Search

Veselinova (2013) provides two sources for negative existential constructions: (a) the univerbation of a negative and a part of the existential construction, which needs not be verbal, and (b) the reanalysis of a lexical item with an appropriate, negative sense. I argue that this definition is both too narrow and too broad when examining the Negative Existential Cycle (NEC). Regarding (a), copulas and auxiliaries provide input to the NEC in addition to existentials, in e.g. Croft (1991), and regarding (b), verbs with a negative meaning are better seen as a separate development, as in Givón (1978). I will contend that copulas, auxiliaries, and existential verbs can all fuse with the negative and then disappear into the negative whereas negative verbs,such as fail, trade their semantic negative features into grammatical ones without fusion or loss. This paper will address three specific questions relevant to the NEC. The first is what are the source verbs in this cycle. A second question is whether or not the NEC is essentially a verbal cycle, in contrast to the nominal nature of the Jespersen Cycle (JC; Jespersen 1917). The third question involves the possible doubling of the negative, which is relevant to showing the NEC is different from the Jespersen Cycle. The role of verbal agreement and inflection sets apart the verbal cycles (NEC and the Givón Cycle) from the nominal one (JC) and the two verbal cycles are different in their renewal. The differences will be shown in their reanalyses in the last section.

Constructions that question kinds have been discussed widely in Germanic, Slavic, and Baltic, but English and earlier stages of English have mostly been overlooked. This paper presents data on kind questioning constructions in English, followed by an analysis of these constructions. The Old English what followed by a partitive genitive noun, labeled the ‘what partitive construction’ (WPC), questions the kind and, unlike in other languages, it also questions the number of the noun. I analyze the WPC as including an unpronounced noun that heads the DP, as is evident from the agreement on the verb. In Middle English, an overt light noun (e.g., kind and number) replaces the WPC which initially functions as the head of the entire DP but later grammaticalizes into a higher functional category. There is also a stage with a ‘what for construction’ (WFC) but, unlike in the history of German, the English WFC appears a few centuries after the loss of the WPC, seems unrelated to the WPC, and is not long-lived. The analysis of the English WFC involves a PredP, adapting ideas from earlier proposals. The main contribution of the paper is to present a new set of data and a synchronic analysis for them.

Old English uses personal pronouns, demonstratives, and limited null subject for reference to previously mentioned nouns. It uses personal pronouns reflexively and pronouns modified by ‘self’ identical in form with an intensive. This use of a pronoun modified byselfhas been attributed to British Celtic influence. Other changes in the pronominal system have been attributed to Scandinavian influence, e.g. the introduction of the third person plural pronounthey.This paper looks at the use of the specially marked reflexives in the glosses to the Lindisfarne Gospels, a northern text where both British Celtic and Scandinavian influence may be relevant. It provides lists of all of theself-marked forms and shows, for instance, that Matthew and Mark have reflexives based on an accusative/dative pronoun followed byselfand they don’t have this form as an intensifier. British Celtic of this period has an intensifier but has no special reflexives and has lost case endings, so the Lindisfarne language is unlike British Celtic. Luke and John have intensives and reflexives, with ‘self’ modifying case-marked pronouns, again unlike British Celtic. In addition to contributing to the debate on external origins, the paper adds to the authorship debate by comparing the use of reflexives in the different gospels.

The articles in this volume contribute to our understanding of Northumbrian Old English of the 10th century, of the nature of external influence, and of the authorship of the glosses. This introduction provides a background to these three areas. Most of the introduction and contributions examine the Lindisfarne Glosses with some discussion of the Rushworth and Durham Glosses.Section 2shows that the Lindisfarne glossator often adds a (first and second person) pronoun where the Latin has none but allows third person null subjects. Therefore, although the Latin original has obvious influence, Old English grammar comes through.Section 3reviews the loss of third person-thverbal inflection in favor of-s, especially in Matthew. This reduction may be relevant to the role of external (Scandinavian and British Celtic) influence and is also interesting when the language of the Lindisfarne and Durham Glosses is compared. InSection 4, the use of overt pronouns, relatives, and demonstratives shows an early use ofth-pronouns, casting doubt on a Norse origin ofthey.Section 5looks at negation mainly from a northern versus southern perspective andSection 6sums up.Section 7previews the other contributions and their major themes, namely possible external (Latin, Norse, or British Celtic) influence, the linguistic differences among glossators, the spacing of ‘prefixes’ as evidence for grammaticalization, and the role of doublets.

In this pioneering study, a world-renowned generative syntactician explores the impact of phenomena known as 'third factors' on syntactic change. Generative syntax has in recent times incorporated third factors – factors not specific to the language faculty – into its framework, including minimal search, labelling, determinacy and economy. Van Gelderen's study applies these principles to language change, arguing that change is a cyclical process, and that third factor principles must combine with linguistic information to fully account for the cyclical development of 'optimal' language structures. Third Factor Principles also account for language variation around that-trace phenomena, CP-deletion, and the presence of expletives and Verb-second. By linking insights from recent theoretical advances in generative syntax to phenomena from language variation and change, this book provides a unique perspective, making it essential reading for academic researchers and students in syntactic theory and historical linguistics.

