in perception and frequency matching in production.

326


6.9 Summary In the (earlier) OHG texts, referential subject pronouns are often not overtly realized. We furthermore find null subjects with arbitrary reference and empty quasi-arguments. The distribution of referential null subjects is syntactically conditioned and also influenced by morphological factors. It cannot be reduced to discourse-pragmatic forms of argument omission such as topic drop. The special morphosyntactic distribution of OHG null subjects is clearly determined by the ‘native’ properties of OHG grammar and cannot be derived from loan syntax. These results thus show that earlier OHG is a partial null-subject language. There is a connection between verb placement and null-subject licensing in OHG inasmuch as (referential) null subjects are only licensed when they are c-commanded by the finite verb. The relevance of the null-subject property has been underestimated in the previous literature. It has been neglected in all the previous word-order studies on OHG even though it is evident that one has to first answer the question addressing in which positions null subjects are licensed in OHG before one is able to determine the position of the finite verb in subjectless sentences. The null-subject property of OHG is also interesting from a theoretical point of view. One important cross-linguistic generalization that had to be revised with the advent of historical studies was the claim that verb-second does not cooccur with pro-drop. The number of verb-second languages is relatively small and it has to be noted that OHG fills an important typological gap. In fact, it is as yet the first language discussed which combines the null-subject property with an ‘asymmetric’, strictly ‘C-oriented’ verb-second grammar.32 If we furthermore take the diachronic perspective into consideration, it should be noted that several authors have used evidence from language change to strengthen their assumption of a direct, robust relation between morphological richness and null subjects (Holmberg & Platzack 1995:67; Rohrbacher 1999). As has already been objected by, for example, Sprouse & Vance (1999), many examples from diachrony do not confirm such a direct relation. The case of OHG also points in this direction. To sum up: The decline of the null-subject property during the OHG period cannot be traced back to a weakening of verbal endings. It is also not plausible that null subjects were lost as the result of independent syntactic changes because V-to-C movement, which was the syntactic prerequisite for the licensing of pro in OHG, was consolidated, if anything, and not weakened during the OHG period. The decline of referential null subjects was probably the result of a grammatical competition between null subjects and overt atonic subject pro32 As was argued in Chapters 2 and 5, there is no compelling evidence for overt verb move-

ment to a sentence-medial I-projection in OHG, neither in main nor in subordinate clauses. This is why OHG is different from Old French, which has been shown to be a more IP-related verbsecond language.


327

nouns which had started before the earliest written documentation. What triggered the introduction of overt subject pronouns in the first place is still an open question.

CHAPTER 7

SUMMARY

This study dealt with the syntax of the left sentence periphery in OHG. My major concern was to find out whether the OHG grammar had already developed the typical properties of a verb-second language. This is why the main focus was on the following questions: To what extent did generalized verb movement exist in OHG? Was there already obligatory XP-movement to the left periphery in declarative root clauses? What deviations from the linear verbsecond restriction are attested and what do such verb-third phenomena reveal about the structure of the left sentence periphery? My primary aim was to gain an extensive picture of the OHG (pre-) verb-second syntax in which a variety of parameters have been taken into account, including those that have been neglected in the previous literature as, for example, the null-subject property. The above mentioned questions were addressed from both a synchronic and a diachronic viewpoint: I studied the earlier prose texts from the eighth and ninth centuries and compared these results to the situation in the late OHG texts. At various points in the investigation, I furthermore looked at OHG from a comparative-diachronic perspective and discussed the relevant research on further Old Germanic languages as well as on the Indo-European and Germanic origins of verb movement and XP-preposing to the left periphery. In the introductory Chapter 1, I gave a first descriptive sketch of the OHG sentence grammar, on the basis of which I already pointed out some striking differences to the verb-second phenomenon as it manifests itself in the modern Germanic verb-second languages. In Chapter 2, I dealt with various aspects of verb movement. The starting point was recent research according to which in early Germanic, systematic Vto-C movement did not develop equally in all sentence types, but first affected imperatives, negated sentences and presumably also interrogative sentences. Not surprisingly, already in the earlier OHG prose texts, the finite verb was always fronted in imperatives, negated sentences and interrogatives. It has been proposed in some recent studies on Gothic that the development of generalized verb movement might have been the result of the breakdown of the particle system. In contrast to Gothic, where non-clitic particles and verb movement were in complementary distribution, in OHG, the finite verb was also preposed in sentences which contained left-peripheral particles such as the interrogative particle inu/eno or the affirmative particle jā. As it turns out, in OHG verb movement was also very much generalized in declarative clauses. There is no compelling evidence for a productive verb-end

330


option in OHG. Even in the major prose documents from the eighth and ninth centuries, which are all translations, there are clear indications that the fronting of the finite verb was required by the target grammar. There is hardly any compelling evidence for unambiguous verb-end order which was not triggered by the Latin word order or by other textual parameters such as the principle of loyalty to the line breaks in Tatian. I argued that some cases of verb-end that have been regarded as evidence for an inherited verb-end option in the previous literature should be given alternative analyses. For example, sentences with adverbial elements such us thō or sō in initial position were not main, but subordinate clauses. A comparison with Old English has furthermore revealed that certain classes of examples are not attested in OHG whose occurrence would be expected if verb movement to C0 had not been fully generalized or if the projection of a CP had been optional. A further result of this chapter was that there is no unambiguous evidence for verb movement in dependent clauses. Examples with surface VO/VS-orders or with Comp–...–Vfin–XP–Vinfin-orders can also be argued to have resulted from liberal extraposition and from verb (projection) raising or CP-recursion. Verb (projection) raising is still possible in some present-day dialects of German, and CP-recursion occurs in other West and North Germanic languages. There are no examples which unambiguously show that the finite verb could move to a sentence-medial functional projection. This result could also be confirmed by our investigation of pronoun placement in Chapter 5, where it was shown that models of sentence structure with asymmetric verb movement (as they have been proposed for Old English in order to account for verb-third effects induced by prefinite pronouns) do not carry over to OHG. In Chapter 3, I dealt with verb-first order in declarative sentences. In other words, I investigated cases in which XP-movement failed to take place. Thus, this chapter is connected to the topic of XP-movement in the following chapter. The starting point was the observation that verb-first order in declarative clauses was relatively frequent in earlier OHG. This is all the more surprising since it can been shown to be the case that the SpecC-position was already targeted by different types of XP-movement, i.e. not only by operator movement, but also by Stylistic Fronting. That Stylistic Fronting had already developed is suggested by the fact that there are XPs attested in prefinite position which cannot have been topics or fronted focused XPs. As it turns out, only a relatively small number of verb-first declaratives in the OHG prose texts seem to be similar to the modern German ‘narrative’ verbfirst declaratives (Önnerfors 1997) that, for example, occur at the beginning of jokes. The majority of the OHG examples exhibit certain specific grammatical and lexical characteristics, which makes it possible to distinguish different types of verb-first declaratives in OHG. One group of examples can be argued to have been the precursors of our modern existential/presentational constructions with the prefield expletive es. This expletive element only developed in

SUMMARY

331

Middle High German times. The relevant constructions were realized with verb-first order in OHG. A further group of examples are certain types of impersonal constructions. In these constructions there was often no overt quasiargument present that could be fronted. We also discussed the question of whether any empty categories can be argued to occur in the prefinite position of declarative sentences with surface verb-first order. As it turns out, the hypothesis of a prefinite expletive pro (or of quasi-argument pro in impersonal constructions) is not compelling. It is furthermore not plausible to assume that the verb-first order resulted from topic drop of the prefinite particle thō. Furthermore, I observed that many OHG verb-first declaratives contained the particle thō/dhuo in postfinite position. I proposed that this particle could function as a narrative-declarative marker. There are further vestiges of an archaic particle system in OHG texts (i.e. the affirmative jā and the interrogative particle eno/inu). This is why I suggested that the phenomenon of verb-first in OHG should also be viewed from a diachronic perspective. The optionality of XP-movement in declarative sentences with the postfinite particle thō/dhuo could be argued to be due to the fact that in declaratives with particles, XPmovement via Stylistic Fronting had not become obligatory; these sentences were residues of an older system which was not a verb-second grammar and where sentence typing was not signalled by word-order differences (verb-first vs. verb-second), but by lexical means in the form of particles. Since the phenomenon of declarative verb-first order in OHG was quite heterogeneous, it is not surprising that it has been subject to a discontinuous diachronic development. In fact, it seems as if a conspiracy of factors has contributed to the consolidation of verb-second in this case. The rise of quasiarguments and the development of the prefield expletive ez in the Middle High German period were partly responsible for this development. The decisive step, however, was the general innovation of Stylistic Fronting, which must have taken place in pre-OHG times, but which had not fully spread to the old types of declarative sentences with particles. Chapter 4 dealt with XP-movement and the structure of the left sentence periphery in OHG. The main focus was on verb-third effects, which in OHG were primarily triggered by (non-sentential and sentential) adjuncts. I first discussed the model which Kiparsky (1995) proposes for the structure of the left sentence periphery in Proto-Germanic. According to Kiparsky, originally there existed two operator positions, one for topics and one for wh-phrases and for other types of focused material. These two operator positions have been conflated into one position in the Germanic verb-second languages. Moreover, I presented the results by Ferraresi (1997, 2005) on Gothic, which also suggest that the Gothic C-domain contained more than one specifier position. These results were the starting point for the investigation of OHG; they also allowed me to draw some putative conclusions on how the situation in OHG fits into the more general diachronic context of the Germanic languages.

332


Regarding OHG, I first addressed the question as to what different types of XP-movement were already attested. In Chapter 3, I had already presented evidence that the phenomenon of Stylistic Fronting, which can be considered an essential ingredient of verb-second, had already developed; now I argued that, as in Proto-Germanic and Gothic, there existed different types of operator movement in OHG, i.e. (long and short) wh-movement and the fronting of focused constituents. Furthermore, topics could move to SpecC. As far as the fine-structure of the left periphery is concerned, it turns out that the OHG Cdomain was probably less complex than that of Proto-Germanic. As is also strongly suggested by the results on pronoun distribution in Chapter 5, there is no evidence that topics and focused XPs or wh-phrases occupied different positions in the C-domain. However, there are more cases of verb-third order attested than in modern German. I identified different types of verb-third constructions. First, I discussed verb-third effects induced by dislocated topics in both declarative clauses and in wh-interrogatives. It turns out that a leftdislocation construction with a clause-internal ± resumptive element is attested, which is reminiscent of the archaic topic construction that Kiparsky (1995) postulates for Proto-Germanic. A related phenomenon is verb-third effects triggered by preposed adverbial clauses. I provided evidence that they were base-generated at the left periphery in OHG and that they were probably adjoined to the root node. The clause-internal modifier position was occupied by an adverbial pro-form which was not always overtly realized. Besides these extensions at the outermost left edge, verb-third effects are attested which are induced by elements that appear between a preposed XP (i.e. the XP that would constitute the prefield in modern German) and the fronted finite verb. These elements are mostly adjuncts in the form of sentence adverbs such as giwisso “certainly” or wārlīhhō “truly” or ‘weak’ adverbs such as sō “so, thus, thusly” and thār “there”, nū “now” and thō (dhuo ). Since we do not have access to negative evidence, we cannot answer with certainty what restrictions existed for verb-third constructions in OHG. In the examples from my corpus, the elements inducing the verb-third orders are adjuncts, complements are only attested in the form of pronouns. The adjuncts are mostly high adverbs, either sentence adverbs or discourse connectives. This is why I drew the tentative conclusion that verb-third effects were only induced by material that was basegenerated in the C-domain (with the exception of pronouns). This would then suggest that the C-domain could not be targeted by more than one case of XPmovement. Chapter 5 was thematically related to Chapter 4. It dealt with the question of whether the distribution of pronouns provides evidence for the structure of the left periphery in OHG. I also drew a comparison to other Old Germanic languages, in particular to Old and Middle English. I demonstrated that in contrast to modern German, personal pronouns as well as reflexive pronouns were attested between the preposed XP and the fronted finite verb. I argued that these

SUMMARY

333

word orders have to be considered as real verb-third orders since it is not plausible to analyse the intervening pronouns as X0-elements. One indication I discussed was that the paradigms of pronominal forms as well as their syntactic distribution were clearly different from those of the recent German dialects which have an inventory of syntactic clitics. I furthermore argued that the different proposals in which personal pronouns in OHG have been analysed as X0-elements make wrong empirical predictions, which can only be circumvented by additional, stipulative assumptions. Moreover, I pointed out that models of sentence structure in which the distribution of pronouns is derived by the assumption of asymmetric verb movement are not compelling in the case of OHG. In particular, the claim turned out to be problematic that the verb only moved to the head of a sentence-medial functional projection in the Idomain in non-operator contexts. First, there is no evidence for V-to-I movement in subordinate clauses as was shown in Chapter 2, and, more importantly, there is no clear-cut difference between topic- and operator-initial sentences in the distribution of personal pronouns in OHG texts. Finally, in Chapter 6, I studied the null-subject properties of OHG. The starting point of the investigation was the observation that subject pronouns are often not overtly realized in the OHG documents from the late eighth and ninth centuries. This striking phenomenon has been entirely ignored in previous discussions of OHG word order even though it is clearly related to verb placement. I was able to show that referential null subjects were parasitic on verb movement and were only licensed in the postfinite domain, where they were ccommanded by the agreement features of the finite verb. In contrast to the canonical null-subject languages, subject pronouns were not obligatorily realized as null subjects in this configuration. Besides the syntactic restriction of a c-commanding finite verb, null-subject distribution was also influenced by morphological factors. It was shown that third person subject pronouns were more often omitted than first and second person subject pronouns. Moreover, I demonstrated that in the first person plural there existed two endings, a long and a short one, and the null pronoun was only possible with the long ending. Even though such morphological factors can be shown to have had an influence on null-subject distribution in OHG, I argued that the diachronic decline of null subjects which must have taken place within the OHG period cannot be the result of a weakening of verbal inflections at the time. Thus, the observation that the distribution of null subjects is conditioned by morphosyntactic factors in the target language has once again shown that even in the translational literature, the OHG data have not been primarily shaped by loan syntax, but by the native grammar of the language.

