A transformational analysis of the syntax of Ælfric's Lives of saints [Reprint 2017 ed.] 9783111715278, 9789027930842

Table of contents :
TABLE OF CONTENTS
L I S T OF SYMBOLS
INTRODUCTION
I. The Rules
II. Transformational Rules for Compounding
III. Transformational Rules for Sentential Complements
IV. Relative Clauses, Appositives, and Attributive Adjectives
V. Adverb Formation and the Adverb Movement Rule
VI. Pre-Sentence Elements
VII. Other Transformational Rules
VIII. Conclusion
Selected Bibliography

Citation preview

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA

MEMORIAE

N I C O L A I VAN W I J K D E D I C A T A edenda curai C. H. V A N S C H O O N E V E L D Indiana University

Series Pradica, 212

A TRANSFORMATIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE SYNTAX OF ^ELFRIC'S LIVES OF SAINTS

by

J. A. J O H N S O N

1975

MOUTON THE HAGUE • PARIS

© Copyright 1975 Mouton & Co. B.V., Publishers, The Hague. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

ISBN 90 279 3084 8

Printed in Hungary

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

List of Symbols

7

Introduction

11

I.

The Rules A. The Phrase Structure Rules B. The Cyclic Principle C. The Transformational Rules

17 19 24 24

II.

Transformational Rules for Compounding A. Conjunction Copying B. Conjunction Reduction C. Conjunctive Preposition Substitution D. Sentence Deletion E. Conjunction Deletion

26 26 30 31 32 34

III.

Transformational Rules for Sentential Complements A. Complementizer Placement B. Hit Deletion C. Equi-JVP Deletion D. Passivization E. Agent Deletion F. Extraposition G. Hit Replacement H. Complementizer Deletion

37 42 45 48 50 52 52 53 57

IV.

Relative Clauses, Appositives, and Attributive Adjectives A. Relative Clause Formation B. WH-NP Movement C. Non-Restrictive Relative Clause Movement D. Relative Clause Reduction E. Modifier Shift

59 59 60 63 65 66

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

V.

Adverb Formation and the Adverb Movement Rule A. Sentence Modification Formation B. Adverbial Clause Reduction C. Adverb Movement

68 68 70 71

VI.

Pre-Sentence Elements A. Negative Placement B. Emphasis Placement C. Emphasis Movement D. Imperative Formation E. Subject-Verb Inversion

75 75 76 77 77 79

VII. Other Transformational Rules A. Number and Person Agreement B. Reflexivization C. Par Insertion D. Indefinite Pronoun Deletion E. Segment Feature Incorporation for AUX F. Segment Feature Incorporation for Nouns and Verbs G. Pronominalization H. Affix Shift J. Verb Phrase Inversion K. Possessive Formation L. Possessive Shift M. Pronoun Object Movement

86 86 87 88 89 90 91 93 98 99 101 102 103

VIII. Conclusion

104

Selected Bibliography

110

LIST OF

0 # -

= -

=

=>

(

=

)

;

[±X] X[Y]

=

= =

Adv AF Ag An Asp AUX

Ben C CI Comp Compi Conj

=

-

-

=

= = = =

=

= =

-

a feature of a lexical item the linear equivalent of a tree diagram; Z i s realized as Y mutually exclusive; each line corresponds with only its counterpart in some other part of the rule.

=

7. _

A Acc Adj

null sentence boundary expands into, is composed of is transformed into occurrence is optional (Parentheses in the text itself are ordinary signals of a parenthetical expression.) mutually exclusive, only one may be chosen

=

X

y1»

SYMBOLS

a variable in a transformational rule. See X. accusative adjective. Here considered a subclass of the category Verb, carrying the segment feature [+Copula]. adverb affix agent animate aspect: perfective or progressive a cover symbol to carry the segmental features of tense, modal, perfective, and progressive. Not the same as the 'auxiliary' of traditional grammar. benefactive; the indirect objects which are translated as Modern English 'for' + noun. conjunction clausal comparative objective complement of the type, 'They called him brother'. conjunctive preposition

8

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Coord

=

Cop CZ Dat Det Dir Disjunct DQ Emp Gen Ger Imp Inf Inst Inter IQ Loc M Man M Tn n

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

N NP Neg Nom

AFpart PreS Pass

= = = — = = = = = = = =

Past Perf 1 pers 2 pers Pres Pro

= = = = = =

AFnom Obj P (prep) PP Part

coordinate conjunction, as distinct from a subordinate conjunction copula ('be') complementizer dative determiner direction disjunctive conjunction, such as 'but' direct quote emphatic genitive gerund imperative infinitive instrumental interrogative NP indefinite quantifier ('some', 'many', etc.) locative modal manner marked for atypical application of a transform an unspecified number, equal to or greater than 1, except where specifically noted otherwise noun or pronoun noun phrase (may be just a noun, or a noun plus a sentence) negative nominative feature nominalizing affix attached to a verb objective preposition prepositional phrase partitive feature present or past participle affix pre-sentence markers such as Q, IMP, EMP, or N E G passive; a segment feature added to AUX by the Passivization transformation past tense perfective first person second person; an N P marked [— lpers, — 2pers] is third person present tense pronoun

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Prog Q Recip

= = =

Rel Rest

= =

RX S

= =

Sing Subj T Tem U V VP W WH X

= = = = = = = = = =

Y Z

= =

9

progressive question recipient; the indirect objects which are translated as 'to' plus a noun. relative pronoun restrictive relative pronoun; an NP marked [—Rest] is a nonrestrictive relative pronoun reflexive sentence; a structure composed of optional pre-sentence markers, a noun phrase, an AUX and a verb phrase singular subjunctive tense: present or past temporal utterance verb verb phrase a variable in a transformational rule; see X an interrogative pronoun or a relative pronoun a symbol used to designate variables in rules; variables are those elements not directly affected by a transformational rule which may appear in a string containing elements which are directly affected by that rule a variable in a transformational rule; see X a variable in a transformational rule; see X

INTRODUCTION

Introductory and advanced studies of Old English grammar often suggest, briefly, that the syntax of Old English is very similar to the syntax of Modern English, but rarely do they pursue the point and indicate the precise extent of the similarity. Rather, they concentrate on those structures in Old English texts which are different from the structures of Modern English, and, thus, they effectively mask the fact that the similarities far outnumber the differences. No study of English grammar attempts to determine, by systematic comparison of Old English and Modern English syntactic structures, the extent of the similarities and the nature of the differences. Rather, students of Old English syntax have pursued one of three courses : 1. They have sampled various texts to note the general direction of change and have then concentrated on those changes which have affected the structure of one syntactic element. There are studies of adverbial clauses,1 of nouns and non-clausal noun modifiers,2 of relative clauses,3 of indirect objects,4 of periphrastic genitive phrases,5 of sentential nominals,6 appositives,7 infinitives,8 absolute participles,9 and verb phrases.10 A few of these studies discuss the differences between early and late Old English; none compares Old English with Modern English. 1

See, among others, A. R. Benham, "The Clause of Result in Old English Prose", Anglia XXXI (1908), pp. 197-225, and Randolph Quirk, The Concessive Relation in Old English Poetry (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1954). 2 C. R. Carlton, "Word Order of Noun Modifiers in Old English Prose", JEGP LXII (1962), pp. 778-783. 3 Bruce Mitchell, "Adjective Clauses in Old English Poetry", Anglia LXXXI (1958), pp. 298-322. 1 F. G. Cassidy, "The Backgrounds in Old English of Modern English Substitutes for the Dative Object in the Group Verb + Dative Object and Accusative Object", unpublished dissertation (University of Michigan, 1939). 5 R. Thomas, "Syntactical Processes Involved in the Development of the Adnominal Periphrastic Genitive in the English Language", unpublished dissertation (University of Michigan, 1932). 6 J. H. Gorrell, "Indirect Discourse in Anglo-Saxon", PMLA X (1895), pp. 342-487. 7 Niilo Peltola, "On Appositional Constructions in Old English Prose", Neuphil. LXI (1960), pp. 159-203. 8 Morgan Callaway, Jr., The Infinitive in Anglo-Saxon (Washington, D. C., 1913). 9 Morgan Callaway, Jr., The Absolute Participle in Anglo-Saxon (the Isaac Friedenwald Press, Baltimore, 1889). 10 Paul Bacquet, La Structure de la phrase verbale à l'époque Alfrédienne (Société d'Éditions: Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 1962).

12

INTRODUCTION

Studies which concentrate on one syntactic element do not readily lend themselves to comparative work. A comparative study of the syntactic systems of two different stages of the English language must concentrate on the interrelationships of all the constituents of the structured whole of each system; individual constituents cannot be abstracted from their contexts. In these studies of single syntactic elements, the relationship of the individual elements to Old English syntax as a whole is either not considered at all, or is considered only tangentially. Thus, they are not suitable for comparison with Modern English. 2. They have concentrated on what seem to be the most important changes and have ignored both minor changes and features which have not changed. This second course has been followed by the authors of those Old English grammars which include a section on syntax; many do not. Quirk and Wrenn's Old English Grammar is quite typical, although it is more extensive than most in its treatment of syntax. The authors clearly state their intentions: "We are not therefore attempting a systematic description of Old English syntax as a whole. Many relatively minor features must be ignored.... Much must be omitted too that shows little difference from present-day usage". 11 For a beginning student of Old English, information on the major differences between Old and Modern English is valuable. But, like the studies of isolated syntactic elements, these grammars do not provide more than a fragmentary picture of Old English syntax, and they do not emphasize the fact that Old English syntax is a highly ordered system very similar to that of Modern English. 3. They have concentrated on a relatively limited corpus of Old English, synchronically12 analyzing its entire syntactic system. There have been several more or less complete studies of some of the syntactic patterns of individual Old English texts — King Alfred's Pastoral Care,13 the charters,14 ^lfric's Genesis, Catholic Homilies

11

Randolph Quirk and C. L. Wrenn, An Old English Grammar (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, N e w York, 1957), p. 59. 12 The definition of synchrony has changed somewhat since Saussure set up the opposition between 'synchronic' (viewing one stage in the development of a language as a static system) and 'diachronic' (comparing two or more stages as parts of a dynamic system). In 1927 Jakobson declared that there was no difference between synchronic and diachronic studies and that language was better considered as a teleological system in which one stage evolves out of a prior stage. One would agree that linguistic usage during even a very short period of time is still diachronic in the sense that it contains both archaisms and innovations; if this were not the case, wide-ranging historical-comparative work would be impossible. But the term 'synchronic' is still useful to differentiate an analysis which approaches a corpus, initially at least, as if it were static, from a comparative study of two or more such analyses. The archaisms and innovations of the original corpus can be examined as evidence of the evolutionary nature of language only if one is first aware that the innovations do not appear in earlier texts and that the archaisms do not appear in later texts. Halle suggests that language change may be viewed as the continual addition of extension rules to the grammar and as the occasional restructuring of the system of rules. A synchronic analysis, then, would be an analysis of the set of rules operating at a particular period of time, and a diachronic analysis would be the comparison of two or more synchronic analyses to note which rules of the latter system(s) were added to the earlier system(s) and to look for evidence of restructing. 13 W. H. Brown, Jr., "A Descriptive Syntax of King Alfred's Pastoral Care", unpublished disserta-

INTRODUCTION

13

and Lives of Saints,15 Beowulf,16 and the Parker manuscript of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle1,7 — but there has been no attempt to compare any Old English study with a Modern English one. Such an attempt would require that each of the studies to be compared be based on a theory of grammar which permits systematic comparison of two or more grammatical systems and that the corpora on which they are modeled be broadly representative of the syntactic structures of the language of their respective historical periods. Finding a suitable corpus of Modern English poses no problems: the intuitions of a native speaker, bolstered by the findings of linguistic scholars, provide ample data. However, the corpus of Old English to be compared with the Modern English one must be selected with care from the relatively limited number of available written texts. If the chosen text represents the broadest possible range of native Old English sentence structures (declaratives, imperatives, questions, direct quotations, and indirect discourse), if it is minimally distorted by aberrations such as syntactic borrowings from other languages or stylistic inversions peculiar to a single genre, and if it is of sufficient length to ensure the recurrence of relatively rare structures, then a comparison of its structure with the structure of Modern English will be of value both to the historical linguist and to the student exposed to Old English for the first time. If, in addition to these criteria, the text is chronologically limited, an analysis of its syntactic structure would provide useful data for a comparative study of syntactic change in the time span separating two Old English texts or one Old English text and one Middle English text, and for a generalized synthesis of the syntactic facts of the entire Old English period. The Old English texts which best meet the suggested criteria are viilfric's homilies and saints' lives and the longer works associated with Alfred. Alfred's works have been very popular with students of Old English syntax, but even his most staunch supporters admit that, on rare occasions, his syntax is more Latin than English; some passages are transliterations of his Latin models, not free paraphrases in Old English idiom.18 Unlike Alfred, /Elfric does not deviate from native Old English idiom tion (University of Michigan, 1963), and Tokuichiro Matsuda, "A Transformational Analysis of the Old English Pastoral Care", unpublished dissertation (University of Indiana, 1963). 11 C. R. Carlton, "The Syntax the Old English Charters", unpublished dissertation (University of Michigan, 1958). 16 Ann E. Nichols, "A Syntactic Study of iElfric's translation of Genesis", unpublished dissertation (University of Washington, 1964), and C. R. Barrett, Studies in the Word Order of Mlfric's Catholic Homilies and Lives of Saints (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1953) 16 S. O. Andrew, Postscript on Beowulf (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1948). 17 Ann Shannon, A Descriptive Syntax of the Parker Manuscript (Mouton and Company, The Hague, 1964). 18 In King Alfred and Boethius (The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1968), F. Anne Payne, while basically defending Alfred against the charge of Latinizing his language, notes, "When the Old English text is viewed as a whole, it is apparent that Alfred depended on the Latin structure too much to create and maintain his own stylistic autonomy" (p. 142). C. A. Smith declares, "the influence of Latin is plainly to be seen in the blundering awkwardness of many passages in the Orosius"

14

INTRODUCTION

even on rare occasions. He translates Latin originals in such free paraphrase that Callaway, who was comparing Old English texts with their Latin originals, said of ¿Elfric's works, "His translations are so free, however, and his sources so numerous that a comparison of his translations with the originals was impracticable". 19 There are three collections of /FJfric's homilies and saints' lives: Thorpe's Catholic Homilies, Skeat's Lives of Saints, and Pope's Homilies of AZlfric, published only recently. When this project began, Volume I of Pope's set of homilies was at press and Volume II still in the works; both were unavailable. Thorpe's edition of the Catholic Homilies is about to be superseded by a new edition; it seems wise to wait. Skeat's edition of Lives of Saints is an old one, but, unlike the Thorpe, it will not be replaced by a newer edition in the near future. It is a diplomatic text, with manuscript variants noted, so one does not have to worry about any emendations by the editor. The few homilies and lives now known to have been written by some other author than /Elfric can be bypassed (and perhaps studied separately at some future time to note syntactic patterns which are either more or less frequent than in /Tilfric's Lives, and which, thus, provide insights into stylistic variables which are matters of syntax). /Elfric's work has definite advantages as a corpus from which to construct a model of Old English syntax to be compared with a model of Modern English syntax; it is also a good text for future comparative studies of English syntax in the Old English period alone. Whether it is prose or poetry is an unresolved question, 20 but if it is poetry, its syntax is as straightforward as that of any Old English prose work; it does not exhibit the high frequency of occurrence of certain stylistic inversion rules which characterize the poetry contemporary with it, such as the Battle of Brunanburg and the Battle of Maldon. Furthermore, /Elfric's work is ideal for a study of borrowings of Latin syntactic patterns; those borrowings which were eventually adopted into English idiom could be traced from early texts, where they are clumsily transliterated, to /Elfric's works, where they are used freely and idiomatically and are quite independent of any direct Latin source. Those borrowings which were dropped as quickly as they were introduced will show up as idiosyncratic rules in the grammars of the texts in which they appear, rules without analogues in the grammar of ^Elfric's English. ¿Elfric's works also provide an excellent starting point for a comparative study of Old English syntax and Middle English syntax. Some inversion rules which were obligatory in Old English in general (and, therefore, obligatory for Elfric) are optional in Modern English; the shift of categories occurred in the Middle English period. Using Elfric's work as a point of departure, one could trace the shift. ("The Order of Words in Anglo-Saxon Prose", P M L A I (1893), pp. 210-245). And even in the Pastoral Care, which is, as W. H. Brown, Jr., (see n. 13) points out, more idiomatic than the other Alfredian texts, "there is a certain amount of Latin syntactic influence" (p. 17). 19 Morgan Callaway, Jr., The Absolute Participle in Anglo-Saxon, p. 28. 20 Sherman M . K u h n argued, convincingly, that it is poetry, in a paper presented at the Sixth Conference on Medieval Studies in May, 1971, at Western Michigan University.

INTRODUCTION

15

The only available study of the syntax of ¿Elfric's Lives of Saints, C. R. Barrett's Studies in the Word Order of ALlfric's Catholic Homilies and Lives of Saints,21 published in 1953, does not cover as completely as possible the syntactic facts of the text. It is concerned with the relative order of subjects, objects, and verbs in the two texts, and it does not deal with the predictability of permutations of these three elements nor with their constituent structure. Therefore, one of the objectives of this book is the formulation of a complete analysis of the syntax of Lives of Saints. The other objective is the comparison of that analysis with an analysis of Modern English to determine both structural similarities and structural differences. Once the differences have been determined, it would be possible to track down the texts in which the rule change effecting each differencefirstappeared, although such detective work is outside the scope of this work. Occasionally, references will be made to syntactic studies of other Old English texts, primarily to suggest which rules seem to apply to Old English generally; these references are not meant to be an exhaustive synthesis of all available studies of Old English syntax. Having chosen an Old English text, the next step is to decide which grammatical theory the analysis of that text should be based on. Of the current grammatical theories, generative-transformational theory seems to lend itself most easily to comparative work, because it specifies that terms be consistently defined, and that rules be formally stated, ordered with respect to one another, minimally redundant., and maximally generalized. No viable grammatical theory specifies that rules cannot be changed; whenever more intensive study of language leads to refinements in linguistic theory, rules are bound to change. However, refinements in a theory which requires that all terms be defined according to their constituent structure cannot lead to the confusing redefinitions one finds in theories which mix notional, formal, functional, and structural definitions. Similarly, refinements in a theory which posits logically ordered rules may lead to a change in the relative order of a limited set of rules, but they will not alter the basic tenet that rules are ordered, nor will they scramble the rules so that a comparison of several grammars based on the same theory reveals all possible random-order permutations of the entire rule set. The work done on Modern English syntax within the framework of generativetransformational theory by Noam Chomsky, George Lakoff, Paul Postal, David Perlmutter, John Ross, and Peter Rosenbaum has been correlated by George Lakoff and John Ross, and it is this correlation22 which will be compared with the rules posited for /Elfric's Lives of Saints. Due to the specifications of generative-transformational theory that rules be minimally redundant and maximally generalized, the formal rules posited for Lives of Saints and those posited for Modern English can be stated in about two pages each. This is not to say that that is all there is to the comparison of the syntactic structures of the two stages of the English language; 21

S e e n . 15. The Morpheme Spitter, handed out to participants in the 1968 Summer Linguistic Institute, held at the University of Illinois.

12

16

INTRODUCTION

but the comparative linguist working with the two sets of rules has the advantage of being able to see the over-all picture of the similarities and differences between the two systems before he begins to examine them in detail. The rules posited for the syntax of Lives of Saints are my own, derived from the structures of the text; they are, of course, strongly influenced, consciously or otherwise, by the rules formulated by the students of Modern English syntax mentioned above. The aim was not to squish English into a Modern English mould, but, rather, to devise a set of rules to describe ^Elfric's syntax which could be compared to a set describing Modern English syntax. The comparison revealed that the differences are few, and for the most part minor, and that many apparent differences are obliterated if the rule formulated for Old English is substituted for a rule posited by Chomsky et al. for Modern English — that is, a study of Old English syntax suggests refinements in the theory which may lead to rule changes. Properly speaking, a complete, summary listing of the rules, in their respective order, should comprise part of the conclusion to a detailed discussion of each rule in turn. I propose to set forth the theorems first and offer their proofs afterwards, for the benefit of those linguists who like to begin with a quick over-view before proceeding with details. Those who believe that conclusions belong to the conclusion, and not the introduction to a study are encouraged to read only that part of Chapter I which discusses phrase structure rules and the cyclic principle and to delay their reading of the list of transformational rules until the last chapter.