In this paper, I sketch the CP layer in main and embedded clauses in the history of English. The Modern English main clause is not as easily expandable as the Old English one, but the reverse is true in the subordinate clause, where Modern English has a more flexible embedded CP than Old English. I focus on the developments of the embedded CP. It has been claimed that Old English lacks an embedded split CP and therefore lacks embedded V2 and a host of other embedded root phenomena. I show this to be true for complements to both assertive and non-assertive verbs. In contrast, the Modern English matrix verb has an effect on the strength of the C-position. Assertive verbs in Modern English allow main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses whereas non-assertives typically do not. The main point of the paper is to chronicle the changes that ‘stretch’ the embedded clause and the changing role of main verbs. It is descriptive rather than explanatory, e.g., in terms of changes in phase-head status.

The argument structure of verbs is pretty uniform across languages. Thus, verbs of `falling’ involve a Theme and an optional Causer and verbs of `working’ an Agent. Aspect is relevant to that uniformity as well since the former verbs will be telic and the latter durative. Stative verbs form a third main class. I first show that, when (spoken/written) languages change, the basic argument structure and aspect don’t change for most unaccusatives and unergatives. There are, however, systematic reports (e.g. Rosen 1984; Keller & Sorace 2003; Randall et al 2004) that certain verbs are unergative in one language and unaccusative in another and that verbs alternate between different aspects (e.g. Levin & Rappaport Hovav 2014). I examine a few verbs diachronically that are ambiguous in the Keller & Sorace work, i.e. verbs of continuation and of controlled motional process, and conclude that a more fine-grained system is helpful.

The present paper examines psych-verbs in the history of English. As is well-known, object experiencers are reanalyzed as subject experiencers in many of the modern European languages. I discuss one such change in detail, namely the change in the verb fear from meaning 'to frighten, cause to fear' to meaning 'to fear'. The reason for the change may be the loss of the morphologically overt causative and a change in the set of light verbs. Object experiencers are constantly lost but I show there is also a continual renewal through external borrowing and internal change from physical to mental impact. A last change I discuss is the one where Subject Experiencers are reanalyzed as Agents in a V(oice)P. Aquest article estudia els verbs psicològics en la història de l'anglès. Com és ben sabut, moltes de les llengües modernes reanalitzen els objectes experimentadors com a subjectes experimentadors. Analitzo un d'aquests canvis en detall: el canvi en el verb fear des del seu significat original d''espantar, fer por' al de 'témer'. El motiu del canvi podria ser la desaparició de la marca morfològica del causatiu i un canvi en el conjunt dels verbs lleugers. Encara que els objectes experimentadors es perden de manera constant, mostro que alhora hi ha una renovació incessant a través dels manlleus i mitjançant canvis interns des de sentits d'impacte físic a sentits d'impacte mental. Finalment, analitzo un canvi en què els subjectes experimentadors es reanalitzen com a agents en un Sintagma Veu.

Generative grammar has its beginnings in the late 1950s with the work of Noam Chomsky and emphasizes innate linguistic knowledge, or Universal Grammar. Children use their innate knowledge and, on the basis of the language they hear spoken, also known as the E(xternalized)-Language, come up with a grammar, also known as the I(nternalized)-Language (see Chomsky 1986: 19–24). Generative grammar focuses on the ability of native speakers to speak and understand grammatical sentences.

In diachronic change, specifiers are reanalysed as heads and heads as higher heads. When the older specifiers and heads are renewed, a linguistic cycle emerges. Explanations provided for these cycles include structural and featural economy (e.g. van Gelderen 2004; 2011). Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) focus on labelling as unconnected to merge makes it possible to see the cycles in another way, namely as resolutions to labelling problems. The Labelling Algorithm (LA) operates after merge is complete, when a syntactic derivation is transferred to the interfaces. When a head and a phrase merge, the LA determines that the head is the label by Minimal Search. Where two phrases merge, the LA cannot find the head and one of the phrases has to either move or share features with the other. This chapter argues that, in addition to Chomsky’s resolutions to labelling paradoxes, reanalysing a phrase as a head also resolves the paradox. It also shows that the third factor principle minimal search is preferable over feature-sharing. The change from phrase to head is frequent, as eight cross-linguistically attested changes show. In addition, in the renewal stage of a cycle, adjuncts are frequently incorporated as arguments showing a preference of set-merge (feature-sharing) over pair-merge.

In this paper, I review how formal features are currently regarded and used in the Minimalist Program. Although features are the cornerstone in Minimalism, they are used in many different and conflicting ways. Features may seem particularly relevant to affix-hop because the affix has to be checked against a higher verb or auxiliary. Chomsky’s (1957) analysis of affix-hop has the affix connected with an auxiliary, e.g., the -en of have-en, move to a verb on its right, as in have see-en. This analysis is one of the high points of early generative grammar but, with each new instantiation of the generative model, it has needed adjustments and the phenomenon is still debated. I will elaborate on a proposal made in van Gelderen (2013) who argues that interpretable tense, mood, or aspect are in a low position being probed by the relevant uninterpretable features in a high position. This view I claim is consistent with data from change and acquisition. I also discuss the implications of this reliance on features ...

Heine and Kuteva show that the languages of Europe are becoming more and more alike in very specific areas such as the use of articles and relative pronouns. One might say that a European Sprachbun...