REFERENCES Primary Sources Old High German [G I] Die Althochdeutschen Glossen. Band 1: Glossen zu biblischen Geschichten. Elias Steinmeyer and Eduard Sievers (eds). Berlin: Weidmann 1879. [Reprint Dublin, Zürich 1968, Weidmann] [I] Der althochdeutsche Isidor. Nach der Pariser Handschrift und den Monseer Fragmenten. Hans Eggers (ed.). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 1964. (cited) Der althochdeutsche Isidor. Facsimile-Ausgabe des Pariser Codex nebst critischem Texte der Pariser und Monseer Bruchstücke. Mit Einleitung, grammatischer Darstellung und einem ausführlichen Glossar. George A. Hench (ed.). Straßburg: Karl J. Trübner. 1893. [Luther-Bibel] D. Martin Luthers Deutsche Bibel. 1522-1546. Band 6: Das Neue Testament. Erste Hälfte (Evangelien- und Apostelgeschichte). Weimar 1929: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger. [MF] The Monsee Fragments. Newly collated text with introduction, notes, grammatical treatise and exhaustive glossary and a photo-lithographic fac-simile. George Allison Hench (ed.). Straßburg: Karl J. Trübner. 1890. [N BCon] Notker der Deutsche: Boethius »De consolatione Philosophiae«. Buch I/II. Buch III. Buch IV/V. Petrus W. Tax (ed.). Tübingen: Niemeyer 1986. 1988. 1990. [N de Int] Notker der Deutsche: Boethius’ Bearbeitung von Aristoteles’ Schrift »De interpretatione«. James C. King (ed.). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 1975. [N MC] Notker der Deutsche: Martianus Capella, »De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii«. James C. King (ed.). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 1979.

336


[N Ps] Notker der Deutsche: Der Psalter. Psalm 1-50. Psalm 51-100. Psalm 101-150, die Cantica und die katechetischen Texte. Petrus W. Tax (ed.). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 1979. 1981. 1983. [O] Otfrids Evangelienbuch. Oskar Erdmann (ed.), 6th edition by Ludwig Wolff. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 1973. (cited) Otfrid von Weißenburg. Evangelienbuch. Band I: Edition nach dem Wiener Codex 2687. Wolfgang Kleiber (ed.). (in cooperation with Rita Heuser). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 2004. Otfrids von Weissenburg Evangelienbuch. Band 1: Text und Einleiung. Johann Kelle (ed.). Regensburg: Manz. 1856. [Reprint Aalen 1963, Zeller] [SD] Die kleineren althochdeutschen Sprachdenkmäler. Elias von Steinmeyer (ed.). Berlin: Weidmann. 1916. [T] Die lateinisch-althochdeutsche Tatianbilingue Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen Cod. 56. Achim Masser (ed.) (in cooperation with Elisabeth De Felip-Jaud). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1994. (cited) Tatian. Lateinisch und altdeutsch mit ausführlichem Glossar. Eduard Sievers (ed.). Paderborn: Schöningh. 1892. [Reprint Paderborn 1964] [W] Die älteste Überlieferung von Willirams Kommentar des Hohen Liedes. Edition, Übersetzung, Glossar. Rudolf Schützeichel and Birgit Meineke (eds). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2001. (cited) Willirams von Ebersberg Paraphrase des Hohen Liedes. Mit Einleitung und Glossar. Joseph Seemüller (ed.). Straßburg: Karl J. Trübner. 1876.

Gothic Die Gotische Bibel. Erster Teil: Der gotische Text und seine griechische Vorlage mit Einleitung, Lesarten und Quellennachweisen sowie den kleinern Denkmälern als Anhang. Wilhelm Streitberg (ed.). 2nd, improved edition. Heidelberg: Winter. 1919.

REFERENCES

337

Secondary Sources Abraham, Werner. 1993. Null subjects in the history of German: From IP to CP. Lingua 89: 117-142. Abraham, Werner. 1996. Personalpronomina, Klitiktypologie und die Struktur des ‘Mittelfeldes’. In Deutsch – typologisch, Ewald Lang and Gisela Zifonun (eds), 428-467. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Abraham, Werner. 1997. The interdependence of case, aspect, and referentiality in the history of German: the case of the genitive. In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent (eds), 29-61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Abraham, Werner and Anko Wiegel. 1993. Reduktionsformen und Kasussynkretismus bei deutschen und niederländischen Pronomina. In Dialektsyntax, Werner Abraham and Josef Bayer (eds), 12-49. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Adams, Marianne Patalino. 1987. Old French, null subjects and verb second phenomena. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Allen, Cynthia L. 1980. Topics in English Diachronic Syntax. New York: Garland. Altmann, Hans. 1981. Formen der ‘Herausstellung’ im Deutschen: Rechtsversetzung, Linksversetzung, freies Thema und verwandte Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Altmann, Hans. 1987. Zur Problematik der Konstitution von Satzmodi als Formtypen. In Satzmodus zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik, Jörg Meibauer (ed.), 22-56. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Andersen, Henning. 1973. Abductive and deductive change. Language 49: 765-793. Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, Stephen R. 1993. Wackernagel’s revenge: Clitics, morphology and the syntax of second position. Language 69: 68-98. Axel, Katrin. 2002. Zur diachronen Entwicklung der syntaktischen Integration linksperipherer Adverbialsätze im Deutschen: ein Beispiel für syntaktischen Wandel? Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 124: 1-43. Axel, Katrin. 2004. The syntactic integration of preposed adverbial clauses on the German left periphery: A diachronic perspective. In The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery, Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler (eds), 23-58. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Axel, Katrin. 2005a. Studien zur althochdeutschen Syntax: Linke Satzperipherie, Verbstellung und Verbzweit. PhD Dissertation, University of Tübingen. Axel, Katrin. 2005b. Null subjects and verb placement in Old High German. In Linguistic Evidence. Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives, S. Kepser and M. Reis (eds), 27-48. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Axel, Katrin and Tanja Kiziak. to appear. Contributing to the extraction/parenthesis debate: Judgement studies and historical data. Linguistic Evidence II, S. Featherston and W. Sternefeld (eds). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Barbosa, Maria do Pilar Pereira. 1995. Null-subjects. PhD Dissertation, Massachussetts Institute of Technology.

338


Barrett, Charles Robin. 1953. Studies in the word-order of Aelfric’s Catholic homilies and lives of the saints, PhD Dissertation, University of Cambridge. Baumstark, Anton. 1964. Die Vorlage des althochdeutschen Tatian. Herausgegeben, überarbeitet, mit Vorwort und Anmerkungen versehen von Johannes Rathofer. Köln, Graz: Böhlau. Bayer, Josef. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3: 209-274. Bayer, Josef. 1999. Comments on Cardinaletti and Starke “The typology of structural deficiency”. In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), 235-241. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Bech, Gunnar. 1955/1957. Studien über das deutsche verbum infinitum. Kopenhagen: Munsgaard. [Reprint Tübingen 1983, Niemeyer] Behaghel, Otto. 1892. Zur deutschen Wortstellung. Zeitschrift für deutschen Unterricht 6: 255-267. Behaghel, Otto. 1900. Gesprochenes Deutsch und geschriebenes Deutsch. Wissenschaftliche Beihefte zur Zeitschrift des allgemeinen deutschen Sprachvereins 1718: 223-251. Behaghel, Otto. 1909. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25: 110-142. Behaghel, Otto. 1923. Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Vol. 1: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen. A. Nomen, Pronomen. Heidelberg: Winter. Behaghel, Otto. 1924. Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Vol. 2: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen. B. Adverbium. C. Verbum. Heidelberg: Winter. Behaghel, Otto. 1928. Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Vol. 3: Die Satzgebilde. Heidelberg: Winter. Behaghel, Otto. 1929. Der Nachsatz. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 53: 401-418. Behaghel, Otto. 1932. Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Vol. 4: Wortstellung, Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Winter. Bergen, Linda van. 2003. Pronouns and Word Order in Old English. With Particular Reference to the Indefinite man. New York, London: Routledge. Bergmann, Rolf, Heinrich Tiefenbach and Lothar Voetz (eds). 1987. Althochdeutsch. (in cooperation with Herbert Kolb, Klaus Matzel, Karl Stackmann). Vol 1: Grammatik, Glosen und Texte. Vol 2: Wörter und Namen. Forschungsgeschichte. Heidelberg: Winter. Bernhardt, Karl A. and Graeme Davis. 1997. The Word Order of Old High German. Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press. Besten, Hans den. 1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In On the Formal Syntax of Westgermania, Werner Abraham (ed.), 47-131. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. Besten, Hans den. 1985. The ergative hypothesis and free word order in Dutch and German. In Studies in German Grammar, Jindřich Toman (ed.), 23-64. Dordrecht: Foris. Betten, Anne. 1987a. Grundzüge der Prosasyntax. Stilprägende Entwicklungen vom Althochdeutschen zum Neuhochdeutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

REFERENCES

339

Betten, Anne. 1987b. Zur Satzverknüpfung im althochdeutschen Tatian. Textsyntaktische Betrachtungen zum Konnektor ‘thô’ und seinen lateinischen Entsprechungen. In Althochdeutsch (vol. 1), Rolf Bergmann (ed.), 395-407. Heidelberg: Winter. Bhatt, Rakesh Mohan. 1999. Verb Movement and the Syntax of Kashmiri. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Bhatt, Rakesh Mohan and James Yoon. 1993. On the composition of Comp and parameters of V2. In Proceedings of the 10th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Dawn Bates (ed.), 41-52. Stanford: Stanford Linguistic Association. Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of Antisymmetry. Headed Relative Clauses. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Bieler, Ludovicus (ed.). 1957. Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii Philosophiae consolatio. Turnholti: Brepols. Biener, Clemens. 1922a. Wie ist die nhd. Regel über die Stellung des Verbums entstanden. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 59: 165-179. Biener, Clemens. 1922b. Zur Methode der Untersuchung über deutsche Wortstellung. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 59: 127-144. Biener, Clemens. 1926. Die Stellung des Verbums im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 63: 225-256. Bishop, Harry M. 1977. The ‘subjectless’ sentence of Old High German. PhD Dissertation, University of California. Bolli, Ernst. 1975. Die verbale Klammer bei Notker: Untersuchungen zur Wortstellung in der Boethius-Übersetzung. Berlin: de Gruyter. Boor, Helmut de. 1922. Studien zur altschwedischen Syntax in den ältesten Gesetzestexten und Urkunden. Breslau: Marcus. Boor, Helmut de. 1928. Untersuchungen zur Sprachbehandlung Otfrids. Hiatus und Synalöphe. Breslau: Marcus. Borsley, Roberts and Andreas Kathol. 2000. Breton as a V2 language. Linguistics 38: 665-710. Borter, Alfred. 1982. Syntaktische Klammerbildung in Notkers Psalter. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Brandner, Ellen. 2004. Head-movement in minimalism and V2 as FORCE-marking. In The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery, Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler (eds), 96-138. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Brandt, Margareta, Marga Reis, Inger Rosengren and Ilse Zimmermann. 1992. Satztyp, Satzmodus und Illokution. In Satz und Illokution, (vol. 1), Inger Rosengren (ed.), 1-90. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Braune, Wilhelm. 1894. Zur Lehre von der deutschen Wortstellung. In Forschungen zur deutschen Philologie. Festgabe für Rudolf Hildebrand, Rudolf Hildebrand (ed.), 34-51. Leipzig: Veit. Braune, Wilhelm. 1987. Althochdeutsche Grammatik. 14th edition by Hans Eggers. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Braunmüller, Kurt. 1982. Syntaxtypologische Studien zum Germanischen. Tübingen: Narr.