I THE RULES

A transformational grammar contains three sets of rules: a semantic set, a syntactic set, and a phonological set. Because this is a study of syntax, little will be said about phonology or semantics. Excellent studies of English phonology, Old and Modern, are available, so one need not feel guilty about excluding phonology from a grammatical study. As was true of Modern English until very recently, however, the semantic component of Old English is virtually unexplored. What semantic information is included in the lexical component of the syntactic rule set will be discussed briefly, but the major consideration will be the other two components of the syntax set, the phrase structure component and the transformational component. The phrase structure component of a transformational grammar consists of those rules which will generate the underlying, or deep, structures of all the possible sentences of a language and only those sentences. They are limited in scope, as they are simple expansion rules, defining elements which make up larger constructions. The transformational component consists of those rules which will generate, from the deep structures, the surface structures of sentences — their actual expression in speech or writing. These rules are substitution rules which allow, in effect, the addition, subtraction, or permutation of elements in the deep structure strings. The lexicon specifies, for each lexical item in the language, a set of features. Some of these features are inherent in the items themselves, such as the animate, abstract, or interrogative features of nouns; some are later incorporated into the string as actual morphemes, such as the tense, modality, and aspect features of AUX; and some specify co-occurrence restrictions of the item — that is, they specify which symbols and features can co-occur with the item in question, and, thus, indirectly they specify which symbols and features cannot co-occur. The inherent features, those which are not later realized as morphemes, play a part in the co-occurrence features of other items. For example, the lexical entry for a verb like 'sleep' would specify that the subject noun must have the inherent feature [+Animate], The segmental features, those which are later realized as actual morphemes, are numerous and are very extensive in scope. Some of them are optional — that is, in the lexicon they are marked f ± ] — and others are obligatory — marked

{2}

just [+]. For example, the symbol AUX contains the features + LM\ ±Aspect H-108

18

THE RULES

indicating that, in Modern English, Tense or Modality is a necessary feature, and Aspect is optional. Nouns with the inherent feature [+Count] (differentiating them from mass nouns, which carry a [—Count] feature), carry the segmental feature [ ± Singular], and all nouns carry the features [±Partitive, ±Definite, ±Specific]. These features later combine morphologically with their nouns to form generic noun phrases ([—Partitive]), indefinite specific noun phrases (nouns modified by cardinal and ordinal numbers), indefinite non-specific noun phrases (nouns modified by a, some, many, few, lots, all), definite specific noun phrases (nouns modified by the one, the first, the two, the second, etc.) and definite non-specific noun phrases (nouns modified by the, this, that, these, those). Nouns with the feature [+Partitive] may also be [+Fractional], which indicates that the partitive set being discussed is in itself a subset of a larger partitive set. A [+Specific, -(-Partitive, + Fractional] noun phrase would be a phrase like 'Six of the twelve men'; a [—Specific, + Partitive, -[-Fractional] noun phrase would be a phrase like 'few of the many men'; a [ — Specific, + Partitive, + Fractional, + Definite] noun phrase would be a phrase like 'most of the men', although its peculiar double partitive nature does not show up except in sentences with relative clauses: 'she understands most of the texts which she reads' (but she does not read all of the generic set 'texts'). Nouns also carry such features as [±Nominative], [¿Objective], etc. That is, the choice of the feature [—Nominative] requires further feature specification of either [-I-Objective] or [—Objective]. The choice of [ — Objective] requires further feature specification, such as [ ± Recipient] (later lexically realized as the indirect object marker: 'to'for Modern English, a dative case affix for Old English), [±Benefactive] ('for'), [±Time] ('at', 'in'), [ ± Locative] ('at', 'in', 'into', 'onto', 'under', etc.), or [±Instrumental] ('with'). The lexicon of Old English is, of course, very different from that of Modern English in terms of the phonological shapes of the lexical entries. But the lexical features are the same for both Old English and Modern English; there are concrete, abstract, animate, and human nouns in both, and there are verbs in both which require animate subjects or animate objects. The Modern English counterpart of an Old English word usually carries with it the same set of features as the Old English form. There are some differences; for example, the aspect feature of the Old English AUX is a mutually exclusive choice of perfective or progressive, whereas Modern English may combine the two. But the majority of Modern English lexical entries have the same features as their Old English counterparts. To the beginning student of Old English, the difference between the phonological shapes of the lexical entries of Old English and those of Modern English is the vital difference; he must learn the Old English counterparts of the lexical items of his own speech. The other major difference between Old English and Modern English lies in the relative frequency of the application of transformational rules. The beginning student

THE RULES

19

is not apt to find that this difference causes many problems, because it is the basis of stylistic differences in Modern English, which he is at least subconsciously aware of. The author of a Modern English syntax grammar might use as examples sentences from speaker/writers as dissimilar as Hemingway and Faulkner; or he might write a grammar based entirely on his own usage. The results would still be grammars of Modern English, not idiolect grammars, because the rules would be the same as those in a grammar based on the usage of many speaker/writers, although the frequency of occurrence of optional rules would vary. The same is true of Old English. The relative frequency of occurrence of optional rules is a factor of style. ¿Elfric's syntactic habits are based on the set of rules underlying all Old English usage. The differences between his syntax and that of his contemporary, Wulfstan, are synchronic, stylistic differences resulting from their individual preferences for optional rules. The differences between /Elfric's syntax and that of the earliest Old English texts are both synchronic, stylistic differences and diachronic differences resulting from the shift of optional rules into the obligatory category and vice-versa. These two quite dissimilar types of difference are also to be found between Old English and Modern English. Although /Elfric's Lives of Saints is the text being used as a corpus to determine the syntactic rules of late tenth century Old English, the resulting rules actually constitute the syntactic component of a grammar of English from about the tenth to the twelfth century, the dates of the texts bounding a period in which there is no shifting of higher-level syntactic rules between the optional and the obligatory categories.1 This is not to say that Old English was static during this period. The lexicon was in a state of flux, as it has been continuously from Proto-Indo-European to the English of the present day; the phonology and morphology were both changing, as they are still doing. But, in a sense, syntax was static, although stylistic preferences were being adopted by more and more speaker/writers, so that the stage was being set for a diachronic shift. I. A. T H E P H R A S E S T R U C T U R E

RULES

One component of the syntactic rule set has not changed in over a thousand years: the phrase structure rules, the rules which generate the underlying, or deep, structures of English sentences, are the same for Modern English as for ¿Elfric's English or the Beowulf poet's English. The phrase structure rules which have been derived from ^Elfric's Lives of Saints are as follows (a key to all symbols used or referred to in this investigation will be found in the preface): (\)U-+CS" 1

(«=

1,2,3,...)

/Elfric's Lives of Saints marks the first appearance in a written text of the effects of Hit Replacement. The Dative rule, which applies before Passivization and which moves indirect objects to the position preceding direct objects, was added in the twelfth century. 2*

20

THE RULES

(2) S - (PreS) NP AUX VP (3) PreS -

mo)

(EMP)

(4) VP - V (NP") (5) NP — N (S) It can be shown that this set of rules is also a model of the deep structure of Modern English sentences, although it differs from the set posited for Modern English by Lakoff and Ross, which is: (la) S —

S"

(» = 2 , 3 , 4 , . . . )

(2a) 5 - (PreS) NP AUX VP (ADVlime) (ADV]0C) (3a) PreS - ({7^p})

(ADVmJ

(NEG) (EMP)

—(OH) (5a) PP - Prep NP (6a) NP - (WH) DET N (S) (7a) AUX - Tense (M) (PERF) (PROG)

(PASSIVE)

(8a) Tense v ' [PAST] The "differences between this set of rules and the preceding set are more apparent than actual. To avoid using the same symbol for what are really two different constructions, I have used the symbol U to represent 'utterance', leaving S to symbolize the underlying structure of what are commonly called simple sentences. Having n equal to or greater than one, rather than equal to or greater than two, as in rule (la), permits the derivation of sentences introduced by a conjunction but containing a single subject, a single verb, and a single object. And there are numerous such examples. C is a general symbol for conjunctions, both co-ordinate and subordinate, since it seems more apt to derive clausal adverbs from the first phrase structure rule than from a rather ad hoc symbol ADV. Non-clausal adverbs (prepositional phrases) can be derived quite simply from the NP constituent of the verb phrase, if prepositions are considered segmental features of nouns. Strong justification for thus considering them is to be found in the fact that case affixes often take the place of prepositions in Old English. The decision to include as features of lexical items such things as determiners, prepositions and case inflections, particles, tense, modality, and perfective and

THE RULES

21

progressive aspect was motivated partly by the desire for maximally simple rules and partly by the conviction that the concepts of Charles Fillmore's case grammar can be assimilated into a more traditional generative grammar as lexical features (nominative, objective, benefactive, recipient, temporal, locative, instrumental, manner, etc.). This grammar makes use of concepts formulated by Chomsky in 1957 and by Fillmore in 1966 as well as those formulated by Lakoff, Ross, Postal, Perlmutter, and Rosenbaum between 1957 and the present. The concept of lexical features was conceived by Chomsky and nurtured by those who have followed him. The concept of case as a syntactic matter is Fillmore's; the suggestion that Fillmore's case frames be incorporated into a grammar as lexical features is Jakobson's. The basic difference between Fillmore's case frames and the case features adopted here is that to generate a sentence like, 'The sword split the shield', Fillmore prefers to complicate the transformational component of his grammar by including rules which move nouns filling various case frames into subject position; I prefer to complicate the lexical component by specifying for a verb like 'split' the lexical co-occurrence restriction that the subject must carry either the feature [+Animate] or the feature [+Instrumental]. Tense, Modality, and Aspect are here considered segmental features of AUX, rather than deep structure morphemic symbols, because certain transformational rules (see chapter III) can be formulated in more general terms if AUX represents a complex of features and not a sequence of morphemic symbols. Some recent analyses of the modals of Modern English and of Modern German differ from the usual analyses of them as part of the auxiliary constituent.2 In these studies, the modals are considered regular verbs, taking sentential complement objects with the [+Infinitive] complementizer (see chapter III), with obligatory deletion of the 'to' for all modals except 'ought'. This analysis makes even better sense for Old English. The Old English tense inflections combined with modals as with any other verb — unlike Modern English, in which tense and modality are mutually exclusive (unless one really wants to find himself having to call 'could' the past tense of 'can', 'would' the past tense of 'will', etc.). In Old English, the verb 'willan' could mean either 'will' in a future sense, or 'wish'. 'Ic wille gangan' could be either 'I wish to go' or 'I will go'. No one who accepts the analysis of sentential complements presented in chapter III would disagree with the assertion that Modern English strings like examples (9) and (10) derive from the embedding of the sentence 'I AUX go' into the matrix sentence 'I wish it' (where 'it' is the pronoun from of a noun like 'the wish'). (9) I wish that I could go (10) I wish to go

2

See, for example, John Robert Ross, "Auxiliaries as M a i n Verbs", unpublished paper, M a y , 1967.

22

THE RULES

But not all would agree that a string like example 11 also derives from the embedding of 'I AUX go' into a matrix sentence 'I will it'. (11) I will go One might argue that what has happened over the centuries to the modals is that, with lexical borrowing, paraphrase alternatives to the modals have arisen, accelerating the loss of paradigmatic variations so that we now have relic forms of once-complete paradigms, and the functions of once-distinct inflectional differences have been taken over by the various paraphrase alternatives. The table below shows some of the Old English modals, their Modern English equivalents, and some of the possible Modern English paraphrases for them. Old English Modals

Modem English Equivalents

Modem English Paraphrase Possibilities

willan sculan cunnan magan motan }>urfan durran

shall, will, wish should can can may need dare

be willing, going to ought, be obliged know how be able to, capable be allowed, permitted must, have to (already a relic)

Modern English 'could' and 'might' are survivals of the subjunctive forms of Old English 'cunnan' and 'magan'; the subjunctive is the realization of a [-(-Conditional] feature. The semantic difference in Old English between the indicative and subjunctive forms did not require making a distinction between 'semantic tense' and 'syntactic tense', but this distinction is necessary to a discussion of Modern English. Most of the paraphrase forms of the modals can be analyzed as verbs taking sentential complement objects, and the suggestion that the modals themselves be analyzed the same way is attractive. However, there is as yet no general agreement among generative grammarians to adopt the suggestion, and there is disagreement among those who do adopt it as to the co-occurrence features of the modals, so the modals of both Old English and Modern English are here handled as segmental features of AUX, similar in nature to Tense and Aspect. It seems preferable to introduce the feature [+Passive] into the AUX by means of the passivization rule rather than include the symbol PASSIVE as a deep structure component, because sentences like examples 12 and 13 should share the same deep structure. (12) Lakoff and Ross' rule bothers some linguists (13) Some linguists are bothered by Lakoff and Ross' rule

23

THE RULES

If PASSIVE is a deep structure component, these two sentences do not share the same deep structure. The few differences between these two sets of rules are not theoretical differences, but merely formal differences; the first set is more general than the second, but it contains the same information. Phrase structure rule (1) states that an utterance is composed of a conjunction and one or more sentences. This rule is the basis for various types of compounds, for non-restrictive relative clauses, and, as has already been mentioned, for clausal adverbs. 'Sentence' is defined, in rule (2), as a structure composed of optional presentence elements (specified in rule (3) as Q, a question marker; IMP, an imperative marker; NEG, a negative marker; and EMP, an emphasis marker), a noun phrase (the subject), an auxiliary, and a verb phrase. 'Verb phrase' is defined, in rule (4), as a structure which must contain a verb and may contain one or more noun phrases, which the transformational rules convert to direct objects, indirect objects, and prepositional phrases. 'Noun phrase' is defined, in rule (5), as a noun (which may become a pronoun) plus, optionally, a sentence. This optional sentence is the basis for all restrictive relative clauses and for sentential complements — clauses or phrases with nominal function, which derive from sentences. The choice of one or more of the optional noun phrases of the verb phrase depends on the co-occurrence features of the verb entry: all verbs may co-occur with adverbial prepositional phrases; transitive verbs co-occur with noun phrase objects; one subset of verbs requires the co-occurrence of either an object or a prepositional phrase. The simplest utterance is one which includes none of the optional elements of the phrase structure rules except the noun phrases required by certain verbs. That is, the simplest utterance may be realized as any one of the following subtypes (in these, examples, the symbol C has been deleted by means of one of the most frequently applied transformational rules; there are no initial conjunctions): (14) seo geleaffulnyss weox NP AUX V ('the faith increased' — LS II, 269s) (15) t>es bisceop worhta faela wundra NP AUX V

NP l+

Obj]

('this bishop wrought many wonders' — II, 63) (16) Dreo frng synd on middearde NP AUX V NP [+Loc] ('three things are on earth' — I, 25) (17) eugenia het hi gebro6ra NP AUX V NP NP [ + Obj] [ + Comp] ('Eugenia called them brothers' — II, 48-49) 3

JElfric's Lives of Saints, Volumes I and II, edited by Walter W. Skeat (Oxford University Press, London, \966){=EETSO. S. 76, 82, 94, and 114). All Old English sentences, except where specifically noted otherwise, are from this text. Skeat's numbering is used throughout; thus, II, 269 refers to line 269 of selection II.

24

THE RULES

Such utterances are rare in Old English; the great majority of Old English utterances are made up of two or more sentences. That is, the n of the first phrase structure rule is equal to or greater than two, or the optional S of the fifth rule has been selected. I. B. T H E

CYCLIC

PRINCIPLE

It is generally assumed by transformational grammarians that transformational rules will generate all and only the grammatical sentences of a language if those rules are both ordered and cyclic. In the following chapters the first requirement is explained as the rules are examined. The second requirement, however, is taken for granted. Stated briefly, the cyclic principle specifies that the entire set of transformational rules is applied, in order, to each individual simplex sentence in turn, from the most deeply embedded one up to the matrix sentence as a whole. One progression through the entire set of transformational rules is a cycle. Not all transformations apply to each embedded sentence, of course, but if the structural description for an obligatory transformational rule is met, the rule must apply; if the structural description for an optional transformational rule is met, the rule may apply, if the speaker wishes. Jacobs and Rosenbaum's English Transformational Grammar4 contains a chapter which explains the cyclic principle in detail. It is there demonstrated that It Replacement must precede Refiexivization (see chapter III), but that there are grammatical sentences in English in which Refiexivization applies in a cycle which precedes the cycle in which It Replacement applies. Without the cyclic principle, the rules which generate such sentences would be chaotic, if not quite impossible. I. C. T H E T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L

RULES

The major portion of this work is 'concerned with the transformational rules derived from yElfric's Lives of Saints and with the relationship of those rules both to the set of transformational rules posited for Modern English by Chomsky and his followers and to conclusions about the syntax of other Old English texts drawn by other scholars. For the convenience of those who like to begin with conclusions, the set of ordered rules posited for the syntax of Lives of Saints and the set posited for the syntax of Modern English by Chomsky and his followers5 are listed below. Transformational Rules Positedfor JElfric's Syntax 1. Conjunction Copying 2. Conjunction Reduction

Transformational Rules Posited for Modern English Syntax 1. S Deletion 2. Conjunction Reduction

1 Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S.Rosenbaum, EnglishTransformationcd Grammar (BlaisdellPublishing Co., Waltham, Mass., 1968), pp. 235-249. 5 The rules as given are copied from John Ross and George Lakoff's Morpheme Spitter, which was handed out to participants in the 1968 Summer Linguistics Institute at the University of Illinois.

THE RULES

3. Conjunctive Preposition Substitution 4. Sentence Deletion 5. Conjunction Deletion 6. Complementizer Placement 7. Equi NP Deletion 8. Hit Replacement 9. Reflexivization 10. Passivization 11. Agent Deletion 12. Number, Person, and Gender Agreement 13. Paer Insertion 14. S Modification Formation 15. Extraposition 16. Indefinite Pronoun Deletion 17. Hit Deletion 18. Relative Clause Formation 19. Imperative Formation 20. Segment Feature Incorporation for AUX 21. Neg-Emp Placement 22. Adverb Clause Reduction 23. Adverb Movement 24. Subject Verb Inversion 25. WH-NP Movement 26. Non-Restrictive Relative Clause Movement 27. Pronominalization 28. Complementizer Deletion 29. Relative Clause Reduction 30. Modifier Shift 31. Possessive Formation 32. Segment Feature Incorporation for N and V 33. Affix Shift 34. Possessive Shift 35. Pronoun Object Movement 36. Verb Phrase Inversion

3. Conjunction Copying 4. Conjunction Deletion 5. Complementizer Placement 6. Equi NP Deletion 7. It Replacement 8. Dative 9. Passive 10. Agent Deletion 11. Number Agreement 12. Reflexive 13. There Insertion 14. Particle Movement 15. Extraposition 16. It Deletion 17. Preposition Deletion 18. Relative Clause Formation 19. Question Formation 20. Extraposition from NP 21. Tag Formation 22. Neg-Emp Placement 23. Imperative 24. Adverb Preposing 25. Subject Verb Inversion 26. Whether Deletion 27. VP Deletion 28. Affix Hopping 29. Do Support 30. Pronominalization 31. Complementizer Deletion 32. Relative Clause Reduction 33. Modifier Shift 34. Possessive Formation 35. Possessive Shift

II TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR

COMPOUNDING

When the n of the first phrase structure rule is equal to or greater than two, we have the structure on which the first five transformational rules, rules governing compounding, operate. These rules are Conjunction Copying, Conjunction Reduction, Conjunctive Preposition Substitution, Sentence Deletion, and Conjunction Deletion. These rules differ somewhat from those posited by Lakoff and Ross for Modern English; except for Conjunctive Preposition Substitution, which they do not include, the labels are the same, but the order is different, and the scope of two of them — Sentence Deletion and Conjunction Reduction — differs. This is not evidence that Old and Modern English compounds are different; the five rules posited for Lives of Saints cover all the information included in Lakoff and Ross' four rules and a bit more, which they passed over. Their rules, in order, are: S Deletion, Conjunction Copying, Conjunction Reduction, and Conjunction Deletion. S Deletion deletes what are called 'performatives', matrix sentences posited as part of the deep structure of apparently simple sentences. They posit a supersedence similar to, 'The speaker declares, "JElfric was a monk" ', as the deep structure of the sentence, '/Elfric was a monk'. The deletion rule erases the subject and verb of the supersentence. The justification for this rule lies in the necessity of dealing, at some point, with the fact that sentences to be conjoined must share some kind of modality feature: 'wish' sentences can conjoin only with sentences carrying a conditional feature; questions can conjoin only with conditionals, disjunctives, or other questions; and imperatives can conjoin only with other imperatives or with conditionals. Lakoff and Ross choose to deal with this problem by positing a deletable matrix sentence which incorporates the modality features suggested above. However, the matter can be handled in a quite different manner, discussed in chapter VII, which does not require positing supersentences and, thus, does not require the S Deletion rule. The label is reserved for another transformational rule. II. A. C O N J U N C T I O N

COPYING

Formally, Conjunction Copying may be stated as follows: C 1

Si 2

S2 3

(St... 4

Sn) n => 1 2

1+3

1+4

\+n

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR COMPOUNDING

27

or it may be paraphrased in plain English: given a C and two or more Ss, the symbol C is 'copied' into the initial position of each successive sentence. To some people, this rule is a bit silly. It converts a string like (1) into (la), and the only difference between the two is the symbol C before S2 in example (la): (1)

C

Si [Iulianus

ne rohte Jsaes reQan Jjywrace] ,s„[nan his geferena forht naes on mode] (la) C [Iulianus ne rohte fcaes redan £>ywrace] C s J n a n his geferena forht naes on mode] It has been suggested that the first phrase structure rule be phrased a bit differently, in such a way that each S is preceded by a C in deep structure. The rule might be phrased as in (2): (2)

U^n(C+S)

(where

«=1,2,3,

. ..)

There are two reasons it will not work. The notation Sn in the original rule is borrowed from logic; the sentences which can be conjoined are infinite in number, but they must be members of the same finite set. The notation does precisely what Lakoff and Ross' S Deletion rule does. A less specific notation such as n(C+S) must limit both C and S, or neither. If S can be limited in a later rule, Ross and Lakoff's S Deletion or some other, a rule like example (2) can replace phrase structure rule (1). However, there is another reason n(C+S) is not desirable: Conjunction Copying is an optional rule; for some sentences, the presence of a C before an S would require a deletion rule. In addition to various types of compound and complex sentences, parenthetical expressions and non-restrictive relative clauses are generated from the first phrase structure rule, and they do not contain initial conjunctions. Thus, it seems reasonable to require a rule which copies the symbol C into the initial position of successive Ss in an utterance when the desired surface structure is a compound and which does not apply to strings whose surface structures are not compounds. It is important to note that it is a symbol which is copied, not a word. Lexically, the symbol is realized as many words, each differing from all the others in terms of at least one lexical feature. A partial list of the conjunctions of Old English will demonstrate the feature differences: 'ac': 'and': 'butan': 'forJ>an(t>e)': 'for]>y': 'gif':

[+Coordinate, [+Coordinate, [—Coordinate, [—Coordinate, [+Coordinate, [—Coordinate,

+ Disjunctive] —Disjunctive] + Condition, + Negative] + Cause] + Result] + Condition]

28

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR COMPOUNDING

'maere J)onne': [—Coordinate, 'ne': [—Coordinate, 'oJ>i>aet': [—Coordinate, 'o}5 J)e': [—Coordinate, 'swaswa': [—Coordinate, *(swa)})aEt': [—Coordinate, '(swa)[>eah': [+Coordinate, 't>eah Ipe': [—Coordinate,

+ Comparative, ± Degree] + Disjunctive] + Temporal] + Disjunctive] + Comparative, —Degree] + Result] + Concession] + Concession]

Conjunctions carrying the feature [+Coordinate] may occur in the initial position of utterances containing only one S, or they may occur at the head of any S in an utterance. Conjunctions carrying the feature [—Coordinate] may occur only in utterances containing at least one preceding S which is headed by a [+Coordinate] conjunction. The number of lexical items which can be substituted for the symbol C in Old English is considerably larger than the number posited by Lakoff and Ross for Modern English; in their rules, C is realized as either 'and' or 'or'. I suggest that expanding the set to include the Modern English counterparts of the Old English items listed above ('but', 'and', 'unless', 'because', 'therefore', 'if', 'more . . . than', 'nor', 'until', 'or', 'as ... as', 'so that', and 'although') rather nicely derives clausal adverbs from sentences and does away with the necessity of positing a rather complex and sloppy categorization, ADV, to represent three quite different structures. Lexical co-occurrence features of various Cs would block nonsense strings. A few utterances from Lives of Saints will illustrate the place of Cs in Old English syntax: (3) (and) fces bisceop worhta faela wundra f>uruh god and him wear6 geswutelod on swaefne be J}ysum and eall ]?aes maedenes mod him wear b ameldod (II, 63-65) ((and) this bishop wrought many wonders through God and to him was revealed in a dream concerning this and all the maiden's mind to him was made known) (4) (and) hi wurdon ]>a gelaedde to ^aere la dan anlicnysse ac heo tofeol sona to heora fotum formolsnod (II, 373-374) ((and) they were then led to the loathsome idol but it fell at once to their feet, crumbled to bits) (5) ... on J)am timan ne teah nan aedelborennysse naenne man to wurdscype butan he wisdom aer 6am lange leornode set gelaeredum u3wytum (III, 6-8) (... at that time no noble birth raised any man to honor, unless he, for a long time before, had learned wisdom from learned wise men)

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR COMPOUNDING

29

(6) (and) daes Qaegn philippus naes na gefullod on gode forpan pe cristendom naes J)agyt geond eall cu5 (II, 12-13) ((and) this thane Philip was not baptized in God because Christendom was not yet known everywhere) (7) Fordi synd laga gesaette J?aet menn rihtlice libban and Ipxt f>a rihtwisan beon geherode (V, 283-284) (Therefore are laws set so that men live aright and so that the righteous be praised) (8) Gif £>u J)onne mihtest myltsian and (f>u) noldest gebringe fie se haelend to hyre hafenleaste (III, 186-187) (If you then could show pity and (you) would not may the Savior bring you to poverty like hers) (9) (t)eah J>e) he hefegra sy j ponne se 6e benedictus sij^an us gebysnode (III, 147148) ((although) it be more severe than that which Benedict afterwards exemplified for us) (10) Ac Iulianus ne rohte J)aes reQan Jjywrace ne nan his geferene forht naes on mode (IV, 114-115. See example (1) above) (But Julian recked not the savage threat nor was one of his companions afraid in his mind) (11) Hwaet t>a EVGENIA ardlice faerde od pat heo becom J3aer da cristenan sungen (II, 35-36) (Lo, then Eugenia quickly journeyed until she came there where the Christians were singing) (12) and (he) bebead philippe fcaet he buge to his godum odde (he) waere benaemed wurSscipes and aehta (II, 289-290) (and he commanded Philip that he bow to his gods or he would be deprived of honor and possessions) (13) and basilius se bylewitta weard to bisceop gehalgod and on his setle ahafen swa swa he geseah on xr (III, 100-101) (and Basil, the virtuous, was consecrated bishop and raised to his seat as he had seen previously) (14) and (philippus) Jjurh mycelne geleafan manega odre getrymode swa paet da cristenan hine gecuron to bisceop (II, 293-294) (and (Philip) by his great faith confirmed many others so that the Christians chose him as bishop) (15) (ac heo) ne dorst swa peah hi ealle gedrefan (II, 123) ((but she) dared not, however, offend them all)

30

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR COMPOUNDING

(16) Peak pe hwa wille her on life habban gode dagas he ne maeg hi her findan peah pe he sy welig (XII, 82-83) (Nevertheless, he who wishes here in life to have good days cannot find them here, although he be wealthy) It is fairly common to find [+Coordinate] Cs occurring in pairs, as is true of Modern English; combinations of 'and' and 'for9i', and of 'ac' and 'swa f>eah' are most frequent. Lexical rules specify which features of lexical items are compatible. When such pairs do occur, the second one may be moved to other positions in the sentence. Thus the conjunction 'swa feah' is not in initial position in example (15).

