Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:48:35.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The rightward movement of complements and adjuncts in the Old English of Beowulf

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Susan Pintzuk  and
Anthony S. Kroch
Susan Pintzuk
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Anthony S. Kroch
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although it has generally been recognized that Old English was a verb-final language with verb-seconding, the existence of clauses with main verb complements and adjuncts appearing after the otherwise clause-final verb seems to contradict the hypothesis that the language was strictly verb-final in underlying structure. There are three possible analyses to explain these clauses: variable word order in the base, leftward verb movement, and rightward movement of NPs and PPs. In this article, we demonstrate that only the third analysis adequately explains the data of the Early Old English poem Beowulf. Moreover, by investigating the mapping between syntactic structures and metrical units, we provide evidence for two types of rightward movement with two distinct structures: heavy NP shift, with a characteristic major intonational boundary between the main verb and the postposed NP, and PP extraposition, where the intonational boundary was much less common.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , July 1989 , pp. 115 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

Allen, C. (1975). Old English modals. In Grimshaw, J. (ed.), Papers in the history and structure of English. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, No. 1. 89–100.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. (1981). Strict bounding. In Baker, C. L. & McCarthy, J. (eds.), The logical problem of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baugh, A. (1951). A history of the English language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Beckman, M., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3:255–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cable, T. (1974). The meter and melody of Beowulf. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Canale, W. M. (1978). Word order change in Old English: Base reanalysis in generative grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hock, H. H. (1985). Pronoun fronting and the notion “verb-second” position in Beowulf. In Faarlund, J. R. (ed.), Germanic linguistics (Papers from a Symposium at the University of Chicago, April 24, 1985). Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kemenade, A. Van (1984). Verb second and clitics in Old English. In Bennis, H. & Van Lessen Kloeke, W. U. S. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1984. Foris: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Kemenade, A. Van (1985). Old English infinitival complements and West-Germanic V-raising. In Fischer, O. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. J. (1968). Review of Sven Jacobson, Adverbial positions in English. Language 44:357–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klaeber, F. (1905). Studies in the textual interpretation of Beowulf. Part 1. Modern Philology 3:235–65.Google Scholar
Klaeber, F. (1950). Beowulf and The Fight at Finnsburg. 3rd edition. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
Kroch, A., & Joshi, A. (1987). Analyzing extraposition in a tree adjoining grammar. In Huck, G. & Ojeda, A. (eds.), Discontinuous constituency. Syntax and semantics: Vol 20. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Maling, J., & Zaenen, A. (1981). Germanic word order and the format of surface filters. In Heny, F. (ed.), Binding and filtering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, B. (1985). Old English syntax. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S. (1986). Old English as a verb-final language: Evidence from Beowulf. Manuscript, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S. (forthcoming). Word order in Old English: The change from SXV to SVX. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. (1982). Free word order and phrase structure rules. In Pustejovsky, J. & Sells, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Northeast Linguistic Society. Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Students Association of the University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Pullum, G., & Wilson, D. (1977). Autonomous syntax and the analysis of auxiliaries. Language 53:741–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, A. (1964). A descriptive syntax of the Parker manuscript for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle from 734 to 891. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Sievers, E. (1893). Altgermanische Metrik. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Thrainsson, H. (1984). V/1, V/2, V/3 in Icelandic. Manuscript, University of Iceland.Google Scholar