340


Brodführer, Eduard. 1906. Beiträge zur Syntax Willirams, University of HalleWittenberg. Brugmann, Karl. 1917. Der Ursprung des Scheinsubjekts ‘es’ in den germanischen und den romanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. Bury, Dirk. 2003. Preverbal particles in verb-initial languages. Unpublished manuscript, University College London. Cabredo-Hofherr, Patricia. 1999. Two German impersonal passives and expletive ‘pro’. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 47-57. Cardinaletti, Anna. 1990a. Impersonal Constructions and Sentential Arguments in German. Padova: Padova University Press. Cardinaletti, Anna 1999. Pronouns in Germanic and Romance languages: An overview. In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), 33-82. Berlin: de Gruyter. Cardinaletti, Anna. 1990b. Subject/object asymmetries in German null-topic constructions and the status of specCP. In Grammar in Progress. Glow Essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, Marina Nespor and Joan Mascaró (eds), 75-84. Dordrecht: Foris. Cardinaletti, Anna and Ian Roberts. 1991. Clause structure and X-second. Unpublished manuscript, Università di Venezia and Université de Genève. Cardinaletti, Anna and Michal Starke. 1996. Deficient pronouns: A view from Germanic. A study in the unified description of Germanic and Romance. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax II, Höskuldur Thráinsson, Samuel David Epstein and Steve Peter (eds), 21-65. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Cardinaletti, Anna and Michal Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: on the three grammatical cases. In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), 145-233. Berlin: de Gruyter. Carnie Andrew, Heidi Harley and Elizabeth Pyatt. 2000. VSO order and raising out of IP? Some evidence from Old Irish. In The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages, Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle (eds), 39-59. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 1991. On the typology of wh-questions. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures (vol. 3), Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104-131. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On si constructions and the theory of ‘arb’. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 512-582. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1997. ‘Topic’ constructions in some European Languages and ‘connectedness’. In Materials on Left Dislocation, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Henk van Riemsdijk and Frans Zwart (eds), 93-118. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Collins, Chris and Phil Branigan. 1997. Quotative inversion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 1-41.

REFERENCES

341

Cooper, Kathrin E. 1999. On the nature and distribution of Zurich pronominal clitics. In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), 711-730. Berlin: de Gruyter. Dal, Ingerid. 1966. Kurze deutsche Syntax auf historischer Grundlage. 3rd improved edition. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Delbrück, Berthold. 1878. Altindische Wortfolge aus dem Śatapathabrāhmaṇa dargestellt. Syntaktische Forschungen III. Halle (Saale): Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses. Delbrück, Berthold. 1888. Altindische Syntax. Halle (Saale): Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses. [Reprint Darmstadt 1968, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft]. Delbrück, Berthold. 1900. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, 3. Teil. Vol. 5 of Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen by K. Brugmann and B. Delbrück. Straßburg: Trübner. Delbrück, Berthold. 1911. Germanische Syntax IV. Zur Stellung des Verbums. Leipzig: Teubner. Delbrück, Berthold. 1912. Beiträge zur germanischen Syntax IV: Die Stellung des Verbums in Sätzen mit doch und ja. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 37: 273-278. Demske-Neumann, Ulrike. 1994. Modales Passiv und Tough Movement. Zur strukturellen Kausalität eines syntaktischen Wandels im Deutschen und Englischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Diels, Paul. 1906. Die Stellung des Verbums in der älteren althochdeutschen Prosa. Berlin: Mayer und Müller. Diesing, Molly. 1997. Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 369-427. Dillon, Myles. 1947. Celtic and the other Indo-European languages. Transactions of the Philological Society 1947: 15-24. Dittmer, Arne and E. Dittmer. 1998. Studien zur Wortstellung – Satzgliedstellung in der althochdeutschen Tatianübersetzung. Prepared for publication by M. Flör and J. Klempt. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck und Ruprecht. Donhauser, Karin. 1986. Der Imperativ im Deutschen. Studien zur Syntax und Semantik des deutschen Modussystems. Hamburg: Buske. Donhauser, Karin. 1996. Negationssyntax in der deutschen Sprachgeschichte: Grammatikalisierung oder Degrammatikalisierung? In Deutsch-typologisch, Ewald Lang and Gisela Zifonun (eds), 202-217. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. Drach, Erich. 1963. Grundgedanken der deutschen Satzlehre. 4th edition. Reprographic reprint of the 3rd edition Frankfurt (Main) 1940. Darmstadt: wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Dressler, Wolfgang. 1969. Eine textsyntaktische Regel der indogermanischen Wortstellung. (Zur Anfangsstellung des Prädikatverbums). Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft 83: 1-25. Duden 2005. Die Grammatik. 7thcompletely revised and expanded edition. Dudenredaktion (ed.). Mannheim et al.: Dudenverlag.

342


Dürscheid, Christa. 1989. Zur Vorfeldbesetzung in deutschen Verbzweit-Strukturen. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Ebert, Robert P. 1978. Historische Syntax des Deutschen. Stuttgart: Metzler. Ebert, Robert P., Oskar Reichmann, Hans-Joachim Solms and Klaus-Peter Wegera. 1993. Frühneuhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Eggenberger, Jakob. 1961. Das Subjektpronomen im Althochdeutschen. Ein syntaktischer Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte des deutschen Schrifttums. Grabs: Selbstverlag. Eggers, Hans. 1960. Vollständiges lateinisch-althochdeutsches Wörterbuch zur althochdeutschen Isidor-Übersetzung. Akademie-Verlag. Eggers, Hans. 1964. Einleitung. In Der althochdeutsche Isidor, Hans Eggers (ed.), VXXX. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Eichinger, Ludwig M. 1987. Zum Passiv im althochdeutschen Isidor. Versuch einer valenzsyntaktischen Beschreibung. In Das Passiv im Deutschen. Akten des Kolloquiums über das Passiv im Deutschen, Nizza 1986, Centre de Recherche en Linguistique Germanique (Nice) (ed.), 129-145. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Erdmann, Oskar. 1874. Untersuchungen über die Syntax der Sprache Otfrids. Erster Teil: Die Formationen des Verbums in einfachen und zusammengesetzten Sätzen. Halle (Saale): Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses. Erdmann, Oskar 1886. Grundzüge der deutschen Syntax nach ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Vol. 1. Stuttgart: Verlag der J.G. Cotta’schen Buchhandlung. [Reprint Hildesheim 1985, Georg Olms Verlag]. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 1995. Verbal syntax in the early Germanic languages. PhD Dissertation, Cornell University. Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 1996. Functional categories, cliticization and verb movement in the early Germanic languages. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax II, Höskuldur Thráinsson, Samuel David Epstein and Steve Peter (eds), 109-139. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2001. The syntax of verbs in Early Runic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 67: 1-55. Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2002. Negation in C: The syntax of negated verbs in Old Norse. Journal of Linguistics 25: 190-224. Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1994. Old and Middle Scandinavian. In The Germanic Languages, Ekkehard König and Johan van der Auwera (eds), 38-71. London, New York: Routledge. Falk, Cecilia. 1993a. Non-referential subjects in the history of Swedish. PhD Dissertation, University of Lund. Falk, Cecilia. 1993b. Non-referential subjects and agreement in the history of Swedish. Lingua 89: 143-180. Fanselow, Gisbert. 2002. Quirky ‘subjects’ and other specifiers. In More Than Words, Barbara Stiebels and Ingrid Kaufmann (eds), 227-250. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Fanselow, Gisbert. 2003a. Münchhausen-style head movement and the analysis of verb-second. In; Syntax at Sunset: Head movement and Syntactic Theory. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 10, Anoop Mahajan (ed.), 40-76.

REFERENCES

343

Fanselow, Gisbert. 2003b. Surprising specifiers and cyclic spellout. In Generative Linguistics in Poland 5. Proceedings of the GLiP-5 Conference held in Warsaw, Poland, 30 November-1 December 2002, Adam Przepiórkowski & Piotr Bański (eds), 29-36. Fanselow, Gisbert. 2004. Cyclic phonology-syntax-interaction: Movement to first position in German. In Working Papers of the SFB 632, Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) 1, Shinichiro Ishihara, Michaela Schmitz and Anne Schwarz (eds), 1-42. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. Faßbender, Heinrich. 1908. Die Stellung des Verbums in den Predigten des Bruder Berthold von Regensburg. PhD Dissertation, University of Bonn. Feigl, P. Friedrich A. 1904. Die Stellung der Satzglieder des Vollsatzes in Notkers Marcianus Capella. Vierundfünfzigster Jahresbericht des k.k. Stiftsgymnasiums zu Melk, P. Hermann Ulbrich (ed.). Melk: Selbstverlag des Gymnasiums. Ferraresi, Gisella. 1997. Word order and phrase structure in Gothic. A comparative study. PhD Dissertation, University of Stuttgart. Ferraresi, Gisella. 2005. Word Order and Phrase Structure in Gothic: A Comparative Study. Leuven: Peeters. Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language (vol. 2.), Norman Blake (ed.), 207-408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fleischer, Jürg. 2005. Zur Abfolge akkusativischer und dativischer Personalpronomen im Althochdeutschen und Altniederdeutschen. In Syntax Althochdeutsch – Mittelhochdeutsch, Franz Simmler (ed.), 9-48. Berlin: Weidler. Fleischmann, Klaus K. 1973. Verbstellung und Relieftheorie. Ein Versuch zur Geschichte des deutschen Nebensatzes. München: Fink. Fontana, Josep M. 1993. Phrase structure and the syntax of clitics in the history of Spanish. PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Fontana, Josep M. 1997. On the integration of second position phenomena. In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent (eds), 207-249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fortmann, Christian. 1996. Konstituentenbewegung in der DP-Struktur. Zur funktionalen Analyse der Nominalphrase im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Fourquet, Jean. 1938. L’ordre des éléments de la phrase en germanique ancien: études de syntaxe de position. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Frey, Werner. 2000. Über die syntaktische Position von Satztopiks im Deutschen. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 20: 137-172. Frey, Werner. 2004a. The grammar-pragmatics interface and the German prefield. Sprache und Pragmatik 52: 1-39. Frey, Werner. 2004b. Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics of German left dislocation. In The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery, Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler (eds), 203-233. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Friedrichs, Ernst. 1891. Die Stellung des Pronomen personale im Gotischen. PhD Dissertation, University of Leipzig. Fuß, Eric 2003. On the historical core of V2 in Germanic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26: 195-231.

344


Fuß, Eric and Carola Trips. 2002. Variation and change in Old and Middle English – On the validity of the Double Base Hypothesis. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4: 171-224. Ganz, Peter. 1969. Ms. Junius 13 und die althochdeutsche Tatianübersetzung. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 99: 28-76. Garrett, Andrew. 1990. The syntax of Anatolian pronominal clitics. PhD Dissertation, Harvard University. Garrett, Andrew. 1992. Topics in Lycian syntax. Historische Sprachforschung 105: 200-212. Garrett, Andrew. 1994. Relative clauses in Lycian and Hittite. Die Sprache 36: 29-69. Gärtner, Hans-Martin and Markus Steinbach. 2003a. What do reduced pronominals reveal about the syntax of Dutch and German? Part 1: Clause-internal positions. Linguistische Berichte 195: 257-294. Gärtner, Hans Martin and Markus Steinbach. 2003b. What do reduced pronominals reveal about the syntax of Dutch and German? Part 2: Fronting. Linguistische Berichte 196: 459-490. Gelderen, Elly van. 2000. A History of English Reflexive Pronouns: Person, Self and Interpretability. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. Gelderen, Elly van. 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. Gering, Hugo. 1876. Die Causalsätze und ihre Partikeln bei den althochdeutschen Übersetzern des achten und neunten Jahrhunderts. PhD Dissertation, University of Halle-Wittenberg. Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Language, Joseph Greenberg (ed.), 73-113. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Greule, Albrecht. 1987. Syntaktische Strukturen im Hildebrandslied. In Althochdeutsch (vol. 1), Rolf Bergmann, Heinrich Tiefenbach and Lothar Voetz (eds), 427-445. Heidelberg: Winter. Greule, Albrecht. 2000. Syntax des Althochdeutschen. In Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung (vol. 2), 2nd edition, Werner Besch, Anne Betten, Oskar Reichmann and Stefan Sonderegger (eds), 1207-1213, Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Grewendorf, Günther. 1988. Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Tübingen: Narr. Grewendorf, Günther. 1989. Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Foris. Grewendorf, Günther. 2002. Left dislocation as movement. In Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics (vol. 2), Simon Mauck and Jenny Mittelstaedt (eds), 31-81. Grimm, Jacob. 1967a. Deutsche Grammatik. Vol. 3. Gustav Roethe and Edward Schröder (eds). 4th Reprographic reprint of the edition Gütersloh 1890. Hildesheim: Georg Olms. Grimm, Jacob. 1967b. Deutsche Grammatik. Vol. 4. Gustav Roethe and Edward Schröder (eds). 4th Reprographic reprint of the edition Gütersloh 1898. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.