II. B. C O N J U N C T I O N

REDUCTION

Formally, Conjunction Reduction (a rather misleading label, as it reduces almost everything except conjunctions) may be stated: C Si[W X Y] C s2[Z X A] 1 ' 2 3 4 5 *6 7 8 =>12345608 That is, given two sentences in which a part of the second is lexically and functionally identical to a part of the first, the identities (the Xs) reduce to one occurrence. The rule applies simultaneously to all such identities in an utterance, converting examples (1), (2), (3), and (4) into (la), (2a), (3a), and (4a) (the identities to be reduced are italicized) : (1) c [and] Sj[HEO peah on lare J>aes rihta geleafan] c [and] S2[heo peah on godcundlicum gewrytum mid godum wyllan] c [and] Ss[heo wears awende of wulfe to sceape] (la) (and) heo J)eah on lare J)ass rihta geleafen and on godcundlicum gewrytum mid godum wyllan and wear 6 awende of wulfe to sceape (II, 98-100) ((and) she throve in the learning of the true belief and in godly writings with good will and was turned from a wolf to a sheep) (2)

c [and]

^[aefter })issere tihtinge beclype seo myltestre pat clcene mceden] c [and] s J o n oSrum larum beclype seo myltestre pat clcene mceden] (2a) (and) sefter J)issere tihtinge and on odrum larum beclype seo myltestre J) set claene maeden (II, 168-169) ((and) after this instruction and among other lore the wanton woman embraced that pure maiden)

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR COMPOUNDING

31

cfgtf] s\Pu ponne mihtest myltsian] c [and gif] Si[pu ponne noldest myltsian] c [(deleted)] s Jgebringe fce se haelend to hyre hafenleaste] (3a) Gif J)u J)onne mihtest myltsian and noldest gebringe £>e se haelend to hyre hafenleaste (II, 186-187) (If you then could show mercy and would not may the Savior bring you to poverty like hers)

(3)

(4)

c [ac]

^[je hcelend com mid heofonlicum leohte] [and] S J [SE HAELEND brohte pam madene maerne bigleofon] c hcelend brohte pam mcedene snawhwitne hlaf] c [and] c [and] St[se hcelend onlihte fcaet cweartern] (4a) ac se haelend com mid heofonlicum leohte and brohte f>am maedene maerne bigleofon (and) snawhwitne hlaf and onlihte Jjaet cweartern (II, 403-405) (But the Savior came with a heavenly light and brought the maiden ample bread (and) a snow-white loaf and lighted the prison)

Conjunction Reduction applies after Conjunction Copying; otherwise the sentences are not conjoined and cannot be reduced.

II. C. C O N J U N C T I V E P R E P O S I T I O N

SUBSTITUTION

Formally, Conjunctive Preposition Substitution may be stated: N P NP Y] C sj ] 2 i[+Nom]| T + Coord J[+Nom]l |[+Obj] J [-Disjunct U+Obj] J 1 2 3 4 5 => 1 2 3 Prep 5 [+Conj] 5i[X

That is, after Conjunction Reduction has reduced a sentence to just a noun phrase subject or object, a conjunctive preposition (Old English 'mid', Modern English 'with') may be substituted for 'and'. Conjunction Reduction leads to potentially ambiguous sentences, which are not disambiguated by Conjunctive Preposition Substitution ; the meaning must be gleaned from the context. A sentence like example (1) could derive, through the application of Conjunction Reduction and Conjunctive Preposition Substitution, from either (la) or (lb):

32

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR COMPOUNDING

(1) and iulianus mid blisse hi bebyrgde mid his munecum (IV, 101) (and Julian joyfully buried her with his monks) (la) c [and] 5 Jiulianus mid blisse hi bebyrgde] c [and] 52[his munecas mid blisse hi bebyrgde] (lb) c [and] [iulianus mid blisse hi bebyrgde] c [and] s Jiulianus mid blisse bebyrgde his munecas] Similar ambiguities arise in Modern English; as might be expected, the translation of example (1) is as ambiguous as the original Old English sentence.

II. D . S E N T E N C E

DELETION

When Conjunctive Preposition Substitution does not apply to a Modern English sentence, the non-contiguous functionally identical elements of conjoined sentences are usually made contiguous. A sentence like (Id), in which 'his monks' is the subject of the reduced sentence, would be rare in Modern English (although such structures are found in poetry). Generally, a string like (Id) would be considered an intermediate string — deriving from the Conjunction Reduction rule—a halfway stage in the derivation leading to a surface structure like (le): (Id) and Julian, with joy, buried her and his monks (le) and Julian and his monks buried her with joy The surface structure is the result of the operation of Sentence Deletion, which may be stated: (1)

CSi[WXY]

C

4(*F)(Z)(r)]

[ ± Coord 1 ± Disjunct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 =>1 w[2 5 6] *[3 5 7 ] r [ 4 5 8 ]

8

That is, given an S headed by a [+Coordinate, ¿Disjunctive] conjunction (Old English 'and', 'ac', 'ne', and 'odSe'), to which Conjunction Reduction has applied, the S2 node is deleted and a new node (or nodes, if more than one element of S2 remains) is formed to dominate both the element previously constituting S 2 and the element in Si functionally identical to it. Tree diagrams (2) and (3) show the structure of examples (Id) and (le), that is, before and after Sentence Deletion. In these examples, W is realized as NP, and X and Y the deleted elements of the VP.

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR COMPOUNDING

(2)

(3)

33

U

V

In Old English, sentences like examples (4) (with Sentence Deletion not applying) are almost as common as sentences like example (5) (where the rule has applied): (4) Maurus 6a ferde mid mycelre blisse and his geferan (VI, 90-91) (Maur then went with great joy and his companions) (5) Iulianus J?a and se geonga cniht martianes sunu and his modor samod antonius se preost and se geedcucode man wurdon tosomne ofslagene for criste 3

H-108

34

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR COMPOUNDING

and ferdon mid wuldre to J)am welwillendan haelende (IV, 411^415) (Julian then and the young man, Martian's son, and his mother also, Antony the priest and the re-quickened man were slain together for Christ and went with glory to the kind Savior) In both Old and Modern English a word is occasionally added to conjoined items to indicate reciprocity. In Old English the word is usually'samod', occasionally'tosomne'; in Modern English, it is 'together'. In Modern English, potentially ambiguous strings resulting from the application of Sentence Deletion to conjoined Ss with two or more sets of functionally identical elements are often disambiguated by the addition of the word 'respectively'. Strings like examples (6) and (7) would become, after Conjunction Reduction and Sentence Deletion, (6a). A speaker wishing to make it clear that his meaning is that inherent in example (6) might add 'respectively' as in example (6b): (6) /Elfric chases marbles and Fermi chases flies (7) /Elfric chases marbles and /Elfric chases flies and Fermi chases marbles and Fermi chases flies (6a) .¿Elfric and Fermi chase marbles and flies (6b) Elfric and Fermi chase marbles and flies, respectively The 'respectively' rule does not operate in Old English. Its addition to the grammar of English marks a diachronic change in the syntax of the language. The Sentence Deletion rule does not operate as frequently in Old English as in Modern; at both stages it is an optional rule, a matter of style, but for Modern English the decision not to apply it to subject NPs is almost wholly a matter of poetic style. Perhaps for Modern English the rule should be labelled 'obligatory for subject NPs, except in poetic idiom'. At any rate, the relative frequency of occurrence of the rule is lower for Old English than for Modern English. Lakoff and Ross' Conjunction Reduction rule is so stated that it combines the operations of the Conjunction Reduction and Sentence Deletion rules discussed above. They omit the Conjunctive Preposition Substitution rule, for which they can perhaps be excused, on the grounds that their rules were not meant to constitute an exhaustive list. However, Conjunction Reduction and Sentence Deletion cannot be combined: Conjunctive Preposition Substitution must follow the former and precede the latter. II. E. C O N J U N C T I O N

Formally, Conjunction Deletion may be stated:

(a)

X

C S [+Coord]

Y

DELETION

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR COMPOUNDING

(b)

¿X

35

C X]Y [ +Coord] 1 2 3 4 =>• 1 0 3 4

That is, any coordinate conjunction, regardless of its position in the utterance, may be deleted. In utterances containing sentences, phrases, or single words in series, the last C is usually the only one which is not deleted although the scope of the rule permits stylistic variation for emphasis or for close co-ordination, as is shown in example (8) : (8) Hwaet ôa eugenia hi gebletsode and cwaeô to ôsere sceande ^aet heo sodlice wsere galnysse ontendnyss and gramena meege £>eostra gefaera and mid sweartnysse afylled (II, 171-174) (Lo, then Eugenia blessed herself and said to her shame that she truly was a kindler of lust and a kinsman of wrath, a companion of darkness and filled with blackness) The 'and' that might be expected to appear before 'Jîeostra gefaera' has been deleted for a pleasing balance between the first two phrases and the last two. Conjunction Deletion has applied to those examples in this chapter which include conjunctions in parentheses; the conjunctions do not appear in the text. Compounds in Old English have not aroused much interest among Old English scholars; most of the studies previously referred to briefly mention them and then pass on to other matters. The only exceptions are Bacquet's La structure de la phrase verbale a l'époque Alfrédienne1 and Blain's The Syntax of the Verb in the AngloSaxon Chronicle.'2' Bacquet spends a fair amount of space on 'subjectless' sentences, both those which are conjoined to preceding sentences which have subjects and also those which are not conjoined. Although he does not phrase his discussion in transformational terms, Bacquet is talking about the results of Conjunction Reduction. In formal Modern English, the omission of the subject from what purports to be a complete sentence is frowned upon, but the practice is quite common in colloquial usage, whenever there can be no doubt as to the identity of the subject. In formal Old English, the practice was apparently acceptable. Blain discusses compound subjects in Old English, and he includes 'mid' phrases as constituents of such compounds. His main interest is in the agreement, or lack of it, 1

Paul Bacquet, La structure de la phrase verbale à l'Epoque Alfrédienne (Société d'Éditions, Paris, 1962). 2 Hugh Mercer Blain, Syntax of the Verb in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle from 787 A. D. to 1001 A. Di (A. S. Barnes and Company, New York, 1901). *

36

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR COMPOUNDING

between various types of compound subjects and their verbs, so he does not really explore the nature of 'mid' phrases. The limited information available in these studies does indicate that the five rules posited in this chapter are valid for Alfredian texts and for the Chronicle. A sketchy survey of other Old English texts indicates that the rules are valid for the entire period. They are still valid today; the only difference between the compounding rules for Old English and those for Modern English is the addition, at some stage, of the 'respectively' rule.

Ill TRANSFORMATIONAL

RULES FOR

SENTENTIAL

COMPLEMENTS

'Sentential complement' is the term given to phrases and clauses derived from deep structure sentences, which fulfill the various nominal functions. They derive from the optional S of the fifth phrase structure rule, and they are called 'complements' because they complete the meaning of the N with which they form an NP. They differ from restrictive relative clauses, which are also generated by the fifth phrase structure rule, in one vital way: for the relative clause rules to apply, there must be an NP in the embedded S whose lexical features are identical to some of the features of the N dominated by the same NP node which dominates the embedded S. This identity is absent from the NPs containing sentential complements. The difference between a restrictive relative clause and a sentential complement can be seen if one compares examples (1) and (2) and then compares their underlying structures, shown in diagrams (la) and (2a): (1) ... (Basilius) eallne Jione wysdom wundorlice asmeade J?e grecisce larewas him laeran cu6an (III, 24-25) ((Basil) wonderingly investigated all the wisdom which the Greek teachers could teach him) (2) Nu ic wylle awendan ]3aes waelhreowan heortan to J)an gejjance J) aet he f>yssa halgena lie ealle forberne (XI, 227-229) (Now I will turn the heart of this persecutor to the thought that he burn up all the bodies of the saints) In (la) the embedded sentence becomes a relative clause, because a noun in it, wysdom is identical to a noun in the matrix sentence. There is no such identity between pan gepance and any noun in the sentence he pyssa halgena lie ealle forberne. The sentence complements the noun, but does not modify it. In example (2) the sentential complement complements a true noun. This is relatively infrequent in both Old and Modern English; the noun is usually pronominalized. Pronominalization is a relatively late transformational rule, and it will not be discussed in detail here (see chapter VII), but it cannot be completely ignored at this point,

38

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

(la) S

(2a) 5

because in most of the examples which will be used it has been applied. The pronoun replacing the noun in such constructions is usually 'hit' in Old English, 'it' in Modern English, although there are occasional examples containing demonstrative pronouns.

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

39

Many of the examples in this chapter are intermediate structures for which no precisely analogous, attested parallel examples can be given. These intermediate structures — and the rules which generate them and operate on them—are considered valid in spite of their non-occurrence as surface structures, because it seems desirable to say that the deep structure, in which meaning resides, is the same for all Ss containing the same phrase structure symbols and, where applicable, the same lexical realizations of those symbols. Although examples (3) through (9) have very different surface structures, transformation theory relates them by stating that examples (3), (4), (5), and (6) share one deep structure, shown in diagram (3a) and that the deep structure of examples (7), (8) and (9), shown in diagram (7a), differs from diagram (3a) only in that it contains the symbol Q. (3) The general asked that the troops surrender. (4) The general asked the troops to surrender. (5) The general asked for the troops' surrender. (6) It was asked by the general that the troops surrender. (7) The general asked whether the troops would surrender. (8) The general asked, "Will the troops surrender?" (9) It was asked by the general, "Will the troops surrender?" The true noun nature of the N 'it' is sometimes quite easy to posit, and sometimes almost impossible. It may be 'the fact', 'the assertion', 'the statement', 'the question', 'the doubt', 'the belief', or 'the action'. Very often it is so closely related to the matrix

(3a) S

NP

V

S

N

NP

The general

PAST

ask (for)

it

AUX

the troops

VP

surrender

40

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

(7a) S

NP

AVX

VP

[+T]

V

The general

PAST

i/,wv jarj

NP

u

Q

the troops

surrender

verb that it must be pronominalized. A sentence like example (10) makes one flinch, but (10a), (10b), and (10c), which share the same deep structure as (10), are quite acceptable: (10) I doubt the doubt that Mars is inhabited. (10a) I doubt it that Mars is inhabited. (10b) It is doubted that Mars is inhabited. (10c) I doubt that Mars is inhabited. Once the noun has been pronominalized, it is highly vulnerable to deletion, as is the case in example (10c). But it must be posited as a part of the deep structure of (8c) so that that example can be related to be others. Many of the examples in this chapter containing the lexical item 'hit' could never have been uttered by an Anglo-Saxon speaker. These examples are described as intermediate structures linking single deep structures to their numerous related, but different, surface structures, some of which do contain the word 'hit'. The major work on Modern English sentential complements is Peter S. Rosenbaum's The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions,1 Parallels and differences between the formulation and order of his rules and those discussed here will be noted, as will suggestions and comments by Lakoff and Ross on Rosenbaum's rules. 1 Peter S. Rosenbaum, The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1967). Except where otherwise noted, all subsequent references to Rosenbaum's rules are from this text.

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

41

The nearest thing to a study of sentential complements of Old English is J. H. GorrelPs "Indirect Discourse in Anglo-Saxon". 2 Gorrell defines indirect discourse as all dependent constructions, introduced by pcet, which follow verbs of saying, knowing, perceiving, thinking, seeming, believing, etc. He also includes indirect questions introduced by 'hwaefcer', ' g i f , and interrogative adverbs. He does talk about infinitives which are used as nominals, but he does not relate them to nominal clauses. A. R. Benham, in his article, "The Clause of Result in Old English Prose", clearly differentiates the various types of adverbial clauses (which we are deriving from the first phrase structure rule, not the fifth) from what he calls "substantive clauses". He notes that "substantive clauses with verbs meaning to happen, take place, fall out, and the like ... are really the subjects of the main verbs.... Substantive clauses after verbs of knowing, thinking, telling, and perceiving, and the like ... are objects of the main verbs". 3 Leon Kellner notes that both direct and indirect speech "may be apprehended as substantive sentences. The former is anterior to the latter, and there is a construction which may perhaps be looked upon as a remnant of the stage of transition from direct to indirect speech by means of that added to the principal sentence". 4 The use of that before direct quotes is not dead yet; see the preceding paragraph. Morgan Callaway, Jr., is the only one to suggest that to-enne gerunds have any relation to sentences, 5 but he does not go the next step and relate them to direct and indirect statements and questions, nor does he link infinitives to them. Taken all together, these studies cover all the available Old English prose texts, so it can be said that the examples of sentential complements in /Elfric's Lives of Saints have analogues in other texts; the rules posited to generate the sentential complements in Lives of Saints will also generate those of all other Old English prose texts. Rosenbaum posits two categories of sentential complements: noun phrase and verb phrase. Lakoff, Ross and others have quietly ignored his verb phrase complement without specifying why. Examining Rosenbaum's examples of VP complements, 1 concluded that they are actually NP complements with a deleted preposition. One of his examples is Guido tempted Daisy to adopt the rat which can be analyzed as having the following deep structure: Guido tempted Daisy into it s [Daisy AUXadopt 2

the rat]

J. H. Gorrell, "Indirect Discourse in Anglo-Saxon", PMLA X (1895), pp. 342-486. A. R. Benham, "The Clause of Result in Old English Prose", Anglia 31 (1908), pp. 203-204. 4 Leon Kellner, Historical Outlines of English Syntax (Macmillan and Company, Ltd., London, 1905), p. 59. 5 Morgan C. Callaway, Jr., The Absolute Participle in Anglo-Saxon (Isaac Friedenwald Press, Baltimore, 1889). 3

42

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

Subsequent Equi NP Deletion, It Deletion, and Proposition Deletion generate the surface structure, without having to posit a VP complement. This is true of Rosenbaum's other examples as well.6 The rules directly concerning sentential complementation are Complementizer Placement, Equi NP Deletion, Hit Replacement, Extraposition, Hit Deletion, and Complementizer Deletion. Rules of more general application which are critically ordered with respect to these six and will, therefore, be discussed with them, are Passivization and Agent Deletion.

III. A. C O M P L E M E N T I Z E R

PLACEMENT

Formally, Complementizer Placement may be stated: Si[XN 1

12

SJ.NP !

3

AUX VP] Y] 4 5 6 => s j l 2 Si[CZ 3 4 5] 6]

That is, given a sentence in which an NP is expanded into a non-specific N (often pronominalized to 'hit', as mentioned earlier) and an S which completes the meaning of that N, a morphemic symbol indicating that the S is no longer functioning as an independent sentence is inserted between the N and the S. This symbol is called a complementizer, symbolized CZ. Lexically, the symbol CZ is realized in Old English as one of eight morphemes, each of which is differentiated from the others in terms of at least one feature, and, in some cases, in terms of the verbs in the matrix sentence with which they can cooccur. The lexical entries for the complementizers would be: AFacc: [CZ, -Clausal, + Infinitive] AF dat : [CZ, -Clausal, -Infinitive, + Gerund] AFgin: [CZ, -Clausal, -Infinitive, - G e r u n d ] 'gif': [CZ, + Clausal, - D Q , + Q ] 'hwaeder': [CZ, + Clausal, - D Q , + Q ] 'hwaeSer': [CZ, + Clausal, + D Q , + Q ] 'Jjaet': [CZ, + Clausal, - D Q , - Q ] 't>aet': [CZ, + Clausal, + D Q , - Q ] 6

A more complete discussion of this point can be found in J. A. Johnson. "Sentential Complements: Are Two Categories Necessary?" ERIC (February, 1969).

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

43

The complementizers with the feature [—Clausal] trigger a rule which alters the features of the AUX of the sentential complement: X

S[CZ

NP AUX

-Cll 1 + Inf

VP] Y

T+T ±M ,±Asp.

-CI -Inf ,+Ger. -CI -Inf — Ger __ 2

3

2

3

4

5

6

4

5

6

+AF i n f ' ±Asp +AF ger +Asp AFnominaj ±Asp That is, if the complementizer is [—Clausal], the tense and modal features of the AUX are replaced by a verbal affix feature, which is incorporated into the string proper by means of the Segment Feature Incorporation rule. The rule is simplified here to illustrate its application to strings containing the features mentioned above; see chapter VII for the discussion of its general application. X

AUX +T +M ±Asp r+AFinf L±Asp r+AFgerL±Asp . AF

n o m inaI

± Asp

Y

1

3

T(M)

/ (PERF) \ \(PROG)/

•an*

/ (PERF) \ \(PROG)/

, / (PERF) \ 'to — enne' \(PROG)/ unge

/ (PERF) \ \(PROG)/.

1 Of the many nominalizing affixes, only 'unge' is shown here.

2

44

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

There are no fundamental differences between Rosenbaum's Complementizer Placement rule and the one discussed here. Differentiating the complementizers in terms of features and then using the complementizer features to trigger changes in the features of AUXpermits a more general, more elegant rule. The Modern English lexical realizations of the symbol CZ are not the same as the Old English ones, of course. In his Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions, Rosenbaum deals only with the complementizers 'that', 'for-to', and POSS-'ing', but he notes in the preface that indirect questions and direct quotes of all kinds are also sentential complements.8 In English Transformational Grammar, which Rosenbaum co-authored with Roderick A. Jacobs, direct and indirect quotes are included in the chapters dealing with sentential complements. The Modern English complementizer 'that' derives directly from Old English 'J)set'. 'For-to' derives partly from the Old English complementizer AFiat and partly from AFacc: the 'to' element of the Old English gerund affix 'to-enne' was, in the Middle English period, attached to the infinitive, and the dative inflection was replaced by the lexical item 'for'. Kellner notes, "as early as 1474 the preposition 'for' preceding the substantive came into use". He cites Caxton's Game of the Cheese, in which the sentence, "It is an evil thing for a man to have suspicion" appears. 9 Morphologically, the 'enne' element of the Old English gerund merged with the nominalizing affix '-unge' and the participle affix '-ende', all of them becoming '-ing'. The Old English gerund has no direct descendants — we translate Old English gerunds either as infinitives or gerunds — although it does have semantic descendants: infinitives used as purpose adverbs and gerunds used in a passive sense. Rosenbaum's POSS-'ing' is too restricted; there is an obvious relation between the subjects of the sentences, 'John's arriving early disrupted the party', and 'John's early arrival disrupted the party". It would appear that this complementizer should be extended to include all possessives followed by nominalized verbs. I would posit Modern English [+DQ] complementizers 'that' and 'whether' on historical grounds, even though the latter never appears in surface structures of direct quotes and the former does so rarely. Rosenbaum does not posit actual morphemic realizations of the complementizers introducing direct quotes. The examples in this chapter show the operation of a relatively late, but very important, transformational rule which applies to all English sentences before they become surface structures. This rule is Affix Switch, which converts any contiguous pairs of noun affix plus noun or verb affix plus verb to noun plus noun suffix, verb plus verb suffix. Its scope covers case, number, gender, tense, mood, aspect, and voice affixes; thorough discussion of its operation is, therefore, postponed until its overall operation can be demonstrated; however, it must be mentioned at this point, because it is included in the examples which illustrate the transitions from deep structure to intermediate structures to surface structure. 8 9

Rosenbaum, Grammar of English Pred. Kellner, Historical Outlines, p. 39.

Compl.

Constr.,

p. ix.

45

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

Before the examples illustrating Complementizer Placement can be given, one other rule must be discussed.

III. B. HIT DELETION

Formally, Hit Deletion may be stated: (a) (b)

X

Hit

NP Hit [+Rec] 1

2

CZ

S

Y

X

Y

Z

3

4

5 => 1 0 3 4 5

That is, given a contiguous pair of Hit and S, or of NP with the feature [+Recipient] and Hit, Hit is deleted. Case (a) applies to Modern English strings as well; case (b) does not, as the translations will indicate. Old English examples showing the operation of Complementizer Placement, Hit Deletion, Segment Feature Incorporation (mentioned above and discussed in detail with Affix Shift in chapter VII), and Affix Switch are as follows: (1) martianus het hit s [his manfullan cwelleras ]jone halgan martianus het hit

AUXbeatan] [ + T] BASE

beatan] S [CZ his manfullan cwelleras ]Done halgan AUX [+AF a c c ] [AF inf ] AFTER C Z PLACEMENT

martianus het

his manfullan cwelleras Jjone halgan AUX beatan S[CZ [ + AF acc ] [ + AF inf ] AFTER HIT DELETION (a)

martianus het AFacc his manfullan cwelleras f>one halgan AFin{ beatan AFTER SFI matianus het his manfullan + AF acc cwelleras + AF acc {Done halgan beatan + AF inf AFTER AFFIX SWITCH Morphological rules then yield the attested example: martianus het his manfullan cwelleras jDone halgan beatan (IV, 141-142) (Martian ordered his evil killers to beat the saint)

46

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

(2) eugenian faeder begann hit

s

[eugenian faeder AUX wraegan eugenia] [ + T]

BASE

eugenian faeder begann hit S[CZ eugenian faeder AUX wraegan eugenia] t+ AF^] [ + AF ger ] AFTER CZ PLACEMENT eugenian faeder begann ¿[eugenian faeder+AF dat wraegan+AF g a eugenia] AFTER HIT DELETION (a), SFI, & AFFIX SWITCH Obligatory deletion of the second occurrence of 'eugenian faeder' and its affix (see the discussion of Equi NP Deletion), pronominalization of 'eugenia', and movement of the pronoun object to pre-verb position yield the attested example: eugenian faeder begann hi to wraegenne (II, 184) (Eugenia's father began to accuse her) (3) se aeldorman Jmncode hit

s [he

AUXpingan] BASE

se aeldorman Jjancode hit

S[CZ

he

[ + AF gen ]

AUX

Jnngan]

[ + AF nom ] AFTER CZ PLACEMENT

se asldorman Jjancode 5 [he+yiF gen ^ingan + ^F n o m ] AFTER HIT DELETION (a), SFI, & AFFIX SWITCH Morphological rules produce: se aeldorman f>ancode his ]?ingunge (III, 199) (The alderman thanked (him for) his intercession) (4) and he axode J)one cnapan hit S [Q he oncneowe £aet gewryt] BASE and he axode jDone cnapan hit s[

CZ Q he oncneowe J)set gewryt] [ - D Q , +Q] AFTER C Z PLACEMENT

and he axode J>one cnapan gif he oncneowe J)aet gewryt (III, 455) AFTER HIT DELETION (a) (and he asked the boy if he knew that scripture)

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

47

(5) and martianus axode Iulianum hit S[Q hi aht smeadon] BASE and martianus axode Iulianum hit s [

CZ Q hi aht smeadon] [ - D Q , +Q]1 AFTER CZ PLACEMENT

and martianus axode Iulianum hweder hi aht smeadon (IV, 264) AFTER HIT DELETION (a) (and Martian asked Julian whether they had thought of anything) (6) he cwaede hit S [Q du eart cristen odde haeden] BASE he cwaede hit s [

CZ Q du eart cristen odde hasden] [ + DQ, + Q ] AFTER C Z PLACEMENT

he cwaede hwaeder eart du cristen odde haeden (XXII, 205) AFTER HIT DELETION (a) (he asked, "Are you a Christian or a heathen ?") (7) Commodus het hit s [he heolde f>a romaniscan gesaetnysse] BASE Commodus het hit

CZ he heolde f>a romaniscan gesaetnysse] [-DQ, -Q] AFTER CZ PLACEMENT

Commodus het J>aet he heolde f>a romaniscan gesaetnysse (II, 11) AFTER HIT DELETION (a) (Commodus commanded that he hold the Roman law) (8) israhela god cwaed 6us s [6e ele ne ateorad] BASE israhela god cwaed dus s [

CZ 6e ele ne ateorad] [ + DQ, - Q ] AFTER CZ PLACEMENT

israhela god cwaed dus J)aet de ele ne ateorad (The attested example, which shows the operation of stylistic rules not discussed here, is:

48

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

"Dus cwaed israhela god J>aet de ele ne ateorad") (XVIII, 62) (Thus said Israel's God, "The oil will not fail you") Case (b) of Hit Deletion is no longer a part of English syntax; its disappearance marks another diachronic change in the language. A cursory reading of Bright's AngloSaxon Reader10 indicates that its application was general during the Old English period. In Old English, any [—Objective] AT5 could be moved to virtually any position in the sentence. When a [ — Objective, + Recipient] NP was moved to the head of a sentence beginning with hit, hit was deleted. This explains the difference between examples (9) and (10). (9) Hit is awriten be me on witegungbocum Jjast da £>e me geseoS hi ne gelyfad on me (XXIV, 115) (It is written concerning me in books of scripture that those who see me will not believe in me) (10) Me is eac gesaed Jsaet 6a iudeiscan syrwiad (XXIV, 99) (To me (it) is also said that the Jews lay snares) Hit Deletion does not follow Complementizer Placement immediately; other rules must intervene. Its operation was discussed at this point to clarify the derivation of the examples chosen to illustrate Complementizer Placement.

III. C. E Q U I NP

DELETION

Formally, Equi NP Deletion may be stated:

w (NP) X 1 =>

s[

CZ NP Y] (NP) Z [-C1, + A F d a t ] 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 1 2 3 4 0 6 7 8 Condition : 2 or 7 = 5

That is, the subject NP of a complement sentence is deleted, when the complementizer carries the feature [—Clausal] and the feature [+^F d a t ], if the matrix sentence contains an AT identical to it. In example III. B (2) above, the subject of the sentential complement, 'eugenian faeder', is deleted because it is identical to an NP in the matrix sentence. Ambiguities can arise from the operation of this rule. Two very similar sentences, differing only in the choice of complementizer, will illustrate: 10

Bright's Anglo-Saxon Reader, rev. James R. Hulbert (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1965).

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

49

(1) selre us is to sweltenne (XXV, 144) (better for us is dying) (2) us is selre Jjaet we swelton (XXV, 342) (for us (it) is better that we die) Example (1) could derive either from (la), with subsequent Equi NP Deletion or from (lb), to which the rule does not apply, because there is no identity. (la) hit AFdit + we ^F ger +sweltan (it for us

to die

is selre

us [ + Ben] is better for us)

(lb) hit AF iM + we ^f g e r +sweltan is selre (it for us to die is better) Since the rule does not apply to sentences with other complementizers, no such ambiguity is present in example (2). Example (la) is posited as a possible underlying structure for example (1), even though a surface structure containing both pronouns is impossible, precisely because example (2) should be shown as being closely related to such an underlying structure. A deep structure diagram for (la) and (2) is shown in diagram (2a). The surface structure difference is the direct result of the differences in the chosen complementizers (2a)

In Modern English, a potentially ambiguous sentence like example (1) is resolved by vocal inflection, in speech, and by punctuation, in writing: (lc) It is better, for us, to die. (Id) It is better for us to die. 4

H-108

50

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

It is quite likely that vocal inflection was also used in Old English to distinguish meanings; however, punctuation in Old English manuscripts does not provide clues for disambiguation, and we have no recorded speech to guide us. Rosenbaum's discussion of Equi NP Deletion for Modern English does not differ fundamentally from the discussion above. He does posit verb phrase complements to which the rule applies, whereas it is now demonstrated that his verb phrase complements are actually nothing more than rather unusual noun phrase complements.

I I I . D. P A S S I V I Z A T I O N

Formally, Passivization may be stated: X 1

AUX V NP NP [+Obj] [+Nom] 3 4 5 2

Y 6 => 1

5 3 4 2 6 [+Nom] [+Pass] [+Ag]

That is, given a transitive sentence, the subject and the object may be switched, at which point the deep structure subject takes on the feature [+Agent] — to be transformed later into the preposition purh — and the deep structure object takes on the feature [+Nominative] — to be transformed later into the nominative case inflection. The viC/X takes on the feature [+Passive], which later morphemic rules convert to a form of beon or weordan plus the past participle affix.11 It is important to note that Passivization affects NPs, not just Ns; it affects topmost NPs, not those dominated by other NPs. Examples (1) and (2), below, are related, as far as deep structure is concerned; example (3) differs. As we noted earlier, Sentence Deletion creates a new NP node to dominate functionally identical NPs of an utterance to which Conjunction Reduction has applied. Sentence Deletion is optional in Old English, but it must apply before Passivization: the ambiguity of sentences like those mentioned in the chapter on compounding does not extend to passive sentences. (1) The Tigers beat the Yankees and the Twins. (2) The Yankees and the Twins were beaten by the Tigers. (3) The Yankees were beaten by the Tigers and the Twins. Examples (4), (5), and (6) demonstrate that Passivization affects NPs and not just Ns: the relative clause is a part of the NP containing the N, 'the team'. 11

The Old English verb 'hatan' must often be translated as a passive ('to be called/named'), though the form is not passive.

51

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

(4) The Tigers beat the team which lost the pennant. (5) The team which lost the pennant was beaten by the Tigers. (6) *The team was beaten by the Tigers which lost the pennant. This Passivization rule differs somewhat from the passive rule formulated by other generative grammarians.12 Generally, the rule is written so that cover symbols for actual morphemes are incorporated into the string. It seems simpler and rather more elegant to handle such information in terms of features, but there is no fundamental disagreement between the rule discussed above and Chomsky's rule in Syntactic Structures. Passive examples from Lives of Saints, with and without sentential complements, will illustrate the operation of the rule. (7) Hit wear9 pa gefylled swa swa him foresaede god J>aet ealle da femnan ... gewytan of worulde (IV, 96-98) (It was then fulfilled as God had foretold to him that all the women ... departed from the world) (8) f>is waeard pa gecyd f>am cwellere martiane pset pa seofan gebrodra ... woldan ... fcrowian (IV, 240-242) (This was then made known to the killer Martian that the seven brothers were willing to suffer) (9) I>aer beod wundra geworhte durh {»one halgan wer (VI, 355) (There, miracles are wrought by the holy man) Examples (7) and (8) derive from strings like (7a) and (8a): (7a) NP PAST fyllan NJ»[hit ^[Jjaet ealle f>a femnan gewytan of worulde]] (8a) NP PAST cySan NPQ)is s[t>aet pa seofon gebrodra ... woldan ... wowian]] Passivization converts (7a) and (8a) to (7b) and (8b): (7b) wi>[hit s[t>aet ealle pa femnan gewytan of worulde]] wear 6 pa gefylled

NP [ + Ag]

(8b) Wi,[t>is s[t>aet pa seofon gebrodra ... woldon fcrowian]] waeard gecyd

NP l+Ag]

A very common rule in both Old English and Modern English deletes the [+Agent] NP: 12

Chomsky's 1957 rule, which is preferable to those rules positing different deep structures for active and passive sentences, is as follows: NP1 AUX VNPZ 4*

=> NP2 AUX be+en V by NPt

52

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

III. E. A G E N T

X 1

NP [+Ag] 2

DELETION

= > 1 0

But our two examples are not yet in the form attested in the text. In Modern English, It Deletion could apply, leaving the complement sentence in subject position of the entire sentence. In Old English, this is not possible: no sentential complement can occupy the subject position:

III. F.

EXTRAPOSITION

Formally, Extraposition may be stated: X N S Y 1 2 3 4

# 5 = > 1 2 4 3 5

That is, the entire complement sentence must be moved to the final position of the matrix sentence whenever it finds itself in the initial position of the sentence. In Old English the rule is obligatory; in Modern English it is optional; the shift from one category to the other marks another diachronic shift in the English language. Extraposition applies after Passivization, since it affects sentential complements which fill deep structure subject position, if Passivization does not apply, and it affects sentential complements which wind up in subject position after Passivization, as in examples III. D (7) and III. D (8) above. Example (10) shows the effect of Extraposition on a string to which Passivization has not been applied. (10) ^[hit] s [gif ure lif bid unnyt her] bid langsum bysmor BASE hit bid langsum bysmor gif ure lif bid unnyt her (XVI, 360) AFTER EXTRAPOSITION (it is a lasting disgrace if our life be useless here) Extraposition must apply before Hit Deletion; otherwise, there would be no hit to fill the subject position. As we shall see, there are other transformations intervening between Extraposition and Hit Deletion, and between Equi NP Deletion and Passivization.

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

53

III. G. HIT R E P L A C E M E N T

Formally, Hit Replacement may be stated: X

NP[hit

1

2

s[

CZ NP [-C1] 3 4

7]] 5

Z 6 => 1 n p [4] s [3 5] 6

That is, if the complementizer is [—Clausal], the subject NP of the complement sentence may replace hit, at which point the remainder of the sentential complement moves out from under the NP which previously dominated hit plus S. The rule converts strings like (11) to (11a): (11) se aelmihtigan god PRES forgifan NP [hit s [ ^ F d a t ic AFger f>ingan Jjyssere byrig siracusanan eow]] (11a) se aelmihtigan god PRES forgifan NP [ic] s[AFdat AFger fingan Jjyssere byrig siracusanan eow] Later case agreement rules and Affix Switch could result in a string like (1 lb), which would be indistinguishable from a string on which Hit Deletion, rather than Hit Replacement, had operated: (lib) se aelmihtigan god forgifd me to gej)ingienne Jsyssere byrig siracusanan eow However, the actual text involves Passivization, and the surface string is like (1 lc): (1 lc) ic eom forgifen fram Jjam aelmihtigan gode nu Jtyssere byrig siracusanan eow to ge])ingienne (IX, 136-138) Passivization interchanges the subject NP and the first NP after the verb, so this sentence cannot be simply the result of Hit Deletion followed by Passivization: 'ic' would then still be a part of the NP dominating the S of which it is the subject, and Passivization would involve the entire complement sentence. Replacement of the N 'hit' by the NP 'ic', with subsequent shifting of the remainder of the sentential complement away from the domination of NP, does, however, permit the derivation of exemple (1 lc), because then the first (NP) after the verb dominates only the word 'ic', not the entire complement sentence. This particular example has occasioned comment before now. W. van der Gaaf once suggested that the sentence is probably not evidence that the distinction between the dative and accusative cases was collapsing as early as the end of the tenth century

54

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

(a collapse which permitted the formerly impossible use of indirect objects as surface subjects in passive sentences, as in, "Mary was given the book by her mother"). He suggested, instead, that "it only shows what a far-reaching influence psychological factors may have had upon the form in which a thought is expressed". 13 Hans Marchand, on the other hand, suggested that it may indeed be evidence of such a collapse: "But why should not the sentence reflect the beginning of a change in linguistic thought?" 1 4 However, there is a difference between example (11c) and a sentence like (lid), which is not attested, but is closely paralleled by example (12), which is attested: ( l i d ) me is forgifen to ge^ingienne (12) me is eac gesaed fcaet da iudeiscan syrwiad (XXIV, 99) In these two examples, Equi NP Deletion has applied, as have Passivization, Agent Deletion, Extraposition, and Hit Deletion (b). The derivation of (lid) would be as follows: (1 le) NP PRES forgiefan w [ N [hit] s [ic AUX fcingian]] me BASE NP PRES forgiefan ^ [ ^ [ h i t ] s[AF d a t ic AF g e r J)ingian]] me AFTER CZ PLACEMENT NP PRES forgiefan ^[^[hit] s [to ge^ingienne]] me AFTER EQUI NP DELETION NP [ N [hit] s [to

gejnngienne]] is forgifen

NP me [ + Ag] AFTER PASSIVIZATION

A7>Mhit] s [to gej)ingienne]] is forgifen me AFTER AGENT DELETION ^[hit] is forgifen me s [to gejringienne] AFTER EXTRAPOSITION Me hit is forgifen to gefcingienne AFTER

NP MOVEMENT [-Obj]

Me is forgifen to gefcingienne AFTER HIT DELETION (b) 13 W. van der Gaaf, "The Conversion of the Indirect Personal Object into the Subject of a Passive Construction", English Studies XI (1927), p. 62. 14 Hans Marchand, "The Syntactical Change from Inflectional to Word Order System and Some Effects of this Change on the Relation 'Verb/Object' in English. A Diachronic-Synchronic Interpretation", Anglia LXX (1947), pp. 70-89.

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

55

'Me' cannot become a surface subject, because the movement rule which could place it immediately after the verb applies after Passivization. In Modern English, indirect object movement is a rule separate from the NP Movement rule affecting other prepositional phrases, and it applies before Passivization, but the rule (Ross and Lakoff's Dative rule) was not a part of Old English syntax. As we noted earlier, Hit Deletion (b) does not apply in Modern English.The Modern English possibilities for our two sentences would be (1 If) and (1 lg): (1 If) To me, it is allowed to intercede for you (1 lg) I am allowed to intercede for you and the latter has two potential deep structures. In /Elfric's English, however, as in Modern English, the subject NP of the complement sentence can replace 'hit', and can, therefore, become the surface subject of a passive sentence. Examples in Lives of Saints are rare; perhaps those which do exist do, indeed, 'reflect the beginning of a change in linguistic thought', but not the change Marchand suggests. The only other example in Lives of Saints which might illustrate Hit Replacement is problematic: either ¿Elfric is guilty of writing the feminine pronoun heo for the neuter hit, or he is guilty of switching sentence structures in mid stream. The sentence is: (13) Heo waes mannum gejmht swylce heo his gemaecca waere (III, 470) Skeat does not translate the sentence as it stands; he ignores the first two words and, in fact, translates its a if the attested sentence were like (13a): (13a) Mannum ge]?uht swylce heo his gemaecca waere (It seemed to men as if she were his wife) One could equally well assume a slight scribal error, of 'u' for 'o', in which case Elfric's sentence would be: (13b) Heo waes mannum gejjoht swylce heo his gemaecca waere (She was thought, by men, as if she were his wife) This translation is, at least, a bit closer to the text than Skeat's. If this interpretation is correct, 'swylce' is used here as a [+Clausal] complementizer, since Equi NP Deletion does not apply. ('Swylce' does appear occasionally as a complementizer; it seems to be a morphemic variant of 'fraet', occurring primarily with the verb 'Jjyncan'.) The Hit Replacement has applied, in spite of the [+Clausal] complementizer — we might expect, rather, the [+Infinitive] complementizer, and a sentence like (13c): (13c) Heo waes mannum gejjoht his gemascca beon

56

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

In other words, the author has mixed structures, a phenomenon very common in speech and not uncommon in writing. In Rosenbaum's study of sentential complements, It Replacement follows Passivization. That this will not work is demonstrated by George Lakoff in Deep and Surface Structure,15 in which he points out that It Replacement must precede Reflexivization if a sentence like (14) is to be generated, because Reflexivization applies only to nouns which are in the same simplex sentence as their antecedents. This explains why the pronoum in (15) is not a reflexive: it is not in the same simplex sentence as its antecedent, because It Replacement has not applied. (14) John believes himself to be rich (15) John believes that he is rich Lakoff notes that Reflexivization and Passivization are mutually exclusive, because a sentence like example (16) is not grammatical, and it is therefore assumed that they should apply in the same order slot. (16) *John is believed by himself to be rich This argument cannot be used to prove that Old English Hit Replacement must apply before Passivization, because Reflexivization is optional in Old English and semantically an Old English reflexive is rather different from a Modern English one. Forms of 'self were added to pronouns to clarify ambiguities or to provide emphasis, but they were not required; thus, there are no examples in Lives of Saints analogous to example (14). However, all reflexive pronouns in Lives of Saints do appear in the same simplex sentence as their antecedents, and there are no examples of passivization of such sentences, so it can be assumed, if not proved, that Reflexivization and Passivization are mutually exclusive. One can go a bit further with the one clear example of Hit Replacement and suggest that the rule must apply before Passivization: Passivization applies only to strings containing a [+Nominative] NP and a [+Objective] NP, but unless Hit Replacement moves the pronoun 'ic' in example III. G (11c) out of the complement sentence in which it functions as subject and in which it is linked with the dative affix, 'ic' cannot take on the [+Objective] feature of the N 'hit'. The theory that the NP which moves into the position of 'hit' takes on the [+Objective] feature of 'hit' is supported by the variability of case inflections on NPs following verbs which take sentential complement objects: (17) He gesette 9a heafodmenn to gehealdenne Ipxt folc (XXV, 403) (He appointed the captains to guard the people) 15

George Lakoff, Deep and Surface Structure, unpublished paper (MIT, Fall, 1966).

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

57

(18) moyses forbead godes folce to fcicgenne J)one fulan mete (XXV, 35-36) (Moses forbade God's people to eat unclean meat) Without Hit Replacement, the NPs 'f>a heafodmenn' and 'godes folce' would carry the dative inflection, because the complementizer which changes the AUX features of the sentential complement to a feature which becomes the gerund marker is the y4Fdat complementizer. But the NP of example (17) is accusative; Hit Replacement must be responsible. Thus, Ross and Lakoff's ordering of It Replacement is supported, rather than Rosenbaum's, but it is supported on the basis of an argument which no longer applies to Modern English; we no longer have distinct accusative and dative inflections.

III. H. C O M P L E M E N T I Z E R

DELETION

Formally, Complementizer Deletion may be stated : (a)

XV

1 2

(b)

CZ Y i[+Cl, +DQ, +Q]1 U + C l , ± D Q , — Q] J 3 4 => a.

NP r+wH L + Int J

1 2

0 4 (Optional)

CZ + CI ±DQ

L+Q . 3

b.