REFERENCES

345

Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2000. Towards a syntactic understanding of prosodically reduced pronouns. Theoretical Linguistics 26: 175-210. Haag-Merz, Christine. 1996. Pronomen im Schwäbischen – Syntax und Erwerb. Marburg: Tectum Verlag. Haeberli, Eric. 1999a. Features, categories and the syntax of A-positions. PhD Dissertation, University of Geneva. Haeberli, Eric. 1999b. On the word order ‘XP-subject’ in the Germanic languages. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3: 1-36. Haeberli, Eric. 2000. Adjuncts and the syntax of subjects in Old and Middle English. In Diachronic Syntax. Models and Mechanisms, George Tsoulas, Susan Pintzuk and Anthony Warner (eds), 109-131. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haeberli, Eric. 2001. Speculations on the syntax of subordinate clauses in Old English. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 201-229. Haeberli, Eric. 2002a. Inflectional morphology and the loss of verb second in English. In Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, David Lightfoot (ed.), 88-106. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haeberli, Eric. 2002b. Features, Categories and the Syntax of A-Positions. CrossLinguistic Variation in the Germanic Languages. Kluwer: Dordrecht. Haegeman, Liliane. 1998. V-positions and the middle field in West Flemish. Syntax 1: 259-299. Haegeman, Liliane and Henk van Riemsdijk. 1986. Verb projection raising, scope and the typology of rules affecting verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 417-466. Haider, Hubert. 1982. Dependenzen und Konfigurationen: Zur deutschen VProjektion. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 21: 1-60. Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax generativ. Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Haider, Hubert. 1994. (Un-)heimliche Subjekte – Anmerkungen zur Pro-drop Causa, im Anschluß an die Lektüre von Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth J. Safir (eds) ‘The Null Subject Parameter’. Linguistische Berichte 135: 372-385. Haider, Hubert. 1997. Projective economy: On the minimal functional structure of the German clause. In German: Syntactic Problems – Problematic Syntax, Werner Abraham and Elly van Gelderen (eds), 83-103, Tübingen: Niemeyer. Haider, Hubert. 2000. OV is more basic than VO. In The Derivation of VO and OV, Peter Svenonius (ed.), 45-67. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Haider, Hubert. 2005. How to turn German into Icelandic – And derive the OV-VO contrasts. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8: 1-53. Haiman, John. 1974. Targets and Syntactic Change. The Hague, Paris: Mouton. Hale, Mark Robert. 1987a. Notes on Wackernagel’s law in the language of the Rigveda. In Studies in Memory of Warren Cowgill. Papers from the Fourth East Coast Indo-European Conference Cornell University, June 6-9, 1985, Calvert Watkins (ed.), 38-50. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Hale, Mark Robert. 1987b. Studies in the comparative syntax of the oldest IndoIranian languages. PhD Dissertation, Harvard University. Halpern, Aaron. 1992. Topics in the placement and morphology of clitics. PhD Dissertation, Stanford University.

346


Hammarström, Emil. 1923. Zur Stellung des Verbums in der deutschen Sprache. Studien in volkstümlicher Literatur und Urkundensprache der Übergangszeit vom Mittelhochdeutschen zum Neuhochdeutschen. PhD Dissertation, University of Lund. Harbert, Wayne. 1999. Erino portun ih firchnussu. In Interdigitations, Gerald F. Carr, Wayne Harbert and Lihua Zhang (eds), 257-268. New York, Frankfurt (Main), Berlin: Lang. Härd, John Evert. 1981. Studien zur Struktur mehrgliedriger deutscher Nebensatzprädikate. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Haudry, Jean. 1973. Parataxe, hypotaxe et corrélation dans la phrase latine. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 68: 147-186. Held, Karl. 1903. Das Verbum ohne pronominales Subjekt in der älteren deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Mayer & Müller. Hench, George Allison. 1890. Introduction. In The Monsee Fragments. Newly Collated Text with Introduction, Notes, Grammatical Treatise and Exhaustive Glossary and a Photo-Lithographic Fac-simile, George Allison Hench (ed.), IIIXXV. Straßburg: Trübner. Hendrick, Randall. 2000. Celtic initials. In The Syntax of the Verb Initial Languages, Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle (eds), 13-37. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hennig, Joachim Dieter. 1957. Studien zum Subjekt impersonal gebrauchter Verben im Althochdeutschen und Altniederdeutschen unter Berücksichtigung gotischer und altwestnordischer Zeugnisse, PhD Dissertation, University of Göttingen. Hentschel, Elke. 1986. Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Hentschel, Elke. 2003. Es war einmal ein Subjekt. Linguistik Online 13. http://www.linguistik-online.com/13_01/hentschel.html. Hettrich, Heinrich. 1988. Untersuchungen zur Hypotaxe im Vedischen. Berlin: de Gruyter. Heusler, Andreas. 1962. Altisländisches Elementarbuch. 5th edition. Heidelberg: Winter. Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2004. Language change versus grammar change: What diachronic data reveal about the distinction between core grammar and periphery. In Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar, Eric Fuß and Carola Trips (eds), 131160. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. Hinterhölzl, Roland, Svetlana Petrova and Michael Solf. 2005. Diskurspragmatische Faktoren für Topikalität und Verbstellung in der althochdeutschen Tatianübersetzung (9. Jh.). In Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) 3, Shinichiro Ishihara, Michaela Schmitz and Anne Schwarz (eds), 143-182. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag. Hirt, Hermann. 1934. Handbuch des Urgermanischen. Teil 3: Abriss der Syntax. Heidelberg: Winter. Hock, Hans Henrich. 1982. AUX-cliticization as a motivation for word-order change. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 12: 91-101.

REFERENCES

347

Höhle, Tilmann. 1986. Der Begriff Mittelfeld. Anmerkungen über die Theorie der Topologischen Felder. In Textlinguistik contra Stilistik? Wortschatz und Wörterbuch/ grammatische oder pragmatische Organisation von Rede. Akten des 7. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses (vol. 3), Ernst Herbert Wiegand, Walter Weiss and Marga Reis (eds), 329-340. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Holler, Anke. 2005. Weiterführende Nebensätze: Empirische und theoretische Aspekte. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Holmberg, Anders. 2000. Scandinavian stylistic fronting: How any category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 445-483. Holmberg, Anders. 2006. Stylistic fronting. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax (vol. 4), Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 530-563. Oxford: Blackwell. Holmberg, Anders and Christer Platzack. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Languages. New York: Oxford University Press. Hopper, Paul J. 1975. The Syntax of the Simple Sentence in Proto-Germanic. The Hague, Paris: Mouton. Horacek, Blanka. 1957. Zur Verbindung von Vorder- und Nachsatz im Deutschen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (H) 79: 415-439. Horacek, Blanka. 1964. Kunstprinzipien der Satzgestaltung: Studien zu einer inhaltbezogenen Syntax der deutschen Dichtersprache. Wien: Böhlau. Horst, Jim van der. 1981. Kleine Middelnederlandse syntaxis. Amsterdam: Huis aan de Drie Grachten. Howe, Stephen. 1996. The Personal Pronouns in the Germanic Languages. Berlin: de Gruyter. Hróarsdóttir, Þorbjörg. 2003. Word Order Change in Icelandic: From OV to VO. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1984. On the distribution and references of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531-574. Hulk, Aafke and Ans van Kemenade. 1995. Verb-second, pro-drop, functional projections and language change. In Clause Structure and Language Change, Adrian Battye and Ian Roberts (eds), 227-256. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986. Arbitrary plural pronominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 43-76. Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Kenneth Safir. 1989. The null-subject parameter and parametric theory. In The Null Subject Parameter, Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth Safir (eds), 1-44. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Jäger, Agnes. 2005. Negation in Old High German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 24: 227-262. Jäger, Agnes. 2006. History of German negation. PhD Dissertation, University of Jena. Kaiser, Georg A. 2002. Verbstellung und Verbstellungswandel in den romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Kartoschke, Dieter. 2000. Geschichte der deutschen Literatur im frühen Mittelalter. 3rd, updated edition. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.

348


Kayne, Richard. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 1983. Chains, categories, external to S and French complex inversion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 107-139. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Kelle, Johann (ed.). 1856. Otfrid von Weissenburgs Evangelienbuch. Teil 1: Text und Einleitung: mit Schriftproben. Regensburg: Manz. Kelle, Johann. (ed.) 1869. Otfrid von Weissenburgs Evangelienbuch. Teil 2: Die Formen- und Lautlehre der Sprache Otfrids. Regensburg: Manz. Kemenade, Ans van. 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht: Foris. Kemenade, Ans van. 1997. V2 and embedded topicalisation. In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent (eds), 326-352. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kemenade, Ans van. 2000. Jespersen’s cycle revisited: Formal properties of grammaticalization. In Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms, Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas and Anthony Warner (eds), 51-54. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In Clause Structure and Language Change, Adrian Battye and Ian Roberts (eds), 140-169. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kiparsky, Paul. 1996. The shift to head-initial VP in Germanic. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax II, Höskuldur Thráinsson, Samuel Epstein and Steve Peter (eds), 140-179. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Klavans, Judith L. 1985. The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization. Language 62: 95-120. Klein, Jared S. 1994. Gothic ‘þaruh’, ‘þanuh’ and ‘-(u)h þan’. Indogermanische Forschungen 99: 253-276. Klein, Jared S. and Nancy L Condon. 1993. Gothic ‘-(u)h’: A synchronic and comparative study. Transactions of the Philological Society 1993: 1-63. Klein, Thomas. 1987. Zur althochdeutschen Flexionsmorphologie aus synchroner Sicht. In Althochdeutsch. Vol. 1: Grammatik, Glossen und Texte, Rolf Bergmann, Heinrich Tiefenbach and Lothar Voetz (eds), 147-169. Heidelberg: Winter. Klemm, Eberhard. 1912. Satzmelodische Untersuchungen zum althochdeutschen Isidor. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 37: 1-78. Klima, Edward S. 1965. Studies in diachronic transformational syntax. PhD Dissertation, Harvard University. Knaus, Harald. 1995. Deutsche Syntax – diachron. Verb-dritt-Sätze im Mittelhochdeutschen und Frühneuhochdeutschen. Master’s Thesis, University of Stuttgart. Kögel, Rudolf. 1882. Zum deutschen Verbum. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 8: 126-139. König, Ekkehard and Johan van der Auwera. 1988. Clause integration in German and Dutch conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives. In Clause Combin-

REFERENCES

349

ing in Grammar and Discourse, John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 101-133. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Koopman, Willem. 1995.Verb-final main clauses in Old English prose. Studia Neophilologia 67: 129-144. Koopman, Willem. 1996. Inversion after single and multiple topics in Old English. In Advances in English Historical Linguistics, Jacek Fisiak and Marcin Krygier (eds), 135-150. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Koopman, Willem. 1997. Another look at clitics in Old English. Transactions of the Philological Society 95: 73-93. Koster, Jan. 1975. Dutch as an SOV language. Linguistic Analysis 1: 11-136. Kracke, Otto. 1911. Die Entwicklung der Mittelstellung des deutschen Nebensatzes. PhD Dissertation, University of Gießen. Krauel, J. 1989. Verb position and verb type in older German: Evidence from the Hildebrandslied. LACUS Forum 16: 501-510. Krisch, Thomas. 2004. Some aspects of word order and sentence type: From IndoEuropean to New High German. In Analecta homini universala dicata. Arbeiten zur Indogermanistik, Linguistik, Philologie, Politik, Musik und Dichtung. Festschrift für Oswald Panagl zum 65. Geburtstag, Thomas Krisch, Thomas Lindner and Ulrich Müller (eds), 106-129. Stuttgart: Verlag Hans-Dieter Heinz, Akademischer Verlag. Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar and patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1: 199-244. Kroch, Anthony and Ann Taylor. 1997. Verb movement in Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact. In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent (eds), 297-325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kroch, Anthony, and Ann Taylor. 2000. Verb object order in Early Middle English. In Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms, Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas and Anthony Warner (eds), 132-163. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krotz, Elke. 2002. Auf den Spuren des althochdeutschen Isidor. Studien zur Pariser Handschrift, den Monseer Fragmenten und zum Codex Junius 25, mit einer Neuedition des Glossars Jc. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Lawson, Richard H. 1980. Paratactic ‘thô’ in Old High German ‘Tatian’. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 81: 99-104. Lehmann, Christian. 1980. Der indogermanische kwi-/kwo-Relativsatz im typologischen Vergleich. In Linguistic Reconstruction and Indo-European Syntax. Proceedings of the Colloquium of the ‘Indogermanische Gesellschaft’, University of Pavia, 6-7 September 1979, Paolo Ramat (ed.), 155-170. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin, London: University of Texas Press. Lenerz, Jürgen. 1977. Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr. Lenerz, Jürgen. 1984. Syntaktischer Wandel und Grammatiktheorie. Eine Untersuchung an Beispielen aus der Sprachgeschichte des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