1 2

0 4 (Obligatory)

That is, when the complementizers 'f>aet' and [+DQ] 'hwaeöer' follow the matrix verb, they may be deleted, as in examples (1), (2), and (3): (1) Hine wylcumede se casere and cwaeö him to mid blysse (f>aet) \>a öa f)u to |>am gefeohte ferdest J)u offrodost J)am fulum deoflum (VII, 339-340) (The ruler welcomed him and said to him with joy (that), "When you went to the battle you offered to the foul devils") (2) f>e bet gode licaö (jDset) J)in broöor tiburtius biö gestryned £»urh J)e to J)am ecan life (XXXIV, 95-96) (the better it pleases God (that) your brother Tiburtius be turned through you to eternal life)

58

TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES FOR SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTS

(3) Dioclitianus cwaed orgaellice (hwaeder) ne eart t>u la sebastianus f^one 3e ic gefyrn het mid flanum acwellan (V, 449-450) (Diocletian asked haughtily (whether), "Are you not that Sebastian whom I previously commanded to be killed with arrows?") If 'hwaeder' follows an interrogative pronoun, it must be deleted, as in examples (4) and (5): (4) Se dema axode hu lange wylt 6u ungesaelige ateon pas ydelnysse (VIII, 104-105) (The judge asked, "How long, unhappy one, will you protract this idleness?") (5) basilius axude ^a hu him J)uhte (III, 578) (Basil then asked how it seemed to him) In Modern English, 'whether' must be deleted preceding a direct question, as in the translation of example (3); and the complementizer 'for' must be deleted in those dialects which consider example (6) ungrammatical: (6) I would like for you to stay With the exception of It Replacement and part of Complementizer Deletion, Rosenbaum's rules and his ordering of those rules are very similar to the rules and ordering discussed in this chapter; sentential complementation in Old English was little different from sentential complementation in Modern English. The only diachronic difference is that Extraposition is obligatory for Old English whenever a sentential complement would otherwise occupy surface subject position; for Modern English, Extraposition is an optional rule.

IV RELATIVE CLAUSES, APPOSITIVES, AND ATTRIBUTIVE ADJECTIVES

The fifth phrase structure rule is the deep structure source of not only sentential complements but also restrictive relative clauses. The difference between the two, as we have noted previously, is that an identity must exist between some of the features of the N and the features of some NP of the S, before a relative clause, an appositive, or an attributive adjective can be generated. Non-restrictive relative clauses derive from two conjoined sentences which contain identical noun phrases. The nature of the Old English relative clause has been discussed and debated, but not resolved. Unlike written Modern English, written Old English did not use commalike punctuation to set off non-restrictive relative clauses. What is often overlooked is the fact that in spoken Modern English the hearer cannot always be sure if a relative clause is restrictive or non-restrictive. This is precisely the problem confronting the modern reader of Old English texts: he is not quite sure; the distinction has presumably been made in the speaker/writer's mind, but it may not be signalled overtly. It is generally agreed that the compound relatives, those composed of some form of the demonstrative pronoun plus the indeclinable particle pe, are restrictive; this is true of those in Lives of Saints. In this text, about half of the relative clauses introduced by pe or pa are clearly restrictive, and about half of those introduced by forms of se, by peer, or by ponne and its morphemic variants are clearly non-restrictive. But one cannot dogmatically assert that all se clauses are non-restrictive and all pe and pa clauses are restrictive; there are too many counter examples.

IV. A. R E L A T I V E C L A U S E F O R M A T I O N

Formally, Relative Clause Formation may be stated: (a)

Si[W

1

NP X] 2 3

s

j r NP Z] 4 5 6 =>• a.

Condition : 2 = 5

1 2 3

4

5 6 "+WH" + Rel -Rest

60

RELATIVE CLAUSES, APPOSITIVES, AND ATTRIBUTIVE ADJECTIVES

(b)

sW 1

2

Sl[X

3

NP Y]] Z] 4 5 6 => b. 1 2 3

Condition : 2 = 4

4 5 " + WH" + Rel . + Rest.

6

That is, if the second of two conjoined sentences, to which Conjunction Copying has not applied, contains an NP identical to an NP of the first sentence, the second NP may be relativized ; and if a sentence dominated by an NP has an NP whose features are identical to some of the features of the N dominated by the same NP, that NP may be relativized. The rule is optional; if it does not apply, the sentence in question may become a parenthetical expression : (1) f>a cwaed heora an his nama waes quirion (Then said one of them — his name was Quirio) (XI, 67) Relative Clause Formation does not generate the surface structures of restrictive relative clauses, nor of non-restrictive clauses ; two other rules, which move various elements, apply to the string generated by the Relative Clause Formation rule.

IV. B. WH-NP

MOVEMENT

Formally, WH-NP Movement may be stated : W 1

S[X

NP 7] [+WH)] 2 3 4

Z 5 => 1 3 2 4 5

That is, an NP with the feature [+WH], which may derive from the Relative Clause Formation rule or may be part of the deep structure representation of a sentence containing an interrogative pronoun (see chapter VI), must be moved to the initial position of the simplex sentence in which it occurs. The combined application of Relative Clause Formation and WH-NP Movement converts strings (1) through (8) to (lb) through (8b): (1)

S] [he

faerde to grecum to atheniscre byrig] sjatheniscre byrig waes f>a bremost on lare] BASE

(lb) (he) fer de to grecum to atheniscre byrig seo waes Ipa bremost on lare (III, 10-11) RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION

RELATIVE CLAUSES, APPOSITIVES, AND ATTRIBUTIVE ADJECTIVES

61

(he went to Greece to the city of Athens which was then foremost in learning) (2)

5i [sum

arwurjse J)egn haefde ane dohtor] 52[he wolde gebringan ane dohtor binnan sumum mynstre] BASE

(2a) Sum arwur^e J^egn haefde ane dohtor he wolde gebringan pa binnan sumum mynstre RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION (2b) Sum arwurj)e J^egn haefde ane dohtor pa he wolde gebringan binnan sumum mynstre (III, 358-359) WH-NP MOVEMENT (A worthy servant had a daughter whom he wished to bring within a minster) (3)

s J B a het se casere hi siddan bescufan on byrnende ofen t>aer] ^[hate badu waeron J>aer] BASE

(3a) Da het se casere hi sidQan bescufan on byrnende ofen J)aer hate badu waeron paer RELATIVE CLAUSE F O R M A T I O N (3b) Da het se casere hi siddan bescufan on byrnende ofen f)asr peer hate badu wxron (II, 396-397) WH-NP M O V E M E N T (Then the ruler commanded to shove them afterwards into burning ovens there where hot baths were) (4)

Si [ic

beo eallunga claene bonne]

5j [ic

hine lufige J)onne] BASE

(4a) ic beo eallunga claene {jonne ic hine lufige ponne RELATIVE CLAUSE F O R M A T I O N (4b) ic beo eallunga claene Jjonne ponne ic hine lufige WH-NP

MOVEMENT

Ponne ic hine lufige ic beo eallunga clasne (VII, 58) The attested form is the result of contracting ponne ponne ('then when') to ponne ('when') and moving the adverbial clause; see chapter V. The translation, then, is: 'When I love Him, I am wholly pure'

62

RELATIVE CLAUSES, APPOSITIVES, AND ATTRIBUTIVE ADJECTIVES

(5) Sl [and J)a witan heton hine beheafdian J>a] 5 J h e ne mihte his mandœda betellan fca] BASE (5a) and J)a witan heton hine beheafdian Jsa he ne mihte his mandaeda betellan pa RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION (5b) and i>a witan heton hine beheafdian \>apa he ne mihte his mandaeda betellan (IX, 144-145) (and the wise men commanded him to be beheaded then when he could not excuse his evil deeds) (6) Sl[l3a com se daeg] s J s e dema gesaette se daeg] BASE (6a) Ipa com se dœg se dema gesaette pe RELATIVE

CLAUSE FORMATION

(6b) Jîa com se daeg pe se dema gesaette (II, 195)

WH-NP

MOVEMENT

(then came the day which the judge appointed) (7) 5 J h e ferde to his agenum œ^ele] s j h e waes geboren on his agenum segele] BASE (7a) he ferde to his agenum segele he wass geboren on pe RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION (7b) he ferde to his agenum aefcele pe he on geboren waes (III, 87) WH-NP

MOVEMENT

(he went to his own country in which he was born) (8) iSi[acJ)aS2[he ne mihte J>a maeran godes öegnastohis hirede aspanan J)a] sende he him to sum haeöenne wer] BASE (8a) ac f»a he ne mihte f>a maeran godes öegnas to his hirede aspanan pa sende he him to sumne haeöenne wer RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION (8b) ac J)a pa he ne mihte fca mœran godes öegnas to his hirede aspanan J)a sende he him to sumne haeöenne wer (VII, 406-408) WH-NP MOVEMENT

63

RELATIVE CLAUSES, APPOSITIVES, AND ATTRIBUTIVE ADJECTIVES

(But then when he could not entire these illustrious servants of God to his court, then he sent to them a heathen man) The adverbial pronouns '^a', 'jponne', and 'f>aer' ('then' and 'there') are homophonous with the relative pronouns meaning 'when' and 'where', but they can be distinguished on the basis of their effect on the order of the subject and verb of their sentences: the relative forms do not trigger Subject-Verb Inversion, as do their antecedents. See chapter VI. In Modern English, non-restrictive relative clauses may be virtually indistinguishable from restrictive relative clauses. In the translations of the above examples, both restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses immediately follow their antecedents. For the restrictive relatives, this is the natural result of WH-NP Movement; for the non-restrictive relatives, it is the result of WH-NP Movement and the fact that the antecedent is in the final position of its clause. However, it is possible for a nonrestrictive relative clause to split the clause in which its antecedent occurs. This is the result of an optional movement rule.

IV. C. N O N - R E S T R I C T I V E R E L A T I V E C L A U S E M O V E M

ENT

Formally, Non-Restrictive Clause Movement may be stated : Si[W

N

1 2 3

X]

NP •+WH " + Rel .-Rest. 4

Y]

5 => 1 2

4

5

3

That is, a non-restrictive relative clause may be moved so that it immediately follows its antecedent. If the rule does apply, sentences like example (9) are generated : (9)

O n J) sere y l c a n s c i r e S i c i l i a n l a n d e s

is an byrnende munt pone menn hataô ethna onseled mid sulphore (VIII, 217-219) (In that same shire of the land of Sicily is a burning mountain, which men call Etna, kindled with sulphur) If the rule does not apply, the non-restrictive relative clause is separated from its antecedent by elements of the clause in which the antecedent appears, as in examples (10), (11), (12), and (13):

64

RELATIVE CLAUSES, APPOSITIVES, AND ATTRIBUTIVE ADJECTIVES

(10) ac hi farad to heofonum to haelende criste and rodorlice wununga witodlice underfoQ on pam ge sylfa moton mid him aefre wunian (V, 82-84) (but they will go to heaven to the savior Christ and heavenly dwellings truly receive in which you yourselves may with them ever dwell) (11) £>am anum ic healde minne truwan aefre pam ic me befeeste mid ealre estfulnysse (VII, 56-57) (To that One alone I hold my trust ever to Whom I commit myself with all devotion) (12) ac J>a ban belifon aefter ]jam baernette pa awurpon \>a haedenan into dam widgillum streame (XI, 261-262) (but the bones remained after the burning which the heathens then threw into a wide stream) (13) A man came in who was wearing a raincoat Example (13) is Ross and Lakoff's example. To account for it, they posit a rule called Extraposition from NP. The rule is required in their grammar because their Relative Clause Formation rule not only converts a noun to a relative pronoun, but also moves the pronoun to the initial position of its clause and moves the entire clause to the position immediately following the antecedent. Thus, a rule is needed to put non-restrictive relative clauses which do not immediately follow their antecedents back into the position from which they started. It seems more sensible to formulate the rules so that it is clear that only non-restrictives can be separated from their antecedents, and so that it is clear that this is due to their deep structure character as independent sentences conjoined to other independent sentences. The option is not one of moving them away from their antecedents, but, rather, of moving them closer. In Modern English, when a relative clause comes between its antecedent and the remainder of the matrix sentence, the antecedent is often repeated after the relative clause, especially if it is a pronoun. This option was also available to the AngloSaxons, as example (8) above shows. The Modern English option of deleting the antecedent is, on the other hand, impossible. Unlike Shakespeare, y®fric could not say, 'Who steals my purse steals trash'. It has been suggested earlier that the features of the NP which is transformed into a restrictive relative pronoun are identical to some, but not all, of the features of the antecedent. The antecedent may carry the feature [ +Objective] while the relativized NP is [+Nominative], for example, or the antecedent may be [ +Fractional] while the relativized NP is not. Example (14) illustrates this point:

RELATIVE CLAUSES, APPOSITIVES, AND ATTRIBUTIVE ADJECTIVES

65

(14) gezabel acwealde ealle godes witegan J>e heo ofaxian mihte on ealre disre leode (Jezebel killed all God's prophets whom she could discover in all this nation) This can only be interpreted, 'Jezebel killed all of the partitive set which she could discover of the generic set called "God's prophets".'

IV. D. R E L A T I V E CLAUSE R E D U C T I O N ( A P P O S I T I V E F O R M A T I O N )

NP AFtenxbeonY(AFadv [±Rest] 1 2 3 4 =• 1 0 5 4] s [0 [±Rest]

V )] [+Adj] 5

That is, a restrictive or non-restrictive relative clause which contains a form of beon (present in deep structure, or derived from the Passivization rule or the Progressive or Copula segment feature rules — see chapter VII) may be reduced to just those elements which follow the relative pronoun and beon. If a manner adverb is present (see chapter V), it then precedes the newly formed appositive adjective, noun, participle, or prepositional phrase. The appositive phrase must be marked [+Restrictive], because another rule, Modifier Shift, applies to a string resulting from this rule only if the phrase is [+Restrictive], Relative Clause Reduction converts strings (1) through (6) into examples (la) through (6a): (1) and he com \>a sona mid sumum odrum munecum pe wceron on munucwisan gescryd (la) and he com J)a sona mid sumum odrum munecum on munucwisan gescryd (VI, 246-247) (and he came then immediately with some other monks dressed in monkish garb) (2) Tiburtius gemette asnne man pe wees afeallene (2a) Tiburtius gemette aenne man afeallene (V, 357) (Tiburtus met a man, fallen) (3) we faesten J>aerforan to f>as feower dagas pe synd wodnesdaeg and j^unresdasg and frigedaeg and sasternesdaeg (3a) we faesten Jjaerforan to J)as feower dagas wodnesdaeg and funresdaeg and frigedaeg and saeternesdaeg (XII, 13-14) (we fast, therefore, on these four days, Wednesday, and Thursday and Friday and Saturday) 5

H-108

66

RELATIVE CLAUSES, APPOSITIVES, AND ATTRIBUTIVE ADJECTIVES

(4) Stodan da fram aerne mergen pape wseron hrymende earmlice (4a) Stodan 6a fram xrne mergen earmlice hrymende (Stood they from early morning, wretchedly lamenting) (XVIII, 115) (5) and his here leddon done cyning on his craete se wees swa deadne (5a) and his here leddon done cyning on his craete swa deadne (XVIII, 224) (and his troops led the king on his cart, thus dead) (6) J)is com J)a to earan {Dam cnihte pe was aeSelborenan (6a) Jjis com ]ja to earan J)am cnihte sedelborenan (this came then to the ears of the man nobly born) Once Relative Clause Reduction has applied, the structural description for the application of another rule is met, a rule which moves restrictive appositives to prenominal position. IV. E. M O D I F I E R

SHIFT

Formally, Modifier Shift may be stated: XNP

V ) s{{AFaiy [+Rest] [+Adj]

V [+Adj]] Y ^•Fpart V

1 2

3

4

5 => 1 3 4 2 5

It converts example (6a) above into (6b): (6b) J)is com \>a to earan t>am aedelborenan cnihte (IX, 57) The rule is optional in Old English, but obligatory in Modern English, except for a few lexically marked items which block its application — estates general, for example. In Modern English there are examples of reduced restrictive relative clauses which would have-been impossible for an Anglo-Saxon speaker. For Modern English, then, a second part must be added to the Relative Clause Reduction rule: IV. D. (b)

Xs[

NP NP AUXVY(AFadv [ + Rest] [ + Nom] [ + Obj] 1 2 3 4 5 1 0 3 4 5 6 7

V )Z [ + Adj] 6

7

This would convert the string, 'The book which I read slowly' into 'The book I read slowly'. These rules differ somewhat from those posited for Modern English relative clauses and appositives by Ross and Lakoff. Their Relative Clause Formation rule adds the

RELATIVE CLAUSES, APPOSITIVES, AND ATTRIBUTIVE ADJECTIVES

67

relative features to the NP, moves that NP to the head of its clause, and moves nonrestrictive relative clauses to the position immediately following the antecedent all in one rule. This, however, makes the movement of non-restrictive relative clauses obligatory and makes necessary a rule like their Extraposition from NP to generate those sentences in which the relative clause does not immediately follow its antecedent. Their WH-NP Movement rule applies only to interrogatives and is, therefore, called Question Formation; here, the scope of WH-NP Movement extends to relative pronouns as well, and, thus, it suggests a closer relationship between interrogatives and relatives. S. O. Andrew discusses Old English relative clauses at some length. His conclusion is that pe and se are both relative pronouns — the former restrictive and the latter non-restrictive — and that editors have wrongly punctuated texts, forcing the reading of se as a personal pronoun. 1 Bruce Mitchell's discussion of adjective clauses in Old English is primarily a refutation of Andrew's theory that the restrictive/non-restrictive difference was signalled by the choice of relative pronoun. 2 The relative clauses of Lives of Saints support Mitchell's conclusions; if there once was a distinction between restrictive and nonrestrictive relative pronouns, it no longer existed in /Elfric's time. Both Andrew and Mitchell note the occasional word-order permutation triggered by the relative pe: it can move the AUX and V to the end of the sentence. This permutation rule is discussed in chapter VII. Niilo Peltola is the author of an excellent study of Old English appositives. He carefully distinguishes close, loose, and intermediate apposition, and he demonstrates the relationship among the three types. Like Andrew and Mitchell, he does not relate appositives to relative clauses, but he does link attributive adjectives and appositives.3 C. R. Carlton's study of the constituents of the Old English noun phrase includes adjectives as one of the possible constituents. As we have noted, generative grammarians now prefer to generate adjectives as a subclass of the verb set, so, in generative transformational terms, Carlton is concerned with the results of the Modifier Shift rule, among other things. He does not consider relative clauses, nor does he relate attributive adjectives to appositives.4 Taken as a whole, these four studies cover all the Old English prose texts and some of the poetry, so it can be said that the relative clause rules for all Old English texts, not just /Elfric's works, and those for Modern English show two diachronic differences : a second part has been added to the Relative Clause Reduction rule, and the Modifier Shift rule is now virtually obligatory for single word modifiers. 1

S. O. Andrew, Syntax and Style in Old English (Russell and Russell, New York, 1966), reissue. Bruce Mitchell, "Adjective Clauses in Old English Poetry", Anglia LXXXI (1958), pp. 298-322. Niilo Peltola, "On Appositional Constructions in Old English Prose", Neuphilologische Mitteilungen LXI (1960), pp. 159-203. 1 C. R. Carlton, "Word Order of Noun Modifiers in Old English Prose", JEGP LXII (1962), pp.773-783. 2

3

5*

V ADVERB F O R M A T I O N A N D THE ADVERB MOVEMENT RULE

From phrase structure rule (4) are generated not only direct objects, but also recipient objects, benefactive objects (both of which are generally referred to as 'indirect' objects), and other NPs which appear in surface structure as prepositional phrases. In the lexicon, as we have noted, the features of nouns are specified in detail. Nouns carry various combinations of features such as [ ± Nominative], [+Objective], [+Recipient], [+Time], [+Benefactive], [+Locative], [+Direction], [+Destination], [+Manner], [+Instrument], etc. The co-occurrence features of verbs then specify which N features may occur following a particular verb entry. Usually, when the features [—Nominative, —Objective] are selected, a rule incorporating a preposition is required. This rule applies relatively late, so discussion of it is temporarily postponed, but it is important to note that a noun carrying the features [—Nominative, —Objective] belongs to a set of three quite unrelated constructions generally called 'adverb'. The symbol ADV does not appear in the phrase structure rules used here, because the structures which are included under Ross and Lakoff's ADV symbol are so dissimilar that it seems better to consider them as different structures as long as possible. Strings composed of sentences preceded by subordinate conjunctions are clausal adverbs, nouns with the features [ — Nominative, —Objective] may be either phrasal or clausal adverbs, and a third type of adverb is derived from sentences containing sentential complements and verbs with the feature [+Adj]. Adverbs derived from sentences containing sentential complements are the result of the following rule: V. A. S E N T E N C E M O D I F I C A T I O N F O R M A T I O N

Formally, Sentence Modification Formation may be stated : NP[N

cz

S]

+ C1 -DQ L-Q

2

.

V [+Adj]

0 0 3 AF a d v +4

ADVERB FORMATION A N D THE ADVERB MOVEMENT RULE

69

That is, it converts a [ + Adj] verb into an adverb, by adding a suffix, and it deletes both 'hit' and the ']3aet' complementizer. The rule converts strings 1, 2, and 3 toexamples (la), (2a), and (3a): (1) Hit j^aet man lufige J>aet J>aet god is is gecynd (la) Man lufige ]?aet J>aet god is gecydelice (Man loves that which is good, naturally) (The text shows extraposition) (I, 88-89) (2) Hit ]jaet ic eom eugenia gehaten is sod (2a) Ic com eugenia gehaten so Slice (I am called Eugenia, truly) (3) Hit J} set ne begit nan mann his synna forgifnysse set god is witod (3a) Ne begit nan mann his synna forgifnysse aet god witodlice (No man gets forgiveness of his sins from God, certainly) This rule must apply before Extraposition, unless it were re-formulated to apply t o an extraposed string. There seems to be no need to re-formulate it, however. Formally very like, but functionally very unlike, sentential modifiers are the manner adverbs. They derive from a [ + Manner] NP node which dominates an N (Old English 'wise', Modern English 'way' or 'manner') and a relativized S containing a [ + A d j ] verb. It is assumed that the deep structures of examples (4), (5), and (6) are identical: diagram (7) represents the deep structure of them all. (4) eugenia faerde on wisan Jje waes arde (Eugenia went in a manner which was rapid) (5) eugenia faerde on arede wisan (Eugenia went in a rapid manner) (6) eugenia faerde ardlice (Eugenia went rapidly) The Relative Clause Formation rule and the incorporation of the feature [-(-Manner] as the preposition 'on' (Modern English 'in') produce sentence (4); Relative Clause Formation, Relative Clause Reduction, and Modifier Shift produce sentence (5); and Relative Clause Formation, Relative Clause Reduction, Modifier Shift, and Adverbial Clause Reduction produce sentence (6).

70

ADVERB FORMATION AND THE ADVERB MOVEMENT RULE

S'

V. B. A D V E R B I A L C L A U S E

REDUCTION

Formally, Adverbial Clause Reduction may be stated: np[

v

m

[+Manner] [+Adj] 1 2=> AFiiw+ l(j) That is, the rule converts a structure like '(in) a rapid manner' to 'rapidly'. In Old English, manner adverbs are differentiated from adjectives only in that they carry the dative case marker and, usually, the affix 'lie', which seems to be the bound morpheme variant of the free morpheme 'wise'. In terms of semantic richness, 'lie' lies somewhere between the semantically empty Modern English adverbial suffix My' and its slang counterpart, 'like'. ('He went slowly' vs. 'He went slow-like'.) We appear to have a relic or revival of Old English 'wise' in Modern English business jargon: 'profit-wise', 'education-wise', etc. We may flinch, but the idiom exists. The dative inflection of Old English adverbs is somewhat parallel to the Modern English manner preposition 'in', although Old English adverbial phrases very often have both a preposition and a dative inflection. Actually, there are few examples in Lives of Saints of the structure '(on) ADJ wisan'; those which are found are usually

ADVERB FORMATION AND THE ADVERB MOVEMENT RULE

71

in the form, 'on odre wisan', Modern English 'otherwise'. Other phrases with the same deep structure usually undergo the Adverbial Clause Reduction rule, which applies far more frequently in Old English than in Modern English. Examples (1), (2), and (3) illustrate the operation of the rule: (1) Symon f a sySdan geheold Jjone iudeiscan eard on snoter wisan BASE Symon \>a syddan geheold fjone iudeiscan eard snoterlice AFTER ADV CLAUSE REDUCTION (Simon then afterwards held the Jewish land prudently) (2) Pa weard eall seo burhwaru afyrht on wundor wisan BASE I>a weard eall seo burhwaru afyrht wundorlice (Then all the city dwellers became afraid wondrously) (3) Hwa mihte me fullian {JUS on faer wisan BASE Hwa mihte me fullian {JUS faerlice (XXXIV, 47) (Who might baptise me thus suddenly?) Only NPs with the feature [+Manner] can undergo Adverbial Clause Reduction, but in other respects they do not differ from the other [—Nominative, —Objective] NPs, the phrasal adverbs. V. C. ADVERB M O V E M E N T

All three adverbial types — dependent clauses, sentence modifiers, and NPs with the [—Nominative, —Objective] features — may be affected by the Adverb Movement rule, which is optional. Formally, it may be stated: AF,dv+

V [+Adj]

NP [-Nom, -Obj] C S [-Coord] 1 23 4

XYZ

(F = any deep structure element)

14 2 3

That is, any adverb may be moved to a position preceding any deep structure element in the string. The operation of Relative Clause Formation, Relative Clause Reduction, Modifier Shift, Sentence Modifier Formation, Adverbial Clause Reduction, and Adverb Movement converts deep structure strings (1) through (8) into surface structure examples (la) through (8a):

72

ADVERB FORMATION AND THE ADVERB MOVEMENT RULE

(1) Ni>[N[hit] s[{jaet ic eom eugenia gehaten] is sod BASE ic eom eugenia gehaten sodlice (See example V. A (2a)) SENTENCE MODIFIER FORMATION (la) ic so Slice eom eugenia gehaten (II, 238-239) ADVERB MOVEMENT (I, truly, am called Eugenia) (2) he sloge

^ [ o n wise s [wise ^t/Xhete]] [+Man] BASE

he sloge

jvj>[°n wise sQ)e [+Man]

he sloge

^ [ o n wise hete] [+Man]

AUXhtte]] REL CL FORMATION

REL CL REDUCTION he sloge on hete wise MODIFIER SHIFT he sloge hetelice ADV CL REDUCTION (2a) he hetelice sloge (XII, 231) ADVERB MOVEMENT (he violently struck) (3) Eugenia haefde asteald mynecena mynster

wtaer t>an] [+Time] BASE

(3a) Eugenia haefde aer J)an asteald mynecena mynster (II, 310-311) ADVERB MOVEMENT (Eugenia had, before this, founded a nun's minster) (4) Ic underfeng meoluc and hunig

N P fof

his mude]

[+Source] BASE (4a) Of his mude ic underfeng meoluc and hunig (VII, 45) ADVERB MOVEMENT (From His mouth I receive milk and honey)

ADVERB FORMATION A N D THE ADVERB MOVEMENT RULE

(5) maurus gespraec J^aes J)a munecas

NP [on

73

mergen]

[+Time] BASE (5a) maurus jsaes on mergen Ipa munecas gespraec (VI, 337) ADVERB M O V E M E N T (Maur, in the morning, said this to the monks) (6) s j g e beoö geunwuröode and eac gewitnode] gif s J g e Jjonne beoö J>wyre to J)isum] [-Coord] BASE (6a) Gif ge J)onne beoö f>wyre to t»isum ge beoö geunwuröode and eac gewitnode (XI, 94-95) ADVERB MOVEMENT (If you then be perverse against this you shall be dishonored and also tortured) (7) Symon \>a syööan geheold Jjone iudeiscan eard on snoter wisan BASE Symon {Da syööan geheold Jjone iudeiscan eard snoterlice A N D CL REDUCTION (7a) Symon \>a syööan snoterlice geheold ¡Done iudeiscan eard ADVERB MOVEMENT (XXV, 733-734. See example V. B (1)) (Simon then afterwards prudently held the Jewish land) (8) t>a wearö eall seo burhwaru afyrht on wundor wisan BASE E>a wearö eall seo burhwaru afyrht wundorlice ADV CL REDUCTION i>a wearö eall seo burhwaru wundorlice afyrht (XXXI, 551. See example V. B (9)) ADVERB MOVEMENT (Then all the city dwellers became wondrously afraid) In Old English, the conversion of sentences containing sentential complements and [ + A d j ] verbs, as in example (2), is almost entirely limited to 'witodlice' and 'soölice', whereas manner adverbial clauses are almost all transformed, by Adverbial Clause

74

ADVERB FORMATION AND THE ADVERB MOVEMENT RULE

Reduction, to single-word adverbs. Thus, Old English does not have potentially ambiguous sentences like Modern English, 'I walk naturally' vs. 'Naturally, I walk'. Old English adverbial clauses deriving from subordinate conjunctions followed by sentences have been studied, but generally the concern has been semantic differences, not structural similarities. Most syntactic studies of adverbial clauses discuss the Subject-Auxiliary Inversion rule, which is triggered by certain conjunctive adverbs (this is discussed in the next chapter), and general grammars containing sections on syntax discuss the free-moving nature of various types of adverbs, but little else has been said about the syntax of adverbial clauses, phrases, and words. The transformational rules discussed here differ somewhat from the adverb rules in other generative grammars, but only because the structures on which transformational rules operate have been simplified, as we noted in chapter I.

VI PRE-SENTENCE ELEMENTS

The selection of one or more the PreS constituents of the third phrase structure rule is optional; when one of these constituents actually appears in a terminal string, the rule which its appearance triggers must apply; it is an obligatory rule. The constituents of PreS are Q, which triggers the Subject-Verb Inversion rule; IMP, which triggers the Imperative rule; NEG, which triggers the Negative Placement rule; and EMP, which triggers the Emphatic Placement rule.

VI. A. N E G A T I V E P L A C E M E N T

Formally, Negative Placement may be stated :

2

3

4

5 => 1 3 2 4 5

That is, if optional PreS is chosen, and if it is realized, in part or in full, as NEG, the symbol is moved to pre AUXposition. Later the symbol is replaced by the negative particle ne. Unlike Modern English, Old English permitted the co-occurrence of the negative particle and lexical items carrying an inherent [+Negative] feature, such as 'nan', 'nateshwon', 'naefre', 'nahwaer', 'nalaes', and 'naenig' — Modern English 'none', 'in no way', 'never', 'nowhere', 'not at all', and 'not any'. The rule converts strings (1), (2), and (3) into examples (la), (2a), and (3a): (1) Sl[NEG his speda ateoriad] C S1NEG his welan waniad] (la) his speda ne ateoriad ne his wJan ne waniad (VII, 55) (His abundance does not fail nor His wealth wane) (2) NEG t>e sylf sodlice genealecasd nan yfel (2a) Jse sylf sodlice ne genealecaeQ nan yfel (IX, 115) (you, yourself, truly no evil will approach)

76

PRE-SENTENCE ELEMENTS

(3) fordan J?e N E G nateshwon swylt se fie bid ofslagan to life (3a) fordan ]?e nateshwon ne swylt se fie bid ofslagan to life (XII, 201) (because in no way does he die who is slain unto life) The rule is not quite the same for Modern English: the negative particle now follows, rather than precedes, the first verbal element. This alteration marks another diachronic change in the development of the English language. Native speaker knowledge of Modern English permits Ross and Lakoff and others to formulate the rule more broadly, so that it also includes the symbol EMP, which immediately follows NEG. Actually, the Modern English rule ought to be more complex than that; it ought to cover the possibilities of emphasizing, by vocal stress, more than one element in the sentence, and of emphasizing direct objects by moving them to the initial position of the sentence. We do not know, with any certainty, how the Anglo-Saxons emphasized various elements of a sentence. One might guess that they, too, altered the normal stress patterns of sentences to achieve emphasis, but this is only an unprovable guess. In Old English, stylistic rules moving elements to be emphasized to the initial position are similar to stylistic rules for Modern English, but they are somewhat wider in scope. The subjects of verbs without objects — intransitives — may occur almost anywhere in the sentence, if there is no danger of ambiguity; that is, if all other NPs in a particular sentence carry distinctively nonnominative segment features (later realized as prepositions or as non-nominative case markers on any element of the NP, including demonstrative pronouns), the remaining NP must be the subject. Sentences with an NP, a form of beon, and an adjective are found with all possible permutations of the three elements; there is no danger of ambiguity. Sentences with a [+Animate] NP, a verb requiring a [+Animate] subject, and a [—Animate] NP are found with various permutations of the three elements; again, there is but one possible reading of the sentence. In both Old English and Modern English such movement rules apply far more frequently in poetry than in prose. ¿Elfric's Lives of Saints may be poetry, but even so /Elfric rarely makes use of the rules permitting emphasis by position. Because these rules are optional stylistic rules, which merit a far more detailed study than is possible in a more general work such as this, and because emphasis by vocal stress in Old English cannot be demonstrated convincingly, the form Emphasis Placement and Emphasis Movement might take is merely suggested here. VI. B. E M P H A S I S

EMP 1

X 2

Y 3

PLACEMENT

Z 4 => 2

3+1

4

Here, Y is to be taken as any phrase structure symbol (this bars emphasis of such lexical items as prepositions, verb particles, etc.), and the rule states that an emphasis

77

PRE-SENTENCE ELEMENTS

marker (presumably vocal stress) may be attached to any word which is a lexical realization of a phrase structure symbol.

VI. C. E M P H A S I S

X 1

Y+EMP 2

MOVEMENT

Z 3 => 2 1 3

This merely says that any emphasized word may move to the initial position of the sentence. Paul Bacquet has studied the scope of this rule, not in transformational terms, of course, for Alfredian texts. A complete grammar of Old English would compare his findings with other texts and then generalize the rules. In ¿Elfric's Lives of Saints the Emphasis Movement rule has very low frequency of application, and nothing can be said concerning the frequency of application of the Emphasis Placement rule, since Lives of Saints is a written, not a spoken text.

VI. D. I M P E R A T I V E

FORMATION

Formally, Imperative Formation may be stated : IMPNP[

(S)](NEG) N [+2pers] -Sing " + lpersj

AUX +Pres +M + 2 pers + Pres +M -Sing . + 1 pers. 5

0 0 + IMP + 2 pers + IMP ; -Sing . + 1 pers The features [+Present] and [+Modal] are posited as part of the deep structure of the AUX of an Old English imperative (for Modern English, only the [+ Modal] feature

78

PRE-SENTENCE ELEMENTS

would be posited, since our modals no longer carry tense inflections), because imperatives seem to be related to sentences like, 'You will VP\ Paraphrased, the rule says that if the optional PreS element is chosen and is realized, in part or in full, as IMP, the symbol IMP is deleted, as is the N of the NP subject, and the A UX takes on the feature [+Imperative] and drops the features [+Present] and [+Modal]. The S, which is not deleted, will be discussed later. Imperative Formation, then, converts strings (1), (2), and (3) into examples (la), (2a), and (3a): (1) IMP ge willaS araeran eower sigebecn fram eordlicum gewilnungum and IMP ge willad onginnan eower feoht (la) Ararad eower sigebecn fram eordlicum gewilnungum and onginnad eower feoht (V, 59) (Raise your victory banner above earthly desires and begin your fight) (2) IMP J)u wilt hatan hi swa yfela (2a) Hat hi swa yfela (VIII, 79) (Call them thus evil) (3) IMP {)u wilt cydan me Jainne naman (3a) Cy6 me Jjinne naman (XIX, 59) (Tell me your name) There is a partial exception to this rule: if AUX is part of an S precedent by the [+Infinitive] complementizer, it has already undergone a feature change, and does not undergo this one. A comparison of examples (4) and (5) will illustrate: (4) Decius {m het ]ja halgan cyningas his godum geoffrian (XIV, 9-10) (Decius then commanded the holy kings to offer to his gods) (5) and se dema het beswingan J>a halgan hetelice (XXIV, 466-467) (and the ruler commanded to beat the holy ones violently) The object of 'hatan' in example (4) is a non-imperative sentence; thus the subject of that sentence remains. In example (5), however, the subject of the sentential complement has been deleted, because the complement sentence is an imperative. In Modern English, an imperative sentential complement would require a [ + DQ] complementizer ('The judge commanded, "Beat the holy ones violently" '), but such was not, apparently, the case in Old English.

PRE-SENTENCE ELEMENTS

VI. E. S U B J E C T - V E R B

79

INVERSION

Formally, Subject-Verb Inversion may be stated: AF^+V [M T24] NP [-Obj] CZ ) [M T24] [+DQ] C [M T24] Q 1

2

=>•12

4

3 3

Modal habban NP Y (NEG) T beon V

6

7 4

5 5

That is, certain adverbs, when moved to the initial position of their clauses, and certain conjunctions require (and are therefore marked for) the application of this rule — transformational rule 24 on the list of ordered rules. The rule moves the negative particle, if it occurs in the string, and tense plus the first occurring free verbal element of the string to the position immediately preceding the subject. The Old English adverb most often triggering this rule is '{3a' ('then'). Some others are: 'eft', 'nu\ 'swa', 'ne\ 'on' plus NP, 'after' plus NP, and 'fiaer'. The symbol Q also [ + Time] [ + Event] triggers the application of this rule; for the rule to apply, then, either a marked adverb or Q must occur in the initial position of the affected sentence. Subject-Verb Inversion converts strings (1) through (11) to (la) through (11a): (1) pa se halge petrus het J>aet hi him Joaet hus gerymdon (la) })a het se halga petrus {5set hi him J>ast hus gerymdon (then commanded St. Peter that they clear the house for him) (X, 68) (2) Eft on sumne timan se arfassta wer wearS gewreged (2a) Eft on sumne timan wear 6 se arfsesta wer gewreged (Again on a certain occasion was the pious man accused) (III, 292- 293) (3) nu uncer sunu swelt for öan soöfsestan men (3a) nu swelt uncer sunu for öan soöfasstan men (now dies our son for the just man) (III, 304) (4) ... swa heora eagon scimodon swiöor

80

PRE-SENTENCE ELEMENTS

(4a) ... swa scimodon heora eagon swidor (so shone their eyes the more) (VII, 153) (5) ne godes wunung is na on 3am gragum stanum (5a) nis na godes wunung on dam gragum stanum (nor ever is God's dwelling in the grey stones) (VII, 135) (6) on pam dagum helias waes (6a) on J)am dagum waes helias (in those days was Elijah (living)) (XVIII, 53) (7) after disre clypunge fyr com of heofonum (7a) aefter disre clypunge com fyr of heofonum (after this invocation came fire from heaven) (XVIII, 132) (8) par ure ealra daeda eallum beod cude Jsam werodum (8a) £>aer beod cude ure ealra dasda eallum J>am werodum (there shall be known all our deeds to all that company) (XII, 172) (9) Da se cniht wolde his wite geendian (9a) Da wolde se cniht his wite geendian (Then desired the man to end his torment) (XII, 189) (10) eft pa pascasius orgellice befran Q se halga gast wunad on t>e eornostlice (10a) eft Ipa. pascasius orgellice befran wunad se halga gast on J)e eornestlice (after that Paschasius arrogantly enquired, "Dwells the holy Ghost in you in earnest?") (IX, 76-77) (11) Q du eart la helias de israhel gedrefest (11a) eart du la helias de israhel gedrefest (are you that Elijah who troubles Israel?) (XVIII, 87) Actually, not all of the adverbs used in these examples require inversion; for some, like examples (10) above and (12) and (13) below, the rule is optional: (12) Nil ge habbad gehyred hu Jjas halgan maegnu oferswydaj) (Now you have heard how these holy virtues overcome those sins) (XVI, 375-376) (13) lifter disum gebaede he bletsode hine sylfne (After this prayer he crossed himself) (XIV, 169) It is possible that by ¿®lfric's time the rule had already begun to shift from the obligatory to the optional category for some lexical items, although earlier it was obligatory for all of them. Investigation of earlier Old English texts would either verify or

81

PRE-SENTENCE ELEMENTS

contradict this suggestion. In Modern English it is still obligatory for some lexical items ('seldom', 'rarely', 'never', and other negative adverbs) and optional for others; in poetry, inversion after 'then' is quite common, and it is not unheard of after some of the others: (14) Then fell a stillness... (15) There watched I for the Dead... (16) Then peered the indefinite unshapen dawn... (Wilfred Owen, "The Unreturning") When triggered by the symbol Q, Subject-Verb Inversion generates the surface structures of those sentences which assume a yes-no answer, but it generates only intermediate structures of questions containing an interrogative pronoun. Generating the surface structures of such questions requires the operation of WH-NP Movement (see chapter IV). Questions containing an interrogative pronoun derive from a deep structure which has a [ + W H , + Interrogative] NP. Thus, sentences (17), (13), (19), and (20) are the end result of the derivational processes shown in (17a), (18a), (19a), and (20a): (17) Da cwaed se dema Hwi dest J)u J>e sylfe (VIII, 43) (Then said the judge, "Why destroy yourself?") (17a) Da cwaed se dema s [ CZ Q Jdu dest J>e sylfe NP ] [+DQ, +Q] + Cause + WH + Inter BASE dest t>u ]?e sylfe NP ] CZ [ + DQ, + Q ] + Cause

Da cwaeö se dema

+ WH +Inter SUBJECT-VERB I N V E R S I O N Da cwaeö se dema s [

NP dest f>u t>e sylfe] Cause" +WH . +Inter _

WH-NP MOVEMENT and COMPLEMENTIZER (18) f»a cwaed Agathes ... hwa wyle clypian to stane (VIII, 157-158) (Then said Agatha, " W h o will cry to the stone?") 6

H-108

DELETION

82

PRE-SENTENCE ELEMENTS

(18a) t>a cwaeö Agathes s[ CZ Q [+DQ, +Q]

NP wyle clypian to stane +Nom + Human +WH _+Inter _ BASE

NP clypian to stane ï>a cwaeö Agathes s[ CZ wyle +Nom ~ [+DQ, +Q] + Human + WH _+Inter SUBJECT-VERB INVERSION I>a cwaeö Agathes 5 [

NP wyle clypian to stane] +Nom + Human + WH . + Inter WH-NP MOVEMENT and COMPLEMENTIZER DELETION

(19) Da cwaeö basilius ... hwaet destu (III, 589-590) (19a) Da cwaeö basilius s[ CZ Q t>u dest NP ] + Obj [+DQ, +Q] -An +WH +Inter. BASE NP ] Da cwaeö basilius s [ CZ destu + Obj [+DQ, +Q] -An +WH .+Inter _ SUBJECT-VERB INVERSION Da cwaeö basilius s [

NP destu] "+Obj -An +WH .+Inter. WH-NP MOVEMENT and COMPLEMENTIZER DELETION

PRE-SENTENCE ELEMENTS

83

(Then said Basilius, "What will you do?") (20) he befran hwaet heo smeade be hyre gesundfulnysse (VIII, 102) (he asked what she had devised for her safety) (20a) he befran s[ CZ Q heo smeade NP be hyre gesundfulnysse] [-DQ, +Q] f+Obj -An + WH .+Inter. BASE he befran s [ NP heo smeade be hyre gesundfulnysse] + Obj —An +WH .+Inter. WH-NP MOVEMENT and COMPLEMENTIZER DELETION Subject-Verb Inversion does not apply to example (20), because the complementizer does not carry the [ + D Q ] feature. Most grammars of Old English discuss negative sentences, imperatives, and questions; they also discuss the inversion of subject and verb after certain adverbs. The rules formulated here to generate the negatives, imperatives, and questions in ^ l f r i c ' s Lives of Saints will generate any such structure in Old English; the findings here do not disagree with those of other studies. There is an implied disagreement with those Old English grammarians who feel that some Old English imperatives do not delete their subjects, but, rather, invert the subject-verb order. It seems more likely that nouns found in the position following an imperative, which have some relation to the deleted subject, are actually appositives, that is, remnants of relative clauses modifying the subject which has been deleted. Going back to the Imperative Formation rule, we note that an optional S appears in it. This S is a potential relative clause, which should be marked for the obligatory application of Relative Clause Reduction. That is, the derivation of sentence (21) would proceed as in (21a): (21) Linguist, explain this (21a) You s [you are linguist] will explain this BASE You s [who are linguist] will explain this RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION You s [linguist] will explain this RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION 6*

84

PRE-SENTENCE ELEMENTS

Linguist, explain this IMPERATIVE Vocatives are thus analyzed as appositives; like other NPs, they may be pronominalized; they may also be moved to other positions in the sentence to provide emphasis. Ross and Lakoff posit both a different ordering of the rules discussed here and also slightly different rules. Their ordering is: Question Formation (similar to WH-NP Movement, but applying only to questions, not relative clauses as well), Negative Placement, Imperative, Subject-Verb Inversion, and a rule not posited in the discussion, Whether Deletion. Because 'whether' is considered one of two homophonous complementizers in the rules discussed above, there is no need for a separate rule to delete it; [ + D Q ] 'whether' is optionally deleted unless the sentential complement it heads contains an interrogative pronoun, in which case it must be deleted, as must [—DQ] 'hwseder', which normally is retained. Ross and Lakoff's rules take into account the fact that what is here referred to as the [—DQ] complementizer blocks Subject-Verb Inversion, but they do not show the deep structure relationship between direct and indirect questions. The difference between Ross Lakoff's Question Formation and Subject-Verb Inversion and the rules discussed here as Subject-Verb Inversion and WH-NP Movement is not a theoretical difference, but a slight difference in the formulation of the rules and an unnecessary difference in their relative ordering. According to their formulation, 1 reversing Question Formation and Subject-Verb Inversion supposedly results in non-grammatical sentences like example (22): 1

Ross and Lakoff's Question Formation rule is:

Q X NP[(Prep) WHDetN]Y 1 2 3 4 =• 3 24 and their Subject-Verb Inversion rule is:

Tense

1

2

3

VX'

4

5

=> 1 2 4 3 5

If these rules are applied in reverse order to the deep structure string Q you T jf[will] be wearing ^[what] tonight the derivation proceeds as follows : # # Q 0 jyp[you] y + i f [will] x [be wearing what tonight]

PRE-SENTENCE ELEMENTS

85

(22) *What you will be wearing tonight? In fact, reversing the two rules makes no difference. Assuming the deep structure to be Q you TM [will] be wearing

NP [what] tonight [+WH]

it doesn't really matter which order the two rules take; the resulting surface structure will still be What will you be wearing tonight ? The formulation of Subject-Verb Inversion and WH-NP Movement in sections IV. B and VI. E., however, requires the ordering rejected by Ross and Lakoff. If their order were adopted for our rules, the non-grammatical sentence *Will what you be wearing tonight? would be generated. The Negative Placement and Imperative Formation rules posited for Lives of Saints are virtually identical to the Negative and Imperative rules posited for Modern English. On the whole, the PreS elements of Old English and Modern English pattern similarly. There is one major, diachronic difference: Subject-Verb Inversion and Negative Placement now affect the first free verbal element of the AUX alone, not of the string as a whole; main verbs are no longer a part of these rules. For /Elfric and for Shakespeare a sentence such as, "Goes the knight forth today?" was completely grammatical; a Modern English speaker would utter it only to be amusing. Normally, he would make use of the word 'do' to carry the tense marker in questions and negatives which do not contain modals or perfectives or progressives. The source of this 'do' is a problem. Ross and Lakoff include a transformational rule, Do Support, to add it to those strings which contain no free morpheme of AUX which the tense marker can attach itself to. Other linguists posit 'do' as a feature of AUX which is incorporated as a [ + ] feature only when it is needed. A diachronic difference involving the addition of a feature to a deep structure symbol is relatively rare, but not unique; the aspect feature of the English AUX HAS also changed since the Old English period, as we noted earlier, and the Old English tense inflections of modals no longer exist.