350


Lenerz, Jürgen. 1985a. Zur Theorie des syntaktischen Wandels: Das expletive ‘es’ in der Geschichte des Deutschen. In Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen, Werner Abraham (ed.), 99-136. Tübingen: Narr. Lenerz, Jürgen. 1985b. Diachronic syntax: Verb position and COMP in German. In Studies in German Grammar, Jindřich Toman (ed.), 103-132. Dordrecht: Foris. Lenerz, Jürgen. 1993. Zu Syntax und Semantik deutscher Personalpronomina. In Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur, Marga Reis (ed.), 117-153. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Lippert, Jörg. 1974. Beiträge zur Technik und Syntax althochdeutscher Übersetzungen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Isidorgruppe und des althochdeutschen Tatian. München: Fink. Lockwood, William B. 1968. Historical German Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. La posizione del verbo gotico e la sintassi comparata dei complementatori germanici: Alcune riflessioni preliminari. In: Miscellanea di studi linguistici in onore di Walter Belardi, P. Cipriano, P. Di Giovine and M. Mancini (eds), 353-373. Rome: Il Calamo. Lötscher, Andreas. 1978. Zur Verbstellung im Zürichdeutschen und in anderen Varianten des Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 45: 1-29. Lötscher, Andreas. 1998. Syntaktische Irregularitäten beim komplexen Satz im älteren Deutsch. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 120: 128. Lühr, Rosemarie. 1982. Studien zur Sprache des Hildebrandliedes. Teil 1: Kommentar. Teil 2: Kommentar. Bern: Peter Lang. Maling, Joan. 1976. Old Icelandic relative clauses: An unbounded deletion rule. NELS 7: 175-188. Maling, Joan. 1990. Inversion in embedded clauses in Modern Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic Syntax, Joan Maling and Annie Zaenen (eds), 71-91. San Diego, New York, Boston: Academic Press. Manthey, Willy. 1903. Syntaktische Beobachtungen an Notkers Übersetzung des Martianus Capella. PhD Dissertation, University of Berlin. Masser, Achim. 1994. Zu dieser Ausgabe, Die Handschrift Cod. Sang. 56. In Die lateinisch-althochdeutsche Tatianbilingue Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen Cod. 56, Achim Masser (ed.), 9-35. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Masser, Achim. 1997. Syntaxprobleme im althochdeutschen Tatian. In Semantik der syntaktischen Beziehungen. Akten des Pariser Kolloquiums zur Erforschung des Althochdeutschen 1994, Ivon Desportes (ed.), 123-140. Heidelberg: Winter. Matzel, Klaus. 1970. Untersuchungen zur Verfasserschaft, Sprache und Herkunft der althochdeutschen Isidor-Sippe. Bonn: Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag. Maurer, Friedrich. 1924. Zur Anfangsstellung des Verbs im Deutschen. In Beiträge zur germanischen Sprachwissenschaft. Festschrift für O. Behaghel, Wilhelm Horn (ed.), 141-184. Heidelberg: Winter. Maurer, Friedrich. 1926. Untersuchungen über die deutsche Verbstellung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Heidelberg: Winter. McCloskey, James. 2004. Questions and questioning in local English. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Santa Cruz.

REFERENCES

351

McKnight, George Harley. 1897. The primitive Teutonic order of words. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 1: 136-219. Meillet, Antoine. 1908/1909. Notes sur quelques faits gothiques. Mélanges de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 15: 73-103. Merkle, Ludwig. 1975. Bairische Grammatik. München: Hugendubel. Meurers, Detmar. 2000. Lexical generalizations in the syntax of German non-finite constructions. PhD Dissertation, University of Tübingen. Bericht Nr. 145 des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Stuttgart, Tübingen. Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Molnár, Valéria. 1998. Topic in focus – On the syntax, phonology, semantics and pragmatics of the so-called ‘contrastive topic’ in Hungarian and German. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45: 89-166. Mueller, H. 1930. Studien zur altgermanischen Wortstellung. PhD Dissertation, University of Berlin. Müller, Gertraud and Theodor Frings. 1959. Die Entstehung der deutschen daß-Sätze. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Müller, Stefan. 2003. Mehrfache Vorfeldbesetzung. Deutsche Sprache 31: 29-62. Müller, Stefan. 2005. Zur Analyse der scheinbar mehrfachen Vorfeldbesetzung. Linguistische Berichte 203: 297-330. Mussafia, Adolfo. 1886. Enclisi o proclisi del pronome personale atono quale oggeto. Romania 27: 145-146. Näf, Anton. 1979. Die Wortstellung in Notkers Consolatio. Untersuchungen zur Syntax und Übersetzungstechnik. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Nübling, Damaris. 1992. Klitika im Deutschen. Schriftsprache, Umgangssprache, alemannische Dialekte. Tübingen: Narr. Ohly, C.H. 1888. Die Wortstellung bei Otfrid. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Wortstellungslehre. PhD Dissertation, University of Freiburg. Önnerfors, Olaf. 1997. Verb-erst-Deklarativsätze. Grammatik und Pragmatik. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiskell International. Oppenrieder, Wilhelm. 1987. Aussagesätze im Deutschen. In Satzmodus zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik, Jörg Meibauer (ed.), 161-189. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ostberg, Kurt. 1979. The Old High German Isidor in Its Relationship to the Extant Manuscripts (Eighth to Twelfth century) of Isidorus ‘De fide catholica’. Göppingen: Kümmerle. Paul, Hermann. 1968. Deutsche Grammatik. Vol. III. Reprint of the 1st edition Tübingen 1919. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Paul, Hermann. 1998. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. 24th edition revised by Peter Wiehl and Siegfrid Grosse. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Petrova, Svetlana. 2006. A discourse-based approach to verb placement in Early West-Germanic. In Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) 5, Shinichiro Ishihara, Michaela Schmitz and Anne Schwarz (eds), 1-32. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag. Pintzuk, Susan. 1991. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

352


Pintzuk, Susan. 1993. Verb seconding in Old English: Verb movement to Infl. The Linguistic Review 10: 5-36. Pintzuk, Susan. 1996. Cliticization in Old English. In Approaching Second. Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena, Aaron Halpern and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds), 375-409. Pintzuk, Susan. 1999. Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English Word Order. New York: Garland. Platzack, Christer. 1998. A visibility condition for the C-domain. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 61: 53-100. Platzack, Christer and Inger Rosengren. 1998. On the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the imperative clause. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1: 177-224. Poletto, Cecilia. 2000. The Higher Functional Field. Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Poletto, Cecilia. 2002. The left-periphery of V2-Rhaetoromance dialects: A new view on V2 and V3. In Syntactic Microvariation, Sjef Barbiers, Leonie Cornips and Susanne van der Kleij (eds). online publication: http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/books/synmic/ Pollock, Jean-Ives. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London, New York: Longman. Rannow, Max. 1888. Der Satzbau des althochdeutschen Isidor im Verhältnis zur lateinischen Vorlage. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Syntax. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53-94. Reinhart, Tanya. 1995. Interface Strategies. OTS Working Papers. Utrecht University. Reis, Hans. 1901. Über althochdeutsche Wortfolge. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 33: 212-238, 330-349. Reis, Marga. 1997. Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. In Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, Christa Dürscheid, Karl-Heinz Ramers and Monika Schwarz (eds), 121-144. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Reis, Marga. 2000a. Anmerkungen zu Verb-erst-Satz-Typen im Deutschen. In Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis, Rolf Thieroff, Matthias Tamrat, Nanna Furhop and Oliver Teuber (eds), 215-227. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Reis, Marga. 2000b. Review: O. Önnerfors: Verb-erst-Deklarativsätze. Grammatik und Pragmatik. Studia Linguistica 54: 90-100. Reis, Marga. 2003. On the syntax of so-called focus particles in German – A reply to Büring/Hartmann 2001. Unpublished manuscript, University of Tübingen. [shortened version appeared as Reis (2005)]

REFERENCES

353

Reis, Marga. 2005. On the syntax of so-called focus particles in German – A reply to Büring and Hartmann 2001. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 459483. Reis, Marga and Inger Rosengren. 1997. A modular approach to the grammar of additive particles: The case of German ‘auch’. Journal of Semantics 14: 237-309. Ries, John. 1880. Die Stellung von Subject und Prädicatsverbum im Hêliand. Nebst einem Anhang metrischer Excurse: Ein Beitrag zur germanischen Wortstellungslehre. Straßburg: Trübner. Ries, John. 1907. Die Wortstellung im Beowulf. Halle (Saale): Niemeyer. Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects and the theory of ‘pro’. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 500558. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Speculations on verb second. In Grammar in Progress: A Festschrift for Henk van Riemsdijk, Joan Mascaró and Marina Nespor (eds), 375-385. Dordrecht: Foris. Rizzi, Luigi. 1994. Early null subjects and root null subjects. In Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar. Papers in Honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 Glow workshops, Teun Hoekstra and Bonnie Schwartz (eds), 151-176. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine-structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. On the cartography of syntactic stuctures. In The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures (vol. 2), Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 3-15. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, Ian. 1993. Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Roberts, Ian. 1996. Remarks on the Old English C-system and the diachrony of V2. In Language Change and Generative Grammar. (Sonderheft 7 (1995-96), Linguistische Berichte), Ellen Brandner and Gisella Ferraresi (eds), 154-167. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Roberts, Ian G. 2005. Principles and Parameters in a VSO Language: A Case Study in Welsh. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic Change. A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Robinson, Orrin W. 1994. Verb-first position in the Old High German ‘Isidor’ translation. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 93: 356-373. Robinson, Orrin W. 1997. Clause Subordination and Verb Placement in the Old High German ‘Isidor’ Translation. Heidelberg: Winter. Rohrbacher, Bernhard Wolfgang. 1999. Morphology-Driven Syntax: A Theory of V to I raising and pro-drop. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Rosengren, Inger. 2000. EPP and the post-finite expletive. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 65: 1-31. Rosengren, Inger. 2002. EPP: A syntactic device in the service of semantics. Studia Linguistica 56: 145-190. Ross, John R. 1982. Pronoun deleting processes in German. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego, California.

354


Ruhfus, Wilhelm. 1897. Die Stellung des Verbums im ahd. Tatian, PhD Dissertation, University of Heidelberg. Rupp, Heinz. 1956. Zum ‘Passiv’ im Althochdeutschen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Halle) 78: 256-286. Sabel, Joachim. 2000. Das Verbstellungsproblem im Deutschen: Synchronie und Diachronie. Deutsche Sprache 28: 74-99. Safir, Kenneth. 1985a. Syntactic Chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Safir, Kenneth. 1985b. Missing subjects in German. In Studies in German Grammar, Jindřich Toman (ed.), 231-287. Dordrecht: Foris. Santorini, Beatrice. 1989. The generalization of the verb-second constraint in the history of Yiddish. PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Santorini, Beatrice. 1992. Variation and change in Yiddish subordinate clause word order. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 595-640. Santorini, Beatrice. 1993a. The rate of phrase structure change in the history of Yiddish. Language Variation and Change 5: 257-283. Santorini, Beatrice. 1993b. Jiddisch als gemischte OV/VO-Sprache. In Dialektsyntax. (Sonderheft 5, Linguistische Berichte), Werner Abraham and Josef Bayer (eds), 230-245. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Scaglione, Aldo. 1981. Komponierte Prosa von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Vol 2: Die Theorie der Wortstellung im Deutschen. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Schieb, Gabriele. 1970. Zum Nebensatzrepertoire des ersten deutschen Prosaromans. Die Temporalsätze. In Gedenkschrift für William Foerste, Dietrich Hofmann (ed.), 167-230. Vienna, Cologne: Böhlau. Schallert, Oliver. 2006. Hybride OV/VO-Systeme und syntaktischer Wandel zu OV und VO in den germanischen Sprachen. Diploma thesis, University of Salzburg. Schlachter, Eva. 2004. Satzstruktur im Althochdeutschen: Eine Skizze zur Position des Verbs im Isidor-Traktat des 8. Jahrhunderts. In Beiträge zu Sprache & Sprachen 4. Vorträge der Bochumer Linguistik-Tage, Karin Pittner, Robert J. Pittner and Jan C. Schütte (eds), 179-188, Munich: LINCOM. Schlosser, Horst D. (ed.). 1998. Althochdeutsche Literatur: eine Textauswahl mit Übertragungen. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. Schmid, Tanja and Ralf Vogel. 2003. Dialectal variation in German 3-verb-clusters. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7: 235-274. Schmidt, Claudia Maria. 1995. Satzstruktur und Verbbewegung. Eine minimalistische Analyse zur internen Syntax der IP (INFLection-Phrase) im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Schöneberger, Manuela and Zvi Penner. 1995. Cross-dialectal variation in Swiss German: Doubling verbs, verb-projection raising, barrierhood and LF movement. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen and Sten Vikner (eds), 285-286. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Schröder, Werner. 1995. Zur Passivbildung im Althochdeutschen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Halle) 77:1-76. Schrodt, Richard. 1983. System und Norm in der Diachronie des deutschen Konjunktivs. Der Modus in althochdeutschen und mittelhochdeutschen Inhaltssätzen (Otfried von Weißenburg – Konrad von Würzburg). Tübingen: Niemeyer.