VII OTHER TRANSFORMATIONAL

RULES

Thus far we have been discussing transformational rules which fall into natural groups. There are a few others, vital to the derivation of grammatical sentences, which, although they are critically ordered with respect to other rules, do not fall into natural groups. These rules are: Number and Person Agreement, Reflexivization, Par Insertion, Indefinite Pronoun Deletion, Segment Feature Incorporation for AUX, Segment Feature Incorporation for Nouns and Verbs, Pronominalization, VP Inversion, Possessive Formation, Possessive Shift, Pronoun Object Movement, and Affix Shift.

VII. A. N U M B E R A N D P E R S O N A G R E E M E N T

Formally, Number and Person Agreement may be stated: s[

NP X ' + Nom* ± Sing ± lpers _±2pers_ 2 1

AUX

3

Y]

4 =• 1 2

3 4 " ± Sing " ± lpers ,±2pers_

That is, the rule adds the number and person features of the subject NP to the AUX, so that eventually a sentence with, for example, a subject NP with the features [+Nominative, + Singular, — lpers, — 2pers] — a third person singular NP —• will be followed by a verb with the third person singular affix. The rule must apply after the Passivization rule, since it is the surface subject, not the deep subject, with which the verb agrees. All English grammars which deal with morphology note the necessity of subjectverb agreement. Fewer features of the subject need be specified for Modern English than for Old English, of course, because we no longer have distinctive person inflec-

OTHER TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

87

tions associated with verbs, except for the third person singular present indicative form. The beginning student of Old English must learn his paradigms, without much help from Modern English analogues.

VII. B. REFLEXIVIZATION Formally, Reflexivization may be stated: S[X

NP YNPZ] 1 2 3 4 5 => 1 2 3 4 5 [+RX]

Condition: 2 = 4 That is, an NP in the same simplex sentence as a preceding NP which is identical to it may be reflexivized. In Old English, the rule is optional; in Modern English, it is obligatory. This is not the same as the emphatic use of the reflexive following a pronoun and in apposition to it as in example (1), which derives from (la); Reflexivization applies to identical NPs fulfilling different functions in the sentence, as in example (2), which derives from (2a): (1) t>e sylf soölice ne genealecaeö nan yfel (IX, 115) (you, yourself, truly no evil will approach) (la) J>e s[J)e eart J>e] soölice ne genealecaeö nan yfel BASE J)e s[pe eart sylf] soölice ne genealecaeö nan yfel RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION and REFLEXIVIZATION ]pe sylf soölice ne genealecaeö nan yfel RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION (2) hwi dest ]?u öe sylf (VIII, 43) (why do you destroy yourself?) (2a) JJU dest öe hwi BASE J)u dest öe sylf hwi REFLEXIVIZATION hwi dest {DU öe sylf SUBJECT-VERB INVERSION and WH-NP MOVEMENT

88

OTHER TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

Curiously, example (1) bears a definite resemblance to Modern English nonstandard usage of reflexive pronouns : (3) Susan and myself are planning to skip class (4) Harold invited Jane and myself to the party For Modern English, it can be argued that Reflexivization must follow It Replacement. George Lakoff suggests that Reflexivization and Passivization must fill the same order slot, as they are mutually exclusive, but later he and John Ross put It Replacement as rule 7, Passive as rule 9, and Reflexive as rule 12, although they do not indicate that rules 10 and 11 must intervene between rules 9 and 12. There are few examples of It Replacement in Old English, as we have seen, and neither of them contains a reflexive, so it cannot be said dogmatically that the Old English Reflexivization rule must follow Hit Replacement. However, it would seem that Passivization and Reflexivization are mutually exclusive in Old English as well as in Modern English, so they are contiguously ordered.

V I I . C. Par

INSERTION

Actually, I rather doubt that this rule really applies in Old English; there is no sentence in Lives of Saints, nor in other texts I have examined, which cannot be read as an adverbial 'there' designating a place, which is followed by Subject-Verb Inversion. In Modern English, using intonation or punctuation variation, speakers can distinguish between 'There is a unicorn in the garden' and 'There is a unicorn, in the garden'. 1 But Old English punctuation gives no hint that such a distinction may have existed for Anglo-Saxons. It seems likely that the Modern English insertion of a semantically empty filler word 'there' at the beginning of a sentence to delay the subject until the listener's attention is captured derived from the earlier Adverb Movement of the locational adverb, which then required Subject-Verb Inversion. Formally, Par Insertion may be stated: NP T beon AFpan+V [-Def] NP J[+Loc] 1 U + Time]j 4 1 3

peer 2 3 1 4

That is, given a subject which is indefinite ('a cat' as distinct from 'the cat'), the verb beon, and a locative or temporal NP or a participle, the word par may be placed in 1

Several of my students feel that 'there' always has locative force!

OTHER TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

89

^itial position, and the subject and verb may be inverted, as in example (1): (1) feower wanhale menn wurdon gehaelede BASE t>aer wurdon gehaelede feower wanhale menn (XXI, 143-144) (There were healed four sick men) Par Insertion follows Number and Person Agreement; the verb must agree with the logical subject. Apart from passing references to expletive there in the same paragraph as expletive it, which is structurally very different, available studies of Old English syntax say little about sentences beginning with this semantically empty item. Nor do Modern English grammars say much about expletive there. Ross and Lakoif include There Insertion in their rules, but there has never been a study of the stylistic usefulness of the word to emphasize, by delaying the appearance of, the true subject of the sentence.

VII. D. I N D E F I N I T E P R O N O U N D E L E T I O N

Formally, Indefinite Pronoun Deletion may be stated: X

CZ NP AUX VY [+AFgen][+Pro, - D e f ] [ + A F n o m ] 1 2 3 4 5 =• 1 0 3 4 5 [+Def] That is, an indefinite pronoun may be deleted when it is preceded by the possessive complementizer. The possessive affix, since it is a part of the N which follows it, also goes. The nominalized verb then picks up the segment feature [+Definite], which eventually becomes the Modern English definite article; in Old English, it may become a demonstrative pronoun, but, unlike Modern English, Old English does not require a morphemic expression of the feature. Examples (1) and (2) illustrate the difference between a string containing the possessive complementizer and a nominalized verb when the Indefinite Pronoun Deletion rule does not apply and a similar string after the rule has applied: (1) Uton forjjy awendan ... to J^am ecan life ure smeagunge (XXVIII, 176-177) (Let us, therefore, turn our contemplation to the eternal life) (2) ... mid wondorlicre smeagunge (XXIX, 88) (... with wondrous contemplation)

90

OTHER TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

There is some discussion of the operation of this rule in Modern English,2 but its scope, which apparently is larger now than it was in the Old English period, has not been fully explored.

VII. E. S E G M E N T F E A T U R E I N C O R P O R A T I O N F O R A UX

Formally, Segment Feature Incomporation for AUX may be stated: AUX ±T ±AF i n f ±AF g e r ±AFnom ±Sing ± 1 pers ±2pers ±M ± Asp ± Subj ±Pass 2 3 ' + T ± Sing ± 1 pers ± 2 pers ± Subj ± M •±Asp ± Pass 3

1

+ AF n i

In the chapter on sentential complementation, we noted that complementizers with the [—Clausal] feature alter the features of the AUX of the complement sentence from [+T, ± M , and ±Subj] to [—T, — M, —Subj]. Segment Feature Incorporation for AUX specifies that number and person features accompany only [+T], not [—T]. The rule is posited because it is assumed that features differ from morphemic symbols in two important ways: features can be changed, symbols cannot; features cannot directly be realized as lexical items, symbols can. The rule, then, accomplishes two things: it maps the features in their proper combinations into the developing linear string of symbols for which lexical items can be substituted, and it converts features vulnerable to change into symbols which have fixed symbolic representations. In Old English, the rule must apply before Subject-Verb Inversion: Subject-Verb Inversion affects the first free verbal element of the string, and this element may be 2 See Rosenbaum, The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions, pp. 39-40, and also Noam Chomsky, "Current Issues in Linguistic Theory", in The Structure of Language, eds. J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Engelwood Cliffs, N. J., 1964), pp. 50-119.

OTHER TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

91

either the verb or a morphemic representation of one of the features of AUX. In Modern English, the rule must apply before Negative Placement, as well as before the Subject-Verb Inversion rule, since the negative marker of Modern English follows, rather than precedes, as in Old English, the first free verbal element of AUX. Since there is no reason not to order Segment Feature Incorporation for AUX before Negative Placement in the ordered list of rules generating the utterances of /Elfric's Lives of Saints, it has been so ordered. In the Segment Feature Incorporation rule a feature [±Subjective] is posited. This would derive from the co-occurrence features of other lexical items. Certain verbs require that the verb of a sentential complement object be in the subjunctive mood (this is still true in Modern English); certain [—Coordinate] conjunctions require the subjunctive; and a third source of the subjunctive has to do with what has been called the 'modality' or the 'presupposition' of the sentence. 3 It accounts, on the one hand, for such sentences as, 'May I be hit by lightning if I lie!' and, on the other hand, for the impossibility of conjoining such sentences as, 'I do not have a car', and, 'the car is blue', into the sentence, 'I do not have a car and it is blue'. Modern linguists have only just begun to attempt to deal with such problems as these, and it is not yet clear whether the modality or presupposition feature of the sentence should be a part of Pre S or of AUX. However, positing such a sentential feature does away with the need to posit deep structure supersentences as the framework of all simple sentences. It was suggested, in the discussion of Ross and Lakoff's compounding rules (chapter II), that their S Deletion rule is unnecessary. Positing a sentential modality feature eliminates the need for complex matrix supersentences which must later be deleted by a transform. The problem requires further study, but the theory of sentential modality has been tacitly accepted in the phrase structure rules of this grammar. The choice of certain lexical items and the rejection of others would be dependent partially on the sentential modality co-occurrence features of those items. V I I . F. S E G M E N T F E A T U R E I N C O R P O R A T I O N FOR N O U N S A N D VERBS

Formally, Segment Feature Incorporation for Nouns and Verbs may be stated: (a)

8

X

V Y "+Adj " +Cop 1 2 3 => 1 Cop 2 3

Charles Fillmore, Peter Fodale, and George Lakoff, among others, are currently working on this problem; little has been formally published to date.

92

OTHER TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

The copula feature, a segment feature of all [ + A d j ] verbs, is incorporated only if Relative Clause Reduction has not applied; if it has applied, the feature has been deleted before incorporation can occur.

(

(b)

) [+Adj]

"(PRJ" (PBe„) PLIC)

^Tern ^Man (Plnst) ^AG

J

AF sing AF Pi AF dual

AF fem AF ma sc AF neut

AF nom AF acc AF gen AF dat

N "±Sing ±Pi ±Fem ±Masc + Nom ±Obj ±AFgen ±AFdat ± Partitive ± Fractional ± Definite ± Specific ± Recipient ± Benefactive ± Locative ± Temporal ± Manner ± Instrument ± Agent 2

(Dem) 7

Ö

j Cardi ford j

Ord AFIQ gen

)1 2

Segment Feature Incorporation for Nouns and Verbs converts all the segment features into properly ordered morphemic symbols representing case, number, and person inflections, prepositions, cardinal numbers, ordinal numbers, indefinite quantifiers, and demonstratives. For Modern English, fewer number and case features need be

OTHER TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

93

specified than for Old English, but the rule would be very similar to its Old English counterpart. Modern English verbs would include a [ ± Particle] feature, later represented as the adverbial particles associated with certain verbs, such as 'ask for'. Old English does not exhibit the morphemic variation between verbs with and without their particles which is exhibited by Modern English. In Modern English, the incorporation of all prepositions is obligatory; in Old English, three of them are optional. We do have, in Modern English, the option of moving [+Recipient] and [+Benefactive] NPs to the position preceding the direct object. The rule which accomplishes this is Ross and LakofF's Dative rule. When this transformation applies, the preposition 'to' does not appear in the surface structure, because the segment feature drops out when the Dative rule applies. The rule explains the difference between examples (1) and (2) and examples (3) and (4): (1) (2) (3) (4)

I I I I

gave the book to Cathy. gave Cathy the book. bought a dress for Wendy. bought Wendy a dress.

Segment Feature Incorporation for Nouns and Verbs follows all feature-changing transformations, because simpler rules can be formulated if one does not have to include in them the symbols which represent segment features. It must precede the Affix Shift rule, because prior to Affix Shift all affixes precede the morphemes to which they are bound. The two segment feature incorporation rules are not included in any previous English grammar, because no other grammar makes such extensive use of features. Jacobs and Rosenbaum's Modern English Grammar goes part way — perfective and progressive aspect and the copula verb are treated as verbal features — but there is a separate rule for each feature, rather than a cover rule for all features associated with a particular symbol. Fillmore's Casefor Case requires the incorporation of prepositions, but the concept is merely discussed, not actually formulated in a transformational rule.

VII. G. P R O N O M I N A L I Z A T I O N

Pronominalization always looked so simple — until generative-transformationalists started trying to analyze it. The rule must apply after Adverb Movement: otherwise, only examples (1) and (2) of the following examples can be generated. Somehow, also,'example (4) must be barred.

94

OTHER TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

(1) y^lfric cries when Fermi bites his whiskers (2) When Fermi bites his whiskers, Mlfric cries (3) When Fermi bites ¿Elfric's whiskers, he cries (4)* He cries when Fermi bites v3ilfric's whiskers (Example 4 is not ungrammatical; it is starred because 'he' cannot refer to '/Elfric'.) John Ross came up with a solution which seems to work for both Modern and Old English: W (NP) X NP Y (NP) Z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 = ^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [+Pro] Conditions: a. either 2 or 7 is identical to 4 b. 2 or 7 either precedes or commands 4 'Command' refers to the relative positions of the affected NPs on a deep structure diagram. One NP is said to command another if it is more closely dominated by an S node than the other NP and if no node intervening between S and NP dominates both of them 4 or if the NP to be pronominalized is in a {/-dominated S headed by a [—Coordinate] conjunction and its antecedent is in an S which is dominated by the same U and which is headed by a [+Coordinate] conjunction. 5 Example (5) illustrates both forwards pronominalization (the antecedent precedes the pronoun) and backwards pronominalization (the antecedent commands, but does not precede, the pronoun). Diagram (6) shows the deep structure of the utterance, and example (7) shows the step-by-step derivation of the sentence.

(5) Ac 6a Jja hi swii>ost taeldon Jjone sodfaestan maurum \>a wurdon afyllede mid Sam fulan gaste Jiry f>aera wyrhtena and hi weddon Jjearle (VI, 192-194)

* John Robert Ross, Constraints on Variables in Syntax, unpublished dissertation (MIT, 1967), pp.338-382. 5 This addition to Ross' definition is the necessary result of the decision to consider adverbial clauses as deep structure independent sentences, rather than as a part of the verb phrase.

95

OTHER TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

(7) Cycle 1 s8ft>ry i>®ra wyrhtena PAST taelan fione soQfaesten maurum J)a] (three of the workmen blamed the faithful Maur then) BASE Cycle 2 Sl[NP PAST afyllan frry pxra wyrhtena mid £>am fulan gaste f»a] Ss[t>ry f>aera wyrhtena PAST taelan Jjone sodfaesten maurum J)a] (Someone PAST fill three of the workmen with the foul spirit then three of the workmen PAST blame the faithful Maur then) BASE [firyfraerawyrhtena PAST p^5S[weardan AFpast

NP mid £>am [+Ag] fulan gaste t>a] [Jjry J)sera wyrhtena PAST taelan Jione sodfaesten maurum f>a] part

] afyllan

PASSIVIZATION

96

OTHER TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

f r y f aera wyrhtena PAST wear dan AFpast part afyllan mid f a m fulan gaste 6a t>a f r y f asra wyrhtena PAST taelan fone soQfaesten maurum AGENT DELETION, REL CL FORMATION, and WH-NP MOVE 6a f a f r y f aera wyrhtena PAST taelan fonc so6faesten maurum (fa) PAST wear6an AFplist part afyllan mid f a m fulan gaste f r y f aera wyrhtena ADVERB MOVEMENT and SUBJECT-VERB INVERSION Cycle 3 c [Ac] s J 6 a f a fry f aera wyrthtena PAST taelan fone so6faesten maurum f a PAST wear6an AFpast part afyllan mid f a m fulan gaste J>ry f aera wyrhtena] s J f r y f aera wyrhtena PAST wedan fearle] (But then, when three of the workmen PAST blame the faithful Maur, then PAST were AFpast part fill with the foul spirit three of the workmen [three of the workmen became exceedingly mad]) BASE Ac 6a f a hi PAST taelan foneso6faesten maurum f a PAST wear6an AFpast part afyllan mid {jam fulan gaste f r y f aera wyrhtena and hi PAST wedan fearle CONJUNCTION COPYING and PRONOMINALIZATION Ac da f a hi taeldon fone so6faesten maurum f a wurdon afyllede mid f a m fulan gaste f r y f>aera wyrhtena and hi weddon fearle (But then, when they blamed the faithful Maur, then were filled with the foul spirit three of the workmen and they became exceedingly mad) AFFIX SWITCH This rule handles pronominalization only in utterances, not in discourse. Actually, any noun which has an antecedent in a previous utterance of the discourse may be replaced by a pronoun, and it very often is pronominalized if there is no danger of ambiguity. The stylistic desire for variation as well as avoidance of ambiguity generally leads to the decision to pronominalize some, but not all, nouns in a discourse which have the same referent. Verbs also have pro-forms. The rule might be stated: V I I . G. (b) V E R B Si[X

AUX 1 2 => 1 2 3

V

(NP") 3

4

5 6

PRONOMINALIZATION

F] 4 7

C Si[W AUX 2 5 6 7 'don(swa)' 9

V (NP") 8

Z] 9

OTHER TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

97

The Modern English pro-form for verb phrases is 'do(so)', as the translation of the following examples f r o m Lives of Saints will indicate: (8) he ]3a mycclan synne mildheortlice adilegode swa swa he dide f>a odre (III» 555-556) (he would mercifully blot out the great sin even as he did the others) (9) he het £>aet he wunode butan worunge on godes ^eowdome jpeer on mynstre a and he swa dyde eac siddan of i>am daege (he commanded that he should abide without wandering in God's service, there in the monastery, for ever, and he did so afterwards f r o m that day) The pro-form substitutes for all elements of the second verb phrase which are identical to elements of the first verb phrase. If, for example, the object of the verb is not the same in both verb phrases, the pro-form substitutes only for theverb, as in example (8). Prepositional phrases also have pro-forms: for locative NPs, pe, pa, or peer ('there') may substitute; and for temporal NPs, pe, pa, pcet, or ponne ('then'). Prepositional phrase pro-forms also have homophonous relativized forms meaning 'where' and 'when'. (10) Locative NPs modified by a relative clause: (a) to catacumbas jjaer cristes apostolas waeron (V, 465) (to the catacombs, where Christ's apostles were) (b) on Jisere ylcan byrig Jie se gebundene eode (IV, 186) (in the same city in which the prisoner went) (11) Pronominalized locatives modified by a relative clause: (a) on byrnende ofen J>aer Jjaer hate badu waeron (II, 397) (in burning ovens there, where hot baths were) (b) heo become ]saer Jde cristenan sungen (II, 36) (she arrived there, where Christians sang) (12) Temporal NPs modified by a relative clause: (a) tima J)aet godes miht beo geswutelod (IV, 276) (the time when God's might may be manifested) (b) of J)am andweardan daege ]?e he of deade aras (on the same day on which He arose f r o m the dead) (VI, 213) (13) Pronominalized temporals modified by a relative clause: (a) Eft J)a f>a god wolde wrecan mid fyre \>a fulan forligeras (Again, then, when God wished to avenge the foul fornication with fire) (XIII, 190-192) 7

H-108

98

OTHER TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

(b) f>onne (jDonne) ic hine lufige ic beo eallunge clasne (Then, when I love Him, I am wholly pure) (VII, 58) Finally, there are pro-forms for certain non-specific antecedents and the relative pronouns of the clauses which modify them, such as 'hu' ('how') for '}jam wisan on t»e' ('the manner in which'); 'hwaet' ('that') for 'J>aet ]je' ('that which'); 'hwaer' ('where') for 'Jjaer J>e' ('there where'); and 'Jionne' ('when') for 'Jjonne Jjonne' ('then when'), as in example (13b) above. The rule to cover all cases of pronominalization has yet to be written.

V I I . H. A F F I X

SHIFT

The Affix Shift rule was mentioned early, because no string of elements, however simple, can become a grammatical sentence of the language until the rule has applied. However, Affix Shift has not been discussed in detail. There are two parts to the rule, and the first must apply before the second. Formally, Affix Shift may be stated: (a)

(b)

AFnN (W)

1

2

X

AFV

V

Y

1

2

3

4 =>

1 3+ 2

4

6 =>• 2 + 1

3+1

4+1

(X)

(Y)

(Z)

3

4

5

N

5+1

6+1

That is, the rule switches every contiguous pair of verbal affixes (tense, present or past participle, gerund, infinitive, or nominalizer) plus free verbal morpheme (a modal, the habban of the perfective, the beon or weordan of the perfective, progressive, or passive, or the main verb). It also attaches case, number, and gender affixes to nouns and to other elements, such as participles, adjectives, quantifiers, and determiners, which modify nouns. The reason the rules cannot be written so that affixes automatically follow, rather than precede, the morphemes to which they will be suffixed is simply that the rules would then be so complex that they would be impossible to follow. Elizabeth Closs Traugott has suggested writing phrase structure rule (2) so that V appears before, not after, AUX. This would eventually yield a string like example (1):

(1)

AFpast habban VP = (NP) V (AFpast beon) ( part

part

^fpres beon

)(AFinf

M)

T

part

In this string, the affixes do follow the verbal morphemes to which they are attached. However, for independent clauses and many dependent clauses, a rule is required to

99

OTHER TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

invert the order of the words once a string like example (1) has been generated. Such a rule would be highly redundant, and it would also imply that dependent clauses are the base from which independent clauses are formed. The reason Mrs. Traugott posits her rules is that in early Old English, as in Modern German, a clause marked by an initial subordinating conjunction, a relative pronoun, or a [ + C1, — DQ] complementizer underwent the complete inversion of the elements of the verb phrase. By /Elfric's time the rule had shifted into the optional category; it applies to about ten percent of his dependent clauses. (Where only one verb element is present, one cannot say for sure whether this inversion rule is operating or whether the sentence is the result of a stylistic inversion for the purpose of emphasis.)