REFERENCES

355

Schrodt, Richard. 2004. Althochdeutsche Grammatik II: Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Schulze, Berthold. 1892. Zwei ausgewählte Kapitel der Lehre von der mittelhochdeutschen Wortstellung mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Wolframs Parzival. PhD Dissertation, University of Berlin. Schützeichel, Rudolf. 1995. Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. 5th, revised and expanded edition. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Schützeichel, Rudolf and Birgit Meineke. 2001. Die älteste Überlieferung von Willirams Kommentar des Hohen Liedes: Edition, Übersetzung, Glossar. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Shields, Kenneth. 1996. Old High German 1st plural mês. International Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 1: 283-292. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1989. Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. PhD Dissertation, University of Lund. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1990. V1 declaratives and verb raising in Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic Syntax, Joan Maling and Annie Zaenen (eds), 41-69. San Diego: Academic Press. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1993. Argument drop in Old Icelandic. Lingua 89: 247280. Simmler, Franz. 2005. Gesamtsatzstrukturen in der Tatianbilingue und in Otfrids „Evangelienbuch“. In Syntax. Althochdeutsch – Mittelhochdeutsch. Eine Gegenüberstellung von Metrik und Prosa. Akten zum Internationalen Kongress an der Freien Universität Berlin 26. bis 29. Mai 2004, Franz Simmler (ed.), 91-122. Berlin: Weidler. Smith, Jesse R. 1971. Word order in the older Germanic dialects. PhD Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Sonderegger, Stefan. 1974. Althochdeutsche Sprache und Literatur. Eine Einführung in das älteste Deutsch. Darstellung und Grammatik. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Sonderegger, Stefan. 2003. Althochdeutsche Sprache und Literatur. Eine Einführung in das älteste Deutsch. Darstellung und Grammatik. 3rd revised and expanded edition. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Speyer, Augustin. 2007. Die Germanischen Sprachen: Ein historischer Vergleich. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Sprouse, Rex and Barbara Vance. 1999. An explanation for the decline of null pronouns in certain Germanic and Romance languages. In Language Creation and Language Change: Creolization, Diachrony and Development, Michel de DeGraff (ed.), 256-284. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Starker, Johann. 1883. Die Wortstellung der Nachsätze in den ahd. Übersetzungen des Matthäusevangeliums, des Isidors und des Tatian. Beuthen: Wissenschaftliche Beilage des 16. Jahresberichts des Städtischen Katholischen Gymnasiums zu Beuthen, O.-S. Stechow, Arnim van and Wolfgang Sternefeld. 1988. Bausteine syntaktischen Wissens. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1985. On case and binding theory. In Studies in German Grammar, Jindřich Toman (ed.), 231-287. Dordrecht: Foris.

356


Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2006. Syntax. Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen. 2 vols. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Stockwell, Robert. 1977. Motivations for exbraciation in Old English. In Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, Charles N. Li (ed.), 197-268. Austin: University of Texas Press. Stockwell, Robert and Donka Minkova. 1991. Subordination and word order change in the history of English. In Historical English Syntax, Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), 367-408. Berlin: de Gruyter. Streitberg, Wilhelm. 1963. Urgermanische Grammatik: Einführung in das vergleichende Studium der altgermanischen Dialekte. 3rd unchanged edition. Heidelberg: Winter. Suchsland, Peter. 2000. ‘... ibu dû mî ȩ̂nan sagês, ik mî dê ôdre uuêt’. Zur Syntax des ‘Hildebrandliedes’. Eine Fallstudie. In Septuaginta quinque. Festschrift für Heinz Mettke, Jens Haustein (ed.), 355-379. Heidelberg: Winter. Suñer, Margerita. 1983. proarb. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 188-191. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald 1978. On the NIC, vacuous application, and the that-t filter. Unpublished manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1986. On verb second and the functional content of Syntactic categories. In Verb Second Phenomena in the Germanic Languages, Hubert Haider and Martin Prinzhorn (eds), 7-26. Dordrecht: Foris. Thiersch, Craig. 1978. Topics in German syntax. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Thim-Mabrey, Christiane. 1988. Satzadverbialia und andere Ausdrücke im Vorvorfeld. Deutsche Sprache 16: 52-67. Thráinsson, Höskuldur and Thóra B. Hjartardóttir. 1986. Pro-drop, topic-drop ...: Where do Old and Modern Icelandic fit in? In Scandinavian Syntax. Workshop at the Ninth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Stockholm, January 1986, Östen Dahl and Anders Holmberg (eds), 150-162. Stockholm, Institute of Linguistics. Tobler, A. 1889. Vermischte Beiträge zur französischen Grammatik. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 13: 186-191. Todt, August. 1894. Die Wortstellung im Beowulf. Anglia 16: 226-260. Tomanetz, Karl. 1879. Die Relativsätze bei den althochdeutschen Uebersetzern des 8. u. 9. Jahrhunderts. Vienna: Carl Gerold’s Sohn. Tomaselli, Alessandra. 1995. Cases of verb third in Old High German. In Clause Structure and Language Change, Allan Battye and Ian Roberts (eds), 345-369. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Travis, Lisa deMena. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Travis, Lisa deMena. 1991. Parameters of phrase structure and V2 phenomena. In Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, Robert Freidin (ed.), 339364. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Twaddell, William F. 1932. A main clause with “final verb” in Notker’s ‘Boethius’. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 31: 403-406.

REFERENCES

357

Vainikka, Anne and Yonota Levy. 1999. Empty subjects in Hebrew and Finnish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 613-671. Valentin, Paul. 1987. Althochdeutsch ‘inu’, ‘eno’, ‘inno’. In Althochdeutsch. Band II: Wörter und Namen. Forschungsgeschichte, Rolf Bergmann (ed.), 1152-1160. Heidelberg: Winter. Valentin, Paul. 1994. Zur Gliedfolge im Notkerschen Satz. In Philologische Forschungen. Festschrift für Philippe Marcq, Ivon Desportes (ed.), 283-294. Heidelberg: Winter. Vance, Barbara. 1997. Syntactic Change in Medieval French. Verb-second and Null Subjects. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer. Vanelli, Laura, Lorenzo Renzi and Paola Benincà. 1985. Typologie des pronoms sujets dans les langues romanes. In Actes du XVIIe Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes (1983) (vol. 3), 163-176. Aix: Université de Provence. Velde, Marc van de. 1979. Zum Vorfeld im heutigen Deutsch (2 vols). PhD Dissertation, University of Gent. Vennemann, Theo. 1975. An explanation of drift. In Word Order and Word Order Change, Charles N. Li (ed.), 269-305. Austin: University of Texas Press. Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vikner, Sten. 2001. Verb movement variation in Germanic Optimality Theory. Habilitationsschrift, Neuphilologische Fakultät, University of Tübingen. Vries, Mark de. 2004. Head-internal relative clauses in Dutch? Linguistics in the Netherlands 21: 193-204. Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892. Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333-435. Watkins, Calvert. 1963. Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish Verb. Celtica 6: 1-49. Watkins, Calvert. 1964. Preliminaries to the Reconstruction of Indo-European Sentence Structure. Paper presented at Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. Wauchope, Mary Michele. 1991. The Grammar of the Old High German Modal Particles thoh, ia and thanne. New York, San Francisco, Bern, Frankfurt (Main), Paris, London: Peter Lang. Weerman, Fred. 1988. The V2 Conspiracy. A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis of Verbal Positions in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Foris. Wehrli, Max. 1980. Geschichte der deutschen Literatur vom frühen Mittelalter bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart: Reclam. Wehrli, Max. 1984. Literatur im deutschen Mittelalter. Eine poetologische Einführung. Stuttgart: Reclam. Weiß, Helmut. 1998. Syntax des Bairischen. Studien zur Grammatik einer natürlichen Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Weiß, Helmut. 2005a. Inflected complementizers in continental West Germanic dialects. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 72: 148-166.

358


Weiß, Helmut. 2005b. The double competence hypothesis. On diachronic evidence. In Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, Stephan Kepser and Marga Reis (eds), 557-575. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter,. Weiß, Helmut. to appear. Die rechte Peripherie im Althochdeutschen. Zur Verbstellung in dass-Sätzen. To appear in Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Jena 2006. Willis, David E. 1998. Syntactic Change in Welsh. A Study of the Loss of VerbSecond. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wissmann, Wilhelm. 1960. Zum althochdeutschen Tatian. In Indogermanica. Festschrift für Wolfgang Krause zum 65. Geburtstag, Wilhelm Wissmann (ed.), 249267. Heidelberg: Winter. Wunder, Dieter. 1965. Der Nebensatz bei Otfrid. Untersuchungen zur Syntax des deutschen Nebensatzes. Heidelberg: Winter. Wunderlich, Dieter. 1984. Zur Syntax der Präpositionalphrase im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 3: 65-99. Wunderlich, Hermann and Hans Reis. 1924. Der deutsche Satzbau. Vol. 1. 3rd, completely revised edition. Stuttgart, Berlin: Cotta. Zifonun, Gisela, Luger Hofmann and Bruno Strecker. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. 3 Vols. Berlin: de Gruyter. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1991. Clitics in Dutch: Evidence for the position of Infl. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 33: 71-92. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1997. The Morphosyntax of Verb Movement: A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. On Clitics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61: 283-305.

INDEX

null subject with arbitrary reference 295,

A A-bar position 97, 103, 173

298, 302 subject pronoun with arbitrary reference 122, 301, 302

adjective 4, 35, 82, 126, 190, 206, 220 adjunction 67, 69, 228, 234, 251, 291

assertive 165

adverb 6, 103, 106, 152, 226, 264, 276

asymmetric

adverb phrase 240

asymmetric sentence structure 139, 140, 291, 326

adversative adverb 159 demonstrative adverb 85, 180, 280

asymmetric verb movement 6, 16, 139, 238, 268, 279, 285, 290, 291

locative adverb 156, 228 modal adverb 218

auxilliary 274

ni as an adverb 12, 152

B

pro-adverb 233 sentence adverb 10, 159, 198, 222, 227 short adverb 224, 259 temporal adverb 42, 60, 198, 223 adverbial clause 13, 71, 85, 160, 161, 167, 179,

Bavarian 2, 3, 17, 122, 156, 260, 261, 269, 270, 271, 299, 321 Binding 301, 303 bridge predicate 108

209, 213, 227–33, 310

C

affirmative 13, 44, 47, 49, 50, 110, 169, 211 agreement 204, 276, 321, 323

c-commanded 313, 314, 321

case agreement 204, 269

Celtic 29, 184

complementizer agreement 315

clitcization 274

rich agreement 314

clitic

subject-verb agreement 138

ban on clitic-first 276

AgrP 141, 142, 275, 276, 286

clitic adverbs 223, 225, 248

AgrS 265

clitics in agreement projections 269, 276

Alemannic 2, 3

clitics in Vedic Sanskrit 175

allomorphic 256

clitics inducing gedeckte Anfangsstellung

anaphoric 75, 195, 198, 261, 262

264

Anatolian 28, 176, 177

negation as a clitic 231

Anfangsstellung 155, 162

phonological clitic 223, 226, 256, 259, 260,

gedeckte Anfangsstellung 23, 28, 238, 264 reine Anfangsstellung 264 A-position 97, 182 arbitrary arbitrary plural construction 295

277, 280 simple clitic 260 special clitic 260

360


syntactic clitic 223, 238, 258, 260, 264,

EPP-feature 117, 123, 161, 191, 200, 201, 202 ergative 90, 132

265, 280 coindexed 93, 122, 136, 137, 147, 233, 318

exclamative 42, 60

comparative 1, 27, 82, 109, 131, 151, 225

existential 120, 122, 124, 130, 161, 170, 171

competence 321

expletive

competition 82, 323, 324, 325, 326

expletive es 116, 120, 124, 149, 169, 170, 171, 191

complement 33, 38, 39, 98, 107, 151, 177, 230 conditional 7, 41, 228

expletive iʒ 11, 120, 124, 127

conflation 235

expletive pro 135, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142,

conjunct 57, 61, 77

148, 172, 286, 297

conjunction 76

extraction 140, 192

causal conjunction 160, 165, 310 coordinating conjunction 12, 36, 78, 157,

extraposition 11, 72, 73, 80, 82, 88–94, 102, 103, 131–35, 137, 253

158, 159, 161, 166, 175, 188, 229

F

subordinating conjunction 14, 35, 39, 76, 258

Faroese 107

coordination 77, 79, 262, 263 corpora 166

feature 116, 137, 138, 191, 193, 195, 199, 200, 201, 315, 318

correlative 119, 143, 146, 147, 148, 149, 171, 178, 232

Fin 39, 111, 185, 201, 202, 210, 250 focus

CP-recursion 103, 104, 107, 108

D

contrastive focus 176, 192, 194, 263 focus feature 193, 199, 200 focus position 178, 182, 184, 233, 234, 280, 282

Danish 88, 107 definiteness effect 122, 136, 141, 142

focus projection (= Foc) 184, 186, 189

dhuo See thō

focus-background structure 164, 254

discourse 186–89, 300, 317, 318

fronting of focused XP 117, 120, 168, 174,

discourse connective 217, 222, 224, 225,

182, 185, 192, 195, 251, 252, 284 projection of focus 253

227, 250 discourse particle 60, 218, 224 Dutch 76, 95, 98, 141, 225, 255, 265, 266, 272,

question test for the identification of focus 193 Force 202, 208, 209, 229

276

Formal Movement 116, 117, 119, 191, 192,

E ECP 37 embedded 103, 140, 177, 214, 230, 233, 234, 309, 323 emphatic 60, 162, 167, 175, 176, 188, 300, 308, 324 eno 13, 42–46, 50, 51, 52, 168, 169, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 228 epistemic 218, 220, 221, 222, 225, 227, 234

195 Franconian 2, 3, 18 East Franconian 3 South Rhine Franconian 3 French 260, 323 Medieval French 323 Old French 6, 107, 260, 323 Frisian 87, 141 Old Frisian 47

361

INDEX

functional head 9, 38, 80, 104, 110, 248, 272,

integrated 214, 230 interrogative particle See eno

278, 279, 291 functional projection 288 clitics in functional projections 265, 266,

intransitive 33, 127, 135, 142, 147 inu see eno inversion 5, 45, 141, 159, 266, 281, 287

288, 291 light verb phrase as a low functional

loss of inversion 323 prosodic inversion 280

projection 108 sentence-medial functional projection 15, 79, 95, 97, 104, 110, 137

quotative inversion 151 IP 80, 96, 139, 140, 154, 273, 284, 286, 287

G gender 204, 255

J jā 13, 46–52, 52, 70, 169

Gesetz der wachsenden Glieder 238, 252

K

Gothic 29, 32, 33, 35–40, 183–89, 197, 208

H

Kashmiri 184

L

habitual word order 162 Head Movement Constraint 254, 277 Hittite 173–77

left dislocation 11, 174, 176, 177, 178, 181, 182, 207, 208, 203–11, 220, 233, 282

I Icelandic 95, 123, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142, 143, 154, 297, 299 Old Icelandic 151, 153, 154, 178, 318 identification 301, 303, 311, 322, 323 illocutionary 10, 164, 165

German Left Dislocation 203, 204, 205, 206 lexicalization 29 line break 19, 24, 65, 71, 77, 92, 93, 110, 203, 246 loan syntax 16, 76, 114, 129, 246, 293, 305–7, 311, 319, 321

impersonal construction 129, 143, 146, 147,

M

148, 171, 231, 267 indefinite

man See indefinite

in first position 119, 187, 196, 197, 198

metre 51, 52, 70, 102, 110, 249

indefinite pronoun man 248, 296, 302

Minimal Link 117

Indo-European clause combining 177, 232 particles 40, 183

morphological 2, 16, 38, 146, 260, 269, 293, 294, 305, 314–16 mutative 124, 125, 130, 131, 166

Proto-Indo-European sentence structure

N

174 verb fronting 27–29, 29, 30, 56, 162 verb-end order 68 XP-movement 173–77, 196 inflection 315, 316, 317, 321, 322 information structure 10, 118, 123, 133, 161, 164, 185, 191, 252, 253

negation particle 12, 15, 51, 61, 62, 153, 180, 210, 231, 247, 282 ni See negation particle nū 42, 44, 60, 61, 168, 220, 226, 242, 248, 258, 264 null subject See pro-drop

362


O oblique 128, 145, 146, 149, 240, 243, 251, 267, 297 occasional word order 28 Old Irish 29 Old Norse 6, 34, 47, 60, 68, 238, 266 Old Saxon 4, 34, 57, 58, 60, 68, 131, 238, 288 Old Spanish 6 operator movement 116, 171, 191, 192–96 operator-initial 34, 239, 286 orthographic 226, 256, 259 OV-order 9, 15, 69, 85, 95

P

reflexive 131, 132, 243, 250, 272, 312 relative clause adverbial relative clause 232, 233 bare-complementizer relative clause 178, 232 correlative relative clause 232 internally-headed relative clause 71, 75, 76 pronoun relative clause 176, 178, 232 residual verb-second 34, 181, 289 resumptive pronoun 11, 174, 176, 178, 182, 205, 280 rhematic 11, 162, 163, 164 rhyme 22, 51, 52, 70, 102, 110, 249 Runic inscriptions 29, 31, 68

S

parameter head-complement parameter 83, 88, 95, 109, 273 pro-drop parameter 294 paratactic 14 parenthetical 55, 150, 151, 212, 213, 214, 215 particle verb 88 passive 126, 128, 130, 253, 296, 302, 312 impersonal passive 122, 127, 138, 295, 297 prefield-es 122, 140, 148, 149, 156 presentational 121, 124, 161, 170, 171 preverb 29, 38, 39, 60 pro-drop 12, 37, 138, 147, 154, 207, 242, 243, 262, 293–327 partial pro-drop 135, 182 semi-pro-drop 141, 297 pronoun strong pronoun 269, 290 weak pronoun 48, 250, 266, 269, 276, 286 Proto-Germanic 30, 40, 46, 178–83, 260, 295

Q

Sanskrit 28, 173, 174, 175 Scandinavian 32, 109, 178 scribe 19, 126, 190, 195, 246, 267, 317 semantic-pragmatic 116, 117, 176, 191, 193, 197, 199, 200, 203, 300, 307 sentence typing 1, 14, 45, 46, 58, 61, 62, 168, 199, 208 shell structure 109 short verb movement 100, 108–9 Späterstellung 30 Stylistic Fronting 199 as absent in Gothic 196–200 in Icelandic 123 in Old High German 119, 120, 161, 172 in present-day German 116, 117, 119, 191, 195 subject gap 123 subject-initial 117, 141, 251, 266, 285 subordination 7, 13, 14 subordinator 6, 7, 14, 46, 74, 76, 80, 85 Swabian 260, 261, 270

quasi-argument 11, 137, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 170, 171, 172, 310 quotative See quotative inversion

R reanalysis 28, 140, 148, 149, 182, 325

Swedish 95, 122, 136, 182 Old Swedish 77 Swiss German 105 syntactic change 140, 148

363

INDEX

T thematic 162, 163 thetic 117, 124 thō 134, 155, 156, 157, 167, 171, 224, 225,

translation technique 16–22, 32, 63, 64, 66, 84, 128, 129, 248, 305–7, 320, 319–21 Travis-Zwart hypothesis 139, 140, 265, 266, 268

227, 248, 264, 312

U

meaning of 156, 167 postfinite thō 121, 150, 167, 169 prefinite thō 128, 155, 242, 264

unaccusative 90, 91, 92, 102, 118, 129, 131– 36, 137, 253

subordinator 6, 14, 76

V

XP–THŌ–Vfin 224, 225 Tobler-Mussafia 275 topic

verb projection raising 9, 98, 99, 100, 103, 105, 110, 274

aboutness topic 195

verb raising 9, 74, 85, 95

contrastive topic 187

verbal complex 9, 87

discourse topic 162, 219, 225

VO-order 82, 87, 88, 91, 94

dislocated topic See left dislocation

VP-internal 122, 139, 180, 287, 288

extralinguistic topic 164

V-to-I movement 95–98, 274, 279

hanging topic 11, 203, 204, 205

W

semantic topic 119 topic drop 116, 153–57, 158, 172, 305, 307 topic feature 199 topic position 99, 140, 164, 174, 178, 179, 180, 181, 196, 233, 280, 282, 283, 287 topic projection (= Top) 184, 186 topic-comment 164 topic-initial 34, 139, 141, 251, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 291 topological 18, 67

Wackernagel position 260, 268 Wackernagel's Law 175, 238, 275 West Flemish 105, 225, 255, 272 whcriterion 274, 275, 277 extraction 140, 192 movement 15, 173, 174, 179, 184, 233, 252 word boundaries 256

TP 98, 141, 142, 286

Y

transitive 91, 92, 127, 128, 133, 134, 137, 142, 145, 146, 147, 149

Yiddish 88, 104

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers’ website, www.benjamins.com 116 Endo, Yoshio: Locality and Information Structure. A cartographic approach to Japanese. x, 239 pp. Expected November 2007 115 Putnam, Michael T.: Scrambling and the Survive Principle. ix, 216 pp. Expected October 2007 114 Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera: Beyond Coherence. The syntax of opacity in German. viii, 204 pp. Expected October 2007 113 Eythórsson, Thórhallur (ed.): Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory. The Rosendal papers. ca. 425 pp. Expected November 2007 112 Axel, Katrin: Studies on Old High German Syntax. Left sentence periphery, verb placement and verbsecond. 2007. xi, 363 pp. 111 Eguren, Luis and Olga Fernández Soriano (eds.): Coreference, Modality, and Focus. Studies on the syntax–semantics interface. xii, 236 pp. + index. Expected November 2007 110 Rothstein, Susan (ed.): Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. vi, 439 pp. + index. Expected November 2007 109 Chocano, Gema: Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form. Scrambling in the Germanic languages. 2007. x, 333 pp. 108 Reuland, Eric, Tanmoy Bhattacharya and Giorgos Spathas (eds.): Argument Structure. v, 241 pp. + index. Expected October 2007 107 Corver, Norbert and Jairo Nunes (eds.): The Copy Theory of Movement. 2007. vi, 388 pp. 106 Dehé, Nicole and Yordanka Kavalova (eds.): Parentheticals. 2007. xii, 314 pp. 105 Haumann, Dagmar: Adverb Licensing and Clause Structure in English. 2007. ix, 438 pp. 104 Jeong, Youngmi: Applicatives. Structure and interpretation from a minimalist perspective. 2007. vii, 144 pp. 103 Wurff, Wim van der (ed.): Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar. Studies in honour of Frits Beukema. 2007. viii, 352 pp. 102 Bayer, Josef, Tanmoy Bhattacharya and M.T. Hany Babu (eds.): Linguistic Theory and South Asian Languages. Essays in honour of K. A. Jayaseelan. 2007. x, 282 pp. 101 Karimi, Simin, Vida Samiian and Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.): Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds. 2007. vi, 424 pp. 100 Schwabe, Kerstin and Susanne Winkler (eds.): On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Generalizations across languages. 2007. vii, 570 pp. 99 Martínez-Gil, Fernando and Sonia Colina (eds.): Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. 2007. viii, 564 pp. 98 Pires, Acrisio: The Minimalist Syntax of Defective Domains. Gerunds and infinitives. 2006. xiv, 188 pp. 97 Hartmann, Jutta M. and László Molnárfi (eds.): Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax. From Afrikaans to Zurich German. 2006. vi, 332 pp. 96 Lyngfelt, Benjamin and Torgrim Solstad (eds.): Demoting the Agent. Passive, middle and other voice phenomena. 2006. x, 333 pp. 95 Vogeleer, Svetlana and Liliane Tasmowski (eds.): Non-definiteness and Plurality. 2006. vi, 358 pp. 94 Arche, María J.: Individuals in Time. Tense, aspect and the individual/stage distinction. 2006. xiv, 281 pp. 93 Progovac, Ljiljana, Kate Paesani, Eugenia Casielles and Ellen Barton (eds.): The Syntax of Nonsententials. Multidisciplinary perspectives. 2006. x, 372 pp. 92 Boeckx, Cedric (ed.): Agreement Systems. 2006. ix, 346 pp. 91 Boeckx, Cedric (ed.): Minimalist Essays. 2006. xvi, 399 pp. 90 Dalmi, Gréte: The Role of Agreement in Non-Finite Predication. 2005. xvi, 222 pp. 89 Velde, John R. te: Deriving Coordinate Symmetries. A phase-based approach integrating Select, Merge, Copy and Match. 2006. x, 385 pp. 88 Mohr, Sabine: Clausal Architecture and Subject Positions. Impersonal constructions in the Germanic languages. 2005. viii, 207 pp. 87 Julien, Marit: Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. 2005. xvi, 348 pp. 86 Costa, João and Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva (eds.): Studies on Agreement. 2006. vi, 285 pp.