V I I . J. V E R B P H R A S E

INVERSION

Formally, Verb Phrase Inversion may be stated: C [-Cord] NP • N P ' [ + W H , +Rel] CZ [+C1, - D Q ] 1 ' 2 => 1 2 7 6 5

A

U

X

+

V P W )

( X )

( 7 )

( Z )

( N P )

]

[+Obj] 3 4

4

5

6

7

3

That is, however many elements appear in the verb phrase, all, including the object appear in reverse order. The rule must apply after Affix Shift and Segment Feature Incorporation for A UX. It generates such strings as: (1)

on ]jam daege festan wile (XII, 5) (who on that day will fast) (2) hwaer heora ban Ipa gebrohte waeron (XI, 266) (where their bones were brought then) (3) swa datianus him gediht haefde (XIV, 158) (as Datian had ordered him) (4) Da geseah se dry Jjaet he him derian ne mihte (XIV, 79) (Then the sorcerer saw that he could not hurt him) The effects of the Verb Phrase Inversion rule have been discussed in many studies. Along with the stylistic rules which invert elements, it is responsible for the popular belief that Old English was a free word order language. Many studies of the relative word order of Old English subjects and verbs and of objects and verbs ignore the fact that the relative order of subjects and objects is the key to English structure. An examination of randomly chosen Old English texts, early and late, prose and poetry, i*

100

OTHER TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

shows that subjects precede objects eighty-four percent of the time. Co-occurrence restrictions resolve the ambiguity of most of the remaining sixteen percent, and emphatic inversion of pronouns, which are clearly marked for case, accounts for most of the rest. There are a few cases of genuine ambiguity — probably deliberate. Even in Modern English, subject-verb inversion and object-verb inversion are permissable; Modern English poets use them to create deliberately ambiguous sentences: (5) When thy hand this paper presses (Alice Meynell, 'A Letter from a Girl to her own Old Age') And objects occasionally occur before subjects: (6) Each one whom life exiled I named and called (Wilfred Owen, 'The Unreturning') If only to illustrate clearly the basic similarity of Old English and Modern English syntax, it seems better to analyze the Old English verb phrase as a sequence of bound affixes and free morphemes which requires an Affix Shift rule and which may be affected by a Verb Phrase Inversion rule. But there is an additional reason for the analysis. Mrs. Traugott posits her rules only for Old English, suggesting that at some stage during the Middle English period the verb phrase structure shown in section VII. H (1) was completely turned around, becoming a string which does require an Affix Shift rule. Her justification for positing a different structure for Old English is that the Affix Shift rule 'has no independent motivation'. 6 She did not consider sentential complements. As we have noted, three Old English complementizers alter the features of AUX; one of them is composed of both a proclitic element and an affix. Incorporating these two elements into a string containing several other AUX features is virtually impossible unless one posits an Affix Shift rule. Also, an Affix Shift rule for nouns is necessary if a rule like Complementizer Placement is to be maximally general. Some complementizers are affixes, others are not. Without the Affix Shift rule, Complementizer Placement would look like this: 3 4 5 6 (a) 1 2 CZi X N

S[NP

VP AUX

Y]

cz2 cz3 CZi CZ5

(b) 1 2 3

cz6

4 5 6

CZi CZ& ® Elizabeth Closs Traugott, "Diachronic Syntax and Generative Grammar", in Readings for the History of the English Language, eds. Charles T. Scott and Jon. L. Erickson (Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, 1968), p. 283.

10!

OTHER TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

instead of simply: X 1

N 2

S

Y

3

4 =>• 1 2

CZ

3

4

The inclusion of the Affix Shift rule in a grammar of both Old and Modern English makes possible the formulation of simpler, clearer, and more general rules.

VII. K. P O S S E S S I V E

FORMATION

Formally, Possessive Formation may be stated: X

NP

1 2

AFpres V "[+Possession]" [+Inalienable Possession] 3

NP

Z

4

5 => 1 4

2 0 r[+AFgen]l [+AFdat]

5

In other words, possessives are posited as deriving from sentences such as '¿Elfric has a brother'. Possessive Formation converts such a sentence to 'the brother of /Elfric'. In Modern English there is no distinction between simple possession and inalienable possession: we can also speak o f ' t h e ears of /Elfric'. In early Old English, however, there is a difference: inalienable possession is indicated by a dative, rather than a genitive, affix: 'the ears with respect to /Elfric'. By the end of the tenth century inalienable possession had dropped out. (1) He befeng minne swidran and eac minne swuran... He gesette his tacn on minum nebbe... His ansyn is wlitigre... Of his mude ic underfeng meoluc and hunig (VII, 32-35) (He encircles my right hand and also my neck... He sets his sign upon my face... His countenance is fairer... From His mouth I receive milk and honey) In the Conversion of Edwin we find: (2) ond sette his J)a swidran hond him on ]D2et heofod 7 (and set of him the right hand with respect to him on the head) which mixes the two constructions. ' Bright's Anglo-Saxon Reader, rev. James R. Hulbert (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1962), p. 62.

102

OTHER TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

All genitive phrases in Old and Modern English which cannot be related to 'X has "Y' structures are derived from the complementizer [+AF g e n ], which converts the AUX of the sentential complement to a nominal affix.8 The surface structures derived from these two quite different deep structures may be very similar; in fact, ambiguities very often result. The phrase 'Sarah's painting' is three ways ambiguous; it could derive from the same deep structure as any one of the following sentences: (3) Sarah paints. (4) The painting of Sarah (by someone). (5) Sarah has a painting. Possessive Formation applies before Segment Feature Incorporation for Nouns and Verbs and before Affix Shift, because it adds features. In Ross and LakofF's rules Affix Shift applies before Possessive Formation, but they are not formulating most rules in terms of features.

V I I . L. P O S S E S S I V E

SHIFT

Formally, Possessive Shift may be stated: X N+AF" 1

2

NP+AFgen 3

Y 4 =• 1 3 2 4

That is, a possessive noun phrase may be shifted to the position preceding the noun it modifies. In Modern English we use the possessive preposition 'of', if the modifying NP follows the N being modified, and the inflected form's' if it precedes. In Lives of Saints there is no such distinction. A few 'of' genitives can be found in the earliest English texts,9 but the case ending alone is more common, in both positions. ^Elfric uses only the case inflection. Possessive Shift follows Segment Feature Incorporation for Nouns and Verbs and it also follows Affix Shift. Otherwise, there is no simple way to generate a string composed of an NP in the genitive case followed by a noun in some other case.

8

Phrases like 'a man of honor' are not analyzed as possessive phrases; the preposition is homophonous with, but semantically different from, the possessive 'of'. 9 See R. Thomas, Syntactical Processes Involved in the Development of the Adnominal Periphrastic Genitive in the English Language, unpublished dissertation (the University of Michigan, 1932).

103

OTHER TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

V I I . M. P R O N O U N O B J E C T

MOVEMENT

Formally, Pronoun Object Movement may be stated: X

NP

1 2

V

Y

3

4

= > 1 2 5 6

(Pronoun + AFacc) (Pronoun + AF(iat) 5 3

4

6

Z 7

7

In other words, if either the direct object or the indirect object has been pronominalized, it is moved to pre-verb position. If both have been pronominalized, they both move, keeping their relative order with respect to one another. The rule applies quite generally in the Lives of Saints, unless the pronominalized NP is further modified by a relative clause or appositive. (1) oJ)J>aet mine geferan me and hi betaehton (VII, 350) (until my companions surrendered me and themselves) (2) \>a da he him wiò sprsec (XXXI, 612) (then, when he spoke with him) (3) and iudas hine gebsd t>a (XXV, 368) (and Judas waited for him then) Pronoun Object Movement follows Segment Feature Incorporation for Nouns and Verbs and it follows Affix Shift. The Modern English option of moving indirect objects may be partially derived from this rule, although modern indirect object movement (Ross and Lakoff's Dative rule) applies much earlier. The deletion of Pronoun Object Movement from the set of rules required to generate English sentences marks another diachronic change in the language. Most of the rules discussed in this chapter, unlike those discussed earlier, do not generate phrases and clauses within utterances. Rather, they apply to complete utterances to generate the stylistically polished surface structures accepted by native speakers as grammatical utterances of the language.

VIII CONCLUSION

Although scholars and linguists have long believed that the syntax of Old English and that of Modern English are very similar, no previous grammatical study of Old English has systematically compared the syntax of an Old English corpus with the syntax of a Modern English corpus to determine the precise number, nature, and scope of the similarities and differences. Not all theories of language generate the kind of grammar which is suitable for comparative work; of the current theories, generativetransformational grammar seems to lend itself best to a systematic comparison of the syntactic structures of a language at two different stages, because it requires formal rules which are maximally general and strictly ordered. Thus, a set of rules for one stage of a language can readily be compared with a set of rules for another stage of that language. This comparison of the idiom of /Elfric's Lives of Saints and the idiom of Modern English, then, required, first, a transformational analysis of the structures of Lives of Saints. The results of that analysis were then compared to Ross and Lakoff's transformational rules for Modern English, which correlate the findings of many generative grammarians concerning Modern English structure. The comparison revealed that twenty-five of the rules here posited for Lives of Saints are the same as Ross and Lakoff's rules for Modern English; ten rules in each set have no counterparts in the other set. If the rules posited for Modern English are revised, so that they will generate utterances of Modern English which have been overlooked by other generative grammarians — utterances for which there are Old English analogues — then thirty-three of the rules are the same, and only five rules in the Modern English set do not have counterparts in the Old English set, only one and one-half rules in the Old English set do not have counterparts in the Modern English set. Table 1 shows the three sets of rules.

V I I I . A. S U G G E S T E D R E V I S I O N S O F T H E S E T O F T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L R U L E S P O S I T E D FOR M O D E R N E N G L I S H

The major revision suggested here involves a widespread adoption of segment features, not only for nouns and verbs, which has partially been done by Jacobs and Rosen-

105

CONCLUSION TABLE 1

PARALLEL Rules for /Elfric's Lives Saints

of

1. Conjunction Copying 2. Conjunction Reduction 3. Conjunctive Preposition Substitution 4. Sentence Deletion 5. C Deletion 6. 7. 8. 9.

Complementizer Placement Equi NP Deletion Hit Replacement Reflexivization

10. Passivization 11. Agent Deletion 12. Number, Person and Gender Agreement 13. Peer Insertion 14. 5 Modification Formation 15. Extraposition

LIST OF

ORDERED

Ross and Lakoff's Rules for Modern English 1. S Deletion 2. Conjunction Reduction 3. Conjunction Copying

4. C Deletion 5. Complementizer Placement 6. Equi NP Deletion 7. It Replacement 8. Dative 9. Passive 10. Agent Deletion 11. Number Agreement 12. Reflexive 13. There Insertion 14. Particle Movement 15. Extraposition

16. Indefinite Pronoun Deletion 17. Hit Deletion 18. Clause Formation 19. Relative Imperative Formation

16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

It Deletion Preposition Deletion Relative Clause Formation Question Formation Extraposition from NP

20. Segment Feature Incorporation for AUX 21. Neg/Emp Placement

21. Tag Formation 22. Neg/Emp Placement 23. Imperative Formation

22. 23. 24. 25.

24. Adverb Preposing 25. Subject-Verb Inversion

Adverb Clause Reduction Adverb Movement Subject-Verb Inversion WH-NP Movement

RULES Revised English

Rules

for

Modern

1. Conjunction Copying 2. Conjunction Reduction 3. Conjunctive Preposition Substitution 4. Sentence Deletion 5. C Deletion 6. 'respectively' 7. Complementizer Placement 8. Equi NP Deletion 9. It Replacement 10. Reflexivization 11. Dative 12. Passivization 13. Agent Deletion 14. N u m b e r and Person Agreement 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

There Insertion S Modification Formation Particle Movement Extraposition Indefinite Pronoun Deletion 20. It Deletion 21. Relative Clause Formation 22. Imperative Formation 23. Segment Feature Incorporation for AUX 24. Tag Formation 25. Neg/Emp Placement 26. 27. 28. 29.

Adverb Clause Reduction Adverb Movement Subject-Verb Inversion WH-NP Movement

26. Whether Deletion 27. KP Deletion 26. Non-Restrictive Relative Clause Movement

27. Pronominalization 28. Complementizer Deletion 29. Relative Clause Reduction

30. Non-Restrictive Relative Clause Movement 28. Affix Hopping 29. Do Support 30. Pronominalization 31. Complementizer Deletion 32. Relative Clause Reduction

31. Pronominalization 32. Complementizer Deletion 33. Relative Clause Reduction

106 Rules for jElfric's Lives Saints

CONCLUSION

of

30. Modifier Shift 31. Possessive Formation 32. Segment Feature Incorporation for Nouns & Verbs 33. 34. 35. 36.

Affix Shift Possessive Shift Pronoun Object Movement Verb Phrase Inversion

Ross and Lakoff's Rules for Modern English 33. Modifier Shift 34. Possessive Formation

35. Possessive Shift

Revised English

Rules

for

Modern

34. Modifier Shift 35. Possessive Formation 36. Segment Feature Incorporation for Nouns & Verbs 37. Affix Shift 38. Possessive Shift

baum, among others, but also for AUX. The adoption of the segment feature concept would permit clearer, more general rules. The other revisions are of three kinds: omit some rules, add some rules, and change the order of some rules. The rules to be omitted are VP Deletion, -S Deletion, Whether Deletion, Extraposition from NP, and Do Support. VP Deletion is not necessary if the symbol C is not limited to 'and' and 'or'. Conjunction Reduction will generate a sentence like 'George is taller than I', if AFcomparative plus 'then' is treated as a conjunction. S Deletion is posited by Ross and Lakoff because, for a time, it seemed that the best way to account for sentence modality was to posit matrix supersentences, which then had to be deleted by a special transformational rule. It now seems likely that sentence modality can be dealt with more satisfactorily as an inherent feature of either PreS or AUX. Thus, the S Deletion rule is not required; the label can be used for a quite different rule. Similarly, Do Support can be omitted if 'do' is considered a segment feature of AUX, incorporated whenever T is the only other feature. If 'whether' is a complementizer, the Complementizer Deletion rule will delete it whenever its presence in a surface structure is not desirable; a separate deletion rule is not necessary. Since indirect quotes introduced by 'whether' are closely akin to direct quotes which are not introduced by an overt complementizer (although they occasionally were thus introduced in Old English), it seems reasonable to posit a 'whether' complementizer with the features [ + D Q , + Q], which is obligatorily deleted in Modern English. Extraposition from NP is unnecessary if non-restrictive relative clauses are generated from the second of two conjoined sentences and are optionally, but not obligatorily, moved to the position immediately following their antecedents. The rules to be added are Conjunctive Preposition Substitution, Sentence Deletion (a very different rule from Ross and Lakoff's S Deletion), Indefinite Pronoun Deletion, Sentence Modification Formation, Adverbial Clause Reduction, and Non-Restrictive Relative Clause Movement. Conjunctive Preposition Substitution is necessary to the generation of sentences like, 'Fermi plays with /Elfric'. Because this rule must apply

CONCLUSION

107

after the elements in the second of two conjoined sentences have been reduced, but before the functionally identical elements of the two sentences are made contiguous, a single rule cannot both reduce the second sentence and contiguously link its elements to the elements of the first sentence. Ross and Lakoff's Conjunction Reduction rule combines the two operations. Thus, it must be split into two parts, Conjunction Reduction and Sentence Deletion. Both Chomsky and Rosenbaum posit an Indefinite Pronoun Deletion rule. Its full scope in Modern English has not as yet been determined, but the rule should still be a part of English grammar. Sentence Modification Formation and Adverbial Clause Reduction are necessary if the structural difference between sentential adverbs and verb phrase manner adverbs is to be maintained, and if the structural similarities between sentences like 'It is natural that snow is falling — winter's here' and 'Naturally, snow is falling — winter's here' and between sentences like 'It is snowing in a soft way' and 'It is snowing softly' are to be illustrated. Non-Restrictive Relative Clause Movement is necessary, because such clauses may, but do not have to, follow their antecedents directly. Positing a rule like Extraposition from NP accounts for those non-restrictive relative clauses which do not immediately follow their antecedents, but it seems more natural to avoid obligatorily moving them to the position immediately following their antecedents in the first place. The rules whose relative ordering should be changed are Question Formation (slightly broadened in scope to cover relative clauses as well as questions containing interrogative pronouns, and re-christened as WH-NP Movement) and Subject-Verb Inversion. The formulation of the rules discussed here requires the operation of Subject-Verb Inversion before WH-NP Movement; non-grammatical sentences are generated if the order is reversed. These suggested revisions would produce a syntactic component which is somewhat more comprehensive than the one produced by Ross and Lakoff's rules. The revisions add to, but do not fundamentally contradict, previous conclusions about Modern English syntax. V I I I . B. D I A C H R O N I C D I F F E R E N C E S B E T W E E N / E L F R I C ' S SYNTAX A N D MODERN ENGLISH SYNTAX

The differences between ¿Elfric's syntax and Modern English syntax are few. Many of them are due merely to a difference in the relative frequency of application of optional rules: some rules applying often in /Elfric's work occur rarely in Modern English prose, but frequently in poetry — one example is Subject-Verb Inversion after certain adverbs. Conversely, some rules applying rarely in /Elfric's work occur frequently in Modern English — an example is Sentence Deletion. These are stylistic, not diachronic, differences, although they may reflect diachronic changes which occurred shortly before /Elfric's time, as appears to be the case with It Replacement.

108

CONCLUSION

The few diachronic differences are the result of (a) the shift of a rule which was obligatory for .¿Elfric into the optional category for Modern English, (b) the shift of an optional rule in /Elfric's grammar to obligatory status in Modern English, (c) the deletion of a rule required to describe ¿Elfric's syntax from the set required to describe Modern English, (d) the addition of a rule required to describe Modern English to the set required for /Elfric's syntax, and (e) the modification of a rule. In the first category are Extraposition and, to some extent, Pronoun Object Movement, which has now merged with the stylistic inversion rules. The Anglo-Saxon speaker could not allow a sentential complement to occur in the subject position of an utterance; the expletive 'it', which is optional for a speaker of Modern English, was obligatory for him. The occurrence of a pronoun object before its verb is rare in Modern English, except in poetry; for the Anglo-Saxon, it was at least as frequent as the occurrence of a pronoun object after its verb; the latter was an option for him — an option which, in time, came to be the preferred one. In the second category are Reflexivization and Sentence Deletion for subjects of conjoined sentences which have not been affected by Conjunctive Preposition Substitution. The desire to avoid ambiguity may have been responsible for the shift of these two rules into the obligatory category. The use of the reflexive morpheme 'self' to disambiguate a pronoun is found frequently in Lives of Saints', perhaps the importance of avoiding ambiguity whenever possible led to the general use of the reflexive. The same motivation may underlie the Modern English avoidance of sentences like 'Fermi chases marbles and /Elfric', which are found in Lives of Saints, although quite infrequently. In the third category are Hit Deletion (b) and Verb Phrase Inversion. Although the Anglo-Saxons demanded the expletive 'it' in utterances whichhave Modern English analogues without it, Modern English speakers insist on its occurrence in environments in which the Anglo-Saxons would have deleted it. For us, it is necessary to include 'it'; for them, it was not necessary. By /Elfric's time, Verb Phrase Inversion was an optional rule which was on its way to extinction. Earlier texts indicate that the rule was once obligatory. Now, the only trace of it is the optional rule inverting verbs and their objects, which is generally confined to poetry. In the fourth category are the Dative (Indirect Object Movement) and 'respectively' rules, and also the optional Modern English rules affecting morphemes which were affixes in Old English; we can delete prepositions and move verbal particles occasionally, but they could not delete case inflections nor separate verbal prefixes. Also in this

CONCLUSION

109

fourth category is the Tag Formation rule; if /Elfric could say, 'He will go, won't he?' there is no evidence of it in Lives of Saints. The addition to the language of the It Replacement rule, which apparently occurred shortly before /Elfric's time, may have led to the later option of moving a dative object to the position immediately following the verb, which created a new structure for Passivization to transform. Or the possibility of moving pronoun objects to pre-verb position may have opened the way for movement of just the indirect object. Whatever the cause, a Modern English sentence containing both a direct and an indirect object has two passive counterparts, whereas Old English has but one. The wish to avoid ambiguity was probably responsible for the addition of the 'respectively' rule; Modern English has as many potential ambiguities as Old English, but there seems to be some attempt to avoid them whenever possible. Negative Placement and Subject-Verb Inversion for Modern English are similar, but not identical, to their Old English counterparts: the main verb of the sentence no longer plays a part in these rules, only the verbal elements of AUXare affected. The influence of the French post-verbal negative morpheme pas may have had someting to do with the increasing use, in Middle English, of the negative adverb 'noht' immediately after the first verb. In English, however, unlike French, the redundant negative 'ne' plus a verb plus 'noht' was eventually simplified. The source of the Modern English tense-carrying morpheme 'do' in both the Negative Placement rule and the Subject-Verb Inversion rule is still an open question. Syntactic change happens very gradually and for reasons which can only be theorized. One might suggest that perhaps syntactic change results from a movement away from ambiguity towards clarity of expression. In the English language, few changes in syntax have occurred in a thousand years; and most of those few did result in the clarification of a potentially ambiguous structure.

SELECTED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ail fric's Lives of Saints, Vols. I and II, ed. Walter W. Skeat (Oxford University Press, London, 1966) (-EETS O. S. 76, 82, 94, and 114). Andrew, S. O., Syntax and Style in Old English (Russell and Russell, New York, 1966, reissue of Cambridge University Press, 1940 ed.). Bacquet, Paul, La structure de la phrase verbale à VÉpoque Alfrédienne (Société d'Éditions: Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 1962). Barrett, C. R., Studies in the Word Order of Mlfric's Catholic Homilies and Lives of Saints (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1953). Benham, A. R., "The Clause of Result in Old English Prose", Anglia XXI (1908), pp. 197-255. Blain, H. M., The Syntax of the Verb in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (A. S. Barnes and Company, New York, 1901). Brown, Jr., W. H., "A Descriptive Syntax of King Alfred's Pastoral Care", unpublished dissertation (University of Michigan, 1963). Callaway, Jr., Morgan, The Absolute Participle in Anglo-Saxon (Isaac Friedenwald Press, Baltimore, 1889). Cassidy, F. G., "The Backgrounds in Old English of Modern English Substitutes for the Dative Object in the Group 'Verb plus Dative Object and Accusative Object'," unpublished dissertation (University of Michigan, 1939). Carlton, C. R., "Word Order of Noun Modifiers in Old English Prose", JEGP LX1I (1962), pp. 778-783. Chomsky, Noam, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1965). —, Syntactic Structures (Mouton and Company, The Hague, 1957). Fillmore, Charles, "The Case for Case", in Universals in Linguistic Theory, ed. Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1968). Gorell, J. H., "Indirect Discourse in Anglo-Saxon", PMLA X (1895), pp. 342-487. Kellner, Leon, Historical Outline of English Syntax (Macmillan and Company, Ltd., London, 1892). Lakoff, George, Deep and Surface Structure, unpublished paper (MIT, Fall, 1966). Langendoen, D. Terence, The Study of Syntax (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1969). Marchand, Hans, "The Syntactical Change from Inflectional to Word Order System and Some Effects of this Change on the Relation 'Verb/Object' in English. A Diachronic-Synchronic Interpretation", Anglia LXX (1947), pp. 70-89. Matsuda, Tokuichiro, "A Transformational Analysis of the Old English Pastoral Care", unpublished dissertation (University of Indiana, 1965). Mitchell, Bruce, "Adjective Clauses in Old English Poetry", Anglia LXXX1 (1958), pp. 298-322. Nichols, Ann E., "A Syntactic Study of /Elfric's Translation of Genesis", unpublished dissertation (University of Washington, 1964). Peltola, Niilo, "On Appositional Constructions in Old English Prose", Neuphil. LX1 (1960), pp. 159203. Quirk, Randolph, The Concessive Relation in Old English Poetry (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1954). Quirk, Randolph and C. L. Wrenn, An Old English Grammar (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1957).

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

111

Rosenbaum, Peter S., The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1967). Rosenbaum Peter S. and Roderick A. Jacobs, English Transformational Grammar (Blaisdell Publishing Company, Waltham, Massachusetts, 1968). Ross, John Robert, "Auxiliaries as Main Verbs", unpublished paper (May, 1967). —, "Constraints on Variables in Syntax", unpublished dissertation (MIT, 1967). Ross, John Robert and George Lakoff, The Morpheme Spitter, handed out to participants in the 1968 Summer Linguistic Institute at the University of Illinois. Shannon, Ann, A Descriptive Syntax of the Parker Manuscript (Mouton and Company, The Hague, 1964). Van der Gaaf, W., "The Conversion of the Indirect Personal Object into the Subject of a Passive Construction", English Studies XI (1927), p. 62.