85 Mikkelsen, Line: Copular Clauses. Specification, predication and equation. 2005. viii, 210 pp. 84 Pafel, Jürgen: Quantifier Scope in German. 2006. xvi, 312 pp. 83 Schweikert, Walter: The Order of Prepositional Phrases in the Structure of the Clause. 2005. xii, 338 pp. 82 Quinn, Heidi: The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English. 2005. xii, 409 pp. 81 Fuss, Eric: The Rise of Agreement. A formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal inflection. 2005. xii, 336 pp. 80 Burkhardt, Petra: The Syntax–Discourse Interface. Representing and interpreting dependency. 2005. xii, 259 pp. 79 Schmid, Tanja: Infinitival Syntax. Infinitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy. 2005. xiv, 251 pp. 78 Dikken, Marcel den and Christina M. Tortora (eds.): The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. 2005. vii, 292 pp. 77 Öztürk, Balkız: Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. 2005. x, 268 pp. 76 Stavrou, Melita and Arhonto Terzi (eds.): Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou. 2005. viii, 366 pp. 75 Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.): UG and External Systems. Language, brain and computation. 2005. xviii, 398 pp. 74 Heggie, Lorie and Francisco Ordóñez (eds.): Clitic and Affix Combinations. Theoretical perspectives. 2005. viii, 390 pp. 73 Carnie, Andrew, Heidi Harley and Sheila Ann Dooley (eds.): Verb First. On the syntax of verbinitial languages. 2005. xiv, 434 pp. 72 Fuss, Eric and Carola Trips (eds.): Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. 2004. viii, 228 pp. 71 Gelderen, Elly van: Grammaticalization as Economy. 2004. xvi, 320 pp. 70 Austin, Jennifer R., Stefan Engelberg and Gisa Rauh (eds.): Adverbials. The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure. 2004. x, 346 pp. 69 Kiss, Katalin É. and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.): Verb Clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch. 2004. vi, 514 pp. 68 Breul, Carsten: Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An integrated syntactic, semantic and intonational approach. 2004. x, 432 pp. 67 Mišeska Tomić, Olga (ed.): Balkan Syntax and Semantics. 2004. xvi, 499 pp. 66 Grohmann, Kleanthes K.: Prolific Domains. On the Anti-Locality of movement dependencies. 2003. xvi, 372 pp. 65 Manninen, Satu Helena: Small Phrase Layers. A study of Finnish Manner Adverbials. 2003. xii, 275 pp. 64 Boeckx, Cedric and Kleanthes K. Grohmann (eds.): Multiple Wh-Fronting. 2003. x, 292 pp. 63 Boeckx, Cedric: Islands and Chains. Resumption as stranding. 2003. xii, 224 pp. 62 Carnie, Andrew, Heidi Harley and MaryAnn Willie (eds.): Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar. In honor of Eloise Jelinek. 2003. xii, 378 pp. 61 Schwabe, Kerstin and Susanne Winkler (eds.): The Interfaces. Deriving and interpreting omitted structures. 2003. vi, 403 pp. 60 Trips, Carola: From OV to VO in Early Middle English. 2002. xiv, 359 pp. 59 Dehé, Nicole: Particle Verbs in English. Syntax, information structure and intonation. 2002. xii, 305 pp. 58 Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 2: Morphology, phonology, acquisition. 2003. vi, 309 pp. 57 Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 1: Syntax and semantics. 2003. vi, 405 pp. 56 Coene, Martine and Yves D’hulst (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 2: The expression of possession in noun phrases. 2003. x, 295 pp. 55 Coene, Martine and Yves D’hulst (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 1: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases. 2003. vi, 362 pp. 54 Baptista, Marlyse: The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole. The Sotavento varieties. 2003. xxii, 294 pp. (incl. CD-rom). 53 Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter and Werner Abraham (eds.): Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax (Groningen, May 26–27, 2000). 2002. xiv, 407 pp.

52 Simon, Horst J. and Heike Wiese (eds.): Pronouns – Grammar and Representation. 2002. xii, 294 pp. 51 Gerlach, Birgit: Clitics between Syntax and Lexicon. 2002. xii, 282 pp. 50 Steinbach, Markus: Middle Voice. A comparative study in the syntax-semantics interface of German. 2002. xii, 340 pp. 49 Alexiadou, Artemis (ed.): Theoretical Approaches to Universals. 2002. viii, 319 pp. 48 Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Sjef Barbiers and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.): Dimensions of Movement. From features to remnants. 2002. vi, 345 pp. 47 Barbiers, Sjef, Frits Beukema and Wim van der Wurff (eds.): Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System. 2002. x, 290 pp. 46 Panagiotidis, Phoevos: Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns. ‘Pronominality’ and licensing in syntax. 2002. x, 214 pp. 45 Abraham, Werner and C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds.): Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology. 2002. xviii, 336 pp. 44 Taylan, Eser Erguvanlı (ed.): The Verb in Turkish. 2002. xviii, 267 pp. 43 Featherston, Sam: Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. 2001. xvi, 279 pp. 42 Alexiadou, Artemis: Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. 2001. x, 233 pp. 41 Zeller, Jochen: Particle Verbs and Local Domains. 2001. xii, 325 pp. 40 Hoeksema, Jack, Hotze Rullmann, Víctor Sánchez-Valencia and Ton van der Wouden (eds.): Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. 2001. xii, 368 pp. 39 Gelderen, Elly van: A History of English Reflexive Pronouns. Person, Self, and Interpretability. 2000. xiv, 279 pp. 38 Meinunger, André: Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. 2000. xii, 247 pp. 37 Lutz, Uli, Gereon Müller and Arnim von Stechow (eds.): Wh-Scope Marking. 2000. vi, 483 pp. 36 Gerlach, Birgit and Janet Grijzenhout (eds.): Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. 2001. xii, 441 pp. 35 Hróarsdóttir, Thorbjörg: Word Order Change in Icelandic. From OV to VO. 2001. xiv, 385 pp. 34 Reuland, Eric (ed.): Arguments and Case. Explaining Burzio’s Generalization. 2000. xii, 255 pp. 33 Puskás, Genoveva: Word Order in Hungarian. The syntax of Ā-positions. 2000. xvi, 398 pp. 32 Alexiadou, Artemis, Paul Law, André Meinunger and Chris Wilder (eds.): The Syntax of Relative Clauses. 2000. vi, 397 pp. 31 Svenonius, Peter (ed.): The Derivation of VO and OV. 2000. vi, 372 pp. 30 Beukema, Frits and Marcel den Dikken (eds.): Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. 2000. x, 324 pp. 29 Miyamoto, Tadao: The Light Verb Construction in Japanese. The role of the verbal noun. 2000. xiv, 232 pp. 28 Hermans, Ben and Marc van Oostendorp (eds.): The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory. 2000. viii, 322 pp. 27 Růžička, Rudolf: Control in Grammar and Pragmatics. A cross-linguistic study. 1999. x, 206 pp. 26 Ackema, Peter: Issues in Morphosyntax. 1999. viii, 310 pp. 25 Felser, Claudia: Verbal Complement Clauses. A minimalist study of direct perception constructions. 1999. xiv, 278 pp. 24 Rebuschi, Georges and Laurice Tuller (eds.): The Grammar of Focus. 1999. vi, 366 pp. 23 Giannakidou, Anastasia: Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. 1998. xvi, 282 pp. 22 Alexiadou, Artemis and Chris Wilder (eds.): Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. 1998. vi, 388 pp. 21 Klein, Henny: Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related Languages. 1998. x, 232 pp. 20 Laenzlinger, Christopher: Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation. Adverbs, pronouns, and clause structure in Romance and Germanic. 1998. x, 371 pp. 19 Josefsson, Gunlög: Minimal Words in a Minimal Syntax. Word formation in Swedish. 1998. ix, 199 pp. 18 Alexiadou, Artemis: Adverb Placement. A case study in antisymmetric syntax. 1997. x, 256 pp. 17 Beermann, Dorothee, David LeBlanc and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.): Rightward Movement. 1997. vi, 410 pp. 16 Liu, Feng-hsi: Scope and Specificity. 1997. viii, 187 pp.

15 Rohrbacher, Bernhard Wolfgang: Morphology-Driven Syntax. A theory of V to I raising and prodrop. 1999. viii, 296 pp. 14 Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Henk van Riemsdijk and Frans Zwarts (eds.): Materials on Left Dislocation. 1997. viii, 349 pp. 13 Alexiadou, Artemis and T. Alan Hall (eds.): Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological Variation. 1997. viii, 252 pp. 12 Abraham, Werner, Samuel David Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson and C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds.): Minimal Ideas. Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework. 1996. xii, 364 pp. 11 Lutz, Uli and Jürgen Pafel (eds.): On Extraction and Extraposition in German. 1996. xii, 315 pp. 10 Cinque, Guglielmo and Giuliana Giusti (eds.): Advances in Roumanian Linguistics. 1995. xi, 172 pp. 9 Gelderen, Elly van: The Rise of Functional Categories. 1993. x, 224 pp. 8 Fanselow, Gisbert (ed.): The Parametrization of Universal Grammar. 1993. xvii, 232 pp. 7 Åfarlí, Tor A.: The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions. 1992. xii, 177 pp. 6 Bhatt, Christa, Elisabeth Löbel and Claudia Maria Schmidt (eds.): Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases and Sentences. 1989. ix, 187 pp. 5 Grewendorf, Günther and Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.): Scrambling and Barriers. 1990. vi, 442 pp. 4 Abraham, Werner and Sjaak De Meij (eds.): Topic, Focus and Configurationality. Papers from the 6th Groningen Grammar Talks, Groningen, 1984. 1986. v, 349 pp. 3 Abraham, Werner (ed.): On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Papers from the 3rd Groningen Grammar Talks (3e Groninger Grammatikgespräche), Groningen, January 1981. 1983. vi, 242 pp. 2 Ehlich, Konrad and Jürgen Rehbein: Augenkommunikation. Methodenreflexion und Beispielanalyse. 1982. viii, 150 pp. With many photographic ills. 1 Klappenbach, Ruth (1911–1977): Studien zur Modernen Deutschen Lexikographie. Auswahl aus den Lexikographischen Arbeiten von Ruth Klappenbach, erweitert um drei Beiträge von Helene MaligeKlappenbach. (Written in German). 1980. xxiii, 313 pp.

Studies on Old High German Syntax: Left sentence periphery, verb placement and verb-second (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Verb First: On the Syntax Verb Initial Languages (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Balkan Syntax and Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Emergence of Order in Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Experimental Pragmatics Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Multiple Wh-Fronting (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Parentheticals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 106)

Argument Structure (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Coreference, Modality, and Focus: Studies on the syntax-semantics interface (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Phase Theory (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Causatives in Minimalism (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Cyclical Change (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Quantifier Scope in German (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Verb Clusters: A Study of Hungarian, German and Dutch (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Beyond Coherence: The syntax of opacity in German (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Adverbials and the Phase Model (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 177)

Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication And Equation (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Scrambling and the Survive Principle (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Syntatic Aspects of Topic and Comment (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Continuity and Change in Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form: Scrambling in the Germanic languages (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Theoretical Approaches to Universals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Grammaticalization As Economy (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 71)

The Copy Theory of Movement (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Structure of Stative Verbs (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Grammar of Focus (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Studies on Old High German Syntax: Left sentence periphery, verb placement and verb-second (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Verb First: On the Syntax Verb Initial Languages (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Balkan Syntax and Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Emergence of Order in Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Experimental Pragmatics Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Multiple Wh-Fronting (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Parentheticals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 106)

Argument Structure (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Coreference, Modality, and Focus: Studies on the syntax-semantics interface (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Phase Theory (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Causatives in Minimalism (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Cyclical Change (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Quantifier Scope in German (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Verb Clusters: A Study of Hungarian, German and Dutch (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Beyond Coherence: The syntax of opacity in German (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Adverbials and the Phase Model (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 177)

Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication And Equation (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Scrambling and the Survive Principle (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Syntatic Aspects of Topic and Comment (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Continuity and Change in Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form: Scrambling in the Germanic languages (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Theoretical Approaches to Universals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Grammaticalization As Economy (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 71)

The Copy Theory of Movement (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Structure of Stative Verbs (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Grammar of Focus (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Recommend Documents